Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T23:49:08.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparative review of the fisheries resource management systems in New Zealand and in the European Union

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2009

Paul Marchal ,
Philippe Lallemand ,
Kevin Stokes  and
Olivier Thébaud
Paul Marchal
Affiliation:
Seafood Industry Council Ltd., 74 Cambridge Terrace, Wellington, New Zealand IFREMER, 150 quai Gambetta, BP 699, 62321 Boulogne-sur-Mer, France
Philippe Lallemand
Affiliation:
Seafood Industry Council Ltd., 74 Cambridge Terrace, Wellington, New Zealand
Kevin Stokes
Affiliation:
Seafood Industry Council Ltd., 74 Cambridge Terrace, Wellington, New Zealand
Olivier Thébaud
Affiliation:
IFREMER, UMR AMURE, Dép. Economie maritime, BP 70, 29280 Plouzané, France
Get access

Abstract

This review aims at comparing the fisheries management systems existing in New Zealand and in the European Union. The involvement of stakeholders at all stages of the management process is generally more transparent and better established in New Zealand than in the EU. Both systems aim at achieving an adequate balance between sustainability and utilisation and consider the precautionary approach as a founding principle. The socialobjectives are probably more explicit in the EU management system. In New Zealand, B MSY is a legal management target for all stocks in the quota management system (QMS), but management strategies were poorly explicituntil most recently. In the EU, there have not been any legal management targets or strategies until 1999. Since 1999, a number of multi-annual recovery and management plans have been established, including bothmanagement targets and strategies. Both management systems include conservation and access regulation measures. The EU management measures aim at regulating fisheries outputs and inputs, and discarding is tolerated. New Zealand management is almost exclusively output-based, and discarding practices are banned. In the EU, while individual quotas (IQs) are implicit in several countries, there is no consistent pattern across Member States for allocating TACs. In New Zealand, individual transferable quotas (ITQs) are implemented, and some flexibility in catch-quota balancing is provided by a carry-over allowance and the payment of a landing tax, the deemed value, for every fish landed above quota. If rights-based management were introduced in the EU based on, e.g., the New Zealand model, we suggest that concentration rules be set in accordance with the social objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy, and also that the deemed value should be set based on science and economics.

