COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Impact Assessment
Date: 2011-08-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Baltic Sea, conservation of fish stocks, development plan, economic analysis, environmental impact, fishery management, sea fish

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 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) 986 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. 

2. 

2.8. 

2.7. 

2.9. 

1.1. 
1.2. 
1.3. 

2.1. 
2.2. 
2.3. 
2.4. 
2.5. 
2.6. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES .............................. 3 
ORGANISATION AND TIMING................................................................................................................. 3 
CONSULTATION AND EXPERTISE ........................................................................................................... 3 
CHANGES TO THE WORKING DOCUMENT FOLLOWING THE IA BOARD’S OPINION .................................. 4 
PROBLEM DEFINITION.......................................................................................................................... 5 
CONTEXT AND CURRENT MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................... 5 
MAIN PROBLEMS................................................................................................................................... 6 
STATE OF THE STOCK ............................................................................................................................ 6 
CATCHES .............................................................................................................................................. 9 
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL VALUE OF BALTIC SALMON........................................................................... 11 
UNDERLYING DRIVERS........................................................................................................................ 13 
2.6.1.  Environmental deterioration ......................................................................................................... 13 
2.6.2.  Fishing .......................................................................................................................................... 14 
2.6.3.  Low post-smolt survival at sea ...................................................................................................... 14 
2.6.4.  M74 syndrome and other diseases ................................................................................................ 14 
THREATS TO THE STOCK ..................................................................................................................... 15 
2.7.1. 
Stocking of reared salmon and genetic loss .................................................................................. 15 
2.7.2.  Climate change.............................................................................................................................. 15 
LEGAL FRAMEWORKS ......................................................................................................................... 16 
2.8.1.  The Common Fisheries Policy ...................................................................................................... 16 
2.8.2.  The Habitats Directive .................................................................................................................. 16 
2.8.3.  The Water Framework Directive................................................................................................... 16 
2.8.4.  The Marine Strategy Framework Directive .................................................................................. 17 
2.8.5.  The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ................................................................. 16 
2.8.6.  HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan ................................................................................................. 17 
GROUNDS FOR EU ACTION.................................................................................................................. 20 
2.9.1.  Proportionality, subsidiarity and legal basis ................................................................................ 20 
SCOPE OF THE INITIATIVE.................................................................................................................... 20 
3.  OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................................................ 20 
GENERAL OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................ 20 
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES.......................................................................................................................... 21 
POLICY OPTIONS................................................................................................................................... 21 
PRESENTATION AND SCREENING OF HIGH LEVEL OPTIONS .................................................................. 21 
4.1.1.  Option 1 — No EU multiannual  plan (baseline scenario) ........................................................... 21 
4.1.2.  Option 2 — Marine multiannual plan ........................................................................................... 23 
4.1.3.  Option 3 — Integrated multiannual plan ...................................................................................... 23 
Summary........................................................................................................................................ 24 
4.1.4. 
PRESENTATION OF SUBOPTIONS .......................................................................................................... 25 
IMPACT ANALYSIS................................................................................................................................ 26 
STEP 1 – SHOULD COMPENSATORY RELEASES OF SALMON BE PHASED OUT? ...................................... 26 
STEP 2 – WHICH HARVEST CONTROL SYSTEM SHOULD WE HAVE? ...................................................... 28 
STEP 3 — WHICH OTHER POLICY MEASURES SHOULD FORM PART OF A MULTIANNUAL PLAN? ........... 31 
5.3.1.  Technical measures ....................................................................................................................... 32 
5.3.2.  Harvest control system .................................................................................................................. 33 
5.3.3.  Population size targets .................................................................................................................. 35 
5.3.4.  Protecting the genetic diversity of wild salmon............................................................................. 36 
5.3.5.  Restocking ..................................................................................................................................... 37 
5.3.6. 
Implementation plan...................................................................................................................... 37 
5.3.7.  Monitoring and Control ................................................................................................................ 38 
5.3.8.  Research........................................................................................................................................ 38 
6.  COMPARING THE OPTIONS ............................................................................................................... 38 

5.1. 
5.2. 
5.3. 

3.1. 
3.2. 

2.10. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

5. 

4. 

7. 

EVALUATION OF THE PLAN .............................................................................................................. 42 

1

 
 
ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................................... 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 consultation paper............................................................................ 50 
Main conclusions from the consultation 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 

2

 
 
 
Lead 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 for 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  Planning’  (2008/MARE/035)  and  in  the  2009  Annual 
Management  Plan  of  the  Directorate-General  for  Maritime  Affairs  and  Fisheries  under  the 
specific objective ‘Conservation and management of fish resources’. The Salmon Action Plan 
(SAP)1 developed by the International Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission (IBSFC)2, expired in 
2010 but had been, in theory, already obsolete in 2005, when the IBSFC ceased to exist. Since 
then  Member  States,  the  Baltic  Sea  Regional  Advisory  Council  (BSRAC)  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-General,  namely  DG  ENV,  DG  EMPL,  DG  REGIO, 
DG ECFIN,  DG  TRADE  and  the  Secretariat-General.  This  draft  assessment  has  been 
discussed by the group and DG ENV has been closely 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 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) on the 
environmental  parameters3  and  the  Finnish  Game  and  Fisheries  Research  Institute  on  the 
social  and  economic  assessments  of  the  possible  policy  options4.  The  Scientific,  Technical 
and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  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  were  held  with  relevant  representative  bodies, 
namely  the  BSRAC  and  river  sport  fishing  associations.  In  February  2009,  an  open 
consultation6 was launched on the DG MARE homepage and via ‘Your Voice in Europe’. A 

1 IBSFC Resultion IV, Salmon Action Plan 1997-2010, adopted during the Extraordinary Session, February 
1997. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/governance/consultations/baltic_salmon/action_plan_en.pdf 
2 The IBSFC was a forum which brought together Russia and 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/2008/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/publications/studies_reports_en.htm#1. 
5 Report on the 31st plenary meeting of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries:  
(PLEN-09-02), 13-17 July 2009, Copenhagen. 
6 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/governance/consultations/consultation_baltic_salmon_en.htm. 

3

 
 
 
 
total of 45 written contributions were submitted by 8 public bodies, 24 organisations and 13 
citizens. All the contributions 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 Anglers Association and experts 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  conclusions  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 stakeholders could agree were: 

-  There is strong support for development of an EU multiannual plan. 
-  Any  such  plan  should  include  the  whole  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 consultations have been met. The environmental, 
social and economic advice, the results of the open consultation process, the conclusions from 
the  consultation  meeting, 
the 
recommendations from the BSRAC8 all significantly contributed to the analysis of the policy 
options and of the different policy measures mentioned in this formal impact assessment.  

the  outcome  of 

the  IASG  and 

the  discussions 

in 

1.3.  Changes to the working document following the IA Board’s opinion 

This  version  of  the  impact  assessment  takes  into  account  the  opinion  given  by  the 
Commission’s Impact Assessment Board 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 drivers and problems need to be addressed has 
been clarified and the subsidiarity and proportionality issues are now highlighted. 

•  A description of the success and shortcomings 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/consultations/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 

4

 
 
 
 
•  Relevant information available in documents 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 from North Atlantic salmon. Historically it is known to have been 
present  in  about  one  hundred  Baltic  rivers  (see  Annex  V),  before  overfishing,  habitat 
deterioration  (including  pollution)  and  other  pressures  reduced  the  number  of  rivers  with 
native  self-reproducing  populations  to  around  thirty  by  the  end  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 adopted the Salmon Action Plan 
(SAP)1 which expired in 2010. The objective of the SAP was to enable 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  special  measures  for  harvesting  reared  salmon. 
Coastal States were also requested to adopt national measures, such as closed seasons, closed 
areas or improvements to river habitats and water 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 factors such as the phasing out of 
offshore  drift  nets,  damages  from  seal,  elevated  dioxin  levels  in  salmon  etc3.  The  reduced 
catch  levels  together  with  a  reduced  mortality  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 rivers 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 SAP 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  been  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. 

5

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  only  non-EU  country  concerned  with  management  of  Baltic  salmon  is  the  Russian 
Federation.  A  recent  agreement  between  the  European  Union  and  the  Government  of  the 
Russian  Federation  on  cooperation  in  fisheries  and  the  conservation  of  the  living  marine 
resources in the Baltic Sea provides for future 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 which 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 widespread activity in the region with more 
than 2 times as many reared as wild salmon smolt leaving the Baltic rivers each year. 
There  is  a  risk  that  these  reared  salmon  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. The production capacity of the rivers is not fully 

utilised.   

2.3.  State of the stock 

For  Baltic  salmon,  ICES  has  established  six  assessment  units  (AU)  based  on  the 
environmental  and  genetic  characteristics  of  the  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 mixed stock fishery. For fishermen to be able to 
distinguish  salmon  from  the  different  river  stocks  and  assessment  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. 

6

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
Assessment 
Units

   Byskeälven

   Skellefteälven
   Vindelälven

  Kalixälven

  Luleälven

Rå
n
e
älve

n

Piteälven

 Tornionjoki

1

Simojoki

Iijoki

Oulujoki

Åbyälven
2

    Umeälven
     Lögdeälven

    Ångermanälven

    Indalsälven

    Ljungan

    Ljusnan

    Dalälven

Sweden

Emån

    Mörrumsån

4

    Baltic    
Main Basin

Germany

Poland

Vistula

dra
O
Drawa

Finland

Bothnian
Sea

3

Kokemäenjoki

Gulf of Finland
6
 Vasalemma
 Keila
Estonia

   Neva
Luga

Narva

Irbe

5

Saka

 Venta

Salaca

Russia

Gauja

Latvia
Daugava

Lithuania

Neumunas, Minja

Russia

0             100          200 km

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 each 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.  

7

 
 
 
  
 
Prob to reach 50% 

Prob to reach 75% 

V.likely Likely Uncert. Unlikely V.likely Likely Uncert. Unlikely

X

X

X

X

X
X

Unit 1

Tornionjoki
Simojoki
Kalixälven
Råneälven

Unit 2

Piteälven
Åbyälven
Byskeälven
Rickleån
Sävarån
Ume/Vindelälven
Öreälven
Lögdeälven

Unit 3

Ljungan

Unit 4

Emån
Mörrumsån

Unit 5

Pärnu 
Salaca
Vitrupe
Peterupe
Gauja
Daugava
Irbe
Venta
Saka
Uzava
Barta 
Nemunas

X

X

X
X
X

X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Table  1:  Status  of  the  Gulf  of  Bothnia  and  Main  Basin  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 the probability is higher than 90 %. They are likely to achieve 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 achieve 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 these rivers smolt abundance 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 reasons for this low productivity in the southern 
stocks is unfavourable habitat and water conditions in the rivers and/or regional differences in 
survival of post-smolts at sea.14 

8

 
 
 
 
The  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 production potential is low. Natural reproduction 
is also low in seven other rivers where enhancement releases have been carried out during the 
last ten years in this area.  

For the Baltic salmon wild river stocks as a whole, the potential smolt production capacity has 
tripled during the last decade and the rivers of the units 1–5 are now estimated 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 takes place in the Main Basin (offshore fishing) 
and along the coasts of the Gulf of Bothnia, the Gulf of Finland and, to some extent, in the 
Gulf of Riga. The commercial salmon fishing season 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 rivers. 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 Bothnia and Gulf of Finland and, on a smaller scale, 
also in the Latvian part of the Gulf of Riga4.  

In 2007 the commercial salmon catch in the Baltic 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). 

500.000

450.000

400.000

350.000

300.000

250.000

200.000

150.000

100.000

50.000

.

o
n

n

i

h
c
t
a
C

River

Coastal

Offshore

0
2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Year

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.  

9

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  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 increase 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 force since 1993 in the Baltic Sea, but restricted fishing in only 
some of the years (see Figure 3). Since 2005 the TAC has not restricted salmon fishing in any 
of the Baltic countries. In 2008 the nominal commercial 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.  

Main Basin and Gulf of Bothnia, subdivisions 22-31

Estimated discarding & unreporting
Reported recreational catch
Reported commercial catch
Total reported catch

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Gulf of Finland, subdivision 32

C
A
T

f
o
%

C
A
T

f
o
%

0
5
2

0
0
2

0
5
1

0
0
1

0
5

0

0
5
2

0
0
2

0
5
1

0
0
1

0
5

0

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

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 

10

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of  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.  

100 % 

90 % 

80 % 

70 % 

60 % 

50 % 

40 % 

30 % 

20 % 

10 % 

0 % 

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  uncertain  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 coastal 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  grounds  in  the  Main  Basin.  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 value of Baltic salmon   

2.5.1.1.  Commercial fishery  

More  or  less  all  commercial  fishing  for  salmon  in  the  Baltic  Sea  is  by  small  and  medium-
sized  enterprises  (SMEs).  Hence  all  further  information  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. 

11

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Main  Basin  in  2008.  Each  of  these  boats  employed  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 fishing employed 340 fishermen in 2007 in Sweden and Finland.  
Vessels  used  are  mainly  below  12  m  in  length  and  statistics  from  Sweden  show  that  a 
substantial part of the coastal vessels are also below 10 m17. In Finland the number 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  fishing  decreased  during  the  period  covered  by  the 
SAP  (see  Annex  VI).  In  2007,  the  total  value  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.  Historically,  offshore  salmon  fishing  has  been 
particularly profitable when it has been possible to combine driftnet 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 fishing 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 seals 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  regulation  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 special niche in the market and commands a 
higher price than farmed salmon4.  

2.5.1.2.  Recreational fishery 

Marine recreational fisheries mean non-commercial fishing activities exploiting marine living 
aquatic  resources  for  recreation,  tourism  or  sport.  European  law  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  participated  in  salmon 
trolling.  Seventy  companies  in  Sweden  and  at  least  thirty  in  Finland  offer  fishing  travel 
services  along  salmon  rivers.  There  are  also  operators  offering  services  for  recreational 
fishermen  at  sea  (vessel,  equipment  and  guidance)  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  recreational  salmon  fishing  in  certain  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  20074. 
Another  recent  study  by  the  Finnish  Game  and  Fisheries  Research  Institute  estimated  the 
value  of  recreational  fishing  in  two  Finnish  rivers,  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.  

12

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
3.2  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 salmon they catch as food, and for anglers, the value may lie in 
the experience of catching the fish. Anglers are, however, inclined to spend more money on 
services  such  as  fishing  licences,  travel,  restaurants  and  accommodation  than  other 
recreational fishermen and commercial fishermen. Good sport fishing facilities (just like any 
other tourist attractions) can also draw foreigners 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 value for many people and protection of the species is a concern 
not only for fishermen but also for citizens and 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 different 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 contribution made by each driver to the problems or in 
each river. In addition, their shares of the blame have probably changed over the years.  

2.6.1.  Environmental deterioration 
Salmon  need  fast-flowing  rivers  for  part  of  their  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 development 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  agriculture,  forestry  and  communities  and  the  breaking-
down  of  the  consequent  increased  primary  production  and  other  added  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 States are still conducting large-scale liming to 
increase  the  pH  in  rivers  and  lakes  to  safeguard  salmonid  stocks.  Problems  with  direct 
discharges of toxic sewage are also still a cause for concern in some rivers.  

