Despite the conflicts which arose, fish farms were still granted a licence according to a report by WWF entitled “Tuna farming in the Mediterranean: the bluefin tuna stock at stake”. Will the same happen in the case of the acquaculture zone in the south east of Malta?

The aforementioned report states that Birdlife Malta had warned certain cages were threatening certain seabirds. Nature Trust also objected to certain cages. The Malta Hotels and Restaurants Association also complained about the increasing activity of fish farming activities in Malta. The result of consultation was that the authorities proceeded with plans anyway.

Will there be another useless consultation process? The Marsascala Shop Owners Association, which is the representative of GRTU in Marsascala, together with other entities is opposing the acquaculture zones proposed.

Some attributes of

concern

The impact of acquaculture on the environment has been widely studied and discussed in various countries. According to Millar and Aiken, pollution from farms is the most perceived impact. There are also further concerns such as adverse landscape effects. Other effects may be less obvious to the public, such as the chemical dispersion in local water and the interaction with wild fish stocks, birds and marine creatures.

Intensive aquaculture will lead to a wide use of chemicals including hormones and stimulants at early life cycle stage; antimicrobials, disinfectants and fungicides in hatcheries, organophosphates as well as other chemicals which control parasites; antibiotics to counter major bacterial diseases, probiotics and additives to control growth. The level of fish farming in Malta is intensive and our waters have, in my opinion, already been subject to too much activity.

The National Report on the Strategic Plan for Conservation of Maltese Coastal and Biodiversity (2002) states that fish farms have an impact on the seabed and on the water column – thus, both their waste, residues, numbers and proliferation should be checked. The said report also states that intensive acquaculture should not be allowed due to the small size of the Maltese islands. In spite of this, it seems that we are heading towards an increased activity in fish farming in Malta.

As the report states, the time periods required for site recovery should also be studied as impacts from fish farms and tuna pens may not easily be reverted. Furthermore, there exists a conflict between the tuna pen industry and other marine activities due to the size of Malta. In the proposed area there is a conflict between wild fish and the tuna pens. In fact the Fisheries Cooperative Limited has more than once highlighted this fact. It claims that there are trawlers licensed to operate in the area. Furthermore, it seems to be a good fishing ground for small fishing boats.

The tuna graveyard

It is a known fact that tuna farming threatens to destroy the already over-fished wild tuna in the Mediterranean. WWF has warned that the practice is not subject to stringent controls. Yet, Malta is still keen for a larger slice in the profitable market. The prospects of stock recovery look depressing and WWF warned that raising the fish captivity could be exacerbating rather than solving the problem of declining stocks.

One should question also the number of fish farms and cages in Malta per coast kilometre when compared to Italy and Spain. Members of local councils in Italy have defined certain applications as “proposta indecente” (indecent proposal) and are rejecting applications. Are we doing the same in Malta? Are we protecting our tourism industry?

Don Staniford, an expert in acquaculture, last September stated, “We are already at a stage where mercury is being found in tuna. The experience of fish farming in other species is that rearing fish in high-density cages increases the concentration of pollutants in the flesh. There are now serious questions about the impact of pen-reared tuna on human health”.

Dirt and waste

Mr Staniford claims it takes a massive 20 tonnes of wild fish to fatten up just one ton of tuna for market. It seems tuna, on average, excrements two kilos a day. So one can imagine the amount of waste this may produce. Imagine if there is a production of 100 thousand fish a year.

Although some claim that no dirt or waste shall move towards the bays, the reality is that it is publicly known that dead fish have moved into St Thomas Bay. It is also estimated that 20 per cent of the currents move towards the bays. Can one imagine 20 per cent of the dirt of the Maltese population moving in a bay?

Furthermore, some claim there is some 35 per cent waste during the processing. One should once again question the level of damage to the seabed when such waste is thrown in the sea! Where will this waste end up and how are we going to recover from the damage done?

Big fish

It is also a known fact that fish farms attract big fish. Moreover, some fish farms may be taking husbandry measures to safeguard the welfare of farmed stock by protecting them from predators. This will endanger swimmers at the only bay which can still be enjoyed by swimmers in the south region, that is St Thomas Bay. The arguments of those in favour is that the probability (in their view) is minimal and that the farms will be six kilometres offshore. It is amazing how certain people vouch for sharks! Can anyone actually guarantee that no big fish will attack the swimmers in such bays?

Important sites

The dirt and waste above may also damage important sites in the area. The divers in the area claim that these will damage some unique diving sites in the island. Also one should be accountable for any damage done to important ecological areas such as

•The coastal cliffs from St Thomas Bay to Il-ponta tal-Mignuna

•The coastal cliffs in Marsaxlokk and Marsascala

Were these not scheduled sites?

If the waste and dirt actually move to Marsascala bay it could also harm the Il-Maghluq marshland.

According to the Localities with Conservation Value report (1987) this is one of the few remaining saline marshlands supporting many halophilic species; the only representative of the insect order Strepsiptera known to occur in the Maltese islands, Mengenilla chobauti, was found in Marsascala.

Tourism

Various fish farms in other countries are being rejected while it seems Malta is promoting the increase in number around the island and a high concentration in one specific area.

Is this country clear on the way ahead? How are we promoting our country: as one big farm?

Our main assets are the weather, the sea and the cultural heritage. We may be destroying the three, if we continue to pursue the development of this acquaculture centre.

Is it true that we are considering applications for the said acquaculture from fish farms that have been refused in other countries? Are the rumours true? Is it true that these countries have a high investment in tourism?

Why are larger countries with longer coasts rejecting these applications? Maybe they care more about their residents, tourists and environment?

It is not clear what the actual benefits of the project are and who will actually benefit.

Maybe the project promoters should better explain to all the stakeholders: who will benefit from this project?

Mr Buttigieg is the president

of the Marsascala

Shop Owners Association