Speech of Lisbeth Berg-Hansen to the European Parliament

Dear Members of the European Parliament,

It is a pleasure to be back in the European Parliament and meeting the Committee on
Fisheries. I look forward to exchanging views once more, particularly when you are in
the midst of a demanding process to reform the Common Fisheries Policy.

As Minister of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, sustainable management of our marine
resources is a guiding principle. A sustainable seafood industry provides the basis for
lasting values, benefiting both coastal communities and consumers.

The EU is the largest market for seafood exports from Norway (57 % in terms of value
and 50 % in terms of volume) – and we are the largest supplier of seafood to the EU
(share of EU imports of around 20 %). 17 million seafood meals are exported from
Norway to the EU on a daily basis. Several thousand jobs in the EU processing industry
rely on imports from Norway.

It is therefore important to maintain relations based on mutual trust and respect; a
stable and favourable regulatory framework for EU-Norway trade.

The WTO plays an important role in ensuring a level-playing field in international trade
and remains an important tool to safeguard vital Norwegian interests.

Taking the long-term perspective, we will have to look at our seafood trade relations
with fresh eyes. Does the current regime for trade policy contribute to sustainable
seafood trade? Do we have an adequate competitive environment? The globalisation of
the seafood industry changes the trade flows and regulatory framework. In this context,
the EU and Norway should take the lead to ensure that the future seafood industry
promotes sustainable use of marine resources.

In addition to close trade relations, we manage joint resources in the North Sea and
Skagerrak – and we have considerable fishing activities in each other’s Economic
Zones.

Norway and the EU have developed a strong alliance in the mackerel negotiations. Our
collaboration over the course of many years resulted in a significant increase in the
mackerel stock. Unfortunately, in recent years, some countries have acted as “free
riders” - reaping benefits of our responsible management.

I recognise that both Iceland and the Faroe Islands have the right to a larger share of
the mackerel quota. However, I believe it is unacceptable to unilaterally allocate quotas
equivalent to more than 45% of the sustainable harvest.

Norway would like to conclude a long-term mackerel agreement with all of the coastal
states – but, such an agreement must be based on realistic and substantiated positions;
and a sincere will to compromise on the part of Iceland and the Faroe Islands.

The most important issue the committee is currently working on is the reform of the
Common Fisheries Policy. The Commission’s proposal is ambitious, but I believe it is
also entirely necessary. From what I gather, the discussions of the proposals have
displayed a genuine will to map out a new course.

I would like to use this occasion to share with you some experiences from Norway.
Obviously, measures that have functioned well in Norway will not necessarily be
suitable for the EU. There is no such thing as “one size fits all”.

A sustainable harvest of the fish stocks is closely connected to an economically robust
fishing fleet. Resilient stocks and profitable businesses are prerequisites for social
sustainability in the shape of attractive, stable jobs and viable coastal communities.

In the early 1990s Norway decided to phase out government financial contributions to
the fishing industry. The subsidies had the effect of upholding overcapacity, which in
turn threatened fish stocks. Phasing out subsidies was a political choice and the
Norwegian fishing fleet is now practically subsidy free. Removing subsidies was
possible, and today Norwegian fishermen generally run profitable enterprises.

In Norway, the policy for reducing overcapacity has also been a source of controversy,
both politically and within the industry. Precisely because of this, it has been important
to ensure that the development is not left to the market alone.

We decided to introduce a system based on similar principles as the Commission CFP
proposal on Transferable Fishing Concessions. However, we included significant
safeguards on the transferability [of concessions] – both geographically and between
different vessel groups. This was necessary to ensure greater political control.

The system is simple. Concessions are merged and vessels are scrapped. We reduce
the capacity, while the remaining vessels acquire a larger quota. Without any scrapping
requirements for scrapping of vessels, the same vessel can re-appear in other fisheries,
nationally or globally, and we have not solved the underlying problem.

In 1990 there were 17,000 registered vessels in Norway. Twenty years later, the number
has been reduced to 6000. The number of fishermen has also been substantially
reduced. Nonetheless, both the catch volume and the value have increased. In addition,
the Norwegian fishing fleet remains diversified – with both large and small vessels
along the entire coastline.

Measures to reduce overcapacity are closely interlinked to improving the economy of
the sector, which in turn is closely interlinked to the state of the fish stocks. Policies
have to be designed to promote stewardship among fishermen.

Let me now turn to the issue of conservation measures. Well-managed fish stocks are
crucial to long-term economic and social sustainability, and discards of fish are not
consistent with sound resource management.

For several years we have worked to prevent discards of fish. An important part of our
policy is the discard ban. But a ban alone is not sufficient. It is just as important to have
effective measures to avoid that fish that would be discarded is not caught in the first
place. The ban constitutes a basis for other measures and contributes significantly to a
change in the behaviour of fishermen. The dumping of food is unacceptable.

The discard ban led to a greater interest in developing and implementing technical
solutions that increased selectivity. We have systems for real-time closure of fishing
areas and vessels must relocate to other fishing areas if the number of under-sized fish
is too high. Quotas for by-catch is set aside when the TAC is fixed, ensuring that vessels
have a quota matching the expected catch composition.

The discard ban has proven to work as an incentive for fishermen to fish more
selectively and alter their behaviour. Such incentive-based management measures are
among those that work best in practice.

Some of you will certainly ask whether a discard ban actually works.

My answer is without a shadow of doubt - yes.

This does not mean that discards do not occur in Norway. We have, however,
developed a well functioning system - with the result that discards are no longer a
threat to sustainable fisheries management. Based on our experience, dialogue and
collaboration with all stakeholders is decisive.

Together with my colleagues from Denmark and Sweden, we have laid the groundwork
for the introduction of a discard ban in the Skagerrak starting in 2013. I hope that this
initiative can serve as an inspiration for the rest of the EU.

The discard issue illustrates that modern fisheries management to an increasing extent
is about safeguarding environmental considerations and that there is no contradiction
between management of the ecosystems and management of the fisheries.

Together, we must work to promote the principle of “sustainable use” in all contexts.
Rio + 20 will give us the opportunity to do so. The world faces a huge challenge in
providing food for a growing population. The right to food have to be at the centre when making decisions for the future. Healthy ecosystems will be an important factor
in this as it yields the greatest harvest.

In conclusion, I’d like to recall that Norway has experienced fisheries policy reforms
that required strong political leadership and difficult decisions. We closed the herring
fisheries in the 1970s; we introduced a discard ban; we phased out subsidies and we
reduced overcapacity. These were all controversial, but necessary political choices.
Today we are reaping the benefits of decisions made by far-sighted politicians.

These were some reflections from my perspective about how we have addressed major
challenges in the Norwegian fisheries.

Having said that, the solutions and models we have chosen are not necessarily the only
way forward. But they have been positive for the development of the Norwegian
seafood industry. If our experiences can be of any help in your process, we are ready to
contribute.

The reform of the Common Fisheries Policy is of great significance to coastal
communities, the seafood industry, and consumers of the EU. But it is also of
significance to Norway. 

I wish you the best of luck with this endeavour!