Changes from report parliamentary committee draft to plenary report

The Baltic Sea is in a crisis and urgent changes must be done in the way we treat this sea basin. In the short term perspective it is irrelevant if there are sufficient rules in place or not, because the Baltic Sea cannot wait for updated or new rules. During the Ministerial “Our Baltic” meeting in Stockholm in September 2025, the executive secretary of HELCOM summarised:

“If our sea were a human patient, she would be in critical condition, survival remaining possible but not guaranteed. A patient in need of intensive care, requiring immediate and sustained effort on the part of competent and knowledgeable doctors, with success hinging on the timely administration of the best, state-of-the art therapies.”

This report calls for action right now and also suggests important changes in the longer perspective. However, the need for urgent treatment of this patient, the Baltic Sea, is not something to discuss or debate, it is a matter of acting now with what we already have.

This proposal is also not a call for incremental adjustments. It is a call for necessary and urgent correction to systemic regulatory failure. If acted upon, these changes will offer a viable path towards ecological recovery, increased income for coastal fishers, reinforced food security as well as compliance with EU law.

The suggested actions in this proposal should be understood as three separate parts with different timelines:

1. immediate actions that can be taken within current frameworks;

2. necessary steps to develop appropriate scientific ecosystem advice and reference points;

3. suggestions of a new approach to the management of the Baltic that will require legal changes to the MAP.

Resetting the ecosystem with urgent actions

It is clear that the Baltic ecosystem needs a reset and business as usual is not acceptable. Fishing largely for fish meal destined for salmon and mink farms is not a good enough reason to jeopardize the ecosystem services of a healthy Baltic Sea for the future to come. The once abundant Baltic cod has tragically collapsed, and commercial fish stock biomass is today at a historic low, at a small fraction of what the Baltic Sea would be able to produce in an unfished state. This sea needs a path to recovery helped by clearly expressed goals of what constitutes safe levels of fish and their size and age distribution with other well-known ecosystem considerations fully incorporated. The biomanipulation on a sea basin scale must stop. Instead, the Baltic Sea should turn into a pilot area for a new holistic ecosystem management, prioritizing low impact fishing for human consumption, and new scientific approaches.

Setting biomass targets well above those currently used is the fastest way to provide a safety margin for changes in relation to eutrophication, pollution and rising water temperature, and what this means for the uncertainty in fish stock development. This can and must be done today using all existing tools and rules in force. There will likely be several years of necessary cuts of current TAC levels, but eventually a rebuilt, more resilient ecosystem will provide enormous benefits to coastal fishing communities and to our citizens.

Strengthening the biomass of commercial fish stocks in the Baltic Sea is also essential for the resilience of the entire ecosystem, particularly important in a rapidly changing climate. The ocean is a major carbon sink, sequestering almost a third of all CO2 emissions that we cause. Healthy wild fish populations are central to maintaining the sea’s capacity to sequester carbon, and are crucial in stabilising the entire food web.

A strong fish biomass would also safeguard food security in times of geopolitical instability. It would also contribute to cleaner and clearer waters, reduce the prevalence of microalgae, and restore the health of coastal ecosystems.

Economically, stronger fish stocks would also stabilise fisheries by ensuring more predictable catches over time, thereby reducing the vulnerability of fishers and coastal communities. It would also mean less time spent fishing, reducing the use of fuels and in that way also pave the way for a smoother green and just transition, away from fossil fuel dependency.

New scientific support and advice in a changing world

The system of designing and developing scientific advice requires reform. ICES provides valuable stock assessments and notes uncertainties, but does not apply any precautionary buffers. This responsibility lies with managers who have repeatedly opted for risk-prone decisions. The European Commission must therefore require ICES to deliver clearer summaries of risks, uncertainties, and key issues relevant to each advice. Moreover, single-species assessments can no longer be considered sufficient where ecosystem-wide impacts are evident. Advice must evolve towards a genuinely ecosystem-based approach.

This shift is not optional. Fisheries management has too long treated species in isolation, disregarding their role within wider ecosystems, even though both the MSFD and the CFP (since 2013) enshrine an ecosystem-based approach. Birds, mammals, and non-target fish species depend on the same resources, and their needs must be reflected in quota-setting. Healthy and diverse fish populations are indispensable not only for marine biodiversity but also for food security under climate stress, both for humans and for other species inhabiting the Baltic Sea.

Scientifically, larger and more balanced populations would allow for safer, more accurate assessments of both ecosystem needs and biomass levels, preventing the current cycle of quota-setting that keeps stocks close to the thresholds of stock collapse. By reducing the complexity of mixed fisheries, where the weakest stock components drive down quotas and constrain the sector, a healthier biomass would also secure a future for small-scale coastal fishers who today cannot even catch their allocated quotas. Finally, stronger stocks would ease conflicts with natural predators, decreasing competition for scarce resources.

The fragmented legal sea-scape

One key issue is the legal ambiguity surrounding the MAP and its relationship to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), and national obligations. The MAP is directly linked to the MSFD, which obliges fisheries to prevent ecosystem degradation and to safeguard biodiversity, food webs and fish stock structure, age and size distribution. Yet in practice these requirements are treated as aspirational rather than binding. The hierarchy and interaction between the MAP, MSFD, CFP, and national measures must therefore be clarified to ensure regulatory coherence and enforceable outcomes rather than discretionary targets.

Despite good intentions, the Baltic Sea Multiannual Management Plan (MAP) has failed to deliver sustainable fisheries. With the exception of herring in the Bay of Riga, and to some extent the plaice stock, most commercial fish stocks are in decline or have already collapsed. This statement is supported by ICES scientific advice, HELCOM’s 2023 holistic review, and background studies provided to the PECH Committee. The problem is not illegal fishing but systemic overfishing within politically agreed Total Allowable Catches (TACs). Although the European Parliament is a co-legislator, it has so far refrained from sending strong signals of disapproval to the Council. This report argues that such signals are now essential. The MAP’s core objective to maintain harvested species above levels that can produce Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) has not been met and fishers have been left without catches and income. Instead, decisions have routinely ignored the precautionary principle, breached thresholds such as Btrigger, and compromised ecosystem health, undermining not only target fish stocks but the wider marine environment.

The patient Baltic Sea is in our hands. She has suffered losses of vital functions such as when cod stocks passed the point of urgent care. The internal bleeding must be stopped and her respiratory system must be rehabilitated. This patient needs no more lengthy debate over what procedures should be tried, or what further examinations to be made. The experts are as clear as they can get: This patient needs help now.