Keywords

FisheriesTotal allowable catchesRights-based managementQuotaAtlantic OceanPacific Ocean
Type
Research Article
Information
Aquatic Living Resources , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , October 2009 , pp. 463 - 481
Copyright
© EDP Sciences, IFREMER, IRD, 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, L.G., 2008, The control of market power in ITQ fisheries. Mar. Resour. Econ. 23, 25–35. CrossRef
Annala, J.H., Sullivan, K.J., Hore, A.J., 1991, Management of multispecies fisheries in New Zealand by individual transferable quotas. ICES Mar. Sci. Symp. 193, 321–329.
Anonymous, 1990, Report of an independent group of experts on the guidelines for the preparation of the multi-annual guidance programmes in relation to the fishing fleets for the period 1992-1996. Int. doc., European Commission, Brussels (The “Gulland” Report).
Anonymous, 1996, Report of an independent group of experts to advise the European Commission on the fourth generation of multi-annual guidance programmes, April 26, XIV/298/96-EN (The “Lassen” Report).
Anonymous, 2005, New Zealand Fisheries Legislation. Fisheries Act 1996, 7th edn, Vol. A. Chapmann Tripp, Barristers & Solicitors, New Zealand.
Arnason, R., 1990, Minimum information management in fisheries. Can. J. Econ. 23, 631–653. CrossRef
Arnason, R., 2007, Advances in property rights based fisheries management: an introduction. Mar. Resour. Econ. 22, 335–346. CrossRef
Branch, T.A., Rutherford, K., Hilborn, R., 2006, Replacing trip limits with individual transferable quotas: implications for discarding. Mar. Policy 30, 281–292. CrossRef
EC, 2002a, Council regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy.
EC, 2002b, Report of the sub-group on resource status (SGRST) of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). SEC(2002) 1373.
EC, 2006, Commission Staff Working Paper: Report of the ad hoc meeting of independent experts on fleet-fishery based sampling, Nantes, 12-16 June 2006.
EC, 2007, Communication from the Commission on right-based management tools in fisheries. SEC(2007) 247.
FAO, 2007, The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2006. Rome FAO, 2007.
Frost H., Kjærsgaard J., 2005, Over kapaciteten I den danskerflåde. FOI report no. 176.
Frost H., Lanters R., Smit J., Sparre P., 1995, An appraisal of the effects of the decommissioning schemes in the case of Denmark and The Netherlands. DIFER, Esbjerg, Denmark, South Jutland University Press.
Gibbs N., Stokes K., 2006, Implications of reallocation: Examples from New Zealand . FAO publication from the 2004 Sharing the Fish [follow up to FishRights99] conference.
Grafton R.Q., Arnason R., Bjørndal T., Campbell D., Campbell H.F., Clark C.W., Connor R., Dupont D.P., Hanneson R., Hilborn R., Kirkley J.E., Kompas T., Lane D.E., Munro G.R., Pascoe S., Squires D., Steinshamn S.I., Turris B.R., Weninger Q. 2006, Incentive-based approaches to sustainable fisheries. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 63, 699–710.
Guyader O., Daurès F., 2000, Economic analysis of the impact of buyback programs and the role of financial incentives schemes: Application to a limited entry French fishery. In: Lindebo E., Vestergaard N. (Eds.). Proc. 12th Annual Conference of the European Association of Fisheries Economists (EAFE). Department of Environmental and Business Economics, University of Southern Denmark, pp. 65–90.
Guyader O., Thébaud O. 2001. Distributional issues in the operation of rights-based fisheries management systems. Mar. Policy 25, 103–112.
Hatcher, A.C., 2000, Subsidies for European fishing fleets: the European Community's structural policy for fisheries 1971-1999. Mar. Policy 24, 129–140. CrossRef
Hentrich, S., Salomon, M., 2006, Flexible management of fishing rights and a sustainable fisheries industry in Europe. Mar. Policy 30, 712–720. CrossRef
Hersoug, B., Holm, P., Rånes, S.A., 2000, The missing T. Path dependency within an individual vessel quota system – the case of Norwegian cod fisheries. Mar. Policy 24, 319–330.
Hersoug B., 2002, New Zealand experience with right-based fisheries management – Unfinished business. Eburon and Delft.
Hilborn, R., 2004, Ecosystem-based fisheries management: the carrot or the stick? Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 274, 275–278.
Hoff, A., Frost, H., 2007, Optimal vessel quotas and capacity of a Danish trawler fleet segment: a dual approach. Mar. Resour. Econ. 22, 1–14. CrossRef
Holden M., 1994, The Common fisheries policy: origin, evaluation and future. Fishing News Books.
ICES, 1998, Report of the study group on the precautionary approach to fisheries management. ICES Headquarters, 3-6 Feb. 1998, CM1998/ACFM, 10.
ICES, 2003, Report of the Study Group for the development of fishery-based forecasts. ICES Document CM 2003, ACFM:08 Ref. D.
Johnson D., Haworth J., 2004, Hooked: the story of the New Zealand fishing industry. Hazard Press Ltd.
Laurec, A., Biseau, A., Charuau, A., 1991, Modeling technical interactions. ICES Mar. Sci. Symp. 193, 225–236.
Mace, P.M., 2004, In defence of fisheries scientists, single-species models and other scapegoats: confronting the real problems. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 274, 285–291.
Marchal P., 2006, Technological developments and tactical adaptations of important EU fleets (TECTAC, no QLK5-2001-01291), Marchal P. (Ed.), Final report & annexes.
Mesnil, B., 2008, Public-aided crises in the French fishing sector. Ocean Coast. Manage. 51, 689–700. CrossRef
Nautilus Consultants, 1997, The economic evaluation of the fishing boats (decommissioning) schemes, Edinburgh, Scotland, Nautilus Consultants.
New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries, 2008, Harvest strategy standards for New Zealand fisheries. Ministry of Fisheries, Oct. 2008.
Reeves S.A., Marchal P., Mardle S., Pascoe S., Prellezo R., Thébaud O., Travers M., 2008, From fish to fisheries: the changing focus of management advice. In: Payne A, Cotter J., Potter T. (Eds), Advances in fisheries science 50 years on from Beverton and Holt, CEFAS, Blackwell Publishing, pp. 135–154.
Sanchirico, J.N., Holland, D., Quigley, K., Fina, M., 2006, Catch-quota balancing in multispecies individual fishing quotas. Mar. Policy 30, 767–785. CrossRef
Shotton R., 2001, Case studies on the allocation of transferable quota rights in fisheries. FAO Fish. Tech. Paper No. 411, Rome, FAO.
Stokes, K., Gibbs, N., Holland, D., 2006, New Zealand's cost-recovery regime for fisheries research services: An industry perspective. Bull. Mar. Sci. 78, 467–485.
Valantin G., 2000, Development of property rights-based management in the United Kingdom and The Netherlands: a comparison. In: Shotton R. (Ed.), Use of property rights in fisheries management. FAO Fish. Tech. Paper No. 404/2. Rome. FAO, http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x8985e/x8985e00.htm.
Vince, J., Haward, M., 2009, New Zealand oceans governance: Calming turbulent waters? Mar. Policy 33, 412–418.
Vinther, M., Reeves, S.A., Patterson, K.R., 2004, From single-species advice to mixed-species management: taking the next step. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 61, 1398–1409. CrossRef
Yandle, T., Dewees, C.M., 2008, Consolidation in an individual transferable quota regime: lessons from New Zealand (1986-1999). Environ. Manage. 41, 915–928. CrossRef