The fishermen’s revolt is primarily due to the government’s betrayal of the quota notification. The Labor Party and the Center Party went to the bourgeois parties to gain a majority in the Storting. But there is much more behind the rebellion.
We have a political leadership that over a long period of time has failed the coast in favor of capital. There were great expectations for the quota announcement to return the resources to the coastal communities so that our important perpetual resource could provide work and settlement along the coast.
Not least the National Audit Office’s report on the lack of political management of the fishing industry created expectations that a quota report would be issued that would benefit the population on the coast. Reference to the Marine Resources Act that the fish belong to us all strengthened that hope. The government had problems meeting expectations, because the ocean liners protested. The quota notification was postponed and when it finally came, there was no increase in the quotas for the coastal fleet.
The “Trålstigen”, which was discontinued by the Storting in 2020, is now being reintroduced. Admittedly, the trawl ladder will give the coastal fleet a larger share at the expense of the ocean-going fleet when the total quota is reduced. But when the total quota goes down, there will be less quotas for the coastal fleet as well. It is not possible to present the trawl ladder as a quota transfer from the ocean-going fleet to the coastal fleet. The regulation must take into account that the trawlers were from the start only a supplement to provide raw material to the industry. They could go outside the fishing limit and collect fish for processing on the coast during the off-season.
The trawlers were given quotas in return for their obligation to deliver to the land-based industry. They have not only neglected this, they have outright ignored it. Freezing on board and delivery to the freezer hotels for direct export of unprocessed raw material has deprived the coast of industrial jobs on land. One must be able to call it a robbery of the coast in the same way as previous foreign trawlers that ravaged the north.
The quota notification does not affect the delivery obligation. The settlement in the Storting only promises to return to this before the structural quotas expire in eight years. The quota announcement was an opportunity to correct the right-wing governments’ conversion of the obligation to supply to an obligation to offer. It was a duty that was worthless to the fish receptions on the coast. As time goes on, it will become more difficult to return to duty delivery.
The quotas for the coastal fleet have become so small that most of the fishermen on the coast have already fished up their quota for the whole of 2024. Now they just have to see that the ocean-going fleet can continue to fish while the coastal fleet has land. The positive thing about that is that the fishermen then have time to take action to show the Storting the unreasonableness of the settlement they have entered into.
What triggered the fishermen’s anger when they blocked the ports in Hammerfest, Honningsvåg and Vardø, was when the organization “Fiskebåt” and the Business Committee ran horse-trading in the back room. They agreed to prioritize the sea fishing fleet for the freed third country quota for cod and haddock. The third country quota has been established by coastal fishermen giving up several tens of thousands of tonnes of cod, pollock and haddock so that the ocean-going fleet would have access to fish in other waters. The ocean-going fleet has benefited from this, and now they will usurp the remaining quota. It is the start of acquiring control over this entire third country quota, which is usually 10% of the total quota.
The coastal fishermen have every reason to feel overrun. They have not been allowed to take part in such a discussion either in the Norwegian Fishermen’s Association or with the politicians. The procedure is in itself a provocation where hopelessness and resignation for democratic processes disappear. Then there is only action left when the coastal fleet is regulated to dock.
Fiskebåt sees itself as an independent main organization when they meet the politicians, but they are one of three teams in Norway’s Fishermen’s Association. They have constantly threatened to opt out or demanded the exclusion of one of the other teams, namely Nord Fiskarlag. Nord Fiskarlag mainly organizes the coastal fishermen. The coastal fishermen have seen this double play by Fishing Boat and are dismayed at the power they have managed to take in Norway’s Fishermen’s Association. This is no longer an internal organizational battle, it is a battle for resources on the coast. Then it will primarily be a political battle that concerns us all.
If the coast is to get jobs and benefit from the fishing resources in the sea, then the fish must be brought ashore. The coastal fleet is responsible for that. Then the politicians must have the courage to transfer fish from the ocean-going fleet to those who deliver the fish for processing on land. When this does not happen, the coast should know that there is no reason to vote for AP, SP, V, KrF, H or FrP who are behind the settlement in the quota announcement.
Frode Bygdnes, Harstad
