What changed between the draft committee report and the plenary report

Removed:4. Recalls that the action plan should be coherent with the objectives of the CFP that ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long term and are managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of ensuring economic, social and employment benefits, and of contributing to the availability of food supplies;

Added:Consistent approach with existing regulations

Removed:Nature restoration

Added:5. Considers that the Commission’s action plan lacks a coherent approach with other priorities and strategies, such as ensuring food security and the strategic autonomy of the EU; highlights that, in addition, the action plan should be managed through an integrated, consistent and ecosystem-based approach that promotes synergies between all maritime activities in order to avoid conflicts and foster cooperation, in particular as regards marine energy infrastructure, and that it should ensure a level playing field with non-EU countries; is of the opinion that considerations such as rising prices, enhancing the social dimension of the CFP and strengthening economic growth and employment have not sufficiently been considered in the action plan;

Removed:5. Regrets the lack of coherence between the title of the action plan and the proposals presented therein, which mainly focus on altering the fishing practices that affect species and habitats without addressing the potential for alignment between fishing techniques and practices and the protection or restoration of ecosystems;

Added:6. Regrets that the proposed action plan comes at a time when the fishing sector is burdened by the consequences of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the rise and unpredictability of oil prices and Brexit;

Added:7. Underscores a general concern with the lack of real stakeholder consultation to ensure support for the action plan; expresses general concern that proportionality considerations are not properly taken into account in Commission proposals;

Added:8. Recalls that the action plan should be consistent with the objectives of the CFP to ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long term and are managed in line with an ecosystem-based approach; recalls that the action plan should also be consistent with the objectives of ensuring economic, social and employment benefits, as well as contribute to the availability of food supplies and make the best use of available fishing opportunities to reduce dependency on non-EU markets; welcomes any objectives that enable a consistent approach between the CFP and other policies, in particular environmental legislation;

Added:9. Supports the need to strengthen and improve scientific research and innovation projects, which should be carried out in a way that is consistent with other EU policies, pilot projects and scientific projects dealing with innovation and research, such as those, for example, aiming to reduce and replace the use of (micro)plastics;

Added:Restoring marine ecosystems

Added:10. Regrets the lack of coherence in the title of the action plan, as well as the lack of a holistic set of proposals in the action plan, as the plan mainly focuses on altering the fishing practices that affect species and habitats and does not address the potential for alignment between fishing techniques and practices and the protection or restoration of ecosystems; recalls the specific relevance of finding a balance between requirements for users and gains for nature to ensure predictability and legal clarity, and stresses the need for fishers to be part of the solution, instead of being put forward as the cause of the problem;

Added:11. Emphasises the need to develop and support initiatives to restore marine ecosystems, which can only be brought about if policymakers fully engage and cooperate with those whose livelihoods are dependent on those marine areas; requests, with that aim, financial support for scientific studies and data collection on marine ecosystems, financial compensation and incentives, for instance through the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF), which should be used to provide effective support for EU fishing fleets transitioning to more selective fishing techniques, and in particular to support the fishers most affected by the restrictions, as well as to mitigate the socioeconomic impacts of restrictive measures;

Added:12. Reiterates the objectives of protecting at least 30 % and strictly protecting at least 10 % of EU seas by 2030; notes that the EU has made progress in designating new MPAs, both as part of the EU Natura 2000 network and through complementary national designations;

Removed:8. Is of the opinion that closing fishing zones to bottom trawlers is not simply a matter of moving fishing vessels so that they can continue to fish elsewhere, as this approach fails to take into account, among other things, the fishers’ understanding of the seabed and the presence of other fishing vessels in adjacent areas which could cause an overlap and lead to a localised overexploitation of resources and the deterioration of working conditions;

Added:16. Considers that MPAs and other protected areas are tools, not objectives in and of themselves; recognises that their success lies in them being accepted and embraced by fishers, coastal communities and other stakeholders; calls for the Commission and the Member States to launch and fund scientific research programmes and calls for the inclusion of the fisheries sector, including its artisanal component, as well as other relevant stakeholders, in the design, management, implementation, monitoring and surveillance of MPAs;

Removed:9. Considers that the multiplication of initiatives within and outside of the action plan concerning the same fishing technique brings into question the coherence and predictability of the Commission’s actions, with its desire to implement a total ban on a certain fishing technique being diluted in a series of measures;

