Changes from report parliamentary committee draft to plenary report

RemovedO. whereas many of the maritime spatial plans only cover marine spaces and do not include land-sea interactions;

AddedW. whereas it remains the competence of the Member States to decide on their national energy mix and technologies;

RemovedP. whereas the implementation of an ecosystem-based approach is insufficient or lacking, as many Member States are struggling to apply it in practice and to align the requirements of the MSP Directive with those of other legislation such as the CFP or the Marine Strategy Framework Directive;

AddedX. whereas the increasing loss of fishing grounds is leading to the displacement of fishing activities, increased pressure on fishing and competition between fleets, and the disappearance of certain segments that cannot relocate their activities, particularly in small-scale fisheries, including fishers on foot, such as shellfish gatherers; whereas this also affects social cohesion, employment and the handing down of maritime traditions;

RemovedQ. whereas data collection and harmonisation are key to determining how fisheries and aquaculture are included in maritime spatial planning;

AddedY. whereas in accordance with the common fisheries policy, Member States are authorised to restrict fishing access, within a zone of 12 nautical miles from their coastline, and for the outermost regions within 100 nautical miles, to fishing vessels that traditionally fish in those waters from ports on the adjacent coast;

AddedZ. whereas maritime and coastal areas are suffering the consequences of climate change and pollution, particularly from chemical pollutants and marine or land-based litter, which also affect activities related to the sea, marine biodiversity and fishery and aquaculture resources;

AddedAA. whereas the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU and the consequences of Brexit have profoundly altered the spatial, economic and fisheries balance in several sea basins, in particular the Channel, the North Sea and western waters, leading to an increased concentration of EU fishing activities in more restricted sea areas;

AddedAB. whereas maritime professionals, such as fishers, may face certain risks or dangers related to vessel safety or exposure to certain types of trafficking via maritime routes, such as drug trafficking;

AddedAC. whereas workers in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors should enjoy safe, fair and decent working conditions and adequate social protection; whereas MSP decisions can have a direct impact on the safety, income and working conditions of those professionals;

AddedAD. whereas many of the maritime spatial plans only cover marine spaces and do not include land-sea interactions and in particular the effects of land-based pollution on marine ecosystems;

AddedAE. whereas the implementation of an ecosystem-based approach is insufficient or lacking, as many Member States are struggling to apply it in practice and to align the requirements of the MSP Directive with those of other legislation such as the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation or the Marine Strategy Framework Directive;

AddedAF. whereas Member States have not yet reached the 2020 target of ‘Good Environmental Status’ for Europe’s seas, as required by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive;

AddedAG. whereas the collection, transparency, accessibility, harmonisation and reasonably expeditious processing of data are key to determining how fisheries and aquaculture are included in MSP; whereas there is a lack of comprehensive data on exclusive economic zones and there are difficulties integrating data across different sectors and obtaining data from national authorities; whereas the allocation of funding to those kinds of data collection activities could be improved;

Implementation of the MSP Directive and its impact on fisheries and aquaculture

Change 6

Changed1. Highlights the fact that, while the MSP Directive provides a relevant cross-sectoral framework for cooperation, it has been implemented unevenly by the Member States;

2. Welcomes the fact that some Member States are well advanced in implementing the MSP Directive, with integrated national strategies, dedicated bodies and sea-basin action plans;

Change 7

Changed3. Notes that maritime spatial plans are legally binding in some Member States and non-binding and more advisory in others; emphasises that the implementation in Member States is often hindered by institutional segmentation, fragmented governance and inadequate legal mechanisms;mechanisms or insufficient financial and human resources dedicated to those mechanisms and access to them, particularly through the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund for fisheries and aquaculture local action groups;

Change 8

Removed4. Emphasises that the implementation and effectiveness of MSP varies greatly between EU maritime regions, with some regions, such as the Baltic Sea or the North Sea, being largely covered by maritime spatial plans, while others, such as the Mediterranean Sea, have significantly less planning coverage;

Added4. Highlights the fact that spatial planning of marine areas should include the identification of problems and opportunities, collection of planning data, decision-making and implementation, and that, as part of such planning, special attention should be paid to fisheries and aquaculture;

