Last week saw the first major vote on the Baltic Multiannual Plan (MAP) in the European Parliament’s Fisheries Committee. The European Commission’s proposal, released last October, failed to adhere to the objectives of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Last week’s vote saw a positive reversal of some, but not all, of the shortcomings in the proposed Baltic MAP.
This first vote, positive in many respects, is still an early step in the process to an effective management plan for the Baltic. The next steps in the evolution of this proposal are the adoption of a common position in the Fisheries Council on April 20 and the first reading vote in the plenary of the European Parliament on April 27. Following this, negotiations toward reaching an agreement between parliament and the Council will begin.
One of the more important approved amendments (AM 105, referenced below) would bring this plan closer to the CFP’s objectives by providing direction for managers to act in case a stock’s biomass falls below a biomass that can support maximum sustainable yield (Bmsy). The Commission’s proposal fails to include one of the CFP’s core objectives, Article 2.2: “…restoring and maintaining populations of fish stocks above biomass levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield…” The importance of this CFP objective in multiannual plans is emphasised in CFP Article 9.1 where it states that they: “shall contain conservation measures to restore and maintain fish stocks above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield.”
Although replacing “Minimum Spawning Biomass” with Bmsy is an improved trigger for conservation measures, it still falls short of the CFP’s objectives because appropriate conservation measures themselves are not yet specified in the Baltic MAP. The most consistent option would be specific management actions to reduce fishing mortality integrated into the Baltic MAP, rather than just instructions to act. The proposal further lacked language stating that stocks of all harvested species should be restored and maintained above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield (MSY), focusing instead on only the targeted species. The CFP does not differentiate between targeted and bycatch species in Article 9.1, so why should the Baltic MAP?
Fishing effort (F) should be managed, indeed capped, so that the biomass can reach and exceed Bmsy as required in CFP Art. 9.1. One of the passed amendments improved upon the Commission’s language about fishing effort ranges. This amendment (AM 91) reads that fishing effort for cod, sprat, and herring may be set from 0 to Fmsy, where the Commission’s proposal included language permitting fishing in excess of Fmsy. AM91 recommends “Values for FMSY should be taken from the latest reliable scientific advice available and F should aim to 0.8 times FMSY.” Although an improvement on the Commission language with a well-meaning suggestion to bring F below Fmsy, we are still unsatisfied because the ranges in this amendment still include Fmsy as a plausible fishing effort option. In order to allow fish stocks to grow to levels above Bmsy, then fishing effort must be set below Fmsy. This is critical in both a single species and multispecies context. The Baltic is no exception.
Results of the Fisheries Committee’s vote should be available here once published. The original list of amendments proposed, including AM91 and AM105, are here.
See our recently released Council Brief with Annex for more details on the Baltic MAP and its crippling inconsistencies with the CFP.