Tag: referendum

Categories
Hunting

Automatic for the people

automaton_akkuza

The island of saints and fireworks experienced yet another tumultuous bump on its road to democratic fulfillment yesterday. By late morning you were either looking deep into your soul and trying to decipher the reason why it would still be possible for some of your co-islanders to sport (ha!) a gun and kill birds during the mating season or you were out carcading in full camouflage dress having savaged some trees to decorate your car for the occasion.

In many quarters the crux of the discussion was who to blame. Do you blame the hapless Saviour Balzan and the running of the no campaign that managed to (cliche’ warning) snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Do you blame the political party leaders who had pronounced themselves personally to the YES vote (biex nissalvagwardjaw id-deroga li innegozjajna – ugh more on that later)? Do you blame the voters in the districts where the YES vote was overwhelming? More importantly, how do we get rid of those Gozitans? Independence or boycott? Bridge zikk.

And what about the planters of hate and discord who had called the other side all sorts of names? Surely a referendum on a factual question such as it was ended up being lost or won because you really cannot ever call someone “uncivilised”.

I could only stand back in awe and watch the events unfold. I read a few opinion columns here and there and watched the infamous breakdown analysis on a few of the tv stations. The main impression is that facts, the real facts, have been thrown out of the window. Faced with the rule of law, legislation to interpret and scientific evidence we panic, we freeze like rabbits facing the headlamps of an oncoming car, and then we take solace in theatrics and cliches.

I was reminded of the hunter who accosted Simon Busuttil on the campaign trail in Rabat last election. There he was arguing that having paid I don’t remember what sum of money for a license (later to be rescinded by the Hunters’ Friend Joseph) he had the right to enjoy his “hobby” bis-shih. Busuttil replied quoting an ECJ court case where “ahna iggelidna ghalikom” (we fought for you) and won the right to keep holding a spring hunting season. That to me is the source of all the evil. Of all the misinformation.

In the beginning I thought I was being too technical. Too long-winded. To lawyerish. I must admit I got carried away by the charade and started to think that maybe just maybe I am not too well versed in the politics of electioneering and gathering votes. Maybe, just maybe, it was right for the NO campaign to ignore the issue of when and how the derogation came about, how it is supposed to be applied and how the referendum would never really end the possibility of the derogation being applied in Malta – even if the No camp won.

I was told to shut up and be careful (not that I did, but I did tone down my insistence) because that kind of information might render voters complacent and that they might abstain from what would be an ultimately rhetorical No result. It’s a mistake though. It always will be. To attempt to lead people on the basis of  lie – or half truth if you will. The modern antipathy towards legal and competent interpretations of the law is also to blame. Yes it is technical. Yes it is how things work. Finding ways of explaining it to the people is the business of electoral machines – not hiding it from them.

Yes, I was guilty of claiming that the referendum result would be meaningless on a technical level. Article 9 of the Derogation that is the basis of the legal Notice that we were trying to abrogate would still exist. I was however also responsible for saying that interpreting the result this way meant that the No vote should be much much louder than a simple majority because it would be binding on both parties as representatives of the will of the people. Which in layman’s talk means that even though the door would still be open to the derogation written into the Birds’ Directive they would not have dared open it for quite a while.

I was also guilty of constantly trying to remind anyone who cared that this derogation had nothing to do with anything negotiated by Malta prior to accession. Article 9 of the Birds’ Directive exists independently of what Malta negotiated. It is a list of very strict conditions under which hunting would be allowed. In my amateur non-scientific assessment (that could be proved wrong but I doubt it) it would be very very hard for Malta to ever justify the opening of a spring hunting season under this derogation.

Which brings me to the leaders’ vote. Not that we should be caring about how they voted (the little triumph of the 49 point something per cent is that of not having followed their call).

Busuttil is the biggest disappointment. Not so much because he declared his vote in favour of the Yes camp. That was understandable because he neutralised Muscat’s hope of a double-victory and turning the vote into Muscat vs Busuttil. What disappointed me most was the justification as to why he would vote Yes. Busuttil is in fact guilty of repeating the lie that this was a vote in favour of a derogation “acquired” by a previous PN government. That, to me, amounts to misinformation.

Muscat’s position is easy to assess  – until the end he remains the hunters’ friend. If you needed any confirmation you just had to look at his statements after the vote. He has done all he can to allow them to hunt – now the ball is in their court and he cannot be blamed for doing his duty and stopping them once and for all should they break the law again. He did add the term “flagrant” to violation as though there is a scale of permissibility implied.

Now to the main issue: the use of the derogation. The Times carried a constantly updated article on the day of the Yes victory. One of the statements carried was to the effect that now that the referendum had passed in favour of the Yes camp the spring hunting season would start. Automatic. For the people by the people.

The Times (and most of the fourth estate) had swallowed the lie. The main reason why we voted on Saturday was never understood. Maybe because it is too mind-numbingly technical. Maybe because we prefer arguing about what other hobbies are threatened. The point is that the referendum result is about Malta’s button that activates the request to use the derogation – not about the derogation itself. The Legal Notice empowers the Minister to evaluate whether the conditions exist for the spring hunting season to open. That should be far from automatic.

There are flaws in the system sure. The Commission – guardian of the treaties and their application – relies on information brought to it by the government of the day when it comes to overseeing the application of the derogation. When the government is in cahoots with the hunting lobby and knows that the general population cannot be bothered with a minor scandal of the killing of a few extra hundred birds (no matter how many storks and swans appear on the front page of the Times) then bob’s your uncle. Even the police are thwarted.

Malta never “won” the hunting case before the ECJ. It was a slap on the wrist telling Malta to be more careful next time. If the NO lobby does not want to die an ignoble death the next thing on the cards should not be a campaign for Birdlife memberships (to do what?) but an educational campaign on the ins and outs of the Birds Directive.

Maybe next time we can talk facts and law. And stop blaming the Gozitans.

Categories
Hunting

The Bird Brainer

birdbrain_akkuza

This Saturday vote No. Simple. Just vote No. You don’t need to be told why in truth, unless you are one of the horde of energumens who believe that “hunting is a right”. Legally we should not be here. The ‘derogation’ we are reluctantly discussing should never actually be triggered. Someone in the IVA campaign finally decided to explain this reality (a factual legal one) – the derogation’s conditions would rarely be triggered (if ever at all) in a decent country. This is no special derogation negotiated over blood, sweat and tears in some pre-accession death-wish with the aim of keeping up an “age old tradition”. All that is bollocks – bollocks that has been regurgitated by the PLPN quarters because… well… because it is a sweet lie that fits their alibi. What alibi? It’s the one where they keep trying to seem appeasing to the hunters.

Not that Muscat is hiding his hand. On the 1st of April he was photoshopped into hunting pose as some form of April Fool’s joke. He’s convinced that he can fool some of the people all of the time though. It’s obvious that he would do anything to get the Yes vote to win – and he’s more than hoping that Busuttil gets associated with a No debacle. Sadly for both the leaders of the parties that keep us firmly attached in the mire of mediocrity this vote concerns them not one bit. They should only be waiting for the result to implement it. We said this when the referendum was announced and we will repeat this now.

Why should the No vote win? Because the people of Malta should stand up and show that they disagree with the decisions of successive groups of representatives who have twisted and turned the interpretation of what should be a strict derogation in order to appease the hunters. Has Malta ever correctly applied the derogation? I strongly doubt it. Will it ever? Seriously? The only way we can ensure that our house of representatives apply the laws of the land (and that includes EU laws) properly is by going over their heads and giving them a strong “No’ when it comes to Spring Hunting.

As I said before, repealing the legal notice by referendum does not remove the derogation nor the possibility for a future parliament to re-enact legislation that allows for its use. Which is why the No vote must be clear, loud and unconditional. It is the sovereign people taking their power back into their hands and ordering those entrusted with its management to obey their will.

It’s a small step. The next day after the referendum we will still be in the thralls of a government-opposition game that treats the population like a mass of mentally deficient robots. We keep getting the government we deserve. A No vote next Saturday might be a step towards getting a better one in the future.

Hope Springs Eternal.

Categories
Hunting

The Infamous Vote

shoot_akkuza

It’s great that people like Joseph Calleja, the Archbishop and other ‘VIPs’ such as Vanni Bonello have lent their support to the “NO” vote. I do find it a little disturbing though that there have been calls from some quarters for more “famous” people to “come out” and proclaim that they too will be voting to ban spring hunting on the 11th April. This referendum offers very little openings in terms of debate and conviction. The battle lines were drawn at an early stage and quite frankly I don’t believe that there are many people who need to be convinced either way. Convinced in favour or against hunting that is.

