Why Kerala is opposed to Centre’s deep-sea fishing draft rules

Kerala has expressed deep concern about the proposed deep-sea fishing policy framework put forward by the Union government, specifically the Draft Rules for Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of India, 2025, warning that the current iteration favours large-scale industrial interests over the livelihoods of traditional coastal communities.

“By trying to take total control of the EEZ through measures like the Draft Rules for Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries, the Centre risks hampering the interests of our fisherfolk. Kerala’s consistent stand has been to strengthen traditional fisheries, modernise small-scale vessels, and protect the livelihoods of lakhs of coastal families who depend on the sea. Industrial fleets will not only deplete marine resources but also push our traditional fishers to the margins, a situation we cannot accept,” Fisheries Minister Saji Cheriyan stated in the state assembly in an answer to the question raised by four MLAs from the Indian Union Muslim League.

Also read: How Centre flouted GST law, diverted ₹3.1 lakh crore meant for states

Kerala’s recommendations

In detailed recommendations submitted to the Ministry of Fisheries, the state has urged the Centre to enact a comprehensive fisheries law, democratically debated by Parliament, that places small-scale and marginal fishers at its core, rather than privileging large-scale industrial interests. In its submitted recommendation, the Kerala government argued that the new regulations, which form a crucial part of the Centre’s push for a ‘Blue Economy’ regime, are fundamentally flawed, prioritizing licensing over genuine fisheries governance, equitable benefit sharing, and livelihood security.

A primary concern is on the legal form and institutional structure of the proposed rules. Kerala argues that regulating fisheries in the EEZ—which touches upon sovereign rights, ecological sustainability, trade, and security—warrants a comprehensive law enacted by Parliament, providing an opportunity to debate and approve the framework governing national resources.

Also read: Class 10 textbook in Kerala outlines governor’s role and limitations

Convoluted structure

The current framework, however, establishes a convoluted bureaucratic structure. While states are constitutionally responsible for regulating fisheries in territorial waters and have Marine Fishing Regulation Acts in place, the new Union framework delegates State Fisheries Departments to limited roles of verification and adjudication. The appeal structure is deemed highly prejudicial to small-scale fishers. If a small-scale or marginal fisher is aggrieved by a decision, they are compelled to appeal before the Joint Secretary of the Government of India in Delhi.

Kerala has vehemently opposed this requirement, calling it an “impractical and unaffordable requirement” that effectively denies meaningful access to justice for coastal communities often located in remote districts. The state government has recommended that the District Collectors of the respective Districts should be designated as the Appellate Authority to ease the burden on fishers.

Also read: Why Arvind Subramanian thinks GST 2.0 won’t fix deep structural risks

Bias towards corporate entities

Kerala asserts that the draft rules exhibit a clear bias towards large, export-oriented, industrial-scale fishing interests, potentially including multinational companies. The very definition of “Owner” includes corporate entities, placing these big players on the same footing as individual fishers. This inclusion normalizes the entry and potential dominance of corporate entities in a sector historically sustained by traditional communities. Kerala explicitly suggested amending the definition of “Owner” to exclude corporate entities.

Furthermore, the new regime focuses heavily on the issuance and cancellation of “Access Passes”. These are not single-window clearances but an addition to existing state-level MFRA licenses, imposing multiple layers of permission and creating duplication and additional costs for fishers. Kerala recommended that Access Passes should be strictly restricted to Indian fishing vessels to protect national interests and prevent the indirect entry of foreign vessels.

Threat to both livelihoods and biodiversity

Trade unions of fishers share this concern and have also submitted representations to the Union government.

“The government’s decision to permit large vessels in the EEZ risks undermining sustainability and small-scale fishers’ livelihoods. India already has three times more vessels than sustainable limits allow, yet our fleet is mainly traditional. Instead of industrial fishing, we need a unified Vessel Act, species-wise statistics, stronger cooperatives, higher subsidies for fish workers, and updated implementation of the Murari Committee’s recommendations. Global experience shows deep-sea industrial fishing is unviable and depletes coastal stocks. Introducing such fleets will devastate traditional fishing communities, weaken India’s WTO stand, and jeopardize both livelihoods and marine biodiversity,” said Charles George, the president of All India deep sea Fishers Association.

Also read: How Centre has bullied states over GST compensation over the years

The Kerala policy

In contrast to the proposed Union policy, Kerala government points out that its state deep-sea fishing policy aims to empower traditional fishers by strengthening them through cooperative societies, providing necessary training, and distributing deep-sea fishing equipment at subsidized rates.

One of the most significant sovereignty and security concerns raised is the provision permitting mid-sea transshipment. While ostensibly intended to boost efficiency, Kerala warns that this measure creates a dangerous avenue for foreign mother vessels to intrude into the EEZ under the pretence of receiving transshipments. This dramatically increases the risks of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing and compromises India’s ability to monitor catches effectively.

According to the Kerala fisheries department, economically, mid-sea transshipment would be disastrous for the coastal economy. By facilitating the transfer of catch to larger vessels for export directly from the sea, it would cause a reduction in the state’s production and consequently “deprive our landing centres and harbours of the catch”, resulting in significant job losses for workers in the landing and marketing sectors.

Also read: Kerala guv moves SC over VC appointments; stage set for another confrontation

The revenue-sharing issue

The draft also creates a significant financial imbalance between the Centre and the states through its revenue remittance clause. This mandates that all revenues collected, including license fees and penalties must be deposited in Bharat Kosh, the Centre’s non-tax revenue portal. This centralized appropriation means that all income flows exclusively to the Union account, despite state governments and local agencies bearing much of the enforcement responsibility.

The Kerala government has stressed the need for a clear mechanism for revenue-sharing or earmarking funds, insisting that a proportion of these revenues must be directed to coastal states and dedicated welfare funds to directly benefit the fishers whose livelihoods are most affected.

Kerala believes the draft rules—focusing overwhelmingly on Access Passes rather than ecological, socio-economic, and holistic frameworks—collectively undermine the livelihoods of traditional fishing communities.