Changes from report parliamentary committee draft to plenary report

Change 12

Changed18.32. Deplores the lack of harmonised and comparable data on the state of the ocean and seas, fishery resources and the impact of climate change, as well as the lack of properappropriate socio-economicsocial data;and economic data, including the assessment of impacts of MSP on coastal communities; emphasises the lack of harmonisation betweenof Member States’ data collection systems;

Change 13

Changed19.33. Highlights the fact that data misalignment, such as incompatible geospatial baselines, and temporal mismatch, such as distinctdifferent revision cycles for maritime spatial plans, hinder the implementation of coherent maritime spatial planningMSP and an ecosystem-based approach; recalls that modelling, mapping and spatial analysis tools are decision-making aids and cannot replace democratic debate or political compromise;

Recommendations

Change 14

Changed20.34. Stresses the need for a more holistic approach and better coordination betweenof relevant EU legislation, in particular betweenof the MSP DirectiveDirective, the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, in order to ensure consistent and effective implementation of maritimeMSP, spatialincluding planning;the ecosystem-based approach, with the aim of contributing to the achievement of Good Environmental Status; underlines too that MSP must fully respect the common fisheries policy as the exclusive EU legislative framework for fisheries management and should therefore not be used to indirectly introduce fisheries management measures, especially if incompatible with the ambition to strengthen the role for fisheries activities in MSP;

Change 15

Changed21.35. Believes that maritime spatial plans should better reflect spatial, environmental and socio-economic needs, as well as the specific characteristics of each sea basin;basin, including connected exclusive economic zones; stresses that the Member States should strengthen coordination between land-use and marine authorities when designing and implementing maritime spatial plans;plans and when incorporating into the plans assessments of the impact of land-based activities on coastal waters; believes that Member States should take into account regional specificities, including the characteristics of island regions and the outermost regions, and should respect the administrative traditions in each Member State;

Change 16

Removed22. Calls for the implementation of a balanced, multi-use approach to maritime spatial planning, in order to minimise the adverse effects on fisheries and aquaculture and to ensure that these activities are not excluded from the maritime space; considers that the development of certain activities related to the blue economy must not be at the expense of seafood production, food sovereignty and the preservation of marine biodiversity;

Added36. Stresses the need for Member States to strengthen coordination both between and within Member States, in particular between national and regional authorities, as well as cross-sectoral coordination among authorities responsible for environmental, fisheries, energy and transport policies, among other policies, when designing and implementing maritime spatial plans, in order to ensure a coherent, ecosystem-based and integrated approach;

Removed23. Emphasises the need for strengthened support for fisheries within MSP; supports the establishment of clear spatial zoning and priority zones for fisheries, tailored to different fleet segments and fishery resources, as well as sea basins, and based on robust scientific and socio-economic assessments;

Added37. Calls for the implementation of a bottom-up, balanced, multi-use approach to MSP that would aim to avoid adverse effects on marine resources and biodiversity, and therefore on fisheries and aquaculture, and would ensure that these activities are not excluded from the maritime space; considers that the development of certain activities related to the blue economy must not be at the expense of sustainable and resilient seafood production, food sovereignty and the preservation of marine biodiversity; believes, in this regard, that the strategic importance of food security should be better anchored in the forthcoming revision of the MSP Directive; calls, therefore, for fishing and aquaculture to be recognised as strategic sectors of major public interest which provide essential contributions to EU food sovereignty and food security and to strategic autonomy and coastal employment, and that priority consideration should be given to them in MSP, particularly for segments that cannot be relocated;

Removed24. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to further integrate aquaculture and shellfish farming into MSP and to recognise the ecosystem services provided by low-trophic aquaculture; calls for the designation of dedicated maritime spaces for aquaculture development zones in MSP; calls for the facilitation of licensing procedures and the reduction of regulatory barriers to the development of these activities;

Added38. Calls for an evidence-based approach to multi-use zones, recognising that coexistence between fisheries and offshore energy remains limited in practice and should not be used to justify the exclusion of fisheries from maritime space; stresses that the multi-use approach should be pursued on the basis of technical and scientific criteria, reflecting the reality of how fishing and aquaculture actually operate; stresses that the designation of multi-use zones should be based on a cumulative impact assessment of the different activities undertaken therein and a rigorous analysis of navigability and safety; calls for all relevant sectors to be directly and properly involved throughout this process;

