Report - A10-0018/2026Report
A10-0018/2026
European Parliament

REPORT on the fisheries management approaches for safeguarding sensitive species, tackling invasive species and benefiting local economies

6.2.2026 - (2025/2011(INI))

Committee on Fisheries
Rapporteur: André Rodrigues
PR_INI


Procedure : 2025/2011(INI)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected :  
A10-0018/2026
Texts tabled :
A10-0018/2026
Debates :
Votes :
Texts adopted :

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

on the fisheries management approaches for safeguarding sensitive species, tackling invasive species and benefiting local economies

(2025/2011(INI))

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in particular Article 43 thereof,

– 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[1] (CFP Regulation),

– having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (IAS Regulation)[2],

– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products[3],

– having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006[4] (Fisheries Control Regulation),

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1224/2009 and Regulations (EU) No 1380/2013, (EU) 2016/1139, (EU) 2018/973, (EU) 2019/472 and (EU) 2019/1022 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2549/2000, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005[5],

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2023/2842 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 November 2023 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, and amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1967/2006 and (EC) No 1005/2008 and Regulations (EU) 2016/1139, (EU) 2017/2403 and (EU) 2019/473 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards fisheries control[6],

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 on nature restoration and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869[7],

– having regard to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora[8] (Habitats 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)[9],

– 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[10] (Birds Directive),

– having regard to its resolution of 9 June 2021 on the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives[11],

– having regard to its resolution of 11 May 2023 entitled ‘Towards a strong and sustainable EU algae sector’[12],

– 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[13],

– having regard to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), in particular SDG 14: Life below water, SDG 15: Life on land, SDG 1: No poverty, SDG 2: Zero hunger and SDG 11: Sustainable cities and communities,

– having regard to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework,

– having regard to the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments,

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

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A10-0018/2026),

A. whereas the EU has long recognised the importance of sustainable fisheries and ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management in preserving marine biodiversity, including protecting sensitive species, supporting local economies and ensuring food security and sustainable food systems;

B. whereas the EU has implemented several regulatory frameworks for the recovery and protection of vulnerable marine species;

C. whereas the EU integrates sensitive species protection and recovery into other legal frameworks, such as the recently revised Fisheries Control Regulation, ensuring a comprehensive approach to the collection of data to be used in the conservation of sensitive species;

D. whereas the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) publishes the Red List, a comprehensive inventory of the conservation status of species, providing critical information on the delicate situation of marine sensitive species and highlighting the conservation efforts needed;

E. whereas the bycatch of sensitive species represents a major threat to marine biodiversity, as recognised by international and regional conventions and by EU legislation;

F. whereas seabirds are one of the indicators of the health of marine ecosystems, given their role as top predator in the marine food chain;

G. whereas stakeholders are working together in several projects to try out new management methods and gear in order to reduce the level of bycatch and incidental catches of sensitive species during fishing operations;

H. whereas data published by the European Environment Agency in 2025[14] showed that marine protected areas (MPAs) covered 13.7 % of EU waters;

I. whereas the Commission’s Mission Ocean and Waters service portal[15] reports on a study indicating that, in 2023, fisheries were authorised in over 40 % of MPA areas, restricted in less than 25 % and explicitly prohibited in only 0.4 %;

J. whereas invasive alien species (IAS) are one of the drivers of biodiversity loss, have negative impacts on fisheries, aquaculture and ecosystem functions, and can be detrimental to human health, infrastructure and biosecurity;

K. whereas the aquaculture of non-indigenous species with limited control measures poses a risk, as the species can potentially escape and become invasive, which poses a threat to native wild species and the environment;

L. whereas the EU has adopted several measures to prevent the introduction of IAS and to detect and map their distribution and tackle their spread, including, in particular, the IAS Regulation, which establishes a list of ‘IAS of Union concern’ and enforces control measures;

M. whereas in accordance with the IAS Regulation, IAS are those species whose negative effects are so significant that they require coordinated and uniform intervention at EU level, and it is therefore prohibited to introduce, possess, breed and cultivate, transport or trade them, or to freely transfer or release them into the natural environment;

N. whereas one of the qualitative descriptors for determining good environmental status, as listed in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, is that non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are kept at levels that do not adversely alter ecosystems;

