The dusk of ‘traditional’ hunting in MaIta is near, but the coalition of NGOs is not the one that will put an end to it.

by Raisa Galea and Francois Zammit

Collage by the IotL Magazine

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he powerful influence of two interest groups—construction and hunting—has clearly shown itself once again during the current pandemic. Both have been permitted to carry on with their activities despite the quarantine measures to which other sectors were subjected.

A total of 6,148 hunters were eligible to hunt during the spring hunting season of 2020—a number that excludes 1,247 persons aged 65 or older. Meanwhile, busy and noisy construction sites particularly stood out against the backdrop of empty streets, and have made isolating at home too hard to bear for their neighbours.

Besides the apparent sources of their power—a sizable share in the national GDP in the case of the construction sector and a few thousand strong hunters’ lobby—there are other aspects to their influence. The exceptional dominance of the two lobbies, however, contains a curious paradox: as a vehicle of urbanisation, the construction sector should be the chief enemy of hunting, a so-called tradition performed in the countryside. 

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]The exceptional dominance of the two lobbies contains a curious paradox: as a vehicle of urbanisation, the construction sector should be the chief enemy of hunting, a so-called tradition performed in the countryside.[/perfectpullquote]

In theory, the construction sector—the agent of ‘progress’ and modernisation in Malta—should be at odds with a guardian of ‘tradition’, as the hunting lobby positions itself. The two concepts—progress and tradition—are locked in inherent antagonism, since the former strives to erode the latter. However, in the Maltese political context, this antagonism is ambiguous and remains concealed.

To determine the reasons precluding construction and hunting from opposing each other as could be expected, we need to examine their relations to one another and the rest of Malta’s political actors.

Spring Hunting as a Symbol of National Sovereignty

Contemporary politics in Malta unfolds along two axes. On the one axis, it has been an ongoing trade-off between ‘progress’ and ‘tradition’. On the other, it’s defined by a rivalry between the country’s desire to demonstrate its European belonging versus preserving its supposed cultural authenticity. 

For the past few decades, the young independent republic sought to establish itself as a modern European state—a path that led to joining the EU in 2004, while at the same time remaining under a tight grip of conservative lobbies, with the Catholic Church being the most powerful of them. Until 2011, Malta’s integration into the EU co-existed with the country’s legislation not permitting divorce. To this day, it remains the only member of the European Union with a total ban on abortion, which makes the country distinct and authentic in the eyes of the majority of its citizens—as a citadel of Catholicism that does not give up its values under secular pressure.

Spring hunting of birds, also clashing with EU regulations, remains among the most controversial and debated issues, unresolved by the 2015 referendum. Although not influenced by the Church and not a uniquely Maltese phenomenon, spring hunting has a similar significance in national politics: it is a bone of contention in the rivalry between perceived national uniqueness and questions about EU integration. To some, it exemplifies the country’s respect for local customs, while others see it as a national scourge and a failure to fully recognise the authority of the EU stance on conservation. 

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Spring hunting is a bone of contention in the rivalry between perceived national uniqueness and questions about EU integration.[/perfectpullquote]

As observed by anthropologists Brian Campbell and Diogo Veríssimo, the referendum transcended conservation-related matters. It was “an emotionally-charged moment where a ‘nation’ chose which values it wanted to be seen as having.” The pronounced goal of the anti-hunting lobby was to assert Malta’s keenness on doing away with such antics for the sake of complete EU-integration—a mission which, contrary to expectations, failed by 2,200 votes.

Recently, the Federation for Hunting & Conservation (FKNK) has appealed to the President of Malta, requesting that he suggest amendments to the Referenda Act. The petition, originally addressed to parliamentarians and signed by over 104,000 persons back in 2014, called for the safeguarding of a “legal, socio-cultural tradition”. Ironically, the hunters’ lobby chose to identify as a “minority” whose cultural practices must be secured from “capricious” reasons for calling an abrogative referendum.

