EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 12.8.2011 
SEC(2011) 987 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
Impact Assessment 
Accompanying the document 
Proposal for a 
REGULATION (EU) No …/… OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE 
COUNCIL 
  
establishing a multiannual plan for the Baltic salmon stock and the fisheries exploiting 
that stock 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
 
Agenda planning: 2008/MARE/035 
 
This report commits only the Commission de partments involved in preparing it and in 
no way prejudges the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission. 
 
{COM(2011) 470 final} 
{SEC(2011) 986 final} 
 
 
 1TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF IN TERESTED PARTIES .............................. 3  
1.1. ORGANISATION AND TIMING ................................................................................................................. 3  
1.2. CONSULTATION AND EXPERTISE ........................................................................................................... 3  
1.3. CHANGES TO THE WORKING DOCUMENT FOLLOWING THE IA BOARD ’S OPINION .................................. 4  
2. PROBLEM DE FINITI ON............................................................................................................. ............. 5  
2.1. CONTEXT AND CURRENT MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................... 5  
2.2. MAIN PROBLEMS ............................................................................................................................... .... 6 
2.3. STATE OF THE STOCK ............................................................................................................................ 6  
2.4. CATCHES ............................................................................................................................... ............... 9  
2.5. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL VALUE OF BALTIC SALMON ........................................................................... 11  
2.6. UNDERLYING DRIVERS ........................................................................................................................ 13  
2.6.1. Environmental de terioration .................................................................................................... ..... 13  
2.6.2. Fishing ........................................................................................................................ .................. 14  
2.6.3. Low post-smolt su rvival at sea ................................................................................................. ..... 14  
2.6.4. M74 syndrome and other diseases ................................................................................................ 14 
2.7. THREATS TO THE STOCK ..................................................................................................................... 15  
2.7.1. Stocking of reared salm on and genetic loss .................................................................................. 15  
2.7.2. Climate chan ge................................................................................................................. ............. 15  
2.8. LEGAL FRAMEWORKS ......................................................................................................................... 16  
2.8.1. The Common Fish eries Policy .................................................................................................... .. 16 
2.8.2. The Habitats Direc tive ......................................................................................................... ......... 16  
2.8.3. The Water Framew ork Directive.................................................................................................. .1 6 
2.8.4. The Marine Strategy Fr amework Dir ective .................................................................................. 17  
2.8.5. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea................................................................. 16  
2.8.6. HELCOM Baltic Se a Action Plan ................................................................................................. 1 7 
2.9. GROUNDS FOR EU ACTION .................................................................................................................. 20  
2.9.1. Proportionality, subsidiar ity and legal  basis ................................................................................ 20  
2.10. SCOPE OF THE INITIATIVE .................................................................................................................... 20  
3. OBJECTIVES..................................................................................................................... ....................... 20  
3.1. GENERAL OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................ 20  
3.2. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................................... 21  
4. POLICY OPTIONS................................................................................................................. .................. 21  
4.1. PRESENTATION AND SCREENING OF HIGH LEVEL OPTIONS .................................................................. 21  
4.1.1. Option 1 — No EU multiannual  pl an (baseline scenario) ........................................................... 21  
4.1.2. Option 2 — Marine multiannual plan ........................................................................................... 23  
4.1.3. Option 3 — Integrated multiannual plan ...................................................................................... 23  
4.1.4. Summary........................................................................................................................ ................ 24  
4.2. PRESENTATION OF SUBOPTIONS .......................................................................................................... 25  
5. IMPACT ANALYSIS................................................................................................................ ................ 26  
5.1. STEP 1 – SHOULD COMPENSATORY RELEASES OF SALMON BE PHASED OUT ? ...................................... 26  
5.2. STEP 2 – WHICH HARVEST CONTROL SYSTEM SHOULD WE HAVE ? ...................................................... 28  
5.3. STEP 3 — WHICH OTHER POLICY MEASURES SHOULD FORM PART OF A MULTIANNUAL PLAN ?........... 31  
5.3.1. Technical measures............................................................................................................. .......... 32  
5.3.2. Harvest cont rol sy stem......................................................................................................... ......... 33  
5.3.3. Population size  targets........................................................................................................ .......... 35  
5.3.4. Protecting the genetic dive rsity of wild  salmon............................................................................. 36  
5.3.5. Resto cking ..................................................................................................................... ................ 37  
5.3.6. Implementa tion pl an............................................................................................................ .......... 37  
5.3.7. Monitoring an d Control ......................................................................................................... ....... 38  
5.3.8. Research....................................................................................................................... ................. 38  
6. COMPARING THE OPTIONS .......................................................................................................... ..... 38  
7. EVALUATION OF THE PLAN ......................................................................................................... ..... 42  
 
 2ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................ ................................... 43  
ANNEX I — GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................... ...... 43  
ANNEX II — SUMMARY OF SCIENTIFIC ADVICE ................................................................................................. 47  
ICES environmental assessment of the SAP with STECF comments5.......................................................... 47  
ICES advice on a future multiannual  plan for salmon with STECF comments5......................................... 48  
Summary of socio- economic assessment of the SAP with STECF comments4,........................................... 48  
ANNEX III – SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ............................................................................... 50  
Summary of written answers to open consu ltation paper.......................................................................... .. 50 
Main conclusions from the consulta tion meeting with stakeholders ........................................................... 52  
ANNEX IV — LIFE CYCLE OF ATLANTIC SALMON ............................................................................................. 53  
ANNEX V — MAP OF SALMON RIVERS IN THE BALTIC REGION ......................................................................... 54  
ANNEX VI – TABLE ON PROFITS IN THE COMMERCIAL SALMON FISHERY .......................................................... 55  
 
 
 3Lead DG:  DG MARE 
Other departments involved: DG ENV,  DG EMPL, DG REGIO, DG ECFIN, DG TRADE 
and the Secretariat-General 
Agenda planning/WP reference: 2008/MARE/035  
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 
1.1. Organisation and timing 
This impact assessment concerns a proposal fo r a Council Regulation establishing a long-term 
management system for the salmon stock in the Baltic Sea and for fishing the stock. The 
proposal is provided for in ‘Agenda Planni ng’ (2008/MARE/035) and in the 2009 Annual 
Management Plan of the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries under the 
specific objective ‘Conservation a nd management of fish resour ces’. The Salmon Action Plan 
(SAP)1 developed by the International Balt ic Sea Fisheries Commission (IBSFC)2, expired in 
2010 but had been, in theory, alr eady obsolete in 2005, when the IB SFC ceased to exist. Since 
then Member States, the Baltic Sea Regional Advisory Council (BSR AC) and stakeholders 
have asked the Commission to come up with a proposal for a new multiannual plan to replace 
the SAP.  
In order to support the work with an impact  assessment of any future multiannual plan, an 
Impact Assessment Steering Group (IASG) was set up in December 2008. It includes representatives from six Directorates-Gen eral, namely DG ENV, DG EMPL, DG REGIO, 
DG ECFIN, DG TRADE and the Secretariat-Ge neral. This draft assessment has been 
discussed by the group and DG ENV has been cl osely involved in formulating the proposal. A 
glossary explaining all the terms used in  the proposal can be found in Annex I. 
1.2. Consultation and expertise 
This impact assessment was prepared by DG MARE, based on advice from two external 
sources of expertise — the Inte rnational Council for the Explor ation of the Sea (ICES) on the 
environmental parameters
3 and the Finnish Game and Fish eries Research Institute on the 
social and economic assessments of the possible policy options4. The Scientific, Technical 
and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STE CF) has also evaluated the two reports5 and 
confirmed their main conclusions. A summary of the reports and the STECF advice can be 
found in Annex II.  
Meetings to present the consultation process we re held with relevant  representative bodies, 
namely the BSRAC and river sport fishing associations. In February 2009, an open consultation
6 was launched on the DG MARE homepage and via ‘Your Voice in Europe’. A 
 
1 IBSFC Resultion IV, Salmon Action Plan 1997-2010, adopt ed during the Extraordinary Session, February 
1997. http://ec.europa.eu/fisher ies/cfp/governance/consultation s/baltic_salmon/ac tion_plan_en.pdf 
2 The IBSFC was a forum which brought together Russia a nd the current Baltic EU Member States, not all of 
which were EU Member States at that time. 
3 ICES special advice 2008, 8.3.3.3: Request to ICES  for advice on management of Baltic Sea salmon: 
http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2 008/Special%20Requests/EC%20Revision%20of%20salm
on%20action%20plan.pdf . 
4 Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, 2008. Data  analysis to support the development of a Baltic Sea 
Salmon Action Plan, SI2.491891, FISH/2007/03 — Lot 6:  
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publi cations/studies_reports_en.htm#1 . 
5 Report on the 31st plenary meeting of the Scien tific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries:  
(PLEN-09-02), 13-17 July 2009, Copenhagen. 
6 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/governance/ consultations/consultatio n_baltic_salmon_en.htm. 
 
 4total of 45 written contributions were subm itted by 8 public bodies, 24 organisations and 13 
citizens. All the contribu tions and a summary can be  found on DG MARE’s website7. A short 
summary can also be found in Annex III.  
Fisheries and environmental administrations from the Baltic Sea Member States, key 
stakeholders from the BSRAC, the European A nglers Association and e xperts were invited to 
a consultation meeting on 28 April 2009 in Brussels. The meeting discussed some of the crucial components of the plan. The main c onclusions from the meeting can be found in 
Annex III.  
The main conclusions from the consultation process on which all the Member States, 
scientists and almost all st akeholders could agree were: 
- There is strong support for development of an EU multiannual plan. 
- Any such plan should include the whol e life-cycle of salmon and all factors 
influencing the species. 
- The main aim should be to safeguard all river stocks. 
- All user groups should have access to the resource. 
 
The Commission’s minimum standards for consulta tions have been met. The environmental, 
social and economic advice, the re sults of the open consultation process, the conclusions from 
the consultation meeting, the outcome of the discussions in the IASG and the 
recommendations from the BSRAC
8 all significantly contributed to the analysis of the policy 
options and of the different policy measures me ntioned in this formal impact assessment.  
1.3. Changes to the working document following the IA Board’s opinion 
This version of the impact assessment take s into account the opinion given by the 
Commission’s Impact Assessment Bo ard on 17 July 2009. In particular: 
• The baseline scenario has been expanded with a more thorough description of the 
policy context in which the long-term plan  will be established. In this context, 
transposition and compliance issues are highlighted. 
• The main problems that the new initiative should address have been more clearly 
highlighted. 
• More background information on the state of the salmon stocks and relevant 
characteristics of the sector has been added.  
• The level (EU/Member State) at which driv ers and problems need to be addressed has 
been clarified and the subs idiarity and proportionality issues are now highlighted. 
• A description of the success and shortcomi ngs of the former management plan (the 
Salmon Action Plan) has been added.  
• The policy options section now includes discussion and screening of high-level 
options (e.g. integrated v. non-integrated approach) and identifies suboptions through 
a 3 step approach.  
 
7 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/governance/co nsultations/baltic_salmon/contributions_en.htm. 
8 BSRAC recommendation on a salmon management plan  for the Baltic Sea – March 2007 and May 2009. 
http://www.bsrac.org/ooizzCMS/DA/ statementsandrecommendations 
 
 5• Relevant information available in docume nts referred to in the assessment (e.g. two 
scientific studies and the outcome of  the consultation) has been added. 
 
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION 
2.1. Context and current management 
Salmon is an anadromous species, which spends its juvenile and adult phases in the sea, but 
spawns in rivers (See Annex IV). The Baltic salmon ( Salmo salar , L.) stock is geographically 
but also genetically distinct fr om North Atlantic salmon. Historic ally it is known to have been 
present in about one hundred Baltic rivers (see Annex V), before overfishing, habitat 
deterioration (including polluti on) and other pressures reduced the number of rivers with 
native self-reproducing populati ons to around thirty by the e nd of the twentieth century 
(Category 1 in Annex V).  The salmon stock in the Baltic Sea was managed by the International Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission (IBSFC) from 1974 until 2005 when the EU took over the management. In 1997, following a serious decline in the salmon stock the IBSFC a dopted the Salmon Action Plan 
(SAP)
1 which expired in 2010. The object ive of the SAP was to enab le wild Baltic salmon to 
recover, to maintain the genetic diversity of the river stocks, to re-establish salmon 
populations in potential salmon rivers and to keep  the level of fishing as high as possible. The 
main tool used by IBSFC was the establishment of comparatively low total allowable catches (TAC) for commercial fishing at sea and spec ial measures for harvesting reared salmon. 
Coastal States were also request ed to adopt national measures, su ch as closed seasons, closed 
areas or improvements to river habitats and wate r quality, in order to safeguard the stocks and 
supplement the measures taken by the IBSFC.  During the period of the SAP, there has been a drastic drop both in TAC levels, catches and 
profits, which are not only due to the plan but also to other fact ors such as the phasing out of 
offshore drift nets, damages from seal, elevated dioxin levels in salmon etc
3. The reduced 
catch levels together with a reduced mortal ity rate of the disease M74 has had a positive 
impact on many of the river stocks, mainly in  the Gulf of Bothnia and the Main Basin. 
However, some of the river stocks (mainly in the Gulf of Finland) are still outside safe 
biological limits and for some rive rs the situation has even worsened. This is mainly attributed 
to environmental problems in inland waters and a high post smolt mortality rate at sea.  
Strengthening and carrying the work of the SA P forward is seen by both Member States and 
stakeholders as essential for the future of the wild Baltic salmon. The Commission, with its 
exclusive competence for the entire salmon life cycle, is the only actor able to take this role.   
Since 2005, when the IBSFC ceased to exist and the SAP in theory became obsolete, the 
European Union has been managing marine salmon fishing by setting TACs on an annual 
basis, combined with technical measures such  as closed seasons and minimum landing size. 
Scientific advices for level of TAC have be en provided by ICES and STECF and are still 
based on the targets set in the SAP. In inland waters the species and its habitat are addressed through the Habitats Directive (HD)
9  and the Water Framework Directive (WFD)10 (see also 
Legal Framework). 
 
9 Directive 92/43/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of 
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. 
 
 6 
The only non-EU country concerned with mana gement of Baltic salmon is the Russian 
Federation. A recent agreement between the Eu ropean Union and the Government of the 
Russian Federation on cooperation in fisherie s and the conservation of the living marine 
resources in the Baltic Sea provides for fu ture agreements setting TACs for salmon.  
 
2.2. Main problems  
The Baltic salmon stock suffer from a range of problems and threats of which some are due  
to natural causes or unfavourable situations in the rivers and wh ich can not be fully addressed 
with this initiative. However the following are the main problems that need to be addressed 
for the successful management of the wild Baltic salmon stock at sea: 
 
- Some wild salmon populations are outside safe biological limits (see State of the 
stock). Without a new management system in place, there will be a lack of long term 
agreed objectives for setting annual fishing opportunities to avoid that decisions are 
made in an ad hoc  manner. Also, mixed stock fishing is  still of concern for weak river 
stocks and must be addressed at EU level.  
 - Rearing and stocking of Baltic salmon is a wi despread activity in the region with more 
than 2 times as many reared as wild salm on smolt leaving the Baltic rivers each year. 
There is a risk that these reared salmon ne gatively influence the genetic diversity of 
the wild salmon stock. Safeguard ing genetic diversity that w ould ensure resilience to 
different external threats to  the stock is a priority.  
 - There is too little wild salmon  to fish. The production capacity of the rivers is not fully 
utilised.   
 
