Ariadne Massa
BirdLife expresses fears over its campaign
The billboards that sparked the anger of the hunters' federation and put BirdLife's EU-funded campaign in the balance. Photo: Jason Borg
BirdLife fears its EU-funded campaign on bird migration and trapping is in jeopardy because the planning authority may be going back on its commitment to support the project.
However, the Malta Environment and Planning Authority insisted it will not pull out but, on the other hand, it would only co-finance the project as long as it stimulates dialogue with trappers.
BirdLife's €350,000 campaign - which, it says, should include a €30,000 Mepa contribution - is aimed at raising awareness on the importance of Malta for bird migration and the impact of trapping in the light of the fact that Malta had to phase out trapping by the end of 2008.
The NGO raised its fears in a press conference but the status of the project remained unclear yesterday after BirdLife and Mepa issued contradictory statements.
The disagreement was sparked a few days ago when BirdLife kicked off its campaign with six billboards urging people to enjoy birds in their natural environment.
The billboards angered the hunters' federation, FKNK, which lambasted the government for supporting a campaign, through Mepa, which "provoked trappers".
This reaction came on the same day that one of the billboards and the Għadira nature reserve, managed by BirdLife, was vandalised.
The hunters' statement prompted Mepa to issue its own declaration denying it had financed BirdLife's campaign and stressing that it "did not enter into any formal commitment" to sponsor the project.
But the NGO yesterday published what it said was a commitment form, signed by Mepa in July 2008, confirming it will co-finance the project, entered into with the European Commission.
BirdLife said it went public because the Office of the Prime Minister, which is responsible for bird protection, failed to give it explanations for Mepa's apparent change of heart. A meeting with OPM officials was held on Friday and BirdLife had been expecting a reply by last Monday.
"We've got our honour at stake. We have waited too long for clarifications and we now fear Mepa is backing out.
"We are seeking legal advice because the documents the authority signed are legally binding," BirdLife president Joseph Mangion said.
The permanent secretary at the OPM would only say yesterday that discussions were still ongoing and they still had to hear Mepa's position.
The Times also sought the Prime Minister's comment on the matter but his spokesman repeated that the permanent secretary within the OPM was looking into the matter.
Meanwhile, Mepa's environment director, Martin Seychell, insisted that the authority was not pulling out and that, although it had not handed over any money, it would support any moves encouraging dialogue.
He said Mepa was not involved with the billboards and feels they did not fit in with the concept of the project.
"In my personal opinion the billboards complicate matters. I don't feel they're educational, merely a statement. This is supposed to be an information and educational campaign," he said.
"We don't think the billboards help the project. And we did not finance these. We'll consider each action (to finance) individually and if it fits in with our objectives we'll consider it."
However, BirdLife development manager Nicholas Crockford insisted the authority had been shown the design of the billboards and no objections were raised.
Confronted with this, Mr Seychell reiterated that Mepa never supported the billboards adding, however, that he "cannot remember" whether he saw the design before the billboards were put up. "I don't recall ever sending an official statement endorsing them," he said.
Mepa has also objected to the fact that BirdLife failed to directly involve key stakeholders such as FKNK in the project.
BirdLife said yesterday it was planning to rope in trappers, and their representatives, after April.
Mr Seychell said: "I'm still optimistic that a way forward will be found. We've never withdrawn. We're ready to support any action that can help start dialogue on trapping."
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
11 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Alfred Farrugia
Feb 11th 2009, 18:48
I wish to suggest to BirdLife and the trappers to take a look at the following link concerning the Marriott Ranch bird hunting packages, and the last paragraph on page one of the document that may be accessed from the link, that is:
“We currently operate game fields of natural cover where our guests can hunt liberated birds from January through mid April. We guarantee that a minimum of 50 birds per hunt will be released to ensure an abundance of shooting opportunities. All of our hunts are guided with a 2-3 hunters to1 guide ratio and include the use of our dogs or yours. When hunting with a threesome, hunters will rotate so that only two people are firing guns at one time.”
The Marriott Ranch is about an hour’s drive from Washington, DC.
http://www.marriottranch.com/hunting.cfm#Bird
http://www.marriottranch.com/
Is it possible for trappers to liberate the birds caught for these types of bird hunting packages, with similar rules and constraints?
If trapping and quail hunting is socially acceptable around the world, why should it not be allowed within the appropriate regulations and the scale allowed abroad?