O. whereas proper and timely data collection is of great importance in order to ensure that IAS are detected and their distribution mapped, as well as to establish and implement measures to counter the spread of these species in the most targeted and effective way possible;

P. whereas different activities, such as maritime transport or tourism, are considered important vectors of the spread of IAS, specifically depending on the levels of mitigation measures and vigilance applied;

Q. whereas the EU biodiversity strategy committed to managing established IAS and reducing the number of Red List species they threaten by 50 % by 2030;

R. whereas the European Alien Species Information Network (EASIN) currently monitors 12 423 alien species across various environments, of which 1 440 (11.6 %) are marine species; whereas as of 2019, 53 % of Europe’s sea coastlines are under pressure from IAS, with significant regional variation – 33 % of the coastlines of  the Baltic Sea, 100 % of the Black Sea, 98 % of the Mediterranean Sea and 25 % of the Northeast Atlantic Ocean;

S. whereas climate change, especially ocean warming, and the increased movement of goods and people are key vectors for the introduction of IAS and can intensify their impact on sensitive species, ecosystems and, consequently, fishing activities;

T. whereas the rampant spread of IAS causes substantial harm to fisheries and aquaculture, both in the short and long term, including damage to fishing gear or aquaculture infrastructure, reduced catches, a decrease in natural recruitment and productivity, and disruptions to ecosystems, all of which threaten the ecological balance and economic viability of fishing communities;

U. whereas IAS, including alien predator species populations, threaten not only the ecological balance but also the social and economic viability of coastal fishing communities, in particular fisheries and small and medium-sized aquaculture enterprises;

V. whereas taking an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management and to planning and spatial management in aquaculture can improve the resilience of both sectors and their capacity to adapt, particularly at local level;

W. whereas the EU outermost regions, as recognised by Article 349 TFEU, face unique challenges and opportunities in the context of fisheries management, the conservation of sensitive species and the prevention of invasive species; whereas the indicators used to measure the balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities need to be tailored to local circumstances, taking account of their geographical remoteness, the richness and uniqueness of their biodiversity, their social and economic specificities, and the critical role of the local fishing sector in ensuring food security and supporting the economy of these regions;

X. whereas tackling IAS also requires strong international action; whereas the Convention on Biological Diversity recognises IAS as a cross-cutting issue, and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework aims to reduce the introduction and establishment of IAS by at least 50 % by 2030;

Y. whereas environmental protection efforts must be accompanied by measures that strengthen the competitiveness of the European fishing fleet, ensure the economic viability of the sector and ensure generational renewal in coastal communities;

Z. whereas the spread of invasive species and an increase in predator populations in some regions have impacts on the ecosystem and on fishing and aquaculture sectors, with small-scale coastal operations being particularly vulnerable;

AA. whereas Eurostat maintains a comprehensive database of long-term data on fisheries catches, providing valuable insights that can inform the development of effective fisheries management strategies and the assessment of sensitive species and can contribute to early warning systems for alien species;

AB. whereas instruments such as other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) may also contribute to conservation and management efforts;

AC. whereas there are no direct EU standards on ballast water; whereas rules on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of IAS recognise the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments as one of the possible measures for managing invasive species of concern;

Sensitive species: ocean resilience indicators

1. Underlines the importance of ensuring healthy marine ecosystems, habitats and species in the EU;

2. Highlights the unique role played by sensitive species in marine ecosystems and the environmental, economic and social benefits stemming from their management, conservation and protection;

3. Stresses that many sensitive species are valuable indicators of the health of marine ecosystems, provide an early warning of ecological imbalances and contribute to ecosystem resilience, with direct impact on the productivity of fisheries and aquaculture;

4. Urges the Commission and the Member States to implement an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management alongside approaches that focus on the conservation of sensitive species, while supporting the economic and social prosperity of fishers, as well as ensuring the delivery of the EU’s goals and international commitments on MPAs and areas of high biodiversity importance;

5. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that shifts in ecosystems caused by climate change are consistently reflected in environmental assessments and fisheries management;

6. Urges the Commission and the Member States to reduce, and where possible eliminate, incidental catches of sensitive marine species, in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1241, ensuring that such catches do not represent a threat to the conservation status of these species;

7. Underlines that, over the past decades, habitats have changed, leading to the disappearance of some species while enabling the arrival of new ones; stresses, in this regard, the need to increase the awareness of citizens, and in particular of fishers and anglers, of the importance of data collection and the need for adaptive management;

8. Stresses the importance of science-based MPA management plans, including their environmental, social and economic dimensions and outcomes, to ensure that conservation measures are targeted, effective and aligned with ecosystem-specific needs and that their implementation is effective; highlights the EU target of protecting 30 % of EU seas by 2030;

9. Recalls that fishers must be an integral part of the solution and be represented in all advice-giving bodies, and highlights, in this regard, the importance of ensuring representation of all fishers, especially small-scale and artisanal ones; is concerned that their representation is not always adequately ensured;

10. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to make full use of common fisheries policy (CFP) tools, in particular technical measures to address fisheries interactions and enhance the protection of sensitive species, while ensuring fair and effective compensation for fishers affected by the loss of access to traditional fishing grounds, in line with the provisions of the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund; calls on the Commission to ensure the implementation and enforcement of current legislation;

11. Urges the Member States to make full use of the provisions enshrined in Article 17 of the CFP Regulation when allocating fishing opportunities, to incentivise fishers to adopt measures to minimise or eliminate the bycatch of sensitive species and to provide incentives to fishing vessels deploying selective fishing gear or using fishing techniques with reduced environmental impact, with special attention to small-scale fleets;

12. Recalls the importance of data collected under the CFP in properly identifying the impact of fisheries on sensitive species and the importance of improved monitoring systems, in line with scientific advice and EU legislation; underlines the importance of comprehensive, species-specific bycatch data to enable targeted mitigation measures, inform adaptive management strategies and facilitate the adoption of balanced and science-driven measures that also consider socio-economic factors and ensure EU food security;

13. Highlights the importance a holistic approach across policy areas can contribute to reinforcing the monitoring, protection, restoration and recovery of sensitive species and habitats; emphasises, in this regard, the importance of implementing current legislation in all relevant policy areas, extending beyond those directly related to the CFP;

14. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to reinforce ecosystem-based approaches to the management of the marine environment, taking into account species interactions, where possible, and all pressures on marine ecosystems, including climate change and pollution, whether land-based or from other sources;

15. Emphasises that MPAs that are effectively protected and managed based on the best available science, contribute, depending on their conservation objectives, to minimising incidental catches of sensitive species, protecting fish spawning and nursery areas and juveniles, and reducing impacts on sensitive habitats;

16. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to assess regional and local population size, the status and trends of species and the potential impacts that unbalanced populations can have on fishing activities, to ensure ecosystem-based management of fisheries, including measures to protect sensitive species;

17. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to increase support for scientific programmes on sensitive species and management approaches, as identified in relevant legislation; highlights the fact that, in some regions, sensitive species, such as growing populations of cormorants and seals, are having impacts on fish stocks and fisheries and aquaculture activities and on other sensitive species populations; is of the opinion that the regulatory framework has the necessary tools to allow improvements, given the local status of the sensitive species; invites, therefore, the Commission and the Member States to consider, among the actions to be taken, all possibilities provided for in the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive to better facilitate active and effective population management and support ecosystem-based management;

18. Urges the Commission to ensure that the EU’s fisheries management approaches are aligned with the CFP, the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and the EU’s international commitments such as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework; stresses, in this regard, that actions should be taken to halt the decline of sensitive species in EU marine ecosystems, including through the implementation of appropriate conservation measures and habitat protection;

19. Calls on the Commission to take action in regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) to reduce and, where possible, eliminate bycatch of sensitive species and to restrict the trading and importation of seafood products and strengthen measures against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, including through improved customs control and collaboration with RFMO partners;

Invasive species: threats to our ocean and economy

20. Underlines that IAS threaten fisheries and aquaculture, native marine biodiversity and ecosystems, thus affecting the livelihoods and incomes of fishers and coastal communities;

21. Highlights the vital contribution of small-scale coastal fisheries to local economies and EU food security, stressing that they face growing threats from environmental stressors such as invasive species and climate change, including the massive movement of certain species, particularly owing to warming waters, a phenomenon that causes severe losses, particularly for shellfish farmers, who are doubly penalised by a drop in production and an increase in costs linked to predation;

22. Recalls that in the EU, 88 IAS are strictly regulated, including 47 animal species and 41 plant species of Union concern;

