In May 2006, the European Union first signed a fisheries agreement with the Kingdom of Morocco, allowing European vessels to fish in Moroccan-controlled waters, including the waters off the coast of occupied Western Sahara. Western Sahara has been under Moroccan siege for almost 40 years, but the fact that the Western Sahara is not legally part of Morocco did not feature in the agreement. While not making overt reference to the waters off the coast of illegally-occupied Western Sahara, the Fishing Partnerships Agreement did not attempt exclude them either. According to international law, extracting resources from a country or territory which is not self-governing, is illegal. According to the UN, resource extraction in non-self governing territories can be done only with the consent and for the benefit of the people who lay claim to the land. This is particularly relevant in the case of the Western Sahara, as the territory holds valuable phosphorus reserves as well as arable soil in a region which predominantly consists of desert. This means that when European consumers buy tomatoes labelled as Moroccan produce, they're very likely to have been grown in the occupied territory. "I think that this is a fairly serious breach, and relevant members of the European Union would surely be reprimanded for this if the matter came up before the International Court of Justice," Pål Wrange, a former principal legal advisor of the Swedish government, said of the Fisheries Agreement in 2011, addressing the European Parliament. He continued; "The Treaty on European Union says that “The Union's action on the international scene shall be guided by ... respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.” In 2011, the Fisheries Partnerships Agreement was cancelled by the European Union. Annulled only a couple of months before it was due to expire, this move is said to have offended Morocco. The member states had acted on the premise that fishing off of Western Saharan territory meant plundering its resources. "It was the greatest victory for many years. It is still very much up in the air what will happen in the future, with regards to fishing in the Western Sahara. But it is major step forward. Now the main obstacle is the French and their alliance with the Moroccans," says Jonas Sjøstedt, a former representative of Sweden in the European Parliament and current MP and leader of the Swedish Left Party, of the annulment. "The key is economic pressure on Morocco and the EU has the main responsibility to do this, as the main trading partner. Many European companies are interested in the occupied area, and France remains very interested of course. The political elite in Morocco and France are very close,” he adds. The Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and the Kingdom of Morocco dates back to 1995, and has since then existed in various forms. The most recent agreement referred to here, was ratified in 2006, and while three countries abstained from the vote (they were Finland, Ireland, The Netherlands), at the time, Sweden was the only country to vote against it. "There is a lot of solidarity with Western Sahara in Sweden, the networks are strong. Politically, it is, and was, not viable for the government not to consider this – they therefore voted no to the fisheries agreement," Sjøstedt told Bikyamasr.com. "It really showed that democratically executed pressure worked, it showed that common people could oppose something and be listened to.” Sjøstedt even went on to write a political thriller, set against the backdrop of occupied Western Sahara. Also here, the fisheries agreements became an integrated part of the plot. "The historical parts of the novel are factual, all the observations of life in the occupied territories are my own," he says, "All the hypocrisy from the European Parliament and the EU is fact." He has traveled to the Moroccan-controlled Western Sahara twice, the second time being expelled within the first 24 hours by the Moroccan authorities, who were then aware of his book's topic. The closer one looks at the Fisheries Partnership Agreement and the complex context surrounding it, the more complicated it seems to become. European fishing in the waters off of northern Africa can in and of itself be considered problematic. Issues of national sovereignty set aside, there are questions of sustainability and the adverse impact on local job markets. According to Greenpeace, "It takes 56 traditional Mauritanian boats one year to catch the volume of fish that a PFA vessel can capture and process in a single day." In 2011, a report was commissioned, investigating the actual economic gains of the illegal fishing. It concluded that while being harmful to the environment, except for Spain, the agreement was not financially viable for the European Union – instead, they had been losing money. "The now released report shows how clearly controversial the agreement was in terms of finances and ecological destruction: it concluded that the agreement was by far the worst of all on-going bilateral agreements in terms of costs-benefits to the Union. Instead of turning a profit as similar EU agreements have done, fishing turnover fell short of the 36.1 million investment by about 6 million euros a year." said the independent monitoring organization, Western Sahara Resource Watch, of the Commission's 2011 report. So why insists on an illegal alliance, which could even turn voters against national governments? "The agreement is politically motivated, it is not about financial gain for Europe. Instead it's a way to make Morocco a major ally for Western countries. We should see it as a political agreement." Sjøstedt explains. "Fisheries, phosphorus, agriculture are main economic interests, oil and natural gas. There are potential economic benefits in keeping Western Sahara occupied and Morocco is a very loyal country to work with, looking at what is happening in Mali, Western Sahara could be a bad country for the EU to work with." he continues. It has similarly been suggested, by Saharawi refugees as well as international activists and observers, that the Fisheries Agreement is an indirect way for the EU to help financially sustain the Moroccans occupations of Western Sahara. "Taxpayers in the European Union pay for the occupation of Western Sahara through the fishing accord and the Spanish fishing industry benefits from it economically," says Sjøstedt. The future of the fisheries agreement is still pending. Despite entailing huge financial losses for the EU, it might still be renewed. Excluding Western Saharan waters from a future agreement has been debated as a way to sustain the fishing framework legally. However, the actual feasibility of this plan, as well as political motivation to back it, remains doubtful, as the contested waters are where the vast majority of the fish are found. It seems almost a nonsensical option. The agreement might then make more sense if approached as an economic partnership or alliance, rather than a one-off business deal. Its inherent logic must can be assumed to be long-term; a Moroccan ally is preferred by the Union, to an independent Western Sahara. A good trading relationship with Morocco might ensure access to natural gas and potential oil reserves. “We don't know if a new fisheries protocol with Morocco is possible,” Maria Damanaki, European Union Commissioner on Maritime Affairs, said in a statement last year. She also ensured that any new agreement would include “more guarantees on environmental sustainability and international legality.” Sjøstedt does not see the feasibility of amending the agreement in this way. "It would be very hard for Morocco to exclude Western Sahara from a future fisheries agreement, it would be to admit to the occupation. It is also very hard to do, because (in all of the Moroccan territory), that is where the fishing is done." Of working within the European Parliament while negotiating the FPA he says, "There was a lack of actual debate and a lot of hypocrisy coming from the European Commission. They have been the worst in trying to neglect international law, lying, trying to neglect facts." "Some, mainly conservatives denied that Western Sahara was even a country, the Spanish for example. There was a lot of hypocrisy but a lack of information. “The Moroccans are good lobbyists, they're well-organized and resourceful. The Polisario (Western Sahara's government in exile) are well-organized too, but they don't have the resources Morocco has."
