What changed

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

P10_TA(2026)0189

on theThe multiannual plan for the Baltic Sea and ways forward(2024/2127(INI))forward

Committee on Fisheries

PE778.399

European Parliament resolution of 21 May 2026 on the multiannual plan for the Baltic Sea and ways forward (2024/2127(INI))

The European Parliament,

– having regard to Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds,

– having regard to its resolution of 27 April 2021 on chemical residues in the Baltic Sea, based on Petitions NosNo 1328/2019 and 0406/2020 ,0406/2020,

– having regard to its resolution of 18 January 2024 on the EU Action Plan: protecting and restoring marine ecosystems for sustainable and resilient fisheries,

– having regard to the Baltic Sea Action Plan, and to the HELCOM findings on sea-dumped chemical munitions,

– having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU of 11 January 2024 in the case C-330/22 ,C-330/22, Friends of the Irish Environment CLG v Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Ireland,

– having regard to the background analysis requested by Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries entitled ‘The multiannual plan for the Baltic Sea – A change in management needed’, published by its Directorate-General for Cohesion, Agriculture and Social Policies in August 2025,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A10-0121/2026),

A. whereas the EU’s multiannual plan for Baltic Sea fisheries (Baltic MAP Regulation), in a context of increasing environmental pressures on the Baltic Sea ecosystem, has not delivered on its overarching ecological and socio-economic objectives; whereas it has not achieved the restoration and maintenance of populations of harvested specieshelped abovemaintain levelsfishing whichpressure canin produceline thewith maximum sustainable yield (MSY), despite its 2020 legal deadline, and has not(MSY) contributedlevels; sufficientlywhereas, todespite resolvingsignificant particularlyfishing complexeffort stockreductions situationsin suchthe aspast thosefew ofyears, thesome easternfish andstocks westernhave Balticdeteriorated coddue stocks,to nora hascombination itof consistentlypressures supportedbeyond thefishing effectiveactivity, implementationincluding ofeutrophication, theoffshore ecosystem-basedenergy, approachpredator toimpacts, fisheriespollution, management,habitat ordegradation implementedand theclimate-driven precautionaryecosystem approach,changes, resulting in significant socio-economic challengesconsequences for parts of the fisheries sector;

B. whereas in 2023, the ecoregions of the Baltic Sea, Celtic Sea and Greater North Sea reduced the average fishing pressure to below MSY levels, with fishing mortality 54 %, 48 % and 23 % below MSY targets respectively, compared to above-target levels in 2003; whereas the EU Baltic Sea fleets spent 267 000 days in 2022, an 8 % decrease compared to 2021 and the lowest level reached since 2013;

F. whereas the Baltic small-scale coastal fishing fleet has access to smaller fishing quotas compared to larger operators, leading to the marginalisation of the small-scale segments and their fishing businesses;

G. whereas according to Article 17 CFP ‘when allocating fishing opportunities available to them … Member States shall use transparent and objective criteria including those of an environmental, social and economic nature’;

H. whereas the gross added value for small-scale fishers in the Baltic Sea region has declined drastically since the inception of the Baltic MAP Regulation, according to assessments by the Commission’s Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), threatening food security and increasing the EU’s dependence on imports; whereas the loss of EU-origin fish supply increases dependence on imports from non-EU countries and weakens market resilience; whereas there has been a continued decline in the number of active fishing vessels in the Baltic Sea;

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;

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 1.51,5 billion and supporting the creation of over 14 000 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs;

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;

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;

N. whereas, according to thewhereas ICESmultiple Balticoverlapping Ecosystempressures Overview,including fishing is the main activity impactingactivity, theagriculture, marineforestry ecosystem,run-off, viaeutrophication, selectiveoxygen extractiondepletion, ofchemical species,pollution and the combination of this activitygrowing withpopulations agricultureof andmarine forestry,predators, together with waste water discharge, pose major pressures on the ecosystem through nutrient and organic enrichment;enrichment and food-web disruption; 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,across accordingall tocontributing thesectors Europeanin Environmentthis Agency;regard;

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;

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;

S. whereas Baltic fishin stockssetting aretotal atallowable recordcatches low(TACs) levels;for whereas2026, Member States musthave followbalanced relevantenvironmental EUsustainability legislationwith suchsocio-economic assustainability, thepreserving MSFD;a minimum level of activity while continuing to support fish stock recovery; whereas some Baltic fish stocks are deteriorating despite huge reductions in fishing effort; whereas the MSFD also requires goodthe environmentalMember statusStates to beachieve achievedgood environmental status through balanced food webs, stocks with a healthy sizewebs and agehealthy distribution,stocks andas addresses,well amongas otherto things,tackle contaminants, eutrophication, invasive species, marine litterlitter, andpollution from energy generation, including underwater noise;noise, and climate change;

