Promotion of democracy and debate is becoming a precious thing all over again. Last month's Euractiv award ceremony saw winners chosen for fostering national debates on Europe.

Meanwhile an independent network, www.euractiv.com, delivers localised policy information in nine languages, complementing the 'Brussels perspective' on EU affairs with national points of view.

A former Belgian prime minister remarked that the EU needs to "go local" to communicate with Europeans. As the respected politician said in an acceptance speech for his award in the political category, "Member states should not shy away from making difficult political decisions while blaming everything on Brussels."

In the NGO category, Germany's pluralist European Movement was recognised for its work in breaking Europe-wide policies down to national level. "Bringing relevant EU actors and stakeholders together with national administrations to bridge planet Brussels and planet Berlin" is the aim of the 60-year old movement.

These winning words can be applied to at least two issues causing debate in Malta. The new directive concerning batteries and an updated one on waste has attracted much discussion, as has the debate on the trapping of wild birds.

Proposals at EU level have a direct impact on our lives. Everyone has the chance to take part in the consultation process during which directives are shaped before they become part of our national legislation.

A recast of one of the waste directives sees the government wrangling over its position to fend off a bid for higher targets on the amount of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) to be recycled. The 2003 directive on WEEE was aimed at better re-use, recycling and recovery but has come under fire for being too complicated, costly and even impossible to implement.

Anyone with an interest in the process of formulating a country-wide stand has been asked to contribute. The response from small and medium enterprises (SMEs) has been firm.

Local importers of light bulbs, computers, TV sets, mobile phones, kettles and refrigerators are understandably wary of the new targets for recycling proposed by the EU Commission. On average, Europe generates 17 to 20kg per capita of waste electric and electronic equipment per year.

Among the changes suggested, the EU executive is asking member states to encourage manufacturers to defer the cost of collecting this type of waste onto consumers. The EU commission is keen to shift responsibility from taxpayers to consumers.

Chances of achieving the collection target are compromised by the fact that much of the throwaway equipment is not in the official system and producers cannot get their hands on it.

The EU commission is proposing to change the collection target for WEEE from the current four kilos per person yearly to a variable binding target of 65 per cent of the average weight of equipment placed on the market during the two previous years. For Malta this would translate as nearly tripling the target.

Producers argue that the target is not realistic since less than half the proposed amount of household WEEE comes back to producers' recycling systems. The rest is collected for profit by municipalities, recyclers and other actors operating outside the official system or illegally shipped to third countries, according to Hewlett Packard's European waste policy advisor.

Even the European Commission's environment department acknowledges that nobody knows where some 50 to 60 per cent of the WEEE goes, as only 30 per cent is officially recycled and 12 per cent still ends up in landfills. The least progressive member states are requesting the target be lowered to 40 per cent.

At a public consultation held by Malta-European Union Steering and Action Committee, local importers agreed that a target of 65 per cent does seem excessive for Malta. When asked to suggest a more realistic target for Malta, a standoff arose over further cooperation as long as certain obstacles remain. The issue of eco-contribution refunds is likely to spark flare-ups.

The main disincentive to local producers, mostly SMEs trying to match a jacked-up waste target, is too much competition. Joseph Attard of the Malta Chamber of SMEs called for a reform to the system. He referred to undeclared imports which were placing an extra burden on the honest producer.

Consultation papers on the recast directive and a legal notice for batteries can be viewed on the Meusac website, www.meusac.gov.mt.

There remains little to debate on the bird trapping issue since this activity has been outlawed since the day Malta joined Europe. What remains to be discussed is how to make up for the government's sluggish implementation of the transition phase. This was supposed to start easing trappers into compliance with EU law five years ago.

At an international seminar organised by Birdlife Malta under the Life Plus programme, a number of case studies on historical trapping, illegal practices and implementing the birds directive were given by visiting ornithologists from Italy and Belgium.

The number of finches caught in Malta was supposed to have been reduced and the number of trappers gradually reduced, but a single pilot project on breeding birds has not been enough to wean trappers onto alternative activities and still keep in touch with the birds they love.

Illegal trapping still appears to be quite widespread in Malta and Gozo. The law enforcement team is burdened with a host of other duties and can hardly be expected to cope.

Head of investigations at the Royal Sociey for the Protection of Birds Bob Elliot addressed the seminar on the supporting role of NGOs. The hunting and trapping federation (FKNK) decided not to attend, despite an invitation. Birdlife Malta is still meeting trappers individually.

Traditionally, bird trapping originated to ensure food supply in times past when migrating game birds were captured and kept alive for the pot. When trapped birds no longer formed part of the Maltese diet, trappers went after finches and other songbirds to keep as pets.

Today, captive-bred birds can be supplied by pet shops as an alternative.

It is not just the taking of birds from the wild but clearing sites for trapping which is very destructive to the environment. Natural vegetation is burnt or removed by trappers using chemicals. The number of used and disused trapping sites has been set at over 7,000.

Some are big enough for seven nets - the size of a football field. Unattended nets snare not just birds, but also hedgehogs which get trapped and die.