your plaice or mine? - fishing quotas in the north sea

Your Plaice or Mine?

Fishing Quotas in the North Sea

Post-Brexit

Derek W Louden MA (Abdn), MA (Shef), MEI

Abbian House

Tower Street

Tain

Ross-shire

IV19 1DY

Tel: 01862 892734

Mob: 07876 774412

Email: [email protected]

1) Introduction

In this Paper we will look at the changes in quotas for species in the North Sea arranged by the European

Commission. We will cover the period from 1998 to 2016. The paper will show the extent of the changes

involved and will provide a basis for looking at the issues which will emerge during the Brexit negotiations.

Our analysis will look at each species in turn and will consider the effect of the changes in UK quota over time

and also the effect on the other nations fishing in the North Sea and West of Scotland.

Source: By Inwind - Own work, Public Domain,

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3345037

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea#/media/File:North_sea_eez.PNG

The diagram above shows the North Sea divided up into Exclusive Economic Zones. These are the starting off

point for negotiations in Europe over who-gets-what. A 50:50 share between the UK and the rest of Europe

would seem like a fair allocation before taking account of the fishing grounds for individual species. The

numbers we consider below are for EU waters. These exclude the top right blue section for Norwegian waters

which constitute 20% of the EU waters. France, Denmark and The Netherlands have approximately 8% each.

Germany has 5% and Belgium 1%. The SFF would argue that the UK’s share of EU waters is then about

50/80ths or 62.5%. Post-Brexit they would expect quota adjustments to reflect this.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3345037

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea#/media/File:North_sea_eez.PNG

EU Fishing Areas

The map above shows the fishing area divisions for the EU fisheries. For the North Sea we’re looking at IVa,b,c

but we also often take in Norwegian waters in IIa and also Norwegian/Swedish/Danish areas IIIa and IIIb. Some

fisheries include areas in zone VII and one includes fish in zone VI which lies west of Scotland. Clearly any

access UK boats have to IIa and III waters would be eliminated post Brexit. In the case of Norway’s IIa fishery

this access would certainly be lost if we insist on a higher share of fisheries in IVa,b,c – if we want a higher

share of area IV we’ll have to respect the “Keep Out” notice on area IIa.

These scenarios will need to be worked through prior to Brexit discussions. It would not be impossible for a

larger share of the quotas in area IV along with exclusion from area IIa to result in a lower tonnage than we

presently enjoy.

The paper below will work on us continuing with a 50:50 share of EU fisheries. If the industry wants to argue

for a higher share that’s up to them – but they’ll have to accept the exclusions that come along with adopting

this stance.

2) Cod Quotas

Our first section will look at quotas for cod in the North Sea. The diagram below shows the quota allocated to

the UK over the period 1998 to 2016. We can see that the quota was cut from 58,740 Tonnes in 1998 to 7,773

Tonnes in 2007. Between 1998 and 2007, the UK North Sea Cod quota fell by 86.8%. Since then it has

recovered somewhat to 13,107 tonnes in 2016 an increase of 68.6% from the lowest point. Quotas in 2016 are

the highest since 2002.

Fig 4.1

Source: Adapted from European Commission TAC’s & Quotas 1998 – 2016

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0072&from=EN

In 2003 when we last looked at this market, the quota allocations for the North Sea by Member State were as

follows:

Fig 4.2 Source: Adapted from European Commission TAC’s & Quotas 1998 – 2016


The UK had by far the biggest share of the cod landings in 2003. We can see from the diagram below that this

remains the case today.

807 4,635

2,939

997 2,619 31

10,631

North Sea Cod Quota (Tonnes) 2003

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

France

Holland

Sweden

UK



Fig 4.2a



In 2016 the UK had 47% of the EU Quota for Cod. In this fishery Germany seems to have gained part of its

share in the fishery from its European partner The Netherlands. There doesn’t seem to be a case for a massive

transfer of quota to the Scottish fleet.

Foreign vessels make significant landings of cod from the North Sea. The Danish fleet has also seen their quota

for Cod taken in the North Sea fall. The diagram below shows this decline:

Fig 4.3



The Danish fleet suffered an 86.8% cut in their quota between 1998 and 2007. This is the same cut in percentage

terms as that suffered by the UK fleet. Since then quota has risen by 68.6% from 3,388 to 5,713 Tonnes per

annum in 2016. The pains and the gains have been shared in equal measure by the UK and European fleets.

994 , 4%

5,713 , 20%

3,622 , 13%

1,228 , 4%

3,228 , 12% 38 , 0%

13,107 , 47%

North Sea Cod Quota (Tonnes) 2016

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

France

Holland

Sweden

UK



3) Haddock Quota

Haddock quotas in the North Sea area have also been significantly reduced in an attempt to stabilise stocks. The

position for UK vessels is shown in the diagram below:

Fig 4.4



In 1998 the UK fleet was allowed to catch 66,000 tonnes of Haddock in the North Sea. By 2003 when we last

looked at this market the allocation had been cut to 30,673 tonnes. This represented a reduction of 53.5%. Since

2003, a number of false dawns led to temporary increases followed by reductions in quota over the following 10

years. The quota fell to as low as 22,250 Tonnes in 2011. Since then there have been several increases in quota

culminating in this year’s limit of 40,141 Tonnes. Time will tell if this is sustainable.

