Budget hitting investment, Seafood Norway says

Seafood Norway, the fishing and aquaculture employers’ organisation, has accused the Norwegian government of worsening an already dramatic situation for the country’s seafood industry with yesterday’s budget.

Chief executive Geir Ove Ystmark said that while the shock of the 40% ground rent tax was starting to subside along the coast, the industry was already witnessing an investment freeze that the country cannot afford.

He continued: “The aquaculture industry has already had the handbrake completely pulled up. This is very dramatic for activity and job creation along the coast.”

“Increased wealth tax and increased dividend tax reinforce the cocktail of increased valuation and increased rates on the two taxes. This creates further challenges for the aquaculture companies. But it does not exclusively affect aquaculture directly. It affects all Norwegian ownership.

“For the fishing industry and the supplier industry, there are initially tight margins. The proposed changes to the aquaculture tax have already created reduced assignments for the supplier industry and the structure of the ground rent tax weakens the potential for processing salmon and trout in Norway. The increased rates intensify the problems for this part of the industry as well.”

Ystmark added: “Norwegian business must have the finances to carry out the green shift. We need 250,000 new, profitable jobs by 2030. I can’t see that the government has realized that this requires economic muscle.”

Calculations by the business organisation NHO showed that the country is facing significantly tougher economic times than what the government has calculated in its budget plans.

Ystmark said Seafood Norway will thoroughly review the totality of what the government has put forward and continue the political work until the budget hearings in the Storting, Norway’s parliament.

The ground rent tax on fish farmers and offshore renewable energy sites was part of the centre-left government’s first budget, which has been seen as both redistributive and fiscally tight.