Memorandum from the Royal Society for
the Protection of Birds
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
— The RSPB receives reports of around
600 offences involving wild birds each year.
— Illegal persecution of birds of prey
in the UK and illegal trade in globally threatened birds are considered
significant threats to the populations of a number of species.
— Wildlife offences must be recorded
centrally to allow proper evaluation of the scale of wildlife
crime and the allocation of sufficient resources to its control.
— We are unaware of any co-ordinated
recording of offences relating to damage to Sites of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSIs) in England and Wales.
— The framework of national and European
law and international regulation is, we believe, generally robust
enough to deal effectively with wildlife crime. However, among
changes still needed are stricter control of the possession of
specimens, tighter controls on pesticide possession and closer
monitoring of threatened species held in captivity.
— The powers available to enforcement
officers have recently been improved in England, Wales and Scotland
and are now believed to be adequate.
— Whilst the establishment of the National
Wildlife Crime Intelligence Unit implies a commitment at national
level to policing wildlife crime, we are concerned that wildlife
crime is not taken seriously by individual police forces.
— The response of individual police
forces and HM Customs and Excise teams to wildlife crime is not
consistent, with few delivering an adequate response.
— Both the police and HM Customs and
Excise focus their enforcement action on national targets. These
do not currently include wildlife crime, and this must be addressed.
— Fully trained wildlife officers are
not available within all police forces or customs areas. We believe
it is essential that this situation be rectified.
— When reviewing and drafting wildlife
legislation, the Government must attach importance to those sections
that provide the enforcement authorities with powers and tools
to detect and prosecute offences, and must resist pressure to
cut costs that will ultimately reduce or hamper the effectiveness
of the legislation.
— The detection of offences and enforcement
of existing protection for SSSIs must be improved. English Nature
and the Countryside Council for Wales should make full use of
their much-enhanced powers under the 2000 Countryside and Rights
of Way Act to deter crime.
— The Partnership for Action Against
Wildlife Crime provides a useful forum for statutory and non-statutory
agencies to develop policy on combating wildlife crime. Increased
commitment from the Home Office and the Treasury would be welcome.
INTRODUCTION
1. The RSPB is Europe's largest wildlife
conservation charity. With the support of more than one million
members, we conserve and enhance the populations of wild birds,
other wildlife and the habitats in which they live. We focus on
priority species, habitats and sites and set clear conservation
objectives and actions. These include owning and managing land
as nature reserves and influencing land-use practices and government
policies to benefit wildlife and the wider countryside.
2. The RSPB has a small Investigations Section
whose main function is to support the statutory authorities by
providing advice, expert witness and investigative help on investigations
into offences involving wild birds. This Section has extensive
experience of working very closely with Police Wildlife Crime
Officers, the Crown Prosecution Service, Procurators Fiscal and
HM Customs and Excise.
THE SCALE
AND IMPACT
OF WILDLIFE
CRIME
3. The RSPB receives reports of around 600
offences involving wild birds each year, and assists the Police
with approximately 50 prosecutions annually. Offences of particular
conservation concern include the killing of birds of prey, including
the deliberate abuse of pesticides, offences involving trade in
wild birds and those involving rare breeding birds. Enforcement
of legislation is, we believe, crucial in ensuring the recovery
of threatened species, as part of a wider programme to deliver
the Government's UK Biodiversity Action Plan.
THE PERSECUTION
OF BIRDS
OF PREY
4. The populations of many birds of prey
are still recovering from serious declines during the 20th century.
Although killing of birds of prey has been illegal since the Protection
of Birds Act 1954, and earlier across much of the country, illegal
persecution has continued. The abuse of pesticides, many approved
for agricultural uses, to deliberately poison wildlife is the
most indiscriminate form of persecution. It continues to pose
a threat not just to birds of prey, but also to other wildlife,
pets and people. The Government's "Campaign Against Illegal
Wildlife Poisoning"—launched in 1991—raised the
profile of illegal poisoning and encouraged reporting by the public,
but the number of birds of prey killed annually by poison has
not decreased. In fact, it has doubled since 1997. The UK Raptor
Working Group's report to Ministers, chaired by the then Department
of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Joint Nature
Conservation Committee and published in 2000, highlighted the
ongoing problem of bird of prey persecution, and recommend enhanced
inter-agency co-ordination to tackle the illegal killing of wildlife
and tighter regulation on the possession of pesticides.