Removed5. Welcomes the Greater North Sea Basin Initiative (GNSBI), which brings together Member States and non-EU countries with the aim of achieving greater alignment and coordination on maritime spatial plans;

Added5. Emphasises that the implementation and effectiveness of MSP vary greatly across EU maritime regions, with some regions, such as the Baltic Sea or the North Sea, being largely covered by maritime spatial plans, while others, such as the Mediterranean Sea, have significantly less planning coverage;

Removed6. Highlights that cross-border initiatives remain limited and effective coordination is lacking, hampering efforts to address shared challenges across interconnected marine regions; deplores the difficulties in MSP cooperation between Member States and non-EU countries, in particular neighbouring coastal states;

Added6. Welcomes the Greater North Sea Basin Initiative, which brings together Member States and non-EU countries with the aim of achieving greater alignment and coordination on maritime spatial plans;

RemovedBenefits of maritime spatial planning for fisheries and aquaculture

Added7. Highlights the fact that cross-border initiatives remain limited and effective coordination is lacking, hampering efforts to address shared challenges across interconnected marine regions; deplores the difficulties of cooperation on MSP between Member States and non-EU countries, in particular neighbouring coastal states;

Removed7. Regrets that the current MSP legal framework has not adequately delivered the expected benefits for fisheries; notes that MSP has not substantially contributed to improving predictability and stability for fisheries activities; emphasises the lack of measurable indicators for fisheries in MSP;

Added8. Emphasises the effects of Brexit on maritime planning, in particular the development of marine protected areas and offshore renewable energy, but also other activities such as dense maritime transport and coastal tourism; highlights the fact that those changes have led to the exclusion of the EU fishing fleet from many fishing areas in British waters, and to a shift in fishing effort and high fishing pressure in the North Sea and Channel areas, to the detriment of EU fisheries; calls for MSP in these areas to systematically incorporate these elements;

Removed8. Highlights that while the MSP legal framework brings marginal benefits to aquaculture, improvements are needed in the designation of maritime space, recognition of the sector, cross-border coherence, legal certainty and licensing;

Added9. Stresses the need for coordination between Member States and the United Kingdom in order to achieve effective and equitable management of the maritime basin and thus reduce the numerous conflicts of use, taking into account the economic, social and environmental dimensions of each activity; recalls, in this regard, the obligation under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in particular under Articles 7 and 8, to cooperate across borders; calls, in particular, for genuine consultation with the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands on management measures in marine protected areas that take into account the socio-economic consequences borne by EU fishers;

Removed9. Emphasises that the objective of minimising conflict between the various sectors and users of the sea has not been substantially fulfilled, particularly with regard to fisheries and aquaculture;

Added10. Stresses that the Mediterranean basin is particularly affected by the proliferation of offshore energy platforms and other infrastructure of this kind, which is significantly reducing the amount of space available for fisheries, limiting access to traditional fishing grounds and contributing to the fragmentation of maritime space; notes that, while the Member States are responsible for determining the use of infrastructure in these areas, their decisions have a direct impact on the use of traditional fishing grounds and therefore need to be integrated within MSP processes in a coherent way; notes that the development of maritime tourism also has an effect on fisheries operations in the sea basin;

Removed10. Highlights that the nature of conflict over the use of maritime space varies according to the type of fisheries and aquaculture activities concerned, and such activities may also compete with each other for maritime space; emphasises that the main conflicts affecting fisheries are the loss of fishing grounds due to the exclusion of maritime zones, access restrictions, competition for access and spatial fragmentation, while the main conflicts affecting aquaculture are zoning overlaps, environmental concerns and capture competition;

Added11. Highlights the specific characteristics of the Adriatic Sea as a semi-enclosed and highly sensitive marine basin, subject to cumulative pressures from fisheries, aquaculture, maritime transport, tourism and coastal development; stresses that these pressures require a reinforced sea-basin and cross-border approach to MSP; calls on the Commission and the Member States concerned, in cooperation with neighbouring non-EU coastal countries, to strengthen coordination, data sharing and joint governance mechanisms in the Adriatic Sea; underlines the importance of small-scale and coastal fisheries for the sea basin and the importance of their integration into MSP, in order to safeguard their economic viability and cultural heritage;

Removed11. Emphasises that fisheries do not benefit from priority or dedicated areas and often have to operate in unallocated maritime spaces; notes that while aquaculture is in principle more suitable for reserved areas, approaches vary greatly between Member States and licensing procedures are often burdensome;

Added12. Emphasises that the Baltic Sea is characterised by a number of unique features, including its status as a semi-enclosed sea basin, its high concentration of different types of economic activity, including fisheries, maritime transport and the expansion of marine renewable energy, and the vulnerability of its ecosystem; calls, in this regard, for an approach to MSP that is sustainable and adjusted to those regional conditions; commends the ongoing work of the joint HELCOM-VASAB Maritime Spatial Planning Working Group, which is providing a firm foundation for sea-basin level coordination in the Baltic Sea;

Removed12. Highlights that while some Member States have established multi-use zones, the approach is mainly implemented through a project-based approach; emphasises that a multi-use approach is proving very difficult to implement for certain activities, particularly between fisheries, biodiversity protection and marine renewable energy; notes that a multi-use approach also raises insurance and security concerns for fishers and aquaculture professionals;

Added13. Stresses that the maritime basins of the outermost regions must also be included in the implementation of the MSP Directive, taking their specific characteristics fully into account, including in interactions with non-EU countries;

Removed13. Welcomes successful examples of co-location of activities, such as fixed or floating offshore wind infrastructure that can also be used to develop aquaculture and shellfish farming, habitats for marine fauna and flora or regenerative activities;

AddedBenefits of MSP for fisheries and aquaculture

Removed14. Highlights that land-sea coordination remains a critical weakness in the implementation of MSP;

Added14. Regrets the fact that the current MSP legal framework has not satisfactorily delivered the expected benefits for fisheries; notes that MSP has not substantially contributed to improving predictability and stability for fisheries activities; emphasises the lack of minimum targets and measurable environmental, social and economic indicators for fisheries in MSP, especially for small-scale operators; stresses the need for a coherent and effective implementation of EU maritime policy;

Added15. Highlights, for the purpose of implementation of the MSP framework, the importance of performing a comprehensive socio-economic analysis, which incorporates the viewpoints of small businesses and coastal communities; recalls the importance of fisheries and aquaculture in food sovereignty and in preserving related know-how for the EU and recognises that it is in the public interest that greater account be taken of their importance in MSP;

Added16. Stresses that MSP must better integrate fisheries and aquaculture and actively address the spatial challenges affecting fisheries, including the cumulative effects of offshore energy, marine protected areas, shipping and defence zones, and avoid the progressive marginalisation of fishing activities; stresses that offshore windfarms should, whenever possible, be placed in zones that are less suitable for fishing, in order to minimise negative impacts on fisheries operations;

Added17. Emphasises the essential role of small-scale fishing, such as in local employment, social cohesion and the preservation of traditional skills; calls for MSP to take this segment fully into account, particularly in terms of access to space, proximity to fishing grounds and the safety of activities;

Added18. Notes that offshore windfarms can have an impact on fisheries by changing the spatial distribution and abundance of commercially fished marine species and by imposing restrictions on access, for safety reasons, or on fishing methods; notes that, while some potential benefits for fishers have been observed, these are only relevant if fishers are practically and feasibly able to operate in these areas;

Added19. Stresses that, while the MSP legal framework brings marginal benefits to aquaculture, improvements are needed in the designation of maritime space, further recognition of the role of aquaculture within the framework, cross-border coherence, legal certainty and the timeline and impact of licensing procedures; emphasises, in particular, the need for better incorporation of aquaculture in MSP and the consideration of other actions, such as the development of a possible common aquaculture policy, in order to take into account more effectively this key sector for EU food security;

Added20. Emphasises that the objective of minimising conflict between the various sectors and users of the sea has not been substantially fulfilled, particularly with regard to fisheries and aquaculture, including shellfish farming and emerging sectors such as seaweed farming, which have seen a reduction in the spaces available to them, affecting their competitiveness and the possibilities for the development of their activities;

Added21. Stresses that the nature of conflict over the use of maritime space varies according to the type of fisheries and aquaculture activities concerned, and that such activities may also compete with one another for maritime space; emphasises that the main conflicts affecting fisheries are the loss of fishing grounds due to the exclusion of maritime zones, access restrictions, competition for access, spatial fragmentation and the declining state of several marine ecosystems, while the main conflicts affecting aquaculture are zoning overlaps, environmental concerns such as pollution and eutrophication, and capture competition;

Added22. Recalls that fisheries and aquaculture are dependent on the geographical location of marine resources and the healthy state of marine ecosystems, and that they are strongly linked to the seafood value chain and employment in coastal regions and therefore not suited for relocation;

Added23. Emphasises that fisheries do not benefit from priority or dedicated areas and often have to operate in unallocated maritime spaces and are increasingly being squeezed out by other activities; notes that, while aquaculture, including seaweed farming, is in principle more suitable for reserved areas, approaches vary greatly between and even within Member States, and licensing procedures are often burdensome;

Added24. Highlights the fact that, while some Member States have established multi-use zones, they mainly take a project-based approach; emphasises that a multi-use approach is proving very difficult to implement for certain activities, particularly when combining fisheries, biodiversity protection and marine renewable energy; notes that a multi-use approach also raises insurance and security concerns for fishers and aquaculture professionals; emphasises that, while multi-use zones could hold potential in addressing the cumulative impacts of human activities, more research is needed to assess their feasibility and impact; points out that the designation of such zones should be based on an assessment of the economic, social and environmental impact of the different activities undertaken therein, which needs to be undertaken with the proper involvement, throughout the process, of operators from all the relevant sectors as well as other relevant stakeholders;

Added25. Welcomes successful examples of co-location of activities, such as fixed or floating offshore wind infrastructure that can also be used to develop aquaculture, shellfish and algae farming and for the protection of habitats for marine fauna and flora or regenerative activities and for fisheries activities such as passive and low-impact fisheries; highlights, in that regard, the need for increased exchange of good practices and for more research, especially in relation to ecological impact and economic potential;

Added26. Urges the Member States to take into account the impact of offshore renewable energy on the marine ecosystem and fisheries when determining their energy mix;

Added27. Emphasises that land-sea coordination remains a critical weakness in the implementation of MSP, with particular reference to the failure to take into account the effects of land-based pollution on marine ecosystems when implementing measures to protect biodiversity;

Added28. Points out the importance of fisheries and port infrastructure and related facilities and the need to ensure that MSP is coherent in relation to such infrastructure investments, in line with the EU ports strategy, while taking into account the dependence of all maritime activities on effective land-sea coordination;

Stakeholder involvement and data collection

Change 9

Changed15.29. HighlightsEmphasises that stakeholder and coastal community involvement in the MSP process has increased but remains constrained; regrets the fact that this involvement often lacks early and formal engagement and consultation, offering limited opportunity for genuine influence on planning decisions; welcomes, in this regard, the Commission’s initiative to hold an implementation dialogue on MSP;

Change 10

Changed16.30. Notes good examples of stakeholder participation in some Member States, such as national consultations and participatory processes; regrets, however, the lack of binding provisions for Member States on stakeholder participation; notes that this hinders the participation of fishersrelevant andstakeholders, such as fishers, aquaculture professionalsprofessionals, interest groups and members of the public who are affected, in consultation and decision-making processes;processes, particularly regarding the location of offshore renewable energy projects;

Change 11

Changed17.31. Emphasises that fisheries and aquaculture are often overshadowed by other, more powerful or economically important sectors, such as offshore energy; takes note of reports of structural power imbalances between maritime sectors; deplores the fact that certain sectors and operators often bypass consultation processes, at the expense of less organised actors, such as small-scale fishers;fishers, including fishers on foot, such as shellfish gatherers; calls for comprehensive, accessible and inclusive consultation processes with all stakeholders and the creation of corrective governance mechanisms, including transparent guidelines aimed at ensuring balanced and transparent decision-making, alleviating the potential for conflict and creating a level playing field between fisheries and other sectors;