13

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.6.2.  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 and populations comprising the Baltic salmon stock.  
However, in the Baltic Sea almost all river stocks migrate to the Main Basin to feed and are 
caught  there  or  during  migration  in  ‘mixed-stock  fisheries’  (MSF)  with  salmon  both  from 
river  stocks  with  favourable  conservation  status  and  rivers  stocks  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  undesirable  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  that  fishing  in  estuaries  and  rivers  is  the  most 
likely to do this3.  
Among the MSF, the offshore MSF in the Main Basin is of greatest concern as it targets all 
stocks  including  the  weak  stocks  of  Assessment  units  5  and  6.  As  for  MSF  which  occur 
within the coastal zone of Finland 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  stocks18. 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  survival  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  correlated  with  seal  abundance  and 
with  smolt  abundance  and  positively  correlated  with  abundance  of  juvenile  herring14.  One 
consequence  of  this  phenomenon  is  that,  despite  the  increase  in  wild  smolt  production  and 
stable  numbers  of  released  smolts,  the  number  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 established between the syndrome and a deficiency 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). 

14

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
attributable to M74 cannot be predicted and sudden changes in the incidence of the syndrome 
are likely to occur3.  

Other diseases and parasites are also known to affect Atlantic salmon, but so far none of these 
has influenced the Baltic salmon stock to a large extent. The risk of introducing new problems 
with  the  introduction  of  non  native  species  and  stocks  in  relation  to  aquaculture  should 
however be carefully considered 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 the Baltic is either for the purpose of fishing 
or for re-establishing/recovering wild salmon populations. Sometimes stocking is perceived to 
do  both  but  for  efficient  recovery/reestablishment,  fishing  should  not  be  allowed3.  The  lion 
share of stocking is done through so called compensatory releases by hydro-power companies 
which have been obliged to compensate fishermen 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 200814.  

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 other rivers and for salmon stocked at sea as their 
homing instinct is not as pronounced.  The potential 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  the  genetic  capability  to  face  changing  local 
environmental  conditions  and  also  to  bigger  changes  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 incubation periods, smolt run and survival 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 primary production and, consequently, on top predators 
such as salmon and even make the Baltic Sea unsuitable for salmon which depend heavily on 
cool waters. Thriving freshwater species could 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 Selected Arctic Freshwater and Anadromous Fishes’. 

15

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.8.  Legal frameworks 

A number of legal and self regulating frameworks influence management of the Baltic salmon 
river  stocks  (see  also  Table 2).  Management  of  the  factors  influencing  the  species  and  its 
habitat  is  particularly  complex,  as  it  involves  powers  shared  between  the  EU  and  Member 
States, has to deal with transboundary issues between Member  States and,  at national level, 
faces some historical overlap between different national ministries. 

2.8.1.  The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 
Article 66 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)20 stipulates 
that ‘States in whose rivers anadromous stocks originate shall have the primary interest in and 
responsibility for such stocks’. Many countries have such an interest in and responsibility for 
Baltic  salmon,  but  Sweden  and  Finland  are  the  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  the  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  Conservation  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  draft  proposal  are  subject  to  future  changes.) 
Salmon is also covered by the Agreement between the European Union and the Government 
of  the  Russian  Federation  on  cooperation  in  fisheries  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 reduced 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 lays down that the species may be fished only 
when its conservation status is favourable. It also 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 fish fauna is one of the biological elements 
taken  into  consideration  for  classification  of  the  ecological  status  of  rivers,  lakes  and 
transitional waters under the Water Framework Directive (WFD)10 which aims at maintaining 
and improving the aquatic environment in the European Union. Under this Directive, Member 
States have to achieve the objective of good water status and good ecological 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 sustainable exploitation 
of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (the ‘Basic Regulation’). 

16

 
 
 
 
 
 
Heavily modified water bodies (as is the case 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 within river basin management plans, tackling 
the main anthropogenic pressures affecting the quality of their water bodies. These river basin 
management  plans  may  be  supplemented  by  more  detailed  programmes  and  management 
plans focusing on particular aspects of water management and addressing specific sectors or 
issues such as salmon. 
The WFD provisions and management mechanism relevant 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 restoring 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 information on obstacles for migration.  

-  by  drawing  on  the  legal  powers  of  the  competent  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 waters by 2021 and to protect the resource base on 
which marine-related economic and social activities depend. The MSFD establishes European 
marine  regions  based  on  geographical  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  marine  waters.  These  shall  include  a  detailed 
assessment  of  the  state  of  the  environment,  define  ‘good  environmental  status’  at  regional 
level and establish clear environmental targets and monitoring programmes. The conservation 
statues  of  commercial  fish  stocks  are  considered  descriptors  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 routes, to conserve at least ten endangered wild 
salmon rivers (by 2010) and to reintroduce salmon 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 Committee of the Regions concerning the European Union 
Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. 

17

 
 
 
 
 
Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP)  should  keep  working  on  establishing  an  ecosystem-based 
management approach in the Baltic Sea to support the Baltic ecosystem, taking into account 
the BSAP.  

18

 
 
Area  

Legal 
framework 

Inland waters 

Coastal waters 

Marine waters 

Habitat 
Directive 

Salmon habitat 
protection to reach good 
conservation statues.  

Water 
Framework 
Directive 
Marine Strategy 
Framework 
Directive 

Good river water 
quality (ecology and 
habitats) by 2015 
- 

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. 
- 

UNCLOS 
Law of the sea 

- 

Common 
Fisheries Policy 

National 
measures, 
voluntary or as 
requested 
through EU 
law.  

Catch restrictions 
Rearing and stocking  
Improvement of salmon 
habitat 

Salmon habitat 
protection to reach 
good conservation 
statues. 
Good coastal water 
quality (ecology) by 
2015 
Ecosystem 
protection of marine 
waters by 2021 
Reach 80 % of the 
potential wild smolt 
production in Baltic 
salmon rivers by 
2015 (50 % in weak 
rivers).  

Salmon habitat 
protection to reach 
good conservation 
statues. 
- 

Ecosystem 
protection of marine 
waters by 2021 
-Reach 80 % of the 
potential wild smolt 
production in Baltic 
salmon rivers by 
2015 (50 % in weak 
rivers).  

Sharing of 
management 
responsibility 
between countries of 
origin 
Annual marine TAC 
Minimum landing 
size 
Closed offshore 
seasons 

Sharing of 
management 
responsibility 
between countries of 
origin 
Annual marine TAC 
Minimum landing 
size 
Closed offshore 
seasons 

Allocation of EU 
fishing rights 

Allocation of EU 
fishing rights 

Table 2: Summary of different legal and self regulatory frameworks currently affecting the Baltic salmon 
stock. 

19

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.9.  Grounds for EU action 

2.9.1.  Proportionality, subsidiarity and legal basis  
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 EU action is necessary 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 the 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  issue  (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  Regulation22  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 conservation reference point was set 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 formalizes and summarizes a 
management strategy and give better  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  procedures  in  rivers  and  at  sea  for  the 
protection of the genetic diversity and for the benefit of marine fishing. 

-  Restocking programs 

The SAP contained a program for restocking river 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, such 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  Baltic  stock,  i.e.  all  populations,  is 
favourable and above safe biological limits to ‘provide for sustainable exploitation of living 

20

 
 
 
aquatic  resources  and  of  aquaculture  in  the  context  of  sustainable  development,  taking 
account of the environmental, economic and social aspects in a balanced 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 concerned 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 require that Member States comply 
with the relevant provisions of community environmental 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  possible  new  management  system  have  been 
influenced  by  objectives  recommended  by  the  BSRAC  in  March  20078.  Some  of  these 
objectives  have  also  been  taken  as  the  basis  for  the  environmental,  social  and  economic 
advice and for the consultation process. Bearing in mind the importance of wide agreement on 
the  specific  objectives  and  that  almost  all  contributors  to  the  consultation  process  attached 
high importance to these; the Commission proposes that the plan shall: 

a)  the Baltic salmon stock is exploited in a sustainable way according to the principle of 

maximum sustainable yield; 

b)  the genetic integrity and diversity of the Baltic salmon 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 level 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  system  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/WSSD_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  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’. 

21

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-  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 TAC covers marine commercial catches.  

-  Technical measures at sea. 

The technical measures currently in place through the CFP covers a summer closure for 
the offshore fishery and a minimum landing size. 

-  Member  States  voluntary  actions  and  implementation  of  current  environmental  legal 

frameworks expected to influence the Baltic salmon stock. 
Measures  in  the  rivers  and  coastal  areas  include  seasonal  and  area closures, fin-clipping 
programmes,  habitat  and  water  quality  improvements,  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  describes  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  implementation  of  the  Habitat  Directive  in  Member 
States. So far this Directive has however, although 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 salmon is difficult to foresee. 

Some  objectives  for  salmon,  many  reflecting  the  objectives  in  the  SAP,  are  included  in  the 
HELCOM  BSAP  (see  Table  2).  Contracting  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 frameworks take into account rearing and stocking of salmon for 
management and development of the stock which may jeopardise the genetic diversity of the 
wild  salmon  stock.  Also,  the  lack  of  objectives  at  EU  level  leaves  evaluation  of  the  current 
situation and the basis for giving scientific advice 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 maximise the level of commercial fishing. Putting the 
spotlight  on  commercial  fishermen  unfortunately  aggravated  some  of  the  conflicts  between 
some  user  groups.  Neither  commercial  nor  recreational  fishermen  feel  that  they  have 
benefited  from  the  increased  production  of  wild  salmon4.  Without  a  multiannual  plan  with 

22

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
clear objectives stating that the resources should be shared between 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 provides the sector with sufficient predictability 
of catches nor allows it to adapt its strategies 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  States  measures  as  stated  in  Option  1  but 
would add features on marine management of salmon fisheries such as:  

-  Multiannual harvest control system. 

The  system  would  include  conservation  reference  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  successful  implementation  of  the 
environmental  legal  frameworks  for  the  management  in  inland  waters.  The  inclusion  of 
conservation reference points and a harvest control 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 suitable harvest control system.  However, as this 
option  does  not  take  into  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 potential 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 regulations. In the long term and as more salmon is 
produced  and  also  allowed  to  migrate  up  the  rivers,  new  job  opportunities  in  both  the 
recreational and commercial sectors are foreseen to develop.  

4.1.3.  Option 3 — Integrated multiannual plan 
Option 3 is in many aspects a continuation of the 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  included  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  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 

23

 
 
 
 
 
 
The 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 which, together with swift and successful implementation of the 
environmental legal frameworks, would address all 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 throughout their life-cycle. In the long term this 
option  could  produce  good  conservation  status  for  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  the  Baltic  region  can  produce  3.45 
million smolts but, as the river habitats and migration 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  possible  increase  in  profits  due  to  enhanced 
predictability of catches both for the commercial and recreational sectors. As more salmon is 
produced and also allowed to migrate up the rivers, 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 also offers a summary of the likely impact of 
the three different options on achievement of the specific objectives, based on the arguments 
presented above and in comparison to the baseline scenario (Option 1). Conclusions are also 
added.  

Economic impact 

Option 1 — No 
EU multiannual  
plan 
* Overall low 
economic profits as 
the full production 
potential may not 
be reached 

Option 2 — 
Marine 
multiannual plan 
* Harvest control 
rules bring 
predictability and 
increase profits 
*Overall low 
economic profits as 

Option 3 — Integrated 
multiannual plan 

* Harvest control rules bring 
predictability and increase 
profits 
* Development of the full 
potential of the wild river 
stocks give higher 

24

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the full production 
potential may not 
be reached 

profitability in commercial 
and recreational fisheries  

Social impact 

* Risk of continues 
distrust between 
different user 
groups 

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

* Genetic risk to 
the stock as it does 
not cover reared 
salmon and 
stocking  
*Some drivers 
such as diseases 
are not addressed 

* Closer coordination 
between implementation of 
fishing and environmental 
policies 
* Strong commitment among 
Member States and 
stakeholders while continuing 
the work started by the SAP  
* 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 

Environmental impact 

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 
Table 3: 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 

Discarded 

Discarded 

Selected 

+/- 

+ 

+ 

+ 

Based on the arguments set out above and the likely achievement of the objectives, options 1 
and 2 has been discarded.   

4.2.  Presentation of suboptions 

In the case of option 3 — the integrated multiannual plan — there are in essence three key 
choices  to  make  in  order  to  identify  the  suitable  suboption  to  address  all  the  drivers  and 
threats to the stock (see Figure 5).  

1.  The first choice concerns the issue of stocking 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  mainly  reared  or  mainly  wild  salmon  is  a 
question of intentions and principles. Should the management system be based on a slow 

25

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
but steady improvement of the natural environment 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  harvest  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 crucial. The main choice to make is between:  
-  An  overall  TAC  that  would  embrace  all  catches,  including  recreational  and  river 

catches 

-  A marine TAC for commercial and possibly 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  policy  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.  

Baltic Salmon multi annual Plan 

First choice

Max amount of reared  

Max amount of wild salmon 

& wild salmon  

Second choice

Overall TAC 

Marine TAC 

Offshore TAC 

Third choice

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.  

Additional policy measures  

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  fishermen  for  their  loss  of  salmon  catches  as  a 
result of damming of salmon rivers. Characteristics of all compensatory releases are that they: 
•  Constitute a genetic threat to the wild salmon river stocks, the bigger threat the closer to a 

wild salmon river.  

•  Keep the fishing pressure high also 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 though the releases are more than double the 

amount of wild production of smolt.  

26

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Naturally,  reduction  of  releases  should  cover  neither  enhancement  releases,  which  are 
conservation measures with the aim of safeguarding 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 would benefit also other 
migratory  species.  In  the  case  of  rivers  that  cannot  be  improved  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 for both recreational and commercial fishermen. 
Considering  the  decreasing  share  of  reared  salmon  in  the  overall  catch  (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  fishermen,  both  commercial  and  recreational, that are 
explicitly targeting reared salmon. There may also be a loss of job and know-how at rearing 
facilities, no quantification of such effects is however available.   

5.1.1.1.  Summary of analysis Step 1 

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 are summed up 
below.  

Environmental    

Negative impact 

Positive impact  
*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 

27

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Economic  

Social  

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

* More wild salmon to catch, both at sea 
and in rivers.  
*Possible increase in tourism 
opportunities along rivers. 

Table 4: 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.  

In  conclusion  there  are  many  advantages  connected  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 control 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 framework of the TAC and this figure is expected to 
increase. As the TAC would correspond to the true total catch, it would be a useful regulatory 
instrument for the catch management of the stock. Taking into account the whole life cycle of 
the species would also be in line with the ecosystem approach. 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 should 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 recreational fisheries are not subject to the same 
catch limitations and control as they but still 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 Member 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 change of relative stability, mirroring the current 
catches. On the other hand, the BSRAC is supportive of the idea with an overall TAC only if 
the allocation key remains unchanged.  

The  system  would  probably  create  little  extra  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 

28

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Economic impact 
Without  changing  the  reallocation  key,  an  overall  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 and river fishing. However, considering 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 catches and by excluding the 
increasingly important river and recreational catches in the TAC, the TAC will become less 
and less useful as a catch regulator for the stock. However, setting an overall limit to marine 
salmon commercial catches at EU level is foreseen in the basic regulation and would at least 
safeguard the stock against sudden increase of commercial exploitation at sea.    

