What changed between the plenary report and the adopted text

O. whereas offshore wind farms (OWFs) are among the fastest growing industries at sea, with forecasts suggesting that capacity will increase substantially; whereas offshore wind farms provide both benefits, such as shelter for fish species, but also risks to biodiversity depending on the stage of development, location and design;

P. whereas existing EU legislation initially showed itself to be successful at reducing nitrogen levels in EU waters and contributing to achieving the goals of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), which include minimising human-induced eutrophication, especially and its adverse effects;

Q. whereas the impacts of seawater warming driven by global climate change and exacerbated by land-based activities are particularly fast-acting in the Baltic Sea, with the Baltic Sea warming at twice the rate of the global ocean average, and are expected to lead to further widespread and mostly unknown consequences, including oxygen depletion and continued disturbance of the future reproductive cycle of fish populations and their distribution;

R. whereas it is important for the Commission and the Member States to fully implement all relevant EU legislation in the Baltic and improve implementation of the regional sea convention HELCOM’s Action Plan in order to tackle the ecosystem failure in the Baltic Sea;

T. whereas for the Baltic Sea, the Commission, having sought ICES advice, is proposing –and Member States are setting – bycatch quotas, although ICES advises ‘zero catch’;

U. whereas the existing rules on year-to-year flexibility as enshrined in the CFP affect sustainable quota management; whereas the Council has in some cases decided not to use this option due to critical stock situations; whereas guidance, particularly for cases of stocks in critical condition, is necessary for the Baltic Sea;

V. whereas misreporting or any case of non-compliance are ongoing issues in Baltic fisheries and should be addressed accordingly through the implementation of the revised Fisheries Control Regulation;

W. whereas the effective implementation of the landing obligation in the Baltic Sea continues to face practical challenges; whereas Member States must act in accordance with the provisions of the CFP and the Fisheries Control Regulation, including its remote electronic monitoring (REM) provisions;

X. whereas setting fishing quotas for only one year hinders economic, investment and employment planning in the fisheries sector; whereas a multiannual decision-making framework based on the best available scientific advice would allow for more stable management;

Y. whereas the Baltic Sea harbour porpoise is facing extinction and only a few hundred of these mammals are left in the Baltic Proper; whereas this species is under continued threat from being caught as ‘bycatch’, from environmental contaminants, prey depletion and disturbance from underwater noise;

Z. whereas forage fish play a vital role for marine food webs and Baltic Sea ecosystems;

AA. whereas fisheries for the production of fish meal and fish oil were authorised in the Baltic Sea region in 1995 when exceptions were originally only allowed ‘provided that such fishery does not entail risks of irreversible ecological damage’ as outlined in the Treaty between the Member States of the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, concerning the accession of the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union;

AB. whereas many Baltic Sea Member States have introduced individual transferable quota systems (ITQs) as available under the CFP; whereas this has favoured large operators; whereas the impact on stock structure is primarily determined by the gear and fishing techniques used;

AC. whereas the Baltic MAP Regulation’s effectiveness at achieving its overarching ecological and socio-economic goals has been very limited; whereas the failure to restore fish stocks above reference levels, weak integration of ecosystem considerations and insufficient application of a precautionary approach when setting quotas have undermined progress; whereas a lack of holistic policy approaches has further complicated the work to avoid further degradation and support a more resilient Baltic Sea; whereas the added value in terms of regional cooperation has been low, few joint recommendations by Member States have been initiated and regionalisation provisions of the EU fisheries rules are not being used in order to adapt management measures to the specificities of the Baltic Sea; whereas engagement and cooperation with all relevant stakeholders has been insufficient;

AD. whereas certain single species assessments and scientific advice have, in the context of the specific and dynamically changing environmental conditions in the Baltic Sea, resulted in the structural overestimation of stock reproductive capacity and total stock size, heavily affecting the resource and the management and operational capacity of the Baltic fishing sector, showing the need for more sea-basin-specific approaches;

AE. whereas the Commission’s requests for advice on the Baltic Sea from ICES have so far not asked for environmental factors to be considered, including oxygen deficits or food availability, which may affect the state of stocks, nor have they sufficiently included the need to highlight risk considerations; whereas requests should be continuously improved, including better communication of data uncertainty by ICES, in order to better reflect the quality of the assessments;

AF. whereas the genetic structure of populations and sub-populations of commercially exploited stocks is not fully known and should be further investigated by ICES, such as through data calls to Baltic Sea Member States, to improve the knowledge base on the relevant population structures in the region;

