The rowdy mackerel

According to Dr Mitch Roffer, who provides short-term fishing forecasts on the basis of hydrographic data and satellite information, in W. Atlantic sea surface temperature influences the mackerel's seasonal distribution. He thinks that the Faroese and Icelanders are now benefitting from climate variability.

On the 2005 GLOBEC meeting, Dr Svein Sundby of the Bergen Institute of Marine Research stressed the importance of climatic fluctuations: “Seventy years of warming may be followed by cooling as it used to be…we should pay more attention to the relative influence of management steps and climatic variations on fish stocks”. And speaking on long-term effects of climate change on fish and their forage organisms in the NE Atlantic: “the collapse in the 1950s-1960s of the Norwegian herring stock was a combination of cooling and overfishing”.

Professor George Rose of Canada wrote: “There is a very close correlation between measurements of plankton and fish biomass in the North Sea. “There is clear evidence of fish moving northwards at the same rate as plankton. There is mackerel now in the Barents Sea and even a mackerel season off Iceland, which has never been seen before.”

Since the 1940s, when mackerel sometimes was a considerable bycatch in the herring fishery north of Iceland, there were no mackerel in Iceland's waters to speak of, until it "invaded Iclandic EEZ in 2006-2007", says Jon Kristjansson, an Icelandic fishery consultant.

NOAA scientists have found that environmental factors have changed the distribution patterns of W. Atlantic mackerel. Normally found in waters from Cape Hatteras to Newfoundland, it shifted about 250km northwards and 50km eastwards and into shallower 5^oC waters, the mackerel’s preferred temperature range.

Obviously, the mackerel's geographical dislocation and abundance fluctuations occurred due to environmental factors that had nothing to do with fishing. The unruly mackerel shows little interest in ICES' assessments and North European agreements and disagreements regarding who should be catching, where and how much of them. They just follow the temperature, the food and the conditions for spawning that are best for them and have been moving en masse into the Faroese EEZ, where their eggs and 0+ young have been found, and Iceland's waters.

But the North Atlantic stock assessment and management establishment and its methodology are apparently innocent of recognising the environmental influence and of managing the stock according to its geographical distribution. The EU and Norway divided the mackerel TAC of 572,000mt as if nothing has happened, leaving the Faroes with only 4% of the total, in spite of the fact that the mackerel is now abundant in its waters as hardly ever before. Consequently, the Faroese pulled out from their 10 year old deal, demanding a 15% share of the N. Atlantic quota.

A similar situation has occurred in Icelandic waters. When rather arbitrarily the EU and Norway allotted themselves 10% more than the total ICES recommended TAC - disregarding any share for the Faroes, Iceland, and Russia - Iceland increased its share to about 25%. If all parties catch the above quotas, their joint yield of 772,000mt would exceed the ICES recommended 570,000mt by 35%.

Iceland and the Faroes' unilaterally applied quotas caused a hurricane of reaction from Maria Damanaki, the EU Fisheries Commissioner, Lisbeth Berg-Hansen, Norway's Minister of Fisheries, Scottish fishing leaders and the European press and media. They quite rightly said that these quotas far exceed their traditional level, and that they overshoot the ICES-recommended TAC for the whole of the European fishery by almost 50%. This was added to by some less accurate statements, such as: "reckless and irresponsible behaviour", “the mackerel stock… is being plundered recklessly and without rebuke”, and “mackerel stock was very healthy but this “continuous plundering” would affect it”, posing a threat to the mackerel stock violating the fishery's sustainability. The European Union and Norway “call on Iceland and the Faroe Islands to return to the negotiating table with a constructive approach and to agree on common fishery arrangements for 2012 that are responsible and sustainable” and are examining all possible options for stopping this damaging exploitation. But, would it include re-allocation of the quotas following the mackerel's migrations?

Faroe Shipowners’ Association former chairman Viberg Sørensen says that the Faroese mackerel fishery takes place within the Faroese EEZ under a rigorously regulated management regime, with responsibly set quotas and a host of technical restrictions, which can in no way be associated with illicit activity. It's widely regarded as one of the world’s best managed fishing zones with about the highest compliance rate. For example, the discarding of mackerel, or any other marketable fish, is strictly prohibited and virtually non-existent.

But, if there's enough fish and more can be caught, maybe the whole dispute is about the wrong issue and instead of wrangling over percentage shares the parties should negotiate how many mt should each of them land to keep prices at a reasonable level.