Scientists in Brussels call for cautious Baltic Sea fisheries

Since the EU's fisheries policy was reformed in the 2010s, three of the seven fish stocks in the Baltic Sea have collapsed, and there are worrying signs for two more. A team from Stockholm University Baltic Sea Centre recently attended a hearing at the European Parliament in Brussels to explain why politicians should be more restrictive on fishing quotas.

In the 2010s, the EU Common Fisheries Policy was reformed and a multiannual plan (MAP) for Baltic Sea fisheries management was developed. The aim was to make the fisheries more sustainable, among other things by strengthening fish stocks by ensuring that fishing quotas did not exceed the estimated level of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY).

“At the time, this was seen as an improvement, but it has turned out to not work so well in practice, partly because it is difficult to know where this level should be,” says researcher Henrik Svedäng from Stockholm University Baltic Sea Centre.

Henrik Svedäng has worked on fisheries issues for 40 years and is a well-known name in the Swedish fisheries debate. He is frequently interviewed in various media and works actively to communicate his research to decision-makers by writing policy briefs and debate articles, responding to consultations and participating in political meetings. At the beginning of the year, he and policy analyst Charles Berkow travelled to Brussels to influence fisheries policy at EU level, where many of the most important decisions are made. Their main message is that fishing pressure must be significantly reduced on those stocks in the Baltic Sea that have not already collapsed.

“I don't think everyone realises how damaged fish stocks can be if you fish too much – they can be completely wiped out. In an environment as sensitive and affected as the Baltic Sea, quotas must be set much lower than they are today. This is the only way to ensure long-term growth," says Henrik Svedäng during the train journey to Brussels.

Swedish MEP Alice Bah Kuhnke emphasises the importance of researchers, such as Henrik Svedäng, visiting the Parliament to share their knowledge. Photo: Lisa Bergqvist

Swedish MEP Alice Bah Kuhnke (Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance), happens to be on the same train to Brussels. She is delighted to hear that Henrik Svedäng will be giving a presentation in the Parliament. 

"We as legislators are completely dependent on meeting people like you, who carry the knowledge," she says to Henrik. "All too often, unfortunately, the information we have is old. To meet someone who gives an up-to-date account of what is actually happening and what science knows, is of utmost importance.”

 

Decisions on a scientific basis?

Decisions on how much EU countries can fish on different stocks are ultimately taken by the countries' ministers in the Council of Ministers. The decisions are based on scientific advice produced by scientists from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). They estimate the size of the stocks and then calculate how much can be fished without the total biomass becoming critically low.

However, the calculations behind the stock estimates are uncertain, and in retrospect it has often turned out that the stocks were smaller than expected, and that the fishing quotas were therefore set too high. The Baltic Sea Centre has previously described this problem and recommended that politicians set herring quotas at a maximum of 50 percent of the MSY quota, as a way of creating a buffer against uncertainty.

“There are also many other things that the figure given as the maximum sustainable yield does not take into account, but which are very important for the development of the stocks. Some examples are impacts on the environment, on the size and age distribution of the fish, on the stock components, or sub-populations that some stocks, such as herring, consist of and that can be eliminated if you fish too hard in a certain place", says Charles Berkow.

Researcher Henrik Svedäng outside the Parliament. Photo: Lisa Bergqvist

In the advice produced by ICES, these impacts have not been taken into account in the calculations, and sometimes scientists express concern about the development of a particular stock. However, politicians usually just take the very specific figure given as the maximum sustainable yield in the headline advice and base quotas decisions on it, says Charles Berkow.

“They need to read the advice carefully and take note of what is actually written there. But to make it easier for managers, it would be good to start the advice with an executive summary which contains important information not reflected in the headline advice. This would make it harder for politicians to believe, and claim, that they have made good decisions when they haven't.

 

Multiannual plan for fisheries questioned

The disastrous state of many fish stocks in the Baltic Sea has led some to call for changes to the multiannual fisheries management plan. As a result of these discussions, the European Parliament's fisheries committee is organising a hearing where various stakeholders can give their views on the plan and its implementation.

Henrik Svedäng starts the meeting with a presentation on the development of the Baltic Sea stocks and what affects them. He points out that the sensitive environment of the Baltic Sea, with its varying temperature and salinity, combined with environmental problems such as pollution, eutrophication and climate change, makes fish stocks particularly vulnerable.

"In a fragile ecosystem and with uncertain stock estimates, biomass removal must be lower and fishing quotas set well below MSY," he says.

Researcher Henrik Svedäng, Stockholm University Baltic Sea Centre, holding the opening presentation at the hearing in the European Parliament. Closest to the camera is Michael Andersen from the Danish Fishers PO. Photo: Lisa Bergqvist
 

The management plan – a straitjacket?

Other presenters, such as Catherine Pedersen Schirmer, Chief Counsellor at the Danish Society for Nature Conservation, raises similar points. The objectives of the multi-annual management plan are good, but the implementation is flawed, she says. Among other things, the dynamics between different species should be taken into account, as well as other information from ICES advice and ecosystem surveys.

"I would urge decision-makers to look at other things that are relevant, that are included in the advice and that are important for ecosystem-based fisheries management.”

