MaltaToday previous editions

11 This week the Ornis Committee will decide on whether to allow a spring hunting season in 2014. One naturally has to wait until the verdict is made public, but all present indications are that the decision has in fact long been taken, and the committee will merely rubberstamp government's official position as encompassed in the Labour Party manifesto at the last election. Government has unwisely com- mitted itself to opening a spring hunting season as an electoral pledge, and its reasons have clearly nothing to do with either hunt- ing or conservation. The same could be said for the preceding Nationalist administration, too, and all governments ever since the question of spring hunting first became an electoral issue in 1996. Following the unexpected result of that election, the message was not lost on both sides. The hunt- ing lobby came to be perceived as one of a number of small but effective factors in electoral suc- cess or failure; and in a pitched political contest where every vote literally counts, one can rest as- sured that issues such as wildlife conservation and the protection of individual species of birds are in- variably very far from our elected representatives' minds. But this year, matters have been compounded by the emergence of a petition, signed by over 40,000, for a referendum to abolish spring hunting. And after the debacle of the 2011 divorce referendum, Maltese governments may be understandably reluctant to risk consulting the electorate on highly sensitive issues. Elsewhere, the decision is already compromised by an overt political interest, and – more seriously – by shortcomings in the scientific advice given to the committee and to the government at all stages. So far, reports submitted to the Ornis Committee – and on which its decision will be based – have been characterised by factual errors and the mislead- ing compilation of scientific data. These reports have indicated that the conservation status of both permissible species – quail (Coturnix coturnix) and turtle dove (Streptopelia turtur) as 'of least concern'; but they cited the United Nations' global index, and the status therefore ref lects that of the whole world. It by no means follows that the birds shot in Malta fall into the same category; and in fact a cursory view at local reports suggest that they do not. As these birds are on their way to breed in Europe, it is the European ratings that decide whether these species are in any danger or not. And both species are listed as 'vulnerable' and 'in decline' in the European Conservation Status Index. This fact alone should nullify any arguments in favour of spring hunting, as such decisions – and indeed all European legislation on the subject of wildlife conserva- tion – should be taken with the ultimate goal of protecting and preserving the stocks of native wild species. Other serious shortcomings concern the compilation of data on which the Ornis Committee's decision will be founded. A dero- gation from European law requires an accurate form of methodology to calculate numbers of resident or migratory species. Malta has based its estimates on a system in which hunters send a text mes- sage each time they shoot a bird in spring, and a carnet de chasse in autumn. It has time and again been demonstrated that these of- ficial figures, upon which so much has depended in this issue, are not ref lective of the actual situation on the ground. Unfortunately, however, we must also concede that the political price of standing up to the hunters has always been high. When gov- ernment closed the season early after the Commission took Malta to the European Court of Justice in 2007, it had to face a volatile public demonstration in which a journalist was injured. The subsequent Court ruling found Malta guilty of having opened previous spring hunt- ing seasons; but on the issue of future ones – which was outside its remit anyway – it proved vague and inconclusive: enough for both government and the hunting lobby to confidently assert that the Eu- ropean Court ruling had 'permit- ted' spring hunting, when in fact it did no such thing at all. Nor is this the only misinter- pretation to muddy the waters on this issue. Successfully applying a derogation under Article 9 of the European Birds Wild Direc- tive requires, among other things, the existence of an independent authority to review the informa- tion, and decide on the basis of these assessments. In Malta that task falls to the Ornis Committee, and it cannot realistically claim to be independent by any stretch of the imagination. The hunters' federation and Birdlife Malta both have equal representation on the committee; but government has five appointed board members, against one from Birdlife, and for reasons outlined above it is also an interested party in its own right, having repre- sented the hunters' case in the European Court of Justice (and in any case being openly in favour of spring hunting). Under such cir- cumstances, birdlife conservation- ists are outnumbered four to one. Against such a backdrop it is simply impossible to argue that a decision to open the season this year – as will almost certainly be the case – was taken on the basis of sound scientific advice, or even less in the best interests of wildlife conservation. Clearly we are dealing with a situation when scientific advice is once again overlooked in favour of political advantage. Editorial maltatoday, WEDNESDAY, 5 MARCH 2014 No scientific basis for spring hunting MaltaToday, MediaToday Co. Ltd, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 MANAGING DIRECTOR: ROGER DE GIORGIO MANAGING EDITOR: SAVIOUR BALZAN Tel: (356) 21 382741-3, 21 382745-6 • Fax: (356) 21 385075 Website: www.maltatoday.com.mt E-mail: newsroom@mediatoday.com.mt

• Cover