No Maltese boats stopped from fishing in Libyan, Tunisian waters

Parliament yesterday unanimously approved a Bill empowering the Prime Minister to extend Malta's fishing waters and maritime jurisdiction.

The Bill was moved in the wake of decisions by Libya and Tunisia to extend their fisheries zone by some 62 miles.

MPs noted however that Maltese fishermen have so far not been stopped from fishing in the zones declared by Libya and Tunisia, and Malta should therefore act cautiously.

Foreign Minister Michael Frendo said EU countries had protested when the fisheries zones were announced, and they had asked if Malta would join them in seeing what could be done, but at this stage Malta had opted to seek bilateral solutions.

At the opening of the debate, Dr Frendo said that declaration of exclusive fishing zones inevitably increased the pressure on those areas that were currently open seas for fishing.

This Bill would give Malta the legal infrastructure to extend its own fisheries zone as necessary.

"Our intentions are clear. While it is our duty to safeguard the legitimate interests of the Maltese people, we will act within the terms of international law and mindful of the friendly relations that exist with all neighbouring counties whether members of the EU or not." Dr Frendo pointed out that several Mediterranean countries such as France, Spain, Croatia, Egypt, Morocco, Cyprus and Libya, had declared their own exclusive fisheries zones.

He said that following Malta's requests, Libya had sent two note verbal with the coordinates of Libyan territorial waters and the Libyan exclusive fisheries zone. Preliminary mapping of these coordinates had been made by the Fisheries Department and the AFM. The department was calculating the impact of these coordinates on Maltese fishermen.

"We will seek bilateral solutions based on the long friendly relations between the two peoples. Our duty is to defend our country and we will not rest until all possible solutions are sought so that the fisheries sector remains strong and viable."

Dr Frendo said that Tunisia, in contrast to Libya, was a member of Unclos (UN Convention on the Law of the Sea). Tunisia had not declared its coordinates yet, and in terms of Unclos it was obliged to consult and seek agreement with its neighbours before establishing such coordinates.

Dr Frendo said approval of this Bill was an exercise of sovereignty which did not need the approval of anybody else, such as the EU. This was a Bill which would authorise the Prime Minister to extend Malta's maritime jurisdiction and fisheries waters and there was no need for consultation with other countries at this stage.

Should the decision be taken for an extension to be made, Malta would follow the practice of holding consultations.

Malta championed that the rule of law be respected by all countries.

Opposition Foreign Affairs spokesman Leo Brincat said that while the opposition was backing this Bill, he had to point out that so far Malta had been bruised and humiliated over this issue. What had happened was a blow to Maltese diplomacy which reflected political impotence.

Malta, despite its EU membership, had been left alone, without support and without any hope that it would be helped to safeguard what belonged to it. The same was happening in the case of illegal immigration. Indeed, the European Commission had said that the designation of territorial and fisheries zones was outside its remit.

There was a time when relations with Libya were so strong that a Maltese Libyan Fishing Company had been set up as a joint venture. Could the minister confirm or deny that Libya had suggested another joint venture in fisheries but the Maltese government kept out because of the capital required?

Now it even appeared that, in contrast to other countries, Malta had not been given notice by Libya of its intention to declare an exclusive fisheries zone.

But several months had since passed and Maltese fishermen, as well as the House, had been left in the dark over what would happen.

To make matters worse, the Maltese people had only learned from the newspapers that Tunisia was also extending its zone.

What pressure had Malta made over the exaggerated delay by Libya to submit the coordinates of its fisheries zone? What action had been taken through the EU, especially when the fisheries commissioner was Maltese?

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs had said they had talks with Libyan officials, but what outcome had there been?

It was insulting to have been told that this was an issue of marine conservation because one could see how several European companies were paying hefty amounts to acquire fishing rights within the newly designated zones.

"We will continue to work for friendship between Malta and its neighbours, but in territorial issues such as this, we would be betraying Malta if we did not support the government on this Bill" Mr Brincat said.

