9. Ráðstefna sjávarútvegsráðherra Norður Atlantshafsins

Árni M. Mathiesen

Address at the NAFMC Meeting, June 4, 2004

Honorable Ministers, Ladies and Gentlemen:

It is a pleasure for me to welcome you here in Stykkishólmur on this 9th North Atlantic Ministers Conference. I believe that meeting such as this can be valuable for ourselves and for the development of the fishing industry in our countries. I appreciate to have this opportunity to meet you here in a relaxed atmosphere being able to discuss and exchange views on important matters.

I

The theme of our meeting is "Increasing the value of fish industry products". This is a very broad subject, which can be rather difficult to address, but at the same time of an extremely important one. Fishing and fish processing must return a profit to those who invest and operate in the sector. An industrial sector that fails to return a profit can hardly be expected to attract young people, who will prefer to seek employment in other sectors and other places. It will gradually weaken and eventually die out. Measures by public authorities intended to keep such operations going can only prolong the agony. One could in fact say that such measures actually prevent a sector in such difficulties from reviving itself and getting back on its feet once more.

I am not saying that public authorities should simply stand back and leave it completely up to the sector to reinvigorate itself. The state can put funding to work to strengthen sectors and ensure that the legal framework will enable this.

In discussing how the value of production can be increased, we can focus on several different factors, such as: fishing, utilisation and production, research and development, and markets.

Increased catches alone increase the total product value. Our role must be to ensure that ocean resources are utilised in a sustainable manner. This can be done by adjusting utilisation so that the yield of the resource is close to the maximum that the ecosystem can sustain in the long term. Although this is an objective which is difficult to achieve, we must seek ways of coming as close as possible to it, and here the ecosystem approach is a key factor.

The concept of ecosystem approach is still relatively undeveloped, although many people speak of it and in various ways. For this reason it is urgent to further its development. At a FAO conference held in Reykjavík in 2001, the so-called Reykjavík Declaration was approved. It represents an important step towards defining this concept and made a major contribution to discussions on the ecosystem approach at the 2002 Johannesburg Summit on sustainable development. There the concept was defined as: "the comprehensive integrated management of human activities based on best available scientific knowledge about the ecosystem and its dynamics, in order to identify and take action on influences which are critical to the health of the ecosystems, thereby achieving sustainable use of ecosystem goods and services and maintenance of ecosystem integrity."

Such an approach requires the co-operation of many parties, including public authorities, scientists and private enterprises. This past winter a joint committee of three ministries worked on preparing and harmonising Iceland's policy and strategy in this area. This work has resulted in an adaption of a Government Policy on the Ocean that has been presented recently, and an English version was presented yesterday at the conference Ocean Strategies in Reykjavík.

The Icelandic policy is based on three pillars: the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; the concept of sustainable development, and the view that responsibility for the conservation and utilisation of marine ecosystems is best placed in the hands of those states directly affected by the decisions taken and with the greatest interests at stake.

II

Value is not determined by quantity alone. Those of us who utilise living marine resources are responsible for making the best possible use of the marine catch. There are plenty of opportunities in this area, in my opinion, but we have to spot them and find ways of taking advantage of them. These opportunities are to be found in many places, both in production and utilisation of raw materials and also in marketing. Opportunities in both fields need to be investigated. The contribution of the public authorities to these efforts can make a decisive difference, in launching work that needs to be done and in encouraging enterprises to begin utilising raw materials better.

The involvement of public authorities can take a variety of forms. I would like to mention a few of them and look forward to hearing the ideas or experiences of other people here at the meeting. Support can take the form of a regulatory framework or financial support. In addition, they can be in the form of campaigns encouraging specific working practices. An example of the latter is a campaign carried out regularly here in Iceland encouraging fishermen to improve the handling of catch. Information material and illustrations are sent to all vessels and meetings are held with fishermen around the country. This may sound like anti-smoking propaganda, which has to be continually repeated, and to some extent it is true. This is especially true when there is a shortage of fish on the market and everything is sold. Under such conditions price formation on the market doesn't appear to reflect catch quality adequately. The continuing technical improvements in fishing, handling of catch and storage aboard ship also require regular reviewing how catch is handled and seeking the best ways of utilising new equipment in order to ensure the highest possible quality.

Public authorities can adopt rules concerning product safety, e.g. rules on the maximum level of specific substances in foods or rules on certain production methods, such as that foodstuffs manufacturers should follow HACCP quality control procedures. To a certain extent these sort of rules can help to increase value, since they often set a minimum which must be fulfilled in order to market a product.

Another type of regulation may be intended to improve utilisation of raw materials, and in so doing increase value, e.g. by placing certain obligations on utilisation or handling. I would like to caution against applying such obligations except in instances where it is actually possible to utilise the raw material in question without this resulting in substantial expense to the sector and where it is mainly to its advantage. Let me make it clear that I am not speaking of cases where rules on handling of raw material are intended to prevent undesirable effects such as pollution.

A few years ago there was extensive discussion in Iceland on the utilisation of catch aboard processing vessels. A number of people claimed that it was necessary to make use of every part of the fish, not just the fillets. Fifteen years ago an experiment was made in doing just that, making use of fish entrails, bones and skin, and equipment purchased to do so for at least one vessel. This experiment ended in disaster for the vessel operator. It proved to be impossible to land the fish silage as planned and when it was done, no one was prepared to receive it, so the vessel operator had to pay to have the silage disposed of. So it is no wonder that Icelandic vessel operators think twice before setting out on such an adventure. The public authorities did not adopt rules prescribing that everything should be taken care of. On the other hand, there has been a positive trend towards processing vessels making use of heads and backbones and even other by-products which were formerly thrown overboard. The reason for this is that markets for such products have been opened up and production has reached the point where this is a profitable activity.

Financial support for specific projects, such as for R&D, is another method which can return significant results. For this to be the case the demand must be made that the funds are actually used for R&D and that enterprises themselves contribute a significant amount themselves. Support which is used primarily for company operations does not create anything new, and we all know how state subsidies can sap all the strength from enterprises and entire sectors.

I have initiated the establishment of special research fund, with the objectives of increasing the value of marine products. The fund makes grants to projects spanning a broad field, almost from basic research to marketing. The principal emphasis has been, however, on applied projects which are likely to improve products or pave the way for new products or production processes.

The decision to establish this fund was taken on the basis of a report compiled by a committee which I appointed at the beginning of 2002. Their report surveyed, for instance, the main branches of the fish industry with regard to the possibility of adding value within them, i.e. raw materials, processing, by-products, aquaculture, biotechnology, equipment and expertise. It also made proposals for emphases and projects to increase the value of marine products through a special program. The committee worked closely with a large number of parties active within the sector as well as scientists from many disciplines.

The report states the committee's opinion that it is possible to increase product value considerably, not through possible increases in catches but through better utilisation of what is hauled aboard. There are gains to be made at all steps of processing. Better handling of the raw materials lays the foundation for greater possibilities of producing from them valuable products. This can be either in traditional processing, where the procedures used can be improved, and not least in better utilisation of those parts of the fish which are underutilised. This concerns processing of foods e.g. from heads, which has increased substantially in Iceland recently, or producing foodstuffs for human consumption from pelagic species to a greater extent. I should also mention the processing of new products from, for example, entrails, as there seem to be many valuable substances in marine animals which can either be processed using biotechnological methods or be used as inputs in biotechnology processes.

Success cannot be achieved, however, without knowledge and in addition, the equipment needed to make such processing possible on a scale which is profitable needs to be designed and developed. We cannot expect substantial success overnight, since as everyone knows research and development of equipment and processes takes time and we need to allow from 5 to 10 years before an idea can become a marketable product.

The above-mentioned report also regards aquaculture as a growth sector. Aquaculture has grown rapidly in many parts of the world in recent decades and I am convinced that this growth will accelerate in the coming decades. Steady progress in farming fish, with regard to production technology, breeding, feeds and not least the struggle against diseases, has made this increase possible and now a growing number of species are being considered.

Although Iceland has not been among those countries which produce the greatest quantities of farmed fish, it has followed developments closely and especially with regard to farming of ocean species such as cod. The conditions here around Iceland make aquaculture difficult in many respects: the coastline is open and there are few sheltered locations. In the winter there is a danger of the seawater cooling below 0° C. On the other hand, the environment is clean and unpolluted, access to feed is good and knowledge of the treatment and processing of fish unsurpassed. There is extensive technical know-how and ability to introduce and adapt technological solutions to Icelandic conditions. I believe that aquaculture will become an important sector in Iceland within a relatively short time.

