Firstly, a huge apology to all our readers for the unheralded and far too long break in this blog. There were good reasons for it, to do with health, both human and computer. However, the FAL blog is once again operations and we start with a few news items to whet everybody's appetite.

The Western Morning News reports that there will be CCTV cameras fitted to fishing boats to ensure that no discards are perpetrated. We should welcome the ban but it ought to be pointed out that the whole problem of discards was a symptom not the cause - the cause remains the Common Fisheries Policy, which remains a centralized structure where decisions are taken for political reasons at the heart of the EU. Maybe George Eustice does not realize this. FAL is ready to provide him with the necessary information.

This could be of interest to fishing organizations and individual fishermen who have something to contribute to the discussion. On March 31, a package of consultations was launched concerning the implementation of reforms to the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Here, incidentally, is the consultation letter that may well have gone out to some of this blog's readers but can be asked for if not. And here is the Consultation Document that requires responses from fishermen and their representatives.

Finally, some news that might not be directly relevant to many readers but is of interest because of what it implies in political terms. Undercurrent News reports that

The European Union, Iceland, Norway and the Faroe Islands have agreed to increase the total allowable catch (TAC) of Northeast Atlantic blue whiting by 86% for 2014.

It will not escape our readers' attention that Iceland, Norway and the Faroe Islands do their own negotiating, which the UK does not and neither will an "independent" Scotland within the EU, should such an entity come about.

European Voice reports that

European Union fisheries ministers meeting in Luxembourg on Thursday (17 October) are expected to agree on the distribution of rights to fish in the Baltic Sea in 2014.

There is, however, to be another item on the agenda:

The ministers will also discuss the annual consultations between the EU and Norway on their bilateral fisheries agreement, which is likely to encompass the ongoing fishing dispute over mackerel with Iceland.

There has been a great deal on this blog about the bullying of Iceland and the Faroe Islands. There is no need to repeat any of that for the time being. However, it is interesting to note in the light of the argument about the size of catches and whether, as both the Icelanders and the Faroese insist, there has been an increase in the amount of fish available, that

Last week, the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES), an independent scientific organisation, issued recommended mackerel catch levels for 2014 of 889,886 tonnes, a 64% increase from 2013, based on the fact that the stock has expanded north-west towards Iceland. Based on this migration, Iceland has begun unilaterally increasing its fishing, but the EU has threatened sanctions. Iceland welcomed the ICES report.

What exactly is the EU's argument and why is Britain supporting it, given the facts? Come to think of it, does Britain have the right not to support it as long as the common fisheries policy remains in place?

The Faroe Islands who want the coastal countries that include Russia, Iceland and Norway (but not the UK because we do not negotiate on our behalf) to meet in September and discuss the management of the herring stock, have meanwhile taken the EU to an international tribunal under UNCLOS over those threats of sanctions.

The BBC reports that

A statement from the Faroese prime minister's office said the government had requested an international tribunal to declare the European Union "in breach of its obligations" under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

It asked for EU authorities to be "ordered to refrain from the threat or adoption of coercive economic measures on the Faroe Islands".

Iceland Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson has also demanded the EU withdraws the threats and allows a peaceful settlement to be found under "free negotiations".

European sanctions will be brought in against Faroese herring and mackerel imports from the end of August.

The Scottish fishermen are supporting this high-handed action. As we have said before, Britain should be looking to ways of negotiating with both Iceland and the Faroes. But we shall not even be there at the September meeting which is still scheduled to take place.

On the whole, we do not consider it necessary to quote politicians at length. It is enough to note what they say and move on. However, in this case, we do recommend our readers to read the article by Sigisrdur Ingi Johansson, Iceland's Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture, in the Wall Street Journal. As we have pointed out before (too often to link to) the EU's behaviour has not been rational or politically sensible; it has been the behaviour of a greedy, peevish school bully but, at least, there is some sign that sense might, if not prevail, at least get a look in. Talks are planned for early September.

Iceland's recently elected government has a renewed sense of purpose to resolve the international dispute over mackerel catch levels in the northeast Atlantic. Yet rather than pushing toward a fair outcome, aggressive talk of trade sanctions from Brussels is harming the effort to seal a lasting shared-quota agreement.

Iceland is dealing with an unexpected explosion in the number of mackerel in our waters. Cooperation and diplomacy, not illegal sanctions, are needed to manage the stock together. Our position is clear and unchanged: We want to sit down and reach a fair, lasting solution for all of Europe's coastal states. The EU's decision last week to move forward with sanctions against the Faroe Islands sets an unfortunate precedent.

