ArticlePDF Available

The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands

Authors:
Andre Francis Raine at Archipelago Research and Conservation
Andre Francis Raine
  • Archipelago Research and Conservation
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation

Figures

Figures - uploaded by Andre Francis Raine
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Andre Francis Raine
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Andre Francis Raine
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andre Francis Raine on Mar 23, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
The international impact of hunting and
trapping in the Maltese islands
Dr André F. Raine
May 2007
BirdLife Malta, 57/28 Triq Abate Rigord, Ta’Xbiex XBX 1120, MALTA
www.birdlifemalta.org
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
Table of Contents
Page No.
Summary 1
1.0 Introduction 2
2.0 Methodology 3
3.0 Results
3.1 Ringing records 5
3.2 All ring recoveries combined 5
3.3 Ring recoveries of birds killed in Malta 9
3.4 Ring recoveries of finch species trapped in Malta 11
3.5 Species data
3.5.1 Protected Species 12
3.5.2 Turtle Dove & Common Quail 16
3.5.3 Finches 17
4.0 Discussion
4.1 International migration 19
4.2 Impact of illegal hunting 20
4.3 Impact of trapping 21
4.4 Turtle Dove & Common Quail 22
4.5 Conclusion 24
Acknowledgments
References
Appendices
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
List of Figures
Figure 1. Number of ring recoveries received by BirdLife Malta, by decade.
Figure 2. Map showing countries (filled in black) linked to Malta through bird
migration either from (i) birds ringed in Malta and recovered overseas, or (ii) foreign-
ringed birds recovered in Malta.
Figure 3. Ring recoveries for Sand Martin (Riparia riparia), ringed overseas and
recovered in Malta or ringed in Malta and recovered overseas (n=73).
Figure 4. Ring recoveries for Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica), ringed overseas and
recovered in Malta or ringed in Malta and recovered overseas (n=134).
Figure 5. Ring recoveries for Robin (Erithacus rubecula), ringed overseas and
recovered in Malta or ringed in Malta and recovered overseas (n=37).
Figure 6. Percentage of ring recoveries for Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), ringed
overseas and shot in Malta, by country (n=44).
Figure 7. Percentage of ring recoveries for Common Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus),
ringed overseas and shot in Malta, by country (n=32).
Figure 8. Percentage of ring recoveries for Black-crowned Night Heron (Nycticorax
nycticorax), ringed overseas and shot in Malta, by country (n=23).
Figure 9. Percentage of ring recoveries for Caspian Tern (Sterna caspia), ringed
overseas and shot in Malta, by country (n=21).
Figure 10. Percentage of ring recoveries for Marsh Harrier (Circus aeruginosus),
ringed overseas and shot in Malta, by country (n=20).
Figure 11. Percentage of ring recoveries for Common Quail (Coturnix coturnix),
ringed overseas and recovered in Malta, by country (n=19).
Figure 12. Percentage of ring recoveries for Turtle Dove (Streptopelia turtur), ringed
overseas and recovered in Malta, by country (n=37).
Figure 13. Percentage of ring recoveries for Linnet (Carduelis cannabina), ringed
overseas and recovered in Malta, by country (n=53).
Figure 14. Percentage of ring recoveries for Siskin (Carduelis spinus), ringed
overseas and recovered in Malta, by country (n=16).
Figure 15. Percentage of ring recoveries for Greenfinch (Carduelis chloris), ringed
overseas and recovered in Malta, by country (n=16).
Figure 16. Percentage of ring recoveries for European Serin (Serinus serinus), ringed
overseas and recovered in Malta, by country (n=16).
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
List of Tables
Table 1. The five most commonly recorded countries from ring recoveries.
Table 2. The five most commonly recorded bird species from ring recoveries.
Table 3. The five most commonly recorded countries from ring recoveries.
Table 4. The five most common species recorded ringed overseas and shot in Malta.
Table 5. Groupings of birds ringed overseas and shot in Malta
Table 6. The five most commonly recorded countries from finch ring recoveries.
Table 7. Ring recoveries for birds of prey (13 species combined), ringed overseas
and shot in Malta.
Table 8. Age at ringing for all raptors ringed overseas and shot in Malta. The
majority of these birds are therefore ringed in their natal country.
Table 9. Ring recoveries for herons & egrets (5 species combined), ringed overseas
and shot in Malta.
Table 10. Age at ringing for all herons ringed overseas and shot in Malta. The
majority of these birds are therefore ringed in their natal country.
Appendices
Appendix 1. Number of countries linked to Malta through ring recoveries (either
birds ringed in Malta and recovered overseas, or birds ringed overseas and recovered
in Malta).
Appendix 2. Number of recoveries of overseas-ringed birds shot in Malta, by
country.
Appendix 3. Number of recoveries of overseas-ringed finches recorded in Malta, by
country.
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
1
Summary
Ring recoveries were used to analyse the international importance of Malta’s position
along one of the main European-African bird migration routes. International ring
recoveries came from 1,188 individuals, representing 120 species. Birds from a total
of 48 countries, 36 in Europe and 12 in Africa, were found to pass over Malta during
spring and autumn migration. Birds that had been ringed overseas and shot by
hunters in Malta were analysed separately. Ring recoveries from a total of 75 species,
representing 35 countries, were found to have been killed in Malta. The majority of
these ring recoveries came from protected, non-huntable species, with a significant
proportion being Annex 1 species the EU Birds Directive. It was also found that a
large proportion of these recoveries were of birds of prey that had been ringed as
nestlings, further highlighting the impact of illegal hunting on conservation efforts
throughout Europe. Ring recoveries for six of the seven main trappable finch species
were also analysed separately. These came from 19 countries, with the majority of
ring recoveries being from birds trapped by trappers and not released. Finally, the
issue of spring hunting was investigated by considering ring recoveries of Turtle Dove
(Streptopelia turtur) and Common Quail (Coturnix coturnix). This analysis showed
that these species originate from key countries within Europe and not from the entire
European population. By analysing ring recoveries, this study has demonstrated the
key importance of Malta on one of the main European-African migratory flyways and
the international impact of hunting and trapping activities in the country.
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
2
1.0 Introduction
Every year, billions of birds make migratory journeys along a network of routes
across the world. As part of this global phenomenon, birds migrating from European
breeding grounds cross over the Mediterranean region on their way to African
wintering grounds. Upon reaching the Mediterranean, migrants often follow routes
that cross the shortest expanse of open water, as this represents a hazard for migrants
seeking shelter during adverse weather conditions or at nightfall. Many raptors, for
example, follow one of three main migratory routes across the Mediterranean on their
way to Africa. To the west, they cross from the Iberian peninsula, over the Straits of
Gibraltar, and on into Morocco. Birds moving through the eastern flyway travel
around the edge of the Mediterranean, cross the Turkish Straits, and continue on into
Israel. Finally, those migrants following the central flyway pass from Italy, over
Sicily and Malta, and on into North Africa. At the end of the winter, birds follow the
reverse routes back to European breeding grounds. The Maltese islands therefore lie
along the central route of the European-African migratory flyway. This flyway
represents a key route taken every year by countless thousands of migratory raptors.
Other species, such as many passerines, migrate across the Mediterranean in a broad
front (Moreau 1953, 1961, 1972). These migrants are particularly susceptible to
adverse weather conditions and, during storms or high winds, can appear in Malta in
very high numbers. Being located in the middle of the Mediterranean, Malta
therefore represents a vital stop-over and refuelling site to replenish fat stores for their
onwards migration (Sultana & Gauci, 1982). Furthermore, late in the afternoon as
daylight fades, migrating birds (particularly birds of prey) often use Malta to roost
before continuing their onward migration the following morning. In total, over 170
species regularly use Malta during migration (Casha, 2004).
Despite its significant importance, being located on one of the main migratory
flyways between Europe and Africa, Malta has developed a notorious reputation as
one of the black spots in the Mediterranean due to uncontrolled hunting and trapping
activities. Recognising the international importance of Malta to bird migration, it
must therefore be accepted that activities such as hunting and trapping will have an
impact on species coming from a number of different countries located along these
migratory routes.
To understand bird migration and the origin and destination of migrants, scientific
bird ringing is a vitally important technique for ornithologists. Birds are caught at
strategic points along their migration routes and are individually marked using
numbered identification rings which are normally attached to their legs. Since 1965,
licensed bird ringers have been carrying out scientific studies and bird monitoring
work on the Maltese islands. This work has helped to understand Malta’s significance
in the migratory routes of birds crossing over the Mediterranean.
The purpose of this report is to investigate the impact of hunting and trapping in
Malta by assessing the international element of bird migration over the islands. This
is undertaken by analysing a data set gathered by licensed Maltese bird ringers
carrying out their work under the Valletta Bird Ringing Scheme (run by BirdLife
Malta), which is also a member of EURING (European Union for Bird Ringing).
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
3
2.0 Methodology
For the purposes of this study, only data on ringed birds found either i) ringed in
Malta and recovered overseas or ii) ringed overseas and recovered in Malta are
considered for the purposes of analysis. Data on birds carrying out short-distance
movements (eg birds ringed and recovered within Malta or Gozo) are not considered.
The data analysed consist of all ring recoveries sent to, or recorded by, Maltese
ringers within the BirdLife Malta database. This represents a substantial database,
consisting of 1,188 records from the 1920s up until the end of 2006.
2.1 Method limitations
Ringing effort is very variable across Europe and Africa. Some countries, particularly
in northern Europe, have large-scale ringing operations that are carried out by
significant numbers of ringers on a country-wide basis. On the other hand, many
countries in Africa, for example, have minimal or non-existent ringing programmes.
This level of variability creates a disparity in ring recoveries as countries with
extensive ringing schemes will result in more ringed birds and thus higher levels of
ring recoveries. Therefore, it should be noted that in the case of countries that do not
have a particularly high prominence in Malta in terms of ring recoveries, this may
simply be due to low levels of ringing in the countries involved. Likewise, the
recoveries of Maltese-ringed birds in these countries will be similarly affected. For
example, the low levels of Maltese ringed birds in sub-Saharan Africa can be
considered to be an artefact of this. This disparity needs to be taken into
consideration when interpreting the results.
It should also be made very clear that these analyses only refer to the database for ring
recoveries. Therefore, the results of the analysis on birds shot in Malta for example
do not show the number of birds shot in Malta but rather represent the range of
countries from which these birds are originating
Furthermore, ring recoveries only represent the number of ringed birds found or
reported to BirdLife Malta. In reality, ring recoveries from ringed birds shot or
trapped in Malta will be dramatically under-represented, as hunters and trappers are
very unlikely to report ringed birds (especially protected and illegal species) and will
make every effort to conceal them. This is further accentuated by the fact that many
areas (such as Delimara and Mizieb) are inaccessible to fieldworkers during the peak
hunting seasons due to the inherent dangers involved. Many hunters are often very
aggressive to field workers (both verbally and physically) and this, coupled with the
health and safety issues of so many firearms being discharged in such concentrated
areas, means that it is simply not safe for field workers to collect data. This further
reduces the number of ring recoveries that it is possible to obtain, and as these areas
are hotspots for illegal hunting activities, these are the areas where it is very likely
that many of the ring recoveries would be found.
Finally, the total number of birds being shot and trapped in Malta can not be inferred
from this report as it must be remembered that the number of birds of each species
ringed every year is a very small proportion of the total overall population. That so
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
4
many ringed birds have been recovered should further underline the serious nature of
hunting and trapping on these islands, as the total numbers of birds shot or trapped
will be much higher.
The results of this report should therefore only be used to show the range of countries
being impacted by illegal hunting and trapping in Malta.
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
5
3.0 Results
3.1 Ringing records
A total of 1,188 foreign recoveries are analysed in this report, representing 120
species. Figure 1 shows the number of foreign ring recoveries received by BirdLife
Malta since its inception in 1962, or compiled from EURING and various European
ringing schemes’ reports, some dating as early as the 1920s.
Figure 1. Number of ring recoveries received, by decade.
3
9
22
9
62
156
321
203
232
179
0
100
200
300
400
1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000 -
present
Decades
Number of ring recoveries
3.2 All ring recoveries combined
All ring recoveries, both those ringed overseas and recorded in Malta, and those
ringed in Malta and recovered overseas, were analysed. For this analysis, ring
recoveries from all sources were used; (i) recaptured and released by licensed ringers,
(ii) re-sighted in the field, (iii) brought in dead or wounded by members of the public,
(iv) killed by man or (v) trapped by trappers and not released.
A total of 48 countries were found to be connected to Malta by ring recoveries
(Appendix 1). Of these, 36 countries were from Europe and 12 from Africa (Figure
2). Ring recoveries were also obtained from the islands of Crete, Sardinia, Corsica
and Sicily.
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
6
Figure 2. Map showing countries (filled in black) linked to Malta through bird
migration either from (i) birds ringed in Malta and recovered overseas, or (ii) foreign-
ringed birds recovered in Malta.
The most northerly recoveries were from birds ringed in Sweden and Finland. The
most southerly recoveries were of a Curlew Sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea) and a
Sanderling (Calidris alba), both ringed on the Cape, South Africa, and both shot on
their way to Europe by hunters in Malta.
The five most commonly recorded countries are shown in Table 1. Combined, these
make up 46.4% of all recoveries in Malta. Ring recoveries came from a total of 1,188
individuals, representing 120 species. The five most commonly recorded species are
shown in Table 2. Combined these make up 30.2% of all recoveries in Malta.
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
7
Table 1. The five most commonly recorded countries from ring recoveries.
Country No. of recoveries % of total recoveries
Italy 181 15.2
Finland 103 8.7
Czech Republic 98 8.3
Hungary 88 7.4
Sweden 81 6.8
Table 2. The five most commonly recorded bird species from ring recoveries.
Common Name Scientific Name No. of recoveries % of total recoveries
Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica 136 11.4
Sand Martin Riparia riparia 73 6.1
Common Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita 53 4.5
Linnet Carduelis cannabina 53 4.5
Osprey Pandion halieatus 44 3.7
The international element of bird migration through Malta is amply demonstrated by
examining ring recoveries for three species in particular, the Sand Martin (Riparia
riparia) (Figure 3), Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) (Figure 4) and Robin (Erithacus
rubecula) (Figure 5). Ring recoveries from these species alone come from 26, 20 and
15 countries respectively.
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
8
Figure 3. Ring recoveries for Sand Martin (Riparia riparia), ringed overseas and
recovered in Malta or ringed in Malta and recovered overseas (n=73).
Figure 4. Ring recoveries for Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica), ringed overseas and
recovered in Malta or ringed in Malta and recovered overseas (n=134).
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
9
Figure 5. Ring recoveries for Robin (Erithacus rubecula), ringed overseas and
recovered in Malta or ringed in Malta and recovered overseas (n=37).
3.3 Ring recoveries of birds killed in Malta
All ring recoveries for birds killed in Malta were analysed separately. It should be
noted that these results are not indicative of the number of birds killed in Malta, but
are only indicative of the range of countries impacted by hunting on the island (as
discussed in Section 2.1, Methods Limitations).
Birds from 35 countries, representing 75 species were recorded as ringed overseas and
shot in Malta (Appendix 2).
The five most commonly recorded countries for birds killed in Malta are shown in
Table 3. Together, these five countries make up 54.5% of all recoveries. For Finland
and Sweden in particular, a significant proportion of these recoveries come from birds
of prey, comprising 55.5% and 33.3% of the total recoveries for these countries
respectively. The five most common species ringed overseas and killed in Malta are
shown in Table 4. Together, these make up 38.7% of all individual recoveries.
Of the 75 species recorded as ringed overseas and killed in Malta, 15 (20.0%) species
were raptors (birds of prey) and 25 (33.3%) were listed under Annex 1 of the Birds
Directive.
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
10
Table 3. The five most commonly recorded countries from ring recoveries.
Country No. of recoveries % of total recoveries
Finland 63 16.5
Sweden 46 12.0
Tunisia 37 9.7
Italy 35 9.2
Germany 27 7.1
Table 4. The five most common species recorded ringed overseas and shot in Malta.
Common Name Latin Name No. of recoveries % of total recoveries
Osprey Pandion halieatus 44 11.5
Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus 32 8.4
Turtle Dove Streptopelia turtur 28 7.3
Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax 23 6.0
Caspian Tern Sterna caspia 21 5.5
Data was also considered in terms of bird groupings (Table 5). The three most
common groupings in this analysis were raptors (33.3%), gulls & terns (17.0%) and
herons (11.0%).
Table 5. Groupings of birds ringed overseas and killed in Malta
Grouping No. of recoveries % of total recoveries
Raptors 127 33.2
Herons 42 11.0
Gulls & Terns 65 17.0
Waders 31 8.1
Doves 29 7.6
Other Passerines
26
6.8
Quails 17 4.5
Hirundines 17 4.5
Cormorants 11 2.9
Owls 7 1.8
Finches 3 0.8
Waterfowl 3 0.8
Nightjars 2 0.5
Gannets 2 0.5
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
11
3.4 Ring recoveries of finch species trapped in Malta
All ring recoveries for six of the seven main finch species trapped in Malta were
analysed. For this analysis, ring recoveries from all sources were used; (i) recaptured
and released by licensed ringers, (ii) re-sighted in the field, (iii) brought in dead or
wounded by members of the public, (iv) killed by man or (v) trapped by trappers and
not released (ie. caught by bird trappers and then either kept to be used in the future as
decoys, or sold into the pet trade). All ring recoveries were analysed together to
investigate the range of countries that each finch species comes from. Hawfinch
(Coccothraustes coccothraustes) was not included in this analysis as no data exists on
this species in the BirdLife Malta ring recovery database. This may be because many
of the individuals of this species are caught by trappers as soon as they arrive on the
island and are therefore never recovered by licensed bird ringers. This is particularly
relevant as there are currently 4616 registered trappers (according to government
statistics) who attract finches using live decoys, thus catching the vast majority of
migratory finches shortly after they arrive on the island.
112 foreign-ringed individuals from 19 countries were recorded from the BirdLife
Malta database (Appendix 3). The five most common countries recorded from ring
recoveries are shown in Table 6. Combined these make up 73.2% of all finch
recoveries in Malta.
Table 6. The five most commonly recorded countries from finch ring recoveries.
Country No. of recoveries % of total recoveries
Czech Republic 23 20.5
Hungary 19 17.0
Italy 16 14.3
Slovenia 13 11.6
Croatia 11 9.8
The vast majority (86.6%) of these recoveries were from birds trapped by trappers
and not released.
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
12
3.5 Species data
This section investigates recoveries on a species-by-species basis. It is divided into
three sections; (i) Protected species
1
, (ii) Turtle Dove & Common Quail and (iii)
Finches. Key species will be used in each section to investigate the international
impact of illegal hunting of protected species, spring hunting of Turtle Dove and
Common Quail and the trapping of finches in Malta. Once again, it is worth
reiterating that these results are not indicative of the number of birds killed or trapped
in Malta, but are only indicative of the breadth of countries impacted by hunting on
the island. The numbers of birds killed or trapped in Malta for each species are much
higher.
3.5.1 Protected Species
Ring recoveries of the five most commonly shot ringed species (all of which are
protected) in Malta were analysed. Results are shown in Figures 6 through 10.
Figure 6. Percentage of ring recoveries for Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), ringed
overseas and killed in Malta, by country (n=44).
0
30
60
90
Finland Sweden Germany
Percentage of recoveries
Figure 7. Percentage of ring recoveries for Common Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus),
ringed overseas and killed in Malta, by country (n=32).
0
20
40
60
Tunisia Finland Germany Czech Republic Sweden Slovakia Hungary France
Percentage of recoveries
1
It should be noted that prior to regulations published by the Maltese government in 1980 there were
only 22 legally protected species. The 1980 regulations included two schedules (birds that could be
shot and those that could be trapped), and afforded legal protection to all other species. The
introduction of more recent legislation, particularly LN 79 of 2006, further restricted the number of
legally huntable species. Therefore, when discussing legally protected species for the purposes of this
report, the author is referring to legally protected species under current legislation. This is to
demonstrate the international impact of the illegal hunting of these protected species in recent years.
The results of this analysis show the origin of these protected species and therefore which are the main
countries affected when these species are shot in the present day.
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
13
Figure 8. Percentage of ring recoveries for Black-crowned Night Heron (Nycticorax
nycticorax), ringed overseas and killed in Malta, by country (n=23).
0
15
30
45
Croatia Serbia Hungary Romania Ukraine Bulgaria Spain
Percentage of recoveries
Figure 9. Percentage of ring recoveries for Caspian Tern (Sterna caspia), ringed
overseas and killed in Malta, by country (n=21).
