Fróðskaparrit - 01.01.2002, Qupperneq 53

TÝDNINGURIN AV TVØRTJOÐA SAMSTARVI í NORÐURATLANTSØKINUM
51
common potentials, notably to develop net-
works through funding and interaction
‘from below’. To what extent these poten-
tials can be realised very much depends on
the specifíc economic and social organisa-
tion within the relevant sectors. In re-
source-based regions, such as the North At-
lantic, such networks and interaction may
well follow a very different pattern, com-
pared with the socalled ‘Blue Banana’ of
European centres (from London to Milan)
Policies related to the concept of a “Eu-
rope of the Regions” are dominated by the
attitude of the nation-states, where in prac-
tice subsidiarity is often a matter of prefer-
ring national (not regional) to EU manage-
ment. Subsidiarity is a concept of politics
and administration - not of economic and
social interaction. Of course, actual region-
alisation as a process of innovation can be
supported by regionalist policies, but the
content of the approach to regionalism
within the EU seems more appropriate to
the European centres, than to the more pe-
ripheral regions of Europe, with economies
based on natural resources. In the North At-
lantic, just a few players dominate business
activity and this business is very much
within a North-South orientation as there
are few commercial opportunities within
the North itself. Close cooperation and net-
works between these persons is needed to
overcome some of the fundamental con-
flicts over resource management and price
politics that continue to hinder develop-
menl within the North.
Within fisheries, cooperation and inter-
action have already existed for centuries
within what is known today as the Barents
Region and Nordic Atlantic countries. New
possibilities for innovative and knowledge-
based economic activities related to físh-
eries - such as the transfer of technology to
the internationally growing físheries sector
- must be utilised. The Icelandic example
indicates that diminishing resources have
actually stimulated such a development,
rather than the reverse. An innovative tech-
nology and services sector can even bring
in new supplies of raw fish, as in the case of
Russian landings at Nordic ports, which in
recent years have increased as a result of
the disintegration of the Russian economy.
To encourage cooperation and the growth
of networks in knowledge-based sectors,
support and funding frorn regional cooper-
ation can help, but are by no means the
most important factors. Generally speak-
ing, the most decisive factor seems to be the
mobility and interaction of young people
which allows them to acquire new knowl-
edge, skills and contacts through education
abroad, before they return to their own
countries. The fisheries education at the
University of Tromsø seems to play a piv-
otal role in this.
On the face of it, the meso-level of con-
crete initiatives in regional cooperation
within the fisheries sector is the most inter-
esting agenda in the North Atlantic. Re-
gional cooperation in science and technolo-
gy, e.g. joint North Atlantic institutes with
local branches, could help to create better
infrastructures for systems of innovation.
This is a project Norway, Iceland and the
Danish Realm should look into further, in
particular to reconsider the funding levels
required. Obviously, the total budget of all