Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Legal Aspects of Individual Transferable Quotas

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Comparative Evaluations of Innovative Fisheries Management

  • 541 Accesses

Abstract

Conformity of the innovations to the existing legal context represents an aspect of social robustness of fisheries management innovations. This chapter takes a look at the legal dimension of individual transferable quotas (ITQs). Since the chapter cannot analyse all legal issues that arise under the different legal systems that have introduced ITQs, the first subchapter tries to give a general overview of legal challenges ITQs can face under national law. The second analyses legal questions of European Community law in the specific context of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Then, human rights and World Trade Organization (WTO) issues are discussed. Finally, considerations when legislating ITQs are elaborated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a discussion of the legal nature of Australian Fishing Licences, see McFarlane (2000) and Fitzpatrick (2000).

  2. 2.

    For an analysis of the different discourses in regard to ITQs as property, see Connor (2000).

  3. 3.

    Statute is not necessarily the governing Act, but may be Regulations as in the US halibut and sablefish fishery, or a Management Plan under the Tasmanian Act.

  4. 4.

    Alliance Against IFQs v. Brown, 84 F.3d 343 (9th Cir. 1996) (at: http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/84/84.F3d.343.95-35077.html).

  5. 5.

    For another more recent exception also related to Iceland see Section 3.1.

  6. 6.

    Judgment of the Court of 14 July 1976, Joined Cases 3, 4 and 6-76, Cornelis Kramer and others.

  7. 7.

    At the time in question the European Community had not exercised its competence to take measures for the conservation of the resources of the sea.

  8. 8.

    Regulation (EEC) No 2141/70 of the Council of 20 October 1970 laying down a common structural policy for the fishing industry, OJ L 236, 27.10.1970, p. 1.

  9. 9.

    Regulation (EEC) No 2142/70 of the Council of 20 October 1970 on the common organisation of the market in fishery products, OJ L 236, 27.10.1970, p. 5.

  10. 10.

    Council Regulation (EEC) No 811/76 of 6 April 1976 temporarily authorising certain systems of catch quotas in the fisheries sector, Official Journal L 094, 09/04/1976, p. 1.

  11. 11.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy, OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59.

  12. 12.

    Judgment of the Court of 14 December 1989, Case 216/87, The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  13. 13.

    Judgment of the Court of 4 October 1991, Case 246/89, Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain.

  14. 14.

    Judgment of the Court of 17 November 1992, Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom, Case C-279/89.

  15. 15.

    Community Regulation on the application of Art. 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of fisheries products, OJ L 291, 14.9.2004, p. 3.

  16. 16.

    Commission Regulation (EC) No 875/2007 of 24 July 2007 on the application of Art. 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the fisheries sector and amending Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004, OJ L 193 of 25.7.2007, p. 6.

  17. 17.

    Guideline for the examination of state aid to fisheries and aquaculture, 2004/C229/03, OJ C 229, 14.9.2004, p. 5.

  18. 18.

    Commission Decision of 3 June 2003 on loans for the purchase of fishing quotas in the Shetland Islands (United Kingdom) 2003/612/EC, OJ L 211, 21.8.2003, p. 63.

  19. 19.

    Community Regulation on the application of Art. 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of fisheries products, OJ L 291, 14.9.2004, p. 3.

  20. 20.

    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, entry into force 23 March 1976.

  21. 21.

    United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Human Rights Committee, Ninety-first Session, CCPR/C/91/D/1306/2004, 14 December 2007.

  22. 22.

    Paragraph 28 of the Doha Declaration, ‘Ministerial Declaration at Ministerial Conference’, Fourth Session, Doha, 9–14 November 2001, WTI MIN(OI)/DECIW/I, adopted on 14 November 2001.

  23. 23.

    For a discussion of potential conflicts with different concepts in non-Western legal systems, see Stewart (2004), p. 103.

  24. 24.

    Stewart also cites examples of legislation in different countries regarding this and other characteristics of fisheries legislation on property rights discussed.

  25. 25.

    For further aspects of creating legislation on community-based fisheries management, see Stewart (2004), p. 116–118.

  26. 26.

    See European Parliament resolution of 10 April 2008 on rights-based management tools in fisheries (2007/2111(INI)) and the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Rights-based management tools in fisheries of 13 February 2008.

