On the impact of the implementation of the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive 2014/89/EU on fisheries in selected fishing areas and sea basins

PR_INI_ImplReport

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT - SUMMARY OF FACTS AND FINDINGS

Findings on the implementation of the Directive

Uneven progress and governance challenges:

Implementation of the MSPD has been uneven and incomplete. The content of MSP plans varies significantly between Member States due to different approaches regarding the binding nature and governance of the plans.

Impact on fisheries and aquaculture:

The MSPD has not delivered significant benefits for fisheries. Fishing activities face spatial restrictions, competing uses, displacement of fleets, and increased pressure on remaining grounds. Small-scale fisheries are particularly vulnerable. Aquaculture has seen marginal improvements but continues to struggle with burdensome licensing procedures, lack of dedicated zones, and inconsistent recognition across Member States.

Stakeholder engagement and social dimension:

Although stakeholder involvement has improved, it remains constrained. Fishers and coastal communities deplore a lack of early and meaningful engagement in MSP processes, compared to stronger sectors such as offshore energy and shipping.

Data collection gaps and technical barriers:

The effective implementation of MSP is affected by the lack of harmonised data and sufficient resources for data collection and research, making it difficult to apply an ecosystem-based approach and to integrate fisheries and aquaculture adequately into MSP frameworks.

Cross-border coordination:

Cooperation between Member States and with third countries remains limited. While initiatives such as the Greater North Sea Basin Initiative (GNSBI) represent positive steps, broader cross-border and sea-basin-based planning is still lacking.

Recommendations from the Rapporteur

Strengthen legislative coherence:

The MSPD must be better aligned with related EU legislation, particularly the MSFD, the CFP and the Water Framework Directive, to ensure consistent and effective implementation.

Balanced multi-use approach:

MSP should adopt a multi-use approach that reduces conflicts and ensures fisheries and aquaculture are not excluded from maritime space. Priority zones for fisheries and aquaculture should be established, where possible, tailored to different fleet segments and sea basins, based on robust scientific and socio-economic assessments.

Inclusive governance and stakeholder Engagement:

Member States should ensure systematic and early involvement of all relevant stakeholders, including small-scale fishers and coastal communities. Co-management models should be promoted, as well as Community-Led Local Development and Local Action Groups.

Cross-border and sea-basin cooperation:

The Commission and Member States should move from national plans to sea-basin strategies, develop macro-regional planning frameworks and enhance cooperation with neighbouring coastal states.

Data and research investment:

Significant resources should be allocated to data collection and scientific research. Improved data will enable evidence-based planning and secure the place of fisheries and aquaculture in MSP frameworks.

Revision of the MSP Directive:

The forthcoming Ocean Act should achieve the revision of the MSP Directive and establish a coherent framework to improve coordination between existing legislation, introduce more binding and measurable targets and improve land-sea planning.

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

on the impact of the implementation of the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive 2014/89/EU on fisheries in selected fishing areas and sea basins

(2024/2126(INI))

– having regard to Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning (Maritime Spatial Planning Directive or MSP Directive),

– 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 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 (Common Fisheries Policy Regulation),

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2021 establishing the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1004,

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

– 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 (Birds Directive),

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

– having regard to its resolution of 7 July 2021 on the impact on the fishing sector of offshore wind farms and other renewable energy systems,

– having regard to its resolution of 9 May 2023 on co-management of fisheries in the EU and the contribution of the fisheries sector for the implementation of management measures,

– having regard to its resolution of 18 January 2024 on the state of play in the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy and future perspectives,

– having regard to the Commission communication of 12 May 2021 entitled ‘Strategic guidelines for a more sustainable and competitive EU aquaculture for the period 2021 to 2030’ (COM(2021)0236),

– having regard to the briefing entitled ‘Fisheries in maritime spatial planning’ published by its Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services in October 2025,

– having regard to the study entitled ‘Implementation of the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive: Impact on fisheries in selected fishing areas and sea basins’ published by its Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services in December 2025,

– having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure, as well as Article 1(1)(e) of, and Annex 3 to, the decision of the Conference of Presidents of 12 December 2002 on the procedure for granting authorisation to draw up own-initiative reports,

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

A. whereas increased competition for access to maritime space from various activities and sectors, such as fisheries, aquaculture, maritime transport, shipping, offshore renewable energy, nature conservation, coastal tourism, underwater cables and pipelines, or defence, is resulting in increased conflict over the use of maritime space;