AG. whereas in September 2025, ICES, together with the Commission’s Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, stated that for the Baltic Sea the ‘traditional uniform management of single species is no longer sufficient to address the complexities observed’;

AH. whereas HELCOM is developing environmental risk maps covering areas particularly vulnerable to eutrophication, anoxia and toxic bottom sediments, which provide information for where to prioritise establishing protected areas and possible fishing closure periods;

AI. whereas scientific advice for the Baltic Sea should be improved to avoid overestimation of stock size and productivity, undue catch limits and business uncertainty;

AN. whereas while the Baltic MAP Regulation is intended to be a flexible framework to be adjusted under a regionalised approach, such changes have had limited success, to some extent also as a result of the limited implementation of the relevant legislation;

AO. whereas several EU regulations referred to in the Baltic MAP Regulation stipulate how to avoid risk, and assess healthy stocks and ecosystem components;

AP. whereas winter fishing of pelagic species in the Baltic Sea during their period of intensive growth and accumulation of energy reserves prior to spawning weakens the reproductive capacity of stocks, as females deprived of adequate nutrition produce fewer and less well-developed eggs, which limits reproductive success and hinders population recovery;

AQ. whereas in 2023 Parliament’s own initiative report called for a pragmatic and balanced approach to MPAs, recognising their diversity in terms of size, species and conservation objectives, underlined the need to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach and emphasised that such policies must carefully consider the socio-economic impact on coastal communities, be grounded in the best available scientific evidence on a case-by-case basis, and ensure the active involvement of fishers in the design and management of MPAs;

AR. whereas the EU decision-making system on TACs currently distinguishes between management of target species and the protection needs of other species while aiming to apply a precautionary approach, in order to reach and maintain healthy ecosystem status;

AS. whereas a functional ecosystem as defined in the MSFD requires that all elements of the marine food webs, to the extent that they are known, occur at normal abundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long-term abundance of the species and the retention of their full reproductive capacity, as outlined in Annex I to the MSFD;

AT. whereas ecosystem-based management is defined by the UNEP as ‘the management of human activities and their impacts on ecosystems and natural resources based on consideration of the whole ecosystem;

AU. whereas preparatory discussions about TAC decisions are held in the Baltic Sea Fisheries Forum (BALTFISH); whereas regionalisation allows for flexible management of EU sea basins; whereas BALTFISH is able to put forward ‘joint recommendations’ regarding specific measures that should be streamlined;

AV. whereas the long-term sustainability of the Baltic fisheries sector depends on the integration of environmental, economic and social objectives, ensuring that management measures safeguard employment, regional cohesion and food supply in coastal areas; whereas regional and local knowledge, including that of fishers and coastal communities, represents an essential component of effective management;

AW. whereas various policy and scientific reports highlight the need for an improved and more coherent approach to decision-making and application of a fully holistic approach; whereas achieving such an approach has been the aim of the ministerial declaration from the ‘Our Baltic’ conferences; whereas concrete results from these conferences and the declaration have been limited, especially in terms of progress on the implementation of environmental legislation;

AX. whereas the European Ocean Pact, announcing a forthcoming legislative proposal for an Ocean Act, has the ambition to provide a holistic framework to clarify the interlinkages and priorities of existing ocean policies;

AY. whereas the Commission and the Member States have not taken sufficient action to protect and restore the ecosystems of the Baltic Sea against additional threats such as pollution, eutrophication and climate change; whereas such pressures are transboundary and cumulative in nature and therefore require coordinated action at international and EU level; whereas transitioning to low-impact and low-carbon economic activities can contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation;

BA. whereas the Commission is assessing the European Union’s seal regime; whereas during a public consultation by the Commission there was a strong opinion against the placing on the market of seal products and concerns about seal hunting;

BB. whereas, since the end of the Second World War, tens of thousands of tonnes of conventional and chemical weapons containing dangerous substances, including chemical warfare agents such as sulfur mustard (mustard gas), tear gas and paralytic-convulsive agents, are gradually releasing hazardous chemicals into the marine environment as a result of progressive corrosion, leading to its contamination, damage to ecosystems and loss of biodiversity, as well as posing a threat to human health and to economic activities dependent on the sea, including fisheries, transport, raw material extraction and the development of marine energy;

BC. whereas any leakage from chemical storage facilities could lead to the rapid contamination of a large part of the Baltic Sea, which would exceed the capabilities of individual countries and require a coordinated response from the EU;

