The most recent impasse the government has reached with the European Commission illustrates, once again, how no government, irrespective of their political stripe, is willing to impinge one iota on the hunting and trapping lobby.

As had been the case in the great spring hunting saga, which we are certain is still to see its grand finale, both the Nationalist and Labour administrations have been utterly reticent to address the trapping issue.

In both cases, the government has been more than willing to see Malta dragged before the European Court of Justice rather than live up to its obligations under the EU’s Wild Birds Directive.

And Malta’s current case concerning its flagrancy of the directive is far more evident than in the case of spring hunting.

Trapping is prohibited by the European Birds’ Directive but Malta applies two derogations.

Both were subject to infringement procedures, but on finch trapping the EU Commission has gone a step further and taken Malta to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

One derogation applies to the trapping of seven types of finches, which is awaiting

Editor’s pick

judgment from the ECJ, and the other is applied in order to allow the trapping of Song Thrushes and Golden Plovers. When Malta joined the EU, the government agreed to gradually phase out trapping for finches over a five-year period. However, in 2014 the practice was reintroduced. In September 2015, the European Commission announced it would be taking Malta to the European Court of Justice for allowing finch trapping.

It had, after all, been crystal clear since Malta joined the EU 13 years ago that the trapping of finches would be brought an end. Malta had been granted a transitional arrangement in the Accession Treaty to phase out finch trapping and its had been given a four-year period in which it was to set up a captive breeding programme. That transitional arrangement expired in 2008.

But for some reason a fully-fledged captive breeding programme never got off the ground, and in the meantime Malta has opened finch trapping seasons year after year since then.

The EU directive clearly states that there is only a limited scope for any derogation “from the requirement of strict protection where there is no other satisfactory solution”. Such scope includes reasons in the interests of public health and safety or air safety, to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water, and for the protection of flora and fauna. A derogation can be applied in the interest of research and teaching, re-population, reintroduction and for the breeding necessary for these purposes. Clearly Malta’s case fits none of these bills. This is clearly not about the right to keep songbirds at home in cages, in itself a dubious practice as far as many environmentalists are concerned, it is about safeguarding trappers’ recreational time in their fields.

There are many recreational activities that some people would like to engage in but which are illegal, and EU law is not about picking and choosing those which suit one’s purpose or, in this case, political exigencies.

With the recent opinion of the ECJ’s Advocate General, and the weight that it carries, it seems Malta is almost certain to lose the case and in the process, lose yet more environmental credentials and have yet more egg smeared on its face. In short, the AG found that she was “entirely convinced that the present arrangements do not respect Malta's obligations under EU law”.