Criticism following increase in herring quotas in the Baltic Sea: ‘They should have learnt a lesson’

On Monday, the EU Council of Ministers voted to increase the herring quota in the central Baltic Sea by 71 per cent. Sweden was the only Member State to call for the lowest possible quotas. This has broad political support at home – but not in Luxembourg.

Text: Amanda Saveland

‘We have some fantastic news today,’ announced Hendrik Johannes Terras, Estonia’s Minister for Agriculture, upon his arrival at the ministerial meeting in Luxembourg on Monday.

Outside the conference centre’s glass façade, he described what he – and several other ministers with him – were looking forward to announcing: a decision to increase fishing quotas in the Baltic Sea.

‘Many of the fish stocks have recovered, and we look forward to giving our fishermen the good news that they can fish more.’

When Terras left the meeting a couple of hours later, it was with exactly the news he had been hoping for. Although the European Commission had proposed a more cautious approach – which Sweden alone had supported – the herring quota in the Gulf of Bothnia was increased by 12 per cent, and the sprat quota in the central Baltic Sea by 71 per cent.

“Increases the risk of collapse”

The apparent recovery of fish stocks is based on estimates by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), which provides the scientific basis for the EU’s fisheries ministers. According to the Council’s calculations, the situation for herring in the Baltic Sea appears to be improving. Following a couple of years of relatively low fishing pressure, herring stocks are no longer on the brink of collapse.

At the same time, the researchers behind the scientific advice emphasise that their estimates are uncertain. Charles Berkow, a policy analyst at Stockholm University’s Baltic Sea Centre, believes the ministers have not taken this sufficiently into account as they now increase fishing pressure.

‘They would rather, as the Estonian minister put it very openly, please the fishermen next year by raising the quotas. But what might the consequences be?’ Well, it increases the risk of stocks collapsing. And the problem is that they do this year after year after year,” he says.

Long-term consequences for the fishing industry

Charles Berkow explains that the ministers are playing a high-stakes game when they view the first signs of recovery as a justification for sharply increased quotas. A gamble they have taken before, and one that has probably contributed to the collapse of both herring and cod stocks in the western Baltic Sea over the last ten years.

‘You might think they should have learnt something from that, but they simply do not seem to take the fisheries policy objective of restoring stocks to a sustainable level seriously,’ he says.

According to Charles Berkow, it would have been better to allow more time for the stocks to recover, and to ensure that the recovery actually holds for a couple of years before raising the quotas. This is partly because the extinction of the herring would have major consequences for the marine ecosystem, but also because such a collapse would hit the fishing industry harder in the long run.

‘If it turns out in hindsight that we’ve been too cautious, what have we actually missed out on? It’s just one or two years of increased quotas. But if it turns out in hindsight that we’ve been too optimistic, then we risk wiping out the entire stock. And that will have far more serious and long-lasting socio-economic consequences than if we’d held back.’

An unusual decision by the Council of Ministers

At the same time, the announcement from the Council of Ministers was not entirely clear-cut. Finland’s Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry described the decision in a press release as a “balanced compromise”, as the scientific advice had allowed for significantly higher quotas than those ultimately set.

According to ICES’s forecast, herring fishing in the central Baltic Sea could have increased by between 119 and 237 per cent compared with this year’s quota. The European Commission proposed an increase of up to 49 per cent, and the Council of Ministers ultimately settled on an increase of 71 per cent.

‘It is unusual to settle for levels below those calculated by ICES,’ says Charles Berkow.

He believes the reason for this may be linked to a growing awareness of just how uncertain the forecasts actually are. More people, including the European Commission, are beginning to understand the risks of pursuing a fisheries policy that is not in line with the EU’s objective of sustainable stocks.

‘There is now greater awareness of the risks, and a greater realisation that the forecasts from ICES are not a recommendation, but a very specific calculation involving a great deal of uncertainty,’ says Charles Berkow.

Listen to Peter Kullgren (KD), Minister for Agriculture in Sweden’s caretaker government, give his views on the quotas ahead of the negotiations in the clip.

^{Cover image: Peter Kullgren, Minister for Agriculture in Sweden’s caretaker government (right), in conversation with Spain’s Minister for Fisheries, Luis Planas Puchades (left), ahead of the vote on fishing quotas in the Baltic Sea. Copyright: European Union, 2026}

^{About Deep Sea Reporter: Our aim is to investigate and report on issues relating to the sea and the life that exists beneath the surface. We operate in the public interest and are independent of political, commercial and other interests in society.}