REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Second 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, and on the delegation of powers conferred to the Commission by this Mutliannual Plan
Date: 2024-09-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: Baltic Sea, European Commission, catch by species, catch quota, conservation of fish stocks, fishing area, fishing regulations, sea fish, sea fishing, transfer of competence

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 4.9.2024  COM(2024) 703 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Second 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, and on the delegation of powers conferred to the Commission by this Mutliannual Plan  {SWD(2024) 703 final}  
 
 
CONCLUSIONS 

Both the Baltic Sea marine environment and the fish stocks of the Baltic Sea have continued to 
deteriorate since the first report.1 The implementation of the multiannual plan for the Baltic Sea 
(hereinafter  the  ‘MAP’)2  has  contributed  to  a  decrease  in  fishing  pressure.  Nevertheless, 
according  to  the  International  Council  for  the  Exploration  of  the  Sea  (ICES),  mortality  factors 
other  than  fishing  have  become  predominant  for  certain  stocks,  most  notably  for  the  two  cod 
stocks which continue to be at historically low biomass levels. Several herring stocks are also in 
a problematic state.  

The  overall  assessment  by  the  consulted  stakeholders  and  Member  States  shows  divergent 
opinions about the MAP. The Baltic Sea Advisory Council (BSAC)3 sees value in the MAP but 
is disappointed about the results. Industry is mostly negative on the MAP although some have a 
neutral view. The NGOs are split between negative and positive views, like the three responding 
Member States. 

The  Commission  continues  to  consider  that  the  MAP  has  proven  to  be  a  helpful  tool  to 
implement the  common  fisheries policy  (CFP)4, notably  for setting  fishing  opportunities.  As 
mentioned  in  the  first  report,  the  MAP  provides  rules  for  regionally  adapted  fisheries 
management.  For  fish  stocks  with  a  data-rich  (or  maximum  sustainable  yield  (MSY)) 
assessment,  the  MAP  allows  for  the  use  of  upper  limits  when  setting  total  allowable  catches 
(TACs),  while  enabling  flexibility  for  healthier  stocks.  For  stocks  whose  biomass  is  below 
minimum  levels,  the  MAP  creates  a  safety  net.  The  safety  net  ensures  that,  for  these  stocks, 
quotas  are  reduced  as  much  as  possible  and  additional  remedial  measures  are  taken  to  rebuild 
them.  

The Commission considers that certain difficult decisions taken by the Council on the Baltic 
stocks were made possible thanks to the framework put in place by the MAP, which combines 
both a safety net and flexibilities. Without a MAP it may have been difficult for the Council to 
agree  on  remedies  to  help  weak  stocks  to  recover,  and  quotas  would  likely  have  been  set  at  a 
higher level. On the other hand, the MAP also allowed flexibility for healthier stocks by allowing 
to  use  the  upper  FMSY  range  under  certain  conditions.  The  MAP  has  ensured  that  today  all 
fisheries are either managed in line with MSY or that subject to measures to bring them back to 
MSY. Healthy stocks are the only basis for the long-term profitability of the fishing industry and 
ancillary sectors.  

However, despite setting the TACs at or below FMSY at the moment of setting them, the size of 
many fish stocks has decreased and their age-size structure deteriorated. This has had a negative 

1  
2  

3  
4  

COM(2020)494 final of 14.9.2020. 
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). 
http://www.bsac.dk/BSAC/About-the-BSAC. 
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).  

1 

 
 
 
 
impact  on  the  related  fisheries.  Moreover,  it  has  become  increasingly  challenging  to  apply  the 
rules  of the MAP  and strive  to  manage all stocks  at  FMSY in  a mixed fisheries  context with  an 
increasing number of weak stocks. The deterioration of fish stocks has occurred in the context of 
the Baltic Sea ecosystem undergoing a fundamental change and not being in balance. In addition, 
there are indications of substantial misreporting of catches of pelagic species, which might both: 
(i) weaken the accuracy and reliability of the assessments of pelagic stocks; and (ii) contribute to 
overfishing. Finally, Russia sets its TACs autonomously which are not in line with MSY and do 
not respect the best available scientific advice.  

The Commission nevertheless continues to conclude that the MAP provides a stable long-term 
instrument to implement the CFP in the Baltic Sea. The MAP: (i) offers less uncertainty for 
quota  setting;  (ii)  allows  the  adoption  of  remedial  measures  for  stocks  under  pressure 
(including  in  the  case  of  a  fishing  closure);  (iii)  makes  the  quota-setting  process  more 
transparent for stakeholders and Member States; and (iv) allows the fishing industry to better 
plan its fisheries. 

2 

 
 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

The MAP requires the Commission to report to the European Parliament and the Council on the 
results  and  impact  of  the  MAP  on  the  stocks  and  the  fisheries  exploiting  those  stocks,  in 
particular  as  regards  achieving  its  objectives.  The  first  report  was  published  in  2020,  and  this 
second report focuses on relevant developments since then. It also covers the reporting obligation 
pursuant to Article 16(2) of the MAP on the delegation of powers conferred to the Commission. 

The MAP’s objectives  are to:  (i) contribute to  achieving the objectives  of the CFP; (ii)  aim to 
ensure that fishing restores and maintains fish stocks above levels which can produce MSY; (iii) 
contribute  to  eliminating  discards  by  avoiding  and  reducing  unwanted  catches,  and  to  the 
implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  for  the  relevant  species;  and  (v)  implement  an 
ecosystem-based  approach  to  minimise  the  negative  effects  of  fishing  activities  on  the 
environment. The MAP has rules for setting fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks with an 
MSY  assessment.  It  also  contains  specific  rules  on  control  and  empowers  the  Commission  to 
adopt delegated acts on: (i) certain by-catch stocks; (ii) exemptions from the landing obligation; 
and (iii) some technical measures. 

The  MAP  covers:  (i)  cod,  herring  and  sprat  as  target  species;  and  (ii)  by-catches  of  plaice, 
flounder, turbot and brill.5 The target species represent about 95% of total catches in the Baltic 
Sea.6  The  annual  Council  regulations  on  fishing  opportunities  in  the  Baltic  Sea  set  TACs  and 
quotas for the target stocks, as well as for plaice and salmon. 

This report is based on (i) the latest ICES advice for the relevant stocks in the Baltic Sea7; (ii) its 
ecosystem8  and  fisheries9  overviews;  (iii)  the  analysis  made  by  the  Commission’s  Scientific, 
Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) of the 2021 national reports on both 
the landing obligation10 and the 2023 Annual Economic Report11; and (iv) information held by 
the  Commission.  Moreover,  the  Baltic  Sea  Member  States  group12,  the  BSAC  and  their 

5  

6  

7  
8  

9  
10  

11  
12  

For  Baltic  salmon,  the  Commission  proposed  (COM(2011)  470  final  of  12.8.2011)  and  then  withdrew  a 
multiannual  plan  (2020/C  321/03,  OJC  321,  29.9.2020,  p.  37)  following  a  negative  assessment  by  ICES 
(ICES Advice 2020 – sr.2020.02 (https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.6008). 
ICES  Advice  2022  –  Baltic  Sea  Ecoregion  Fisheries  Overview,  version  2  of  6  February  2023,  p.  5 
(https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.21646934).  
https://www.ices.dk/advice/Pages/Latest-Advice.aspx. 
ICES  Advice  2022  –  Baltic  Sea  Ecoregion  Ecosystem  Overview  of  15  December  2022 
(https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.21725438).  
Cf. footnote 6. 
STECF 69th plenary meeting report (PLEN-22-01), item 6.1, pp. 16-31; Ad hoc contract report ‘Evaluation 
of  Member  States’  Annual  Reports  on  the  Landing  Obligation  (for  2021),  March  2022’,  background 
document to the plenary meeting report. 
STECF 23-07, The Annual Economic Report of the EU Fishing Fleet. 
Memorandum of Understanding on the Principles and working methods of the Baltic Sea Fisheries Forum 
of  13  December  2013,  http://www.bsac.dk/BSAC-Resources/Documents-section/BALTFISH,  hereafter 
‘BaltFish’. 

3 

 
 
 
respective  members  were  consulted.13  Finally, 
implementation of the Technical Measures Regulation (EU) 2019/124115 were also considered.  

the  first  and  second  report14  on 

the 

2.  DEVELOPMENTS IN RELEVANT AREAS 

This report presents developments in the implementation of the MAP since 2020 in the following 
five  areas:  fishing  levels,  discards,  the  ecosystem-based  approach,  regional  cooperation,  and 
socio-economic aspects.  

2.1. THE FISHING OPPORTUNITIES SET SINCE 2020 

Since 2014 an MSY assessment has not been available for eastern Baltic cod; or for herring in 
the Gulf of Bothnia when setting the TAC for 2021, or for western cod for 2024. 

In the four TAC-setting exercises for the fishing years 2021 to 2024, a total of 32 TACs covered 
by the MAP had to be set. Of these, 18 cases don’t require specific comments while 14 do.16 

For the first set of 18 cases, the Commission proposed TACs at  or below the FMSY point in 17 
cases.  Because  both  cod  stocks  are  in  a  dire  situation  and  are  an  unavoidable  by-catch  in  the 
flatfish fisheries, the Commission systematically proposed plaice TACs in the FMSY lower range, 
for  2024  even  below  the  ICES  advice.  For  Gulf  of  Riga  herring  for  2024,  the  Commission 
proposed, in accordance with the MAP and given its proposal to close the targeted fisheries for 
central Baltic herring, a TAC which the Commission considered to be in the FMSY upper range. 
Out of the above-mentioned 18 cases, the Council followed the Commission proposal in 9 cases. 
In the other 9 cases it increased the TAC within the applicable FMSY ranges of the MAP (central 
Baltic herring for 2022 and 2023, Gulf of Riga herring for 202417, plaice for 2021 and 2022, and 
sprat in every year). 

The 14 cases presenting a particular context are western Baltic herring and both cod stocks over 
the entire period, and Bothnian and central Baltic herring for 2024.  

2.1.1.  Western Baltic herring 

Since 2018, ICES estimates that the spawning stock biomass of the western Baltic herring stock 
is  below  the  reference  point  Blim,  which  is  the  lowest  safety  point  below  which  the  stock  may 

13  

14  
15  

16  
17  

The  questionnaire  and  replies  are  contained  in  the  Commission  staff  working  document  SWD(2024)703 
accompanying this report.  
COM(2021) 583 final of 23.9.2021 and COM(2024) 349 final of 30.7.2024.  
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). 
A detailed table is provided in the Annex to the staff working document accompanying this report.  
As  the  Council  decided  to  keep  the  targeted  fishery  for  central  herring  open,  the  question  about  the 
calculation methodology for this TAC became irrelevant.  

4 

 
 
 
struggle recovering in a timely way, and below which its reproductive capacity may be reduced 
such that it  will  not recover above that level  in  the following year.  ICES  has  hence advised to 
stop all fishing of western Baltic herring. The TAC was reduced substantially in 2019 and 2020 
(in  total -82%  compared  with  the 2018 TAC). Given that the biomass  was only  about  half the 
minimum reference value, the Commission proposed for 2021 to halve the level of the TAC, to 
which the Council agreed. Because the situation hardly improved, the Commission proposed for 
2022  to  close  the  targeted  fisheries  and  to  set  a  lower  TAC  (50%  of  the  2021  TAC)  for 
unavoidable by-catches in other fisheries. The Council agreed while introducing a derogation for 
certain small-scale coastal fishers. For 2023, the Council agreed on the proposed roll-over of the 
2022  rules.  For  2024,  given  the  critical  state  of  the  stock,  the  Commission  proposed  to 
discontinue the derogation for small-scale fishers and set a lower by-catch TAC. However, the 
Council decided on a full roll-over, thus keeping the derogation. 

