It can be summed up quite simply: by setting fishing quotas too high, EU fisheries policy has driven fish stocks in northern EU waters to the brink of collapse.
Looking at the sober figures, it is clear that fish stocks have declined drastically over the past 20 years, even though fishing quotas exist. How is this possible? The fishing lobby versus reality, that is the simple answer. For years, scientists have denounced the excessively high quotas and the far too optimistic projections of fish stock development. Now, the GEOMAR Helmholtz-Zentrum für Ozeanforschung Kiel and the Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel have published an analysis clearly demonstrating that around 70 percent of commercially exploited fish stocks in northern EU waters are overfished or have completely collapsed. This is despite the EU's legal commitment to "sustainable fishing", whatever its interpretation of that may be.
A case in point: the eastern Baltic cod is already considered extinct. In the worst-case scenario, the western Baltic cod and herring face the same fate. The blame lies with continued overfishing despite extremely declining stocks. Prof. Dr. Thorsten Reusch, Head of the Marine Ecology Research Division at GEOMAR, states: "It is small-scale coastal fishers who suffer the most, often without having done anything wrong, except perhaps relying on the political representation of fisheries associations that lobbied for unsustainable fishing quotas."
GEOMAR proposes an independent institution. Dr. Rainer Froese, lead author of the study, explains: "To be successful, such an body for sustainable fisheries would have to operate with the same degree of independence as a central bank." He emphasises: "Implementing sound scientific recommendations could, in many cases, lead within a few years to highly profitable fisheries harvesting from large fish stocks in healthy European seas."
The Thünen-Institut, however, criticises GEOMAR. "These GEOMAR authors have stood out for years with positions that appear close to environmental organisations," criticises Christopher Zimmermann, Director of the Rostock-based Thünen-Institut. He argues that it is correct "that the uncertainties in our predictions, particularly for Baltic Sea stocks, have risen sharply - which is linked to climate change and eutrophication."
The outcome of past fisheries policy exposes such remarks. It should be assumed that fishing quotas actually take climate change and the specific situation of the Baltic Sea into account. This does not appear to be the case. Reality is now catching up with politics, confirming an entirely incorrect management of the marine environment on our doorstep. Instead of adopting a conservative approach and halting overfishing to give the sea and consequently the fish stocks time to recover, fishing continues.
Rainer Froese adds: "Interestingly, the actual catches in the Baltic Sea mostly remained below the permitted limits. This is simply because many fishers could not or did not want to catch more: searching for the final fish would have been too expensive and no longer profitable."
Further information and the associated analysis: https://www.geomar.de/news/article/warum-europas-fischereimanagement-neu-gedacht-werden-musshttps://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adv4341
