Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/933296
maltatoday SUNDAY 28 JANUARY 2018 2 News MATTHEW VELLA BIRDLIFE Malta is contesting a decision by the Maltese govern- ment not to disclose the locations of some 8,000 trapping sites in Malta. Despite queries sent over the years to publicise some 8,000-plus locations where trapping is au- thorised, the Environment Minis- try has refused to divulge this in- formation quoting privacy issues. "Information pertaining to where a public authority authorises pri- vate and public land to be used for trapping should be of public domain. Preventing such informa- tion being made public is tanta- mount to contributing to the mess of illegal trapping sites impacting our countryside," BirdLife Malta CEO Mark Sultana said. BirdLife now awaits a verdict on its appeal filed in court on a Free- dom of Information request. If the case is not ruled in their fa- vour, the eNGO will be forced to seek alternatives, even taking the matter to the EU. The sprawl of trapping sites has resulted in unaccounted destruc- tion of pristine habitats with little or no enforcement, BirdLife said. The NGO says the Aarhus Con- vention gives the public the right to receive environmental informa- tion which is held by public au- thorities. But the Maltese authorities claimed that releasing the trapping site data would be in breach of data protection laws because it includes names and surnames. When asked to remove the names but still re- lease the details, the NGO was told that this would be "too laborious," Sultana told this newspaper. New trapping licences In 2014, the newly set-up Wild Birds Regulation Unit (WBRU) allowed trappers to register up to two sites per trapping licence where trapping sites could be set up. The rules on the trapping of finches and Song Thrush and Golden Plover, only allow the re- activation of trapping sites if they existed before 2012, as seen from aerial photography, and were not located on protected habitats within Natura 2000 sites. That vetting process. carried out solely by WBRU officials prior to trapping seasons, has since then authorised up to 8,000 sites for each trapping season – an area larger than the size of Valletta. Despite the fact that it is the En- vironment & Resources Authority (ERA) that is the competent au- thority on protection of land, it is the WBRU that has been the entity in charge of authorising this land use. During the Ornis Committee meeting on the 10th of May 2017, ERA voted in favour of a finch trapping season on the condition that "compliance and enforcement is guaranteed and implemented by WBRU and the police force". According to the Aarhus Con- vention to which Malta is a signa- tory, all environmental data should be made public upon a request be- ing filed. Despite this, WBRU has insisted that the data contains private in- formation which cannot be di- vulged. The WBRU kept refusing such data to be passed to BirdLife Malta, invoking the Information and Data Protection Commis- sioner to investigate the matter. In 2016, the Data Protection Com- missioner backed the WBRU on their stance and currently an ap- peal to this decision is being con- tested by BirdLife Malta in front of the Information and Data Protec- tion Appeals Tribunal. This follows several reports Bird- Life Malta made in 2016 to the WBRU regarding several trapping sites located in coastal areas and within Natura 2000 sites – loca- tions which appeared to be on pro- tected habitat scheduled by ERA. 40% of sites not registered The WBRU had replied that in- deed over 40% of those reported were not registered and the matter had to be passed on for enforce- ment action. No responses have yet been received from ERA over what enforcement action has re- sulted. "Here we have another clear case where the trapping derogation has failed miserably. Finch trap- ping re-opened in 2014, allowing a multitude of trapping sites to be re-activated and cleared with the authorities not having the capa- bilities of ensuring any strict en- forcement. "While the WBRU authorised sites, it was apparently up to ERA to guarantee enforcement if these were not according to the rules. At the end of it, no authority has taken responsibility and nothing much happened, with the result being a multitude of legal and il- legal sites along our coasts active each time a trapping season is opened," Nicholas Barbara, con- servation manager at BirdLife Malta, said. BirdLife said the situation was even worse in comparison to hunt- ing where members of the public may have the capability of distin- guishing a protected species that is being shot and may report the matter to police. In the case of trapping sites, how- ever, such distinctions cannot be made. Hundreds of trapping sites and public pathways closed to the public can be encountered during a walk in the countryside and yet no information is available whether these sites are operating legally or otherwise. All of this suggests that even if a report was made about a site, two years down the line, these sites will still be possibly active. Additional reporting Tia Reljic To apply for any of these roles, please e-mail your CV to grow@carobtree.com.mt Server Assistants/Bussers Dishwashers and Cleaners Food Court Supervisor WE'RE RECRUITING Government withholding data on 8,000 bird-trapping sites Over 40% of trapping sites reported by BirdLife were found to have been unregistered and illegal • Denial of access to environmental information in breach of EU law