THE COMMERCIAL
TRADE IN
WILD BIRDS
5. Globally, one in eight, or about 12%,
of all bird species are at real risk of becoming extinct in the
next 100 years, according to the latest World Conservation Union
(IUCN) red list published by BirdLife International in 2000. Of
these 1,186 species, 113 are directly threatened by exploitation
for the cage bird trade. Some bird families are particularly affected,
with 57% of threatened parrot species trapped for the trade. These
include the South American blue macaws, including Spix's macaw,
which has recently become extinct in the wild, Lear's macaw, which
has been reduced to around 260 birds, and the hyacinth macaw,
down to around 5,000 in the wild. Amongst the non-parrot species
in this list is the Bali starling, of which now only six remain
in the wild.
6. Despite regulation at international and
national level illegal trade in wildlife, including wild birds,
is extensive.
THE TAKING
OF WILD
BIRDS' EGGS
7. Throughout much of the last hundred years,
the activities of egg collectors have caused concern to those
involved with protecting some of Britain's rarest breeding birds,
including red kite, osprey and, latterly, the white-tailed eagle.
Despite numerous successful prosecutions, courts have only recently
been able to issue custodial sentences. Since 2000, seven collectors
have been imprisoned, leading to a significant reduction in related
offences.
OFFENCES RELATING
TO PROTECTED
SITES
8. We are unaware of any co-ordinated recording
of offences relating to damage to Sites of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSIs) in England and Wales. Few cases have been brought
to court, and it is currently not possible to determine the precise
scale and nature of illegal damage to protected wildlife sites.
OFFENCES INVOLVING
OTHER WILD
ANIMALS AND
PLANTS
9. The RSPB has on occasion sought to assist
the police and others with the investigation of offences involving
taxa other than wild birds, for example protected bats, butterflies
and moths. This has resulted in a small number of successful prosecutions.
Enforcement of legislation protecting other wildlife is an area
that requires further attention from the enforcement authorities.
THE RECORDING
OF WILDLIFE
CRIME
10. There is no provision for wildlife offences
to be recorded centrally by the Government or individual police
forces. The RSPB maintains its own records of reported incidents
and prosecutions under Part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside
Act, and we depend on police officers and members of the public
forwarding information to us. We are unaware of offences in relation
to protected sites being recorded centrally. Unlike bird-related
crime, we do not maintain our own database of such crimes.
11. It is essential that wildlife offences,
both in relation to birds and protected sites, are recorded centrally
to evaluate the scale of wildlife crime and allow sufficient police
resources to be allocated to fighting the problem.
IS THE
FRAMEWORK OF
NATIONAL AND
EUROPEAN LAW
AND OF
INTERNATIONAL REGULATION
ROBUST ENOUGH
TO DEAL
WITH WILDLIFE
CRIME EFFECTIVELY?
The legislation
12. The major legislation affecting species
and protected sites in England, Scotland and Wales is the Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981, amended, in England and Wales only,
by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Further amendment
to Part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act in England and Wales
has been proposed by Defra, and a full consultation is expected
this year. Amendments to the Act in Scotland currently exist in
the form of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill, which the
RSPB hopes will be adopted this summer.
13. Similar legislation (The Wildlife (Northern
Ireland) Order 1985) (for species protection) and the Environment
Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 (for site protection)) is in place
in Northern Ireland.
14. The Wildlife and Countryside Act is
the primary legislative instrument enacting Council Directive
79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds in the United Kingdom.
15. Habitats and species other than birds
are also afforded protection in England, Scotland and Wales by
The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994,
which enact Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. There has recently
been consultation by Defra and the devolved authorities in Scotland
and Wales on amendments to the domestic regulations.
16. The Control of Trade in Endangered Species
(enforcement) Regulations 1997 (COTES) establish a series of offences
and penalties for infringements of Council Regulation (EC) No
338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by
regulating trade in them. This itself implements within the EU
the complex Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Defra has recently undertaken
a review of COTES and revised regulations are awaited.
Prosecutions
17. Thirty-three prosecutions involving
wild birds were recorded by the RSPB in 2002, compared with 52
in 2001 and 50 in 2000.
