reLAKSation 163.
Fishing
for agreement: On
June 6th 1981, Norway entered into a third party fishing agreement
with the European Community. This agreement provided for joint management of
seven ‘main joint stocks’ which straddle Norwegian and Community waters. An
annual bilateral consultation fixed fishing quotas based on Total Allowable
Catches and a balanced exchange of other stocks. The last consultation took
place on January 24th of this year, which shared out the main joint
stocks for cod, haddock, saithe, whiting, plaice, mackerel and herring. The
total TAC was 889,031 tonnes of fish of which the Norwegian allocation was
297,667 tonnes and that of the EU, 591,364 tonnes. Norway also obtained 234,010
tonnes of various species from the Community zone in exchange for 239,670 tonnes
for the Community from Norwegian waters.
According
to IntraFish, EU Fisheries Commissioner, Franz Fischler has suggested that early
indications show that there must be a number of changes to this agreement for
next year. He warns that this will make negotiations with Norway more difficult
than in previous years. One of the reasons for this is that the latest
scientific advice will indicate that significant reductions are necessary in
certain fisheries, parts of which are usually transferred from the EU to Norway.
Mr
Fischler is anxious that agreement will be reached before the end of the year so
the EU fishermen operating in Norwegian waters can start to fish immediately in
January 2005.
The
EU third party fishing agreement with Norway is one of many that the EU has
negotiated with other countries but it is also one of the most important
according to the EU Fisheries Department. Such agreements with other nations
have formed a central element of the common fisheries policy. They have provided
vital access to fishing grounds for the Community’s fishing fleet. The
importance of these agreements can be gauged from the fact that over one quarter
of all fish caught by Community boats is taken from international waters or from
those under the jurisdiction of non-EU countries. These agreements have
accounted for about 40% of
Whilst
these third party fishing agreements are often established as a joint venture
between both parties, they also can work by an exchange of commercial
concessions with fishing rights. This could have significant implication for
opening up the free flow of Norwegian salmon exports to Europe.
Whilst
the current agreement with Norway
enables EU fishermen to fish in its waters to relieve the pressure on EU fish
stocks, the EU seems intent on curtailing supplies of Norwegian salmon even
though they also significantly contribute to the easing of fishing pressure on
other species. The European Commission is clearly happy to take fish from
Norwegian waters, but appear equally determined to restrict supplies of salmon.
This makes no sense. However, common sense was never ever part of this salmon
dispute.
Norway
is currently looking for a longer term agreement which will remove the constant
threat of trade sanctions, but the problem could well be that any agreement is
simply a compromise to satisfy the demands of a minority of Scottish producers.
This would be a mistake as past experience has shown that compromise deals have
not resolved the issues. Fritz-Harald Wenig has said in an interview with
Fiskaren, that an MIP of Euro 2.85 with an import quota so high that it won’t
have any practical significance for the Norwegian salmon industry. If these
measures have no significance, then why bother with at all? The answer is that
Mr Wenig is looking for a political compromise and as we have suggested, such a
compromise will resolve nothing. What
the salmon industry needs is a solution that puts an end once and for all to all
this unnecessary wrangling.
At
the time of the 1996 dumping action, we, at Callander McDowell, suggested that
Norway should bring their third party fishing agreement into the equation but
they failed to do so. We again would suggest that Norway should consider linking
salmon exports to their fishing agreement with the EU. This seems to be the only
way that Norway can demonstrate that the minority interests of a few individuals
cannot disrupt international fish supply. Incorporating salmon exports into the
fishing agreement will not however resolve how the EU should respond to the
Scottish complaints, especially as the dispute now involves other interested
groups from within the EU.
The
British government actively supported the original safeguard measures that
initiated the current dispute. Perhaps, they should now reconsider their actions
and instead accept responsibility for helping their own industry to resolve its
market difficulties rather than seek trade sanctions in Brussels.
The
reality is that this is not a trade issue, but rather one driven by changes in
consumer needs. Consumers want value for money salmon and this is what the
salmon industry has to provide. Whatever action they decide to take, Brussels
cannot change this. Instead, the EU must ensure future supplies of salmon are
not interrupted so consumers can get what they want. In exactly the same way,
European consumers have been guaranteed supplies of other fish species because
of the third party fishing agreement with Norway.