Malta Freeport Terminals reported on Friday that last year it handled 70,000 fewer Twenty-foot Equivalent Units (TEUs – containers) than in 2008, but says that the year “has been of paramount importance” because of the realisation of various investment projects and the strategies formulated to strengthen performance levels.

It said that “a high rhythm of activity was registered on all fronts of its operations and the work necessary to ensure the consolidation of the Freeport’s prestigious status in the Mediterranean region for the future came on stream in earnest”.

The number of containers reached the over 2.26 million TEU mark which, the company said, was “a truly positive result considering the international recession and the increasingly complex world of global trade”.

The traffic volume handled by the Freeport in 2009 amounted to 2.26 million TEUs, while the 2008 2.33 million figure had been a record-breaker.

Traffic volume had increased by 53 per cent since 2006 and the Freeport Operator said the positive results being achieved “highlight the positive international recognition which the company enjoys with global container carriers and indeed during 2009 the Freeport has managed to attract additional shipping lines to use its facilities for their operations”.

During 2009, the Freeport has maintained its recruitment programme strategy for quayside crane and rubber-tyred gantries’ operators and engaged 70 operators in order to maximise the supply of cranes at any point in time. In all, the company has recruited 102 people during the year.

Ranking high on Malta Freeport’s programme during 2009 was the heavy investment being undertaken in facilities, which totalled over e50.2 million during the year. The company has boosted its operational capabilities with the commissioning of four new ZPMC super post-Panamax Quayside Cranes.

The company said Malta Freeport Terminals is one of the first terminals in Europe to invest in tandem cranes. This investment was imperative, enabling the Freeport to handle at its North Quay of Terminal Two last December, CMA CGM’s flagship vessel, the 13,344TEU CMA CGM Christophe Colomb on its maiden voyage linking Asia to Europe.

This was the largest vessel ever to call at the Freeport and is also one of the world’s largest containerships. A commitment was also signed with the Finnish company Kone for the supply of an additional 20 cranes that will be used for yard operations.

The throughput that will be handled during this month is 12 per cent higher than in the same month last year.

Scicluna demands Commission explanation on Malta Freeport extension

Labour MEP Edward Scicluna yesterday called on the European Commission to investigate the decision by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa) board to approve significant extension work to Terminal 1 of the Malta Freeport.

Last week, Mepa overturned its decision of February 2009 to refuse the application, despite the fact that no new information about the noise or social impact caused by the project has been produced.

In a parliamentary question tabled to the Commission, Prof. Scicluna questioned whether the approval of the project had broken the environmental impact assessment (EIA) directive by ignoring the effects the extension work would have on the Birzebbuga community, and asked the commission to take action if Mepa’s actions were shown to be illegal.

Prof. Scicluna said: “Arguments about the commercial benefits of this project are not the issue here. The point is that Mepa has ridden roughshod over the legitimate concerns of the Birzebbuga community, whose health, quality of life and the value of their property will all be adversely affected by this project.

“I want the European Commission to investigate whether Mepa has broken the terms of the EIA directive in overturning a decision, after less than a year, in the absence of any new information about the social impact of the project, and to take decisive action if it has.”

He pointed out that, under European law, all such projects are subject to rigorous impact assessments on the affected communities and asked what use it was to have “this useful piece of European law to protect citizens if planning authorities are then going to find ways to bypass the rules”?