Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission Task Force on migratory fish species Gothenburg, Sweden, 9 May 2016

Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission Task Force on migratory fish species Gothenburg, Sweden, 9 May 2016 FISH-M 2-2016 Document title Questions regarding the application for SUSFISHING project Code 5-1 Category CMNT Agenda Item 5 Any other business Submission date 3.5.2016 Submitted by Secretariat Background HELCOM HOD 49-2015 agreed on an option for HELCOM to be involved as a partner in the SUSFISHING project for restoration of sea trout rivers in the Baltic Sea (presentation 4 from HELCOM FISH 3-2015) to support activities of the Task Force on migratory fish species. This document contains questions regarding monitoring of rivers and tourism posed by the Lead Partner Sweden. The project description is attached as Annex 1. Action requested The Meeting is invited to take note of the information and inform on national contacts for answering the specific questions regarding fishing tourism and river monitoring and upcoming questions regarding classification according to the EU-framework directive and river restoration. Page 1 of 3

Questions regarding the Interreg application for SUSFISHING project FISH-M 2-2016, 5-1 The work with the Interreg application is progressing. The Lead partner would need help in order to find contact persons in several issues, including tourism, monitoring, classification according to the EU-framework directive and river restoration. To improve the tourism part of the project a consultant with expert competence in the field of destination development has been contacted. The consultant is helping us to complete the application. The model they suggest for working with destination development includes a series of workshops where all relevant partners contribute in order to develop each destination. In addition to fishing guides, these include hotels, restaurants, transportation service providers, representatives from the region, city or municipality and other businesses in the tourism sector. Each workshop will result in a predefined product such as a background analysis report, business plan, marketing strategy, etc. The duration of the process is about two years. This is a preliminary suggestion of a way to work. Procurement is underway and the wining company will join the project as a subcontractor. The present job is to help us complete an application. This task is financed by the County Administrative Board of Stockholm. To complete the task, the consultant needs national input. A list of contact persons to help with a feasibility study is needed and it is important to examine the prerequisites for tourism to grow at the suggested fishing destinations. Questions that need to be answered concern infrastructure and how developed the tourism sector is at the suggested fishing destinations are, such as: How many hotels and hotel beds are available during trout fishing season (october-may) and during other parts of the year? Are there conference hotels at or close to the fishing destinations? How many restaurants are open during trout fishing season and during other parts of the year? Are communication services well developed? That is, is it possible to reach the fishing sites with public transportation? Are there buses and boats or is own car or taxi boat necessary? Are other types of infrastructure, like broadband available? Which other leisure activities are available at the fishing destination sites? Are there other possibilities, not yet developed? How many visitors do each site get every month? What do these visitors do? How large is the contribution of tourism to the local economy? What are the trends in tourism? The lead partner would like to come in contact with someone in each country or fishing destination that can help them answer these and other similar questions concerning tourism and needs help to find these contacts. Maybe it is the person in charge of the tourism investments in the local or regional administration. Or someone at the tourism office. The lead partner would like to receive these names as soon as possible, preferably within a week. Page 2 of 3

FISH-M 2-2016, 5-1 Questions concerning the monitoring part of the project. Background: The monitoring activities are briefly described in the project idea note (WP3 point 2). For this project it is necessary to understand how classification of ecological status is carried out in different countries. And for Russia, if a national classification system of rivers and environmental impacts exist. To get a comparable baseline it is important that monitoring is performed in exactly the same way in all rivers in the study. Therefore we need to harmonize our monitoring methods. This will be done in the beginning of the project at a workshop in the field at one test river where we decide upon which habitat monitoring and electrofishing methods to use. For planning purposes we now need to talk to responsible persons in all countries. Therefore we ask you to provide us with key contact persons and help us in the following issues: Questions: The organisation responsible for classification of ecological status (in Russia environmental condition of rivers or equivalent) (in Sweden it is the County Administrative Board). Is there a website (in any language) where this classification may be seen (for a Swedish example, look here: VISS Is there a national data host for electrofishing and other environmental monitoring data? The organisation that specify the methods to measure the quality factors that comprise ecological status. In this case, the electrofishing method and methods to determine the hydromorphological quality factors are most important (in Sweden it is the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management) The persons or organisations who usually performs the analyses (in Sweden: consultants, fishing associations or the County Administrative Board) Which persons or organisations would be the right to ask in a survey of trout catches? Angling clubs? Or does official statistics exist? The organisation/s that manage data on stocking of trout The organisation/s that issue fishing permits/cards for coastal trout fishing The organisation/s decide upon protected areas or no-fishing-areas The organisation/s that decide upon catch limits Page 3 of 3

Project Idea Description 1. Project Idea Identification Project idea name: Development, promotion and sustainable management of the Baltic Sea Region as an eco- and coastal fishing tourism destination. Project idea acronym : BSR SUSFISHING Programme priority: 2. Efficient management of natural resources Programme specific objective: 2.4. Resource-efficient blue growth. To advance sustainable and resource-efficient blue growth based on increased capacity of public authorities and practitioners within the blue economy sectors. 2. Seed money support: yes no Please indicate whether you have received any seed money from EUSBSR Seed Money. 3. Potential lead applicant Name of the organization (original): Länsstyrelsen i Stockholm Name of the organization (English): Stockholm County Administrative Board Website: www.lansstyrelsen.se/stockholm Country: Sweden 4. Specific challenge to be addressed The EU, through the BSR Strategy (EUSBSR) and the Sustainable Blue Growth Agenda for the BSR, identifies coastal tourism as playing a significant role and having great potential for growth. The Agenda simultaneously highlights that these activities are highly dependent on ecosystem services which, in turn, are dependent on a good environmental status of marine and coastal areas. The specific targeted problem is the limited sea trout fish stock for the fast growing recreational fishing and fishing tourism and the unique problem of the Baltic Sea where recreational fishing has considerable impact on the fish stock. Sea trout is an important species for recreational fishing and fishing tourism in the coastal regions around the Baltic Proper. However, the potential is far from realized due to environmental issues in the Baltic Sea rivers and insufficient restoration measures. The project addresses the challenge of developing and promoting eco- and coastal fishing tourism as well as recreational fishing within the coastal tourism economy whilst ensuring a sustainable and integrated management approach and contributing to the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), Water Framework Directive (WFD) and Marine Strategic Planning Framework Directive (MSFD).

In order to achieve the national goals for fishing tourism, the project aims at a more strategic and pan-baltic approach through coordination of efforts to ensure competitive destinations and sustained ecosystem services (notably fish stocks) providing the long term basis for eco- and coastal fishing tourism, and recreational fishing. Sweden Vision 2020 FISHING TOURISM HAS AT LEAST DOUBLED, AND IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE SWEDISH TOURISM INDUSTRY, WHICH CREATES JOBS AND SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC VALUES. SEAS, LAKES AND RIVERS PRODUCE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES THAT CATER FOR RECREATIONAL FISHING AND FISHING TOURISM NEEDS. RECREATIONAL FISHING AND FISHING TOURISM ARE CONDUCTED SUSTAINABLY WITH REGARD TO ENVIRONMENT AND ECOSYSTEMS. Figure 1: Illustrative example of national goals 1 The project will build on transnational projects e.g. Enjoy South Baltic! (www.balticsea.travel/esbp/project/), and national efforts i.e. EestiForell in Estonia (www.eestiforell.eu/) as presented in section 5. 5. Main project activities, outputs and results The project comprises of four work packages. Work Package 1 - Sustainable fishing tourism based on sea trout Proposed tasks: 1. Develop a Peer Learning Network for fishing tourism in the Baltic Proper. The Pan-Baltic network will constitute a dialogue platform to foster multi-sectoral and multi-level dialog on management and policy making. This network will bring together managing authorities, experts, Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) associations and interest groups, not at least the Fisheries Local Action Groups (FLAGs) established under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). Key tasks of the network would be to analyse and advise on opportunities and preconditions for development on the fishing tourism economy (e.g. competing economic interests, legislation, traditional practices). This sub-component entails activities such as outreach, formal establishment, and organisation of national and international meetings and seminars. The target participants for the meetings are SMEs in the recreational and fishing tourism industry, authorities responsible for promotion of the fishing tourism, authorities responsible for management of the fish stock and organisations responsible for the packaging and marketing of fishing destinations. 2. Jointly launch ten (10) fishing tourism destinations. Key activities involved are: a. Develop fishing tourism development plans for selected destinations. This includes mapping fishing sites, define requirements for infrastructure investments, identify 1 Swedish recreational fishing and fishing tourism 2020. Swedish Board of Agriculture and Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management. OVR262. 2013-04-05. (Original title: Svenskt fritidsfiske och fisketurism 2020.)

