In particular, fishers are still not finding enough large herring in the Gulf of Bothnia to supply the industries producing the iconic regional delicacy, fermented herring (surströmming).

The decline of the herring – a keystone species in the Baltic ecosystem, as well as a culturally and economically important catch – has led to a number of other interesting questions being raised. In particular, Sweden’s leading morning daily has had a series of articles delving deeper into marine fisheries issues. Examples include reports of rampant misreporting of species in the herring and sprat fisheries, highlighting the dominance of industrial herring fishing for fish meal, the impact of industrial fishing on small-scale or coastal fishers, the negative consequences of the introduction of individual transferable quotas (ITQ) for pelagic fisheries such as herring, the role of fisheries lobbyists and revolving doors and the amount of subsidies such as exemption from normal fuel taxes.

Broad support for action

There is broad public support for stronger measures to protect the Baltic herring, and in particular reducing or banning industrial trawling. A number of political parties inside and outside of the government have expressed interest in banning industrial trawling within the 12 nautical mile zone from the Swedish coast. But there are different opinions on whether the EU basic regulation on the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) would allow such a ban could be enforced on vessels from Finland and Denmark. (More technically, if Article 20 would take precedence over Annex I point 12 or not.)

In Sweden, an increasing number of voices have also spoken out in favour of a more general ban on industrial trawling in the Baltic. Here it is even more apparent that action on the EU level is needed.

Rare opportunity to protect threatened fish stocks

At the Stockholm University Baltic Sea Centre we have identified an opportunity for the Swedish government to act in a way that is completely compatible with the CFP. The government could simply state in a public way that Article 4.6 of the Multiannual Plan (MAP) for Baltic fisheries of herring, cod and sprat should be implemented as written: Fishing opportunities shall in any event be fixed in such a way as to ensure that there is less than a 5 % probability of the spawning stock biomass falling below B lim.

The Baltic MAP was adopted in 2016, the first multiannual plan to be adopted after the CFP reform 2013 and a template for the other plans. Other EU multiannual management plans for fisheries include similar provisions.

Article 4.6 can be seen as a safeguard. If there is too high of a probability that the stock will fall below the limit value of the spawning stock biomass (Blim) the fishery should be closed.

In their latest assessment, scientists at the International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES) have estimated that even if there is no fishing at all for herring in the Gulf of Bothnia next year, there will be too high a probability of the stock falling below the limit value. If that happens, the stock may be permanently damaged or the fishery may even collapse.

However, ICES has also advised that catches that correspond with the fisheries mortality ranges in the plan are between 48 824 and 63 049 tonnes.

Contradictory messages from experts

These two messages, on the surface contradictory, might be the result of a compromise between different approaches within ICES. It has happened before that ICES advice has contained contradictory messages. And a member of ICES Advisory Committee has explained on camera in a German television documentary that political aspects have been taken into consideration in preparation of a decision on advice, instead of purely scientific arguments.

But, as we wrote in June, ICES places the responsibility for implementing the MAP in the European Commission and the Member States. When the Commission makes its proposal for Baltic total allowable catches for 2024, expected to be in late August, it will show its cards. Will it play the role of the Guardian of the Treaty, take on a role of a Maker of Deals – or kick the can to a later date? This is where signals from Member States, in particular those that actually fish for herring in the Baltic, in particular the Gulf of Bothnia, can be influential.

At the fisheries council in October it will ultimately be up to the Member States ministers. They will have to decide if they will abide by the EU legislation in the MAP, adopted by both the Council and the Parliament, or not.

What happens in the Baltic herring fisheries this autumn may be a precedent for following decisions in the CFP, both for herring and other fish stocks, both in the Baltic and in the EU waters of the Atlantic. Will the EU follow its own rules, and apply its own safeguards, or will it breach the rules to risk further depletion or collapses of European fisheries?

As the end of a hot European summer is approaching, it is shaping up to be a hot autumn for the Baltic herring and European fisheries policy.

Text: Charles Berkow