Elisabeth Aspaker, Minister of Fisheries, Norway
The fisheries and aquaculture sector in Norway is an important and growing part of the country’s economy. Highly diversified in terms of types of production, species, products, and above all, markets, yet the sector still has the potential to increase its contribution to the economy several-fold. Steering this development is Elisabeth Aspaker, Minister of Fisheries, who outlines here some of the ways in which this growth will be realised.
Aquaculture and fisheries is expected to increase in importance for the Norwegian economy over the next thirty years in particular in comparison to the oil and gas industry according to a survey of companies carried out in Vestland. What are the factors that will contribute to this development and how can potential negative consequence be averted?
Oil and gas will still be important for Norway for many years, but as the growth in the petroleum sector is declining, other sectors must also contribute with larger shares to finance the welfare state.
A scientific report presented in 2012[1] points at the potential to sextuple the economic turnover for the fisheries industry within 2050. Most of this potential is within aquaculture, but to be able to reach the potential, the challenges with lice, escapes and feed must be solved.
Within the wild-capture fisheries, the potential lies mostly within exploiting the resources better by developing new products, like for example products for the pharmaceutical industries, chemicals, health food, cosmetics, animal feed and bio energy.
It is also crucial for renewable resources to have good regulations in place, so that resources and environment are managed in a sustainable manner.
Norway is the world’s largest producer of salmon, a carnivorous fish that feeds on fish feed made from fish meal and fish oil. The production of these two commodities has stayed broadly stable over the last decade and is unlikely to grow much in the future. Vegetable matter is increasingly replacing fish derivatives in feed, but it has an impact on the healthfulness of the fish. How can these conflicting objectives (increased salmon output, constraints on fish meal and oil production, lower omega-3 levels in fish) be reconciled?
The inclusion of fish meal and fish oil has decreased steadily the last decade, and feed for Norwegian farmed Atlantic salmon contains today approximately 70 % vegetable ingredients. This change of diet had not been possible without a substantial research effort. Such research will be important also in the future to ensure a healthy and sustainable feed for the industry.
Fish oil is the main source of marine omega-3 fatty acids in fish feeds. When inclusion of fish oil decrease this lead to decreased levels of omega-3 in the flesh. However, farmed Atlantic salmon of today is still one of the best sources of marine omega-3 fatty acids in our diet. (One portion (150g) weekly comprise enough omega-3 fatty acids to cover recommended daily intake for the whole week.) Importantly, as the salmon needs a certain amount of omega-3 in their diet, this secures that farmed Atlantic salmon will always be a good source for marine omega-3.
The salmon farming industry in Norway, though in general a huge success, is still battling with some issues such as escapes, sea lice, which tend to increase with higher water temperatures, and diseases such as ISA (infectious salmon anaemia). What measures and policy changes are being contemplated to reduce these and other direct and indirect impacts of salmon farming on the environment?
This government has proposed a white paper to the Storting (Parliament) regarding the principles of a predictable and environmentally sustainable growth in the aquaculture sector. This white paper links the growth to environmental indicators in designated production areas. If the indicators shows a good environmental status in a production area, the farmers in this area will be given the opportunity to increase their production capacity. If the indicators shows a moderate influence from aquaculture on the environment, no growth will be given. Finally, if the indicators shows an unacceptable influence on the environment, the farmers in the area will have to reduce their production capacity until corrective measures (new production technology, farming practice etc) has been implemented. Provided the support of the Storting, we will start by using an indicator showing sea lice influence of wild salmonids, and look into the development of an indicator regarding effluents of nutrient salts and organic matter. The system will be module based so that indicators of other influences on the environment can be added if necessary.
This system does not include indicators on escapees. This is because it is more difficult to link the amounts of escapees to the production capacity in a certain area. Escapees are therefore dealt with separately. This government will continue to focus on preventive measures. We have also allocated greater resources to the surveillance program since last year. This will give us a better understanding of how to prevent escapees and where it is necessary to remove escaped fish. A new regulation giving the responsibility to the industry to fund such removal has also been established this year.
Regarding diseases such as ISA, we will continue to battle this stringently. A division of the coast into production areas could also have a good effect on the spreading of disease in general.
