Reykjavík Grapevine - 19.06.2015, Blaðsíða 12

12 The Reykjavík GrapevineIssue 8 — 2015
More recently there’s been great debate
about the mackerel quota. In addition
to the usual criticisms of the fishing
quota system in general, the mackerel
bill has been made the subject of the
particular criticism that it concentrates
a great deal of the quota into the hands
of a few. This criticism has spawned a
petition, directed at President Ólafur
Rangar Grímsson, that has already gar-
nered the signatures of over 10% the
population of Iceland, making it one of
the most-supported petitions in Icelan-
dic history.
Mackerel hasn't always been a lu-
crative trade in Iceland, but in 2008
stocks began to boom in Icelandic wa-
ters with rising ocean temperatures.
Iceland's stocks are valued at around
600 million, and were part of an in-
ternational dispute between Iceland,
Norway, the Faroe Islands and the Eu-
ropean Union over what constitutes a
sustainable quota. In 2010, an uneasy
truce was reached between these par-
ties, with Iceland's total mackerel quota
amounting to some 640,000 tonnes.
With so much money at stake, it is
unsurprising that private interests I
would want as much of a share as they
can get away with. After a bill on the
mackerel quota was introduced to par-
liament in April, journalists almost im-
mediately began connecting the dots. It
came to light that the wife of Progres-
sive Party MP Jóhann Pálsson owns a
fishing company that stands to receive
a mackerel quota worth 50 million ISK
if the bill is passed. Jóhann sits on the
Industrial Affairs Committee, which
is partially responsible for crafting the
legislation. At the same time, Davíð
Freyr Jónsson, who is also a member of
the Progressive Party and sits on that
party’s Fishing Committee, is the own-
er of a boat that stands to triple its quota
if the same bill is passed. That quota is
valued at about 200 million ISK.
A populist movement
Shortly after these connections were
brought to light, an online petition
called Þjóðareign (“National Re-
source”) was started with the relatively
straightforward aim of preventing the
bill from being signed into law:
“We, the undersigned, call on the
President of Iceland to refer to a refer-
endum any laws that parliament adopts
where fishing resources are allocated
for more than one year, while no provi-
sion for public ownership of resources
has been set in the Constitution and the
people have not been guaranteed full
charge for their use.”
At the time of this writing, more
than 50,000 people—or more than 10%
of the country—have signed the peti-
tion, barely a month after its creation.
The Grapevine spoke with Andri Sig-
urðsson, one of the organisers of the
petition, as well as Þórir Hrafnsson,
Press and Information Officer from the
Ministry of Industries and Innovation,
which created the legislation, to get to
the heart of where the disconnect lies.
“Everything is wrong
with it”
When asked what he finds wrong with
the mackerel bill, Andri was to the
point.
“Everything is wrong with it,” he
told us. “It goes against our fishing reg-
ulations that dictate that quotas should
not be issued for more than one year at
a time. This is where the current line is
drawn in the sand.”
Here Andri refers to Article 3 of the
Law on Fisheries (116/2006), which
does limit the total allowable catch
(TAC) for an individual species to 12
months. It’s the TAC which is subse-
quently split up and
allocated to individu-
als and companies as
individual transfer-
able quotas (ITQ).
The current mackerel
bill would extend that
period to six years.
Why is this a problem?
Mostly because, its
critics argue, this gives
those who will control
the ITQs for mackerel
a much longer period
of time for controlling
the fish.
“Those who want
a new progressive
system want to sell
the quotas on an open
market while the in-
cumbents want more
control, and to own
the quotas for longer periods of time,
without paying a full fee for using the
resource,” Andri explains. “This new
law needs to be scrapped and re-writ-
ten. Our fisheries policies needs to use
open market solutions where Iceland-
ers are guaranteed their share of the fa-
mous pie everyone loves talking about.
Because right now, the gluttonous bas-
tards who hold the fishing rights want
to have the whole pie for themselves,
crumbs and all.”
“Feelings are strong”
Þórir acknowledges the lack of any cur-
rent solutions everyone can agree on, but
stressed that the bill is meant to be a tem-
porary arrangement.
