Malta is still to reply to the European Commission’s final written warning on the opening of the spring hunting season, which it considers to have constituted a violation of the EU’s Wild Birds Directive for the last four years running.

The Commission had given Malta a final written warning on 17 October and the customary two-month time frame in which to deliver a reply had elapsed earlier this month with no reply as yet from Malta justifying its actions since spring 2004, informed sources told The Malta Independent on Sunday.

Should Malta fail to reply to the final warning, or if the reply is found to have not justified the openings of the spring season, Malta is to be brought before the European Court of Justice to face charges for violating EU law.

Given the festive season, it is thought the Commission would give Malta leeway until January in which to reply but considering its hard line stance against Malta’s spring hunting practices, it could be expected to take action next month if a satisfactory reply is not furnished by Malta.

Malta could also request an extension in the light of a scientific study it is carrying out into the numbers of quail and turtledove, Malta’s two legally hunted species, migrating over the islands.

But, those close to the issue point out that such a request might prove redundant as a member State needs to first have the scientific data supporting its claim for a derogation from the directive in hand before a derogation is applied in the first place.

The issue will carry a certain amount of weight in the upcoming general election and with the spring hunting season expected to open, or not open, in April, a decision on the issue coincides with an expected electoral campaign.

As such, it is doubtful the government would like to declare a firm stance on the issue until after the event. In the event of a change of government, it could also mean a new administration would need to make a quick decision on the issue to avoid the possibility of Malta being fined by the EU over spring hunting.

The government had taken a tough stance against illegal hunting practices last spring, when reported infringements led it to close the spring season 10 days early.

In the wake of what was a described as a massacre of honey buzzards, a protected species, Minister for Rural Affairs and Environment George Pullicino had conceded the incident had damaged Malta’s case for spring hunting with the Commission.

But the Commission’s gripe with Malta is not over the shooting of protected species but rather with the hunting of legal species during the spring breeding season, which, it argues, threatens the sustainability of the species.

Speaking in October when Malta’s final earning had been meted out, EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas had commented, “The sustainable hunting of wild birds is possible provided it takes place under strict conditions. By taking these measures the Commission is seeking to ensure that rules for the conservation of bird species are followed throughout the EU to help prevent biodiversity loss.”

October’s final written warning follows Malta’s first written warning on spring hunting in July 2006, which had observed, “Currently, laws in Malta allow the hunting of the birds during spring, a key period of migration and breeding. In taking this step, the Commission is asking Malta to bring its rules on hunting into line with the EU’s Wild Birds Directive.

“The hunting of these migratory birds (turtle-dove and quail) takes place during their return from Africa to breeding grounds in Europe, before they have had a chance to reproduce.

“The impact on bird numbers is therefore more significant than it would be in autumn or winter, after the breeding season. The Commission believes that alternative solutions to spring hunting exist, in this case the possibility to hunt the two species in the autumn.

Hunting in the EU is regulated in the EU by the 1979 Wild Birds Directive, which holds a general prohibition on the killing of wild birds but allows the hunting of certain species “provided this does not happen during breeding or migration”.

In October the Commission also stipulated, “These closed periods are critical and allow wild birds to renew their numbers. Hunting periods are set at national levels, and vary according to species and geographical location.

“Exceptionally, member States may allow the capture or killing of birds covered by the Directive outside of the normal hunting season for a limited number of reasons, although such derogations are only applied when there is no alternative solution.”

The Commission, however, is clearly of the opinion that the alternative to spring hunting is the autumn season.

October’s final written warning, or reasoned opinion, is the final step before the case is brought before the European Court of Justice, unless the member State in question supplies a satisfactory reply.

If the Court of Justice rules the directive has been infringed, it would order Malta to take the measures necessary to conform to the provisions of the Birds Directive, failing which Malta would be warned in writing twice more.

If Malta still does not comply, the Commission would ask the court to impose a financial penalty. The penalties vary from slight to stiff, possibly amounting to a total of millions of euros, and could be applied for each day of the infringement, or every day in which Malta has opened spring hunting since it joined the EU in 2004.