NORWAY: help for the (cod) industry?

Readers might remember that on 16 September 2009 I wrote a post titled:NORWAY: the "leveringsplikt", a subsidy to the processing industry in Norway ?

Now, in Norway, participants in a selected number of fisheries will be allowed to have a certain percentage of by-catch of cod at landing provided it is sold fresh.

The objective of the Norwegian authorities seems to be to maintain, and if possible increase, the supply of fish across the Norwegian coast.

Interesting to note is that the Association of Owners of Fishingboats (Fiskebåt) seems unhappy with a  policy "that would oblige vessel owners to supply fish to a fishing industry that is not competitive".

Here are two articles in Norwegian on this issue. The first one is about the new measures. In the second one readers will find the reactions of Fiskebåt  back in June when the government was considering proposals to secure supply of fresh fish to industries on the coast.

http://www.fish.no/fiskeri/5660-foreslar-endringer-i-leveringsplikten.html

http://www.fish.no/fiskeri/5661-en-foreldet-politikk.html


  

NORWAY: report on aid provided to the cod sector

Some readers may remember that, in late 2009, I wrote various on the aid measures that the Norwegian government took to help companies in the cod sector to withstand the crisis creted by low prices in the consumer market.

Well now NOFIMA, a state controlled, business oriented research group working in research and development for the aquaculture, fisheries and food industry in Norway, has published a report on the crisis.

In the press release by NOFIMA (31 August 2010) one can read:

“In order to help the situation, the authorities implemented a series of measures. These included offering loans and guarantees, funds for marketing and subsidies for the transportation of fish between different regions. The cod quotas were also increased.”

Here is the link to the English version of the press release:

http://www.nofima.no/marked/en/nyhet/2010/09/that-s-why-the-cod-had-trouble

And here the link to the report (in Norwegian):

http://www.nofima.no/filearchive/Rapport%2023-2010.pdf

NORWAY: monetising the benefit of compulsory supply to a coastal region

In a previous post on Norway I was discussing something called the "leveringsplikt", I.e. The obligation imposed on vessel owners to supply companies in a particular geographic area.

In the official regulations it is stated that this landing obligation is intended to guarantee a stable supply of raw material to processing companies from the cod trawlers' fleet. The fish to be delivered under this obligation has been harvested under special quotas in specific areas. Among some of the interesting features of this system we find a price setting system. It would be complicated to give a short explanation in this post, so I will leave it for now.

What I want to discuss in this post is that vessel owners that are are subject to this duty to supply a specific area can buy back, or should we say, redeem themselves from such duty. In other words, they can pay a sum of money to the local authorities and in exchange of it, land the fish in the place of their choosing.

There are examples of such redemption of the landing obligation.

In 2008 an agreement was reached between a fishing company, "Giske Havfiske", and the commune of Hasvik. The company agreed to pay NOK 17.5 million (USD 3 million) to Sorvaer Kystfiskeinvest AS. This company, owned by a holding company in which the commune of Hasvik has a 49 % stake, will administer the funds received from "Giske Havfiske".

Among other provisions of the settlement, as reported by the press, it is worth mentioning that Sorvaer Kystfiskeinvest SA will invest in vessels and in the purchase of ownership shares in vessels over 80 feet.

The above settlement was backed by the Norwegian Fisheries Directorate and Ms Pedersen, who was the Fisheries Minister at that time, expressed her satisfaction for the solution reached.

I found thus a very good example of the monetisation of this subsidy, which consists in fact of a regulatory intervention by the government but which comes down to the provision of a good to a private company.

Readers will argue that the companies in the areas benefiting from such compulsory deliveries do buy the raw material and that fishing fleets under this obligation got their quota on condition that the harvest should be landed in a particular area.

Apart from the fact that, from an international trade perspective, one can construe this obligation as an export restriction, one can also ask oneself the question whether such landing obligation constitutes a subsidy in the sense of the WTO's Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement.