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’;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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 beentakenbeen taken ‘to ensure rapid return of the stock concerned to levels above those capable of producing MSY’ they have not reached their aim;

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;

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;

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;populations; 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;

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;

3. Urges the Commission and the Member States when implementing the Baltic MAP Regulation to move to a recovery and rebuilding phase for fish stocks, taking measures and actions based on the best available scientific advice, as well as taking other potential interlinked actions related to other EU or national legislation to address all stressors on fish stocks; calls on the Commission and the Member States, when implementing the above-mentionned recovery and rebuilding phase, to consider remedial measures based on the best available science such as suspending targeted fisheries for some stocks in the Baltic Sea as provided for in the MAP, avoiding measures that could undermine the socio-economic stability of coastal communities so as to ensure that fishing activities for human consumption remain sustainable;

4. Calls for the mobilisation of social and financial support, including support for affected communities, local investment, temporary compensation and bridging aid for fishers in line with EU rules to prevent undue hardship and preserve cultural heritage; notes that while temporary measures address immediate ecological concerns, permanent cessation tools are designed to adjust fishing capacity with fishing opportunities in the long-term; calls therefore for a clear separation between temporary and permanent cessation in support schemes; acknowledges that small and medium-scale Baltic fishing enterprises have received no adequate economic compensation for the losses incurred since the closure of targeted cod fisheries in 2019; calls on the Commission to establish a dedicated Baltic fisheries recovery and transition fund to support fleet restructuring, technology modernisation, compensation for losses caused by species-specific fishing prohibitions, and the preservation of coastal fishing communities and their cultural heritage;

5. Stresses that any measures concerning stock recovery must take into account the unique and basin-specific hydrological and chemical conditions of the Baltic Sea, as a semi-enclosed brackish sea characterised by limited water exchange, anoxic zones and persistent sediment contamination that are specific to this basin and not comparable to those of other EU sea basins;

6. Calls on the Council to adopt TACs that are fully aligned with the precautionary approach, taking into account the vulnerability of the Baltic Sea ecosystem, socio-economic factors, and the slow recovery rates of stocks as well as the scientific uncertainty of advice; calls on the Commission to carefully consider socio-economic aspects when evaluating the current MAP; underlines the need for a balanced approach between environmental and socio-economic factors, as set out in Article 2 of the CFP Regulation;

7. Stresses that setting multiannual quotas based on the best-available science could give marine ecosystems in the Baltic Sea time to recover and provide businesses with the stability they need to plan investments, maintain employment and maintain port infrastructure;infrastructure, and support generational renewal in the fisheries sector; underlines that prolonged regulatory instability leads to disinvestment, loss of production capacity and the disappearance of family fishing enterprises, constituting an irreversible socio-economic loss for Baltic coastal communities; stresses that the development of such management measures should include effective, timely and systematic stakeholder consultation;

8. Calls on the Member States and the Commission, taking into account the shortcomings of the Baltic MAP Regulation in terms of reaching its ecological and socio-economic objectives, to consider launching measures in accordance with Articles 12 and 13 of the CFP whenever best available scientific advice indicates the need for such measures, and to prepare action by analysing the costs and benefits of closing relevant fisheries, including for recreational fisheries, noting lost revenues, livelihoods, food security and the future cost of inaction;

12. Highlights the importance of maintaining viable small-scale fisheries with limited landings in the region, allowing them to operate during rebuilding phases; recalls relevant provisions of the revised Fisheries Control Regulation and their full and effective implementation; stresses that these fisheries are crucial for livelihoods, resilience of traditional supply chains and preserving jobs in coastal fishing communities and that they have particular social and cultural value; points out that strengthening these fisheries can garner greater added value for local economies; highlights the importance of the 3 pillars of sustainable development in line with Article 2 of the CFP;

13. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to give priority to improving the socio-economic situation of small-scale coastal fishers; highlights the importance of fishing opportunities and fishing zones in coastal areas for small operators; highlights that Member States can achieve these improvements through their national quota allocations in line with Article 17 CFP, as well as through investments in selective and low-impact gear; calls, furthermore, on the Commission and the Member States to assess and, where appropriate, implement differentiated access rules for Baltic Sea fisheries based on vessel length and gear type, specifically with a view to limiting the competitive pressure exerted by large-scale industrial vessels on small and medium-scale family enterprises and coastal communities;

14. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to further strengthen the implementation of the landing obligation to tackle illegal discarding in the Baltic Sea, recognising the need for workable measures, to support selectivity and reduce unwanted catches, and to implement the relevant provisions on this matter in line with the CFP and the Fisheries Control Regulation;

36. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to base any approach to natural predation on science and stakeholder consultations, including preventive, locally anchored and targeted management measures for great cormorants and grey seals, ensuring that any measures adopted are effective, fulfil all legal obligations, and include adequate monitoring, dedicated and adequate funding and strengthened stakeholder cooperation, to ensure the effectiveness of the implemented measures, including mitigation practices such as deterrents or physical exclusion;

37. ReiteratesStresses itsthe callneed onfor the Commission to proposetake anurgent EUand greateffective cormorantaction managementin planresponse forto Balticthe Seapressures fisheriesexerted andby aquaculture,great basedcormorant populations on theBaltic bestSea availablefish scientificstocks, adviceensuring andthat Membermeasures Stateare practices,proportionate, takingregionally intoadapted considerationand theimplemented planthrough recentlyeffective, proposedtargeted byand thelocally Foodtailored andmanagement Agricultureinterventions Organization’sbased Europeanon Inlandthe Fisheriesbest andavailable Aquaculturescientific Advisorydata, Commissionwhile (EIFAACenabling asMember wellStates asto previousapply EU-fundedpractical researchand projectssituation-specific suchmitigation asmeasures ‘INTERCAFE’;where stressesnecessary thein needorder forto preventiveaddress measures,local compensationimpacts foreffectively, losses,thereby andsupporting fundingthe fromlong-term EUsustainability andof nationalfisheries sources;in affected coastal areas;

38. Reiterates the grave environmental and safety risks posed by unexploded ordnance (UXO) dumped in the Baltic Sea; recalls its resolution of 27 April 2021 on chemical residues in the Baltic Sea and the successful CHEMSEA, DAIMON and DAIMON 3 projects; urges the Commission and the Member States to take further coordinated and practical measures to systematically locate, assess and monitor these hazardous materials to prioritise areas for remediation;

38. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to closely monitor whether measures for the recovery of the critically endangered Baltic harbour porpoise are being effectively implemented and where necessary to take additional measures to avert the main threats to their survival;

39. Calls for joint efforts by Member States and the Commission to support the development of scientific research and exchange best practices on safe and cost-effective ways to identify and remove munitions and unexploded ordnance (UXO) from the seafloor with a view to enabling coordinated large-scale remediation actions;

39. Recalls that Baltic seal populations were brought to the brink of extinction in the 1970s;

40. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to launch a coordinated, long-term, adequately funded EU programme aimed at identifying, neutralising and removing Baltic Sea UXO;

40. Reiterates its call on the Commission to propose an EU great cormorant management plan for Baltic Sea fisheries and aquaculture, based on the best available scientific advice and Member State practices, taking into consideration the plan recently proposed by the Food and Agriculture Organization’s European Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture Advisory Commission (EIFAAC as well as previous EU-funded research projects such as ‘INTERCAFE’; stresses the need for preventive measures, compensation for losses, and funding from EU and national sources;

41. Condemns Russia’s irresponsible, unsustainable and unscientific exploitation of Baltic Sea fish stocks;

41. Reiterates the grave environmental and safety risks posed by unexploded ordnance (UXO) dumped in the Baltic Sea; recalls its resolution of 27 April 2021 on chemical residues in the Baltic Sea and the successful CHEMSEA, DAIMON and DAIMON 3 projects; urges the Commission and the Member States to take further coordinated and practical measures to systematically locate, assess and monitor these hazardous materials to prioritise areas for remediation;

42. Calls on the Council and the Commission to consider the unilateral actions of Russia when setting quotas for the Baltic Sea; further calls on the Commission to consider actions aimed at pressuring Russia to bring quotas in line with scientific advice;

42. Calls for joint efforts by Member States and the Commission to support the development of scientific research and exchange best practices on safe and cost-effective ways to identify and remove munitions and unexploded ordnance (UXO) from the seafloor with a view to enabling coordinated large-scale remediation actions;

43. Strongly condemns the growing presence of Russia’s shadow fleet in the Baltic Sea, with operations that bypass key regulatory standards, increasing the risk of oil spills and other environmental hazards; stresses the potential harm to marine ecosystems, local fisheries and human health; calls on the Commission to explore further measures to combat Russia’s shadow fleet, especially in the Baltic Sea region; calls for enhanced regional cooperation and stricter enforcement to mitigate these risks and protect the Baltic’s marine resources; highlights the importance of ensuring the full enforcement of sanctions against Russia;

43. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to launch a coordinated, long-term, adequately funded EU programme aimed at identifying, neutralising and removing Baltic Sea UXO;

44. Condemns Russia’s irresponsible, unsustainable and unscientific exploitation of Baltic Sea fish stocks;

45. Calls on the Council and the Commission to consider the unilateral actions of Russia when setting quotas for the Baltic Sea; further calls on the Commission to consider actions aimed at pressuring Russia to bring quotas in line with scientific advice;

