Lögberg-Heimskringla - 23.10.1975, Blaðsíða 2

LÖGBERG-HEIMSKRINGLA, FIMMTUDAGINN 23. OKTÖBER 1975
MárElísson Directorof Fisheries:
WI1)1<K IJMTl'S WILL STILL iWl'
(;m< US ( OJH’LITL LOMUOL
"If Iceland had only a 3-mile fishery
limit, as was the case until 1950, there
would not now be a basis for a viable
fishing industry in Iceland.
International Commissionsdid not, in the
face of ever increasing fishing effort
exerted by long-distance fishing fleets,
have the necessary authority to approve
regulations for the rational exploitation
of the fish stocks, nor did they have the
will to grant sp>ecial rights to the Coastal
State.
For this reason and due to its dependence
on fisheries Iceland has been forced to
take matters into its own hands, but grad-
ual extensions of the limits have entailed
hard struggles against long-distance
fishing interests of foreign countries—and
against short-term profit considerations.
The extension now to 200 miles serves,
as earlier extensions, two purposes: main-
tenance of the Icelandic economy, and
protection of the biological factors con-
nected therewith. In other words, we have
to be able to control the fishing effprt on
our grounds, taking into account our
special needs.”
There is Too Much
Fishing
Those were the words of Már Elísson,
Director of Fisheries of Iceland, respon-
sible for the Agency which collects mate-
rial both on scientific work and on
fishery operations, as well as being a
policyforming body in this main branch
of the Icelandic economy. Már Elísson
has for many years been an active spokes-
man in interpreting the needs of the
Icelandic fishing industry and has been
one of those offícials engaged in dealing
with other coUntries in this field. He has,
for instance, been one of the Icelandic
delegates to the Third U.N. International
Conference on the Law of the Sea. In an
interview with ICELAND REVIEW he
further stated:
“If we consider the average catch of
demersal species in Icelandic waters
during the past 16 years, we find that it
amounted to 728,000 tons annually, of
which the Icelanders themselves took
380,000 tons, or 52%. Since the extension
to 50 miles two-and-a-half years ago,
Iceland’s share has increased, but not
sufficiently. It is on these figures that we
base our estimates of the capacity of the
fishing-grounds, for no final scientific
conclusion has yet been reached. We
still do not know exactly where the zero
point is, but all statistics indicate that, as
matters stand at the moment, there is too
much fishing.
The OECD Report
“In a recent OECD Report (Intemational
Development in Fish Production), it is
stated:
“But before partitioning it is in-
teresting to trace the trend of the
overall catch in the North Atlantic as
a whole, starting with 1938, the last
full fishing year before the interrup-
tion by war. It can be assumed that by
1950 fishing intensity was again on a
par with the late 1930’s, as were—in
general terms—catch rates and hence
landings. It had taken five or six
years of mounting intensity to reduce
catch rates from the very high levels
that were achieved following the re-
conditioning of the stocks allowed by
the comparative lack of exploitation
during the war years.
Fishing activity in practically all
productive areas mounted rapidly
during the next five or six years until
it had doubled in 1955 compared to
1950. The overall result was a gradual
rise in the catch over the period.
Then followed a spell during which,
although fishing continued to inten-
sify significantly, the total catch from
the North Atlantic tended to decline.
By 1960, which is being taken as the
opening year of the period to be exam-
ined in more detail here, the fishing
effort expended was possibly three
times as great as at the end of the
1940’s, while the weight of the catch
has risen by about 25 per cent.
To illustrate, it is estimated that
lceland’s fishing effort for cod and
similar species in terms of vessel
tonnage engaged and time spent fish-
ing was at least 50 per cent higher in
1968 and 1969, when the herring
fishing was at a very low level, than in
the peak herring years 1962/1966. The
second relationship can be seen in a
comparison (of Figures IV and V)
concerning the United Kingdom fish-
eries. There it is shown that any rise or
fall in the number of days absent in the
Barents Sea is usually reflected in a
movement in the opposite direction
at Iceland, the principal cause being
the preference shown by operators
directing the activities of the larger
and more mobile classes of trawlers in
the United Kingdom for the particular
fishing area offering prospects of
better economic returns."