2.1.2.  Eastern Baltic cod 

Since 2019, ICES has estimated that the biomass of the eastern Baltic cod stock is below Blim and 
therefore  advised  to  stop  all  fishing  of  eastern  Baltic  cod.  Since  the  fishing  year  2020,  the 
Council  has  agreed  to  close  the  targeted  fisheries  for  eastern  Baltic  cod.  The  TAC  for 
unavoidable by-catches in other fisheries has also remained unchanged since 2021 at 595 tonnes. 
Moreover, recreational angling in the main distribution area has been prohibited, and there has 
been  a  4-month  summer  spawning  closure  with  a  derogation  for  certain  small-scale  coastal 
fishers,  extended  by  the  Council  since  2021  to  certain  pelagic  fisheries.  Given  this  severe 
situation, the MAP and the former European Maritime and Fisheries Fund were amended in 2020 
to  strengthen  certain  management  measures  and  to  offer  operators  to  decommission  their 
vessels.18 

2.1.3.  Western Baltic cod 

Since  2020,  western  Baltic  cod  has  been  characterised  by  increasing  uncertainty  of  the  stock 
assessment.  This  finally  resulted  in  the  downgrading  of  the  advice  for  2024.  Moreover,  since 
2021  ICES  has  no  longer  been  in  a  position  to  provide  separate  advice  for  commercial  and 
recreational catches.  

For  2021,  the  Commission  proposed  a  TAC  (-11%)  in  the  lower  FMSY  range  because  (i)  the 
spawning stock biomass was estimated to not yet have recovered above the reference point MSY 
Btrigger, which is a safety point below which appropriate management action has to be taken; and 
(ii) to avoid the relocation to subdivisions 22-23 of the fishing effort of subdivision 24, where a 
summer spawning closure of the targeted cod fishing was introduced due to the high abundance 
of  eastern  Baltic  cod  in  that  area.  The  Commission  also  proposed  to  keep  unchanged  the 
recreational bag limit and the spring spawning closure in subdivisions 22-23, and to prolong the 

18  

Regulation  (EU)  2020/1781  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  November  2020 
amending  Regulation  (EU)  2016/1139  as  regards  fishing  capacity  reduction  in  the  Baltic  Sea,  and 
Regulation  (EU)  No  508/2014  as  regards  permanent  cessation  of  fishing  activities  for  fleets  fishing  for 
eastern Baltic cod, western Baltic cod and western Baltic herring (OJ L 400, 30.11.2020, p. 1). 

5 

 
 
 
summer  spawning  closure  in  subdivision  24  by  2  months  so  as  to  align  it  with  the  summer 
spawning closure in subdivisions 25-26. The Council agreed but increased the TAC by +5% (4 
000 tonnes), extended the summer spawning closure in subdivision 24 only by one month, and 
introduced  a  derogation  from  the  spawning  closures  in  subdivisions  22-24  for  certain  pelagic 
fisheries. 

For 2022, and ever since, ICES has estimated that the stock size had actually been below Blim for 
over 10 years. ICES therefore reduced its catch advice. In addition, ICES was no longer able to 
provide  separate  advice  on  commercial  and  recreational  catches.  The  Commission  proposed  to 
close the targeted fisheries for western Baltic cod and to set a lower TAC (-92%) for unavoidable 
by-catches in other fisheries. Furthermore, it proposed to: (i) add 2 weeks to the spring spawning 
closure; (ii) also apply it to recreational anglers; (iii) reduce the recreational bag limit outside this 
closure  to  one  cod  per  day;  and  (iv)  prohibit  certain  recreational  catch-and-release  techniques. 
The  Council  followed  the  Commission  but  limited  the  TAC  decrease  to  -88%  (489  tonnes), 
extended  the  derogation  from  the  spring  spawning  closure  to  certain  dredges  for  bivalve 
molluscs, and did not regulate recreational catch-and-release techniques.  

For  2023,  ICES  increased  its  catch  advice  while  estimating  that  the  stock’s  biomass  was  at  a 
historic  low  and  highlighting  that  its  short-term  forecast  was  highly  uncertain.  The  Council 
agreed to the proposed full roll-over of the 2022 TAC and accompanying measures.  

For 2024, ICES downgraded its advice to precautionary advice. The catch advice was for only 24 
tonnes,  which  was  not  enough  to  cover  the  by-catches  of  other  fisheries.  The  Commission 
proposed  to  prohibit  all  recreational  angling  of  cod  and  to  decrease  the  by-catch  TAC  (-72%). 
The Council agreed with the prohibition but limited the TAC decrease to -30% (136 tonnes). 

2.1.4.  Bothnian and central Baltic herring for 2024 

For 2024, ICES estimated that the biomass of Bothnian herring had fallen below Btrigger and that 
of central Baltic herring even below Blim. Moreover, ICES stated that, even with no catches, the 
probability for the biomass of both stocks to fall/remain below Blim was greater than 5%. Based 
on  Article  4(6)  of  the  MAP,  the  Commission  proposed  to  close  the  targeted  fisheries  for  both 
stocks and to set  a TAC for unavoidable by-catches  in  other fisheries. The Council decided to 
keep the targeted fisheries open, to set the TAC in the lower FMSY range (respectively -31% and -
43%),  and  to  introduce  a  1-month  spawning  closure  for  fisheries  using  pelagic  trawls  in  the 
central Baltic herring management area.  

2.1.5.  Summary 

Over the entire period, the TACs for the stocks which have an MSY assessment (i.e. all stocks 
except western cod for 2024, and eastern cod) were set in line with FMSY at the moment of setting 
the  TAC,  except  for  western  herring.  However,  the  related  catch  volumes  have  almost  halved 
since 2017, and certain fisheries have been closed since 2020 (eastern cod) or 2022 (western cod 
and western herring). 

6 

 
 
The BSAC and its members express the same negative opinions on the MAP’s role regarding the 
TAC setting as in the first report. Two members express concerns that the MSY reference points 
are incorrect and/or too low. The three responding Member States are split between positive and 
negative assessments. In addition, some point out that (i) non-fisheries related aspects seem to be 
given  insufficient  consideration  in  the  MSY  approach;  (ii)  inter-species  relations  should  be 
considered; and (iii) more flexibility would be needed. 

The Commission remains of the view that without the MAP it would have been more difficult to 
agree on TACs which are coherent and in line with the CFP’s objectives. 

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  1 January 2015  for  cod,  herring,  sprat  and  salmon,  and  on  1 January 2017  for  plaice.  To 
facilitate its implementation, Article 7 of the MAP empowers the Commission to adopt delegated 
acts on certain exemptions. In November 2020, a legal base was added in the MAP for adopting 
high-survivability exemptions for Baltic salmon.19  

ICES estimates20 that discard practices have not changed much since the landing obligation came 
into effect. Discards of pelagic species continue to be very low, and officially reported discards 
for the other fisheries have been reduced substantially although illegal discarding continues. In 
its  evaluation  of  the  Member  States’  2021  annual  reports  on  the  landing  obligation21,  STEFC 
indicated  that  implementation  in  general  continued  to  be  weak  and  that  the  risk  of  non-
compliance  in  2021  remained  high  or  very  high  for  several  fisheries  in  the  Baltic  Sea.  To  be 
noted that the derogation from the general ‘margin of tolerance’ rule laid down by Article 13 of 
the MAP for unsorted landings will be phased out by January 2028.22  

The  consulted  stakeholders  expressing  an  opinion  have  diverging  views  on  discarding.  One 
responding Member State has no opinion, and the other two and some industry members do not 
consider this to be an issue. Other parts of the industry and NGOs share the view of ICES and 
STECF. Almost all consulted stakeholders are of the view that the MAP has not helped to reduce 
discards, and that the MAP does not make it possible to take into account the situation of mixed 
fisheries. The BSAC adds that discarding practices have not been properly controlled. 

The  Commission  remains  of  the  view  that  the  continuing  problem  of  discards  is  primarily  a 
control and enforcement issue to be addressed within the EU’s fisheries control system.  

19  
20  
21  
22  

Regulation (EU) 2020/1781, Article 1(1); cf. footnote 18. 
Cf. footnote 6, p. 8, and footnote 8, p. 8. 
Cf. footnote 10. 
Regulation  (EU)  2023/2842  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  22  November  2023 
amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 and amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1967/2006 
and  (EC)  No  1005/2008  and  Regulations  (EU)  2016/1139,  (EU)  2017/2403  and  (EU)  2019/473  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council as regards fisheries control (OJ L, 2023/2842, 20.12.2023). 

7 

 
 
 
2.3. ECOSYSTEM-BASED APPROACH 

According to Article 2(3) of the CFP Basic Regulation, 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  states  that  the  MAP  must  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 (MSFD).23  

The MSFD provides  11  qualitative descriptors for determining  good  environmental status.  The 
MAP  aims  to  ensure  that  the  conditions  of  descriptor  3  (the  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.24 Descriptor 3 is directly linked to the fixing of 
fishing  opportunities.25  Its  first  criterion  relates  to  fishing  pressure,  the  second  one  to  biomass 
and  the  third  one  to  the  age-size  distribution.  The  first  two  criteria  are  covered  by  the  TAC-
setting rules of the MAP. On the third criterion, ICES published special advice in February 2024 
which identifies indicators but could not provide thresholds nor suggest management options.26 

The impact that fishing activities have on the population of harbour porpoises in the Baltic Sea, 
which  is  listed  as  critically  endangered27,  continues  to  be  a  cause  for  concern.  Following  two 
joint recommendations from BaltFish legislation was adopted28 to protect harbour porpoises, but 
the Commission considers that additional action is required. 

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.29 The five most significant pressures on 
the  Baltic  Sea  are:  (i)  nutrient  and  organic  enrichment;  (ii)  fishing;  (iii)  the  introduction  of 
contaminating compounds; (iv) the introduction of non-indigenous species; and (v) abrasion and 
substrate loss.  

The consulted stakeholders consider, although often for very different reasons, that the MAP has 
not  contributed  to  –  or  has  even  been  counterproductive  for  –  the  implementation  of  the 

23  

24  

25  

26  
27  
28  

29  

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). 
Fishing activities also 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:  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). 
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.’ 
ICES Advice 2024 – sr.2024.01 (https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.25265284). 
Cf. footnote 8, p. 19. 
Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2022/303  of  15  December  2021  amending  Regulation  (EU) 
2019/1241 as regards measures to reduce incidental catches of the resident population of the Baltic Proper 
harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the Baltic Sea (OJ L 46, 25.2.2022, p. 67). 
Cf. footnote 6, p. 1, and footnote 8, p. 3. 

8 

 
 
 
ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. However, some stress that the MAP has the 
potential to do so if it was (properly) implemented. All stakeholders agree that the ecosystem has 
a significant impact on fish stocks. 

2.4. REGIONAL COOPERATION 

As set out in the first report, the main tools of regionalisation under the current CFP are: (i) the 
institutionalised regional advisory councils, which must be consulted on various topics and may 
adopt  recommendations  on  any  topic;  and  (ii)  the  adoption  by  the  relevant  Member  States  of 
joint recommendations for the Commission to adopt delegated acts.  

The  consulted  stakeholders  continue  to  be  unconvinced  of  the  MAP’s  added  value  in 
strengthening regional cooperation, except for 2 of the 3 responding Member States. The BSAC 
notably mentions a lack of resources. 

The Commission continues to consider that the MAP provides the necessary legal framework for 
strengthened  regional  cooperation  notably  via  joint  proposals  and  consulting  with  the  advisory 
councils and other stakeholders on issues influencing the Baltic Sea. For example, BaltFish could 
have more detailed discussions with the stakeholders when preparing joint recommendations. 

To be noted that the stocks of cod, central herring, sprat and salmon are shared with Russia. The 
EU and Russia agreed in 2009 to cooperate in the field of fish-stock management through a joint 
committee.30  This  committee  has  not  met  since  2019  due  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and 
Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine. Each party sets its TACs 
autonomously, since it has not been possible to agree on a sharing arrangement. The EU applies 
the  shares  of  the  former  International  Baltic  Sea  Fishery  Commission31  while  Russia  has  been 
setting  its  TACs  much  higher  for  many  years.  Furthermore,  contrary  to  ICES  advice,  Russia 
continues to target cod, albeit at lower levels than in the past, and has hardly lowered its TAC for 
central Baltic herring. Russia has not sent any data to ICES since 2022.  

2.5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS 

Overall,  Baltic  fisheries  have  been  profitable  over  the  period  2013-2021.  Nevertheless,  during 
this  period  a  number  of  Baltic  fleet  segments  –  particularly  small-scale  coastal  fleets  –  were 
unable to cover operational costs and most socio-economic indicators tended to decrease, often 
substantially.32  Data  on  developments  since  2021  have  not  yet  been  reported,  but  the 
environmental situation, the fact that only the stocks of plaice and Riga herring are doing well, 
and the various negative repercussions of Russia’s continued war of aggression against Ukraine 
have certainly had a negative impact.  

30  

31  
32 

Agreement  between  the  European  Community  and  the  Government  of  the  Russian  Federation  on 
cooperation in fisheries and the  conservation of the  living marine resources in the Baltic Sea  (OJ L 129, 
28.5.2009, p.2), notably article 14. 
This was the regional fisheries management organisation for the Baltic Sea fish stocks. 
Cf. footnote 11, pp 103-109, 112-115. It should be noted that the report covers all fisheries, not only the 
fisheries on the stocks covered by the MAP, which however represent about 95% of all catches in the Baltic 
Sea. 

9 

 
 
 
With the exception of one respondent, the stakeholders agree that socio-economic developments 
have  been  negative,  although  with  significant  differences  between  sectors  according  to  most 
respondents.  The  BSAC and its  members continue to  claim  that there is  a causal  link with  the 
MAP because of the negative evolution of the stocks for which the MAP is blamed. The three 
responding Member States do not identify such a causal link. 

The Commission remains of the view that the decline in fish stocks and fisheries is not due to the 
implementation  of  the  MAP  but  to  changes  in  the  wider  ecosystem.  ICES  refers  to  ongoing 
species  misreporting  which  could  also  have  negative  effects.  Only  a  healthy  ecosystem  and 
sustainable fishing can ensure thriving fishing communities in the long term.  

3.  DELEGATION OF POWERS CONFERRED TO THE COMMISSION BY THE MAP  

The  MAP  delegates  to  the  Commission  the  power  to  adopt  delegated  acts  for  conservation 
measures  for  by-catch  species  (Article  6),  the  landing  obligation  (Article  7)  and  technical 
measures (Article 8) insofar as they are not covered by the Technical Measures Regulation.  

The empowerment of Article 6 has never been used. During the reporting period, Article 7 was 
used  twice  to  keep  a  high-survivability  exemption  for  Baltic  salmon;33  Article  8  has  not  been 
used, because its substance has mostly been superseded since August 2019 by the empowerment 
conferred  by  the  more  specific  Technical  Measures  Regulation.  Finally,  to  be  noted  that  the 
Member States concerned have so far not provided the information required to reevaluate by the 
end of 2020 an exemption granted for plaice.34 

33  

34  

Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2021/1417  of  22  June  2021  supplementing  Regulation  (EU) 
2016/1139 concerning the specifications for the landing obligation as  regards salmon in the Baltic Sea for 
the period 2021-2023 (OJ L 305, 31.8.2021, p. 3); Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/1296 of 
28  February  2024  supplementing  Regulation  (EU)  2016/1139  concerning  an  exemption  from  the 
application of the landing obligation as regards salmon in the Baltic Sea for the period 2024-2026 (OJ L 
2024/1296, 7.5.2024). 
Article  6  of  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2018/306  of  18  December  2017  laying  down 
specifications  for  the  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  as  regards  cod  and  plaice  in  Baltic  Sea 
fisheries (OJ L 60, 2.3.2018, p. 1). 

10