BD. whereas the remediation of the Baltic Sea seabed, including the removal of chemical weapons, toxic cargoes and radioactive substances, requires a long-term and financially secure plan developed at EU level;

BE. whereas the sustainable management of Baltic Sea fish stocks is complicated also by data gaps arising from non-reporting of data by Russia, which increases scientific uncertainty and undermines effective regional fisheries management;

BF. whereas Russia unilaterally decides on quotas, disregarding scientific advice and consistently setting quotas exceeding MSY, potentially risking the recovery of Baltic Sea fish stocks;

BG. whereas the activity of Russia’s so-called shadow fleet has increased since Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine; whereas this fleet operates obsolete vessels that fail to meet safety standards and are used to transport crude oil and petroleum products across the Baltic Sea, with minimal regard for safety, environmental and regulatory standards, poses a serious risk to the marine environment and regional fisheries due to the ageing and poorly maintained condition of its vessels, and also raises concerns with regards to fisheries in the context of the necessary recovery of the Baltic Sea fish stocks and the overall security of the Baltic Sea, with the potential for catastrophic consequences in the event of an oil spill that could affect all countries in the region;

Urgent actions

1. Calls on the Commission and the Council to ensure the effective use of all existing available legal and management tools, including targeted measures, using a science-based approach as well as effective stakeholder consultation, to prevent any further decline in the Baltic Sea fish stocks;

2. Calls on the Commission together with the Member States to assess how the distribution of quotas among fleet segments in the Baltic Sea has evolved and to determine whether a causal link between the pressure on the resources and the national distribution policy of fishing opportunities exists;

3. Urges the Commission and the Member States when implementing the Baltic MAP Regulation to move to a recovery and rebuilding phase for fish stocks, taking measures and actions based on the best available scientific advice, as well as taking other potential interlinked actions related to other EU or national legislation to address all stressors on fish stocks; calls on the Commission and the Member States, when implementing the above-mentionned recovery and rebuilding phase, to consider remedial measures based on the best available science such as suspending targeted fisheries for some stocks in the Baltic Sea as provided for in the MAP, avoiding measures that could undermine the socio-economic stability of coastal communities so as to ensure that fishing activities for human consumption remain sustainable;

8. Calls on the Member States and the Commission, taking into account the shortcomings of the Baltic MAP Regulation in terms of reaching its ecological and socio-economic objectives, to consider launching measures in accordance with Articles 12 and 13 of the CFP whenever best available scientific advice indicates the need for such measures, and to prepare action by analysing the costs and benefits of closing relevant fisheries, including for recreational fisheries, noting lost revenues, livelihoods, food security and the future cost of inaction;

9. Calls for the prevention of irreversible ecological damage to herring and sprat populations in the Baltic Sea in order to secure the long-term viability of coastal and small-scale fisheries targeting those species and safeguarding marine food webs; believes that, based on scientific advice, recovery pauses for the respective stocks must be urgently considered, until scientific evidence demonstrates a clear and sustained recovery of the stocks;

10. Highlights in this regard that to be as effective as possible, remedial measures require appropriate stakeholder involvement and must be based on the best available science in order to achieve their objectives; highlights furthermore the option of creating science-based fish-stock-recovery areas and temporary fishing closures in the Baltic Sea, focusing on winter and pre-spawning aggregation areas with a view to maintaining stable recruitment and a healthy age structure, as well as passive and active restoration measures including in spawning and nursery areas, aligned with provisions in relevant EU environmental legislation; highlights the importance of accompanying such measures with appropriate and timely compensation in line with relevant EU provisions;

11. Recalls the EU’s commitments and targets in terms of area coverage and effectiveness of MPAs; encourages the proper implementation of effective management measures in current MPAs in the Baltic Sea, as well as the designation of additional MPAs in line with EU commitments; highlights that this designation should be based on scientific assessments showing critical habitats or spawning grounds; points out the need for effective management measures combined with pilot projects for selective and low-impact fishing gear inspired by successful initiatives in the North Sea and the Skagerrak;

12. Highlights the importance of maintaining viable small-scale fisheries with limited landings in the region, allowing them to operate during rebuilding phases; recalls relevant provisions of the revised Fisheries Control Regulation and their full and effective implementation; stresses that these fisheries are crucial for livelihoods, resilience of traditional supply chains and preserving jobs in coastal fishing communities and that they have particular social and cultural value; points out that strengthening these fisheries can garner greater added value for local economies; highlights the importance of the 3 pillars of sustainable development in line with Article 2 of the CFP;