Opening speech - Annual meeting of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)

ICES CENTENNIAL

OSLO, 26. – 29. SEPTEMBER 2001

Opening speech - Annual meeting of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)

OTTO GREGUSSEN, MINISTER OF FISHERIES

"Your Royal Highness, Mr. President, Dear Guests and Members of the Marine Science Community, Ladies and Gentlemen

I am very honoured and pleased to salute the celebration of the 100 years of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.

100 years ago - in May 1901 - a group of 25 persons from research and management from 9 countries gathered in Oslo, among them our own prominent scientists Fridtjof Nansen and Johan Hjort.

At the time, with a sharp population growth in Europe and more intensive fisheries, there was a growing concern about the fluctuation of the fish stocks. Did these variations have natural causes or were they a result of over-exploitation?

There was quite a pragmatic attitude among several delegates at the meeting. In particular the Scandinavians were favouring a council, which could combine the usefulness of research with fisheries management.

A council for oceanic and marine research was established. Initially for 5 years, but ICES is now celebrating its first100 years, and is one of the very few international organisations, which has survived the two world wars.

***

Fisheries and mariculture exploit increasingly valuable natural resources and habitats. Furthermore, the development of more sophisticated technology and innovative attitude has expanded the range of organisms that are of commercial interest to exploit.

The sea and the marine resources are under pressure, not only from their exploitation, but also from other human activities, like the release of hazardous substances, transfer of alien organisms to the sea, damage to habitats like coral reefs and excessive inputs of nutrients causing entrophication.

The scientific challenge is to provide guidance to the management of these challenges:

• What are the limits set by nature for the various activities?

• What type of knowledge is needed in order to establish those limits?

• How should investigations be carried out in order to accomplish the required knowledge?

These are the present and future questions marine scientists in general and ICES in particular are faced with. They are addressed by international fisheries commissions, governments, and the public and last but not least by the scientists themselves.

The difficulties involved in reaching agreement on limits are obvious. Usually any limit represents an apparent – and perhaps real "short term loss" for some or all parties involved in the activity. Naturally the tangled web of conflicting interests and uncomfortable facts of economic life makes fishery management decisions difficult.

Following reductions in TAC levels for important fish stocks over the recent years, the credibility and thus legitimacy of stock assessment science is disputed by at least some stakeholders.

However, disagreements over how to analyse or evaluate a given risk should not be an argument to demolition of science and ICES advisory capacity.

The scientific advise should therefore clearly indicate the "long term gain" that can be expected as a result of introducing limits. In terms of fish stock ICES now supports advice on the values of exploitation rate and spawning biomass that should be avoided if we wish to avoid a negative development of stock and yield.

But which values or levels of spawning biomass and fishing mortality rates should we aim at in order to fully utilize the potential of the stock and which are the associated levels of yield.

In other words: what are the target reference points for a given stock? We are told what we shall avoid, but what should we reach for and how can we reach it?

***

We have over the past 20-25 years experienced an "explosion" in the farmed quantities of salmon and trout in the North East Atlantic area. Now we experience that a few numbers of marine species are on the point of "take off" for intensive or extensive farming.

In Norway mariculture has created jobs, better livelihood for many people and brought new life to coastal communities. In terms of an expected world wide scarcity of supply of marine proteins and fatty acids fish farming should also represent and option for coastal communities within the ICES area.

The further developments are largely dependent on the knowledge that can be gained from science. On the one hand fry production, food supplies of marine origin for farmed fish and the protection and cure of fish diseases are crucial issues to be addressed.

On the other hand interactions between farmed and wild stock populations and the release of any manipulated organism in the sea will add new challenges to the marine scientific community. Certainly ICES should play a prominent role in this regard.

***

ICES is to an increasingly degree the provider of assessments and advice on marine environmental issues. The integration of environmental and fisheries advice are essential in an ecosystem approach to the management of marine resources. I therefore welcome the establishment of a new – and the third - advisory committee – the Advisory Committee on Ecosystems – to facilitate the integration of fisheries and environmental issues. And I am also pleased that the chairman of this new committee is from our own Institute of Marine Research in Bergen.

***

ICES represent a framework for management decisions where the scientific advice is clearly separated from the governments and fishery commissions' management decisions. There are many, strong and often conflicting interests in how resources should be exploited, and by whom. This applies to national and international levels.

In order to ensure transparency, accountability, integrity and plurality, the advice from ICES in the decision making process should continue to be strictly scientifically based.

And ICES should concentrate its efforts on the natural sciences, leaving economics and social considerations with the governments. The issue of distribution of the wealth from the sea is clearly not an issue for ICES to advice upon.

The conditions under which advice is given, and the demands made in the development of the advice, are to day not part of a systematic dialogue between ICES and the users.

It is imperative to ensure that the scientific advice in terms of strategies and advisory models gain legitimacy for the implementation of policy and management decisions. Therefore an extended dialogue between ICES, the authorities and the industry should be welcomed.

Norway appreciated the invitation by ICES to comment upon the ICES Strategic Plan and to be present at the follow-up dialogue meeting in Bruges last year. We look forward to new and sustained forms of dialogue between ICES, the managers and the stakeholders.

***

Hundred years after the founding meeting of ICES, we are further in our understanding of the processes taking place in the marine environment. We can measure more accurately the biomass and the stock sizes, age distribution and so on.

But the main concern is still the same. How much can we harvest without reducing the marine production potential and the diversity of life in the sea? That is the simple question and the very difficult one to answer.

Dear ICES executive bodies, advisory committees and attending scientists: great challenges lie ahead of you!

With regard to the result of your future work I will close my address by a quotation of Johan Hjort: Quote "Undoubtedly we shall derive there from splendid discoveries of both practical and theoretical interest and these discoveries await the attention of International Fishery Research" Unquote.

I thank you all for your attentive listening. We look forward to meet the results of your efforts on your way into the next 100 years ahead."