Complaint against the Government of Sweden for non implementation of Council Directive 92/

In recognition of the severe threat posed by unsustainable levels of bycatch impacting on the Baltic harbour porpoise population there was a specific operative calling for action in the Baltic Sea. Parties and Range States in the Baltic Sea were invited to develop, by 2000, a recovery plan for porpoises in the Baltic Sea, one element of which should be to identify human activities which are potential threats to the recovery of this species in the Baltic and that the competent authorities consider appropriate methods to limit such threats.

By the time of the 7th ASCOBANS Advisory Committee (AC) meeting (March 2000), the last AC meeting prior to the third meeting of Parties held in July 2000, concern was raised by delegates that Parties had failed to produce a recovery plan. This was despite the fact that separate action plans were submitted to the first ASCOBANS meeting of Parties in 1994 for both the Baltic (CMS/ASCOBANS/1/DOC.5), and Swedish waters (CMS/ASCOBANS/1/INF.2). These were never progressed by ASCOBANS or within Sweden.

At the third meeting of Parties in 2000, Parties were still no further forward. Instead what was agreed was a process by which this recovery plan would be developed. Parties agreed that in winter 2000/2001 a workshop aimed at drafting a recovery plan for harbour porpoises in the Baltic Sea should be held. The 8th Advisory Committee meeting of ASCOBANS (April 2-5, 2001) should then consider the matter with a view to producing recommendations for Parties and Range States.

The agreed workshop did not occur in the winter of 2000/2001 and at the 8th Advisory Committee meeting the decision was taken to organise a workshop in January 2002.

Consequently four years after the first call for a recovery plan for porpoises in the Baltic Sea, and seven years after being presented with action plans for consideration, ASCOBANS Parties are still a year away from even establishing such a plan. Nor has a recovery plan been developed domestically within Sweden. It is our view that this lack of progress reflects that Sweden does not take its obligations under either ASCOBANS or the Habitats & Species Directive seriously.

Porpoise bycatch in other Swedish Fisheries

In Swedens 1999 national report to ASCOBANS (ASCOBANS, 1999b) when addressing the implementation of methods to reduce bycatch (section B.1.b) it states: “The National Board of Fisheries (NBF) has initiated the development of acoustic alarms in co-operation with fishermen fishing in the Skagerrak. The NBF is ready to enforce necessary national legislation in order to reduce incidental bycatches of harbour porpoises to acceptable levels as soon as bycatch estimates are available for various fisheries”. However, no further information or results from the development of acoustic alarms have been made available. Nor any explanation unsustainable.

In its most recent publicly available annual submission to ASCOBANS (ASCOBANS 2000b), under the section “Investigation of methods to reduce bycatch”, Swedens entry reads as follows: “No action. The final report of BY-CARE project finalised in December 1998 includes the last investigations carried out in the Swedish part of the Skagerrak and Kattegat”.

The study in the Swedish Kattegat and Skagerrak was carried out in 1996 and 1997 and the report completed by 1998. The study of fisheries in the Swedish Kattegat and Skagerrak revealed bycatch levels in the fisheries studied representing 1.2% and 2.4% of the respective porpoise abundance. The former is considered high enough to merit further investigation for potential remedial action while the latter is considered to be beyond sustainable limits (ASCOBANS 2000c). This is based on one fishery investigated to date (set nets for cod and pollock) for which we understand the effort has decreased in recent years due to declines in the fish stocks. However, no observer based estimates exist for the porpoise bycatch at the current effort levels. Moreover bycatch is known to exist in ten additional fisheries in the same areas (Harwood et al. 1999).but no observer based estimates of bycatch have been undertaken for these fisheries to date.

Under the section entitled “Implementation of methods to reduce bycatch”, the Swedish entry in its 2000 report to ASCOBANS is recorded as: “No action”.

In short the Swedish Government is currently in receipt of information indicating that harmful levels of porpoise bycatch exist in Swedish fisheries but there are neither trials of acoustic deterrents or other mitigation measures being undertaken to attempt a reduction in the levels of bycatch in these fisheries. Moreover, to our knowledge there no efforts underway to monitor the ongoing levels of small cetacean bycatch in these and other Swedish fisheries.

Conclusion

Taking account of the above, it is our view that Sweden is failing to fulfil its obligations under the Habitat & Species Directive (92/43/EEC) in the following manner:

It fails to meet the requirements of Article 12.4 given

That it has failed to establish a system to monitor the incidental capture and killing of harbour porpoises;

That despite available information indicating that bycatch levels in certain fisheries will further reduce populations, Sweden has failed to take any action to actively reduce the levels of bycatch of harbour porpoises known to occur in Swedish fisheries and therefore the requirement to ensure that bycatches do not have a significant negative impact on this species..

We further conclude that Sweden is failing to meet the major objective of the Directive under Article 2 of the Directive “to maintain or restore at favourable conservation status, natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest”, with respect to the harbour porpoise. It is particularly failing its duties with respect to the critically depleted Baltic Sea porpoise population.

As such, we would welcome your expedient attention to this complaint and would welcome hearing your views on how Sweden might be required to meet their obligations under Directive 92/43/EEC to protect small cetaceans, and in particular the harbour porpoise. We would also welcome learning how the Commission might assist this process in the framework of the Habitats and Species Directive implementation as well as in the Common Fisheries Policy. It is clear to us that a mechanism to address cetacean bycatch must be adopted within the CFP during the current review process in order to address this serious problem.

We have raised the above issue with the Swedish Ministry of Environment (responsible for habitats and protected species) and the Ministry of Agriculture (responsible for fisheries), and we attach the correspondence for your interest.