In 2003 the allocation of Haddock quota between member states was as follows:



By 2016 the quota allocation had increased and the tonnage and percentage of the quota held by each member

state is shown below. The UK has 84% of the quota for the North Sea. Anyone thinking that this will increase as

a result of the Brexit negotiations is living in cloud cuckoo land. A reduction of 15,000 Tonnes per annum might

be likely with this being allocated to nations on the other side of the North Sea.

419 2881

1834 3196

314 203

30673

North Sea Haddock Quota (Tonnes) 2003

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

France

Holland

Sweden

UK



Fig 4.5a



The diagram below shows the change in the much smaller quota allocated to Denmark. Over the period

following 1998 the quota rose and fell reaching a low of 1,349 Tonnes in 2011. Since then it has recovered to

2,434 Tonnes in 2016. The cut in Danish quota from 6,200 tonnes in 1998 to 1,349 Tonnes in 2011 represents a

reduction of 78.2% since when the recovery to 2,434 Tonnes in 2016 shows an increase of 80.4%.

Fig 4.6



354 , 1% 2,434 , 5%

1,549 , 3%

2,699 , 6% 266 , 1%

245 , 0%

40,141 , 84%

North Sea Haddock Quota (Tonnes) 2016

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

France

Holland

Sweden

UK



4) Whiting Quota

The first diagram in this section shows cuts in the UK fleet’s Whiting quota between 1998 and 2016:

Fig 4.7



We can see from the above diagram that the UK fleet’s quota for Whiting fell from 27,415 tonnes in 1998 to

6,484 tonnes in 2003. This represented a fall of 76.3% over the period. Following this period, the fishery’s quota

rose and fell, ending the period with a decline in each of the last four years to 8,438 Tonnes in 2016.

In 2003 the quota allocations for the various nation states were as follows:



The following diagram shows that the UK has 67% of the Whiting quota in the North Sea in 2016. As with the

previous example it is unclear why the industry would think that there is an upside to possible negotiations on

Brexit. This is another fishery where The Netherlands and Germany are ceding a share of their quota to France.

The UK has given nothing to anyone & if anything seems to benefit from a higher share than we might

reasonably expect.

376

1,626

423

2,443

940 2

6,484

North Sea Whiting Quota (Tonnes) 2003

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

France

Holland

Sweden

UK



Fig 4.8a



The final diagram in this section looks at the reduction in Danish fleet quota over the period:

Fig 4.9



We can see from the above diagram that the Danish fleet saw its quota cut by 84.2% over the period from 1998

to 2010. Since then the quota rose briefly before falling again in each of the last four years to end the period at

1,167 Tonnes in 2016.

270, 2% 1,167, 9%

304, 3%

1,754, 14%

675, 5%

2, 0%

8,438, 67%

North Sea Whiting Quota (Tonnes) 2016

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

France

Holland

Sweden

UK



5) Hake Quota

We next look at the UK’s Hake quota and how this has changed over time:

Fig 4.10



We can see from the above that the UK’s Hake quota fell from 370 tonnes in 1998 to 160 tonnes in 2001. This

represents a fall of 56.8% over the period. Since then the Hake fishery has recovered and the quota is now 629

Tonnes per annum, one of few fisheries with higher quota than was the case at the start of our review period.

The diagram below shows the allocation of national quotas for Hake in 2003:



We can see that this is a fishery where the UK has a much lower share of the quota than our geographical share

of the North Sea waters would suggest we should have. This is the sort of quota where the SFF could make a

claim for perhaps 1,100 tonnes. Given that the quid pro quo might be the loss of 15,000 Tonnes of Haddock it

isn’t clear why this might be suggested as a “cunning plan”.

15

610 70

135

35

190

North Sea Hake Quota (Tonnes) 2003

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

France

Holland

UK



Fig 4.11a



Denmark has a much larger share of the Hake quota than the UK. The following diagram will show how the

Danish fleet has seen their quota allocation change over time.

Fig 4.12



We can see that the Danish quota was cut from 1,200 tonnes to 500 tonnes between 1998 and 2001. This

represents a reduction of 58.3% over the period. The recovery in Hake quota mentioned above has also been

reflected in an increase in Danish quota. By 2016 their quota was 2,018 Tonnes an increase of 403.6% since

2001.

50, 1%

2,018, 58%

232, 7%

447, 13%

116, 3%

629, 18%

North Sea Hake Quota (Tonnes) 2016

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

France

Holland

UK



6) Herring

The UK quota for herring over the period from 1998 to 2016 is shown below:

Fig 4.13



We can see from the above that the herring fishery has not been impacted by quota cuts in the same way as

many other fisheries. The UK’s quota for North Sea Herring has increased from 38,910 tonnes in 1998 to 70,348

tonnes in 2016. This represents an 80.8% increase over the period.

The following chart shows the national shares of the herring fishery in the North Sea:



This is another fishery where the UK’s share appears to be much less than its geography should entitle it to. The

shortfall might be as much as 80,000 Tonnes.

