A toxic cocktail – money, politics and fish
In recent weeks, the press has widely covered Norway’s unilateral decision to increase its mackerel quota beyond shares previously agreed in the 2014 Coastal States Agreement, which has now expired.
The Norwegian move has sparked anger and is seen as reckless, irresponsible and threatens to jeopardize the long-term sustainability of the shared North-East Atlantic mackerel stock.
According to Lena Brungot, senior advisor at the Norwegian Association of Pelagic Fishermen, Norway is portrayed in the media as opportunistic, uncooperative, inconsistent and uninterested in reaching a fair and balanced deal on sustainable fisheries management with its neighbors. coastal.
“Most of the allegations presented in the media are inaccurate and lack context,” said Lena Brungot.
“The Norwegian Pelagic Fishermen’s Association categorically rejects these allegations and believes that the situation is not best resolved by waging trench warfare in the media, but through constructive dialogue and cooperation. . Failure to cooperate and reach agreement will not only harm the sustainability of the stock, but also our collective reputation as responsible managers of sustainable fisheries. ‘
The Association’s position is that allegations that Norway violates international agreements fall by themselves unreasonably, and it states that Norway initially requested a continuation with respect to actions and access. zonal.
“Norway was, for the sake of peace, willing to continue with a lower share than zonal attachment would have indicated, and at the same time grant reciprocal access to all parties to Norwegian waters. In short, Norway only asked for an extension of the previous agreement, no more and no less. You have to wonder why this has been so difficult for the UK to accept?
What did Norway do – and why?
“Let’s start with a few facts. When Norway decided to unilaterally increase its mackerel quota, there was no agreement to deviate from it. The old 2014 Coastal States Agreement between the EU, the Faroe Islands and Norway expired in December 2020, and neither the EU nor the UK has shown any interest in extending the deal. When the Norwegian quota was increased, there was no deal to break, so allegations of violation make no sense, ”said Lena Brungot.
She points out that throughout the Brexit process, Norway has repeatedly stressed the need for a resumption of negotiations by coastal states on mackerel and other shared pelagic stocks.
“The 2014 Tripartite Coastal States Agreement on Mackerel would not have been possible without the significant contributions from Norway to host the Faroe Islands and other coastal States. The point is that Norway had to reduce its share in favor of an agreement with the other coastal states. In our opinion, zonal attachment is a useful concept when defining and tuning parts. Norway would not have accepted a reduction in its legitimate share if it had not been for reciprocal zonal access as an integral part of the agreement, ”she said.
“Norway chose to accept a reduced share because it saw this as necessary to reach an agreement and contribute to more sustainable management of the mackerel stock.”
The Association says it fully understands the complexities of the Brexit negotiation process – but is not ready to accept that Norway becomes the victim of the discontent felt by the EU and UK fishing industries to the EU-UK Fisheries Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
Zonal attachment / zonal access
Lena Brungot recalls that zonal attachment is an internationally recognized principle in negotiations on fisheries. The term involves scientific estimates of the amount of biomass, of fish, in a given area during a given time period. Attachment to an area is normally used as a criterion when coastal states negotiate agreements to share migratory fish stocks.
Zonal access implies that the parties can agree to allow mutual access to fishing activities in other areas of jurisdiction. The motivation for allowing zonal access can vary, but often involves factors that help optimize the fishing operation, both biologically and economically.
The question of zonal attachment
“The UK, with its new status as an independent coastal state, has indicated that it is a supporter of the concept of zonal attachment as an aid in defining allocations of stocks shared by coastal states. There have been reactions from Scotland suggesting that Norway should reduce its share of ZA due to the fact that in recent years Norway has fished a large part of its mackerel quota in UK waters, ”he said. she declared.
“The reason Norwegian vessels fish their mackerel quota in UK waters is solely based on bioeconomic and optimized fishing operations, not the lack of mackerel in Norwegian waters. Given the ZA and the growing presence of mackerel in Norwegian waters, the EU and UK may consider reducing their respective shares. ‘
She points out that changes in the migratory pattern and spatial distribution of mackerel in Norwegian waters have been considerable over the past decade. The ICES Summer International Ecosystem Survey in the Nordic Seas (IESSNS) for mackerel, documents the increasing abundance of mackerel in Norwegian waters.
“Surveys in subsequent years also show a striking decrease in the abundance of mackerel in western areas, which also coincides with a considerable increase in the abundance of mature and juvenile mackerel in Norwegian waters,” she said. .
“The zonal attachment analysis shows a strong presence of the mackerel stock in Norwegian waters throughout the year. The 2020 IESSNS report indicates that 57.7% of the mackerel stock is present in Norwegian waters in the third quarter. Reports from 2011 also show an annual average of around 40% of mackerel biomass in Norwegian waters. ‘
The position of the Norwegian Pelagic Fishermen’s Association is firmly that the Norwegian decision to unilaterally increase its share of the ZA quota is justified and grounded in science, and less than what the IESSNS survey documentation suggests.
“At present, the absence of a management agreement is not a direct threat to the short-term sustainability of the mackerel stock, but it can be in the medium to long term. It will be damaging for all parties, ”warns Léna Brungot.
“The Norwegian Pelagic Fishermen’s Association therefore urges industry groups and respective authorities to start working together to find a mutually acceptable solution to this completely preventable and damaging situation. Our door will always be open to our nearest neighbors, with the intention of reaching a mutually beneficial agreement on the long-term sustainable management of the North-East Atlantic mackerel stock. ‘