Blue fin tuna fishing

With reference to the article Malta Implicated In Illegal Blue Fin Tuna Activity Claims (October 2), I would like to underline the following.

The WWF have been compiling reports for a number of years and Malta keeps appearing in each report. The situation is obvious: we fish for blue fin tuna and we have farming operations for this species and therefore we are involved. It was also apparent in the past reports that not all that was said had a factual basis and much was being thrown in to make the reports more sensational. An interesting fact to note is that Atlantic and Mediterranean tuna is covered extensively by regulations whereas tuna in the Indian Ocean is very lightly regulated and tuna stocks in the Pacific are totally unregulated - the Japanese fishers catch hundreds of thousands of immature tunas every year. 

The situation with blue fin tuna stocks has been discussed and argued on for the last decade and all the time we are told that the stocks are collapsing and yet every year these reports continue quoting that catches are always higher than the officially reported ones. It appears that the collapse may be a little exaggerated but it is definitely time to take proper stock of the situation. The final report is quite long and detailed and it is under study by the technical experts to enable a full and proper analysis.

The Korean/Malta/Libyan tuna hotel joint venture mentioned in the WWF report is not known to the Maltese fisheries authorities. We are aware that a Maltese fish broker is very active in Libya. He has in the past years put together Libyan, French, Spanish and Italian purse-seiners to fish together and is active in the sale of live and dead fish. These are all normal business operations and it does not mean that there is anything wrong from a legal perspective just because they involve Libya. It is possible that other Maltese investments in fishing vessels in Libya occur. Such vessels do not fall under our jurisdiction.

Malta is also one of the few states that have specific legislation relating to flights linked with tuna spotting operations. In the past reports of WWF this accusation was meted out to us as well but investigations have shown that most of the accusations were unfounded. No flights for tuna spotting originated from our airport during the month of June. Tuna spotting flights were organised from Malta airport during May when they are allowed.

The report mentions that illegal tuna spotting flights in June operated from Malta in 2005. In January 2006, Joseph Sultana (DG Civil Aviation Department) investigated a list of tuna spotting aircraft that were indicated by the previous report of ATRT, at the request of the Fisheries Division. Mr Sultana confirms that three light aircraft did come to Luqa airport on June 24, 28 and 10, 2004. He states that these planes filed flight plans in which Malta appears as transit. None of them stated tuna spotting as the reason for the flights. The flights were from Alghera, Spain to Malta and then to Tripoli and from Tripoli to Malta and then to Cagliari. Mr Sultana also adds that in 2005 we had no reports of tuna spotting aircraft using Malta as a base or for refuelling purposes during the month of June. He also indicates that all the aircraft mentioned in the previous ATRT report were all foreign owned.

In the distribution of catch quotas, Malta along with Cyprus is left with a blank allocation. This is the editor's way of increasing suspicion on an issue that is clearly well known by all administrations in the field. Malta fishes 344 tonnes under the others' quota and this cannot appear in the EU quota prior to a new BFT management programme being drawn by ICCAT. This BFT management programme is on the agenda for the ICCAT meeting in Dubrovnik this November.

A number of paragraphs in the WWF report indicate our procedures to establish the aquaculture zone to accept operations that in the past existed in the Western part of the Mediterranean. In this paragraph it is quoted that the zone will be 6x3km and it will be 6km offshore and may house up to 9,000 metric tonnes.

These paragraphs quote that the project has been substantially criticised by Maltese stakeholders and that a planned comprehensive campaign against it exists and includes taking the issue before the European Parliament. This campaign is reported as headed by the Malta Chamber for SME's and Malta Aquaculture Producers Association (MAPA). It is not, however, quoted that we shall be using only 25 per cent of the area and that concentration of farming operations may improve monitoring and control.

Malta is mentioned in a table showing retail diesel prices in US dollars along with a number of Mediterranean coastal states. Malta's is the second cheapest EU state after Cyprus and definitely dearer than any North African state. We are therefore being accused by WWF that we make it easier for vessels registered in other states to operate from Malta. It appears that WWF are implying that we close down all bunkering and ship chandling services!

Malta appears in the report but it is definitely not the culprit of the situation. Malta for a long time took a negative position in respect to purse-seining in international fora and never invested in such vessels. We were continuously told that the method of fishing was a very selective one and that its abolition was not the way forward to manage blue fin tuna stocks. This put the Maltese fishers in an unfavourable situation when the total allowable catches for blue fin tuna were elaborated by ICCAT in 1995 as our landings were very small in view of our fishing for tuna only with long line vessels. Since then we have two purse-seining vessels forming part of a pilot fishery but these cannot function fully as our allowable catch is primarily linked to our long line fleet.

Malta is also involved due to the arrival in Maltese ports of a greater number of the refer vessels transhipping tuna. Almost all the vessels mentioned in the report have called to tranship at Malta at one time or other. A great amount of data that is used to calculate over fishing or transhipments on the high seas also arise from the insistence of the Maltese Fisheries Division to be present at each transhipment and on presenting papers with the most exact descriptions and weights that can be attained under the current work practices.

It is obvious that if we wish to retain this fishery and related farming operation in the future we need to work hand in hand with the other EU member states and third countries involved to render this fishery sustainable.

Malta had attempted in September 2001 to introduce an area restricted to long line fisheries only but this was not accepted by GFCM (General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean). It is evident that we have to find means of better, simpler, more efficient management. A longer time closure for purse seining should be considered along with a scrapping programme directed at the fleets of purse-seiners that are of capacities that cannot be sustained by the reviewed total allowable catches. In the immediate period a huge reduction in effort may be considered along with real restrictions on marketing. All this is on the agenda for the forthcoming ICCAT meeting in Dubrovnik. Malta will be participating at this meeting as an EU member state and will do its utmost to achieve the best possible results for the blue fin tuna fishery as this occupies a relevant place in the fisheries sector in Malta. The activities linked to tuna farming are also important to the Maltese economy.

Mr Spiteri is communications coordinator, Parliamentary Secretariat for Agriculture and Fisheries.