Obligation system, quota ceiling, closed and open group and structural gain. These are words many of us have heard in the fisheries debate, but which are not as easy to understand. – I completely agree that we can get better at using a more understandable language. The fish is the most important thing we have, and we must speak intelligibly about it and how we want to facilitate the fishing industry of the future, says Fisheries and Oceans Minister Bjørnar Skjæran (Ap). – I have given a clear message to the ministry and my subordinate agencies that work with language is important. We started that quite early after I took office as minister, he says. Rødt’s Geir Jørgensen believes the language in the quota notice is reserved for a small elite of bureaucrats. Photo: PRIVAT – A democratic problem It was Storting representative Geir Jørgensen (R) who first directed criticism at the use of language. He believes the bureaucrats write so poorly that people have no chance of understanding the debate about fishing quotas worth billions of kroner. Jørgensen calls it a democratic problem, and receives support from the deputy chairman of the Storting’s industry committee, SV’s Torgeir Knag Fylkesnes. Torgeir Knag Fylkesnes (SV) believes the use of language in fisheries is a democratic problem. Photo: Jørn Inge Johansen / news – Absolutely. An effective way to prevent transparency and prevent debate is to create a language that no one understands, he says. Fylkesnes describes an everyday life where politicians have to wade through a “jungle” of bureaucratic language to get to the heart of what is actually being said. – This leads to fisheries policy becoming quite distant from the people, and that it is a small elite who master this language, who decide how it will be governed and determined, he says. Geir Jørgensen criticizes, among other things, this text in the quota report. Illustration: Facsimile from consultation note on structural benefit distribution – Must be accurate Fisheries Minister Bjørnar Skjæran says that he understands that the language that comes from, among other things, the bureaucrats in his own ministry is difficult to understand. But also difficult to write in an easy way. It is important to be accurate, he says. – It is not possible to write about the management of structural gain without using words such as structural gain. It is not possible to discuss the distribution between closed and open groups without using these words. But we must constantly be on the lookout for as easy and comprehensible a language as possible, says Skjæran. – We have to manage the balance which is about the language being both clear and popular enough, while at the same time being precise enough. The Language Council: – A democratic problem Margrethe Kvarenes, head of section at the Language Council, says it can take longer to write briefly and concisely about something complicated than it takes to write long and verbose. Margrethe Kvarenes says that it takes longer to write plain language, but that there is time that should be taken. Photo: Moment Studio – The reason is that you must have a very clear idea of exactly what you want to convey. It may take a little longer to be short and concise, but I think that time should be taken. It concerns important documents that concern many people, and which are of great importance to many people, says Kvarenes. She believes that when public documents are difficult to understand, important messages can be misunderstood or important information missed. – It is therefore certainly both a practical and a democratic problem, says Kvarenes.
ttn-69
Fisheries Minister Bjørnar Skjæran (Ap) understands the language penalty – news Troms and Finnmark
