[Publication] Cross-border cooperation in fisheries management – Best practices from the Baltic Sea

Background

In the Baltic Sea, several commercial fish stocks have declined substantially over time, largely as a consequence of sustained fishing pressure. At present, only four out of fifteen stocks are considered to be in good status. Fisheries management plays a fundamental role in addressing this situation and, ultimately, for halting and reversing declining trends.

As many fish stocks move across jurisdictional boundaries, fisheries management depends on cross‑border cooperation. Within the European Union (EU), such cooperation is structured under the common fisheries policy (CFP), notably in the framework of regionalisation. Regionalisation enables Member States with shared interests to work jointly on fisheries management, while providing for stakeholder involvement through Advisory Councils. In the Baltic Sea, this framework is operationalised primarily through the Baltic Sea Fisheries Forum (BALTFISH), which functions as a Member State Group, and the Baltic Sea Advisory Council (BSAC), which represents stakeholder interests.

Aim

This study was commissioned and published in support of the PECH Committee workshop ‘Cross-border cooperation in fisheries management: Best practices from the Western Waters, the Mediterranean Sea and the Baltic Sea’ (15 July 2026). The aim of the study is to investigate cross-border cooperation in Baltic Sea fisheries management under the CFP, with a particular focus on BALTFISH and BSAC. To address this aim, the study adopts a desk-based approach to analyse how their cooperation functions in practice and what it delivers.

The study maps the forms of interaction between BALTFISH and BSAC and assesses outcomes in relation to specific policy areas. These areas include management of fishing pressure, implementation of the landing obligation, mitigation of harbour porpoise bycatch and fisheries restrictions in Natura 2000 sites.

Key findings

The analysis shows that the BALTFISH-BSAC cooperation is firmly established and functions relatively well at a procedural level. Over time, the two organisations have developed structured interactions through various meetings as well as written correspondence. This cooperation has resulted in fourteen delegated acts stemming from joint recommendations. From this perspective, CFP regionalisation is working. It enables cross‑border cooperation and the adoption of binding measures at the regional level.

At the same time, the study identifies important limitations. First, uncertainty remains regarding the role and influence of BSAC advice in the decision‑making process. The BSAC often presents a plurality of stakeholder views rather than a single consensus position, which may limit the uptake of its advice in BALTFISH. Recurrent concerns about short consultation timelines further constrain meaningful stakeholder input. Second, while adopted delegated acts directly affect fishing practices, the cooperative efforts are incremental, limited in both ambition and scale. Across all policy areas, opportunities for more proactive and transformative action remain largely underexploited.

Policy recommendations

In conclusion, this study shows that cooperation between BALTFISH and the BSAC is characterised by a functional asymmetry rooted in their institutional roles. This cooperative relationship reveals best practices that can inform cross-border cooperation in other regions. These practices include:

• Maintain regular interaction between Member State Groups and Advisory Councils. Sustaining frequent and predictable interaction, such as virtual coffee meetings, ensures continuity and improves transparency.
• Use standardised data and templates for preparing joint recommendations. In the context of the landing obligation, standardisation supports procedural efficiency and policy alignment among MS.
• Align joint recommendations closely with scientific assessments. Joint recommendations that are firmly grounded in scientific assessments are more likely to be processed and adopted in a timely manner.
• Use EC signalling to stimulate regional action. In the harbour porpoise case, EC engagement served as an important catalyst for initiating regional cooperation.
• Leverage initiatives by individual or a small group of MS. In light of the fisheries restrictions in Natura 2000 sites, initiatives led by individual MS successfully triggered regional coordination. Such initiatives may, over time, inspire other MS to pursue similar action and should be recognised as valuable entry points for cooperation.

At the same time, this cooperation operates below its potential and there are unresolved questions regarding stakeholder involvement. Based on this conclusion, the study provides a set of recommendations that focus on overcoming challenges. These recommendations are:

• Improve consultation timelines to strengthen the quality of BSAC advice. Short consultation deadlines repeatedly limit the BSAC’s ability to deliberate and develop consensus positions. While extended timelines do not guarantee agreement, earlier and more predictable consultation would improve the quality of the BSAC input.
• Provide clearer guidance on how BSAC advice is used. Greater transparency regarding the treatment of stakeholder input, whether reflected, modified, or rejected, would strengthen trust in the process. One concrete option would be to establish a publicly accessible BALTFISH webpage, potentially hosted by the BSAC, where information regarding meetings and joint recommendations could be systematically published.
• Streamline the process from joint recommendations to delegated acts. Significant delays between the submission and adoption create uncertainty for both national agencies as well as fishers. Exploring options to ensure that joint recommendations are sufficiently mature when submitted could improve predictability and implementation. Such options could include strengthening internal review procedures within BALTFISH and involving scientific experts at an earlier drafting stage and to a greater extent.
• Increase the scope for cooperation. Annual quota negotiations appear to absorb a large share of cooperation capacity. While politically sensitive, alternatives that provide greater stability, such as quotas fixed over a longer period, could free up time and resources for other pressing issues.
• Use joint recommendations more strategically. The existing legal framework provides opportunities for more proactive and transformative proposals. Greater support from the EC and engagement by the European Parliament could help to realise these opportunities.