While farming in marine cages dominates salmon production in Norway, growing the fish in land-based tanks is an activity that is being actively considered by policy makers and by the industry. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this kind of production as seen from the perspective of the ministry?
The advantage of land-based aquaculture is the ability to control all discharges like faeces and food spill. It is also easier to control the spreading of some diseases in land-based industry. For instance, sea lice will probably not be a problem. Finally, it does not require the use of public coastal areas.
However, land-based aquaculture is expensive to conduct due to the building costs in addition to the need to rent or buy properties to place these facilities. The need of water will also put restrictions on what locations it is possible to use. All waste must be treated to avoid contamination of surrounding areas. All in all, I can see several advantages with land-based production, but acknowledge that it is a more expensive production than net-based production in the sea. The clear and cold waters of the Norwegian coast will always be our nation’s best asset when it comes to the production of good quality Atlantic salmon.
Seafood is currently one of Norway’s most successful exports. On some markets, such as the EU, however, Norway exports products with little or no value addition. Given this how can the value of Norwegian exports to the EU continue to rise as they have been in the past?
We are constantly looking for ways to enhance the value of Norwegian seafood exports, not o
nly to the EU, but also globally. The EU is our most important seafood market, covering around 60 % of our total exports. At the same time Norway is by far the biggest seafood supplier to the EU, with a 20 % share of total imports. The EU market will continue to be our most important seafood market, but there is room to improve our trade relations. My objective is to help the Norwegian seafood processing industry’s value creation and product development by improving our market access to the EU. We have a complicated and costly trade regime with 50 tariff free quotas, time-limited quotas and numerous tariffs that are virtually irrelevant. By removing these barriers, I am sure operators would find ways to enhance the seafood trade.
Norway continues to face difficulties with access to the Russian and Ukrainian markets due to the Russian import ban and the persisting tensions in Ukraine. What does the loss of this market mean for the sector and what efforts are being made to compensate for it? As other countries step in to fill the gap are there concerns that this shift may become permanent? And if so, what would be the impact on the Norwegian fishing and farming sector?
Russia has for the past few years been Norway’s second most important seafood market after the EU, accounting for about 10 % of the export value in 2013. In particular, Russia has been an important market for salmon, trout and herring, where the herring sector also has been hit hard by the problems in Ukraine.
The Norwegian government took several steps to mitigate the short term effects of the import ban. This included a temporary increase in the maximum allowable biomass for salmon and trout by 6 % and 20 % respectively until April 2015, in addition to increased flexibility of the herring quota from 10 % to 20 % in 2014. Both measures were implemented to give seafood companies more time to find new markets.
There is no doubt that Norwegian seafood exporters have suffered losses due to lower prices after the Russian import ban. Still, the export value of Norwegian seafood actually reached a new record high in 2014 with 68,8 billion NOK despite the Russian import ban, surpassing the previous record from 2013 by 12 percent. Norwegian seafood is exported to more than 140 countries worldwide, and exporters have done a great job of finding new consumers. After the Russian import ban we have seen an increase in exports to the EU, Asia and North America. Seafood from Norway has a good reputation and I believe we can continue to develop new and existing markets to increase our export value from seafood.
Non-traditional markets such as the US and Asia are playing an increasing role as destinations for Norway’s seafood exports. Apart from diversifying markets, what other strategies need to be implemented to grow the value of Norwegian fisheries and aquaculture exports?
There are two main ways in which we can increase the export value of Norwegian seafood: by producing more, and by making consumers willing to pay a premium for our products. As already discussed, we are aiming to produce a lot more seafood in the future. Salmon and trout now make up close to 70 percent of the export value of Norwegian seafood, but there is still a significant potential for growth. In the longer run, we will also look to farm other species in combination with salmon and trout, while continuing to take care of our wild fish stocks so as to utilize them to their full potential.
Marketing, product innovations and branding is up to the industry. It is the seafood exporters themselves that are best placed to know their consumers and how to appeal to their tastes, with the good help of The Norwegian Seafood Council. We as authorities have an important role however in providing a sound basis from which those business strategies can grow, by ensuring that the seafood is safe to eat and by managing our ocean resources in an environmentally sustainable way.
