AS European pealgic fishing companies renewed their call for a ban on Icelandic and Faroese seafood this week as a reprisal for their unilateral stand on mackerel fishing, Iceland's trawler owners hit back with a statement that their position is both "legal and responsible."
The Icelandic Fishing Vessel owners Association - or LIU - has laid out its case with the following statement.
1. As Iceland was not admitted to negotiations for the mackerel fishery of 2010, Iceland set itself a unilateral quota of 130 000 tonnes; this was done prior to the completion of negotiations and decisions by other parties so that they could take responsible account of Iceland’s quota in their own decisions if they wished.
2. There is no comprehensive agreement for the integrated management of the mackerel fishery. Norway and the EU have seriously undermined the credibility of their own management scheme for more than a decade by unlawfully blocking the participation of Iceland in mackerel negotiations. The current lack of an agreement for the integrated management of mackerel is a direct consequence of this regrettable behaviour by Norway and the EU.
3. The Norwegian and the EU industries have called for an immediate import ban on fresh and frozen seafood products from Iceland. Norway and the EU do not have the right to ban imports of Icelandic fishery products because of our mackerel fishery. Such action would constitute a violation of the EFTA, GATT and EEA agreements.
4. Iceland is a coastal state and fisheries in the Icelandic EEZ are therefore managed by Iceland and not through the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commisson - NEAFC. According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement, Norway and the EU have an obligation to negotiate with Iceland.
5. The Icelandic mackerel fishery is a legal and responsible fishery. It is absurd to speak of irresponsible fishery. The fishery is based on the same laws and rules as apply to other fishing by Icelandic vessels and the catch is reported and weighed at landing.
6. Iceland has conducted and will continue to conduct research on the distribution of mackerel within the Icelandic EEZ. Iceland also participated in the international mackerel egg survey in 2010.
7. Fishing activities on the high seas in the NEAFC Convention Area are subject to NEAFC rules and regulations. According to NEAFC rules (NEAFC Convention Article 12, 2. b. ), states that do not accept NEAFC recommendations have a right to object, in which case they are not bound by those particular recommendations. Iceland has objected to the quota that it was alloted for its fishery in the high seas by other NEAFC member states and is thus not bound by that recommendation. Fishing by Icelandic vessels for mackerel in the high seas, should such fishing occur, would of course be subject to NEAFC rules other than regarding the amount of catch. Iceland has set limits on how much mackerel Icelandic vessels can catch in waters outside the Icelandic EEZ.
8. Norway and the EU have repeatedly decided upon a TAC for mackerel that has far exceeded the advice of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). Part of their quota has been by unilateral decision. Is this conduct to be viewed as responsible?
9. Negotiations for the mackerel fishery of 2011, with Icelandic participation, are planned for the coming weeks. A comprehensive agreement of the mackerel fishery is the joint responsiblity of all parties involved.
Should fisheries be closed during breeding time to allow stocks to reach more sustainable levels?
