What changed between the plenary report and the adopted text

AF. whereas Member States have not yet reached the 2020 target of ‘Good Environmental Status’ for Europe’s seas, as required by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive;

AG. whereas the collection, transparency, accessibility, harmonisation and reasonably expeditious processing of data are key to determining how fisheries and aquaculture are included in MSP; whereas there is a lack of comprehensive data on exclusive economic zones and there are difficulties integrating data across different sectors and obtaining data from national authorities; whereas the allocation of funding to those kinds of data collection activities could be improved;

Implementation of the MSP Directive and its impact on fisheries and aquaculture

1. Highlights the fact that, while the MSP Directive provides a relevant cross-sectoral framework for cooperation, it has been implemented unevenly by the Member States;

2. Welcomes the fact that some Member States are well advanced in implementing the MSP Directive, with integrated national strategies, dedicated bodies and sea-basin action plans;

3. Notes that maritime spatial plans are legally binding in some Member States and non-binding and more advisory in others; emphasises that the implementation in Member States is often hindered by institutional segmentation, fragmented governance and inadequate legal mechanisms or insufficient financial and human resources dedicated to those mechanisms and access to them, particularly through the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund for fisheries and aquaculture local action groups;

4. Highlights the fact that spatial planning of marine areas should include the identification of problems and opportunities, collection of planning data, decision-making and implementation, and that, as part of such planning, special attention should be paid to fisheries and aquaculture;

5. Emphasises that the implementation and effectiveness of MSP vary greatly across EU maritime regions, with some regions, such as the Baltic Sea or the North Sea, being largely covered by maritime spatial plans, while others, such as the Mediterranean Sea, have significantly less planning coverage;

6. Welcomes the Greater North Sea Basin Initiative, which brings together Member States and non-EU countries with the aim of achieving greater alignment and coordination on maritime spatial plans;

7. Highlights the fact that cross-border initiatives remain limited and effective coordination is lacking, hampering efforts to address shared challenges across interconnected marine regions; deplores the difficulties of cooperation on MSP between Member States and non-EU countries, in particular neighbouring coastal states;

8. Emphasises the effects of Brexit on maritime planning, in particular the development of marine protected areas and offshore renewable energy, but also other activities such as dense maritime transport and coastal tourism; highlights the fact that those changes have led to the exclusion of the EU fishing fleet from many fishing areas in British waters, and to a shift in fishing effort and high fishing pressure in the North Sea and Channel areas, to the detriment of EU fisheries; calls for MSP in these areas to systematically incorporate these elements;

9. Stresses the need for coordination between Member States and the United Kingdom in order to achieve effective and equitable management of the maritime basin and thus reduce the numerous conflicts of use, taking into account the economic, social and environmental dimensions of each activity; recalls, in this regard, the obligation under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in particular under Articles 7 and 8, to cooperate across borders; calls, in particular, for genuine consultation with the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands on management measures in marine protected areas that take into account the socio-economic consequences borne by EU fishers;

10. Stresses that the Mediterranean basin is particularly affected by the proliferation of offshore energy platforms and other infrastructure of this kind, which is significantly reducing the amount of space available for fisheries, limiting access to traditional fishing grounds and contributing to the fragmentation of maritime space; notes that, while the Member States are responsible for determining the use of infrastructure in these areas, their decisions have a direct impact on the use of traditional fishing grounds and therefore need to be integrated within MSP processes in a coherent way; notes that the development of maritime tourism also has an effect on fisheries operations in the sea basin;

11. Highlights the specific characteristics of the Adriatic Sea as a semi-enclosed and highly sensitive marine basin, subject to cumulative pressures from fisheries, aquaculture, maritime transport, tourism and coastal development; stresses that these pressures require a reinforced sea-basin and cross-border approach to MSP; calls on the Commission and the Member States concerned, in cooperation with neighbouring non-EU coastal countries, to strengthen coordination, data sharing and joint governance mechanisms in the Adriatic Sea; underlines the importance of small-scale and coastal fisheries for the sea basin and the importance of their integration into MSP, in order to safeguard their economic viability and cultural heritage;

