Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/326223
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 8 JUNE 2014 13 Interview Here I interrupt to ask if I've heard correctly. If that's what the European Court ruled, surely there is no option but to accept the ruling? (On a separate note, the '41 species' refer to all spe- cies which are shot – illegally – during spring. Part of the objection to spring trapping also concerns inadequate lev- els of law enforcement, which this year once again prevented widespread ille- galities of the kind recorded by BLM and CABS, a German birdlife conser- vation NGO. The derogation actually only allows for the taking of two spe- cies – turtle dove and quail – but as Steve Micklewright later reminds me, these are classified as 'vulnerable' and 'in decline' all over Europe; and their conservation status wasn't given suf- ficient weight when deciding to allow hunting). Micklewright acknowledges that the ECJ ruling must be respected. "But I think we have to look at what the rul- ing says, what it does, and get it chal- lenged. This is what we've been seek- ing to do by campaigning with MEPs and the European Commission. We are trying to get that looked at again. It needs to be challenged because we feel it's incorrect." All along there is the possibility that the ruling has simply been misinter- preted. In actual fact the ECJ ruled against Malta for opening spring hunt- ing seasons between 2004 and 2007. Hunters (and also the government) have seized on a single sentence that suggests that autumn hunting is not a 'satisfactory solution' to spring… but as already pointed out, there are other conditions for a derogation to be suc- cessfully applied. There are also earlier court rulings that clearly stipulate that recreational hunting cannot be con- sidered 'judicious use'. Case C-182/02 of 2003, for instance, ruled that "the use of birds for recrea- tional hunting cannot, in any event, be considered judicious and, accordingly, acceptable for the purposes of the 11th recital in the preamble to the Direc- tive". Isn't it possible, then, that what we are looking at is a simple misapplica- tion of the ECJ ruling… in which case there would no need to challenge the ruling, but only the interpretation? "The ruling is being interpreted by the Maltese government, by the Com- mission, that a limited, controlled sea- son for turtle dove and quail would be acceptable. That's the interpretation that people are putting on it. Our job is to challenge the European Commis- sion on its interpretation of its ruling, and that is what we are actively doing. We are working with MEPs across 10 countries within the EU to get the Commission to look again. The spe- cies are in such decline, and the ruling is so out of line with the other rulings by the ECJ you quoted, that something is deeply flawed here. That, at the mo- ment, is the way we are seeking to in- stitutionally challenge spring hunting at the European level." On another level, the re-legalisation of trapping appears to be a regressive step which undoes the advantages of EU accession, at least on the envi- ronmental front. Naturally Malta is a divided country on this point, but it seems reasonable to ask the director of Birdlife Malta – whose bias is known to one and all – to comment from the perspective of the many who are no doubt disappointed by this back- ward slide in nature protection, and who would view such a decision as 'obscene'. At face value, government seems to have completely neglected the issue of wildlife protection when approaching both hunting and trap- ping, and European institutions seem to have done likewise. What does this tell us about the level of commitment to nature protection by both the gov- ernment of Malta and the European Union? "For me it demonstrates the deter- mination of the Malta government to fulfil its commitment that it made before the election to the FKNK to provide it with ever more privileges. This is yet another sign of that deal being fulfilled. It says to me that the Maltese government, including the Wild Birds regulation Unit, who are the people responsible for working out what can and cannot be done to wild birds on Malta, are trying to pro- vide concessions for hunters, above all other interests: conservation, the environment, and the wider interests of the people of Malta. Those don't seem to come into the equation, when hunters' and trappers' demands are being considered." That, he adds, is as far as Malta is concerned. "At EU level, it seems to indicate to me a level of weakness in the European Commission, which we are seeing in many other situations across Europe. The Commission ap- pears weak at the moment. All the commissioners are about to change; we've just had MEP elections, so the EU and all its institutions are going through a period of change. So per- haps this is the most difficult time to challenge