Blame it on the EU and BirdLife

BirdLife Malta's executive director Tolga Temuge (March 3) attempts to put the blame on the Maltese government and hunters for the present spring hunting debacle. But all he actually does is confirm the devious methods used by the EU and BirdLife.

"In the final EU negotiating document dated September 22, 2002, the EU noted Malta's insistence that they (the Maltese authorities) will allow the hunting and trapping of turtle dove and quail in spring". In diplomatic language "noted" means also "acquiesced to without objection". Besides, the EU officials should have understood the word "insistence", namely "a request for something in a tone that does not brook refusal." The Maltese government "insisted" on allowing spring hunting and trapping. They still insisted "though EU officials told them that it made no difference" as they could apply a derogation. If it really made no difference, why now all of a sudden this "difference" that was so confidently denied at the time?

The truth is that BirdLife Malta, helped by the Greens, is mainly responsible for the cock-up. Mr Temuge mentions the "fulfillment of the conditions". Why were "conditions" not mentioned at the time? Noting Malta's "insistence", why did the EU not spell out these conditions? Why did the EU not flatly rule out spring hunting at the time? They knew that the conditions of "no satisfactory solution (to spring hunting)" and of "hunting to be carried out under strict supervision" would create problems. We have written proof that they knew. Again, BirdLife's arguments about hunter numbers etc. have not changed since the pre-accession vote. So why did the EU bury its head until now?

Mr Temuge's article overlooks other facts. Why did the EU allow spring hunting in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 before trying to stop 2008? Why did Stavros Dimas ignore the spirit of the September 2002 agreement? Why were petitions against spring hunting sent to the EU by foreign bird societies with BirdLife Malta's help? Why was Commissioner Dimas subjected to constant harassment by Green MEPs in the European Parliament?

Referring to the data obtained from "hunters' bag counts", the BirdLife director claims "this is why the Commission opened an infringement procedure against Malta in the first place".

How could the "hunters' bag counts" constitute scientific evidence? The Maltese carnets de chasse are worthless, since their validity as scientific evidence depends on their being monitored on a daily basis during the open season by environment wardens. This was never done.

Hunters fill them in only because handing them in is a pre-condition for licence renewal. They have no scientific value, and the European Court of Justice will note that.

The EU has given in to the Greens and BirdLife in its frenetic rush to get the ECJ to apply "interim measures" coinciding with the local general election. If this is not political blackmail, what is? In spring 2007 the Ministry started a bird monitoring exercise that will take at least two years to complete. Seemingly afraid of the truly scientific evidence this exercise will produce, the EU Commission would not wait and took Malta to court. It is the EU that should be embarrassed, not the Maltese government.

Finally, "complete disregard to what conservation science and European law say" is wrong. But as both science and law are often known to err, we affirm the greater wrong to be a complete disregard of the spirit of serious agreements and the deceitful usurpation of minority rights.