In this second part, Saviour Balzan recounts the negotiations with the European Union over hunting and trapping and the failure of the Maltese government to take advantage of the concessions awarded to Malta
Negotiations with officials in Brussels were not easy. But I have to admit they were fun. I had the advantage of not being a civil servant, while being renowned for being unorthodox.
When it came to presenting Malta’s compliance with the EU Birds Directive, the meeting would take place at a round table with all the countries’ members and applicants’ representatives around the same table. It was obvious that many countries were unwilling to accept Malta’s claim that a ‘contained’ number of turtle dove (gamiem) and quail (summien) should be tolerated. Several spokesmen from Eastern European states opposed Malta’s request. I retaliated by objecting to the requests of Eastern European applicants to shoot limited numbers of brown bear and wolf and other animal species.
They looked on in bewilderment, and in the coffee break they asked me why I was objecting. I whispered in their ears that they should understand that we Maltese like to hit back when cornered. There were no more objections to my demands for concessions.
At one point, the EU rapporteur of the meeting asked me, as the Malta delegation’s representative, rather lackadaisically, whether we had any nature reserves “on the island of Malta”, followed by a chuckle. I ignored him and did not even lift my gaze to look at him. When he repeated the question, I informed him he should rephrase his question without a chuckle and then I would reply to his query as any islander normally responds.
Later on he invited me for coffee, and asked me what that was all about. I told him hunting and trapping were a very sensitive issue in Malta, and that if the EU asked for immediate compliance there would be no accession because the Maltese hunting lobby would lead the No vote to triumph. “If Malta is in Europe, nature protection will prevail; if we remain out of the EU, everyone will lose,” I told him.
On trapping, the matter was even more complicated. The taking of finches was completely unacceptable. But EU officials were now trying hard to find solutions for Malta. They came up with a proposal themselves. They cited a European court ruling that had allowed limited trapping of finches in Belgium: the argumentation being that the limited number of finches trapped could replenish the gene pool of those finches in captivity.
It was one way of allowing trapping to continue in limited numbers. Returning to Malta after several meetings, the response from both hunters and BirdLife was not good.
There were other teething problems I did not even dare explain to either side. They concerned other restrictions related to shooting at sea and the issue of trapping in spring. They were both highly sensitive subjects.
Surprisingly, the FKNK’s Lino Farrugia continued to defend the interest of a small segment of hunters and placed importance on trapping in spring. The meetings held with the hunters in the presence of then foreign minister Joe Borg (today EU Commissioner) and Richard Cachia Caruana, were very tense. The hunters could not quite understand the full implications of the negotiations. And during Joe Borg’s presentations to them, I was always anxious that he would say the wrong thing.
The EU had effectively allowed for a transition period for limited hunting of turtledove and quail in spring, and the trapping of finches. During this period the numbers caught should be carefully regulated and communicated to the EU. And in the case of trapping, a breeding programme was expected to be set up to replace the need for capturing finches, and the only trapping that could take place was one related to replenishing the stock in aviaries.
George Pullicino, as environment minister, was the man responsible for the fact that this ‘implementation programme’ was never realised; and Lino Farrugia, the man who continued to defy everyone, claimed he could negotiate better than anyone else and ignored the concessions granted to Malta.
As the 2003 election approached, Malta’s EU information head Simon Busuttil and the PN director of information Gordon Pisani were concerned that the message to the hunting and trapping community should be properly transmitted. I told them what had been negotiated. I did not tell them that it was very highly probable that the government – a PN government – would be unable to implement the concessions. And back then, with Pullicino as minister, I could not see anything really materialising.
I knew that Maltese hunters were not really interested in restricting themselves to turtledove and quail. They just wanted to continue doing what they had always done. Most hunters looked forward to spring to simply shoot, and this included the downing of birds of prey, herons and other protected species. Only a very small number were solely interested in turtledove and quail.
Theoretically, if those bona fide hunters had agreed to a quota of these two species, hunting in spring could have been saved. But Lino Farrugia continued to argue for the majority of hunters, irrespective of their notorious lack of respect for the law.
Weeks before the election, I was invited by Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami to address the PN executive and explain the negotiated agreement. It was amusing to see Fenech Adami, a stickler for punctuality, rap Joe Saliba for being late. It was even greater fun addressing minister Louis Galea on hunting and answering questions put to me by Tony Abela and Mario Galea. On the last campaign day before the election, I was honoured to be the last one to speak on NET before Fenech Adami at around 11:50pm. I did not speak about hunting, but I did say that being an EU member would benefit us in the long run.
By the time Lino Farrugia had realised the implications of the negotiated agreement, the PN’s steamroller for the referendum and national elections was in full gear and no one could change the perception – the perception being that Malta had negotiated a concession for the continuation of spring hunting and trapping in autumn.
In the months after accession, I fell out with George Pullicino. I tendered my resignation as chairman of the Ornis Committee. No one attempted to ask me what needed to be carried out.
The next four years were wasted and the concessions and transition period duly expired. Lino Farrugia went on to stand for the June 2004 MEP elections and flopped.
And yet, he continued representing hunters and trappers, stating repeatedly that he could have negotiated a better deal. Over the years he launched tirades against me, singling me out as a traitor of the people and making it impossible for me to walk my dogs in the countryside. But I do not hold it against him. I am sorry, however, that he has refused to realise that his days are over.
BirdLife finally realised that EU accession brought to the fore the issue of infringement procedures, and with Maltese hunters and trappers flouting the law, the EU was only too quick to react.
No one in government batted an eyelid. Richard Cachia Caruana, traditionally astute and forward-looking, allowed George Pullicino to disregard the long-term implications for the fortunes of the Nationalist Party. And the new prime minister Lawrence Gonzi, who was nowhere to be seen back in the days before accession, was unable to see the implications of this ineffectiveness.
On the other hand, the future of nature in Malta entered a new chapter. Illegal hunting is still practised and unrelenting, true, but the writing is on the wall: hunting as we once knew it will no longer exist.
And no matter what is said, or what is recounted – I am proud of having played my little part to make this dream come true.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Search:
MALTATODAY
BUSINESSTODAY
All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.
