Island avbryter ansökningsprocessen till EU

Iceland walks out on EU membership talks

The foreign ministry said it had received an opinion from its 
constitutional advisors that the government was not bound by 
a 2009 parliamentary vote to launch the membership talks.

Iceland said yesterday (22 August) that a recent election which brought
eurosceptic parties to power had been interpreted by constitutional
advisors as a signal to stop EU accession talks.

"After receiving this opinion the foreign minister has decided to
consider dissolving the negotiation committee," the ministry said in a
statement, quoted by the AFP news agency.

On a recent visit to Brussels, the new Prime Minister of Iceland
Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson was told by European Commission President
José Manuel Barroso to decide “without further delay” whether it
wanted to continue accession negotiations or abandon plans to join the 
EU.

The committee's dissolution effectively signals the abandonment of
these negotiations. On 27 April, Iceland held elections, inflicting to the 
ruling pro-European Social Democrats the the biggest defeat any ruling 
national party has suffered since independence from Denmark in 1944.

Gunnlaugsson, 38, is Europe's youngest democratically elected head of
government. Since 2009, he has led the Progressives, a centre-right and
liberal party affiliated with Liberal International.

The Progressive Party draws most of its support from farmers and
fishermen. In coalition with the Independence Party (see background),
the Progressives oppose EU membership.

In May, the new government announced a halt to the country’s EU
accession talks until Icelanders vote in a referendum within the next four
years on whether they want membership negotiations to continue.

The decision of Iceland to stop the accession talks can be seen as bad
news in Brussels. Croatia's recent accession gave EU leaders the
opportunity to boast about the attractiveness of EU membership, despite
the economic and sovereign debt crises.

Iceland was put on a fast track to EU accession, as it had already taken
on board much of the EU legislation as member of the European Economic
Area (EEA). It formally applied for EU membership on 16 July 2009 and
started accession talks only one year later. The process has taken much
longer for any other applicant country.

But Iceland is a special case, as the country’s powerful fishing industry
is in deep conflict with the EU over fishing quotas. The Commission says 
it can accommodate Iceland’s “specificities”, but in fact the differences
between Reykjavik and Brussels are not only of technical but of political
nature. The EU considers that Iceland is overfishing and that the island 
nation should accept strict quotas. Iceland says it has more experience 
in fishing that the Union itself and that it could teach Brussels best 
practices.

Recently, Iceland backed the Faroe Islands in a fishing quotas conflict
with the EU and objected to the EU position in the strongest terms.

EurActiv.com

Island och "makrillkriget": Intervju med Sigurgeir Thorgeirsson

EU-kommissionen vidtar handelsåtgärder gentemot Färöarna

EUROPEISKA KOMMISSIONEN PRESSMEDDELANDE

    Bryssel den 20 augusti 2013

EU-kommissionen vidtar handelsåtgärder gentemot Färöarna för att skydda sillbestånden

EU-kommissionen antar i dag ett åtgärdspaket för att komma till rätta med Färöarnas fortsatt ohållbara fiske efter sill. Bland annat införs ett förbud mot import av sill och makrill från atlantoskandiska bestånd som har fångats under överinseende av Färöarna samt fiskprodukter som innehåller eller är framställda av sådan fisk. Dessutom begränsas användningen av EU:s hamnar för fartyg som fiskar efter sill och makrill under överinseende av Färöarna, vilket innebär att vissa fartyg från Färöarna inte får lägga till i EU:s hamnar, utom i nödsituationer.

- Den här typen av åtgärder vidtar vi som en sista utväg, säger EU:s fiskekommissionär Maria Damanaki. Färöarna hade kunnat stoppa sitt ohållbara fiske, men har inte gjort det.
Nu blir det tydligt för alla att EU kommer att använda sig av alla medel som står till buds till skydd för långsiktigt hållbara fiskebestånd.

Åtgärderna träder i kraft sju dagar efter det att de har publicerats i Europeiska unionens officiella tidning.

Det atlantoskandiska sillbeståndet förvaltades fram till 2013 gemensamt av Norge, Ryssland, Island, Färöarna och EU utifrån en långsiktig förvaltningsplan och på förhand fastställda andelar av den totala tillåtna fångstmängden. Färöarna fattade dock 2013 ett ensidigt beslut om att bryta avtalet och fastställde en egen kvot på över tre gånger så mycket som sin tidigare avtalade andel.

