46
3.1 Introduction
One common resource that the nine countries bordering the Baltic Sea share is fi sh.
The case study presented here deals explicitly with the ‘risk of overfi shing’ , which
we defi ne as the potentially adverse effects of fi shing activities in terms of overexploitation and subsequent unsustainable development of these activities from an
economic, ecological and social point of view. The acute problems of overexploitation in fi sheries and their deteriorating effects on ecosystems and biodiversity as well as the resulting social and economic crisis have been addressed globally
(e.g. McGoodwin 1990 ; Worm et al. 2009 ). In Europe these management failures
are generally seen as a consequence of a nonworking governance framework for EU
fi sheries management (CEC 2009b
1
; Villasante 2011 ) which also holds true for the
Baltic Sea (cf. Aps and Lassen 2010 ).
The main commercially exploited species in the Baltic Sea are cod, sprat, herring
and salmon. Under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), which is the governing
framework for fi sheries management in the European Union, the main goal is to
reduce the risk of overfi shing and achieve a long-term sustainable exploitation of
fi sh stocks. The CFP’s objective is to maintain or restore fi sh stocks to levels that
can produce the so-called maximum sustainable yield ( MSY ), which implies catching the largest possible proportion of a fi sh stock over an indefi nite time period
(Salomon et al. 2014 ). However, the use of the MSY concept in fi sheries has been
critiqued for not being suffi ciently precise, both in terms of its conceptualisation in
literature (e.g. Punt and Smith 2001 ) and its application in the daily practice of EU
fi sheries management (personal observations). When studying overfi shing in the
Baltic Sea, we cannot look at specifi c species in isolation, as the dynamics between
different fi sh stocks (e.g. cod, sprat and herring) as prey–predator relationships form
complex food–web relationships (Österblom et al. 2007 ).
One of the key challenges that fi sheries governance in the Baltic Sea and elsewhere currently faces is a transition towards an ecosystem approach to fi sheries
management (EAFM), which takes multispecies considerations into account such
as the implications of an increased cod stock on other fi sh stocks. The shift to such
a management approach requires a substantive change in terms of the advice production system for fi sheries management, which so far has mainly responded to the
requirement of setting catch limits as so-called total allowable catches (TACs) and
distributing fi shing quotas amongst the Member States according to the principle of
‘relative stability’. A crucial component of this TAC management system is an
annual single-species approach (rather than a multispecies approach) which is diffi cult to reconcile with EAFM and, also, at a less complex level, with long-term,
mixed fi sheries management. The existence of this and other institutional impediments to the shift from an annual single fi sh stock management approach resulting
from the TAC system to EAFM has been described as a situation of ‘institutional
1 Relevant publications before and after this are CEC ( 2001a , b , 2006 , 2007 , 2008 , 2009b ).
P. Sellke et al.
3.1 Introduction
One common resource that the nine countries bordering the Baltic Sea share is fi sh.
The case study presented here deals explicitly with the ‘risk of overfi shing’ , which
we defi ne as the potentially adverse effects of fi shing activities in terms of overexploitation and subsequent unsustainable development of these activities from an
economic, ecological and social point of view. The acute problems of overexploitation in fi sheries and their deteriorating effects on ecosystems and biodiversity as well as the resulting social and economic crisis have been addressed globally
(e.g. McGoodwin 1990 ; Worm et al. 2009 ). In Europe these management failures
are generally seen as a consequence of a nonworking governance framework for EU
fi sheries management (CEC 2009b
1
; Villasante 2011 ) which also holds true for the
Baltic Sea (cf. Aps and Lassen 2010 ).
The main commercially exploited species in the Baltic Sea are cod, sprat, herring
and salmon. Under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), which is the governing
framework for fi sheries management in the European Union, the main goal is to
reduce the risk of overfi shing and achieve a long-term sustainable exploitation of
fi sh stocks. The CFP’s objective is to maintain or restore fi sh stocks to levels that
can produce the so-called maximum sustainable yield ( MSY ), which implies catching the largest possible proportion of a fi sh stock over an indefi nite time period
(Salomon et al. 2014 ). However, the use of the MSY concept in fi sheries has been
critiqued for not being suffi ciently precise, both in terms of its conceptualisation in
literature (e.g. Punt and Smith 2001 ) and its application in the daily practice of EU
fi sheries management (personal observations). When studying overfi shing in the
Baltic Sea, we cannot look at specifi c species in isolation, as the dynamics between
different fi sh stocks (e.g. cod, sprat and herring) as prey–predator relationships form
complex food–web relationships (Österblom et al. 2007 ).
One of the key challenges that fi sheries governance in the Baltic Sea and elsewhere currently faces is a transition towards an ecosystem approach to fi sheries
management (EAFM), which takes multispecies considerations into account such
as the implications of an increased cod stock on other fi sh stocks. The shift to such
a management approach requires a substantive change in terms of the advice production system for fi sheries management, which so far has mainly responded to the
requirement of setting catch limits as so-called total allowable catches (TACs) and
distributing fi shing quotas amongst the Member States according to the principle of
‘relative stability’. A crucial component of this TAC management system is an
annual single-species approach (rather than a multispecies approach) which is diffi cult to reconcile with EAFM and, also, at a less complex level, with long-term,
mixed fi sheries management. The existence of this and other institutional impediments to the shift from an annual single fi sh stock management approach resulting
from the TAC system to EAFM has been described as a situation of ‘institutional
1 Relevant publications before and after this are CEC ( 2001a , b , 2006 , 2007 , 2008 , 2009b ).
P. Sellke et al.