Ornis chairman defends ‘fair’ trapping decision

Ornis Committee chairman Prof. Mark Anthony Falzon has defended this week’s controversial decision to recommend an autumn trapping season: arguing that contrary to widespread perception, the four-hour discussion resulting in a vote last Tuesday was conducted in an atmosphere of fairness and cordiality, and that all viewpoints were heard in the debate.

“Decisions on issues such as wildlife conservation invariably involve a compromise between the different interests,” he said over the phone.

“As chair of the committee my job was to see to it that the discussion took place according to strict procedures, and at various points last Tuesday I asked the different committee members if they were satisfied with proceedings. No one registered any objections or complaints. After the discussion a free vote was taken – in which I, as chairman, abstained. Everything went according to procedure, and everyone on the committee accepted the decision.”

Asked how he can argue the decision was ‘fair’, given the imbalance of the committee itself – where government representatives outweigh all other interests, in the context of a clear government policy in favour of trapping – he insisted that it was not his role to challenge the set-up but to enact the procedures in their current form.

Falzon argues that the decision was taken after looking at three main factors: protection of the natural habitat, conservation of birdlife, and the legality of trapping.

On the last point, he admitted seeking legal advice only from one source – the Wild Birds Regulation Unit – whose director Sergei Golovkin also doubles up as secretary to the Ornis Committee, and was last heard defending spring hunting on the BBC. No second opinion was requested.

Falzon however defends the WBRU as a credible source of legal advice, despite its known bias and the apparent conflict of interest which almost makes it an extension of his own Ornis Committee. “My job was to ask the relevant department of the civil service, and that’s what I did.”

It remains debatable, moreover, if the trappers themselves made any concessions in this “compromise”.

Falzon insists that the Ornis recommendations include strict regulations and conditions. “There are safeguards against damage to the natural landscape. No new trapping sites will be permitted, and there will be strict controls on the numbers of birds to be captured…”

Falzon deflected criticism that such ‘strict controls’ would depend on data supplied by the trappers: an approach which has already been questioned with regard to spring hunting.

It transpires also that no registry of trapping sites was ever completed – one of the conditions stipulated by the 2004 Accession treaty – and Falzon admitted that, to date, Ornis does not know how many trapping sites actually exist.