Select Committee on European Scrutiny Fifteenth Report


4 Allocation of fishing rights

(28442)

6889/07

COM(07) 73

Commission Communication on rights-based management tools in fisheries

Legal base
Document originated26 February 2007
Deposited in Parliament6 March 2007
DepartmentEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs
Basis of considerationEM of 14 March 2007
Previous Committee ReportNone, but see footnotes 28 and 29
To be discussed in CouncilNo date set
Committee's assessmentPolitically important
Committee's decisionCleared

Background

4.1 In its Roadmap[28] on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the Commission committed itself to produce a report on the scope for provisions within the Community and/or national fisheries management systems for tradable fishing rights. A subsequent Communication[29] on improving the economic situation in the fishing industry noted that the current economic difficulties facing many parts of the Community fishing fleet called for a different approach to fisheries management linking sustainable fishing practices with greater economic efficiency, and that the Commission intended to organise a debate at Community level on methods for allocating, sharing or transferring fishing opportunities.

The current document

4.2 The purpose of this document is to stimulate such a debate on the future of "rights-based" management systems within the CFP, which it defines as a formalised system of allocating fishing rights to fishermen, fishing vessels, enterprises, cooperatives or fishing communities. The Commission says that, although the basic mechanism for allocating quotas between Member States has been efficient and durable, it has been acknowledged that the large variety of systems applied by the Community and Member States for managing those quotas lack transparency, efficacy, and (in some cases) overall coherence. It notes that, by imposing restrictions on free access to fisheries, they have implicitly resulted in the allocation of an economic value to the right to fish, resulting in the sale or leasing of fishing licences, fishing days and quotas in some Member States, and being reflected also in the price differential between those vessels possessing a licence to fish, and those which do not. It also points out that the economic value of these fishing rights can be substantial, and suggests that the aim should be to formalise those values as individual fishing rights, so facilitating greater transparency, legal certainty, security, and ultimately greater economic efficiency for fishermen.

4.3 The Communication goes on to point out the need to recognise that any barriers to the free trade of rights (such as quotas) will lead to an allocation which is not optimal in economic terms, but that it is in political terms perfectly legitimate for each Member State to opt for a sub-optimal system which is compatible with its own national goals, and which provides for a trade off between conflicting objectives. It adds that the most controversial aspect of rights-based management systems is the transferability of those rights, where the rationale may be primarily economic, but where it can lead to concentration in the ownership of quotas, the geographical distribution of fishing activity, and fleet composition. It suggests that, in order to counterbalance this risk, such systems can be designed to deter concentration beyond a certain level, so as to preserve geographical balance and maintain the current cultural and social fabric, for example by protecting small-scale inshore fishing activities. At the same time, however, the Communication also stresses that any such mechanisms must be compatible with the Community's single market and competition rules, and need to be systematically examined by the Commission.

4.4 As to the next steps, the Commission points out that, because quotas are allocated between Member States on the basis of "relative stability", this seems to rule out the possibility of moving to a rights-based management system at Community level, in which fishing rights would be freely tradable between Member States. It therefore suggests that any use of such systems would need to be developed at Member State level, though it adds that this would not prevent Member States from allowing exchanges of quotas between them, as happens at present. In view of this, the Commission believes that each Member State needs to examine how its various objectives can be reached and what trade-offs are needed, drawing on industry opinion. It also recognises that there are a number of legal and practical reasons why it may not be possible to establish relatively uniform systems, but says that any debate at Community level should include consideration of trans-national elements, and seek synergies between Member States where possible.

The Government's view

4.5 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 14 March 2007, the Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare at the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Ben Bradshaw) says that the UK welcomes the Communication as a basis for discussion and consultation, and that it coincides with the work which the four fisheries administrations within the UK are undertaking in this area. In particular, he points to the Quota Management Change Programme, which was established in April 2005, following the publication of the response to a report by the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit, and which established a number of strategic aims. (These include compliance with UK quotas, facilitating a maximum level of quota uptake, consistency with sustainable stock management and minimising discards, addressing the role of quota management in relation to vulnerable fishing communities, promoting transparency and individual accountability, providing greater clarity and certainty over quota "ownership", improving communication and relationships between the catching and processing sectors, and offering the flexibility to adapt to changes affecting the UK fishing industry.)

Conclusion

4.6 Although this Communication deals with a subject of some significance to the fishing industry, it does so in very general terms, and seeks to stimulate discussion, rather than reach any conclusions, still less ones which might be applicable to all Member States. Consequently, although we think it right to draw the document to the attention of the House, we are clearing it, on the basis that, if it should lead in due course to specific proposals, we would want to examine these in some depth.


28   (23511) - : see HC 152-xxxv (2001-02), para 1 (3 July 2002) and HC 152-xxxviii (2001-02), para 2 (16 October 2002). Back

29   (27349) 7217/06: see HC 34-xxvii (2005-06), para 5 (3 May 2006). Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 2 April 2007