62,785

41,002

16,412

44,727

4,070

55,463

North Sea Herring Quota (Tonnes) 2003

Denmark

Germany

France

Holland

Sweden

UK



Fig 4.14a



7) Saithe

The UK quota for Saithe over the period from 1998 to 2016 is shown below:

Fig 4.15

Source: Adapted from European Commission TAC’s & Quotas 1998 – 2016 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0072&from=EN

The quota for Saithe increased from 7,790 tonnes in 1998 to 15,254 tonnes in 2004. Since then the fishery has

been in gradual decline with the quota now 5,232 tonnes per annum in 2016. This represents a fall from the peak

in 2004 of 65.7%. The quota has declined in each of the last four years suggesting that it isn’t being sustainably

fished at present.

91,628, 29%

55,471, 18%

24,669, 8%

63,556, 20%

5,273, 2%

70,348, 23%

North Sea Herring Quota (Tonnes) 2016

Denmark

Germany

France

Holland

Sweden

UK

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

To

nn

es

Year

UK North Sea Saithe Quota (Tonnes) 1998 - 2016





We can see from the charts above and below that this is a fishery which doesn’t reflect geographical shares of

the North Sea. France appears to be the main beneficiary here with a 51% share of the quota. The SFF might

seek to lay claim to 10,500 tonnes of additional quota for Saithe post Brexit.

Fig 4.16a Source: Adapted from European Commission TAC’s & Quotas 1998 – 2016 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0072&from=EN

23, 0% 2,703, 9%

6,825, 22%

16,062, 51%

68, 0%

371, 1%

5,232, 17%

North Sea Saithe Quota (Tonnes) 2016

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

France

Holland

Sweden

UK

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

To

nn

es

Year

France North Sea Saithe Quota (Tonnes) 1998 - 2016



8) Blue Whiting

The UK quota for Blue whiting over the period from 1998 to 2016 is shown below:

Fig 4.17


From 1998 to 2005 the quota for Blue Whiting covered the areas IIa and IV on the EU map of fishing areas.

After 2005 the quota covers the whole of the EU fishery. This explains the leap in quota shown on the chart.

From 2006 to 2011 the fishery collapsed as quota was reduced from 68,161 tonnes in 2006 to 1,990 tonnes in

2011, a reduction of 97.1%. Since 2011 there has been a rapid recovery in quota to 41,137 tonnes in 2016, an

increase of 1,967%. The quota is twenty times higher than it was in 2011. Whether this is sustainable or not

remains to be seen.

Fig 4.18



In terms of who gets what, it appears that the UK is losing out to Spain and the Netherlands given the shares in

quota shown above. Ireland also seems to suffer from this allocation. On a geographical basis the UK would be

due at least an additional 40,000 tonnes.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000 T

on

ne

s

Year

All EU Areas Blue Whiting Quota (Tonnes) 1998 - 2016

31,704, 15%

12,327, 6%

26,878, 13%

22,063, 11% 24,550, 12%

38,659, 18%

2,497, 1%

7,842, 4%

41,137, 20%

All EU Areas Blue Whiting Quota (Tonnes) 2016

Denmark

Germany

Spain

France

Ireland

Holland

Portugal

Sweden

UK



9) Plaice

The UK quota for Plaice over the period from 1998 to 2016 is shown below:

Fig 4.19 Source: Adapted from European Commission TAC’s & Quotas 1998 – 2016 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0072&from=EN

The UK quota for Plaice fell from 28,070 in 1999 to 13,626 tonnes in 2008, a decline of 51.5% over the period.

Since then there has been in increase in quota in each of the last eight years to a figure of 34,864 in 2016. This

represents an increase of 155.9% since 2008.

Fig 4.20



In geographical terms this again looks like a fishery where the UK is losing out, this time to Denmark and The

Netherlands, but I guess it depends where the fish are and where the fishing takes plaice. If the primary grounds

are in Dutch waters then this might explain their share of the quota.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000 T

on

nes

Year

UK North Sea Plaice Quota (Tonnes) 1998 - 2016

7,538, 6%

24,499, 20%

7,067, 6%

1,414, 1%

47,112, 38%

34,864, 29%

North Sea Plaice Quota (Tonnes) 2016

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

France

Holland

UK



10) Common Sole

The UK quota for Common Sole over the period from 1998 to 2016 is shown below:

Fig 4.21


We can see that the UK’s quota for Common Sole has declined over the period from 945 Tonnes in 2000 to 510

tonnes in 2015 a drop of 46.0% over the period.



The UK gets 4% of the Common Sole quota in the North Sea while The Netherlands takes 75%. Even allowing

for the allocation being reflective of fishing grounds this seems a particularly unfair allocation. Denmark would

also seem to be losing out.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

To

nn

es

Year

UK North Sea Common Sole Quota (Tonnes) 1998 - 2016

1,104, 8% 505, 4%

883, 7%

221, 2%

9,971, 75%

568, 4%

North Sea Common Sole Quota (Tonnes) 2016

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

France

Holland

UK



11) Megrims

The UK quota for Megrims over the period from 1998 to 2016 is shown below:

Fig 4.23



The Megrim fishery wasn’t subject to quotas in 1998 with the first quota being set in 1999. From then until

2007 the quota fell from 2,880 tonnes in 1999 to 1,424 tonnes in 2007, a drop of 50.6%. Since 2007 the quota

has recovered to reach 2,540 tonnes in 2016 an increase of 78.4%. It remains to be seen if the big increase in

quota for 2016 will be sustainable.