key stakeholders and communication strategy, information dissemination to target groups. In parallel, SME associations and the FLAGS in Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland will prepare project proposals for finance under European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), among others. b. Develop and design a joint marketing package for selected fishing tourism destinations (at least 10) where sea trout is the targeted species. SME associations (e.g. association of Swedish fishing guides) and local FLAGS (e.g. FLAG Codes PL01- PL10, in and around the Gdynia area in Poland) in close collaborations with tourism offices (e.g. Visit Åland,) are key implementing organisations. c. Jointly launch ten (10) fishing tourism destinations at three (3) sport fishing- and tourist fairs and on-line. One key activity will be to market the packages at three (3) sport fishing- and tourist fairs in southern Europe. Main target countries for marketing are Italy, France and the Netherlands. In addition, the project aims to establish long term cooperation with the Baltic Sea Tourism Center (BSTC) and relevant on-line tourist information websites. The BSR SUSFISHING project intends to build on lessons learnt and methodologies developed under the Enjoy South Baltic! project, for joint actions on promoting the Baltic area as a tourist destination. This component i.e. joint launching of ten sport fishing destinations will contribute to EUSBSR s objective of meeting the growing demand for theme-based high-quality products in the fields of culture, nature, sports and edutainment. It will also strengthen the internationalization of the existing SMEs. 3. Develop and institutionalise a voluntary Code of Conduct for fishing guides and sport fishing service providers/ destinations where sea trout is the targeted species. Activities involved are dialogue, consensus building, consolidation, piloting, institutionalisation, and outreach. Introducing environmental labelling of fishing destinations will further contribute to developing a competitive and sustainable business sector. In Sweden, the association of Swedish fishing guides is driving the discussion on ethical guidelines. In both Latvia and Sweden, the eco-tourism sector has relevant experience on process management and outreach. The BSR SUSFISHING also aims to benefit from the recently finalised AIDA project. The key components of AIDA were: develop guidelines for sustainability criteria for products; testing, certification process and implementation of the sustainability seal tree symbol. 4. Verify the contribution of this blue growth sub-sector to the regional economy and in particular its linkages to coastal tourism and importance for the local job market. The report will present information core economic monitoring indicators i.e. number of visitors, Gross Value, number of service providers and employment. Anglers tend to invest a great deal in their interest area and travel arrangements. A few economic analysis and reports exist and these indicate strong direct and indirect economic values for the local economy. However, there are major gaps and regional imbalances in the data. One reason could be that the growth of the sub-sector is relatively rapid in same places e.g. Poland. The resulting data will be used for policy dialogue be the Peer Learning Network for fishing tourism. 5. Prepare a final report presenting the base line situation, key limitations and opportunities and strategic development actions for fishing tourism and sport fishing. The report will be based on current and future stock management scenarios. (linked to WP 1.4 and WP 2.2)

Expected key outputs: 1. Peer Learning Network for fishing tourism in the Baltic Proper formally established and active. 2. Ten (10) fishing tourism destinations jointly launched at three (3) sport fishing- and tourist fairs and on-line. 3. A common Code of Conduct developed and used by fishing guides and sport fishing service providers/destinations. 4. Final report on base line situation, opportunities and strategic development actions for fishing tourism and sport fishing. 5. Local development of fishing tourism development plans and investment ready project proposals. Work Package 2 - Management of the sea trout resources A key question of the project is how to achieve a sustainable fishing tourism sector. Fishing tourism has a large potential to grow in the Baltic Sea, but a limiting factor are the small stocks of sea trout. In this work package we investigate what measures that are needed to ensure a sustainable fishing tourism and what potential lie in different measures, e.g. river restoration, catch limits and stocking. Proposed tasks: 1. Develop method and collect base-line data on the recreational and fishing tourism sector. The ecosystem approach will be applied in order to consider all forms of relevant information, including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices to estimate the catch of sea trout in recreational fishery. Data will be collected from anglers/fishing tourism, and NGO s as a complement to monitoring programs on the sea trout resources. 2. Undertake scenario studies for, current and future, stock management options. The study will result in a report on the potential growth of the sea trout resource from river restoration measures and discuss the need for additional measures e.g. stocking programmes. It will be based on the estimate of potential in selected areas through modern biotope surveys and analysis of restoration measures. This task will use research and monitoring data generated in WP 3. Expected key outputs: 1. Base-line data on the sea trout resource. 2. A report on scenario studies for, current and future, stock management options. Work Package 3 - Baltic toolbox for river restoration The potential for recreational fishing and fishing tourism in the coastal regions around the Baltic Proper is far from realized due to environmental issues in the Baltic Sea rivers and insufficient restoration measures. Among other factors, the implementation rate is affected by financing

constraints, existing legislation, ownership conditions and the limited administrative capacity of the authorities. Moreover, inadequate communication between authorities and various stakeholders with competing interests limit the possibility to implement physical measures. The partnership aims at demonstrating innovative implementation tools. In this context, communication and finance are examples of important tools in need of innovative approaches. To advance implementation efforts, more detailed knowledge is needed about success factors. Proposed tasks: 1. A research study of already completed restoration projects aiming at identifying differences between successful and failed projects. Due to the lack of good follow-up studies there are many lessons not learned from already performed restoration projects. By using the joint experiences and expertize of the international partners, it will be possible to design cost efficient follow-up studies. The project aims at a joint evaluation of the ecological effects of fish ways already installed, as well as gathering data on costs, construction time, stakeholder involvement/information and project difficulties. As the current project spans over a large region, but with similar problems and focus species, the aim is that the combined data and experiences will constitute an important basis for improving and facilitating future projects. Especially the incorporation of and information to stakeholders is very important for future restoration projects. Successful projects are those who have the wanted effect on fish recruitment and ecological status according to the Water Framework Directive. Failed projects either were never completed or were not cost efficient because the positive effect for fish recruitment and biodiversity did not outweigh the cost of the project. 2. Jointly develop a common, standardized methodology for assessment of river and stock status (see also WP2 task 2). The classification of ecological status is performed according to the WFD in all EU countries. Intercalibration is undertaken for many of the parameters, but for the parameters describing the morphology and hydrology of rivers, harmonisation is missing to a large extent. A habitat survey method has been developed in Sweden to incorporate hydrological and morphological status along with habitat suitability for stream fish and other relevant information relating to the ecological status of rivers. This methodology will be tested in the selected project rivers. Testing this survey and jointly evaluating the outcome will facilitate the work in WP2, i.e. to assess the present and potential production of sea trout. This will produce a common and standardised way to survey rivers fulfilling both the requirements of WFD and that of assessing the production of sea trout as a resource to fishing. 3. One pilot project for the efficient implementation of measures will be undertaken in each participating region. Within the framework of the HELCOM, the rivers judged to have the greatest potential to increase the production of sea trout and salmon in the Baltic Sea, have been identified. From this list of priority rivers, projects suitable for this study are chosen. The selected projects should be at various stages of implementation; some projects should be at the conceptual stage, in others discussions with stakeholders or court proceedings should be ongoing, yet others should be in the construction phase. During all phases of the implementation the relevant activities are documented carefully. These include monitoring, causal analysis, administration, judicial circumstances, court proceedings, discussion with stakeholders,