Despite this strategic self-description, the FKNK is by far the largest NGO in the Maltese Islands with circa 10,000 adult paid-up members. It is therefore unsurprising that spring hunting enjoys the support of Maltese politicians, including MEPs. 

Prior to the European Parliament elections in 2019, the majority of Malta’s MEP candidates, with the exception of Alternattiva Demokratika and Partit Demokratiku, promised to defend spring hunting at EU level if elected. Labour MEP Alex Agius Saliba—who was recently elected Vice-President of the Hunting Intergroup of the European Parliament—claimed that Malta will have a much stronger voice in the EU to protect the hobby “that forms an integral part of our culture and tradition.”

Political actors often justify their actions by referring to concepts presented as sacrosanct and fundamental. Among these justifications are national culture and identity, with tradition being their elementary building block.

Tradition is portrayed as something to be protected at all costs since it seems to have withstood the test of time and has supposedly existed for hundreds of years. Following this line of thought, a traditional way of life provides the necessary basis for being a member of the community and must be treated as a symbol of national identity and pride.

Examples of lobbying for ‘traditional’ practices abound. In Spain, bullfighting is defended as a tradition and the same applies to fox hunting in the UK. Bird hunting and trapping in Malta neatly fit into this category of ‘traditions’ to be safeguarded from extinction.

However, this form of reasoning is flawed. 

Most of the time, so-called traditional practices are in themselves recent constructs that have been created in order to sustain a narrative of a shared national past. In the past, hunting of quail and grouse was not performed as a ‘tradition’ for its own sake. It was most commonly done for a practical reason: to obtain meat at a time when industrial farming did not exist. Also, since guns were not available back then, anyone keen on traditions should put away their hunting rifle and revert back to bow and arrow, or simple traps.

Rather than a commitment to preserving a supposedly unique way of life, upholding spring hunting is a cocky way of telling the EU to let Malta decide on its internal matters. Independent from the United Kingdom for a little longer than half a century, the country is still savouring its self-governance.

It is no coincidence that the two controversial national ‘traditions’—a total ban on abortion and spring hunting—were juxtaposed in a statement by President George Vella. “I cannot understand, how on a European level they take you to the European Court of Justice over the killing of turtle doves but then you’re frowned upon if you do not accept abortion.” The President thus implied inconsistency of the EU legislators and undermined the moral authority of the European Court of Justice, which criminalises the killing of protected migratory birds but not the ‘killing’ of embryos.

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Spring hunting serves as a manifestation of national sovereignty and unwillingness to bow down to external power.[/perfectpullquote]

“Ewros fuckers”, as the anonymous hunter featuring in the most famous Maltese video ever eloquently put it, are not to tell the Maltese what to do in ‘their own’ country. In other words, spring hunting serves as a manifestation of national sovereignty and unwillingness to bow down to external power.

Construction as Progress

While FKNK lobbies for the preservation of a “Maltese traditional socio-cultural passion”, the construction and real estate sector have a contrasting mission—to advance progress and modernisation.

The Maltese word żvilupp stands for both ‘development’ and ‘progress’. In the eyes of many Maltese, hyper-modern tall buildings are associated with ‘progress’ and ‘modernity’. Following this line of thought, resisting the ongoing defacement of the countryside as well as of urban areas equals opposing progress and holding on to the past. 

A few years ago, the narrative linking construction to progress took off with a blessing from none other than Malta Developers Association President Sandro Chetcuti: “Development can never stop, and if it does stop it means that the country has stagnated. Progress must continue as it is crucial for any country”, he said in an interview to The Malta Independent.

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]“Progress must continue as it is crucial for any country”—Sandro Chetcuti[/perfectpullquote]

Advertising the new plans for a “six-star” mega-project at St George’s Bay, Corinthia chairman and founder Alfred Pisani urged his compatriots to “always accept progress.” Even the marketing of this project stood in opposition to anything traditional: the only other mega hotels classified as being six- or seven-star are those in the Gulf, mainly Dubai and Abu Dhabi. 