The crucial part is probably actually getting people to the ballot and voting. Getting them to care. In a sense that is the only value we could give to this obsession with what “VIPs” will do. It might trigger the lazy and uninterested into going out there and casting their say. Both the YES and NO camps have tried their luck with the fear factor. The NO campaign has warned of the dire consequences of a YES victory – with the images of cowboys taking over the land having been convinced that nothing will stop them now. The YES campaign has found a very convincing element in its fear-inducing threat to other “hobbies”. By spreading the lie that next on the line will be such hobbies as firework production they seem to have managed to draw what would have been a wholly uninterested sector of the population to the polls.

It’s no mean point that the expat community is once again being “treated” to the AirMalta subvention. Exercising your right to cast your opinion on Referendum Day costs your average expat 70€ (the flight), a couple of days leave, and if like me you live a 2 hours drive from the nearest airport you also can factor in the costs of diesel/petrol plus an exorbitant airport parking fee. All this because our bastions of democracy and democratic accountability still have not wrapped their heads around the idea of a ballot in embassies as all First World Democracies tend to do nowadays. Still, every penny will be well spent in my case if the NO vote carries the day.

If they do carry the day we must still bear in mind that this is a political message to the parties more than anything else. Parliamentary rules and the EU acquis are here to stay – no matter what the result – and that means that the possibility of using the derogation in the future will still exist. Which is why the NO vote should be stronger than ever. It must be a clear message to pussy-footing politicians such as those who make up the present government and who have already set the wheels in motion for the next spring hunting season (in case the YES wins).

You don’t have to be famous to vote on April 11th but by going out and voting you could be making history for Malta.

Vote wisely. Vote No.

11058674_883851608342458_7600228651927086558_o

Categories
Hunting

The War on Hunting in Liliput

hunting_akkuzaIt might seem to be hotting up. What is it about this nation that turns any democratic decision making exercise into an internecine battle? As the referendum approaches we get to watch the two sides and their different approach to convincing people to cast the vote in their favour. At some point the “No” camp, the one against hunting, stated that it prefers debate to battle. That was a reaction to the earlier affirmation by the hunting fraternity that this referendum meant “War”. Debate? What debate? This Liliput nation is fast proving to have shed all semblance of analytical consideration and prefers the heads-on instinctive approach. Facts and data or principles and values are discarded – we much prefer “taking sides” either instinctively through some visceral attraction to some form of roots or out of spite.

In the end a referendum that (as we have stated elsewhere) constitutes at most a political message to our supposed representatives is becoming yet another Lilliputian outcry as to how eggs are best broken open. The comedic elements have also made their appearance – prime among which is Saviour “Hogan” Balzan – foaming at the mouth and doing his damned best to ruin the appeal of a vote that should be in favour of the reasonable enjoyment of the countryside and above all in favour of the birds.

Ah those wingèd beings have little or no knowledge of what is going on in the island of milk and honey. Would they be able to fathom the deceptive campaign of the Yes Camp, with all its mystical happy families, multi-dogged hunters sans-senter and verbose lawyerisms they would gather in one massive flock above the next meeting of the hunter confraternity and take one massive dump covering all the bullshitters in avian faeces.

Incidentally Liliput insists on subsidising airfares for those of its electors and decision-takers (read voters) who reside abroad. March 2015 and polling booths in Embassy are still a Utopic mirage for those of us who would have hoped to be able to cast out vote comfortably.

The referendum risks becoming a non-event very fast. Sure we will have a result. Either way there will be a sector of Maltese society kicking up a fuss. Politically it is fast becoming obvious that the two main parties that sit in the decision making positions of this country will be able to wash their hands of the main set of consequences – having found someone else to blame for the immediate aftermath. Whether the Birds Directive, derogations and all, will be properly implemented in Malta for the years to follow is another chapter, another story.

10997375_1001375046558072_8265459475622731081_o

11053686_10204488801594993_5338501285898200951_n

 

Categories
Hunting Mediawatch

It’s not about what Simon Says

simonsays_akkuza

Diplomacy, they say, is the art of letting someone have it your way.

