EU Norway Negotiations conclude after Four Difficult Rounds

After four rounds and a complete cession of mutual access arrangements to each others’ waters, the EU and Norway have agreed a reciprocal agreement for 2010. A key ingredient in the deal is a 10 year agreement on mackerel access that ought to pave the way for a wider agreement on mackerel with Iceland and Faeroes later in the year.

The mackerel issue was the reason for the collapse of the EU/Norway negotiations towards the end of last year and became increasingly damaging for both EU and Norwegian fleets as January moved towards February without sign of a breakthrough. It also held up agreement on whitefish TACs, as Norway made progress on this contingent on settling the mackerel dispute.

North Sea Joint Stocks

North Sea shared stocks were agreed at the following levels:

                                2009                                  2010

	TAC	Transfers	TAC	Transfers	% change
Cod	28,798	-	33,552	-	+17%
Haddock	42,100	1,000*	35,794	150	-15%
Saithe	125,934	-	107,044	950**	-15%
Whiting	15,173	-	12,897	500*	-15%
Plaice	55,500	3,885*	63,825	200	+15%
Mackerel (IV)	63,826	-	60,446	-	- 5%
Herring (IV, VIId)	171,000		164,300	-	- 4%

Transfers
*   Norway to EU        
** EU to Norway

Mackerel

The long-term arrangements for mackerel provide for Norway and EU to have access to each others’ waters to fish their mackerel quotas on agreed terms. The degree of access conceded by the EU is quite generous reflecting both the negotiating realities but also the possibility that the mackerel stocks could, over the course of ten years (theoretically) spend more of their time in the Norwegian Sector. At present the stock distribution is moving westwards year by year.

There is little doubt that Norway has been given significant concessions to secure the deal, against the background that no-deal at this stage could jeopardise prospects of avoiding a descent into anarchy in the mackerel management at international level.

Nevertheless, it is disappointing that mackerel access has been granted for so little in concrete terms in return.

Catch Quotas

EU and Norway agreed that as part of an initiative to find innovative ways of reducing cod discards member states should be allowed to exceed their cod quotas by up to 5%. This quota would be used to reward vessels willing to land all cod catches below and above minimum landing size and to carry CCTV to verify their actions. The quota to any single vessel would be limited to 30% of its vessel quota availability.

Long Term Management Plans

Increasingly the TACs for EU Norway jointly managed stocks are set in relation to long term management plans. Although these amount to little more than a set of relatively simple harvest control rules, they reduce the scope for volatility in the TACs. Currently cod, haddock, saithe, herring and mackerel are under EU Norway long term management plans.
The full details are in the agreed record.

North East Arctic

Once again, the increased TAC for North East Arctic Cod and difficulty in identifying currency to secure an overall balance put pressure on securing the full 2.9% that Norway is obliged to offer the EU as part of the EEA agreement that provides Norway with unimpeded access to EU markets. A mechanism is in place to reopen talks during 2010 if other currency stocks become available. The EC shares of the North East Arctic stocks (in tonnes) are as follows:

	2009	2010
Cod	20,274	20,050
Haddock	2,500	2,050
Saithe	3,000	3,000
Greenland Halibut (By-catch)	50	50
‘Others’	350	350

It is a matter of some disappointment that the Commission failed to secure the full 2.9% allocation of North East Arctic cod from Norway that is a morally, and arguably a legal obligation under the EEA agreement, which gives Norway concessionary trade access to EU markets.

Cynicism and Negotiation

Cynicism plays a large part in these negotiations. Norway plays the conservation card shamelessly when it suits them and drops it out of sight when it doesn’t. Likewise, the Commission is prone to advance its own agenda through the negotiations as it herds the member states into a common position, generally blaming Norway for any frictions.

Last year there was every sign that the end of the world was nigh if EU didn’t immediately adopt a discard ban despite its much more complex and varied fisheries and specific legal arrangements. This year discards were only mentioned in passing. Norway had decided that given the potentially anarchic international scene, its interests were best served by pressing hard on the mackerel access issue.

Neither is it unknown for Norway to be belligerently inflexible on a stock like plaice or whiting in which it has limited interest to create negotiating leverage elsewhere in the negotiations - generally on pelagic issues.

In the final analysis however, geography and the reality of shared stocks means that like a bumpy marriage, whatever the frictions, it is in the interests of EU and Norway to reach agreement each year. The alternative is to enter a dangerous and mutually destructive cycle of decline.