REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL First report on the implementation of the Multiannual Plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks
Date: 2020-09-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: Baltic Sea, authorised catch, catch by species, catch quota, common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, fishing area, fishing controls, sea fish, sea fishing

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 14.9.2020  COM(2020) 494 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL First report on the implementation of the Multiannual Plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks {SWD(2020) 171 final}  
 
 
CONCLUSIONS 

The  evolution  of  the  Baltic  Sea  marine  environment  and  the  fish  stocks  of  the  Baltic  Sea  is 
determined by long-term trends from long before the MAP came into effect in 2016. The roots 
and causes for how fisheries in the Baltic Sea have evolved go back many years. Fisheries 
had developed in a moderately positive way for many years. Yet today certain stocks, first and 
foremost  eastern  Baltic  cod,  are  threatened  by  collapse,  caused  by  influences  that  commenced 
long before 2016. While the MAP’s implementation has decreased fishing pressure since 2016, 
other mortality factors have become predominant for certain stocks. In the case of eastern Baltic 
cod,  for  instance,  scientists  consider  that  three  times  more  fish  die  due  to  environmental 
pressures than from actual fishing. 

The  consulted  stakeholders  and  Member  States  have  divergent  opinions  about  the  MAP. 
The Member States find it too early to evaluate the effects of the MAP, but see a potential for the 
MAP to become a more important instrument for fisheries management since it contains all the 
elements needed to reach the relevant objectives. The Baltic Sea Advisory Council (BSAC) and 
its  members  however  are  mostly  negative.  The  fishing  industry  would  favour  a  wider  use  of 
upper FMSY ranges for economic considerations. Past experience has however shown that fishing 
too  hard  on  stocks  that  are  not  in  a  good  shape  is  short-termism  and  leads  to  overfishing  and 
collapsing  fisheries.  NGOs  on  the  other  hand  see  upper  ranges  as  not  being  in  line  with  the 
maximum  sustainably  yield  (“MSY”).  The  Commission  disagrees  with  that  view,  as  the  entire 
range is in line with MSY which is a long-term economic concept agreed on by the co-legislators 
in 2014. 

The  Commission  considers  that  the  multi-annual  plan  for  the  Baltic  Sea1  has  proven  to  be  a 
helpful  tool  to  implement  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy2,  notably  for  setting  fishing 
opportunities. It provides transparent rules for regionally adapted fisheries management. For fish 
stocks with a data-rich (or MSY) assessment, the plan sets upper limits for annual total allowable 
catches (“TAC”), while enabling some flexibility for healthy stocks. For stocks under pressure, 
which  have  so  little  fish  in  the  sea  that  they  are  below  dangerous  minimum  levels,  the  plan 
creates a safety net. The safety net ensures that, for stocks under pressure, quotas are reduced to 
a minimum and additional remedial measures are taken to rebuild them.  

The Commission considers that the sustainable and sometimes difficult decisions taken by the 
Council for the Baltic stocks were made possible because of the framework put in place by the 
MAP  combining  a  safety  net  and  flexibilities.  Without  a  MAP  it  would  have  been  very 
difficult to agree on remedies to help stocks below the limit to recover, and quotas would have 
likely been set at a higher level. On the other hand, the MAP also allowed flexibility for healthy 
stocks by allowing to use the upper FMSY range to buffer severe reductions in quotas. The MAP 
has ensured that today all fisheries are either managed in line with MSY or that measures are put 

1  

2  

Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2016 establishing a 
multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those 
stocks (OJ L 191, 15.7.2016, p. 1). Hereafter “MAP”. 
Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the 
Common Fisheries Policy (OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22). Hereafter “CFP Basic Regulation”.  

1 

 
 
                                                            
 
in  place  to  bring  them  back  to  MSY;  delivering  the  basis  for  the  long-term  profitability  of  the 
fishing industry and ancillary sectors. 

