22:51 — REGNUM Countries with an Arctic vector of development are preparing a new agreement, which may not become relevant: it bans unregulated fishing in the central regions of the Arctic Ocean. The five Arctic countries - the USA, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia - as well as the Republic of Korea, Japan, China, Iceland and the European Union are working on the document.

The parties to the agreement are not entirely sure that fishing in the high-latitude Arctic - covered with ice, despite climate change - will one day become a reality. However, calling this a anticipation of future disagreements, they began to talk about fishing at the North Pole in our days.

“According to the agreement, commercial fishing will not begin until it is confirmed that this does not pose a threat to stocks, including in the zones of the Arctic states, and until regulatory measures are established , said the head of the Russian delegation, deputy head of the Federal Fisheries Agency, in an interview with TASS Vasily Sokolov. — This is precisely the prevention of unregulated fishing. Not “illegal,” because there are no rules in this area yet, but unregulated.”

Russian interest

The draft agreement was prepared over the course of two years. As reported IA REGNUM, in July 2015 in Oslo, the five coastal countries (Russia, USA, Norway, Canada and Denmark) signed the Declaration on the Prevention of Unregulated Fishing in the High Seas Area. The Arctic states have vowed to fish in the region until the scientific community has a clear and reliable understanding of the resource potential of Arctic waters. However, now this potential is practically absent: there is nothing to catch in the central part of the Arctic Ocean, scientists only note the likelihood of the thawed Arctic being enriched with fish in the future. But despite this, America insisted on a speedy conclusion international treaty mandatory.

Mikkalai (Russian version: Savin A.S.)

Work on the document is being carried out in the so-called “5+5” format: five more Arctic Council observers have joined the Arctic states: South Korea, China, Japan, European Union and Iceland. Russia, as the country that owns the largest Arctic economic zone, has repeatedly stated that coastal states should have priority in decision-making under the agreement. Rosrybolovstvo has repeatedly emphasized that reserves in the central part of the Arctic will appear not from somewhere else, but from the exclusive economic zones of coastal countries, which, it turns out, are already taking care of preserving these resources.

It is worth saying that Russia had quite a lot of reasons for dissatisfaction with the previous versions of the project; there was even a question of premature withdrawal from the agreement. But the fear of losing (so far illusory) benefits forced the Russian side to continue negotiations, as a result of which almost all claims were eliminated.

As the main principle for decision-making, the Russian side proposed either a consensus of all ten countries or five Arctic countries with its blocking vote. During the last meeting, the creators of the draft agreement agreed on the first option - a democratic consensus of ten signatory states.

“Since there were concerns that some country or countries would block decisions, for example on the start of fishing, a proposal was put forward to introduce a limited duration of the agreement , said Vasily Sokolov. — Opinions are quite divided. A number of states insist on a short period of 10 years. Others, primarily the United States and Canada, believe that it should be at least 30 years. Russia proposed a 16-year term, and this option was approved.”

Will the fish come to the North?

The initiative to conclude an international agreement pleased environmental organizations. “We welcome this agreement as the first step towards creating[in the Arctic] a full-fledged territory with international protected status, and we call on you to agree once again in 16 years on an indefinite ban on both commercial fishing and mining activities.”, - said John Burgwald, expert of the regional department Greenpeace Nordic.

But, to be precise, environmental organizations are celebrating a victory that, according to by and large, and no: no one knows what will happen to the Arctic ice in 16 years, but if fish leave en masse for the North Pole, the agreement will be revised. According to the deputy chairman of Rosrybolovstvo, “either measures will be developed within the framework of the agreement, or regulation will begin to be carried out by some fishery organization”.

For all countries party to the agreement, fishing is an important part of the economy. IA REGNUM previously reported that a tenth of Iceland's economy is directly linked to fishing, a figure that rises to almost 20% when related industries are included. By the way, Iceland is already benefiting from climate change: valuable species of fish, previously too feared, have begun to appear in its waters. cold water. First of all, we're talking about about mackerel, which until 2000 was rare species for Iceland, but today is one of the country's most commercially important fish. In 2016, mackerel was the third most-caught fish in Iceland, generating $103 million in sales for the country.

15.12.2013

Soft power in the Arctic: fisheries control in the circumpolar zone

Having received a letter from the PEW Foundation about preventing unregulated fishing in the international waters of the Arctic Ocean, I contacted Irina Bobyr for permission to post the information on the Arctic and the North magazine website. With her permission, I am publishing the full text of this message.

