I refer to the letter (October 1) by Geoffrey Saliba of BirdLife Malta and wish to clarify some points connected with the European Court of Justice decision on spring hunting.
BirdLife's campaign coordinator knows very well that the hunting lobby's justification of the derogation applied by the Maltese government between 2004 and 2007 was based mainly on the government's moral duty to abide by its promises and guarantees, given in writing to each and every registered hunter prior to Malta's EU vote.
Far from changing direction after the ECJ ruling, the hunting lobby's claim for a spring-hunting season is consistent with past actions. At any rate Kaċċaturi San Ubertu (KSU) has always advocated sustainable hunting, and the ECJ ruling vindicates our position.
At a press conference on October 11, 2003, BirdLife stated that "the society expects the government at least... to allow hunting in spring of turtle dove and quail only... etc".
On October 1, 2009 BirdLife wants spring hunting to end permanently! It is BLM that has significantly shifted from its position. BLM refused to participate in a government-commissioned study on turtle-dove and quail conducted by an independent foreign institute. Such a study was in fact carried out. While not as precise for scientific purposes as one would wish it to be, the study is nevertheless the closest to reality that one can get.
It is a far cry from the unsubstantiated and irresponsible statements by BirdLife Malta to the foreign press about the "killing or capturing of three million birds every year" (La Repubblica, January 18, 2008).
On September 10, BirdLife International and BirdLife Malta in a joint statement overtly welcomed the ECJ ruling. However, in an attempt to obfuscate the issue, they went beyond the ECJ decision and arbitrarily "concluded (that) spring hunting has to end permanently".
There is nothing of the sort written or implied in any of the 69 articles of the ECJ ruling. As a matter of fact, contradicting their conclusion, BirdLife admits that "any member state can apply derogations as long as they meet the conditions set by the Birds Directive".
Inasmuch as the ECJ did not rule out the possibility of a future derogation allowing spring hunting under specific conditions, the ECJ left the door open for the Maltese government to apply such a derogation.
Indeed, the government-appointed lawyer defending Malta in the court case has declared so publicly. Moreover, the government is duty-bound to set up a framework for putting such a derogation into practice so as to conform with the conditions of the Birds Directive, which the ECJ made reference to in its judgment.
Now that the ground for a potential derogation is legally sound, it should be the Ornis Committee's job to advise the Maltese government on how best to apply a spring hunting derogation that satisfies the conditions laid down in Article 9 of the Birds Directive.
However, far from appreciating and respecting the ECJ judgment, BLM is desperately trying to prevent that happening. In spite of being part of the Ornis Committee, BirdLife Malta looks set to hinder Ornis from performing that duty.
Following the ECJ ruling, the point we made on the validity of the carnets-de-chasse (bag data) has become even more pertinent. Knowing that such data may need to be presented eventually to the EU Commission in derogation reports, we will continue to insist on their being compiled in a controlled manner.
At the same time we will also continue to insist that the government takes all necessary measures to curb hunting illegalities, and to adopt a zero tolerance attitude towards diehard abusers.