Malta bird trapping for ‘scientific research’ is illegal, EU Court rules

The European Court of Justice has ruled that Malta’s derogation from the ban on bird trapping is illegal, yet another confirmation of the island member-state’s continued disregard of the Bird Directive.

The ECJ ruled on the case filed by the European Commision, which said Malta was not fulfilling the conditions required to derogate from the ban on trapping, when it claimed it was for scientific research purposes.

“By adopting a derogation allowing to capture live seven species of wild finches, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2009/147 on the conservation of wild birds,” the ECJ said.

The EU’s Birds Directive is law that is aimed at preserving all bird species’ diversity, by forbidding the deliberate killing or capture of birds, and the use of large-scale or non-selective methods such as clap-nets. The law still allows a derogation from this ban, under strict conditions.

When Malta joined the EU in 2004, it was allowed a gradual phase-out of bird trapping since this is banned under the directive. After successfully banning finch trapping in 2009, the new Labour administration in 2014 once again started applying a recreational derogation for the seven finch species.

But in 2018, the EU Court ruled that Malta had failed to meet this derogation’s conditions, and consequently Malta repealed it.

In 2020, Malta adopted a new derogation, this time for purposes of research. The European Commission accused it of orchestrating a cover-up to enable the previous recreational regime, and initiated infringement actions again. Malta claimed that its research project served to answer the question: “where do finches that migrate over Malta during post-nuptial (autumn) migration come from?”.

In its decision, the ECJ decreed that Malta’s Finches Project did not establish a genuine research purpose and was therefore unjustified.

It added that Malta’s derogation on the basis of scientific research was “not based on scientific methods, gives rise to defective application, pursues an objective unconnected with wild finches conservation and, in any event, is inappropriate for attaining the declared objective.”

Malta had also failed to state reasons for the absence of any other satisfactory solution, and, could not demonstrate the absence of any other satisfactory solution.

“The fact that the Republic of Malta has amended its legal framework and introduced new procedures, new bodies and new participants in the research derogation, and strengthened the enforcement mechanisms, is not such as to demonstrate that the regulatory framework adopted in 2021 constitutes a new regime in relation to the subject-matter of the present action,” the ECJ said.

Government, PN BirdLife reaction

The minister for Gozo and planning, Clint Camilleri, responsible for the hunting laws, was present at the ECJ during the hearing of the judgement. “The government acknowledges the Court’s decision, which we are analysing to evaluate the implications going forward. We are determined to defend legal hunting and trapping, and we will work with stakeholders to address their rightful concerns, in full respect of this sentence and EU law.”

BirdLife Malta said the ruling sent a clear message that any such decisions onmature had to be based on solid science.

“BirdLife Malta always insisted that the Ornis Committee should be more science-based,” head of conservation Nicholas Barbara said of the consultative committee that includes both hunting lobby FKNK and BirdLife, and government expert, which advises the government on the opening of the hunting and trapping seasons.

“Members on this committee need to be able to understand science to be able to give the right advice to government. BirdLife Malta was the only member on this committee that had voted against this derogation as it was clear from day one that this was nothing but a smokescreen and had no scientific or conservation value. The European Court of Justice today vindicated our reasoning and advice,” Barbara said.

BirdLife CEO Mark Sultana said that following the ECJ decision, the Maltese government could only declare the end of finch trapping once and for all. “Birdlife had been giving the government the right advice all along, including during Ornis Committee meetings. It is a pity that we were not listened to, and that it had to end up in court. Now the Government has no choice but to listen and obey the EU Court sentence.”

The PN said the Maltese government had falsely raised hunters’ hopes that they could continue to trap birds.

“Even worse, the government ignored warning after warning from the EU, leading to Malta being taken to Court and now having to face the consequences, losing the case with all related costs,” the PN said.

“Thousands of trappers in our country cannot practise their hobby due to the government’s wrong decisions, which have resulted in the Court once again ruling to stop bird trapping.”

However the PN said it wanted a dialogue with the European Commission and bird trappers “to find a way for bird trapping to be carried out sustainably and through a serious plan that ensures the trappers’ interests are protected while avoiding any breach of the EU Birds Directive.”

Other infringement proceedings

Malta is still facing other infringement proceedings from the European Commission on spring hunting, as well as on the trapping of song thrush and golden plover.

The Birds Directive is a law based on the principal premise that many species of wild birds are threatened, mainly attributable to habitat loss, unsustainable hunting, and urban sprawl.

The law therefore bans the intentional killing or capture of birds by any method, or keeping of captive birds of species that may not be hunted or captured.

The use of clap-nets to trap birds is amongst the forbidden means and methods of capture indicated by the Birds Directive.