I know that those of you here today are speculating on the same question: how we can make better use of the raw material we have and the possibilities of expanding aquaculture. Our subject, the raw material, and many other conditions are similar in these places. Scientists and enterprises in these countries co-operate on many aspects, while in other areas important commercial connections have developed. Furthermore, many research projects are in progress which receive support from public funds provided by many of these parties. It is both positive and natural that nations of the North Atlantic co-operate in finding solutions to problems facing them and I expect such co-operation will be able to increase.

People who are developing new goods and services may not become oblivious to everything else. They must bear in mind that in the end they must look to the market; is anyone willing to pay the necessary price for this product?

When ideas for innovation and new products are advanced and work on development is underway, we must think the question through at the beginning. Far too often clever ideas end up as a product or piece of equipment which is developed but never manages to make it on the market. There can be a variety of reasons for this, but it is to everyone's benefit to try to avoid such a fate. Many things can be done to avoid this. One simple one is to investigate whether a similar idea is being worked on somewhere else, i.e. is this really something new? Another is to always include a market survey or marketing campaign in the financing of such projects.

III

The markets for marine products are continuously changing and persons working there must be alert to changes in order to be able to respond in time, avoid setbacks and take advantage of new opportunities. In the past year or two a new actor, China, has entered the field, both as a buyer of raw material and seller of processed products. At the same time, aquaculture products have become a steadily growing factor, with a major impact on the markets. Salmon has become one of the most common species of fish in fish shops and shrimp from Asia is steadily increasing in quantity. Wild ocean species encounter these farmed species on the markets and must compete with them.

At the same time marine products, whether wild or farmed, are facing ever more alarming attempts to discredit them. We hear of campaigns against fish because it contains a certain substance. There are also claims that people should not eat fish because that species is in danger of extinction, or because farmed fish is damaging natural stocks. Overfishing, pollution, ecological imbalance, greedy fishermen, dead oceans – these are the messages consumers receive from such campaigns. These are misleading messages, and these actions are insufferable. Generalisations such as that cod is in danger of extinction are ridiculous, even if there are examples of stocks, which are in poor condition. Similarly, we know that the quantity of contaminants in fish in North Atlantic waters is quite different from that in the Baltic Sea.

We have had difficulty in responding to such accusations and campaigns carried out against fish consumption. The only answer must be to inform people of the real situation. This is difficult to accomplish, however, and the explanations cannot help but be complicated, and therefore difficult or boring, with the result that they fail to connect with the intended recipient. The advent of the Internet does, however, open up possibilities of making such information accessible and enable us to give a brief answer and refer to websites. This makes it a major challenge to work on developing informative webpages, which can answer the questions which consumers in many parts of the world are asking. The Icelandic Ministry of Fisheries has established a website for this purposes, www.fisheries.is. It provides information, for instance, on the situation of fish stocks, fishing, fisheries management, production, products and chemical contaminants in products. It has been operated for four years and been well received. Company sales representatives have been pleased with the site and very glad to be able to refer to such information. In view of this fact, a decision has been taken to place more emphasis on the website and expand it, both technically and not least in terms of content.

Discussion of food safety has increased substantially in the past year or two and, frankly, has sometimes been blown out of all proportion and had little relation to the actual risk involved. The clearest example of this is the prohibition by the EU against the use of fishmeal in feeds for ruminants due to a risk of being mixed with meat meal, which could cause BSE in cows. Maximum reference levels are being legislated for more and more substances in foods. Some of these substances are unfortunately found in fairly high quantities in marine products as a result of waste discharges from

land-based industries and other activities which ends up in the ocean. Better production technologies and reduced emissions leads to lower levels, but unfortunately the decrease takes a long time to be manifest in the ocean. For this reason we must fight to put an end to discharges into the oceans as the only possible long-term solution. We must face up to the fact that quite a number of chemical substances and compounds will be found in significant quantities in marine products for a long time to come. But here again, we must keep in mind that the amount of these substances varies from one region to another, so that no sweeping generalisations should be drawn from measurements.

In Iceland we have realised that the only way to avoid generalisations concerning pollutants is to be able to respond immediately to questions on substance levels. Such information can also be very useful in setting maximum levels, e.g. in the EU or CODEX Alimentarius. The more we have of realistic and reliable information the greater is the probability that the conclusions will be rational. For business it is furthermore important to have such information available, and our experience of the limited information made available on www.fisheries.is is highly positive.