Concluding, he said there needed to be stocktaking of Malta's relations with Libya. Although relations appeared to be good, they appeared to be too formal and static. The bilateral relations appeared to be superficial and not as profound as they should be. Clearly, relations between the two countries needed to be boosted in various areas. The two countries had stood together in difficult times and now that Libya was back in the international fold and other countries were seeking to strengthen their ties with the North African country, Malta should not fall behind. Unfortunately, apart from the fisheries issues, there was also a problem over visas, there was no oil agreement and Libyan investment in Malta had dried up. What had happened to a planned visit by Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi? Was it still on? That could be an occasion to breathe new life in relations between the two countries, Mr Brincat said.

Jason Azzopardi (PN) disagreed that Malta had been humiliated, as Mr Brincat had said. Malta had taken a decision as was its right.

Malta had been humiliated back in the 1980s when at the time when Libya and Malta said they were blood brothers, the former sent a gunboat to stop oil exploration efforts by Malta.

He observed that this Bill was empowering the Prime Minister to extend Maltese sovereign rights "for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the living and non-living natural resources." This meant not just fishing, but also oil exploration.

The Bill also said that the Prime Minister may issue an order to exercise jurisdiction beyond the territorial waters of Malta with regard to artificial islands. This too was important because in international law parlance, this included oil rigs and wind energy platforms.

Given that the Mediterranean was so small, it was regrettable that several countries had extended their exclusive zones, a situation which was forcing Malta to do likewise to protect its interests.

Dr Azzopardi observed that under international law, an exclusive economic zone could not extend more than 200 nautical miles but when the distance between two countries was less than 400 nautical miles there had to be agreement on delineation. Malta, therefore should continue to insist on a solution.

It was important to see the reference point from where the Libyan zone was calculated. In the case of the continental shelf Libya had declared that the baseline was from the Gulf of Sirte (the line between Tripoli and Benghazi), something which Malta rightly always protested against. The Gulf of Sirte was not internal waters and any country's waters had to be calculated from its coast. For as long as Malta protested against Libya's decision it could never be accused of having acquiesced to this Libyan decision.

The Malta Foreign Ministry was correct when it insisted on the historic rights of Maltese fishermen to fish in parts of the zone claimed by Libya. Such a concept was recognised in a case decided by the International Court of Justice involving Libya and Tunisia. Libya had a duty to respect such rights.

Noel Farrugia, opposition fisheries spokesman criticised Dr Azzopardi for having brought up the gunboat incident of some 25 years ago, saying times had changed.

He insisted that Malta needed to extend its fishing waters to sustain its fisheries industry and also for reasons of conservation.

He suggested that a parliamentary delegation formed from both sides of the House should visit Tripoli as soon as possible once the government had been unable to reach an agreement on this issue.

Mr Farrugia said that under Labour governments several arrangements had been made on fisheries cooperation between Libya and Malta. The minister should explain why such agreements had been shelved.

He proposed the setting up of a commission to analyse the situation of Maltese fishermen and propose ways how the disadvantages they suffered could be overcome.

If the existing protocols were still valid, he said, now that Malta was in the EU, one should see how they could be amended and improved within the framework of friendly relations for the benefit of both countries.

Parliamentary Secretary Francis Agius said the Bill would enable the government to better safeguard the rights of Maltese fishermen. Fishing was under threat not only because of exclusive fisheries zones, but also by overfishing which was depleting stocks. The decisions taken by Libya and Tunisia to restrict their waters were forcing fishermen from other countries to move to waters used by Maltese fishermen.

It was only right, therefore, that Malta should protect its interests. The country should look at fisheries in a holistic manner. It had to look at the environment as an ecosystem - there had to be maritime areas where fish could breed and others where one could fish. This Bill, Dr Agius said, showed the government's commitment to Maltese fishermen.

Rural Affairs Minister George Pullicino denied that there was any fisheries protocol of the type mentioned by Mr Farrugia. The only protocol he had seen only involved training of people in aquaculture.

He said Malta had good relations with Libya and it was acting cautiously in this issue because it wanted to retain the friendly relations which existed between the two countries.

Neither was it true that the EU had not done anything, as Mr Brincat had said, and all EU Mediterranean rim countries had protested with Libya over its decision.

Should Malta's fishing zone be extended, this would be a community fishing zone open to fishermen from the EU in the same way as the waters of those countries were open to the Maltese.

