Ráðstefna um íslenskan og þýskan sjávarútveg í Bremen 12. febrúar 2008
Speech by Einar Kristinn Gudfinnsson, Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture,
at a conference in Bremen, Germany, on 12 February 2008
Ladies and gentlemen; honoured guests:
The Icelandic nation has grown up by the sea and has always known it as a source of food and a foundation for our survival. The sea and the weather have been instrumental in the lives and the lucre of the Icelandic nation ever since the island was settled over 1,100 years ago. All around the country were fishing stations, with all the equipment that was in use at the time. In early times, these stations were merely simple facilities for fishermen who took to the sea in open boats, but later on there were fully equipped harbours with powerful fishing vessels and sophisticated fishery companies with state-of-the-art equipment.
With the advent of new technology, increased knowledge, and changes in our societal structure, we have had to re-evaluate our attitudes toward fishing, including the methods we use to catch and process fish, the way we utilise fish products, and the way we market them.
Sustainability is a focal point in all international discussion of fishery issues and the utilisation of natural resources. Fish buyers today are much more concerned about whether they are buying fish that has been caught in a responsible and sustainable manner. Demands for products from sustainable fishery are becoming more vociferous and more frequent. More and more often, fish exporters are forced to answer questions on the state of the fish stocks, on advisory matters related to fishing, on the position of the Government towards fishing issues, and so on. And they must be prepared with answer to these questions. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) has been very active in this area, and it can be said that MSC and its labelling has virtually been a dictator in placating the market. In Iceland, we are of the opinion that MSC’s approach does not protect our interests, and therefore we have worked toward creating our own Icelandic label.
In early August 2007, the Statement on Responsible Fisheries in Iceland was issued. The Statement is based on the conviction that the term “Icelandic fisheries management” has a positive connotation in the minds of people acquainted with the fishing industry. In the Statement, responsible parties within the industry – administrators, researchers, and other experts – describe how the Icelandic fisheries management system works. Since the Statement was issued, standards have been in preparation, and that work is progressing apace. Once the standards are fully developed, producers of fish products can receive certification from independent parties, meaning that the product offered for sale has been made from raw materials obtained in accordance with the Icelandic fisheries management system. This sort of certification will be a great step forward in terms of satisfying the demands of the marketplace. Upon receiving certification, manufacturers will be allowed to place a special label on their products, confirming that the requirements set by the system have been met. The Statement is a preparatory step for the certification process and has been issued primarily to emphasise that Icelanders are engaged in responsible fishing. The Statement on Responsible Fisheries has drawn well-deserved attention and is accessible in English, German, and French on the website www.fisheries.is.
This work is based on the FAO guidelines, which were approved by the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) in 2005. In March 2007, it was decided that the guidelines should be expounded and developed further, especially the chapter on minimum substantive requirements and criteria, which details the requirements that must be met with respect to fisheries management systems, fish stocks, impact on ecosystems, and other factors. The results of this work by the Committee are expected in the near future, and at that point we expect it will be possible to advertise the Icelandic standard.
Closely connected to this are demands for safety and traceability of marine products. These demands are constantly increasing and can be expected to increase even more in the future. Traceability of a product actually means that it is possible to track the product, that it is possible to discover that product’s history – from the cradle to the grave, as it were – or to describe the path it has followed. In many respects, Icelanders are ahead of other nations when it comes to having an overview of catching fish, processing it, and selling the product. Traceability of marine products is the foundation for our being able to demonstrate whether Icelandic fisheries are sustainable or not. The environmental impact of the industry can be measured using methods such as LCA, or Life Cycle Analysis. Such methods enable us to determine how much impact a marine product has on the environment, all the way from the sea to the stomach of the consumer. We can then use this information in eco-labelling; we can tell our consumers that a given product has been manufactured without undue strain on natural resources, and that the producer is on the lookout for ways to minimise pollution in the manufacturing process. In this way, we can meet the demands of consumers who consider these matters important, and we can even generate discussion that may reach people who have not been especially concerned about environmental affairs.
Pirate fishing – or fishing by vessels operating under flags of convenience – has been discussed widely in recent months, and this is very fortunate. It is intolerable to witness illegal fishing at a time when legal fishing is constantly diminishing. In Iceland we work together with other nations – especially the members of the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission – in order to do everything we can to uproot these illegal operations and make it as difficult as possible for them, so that their purses will suffer. This is the only thing they understand – after all, no one willingly operates a fishery that doesn’t pay.
It is important to safeguard and strengthen the foundations we have built in the campaign against illegal fishing. These foundations are of two types. On the one hand, we have the work of regional fisheries management agencies such as the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission, the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization, and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas; and on the other hand, we have our own statutory provisions. More effective collaboration and stronger regional agencies benefit everyone, and not just in the battle against illegal fishing. They are also important in guaranteeing that regional agencies continue to manage fishery on the open ocean, that they exert a strong counterbalancing effect against the tendency toward global fisheries management. In this arena, Icelandic has been a leader among the nations that place primary emphasis on strengthening the foundation and the work of regional fisheries management agencies and strengthening the regulatory framework used to uproot illegal fishing on the open sea.
