"Eco-Friendly Fisheries at Risk: Giant Purse Seine Fishing Fleet Threatens Maldives & British Indian Ocean Territory’s Chagos Archipelago Marine Protected Area, Home to the World’s Largest Coral Atoll
- Ibrahim Rasheed
- Mar 19
- 5 min read
Maldives, fishing is more than an economic activity—it is a way of life deeply embedded in the nation’s culture and identity. For centuries, Maldivian fishers have relied on the pole-and-line method, an eco-friendly technique that uses a single hook and line to catch tuna one fish at a time. Unlike industrial fishing methods such as purse seine nets, which indiscriminately scoop up entire schools of fish along with unintended bycatch, pole-and-line fishing ensures minimal environmental impact. Nets that devastate marine ecosystems are neither permitted nor practiced in the Maldives, a deliberate choice that reflects the nation’s commitment to sustainability over short-term commercial gain.
This decision is remarkable given the Maldives’ economic challenges.
Although often described as a Small Island Nation but Maldives could also be considered a Big Ocean State . As a island nation fighting to provide basic necessities to its citizens, the temptation to adopt more profitable, high-yield fishing methods like purse seining must be immense. Purse seine nets, capable of hauling in massive quantities of fish in a single sweep, promise significant financial returns—an alluring prospect for an economy striving for survival. Yet, the Maldives has prioritized the long-term health of its marine resources over immediate profitability, setting a powerful example of sustainable fishery management. This approach not only preserves tuna stocks—particularly skipjack and yellowfin, the backbone of the Maldivian economy—but also protects the broader marine ecosystem, minimizing bycatch of vulnerable species like dolphins, turtles, and sharks.
The Maldives’ commitment to sustainability once earned it a significant reward from the European Union (EU). Recognizing the environmental benefits of pole-and-line fishing, the EU granted Maldives tuna duty-free access to its markets. This privilege, part of the EU’s Generalized Scheme of Preferences (GSP), allowed Maldivian tuna to compete effectively in Europe, one of the world’s largest canned tuna markets. The duty-free status was more than an economic boon—it was an encouragement to the Maldives and a signal to the global community that sustainable practices could be both viable and rewarded. For a time, this arrangement bolstered the Maldives’ fishing industry, supporting the livelihoods of thousands of fishers and processors while promoting an eco-friendly model for others to emulate.
However, this privilege has since been revoked, leaving the Maldives facing new economic hurdles. In recent years, the EU imposed tariffs of 22-24% on Maldivian fish exports, a move that has drastically undermined the competitiveness of its tuna in European markets. This decision raises critical questions: Why would the EU, a bloc that champions sustainability and environmental stewardship, penalize a nation adhering to eco-friendly fishing practices? What changed in the EU’s stance, and how does this align with broader conservation efforts in the region, such as the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) Marine Protected Area (MPA)?
The BIOT MPA, encompassing the Chagos Archipelago, is the largest marine protected area in the world, spanning a quarter of a million square miles of pristine ocean. Managed by the United Kingdom, it includes the Great Chagos Bank—the world’s largest coral atoll—and serves as a sanctuary for marine biodiversity. The MPA bans commercial fishing, aiming to preserve one of the planet’s cleanest and most ecologically significant marine environments. Given Britain’s role in maintaining this conservation zone, one might assume that the UK—and by extension, the EU before Brexit—would support sustainable fishing practices in neighboring regions like the Maldives. Yet, the imposition of tariffs suggests a disconnect between these conservation ideals and trade policies affecting sustainable fisheries.
The EU’s decision to end duty-free access for Maldivian tuna is tied to the Maldives’ graduation from Least Developed Country (LDC) status in 2011, a milestone reflecting its economic progress, largely driven by tourism. Under EU trade rules, countries that graduate from LDC status lose GSP benefits unless they negotiate alternative trade agreements. The Maldives, however, has not secured such an agreement, leaving its tuna exports subject to standard tariffs. While this policy shift is procedural rather than a deliberate attack on sustainability, its consequences undermine the very practices the EU claims to support. Maldivian tuna, caught sustainably, now faces a steep price disadvantage compared to tuna from countries with less stringent environmental standards but retained preferential access.
This tariff hike has reignited debates about fairness and the global tuna trade’s environmental footprint. In the Indian Ocean, giant purse seine fleets—dominated by distant-water fishing nations like France and Spain, both EU members—harvest vast quantities of tuna, often using fish aggregating devices (FADs) that exacerbate overfishing and bycatch. These industrial operations contrast sharply with the Maldives’ artisanal, low-impact fishery. The EU fleet, responsible for a third of the Indian Ocean’s yellowfin tuna catch, operates under subsidies and trade advantages that dwarf the Maldives’ modest industry. Critics argue that the EU’s tariff policy indirectly favors these less sustainable practices, rewarding high-volume producers while penalizing a nation that prioritizes ecological balance.
The control of purse seine fleets in the Indian Ocean further complicates the picture. These vessels are primarily operated by EU countries, alongside other players like Japan and South Korea, under the oversight of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC). The IOTC, tasked with managing tuna stocks, has struggled to curb overfishing, particularly of yellowfin, which is nearing collapse due to industrial exploitation. The Maldives has pushed for stricter regulations within the IOTC, advocating for equitable cuts that account for the sustainability of its methods. Yet, the EU’s influence within the commission often prioritizes its own fleet’s interests, sidelining smaller nations like the Maldives.
Britain’s stance post-Brexit adds another layer of intrigue. No longer bound by EU trade policies, the UK could, in theory, champion sustainable fisheries like the Maldives’ while upholding the BIOT MPA’s conservation goals. However, there’s little evidence that Britain has prioritized this issue, suggesting that economic pragmatism may outweigh environmental ideals in its post-EU trade strategy. The Maldives, caught in this geopolitical shuffle, faces a stark reality: its sustainable model, once celebrated, is now a competitive liability in a market shaped by industrial giants.
In conclusion, the Maldives’ pole-and-line fishery stands as a testament to the possibility of balancing economic needs with environmental stewardship. Its rejection of destructive nets in favor of sustainable practices deserves global support, not punitive tariffs. The EU’s decision to impose duties on Maldivian tuna reflects a broader failure to align trade policies with sustainability goals, while the dominance of purse seine fleets underscores the inequities of the global fishing industry. As the Maldives fights to preserve its way of life, the world must decide whether to reward or penalize those who choose the harder, greener path. The fate of its tuna—and the lessons it offers—hangs in the balance.
Comments