Although heritage conservation activists decry highrise developments and the swift urbanisation of the countryside as distorting Malta’s authentic image, ‘safeguarding tradition’ is certainly not a priority when it comes to political decisions on urban planning and construction.

We can therefore conclude that an ambiguous compromise between embracing progress and preserving traditions has been reached on the basis of two criteria: profit-making and national pride. Respect for traditions is restricted to either profitable cases—for example, tourism-boosting colourful Catholic festivities—or practices that can be utilised for asserting national sovereignty, such as spring hunting.

On the other hand, upholding such ‘traditions’ may also function as an apparent compensation for the loss of natural and architectural heritage, sacrificed on the altar of economic ‘progress’. The effective role of ‘traditions’ that are compatible with the cause of profit-making is to signify stability.

Tradition and Progress in Malta: Allies, not Enemies

As a supreme guardian of conservative traditions in Malta, the Church does treat the construction industry as its antagonist: the Church’s Environment Commission warned about the “vain promises” of progress made by construction moguls. 

Even if covertly, festa enthusiasts also do their bit in protecting open spaces serving as firework launching sites from over-building. Paradoxically, the hunting lobby has never openly voiced any concerns about the threat posed to its ‘tradition’ by the encroaching urbanisation and the swift disappearance of the countryside.

It would be logical to expect FKNK to be the most vociferous objector to proposed developments in the Outside Development Zone and the most ardent critic of architectural projects failing to comply with the ‘traditional’ image of Malta. 

In theory, hunters, heritage conservationists and ENGOs have a common interest: preservation of rural spaces from development. Together, the hunters and the NGOs could have built a strategic unified opposition to the construction sector that is rapidly devouring these spaces. In practice, however, the situation is contrary to what could be expected: potential allies are mortal enemies. 

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]In theory, hunters, heritage conservationists and ENGOs have a common interest: preservation of rural spaces from development.[/perfectpullquote]

The Hunters’ Federation may have numerous reasons for complicity with over-building: its members, too, may be driven by contradictory urges and may be investing in development projects or work in the construction sector. However, there seems to be more than mere neutrality between the presumed antagonists—MDA and FKNK practically act like partners. What could possibly explain such bizarre power dynamics?

One of the most plausible explanations of this strategic conundrum is the presence of a common enemy—a broad coalition of NGOs and individuals, the majority of whom hail from an urban middle class background.

In the eyes of the hunters’ lobby, the threat to their rural way of life comes from a ‘progressive’ urban middle class whose delegates seek to align Malta with the European liberal democracies, thus ready to give up the country’s supposed sovereignty. In their 2015 referendum campaign, hunters fittingly instigated fear that other hobbies—fireworks and horse racing—will be next in line to be banned.

Antagonism between hunters and the urban middle class is mutual and deeply ideological. The ‘traditional’ Maltese folk and urban cosmopolitans espouse contrasting sociocultural values. According to one of the hunters’ spokespersons, the “extremist” anti-hunting campaigners are “often influenced by foreigners who come to our shores.” Regarded by the rural folk as agents of alien influence, environmental activists themselves detest hunters as a national scourge and personification of backwardness trapping the country “in Medieval times.” 

The demand by FKNK for ‘public access’ to the nature reserves, currently administered by NGOs, simply verges on absurd since it goes against conservation. Again, the argument is clearly ideological and not about hunting per se: by making this request “on behalf of the Maltese people”, the Hunters’ Federation draws the line between ‘the people’ and the NGOs. 

Thus, instead of mobilising against MDA’s detrimental effect to their interests, hunters shift the blame onto eco-activists who fight both lobbies simultaneously, on all fronts. The same coalition of NGOs opposing the construction lobby also clashes with hunters over the control of rural space and scolds firework enthusiasts (also potential allies for preservation of open space) over noise and air pollution.

