Maldives, known for its sustainable fishing practices, particularly the pole-and-line method, has long been a model of environmentally responsible fisheries. This technique ensures minimal environmental impact by catching tuna one-by-one, thereby eliminating by-catch and protecting marine biodiversity, and overfishing. Despite this commitment to sustainability, Maldivian tuna exports face significant tariffs when entering the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK). This discrepancy in trade policy raises questions about fairness, especially given the less sustainable practices employed by many European fishing fleets operating in the Indian Ocean.
The Burden of Tariffs on Maldivian Tuna
For many years, Maldivian tuna enjoyed duty-free access to the EU under the Everything But Arms (EBA) scheme, which provided trade benefits to Least Developed Countries (LDCs). However, when Maldives was promoted as a developing country in 2011, the EU imposed a tariff of 22-24% on its fish exports. This move drastically affected the competitiveness of Maldivian tuna in European markets, making it more expensive compared to fish from countries that still enjoy preferential access.
The situation is similar with the UK, where a 24% duty on Maldivian tuna persists, even though there have been discussions about revising this policy post-Brexit. The UK has shown some willingness to explore a zero-duty arrangement, particularly in light of the Maldives’ sustainable fishing practices. However, until such changes are implemented, Maldivian exporters face substantial trade barriers in one of their most important markets.
Economic Impact on Maldives
The fisheries sector is vital to the Maldivian economy, contributing significantly to GDP and employment. The EU and UK are major markets for Maldivian tuna, yet the steep tariffs have diminished the country’s ability to compete. This has led to a loss of revenue and market share, directly impacting the incomes of Maldivian fishermen who rely on the pole-and-line method for their livelihoods. As a result, there is a pressing need for the EU and UK to reassess their trade policies to support sustainable practices rather than penalise them.
This trade imbalance also raises broader concerns about the credibility of the EU’s commitment to sustainability. While the EU frequently promotes its Common Fisheries Policy, which advocates sustainable fishing, its tariff policy towards Maldivian tuna suggests a protectionist approach aimed at safeguarding domestic industries rather than encouraging global sustainability.
Maldivian Fisheries: A Gold Standard in Sustainability
The Maldives has consistently demonstrated a commitment to sustainable fishing practices. The pole-and-line method, used exclusively in Maldivian waters, ensures selective fishing and zero by-catch, making it one of the most sustainable fishing techniques globally. This approach has received widespread recognition, including endorsements from the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), as a benchmark for responsible fishing practices.
In contrast, many European fishing fleets continue to deploy industrial fishing methods such as bottom trawling and purse seining. These techniques involve dragging heavy nets across the sea floor or encircling large areas, capturing everything in their path. Such methods not only result in significant by-catch but also cause long-term damage to marine habitats, leading to depleted fish stocks and a decline in marine biodiversity. This stark difference in approach highlights the inconsistency in imposing high tariffs on Maldivian tuna while European fisheries continue with less sustainable practices.
The Case for Fairer Trade
The inconsistency between the EU and UK’s trade policies and their stated sustainability goals is striking. If the aim is truly to promote global sustainability, then countries like the Maldives, which have set the standard for responsible fishing, should be rewarded rather than penalised. By maintaining high tariffs on Maldivian tuna, both the EU and UK undermine their own environmental policies and global sustainability efforts.
Maldivian officials have been actively engaging with EU and UK counterparts to negotiate lower tariffs or duty-free access for their fish exports. There have been some positive signals, such as the EU’s proposal to exempt countries with sustainable development practices from certain tariffs. However, progress has been slow, and the Maldives continues to face significant challenges in achieving fair access to these key markets.
The rationale behind these tariffs warrants examination. The tariffs are partly designed to prioritise the sale of tuna caught by European fishing fleets operating in the Indian Ocean. While this is permissible under international maritime and fishing laws, the fact that EU fleets employ unsustainable fishing practices and contribute to the overfishing of Indian Ocean tuna stocks raises serious concerns. Such actions can be seen as a form of neocolonialism, where powerful nations exploit natural resources in regions like the Indian Ocean under the guise of legality.
Scientific assessments have repeatedly warned that Yellowfin tuna stocks in the Indian Ocean are under threat, yet the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) members remain at an impasse over reducing catch limits. The EU, which operates the largest fleet and has the highest catch rates, has deflected criticism by blaming other countries in the region, ignoring its own substantial role in depleting these critical stocks.
For the EU to then impose steep tariffs on Maldivian tuna—caught using pole-and-line, the most sustainable method available—is not only unjust but also indicative of the power imbalance between the industrialised global north and local communities in the global south. It is a stark example of how these trade policies perpetuate inequitable dynamics, undermining both global sustainability and the livelihoods of responsible fishers in countries like the Maldives.
Rethinking Trade Policies
The imposition of high tariffs on Maldivian tuna by the EU and UK represents a clear case of trade injustice and exploitation of natural resources in the global south at the expense of local communities. At a time when sustainability should be the cornerstone of global trade, penalising a country that has committed to environmentally responsible fishing is counterproductive. The EU and UK must revisit their policies to align with their environmental commitments, ensuring that trade practices are fair, equitable, and supportive of genuine sustainability. For the Maldives, the battle for just trade terms is not just about economic survival but about setting a global standard for sustainable and fair fishing practices.