I rarely agree with Joseph Muscat and I don’t always agree with Simon Busuttil and when it comes to the referendum for the abrogation of the turtledove and quail hunting regulations I am in agreement with neither of them. It’s not so simple as a YES or NO vote though. The gigantic chessboard that was set in motion once the constitutional court found no objections to the petition for an abrogative referendum is full of diplomatic minefields, political manoeuvrings and vested interests. And notwithstanding the incredible murmur that hit the web once his press conference was over today it really is not at all about what Simon Says. Then what is it about?

It’s about hunting

In essence it should be. The aim of the referendum is an attempt to end spring hunting “once and for all”. That is what the NO camp hope to achieve. I have explained the technical reasons why the result of the referendum must be seen more as a political achievement than as a legally binding result. Put simply the more people vote for a ban on hunting the more the political parties who run the daily show will get a message (and a sort of protracted mandate) not to do anything to facilitate spring hunting again. At least for the time being. So what is needed is numbers. Big ones. It’s a vote with your feet moment. And that is where there might be the first problem. This is the first issue requiring a referendum about which lots and lots of people quite frankly don’t give a damn. It does not touch their pockets, there are no electricity bills to be lowered and probably they are more irritated by the whingeing of the “tree-hugging greens” than anything else. Is there a large enough section of the population who might bother to turn up at the polls simply because they hate the kind of bullies that rally behind a gun and a bullets on a protest in Valletta? Je ne suis pas convaincu.

It’s not about a derogation (really)

There is so much confusion on this point that even Simon Busuttil slipped on a nasty banana shortly after his press conference explaining his position. “I am voting for a derogation that WE negotiated” he said. No you are not Simon. Neither is Joseph for that matter. See, the “derogation we negotiated” that everyone is talking about is an altogether different derogation that was negotiated by the Fenech Adami government and concerned trapping. The derogation referred to in this referendum is the reason why we have the legal notice that some of us are now hoping to abrogate and it was not the result of negotiating skills of any pro-hunting Maltese. It is a mechanism that exists in the Birds Directive and – much to everybody’s chagrin – will continue to exist no matter how you vote and what the result is in the next referendum.  If anything I had been hoping that Simon Busuttil would say that his position was in favour of a proper use of that derogation – as against the carte blanche interpretation that has most recently been given by Joseph Muscat’s government or as against the interpretation given by the Gonzi government in 2008 when arguing before the European Court of Justice. It was a chance for Simon to show a real change in attitude by one of the parties – no lies to suck up to the hunters -the simple truth: we will work on the derogation when the conditions exist to apply it. Given that those conditions are very strict and exceptional because they are set within a framework based on real conservation it might have even made many bird lovers happy while reassuring those who are still testing Simon that their new leader does not bow to the men with guns.

But it’s not about the parties

In the end though it should not be about the parties. As I said, the PLPN had long abrogated any idea of leadership in this field. Their track record is atrocious and anyone waiting to hear what the PL or PN had to say before making his mind up about what to vote for in the referendum would be absolutely off the plot. Joseph Muscat tried every trick up his sleeve in order to appease hunters. First we had the slackening of conditions for hunting, licensing for hunting etc. Then it was obvious he tried to avoid the possibility of a referendum as much as possible. Finally when the referendum became inevitable he hoped and hoped that he could get away with an isolated referendum away from Local Council elections. When that idea caused a ruckus and backlash he succumbed and threw in the Ace up his sleeve. He backed the YES vote personally and automatically had that translated as the official Labour Party position. Labour had reneged on its promise to keep out of the campaign and had been forced to back the hunters by its scheming leader who was still underwriting the cheques he had issued before the election. Muscat now had one more wish – that Simon turn this into a PL vs PN move in the hope that he could translate this into a double trashing: a victory for the hunters and a beating of Simon by default.

Which is where you can begin to see Simon Busuttil’s position from a newer, better perspective. First of all Simon was right to first wait for the party to take a position of its own. I would have preferred it to stop at that. Probably what happened next is the result of Labour’s trying to egg Simon into an open battle and to taint the referendum with yet another partisan war. Simon would have none of that. There was the danger that he would be labelled a fence-sitter (unfairly, if we agree that waiting for the people’s decision was the right thing to do). There was the problem of consistency – given how the PN’s position had not exactly been anti-hunting in the past. So Simon has opted for the stalemate insofar as Labour is concerned. He has chosen to neutralise the Labour vs PN battle by throwing in his personal opinion on the side of the derogation (admittedly he wrongly claimed this is the negotiated derogation).

It’s a smart move really because this turns the referendum into anything but PL vs PN. Busuttil has sacrificed the possibility of measuring his popularity to the hope that the voters think with their own mind and transform this into a battle of the people or civil society vs the establishment. I would have liked a clearer position with regards to what kind of spring hunting Simon Busuttil was committing himself in favour of but given the red and blue manner of thinking for which this electorate has been groomed, Simon’s “sacrifice” for the greater good of a clear non-partisan vote turns out to be admirable. The proof of the pudding will be whether Simon’s party will act like Labour and do its utmost for the YES vote to be carried or whether the PN will limit its pronouncements to today’s leader position and allow the people to decide.

It’s about a clear statement

Which brings me back to where I started. The most important factor in this result will be the statement of the people. This is an issue upon which both parties gunning for leadership of the country (pardon the  pun) have long compromised their souls in the past. Theirs is not a position of vision. The true representative party will  be the one that takes note of a referendum result and works upon that for the future of hunting. As I said, confusingly for many people, the derogation will still remain a possibility within the Birds Directive. How and why parties in government decide to make use of it (if at all) will depend on the clarity of the vote come 11th April. Only a resounding No will tie the hands of scheming politicians like Muscat or will give a clear mandate to Simon Busuttil in the future to use the derogation wisely and within the clear and strict conditions within which it is framed.

Go out there and vote clearly. The truth is that this referendum is about what you think and what you believe.

 

Categories
Hunting

Fence-sitting and Bird Hunting – all you need to know for the referendum

kakkuza

On the 11th of April 2015 the Maltese electorate will be called upon to express its opinion as to whether or not the derogation to spring hunting should continue to be applied. In short, layman’s terms the referendum will determine whether or not it will be possible to continue to hunt birds in spring. At least that is what we think is at stake. The issue is a minefield of controversies for a multiplicity of reasons. Hunting is notoriously a thorny issue, not least because of the hold that the hunting lobby has on the major political parties of the land. Also, since 2004 and full membership of the European Union, Maltese law has been complemented by the corpus of EU law, not least among which is the Birds Directive that includes what we tend to refer to as “the derogation”. Malta’s hunting practices have already been questioned under the terms of this directive and it got quite a few slaps on the wrist that time round. There is also the issue of an abrogative referendum. What is that about exactly and what effect does it have on the order of things?

As you can see it’s not that simple. As usual J’accuse is out to dispel some misunderstandings and research some truths for the benefit of the reader. Here is a list of observations on what is going on, in no particular order.

The Derogation

Let’s get this one out of the way, technical as it may be. What is this derogation and how does it fit in Malta’s hunting scene? Well it all begins with the Wild Birds Directive (the one we would label 79/409/EEC). I’ll let the Guidance Document on the directive tell you what it is about:

Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (the so-called “Birds Directive”) provides a common framework for the conservation of naturally occurring species of wild birds and their habitats throughout the European Union. The directive owes its origin to the fact that wild birds, which are mainly migratory, represent a shared heritage of the Member States and whose  effective protection is typically a transfrontier problem entailing common responsibilities. The Birds Directive fully recognises the legitimacy of hunting of wild birds as a form of sustainable use. Hunting is an activity that provides significant social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits in different regions of the European Union. It is limited to certain species, listed in the Directive, which also provides a series of ecological principles and legal requirements relating to this activity, to be implemented through Member States legislation. This provides the framework for the management of hunting.

So that is the genesis – the why and how of the directive. You may have noticed that there is an emphasis on the idea of sustainable hunting and basic ecological principles that exist behind hunting within the framework of this directive. So, the basic rule under this directive is that killing birds is not allowed. Essentially the basic principle is the “conservation of all species of naturally occurring birds in the wild state” (article 1). Member states are not only encouraged to limit instances of hunting but also to take measures to “maintain population” of species and to encourage their preservation by, among other things creating protected areas (article 2).  [For an in depth look at the next few articles scroll down to the end of this post *].  Having described when hunting may be allowed and what species may be hunted we can now look at Article 9 which is the infamous derogation.

