Although the hunting lobby wants us to think otherwise, the ruling by the European Court of Justice did end the debate on spring hunting, as it clearly found Malta guilty for allowing spring hunting between 2004 and 2007.
Spring hunting is banned under the Birds Directive and the logic behind the law is self-explanatory: wild birds should not be killed when they are migrating to their breeding grounds so that they can be given the chance to reproduce.
For years, the hunting lobby claimed that the spring hunting seasons opened by the Maltese government under a derogation from the Birds Directive was justified. The government went to Brussels and built a case with taxpayers’ money to prove their point.
But a few months before the European Court of Justice’s verdict, the hunting lobby changed direction; they started claiming that spring hunting would still be possible in future regardless of the Court’s ruling. The change of tack by the hunting lobby was a defensive position adopted because the outcome was bound to spell the end of spring hunting.
However, as the hunting lobby said they would, they are now raising false hopes among the hunting community to cover the defeat they faced in Brussels. They are now taking a few sentences from a 14-page verdict on which to base the claim that the ECJ decision allows the government to allow spring hunting in future. The federation is completely ignoring the rest of the document and, most importantly, its conclusion.
According to the FKNK, and I quote, “ECJ does not consider autumn a satisfactory alternative to limited spring hunting in Malta”.
First of all, the ECJ did not say that it does not consider autumn a satisfactory alternative to “limited” spring hunting in Malta. The word “limited” is the FKNK’s invention.
The “satisfactory alternative” condition set by the Birds Directive to apply a derogation is only one of a number of conditions set. In its ruling, the Court explains in detail how this point alone does not justify the opening of the spring hunting seasons; it outlines the other requirements of the Birds Directive and, finally, rules against Malta.
It is important to point out here that the data regarding the birds shot in autumn and spring presented to the ECJ by the government to argue that autumn hunting was “no satisfactory solution” to spring hunting was a grave underestimation of the actual number of birds shot in Malta. The numbers were taken from the hunters, mainly from the carnet de chasse (data filed by the hunters based on the number of birds they shoot).
The fact that the carnet de chasse does not present the real figures of shot and trapped birds in Malta has been acknowledged by spokesmen of the hunting lobby in Malta on a number of occasions. They admitted that the figures for shot and trapped birds were “lower” than the real figures and that the Maltese “carnets de chasse are worthless” (Bird Lovers, Hunters Agree Figures Quoted Are On The Low Side, The Times, November 25, 2005).
Yet, despite the fact that the evidence of shot birds presented to the Court by the Maltese government relied heavily on this questionable data, these figures were still enough for the Court to rule against Malta’s decision to open the spring hunting seasons.
Therefore, one wonders how Malta will be prepared to meet the conditions of the Birds Directive in a so-called “very limited” hunting season next spring. According to the evidence presented in court by the government, in eight weeks of spring the hunters only shot less than three turtle doves each. Sounds like a lot of effort for such a small prize. But if this questionable evidence was enough for the Court to rule against spring hunting in Malta, then how on earth can Malta justify breaking the EU law by allowing another spring hunting in future? Underestimating the number of killed birds even more could be a possible course of action.
Furthermore, do the advocates of the spring hunting really think that the government can actually “strictly supervise” 12,000 hunters when the ALE, with less than 30 officers, cannot even cope with the ongoing illegal killing of protected species?
And there are many other conditions the government has to meet to allow any shooting in spring. No other EU member state has so far managed to meet these conditions and spring hunting is banned throughout the EU. The Court ruling was very clear and told Malta to respect the EU law.
The government’s next steps will reveal its intentions: whether it is serious about its EU obligations and nature conservation or interested in appeasing a lobby for its votes, irrespective of the damage inflicted on the environment, the dangers it presents to the public and the limitation on equal accessibility to public land that the practice enforces.
Mr Temuge is executive director of BirdLife Malta