I decided last year to have measurements carried out of the quantities of various undesirable substances found in those parts of fish which are eaten, and this project will continue this year. As the results become available, they are placed on the Internet and become accessible to all. I am of the opinion that this is an important aspect of ensuring the value of Icelandic marine products. We know that the market can respond dramatically and if reliable information on the quantities of pollutants found in Icelandic food products is not available when the question arises, the result can be costly.

In this connection I think it is very important not to lose sight of one of the main advantages of marine products which is, apart from their taste, their healthiness. We have to try and demonstrate the healthiness of marine products in a scientific manner, showing that this compensates many times over for the negative effects of undesirable trace substances. By pointing out the positive aspects of fish consumption we are also reducing the impact of general negative propaganda, as I previously mentioned. Fish needs some positive press, and there is no better place to start than by pointing out how good and healthy a food it is.

Discussion of ecolabelling began just over a decade ago. The Nordic fisheries ministers have followed the progress of the debate on this question since its beginning. They soon agreed that ecolabelling was a phenomenon which was here to stay. Furthermore, their conclusion was that it was not desirable to develop an Nordic label to place on marine products from the Nordic countries. On the other hand, it was necessary to prevent a flood of such labels from pouring onto the market, a flood of labels which could communicate varying messages, although they all claimed to be ecolabels. Consumers would become confused if such a situation developed and there is a danger that the labels which were marketed in the cleverest manner would turn out to be the strongest, rather than those labels which actually fulfilled their claims. Neither the consumer nor the fishing industry would benefit from such a situation.

The Nordic Council of Ministers efforts have for some years been directed at putting rules on ecolabelling on the agenda of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, FAO. To this end, a group of experts from Nordic countries compiled a report on Arrangement for the Voluntary Certification of Products of Sustainable Fishing in year 2000. This report was widely presented, including to the EU, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and FAO and has proved of major significance for the progress of the issue.

Last year the question was finally dealt with seriously by FAO and a meeting was held of specialists from many parts of the world to prepare draft guidelines for ecolabelling and its uses. The report of this working group was approved at a meeting by FAO´s Subcommittee on Fish Trade in February this year and a technical consultation will be held in October that will study the experts' proposals in detail. If a consensus is reached on the proposals at this meeting, we can expect that the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) will approve these guidelines, thereby achieving one of the main objectives aimed at. To my mind, this October meeting is highly important and remarkable success will have been achieved if agreement is reached at that time to recommend that COFI approve the ecolabelling proposals. For this reason I would like to take this opportunity to urge you to ensure that your representatives at this meeting are well informed on the issue and its importance.

The next step will have to be taken by the sector itself, i.e. the buyers and sellers. It is up to those who work in this sector to take advantage of the possibilities involved in being able to place a label on their products informing the consumer that this fish comes from a stock which is utilised in a sustainable manner. We must expect that parties intending to enter this new ecolabelling market will have to be able to demonstrate that they follow the guidelines adopted by FAO to enjoy consumer confidence. This will thus create a new basis for competition where all parties can act on the same premises.

Large multinational corporations have begun to direct their attention to an increasing extent to the origins of the products they sell, not only concerning the healthiness and safety of the product but also with regard to the impact of resource utilisation on the environment. As far as fish is concerned, the question asked is whether it comes from a stock which is sustainably utilised. Generally speaking, it has not been possible to give a completely reliable response, since no satisfactory definition was available, in addition to which the situation differs from one stock and one region to another. Guidelines from FAO would provide a basis for such an assessment, which could result in individual stocks being evaluated on the same basis. As the situation now stands, many of these companies have chosen to set their own standards concerning fishing and utilisation of stocks before selling the products as products of stocks utilised sustainably. Examples of this are Carrefour, McDonalds and Unilever. If the ongoing process in FAO fails to adopt guidelines for ecolabelling, we must consider it a possibility that big companies will each make their own demands on the fisheries management. That in addition to a number of incomparable ecolables is a situation we must avoid.

IV

Dear colleagues, as I mentioned at the beginning, it is a great pleasure for me to be here with you, not least because I feel that meetings like this are important for the future development of fisheries in the North Atlantic. I have attempted to cover the main points of our agenda and explain my views on them. I hope that as we proceed, the points I have discussed will, together with your own contributions, provide the basis for a lively and constructive discourse.