Removed25. Emphasises the need for transparent, multi-stakeholder governance in MSP; calls on Member States to ensure the early, systematic, meaningful and continuous participation of the relevant stakeholders in MSP processes and final outcomes, and for the inclusion of transparent feedback on how stakeholder input is used in decision-making; calls for fair treatment of all stakeholders and coastal communities;

Added39. Considers that MSP must adopt a dynamic and adaptive approach, taking into account changes in the marine environment and marine resources, using regularly updated scientific and socio-economic data and indicators, particularly when establishing areas that could exclude fisheries activities such as offshore wind farms and designating certain marine protected areas; emphasises that the planning process should reflect the dynamic nature of fishing, with fleets often moving around depending on seasonal availability and stock movements, and certain types of fishing gear requiring considerable room in which to operate;

Removed26. Believes that co-management should be the model for governance and decision-making in MSP; emphasises the benefits of this model, which allows for the direct involvement of stakeholders, better management of fishery resources, the sharing of best practices and an approach tailored to local realities;

Added40. Calls for inclusive governance mechanisms that ensure the direct and structured involvement of relevant stakeholders such as fishers, including small-scale fishers, and regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs), where relevant, in the decision-making, monitoring and review processes for plans;

Removed27. Stresses the benefits of bottom-up structures for local MSP implementation, such as Community-Led Local Development and Local Actions Groups;

Added41. Emphasises the need to strengthen support for and systematically consider fisheries within MSP; supports the establishment of clear spatial zoning and priority zones for fisheries, taking into account the movement and development of fishery resources, the recognition of traditional fishing and aquaculture zones, the need for preservation and protection of the environment and the improvement of the state of fish stocks; emphasises that the zoning should be tailored to different fleet segments, as well as sea basins, and based on robust scientific and socio-economic assessments and indicators, in order to bring greater visibility and predictability to the fisheries sector; calls for mandatory assessment of the cumulative socio-economic impacts of fishing displacement, including the effects on the competitiveness of the EU fleet, its profitability, safety at sea and generational renewal;

Removed28. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to support the capacity building of stakeholders, particularly small-scale fishers and their organisations, and coastal communities, so that they are better equipped to participate in public consultations and decision-making processes relating to MSP;

Added42. Emphasises the need, in particular, for an increase in reserved areas dedicated to small-scale low impact inshore fishing within the 12 nautical mile zone and underpinned by co-management regimes;

Removed29. Stresses that the designation of areas dedicated to offshore renewable energy or to the protection of marine ecosystems must take into account the impact on fisheries and aquaculture; insists on the need to systematically conduct cumulative environmental and socio-economic impact assessments, and to ensure that the professionals affected, particularly fishers in the case of offshore wind farm projects, are informed in advance and consulted on a mandatory basis before decisions are taken; calls, in this regard, for assessments of the impact on the state of fishery resources to be carried out in relation to existing offshore wind farms;

Added43. Stresses the need to strengthen research into mapping and modelling fishing areas and fishery resources; considers that the delimitation of priority zones for fisheries and the planning of fishing activities must adopt a dynamic approach in order to adapt to the phenomena of change and migration of fish stocks affecting historical distribution areas;

Removed30. Calls on the Commission to support a more cross-border and sea-basin-based approach to maritime spatial planning by promoting existing initiatives, such as the GNSBI; calls on the Commission and Member States, together with coastal neighbouring states, to engage in joint management regional platforms, drawing on the example of the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (also known as the Helsinki Commission or HELCOM);

Added44. Calls on the Commission to propose a mechanism of compensatory measures or insurance schemes for the fisheries sector when its activities are displaced by alternative uses of the sea, including financial compensation measures, and to prioritise new compatible uses and support for the redesign of fishing routes, or technological investments;

Removed31. Calls on Member States to move away from national plans to plans focused more on sea basins and to develop, where relevant, macro-regional planning strategies, including joint maritime spatial plans; urges Member States and non-EU countries, particularly neighbouring coastal states, to deepen their cooperation on maritime spatial planning;

Added45. Highlights the potential negative consequences of far-reaching restrictions on marine activities such as fisheries for coastal communities, not least in the island and outermost regions; calls for the development, implementation and review of maritime spatial plans to be accompanied in all cases by social and territorial impact assessments, focusing in particular on employment, working conditions, the safety of fishers and the sustainability of coastal communities, and to assess the biological and socio-economic effectiveness of fisheries restrictions and measures;

Removed32. Calls for the integration of climate change mitigation measures and nature-based solutions into MSP, in order to tackle issues affecting fisheries and aquaculture, such as coastal erosion, rising temperatures, ocean acidification and pollution;