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Instead of mobilising against MDA’s detrimental effect to their interests, hunters shift the blame onto eco-activists who fight both lobbies simultaneously, on all fronts.[/perfectpullquote]

In other words, environmental NGOs and civil society groups are the conspicuous adversaries of—and are outnumbered by—the most powerful interest groups in Malta: the self-appointed guardians of ‘tradition’ and the self-proclaimed ambassadors of ‘progress’ alike. Having a common enemy turns intrinsic antagonists into allies and thus achieves the impossible by reconciling the opposites of construction and hunting.

‘Tradition’ vs ‘Progress’: What Will the Future Bring?

Given the special significance of ‘traditional’ spring hunting to Malta’s display of national sovereignty, it comes as no surprise that the government considers a stewardship agreement for hunters over lands at Miżieb and l-Aħrax tal-Mellieħa. However, in the long run, practicing this ‘tradition’ is likely to be reserved to such specifically dedicated areas only, as hunters are bound to be squeezed out of the countryside by the urban sprawl. 

Evidently, there can be no hunting without the countryside. With or without future referenda on spring hunting, a continuation of over-building would eventually succeed in achieving what the 2015 referendum failed to do: eliminating this practice by simply taking over the space where it is performed—the remnants of the countryside.

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Evidently, there can be no hunting without the countryside.[/perfectpullquote]

The hunters’ lobby does not seem to understand that tradition and economic leverage are hard to reconcile, and mistakenly regards the environmentally-minded middle class and ENGOs as its chief enemies. The dusk of hunting in MaIta is near, but the coalition of NGOs is not the one that will eventually put an end to it. The final blow will come from MDA. 

In a concealed battle between the ‘tradition’ of hunting and the ‘progress’ of construction, the more economically significant latter is the likely winner. Unfortunately, this kind of ‘progress’ would be detrimental not only to the imagined ‘tradition’ of the hunting ‘minority’ but also to the majority of Maltese residents, not to mention the migratory birds. Public health and wellbeing would be compromised even further due to aggravated ecological degradation.

One day, a popular joke might become reality: construction cranes would replace all birds in Malta.

Isles of the Left forms part of Spazji Miftuħa—a coalition aiming to preserve access to public open spaces.

Another referendum on Spring hunting will not resolve Malta’s top conservation conflict.

by Brian Campbell & Diogo Veríssimo

Image: Carcasses of migratory birds discovered by the German NGO Committee Against Bird Slaughter on the Dwejra Lines / International Animal Rescue Malta

[dropcap]O[/dropcap]n the 28^th of February, BirdLife Malta (BLM) declared it was considering a second referendum on Spring Hunting. This surprising announcement was a reaction to the Ornis Committee, which advised government to move 2018’s Spring Hunting season back by two weeks. BLM pointed out that the proposed dates coincide with the peak migration period of the Turtle Dove (Streptopelia turtur).

Turtle Dove can no longer be hunted. The current ban was suggested by Hunting Associations as a “sign of goodwill”. But BLM was worried that if the season is pushed to April, hunters will be tempted to shoot Turtle Doves “accidentally”, because the high activity in the countryside will help poachers blend in or escape. The Maltese government, they concluded, was ignoring the “scientific facts” and “bending over backwards” to appease the Hunting Associations, who present themselves as paragons of trust and conservation but have underhandedly found a way around their self-imposed moratorium.

Since Malta is “stuck in medieval times, where the one holding the firearm holds the power”, BLM said a second referendum to ban Spring Hunting is on the cards. The first referendum, held in 2015, resulted in a narrow victory for the pro-Spring Hunting camp, but “a second referendum is more likely to bring a different result as certain mistakes will be avoided”. BLM specified that the confusing wording of the 2015 question “cost the pro-environment lobby a number of votes”.

In this article, we ask whether referenda can solve Malta’s conflict about wildlife (“conservation conflict” from now onwards) and guarantee the long-term survival of endangered biodiversity.

What Is a Referendum, Anyway?