Anton Portelli
Feb 11th 2009, 16:20
I totally agree with Censu Attard.
"We are seeking legal advice because the documents the authority signed are legally binding," BirdLife president Joseph Mangion said.
If the documents that somebody had signed on behalf of the authority are legally binding then may I ask why the letter signed by Dr. Fenech Adami, then Malta's prime minister and the literature distributed by MIC, that the hunting passtime will be kept after EU accession are not legally binding.
May I ask MEPA and other authorities concerned, does Bird life have the necesary permits to put up the billboards. If not is Birdlife going to be fined like other normal citizens?
MARK MIFSUD BONNICI
Feb 11th 2009, 14:50
How very confusing!
It seems the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing.
Also who can guarantee trappers ever want to enter into dialogue with Birdlfie Malta.
If indeed talks have to be held, why not talk before enforcing the end of trapping. If anything any convincing should have been done before agreements are signed
Government signed an agreement with the EU on trapping. Now we are told that Birdlife are being paid to educate trappers. So why is the involvement of trappers now necessary?
tony caruana
Feb 11th 2009, 13:34
Do these people publish their accounts ? It's always MONEY, MONEY, Donations etc.
censu attard
Feb 11th 2009, 11:30
What a story,who is telling the truth?,who is lying?are FKNK right when they call BIRDLIFE as BIRDLIES?
"We are seeking legal advice because the documents the authority signed are legal binding." Birdlife president Joseph Mangion said,and what about those GARANTEE that Dr Eddie Fenech Adami ,when he was Prime Minister of Malta and MIC Simon Busutill send to all Maltese Hunters and Trappers ,hand signed by them, are they LEGAL?
as the saying goes---" IZ-ZEJT TIEGHLA F`WICC L-ILMA"----
Sylvana Zarb Darmanin
Feb 11th 2009, 11:22
I have to say this again: BirdLife are getting a taste of their own medicine!!
Remember the guarantees the Government, MIC and EU gave to hunters and trappers? Had BirdLife supported these instead of rejoicing that these guarantees were being broken, then one would have expected them to insist on Mepa's commitment. Aren't BirdLife using two weights and two measures here?
I fully support Mepa's insistence that the hunters' and trappers' representatives are to be involved in this campaign. The money being spent is taxpayers' money (be it pro-hunting or anti-hunting individuals) and therefore I strongly urge Mepa to keep its stand on this.
BirdLife and all anti's, it is about time you start showing respect towards others. Maybe some of BirdLife's educational campaign should include educating citizens about the meaning of TOLERANCE and RESPECT towards others!!
kevin francica
Feb 11th 2009, 11:09
As a hunter and tax paying citizens, I feel that MEPA is right not to co finance this campaign, as I see nothing educational about it, it rather seems as a salt rubbing on wounds exercise. However I would have no troubles if MEPA co founded Birdlife Malta in a campaign to inform the people how to entice the millions of song birds now taking their residence here, to their gardens, now that trapping is banned ; )
lgalea
Feb 11th 2009, 10:45
WHERE DID ALL THAT MONEY GO BIRDLIFE?
HOW MUCH ARE YOUR SALARIES?
ANSWERS, ANSWERS AND MORE ANSWERS PLEASE.
AND RECEIPTS, RECEIPTS, RECEIPTS PLEASE.
salvu abela
Feb 11th 2009, 10:32
@ Joe Camilleri.
you forgot the another Plus 175,000 euros from RSPB (UK)
http://www.rspb.org.uk/supporting/campaigns/illegalhunting/index.asp
Joe Camilleri
Feb 11th 2009, 10:12
Birdlife's account
1,000,000 euros ( just to tag 13 birds )
175,000 euros ( for an 'educational' campaign against trapping, which is already banned)
30,000 euros ( Mepa contribution)
1,205,000 EUROS TOTAL
And in the meantime, a lot of people are losing their jobs. That is a nice way to spend money.
lmercieca
Feb 11th 2009, 10:10
Trappers and Hunters have been provoking the general public for ages. Birds are there to be enjoyed by everyone and not to be taken home by these selfish people.
I am a tax payer and knowing that some of my money is being spent to promote "enjoying birds free" is very good thing indeed. Well done to Birdlife that promotes ways to enjoy nature for EVERYONE unlike FKNK that only wants 4000 citizens happy and ignores the rest of the population.
I think MEPA shouldnt find it difficult who to beleive and support.