B. whereas the EU’s Maritime Spatial Planning Directive establishes a common framework for the Member States to organise the use of their marine waters and aims to promote the sustainable development of the blue economy and to reduce conflict between sectors;

C. whereas the MSP Directive contributes to environmental protection by promoting the sustainable use of maritime space and provides that Member States must apply an ecosystem-based approach;

D. whereas the MSP Directive is closely linked to the implementation of other EU legislation and international legal instruments, such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation, the Habitats and Birds Directives, the Water Framework Directive, and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework;

E. whereas following the adoption of the MSP Directive, the 22 Member States with a coastline were required to appoint competent authorities by 2016 and to adopt national maritime spatial plans for their marine waters by 31 March 2021;

F. whereas 20 out of the 22 Member States with a coastline have adopted maritime spatial plans so far, and many are now in the process of revising them;

G. whereas when developing maritime spatial plans, Member States must consider environmental, economic, social and safety aspects, land-sea interactions, cross-border cooperation, and ensure the involvement of all relevant stakeholders;

H. whereas the level of implementation of the MSP Directive varies considerably from one Member State to another, due to differences in administrative and governance structures ranging from localised to more centralised systems;

I. whereas the maritime spatial plans vary greatly in nature and content, as the MSP Directive is not binding and leaves Member States with considerable flexibility over its implementation;

J. whereas there is a strong need for maritime spatial planning (MSP) in areas with a high concentration of activity and limited maritime space, such as the Channel or the Baltic Sea;

K. whereas the fisheries and aquaculture sectors are under pressure from emerging blue economy sectors, such as offshore renewable energy, and are affected by marine conservation measures;

L. whereas the increasing loss of fishing grounds is leading to the displacement of fishing activities, increased fishing pressure and competition between fleets, and the disappearance of certain segments, particularly in small-scale fisheries;

M. whereas maritime and coastal areas are suffering the consequences of climate change, pollution and marine litter, which also affect activities related to the sea, marine biodiversity and fishery resources;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Notes that maritime spatial plans are legally binding in some Member States and advisory in others; emphasises that implementation in Member States is often hindered by institutional segmentation, fragmented governance and inadequate legal mechanisms;

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

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

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

Benefits of maritime spatial planning for fisheries and aquaculture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stakeholder involvement and data collection

15. Highlights that stakeholder and coastal community involvement in the MSP process has increased but remains constrained; regrets that this involvement often lacks early and formal engagement and consultation, offering limited opportunity for genuine influence on planning decisions;

16. Notes good examples of stakeholder participation in some Member States, such as national consultations and participatory processes; regrets, however, the lack of binding provisions for stakeholder participation; notes that this hinders the participation of fishers and aquaculture professionals in consultation and decision-making processes;

17. Emphasises that fisheries and aquaculture are often overshadowed by other, more powerful or economically important sectors, such as offshore energy; deplores the fact that certain sectors and operators often bypass consultation processes, at the expense of less organised actors, such as small-scale fishers;

18. 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 proper socio-economic data; emphasises the lack of harmonisation between Member States’ data collection systems;

19. Highlights that data misalignment, such as incompatible geospatial baselines, and temporal mismatch, such as distinct revision cycles for maritime spatial plans, hinder the implementation of coherent maritime spatial planning and an ecosystem-based approach;

Recommendations

20. Stresses the need for a more holistic approach and better coordination between relevant EU legislation, in particular between the MSP Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, in order to ensure consistent and effective implementation of maritime spatial planning;

21. Believes that maritime spatial plans should better reflect spatial, environmental and socio-economic needs, as well as the specific characteristics of each sea basin; stresses that the Member States should strengthen coordination between land-use and marine authorities when designing and implementing maritime spatial plans;

22. 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;

23. 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;

24. 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;

25. 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;

26. 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;

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

28. 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;

29. 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;

30. 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);

31. 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;

32. 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;

33. 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;

34. 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;

35. 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;

36. 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;

37. 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;

38. 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;

°

° °

39. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

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 draft report, 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:

1. Interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register

- Seas at Risk

- WWF European Policy Office

- Comité National des Pêches Maritimes et des Élevages Marins

- Comité National de la Conchyliculture

- European Molluscs’ Producers Association

- Régions de France

- North Sea Advisory Council

- European Commission’s DG for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (MARE)

- Federation of European Aquaculture Producers (FEAP)

- Fórum Oceano

- IUCN

2. 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.