On the multiannual plan for the Baltic Sea and ways forward

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

on the multiannual plan for the Baltic Sea and ways forward

(2024/2127(INI))

The European Parliament,

– having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC (CFP),

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2016 establishing a multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007 (Baltic MAP Regulation),

– having regard to Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive),

– having regard to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora,

– having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2115/77 of 27 September 1977 prohibiting the direct fishing and landing of herring for industrial purposes other than human consumption,

– 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 the EU’s biodiversity strategy for 2030, set out in the Commission communication of 20 May 2020 entitled ‘EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 – Bringing nature back into our lives’ (COM(2020)0380),

– having regard to the Commission communication of 5 June 2025 entitled ‘The European Ocean Pact’ (COM(2025)0281),

– having regard to the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area of 1992 (the Helsinki Convention), which entered into force on 17 January 2000, and to the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission, also known as the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM),

– having regard to the background analysis requested by the 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 study of September 2025 by the European Parliamentary Research Service entitled ‘Evaluation of the Baltic Sea Multiannual Plan Regulation – European Implementation Assessment’,

– having regard to the report of 29 September 2025 by the European Environment Agency entitled ‘Europe’s environment and climate: knowledge for resilience, prosperity and sustainability’,

– having regard to the report of 31 October 2023 by HELCOM entitled ‘State of the Baltic Sea 2023 – Third HELCOM holistic assessment 2016-2021’,

– having regard to the report of 26 November 2024 by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) entitled ‘Baltic Sea ecoregion – Ecosystem Overview’, ICES Advice 2024, Section 7.1,

– having regard to the report of 2022 by ICES entitled ‘Workshop on ICES reference points (WKREF1)’, ICES Scientific Reports. 4:2. 70 pp.,

– having regard to the report of 2022 by ICES entitled ‘Workshop on ICES reference points (WKREF2)’, ICES Scientific Reports. 4:68. 96 pp.,

– having regard to the report of 2023 by ICES entitled ‘Workshop on guidelines and methods for the design and evaluation of rebuilding plans for category 1-2 stocks (WKREBUILD2)’, ICES Scientific Reports. 5:112. 79 pp.,

– having regard to the report of November 2024 by the Commission’s Joint Research Centre entitled ‘Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – The 2024 Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing Fleet (STECF-24-03 & STECF-24-07)’,

– having regard to the report of September 2019 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change entitled ‘Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate’,

– having regard to the report of September 2025 by the Copernicus Marine Service entitled ‘9th edition of the Copernicus Ocean State Report’,

– having regard to the report of 24 September 2025 by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research entitled ‘Planetary Health Check 2025: A Scientific Assessment of the State of the Planet’,

– having regard to the joint statement by the Commission’s Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries and ICES of 18 September 2025 entitled ‘Adaptive science and coordinated governance for cross-sector action towards Baltic Sea recovery’,

– having regard to the report of 28 April 2025 by the Committee on Fisheries entitled ‘Working document on the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 (“Baltic MAP”)’,

– having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A100000/2025),

A. whereas the EU’s multi-annual plan for Baltic Sea fisheries (Baltic MAP Regulation) has not reached its objectives and has not led to populations of harvested species being restored and maintained above levels which can produce MSY, or to the implementation of the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management, leading to many disastrous socio-economic consequences for the fisheries sector;

B. whereas Baltic cod stocks have collapsed and not recovered, despite targeted fisheries having been closed since 2019;

C. whereas small-scale coastal fisheries represent 92 % of the vessels in the Baltic Sea while only landing 7 % of total weight, but constitute 22 % of the landed value, showing a higher value added in this fleet segment;

D. whereas the gross added value for small-scale fishers 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, threatening food security and increasing the EU’s dependence on imports;

E. whereas the Baltic Sea suffers from multiple human-induced pressures and long-term degradation, and is especially vulnerable due to its shallow sea basin with genetically unique species that have evolved to live in brackish water with naturally low salinity and oxygen levels;

F. whereas while upstream pressures such as nutrient loading and polluting legacy chemicals such as mercury and polychlorinated biphenyl have decreased over time, fisheries have remained a strong stressor on key fish stocks;

G. whereas the impacts of seawater warming driven by global climate change are particularly fast-acting in the Baltic Sea, and are expected to lead to further far-reaching and mostly unknown consequences, including uncertainty on the future reproductive capacity of fish populations;

H. whereas Member States continue to decide on dangerously high quotas for fish stocks that are at, or close to, record low biomass levels, ignoring the levels required by the Baltic MAP Regulation and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), which also require balanced food webs and stocks with a healthy size and age distribution;

I. whereas industrial fisheries for fish meal and fish oil became allowed in the Baltic Sea region in 1995, and since then fisheries have been transformed via individual transferable quota systems to host fewer and larger vessels that dominate herring landings; whereas today in Sweden and Finland only 10 % and 17 % of catches respectively are used for direct human consumption;

J. whereas single species assessments and scientific advice have, in current environmental conditions, resulted in the structural overestimation of stock reproductive capacity and total stock size;

K. whereas the advice from ICES does not sufficiently highlight risk considerations and should be improved to better reflect the quality of the assessments and relevant issues;

L. whereas ICES in September 2025, together with the Commission’s Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, stated that for the Baltic Sea ‘traditional uniform management of single species is no longer sufficient to address the complexities observed’;

M. whereas the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia use a more cautious quota setting approach than the EU and include explicit uncertainty buffers and automatically triggered rebuilding plans when limit values are breached;

N. whereas total allowable catch (TAC) decisions, technical rules and remedial measures have not followed the requirement of Article 5 of the Baltic MAP Regulation to adopt measures ‘to ensure rapid return of the stock concerned to levels above those capable of producing MSY’;

O. whereas while the Baltic MAP Regulation was intended to be a flexible framework to be adjusted under a regionalised approach, such changes have had limited success;

P. whereas while several EU regulations referred to in the Baltic MAP Regulation stipulate how to avoid risk, and assess healthy stocks and ecosystem components, management decisions have not followed them sufficiently;

Q. whereas the EU decision-making system on TACs currently distinguishes between management of target species and the protection needs of other species, despite the fact that they are part of one ecosystem and share the same requirements to reach healthy status;

R. whereas predation by native species is a natural part of the Baltic ecosystem; whereas scientific evidence shows their impact on fish populations to be localised, context-specific and with overall effects remaining limited;

S. whereas preparatory discussions about TAC decisions are held in the Baltic Sea Fisheries Forum (BALTFISH), a group that lacks transparency compared to other EU preparatory bodies and working groups;

Urgent actions

1. Calls on the Commission and the Council to use all available legal tools to stop any further deterioration that would risk a total collapse of the Baltic Sea fish stocks, including by using delegated acts, joint recommendations and Articles 5 and 8 of the Baltic MAP Regulation, the provisions under Article 12 of the CFP and Member State initiatives through Articles 8, 11, 13, 17 and 20 of the CFP, either unilaterally or via regionalisation through Article 18;

2. Urges the Commission to halt the business-as-usual approach to continued fishing in the Baltic Sea and instead move to a recovery and rebuilding phase;

3. Calls for the urgent implementation of precautionary buffers as a response to recent, repeated and structural overestimation of stock size and productivity of most Baltic fish stocks that have led to years of undetected overfishing; urges the Council to set TACs at least 50 % below FMSY on all stocks falling below trigger levels noted in the Baltic MAP Regulation;

4. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to consider launching emergency measures in accordance with Articles 12 and 13 of the CFP and to swiftly prepare action by analysing the costs and benefits of closing the majority of the fisheries, noting lost revenues, livelihoods, food security and the future cost of inaction;

5. Calls on the Commission to prepare a list of further remedial measures, as noted in Article 5 of the Baltic MAP Regulation, that can be applied based on provisions in existing legislation to achieve a recovery of stocks currently at critical levels in the Baltic Sea;