12. Emphasises that the Baltic Sea is characterised by a number of unique features, including its status as a semi-enclosed sea basin, its high concentration of different types of economic activity, including fisheries, maritime transport and the expansion of marine renewable energy, and the vulnerability of its ecosystem; calls, in this regard, for an approach to MSP that is sustainable and adjusted to those regional conditions; commends the ongoing work of the joint HELCOM-VASAB Maritime Spatial Planning Working Group, which is providing a firm foundation for sea-basin level coordination in the Baltic Sea;

13. Stresses that the maritime basins of the outermost regions must also be included in the implementation of the MSP Directive, taking their specific characteristics fully into account, including in interactions with non-EU countries;

Benefits of MSP for fisheries and aquaculture

14. Regrets the fact that the current MSP legal framework has not satisfactorily delivered the expected benefits for fisheries; notes that MSP has not substantially contributed to improving predictability and stability for fisheries activities; emphasises the lack of minimum targets and measurable environmental, social and economic indicators for fisheries in MSP, especially for small-scale operators; stresses the need for a coherent and effective implementation of EU maritime policy;

15. Highlights, for the purpose of implementation of the MSP framework, the importance of performing a comprehensive socio-economic analysis, which incorporates the viewpoints of small businesses and coastal communities; recalls the importance of fisheries and aquaculture in food sovereignty and in preserving related know-how for the EU and recognises that it is in the public interest that greater account be taken of their importance in MSP;

16. Stresses that MSP must better integrate fisheries and aquaculture and actively address the spatial challenges affecting fisheries, including the cumulative effects of offshore energy, marine protected areas, shipping and defence zones, and avoid the progressive marginalisation of fishing activities; stresses that offshore windfarms should, whenever possible, be placed in zones that are less suitable for fishing, in order to minimise negative impacts on fisheries operations;

17. Emphasises the essential role of small-scale fishing, such as in local employment, social cohesion and the preservation of traditional skills; calls for MSP to take this segment fully into account, particularly in terms of access to space, proximity to fishing grounds and the safety of activities;

18. Notes that offshore windfarms can have an impact on fisheries by changing the spatial distribution and abundance of commercially fished marine species and by imposing restrictions on access, for safety reasons, or on fishing methods; notes that, while some potential benefits for fishers have been observed, these are only relevant if fishers are practically and feasibly able to operate in these areas;

19. Stresses that, while the MSP legal framework brings marginal benefits to aquaculture, improvements are needed in the designation of maritime space, further recognition of the role of aquaculture within the framework, cross-border coherence, legal certainty and the timeline and impact of licensing procedures; emphasises, in particular, the need for better incorporation of aquaculture in MSP and the consideration of other actions, such as the development of a possible common aquaculture policy, in order to take into account more effectively this key sector for EU food security;

20. Emphasises that the objective of minimising conflict between the various sectors and users of the sea has not been substantially fulfilled, particularly with regard to fisheries and aquaculture, including shellfish farming and emerging sectors such as seaweed farming, which have seen a reduction in the spaces available to them, affecting their competitiveness and the possibilities for the development of their activities;

21. Stresses that the nature of conflict over the use of maritime space varies according to the type of fisheries and aquaculture activities concerned, and that such activities may also compete with one another for maritime space; emphasises that the main conflicts affecting fisheries are the loss of fishing grounds due to the exclusion of maritime zones, access restrictions, competition for access, spatial fragmentation and the declining state of several marine ecosystems, while the main conflicts affecting aquaculture are zoning overlaps, environmental concerns such as pollution and eutrophication, and capture competition;

22. Recalls that fisheries and aquaculture are dependent on the geographical location of marine resources and the healthy state of marine ecosystems, and that they are strongly linked to the seafood value chain and employment in coastal regions and therefore not suited for relocation;

23. Emphasises that fisheries do not benefit from priority or dedicated areas and often have to operate in unallocated maritime spaces and are increasingly being squeezed out by other activities; notes that, while aquaculture, including seaweed farming, is in principle more suitable for reserved areas, approaches vary greatly between and even within Member States, and licensing procedures are often burdensome;