design and construction. Study visits to selected projects for joint learning and comparison of different national approaches will be organised. 4. Jointly develop a Baltic Toolbox for River Restoration. The experiences of the study of the previously implemented projects and those that have been carried out within the framework of the pilots are summarised, resulting in consolidated best practices and recommendations. Expected key outputs: 1. A common, standardized methodology for assessment of river and stock status to support fish management and the CFP, reach good ecological status according to WFD and facilitate international cooperation and exchange of data. 2. At least four (4) demonstration projects on river restoration measures, planned and completed. 3. A Baltic Toolbox on River Restoration. The Toolbox will comprise of strategic recommendations based on the consolidated experience from the research study on success factors and from the demonstrations projects. Work Package 4: Project Management, Communication and Outreach Proposed tasks: 1. Project management and reporting 2. Development of communication strategy and dissemination material 3. Roll-out of the national level communication programme for dissemination of best practices 4. Undertaking pan-baltic communication at basin-wide forums. Expected key outputs: 1. Approved project management and audit reports. 2. Communication strategy and dissemination material. 3. Five (5) national level communication campaigns undertaken for dissemination of best practices. 4. Three (3) Pan-Baltic forums. Project duration Tentative project duration (Implementation Phase): Jan 2017-Dec 2019. Expected results 1. Increased capacity of fishing guides and sport fishing service providers, notably on internationalisation and sustainable management. 2. Increased capacity of the managing authorities responsible for promotion of the coastal tourism industry and for environmental protection, notably on integrated management and best practices to ensure a sustainable development of the growing sport fishing industry in the BSR. 3. Increased stocks of sea trout based on natural production in targeted rivers. Users of the main outputs

1. Sport fishing service providers. 2. Authorities responsible for promoting coastal tourism and environmental protection. 6. Partnership The partnership is composed of organisations representing public, private (SMEs), research and interand non-governmental organisations having an interest and mandate to promote growth of recreational fishing and fishing-tourism and/or protect natural resources. This joint initiative, first and foremost, targets local and county level public and private actors of the coastal regions. National level authorities, universities and NGOs are involved as crucial supporting and expert institutions. The BSR SUSFISHING Partners (Tentative): Public authorities and institutions responsible for promotion of the fishing tourism industry 1. Stockholm County Administrative Board, Sweden. Lead Partner. 2. Swedish Board of Agriculture, Sweden 3. Association of Swedish fishing guides, Sweden. 4. Visit Åland, Finland 5. Zemgale Regional Planning Authority, Latvia 6. Fishery Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, Lithuania 7. Lithuanian anglers association, Lithuania There are on-going activities to formally include additional partners, notably national sport fishing associations and FLAGs. At least one FLAG in each selected project area is foreseen. Expert and supporting institutions on coordination, stakeholder dialogue and outreach 8. Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Sweden 9. Baltic Environmental Forum, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania Expert institutions on sustainable development of fisheries 9. Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM). (Tentative) 10. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden 11. Estonian Marine Institute, University of Tartu, Estonia 12. Open Access Centre for Marine Research of the Klaipėda University, Lithuania 13. National Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Poland 14. Kaunas University of Technology, Institute of Environmental Engineering, Lithuania (Tentative due to risk of overlap) Associated partners for peer learning in neighbouring countries 1. Saint Petersburg State University of Aerospace Instrumentation, Russia 2. Non-Commercial Partnership professional environmental organization "JUNE 5", Kaliningrad, Russia National supporting institutes Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Fisheries Department, Poland Environmental Protection Agency, Lithuania Ministry of Environment, Estonia

In addition, supporting letters are expected from the national Ministries of Agriculture in Finland, Estonia, and Latvia. 7. Planned budget Planned ERDF budget (expenditure of partners from EU): EUR 5 million Planned Norwegian budget (expenditure of partners from NO): Planned ENI budget (expenditure of partners from BY and RU): EUR 200 000 Total budget: EUR 5.2 million