Article Categories

By
Published: December 22, 2010
Updated: December 22, 2010
Print    Email

The Atlantic mackerel is at the center of a trade war which involves the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and  the Faroe Islands.

Scotland, Ireland and Norway have historically been among the nations that had significant mackerel fleets. In recent years mackerel stocks have shifted northward, spending considerable time in Icelandic and Faroese waters.

Negotiations over mackerel quotas have broken down in a move that could "jeopardize the sustainability" of mackerel stock in the North Atlantic, according to Scottish fishermen.

The failure for the European Union, the Faeroes and Norway to reach a joint management plan for mackerel in 2011 is said to have created frustration among Scottish fishermen for whom mackerel is the most valuable stock.

"It is unbelievable that after four rounds of negotiations it was not possible to reach an agreement due to the unrealistic demands of the Faroese, and before then, Iceland," said Ian Gatt, chief executive of the Scottish Pelagic Fishermen’s Association.

While MEP Struan Stevenson, senior VP of the European Parliament’s fisheries committee, accused the Faroes and Iceland of "trampling over the good fisheries management of Scottish fishermen with their recklessly enormous quotas."

The December talks ended roughly five months after Iceland and the Faeroes sparked fury among Scottish fishermen by setting unilateral mackerel quotas far higher than catches in previous years. The Faroes set its 2010 mackerel quota at 85,000 metric tons, more than three times last year’s quota, while Iceland targeted 130,000 metric tons. The entire EU mackerel quota for 2010 came in at 130,000 metric tons.

At the center of the negotiations is the EU. In a press release following December AGRI FISH Council meetings, Maria Damanaki, European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, highlighted EU fisheries policy, stating:

"1. The EU is committed to bringing all its fisheries into line with the maximum sustainable yield by 2015. Fishing sustainably is a precise, quantifiable target, with a specific timeline. We can discuss about how we get there, but we cannot discuss about where we are going. This is a commitment which has been made by the Council of Ministers, not just by the Commission.

2. The Council has also put in place a number of long-term management plans. These plans can be revised if we see they are not delivering. But until they have been revised, they are there to be respected. They set precise objectives. They are designed to give clear guidance on how scientific advice should be translated into figures, both quotas and fishing effort. Sometimes science gives us a margin for manoeuvre, and we are grateful for that, of course. But the Commission cannot agree to decisions which would contradict the rules laid down in these plans.

3. The Commission cannot agree to any decision which would represent a regression in terms of sustainable management. We cannot accept that we make decisions this year which set lower standards of stock conservation than those we made last year. Once a decision has been made on matters of principle, as in the case for example of the shark action plan agreed last year, we cannot then start making decisions which would weaken the protection of the stocks concerned."

Following failed negotiations, the European Union claimed it would block imports of mackerel from Iceland. The European Commission, the EU’s regulatory arm, announced plans to impose the trade ban by Jan. 14, 2011. The commission will present the measure to a committee of the European Economic Area, which is made up of the 27-nation EU, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland.

"This is a step that we should undertake as a matter of urgency," EU Fisheries Commissioner Maria Damanaki said in a statements. The goal is to "send a clear message to Iceland."

In November of 2010, the Icelandic Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture made the announcement that Iceland would have an unchanged share in mackerel fisheries in 2011, taking into account the increase in the total allowable catch recommended by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES).

According to an Iceland announcement: "ICES had recommended that next year's total allowable catch should be up to 646,000 tons. The advice for this year was up to 572,000 tons. The Minister encouraged the other coastal States to take Iceland's share into account in their quota decisions with the view that the total mackerel fisheries would not exceed the recommended level."

Iceland went on to explain their stance in the dispute and assign responsibility for overages to the EU and Norway, stating:

"The EU and Norway have now decided their mackerel quotas for next year. In total they amount to 583,882 tons or more than 90% of the recommended total allowable catch. Obviously, these parties have disregarded the legitimate interests of the other coastal States, Iceland and the Faroe Islands, and of Russia. The quota decision of the EU and Norway is in fact a decision that the total mackerel fishery next year will exceed the recommended total allowable catch and these parties bear full responsibility for that.

In accordance with the aforementioned, the Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture has decided that Iceland´s mackerel quota in 2011 shall be 146,818 tons. This year´s quota is 130,000 tons."

Submit Article