A coalition of European fishers, scientists, fishmongers, and NGOs has launched a new vision for implementing “fair, low-impact fisheries” in the bloc, urging E.U. institutions to overhaul how fishing rights are allocated and accelerate the transition away from destructive fishing practices.
The initiative, “Rethink Fisheries,” was unveiled and presented to the European Parliament on 11 December as E.U. ministers gathered to set 2026 fishing limits.
The vision outlined by Rethink Fisheries, co-led by Seas At Risk and Low-Impact Fishers of Europe, calls for an end to overfishing, fairer access to resources, and a new management model that restores ecosystems while supporting local livelihoods.
“It’s simple: There can be no fishing without fish,” Seas At Risk Marine Policy Director and Rethink Fisheries Co-Chair Tobias Troll said in the vision’s launch statement. “The time for business as usual has passed.”
Seas At Risk Senior Fisheries Policy Officer Bruno Nicostrate told SeafoodSource that key changes to the E.U. quota system are non-negotiable for the vision to succeed, as the current system, which is based on catch history, entrenches the dominance of industrial fleets and sidelines low-impact fishers.
“Without restructuring who gets access and how quotas flow, low-impact fisheries will continue being marginalized while industrial operations deplete both ecosystems and communities, making the entire sector unsustainable,” he said.
Small-scale fisheries currently haul in just 7 percent of the E.U.’s total catch volume but account for 19 percent of the economic value. Nicostrate said the vision aims to maximize the economic, social, and societal utility of each kilogram caught, rather than maximizing kilograms “regardless of their ultimate use or value.”
Therefore, prioritized reforms in the vision include ending allocation based on catch history and replacing it with criteria based on social, environmental, and economic performance; ring-fencing quota for low-impact fleets, with legal safeguards to prevent industrial reabsorption; prioritizing owner-operators, local landings, and short supply chains; and treating the maximum rate of fishing mortality as a hard ceiling, with stronger ecosystem-based limits.
Asked what E.U. Fisheries Commissioner Costas Kadis could do in 2026 to turn the vision into a reality, Nicostrate said Kadis should mandate full, audited implementation of Article 17 of the E.U. Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), which requires member nations to use transparent and objective criteria, including those of an environmental, social, and economic nature, when allocating fishing opportunities.
It also encourages incentives for sustainable gear and techniques, though its implementation has been slow and inconsistent to date, Nicostrate said.
“This one move shifts power away from destructive, high-impact fleets and gives real, stable access to low-impact, small-scale fishers,” he said. “It is the keystone reform: Once allocation rules change, markets, producers, subsidies, and coastal access all begin to align with a fair, low-impact system.”
Even though member countries control national allocation, Nicostrate said he believes the European Commission can drive change through binding E.U.-level criteria, independent audits, funding conditionality, and infringement procedures for non-compliance.
Addressing some industry criticism that shifting to low-impact fishing could reduce E.U. production and increase the bloc’s reliance on imports, he said this line of thinking constitutes “a flawed assumption” and that these critics misunderstand both short-term and long-term dynamics of sustainable fisheries, including local economic dynamics.
“Current systems are already collapsing,” he said. “The fundamental problem with maintaining high-volume industrial fishing is that it is already failing. European fish biomass remains less than 50 percent of 1950s levels, with half of all stocks outside safe biological limits.”
The real choice is not between high-volume industrial fishing and low-volume sustainable fishing, he said; “rather, it is between managed transition now to low-impact methods or forced collapse later with even greater production losses.”
“Is this transition challenging? Absolutely. Does it involve trade-offs? Yes. But the alternative – continuing extractive industrial fishing until ecosystem collapse – carries far greater global environmental costs and offers no pathway to long-term food security,” Nicostrate said. “The real question is not whether to transition but whether we do so deliberately and justly now or chaotically and catastrophically later. Critics who focus narrowly on potential import increases miss the fundamental point. Current practices are not sustainable, and no amount of concern about alternatives changes that basic reality.”
