Longlining in Maldives: a perennial threat

Longlining in Maldives: a perennial threat

by Humay Abdulghafoor, Volunteer, #SaveMaldives Campaign

Longline fishery continues to be a perennial threat to the Maldives, despite being globally renowned for its centuries long tradition of pole and line sustainable fishery. Although the introduction of longlining to Maldivian fishers date back to the 1960s and 1970s, the recent brief history of longlining in the country began in 1985 at 75 miles beyond the atoll rims, within its special economic zone. This fishery was stopped in 1994 due to licensing non-compliance. In 1997, longlining licensing was resumed and stopped in 2010, to enable local fishers to engage in this fishery which started once again in 2011.  The Maldives also formally ceased its shark longline fishery practiced in some communities nearly 15 years ago, in 2010.  After longlining licensing resumed in 2011, a 2014 regulation allowed the fishery to be conducted 100 miles beyond the atoll rims including the high seas, specifically targeted at yellowfin and bigeye tuna. However, in 2019, longlining licenses were stopped again due to regulatory non-compliance and unlawful activities. Notably, the decline of shark longlining is attributed to catch decline from as early as 2000.

Having overcome this dubious history of longlining, the Maldives currently enjoys a unique position as the only shark sanctuary in the Indian Ocean, elevating its global position in the scuba diving and tourism industries. The country’s biodiversity sector contributes to 98% of its export revenue and 71% of its employment. However, the Government of Maldives (GoM) continues to indulge in irresponsible policy positions that endanger the nation’s ocean resources, biodiversity, ecosystem stability and overall economic sustainability. Such policy positions are also untenable when the country is on the frontline of climate change, being particularly vulnerable to global heating, sea level rise and consequent disasters. The Maldives was badly affected by continuing record breaking global sea-surface temperatures and the global coral bleaching event only a few months ago.

In March 2021, the then government expressed the possibility of lifting the existing shark ban in the country, triggering a strong and decisive response from environmentalists, conservationists and the tourism industry alike. The sentiments of those that have built their livelihoods on the marine natural heritage of the country does not and cannot change with poorly considered policy, that also disregards sustainable marine resource management for present and future generations. Longline fishing remains a highly contentious issue today for a long list of reasons, including social, cultural, environmental, ecological and human rights concerns, not to mention its negative historical record.

Nevertheless, on 13 June 2024, the Maldives cabinet approved a resolution to re-open longline fishery in the country facilitating shark landings, after nearly 15 years of observing a complete ban on the destructive shark fishery that led to shark population decline. The latest initiative led by the Minister for Fisheries and Ocean Resources (MFOR), Mr Ahmed Shiyam, is in direct conflict with traditional pole and line fishers whose livelihoods depend on the stability of the already depleted yellow fin tuna stock in the Indian Ocean. This policy position also conflicts with the tourism sector and all other associated industries that depend on the vitality of the marine ecosystem, ocean health and biodiversity. Mr Shiyam’s policy decision is particularly contentious for going against his own alleged views on longlining while he was in political opposition. Ignoring concerns raised by the fishers’ union Bodu Kanneli Masveringe Union (BKMU or yellowfin tuna fishers union), the government rushed ahead to develop regulations for longline fishery allowing the landing of ‘dead’ sharks caught as by-catch for processing. While there is no formal lifting of the prevailing shark fishing ban in the country, the new regulation sought to by-pass this key element and facilitate shark processing licences alongside longlining quotas and licenses. This move also ignored the historical reality of regulatory non-compliance and unlawful activities in longlining, and the continuing failure to adequately regulate and implement species protection in the Maldives.

This recent threat to biodiversity protection in the Maldives in the form of reopening longlining generated a response from concerned stakeholders, similar to that in 2021. On 13 August 2024, a petition against longlining was launched by the Maldives Ocean Alliance and BKMU, which at the time of writing, had received over 30,000 signatures. A coordinated social media campaign was launched by a multitude of civil society and other partners to raise public awareness of the detrimental effects of the government’s decision, using the hashtag #AgainstLonglining. It was in this context that on 18 August 2024, a collective of 18 civil society and other organisations submitted comments to the GoMs draft regulations on longlining. The comments outlined grave concerns under 9 specific areas as listed below.

1. environmental concerns
2. sustainability concerns
3. food security concerns
4. concerns about backsliding on conservation achievements
5. concerns about the impact on fishers
6. concerns about impacts on the tourism industry and diving sector
7. economic concerns
8. reservations about monitoring and enforcement
9. human rights concerns

On 21 August 2024, a six-member team from MFOR led by the Minister held a press conference, justifying the GoMs decision to move ahead with the reopening of longlining. MFOR officials in key political positions dismissed the by-catch concerns of longlining stating that a 2% shark by-catch is of negligible concern. The government’s approach to the draft regulation gave the clear impression that the decision to move ahead was a foregone conclusion, with little to no regard to the submitted public comments. On the same day, representatives of concerned stakeholders had the opportunity to explain their concerns to the public on the TV Talk programme of the national media channel Raajje TV.  In the days that followed, concerned stakeholders continued to call on the government to reconsider its position. On 29 August 2024, the President’s Office issued a press statement announcing President Muizzu’s decision to listen to stakeholder concerns and revert the cabinet’s decision to re-open longlining in the Maldives.

Clearly, this executive decision is a welcome development. However, it was achieved following significant efforts by key stakeholders such as BKMU and partners and a collective effort to resist this backsliding. This reckless pattern of government policy behaviour on longlining is an unhealthy sign of poor environmental and ocean resource planning and management. The Indian Ocean yellowfin tuna stock is under significant threat due to mismanagement by international institutions such as the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) and affiliated powerful governments that are safeguarding the interests of global north nations.  Although Maldives is a member of the IOTC, it is the organisation’s own stock assessments that show the depletion of yellowfin and bigeye tuna which were both targeted under the recent longlining initiative. The MFOR argument that the Maldives’ is missing out on its IOTC catch quota is misleading when the impacts of longlining will only worsen the stock depletion issue. Moreover, the by-catch issue threatens not only sharks which are globally endangered, but other pelagic megafauna species that are protected for being highly vulnerable and/or endangered.

Instead of further endangering biodiversity and finite fish stocks, the responsibility of the GoM is to protect our natural resources and double down to improve both national policy and foreign policy to protect our resources for present and future generations. Fishery sustainability will not come from enabling or joining those seeking to plunder our finite resources for short-term benefits for the few. The GoM must prioritise national wellbeing, and act on the multiple, interconnected and complex issues of ocean protection in the context of our climate emergency. The GoM must make its primary concern the welfare of the Maldivian people, food security, environmental protection, ecological sustainability and economic stability. It can do so only by making robust and evidence-based policy decisions  ensuring our ocean’s health and biodiversity receive the highest levels of protection. Our survival today and in the future depends on it. 

 
Note: Opinions expressed in this article are that of the author.