2.3. State of the stock 
For Baltic salmon, ICES has established si x assessment units (AU) based on the 
environmental and genetic characteristics of th e stocks (see Figure 1). They are established 
for scientific purposes and are not suitable for setting of TAC since all stocks are fished 
together in the Main Basin and in the coastal mi xed stock fishery. For fish ermen to be able to 
distinguish salmon from the di fferent river stocks and asse ssment units, on-board genetic 
testing of each fish would be necessary.                                                                                                                                                          
 
10 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a 
framework for Community action in the field of water policy. 
 
 7La t v i a
Li th ua n ia
Po l a n dRu ssi aRu ssi aFin l a n d
Sw e d e n
Germany
0             100          200 kmÅbyälven
DrawaOdraIijokiSi m o j o k i Tornionjoki
OulujokiRåneälven    By ske ä l v e n
Emån
    Mörrumsån
VistulaNeum unas, MinjaSaka Ve n t aIrbe
Da ug avaGauja Vasalemma KeilaKokemäenjoki
Gulf of FinlandBo t hn i a n
Se a
    B altic    
Main B asin    Dalälven   S kellefteälven
   Vindelälven
    U meälven
     L ögdeälven
    ÅngermanälvenPiteälven  Ka l i xä l v e n
  Lu l e ä l ve n
    Indalsälven
    L jungan
    L jusnan
Sa l a c aEst o n i a   Neva
Luga
Na rva1
2
46
5Assessment 
Units
3
 
Figure 1: Subdivision of salmon stocks in the Baltic Sea into six scientific assessment units, based on the 
environmental and genetic characteristics of the stocks11 
  
ICES assesses the state of the stocks in ea ch salmon river and for each AU every year based 
on the production of smolt. Table 1 summarises the assessment for 2008 (except for the Gulf 
of Finland) and shows that the probability of achieving the established smolt production 
targets by 2010 differs both between and within the different AUs.  
 
11 ICES advice 8.4.14 (2009) Salmon in the main Basin and the Gulf of Bothnia.  
 
 8V.likely Likely Uncert. Unlikely V.likely Likely Uncert. Unlikely
Unit 1
Tornionjoki X X
Simojoki X XKalixälven X X
Råneälven X X
Unit 2
Piteälven X X
Åbyälv en X X
Byskeälv en X X
Rickleån X XSävarån X X
Ume/Vindelälven X X
Öreälven X X
Lögdeälven X X
Unit 3
Ljungan X X
Unit 4
Emån X X
Mörrumsån X X
Unit 5
Pärnu X X
Salaca X X
Vitrupe X X
Peterupe X XGauja X X
Daugava X X
Irbe X X
Venta X X
Saka X XUzava X X
Barta X X
Nemunas X XProb to reach 50% Prob to reach 75% 
Table 1: Status of the Gulf of Bothnia and Main Ba sin stocks in terms of their probability of achieving 
50 % and 75  % of their smolt production capacity by 2010. Stocks are considered very likely to achieve 
this objective in cases where th e probability is higher than 90  %. They are likely to ac hieve the objective in 
cases where the probability is between 70  % and 90  % and unlikely in cases where the probability is lower 
than 30  %. If the probability of achieving the objective lies between 30  % and 70  %, it is considered 
uncertain whether they will ac hieve the target in 201011.  
 
The strong recent recovery of smolt production  in the wild salmon populations of AU 1 
indicates high productivity in these rivers. Similar but less pronounced  population dynamics 
are estimated for the river stocks in AU 2 and 3. Stocks of AU 4 and 5 have not seen the same 
increase in smolt production and in some of th ese rivers smolt abundan ce has even decreased 
since the start of the SAP in 1997 and some are outside safe biological limits. Despite the  
decreased harvest rates in the sea fishery this trend has not been reversed which suggests low 
productivity of these stocks. The most likely re asons for this low productivity in the southern 
stocks is unfavourable habitat an d water conditions in the rivers and/or regional differences in 
survival of post-smolts at sea.14 
 
 
 9The condition of the wild stocks in the Gulf of Finland (AU 6) is poor12. The three wild 
salmon rivers in Estonia are small and their pr oduction potentia l is low. Natural reproduction 
is also low in seven other rive rs where enhancement releases ha ve been carried out during the 
last ten years in this area.   For the Baltic salmon wild river stocks as a w hole, the potential smolt production capacity has 
tripled during the last decade and the rivers of the units 1–5 are now esti mated to be able to 
produce about 3.5 million (2.6–5.1 million) smolts.
 13, 14.  
 
2.4. Catches  
2.4.1.1.  Commercial fishery 
In the Baltic Sea, commercial salmon fishing ta kes place in the Main Basin (offshore fishing) 
and along the coasts of the Gulf of Bothnia, th e Gulf of Finland and, to some extent, in the 
Gulf of Riga. The commercial salmon fishing s eason in the Main Basin runs from October to 
April. In the coastal areas of the Gulf of Bothnia the fishing season is shorter, mainly in June and July when salmon migrate to their home rive rs. Until recently offshore catches have been 
taken mainly by driftnets in the Main Basin, but  some also by longlines. Coastal catches are 
taken mainly by trapnets in the Gulf of Bothni a and Gulf of Finland and, on a smaller scale, 
also in the Latvian part of the Gulf of Riga
4.  
 In 2007 the commercial salmon catch in the Bal tic Sea was the lowest recorded since 1980 
(see Figure 2). During the period covered by the SAP (1997-2007) salmon catches decreased 
from 2 395 tonnes to 913 tonnes (435
 000 and 177  000 salmon respectively). The main focus 
has moved from offshore fishing to the coast (see Figure 2). 
050.000100.000150.000200.000250.000300.000350.000400.000450.000500.000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
YearCatch in no.River
Coastal
Offshore
 
Figure 2: Trends in Baltic salmon catches, river coastal and offshore, 2000-200814 
 
 
12 ICES advise 8.4.15 (2009) Salmon in Subdivision 32 (Gulf of Finland) 
13 ICES advice 2.1.4.10, 2004. Revision, where appropriate, of the estimate of smolt production potential in wild 
Salmon rivers.  
 
 10In 1997 about 88  % of the catch was taken offshore and in 2007 about 51  %. In 2008, after 
driftnets were totally phased out in the Baltic Sea, offshore catches accounted for only 22  % of 
the total catch. This reduction in offshore catches was mirrored by a increased number of salmon returning to the northernmost rivers, which increased by about 50
 % in 2007 compared 
with 2006, followed by a further in crease in 2008. As a consequence, catches in some rivers 
more than doubled in 2008 compared with 2007 and were almost as high as in the record years 1996 and 1997. Overall 24
 % of the Baltic salmon catch was taken in rivers in 200814.  
 TAC regulations have been in fo rce since 1993 in the Baltic Sea,  but restricted fishing in only 
some of the years (see Figure 3). Since 2005 the TAC has not rest ricted salmon fishing in any 
of the Baltic countries. In 2008 the nominal comm ercial catch was at a historic low of 35
 % of 
the TAC in the Baltic Main Basin and the Gulf of Bothnia, but in the Gulf of Finland over 
100  % of the TAC was taken.  
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Estimated discarding & unreporting
Reported recreational catchReported commercial catch
Total reported catchMain Basin and Gulf of Bothnia, subdivisions 22-31% of TAC
0 50 100 150 200 250
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Gulf of Finland, subdivision 32% of TAC
0 50 100 150 200 250
Figure 3: Catches of salmon in % of TAC, for 1993–1997 (1993–1998 in the Gulf of Finland) without 
division of catches into  commercial and recreational14 
During the last decade reared salmon catches have decreased in relation to wild salmon 
catches and now constitutes less than 30% in catch samples from Aland Sea, Bothnian Sea 
and Main Basin (Figure 4). This is in spite of the fact that from 1996 and onwards the number 
 
 11of released salmon has remained the same. This  situation is a result of steadily increased 
numbers of wild salmon smolt and an elevated post-smolt mortality of reared salmon smolts14.  
 
   
0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100 %  
2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 06FS 07FS 08FS
Wild  
 Hatchery,  FIN 
 Hatchery, SWE  
 
Figure 4: Stock group proportions in salmon catch samples from Åland Sea, Bothnian Bay and Main 
Basin14 
2.4.1.2.  Recreational fishery 
Catch estimates for recreational fishing are un certain and not available for every country. 
However, ICES estimates that it accounted for around 35  % of the total Baltic salmon catch in 
2008, compared with 20  % from 2004 to 2007 and 9.5  % in 199414. Recreational catches also 
made up a considerable and growing share of  salmon sea fishing, with an estimated 18  % of 
the total reported catches in co astal waters and at sea in 2008. 
2.4.1.3.  Russian Federation  
In 2008 Russian fishermen caught less than 1  % of the total sea catch of salmon and about 
50 % of this came from offshore fishing groun ds in the Main Basi n. A couple of hundred 
salmon were caught as by-catch in the Gulf of Finland and around 500 spawners were caught 
in rivers during brood stock fishing14. 
 
2.5. Economic and social valu e of Baltic salmon   
2.5.1.1.  Commercial fishery  
More or less all commercial fishing for salm on in the Baltic Sea is by small and medium-
sized enterprises (SMEs). Hence all further in formation in this assessment on the impact 
related to commercial fishermen refers to SMEs.   Four countries take 90
 % of the Baltic commercial salmon catch: Sweden, Finland, Poland 
and Denmark in that order of magnitude2. It is not possible to single out a specific salmon 
fleet, since salmon is often fished together with  other species such as sea trout, cod and, to a 
lesser extent, flounder. However, according to  the report by the ICES Salmon Working 
Group14, eight active15 and eight less active16 vessels were fishing for salmon offshore in the 
 
14 ICES CM 2009/ACOM:05: Report of the Baltic Salmon and Trout Assessment Working Group 2009 
(WGBAST), 24–31 March 2009, Oulu, Finland. 
 
 12Main Basin in 2008. Each of these boats em ployed three or four people. This can be 
compared with 1999 when 57 active and 212 less active vessels were fishing for salmon. 
Commercial coastal salmon fish ing employed 340 fishermen in 2007 in Sweden and Finland.  
Vessels used are mainly below 12 m in lengt h and statistics from Sweden show that a 
substantial part of the coasta l vessels are also below 10 m17. In Finland the nu mber of salmon 
coastal fishermen has roughly halved since 19974.  Due to the mixed species character of this 
fishery, the economic dependency of salmon has not been possible to establish.  
The profitability of commercial salmon fishi ng decreased during the period covered by the 
SAP (see Annex VI). In 2007, the total valu e of the Baltic salmon catch was about 
EUR 2.7 million and made up about 0.5  % of the total catch value of all species in Poland, 
Denmark, Sweden and Finland4. There are many reasons for this decrease and current low 
profitability in the commercial fishery. Hist orically, offshore salm on fishing has been 
particularly profitable when it has been possible to combine dr iftnet fishing for salmon with 
fishing for cod. As cod quotas have been very low and the season for profitable salmon longline fishing is very  short, combined salmon and cod fi shing has become less profitable or 
even uneconomic. In the case of coastal and offshore fishing in the Gulf of Bothnia and Gulf of Finland, damage caused by seal s to catch and gear has also created economic problems for 
fishermen. The minimum estimate for the direct  observed losses in Finland and Sweden is, 
altogether, 67 tonnes (13
 000 salmon) with a value of EUR 245  000. Another factor that has 
reduced profitability is the re gulation on dioxin content in fish  which has restricted salmon 
fishing in Denmark and Latvia. However, a new Danish decision to allow exports of salmon 
with high dioxin content to non-EU countries is foreseen to change this situation.  
 The total salmon market (supply of salmon, sea trout and rainbow trout) in Poland, Denmark, 
Sweden and Finland was about 100
 000 tonnes in 20054. The share of wild-caught salmon was 
about 1  %. Wild-caught salmon has established a sp ecial niche in the market and commands a 
higher price than farmed salmon4.  
2.5.1.2.  Recreational fishery 
Marine recreational fisheries mean non-commerci al fishing activities exploiting marine living 
aquatic resources for recreation, tourism or sport. European la w also clearly states that 
marketing of such catches is prohibited.32 For the Baltic salmon however, recreational 
fisheries also take place in inland waters and can be  divided into fishermen using nets and 
traps and fishermen fishing with rods (anglers). In 2007 about 37  000 anglers fished for 
salmon in rivers in Sweden and Finland and approximately 2 000 par ticipated in salmon 
trolling. Seventy companies in Sweden and at l east thirty in Finland offer fishing travel 
services along salmon rivers. There are also operators offering services for recreational 
fishermen at sea (vessel, equipment and guid ance) on a commercial basis. Studies have 
estimated that these operators currently provide fifteen to twenty jobs in Bornholm and close 
to thirty in Sweden.4   
 The total monetary value of r ecreational salmon fishing in certa in countries or areas of the 
Baltic Sea has been estimated in a number of studies. One regional estimate for recreational 
salmon fishing for the River Tornionjoki, is a total expenditure at EUR 2 million in 2007
4. 
Another recent study by the Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute estimated the 
value of recreational fishing in two Finnish ri vers, the Tornionjoki and Simonijoki, at EUR 
                                                                                                                                                         
15 Fishing for more than 40 days per year. 
16 Fishing for between 1 and 39 days per year. 
17 2005, Swedish board of Fisheries.  Facts about Swedish fisheries.  
 
 133.2 million per year. In Denmark and Sweden, one study found that recreational fishermen 
spend approximately EUR 4 million per year on salmon trolling4.  
 Comparison between the value of commercial, and recreational fishing is difficult as the value attached to the fishery differ considerably between them.  For commercial fishermen, the 
value of the fishing mainly lies in the market value of the fish, for some fishermen, the value 
of fishing mainly lies in the sa lmon they catch as food, and for anglers, the value may lie in 
the experience of catching the fish. Anglers ar e, however, inclined to spend more money on 
services such as fishing licences, travel , restaurants and accommodation than other 
recreational fishermen and commer cial fishermen. Good sport fish ing facilities (just like any 
other tourist attractions) can also draw foreigne rs to the country and thus contribute not only 
to the regional economy but also to  the national economy as a whole. 
2.5.1.3.  Other user groups 
Salmon has strong symbolic valu e for many people and protection of the species is a concern 
not only for fishermen but also for citizens an d communities. Examples of this commitment 
include the many projects and organisations  set up for this purpose around current and 
potential salmon rivers.    
2.6. Underlying drivers 
The Baltic salmon stock is influenced by many diffe rent pressures, of which most but not all 
are directly connected to human activities. Some of the drivers mentioned can not be 
addressed by this initiative but  by other legal frameworks and by voluntary actions. It is also 
not possible to demonstrate the exact contributi on made by each driver to the problems or in 
each river. In addition, their shares of the bl ame have probably changed over the years.  
 