“The system has been under revision
for some time without an acceptable con-
sensus having been found,” the ministry
told us. “Therefore, the Minister stressed
the importance of a temporary quota set-
ting for the mackerel, i.e. for six years and
roll over, while the overall revision has
not been completed. Would not say we
were surprised to get opposition, as the
matter is sensitive and the feelings are
strong.”
Andri does indeed feel strongly about
the issue. His point
of view is that Ice-
land’s fish, being a
natural and national
resource, should be-
long first and fore-
most to the people.
“I think person-
ally that most people
have given up on
reaching a compro-
mise with the fish-
ing industry,” he told
us. “They will never
back down, and Ice-
landers want them
to pay more to the
community. That’s
why any solution
has to focus on the
needs of society first
and foremost; not of
wealthy quota own-
ers who were handed our resources for
free in the first place.”
It isn’t just the length of the quota
that is being criticised. Torbjorn Trond-
sen, a professor at the Norwegian Col-
lege of Fishery Science at the University
of Tromso, Norway, wrote directly to
Independence Party MP and chairper-
son of the Industrial Affairs Committee
Jón Gunnarsson on the matter, filing a
written objection to the legislation that
has since been made a matter of public
record. Torbjorn criticised the bill for
“grandfathering” the quota rather than
putting it up for open auction.
“Fish quotas are harvesting contracts
of the fish resource owned by the Icelan-
dic people,” he wrote. “Public auction-
ing of such contracts are by far the most
efficient system to maximize the added
value of the fish resources for the Ice-
landic people as owners. A good auction
organizes a fair competition between the
fishing companies and secures quota ac-
cess for smaller innovative fishing firms.”
In the hands of the Presi-
dent
As strong as support for the petition to
put the mackerel quota up for public
referendum may be, whether or not that
happens rests solely with President Óla-
fur Ragnar Grímsson. The president has
referred legislation to referendum be-
fore—in particular, the wildly unpopular
Icesave legislation, which ended up de-
feated in the ensuing referendum.
However, in 2013, a petition of some
35,000 signatures calling on the presi-
dent to refuse to sign a law that lowered
taxes for fishing corporations went ig-
nored, with the president telling report-
ers at the time that “tax issues should
not be a matter of public referendum.”
So what are the chances he’ll abide over
50,000 signatures?
“No one knows what that guy will
pull out of his hat,” Andri says. “But since
this new law is a major change to the cur-
rent fishery policies, we think that he has
no other choice but to send it to a referen-
dum. That is, if he is consistent with his
own words in the past. He has said in in-
terviews that this issue is a good topic to
send to a referendum so we will just have
to hope for the best.”
It is true that during the last presi-
dential elections, the president said that
“it is difficult to think of a bigger subject
which would be natural to put up for
national referendum” than the fishing
quota system.
That, however, was in 2012, and poli-
ticians are prone to change their minds
as easily as anyone else. For now, it seems
the only thing anyone can agree on is that
no one can agree how Iceland’s mackerel
quota system ought to be handled.
While much of the media at home and abroad has been
paying attention to Iceland’s booming tourist industry,
fishing remains a pillar of the country’s economy. At the
heart of fishing in Iceland is the quota system. Ostensibly
a means to prevent overfishing, the quota system has for
a long time been one of the most contentious issues in the
country, criticised for leading to the deaths of small vil-
lages and towns that relied on fishing (smaller companies
will sometimes sell their quotas to larger ones, prompting
jobs to move elsewhere), and also for directly benefitting
the very people who write the laws about them.
Words by Paul Fontaine
Photo by Wikipedia
Iceland Struggles
To Settle
The Fishing Quota
Dispute
Politics | Bright?Economy | Fishy business
“Our fisheries
policies needs to use
open market solu-
tions where Iceland-
ers are guaranteed
their share of the
famous pie everyone
loves talking about.
Because right now,
the gluttonous bas-
tards who hold the
fishing rights want
to have the whole
pie for themselves,
crumbs and all.”