Since 2010, Iceland has repeatedly offered concrete proposals that would have solved the dispute, including five public requests this year to reconvene the relevant coastal states—Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Norway and the European Union, which represent Scotland and Ireland, among others, in this dispute—for urgent talks. These efforts were rejected.

Given the lack of action from other countries, Iceland's new government, which took office after April's election, decided to take bold action to restart negotiations. We reached out to our counterparts with the offer to host multilateral talks as soon as possible. We are pleased that the EU, Norway and the Faroe Islands have confirmed they will attend these new talks, which are scheduled for early September. Norway's participation is especially encouraging: The Norwegian government previously stated that it was not in a position to negotiate until after September's elections.

Sadly, the UK will not be there negotiating though the issue is of some importance to this country and its fishermen as well as consumers. But then, we have handed over our rights to the EU and submerged our interests into the Common Fisheries Policy. How well that has served us!

... though they should. This will end in tears. The EU has shown itself to be determined to destroy the economy of the Faroe Islands and, if possible, of Iceland. That will show those upstart Vikings. Fancy not wanting to join such a successful organization as the European Union with its outstandingly successful common fisheries policy. Ha!

The European Commission, as the Scotsman reports

today finally moved to impose trade sanctions against the Faroe Islands because of their continued refusal to enter into an international agreement on the division of the North Atlantic herring stock.

A total ban on the import of Faroese catches of both herring and mackerel into European ports is to be brought into force before the end of August in a major blow for the Nordic nation’s fishing industry. Similar sanctions are expected to be imposed in the near future against Iceland on mackerel.

Last year Icelandic vessels landed 123,000 tonnes of mackerel while Faroese boats took 159,000 tonnes of mackerel, one of the most important catches for Scotland’s powerful pelagic fleet.

Member States have agreed to impose sanctions on the trade of both herring and mackerel from the Faroes to the EU. Mackerel has been included in this EU sanctions package because the Faroese catch the mackerel in association with landings of Atlanto-Scandian herring.

And there may be scope under the sanctions deal to introduce further fish products in the trade ban at a later date. Future sanctions could include fishmeal, fish oil and Faroese salmon products because herring is used in the manufacture of their feed.

The sanctions were welcomed by the leaders of Scotland’s pelagic fleet who have been calling for action for more than two years.

If only those organizations had been so tough with the European Union but that is past praying for. As this blog has suggested a number of times, British fishermen and their organizations ought to look at what the scientific evidence is (not so far disproved by anybody) and try to negotiate deals with the Icelanders and the Faroese. Probably that, too, is past praying for. Meanwhile, the other side of the story is presented by Kaj Leo Holm Johannesen, the Prime Minister of the Faroe Islands, whose political status is a little complicated but who are, nevertheless, more independent than the United Kingdom is. They can decide on their own domestic policy, for instance.

The article has been published by EurActiv and EUObserver and is worth reading in full.

The EU on 31 July will decide whether to adopt coercive economic measures against the Faroe Islands, over a dispute about the quota allocation of Atlanto-Scandian herring.

Not only does the proposed EU action contravene the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and circumvent available procedures to deal with such disputes, it is also based on inaccurate allegations and is counterproductive to a reaching a negotiated solution.

Underpinning the European Commission’s proposal to implement economic measures against the Faroe Islands is the assertion by European Fisheries Commissioner, Maria Damanaki, that the Faroe Islands have “left the negotiation table” on Atlanto-Scandian herring.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Faroese Government has been repeatedly calling for negotiations between all coastal states to discuss a revision of the sharing arrangement for this important and very valuable shared fish stock in the Northeast Atlantic.

Multilateral management of shared fish stocks should always be based on the best available scientific information on the size and behaviour of the stock.

We have been witness in recent years to a marked increase in herring in Faroese waters, and for longer periods. Assessments by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) in 2011 and 2012 confirm these new trends and the increased dependency of the herring on maritime areas within Faroese jurisdiction.

Then again, even if sanity prevailed in this country we could not negotiate with either Iceland or the Faroe Islands because we do not control our fisheries or our fishing industry. We have to go along with decisions taken in Brussels for reasons that have nothing to do with fishing and everything with politics. It is not a matter for rejoicing, though.

As this blog has pointed out before, the EU is squaring up against Iceland and, above all, the Faroe Islands, maintaining that they do far too much fishing and should, instead be obeying the rules the EU wants to impose on them. We have also pointed out that instead of joining and, indeed, leading the bully pack, the UK and its fishermen ought to start negotiating directly with Iceland and the Faroe Islands to find out whether there is a way our industry can benefit from what both these countries say has been a huge growth in their fishing stocks.

