General Distribution OCDE/GD(97)119
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
General Distribution OCDE/GD(97)119 TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES: COUNTRY REPORTS The OECD study Towards Sustainable Fisheries is composed of 3 volumes. The publication on sale "Towards Sustainable Fisheries: Economic Aspects of the Management of Living Marine Resources" provides a comprehensive assessment of the economic performance of management regimes based on the analysis of over 100 fisheries in the OECD countries. The general diffusion document "Towards Sustainable Fisheries: Issues Papers", contains thematic contributions which were prepared for the project by individual countries based on their experiences. Finally, the Country Reports which are contained in this volume describe national fishery management policies in Member countries. ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Paris 54740 Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format Applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or part of this material should be made to: Head of Publications Service, OECD, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France. Copyright OECD, 1997. 2 FOREWORD The OECD study Towards Sustainable Fisheries is composed of 3 volumes. The publication on sale Towards Sustainable Fisheries: Economic Aspects of the Management of Living Marine Resources provides a comprehensive assessment of the economic performance of management regimes based on the analysis of over 100 fisheries in the OECD countries. The general diffusion document Towards Sustainable Fisheries: Issue Papers contains thematic contributions which were prepared for the project by individual countries based on their experiences. Finally, the Country Reports which are contained in this volume describe national fishery management policies in Member countries. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS AUSTRALIA ........................................................................................................................................... 6 CANADA .............................................................................................................................................. 38 EUROPEAN UNION ............................................................................................................................ 80 BELGIUM ........................................................................................................................................... 126 DENMARK ......................................................................................................................................... 130 FINLAND ............................................................................................................................................ 160 FRANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 199 GERMANY ......................................................................................................................................... 202 GREECE .............................................................................................................................................. 207 IRELAND ............................................................................................................................................ 213 ITALY ................................................................................................................................................. 215 THE NETHERLANDS ....................................................................................................................... 231 PORTUGAL ........................................................................................................................................ 241 SPAIN .................................................................................................................................................. 274 SWEDEN ............................................................................................................................................. 293 UNITED KINGDOM .......................................................................................................................... 306 ICELAND ............................................................................................................................................ 308 JAPAN ................................................................................................................................................. 347 KOREA ............................................................................................................................................... 374 4 MEXICO ............................................................................................................................................. 385 NEW ZEALAND ................................................................................................................................ 397 NORWAY ........................................................................................................................................... 452 POLAND ............................................................................................................................................. 475 TURKEY ............................................................................................................................................. 485 UNITED STATES ............................................................................................................................... 490 5 AUSTRALIA Introduction In Australia, as elsewhere in the world, governments have a key role in fisheries management to address the fundamental economic and biological concerns which arise from open access fisheries. Commonwealth and State (and Territory) Governments are responsible for management of Australian fisheries within their relevant jurisdictions. Except where agreement is reached to the contrary, the Commonwealth Government jurisdiction extends from the three nautical mile limit to the 200 mile limit of the Australian Fishing Zone, while State jurisdiction is from the coastline to the three nautical mile limit. In 1992-93, State managed fisheries accounted for 77 per cent (A$ l 065 m) of the gross value of fisheries production in Australia (A$ l 374 m). Management within the states is generally centralised within the relevant departments with responsibility for fisheries. The exception is Queensland, where state fisheries are managed by the Queensland Fisheries Management Authority. At the Commonwealth level, responsibility for fisheries management was passed to a statutory authority, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) which was established on 3 February 1992. The jurisdictional allocation of fisheries responsibility in Australia has significant implications for the effective management of fisheries resources. This is particularly the case in a number of fisheries where stocks cross the boundaries of state and Commonwealth jurisdiction. Some of these problems are addressed through agreements between the state and Commonwealth governments under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement. This is discussed further in the following section along with management arrangements for Commonwealth and state fisheries. In the final section of the paper key management problems and issues are discussed. Management regimes in Australia Offshore Constitutional Settlement As mentioned earlier, Commonwealth Government fisheries responsibilities include all fish stocks from the three nautical mile limit to the 200 mile limit of the Australian fishing zone, while State responsibilities are for fisheries up to the three mile limit. In some cases, by agreement under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS), the Commonwealth and relevant state governments can make agreements whereby management responsibility for the whole of a fish stock or commercial fishery from the low water mark to the 200 mile limit is passed to a single authority or is undertaken jointly (joint authority). In particular, three management categories exist under these agreements: − Joint authority management: where the Commonwealth and one or more of the States can form a single legal entity which manages a fishery under a single law, either Commonwealth or State; 6 − State management: where a fishery is located off only one state, arrangements can be made to manage that fishery under a state law; − Commonwealth management: where a fishery is adjacent to more than one State, the fishery can, by agreement between all parties, be managed by the Commonwealth. At present only three joint authorities have been established - one with Western Australia for the shark fishery, one with the Northern territory for pearling and one with Queensland under the Torres Strait Treaty in the area of Australian jurisdiction in the Torres Strait Protected Zone. There are a number of problems with joint authorities including them being administratively cumbersome and they tend to perpetuate the problems of divided responsibility (Commonwealth of Australia, 1989). Hence, it is preferred that responsibility be allocated to a single authority. While single authority arrangements have been put in place for some fisheries (for example, day to day management of the west coast shark fishery has been passed fully to Western Australia) there are a number of fish stocks which cross State and Commonwealth jurisdictions for which effective management