Added46. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to recognise fisheries as a strategic and priority user of maritime space, essential to EU food sovereignty and food security, coastal employment and strategic autonomy, and to reflect this status explicitly in maritime spatial plans and in the forthcoming revision of the MSP Directive;

Removed33. Stresses the need to allocate significant resources to data collection and scientific research, as well as to enhancing data sharing and coordination between Member States; believes that more standardised and harmonised data and methodologies will help to secure the place of fisheries and aquaculture in MSP; emphasises, in this regard, the need to develop and update scientific data on the impact of climate change on fishery resources, particularly in terms of changes in or displacement of fish stocks;

Added47. Calls, in this respect, for a differentiated approach to the management of small-scale fisheries that includes preferential access within the 12 nautical mile zone for small-scale fisheries, low-impact activities and conservation projects;

Removed34. Calls on the Commission to rigorously monitor the implementation of the MSP Directive; considers that the next MSP Directive evaluation report should focus on the spatial implications for fisheries and aquaculture, stakeholder involvement and cross-border cooperation, and provide recommendations on how the MSP Directive could deliver better results in terms of environmental, social and economic sustainability;

Added48. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to further integrate aquaculture and shellfish farming, and fishing on foot, including shellfish gathering, into MSP and to recognise the ecosystem services provided by low-trophic and low-carbon aquaculture; calls on the Commission to consider further actions such as the development of a possible common aquaculture policy as a tool to facilitate this integration; calls for the designation in MSP of dedicated maritime spaces for sustainable aquaculture development zones, such as for low-carbon and low-trophic aquaculture; calls for licensing procedures to be facilitated and for regulatory barriers to the development of these activities to be reduced; stresses that licensing procedures need to be expedited and underpinned by clear environmental requirements with a view to maximising socio-economic benefits; calls for the provision of incentives to boost the sustainable development of aquaculture, especially low-trophic aquaculture, including diversification to non-feed species such as seaweed cultivation;

Removed35. Calls on the Commission to consolidate the European Maritime Spatial Planning Platform by providing examples of MSP projects, mapping tools and good practices; urges, in this regard, Member States to make greater use of this platform when developing their maritime spatial plans;

Added49. Emphasises the need for transparent, multi-stakeholder governance in MSP; calls on Member States to ensure the early, systematic, meaningful and continuous participation of the relevant stakeholders, including Advisory Councils and fishers, aquaculture farmers and shellfish farmers, at all stages of MSP design, processes, implementation, final outcomes and revision, and for the inclusion of transparent feedback on how stakeholder input is used in decision-making; calls for fair treatment of all stakeholders and coastal and island communities, regardless of their financial, administrative or organisational means, through transparent consultation formats;

Removed36. Supports the revision of the MSP Directive as part of the ‘ocean act’ expected in 2026; considers that this revision should establish a coherent framework to improve coordination between the existing legislation and regulatory framework, by streamlining overlapping regulations, aligning objectives, introducing more binding and measurable targets in maritime spatial plans, improving coherence between marine and terrestrial spatial planning, and establishing shared governance tools; considers that the MSP Directive revision should also deepen the cross-border, multi-use approach and the involvement of stakeholders;

Added50. Believes that co-management should be the model for governance and decision-making in MSP; emphasises the benefits of this model, which allows for the direct involvement of stakeholders, better management of fishery resources, the sharing of best practice and an approach tailored to local realities, particularly when it builds on existing and proven structures and on the practical knowledge of local fishing communities and other structures such as RFMOs; stresses that co-management can also help promote generational renewal in the sector and strengthen the economic resilience of small-scale and coastal fleets;

Removed37. Considers that the forthcoming review of the MSP Directive should be accompanied by an action plan and dedicated financial resources, particularly within the next multiannual financial framework;

Added51. Stresses the benefits of bottom-up structures for local MSP implementation, such as community-led local development and local action groups, local and regional authorities, fishers’ and gatherers’ organisations, women’s organisations in fisheries and other organisations at local and regional levels;

Removed38. Calls on the Commission to fully integrate MSP into the development of its Vision 2040 for fisheries and aquaculture and to link these initiatives to the conclusion of the evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy;

Added52. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to support the capacity building of stakeholders, particularly small-scale fishers, including fishers on foot, such as shellfish gatherers and their organisations, and coastal and island communities, including in the outermost regions, so that they are better equipped to actively and effectively participate in public consultations and decision-making processes relating to MSP; stresses the importance, in this regard, of supporting generational renewal and calls on Member States to ensure that spatial planning decisions do not create additional barriers for young people entering fisheries;

