Blame it on the EU and BirdLife but never on yourself

The Maltese authorities repeatedly refer to the final EU negotiating document dated September 22, 2002 where the EU noted (nota bene: not agreed) Malta's insistence that they will allow the hunting and trapping of turtle dove and quail in spring. The Maltese government insisted that its intention to allow spring hunting and trapping of these species be included in the negotiation document though EU officials told them that it made no difference as derogations under article nine of the Birds Directive cannot be negotiated in advance.

A derogation can be applied by any member state complying with the provisions of article nine. The member state needs to report to the Commission about this and, in cases where the European Commission disagrees with the fulfilment of the conditions, it can start legal infringement procedures against the country. This is what happened in the case of Malta.

It should be noted that the only agreement made during the accession negotiations (regarding the issue of hunting and trapping) was a five-year transition period to phase out trapping of seven finch species by the end of 2008.

The above are facts and are confirmed in a number of statements by Commissioner Stavros Dimas. The reason Malta is now facing a court case is not because the Commission "changed its mind", as absurdly claimed by some politicians in Malta, but rather is due to the lack of scientific evidence to back the government's claim that there are not enough turtle dove and quail to be hunted in autumn. In fact, the hunters' bag counts (carnet de chasse) and bird monitoring data covering the last decades themselves give proof to the contrary. This is why the Commission opened an infringement procedure against Malta in the first place.

The Commission gave enough time to Malta to back its argument with proper scientific data or to respect EU law and outlaw spring hunting and trapping. The government had absolutely no justification to continue to infringe the Birds Directive but it had no courage to stop this illegal practice.

As a result, Malta has now been taken to the European Court of Justice. Furthermore, the Commission requested the Court to apply an interim measure to stop spring hunting and trapping in 2008 until a verdict is reached. This is a very rare move from the Commission as it is an embarrassment for any member state to be forced by the Court to stop its infringement before the court reaches a verdict. This shows that the Commission has strong evidence against the member state's infringement as well as underlining the necessity felt to stop the member state from continuing to violate EU law.

Actually, the question is not whether there are enough birds to hunt in autumn but rather the actual number of bird hunters and trappers in this small island nation. Bird studies and hunters' carnet de chasse clearly show there are plenty of these species migrating through Malta during the autumn hunting season. But this is apparently not enough for the hunters as many of them compete literally shoulder to shoulder to shoot down the birds as they fly over them. As a result, Malta does not have a single pair of breeding turtle dove and quail. So the hunters target the migrating species both in spring and autumn. This is clear evidence to show that spring hunting is not a sustainable practice as it not only exhausts the breeding birds in the Maltese islands but also has an impact on others that breed in other European countries.

The logic is simple and I am sure that it will be accepted by many hunters. If you kill the birds before they reproduce, then you will have fewer birds in autumn. When this unsustainable practice continues for decades, then the number of birds that are hunted will inevitably decline.

Another reason why Malta cannot apply a derogation from the Birds Directive to allow hunting and trapping of these two species is that both turtle dove and common quail have declining or depleted populations and unfavourable conservation status, meaning that their numbers are in decline in Europe. A guidance document on hunting under Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds - The Birds Directive - states the following:

"Derogations should not be granted for species or populations with an unfavourable conservation status, which are declining within the European Union (or in a member state considering exercising such derogations), whose area of distribution (breeding or wintering) is contracting, or with very low population levels, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that use of such derogations are beneficial to the conservation status of the species/population concerned."

Certain politicians and hunters' representatives may try to stick to their guns and to the usual bullying tactics with complete disregard to what conservation science and European law say. Blaming conservationists, the EU institutions and every one who disagrees with them seems to be the only thing they can do. On the other hand, one would hope to believe they have a conscience to respect our natural environment and a strong character to accept failure.

Mr Temuge is BirdLife Malta's executive director.