The NSAC challenges ICES’s zero cod catch advice, proposing a 25% quota cut combined with real-time closures to protect the Southern stock
NSAC Presents Counter-Argument to ICES Zero Catch Cod Advice
The North Sea Advisory Council (NSAC) has formally entered the debate on 2026 cod management, issuing a position paper that directly challenges the zero-catch recommendation from ICES.
The NSAC’s paper, “approved with consensus by the NSAC Executive Committee on 7 November 2025,” is framed as a balanced necessity, arguing that management must protect the vulnerable Southern substock without destroying the economic viability of the entire North Sea fishery.
The Core Conflict: MSY, Precautionary Principle, and Mixed Stocks
The discussion centers on the ICES headline advice which recommends that, “when applying the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) approach together with the precautionary considerations, there should be zero catch in 2026 for all cod substocks.”
The NSAC members openly state they “question the basis for ICES’s use of MSY and precautionary considerations,” noting that the cod advice itself was “delayed” because “the release of the cod advice, crucial for North Sea fisheries, was postponed due to unresolved discussions on mixed-stock guidelines.”
The critical issue is the mixing of the three substocks. ICES advised that under less precautionary assumptions for the healthier Northwestern (8670 tonnes) and Viking (3610 tonnes) substocks, fishing could proceed.
However, the NSAC points out the practical consequence: “the three substocks mix and are caught together, this will result in a higher probability (67%) for the Southern substock of remaining below Blim.” This reality forces the debate toward finding a measure that addresses this risk without a blanket closure.
NSAC’s Proposed Solution: 25% TAC Reduction plus RTCs
The NSAC’s primary proposal is a significant, yet not total, closure measure: a 25% TAC reduction for 2026. This reduction is presented not as a solitary action, but as a component of a larger, targeted strategy. This cut is to be combined with specific, operational conservation measures: Real-Time Closures (RTC management), in Subdivision 4c. The council argues that this dual approach is essential for achieving true conservation effectiveness.
The industry’s rationale is that “Implementing RTCs and a bycatch quota would provide more targeted protection of the southern sub-stock while maintaining important fishing activities.” This strategy directly counters the economic strain of a full closure, avoiding “placing excessive strain on fishing communities” and ensuring that conservation efforts are directed where they are most needed.
Discussion on the Ineffectiveness of Current Seasonal Closures
A key point of discussion raised by the NSAC is the failure of existing northern management measures. The council explicitly notes that the “current seasonal closures in the northern North Sea are not achieving their intended goals and strongly penalize demersal fishing activity in the area.”
Responding to this deficiency, the NSAC members state they “recognize the need to review their locations and will therefore initiate discussions with their UK and Norwegian counterparts to jointly propose a revision of the current northern seasonal closures.” This commitment highlights the NSAC’s focus on implementing science-based, effective spatial management.
Conclusion: A Balanced Compromise for a Sustainable Future
The NSAC concludes by firmly asserting the superiority of its balanced approach. The council maintains that the “proposed 25% TAC reduction, combined with targeted cod protective measures (RTC management) in Subdivision 4c (and in 7d, though outside the NSAC area), would reduce overall catches and ensure appropriate protection measures without undermining the viability of fishing operations.”
Ultimately, the council’s position is that their strategy “maintains protection for at-risk components while avoiding overly restrictive measures on healthier stocks, thus achieving a balanced compromise between conservation and economic sustainability.” The NSAC concludes by thanking the EU Commission and North Sea Member States, as well as ICES, for considering this position paper in their further deliberations.
