A contribution from Gaylor Janton*
In this month of December 2024, all EU quotas for fisheries are now established for the year 2025, after the cession of the Agriculture and Fisheries (AGRIFISH) Council[1], which took place from the 9th to the 11th of December 2024, resulting in the adoption of the Council Regulation on fixing the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic and North-Atlantic for 2025, as well as for the Mediterranean and Black Seas. Fisheries ministers[2] meet each year in Brussel to reach a political agreement on fishing opportunities.
The European Union (EU) is the third fisheries and aquaculture producer in the world, and 22 of the 27 Member States have an access to the sea, with over 80,000 km of coastline. It is therefore of great importance that fisheries, and in particular sustainable fisheries, have a good socio-economic impact. This constitutes the general objective of the EU common fisheries policy (CFP), enshrined in article 2.1 of the CFP Basic Regulation[3].
The annual adoption of the Fishing Opportunities Regulation is an aspect of the CFP, whose process is regulated by EU Law (A). This is the result of full concentrated cooperation at EU level among institutions as well as among state authorities (B). It aims at finding a balance between sustainable fisheries to allow fish stocks to recover, and the protection of socio-economic interests of EU fishermen and women (C).
A. The quota agreement at the European level: a part of the European Common Fisheries Policy
Although fisheries policy was enshrined in EU law in 1958 with the Treaty of Rome[4], it was not until 1970 that a policy distinct from the common agricultural policy was introduced. Eventually, the EU common fisheries policy (CFP) has been added to the EU framework in 1983[5] with the establishment of a community regime for fisheries and aquaculture.
The CFP is enshrined in articles 38-43 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)[6]. According to article 3.1 TFEU, “the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy” is one of the five exclusive competences of the EU, meaning that the EU alone has competence to legislate and adopt binding acts in this domain. Member States can only do so if empowered by the EU. According to article 4.2.d. TFEU, those parts of the CFP which deal with “agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources” fall under shared competence, meaning that the EU and its Member States are both able to legislate and adopt legally binding acts, and Member States can exercise their own competence where the EU does not exercise, or has decided not to exercise its own competence.
The scope of the CFP has evolved, following three reforms in 1992[7], 2002[8] and 2013[9]. The last reform includes the conservation of marine biological resources and the management of the fisheries exploiting them. It sets rules for conserving marine biological resources and managing and controlling European fisheries inside and outside EU waters. This includes ensuring the traceability, security and quality of products marketed in the EU, as well as contributing to increased productivity to a fair standard of living for the fisheries sector, to stable markets, and to ensure the availability of food supplies at reasonable prices for consumers.[10] The EU supports projects aiming at these objectives through what can be seen as the financial tool of the CFP, the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF)[11]. This policy has therefore evolved to cover fisheries and aquaculture, as well as other sectors of the blue economy, and play a role of leader in sustainable ocean governance on the world stage.[12]
B. Cooperation
After two days and nights of negotiations based on the Commission’s proposal[13], the Council recently agreed on the 2025 fishing opportunities for the North-East Atlantic, covering EU-managed fish stocks in the Atlantic, Kattegat, and Skagerrak, from December 9th to 11th, 2024. This is the result of cooperation among EU institutions (I), EU Member States (II), as well as with third States (III).
I. A cooperation among EU institutions
Since November 2009 and the Treaty of Lisbon[14], the quota negotiations do not follow the procedure that applies to all the rest of the CFP legislation, which is a procedure of co-decision between the Council, composed by Ministers who represent the governments of the Member States, and the European Parliament, which is the democratic organ of the EU thanks to its elected deputes.
As a result, for all other fisheries legislation (which aims to achieve the sustainability objectives of the CFP by making fishing fleets more selective in what they catch and by avoiding and reducing unwanted catches through the adoption of technical measures[15] or fishing limitations[16]), the amended Commission proposal must now be agreed not only by the Council, but yet also by the Parliament as an equal co-legislator in the “trilogue” negotiations.
