Fisheries ministry denies ghost ship claims

Reference is made to the article ‘From ghost ship to phantom firm: Malta’s tuna exports get fishier by the minute’ published by MaltaToday on 24 September.
I feel that in this report you deceive your readers. Though mentioning the Permanent Representative of Malta to the EU, Mr Richard Cachia Caruana several times in your article, you failed to mention that he passed on the letter to you following a request from your paper. Furthermore, as in the case of previous articles you published on this subject, the article is full of inaccuracies, which merit clarifications.

Your article states that ‘Tuna Pro I – registered separately under two different owners’.
Upon pre-notification of transhipment, the Veterinary Regulation Fisheries Conservation and Control requests the certificate of registry which is made available to the Fisheries Protection Officer during the physical inspection in port. Ownership of vessel is included in this certificate. We registered the vessel with the owner indicated in the certificate and specified that it was being operated by Ta’ Mattew Fish Farm Ltd. during that period.

Your article mentions a ‘Spanish company – Tuna Pro Co. Ltd.’.
In order for the transhipment to proceed, we also request the invoice of the blue fin tuna in question.
In the packing list presented by Ta Mattew Fish Farms Ltd., the client is Tuna Pro. Ltd., Luis Morote 6.6 – 35007 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain. This is signed by the Director of Ta Mattew Fish Farms Ltd.
The Veterinary Regulation Conservation and Control Division does not validate invoices and has no means of cross checking commercial information on buyers and seller. The VRFCC has always reported all the details of all transactions and this is also confirmed by your article.

Your article states that ‘Japanese trade records show that Malta exported nearly 12,000 tonnes of bluefin tuna’.
Japanese trade records do not show 12,000 tons of export of Maltese farmed tuna. This figure is the result of extrapolated figures and analysis by ATRT and Malta Today. We have clarified this in our various responses to Malta Today.
In these responses we claim that the amount of BFT sent to Japan from Malta amounts to: Bluefin tuna farmed in 2007 – 7,983,435 kg; Bluefin tuna lost in storm – 1,253,189 kg; Carried over to 2008- 1,346,639 kg. Thus the maximum amount of farmed tuna in Maltese farms in 2007 and harvested in the period July 2007 – March 2008 is as follows: 7,983435 – 1,253,189 – 1,346,639 = 5,383,607 of input tuna.
This tuna would grow at harvest to: 5,383,607 x 1.25 = 6,729,509 kg
The 1.25 is the maximum growth factor allowed for farmed bluefin tuna according to EU regulations which transpose ICCAT recommendations.
Bluefin tuna caught by Maltese longlines amounts to 143, 700 kg.
Bluefin tuna farmed in other countries and transhipped in the period mentioned:
Thus the above three figures together amount to 11,306,491 kg which is the figure being mentioned in the article.
All tuna that left Malta can be traced on a consignment to consignment basis. In these responses we also demonstrated that the extrapolation and analysis utilised by Malta Today give excessive resultant original weights.
As an example MLT F 35/07 is a harvest of AJD carried out on the 29 October 2007. The whole harvest rendered 3 blue fin tunas with a total round weight of 668.84 kgs. The entries in the certificate were MLT F 35/07: DR: 594 kgs and OT (belly meat): 27.5 kgs. This makes a total processed weight of 621.5 kgs. The Japanese in their listings show two different entries with the equivalent weights as per our certificate. The ATRT analysis applied conversion rations of 1.126 and 1.80 to the different entries ending with an equivalent round weight of 668.92 kgs + 49.55 kgs which equals 718.47 kgs.
The 49.55 extra kilos should not be added on since they originate from the same 3 fish. During 2007, whenever we issued Statistical Documents and Re-export Certificates, we had to include the Additional Sheet which has got all the details of the harvest including the round weight from which the processed weight in the document has been extracted. The Commission itself and ICCAT had agreed on this procedure since the use of conversion factors applied generically was hugely exaggerating estimates of round weight. The documents appertaining to all these entries listed by Japan are available electronically and can be supplied.

Your article repeatedly mentions a ‘Ghost ship’
Rather than a ghost ship, the vessel in question is a medium-sized steel-hulled vessel with certificates of registration carrying the following details: Tuna Pro Co. Ltd. of Spain: Luis Morote 6.6 – 35007 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.

Your article states that ‘it is not clear where the tuna was stored in the 11 months between being caught and being processed, as Morocco had no registered tuna ranching facilities in 2007’.
As clarified previously to MaltaToday, on 2 July, 2007, an official from a local agent submitted a request to the Fisheries Conservation and Control Division to transfer frozen bluefin tuna from a processing vessel into containers. The following necessary documents were submitted with the request for approval. These include the Original ICCAT Documents, Certificate of Processing vessel and Packing List.
The bluefin tuna was caught by Moroccan traps as indicated by the original ICCAT certification released by the Maroccan Authorities:
Atuneros del Norte, Tanger – 16,245 kg
Almadrabas del Norte, Port de Larache – 5, 122 kg, 21, 094 kg
Madrabat del Atlantico, Port de Larache – 7,112 kg
Ikovaz, Port de Larache – 4,014 kg
Madrama, Port Kenitra – 4,684 kg (Total: 58,271 kgs)
The harvest of this bluefin tuna took place in May, 2007 on board the processing vessel Tuna Pro in Marocco.
57,816 kg of bluefin tuna was eventually transhipped in port from this vessel into 3 containers under the surveillance of Fisheries Protection Officers. Each container was then individually weighed at a local authorised weighbridge before being transferred to Malta Freeport from where they were loaded on outgoing vessels.
As explained above, this bluefin tuna was caught by Moroccan traps during the 2007 season, harvested in May 2007 and then transhipped in Malta in July 2007. We do not understand what the author wants to say when he refers to the 11 months. Also as explained, the bluefin tuna was caught by ICCAT registed Moroccan traps and not fattened in Moroccan farms according to the original ICCAT certificates relased by the Moroccan Authorities.
Your article states that ‘Tuna Pro is listed separately in the ICCAT register of authorised carrying vessels.’
At the beginning of each bluefin tuna season, we ask the farms to submit a list of vessels which they will be utilising during the season as tug vessels, service vessels, vessels that will be loading the dead fish, processing vessels and catching vessels. It may be the case that the same vessel we engaged to carry out different actions throughout the catching season and fattening period. In these cases the vessels will be registered twice in accordance with their activities as requested by ICCAT.
The registration confirms that Malta is submitting all data as requested.

Dr Anthony Gruppetta
Director General
Fisheries Division
Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs

Editor’s note: This “clarification” does not even address any of the issues raised in the article, still less clarify them. These include: that the vessel Tuna Pro 1 is double-registered under different owners; that the company “Tuna Pro Co. Ltd” does not exist in Spain; and that the quantity of tuna sold to this phantom firm should never have been listed among Malta’s exports to Japan. Furthermore, Dr Gruppetta contradicts himself when he states that the tuna was processed in May 2007. In two separate letters to this newspaper, and in Mr Cachia Caruana’s own letter to the Commission, the date supplied was May 2008.

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.