Editorial: Who pays for Malta’s slimy waters?

The Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) prominently displays its mission and philosophy statements on its website.

Its mission is “to safeguard the environment for a sustainable quality of life”.

It add that as the national regulator on the environment, it shall also maintain consultation with the stakeholders to promote and implement sustainable environmental management”.

So is the ERA living up to its high standards?

For several years, fish farms have been polluting our seas, causing great inconvenience and health risks to bathers and exposing our marine life to avoidable risks.

The ERA has now confirmed that four tuna farms have been fined a total of €14,000 for causing the fish slime that plagued Malta’s eastern coastline this summer. 

However, it failed to name the tuna farms in question or how the fines were distributed among the four farms. 

Fish farm operators, through their lobby, the Maltese Aquaculture Producers Federation, stopped short of assuming responsibility for the slime, saying that the patches were “not necessarily fish slime”. However, when Times of Malta visited the tuna fish arm off St Paul’s Bay, it found workers trying to contain fish slime before it drifted towards the coast.

The ERA board consists of 11 members, most of whom are academics. Is it too much to expect them to respect the intelligence of the public and be more transparent and intrusive in their oversight function as regulators? Why have they preferred to add insult to injury by penalising the four polluters with such a petty fine?

Experts in the fish farming industry agree that, just like most other factory farms, fish farming is responsible for a massive amount of waste, which causes water pollution when released into the sea. Both faecal and uneaten food from fish farms pollutes the surrounding water, leading to excess nitrogen and phosphorus that can cause algae blooms and slime, thereby depriving the water of oxygen.

Of course, another collateral damage of fish farms’ mismanagement is the risks and inconveniences it causes to bathers and those who want to enjoy the benefits of our beaches.

Is the Malta Tourism Authority concerned about the pollution from fish farms and their impact on its strategy to promote quality tourism? It is time for ERA and fish farm operators to acknowledge their responsibility to the public, who undoubtedly are the major stakeholders in this industry.

The specific site of fish farms will dictate the scope of their environmental, social, and economic impacts.

Cage systems that sit in open waters are more likely to spread parasites, diseases, and fish waste, as well as slime and algae, into surrounding ecosystems. Most of our fish farms are located too close to the shore, which causes conflicts with local communities that are impacted both environmentally and socially by their presence.

The ERA has a legal and moral obligation to protect the public and the environment from abuse or mismanagement by fish farm operators. This can be achieved by ensuring that ERA applies the ‘polluter pays’ principle, as promoted by the European Commission.

Still, even more needs to be done to protect our fragile marine and land environment. Fish farming is not nearly as sustainable as the public is led to believe; its environmental impact is massive. Industrial fish farming practices not only kill millions of fish every year but also pollute our waters and the marine ecosystem. 

Ordinary people have every right to expect the fish farm operators and the ERA to treat them with respect and with a focus on their duty of care to the community.