European hake
Merluccius merluccius
What to check for
Location
Location
Location refers to two things:
- Where the fish population or stock lives, e.g., North Sea, or South Pacific.
- Who is managing the fishery. If it says “All areas”, this means that our scoring for management covers the same area as the fish stock.
Northern stock (North Sea, Celtic Seas, Bay of Biscay (north)): North Sea and Celtic Seas
Technical location
Technical location
A global system is used to split the ocean into different zones, areas, and subdivisions. Each zone is indicated by a number and/or letter. By law, this must be shown on all unprocessed seafood sold in the EU and UK, alongside the fishing method used to catch it. Look for these details on the packet to match your seafood to our ratings.
8b: Bay of Biscay (Central), 8a: Bay of Biscay (North), 8d: Bay of Biscay (Offshore), 7: Irish Sea, Porcupine Bank, English Channel, Bristol Channel, Celtic Seas, West and Southwest of Ireland, 4: North Sea, 6: Rockall, West of Scotland, 3a: Skagerrak and Kattegat
Caught by
Caught by
Net (gill or fixed)
Gillnetting uses a net, suspended in the water, that is anchored to the seabed. It is kept vertical by buoys, to create a wall of netting that fish swim into and become entangled. The mesh size and length of time the nets are left at sea varies, depending on where they are fishing and what they are targeting.
Net (gill or fixed)
Rating summary
Northern hake is fully fished and not subject to overfishing. Emergency management of this stock in 2001 has recovered it to very good levels. Ongoing management measures appear to be controlling the fishery, but discarding can be an issue in some areas and catch limits do not cover all of the countries accessing the stock. Gillnetting for hake can have a bycatch of harbour porpoises. Based on the available information, gillnet fisheries in some areas could be over-exploiting this species and causing it to decline.
Rating last updated July 2026.
How we worked out this Rating
Please note this rating uses our new methodology.
Stock status
The size and health of a fish population, or 'stock', that is being targeted by fishermen is a crucial indicator of whether a fishery is sustainable. If the stock is too small to withstand fishing, it is at risk of crashing. We look at how big the stock is, and how much pressure there is from fishing, to assess this. The target level that many fisheries aim for is 'Maximum Sustainable Yield' - the most fish that can be caught year after year whilst keeping the population at a healthy size.
Stock Status Score: 0.25
Northern hake is fully fished and not subject to overfishing.
Stock assessments are carried out by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). The most recent assessment was published in 2026 using data up to 2026. The next assessment is expected in 2027.
The stock assessment defines reference points for fishing pressure (F) and biomass (B). For fishing pressure, there is a target to keep F at or below Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). For biomass, there is no target. However, there is a trigger point (MSY Btrigger). Below this level, F should be reduced to allow the stock to increase. Because BMSY is not defined, the Good Fish Guide applies its own definition of 1.4 x MSY Btrigger.
The stock assessment was benchmarked in 2022. Estimates of spawning stock biomass (SSB) now only include females, whereas previously they included males as well.
The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has increased substantially from being below biologically safe levels (Blim) in 2006 (around 45,000 tonnes) to peak at around 293,000t in 2015. It has since declined to 98,611 t in 2026. This is still above MSY Btrigger (78,405t) but has dropped below the GFG proxy for BMSY (109,767t). The stock is therefore not in an overfished state.
Fishing mortality (F) decreased significantly between 2005 and 2012, and has been fluctuating at or below levels associated with Maximum Sustainable Yield (FMSY, 0.24) since 2009. In 2025 it was 0.24, equal to FMSY. The stock is therefore not subject to overfishing.
ICES advises that when the MSY approach is applied, catches in 2027 should be no more than 46,824 tonnes. This is a 15% decrease on the previous year's advice, because of the decreasing trend in stock size.
There is some uncertainty in this stock assessment. The biomass surveys don't cover the entire stock distribution area, and changes in distribution are known to increase uncertainty in the assessment. Analyses show that the new assessment tends to revise historical SSB downwards and F upwards when a new year’s data is added. If this pattern continues, this may result in an inflated advised catch.
Management
Good management is vital to be sure that fishing doesn't cause fish populations to decline. We look at whether regulations follow the best available scientific advice, how well compliance is monitored and enforced, and whether this is effective in maintaining healthy fish stocks.
Management of the Target Stock Score: 0.5
Alignment with Scientific Advice Score: 0.25
Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Score: 0.25
Emergency management of this stock in 2001 has recovered it to very good levels. Ongoing management measures appear to be controlling the fishery, but discarding can be an issue in some areas and catch limits do not cover all of the countries accessing the stock.
Northern hake is a shared stock between the UK, EU, and Norway. There is no joint management plan, although one is being considered. The main management measure is to set catch limits (Total Allowable Catches, TACs).
ICES recommends catch limits for the northern hake stock as a whole. However, TACs apply only to the UK and EU member states and waters, so there is potential for overfishing if other states are accessing the stock (e.g. Norway). The agreed TACs were set in line with scientific advice for some of the last 5 years (2022 – 2026) However, in 2022 and 2025, the TACs exceeded the advice by 5% and 6% respectively. In both cases, ICES had recommended a greater than 20% decrease in catch, but hake TACs can't change by more than 20% in one year, so TACs remained above the advice.
Between 2021 and 2025, actual catches remained below the scientific advice. This could be an indication that the stock biomass has been overestimated. Caution is needed because hake are fast growing with a high natural mortality rate, so if the biomass starts to decline it could drop rapidly. A Harvest Control Rule would help to mitigate this, as it would reduce exploitation rates when certain biological reference points are approached.
Overall, currently, catch limits appear to be set in line with scientific advice and actual catches are within these limits.
Other measures include:
- Minimum conservation reference size: hake can legally be caught and sold at 27cm (30cm in Skagerrak and Kattegat). Below this size, hake have to be landed but can't be sold for human consumption and so have a lower value. Hake mature at around 35-45cm, so this doesn't prevent juveniles from being caught.
- Landing obligation: it is illegal to discard unwanted (e.g. below-minimum-size, BMS) hake at sea. Overall, around 6% of the catch has been discarded in the last three years, and discarding rates have decreased since 2015. However, discarding of juvenile hake (both above and below MCRS) can be substantial in some areas and fleets, particularly gillnetting. Recently, discarding of large individuals increased because of quota restrictions in certain fleets. Continued monitoring is required.
An Emergency Plan was brought in in 2001 to recover the stock, involving a TAC reduction and minimum mesh size of 100mm (depending on vessel size, location and proportion of hake in the total catch). It included targets for increasing stock size and reducing fishing mortality, and limited changes in TAC from year to year. The stock is now in a very good state, and fishing pressure is at sustainable levels, although this has been strongly influenced by good spawning years in 2008 and 2012.
The EU and UK both have fishery management measures, which can include catch limits, population targets, and gear restrictions. However, compliance in the EU and UK has been inconsistent, with ongoing challenges in implementing some regulations. The goal of reaching Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) by 2020 was missed, with less than half of UK TACs in 2024 following ICES advice. In 2024, the EU and UK reaffirmed their commitment to sustainable fisheries by aligning management with scientific advice to gradually approach MSY. However, no new target date has been set for achieving MSY across all fisheries. The Landing Obligation (LO), an EU law retained by the UK post-Brexit, requires all quota fish to be landed, even if unwanted (over-quota or below minimum size). It aims to encourage more selective fishing methods, reduce bycatch, and improve catch reporting. However, compliance is poor, and accurate discard levels are hard to quantify with current monitoring programmes. The UK is in the process of replacing the LO with country-specific Catching Policies.
The Marine Conservation Society views Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) with cameras is one of the most cost-effective tools for providing reliable fisheries data and aiding informed management decisions. Fully monitored fisheries enhance collaboration, data accuracy, stock recovery, and reduce impacts on marine wildlife and habitats. However, the full potential of REM may only be achieved when it tracks fishing location and documents catch and bycatch, particularly where vulnerable species and habitats are at risk. As of January 2024, the EU is introducing a Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) mandate for EU vessels, including CCTV cameras on vessels 18m or more that pose a potential risk of non-compliance, within the next 4 years. Across the UK, different approaches to REM are being taken and legislation is expected to be in place across all 4 countries within the next few years.
The Fisheries Act (2020) requires the development of Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs) (replacing EU Multi-Annual Plans) in the UK. 43 FMPs have been proposed and are at various stages of development and implementation, these should all be published by the end of 2028. FMPs have the potential to be very important tools for managing UK fisheries, although data limitations may delay them for some stocks. It is also essential the UK governments define and adopt a standardised approach or model across the four nations to a universally defined FMP design, to ensure the consistence, quality and coherence of all the proposal FMPs.
The Marine Conservation Society is keen to see publicly available Fishery Management Plans for all commercially exploited stocks, especially where stocks are depleted, that include:
- An overview of the fishery including current stock status, spatial coverage, current fishing methods and impacts
- Targets for fishing pressure and biomass, and additional management when those targets are not being met, based on the best scientific evidence
- Timeframes for stock recovery
- Improved data collection, transparency, and accountability, supported by technologies such as Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM)
- Consideration of wider environmental impacts of the fishery, including habitat impacts and minimising bycatch
- Stakeholder engagement
Capture method
Environmental impacts of fishing vary hugely, depending on the method used and where it's happening. We look at whether the fishing gear being used could have an effect on seabed habitats, and if so, how severe might this be. We also review whether it catches any other species by accident (bycatch), and what effect this might have on those species - especially if they're Endangered, Threatened, or Protected.
Capture Method Score: 0.75
Habitat Impacts: 0
Bycatch Impacts: 0.25
Vulnerable and ETP Species: 0.75
Ecosystems and Trophic Webs: 0.5
Gillnets in this area can encounter bycatch of non-target fish, mammals and birds. This includes the harbour porpoise, which is vulnerable in Europe.
Hake is caught by longlines, gillnets, and bottom trawls in mixed fisheries alongside megrim, anglerfish and Norway lobster.
Gillnets and fixed nets can be very size selective, but can bycatch species such as sharks, cetaceans and other marine mammals. There is concern about bycatch of harbour porpoise. The IUCN lists harbour porpoise as being of least concern globally, but vulnerable in Europe. OSPAR has included the species on its List of Threatened and / or Declining Species and Habitats for the Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas, owing to evidence of a decline in populations, their sensitivity and the threat of incidental capture and drowning in fishing nets. They are also classified as a priority species in UK and EU law, under which there are explicit bycatch requirements. To comply with this, the UK recently designated five Special Areas for Conservation for harbour porpoises, but these areas are not yet managed. The UK Dolphin and Porpoise Conservation Strategy lists harbour porpoise as having 'medium' vulnerability to gillnetting for the UK as a whole. This is based on the species having a high sensitivity to gillnetting and medium exposure.
The area of most concern is in the Celtic Seas, southwest of the UK, where most of the UK's gillnetting activity takes place. Exposure to gillnetting is high. A review of activities in the Bristol Channel Approaches Harbour Porpoise SAC lists "commercial fisheries with bycatch (predominantly static nets)" as a high risk, and a strandings report by Cornwall Wildlife Trust also shows that common dolphin bycatch is very high in this area.
There is also bycatch of elasmobranch species which may be threatened or endangered. Porbeagle sharks are being caught as bycatch in gillnets but as they are a prohibited species, there is no official data on the numbers being caught and discarded. Spurdog bycatch is also thought to be of concern. The National Evaluation of Populations of Threatened and Uncertain Elasmobranchs (NEPTUNE) highlighted continued problems of spurdog bycatch and despite a supposed real time avoidance programme being implemented, 50 tonnes were still landed in Cornish ports in 2019.
There is a relative lack of knowledge on the overall impact of fishing on seabird populations in Europe. Increasing evidence over the last decade has shown that seabirds are suffering mortality from bycatch, particularly in gillnets. Bycatch of seabirds in gillnet fisheries alone is estimated to kill around 400,000 birds globally each year. Diving seabirds, such as guillemots and cormorants, are generally more vulnerable to bycatch in gillnets than surface feeding seabirds. Most of the UK’s gillnetting takes place in the Celtic Seas, southwest of the UK and therefore there is concern for seabird populations here. In particular, species of concern include the razorbill (listed as Near Threatened in Europe by IUCN), puffin (listed as Endangered in Europe by IUCN) and the herring gull, arctic skua and roseate tern which are all classified in the UK as Red under the Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the Red List for Birds (2015).
Some pilot projects are underway to improve reporting of bycatch and find ways to reduce it. This includes trialling various types of 'pingers' that would discourage cetaceans from approaching the nets. Pingers have been very effective at reducing porpoise and dolphin bycatch in some fisheries but haven't been adopted on a large enough scale to significantly tackle the issue. Testing and trials are crucial and may need to be supported by other measures such as seasonal closures.
Because of gillnets' durability (they are made of nylon), if lost, they can continue to fish for several weeks before becoming tangled and bundled up, a phenomenon known as 'ghost fishing'. However, static nets, as with all gear, represent an investment by fishermen, and therefore there are incentives to avoid losing or damaging gear.
References
Bradbury, G., Shackshaft, M., Scott-Hayward, L., Rexstad, E., Miller, D., and Edwards, D., 2017. Risk assessment of seabird bycatch in UK waters. Produced by Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust (Consulting) Ltd for Defra project MB0126. Available at http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=14620_MB0126RiskassessmentofseabirdbycatchinUKwaters_updated21Oct2019.pdf [Accessed on 13.07.2026].
Calderan, S. and Leaper, R., 2019. Review of harbour porpoise bycatch in UK waters and recommendations for management. January 2019, WWF. Available at https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/files/2019-04/Review_of_harbour_porpoise_in_UK_waters_2019.pdf [Accessed on 13.07.2026].
Ellis, J. R., Bendall, V. A., Hetherington, S. J., Silva, J. F. and McCully Phillips, S. R. 2016. National Evaluation of Populations of Threatened and Uncertain Elasmobranchs (NEPTUNE). Project Report (Cefas) V1.4. Available at http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=13513_MB5201NEPTUNEFinalReportv1.4.pdf [Accessed on 13.07.2026].
Glemarec, G., Kindt-Larse, L., Scherffenberg Lundgaard, L. and Larsen, F. 2020. Assessing seabird bycatch in gillnet fisheries using electronic monitoring. Biological Conservation. 243. 108461. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108461 [Accessed on 13.07.2026].
ICES, 2024. Celtic Seas Ecoregion – Ecosystem overview. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2024. ICES Advice 2024, Section 7.1, Available at https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.25713033 [Accessed on 21.07.2026].
ICES, 2025 Celtic Seas Ecosystem – fisheries Overview. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2025. ICES Advice 2025, section 7.2. Available at https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.30710879 [Accessed on 21.07.2026].
ICES, 2026. Working Group for the Bay of Biscay and Iberian Waters Ecoregion (WGBIE). ICES Scientific Reports. 8:46. 685 pp. Available at https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.32790321 [Accessed on 21.07.2026].
ICES, 2026. Hake (Merluccius merluccius) in subareas 4, 6, and 7, and in divisions 3.a, 8.a–b, and 8.d, Northern stock (Greater North Sea, Celtic Seas, and the northern Bay of Biscay). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2026. ICES Advice 2026, hke.27.3a46-8abd. Available at https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.30932108 [Accessed on 21.07.2026].
JNCC. 2019. Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) Special Area of Conservation: Bristol Channel Approaches / Dynesfeydd Môr Hafren. Conservation Objectives and Advice on Operations. Available at https://data.jncc.gov.uk/data/505b3bab-a974-41e5-991c-c29ef3e01c0a/BCA-ConsAdvice.pdf [Accessed on 15.07.2026].
Omeyer, L.C.M., Doherty, P.D., Dolman, S., Enever, R., Reese, A., Tregenza, N., Williams, R. and Godley, B.J. 2020, Assessing the Effects of Banana Pingers as a Bycatch Mitigation Device for Harbour Porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Frontiers in Marine Science. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00285.
OSPAR, 2017. Intermediate Assessment 2017: Harbour Porpoise Bycatch. Available at https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar-assessments/intermediate-assessment-2017/biodiversity-status/marine-mammals/harbour-porpoise-bycatch/ [Accessed on 15.07.2026].
Piñeiro, C. and Saínza, M, 2003. Age estimation, growth and maturity of the European hake (Merluccius merluccius (Linnaeus, 1758)) from Iberian Atlantic waters. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 60: 5, pp 1086–1102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1054-3139(03)00086-9
Scottish Government, 2021. UK Dolphin and Porpoise Conservation Strategy: Technical Report. Published 22 March 2021. ISBN: 9781800048522. Available at https://www.gov.scot/publications/uk-dolphin-porpoise-conservation-strategy-technical-report/documents/ [Accessed on 15.07.2026].
Species account by IUCN SSC Cetacean Specialist Group; regional assessment by European Mammal Assessment team. 2007. Phocoena phocoena. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2007: e.T17027A6734714. Available at https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/17027/6734714 [Accessed on 15.07.2022].
Taylor, N., Authier, M., Banga, R., Genu, M., Macleod, K., Gilles, A. 2022. Marine Mammal By-catch. In: OSPAR, 2023: The 2023 Quality Status Report for the Northeast Atlantic. OSPAR Commission, London. Available at: https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar-assessments/quality-status-reports/qsr-2023/indicator-assessments/marine-mammal-bycatch [Accessed on 15.07.2026].
UK Government, 2025. Agreed record of fisheries consultations between the European Union, Norway and the United Kingdom for 2026. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fisheries-consultations-between-the-uk-the-eu-and-norway-for-2026 [Accessed on 13.07.2026].
Sustainable swaps
Learn more about how we calculate our sustainability ratings.
How our ratings work
Add impact to your inbox
Join the movement: get updates on the issues you care about.
We'll email you inspiring stories about the work we're doing to save and recover our oceans, and news about our urgent campaigns for positive change.