Added53. Stresses that the designation of areas dedicated to offshore renewable energy or to the protection of marine ecosystems must take into account the impact on fisheries and aquaculture, including historical and traditional fishing grounds; insists on the need to systematically conduct assessments of the cumulative environmental and socio-economic impact prior to zone demarcation, and to ensure that the professionals affected, particularly fishers in the case of offshore wind farm projects, are informed in advance and involved on a mandatory basis in consultations before decisions are taken; calls, in this regard, for assessments of the impact on the state of fishery resources and for the quantification of the key social and economic effects on fisheries resulting from offshore wind farms;

Added54. Stresses that measures to protect marine ecosystems must be based on sound scientific and socio-economic assessments and must be tailored to the protection needs of each area; emphasises that the establishment and management of different categories of marine protected areas, where compatible with conservation objectives, and the best available scientific advice, should allow for coexistence with sustainable fishing activities, including through appropriate, differentiated management measures and avoiding automatic exclusion; highlights also the potential of ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’;

Added55. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to systematically and scientifically assess the potential for co-use of maritime zones, including marine protected areas or offshore renewable energy, and to avoid treating different maritime zones as mutually exclusive; emphasises that the active involvement of all stakeholders and especially fishers in the design, management and evaluation of marine protected areas contributes to greater environmental effectiveness, greater acceptance of conservation measures and better integration of these areas into MSP; stresses that climate change and shifting fish stock distributions must be taken more fully into account, to ensure a flexible approach to zoning that reflects the dynamic nature of fisheries;

Added56. Calls on the Commission to support a more cross-border and sea-basin-based approach to MSP by promoting existing initiatives, such as the Greater North Sea Basin Initiative; calls on the Commission and Member States, together with coastal neighbouring states, to engage in joint management regional platforms, drawing on the example of the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (also known as the Helsinki Commission or HELCOM), including with a view to identifying shared fisheries corridors;

Added57. Calls on Member States to complement national plans with plans focused more on sea basins and to develop, where relevant, macro-regional planning strategies, including joint maritime spatial plans; urges Member States and non-EU countries, particularly neighbouring coastal states, to deepen their cooperation on MSP, particularly in the basins adjacent to the United Kingdom, the Mediterranean and the Baltic Sea; supports a stronger sea-basin approach to MSP, ensuring that fisheries are fully integrated into cross-border planning frameworks and not disadvantaged by fragmented national decisions;

Added58. Calls for enhanced cooperation on MSP between the EU, its Member States and non-EU countries; stresses the need for better coordination between the coastal states in the Channel; highlights specifically the case of the Channel regions, where cooperation with the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands must be improved, particularly with regard to the designation of marine protected areas; believes that cooperation in this regard must include obligatory and transparent stakeholder consultation processes; calls for the EU, the UK and other relevant parties to establish a regional management plan for the Channel and the North Sea in order to ensure sustainable exploitation of resources and multi-annual management of fisheries;

Added59. Emphasises that such cooperation with non-EU countries must ensure a level playing field and avoid displacement of fishing effort to the detriment of EU fleets and fishing communities; calls on the Commission, therefore, to pursue a structured approach to dialogue and cooperation with neighbouring coastal countries in an effort to promote similar environmental, management and social standards and to be ready to take any measures necessary to protect EU interests;

Added60. Calls for the integration into MSP of climate change mitigation and adaptation measures and other relevant environmental measures, in order to tackle issues affecting fisheries and aquaculture, such as coastal erosion, rising water temperatures, invasive species, ocean acidification, pollution from both land-based and marine sources, and cumulative impacts; stresses that these solutions must be proportionate, adapted to local conditions and assessed in advance in terms of cost-effectiveness, avoiding one-size-fits-all approaches that do not take into account the realities of each sea basin; underlines that fishers can play a key role in monitoring, early detection and conservation efforts, provided that they are properly involved, trained and supported;

Added61. Emphasises the effects of coastal erosion and shoreline retreat on coastlines, especially on areas where aquaculture activities are established and developed; calls, in this regard, for an EU plan for coastal resilience, incorporating integrated coastal zone management, climate change mitigation and adaptation, land-sea interactions, marine and land pollution, coastal adaptation measures and targeted support for aquaculture; believes that Member States play an important role in this regard and that these effects must be taken into account in Member States’ maritime spatial plans;