0
20
40
60
Sweden Finland
Percentage of recoveries
Figure 10. Percentage of ring recoveries for Marsh Harrier (Circus aeruginosus),
ringed overseas and killed in Malta, by country (n=20).
0
10
20
30
Finland Latvia Czech
Republic
Estonia Italy Lithuania Poland Hungary
Percentage of recoveries
The countries for raptors shot in Malta (for the purposes of the analysis, data was used
for the 13 species present in the database) are presented in Table 7. The age at ringing
for all raptors ringed overseas and shot in Malta was also analysed, and the results are
presented in Table 8. The same two analyses was carried out for all herons ringed
overseas and shot in Malta, and the results are presented in Tables 9 and 10.
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
14
Table 7. Ring recoveries for birds of prey (13 species combined), ringed overseas
and shot in Malta.
Country No. of recoveries % of total recoveries
Finland 44 34.9
Sweden 21 16.7
Tunisia 17 13.5
Germany 10 7.9
Czech Republic 7 5.6
Hungary 5 4.0
Poland 4 3.2
Latvia 4 3.2
Lithuania 3 2.4
Italy 3 2.4
Estonia 2 1.6
Crete 2 1.6
Slovakia 1 0.8
Serbia 1 0.8
Romania 1 0.8
France 1 0.8
Table 8. Age at ringing for all raptors ringed overseas and shot in Malta. The
majority of these birds are therefore ringed in their natal country.
Age at ringing
Species Nestling Juvenile Adult
Osprey
44
0 0
Common Buzzard
1 1
0
Common Kestrel
18 13 10
Eleanora's Falcon
2
0 0
European Hobby
3
0
2
Honey Buzzard
10 2
0
Lesser Kestrel 0
1
0
Marsh Harrier
10 1 9
Montagu's Harrier
2
0
1
Pallid Harrier 0 0
1
Peregrine Falcon
1
0 0
Red Kite
1
0 0
Red-footed Falcon
1
0 0
Saker
1
0 0
Raptors (Combined) 94 18 23
Percentage of total 69.6 13.3 17.0
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
15
Table 9. Ring recoveries for herons & egrets (5 species combined), ringed overseas
and shot in Malta.
Country No. of recoveries % of total recoveries
Serbia 15 31.3
Croatia 9 18.8
Hungary 6 12.5
Ukraine 3 6.3
Spain 2 4.2
Russia 2 4.2
Romania 2 4.2
Netherlands 2 4.2
Bulgaria 2 4.2
Tunisia 1 2.1
Poland 1 2.1
France 1 2.1
Finland 1 2.1
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1 2.1
Table 10. Age at ringing for all herons ringed overseas and shot in Malta. The
majority of these birds are therefore ringed in their natal country.
Age at ringing
Species Nestling Juvenile Adult
Night Heron 21 3 1
Squacco Heron 6 0 0
Purple Heron 9 1 0
Grey Heron 3 0 0
Little Egret 3 0 0
Herons (Combined) 42 4 1
Percentage of total 89.4 8.5 2.1
It can be seen in many cases that these protected species come from a range of
countries, and therefore illegal hunting affects the conservation efforts of all of these
countries. However, in the case of certain other species, illegal hunting can be seen to
be having an impact on bird populations from certain key countries only. For
example, 97.7% of Osprey recoveries come from Finland and Sweden (with 69.5% of
these being birds shot while undertaking their first migration). All of the ring
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
16
recoveries for Great Skua (Stercorarius skua) come from Scotland (n=9, all of which
were ringed as nestlings), for the Sandwich Tern (Sterna sandvichensis) from the
Ukraine (n=5, all of which were ringed as nestlings or juveniles) and for
Mediterranean Gull (Larus melanocephalus) from the Ukraine (n=10).
3.5.2 Turtle Dove & Common Quail
Ring recoveries of Turtle Dove and Common Quail were analysed separately as they
are the two species the Maltese government is currently allowing to be hunted and
trapped during spring migration
2
. For this analysis, ring recoveries from all sources
were used; (i) recaptured and released by licensed ringers, (ii) re-sighted in the field,
(iii) brought in dead or wounded by members of the public, (iv) killed by man or (v)
trapped by trappers and not released. Results are shown in Figures 11 and 12.
Figure 11. Percentage of ring recoveries for Common Quail (Coturnix coturnix),
ringed overseas and recovered in Malta, by country (n=19).
0
30
60
90
Italy Sicily Hungary Tunisia
Percentage of recoveries
Figure 12. Percentage of ring recoveries for Turtle Dove (Streptopelia turtur),
ringed overseas and recovered in Malta, by country (n=37).
0
20
40
60
Italy Czech
Republic
Tunisia Hungary Germany Poland France Croatia Austria
Percentage of recoveries
2
The hunting of birds in spring is not allowed under the EU Birds Directive. The European
Commission has started an infringement procedure against the Maltese government for allowing the
hunting of Turtle Dove and Common Quail since Malta joined the EU.
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
17
3.5.3 Finches
Ring recoveries of six of the main finch species trapped in Malta were analysed. For
this analysis, ring recoveries from all sources were used; (i) recaptured and released
by licensed ringers, (ii) re-sighted in the field, (iii) brought in dead or wounded by
members of the public, (iv) killed by man or (v) trapped by trappers and not released.
Sample sizes of ring recoveries for Chaffinch (Fringilla coleobs) and Goldfinch
(Carduelis carduelis) are too small to allow for meaningful analysis. In the case of
the Chaffinch, there are only 7 ring recoveries from Hungary (2), Italy (2), Ukraine
(1), Poland (1) and Tunisia (1). In the case of European Goldfinch, there are 4 ring
recoveries, with one each from England, Germany, Croatia and Tunisia.
For the remaining species, results are shown in Figures 13 through 16.
Figure 13. Percentage of ring recoveries for Linnet (Carduelis cannabina), ringed
overseas and recovered in Malta, by country (n=53).
0
10
20
30
Hungary Czech
Republic
Italy Croatia Austria Slovakia Lithuania Poland Switzerland Slovenia
Percentage of recoveries
Figure 14. Percentage of ring recoveries for Siskin (Carduelis spinus), ringed
overseas and recovered in Malta, by country (n=16).
0
5
10
15
Czech
Republic
Netherlands Russia Scotland Slovenia Switzerland Italy Norway Latvia
Percentage of recoveries
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
18
Figure 15. Percentage of ring recoveries for Greenfinch (Carduelis chloris), ringed
overseas and recovered in Malta, by country (n=16).
0
10
20
30
Slovenia Hungary Croatia Slovakia Italy Germany
Percentage of recoveries
Figure 16. Percentage of ring recoveries for European Serin (Serinus serinus), ringed
overseas and recovered in Malta, by country (n=16).
0
20
40
60
Czech Republic Slovenia Croatia
Percentage of recoveries
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
19
4.0 Discussion
The data analysed in this report comes from an extensive database spanning many
decades. The analysis of a database of this size therefore allows for an enhanced
understanding of Malta’s importance in terms of international migration. It should be
noted that although some of the ringing records originate from the 1960s or earlier, it
is not the date of the ringing record that is important in this analysis. Ringing records,
both past and present, are equally important as together they provide us with an
understanding of where migrant species originate from. This is particularly vital
when considering the international implications of the illegal persecution of protected
species in the present day.
4.1 International migration
The results of this analysis have shown that birds from a minimum of 48 countries
pass through Malta on their annual migration between breeding and wintering
grounds. These are composed of 36 countries in Europe and 12 countries in Africa. It
should be noted that this will represent the minimum number of countries linked to
Malta through bird migration. In many countries, particularly in Africa and some
parts of Eastern Europe, ringing programmes are limited or almost non-existent and
therefore relatively few birds from these countries will be ringed and recovered
abroad. The true number of countries linked to Malta through migration will
therefore in all likelihood be higher and would include many of the African countries
not currently included in this list.
Ring recoveries of birds in Malta span the whole of the Western Palearctic, from
Finland and Sweden to Algeria and Tunisia. Birds from further south have also been
recorded, including two wader species ringed on the Cape, South Africa. These two
individuals, like many of the other ring recoveries analysed in this report, were
subsequently shot in Malta. Recoveries of species such as the Sand Martin, Barn
Swallow (both shot illegally in Malta) and Robin (a species that is often trapped
illegally in Malta) span the entirety of their European breeding range. In the case of
the Sand Martin, recoveries in Malta come from 24 breeding range countries and two
wintering countries. Ring recoveries of this species come from breeding colonies as
far north as Finland and Sweden, as far east as Russia and as far west as the Republic
of Ireland, whilst wintering birds have been recorded as far south as Nigeria. The
migration of this species over Malta, and many others like it, is therefore truly on an
international scale.
While it can be seen that many species passing over Malta come from a wide range of
European countries, an equally important factor to be considered is when all of the
ringed birds passing over Malta are found to originate from one or two countries only.
This can be seen for species such as the Osprey, a rare bird of prey considered to be of
Unfavourable Conservation Status in Europe (Birdlife International, 2004). In the
case of this species, ring recoveries originate from three countries only, Finland,
Sweden and Germany, with the vast majority coming from Finland and Sweden. As
the number of ring recoveries for this species is relatively high (44 ringed individuals
have been recorded as shot in Malta) it can be seen that a significant proportion of
Osprey passing over Malta originate from these two countries alone. Satellite
tracking of both Swedish and Finnish Ospreys confirm the importance of the central
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
20
European-African migratory route for many of their breeding birds (Hake et al, 2001;
Kellen et al, 2001; FMNH, 2006).
In Finland and Sweden, Osprey populations are composed of 1,150-1,300 pairs and
3,400-4,000 pairs respectively (BirdLife International, 2004). Due to world-wide
declines of this species in the late 1960s (mainly due to human persecution and the
widespread use of DDT, a highly toxic, persistent and bio-accumulative pesticide
(Saurola 1997)), this species has been the focus of intensive conservation efforts
throughout its’ breeding range. Both Sweden and Finland currently have extensive
research projects aimed at this species, which in both countries includes satellite
tracking individual birds. Therefore, the conservation and research initiatives of these
two countries can be seen to be directly affected by illegal hunting activities in Malta.
This is particularly pertinent, considering that all 44 ringed birds from these two
countries were originally ringed as nestlings and over two thirds of them were
undertaking their first migration. As this species typically does not reach sexual
maturity until at least three years of age (BTO, 2007) then birds passing over Malta
will need to survive three separate migrations before they can even attempt to rear
their first brood. Due to intensive illegal hunting pressure in Malta, this makes it
particularly difficult for these birds to survive long enough to start breeding, thus
creating a serious conservation issue.