We Need Control Over a
Larger Area
“This conclusion of the OECD experts
merely confirms what we in Iceland are
always saying. Only by a systematic
control of the effort can we expect to
obtain an overall bigger catch; otherwise
there is a risk that it will diminish. One
of the most important things is to prevent
as far as possible the over-exploitation of
immature fish. Hitherto. some fishermen
—including foreign ones—have con-
centrated on the small fish, i.e. 3-5 years
old cod. But the cod does not become
mature until after 6-7 years, and it is
during the first 5 years that growth is
greatest. In the age from 5 to 10 years, the
rate of growth decreases, and after the fish
is lOyearsold itdoesnot grow significant-
ly more. If we can compare fishing opera-
tions with the occupation of a farmer, we
know that he would in very few cases
slaughter his livestock before the period
of quickest growth was finished, and as
far as fish are concerned one should not
do so before they had spawned at least
once. The catching would take place
during the 5-10 year age group of the cod,
and when there was no more growth and
the fish had started eating their weight in
food. They would then inevitably be
caught. But this is not so easy when it is a
question of fish in the sea. There it is
impossible in advance to sort them out
individually according to difference in
age. We do know the spawning and
nursery areas, however. If we can have
control of the fishing in specific sea areas,
we can exercise a certain flexibility on the
protected grounds and thus, to a certain
extent at any rate, prevent this excessive
exploitation of small fish. According to
statistics, the average age of cod caught
by Britain off Iceland is 5.1 years, and by
Iceland 6.1 years. As matters stand on
the fishing-grounds at present, we cannot
expect to obtain more than an annual
total of 650-700,000 tons during the
next 4-5 years, but with sensible control
the catch could probably gradually be
increased in excess of 800 thousand tons,
this being effected primarily by allowing
the fish to grow and accumulate more
weight before it is caught and at the same
time thus giving it an opportunity to
spawn at least once. In order to accom-
plish this, we need to acquire control over
a considerably larger area than we have at
present.
Even With 200 Miles—
Not a Total Control
“In this connexion it should be pointed
out that the figure of 200 miles is not a
question of dogma. The principle is to
extend the economic jurisdiction only in
order to crcate the conditions for a better
control over the seas around Iceland.
Internationally, the concept of an
economic zone of 200 miles is rapidly
becoming a generally accepted principle
by thc majority of nations. International
agencies have not been able to cope with
the problem of rational utilization. They
have not been in a position to effect a
sensible control of the fisheries. One of
the reasons is the composition and the
charter of these agencies, such as NEAFC
and ICNAF. The vast majority of the
member states are just those nations that
have most at stake in distant waters, so
that it has not been possible to achieve
a fair recognition of the priority of
coastal states. No agreement can be
reached at present without the support of
all concerned. This situation could, of
course, be altered by increasing the
authority of such intemational agencies
and granting them more specific terms of
reference, likely to ensure success. Never-
theless, it is to be expected that in
exercising such increased authority the
decisions would be loaded in favour of
the distant water states which are in a
majority in the Commissions.
“The Icelanders gained substantial
control of their fishing-grounds with the
extension to 50 miles, and 200 miles will
provide considerably more control as far
as demersal fish species ofT the east and
west coasts of Iceland are concerned. But
what is no less important is that we shall
obtain increased opportunities forcontrol
of the migratory pelagic species, such as
herring and capelin. Yet even with 200
miles we shall not obtain total control
over all the fish-stocks that are of impor-
tance to Iceland, and in order to achieve
that aim we shall have to seek coopera-
tion with othercountries, since, forexam-
ple, cod, saithe, ocean perch, herring and
capelin move about between the waters
off the various coastal states in our part
of the world.
On/y a Question of
Time—When
“Then we come to the question as to
whether to grant in future fishing rights
to other nations in our economic zone.
This is obviously a highly political matter.
Icelandic authorities have in the past
been reluctant to negotiate fishery agree-
ments. They have nevertheless done so on
a bilateral basis with several countries.
These agreements have subsequently been
approved by the Althing, sometimes after
considerable debate. In making their
assessment on future concessions, if that
be the case, there are in my personal view
several important factors that have to
be considered. First, the result of the
U. N. Law of the Sea Conference on the
economic zone. Second, the state of the
various fish stocks. Third, our own ability
to utilize the total allowable catch.
Fourth, our trade relationship with other
countries and our potential interest to
fish within the economic zones of other
countries. For the sake of our own in-
terests, especially with regard to the
conservation and utilization of migratory
species of fish, we can hardly avoid
making sensible agreements with other
nations. On the other hand, the modern
age—and still more the future—demands
of the nations here concerned that they
understand the crux of the matter, that
they in the end agree with the views
propounded by us on rational utilization,
not only for our own sake, but also for
the sake of everyone else. The problem
that confronts us demands a change of
attitude: The nations of the world must
join hands in creating a new basis of
relations for the exploitation of the
riches of the oceans. We hope therefore
that the results of the Conference on the
Law of the Sea will support.developments
that are inevitable, and for this reason we
also hope we shall not need to wage a
new “cod war”.
“I am hopeful that our views will prevail
in the end, it is only a question of time—
when.
. . . Before it is Too Late
“The concept of extended fishery limits
will, in the case of Iceland, acquire quite
a different significance than hitherto.
Only in a very few places might conflict
arise as to whether a ship was inside or
outside the 200 miles or the median line
limits. Vessels wishing to fish on the
traditional Icelandic grounds will, for
instance in the majority of cases, have
to go far inside the new limits. The role
of the Icelandic Coastguard Service will
therefore change, and will no longer be
solely that of ensuring that all ships are
outside the limit line. I expect its task
will rather be to see to that the regulations
Iceland imposes regarding protected
areas within the 200 miles are observed,
that fishing in Icelandic sea areas will
only be done by those vessels that have
the necessary permission, and that such
vessels behave absolutely in accordance
with the rules fixed for them.
“Then there is another point, of course.
Although we are always talking about
200 miles, this does not mean that we
shall everywhere have 200 miles from the