For years, Malta has danced on the edge of a cliff of its own making - testing limits, ignoring warnings, and clinging stubbornly to a narrative that fooled no one but those who wanted to be fooled. Now, after the European Commission launched infringement proceedings over the so-called "research" derogation on finch trapping, it is painfully clear that the fall was inevitable. We had it coming.
This latest action by the Commission is not an unfortunate misunderstanding, nor is it a sudden change in attitude from Brussels. It is the direct consequence of Malta's systematic refusal to abide by clear, repeated judgments delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union. And why? To appease the hunting lobby - a voting bloc that successive governments have lacked the courage to confront.
The government insists it made amendments after the 2024 ECJ ruling, claiming these addressed the Court's concerns and provided better justification for the absence of alternatives. Yet the Commission has seen through this façade. The infringement procedure confirms what conservationists, scientists, and the ECJ itself have said time and again: the "research" derogation is nothing more than a thin disguise for mass trapping of protected species.
No amount of legislative rewording or bureaucratic massaging can turn an annual trapping season - conducted with the same cages, the same lures, the same objectives - into genuine scientific research. The ECJ ruled in 2018 that Malta was breaching EU law. It ruled again in 2024 that Malta was still breaching EU law. And now Brussels is once more calling out the charade. How many rulings does it take to convince our authorities that dressing up illegal hunting practices in "research" clothing doesn't make them legal?
Instead of correcting course, the government has chosen to double down, declaring that this dubious derogation protects "cultural identity" and "long-standing traditions" of Maltese and Gozitan communities. But since when does "cultural identity" give a member state the right to ignore European law? Culture is not a shield against responsibility, and tradition cannot serve as a loophole for impunity. If that principle applied, every member state would resurrect whatever harmful practice it pleased and simply call it heritage.
BirdLife Malta has welcomed the Commission's move - and rightly so. BirdLife, together with EURING and countless independent scientists, has repeatedly highlighted the lack of scientific merit in Malta's so-called Finches Research Programme. Their position has been consistent, transparent, and aligned with international standards. It is the government, not BirdLife, that has twisted itself into knots trying to rationalise what the courts have already ruled unjustifiable.
Indeed, a letter the European Commission sent to Birdlife a few days before the infringement procedures were initiated makes it clear that the Maltese government's position mirrors the one already annulled by the ECJ. If the government's intention was to comply, it would not have reproduced a framework that the Court had already struck down. This is not compliance - it is defiance, carefully packaged in diplomatic language while hoping Brussels won't notice the difference. But Brussels has noticed, no matter what the minister responsible, Clint Camilleri, says.
The reaction from hunting groups only reinforces the absurdity of the situation. The FKNK's attempt to paint itself as a victim - suggesting the infringement was somehow a "pay-back gesture" by BirdLife and EURING - is both ironic and revealing. The European Commission does not initiate proceedings because two NGOs complain loudly; it acts because a member state has broken EU law. Malta's problem is not BirdLife. Malta's problem is Malta and the stubbornness of its government as it seeks to retain the (voting) hunting community on its side.
The truth is simple and uncomfortable: Malta has repeatedly gambled its European credibility for the sake of a few thousand votes. The government has chosen to prioritise electoral convenience over scientific reputation, environmental integrity, and legal obligations. Once again, as it had done on the passports scheme soon after Labour came to power in 2013, Malta is sacrificing its standing in the European community for short-term political gain, and the price will be higher than any temporary applause from special-interest groups.
This infringement procedure is more than a legal rebuke. It is a warning about governance. A country that continues to defy clear judgments risks far more than another trip to the ECJ - it risks being seen as a state unwilling to uphold the responsibilities of EU membership.
It is time for the government to drop the pretence. The derogation does not serve science. It does not protect conservation. It does not honour EU law. What it protects is political calculation dressed as national tradition.
Malta must finally admit what the Commission, the ECJ, the scientific community, BirdLife Malta, and every credible authority have been saying for years: finch trapping under this system is illegal, unjustifiable, and indefensible.
We had it coming. Now it is time to set things right.