The CEO of BirdLife Malta has made it clear that the NGO is working towards holding a second referendum to abolish spring hunting. What is still not known is when this will be held.

In an interview with The Malta Independent on Sunday, Mark Sultana said that that a second attempt to get the public to vote against spring hunting is “definitely on the table”, but it will not be in the near future.

“We need to be certain that we will win it,” he said.

Last time round, in 2015, the pro-hunting lobby won with a mere 2,200 votes, which were enough to keep things as they are. In a nutshell, BirdLife knows that a second defeat would probably close the subject for good.

“We know how we lost the previous one,” Sultana said, meaning that the mistakes that were committed in 2015 should not be repeated.

But, most of all, BirdLife – and all other groups that support it in its endeavour towards holding a second (successful) referendum – knows that so many factors need to be in place before this push is made.

In the meantime, the NGO continues to be in the forefront in the stance against spring hunting, and goes a long way to instil a better civic sense within the community, while always being on the warpath with the hunters.

It is not an easy battle. With a minister responsible for hunting who is very close to the hunting community, BirdLife’s battle is even more arduous. The appointment of Clint Camilleri as Gozo Minister with responsibility for hunting was a clear sign from Prime Minister Robert Abela that the government leans more towards the hunters than towards the environmentalists.

Abela picked Camilleri in 2020 and retained him in 2022, which sends the message that, at least for now, there is no intention for the government to budge an inch in favour of the protection of birds. Camilleri, who used to be a hunter and a trapper, held on to a very important position in spite of the protestations of environmental NGOs.

BirdLife therefore understands that should it move forward with the idea of a second referendum now, it will most likely come up against a pro-hunting propaganda machine which would be much larger and stronger than what its (BirdLife’s) resources can muster. Its chances of winning, therefore, would be much slimmer.

It would be better, BirdLife seems to argue, to wait for a time when the situation would be more favourable. Given that the hunting community – and their families – make up a sizeable portion of the voters, it is hard to imagine that any prime minister would choose an anti-hunting politician as a minister responsible for the portfolio. But maybe there will come a time when the person politically in charge would be more balanced.

Until then, BirdLife will continue with its regular monitoring of the situation, with particular emphasis on infringements, and with its insistence that there should be harsher penalties for offenders and that, more importantly, anyone caught flouting the laws is punished.