As a so-called ‘scallop war’ broke out this week, it brought home, once again, the challenge of managing a pan-European-wide common fishery resource, on a long-term and truly sustainable basis. In its long history this has been one of the most intractable sustainable development challenges the EU has faced.

Most efforts and campaigns, especially in fisheries, have in the last decade focused on addressing environmental and ecosystem challenges. More recently, the latest approach to tackle overfishing and poor fisheries management is to make the economic case - which, when extrapolated, can look very attractive. If only political appointments in fisheries management and government horizons were as long-term in their thinking.

At Birds Eye, we believe sustainable development is a journey with many social aspects and not an end state.

We all have a duty to support that aspiration and educate and lobby on the changes needed to protect and maintain fisheries. But we also have a duty - government, food manufacturers and consumers alike - to make sure we are fishing and eating responsibly, striking a balance so that we can continue to eat fish without depleting the last great wild-caught food resource we have.

” It is about making it easier to choose alternative species of fish”


A one-size-fits-all approach will not succeed in addressing the problem of overfishing. Why? Because in managing each species, there exists a very unique set of challenges that must be carefully addressed and managed at a more local level. The more balanced solution is to make sure we are fishing in a responsible manner and working towards a sustainable future by allowing fisheries to become better managed at a regional level - not via the ‘command and control’ approach that has delivered overfished status in many EU CFP managed fisheries.

EU fishing policy is complex. What we need is a progressive, multifaceted approach to fisheries management that might include, for example, creating smaller fisheries or fleets, banning discards, and using more selective catching methods.

But it’s also about collaboration and innovation - about finding ways to make it easier for consumers to choose alternative species of fish so they can do their part. The EU cannot continue to import 65% of the fish it consumes perpetually. We need the CFP to work so that the EU has its own food fisheries security of supply - not just to eat fish for the sake of it but for the many social and health benefits it brings.

Fisheries policymakers must not continue to get intertwined in the politics of fisheries management - their role is to ensure food security for EU citizens. For this reason, some of the CFP proposals make sense but are being offered to industry without clear and proper models of implementation or with unclear risk management plans, and this leads to further amendments and thus delays.

It’s not about an outright ban on fishing. It’s about all of us changing our approach and being intelligent in finding the right solution and working towards a sustainable future.

Topics