The Malta Environment and Planning Authority yesterday approved the controversial government-proposed aquaculture zone off Marsascala during a fiery public hearing.
Besides giving the thumbs up to the Fisheries Department to relocate the two existing blue fin tuna farms to an area six kilometres offshore, Mepa paved the way for the allocation of more tuna farming permits for the zone.
There are at least six potential investors interested in a tuna farming licence, most of them having links with European fishing giants catching Mediterranean blue fin tuna in Libya and Tunisia and Japanese importers.
Mediterranean blue fin tuna is not bred in captivity but caught and then fattened in cages. The new zone, with a total area of nine square kilometres, is planned to have a maximum capacity of 9,000 tonnes of tuna.
The government has said that an aquaculture zone would generate investment and reduce environmental impacts but yesterday's public hearing indicated not everybody was impressed with such an undertaking. In fact, the Marsascala business community and the local council strongly objected to the project, as they have been doing all along.
On the other side of the fence, fishermen's representatives loudly claimed the zone would generate work for Maltese fishermen during the off-peak season.
Mepa said it was approving the project on condition that the Fisheries Division submitted details about the location of individual farms and their cage configuration, the names of operators and the stocking density and also how the relocation of existing farms shall take place.
Ian Refalo, the legal representative of current tuna operators Fish and Fish Ltd and Malta Fishfarming Ltd, said Mepa was "illegally" delegating its power to the Fisheries Division, holding that the division would have the prerogative to issue or revoke operators' permits.
Mepa's procedures also came under fire soon after Prof. Refalo's intervention when economist Edward Scicluna and biologist Carmelo Agius claimed that the environment impact statement (EIS) had been "seriously jeopardised". They said such "a project of major strategic significance" had not been based on approved aquaculture policy but on personal communications between Fisheries Director Anthony Gruppetta and the EIS consultants.
"A zone which is bound to attract no less than 65 per cent of the entire Mediterranean tuna quota has to be subject to a strategic environment assessment (SEA) in the absence of a national policy," Prof. Scicluna said.
Prof. Agius, a tuna consultant, said the tonnage planned for the zone was excessive, expressing concern about the pathogenic risks such a high concentration of farmed fish could give rise to. "We should build our capacity bit by bit and not kill the goose that lays the golden egg," he warned.
Both Prof. Agius and Prof. Scicluna said the EIS had not included a risk assessment study and this had made it "impossible" for some EIS consultants to reach conclusions.
Another deficiency identified in the EIS was the lack of consultation with the Japanese buyers on the viability of the project.
At one stage Mepa chairman Andrew Calleja attempted to kick journalists out of the boardroom.
As soon as comments from the floor started being taken, board members said they could not see who was speaking because cameramen and press photographers were "in the way". The chairman said footage and photos could be taken from behind the audience, ordering cameramen and photographers to move out of the room and take footage through the door.
The journalists present objected and Mr Calleja told the policemen present to accompany the press out.
He withdrew his order after a protest by the journalists.