46. Strongly condemns the growing presence of Russia’s shadow fleet in the Baltic Sea, with operations that bypass key regulatory standards, increasing the risk of oil spills and other environmental hazards; stresses the potential harm to marine ecosystems, local fisheries and human health; further notes concerns that Russian fishery products continue to reach the EU market through existing trade channels, highlighting the need to ensure the effective closure of any loopholes that may undermine the objectives of EU restrictive measures; calls on the Commission to explore further measures to combat Russia’s shadow fleet, especially in the Baltic Sea region; calls for enhanced regional cooperation and stricter enforcement to mitigate these risks and protect the Baltic’s marine resources; highlights the importance of ensuring the full enforcement of sanctions against Russia;

Legal changes

44.47. Highlights the urgent need to do more in terms of holistic policy coordination as well as continued and accelerated progress in implementation of legislation of other policy areas in order to avoid relying solely on fisheries measures and preventing further socio-economic decline of coastal communities; notes the efforts that have been made within the context of the ‘Our Baltic’ conferences; encourages further progress towards concrete results;

45.48. Urges the Commission to initiate an evaluation and possible revision of the Baltic MAP Regulation with a view to improving its clarity, coherence and practical application, assessing its performance with regard to environmental and socio-economic aspects; stresses further the importance of ensuring that any possible future adjustment of the framework remains simple, science-based and workable for the sector;

46.49. Calls on the Commission, within a possible revision of the Baltic MAP Regulation, to assess and, where needed, propose the inclusion of salmon and trout stocks as specific stocks to be covered by the scope of the regulation as regards bycatch;

47.50. Expresses concerns that the added value in terms of regional cooperation in the Baltic Sea has been low, considering that the MAP has mostly consolidated pre-existing or already initiated avenues for cooperation; notes that due to slow processes and increased bureaucracy accompanying such initiatives, relatively few joint recommendations by Member States have been initiated, leading to a worrying signal that regionalisation provisions of the EU fisheries rules are not being used to adapt management measures to the specificities of the Baltic Sea; highlights the need for regional cooperation between the Baltic countries, including all stakeholders;

48.51. Stresses that effective Baltic Sea management must be built on trust, dialogue and regional cooperation between Member States, all stakeholders, regional bodies such as HELCOM, and coastal communities to promote practical solutions and knowledge exchange;

49.52. Calls for a new, regionally adapted approach to the management of risk;

50.53. Calls for the rules in the MAP to be clarified to make year-to-year flexibility prohibited for stocks below the current Btrigger conservation reference point of the Baltic Sea MAP as currently agreed by the Council;

51.54. Calls on the Commission to strengthen science-based and proportionate management measures for salmon in the Baltic Sea, ensuring that the ecosystem impacts of herring, sprat and cod fisheries on salmon are properly understood and addressed; urges enhanced monitoring and research to support sustainable salmon management;

52.55. Emphasises that fisheries management in the EU should be based on European experience, science and regional realities; calls on the Commission to propose regionally adapted rules for the Baltic Sea for actions to be taken automatically when stocks fall below trigger values set in accordance with the precautionary approach, and reiterates that MSY management should be complemented where applicable by measures to differentiate catches according to size and age in the first place; considers that inspiration could be drawn from management practices in other regions such as those of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States, while ensuring consistency with the EU legal framework;

53.56. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to strengthen regional cooperation in line with Article 18 of the CFP;

54.57. Calls for concrete and effective measures ensuring that fish caught in the Baltic Sea are increasingly directed towards direct human consumption, to promote and incentivise local food supply chains;

55.58. Notes that some Member States in the Baltic Sea region such as Germany and Sweden have introduced national measures to restrict or prohibit bottom trawling in certain marine areas;

56.59. Calls on the Commission and the Member States for the Baltic Sea to propose halting trawling for fish meal and fish oil during a rebuilding phase, and limiting extractive activities in MPAs; recognises that approaches differ across the Union in the light of specific ecological, legal and socioeconomic contexts; encourages the Member States to continue developing proportionate, sciencebased solutions in cooperation with stakeholders, in particular the fishing sector and coastal communities, to improve marine protection while ensuring the viability of the EU fisheries sector through a just transition;

°

° °

57.60. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

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.

ANNEX: DECLARATION OF INPUT

Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur declares that she included in her report input on matters pertaining to the subject of the file that she received, in the preparation of the report, prior to the adoption thereof in committee, from the following interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register, or from the following representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies:

The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur.

Where natural persons are identified in the list by their name, by their function or by both, the rapporteur declares that she has submitted to the natural persons concerned the European Parliament's Data Protection Notice No 484 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/data-protect/index.do), which sets out the conditions applicable to the processing of their personal data and the rights linked to that processing.

INFORMATION ON ADOPTION BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE