On 11 May 2026, the European Parliament's ECR group tabled nine amendments to the draft report on the multiannual plan for the Baltic Sea, seeking to reframe the policy from a primarily ecological recovery framework to a more socio-economically balanced and cross-sectoral approach. The amendments, submitted by MEPs Piotr Müller and Stephen Nikola Bartulica, challenge the report's implicit prioritisation of environmental measures such as fishing moratoriums and strict quota cuts, arguing that these would disproportionately harm the fishing industry without addressing other major stressors.
The amendments target the report by Isabella Lövin (Greens/EFA), which had called for recovery pauses for herring and sprat, alignment of total allowable catches with the precautionary approach, and creation of science-based fish-stock-recovery areas. The ECR group rejects these as overly punitive and scientifically incomplete.
Broadening responsibility beyond fishing
A central change is the demand for a comprehensive and cross-sectoral plan addressing all major Baltic stressors—nutrient pollution, chemical contaminants, offshore energy, climate change, and predator impacts—not just fishing. Amendments 25 and 27 shift the narrative from a fisheries management failure to a systemic environmental crisis requiring shared responsibility among sectors.
Defending the fishing sector's stability
The ECR strengthens language on socio-economic support, adding generational renewal as a goal and warning that prolonged regulatory instability leads to disinvestment. Amendment 26 deletes a reference to permanent cessation tools (vessel scrapping) as a solution, signalling opposition to reducing fleet capacity. Amendment 28 insists on a balanced approach between environmental and socio-economic factors as per the Common Fisheries Policy Article 2.
Limiting new closures and recovery areas
Amendment 31 makes the creation of fish-stock-recovery areas conditional, requiring such measures to be fully justified on a case-by-case basis and accompanied by appropriate and timely compensation. This waters down the original call for science-based areas.
Deleting procedural calls for corrective action
The ECR deletes requests for the Commission to assess the link between national quota distribution and resource pressure (Amendment 24), and to consider launching emergency measures under CFP Articles 12 and 13 (Amendment 29). This removes pressure for immediate top-down corrective action.
Impacts on stakeholders
- EU fishing industry: Positive impact from reduced regulatory burden, quota stability, and compensation guarantees; negative impact if broader environmental measures delay recovery of fish stocks. - EU environmental NGOs: Negative impact as the amendments dilute ecological recovery targets and shift focus away from fishing pressure. - EU regulatory bodies (Commission, Council): Moderate impact as the amendments complicate the adoption of a unified plan, potentially delaying implementation. - EU consumers: Indirect impact—if stocks recover more slowly, supply of Baltic fish may remain low, keeping prices high.
Next steps
The amendments will be considered by the European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries (PECH) before a plenary vote. The Council of the EU will then need to adopt its position, potentially leading to trilogue negotiations. The ECR's push for a cross-sectoral approach may find resonance with member states seeking to balance environmental goals with economic viability.
← Atlas › News › Agri-food