Social and administrational impact 
Contrary to the objectives of the old SAP, where mainly sea fishing was 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 decision on whether salmon should be caught at sea 
or in rivers and by which user groups should be taken at national level. The Commission is 
however also aware that even though the European Union can not intervene in this national 
reallocation of fishing opportunities, the decision on catches at sea and the conservation limits 
reference points set in the plan may still influence river catches. In the 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  control.  The  Commission  would  instead  favour  a  system  where  only 
recreational  fisheries  conducted  on  a  commercial  basis,  i.e.  trolling  vessels  offering  paying 
customers  transport,  guidance  and  equipment,  would  be  subject  to  certain  reporting 
obligations. From an administrational point of view this should not pose big difficulties as the 
sector is small and already registered. From a social point of view it would reduce potential 
conflicts  between  the  different  kinds  of  commercial  operators  and  also  between  Member 
States as they would be part of the same quota 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 use the possibility to switch quotas between them or steer catches 
to the productive rivers.  

Keeping  a  system  with  only  sea  catches  in  the  catch  reporting  system  may  benefit  those 
Member States with productive rivers. 

29

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
5.2.1.3.  Offshore TAC 

Setting an offshore TAC for fisheries outside 4 or 12 nm from the baseline would regulate the 
part of fishing mortality 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  reference  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 which 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 States may be incentivized to steer catches closer to the coast 
and  to  improve  the  situation  in  their  own  rivers.  They  would  also  be  encourages  to  restock 
potential salmon rivers to increase fishing opportunities for their national 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  regulated  at  EU  level.  By  not  setting  a  maximum 
marine commercial fishing mortality 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 measure may be the loss of potential future profit 
for offshore fishermen and a discrimination against those Member States whose fisheries are 
currently mainly offshore. However, considering that none of the countries are currently taken 
their share of the quota and that only 22% of the TAC is taken offshore (2008), this effect is 
considered to be limited. 

The  main  positive  long  term  impact  is  for  those  Member  States  with  productive  rivers  that 
may  allow  for  higher  catches  than  an  EU  TAC  system  which  is  limited  by  the  historical 
allocation of catching opportunities and may not reflect future catching opportunities.  

Social and administrational impact 
The system would leave Member States considerable 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 proportionality principles. However, as some river stocks migrate through 
the  coastal  waters  of  other  Member  States,  such  a  system  may  aggravate  conflicts  between 
Member States.     

The  question  of  control  would  also  need  to  be  solved  at  Member  State  level  before  such  a 
TAC system could be operational. There is currently  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  system32.  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 able 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 possibilities 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 fisheries policy, establishing an EU control system for 

fisheries 

30

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
5.2.1.4.  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 
* Difficult for MSs 
to control. 
* Difficult for EU 
to enforce. 

Marine TAC 
* Possible for MSs to 
control. 
* Possible for EU to 
enforce. 

Manage-
ment impact 

*TAC useful to 
regulate total 
salmon fishing 
mortality. 

* Overall reduction 
of the fishing 
opportunities for 
MSs with a lot of 
river and/or 
recreational fishing. 
* TAC useful for 
allocation of all 
catches between 
MSs 
* Enhance trust 
between different 
user groups. 

* 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. 

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

* TAC useful to regulate 
marine allocation 
between MSs. 
*Big responsibility for 
MSs to ensure fair 
allocation of fishing 
opportunities. 

Environ-
mental 
impact 

Economic 
impact 

Social 
impact 

Offshore TAC 
* TAC only addresses 
allocation of offshore MSF 
between MS.  
* Not possible for MS to 
control without some 
changes to the control 
system. 
* 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.  
* Increases fishing 
opportunities for MS with 
productive rivers and high 
shares of coastal, river and 
recreational fishing.  

*Big responsibility for 
MSs to ensure fair 
allocation of fishing 
opportunities.  

Table 5: Summary of impacts for 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 additional policy measures and solutions available for a multiannual 
plan which have been identified either by the scientific advice or in the consultation process. 
Some  of  the  measures  or  options  presented  will  be  discarded  rapidly  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.  

31

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.3.1.  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  from  the  baseline  and  excludes  trapnets.  The 
reason for this ban was initially to reduce the offshore 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 and should be maintained in any new multiannual 
plan. Some contributors to the consultation process however argued that in some countries the 
system works selectively on early spawners and should be changed to recurring closed periods 
spanning the whole fishing season. The positive environmental 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  old  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 supplementary period in addition to the early closed season could 
be  proposed  for  rivers  where  there  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 for the longline fishing 
sector.  The  measure  would  also  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 the measure can target specific river stocks that 
need protection, i.e. all wild river stocks that have not reached 50 % of their potential smolt 
production by 2010. One difficulty with this measure is that scientific investigation 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  December  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. 

32

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.3.2.  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, there 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 from the Gulf of Finland migrate to the Main 
Basin and vice versa14. Hence, the scientific basis for this divide is weak. Recommendations 
for ICES’s own future work also state that salmon from the Gulf of Finland will be assessed 
together  with  salmon  from  the  Main  Basin  and  the  Gulf  of  Bothnia.  Changing  the  system 
from  two  TAC  areas  to  one  TAC  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 impacts should be limited.  On the other hand, 
considering the very low statues of many of the salmon river stocks 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 national level, to specifically limit catches in this 
area.   Also,  the fact that the Russian  federation has different shares of the total TAC in the 
different areas may complicate the reallocation of quotas if the areas were to be merged  

Harvest control rules 
Harvest control rules (HCR) stipulate how the harvest will be controlled by management in 
relation  to  some  indicator  of  stock  status,  such  as  size.  It  formalizes  and  summarizes  a 
management strategy and can contain a maximum deviation of the TAC from previous year in 
order to ensure consistency between years and create predictability for the sector.  

The  Commission  deem  that  the  harvest  rate  set  at  European  level  should  be  based  on  the 
whole Baltic stock and in the name of subsidiarity 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 stocks 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 timeframe31,34.  

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 different 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 MSY14. This is hence the intention 
of the Commission.  

34 2009. Scientific, Technical and Economic  committee for fisheries, opinion by written procedure. Advice on 

harvest control rules or the long term management of Baltic salmon.  

33

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  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. 

n
o
m
a
s
f

l

'

o
s
0
0
0
1

0
0
5
3

0
0
0
3

0
0
5
2

0
0
0
2

0
0
5
1

0
0
0
1

0
0
5

0

1995

2000

2005

2010

year

Figure 6: The number of salmon (wild and reared) of catchable size in the Baltic Sea in the beginning of 
the year, before offshore main fishing season. The 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 was 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  was  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  sustainable  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 fish 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 stocks, decrease theirs. 
For such situation it would be crucial that Member States take their responsibility and steer 
potential increases in catches 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  corresponds  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 situation internally by swapping quotas.   

34

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 mortality. STECF therefore considers that situations may occur 
where a ± 15% constraint may result in a TAC allowing too high risks for the weakest stocks.  

Effort regulations 
Effort  regulations  can  be  used  to  restrict  fishing  and  for  specific  gear.  In  the  Baltic  Sea 
offshore  fisheries,  this  measure  could  be  used  to  restrict  longlining  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 offshore TAC (see step 2) could be expected for 
limiting longline fishing. But even though effort regulations for specific fisheries 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  multiannual  plans  must  include  conservation  reference 
points  against  which  maintenance  of  the  stock  can  be  assessed22.  Conservation  reference 
points  can  be  expressed  as  targets  or  as  limit  reference  points,  depending  on  the  level  of 
ambition.  One  such  conservation  reference  points  is  the  population  size.  Salmon  population 
size is best assessed river by river. There are two ways of setting the conservation reference 
points:  

1.  on smolt production 
2.  on number of returning spawners  

The option preferred by ICES and STECF is to set a conservation reference points based on 
smolt  production.  Such  a  conservation  reference  points  has  good  support  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, resulting in good statistics.  

