'Race to weaken hunting laws'

TL;DR

On 27 May 2026, three days before the general election, BirdLife Malta headlined a press release “BirdLife Malta condemns dangerous political race to weaken environmental enforcement”, naming both the Labour Party and the Nationalist Party (PN). We read the release, both parties’ programmes and the later record to see whether each party made commitments that weaken hunting and trapping enforcement.

1. The Labour side is documented, but not in the manifesto. Labour’s manifesto (items 63–64) promises to defend EU-permitted derogations and “safeguard” hunting and trapping; it has nothing on fines or licences. The cuts came from a minister’s campaign statement and, after the election, an ORNIS Committee proposal to cut fines for shooting protected birds by 40%.
2. The PN side rests on one sentence and an inference. Alex Borg said hunting and trapping “will be safeguarded”. We found no PN proposal to cut fines or restore licences, and the 16 chapters of its programme contain no hunting or trapping item. That the pledge would override the Birds Directive is BirdLife Malta’s reading, not Mr Borg’s words.
3. No law has changed yet. The consolidated Conservation of Wild Birds Regulations still carry fines of EUR 5,000 and EUR 10,000 for shooting a protected bird. The reduced figures are reported second-hand from a presentation we cannot see.
4. Verdict: not substantiated (moderate confidence). Shown for Labour; not shown for the PN. A “race” between both parties to weaken enforcement is stated more strongly than the documents allow.

1. Supported
2. Largely supported
3. Not substantiated
4. Misleading
5. Contradicted

IN THIS REPORT

1 The claim and what we could verify

The intake locator was a Newsbook article of 27 May 2026 headlined “BirdLife Malta accuses Labour, PN of ‘dangerous race’ to weaken hunting laws ahead of election” [1]. The wording is BirdLife Malta’s own, in its press release of the same day [2]. Two differences matter. The release says environmental enforcement, not “hunting laws”, and its body text is more careful than its headline: a “worrying race between political parties to outbid each other with commitments that risk weakening enforcement and accountability”; the PN “appears to have fallen into the same trap”; and statements “indicating that hunting and trapping would be safeguarded even in situations where practices may conflict with obligations arising from the EU Birds Directive”.

The release points to three things: calls to lower fines for shooting protected birds and for hunting or trapping in closed seasons; statements “reportedly made by candidates” that lifetime licence bans should be revisited; and the PN’s position on safeguarding hunting. It names no speaker or document. Newsbook attributes the first two to Economy Minister Silvio Schembri and the third to PN leader Alex Borg.

2 Method

Question. Did each party make commitments that weaken hunting and trapping enforcement, as the release says? We tested each party on its own, using the same steps.

Evidence. (1) The Labour manifesto PDF and the 16 chapter pages of the PN programme were searched for hunting, trapping, the hunters’ federation, fines and licences (data/cc-050/). (2) Campaign statements were traced to the outlet that quoted them. (3) The current penalties were read from the consolidated Conservation of Wild Birds Regulations (S.L. 549.42) on legislation.mt, and the size of the reported reduction computed in tools/cc-050-report/calc.py. We did not interview anyone and could not see the ORNIS presentation. BirdLife Malta’s views of the Birds Directive are not tested here; this is a check of what the parties committed to.

Grades. Legislation and party manifestos: C (primary documents; official text). BirdLife Malta release: D for facts about others, since it is an advocacy statement. News reports: D. Verdicts follow the five-point scale in Appendix A.

3 What the evidence shows

Labour. Items 63 and 64 of the manifesto, under “Hunting and trapping”, say that only a Labour government guarantees that the country keeps defending the derogations the EU directives permit and that hunting and trapping practices are safeguarded [3]. The text is bounded by EU law and says nothing about fines, revocations or reapplication. The weakening comes elsewhere. Newsbook reports that in the final week the Economy Minister told a campaign event a Labour government would amend fines and licence revocations, including for those already revoked, and that the government had agreed this with the hunters’ federation [6]. We could not find the minister’s own words; the account is Newsbook’s. After the election, on 23 September, a presentation to the ORNIS Committee by a lawyer commissioned for the purpose proposed lower fines and a ministerial route for reapplying; BirdLife Malta was the only dissenting voice [7]. That proposal came four months after BirdLife Malta’s release: it shows that the direction the release described was later taken, not what was on record on 27 May.

Nationalist Party. Lovin Malta quotes Mr Borg telling the Rabat meeting that hunting and trapping “will be safeguarded” [4]. The 16 chapters of the PN programme contain no hunting or trapping proposal [5]. We found no PN statement proposing lower fines or restoring revoked licences. BirdLife Malta’s release reads the pledge as one that would hold “even in situations where practices may conflict” with the Birds Directive; the words quoted do not say that.