This is also true for other species, such as Great Skua and Sandwich Tern (the latter
species designated as being of Unfavourable Conservation Status and Depleted in
Europe (BirdLife International, 2004)). For both of these species, ring recoveries
come from single countries only. In the case of the Great Skua, all of the ring
recoveries have been of juvenile birds and all have originated from Scotland (with
9,600 pairs, Scotland holds over half of the world population of this species (BirdLife
International 2004)). The recovery of juvenile birds in Malta, all of which were
recorded as shot, confirms the migratory patterns of this species, with many of the
juveniles leaving Scotland after the breeding season and spending the winter roaming
throughout the Mediterranean (Flegg, 2004). Illegal hunting of protected species in
Malta that originate from single countries can therefore have a very concentrated
effect on the breeding populations of these countries.
4.2 Impact of illegal hunting
According to the Home Affairs Minister the latest figures for the number of registered
hunters (excluding trappers) in Malta currently stands at 11,929 individuals (Times of
Malta, 2007).
From the analysis of ring recoveries it can be seen that birds from a minimum of 35
countries have been subsequently killed in Malta by Maltese hunters. Only a small
proportion of these ring recoveries came from legally huntable species, with the vast
majority being protected species.
Illegal hunting is therefore an international issue that affects the breeding birds of a
range of countries, particularly countries such as Finland, Sweden and Germany. In
particular, a high proportion of recoveries of illegally shot birds from these countries
come from birds of prey. The central Mediterranean flyway is particularly important
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
21
for many raptors, with thousands making the crossing every year (Beaman & Galea,
1974; Coleiro et al 1995; Garcia & Arroyo, 1998; Agostini et al, 2003; Sammut &
Bonavia, 2004; Pannuccio et al, 2005). This group of birds in particular are heavily
persecuted in Malta, with large numbers being killed every year on migration (Coleiro
et al, 1995; Sammut & Bonavia, 2004). This includes species such as Marsh Harrier
(and other harrier species including the endangered Pallid Harrier (Circus
macrourus)), Honey Buzzard (Pernis apivorus), Osprey, Red-footed Falcon (Falco
vespertinus), Lesser Kestrel (Falco naumanni), Common Kestrel and Hobby (Falco
subbuteo). As these birds are often rare or declining species, have small numbers of
young and take several years to reach sexual maturity, the impact of illegal hunting
pressures on their populations can have serious repercussions on their conservation
status. The effects of illegal persecution on birds of prey are widely documented (eg.
Cramp & Simmons, 1980; Hatsofe, 1981; del Hoyo et al, 1994; Thirgood et al, 2000;
Saurola, 2007)
As can be seen from this analysis, the majority of ringed raptors and herons that have
been shot over Malta are of juvenile birds and birds ringed in the nest. Although it is
to be expected that for these species higher numbers of birds will be ringed as
nestlings as opposed to adults (due to the relative ease in ringing nestlings), it is still
important to realise that these are birds which have been born and fledged in foreign
countries, often as a result of concerted conservation effort. After fledging, these
birds subsequently commence their migration and pass over Malta, where they may
then fall victim to illegal persecution by Maltese hunters. Furthermore, as it takes
several years for the young of many of these species to reach sexual maturity, they
have to survive several migrations before they are of a sufficient age to successfully
breed. The chances of survival to breeding age of those birds having to pass
repeatedly over Malta are therefore affected by the high levels of illegal hunting
pressure. Ring recoveries of birds ringed as nestlings and killed in Malta include
Pallid Harrier (Globally Near Threatened, Endangered in Europe with a breeding
population of 5-51pairs), Osprey (Unfavourable Conservation Status, Rare), Lesser
Kestrel (Global Status Vulnerable), Saker Falcon (Globally Endangered, entire
European population 360-540 pairs) and Purple Heron (Unfavourable Conservation
Status, Declining)
3
.
4.3 Impact of trapping
Trapping of several species of finch using clap-nets, while illegal throughout the
European Union, is still allowed in Malta under an agreement made during the
Accession Treaty. However, this practice is to be phased out over the next two years
and will legally come to an end in Malta by December 31
st
, 2008.
According to the Home Affairs Minister the latest figures for the number of registered
trappers in Malta currently stands at 4,616 individuals (Times of Malta, 2007).
Analysis of aerial photographs from 2001 found a minimum of 5,317 trapping sites
(Mifsud, 2001). Trapping currently occurs in Malta at such a high level that only a
handful of each of the common finch species regularly breed on the islands, despite
breeding in abundance in other areas of the Mediterranean. For comparative
3
European or Global conservation status is shown from BirdLife International (2004)
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
22
purposes, while Chaffinch, Serin, Goldfinch, Greenfinch and Linnet all have breeding
populations of between 10,000 and 60,000 pairs (depending on the species) in Cyprus
(BirdLife International, 2004), the Maltese breeding populations are represented as
between 1-5 pairs, and several of these species no longer breed regularly on the
islands.
As well as having a serious impact on locally breeding birds, trapping particularly
targets the large flocks of migrating finches that pass through Malta during migration.
Many of these flocks, in the absence of persecution, would over-winter in Malta.
Analysing data for six of the main legally trappable finch species, it was found that
these species come from at least 19 European countries. Of these, the Czech
Republic, Hungary, Italy, Slovenia and Croatia are the main countries from which
these birds come from and it is these countries that will be predominantly affected by
the trapping of finches in Malta. For the Serin in particular, ring recoveries come
from three countries only, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Croatia. In the case of
this species, trapping will have a particularly concentrated effect on the populations of
these countries in particular.
It should also be noted that the number of recoveries of ringed finches is very low
because the number of finches caught by licensed ringers in Malta is exceptionally
low. Even very common Mediterranean finch species like the Greenfinch and the
Linnet are rarely recorded by licensed Maltese bird ringers. This is due to the fact
that the large flocks of migrants are almost entirely caught by trappers who position
their trapping sites along the edges of cliffs where migrating finches first arrive. The
methods employed by trappers, who utilise large clap nets and live decoy birds, is a
very successful method of trapping entire flocks of finches. This, coupled with the
large number of registered trappers in Malta, means that very few migrants reaching
Malta remain free long enough to move inland to where scientific bird ringing
normally takes place. The fact that there are so few wild finches present in the
interior of Malta shows the dramatic impacts that trapping has on populations of
migrating finches.
The trapping of finches in Malta can therefore be seen to be (i) effectively causing the
local extinction of the Maltese breeding populations and (ii) impacting on migrating
finch flocks from a range of countries throughout their European breeding range.
4.4 Turtle Dove & Common Quail
Both Turtle Dove and Common Quail are currently considered to be of an
Unfavourable Conservation Status in Europe due to significant declines throughout
their breeding range (BirdLife International 2006a, 2006b).
The Maltese government, in 2007, opened its fourth spring hunting and trapping
season (for Turtle Dove and Common Quail) since joining the European Union
4
. The
hunting of birds in spring is not allowed under the EU Birds Directive (Directive
79/409/EEC). Derogations from this can be applied only if certain conditions are
fulfilled, including the absence of an alternative solution. To date, no Member State
4
Legal Notice 44 of 2007
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
23
of the European Union has been able to demonstrate meeting these conditions, and
several have stopped spring hunting, either to avoid being condemned by the
European Court of Justice or after being condemned.
The European Commission has started an infringement procedure against the Maltese
government on this issue, with the issuing of a first written warning in July 2006
5
.
The procedure has moved on to the next level, with the issuing of a supplementary
warning letter in March 2007. The next step will involve the taking of Malta to the
European Court of Justice.
The analysis of ring recoveries helps to ascertain the origin of many of the Turtle
Dove and Quail passing over Malta during migration. Turtle Doves have been
recovered from eight countries within the species’ breeding range. Of these, half of
the ring recoveries come from Italy and a further quarter come from the Czech
Republic. The breeding population of Turtle Dove in Germany and Poland (two of
the other countries with ring recoveries linked to Malta) are listed as declining
(BirdLife International, 2006b).
For the Common Quail, the vast majority (94.4%) of ring recoveries from countries
within its breeding range originate from a single country only; Italy. The only
recovery of Common Quail outside Italy is of a single recovery from Hungary. While
some of the quails with Italian rings may have been caught by Italian ringers while on
migration (and may thus originate from other countries), the lack of ring recoveries of
this species from any other country apart from Hungary suggest that a significant
proportion of the quails passing over Malta are of Italian origin. The hunting of
Common Quail in Malta will therefore be having an impact on the breeding
populations of Italy in particular.
The results of this analysis are particularly important when considering the
conclusions of the derogation report issued by Malta defending its intention to allow
spring hunting (MRAE, 2005). In this report, Malta claims that birds from both
species come from the entirety of their breeding ranges (in an attempt to show that
what happens in Malta is insignificant in terms of the European populations of these
species). For the Turtle Dove, Malta refers to a breeding population of 7.2 million
pairs, which is actually the maximum European estimate for this species (estimated at
between 3.5 and 7.2 million pairs (BirdLife International, 2006b)). For Common
Quail, Malta refers to a breeding population of 4.7 million pairs, which is again the
maximum European estimate for this species (estimated at between 2.8 and 4.7
million pairs (BirdLife International, 2006a)).
The analysis in this report shows very clearly that, for both Turtle Dove and Common
Quail, birds migrating over Malta originate from a subset of countries within their
total European range. In the case of Turtle Doves one should only consider the
5
As regards Malta, the European Commission maintains that there is a satisfactory alternative to spring
hunting, namely hunting in autumn, and that therefore there is no justification for allowing spring
hunting of these two species in Malta. Moreover Malta does not meet the conditions of Art.9 (1) c of
“strictly supervised conditions” (i.e. there are no systems in place to limit and supervise the number of
birds killed, as well as methods, time and place of the activity) and of “judicious use” (ie. the hunted
species have declining or depleted populations and Unfavourable Conservation Status).
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
24
breeding populations of the eight countries involved in the ring recoveries, whilst for
Common Quail one can only consider the breeding populations of Italy and Hungary.