The  main  reason  for  setting  an  additional  conservation  reference  points  on  the  number  of 
returning spawners is to protect the total genetic pool of the spawners in each river. Another 
potential aim could be to ensure that a sufficient proportion of the adult salmon return to their 
home river, not only for production of smolt but also for sport fishing and tourism. Since the 
value of the latter is mainly for the regional 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 Member 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  reference  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 reference 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  salmon  production,  i.e.  which  are 
expected to reach at least 50 % of their estimated potential by 2010 and are within safe genetic 

35

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
limits. However, in the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action 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  Sustainable  Development  at  Johannesburg  in  200227 
which states that all stocks should 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  threatened  salmon  populations  which 
might be showing a positive trend in salmon production but are still not expected to achieve at 
least 50 % of their estimated potential by 2010 need intermediate 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 production, 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 measure to limit the large numbers of reared salmon 
released  into  the  Baltic  Sea  every  year  has  been  addressed  under  step  1.  But  there  are  also 
some other measures that could be considered: 

Guidelines for stocking practices 
The inclusion of recommendations on good practice 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  exist,  both  nationally  and 
internationally (i.e. "The Williamsburg Resolution" for the North Atlantic salmon35) 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  Baltic  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 behind a fin-clipping programme is for fishermen 
to be able to distinguish between wild and reared salmon so that 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 salmon has steadily increased also in these fisheries; 
fishermen would be asked to release a bigger and bigger part of their catch. 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 efficient 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 Williamsburg Resolution", Annex 4- Guidelines for Stocking Atlantic Salmon III 

B 4 (a)  http://www.nasco.int/pdf/agreements/williamsburg.pdf 

36

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Terminal fishing areas  
As part of the old SAP, Member States were required 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 mainly relevant to a harvest control system where 
fisheries  would  target  mainly  reared  salmon.  This  measure  received  strong  support  in  the 
consultation  process,  also  among  the  contributors  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  wild  river  stocks  because  the  proportion  of  wild  salmon  has  not 
been substantially lower in these areas3. 

5.3.5.  Restocking 
The  SAP  contained  a  restocking  programme  for  rivers  identified  by  Member  States  as 
potential rivers for reintroduction of salmon. The BSAP and BSRAC support reintroduction 
of  salmon  in  these  rivers.  Restocking  offers  obvious  environmental  and  economic  benefits, 
mainly on the establishment of self sustaining 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 awareness 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  strategic  approach  to  stocking  which  defines  the  objectives  of  the 
exercise  as  well  as  to  monitor  and  assess  the  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 this money will be taken from Member States 
operational programs, no additional EU funding will be needed and no ex-ante evaluation is 
necessary.  

Implementation plan 

5.3.6. 
Safeguarding  stocks  in  weak  rivers  is  the  main  concern  for  the  Commission  and  also  for 
almost  all  stakeholders.  For  many  stakeholders,  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 mandatory development of river basin management 
plans, due in 2009 and to be updated in 2015 and 2021. Article 13(5) of the WFD states that 
‘River  basin  management  plans  may  be  supplemented  by  the  production  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 States 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  migratory  fishways,  water  quality  improvement, 
tighter control to reduce illegal fishing, limits on stocking, etc.); 

-  monitoring scheme to fulfil the reporting obligation and follow up the specific objectives 

of the different regulatory frameworks that concern the species.  

An inventory of all salmon rivers conducted through HELCOM with financial resources from 
the EU will be useful for identifying particular risks and possibilities for salmon.  

37

 
 
 
 
 
 
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 for the implementation of the salmon multiannual 
plan.  With  consideration  to  the  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,  deemed  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 monitor 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 salmon 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 management of the species or 
its  habitat.  During  the  consultation  process  a  wide  range  of  other  research  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 remain, e.g. on the best use of the 
resources, stocking, habitat, genetics, diseases and ecosystem interactions with other species. 
For future management of the species and efficient 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 

Stock consisting of mainly 
reared salmon 
Stock consisting of mainly wild 
salmon 

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
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

r
e
v
i
r
d
n
a

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

g
n
i
h
s
i
f

n
o
t
c
a
p
m

i

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

s
k
c
o
t
s

e
h
t

n
o

t
c
a
p
m

i

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

s
e
t
a
t
S

r
e
b
m
e
M

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

t
r
o
p
p
u
s

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

Step 1 = choice of fish to target 
+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

- 

+/- 

- 

+/- 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+/- 

+ 

38

Discarded 

Selected 

EU/
MS 
EU/
MS 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Overall TAC 

Marine TAC 

Offshore TAC 

Technical 
measures 

Additional 
harvest 
control 
measures 

Conservation 
reference  
targets  

Protecting the 
wild salmon 
genetic pool 

Re-stocking 
program 

Implementati
on plans 
Control 

Step 2  - choice of harvest control system 
+/- 

+ 

+ 

- 

- 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

+ 

+/- 

+/- 

+ 

- 

+ 

EU  Discarded 

EU  Selected 

- 

- 

+/- 

+/- 

EU  Discarded 

Step 3 – Choice of additional policy measures 

Keep closed 
season 
offshore 
Closed season 
coast and 
rivers   
Keep 
Minimum 
Landing size 
Set minimum 
hook size 
Closed areas 
coast and 
rivers   
2 TAC  areas 
for marine or 
overall catches 

1 TAC area for 
marine or 
overall catches 

Harvest 
control rules  
Effort regime 
for longlines 

Differentiated 
smolt 
production 
targets  
One smolt 
production 
target 
Returning 
spawners 
target  
Recommendati
ons on 
stocking 
practices  
Fin clipping 
program  
Identification 
of terminal 
fishing areas 
With means 
from European 
Fisheries Fund 
As part of 
WFD 
Production 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

- 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+/- 

+ 

+ 

EU  Selected 

- 

+ 

+ 

Selected 

EU/
MS 

+/- 

+ 

+ 

EU  Selected 

- 

- 

- 

+ 

+/- 

EU  Discarded 

+ 

EU/
MS 

Selected 

+/- 

+/- 

+ 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

EU 

Selected 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

- 

+/- 

+/- 

EU  Discarded 

+ 

- 

+ 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

- 

+ 

+/- 

+/- 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

+ 

+/- 

+/- 

+ 

+ 

+ 

- 

+ 

- 

+ 

- 

+ 

+ 

- 

+ 

+ 

EU  Selected 

+/- 

EU  Discarded 

+ 

EU  Selected 

+/- 

+/- 

- 

EU  Discarded 

+/- 

+/- 

+ 

MS  Voluntary 

+ 

+/- 

+ 

EU  Selected 

+/- 

+/- 

- 

- 

+/- 

+/- 

- 

- 

MS  Voluntary 

MS  Voluntary 

+/- 

+ 

+ 

Selected 

EU/
MS 

+ 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

+ 

+ 

MS  Voluntary 

EU  Selected 

+ 

+ 

+ 

39

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Catches 

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

EU  Selected 
MS  Voluntary 

+/- 
+/- 

+/- 
+/- 

+/- 
+ 

+/- 
+/- 

+ 
+ 

Table  7  presents  the  package  of  policy  measures  that  will  form  part  of  the  legal  proposal, 
selected  through  Table  7.  Some  of  the  measures  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  threats  to  the  species  and  their  contribution  to 
fulfilling  the  specific  objectives  of  the  multiannual  plan.  In  this  respect  it  is  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.  

