Fish farms in to the south east

There is an application before Mepa for the development of an aquaculture zone in the south east of Malta. The application states that the site will be six kilometres offshore. Various organisations, including the Marsascala Shop Owners' Association, which represents the GRTU in Marsascala, are opposing such a development. There are some obvious reasons for this opposition which certain stakeholders seem unable to see.

The impact of aquaculture 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 other concerns such as adverse landscape effects. There are then effects that may be less obvious to the public such as the chemical dispersion in the water and the interaction with wild fish stocks, birds and marine creatures.

Intensive aquaculture will lead to wide use of chemicals including hormones and stimulants at early life cycle stage; antimicrobials, disinfectants and fungicides in hatcheries, organophosphates and other chemicals to control parasites; antibiotics to counter major bacterial diseases, probiotics and additives to control growth.

The level of fish farming in Malta is already 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 Areas And Biodiversity (2002) states that fish farms have an impact on the seabed and on the water column and thus both their waste and residues and their numbers and proliferation should be checked. The said report also states that intensive aquaculture should not be allowed due to the small size of the Maltese islands. In spite of this, it seems we are heading towards 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 small size of Malta. In the proposed area there is a conflict between wild fish and the tuna pens. In fact, the Ghaqda Kooperattiva tas-Sajd Limited has more than once highlighted this fact. It claims there are trawlers licensed to operate in the area. Furthermore, it seems to be a good fishing ground for small fishing boats.

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 has warned that raising fish captivity could be exacerbating rather than solving the problem of declining stocks.

Don Staniford, an expert in aquaculture, said last September: "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".

Mr Staniford claims that it takes a massive 20 tons of wild fish to fatten up just one ton of tuna for market. So one can imagine the amount of waste that this may produce.

If we concentrate only on tuna... these are caught when they weigh some 50kg to 300kg, some three times as much as a human being. Now imagine production of 100,000 fish a year. There will be the equivalent of human waste of the entire Maltese population focused in one area.

Although some claim that there will be no moving of dirt and waste towards the bays, the reality is that it is publicly known that dead fish was carried 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 into a bay?

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

It is also a known fact that fish farms attract big fish. It seems that 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 what is basically the only bay left for them in the south region, that is St Thomas Bay. The arguments of those in favour is that the probability of such big fish being attracted is (in their view) 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 swimmers in such bays?

The dirt and waste may also damage important sites in the area. 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 and the coastal cliffs in Marsaxlokk and Marsascala

Where these not scheduled sites?

If the waste and dirt actually move to Marsascala bay it could also harm 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 at Marsascala.

Various fish farms in other countries are being rejected while it seems Malta is promoting an 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 cultural heritage. We seem to be destroying the three if we pursue with the development of this aquaculture centre.

Is it true we are considering applications that have been refused in other countries? Are the rumours correct? Is it true that such countries have a high investment in tourism? How come countries that have longer coasts and are larger than us are rejecting these applications? Do they perhaps care more about their residents, tourists and the environment?

As the Marsacala Shop Owners' Association rightly said this may have various negative impacts, mainly on the environment, residents, the value of property, tourism, jobs, wild fish in the area, fishermen, beaches and the seabed.

It is not clear what the actual benefits of the project are and who will benefit. Maybe the project promoters could explain better to all the stakeholders. Who will benefit from this project?