FISHERIES CO-OPERATION ICELAND AND NORWAY WITH. Presented by Philip Rodgers ERINSHORE ECONOMICS

Transcription

1 FISHERIES CO-OPERATION WITH ICELAND AND NORWAY Presented by Philip Rodgers 17/12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 1

2 Objective To consider the current situation in the fishery for highly migratory and straddling fish stocks in the North East Atlantic Blue Whiting Capelin Herring Horse Mackerel Mackerel Sardine 17/12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 2

3 SCOPE ICES Area 27 The North East Atlantic especially North of Latitude 62 N Greenland Icelandic Norwegian Færoese High Seas Russian Norwegian High Seas EU 17/12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 3

4 STRUCTURE OF PRESENTATION Background An Overview of Common Regulatory Measures Two Case Studies Herring and Mackerel Impact of the Reforms to the CFP Advantages of Co-operation with Iceland and Norway Challenges Inferences and Conclusions 17/12/2013 PowerPoint Presentation (edit title in master) 4

5 Background Some of the richest fishing grounds in the world The pelagic species straddle and migrate through several EEZs and international waters Fleets come from Denmark, Færoes, Iceland, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Russian Federation and Scotland, and to a lesser extent others including Greenland 17/12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 5

6 Background The system of drawing up agreements on TACs and quotas for the national fleets has broken down Except for Iceland, economic pressures arising from the current recession have not contributed to the breakdown 17/12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 6

7 Background 2011 FÆROES ICELAND NORWAY EU Population m 504m GDP (EUR 000m) GDP per capita, 2012 (EUR) (2010) Growth rate, 2012 (%) 2.9 (2010) Unemployment rate, July 2013 (%) 6.8 (Dec 2011) Inflation rate, 2011 (%) /12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 7

8 Existing Common Regulatory Measures United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) makes Coastal States jointly responsible for sustainable management of fisheries Coastal States are those through whose EEZs the stocks migrate This is to be achieved by agreeing a Total Allowable Catch and enforcing it among vessels of their own nationality 17/12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 8

9 Existing Common Regulatory Measures Management takes place under the 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement for the management of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks Established the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) whose members are the Coastal States and Distant Water Fleets with a track record of fishing the stocks NEAFC must set TACs and divide them into national quotas 17/12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 9

10 Existing Common Regulatory Measures NEAFC has been unable to secure agreement among the Coastal States for Herring and Mackerel Quotas The system has fragmented with a series of unilateral and bilateral quotas set which do not reflect the scientific advice from ICES on safe levels of exploitation 17/12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 10

11 Existing Common Regulatory Measures The last occasion on which this process reached a conclusion for the Mackerel stock was for the 2009 TAC The Færoese and Icelanders have continued to set unilateral Quotas for Mackerel since the last agreed TAC of 2009 The Færoese have set their own TAC for Herring for /12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 11

12 Existing Common Regulatory Measures The EU and Norway reached a bilateral agreement establishing a 10-year Mackerel management plan in 2010 There are press reports that EU, Iceland and Norway have reached agreement on a Mackerel TAC for /12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 12

13 Two Case Studies 1. Norwegian Spring-Spawning Herring The Norwegian Spring-Spawning Herring stock has recovered from collapse but has shown a decline of 30% from the peak of /12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 13

14 Two Case Studies 1. Norwegian Spring-Spawning Herring The migration pattern of Norwegian Spring- Spawning Herring has changed periodically: Reasons unknown 17/12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 14

15 Two Case Studies 2. North-East Atlantic Mackerel Since 2003 Mackerel stocks have increased to levels not seen since the 1970s ICES TAC recommendation for 2014 is 60% higher than for /12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 15

16 Two Case Studies 2. North East Atlantic Mackerel The migration pattern of Mackerel has changed Two causes mooted : 1. Changes in water temperature 2. The increased size of the Mackerel stock 17/12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 16

