Update with reaction from BirdLife Malta – The Parliamentary Secretariat for Agriculture, Fisheries & Animal Rights has in a statement this afternoon “rebutted the claims by BirdLife,” and stated that “all required legal procedures were followed in the issuing of the legal notice.”

“Rebutting claims of how the amendments were approved without prior discussion,” the Secretariat noted that “as BirdLife Malta is aware, these amendments were discussed thoroughly at the Malta Ornis Committee for three months, i.e. in September, October and December 2014.

“The published amendments evolved as a direct result of this discussion, and have incorporated the feedback received from relevant stakeholders, including Birdlife Malta.”

“In the light of claims that WBRU was ‘replacing’ the police authorities,” the Secretariat noted that WBRU was “always responsible for enforcement since its inception, with the Specialist Enforcement Branch established in September 2013. Its role is complementary to the police, but remains distinct.”

The new amendments simply made this role clearer; there is no change as regards to enforcement responsibilities but strengthened the assistance which the enforcement branch gives to the Police, it said.

The Secretariat also denied BirdLife’s claims on an individual case of “fake finches’ rings,” which occurred earlier this month.

“The allegation that finches were not seized is false. WBRU conducted joint inspections with the Gozo police and consequently, 52 illegally kept finches were seized. The other finches inspected on that occasion were confirmed to have legally compliant genuine close rings,” the Secretariat said.

It went on to explain that the “new amendments strengthen the Conservation of Wild Birds Regulations.”

“The amendments build upon the earlier stages of the legal reforms, implemented in October 2013 and in March 2014, which saw the doubling of the penalties for hunting-related offences.”

Through the latest amendments, the law is being further strengthened to introduce additional legal clarity with regards to wild birds which do not naturally occur within the territory of the EU, but which may be brought into Malta, the Secretariat said.

“Under the amended legal regime, provisions concerning legal controls over importation, transport, sale, taxidermy and possession of wild birds have been revised to prevent and deter any possible abuse.”

The Secretariat added that the amendments also “widen the remit of the Malta Ornis Committee by introducing the possibility for the Committee to recommend the closure or suspension of any hunting or taking season, or any other alteration of the season’s parameters.”

“The amendments provide legal protection status for certain non-Schedule I birds by including additional species in Schedule IX.”

Through the amendments, the Secretariat said that the WBRU Inspectorate is given the same legal tools as those granted to environment inspectors under the Environment and Development Planning Act.

“The new law also includes a set of gravity factors intended to guide the judiciary in consideration of the seriousness of the offence, in line with the relevant Recommendation of the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention on the Conservation of Wildlife and Natural Habitats in Europe.”

Government rebuts Birdlife claims – BirdLife reactions in bold from Steve Micklewright.

The Parliamentary Secretariat rebuts claims by Birdlife made in a press conference this morning, and states that all required legal procedures were followed in the issuing of the legal notice. Not true, WBRU did not provide all of the amendments in a single document so their impact could be considered in its totality and feedback given as a proper consultation. They have broken their own rules since such proposals would normally go to Ornis for full discussion, amendment and eventual approval. None of this was done.

Rebutting claims of how the amendments were approved without prior discussion, the Secretariat notes that as Birdlife Malta is aware, these amendments were discussed thoroughly at the Malta Ornis Committee for three months, i.e. in September, October and December 2014. The published amendments evolved as a direct result of this discussion, and have incorporated the feedback received from relevant stakeholders, including Birdlife Malta. “Not true. While some elements of the changes in the legislation have been discussed at Ornis, many of the changes were never brought before Ornis and have never been discussed. Note the phrasing, “The published amendments evolved as a direct result of this discussion”, the government is actually saying there was no real consultation on the actual measures introduced in the legislation.”

Furthermore key issues were never discussed at Ornis such as the new enforcement powers of WBRU and changes in the responsibilities of Ornis.

In the light of claims that WBRU was ‘replacing’ the police authorities, the Secretariat notes that WBRU was always responsible for enforcement since its inception, with the Specialist Enforcement Branch established in September 2013. Its role is complementary to the police, but remains distinct. The new amendments simply made this role clearer; there is no change as regards to enforcement responsibilities but strengthened the assistance which the enforcement branch gives to the Police. “Not true. Staff seconded from MEPA did this work under the auspices of their MEPA remit. This is the first time the WBRU has been given explicit powers of enforcement. It is obvious that this is the case. If it were not so, the legislation would not have needed to be changed.”

The Secretariat also denies Birdlife’s claims on an individual case of fake finches’ rings, which occurred earlier this month. The allegation that finches were not seized is false. WBRU conducted joint inspections with the Gozo police and consequently, 52 illegally kept finches were seized. The other finches inspected on that occasion were confirmed to have legally compliant genuine close rings. “This is contrary to the reporting of this matter in the media. Birds with fake closed rings were not seized and continued to be sold.”

Permalink: Secretariat rebuts claims made by BirdLife over issue of legal notice