Well, to begin with the government is directing a private company to supply a good to a number of companies that are located in a specific geographical area. Or put differently, the latter companies have a guaranteed supply of goods (raw material). In the absence of such landing obligation it could happen that the processing companies would have to buy this raw material at a higher price and it could even happen that no fish would be landed in the areas concerned.

The Giske Havfiske case help us to get a flavour of the amount of the subsidy that is being provided by the government to the processing industry in the Hasvik commune.

Clearly the supply obligation was considered by Giske Havfike as something that prevents it from getting the best price from the fish it harvest and it is ready to make a direct payment to the commune in other to elude this obligation.

Here is an article from FiskarenFiskeribladet (in Norwegian) on the issue:

http://fiskeribladet.no/default.asp?side=101&lesmer=7765

And here one from Finmark Dagblad (in Norwegian):

http://www.finnmarkdagblad.no/nyheter/article3595752.ece

NORWAY: fisheries subsidies in political parties' manifestos. Part II the Christian Democratic Party

I started a few posts ago with a series on the manifestos of the Norwegian political parties as posted in their websites, in the run-up to the elections in mid-September of this year.

Today I will discuss the manifesto of the Kristelike Folkeparti (Krf).

This party was not in office in the previous government and will continue in the opposition for the next four years. Interesting to note is that the Prime Minister of the government in power from 2001 to 2005, Mr Bondevik, was the leader of this party.

Here are some of the promises made by Krf prior the election:

- keep ownership Norway's fisheries and aquaculture industries in Norwegian hands.

- give increased weight to local employment when allocating fishing quota.

- maintain the obligation to supply (leveringsplikt) to encourage local processing. The non-respect of the supply obligation should have consequences for the subsequent allocation of fishing quota.

- increase the harvest of pinnipeds (seals) and work towards international acceptance of of this harvest, within ecological sustainability.

With regard to the regulatory framework Krf wants to maintain the main pillars upon which rests the Norwegian fishing industry, the Participants law (Deltakerlov) and the Raw fish law (Råfisklov).

On pinnipeds (seals) the Krf considers that, because a large population of pinnipeds is tantamount to a large consumption of fish, a higher harvest of seals and pinnipeds is necessary.

Here is the link to the manifesto (section on fisheries and aquaculture):

http://www.krf.no/ikbViewer/page/krf/politikk/politisk-program/artikkel?p_document_id=23039

NORWAY: millions of krona available for fishermen in North Norway (Finmark)

The Finmark County Authority announced last month (8 September 2009) that it had already granted NOK 18.1 million (USD 3.2 million) loans to fishermen from the Finmark’s County Authority Recruitment Fund for Fishermen. The Fund was created in October 2008 with a capital of NOK 38.4 million (USD 6.8 million). It has already handled 34 requests in 2009.

According to the information published in the County Council’s website, the funds are intended for fishermen who are betting on new recruitment and will invest in fishing vessels and quotas.

The loans are granted for an amount ranging from NOK 200,000 to NOK 1.5 million (USD 36,000 to USD 266,000), though it can not be higher than 25 percent of the investment in a single company. The loans are granted with a up to five-year interest-only period and an interest rate that is a percentage of Norges Bank's key rate.

Here is the link to the webpage with the announcement:

http://www.ffk.no/21136.aspx

NORWAY: extension of state backed credit guarantee to buyers and processors of fish

In my posts of 2 February 2009 and 10 May 2009 I was referring to the fund that the Norwegian government had set-up through "Innovasjon Norge" to guarantee "first hand" sales of fish.

Now the outgoing fisheries minister Ms Helga Pedersen has proposed to the Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget) to amend the previous legislation to provide a up to NOK 250 million (USD 43 million) government backed loans to the fishing industry in 2009.

It is also proposed to expand the scope of the of the existing credit guarantee scheme with an amount of NOK 97.5 million (USD 16.8 million) so that the loans can be now granted to fish buyers, without an obligation to replenish stocks of raw material.

