The battle was lost, but not the war

On Saturday, a slender majority voted in favour of spring hunting in Malta. The result has been analysed and dissected, fingers of blame have been pointed and the post mortem is still in full swing. This is natural and to be expected; and if it results in lessons learnt from past mistakes, it is also to be welcomed. 

But none of this will change the outcome one iota. The Maltese electorate has now endorsed the view that Malta should derogate from the European Wild Birds Directive. For the foreseeable future, spring hunting is here to stay.

With regard to this one environmental issue, then, the battle has been lost… at least, from the perspective of the 49% who voted ‘No’. MaltaToday backed the ‘No’ vote publicly, and along with the rest of the campaign we acknowledge this defeat. But the battle for spring hunting was only one of the frontlines of the broader war for the environment as a whole. There are other challenges facing Malta on this front. The struggle goes on.

From this perspective, the referendum result acquires a different significance. On one level it reinforces the perception that in Malta, political party policies and decisions are often dictated by single-issue lobby groups wielding considerable electoral power. But it also confirms that almost exactly half the country is perfectly capable of voting across party lines when it comes to individual issues. And that is a message no political party can afford to ignore.

In this referendum campaign, both Labour and Nationalist party leaders endorsed the ‘Yes’ vote, and a breakdown of the result by district strongly confirms that this pre-emptively influenced the voting intentions of the (as yet) ‘undecideds’. Conversely, the result also points towards a growing swathe of voters who are disinclined to merely ‘follow their leader’ when it comes to individual issues. Taken together, this sector represents 49% of the population.

Admittedly, this only refers to the spring hunting issue. But added to past experiences (such as the protests against the ODZ extension in 2005) one can extrapolate a growing concern with the environment that is starting to be clearly reflected in electoral patterns. Both Prime Minister Joseph Muscat and Opposition leader Simon Busuttil may have achieved the result they voted for; but they must also digest the implications of these statistics for their future decisions.

Disappointing though it may have been for those who wished to give breathing space to migratory birds, the referendum also provides compelling impetus for Malta’s divergent environment lobby groups to come together and act as a more cohesive force. There is much that needs to be challenged and resisted. In the last two years we have seen a gradual relaxation of planning rules, resulting in the loss of many of the country’s previous environmental acquisitions. The newly revised Structure Plan, for instance, has ‘rationalised’ development boundaries even beyond the 2005 extension. It also points towards commercial development on Comino, while there are separate discussions about an airport in Gozo. 

The intention behind such projects may not in itself be bad, but we are talking about major infrastructural developments that will – for better or worse – produce generational and irreversible changes to the environment and character of large sections of the Maltese islands. 

More recently, the Malta Environment and Planning Authority emerged with a scheme to similarly ‘rationalise’ planning irregularities, even preceding the early 1990s (when MEPA was founded). The government denies this constitutes an ‘amnesty’, but the scheme may nonetheless result in the legitimisation of entire villas and other properties that had been built illegally. Given the scarcity of the resource in question  – our severely limited and already-threatened rural landscape – one must step up the vigilance against further environmental rape and pillage.

Even with regard to spring hunting, the ‘Yes’ campaign’s victory is by no means unrestricted. Hunters have democratically won the argument about Malta permitting hunting in spring. But spring hunting is still technically illegal according to the Birds Directive, Maltese governments therefore still have to justify their reasons for applying a derogation to this rule. 

This implies abiding by the conditions stipulated by Article 9 of the Birds Directive – judicious use, limited numbers, adequate enforcement, etc. The European Commission is not, after all, bound by the results of a Maltese referendum… which in any case was based on the same framework legislation containing all those limits anyway.

Muscat has already warned that the former restrictions – including the possibility of closing the season in the case of widespread illegality – are still in force regardless of a referendum which doesn’t affect them in any way. With almost half the country voting for him to add further restrictions, and just over half agreeing with the regulations as they stand, it is clear that Malta has just given the government a strong mandate to radically boost enforcement of wildlife protection laws, and to adopt a zero tolerance policy on illegal hunting.

Lastly, the referendum result also fires a warning shot across the Muscat administration’s bows. Malta is becoming more sensitive to environmental issues, not less. The Prime Minister would be unwise to steer his government in the clean opposite direction.