Of fisheries and fantasy!

In his article of July 22, Noel Farrugia once again proved that he does not know the "true facts on Maltese fisheries". May I invite Mr Farrugia and his advisers to sit back and try to learn something about fisheries science and management before dishing out the fantasies of his imagination to the public.

Let me start by reassuring every Maltese citizen that, contrary to what Mr Farrugia has stated, the fisheries resources within the Maltese 25-mile conservation zone and the livelihood of our fishermen will be safeguarded. It is true that the EU Common Fisheries Policy has not proved to be effective in some regions of the Atlantic but the CFP was hardly applied to Mediterranean fisheries due to their specific and complex nature.

However, the EU has recently drawn up a reformed CFP which focuses, inter alia, on the conservation and management requirements of the Mediterranean, which are totally in line with the management regime which will be in place within the 25-mile Maltese conservation zone when Malta joins the European Union.

The outcome of the negotiations on fisheries goes beyond the minimum requirements of the CFP. I urge Mr Farrugia to understand, once and for all, that the fishing effort within the Maltese 25-mile conservation zone cannot, and will not, increase beyond current levels, that is, no additional fishing (by Maltese vessels or those from other EU member states) will be permitted within the zone.

Maltese fishermen taking part in the lampuki fishery will not be affected by the Malta-EU agreement in any way. The fishery will continue to be managed by Malta on the basis of the traditional management system.

There is no fixed percentage of fishing allocated to foreign fishermen. Vessels from other EU member states will be eligible to take part in the kannizzati lampuki fishery should there be any surplus of sites after site allocations have been given to Maltese vessels.

The former can only start deploying kannizzati from 12 miles away from the Maltese coast, whereas the Maltese may deploy their kannizzati outwards from seven miles away from the coast.

With reference to tuna and swordfish fishing, it is neither the EU nor any other Mediterranean country which controls these fisheries. The species concerned are highly migratory and their stocks are not confined to any particular zone.

In this respect, their exploitation in the Mediterranean is regulated on a regional basis by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) in collaboration with the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean.

The agreement reached between Malta and the EU also states that the sustainability of the tuna and swordfish fisheries within the zone will be safeguarded and that Malta's current landing capacity will be incorporated into the EU quota allocated by ICCAT.

Mr Farrugia is also confused about the proceedings within the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean. Malta will remain an independent member of the GFCM on accession to the European Union.

It will continue to contribute independently and air its views in all scientific committees and sub-committees of the GFCM, and will enjoy the important support of the European Commission, which is a member of the GFCM along with its member states, in decisions taken at the political level.

Mr Farrugia has not only totally misunderstood the outcome of the negotiations but has also dared evaluate the technical and scientific studies which backed up Malta's negotiations. These studies and associated reports were, in fact, largely organised and written by Mr Matthew Camilleri, the government's fisheries consultant, with contributions from Italian, Spanish and Maltese scientists of high repute.

The documents were highly regarded by the fisheries international scientific community and the recently launched four-year FAO sub-regional project MedSudMed will take these studies further by allocating part of its $2 million budget to research in this field.

Nevertheless, the documents submitted have led the EU to agree to establish a unique fisheries conservation zone within the Mediterranean which will continue to be managed by Maltese authorities. The establishing of the conservation zone and its associated management regime has provided a perfect example of responsible fisheries management in the Mediterranean. The zone will be monitored through programmes of collaborative research funded by the EU in order to evaluate the state of resources. The concept of the conservation zone has been established on the basis of scientific evidence and therefore the agreement cannot "be terminated at any time by the due process applicable", as Mr Farrugia stated.

It is evident that Mr Farrugia is lost in fantasy land where he is more likely to feel comfortable.

Finally, I have to clarify Mr Farrugia's reference to EU Directive 92/99. A thorough search on the internet indicates that this directive does not refer to fisheries.

In fact, Commission Directive 92/99/EEC of November 17, 1992, refers to additives and feeding stuffs, whereas Directive 1999/92/EC of the European Parliament refers to minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres.

None of the above refers to fisheries-related aspects and as such any more comments would be superfluous.