Added:17. Considers that the engagement of science, the fisheries sector and all relevant stakeholders cannot be pursued only by the EU, especially in relation to preventing bad practices by foreign fleets; calls for further efforts to be made to address global activities detrimental to ocean protection, including by fleets of non-EU countries, such as the Chinese fleet, and for consideration to be given to establishing a global network of MPAs;

Removed:10. Believes that this surplus of more or less short-term actions detracts from the coherence and legitimacy of initiatives that should be the subject of a consensus, taking into account socio-economic, technical and scientific aspects;

Added:Bottom contacting fishing gears

Removed:11. Notes the lack of perspective on the consequences of certain aspects of the action plan, which was published without waiting, for instance, for scientific and socio-economic conclusions on previous proposals;

Added:18. Highlights that many Union vessels operate with mobile bottom contacting fishing gears, and that many coastal regions are socially and economically dependent on activities using mobile and fixed bottom contacting gears, such as shellfish farming activities; highlights that restrictions on or the closing of fishing zones to bottom contacting fishing gears are not simply a matter of moving the activity of fishing vessels to different fishing grounds; stresses that it is necessary to take into account, among other things, the possible available resources that can be captured with these gears, the practical experiences of fishers, the presence and redistribution of fishing vessels in adjacent areas in order to avoid an overlap that could lead to conflict on the use of space, increased pressure in other fishing areas and the deterioration of working conditions;

Added:19. Recalls that the moves towards regionalisation made during the last CFP reform were an attempt to move away from a one-size-fits-all approach whereby decisions were overly centralised within the EU; welcomes the measures proposed in the action plan to improve regional cooperation; considers however, that the action plan takes some steps in the opposite direction, in particular in relation to its proposals on bottom trawling;

Added:20. Considers that there have been several initiatives within and outside of the action plan concerning the same fishing techniques that have created a patchwork of initiatives and put into question the coherence and predictability of actions that will be taken at EU level and have a severe impact on the trust of fishers and fisheries communities in (EU) policy- and decision-making processes;

Added:21. Considers that any plan to implement provisions or restrictions on the use of any particular fishing gear needs to be made in line with other policies, and take into account all stakeholders, as well as all relevant food security, socioeconomic, environmental, technical and scientific aspects; reiterates that actions supported by consensus and supported by these considerations will have greater success and a positive effect on their implementation;

Added:22. Believes that the consequences of any action plan or legislative proposal need to be based on scientific and socioeconomic assessments and evaluations; notes the lack of perspective on the consequences of certain aspects of this action plan, for example the Commission’s calls to Member States to prohibit mobile bottom fishing in the MPAs that are Natura 2000 sites under the Habitats Directive that protect the seabed and marines species by the end of March 2024 on the one hand, while on the other hand, in parallel and with the same deadline, its requests that Member States provide information on how they intend to ensure that mobile bottom fishing is phased out in all MPAs by 2030 without waiting, for instance, for the scientific and socioeconomic conclusions of previous proposals; welcomes the fact that the Commission has acknowledged that a blanket approach banning mobile bottom contacting fishing is not suitable to achieve the objectives of the action plan;

Added:23. Considers that measures related to bottom trawling should be assessed in line with all possible guidance, such as that of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea or the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, as well as with the best available scientific data; considers that these measures should take into account that bottom trawling is one of the most common and most regulated fishing gears in Europe and that it should be, in priority, regulated in the framework of the Technical Measures Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 2019/1241), whose aim is, as its title indicates, ‘the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems’;

Added:24. Notes that scientific bodies such as the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and many peer reviewed scientific studies have demonstrated and recognised that mobile bottom contacting fishing gear has an impact on ecosystems; highlights, however, that the effect of trawling is variable and, depending on several factors such as the type of fisheries, they are considered by science as sustainable and compatible with achieving seabed conservation objectives or stocks being exploited above maximum sustainable yield levels;

Added:25. Highlights that the Commission's intention to impose measures through its action plan, rather than letting the co-legislators decide, risks going against good governance and dialogue between stakeholders and different levels of administration and risks undermining the interinstitutional balance and each institution's role in the decision-making process;

Removed:15. Takes into account the legal procedures taken by Member States or regional authorities, such as the Xunta de Galicia, at the Court of Justice of the European Union against measures linked to the action plan, underlining the lack of proportionality of certain measures;

Added:29. Notes the numerous declarations and clear statements by representatives of the Member States raising clear concerns with the action plan and its associated uncertainties; notes that the Member States have especially questioned the overly simplistic approach taken by the Commission in relation to bottom trawling restrictions in MPAs;

Removed:The Commission’s lack of clarity on the legal interpretation of its action plan

Added:30. Considers the positioned opposition between the development of the fishing industry and the protection of marine biodiversity to be a dead end; believes that both can be achieved in a balanced way, as stated by Member State representatives after the presentation of the action plan;

Removed:16. Notes that, although the action plan is not legally binding, its implementation will entail significant socio-economic costs for Member States and their fleets, as it contains 90 measures in the form of regulations, guidance, analyses, roadmaps, studies, reports and initiatives;

Added:31. Welcomes the creation of a special dialogue group made up of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Environment (DG ENV) and Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE), the Member States and interested stakeholders; considers that the role of the dialogue group should be to facilitate knowledge and possible discussions between fisheries and environmental communities, as well as to give Member States a platform for transparency and dialogue on the implementation of their roadmaps;

Removed:17. Notes the Commission’s embarrassing lack of clarity on the legal consequences of the action plan, due to its many contradictory statements, particularly those made within Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries; considers that this has had a damaging impact on many sectors of the fishing industry, such as the brown shrimp sector, at a time when the uncertainties linked to the current crises are weighing heavily on their morale;

Added:Legal implications of the Commission’s action plan

Removed:18. Regrets the conflicting statements made within the Commission and, in particular, between the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries and the Directorate-General for Environment, regarding the binding effects of the action plan;

Added:32. Reaffirms its commitment to exercise Parliament’s prerogatives and competences with regard to any initiative, such as legislative proposals and delegated or implementing acts, including those linked or unlinked to the action plan;

Removed:Socio-economic aspects and food security

Added:33. Notes that, although the action plan is not legally binding, its implementation will entail significant socioeconomic costs for the Member States and their fleets, as it contains around 90 measures in the form of regulations, guidance, analyses, roadmaps, studies, reports and initiatives; calls on the Member States and the Commission to conduct the necessary studies in due time as part of the preparation for any new or reformed regulations or initiatives, as well as to take into account and engage with the marine spatial planning processes, between regions and sea basins, but also among different Member States and with non-EU countries to ensure socioeconomic benefits;

Removed:19. Supports the Commission President’s proposal, in her 2023 State of the Union address, that every new piece of legislation should undergo a competitiveness check; requests that the action plan and fisheries-related proposals and other initiatives include a competitiveness check on their socio-economic impact and their effect on coastal communities;

Added:34. Believes that measures included in the action plan should follow, where possible, the ordinary legislative procedure to ensure greater transparency and should include a genuine impact assessment, with the proper involvement of all stakeholders;

Removed:20. Regrets the fact that the action plan is not accompanied by a socio-economic study, impact assessment or intermediary report and that it does not propose any kind of additional financing measures for the green and energy transitions;

Added:35. Notes with concern the lack of clarity on the legal consequences of the action plan, owing to statements made by the Commission, for instance during its presentation to Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries and to different stakeholders; considers that this has not brought clarity and stability for the fishing sector and has had a damaging impact on many sectors of the fishing industry at a time when the uncertainties caused by the cumulative consequences of several crises are weighing heavily on the morale of people working in the industry;

Removed:21. Calls for an action plan that, along with the CFP, contributes to productivity growth, a decent standard of living in the fisheries sector, including the small-scale fisheries sector, and stable markets, and that ensures the availability of food without compromising food security or the sovereignty gap;

Added:36. Notes with concern that the Commission is increasingly using non-binding instruments, such as communications, which are commonly referred to as ‘soft law’, to present very concrete policy measures without following up with legislative proposals; considers that any uncertainty between the intended legal meaning of the communications presented and their actual legal effect is likely to affect legal certainty and predictability for the sector, as well as raise legal questions regarding institutional balance and the limits and exercise of EU competences; believes, therefore, that Commission communications should not be used to put forward binding measures;

Removed:22. Welcomes the Commission’s call for data collection on the impact of recreational fisheries, but underlines the need to also consider the economic and social impacts of sustainable recreational fishing activities;