The Commission therefore concludes that the MAP provides a stable long-term instrument to 
implement  the  CFP  in  the  Baltic  Sea,  offering  less  uncertainty  for  quota  setting,  ensuring 
remedial  measures  for  stocks  under  pressure,  making  the  quota  setting  process  more 
transparent  for  stakeholders  and  Member  States  and  allowing  the  fishing  industry  to  better 
plan their fisheries. 

2 

 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

The agreement in the inter-institutional Task Force on multi-annual plans between the European 
Parliament  and  the  Council  in  20143  paved  the  way  for  adopting  the  first  multiannual 
management  plan  in  2016  for  the  Baltic  Sea.  The  MAP  provides  that  the  Commission  shall 
report to the co-legislators on the results and impact of the MAP on the stocks and the fisheries 
exploiting those stocks, in particular as regards achieving the MAP’s objectives. This is the first 
such report.  

The MAP’s objectives are to: contribute to  achieving  the objectives  of the CFP; aim to  ensure 
that fishing restores and maintains fish stocks above levels which can produce MSY; contribute 
to eliminating discards by avoiding and reducing unwanted catches, and to the implementation of 
the  landing  obligation  for  the  relevant  species  as  well  as  to  implement  an  ecosystem-based 
approach  to  minimise  negative  effects  of  fishing  activities  on  the  environment.  The  task  force 
agreed and subsequently the co-legislators decided that the target fishing mortality was to be set 
as a range of values (with upper and lower limits), which are consistent with achieving MSY. It 
should be noted that the entire range is in line with MSY which is a long-term economic concept. 
The  MAP  has  transparent  rules  for  setting  fishing  opportunities  for  fish  stocks  with  an 
assessment for achieving MSY. It also  contains specific rules on control  and an empowerment 
for the Commission to adopt delegated acts regarding certain by-catch stocks, exemptions from 
the landing obligation and technical measures. 

The  MAP  covers  as  targeted  species  cod,  herring  and  sprat,  as  well  as  by-catches  of  plaice, 
flounder, turbot and brill.4 The target species represent about 95% of total catches in the Baltic 
Sea.5 The Council regulations on annual fishing opportunities in the Baltic Sea set annual TACs 
and national quotas for the target stocks, as well as for plaice and salmon. 

The MAP was first applied for the fishing season starting on 1 January 2017. Being the first of 
its kind, the Baltic MAP has been a model for the subsequent MAPs for the North Sea, Western 
Waters and Western Mediterranean. The experience gained from implementing the Baltic MAP 
was used for improving this MAP and for drafting the subsequent MAPs. 

This report is based on the latest ICES advice for the relevant stocks in the Baltic Sea6, an ad hoc 
special  advice  requested  from  ICES7,  the  analysis  made  by  the  Commission’s  Scientific, 
Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF)8 of the 2018 national reports on the 
landing obligation9, and information held by the Commission. Moreover, the Baltic Sea Member 

3 
4  
5  
6  
7  
8  

9  

Document 8529/14 Limité Pêche 117, Codec 1004 of 3. April 2014, Council of the European Union. 
For Baltic salmon the Commission proposed a multiannual plan in COM(2011) 470 final of 12.8.2011. 
ICES Advice 2019 – Baltic Sea Ecoregion Fisheries Overview of 2 September 2019, p. 5.  
Available under http://www.ices.dk/community/advisory-process/Pages/Latest-advice.aspx. 
ICES Advice 2019 – sr.2019.15 of 27 June 2019. 
Commission  Decision  2016/C  74/05  of  25  February  2016  establishing  a  Scientific,  Technical  and 
Economic Committee for Fisheries (OJ C 74, 26.2.2016, p. 4). 
STECF 60th plenary meeting report (PLEN-19-01), item 6.2, pp. 18-33; Ad hoc contract report “Evaluation 
of  Member  States’  Annual  Reports  on  the  Landing  Obligation  (for  2018),  March  2019”,  background 
document to the plenary meeting report. 

3 

 
 
                                                            
States group (BaltFish), BSAC and its members were consulted.10 This report therefore presents 
the  developments  in  the  relevant  areas  of  the  MAP’s  implementation  and  strives  to  draw 
conclusions  after  three  full  years  of  implementation  (2017-2019)  and  fishing  opportunities 
established under the MAP for four consecutive years (2017-2020). 

2.  DEVELOPMENTS IN RELEVANT AREAS 

The report focuses on the developments since 2016 in five main areas:  fishing levels, discards, 
the ecosystem-based approach, regional cooperation and socio-economic aspects. 

2.1. THE FISHING OPPORTUNITIES SET SINCE 2017 

Until  2019  an  MSY  assessment  was  available  for  seven  out  of  the  eight  stocks  –  such  an 
assessment  was  not  available  for  eastern  Baltic  cod.  In  2020  it  was  no  longer  available  for 
herring in the Gulf of Bothnia. 

In the four TAC setting exercises since the entry into force of the MAP in July 2016 a total of 32 
TACs  covered  by  the  MAP  had  to  be  set  out  of  which  24  were  straight  forward  cases  and  8 
require some additional elements of context.11 

Among the straight-forward 24 cases, the Commission proposed TACs at the FMSY point or in the 
FMSY  lower  range  in  23  cases.  In  one  case  (central  Baltic  herring  for  2019)  the  Commission 
proposed,  in  accordance  with  the  MAP,  a  TAC  at  the  FMSY  upper  point  which  the  Council 
followed. In the above-mentioned 24 cases the Council followed the Commission proposal in 16 
cases, in two cases it decided to set TACs below the Commission proposal (sprat for 2017 and 
central herring for 2018), in five cases it increased the TAC within the applicable FMSY ranges of 
the MAP (Gulf of Riga herring for 2017, western and Gulf of Bothnia herring for 2018, western 
cod for 2019 and sprat for 2020). In one final case concerning a by-catch species it increased the 
TAC above the precautionary advice (plaice for 2018), while for all other years the TAC was set 
in line with the combined MSY and precautionary advice.  

The 8 cases presenting a particular context are western cod for 2017 and 2018, western herring 
for 2019 and 2020, and eastern cod over the entire period. These are outlined below. 

2.1.1.  Western Cod 

It was known for years that important quantities of eastern cod occurred in area 24, which is part 
of the western cod management area. In 2015 ICES was able to quantify this phenomenon and 
provided management options. These options had direct implications on relative stability but the 
Baltic Sea Member States were unable to agree on a way forward. In both cases the Commission 
subsequently proposed a TAC at the FMSY point value (corresponding respectively to a 35% and 
88%  reduction  compared  to  the  TAC  of  the  previous  year)  based  on  the  occurrence  of  both 
eastern  and  western  cod  in  the  management  area.  The  Council  set  the  TAC  for  2017  by 
decreasing the TAC by 56% as compared to the 2016 TAC. For 2018 the Commission again took 

10  

11  

The questionnaire and replies are contained in the Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2020)XXX 
accompanying this report.  
A detailed table is provided in the Annex to the Staff Working Document accompanying this report.  

4 

 
 
                                                            
the  occurrence  of  the  two  cod  stocks  into  account  and  proposed  a  roll-over  of  the  2017  TAC, 
which the Council followed. Moreover, as the amount of fish in the sea has been below Btrigger 
for many years, the Commission proposed and the Council adopted spawning time closures and a 
bag  limit  for  recreational  fisheries.  Regarding  the  TAC  for  2019  it  should  be  noted  that  the 
scientific advice provided a very broad range (from +30% to almost +400%).  The Commission 
proposed the lower point value because scientific advice indicated that the stock relied on only 
one good year class; the Council set the TAC in the lower range at a 70% increase. For 2020, 
following ICES’ advice that the amount of fish in the one good year class had to be revised down 
by 54%, the Commission proposed to set the TAC at the lowest point value representing a 68% 
reduction compared to the 2019 TAC. The Council set the TAC in the lower range reducing it by 
60%. 