2.6.1.  Environmental deterioration
 
Salmon need fast-flowing rivers for part of thei r life-cycle. This type  of habitat has been 
drastically reduced all over the Baltic region as  a result of human activities over the last 
hundred years. Log driving has been an important  historical reason for levelling and changing 
large stretches of rapids in the northern Baltic rivers which has depleted  the habitats suitable 
for salmon. More recently, hydro-power developm ent has taken its toll on these habitats, as 
reservoirs, turbines and dams have blocked migration routes and destroyed spawning and 
nursery areas. Along some rivers, fish ladders have improved the situation for migration, but 
they are only valuable if they lead the fish  to suitable spawning and nursery areas upstream 
and allow for downstream migration of juveniles.  
 Salmon are also very sensitive to pollutants, low oxygen levels and acidification. The recent 
increase in nutrient releases from agricultu re, forestry and communities and the breaking-
down of the consequent increased primary pr oduction and other adde d organic matter have 
depleted oxygen levels in many river systems around the Baltic Sea. The Baltic area has also 
suffered from acidification and some Member St ates are still conducting large-scale liming to 
increase the pH in rivers and lakes to sa feguard salmonid stocks. Problems with direct 
discharges of toxic sewage are also stil l a cause for concern in some rivers.  
 
 
 142.6.2.  Fishing  
2.6.2.1.  Mixed-stock fisheries 
Fishing would not count as an underlying driver of the problem per se  if it were kept to a 
sustainable level for all the river stocks a nd populations comprising the Baltic salmon stock.  
However, in the Baltic Sea almost all river stoc ks migrate to the Main Basin to feed and are 
caught there or during migration in ‘mixed-sto ck fisheries’ (MSF) with salmon both from 
river stocks with favourable c onservation status and rivers st ocks outside safe biological 
limits. Unless management measures in an MSF ensure a high probability of meeting 
conservation limits in rivers or at least the possibility of effectively rebuilding weaker stocks or populations, this could have an undesirabl e and irreversible impact. ICES has hence 
repeatedly advised that conservation of salmon would be best achieved if fishing were to 
target stocks within precautionary limits and th at fishing in estuaries and rivers is the most 
likely to do this
3.  
Among the MSF, the offshore MSF in the Main Ba sin is of greatest conc ern as it targets all 
stocks including the weak stocks of Assess ment units 5 and 6. As for MSF which occur 
within the coastal zone of Finl and and Sweden, it is of concern for the weak stocks in AUs 1, 
2, 4 and possibly 6.    
2.6.2.2.  Poaching and by-catches 
In some Baltic countries, poaching along rivers  is considered a major problem for the 
recovery of weak stocks
18. As long as this activity persists, reducing catches at sea will not 
improve the status of these stocks and this has to be addressed nationally.  
 By-catches of juvenile salmon occur to a limited extent in longline fishing, but also in bottom 
and pelagic trawling. This inevitably reduces the numbers of adult salmon left either to spawn 
or to be fished.   
2.6.3.  Low post-smolt survival at sea 
 
Post-smolt survival, i.e. the surv ival of young fish at sea until they reach fishable size, has 
been gradually decreasing over the last 10 to 15 years and is currently around 10  % for reared 
smolts and around 15  % for wild smolts. The reasons for the decrease in post-smolt survival 
are still unclear, but it has been found to be negatively co rrelated with seal abundance and 
with smolt abundance and positively correla ted with abundance of juvenile herring14. One 
consequence of this phenomenon is that, despit e the increase in wild smolt production and 
stable numbers of released smolts, the numbe r of salmon recruiting to the fishery has not 
increased during the last few years.    
2.6.4.  M74 syndrome and other diseases
 
M74 syndrome is a disease that affects mixed and wild stocks of Baltic salmon and can result 
in high mortality rates in fry at the yolk- sac stage. From 1992 to 1996 more than 50  % of all 
young salmon died from this syndrome, but since then the prevalence has fallen to a low level. A link has been establis hed between the syndrome and a de ficiency of thiamine, but the 
factors influencing the development of M74 are poorly understood. Future mortality rates 
 
18 ICES advice 8.4.15 (2007): Salmon in the Gulf of Finland (subdivision 32). 
 
 15attributable to M74 cannot be predicted and s udden changes in the incidence of the syndrome 
are likely to occur3.  
 Other diseases and paras ites are also known to affect Atlan tic salmon, but so far none of these 
has influenced the Baltic salmon stock to a larg e extent. The risk of introducing new problems 
with the introduction of non nativ e species and stocks in re lation to aquaculture should 
however be carefully consider ed for future management.  
 
2.7. Threats to the stock  
2.7.1.  Stocking of reared salmon and genetic loss
 
Stocking (releases of reared fish into the wild) of salmon in the Baltic area is extensive with 
5.6 million reared smolts released to Baltic rivers each year to be compared with the current 
production of 2.5 million wild smolt. Stocking in th e Baltic is either for the purpose of fishing 
or for re-establishing/recovering wild salmon po pulations. Sometimes stocking is perceived to 
do both but for efficient rec overy/reestablishment, fish ing should not be allowed3. The lion 
share of stocking is done through so called comp ensatory releases by hydro-power companies 
which have been obliged to compensate fisher men for the obstructing of migratory waterways 
and habitats for salmon. These stocking constitutes almost 2 million smolt each per year for Sweden and Finland, and for Latvia it reached 0.82 million smolts in 2008
14.  
 Potential consequences of stocking with reared  salmon include depression of the survival and 
abundance of indigenous populations and straying of  stocked fish into nearby rivers. The risk 
of straying is higher with small distances to othe r rivers and for salmon stocked at sea as their 
homing instinct is not as pronounced.  The potentia l genetic risks associated with stocking and 
the subsequent interactions with wild stocks include the loss of  genetic integrity  in indigenous 
stocks. This loss results in erosion of th e genetic capability to face changing local 
environmental conditions and also to bigger ch anges in the environment, such as climate 
change. Other threat to the genetic diversity of Baltic salmon stock is the loss of genetic 
information due to population extinction.  
2.7.2.  Climate change
 
The impact of climate change on the Baltic region is likely to include higher temperatures, 
along with increased precipitation and more frequent and severe  floods, particularly in the 
winter19. The result is likely to be an increase in  the mean annual surface temperature of the 
Baltic Sea by between 2 and 4°C and a decrease in salinity by between 10 and 50  % during 
this century. Since the egg in cubation periods, smolt run and su rvival of wild salmon in the 
Baltic Sea and its rivers depend on temperature; these scenarios are likely to have a negative influence on Baltic salmon stock. The increase in  the sea water temperature and decrease in 
salinity could also have an impact on prim ary production and, conseque ntly, on top predators 
such as salmon and even make the Baltic Sea unsuitable for salmon which depend heavily on 
cool waters. Thriving freshwater species co uld also alter competition for resources. 
 
19 Reist, J.D., Wrona, F.J., 
 Prowse, T.D., 
 Power, M., Dempson, J.B.,
  King, J.R. and Beamish, R.J.
  (2006): ‘An 
Overview of Effects of Climate Change on Sel ected Arctic Freshwater and Anadromous Fishes’.  
 
 162.8. Legal frameworks 
A number of legal and self regulating framewor ks influence management of the Baltic salmon 
river stocks (see also Table 2). Management of  the factors influencing the species and its 
habitat is particularly comp lex, as it involves powers shared  between the EU and Member 
States, has to deal with transboundary issues be tween Member States and, at national level, 
faces some historical overlap betw een different national ministries. 
2.8.1.  The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea  
Article 66 of the United Nations Conven tion on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)20 stipulates 
that ‘States in whose rivers anad romous stocks originate shall ha ve the primary interest in and 
responsibility for such stocks’. Many countries ha ve such an interest in and responsibility for 
Baltic salmon, but Sweden and Finland are th e countries that produce by far the highest 
numbers of wild salmon smolts.    
2.8.2.  The Common Fisheries Policy
 
Article 3(1)(d) in the Treaty of th e functioning of the European Union21 gives exclusive 
competence to the European Union in the area of  conservation of marine  biological resources 
under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). On top of that Council Regulation (EC) No 
2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the Conservati on and Sustainable Exploitation of 
Fisheries Resources under the Common Fisheries Policy22 imposes an obligation on the 
Council to adopt multiannual plans as  far as necessary to restore and maintain stocks within 
safe biological limits (Article 5 and 6). (It has to be noted that  in the context of the upcoming 
reform of the CFP some provisions of this dr aft proposal are subject to future changes.) 
Salmon is also covered by the Agreement betw een the European Union and the Government 
of the Russian Federation on cooperation in fi sheries and the conservation of the living 
marine resources in the Baltic Sea.   
2.8.3.  The Habitats Directive
 
The Habitats Directive (HD)9 places a general obligation on Baltic EU countries to restore 
salmon to or maintain salmon at a favourable conservation status. Such status would mean 
that the population dynamics of the species indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long-term 
basis, that its natural range would neither be re duced nor be likely to be reduced and that there 
would be, and would probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its 
population on a long-term basis. The Directive la ys down that the species may be fished only 
when its conservation status is favourable. It al so requires the EU countries concerned (except 
Finland) to designate special areas of conservation for the species. 
 
2.8.4.  The Water Framework Directive  
The composition, abundance and age structure of fi sh fauna is one of the biological elements 
taken into consideration for cl assification of the ecological status of rivers, lakes and 
transitional waters under the Wa ter Framework Directive (WFD)10 which aims at maintaining 
and improving the aquatic environment in the Eu ropean Union. Under this Directive, Member 
States have to achieve the objective of good water status and good ecologi cal statues by 2015. 
 
20 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Montego Bay, 10 December 1982. 
21 OJ C 115/47 08.05.2008 
22 Council Regulation (EC) No  2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sust ainable exploitation 
of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (the ‘Basic Regulation’). 
 
 17Heavily modified water bodies (as is the cas e for some dammed salmon rivers) are however 
subject to the less stringent objective of 'good ecological potential'. Member States have to 
define and implement the necessary measures w ithin river basin management plans, tackling 
the main anthropogenic pressures affecting the qu ality of their water bod ies. These river basin 
management plans may be supplemented by mo re detailed programmes and management 
plans focusing on particular aspe cts of water management and a ddressing specific sectors or 
issues such as salmon. The WFD provisions and management mechanism re levant for management of salmon are in  
particular:  
- salmon should be part of the biological quality element 'fish' that is included in the 
definition of good ecological statues. 
- achieving good ecological statues includes restori ng continuity in rivers that are used 
by migratory species such as salmon, 
- the environmental analysis that serves as the basis for WFD river basin planning (Art 
5) should provide comprehensive info rmation on obstacles for migration.  
- by drawing on the legal powers of the compet ent authority in the river basin when  
implementing a salmon multiannual plan. 
 
2.8.5.  The Marine Strategy Framework Directive
 
The aim of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)23 is to achieve good 
environmental status in the EU’s marine wate rs by 2021 and to protect the resource base on 
which marine-related economic and social activ ities depend. The MSFD establishes European 
marine regions based on geograp hical and environmental criteria. Each Member State, in 
cooperation with other Member States and non-EU  countries within the same marine region, 
is required to develop strategies for its ma rine waters. These shall include a detailed 
assessment of the state of the environment, define ‘good environmenta l status’ at regional 
level and establish clear environmental target s and monitoring progra mmes. The conservation 
statues of commercial fish stocks are considered desc riptors for determining good 
environmental status in marine waters.   
2.8.6.  HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan
 
The Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM)24 defined objectives and 
action for the salmon in the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP)25 in 2007. Under this 
plan the main objective for Baltic salmon is to achieve 80  % of the potential wild smolt 
production in Baltic salmon rivers by 2015 (50  % in weak rivers). The contracting parties also 
agreed to restore spawning sites and migration ro utes, to conserve at l east ten endangered wild 
salmon rivers (by 2010) and to reintroduce salm on in four potential salmon rivers (by 2009). 
The recently adopted European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region26 underlines that the 
 
23  Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a 
framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy  
24 Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, 1992  (entered into force on 
17 January 2000): http://www.helcom.fi/Convention/en_GB /text/. Contracting parties are all the Baltic Sea 
countries, including the Russian Federation, and the European Community.  
25 Adopted on 15 November 2007 in Krakow, Poland, by the HELCOM extraordinary ministerial meeting:  
http://www.helcom.fi/BSAP/en_GB/intro/ . 
26 COM(2009) 248 final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Comm ittee of the Regions concerning the European Union 
Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. 
 
 18Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) sh ould keep working on establishing an ecosystem-based 
management approach in the Baltic Sea to s upport the Baltic ecosyst em, taking into account 
the BSAP.  
 
 19 
 
  
Area  
 Legal framework Inland waters Coastal waters Marine waters 
Habitat 
Directive Salmon habitat 
protection to reach good conservation statues.  Salmon habitat 
protection to reach good conservation statues. Salmon habitat 
protection to reach good conservation statues. 
Water 
Framework 
Directive Good river water 
quality (ecology and habitats) by 2015 Good coastal water 
quality (ecology) by 2015 - 
Marine Strategy 
Framework 
Directive - Ecosystem 
protection of marine waters by 2021 Ecosystem 
protection of marine waters by 2021 
HELCOM 
Baltic Sea 
Action Plan Reach 80  % of the 
potential wild smolt production in Baltic salmon rivers by 2015 (50
 % in weak rivers).  
Restore habitat to conserve at least ten endangered wild salmon rivers by 2010. Reintroduce salmon in four potential salmon rivers by 2009. Reach 80
 % of the 
potential wild smolt production in Baltic salmon rivers by 2015 (50
 % in weak 
rivers).   -Reach 80
 % of the 
potential wild smolt production in Baltic salmon rivers by 2015 (50
 % in weak 
rivers).   
UNCLOS 
Law of the sea - Sharing of 
management responsibility between countries of origin Sharing of 
management responsibility between countries of origin 
Common 
Fisheries Policy - Annual marine TAC 
Minimum landing size Closed offshore seasons Annual marine TAC 
Minimum landing size Closed offshore seasons 
National 
measures, 
voluntary or as 
requested 
through EU 
law.  Catch restrictions 
Rearing and stocking  Improvement of salmon habitat Allocation of EU 
fishing rights  Allocation of EU 
fishing rights  
Table 2: Summary of different legal and self regulat ory frameworks currently affecting the Baltic salmon 
stock. 
 