""Yuri Fedorovich, good afternoon!
We bring to your attention information from the Pew Foundation"

How to prevent unregulated fishing in the Arctic? Experts expressed their opinions at the RIAC international conference “The Arctic: Region of Development and Cooperation”

December 4, 2013 (Moscow) - At the conference “The Arctic: Region of Development and Cooperation,” the Pew Foundation, together with representatives of the US State Department, presented a solution to prevent uncontrolled fishing in the international waters of the Arctic Ocean (AOC), i.e. in an enclave located outside the exclusive economic zones of the Arctic states. The proposed solution is to conclude an international agreement that would control fishing in this Arctic enclave. The proposal was unanimously supported by experts participating in the RIAC conference.

Climate change leads to the fact that every year the ice cover of the Arctic Ocean is decreasing. The area of ​​the international waters of the central part of the Arctic Ocean is about 2.8 million sq. km. They were once one of the most pristine places on the planet because they were protected by perennial sea ​​ice, and for the same reason there was no need for any regulation of fishing there. In recent years, these waters have become almost 40% free of ice in summer, and especially in the area located north of the Bering Strait and directly adjacent to the Arctic maritime borders of Russia and the United States.

Since there is currently no international legal framework to control commercial fishing in this area of ​​the high seas, vessels from around the world could begin fishing in the ice-free enclave at any time. The object of production here could be small Arctic cod, the main food link in the Arctic food chain - a resource that supports seals living in the Arctic, and therefore polar bears. Arctic cod or polar cod stocks have not been studied, and accidental overfishing could undermine the entire fragile Arctic ecosystem.

In the future, there is also a high probability of the spread of other fish species into the ice-free water space, followed by fishing trawlers. “This is a completely natural process when commercial fishing areas shift following the migration of fish, we can observe this in the Barents Sea,” says Vyacheslav Zilanov, chairman of the coordinating council of associations of the fishing industry of the Northern Basin.

In this regard, the conference discussed the pressing issue of the position of the Arctic states on the issue of concluding an International Arctic Fisheries Agreement - introducing a voluntary moratorium on fishing on the high seas until the necessary scientific data on the stocks of aquatic biological resources is obtained. The discussion was held within the framework of the section “Problems of regulating fisheries in the Arctic region”

“It is important for Arctic countries to sign an agreement that would regulate fishing in the central waters of the Arctic, since their interests directly affect this region,” said Scott Halleyman, director of the International Arctic Program of the American Foundation Pew.

As Alfred Jacobson, executive director of the Inuit Circumpolar Council (Greenland), stated: “The political situation is favorable now. Canada and Greenland have already taken the initiative and are ready to support the agreement. Let me add that Denmark will do everything to eliminate the risk of uncontrolled fishing in this region. Let me note that the principle of Danish fishermen is based on the conservation and reproduction of marine resources based on the general needs of citizens. We call on the Arctic Five countries to accept the International Arctic Fisheries Agreement. It's time to create it." “Delaying the adoption of the treaty will cost more than signing it” - David Bolton, Ambassador, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and Fisheries.

Experts also discussed the need for measures to study and preserve the biological resources of the Arctic Ocean (AO) in the context of climate change and loss of ice.

“The agreement on a voluntary moratorium is also necessary in order to abandon commercial fishing until data on the Arctic Ocean ecosystem is clarified, since no fishing has yet been carried out in this area scientific works, and the Arctic remains a mystery,” said Scot Highleyman, director of the International Arctic Program at the Pew Foundation.

Discussions on the draft agreement were initiated by the five Arctic states (Russia, USA, Canada, Norway and Denmark on behalf of Greenland) in the spring of 2013 and will continue in Greenland in February 2014.

Information about Pew

The PEW Charitable Foundation is one of the largest scientific environmental human rights organizations. The Foundation has more than 500 employees who work in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, as well as in Europe, the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific. Ocean conservation projects aim to maintain the biological integrity of marine ecosystems: creating conditions to curb overexploitation of the oceans and prevent the destruction of their marine habitats - http://oceansnorth.org/

Contacts: Irina Bobyr, Pew external press office, Communicator agency.