It’s quite straightforward really: member states may derogate (create an exception to) from the provisions of articles 5 to 8 where there is no other satisfactory solution for a number of listed reasons. The reasons are the following:

  1. In the interests of public health and safety, in the interests of air safety, to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water, for the protection of flora and fauna.
  2. for the purposes of research and teaching, of re-population, of re-introduction and for the breeding necessary for these purposes.
  3. to permit, under strictly supervised conditions, and on a selective basis, the capture, keeping and other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers.

So. Let’s get one thing clear. The derogation is not a bespoke derogation that Malta negotiated and “acquired” in pre-accession talks. Forget the nationalist party claims that they had managed to acquire anything special and specific to Malta. It’s all bullshit and forms part of the general PLPN approach to butter the hunting lobby the right way. The derogation exists for everybody. The crux of the matter is that certain conditions need to be satisfied. To hunt outside the accepted levels of hunting (outside article 7 conditions) you have to fulfil certain criteria. A cursory look at the above list of conditions will immediately make it obvious to any reader that the exceptions relate to emergencies where birds become pests – a necessary cull because of a disease, air safety = shooting birds that hang around airports and imperil aviation, or killing birds that are threatening livelihood. Not exactly “il-kacca namur”.

There is an important phrase in article 9: “where there is no other satisfactory solution”. A member state must prove that not only is the species in question a pest (or required for research etc) but that the only satisfactory solution would be to hunt the buggers. That is a very tough onus of proof, one that Malta failed in 2008 before the court. So there. You now know what the derogation is and (bar some more technical info on reporting) how it works.

 Applying the Derogation – the History

So the way the derogation works is the following. Member states do not need permission from the EU to apply the derogation. They may go ahead and apply it if they believe that they fulfill the conditions that allow the use of the derogation. Member states are however obliged to report to the commission every time they make use of the derogation. This allows the Commission to monitor the use of the derogation and to take action if it believes that the Member state abused of it. In 2008 the Commission felt that the measures taken by Malta fell outside the scope of the derogation because the Maltese authorities failed to show that there was no satisfactory solution other than spring hunting the species concerned. The sole purpose of Malta’s use of the derogation, according to the Commission, was to extend the hunting season for species of birds.

It must be hard for the Commission to keep a diplomatic poker face when faced with Malta’s argument – that hunting of the species concerned was possible in autumn, ok, but we did not have enough birds to hunt. We get more birds in spring so hey, we should be allowed to kill them then. In fact the stats presented by Malta for 2005 showed that in spring 15,239 quails were “taken” while “only” 5,109 were “taken” in autumn. Turtledoves? 31,493 taken in spring and only 4,990 in autumn. At no point did Malta bother to justify the use of the derogation under any of the criterion required under article 9 of the directive. At most, Malta argued, the total prohibition on spring hunting would in practice lead to the entire prohibition of the hunting of the species.

In the end the Court rapped Malta’s wrists very strongly for that period, emphasising that there must be a balance between protection of species and certain leisure activities. The derogation must be used proportionately but Malta did not prove such proportionality given that it allows the killing of 3 times more quails and 8 times more turtledoves in spring than in autumn. That, for the record, was Lawrence Gonzi’s PN government arguing before the court to justify the spring hunting season. We can only infer today that Joseph Muscat’s government would do the same – given the PM’s declaration that he would vote in favour of spring hunting. Same same, but different.

The Legal Notice and the Referendum

So if we got punished by the court why are we still talking about it? Well it’s not that easy. The issue arises every season. A Member state can declare the next hunting season open – always with the necessary conditions being fulfilled. In Malta we have Subsidiary Legislation 504.94 entitled “Framework for Allowing a Derogation Opening a Spring Hunting Season for Turtledove and Quail Regulations”. Under Section 3 of the legal notice, the Minister may decide to open the spring hunting season (a maximum of three weeks in April) by means of a notice in the Government Gazette. Since the ECJ case a proviso has been added:

 “Provided that the Minister shall not open the spring hunting season when the hunting for the two species concerned during the previous autumn hunting season may be considered as having constituted a satisfactory solution in therms of Article 9(1) of Directive 2009/147/EC f the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November2009 on the conservation of wild birds, and taking into consideration the thresholds established in Annex I”.

See? The discretion is available for the government every year under these regulations. Every year a spring hunting season may be opened – supposedly bearing in mind the conditions of the directive. Once it is opened and the government has made use of the derogation it is obliged to report to the commission – including birds bagged.

