Responding to the first EU moves to lock Icelandic fishermen out from Union ports over the mackerel conflict, Iceland angrily accused the EU and Norway of “overfishing” the disputed stock.
Pressing for an understanding of his country’s view, Iceland’s chief mackerel negotiator Tomas H. Heidar pointed out that out of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) advised by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) for mackerel in the contested waters, the EU and Norway recently bilaterally agreed to stow away more than 90 percent for themselves.
“The EU and Norway are not the sole owners of the mackerel stock and by taking almost all the recommended total allowable catch, they disregard the legitimate interests of the other two coastal states, Iceland and the Faroe Islands, as well as the interests of Russia”, Heidar remarked to the fishnewseu.com website.
“In our view, the EU and Norway bear the primary responsibility of overfishing of mackerel next year which is of deep concern to us”, he added.
Heidar pointed to the fact that great masses of the fish have migrated to the Icelandic exclusive economic zone, “this year, over one million tonnes of mackerel, a quarter of the stock during the feeding season, four to five months, increasing its weight there by some 25 percent with obvious impacts on other important fish stocks and the Icelandic marine ecosystem as a whole”.
“The Fisheries Minister of Iceland already notified the other parties two weeks ago that Iceland intended to keep its current share of 16-17 percent in the mackerel fisheries next year and encouraged them to take that into account in their quota decisions. Unfortunately, they have not”.
Heidar’s comments followed a formal request from EU Fisheries Commissioner Maria Damanaki to the European Economic Area (EEA) to meet before 14 January to discuss a possible embargo. The EEA is a cooperation between the EU and the former EFTA countries Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein.
Heidar now contended that Iceland remains committed to finding, in cooperation with the other coastal states, a “fair solution” that takes into account the legitimate interests of all the parties involved.