Don't get me wrong. Birds should be protected and since enforcement has been beefed up, it is a joy to see herons and birds of prey flying freely. And enforcement has made a difference. We should continue delivering education with one hand and apply discipline with the other, as should be done in schools.

What I am saying is that the law is topsy-turvy because the natural land is more important for us than the birds. To put it crudely, the birds we can import, but once a piece of natural land is ruined by building, or dumping debris on it, or because oil leaks from construction machinery parked on it, it almost never recovers. Therefore, that piece of land is lost to us forever. So why does the law contemplate harsher laws for the killing of birds and not for the ruining of our natural land? Why is it that the law has loopholes regarding development planning but is so specific regarding birds? I suspect that we are being prodded by the EU to be more vigilant regarding birds than taking care of our land. And land involves lots of money. And like food attracts rats money attracts corruption. To eradicate rats, you have to cement over every hole; so to defeat corruption there should be no loopholes and zero tolerance. It is our politicians on both sides who are ultimately responsible and who bear the onus on their conscience.

We should never consider certain projects like golf courses, race courses for cars, and so on, since the area of our islands is so small.

Our land is the basis of life. The grass, plants and trees bore into the soil with their roots and suck life from it. The worms and insects have a place to live and then animals make their home and a delicate web of life is created.

 

Joe Portelli

Nadur