Fishing for profit. How EU tuna deals leave Madagascar behind

As with any extractive industry, the core logic driving industrial fishing is to maximise catches while minimising costs. Up to 6% of the total tuna imported into Europe is harvested by EU-flagged vessels in the Indian Ocean, establishing the region as a major player in a market projected to reach $1.98 billion by 2033. However, deploying European fleets in the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of other countries is often prohibitively expensive – unless the European Commission intervenes.

Through Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements (SFPAs), the EU negotiates access to the waters of mainly African nations in exchange for financial support and investments in local fisheries. In 2025 alone, €156.7 million from the EU's Common Fisheries Policy budget was allocated to these deals, with 12 currently in force – seven of which focus on tuna. While these agreements are officially presented as a means of promoting environmental sustainability and supporting local economies, many NGOs and environmental campaigners claim that they primarily serve to subsidise European industry interests.

This article takes a closer look at one of the most controversial of these agreements: the SFPA between the European Union and Madagascar. Touted as a model of sustainable cooperation, it instead reveals the tensions, imbalances and ecological risks beneath the surface of EU fisheries diplomacy.

Subsidies for Europe, scraps for Madagascar

In 2023, a new SFPA was signed between Madagascar and the EU, granting over 65 European fishing vessels (33 longliners and 32 purse seiners) access to Madagascar’s EEZ. For just €12.8 million over four years – less than the market value of a single industrial tuna haul – EU industries gained the right to extract 14,000 tonnes of tuna annually from Malagasy waters.

According to data provided directly by Madagascar's Minister of Fisheries, Paubert Mahatante, without the agreement, a European purse seiner of 3,000 Gross Tonnage or above would pay up to 537,000 dollars per year to obtain access, which would probably lead to costs exceeding the benefits of such a deal.