Yuri Lukin: questions and preliminary comments on the regulation of fishing in the “international waters of the Arctic Ocean”

First of all, I would like to sincerely thank the external press office of The Pew Charitable Trusts, the largest charitable foundation in the United States (Philadelphia). I have deep respect for the activities of the foundation, which stimulates civic activity, uses an analytical approach, and the power of knowledge to solve the most complex problems, including environmental problems of the World Ocean.

In connection with the discussed proposals for the conservation of biological resources of the Arctic Ocean, I would like to clarify some details. And most importantly, understand the essence of the answers to two main questions.

1. Does the proposed control over fishing in the central circumpolar waters of the Arctic Ocean today meet the national interests of Russia, given that our state is preparing to submit a second application to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in 2014? In turn, Canada and Denmark already submitted such applications at the end of 2013, claiming continental shelf space outside their exclusive economic zones. Earlier, back in 2009, Norway's claims to 235 thousand square kilometers of continental shelf were satisfied.

2. Is all this just another instrument of soft power, which US diplomacy is increasingly using in its Arctic policy, not only and not so much to preserve environment, but with the goal of internationalizing the Arctic space? And the main thing that casts doubt on the sincerity of good intentions is the fact that the United States has not yet ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

There is a completely understandable desire to listen to the opinion of lawyers on international maritime law and clarify the issue of the conceptual and legal definition of “international waters of the Arctic Ocean”, its correlation with the concept of “continental shelf”. According to a respected non-governmental foundation and the US State Department, the “international inputs of the Arctic Ocean” are an enclave located outside the exclusive economic zones (EEZ) of the Arctic states. However, outside the EEZ there may also be a continental Arctic shelf. What to do with the claims of Denmark, Canada, Russia to the North Pole in these international waters, and their applications to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf? What opportunities and risks (threats) arise for Russia in this case?

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), adopted in 1982, as is known, defines the legal status of the maritime spaces designated therein (territorial sea, contiguous zone, high seas, continental shelf), their limits (borders) for the purpose of establishing their legal regime. The national interests of Denmark, Canada, Russia, and Norway are currently being implemented on the completely legitimate basis of international maritime law. Except for the United States, which, as is known, has not ratified UNCLOS. The sovereignty and jurisdiction of the coastal state extends to internal waters, the territorial sea and the airspace above them.

Another part of the maritime spaces has international status, the legal regime of which is established by international law. Any Arctic state (Denmark, Iceland, Canada, Norway, Russia, USA, Finland, Sweden) on the basis of current international law can lay claim to a two-hundred-mile exclusive economic zone of the sea. Everything else is international waters. With an important exception: if it is unequivocally proven that the continental shelf extends beyond the exclusive economic zone.

Fig.1. International waters of the Arctic.
URL: http://img.rg.ru/pril/article/73/12/92/vodi_ arktiki-600.jpg

All Arctic countries have de facto established their own exclusive economic zones. Let's look at the maps and diagrams of which circumpolar water area of ​​the Arctic Ocean we are talking about and who lays claim to these spaces from the standpoint of the current 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Rice. 2. Alexey Ivanov (Institute of the Earth's Crust SB RAS, Irkutsk). Again about the Arctic shelf. URL: http://www.e-reading.by/bookreader.php/136209/Troickiii_Variant_2009_%2342_%2824-11-2009%29.html States of the Arctic region, the spread of their 200-mile zones and potential zones beyond 200 miles which these states may claim. Disputed regions between Canada, Denmark and Russia are highlighted in bold red. The diagram is taken from the website of the Durham University International Borders Research Center (IBRU, Durham University).

Within the exclusive economic zone, the coastal state is granted sovereign rights in relation to the exploration, development, conservation and management of natural resources located on the seabed, in its subsoil and in the overlying waters, as well as in relation to other activities for the purpose of economic exploration and development of the zone , such as energy production by using water, currents and wind.

« The main bone of contention" - the geopolitical redistribution of the Arctic is currently represented by the continental shelf, sea ​​bottom. If the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf satisfies the application that Russia is currently preparing, then our country, like other Arctic states, will have the right to extract oil, gas and other resources outside the exclusive economic zone.

Fig.3. Kaminsky V.D. Deep structure of the central Arctic basin (in connection with the justification of the outer boundary of the continental shelf of the Russian Federation and the assessment of hydrocarbon resources). June 8, 2010 URL: http://www.ocean.ru/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=274&Itemid=78 (access date: 12/10/2013).

The Arctic Council currently includes 20 states of the world, including 8 members and 12 observers. In fact, it is quite possible to talk about the real existence of the Arctic G20, which includes countries with different statuses in the Arctic Council when making decisions on the Arctic. All these countries - the USA, Norway, Germany, China, India, Japan and others will have the opportunity to fish in the so-called circumpolar waters. “international waters”, divided into the continental shelves of Denmark, Canada, and Russia. As for the United States, its claims will be legitimate if this state ratifies the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and submits a corresponding application to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. And here comes a certain moment of truth. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has not been ratified by the United States. What for? Maybe for the United States, with its exclusivity, international laws are not written at all. There is power, why law in the Arctic? But they were concerned about the regulation of fishing: representatives of the US State Department supported the proposal of the experts - participants in the RIAC conference. In fact, this is another step, not the first and not the last, along the path of “internationalization” of the Arctic. Internationalization in international law is the recognition of a regime of general international use, which, of course, limits the national rights of the Arctic countries, including Canada, Russia, Denmark, and Norway.

Another characteristic detail of the declaration on the adoption of the International Arctic Agreement on Fisheries in the Arctic. As they say here in Russia, “the skin of an unkilled bear is still being divided.” It is said that "in ice-free enclave Vessels from all over the world can start production at any time.” But this is just one of the possible forecasts of climate change in the Arctic and it will not happen tomorrow. "The object of extraction is here can be small arctic cod..." Yet again can be? "In the future also high probability distribution of other fish species...". “Stocks of Arctic cod or cod not studied »…

So can actually first accept the project and define specific steps ( road map) on: 1) studying the reserves of biological resources of the Arctic Ocean under conditions of climate change (both warming and cooling); 2) development and discussion of an international legal mechanism controlling commercial fishing, taking into account the current UNCLOS (1982); 3) adoption and public discussion of options for the International Arctic Fisheries Agreement - the introduction of a voluntary moratorium on fishing on the high seas until the necessary scientific data on stocks of aquatic biological resources are obtained. However, this moratorium cannot be the prerogative of the Arctic Five alone. It should be supported, at least declaratively, by the entire Arctic G20. Otherwise, the problem will not be resolved in full and in the interests of real protection of the Arctic environment. In conducting this kind of research and discussion, I think, its significant, very important role The Pew Charitable Trusts may play.

It also makes sense to wait several years for the decision of the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf after the applications of Denmark, Canada and Russia have been submitted and satisfied. And the US ratified UNCLOS (1982).

As for Russia, it would be logical to also clarify the positions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of the Russian Federation on the issues under discussion, their vision of protecting Russia’s national interests in the context of the internationalization of the Arctic space. We have already given “Kemskaya volost” and more than one.

It is very important for Russia at the present time to solve a very urgent environmental problem - to fully implement the program of general cleaning of the Russian Arctic from garbage from previous years. In the context of another freeze of the State Program for the socio-economic development of the Russian Arctic, versions of which have been unsuccessfully developed since 2009-2010, this is one of the few realistically feasible tasks today. And finally, adopt the long-suffering federal law on the Arctic zone in 2014 Russian Federation, the project of which took place in 2012-2013. public examination and received good feedback. This is within our power, otherwise it turns out that in our country, in fact, the borders of the Russian Arctic (AZRF) do not exist. What kind of national interests are there in the conditions of internationalization if we expose ourselves in this way, delaying ad infinitum the resolution of long-overdue issues on the borders of the Russian Arctic.

As conclusions it is necessary to emphasize once again that the problems of regulating fisheries in the circumpolar zone of the Arctic Ocean are undoubtedly relevant and require their solution, the attention of both non-governmental public organizations and foundations, the general public, and all states that are de facto members of the Arctic G20 within the framework of the Arctic Council. These are 8 countries that are members of the Arctic Council - Denmark, Iceland, Canada, Norway, Russia, USA, Finland, Sweden + 12 more countries with observer status: Great Britain, Germany, France, Poland, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, China, India, Singapore, South Korea, Japan. If we limit ourselves here only to the states included in the so-called. Arctic Five A5 (Denmark, Canada, Norway, Russia, USA), then will all decisions and agreements on the Arctic Ocean be observed in the future, will they ensure stability in the Arctic region and reduce the level of conflict?

In the Arctic, when conflict situations arise, the Arctic Ocean is absolutely necessary to resolve them. system batch approach . In light of all of the above, including the problems of determining the ownership of the continental shelf to a particular Arctic country, issues of environmental management, fisheries control, conservation of Arctic biological resources today and for future generations of earthlings, etc.

Lukin Yu.F., Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor,
Chief Editor magazine "Arctic and North"

The main focus of fishing in the Arctic is our Barents Sea. Fishing on Murman has existed for many centuries, and seven hundred years ago Novgorodians and Norwegians fished here.

IN last years before the imperialist war, Russian capitalists mined up to 30 thousand tons in the northern seas different fish in year. Norwegian fishermen caught at least 600 thousand tons of various fish annually in the Barents Sea, i.e. twenty times more than the Russians.

The biggest fish caught in the Barents Sea are cod, haddock and pollock. These fish weigh from 2 to 20 kg. Pomor industrialists catch cod either with longlines or with hooks.

A tier is a long line (rope), from 5 to 10 km, into which, every two meters, short “ends” of thin twine, the so-called “orostyagi”, are “woven” with fishing hooks, on which they attach “bait” - small fish that serve as bait for cod.

The longline is “swept” into the sea and anchored at a depth of two hundred meters or more. The ends of the longline are supported on the surface of the water on wooden buoys-floats. The line is usually kept in the water for about six hours, and then they begin to “choose” it into the boat, gradually removing the caught fish from the hooks.

Longline fishing.

In one catch, sometimes up to 10 tons of fish are removed from a longline. Working with the tier is very tiring and difficult. The fisherman must “sweep” into the sea a line several kilometers long, on which there are up to ten thousand hooks. It is necessary to “sweep” the line so that the hooks do not touch each other and so that each of the “hooks” hangs separately in the water. And this work must be done at a time when the boat is tossed by the waves every second.

But it is even more difficult to remove the line from the water. The wet line slips in your hands, your hands become numb from the cold wind, and at the same time you have to remove the fish from the hooks and carefully put the “line” on the bottom of the boat so that it does not get tangled.

In addition to longline fishing, cod is also caught by hooking. This method of fishing is done like this: a fisherman, sitting in a boat, lowers (“poisons”) a long string with a load into the water. A hook is attached to the ends of the string, and a “bait” - a shiny metal plate - is suspended near it. From time to time, the fisherman quickly pulls the string up and, if he feels that a fish is hooked, he pulls the catch into the boat. When fishing by “prying”, a fish, seeing a shiny plate in the water, mistakes it for a small fish, rushes after it and touches the hook, which digs into its side or other place.

Of course, hook fishing is an obsolete method of fishing, and it is more or less suitable where fish are found in abundance. In addition, fishing by hooking is a predatory method. With this method of fishing, many fish are injured by hooks, the wounded fish goes into the sea and dies.

Currently, fish are caught mainly using trawls. "Trawling" fishing is that trawler(a specially adapted steam vessel) releases a special floating seine - a trawl - into the sea behind the stern. The trawl looks like a large bag tied to a thick rope. The trawl drags along the seabed following the quietly moving steamer. When the ship notices that the tug of the trawl is being pulled too hard, the trawler is stopped, the trawl is pulled to the side and lifted out of the water onto the deck. Then they open the "motnya" back trawl, and they dump the fish and everything that got into it out of the trawl.

If the meshes in a trawl net are small, then trawl fishing should be considered predatory, because “fry” are also caught in the net along with full-sized (adult) fish. This, of course, leads to a decrease in fish growth and, consequently, to a decline in the fishery.

After fishing, returning to the shore, the fishermen begin cutting up the fish. The cod is gutted - “flatten”, cutting it lengthwise, taking out the liver, or “maksa”, from which the “fish oil” is rendered.

After this, the cod, unwashed and bloody, is placed either under awnings or directly on the ship receiving the cod, in rows - one across the other - and sprinkled with salt. Private fishermen save salt, which leads to the fact that lightly salted cod soon goes bad and begins to smell strongly. In addition to salting, cod is dried and dried in the sun, hanging it on long poles. In addition to cod, it is found in large quantities in the Arctic seas (Barents, White and Norwegian). herring. Herring is the “gold” of the Arctic seas. In some years, especially a lot of herring appears near the Murmansk coast, from where it goes into the White Sea in huge masses. But so far the herring fishery in the Soviet northern seas is relatively poorly developed. Norwegians catch herring in large quantities near the Lofoten Islands.

In the Arctic seas, mainly in the Barents Sea, there are also other sharks, which are attracted here by the abundance of fish. Shark fishing in the Barents Sea has existed for a long time, but on a very small scale.

There are very large sharks in the Barents Sea - up to six meters in length. In summer, sharks stay quite far from the shore, but in the fall, with the onset of storms and a dark hole, sharks approach the shore. Sharks are extremely voracious and brave. The scary teeth, blunt snout and dead “fish” eyes of sharks inspire fear even in industrialists.

Sharks are caught with hooks on which pieces of fried seal fat are baited. The shark, attracted by the smell of fried lard, grabs the bait and swallows the piece along with the hook.

Usually, only the liver (maksu, or voyuksu) is removed from sharks, from which fish oil is rendered, and the shark carcass itself is thrown back into the sea. This, of course, is not rational. Shark meat is quite edible. Norwegians prepare canned food from shark meat, and part of the meat is used as “guano” to fertilize fields. Good “shagreen” is made from shark skin.

Shark fishing, managed rationally, can generate significant income. Currently, in Norway, Japan and America, shark fishing is developed in large sizes, and industrialists use the entire shark - skin, meat and fat. In Norway, shark meat is salted and smoked and exported in large quantities to Germany. Norwegians hunt for sharks mainly in the waters of our Barents Sea.

The fish is found not only near the Murmansk coast of the Barents Sea, but also in the eastern part of the Barents Sea, near the Kanin Peninsula, in the Pechora region and generally along the entire length of the Nenets coast, from the Indiga River to Yugorsky Shar. Near Kanin it is mainly caught navaga, and at the mouths of the Pechora River and in the river itself it is caught mainly salmon.

Salmon - sea ​​fish, but she goes into the river to spawn. When the salmon begins to rise up the rivers to spawn, “fences” are placed across the rivers, barriers made of piles and stakes, against which the fence leans. The fence is placed in corners: the corners are open to the mouth of the river, and at the very tops of the corners a hole is left where fences and nets are inserted.

Rising up the river, the salmon encounters a “fence”, begins to look for a passage and along the walls of the fence reaches the very top of the corner and, through a hole left in it, enters the fence.

Salmon is also caught with hooks around sea ​​shores. The curtains are two nets placed near the shore: one along the shore, and the other across it. More bags like bags are attached to the ends of the network. When a salmon encounters a net on its way, it bypasses it, like a fence, and eventually ends up in the net’s “hiding place” - a bag.

All these fishing methods are outdated and not very profitable. The entire fishing industry in the North needs radical restructuring and technical improvement.

While our trawlers are already operating in the Barents Sea, there are no trawlers in the Pechora region yet. There is a big shortage even of motor bots there. Fisheries within northwestern and northeastern Siberia are even less developed than in the seas of the Soviet European Arctic. Only in the Ob Bay and in the lower reaches of the Yenisei local residents- Ostyaks and Samoyeds make a living fishing for your own consumption. But further east, as far as the Bering Strait, there are virtually no fisheries.

Meanwhile, the coast of Siberia and the mouths of Siberian rivers are extremely rich in fish.

We are still making poor use of our fish resources, and only now, with the socialist reconstruction of the national economy of the Union, is the fishing system radically changing.

Collectivization and mechanization of fisheries give grounds to say that the country of socialism under construction will completely master the fishing wealth of the Arctic seas.

In turn, rational fisheries is already putting on the agenda the construction of canneries and refrigerators, as well as the construction of communication lines for transporting fish. The fish catch in our northern seas by state and cooperative organizations reaches the following sizes:

In 1930, the catch of various fish amounted to 350,000 centners. It is interesting to compare our fish catch with the Norwegian catch in the northern seas. Norwegians annually catch, on average, over 300,000 quintals of cod, up to 250,000 quintals of herring, and about 300,000 quintals of sardines. The value of the Norwegian catch is about 100 million rubles in gold. About 100 thousand people are employed in fishing in Norway. The fishing fleet consists of 5,000 motor vessels and 10,000 fishing sailboats. Our immediate goal in fishing in the north is to catch up with Norway. Work is now going in this direction. In 1931, our trawl fleet was expanded, and a factory of fishing motor boats was built in Murmansk.