Cod fishing in the Atlantic Ocean has diminished substantially in recent decades. In 1980 the cod catch exceeded 2 million tonnes in the North Atlantic, but by the turn of the century it had dropped by half. For this year, 2008, it is estimated that around 750 thousand tonnes of cod will be caught in the North Atlantic Ocean. In response to this deterioration of the fish stocks, aquaculture has increased. In 1980, farmed fish accounted for less than 8% of total human consumption of fish, while it currently accounts for 43%, according to an FAO report called The State of World Aquaculture 2006. Farming of what we can call new species has grown so rapidly that there is even the danger that some of these newcomers will take over the role that cod has played until now in the fish markets. Cod farming represents one of the clearest avenues for growth in the fishery industry, and it is one that must be considered carefully. It is a risky long-term venture, but it is also a necessary one. If we are to meet the demand for cod, and perhaps other species as well, the potential for growth in the future lies largely in aquaculture.
Icelanders have had varying degrees of success in fish farming. A great number of operators tried salmon farming at one time, virtually all of them without success. On the other hand, our Arctic charr farming efforts have been quite fruitful, and we are leaders in the field. Cod farming, however, is still in the developmental stages in Iceland. In 2006 some 1,400 tonnes were produced, as compared with the Norwegians’ 11 thousand tonnes. But we have made a great deal of progress in the field of aquaculture. Breeding is carried out widely, and I believe that we Icelanders will soon be faced with a “do or die” decision where that is concerned. In other words, we will have to decide whether we want to try to increase this production to a measurable degree. So, as you can see, there are exciting times ahead. We know that there are risks, but when have economic advances been risk-free?
Honoured guests.
Let us now consider Iceland by itself. Fishing has always been one of a cornerstone of the Icelandic nation, and it is extremely rare that a country should have built its society on a single industry. Without doubt, the Icelandic fishing industry has laid the foundation for the prosperity enjoyed by Icelanders today. Though marine products constitute a smaller proportion of the nation’s exports than they used to, they remain Iceland’s most important export by far. Sometimes it is necessary to remind people of this when they wonder where Iceland’s money comes from. The fishing industry is the catalyst for one of the best standards of living in the world – thanks to a group of competent, effective, and hard-working people.
The premise for everything that has been accomplished in the Icelandic fishing industry was access to healthy markets for our products. Our fishing industry was part of the international division of labour that developed gradually because of the benefits of free international trade. We engaged in fishing because we could do it better than our competitors could. We could offer our products, and we were able to charge generally higher prices in many areas. This was partly because we were always on the lookout for ways to improve our work structure, increase our output, enhance our productivity, and improve our profits so as to withstand competition. The reason was simple. We had no other choice. We couldn’t rely on other sources of funds to support our fishing industry. There are no Government subsidies in the Icelandic fishing sector, and so people had to “sink or swim,” as the saying goes.
The Member States of the European Union are by far Iceland’s most important market for marine products, with between 70 and 80% of our fish exports going to EU countries in recent years. Germany is our sixth-largest marketing area. Our exports to Germany were valued at over 70 million euros in 2006, or over 5% of Iceland’s total exports of marine products that year. In terms of the value of our exports to Germany, redfish is most important. We exported to Germany nearly 13 thousand tonnes of redfish products with a value of over 27 million euros. This was followed by more than 9,000 tonnes of pollock products valued at 19.5 million euros, and then by 5,500 tonnes of herring valued at 5.3 million euros.
All of this production is based on sustainable fishery, which depends, of course, on successful management of the fishing industry and developments in environmental conditions. It is important that we continue carrying out extensive research in order to enhance our understanding of the state of the fish stocks and enable us to respond effectively to new conditions that may require systematic measures to protect the stocks. This is just as true of the species that are most important for the German market as it is of other species.
In the past decade, the Icelandic Government has dedicated substantial financial resources to research on the redfish stock, both within and outside Icelandic territorial waters – especially in the area between Iceland and Greenland, where international vessels, including ships from the EU, exploit these stocks just as Icelanders do. The Icelandic Government has considered it vital that we respond in a responsible way in collaboration with the other nations that fish for redfish. It appears that this international collaboration is more successful now than it has been in the past, and indeed, it is a most important and welcome development if we can work together to manage the redfish fishery in international waters more systematically.
Research on Atlanto-Scandian herring, or Norwegian Spring Spawning herring, and management of the stock also take place in an international context, and it is very satisfying to report that this collaboration has proven very successful. This success can be seen in the excellent condition of the herring stock, which is one of the most valuable in the North Atlantic. At present, we expect that, in accordance with an agreement among the members of the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission, it will be possible to catch approximately 1.5 million tonnes of herring, of which Iceland’s quota will be around 220 thousand tonnes. The total stock for the year 2009 is estimated at roughly 12 million tonnes. The outlook for that stock is therefore extremely good. Actually, this is also true of Icelandic summer spawning herring, which is caught only by Icelandic vessels within Iceland’s Exclusive Economic Zone. In accordance with my decision, it will be permissible to catch up to 150 thousand tonnes this year. As far as we can tell, the state of the stock is very good; in fact, Icelandic summer spawning herring has often been used as a textbook example of the intelligent build-up of a stock in a state of collapse. The systematic fishery management of the past few decades has built the stock to its strongest point since large-scale fishing began in the mid-20th century.
