Spring hunting again

Last week, the public was told that the European Commission (EC) would permit Malta to open a 'limited' spring hunting season. This is not the case - if a spring hunting season is opened, it is the government that would have decided to permit it.

The Commission does not decide whether member states should apply derogations. That is up to the member state. The country can choose to seek the Commission's guidance, which it will provide as it has done for Malta in the past; but the onus of responsibility to prove that the law has not been broken lies with the government. Under the Birds Directive, spring hunting is not permitted. That is why, when Malta opened spring hunting seasons in the past, it ended up before the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

In 2006, when the Commission opened the infringement procedure against Malta for allowing spring hunting and the trapping of turtle dove and quail, the government claimed it had reached an agreement with the EU during accession negotiations. Birdlife revealed there was no such deal in the Accession Treaty. Environment Commissioner Stavros Divas disputed Malta's claim, urging the country to comply with the Birds Directive. The government ignored the Commission's warnings, insisting the spring hunting derogation was lawful. Birdlife warned the authorities that the law was not being observed and the country would end up at the ECJ. This is exactly what happened.

Last September, the ECJ concluded that Malta's derogation did not meet the conditions of the Birds Directive and that Malta's derogation was unlawful. The court was deciding on the government's past actions and did not state anything about the possibility of a so-called 'limited' spring hunting.

Malta had argued that hunting in spring was necessary because autumn was not a 'satisfactory alternative solution' - one of the many conditions that a member state needs to meet for a spring hunting derogation. In the judgment, the court relied on data provided by the Maltese authorities. This data was derived from the carnet de chasse (data recorded by Maltese hunters on the number of birds they shot).

According to the data the hunters provided, the government argued that the hunters could not shoot enough turtle dove and quail in autumn, so they needed to shoot in spring. The data presented by the government to the court, however, claimed almost half the hunters could not kill a single turtle dove or quail during all the weeks they spent in the countryside in autumn.

Spokesmen for the hunting lobby have admitted that the figures are a gross underestimation, while a study by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority concluded that actual figures were five times higher than those recorded in the carnet de chasse.

The government knows the data presented to the court was flawed. But the ECJ relies on the data presented by member states, so it assumed that this was a true representation of reality. Then the court moved on to the rest of the conditions that had to be met for a derogation.

Malta failed on the second condition - proportionality test. So the court ruled against Malta. In attempting to open another spring hunting season, the Prime Minister is not addressing the other conditions that Malta failed to meet.

In a speech last Sunday, Lawrence Gonzi tried to pass the buck to the Commission again. His claim that Malta is seeking an agreement with the Commission to allow spring hunting is false - the Commission can only consider derogations once they are applied.

Because of the last ECJ ruling, Malta is in a more difficult situation - when a member state is found guilty, under Article 260 of the Lisbon Treaty the Commission monitors the actions of the member state and if it considers that the country has not complied with the court judgment, it may bring the case before the court again. A second court case could result in hefty penalties.

If Dr Gonzi is considering another derogation, he must explain how he thinks Malta can meet all the conditions set by EU law, including 'strictly supervised', 'small numbers' and 'proportionality' tests. This needs to be done immediately, to give the public time to understand what he is proposing and allow them to decide if taxpayers would accept such a risk for the benefit of an interest group that already has five months to practise their 'hobby' in autumn.

Mr Temuge is executive director of Birdlife Malta.