Worrying signals from Europe on maintaining sustainable fish stocks: in recent days the UK's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs released this statement. It supports the Commission’s decision to abandon plans to limit fishing in areas where there is currently inadequate data about fish stocks. The plans would have seen an automatic cut in total allowable catches (or TACs) in such areas.  TACs are the the limits on the amount of fish that can be taken from any particular fish stock, and the cancelled plans would have applied across the board - offering vital protection for stocks about which too little is known to confidently fish sustainably.

ClientEarth's lawyers and scientists warn that cancelling this plan breaks the fundamental 'precautionary principle' as it fails to limit fishing when its impact on stock status is unknown. The Commission and EU Member States are legally required by the Lisbon Treaty to apply the precautionary principle and the Commission’s original proposal to automatically reduce TACs by 25% when scientific advice is unavailable was an appropriate application of the principle.

We are concerned by the direction the Commission is taking on this issue. Where are the commitments to overcome this lack of data by prioritising its collection? Imposing an automatic TAC reduction until deficiencies in scientific advice are addressed would have incentivised Member States to significantly improve the scientific advice about fish stocks in their waters.

The Commission states that it proposes TACs "on the basis of scientific advice on the state of the stocks concerned and decided on by the Council of Fisheries Ministers". But, their decision to continue high levels of fishing has been made in the absence of scientific evidence.

Poor data is a widespread problem affecting fisheries management. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES, the world's oldest intergovernmental scientific organisation) is a leading scientific authority tasked with sharing information on marine sciences. But, more than half the fish stocks ICES advise on are so data poor that they cannot be analytically assessed (see p.2 - Identifying the problem). Some stocks have collapsed (Cod in West of Scotland, Irish Sea and Kattegat, for example) and despite cuts of 25% in the TAC, their recovery is still being hampered by a data poor situation.

We know that even when data does exist, the advice from scientists is usually ignored; on average the Council of Ministers exceeds scientific recommendations (section 5 - Setting TACs) on sustainable fishing levels by 48%, so what chance do the stocks which we know little about have?  

Even without the 25% cuts, those fish stocks with a TAC or effort restriction are ‘the lucky ones’ because there is a vast number of stocks which have no such restrictions on fishing – these stocks are not considered to be important and so tend not to be a priority for data collection. Who knows what damage we are doing to them?

The reform of the Common Fisheries Policy fast approaching. It is more crucial than ever than green groups, shoppers and supermarkets (with those in our Sustainable Seafood Coalition leading the way) keep up the pressure on lawmakers to design rules that protect fish stocks and fishermen for the future.