Autumn trapping has prompted the European Commission to slap Malta with a second and final warning, insisting the island’s use of derogations to carry on permitting this pastime is not justified.
“On the recommendation of Environment Commissioner Janez Potocnik, the Commission is sending a reasoned opinion to ask Malta to correctly implement the relevant bird protection legislation,” the Commission warned.
If Malta fails to reply within two months, the Commission may refer the case to the European Court of Justice.
The Commission had already warned the island over the issue last June. Until then, Malta was using a derogation under the EU’s Birds Directive to let trappers catch four species – the turtle dove, quail, golden plover and song thrush.
Following last summer’s warning, Malta revised its position and, following consultations with the Ornis Committee, scaled down its derogation and only allowed the song thrush to be trapped.
Still, according to the Commission, from documentation sent to Brussels it appears even the latter derogation is not justified and Malta is breaching EU rules.
“Malta failed to submit sufficient evidence to prove its trapping derogations respected all the necessary conditions of the directive and, in particular, the rules relating to ensuring only small numbers of birds are captured, the selective targeting of the species concerned by the derogation, and the strict supervision of trapping conditions,” it said.
Although Malta is still claiming the conditions were met, the Commission yesterday said it “still considers Malta has failed to produce satisfactory supporting evidence and has applied the derogations, including the latest autumn 2011 derogation, incorrectly”.
According to EU rules, including Malta’s Act of Accession, trapping was supposed to have been completely banned by the end of 2008 following an almost five-year transition period in which the island was granted “special conditions” to allow trapping of certain wild birds after its EU accession, although on a limited scale.
To appease the hunting lobby, which continued to insist on a full-scale trapping season, the government decided in 2008 to apply a derogation allowing the trapping of four species.
Trapping using nets, as practised in Malta, is outlawed in the EU and is only permitted through limited and temporary derogations – mainly for scientific purposes.
Following its accession, Malta had already landed in court over spring hunting. Although, contrary to the wishes of the hunting community, the ECJ had decided Malta could not continue to have a full-blown spring hunting season and had to scale it down, it recognised that autumn was not an adequate alternative for Malta’s spring hunting and allowed “limited” hunting to take place in spring.
Welcoming yesterday’s decision, which effectively means Malta will have to outlaw trapping if it cannot justify its derogations scientifically, BirdLife Malta said that, in the absence of increased enforcement, its land and aerial surveys during last autumn’s season revealed widespread illegal trapping.
“A total 53 per cent of active trapping sites surveyed were illegally targeting finches, and a further 24 per cent were illegally targeting waders, mostly golden plover. Less than two per cent of active sites were found to be targeting song thrush.”
BirdLife reiterated that a trapping derogation could not be justified in Malta. Reacting, the government said it would be insisting with the Commission that its derogation respected the provisions of the Birds Directive.
“The government has already explained to the Commission that in 2004-2010 the application of autumn trapping derogations was based on studies, assessments, recommendations, supervision, enforcement and penalties as provided for in Malta’s 2006 Regulations which transpose the Birds Directive and these were fully in line with EU law,” a government statement said.
It said the strict parameters used in 2011 served as clear proof of its commitment to ensure any trapping derogation was applied in line with strict parameters that preserve the conservation objectives of the Birds Directive.