What exactly does Rural Affairs Minister George Pullicino mean, when he claims his government will ‘defend the national interest’ by opposing a trade ban on bluefin tuna?
For those unfamiliar with the controversy – or who may be unaware that tiny Malta is in fast becoming the most hated country in the world among conservationists – the bluefin tuna is an iconic fish which for thousands of years has provided for the livelihoods of fishermen and their families throughout the Mediterranean.
However, the same species is now in danger of extinction on account of serial over-exploitation: and if this eventuality does indeed materialise, the Mediterranean tuna fishery (including Malta’s entire fishing fleet) would be made redundant overnight.
Admittedly, Maltese fishermen play only a very small part in the extermination of the the bluefin tuna. But the same cannot be said for our country’s prodigious tuna fattening industry, which is both the largest in the world, and the single greatest pressure currently at work on the Mediterranean population of this endangered animal.
Unsurprisngly, the Maltese government has come out vehemently against a proposal to protect this lucrative fish, and in defence of our oversized tuna penning industry, the Rural Affairs Minister has produced three basic arguments.
One, that the scientific advice given to the European Commission has not to date included a full ban; two, that the industry contributes €100 million to the local economy; and three, that over 1,000 jobs would be lost if the ban were to become effective.
George Pullicino is mistaken on all three counts. His first claim is in fact a complete distortion of the debacle that was last November’s “tuna summit” in Morocco, when scientists very clearly recommended that international quotas be set at an absolute maximum of 15,000 tonnes (the optimal recommendation was around 7,500 tonnes). However, on the insistence of the European Fisheries Commissioner Joe Borg, with the full backing of the Malta government, the quotas were set at more than double that amount. And it is precisely this decision that has prevented the stocks from recovering, and which precipitated calls for a trade ban in the first place.
As for the second argument, Pullicino has yet to justify his claim of an annual injection of €100 million into the local economy. It would be closer to the truth to suggest that €100 million worth of tuna passes through Malta on its way to the Japanese market each year (or at least, that is what the relevant paperwork would have us all believe).
The government no doubt takes a healthy slice of this rather malodorous fish-pie; but to claim that the entire annual turnover of the companies involved is money “injected into the economy”, is at best a case of wishful thinking.
Regarding the claim that 1,000 jobs would be lost... perhaps Pullicino should explain how he intends to safeguard those jobs, once the bluefin tuna they rely on vanishes from our seas forever. The sad truth, however, is that those jobs cannot be saved unless the Mediterranean tuna stocks recover; and in turn, the stocks cannot recover unless the wholesale extermination of the species is somehow curtailed.
Ironically, therefore, by opposing the ban, the Maltese government is actually condemning those 1,000 jobs to almost certain redundancy. From this perspective, one cannot but condemn the “progressive” Labour Party for so irresponsibly supporting the government on such a blatantly flawed policy.
Fact of the matter is that it is not in Malta’s interest to oppose such a ban. Quote the contrary. The tuna ranching industry is undermining Malta’s credibility in the eyes of the world, and the ranches themselves are ruining the coastal environment.
The effect of so many fish farms, so close to the shore, can now be seen (and smelt) by one and all. Bays which were once natural beauty spots have now been polluted beyond recognition. Divers also report that the seabed underneath and in the vicinity of these ranches have been despoiled of all their natural biodiversity (hardly surprising, considering the high concentration of fish excrement and excess fodder) and are now an underwater wasteland. Meadows of supposedly protected Poseidonia – essential to the marine ecosystem – have disappeared, and the seabed off large parts of the coast is now dead.
Faced with all this, people rightly question whether the government is really acting in the national interest when it opposes measures which would be of direct benefit to themselves. And when one considers that the present government has so far failed to act on its own declared objective, and introduce a law on party financing, it is hard not to draw the unpleasant conclusion that the Nationalist Party is incapable of taking any decisions which might upset one or more of its unnamed financiers.
It would be a crying shame if a fish as impressive and economically important as the bluefin tuna were to be driven to extinction by the unbridled greed of a few individuals. But it would be positively criminal if the government of Malta were to continue betraying the interests of its own citizens, simply to accommodate the chosen few.
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.
Download front page in pdf file format
All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.