Scholars generally agree that referenda have three defining features. First, they often ask voters deceivingly straightforward “yes-or-no” questions. Second, they are considered to be the purest expressions of democracy, where the will of “the People” is unmediated by petty politicians. Third, referenda transform the issue contested (which, in the case of Spring Hunting is grounded in the technicalities of bird ecology and EU law) into an emotionally-charged moment where a “nation” chooses which values it wants to be seen as having.

Unsurprisingly, the escalation of conservation conflict into something as unwieldy as a national referendum is a scenario conservation scientists generally try to avoid, not bring about. This is because once stakeholders start the path to referendum, their dispute expands beyond conservation. Once these new topics dominate the debate, conservation goals no longer remain the sole drivers of conflict, and can, in fact, become an afterthought. This means that in cases like Malta, where hunting has become a proxy for deeper national anxieties, conservationists are forced to navigate treacherous political contexts, something their training does not prepare them for.

1. Hunting Stops Being about Hunting

For example, in 2015, technical points about conservation were sidelined in favour of arguments about what Malta is and should be. Killing birds for sport, the Coalition Against Spring Hunting (CASH) argued, is incompatible with modern values and embarrasses Malta in front of EU nationals (who boycott touristic visits), EU states (which threaten to fine us), and foreign conservationists (whose work we frustrate). The hunting lobby should not be able to strong-arm parties, dictate policy, and turn democracy into a joke. By contrast, the Hunting Associations presented themselves as guardians of Maltese traditions and insisted Malta should be a country were “minorities” feel protected.

2. The Challenge of Communicating Conservation

When conservationists appeal to the wider public, points based on the complex principles of, say, ecological sustainability or bird population trends, tend to give way to more emotionally appealing messages focused on animal welfare. In Malta, NGOs often diffused harrowing pictures of wounded birds and accounts of “massacres” and “bloodbaths” in the countryside. Hunters were cast as bloodthirsty bullies to be stopped by daring and valiant environmentalists.

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Recourse to animal welfare discourse is a double-edged sword for conservationists, whose main focus is on the sustainability of animal populations, not the suffering of individual animals.[/perfectpullquote]

Recourse to animal welfare discourse is a double-edged sword for conservationists, whose main focus is on the sustainability of animal populations, not the suffering of individual animals. On the one hand, it gives them excellent opportunities to obtain the support they need to pursue their projects. If not carefully managed, however, it can rob them of important political options. If one’s mission is to stop suffering, then any agreement allowing hunters to kill any number of birds must be temporary lest it becomes a form of surrender. Hunters, moreover, are unlikely to negotiate with anyone seeking their complete extinction.

3. Polarisation, Amnesia and the Naturalisation of Conflict

In 2015, we were surprised by how quickly the wide spectrum of ideologies held by Malta’s many environmental NGOs crystallised into two exclusive positions. As experiences of shared projects, activities and sympathies were forgotten, the zero-sum scenario currently characterizing the hunting arena became entrenched as natural and inevitable.

Polarisation is a major obstacle to conservation, because the intense rivalry it generates prevents these camps from seeing (or recognising) any interests and values they might hold in common. Anti and pro hunting activists might hold similar views about issues such as urban development. Calls for them to work together in greater coalitions to protect encroachment into Outside Development Zones (ODZs) might well represent those few opportunities left for reconciliation, which is essential if conservation is to succeed.

4. Agonism

The problem is that the longer Malta’s hunting arena remains polarized, the less likely reconciliation will occur. Over the past decade, the pro and anti hunting camps have developed a contentious history of nasty (and sometimes violent) encounters that only served to worsen how they view each other. Their grudge-laden, vengeance-driven, trust-deprived rivalry did not go away after the referendum: it only got deeper.

