Inventory of Conflict and Environment (ICE), Mackerel

Iceland has a lengthy and growing history of conflict with its European neighbors over fishing rights. Its latest confrontation has brought it along with the Faroe Islands head-to-head against Norway and the European Union (EU), over the amount mackerel the two countries have decided to allow their fishermen to catch. Citing an abundance of the fish in its exclusive economic zone, this year Iceland unilaterally declared its quota of mackerel to be 130,000 tonnes—significantly higher than the 2,000 tonnes allotted to it by the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. The Faroe Islands followed in turn, unilaterally increasing its quota of mackerel from 25,000 to 85,000 tonnes. Numerous reports have linked warming of the Atlantic Ocean with the increase of mackerel in the waters around Iceland. Additionally, it is possible that Iceland's economic meltdown of 2008 has led to its increased interest in the fish. No longer the sole behemoth of Icelandic industries, fishing remains part of its cultural identity and perhaps more importantly constitutes a large percentage of its exports—40% in 2009. The increasing importance of fishing after 2008 can be seen in Figure 1 below. Foreign exports bring in foreign currency, which is far more valuable than the Icelandic Krona. Scientists and fishermen alike from other countries are concerned for the future of mackerel stocks, warning that the dramatic increase in fish being taken from the ocean is not sustainable. At the same time that Iceland flouts the demands of mainland Europe, the island nation is applying for ascension into the EU.

Earlier this summer, Iceland announced it had again unilaterally increased the size of its fishing quota for mackerel. The Faroe Islands followed in suit. Fishermen from the European Union (especially Scotland) and Norway were infuriated, and their governments have called on the two island nations to reduce their quotas. If filled and renewed next year, the combined mackerel quotas of all European nations threaten to push the reproductive stock below sustainable levels by 2012. This is of extreme importance to the Scottish fishing industry which last year sold £135 million of mackerel, making it their most valuable fish. The economy of Scotland is not dependent upon fishing by any means, but certain coastal and rural areas are heavily invested in fishing, with up to 55% of their populations employed by the fisheries sector. With jobs already threatened as the EU continues to limit many fisheries, the Scottish fishing industry is very sensitive to real or perceived threats.

Iceland claims to have been denied participation in the Coastal States consultations of the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC). This is the regulatory body that decides how to limit the total allowable catch (TAC) of each fish species for every state fishing in the North East Atlantic. The TAC is informed by a number of scientific organizations, including the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). Through surverys and samples, ICES determines the likely population of each species, the rate at which they will mature, and the rate at which fish can be removed without jeopardizing the fishery. NEAFC then sets individual quotas for each fishing nation in the region, through consideration of involved stake holders and historical catches.

Iceland is not historically an important mackerel-fishing nation. Because of that, it had not participated in the NEAFC discussions that split up the TAC for mackerel between countries in the region. But because there is no other mechanism for it to gain access to the discussions and a say in its quotas, even as an increasing amount of mackerel make their way to its waters every year, Icelandic fishermen began fishing mackerel at increasingly large quantities in 2006. In 2008, Iceland caught 112,000 tonnes of mackerel. A year later, the amount was pushed to 116,000 tonnes. Iceland declared its 2010 quota to be 130,000 tonnes of the fish. It defended this decision by pointing to its denied access to quota negotiations and a rapidly increasing amount of mackerel within its territorial waters (See Figure 2 at the left). Though it has been dismissed as "just rubbish" by Icelandic officials, another theory suggests a connection between Iceland's economic woes and its increased interest in mackerel. An article in The Independent detailing the effects of the meltdown in 2008 suggests that, whatever hardships they've experience, at least "the seas are full of fish." Even the Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir stated that further exploitation of natural resources like renewable energy and fish could help the island recover.

Iceland’s current bid to join the EU has been threatened by governments angry over its mackerel fishing. Other suggested policy options include a complete boycott of Icelandic fish or banning the unrepentant nations from fishing in EU fisheries—though the last seems largely symbolic, as Iceland is taking the mackerel from its own waters. The EU has also threatened economic sanctions against Iceland and the Faroe Islands. Shortly after the decision to raise the quotas was announced, a blockade by Scottish fishermen denied a Faroese fishing boat access to a port in Scotland to unload its catch worth £400,000. Norway banned its processing plants from offloading any fish caught by Icelandic or Faroese trawlers.

