Changes between two versions
What changed between the draft committee report and the plenary report
From · draft committee report· 16 Dec 2025
on the impact of the implementation of the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive 2014/89/EU on fisheries in selected fishing areas and sea basins
To · plenary report· 23 Apr 2026
on the impact of the implementation of Directive 2014/89/EU, the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive, on fisheries in selected fishing areas and sea basins
AI:What changed, in short
The report expands significantly, adding new recitals and paragraphs on food security, geopolitical tensions, and sector challenges.25816 It strengthens requirements for stakeholder involvement, including fishers and coastal communities, and calls for legally binding participation.31011 It adds calls for priority access for fisheries, compensatory measures, and better integration of aquaculture and small-scale fishing.816 It emphasizes the need for cross-border cooperation, especially with the UK, and sea-basin approaches.816 The other changes are formal or wording: rephrasing and minor additions.1467
14 changes of substance · 0 formal · 2 of wording only
Written by AI from the two texts only · read the changes before relying on it · 4 Sept 2026 · Report a problem
+102 added · −42 removed · 14 changed paragraphs, packaging included.
Part 1 of 5: EXPLANATORY STATEMENT - SUMMARY OF FACTS AND FINDINGS
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT - SUMMARY OF FACTS AND FINDINGS
24 unchanged paragraphs
Findings on the implementation of the Directive
Uneven progress and governance challenges:
Implementation of the MSPD has been uneven and incomplete. The content of MSP plans varies significantly between Member States due to different approaches regarding the binding nature and governance of the plans.
Impact on fisheries and aquaculture:
The MSPD has not delivered significant benefits for fisheries. Fishing activities face spatial restrictions, competing uses, displacement of fleets, and increased pressure on remaining grounds. Small-scale fisheries are particularly vulnerable. Aquaculture has seen marginal improvements but continues to struggle with burdensome licensing procedures, lack of dedicated zones, and inconsistent recognition across Member States.
Stakeholder engagement and social dimension:
Although stakeholder involvement has improved, it remains constrained. Fishers and coastal communities deplore a lack of early and meaningful engagement in MSP processes, compared to stronger sectors such as offshore energy and shipping.
Data collection gaps and technical barriers:
The effective implementation of MSP is affected by the lack of harmonised data and sufficient resources for data collection and research, making it difficult to apply an ecosystem-based approach and to integrate fisheries and aquaculture adequately into MSP frameworks.
Cross-border coordination:
Cooperation between Member States and with third countries remains limited. While initiatives such as the Greater North Sea Basin Initiative (GNSBI) represent positive steps, broader cross-border and sea-basin-based planning is still lacking.
Recommendations from the Rapporteur
Strengthen legislative coherence:
The MSPD must be better aligned with related EU legislation, particularly the MSFD, the CFP and the Water Framework Directive, to ensure consistent and effective implementation.
Balanced multi-use approach:
MSP should adopt a multi-use approach that reduces conflicts and ensures fisheries and aquaculture are not excluded from maritime space. Priority zones for fisheries and aquaculture should be established, where possible, tailored to different fleet segments and sea basins, based on robust scientific and socio-economic assessments.
Inclusive governance and stakeholder Engagement:
Member States should ensure systematic and early involvement of all relevant stakeholders, including small-scale fishers and coastal communities. Co-management models should be promoted, as well as Community-Led Local Development and Local Action Groups.
Cross-border and sea-basin cooperation:
The Commission and Member States should move from national plans to sea-basin strategies, develop macro-regional planning frameworks and enhance cooperation with neighbouring coastal states.
Data and research investment:
Significant resources should be allocated to data collection and scientific research. Improved data will enable evidence-based planning and secure the place of fisheries and aquaculture in MSP frameworks.
Revision of the MSP Directive:
The forthcoming Ocean Act should achieve the revision of the MSP Directive and establish a coherent framework to improve coordination between existing legislation, introduce more binding and measurable targets and improve land-sea planning.