The facts about spring hunting derogation

Kenneth Cassar of Animal Rights (The Sunday Times, June 10) does his best to confuse readers about the spring hunting derogation. He still cannot tell the difference between "applying for a derogation" and "applying a derogation".

In the first case, permission is required, and it may or may not be granted; in the second, permission is not required and one simply exercises one's right to derogate.

As Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas himself would admit, the latter is actually what happened. The Maltese government applied a derogation allowing hunting in spring. The government exercised its right to do so in accordance with the provisions of Article 9, sections (1), (2) and (3) of the Birds Directive.

Moreover, para. 3.1.1 of the EU document ORN 04/02 states that "member states do not need to consult the Commission before applying derogations but are obliged to report all derogations to the European Commission in annual derogation reports".

Even so, in the pre-accession negotiations the Maltese government is known to have very clearly and specifically emphasised the necessity and the grounds it had to derogate for spring hunting of two game bird species.

The EU noted and acquiesced to this expressed intention of the Maltese government. Proof of this is that, although spring hunting in all its forms (shooting on land and sea, as well as trapping) was allowed in 2004, 2005 and 2006, the EU took no action against the Maltese government. It was only in May 2006 that the EU started to take notice, in the aftermath of the infamous petition orchestrated by the Belgian bird-fundamentalists and their Maltese cronies, with the connivance of the Green Party.

According to the minutes of an EU parliamentary debate on September 5, 2006, Stavros Dimas is reported to have said "...we have concluded that there is no reason for a derogation from the ban on spring hunting and we have started infringement procedures against Malta. What more can we do? We want to show everybody that we are very serious about applying and enforcing the Birds Directive, which includes that provision.

"Otherwise, if we give different signals, many other countries would think that we have watered down the provisions of the Birds Directive and might also ask for a derogation. So we have started the infringement procedures and we shall see whether the Maltese authorities will comply and ban hunting during the spring period."

In short, Mr Dimas's concern centres on making an example of Malta's case to prevent "many other countries" from copying us. He is more concerned with "applying and enforcing the Birds Directive" than in seeing that justice is done to Malta, which is unlike any other country. Mr Dimas has said that "there are sufficient alternatives (to spring) in autumn".

The Maltese government contends the opposite, namely, that autumn alternatives are not sufficient; and it has commissioned an independent scientific study to prove its point.

By contrast, apart from his attitude of Roma locuta est, causa finita est, Mr Dimas has little to stand on, save for fabricated reports by bird-fundamentalists whose aim is purely the banning of all hunting in Malta, not just spring hunting.

The details of these reports are kept secret, of course. But when at times some titbits are leaked, the lies and half-truths they contain are exposed and demolished by the facts contributed by ornithologists and bird-biologists of the calibre of Moreau, Wright, Roberts and Kalchreuter who made empirical observations of Malta's birds in situ over many years.

Mr Dimas seems to have chosen to ignore these studies in preference to the biased reports made up by the bird-fundamentalists. The P. Tryanowski report, for instance, was discredited by several MEPs for its prejudice, inaccuracies and wrong conclusions.

As we all know, the Maltese authorities allowed a spring hunting season again in 2007. The Maltese government also made public statements that it will defend its case at the European Court of Justice, if necessary. "If necessary" means if the EU Commissioner will still not accept the scientific report commissioned by the government. Obviously the Commissioner, beleaguered by the Green MEPs, will do just that: this is called "passing the buck".

It will then be up to the ECJ to decide, because that is where the buck stops! What happens then has been amply and ably explained in this paper by people like 'Roamer' and Dr Simon Busuttil. The Maltese government is also on record as having stated that it would abide by the ECJ's decision.

Therefore, Mr Cassar's remarks about "government taking EU law into its own hands" and "(government) breaching EU rules because it disagrees with them" are just hot air.

Mr Cassar should rein in his eagerness to rush in where abler people (Alternattiva Demokratika, in this case) fear to tread because he is the one who is spreading untruths, as we have amply demonstrated. Anyone interested in further nonsense should consult his Website, to which he is allowed to give free publicity in his letters.