MaltaMedia.com

‘The Government holds that there is no contradiction with regards to Malta’s pre-accession agreement with the European Union to “limit the taking in spring to only two species (Streptopelia turtur, and Coturnix coturnix, as an application of the derogation under Article 9 of the Directive” and the Prime Minister’s Statement in Parliament on Monday which acknowledged that the fact that Malta has managed to reach an agreement with the Commission on a methodology for the application of a derogation is in itself exceptional.

It is clear in the exchanges of positions between Malta and the European Union in the course of its accession negotiations prior to 2004 that the European Union had recognised that, due to the importance attached to certain specific situations pertaining to Malta, provision could be made for the possibility of derogation from certain conditions of the Directive. The Government had indeed tried to apply such possibility of derogation but, as a result of the more rigorous ruling of the European Court of Justice with respect to the Finnish Case (Case C-344/03) in December 2005, was deemed to have failed to use the correct methodology for its implementation. Hence the efforts made by the Government to engage with the European Commission to identify and agree on a methodology for the implementation of a derogation allowing spring hunting that is based on science and at the same time in line with the ECJ ruling in Case C-76/08 Commission v Malta and the objectives of the Birds Directive. The Government has also committed itself to underpin the method for implementation with a robust monitoring and enforcement system.

BirdLife Malta need to recognise that whereas the Court, in its ruling on 10 September 2009, made it clear that while the way the derogation was applied in Malta was not in line with EU law, it accepted Malta’s arguments that, having regard to Malta’s specific circumstances, the autumn hunting season cannot be considered as a satisfactory solution; this contrasted with the Finnish case where autumn hunting was declared to be an acceptable alternative to spring hunting and therefore spring hunting was not to be permitted. It is therefore clear that the Court left space for a proportionate use of the derogation for spring hunting in Malta, the parameters of which are the focus of the agreement reached between the Government and the Commission.

BirdLife Malta’s refusal to attend the Malta ORNIS Committee meeting yesterday is regrettable and runs counter to the joint statement co-issued on 9 September 2009, on the eve of the ruling given by the European Court of Justice, by BirdLife International and FACE - Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the European Union, wherein it was announced that “In advance of the ruling of the European Court of Justice in Case C-76/08 on spring hunting of Turtle Dove Streptolpeila turtur and Common Quail Coturnix coturnix in Malta, we the undersigned state that we will respect the ruling of the Court and we call upon all parties and individuals to do the same.’