A large part of the herring caught today becomes fish meal. Foto: Pixabay

In 1977, the EEC (predecessor to the EU, for convenience referred to as “EU” below) adopted a ban on targeted fishing of herring for fish meal and other industrial purposes.
Part of the background was the dire situation for herring in the North Sea. Another was the extension of the exclusive economic zones to 200 nautical miles.

Previously, at least 14 countries had fished in the North Sea, and management was ineffective. After years of debate about whether a decline in the herring was due to natural conditions or overfishing, and ultimately attempts to regulate targeted fishing, there was a dispute over whether to prioritise fishing for human consumption ahead of fishing for industrial purposes. This was in turn followed by a debate on how much of an exemption should be granted “by-catch” for industrial purposes.

As the spawning stock biomass was estimated to have declined by roughly 70-80 per cent from 1960’s by 1974-75, the EU instituted a temporary ban on herring fishing in the North Sea in February 1977, a ban that was subsequently extended. All directed herring fisheries in the North Sea were stopped by the end of June, 1977. Significant by-catches of herring were, however, allowed when fishing for species such as sand eel and sprat, in particular for Denmark. The ban on targeted herring fishing in the North Sea was subsequently lifted in steps, with the largest part ending in 1983.

Consequences in the Baltic

One consequence of the ban on herring fishing in the North Sea was that the price of herring went up. Another was that some fleets moved to exploit herring stocks in adjacent areas such as the Baltic Sea Sweden, for its part, extended its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Baltic as of the first of January, 1978 as a response to other countries extending theirs in the North Sea earlier that year. This was expected to lead to increased fishing opportunities for Sweden in the Baltic at the same time as it would allow Sweden to counteract tendencies of other countries to compensate for lost fishing grounds in the North Sea by intensified fishing in the Baltic. 

There was also concern about what the fish would be used for. The extension of the EEZ in the Baltic was also expected to lead to a significant increase in the catch of sprat, which was not attractive to the Swedish consumers. A government commission noted in 1977 that a significant amount of the herring caught by the Swedish fleet could not be sold at the current prices. The commission argued that an increased catch of fish for fish meal was necessary for the employment of the fishers and vessels whose fishing opportunities were limited by the restrictions on herring fishing in the North Sea. It also emphasized that this should not compete with fishing for human consumption. 

Consumption of fresh herring per capita had declined, according to a government bill from 1978, from 4.2 kg/ca 1960 to 2.1 kg/ca in 1975. In the fisheries, there was a surplus of small herring and a deficit of large herring, leading to imports. At the same time, the Swedish production of fish meal (concentrated to the west coast) supplied about 20 percent of the demand from Swedish agriculture. However, 30 percent of the Swedish catch of fish for fish meal was exported, mostly to Denmark. 

Later, a debate about toxins in fat fish from the Baltic also impacted on consumer demand for fatty fish, such as herring, from the Baltic. In 1995 the Swedish Food Agency published recommendations on limits for consumption of fatty fish from the Baltic by girls and women of child-bearing age. When the EU regulated the allowable levels of toxins such as dioxin in food in 2001, Sweden obtained an exemption for fatty some fish  from the Baltic, including herring, based in part on the public awareness campaigns about the food recommendations. (Fish meal and fish oil from Baltic herring comply with the EU regulations.) 

Negotiating an exemption for herring fishing for fish meal

Sweden applied for membership in the EU in 1991. Sweden’s membership negotiations commenced in earnest in February 1993. According the minutes of a meeting on the Community’s internal resources policy held during the negotiations in April, 1993, Sweden demanded that the ban on targeted fishing of herring for industrial purpose other than human consumption should be abolished in Sweden’s traditional fishing waters in the Skagerrak, the Kattegat and the Baltic Sea.

Under Annex XV, section VIII in the Swedish accession treaty to the EU of 1994, Swedish and Finnish vessels were granted a derogation from the ban in the regulation from 1977. They were allowed to fish for herring for purposes other than human consumption “provided that such fishery does not entail risks of irreversible ecological damage… and subject to a monitoring system for by-catches supervised by the Commission”. The exemption was granted for a three-year period from the date of accession (1 January, 1995). Before the end of the three-year period, the Council was to review the regulation from 1977.

Sweden demanded that the ban on targeted fishing of herring for industrial purpose other than human consumption should be abolished in Sweden’s traditional fishing waters.

In December 1997 the Commission submitted a proposal to allow landing of herring for purposes other than human consumption fished in most of the Baltic Sea. Under the regulation subsequently adopted in the Council in 1998, any herring caught in most of the Baltic east of Bornholm with any gear could be landed for industrial purposes such as fish meal. The regulation also laid down percentages of herring allowed to be retained on board when targeting other species. According to the European Parliament, the change would open the Baltic for industrial fishing for herring, but would maintain the ban elsewhere. The change would also allow Germany and Denmark to fish herring in the Baltic for fish meal. A justification, according to the Parliament, was that the then current status of the Baltic herring was healthy. However, the Parliament felt that the Commission proposal augmented the risks to the herring and other species in the Baltic. 

In this context, it might be noted that the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, appears to not have shared the view of the Baltic herring to be healthy, but instead expressed concerns of already the current fishing mortality. In the assessment of the central Baltic herring in 1998 they wrote: “The stock is considered to be harvested outside safe biological limits as defined by the proposed reference points because of the continued decline in SSB and increase in F. The assessment is uncertain due to the stock complexity in this area. The trends in numbers and biomass differ reflecting a change in the relative productivity between stock components (see Figure 3.13.3.b.1). Fishing mortality is above the proposed Fpa”. 

The 1998 regulation, allowing an exemption for targeted fishing of herring for fish meal in most of the Baltic, was amended in 2005 to delete some specific references to Baltic, following the accession of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to the EU. 

Repeal of the ban on targeting herring for fish meal

The amended 1998 regulation, with the vestiges of the ban on targeted fishing of herring for fish meal in the EU, was in turn repealed in 2015, with the somewhat curious justification of the adoption of the landing obligation  in revised Common Fisheries Policy 2013. 
New fish meal factories were subsequently opened in Finland (2016) and Estonia (2019) with EU funding, increasing the demand for herring and sprat for fish meal in the Baltic region. 

According to ICES latest estimate, the spawning stock biomass of the central Baltic herring was in 2024 probably just above the biomass limit value Blim, and far below the target values of the biomass that, under the EU’s multiannual plan for management of Baltic herring, cod and sprat, should trigger special measures to rapidly increase the size of the stock. 

In her analysis of the collapse of the North Sea herring fisheries in the 1970’s, researcher Hrefna M. Karlsdóttir concluded that “[t] most positive measure taken to regulate the exploitation of North Sea herring was the ban on directed fishing for industrial purposes. However, the by-catch regulation diminished the effect of this ban.” In order to prevent a collapse of the Baltic herring similar to those suffered by the North Sea herring or the western Baltic cod, with the social and environmental consequences that would follow, some have called for a long-term moratorium on large-scale fishing which can catch herring in the Baltic Sea. 

Historically, it is an oversimplification to blame the EU for the dominance of industrial pelagic fishing for fish meal in the Baltic. Sweden played an important role in initiating the repeal of the EU ban. In future discussions of potential restrictions on industrial fishing for small pelagic fish in the Baltic it may be useful to better understand how we got where we are.

Text: Charles Berkow