The press statement issued by AD, and published by MaltaToday on Sunday 14 September regarding the alleged irregularities in the operation of the tuna industry in Malta (and in which speakers for AD arbitralily give a mistaken interpretation of the reply given to it by the European Commission) is misleading.
Nowhere in the reply given by the European Commission to AD is there any confirmation of discrepancies or irregularities in the operation of the local tuna industry as is being alleged by AD. In fact, in its letter to AD, the European Commision confirms that it is in continuous contact with the Maltese authorities to obtain more clarifications regarding the allegations put forward against the operation of this industry.
As has been done in the past weeks, this ministry is replying immediately to these allegations and is providing all the information requested by the European Commision. All that the EC did, in its letter to AD, is supply AD with the information provided by the Maltese authorities to ICCAT (that is the international organisation responsible for the conservation of tuna). As has been declared on various occasions, the Department of Fisheries maintains that this information is correct and that this same information can be easily verified. According to ICCAT’s recommendations, Malta is obliged to register, beforehand, any tuna farm that has a licence to operate. Therefore, Malta had declared all those farms that were in possession of this licence, irrespective of whether the particular farm had concluded the buying of tuna or not.
As a matter of fact, Malta has two such cases where a farm has a licence to operate but in fact has no tuna in its cages. This is not an irregularity, but if anything it is a confirmation that the fisheries department always did what was requested and declared all farms that could effectively commence their operations since they had the required licence. With regard to the fact that a particular local operator has two different ICCAT registrations, this in no way constitutes any irregular behaviour. The operator in question has two different licences on two different sites, one in St. Paul’s Bay and the other in near Comino. The Depatment of Fisheries registers these two farms with ICCAT as seperate from each other to ensure that the whole operation is transperant and traceable. This is not only accepted but it is requested by ICCAT and is certanly not an irregularity.
Regarding the capacity of local farms, Malta has already clarified, both localy as well as with the EC, that the fact that the cages presently in Malta have the capacity that could potentially exceed the quota that Malta has, cannot in any way be considered as proof of any irregularity. The irregularity will occur once the amount of tuna in these cages exceeds what is permissible and, to date, in spite of the large number of continuous inspections and strict monitoring, both nationally and internationally, this has never been identified let alone confirmed.
The Maltese government remains committed to maintain the sustainability and conservation of tuna. This commitment is not just given lip-service but is evidenced by concrete and consistent proposals and adopted positions that the Maltese Government has always taken in international fora and particularly in ICCAT. Nonetheless, government remains committed to safeguard the operation of legal industry, as is that of tuna, and deplores any attempt that undermines or puts this industry in any bad light.

Keith Galea
Communications Officer
Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs

Editorial note:

The European Commission today clarifies that Malta’s permanent Representative to the EU replied to its to its letter dated 1 August on 10 September, after a reminder dated 8 September. This hardly qualifies as being “in continuous contact”. Furthermore, the Commission’s letter to AD states plainly that Malta failed to submit caging declarations for two of its farms.