WRITTEN QUESTION E-1512/96 by Heidi Hautala (V) to the Commission (17 June 1996)

Subject: Conservation of Baltic wild salmon

The breeding patterns and preservation of the stocks of Baltic wild salmon are seriously at risk. The destruction of spawning grounds in rivers, marine pollution and overfishing of salmon are endangering the biodiversity - naturally renewable salmon stocks and the maintenance of their hereditary diversity - of wild salmon in the Baltic Sea.

Does the Commission intend to take action, during its presidency of the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM), and as a member of the International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission (IBSFC), to protect wild salmon stocks in the Baltic Sea? The only measure which may guarantee the biodiversity of wild salmon is a temporary blanket ban on salmon fishing, for example for two years.

How does the Commission intend to safeguard the livelihoods of fishermen in the Baltic region during that period? Does it intend to provide fishermen with a guarantee against loss of earnings? In Finland, for example, fishermen find the application procedure and forms for EU structural funding so complicated that most of the resources earmarked for this purpose risk being left unused. Does the Commission intend to simplify the procedure and clarify the instructions?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (23 July 1996)

The Commission concurs with the Honourable Member that the state of the wild salmon stocks in the Baltic is worrisome. This is a result of a number of factors of which the M-74 disease and an increasing production of reared salmon are the most important.

Following thorough preparatory work, the International Baltic Sea fishery commission (IBSFC) adopted during its twenty first session in September 1995 the management objectives 'to gradually increase the production of wild salmon to attain at least 50% of the natural production capacity of every individual river before the year 2010, this in order to achieve a better balance between wild and reared salmon'. Furthermore it was agreed to monitor closely the overall salmon smolt production for both reared and wild salmon.

The International council for the exploration of the sea (ICES) was requested to give advice on the most appropriate management options to achieve the above mentioned objective. The advice from the ICES will be considered during the twenty-second session of the IBSFC (16-20 September 1996).

The Commission is not convinced that the moratorium of two years suggested by the Honourable Member is the most appropriate way to guarantee the genetic bio-diversity of the wild salmon stocks. There is a large population of adult salmon of reared origin currently straying in the Baltic as a consequence of enhanced rearing programmes and reduced total allowable catches (TACs) and the risk of interference of reared fish with wild represents a threat to bio-diversity. The Commission therefore believes that fishing for salmon can stil be maintained at an appropriate level, given that more selective fishing techniques are used.

The reduced fishing possibilities for salmon will have consequences for fishermen. The fishing capacity in the off-shore fishery, which has increased considerably during the last decades, will have to be reduced to levels consistent with a TAC that poses no threat to wild salmon stocks.

To ensure the recovery of the wild salmon stocks in the Baltic, the Lassen group of independent experts suggested a closure of the fishery. The Commission proposed to the Council that the capacity of the vessels concerned be reduced by 30% by 1999, and by a further 20% by 2002. The initial 30% reduction would be fixed as an objective of the fourth generation of multi-annual guidance programmes for the fishing fleets and would be financed from the existing financial instrument for fisheries guidance (FIFG) budget, which includes provisions designed to alleviate the social impact of the structural policy.

Concerning the procedures, the Commission pays FIFG assistance globally to the Member State, which is then solely responsible for its local management and distribution to individual beneficiaries.