238 J Maher and T Wyatt enforcement of CITES Consequently, CITES (and related legislation) is not easy to enforce In the UK, for example, it requires the cooperation and coordination of numerous government agencies, non-ministerial departments, criminal justice agencies, government advisory groups and multiagency groups (Maher and Sollund 2016) Prioritising the IWT as a serious and organised crime in the UK coincided with the development of specialised enforcement units, training for non-specialist enforcers, a commitment to the collection of intelligence and intelligence-led enforcement, and the development of partnership work with other enforcement agencies and key stakeholders Transnational enforcement displaying effective co-operation, communication and data-sharing (for example, EU-TWIX—an online forum and database) has also resulted in successful operations targeting organised crime groups, (for example, Operation Charm) and has, albeit rarely, facilitated the return of endangered wildlife to their native habitat (Border Force 2014) Animal welfare must also be considered during enforcement CITES requires Member States to provide for the welfare of seized and confiscated wildlife (for example, the UK Heathrow Animal Reception Centre [HARC]), and includes the IATA LAR, as discussed above, as part of its compliance expectation In the UK, these regulations can simplify prosecution in IWT abuse cases as ‘suffering’ need not be ‘proved’ (as is required by the UK Animal Welfare Act 2006) Nonetheless, even with these conditions in place, as previously discussed, animals will suffer harm in transit/trade The protection provided for wildlife through LAR, is limited by EU Regulations that employ old standards (2004)—although the new Memorandum of Understanding signed between CITES and IATA June 8, 2015, may go some way to rectify this (IATA 2015) Additionally, CITES (and related legislation) fails to adequately consider the welfare of seized/confiscated wildlife by not stipulating rehoming requirements Few individuals are returned to the wild—most, thereby, require costly long-term care and rehoming Consequently, countries like Norway, which have limited funding and capacity for caring for or rehoming these animals, resort to euthanasia (Maher and Sollund 2016) In other cases (UK), wildlife may also be returned to the offending owners or rehomed to unregulated collectors It is impossible to determine how prevalent these practices are as CITES does not require Member States to publicly record outcomes Given the difficulty in enforcing CITES and protecting animal’s welfare in the wildlife trade, there have been calls to ban the trade in many species (and their derivatives) Although consideration has previously been given by the EC to ban the ownership and trade of reptiles, Norway (alongside Iceland) is