24. Highlights the fact that, while some Member States have established multi-use zones, they mainly take a project-based approach; emphasises that a multi-use approach is proving very difficult to implement for certain activities, particularly when combining fisheries, biodiversity protection and marine renewable energy; notes that a multi-use approach also raises insurance and security concerns for fishers and aquaculture professionals; emphasises that, while multi-use zones could hold potential in addressing the cumulative impacts of human activities, more research is needed to assess their feasibility and impact; points out that the designation of such zones should be based on an assessment of the economic, social and environmental impact of the different activities undertaken therein, which needs to be undertaken with the proper involvement, throughout the process, of operators from all the relevant sectors as well as other relevant stakeholders;

25. Welcomes successful examples of co-location of activities, such as fixed or floating offshore wind infrastructure that can also be used to develop aquaculture, shellfish and algae farming and for the protection of habitats for marine fauna and flora or regenerative activities and for fisheries activities such as passive and low-impact fisheries; highlights, in that regard, the need for increased exchange of good practices and for more research, especially in relation to ecological impact and economic potential;

26. Urges the Member States to take into account the impact of offshore renewable energy on the marine ecosystem and fisheries when determining their energy mix;

27. Emphasises that land-sea coordination remains a critical weakness in the implementation of MSP, with particular reference to the failure to take into account the effects of land-based pollution on marine ecosystems when implementing measures to protect biodiversity;

28. Points out the importance of fisheries and port infrastructure and related facilities and the need to ensure that MSP is coherent in relation to such infrastructure investments, in line with the EU ports strategy, while taking into account the dependence of all maritime activities on effective land-sea coordination;

Stakeholder involvement and data collection

29. Emphasises that stakeholder and coastal community involvement in the MSP process has increased but remains constrained; regrets the fact that this involvement often lacks early and formal engagement and consultation, offering limited opportunity for genuine influence on planning decisions; welcomes, in this regard, the Commission’s initiative to hold an implementation dialogue on MSP;

30. Notes good examples of stakeholder participation in some Member States, such as national consultations and participatory processes; regrets, however, the lack of binding provisions for Member States on stakeholder participation; notes that this hinders the participation of relevant stakeholders, such as fishers, aquaculture professionals, interest groups and members of the public who are affected, in consultation and decision-making processes, particularly regarding the location of offshore renewable energy projects;

31. Emphasises that fisheries and aquaculture are often overshadowed by other, more powerful or economically important sectors, such as offshore energy; takes note of reports of structural power imbalances between maritime sectors; deplores the fact that certain sectors and operators often bypass consultation processes, at the expense of less organised actors, such as small-scale fishers, including fishers on foot, such as shellfish gatherers; calls for comprehensive, accessible and inclusive consultation processes with all stakeholders and the creation of corrective governance mechanisms, including transparent guidelines aimed at ensuring balanced and transparent decision-making, alleviating the potential for conflict and creating a level playing field between fisheries and other sectors;

32. Deplores the lack of harmonised and comparable data on the state of the ocean and seas, fishery resources and the impact of climate change, as well as the lack of appropriate social and economic data, including the assessment of impacts of MSP on coastal communities; emphasises the lack of harmonisation of Member States’ data collection systems;

33. Highlights the fact that data misalignment, such as incompatible geospatial baselines, and temporal mismatch, such as different revision cycles for maritime spatial plans, hinder the implementation of coherent MSP and an ecosystem-based approach; recalls that modelling, mapping and spatial analysis tools are decision-making aids and cannot replace democratic debate or political compromise;

Recommendations

34. Stresses the need for a more holistic approach and better coordination of relevant EU legislation, in particular of the MSP Directive, the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, in order to ensure consistent and effective implementation of MSP, including the ecosystem-based approach, with the aim of contributing to the achievement of Good Environmental Status; underlines too that MSP must fully respect the common fisheries policy as the exclusive EU legislative framework for fisheries management and should therefore not be used to indirectly introduce fisheries management measures, especially if incompatible with the ambition to strengthen the role for fisheries activities in MSP;

