COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Executive Summary of the Impact Assessment
Date: 2011-08-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Baltic Sea, conservation of fish stocks, fishery management, sea fish

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 departments 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  proposal  that  will  set  long-term  management 
objectives and implementing methods concerning the Baltic salmon stocks (Salmo salar, L.). 
Salmon is an anadromous fish species, which spends its juvenile and adult phases in the sea, 
while spawning and nursing in rivers. In the Baltic Sea, currently around 30 rivers hold native 
self-reproducing populations.  

Since  1997  there  has  been  a  Salmon  Action  Plan  (SAP)  in  the  Baltic  developed  by  the 
International Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission (IBSFC) and with the objective to recover wild 
Baltic  salmon  river  stocks,  maintain  the  genetic  diversity  of  the  stocks,  re-establish  salmon 
populations in potential salmon rivers and to keep the level of fishing as high as possible by 
steering catches towards reared salmon1. 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, combined with technical measures such as closed 
seasons and minimum  landing size. However, scientific 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 objectives 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  actively  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, some marine fishing is still of concern for weak 
stocks  and  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. 
Rearing and stocking of Baltic salmon 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 influence 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  salmon  to  fish  and  the  production  capacity  for  the  stock  is  not 
sufficiently used.  

1 
2 

3 

4 

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/governance/consultations/baltic_salmon/action_plan_en.pdf 
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna 
and flora. 
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. 
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 many 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  action  is  required  in  accordance  with  the  Basic 
Regulation5  which  provides  for  the  establishment  of  management  plans  for  fisheries 
exploiting stocks within and outside safe biological limits. The 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  procedures  but  as  much  as  possible  leave  the 
implementation work to Member States. The general 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 exploitation 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 provisions of community environmental legislation (HD, WFD and 
MSFD).  

The specific objectives of the initiative are to:  

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

contribute to the favourable conservation status of the Baltic salmon stock and 
provide  for  exploitation  at  sea  of  wild  salmon  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, 

ensure that both commercial and recreational  fishermen in the  Baltic  Sea  and 
its rivers shall be able to exploit the Baltic salmon stock in a sustainable way. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

EN 

of 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2371/2002  of  20  December  2002  on  the  conservation  and  sustainable 
exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy  
Johannesburg 
Plan 
www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/POIToc.htm. 
SEC(2001) 1696: Commission staff working paper ‘The ecosystem approach to fisheries management 
(EAFM): possibilities and priorities for international cooperation’. 
COM(2006)  360:  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament 
‘Implementing sustainability in EU fisheries through maximum sustainable yield’. 
SEC(2006)  868:  Commission  staff  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’. 

Implementation: 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
1.1. 

Presentation and screening of high level options 

The 3 policy options that have been 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  system  consisting  of  the  components  already  in 
place in the Baltic Sea region and include: 

Annual marine total allowable catch for 2 areas.  
Technical  measures  at  sea  including  summer  closure  for  the  offshore  fishery  and  minimum 
landing size. 
Member  States  voluntary  actions  and  implementation  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 Regulation5. The option would include the Member States measures as stated in Option 
1 but would add features on marine management of salmon fisheries such as:  

Multi  annual  harvest  control  system  including  conservation  reference  points  and  harvest 
control rules for setting of TAC.  
Technical measures (present 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 and also possible additions such as:  

The definition of a conservation reference point for the species, taking into account the whole 
life cycle of the species. 
A harvest control system taking 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 also 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 

2  — 

Option 
Marine 
multiannual plan 

Option  3  — 
multiannual plan 

Integrated 

low 
*  Overall 
economic profits as 
the  full  production 
potential  may  not 
be reached 

*  Harvest  control 
bring 
rules 
predictability 
and 
increase profits 

low 
*Overall 
economic profits as 

*  Harvest  control  rules  bring 
predictability  and 
increase 
profits 

*  Development  of  the  full 
potential  of  the  wild  river 
higher 
give 
stocks 

   EN 

Economic impact 

EN 

 
 
 
 
the  full  production 
potential  may  not 
be reached 

profitability 
and recreational fisheries  

in  commercial 

* Risk of continues 
between 
distrust 
different 
user 
groups 

Social impact 

*  Genetic  risk  to 
the stock as it does 
reared 
not  cover 
salmon 
and 
stocking  

*  Genetic  risk  to 
the stock as it does 
reared 
not  cover 
salmon 
and 
stocking  

Environmental impact 

*Some 
drivers 
such  as  diseases 
are not addressed 

Closer 

coordination 
* 
implementation  of 
between 
fishing  and  environmental 
policies 

*  Strong  commitment  among 
and 
Member 
stakeholders while continuing 
the work started by the SAP  

States 

*  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 
in  the 
recreational  fishermen 
its  rivers  to 
Baltic  Sea  and 
exploit the Baltic salmon stock in 
a sustainable way. 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

Conclusion 

Discarded 

Discarded 

Selected 

Table 1: Social, economic and environmental impact of the three different policy options and likely future 
performance of the three options on the specific objectives with conclusions. 
+/- = no or slow change; + = likely to reach; - = unlikely to reach 

Based on the screening of the impact and the likely 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 integrated management plan — there are in essence three key 
choices to make on order to identify the suitable suboptions in order to address all the drivers 
and threats to the stock (see Figure 1). 

(1) 

(2) 

The  first  choice  concerns  the  issue  of  compensatory  releases  of  salmon  and  if  these 
should be slowly phased out of the system.  

The  second  choice  to  make  is  which  harvest  control  system,  and  particularly  which 
TAC system, to use. 

–  An overall TAC that would embrace all catches, including river catches 

–  A marine TAC  

–  A TAC for offshore commercial catches outside 4 or 12 nautical miles (nm) from 

the baseline. 

(3) 

The  third  choice  concerns  all  the  other  policy  measures  that  could  form  part  of  an 
integrated management plan.  

Baltic Salmon management Plan 

First choice

Max amount of reared & wild 
salmon 

Max amount of wild salmon

Overall TAC 

Marine TAC 

Offshore TAC 

Second choice

Additional policy measures 

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  impact  for  the  different  options  has  been  done  in  3  steps 

and in accordance with the different choices to make.  

1.3. 

Step 1 – Reared vs wild salmon 

The  main  arguments  for  and  against  a  system  that  would  favour  the  phasing  out  of 
compensatory  releases  of  salmon,  steering  resources  to  the  improvement  of  wild  salmon 
habitat in favour of a more wild salmon dominated system, are summed up below.  

Negative impact 

Positive impact  

Environ-
mental  

Economic   *Risk 

of 

loss 

of 

opportunities 
targeting mainly reared salmon. 

for 

fishing 
fisheries 

*Risk of overall reduction in the 
number of fish (reared + wild) to 
catch. 

Social  

*Risk  of  loss  of  job  and  know 
how at rearing facilities. 

*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 

*  More  wild  salmon  to  catch,  both  at  sea 
and in rivers.  

*Possible  increase  in  tourism  opportunities 
along rivers. 

Table 2: The main arguments for and against a system that would favour the phasing out of compensatory 
releases in favour of a more wild 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. 

*  Possible  for  MSs  to 
control. 

*  Difficult  for  EU 
to enforce. 

*  Possible  for  EU 
enforce. 

to 

*  TAC  only  addresses 
allocation of offshore MSF 
between MS.  

*  Not  possible  for  MS  to 
some 
control  without 
changes 
the  control 
system. 

to 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Environ-
mental 
impact 

*TAC  useful 
regulate 
salmon 
mortality. 

to 
total 
fishing 

Economic 
impact 

Social 
impact 

*  Overall  reduction 
fishing 
the 
of 
opportunities 
for 
MSs  with  a  lot  of 
river 
and/or 
recreational fishing. 

*  TAC  useful  for 
all 
allocation  of 
catches 
between 
MSs 

*  Enhance 
between 
user groups. 

trust 
different 

*  TAC useful to regulate 
marine fishing mortality  

*  MSs  responsibility  to 
for 
ensure 
wild salmon river stocks. 

protection 

*  Incentive  for  MSS  to 
restore  their  rivers  and 
reintroduce  salmon  for 
river and coastal fishing. 

*  No  EU  limit  on  river 
catches,  benefiting  MSs 
with productive rivers.  

*  TAC useful to regulate 
allocation 
marine 
between MSs. 

*Big  responsibility  for 
fair 
to 
MSs 
allocation 
fishing 
opportunities. 

ensure 
of 

to 

limit 
*  TAC  useful 
offshore  MSF,  but  not  to 
regulate 
fishing 
total 
mortality.  

responsibility 

*  MS 
to 
ensure  protection  for  wild 
salmon river stocks. 

*  Incentive  for  MS 
restore 
their 
reintroduce 
river and coastal fishing.  

to 
rivers  and 
for 

salmon 

Increases 

* 
fishing 
opportunities  for  MS  with 
productive  rivers  and  high 
shares  of  coastal,  river and 
recreational fishing.  

responsibility 
*Big 
ensure 
to 
MSs 
allocation 
of 
opportunities.  

for 
fair 
fishing 

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. 

COMPARING 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 conclusion of the comparison is 
also included.  