The law has not changed. The consolidated regulations on legislation.mt, amended up to L.N. 251 of 2025, set EUR 5,000 or a year’s imprisonment and permanent licence revocation for a first conviction, and EUR 10,000 or two years for a repeat conviction [8]. We found no 2026 amending notice, so what exists is a proposal, not a weakened law.

4 Where the evidence points different ways

5 Testing the claim

6 Verdict and requests for evidence

Why. The Labour half is backed by a minister’s reported statement, a confirmed government–federation agreement and a proposal before the advisory committee. The PN half rests on one unqualified pledge and an inference about EU law. The headline puts both parties in one race; the evidence we could show supports one. Confidence is moderate because the key Labour evidence is second-hand. What this verdict does not say. It does not say either party acted in bad faith, and it does not test whether the proposed penalties are proportionate or what the Birds Directive requires; a lawyer would need to answer that.

Evidence we are asking for

• From BirdLife Malta: the sources for “statements reportedly made by candidates”, and which PN statement it relies on.
• From the Government: the ORNIS presentation and minutes of 23 September 2026.
• From the PN: whether “safeguarded” includes any change to penalties, licences or derogations.

7 Limitations

• Mr Schembri’s and Mr Borg’s words come from news outlets (◆); we did not view the recordings.
• The ORNIS presentation is not public; its figures are BirdLife Malta’s and Newsbook’s account (◆).
• The PN programme was read as 16 web chapters; a separate PDF or later policy paper could contain a hunting item.
• The consolidated regulations may lag newly published notices; we found no 2026 amendment.

References

1. [1] Balzan J. (27 May 2026). BirdLife Malta accuses Labour, PN of ‘dangerous race’ to weaken hunting laws ahead of election. Newsbook. https://newsbook.com.mt/en/birdlife-malta-accuses-labour-pn-of-dangerous-race-to-weaken-hunting-laws-ahead-of-election/
2. [2] BirdLife Malta (27 May 2026). BirdLife Malta condemns dangerous political race to weaken environmental enforcement. https://birdlifemalta.org/2026/05/birdlife-malta-condemns-dangerous-political-race-to-weaken-environmental-enforcement/
3. [3] Partit Laburista (2026). Int Malta: Manifest Elettorali 2026, items 63–64, p. 171. https://partitlaburista.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Manifest_Elettorali_INT_MALTA_2026.pdf
4. [4] Falzon G. (26 May 2026). Borg pledges hunting and trapping ‘will be safeguarded’ during Gozo mass meeting. Lovin Malta. ◆ https://lovinmalta.com/news/general-election-2026/watch-borg-pledges-hunting-and-trapping-will-be-safeguarded-during-gozo-mass-meeting/
5. [5] Partit Nazzjonalista (2026). Nifs Ġdid: Programm Elettorali (16 chapters). https://pn.org.mt/en/nifsgdid/
6. [6] Balzan J. (28 May 2026). Government should fight wildlife crime, not reward it, 10 NGOs warn; (24 Sep 2026) BirdLife warns reduced hunting fines would reward those who break the law; (2 Oct 2026) BirdLife accuses FKNK chief of lying. Newsbook. ◆ https://newsbook.com.mt/en/government-should-fight-wildlife-crime-not-reward-it-10-ngos-warn/
7. [7] BirdLife Malta (24 Sep and 2 Oct 2026). Calls on Government not to weaken penalties; rejects FKNK President’s statement as false. ◆ https://birdlifemalta.org/2026/10/birdlife-malta-rejects-fknk-presidents-statement-as-false/
8. [8] Conservation of Wild Birds Regulations, S.L. 549.42 (consolidated, to L.N. 251 of 2025). Retrieved 5 Oct 2026. https://legislation.mt/eli/sl/549.42/eng
9. [9] MiŻien. Searches and calculation: data/cc-050/; tools/cc-050-report/calc.py.

Appendix A: series standards and verdict scale

Every investigation in this series follows the same rules so that verdicts are comparable and challengeable.

Confidence

High: multiple independent lines of evidence agree. Moderate: evidence is relevant but incomplete or indirect. Low: evidence is thin, second-hand or conflicting.

Evidence grades

A experiment · B observational study with a control or gradient · C review, guidance or official statistics · D assertion or anecdote. ◆ marks a source known only second-hand.

Standards

• Quote the speaker, not the headline, with outlet and date, and link the original where possible.
• Separate the claim from the evidence offered for it, and say who made which statement.
• Grade the evidence and show differing views side by side where the evidence is unsettled.
• State what we could not access or verify, and what would change the verdict either way.
• Ask for the missing evidence in specific, answerable requests.
• Offer a right of reply where a check finds a claim Not substantiated, Misleading or Contradicted (or a pledge Not measurable, Off track or Missed), before wider circulation, and append responses.
• Correct errors openly with a version number and change log.
• Whistle-blow only on evidence: a verdict of Misleading or Contradicted requires documents or data that can be shown, not inference.
• Check every side. Government, opposition, NGOs and developers are held to the same standard.

Appendix B: revision log