The Wall Street Journal actually had an article on the subject this morning though the information in it is a little muddled. [Hint: If you cannot call up the full article, type the title into Google; that should bypass the paywall long enough to read it.]

On Wednesday, EU member states will vote on whether to ban imports of herring and mackerel from the Faroe Islands, after the tiny archipelago nation unilaterally permitted its fishermen to dramatically increase their annual catch this year. By the end of July, the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, will also decide whether to take the first step toward similar sanctions on Iceland's mackerel exports.

The actions would represent the first time that the EU has imposed sanctions on a nation outside the bloc that doesn't comply with international fishing quotas.

Sanctions could deal a blow to the economy of the Faroe Islands, a nation of less than 50,000 people that is formally part of Denmark but has autonomy over domestic policies and isn't part of the EU. A ban on herring exports would also affect Faroese mackerel exports—since the two are often caught in the same nets—and prevent Faroese herring trawlers from unloading in EU ports.

Wednesday's vote will take place in the Fisheries Committee, as EUObserver points out, with the decision then being taken up by the Commission, which is not the EU's executive arm but the legislative and the executive. For some reason hacks on the WSJ seem unable to grasp this simple fact.

While the EU is accusing both Iceland and the Faroe Islands of breaking international agreements (unspecified in the article) the Faroese say very firmly that EU sanctions "would contravene UN conventions and argue rising sea temperatures have made more fish move to colder northern seas".

At the very least that assertion ought to be tested but we have seen no scientific arguments that disprove it, merely insistence on countries not in the EU having to obey its rules. It is not as if the common fisheries policy over the last few decades has been particularly adept at conserving the fisheries stock or managing the fishing industry particularly well.

The fishing industry in the EU and the UK is disregarding our advice. Having allowed itself to be decimated by the EU and the CFP it is calling on the EU to try to destroy the Faroese fishing industry and with it, the islands' economy with Denmark, being the only one against that. That is understandable as, for many purposes, the Faroe Islands are part of that country, though their domestic economic decisions remain independent.

According to The Scotsman:

LEADERS of Britain’s £500 million pelagic industry today urged the European Union to block the export of Faroese herring and mackerel to Europe.

• Pelagic industry leaders call on EU to block Faroe Islands from exporting herring and mackerel to Europe

• Call comes as Faroese authorities continue to refuse to enter into international agreement on division of herring stock in North Atlantic.

FishUpdate confirms it and adds:

The Scottish Pelagic Processors Association (SPPA), which represents mackerel and herring processors and has a close relationship with UK pelagic fisherman, also wants to see sanctions urgently imposed on Icelandic fisheries.

Ian McFadden, chairman of the SPPA, said: “Mackerel processing alone supports around 2,260 jobs in the UK with several hundred more involved in fishing.

“For several years now the Faroese and Icelandic fisheries have aggressively increased their quotas of mackerel and refused to negotiate with the EU and Norway, which have historically worked together to ensure sustainable fishing practices.

“This activity is a real threat to jobs in the UK and to the economy of some communities which rely on mackerel and herring as the main source of employment.

“We wholeheartedly back the UK and Scottish governments’ support for sanctions that block fresh and frozen landings of herring and mackerel. We can now conclude that other activity to encourage the Faroe Islands and Iceland to agree quotas are proving ineffective and more drastic action is required.

“While the vote on sanctions against the Faroe Islands is due tomorrow we also believe the EU will soon announce plans for sanctions against Iceland – the sooner this is formalised the better.”

Mr McFadden would probably argue that all he is doing is trying to protect British or, perhaps, Scottish jobs. If only he and his organization had been quite so tough with the European Union's Fisheries Committee, the Commission and various rules and regulations issued under the CFP.

EUObserver reports that according to Maria Damanaki, the Fisheries Commissar Commissioner, the EU will decide by the end of July whether to impose sanctions on Iceland and the Faroe Islands over the mackerel dispute. Sanctions could include a ban on Icelandic and Faroese fishermen landing catches in EU ports and could even go as far as a complete ban on mackerel and mackerel produce from those sources.

Reuters has a more detailed piece, which reminds the readers of several matters. One is that Iceland is claiming that their mackerel quota was increased because there was a significant rise in the mackerel stocks, a claim that is not apparently being disputed, as the EU's arguments tend to concentrate on the shocking idea that a country wishes to decide its own fishing quotas on the basis of its own scientific advice.

Secondly, the EU is feeling sore: Iceland does not want to come in and is making no bones about the fact that the whole mess of the Common Fisheries Policy is an important reason for that reluctance. Such insolence! Up with this we shall not put.