 
 202.9. Grounds for EU action 
2.9.1.  Proportionality, subsidia rity and legal basis   
The salmon stock in the Baltic Sea consist of ma ny different river stocks that all migrate to 
the Main Basin and are found in waters of all Member Stats bordering the Sea. Actions taken 
by Member States separately will hence not be sufficient to guaranty the sustainable 
exploitation of the stock and EU action is n ecessary as required by the Basic Regulation.  
 The legal basis for this initiative is Article  43(2) in the Treaty of  the functioning of the 
European Union. The proposal would fall under th e exclusive powers of the EU and so as a 
general principle the subsidiarity principle would not apply. However for some concrete 
measures where subsidiarity may be an issu e (i.e. for coastal measures only influencing 
national fishermen) this will be mentioned in the analyses of impacts.  
2.10. Scope of the initiative 
The main gaps that are not addressed by the current legal frameworks and which were all 
dealt with in the SAP are: 
- Conservation reference points 
Conservation reference points are biological or  fishery management indicators that define 
the point at which precautionary action must be  taken to safeguard a fish stock. As stated 
in the Basic Regulation
22 multiannual plans should include such reference points which 
could be expressed as population size, long term  yield, fishing mortality and or stability of 
catches. In the case of the SAP, the conservati on reference point was se t as a target for the 
population size expressed as smolt production from rivers.  
- Harvest control system for fisheries at sea 
Harvest control system describes how harvest is intended to be controlled by management 
in relation to the state of some indicator of  stock status. It form alizes and summarizes a 
management strategy and give bett er possibilities for the sector  to adopt its strategies to 
the fishing possibilities.   
- Relationship between reared and wild salmon at sea  
This issue was addressed by the SAP which had specific measures to promote harvesting of reared salmon  at sea.   
- Stocking in rivers  
The SAP gave some guidelines for stocking pr ocedures in rivers and at sea for the 
protection of the genetic diversity an d for the benefit of marine fishing. 
- Restocking programs 
The SAP contained a program for restocking ri ver with extirpated salmon populations as a 
conservation measure for the benefit of the whole Baltic stock. 
- Research  
Many of the drivers and problems affecting the Baltic salmon, su ch as diseases, can not be 
addressed with any other mean than research.   
3. OBJECTIVES 
3.1. General objectives 
The general objective for the European Union and its Member States as regards Baltic salmon 
is to ensure that the conservation status of the entire Ba ltic stock, i.e. all populations, is 
favourable and above safe biological limits to ‘p rovide for sustainable exploitation of living 
 
 21aquatic resources and of aquaculture in the context of sustainable development, taking 
account of the environmental, econo mic and social aspects in a ba lanced manner’, as stated in 
Article 2 of the Basic Regulation22.  
The plan should also contribute to the Plan of Implementation agreed by the World Summit 
on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 200227. It would therefore be based on an 
ecosystem approach to fisheries management28, as required by the Basic Regulation, and also 
designed to exploit the stocks concerne d up to their maximum sustainable yield29, 30.  
 The Commission would also like to emphasise that  the full set of drivers and threats to the 
Baltic salmon cannot be addressed with this initiative but requir e that Member States comply 
with the relevant provisions of community e nvironmental legislation (HD, WFD and MSFD). 
At the same time, these Directives must be fully respected when implementing any new salmon management system.   
3.2. Specific objectives 
The specific objectives suggested for a possi ble new management system have been 
influenced by objectives recomme nded by the BSRAC in March 2007
8. Some of these 
objectives have also been taken as the basi s for the environmental, social and economic 
advice and for the consultation pr ocess. Bearing in mind the impor tance of wide agreement on 
the specific objectives and that almost all contributors to the consultation process attached high importance to these; the Commi ssion proposes that the plan shall: 
 
a) the Baltic salmon stock is exploited in a su stainable way according to the principle of 
maximum sustainable yield; 
b) the genetic integrity and di versity of the Baltic salm on stock is safeguarded.  
 
4. POLICY OPTIONS  
The option section will be divided into 2 parts.  The first will cover the presentation and also 
screening and summary of the three high leve l options. The second part will describe and 
visualise the different choices and steps to take to identify the final suboptions.   
4.1. Presentation and screening of high level options 
4.1.1.  Option 1 — No EU multiannual  plan (baseline scenario)
 
The first option is the current management sy stem consisting of the components already in 
place in the Baltic Sea region (see also Table 2) and includes: 
 
27 Johannesburg Plan of Implementation: 
www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/W SSD_POI_PD/English/POIToc.htm . 
28 SEC(2001) 1696: Commission staff working paper ‘The ecosystem approach to fisheries management 
(EAFM): possibilities and priorities for international cooperation’. 
29 COM(2006) 360: Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament 
‘Implementing sustainability in EU fisheries through maximum sustainable yield’. 
30 SEC(2006) 868: Commission staff working do cument accompanying the Communication from the 
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament ‘Implementing sustainability in EU fisheries through 
maximum sustainable yield’ — Technical background to the Commission Communication ‘Implementing 
sustainability in EU fisheries through maximum sustainable yield: a strategy for growth and employment’. 
 
 22- Annual marine total allowable catch.  
The TAC currently covers 2 areas of the Baltic , the Gulf of Finland and the rest of the 
Baltic. The scientific advices have so far been based on the conservation reference points in the SAP but these are due in 2010. The TA C covers marine commercial catches.  
- Technical measures at sea. 
The technical measures currently in place th rough the CFP covers a summer closure for 
the offshore fishery and a minimum landing size. 
- Member States voluntary ac tions and implementation of current environmental legal 
frameworks expected to influence the Baltic salmon stock. Measures in the rivers and coastal areas incl ude seasonal and area closures, fin-clipping 
programmes, habitat and water quality improve ments, restocking activities, etc. These 
measures are sometimes based on the objectives in the SAP.  
This option is the baseline scenario and the screening of impacts de scribes how the stock, 
drivers and threats are expected  to evolve over time following implementation of the existing 
legal frameworks at EU level (CFP, HD, WFD and MSFD), intergovernmental level 
(HELCOM BSAP and UNCLOS)  and national level.  
 
Environmental impact
 
The main reason that some rivers have not been able to recover in spite of the SAP being in 
place for 10 years is probably unfavourable conditions for reproduction in the rivers14. In the 
baseline scenario the future production of salmon in rivers rely on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive as the main driver for improving the ecological  statues of inland 
water by 2015.   The baseline scenario also includes the implem entation of the Habitat Directive in Member 
States. So far this Directive has however, althou gh in force for more than 15 years, proven to 
be more challenging than expected for Member  States. Slow definition and implementation of 
relevant measures might have contributed to the current unfavourable salmon situation in 
some countries. As the new MSFD is at a very  early stage of implementation in all Member 
States and the effect on salm on is difficult to foresee. 
 Some objectives for salmon, many reflecting the obj ectives in the SAP, are included in the 
HELCOM BSAP (see Table 2). C ontracting parties have agreed to comply with these but 
without a complementary harvest control system  to accompany the objectives, they are not 
likely to be reached within the timeframe set.   None of the existing legal fram eworks take into account rear ing and stocking of salmon for 
management and development of the stock whic h may jeopardise the gene tic diversity of the 
wild salmon stock. Also, the lack  of objectives at EU level l eaves evaluation of the current 
situation and the basis for giving scientific advi ce in limbo. Some of the drivers and threats to 
the stock, such as M74, post-smolt mortality and climate change, also could not be addressed 
without a multiannual plan and further research in the field.    Economic and social impact
 
One of the objectives of the SAP was to maximi se the level of commercial fishing. Putting the 
spotlight on commercial fishermen unfortunately  aggravated some of the conflicts between 
some user groups. Neither commercial nor re creational fishermen feel that they have 
benefited from the increased production of wild salmon4. Without a multiannual plan with 
 
 23clear objectives stating that the resources should be shared betw een user groups, this situation 
might not improve.    The option does not cater for the development of the full potential of the wild river stocks. 
The lack of harvest control rules also neither pr ovides the sector with sufficient predictability 
of catches nor allows it to adapt its stra tegies in order to become profitable.  
4.1.2.  Option 2 — Marine multiannual plan
 
The second option corresponds to a normal multiannual plan as set out in the Basic 
Regulation. The option would include Member St ates measures as stated in Option 1 but 
would add features on marine manageme nt of salmon fisheries such as:  
- Multiannual harvest control system. 
The system would include conservation refe rence points and harvest control rules for 
setting of marine TAC.   
- Technical measures 
There is a multitude of measures which could be included such as minimum hook sizes, area and seasonal closures, maximum number of hooks and traps etc.) 
- A research programme 
Many of the drivers to the problem may not  be addressed by any other means than 
research.  
 Environmental impact
 
Option 2, like option 1, relies entirely on swift and successf ul implementation of the 
environmental legal frameworks for the mana gement in inland waters. The inclusion of 
conservation reference points and a harvest cont rol system will however give scientist a more 
solid basis for advice and managers and decision makers a better ground for ensuring sustainable use of the resource. The option should also lead to an  increase of the stock as the 
situation in rivers will likely improve with a su itable harvest control syst em.  However, as this 
option does not take in to account the effect of reared and stocked salmon on wild salmon, 
genetic diversity of the stock could be lost. Also, without guidelines and support for stocking 
at EU level, the full production poten tial of wild salmon may not be achieved. 
 Economic and social impact
 
In the short term, the main economic advantage of  having a multiannual plan is that it will 
include a harvest control system which will ensure a sustainable use of the resource and create predictability for the commercial sector which will increase profits.  Agreeing on conservation 
reference points for management of the species will also reduce the administrative burden and 
make it easier to lay down yearly catch regulat ions. In the long term and as more salmon is 
produced and also allowed to migrate up th e rivers, new job opportunities in both the 
recreational and commercial sect ors are foreseen to develop.  
 
4.1.3.  Option 3 — Integrated multiannual plan
 
Option 3 is in many aspects a continuation of th e SAP. As the CFP has a specific stock focus 
for management, issues which has a direct impact on the management of the species as sea, such as stocking will be in cluded in this option. It would encompass the management 
measures as described in option 2 and also possible additions such as:   
- The definition of a conservation reference poin t for the species, taking into account the 
whole life cycle of the species. 
- A harvest control system taki ng into account the compensatory  releases of reared salmon 
 
 24The current system with more than 2 times as  many reared as wild smolt swimming out to 
the Baltic Sea every year may be addressed.  
- A restocking programme for rivers  with extinct salmon populations 
- Guidelines for stocking of salmon  
 Environmental impact
  
Option 3 is the only option whic h, together with swift and su ccessful implementation of the 
environmental legal frameworks, would address al l the drivers and threats to the species. The 
obvious positive impact of this option is that  it would take into account all the factors 
governing the dynamics of the rivers stocks thr oughout their life-cycle. In the long term this 
option could produce good conservation status fo r all the stocks, safeguard the genetic 
diversity of all the stocks and maximise the potential for wild salmon production in the Baltic 
region. The best current estimate  is that wild salmon in th e Baltic region can produce 3.45 
million smolts but, as the river habitats and migr ation routes improve, this figure will continue 
to rise.   By addressing rearing and stocking, a large part of the Baltic salmon stock is not left out of 
the management system and possible negative  impact on the wild river stocks can be 
mitigated. The inclusion of a restocking program is seen as a conservation measures for the 
stock and should increase the number of self reproducing salmon rivers in the Baltic Sea for 
the benefit of the species and users.   Economic and social impact
 
As for Option 2, the main social and economic advantages of having a plan with a suitable 
harvest control system and rules, is a po ssible increase in prof its due to enhanced 
predictability of catches both for the commercia l and recreational sectors. As more salmon is 
produced and also allowed to migrate up the rive rs, new job opportunities are also foreseen to 
develop. The strong support among stakeholders  for this option would guarantee a strong 
commitment to the plan and its success.   
4.1.4.  Summary
 
Table 3 summarises the pre-screening of the three options proposed in regards to their 
economic, social and environmental impact. It al so offers a summary of the likely impact of 
the three different options on achievement of the specific obj ectives, based on the arguments 
presented above and in comparison to the baselin e scenario (Option 1). Conclusions are also 
added.       
 
 Option 1 — No 
EU multiannual  
plan Option 2 — 
Marine 
multiannual plan Option 3 — Integrated 
multiannual plan 
Economic impact * Overall low 
economic profits as the full production 
potential may not 
be reached  * Harvest control 
rules bring predictability and 
increase profits 
*Overall low economic profits as * Harvest control rules bring 
predictability and increase profits 
* Development of the full 
potential of the wild river stocks give higher 
 
 25the full production 
potential may not 
be reached profitability in commercial 
and recreational fisheries  
Social impact * Risk of continues 
distrust between 
different user 
groups  * Closer coordination 
between implementation of 
fishing and environmental 
policies * Strong commitment among 
Member States and 
stakeholders while continuing the work started by the SAP  
Environmental impact * Genetic risk to 
the stock as it does 
not cover reared salmon and 
stocking  
*Some drivers such as diseases 
are not addressed 
  * Genetic risk to 
the stock as it does 
not cover reared salmon and 
stocking  
  * Common agreed objectives 
and conservation reference 
points for salmon throughout its whole life-cycle  
* Together with the 
environmental legal frameworks, could address all 
drivers and threats to salmon, 
which could lead to stronger river stocks and retain genetic 
diversity 
Contribute to the favourable 
conservation status of the Baltic 
salmon stock and provide for 
exploitation at se a of wild river 
stocks within safe biological 
limits and according to their 
maximum sustainable yield.  +/- + + 
Contribute to the safeguarding 
of the genetic diversity of the 
Baltic salmon stock.  +/- +/- + 
Enable both commercial and 
recreational fishermen in the 
Baltic Sea and its rivers to 
exploit the Baltic salmon stock in a sustainable way. +/-  
+ + 
Conclusion Discarded Discarded Selected 
Table 3: Social, economic and enviro nmental impact of the three differ ent policy options and likely future 
performance of the three opti ons on the specific object ives with conclusions. 
+/- = no or slow change; + = likely to reach; - = unlikely to reach 
 
Based on the arguments set out ab ove and the likely achievemen t of the objectives, options 1 
and 2 has been discarded.   
4.2. Presentation of suboptions 
In the case of option 3 — the integrated multia nnual plan — there are in essence three key 
choices to make in order to identify the su itable suboption to address all the drivers and 
threats to the stock (see Figure 5).   
1. The first choice concerns the issue of stocki ng of reared salmon. As the situation is now 
most of the smolts swimming out to the Baltic  Sea every year are compensatory releases 
and these are explicitly targeted at some places  when they return to their home river. The 
choice between a Baltic salmon stock with ma inly reared or mainly wild salmon is a 
question of intentions and principles. Should the management system be based on a slow 
 
 26but steady improvement of the natural environm ent and river stocks or should fisheries be 
kept high through the steady refilling of reared fish to the system?  
2. The second choice to make is which harves t control system to use. There are many 
components in a harvest control system but for salmon, which is  fished not only at sea but 
also in rivers and by many different user groups, the question of which fisheries that 
should be part of a TAC system is crucia l. The main choice to make is between:  
- An overall TAC that would embrace all catch es, including recreational and river 
catches 
- A marine TAC for commercial and po ssibly recreational marine catches 
- A TAC for offshore commercial catches outside 4 or 12 nautical miles (nm) from the 
baseline. 
3. The third choice concerns all the other polic y measures that could form part of an 
integrated management plan. For a extensive list of these measures see Table 7.   
 A flowchart to visualise the three different  choices to make is included below.  
  
 
Figure 5: Flowchart to visualize the three choices to be  made to identify the suboption that will be most 
likely to fulfil the objectives of the plan.  
 