2.1.2.  Eastern Baltic cod 

There  was  no  MSY  assessment  for  eastern  Baltic  cod  during  the  period  covered  by  this  report 
and until 2019 ICES advised every year to reduce the TAC for eastern Baltic cod based on the 
precautionary advice. For 2017 the Commission proposed a TAC of -39% in line with the ICES 
advice on the occurrence of eastern Baltic cod in the distribution area. The Council set a TAC of 
-25% compared to the 2016 TAC. For 2018 the Commission took into account the occurrence of 
the stock in the distribution area and proposed a TAC reduction of 28% thereby setting the TAC 
slightly  above  the ICES advice.  Therefore, the Commission  proposed to roll  over the TAC for 
the western stock thereby setting it below the FMSY point value. The Council decreased the TAC 
for the eastern stock by 8% compared to the 2017 TAC. For 2019 the Commission proposed and 
the Council adopted a TAC corresponding to a 15% reduction compared to the 2018 TAC. The 
TACs  set  by  the  Council  for  the  three  years  were  all  above  the  level  advised  by  the  ICES 
precautionary advice.   

For  2020  the  ICES  advice  became  much  more  severe  with  a  first  time  0  catch  advice.  The 
Commission therefore looked for a proposal that took into account the reality of mixed fisheries 
in the Baltic Sea, where eastern Baltic cod is an unavoidable by-catch in most other fisheries. It 
hence proposed to close any targeted fishing for eastern Baltic cod and only allow a restrictive 
by-catch TAC of 2000t (i.e. -92% compared to the 2019 TAC). This restrictive by-catch TAC is 
to cover unavoidable by-catches of eastern cod in other fisheries so that they could continue their 
activity. This was coupled with remedial measures as required by the MAP, such as a spawning 
closure for all fleets catching eastern Baltic cod. The Council accepted the Commission proposal. 
Given the difficult situation of this stock the Commission proposed to amend the Baltic MAP to 
reinforce certain management measures and to offer operators to decommission their vessels and 
leave the sector for good.12 

2.1.3.  Western Baltic herring 

12  

Commission  proposal  COM(2019) 564  of  31 October 2019  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament 
and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 as regards the introduction of capacity limits for 
eastern  Baltic  cod,  data  collection  and  control  measures  in  the  Baltic  Sea,  and,  Regulation  (EU)  No 
508/2014 as regards permanent cessation for fleets fishing for eastern Baltic cod.  

5 

 
 
                                                            
The TAC for western Baltic herring was set in line with MSY for many years until 2018. In 2018 
ICES reassessed the stock and concluded that the stock’s biomass was below the dangerous limit 
level Blim. As no positive TAC would rebuild the stock above Blim in the next year, it issued a 0 
catch advice for 2019. The Commission looked for a balanced solution, while at the same time 
proposing  a  TAC  low  enough  to  help  rebuild  the  stock.  Using  the  rules  of  the  MAP,  the 
Commission for 2019 proposed a TAC decrease of 44% (i.e. the FMSY lower point) coupled with 
a  remedial  measure  as  required  under  the  MAP  of  an  additional  decrease  of  19%  points.  The 
Council in accordance with the MAP decreased the TAC by 48% as compared to the 2018 TAC. 
For 2020 the Commission proposed a TAC decrease of 42% (i.e. the FMSY lower point) coupled 
with a remedial measure of an additional decrease of 29% points. According to ICES this was to 
rebuild the stock above Blim by 2022. The Council in accordance with the MAP set the TAC at a 
level  corresponding  to  a  65%  decrease  as  compared  to  the  2019  TAC.  These  decisions 
demonstrate that Council took difficult albeit necessary decisions and these were made possible 
by the longer term recovery framework in the MAP combining restrictive TACs with additional 
remedial measures. 

2.1.4.  Summary 

In 2016 three out of the seven TACs for stocks with an MSY assessment were set in line with 
MSY advice – western and central Baltic herring, and plaice. From 2017 to 2019 six TACs were 
set in line with MSY every year – it was not the case for western Baltic cod in 2017, plaice in 
2018,  and  western  Baltic  herring  in  2019  as  the  latter  received  a  0-catch  advice,  because  the 
stock’s  biomass  was  below  safe  biological  limits.  A  fishery  receiving  a  0-catch  advice  is  by 
principle not in line with MSY and the priority is to rebuild the stock. Only once the stock has 
been rebuilt, the issue becomes again what TAC can be established in line with the ICES MSY 
advice and the MAP. For 2020 five TACs out of six TACs for stocks with an MSY assessment 
were set in line with MSY – it was not achieved for western herring as it received again a 0-catch 
advice. 

The consulted stakeholders expressed diverging opinions on the MAP’s role regarding the TAC 
setting.  According  to  the  national  administrations,  the  MAP  facilitated  the  process  while 
underlining  the  importance  of  analytical  stock  assessments  and  the  impact  of  year-to-year 
fluctuations  of  the  advised  TAC  levels  as  well  as  non-fisheries  related  factors.  According  to 
BSAC, the MAP has not satisfied anybody, some members even find it counterproductive. There 
are two lines of argumentation to substantiate this assessment  – for some the MAP is too rigid 
because  it  doesn’t  allow  sufficient  TAC  increases  in  certain  situations,  while  other  members 
argue that the MAP is too flexible and therefore didn’t ensure that all TACs were set at MSY by 
2020 at the latest. 

The  Commission  does  not  share  the  views  expressed  in  BSAC.  Looking  at  the  above,  it  is 
evident that the MAP made it easier to agree on the fishing opportunities and remedial measures, 
providing a clear set of rules both for the Commission to follow in its proposals as well as for the 
Council to adhere to in its decision making. By following the detailed rules set out in the MAP, 
decisions have been coherent and aligned with the CFP objectives and are producing results as 

6 

 
 
e.g.  western  cod  is  expected  to  have  recovered  in  2020  and  western  herring  is  on  the  path 
towards recovery. 

2.2. LANDING OBLIGATION AND DISCARDS 

One  of  the  key  objectives  of  the  reformed  CFP  is  to  implement  the  landing  obligation  and 
gradually eliminate discards by avoiding and reducing unwanted catches. The landing obligation 
applies to species managed by a TAC. In the Baltic Sea the landing obligation came into force on 
1st January 2015 for cod, herring, sprat and salmon, and on 1st January 2017 for plaice.  

The MAP contains in its Article 7 more detailed provisions linked to the implementation of the 
landing obligation. It empowers the Commission to adopt delegated acts on exemptions relating 
to  high  survivability  and  de  minimis,  on  specific  provisions  on  documentation,  and  on  fixing 
minimum  conservation  reference  sizes.13  Furthermore,  the  MAP  specifies  that  the  landing 
obligation does not apply to recreational fishing. 

ICES  estimates14  that  the  discard  practices  have  probably  hardly  changed  since  the  entry  into 
force of the landing obligation: discards of pelagic species continue to be negligible; for the other 
fisheries  the  officially  reported  discards  have  been  reduced  close  to  zero  but  illegal  discarding 
continues.  STEFC  in  its  evaluation  of  the  Member  States’  2018  annual  reports  on  the  landing 
obligation15  indicated  that  for  the  Baltic  Sea  relevant  regional  bodies  proactively  developed 
approaches  to  improve  the  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation.  However,  STECF  also 
stated that across sea basins quantitative data continued being too limited to enable it to estimate 
changes in the discard quantities. Furthermore, there were indications that the fishing industry’s 
operating  practices  when  at  sea  had  not  changed,  which  implied  that  a  reduction  of  discards 
seemed rather unlikely.  