References

  • Anderson, L. G. (2000). Selection of a property rights management system. In R. Shotton (Ed.), Use of property rights in fisheries management. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 404/1 (pp. 26–38). Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. (2006). The future of the market based approach towards quota management in the UK – The case of the Shetland Isles. Paper presented at the Sharing the Fish Conference, Perth Western Australia, March 2006. Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/events/ShareFish/papers/index.html

  • Arnason, R. (2000). Property rights as a means of economic organization. In R. Shotton (Ed.), Use of property rights in fisheries management. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 404/1 (p. 320). Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benitah, M. (2004). Ongoing WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies, The American Society of International Law, June 2004. Retrieved October 1, 2007, from: http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh136.htm

  • Burke, D. L., & Brander, G. L. (2000). Canadian experience with individual transferable quotas. In R. Shotton (Ed.), Use of property rights in fisheries management. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 404/1 (pp. 151–160). Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor, R. (2000). Are ITQs property rights? Definition, discipline and discourse. In R. Shotton (Ed.), Use of property rights in fisheries management. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 404/1. Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2001). Commission finds UK aid schemes involving purchase and leasing of fish quotas not compatible with common market rules, Press release of 3.6.2003. Retrieved September 18, 2007 from http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/archives/com03/com03_19_en.htm

  • European Commission. (2006). Trade in agricultural goods and fishery products: fisheries subsidies, Trade Issues. Retrieved June 9, 2008 from: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/sectoral/agri_fish/fish/fs_en.htm

  • European Commission. (2007a). Communication from the Commission on Rights-based management tools in fisheries, COM(2007) 73 final. Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2007b). Commission Staff Working Document, accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Rights-based management tools in fisheries, SEC(2007)247, Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick, D. (2000). Property rights in relation to fishing licences in Australia from a legal perspective. In R. Shotton (Ed.), Use of property rights in fisheries management. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 404/1.Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost, H., & Lindebo, E. (2003). Alternative management systems in EU fisheries. Copenhagen, Denmark: Fødevareøkonomisk Institut.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gudmundsdottir, E. (2001). The Supreme Court Rules the Allocation of Individual Transferable Quotas to be Constitutional. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol. 16, No. 1 (p. 125).

    Google Scholar 

  • Macinko, S., & Bromley, D. (2004). Property and fisheries for the twenty-first century: Seeking coherence from legal and economic doctrine. Vermont Law Review, 28, 623–661.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFarlane, B. (2000). The legal nature of Australian fishing licences – Are they property rights? In R. Shotton (Ed.), Use of property rights in fisheries management. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 404/1. Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielander, W. J., & Sullivan, M. S. (2000). ITQs – New Zealand and United States: Allocation Formula and Legal Challenges. In R. Shotton (Ed.), The use of property rights in fisheries management. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 404/02, p. 59. Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordmann, C. (2000). The common fisheries policy of the European Union and fishing rights. In R. Shotton (Ed.), The use of property rights in fisheries management. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 404/02. Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oceana. (2008). New WTO Fisheries Subsidies Document Creates Path for Negotiations, Environmental News Network. Retrieved June 2, 2008 from: http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/37214

  • Scott, A. (1988). Conceptual origins of rights based fishing. In P. A. Neher & N. Mollet (Eds.), Rights based fishing. NATO ASI Series, Series E: Applied Sciences, 169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shotton, R. (Ed.). (2000). Use of property rights in fisheries management. Proceedings of the FishRights99 Conference. Fremantle, Western Australia 11–19 November 1999. Mini-course and Core Conference Presentations. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 404/1. 355 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, C. (2004). Legislating for property rights in fisheries, FAO Legislative Study (FAO), No. 83/FAO, Rome, Italy. Retrieved September 2007, from http://ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/y5672e/y5672e00.pdf

  • United Nations Human Rights Commission. (2007). Views adopted on 24.10.2007, Doc. CCPR/C/91/D/1306/2004. Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/DER/G07/458/05/PDF/G0745805.pdf?OpenElement

  • WTO. (2005). Negotiations to clarify and improve disciplines, Hong-Kong WTO Ministerial 2005, Briefing Notes. Retrieved June 9, 2008, from: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min05_e/brief_e/brief08_e.htm

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. German Advisory Council in the Environment, Reichpietschufer 60, 10785, Berlin, Germany

    Miriam Dross

  2. Öko-Institut, Novalisstrasse 10, 10115, Berlin, Germany

    Hendrik Acker

Authors
  1. Miriam Dross
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hendrik Acker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miriam Dross .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Marine Research, Nordnesgaten 50, Bergen, 5817, Norway

    Kjellrun Hiis Hauge

  2. Innovative Fisheries Management (IFM), Aalborg University, Willemoesvej 2, Hirtshals, 9850, Denmark

    Douglas Clyde Wilson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dross, M., Acker, H. (2009). Legal Aspects of Individual Transferable Quotas. In: Hauge, K., Wilson, D. (eds) Comparative Evaluations of Innovative Fisheries Management. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2663-7_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation