1. Territorial use RightsBy-Priyanka ChatterjeeSchool of
industrial FisheriesRoll number 14, M.sc. 4th semester
2. Use RightsWhere open access is critical problem, thesolution
would seem to lie in limiting access.If this is done, only a
limited number ofindividuals will have the right to go forfishing,
i.e. to access the fishery. Thoseentitled to do so are said to hold
use rights. 3. Approaches to Fishery Management involve Customary
marine tenure (CMT) and territorial use rights infishing (TURFs)
have long been applied by indigenouspeople in determining the usage
of local resources. Limited entry, providing a limited number of
individuals withthe right to access the fishery, was the initial
approach to userights in modern state management in fisheries.
Quantitative use rights approaches are increasingly beingadopted,
based on allocation of rights either (a) to fish at acertain level
of effort, perhaps using specified bundles ofgear for certain time
periods, or(b) to catch a specified amount of one or more species
offish, with allocation through community institutions or
market-basedapproaches.Use Rights 4. Different Forms of Use Rights
5. Access rights, which permit the holder to take part in afishery
(limited entry) or to fish in a particular location(territorial use
rights or TURFs) Withdrawal Rights, which typically involve
quantitative(numerical) limits on resource usage, either through
input(effort) rights or output (harvest) rights. 6. Territorial use
rights Input(effort) rights including limited entry Output(harvest)
rights 7. Territorial Use RightsTURFs may be defined as community
held rights of use(or tenure) and exclusion over the fishery
resourceswithin a specific area and for a period of
time.Accompanying these rights might be certainresponsibilities for
maintenance and propermanagement of the resource base, as well
asrestrictions on the exercise of the rights of use andexclusion.
8. The territory governed by a TURF can relateto the surface, the
bottom, or to the entirewater column within a specific area. The
size of the territory will vary with the use,the resources being
harvested and thegeographical characteristics. It should be
sufficient in size, however, sothat use outside of the territory
does notsignificantly diminish the value of use within. 9. A TURF
is not so much resource specific as itis site specific. The
territory should be readily defensible andprotected by the laws and
institutions of thecountry. The boundaries of the territory
should,therefore, be clearly demarcated andidentifiable. 10. TURFs
as a Means for Increasing Fishery Net BenefitsThe establishment of
a TURF may help generate or increasenet benefits from a heretofore
open-access fishery in anumber of ways: By excluding outsiders from
the territory of the TURF By controlling the use of labour and
capital within the territoryof the TURF By dealing with spatial and
other externalities partly throughinternationalization and partly
through coordination withadjacent TURFs which share the same
stocks. By investing to enhance future returns, negatively
throughincreased incentives to avoid depletion and positively
throughcommunity works such as landing places, artificial
reefs,aggregation devices and aquaculture By providing flexibility
to adjust to changes in technology,markets, resource
characteristics and the socio-economicstructure of the fishing
community (flexibility includes thedivisibility of the TURF). 11.
TURFS as a means for improving the distribution ofbenefitsTURFs may
help improve the distribution of benefitsamong the members of a
fishing community in a numberof ways: By improving local employment
opportunities By increasing local income, consumption and
nutritionand evening out fluctuations in income By making possible
the preservation of community socialorganization and reducing
intra-and inter-communityconflicts By promoting social mobility and
learning by doing 12. The owner of a TURF can be a private
individual a private individual enterprise a group of individuals
such as a cooperative, anassociation or a community a political
subdivision such as a town or a province a national government a
multinational agency 13. In addition, owners of individual TURFs
can createa form of cooperative ownership in which individualrights
are constrained by joint decisions. Generally, the effectiveness of
a TURF will begreatest where the specificity of the ownership isthe
highest. Individuals can usually make decisions more easilythan
group of individuals. However, with regard to the objective of
improvingthe welfare of small-scale fishing communities,ownership
of use rights by private individuals couldwell be damaging. In
these cases, some form ofcommunal ownership of a TURF will be
desirable. 14. Advantages of localized TURFs More economically
efficient use of the resources Improving welfare of small-scale
fishing community The owner of the TURF can limit the input of
capitallabour at the point where the greatest net benefits
areproduced Opportunity and incentives to manage the
resourceswithin the territory 15. Traditional TURFs and Problems of
OpenAccess FisheryTerritorial Use Rights in fisheries, in the sense
ofcommunity-held rights of use over resources withina territory at
the exclusion of others have beenknown to exist for centuries.
Examples of traditionalTURFs are still found today, among other
places, inBrazil, Sri Lanka, Papua New Guinea, Oceania,Ivory Coast.
Many of these customary rights arenow crumbling under the pressures
of populationgrowth, technological change andcommercialization of
subsistence fisheries. 16. Evaluation of TURFs as
potentialmanagement tool can be done in terms of Eficiency EquityA
TURF is an efficient management tool if it providesthe means for
generating or increasing the net benefitsfrom a given fishery (or
part of the fishery). A TURF is"equitable" if it provides the means
for improving thedistribution of benefits within the community from
theexploitation of the fishery. 17. Finally, TURFs, or at least the
most successful ofthem, may produce revenues for the society
atlarge: (a) by saving on management andenforcement cost; (b) by
reducing the need forcostly welfare/development assistance
todepressed fishing communities; and (c) bygenerating substantial
resource rents, part of whichmay be creamed off by the
government.
