The Issue
Reference to property rights in fisheries is
often controversial because of different
interpretations of the concept, the variety of
forms that property rights might take and equity
problems associated with the assignment of
rights.
Once the natural capacity of a fishery resource
to supply is exceeded by the demand for that
resource, there is a need to limit its harvest in
some way. This means either limiting fishing
effort, the combination of people, fishing gear,
boats and ancillary equipment needed to harvest the
fish, to indirectly limit the quantity of fish that
might be caught, or limiting the catch directly. In
essence, it means an end to open access and that
some people, using a combination of fishing gear,
boats and other equipment, will have the right to
fish while others will be excluded.
Allowing some to continue in the fisheries while
excluding others, is the process of establishing
rights to the stream of benefits that arise from
the use of the resource. A 'right' is the capacity
to assert a claim and have others respect it. A
property right is a defensible claim to a stream of
benefits arising from things and resources.
Property rights thus constitute the essential basis
for effective fisheries management. Ending open
access necessarily involves creating some form of
property rights.
Property rights may be vested with individuals
or companies as private property rights, with
communities or with groups of individuals as common
property, or they may be vested with the state at a
national or sub-national level, or with a group of
states, as public property.
Possible solutions
The rights-based management system established
for a fishery should meet certain requirements if
it is to be successful:
- Property rights to harvest fisheries
resources must be clearly defined. They should
explicitly state the extent of the right,
whether it is to a share of the catch, or to a
defined amount of fishing effort, or to catch
fish in a particular geographic area. The less
clear the rights are, the more difficult it is
to enforce them as ambiguity generates debate
and uncertainty. Even if there is some
limitation on access, without properly defined
rights participants in a fishery will tend to
compete for as large a share of the resource as
possible, up to the point where the additional
revenue produced is equal to the cost of
competing for the resource.
- The rights should be structured in such a
way as to make enforcement a cost-effective and
realistic proposition. Enforcement, or the
capacity to insist that the claim to the
benefits from use of the resource be respected,
is inextricably linked to the concept of a
property right. A rights-based system must be
able to exclude non-rights holders from access
to the resource. If property rights are not
enforced, open access occurs, as anyone may lay
claim to the benefit of the resource.
- The rights should provide incentives that
encourage optimal use of fisheries resources by
adjusting fishing effort to that which is just
sufficient to achieve optimal harvesting in the
long term. The more permanent the right, the
greater will be the incentive to nurture and
conserve the resource. But, Government
commitment to achieving certain social
objectives, such as provision of employment, may
limit its capacity to achieve to provide
permanent rights.
In some developing countries and among coastal
communities of some developed countries,
traditional fishing rights exist. Often these
rights are not sufficient to provide the incentives
needed to achieve effective management of the
fisheries. However, they generally provide the best
foundation on which to establish rights which
provide the correct set of incentives and,
therefore, they should not be ignored. Simply
replacing existing rights in such communities with
other rights may damage the cause of effective
management of fisheries.
Recent action
Interest in and use of property rights has grown
considerably in recent years both in relation to
the management of fisheries within national
jurisdiction and on the high seas. During the last
decade, international agreements, extending
governance of fisheries on the high seas, have
sought to establish mechanisms to limit fishing on
the high seas. The process of limiting access to
high seas stocks means granting rights to some
while excluding others. The mechanism used to
achieve this has been by extending and further
defining obligations arising from flag state
jurisdiction over vessels flying their flag and by
building on the responsibility of all states to
cooperate in the conservation and management of
high seas fish stocks (established by UNCLOS).
These developments represent a major step in the
direction of more effective management of fisheries
resources. However, capacity to enforce rights on
the high seas remains weak because the 1995 UN Fish
Stocks Agreement and the FAO Compliance Agreement
(1993) have not yet entered into force and many
fishing nations have not yet ratified or acceded to
them.
Outlook
Globally, the increasing scarcity of fisheries
resources in relation to demand for fish and fish
products will continue to expose the unsustainable
nature of open access utilisation of fisheries
resources. This will create increasing stakeholder
pressure for clearly defined and enforceable
property rights. Interest in the use of property
rights is expected to continue to grow as the
concept, and its link to effective fisheries
management, is more widely understood.
|