Time for the hunting lobby to engage constructively

FKNK’s Lino Farrugia argued in MaltaToday that the proposed amendment to the Constitution proposed by the Opposition defined the environment in broad terms. He argued that including “air, water, land, ecosystems, biodiversity and natural resources, as well as social and cultural conditions,” would allow “any person in Malta, regardless of personal interest, to take legal action” with potentially draconian consequences.

The definition of ‘environment’ as envisaged in proposal is in fact consistent with international human rights and environmental law precedents. Recognising the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment inevitably touches on interconnected elements—air, water, land, biodiversity, ecosystems and human wellbeing. In view of this, allowing persons to seek redress when environmental rights are breached is a recognised feature of access to justice in many jurisdictions. Far from being “dictatorship‑like”, such provisions strengthen democracy by giving voice to those affected.

Farrugia repeatedly frames the bill as a “gift from the PN to extremist groups and individuals … who could use it much more easily and cheaply instead of a referendum,” and warns of “fanatical groups” with personal agendas attacking hunters.

The characterisation of citizens demanding environmental rights as “extremist” or “fanatical” is typical. This tactic is a narrative continuously used by the hunting lobby and government ministers to hit out at environmental NGOs. 

Advocacy for stronger protections of biodiversity, ecosystems and migratory species is not extremism. In fact, the democratic mechanism of a referendum exists precisely to ensure direct citizen participation. To claim the bill subverts the referendum process without providing evidence of opportunistic misuse is incorrect.

Recognising an environmental right does not equate to banning or undermining lawful, regulated hunting. It simply ensures that all land‑use, wildlife management and human activities are consistent with protecting the environment and species, including migratory species. Hunters who operate in full compliance with the law and best practice should have nothing to fear from a constitutional right to a clean environment.

Malta is party to the EU Birds Directive and related policies; ensuring that environmental rights and sustainable hunting regimes coexist is entirely consistent with EU law and modern conservation practice.

Farrugia raises a democracy concern: “Isn’t it shameful … that parliament should amend the Constitution on the basis of a private member’s bill?”

In many democratic legislatures, private members’ bills are precisely the mechanism by which constitutional or legislative change is initiated by MPs. The mechanism is democratic, provided proper procedure (committees, public consultation, parliamentary debate) is followed. What matters is the substance of the amendment, the consultation process, and the safeguards. In fact, given the wide and long‑term implications of environmental degradation on Malta’s economy, biodiversity, public health and tourism, a constitutional recognition of environmental rights is timely, and could provide clarity to future governance decisions.

The bill as proposed offers Malta an opportunity to align with modern environmental governance, ensure that our natural heritage is protected for future generations, and provide citizens with meaningful mechanisms to hold decision‑makers to account.

I invite Lino Farrugia and his organisation to engage constructively in shaping how environmental rights and regulated hunting can coexist. Running away from the idea of environmental rights serves no one—including the hunting community.

I am not too surprised that Farrugia has reneged on changing the image of his organisation, but I am surprised with FKNK President Lucas Micallef.

Just as the hunting lobby has long leveraged political pressure to secure its interests, it now seems to be on the receiving end of similar tactics from those in power. Micallef has struggled to justify his organisation’s silence on the proposed planning reforms that would devastate the very landscapes hunters depend on. The reason is obvious—FKNK dared not bite the hand that feeds it.