The government is concerned that parts of the fishing industry, in particular the processing sector, will not have sufficient liquidity to buy raw materials (cod) as the 2010 cod fishing starts. According to the Norwegian government “This could provide unacceptable consequences for the fishermen and some coastal communities that depend on the cod fishery”.

Here is the link to the government’s announcement (in Norwegian):

http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fkd/pressesenter/pressemeldinger/2009/forslag-om-ny-likviditetslaneordning-for.html?id=578180

NORWAY: subsidies for "extermination" fishing of king crab

The outgoing minister for Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, Ms Helga Pedersen has decided to set aside NOK 5 million for "extermination" fishing of king crab. The fishing will be organized by chartering vessels that will carry out a targeted fishing of this species.

According the the official press release the measure is intended to limit the spread of this alien species and the chartered vessels will be fishing for crabs with little commercial value.

Here is the link to the official press release (in Norwegian):

http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fkd/pressesenter/pressemeldinger/2009/utrydningsfiske-av-kongekrabbe.html?id=578754

NORWAY: fisheries subsidies in political parties' manifestos. Part I the Centre Party

On 14 September 2009 general elections took place in Norway. It is likely that the left wing coalition in power before the elections will stay and govern for the next four years.

I write "likely" on intent because one of the parties, the Socialist Left Party (Sosialistisk Venstreparti or SV), has pledged to voters that it would oppose the opening of the fishing grounds around the Lofoten and the Vesterålen islands for the exploitation of oil. At the time of writing this post negotiations among the concerned parties (Ap, SV and Sp) for the continuation of the coalition are still ongoing.

Fisheries, even though of very modest importance when compared to other economic sectors (e.g. energy) is still an importance constituency for most political parties in this country.

I went through the election programmes of some of the main parties looking for their pledges in fisheries and aquaculture. I must confess that it was a fishing (for subsidies!) expedition. Here is the catch for the Senterpartiet (Sp). This party, with farmers as its main constituency, participated in the previous government. These are some of the proposals

• With the help of increased "economic means" stimulate the growth in harvests and catches of populations of seals and whales so that stocks of edible fish can grow and pay due consideration to Norwegian hunting traditions and hunting environment.
  

As my translation might not reflect all the nuances of the Norwegian origional I copy here the Norwegian text:

"Gjennom økte økonomiske virkemidler stimulere til økt høsting og fangst på bestandene av sel og hval, for igjen å kunne øke bestandene av matfisk og ta vare på norske fangsttradisjoner og fangstmiljø."

• Uphold the "Råfiskloven" (whereby fishermen's sales organisations act as monopolies for the first sale of some fish species, see my post of 26 June 2009 "NORWAY: sales monopolies - supporting fishermen without subsidies?") and the "Deltakerloven" "Particpants law"),
  
  Ensure a decentralised landing structure through the allocation of budgetary resources to the "Transport Regulation" and to landing sites where there is no other alternative to land [or deliver].

On aquaculture the Senterpartiet is proposing to:

• Establish a compensation mechanism for the cleaning and restoration of sites where serious (fish)illness has occurred. The cost of the compensation would have to be shared among, stakeholders, the state and insurance companies.

And concerning the strengthening of the competitiveness of the fishing industry:

• Abolish the yearly fee for the fishing vessels' register and the yearly fee to be paid by aquaculture companies to local authorities.
  
  Oppose the introduction of a "control fee" for the fishery and aquaculture sectors.

The above proposals are noteworthy.

First of all the one related to encouraging, with the help of economic resources, the "harvest" of seals and whales. With the EU banning almost all trade in seal products it seems only logical that subsidies will be the only way to keep this "harvest" alive.

Furthermore, the Senterpartiet wants to maintain the monopoly of the sales organisations and the barriers to the entry in the profession as set-out in the "Participants' law (Deltakerloven). This is perfectly in line with the tradition of a party which has farmers as its main constituency.

