Failing to notice that Norway changed its Minister of Fisheries last autumn, you would have to be colour-blind. The former Minister of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, conservative Svein Ludvigsen (59) often dressed in dark grey before entering the scene to speak about liberalisation of the seafood industry. Structuring the coastal fisheries into fewer, but stronger units was one of his favourites. His Labour successor, Helga Pedersen, was only 32 when she dressed up in her traditional Sami costume to meet the press for the first time. The dressing up marked her roots from the indigenous Sami people in the North, but the young minister with the firm glance would have been able to draw attention even without colourful drapery or being a member of Prime Minister Stoltenberg’s government. And her first statements and moves were sufficient to indicate that a change in the politics were to be expected. Nine months later it should be possible to ask what she has got out of it.
World Fishing: What is the difference between the new red-green government and the former central-conservative one regarding the politics of fisheries?
Helga Pedersen: We uphold a stronger perspective on social considerations in the politics of fisheries. As the former government we recognise profitability within the seafood business as a presupposition for lights in the houses along the Norwegian coastline. But it gives no guarantee for settlements and life and laughter along the coast. That’s why we’ll reconsider the structuring of the fishing fleet and establish arrangements like duty to deliver and district quotas. And of course we will fight to put an end to over fishing.
WF: What have you achieved so far?
HP: We have set to work considerable and important processes to change the course. The struggle against over fishing has been given the very highest priority. If we don’t manage to maintain a sustainable cod stock in the Barents Sea, a lot of local communities all along the coast will be silenced. And if so, the other discussions and the struggles about distribution will become almost irrelevant. There will be no more fish to quarrel about. We have already made adjustments regarding the structuring of the fleet and have formed a basis for district quotas. We are also about to set up quotas for recruitment. The average age among boat owners is very high.
WF: One of your first actions was to put the structuring of the fishing fleet on hold and to set down a new committee to discuss structuring instead. In what way will the establishment of this committee contribute to reaching your goals?
HP: The structuring committee will present their conclusion the 15th of August, and the politics of the future will be based on this. The reason for this process is the structuring of the coastal fleet (less than 28 metres), which has made it possible to take a boat out of the fisheries and transfer the quotas to another vessel. Many fishermen are pleased with this, since it has led to profitability for those who have structured. But there are also local communities suffering because they loose their quotas and their fishermen and employment on land. These communities are often short of capital.
WF: What have been the greatest challenges you have experienced as a Minister so far?
HP: No doubt the over fishing. This has been superior to all and has prevailed through many years, but cannot continue. One thing is the fact that the legal quotas could have been larger and the prices better without the over fishing, but these are short-term goals. What I actually am in fear of, is a breakdown of the Barents Sea cod stock. That would be a disaster. At New Foundland they have experienced this outcome, and today empty houses, ghost towns, unemployment, centralisation and drug problems, mark the island. It will not necessarily be 15 or 50 years before we’re into the same scenario here. The process can run much faster.
WF: Norway’s relations with Russia have in part been dramatic in your period. How would you describe the development, and how are the prospects for a productive collaboration with the Russians in the Arctic?
HP: The relations with Russia are not easy – the Russian decision in December 2005 to stop the import of fresh Norwegian salmon gives one example. But even though the Norwegian-Russian relationship brings lots of challenges, we must not forget that Norway and Russia through a long period have benefited from good and constructive cooperation. This will also be crucial if we are able to establish sustainable fisheries. I wish that the progress was faster, but we made important steps in the right direction during the negotiations in Kaliningrad last October. We agreed upon several common actions to improve control. A new subcommittee of the Norwegian-Russian Commission was established, and we have agreed to expand the systems for exchanging information about fishing.
WF: What do you say to countries that don’t recognise the Norwegian Fishery Protection Zone around Svalbard?
HP: We decidedly maintain that we have right on our side and that our sovereignty guarantees that the fish in the area is to be taken care of. We keep a good management in the area and will carry on with that.
WF: Will you consider expanding the Norwegian Economical Zone to Svalbard?
HP: As a coastal state we do have the right to do so, but there are no such plans for the time being.
WF: What is your strategy from now on to get rid of the illegal over fishing?
HP: The work has to be done on the international scene. Norway isn’t alone and neither is Russia. The efforts must be followed up towards the EU and not the least UN. Last month Norway made a breakthrough in United Nations to strengthen the port state control. That was an important victory. We have to follow up with sound regulations to exclude blacklisted ships and to establish reliable traceability. We have encouraged customers in Norway and EU to control that the fish is caught in a sustainable way, but we all need better systems for tracing the fish. Today you even find people worrying for the health benefit of fish.
WF: How do you comment on the fact that the largest aquaculture company in the world is formed and has been given thumbs up from the ministry you’re in charge of?
HP: Concerning the activities in Norway, we have awarded Pan Fish a license to own up to 25% of national concession biomass on the condition that they increase the processing in the coastal districts of Norway of 10% a year.
WF: Pan Fish is presented as a Norwegian company, but recently the main owner, John Fredriksen, flagged out and became a Cypriot citizen. Would they still have got their license if you knew that before?
HP: Yes, and according to the EEA rules we would not have been allowed to let his citizenship play a part.
WF: Norway is playing hardball bringing the EU anti-dumping measure on Norwegian salmon before WTO. Why?
HP: Because we mean the accusations of dumping are wrong and because the salmon business needs predictability. The success of Norwegian salmon is due to cleverness and efficiency and nothing else.
WF: Norwegian fish still runs into import duties in different parts of the world. What would you say about the chances to improve the access to these markets?
HP: The WTO processes are of course central, and offensive demands have been made to ease the access of the seafood exporters. Parallel to keeping up the good work in WTO, we have to work through EFTA to make free trade agreements with important consumer nations. Korea was the last important agreement, and if this is followed up with Japan, China, Thailand and India, I’m not worried for the markets. Still, we have to put end to the over fishing, to be sure that we have fish to sell.
(The interview was made a few days before the scientist in ICES presented their advice for the cod fisheries in the Arctic in 2007. ICES recommended a 35% drop down in the cod quotas, which gives the young, Norwegian minister a new, serious challenge.)
