MaltaToday previous editions

MT 30 July 2017

Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/855205

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 14 of 71

maltatoday, SUNDAY, 30 JULY 2017 15 Interview As the European Court issues a damning indictment of Malta's finch-trapping policy, BirdLife Malta director MARK SULTANA urges the government to start protecting the environment, instead of simply trying to accommodate lobby groups "At one point, the AG's opinion specifically explains – and this was something we had also said often during the referendum campaign – that the Birds Directive is there, not to regulate hunting or trap- ping... or to govern human activ- ity... but to protect birds. That is the spirit of the law. Maltese leg- islation, which is in line with the Directive, is also there for the same reason. Why do I specify this? Be- cause 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. You cannot change it to try and find a loophole to circumvent the system. "The reason we have those laws is to protect and preserve a world heritage, not to give 'rights' to people to hunt or trap. The gist of legislation on nature in gen- eral should be, as it is in Europe, focused on safeguarding nature. This is why we get frustrated when environmental laws are amended by means of legal notices: as hap- pened in the case of taxidermy laws. Now, everyone can be a taxi- dermist without a licence or any regulation. Locally, you can do that sort of thing. But not at European level. This is also why the people wanted to join the EU. Sovereignty only goes so far: if the government does something which is in breach of European law, it can be brought to book by the Commission..." Experience doesn't always bear that out, however. Malta was also taken to the ECJ over spring hunt- ing; and in 2015, the ECJ delivered a ruling which has been given dif- ferent and conflicting interpreta- tions ever since. In its immedi- ate effect, it forced Malta to keep the spring hunting season closed. But it also seemed to suggest that spring hunting could be legally carried out in Malta... so much so, that Malta eventually re-opened the season, and has not faced any further infringement procedures. Isn't there a danger of something similar happening with regard to finch trapping? "Yes, there is a risk that – even if the AG's opinion is very clear – the ECJ may deliver a ruling which 'opens a window', so to speak. My personal opinion, and that of peo- ple I spoke to who studied this document, is that it is highly un- likely that the ECJ will be in any way lenient with their verdict in this case. Hopefully they will be le- nient with the sentence, though..." When is the verdict expected? "Knowing that the trapping sea- son usually starts around mid- October, I'm assuming that by end September it will be out. It makes no sense to allow the season to open, then inform the country that it has to be closed..." But isn't that exactly what hap- pened in the case of spring hunt- ing? "Not exactly: there was a differ- ence. Because the status of turtle dove was 'vulnerable', the ECJ took what is known as an 'interim meas- ure': the moment they took us to court, they also ordered Malta to close the season. It was something they enforced, and the Maltese government had no choice but to abide by that decision. In the same way, if this verdict is clear-cut the government will have no choice... unless it wants to defy the ruling and incur unnecessary fines and sanctions." Even before factoring in any fines, Maltese governments under both administrations have already incurred considerable expenses fighting these legal battles in Lux- embourg. Does BLM have any idea of how much these cases have so far cost the taxpayer? "No. I have no idea. I think the public should know, however. We have a situation where the local AG warned the government not to go ahead; but for some reason, the Wild Birds Regulation Unit al- ways argued that there was a case. We ended up hiring a foreign legal team to present the case in Europe – I don't know how much that cost, but I can't imagine it would have been cheap – and now we are almost certainly going to lose the case. "I think the people have a right to know how much all this has cost... and eventually we will know at least part of the answer. On the same lines as your question, the AG's opinion also specifies that Malta will have to fork out the Commission's expenses, too. I think it's only fair for the public to know how its tax-money is being spent, and why. But having said all this: from our perspective at BLM, the issue is not about expenses. No amount of money, gained or lost, can ever compensate for the loss of nature. Nature is priceless..." protect wildlife, not people

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of MaltaToday previous editions - MT 30 July 2017