Mr Pullicino observed that fishing, including aquaculture, accounted for less than one per cent of Malta's GDP.

Although the Mediterranean was a small, closed sea, there had been a lot of space which had not fallen under the jurisdiction of surrounding countries. Such areas had been used heavily by large trawlers from non-Mediterranean states such as Japan and Korea. Unfortunately Mediterranean countries had been unable to agree among themselves to stop such practices, which had an impact on fish stocks. But several Mediterranean countries then started to establish their own exclusive fisheries zones, with Spain leading the way.

Libya and Tunisia were now taking similar action. Libya had declared a 64-mile zone extending from its territorial waters. This area affected a small number of Maltese fishermen who fished for swordfish and tuna and others who sought other fish using trawling nets and long line fishing off Sirte.

Mr Pullicino went over the diplomatic contacts made between Malta and Libya, pointing out that meetings were held with several senior Libyan ministers including the Prime Minister. A meeting was also held for the fishermen.

Mr Pullicino said the fisheries zone which Tunisia could potentially create could affect Maltese fishermen more.

He said that Malta expected that all countries would act according to international law and would continue to work for all Mediterranean states to coordinate and agree their fisheries zones in conformity with Unclos.

George Vella (MLP) said one needed to be diplomatic and calm. Rather than inflame matters one needed to be objective and invoke the long friendship that existed between Malta, Libya and Tunisia.

While he had thought that the declaration of the fisheries zones would have an immediate impact on Maltese fishermen, he had changed his opinion after meeting fishermen. It would appear that this issue would only affect some 25 Maltese fishermen (the minister, speaking across the floor said about 40 would be affected). Maltese fishermen would only be affected in particular times of the year.

Dr Vella said it needed to be pointed out that Libya and Tunisia had acted according to international law. Malta was doing likewise.

He was happy to note that Maltese fishermen who had fished in those waters had not been hindered in any way, in contrast to fishermen from other countries.

Indeed, patrolling Libyan officials had told Maltese fishermen they had no instructions to remove them. It appeared this situation would continue in the case of both Libya and Tunisia even in the forthcoming lampuki (dolphin fish) season.

There was the potential for problems, but none had cropped up and the two countries should be thanked. They knew that they should not deny fishing rights to such a small number of Maltese boats, destroying a history of good relations.

If Tunisia and Libya continued to allow Maltese fishermen to go about their business unhindered it might suit Malta never to implement this Bill and extend its own fisheries zone since this would constitute community waters and might well invite and encourage Italian fishermen to come fishing here.

It was unfortunate that the EU lacked a proper fisheries policy. But a similar agreement to that reached with Morocco, through which EU fishermen could fish in their waters, could also perhaps be reached with Tunisia.

He urged the minister to continue acting cautiously and in the national interest. He said the opposition should be kept fully briefed and it would continue to support the government in this case.

Dr Vella also observed that Tunisia was declaring an extension of its exclusive economic zone and not just its fisheries zone. An extension of the EEZ could involve oil exploration zones which were also contested by Malta and Italy. The issue, therefore, had to be looked at very carefully once Tunisia announced the coordinates of its zone.

Dr Frendo said the House was sending a clear message that the Maltese people united in the defence of their national interest.

He had been somewhat surprised by Mr Brincat's speech. Malta had not acted in a weak manner but in a correct manner. It had called on Libya to suspend its decision. It had requested the coordinates of the Libyan zone and also insisted on the historic rights of Maltese fishermen to fish in those waters. It was clear that there was a clear de facto suspension and Maltese fishermen were being allowed to fish in the area. Malta, however, was seeking a more long term solution for the benefit of the sector.

All EU countries had protested and they had asked if Malta would join them in seeing what could be done. At this stage Malta had opted to seek a bilateral solution.

Now that Libya had announced the coordinates of its zone, he would be keeping the opposition fully informed of developments.

Tunisia had not announced its coordinates yet but had said it intended to act in coordination with other countries.

Malta would do likewise. This was an enabling law giving the Prime Minister the authority to extend Malta's waters if and when necessary.

The Bill was approved through all stages unanimously.

Parliament then rose for the summer recess and meets again on September 26.