The annual adoption of total allowable catches (TACs), also known as “fishing opportunities”, is under the sole responsibility of the Council, based on a proposal from the Commission, as provided in article 43.3 TFEU. The Parliament is totally excluded from the process, not even having a consultative role. During the negotiations, the Commission acts as expert and neutral adviser, making sure that the decisions are consistent with EU law.
One can observe that, in particular for the adoption of TACs, the negotiations between the Commission and the Council are at the heart of the elaboration of the deal. This cooperation between the Member States and the Commission requires genuine collaboration between the two parties in order to achieve a result that will enable the common objective of sustainable fisheries to be achieved, while at the same time protecting the socio-economic interests of the fishing industry. Officials from the Fisheries Ministries have been in constant contact with the Commission well in advance of the December Fisheries Council. At the end of June, the Commission sends the Member States a policy statement setting out the general thrust of its fisheries policy for the following year’s resource allocation. Then, in October, the Commission sends its proposal to the Member States. The latter is then discussed in Council working groups. There are also official exchanges between the Commission and the Member States, in which the Member States present their position to the Presidency and the Commission, and the Commission responds in its capacity as expert, as well as bilateral meetings between each Member State and the Commission.
The adopted regulation is hence the result of a long inter-institutional process. It is not until the last stage of this technical process that political representatives, Member States Fisheries Ministers for the Council, and the Commissioner in charge of fisheries matters by the Commission’s side, are present.
II. A cooperation among EU Member States under the conformity to the Treaty control of the Commission
Article 43.3 TFEU gives to the Council alone the responsibility for “fixing […] an allocation of fishing opportunities”, based “on a proposal from the Commission”.
In the case of the AGRIFISH Council, the Council is composed by the 27 Ministers for Fisheries for each of the Member States, included those of non-coastal States such as Hungary or Austria. Hungary is currently holding the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, which rotates among each Member State every six months[17]. István Nagy, the Hungarian Minister for Agriculture, has therefore the role of the President of the AGRIFISH Council.
The Commission, by its side, is represented by the Commissioner[18] for Fisheries and Oceans, Kóstas Kadís, alongside with the EU officials of the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) who prepared the proposal, led by their Director-General Charlina Vitcheva.
During the final negotiations which took place from the 9th to 11th of December, the Member States representatives had talks among EU States, as well as with the Commission, the latter having to agree on the conformity of their claims with EU Treaties. Eventually, when the amendments proposed by Members States were agreed by consensus by all members of the Council and by the Commission, it is finalised by the Council’s legal and linguistic experts, before being formally adopted by a vote of the Council, finally published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
The new agreement increases the catch limits for megrims and anglerfish in Atlantic Iberian waters, common sole in the Bay of Biscay, and Norway lobster in the southern Bay of Biscay and Cantabrian Sea. Catch limits for cod in the Kattegat, red seabream in Iberian waters, Norway lobster in the Bay of Biscay, and common sole in Skagerrak and Kattegat area have been reduced. Finally, TACs remain the same as for 2024 for hake in Atlantic Iberian waters and plaice in the Kattegat. The Council also agreed on continuing the six-months closure of European eel commercial fishing, and the prohibition of its recreational fisheries. Concerning fishing effort, which refers to the size and engine power of a vessel combined with the number of days spent fishing, the Ministers agreed to reduce fishing efforts for trawlers to protect demersal stocks, and to continue to apply of the compensation mechanism allocating additional days to trawlers that opt for more selective gear or are subject to a national conservation measure.
III. The quota negotiations between the EU and third countries
Some EU fishing areas are shared with third coastal States, namely the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland, Norway and the United Kingdom (UK). Hence, the Fishing Opportunities Regulation includes the results of the deal reached ahead of the Council with these non-EU States on a bilateral or multilateral basis, as fish stocks jointly managed by the EU and non-EU States are considered shared resources under international law.
The procedure related to agreements between the Union and third countries or international organisations is stated in article 218 TFEU, which foresees that such agreements are concluded by the Council, after obtaining the consent of the Parliament.
Article 207.3 TFEU gives to the Commission the role of making “recommendations to the Council, which shall authorise it to open the necessary negotiations”, adding that “the Commission shall conduct these negotiations in consultation with a special committee appointed by the Council to assist the Commission in this task and within the framework of such directives as the Council may issue to it. The Commission shall report regularly to the special committee and to the European Parliament on the progress of negotiations.” As a result, the Commission has, in this case, the full political role of negotiator, in these bilateral consultations with Norway and in the trilateral consultations on shared stocks between the EU, the UK and Norway, under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA).
It has the objective of ensuring a level playing field with fishing fleets from third countries. However, the passed agreements have shown the EU struggling to achieve a balanced outcome for the EU and to impose its vision of sustainable fisheries management over these shared stocks.
C. The challenge of a compromise between socio-economic interests of fishermen and fight against overfishing
At the conclusion of the Council, István Nagy, the Hungarian Minister for Agriculture, congratulated the work made by all the parties: “It will allow us to maintain fish stocks at sustainable levels and protect the marine environment, while also considering the viability of the sector. Setting the fishing effort limits in the Western Mediterranean was particularly demanding, but we managed to find a constructive compromise.”
Indeed, this deal must aim at finding a balance between sustainable fisheries by authorizing fishing at maximum sustainable yield (MSY) level (I), and the protection of the socio-economic interests of EU fishermen and women (II).
I. A process based on following the best available scientific advice
The fisheries regulation covers 21 TACs managed autonomously by the EU, set for the most important commercial fish stocks, on an annual or multiannual basis. Indeed, the number of TACs negotiated this year is lower[19]since the Council agreed on multiannual TACs for the first time last year, in order to offer a better predictability and stability for the fishing industry, as for instance French and Spanish fishermen of the Atlantic coast were subject to a very short visibility: their TACs were decided early December, for January!
Fishing opportunities must be set “in accordance with the best available scientific advice”[20], while respecting the objectives of the common fisheries policy, and taking into account the EU’s multiannual plans for various sea basins.
The Commission proposal is based on the scientific recommendations provided by the International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES)[21], which is an independent institution. ICES advice constitutes the best scientific advice available, and provides several data about the fish stock state in the different ecoregions of the EU waters called ICES areas[22] such as the maximum sustainable yield (MSY)[23], which can be understood as the largest annual harvest that a fish stock can produce in the long term, and the MSY biomass (BMSY), which is the stock biomass that can support harvest of the maximum sustainable yield[24].
The MSY approach is used where sufficient data are available, but States will have the possibility to agree to set a TAC above MSY and not follow the Commission’s proposal, while the precautionary approach is applied where data are more limited, as this “should not justify postponing or failing to take management measures”. It is also followed for“populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield”, according to article 2.2 of the Basic Regulation. Thus, the precautionary approach obliges Member States to adopt TACs at or above MSY level.
In order to have accurate data, it is necessary to know the degree of fish mortality. That’s why fishers are subject to the “landing obligation”[25], which consists to make sure undesired catches are not illegally discarded back into the sea, but brought to shore. The respect of this obligation must be controlled efficiently by States[26] to fight against the biodiversity threat that is illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing[27].
Thus, reaching MSY by 2020 was the main objective of the 2013 reform of Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) of the European Union[28], in order to allow fish stocks to recover. The MSY is a calculated indicator which gives a tool to reach a more sustainable fisheries management, however, it is criticized by ecologists and other professional in fisheries. Indeed, in practice, models as well as the quality or quantity of data available[29] to calculate this tool raise estimation problems. Moreover, the MSY provides a static interpretation, whereas the biological environment is varying, depending on many interconnected factors, that make fish populations undergo natural fluctuations in abundance[30].
