NORWAY REMAINS ENTRENCHED IN MACKEREL NEGOTIATIONS

Norway remains entrenched in mackerel negotiations. Response by Heidrun Lind Marteinsdottir, CEO of Fisheries Iceland (www.sfs.is). to an article written by Audun Maråk ( CEO, Fiskebåt in Norway).

It is a source of concern that no agreement has been reached among the North-East Atlantic Coastal States on the quota-sharing of mackerel, herring, and blue whiting stocks. The challenge still remains, however, and the responsibility of the parties concerned is great. Agreements need to be reached so that fish stocks can be harvested in a sustainable manner.

The annual meeting of coastal states on mackerel ended in October without an agreement being reached. Under these circumstances it is natural to ask what causes the lack of agreement. Audun Maråk, CEO of Fiskebåt in Norway, recently published some interesting pieces in the Norwegian paper Fiskeribladet and here in Fish Focus. Therein he expressed particular concern about the lack of an agreement on mackerel. One can only agree. It is clear to anyone who reads Maråk’s assumptions, however, why an agreement has not been reached. Norway is simply not willing to negotiate, assuming that the CEO of Fiskebåt echoes the Norwegian state’s position.

Ignoring the big picture

Some may find my conclusion harsh, but it is nevertheless obvious. In his letter Maråk states that an agreement must be based on “zonal attachment” as a criterion for allocating shares. Norway is not open to discussions on anything else. I consider this to be both a peculiar and a harmful approach when it comes to the task of negotiating in good faith in such a way that an agreement is likely to be reached – and, furthermore, – to ensure that it is durable. Stability is simply a prerequisite for cost-effective fishing, which is why it is most beneficial to negotiate for long-term solutions.

Norway simply refuses to face the fact that zonal attachment can never be the sole criterion, although it may be an important part of a larger puzzle.

In short, zonal attachment is based on the proportion of fish stocks found within the jurisdictions of each state, weighted by the time they spend in each party’s zone. Some people may think this is a fair and simple approach, but this is not usually the case. Zonal attachment simply ignores significant factors. Fish stocks constantly change their movement patterns, due to, among other things, environmental effects such as rising ocean temperature. It is therefore impossible to locate fish stocks with conclusive certainty and accuracy, and it is difficult to assess and harmonise the data available from one period to the next. The spatial distribution of a stock today may be very different from what it was 1, 5 or 10 years ago and it gives no certainty about its distribution in the future. It is also a fact that uncertainty and gaps in the measurement data leads to great inaccuracies in estimates and calculations. These considerations show one significant flaw in relying solely on zonal attachment, a flaw that is sure to fuel disagreements, both now and in the future.

All the pieces of the jigsaw must fall into place

A no less important flaw is the fact that zonal attachment does not in any way consider where the stock spawns, where it grows, where it seeks food and gains weight, what contributions states make to the necessary research on the stock, how dependent states are on fishing the stock or where it is most fishable and thus most likely to create value, to name but a few factors. This has repeatedly been pointed out by Iceland and various experts.

It should be added that there are unfortunately no formulas or criteria available to automatically determine the different shares of each party. Some assessment of the interests of the negotiating parties must always be carried out.

Everyone loses out if the situation remains unchanged

Taking the aforementioned into account, it is clear that Norway shows little willingness to negotiate. Norway is not open to a dialogue unless the other coastal states bend to its seriously flawed conditions.

The best agreements are usually made where mutual trust and consideration guide the negotiation. In the light of the CEO of Fiskebåt’s writings, I urge Norway to take a step back and give other parties the opportunity to put their views on the negotiating table. Despite the complexity of this task, I am confident that with a greater understanding of the views of all concerned, we will succeed in reaching an agreement that will yield greater value to all the coastal states in the future. One thing is for sure, if nothing changes, everyone will suffer significantly sooner rather than later.