One final push to end spring hunting

These are sensitive times for the fledgling Coalition Against Spring Hunting, a recently formed collaboration of no fewer than 11 environmental NGOs, grouped together by a common objective to end spring hunting once and for all.

On paper, this is an objective that should enjoy widespread support across the full spectrum of Maltese society. Surveys (including our own) have consistently revealed a sizeable majority against Malta's decision to apply for, and obtain, a derogation (or exception) from the European Wild Birds Directive to allow hunters to shoot birds during the nesting season.

The derogation itself was negotiated as part of the 2003 accession treaty, and the issue was much politicised at the time. The ensuing derogation is limited only to two species: turtle dove (Streptopelia turtur) and quail (Coturnix coturnix), both of which are regarded as legitimate game birds throughout Europe.

In theory the law only permits a 'limited' hunting season for these two birds. This year's season opened on 10 April and closed 20 days later on 30 April, with a national hunting bag limit set at 11,000 turtle doves and 5,000 quail.

In announcing these details, the Malta Environment and Planning Authority warned that "the season will be terminated by means of a press release should this national bag limit be reached before the end of the season..."

On paper, then, everything seemed to be in place for a controlled, limited season of the kind originally envisaged by the accession treaty. But in practice, things turn out to be more complicated than they seem.

'Out of control'

BirdLife Malta, which has been formally campaigning against spring hunting ever since EU accession (and informally ever since it was founded, in 1962), argues that the authorities have consistently turned a blind eye at various infringements associated with spring hunting.

One frequent complaint concerns the lack of sufficient law enforcement capability to ward against illegal hunting, another the system of 'self-regulation' whereby hunters were supposed to report their own catch to MEPA by means of an SMS.

This year in particular - marking the first spring hunting season under a Labour administration, following reports of an 'agreement' between Labour and the hunters on the eve of the election - BLM and others have cried foul over additional concessions to hunters.

For instance, the €50 licence fee, originally intended to curtail the number of licensed hunters, to make the spring hunting easier to control, was waived.

BirdLife was scathing in its reaction to this and other developments: "With the blatant abuse of the SMS reporting system we have seen over the past two years, and an average of one turtle dove and half a quail for each hunter, we can pretty much assume how much of this season shall be a free-for-all to everyone," conservation manager Nicholas Barbara said.

Another bone of contention was the decision, also attributed to the same pre-electoral agreement, to remove the mandatory 'armband' that was supposed to distinguish licensed from unlicensed hunters at a distance.

The measure had proven useful to police for the purposes of controlling illegal hunting. As Barbara said at the time, "Without the use of armbands, distinction between licensed and unlicensed hunters will be practically impossible, and enforcement has been weakened in this regard," he said.

All along, the authorities have been criticised for failing to sufficiently beef up the Administrative Law Enforcement section of the police, tasked specifically with monitoring illegal hunting and other wildlife crimes.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, given all the above, the 2013 spring season itself unfolded against widespread reports of illegal hunting.

"Between 10th and 29th April, BirdLife Malta staff and Spring Watch volunteers recorded a total of 895 incidents of illegal hunting in Malta alone," BLM executive director Steve Micklewright said on the last day of the season. "This includes 53 incidents of protected birds being shot at or shot down by illegal hunters and 636 incidents of hunting outside legal hours."

No other avenue

It remains to be seen whether the European Commission will take action on these and other complaints, as it had done when the season was abruptly closed in 2008. But with the seemingly inconclusive outcome of a court case opened by the Commission against Malta that same year, matters appear to have reached an impasse.

Informed sources tell this newspaper that although the Commission is far from happy with the circumstances of this year's season - not least, the fact that government has yet to submit its annual report, one of the conditions of the derogation - it is reluctant to pursue legal action against Malta in the absence of any clear guidelines by the European Court of Justice.

And with the local authorities apparently bound by an unwritten agreement with the hunters, any hope of a change in government policy appears to have been dashed.

It was against this discouraging backdrop that an effort was finally made to unite Malta's disparate anti-hunting lobbies into a single lobby group to press for change through other channels.

But though the coalition is now in place, and a campaign of sorts is already under way, it remains unclear how this same coalition intends to take advantage of an overwhelming majority that has been ignored for decades.

Rudolf Ragonesi, one of the coalition's two official spokespersons, explained that in the prevailing circumstances there were only three possibilities to end spring hunting, two of which have already been 'shot down'.

"The first possibility was action by the Maltese government. The current Maltese government is committed to defending spring hunting. The second possibility is the European Commission. The EU Commission is still studying the matter and one does not know when it will act. The third possibility is going to the electorate... which we have done."

For the sake of accuracy, it must be pointed out they have not quite 'gone to the electorate' yet. That would entail having already forced a national referendum: something which has not quite happened yet, but which - given the popular support enjoyed by the coalition - should theoretically not prove too difficult to achieve.

Malta's electoral law allows for an abrogative referendum, provided that the organisers present a petition representing at least 10% of the electorate - which works out at the daunting target of 34,000 signatures.

Nonetheless the coalition is upbeat about its chances of success. "We have no concern about not reaching the minimum threshold," Ragonesi said when asked about the possibility of failure.

Significantly he also shot down rumours that the coalition had set itself an impossible target of next September - i.e., in just four weeks' time - to collect the necessary signatures.

"Interest shown so far is substantial; however we cannot at this stage project a date by when the required signatures will be collected. Obviously the sooner they are collected the better."

At the same time it remains debatable whether the same 60% reportedly against spring hunting will feel strongly enough about the issue to make the effort to go out and vote.

The same cannot be said for the hunting lobby itself, which - as past experience shows - can mobilise up to 14,000 voters, possibly more.

Ragonesi is nonetheless optimistic that people will respond favourably when called up to act.

"The coalition is the first opportunity at which all NGOs are cooperating on a single specific issue. The coalition is providing a unique opportunity for the silent majority of Maltese to express their concerns about spring hunting by asking them to sign a petition to enable a referendum to abolish it. It will be the first time for people to make a real difference by signing the petition for a referendum."

'Referendum versus referendum'

Significantly, the hunters themselves appear to be taking the coalition and its aims seriously. In its Spring Hunting Fact File of 2013 the hunters and trappers' federation (FKNK) argued that an abrogative referendum on spring hunting would be 'undemocratic'.

"A new referendum on spring hunting is bound to be null and void because the issue was already decided by the March 2003 referendum... A referendum cannot be valid if it deprives people of their rights... a fresh referendum on spring hunting could result in a minority - and a substantial one at that - of the right to hunt in spring..."

The fact file however does not explain how it concluded that hunters have a right to hunt in spring.

Nor does it make any reference to the rights of a much larger majority to oppose spring hunting on conservation grounds.