Though the threat of war is highly unlikely, it is not completely unthinkable. Scottish Fisheries Secretary Richard Lockheed ominously declared in late August, “No options are off the table.” During the infamous Cod Wars of the ‘60s and ‘70s, when Iceland extended its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to 12, 50, and then 200 nautical miles. Britain refused to acknowledge the new boundaries, and British fishing trawlers paid no heed to Iceland’s demands. British war frigates were sent to protect trawlers from having their nets cut by the Icelandic coast guard. Political friction grew so high that the two countries cut off diplomatic ties. The tension culminated in shots being fired over the bow of a British boat and a number of intentional collisions. The matter was resolved rather quickly in Iceland’s favor after it threatened to force NATO to remove its strategic bases from the island.

Likely outcomes in what is shaping up to be the first Mackerel War are not as intense, but still serious. Economic sanctions would hurt Iceland's already suffering economy as well as its bid to join the EU. It's possible that militaries could get involved, especially if fishermen in the UK claim the right to fish in Icelandic waters for their portion of the TAC. This may lead to Icelandic coast guard vessel intercepting or damaging international fishing trawlers, or EU war ships being sent to protect European fishermen and their catch.

Warming Ocean
Warming currents in the Atlantic Ocean have pushed mackerel northwards into the Exclusive Economic Zone of Iceland (the establishment of which led to the Cod Wars) at a time when Iceland’s economy still stagnates after its collapse in 2008.

The mechanism responsible for the warming of the ocean is claimed by many to be climate change. This is reasonable. In its last major report released in 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change documented an average rise of half a centigrade degree in Ocean temperatures since the middle of last century.

The North Atlantic is warmed by the Gulf Stream, a surface current of warm water that flows up from the Caribbean before sinking into the ocean depths and continuing its path around the globe. Conversely, melting ice water from Greenland and polar ice sheets has a cooling effect, minimized by the fact that cold water is denser and therefore sinks to the bottom of oceans before dramatically cooling the warmer surface waters.

These factors have contributed to an appreciable difference in the temperature of the North East Atlantic over the last few years. The map, Figure 3, to the right depicts average sea surface temperatures in the month of August for 2002, 2006, and 2010. Noticeable encroachment of warmer water towards Iceland is clearly visible. The blue line represents a rough isotherm of 55 degrees farenheit—meaning that water warmer than 55 degrees is to the south, and water colder than that is to the north. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration specifies that mackerel are intolerant of temperatures less than 43 and higher than 59 degrees farenheit.

Global warming is already causing many species around the world to alter their migration patterns. Animals as well as plants have evolved for very specific climatic conditions. As temperatures rise, species adapt by moving away from the equator in what is known as a pole-ward shift.

It seems that mackerel have followed this trend. A temperature-sensitive fish, they are somewhat of a Goldilocks species—enjoying water that is neither too hot nor too cold. Many found the ocean east of Ireland a very agreeable location. In recent years an increasing number of mackerel have been found in Icelandic waters, which are far from their historic habitat.

A report published by ICES in October of 2010 acknowledged the northwards movement of mackerel stocks during the summer months, when the fish leave their breeding grounds in the North Sea to find food and gain weight. It diplomatically offers three explanations for this movement: warming surface temperatures, a shift in the availability of food, and the increase in size of the mackerel stock.

Each of these factors is considered possible, but most likely is a confluence of them all. Warming waters could very well encourage mackerel to find cooler areas. Warm waters would raise their metabolism, causing them to need to eat even more to gain weight. Because food tends to be a scarce resource, it makes sense for cold-blooded fish to seek colder waters where they can conserve more energy. The same is true of their prey, consisting mainly of smaller fish, squid, and open-sea crustaceans, which explains a shifting of availability of food. Both mackerel and their prey are constructed to live in a specific environment, and as the earth and oceans warm that environment will shift north.

The last claim is one made by many angry fishermen in the EU, and will be discussed in the following section.

Issues of Sustainability
There are some people who claim the appearance of mackerel in waters farther north is not due to a warming ocean, but rather the efforts of fishermen (especially in the UK) to limit their catches of the fish to keep in line with the TACs set by NEAFC. Ian Gatt, of the Pelagic Regional Advisory Council in Scotland declared in October that the increase of mackerel was due to careful stock management. If this is the case, then it would appear that Iceland and the Faroe Islands are pilfering the investments of other North East Atlantic countries that restrained their mackerel catch in order to ensure its sustainability.

If Iceland and the Faroe Islands catch their declared quotas, and the fishing countries of the European Union catch their predetermined and agreed upon amounts, 35 percent more fish will have been caught than recommended by ICES. Mackerel had been considered a sustainably caught fish, but that status seems likely to change.

In 2009, ICES had declared the mackerel stock to be at “full reproductive capacity,” but at “increased risk” and actually “overfished” in relation to intensions of “high long term yield.” An ICES report published in October, 2010 reiterated these points:

“Catches since 2007 have been considerably in excess of the ICES advice which was based on the management plan. This situation is expected to continue in 2010. The absence of effective international agreements on the exploitation of the stock (between all nations involved in the fishery) is a cause of continued concern and prevents control of the exploitation rate. Because the management plan (agreed October 2008 by EU, Norway and Faroes) has not been followed in recent years, an estimation of the expected 2010 catch was conducted.” Figure 4 below shows the estimated 2010 catch of mackerel in metric tonnes.

The total expected catches in 2010 are more than 300,000 metric tonnes over the ICES management plan suggesting 619,000 tonnes. It is clear from this that Iceland and the Faroe Islands are not the only countries that are threatening the North Atlantic mackerel fishery. Additionally, Norway's quota of 181,000 tonnes and the EU's quota (filled mostly by the UK) exceeding 350,000 tonnes are much larger than even the most recent Icelandic quota of 130,000. As can be seen, other major mackerel fishing nations include Sweden and Russia. The inter-annual quota transfers and payback are apparently left-overs from 2009, even though 2009 saw a catch of mackerel 7.6% over its set quotas. Discrepancies like this, along with an inordinate amount of discards will probably lead to the collapse of the fishery, with or without the help of Iceland and the Faroe Islands.

3. Duration:

2001-Now. The first complaints by the International community concerning Iceland's increased mackerel quotas are from 2009. August 2010 marked renewed interest in the matter, as Iceland and then the Faroe Islands increased their quotas unilaterally. As of the end of November 2010, the Faroe Islands are successfully negotiating with Norway and the EU about future quotas. Iceland has walked out of negotiations after spurning suggested quotas that it felt were neither fair, realistic, nor justifiable. All the actors have proclaimed hopes to have this disagreement sorted out before the quotas for 2011 are decided, though without any breakthroughs this appears increasingly unlikely.

4. Location

Iceland's mackerel fishing fleet are staying within their EEZ, though mackerel are migratory fish and therefore highly mobile. Actions undertaken in any single country's exclusive economic zones impact the whole of the North East Atlantic, spanning from the eastern edge of Greenland to the western edges of France, Denmark, and Norway. The map below shows the relevant EEZs of the region. The Faroese EEZ is directly north of the UK's, and Iceland's is north and west of those. See Figure 5 below for reference.

Figure 5: North East Atlantic EEZs

5. Actors

Claimants

Accused of Unilaterally Raising Quotas

Norway

The European Union (especially Scotland and Iceland)

Iceland

The Faroe Islands (autonomously part of Denmark)

II. Environment Aspects

6. Type of Environmental Problem

Climate Change and Rights. Fish do not recognize politically defined territorial boundaries. As they shift their movement patterns north in response to a warming Atlantic, they are moving from international waters into the exclusive economic zones of Iceland and the Faroe Islands. Additionally, because mackerel are migratory fish

Iceland is put in a unique position by the rapid influx of mackerel in its waters. They provide an economic boon to a country much in-need of one. At the same time, the proliferation of makerel is a liability. While in Icelandic waters, mackerel put on weight from a diet rich in smaller fish, invertebrates, and crustaceans. The average mackerel may gain 25% of its body mass during its stay. Historic Icelandic fisheries like cod may be negatively affected by a decrease in the amount of food available in the area.

This is likely a precursor to similar cases that will appear as climate change causes changes in the migration and habitat of economically valuable animals. Additionally, climate change will open up many possibilities for economic exploitation in the Arctic. These will in turn invite multiple and conflicting claims on these newly available resources from different countries. As the Arctic becomes more navigable and habitable (for people as well as fish), conflicts will rise as states struggle to stake their claims.

