The government's bird trapping commitment

The government-guaranteed tradition of bird trapping "ended" by December 2008 following a government/EU agreement. So why is the EU granting BirdLife Malta €175,000 of our EU money following its end? Supposedly this part funds their "massive" €350,000 two-year campaign aimed at informing about the end of local trapping and why this is important for the island's and the EU's biodiversity. The EU, that also guaranteed trapping through the Malta/EU information centre MIC, now funds BirdLife Malta's campaign following the government's approval of BirdLife's application. According to this agreement, a limited form of trapping is "possible". However, while the world is experiencing a catastrophic recession and fellow workers are enduring hardships, BirdLife Malta should be spending €350,000 to tell us all why trapping has ended!

In a bid to appease BirdLife Malta's deceitful abolition and gain anti-hunter/trapper votes, the government blatantly ignores that the EU allows trapping in other EU countries under a derogation from the Birds Directive that Malta could easily apply. None of these countries entered into agreements to end trapping. So why did Malta's government enter such an agreement when guaranteeing otherwise? If not to appease BirdLife and hopefully win votes, could this be the coating of the pill trappers were made to swallow.

Finch trapping in Austria, quoted from www.vgt.at/presse/news/2006/news20060831_en.php, is allowed in the name of tradition. "This tradition was transformed into trapping song birds for fun, displaying them and keeping them over the winter for entertainment. Trappers associations were formed. Today, about 40 different associations of song bird trappers continue to exist. The local population strongly supports trapping, seeing it as part of their culture and identity, many defend it vocally against national and international intervention."

According to the UK partners of BirdLife Malta, the RSPB, Spain under derogation from the Birds Directive, allows the following trapping practices: "Autumn trapping with lime sticks of migrating thrushes in Cataluña 'for scientific purposes', netting of migrating thrushes in Mallorca and trapping with nets and lime of small numbers of finches, mainly for use as caged birds. This takes place in most regions, notably Andalucía, Cataluña, Valencia and Murcia."

The RSPB also informs that Italy derogates from the Birds Directive allowing people in some areas to net thrushes, lapwings, quails, skylarks and other species, for use as decoy birds. RSPB also states that the French government allows certain birds to be trapped under derogation from the Birds Directive. These permits limit the species and numbers that can be caught. "In the south west (Aquitaine), box and clap netting of skylarks and woodpigeons, south east, trapping of thrushes on lime stick while in the north east (Ardennes), clap netting of lapwings and noose trapping of thrushes."

It is worthy to note that the EU only offers funds to BirdLife Malta because only Malta's government agreed to such a need. It would also be interesting to see according to BirdLife Malta, following the €350.000 expense, the harm done to Malta's biodiversity and that of Europe. All the seven trapped finch species are numerous and sustainable, listed as least concern according to the IUCN (www.iucnredlist.org) based on BirdLife International's own assessments. Therefore none is nowhere near threatened by Maltese trappers.

Following the presentation of the FKNK dossier on trapping in Malta, which apart from giving a scientific value to trapping, expertly specifies a future for Malta's trapping in accordance to the said agreement, trappers await the government's commitment.

Are Maltese trappers to be considered as different to their European counterparts? Will Malta's government be disallowed to derogate for what other countries are allowed? If indeed this should be a problem, would the government consider endorsing an application for EU funds to exonerate trappers from these false accusations?

Finally, and most importantly, who is accountable for how the €350,000 anti-trapping campaign is to be spent? Following our same question about the EU's €1,000,000 grant to BirdLife Malta for the Mellieħa Yelkouan Shearwater project, no such information has been divulged. The public has a right to know how €1,175,000 of our government-approved EU money given to BirdLife Malta is being spent. Since, in truth, no such harm to biodiversity exists nor have Shearwaters multiplied.