BirdLife's decision to boycott Ornis meeting 'regrettable' - government

BirdLife’s refusal to attend the Ornis Committee meeting yesterday was regrettable, the government said this evening.

It said that this decision ran counter to a joint-statement BirdLife International had issued with the Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation on the eve of the European Court of Justice judgement in 2009 where that “we will respect the ruling of the court and we call upon all parties and individuals to do the same.”

The government insisted that there was no contradiction with regards to Malta’s pre-accession agreement with the European Union to “limit the taking in spring to only two species and the Prime Minister’s statement in Parliament on Monday, which acknowledged that the fact that Malta has managed to reach an agreement with the Commission on a methodology for the application of a derogation, was in itself exceptional.

“It is clear in the exchanges of positions between Malta and the EU in the course of its accession negotiations prior to 2004 that the EU had recognised that, due to the importance attached to certain specific situations pertaining to Malta, provision could be made for the possibility of derogation from certain conditions of the directive.”

The government had tried to apply a derogation but, as a result of the more rigorous ruling of the ECJ with respect to Finland in December 2005, it was deemed to have failed to use the correct methodology for its implementation.

So it engaged with the European Commission to identify and agree on a methodology for the implementation of a derogation allowing spring hunting based on science and in line with the ECJ.

The government also committed itself to underpin the method for implementation with a robust monitoring and enforcement system.

It said htat BirdLife had to recognise that, whereas the Court, in its ruling on September 10 2009, made it clear that while the way the derogation was applied in Malta was not in line with EU law, it accepted Malta’s arguments that, having regard to Malta’s specific circumstances, the autumn hunting season could not be considered as a satisfactory solution.

It was, therefore, clear that the Court left space for a proportionate use of the derogation for spring hunting in Malta, the parameters of which were the focus of the agreement reached between the government and the Commission.