Please note that the disputation will be streamed and some of the seats behind the candidate and the opponents will be visible for those who are watching.
Participate at the trial lecture and disputation here
Trial lecture - time and place
Adjudication committee
- Professor Jørn Øyrehagen Sunde, University of Oslo
- Professor Irene Dahl, University of Tromsø (1. opponent)
- Professor Emeritus Nigel Bankes, University of Calgary (2. opponent)
Chair of defence
Dean Ragnhild Hennum
Supervisors
- Associate professor Jon Christian Fløysvik Nordrum, University of Oslo
- CEO and Founder Kjersti Eline Tønnessen Busch, SALT
- Professor Inger Johanne Sand, University of Oslo
Summary
Challenges in the regulation of commercial fisheries in Norway
Commercial fisheries in Norway are regulated by extensive legislation. To participate in commercial fisheries, it is necessary to have approval by the authorities through a public licencing system. Licences are issued by the authorities pursuant to more specific rules in the Participation Act. How much each vessel can fish each year is established in quotas pursuant to the Marine Resources Act. Extensive regulations are furthermore laid down specifying how the fisheries must be conducted, where they can take place and how the deliveries and sales of fish must be carried out, pursuant to rules in and under the Marine Resources Act and the Fish Sales Organization Act. In addition, there is extensive control, enforcement, and sanctioning of offences to ensure compliance with the regulations. There are, however, still challenges related to overfishing, illegal discards of resources and other violations during the fishery operations. The Office of the Auditor General of Norway (Riksrevisjonen) has also recently revealed that the legislation does not sufficiently fulfill the social purposes of the legislation to contribute to settlement and employment in coastal communities.
How can the legislation be improved?
This doctoral thesis has studied the legal framework for Norwegian commercial fisheries as a set of rules, consisting of many subsystems. The main objective has been to develop a framework for normative analysis of domestic fisheries legislation from the perspective of the legislator. Drawing on empirical material in a study of historical regulatory trends and a comparative study of parts of Norwegian and Canadian fisheries legislation, the thesis analyses and discusses what we do when we regulate fisheries in Norway, and how the legislation can be improved. Some common characteristics across jurisdictions are also identified from the comparative study. Lastly, the framework is tested by discussing how the principle in the Marine Resources Act section 2 on the right to the wild living marine resources in Norway, referred to as a principle of common shared resources in the thesis, can be operationalized and strengthened.
Fisheries regulation culture rooted far back in time
The thesis has revealed that the core components of the current fisheries legislation go far back in time and are deeply rooted in a Norwegian fisheries regulation culture that can be difficult to change in the short term. Changes can still be made, however, and they should be made through critical assessment of the various components of the legal framework and potential informal norms, which the thesis touches on. This can contribute to both a better performance of political goals of securing social considerations and environmental sustainability, and a strengthening of the legitimacy of the system.
Clarification of objectives, responsibilities, duties and rights
To operationalize and strengthen the principle of common shared resources in Norway, the thesis advocates a legal reform. Such a reform should encompass a clarification and stricter prioritization of the objectives of the legislation. Fishery licences are central in the Norwegian fisheries regulations culture, but the thesis has also identified a potential to clarify responsibilities, duties and rights of the industry actors that can contribute to a strengthened legitimacy to the legal framework.