Raphael Vassallo
It has a permit for four 50-metre cages for bluefin tuna, as well as eight smaller pens for sea-bream (spnott). But in reality, Azzopardi Fisheries’ tuna fattening ranch in the Gozo channel, just south of Comino, possesses no fewer than 21 collar rings for tuna cages (i.e., empty cages without any nets) and zero pens for sea-bream... all allegedly in contravention of its original permit.
The Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA) yesterday sent enforcement officers to monitor reports that a licensed tuna ranch off the south coast of Comino has allegedly quadrupled its potential capacity – from a declared 800 metric tonnes to a staggering 3,500 – without any valid permit to cover this extension.
The enforcement officers were despatched on site after MaltaToday sent questions about apparent discrepancies between the farm’s declared output and its visible capacity, based on a survey undertaken by international consultants ATRT/SL (Advanced Tuna Ranching Technologies) last week.
A MEPA spokesman eventually confirmed yesterday that the details of the planning permit bear little resemblance to the actual site: “Further to your query earlier today, kindly note that from our records there is a planning permit on this site, to substitute part of the breeding of sea-bream with tuna. The permit, which was issued on 5 February 2002, covers the operation for a fish farm with a maximum of 12 cages.”
MEPA also stressed in its reply that there are currently “no cages” on site: “From our initial investigation it transpires that there are no cages holding fish at this Comino site, but a number of collar rings (that is the upper part of the cage) without nets.”
With or without nets, these collar rings would still require a valid MEPA permit for a number of reasons. One, they have to be moored in place, a process which involves a system of anchorage to the seabed; two, the current 21 collar rings take up considerably more surface area than the originally envisaged 12 cages; and three, the original permit also states that any changes to the approved layout would require a subsequent permit application... something which MEPA itself confirms has never taken place.
It is not yet known whether MEPA will serve the owners of this site with an enforcement order for the above infringements. If it does, it will be the first enforcement order ever served upon any development associated with aquaculture in Malta.
Cagey permit
The only existing permit for the Comino tuna ranching site is PA 01741/01, which states that “The proposed development is... intended to install four 50m diameter cages for tuna farming and to reduce the Dunlop rubber cages (for sea-bream) to a total of seven in a single integrated row, together with a single 20m diameter cage to be used for transfer operations.
“Therefore the site will include the following: Four 50m-diameter cages moored on a grid system of mooring for tunas; one row of eight Dunlop rubber cages. At present there are 11 cages in two rows, one of five and the other of six.”
This official description stands in stark contrast to the reality on site seven years after the permit was approved. Aerial photographs taken by Greenpeace International last weekend confirmed earlier reports that the ranching operation has meanwhile grown to comprise 21 empty tuna cages – 17 more than originally approved – and not a single smaller cage for sea-bream.
Even without this photographic proof, the existence of so many undeclared tuna pens can easily be confirmed by simply looking in the direction of Comino from the upper deck of the Gozo ferry, which passes within clear sight of this ranch several times a day.
It is evident even from the aerial images that all 21 of these cages are currently empty – the nets having been removed, presumably for storage. However, informed sources explained to MaltaToday that as far as the international regulator of the bluefin tuna industry is concerned, it makes little difference whether or not a cage is fitted with nets: “What matters is that the licensed capacity is the same as the potential capacity,” one observer told MaltaToday.
The tuna ranching industry is regulated by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), to which Malta is a contracting party country.
ICCAT’s Regulation number 04/06 states that: “The Commission shall establish and maintain an ICCAT record of farming facilities authorised to operate for farming of bluefin tuna caught in the Convention area (hereafter referred to as FFBs). For the purposes of this Recommendation, FFBs not entered into the record are deemed not to be authorised to operate for farming of bluefin tuna caught in the Convention area.
“Each (contracting party country) under whose jurisdiction FFBs are located shall submit electronically, where possible, to the ICCAT Executive Secretary by 31 August 2004 the list of its FFBs that are authorized to operate for farming of bluefin tuna. This list shall include the following information: name of the FFB, register number, names and addresses of owner (s) and operator (s), location, farming capacity (in t).”
The Comino site is registered on this list as having a farming capacity of 800 metric tonnes. Without any nets, its active capacity at the moment is zero; but regardless of nets its potential capacity still stands at 3,150 tonnes - four times more than it is actually licensed to hold.
St Paul’s Bay infringement confirmed
MEPA yesterday also responded to questions sent last week regarding another tuna fattening ranch operated by AJD Tuna Ltd: the one just outside St Paul’s Bay.
“Please note that following a site inspection last week by the responsible enforcement officer, I am informed that the cages were found to be on the same location as originally installed seven years ago: i.e, when the development permit was issued,” a MEPA spokesman wrote in an email yesterday. “In fact, GPS readings were taken by the same officer who confirms the correct location. The slight changes noted in position were minimal and acceptable due to the prevailing under currents and surface wind variations.”
But as already pointed out last Wednesday, the location where the eight cages were installed in 2001 does not correspond with the parcel of sea identified by the approved drawing annexed to the permit – available for public viewing at MEPA’s offices in Floriana (ask for: PA 7377/98/36A).
As far as can be gleaned from MEPA’s website, there has been no additional application to sanction the current location since 2001. This in turn suggests that the farm’s location, confirmed by MEPA’s enforcement officer by means of a Global Positioning System, is as irregular today as it was seven years ago.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