23. Regrets the fact that the current list of species of Union concern does not fully acknowledge the threat of IAS to EU fisheries, aquaculture and the marine environment, since currently only two marine species (Plotosus lineatus and Rugulopteryx okamurae) are included on the list, alongside certain species that are found in brackish environments; calls for the list to be improved based on up-to-date scientific advice and risk assessments;

24. Points out the need for appropriate management of species and notes with concern the increased presence of species in certain regions, such as:

(a) the Pacific oyster and alien crayfish species in the southern North Sea, particularly along the Dutch coast;

(b) the black-mouthed goby, which affects the ecosystem and specifically threatens shrimp, flatfish and native gobies especially around the North Sea waters;

(c) the blue crab, the brush-clawed shore crab, the American Atlantic coast comb and the clinging jellyfish in the Northeast Atlantic;

(d) the lionfish (Pterois miles), the bluespotted cornetfish (Fistularia commersonii) and the silver-cheeked toadfish (Lagocephalus sceleratus), around Greece and Cyprus;

(e) the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), introduced into the Ebro, and the catfish (Silurus glanis), in Spain;

(f) the Asian algae Rugulopteryx okamurae, particularly in the western Mediterranean;

25. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to establish regional, species-specific monitoring systems, including coordinated early warning and response strategies for alien species affecting economically relevant habitats;

26. Regrets the lack of specific monitoring programmes for marine IAS, and calls for improved monitoring methods and the harmonisation of indicators across the EU, as well as for increased technical and financial support, particularly for the outermost regions, which require specific additional funding owing to their unique biodiversity and remoteness;

27. Recommends establishing a threshold-setting methodology and values for all European marine regions and subregions, taking into consideration the impact on fisheries and aquaculture, the manageability of pathways and the need to more rigorously control EU and non-EU fleets, targeting invasive species, and to enforce the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments and apply hull fouling guidelines;

28. Highlights the potential links between IAS introduced in land and freshwater ecosystems and those in oceans and seas, and their impact on fisheries and aquaculture; calls on the Commission to develop a comprehensive strategy to address this issue;

29. Stresses that a holistic, preventive and multi-vector pathway-based management approach is an absolute priority in effectively preventing the introduction of marine IAS and in tackling their spread and addressing the root causes of their proliferation; encourages the Member States to increase the use of horizon scanning and novel techniques such as eDNA, artificial intelligence and automated monitoring, as well as the involvement of fishers, anglers, coastal communities and citizen science, as tools and resources for identifying and prioritising new, emerging and high-risk IAS for fisheries and aquaculture; urges the Commission to apply this integrated approach in the implementation of the European Ocean Pact to ensure coordinated action across sectors and Member States;

30. Calls on the Member States to strengthen communication, coordination and cooperation, particularly in cross-border areas, while leveraging biosecurity to swiftly implement measures for the early detection and rapid eradication of marine IAS, and to manage species that have already spread widely; calls, furthermore, on the Commission to cooperate with the Member States to extend these actions through collaboration with non-EU countries sharing the same sea basin;

31. Recommends increased cooperation between scientific institutions and EU agencies to improve knowledge transfer and applied research on the spread, impact and control of invasive marine species;

32. Underlines that the Mediterranean Sea, which, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization, is warming 20 % ​​faster than the rest of the globe, is a particular hotspot, harbouring more IAS than any other sea globally, with significant negative impacts on marine ecosystems and on the fisheries and aquaculture sectors, thus requiring particular attention; urges the Commission and the Member States, in this regard, to allocate additional resources and to establish urgent measures to stop the spread of these species in this sea basin;

33. Calls on the Commission to support the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean in its scientific monitoring initiatives and pilot projects to address the challenges of invasive marine species;

34.  Calls on the Commission to make available specific funding, within the framework of the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and other budgetary programmes, to support research into and the prevention and eradication of invasive species or, where eradication is not feasible, the management of their spread and the recovery from the impact of the spread, in cooperation with fishers, local authorities and scientific organisations; reaffirms its belief that such funding should be made available in the next multiannual financial framework;

35. Highlights the importance of the EASIN Notification System, particularly for the timely and comprehensive reporting of new detections, eradication measures and official control detections; urges the Member States to enhance the system by providing additional information, particularly distribution data, notably with the contribution of information from fishers, aquaculture producers and all other relevant stakeholders;

