LÍÚ – THE FEDERATION OF ICELANDIC FISHING VESSEL OWNERS

1. LÍÚ – THE FEDERATION OF ICELANDIC FISHING VESSEL OWNERS A brief orientation

2. Purpose, objectives and activities • Represent all Icelandic fishing vessel owners in order to safeguard their mutual interests. • Promote progress in the fishing industry. • Present the viewpoints of its members to the Icelandic legislature (The Althing) and the executive branch of government. • Promote sustainable and economic use of fishery resources and attend to environmental aspects of fisheries.

3. Purpose, objectives and activities • Guard vessel owner interests in labour negotiations • Participate in international fora. Guard the interests of vessel owners in negotiations between Iceland and other states • Handle negotiations with insurance companies. • Argue cases before the courts and government institutions in matters directly affecting the interests and rights of our members • A member of the Confederation of Icelandic Employers since 1969

4. Members • 150 fishing companies. • 242 fishing vessels. • A federation of 11 regional organisations. • Board of 15 members elected by annual meeting.

5. LIU members – Quota share

6. Monkfish Monkfish 2,500 2,500 Greenland halibut Greenland halibut 15,000 15,000 Plaice Plaice 5,000 5,000 Lemon sole Lemon sole 1,800 1,800 Witch Witch 2,400 2,400 Dab Dab 4,000 4,000 Long rough dab Long rough dab 3,500 3,500 Herring (Icel.) Herring (Icel.) 110,000 110,000 Capelin Capelin 170,872 170,872 Nephrops Nephrops 1,801 1,801 10,000 10,000 Northern shrimp (offshore) Northern shrimp (offshore) Pelagic redfish Pelagic redfish 28,610 28,610 Atl. scandian herring Atl. scandian herring 153,818 153,818 Blue whiting Blue whiting 352,601 352,601 LIU members hold practically all quota in these species (tonnes)

7. Economic aspects

8. Historical importance of fisheriesProfessor Ragnar Árnason (Univ. Icel.) at LIU General Meeting 2004. • Five recessions during the 20th century • 1916-20: Export difficulties, trawlers sold • 1931-32: The Great Depression: Market collapse. • 1948-52: Poor herring catches, ban on landings in England. • 1967-68: Collapse of herring fisheries. • 1989-93: Consequences of overinvestment, reduced catches • Difficulties in fisheries main cause of all recessions during the 20th century • A similar story can be told of the good periods

9. Exported Seafood Products 2006 • As a proportion of: • Gross Domestic Product: 11,5% (Underestimate!) • Exported Goods and Services: 33,0% • Exported Goods: 54,5%

10. Employees in fishing and fish processing as a share of total workforce Fishing Fish processing Fishing Fish processing

11. Proportion of total export by product categories Seafood Industrial products Hagstofuflokkun / 1994-2005

12. Major Export Countries

13. The Main Species Fob-verð millj. kr

14. Catch and value 2005

15. Fisheries management aspects

16. Milestones in the fisheries jurisdiction • 1948 Iceland passes legislation on the scientific conservation of the continental shelf • 1952 4-mile Fisheries Jurisdiction • 1958 12-mile Fisheries Jurisdiction • 1972 50-mile Fisheries Jurisdiction • 1975 200-mile Fisheries Jurisdiction

17. Development of the ITQ system • 1975 Herring fishery managed with quotas • 1979 Transfer of herring quotas authorized • 1980 Individual vessel quotas introduced for capelin fishery • 1984 Individual vessel quotas introduced for demersal fisheries • 1986 Transfer of capelin quotas authorized • 1988 Transfer of quotas for all species authorized. • 1990 Comprehensive system of ITQs established for all regulated species

18. The quota system - • Benefits • Total catch is kept within set limits • Stability • Wasteful race to fish eliminated • Built in incentives to; • Be responsible and promote sustainable use of fish stocks • Focus on value not quantity • Increase profitability

19. Effective management, because... • Relatively simple • large EEZ • many major stocks exclusive to Iceland • homogeneous culture, rapid communication • Dedicated MRI, cooperation with industry • Effective management system • Effective monitoring, control and enforcement • Low levels of discards, according to monitoring data

20. Icelandic catch in the years 1905-2006

21. Number of fishing vesselsOver 100 GRT

22. Ships with catch quota and small boats

23. Catch of various demersal fish species, % by gear types 2005/06

24. Area closures

25. Documenting and Communicating Sustainable Fishing Dr. Kristjan Thorarinsson Population Ecologist The Federation of Icelandic Fishing Vessel Owners

26. Options • Information on websites • Public declaration • Explicit standard • Certified public declaration, meeting standard • Sustainable fishing “Ecolabel” (e.g. MSC) • Certification in compliance with FAO Guidelines • Ecolabel in compliance with FAO Guidelines • Other options? (Direct communication, meetings...)

27. Open international discussion. Voluntary ecolabeling. Clear separation of roles in the ecolabeling process. (criteria,certification accreditation, label) Avoid private monopoly on criteria. Avoid too many labels or private label monopoly. Avoid technical barriers to trade. Avoid expensive verification processes. Desirable Objectivesin Certification and Labelling

28. The Normal Place of Certification • Certificationof responsible and sustainable fishingshould be • a welcome and inexpensive routine, • no different from any other certification, • with a sound technical basis. • Certification should not be • a tool for advocacy groups, incurring heavy cost for industry.

29. Problem with MSC co-operation • MSClacks technical competence in important areas • The parent problem: • a continued source of fund-raising for WWF, in competition with other environmental NGOs. (We did that! Send us more money! Then more ads against fishing.) • WWF wanting to be both problem and solution • Expensive • Danger of unilateral criteria change • better to have never joined than to have lost one’s certification • If participation becomes general, then only cost added!

30. FAO Guidelines: Two main parts to the process -- Must be separated and in the right order!! First: What is promised? Based on ISO methods Second: How is it verified? The standard  states clearly what requirements must be met Accreditation ensures the competance of the certification body to carry out independent and objective certification based on the established standard It is the separation that ensures real third party certification

31. FAO GuidelinesParagraph 39 • The owner of an ecolabelling scheme should engage a separate independent specialist accreditation body to take on the task of accreditation of certification bodies on its behalf. • The accreditation body could be private, public or an autonomous body governed by public service rules.

32. MSC deviations from established certification practice

33. Two main parts to the process -- Not properly separated in the MSC process. What is promised? How is it verified? Separation not provided in MSC process => Third party nature compromised MSC standard vague  • MSC certifiers in effect set the standard for each case MSC short-circuit => Clearly no longer third party! The pre-assessment entails a request for clues as to what standard the certifier intends to use for the applicant fishery!

34. The Function of Certification Bodies Normally, certification bodies are accredited to apply the standard -- they are not accredited to set the standard on a case by case basis!

35. MSC Assessment of Alaskan and Canadian Salmon:A horror story! • Great disparity in demands and requirements • simple and rapid in Alaska, complicated and slow and very costly in Canada • No uniformity of assessment process: The problem apparently lies in MSC accreditation

36. What is Iceland doing? • Not attracted to existing labels • Website www.fisheries.is • Declaration concerning management system and measures in preparation • Work towards explicit standard underway • Certification according to standard is being considered • This meeting

37. Thank you for your attention