18. The majority of summonses or charges
were issued under Sections 1(1) and 1(2) of the Wildlife and Countryside
Act, and involved the taking or possession of birds and their
eggs. A significant number were also issued under Section 18(2)—possession
of items for the purpose of committing an offence.
19. Despite the high number of incidents
of bird of prey persecution and the abuse of poison, few successful
prosecutions are brought each year due to the difficulty of proving
the identity of the offender in such cases. The UK Raptor Working
Group asserted that recorded incidents reflect only a small proportion
of the killing taking place. The Group emphasised that the remote
locations and the ease with which evidence can be hidden were
two major constraints on illegal killing being discovered. Three
offenders were convicted under Section 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside
Act in 2002 for setting in position traps or poisons for the purpose
of taking or killing wild birds. Of 82 defendants convicted for
trapping or killing birds of prey in the UK since 1985, 69 were
involved with game shooting—mostly gamekeepers but also
farmers who operate a shoot on their land, game shooters and sporting
managers.
20. Three prosecutions were brought in 2002
under COTES involving the trade in live and dead wild birds.
21. The RSPB is aware that the majority
of prosecutions brought under Part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside
Act relate to wild birds. We believe the number of prosecutions
involving other protected wildlife is significantly lower.
Effectiveness of the legislation
22. We believe that the framework of national
and European law and of international regulation is generally
robust enough to deal with wildlife crime effectively. The situation
will be further improved with the completion of the legislative
reviews and proposals referred to above. We would particularly
like to see tighter controls on the possession of specimens acquired
illegally elsewhere in the European Union, as well as on the possession
of pesticides without lawful excuse.
23. However, we do believe that a significant
problem has arisen associated with the opening of borders within
the European Union for trade. This, we believe, has allowed illegal
trade to develop, and this change needs to be matched by progress
on enforcement at European level. We believe this situation will
get worse after enlargement in May 2004.
DO RESPONSIBLE
BODIES WHICH
DEAL WITH
THIS TYPE
OF CRIME
HAVE SUFFICIENT
RESOURCES AND
POWERS TO
DO SO?
DO THEY
TREAT WILDLIFE
CRIME WITH
PROPER AND
DUE GRAVITY?
National Wildlife Crime Intelligence Unit
24. A National Wildlife Crime Intelligence
Unit (NWCIU) has been established within the National Criminal
Intelligence Service (NCIS), a step we support. As wildlife crime
becomes more international and organised, it is essential that
the UK has a national focus for liaison and work with other countries.
We are keen to see the continuation of this unit, particularly
in light of the recent Home Office proposals to combine NCIS with
a proposed national policing body with national policing priorities.
Whilst the establishment of this latter unit implies a commitment
by the Government to policing wildlife crime, we are concerned
that wildlife crime is not taken seriously enough at local level
by individual police forces.
United Kingdom Police
25. Most, if not all, UK Police Forces now
have at least one designated Wildlife Crime Officer. A small number
have appointed a full time officer to this role, (eg Northumberland
and West Yorkshire), but this is the exception. The majority prefer
to designate volunteers who are expected to conduct this work
in their spare time. The RSPB is currently aware of approximately
700 designated officers, but only ten of these fulfil the role
on a full-time basis. Both Thames Valley Police and Lancashire
Police have recently discontinued the full-time post of Wildlife
Crime Officer. In Wales, two police officers are seconded to the
Countryside Council for Wales to assist with the enforcement of
wildlife related crime but this model has not been repeated elsewhere
in the UK.
HM Customs and Excise
26. HM Customs and Excise maintains a dedicated
team of wildlife specialists at Heathrow, but the resource available
elsewhere in the country is largely based upon the interest of
individual officers. Illegal importation, when detected at the
point of entry, is usually dealt with satisfactorily, but the
RSPB has experienced difficulties with the investigation of offences
involving the import of protected species detected after this
point.
Wildlife Crime as a Priority
27. Neither HM Customs and Excise nor individual
police forces attach a high priority to the enforcement of wildlife
crime and, were it not for the activity of a number of NGOs including
the RSPB, few significant wildlife offences would come before
the courts. The main problem is caused by the focus of both bodies
on national targets which do not currently include wildlife crime.