Trots kommissionens stora ansträngningar för att komma fram till en framförhandlad lösning samt upprepade varningar om att åtgärder kan komma att vidtas vägrade Färöarna att stoppa sitt ohållbara fiske. När ingenting mer fanns att göra beslutade EUkommissionen att använda sig av sina befogenheter enligt handelsinstrumentet för att uppmuntra Färöarna att bidra till att bevara beståndet. Dessa åtgärder fick ett klart stöd av medlemsstaterna i kommittén för fiske och vattenbruk den 31 juli 2013.

En liknande tvist föreligger med Island och Färöarna om makrillbeståndet i Nordostatlanten, men kommissionen har ännu inte vidtagit några åtgärder. Kommissionen tar emellertid nu de inledande stegen för att tillämpa handelsinstrumentet även i detta fall.

Västnordiska rådet fördömer EU:s sanktioner mot Färöarna och Island

Island, Grönland och Färöarna är med i Västnordiska rådet.

Enligt isländska Morgunbladet fördömer Västnordiska rådet (som är knutet till Nordiska rådet) EU:s sanktioner mot Färöarna och Island i hårda ordalag. Det avser EU:s sanktioner mot Färöarna angående sillfiske i egna vatten och EU:s kommande sanktioner mot Island och Färöarna angående makrillfiske i eget havsområde.

På rådets årsmöte som nu pågår i Narsarsuaq på Grönland närvarar 18 riksdagsledamöter från de tre länderna.

I rådets uttalande säger att EU:s beteende inte är acceptabelt i internationella sammanhang. Protester framförs mot att EU visar musklerna genom att hota sina grannar även om norska forskare rapporterat att makrillstammen vuxit sig så stor att det skapar fara för miljön i havet.

Rådet påpekar vilka omfattande skador sanktionerna kan få hos mycket små samhällen i Norden. Samtidigt riktar rådet uppmaningen till Norge att stödja Island och Färöarna och uppmanar Norges fiskminister Lisbeth Berg-Hanssen att ändra ståndpunkt och upphöra med sitt stöd till EU och istället stödja sitt brödrafolk.

Källa Morgunbladet

Islands fiskminister intervjuad av Worldfishing

Iceland calls for a fair solution on mackerel

08 Aug 2013

Iceland’s Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture, Sigurður Ingi Jóhannsson

Carly Wills interviews Iceland’s Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture, Sigurður Ingi Jóhannsson, following his call for an early meeting of the Coastal States to find a solution to the ongoing dispute over mackerel catch in the North Atlantic.

Q: Thank you for taking the time to speak to World Fishing & Aquaculture. Could you please briefly explain the mackerel dispute between Iceland, the Faroe Islands, the European Union and Norway?

A: Thank you very much for speaking with me. This dispute centres on mackerel fishing rights in the North Atlantic and the current debate between the Coastal States in whose waters mackerel is present: EU states (including Scotland, Ireland and Denmark), Iceland, Norway and the Faroe Islands.

Each country sets a voluntary quota on the amount of mackerel it will catch. But because the practice has been such that these quotas are self-imposed and there is no limit on the collective catch, mackerel is being overfished. This has led to a situation where all states are overfishing. Instead of looking for a solution that grants everyone a fair share, certain EU states are blaming Iceland, demanding that Iceland reduces its catch and threatening trade sanctions, such as blocking Icelandic ships from EU harbours and banning imports of products resulting from Iceland’s catch.

Since 2010, Iceland has repeatedly offered concrete proposals that would have solved the dispute, including recommendations that all parties take equal cuts. These efforts were rejected. In early July 2013, Iceland issued a call for the Coastal States to resume negotiations and we are pleased that all parties have accepted the offer. We are optimistic that we can reach a solution that ensures a fair share for all and safeguards the environmental and economic interests of the Coastal States.

Q: What is Iceland’s argument for setting a mackerel quota that the EU and Norway believes is putting the health of the stock in jeopardy?

A: First let me say that Iceland’s quota is not putting the health of the mackerel stock in jeopardy. Any claims to the contrary are not based on facts.

