On the mound, the rooster is the most dapper.

Ingólfur Bjarni Sigfússon, RÚV's new media director, was very vocal in the last episode of Sunday Morning on RÚV. There, he discussed the new situation in the mackerel negotiations as if he were familiar with every detail of the dispute. Ingólfur Bjarni seems to have been caught off guard this time, and it is quite surprising that the program host allowed him to proceed unchallenged with his fact-less rhetoric. The editors of the column “From Day to Day” in Fréttablaðið picked up the discussion uncritically in yesterday's paper.

Opinionated conclusions

Ingólfur Bjarni claimed that Icelanders would get better agreements based on the deal between the EU, Norway, and the Faroe Islands than what the Icelandic negotiating committee proposed at the negotiating table. Ingólfur Bjarni, and others who have spoken on the matter, should pause and better acquaint themselves with the issue. Present facts, not opinionated conclusions. The Minister of Fisheries has repeatedly appeared in interviews in recent days and outlined the course of the matter. The issue was also discussed in the parliamentary hall of Alþingi last week. Questions have always been answered clearly and nothing has been withheld.

The size of the mackerel stock underestimated

The main facts are, among other things, that mackerel has invaded the feeding grounds of our main fish stocks and seabirds in Icelandic waters. Iceland's fisheries management has been based on scientific findings that support the view that this changed migration of mackerel indicates that the size of the stock has been underestimated. This has now finally been acknowledged by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), and based on the changed information, it increased the advice on the total catch from the stock by 64% between the years 2013 and 2014.

Want to eat the whole cake and more

Every increase, every single kilo, is taken unilaterally by Norway and the EU in 2014 according to the new agreement. With this, they significantly increase their catches year on year and then add the Faroe Islanders. It can be said that the EU and Norway offered the Faroe Islanders a ride – the catch intended for the Faroes within the agreement is all in excess of advice, of course! Within the agreement, they also provide for the catches of others, totalling around 150 thousand tonnes (all in excess of advice). It can be understood that Russia and Iceland are supposed to share these tonnes between them. What about Greenland? They intend to catch 100 thousand tonnes. The three countries considered that it was not necessary to account for Greenlanders' catches any more than the interests of the mackerel stock generally.

In view of the changed ICES advice, there is now a real and considerable risk of gross overfishing of the stock if it is caught in excess of advice as the agreement of the three countries promotes.

Overfishing by EU countries

It is positive that Iceland is not part of this agreement, as it promotes fishing at least 40% above the scientific advice. Good luck to those who wish to delegate the EU to negotiate the utilization of stocks on their behalf, as Ingólfur Bjarni implied in the interview. Within EU waters, 30% of fish stocks are in collapse and a much higher proportion is overfished, about 80%. The reason is that agreements have been made where the interests of individual EU countries are placed above the interests of the ecosystem. Is this responsible handling of the ocean's resources?

Intend to prevent mackerel from entering Iceland's jurisdiction

Iceland did not get up from the negotiating table or break off the discussions. The coastal state negotiations were broken off by an EU negotiator who chaired the final meeting in Edinburgh. Consequently, the three countries gave up discussing a result based on responsible utilization, as the Icelanders wanted to do. Furthermore, Norway never intended to agree to the share that Iceland could accept. Instead, Norway has managed to push through an agreement that leads to significant overfishing. They know full well that the more the stock is fished down – the less likely it is to enter Icelandic waters and benefit us. Is that what Ingólfur Bjarni is proposing should have been the outcome?

Do people only want to talk about what sounds sensational, or do they wish to discuss facts and convey those?

Silja Dögg Gunnarsdóttir (The article was published in Fréttablaðið on 18 March 2014.)

PS: Are you on Facebook? Why not become a fan of Framsókn.