Research and innovation are essential to build knowledge-based industries. What are the main objectives of the master plan for marine research that will be launched in the fall this year? How will the plan encourage the development and commercialisation of ideas that ensure that the riches from the sea continue to be Norway’s future?
I fully agree that research and innovation are essential to a knowledge-based industry like the marine sector. Norway therefore places a great importance on marine research, which is also a priority in the Government’s long-term plan for research. Around 3.6 billion NOK is spent on marine R&D in 2013, and the Government has strengthened marine research both in this year’s and last year’s State budget. Even so, large and growing needs for marine knowledge makes it necessary to think through our marine research priorities, and to further develop our marine research policies. This is why my government will launch a master plan for marine research this autumn.
One of the questions we, like the rest of Europe, are grappling with is the question of how to transform more research into innovations. The plan will also point to areas where research and increased knowledge is fundamental to further development and growth. This includes research aimed at the development of existing and new marine industries, increased knowledge of the ecosystems in the oceans and knowledge development that can help solve environmental sustainability challenges in the aquaculture industry. Norway is an important player in marine research internationally, and we wish to stimulate Norwegian scientific communities in the marine sector to contribute further to the international knowledge development on sustainable use of the oceans. With our strong knowledge base in marine research, we have the possibility to contribute with knowledge that provides opportunities for increased sea-based food production globally. Norway can also play a significant role with respect to knowledge-based management principles.
The Blue Growth Initiative launched by the FAO views marine economic activity as an important source of livelihoods and food particularly in coastal areas. Norway has been practising blue growth for many years now, so what does the Norwegian experience show to be the critical factors to ensure that blue growth is sustainable and inclusive?
Norway has always depended on the values from our seas. Therefore, taking care of nature and its production potential is inherent in our culture.
The consequence of this dependency is that we have always had to view our marine sector as an economic activity where both the caretaking of the productive areas and stocks and the income generating have been at focus for government policies and management measures.
Therefore, we have throughout the years developed a fisheries management model where the basis is management strategies for our major fish stocks, implemented by the advice from ICES on how to meet the goals of the strategies with complementary national regulations.
In parallel with this quota based fisheries regulatory model we have also permitted the fishing fleet through self-financing schemes to reduce the number of vessels, and by this increase the catching opportunities and the income level for the fishermen. With the strong Norwegian economy and very low unemployment rate, the fisheries sector can only survive as a “backbone industry” in our coastal communities if the economics of the sector provides a competitive alternative to other ec
onomic sectors.
Our new industry, aquaculture, has had and still have a steady growth. The sector has from its start been kept under government control through sets of management measures. There are still environmental concerns which unfortunately is unavoidable with food-production in an open nature setting, as is the case with marine cage-based aquaculture. As mentioned before, my government has taken steps to address these concerns. The history of the growth and success of Norwegian aquaculture may be characterized with two words “Controlled Growth”.
The common denominator for both fisheries and aquaculture is “knowledge based management”. It is implemented through large and scientific leading government financed research institutions, that have the ability to be in the forefront of the sector development, both in fisheries research, population dynamics, aquaculture, fish health as well as food safety.
All this factors together constitutes the basis for Norway as a leading Blue Economy Nation.
Global losses attributable to IUU fishing are estimated at USD10-23bn annually and Norway has recently initiated the North Atlantic Fisheries Intelligence Group to combat this problem. What are the issues that the group will prioritise and how will these measures reinforce rather than replicate EU policy in the area?
The North Atlantic Fisheries Intelligence Group gives its member agencies a forum for inter-agency and cross-border cooperation. The purpose is combating criminality in the fisheries sector, such as illegal catching of the fish, tax and customs fraud, money laundering and other crimes, through exchange of information and intelligence. Typically this will involve tax administrations, customs administrations and fisheries authorities, but the group is open to any other relevant authority or agency with interests in the fisheries. The group does not establish any new mechanisms, but complements EU policy in a practical and interdisciplinary way by explicitly addressing fisheries crime. Furthermore, intensified inter-agency cooperation will strengthen fisheries enforcement on member state level.
