|
It’s the end of spring hunting as we know it, and Brussels is ready to do what no Maltese government ever had the guts to do
Simon Barnes is chirping. The London Times’s nature columnist expresses his glee that the ‘turrr-turrring’ of the turtle dove is to return, the deep, vibrating purring song from which the bird’s name is derived, and which heralds its arrival in spring. “It’s the sound of the great honey-still-for-tea sound of the English summer”, Barnes writes at news that Malta’s hunting onslaught is under threat from Brussels. Two years since Malta’s entry into the European Union, following endless petitions and parliamentary motions by MEPs, Brussels is about to do what no Maltese legislature was ever ready to damage its electoral chances for. Malta’s exclusive permission to hunt turtle dove and quail in spring, right during their susceptible migration from Africa into Europe for breeding, is to cease.
Today the Commission is saying the Maltese will have to turn to hunting of the two species in autumn rather than in the spring season, which starts in March during their return from Africa to their breeding grounds in Europe. Malta is the only EU member state where spring hunting is allowed, since it implements a derogation under article 9 of the Birds Directive allowing hunting on only two species and in line with certain rules. In order to allow this, however, Malta has to justify its position every year with the Commission.
Observers who watched the Nationalist government negotiate Malta’s entry into the EU seemed to know that the derogation would have been short-lived unless the government could convince Brussels that the derogation was justified. Now it looks like the hunters have shot themselves in the foot. Last month, the European Commission started legal procedures against the Maltese government over the spring hunting of two species of quails and turtle doves, which are not covered by the derogation.
The government has stated it will challenge the legal action, although observers believe it is a show of force that is destined to fail when the European Court of Justice delivers its verdict. The legal showdown promises to be expensive – in between the infringement fines and the legal expenses to challenge the Commission in the Court of Justice, it is taxpayers’ money that will have to be forked out for the traditional pastime of hunters and trappers.
Joanna Drake, the Commission’s head of delegation in Malta, explains that the Maltese claim of absence of opportunities to hunt quails and turtle doves in autumn had not been supported by data for hunting levels. Since the derogation can only be granted on condition that no other satisfactory solution exists, which remains a fundamental requirement, Malta was told it would not be able to exercise its right to derogate from the Birds Directive.
It is also because the Commission has been left unimpressed by the figures which Environment Minister George Pullicino presented in November 2005, justifying the derogation. The figures quoted by the Maltese government were admittedly conservative, a fact acknowledged by both BirdLife Malta and the hunters’ federation, the FKNK. According to the report, in 2004 some 2,128 quails and 10,111 turtle doves had been shot in autumn by over 16,000 registered hunters and trappers. And it is precisely this amount of birds that is important because the Maltese government earned its derogation by arguing that the hunters have no birds to shoot in that season. Unimpressed, the Commission deemed that several other thousands of birds had been shot during the season. In the words of a spokesperson, the Commission was unconvinced by the reported figures: “If only 10,000 birds are being shot, the Maltese must be really bad shooters.”
The 16,000-strong lobby formed by Malta’s federation of hunters and trappers is enraged at the prospect. For years, successive governments seemed to have been held hostage by the prospect of losing votes, ignoring major public opinion that hunting and its excesses should be curbed. In the run-up to the referendum on the EU, they represented one of the Nationalist government’s major worries. But the lobby’s unsuccessful foray into politics has been largely unsuccessful. When Lino Farrugia, the FKNK secretary-general, contested the European Parliament elections in 2004, his 3,000 plus vote showed the lobby lacked an ideological spine.
BirdLife Malta claims Maltese hunters kill 1.5 million birds a year, but the FKNK says the figures are lies. Recently, the lobby said the bird protection society would “feel the full weight of the wrath of FKNK and Maltese hunters and trappers,” an ominous prediction of the violent retaliation of hunters when faced with a threat to their sport.
Joe Mangion, president of BirdLife Malta, says there is sufficient European case-law to show Malta cannot win the Commission’s challenge. “Is it worth taking the risk for government?” Mangion suggests. “Today the European Court of Justice is stricter in its award of penalties. Recently, the penalty it handed down to France was a hefty one. It was sending a clear message. There have been instances in which governments took such warnings as a sign for change. Malta’s derogation from the ban on spring hunting was never negotiated – there is no mention of spring hunting in the Accession Treaty, except for the transitional arrangement for trapping.”
“BirdLife want confrontation,” Farrugia says, incensed that the conservationists are already claiming victory. “It’s no attitude to display when government has practically abolished hunting. We’re only at the first stages of infringements and it is useless bandying about threats that the Commission will be taking Malta to the Court of Justice if the situation is not rectified. It is needless incitement.”
Farrugia says the government will keep its promise to apply its right for a derogation from the Birds Directive, although the chances already look slim.
The written warning
Article 226 of the Treaty gives the Commission powers to take legal action against a Member State that is not respecting its obligations. If the Commission considers that there may be an infringement of EU law warranting the opening of an infringement procedure, it addresses a “Letter of Formal Notice” (first written warning) to the Member State concerned, requesting it to submit its observations by a specified date, usually two
months.
The “final warning”
In the light of the reply or absence of a reply from the Member State concerned, the Commission may decide to address a “Reasoned Opinion” (final written warning) to the Member State. This clearly and definitively sets out the reasons why it considers there to have been an infringement of EU law, and calls upon the Member State to comply within a specified period, usually two months.
Take it to the judge
If the Member State fails to comply with the Reasoned Opinion, the Commission may decide to bring the case before the Court of Justice. Where the Court of Justice finds that the Treaty has been infringed, the offending Member State is required to take the measures necessary to conform. Article 228 of the Treaty gives the Commission power to act against a Member State that does not comply with a previous judgement of the European Court of Justice. The article also allows the Commission to ask the Court to impose a financial penalty on the Member State concerned.
mvella@mediatoday.com.mt
|
