The government’s allusion that there just might be a scope for “limited” spring hunting in years to come defies logic. The statement reads more like a face-saving and placating exercise than rationale concretely attached to the reality of the verdict.

True, the European Court of Justice in the judgement handed down on Thursday agreed with the majority of the government’s arguments for having opened the spring season in years now past.

The court agreed that the numbers of turtle dove and quail were “inconsiderable” in the autumn, that they migrate over the islands only during a limited period and over a limited area, Malta’s western cliffs, in autumn as opposed to the practically nationwide spring migration.

But, at the end of the day, it was the fact that the numbers of birds hunted in spring was heavily disproportionate to autumn’s numbers that constituted the downfall of Malta’s case.

The numbers of birds shot down, the Commission argued and the court agreed, must be compared with the total annual mortality rate. In reaching its verdict, the court cited that three times more quail are hunted in spring than in autumn (15,000 birds in spring) and eight times more with respect to turtle doves (32,000 birds).

While such numbers are clearly disproportionate, hunters themselves, it was pointed out on Friday, consider the number to be way off the mark, actually below the mark, which would more realistically be set at 100,000.

But if the government were to apply for a derogation to allow for a “very limited” spring hunt, the limit would need to be set very low indeed. To be proportionate with autumn numbers, the number of quail hunted in spring would have to descend to a mere 5,000, and to 4,000 with respect to turtle doves.

One would need to question how such proportionality might be achieved in a fair and equitable manner for Malta’s enthusiastic hunting population.

Dividing 9,000 birds between all of Malta’s hunters, which quite easily number twice that amount, would be a difficult task indeed. Perhaps hunters could team up and shoot one bird per pair across the whole of spring, or perhaps a roster could be drawn up through which yearly allocations could be spread out. Better still, an annual lottery could be held to determine who would and who would not be allowed to hunt in spring in a given year.

But that, of course, is not to definitively say that the government’s legal minds will not be able to find a loophole or some other way to circumnavigate the situation.

Nor did the court find any basis to Malta’s argument that there had been an agreement with the EC before joining the EU. The ECJ found that no documents had been presented to the court that evidenced any sort of agreement between Malta and the European Union over the retention of spring hunting in Malta following the country’s EU accession.

Hunters deserve a straightforward explanation of the assurances they had been given prior to Malta’s EU membership referendum, and the basis on which the assurances were given.

A vat of corruption

That the government is considering opening a civil action against the perpetrators of the VAT scam, as reported in today’s issue, is welcome news. Even more welcome news would be that, in parallel, the office of the Attorney General would appeal the Criminal Court findings for harsher sentences, another option being actively looked into.

The e10 million that the VAT scam is thought to have cost the state coffers would certainly not go amiss in these hard times in which the public deficit is continuously mounting and gross domestic product having been shown recently to be declining further than previously anticipated.

But, more importantly, both new cases, if they see the light of day, would send a strong, clear message that this kind of thieving will not be tolerated and that the government will seek to bring those responsible to the harshest justice contemplated by the law of the land.

Small fines, suspended sentences and general interdictions are soft sentences in comparison to the gravity of the crime of effectively stealing from the entire country.

The appeal against the Criminal Court’s ruling and the institution of a civil case to recoup the funds owed are not only warranted, but also absolutely necessary.

Sustainability v. development

Last week this newspaper ran a somewhat controversial story to the effect that the fallout from the Victor Scerri Bahrija development case is having economic repercussions and that certain developers are accusing environmentalists of harming the economy.

The story appears to have raised the hackles of environmentalists, and we make absolutely no apologies for it. As a media establishment, our environmental credentials are more than sound enough to weather some of the more scathing reactions on today’s letters pages.

But those writing in apparent revulsion have perhaps missed what, for them, would be the most important point of the story.

What the article told us was that, in effect, entrepreneurs have become reluctant about submitting development applications after the high profile case. That in itself should be music to conservationists’ ears, but no one has picked up on the point.

It also told us, albeit in not so many words, that such developers would not apply for new projects if they believe they will not, or nor longer, be able to get around the system.

This newspaper seeks to inspire debate on all issues and from all sections of society.

It will continuously seek not only to raise the level of the country’s political discourse, but it will also foster debate on every matter of national importance.

Indeed, the conflict between development and conservation is one of the major controversies coursing through the country. This relatively new momentum is most welcome – it is only through conflict that real, effective change is achieved.

So, in the meantime, let the debates rage on.