Paul Radmilli, in his ‘Search for Derogation’ (March 16), intends shooting down misconceptions yet creates even more.

The actual name of the Birds Directive is the Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds, as he rightly stated. Abbreviated, it is known in all knowledgeable quarters as the Birds Directive.“The Birds Directive recognises hunting as a legitimate activity and provides a comprehensive system for the management of hunting in all member states to ensure that this practice is sustainable”.

What Radmilli fails to acknowledge when emphasising “conservation being the keyword repeated several times” is that the directive is there to ensure a “balance between the protection of species and certain leisure activities”. In short, between bird conservation and hunting.

Radmilli also says he “was forced to look deeper into the European Court ruling to somewhere find an explanation as to how article 9 is invoked in Malta”. I will spare him the trouble and refer to article 9 (c), which Malta has correctly applied since the Court ruling.

The person confirming the correct application of this section of the directive is none other than Karl Falkenberg, the European Commission’s director general for the environment.

His reference to Malta not being in compliance with the conditions laid down in article 9(1) for the years 2004 to 2007 is also correct. However, the reason for that is perfectly explained by the government-appointed EU negotiator of the time who openly stated that he “was tasked with finding a solution to this headache” and went on to say: “My game was to give the hunters enough rope to hang themselves” (Malta Today blog).

With regard to the Court case, the onus of any squandered taxpayer’s money lies on the intentions of a negotiator. Ironically, the same negotiator is now the main spokesman for the lobby pushing for an end to legal spring hunting.