Kurt Sansone
Big fishing zone is of little benefit to Maltese fishermen
It is "not correct" to say that the 25-mile region around the Maltese islands is an exclusive fishing zone, according to Fishermen's Cooperative president Ray Bugeja.
Mr Bugeja was reacting to comments by Sicilian fishermen who are lobbying the Italian authorities to extend Sicily's fishing zone to 25 miles from the present 12 miles.
The issue was raised in the wake of the latest incident, which saw a Sicilian fisherman fined €35,000 for illegal fishing in Malta's 25-mile zone.
Mr Bugeja said it was a "misconception" that Maltese commercial fishermen had a 25-mile zone at their disposal. "What happened to the Sicilian fisherman could have easily happened to any Maltese fisherman who breached the strict conditions imposed on the 25-mile zone," Mr Bugeja said.
He added that the Maltese fishing community was dismayed at the heavy-handedness shown by the Maltese authorities towards Sicilian fisherman Rosolino Paternostro, the master of fishing vessel Maria Salvatrice. "They should have never arrested him and kept him in jail pending the court case. A warning should have sufficed, given this was the first time he was caught," Mr Bugeja said.
The 25-mile region is a fisheries management zone, which Malta had negotiated with Brussels before EU accession. However, it did not grant an automatic right to Maltese fishermen to ply their trade in the area.
In most EU countries, exclusive fishing zones are linked to the territorial waters that are equivalent to 12 miles.
Only boats under 12 metres long can fish in this zone and there are very specific restrictions on the type of fishing that can be done by larger boats. Furthermore, there can be no discrimination between Maltese and EU fishing boats.
"The reality is that the vast majority of Maltese commercial fishermen do not benefit from the 25-mile zone because they have boats larger than 12 metres. There are only 11 large boats that can fish in the zone at specific times during the year," Mr Bugeja explained.
He pointed out that other EU fishermen who satisfied the conditions of the zone could be granted permits to fish within 25 miles, although this was unlikely.
Mr Bugeja said that during negotiations with the EU, the government had wanted to maintain the 25-mile fishing zone it acquired in 1971. However, this was denied.
"What we got was a 25-mile conservation zone subject to strict conditions and that was also open to EU fishermen," he said.
Nello Maialino, a representative of the Portopalo fishermen, has said it was ironic that Malta had a 25-mile fishing zone when Sicily, with nearly three times the number of registered fishing vessels, had a mere 12-mile zone.
A spokesman for the Rural Affairs Ministry said that, although Sicilian fishermen were free to lobby and make requests to amend their fishing areas, the present fisheries zones were established following the principles of the law of the sea and EU regulations.
"Any amendments to fishing zones must follow such principles and necessary procedures. Nevertheless, if and when, any proposal to amend the fisheries zones are made, Malta will surely participate in the discussions at all stages," the spokesman said.
Factbox
Territorial waters
All over the EU, territorial waters are managed by the individual member states and extend to 12 miles out at sea. Territorial waters are exclusive to Maltese vessels.
Fisheries Management Zone
Malta has a special 25-mile zone, which falls under the parameters of a fisheries management zone. After EU membership it replaced the 25-mile exclusive fishing zone acquired in 1971 in accordance with the UN's Convention of the Law of the Sea.
The aim of this zone is to protect the fisheries' resources of the sea area and the ecosystems on which they depend. With few exceptions only vessels smaller than 12 metres are allowed to fish within the zone.
The EU arrangement does not discriminate between Maltese and EU fishermen, so Maltese fishermen who own boats larger than 12 metres lost their right to fish in the 25-mile zone upon membership in 2004.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
7 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Galea. L
Jul 8th 2009, 15:29
6
in constant physical contact with the sea-bed or the subsoil."
As can clearly be seen, the rights of the coastal State on all the resources including living organisms living on or under the seabed are covered by the continental shelf regime where the coastal State is not even required to claim them but are specifically reserved to it by the Convention.
It is therefore clear that all species, whether sedentary, migratory, highly migratory, catadromous, anadromous, benthic or pelagic are all covered either by the Exclusive economic zone or continental shelf regimes and all species by Malta's exclusive fisheries zone.
I hope that now that Mr Bugeja has been given an explanation which I am sure was a little exhaustive, he and other fishermen will desist from undermining Malta and the Maltese Government.
I also respectfully suggest that they attend for a course on equipment operation and perhaps also a course could be organized to explain what Maltese and international laws provide as regards fishing.
Maybe we will start being more rational and defend OUR country instead of undermining it and its rights.
Galea. L
Jul 8th 2009, 15:13
5
This is due to the practical size limitations. Indeed, part of Malta's continental shelf with Libya has been decided by the International Court of Justice in the case referred to earlier. However, what is most important for us here is Article 77, Rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf.
"1. The coastal State exercises over the continental shelf sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources.
