From Mr A. A. Farrugia

One of the preambular paragraphs of the EU Birds Directive of 2 April 1979 states: “Whereas the species of wild birds naturally occurring in the European territory of the members States are mainly migratory species; whereas such species constitute a common heritage and whereas effective bird protection is typically a trans-frontier environment problem entailing common responsibilities; ...”

It may be assumed that once the EU has determined that a trans-frontier problem concerning the protection of migratory birds carries with it common responsibilities, a trans-frontier problem concerning the protection of migratory human beings similarly carries common EU responsibilities.

Section 1 in Article 4 states that “the species mentioned in Annex I shall be subject of special conservation measures concerning their habitat in order to ensure their survival and reproduction in their area of distribution...”

More importantly, in the case of Malta, Section 2 of the same article makes it clear that “member States shall take similar measures for regularly occurring migratory species not listed in Annex I, bearing in mind their need for protection in the geographical sea and land area where this directive applies, as regards their breeding, moulting and wintering areas and staging posts along their migratory routes...”

The EU Birds Directive has several other provisions, including species that “may be hunted under national legislation” (Article 7), and derogations that “permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on selective basis, the capture, keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers.” (Article 9, 1 (C))

Judging by all the fuss made recently by the EU, and some of its institutions, because 31 birds were taken to the office of Birdlife Malta during the month of May, the time has come for the Maltese authorities to take the initiative and begin to prepare the ground for an EU Refugees Directive.

Trapping

If, as some have argued, including a number of MEPs, Malta does not have the right to “trap” certain species of migratory birds, why does the EU expect Malta to “trap” migratory human beings? Is the value of life of a few migratory birds higher than the value of migratory human beings? It appears that during the past couple of weeks, more migratory human beings might have lost their lives in the Mediterranean than the number of birds documented by Birdlife Malta’s conservation manager, André Raine.

If, according to the EU and its Birds Directive, Malta has an obligation to allow migratory birds to continue on their migration routes to Europe, should Malta not have a similar obligation to allow migratory human beings to proceed along their migratory routes to Europe?

Thanks to the current administration and its predecessor led by our President, Malta now forms part of the European Union. We therefore need to stop addressing the EU and Brussels as if they were a third party institution and capital. We need to start harnessing our rights and arguments to start explaining and persuading the Union of which we form part that the EU Directives need harmonization. We cannot allow double standards, particularly where the safety and security of migratory human beings are concerned.

Hospitality centres

As a pre-requisite, we need to seek EU funds to transform our detention centres into “hospitality centres,” and regain our traditional characteristics of a caring and hospitable people. These centres need to be adequately refurbished and cater for a brief and transitory stay. At these centres, migratory human beings should be provided their basic human needs to regain their strength and dignity, and subsequently allowed to proceed to their destination.

The majority of the migratory human beings reaching Malta, like migratory birds, have no intention of settling in Malta, but to continue on their migration routes to Europe. We therefore need to have an EU Refugees Directive that recognises this phenomenon, as the original nine member States did way back in 1979, concerning migratory birds. As a goodwill gesture, Malta could take steps and seek EU resources to host a small proportion of those migratory human beings that might wish to spend some time in Malta.

Our own MEPs need to identify their colleagues who object to the “trapping” of birds in Malta, and diplomatically inform them that they cannot have it both ways. The same needs to be done with the Commissioners concerned. Perhaps those EU countries that are in a position to do so, may accept a number of “guest workers” for a temporary period of time, as the US is attempting to do to solve its own migration problems.

Several years ago, a former Prime Minister questioned the “soul” of the European Union of the time. If the EU of nine was concerned enough with the environment and the survival of migratory species of wild birds, should we not expect the EU of 27 to be concerned with the survival and final destination of migratory human beings?

Last, but not least, now that the focus is on our country, we can also remind the EU that the time has come for the EU, including us, to also take care of our own European internally displaced citizens, wherever they may be. Given his interest in the peace movement, it may be that the Executive Director of Birdlife Malta could give a better contribution by directing the attention of the EU to the “trapping” of EU citizens in the north of Cyprus by the military forces of Turkey, and the inability of the Greek Cypriots to regain their own property in the occupied part of their island. Or is the value of life of a few migratory birds even higher than the value of life of fellow European citizens?

Alfred A. Farrugia