<<< Назад

Forward >>>

Vyacheslav ZILANOV, Chairman of the Coordination Council "Sevryba"

On February 24-46, a meeting of five Arctic states on fisheries problems in the central part of the Arctic Ocean is being held in the capital of Greenland, Nuuk. What is causing this sudden attention to Arctic fishing? And what exactly is Arctic fishing?

The Arctic is broad concept. Today, most researchers and politicians consider the Arctic Circle to be the southern border of the Arctic. There are five states in this area whose 200-mile exclusive economic zone extends directly into the Arctic seas and the Arctic Ocean. These are Norway, Denmark, Canada, USA and Russia.

However, outside the 200-mile economic zones in the central part of the Arctic Ocean, an open area has formed, or, as one might say by analogy with the Okhotsk, Bering or Barents Seas, a huge enclave. This is the largest enclave in the world, surrounded by economic zones of five coastal states. Its area is 2.8 million square meters. km, for comparison, these are two areas of the Barents Sea.

Fishing in the Arctic Ocean and adjacent seas is intensive only in the Northwestern Arctic - in the Barents, Greenland Seas and the northern part of the Norwegian Sea. The volume of catch of all Arctic states in these areas is about 1.5 million tons, of which 1 million tons are mastered by the Russian fishing fleet based in the Northern Basin and partly in Kaliningrad.

It would seem that there is no reason to worry about the near future of the open Arctic waters. But according to scientists, as a result of warming in the Arctic, the central part of the Arctic Ocean is almost 40% free of ice. Due to warming in the Barents Sea, intensive migrations of most commercial fish in the northern and northeastern direction are observed. For example, research by the Polar Research Institute has shown that halibut, one of the desired fisheries, has already reached the northern part of Novaya Zemlya, and in the north of Spitsbergen it has long been caught by fishermen. Cod and other species of marine fish migrate in a similar way.

In addition, species of Arctic origin live in this zone. This is cod, or, as it is called, polar cod, and to a certain extent capelin. There is reason to believe that in ice-free areas of the central part of the Arctic Ocean, a number of states that do not border the Arctic seas may begin research and fishing. Such intentions are of concern to the five Arctic powers, since the fish stocks are transboundary. In this regard, it is necessary in advance, before the start of unregulated fishing in the Arctic, to develop an agreement mechanism or agreement that would regulate the management of stocks and prevent uncontrolled fishing. And the meeting in Nuuk is one of the stages in developing this agreement.

At one time, fishermen of the Northern Basin called for such an agreement to be developed and signed as soon as possible by all five countries of the Arctic region. It should be based on broad Scientific research all Arctic states under a single program with common funding. Only on the basis of scientific data will it be possible to make a decision on the advisability or prohibition of fishing in polar waters.

It must be taken into account that the 200-mile economic zones of the Arctic states are also freed from ice. This is especially true for Russia, because we have the largest EEZ in the Arctic, which covers the Barents, Kara, Laptev, East Siberian, and Chukchi seas. Regular fishing, as I already said, is carried out only in the Barents Sea, but we have not conducted extensive research in other waters.

Therefore, the task of updating the research fleet, in particular PINRO and Far Eastern institutes, is now coming to the fore in order to develop a unified program for studying the composition of the ichthyofauna in these seas. It is possible that commercial reserves will be discovered there, which could become an additional raw material base for the Russian fishing fleet. Of course, this should be comprehensive research that would cover not only the identification of raw materials, but also their rational use, as well as the production of products from them that would be in high demand, primarily in the domestic market.

In my opinion, the leadership of Rosrybolovstvo and other organizations that work in the Arctic, in particular the Russian Geographical Society, needs to pay as much attention as possible to these issues so that we are in the forefront here. According to some information, a number of states, starting with Norway, are now building an ice-class research fleet intended for use specifically in Arctic waters. So, ahead of us lies a complex dialogue on the Arctic and a serious challenge to our Arctic fisheries, but without a large-scale update of Russia’s scientific potential it will be very difficult to adequately respond to it.

Vyacheslav Zilanov, Chairman of the Coordination Council of Associations, Unions and Enterprises of the Fishing Industry of the Northern Basin (KS "Sevryba")