Maltese fisheries and European Union Membership

This is an analysis of the consequences of the agreement reached between Malta and the EU in the fisheries sector, and of the effects of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The analysis is based on the Information Note, “Outcome of negotiations in the area of fishing”, from the Malta Information Centre (MIC), statements by the Hon. Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Hon. Ninu Zammit, and on discussions with Hon. Noel Farrugia, Opposition Spokesman on the same sector.

We find that the Maltese negotiators have had to make considerable sacrifices in the fisheries sector, fishing rights have been lost or will be considerably diluted, and there will undoubtedly be adverse and costly socio-economic consequences which will drain the pockets of the Maltese people.

EU will control fishing “management zone”

According to the MIC report and the Maltese Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Malta has only achieved a very weak agreement on a 25 mile “management zone”, despite having requested an exclusive 25 mile fishing zone. Persons in the Yes-camp have also promised this. The Maltese government, under the strict control of Brussels would manage this zone. Unfortunately it leaves many ways of fishing access open to EU fishermen.

Even MIC seems confused by the detail because they claim that “EU law states that although member states may keep the first 12 miles from their shore baselines exclusive to their own nationals only, beyond this point, fishing should be free for all EU fishermen”. They seem to be unaware of the fact that from 1st January 2003 “all EU fishermen will have equal access to Members States waters”. This is currently causing considerable argument as Spain is insisting on its imposition, so it can have right to fish right up to the shore of any EU country.

Neither has MIC explained the strength and longevity of this agreement very well, stating: “This agreement will be incorporated into EU law and will apply on an indefinite basis”, which gives the erroneous impression that it is carved in rock and will last forever. However, “indefinite basis” means that it can be ended at any time by the due legal process, which is probably a majority vote in Council, so it is not even very secure.

The fishing agreement between the EU and the Maltese Government contains the following facts and consequences:

1. Only fishing boats of 12-metre length and less will be allowed to fish in the rich 12 to 25 mile zone. This includes foreign boats, which can come under the protection and service of larger ships, which can remain outside the zone. Maltese boats of over 12 metres will not be allowed to fish in the zone. They will also be excluded, being forced to fish further away.

2. Trawling will be allowed in the zone by boats of up to 24 metres of any nationality, but no further registration of trawlers is allowed. However any foreign EU trawlerman can buy an existing Maltese licence.

3. Foreign fishermen will be able to take part in a substantial portion of the Lampuki (traditional “dolphin fish” - an important seasonal speciality) fishing, even boats of over 12 metres.

4. There are no restrictions at all on fishing by lights for vopi, mackerel, sardines and anchovy - open to all EU fishermen. The same applies to tuna, swordfish and other migratory fish, to which the conservation zone does not even apply. So, EU fishermen chasing these will have the right to invade Maltese waters as they wish. MIC states that the EU will control this fishing.

5. No new fishing boats can be built and registered. But any foreign EU fisherman can buy an existing Maltese fishing licence and can most probably work in Malta under the Free Movement of Labour rules.

6. The Maltese people will get access to the Single Market through EU-membership. But this is irrelevant to the Maltese businessmen who cannot compete through economy of size and geographical siting, and must therefore only service their own market. Dr. George Vella has disclosed that through existing EU trade accords North African countries such as Tunisia will have the right to sell their catches in Malta. This is damaging for local fishermen and effectively threatening to decrease their market.

Maltese fishermen will pay price for bad fishing deal

Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has confirmed that the LM 2.400.000 promised to the fishermen will have to be paid out of the pockets of the Maltese people, putting even more strain on the increasing budget deficit. Furthermore LM 2.400.000 will not go far among the 1800 fishing boats in use in Malta as quoted by MIC.

It is difficult to understand why Malta has settled for a 25 mile “management zone” which has so many holes in it and will cause so much costly socio-economic loss to the whole nation. Countries like Algeria enjoy a 52 mile zone, Spain claimed an Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 miles in the Atlantic and a fishery zone in the Mediterranean up to the median lines.

It is commonly accepted that every job at sea creates five on land. No doubt Malta is unique and works on a lower percentage. However, the 1800 fishing boats probably create jobs for at least 3.000 - 4.000 people. Very conservatively, at least 1000 jobs are at risk. Each person on the dole cost the rest of the taxpayers between 2.000 and 3.000 per year, which means yet another 2 or 3 million to add to the budget deficit. All to be paid out of the pockets of the rest of the nation. It is the Maltese people’s pockets which will pay the 2.4m plus the 2.6m = LM 5, or 11.85 million Euros.

Malta will lose influence of the fishing industry

It is clear that Malta will lose control over its fisheries policy if they become member of the EU. The European Directorate General Report says: “Legally, justification for the Community’s involvement in fisheries is perfectly clear. It is firmly based in Articles 38 and 39 of the Treaty of Rome, the legal bedrock of the Community signed in 1957 and ratified by all the EC governments. These set out the various aims and methods for organizing future agricultural policy, including fisheries explicitly. As a result governments transferred to the Community the power to determine measures for the fishing industry…”

The regulations of the CFP states clearly and unequivocally that “all EU fishermen will have equal access to Members States waters”. As from 1st January 2003, all current derogations for this will terminate. This will mean that Malta no longer will have control over its own fishing waters. The big fishing fleets of the EU Member States, like Spain and Portugal, will then have free access to Maltese fishing waters, especially to chase the migratory fish like tuna and swordfish, which fishing is bound to interfere with the local fishermen.

If Malta joins the EU it will also lose its independent voice on the General Fisheries Council of the Mediterranean. In that case Malta will only attend the Council as a very junior EU member with no power, which it would have given to the EU.

Growing critique against CFP

The critique of the CFP is severe, from both sector specialists and the Commission itself. Sector specialist James Provan MEP says: “CFP is over bureaucratic. It has failed to protect fish stocks. It has failed to ensure a sustainable fishery to secure the long term future of our fishing industry”.

Even the Commissioner for Fisheries, Franz Fischler, confirmed on BBC TV in June that the CFP was a “disaster”. But his proposals for urgent reform have been attacked and delayed by Spain in their own selfish interest. There is a strong possibility that this agreement will add to the difficulties of the CFP.

Produced by the editorial team of NO2EU Webpage: www.no2eu.org