Article 2(2): Interpreting the MSY Objective in the CFP

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The document analyzes the legal and scientific interpretation of Article 2(2) of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). It asserts that to achieve the objective of maintaining fish stocks above Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) levels, the EU must set exploitation rates below FMSY. The briefing argues that setting rates exactly at FMSY is insufficient due to environmental variables and would breach the CFP's precautionary approach and other EU and international legal obligations.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • Article 2(2) of the CFP Basic Regulation establishes a legally binding requirement to restore and maintain populations of harvested species above MSY levels, with the goal of achieving the MSY exploitation rate by 2015 where possible, and by 2020 at the latest for all stocks.
  • To scientifically achieve biomass levels above BMSY, fishing mortality rates must be set below FMSY; setting them exactly at FMSY would not reliably achieve the objective because environmental factors could still result in biomass levels below BMSY.
  • The requirement to set exploitation rates below FMSY is consistent with international law, such as the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, which treats FMSY as a limit reference point rather than a target.
  • The CFP's MSY objective aligns with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), which requires commercially exploited fish and shellfish to be within safe biological limits by 2020, with indicators specifying fishing levels equal to or lower than FMSY.
  • The practical difficulty of managing mixed stocks (the 'choke species' problem) does not justify setting exploitation levels at or above FMSY; instead, this issue should be addressed through improved management tools and gear selectivity.
  • For the CFP to be effective, the requirement to set exploitation rates below FMSY must be integrated into Commission proposals, Council decisions on fishing opportunities, multi-annual plans, and scientific advice requested from ICES.

Cite the original document

APA
ClientEarth (2014). Article 2(2): Interpreting the MSY Objective in the CFP. https://www.clientearth.org/media/klkljgzs/2014-05-01-article-22-interpreting-the-msy-objective-in-the-cfp-ce-en.pdf
Chicago
ClientEarth. Article 2(2): Interpreting the MSY Objective in the CFP. 2014. https://www.clientearth.org/media/klkljgzs/2014-05-01-article-22-interpreting-the-msy-objective-in-the-cfp-ce-en.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |author=ClientEarth |title=Article 2(2): Interpreting the MSY Objective in the CFP |date=May 2014 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/klkljgzs/2014-05-01-article-22-interpreting-the-msy-objective-in-the-cfp-ce-en.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{clientearth2014article, author = {{ClientEarth}}, title = {{Article 2(2): Interpreting the MSY Objective in the CFP}}, institution = {ClientEarth}, year = {2014}, month = may, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/klkljgzs/2014-05-01-article-22-interpreting-the-msy-objective-in-the-cfp-ce-en.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated