ABSTRACT
Most animals who are seized at Norwegian borders are killed as directed by the Norwegian Environment Agency. Yet, the recommendations to the parties of CITES (1998) is that an action plan should ‘identify approved facilities and programmes located within the country that have agreed to provide adequate care, including veterinary or phytosanitary care, and that are willing to accept confiscated live specimens [sic] of particular taxa.’ In Norway, such locations are few and far between, whereas in Colombia, this CITES requirement is implemented both legally and practically through rehabilitation centres. CITES (Conf. 9.9) establishes further the responsibility of parties in cases of wildlife confiscation and that the seizure and confiscation of animals are generally preferable to the definitive refusal of the import of them. Hence, it should be ensured that the animals are not re-entered into illegal trade, and their repatriation should be monitored (Sollund and Maher 2015: 21).