The rigid MSY approach also increases conflicts concerning multi-species management, for instance in the case of mix fisheries. Indeed, not all species can be fished at MSY levels at the same time, as some stocks will be partially overfished and some underfished. Therefore, for stocks with zero catch advice, it would be agreed to set specific by-catch TACs[31] instead, in order to avoid closure of fisheries, at levels that would prevent an increase in fishing mortality while allowing the stocks to rebuild.
Once the total quantity that could be caught to maintain the fish stock at a sustainable level has been set, the question of the quota share for each country arises. Indeed, fishing vessels from several countries can exploit the same area. The European Community adopted the principle of equal access for Member States to fisheries resources in each other’s waters[32]. The TACs are shared among States according to a formula of fixed percentages, stable over time[33], on the basis of historical catches[34] that go back to the 1970s.
Both the quota calculation and the quota distribution methods can be criticised, as the former doesn’t take the whole ecosystem into account and the latter does not consider changes in practices and the distribution of fishing areas. However, they have the advantage of being based on objective and transparent criteria.
II. The protection of the fishermen’s activity
Fishermen are directly affected by the Fishing opportunities Regulation. Their representatives exercise lobbying towards their national authorities to defend their interests at EU level. Indeed, they are concerned for their economic activity when a TAC decreases.
Their efforts against overfishing have allowed fish stocks in North-Est Atlantic to recover since the 2000s. However, other factors still threaten fish stocks and at the same time fisheries activities, such as marine pollution. This is especially the case in the Baltic Sea, a closed space which reinforces the phenomenon.
Even if fishermen and women need healthy fish stock to get a good productivity, the reality of fisheries can collide with scientific advice. For instance, in the case of mix fisheries, where several species are catched together, selectivity is not possible and accidental catches while targeting other species arise. Closing fisheries to prevent bycatch of endangered fish stocks means a reduction of their activity and, finally, revenues. This would have serious social and economic repercussions at a time when fishing activity is disappearing, leading to a reduction of the fleet[35], since the 2013 CFP reform requires Member States to adjust their fishing capacity in line with their fishing opportunities through national plans[36]. This represents also a threat to EU food sovereignty, as the EU is the single largest seafood destination market.[37]
D. Conclusion
The EU fisheries policy faces the challenge of aiming at sustainable fisheries, while preserving EU fisheries. This is particularly important for small-scaled fisheries, which have an important socio-economical impact on communities that depend on this sector, and already had to reduce their fleet and endangered by foreign seafood importation.
The December AGRIFISH Council for quota allocation is the key event for establishing rules for the sustainable management of EU fisheries, as it shapes the future of this sector. It requires a genuine cooperation between all Member States as well as EU institutions, from the elaboration process to the adoption of the final agreement by consensus, in order to achieve a final result reaching CFP objectives.
The state of EU fish stocks has been improved since the 2000’ not only thanks to the new objective to set catch limitation in line with MSY, but also because of the reinforcement of fisheries control by the Member States and their cooperation and coordination among them. Indeed, regulations, and more generally rules aiming at sustainable fisheries would not be efficient if an effective control is not ensured. Hence, the political will should be found not only to allocate quota, but also to enforce that allocation.
*Gaylor Janton, LL.M., is a graduate of the Europa-Institut with a Master’s degree in European and International Law as well as in the Law of the Sea. Her interests focus on human rights protection, addressing the numerous challenges of maritime management. She is currently working in global connectivity, specializing in the field of submarine cables.
[1] The AGRIFISH Council adopts legislation in a number of areas relating to the production of food, rural development and the management of fisheries. Read more about this event.
[2] Or other, generally for Agriculture, if no Fisheries minister was designated.
[3] Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013.
[4] Treaty of Rome, or Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, 25 March 1957; entry into force on 1 January 1958.
[5] Through Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983 establishing a Community system for the conservation and management of fishery resources and Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013.
[6] Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union [2008] OJ C115/13.
[7] Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture.
[8] Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy.
[9] Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013.
[10] Recital 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013.
[11] This financing plan is doted of an overall budget of over EUR 6 billion for 2021-2027.
[12] Read more about the EU fisheries policy.
[13] Proposal for a Council Regulation fixing for 2025 and 2026 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters.
[14] Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community (OJ C 306, 17.12.2007); entry into force on 1 December 2009.
[15]Technical measures consist in a broad set of rules that govern how, where and when fishers may fish, e. g. minimum landing sizes and minimum conservation sizes, specifications for design and use of gears, minimum mesh sizes for nets, requirement of selective gears to reduce unwanted catches, closed areas and seasons, limitations on by-catches (catches of unwanted or non-target species), or measures to minimize the impact of fishing on the marine ecosystems and environment. Read more about EU technical measures regulations.
[16] E.g. through by limiting the duration of fishing by capping the number of days that may be spent at sea.
[17] Article 16.9 Treaty on the European Union (TEU).
[18] They are nominated by the Member States (one from each, responsible for fisheries) and approved by the Parliament.
[19] The fishing opportunities for the EU in 2024 were set for over 1.6 million tons of fish and worthing almost €2.2 billion, covering more than 100 TACs.
[20] Article 3(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013.
[21] The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), established in Copenhagen in 1902, is the oldest intergovernmental organization in the world concerned with marine and fisheries science. It is a leading scientific forum for the exchange of information and ideas on the sea and its living resources, and for the promotion and coordination of marine research by scientists within its member countries. Its mission is to advance and share scientific understanding of marine ecosystems and the services they provide and to use this knowledge to generate state-of-the-art advice for meeting conservation, management, and sustainability. The area of competence of the council is, broadly speaking, the Atlantic Ocean and its adjacent seas, with an emphasis on the North Atlantic.
[22] ICES areas which are ecoregions whose boundaries are set based on biogeographic and oceanographic features and existing political, social, economic, and management divisions.
[23] Articles 4(7) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013.
[24] The biomass is measured as the total weight of a stock. The main factors that increase or decrease biomass in a fish population are growth, reproduction and mortality.
[25] Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy. The landing obligation was introduced in 2015 and has been fully in force since January 2019. Read more about it.
[26] Fisheries control is the duty of Member States. These are encouraged to cooperate among them for more efficiency and exchange of good practices, in coordination with the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA), based in Vigo, Spain.
[27] The fight against IUU is a priority of the EU and fully part of the CFP. To know more about EU measures against it, read here.
[28] Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy.
[29] For example, biologists do not always have good enough data to correctly estimate population size or growth rate.
[30] Read more about it: Michael Earle, Maximum sustainable yield in the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy – a political history, ICES Journal of Marine Science, Volume 78, Issue 6, September 2021, Pages 2173–2181.
[31] For species that are caught unintentionally, while fishing for other specific species.
[32] An exception exists: the CFP integrated a derogation for a 10-year period systematically renewed, allowing the coastal states to reserve access to the first 6 miles for their nationals, and permitting the continuation of fishing activities by other Member States in the zone between 6 and 12 miles.
[33] This is also known as ‘relative stability’.
[34] “This reflects the fact that, historically, a “fair” basis for allocation has often been regarded as zonal attachment to the stock or historical catch records of the coastal States. This is also easy to quantify objectively, compared to more subjective criteria such as those relating to the special interests”, Cox, Anthony (2009-12-01), “Quota Allocation in International Fisheries”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 22, OECD Publishing.
[35] The number of active vessels in the EU was 72 595 in 2022. Between 2013 and 2022, the number of vessels in the EU declined by an estimated 11 % to be established at 72 595, and the overall gross tonnage fell by 9 %. Read more about EU fisheries catch and landing statistics.
[36] Recital 43 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013.
[37] FAO, 2024, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2024 – Blue Transformation in action.
Suggested Citation: Janton, Gaylor, An example of EU cooperation – The EU inter-state and institutional cooperation for the annual fishery quotas adoption, jean-monnet-saar 2024.
DOI: 10.17176/20241223-110656-0
Funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) – Project No.: 525576645