2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 are EXCLUSIVE (my caps) in the sense that if the coastal State does not explore the continental shelf or exploit its natural resources, no one may undertake these activities without the express consent of the coastal State.
3. The rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf do not depend on occupation, effective or notional, or on any express proclamation.
4. The natural resources referred to in this part consist of the mineral and other non-living resources of the sea-bed and sub-soil together with the living organisms belonging to sedentary species, that is to say, organisms which, at the harvestable stage, either are immobile on or under the sea-bed or ar unable to move except
Galea. L
Jul 8th 2009, 15:04
4.
Will now Mr Bugeja prefer to challenge these eminent Professors of International Law? I hope that this satisfies Mr Bugeja that Malta did enact the necessary legislation to claim an exclusive fishery zone as was its right and duty towards its citizens.
I referred to fisheries also falling under the EEZ and the Continental Shelf regimes.
1982 Law of the Sea Convention Article 56 Rights, jurisdiction and duties of the coastal State in the exclusive economic zone.
1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has:
(a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the sea-bed and of the sea-bed and of its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the awter, currents and winds;..."
Continental Shelf
The continental shelf is referred to in Article 76 to Article 85 of the 1982 Convention. It is 200 miles and can extend up to 350 miles under certain circumstances, but cannot be to sucvh an extent in the Mediterranean Sea.
Galea. L
Jul 8th 2009, 14:52
3
and indeed in the Libya/Malta Continental Shelf case (1985) the International Court said that it is "incontestable that .... the EEZ ... is shown by the practice of States to have become part of customary law"."
Principles of Public International Law, Fourth Edition, Ian Brownlie.
P207 "Beginning in 1946 a number of Latin American States made claims to the natural resources of the epicontinental sea, in effect a fishery conservation zone of 200 miles breadth. Icelandic legislation on these lines began in 1948. Similar steps were taken by India (100-mile zone, 1956), Pakistan (100-mile zone, 1966), and Sri Lanka (100-mile zone, 1957), in each case measured from the outer limits of the territorial sea."
P208 "By 1978 some seventy-four states had fishing zones of 200 miles, while ten states had claims greater than twelve but less than 200 miles. The adherents to two hundred mile zones included the United States, Japan, and the members of the EEC (including the United Kingdom). Clearly the fishery conservation zone, not greater than 200 miles from the usual baselines, has become established as a principle of customary international law."
Galea. L
Jul 8th 2009, 14:31
2
Apart from this, who does Ray Bugeja think he is to tell the Maltese authorities what to do in such cases and what penalty should be inflicted? It is a matter of LAW Bugeja, not of your opinion.
Furthermore, Ray Bugeja is also wrong in saying that most countries limit their Exclusive Fishery Zone to the 12-mile territorial waters.
R.R. Churchill & A.V. Lowe, The Law of the Sea, p232, "By 1976 the fisheries provisions of the UNCLOS negotiating text had received very wide support, and before the conference ended had inspired a large amount of State practice in the form of claims to 200 mile EEZ and EFZ and bilateral and regional agreements."
P233 "By 1987some seventy-two States had claimed a 200 mile EEZ and a further fifteen a 200 mile EFZ....This practice, coupled with the absence of protest, suggest that there is now in customary international law a right to claim a 200 mile EEZ or EFZ."
P146
The number of claims to an EEZ, coupled with an almost complete absence of protest, strongly suggest that the right to a 200 mile EEZ has now become part of customary international law
Galea. L
Jul 8th 2009, 13:58
Malta had declared an exclusive Fisheries Zone way back and no one had protested except Italy in the very beginning on a slight difference which we need not go into here but then lost any claim it could make because it was not what in international law is known as a persistent objector.
Chapter 226 of the Laws of Malta enacted on 10 December 1971, TERRITORIAL WATERS AND CONTIGUOUS ZONE ACT specifically provides for the 25 mile exclusive fishery zone.
Article 3(2) provides that
"(2) For the purposes of the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act and of any other law relating to fishing, whether made before or after this Act, the territorial waters of Malta shall, with respect to the exercise of sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the living and, or non-living natural resources therein, extend to all other parts of the open sea within twenty-five nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial waters is measured, and,for the purposes aforesaid, jurisdiction shall extend accordingly."
Albert Farrugia
Jul 8th 2009, 11:06
This explanation was long overdue, since in the media we have only heard that the Siclians were fishing in "Maltese waters", as if EU accession never happened. Hoewever it is still not clear what prompted the heavy-handedness by the Maltese authorities, which actions were even condemned by Maltese fihserman. What is really going on between Malta and Italy? Is the erstwhile Malta Italiana party, nowadays flaunting the GonziPN banner, hell bent now on destroying totally Malta's relations with Italy? The only country in the EU which ever really helped us when we needed it? Certainly, it is true that "those whom the Gods want to destroy they first make mad". Is this an early sign of the strangeness that is seeping into Malta's Government?
How can Malta be kept on such a war-footing with our only neighbour like this? In whose interest is this being done?