We can see from the above that unfairness isn’t a one-way street. The UK has 96% of the Megrim quota making

it the most skewed allocation we’ve seen and it’s skewed in our favour not against us. Will we give this up for

some Plaice or Common Sole?

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

To

nn

es

Year

UK North Sea Megrim Quota (Tonnes) 1998 - 2016

8, 1%

7, 0% 7, 0% 43, 2%

34, 1%

2,540, 96%

North Sea Megrim Quota (Tonnes) 2016 Belgium

Denmark

Germany

France

Holland

UK



12) Monkfish

The UK quota for Monkfish over the period from 1998 to 2016 is shown below:

Fig 4.25



No quota was set for Monkfish in 1998, there was an open fishery. The first quota for the species was set in

1999 and the quota was subject to steep reductions until 2003. Quota fell from 17,960 tonnes in 1999 to only

5,697 tonnes in 2003/04 a decline of 68.3% over the period. Since then the quota rose and fell but over the last

three years there has been an increase each year. It now stands at 9,169 tonnes, an increase of 60.9% since the

low point in 2003-04.

Fig 4.26


This is another fishery where the UK does very well out of the allocation. Were the fishery divided by

geography we might have to cede 3,500 tonnes to our European partners.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

To

nn

es

Year

UK North Sea Monkfish Quota (Tonnes) 1998 - 2016

398, 3% 878, 8% 429, 4% 82, 1%

301, 3%

9,169, 81%

North Sea Monkfish Quota (Tonnes) 2016

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

France

Holland

UK



13) Norway Lobster

The UK quota for Norway Lobster over the period from 1998 to 2016 is shown below:

Fig 4.27



The UK’s quota for Norway Lobster increased from 13,165 tonnes in 1998 to 24,380 tonnes in 2006 a rise of

85.2% over the period. Since then the quota allocation has resembled a ski slope falling to 11,865 tonnes by

2016, a fall of 51.3% over the period with a decline in eight of the last ten years.

Fig 4.28



The UK has 87% of this fishery. This seems a pretty extraordinary percentage even allowing for the location of

the grounds. How much does the industry want to give up?

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

To

nn

es

Year

UK North Sea Norway Lobster Quota (Tonnes) 1998 - 2016

717, 5% 717, 5% 11, 0%

369, 3%

21, 0%

11,865, 87%

North Sea Norway Lobster Quota (Tonnes) 2016

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

Holland

France

UK



14) Sprat

The UK quota for Sprat over the period from 1998 to 2016 is shown below:

Fig 4.29



The UK has seen its quota rise and fall over the period since 1998. From 4,950 tonnes in 1998 our quota rose to

10,010 tonnes in 2006 an increase of 102.2%. Since then ICES has suggested lower quotas and ours fell to a low

of 5,105 in 2014, a drop of 49.0%. In the two most recent years there have been very high increases in the quota.

We’ll have to see if this proves sustainable in future years.


You can but laugh at the allocation of this quota which has been given almost in its entirety to Denmark. The

Danes track record in the destruction of small fish stocks is probably the worst in recorded history. Who’d be a

sprat? Not me. The Danish quota over the period from 1998 to 2016 is charted below:

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

To

nn

es

Year

UK North Sea Sprat Quota (Tonnes) 1998 - 2016

3,802, 1%

300,915, 91%

3,802, 1%

3,802, 1%

3,802, 1% 1,330, 1% 12,547, 4%

North Sea Sprat Quota (Tonnes) 2016

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

France

Holland

Sweden

UK



Fig 4.30a Source: Adapted from European Commission TAC’s & Quotas 1998 – 2016 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0072&from=EN

An increase of over 100,000 tonnes from one year to the next is a recipe for disaster.

15) Dab/Flounder

The UK quota for Dab/Flounder over the period from 1998 to 2016 is shown below:

Fig 4.31



After an initial fall in quota between 1999 and 2007 from 2,590 tonnes to 1,473 tonnes, a drop of 43.1%, the

Dab/Flounder quota has been pretty stable with the quota unchanged over the last six years at 1,588 tonnes.

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000 T

on

nes

Year

Denmark North Sea Sprat Quota (Tonnes) 1998 - 2016

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

To

nn

es

Year

UK North Sea Dab/Flounder Quota (Tonnes) 1998 - 2016



Fig 4.32


We can see that this fishery sees the Dutch taking the major share. The UK’s share is in single figures at 9%.

