Press release

EU-UK fishing limits gamble with ocean future as sandeel dispute continues

10 December 2024

The EU-UK agreement on annual joint fishing limits has been reached – putting at least one stock at risk of ‘total wipeout’.  

Negotiators have agreed on around 90 fishing limits for shared fish stocks – most of the commercial stocks in the North-East Atlantic.

The EU-UK negotiations took place against the backdrop of an ongoing dispute between the EU and UK over ocean conservation. The bloc took legal action after the UK and Scotland decided to ban sandeel fishing to protect marine ecosystems.

ClientEarth science and policy advisor Jenni Grossmann said: “Having sailed past the 2020 legal deadline to end overfishing, the EU and the UK have once again set fishing limits that risk consigning some stocks to history – while the EU has hauled the UK into a separate legal dispute for attempting to protect at least part of its marine ecosystem. It isn’t a good look.”

Despite repeat warnings by civil society, governments have for years set many limits far above what scientists advise – going against a legal obligation to end overfishing. This year, the EU and UK have once again set dangerous limits for on-the-brink stocks including Irish Sea whiting and Celtic Sea cod. The catch limit for Celtic Sea cod is higher than the entire current population and thus risks a total wipeout.

While most catch limits for 'target' stocks this year have fallen within what scientists have advised, NGOs have been warning that these limits are still too high to protect and restore fish stocks and marine ecosystems as a whole.

Grossmann said: “What scientists are asked to provide to inform quota-setting is not geared towards safeguarding wider ocean functioning and resilience, or boosting stock recovery in the face of other mounting ecosystem pressures – like climate change or pollution.

“This is not the fault of the scientists who provide the advice, but of those who request it: EU and UK decision-makers who set the fishing limits and who should ask for such science aimed at boosting ecosystem resilience and stock recovery but once again failed to commit to this in today’s agreed written record.

“Sustainable, recovery-focused fishing limits are in industry’s absolute best interests – we need fish populations to last and the ocean to be resilient, so that fishing has a future. And without an ocean in good shape, we cannot fight climate change.

“If leaders don’t protect the marine ecosystem as a whole, they will gamble away the future of our ocean and any coastal communities and livelihoods that depend on it."

EU ministers are still negotiating the fishing limits for the EU-only stocks – these are expected to be released by tomorrow.

ClientEarth has just intervened in support of the sandeel closures as a ‘friend of the court’. 

ENDS

Notes to editors:

Fishing limits are set for over a hundred fish stocks each year – different species of fish that are geolocalised in certain ocean areas. Since Brexit, most of the stocks that used to be managed by the EU alone are now shared between the EU and UK, who agree on next year’s shared fishing limits every December.

Many of the fish stocks managed through catch limits are ‘targeted’ (those that are deliberately caught for commercial sale), whereas others are incidentally caught as ‘bycatch’ alongside those target stocks. These ‘bycatch’ stocks are largely treated as collateral damage, with fishing limits for them well above scientific advice (which is often for zero catch) being rolled over year after year, and this year is no exception.

For targeted stocks, most – but still not all – fishing limits were set at what the science currently deems ‘sustainable’ on a single-stock basis. But NGOs know this does not go far enough.

What’s the problem with the science?

Every year, decision-makers ask scientists to advise on what would constitute a sustainable catch level for each stock. However, what scientists have been asked to provide is not geared towards safeguarding wider ocean functioning and resilience, or boosting stock recovery in the face of other mounting ecosystem pressures – like climate change or pollution.

This means the advice the EU and the UK currently use is likely much higher than what’s needed to genuinely protect (let alone restore) fish stocks, or the ocean – for example to ensure a sufficient food supply for other marine life is left in the sea, or to rebuild struggling fish populations.

This is not the fault of the scientists who provide the advice, but of those who request it: EU and UK decision-makers who set the fishing limits and who could simply ask for such science aimed at boosting ecosystem resilience and stock recovery but once again failed to commit to this in today’s agreed written record.

Read NGO guidance on EU and UK Total Allowable Catch (TAC) allocations.

Read ClientEarth’s response to last year’s negotiations.

Read ClientEarth’s briefing on its fresh submission to the sandeel dispute.

About ClientEarth

ClientEarth is a non-profit organisation that uses the law to create systemic change that protects the Earth for – and with – its inhabitants. We are tackling climate change, protecting nature and stopping pollution, with partners and citizens around the globe. We hold industry and governments to account, and defend everyone’s right to a healthy world. From our offices in Europe, Asia and the USA we shape, implement and enforce the law, to build a future for our planet in which people and nature can thrive together.