6. Highlights that such remedial measures must include the creation of fish stock recovery areas and closures focusing on winter and pre-spawning aggregation areas, as well as spawning and nursery areas, aligned with provisions in the nature restoration law;

7. Reminds the Commission to of the necessity of safeguarding human consumption fisheries with limited landings, allowing such fisheries to operate during rebuilding phases, thereby supporting a just transition to a low-carbon, low-impact fishing fleet;

Changing the scientific advice

8. Urges the Commission to immediately ask ICES to develop an ecosystem based, multi-species advice, informed by environmental change, with ecosystem-based reference points and ecosystem-adjusted fishing mortality, as well as for complementary indicators aligning the Baltic MAP Regulation with MSFD requirements, for example to include large fish indicators;

9. Calls on the Commission to ask ICES for precautionary buffers in the scientific advice and abolish any use of ranges above MSY, and for advice on setting ‘ecosystem caps’ limiting the total biomass that can be removed from an ecosystem;

10. Calls on the Commission to require that all stock assessments use the BMSY biomass reference points, as reflected in the objectives of the Baltic MAP Regulation and the CFP;

11. Calls on the Commission to request scientific advice that clearly highlights the risks related to the current state of the environment and the increased uncertainty due to climate change;

12. Calls on the Commission to ask for a revision of the current harvest control rules, acknowledging that this is an internal ICES process insofar as it is dependent on new legislative rules or a changed interpretation of existing rules;

13. Calls on the Commission to request ICES to develop a guidance note for Member States and the Commission on how to interpret scientific advice so as to be in line with the ecosystem and precautionary approaches, while rebuilding the resilience of the Baltic Sea;

14. Calls on the Commission to consider developing clear and transparent rules for TAC-setting, closely aligned with the objectives of the Baltic MAP Regulation and according to a new ecosystem-based multi-species advice; asks the Council to publish annual reports explaining and justifying TAC decisions and other measures, so as to make the TAC-setting procedure and BALTFISH discussions open and transparent to the general public and to make Member States accountable for their decisions;

15. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to base any approach to natural predation on science, prioritising preventive, non-lethal and locally targeted measures, and to ensure adequate monitoring, funding and stakeholder cooperation to implement effective mitigation practices;

Legal changes

16. Urges the Commission to initiate a revision of the Baltic MAP Regulation to include ecosystem reference points (ERPs) defining a ‘safe operating space’ that integrates productivity, trophic relationships, biodiversity, habitat impacts and environmental capacity and provides safeguards limiting overly optimistic single-stock advice; stresses that the revision include environmental response mechanisms that trigger management action requiring reduced fishing pressure across all stocks to protect the entire food web if ERPs are signalling overall ecosystem productivity decreases;

17. Calls on the Commission to create a Baltic Sea ecosystem management group integrating HELCOM and ICES expertise, and to establish a permanent stakeholder advisory platform consisting primarily of local actors in coastal communities such as commercial fishers, recreational fishers, tourism stakeholders, non-governmental organisations and local authorities, to provide input to TAC decisions and other measures;

18. Calls on the Commission to clarify and set rules for acceptable levels of risk and time frames in relation to commitments to rebuild stocks, restore nature and uphold healthy ecosystems;

19. Calls on the Commission and the Council to consider legally binding rules for actions to be taken automatically when stocks fall below trigger values set in accordance with the precautionary approach, aligning the EU with better managed regions such as those of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States;

20. Calls on the Commission and the Council to reintroduce the ban on fisheries for non-human consumption that was in place until 1995, when exceptions were originally only allowed ‘provided that such fishery does not entail risks of irreversible ecological damage’;

21. Calls on the Commission and the Council to propose a moratorium on industrial trawling and halting all bottom trawling in coastal and shallow zones and in all types of marine protected areas until such legal rules and criteria are developed;

°

° °

22. 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.