Finally, we seek to understand what has more recently made a bargaining solution so evasive. We then trace the history of the mackerel agreement and how negotiations are conducted. So, why did the agreement break down? We examine the devolution of mackerel cooperation by first looking at how climate change is affecting the spatial distribution of the fish. In 2010, Iceland became a member of the NEAFC, but the organization has since been unable to negotiate an acceptable allocation of the fish, leading to what has been called a “mackerel war.” 1 The consequence has been that overfishing has become the new norm the United Kingdom’s Marine Conservation Society announced in early 2023 that Northeast Atlantic mackerel populations were “ at risk” and the fish was no longer a sustainable seafood (see figure 1). These members-including the European Union (EU), Denmark (also negotiating for Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Norway, Russia, and the United Kingdom (separately since Brexit)-managed to find bargaining solutions that satisfied each of them.īut in the early 2000s, as the seas warmed, mackerel began moving northward toward Iceland in search of colder waters, and Reykjavik wanted to enter the agreement and receive its fair share of the allocation. But are existing international institutions and agreements well suited to overcome the stresses that climate change might provoke? The case study of the Northeast Atlantic mackerel fishery provides a cautionary tale.įor a decade beginning in 1999, the member states of an organization called the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) worked together to negotiate equitable shares in the mackerel fishery. The challenges arising from climate change are global and require international cooperation if they are to be adequately addressed.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |