Fish are one of the world’s most important natural resources, but also one of the most vulnerable. Over a billion people are dependent on fish as a source of food. On 14 December the EU fisheries ministers meet in Brussels to begin negotiations on next year’s fishing quotas. Ahead of the Council meeting, se2009.eu exchanged a few words with Robin Rosenkranz. He is Chair of the Working Party on Fisheries Policy and has worked on the preparations for the ministers’ negotiations.

Sustainable fisheries are a priority issue within the area of agriculture during the Swedish Presidency. Why is the issue important?

“Many people are entirely or partly dependent on fish for their livelihood and food. Therefore, it is very important that the fish stocks are in balance and sustainable for long-term use. If the pressure on fish stocks is too high, the risk of losing this valuable resource increases. During our Presidency, we have tried to emphasise the need to find a balance between using and using up.”

What marks out the fisheries policy?

“Many people have a view on the fisheries policy. It also has a lot of inherent conflicts. Social security for those who work in the fishing industry and profitability are matched against the requirement to preserve stocks and biodiversity. It is a challenge to try to reconcile so many strong and opposing views. In the fisheries negotiations, it is our task to achieve an outcome that minimises these conflicts.”

With 27 Member States, it sounds as though it can be quite difficult to reach agreement. Is this so?

“During the first months of the Swedish Presidency we drew up a new Control Regulation to tackle illegal fishing. This is the most significant regulation so far in the area of fisheries and we succeeded in getting all the countries to agree on it. There was major opposition and the Member States had problems with a number of the proposed measures. Nonetheless, they all shared the view that drastic measures were necessary to reduce illegal fishing. This was the main reason for our success.

“One issue on which we failed was getting a regulation on ‘technical conservation measures’ in the North Sea adopted. If we had managed to reach an agreement, the proposal would have meant drastic increases in the size of the holes in trawl nets and fishing nets. This would have made it possible for small fish to swim out of the nets instead of being caught and then thrown overboard. All the Member States shared the goal of reducing the number of fish that are thrown overboard, but there were too many who thought that we were moving too fast. The short-term economic losses were considered too high in relation to the long-term profits.”

On Monday, 14 December the negotiations on next year’s fishing quotas open. What does the proposal mean and what happens next?

“Almost all the EU fishing quotas will be decided for 2010. These cover some 80 species and around a hundred stocks. The fisheries negotiations at the December Council meeting usually go on for a couple of days and we finish late in the evening, or the following morning. Many stocks are still under threat and the proposal therefore contains a lot of quota reductions. The most difficult task in the negotiations is to find the right level for quota reductions. On the one hand, the quotas must be large enough, so that the fishing industry can survive, and on the other hand, the quota reductions must be significant enough that the stocks have a chance to recover.”

What does the work on sustainable fisheries mean in practice for individual fishermen?

“Fishermen want sufficiently large quotas to get a yield on their investments in their boats and to cover other living costs. The higher the quota, the higher the yield. At the same time, the quotas must not become too high because this increases the risk of reductions in stocks. And if the stocks collapsed then there would not be any fisheries anyway. Many fishermen also want to encourage the development of less harmful fishing equipment that does not damage the marine environment, and that does not catch as many small fish that are then thrown overboard.” 

...and for individual consumers?

“For consumers it is partly about access to good and healthy food. If fish stocks are managed well then we can also increase the quotas, which can lead to lower prices. In parallel with the fishing industry’s efforts, consumers have also increased their demands for fish from stocks that are used sustainably. Even if bluefin tuna does taste fantastic, an increasing number of consumers do not feel very comfortable eating something that could be heading for extinction. And even if a real sole should preferably be small so that it fits on the plate, it is not all that nice to know that in order to catch this one fish, five others have been thrown overboard.”

And what does sustainable fishing mean to you?

“I think it is fully possible to reconcile profitability and social security for those who work in fisheries with biodiversity and conservation of fish stocks. Even if we may have a long way to go to achieve this.”