Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology (2020) 16:702–704
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-020-00293-6
COMMENTARY
Wildlife crime in Croatia
Natalia Hanley 1 & Katarina M Mikac 2
Accepted: 27 July 2020 / Published online: 14 August 2020
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract
This paper presents data about wildlife crime in Croatia. The data were gathered from qualitative interviews and personal
communications with individuals involved in wildlife crime-related research, and/or prevention and detection work or recreation.
The results show that poaching is a recognized problem. There is a variety of commonly poached mammals, fish and bird species.
We conclude that evidence about wildlife crime should be collated drawing on forensic techniques.
Keywords Wildlife crime . Poaching . Hunting . Croatia . CITES
Introduction
Wildlife crime is recognized as a significant international prob-
lem. In 2015 the United Nations published 17 sustainable de-
velopment goals (SDG) which include action on wildlife crime.
For example, Goal 14 states “By 2020, effectively regulate
harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregu-
lated fishing and destructive fishing practices…” [1]; and Goal
15 recognizes the need to “take urgent action to end poaching
and trafficking of protected species of flora and fauna and ad-
dress both demand and supply of illegal wildlife products” [2].
Wildlife crime encompasses varied illegal activities and
occurs in every country. Wildlife crime “…involves the illegal
trade in animals, plants and their derivatives and can result in
the depletion of natural resources, invasion of pest species and
the transmission of diseases” [3]. The impact on particular
species of flora and fauna can be devastating, and it has a
wider detrimental effect on ecological systems [4]. Although
wildlife crime is well recognized and documented, there is
uneven evidence about how much and what forms of wildlife
crime occurs in different countries, and which species are
vulnerable to wildlife crime in different places. For example,
* Natalia Hanley
nhanley@uow.edu.au
1
School of Health and Society, University of Wollongong,
Wollongong, NSW, Australia
2
School of Earth, Atmospheric and Life Sciences, Centre for
Sustainable Ecosystem Solutions, University of Wollongong,
Wollongong, NSW, Australia
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
there is substantial data on continental or multi-nation scales
about iconic and very large mammals such as elephants and
ivory poaching in Africa and subsequent ivory trafficking to
Southeast Asia, but comparatively limited data for particular
countries about what types of wildlife crime occur and what
species are impacted. One such country is Croatia, the newest
member state of the European Union (EU). The lack of knowl-
edge about wildlife crime in Croatia is important because pre-
vention and detection are hindered when the nature and scale
of the problem is not known [5]. In addition, Croatia, one
gateway into the EU, is at the forefront of applying EU rules
and regulations in general [6], including specific measures that
relate to the treatment and protection of European wildlife and
the movement of wildlife across borders [7].
There are a number of international, regional and domestic
legislative protections against wildlife crime. Internationally,
one example is the Convention on the Trade of Endangered
Species (CITES) which came into force in 1975 and was ratified
by Croatia in 2000 [8]. Regionally, the EU has a plan against
wildlife trafficking which sets out three primary priorities.
Priority 1 is to prevent wildlife trafficking and address its root
causes. Priority 2 involves implementing and enforcing rules to
combat organized crime more effectively and consistently
across the EU. Priority 3 seeks to improve global partnerships
between source, transit and consumer countries against wildlife
trafficking [9]. Domestically, a range of legislative tools such as,
for example, the Croatian hunting act include sections relevant
to the protection of wildlife including, banned hunting practices.
These legislative protections are important but imperfect.
Accurate, reliable data about wildlife crime is a cornerstone of
effective fit-for-purpose legislation. We aim to contribute to
knowledge about the nature of wildlife crime in Croatia.
Forensic Sci Med Pathol (2020) 16:702–704
Target species
Drawing on qualitative interviews and personal communica-
tions with 17 individuals engaged in wildlife/environment
protection, and/or crime prevention and detection (herein re-
ferred to as stakeholders) we identified a range of different
species that have been targeted in illegal activities in Croatia.
Target species identified were wolves (Canus lupus), bird
species, especially quail (Coturnix coturnix), coots (Fulica
atra), ducks (e.g. ferruginous duck Aythya nyroca), and rap-
tors (e.g. red kite Milvus milvus), fish species especially carp
(Cyprinus carpio), pike (Esox lucius), and traditionally hunted
species including wild boar (Sus scrofa), deer including roe
(Capreolus capreolus) and red deer (Cervus elaphus), hare
(Lepus europaeus), lynx (Lynx lynx) and bears (Ursus arctos
arctos); though the latter two species to a lesser extent.
What is particularly interesting about this information is
that it represents a different picture to that found in the grey
literature. For example, the recent TRAFFIC report [10] iden-
tifies songbirds such as the Common Whitethroat, Meadow
pipit, European Turtledove and Fieldfare as target species. A
recent Europol operation resulted in the seizure of illegally
captured tortoises/turtles in Croatia. Older literature has iden-
tified birds (unspecified species), date mussels, monitors and
Hermann’s tortoises [11].
Types of crime
The stakeholders identified wildlife-related offences. All
stakeholders pointed to poaching as the most significant wild-
life crime in Croatia. Poaching is defined by the UNODC as
follows: “Poaching may involve the killing or trapping of a
protected species, hunting in a protected area, or hunting with-
out a hunting license. In some jurisdictions, offences in this
category also include hunting above allocated quotas or the
use of prohibited hunting methods or instruments” [12].
In Croatia, the nature and purpose of poaching varied.
Across the stakeholder participants five major poaching issues
were identified. First, low levels of bear poaching for trophies,
although the rate of bear poaching was thought to have declined
in recent years. Second, poaching as an informal management
technique was identified by several stakeholders. For example,
wolves and lynx were perceived as responsible for the deple-
tion of livestock or species that could otherwise be hunted such
as roe deer. Third, bird species such as quail were perceived to
be targeted by poachers who would either eat or sell the birds to
the restaurant industry. Poaching for food or food sale was also
noted in relation to fish species such as carp as well as deer.
Fourth, ‘administrative’ poaching whereby poachers operated
in protected areas, or took more animals than allowed by hunt-
ing quotas was commonly identified as a problem. In these
cases fishing and shooting migratory birds (e.g. coots) in
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
703
protected nature areas, and taking more than the allowed
‘bag’ of bird or deer species was highlighted. Fifth, the stake-
holders identified the use of illegal techniques to capture wild-
life such as electronic calling devices or electrofishing.
Stakeholders highlighted the challenges of preventing, detect-
ing and prosecuting poaching in Croatia with the result that
criminal justice action on poaching was considered rare.
Forensic methods
There are a variety of ways in which the application of wildlife
forensic techniques may enable an enhanced understanding of
wildlife crime in Croatia. Croatia is well placed to add to their
wildlife crime investigation and prosecution tool-kit via
established and emerging wildlife forensic techniques. The
main purpose of wildlife forensics is the collection of robust
wildlife evidence that can lead to a successful prosecution of
the perpetrator. There are a number of well established and
emerging wildlife forensic techniques in use worldwide, and a
number of law enforcement agencies conduct wildlife foren-
sics in addition to their human forensic case-work (e.g. United
States-Federal Bureau of Investigation; Australian Federal
Police). It is by design that many of the forensic techniques
used in human forensic case-work are also used in wildlife
forensic case-work and indeed it is human forensics that has
paved the way for wildlife forensics. Forensic techniques used
to gather wildlife evidence include: routine and emerging
DNA analyses (e.g. mitochondrial and nuclear markers,
DNA barcodes: [13, 14]); hair/fur and skin/scale morphology
(which is species specific); pathology and toxicology (e.g.
suspected poisoning [15]); and the use of forensic entomology
(e.g. entomofaunal community analysis can assist with esti-
mating time since death [16]).
Beyond prosecution, accurate data from scat analysis
and seized specimens will contribute to a better under-
standing of which species are present in an area, and pop-
ulation size, thereby filling a data gap identified above.
More specifically, in cases where there is sufficient popu-
lation variation, DNA analysis may assist in determining
the origin of a specimen [17]. This may be especially use-
ful in Croatia for two reasons: i. there are different legisla-
tive protections in Croatia compared to some bordering
countries such as Bosnia, and ii. the stakeholders in this
research identified poaching of various species for the res-
taurant industry either in alternative locations within
Croatia, or in other countries such as Italy. Determining
the age and sex of a specimen via DNA analysis is partic-
ularly helpful given that poaching was a major contributor
to wildlife crime in Croatia according to the stakeholders
and often involves breaching ‘administrative’ restrictions
around, for example, the age or sex of the animal taken.
704
Conclusion
There are useful and important international and regional re-
ports and legislative instruments that focus on wildlife crime.
However, the emphasis to date has been on wildlife trafficking.
We argue that in Croatia poaching is considered a larger prob-
lem and higher priority compared to wildlife trafficking. This is
an important discrepancy that may lead to under-estimation of
the amount and severity of wildlife crime in Croatia, and may
reduce or frustrate prevention and detection efforts.
There is no agreement in empirical and published data
about which species are vulnerable to wildlife crime in
Croatia. Publicly available seizure reports, for example, have
identified tortoises and turtles as target species (Europol).
