Environment Minister George Pullicino has been on the receiving end of hunters' and environmentalists' wrath, as Malta's notorious reputation as a bird-killing nation takes centre stage at EU level. "We have two extremes... and we have to strike a balance".
Wednesday, March 7. Thousands of angry hunters are on the warpath and march through Republic Street, in Valletta, chanting "Pullicino pulcinell." (Mr Pullicino is a clown). One irate message posted on the hunters' federation website suggests that the minister should be beaten up and that hunters should take the law in their hands.
On the other side of the fence, environmentalists, BirdLife Malta, Alternattiva Demokratika and thousands of foreigners are taking aim at the minister, accusing him of pandering to an aggressive hunting lobby.
The government, it seems, tried to please all sides and ended up pleasing nobody. Is it because Mr Pullicino cannot get anything right or is the minister merely a victim of having one of the hottest portfolios?
"You have two extremes for this argument, but, no, I don't accept that we're going backwards on this issue," Mr Pullicino tells The Times in an interview.
He is determined to put his message across. Official documents and newspaper cuttings are sprawled on his desk, and he frequently resorts to quoting freely from them during a marathon interview. He certainly needs them.
The European Commission is tomorrow expected to decide whether to extend infringement procedures against Malta for opening spring hunting in each of the past four years.
The government claims that as a result of its membership negotiations it has every right to opt out of the Birds Directive, which bans spring hunting, and has pledged to fight its cause in the European Court of Justice. Birdlife, on the other hand, says the government is fighting a lost battle.
The government is basing its case on a common position paper drawn up between the Commission and Malta in September 2002 which says: "The EU takes note of Malta's statement that it will limit the taking in spring to only two species, as an application of the derogation under article 9 of the directive".
Both the EU and Birdlife say this in no way gives the government the right to put the derogation into practice. Yet, Mr Pullicino defends the government's position:
"In diplomatic jargon 'taking note' does not necessarily mean the EU is just taking note. Ask (then chief negotiator and now Malta Permanent Representative in Brussels) Richard Cachia Caruana and Saviour Balzan, who was the government's consultant on hunting and trapping. It's no coincidence... The Maltese side insisted on putting that note in the common position."
The minister claims that certain Commission officials admitted they were unaware of the common position and are even expressing surprise.
Even Birdlife president Joe Mangion was quoted prior to the EU referendum saying that Malta would be the only country to permit hunting and trapping in spring, Mr Pullicino remarks.
He says the government had merely agreed with the Commission last year to draw up a scientific report to analyse the migration of birds and establish whether there is a justification for spring hunting. The last Ornis committee meeting agreed on the methodology to be used.
The minister explains: "Malta only has a migratory period. In its EU negotiations, the government argued that spring hunting on turtle dove and quail was important since there aren't many birds flying over in autumn. Before the referendum we made it clear we would use this right to apply for a derogation".
An EU mission group visited Malta in April 2005 and made it clear that trapping is not permitted in spring and the government accepted this line of argument.
The EU's arguments against spring hunting have not been convincing though, Mr Pullicino insists.
Asked whether he believes the government can win the argument when the Commission is voicing its objections so vociferously, Mr Pullicino says there are strong arguments to justify the position.
However, he says he made it clear that if the European Commission takes Malta to court and obtains a ruling in its favour, his recommendation to Cabinet would be to abide by the decision. No fines are imposed until then, Mr Pullicino says, as he recalls that the Commission has so far failed to impose fines on Italy when the country lost a case in 2002.
He denies the government is merely playing for time.
"I'm just trying to tell you there is a process we have to go through. If we were playing for time we would have done the same thing we did with trapping in spring. What do we do? Just bow down to whatever Brussels says without arguing our point?"
Who is going to foot the legal costs for a case, which many deem frivolous?
"Are we even going to be accused of having to pay for the lawyers' fees now, apart from the fines?" Mr Pullicino hits back.
