BirdLife Malta announced today that it will be pursuing legal action against the government, after the Wild Birds Regulation (WBRU) unlawfully amended legislation to give itself greater powers.

The topic has launched back and forth arguments between BirdLife and the Parliamentary Secretariat for Animal Rights.

At a press conference held earlier today, outside WBRU offices Casa Leoni in Santa Venera, BirdLife Malta also called for the resignation of the Head of Unit, Sergei Golovkin.

A legal notice that was published last Friday, 21 August showed that WBRU officials amended a piece of legislation that grants unprecedented powers of enforcement. 

Legislation dictates that altering such a law requires a six-week public consultation, which was not carried out. Birdlife Malta has taken a stand against the unlawful enactment of this amended legislation.

Executive Director of Birdlife Malta, Steve Micklewright said: “Since its inception two years ago, WBRU has eased legislation in favour of hunters and trappers, decriminalised the use of bird callers, re-opened a finch trapping season, allowed for increases in trapping licenses, eased hunting and trapping licence examinations as well as rendered obsolete an afternoon curfew protecting birds of prey.”

“It is frankly ridiculous that a government department that appears to have a mandate to give hunters and trappers more and more privileges, now has a hand in enforcing the laws that allow those privileges,” he continued.

“This latest attempt by WBRU to legislate its own ascent to power without any form of consultation is a reflection of our concerns voiced two years ago over this unit becoming a deregulation unit. We call on the Head of the Unit to take responsibility over these actions and offer his resignation to the Minister,” said Mr Mickelwright.

He is that it is ironic that while Minister Leo Brincat calls for an open consultation on the MEPA demerger plans, the Wild Birds Regulation Unit within the same Ministry steamrolls over the Ornis Committee without any form of consultation.

WBRU has advertised for the recruitment of inspectors, who would be responsible for enforcement. Such powers are only applicable to inspectors in MEPA to date. BirdLife Malta has argued that enforcement powers should be left in the hands of the competent authorities, specifically MEPA and the police.

Mr Micklewright added that “Impartial and effective enforcement is only possible when there is a complete separation between those legislating and those enforcing, and where there is no political interference. To date the WBRU has simply showed it is incapable of both responsibilities with its current staff contingent”.

When asked by this newspaper whether there was a precedent for repealing a law based on a lack of public consultation, Micklewright said that he is “unaware” of whether this has happened in the past but that it was most certainly “unusual”.

Changes in legislation saw the doubling of penalties for hunting offences - Galdes

In response, the parliamentary secretariat for agriculture, fisheries & animal rights issued today said that the changes in legislation enacted “build upon the earlier stages of the legal reforms, implemented in October 2013 and in March 2014”. These changes, “saw the doubling of the penalties for hunting-related offences” according to the report.

Through these latest amendments, the legal clarity regarding wild birds which does not naturally occur within the territory of the EU, but which may be brought into Malta, will be strengthened, the statement read.

“In order to avert any possible abuse, provisions have been revised concerning: legal controls over importation, transport sale, taxidermy and possession of wild birds”.

The amendments to legislation also increase the competencies of the Malta Ornis Committee, government explained. This provides for the possibility that the Committee may recommend the closure or suspension of any hunting or trapping season, or any other alteration to the seasons’ parameters.

Other amendments include providing legal protection status for certain non-Schedule I birds as well as the inclusion of a set of gravity factors intended to guide the judiciary in consideration of the seriousness of the offence.    

Following the press conference issues today by BirdLife Malta, the Parliamentary Secretariat refutes claims that the legal procedures following the issue of the legal notice were not followed. “This was done on the basis of discussions that took place at the Malta Ornis Committee for three months, i.e. in September, October and December 2014”.

The press release stated that “The published amendments evolved as a direct result of this discussion, and have incorporated the feedback received from relevant stakeholders, including BirdLife Malta.”

In response to claims that WBRU would be ‘replacing’ the police authorities, the Secretariat states that the WBRU was always responsible for enforcement since its inception, with the Specialist Enforcement Branch established in September 2013. In addition to this, it was stated that the amended laws further clarify this role, adding that the role is complementary to the police, however remains distinct.

Lastly the Secretariat also goes on to deny BirdLife’s claims on an individual case of fake finches’ rings that occurred earlier this month in Gozo. Government refutes the claim that finches were not seized, stating that through joint inspections with the Gozo police force, 52 illegal finches were seized. The press release also states that the finch rings were found to be genuine.

On this point, BirdLife Malta, contacted by this newsroom, said that this is contrary to the reporting of this matter in the media. " Birds with fake closed rings were not seized and continued to be sold".

WBRU did not provide all the amendments in a single document - BirdLife

BirdLife Malta said that the WBRU did not provide all of the amendments in a single document, so their impact could be considered in its totality and feedback given as a proper consultation. “They have broken their own rules since such proposals would normally go to Ornis for full discussion, amendment and eventual approval.  None of this was done”.

BirdLife added that while some elements of the legislative changes were indeed discussed at Ornis, many were never brought before the committee and were never discussed. Quoting from the government statement, which read - “The published amendments evolved as a direct result of this discussion” – BirdLife said that the government is actually saying there was no real consultation on the actual measures introduced in the legislation. Furthermore key issues were never discussed at Ornis such as the new enforcement powers of WBRU and changes in the responsibilities of Ornis.

As for the Ministry’s statement that the WBRU was always responsible for enforcement, BirdLife said – “Not true. Staff seconded from MEPA did this work under the auspices of their MEPA remit.  This is the first time the WBRU has been given explicit powers of enforcement.  It is obvious that this is the case.  If it were not so, the legislation would not have needed to be changed.”