Which member states are setting quotas above scientific advice?
12 April 2017
Fisheries ministers risk damaging our natural resources beyond repair by consistently setting fishing limits above scientific advice. This is our third year running a series of briefings to identify which member states are standing in the way of more fish, more profits, and more jobs for European citizens.
Food for an additional 89 million EU citizens. An extra €1.6 billion in annual revenue. Over 20,000 new jobs across the continent. Far from being a pipe dream, all of this could be a reality if we paid more attention to one of Europe’s most significant natural resources – our seas. If EU waters were properly managed – with damaged fish stocks rebuilt above levels that could support their maximum sustainable yield (MSY) – we could enjoy their full potential within a generation.
Every year, fisheries ministers have an opportunity to make this a reality when they agree on a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for commercial fish stocks. Scientific bodies, predominantly the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), provide information about the state of most stocks and recommend maximum catch levels. But for many years, this scientific advice has not been respected.
Our historical analysis of agreed TACs for all EU waters between 2001 and 2016 shows that, on average, 7 out of every 10 TACs were set above scientific advice. Whilst the percentage by which TACs were set above advice declined throughout this period (from 42% to 12%), the proportion of TACs set above advice did not.
The reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) that entered into force in 2014 aims to restore and maintain populations of fish stocks above levels capable of supporting the MSY. The corresponding exploitation rate was to be achieved by 2015 where possible and by 2020 at the latest for all stocks. Following scientific advice is essential if we are to achieve this goal, end overfishing, and restore fish stocks to healthy levels.
The negotiations over TACs are held by the Agricultural and Fisheries configuration of the Council of Ministers. These negotiations are not public, only their outcomes. This lack of transparency means that ministers are not on the hook when they ignore scientific advice and give priority to short-term interests that risk the health of fish stocks. This briefing, a continuation of the Landing the Blame series, reveals which Member States and ministers are behind decisions that go against the EU’s long-term interests. This outcome is accomplished by analysing the outcomes of the negotiations and calculating which Member States end up with TACs above scientific advice. The key assumption is that these Member States are the main drivers of overfishing, either because they were actively pushing for fishing limits to be set above scientific advice, or they failed to prevent it from taking place.
Download technical appendix
Landing the blame
Fair, sustainable fishing
Fisheries & farming
If you back a recovery plan based around great public services, protecting the planet and reducing inequality, please support NEF to build back better.
Financing a just transition to agroecology in the aftermath of Brexit
Chris Williams, Duncan McCann, Andrew Pendleton, Joshua Humphreys, Jaime Silverstein
30 June 2021
A local, decentralised food system isn’t just good for consumers – it’s got big benefits for farmers and our environment as well
26 April 2021
Raising awareness is important but this documentary failed to get the narrative and facts right
07 April 2021
Ayeisha Thomas-Smith is joined by NEF Associate Fellow, Chris Williams
02 March 2021