The proposal to subsidise the construction of landing sites and the transport of fish is not a surprising one. Indeed, the previous government had launched a vast subsidy programme for fishing infrastructure (see my post of 21 March 2009 "NORWAY: hundreds of millions of krona for fisheries specific infrastructure").

Such policy explains Norway's defence at the WTO of subsidies to fisheries infrastructure. In Norway's written submission to the WTO fisheries subsidies negotiations (TN/RL/GEN/144 of 26/01/2007) we can read "OECD figures on transfers demonstrate that, on average, around 70 per cent of the transfers are used to finance either biological research and fisheries management systems or are measures financing infrastructure, such as harbours and fishing community installations. These are all measures that the majority of WTO Members agree should fall outside the scope of the new discipline."

So, it seems that according to Norway, subsidies to fishing infrastructure do not have negative impacts on fisheries resources.

Finally, it is more than clear that the Senterpartiet would have serious problems with the introduction of "cost-recovery" fisheries in the fisheries and aquaculture sector. The proposals to abolish fees and to oppose the introduction of a "control fee" are a clear illustration of this. This is in stark contrast with the positions of some key members of the WTO "Friends of Fish" group that consider that the non-recovery of fisheries management costs (including control) is a substantial subsidy.

Here are links with the proposals (in Norwegian) of the Senterpartiet for the fisheries sector:

http://produksjon.senterpartiet.no/article.php?articleID=34280

http://www.fiskebat.no/files/documents/spfiskeri.doc

NORWAY: special income tax deduction for fishermen

In a previous post i was referring to the special income tax deduction for fishermen (fisker skattfradrag, fiskerfragrag).

In Norway professional fishermen can deduct a certain sum from their taxable income. They can deduct up to 30% of their income up to a total amount of NOK 150,000.

It should be noted that the maximum amount has been raised twice in the two last years. The 2008 revised budget included an increase of this deduction from NOK 80,000 to NOK 115,000 i.e. an increase of 43.75 %. In 2009 this amount was again increased to 150,000, i.e. 30.4 % on a year basis. If we calculate the increase from 2007 to 2009, this tax deduction allowance has been by 87,5 %.

As mentioned in my previous post, the Norwegian Ministry of Finance has estimated that the total subsidy provided to the fishing industry by way of this measure amounts to NOK 284 million (USD 47.3 million) for the year 2009.

Here is a link to a government's webpage (in English) providing information abouts Norway's personal tax system.

http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fin/Selected-topics/economic-policy/topics/The-personal-tax-code.html?id=418108

And here a link to a webpage from the Finance Ministry announcing the increase of the deduction for the year 2009.

http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fin/dok/regpubl/otprp/2008-2009/otprp-nr-1-2008-2009-/14.html?id=529127

NORWAY: economic support for shipping and fishing sectors

A couple of Norwegian sites have recently published a piece of news titled "Skipsfarten mottar 6,3 milliarder i næringsstøtte". Translated into English: "Shipping industry receives NOK 6.3 billion support (or subsidies)". The figure of NOK 6.3 billion corresponds to USD 1.05 billion or EUR 732 million.

This news relates to an estimate, prepared by the Norwegian Ministry of Finance, of all the subsidies received by the different economic sectors in Norway. Such exercise includes interesting information about the subsidies provided by the central government to the industry. it is carried out in the context of the yearly budget.

The figure quoted by the aforementioned websites concern the year 2008 and cover the transfers to the shipping industry (skipsfart) and the fishing fleet (Fiskeflåten).

For the fishing fleet the total amount of support for the year 2009 has been estimated at NOK 589 million (USD 93) and corresponds to the following items:

In the table appears an interesting item which, by the way, has not been discussed in this blog, i.e. the tax deductions for professional fishermen (fisker skattefradrag). I will discuss it in a separate post.

Here is the link to the document published in the Norges Fiskarlag website. The above table is the translation into English of the table appearing in the document.

http://www.fiskarlaget.no/index.php/Nyheter/Nyheter/Skipsfarten-mottar-6-3-milliarder-i-naeringsstoette.html

Here is also a link to Norway’s government information (in Norwegian) on the estimates of support to certain economic sectors. The information relates to the 2009 budget:

http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fin/dok/regpubl/stmeld/2008-2009/stmeld-nr-1-2008-2009-/6/3.html?id=529358

NORWAY: Minimum Price for cod under serious strain

Almost a month ago I wrote a post on the Norwegian Minimum Prices for selected fish species. Cod is one the species covered by this system.

This year prices for cod products sold at retail outlets have been rather low. Salted cod, very popular in Portugal as “bacalhau”, has been one of those products that have experienced very low prices during late 2008 and throughout 2009. Most of the “bacalhau” marketed in Portugal has, as main ingredient, salted dried codfish, usually from Norway (Bacalhau da Noruega).

The fishermen’s Sales Organisation, having the monopoly of sales in a large area in Norway, the “Norges Råfisklaget”, did set the price of the raw material at levels that put the processing companies (drying and salting cod) between the hammer and the anvil as retail prices in the main export markets (e.g. the EU) did not recover to the expected levels.

In actual fact a number of processing companies in Norway had purchased cod at a rather high price and build up substantial stocks as no buyers were found in the export markets.

Some Norwegian websites specialised in fish and fish trade, such as www.fiskeribladetfiskaren.no (in Norwegian), have been publishing news on this subject. I was astonished by the numerous comments posted by readers (fishermen and processors). As you can imagine fishermen, in their comments, defended the minimum prices while buyers (processors) appeared to be against the system.

The situation of some of the processors seems so desperate, at least in the Northern part of Norway, that some have asked the government to provide help, in the same way fishermen have been helped because of the financial crisis.

My reading is that such system of Minimum Prices can only work in a market where competition from imported product can be suppressed by means of, for example, a “tariff wall”. The products sold through the Minimum Prices are not intended for the final consumers but rather subject to further processing and export outside Norway. There, in the real (export) markets, Norwegian cod will have to compete with produce from Iceland and Russia. It will also face competition from other fish species, such as pangasius or tilapia.

As a final comment I would like to add that some in Norway, in particular the Association of Fish Buyers” (Fiskekjøpernes Forening) are opposing an increase of 20% in catch quotas for cod next year, as requested by the Federation of Owners of Fishing Vessels (Fiskebåtredernes Forbund). The Fish Buyers fear that such an increase will further contribute to the low prices of cod in Norway’s export markets.

Will the Norwegian government give in to the pressure of the Fish Buyers and provide subsidies to the processing sector?

NORWAY: government agency's capital injection into Lofotproduct AS

Ms Kristin Harlvorsen, the Norwegian Finance Minister, attended in May 2009 a ceremony to launch the construction of new plant for Lofotproduct AS, a fish processing company, in Vestvågøy (Lofoten).

The construction of this plant is possible thanks to a capital injection of NOK 110 million (USD 18.1 mllion) from SIVA, ”The Industrial Development Corporation” of Norway is the governmental corporation and national instrument founded in 1968. This government agency is managed by the Trade and Industry Department.

Here is a press release from SIVA (in Norwegian) with the news:

http://www.siva.no/sivabas/nyheter.nsf/viewLUPnySIVAtrb/EE331EEBA198EB7DC12575C20021D173?opendocument

And here a lnk to SIVA’s presentation webpage in English:

http://www.siva.no/sivabas/nyheter.nsf/nysivano/English%20summary

NORWAY: loan from government agency to ailing cod farming company

Sponfish ASA, a company active in cod farming in North Norway, obtained in June 2009 a loan amounting to NOK 40 million (USD 6.6 million) from Innovation Norway. The loan has first instalment of NOK 11 million is payable in January of 2011 and the balance, NOK 30 million, in October 2012.

