EN    EN  
 EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 12.8.2011 
SEC(2011) 986 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
Executive Summary of the Impact Assessment 
Accompanying the document 
Proposal for a Regulation  of the European Parliament and of the Council 
establishing a multiannual plan for the Baltic salmon stock and the fisheries exploiting 
that stock 
 
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) 987 final}  
 
EN    EN INTRODUCTION 
The Impact Assessment concerns a draft pro posal that will set long-term management 
objectives and implementing methods c oncerning the Baltic salmon stocks ( Salmo salar , L.). 
Salmon is an anadromous fish species, which spe nds its juvenile and adult phases in the sea, 
while spawning and nursing in rivers. In the Ba ltic Sea, currently around 30 rivers hold native 
self-reproducing populations.  
Since 1997 there has been a Salmon Action Pl an (SAP) in the Baltic developed by the 
International Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission (IB SFC) and with the objec tive to recover wild 
Baltic salmon river stocks, maintain the genetic diversity of the stocks, re-establish salmon populations in potential salmon rive rs and to keep the level of fishing as high as possible by 
steering catches towa rds reared salmon
1. Since 2005, when the IBSFC ceased to exist and the 
SAP in theory became obsolete, the European Community has been managing marine salmon fishing by setting TACs on an annual basis, comb ined with technical measures such as closed 
seasons and minimum landing size. However, scie ntific advice are still based on the targets 
set in the SAP and some Member States are still working with measures to fulfil the 
objectives of the SAP as well as to fulfil the objectiv es stated through the Habitats Directive 
(HD)
2 and the Water Framework Directive (WFD)3. Some objectives for the Baltic salmon 
are also agreed by the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM) and 
covered by the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action plan4. The people affected by this initiative are 
approximately 400 commercial fishermen ac tively targeting salmon and at least 40.000 
recreational fishermen fishing for salmon in Baltic rivers and Sea. 
PROBLEM DEFINITION 
There are some core problems that need to be addressed for the successful management of 
Baltic salmon:  
Some wild salmon populations are still outside safe  biological limits (see State of the stock). 
This is partly due to natural causes or unfavourable situations in the rivers which can not be fully addressed with this initiative. However, so me marine fishing is still of concern for weak 
stocks and without a new manage ment system in place, there will be a lack of long term 
agreed objectives for setting annual fishing oppor tunities to avoid that decisions are made in 
an ad hoc  manner. 
Rearing and stocking of Baltic sa lmon is a widespread activity in  the region with more than 
twice as many reared as wild salmon smolt leaving the Baltic rivers each year. There is a risk that these reared salmon could negatively infl uence the genetic diversity of the wild salmon 
stock. Safeguarding genetic diversity  that would ensure resilience to different external threats 
to the stock is a priority.  There is too little wild salm on to fish and the production cap acity for the stock is not 
sufficiently used.  
                                                
 
1 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/governance/consultations/baltic_salmon/action_plan_en.pdf 
2 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna 
and flora. 
3 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. 
4 Adopted on 15 November 2007 in Krakow, Poland by the HELCOM Extraordinary Ministerial 
Meeting:  
http://www.helcom.fi/BSAP/en_GB/intro/  
 
EN    EN 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 community act ion is required in accordance with the Basic 
Regulation5 which provides for the establishment of  management plans for fisheries 
exploiting stocks within and out side safe biological limits. Th e proposal would fall under the 
exclusive powers of the Community and so as a general principle the subsidiarity principle 
would not apply. 
OBJECTIVES  
The proposal aims to set objectives and proc edures but as much as possible leave the 
implementation work to Member States. The genera l objective of the plan is to ensure that the 
conservation status of the entire  Baltic stock, i.e. all populations , is favourable and above safe 
biological limits to provide for sustainable expl oitation of the resource.  The plan should also 
contribute to the Plan of Implementation agreed by the World Summit on Sustainable 
Development in Johannesburg in 20026 and would therefore be based on an ecosystem 
approach to fisheries management7 and be designed to exploit the stocks concerned up to their 
maximum sustainable yield8, 9. In order to reach the objectives Member States must also 
comply with the relevant provi sions of community environmen tal legislation (HD, WFD and 
MSFD).  
The specific objectives of the initiative are to:  
(a) contribute to the favourable conservation status of the Baltic salmon stock and 
provide for exploitation at  sea of wild salmon rive r stocks within safe 
biological limits and according to their maximum sustainable yield; 
(b) contribute to the safeguarding of the ge netic diversity of the Baltic salmon 
stock, 
(c) ensure that both commercial and recrea tional fishermen in the Baltic Sea and 
its rivers shall be able to exploit th e Baltic salmon stock in a sustainable way. 
POLICY OPTIONS 
                                                 
5 Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable 
exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy  
6 Johannesburg Plan of Implementation: 
www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents /WSSD_POI_PD/English/POIToc.htm. 
7 SEC(2001) 1696: Commission staff working paper ‘The ecosystem approach to fisheries management 
(EAFM): possibilities and priorities for international cooperation’. 
8 COM(2006) 360: Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament 
‘Implementing sustainability in EU fisheries through maximum sustainable yield’. 
9 SEC(2006) 868: Commission st aff working document 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’. 
 
