|
Popular perception of the EU is on a high, but people are disappointed by the slow pace of change. Joanna Drake, head of the European Commission’s Malta representation, outlines the painful process of adjusting to stringent EU laws
Last week was particularly busy for the officers at the European Commission’s DG for environment. From development zone extensions and greenhouse gas emissions to spring hunting, unsafe landfills and exorbitant taxes on imported used cars, Brussels handed down Malta a long list of infringements which have ultimately proved to be a triumph for ordinary citizens who protested, relentlessly, against the Maltese government’s actions on so many issues of environmental concern.
 The most contentious issue in question has been the opening, yet again, of the spring hunting season; an issue that has also exposed the government’s reluctance to tackle a belligerent hunting lobby whose actions have resulted in harassment of members of the press, as well a threat to Maltese cultural heritage with telltale warning signs of a repeat of the 1994 desecration of Hagar Qim and Mnajdra.
The debate is now in its last throes: trapping is to stop by 2008, while Environment Commission Stavros Dimas has clearly stated that Malta has not satisfied the conditions required to be able to derogate from the Birds Directive, which expressly prohibits hunting in spring.
Earlier this week, a team from the Commission’s environment DG and its legal officers came to Malta to explain the Commission’s position on the infringement proceedings to Maltese officials, and demand explanations from a government which so far has not even answered to the letters of formal notice sent by the Commission, asking it to explain the grounds on which it derogated from the Birds Directive.
The picture is certainly not pretty: Dimas has already clearly stressed the Commission will be extending infringement procedures to cover the years 2004, 2005, 2006 and even 2007, confirming Malta’s clear state of illegality on this issue. And yet, the government is ready to take the matter up to the European Court of Justice to prove its case – a right which it claims was negotiated in the 2002 membership talks, to derogate from the Birds Directive.
But why is the Commission actually intervening in Malta’s domestic affairs, after the government and the Nationalist Party had repeatedly stated that hunting in spring would not stop – and why all the fuss now?
“This is the role of the European Commission,” Joanna Drake, the head of the Commission’s representation in Malta, says. “It is simply fulfilling its role as the guardian of the Treaty. And when a country becomes a member of the EU, it accepts to respect the EU Treaty and its rules. The country binds itself to obey these rules at domestic level, and the Commission ensures that the laws of the Treaty are implemented and applied correctly, according to the objectives of the directives and regulations.”
But Drake also pauses to correct the impression that the EU may be acting like a bully and taking on Malta and its hunting laws just because it is the small fry of Europe.
“It’s not the case that the Commission is interfering in Malta’s affairs. This is a club, and when somebody becomes a member of a club, they accept the structures of this club and its rules. The structures in the EU have the role of proposing legislation but also of safeguarding it. Member states have to accept the role of the European Commission and its remit to safeguard the law.”
As an EU member state since 2003, Malta is required by European law to transpose the Birds Directive in its entirety, which prohibits hunting in the nesting season, and the trapping of wild birds at any time of the year. It was believed that the “party of Europe” would have surely had no problem in ensuring that this important law, which also safeguards natural habitats in Malta, would be properly implemented. And yet, it seems the Nationalist government, facing some 27 open cases on environmental complaints alone – the most for any of the new EU-10 countries – did not have any idea of what it was about to go in for.
“I don’t think that’s necessarily the case,” Drake says, who in the run-up to the EU referendum became the spokesperson of the IVA movement that campaigned in favour of membership. “It is normal that every new member state has to pass through a period of adjustment when becoming an EU member. Even founding members like Italy are at the top of the list for open cases and infringement procedures. Does that mean Italy wasn’t ready back in 1957 and is still not ready today? I don’t think so. But the Commission has the onus of ensuring that the EU’s laws are correctly implemented. One would have to appreciate that member states have to get used to this European way of doing things. It’s an adjustment that takes time.”
But does the Maltese government have the necessary attitude to fall in with this “European way”? A government that seems hell-bent on ensuring a long life for hunting in spring, and which has even threatened to veto a proposal to provide legal clarity on European divorce laws, does not seem like a very European government.
“In every country there will be a level of resistance to keep the status quo. We’re talking of customs, traditions and cultures and methods which are so ingrained in the system that it is hard to change them.”
But Drake points out that it is the Maltese citizens themselves who appear more “ready” or open to this European spirit. Judging by the level of complaints sent to the Commission on environmental infringements, this certainly seems to be the case.
“The Maltese have high expectations of the EU and there is a certain preparedness, or will to change,” Drake adds. “But the bureaucratic system is a monster which takes time to change. I think there must be the political will to change things here. This is a learning curve. It isn’t just Malta that is bound to resist change. There is usually a vested interest in keeping things the same. The EU wants this change, and the people want change as well, but this happens slowly… sometimes too slowly, often testing the patience of the people, and the European Union. Infringement procedures often take two years to come to an end, because what the Commission is doing is to actually persuade a member state to come in line with European law. When it fails due to the member state’s intransigence, then procedures are stepped up.”
But what about the government’s claim that it had obtained a derogation on spring hunting during pre-accession negotiations, and which both the environment minister and the prime minister, as well as Nationalist MEPs, have defended? Is this a concession?
“Let’s make this thing clear. What was said before the EU referendum was that Malta would be able to apply for a derogation from the Birds Directive. That is true: Malta can derogate from the directive, because the right to derogate is within the law itself, and it is a right accorded to all member states.
“But it is not a concession,” Drake specifies. “In this case, a derogation from the Birds Directive can only be granted if Malta fulfils certain conditions. The Maltese government had the onus of fulfilling these conditions in order to derogate from the law. To do this it presented the Commission statistics on how quails and turtle doves were hunted in spring and autumn. And when the Commission saw these statistics, it was not satisfied that the conditions had been fulfilled, and that’s where the contention lies.”
So, was the public misled when the government said spring hunting would continue once Malta becomes an EU member state?
“I don’t think it was a question of misleading the public. It was more that the government’s right to derogate from the directive was recognised by the Commission, but what was possibly not well known were the conditions required to get the derogation. After all, the government had its own consultants during the negotiations, and although realising the onerous conditions for derogating, may have had the assurance from the consultants that it would have no problem in justifying them.
“When the Commission made its own analysis of the proof supplied by the government to fulfil the derogation’s conditions, it appears it wasn’t as assured as the government had been prior to the referendum. Certainly, it wasn’t satisfied with the statistics presented by the government. Malta still retained its right to derogate from the law: but the Commission has the right to ask the government on what basis it has derogated from the law.”
But the government has also assured hunters it will stand its ground and face the European Commission in the court of justice. Isn’t this just a show of foolhardiness by the government – is it justified for a government to entertain infringement fines that would ultimately be paid by the Maltese taxpayer?
“Every government is bound to put up some form of resistance, especially a government like Malta’s, where hunting was a rather burning issue prior to the referendum, and which had its own negotiation to conclude on this position. Surely, they will fight their corner. This happened in the case of other member states who challenged the Commission’s position on infringements right until the end. I cannot expect the Maltese government not to stand its ground either.”
And what are the chances of the Maltese government actually winning its case – after Commissioner Dimas himself spelt out the illegality of Malta’s derogation?
“I think that in the light of European jurisprudence, as can be seen from the experience of other member states, it will be very difficult for the government to prove its case. This is my personal opinion, but the facts are there for all to see.
“Every year, the Commission organises a ‘package meeting’ to deal with the infringements and open cases against member states. In this case, the DG Environment is currently in Malta to discuss these cases. We are not involved in these meetings, because they deal directly with the government officials concerned with the infringement in question. They can choose to meet other stakeholders in parallel meetings, but they won’t be part of the package meeting itself. As the guardian of the Treaty, the Commission should listen to these stakeholders to know more about the issues they are dealing with, and to listen to every side of the debate.”
Is it also your job to give the government a slap on the wrist when it infringes European law?
“No, that does not fall within my remit. This office falls under the DG for communications. Our role here is to communicate with the people, to organise activities, liaise with the stakeholders, create links, create awareness about the EU and its policies, and be as close as possible to the people and offer them our services. Apart from the press and political reporting here, we inform Brussels early in the morning of what the written and broadcast media have reported. It is also my responsibility to inform the Commission of what the people here are saying and how they feel about particular issues, and explain to them the sensitivities of the Maltese on burning issues and their perceptions. For example, something we have strongly pushed for, and which we shall soon be introducing, is a service called Eurojus. We will be offering the services of a lawyer, free of charge, to assist people in addressing their complaints and to inform them of their rights. Another aspect of this office is the provision of funds, and we inform people and entities of what funds they can tap into.”
But Drake’s office also seemed largely absent on the hunting issue – certainly when it came to explain the reality of the government’s argument on derogating from the Birds Directive.
“In this case, I’d say that there were a lot of interviews which Commissioner Stavros Dimas himself gave, and I feel that he addressed the issue directly so there wasn’t a need for me to intervene personally. An issue where we had to intervene, given that the Commission wasn’t taking a direct stand here in Malta, was the issue on divorce. In fact, the issue wasn’t even about proposals on divorce, but rather proposals to establish clearly which marriage law would prevail for couples from different member states. The rationale was to assist people who, having enjoyed the freedom of movement throughout the EU, should also be entitled to have a clearer vision of the prevailing marriage law.
“We intervened in this case because it was a very particular issue for Malta, and we wanted to make the issue clear for the Maltese. I didn’t intervene because the Maltese government threatened to veto the proposals, but after observing the unfolding debate, I decided to explain the proposals being forwarded by the European Commission, and because the Commission didn’t have the same preoccupation that was expressed by the Maltese government.”
Is it uncomfortable for her to take the Commission’s side against a party in government for which she had been a candidate for the European Parliament elections? Drake gives a straight answer. “Not at all. I have to be loyal to the European Commission. I have always been consistent in European principles and my belief in European principles.”
Does she also feel confident that the Maltese are enjoying their status within the EU? “The latest Eurobarometer survey in fact shows there is a majority of 45 per cent who feel membership is good for Malta, and 58 per cent say they benefited from EU membership. An interesting point is that the people who feel membership wasn’t good for Malta has gone down to 15 per cent. It is a very positive perception, especially in terms of the environment. To the Maltese, the EU has turned out to be a positive force in upholding environmental rules.
“I have no doubt the EU was a catalyst to the civil movement in favour of the environment. This is indeed the European spirit, and one of the guarantees of EU membership has been the opportunity to achieve a standard of living that is at par with that of other member states.” |
