An illustration of just how complicated international relations can become is emerging in real time, as a long-standing dispute over North-east Atlantic mackerel (NEAM) stocks comes to a head, with British ministers meeting fisheries Commissioner Maria Damanaki tomorrow, prior to the Fisheries Council meeting, which will attempt to resolve the dispute.

On the face of it, this is a simple quota dispute between the four main players nations which exploit the stocks, the EU, Norway, the Faroe Islands and Iceland. Historically, the bulk of the quota has been taken by the EU and Norway, but since 2009, Iceland and the Faroes have been demanding a share.

As tensions have risen, relations between the parties have broken down with the Faroese being accused of acting like "pirates", Iceland of "greed" and the EU of bullying tactics, while there is talk of a new fish war and trade sanctions.

View full article here

and ...

Continuing on from Part I, where we wrote of the complexities of the dispute that has been dubbed the "Mackerel Wars", we find a muddled piece in today's Observer which demonstrates the difficulty in getting to grips with this subject.

What is marginally helpful, though, is the headline: "How climate change spells disaster for UK fish industry". Forget the bit about the UK fish industry for the moment, and concentrate on "climate change".

Referring again to this briefing note, we find that it is a matter of undisputed record that the mackerel biomass has been moving north, a phenomenon attributed to "climate change", triggered by higher water temperatures which have shifted the food supply, with the fish following the food.

Prior to 2008, the bulk of the catch was taken from EU Member States water, from Norway and, to a limited extent by the Faroe Islands, with a small amount also taken by the Russian Federation.

View full article here

Edited by user 27 January 2013 21:45:46(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I have to admit that it is so complicated that I am struggling. I cannot thus claim any great deal of knowledge, especially as I am acutely conscious of what I don't know.

So I can check I understand this what we are in effect seeing is an unspoken nod by the EU that member states can effectively ignore a broken rule because the processes needed to change said rule take too long and could either:

1. Cause an ecological disaster.
2. Cause an economic disaster.
3. Both 1. and 2. combined.

This the gist? If so certainly an angle to rinse out; we tend to forget actual physical examples of damage the EU is ultimately responsible for and put it into a sort of bogeyman category - there are real direct damages its doing that need to be beaten into the subconscious.

Too complicated ... the Faroe policy is multi-faceted, and far more complex than setting quotas and limiting fishing effort. The EU would not be able to implement a policy of such sophistication.

But the Faroe Islands and Iceland aren't in the EU right?

they are therefore covered by the UNCLOS as has been rightly pointed out and this states in Article 56 that: -

"1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has:

(a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds"


In ths case the exclusive economic zone is 200 miles of territorial waters and the costal State would be the Faroes or Iceland.

UNCLOS text

Why don't they tell the EU to go away (unless they are concerned about the EU's bully boy tactics)?

Dunno ... I've been playing around with settings to make registration easier ... I turned on spam screening and it looks as if it is now treating every post as spam... Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

I've turned it off and will see what happens.

I think it is cured. This is a test post to see if it got moderated.

Edited by user 28 January 2013 11:39:44(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

You weren't singled out, letmethink. It got me, too.
I was purple and pop-eyed over the toast and marmalade.
It was sooooo unfair.