Any proposal put forward at the end of this month will have to be agreed by the 28 governments (yes, that's right, Croatia is in now but is hardly a substitute for Iceland) so the whole process will take a little while. Of course, if the UK had her own fishing policy we might be able to negotiate with Iceland to our mutual benefit after ascertaining what the truth is about that "surge in stocks". As it is, we had better prepare ourselves for a mackerel and herring war.

Well, it is partly about the fish. Iceland has now officially informed the European Commission that it will not be applying for EU membership. Appropriately, Fish Information & Services reported it, quoting EUObserver.

Iceland's bid to join the EU is over, the country's foreign minister told the European Commission on Thursday (13 June).

"This is how democracy works," said Gunnar Bragi Sveinsson, on his first overseas trip, three weeks after being appointed to the recently elected Icelandic government.

He pointed out that both parties in the new government had campaigned against EU accession.

He commented that the main purpose of the trip had been "to tell the commission that the new government has made decision to put negotiations on hold.

Oddly enough, Stefan Fule, the Czech Commissioner, responsible for EU membership bids (just what kind of a well-paid job is that?) does not seem to have understood what Iceland's Foreign Minister was saying. According to Commissioner Fule, the EU will continue and complete the process, presumably of negotiation for Iceland's membership. With whom those negotiations will be conducted remains a mystery, as so many other things around the Commission.

What is particularly interesting from this blog's point of view is the clear statement that Iceland's "mackerel fishing dispute with the European Union as a prime example of the value of sovereignty". UPI has a longer story on it but says essentially the same.

The Prime Minister said in his speech on Monday that marked Iceland's Independence Day that Brussels was ignoring Iceland's sovereignty in the fishing dispute.

"In the light of the extensive debate that has taken place about the implications of EU membership for fishing, Icelanders must also watch and see whether the EU will treat Iceland with greater fairness in disputes over our fishing within our own economic zone," he said.

"To apply illegal sanctions against a small nation for catching fish in accordance with scientific guidelines and within its own economic zone, at the same time as larger nations are making catches from the same stocks without any criticism being voiced, would hardly promise well for a common fisheries policy."

Iceland says the EU and Norway are ignoring scientific evidence that more of the fish are feeding in its own territorial waters and contends it is being shortchanged by being limited to a small percentage of the overall North Atlantic fisheries take.

Sigurgeir Thorgeirsson, the Iceland's chief fisheries negotiator, told The New York Times the EU is continuing to ignore the evidence that mackerel migration patterns have changed, with the fish now crowding into Icelandic waters.

Here is the Prime Minister's National Day Address in full and in English. It is worth reading; there is always some interest in reading a speech by a politician who knows and appreciates his country's history and constitution.

Britain is not playing a particularly glorious role in this dispute. Instead of pressing for sanctions against Iceland, instead of running to the Commission for help, we ought to examine the Icelanders' arguments and start thinking of a way of working with them on equal terms. That might mean a genuine change in the way the Common Fisheries Policy is set up, which would be all to the good.

Iceland has officially abandoned any pretence at wanting to be part of the European Union.

Iceland’s bid to join the EU has come to an end, Iceland’s centre-right independence party leader Bjarni Benediktsson has said.

The eurosceptic politician made the statement in an interview with Icelandic news outlet mbl.is on Tuesday (21 May).

The 43-year old Benediktsson is in discussion to shape a new government with the centrist progressive party, following elections on 27 April. The progressives also oppose joining the EU.

We understand that a great deal of the argument revolved round the Common Fisheries Policy and what its effect would be on Iceland's fisheries.

Bloomberg reports:

Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson, who will take over as prime minister this week, has decided that a January decision to freeze EU membership talks will be extended indefinitely, his political adviser Johannes Thor Skulason said in a phone interview today.

“Later in the term there will be a referendum on whether Iceland should continue the talks, although no date has been decided,” Skulason said.

A referendum on whether to continue the talks not ex-post facto on whether to stay in.

We have covered the ridiculous scare story of their being practically no grown cod in the North Sea here, here and here.

Now, thanks to EUReferendum, we can examine another side of the story. Well, not that particular story as this does not concern the CFP. It seems that in countries outside that noxious system the number and size of cod has been growing to the point that fishermen in Alaska are complaining about the drop in price. Well, yes, that is what happens when there is more produce.

However, the really interesting development is to be found in the Barents Sea. Last October the Barents Observer recorded that

The Barents Sea cod stock is growing and spreading northwards and eastwards. Never before have scientists found cod as far north as during this year’s ecosystem mission.

Apparently

Norwegian and Russian scientists recently concluded this year’s joint ecosystem mission to the Barents Sea. The conclusion is that the cod stock in the Barents Sea has set a new record when it somes to northern distribution.