EN    EN 1.1. Presentation and screening of high level options 
The 3 policy options that have b een considered for the management of the Baltic salmon with 
the aim to fulfil the objectives are: 
Option 1- No EU management plan  
The first option is the current management sy stem consisting of the components already in 
place in the Baltic Sea region and include: 
Annual marine total allowa ble catch for 2 areas.  
Technical measures at sea including summer closure for the offshore fishery and minimum 
landing size. Member States voluntary actions and impl ementation of current environmental legal 
frameworks expected to influence the Baltic salmon stock (seasonal and area closures, fin-clipping programmes, habitat and water quality improvements, restocking activities, etc.). 
1.1.1.  Option 2 - Marine management plan 
The second option corresponds to a normal multi annual management plan as set out in the 
Basic Regulation
5. The option would include the Member St ates measures as stated in Option 
1 but would add features on marine mana gement of salmon fisheries such as:  
Multi annual harvest co ntrol system including conservatio n reference points and harvest 
control rules for setting of TAC.  
Technical measures (pre sent and/or new)  
Research 
1.1.2.  Option 3 - Integrated management plan 
Option 3 is in many aspects a continuation of the SAP and hence contains measures for both 
marine and some freshwater management of salmon. It would include the management measures as described in option 2 an d 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 
A restocking programme for rivers with extinct  salmon populations as a conservation measure 
for the stock Guidelines for stocking of salmon  
Table 1 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 objectives with conclusions. 
 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 
 
EN    EN the 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 sea 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 1: 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 screening of the impact and the li kely achievement of the objectives, Options 1 
and 2 has been discarded.  
 
EN    EN 1.2. Presentation of suboptions 
In the case of option 3 — the in tegrated management plan — there are in essence three key 
choices to make on order to iden tify the suitable suboptions in or der to address all the drivers 
and threats to the stock (see Figure 1). 
(1) The first choice concerns the issue of comp ensatory releases of salmon and if these 
should be slowly phased out of the system.  
(2) The second choice to make is which harves t control system, and particularly which 
TAC system, to use. 
– An overall TAC that would embrace a ll catches, including river catches 
– A marine TAC  
– A TAC for offshore commercial catches outsid e 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.  
Baltic Salmon management Plan 
Max amount of reared & wild 
salmon Max amount of wild salmon
Overall TAC Marine TAC Offshore TAC 
Additional policy measures First choice
Second choice
Third choice
 
Figure 1: 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.  
ANALYSE OF IMPACTS 
 
EN    EN 1.2.1.  The analysis of the likely im pact for the different options  has been done in 3 steps 
and in accordance with the di fferent choices to make.  
1.3. Step 1 – Reared vs wild salmon 
The main arguments for and against a syst em that would favour the phasing out of 
compensatory releases of salmon, steering re sources to the improve ment of wild salmon 
habitat in favour of a more  wild salmon dominated syst em, are summed up below.  
 Negative impact Positive impact  
Environ-
mental   *Lower risk of genetic pollution and 
competition from reared salmon. 
*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 
Economic  *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 2: 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.  
1.4. Step 2 – Choice of harvest control system  
The main environmental, social, management  and economic impacts for the different TAC 
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. 
 
EN    EN 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 3: Summery of impacts for the 3 different TAC harvest control systems.  
1.5. Step 3 — Choice of policy measures 
A description of the likely impact of all the analysed policy measures  could not be included 
here but for a summery of the likely impact of the measures on some key issues please see Table 4 below.  
2. C
OMPARING THE OPTIONS  
Table 4 summarises and compare the likely future  impacts of the policy measures and choices 
that were analysed in Step 1, 2 and 3 on some key issues. The c onclusion of the comparison is 
also included.  
 
EN    EN  
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 Member States 
Stakeholder and BSRAC support 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 
Step 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 
 
EN    EN 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 
Production +/- +/- + +/- +/- + EU Selected Control 
Catches +/- +/- + +/- +/- + EU Selected 
Research  +/- +/- + +/- + + MS Voluntary 
Table 4: 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 
The preferred option include the selected polic y measures in Table 4 and would bring added 
value for management of the species in comparison with the current management as it would 
 
EN    EN address all the issues identified for the scope of the initiative. It is however fundamental to 
realise that the successful mana gement of the species can not be reached by th is initiative 
alone but relies on the successful implementation of the en vironmental directives and other 
frameworks affecting the species.  
  
MONITORING AND EVALUATION 
Any multiannual plan must have means to ensu re 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 six-yearly intervals in order to detect 
any deficiencies in operation of the plan. Memb er States reports will be assessed by STECF 
and if advice from the STECF and ICES indicate that the plan is not achieving its objectives, 
a review could be initiated by DG MARE.