Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/855205
14 ON Wednesday, the Advocate- General of the European Court of Justice issued an 'opinion' re- garding Malta's annual deroga- tion to permit the trapping of wild finches, in apparent breach of the European Wild Birds Directive. As opinions go, this one seems pretty clear-cut to me. In a nut- shell, AG Eleanor Sharpston re- jected all the government's argu- ments to justify the derogation; she argued that Malta had clearly failed to fulfil its obligations under the Accession Treaty, and recom- mended that the European Court issue a ruling which reflects this view. Yet it remains, at this stage, just an opinion. What will eventually count more is the European Court verdict itself: and few await that ruling with greater anticipation than BirdLife Malta's CEO, Mark Sultana... whose NGO, inciden- tally, has been making much the same arguments about finch-trap- ping for years. Surely, Sultana must feel just a little vindicated by Sharpston's re- port. But how confident is he that the ECJ will indeed bring about the end of finch-trapping in Malta? What is the chance of a surprise verdict that somehow overturns this preliminary indication? "The European Advocate Gen- eral's opinion is very significant to us... even if, as you say, it is ulti- mately advice to the judge to pass a sentence based on that opinion. There is around 99% chance that the verdict will be exactly what is written here. The sentence itself might be different, however: de- pending on the judge's interpre- tation. It could be that Malta is found guilty, but may be given a year to phase out trapping, for in- stance. There could even be fines... though we, as BLM, would not like to see that happen. We are, after all, trying to protect birds here... not to harm the country." All the same, 'harming the coun- try' is a criticism frequently levelled at BLM... naturally, by the hunting lobby. Yet what Sharpston's re- port also throws into focus is pre- cisely the question of who is really to blame for any 'harm' that may arise. It stresses, for instance, that Malta had repeatedly been warned by the Commission to desist from applying this derogation... yet the present government went ahead anyway. Now that the ECJ seems poised to rule against Malta... who would really have to shoulder re- sponsibility for the consequences? The people who tried to stop this from happening... or the ones who doggedly pursued this illegal poli- cy from the outset? "Let's go back a bit in history: before 2003, Malta was planning to join the EU. At that stage, there was an Accession Treaty being drawn up. Part of that involved understanding how EU legislation would affect Malta, and how Malta would cater for it. On the trapping issue, it was very clear-cut from the EU's perspective. There were no two ways around it: trapping is not allowed in Europe, for all the reasons laid down in this ECJ opinion. "So what happened? We agreed to phase it out. Malta and the EU shook hands over an agreement that, once we were members, we would start phasing out trapping all the way until 2008. And we did. In 2009, there was no trapping in Malta. Now: one can argue wheth- er the government at the time, which was a Nationalist govern- ment, put enough resources into the captive breeding programme that was supposed to replace trap- ping. Maybe that wasn't taken se- riously by the trappers, or by the government at the time. "But when there was a change in government, and Labour came in, there was the famous statement by [parliamentary secretary] Roderick Galdes that they had found a 'loop- hole'... or 'crack', or whatever... and therefore could apply a derogation on finch-trapping. His statement was based on false advice... wrong advice... wishful thinking... call it what you like, but it was basically wrong. We were basing our own position on what we knew; on the experiences of other countries; and on European law. The ECJ opinion has solidified all those arguments. "What does this mean for us? First of all, it means that it is very likely that the ECJ will find Malta in breach of the Birds Directive, and while we hope there won't be any fines, we do expect that trap- ping will have to stop in Malta. That, ultimately, is the most im- portant issue. The second thing is that this opinion shows that BLM means well. We were giving the right advice to the government for the benefit of the country. Of course we have our mission: we want to safeguard nature, etc. But what we do is ultimately for the common good. We don't do it for our members... for those who voted 'yes' in the referendum. We work for the benefit of the whole country. Be it safeguarding nature, or be it saving us from the shame of being found guilty at the ECJ... we were actually giving the right arguments." BLM were not the only ones urging the government to change tack... most independent media took editorial positions along the same lines, and – much more sig- nificantly – Malta's Attorney Gen- eral also advised the government against pursuing the derogation. We all know there are political un- dertones to this issue... but did the government really expect to defy so much advice, and somehow get away with it? Or did it know all along that the quest was futile, but felt compelled to honour its pre- electoral pledges anyway? "There could be several reasons. It could be because the govern- ment was looking at the issue only from the perspective of its political agenda. We've always said this: the government needs to start taking decisions based on scientific facts and legal advice, and not on the ba- sis of its own agenda. This is a clear case. The government was given both scientific and legal advice not to open the trapping season. The local AG had warned them that they didn't have a solid case. But there was a decision to go ahead... and it was a political decision. We keep repeating this ad nauseam, but it needs to be repeated: politi- cal decisions and wishful thinking do not add up to any form of justi- fication for a derogation." At the same time, however, the ECJ's opinion is limited to the trapping of seven species of finch. Malta also applies another trap- ping derogation, for song thrush and golden plover. Strangely, however, the Commission only seems interested in putting a stop to one of those two trapping dero- gations... even though, as Sultana mentioned earlier, trapping of any wild birds is illegal all over the EU. Why are we allowed to trap some species but not others? "The reason why they separat- ed those two derogations is that there are certain technicalities that are different: for example, the quotas, the types of net you can use, etc. Secondly, because these species are listed under two differ- ent annexes: thrush and plover are 'huntable' species; finches aren't. So there was a more solid argument for the EU to say Malta should not be trapping finches. But the fact re- mains that trapping for song thrush and plover is still against the law. In fact, we 'derogate'... which is an- other way of saying, 'we break the law, but feel we have justification to do so'. If you can justify the dero- gation, fine. But if you can't, then you will be taken all the way to the ECJ..." Yet this has only happened in the case of finch trapping. Does this mean that the derogation to trap song thrush and plover is justified? "It depends. If you're asking for the opinion of BLM, we would say 'no'. If you're asking what the Wild Birds Directive says, we would say 'no' as well. However, the Commis- sion also believes it is a breach, be- cause it started infringement pro- cedures on those trapping seasons too. But it chose to concentrate on the battle it felt it was likelier to win. The procedures over song thrush and plover have been shelved in the meantime. What I think is going to happen, at prosecution level, is that they will look at this document [the European AG's opinion], and apply any arguments that also relate to those other two species. And there are several: the use of clap nets; the fact that there are big reservations about the way trapping is regulated and controlled; and also the is- sue of 'tradition'. The AG's view is very clear: 'tradition' is no excuse to break the Birds Directive. The same arguments listed out in this opinion can be used against Malta when it comes to the derogation for plover and thrush." There does, however, seem to be a slight discordance between the way the European Union ap- proaches wildlife protection laws, and the way these laws are inter- preted locally. From the outset, the Commission argued that Malta's trapping season poses a danger to the conversation status of the birds themselves. (Sharpston even sug- gests that the scale on which trap- ping takes place here was "capable of causing the local disappearance of a species"). The government of Malta, on the other hand, has con- sistently approached European law on the basis of how it could be cir- cumvented for the benefit of trap- pers... without any apparent con- sideration for the welfare of wild birds. Would Sultana agree with this (admittedly generic) assess- ment of mine? And if so... what are the environmental implications? Interview By Raphael Vassallo maltatoday, SUNDAY, 30 JULY 2017 We keep repeating this ad nauseam, but it needs to be repeated: political decisions and wishful thinking do not add up to any form of justification for a derogation Wildlife laws exist to protect When you understand that the law is there to protect birds, you also realise that any changes to the law must respect the same spirit. You cannot change the law to accommodate a particular lobby group APPEASEMENT WISHFUL THINKING