The Parliament has rejected an emergency motion calling for a review of the government's decision to permit longline fishing for yellowfin tuna in the Maldives, amid widespread concerns.
The emergency motion was submitted to today's parliamentary sitting by Kendhoo constituency MP Mauroof Zakir. The motion noted that the Ministry of Fisheries and Ocean Resources announced on August 15, 2024, that the Cabinet had decided to permit longline fishing, ostensibly to further develop the fisheries sector in the Maldives. The motion expressed concern over this decision and called for the Cabinet's decision to be reversed.
"This is a matter that fishermen, stakeholders in the tourism industry, environmental and marine life advocates, as well as many members of the general public, are strongly opposing. Therefore, I call for a review of this government decision and to reverse the decision to issue longline fishing permits," the emergency motion stated.
The motion noted that although previous governments had decided to permit longline fishing on various occasions, it was never implemented.
"The main reason has been that it paves the way for the destruction of marine life, and many species that are not the target of the fishery and are threatened with extinction become indirect victims of such fishing, causing the fisheries industry to face various damages," the emergency motion stated.
The emergency motion highlighted that fishermen, tourism industry stakeholders, and environmental advocates have many concerns about the potential damages and negative impacts if yellowfin tuna longline fishing is re-permitted. It stated that the potential negative consequences of implementing the decision to permit longline fishing must be considered.
"The negative impact on the income of fishing families. With the opening of longline fishing for yellowfin tuna, the opportunity to obtain permits and quotas will be most accessible to large local and foreign businesses. The result of ordinary fishermen not getting this quota opportunity will be the bankruptcy of their businesses and a halt to their progress," the emergency motion stated.
The emergency motion further stated that establishing a system for longline fishing based on quotas indirectly opens the door for a black market for those quotas. It also noted the extreme fear of monopolizing the fishing market, stating that ultimately, ordinary Maldivian yellowfin tuna fishermen and their families will have to bear the financial losses and remain without fair compensation for their work.
The emergency motion stated that permitting yellowfin tuna longline fishing is believed to cause irreparable long-term damage to the marine environment, the general environment, and the tourism industry of the Maldives. It highlighted that longline fishing would facilitate the bycatch of protected or endangered marine species such as sharks, turtles, and manta rays.
"The decline in the population of such species will have direct and indirect impacts on the Maldives across various sectors. This is something that paves the way for the destruction of the underwater ecosystem in the long run," the emergency motion stated.
Studies show that longline fishing gear, even when lost at sea or on land, destroys marine life. Furthermore, regarding the tourism industry, the emergency motion stated that one of the most attractive features advertised to the many tourists visiting the Maldives is the underwater beauty and the richness of marine life.
"Tourists who come to dive with underwater life such as sharks, manta rays, turtles, and dolphins account for a large portion of the income received by the tourism industry. Longline fishing will drastically increase the fear of a decline in the population of such species. Consequently, those conducting tourism activities and the tourism industry as a whole may have to face the resulting damages," the emergency motion stated.
Additionally, the motion highlighted the fear of an increase in illegal activities in the maritime zone. It noted that the issuance of longline fishing licenses was halted in 2019 due to the escalating issue of vessels engaged in longline fishing committing illegal acts at sea, and because the European Commission of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries expressed concern over this, raising fears that the Maldives could be banned from exporting fish to Europe.
"Therefore, if the closed door is reopened by permitting longline fishing to catch yellowfin tuna again, the opportunity for illegal acts to occur at sea will be opened," the emergency motion stated.
It was also noted that monitoring and regulating these activities involves major challenges, which is one of the biggest concerns of the civil society organizations raising their voices against this. The emergency motion also stated that there is no regulatory institution equipped with adequate resources to patrol, inspect, and prosecute illegal activities.
Furthermore, it stated that there would be a fear of losing the sustainable fishing label given to fisheries products exported from the Maldives.
"The Maldives exports fish to foreign countries by promoting it as fish caught through sustainable and environmentally friendly fishing, under that label. If fish caught through methods alien to sustainable and environmentally friendly fishing are included among the fish products exported from the Maldives, the sustainability of the fish products sold by the Maldives and the assurance given by that label will be compromised," the emergency motion stated.
The emergency motion also stated that permitting longline fishing for yellowfin tuna is something that, in the long run, will cause irreparable damage in many ways to the Maldives' fisheries and the various industries upon which the Maldivian economy relies.
In the vote taken to seek approval to debate this motion, 11 members voted in favor, while 47 members voted against it. While 30 votes are required for the Parliament to accept the motion for debate, ruling party members did not support it and rejected the motion.
The Cabinet decided to permit longline fishing in March. The Fisheries Ministry gave only 14 days to submit complaints regarding the regulation drafted for this. During this period, 18 civil society organizations advocating for environmental protection and the rights of fishermen and fisheries shared their concerns regarding the regulation with the government, based on nine points.
