What changed between the draft committee report and the plenary report

Removed:I. whereas industrial fisheries for fish meal and fish oil became allowed in the Baltic Sea region in 1995, and since then fisheries have been transformed via individual transferable quota systems to host fewer and larger vessels that dominate herring landings; whereas today in Sweden and Finland only 10 % and 17 % of catches respectively are used for direct human consumption;

Added:I. whereas strengthening Baltic coastal communities and supporting local fisheries, in particular small-scale fisheries, are also essential in reducing this dependence and ensuring the economic and social sustainability of the Baltic coastline;

Removed:J. whereas single species assessments and scientific advice have, in current environmental conditions, resulted in the structural overestimation of stock reproductive capacity and total stock size;

Added:J. whereas regular updates on the catches and gross value added of the recreational fisheries sector, including marine recreational fisheries, are forthcoming in the ongoing implementation of the Fisheries Control Regulation; whereas recreational fisheries have a considerable social and economic value also beyond monetary terms and anglers can contribute to restoration efforts and nature protection; whereas recreational fisheries can have a significant impact on fish resources and Member States should, therefore, ensure that they are conducted in a manner that is compatible with the objectives of the CFP; whereas recreational fishers are also legitimate users of marine biological resources;

Removed:K. whereas the advice from ICES does not sufficiently highlight risk considerations and should be improved to better reflect the quality of the assessments and relevant issues;

Added:K. whereas the most recent EU-wide assessment of the socio-economic value of the marine recreational fisheries (MRF) sector dates back to 2017, and its recommendations have not yet been implemented to fully unlock the potential of this low-impact activity as a recognised component of the EU blue economy strategy; whereas available data indicates that an estimated 8-10 million EU citizens are engaged in the recreational fisheries sector; whereas in the Baltic Sea region, this constitutes a major socio-economic activity, generating an economic contribution of about EUR 1.5 billion and supporting the creation of over 14 000 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs;

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

Added:L. whereas the Baltic Sea forms the basis of the livelihood and cultural identity of thousands of families; whereas fishing is part of the centuries-long social, cultural and economic heritage of the region; whereas restrictions on fisheries should be implemented in a way that does not make it impossible to run a local coastal business providing fresh fish to consumers to ensure food security, and avoid the eventual disappearance of fishing-related occupations, and consequently lead to inhabitants leaving coastal areas;

Removed:M. whereas the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia use a more cautious quota setting approach than the EU and include explicit uncertainty buffers and automatically triggered rebuilding plans when limit values are breached;

Added:M. whereas the Baltic Sea is affected by multiple human-induced pressures, including global warming, residual pollution, chemical munitions, eutrophication, changing environmental conditions, and long-term degradation, and is especially vulnerable due to its bathymetrically shallow sea basin with genetically unique species adapted to living in brackish water with naturally low salinity and oxygen levels, and its limited water exchange with the North Sea and strong vertical stratification; whereas these particular conditions require management approaches tailored to regional specificities; whereas fish stocks in the Baltic have continued to decline also due to these pressures, including predator imbalances, that have impacted recruitment, while significant fishing effort reductions have taken place in the past few years; whereas the Commission acknowledges the need to address these additional environmental challenges to support recovery and long-term sustainability;

Removed:N. whereas total allowable catch (TAC) decisions, technical rules and remedial measures have not followed the requirement of Article 5 of the Baltic MAP Regulation to adopt measures ‘to ensure rapid return of the stock concerned to levels above those capable of producing MSY’;

Added:N. whereas, according to the ICES Baltic Ecosystem Overview, fishing is the main activity impacting the marine ecosystem, via selective extraction of species, and the combination of this activity with agriculture and forestry, together with waste water discharge, pose major pressures on the ecosystem through nutrient and organic enrichment; whereas this affects fisheries in the whole Baltic Sea ecoregion; whereas progress has been achieved in reducing nutrient inputs and hazardous substances, yet the combined influence continues to affect fish stocks, the survival of larvae and young fish, and more effort is needed in this regard, according to the European Environment Agency;

Removed:O. whereas while the Baltic MAP Regulation was intended to be a flexible framework to be adjusted under a regionalised approach, such changes have had limited success;

Added: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;

Removed:P. whereas while several EU regulations referred to in the Baltic MAP Regulation stipulate how to avoid risk, and assess healthy stocks and ecosystem components, management decisions have not followed them sufficiently;

Added: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;

Removed:Q. whereas the EU decision-making system on TACs currently distinguishes between management of target species and the protection needs of other species, despite the fact that they are part of one ecosystem and share the same requirements to reach healthy status;

Added: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;

Removed:R. whereas predation by native species is a natural part of the Baltic ecosystem; whereas scientific evidence shows their impact on fish populations to be localised, context-specific and with overall effects remaining limited;

Added: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;

Removed:S. whereas preparatory discussions about TAC decisions are held in the Baltic Sea Fisheries Forum (BALTFISH), a group that lacks transparency compared to other EU preparatory bodies and working groups;

Added:S. whereas Baltic fish stocks are at record low levels; whereas Member States must follow relevant EU legislation such as the MSFD; whereas the MSFD also requires good environmental status to be achieved through balanced food webs, stocks with a healthy size and age distribution, and addresses, among other things, contaminants, eutrophication, invasive species, marine litter and underwater noise;

Added: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’;

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added: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;

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

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added: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’;

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added:AJ. whereas in accordance with Article 43(3) TFEU, decisions on the setting of total allowable catches (TACs) and other fishing opportunities are the exclusive competence of the Council and, therefore, of the Member States; whereas these decisions must take full account of the latest scientific data and the diversity of environmental conditions in the Baltic Sea region; whereas the Council agreement on 2026 catch limits for the Baltic Sea diverged from the Commission proposal and was not adopted with unanimity as concerns were raised in relation to how scientific advice has been taken into account; whereas this decision raised concerns of potentially putting at risk the fish populations and marine ecosystems of the Baltic Sea;

Added:AK. whereas some non-EU countries including Canada, New Zealand and Australia apply different science-based management systems with varying degrees of precaution compared to the EU;

Added:AL. whereas effectively managed and well-connected marine protected areas (MPAs) are valuable tools in climate mitigation as well as for broader goals such as biodiversity, resilience and ecosystem health; whereas the restoration of vegetated coastal ecosystems such as tidal marshes and seagrass meadows (coastal blue carbon ecosystems) can contribute to climate change mitigation through increased carbon sequestration;

Added:AM. whereas the implementation of Article 5 of the Baltic MAP regarding TAC decisions, technical rules and remedial measures has not been sufficient; whereas where actions have beentaken ‘to ensure rapid return of the stock concerned to levels above those capable of producing MSY’ they have not reached their aim;

Added: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;

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

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added:AZ. whereas natural predation forms part of the Baltic ecosystem; whereas there is a growing population of certain protected species in the Baltic Sea such as grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) and great cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbosinensis); whereas significant impact by seals and cormorants on juvenile cod survival, particularly for Western Baltic Cod, may occur as well as on aquaculture and fishing gear; whereas scientific evidence shows that they have mostly a localised species- and stock-specific impact on fish populations, while data on the extent of this impact are mostly limited and need to be improved through monitoring and targeted research; whereas all factors affecting fish populations have to be considered in order to rebuild Baltic Sea fish stocks; whereas an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management should also integrate environmental factors; whereas addressing these interactions requires targeted and effective management measures based on the best available science and dialogue with all stakeholders; whereas on the adoption of a European cormorant management plan aimed at mitigating the growing impact of cormorants on fish stocks, fisheries and aquaculture, Parliament outlined a series of potential measures to address the ongoing challenges posed by cormorant populations;

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added: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;

Added: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;