Equity would suggest a larger share of this fishery should come to the UK subject to where the fishing grounds

are for this species. A chart showing the change in Dutch quota over the period is found below:

Fig 4.32a Source: Adapted from European Commission TAC’s & Quotas 1998 – 2016


503, 3% 1,888, 10% 2,832, 15%

196, 1%

11,421, 62%

6, 0%

1,588, 9%

North Sea Dab/Flounder Quota (Tonnes) 2016

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

France

Holland

Sweden

UK

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

To

nn

es

Year

Dutch North Sea Dab/Flounder Quota (Tonnes) 1998 - 2016



16) Sandeel

The UK quota for Sandeels over the period from 1998 to 2016 is shown below:

Fig 4.33



The Sandeel fishery was pursued to destruction by the Danes. These fish are tiny and could only be caught by

using a net with a tiny mesh which let nothing escape. The Danes got a quota of over 900,000 tonnes which they

could never catch but which they defended to the death. The fishery collapsed in its entirety and since they sat at

the bottom of the food chain other species’ stocks dwindled as well. Also affected were birds such as puffins

which fed on the sandeels before they vanished. Global warming has meant that any recovery in stocks will only

happen after a long and very slow rebuilding.

Fig 4.34



A quota should never again be set for this stock. It must be left un-fished.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

To

nn

es

Year

UK North Sea Sandeel Quota (Tonnes) 1998 - 2016

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

To

nn

es

Year

Denmark N Sea Sandeel Quota (Tonnes) 1998 - 2016



17) Horse Mackerel

The UK quota for Horse Mackerel over the period from 1998 to 2016 is shown below:

Fig 4.35



Before we look at the numbers, we need to note that the change between 2009 and 2010 is caused by a change in

fishing area from IIa and IV to a new area covering IVb,c and VIId. The UK quota fell from 5,840 tonnes in

1999 to 3,470 tonnes in 2009. The area change brought an increase since when the quota has fallen to 1,314 in

2016. The Horse Mackerel fishery continues to struggle.

Fig 4.36



The Horse Mackerel fishery quota is held by Denmark (47%) and The Netherlands (29%) with the UK a long

way behind on 11%. This seems to be unfair if based on geography.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

To

nn

es

Year

UK North Sea Horse Mackerel Quota (Tonnes) 1998 - 2016

13, 0%

5,519, 47%

487, 4%

102, 1%

458, 4%

347, 3%

3,323, 29% 12, 0% 75, 1%

1,314, 11%

EU Waters Horse Mackerel Quota (Tonnes) 2016

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

Spain

France

Ireland

Holland

Portugal

Sweden

UK



18) Mackerel

The UK quota for Mackerel over the period from 1998 to 2016 is shown below:

Fig 4.37



The quota for Mackerel has been up-and-down since 1998. It fell from 1,611 tonnes in 2002 to only 435 tonnes

in 2005, a drop of 73.0%. Since then the stock and the quota has recovered but the quota has fallen again in the

last three years and ends the period at 1,661 tonnes in 2016. We’ll see if stability returns in future years.

Fig 4.38


The UK’s share of the Mackerel quota, at 5% is derisory and unfair. Denmark has 62% of the quota and

Sweden, with no North Sea coastline, has 17%. This is one where the SFF’s argument has traction.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

To

nn

es

Year

UK North Sea Mackerel Quota (Tonnes) 1998 - 2016

566, 2%

19,461, 62%

590, 2%

1,781, 6% 1,793, 6% 5,389, 17% 1,661, 5%

North Sea Mackerel Quota (Tonnes) 2016

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

France

Holland

Sweden

UK



19) Northern Prawn

The UK quota for Northern Prawn over the period from 1998 to 2016 is shown below:

Fig 4.39



No catch limit was set for Northern Prawn in 1998 or 1999 but it became necessary to impose one from 2000

onwards. From 1,948 tonnes in 1998 the quota has fallen to 538 tonnes in 2016 a drop of 72.4%.

Fig 4.40



For this quota allocation to make any sense Denmark would need to hand some back. It isn’t only the UK who

suffer, Germany, Belgium and France get nothing at all and The Netherlands gets 1%.

Denmark’s Northern Prawn quota is shown on the chart below. The numbers are a lot bigger than the UK ones.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

To

nn

es

Year

UK North Sea Northern Prawn Quota (Tonnes) 1998 - 2016

1,818, 74%

17, 1% 73, 3% 538, 22%

North Sea Northern Prawn Quota (Tonnes) 2016

Denmark

Holland

Sweden

UK



Fig 4.41



20) Lemon Sole

The UK quota for Lemon Sole over the period from 1998 to 2016 is shown below. No quota was set in the first

year:

Fig 4.42



We can see that the first UK quota set in 1999 was 7,330 tonnes. This declined rapidly in subsequent years

reaching 3,773 tonnes in 2006 a fall of 48.5%. Since then the fishery has been relatively stable and sits at 3,904

tonnes in 2016.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000 T

on

nes

Year

Denmark North Sea Northern Prawn Quota (Tonnes) 1998 - 2016

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

To

nn

es

Year

UK North Sea Lemon Sole Quota (Tonnes) 1998 - 2016



The chart below shows the share of the quota allocated to each nation in 2016. We can see that this is the only

flatfish for which the UK has a higher quota than our neighbours. Other EU nations might look to us giving up

700 tonnes were negotiations entered into.

Fig 4.43


21) Turbot

The UK quota for Turbot over the period from 1998 to 2016 is shown below. No quota was set in the first year:

Fig 4.44


We can see that in the early years the quota fell from 1,390 tonnes in 1999 to 668 tonnes in 2006, a fall of

51.9%. Since then the quota rose and subsequently fell again to end at 693 tonnes in 2016.