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Key issues 

Policy  measures 
alternative solutions 

and 

a
e
s

l
a
i
c
r
e
m
m
o
c

t
c
a
p
m

i

l
a
i
c
o
s

d
n
a

c
i
m
o
n
o
c
E

g
n
i
h
s
i
f

d
n
a

l
a
n
o
i
t
a
e
r
c
e
r

t
c
a
p
m

i

l
a
i
c
o
s

d
n
a

c
i
m
o
n
o
c
E

g
n
i
h
s
i
f

r
e
v
i
r

s
e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M
n
o

t
c
a
p
m

i

l
a
n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
i
n
i
m
d
A

t
r
o
p
p
u
s
C
A
R
S
B
d
n
a
r
e
d
l
o
h
e
k
a
t
S

s
k
c
o
t
s

e
h
t
n
o
t
c
a
p
m

i

l
a
t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
E

Step 1 = choice of fish to target 

t
r
o
p
p
u
s

c
i
f
i
t
n
e
i
c
S
/

F
C
E
T
S

l
e
v
e
l

g
n
i
k
a
m
n
o
i
s
i
c
e
D

s
n
o
i
s
u
l
c
n
o
C

Stock  consisting  of  mainly 
reared salmon 

+/- 

+/- 

Stock consisting of mainly wild 
salmon 

+/- 

+ 

- 

+ 

+/- 

+/- 

- 

+ 

+/- 

+ 

Discarded 

Selected 

EU/
MS 

EU/
MS 

Step 2 - choice of harvest control system 

Overall TAC 

Marine TAC 

Offshore TAC 

+ 

+/- 

+/- 

- 

+/- 

+ 

+ 

- 

+/- 

- 

EU  Discarded 

+/- 

+/- 

+ 

+ 

EU  Selected 

- 

- 

+/- 

+/- 

EU  Discarded 

Step 3 – Choice of additional policy measures 

closed 

Keep 
season 
offshore 

Closed  season 
coast 
and 
rivers  

Keep 
Minimum 
Landing size 

Technical 
measures 

+/- 

+/- 

+ 

+/- 

+ 

+ 

EU  Selected 

+/- 

+/- 

+ 

- 

+ 

+ 

Selected 

EU/
MS 

+/- 

+/- 

+ 

+/- 

+ 

+ 

EU  Selected 

Set  minimum 
hook size 

- 

+/- 

Closed 
coast 
rivers  

areas 
and 

+/- 

+/- 

+ 

+ 

- 

- 

- 

+/- 

EU  Discarded 

+ 

+ 

Selected 

EU/
MS 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2  TAC  areas 
for  marine  or 
overall catches 

1 TAC area for 
or 
marine 
overall catches 

Harvest 
control rules  

regime 

Effort 
for longlines 

Differentiated 
smolt 
production 
targets  

smolt 

One 
production 
target 

Returning 
spawners 
target  

Recommendati
ons 
on 
stocking 
practices  

clipping 

Fin 
program  

Identification 
of 
fishing areas 

terminal 

With  means 
from European 
Fisheries Fund 

Additional 
harvest 
control 
measures 

Conservation 
reference 
targets  

Protecting  the 
wild 
salmon 
genetic pool 

Re-stocking 
program 

+/- 

+/- 

+ 

- 

+/- 

+/- 

+ 

+/- 

Selected 

+ 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

EU 

+/- 

- 

+/- 

+/- 

EU  Discarded 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

EU  Selected 

- 

- 

+/- 

EU  Discarded 

+/- 

+/- 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

EU  Selected 

+/- 

+/- 

- 

+/- 

+/- 

- 

EU  Discarded 

- 

+ 

+ 

+/- 

+/- 

+ 

MS  Voluntary 

+/- 

+/- 

- 

+ 

+/- 

+ 

EU  Selected 

+ 

+ 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

- 

- 

+/- 

- 

MS  Voluntary 

+/- 

- 

MS  Voluntary 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+/- 

+ 

+ 

Selected 

EU/
MS 

Implementati
on plans 

part 

As 
WFD 

of 

+/- 

+/- 

Control 

Production 

Catches 

Research 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+/- 

+ 

MS  Voluntary 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

EU  Selected 

EU  Selected 

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; + = positive impact/support; - = negative impact/no support 

The preferred option include the selected policy 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  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.  

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Any  multiannual  plan  must  have  means  to  ensure  implementation  of  the  mandatory  aspects 
and  fulfilment  of  the  objectives.  The  core  indicators  for  evaluating  achievement  of  the 
objectives of the Baltic salmon multiannual plan are: 

(a) 

(b) 
(c) 
(d) 
(e) 
(f) 
(g) 

development of the national fishery; 

production of parr, smolt and estimated smolt production capacity; 
the genetic composition of the stocks; 
fisheries measures implemented; 
objectives established;  
the activity of stocking and restocking of salmon; 
national control action plans.  

The indicators should be monitored by Member States six-yearly intervals in order to detect 
any deficiencies in operation of the plan. Member 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.  

EN 

   EN