Her compatriot Michael Andersen, who represents the fishing industry, disagrees. He is also not satisfied with how the multi-annual management plan works, but for different reasons.

"It is too much of a fish conservation plan. It shouldn't be a straitjacket telling us what to do because it obviously hasn't worked," he says.

Instead, the management plan should be more flexible so that it can take socio-economic factors into account, he says.

"I'm not saying we should ignore the science, but it has to be balanced against the lives of the fishermen and things like that.”

 

Is the problem fishing or the environment?

A representative of the European Commission, Maja Kirschner, defends the multiannual plan by arguing that it works for example in the North Sea, and therefore should work for the Baltic Sea as well. Emphasising that fishing in recent years has been below the levels recommended by ICES scientists, she says there is another important factor to consider: the environmental situation.

“This is where the real problem is”, she states.

The problem in the Baltic Sea today, she argues, is no longer overfishing, but environmental decline due in part to lack of implementation of various directives, such as the Nitrates Directive and the Habitats Directive.

Maja Kirschner from the European Commission argued that environmental degradation is the main problem for the Baltic fish stocks. Photo: Lisa Bergqvist

The discussion about whether it is fishing or the environment that affects the development of the fish stocks is old, and almost always comes up, says Henrik Svedäng after the meeting.

“There is a tendency to set things against each other, such as that if the environment affects the fish stocks, fishing cannot do so at the same time. This is a strange way of reasoning; it's obvious that the environment also affects the stocks, but you can't negotiate with nature. If the stocks are not productive, you can't continue to fish. Then the stocks collapse and it is very bad, also for the environment, that such an important component of the ecosystem disappears.”

Charles Berkow takes note of the objection from the fisheries industry that the management should be more flexible to allow for socio-economic considerations.

“It is the focus on short-term socio-economic impacts that has contributed to the sustained socio-economic losses caused by depleted stocks”, he says.

Baltic multiannual plan for fisheries

  • The European fisheries is regulated in the Common fisheries policy (CFP). With attention to the environmental, economic and social dimensions of fisheries, the CFP aims at fish stock management at maximum sustainable yield (MSY) for all managed stocks.
  • Two key elements of the CAP are regionalization and the multiannual plans (MAPs) to manage fisheries in different sea basins.
  • The MAP for the Baltic Sea covers management of seven commercial fish stocks: cod (Western Baltic and Eastern Baltic), herring (Western, Central Baltic, Gulf of Bothnia and Gulf of Riga) and sprat. 
  • The objective of the Baltic MAP is to contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the CFPis to contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the CFP. This includes restoring and maintaining populations of commercially fished species above levels that can produce MSY, and coherence with EU environmental policies, in particular the objective of achieving good environmental status for marine areas under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.
  • In February 2023, the Commission adopted a fisheries package, including Communications on the functioning of the CFP and an action plan for fisheries and marine ecosystems.
 

Valuable knowledge exchange

After the meeting, Swedish MEP Emma Wiesner (Renew Europe Group) expresses her appreciation for the summary of the research.

"It is very valuable to get this overall picture of the situation in the Baltic Sea. There is far too little talk about Baltic Sea issues down here, so having Henrik and other experts here is worth its weight in gold," she says.

Swedish MEP Emma Wiesel took part in the hearing. Photo: Lisa Bergqvist

After the hearing in the Parliament, Henrik Svedäng and Charles Berkow continue to discuss fisheries management with two of the European Commission's expert officials. They raise the question of how the information already available could be presented in a different way, for example in a summary, which could lead to better management.

“They were interested and might not have looked at the issue in this way. At the same time, they explain that it is difficult to bring about changes in ICES' presentation of advice," concludes Charles Berkow after the meeting.

 

Can pave the way for trawl border relocation

On the train ride home from Brussels, Charles Berkow notes that the meetings in both the Parliament and the Commission have led to valuable contacts that will hopefully make it easier for the Baltic Sea Centre to reach politicians with facts in the future.

"Fishing is a special industry in that political management decisions are made every year”, he says. This makes it particularly important that we reach the politicians with scientific knowledge. It was interesting to get an insight into the dynamics of the Parliament and to hear how they reason in the Parliament and the Commission. It will improve our work.”

Henrik Svedäng on his way home from Brussels. Photo: Lisa Bergqvist

Henrik Svedäng hopes that his appearance in the Parliament may have paved the way for a future relocation of the trawl limit – an issue that has been intensively discussed in Sweden after the acute situation for herring received much attention in recent years.

“This may have created an understanding that the situation is very bad and that Sweden may want to take measures to preserve its coastal stocks. At the same time, the comments heard revealed that people have a fairly basic understanding of how fishing is carried out. It was questioned whether fishing could affect the stocks since there are so few boats left, without having understood that the boats today are much larger and more efficient. One lesson to be learned is probably that, as a scientist, you really should be simple in your presentation.”

Text: Lisa Bergqvist

Further reading

See the PECH hearing on the perfomance of the Baltic MAP (starting at 17:03 min)

Policy brief: Adapt herring fisheries to scientific uncertainty

Policy brief: Reduce coastal trawling to protect the Baltic herring

Watch a movie about the experts's trip to Brussels (mainly in Swedish):