In the past few weeks, we have seen a wide press coverage of Norway's unilateral decision to
increase its mackerel quota in excess of the shares that were previously agreed in the now expired
2014 coastal States Agreement. This decision has been met with anger, and is seen as being reckless,
irresponsible, and risks jeopardising the long-term sustainability of the shared NE Atlantic mackerel
stock.
Norway is now being portrayed in the media as being opportunistic, uncooperative, uncompliant,
and not interested in reaching a fair and balanced agreement on sustainable fisheries management
with its coastal neighbours. Most of the allegations presented in the media are inaccurate and lack
context; the Norwegian Pelagic Fishermen's Association categorically reject these allegations and are
of the opinion that the situation is not best resolved by waging "trench warfare" in the media, but
by way of a constructive dialogue and cooperation. Failure to cooperate and reach an agreement will
be damaging not only to the sustainability of the stock, but to our collective reputation as
responsible managers of sustainable fisheries.
Allegations about Norway undermining international agreements fall on their own unreasonableness.
From the outset, Norway has requested a continuation with regards to shares and zonal access.
Norway was for the sake of peace, willing to continue with a share lower than what Zonal
Attachment would have indicated, and at the same time grant reciprocal access to all parties to
Norwegian waters. In short - Norway only requested a continuation of the previous agreement, no
more - no less. One must ask oneself why this was so difficult for the UK to accept?
What Norway did – and why?
Let us start with some facts: When Norway decided to unilaterally increase its mackerel quota, there
existed no agreement to deviate from; the now defunct coastal States Agreement of 2014 between
the EU, Faroe Islands and Norway expired in December 2020, and neither the EU nor UK showed any
interest in prolonging that agreement. When the Norwegian quota was increased there was no
agreement to break, so the allegations of a breach are therefore meaningless. Throughout the Brexit proceedings, Norway has, on numerous occasions, emphasized the need for a
resumption of coastal States negotiations on mackerel and other shared pelagic stocks. The 2014
tripartite coastal States Agreement on mackerel, would not have been possible without Norway's
considerable contributions to accommodate the Faroe Islands and other coastal States; the fact
being that Norway had to reduce its share, to the benefit of reaching an agreement with the other
coastal States. In our opinion zonal attachment is a useful concept when defining and agreeing
shares. Norway would not have accepted a reduction in its rightful share, if it had not been for
reciprocal zonal access being an integral part of the agreement. Norway chose to accept a reduced
share as it saw this as necessary to achieve an agreement and contribute to a more sustainable
management of the mackerel stock.
Whilst we fully appreciate the complexities of the Brexit negotiations process; we cannot accept that
Norway is made the fall guy for the dissatisfaction felt by the EU and UK fishing industries with the
EU - UK Trade and cooperation agreement on fisheries.
Fact: The difference between zonal attachment and zonal access
Zonal attachment is an internationally acknowledged principle in fisheries negotiations. The term
implies scientific estimates for the quantity of biomass, fish, in a given area in a given period. Zonal
attachment is normally used as a criteria when the coastal States are negotiating sharing
arrangements for migratory fish stocks.
Zonal access implies that the parties can agree to allow mutual access to fishing activities in each
other areas of jurisdiction. The motivation to allow zonal access may vary, but often involves factors
that contributes to optimizing the fishing operation, both biologically and economically.
The question of Zonal Attachment (ZA)
The UK with its new status as an independent coastal State, has signalled that it is a proponent of the
concept of Zonal Attachment as an aid to defining coastal state allocations of shared stocks. There
have been reactions from Scotland suggesting that Norway should reduce its ZA share due to the fact
that in recent years, Norway has fished a large proportion of its mackerel quota in UK waters.
The
reason for Norwegian vessels fishing their mackerel quota in UK waters is based purely on
bio-economic and optimising fishing operations, and not on the lack of mackerel in the Norwegian
waters. On the background of ZA, and the increasing presence of mackerel in the Norwegian water,
then both the EU and the UK might want to consider reducing their respective shares.
The changes in the migratory pattern and spatial distribution of mackerel into Norwegian waters
have been substantial during the last decade; where ICES's International Ecosystem Summer Survey
in the Nordic Seas (IESSNS) for mackerel, documents increasing abundances of mackerel in
Norwegian waters. Surveys in later years also show a striking decrease in mackerel abundance in
western areas, which also coincide with a considerable increase in abundance of both mature and
juvenile mackerel in Norwegian waters.
The zonal attachment analysis shows a strong presence of the mackerel stock in Norwegian waters
throughout the year. The IESSNS survey report from 2020 documents that 57,7 % of the mackerel
stock are present in Norwegian waters in Q3. The reports from 2011 and onwards also show a yearly
average of approximately 40 % of the mackerel biomass in Norwegian waters.
The Norwegian decision to unilaterally increase its ZA quota share is justified and anchored in
science, and lower than the documentation from the IESSNS survey would suggest.
Time to be responsible!
At present the lack of a management agreement is not a direct threat to the short-term sustainability
of the mackerel stock – but it may be in the medium to long term. This will be damaging for all
parties. The Norwegian Pelagic Fishermen's Association therefore urge the respective industry
groups and authorities to start collaborating to find an acceptable mutual solution to this totally
avoidable and damaging situation. Our door will always be open to our nearest neighbours, with the
intention of reaching a mutually beneficial agreement on the long-term sustainable management of
the NE Atlantic mackerel stock.
Lena Brungot
Senior adviser
The Norwegian Pelagic Fishermen’s Association, and also
Member of the Norwegian delegation in the coastal States consultations.