7. Type of Habitat

8. Act and Harm Sites:

Act sites are within the territorial waters of Iceland and the Faroe Islands, as well as within the rest of the North East Atlantic, where Norwegian and EU countries fish for mackerel. Harm sites will be found both in the ocean as mackerel stocks decline, and on land as economies primarilly in Scotland and Iceland decline in response to the collapsing fishery in the former and economic sanctions along with a collapsing fishery in the latter.

III. Conflict Aspects

9. Type of Conflict

10. Level of Conflict

11. Fatality Level of Dispute (military and civilian fatalities)

IV. Environment and Conflict Overlap

12. Environment-Conflict Link and Dynamics:

As anthropogenic climate change leads to warmer ocean waters in the North Atlantic, the cold-water-loving mackerel is increasingly relocating northwards, from its historical habitats closer to Iceland. At the same time, Iceland’s economy is still struggling from its recent collapse. Both of these factors may have led Iceland to declare a marked increase in its mackerel quota. The Faroe Islands followed suit.

This has angered mainland Europe and the U.K, and economic sanctions against Iceland by the E.U. have been threatened. Norway and Scotland, both with large sections of their fishing economies devoted to mackerel, have not scaled back their own fishing operations, and scientists warn that the mackerel stock will suffer.

Though international agreements could avert the collapse of the fishery, history shows this possibility to be minimal. Rather, it is likely that the Icelandic increase of it mackerel quota will lead to a “race to the bottom,” where each indivivual country acts in its own interest as it witnesses those around it doing the same. In this scenario, the mackerel stock would decrease significantly and in the end the increase in fishing would harm rather than help the Icelandic economy.

The causal diagram is a visual representation of the above paragraph, with solid lines indicating what has already happened and dashed faded lines indicating predicted routes of action. Blue arrows represent positive valences, and red arrows represent negative or inverse valences.

13. Level of Strategic Interest:

14. Outcome of Dispute:

Iceland will likely be coerced into lowering its quota as a bargain to gain admittance to the EU, or as a result of economic sanctions. It has, however, made the case for the continued fishing of mackerel in its territorial waters. Though any agreement will see its share of the fish reduced from current levels, it will continue to claim an important role in the fishery. As a result, the EU and Norway will probably have to concede a proportion of their quotas.

It is likely that whether or not Iceland can come to an agreement with the EU and Norway, the North East Atlantic mackerel fishery will collapse. Rates of fishing were unsustainable, as determined by the ICES, before Iceland began claiming increasingly large quotas for itself. Even if Iceland and the Faroe Islands had neglected to fish any mackerel in 2010, the estimated catch would have exceeded ICES's advice by 100,000 tonnes. Every fishery in the world has been predicted to have collapsed by the year 2048. Though its possible that the states in the region can band together to create and stick to sustainable quotas, it's more likely that the mackerel stock will enter a decline.

It is interesting to think that "The North East Atlantic mackerel stock may never again be as large as it is now" signals very different things to two sets of people. On one hand, opportunists see a chance to grab what they can while they can. On the other, klaxons begin sounding in the minds of those who recognize that the trend is human-induced and able to be rectified, if only people can practice some self-control. Fishermen in Iceland, Norway, and the EU are guilty of endangering the continued flourishing of a species, as well as their own livelihoods.

V. Related Information and Sources

15. Related ICE Cases

16. Relevant Websites and Literature

Mackerel: Podknox <http://www.flickr.com/photos/wapster/3519341551/sizes/l/in/photostream/>

Figure 1: Statistics Iceland <http://www.fisheries.is/economy/fisheries-impacts/export/>

Figure 2: Icelandic Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture <http://eng.sjavarutvegsraduneyti.is/news-and-articles/nr/10179>

Figure 4: ICES <http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2010/2010/mac-nea.pdf>

Figure 5: Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European_Union_Exclusive_Economic_Zones.PNG>

I. CASE BACKGROUND

1. Abstract

Figure 1: Value of Icelandic Fish Exports in millions of Icelandic Kronur

Figure 3: Changing Sea Surface Temperatures

Figure 4: ICES Estimation of 2010 Catch of Mackerel