Malta was accepted to join the European Union after the electorate participated in a referendum held to establish whether the island should become a member state. This was done after long negotiations on different chapters, one of which was on the environment (spring hunting was included in this particular chapter).
Alternattiva Demokratika was all in favour of Malta joining the EU and, at times, there was even talk of a merger between AD and the Nationalist Party. This never materialised though due to divergence of opinion on certain issues, including hunting. AD should have asked for a referendum on spring hunting at that point but it wanted to make sure that Malta would join the EU.
We, hunters, were given written assurances that nothing would change with regard to hunting and, for a good number of years, we could do so without any problems. Then the EU took Finland to the European Court of Justice over hunting issues and the outcome encouraged the European Commission to pursue their same claim this time on tiny Malta.
Malta was found guilty of wrongly applying the spring hunting derogation for four years but the ECJ ruled in favour of Malta applying the same derogation with considerable restrictions to stop abuse and under a strict annual bag limit involving only two bird species (turtle dove and quail). The reason given was that the autumn hunting season is not an adequate alternative to the spring season.
A day before the ECJ ruling, Birdlife International and FACE signed a document committing themselves to respect and honour the ECJ ruling. Perhaps Birdlife International were convinced the ruling would close all options on spring hunting.
The outcome meant considerable hardship for the hunters because the species that could be hunted were reduced to two, the season was curtailed to 20 days instead of the usual six weeks, the daily hunting hours were restricted, the bag limit became ridiculous and SMS messages had to be sent to give a daily account of the catches.
Two of the political parties, the Labour Party and the Nationalist Party, have included spring hunting in their political manifesto and it was no surprise that the leaders expressed their opinion on how they would vote in the referendum. The surprise was that the MPs of both sides were given a free hand once they had approved their party’s electoral programme.
If the No lobby had been successful, Malta would have lost all that it had worked so hard to obtain
I would have expected Simon Busuttil, for example, to tell the electorate what the ECJ ruling meant to Malta in financial terms. I would have expected him to tell us how much did it cost to send Saviour Balzan to negotiate for Malta to exercise its right to have spring hunting.
Ironically, if the No lobby had been successful, Malta would have lost all that it had worked so hard to obtain and AD’s electoral manifesto would have won even if the green party does not have one single seat in Parliament.
How is that for democracy?
I cannot comment only on the two political parties without mentioning the Archbishop and the Jesuits, who proclaimed themselves in favour of theNo campaign.
They had every right to express their personal opinion as individuals. However, they could have been more diplomatic given the office they occupy. Their organisations do not have any electorate manifestos and their main role is to unite and not divide their flock. They knew quite well that the issue goes beyond Church teachings and so they have to assume full responsibility for their actions.
The No campaign have themselves to blame because their approach was very negative and involved issues such as illegal hunting and claims about enjoyment of the countryside that had nothing to do with the issue of spring hunting.
I am totally against illegal hunting and give my all to see this malpractice stopped. Birdlife should join in the efforts to curb any illegalities. Yet, they keep insisting on stopping hunting altogether.
Two individuals were apprehended and taken to court and punished in no small way. Both cases are now closed and could serve as a deterrent.
However, for heaven’s sake, I should not be blamed for the wrongdoings of others.
I plead to Birdlife to publish images of protected birds flying unhindered in the early hours of the spring hunting season to prove to the public that not all is doom and gloom and that there are still honest hunters who abide by the rules.
I cannot conclude without referring to the continuous support of the independent media for the SHout campaign to be successful. I remember quite vividly when the hunters’ federation president, Joe Perici Calascione, was criticised for metaphorically using the word ‘war’ but no eyebrows were raised when Balzan spoke of the battle being lost but not the war.
Henry Fenech Azzopardi is a former member of the Ornis Committee.