The situation becomes especially alarming when camps start treating their rivals’ every move—including “gestures of goodwill” with total suspicion, believed to be ruses that hide ulterior motives. Just as disheartening for conservation is stakeholders’ inability to even agree on basic facts and statistics. Anti-hunting activists accuse governmental organizations of keeping data on hunting “under wraps” and uncooperative Hunting Associations of harboring poachers. Hunters, similarly, say that “BirdLIES” “spuriously” misread scientific data and use evidence of poaching (e.g. recovered carcasses, video recordings) as propaganda tools instead of handing them to the police. Some hunters also firmly believe that anti-hunting activists “plant” carcasses of protected birds in the countryside and “discover” them in “strategic” moments, such as right before the opening of a hunting season.

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Conservationists are already aware that where conservation conflict involves issues of identity, losers are unlikely to concede defeat.[/perfectpullquote]

A second referendum would further entrench these camps. Conservationists are already aware that where conservation conflict involves issues of identity, losers are unlikely to concede defeat. But in cases like Malta, where the 2015 referendum was so narrowly lost, it is common for losers to blame defeat on politicians who might have tipped or mislead undecided voters towards one camp or worded the referendum question in a way that confused some voters, interfered with the “People’s” voice, and thus invalidated the referendum. As we have recently seen in Scotland or Britain, rather than being the final word, referenda can provide fertile ground for all sorts of protests that can lead to calls for a second round, but this time for real and “without mistakes” as BLM put it.

5. What about Poaching?

It is unclear how a referendum to ban Spring Hunting will solve the underlying problem of poaching. In effect, we hold that proper conservation cannot be successful without a clearer understanding of who poaches and why.

This understanding still eludes us. The explanation often found in anti-hunting discourse is that hunters are predisposed to violence and will shoot anything if they are not watched or threatened with punishment. The idea that hunters are all closeted poachers cannot be expected to inspire any respect towards and from hunters. Worse still, such a simplistic attitude prevents NGOs from considering that poaching is often a very politically meaningful act that could constitute a form of protest against environmental NGOs, who ignore hunters’ knowledge and portray them as savages who must be tightly monitored.

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Reducing poaching through punishment does not mark a victory. It is entirely possible that this repression can create further retaliatory poaching, which in turn creates a need for tighter security and a vicious cycle of repression-and-protest.[/perfectpullquote]

However, we think that stopping poaching by further intensifying surveillance along quasi-military lines—with “Bird Guards” launching “operations” to “patrol” and “sweep” the “battlefield”, “ambush” hunters and “set up perimeters” around roosting birds—does not merit the triumphalist tone with which it is so often reported. Reducing poaching through punishment does not mark a victory. In the Maltese case, it can even be considered a sign that conservation does not have broad societal support, and needs an expensive repressive apparatus to work. It is entirely possible that this repression can create further retaliatory poaching, which in turn creates a need for tighter security and a vicious cycle of repression-and-protest.

Beyond Referenda

Everything points to the fact that a referendum on Spring hunting will not resolve Malta’s top conservation conflict. Victory for the anti-hunting camp could help restore credibility to their claim of representing, if not “the People”, then at least a majority of them. This confidence could help environmental NGOs in their important struggles elsewhere. But it will not automatically translate into a victory for conservation. Probably, it will simply make it easier for environmental activists to catch poachers by criminalising all those who descend to their fields with a gun.

Instead of pursuing referenda or throwing lawsuits at each other, stakeholders should become better acquainted with the dynamics of conflict, so they can help manage it instead of being swept by it. They should also try to recover the shared values, identify goals and interests from which essential processes of reconciliation could commence, remembering all the while that there cannot be conservation without conversation.

Dr. Brian Campbell is a Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology. He has conducted extensive ethnographic fieldwork on migration and multiculturalism (convivencia) in the Spanish Enclave of Ceuta. He is also interested in the politics of wildlife conservation, focusing on the conflict between bird-hunters and Environmental Non-Governmental Organisations in Malta.

Dr. Diogo Veríssimo is an Oxford Martin Fellow at the University of Oxford, UK, where he works on the design and evaluation of interventions to influence human behavior towards biodiversity. Learn about about his work at www.diogoverissimo.com.