A single amendment to the European Parliament's report on the multiannual plan for the Baltic Sea, proposed by the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) Group, replaces a call for a mandatory halt to trawling for fish meal and oil in Marine Protected Areas with a general encouragement for Member States to develop voluntary solutions in cooperation with stakeholders. The amendment, published on 11 May 2026 as part of the report by rapporteur Isabella Lövin (Greens/EFA), fundamentally shifts the text's direction from a prescriptive, top-down regulatory approach to a voluntary, stakeholder-driven one.
The amendment targets a key paragraph in the original report, which had called on the Commission and Member States to propose halting trawling for fish meal and oil and limiting extractive activities in Marine Protected Areas during a rebuilding phase. The ECR amendment removes this entire directive, replacing it with language that encourages Member States to continue developing proportionate, science-based solutions to improve marine protection while ensuring the viability of the EU fisheries sector. The term "just transition" is introduced to frame the process as one that protects jobs and livelihoods.
Policy orientations and trade-offs
The core conflict is between a conservation-first approach and a socio-economic viability-first approach. The original text, likely supported by the Greens/EFA, Socialists & Democrats, and Renew Europe, prioritises ecosystem recovery and the precautionary principle, arguing that urgent, mandatory restrictions are necessary in protected areas. The ECR amendment prioritises the economic viability of the fisheries sector and the principle of subsidiarity, advocating for solutions developed through cooperation with industry and coastal communities and explicitly rejecting blanket bans or top-down EU mandates.
Impact on stakeholders
- EU fisheries sector in the Baltic Sea: Positive impact, as the amendment removes the threat of a mandatory trawling ban, preserving current fishing practices and livelihoods. However, the lack of binding measures may delay ecosystem recovery, potentially affecting long-term fish stock sustainability.
- EU environmental NGOs and conservation advocates: Negative impact, as the amendment weakens the report's ambition on marine protection, replacing a concrete regulatory demand with a non-binding encouragement. This may be seen as a setback for efforts to restore Baltic Sea ecosystems.
- EU regulatory bodies (European Commission): Neutral to slightly negative, as the amendment removes a clear mandate for the Commission to propose legislation, reducing its ability to drive top-down environmental action in the Baltic.
- EU Member States bordering the Baltic Sea: Positive impact, as the amendment grants them full discretion to design their own protection measures in cooperation with stakeholders, respecting national sovereignty and local economic conditions.
Expected institutional follow-up
The amendment will be voted on by the European Parliament's plenary as part of the Lövin report. If adopted, it will become part of the Parliament's position, which will then be transmitted to the Commission and Council. The Council will need to decide whether to take up the Parliament's recommendations in any future legislative proposal on the Baltic Sea multiannual plan. The outcome of the plenary vote will signal the balance of power between conservation and socio-economic priorities in EU fisheries policy.