The Ornis committee has approved the methodology for the proposed government study on turtle dove and quail migration, even though this was heavily criticised by the highly-respected scientific research organisation, the British Trust for Ornithology, as well as BirdLife Malta.

Speaking to The Malta Independent yesterday, BLM executive director Tolga Temuge said the methodology is biased and the European Commission will not take it seriously.

At the beginning of this month, BLM reported that the British Trust for Ornithology also criticised the proposed methodology, saying that “the entire proposal is so badly written that it is not clear what is actually being proposed. We have tried to go beyond the wording to the context but find that is also badly presented.”

Mr Temuge said it is a four-page methodology and when seen from a scientific perspective it is a “scam”.

“BLM presented the Ornis committee with a seven-page document full of criticism, but the government completely ignored our concerns and failed to wait for the input from Ornis committee members,” said Mr Temuge.

He said that during an Ornis committee meeting held on Thursday, committee chairman Louis Cilia confirmed that the proposed study started last weekend, even before the committee approved the methodology.

Despite the fact that the study was already under way, the Ornis committee still spent time “voting” to approve the revised methodology, said Mr Temuge.

BLM representative on the committee, Joseph Mangion totally rejected the methodology, while Mr Cilia and a representative from the Malta Environment and Planning Authority and the hunters’, trappers’ and conservationists’ federation, voted in favour.

Mr Mangion said: “the Maltese Ornis Committee has yet again proved that it is nothing but a pawn of this government.

“Anyone who understands science would reject this biased and extremely poorly-written study. The government is desperately trying to find a way out and its most recent scam is this so-called independent study.”

Mr Temuge said that in a clear attempt to appease the hunting lobby, the government commissioned a French scientist, J.C. Ricci, whose revised methodology is still full of serious flaws and clearly designed to over-emphasise spring migration, while under-representing autumn migration.

He explained that while the majority of turtle dove migration in autumn, falls between the last week of August and the first three weeks of September, the government methodology ignores the peak migration period of this species in autumn and plans to start the counts towards the end of the migration, continuing long after most of turtle doves would have passed through.

Moreover, the counts will be undertaken by a group of people who happen to have hunting dogs to carry out the quail counts. When raised by Joseph Mangion whether any of these people were hunters, Louis Cilia provided no answer, said Mr Temuge.

He added that the methodology is designed to rely heavily on information that hunters will provide with the carnet de chasse. This depends on hunters listing every single bird they shoot throughout the year.

The carnet de chasse data provided by the hunters during this study will be unregulated and unmonitored. Therefore, it is highly likely that some hunters will provide skewed data to try to “justify” their position.

BLM had sent a letter to the secretary of the Ornis committee a month ago, requesting an explanation regarding the choice of methodology.

The organisation wrote: “since we have serious concerns about the way the whole methodology was put together, we would like to have the opportunity to have a look at the other proposals put forward by other scientists.” BLM has received no reply to date.

Mr Mangion said BirdLife is urging the government to stop appeasing the hunters and listen to the will of the overwhelming majority in Malta who are sick and tired of witnessing their government being hijacked by the hunters’ lobby.

“Rather than wasting taxpayers’ money on this biased and flawed study, the government should immediately stop spring hunting and increase law enforcement to really clamp down on illegal hunting,” he concluded.

* * *

In a counter-statement issued last night, the chairman of the ORNIS Committee forwarded the following clarifications:

(1) A special meeting of the ORNIS Committee was called on 4 April 2007 with the specific aim of discussing the first draft of the methodology submitted by Professor Jean Claude Ricci, Scientific Director of IMPCF – France, which was intended to be used for the study entrusted to him in connection with the migration of turtle dove and common quail over the Maltese islands in spring and autumn. IMPCF is an institute of international repute that has specialised in bird migration, by census, radar and bio-acoustics for more than 70 years. The institute has made various studies in France and other countries.

(2) Professor Ricci was present throughout the ORNIS meeting of 4 April 2007 and took extensive notes of the remarks and concerns of the members of the committee in connection with the draft methodology submitted by him. Subsequently, two separate meetings were held between Professor Ricci and representatives of Malta BirdLife (MBL) and the Federazzjoni Kaccaturi Nassaba Konservazzjonisti (FKNK) during which the draft methodology was also discussed. Again, Professor Ricci took note of any valid comments made during these two meetings with the NGOs.

(3) At the ORNIS meeting of 4 April 2007, it was agreed to adjourn the meeting “to a few days after receipt of the revised methodology. This should be held during the week between 16-20 April” – (quote from the minutes).

(4) On 13 April 2007, Professor Ricci sent the chairman of the ORNIS Committee a new document on the study, which contained a revised and improved methodology of the study based on the notes he had taken during the meetings referred at (1) and (2) above.

(5) As a consequence to the decision taken by the ORNIS Committee at its meeting of 4 April 2007 as indicated at (3) above, the chairman called an urgent meeting of the committee on Thursday to discuss and, if the committee agreed, to approve the new revised methodology by Professor Ricci so that it can be used and tested even during the spring season of 2007.

(6) It was, therefore, very obvious that the main aim for convening the meeting of Thursday was that of discussing the revised methodology by Professor Ricci and, if the committee agreed, to approve it. During the said meeting, the chairman told the members that he had been informed that the paid observers had been directed as from Monday to start collecting data of the two migrating bird species in question from specified study sites around Malta and Gozo. These paid observers were recruited after the issue of a public call. The analytical assessment and computerised analyses of the collected data would be subject to the methodology that had still to be discussed and approved by the ORNIS Committee at its meeting on Thursday.

(7) At the ORNIS meeting of 4 April, the Malta BirdLife representatives on the committee had proposed that the committee should not take a decision on the methodology during that particular meeting in order to have the time and opportunity to study the methodology in more detail and get further expert advice. The chairman accepted this proposal and as a result he recommended, and the committee accepted, that no vote was to be taken at the end of the meeting.

(8) At Thursday’s meeting, it was considered that all members had been given enough time to study and respond to the two drafts as submitted by Professor Ricci. Besides the notes taken by Professor Ricci during his encounters in Malta, all subsequent written remarks by ORNIS members, Mepa, NGOs, and other interested persons, were passed to Professor Ricci for his consideration. His second draft document of 13 April 2007, which was transmitted to all ORNIS members on receipt by the secretary of the committee, had taken into consideration all that was relevant in the inputs he received during his visit in Malta and also the subsequent correspondence exchanged with him. In the circumstances, it was felt that at the ORNIS meeting of Thursday, enough discussion had taken place for a final decision to be taken on the methodology that had to be adopted for the study. The majority of the members present during the meeting agreed with this stand and a vote was therefore taken as to whether to adopt or reject the second and revised draft submitted by Professor Ricci. Of the eligible voting members, five, including the chairman, voted in favour and one against.

The chairman of the ORNIS Committee would like to reiterate his appeal to all sides of the issue to join forces and cooperate in this study to make it a success for the benefit of all concerned.