Baltic Sea Centre's reply on the Fisheries management rules revision

Summary

A deletion or change to Art. 4.6 in the Baltic multiannual plan (MAP) would in all probability lead to less legal clarity. Complaints of a lack of legal certainty or overlapping with other rules in the MAP are based on a misunderstanding. If there were uncertainty about how to interpret and implement the 5% rule it could be remedied by recourse to court. There is a case pending since 2024.

As Council has not implemented rules already existing in the plan, it is not immediately apparent that new rules for rebuilding trajectories, while welcome, would change anything in practise. The Commission would need to be more active in initiating infringement procedures. Abrupt and drastic reductions in fishing opportunities could be avoided by diligent and prudent application of the existing rules to achieve the restoration objective in the MAP.

Deletion or weakening of Art. 4.6 would give less incentive to achieve the restoration objective in the MAP and to any new rules on rebuilding trajectories. Deletion or weakening of Art. 4.6 would lead to lower stock levels, less future fishing opportunities, less social and economic benefits and increased risk for stock collapse.

Background

Important background for the discussion of the 5% guardrail is an imperative, if only implied, objective: avoid stock collapse. This is a real risk: in our generation at least three stocks previously important for Swedish fisheries have collapsed. (See links below). Complaints that the 5% rule in Art. 4.6 is superfluous or confusing because of the 5% cap in the design of ICES F-ranges (article 2(2) in the MAP), are based on a misunderstanding.

For example, in the advice for the central Baltic herring from May 2026, ICES writes in a footnote to Table 2: * The probability of SSB being below SSB reference points in 2028. This probability relates to the short-term probability of SSB < Blim and MSY Btrigger and is not comparable to the long-term probability of SSB < Blim and MSY Btrigger tested in simulations when estimating fishing mortality reference points. In other words, ICES writes that the 5% rule in Art. 4.6 is not comparable to the 5% cap in Art. 2(2) (see link below).

Articles 4 and 5 in the Baltic MAP are complementary, not contradictory. Art. 4 Targets contains a clear hierarchy of rules for setting catch limits, and the 5% rule in 4(6) is solely based on the current conditions and predicted probabilities for the coming year. Article 5 Safeguards is directly linked to the current stock assessment, i.e. where the size of the spawning stock biomass is estimated to be according to the latest ICES advice. To combine remedial measures such as a spawning closure or technical regulation, as required by Art. 5, is not inconsistent with the 5% rule in Art. 4.6.

A way to resolve uncertainty as to how to interpret and apply a provision in an EU regulation would be to bring the issue to the European Court of Justice (see link in attached document). This has also been done in a case that has been pending for nearly two years. It is not clear why a proposal to delete or weaken 4.6 is appropriate to launch before the court renders its ruling.

The need for abrupt and sometimes drastic reductions in total allowable catches in order to implement Art. 4.6 has been due to mismanagement: failure to implement the plan with appropriate prudence and low priority given to the restoration objective. A new balance prioritizing rebuilding depleted stocks would better achieve the objectives of the MAP, reduce the risk for abrupt and drastic TAC reductions and the risk for stock collapse, and enhance long-term social and economic benefits as well as food security. Deleting or weakening Art. 4.6 would reduce rebuilding incentives, slow a rebuilding trajectory, increase risks and make the regulation less fit for purpose.

References

References to the Stockholm University Baltic Sea Centre reply to the Call for evidence:

Stock collapses: A new objective for fisheries management avoid stock collapses

ICES. 2026. Herring (Clupea harengus) in subdivisions 25–29 and 32, excluding the Gulf of Riga (central Baltic Sea). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2026. ICES Advice 2026, her.27.25–2932. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.30932081

Graham J. Edgar et al. Stock assessment models overstate sustainability of the world’s fisheries. Science385,860-865(2024). DOI:10.1126/science.adl6282

Previous SUBSC analysis of potential inconsistencies in Art. 4.6 in the MAP
Analysis weakening the management of baltic fisheries

Pending court case regarding the interpretation and implementation of Art. 4.6 https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/affair?lang=EN&searchTerm=%22T342%2F24%22&publishedId=T-342%2F24