BirdLife’s assumed monopoly on bird-ringing | Lino C. Farrugia

It has become evident that BirdLife Malta (BLM) considers Malta’s wild birds to be exclusively under its purview, perceiving itself as the sole local authority on them.  Consequently, it assumes the prerogative to conduct studies and research on wild birds, including migratory species, asserting a monopoly over this domain.

Indeed, BLM also considers itself to hold a local monopoly on bird-ringing activities, given that it submits its ringing recovery data, gathered through its own scheme, to EURING (European Union for Bird Ringing).

The EURING database (EDB) contains a significant portion of the ringing recovery data collected by bird ringing schemes across Europe.

Consequently, BLM considers itself superior to the authorities and the Maltese State. Its recent actions have directly contravened Maltese legislation and government policy, and continue to undermine the Maltese government's position regarding the Citizen Science Finch Research Programme, currently in its fifth consecutive year of operation.

It is therefore pertinent to inquire whether BLM officially holds the local bird-ringing monopoly or whether this is a self-assumed position. It would be erroneous to assume that all Maltese are in agreement with this viewpoint. Indeed, there are still a number of Maltese around, including myself, who know otherwise.

EURING is not an EU authority in its own right, but rather a federation of ringing schemes. This welcome clarification was corroborated by the late Joe Sultana, co-founder of the Malta Ornithological Society (MOS), which later became BirdLife, in a letter published in The Sunday Times of Malta (27 December 2009). Sultana wrote: “EURING is an organisation that coordinates bird-ringing schemes.”

Additionally, the Ombudsman in Malta provided further clarification in 2019 when addressing the Malta Ornis Committee. This was in response to an individual’s case who was seeking approval from the Committee for a research project that also involved bird-ringing.

The Ombudsman had asserted: “...EURING is not an obligatory system of bird-ringing.” Furthermore, the Ombudsman recommended changes to the local legislation to introduce a greater measure of pluralism, both in the methods employed for bird tagging and, in the agencies, organisations and individuals who may carry out such activities.

In 2009 BLM had initiated legal proceedings against FKNK officials for having ringed and released a few finches (linnets) back into the wild in November of 2008. BLM asserted it was the sole authorised body to engage in bird-ringing activities. The FKNK Council officials were ultimately exonerated on all charges, including the bird-ringing aspect, by the Court of First Instance, a decision confirmed on appeal. These cases should serve to correct the erroneous prevalent perception that BLM exercises control over the practice of bird ringing in Malta.

A review of EURING reveals that in the majority of other European countries, EURING is primarily represented by national institutions. The majority of ringing schemes are operated by universities, natural history museums, or independent institutions.  Additionally, there are multiple European countries with more than one scheme, and numerous international ringing schemes, including some in the Mediterranean, which are not part of EURING. It would be beneficial for EURING to accept a new scheme within its organisation, as this would be in line with its interests and objectives. It is in EURING's best interest to have European schemes within its fold, rather than outside of it.

The MOS era

BLM's assertion of local wild birds' dominance can be traced back to the MOS era, when they questioned the then-curator of the Malta Natural History Museum, the late Joseph Vella Gaffiero, and his co-author David Bannerman about their intention to author and publish a book on the birds of Malta without MOS's knowledge or approval.

This resulted in the immediate resignation of Vella Gaffiero and Mr and Mrs Bannerman from their roles as life members of the MOS. The book, Birds of the Maltese Archipelago, was nevertheless published in July 1976 and, in my opinion, represents one of the most comprehensive and accurate accounts of the avifauna of Malta. Subsequently, Joe Sultana was compelled to concede the exceptional quality of the publication.

Nevertheless, the book's publication merely served to exacerbate the ongoing disputes between the MOS, then headed by Joe Sultana, and Vella Gaffiero. This was due to Sultana's perceived bias against Vella Gaffiero on account of his status as a hunter (it is noteworthy that Sultana himself had previously engaged in hunting and trapping activities). This resulted in the next conflict, which concerned the question of who should oversee the operation of Malta's bird-ringing scheme. In 1974, Vella Gaffiero, acting on behalf of the Malta Natural History Museum, established the country's bird-ringing scheme. The following year, the Director of Museums issued the first three bird-ringing licences, one of which was granted to Vella Gaffiero himself.

In 1977, the MOS submitted an application to establish and operate its own bird-ringing programme in Malta. This was to be conducted under the auspices of the Ministry of Culture and on behalf of the Natural History Museum. The bird-ringing committee was to comprise of two government representatives, one of whom was Vella Gaffiero.

In 1979, the Minister of Labour, Culture and Welfare appeared to resolve the conflict between the two bird-ringing schemes by decreeing that a single scheme would be established in Malta, to be managed by the MOS. This decision was implemented through an agreement between the MOS and the government, whereby, again, the responsible committee was to comprise of two government members in addition to those of the MOS.

When the agreement between the MOS and the government was breached in 1984, Vella Gaffiero, representing the Natural History Museum, terminated the agreement and initiated the drafting of a new agreement on bird-ringing. This new agreement established a responsible committee comprising all parties interested in wild birds' migration, including the Maltese Association of Hunters, Trappers and Conservationists, which is now known as the FKNK. However, this committee never functioned, and since then, BLM have operated the bird-ringing scheme in Malta alone, thereby assuming a monopoly position.

Natalino Fenech's 2010 publication, A Complete Guide to the Birds of Malta, provides more insight into the history of bird-ringing in Malta.

It is pertinent to note that I knew the late Joe Sultana for a considerable number of years, during which time I have also appreciated some of his published works. However, I do not necessarily accept his involvement in this bird-ringing issue, which he is said to have conceived, nor his possible influence in the drafting of hunting and trapping regulations during his tenure as a high-ranking officer within the government's environment department.

These regulations, which specifically include the name EURING, are also discriminatory since they stipulate that individuals in possession of hunting and/or trapping licences are prohibited from holding a bird-ringing licence.

Such a discriminatory measure is not included in any European country's legislation. Indeed, in the majority of these countries, hunters are also licensed bird-ringers.

BLM do not hold a monopoly on bird-ringing in Malta or on any other aspect of research concerning Malta’s wild birds.

It thus follows that any organisation, including government entities, museums, universities, or the FKNK can set up another bird-ringing scheme in Malta. These organisations are at liberty to file their ringing recoveries with the EURING database. If BLM is genuinely interested in enriching our knowledge of bird behaviour, migration patterns and population size of wild birds, including that of wild finches occurring over the Maltese islands, it would be prudent for it to forego its assumed stranglehold on local bird-ringing activities.