Foto: Bengt Olsson/Mostphotos

“The Baltic Sea management plan needs to be strengthened, not weakened. The negative development of fish stocks shows that the plan needs to become more conservation-oriented, not less," says Charles Berkow, policy analyst at Stockholm University's Baltic Sea Centre.

The Commission's proposal to delete paragraph 4.6 from the Baltic Sea Multiannual Management Plan (MAP) was sent to the European Parliament and the Council for decision on Wednesday.

The Commission claims that the so-called '5 % rule' in paragraph 4.6 is not consistent with certain other rules in the MAP, and that this creates confusion as to what applies when annual fishing quotas are decided. Furthermore, the Commission refers to the fact that the five percent rule can have "serious socio-economic consequences" in some cases.  

"They are following a twisted logic and painting a conflict that does not exist, either because they have not understood the structure of the regulation or because they do not want to accept its consequences," says Mr Berkow.

Increased risk of stock collapse

Paragraph 4.6 and the "5 % rule" of the MAP states the following:

“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 Blim.”

Its purpose is to prevent the collapse of fish stocks. If the spawning stock biomass (the amount of mature fish) becomes so low that it falls below Blim, the reproductive capacity of the stock is hampered and the stock risks collapse.

Each year, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) estimates the probability that various fish stocks will fall below Blim the following year. If the probability is judged to be higher than 5%, fishing pressure must be reduced or stopped altogether, in accordance with the MAP. 

Mr Berkow likens paragraph 4.6 to the seat belt in a car:

“Removing the seat belt in your car increases the risk of injury in a crash. Removing paragraph 4.6 from the management plan increases the risk of fish stocks crashing," he says.

Three stocks have collapsed - two more are on the way

Recent developments in the Baltic Sea show that the risks are already very high. Three of the seven managed fish stocks have collapsed: the spring-spawning western herring, western cod and eastern cod. A further two stocks – herring stocks in the central Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia – are now on the brink of collapse.  

In the central Baltic Sea, the spawning stock biomass of herring is below Blim. In the Gulf of Bothnia, the number of herring has halved in the last decade, from around 60 billion individuals to just over 30 billion individuals, and the spawning stock biomass is now estimated to be around Blim.

Wanted to stop herring fisheries

Earlier this year, the Commission proposed that all directed herring fishing in the central Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia should be stopped next year – referring specifically to paragraph 4.6. The probability of the stocks' spawning biomass falling below Blim was too high to allow continued fishing. ICES calculations showed that the stocks are in such poor condition that even zero quotas - i.e. no fishing at all - would not be enough to fulfil the five percent rule.

However, EU fisheries ministers decided otherwise and decided to continue fishing for herring next year: 40 368 tonnes in the central Baltic Sea and 55 000 tonnes in the Gulf of Bothnia. In addition, the quota for sprat was increased compared to the current year. 
The decision received strong criticism from politicians, environmental organisations, scientists and coastal fishermen along Sweden's east coast.

The Green Party took the Council of Ministers and the Swedish government to the European Court of Justice, arguing that the decision was in breach of the EU's own fisheries laws – specifically paragraph 4.6 of the MAP. Their judgement was shared by the environmental movement.

“Instead of moving these two endangered stocks away from the brink of collapse, they were left there. And now they want to remove the rule that actually required them to be moved," says Mr Berkow. 

First the Commission proposed to stop herring fishing. Now it wants to remove the rule that would have stopped herring fishing. How is this to be understood?

“It is clear that it has given in to pressure from Member States and the fishing industry. States have previously expressed that they want the MAP to be changed. The proposal also refers to the concerns of 'stakeholders' in the BSAC and the BaltFish regional group about the socio-economic impact of the 5% rule. "Stakeholders" means ministers from different member states and people from the fishing industry," says Mr Berkow.

"The power play is becoming clearer"

According to Henrik Svedäng, fisheries researcher at Stockholm University's Baltic Sea Centre, the Commission's proposal shows that fisheries management is prepared to take great risks to satisfy the needs of the fishing industry.

“At the same time, the power play is becoming clearer. And in a way, it's good consumer education for voters. When today's politicians are confronted with their own clauses, which can prevent what they want to achieve, they simply remove them. It couldn't be clearer," he says. 

At present, it is mainly the Baltic herring stocks that are in the firing line, according to Mr Svedäng. 

“For the fishing industry, the central Baltic sprat has become even more important now that the herring has been fished down. Since both species are fished simultaneously, the herring risks becoming a so-called 'choke species' for the sprat fishery. If you are not allowed to catch herring, it will be more difficult to catch sprat. This is obviously to be avoided. At the same time, it was already a weakness in the Commission's proposal to propose an extensive by-catch quota for herring," he says.

"Parliament tends to defend its power"

The Commission proposal to delete paragraph 4.6 from the MAP is now before the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers for decision. At the same time, the Commission has also launched a general request for comments. 

According to Charles Berkow, everything depends on how the Parliament will react – unless the Commission thinks again and withdraws its proposal:

“It will be interesting to see how parliamentarians will deal with this. On the one hand, they tend to protect their power. For example, they fought for co-determination when the MAP was adopted. The question is whether they can accept that the regulations that they themselves helped to develop are now being undermined."

Text: Henrik Hamrén