This year, Iceland lowered its mackerel catch by 15% to 123,182 tons, in alignment with scientific recommendations from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). The EU and Norway also cut its quota by 15%. However, even with this reduction, the EU and Norway claimed 90% of ICES’ recommended catch level of 542,000 tons, a vastly oversized portion given the changed migration pattern of the stock.

Iceland is confident that a science-based solution can be reached over mackerel catch quotas that is fair to all the coastal states. However, for this to happen the EU and Norway must acknowledge the massive shift of the mackerel population into Iceland’s waters over past few years. Quotas should take due account of the present mackerel migratory patterns, rather than being solely based on historical fishing patterns. To claim otherwise is counterproductive and puts the health of the stock in jeopardy.

Research tells us that the mackerel stock has grown tremendously in Iceland’s waters in recent years. Recent studies by marine-research organisations in Iceland, Norway and the Faroe Islands found 1.5 million tons of mackerel in Icelandic waters in 2012, compared to 1.1 million tons of mackerel in 2010. The increase is a result of rising water temperatures. Now up to 30% of the entire mackerel population is in Iceland’s waters during the summer feeding season.

If the majority of fish are in Iceland’s water, why is Iceland being pressured and threatened to bear the burden of cuts to the total mackerel catch? The fact is that all states are overfishing so all must reduce their catch.

Q: Why have you decided to call for an early meeting of the Coastal States? Is Iceland worried that sanctions will be taken against the country, as is currently happening with the Faroe Islands with regards to herring ?

A: Resolving this issue cannot wait and that is why we have called this meeting. Iceland is leading the drive for a diplomatic solution and again has demonstrated the unequivocal commitment of our government to finding an outcome that benefits all.

We are looking forward to hosting all the Coastal States at the negotiating table as soon as possible. To help protect the ecosystem and our economies, we must carefully consider scientific data and recommendations from ICES to come to a mutually beneficial solution. Threatening illegal sanctions which are in breach of World Trade Organisation rules will not resolve this debate and will only block a diplomatic solution.

Indeed, if sanctions are imposed, they will have serious consequences for the Icelandic economy, which depends on the fishing industry on a much larger scale than with other European nations. But this will not only hurt the Icelandic economy it will also impact the economies of those EU member states who import Icelandic mackerel. The impact upon the livelihoods of thousands of seafood industry workers in Iceland, the UK and elsewhere who depend on the health of the mackerel stock, as well as their families, would be significant.

Q: What is the ideal outcome of the meeting for Iceland?

A: We very much hope that we can find a science-based solution that is fair to all. Cooperation and diplomacy, not illegal sanctions, are needed to manage the stock together. Our position is clear and unchanged: we want to reach a fair, lasting solution for all of Europe’s coastal states. This solution must be based on fair and transparent rules, and a level playing-field for all involved.

The EU’s decision in late July to move forward with sanctions against the Faroe Islands sets the wrong precedent.

Q: If the European Union refuses to drop the threat of sanctions, will Iceland have to give in and cut its mackerel quota to the levels requested?

Threatening illegal sanctions which violate World Trade Organisation rules will not resolve this debate and will only delay a diplomatic solution. We stand firm in our belief that a science-based solution can be found and will not give in to the EU’s bullying of smaller states.

To help protect the ecosystem and our economies, we must come to a mutually beneficial solution. We look to September’s negotiations meeting with great anticipation and very much hope that a resolution is found.

Q: If no agreement can be made and the EU presses on with the threat of sanctions (which Iceland has said are illegal according to World Trade Organisation rules), will Iceland take legal action?

A: In Iceland, we take the obligation of sustainability seriously, and we are confident that we can find a fair and lasting solution through diplomacy and dialogue, not by threatening counter-productive sanctions. Such measures are in breach of World Trade Organisation rules (articles XI and XIII), go beyond protocol 9 of the EEA agreement and should be reserved for the handful of rogue states and harmful regimes that exist in the world, not a close ally of Europe and NATO member like Iceland. It is disproportional, unjust and out of context.

If the EU were to proceed with this excessive path, Iceland will respond through the appropriate international legal channels.

Q: Finally, is there anything else you would like to add on this subject?

A: We did not ask for mackerel to swim into our waters. In fact, mackerel as a pelagic fish swims close to the water surface, and actually blocks our access to the more valuable cod below. Furthermore, with their voracious appetite, they are eating into the food stocks of other fish, and even competing with bird species. This has drastically reduced Iceland’s puffin population, for example.

