Letter: Small nations' plea to be heard in fishing row

Honour to Peter Jones for putting the current mackerel dispute into a more sober perspective (5 October). He reminds the reader that mackerel is a migratory species and that it is perfectly legal and justifiable for a nation to harvest it within its own jurisdiction.

This very simple fact is a crucial point of departure for any sort of deal between the coastal states - the Faroe Islands, the European Union, Iceland and Norway - who meet this week to negotiate an agreement on how to divide this important resource, the north-east Atlantic mackerel. Nobody will gain from depleting the stock.

Indeed, under international law (UNCLOS and the United Nations fish stocks agreement) coastal states relevant to a specific migratory species have an obligation to seek agreement on how to share and manage the resource.

It must be noticed that the obligation is to seek - to try in earnest to reach - agreement. However, should they fail to agree on sharing, all parties still maintain all their rights to harvest the fish stock in question within their own jurisdiction.

The first coastal states agreement on mackerel was concluded between the EU, the Faroes and Norway in 1999 as an annual ad hoc management agreement. The tripartite agreement came into being when the EU and Norway recognised that Faroese waters were brimming with mackerel.

During the consultations for 2010 it became clear that it would be difficult to reach agreement between the existing three parties, for a number of reasons. One important issue was the clearly observed changes in the distribution of mackerel.

There is now clear evidence, also recognised by ICES, for a more massive north-western distribution into both Faroese and Icelandic waters. As these changes - possibly as a consequence of climate change - are evident, it is the opinion of the Faroes that it is entitled to a greater share of the total allowable catch (TAC) recommended by ICES.

Another obvious challenge was that Iceland had until then not been part of the trilateral coastal states agreement. However, the three original parties agreed on inviting Iceland to take part in a new settlement for the year 2010.

The EU and Norway have reached a bilateral agreement for 2010 which does not take into account the new, more north-western distribution of mackerel. Their bilateral agreement allows a total catch by EU and Norway 10 per cent over the total TAC recommended by ICES.

If the TAC is to be respected - and it most definitely should be - the Faroes and Iceland, in effect, should not fish any mackerel at all.Just because the EU and Norway may be the "superpowers" of mackerel fisheries, one cannot expect the Faroes and Iceland to comply with their bilateral settlement, where the latter two are left to share something pretty close to nothing.

As mentioned by Jones, it can hardly be expected that a small fishery-dependent nation like Iceland would deny itself the right of fishing mackerel in its own waters. The Faroe Islands is an even smaller, and even more fishery-dependent economy than Iceland.

It requires a genuine will on the part of all parties to find a lasting solution for a fair allocation of this shared resource which takes account of all legitimate interests, while also adapting joint management to the changing dynamics of the stock. Such an outcome will be best for all parties, not least for the mackerel stock swimming in and out of the different jurisdictions of the north-east Atlantic.

KI JOHANSEN

Representation of the Faroes in London