With this fishery the allocation clearly favours the Netherlands at the expense of the UK

346, 5%

953, 15% 122, 2%

261, 4%

794, 13%

11, 0%

3,904, 61%

North Sea Lemon Sole Quota (Tonnes) 2016

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

France

Holland

Sweden

UK

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

To

nn

es

Year

UK North Sea Turbot Quota (Tonnes) 1998 - 2016



Fig 4.45


22) Skates & Rays

The UK quota for Skates & Rays over the period from 1998 to 2016 is shown below. No quota was set in the

first year:

Fig 4.46



The UK quota for Skates and Rays has fallen from 3,920 tonnes in 1999 to 849 tonnes in 2016, a fall of 78.3%

over the period. The decline has been pretty much constant but this has levelled off in recent years with a small

increase in the 2016 quota. This looks like a sustainable level for this fishery.

329, 7% 703, 16% 180, 4%

85, 2%

2,493, 56%

5, 0%

693, 15%

North Sea Turbot Quota (Tonnes) 2016

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

France

Holland

Sweden

UK

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

To

nn

es

Year

UK North Sea Skate/Rays Quota (Tonnes) 1998 - 2016



Skates and Rays is another fishery where the UK does well from our allocation getting almost two thirds of the

allocation. Negotiations might cost 185 tonnes of skates & Rays.

Fig 4.47



23) Hallibut

The UK quota for Hallibut over the period from 1998 to 2016 is shown below:

Fig 4.48


No quota was set in an open fishery between 1998 and 2004. Quotas were introduced in 2005 and between then

and 2012 the quota fell from 661 tonnes to 123 tonnes, a fall of 66.3%.

Since then a much higher quota has been set with the 2016 quota being 849 tonnes, an increase of 590.2%. Is

this sustainable? Time will tell.

9, 1%

221, 17%

35, 3%

188, 14%

11, 1%

849, 64%

North Sea Skates & Rays Quota (Tonnes) 2016

Denmark

Belgium

France

Holland

Germany

UK

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

To

nn

es

Year

UK North Sea & W Scotland Hallibut Quota (Tonnes) 1998 - 2016



This is another fishery where the UK gets a good share of the quota to reflect our share of the North Sea and the

fishing grounds West of Scotland where access to foreign boats would be unlikely based on geography.



Whilst our share is good it isn’t fully reflective of the West of Scotland fishery. This time it is the Belgians who

seem to be gaining and the main losers would be the Danes whose share is derisory.

221, 17%

9, 1%

11, 1% 35, 3%

188, 14%

849, 64%

N Sea & W Scotland Greenland Hallibut Quota (Tonnes) 2016

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

France

Holland

UK


5) Shares of EU Quota – who gets what


The chart above shows that the UK’s share of EU quota varies from species to species. There are some where

we clearly do much better than our share of the waters would earn us. These include Megrim (96%), Norway

Lobster (86.6%), Haddock (84.2%), Monkfish (81.4%) and Hallibut (72.6%). There are some that are more in

keeping with our geographical share such as Whiting (66.9%), Skates and Rays (64.7%), Lemon Sole (61.1%)

and Cod (46.9%). There are quotas which might be explained by the geographical location of the fish such as

Plaice (28.5%), Dab/Flounder (8.6%), Common Sole (4.3%). Then there are fish which shouldn’t be fished

Sprat (3.8%) and Norway Pout (0.0%). Our quota for Pelagic stocks is too low – for Herring (22.6%), for Blue

Whiting (19.8%) for Horse Mackerel (11.3%) and most of all for Mackerel (5.3%). Quota for the remaining

species Northern Prawn (22.0%), Hake (18.0%), Saithe (16.7%) and Turbot (15.4%) are also very low.

What we require to decide is what we will give up on the Demersal side to gain the extra tonnage that the

Pelagic boats could justifiably claim they should have access to. There will be winners and losers if we throw

these fisheries open to renegotiation.

96

.3%

86

.6%

84

.2%

81

.4%

72

.6%

66

.9%

64

.7%

61

.1%

46

.9%

28

.5%

22

.6%

22

.0%

19

.8%

18

.0%

16

.7%

15

.4%

11

.3%

8.6

%

5.3

%

4.3

%

3.8

%

0.0

%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0%

100.0%

Meg

rim

No

rway

Lo

bst

er

Had

do

ck

Mo

nkf

ish

Hal

libu

t

Wh

itin

g

Skat

e/R

ays

Lem

on

So

le

Co

d

Pla

ice

Her

rin

g

No

rth

ern

Pra

wn

Blu

e W

hit

ing

Hak

e

Sait

he

Turb

ot

Ho

rse

Mac

kere

l

Dab

/Flo

un

der

Mac

kere

l

Co

mm

on

So

le

Spra

t

No

rway

Po

ut

UK's Share of EU Quotas 2016



Denmark has around 8% of the EU waters geographical area we saw at the start of this paper. We can see that

despite this Denmark has 99.9% of the quota for Norway Pout and 91.2% for Sprat. Denmark’s track record in

these small fish species is terrible. They destroyed the Sandeel stock & are simply moving on to the next stock

to feed their insatiable fishmeal plant. This history should not be allowed to repeat itself. Denamrk has 74.3% of

the Northern Prawn quota. That’s a “well done” to the Danish negotiators, but that’s just silly. They’ve 62.3% of

the Mackerel 57.8% of the Hake, 47.4% of the Horse Mackerel and 29.5% of the Herring. All of these numbers

are silly. The next few might be higher as trade offs for some of the UK’s higher quota for certain species. Cod

is 20.5% of the EU quota, Plaice is 20%, Turbot is 15.7% Blue whiting 15.3% and Lemon Sole 14.9% could be

explained by a bit of bartering. The remaining quotas look broadly in line with Denmark’s share of EU waters.

