A Swedish fisheries commentator has criticised proposals linked to research from Stockholm Resilience Centre on Baltic herring fishing, calling them ill-informed and unnecessary.
The criticism targets three proposed policy directions: complete transparency on vessel ownership, deeper quota cuts or area closures, and tougher tools such as buyouts or seasonal bans.
According to the commentator, these ideas do not reflect how Baltic fisheries already operate.
Transparency is already in place
The article states that ownership of fishing vessels operating in the Baltic Sea is already transparent. In most countries, ownership data is publicly available.
In Sweden, the information can be requested from authorities and is public by law. The commentator argues that calls for greater transparency show a lack of understanding of existing systems.
Stocks and quotas
On quota cuts and closures, the article says these tools are already used when science supports them. It adds that fish stocks in the central Baltic Sea and the Bothnian Sea are not generally overfished. However, there have been some years with overfishing of herring and sprat.
The commentator notes that the industry supports setting quotas as high as possible within the annual limits advised by ICES.
Industry fishing questioned
The third proposal, involving buyouts or seasonal bans, is described by the commentator as meaningless. The article states that fishers want to continue fishing and that seasonal closures already exist, mainly affecting smaller trawlers.
It also rejects claims about “industrial rights”, saying there are no factory trawlers in the Baltic Sea. While freezer trawlers and fishing for fishmeal and fish oil exist, there are no special rights tied to this type of fishing.