35. Believes that maritime spatial plans should better reflect spatial, environmental and socio-economic needs, as well as the specific characteristics of each sea basin, including connected exclusive economic zones; stresses that the Member States should strengthen coordination between land-use and marine authorities when designing and implementing maritime spatial plans and when incorporating into the plans assessments of the impact of land-based activities on coastal waters; believes that Member States should take into account regional specificities, including the characteristics of island regions and the outermost regions, and should respect the administrative traditions in each Member State;

36. Stresses the need for Member States to strengthen coordination both between and within Member States, in particular between national and regional authorities, as well as cross-sectoral coordination among authorities responsible for environmental, fisheries, energy and transport policies, among other policies, when designing and implementing maritime spatial plans, in order to ensure a coherent, ecosystem-based and integrated approach;

37. Calls for the implementation of a bottom-up, balanced, multi-use approach to MSP that would aim to avoid adverse effects on marine resources and biodiversity, and therefore on fisheries and aquaculture, and would ensure that these activities are not excluded from the maritime space; considers that the development of certain activities related to the blue economy must not be at the expense of sustainable and resilient seafood production, food sovereignty and the preservation of marine biodiversity; believes, in this regard, that the strategic importance of food security should be better anchored in the forthcoming revision of the MSP Directive; calls, therefore, for fishing and aquaculture to be recognised as strategic sectors of major public interest which provide essential contributions to EU food sovereignty and food security and to strategic autonomy and coastal employment, and that priority consideration should be given to them in MSP, particularly for segments that cannot be relocated;

38. Calls for an evidence-based approach to multi-use zones, recognising that coexistence between fisheries and offshore energy remains limited in practice and should not be used to justify the exclusion of fisheries from maritime space; stresses that the multi-use approach should be pursued on the basis of technical and scientific criteria, reflecting the reality of how fishing and aquaculture actually operate; stresses that the designation of multi-use zones should be based on a cumulative impact assessment of the different activities undertaken therein and a rigorous analysis of navigability and safety; calls for all relevant sectors to be directly and properly involved throughout this process;

39. Considers that MSP must adopt a dynamic and adaptive approach, taking into account changes in the marine environment and marine resources, using regularly updated scientific and socio-economic data and indicators, particularly when establishing areas that could exclude fisheries activities such as offshore wind farms and designating certain marine protected areas; emphasises that the planning process should reflect the dynamic nature of fishing, with fleets often moving around depending on seasonal availability and stock movements, and certain types of fishing gear requiring considerable room in which to operate;

40. Calls for inclusive governance mechanisms that ensure the direct and structured involvement of relevant stakeholders such as fishers, including small-scale fishers, and regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs), where relevant, in the decision-making, monitoring and review processes for plans;

41. Emphasises the need to strengthen support for and systematically consider fisheries within MSP; supports the establishment of clear spatial zoning and priority zones for fisheries, taking into account the movement and development of fishery resources, the recognition of traditional fishing and aquaculture zones, the need for preservation and protection of the environment and the improvement of the state of fish stocks; emphasises that the zoning should be tailored to different fleet segments, as well as sea basins, and based on robust scientific and socio-economic assessments and indicators, in order to bring greater visibility and predictability to the fisheries sector; calls for mandatory assessment of the cumulative socio-economic impacts of fishing displacement, including the effects on the competitiveness of the EU fleet, its profitability, safety at sea and generational renewal;

42. Emphasises the need, in particular, for an increase in reserved areas dedicated to small-scale low impact inshore fishing within the 12 nautical mile zone and underpinned by co-management regimes;

43. Stresses the need to strengthen research into mapping and modelling fishing areas and fishery resources; considers that the delimitation of priority zones for fisheries and the planning of fishing activities must adopt a dynamic approach in order to adapt to the phenomena of change and migration of fish stocks affecting historical distribution areas;

44. Calls on the Commission to propose a mechanism of compensatory measures or insurance schemes for the fisheries sector when its activities are displaced by alternative uses of the sea, including financial compensation measures, and to prioritise new compatible uses and support for the redesign of fishing routes, or technological investments;