40

 
 
 
 
Drivers 

Level  Threats 

Objectives 

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

a
e
s

t
a

s
k
c
o
t
s
k
a
e
w

f
o
g
n
i
h
s
i
f
r
e
v
O

X 

l
a
v
i
v
r
u
s

t
l
o
m
s
-
t
s
o
P

4
7
M

X 
X  X X 
X 

Policy measures 
proposed for inclusion in 
the plan 
Limit the number of 
reared salmon 
Marine TAC 
Harvest control rules  
Closed seasons 

Closed areas offshore 
Closed areas coastal 

X 
X 

Minimum landing size 
Smolt production target 
Guidelines on stocking  
Restocking programme 

X 

Control production  

X X 

Control catches 

X 

l
e
v
e
l

n
o
i
s
i
c
e
D

EU/
MS 
EU 
EU 
EU/ 
MS  
EU 
EU/ 
MS 
EU 
EU 
EU 
EU/
MS 
EU/
MS 
EU/
MS 

f
o

s
e
u
t
a
t
s

n
o
i
t
a
v
r
e
s
n
o
c

e
l
b
a
r
u
o
v
a
f

e
h
t

o
t

e
t
u
b
i
r
t
n
o
C

n
o
i
t
a
t
i
o
l
p
x
e

r
o
f

e
d
i
v
o
r
p

d
n
a

k
c
o
t
s

n
o
m
l
a
s

c
i
t
l
a
B

e
h
t

e
f
a
s

n
i
h
t
i

w

s
k
c
o
t
s

n
o
m
l
a
s

d
l
i

w

e
h
t

f
o

a
e
s

t
a

m
u
m
i
x
a
m

r
i
e
h
t

o
t

g
n
i
d
r
o
c
c
a

d
n
a

s
t
i

m

i
l

l
a
c
i
g
o
l
o
i
b

.
d
l
e
i
y
e
l
b
a
n
i
a
t
s
u
s

e
g
n
a
h
c

e
t
a
m

i
l

C

s
s
o
l

c
i
t
e
n
e
G

X  

X 

X  
X 
  X  X 
X 
X  

X  
X  

X  
X  
X  

X 
X 

X 
X 
X 
X 

X 

X 

c
i
t
e
n
e
g

e
h
t

f
o

g
n
i
d
r
a
u
g
e
f
a
s

e
h
t

o
t

e
t
u
b
i
r
t
n
o
C

.
k
c
o
t
s
n
o
m
l
a
s

c
i
t
l
a
B
e
h
t

f
o
y
t
i
s
r
e
v
i
d

X 

X 
X 
X 

X 
X 

X 
X 
X 
X 

X 

X 

n
e
m
r
e
h
s
i
f

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

d
n
a

l
a
i
c
r
e
m
m
o
c

h
t
o
b

e
l
b
a
n
E

a

n
i

k
c
o
t
s

n
o
m
l
a
s

e
h
t

t
i
o
l
p
x
e

o
t

e
l
b
a

a
e
S

c
i
t
l
a
B
e
h
t

n
i

y
a
w
e
l
b
a
n
i
a
t
s
u
s

X 
X 
X 

X 
X 

X 
X 

X 

X 

Table 7: Summary of how the selected measures address the different drivers and threats facing the Baltic 
salmon population and contribute to fulfilling the three specific objectives of the plan. Decision level 
EU/MS signifies that it will be mandatory for MS to exactly define a general measure taken at EU level or 
that EU funding can be envisaged. Decision level EU signifies that the measure will be taken at EU level 
with the usual mandatory implementation 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 management 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; 

41

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Research  will  be  addressed  by  Member  States  but  promoted  and  supported  by  the 
Commission.  If  Member  Stakes  make  proper  use  of  the  plan  for  coordinating  the  legal 
frameworks  covering  the  species  (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  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 in six-yearly intervals in order to detect 
any deficiencies in operation of the plan. Member 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. 

42

 
 
  
 
 
ANNEXES 

Annex I — Glossary 

B 
By-catch  –  the  catch  of  non-target  species  and  undersized  fish  of  the  target  species.  By-
catches of commercial species may be kept or discarded along 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  the  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 management 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 stages 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 per unit of time), but more simply, the proportion of the 
population killed each year by fishing. 

A generalised yield-per-recruit (YPR) curve showing the 
point at which the fishing mortality 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 example, 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  strategy.  Constant  catch  and  constant  fishing 
mortality are two types of simple harvest control rules. 

43

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I 
ICES – the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea founded in 1902. It facilitates 
and  coordinates  collaboration,  including  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 assessment 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, there 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  populations  of  the  same  species  which 
interact at some level.  
Mixed-stock fishery (MSF) – fishery targeting more than two salmon river stocks.  
Monitoring  –  regular  and  systematic  collection  of  environmental  and  biological  data  by 
agreed methods and to agreed standards. Monitoring provides information on current status, 
trends and compliance with declared 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  instantaneous  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 average catch that can be taken continuously 
from  a  stock  under  existing  environmental  conditions.  (For  species  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 quality 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 

44

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
destroyed  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 there 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  objective  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 Member 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 life stages in potential salmon rivers. 

S 
Safe  biological  limits  –  to  keep  stocks  within  safe  biological  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 separate 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 river or sea area where they were released.  
Smolt – a young salmon when it first leaves freshwater and descends to the sea. 
STECF  –  the  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  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 varying scientific, including ICES, advice. 
Stocking – the deliberate release of reared 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 annual catch, including discards, that does not exceed 
the  surplus  production  of  the  stocks  (i.e.  annual  growth  plus  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 targeting reared salmon instead of wild 
or mixed stocks. 

W 

45

 
 
 
  
 
 
Weak  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 population 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 populations reproduce successfully and where 
no or very limited releases of reared salmon have taken or are taking place.   

46

 
 
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 Bothnia 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 Finland are likely to achieve the objective. 

-  There is insufficient scientific information upon which to determine if populations are 
within  “safe  genetic  limits,”  but  there  are  genetics  concerns  in  light  of  the  large 
hatchery  production  relative  to  natural  production  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  susceptible  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  rivers.  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. However, 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  management  measures  varies. The ban  on driftnet 
fishing  has  reduced  fishing  mortality.  Limits  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 production of salmon. The effectiveness of adipose finclipping of 
reared salmon for management is questionable since it has not been implemented for 
all reared fish. 

STECF comments: 
STECF agrees with ICES evaluation of the SAP. 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, little 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 combine general measures with specific river 
based measures addressing the local conditions. 

47

 
 
 
 
 
ICES advice on a future multiannual  plan for salmon with STECF comments5  
ICES proposes that the future Baltic Sea salmon multiannual plan shall define a “wild salmon 
population”  as  follows:  Wild  salmon  populations  are  self-sustaining  populations  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 genetic status of salmon populations. 

-  Another weakness of the SAP is that it primarily influences management measures for 
open sea fisheries. The option of managing primarily 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, coastal, and open sea environments. 

-  Future  management  should  include  an  integrated  approach  that  addresses  factors 
controlling  the  dynamics  of  salmon  populations  throughout  their  life  cycle  and  the 
multitude of economic and social benefits that may be derived from salmon. 

-  Future  management  of  salmon  should  address  the  key  human  related  activities  that 
affect  salmon,  including  fishing,  habitat  alteration,  and  hatcheries.  The  role  of 
diseases, predation, and climate change (natural and/or human caused) should be taken 
into  account  in  the  design  of  future  management  measures  relative  to  objectives. 
Management  measures  for  fisheries  should  be  applied  to  all  fisheries  (open  sea, 
coastal, in rivers, commercial, and recreational) in a consistent manner. An appropriate 
monitoring  scheme  should  be  implemented  to  guide  management  and  measure  its 
performance. 

-  An integrated approach to future management of salmon should include river-specific 
elements to address the recovery needs of weak populations in small rivers. In addition 
to  controls  on  fishing,  these  efforts  should  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 agrees with ICES advice that a smolt production 
of  75%  of  the  potential  smolt  production  is  an  appropriate  target  reference  point  consistent 
with MSY if applied on a river by river basis. 

STECF agrees with ICES that future management should address 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  elements  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  supplemented  by  river  or  group  of  rivers-specific 
management  plans.  The  framework  plan  should  address  issues  affecting  all  stocks,  such  as 
limitations  on  the  open  sea  fisheries,  stocking  practice  and  control.  The  river/rivers-specific 
plans should address river-specific issues including concrete stocking plans as well as coastal 
issues of relevance for the rivers.  
Summary of socio- economic assessment of the SAP with STECF comments4,  
The analysis is based on existing data as well as a survey and modelling work.  