In Malta we have the possibility of an abrogative referendum. What the referendum initiated by petition is doing is kicking off a vote as to whether or not the legal notice that empowers the minister to set up a spring hunting season should be abolished. So if the people vote NO (don’t ask why, but maybe Joseph is banking on the fact that YES has a 100% record in referenda in Malta) the Legal Notice will be abolished and the minister will have no instrument to set up a hunting season. If the people  vote YES then nothing changes.

Party Opinions and binding the future

First off the parties. Joseph Muscat has declared he will vote in favour of spring hunting. The Labour party has not got an official position although we are supposed to assume that since they are accusing the PN of dilly-dallying then they are assuming that Joseph’s position is Labour’s position. The PN has stated that it will wait for an internal debate before taking a position. Somewhere I seem to have read that Simon Busuttil is in favour of regulated spring hunting. I strongly believe that the two main parties have long abdicated any right or duty to be opinion formers and leaders on this issue. Their historical dealings with hunting lobby is such that it would be preferable if they both wait for the people to speak and then act accordingly. It’s not a question of fence-sitting but a question of  (for once) listening to the electorate they represent.

But here is my biggest question. Let us assume a victory for those who want to ban spring hunting. Legally speaking all that would have been banned is the legal notice that empowers the minister to set up a spring hunting season. For obvious reasons the Wild Birds Directive, derogation and all, will remain applicable in Malta. Even if our parliament were to vote out the Legal Notice in question there is nothing – absolutely nothing – that binds future parliaments and prevents them from re-enacting an implementing legislation of the Wild Birds Directive. This leads me to conclude that the message of the forthcoming referendum is political more than legal. A strong victory for the LE ghal Kacca would be a strong message to the parties in parliament. Sure they could in the future try to re-enact another implementing bill but they would do so in strong defiance of public opinion and would have to face the consequences.

 

What should have been done long ago by any party that has the environment at heart is that the Wild Birds Directive should have been implemented to the letter. Rather than promising the impossible to the hunting lobby (and conservationists), the parties in government could and should have been busy applying the directive – even if that meant an impossibility of applying the derogation and therefore no spring hunting. It would take a smatter of intellectual honesty and political accountability and responsibility.

 

Perhaps it might have been too much to ask.

How to vote?

 

I hope this blog post has helped clarify any questions you may have had. If you hold the environment to heart and want to pass on a strong message to our main representative parties then do please go out and vote LE/NO on the 11th April. This blog will be backing the No campaign wholeheartedly.

 

 

 

 

[*] The Articles in Detail

 

The directive contains annexes that are lists of bird species. Annex I contains the untouchables – the birds that need special conservation measures due to, for example, a danger of extinction or vulnerability (article 4). States are also urged to extend such protective measures to species not listed in Annex I but that may be regularly occurring migratory species (very crucial for Malta). Article 5 is the “thou shalt not kill” bit. You cannot kill birds, you cannot destroy their nests, their eggs, keep their empty eggs. You cannot even disturb the birds particularly during their breeding and rearing. Also, you cannot keep birds of the species the hunting and capture of which is prohibited. Clear? Article 6 prohibits the commerce in birds (dead or alive).

 

Which brings us to Article 7. Which is where our dear Turtledoves and Quail come in. Due to the population level, geographical distribution and reproductive rate of certain species (such as the turtledoves and quail), hunting may be allowed under national legislation. Careful though. It is not a carte blanche. Conservation standards must be respected. Turtledoves and quail fall within this category. The fact that a species is in Appendix II/2 and therefore one for which hunting is allowed does not oblige a member state to allow hunting for that species. It is an option that is left to the member state, and one that it must implement using national legislation allowing for such hunting to happen. Furthermore the directive requires that member states ensure that the practise of hunting complies with the principle of “wise use and ecologically balanced control”. While the interpretations of the latter phrase may be controversial it is definitely not an open license to kill indiscriminately.

 

Article 7(4) also asks of Member States that they make sure that the species to which hunting laws apply are not hunted during the rearing season or during the various stages of reproduction. This was an important point that was raised when the Commission took Malta before the European Court as it was one of the problems that arose when it comes to hunting in spring. Article 8 prohibits the use of disproportionate means of hunting in any case. you cannot use a kalashnikov, dynamite or rocket launcher, nor can you hunt from any mode of transport.