The European Federation for Hunting and Conservation (FACE) highlighted three main flaws in the arguments laid out in an Opinion on trapping, which it felt placed the wrong emphasis on various aspects of the wording of the Birds Directive.
It was commenting following the recent opinion of the EU Advocate General (AG) in the live-finch capturing (trapping) case instituted by the European Commission against Malta.
[The Directive] fully recognises the legitimacy of hunting of wild birds as a form of sustainable use
FACE is currently engaged in a detailed review of the AG’s opinion with its member, the Federation for Hunting and Conservation - Malta (FKNK).
It stressed that the directive placed the same weighting on cultural requirements as on ecological ones, and “fully recognises the legitimacy of hunting of wild birds as a form of sustainable use”.
On whether a member state had a carte blanche to derogate, it noted that an average of 5,000 derogations are applied per annum by EU member states and that derogations were applied in a generalised manner in their territorial scope in many EU countries.
It also quotes case law to expand on whether hunting can constitute a “judicious use”: “It goes without saying that traditional hunting practices in Europe, such as the live capture of finches, are very much part of the cultural and even ethnological heritage of the countries and regions where they continue to be practiced and transmitted from one generation to the next. Some of these practices are even recognised as Intangible Cultural Heritage under Unesco (e.g. bird trapping in Austria).”
Although a recent ‘fitness test’ of the Birds Directive found that it was reaching its aims, there was now an increasing push by member states for better implementation encompassing greater flexibility, FACE said.
It noted that the Council accepted that a flexible approach which took into account specific national circumstances had a better chance of establishing the balance between nature protection and socio-economic activities.