EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 247/1

Thursday 10 April 2008

Rights-based management tools in fisheries

P6_TA(2008)0113

European Parliament resolution of 10 April 2008 on rights-based management tools in fisheries (2007/2111(INI))

2009/C 247 E/01

The European Parliament,

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (1),

having regard to the Communication from the Commission on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (‘Roadmap’) (COM(2002)0181),

having regard to the Communication from the Commission on rights-based management tools in fisheries (COM(2007)0073),

having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A6-0060/2008),

A. whereas, in its Green Paper on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the Commission expressed the opinion that alternative management mechanisms can play a significant complementary role in Community fisheries management,

B. whereas the Commission has initiated a debate on Rights-Based Management (RBM) in fisheries,

C. whereas a number of stakeholders have already submitted contributions to the debate,

D. whereas there have previously been a number of studies of RBM but none of them has covered all the coastal Member States of the EU,

E. whereas, however, a number of studies have considered the operation and effects of systems both within and outside the EU that allow the transfer of fishing rights for economic value,

F. whereas the Commission has now issued a call for tender for a study,

G. whereas the Commission has stated that it has no current plans for altering existing management systems but has, equally, expressed its intention to introduce changes in the operation of the CFP and is therefore seeking viable alternatives,

H. whereas the current fisheries management systems in the European Union, specifically the system of TACs and quotas, do not provide an answer to the sector's problems, and it is necessary and fundamental to hold a wide-ranging debate on this question, assessing the positive and negative aspects of the possible adoption of new management systems,

I. whereas it is therefore important to consider ways in which improvements might be made in the operation of the CFP, in particular through the fisheries management policy, whose current shortcomings are evident,

J. whereas any changes will not amount to improvements unless they ensure that resources are exploited in a manner that provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions,

1. Welcomes the fact that the Commission has opened a debate on RBM in fisheries in anticipation of the necessary modification of the existing management policy;

2. Considers that marine biological resources are a common public good;

3. Believes that the rights involved should not be understood as property rights but as a kind of usufruct or a right to harvest and subject, accordingly, to appropriate limitations;

4. Recognises also, however, that there are separately identifiable systems of RBM that are based on different understandings: (a) as to whom the right is to be allocated, as to the conditions of its transferability and as to its tradability for economic value, (b) as to the extent of the right, particularly whether it is defined in terms of the location in which it is to be exercised, the quantity that may be fished or the effort that can be expended;

5. Welcomes the fact that the Commission has put out a call for tenders to allow for a full study of the various management systems;

6. Considers that the period for debate which has been set is too short and calls for it to be extended to ensure that the various possibilities available are properly explored and studied, along with their consequences;

7. Recognises, however, even in advance of such a study, that it is evident that there is a wide variety of such systems in place and that most, if not all, employ some form of RBM, if this is taken in its widest sense; recognises, likewise, that experiments with management through fishing rights in Member States which have applied such systems have had very positive consequences in many respects, for example in terms of capacity reduction;

8. Considers that it is similarly evident that, at Community level and within at least some of the Member States, the forms of RBM employed are hybrid ones, in terms both of the allocation and transferability/tradability of the rights and of the way in which their scope is defined;

9. Notes the degree of complexity involved and the difficulties this poses for movement toward a single system, whether achieved through harmonising the practices of Member States or by its administration at Community level;

10. Nevertheless takes the view that, as shown by the fact that RBM in fisheries has been introduced in many of the countries and regions which have the most significant fishing interests in the world, these difficulties are not insurmountable and, given that the system could prove highly positive for the management of certain Community fleets, consideration should at least be given to the possibilities for including it in the CFP;

11. Considers it necessary to ascertain the effects which changes, particularly the introduction of Community-wide individual transferable quotas and other rights-based access, might have in relation to: — relative stability and its role in maintaining the viability of fisheries-dependent communities, — the degree of concentration of ownership of such rights and the resulting socio-economic consequences, — the advantages that could accrue to large companies at the expense of small-scale operators or community-based fisheries, — the fear that additional costs may be involved, creating disincentives towards investment in vessels, gear, safety and working conditions, — the likelihood of quotas being held at one remove from those actively engaged in fishing, — the problems inherent in achieving an initial allocation and in conferring a windfall benefit on those to whom the allocation is made, — the risk of an excessive concentration of rights;

12. Considers that these concerns must be addressed prior to any move toward a single system, for example the possibility, as shown by existing precedents, of setting a limit on the accumulation of fishing rights;

13. Considers that emphasis should also be placed on the positive aspects of RBM in fisheries, on which there is fairly widespread agreement, including the following: — greater rationalisation of management, since right-holders are made directly responsible for management and compliance with the general rules, which tends to produce a sector with greater entrepreneurial capacities that is less dependent on expert advice, brokering and public funding; — monitoring is made simpler in fleets where the system is applied, since vessels with rights are accurately identified; — discards are reduced, since it is possible to purchase fishing rights for species for which only a small quota is available; — fleets tend to make their businesses profitable, which generally leads to a reduction in capacity through the elimination of the oldest and least efficient units; — the simplest way of introducing the system would be to allocate quotas in line with the relative stability of each Member State, so that such stability would not be affected either;

14. Wonders also whether a single system of RBM would in any event be appropriate for different types of fisheries;

15. Draws attention, in this context, to: the different requirements of single species and multi-species fisheries; and to the special situation of artisanal fleets;

16. Considers, in relation to artisanal fleets, that separate provision should be made for them, either using criteria linked to geographical distance from the coast or by setting part of the quota aside for them;

17. Welcomes, therefore, the fact that the Commission has no present intention of intervening in current management systems;

18. Considers, however, that further consideration should nonetheless be given to the advantages and disadvantages of different RBM systems;

19. Considers it necessary to prevent economic distortions in the fishing industry to the detriment of small ship-owners, in particular those representing artisanal fishing;

20. Acknowledges that such systems may promote economic efficiency, provided that they are properly devised; points out that such efficiency is one of the objectives of any economic policy and it is in the CFP's interests to ensure a profitable fishing industry that is less and less dependent on public funds;

21. Considers that, given that fisheries is a common policy, fishing rights management mechanisms should be adopted at Community level that will make it possible to improve the management of fishery resources;

22. Believes that economic efficiency is valuable insofar as it promotes the objectives of the CFP;

23. Calls on the Commission accordingly to ensure that any studies which it initiates on RBM should be directed at: I. providing a full picture and analysis of the systems of management currently in operation within the Member States, II. looking at the basic understandings involved in RBM in terms of: (a) to whom the rights may be allocated, to whom they may be transferred and whether they are tradable, together with any limitations in these respects, and (b) the extent of the rights, i.e. whether they are defined in terms of location, quantity (output) or effort (input) or a mix of these, III. assessing, using the evidence acquired from the existing systems of management, the effectiveness of each such understanding in achieving the objectives of the CFP in terms of: (a) improving the livelihoods of those engaged in the fishing industry, (b) having a sustainable marine ecology in which fish stocks are conserved, (c) maintaining the viability of fisheries-dependent communities, (d) the extent to which the system has, since its inception, concentrated ownership of the right to fish and led to loss of employment, and (e) the economic efficiency of the fisheries sector, IV. examining these issues separately for different types of fisheries both inside and outside Community waters;

24. Urges the Commission to allow a longer period for debate on this issue;

25. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Regional Advisory Councils and the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture.

(1) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) 865/2007 (OJ L 192, 24.7.2007, p. 1).