When the spring hunting season opens in less than 10 days’ time, the implementation of a government-commissioned study on seasonal bird migratory and hunting patterns is expected, if not already underway, to begin.

The objectivity of the scientific study’s proposed methodology is, however, being seriously questioned by experts close to the issue speaking to this newspaper.

The European Commission is awaiting a scientific justification for the government’s stance in favour of spring, as opposed to autumn, hunting.

The Commission has given Malta one month in which to reply to charges that it has been disregarding the Birds Directive since EU accession. Failure to do so will result in a final written warning over the infringement.

But the study’s methodology, drawn up by government-appointed French expert J.C. Ricci, is being seen as holding dubious scientific merit and strongly biased in favour of the government’s argument in favour of spring hunting.

The proposed methodology, it is being argued, has been designed to inflate spring numbers of turtledove and quail – the two species legally hunted in Malta – and to deflate numbers for autumn.

As being proposed, the study would draw its data from a combination of carnet de chasse – a record of birds hunted maintained by hunters themselves – and census surveys to be carried out jointly by hunters and birdwatchers with the aim of ensuring objectivity.

But according to experts close to the issue, while the carnet de chasse figures will be recorded throughout the year, the joint census surveys are only being proposed for the March to May period.

With the month of March already come and gone, at least one-third of the study’s reference period would have already elapsed without it having even begun.

Such a method would also lead to a tilted balance in which census survey and carnet de chasse data collected in spring would be compared only with autumn carnet de chasse data.

Moreover, as the carnet de chasse method only records the actual number of birds successfully hunted, it falls short of fully assessing migratory numbers. Given the highly emotive subject matter of the debate on spring hunting, it is also questionable whether a sufficient number of hunters would keep their records in a faithful manner.

Even if the proposal were altered so both number crunching exercises were to be carried out in spring and autumn alike, the methodology is said to still have a number of inherent flaws.

For example, the proposals are said to recommend surveys being conducted once every 10 days, potentially missing out on large migratory movements, while the fact that the study will run for one year will not account for year-on-year variability.

Such counts would also be carried out in the mornings, when the majority of migrations take place. As such, the methodology will fail to account for potentially large afternoon, night and pre-dawn migratory movements in spring.

Particular to the survey of quail, meanwhile, is the fact that it relies mainly on the call of the male bird, which is far more common in the spring mating season as opposed to autumn.

But with seeming disparity over the setting of the study’s methodology, it not yet known if the study itself will be ready to begin with the hunting season on 10 April.

There also appears to disagreement on whether the Ornis Committee has even discussed the matter.

Last Sunday, a Rural Affairs and Environment Ministry spokesperson informed this newspaper that, “The Ornis Committee, together with the co-ordinator of the study, are in a very advanced stage of finalising the appropriate methodology that will be applied for the scientific study of the Maltese Islands.”

This week, however, BirdLife Malta, which has two members represented on the Ornis Committee, insisted the Committee is still to discuss the study and, as such, has not yet adopted a position.