The consulted stakeholders share ICES’ views on the ongoing discarding. They express the view 
that controls should be improved. Stakeholders correctly stress that such controls are within the 
remit  of  the  CFP’s  Control  Regulation  (EC)  No  1224/200916  rather  than  the  MAP.  Some 
stakeholders claim that a more frequent use of the upper FMSY range in setting TACs would have 
helped reduce discards, whereas NGOs do not want to use upper ranges at all. All respondents 
coincide in their assessment that the actual discard levels have remained fairly stable since the 
entry into force of the landing obligation. 

13  

14  

15  
16  

Art 15 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on 
the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures, 
amending  Council  Regulations  (EC)  No  1967/2006,  (EC)  No  1224/2009  and  Regulations  (EU)  No 
1380/2013,  (EU)  2016/1139,  (EU)  2018/973,  (EU)  2019/472  and  (EU)  2019/1022  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 850/98, (EC) 
No  2549/2000,  (EC) No  254/2002, (EC) No  812/2004  and  (EC) No  2187/2005 (OJ  L 198,  25.7.2019,  p. 
105) also contains an empowerment. 
Cf. footnote 5, p. 7-8; ICES Advice 2019 – Baltic Sea Ecoregion Ecosystem overview, 12 December 2019, 
p. 8. 
Cf. footnote 9. 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1224/2009  of  20  November  2009  establishing  a  Union  control  system  for 
ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1). 

7 

 
 
                                                            
The Commission considers that the continuing problem of discards is caused primarily by a lack 
of control and enforcement by Member State authorities and must be addressed within the EU’s 
fisheries control system. The Baltic Sea MAP was not designed to resolve that problem. 

2.3. ECOSYSTEM-BASED APPROACH 

The CFP Basic Regulation states in its Article 2(3) that the CFP has to implement the ecosystem-
based approach to fisheries management to reduce negative impacts of fishing activities on the 
marine ecosystem. Article 3(3) of the MAP provides that the MAP has to be coherent with EU 
environmental law and in particular with the objective of achieving good environmental status by 
2020  as  required  by  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  2008/56/EC  (hereafter 
“MSFD”).17  The  MSFD  provides  eleven  qualitative  descriptors  for  determining  good 
environmental  status.  The  MAP  aims  to  ensure  that  the  conditions  of  descriptor  3  (as  the  one 
most relevant for fisheries management) are fulfilled and to contribute to the fulfilment of other 
relevant descriptors in proportion to the relative role played by fisheries.   

Descriptor 3 is directly linked to the fixing of fishing opportunities. It reads “the populations of 
all  commercially  exploited  fish  and  shellfish  are  within  safe  biological  limits,  exhibiting  a 
population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock”. Fishing activities have 
an  impact  on  the  descriptors  relating  to  biological  diversity  (1),  the  food  web  (4),  sea-floor 
integrity (6) and marine litter (10). The contribution of fishing to the other descriptors is at best 
indirect and/or not substantial.18  

The impact that fishing activities have on the population of harbour porpoises in the Baltic Sea is 
a  cause  for  severe  concern.  Drowning  in  fishing  gear  is  considered  to  be  the  main  cause  of 
anthropogenic  mortality  for  these  mammals.  With  an  estimated  population  of  only  447 
individuals this population is today listed as critically endangered.19 The Commission considers 
that the Baltic Sea Member States have not taken sufficient action to protect those animals and 
will consider urgent measures that can be justified and are indicated by science. 

ICES confirms that the Baltic Sea ecosystem is undergoing a fundamental change and is not in 
balance.  Many  species  and  habitats  of  the  Baltic  Sea  are  not  in  good  environmental  status 
because of human influence on the marine environment.20 The five most important pressures on 
the  Baltic  Sea  are  nutrient  and  organic  enrichment,  fishing,  the  introduction  of  contaminating 
compounds, the introduction of non-indigenous species and abrasion and substrate loss.  

2.4. REGIONAL COOPERATION 

17  

18  

19  
20  

Directive  2008/56/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  June  2008  establishing  a 
framework  for  the  community  action  in  the  field  of  marine  environmental  policy  (OJ  164,  25.6.2008,  p. 
19). 
Introduction  of  non-indigenous  species  (2),  human-induced  eutrophication  (5),  hydrographical  conditions 
(7),  level  of  contaminants  in  the  sea  (8),  level  of  contaminants  in  fish  and  seafood  (9),  introduction  of 
energy including underwater noise (11). 
Cf. footnote 14 (Ecosystem overview), p. 18. 
Cf. footnote 7, p. 1; footnote 14 (Ecosystem overview), p. 3.  

8 

 
 
                                                            
In order to take better account of the differences between the various sea basins and to integrate 
stakeholders  more  into  fisheries  management,  in  2004  the  EU  introduced  Regional  Advisory 
Councils.21  BSAC  was  set  up  in  March  2006.  Its  main  aim  is  to  provide  advice  on  managing 
Baltic Sea fisheries. It consists of organisations representing fisheries and other interest groups 
recreational 
(e.g.  environmental  organisations, 
the  CFP 
affected  by 
fisheries organisations).22  

sports  and 

The  reform  of  the  CFP  in  2013  further  reinforced  this  regional  dimension  and  ownership  of 
fisheries  management.  The  role  and  function  of  the  Advisory  Councils  was  integrated  into  the 
CFP Basic Regulation23. Advisory Councils have to be consulted on certain matters, notably on 
Member States’ joint recommendations, and their advice is to be taken into account. Divergences 
in  the  measures  adopted  have  to  be  explained.  The  Commission  and  the  Member  States  may 
consult  the  Advisory  Council  on  any  measure,  and  the  Advisory  Councils  may  issue 
recommendations  on  and  inform  about  problems  relating  to  fisheries  management  and  socio-
economic and conservation aspects.  

A further aspect of strengthened regionalisation is that relevant Member States may submit joint 
recommendations on issues for which the Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts, i.e. 
for necessary conservation measures, technical measures and for discard plans. To that effect the 
Member  States  of  the  Baltic  Sea  set  up  in  late  2013  the  Baltic  Sea  Fisheries  Forum 
(“BaltFish”)24.  BaltFish’s  primary  goal  is  to  improve  coordination  and  cooperation  among  its 
Member States on fisheries management, and to develop cooperation with other key stakeholders 
in  the  region.  It  has  two  working  levels,  a  high-level  group  composed  of  the  Member  States’ 
fisheries  directors  with  Commission  officials  associated,  and  a  Forum  Seminar  composed  by 
representatives 
relevant 
intergovernmental organisations and other stakeholders.  

the  Commission,  BSAC,  and 

the  Member  States, 

from 

The consulted stakeholders are not convinced about the MAP’s added value as regards regional 
cooperation.  The  Member  States  consider  that  regional  cooperation  has  developed  positively 
while  stressing  that  notably  the  preparation  of  joint  recommendations  could  be  improved.  The 
idea  of  joint  recommendations  as  a  regionally  tailor-made  instrument  is  well  understood,  but 
their  preparation  often  requires  time-consuming  up-front  research.  Moreover,  the  adoption  of 
delegated  acts  also  takes  time  due  to  the  various  scientific  and  administrative  steps  in  the 
process. Finally, the scrutiny by the Council and the European Parliament are important steps in 
the process. The Member States point out that more formal structures for regional groups would 
be needed which the MAP doesn’t provide. This would explain why the stakeholders believe that 
the MAP has proven inadequate to advance regionalisation.  

21  

22  
23  

24  

Council  Decision  2004/585/EC  of  19  July  2004  establishing  Regional  Advisory  Councils  under  the 
Common Fisheries Policy (OJ L 256, 3.8.2004, p. 17).  
http://www.bsac.dk/BSAC/About-the-BSAC. 
Article  43-45  of  Regulation  (EU)  1380/2013.  Moreover,  more  detailed  rules  on  the  functioning  of  the 
Advisory Councils were set by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/242 of 9 October 2014 laying 
down detailed rules on the functioning of the Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ L 
41, 17.2.2015, p. 1). 
Memorandum of Understanding on the Principles and working methods of the Baltic Sea Fisheries Forum 
(BaltFish) of 13 December 2013, http://www.bsac.dk/BSAC-Resources/Documents-section/BALTFISH. 

9 

 
 
                                                            
BSAC shares the opinion that the MAP hasn’t enhanced regional cooperation. It notably deplores 
that BaltFish doesn’t spend enough time on issues not related to annual fishing opportunities. 

The  Commission  considers  that  the  MAP  provides  the  necessary  legal  framework  and  that  the 
Member  States  should  have  made  more  use  of  regionalisation  by  developing  more  joint 
proposals  and  by  consulting  with  the  Advisory  Councils  and  other  stakeholders  on  the  issues 
influencing  the  Baltic  Sea  over  the  past  years.  Key  issues,  such  as  a  more  sustainable 
management for eastern Baltic cod or  taking  real  measures to protect the critically endangered 
harbour porpoises have not been addressed collectively      

2.5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS 

Overall, Baltic fisheries have generated profits, though landings and their value have decreased, 
mostly  because  of  decreasing  prices  for  cod.  At  this  stage,  no  data  is  available  for  the 
development since 2018, but the environmental situation, the depleted eastern Baltic cod and the 
current public health situation certainly had a negative impact.  

The consulted stakeholders claim a negative correlation between the MAP’s implementation and 
the  socio-economic  development,  because  of  the  negative  evolution  of  the  stocks.  The  fishing 
sector  claims  that  the  MAP’s  major  failure  is  its  lack  of  socio-economic  considerations  and 
rigidity on TAC setting, as the sector believes that the conditions to use upper ranges should be 
less stringent so as to use upper ranges more often. NGOs on the other hand claim that the taking 
into account of socio-economic considerations in the TAC setting is not sufficiently documented, 
and that using upper FMSY ranges equals “overfishing”. They also feel that “overfishing” has led 
to negative socio-economic developments. The Member States stress that the upper range can be 
used for socio-economic reasons. 

The Commission is of the view that the MAP has been beneficial. The mixed development of the 
fish  stocks  and  of  the  fisheries  is  not  so  much  due  to  the  implementation  of  the  MAP  than  to 
causes that have been in place long before the MAP entered into effect, i.e. environmental factors 
and in particular unsustainable fishing, which over time have created real socio-economic harm 
with severe cost to the fishermen and women that depend on fisheries for their livelihood. Only 
sustainable  fishing  practices  and  an  appropriate  environmental  protection  can  ensure  lively 
fishing communities over time. That is what the legal framework of the MAP provides for. 

Finally  it  should  be  mentioned  that  the  EMFF  Regulation25  supports  the  CFP  objectives  and 
hence  also  the  implementation  of  the  MAP.  In  this  context,  Member  States  use  the  EMFF  in 
particular  to  support  the  development  of  more  selective  fishing,  to  co-finance  fisheries  control 
and  enforcement  activities  and  to  reduce  the  socio-economic  impact  on  fishermen  of  some 
conservation measures. Based on Member States’ reporting, the Commission provides a yearly 
report on EMFF implementation.26 

25  

26  

Regulation (EU) 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the European 
Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2328/2003, (EC) No 861/2006, 
(EC) No 1198/2006 and (EC) No 791/2007 and Regulation (EU) No 1255/2011 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council (OJ L 149, 20.5.2014, p. 1). 
For 
implementation-report_en.pdf. 

report,  see  https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/2019-11-26-emff-

latest  draft 

the 

10