Action Brussels shall expect

Commenting in the wake of the spoonbill tragedy, the Federation for Hunting and Conservation's secretary, Lino Farrugia, demanded that the (EU) commissioner outline the nature of the "threat" implied in the statement made by birdwatching website Surfbirds.com that the message from Brussels was "wait until after accession, then..."

I wrote the article for Surfbirds. The actual text goes: "Despite appeals by many conservation organisations to the EU commissioners to put pressure on the Maltese government to enforce existing bird protection laws, the message from Brussels is 'wait until after accession then...'"

What will then happen follows on logically from the 2003 EU comprehensive monitoring report on Malta's preparations for membership. I quote:

"In the field of nature protection... enhanced efforts are however required to... designate special protection areas by accession, including the completion of the consultation process. Malta needs to ensure that relevant protection measures are applied by accession. The administrative capacities required are largely in place but considerable efforts are needed to ensure better enforcement of the legislation on birds."

If the EU regulations are not met or complied with, sanctions can be taken against the country involved, and these can be punitive. Mr Farrugia, but most importantly any lawbreakers, can be sure that there are enough motivated EU citizens who will be waiting to file complaints if and when any transgressions occur. This is not a threat - it is our duty.

As to the statement that "no proof had yet emerged that the culprits were hunters or that the protected birds were actually killed", the history and reputation of Maltese hunters, who have carried out such well-documented and proven outrages in the past, would in the case of other crimes lead to "the usual suspects being rounded up to help the police in their enquiries". Or can Mr Farrugia let us have a more plausible explanation for the birds' disappearance?