48

 
 
 
 
 
 
-  The bio-economic analysis showed that reducing fishing effort in commercial fisheries 
leads  to  lower  profits  in  commercial  fisheries,  a  higher  level  of  protection  for  weak 
stocks  and  greater  abundance  of  salmon  in  rivers.  The  proportional  decrease  in  the 
total profits applies to every country, but only countries with recreational fisheries will 
benefit from this effort reduction. Increases in salmon in rivers are likely to lead to an 
increase in the number of recreational fishermen and probably stimulate the regional 
economy. 

- 

In  the  River  Tornionjoki  area,  a  study  concerning  the  2007  angler  population 
suggested  that  recreational  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 catches at sea, they did 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  the  establishment  of  a  new  multiannual  plan 
was important in order to continue the recovery process started by the SAP. Both the 
commercial  and  recreational  sectors  have  high  hopes  of  salmon  fishing  as  a  way  to 
make a livelihood and keep sparsely populated regions alive.  

-  When  offered  a  choice  between  four  management  options,  most  stakeholders  in  the 
sociological  study  regarded  the  option  when  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  between  the  commercial  and  recreational 
sectors and might have a positive impact on interaction and trust between the parties 
involved and on confidence in overall fisheries management.  

-  With  a  probable  decrease  in  off-shore  commercial  salmon  fishing,  more  salmon  are 
available  to  be  caught  by  recreational  fisheries.  This  could  lead  to  relatively  higher 
fishing mortality for recreational fisheries than at present. Consequently, management 
of  recreational  fisheries  will  become  more  important  and  both  biological  and  socio-
economic monitoring would be needed. The potential core indicators for this kind of 
monitoring  are  the  number  of  recreational  fishermen,  the  number  of  licences  sold, 
catches and the number of companies offering fishing services.  

-  Conclusion from the assessment state that management objectives should be related to 
adult  salmon  returning  to  their  native  rivers  instead  of  or  together  with  management 
objectives  based  on  juvenile  salmon  production.  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  fishery  in  the  rivers  (recreational)  is  pending 
political  decisions.  Furthermore  the  socioeconomic  consequences  of  the  incoming  salmon 
plan are to a large extent dependent of the development of the following sub-markets: 
· Commercial price of salmon and the costs in the commercial fishery, 
· Trolling fishery (recreational fishery) in the southern Baltic, 
· Recreational fishery (sport-fishery) along the coast and in the rivers, 

49

 
 
 
  The semi-commercial fishery along the coast with fixed gears 

The study has not tried to make any market analysis including the consequences of a market 
ban attributed to the dioxin content. 

Annex III – Summary of stakeholder consultation 

Summary of written answers to open consultation paper36 
There  was  general  agreement  among  the  contributors  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 responsible for inland fisheries and the allocation 
would require a change of relative stability. An overall TAC is also not believed to safeguard 
weak  stocks.  Many  contributors  would  instead  like  to  have  specific  TACs  for  rivers,  set  at 
national  level,  or  at  least  reporting  on  all  catches  from  rivers.  Some  were  in  favour  of  an 
overall  TAC,  on  condition  that  the  new  TAC  would  be  higher  so  that  the  national  quota 
allocation  for  sea  fishermen  would  not  be  reduced.  Some  argue  that  if  the  TAC  is  to  be 
efficient, it needs to be reduced.  

-  Technical measures 

There  was  general  agreement  to  keep  the  current  technical  measures.  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  introduced  as  a  permanent  measure  to  safeguard 
salmon (currently in place to safeguard harbour porpoises), while others would like to replace 
it by closed areas to protect salmon. Many also proposed additional measures, e.g. that fishing 
should  be  allowed  only  for  human  consumption  or  for  selling  within  the  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  suggested  a  ban  on  gear  that  does  not  allow  live 
releases. As regards the closed season, some contributors 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 the proposed  target of 75 %  of  the  potential production with a 
timeframe  up  to  2020.  Some  thought  it  was  too  ambitious,  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 contributors considered that river-specific targets 
should be set at regional 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,  argued  that  in  many  coastal  areas  only  reared 

36 

Longer 

MARE 
webpagehttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/governance/consultations/baltic_salmon/contributions_en.html 

summary 

found 

DG 

can 

on 

be 

50

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
salmon are caught, so there is no need 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  different  opinions  are  evenly  spread  between  Member  States, 
commercial and recreational fishermen and river interest groups. The two energy companies 
which  contributed  to  this  consultation  were  very  much  against  a  fin-clipping  programme, 
which  they  considered  labour-intensive  and  very  expensive,  and  raised  the  issue  of  the 
contradictory  and  controversial  benefits  of  the  programme  for  animal  welfare.  Many 
opponents of fin-clipping argued that released salmon are injured and usually do not survive 
in  the  long  run.  Some  in  the  pro-clipping  camp  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 were 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  mixed-stock  fishing  and  in  weak  rivers  and 
adjacent  areas  in  order  to  decrease  fishing  pressure  on  weak  populations.  In  the  opinion  of 
some  contributors,  the  rate  of  selective  fishing  of  reared  salmon  stocks  should  be  increased 
and/or  stocking  levels  should  be  adjusted  downwards  to  minimise  ecological  and  genetic 
interaction with wild stocks. 

Setting  genetic  targets  with  minimum  numbers  of  spawners  received  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  argued  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 recommendations 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 Directive. 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.  Many  stressed  the  need  for  funding  and  that  the 
specific measures should be decided at local and regional levels. There was concern that the 
EU  might  support  construction  of  hydro-power  plants  in  wild  salmon  rivers  with  the  aid  of 
other regional or renewable energy funds. 

- 

Implementing the plan 

Inclusion  of  specific  national/regional  implementation  plans  for  the  new  multiannual  plan 
received very strong support from the contributors.   

-  Monitoring 

There  was  strong  support  for  the  current  monitoring  system.  Some  contributors  mentioned 
that counting spawners could be very expensive and demanding, especially if it was of high 
enough  quality  to  distinguish  between  males,  females  and  grilse.  Many  said  that  all  river 

51

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
landings should be reported, that the index river 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  really  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 could 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 consultation meeting with stakeholders  

-  Most Member States did not support an overall TAC. Most participants agreed that the 
emphasis  of  the  plan  should  be  on  recovering  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 releases. There should be no 
restocking in rivers with wild salmon. There was no agreement on use of fin-clipping. 

-  There  was  strong  support  amongst  Member  States  for  regionalisation  of  the 

implementation phase.  

-  Most  participants  emphasised  that  the  plan  should  embrace  the  needs  of  both 

commercial and recreational fishermen.  

52

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex IV — Life cycle of Atlantic salmon 

53

 
 
 
 
Annex V — Map of salmon rivers in the Baltic region 

Map from the 1999 Salmon Action Plan with 89 Baltic salmon rivers 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 considered to have unsafe or unknown numbers of 
salmon.     

54

 
 
 
 
 
Annex VI – Table on profits in the commercial salmon fishery 

Finland

s
o
r
u
E

f
o

'

s
0
0
0
1

0
0
5
2

0
0
5
1

0
0
5

0
0
5
-

Sw eden

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Denmark

s
o
r
u
E

'

f
o
s
0
0
0
1

0
0
5
2

0
0
5
1

0
0
5

0
0
5
-

Poland

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Total

0
0
5
2

0
0
5
1

0
0
5

0
0
5
-

0
0
5
2

0
0
5
1

0
0
5

0
0
5
-

0
0
0
6

0
0
0
2

0

s
o
r
u
E

f
o

'

s
0
0
0
1

s
o
r
u
E

'

f
o
s
0
0
0
1

s
o
r
u
E

f

'

o
s
0
0
0
1

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

- 

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 compared with the country-by-
country profits4 

55