36. Recalls the international dimension of IAS and suggests that the EU reinforce its actions in this regard, using all available international forums and, in particular, RFMOs, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework; calls for the EU to enhance collaborative knowledge sharing and mutual learning exchanges with other international organisations and non-EU countries;

37. Underlines the potential for collaboration with non-EU countries that share the same sea basin, including through RFMOs, to share best practice, leverage investment and establish collective goals to tackle the impact of IAS;

Opportunities and challenges for coastal communities

38. Stresses that IAS have significant negative impacts on marine biodiversity and ecosystems, on blue economy activities, including fisheries and aquaculture, and on other economic activities not related to the sea and on coastal communities and society as a whole; finds it crucial to consider the broader social, economic and cultural consequences of IAS, beyond biodiversity loss and the effects on ecosystems, in order to effectively prevent new invasions and implement successful mitigation measures;

39. Urges the Commission to develop a dedicated indicator for sensitive and invasive species in EU seas, taking into account lists such as the IUCN Red List, to be included in Eurostat’s publications related to the SDGs, to better monitor the spread, and conservation and other management efforts;

40. Calls on the Commission to integrate into future projects of European research and innovation programmes funding for research on IAS and on environmentally friendly solutions for their sustainable management and control;

41. Underlines the importance of supporting the fisheries and aquaculture operators that are affected, through compensation schemes and adaptation funds, in line with existing financial provisions, especially in areas facing direct economic loss owing to invasive species; stresses the need to provide targeted financial and regulatory incentives to stimulate targeted catch-and-remove activities for invasive species by local fishers in coastal waters and inland waterways, as a means of reducing ecological pressure while supporting local livelihoods; underlines the possible role that insurance schemes may play in addressing the issue, in particular the consequences for shellfish farmers, aquaculture producers and fishers;

42. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to develop awareness-raising campaigns to inform and engage fishers, fish and shellfish farmers, fishing-sector stakeholders, including anglers, and the general public about the introduction, detection and impacts of IAS, their environmental and economic effects, and ways to minimise the risks posed by their introduction and spread;

43. Recommends, where feasible, the development of programmes targeting invasive species that aim to enhance population control and provide compensation opportunities for fishers;

44. Considers that the management of IAS can provide opportunities for additional temporary income through applied innovation to generate value added products such as bio-fertilisers and agricultural substrates that support the control of those species, and, where possible, their eradication; calls on the Commission to finance research and technology transfer in this area;

45. Stresses that, where eradication of invasive species is not feasible, the exploitation of invasive species for human consumption can provide additional temporary income for fishers and contribute to wealth that benefits local economies in the EU;

46. Welcomes the temporary economic use of some IAS, such as algae, for food and non-food purposes; points out that such purposes, besides food for human consumption, could include animal and fish feed, pharmaceuticals, packaging, cosmetics or biofuels;

47. Reiterates that the ultimate goal is always the eradication of IAS; emphasises, in this regard, that economic dependence on exploiting IAS should always be temporary or secondary and that it must not encourage the spread or the placing on the market of those species;

48. Calls for increased and dedicated financial support to improve the effective management and protection of coastal livelihoods and marine ecosystems and the conservation of sensitive species, and for information, monitoring and early warning systems for IAS at regional, national and EU levels, in view of the positive impact of such support on fisheries, biodiversity and ecosystems;

49. Insists that the future multiannual financial framework include funding to strengthen the competitiveness of the fishing fleet in the face of challenges such as rising costs, loss of fishing grounds and the impact of invasive species; considers it a priority to improve fishers’ access to financial resources to modernise their vessels, digitalise their operations and diversify their sources of income;

50. Reminds the Commission that the outermost regions and the island and coastal areas serve as important safe harbours for sensitive marine species, while also being highly vulnerable to IAS; calls for the importance of protecting these sensitive species and combating IAS in these regions to be recognised, namely via the creation of a programme of options for local fishing that are specific to remote and island areas; highlights the potential of sustainable ecotourism as a means of providing diversification opportunities, while preserving the unique biodiversity of those regions and delivering direct benefits to the fisheries and aquaculture sectors;

°

° °

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


 

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

This report addresses the crucial and interconnected challenges of safeguarding sensitive marine species, tackling the growing threat of Invasive Alien Species (IAS), and ensuring that these efforts contribute positively to local economies, particularly within the fisheries and aquaculture sectors.

Whilst noting the long-standing commitment of the European Union to sustainable fisheries management and its role in preserving marine biodiversity, protecting vulnerable species, supporting coastal communities, and guaranteeing food security, it also notes that, regarding marine IAS there is significantly less data on their presence and threats for the EU and Member States, then for IAS presence in other ecosystems.

The report stresses the essential role of sensitive species as vital indicators of marine ecosystem health and the intrinsic environmental, economic, and social value of their protection. It urges the Commission and Member States to prioritise their conservation through robust fisheries management approaches, full implementation of marine protected area goals, and reinforced protection of critical habitats.

It also emphasises the need to fully utilise the tools available under the Common Fisheries policy (CFP), particularly the technical measures regulation, to mitigate fisheries interactions with sensitive species and highlights the importance of data collected under the CFP for accurately assessing fisheries impacts and calls for the integration of sensitive species protection and recovery across all relevant legal proposals.

While acknowledging the current list of IAS of Union concern, it expresses regret that this list does not adequately reflect the significant threat posed by IAS to the EU marine environment and calls for its urgent improvement based on the latest scientific evidence and risk assessments.

The report also highlights the deficiency in specific monitoring programmes for marine IAS and advocates for enhanced monitoring methods and the harmonisation of indicators across the EU. It recommends the development of threshold setting methodologies and values for all European marine regions, considering pathway manageability and the effective enforcement of the Ballast Water Convention.

The report further underscores the growing role of climate change and increased global movement in facilitating the introduction and spread of IAS, thereby intensifying their effects on sensitive species and ecosystems, with direct consequences for fishing activities.

Finally, it acknowledges the international dimension of the IAS challenge and the EU’s commitment within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF).

The final section focuses on the Opportunities and challenges for the benefit of coastal communities. It emphasises that IAS not only harm biodiversity but also impair fisheries, aquaculture, and other economic, social, and cultural activities and stresses the need for a comprehensive understanding of the economic, ecosystem service, and biodiversity impacts of IAS to effectively prevent new invasions and implement mitigation measures.

It calls for the development of awareness campaigns targeting fishers, the general public, and stakeholders to improve understanding of IAS introduction, detection, and impacts and advocates for financial support for the protection of marine ecosystems and sensitive species, as well as for regional, national, and European information, monitoring, and early warning systems for IAS, recognising their dual benefit for biodiversity conservation and fisheries.

Finally, it acknowledges the particular vulnerability of Outermost Regions to IAS and the importance of sensitive species in their marine environments, calling for the recognition of the significance of addressing both issues in these regions and highlighting the potential of sustainable eco-tourism to promote marine ecosystem conservation with direct benefits for fisheries and aquaculture.

In conclusion, this report seeks to galvanise action at and calls for a more integrated, science-based, and collaborative approach, recognising the urgency and complexity of these interconnected challenges.


ANNEX: DECLARATION OF INPUT

Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur declares that he included in his report input on matters pertaining to the subject of the file that he 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[16], 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

Ana Cristina Cardoso (PhD), Scientific Officer, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate D – Sustainable Resources, Unit D.02 Ocean and Water

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 he 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 IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

Date adopted

27.1.2026

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

21

0

5

 


FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

21

+

ECR

Stephen Nikola Bartulica, Nora Junco García, Bert-Jan Ruissen

PPE

Carmen Crespo Díaz, Marco Falcone, Isabelle Le Callennec, Francisco José Millán Mon, Jessica Polfjärd, Sander Smit, Željana Zovko

Renew

Barry Cowen, Elsi Katainen, Ciaran Mullooly

S&D

Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Thomas Bajada, Giuseppe Lupo, André Rodrigues, Eric Sargiacomo

The Left

Luke Ming Flanagan

Verts/ALE

Isabella Lövin, Ana Miranda Paz

 

0

-

 

 

 

5

0

ESN

Siegbert Frank Droese

PfE

Ton Diepeveen, France Jamet, António Tânger Corrêa

The Left

Emma Fourreau

 

Key to symbols:

+ : in favour

- : against

0 : abstention

 

 

Last updated: 25 February 2026
Legal notice - Privacy policy