Since the last spring hunting referendum in 2015, have you noticed a shift in people’s mentalities towards hunting, either for the better or for the worse?

I can’t say that this is purely because of the referendum, because I took over as CEO afterwards, but in general, I would say yes, there has been a shift in mentality where people want to speak out more with regards to environmental issues. We understood this after the referendum as people came out in strong numbers to show their support.

Some would argue that BirdLife’s actions go against the will of the people because of the spring hunting referendum; how would you react to this claim?

We are not going against the political will of the people because we are exercising our democratic right to hold the government to account.

We need to keep in mind that we live in a democratic country, where justice is given a number of tools to prevail and people have a number of means at their disposal to take part in the decision-making processes of the country, namely referendums, elections and the courts.

If people ask: “Wasn’t the referendum ‘won’ by the hunters?” We can tell them that the referendum, despite common misconceptions, asked the people whether spring hunting ought to have been stopped or whether the government ought to continue taking this decision in its hands, year after year. With a difference of 2,000 votes, the people decided that the government should still be responsible for the opening of a hunting season.

But when you’re responsible, you must also be held accountable. The vote, therefore, did not allow the government to open the hunting season irrespective of the circumstances on the ground and BirdLife seeks to hold the government accountable in order for it to make the right choices based on the available scientific evidence.

And the circumstances have changed since the referendum, as the turtle dove has now become a vulnerable species. The government had previously stopped the hunting of turtle doves by issuing a moratorium in 2017, likely for political reasons, because it knew it was going to be challenged by the EU Commission, only to then re-open spring hunting as a promise to the hunters in the latest election.

During a recent exchange with Gerald Vella on Andrew Azzopardi’s radio programme, Vella said that the Federation for Hunting & Conservation (FKNK) and BirdLife’s work are actually similar and their aims are often the same; what do you make of this statement?

It’s good to remember that the majority of BirdLife Malta’s struggles lie with the government and not FKNK. The latter is a lobby group, a strong one perhaps, but since it is not a decision-maker, our fight does not lie with them as we have no control over them. But we do have an element of control over the government since they have to listen and understand that there’s another side of the story.

We do have a lot of things in common, at least on paper, with FKNK. Both groups disagree with illegal hunting and it’s good that they are planting trees and doing clean-ups. But it must be said that this possible greenwashing tactic doesn’t justify the illegal killing of vulnerable species or the derogations, and these positive actions are equivalent to all the positives that the rest of civil society is doing; the hunters don’t deserve special recognition in that regard.

Further, it must be said that FKNK has never protested any illegal development, habitat loss or government policy, and I think the main reason for this is because they took a strategy where they “sleep in the same bed” as the government. Lucas Micallef, the president of FKNK, was one of the endorsers of the Labour Party in various political discussions during the last electoral campaign where he pledged his support, and therefore the hunters’ lobby, to the government. This puts them in a position where they are possibly not free to criticise the government, unlike all the other environmental NGOs.

This touches upon the second part of the question which you alluded to in your previous answer. You said that your fight lies with the government, rather than other lobby groups and you mentioned this unfortunate tendency for the media to pit two organisations against one another. Can you expand upon this thought a little?

Yes, I think it’s very easy and short-sighted if someone thinks that this is a battle between FKNK and BirdLife. It is not in reality. It is between BirdLife or environmentalists in general and the government which is not pro-environment, at least not from a biodiversity point of view.

The government might be doing things for climate change and pollution, but when it comes to the protection of bio-diversity in our country, it’s a mess. I have had, in my six years as CEO, very little opportunity to debate with governmental institutions with regards to anything that is, in my opinion, wrong with our country. I think the government finds it very convenient to see us squabble with other lobby groups as a way to skirt on their responsibilities.

I want to have discussions with the police officers to see why aren’t they enforcing the laws, with the head of the Wild Birds Regulation Unit (WBRU) who are twisting scientific facts in order to enact their political will and with the Gozo Minister, Clint Camilleri, to see what he means when he says “that which is ours, remains ours”. With this last quote, it’s as though we’re still back in the 1950s with a mentality that isn’t befitting of an EU member state.

Pitting us against FKNK distracts from the larger issues at play.

Regarding the development on Comino, as an NGO that focuses on bird conservation, what are your personal grievances with this project, perhaps with regards to the impact that this will have on the wildlife of the region?

Comino, a protected natural and bird sanctuary and a Natura 2000 site, has been subject to some controversial developments recently. The Blue Lagoon is one area facing sustainability and social issues, primarily due to commercial interests overshadowing public enjoyment. The problem of deck chairs crowding the area, impeding access for those unable to pay, seems to have been resolved following a campaign by Moviment Graffitti. A significant concern remains in waste management, with food vans leaving their waste, which poses environmental threats, particularly to local wildlife. We advocate for regular waste collection to prevent food waste becoming a feast for rats, whose population increase can negatively impact several species of endemic birds and lizards, especially during winter.

Simultaneously, the planned hotel development has raised environmental concerns. NGOs have challenged the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) approved by the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) due to unanswered queries. Hili Ventures' planning application is also under dispute.

We’re not saying there shouldn’t be a hotel, but there shouldn’t be an increase in the footprint. If the hotel’s self-sufficiency necessitates an increase in its footprint, then it shouldn’t be there in the first place. The profitability of a project should not necessitate environmental destruction.

Dinja Waħda is BirdLife’s environmental education programme that has been run in schools since 1994; can you tell us more about the programme, its importance and the effects that you feel it may be having on society?

Education was always at the forefront of our campaign. When people at a young age experience nature, they are more likely to care about and protect it, so it’s important to expose them to the natural world at a young age.

Our strategy was to be present in schools with this programme which prepares students and teachers with all the resources necessary to truly understand nature. For instance, at secondary level, we’re developing the idea of teaching in nature. We do this because, according to University of Malta studies, children feel calmer, more participative and more energetic in natural environments. Since humans are part of nature, if our environments are not in consonance with the natural rhythms of the body then we’ll be stressed out without even realizing it.

It is a pity that we have to waste our energy with the illegal killings and derogations because we have a lot of other work that needs to be done when it comes to education, research and conservation efforts. Were it not for these efforts, we would shift a lot of our resources and attention towards these other areas which are very needed in our country.

We call for decision-making guided by environmental consciousness, prioritising the protection of nature over monetary gains alone. This shift in mindset is crucial for Malta's future as the current trajectory threatens the quality of life on the island, to the point where many younger residents are contemplating leaving. Our goal is to ensure economic decisions also consider mental and physical health and the state of the environment and we ultimately advocate for an economy measured not just by the GDP but also by the well-being of its people.