things from an environmen- tal perspective. But very soon the new MEPs will be in place and doing their jobs, a new Commissioner for the En- vironment will be in place… that's the time which we feel we need to go back to the European Commission and EU generally, and say: spring hunting on Malta should not be allowed any more – the Birds Directive is very clear on that – and trapping (not just of finch- es, but the other derogations for turtle dove and golden plover) should not be allowed either. Finch trapping espe- cially was part of the accession treaty. It's all a no-brainer: you (the EU) need to act. Now is the time to act." Meanwhile, there seem to be other anomalies surrounding the work of the Ornis committee. Micklewright earlier mentioned the WBU: under scrutiny it turns out that its director, Sergei Golovkin, also doubles up as the secretary of Ornis Committee. But in comments to this newspaper, Ornis chairman Mark Anthony Falzon ad- mitted that the only legal advice Ornis sought was from the WBU… which in practice means the committee asked its own secretary for legal advice. Isn't this a little odd? "When the Wild Birds Regulation Unit was set up, we raised a number of concerns. One of them was that it wasn't at an arms' length from the government. It was within the min- istry; and I think what we're seeing is that the WBU is doing the job it was set up to do, which is to deliver on the government's agenda with regard to hunting and trapping. That's its main purpose and that's what it does. It is delivering government policy, without – I think – due diligence and operating in a very biased way… as opposed to providing Ornis and the government with objective overviews of the situa- tion that decisions can be made upon. We said that from the very start. After the WBU was established we were pre- pared to give them a fair go, but I think we are increasingly seeing that they're just there delivering very one-sided work that enables concessions to be given to hunters and trappers." Matters have meanwhile escalated on account of two separate initiatives: a petition to force an abrogative ref- erendum on spring hunting – BLM is part of the coalition of NGOs behind the campaign – and a counter-petition by the hunters' lobby to block the ref- erendum in order to protect 'minority rights and privileges'. How does BLM counter the claim that its own cam- paign for an abrogative referendum 'endangers' minority rights? "I think it is time we explode a few of the myths and spurious claims being made about this issue. This has noth- ing to do with minority rights. We are talking about a hobby, a pastime, and the simple truth is that all hobbies and pastimes are regulated. Take fireworks for instance" – the hunters' petition in fact directly targeted fireworks enthusiasts as being 'next in line' for similar treatment – "You can't have a fireworks display without regulations and controls. Everybody accepts this, starting with the fireworks enthusiasts themselves. If you allow free-for-all, you'll end up with a disaster. So fire- works are regulated, as it should be. It's the same for hunting." Micklewright also points out that it is absurd to suggest that the abrogative referendum might be used to ban fire- works or any other hobby… when it is not even being used to ban hunting. "We are not even talking about a total ban on hunting. Only a ban on hunt- ing during the breeding season, which is unacceptable from a conservation perspective. Our aim is not to get rid of hunting, but to put in a context of ad- equate controls and regulation. Hunt- ing in spring is unsustainable." Micklewright insists that the issue boils down to science and biology – the very areas that were not given due consideration by the entities making all the decisions. "The reality is that 90% of individu- als in most bird species do not survive their first year. Out of 10 eggs hatched, only one or two hatchlings will become mature breeding adults. By permitting shooting in spring, you are permitting the shooting of the minority that has survived the migration from Africa, and which represents the strongest and most genetically valuable speci- mens, just before they breed. You can't compare this to hunting in autumn: the impact of spring hunting on breed- ing bird populations is devastating." If hunters truly believed in conserva- tion, he adds, they would see this for themselves. "All we're saying is you shouldn't kill the goose that lays the golden egg." Birdlife director Steve Micklewright attempts to clarify a few misconceptions about hunting, trapping and EU derogations, as the government once again grants further concessions and privileges to the hunters SPRING HUNTING Our aim is not to get rid of hunting, but to put in a context of adequate controls and regulation. Hunting in spring is unsustainable The finch that lays the golden egg PHOTOGRAPHY BY RAY ATTARD