Chronicle This is a chronicle, written by an external contributor. The chronicle expresses the writer’s attitudes.
Opposition to Norwegian EU membership was strong among the coastal population in the referendums in both 1972 and 1994. The commitment and resistance of the fishermen and the coastal and fjord population was decisive for the people saying no.
There is still a clear majority against EU membership, not least in northern Norway. In Sentio’s latest poll from April, 53% of respondents in Northern Norway say no, and only 29% say yes (18% don’t know).
Northern Norway, and especially in Finnmark, where the fishing industry has been absolutely crucial, is now characterized by depopulation. Local communities lose residents and local politicians have little influence on the situation. There are several reasons for this, but several changes in fisheries policy are absolutely essential.
In 2020, the National Audit Office arrived with a report on the quota system in fisheries policy in the period 2004 – 2018. It is a crushing verdict; rightly enough, the report says that the economy of the fishing fleet has improved, but in important areas the characteristics go from serious and objectionable to strongly objectionable.
In short says the report actually states that the quota policy has not served the country’s national interests such as the general public’s access to resources, it has created major challenges for the smallest coastal fleet, it has reduced activity in fishing-dependent municipalities and had negative consequences for coastal communities.
The proportion of fish brought ashore in Nord-Troms and Finnmark has been reduced from 25 per cent of the total Norwegian catch in 1985 to 8 per cent in 2020.
The government promised in the Hurdal platform to reverse the negative development and would ensure a varied, fish-owned and sustainable fishing fleet that contributes to the fish providing increased activity, greater value creation and more year-round jobs in local communities along the entire coast.
Recently entered into however, the government’s agreement with the right-wing parties in the Storting on the quota announcement, and the announced restructuring of the fisheries policy, will not come to pass. The government is satisfied with having reached a broad settlement in the Storting, which they believe provides predictability for the players in the fishing industry. The settlement accommodates the special interests of those who are business players today, and quota buying and selling can continue as before, in violation of the legislation.
This policy is strongly influenced by the logic of the market and the EU’s four freedoms.
Who would have thought that this is what a social democratic fisheries policy looks like?
However, Norway has exemption from the EEA Agreement when it comes to fisheries management. This means that we do not have market compulsion in fisheries management and it gives Norway the opportunity to manage fishing resources from a long-term societal perspective, in line with the Participation Act and the Marine Resources Act.
Purpose of the Participation Act is to adapt the fishing capacity to the resource base, and through increased profitability and value creation secure settlements and jobs in the coastal districts, as well as to make arrangements for the harvesting of the marine resources to benefit the coastal population. The Marine Resources Act states that it is the community in Norway that has the right to the resources. § 2. The right to the resources: The wild marine resources belong to the community in Norway. This means that it is the people together who have the right to the resources, and the state cannot give away or sell these resources to private actors.
Turnover of quotas has led to such high quota prices that soon there will be no Norwegian actors who can pay the price, and especially not in the coastal and fjord communities in Northern Norway. If the fisheries administration does not start to practice the Participation Act and the Marine Resources Act and you continue to leave the allocation of quotas to a private market, we are afraid that it will be difficult to argue for exemption from the EEA. Why should this market be exempt from free flow between countries if it is nevertheless market-based?
A judgment from the European Court of Justice in January this year is illustrative of the EU’s fisheries policy:
The case was about that the EU Council, where the member states’ governments meet, does not respect scientific recommendations when the annual catch quotas are set. For example, a recommendation not to catch cod was not followed up. The EU court’s conclusion is nevertheless that no rules have been broken, and that the EU has a great deal of flexibility in how the objectives of the fisheries policy are to be achieved.
Norway is a small country with a large neighbor to the east. It is felt most in Finnmark. We are dependent on dealing with Russia through changing regimes.
The Norwegian-Russian fisheries cooperation has been, and is, a success. In cooperation with Russia, we have managed the fish in the Barents Sea in a sustainable way for a long time. We criticize and sanction Russia after the brutal attack on Ukraine, but we do not benefit from becoming part of the EU’s great power rivalry with Russia.
What we need is to build viable local communities in the north. The most obvious is, of course, to build on the perpetually renewable natural resources that have always been the basis of societies here in the north.
Norway has rich fishing resources in relation to the population and exports most of the catch. The EU is in the opposite situation – with scarce fishing resources in its own waters and with large imports of fish. The EU also has a fishing fleet that is far too large, and which is therefore looking for fish in other waters. In order for Norway to sell fish to the EU, the EU has demanded that EU fishermen be allowed to fish in Norwegian waters. This happened during the negotiations on the EEA agreement in 1992 and again during the negotiations on EU membership in 1994.
It’s a long way to Oslo, but even further to Brussels. We cannot leave such an important policy area as fisheries to the EU. Our right to control the fisheries resources is a matter of taking the people’s government seriously, with respect for Northern Norway’s valuable coastal and fjord communities.
