CONSERVATIONIST group Terra Cypria released a study on Wednesday which put forward another compelling argument against illegal bird-trapping. The practice, which was widely-publicised abroad by angry environmentalists, according to the study, deprived Cyprus of about €1 billion in tourist-related revenue every year.
The study arrived at this figure by estimating the number of people who refused to come to Cyprus for a holiday because of the bird-trapping and how much they would have spent on average while here. The amount seems inflated but even if it were a fifth or tenth it would still be higher than the money generated by the illegal trade in ampellopoulia which Birdlife Cyprus estimates to be worth a staggering €50 million per year.
As the law and moral arguments have failed to put an end to the annual slaughter of over a million birds of an endangered species every year, the conservationists have decided to introduce the money argument, which is more likely to convince people. Presumably, the idea is that the tourist industry, which is losing hundreds of millions because of the very bad international publicity (the renowned American novelist Jonathan Franzen wrote a scathing article about Cyprus bird-trapping in the New Yorker magazine) would apply pressure on the authorities to get tougher with trappers.
One this seems certain. The bird-trappers and the restaurants which serve the ampelopoulia will not sacrifice their financial interests for the sake of the national interest. They are making too much money from their crime. And it would not be a surprise if the ridiculous group that defends the right of the bird-trappers to break the law, argued that maintaining our cultural heritage and traditions – the justification for breaking the law – was more important than tourism and money.
The study needs to be handed over to the hoteliers and the CTO as well as to deputies who are not afraid to take a stance against the bird-trapping community. If it persuades them to amend the existing law and introduce harsher sentences on the trappers, it would have served a useful purpose. There is little doubt that the only way to stop this unacceptable practice is by imposing very tough sentences on those found guilty of breaking the law.
The punishments provided by the existing law are not severe enough, which is why the law-breaking continues. There has to be a very powerful deterrent in place if the slaughter of migratory birds is to stop.