In light of the widespread public interest in wildlife and the
countryside, we believe this matter needs to be addressed.
28. The RSPB's experience is that it is
of paramount importance that police and other statutory enforcement
officers dealing with wildlife offences understand the issues
and the legislation. It is not appropriate to expect a police
officer with no training to handle what can be a very complicated
issue with a high level of criminality. Forces with full time
Wildlife Crime Officers have this capability, but those with volunteer
posts have a variable level of response, and those which choose
not to have designated officers are often unable to respond. Fully
trained wildlife officers should be available within each force.
Defra
29. The Wildlife and Countryside Act includes
powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations to control
activities such as the keeping and sale of birds in captivity.
These regulations were originally put in place when the Act came
into force, and have proved their worth in preventing offences
and providing a useful enforcement tool for the authorities investigating
illegal activities. In recent years, government has moved to relax
regulation on possession of threatened species. Of current concern
is the proposed removal of species from the bird registration
scheme which requires listed specimens (on Wildlife and Countryside
Act Schedule 4) held in captivity to be registered with Defra
and ringed with unique department-issued rings. This establishes
an audit trail which can easily be checked and used in conjunction
with DNA analysis where offences are suspected (ie that the bird
might have been taken illegally from the wild). For high value
species, such as peregrine or goshawk, this is a
valuable enforcement tool. These two species are involved in more
offences each year than any others listed on Schedule 4.
30. The RSPB believes that the regulations
currently in place under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, such
as the bird registration scheme, have substantially reduced the
number of threatened birds being taken from the wild and provide
a valuable enforcement tool that should be retained. We also believe
that certain species, such as peregrine and goshawk, should remain
subject to such controls while they continue to be subject to
offences. Such registration should also be extended to other,
globally threatened species.
Damage to protected sites
31. The Wildlife and Countryside Act enables
the notification of SSSIs, which are protected from damaging activities
by owners and third parties. The Countryside and Rights of Way
Act 2000 gave a wider range of enforcement powers to English Nature
and the Countryside Council for Wales to bring legal action where
sites are damaged by either landowners or third parties. We are
aware that English Nature has previously brought a small number
of prosecutions, but a more strategic approach is now required.
32. The detection of offences and enforcement
of existing protection measures for SSSIs must improve. English
Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales have been given considerably
enhanced tools (such as new powers to enter land in order to detect
crime) as well as greater penalties to deter crime. However, there
is only limited evidence that these are being comprehensively
used. For example, the RSPB is unaware of a single occasion where
a Management Order has been issued in order to ensure that management
of a SSSI is undertaken. Yet 42% of SSSIs are in unfavourable
condition. Both monitoring and enforcement must improve significantly
if Defra is to meet its Public Service Agreement target of 95%
of SSSIs in favourable condition by 2010, including increased
use of police officers to support enforcement. Under the SSSI
statutory code of guidance, English Nature is expected to "develop
and publicise a strategy for enforcement, including action to
address issues relating to use of land by persons other than owners
and occupiers. The strategy should clarify the circumstances in
which it will expect to take action, and describe the steps it
will take". The Countryside Council for Wales is also required
to develop such a strategy. We are unaware of any such strategy
having been produced by either organisation.
IS THERE
SUFFICIENT DIALOGUE
AND CO-OPERATION
ACROSS GOVERNMENT
AND AMONGST
THE VARIOUS
BODIES RESPONSIBLE
FOR DEALING
WITH THIS
TYPE OF
CRIME?
33. Defra, in conjunction with the UK Police,
co-chairs the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime (PAW),
which provides a forum for taking forward strategic and policy
issues. This forum has been successful in bringing together representatives
of Defra, the police service and HM Customs and Excise, as well
as those of some other Government departments and agencies and
most NGOs. Similar partnerships (acting partly as sub-groups)
have also been established in Scotland and Wales.
34. PAW has been successful in bringing
forward proposals for legislative change, highlighting wildlife
crime within government and to the public, providing guidance
and training for enforcement officers and overseeing the development
of forensic techniques.
35. However, neither the Home Office nor
the Treasury are active contributors to the partnership and, consequently,
neither engages directly with any parties on matters relating
to wildlife law enforcement. More commitment towards combating
wildlife crime from these departments would be welcome.
April 2004
| 