5. IMPACT ANALYSIS 
The likely economic, social and environmental impact of the three different choices will be 
analysed in three steps.  
5.1. Step 1 – Should compensatory releases of salmon be phased out? 
The large amount of reared salmon released to Baltic rivers each year are mainly conducted 
by hydro-power companies compensating fisherme n for their loss of salmon catches as a 
result of damming of salmon rivers. Characteristics  of all compensatory re leases are that they: 
• Constitute a genetic threat to the wild salmon ri ver stocks, the bigger threat the closer to a 
wild salmon river.  
• Keep the fishing pressure high al so on wild and weak stocks as they need to be fished in 
order not to stray to other rivers and can not be separated from the wild salmon  
• Constitute around 30% of the catches even thou gh the releases are more than double the 
amount of wild produ ction of smolt.  Offshore TAC Max amount of wild salmon 
 
 Max amount of reared  
& wild salmon  
Marine TAC  Overall TAC Baltic Salmon multi annual Plan 
Additional policy measures  First choice
Second choice
Third choice
 
 27 
Naturally, reduction of releases should cove r neither enhancement releases, which are 
conservation measures with the aim of safeguardi ng the genetic diversity of weak river stocks, 
nor releases that are part of a restocking programme.   
 Environmental impact
 
The main positive environmental impact of reducing the numbers of reared salmon in the sea would be to safeguard the wild river stocks  from competition and genetic pollution. If 
compensation to fishermen could instead be steered towards improving river capacity for natural salmon production, this would also lead to more wild salmon and stronger stocks. 
From an ecosystem approach, improvement of the situation in rivers w ould benefit also other 
migratory species. In the case of  rivers that cannot be impr oved to hold natural spawning 
stocks, these measures could possibly instead benefit nearby river systems. 
 Economic impact
 
The economic impact of reducing the number of compensatory releases to the system could 
be a short-term loss of fishing opportunities fo r both recreational and commercial fishermen. 
Considering the decreasing share of reared sa lmon in the overall catc h (see Figure 4), this 
impact is however likely to be minor, except in some areas. Doing the change in a slow pace 
would also allow for wild salmon to substitute  the catch of reared salmon in the long run. 
With a greater number of salmon being able to migrate up the river valleys, this could also 
support regional economies.   Social impact
 
The social impact is mainly for those fisher men, both commercial and r ecreational, that are 
explicitly targeting r eared salmon. There may also be a lo ss of job and know-how at rearing 
facilities, no quantificat ion of such effects is however available.   
 
5.1.1.1.  Summary of analysis Step 1 
The main arguments for and against a syst em that would favour the phasing out of 
compensatory releases in favour of a more wild salmon dominated system are summed up 
below.         
 Negative impact Positive impact  
Environmental   *Lower risk of genetic pollution and 
competition from reared salmon. *Possible financial resources made available for improving river capacity for natural salmon production.  *More wild salmon and stronger river stocks. *Possible improvement for other migratory species 
 
 28Economic  *Risk of loss of fishing 
opportunities for fisheries targeting mainly reared salmon. *Risk of overall reduction in the number of fish (reared + wild) to catch. * More wild salmon to catch, both at sea 
and in rivers.  *Possible increase in tourism opportunities along rivers. 
Social  *Risk of loss of job and know 
how at rearing facilities.  
Table 4: The main arguments for and against a system that would favour  the phasing out of compensatory 
releases in favour of a more w ild salmon dominated system.  
 
In conclusion there are many advantages c onnected with the slow abandoning of a system 
dependent on reared salmon, both in terms of environmental and socio- economic impacts. 
The 2 systems will also be compared in relation to  their impact on some key issues in Table 7.  
5.2. Step 2 – Which harvest contro l system should we have? 
5.2.1.1.  Overall TAC 
Environmental impact  
Setting an overall TAC including river catches is the only option that leaves the European 
Union competence of setting the limit for the actual total catch. Currently, 35% of the total fishing mortality is caught outside the framewor k of the TAC and this figure is expected to 
increase. As the TAC would correspond to the tr ue total catch, it would be a useful regulatory 
instrument for the catch management of the st ock. Taking into account the whole life cycle of 
the species would also be in li ne with the ecosystem approac h. STECF however considers that 
"fishing possibilities in the rivers should be set on the basis of stock specific conditions 
reflecting the state of the stock and s hould not be part of the overall TAC."
31 
 Social and administrational impact
 
From a social point of view setting a TAC for all fisheries could also  possibly enhance trust 
between different user groups if Member States were able to split the fishing possibilities 
between their national user groups in a fair manner. In the current situation, commercial 
fishermen feel discriminated against because recr eational fisheries are not subject to the same 
catch limitations and control as they but st ill some of them use the same gears.  
 The idea of an overall TAC is however dividing stakeholders in 2 different camps where some 
contributors, including most Memb er States, are negative to the installation of an overall TAC 
as a principle and because control would be unpractical. Some Member States would possibly 
support an overall TAC if it would include a chan ge of relative stability, mirroring the current 
catches. On the other hand, the BSRAC is supportiv e of the idea with an overall TAC only if 
the allocation key remains unchanged.   The system would probably create little ex tra administration for Member States since 
monitoring of all catches will be necessary in any case and many wild salmon rivers are likely 
to have a system for setting maximum catches  already. However, from a EU perspective, 
controlling river catches might not  be feasible and the European Union should refrain from 
laying down regulations that  cannot be enforced.   
 
31 32nd Plenary meeting report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for fisheries (PLEN-09-
03). Plenary meeting 9-13 NOVEMBER 2009, Brussels  
 
 29 
Economic impact  
Without changing the reallocation key, an overa ll TAC would strike against those Member 
States that are currently taking a big share of their total catch outside the current marine TAC 
system as recreational a nd river fishing. However, considerin g that none of these countries are 
currently taken their share of  the quota, this effect is considered to be limited.  
 
5.2.1.2.  Marine TAC 
Environmental impact  
A marine TAC, as we have today, only limits  commercial sea catche s and by excluding the 
increasingly important river and recreational catches in the TAC, the TAC will become less 
and less useful as a catc h regulator for the stock. However, setting an overall limit to marine 
salmon commercial catches at EU level is forese en in the basic regulation and would at least 
safeguard the stock against sudden increase of  commercial exploita tion at sea.    
 Social and administrational impact
 
Contrary to the objectives of the old SAP, wh ere mainly sea fishing wa s to be maximised, the 
new multiannual plan emphasises that all user groups should be able to use the resources. 
However, the Commission deems that the deci sion on whether salmon s hould be caught at sea 
or in rivers and by which user groups should be taken at national le vel. The Commission is 
however also aware that even though the Europ ean Union can not intervene in this national 
reallocation of fishing opportuni ties, the decision on catches at sea and the conservation limits 
reference points set in the plan may still influe nce river catches. In th e case of a marine TAC, 
Member States must therefore make sure that  their national share of the common resource is 
split in a fair manner, possibly by allocating some  of national quota for the sea fishery to the 
river fisheries.   Including all recreational fisheries at sea in the same reporting system as commercial catches may be scientifically motivated but would pose a big implication for individuals to adhere and 
national authorities to contro l. The Commission would instead  favour a system where only 
recreational fisheries conducted on a commercial basis, i.e. tr olling vessels offering paying 
customers transport, guidance and equipmen t, would be subject to certain reporting 
obligations. From an administrational point of vi ew this should not pose big difficulties as the 
sector is small and already regi stered. From a social point of  view it would reduce potential 
conflicts between the different kinds of comm ercial operators and also between Member 
States as they would be part of the same quot a system and be subject to equal treatment.  
 Economic impact
 
The current allocation system may not enable the maximum use of the resource as those 
fisheries where fish could be caught without jeopardising the statues of weak rivers may 
become limited by the TAC and national quota. To make better use of the resource, Member States would either need to us e the possibility to switch quotas  between them or steer catches 
to the productive rivers.   Keeping a system with only sea catches in th e catch reporting system may benefit those 
Member States with productive rivers.   
 
 305.2.1.3.  Offshore TAC 
Setting an offshore TAC for fisheries outside 4 or  12 nm from the baseli ne would regulate the 
part of fishing mortalit y that can be regulated solely at EU  level. Other policy measures, such 
as national quotas, closed areas and seasons, can  regulate catching opportunities in coastal and 
inland waters with the aim of achieving the conservation refe rence point and good 
conservation status for all river stocks, as called for both by the multiannual plan and by the HD. A variation of this harvest control system wh ich would have the same pros and cons is to 
have a maximum uptake level of the TAC in the offshore areas.  Environmental impact
 
With an offshore TAC Member Stat es may be incentivized to steer catches closer to the coast 
and to improve the situation in their own rivers. They would al so be encourages to restock 
potential salmon rivers to increase fishing opport unities for their nationa l fishermen. On the 
other hand, one of the main purposes of setting a TAC would be lost with this choice as only a 
small proportion of the catches would be regulat ed at EU level. By not setting a maximum 
marine commercial fishing mort ality for the stock this system may include a risk of sudden 
increases of commercial catches in coastal areas.   
Economic impact
 
The main negative economic impact of this measur e may be the loss of potential future profit 
for offshore fishermen and a discrimination agai nst those Member States whose fisheries are 
currently mainly offshore. Howeve r, considering that none of th e countries are currently taken 
their share of the quota and that only 22% of th e TAC is taken offshore (2008), this effect is 
considered to be limited.   The main positive long term impact is for thos e Member States with productive rivers that 
may allow for higher catches than an EU TA C system which is limited by the historical 
allocation of catching opportuni ties and may not reflect futu re catching opportunities.  
 Social and administrational impact
 
The system would leave Member States consider able freedom to decide on their own fisheries 
in the coastal zone, i.e. who should catch and where, and would be in line with both the subsidiarity and the proportionali ty principles. However, as some river stocks migrate through 
the coastal waters of other Member States, su ch a system may aggrav ate conflicts between 
Member States.      The question of control would also  need to be solved at Memb er State level before such a 
TAC system could be operational. There is curr ently no system in place for Member States 
properly to control where the landed fish were  caught unless they were fished by a vessel 
longer than 12 m and hence equipped with a vessel monitoring system
32. However, 
considering that the restriction would only include a few offshore long lining vessels, it would 
be possible to equip these and in this way be ab le to control where they took their catch. This 
would in that case also be eligible for funding from the European Union. As the system would 
not considerably affect the current catching po ssibilities the impact on employment is limited.  
 
 
32 Council Regulation (EC) 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for  
ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisher ies policy, establishing an EU control system for 
fisheries 
 
 315.2.1.4.  Summary of analysis of step 2 
The main environmental, social, management and economic impacts for the different harvest 
control systems are summed up below.   
 Overall TAC Marine TAC Offshore TAC 
Manage-
ment impact * Difficult for MSs 
to control. * Difficult for EU to enforce.  * Possible for MSs to 
control. * Possible for EU to enforce.   * TAC only addresses 
allocation of offshore MSF between MS.  * Not possible for MS to control without some changes to the control system. 
Environ-mental impact *TAC useful to 
regulate total salmon fishing mortality. * TAC useful to regulate 
marine fishing mortality  * MSs responsibility to ensure protection for wild salmon river stocks. * Incentive for MSS to restore their rivers and reintroduce salmon for river and coastal fishing. * TAC useful to limit 
offshore MSF, but not to regulate total fishing mortality.  * MS responsibility to ensure protection for wild salmon river stocks. * Incentive for MS to restore their rivers and reintroduce salmon for river and coastal fishing.  
Economic impact * Overall reduction 
of the fishing opportunities for MSs with a lot of river and/or recreational fishing. * No EU limit on river 
catches, benefiting MSs with productive rivers.  * Increases fishing 
opportunities for MS with productive rivers and high shares of coastal, river and recreational fishing.  
Social impact * TAC useful for 
allocation of all catches between MSs * Enhance trust between different 
user groups. 
 * TAC useful to regulate 
marine allocation between MSs. *Big responsibility for MSs to ensure fair allocation of fishing 
opportunities. 
 *Big responsibility for 
MSs to ensure fair allocation of fishing opportunities.   
Table 5: Summary of impacts fo r the 3 different TAC systems.  
 
In conclusion there are many pros and cons for all three systems. The impact of adopting the 
three different TAC systems on some key issues  is highlighted in Table 6 under Chapter 6 
below.   
5.3. Step 3 — Which other policy measures should form part of a multiannual plan?  
Step 3 will analyse the additi onal policy measures and soluti ons available for a multiannual 
plan which have been identified either by the sc ientific advice or in the consultation process. 
Some of the measures or options presented will be discarded rapi dly for obvious reasons, 
while others will be analysed in greater depth. For a presentation of all the possible policy measures and solutions which have  been analysed see Table 6.  
 
 
 325.3.1.  Technical measures  
Existing EU technical measures for salmon limit the fishing seasons off-shore and set the 
minimum landing size33. The minimum landing size has proven  to be an effective technical 
measure to safeguard juvenile salmon and has strong support from science and stakeholders. 
It will thus not be evaluated here.   
Closed seasons 
There are currently two systems of closed seasons affecting salmon. One is a summer ban set 
by the EU which covers fishing beyond 4 nm fr om the baseline and excludes trapnets. The 
reason for this ban was initially to reduce the o ffshore fishing pressure on migrating spawners. 
 The other closed season system is regulated at  national level by the obligation in the SAP to 
safeguard returning spawners. ICES and the STECF clearly advise that this system is working 
well from an environmental point of view a nd should be maintained in any new multiannual 
plan. Some contributors to the consultation pro cess however argued that in some countries the 
system works selectively on early spawners and should be changed to r ecurring closed periods 
spanning the whole fish ing season. The positive environmenta l impact would include a also 
protection of late spawners, especially in big rivers where there might be different populations 
with different migratory patterns. The negative environmental impact would be that the bigger 
proportions of wild salmon and ol d females which migrate early — the original scientific 
reason behind choosing to close the early migrating period — would not be protected as well 
as they are now. Hence, a supplem entary period in addition to the early closed season could 
be proposed for rivers where th ere is reason to believe that late spawners need specific 
protection. This would naturally have a negative economic and social impact on some coastal 
fishing. In the name of subsidiarity, the timing of such seasonal closures should be decided at 
regional or Member State level also in the future.   
Minimum hook size 
The positive environmental impact of setting a minimum hook size for longline fishing would 
be to reduce by-catches of juvenile salmon. This would preserve more adult salmon for 
fishing or spawning and will in the long run have a positive economic impact. The negative 
short-term economic and social impact includes  the change of hooks fo r the longline fishing 
sector. The measure would al so require micro-management  to control gear. From a 
management point of view, the same effect can  be achieved by combining a general policy to 
reduce discards with a minimum landing size.   
Area closures 
ICES, STECF and also many stakeholders regard area closures combined with strict control 
as the preferred management measures to  protect weak salmon populations. The positive 
environmental impact of closed areas is that th e measure can target specific river stocks that 
need protection, i.e. a ll wild river stocks that have not reached 50
 % of their potential smolt 
production by 2010. One difficulty with this measure is that scientific i nvestigation has shown 
that, in estuaries and even the lower stretches of rivers, salmon from other rivers would also 
come in to feed. In the name of subsidiarity, the whereabouts of such area closures should be 
decided at regional or Member State level.    
 
33 Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 of 21 Decembe r 2005 for the conservation of fishery resources 
through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts  and the Sound, amending Regulation (EC) No 1434/98 
and repealing Regulation (EC) No 88/98. 
 
 335.3.2.  Harvest control system  
Total allowable catch areas 
Setting an overall, marine or offshore TAC was discussed under step 2. For setting the areas 
for a TAC, whether overall or marine, ther e are, however, also two possible solutions: 
- one TAC for the Gulf of Finland and one for the rest of the Baltic Sea (the current 
situation); 
- one TAC for the whole of the Baltic Sea.  
 According to the latest report from the ICES  Salmon Working Group, the current system with 
two TAC areas has a major flaw because salmon fr om the Gulf of Finla nd migrate to the Main 
Basin and vice versa
14. Hence, the scientific basis for th is divide is weak. Recommendations 
for ICES’s own future work also state that sa lmon from the Gulf of Finland will be assessed 
together with salmon from the Main Basin an d the Gulf of Bothnia. Changing the system 
from two TAC areas to one TA C area will mean that the allocation key will need to be 
changed but this will not lead  to any substantial change in  fishing opportunities for the 
different countries so the social and economic im pacts should be limited.  On the other hand, 
considering the very low statue s of many of the salmon river st ocks in the Gulf of Finland, 
there might be unwise to allow for more countries  to fish in the area. Keeping this separation 
would also allow managers, both at EU and nati onal level, to specifically limit catches in this 
area.  Also, the fact that the Russian federati on has different shares of the total TAC in the 
different areas may complicate th e reallocation of quotas  if the areas were to be merged  
 
Harvest control rules 
Harvest control rules (HCR) stipulate how the ha rvest will be controlled by management in 
relation to some indicator of stock status, su ch as size. It formalizes and summarizes a 
management strategy and can contain a maximum de viation of the TAC from  previous year in 
order to ensure consistency between years and create predictabili ty for the sector.  
 The Commission deem that the harvest rate se t at European level should be based on the 
whole Baltic stock and in the name of subsidiar ity leave the fine-tuning of harvest rates for 
each river stock to Member States. If other measures are correctly implemented, fishing 
mortality rate (F) should be higher for strong st ocks and reared salmon released for the sole 
purpose of fishing and considerably lower for weak stocks and re-stocked salmon. In the 
STECF simulation of development of the different  river stocks with different harvest rates, 
STECF has recommended a close to zero harvest rate for the weakest stocks to reach the 
smolt production targets within the given timeframe
31,34.  
 As scientific advice has not been able to foresee the future development of the fisheries resulting from the implementation of the plan, it has not been able to foresee the effect of 
setting specific F for the whole stock on the diffe rent river stocks. However, ICES has advised 
reducing the TAC for many years both in the Main  Basin and in the Gulf of Finland to the 
current level of harvest rate which would give possibility to recover all wild river stocks 
reaching smolt production levels  roughly corresponding to MSY
14. This is hence the intention 
of the Commission.   
 
34 2009. Scientific, Technical and Economic committee fo r fisheries, opinion by written procedure. Advice on 
harvest control rules or the long term management of Baltic salmon.  
 
 34In 2009 and 2010 the total amount of fishable salmon that were on the feeding ground for 
their second, third or fourth winter is estimated to around 1.7 million salmon (Figure 6)14. 
1995 2000 2005 20100 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 
year1000's of salmon
 
Figure 6: The number of salmon (wild and reared) of ca tchable size in the Baltic Sea in the beginning of 
the year, before offshore main fishing season. Th e numbers stem from the Baltic Salmon and Trout 
Assessment Working Group 2009 (WGBAST), taking into account changes proposed in Annex 3. 
 
The commercial reported catch  in 2009 from this stock wa s around 150 000 corresponding to 
an F of 0.1. The TAC in the main basin (310 000) however corresponded to a significantly 
higher F of 0.2 but only 45% of the TAC wa s utilised. Assuming that discarding and 
unreported catches will stay in the same range an F of 0.1 would likely result in a wild salmon 
stock size that produces the maximum sustaina ble yield in accordance with the targets and 
timeframes proposed.   By letting F stay constant and relate it to the development of the whole stock, TAC will be 
able to increase when the amount of fishable fi sh at sea increases or vice versa. One of the 
problems connected with this system would be a situation when some rivers stocks 
substantially increase their smolt production whereas  other, weak river st ocks, decrease theirs. 
For such situation it would be crucial that Me mber States take their responsibility and steer 
potential increases in ca tches to the strong stocks. For the situation when the overall biomass 
becomes critically low, there will also have to be a safety clause for setting a lower TAC. The 
system also does not foresee an increase in the number of reared salmon in the system as the 
decrease of this part of the stock would be one of the prerequisite of a future plan.  
 The current F does not correspond  to the current level of TAC. There are many reasons for 
this situation (seals, dioxin, driftnet ban etc). It is however fundamental for the plan that the 
harvest rate set in the plan co rresponds to a TAC that could be taken if the TAC is fully 
utilised. If the allocation key remains the same, this will also mean that quotas may become 
restricting for some Member States  while others may not be able to utilise their quota. In that 
case Member States should solve the s ituation internally by swapping quotas.   
 
 35 
Regarding the annual variation in the TAC, STECF could not recommend the inclusion of 
constraints in TAC variation in the multiannual plan31. This is because the fisheries are mainly 
based on two year classes and so  relative large variation in fishing possibilities may occur 
from year to year pending on the environmental conditions in the rivers , possible outbreaks of 
M74 and variable post smolt mort ality. STECF therefore considers that situations may occur 
where a ± 15% constraint may result in a TAC a llowing too high risks for the weakest stocks.  
 
Effort regulations 
Effort regulations can be used to restrict fishing and for sp ecific gear. In the Baltic Sea 
offshore fisheries, this measure could be used  to restrict longlini ng and hence MSF, by 
limiting gear days or the number of hooks. The same positive and negative economic and environmental impact as for introducing an offs hore TAC (see step 2) could be expected for 
limiting longline fishing. But even though effort re gulations for specific fi sheries are easier to 
control than area limits for TAC uptake, such  measures would leave loopholes for emerging 
gear and, in the end, might not serve their purpose.  
 
5.3.3.  Conservation reference points
 
The Basic Regulation stipulates that multiannua l plans must include conservation reference 
points against which maintenance of the stock can be assessed22. Conservation reference 
points can be expressed as targ ets or as limit reference points, depending on the level of 
ambition. One such conservation reference point s is the population size. Salmon population 
size is best assessed river by river. There are two ways of setting th e conservation reference 
points:  
1. on smolt production 
2. on number of returning spawners  
The option preferred by ICES and STECF is to set a conser vation reference points based on 
smolt production. Such a conservation refere nce points has good suppor t from the BSRAC, 
Member States and the majority of stakeholders . Also, it has already been operational in the 
Baltic Sea region for the last  ten years under the SAP, re sulting in good statistics.  
 The main reason for setting an additional conservation reference points on the number of returning spawners is to protec t the total genetic pool of the sp awners in each river. Another 
potential aim could be to ensure that a suffici ent proportion of the adult salmon return to their 
home river, not only for producti on of smolt but also for sport fishing and tourism. Since the 
value of the latter is mainly for the regiona l economy, the measure should ideally be decided 
by Member States in order to steer national commercial and recreational fishing pressure to 
selected areas. Another advantage of setting this target at Memb er State level is that fishing 
can be opened instantly once the target is met.  The smolt production target or can be set as a general conservation re ference points for all 
rivers or with intermediate targets for weak rivers. As a general target or limit reference points, ICES and the STECF propose setting at least 75
 % of the estimated potential smolt 
production capacity in each river. This limit refere nce points would also be in line with the 
EU maximum sustainable yield target30. which would lie between 60  % and 80  %, depending 
on the river3. The maximum sustainable yield target includes such parameters as safe 
biological limits and should be regarded as  a precautionary target. The time-frame for 
achieving this limit reference points was not defined by ICES. Nevertheless, the BSRAC 
proposes achieving it by 2020 in  rivers with successful sa lmon production, i.e. which are 
expected to reach at least 50  % of their estimated potential by 2010 and are within safe genetic 
 
 36limits. However, in the HELCOM Baltic Sea Acti on Plan (BSAP) contracting parties agreed 
to reach 80  % of potential production by 2015. This is also in line with the Implementation 
Plan agreed by the World Summit on Sustai nable Development at Johannesburg in 200227 
which states that all stocks s hould be restored to levels that  can produce maximum sustainable 
yield by 2015. In view of these two agreements, any less ambitious proposal for these stocks 
would not be acceptable.   
  
There is broad agreement that  rivers with weak and thre atened salmon populations which 
might be showing a positive trend in salmon producti on but are still not exp ected to achieve at 
least 50  % of their estimated potential by 2010 need in termediate targets, if possible decided 
at regional level. The positive impact of having intermediate targets for weak rivers is that targets need to be realistic and achievable if  stakeholders are to take them on. The BSRAC 
suggests that these rivers should achieve 50
 % of potential production by 2020. As above, the 
BSAP states that weak salmon rivers must achieve 50  % of their potential production by 2015. 
Ultimately, for the reasons stated above, the goal must be that all wild salmon rivers achieve 
80 % of their potential produc tion, at least by 2020.  
 
5.3.4.  Protecting the genetic diversity of wild salmon  
For the protection of the genetic diversity of the Baltic salmon stock there are a number of 
measures that could be considered. The measur e to limit the large numbers of reared salmon 
released into the Baltic Sea ev ery year has been addressed unde r step 1. But there are also 
some other measures that could be considered:  
Guidelines for stocking practices 
The inclusion of recommendations on good prac tice for stocking in the multiannual plan has 
strong support from almost all stakeholders  and would set a minimum acceptable level of 
safety precautions when stocking salmon into the wild and help to protect the genetic 
diversity of the stock. It is clear that many guidelines already exis t, both nationally and 
internationally (i.e. "The Williamsburg Resolution" for the North Atlantic salmon
35) and also 
for the SAP. In order not to reinvent the wheel , guidelines in the plan will build on already 
existing documents but be tailor made for Ba ltic conditions. Such guidelines have been 
evaluated by STECF and will form part of the plan.  
 
Fin-clipping programme  
The fin-clipping programme for reared salmon was introduced in the old SAP and has been 
partly applied in the Baltic States. The idea be hind a fin-clipping programme is for fishermen 
to be able to distinguish betw een wild and reared salmon so th at wild salmon can be released 
while reared salmon are retained. It is mainly  relevant to a harvest control system where 
fisheries would target mainly  reared salmon. The negative economic impact of introducing 
such a system is that as the share of wild salm on has steadily increased also in these fisheries; 
fishermen would be asked to release a bigger and bigger part of their catc h. The system is also 
only working as long as fishermen can trust that  all reared salmon are really fin-clipped. As 
this is not the case today ICES does not deem it  an efficient means to safeguard wild stocks3. 
It is also an expensive measure and not very effi cient since not all gear allow for the release of 
wild salmon (i.e. gillnets and longlines). It is also not clear that caught and released salmon 
are not injured and will survive in the long run. 
 
35 NASCO, CNL(06)48 "The Williamsbur g Resolution", Annex 4- Guidelines  for Stocking Atlantic Salmon III 
B 4 (a)  http://www.nasco.in t/pdf/agreements/williamsburg.pdf 
 
 37 
Terminal fishing areas   
As part of the old SAP, Member States were re quired to identify terminal fishing areas, where 
the proportion of wild salmon would be minimal and fishing pressure on reared salmon could 
be higher. Like fin-clipping, this measure is main ly relevant to a harvest control system where 
fisheries would target mainly reared salmon. This measure r eceived strong support in the 
consultation process, also among the cont ributors who do not support a fin-clipping 
programme. The idea is that fishing of reared salmon should be concentrated in river mouths 
and rivers where stocking occurs . However, ICES concludes that  this measure has not been 
very efficient at protecting w ild river stocks because the pr oportion of wild salmon has not 
been substantially lower in these areas3. 
 
5.3.5.  Restocking  
The SAP contained a restocking programme for rivers identifi ed by Member States as 
potential rivers for reintroduction of salm on. The BSAP and BSRAC support reintroduction 
of salmon in these rivers. Restocking offers  obvious environmental and economic benefits, 
mainly on the establishment of self sustaini ng salmon populations giving a higher overall wild 
salmon production. From a social point of view it can also create a regional commitment to 
the plan amongst stakeholders and greater public aw areness of the salmon issue. It is however 
also clear that many restocking activities for salmon are unsuccessful. It is therefore extra 
important to develop a strategi c approach to stocking which defines the objectives of the 
exercise as well as to monitor and assess th e result. This measure would be decided by 
Member States but as it would be included in the multiannual plan it would be eligible for 
funding from the European Fisheries Fund. As th is money will be taken from Member States 
operational programs, no additional EU  funding will be needed and no ex-ante  evaluation is 
necessary.   
5.3.6.  Implementation plan
 
Safeguarding stocks in weak ri vers is the main concern for the Commission and also for 
almost all stakeholders. For many stakehol ders, the development of some sort of 
implementation/management plan for these rivers is  regarded as the natural point of departure.  
 However, the WFD already provides for mandato ry development of river basin management 
plans, due in 2009 and to be updated in 2015 a nd 2021. Article 13(5) of the WFD states that 
‘River basin management plans may be s upplemented by the producti on of more detailed 
programmes and management plans for sub-basin, sector, issue or water type, to deal with 
particular aspects of water management.’ It is up to Member States to decide whether salmon 
could be one of these additional issues with the aim to enhance coordination between different authorities at different national levels. The content of such a detailed programme/management 
plan would also be for Member St ates to decide but could include: 
- a risk analysis to identify the obstacles standing in the way of achieving the objectives for 
the species; 
- identified national measures to overcome the obstacles (fisheries regulations, habitat 
improvement, building or improving migrator y fishways, water qua lity improvement, 
tighter control to reduce illegal fishing, limits on stocking, etc.); 
- monitoring scheme to fulfil the reporting obl igation and follow up the specific objectives 
of the different regulatory framew orks that concern the species.  
An inventory of all salmon rivers conducted th rough HELCOM with fina ncial resources from 
the EU will be useful for identifying part icular risks and possibilities for salmon.  
 
 38 
The Commission does not deem it appropriate to ask Member States to develop duplicate 
national management plans for these rivers but would recommend them to use the already existing information system and structures fo r the implementation of the salmon multiannual 
plan. With consideration to th e ecosystem approach, attention should also be given to other 
migratory species when migratory routes are secured.    
5.3.7.  Monitoring and Control
  
The question of control for ensuring compliance with rules is covered by the recently adopted 
Control Regulation32 which also contain specific rules for multiannual plans. It also allows for 
specific provisions in multiannual plans, deem ed appropriate for the species, such as 
requirement for logbook for vessels below 10 m and the content of national control action 
programmes. DG MARE will follow up and monito r the implementation of fisheries control 
measures in the Member States. Cross national and coordination of inspection activities is to 
be established by the Community Fisheries Control Agency.   
5.3.8.  Research
 
There are some drivers and risks to Baltic salm on that cannot currently be addressed in any 
way other than by research. The low post-smolt survival rate, the M74 syndrome and climate 
change are all typical issues which cannot be handled by human manageme nt of the species or 
its habitat. During the consultation process a wide  range of other resear ch areas relevant to 
salmon were also highlighted7. It is therefore clear that, even though salmon is probably one 
of the best studied fish species  today, many questions still rema in, e.g. on the best use of the 
resources, stocking, habitat, gene tics, diseases and ecosystem in teractions with other species. 
For future management of the species and e fficient implementation of the multiannual plan, 
research to address these risks and drivers and also good management should be supported by 
Member States in the form of cooperation and participation in Research Framework 
Programmes.  
6. COMPARING THE OPTIONS 
In Table 7 the likely future impact and support for the policy measures and choices that were 
analysed in Step 1, 2 and 3 on some key issues are compared with each other. The conclusion of the comparison is also included.   
 
                   Key issues 
     Policy measures and  alternative solutions  
Economic and social impact 
commercial sea fishing 
Economic and social impact 
recreational and river fishing 
Environmental impact on 
the stocks 
Administrational impact on 
M
ember  States 
Stakeholder and BSRAC  
suppo rt 
STECF /Scientific  support 
Decision making level Conclusions 
Step 1 = choice of fish to target 
Stock consisting of mainly 
reared salmon +/- +/- - +/- +/- - EU/
MS Discarded 
Stock consisting of mainly wild 
salmon +/- + + + +/- + EU/
MS Selected 
 
 39Step 2  - choice of harvest control system 
Overall TAC + - + - +/- - EU Discarded 
Marine TAC +/- +/- +/- +/- + + EU Selected 
Offshore TAC +/- + - - +/- +/- EU Discarded 
Step 3 – Choice of additional policy measures 
Keep closed 
season offshore +/- +/- + +/- + + EU Selected 
Closed season 
coast and 
rivers   +/- +/- + - + + EU/
MS Selected 
Keep 
Minimum 
Landing size +/- +/- + +/- + + EU Selected 
Set minimum 
hook size - +/- + - - +/- EU Discarded  
  
Technical 
measures 
Closed areas 
coast and 
rivers   +/- +/- + - + + EU/
MS Selected 
2 TAC  areas 
for marine or 
overall catches  
+/-  
+/-  
+  
+/-  
+/-  
+/-  
EU Selected 
1 TAC area for 
marine or overall catches +/- +/- +/- - +/- +/- EU Discarded 
Harvest 
control rules  + + + + + + EU Selected  
 
 
 
Additional 
harvest 
control 
measures 
 
Effort regime 
for longlines - +/- + - - +/- EU Discarded 
Differentiated 
smolt 
production targets  +/- +/- + + + + EU Selected 
One smolt 
production 
target +/- +/- - +/- +/- - EU Discarded  
 
Conservation reference  
targets  
Returning 
spawners 
target  - + + +/- +/- + MS Voluntary 
Recommendati
ons on 
stocking 
practices  +/- +/- - + +/- + EU Selected 
Fin clipping 
program  + +/- +/- - +/- - MS Voluntary  
 
Protecting the 
wild salmon genetic pool 
 
Identification 
of terminal 
fishing areas + +/- +/- - +/- - MS Voluntary 
Re-stocking 
program With means 
from European 
Fisheries Fund + + + +/- + + EU/
MS Selected 
Implementati
on plans As part of 
WFD +/- +/- + + +/- + MS Voluntary 
Control Production +/- +/- + +/- +/- + EU Selected 
 
 40Catches +/- +/- + +/- +/- + EU Selected 
Research  +/- +/- + +/- + + MS Voluntary 
Table 6: Likely impact of the different policy measures and alternative solutions analysed in Step 1, 2 and 
3 on selected key issues and with conclusions. 
 +/- = no impact/no change/partly support; + = posi tive impact/support; - = negative impact/no support 
 
Table 7 presents the package of policy measures  that will form part of the legal proposal, 
selected through Table 7. Some of the measur es selected are also already implemented 
through the Baltic technical measures Regulation.  Table 8 also sums up whether the different 
measures selected address the drivers and thre ats to the species and their contribution to 
fulfilling the specific obj ectives of the multiannual plan. In th is respect it is fundamental to 
realise that the successf ul management of the species can not be reached by this initiative 
alone but relies on the successful implementation of the environmental Directives and other 
frameworks affecting the species.  
 
 41 
 
Drivers Level Threats Objectives              
Policy measures proposed for inclusion in the plan 
Environmental deterioration  
Overfishing of weak stocks at sea 
M74 
Post-smolt survival  
Decision level  
Genetic loss  
Climate change  
Contribute to the favourable conservation statues of 
the Baltic salmon stock and provide for exploitation 
at sea of the wild salmon stocks within safe 
biological limits and according to their maximum 
sustainable yield. 
Contribute to the safeguarding of the genetic 
diversity of the Baltic salmon stock.  
Enable both commercial and recreational fishermen 
in the Baltic Sea able to exploit the salmon stock in a 
sustainable way 
Limit the number of 
reared salmon  X   EU/
MS X  X X  
Marine TAC  X   EU X  X X X 
Harvest control rules   X X X EU  X X X X 
Closed seasons  X   EU/ 
MS  X  X X X 
Closed areas offshore  X   EU X  X X X 
Closed areas coastal  X   EU/ MS X  X X X 
Minimum landing size     EU   X X  
Smolt production target X    EU X  X X  
Guidelines on stocking      EU X  X X X 
Restocking programme     EU/MS X  X X X 
Control production    X X EU/MS   X X X 
Control catches  X   EU/
MS   X X X 
Table 7: Summary of how the selected  measures address the different driv ers and threats facing the Baltic 
salmon population and contribute to  fulfilling the three specific objectiv es of the plan. Decision level 
EU/MS signifies that it will be mandatory for MS to e xactly define a general measure taken at EU level or 
that EU funding can be envisaged. Decision level EU signifies that th e measure will be taken at EU level 
with the usual mandatory implemen tation at MS level.    
 
It is clear from Table 7 that the selected option will have added value for management of the species in comparison with the current manageme nt as it would address the issues identified 
for the scope of the initiative 
- conservation reference points for fisheries; 
- harvest control systems; 
- relationship between reared and wild salmon; 
- stocking guidelines; 
- restocking; 
 
 42Research will be addresse d by Member States but pr omoted and supported by the 
Commission. If Member Stakes make proper us e of the plan for co ordinating the legal 
frameworks covering the speci es (HD, WFD, BSAP, MSFD, CFP and UNCLOS) the total 
administrative work should also be reduced.     
7. EVALUATION OF THE PLAN 
Any multiannual plan must have means to ensure implementation of the mandatory aspects 
and fulfilment of the objectives. The core in dicators for evaluating achievement of the 
objectives of the Baltic salmon multiannual plan are: 
(a) development of the national fishery; 
(b) production of parr, smolt and estimated smolt production capacity; 
(c) the genetic composition of the stocks; 
(d) fisheries measures implemented; 
(e) objectives established;  
(f) the activity of stocking a nd restocking of salmon; 
(g) national control action plans.  
 The indicators should be monitored by Member Stat es in six-yearly interv als in order to detect 
any deficiencies in operation of the plan. Me mber States reports will be assessed by STECF 
and ICES and if advice indicates that the plan is not achieving its objectives, a review could 
be initiated by DG MARE. 
 
 43 
ANNEXES 
Annex I — Glossary 
 
B 
By-catch  – the catch of non-target sp ecies and undersized fish of  the target species. By-
catches of commercial species may be kept or discarded al ong with the non-commercial by-
catch. 
 
C 
CFP – the Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union (as revised by Council 
Regulation 3760/92). It provides th e framework for management of the EU fishery sector, 
including all marine fisheries within 200 miles of Member States’ baselines. 
Conservation reference points -  biological or fishery manageme nt indicators that define the 
point at which precautionary action must be taken to safeguard a fish stock. 
 
D 
Discards  – part of the catch returned to sea as a result of economic, legal or other 
considerations. 
 
E 
Effort  – the total quantity of fishing gear in use over a specific period of time. Effort can be 
expressed in many ways: days away from port,  hours trawling, length of driftnet, number of 
hooks used and so on. At its most basic, it is the total number of boats engaged in a fishery 
and/or the number of days  when they were fishing. 
Enhancement release  – release of smolt or earlier life stag es in wild salmon rivers in order to 
enhance the existing population.  
F 
F 
– formally, the instantaneous rate of fishing mortality (the natural logarithm of the change 
in abundance due to fishing pe r unit of time), but more si mply, the proportion of the 
population killed each year by fishing. 
A generalised yield-per-recruit (YPR) curve showing the point at which the fishing mortal ity rate (F) is equivalent to 
the maximum sustainable yield (Fmsy) and the point at which the slope of the curve is approximately 10% the slope of F=0, i.e. F 0.1.     
 
 H 
Harvest control system and rule
 – stipulates how harvest is to be controlled by management in 
relation to some indicator of stock status. For ex ample, a harvest control rule can describe the 
various fishing mortality values which will be aimed at for various stock abundance values. It 
formalises and summarises a management st rategy. Constant catch and constant fishing 
mortality are two types of si mple harvest control rules. 
 
 
 
 44I 
ICES  – the International Council for the Explorat ion of the Sea founded in 1902. It facilitates 
and coordinates collaboration, in cluding fish stock assessments , between Member States. It 
works via numerous working groups under the remit of one or more standing committees.   
Index rivers  – rivers identified by Member States as  part of the SAP for extra monitoring, 
ideally chosen to represent different asse ssment units and sizes and types of river. 
 
J 
Juvenile  – an immature fish, i.e. one that has not reached sexual maturity (but could still be 
larger than the minimum landing size – MLS). 
 
L 
limit reference points  – are biological or fishery management  indicators that define the point 
at which precautionary action must be taken to safeguard a fish stock. In order for stocks and 
fisheries exploiting them to be within safe biological limits, th ere should be a high probability 
that: 1 – the spawning stock biomass (SSB = B) is above the threshold where recruitment is 
impaired; 2 - the fishing mortality (F) is below that which will drive the spawning stock to the 
biomass threshold, a condition that must be avoided.  
 
M 
Maximum sustainable yield  - the maximum yield that may be taken from a stock and that can 
be characterized by an average level of fishing mortality.  
Meta-population  – a group of spatially separated popul ations of the same species which 
interact at some level.  Mixed-stock fishery (MSF)
 – fishery targeting more th an two salmon river stocks.  
Monitoring  – regular and systematic collection of envi ronmental and biol ogical data by 
agreed methods and to agreed standards. M onitoring provides informa tion on current status, 
trends and compliance with decl ared standards and objectives.  
Mortality  – the death of organisms due to natural causes,  e.g. predation, or to  fishing etc. It is 
usually expressed as an instan taneous rate: the natural logarithm of the ratio between the 
number of animals surviving to the end of the year and the number at the start of the year. 
MSY  – maximum sustainable yield: the largest av erage catch that can be taken continuously 
from a stock under existing environmental c onditions. (For specie s with fluctuating 
recruitment, the maximum might be obtained by taking fewer fish in some years than in 
others.) Also known as ‘maximum equilibrium catch’. 
 
O 
Offshore fishing  – fishing outside 4 nm from the baseline. 
Over-fishing  – any fishery where the total fishing effort  is greater than is required to meet or 
match a specific management objective, e .g. maximum sustainable yield (MSY).  
 
P 
Parr – a young salmon during its first two years of life, when it lives in freshwater. 
Potential smolt-production capacity  (PSPC) – calculated for each river, based on the chance 
of successful spawning, size of the production area, habitat qu ality of the parr area, mortality 
during migration and smoltification  age. 
Post-smolt survival  – the survival of young fish at sea before they reach fishable size. 
Potential salmon river – is a river with extirpated wild salmon population(s) and currently no 
or little natural reproduction and/or releases , and having the potential (not irreversibly 
 
 45destroyed by man for salmon reproduction) for re-establishment of a self sustaining wild 
salmon population; Precautionary approach – a decision to  take avoiding action based on the
 possibility of 
significant environmental damage, even before th ere is conclusive evidence that damage will 
occur. This approach requires fishery managers to  pay due regard to the uncertainties of stock 
assessment and management. They must take appropriate precautionary action if the limit 
reference points are reached. 
Proportionality  – a principle that regulates the exercise of powers by the European Union. It 
states that any layer of government should not  take any action that exceeds that which is 
necessary to achieve the objec tive of government. When various forms of intervention are 
available to the Union, it must, where the effect is the same, opt for the approach which leaves 
the greatest freedom to the Me mber States and individuals. 
 
R 
Reared salmon  – salmon which have spent part or all of their life-cycle in captivity. 
Restocking  – release of smolt or earlier lif e stages in potential salmon rivers. 
  
S 
Safe biological limits  – to keep stocks within safe bi ological limits, there should be a high 
probability that spawning stocks are above the threshold where recruitment is impaired and 
fishing mortality is below the level which will drive the spawning stocks to the threshold.  
Salmon population  – small-scale stable population with  interbreeding salmon. One river may 
contain several sepa rate populations.  
Salmon stock  – group of fish populations managed as a unit, from one river or many rivers 
(i.e. Baltic salmon stock). Sea ranching
: releases of large numbers of reared smolts with the intention to fish them 
commercially when they return to the rive r or sea area where they were released.  
Smolt  – a young salmon when it first leaves fr eshwater and descends to the sea. 
STECF  – the Scientific, Technical and Econo mic Committee on Fisheries of the EC 
(DG MARE). Unlike ICES working groups, which consider stock assessments and 
management from a scientific perspective only, the STECF is expected to consider the socio- 
economic implications of modifying or va rying scientific, including ICES, advice. 
Stocking – the deliberate release of r eared salmon into the wild.  
Subsidiarity  - an organizing principle that matters ought  to be handled by the smallest, lowest 
or least centralized competent authority.  Sustainable fisheries
 – fisheries with an a nnual catch, includin g discards, that does not exceed 
the surplus production of the st ocks (i.e. annual growth pl us recruitment less the annual 
natural mortality). Fisheries can be sustainable at levels of stocks significantly below the 
stocks that would support the MSY or MEY (maximum economic yield), but only if managers 
pay full regard to the limit reference points.  
 
T 
TAC  – total allowable catch: the quantity of fish that can be taken from each stock each year. 
The figure is agreed by the Fisheries Council of  Ministers each December for the following 
year. EU Member States are allocated a set share of the TAC as their national quota.  
Terminal fishing area  – area designated for fisheries targe ting reared salmon instead of wild 
or mixed stocks. 
 
W 
 
 46Weak salmon river stock  – salmon  river stock which has not been able to achieve the 
objectives set in the old Salmon Action Plan by  2010 and considered outside safe biological 
limits.  Weak salmon river
 – river with a wild salmon populati on outside safe biological limits  
Wild salmon  – offspring of natural spawning salmon, which has spent its entire life in the 
wild.  Wild salmon population
 – small-scale stable population with interbreeding wild salmon  
Wild salmon river  – habitat where wild salmon popula tions reproduce successfully and where 
no or very limited releases of reared sa lmon have taken or are taking place.   
 
 47 
Annex II — Summary of scientific advice   
ICES environmental assessment of the SAP with STECF comments5  
ICES concluded that: 
- The SAP has been partially successful in achieving its objective of recovering natural 
smolt production of salmon rivers to 50% of their potential by 2010. Natural smolt 
production in all of the salmon rivers in Bot hnia Bay (assessment unit 1 in the Gulf of 
Bothnia) is likely to achieve or exceed 50% of its potential by 2010. Some of the 
rivers in the remainder of the Baltic Sea are unlikely to achieve the objective of 50%. 
None of the rivers of the Gulf of Fi nland are likely to achieve the objective. 
- There is insufficient scientific informati on upon which to determine if populations are 
within “safe genetic limits,” but there ar e genetics concerns in  light of the large 
hatchery production relative to natural produc tion in rivers with depleted salmon 
stocks. 
- While the production of salmon populations of  small rivers (length less than 100 km) 
is usually more variable and more su sceptible to natural and human-caused 
perturbations, there does not seem to be  a general reason for the SAP to perform 
poorly with respect to some of these rive rs. Specific factors that adversely affect 
salmon can be identified for some rivers. 
- It is too early to fully evaluate the efforts to re-establish salmon populations, as at least 
one generation without releases is needed. Howe ver, to date there is little evidence of 
success. 
- TAC recommendations from ICES have been  consistent with the objective of 
achieving a smolt production at 50% of its potential by 2010. However, the agreed TAC has often been higher, and especially so  in the last few years. Reported landings 
have been substantially lower than the TAC in recent years. 
- The effectiveness of other salmon manageme nt measures varies. The ban on driftnet 
fishing has reduced fishing mortality. Lim its on the number of trapnets in coastal 
waters are considered ineffective, while time period closures are effective. Neither adipose finclipping nor the establishment of terminal fishing areas have been 
important tools to increase the selective exploitation of reared salmon, and thus reduce 
pressure on natural producti on of salmon. The effectivenes s of adipose finclipping of 
reared salmon for management is questionabl e since it has not been implemented for 
all reared fish. 
 
STECF comments: 
STECF agrees with ICES evaluation of the SA P. STECF notes that the positive development 
in smolt production especially in the Bothnia Bay, which accounts for a substantial proportion of total smolt production, has taken place despite low post smolt survival in recent years. This 
is mainly a result of reduced exploitation on  adult salmon. About half  of the Baltic wild 
salmon rivers are small rivers. In general, lit tle or no improvement is in smolt production has 
been observed in these rivers. Local conditions in the rivers seem to be of particular 
importance and STECF underlines the need to co mbine general measures with specific river 
based measures addressing the local conditions.  
 
 48ICES advice on a future multiannual  plan for salmon with STECF comments5  
ICES proposes that the future Baltic Sea sa lmon multiannual plan shall define a “wild salmon 
population” as follows: Wild salmon populations are self-sustaining po pulations with no or 
only very limited releases of reared fish.   In response to future multiannual plan for salmon, ICES advises as follows:  
- The SAP (as adopted by the IBSFC) has several key weaknesses and it should not be 
continued in its current form. In particular , the current target of smolt production of 
50% of its potential should be increased to at least 75% if a goal of the plan is to 
recover salmon populations to the MSY level. In addition, there should be suitable 
objectives to address the geneti c status of salmon populations. 
- Another weakness of the SAP is that it prim arily influences management measures for 
open sea fisheries. The option of managing pr imarily through measures in the open sea 
should be rejected since the life cycle of salmon depends on natural and human related 
factors that occur in river, co astal, and open sea environments. 
- Future management should include an inte grated approach that addresses factors 
controlling the dynamics of salmon populati ons throughout their life cycle and the 
multitude of economic and social benefits that may be derived from salmon. 
- Future management of salmon should addr ess the key human related activities that 
affect salmon, including fish ing, habitat alteration, and hatcheries. The role of 
diseases, predation, and climate change (natur al and/or human caused) should be taken 
into account in the design of future ma nagement measures relative to objectives. 
Management measures for fisheries should be applied to all fi sheries (open sea, 
coastal, in rivers, commercial, and recreationa l) in a consistent manner. An appropriate 
monitoring scheme should be implemented to guide management and measure its performance. 
- An integrated approach to future manageme nt of salmon should in clude river-specific 
elements to address the recovery needs of w eak populations in small rivers. In addition 
to controls on fishing, these efforts shoul d address habitat problems. A case-by-case 
approach will probably be necessary. 
 
STECF comments: The estimated production of smolt at MSY varies  among rivers from about 60% to 80% of the 
potential smolt production. STECF therefore agr ees with ICES advice that a smolt production 
of 75% of the potential smolt production is an appropriate targ et reference point consistent 
with MSY if applied on a river by river basis. 
 STECF agrees with ICES that future management should addre ss all key human activities that 
affect salmon and that it in addition to general management measures that apply to all stocks, 
it is necessary to develop river-specific elemen ts in the plan. To address the needs for both 
general and river-specific elements, STECF suggest that the future multiannual plan be 
constructed as a framework plan supplemen ted by river or group of rivers-specific 
management plans. The framework plan should a ddress issues affecting all stocks, such as 
limitations on the open sea fisheries, stocking pr actice and control. The river/rivers-specific 
plans should address river-specifi c issues including concrete stoc king plans as well as coastal 
issues of relevance for the rivers.  
Summary of socio- economic assessme nt of the SAP with STECF comments
4,  
The analysis is based on existing data as  well as a survey and modelling work.  
 
 49 
- The bio-economic analysis showed that reduc ing fishing effort in commercial fisheries 
leads to lower profits in commercial fisher ies, a higher level of protection for weak 
stocks and greater abundan ce of salmon in rivers. The proportional decrease in the 
total profits applie s to every country, but only countrie s with recreationa l fisheries will 
benefit from this effort reduc tion. Increases in salmon in rive rs are likely to lead to an 
increase in the number of recreational fi shermen and probably stimulate the regional 
economy. 
- In the River Tornionjoki area, a st udy concerning the 2007 angler population 
suggested that recreationa l fishermen were willing to pay € 290 000 a year for a 
multiannual plan that would enhance the catch in rivers. Even though the respondents would like to have limits on commercial catc hes at sea, they di d not support banning 
sea fishing completely. Anglers were also  willing to pay for improved employment 
prospects in the river valleys.  
- All stakeholder groups considered that th e establishment of a new multiannual plan 
was important in order to continue the reco very process started by the SAP. Both the 
commercial and recreational sectors have hi gh hopes of salmon fishing as a way to 
make a livelihood and keep sparse ly populated regions alive.  
- When offered a choice between four manage ment options, most st akeholders in the 
sociological study regarded the option wh en TACs was set on both river and sea 
catches, with lower production targets for weak rivers, as the preferred one. This 
option was seen as a good compromise be tween the commercial and recreational 
sectors and might have a positive impact on interaction and trust between the parties involved and on confidence in ove rall fisheries management.  
- With a probable decrease in off-shore co mmercial salmon fishing, more salmon are 
available to be caught by recr eational fisheries. This coul d lead to relatively higher 
fishing mortality for recreational fisheries th an at present. Cons equently, management 
of recreational fisheries will become more  important and both biological and socio-
economic monitoring would be needed. The pote ntial core indicators  for this kind of 
monitoring are the number of recreational fishermen, the number of licences sold, 
catches and the number of compan ies offering fishing services.  
- Conclusion from the assessment state that ma nagement objectives should be related to 
adult salmon returning to their native rivers  instead of or together with management 
objectives based on juvenile salmon produc tion. Regional or even river specific 
management options would be preferable over traditional TAC regulation.  
STECF comments:
 
STECF considers that the study is a valuable contribution for an improved understanding of 
the interaction between biology, market and the socioeconomic consequences and the findings 
are informative. However some aspects could have been analysed in more detail. The 
conflicts among the different catching sectors are complex and the subject of an on-going 
debate. The management measures for the fisher y in the rivers (recreational) is pending 
political decisions. Furthermore the socioeco nomic consequences of the incoming salmon 
plan are to a large extent dependent of th e development of the following sub-markets: 
· Commercial price of salmon and the costs in the commercial fishery, · Trolling fishery (recreational fish ery) in the southern Baltic, 
· Recreational fishery (sport-fishery)  along the coast and in the rivers, 
 
 50  The semi-commercial fishery al ong the coast with fixed gears 
 The study has not tried to make any market anal ysis including the cons equences of a market 
ban attributed to the dioxin content. 
Annex III – Summary of stakeholder consultation 
Summary of written answers to open consultation paper
36 
There was general agreement among the contribut ors that a plan is essential to create a 
common and holistic view of objectives and of  the necessary action. The contributors also 
embraced the objectives and proposed additional ones.   
 
- TAC and quotas 
Many contributors were against establishing  an overall TAC because  it would create 
considerable administration, the EU is not res ponsible for inland fisheries and the allocation 
would require a change of relativ e stability. An overall TAC is also not believed to safeguard 
weak stocks. Many contributors w ould instead like to have speci fic TACs for rivers, set at 
national level, or at least repor ting on all catches from rivers. Some were in favour of an 
overall TAC, on condition that the new TAC w ould be higher so that the national quota 
allocation for sea fishermen would not be redu ced. Some argue that if the TAC is to be 
efficient, it needs to be reduced.   
- Technical measures 
There was general agreement to keep the cu rrent technical measur es. Many contributors 
raised the issue of a driftnet ban, which most regarded as very important for conservation of 
salmon. Some argued that it should be introd uced as a permanent measure to safeguard 
salmon (currently in place to sa feguard harbour porpoises), while  others would like to replace 
it by closed areas to protect sa lmon. Many also proposed additional measures, e.g. that fishing 
should be allowed only for human consumption or  for selling within th e EU, closed areas, 
rules on longlines, on the number and size of hooks, etc. Some of the contributors who regard 
fin-clipping as a good management tool sugge sted a ban on gear that does not allow live 
releases. As regards the closed season, some cont ributors argued that the current pattern with 
a closed early season works selectively on early spawners and should be changed to recurrent 
closed periods across the whole fishing season. This could be especially important in river 
systems with different subpopulations.   
- Targets and timeframes 
Many contributors agreed on th e proposed target of 75
 % of the potential production with a 
timeframe up to 2020. Some thought it was too am bitious, others that it was too weak and 
should be 100  %. Some thought there should be no general target at all and others said that 
targets need to take account of changes between years. Many believed that setting an 
intermediate target is a good idea and most contri butors considered that river-specific targets 
should be set at regiona l or national level.  
 
- Rearing, releases and genetic diversity 
Most contributors believed that there is a need to  separate harvests of wild and reared salmon 
to protect the wild stocks. Some, however, ar gued that in many coastal areas only reared 
 
36 Longer summary can be found on DG MARE 
webpagehttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/governance/consultations/baltic_salmon/contributions_en.html 
 
 51salmon are caught, so there is no n eed for this separation. There is  an apparent divide between 
contributors who believe that a fin-clipping programme will solve many of these questions and those who do not. The differe nt opinions are evenly spread between Member States, 
commercial and recreational fishermen and rive r interest groups. The two energy companies 
which contributed to this cons ultation were very much agai nst a fin-clipping programme, 
which they considered labour-intensive and ve ry expensive, and raised the issue of the 
contradictory and controversial benefits of  the programme for animal welfare. Many 
opponents of fin-clipping argued th at released salmon are injure d and usually do not survive 
in the long run. Some in the pro-clipping cam p argued that, even though it might not be 
efficient for management, it would increase knowledge of migration patterns, etc.  
Some contributors, also among those who we re against a fin-clipping programme, supported 
the idea of terminal fishing areas  and that fishing of  reared salmon should be concentrated in 
river mouths and rivers where stocking occurs . These areas should be decided by Member 
States.  
 
Many contributors mentioned limitation of mixe d-stock fishing and in weak rivers and 
adjacent areas in order to decr ease fishing pressure on weak populations. In the opinion of 
some contributors, the rate of selective fishi ng of reared salmon stoc ks should be increased 
and/or stocking levels should be adjusted dow nwards to minimise ecological and genetic 
interaction with wild stocks.  Setting genetic targets with mi nimum numbers of spawners re ceived very strong support. 
Most believed that they should be set river by river in order not to  risk extinction in one of the 
many rivers for a meta-population . There was strong support for including measures or targets 
in the plan to limit the number of released  salmon. Many contributors argued that habitat 
restoration and improved access to habitats to  increase natural production should be given 
higher priority than supplementary releases of  reared fish. Some ar gued that supplementary 
releases should be phased out completely. Some  contributors also argued that court rulings 
should be updated and include compensatory measures other than releases. Some totally 
opposed top-down restrictions on stocking. Most contributors strongly  supported including in 
the plan rules or recommendatio ns on stocking practices.  
 
- Inland waters 
Almost all contributors stressed that this part of the plan was essential. A few believed it 
unnecessary, since inland measures to protect salmon were already mandatory under the 
Habitats Directive and the Water Framework Direct ive. Others saw inclusion of such a target 
as cost-efficient because it would coordinate the measures and enable Member States to 
achieve several goals at the same time. Ma ny stressed the need fo r funding and that the 
specific measures should be decided at local a nd regional levels. There was concern that the 
EU might support construction of hydro-power plants in wild sa lmon rivers with the aid of 
other regional or renewable energy funds. 
 - Implementing the plan 
Inclusion of specific national/regional impl ementation plans for the new multiannual plan 
received very strong support from the contributors.   
 
- Monitoring 
There was strong support for the current mon itoring system. Some co ntributors mentioned 
that counting spawners could be very expensiv e and demanding, especially if it was of high 
enough quality to distinguish between males, fe males and grilse. Many said that all river 
 
 52landings should be reported, that the index rive r system should be maintained and that other 
aspects of monitoring (habitat improvements, protected areas, etc.) should be developed.  
Separation of salmon and sea trout was not rea lly a problem. Many claimed that this was 
mainly a management problem and mainly in certain countries. Some contributors thought it 
was a good idea to include sea trout in a future salmon multiannual plan or in a separate plan. 
Others thought that this was a national responsibility, which coul d also be solved by bilateral 
agreements. 
 
- Research  
The research areas proposed in the consultation paper all received strong support and many 
others were also suggested.   
Main conclusions from the consul tation meeting with stakeholders
  
- Most Member States did not support an overall  TAC. Most participan ts agreed that the 
emphasis of the plan should be on reco vering weak stocks and should include 
measures to be taken in inland waters.  
 
- There was general agreement on the suggested target of 75  % of potential production. 
The target should be lower for weak rivers  with different time-frames for different 
rivers. Some stakeholders supported targets for returning spawners, others did not.  
 
- Some Member States supported rules on best practice for re leases. There should be no 
restocking in rivers with wild salmon. Ther e was no agreement on use of fin-clipping. 
 
- There was strong support amongst Member  States for regi onalisation of the 
implementation phase.  
 - Most participants emphas ised that the plan shoul d embrace the needs of both 
commercial and recreational fishermen.  
 
 
 53Annex IV — Life cycle of Atlantic salmon 
 
 
 
 54Annex V — Map of salmon rivers in the Baltic region 
 
 
Map from the 1999 Salmon Action Plan with 89 Baltic salmon rive rs divided into three 
categories:  (1) rivers with wild salmon production (bold);  (2) rivers with released salmon (normal);   
(3) rivers with extirpated salmon populations and with potential for establishment of salmon 
(underlined).  
 
Some of the rivers marked in bold are now c onsidered to have unsafe or unknown numbers of 
salmon.      
 
 55Annex VI – Table on profits in  the commercial salmon fishery 
-  
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007-500 500 1500 25001000's of EurosFinland
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007-500 500 1500 25001000's of EurosSw eden
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007-500 500 1500 25001000's of EurosDenm ark
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007-500 500 1500 25001000's of EurosPoland
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 20070 2000 60001000's of EurosTotal
 
Profits from commercial Baltic salmon fishing in Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Poland and total for 
1997-2007. Note the different values along the y-axis  for the total profits comp ared with the country-by-
country profits4