Who Gets the Tuna? Allocating a National Quota
Malta's bluefin tuna quota for the year is set at 380 tonnes. The fisheries directorate proposes to allocate 88% to the three purse-seine vessels, 8% to 21 artisanal vessels fishing by trolling, and 4% to recreational anglers. The artisanal association objects: it says the purse seiners are largely foreign-owned and land most of their catch for export to Japan, while artisanal fishers supply Maltese restaurants in summer. The purse-seine operators counter that they hold historical rights and that redistribution would breach legitimate expectations. The directorate must notify the allocation to the Commission by 1 March. The EMFAF-funded small-scale fleet programme still has €1.2 million unspent, and the association has threatened judicial review. The minister wants a decision within three weeks, before the season opens. A Commission official has informally noted that the allocation method must rest on transparent and objective criteria.
1. Assess the proposed allocation against the EU requirement to use transparent and objective criteria. Which elements are most vulnerable to challenge, and why?
Read the worked answer
The CFP basic regulation requires allocation of fishing opportunities through transparent and objective criteria, permits environmental, social and economic factors, and calls for incentives to vessels using selective gear or low-impact fishing, alongside a fair standard of living for those dependent on the fishery.
The 88% purse-seine share rests essentially on historical catch. History is a legitimate criterion but not a sufficient one if it is the only one, because it entrenches past advantage and ignores the social criterion. The vulnerable elements are therefore: a documented methodology for the historical figure, or its absence; the 4% recreational share, which has no stated economic or environmental rationale; the complete absence of a criterion rewarding low-impact gear, when trolling is exactly that; and the three-week timetable, which itself suggests the decision was predetermined.
The legitimate-expectations argument is weak if the formula was published in advance and applied consistently, but a sudden, unexplained redistribution could also be challenged. The safest reading is that the process, not just the percentages, is the exposure.
2. Design a revised allocation and decision process that could withstand both the artisanal association's challenge and the purse seiners' claim. Explain the trade-offs.
Read the worked answer
Process first: publish draft criteria, run a 15-day written consultation and a hearing, and record submissions and responses. This protects the 1 March notification.
Illustrative allocation: 75% purse-seine, 15% artisanal, 5% recreational, with 5% held as an in-season reserve released to artisanal vessels using low-impact gear. Add two explicit criteria - social (crew employed, landings to Maltese restaurants) and environmental (gear selectivity, by-catch).
Trade-offs: the purse seiners lose 13 percentage points, so offer a multi-year glide path (for example 88/84/80 over three years) and priority access to the reserve if they demonstrate local crewing. The artisanal fleet gains volume but must accept monitoring and reporting, which some operators will resist. The reserve hedges against a poor season and shows the decision is adaptive rather than punitive.
Notify the Commission with the criteria and methodology attached. A documented, consultative process is the best defence in judicial review and the strongest answer to any claim that the change was arbitrary.