The recent changes in the seas around us call for a different approach. The Coastal States must come together and rethink the management of this natural resource. Up to 30% of the total mackerel population is now in Iceland’s waters during the summer feeding season. With this in mind, the EU and Norway cannot continue to claim 90% of the total recommended catch. If Iceland is only allowed a share of the remaining 10% with the Faroe Islands and Russia, this will tip its delicate ecosystem out of balance.

As a fishing nation that depends on the sustainable use of the rich resources in our seas, we ask our European friends to join us in making a genuine effort to find a fair and lasting solution.

- See more at: http://www.worldfishing.net/news101/industry-news/iceland-calls-for-a-fair-solution-on-mackerel#sthash.YA50byqQ.dpuf

The Faroe Islands takes the EU to international tribunal over intended economic measures

Newsletters

16/08/2013 | The Faroe Islands takes the EU to international tribunal over intended economic measures

The Faroe Islands have today referred the use of threats of coercive economic measures by the European Union, in relation to the Atlanto-Scandian herring, to an arbitral tribunal under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

A meeting of coastal states to the Atlanto-Scandian herring has been scheduled for 2 and 3 September to discuss the joint management of the herring stock. In addition to the Faroe Islands and the EU, the coastal states also include Iceland, Norway and the Russian Federation. The key issue is the need for a revised, equitable allocation of the stock, which also better reflects the occurrence of herring in Faroese waters.
 

Despite agreeing to participate in these planned consultations, the EU decided on 31 July to proceed with imposing coercive economic measures against the Faroe Islands, targeting Faroese imports to the EU of not only herring but also mackerel, and preventing their transport through EU ports. 
 

The Government of the Faroes has consequently notified the EU that it has today brought the dispute to an international arbitral tribunal, requesting that the EU be declared in breach of its obligations under UNCLOS and ordered to refrain from the threat or adoption of coercive economic measures on the Faroe Islands.
In its notification, the Government of the Faroes underlines that the EU actions in this matter are instrumental in preventing the cooperation necessary to reach agreement on the Atlanto-Scandian herring and contravene its obligations to resolve disputes by peaceful means.
 

The EU is also notified that, consistent with international law, there is an obligation on parties to a dispute to refrain from any measures capable of prejudicing the decision and, in general, avoid taking any steps which might aggravate or extend the dispute, when it has been referred to an international judicial or arbitral forum

Commenting on the Government’s decision to pursue international arbitration, Prime Minister Kaj Leo Holm Johannesen said: “Consultations between all five coastal states need to continue in earnest if we are going to find joint agreement on the allocation of the herring. The EU’s intention to impose unilateral coercive economic measures against the Faroe Islands has already compromised the spirit of mutual respect and cooperation which is crucial to ensuring that real progress can be made on joint management of this valuable shared fish stock. If the EU actually implements such measures, the basis for balanced multilateral negotiations will clearly be called into serious question.”

Statement by the Government of Iceland on EU threats against the Faroe Islands and Iceland 

16.8.2013

Iceland is a major stakeholder in relation to the management of various shared fish stocks in the North-East Atlantic. Icelandic fisheries management policy has for many years assured the sustainable utilisation of marine resources, unlike the EU common fisheries policy. 

In recent months the European Union (EU) has conducted an on-going campaign of threats of coercive measures against Iceland and the Faroe Islands with the objective of gaining advantages in multilateral negotiations on the management of shared fish stocks. This conduct is in breach of various obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and general international law, in particular the obligation on coastal states to agree together on measures to assure the protection and development of a common stock. Furthermore, such measures would not be in accordance with the EU´s obligations under the WTO or, as regards Iceland, the EEA Agreement. 

It is of great concern to the Government of Iceland that the EU seeks to prejudice the rights of free negotiation and agreement of other coastal States in the region, in pursuing the interests of certain Member States. It is of further concern to Iceland that the EU intentionally circumvents mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of disputes, available under the Convention. 

The Government of Iceland rejects and objects in the strongest terms to the EU's resort to threats of coercive measures against Iceland and the Faroe Islands as a means of settling disputes on the management of shared fish stocks. The Government calls on the EU to withdraw these threats, thereby abiding by its obligations under international law.