Countries with large breeding populations, such as Russia and Turkey for example,
should not be considered unless proof is provided that some of their birds migrate
over Malta. While this report is not claiming that these are the only countries from
which birds migrating over Malta originate, for the purposes of sensitive issues
involving the Birds Directive, a precautionary principle needs to be taken. This
means that other countries within the breeding range of these species should not be
considered for any discussions or analyses unless proof (in the form of ring
recoveries) is given that birds are originating from them.
4.5 Conclusion
The Birds Directive is the primary European legislation for the protection of wild
birds and was created to ensure the effective conservation of all of these species
within Europe. One of the most important issues that the Birds Directive addresses is
the migratory nature of many bird species and the fact that they pass through many
different countries during their annual migrations. Conservation of these species
therefore needs to be considered in a European-wide context, as activities in one
country may have far-reaching affects on the populations of another.
As a member of the European Union, Malta has a legal obligation to follow the Birds
Directive. Protecting migratory species must be undertaken through robust national
legislation which implements the Birds Directive in its entirety. This needs to be
supported by increased assistance for over-stretched law enforcement officers and the
application of significant penalties (in court and not just on paper) for those who
break the law.
This report shows, unequivocally, the international importance of Malta on the
European-African migratory flyway. Birds from breeding populations throughout
Europe pass over Malta every year on their way to African wintering grounds. It
follows that illegal hunting and trapping activities in Malta have a direct resonance on
the conservation efforts of countries throughout Europe and Africa. Malta therefore
has a responsibility to protect these species, which should be viewed as a common
heritage and not simply as a resource for Maltese hunters and trappers.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the following people for their comments and
suggestions on this report; John Borg, Dr. Mark Eaton, Mark Gauci, Charles Gauci,
Konstantin Kreiser, Helen Raine, Joe Sultana and Tolga Temuge. Recognition also
needs to be given to the many BirdLife Malta licensed bird ringers who have spent so
much time and effort over the years carrying out scientific research on Maltese bird
migration. It is only through their voluntary work and dedication that the data exists
for an analysis of this kind.
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
25
References
Agostini, N., Coleiro, C. & M. Panuccio. 2003. Autumn migration of Marsh
Harriers (Circus aeruginosus) across the central Mediterranean in 2002. The Ring
25: 47-52.
Beaman, M. & C., Galea. 1974. The visible migration of raptors over the Maltese
Islands. Ibis 116: 419-431.
BirdLife International. 2004. Birds in Europe: Population Estimates, Trends and
Conservation Status. BirdLife Conservation Series (No. 12). BirdLife International,
Cambridge. 374 pp.
BirdLife International. 2006a. Species factsheet: Coturnix coturnix. Downloaded
from http://www.birdlife.org on 4/5/2007.
BirdLife International. 2006b. Species factsheet: Streptopelia turtur. Downloaded
from http://www.birdlife.org on 4/5/2007.
Casha, A. 2004. Where to watch birds and other wildlife in Malta. BirdLife Malta,
Malta. 91pp.
Coleiro C., Portelli P., & N. Agostini. 1995. Autumn migration of Marsh Harriers
over Malta. Proc. RRF’s Second Int. Conf. Raptors: 125.
Cramp, S. & K.E.L. Simmons. 1980. Handbook of the birds of Europe, the Middle
East and North Africa. Vol 2. Hawks to Bustards. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
695pp
Del Hoyo J., Elliot A., & J. Sargatal. 1994. Handbook of the birds of the world. Vol.
II. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. 638pp.
European Commission. 2004. Guidance document on hunting under Council
Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds : “The Birds Directive”.
85pp.
Flegg, J. 2004. Time to fly : Exploring bird migration. British Trust for Ornithology,
Thetford. 184pp.
FMNH. 2006. Finnish Satellite ospreys.
http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/english/zoology/satelliteospreys/index.htm
Garcia, J. & B.E. Arroyo. 1998. Migratory movements of western European
Montagu’s Harrier Circus pygargus: a review. Bird Study 45: 188-194.
Hake, M., Kjellen, N. & T. Alerstam. 2001. Satellite tracking of Swedish Ospreys
Pandion haliaetus: autumn migration routes and orientation. J. Avian Biol. 32:47-
56.
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
26
Hatsofe, O. 1981. Raptor migration and bird killing in southern Lebanon. Torgos, 1:
25-26.
Kjellén, N., Hake, M. & T. Alerstam. 2001. Timing and speed of migration in male,
female and juvenile Ospreys Pandion haliaetus between Sweden and Africa as
revealed by field observations, radar and satellite tracking. J. Avian Biol. 32 (1): 57–
67.
Mifsud, I. 2001. A survey on the number of trapping sites in the Maltese islands.
BirdLife Malta. 7pp.
Moreau, R.E. 1953. Migration in the Mediterranean area. Ibis. 95:329-364.
Moreau, R.E. 1961. Problems of Mediterranean-Saharan migration. Ibis.
103a:373-427, 580-623.
Moreau, R.E. 1972. The Palearctic-African Bird Migration Systems. Academic
Press: London & New York.
MRAE. 2005. Malta’s Report on the Application of the Derogation for Spring
Hunting under the provisions of Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the
Conservation of Wild Birds. MRAE, Malta. 9pp.
Panuccio, M. Nicolantonio, A. & U. Mellone. 2005. Autumn migration strategies of
honey buzzards, black kites, marsh and Montagu’s harriers over land and over water
in the Central Mediterranean. Avocetta 29:27-32.
Sammut M & E. Bonavia. 2004. Autumn raptor migration over Buskett, Malta.
British Birds 97: 318-322.
Saurola, P. 1997. The Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) and modern forestry: a review of
population trends and their causes in Europe. J. Raptor Res. 31(2): 129–137.
Saurola, P. 2007. Monitoring and conservation of Finnish Ospreys (Pandion
haliaetus) in 1971–2005. Proceedings of Finnish-Russian Workshop on Birds of
Prey, Kostamus, 2005.
Sultana, J. & C. Gauci. 1982. A new guide to the birds of Malta. Malta
Ornithological Society, Malta.207pp.
Times of Malta. 2007. Hunters and trappers.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/core/article.php?id=251491
Thirgood, S., Redpath, S., Newton, I. & P. Hudson. 2000. Raptors and Red Grouse:
Conservation Conflicts and Management Solutions. Consv Biol 14(1):95-104.
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
27
Appendix 1. Number of countries linked to Malta through ring recoveries (either birds
ringed in Malta and recovered overseas, or birds ringed overseas and recovered in Malta).
No. Country No. of recoveries
Europe
1 Italy 181
2 Finland 103
3 Czech Republic 98
4 Hungary 88
5 Sweden 81
6
Germany
72
7 Slovenia 59
8 Ukraine 46
9 Croatia 37
10
Poland
36
11 France 24
12 Serbia 22
13 England 19
14 Austria 17
15
Denmark
16
16 Russia 16
17
Scotland
16
18 Netherlands 15
19 Norway 15
20 Spain 13
21 Switzerland 12
22 Slovakia 11
23
Latvia
10
24 Greece 8
25 Lithuania 8
26 Belgium 7
27 Bulgaria 7
28 Romania 3
29 Belarus 2
30
Bosnia & Herzegovina
2
31 Estonia 2
32 Georgia 2
33
Republic of Ireland
2
34 Wales 2
35 Turkey 1
36 Montenegro 1
Africa
1 Tunisia 64
2 Nigeria 11
3 Algeria 10
4 Libya 5
5 Central African Republic 2
6 South Africa 2
7 Congo 1
8 Egypt 1
9 Mauritania 1
10 Morocco 1
11 Namibia 1
12 Senegal 1
Additional Islands
1 Sicily 22
2 Crete 7
3 Sardinia 4
4 Corsica 1
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
28
Appendix 2. Number of recoveries of overseas-ringed birds shot in Malta, by
country.
No. Country No. of recoveries
1 Finland 63
2 Sweden 46
3 Tunisia 37
4 Italy 35
5 Germany 27
6
Hungary
22
7 Ukraine 21
8 Czech Republic 19
9 Serbia 13
10
Poland
12
11 Croatia 11
12
Denmark
11
13
Scotland
7
14 France 5
15 England 4
16 Latvia 4
17
Russia
4
18 Austria 3
19 Bulgaria 3
20 Lithuania 3
21 Netherlands 3
22 Romania 3
23 Crete 2
24 Estonia 2
25 Sicily 2
26 Slovakia 2
27 Slovenia 2
28 South Africa 2
29 Spain 2
30 Switzerland 2
31 Belgium 1
32 Bosnia & Herzegovina 1
33 Greece 1
34
Ireland
1
35 Namibia 1
36 Nigeria 1
37
Norway
1
The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands
29
Appendix 3. Number of recoveries of overseas-ringed finches recorded in Malta, by
country.
No. Country No. of recoveries
1 Czech Republic 23
2 Hungary 19
3 Italy 16
4 Slovenia 13
5 Croatia 11
6 Slovakia 4
7 Switzerland 4
8 Austria 3
9 Poland 3
10 Germany 2
11 Lithuania 2
12 Netherlands 2
13 Russia 2
14 Scotland 2
15 Tunisia 2
16 England 1
17 Latvia 1
18 Norway 1
19 Ukraine 1
... This fits with previous work that emphasises the importance of hunting pressure in southern Europe for the Continent's bird population trends (Fasolo et al. 2010 ). Indeed, ringing recoveries indicate that turtle-doves shot in Malta in spring originate from Italy, the Czech Republic, Germany, and Poland (McCulloch et al 1992, Raine 2007, Fenech 2010. The majority of quail recovered in Malta (94.4%), were ringed in Italy and there is a single recovery of a bird from Hungary (Raine 2007 ). ...
... Indeed, ringing recoveries indicate that turtle-doves shot in Malta in spring originate from Italy, the Czech Republic, Germany, and Poland (McCulloch et al 1992, Raine 2007, Fenech 2010. The majority of quail recovered in Malta (94.4%), were ringed in Italy and there is a single recovery of a bird from Hungary (Raine 2007 ). Only 37 ringed turtle doves and 19 quails have been recovered in Malta (Raine 2007 ). ...
... The majority of quail recovered in Malta (94.4%), were ringed in Italy and there is a single recovery of a bird from Hungary (Raine 2007 ). Only 37 ringed turtle doves and 19 quails have been recovered in Malta (Raine 2007 ). Ringing provides an indication of where the birds originate from but does not give a watertight set of data because ringing effort varies from country to country and certain species, such as turtle-dove and quail, do not feature prominently in the number of birds ringed in any country, particularly so for quail, as a specific effort is needed to catch them. ...
The importance of spring hunting in Malta on European Turtle-Dove Streptopelia turtur and Common Quail Coturnix coturnix populations
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 2022
The European Commission’s 1979 Wild Birds Directive bans member states from hunting wild birds during spring, the period during which they are breeding or migrating, as hunting wild birds before they have reproduced is perceived to have a greater effect on bird populations than it would in autumn or winter. Malta is the only European Union member state to allow recreational wild bird hunting in spring, when birds migrate over the country to their European breeding grounds. Malta’s derogation of the European Commission’s ban can only be legally permissible if no alternative solutions to spring hunting exist. Using figures provided by hunters, we show that greater numbers of European Turtle-dove Streptopelia turtur and Common Quail Coturnix coturnix – the two species for which spring hunting is allowed – are hunted in autumn than in spring. We show that statistics on the number of birds hunted in spring, which hunters are legally obliged to provide to authorities, are under-reported: they are not correlated, at times negatively correlated, with data on the daily influxes of birds, and they spike in the final week of the season, consistent with the hypothesis that hunters under-report to avoid reaching quotas which would result in an early season closure. Finally, while there are wide error margins around the numbers, independent annual estimates of turtle-doves hunted in Malta imply spring hunting is a conservation concern beyond the country itself. Each spring, hunters in Malta kill the equivalent of between 2.4% and 4.4% of Europe’s turtle-dove population and 0.4% and 0.5% of its quail population.
View
... This fits with previous work that emphasises the importance of hunting pressure in southern Europe for the Continent's bird population trends (Fasolo et al. 2010 ). Indeed, ringing recoveries indicate that turtle-doves shot in Malta in spring originate from Italy, the Czech Republic, Germany, and Poland (McCulloch et al 1992, Raine 2007, Fenech 2010. The majority of quail recovered in Malta (94.4%), were ringed in Italy and there is a single recovery of a bird from Hungary (Raine 2007 ). ...
... Indeed, ringing recoveries indicate that turtle-doves shot in Malta in spring originate from Italy, the Czech Republic, Germany, and Poland (McCulloch et al 1992, Raine 2007, Fenech 2010. The majority of quail recovered in Malta (94.4%), were ringed in Italy and there is a single recovery of a bird from Hungary (Raine 2007 ). Only 37 ringed turtle doves and 19 quails have been recovered in Malta (Raine 2007 ). ...
... The majority of quail recovered in Malta (94.4%), were ringed in Italy and there is a single recovery of a bird from Hungary (Raine 2007 ). Only 37 ringed turtle doves and 19 quails have been recovered in Malta (Raine 2007 ). Ringing provides an indication of where the birds originate from but does not give a watertight set of data because ringing effort varies from country to country and certain species, such as turtle-dove and quail, do not feature prominently in the number of birds ringed in any country, particularly so for quail, as a specific effort is needed to catch them. ...
The importance of spring hunting in Malta on European Turtle-Dove Streptopelia turtur and Common Quail Coturnix coturnix populations
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2016
The European Commission’s 1979 Wild Birds Directive bans member states from hunting wild birds during spring, the period during which they are breeding or migrating, as hunting wild birds before they have reproduced is perceived to have a greater effect on bird populations than it would in autumn or winter. Malta is the only European Union member state to allow recreational wild bird hunting in spring, when birds migrate over the country to their European breeding grounds. Malta’s derogation of the European Commission’s ban can only be legally permissible if no alternative solutions to spring hunting exist. Using figures provided by hunters, we show that greater numbers of European Turtle-dove Streptopelia turtur and Common Quail Coturnix coturnix – the two species for which spring hunting is allowed – are hunted in autumn than in spring. We show that statistics on the number of birds hunted in spring, which hunters are legally obliged to provide to authorities, are under-reported: they are not correlated, at times negatively correlated, with data on the daily influxes of birds, and they spike in the final week of the season, consistent with the hypothesis that hunters under-report to avoid reaching quotas which would result in an early season closure. Finally, while there are wide error margins around the numbers, independent annual estimates of turtle-doves hunted in Malta imply spring hunting is a conservation concern beyond the country itself. Each spring, hunters in Malta kill the equivalent of between 2.4% and 4.4% of Europe’s turtle-dove population and 0.4% and 0.5% of its quail population.
View
... Meanwhile the police has requested army support to prevent illegalities (both illegal shooting and trespassing) and maintain order when the tension escalates into violence between stakeholders (Boissevain, 2006). It is in this context that Malta has been dubbed a bird hunting "black spot" within the Mediterranean region (Raine, 2007). ...
... In order to understand this complex institutional landscape we started by conducting a review of limited literature available on the topic (Fenech, 1992;FKNK, 2012;Lia, 2011;Raine, 2007;Wild Birds Regulation Unit, 2013) which initially identified the CASH and the Federazzjoni Kaċċaturi Nassaba Konservazzjonisti (Federation for Hunting and Conservation Malta -FKNK) as the major players. We then used snowball sampling to identify other relevant stakeholders. ...
Understanding stakeholder conflict between conservation and hunting in Malta
Article
Conservation conflicts often involve tensions between human stakeholders. One highly topical conflict is that around migratory bird hunting in the Mediterranean, particularly in Malta. Here, tensions between hunters and anti-hunting groups have escalated to include rural surveillance operations by anti-hunting groups, physical scuffles with hunters, retaliatory poaching and measures unheard of in Europe, such as the use of drones or army interventions. We describe the historical and political background to the Maltese conflict and use social network analysis to map the institutional relationships between governmental and non-governmental stakeholders influencing hunting in Malta. Our analysis confirms that the institutional landscape is highly polarised with two distinctive sides with few links between them. Nonetheless there are links between organisations in opposite sides of the spectrum and these could be explored to improve dialogue between the hunting and anti-hunting lobby. We also uncover that the ORNIS committee, the state's single hunting consultative platform lacks brokering power, the ability to connect otherwise unconnected groups within a network, which is likely why those opposed to spring hunting have recently started campaigning for a national referendum on the issue. Although independent monitoring is urgently needed around the Mediterranean, if science is to contribute to the management of this conflict, it will only be useful if the current stakeholder polarisation is overcome. Important steps towards conflict resolution include anti-hunting groups improving their ability to distinguish clearly between species conservation and animal welfare, and the ability of hunting groups to co-ordinate themselves better to ensure compliance with the law amongst their membership.
View
... Modernity is often linked to the emergence of a "civil society" (Harwood, 2006;Jünemann, 2002) that can displace patronage ties (e.g., between state and hunters) (Briguglio, 2010;Theobald, 1992), recognize and curate common resources (e.g., migratory birds, countryside), particularly against capitalistic take-over (Boissevain, 2021;Briguglio, 2015;Raine et al., 2016;Xerri, 2020), and cultivate sensitivity to modern forms of harm (e.g., to animals, ecosystems) (Kenis, 2016;Latta, 2007). However, the shooting and trapping of migratory birds are deeply rooted in the culture of Malta and the country is often decried as a poaching "blackspot" (Raine, 2007;Raine et al., 2016). Hunters claim that the strong passion that compels them to shoot and trap (namra) runs in the blood and, if denied, can lead to depression, sickness, and death (Falzon, 2008). ...
Emerging contradictions in the enforcement of bird hunting regulations in Malta
Article
Full-text available
  • Feb 2022
The archipelago state of Malta is renowned as a “blackspot” for illegal bird hunting. Since joining the European Union (EU), Maltese hunters have experienced restrictions on what and how much they can hunt. This article describes Malta's current enforcement efforts which, assisted by the Army and by volunteers from conservation groups, exceed EU standards, and have led to a reduction in crime. Drawing on interviews with key stakeholders in the hunting arena, however, this article also describes how current conservation policies—which rely on intense surveillance and punishment to deter poachers—are being counterproductive. They are fostering a culture of suspicion and distrust between hunters, environmental nongovernmental organizations, and the state, which, in turn, drives the further intensification of surveillance. This increase has encouraged some hunters to engage in other forms of crime or to embark on hunting expeditions abroad where environmental governance is weaker. This article reinforces the need for more holistic responses to natural resource management that go beyond a focus on increased enforcement, especially when taking into account the impacts of regulation across multiple jurisdictions. White Storks Photo Credit: Lawrence Hills
View
... In Syria, it is estimated that there are 200,000 illegal hunters (from 500,000), but that must not be taken as a guide for the other countries of the region. In the Mediterranean island state of Malta, a location central to important migratory routes in the African-Eurasian Flyway system, Raine (2007) revealed that at least 75 migratory species, from 35 countries, had been killed there, a high proportion being protected birds of prey (including Red-footed Falcon Falco vespertinus and Lesser Kestrel F. naumanni), and concluded that illegal hunting in Malta alone could have serious repercussions on the overall conservation status of many migratory species. ...
A REVIEW OF MIGRATORY BIRD FLYWAYS AND PRIORITIES FOR MANAGEMENT
Book
Full-text available
  • May 2012
Galbraith, C.A., Jones, T., Kirby, J., and Mundkur, T. 2014. A Review of Migratory Bird Flyways and Priorities for Management. CMS Technical Series No. 27 UNEP / CMS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 164 pp. http://www.cms.int/sites/default/files/publication/CMS_Flyways_Reviews_Web.pdf INTRODUCTION The phenomenon of bird migration has been a source of wonder for man since time immemorial. However, the biological integrity of this intricate seasonal journey, which covers a network of several biomes across different frontiers and continents, is being compromised due to a plethora of threats and challenges, and consequently the vulnerability of migratory birds is increasing worldwide. A Review of Migratory Bird Flyways and Priorities for Management is an exhaustive work which addresses the issue of migratory bird conservation with a comprehensive approach touching on core thematic areas. The Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), together with its daughter agreements, provides the international legal framework to promote the conservation of migratory birds. The text of the CMS defines ‘migratory species’ as: “the entire population or any geographically separate part of the population of any species or lower taxon of wild animals, a significant proportion of whose members cyclically and predictably cross one or more national jurisdictional boundaries”. A flyway is a geographical region within which a single migratory species, a group of migratory species – or a distinct population of a given migratory species – completes all components of its annual cycle (breeding, moulting, staging, non-breeding etc.). For some species and groups of species these flyways are distinct ‘pathways’ linking a network of key sites whereas for other species/groups, flyways are more dispersed. In 2008, the Ninth Conference of the Parties to CMS (COP 9) adopted Resolution 9.2 , which called for the establishment of an open-ended working group on global bird flyways within the framework of the Scientific Council to act as a think tank on flyways and frameworks, and tasked with reviewing scientific and technical issues for conservation of migratory birds and their habitats and relevant international instruments, initiatives and processes, as the basis for future CMS policy on flyways and contributing to the work on the future shape of CMS. The open-ended Flyways Working Group (FWG) was established inter-sessionally in late 2009 under the purview of the Scientific Council. In addition to members of the Scientific Council, a call was made to key partners, conventions and initiatives to ensure broad coverage both in terms of expertise on bird flyway issues and geographical representation to the Working Group to enhance its work. The FWG is coordinated by representatives of the Scientific Council, with Dr. Taej Mundkur serving as Chair and Mr. John O’Sullivan as Vice Chair. At the end of 2011 Mr. John O’Sullivan retired and vacated the Vice Chairmanship. During the triennium 2008-2011, the Flyways Working Group had 3 main objectives: a. To review existing administrative/management instruments for migratory bird flyways globally (Review 1, presented here as Part 1); a. b. To review scientific/technical knowledge of migratory bird flyways and conservation priorities, and identify major gaps (Review 2, now Part 2); and b. c. To propose policy options for flyway conservation and management to feed into the Intersessional Process regarding the Future Shape of CMS (Review 3, now Part 3). The preparation of Review 1 was coordinated by Wetlands International, Review 2 was coordinated by BirdLife International and Review 3 was commissioned to Professor Colin A. Galbraith by the CMS Secretariat. The three documents have been endorsed by the Scientific Council and the Tenth Conference of the Parties. The FWG has successfully managed to tap into flyway management expertise beyond the Scientific Council, particularly in North America, where the CMS currently has no Parties, and to gather the views of other independent experts and government agencies. It has been recognised that the FWG offers a new strategic mechanism for the CMS to maintain a global overview of flyway related conservation priorities and major initiatives. Such a group can, due to its open-ended nature, continue to provide the CMS with a wider range of advice in the roll-out of the Convention’s priority flyway activities into the future. The Flyways Working Group met once in Edinburgh in February 2011 with the main aim of preparing a draft Resolution to be presented at COP 10 in Bergen, Norway, held in November 2011. As a consequence, Resolution 10.10 on guidance on global flyway conservation and options for policy arrangements was adopted as a basis to promote cooperation between flyways instruments, initiatives and partnerships within and outside the United Nations. The Resolution established a clear road map for the future and extended the mandate of the Flyways Working Group until 2014. In this issue of the CMS Technical Series, the three reviews are published together as three Parts of a single monograph with the aim of serving as a key reference to all those dedicated to the study and conservation of migratory birds. Retention of the original content of the three reviews enables these sections to be read as standalone chapters, and although there is some overlap and repetition among them it was decided to respect their individual integrity. It is hoped that this publication will be an important tool for conservation of migratory birds and their habitats, and it will help to demonstrate the need for international cooperation and continuous and increased collaboration amongst all stakeholders at the global level.
View
... While some quantitative data are available for some Mediterranean countries: e.g. Raine (2007) for Malta, BirdLife Cyprus (2015a) for Cyprus, Mikuška et al. (2014) for parts of Croatia, Murgui (2014) for parts of Spain, such data are lacking from others, and so the region-wide picture is still obscure. ...
Preliminary assessment of the scope and scale of illegal killing and taking of birds in the Mediterranean
Article
Full-text available
Illegal killing/taking of birds is a growing concern across the Mediterranean. However, there are few quantitative data on the species and countries involved. We assessed numbers of individual birds of each species killed/taken illegally in each Mediterranean country per year, using a diverse range of data sources and incorporating expert knowledge. We estimated that 11–36 million individuals per year may be killed/taken illegally in the region, many of them on migration. In each of Cyprus, Egypt, Italy, Lebanon and Syria, more than two million birds may be killed/taken on average each year. For species such as Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla , Common Quail Coturnix coturnix, Eurasian Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs , House Sparrow Passer domesticus and Song Thrush Turdus philomelos , more than one million individuals of each species are estimated to be killed/ taken illegally on average every year. Several species of global conservation concern are also reported to be killed/taken illegally in substantial numbers: Eurasian Curlew Numenius arquata , Ferruginous Duck Aythya nyroca and Rock Partridge Alectoris graeca . Birds in the Mediterranean are illegally killed/taken primarily for food, sport and for use as cage-birds or decoys. At the 20 worst locations with the highest reported numbers, 7.9 million individuals may be illegally killed/ taken per year, representing 34% of the mean estimated annual regional total number of birds illegally killed/taken for all species combined. Our study highlighted the paucity of data on illegal killing/taking of birds. Monitoring schemes which use systematic sampling protocols are needed to generate increasingly robust data on trends in illegal killing/taking over time and help stakeholders prioritise conservation actions to address this international conservation problem. Large numbers of birds are also hunted legally in the region, but specific totals are generally unavailable. Such data, in combination with improved estimates for illegal killing/taking, are needed for robustly assessing the sustainability of exploitation of birds.
View
... Theodossopolous 2003;Van der Heijden 2005;Burnham 2000). This paper argues that factionalism can help us explain recent developments in what has been dubbed by bird conservationists as the 'the black spot of the Mediterranean' (Raine 2007), supplying Conservation with the ethnographically-informed tools it requires. ...
Bye, bye, cacopardo! revisiting factionalism through the hunting scene in Malta
Article
  • Jan 2014
In June 2014, Malta's hunters petitioned Parliament to protect 'minority' rights against 'vindictive' 'abrogative referendums'. This was the latest episode in their long struggle against Malta's environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOS), which have taken increasingly strong stands against hunting as a morally distasteful practice. Based on a collaborative project between Conservation Biology and Anthropology, this paper documents the escalation of tensions following the establishment of the 'Coalition for the Abolition of Spring Hunting' (CASH) in July 2013, an alliance of local ENGOs pushing for a referendum to make spring hunting illegal. This paper additionally revisits a body of literature on 'factionalism', which despite being downplayed in narratives of Anthropology's development, is still useful in helping us understand the hostilities dominating Malta's hunting arena and can initiate fruitful collaboration and dialogue between Anthropology and Conservation Biology.
View
... However, owing to the specific circumstances affecting different bottlenecks, migrants are exposed to different kinds of anthropogenic threats, e.g. hunting along the Mediterranean Sea especially in Italy (Cassola 1979, Giordano 1991, on Malta (Raine 2007 ), in the Middle East (Porter 2005 ) or in Georgia (Van Maanen et al. 2001 ), or wind farms in Gibraltar (de Lucas et al. 2004 ) or Egypt (Hilgerloh 2009, Hilgerloh et al. 2011 ). Up to the present, no information about migratory behaviour at Besh Barmag has been available and thus it is uncertain how far migrating birds are affected by anthropogenic threats during the passage through the Besh Barmag bottleneck. ...
Migratory behaviour of bird species occurring in critical numbers at Besh Barmag bottleneck in Azerbaijan
Article
  • Sep 2015
A narrow coastal plain located between the Greater Caucasus and the Caspian Sea was recently discovered to be a major avian flyway through Transcaucasia. Here at the Besh Barmag bottleneck in Azerbaijan an estimated 1.24–1.51 million migrants passed through in autumn 2011 and a further 0.65–0.82 million in spring 2012, elevating this bottleneck to international importance. Furthermore, 34 bird species were observed in numbers in excess of the 1% threshold of world or flyway population in at least one of the observation seasons. Due to the high concentration of these species, any dangers affecting this passage can be threatening at a population scale. This study therefore aims to describe the migratory behaviour of these 34 species and subsequently to identify the dangers involved in passage through the area. Collision with anthropogenic obstacles was regarded as the main threat in the coastal plain. Ten (40%) of the species studied and observed in autumn 2011 were flying at the lowest altitudes and are therefore under threat on migration through the bottleneck due to overhead power lines, buildings, traffic and hunting. Planned infrastructural developments with heights of up to 200 m (e.g. towers, wind farms) pose a future threat for an additional 13 (52%) of the study species observed in autumn, making a total of 23 species that would be threatened. Only two species, Pygmy Cormorant Microcarbo pygmaeus and Grey Heron Ardea cinerea , can be expected to maintain their currently safe passage in future as they migrate mainly above 200 m above ground level. In spring 2012, all 14 (100%) of the species that used the coastal plain as flyway, migrated below 50 m and are therefore imminently threatened by collision. Although birds migrating over the Caspian Sea were concentrated at the lower altitudes, there was no identifiable threat for migrants using this flyway, but hazards can be expected in the oil production areas further south.
View
... In Syria, it is estimated that there are 200,000 illegal hunters (from 500,000), but that must not be taken as a guide for the other countries of the region. In the Mediterranean island state of Malta, a location central to important migratory routes in the African-Eurasian Flyway system, Raine (2007) revealed that at least 75 migratory species, from 35 countries, had been killed there, a high proportion being protected birds of prey (including Red-footed Falcon Falco vespertinus and Lesser Kestrel F. naumanni), and concluded that illegal hunting in Malta alone could have serious repercussions on the overall conservation status of many migratory species. ...