Some are very much lower than geographical share would suggest and would be revised upwards in any

renegotiation. Our Demersal sector represented by the SWFPA would be the main losers (except for prawns)

with our Pelagic sector seeking to benefit. For the Danes the process would work in reverse with their Demersal

sector benefiting and their Pelagic sector losing out.

Denmark was the biggest recipient of UK largesse in the 1973-5 carve up of UK North Sea waters. Denmark

would be the main loser from Brexit.

99

.9%

91

.2%

74

.3%

62

.3%

57

.8%

47

.4%

29

.5%

20

.5%

20

.0%

15

.7%

15

.3%

14

.9%

10

.2%

9.3

%

8.6

%

7.8

%

5.2

%

5.1

%

3.8

%

1.1

%

0.7

%

0.3

%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0%

100.0%

No

rway

Po

ut

Spra

t

No

rth

ern

Pra

wn

Mac

kere

l

Hak

e

Ho

rse

Mac

kere

l

Her

rin

g

Co

d

Pla

ice

Turb

ot

Blu

e W

hit

ing

Lem

on

So

le

Dab

/Flo

un

der

Wh

itin

g

Sait

he

Mo

nkf

ish

No

rway

Lo

bst

er

Had

do

ck

Co

mm

on

So

le

Hal

libu

t

Skat

e/R

ays

Meg

rim

Denmark's EU Quotas 2016



The third major fishery belongs to the Dutch who take a very high share of the fish found in their own waters.

With an 8% share of the EU fishing area they take 75.2% of the Common Sole. They have 62.0% of the

Dab/Flounder quota and 55.6% of the Turbot fishery. They have 38.5% of the Plaice quota and 28.5% of the

Horse Mackerel. From then on, trade-offs might account for the Herring (20.4%), Blue Whiting (18.6%),

Skate/Rays (14.3%), Lemon Sole (12.4%) and Cod (11.6%). The remainder sit below their estimated

geographical share with Mackerel (5.7%), Whiting (5.4%), Hake (3.3%), Monkfish (2.7%), Norway Lobster

(2.7%), Megrims (1.3%), Sprat (1.2%), Northern Prawn (0.7%), Haddock (0.6%), Saithe (0.2%), Norway Pout

(0.1%) and Hallibut (0.0%).

Looking at the chart we can see that the Dutch take less than their geographical share in twelve fish stocks and

more than their share in ten. Of these ten, half of them, the Benthic, are probably in their own waters. It is the

Pelagic fishery where they might be accused of having someone else’s fish.

75

.2%

62

.0%

55

.6%

38

.5%

28

.5%

20

.4%

18

.6%

14

.3%

12

.4%

11

.6%

5.7

%

5.4

%

3.3

%

2.7

%

2.7

%

1.3

%

1.2

%

0.7

%

0.6

%

0.2

%

0.1

%

0.0

%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0%

100.0%

Co

mm

on

So

le

Dab

/Flo

un

der

Turb

ot

Pla

ice

Ho

rse

Mac

kere

l

Her

rin

g

Blu

e W

hit

ing

Skat

e/R

ays

Lem

on

So

le

Co

d

Mac

kere

l

Wh

itin

g

Hak

e

Mo

nkf

ish

No

rway

Lo

bst

er

Meg

rim

Spra

t

No

rth

ern

Pra

wn

Had

do

ck

Sait

he

No

rway

Po

ut

Hal

libu

t

The Netherlands EU Quotas 2016


Value of Annual Quota in 2015 Prices £’s

BE DK DE ES FR IR NL PO FI SU UK

Megrim £ 10,144 £ 8,876 £ 8,876 £ - £ 54,524 £ - £ 43,112 £ - £ - £ - £ 3,220,720

Norway Lobster £ 7,572,954 £ 7,572,954 £ 116,182 £ - £ 221,802 £ - £ 3,897,378 £ - £ - £ - £125,318,130

Haddock £ 482,148 £ 3,315,108 £ 2,109,738 £ - £ 3,676,038 £ - £ 362,292 £ - £ - £ 333,690 £ 54,672,042

Monkfish £ 963,160 £ 2,124,760 £ 1,038,180 £ - £ 198,440 £ - £ 728,420 £ - £ - £ 24,200 £ 22,188,980

Hallibut £ - £ 25,408 £ 44,464 £ 25,408 £ 411,292 £ 25,408 £ - £ 25,408 £ 25,408 £ 25,408 £ 1,614,996

Whiting £ 289,170 £ 1,249,857 £ 325,584 £ - £ 1,878,534 £ - £ 722,925 £ - £ - £ 2,142 £ 9,037,098

Skate/Rays £ 184,535 £ 7,515 £ 9,185 £ - £ 29,225 £ - £ 156,980 £ - £ - £ - £ 708,915

Lemon Sole £ 1,195,084 £ 3,291,662 £ 421,388 £ - £ 901,494 £ - £ 2,742,476 £ - £ - £ 37,994 £ 13,484,416

Cod £ 1,955,198 £ 11,237,471 £ 7,124,474 £ - £ 2,415,476 £ - £ 6,349,476 £ - £ - £ 74,746 £ 25,781,469

Plaice £ 5,299,214 £ 17,222,797 £ 4,968,101 £ - £ 994,042 £ - £ 33,119,736 £ - £ - £ - £ 24,509,392

Herring £ - £ 32,436,312 £19,636,734 £ - £ 8,732,826 £ - £ 22,498,824 £ - £ - £ 1,866,642 £ 24,903,192

Northern Prawn £ - £ 6,786,594 £ - £ - £ - £ - £ 63,461 £ - £ - £ 272,509 £ 2,008,354

Blue Whiting £ - £ 5,199,456 £ 2,021,628 £ 4,407,992 £ 3,618,332 £ 4,026,200 £ 6,340,076 £ 409,508 £ - £ 1,286,088 £ 6,746,468

Hake £ 110,350 £ 4,453,726 £ 512,024 £ - £ 986,529 £ - £ 256,012 £ - £ - £ - £ 1,388,203

Saithe £ 19,780 £ 2,324,580 £ 5,869,500 £ - £13,813,320 £ - £ 58,480 £ - £ - £ 319,060 £ 4,499,520

Turbot £ 2,667,861 £ 5,700,627 £ 1,459,620 £ - £ 689,265 £ - £ 20,215,737 £ - £ - £ 40,545 £ 5,619,537

Horse Mackerel £ 9,061 £ 3,846,743 £ 339,439 £ 71,094 £ 319,226 £ 241,859 £ 2,316,131 £ 8,364 £ - £ 52,275 £ 915,858

Dab/Flounder £ 798,764 £ 2,998,144 £ 4,497,216 £ - £ 311,248 £ - £ 18,136,548 £ - £ - £ 9,528 £ 2,521,744

Mackerel £ 359,410 £ 12,357,735 £ 374,650 £ - £ 1,130,935 £ - £ 1,138,555 £ - £ - £ 3,422,015 £ 1,054,735

Common Sole £ 5,520,000 £ 2,525,000 £ 4,415,000 £ - £ 1,105,000 £ - £ 49,855,000 £ - £ - £ - £ 2,840,000

Sprat £ 893,470 £ 70,715,025 £ 893,470 £ - £ 893,470 £ - £ 893,470 £ - £ - £ 312,550 £ 2,948,545

Norway Pout £ - £ 30,286,800 £ 5,875 £ - £ - £ - £ 22,325 £ - £ - £ - £ -

TOTAL £28,330,303 £225,687,150 £56,191,328 £ 4,504,494 £42,381,018 £ 4,293,467 £ 169,917,414 £ 443,280 £ 25,408 £ 8,079,392 £335,982,314

3.23% 25.77% 6.42% 0.51% 4.84% 0.49% 19.40% 0.05% 0.00% 0.92% 38.36%

Value of Landings: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0050/00506391.pdf

£875,835,568

We can see this chart shows that only two nations have a clearly excessive stake in the fishery, more than we would expect from their geographical share of the North Sea.

Denmark could lose £155m were these quotas lost through Brexit - unless they take these fish in area IIa which belongs to Norway in which case the loss is £0.

The Netherlands case is more arguable but here the potential loss might still approach £100m unless again they take these fish in Norway’s sector IIa.

From the UK’s perspective £200m might be gained in extra quota at their expense unless we too take fish in area IIa which we’d no longer be able to do.

Losses for the Dutch would end up with the English fleet. Losses for the Danes would help Scottish boats.

http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0050/00506391.pdf

Conclusions

Scottish fishermen are expecting a bonanza as a result of Brexit

Present Quotas cover area IV for the North Sea and area IIa in Norwegian waters

Future quotas might exclude us from area IIa

Our quota for Benthic species (flatfish) seem too low – but fishing grounds are in large part Dutch

Our quota for Pelagic species also seems very low – but fishing grounds are in part Norwegian

Our quota for Demersal stocks seems reasonable overall. Changes would see gains and losses for

individual species. We’d lose a big share of our Haddock catch.

Depending on what happened on access to IIa we could potentially have a greater share of area IV and

still end up with less fish. This should be clarified without delay.

Were access to IIa preserved and access to IV taken back from Denmark and The Netherlands we

would gain additional quota.

Additional Benthic quota would go to boats operating in the Southern part of the North Sea. These

would in all probability be English.

Additional Pelagic quota would benefit the Scottish Pelagic fleet

The Scottish Demersal fleet would see gains and losses. Surprisingly, losses might outweigh the gains

Given that most species are still in decline there is no case for additional quota

Given that most species are still in decline there is no case for additional days at sea

The role of “Slipper Skippers” hiring out quota might need to be subject to price control to help vessels

actually fishing.

your plaice or mine? - fishing quotas in the north sea

Economy & Finance