Added62. Is deeply concerned about the reform proposed by the Commission of the various structural funds and the new multiannual financial framework, which will significantly reduce the resources allocated to fisheries and thus jeopardise improvements in the implementation of the MSP Directive;

Added63. Stresses the need to allocate significant resources to data collection and scientific research, as well as to enhancing data sharing and coordination between Member States; believes that more standardised and harmonised data and methodologies will help to secure the place of fisheries and aquaculture in MSP; emphasises, in this regard, the need to develop and update scientific data on the impact of climate change on marine aquatic resources, particularly in terms of changes in the geographical distribution of fish stocks, spawning grounds or the displacement of fish stocks;

Added64. Calls for improved and harmonised data collection and the systematic mapping of fishing activities as a precondition for fair and evidence-based MSP; calls on the Commission and Member States to use the best available and updated data and information;

Added65. Considers that the future European Ocean Observation Initiative, ‘Ocean Eye’, should strengthen and harmonise marine data collection, thereby contributing to improved MSP; calls, furthermore, for the potential of the European Digital Twin Ocean to be used to better understand and anticipate the effects of climate change on the state of the seas and marine resources, and to develop appropriate maritime planning strategies;

Added66. Stresses the need to dovetail MSP with the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and Horizon Europe, including under the future multiannual financial framework, in order to foster research and innovation, including in areas specifically designated for sustainable and innovative uses; believes that the Commission and Member States should encourage the use of digital technologies such as European artificial intelligence tools to support MSP;

Added67. Calls on the Commission to rigorously monitor the implementation of the MSP Directive; considers that the next MSP Directive evaluation report should focus on the spatial implications for fisheries and aquaculture, stakeholder involvement and cross-border cooperation, and provide recommendations on how the MSP Directive could deliver better results in terms of environmental, social and economic sustainability; considers that MSP should be assessed in terms of spatial equity, understood as the equitable distribution of benefits and constraints among stakeholders, territories and generations, and not solely in terms of its economic or administrative efficiency;

Added68. Calls on the Commission to consolidate the European Maritime Spatial Planning Platform by providing examples of MSP projects, mapping tools and good practices; urges Member States to make greater use of this platform when developing their maritime spatial plans in order to facilitate transparent policy decisions without ruling out genuine consultation in the resolution of conflicts of use and interest;

Added69. Supports the revision of the MSP Directive as part of the ‘Ocean Act’ expected in late 2026; notes that the MSP Directive is being revised in parallel with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive; considers that this revision should establish a coherent framework to improve coordination between the existing legislation and regulatory framework, by streamlining overlapping regulations, aligning objectives, streamlining existing targets and introducing minimum targets to be reached in maritime spatial plans, improving coherence between marine and terrestrial spatial planning, and establishing shared governance tools; believes that this revision should, in particular, make the provisions on the participation of stakeholders, especially fishers and coastal communities, legally binding, with more harmonised application by all Member States; believes that the proposed act should create synergy among the different regulations and sectors in a genuinely holistic coordination of policy, without imposing new sector-specific obligations; believes, furthermore, that minimum standards for securing space for fisheries and aquaculture must be introduced in order to contribute to food sovereignty strategic autonomy and the sustainability and competitiveness of the blue economy;

Added70. Considers that the revision of the MSP Directive should also strengthen the cross-border, multi-use approach to mitigate cumulative impacts and to improve the involvement of stakeholders; considers it also important to use the revision to reduce fragmentation and uncertainty for the EU fishing fleet;

Added71. Considers that the Ocean Act should involve all EU territories and take into account their specific characteristics, particularly in the case of the outermost and island regions; stresses the importance of the involvement of Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries in the elaboration of the upcoming proposal, especially in relation to food sovereignty, the strategic role of fisheries and aquaculture and the effective implementation of the common fisheries policy;

Added72. Considers that the forthcoming review of the MSP Directive should be closely linked to the implementation of the Ocean Pact, to the provision of sufficient financial resources, particularly within the next multiannual financial framework, and to concrete actions, in order to ensure its effective implementation and avoid negative impacts on Member States and stakeholders; stresses that such resources must be sufficient, predictable and easily accessible, and that their use must prioritise measures with a tangible impact;

Added73. Calls on the Commission to fully integrate MSP into the development of its Vision 2040 for fisheries and aquaculture and to link these initiatives to the outcome of the evaluation of the common fisheries policy;