View
International Single Species Action Plan for the conservation of the European Turtle-dove _Streptopelia turtur_ (2018 to 2028)
Technical Report
Full-text available
  • May 2018
The European turtle-dove (Streptopelia turtur) breeds across most of Europe, except the extreme north; and within the European Union (EU), only Ireland and Sweden do not have breeding populations. The breeding range extends east into China, and south into northern Africa. Birds migrate to sub-Saharan Africa to overwinter, using at least three routes: through Iberia, via Italy and Malta, and across the Eastern Mediterranean. The latest breeding population estimate is 2.4 to 4.2 million birds within the EU, around 75% of the 2.9 to 5.6 million pairs in Europe. The global population is estimated as 13 to 48 million pairs, all but an unknown number in north-eastern China being within the scope of the African-Eurasian Migratory Landbirds Action Plan (AEMLAP). At the global level, the species was uplisted in 2015 from Least Concern to Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List. It is considered Near Threatened in the EU28 and Vulnerable in BirdLife International’s Europe region (BirdLife International 2015). Populations are decreasing in many Member States. Breeding numbers show an overall decline (from the 1970s), especially in western Europe. The turtle-dove is listed on Annex II/part B of the Birds Directive as a species for which hunting is permitted in the following ten Member States: Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Romania and Spain. It is an important quarry species in these countries, with estimates of approximately two million birds harvested annually. The nominate subspecies, Streptopelia t. turtur is also listed on Appendix II of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) as requiring international concerted action. The three main threats to the species identified from expert opinion (two action planning workshops and wide consultation) are: • habitat loss in both its breeding and wintering areas, linked to land use and land cover changes; • illegal killing and trapping, critically during spring migration and in the breeding season; • unsustainable hunting levels. Other threats include: • disease (eg Trichomonas gallinae); • competition with other species; • accidental and deliberate poisoning; • weather events and climate change. There remains a substantial knowledge gap on the threats that the species faces on the wintering grounds, south of the Sahara. This gap must be urgently filled in order to understand the factors negatively affecting the turtle-dove. The goal of this Action Plan is: To restore the European turtle-dove to a favourable population status so that it can be safely removed from the Globally Threatened categories of the IUCN Red List. The high level objective is: To halt the population decline of the European turtle-dove throughout most of its range, preparing the way for an increase in population sizes within each flyway during the period of the next Action Plan (2028-2038). The seven objectives detailed in the Framework for Action are: Direct conservation actions (most critical first): 1. good quality habitats, with available and accessible water and food, are maintained and increased on the breeding grounds; 2. illegal killing in the European Union is eradicated and reduced elsewhere; 3. hunting across the range of the European turtle-dove is carried out at sustainable levels; 4. good quality habitats, with available and accessible water and food, are maintained and increased at key sites for stopover and wintering. Supporting actions: 5. international co-operation is enhanced, through enabling sharing of information and expertise; 6. stakeholder awareness is raised; 7. knowledge gaps are filled, critically in areas that help increase the understanding of factors acting on the wintering grounds.
View
Autumn raptor migration over Buskett, Malta
Article
Full-text available
  • Jul 2004
The wooded area of Buskett, on the western side of Malta, is situated on an important flyway for many raptors in the autumn, yet there are few published data on the numbers migrating over the area each year. Here, we present the results of autumn counts during 1998-2002 inclusive.These show that considerable numbers of raptors migrate through the site, and many use it for roosting purposes.
View
Migratory movements of western European Montagu's Harrier circus pygargus: A review
Article
Full-text available
We review the migratory movements of European Montagu's Harriers, based on 152 ringing recoveries (from data published up to 1993) and published data on counts at migratory convergence points. Data were analysed according to age groups and time of the year (pre- and post-breeding migration). Results showed two main migratory routes across the Mediterranean for the western European Morttagu's Harriers (Gibraltar and the Sicily Channel). Passage frequency was higher in the post-breeding than the pre-breeding migration in the Gibraltar Strait, but the opposite occurred in the Sicily Channel. We discuss the possibility that Montagu's Harriers present a partially circular migration, maybe as a result of movements within the wintering areas. Recovery frequency varied according to age group, being lower for first-year birds than expected from random, which suggests that some first-year birds do not return to the breeding areas during their first summer.
View
The osprey (Pandion haliaetus) and modern forestry: A review of population trends and their causes in Europe
Article
Full-text available
Nearly all European Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) populations have had a similar fate during the 20th century. In the first two decades, if not earlier, dramatic decreases and even extirpations of many local populations occurred due to heavy persecution. There was then a recovery period until the second decrease from the 1950s to the mid-1970s, caused by DDT and other contaminants. Since then, populations have been recovering. The annual rates of population increase have varied from about 1% in Fennoscandia to about 10% in Scotland during the last 20 years. At present, 90% of all European Ospreys breed in Finland, Sweden and Russia. The nesting habitats vary widely from steep cliffs in the Mediterranean to closed climax coniferous forests, open peat bogs and large clear-cut areas in northern Europe. In some areas (e.g., Finland), cutting of old, flat-topped potential new nests by intensive commercial forestry has been the most important national threat for the local Osprey population during the last three decades. As early as the late 1960s dedicated bird banders started to construct artificial nests for Ospreys to compensate for the losses caused by one-track forestry. In 1995, 46% of all occupied Finnish Osprey nests (N = 951) were artificial. Also, clear-cuts around nesting trees are harmful because nests become more exposed to storms, predation by Eagle Owls (Bubo bubo) and disturbances. In Finland and some other countries, new guidelines for foresters also account for the welfare of the Osprey. However, the principles and practices are still quite far from each other.
View
View
Autumn migration of Marsh Harriers across the central Mediterranean in 2002
Article
Full-text available
Autumn migration of Marsh Harriers (Circus aeruginosus) across the Central Mediterranean in 2002 Observations on the autumn migration of the Marsh Harrier were made at two sites of the central Mediterranean: the Circeo promontory (central Italy) and the island of Malta. The aim was to investigate the passage of birds belonging to different sex and age classes. At the Circeo promontory a total of 787 individuals was counted, 37.5% of which were juveniles. Over the island of Malta the passage of 1535 Marsh Harriers was recorded with an evident peak comprising 906 birds on 13 September. At both sites males outnumbered females, mostly within the first half of September. Because, at least among adults, an imbalance towards females has been reported in the population wintering in central Europe, our results suggest that adult males could have a stronger tendency to migrate over a long distance, crossing the central Mediterranean area in large numbers. Whereas females, being larger than males, are able to tolerate colder temperatures and fast longer. Finally, our counts confirm the increase of the European population of the Marsh Harrier, which has occurred for the last three decades.
View
Autumn migration strategies of honey buzzards, black kites, marsh and Montagu’s harriers over land and over water in the Central Mediterranean
Article
Full-text available
  • Jan 2005
Water surfaces are natural barriers for Accipitri-formes during migration (Kerlinger 1985, 1989). In fact, migrating raptors tend to use soaring and glid-ing flight over land exploiting thermals to minimize energy costs and avoiding long powered flights over water (Kerlinger 1989). Among species breeding in Europe and wintering in Africa, those with broad wings (eagles, buzzards, vultures) concentrate the crossing of the Mediterranean Sea at the Straits of Gibraltar and at the Bosphorus (Cramp and Sim-mons 1980, Finlayson 1992), while rarely undertak-ing the longer crossing of the Central Mediterranean region (Agostini 2001, 2002, 2005, Agostini and Malara 1997, Beaman and Galea 1974, Corso 2001, Panuccio et al. 2004, Sammut and Bonavia 2004). Conversely, species with relatively long wings, that reduce the energy costs of powered flight by minimizing the induced drag (Kerlinger 1985) (such as ospreys Pandion haliaetus, harriers, kites and honey buzzards Pernis apivorus) show a broad migration front over water. During spring migration
View
Raptors and Red Grouse: Conservation Conflicts and Management Solutions
Article
Full-text available
Recovering predator populations may present problems for conservationists if their prey are of economic or conservation value. We address this issue by examining the conflict between raptor conservation and management of Red Grouse (Lagopus l. scoticus) in Britain. Heather moorland is a distinctive habitat that supports an important assemblage of breeding birds. Large areas of moorland are managed by private landowners for shooting grouse. Although grouse shooting benefits conservation by retaining heather moorland, it is currently unclear whether grouse management directly benefits other upland birds. Human persecution has greatly restricted the range and abundance of most raptor species in Britain. Following the introduction of bird protection laws, the decline in gamekeeping, and the restriction of organochlorine pesticides, raptor populations have started to recover. Persecution of raptors on grouse moors is widespread and limits the range and abundance of Hen Harriers (Circus cyaneus), Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus) and Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos). In some circumstances, raptor predation can reduce both the breeding density and productivity of Red Grouse. Limitation of grouse populations through raptor predation is most likely to occur where raptors are at high density because of the abundance of alternative prey, and grouse are at low density either because of poor management or the cyclic nature of some grouse populations. In the long term, habitat management may reduce densities of alternative prey, leading to reductions in raptor densities and their predation on grouse. More active intervention may be required, however, if grouse moors are to remain viable in the short-term. Current research is focused on manipulating harrier diet through diversionary feeding. Complementary research is needed to investigate methods to reduce raptor numbers locally while ensuring their national status.
View
PROBLEMS OF MEDITERRANEAN‐SAHARAN MIGRATION
Article
  • Oct 1961
It is estimated that birds travelling to winter south of the Sahara must on average enter Africa at the rate of 250,000 per mile of longitude, which over a two‐month period gives an average daily entry of about 4,000 birds per mile. Only a small fraction of these come within the range of observation. There are reasons to suppose that the main directions may be southwest in autumn and northeast in spring, involving somewhat diagonal crossings of the desert, rather than directly north and south. The geography, ecology and winds of the Mediterranean and Sahara are described. The average width of the Sahara from north to south is at least 900 miles, but owing to the aridity on the southern edge in spring (mitigated in autumn) many birds probably start their flight up to 1,200 miles south of the Mediterranean. There are indications that migrants do not concentrate on oases. Wind data are given for altitudes up to 3,000 m. (10,000 ft.), which on the whole are much more favourable to birds in autumn than in spring, but with less difference in the sectors Algeria‐Tripoli than elsewhere and with the proviso that in spring at 2,000 m. upwards the winds are favourable to diagonal flight, northeastwards. Hypothetical flight‐performances are estimated and discussed; and it is concluded that ability to fly some 50–60 hours without refuelling is essential for most migrants in spring. The physiological implications are considered. If as much pre‐migration fat is put on in autumn as seems to be needed in spring, then many birds should be able to fly non‐stop from Europe to the tropics, some 1,300‐1,500 miles. Ringing in Tunisia and subsequent recoveries there have provided evidence of accurate navigation directed to a point half‐way through the birds' journeys. The evidence for general abundance of birds in spring and autumn is assembled sector by sector. In the northern deserts of Algeria, in Tunisia and on the coasts of Tripoli and Cyrenaica far more migrants are seen in spring than in autumn, while further east and also in Morocco, the disparity seems to be less. It is concluded that, at least in the central sectors named, a much larger proportion of birds makes a more or less continuous flight, without coming under observation, in autumn than in spring. The information regarding the incidence of 57 species of trans‐Saharan migrants is summarized and discussed for each. A number of species have almost entirely escaped detection, especially in autumn and especially in the eastern half of the area. Most species of migrant are shown to travel over various sectors of the Sahara, irrespective of opportunities to refuel, at both seasons and it seems that many birds fly non‐stop from Europe to the tropics in autumn. Indications that some species or populations travel further east at one season than at another are discussed. “Migration divides” which have been detected in parts of Europe are as a rule not reflected by differences in abundance on the south side of the Mediterranean.
View
View
View