The pollock stock near Iceland is primarily a local one, and its size has fluctuated somewhat in accordance with variable year class strength. This is therefore a situation that calls for hands-on fishery management. At present, the condition of the stock is fairly good, and it has been improving in recent times.
From an economic point of view, cod is by far the most important fish stock for Iceland. Substantial capital has been invested in cod research in the past few decades, and the cod fishery is generally the most important focus of the fishery management system. Though it is clear that there are very few cases where a cod stock as strong as Iceland’s has been maintained through active fisheries management, restraint must be exerted through systematic measures if we are to guarantee steady and increased yields from the stock. With that as a guideline, I decided last summer to follow to the letter the recommendations of our experts and cut cod quotas by 30% to 130 thousand tonnes, at least for the next 1-2 years, so as to expedite the growth of the stock, especially in view of the enhanced likelihood of stronger recruitment in the years to come. This decision has been a painful one for the short term, but it is important to protect the long-term interests of all who benefit from the exploitation of the cod stocks near Iceland. It is also consistent with responsible fisheries management and is an element in guaranteeing the sustainability of the fish stocks.
Honoured guests.
The EEA Agreement has proven beneficial to Iceland, and it is one of the pillars of our strong economy. Last year our so-called Committee on Europe published a detailed, in-depth report. The Committee was assigned the task of examining the relationship between Iceland and the EU, including the implementation of the EEA Agreement, the Icelandic Treasury’s short- and long-term costs for membership in the EU, the advantages and disadvantages of the euro for Iceland, and a clarification of Iceland’s position with respect to the European Constitution. The Committee was also assigned the task of discussing other issues that relate to Iceland’s relationship with the EU and may clarify Iceland’s position.
In short, the Committee came to the conclusion that the EEA Agreement has proven its worth and that Icelandic politicians and public officials should participate more actively in European co-operation so as to increase Iceland’s influence over decisions made within the EU. The implementation of the Schengen Agreement has also proceeded very well, and both the Icelandic Parliament and the executive branch of our Government have been successful in promoting matters related to the two agreements.
As for the current state of affairs in Iceland, according to the coalition agreement made by the Government that was formed last spring, the Committee on Europe’s report will form the foundation for closer examination of how Iceland’s future interests can best be protected in its relationship with the EU. A standing advisory forum will be established among the political parties represented in Parliament. The forum will follow trends in European affairs and will assess changes from the standpoint of Iceland’s interests.
Honoured guests.
The Icelandic fishing industry has undergone radical changes in recent years, accompanied by necessary streamlining. The need to structure our operations even more economically increased still further this past fall, when it proved necessary to cut our cod quotas by one-third, or 60 thousand tonnes.
Under such circumstances, the fishing industry has no choice but to adapt to the streamlining that has taken place. The sector must participate fully in the technological movement so as to cut costs, and it has certainly done so in the past several years. Since 1998, productivity has increased by an average of 5.5% per year in the Icelandic fish processing industry. In the fishing sector, the increase in productivity was 3.1% per year during the same period. This is considerably more than it was in the period from 1991 to 1997, when annual productivity increases were 4% in fish processing and 1.3% in fishing. These are signs of what is to come.
The number of fish processing workers in Iceland has dropped by more than 50% in a single decade. Though all of the indicators suggest that this trend will continue, it will certainly happen faster because of the cut in the cod quota. This has already been shown in the past several months. If we are to be equal to the competition in our society, the fishing industry must be able to contribute a standard of living comparable to that contributed by other industries.
In my travels abroad, I have often heard Iceland mentioned with respect because of our utilisation of resources, expertise, productivity, product quality, technology, knowledge of markets, and so on. Though praise is always a pleasant thing, I don’t intend to hide the fact that there are many things that we could do better. Our fisheries management system is not perfect. There are side effects that we have had difficulty addressing. There is no doubt, for example, that while a fisheries management system with transferable quotas enhances efficiency, it causes problems in the communities that lose out in competition with others. This is a persistent problem in Icelandic politics, and we have yet to find an acceptable solution to it. It is clear, however, that the solution can be found partly within the fisheries management system, and partly through direct intervention by the Government; for example, the Government could work toward generating jobs and could implement an aggressive regional development policy in order to avert the societal damage that occurs when coastal towns are weakened.
The Government has a large role to play, even though it should not be a cumbersome factor in the economy. The Government sets the ground rules, which often generate new demands, but we most certainly want those ground rules to facilitate the operation of the industry. It is our desire – and actually, it is the aim of the Government’s work – to ease the way for the economy and not to put roadblocks in its path. It is the role of the managers of fishery companies to reduce costs and seek ways to increase revenues. The Government can contribute there as well.
As a nation, we Icelanders have a large stake in utilising natural resources successfully. This is not commonly the case, especially in a country that enjoys a standard of living as high as ours. This tells us what a heavy responsibility we bear. The excellent progress we have made in the economic arena is a reflection of our success in the fishing industry.