Chronicle This is a chronicle, written by an external contributor. The chronicle expresses the writer’s attitudes.
The third country quota was recorded as a matter of negotiation when the political tug-of-war over the quota notification was in overtime in the Storting’s business committee. “Who came up with this idea?”, asked Storting representative Torgeir Knag Fylkesnes (SV) in the exchange of words with case mayor Wilfred Nordlund (Sp) at the Storting’s plenary consideration of the report. The latter would not answer that.
Like Fiskeribladet has revealed that the negotiations in the committee were carried out in dialogue with business representatives. We know this is happening, and is in line with a political desire for support in the fleet sector in the distribution of wild marine resources.
At the crisis in the cod fishery with a stop in fishing on 18 April 1989, for example, the regulatory council tried to arrive at a distribution key, but in the end had to leave the matter to the Norwegian Fishermen’s Association. After a vote in the organisation, the “trawl ladder” became the fisheries authorities’ distribution mechanism.
The distribution question at that time was resolved by vote. In the distribution of unused third-country quotas, Wilfrd Nordlund (Sp) and the representatives from the Labor Party, the Conservative Party, the Free Party and the Left have not taken into account the fact that the business representatives who have been drawn into the negotiations lack a mandate to bind their members. It is a fundamental aspect of negotiation to clarify which mandate a party has.
The key to the quota settlement is the following wording in the committee’s recommendation (temporary version): “The Storting asks the government this year where there is unused third-country quota that is returned to the national quota, it is natural that this quantity is prioritized for the deep-sea fishing fleet groups”.
Notably the wording was later changed as follows: “The Storting asks the government to prioritize affected fleet groups in accordance with the agreement of 19/04/2024 between the Labor Party, the Conservative Party, the Center Party, the Progressive Party, the Liberal Party and the Christian People’s Party this year where there is an unused third country quota that is returned to the national quota”.
We have after the plenary proceedings received a request resolution that refers to an agreement. The agreement reads as follows: “The parties recognize that fishing in other countries’ zones is an important part of the sea fishing fleet’s activity. In a year where there is unused third country quota for distribution to the national quota, it is natural that this quantity is prioritized for these affected fleet groups”.
The report from the plenary proceedings in the Storting indicate that there is no common understanding about the content of the agreement. Although the wording clearly expresses that the deep-sea fishing fleet is to be prioritized, the plenary proceedings speak of considerable scope for action. Runar Sjåstad from the ruling party Ap states that no new principles have been introduced or practice changed: “It will still be up to the sitting minister to assess [fordelingen]and we have complied not claimed that everything should go to one group”.
That is correct that the minister has the Storting’s authority to distribute the third country quota within the Marine Resources Act’s purpose determination and management principle. At the same time, it is clear that a request decision is not legally binding for the minister. However, a minister who does not comply with a request decision risks having to resign following the Storting’s motion of no confidence. Former fisheries minister Per Sandberg was probably not far from a motion of no confidence in the so-called “quota instructions case” from 2017. The request decision he provoked was clear and clear with the following wording: “The Storting asks the government to implement the Fiskarlaget’s model at the first opportunity”.
I have picked up the title of this post from the title of a comedy by William Shakespeare, and added a question mark. In the comedy, there are many actors and much chaos before the truth is revealed. I will leave this side of the matter aside. My primary thought in using the title and the question mark is that I want the reader to make up his own mind as to whether the way the quota settlement has come about, and the actions we are now seeing here in the north, is a lot of fuss about nothing? Key questions are whether the Storting, in its dialogue with business representatives, has set up an unfortunate practice, but also whether it is the case that the request decision is an empty decision that does not lay down guidelines for the future distribution of unused third country quotas?