The Russian research vessel “Vilnjus” found cod as far north as 82 degrees 30 minutes north.

The cod stock in the Barents Sea is considered to be the largest in the world. The quotas for 2013 will probably be over 900.000 tons.

In March Fishupdate.com was reporting that the predictions were coming true.

Six Icelandic factory trawlers have been fishing in the Norwegian and Russian zones of the Barents Sea. One of them is HB Grandi’s Venus, and according to this trip‘s skipper Haraldur Árnason, there are a huge amounts of fish on the grounds, including on the Malaga shallows and the Fugløy bank in the Norwegian zone where the Icelandic vessels have mostly been fishing.

The skippers are complaining - not a good development. With more cod and bigger cod the price per tonne will fall. They might have to think of joining the EU after all. (Just kidding.) There are other ways of dealing with the problem and Norway is looking at them. One can look to improving quality or to spreading the season. (This article about a report released by the Norwegian research institute Nofima is well worth reading in full.)

As EUReferendum says very pertinently:

That Norway is even able to consider these options rests almost entirely on its refusal in 1994 to join the European Union (for the second time). As it stands, fisheries stocks in the Barents Sea are managed by the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission, established in 1975.

Had Norway become an EU member, it would have handed control of its fisheries to the Commission, to be treated as a "common resource". The EU would be negotiating directly with Russia, excluding Norway from the table.

And like Britain, it might have been looking at quotas in the tens of thousands, rather than the hundreds of thousands of tons it is currently catching, with their fleet a fraction of the size. It is a small wonder that the EU's CFP was one of the main reasons why Norway didn't want to join.

Would it be possible for our politicians, journalists and other would-be experts to understand that.?

The Common Fisheries Policy is a big part of the problem. The reason is obvious: it is a centralized decision-making process that involves twenty-seven countries, many of whom do not have a vested interest, and a great deal of political bargaining. Proposed delegation to local and regional bodies will not change the basic principle as these decisions will still be taken within the framework provided centrally. Only by exiting from the CFP and adopting our own policies that will take meaningful decision making further down the chain can the situation be salvaged. (Here is one possible plan to follow.)

At the Davos Conference this was voiced clearly by the President of Iceland.

Iceland's president has dismissed the European Union's Common Fisheries Policy as a "colossal failure" as some 75% of Europe's fish stock is endangered.

The policy sets quotas for each of the 27 member states and for types of fish.

"Europe is the problem," Olafur Ragnar Grimsson said at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

"It is paradoxical that Europeans see themselves as the most enlightened policy makers in the world," he added.

Problems with fish stocks are present in many parts of the world but none so serious as in the seas around the European Union.

Only two countries in Europe have been managing their fisheries in a sustainable fashion - Iceland and Norway, Mr Grimsson claimed, pointing out that neither is a member of the European Union.

But whereas he was concerned about the future of the oceans that are so important to his country, he also said there were reasons to be optimistic about the future.

Fish caught in a sustainable manner can be labelled electronically, so modern technology, such as mobile telephones or smartphones, have now made it possible for consumers to check exactly where the fish they buy comes from, he says.

Technology that accurately maps the movement of all boats also exists, and it costs less than $100 per boat, Mr Grimsson said, insisting it should be compulsory for boats to be kitted out with such kit before leaving port, the way an aircraft is not allowed to take off without the correct instruments on board.

What are the chances of anything of that kind being even discussed, let alone adopted under the CFP?

Iceland's president Olafur Ragnar Grimsson said in an interview with CNN that not only he considered that letting the country's banks fail to have been the right move, which has put the country in a better economic position than most EU members and particularly those of the eurozone are in, but he also would not hesitate to veto a parliamentary decision to seek EU membership (an unlikely event, given the way opinion is shifting in that country, as documented in this blog), "a promise he told CNN he had based five successful presidential runs on".

In particular, needless to say, Iceland is worried about the fisheries policy, having, no doubt, watched the destructive nature of the CFP in the UK, Ireland and other countries. The arguments about quotas have already started.

Ireland has called for the EU to impose sanctions against Iceland for over-fishing, and talks in September between Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and the EU were inconclusive.

The Minister of Fishing and Agriculture, Steingrimur Sigfusson, said the dispute has called into question whether Iceland wants to become an EU member.

"These negotiations have been delayed, partly because of disputes like the mackerel," he said. "It's becoming increasingly difficult to continue, and needless to say, sanctions or things like that, would be very detrimental to the atmosphere."

On the whole, it is beginning to look like Iceland does not want to become an EU member. What would they gain?