Added:37. Regrets that communication from the Commission and, in particular, from DG MARE and DG ENV, has included conflicting statements regarding the binding effects of the action plan; calls on DG MARE and DG ENV to listen more closely to the specific characteristics of the fisheries sector before preparing or proposing joint initiatives;

Added:Socioeconomic aspects and food security

Added:38. Supports the Commission President’s 2023 State of the Union address, declaring that for every new piece of legislation a competitiveness check would be conducted; requests that the action plan, all fisheries-related legislative proposals and other initiatives include a competitiveness check for their socioeconomic impact on the different activities and their effect on coastal communities, as well as on the recreational fisheries sector and the cumulative effect on the availability of food supply;

Added:39. Regrets the fact that the action plan is not accompanied by a socioeconomic study, impact assessment with a scientific analysis or an intermediary report and does not propose any kind of additional financing measures for the green and energy transitions; brings to the attention of the Commission the fact that strategic documents, such as this action plan, should be presented to the different stakeholders and take account of their views in a more coordinated and clear way, and should include full environmental, social, economic and legal assessments of their implementation; calls for all necessary means, including incentives and compensatory mechanisms, to be put in place for a just and balanced transition;

Added:40. Highlights that the action plan should contribute equally to the pillars of sustainability in the CFP (environmental, social and economic) and, among other things, contribute to productivity growth, decent working conditions in the sector, in particular for small-scale fisheries, and stable markets, ensure food-safe, qualitative and sustainable products without compromising food security and autonomy, allowing fishers to make full use of the fishing quotas allocated to them, and contribute to environmental recovery and protection to mitigate climate change and adapt to its impacts;

Added:41. Welcomes the Commission’s call for data to be collected on the impact of recreational fisheries, but underlines the need to also consider the economic and social impacts of sustainable recreational fishing activities; considers that recreational fisheries may offer excellent opportunities to foster the ‘citizen science’ approach;

Removed:Exemplarity of the fisheries sector

Added:44. Calls for the EU to promote transparency in fisheries and other extractive industries at sea in partner countries, as it is key to stopping overfishing, biodiversity loss and human rights violations; stresses that coastal developing countries can implement the standards outlined in the Fisheries Transparency Initiative and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative to improve transparency;

Removed:25. Supports the fisheries sector’s ongoing efforts to improve fishing techniques and reduce its environmental impact without waiting for the Commission’s action plans; highlights the positive examples of restoring species stocks in protected areas while maintaining fishing activities, thanks to the major role played by fisheries stakeholders;

Added:45. Asks that any restrictions, whether based on the action plan or not, should be automatically mirrored for products imported from non-EU countries, especially given the fact that the EU imports 70 % of the fish it consumes; stresses that it is essential to ensure consistency between internal and external policies, as well as a level playing field between EU and non-EU operators;

Removed:Delegated acts in the action plan

Added:46. Notes that mobile bottom gear catches account for 25 % of total European catches; believes that new management rules, in particular limitations or restrictions on the use of fishing techniques at EU level, should not pose a risk to food security, nor lead to an increase in imports of fishing products, and even less so if these products are captured using fishing gears with limited or restricted use in the EU;

Removed:26. Recalls that it rejected the delegated act on SIOFA and reaffirms its commitment to scrutinising any incoming delegated or implementing acts linked to the action plan;

Added:Working with the fisheries sector

Added:47. Supports the fisheries sector’s ongoing efforts to improve the selectivity of fishing techniques and to reduce its environmental impact; highlights the positive examples of restoring species stocks in protected areas while maintaining fishing activities; supports further efforts to boost co-management arrangements where local stakeholders take responsibility for sustainable management and invest more in research, innovation and the development of new fishing gears and techniques; highlights the role of fishers as ‘guardians of the sea’, their commitment to restoring fish stocks and their contribution to the recovery of marine ecosystems;

Added:48. Notes that, according to the Commission, tangible progress towards more sustainable fisheries on the ground has been achieved over the last decades thanks to the CFP; highlights, however, that this recovery has come at high costs for most fishing communities;

Added:49. Highlights the importance of including all relevant stakeholders, from fishers to civil society representatives, in the decision-making process and implementation of actions that contribute to the protection and restoration of marine ecosystems, and that can support sustainable and resilient fisheries;

Added:50. Stresses that particular attention should be paid to gender equality and women’s empowerment in view of the crucial role of women and young people, especially in the sustainable ocean-based economy and marine conservation areas;