Conversely, empirical data gathered in this research did not
include any reference to these species.
Offence types are diverse and include primary wildlife
crime offences such as poaching as well as related, but non-
wildlife specific offences such as driving and weapons of-
fences which may also occur during the commission of wild-
life crime. Offending related directly to wildlife may be ad-
ministrative in nature (not having the correct permit in place),
geographical (hunting in a protected place) or temporal (hunt-
ing during a banned period e.g. breeding season). This creates
a complex picture that necessitates going beyond simple target
species-level thinking in the future. However, establishing a
comprehensive understanding of the extent and nature of
wildlife crime is a crucial and much needed next step.
We argue that the first step to understanding the extent and
nature of wildlife crime in Croatia is to systematically apply
forensic techniques already in use for human applications in-
cluding DNA analyses, hair/fur and skin/scale morphology,
pathology and toxicology and to a lesser extent the use of
forensic entomology. By applying a forensic approach we
can begin to close the apparent gap between publicly reported
information about wildlife crime and the stakeholders’ expe-
riences of wildlife crime in practice.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Ryan Dallas and
Mary Pilkinton for their assistance with the early stages of the research as
well as the research participants for generously providing their time and
expertise.
Funding information The research was supported by a UIC International
Links grant from the University of Wollongong.
Compliance with ethical standards
Ethical approval All procedures performed in studies involving human
participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the UOW
Social Sciences and Humanities HREC and with the 1964 Helsinki dec-
laration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Forensic Sci Med Pathol (2020) 16:702–704
References
1. United Nations 2020 Sustainable development goals knowledge
platform. Sustain Dev Goal 14. https://www.un.org/development/
desa/disabilities/envision2030-goal14.html. Accessed 23
July 2020.
2. United Nations 2020 Sustainable development goals knowledge
platform. Sustain Dev Goal 15. https://www.un.org/development/
desa/disabilities/envision2030-goal15.html. Accessed 23
July 2020.
3. Wilson-Wilde L. Combating wildlife crime. Forensic Sci Med
Pathol. 2010;6:149.
4. Pearl M. Wildlife trade: threat to global health. EcoHealth. 2004;1:
111–2.
5. Wellsmith M. Wildlife crime: the problems of enforcement. Eur J
Crim Policy Res. 2011;17:125–48.
6. Cvrtila V. Croatia – the “gateway” to Southeast Europe. Politička
Misao. 2000;5:150–9.
7. Huber D, Kusak J, Majic-Skrbins A, Majnaric D, Sindicic M. A
multidimensional approach to managing the European brown bear
in Croatia. Ursus. 2008;19:22–32.
8. CITES (the convention on international trade in endangered species
of wild fauna and flora). https://www.cites.org/eng/disc/parties/
chronolo.php. Accessed 23 Jan 2020.
9. European Commission 2020 EU action plan against wildlife traf-
ficking. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/trafficking_en.htm.
Accessed 23 Jan 2020.
10. TRAFFIC 2016 The illegal trade in wild birds for food through
south east and Central Europe. https://www.traffic.org/site/assets/
files/3754/illegal_trade_wild_birds_for_food_europe.pdf.
Accessed 23 Jan 2020.
11. Kecse-Nagy K, Papp D, Knapp A, von Meibom S. Wildlife trade in
Central and Eastern Europe. A review of CITES implementation in
15 countries. Budapest: TRAFFIC Europe Report; 2006.
12. United Nations wildlife and forest crime analytic toolkit. Revised
edition. https://www.unodc.org/documents/Wildlife/Toolkit_e.pdf.
Accessed 23 July 2020.
13. Coghlan ML, White NE, Parkinson L, Haile J, Spencer PBS, Bunce
M. Egg forensics: an appraisal of DNA sequencing to assist in
species identification of illegally smuggled eggs. Forensic Sci Int.
2012;6:268–73.
14. Singh G, Srinivas Y, Kumar GC, Singh A, Sharma CP, Gupta SK.
Identification of selected wild felids using hair morphology and
forensically informative nucleotide sequencing (FINS): wildlife fo-
rensics prospective. Legal Med. 2020;44:101692.
15. Omel’yanyuk GG, Khaziev SN, Gulevskaya VV. Forensic assis-
tance in the investigation of crimes against tigers. Теория и
практика судебной экспертизы. 2017;12:18–26.
16. Anderson G. Wildlife forensic entomology: determining time of
death in two illegally killed black bear cubs. J Forensic Sci.
1999;44:856–9.
17. Yadav S, Dixit AK. Forensic approaches in the solution of wildlife
crime. Int J Multidiscip Res Dev. 2016;3:89–93.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at

onlineservice@springernature.com