The minister was not in a position to say whether the EU might accelerate its legal proceedings against Malta, though he reiterated that the government had no qualms about throwing in the towel if it felt it had no case.
Though Mr Pullicino says the government has reduced the spring hunting season by 18 days compared with last year, the Commission made it clear this would solve nothing.
"With all due respect to its employees, the European Commission isn't always right. We are sharing our sovereignty with the EU but I never wanted to join the EU to get a diktat," he says.
He takes exception to claims that the government stood helpless in the face of illegal hunting. Suffice to say, there were 454 cases of enforcement between 2000 and 2006.
The government recently raised fines for illegal hunting to such an extent that they were described as anti-social by FKNK public relations officer Joe Perici Calascione.
While The Times' editorials often recommended an increase in fines for illegal hunting, he said, it turned a blind eye to this fact.
He said it was worth noting that the European Parliament last week also acknowledged the increase in fines as a step in the right direction and that the government also put a stop to hunting at sea.
Ultimately, the hunting dilemma boils down to a centuries-old culture, Mr Pullicino says.
Throughout the interview, the minister keeps referring to a statement made by former Birdlife president Antoine Vella in April 2001.
During a meeting with the then European Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom, Mr Vella had said the EU needed to take into consideration everybody's feelings, including those of the hunters.
"We are talking about people and not about rules here, and people take time to change," Mr Vella had said.
Mr Pullicino says the regulations being laid out by the government might not be as radical as those requested by certain Birdlife individuals. Ultimately, extremists on both sides of the fence will never be happy, whatever you give them.
Mr Pullicino claims that spring hunting is not exclusive to Malta. The British Royal Society for the Protection of Birds lamented about spring hunting on wood pigeons in the Basque region of Spain. In France, the RSPB mentioned the illegal hunting of turtle doves in May. The EU eventually sent a letter of warning.
"I'm not trying to protect our sins by exposing the sins of others. But let's stop thinking that we're the only ones committing sins," Mr Pullicino says.
"What upsets me is that the EP motion (approved last week) focuses directly on a small country like Malta, ignoring the hunting problems in the rest of Europe. It's unacceptable for an MEP like Marie Anne Isler Beguin to be quoted in October 2005 saying that the Maltese situation might serve as an example for the rest of the member states that are also in breach of the Birds Directive.
"The infringements taking place in Malta are visible. If you shoot a protected eagle in a forest in France who is going to catch you out?"
While reiterating his personal opposition to hunting, the minister acknowledges that the hunting and trapping culture in some villages is deeply ingrained.
"Let's at least acknowledge that this government is taking action while the Labour Party is sitting pretty on the fence."
He recalls that the Nationalists paid the price in the 1996 election for curbing the hunting seasons. In the meantime, Labour leader Alfred Sant claimed he was prepared to re-discuss the 1997 hunting agreement, which had appeased the hunters while at the same time saying he would have no choice but to stick to the EU agreement.
"The Labour Party acts like a vulture when it's devising policy. It is trying to be popular with everybody.
"I am part of a government which is trying to strike a balance - and when you're doing that you're always going to be attacked. You practise responsible politics by listening to all sides and then deciding."
He launches an appeal to the growing number of environmentalists, who have taken the cue from the hunters' lobby and are blackmailing the party with their vote, to see the whole picture.
"Just look at our entire programme, weigh us against the other party - and then decide. No party has our environmental track record. I am doing my duty as a minister. Sometimes the constituents in my districts don't see it that way and it doesn't mean I don't see their point. But the same way I sit at Cabinet and put forward the aspirations of the 9th and 10th district voters, so do other ministers."
With an election fast approaching, Mr Pullicino realises he is not sitting in an enviable seat and that the government's stand on hunting could ultimately harm his political future.
"Yes, ultimately there might be a political price which I might pay, but I believe I'm transmitting the views of my constituents as well as reflecting the views of the government. Ultimately, I think people are intelligent enough to see the full picture."