17 Two Case Studies Conclusion The unilateral and bilateral quotas set for 2013 threaten to reduce the stock of Norwegian Spring- Spawning Herring eventually below the biologically acceptable minimum if no resolution to the dispute is found The sum of the quotas set for 2013 is above the TACs recommended by ICES on the basis of the Precautionary Approach and may lead to a stock decline if the situation continues 17/12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 17

18 Impact of the Reforms to the CFP A Ban on Discards Regionalisation The Social Dimension of CFP Reform A Target of Maximum Sustainable Yield Transferable Fishing Concessions 17/12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 18

19 Impact of the Reforms to the CFP a Ban on Discarding The Pelagic fisheries are clean fisheries, usually catching only the target species Occasionally there can be a problem with other species (eg Saithe) chasing the stocks for food or of the Herring and Mackerel mixing The CFP proposals on discarding are compatible with the existing management regime Norway already has a ban 17/12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 19

20 Impact of the Reforms to the CFP - Regionalisation EU has recognised that pelagic fisheries are different It has established a Pelagic Regional Advisory Council species-defined rather than spatial 17/12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 20

21 Impact of the Reforms to the CFP The Social Dimension Even in sustainable fisheries a slow decline in employment will occur It is caused by technical creep in an industry constrained by the capacity of the oceans Effective fisheries management will reduce the speed of decline 17/12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 21

22 Impact of the Reforms to the CFP Maximum Sustainable Yield The target of maximum sustainable yield is an uncertain one It is not known whether the current large stocks are a permanent or temporary phenomenon A balance has to be struck in exploiting the opportunity presented without risking the spawning stock, should the situation prove to be temporary 17/12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 22

23 Impact of the Reforms to the CFP- Transferable Fishing Concessions With exception of Ireland the EU fleets in this fishery already have Transferable Fishing Concessions The CFP reforms will present no conflicts 17/12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 23

24 Impact of the Reforms to the CFP - Conclusions The reformed CFP will be consistent with the management plans for Norwegian Spring- Spawning Herring and Mackerel stocks in the North East Atlantic Over-capitalisation is no longer a serious problem in the pelagic fleets. Generally they operate under some form of tradeable fishing concessions, a key feature of the reformed CFP 17/12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 24

25 Impact of the Reforms to the CFP - Conclusions The slow decline in employment will continue. It is a consequence of technical creep in an industry whose output is constrained by the environmental carrying capacity of the oceans 17/12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 25

26 Advantages of Cooperation The principal advantage lies in ensuring that the maximum return can be obtained from the fishery as TACs adapt to existing conditions The management system will be stable, enabling nation states and their industries to plan their investment 17/12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 26

27 Advantages of Cooperation Coastal communities dependent on the fishery have time to adapt to changes in technology which affect employment Consumers will benefit from a regular, abundant supply of a valuable protein food at affordable prices Exports will benefit from the comparative advantage in trade created by an abundant resource 17/12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 27

28 Challenges Dispute has arisen among the Coastal States as a result of shifts in behaviour of the migrating and straddling pelagic stocks The current large stocks may have played a part in the changes 17/12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 28

29 Challenges The migration patterns of the stocks lie at the heart of the problem of finding agreement on management and allocation of rights to fish the stocks Solutions to the problem depend upon finding a long-term system of allocating the TACs between the Coastal States and Distant Water Fishing Nations 17/12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 29

30 Challenges The question of agreeing a TAC will remain an annual one, subject to certain rules A permanent (multi-annual) quota key needs to be agreed by coastal states which must recognise 1.Changing sizes of fish stocks 2. Changing migration patterns 17/12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 30

31 Conclusions The cause of the current dispute is the changing migration pattern and size of the pelagic fish stocks A return to agreement will safeguard valuable fish stocks The proposed reforms to the CFP will not disrupt the existing management system 17/12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 31

32 Conclusions The question of agreeing a TAC will remain an annual one A permanent (multi-annual) quota key needs to be agreed by coastal states Such a key could be based on a relatively simple formula where the proportion of national quota allocated varied with size of a fish stock 17/12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 32

33 THE END 17/12/2013 Fisheries Cooperation with Norway and Iceland 33