Mackerel deal rewards overfishing, declares Irish fishermen
Irish fishing industry representatives cannot support the ‘mackerel deal’ as it rewards those that have acted irresponsibly by setting “totally unjustified enormous autonomous mackerel quotas” in recent years.
The Federation of Irish Fishermen was reacting to a five-year deal brokered in London (12/03) on the share out of the annual €1bn mackerel fishery in the northeast Atlantic that has been the subject of a bitter dispute between the EU, Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands.
Pelagic fleet, Killybegs. Ireland secures 60% increase in mackerel deal. Photo Gillian Mills
“This sets a bad precedent for the future as most of the pelagic stocks in the northeast Atlantic are shared and jointly managed,” remarked Sean O’Donoghue, FIF chairman.
Set aside share
While Iceland is not party to the agreement and will be denied access to EU waters, it will benefit along with Russia and Greenland from the set aside of 15.6% of the mackerel stock ― an increase of 4.78%. The Faroe Islands quota has increased 8% to 12.6%. Norway has achieved no additional access to EU waters.
“I can only conclude that the reckless and irresponsible behaviour by the Faroe Islands has paid off and they have been rewarded,” O’Donoghue added.
And he said that Greenland had already copied the approach. “Being outside the agreement they have awarded themselves a 2014 mackerel quota of 100,000 tonnes.”
Poor defence
Commenting on the outcome, Commissioner Damanaki said the agreement established important principles including a commitment to “sustainable fisheries, a sharing between the Parties and a commitment to establishing a new long-term management plan in 2014 following ICES advice.”
Sean O’Donoghue however said the “unsatisfactory situation” was due to the “unreasonable behaviour of the European Commission” ― the sole negotiator for the EU.
“Commissioner Maria Damanaki has alienated herself by refusing to sufficiently defend the interests of the Irish and EU fishing industry.
“This is in contrast with other coastal states where Norway, Iceland, Faroe Islands, Russia and Greenland defend their industry interests. Ultimately this has led to the EU giving away our valuable mackerel quota that we have effectively managed and grown to a very healthy state,” he said.
Ireland’s stance
Recognising Ireland’s Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Simon Coveney as “steadfast” in his opposition to the increases, “he was on his own in this regard at the Council of Fisheries Ministers. Without his steadfast opposition which [we] fully supported, the outcome would have been worse, particularly in terms of access,” Sean O’Donoghue added.
While disagreeing with aspects of the deal, Minister Coveney however said it was important to bring the Faroe Islands “into an agreed and responsible management arrangement” with the EU and Norway.
“I consistently argued…that the levels being proposed were too high and on that basis I could not support the overall deal. The European Commission and the other mackerel member states were willing to accept the granting of those levels of share to Iceland and Faroes,” Minister Coveney said.
Norway and the EU will proportionally share the allocation of the quota shares. “This burden was a critical requirement demand of Ireland,” he added.
Other agreements
The parties also agreed not to participate or promote a commercial fishery for mackerel by Greenland. Greenland recently announced a new ‘experimental’ fishery of 100,000 tonnes.
Ireland fully supports the Commission view that this is tantamount to a new unregulated commercial fishery. The agreement opens the way to sanctions being taken against any country responsible for unsustainable fishing of mackerel outside this agreement.
“For the first time in five years the Irish fleet will have a greater degree of certainty and stability. The scientific indications are that this extremely valuable stock remains in good shape, and all the current projections are that this should continue. We will be working to improve Ireland position in the fishery at the conclusion of this short term deal,” he said.
Ireland’s quota increases by over 60% from 65,000 tonnes to 150,000 tonnes.
Iceland responds
Statement by Iceland’s Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture, Sigurdur Johannsson:
Yesterday, the European Union, Norway and the Faroe Islands reached an agreement on total allowable catch and sharing of quotas of the mackerel stock. Deliberately, these three Coastal States leave Iceland outside the agreement but after a meeting in Edinburgh last week, it was clear that full efforts were made to reach an agreement based on the advice of International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), as the Icelandic negotiation delegation had repeatedly emphasised.
The agreement, in which the three parties allocate themselves a total of 1,047,000 tonne catch this year, is valid for five years. This allocation exceeds the advice of the ICES by almost 18%. The EU and Norway have allocated solely for themselves 890,000 tonnes, which is the maximum advised total allowable catch for this year.
We participated in the negotiations in order to ensure Iceland’s fair and rightful share, based on scientific advice and sustainable utilisation of the mackerel stock. The Faroese clearly sought the same increased quota from the last agreement.
Yesterday’s agreement concludes that the shares of the EU and Norway increase from their previous level, to 100% of the advised quota, i.e. 890,000 tonnes, on to which they add the share of the Faroe Islands. Iceland and the EU reached an agreement on Iceland’s share in autumn 2013 share on the basis of sustainable utilization of the mackerel stock.
The agreement entailed that Iceland’s share would never be less than 11,9% of the total allowable and scientifically advised catch, and for the next two years, the catch would not be under 123,000 tonnes, which is approximately equivalent to 13,8% of the advice this year. We were ready to stretch ourselves this far in order to reach an agreement on the sustainable use of the stock as the opportunity to do so was unique in light of the advice on greatly increased total allowable catch.
The EU ensured us that it would guarantee the necessary means to reach an agreement, including the support of Norway. In the later phase of the negotiations, however, it was clear that the EU moved closer to the demands of Norway, which were based on severe increase of fishing exceeding advice.
Thus, the EU has gone back on its words and instead of upholding the agreement reached with Iceland, based on sustainable fishing, the Union has signed an agreement with Norway and the Faroe Islands, which supports fishing greatly exceeding advice. The agreement does not include the fishing of Iceland, Greenland and Russia and it is obvious that the total catch could exceed 50% above the advice.
During the last meetings, Iceland has done its best to contribute to reaching an agreement. I believe it is clear that Norway did neither, at any point, intend to negotiate a fair and agreeable share for Iceland, nor negotiate fishing on the basis of scientific advice.
At the last meeting of the four Coastal States, under false pretext, Norway discussed the fishing of Greenland and the possibilities on how to block Greenland’s opportunity to build up their fisheries considering the increased number of mackerel in her own waters. This has seemingly triggered the EU to abandon its agreement with Iceland. Norway could thus obstruct an agreement on that basis and was able to satisfy her demand on catch exceeding over half of the advice.
Iceland and the Faroe Islands have had to endure threats of sanctions by the EU, should they not cease the alleged overfishing of mackerel in the EU’s opinion. It is very clear that those threats and proposed sanctions are unlawful and that the agreement signed by the EU will ultimately result in overfishing. To continue threats to impose sanctions based on overfishing would be ambivalent.
We have always emphasised to reach an agreement which follows scientific advice. The methods used to reach this agreement are unacceptable. We believe that by going behind Iceland’s back in reaching this agreement, the EU, Norway and the Faroe Islands have forfeited trust and greatly impaired future cooperation and negotiations of the Coastal States.
No decision has been made on the total allowable catch of Icelandic vessels but it is expected within the coming weeks.