Sponfish ASA has experienced, like other cod farming companies in Norway, serious financial difficulties in the past months.

Innovation Norway (Innovasjon Norge in Norwegian) is a state owned company that “promotes nationwide industrial development profitable to both the business economy and Norway’s national economy, and helps release the potential of different districts and regions by contributing towards innovation, internationalisation and promotion.”

Here is the link to a webpage (in Norwegian) of Sponfish ASA announcing the loan:

http://www.sponfish.no/Sponfish+ASA+sikrer+finansiering+fra+Innovasjon+Norge.9UFRzU0T.ips

The financial report for the first quarter of 2009 can be dwonloaded from this page:

http://www.sponfish.no/Rapport+for+1.+kvartal+2009.9UFRzU1U.ips

And here a link to a webpage in English presenting Innovation Norway:

http://www.innovasjonnorge.no/system/Global-toppmeny/English/

NORWAY: sales monopolies - supporting fishermen without subsidies ?

As I mentioned in my previous post on Canada, the way the market for fish products is organised in Newfoundland reminded me of the Norwegian “sales organisations”.

The “sales organisations” stem from the “Raw fish Act” of 14 December 1951.

According to this Act, which regulates the sale of raw fish ('the Raw Fish Act'), a number of fish species shall be sold through, or subject to approval by these ‘Sales Organisation', regardless of where the fish is caught, and regardless of whether the fish is delivered from foreign or Norwegian vessels. This exclusive right also includes first-hand sales at the fishing ground and during transportation to Norwegian harbour, and includes all catches which a Norwegian fishing vessel brings to a foreign harbour or to a foreign vessel.

The first-hand sale covers also sales of any parts, products or by-products of the above mentioned species. The first-hand sale includes also fish of the above mentioned species processed at sea, and their by-products. The Sales Organisations may upon application, give approval to the fisherman so that he does not have to sell his catch through the Sales Organisations.

The two main monopolistic sales organisations are the “Norges Sildesalslag” (for pelagic species) and the “Norges Råfisklaget” for codfish, shellfish, molluscs and small whales that are landed along the coast from Nordmøre to Finnmark.

Prices are negotiated between buyers and sellers but in case of disagreement it is the sellers, i.e. the “Sales organisations” that have the power, by law, to set the price.

Here are a few links on this issue:

On the “Norges Råfisklaget”:

http://www.rafisklaget.no/portal/page?_pageid=34,139191&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

http://draugen.nfh.uit.no/~torbjorn/China%20Symposium08%20For%20webpubl/Haugland_%20Norwegian%20rawfish%20sales%20organization.pdf

On the “Norges Sildesalslag”:

http://www.sildelaget.no/default.aspx

On the “Raw fish Act” of 14 December 1951:

http://www.lovdata.no/all/nl-19511214-003.html (in Norwegian)

NORWAY: the "leveringsplikt", a subsidy to the processing industry in Norway ?

In my previous post I presented readers with information on the situation in Venezuela as regards the expectations of Mr Chávez vis-à-vis fishermen . More specifically Mr Chávez expects that fish caught by fishermen who are benefiting from government aid should be delivered to certain processing plants. Thus fishermen are not free to sell their fish to whom they would like to (e.g. to the buyer paying the highest price).

This is not something unique to Venezuela. In another post (26/1/2009) I discussed the situation in the Argentinean Province of Chubut where shipping of raw material outside the Province is prohibited unless provided for in inter-Provincial agreements.

Norway has also a similar "mechanism" which is called "Leveringsplikt". It is the obligation to deliver the fish to companies located within a well specified geographical area and under certain price conditions. Actually to accept such obligation is a condition sine qua non to obtain fishing quota in certain regions of Norway, the so called "district quota" ("distriktkvoter"). You may guess that the "region" is the same as the one where the vessel has to deliver its catch, or part of it, because of the "leveringsplikt".

In sum, processing companies located in areas where the district quotas and the ensuig "leveringsplikt" applies have (at least on paper) a guaranteed stream of supply of raw materials.

Here is a link to a webpage (in Norwegian) with an announcement on this mechanism:

http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fkd/pressesenter/pressemeldinger/2006/leveringsplikt-for-fartoy-med-torsketral.html?id=440159

VENEZUELA: President Chavez and subsidies to fisheries

President Chavez has expressed his dissatisfaction about the way the some in the fishing industry (fishermen, processors) are behaving after having received subsidies from the government.

In a statement on 28 May 2009, Mr. Chávez said the following (translated from Spanish):

“We are providing loans to artisanal fishermen, we have banned deep sea trawling, we have created a financial fund for fisheries. And now, to whom are selling fishermen their produce? There you see the real face of capitalism, capitalism is unforgiving, capitalism is a poison. And we all get hooked on it. “

It seems that what lead Mr. Chavez to make this scathing statement was the alleged disappearance of sardines at “La Gaviota”, a fish processing company in Cumaná (State of Sucre).

So, it seems that fishermen receiving help from the government are bound to deliver their catch to “La Gaviota”. By the way, this company was nationalised on 1 May 2009 (Labour’s day).

This brings to my mind a similar situation in Norway, where fishermen are bound to land catches within a certain geographical area, if they want to get catch quotas in that particular area. It is the so called “leveringsplikt”. I will come back on this “policy tool” in a separate post.

Here is a link to an article from the “Radio Nacional de Venezuela”:

http://www.rnv.gov.ve/noticias/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=98550

And here is a link to a video on the nationalization of the company:

NORWAY: still more subsidies for (cod?) fishermen

In what seems to be a subsidy spree, the Norwegian Fisheries and Coastal Affairs Minister, Ms Helga Pedersen, announced on 15 May 2009 an additional subsidy of NOK 19 million (USD 3 million) for the transport and the marketing of Norwegian fish products.

It appears that this move has been promted by the very bad situation of the market for cod products in Norway.

The official press release can be found here:

http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fkd/pressesenter/pressemeldinger/2009/19-millioner-til-foringstilskudd-og-mark.html?id=561949

NORWAY: government guarantees for credits to the fishing indusry

In a previous post (2 February 2009) I was referring to the fund that the Norwegian government had set-up through "Innovasjon Norge" to guarantee "first hand" sales of fish.

Now the Fisheries Minister, Ms Pedersen, is proposing to allocate between NOK 135 and 190 million to guarantee credits granted to individual companies in the fishing industry.

Here is the link to the official press release:

http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fkd/pressesenter/pressemeldinger/2009/forslag-om-garantiar-for-driftskreditt-t.html?id=560311

NORWAY: communal subsidies to aquaculture

Fish famers in North Norway are experiencing difficulties in getting the money needed to purchase licenses for farming salmon. The price for such a license is NOK 8 million, except in Finmark , where the price for a license is NOK 3 million (see my post of 30 November 2009).

In the commune of Ballanagen, the local authorities have decide to grant a “soft loan” (interest free) amounting to NOK 400.000 to Ballangen Sjøfarm. The reimbursement of the loan will start after two years after the payment to Ballangen Sjøfarm with 5 years to effect the reimbursement.

Here is a link to a press article on this (in Norwegian):

http://www.fremover.no/lokale_nyheter/article4270381.ece

NORWAY: more subsidies for cod

The Norwegian Minister for Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, Ms Pedersen, announced on 21 March 2009 more subsidies to support marketing efforts for cod. An additional NOK 5 million (USD 734,000) to the NOK 11.5 million (USD 1,7 million) that was granted in in February 2009.

The funds will be entrusted to the Norwegian Seafood Export Council.

The official announcement (in Norwegian) can be found in this webpage:

http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fkd/pressesenter/pressemeldinger/2009/ytterligere-okning-i-markedsforingsinnsa.html?id=550523