Assessing whether TACs are being set to achieve MSY

The document argues that a lack of transparency and data mismatches hinder the ability of stakeholders to verify if EU fish quotas align with scientific advice and the legal requirements of the Common Fisheries Policy. It specifically highlights issues with spatial mismatches between management and advice units, the opacity of the Council of Ministers' decision-making, and the complexities introduced by the landing obligation's 'top-up' calculations. The author recommends that the European Commission publish its matching methodologies, create a centralised database for TACs shared with third countries, and improve the reporting of progress towards MSY.

• There is a significant mismatch between the management units used for setting TACs and the stock units for which the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) provides scientific advice. In an analysis of Northeast Atlantic, North Sea, and Baltic Sea stocks for 2016, only 31 out of 112 comparisons were directly comparable in terms of both area and species, meaning over 70% were subject to some form of mismatch.
• The decision-making process for setting TACs lacks transparency, particularly regarding the justifications for proposing TACs above scientific advice and the 'closed-door negotiations' of the Council of Ministers, including those involving third countries.
• The implementation of the landing obligation has introduced complexities in monitoring because TACs must now be compared to catch advice rather than landings advice. This requires 'top-up' calculations to account for previously discarded catches, but the Commission's methodology for these calculations is not publicly available in a sufficiently detailed format.
• Information regarding TACs shared with third countries is often incomplete or unavailable, making it impossible to judge if the overall TAC is in line with scientific advice. The official TAC Regulation frequently contains only the EU portion of the quota, with 'pm' (pro memoria) or 'not relevant' entries for the overall TAC.
• Scientific advice is limited by a lack of data for every stock, meaning MSY-based advice and biomass reference points (BMSY) are not available for all cases. Furthermore, ICES provides this advice in PDF format rather than an official, editable database, which complicates overarching assessments.
• Current reporting on progress towards MSY is inconsistent and potentially misleading. Some reports base conclusions solely on EU fishing activities, which may create a 'false impression' of sustainability if the combined fishing levels of the EU and third countries exceed sustainable limits.

APA

ClientEarth (2016). Assessing whether TACs are being set to achieve MSY. https://www.clientearth.org/media/cbjdu2cl/2016-12-05-assessing-whether-tacs-are-being-set-to-achieve-msy-the-difficulties-and-how-they-can-be-overcome-ce-en.pdf

Chicago

ClientEarth. Assessing whether TACs are being set to achieve MSY. 2016. https://www.clientearth.org/media/cbjdu2cl/2016-12-05-assessing-whether-tacs-are-being-set-to-achieve-msy-the-difficulties-and-how-they-can-be-overcome-ce-en.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=ClientEarth |title=Assessing whether TACs are being set to achieve MSY |date=December 2016 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/cbjdu2cl/2016-12-05-assessing-whether-tacs-are-being-set-to-achieve-msy-the-difficulties-and-how-they-can-be-overcome-ce-en.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{clientearth2016assessing, author = {{ClientEarth}}, title = {{Assessing whether TACs are being set to achieve MSY}}, institution = {ClientEarth}, year = {2016}, month = dec, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/cbjdu2cl/2016-12-05-assessing-whether-tacs-are-being-set-to-achieve-msy-the-difficulties-and-how-they-can-be-overcome-ce-en.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }