Mass Cormorants killing proposed by the FAO

On April 25, the FAO’s European Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture Advisory Commission (EIFAAC) published the draft European Cormorant Management Plan. Prompted by concerns about the perceived impact of Cormorants on fisheries and aquaculture, EIFAAC’s plan recommends the coordinated and systematic killing of Cormorants across Europe.  

The proposal marks a dramatic escalation in how we are dealing with species that affect human activity, and it sets a dangerous precedent for human-wildlife conflict management. If adopted, this plan directly contradicts existing EU environmental legislation and would require stripping cormorants of all their current legal protections under EU law. Culling native species based on perceived competition is a slippery slope.

The plan also takes the focus away from the efforts to restore ecosystems and redirects it to short-term fixes that avoid the deeper, systemic causes of the decline in fish stocks and biodiversity. Once Cormorants have been exterminated by hunters and fishers, what’s to stop them from targeting seals, otters, or herons? 

Speaking the truth – what is causing the decline in fish? 

Nobody can deny that our fish stocks are collapsing. But the main drivers of the fish stocks’ decline are very well documented: overfishing, habitat loss, river damming, pollution, and eutrophication have pushed many fish species to the brink of collapse. These systemic issues, caused by human activities, require long-term policy solutions, not the culling of a native species.  

There is no scientific basis to link Cormorants to the decline of fish populations, only generalisations based on limited data. Cormorants adapt their diet to whatever fish species are around, including invasive alien species, which could help maintain our ecosystems in equilibrium. But the behaviour is poorly captured in the fish stock models, which are only based on studies in a few colonies.  

Scapegoating since the 70ies 

Cormorants are big black birds, breeding in large and impressive colonies – they are much more visible than other species and make an easy target. Blaming a fish-eating bird for doing exactly what it has evolved to do is not a sound justification for lethal control.  

Cormorants almost went extinct in the 1970s due to human persecution and pollution. Their population only began to rebound after the introduction of legal protection under the Birds Directive in 1979, and the ban of toxic pesticides like DDT. EIFAAC’s management plan is another attempt to reverse this recovery, driven by convenience and to cater to specific interest groups, and not because of concerns for our ecosystems. 

Why the EIFAAC plan won’t work 

Cormorant conflicts are local in their nature and require local solutions. Two decades of peer-reviewed papers and several EU-funded interdisciplinary projects have already shown that a pan-European management plan is highly unlikely to solve local conflicts. 

EIFAAC’s plan will neither solve conflicts between cormorants and fishers, nor will it tackle the root causes of fish stock decline and the wider struggles of the industry. The migratory nature of Cormorants is the main justification for a Europe-wide management action, but it’s also the reason why mass killing will never work. Cormorant migratory routes are hard to predict due to their flexible and opportunistic foraging behaviour. Experts already voiced their concerns: in 2022, the IUCN & Wetlands International Cormorant Research Group sent an open letter to Members of the European Parliament against their initiative report calling for an EU Cormorant Management Plan. 

The struggles of fishers and aquaculture farmers are driven by complex socio-economic and ecological factors. Declining catches coincide with rising Cormorant numbers, leading many to assume a cause-and-effect relationship. But fishers face problems due to a variety of causes, such as major changes in global markets, industrial overfishing, and environmental degradation. Culling Cormorants sounds like a way to reclaim agency, but it serves as a short-term distraction from deeper structural issues. 

The way out: co-existence and compensation 

Long-term solutions lie in coexistence, not in scapegoating wildlife. While there is no one-size-fits-all solution, a wide range of non-lethal measures can be put in place to reduce conflicts. Fishers and aquaculture farmers should also be compensated for their losses and incentivised to adopt coexistence measures.  

We need to tackle the causes of fish stock decline. People, not birds, damage ecosystems. Time and resources should be spent on reducing pollution, restoring habitats, and removing barriers along rivers rather than on wiping out Cormorants. Life can bounce back quickly when protected.  

Decision-making should be grounded in local knowledge and scientific data to foster resilient aquatic ecosystems, not only through the lens of the perceived impacts of a single species. After all, humans and cormorants share a common goal: healthy waters and fish aplenty. 

Photo: Kumud888Photos/Shutterstock