4 Allocation of fishing rights
| (28442)
6889/07
COM(07) 73
| Commission Communication on rights-based management tools in fisheries
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 26 February 2007
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 6 March 2007
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 14 March 2007
|
| Previous Committee Report | None, but see footnotes 28 and 29
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
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
|