45. Highlights the potential negative consequences of far-reaching restrictions on marine activities such as fisheries for coastal communities, not least in the island and outermost regions; calls for the development, implementation and review of maritime spatial plans to be accompanied in all cases by social and territorial impact assessments, focusing in particular on employment, working conditions, the safety of fishers and the sustainability of coastal communities, and to assess the biological and socio-economic effectiveness of fisheries restrictions and measures;

46. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to recognise fisheries as a strategic and priority user of maritime space, essential to EU food sovereignty and food security, coastal employment and strategic autonomy, and to reflect this status explicitly in maritime spatial plans and in the forthcoming revision of the MSP Directive;

47. Calls, in this respect, for a differentiated approach to the management of small-scale fisheries that includes preferential access within the 12 nautical mile zone for small-scale fisheries, low-impact activities and conservation projects;

48. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to further integrate aquaculture and shellfish farming, and fishing on foot, including shellfish gathering, into MSP and to recognise the ecosystem services provided by low-trophic and low-carbon aquaculture; calls on the Commission to consider further actions such as the development of a possible common aquaculture policy as a tool to facilitate this integration; calls for the designation in MSP of dedicated maritime spaces for sustainable aquaculture development zones, such as for low-carbon and low-trophic aquaculture; calls for licensing procedures to be facilitated and for regulatory barriers to the development of these activities to be reduced; stresses that licensing procedures need to be expedited and underpinned by clear environmental requirements with a view to maximising socio-economic benefits; calls for the provision of incentives to boost the sustainable development of aquaculture, especially low-trophic aquaculture, including diversification to non-feed species such as seaweed cultivation;

49. Emphasises the need for transparent, multi-stakeholder governance in MSP; calls on Member States to ensure the early, systematic, meaningful and continuous participation of the relevant stakeholders, including Advisory Councils and fishers, aquaculture farmers and shellfish farmers, at all stages of MSP design, processes, implementation, final outcomes and revision, and for the inclusion of transparent feedback on how stakeholder input is used in decision-making; calls for fair treatment of all stakeholders and coastal and island communities, regardless of their financial, administrative or organisational means, through transparent consultation formats;

50. Believes that co-management should be the model for governance and decision-making in MSP; emphasises the benefits of this model, which allows for the direct involvement of stakeholders, better management of fishery resources, the sharing of best practice and an approach tailored to local realities, particularly when it builds on existing and proven structures and on the practical knowledge of local fishing communities and other structures such as RFMOs; stresses that co-management can also help promote generational renewal in the sector and strengthen the economic resilience of small-scale and coastal fleets;

51. Stresses the benefits of bottom-up structures for local MSP implementation, such as community-led local development and local action groups, local and regional authorities, fishers’ and gatherers’ organisations, women’s organisations in fisheries and other organisations at local and regional levels;

52. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to support the capacity building of stakeholders, particularly small-scale fishers, including fishers on foot, such as shellfish gatherers and their organisations, and coastal and island communities, including in the outermost regions, so that they are better equipped to actively and effectively participate in public consultations and decision-making processes relating to MSP; stresses the importance, in this regard, of supporting generational renewal and calls on Member States to ensure that spatial planning decisions do not create additional barriers for young people entering fisheries;

53. Stresses that the designation of areas dedicated to offshore renewable energy or to the protection of marine ecosystems must take into account the impact on fisheries and aquaculture, including historical and traditional fishing grounds; insists on the need to systematically conduct assessments of the cumulative environmental and socio-economic impact prior to zone demarcation, and to ensure that the professionals affected, particularly fishers in the case of offshore wind farm projects, are informed in advance and involved on a mandatory basis in consultations before decisions are taken; calls, in this regard, for assessments of the impact on the state of fishery resources and for the quantification of the key social and economic effects on fisheries resulting from offshore wind farms;

54. Stresses that measures to protect marine ecosystems must be based on sound scientific and socio-economic assessments and must be tailored to the protection needs of each area; emphasises that the establishment and management of different categories of marine protected areas, where compatible with conservation objectives, and the best available scientific advice, should allow for coexistence with sustainable fishing activities, including through appropriate, differentiated management measures and avoiding automatic exclusion; highlights also the potential of ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’;