| From: [email protected] (Simen Gaure)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
Subject: Re: 'cod wars'
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 1995 12:36:50 +0100
Organization: University of Oslo
The term "cod war" was originally coined to describe the disputes
Iceland had with Britain in the '70s and earlier. Armed forces were
involved. Those "wars" lead to international acceptance of the
200-mile economic zone. In that way, it may be said that Iceland won
the wars.
The current "cod wars" are currently not that hard, one might speak of
"cold cod wars", although one shooting incident has occured. (Though
not directly connected with fishing disputes.)
There are several disputes in the Nordic area.
1. The "loophole" (Smutthullet). This is an area of international
waters in the Barents Sea. Norway and Russia have cooperated in
managing the area, but with no enforcement rights.
Norway, Iceland, Russia have been fishing there, together with
a number of ships flying a flag of convenience.
(With owners from the Faroese islands, Iceland, Norway, Spain, Canada?)
2. The 200-mile zone around Svalbard. There is a dispute over
whether the 200-mile zone around Svalbard is covered by the
Svalbard treaty (which grants every country the same rights)
or if the 200-mile zone is to be considered to be Norwegian
200-mile zone. (Svalbard is Norwegian territory, but the
Svalbard treaty regulates economic activity there.)
Notably Iceland has disputed Norwegian rights of management; last
year they had a couple of vessels fishing there.
3. The "loopsea" (Smutthavet). An area of international waters between
the Icelandic, Faroese and Norwegian economic zones.
This is the most recent dispute. The stock of North-East Atlantic
herring was overfished in the '70s and has since then bred and lived
largely in Norwegian waters where it has received full protection.
Quite recently the population has recovered to a commercially
exploitable size and has resumed its previous migration pattern.
I.e. it now migrates into the "loopsea" and further into
Faroese and Icelandic waters. Fishing in the economic zones
are regulated, but fishing in the loopsea is not.
Several parties have fished there. Iceland, Denmark, recently
some other EU countries. Iceland has also been allowed in Faroese
waters and is currently not fishing in the loopsea.
All the nordic countries, including Canada, agree that the
fisheries must be regulated, but the EU and Japan have
blocked agreements in the appropriate international bodies.
There are some signs that the EU will change its opinion, especially
after their disputes with Canada over the black turbot fisheries
(greenland halibut, bl�kveite) off Newfoundland.
Other solutions have also been discussed, mainly that Iceland, Norway
and the Faroe islands extend their economic zones to 250 miles, effectively
closing the loopsea.
In short, a long an complicated matter as most things are. On the
international level there is a UN body looking into this. The real
problem is who should manage fisheries in international waters.
Iceland, Norway and Canada insists that this must be done by the
coastal states, i.e. the states with borders to the area. Japan and the
EU insists that this must be done by the flag state. (I don't know what
they intend to do with ships registered in Belize, Panama and other
states without adequate legislation.)
On a more practical level, Iceland and Norway follows their own
suggestion, and tries to enforce regulations in nearby int'l waters, at
least they have some surveillance of who fishes how much. On the other
hand, EU and Japan do not do anything to control their vessels in
international waters. (At least they didn't until Canada seized a
Spanish vessel fishing with illegal nets in international waters off
Newfoundland). All this from my memory, please correct any inaccurate
information.
--
Simen Gaure, Department of Mathematics, University of Oslo
|