Review

Recent European initiatives in marine protection policy:towards lasting protection for Europe’s seas?

Markus Salomon *

German Advisory Council on the Environment, Planufer 92e, 10785 Berlin, Germany

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 2 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 3 5 9 – 3 6 6

a r t i c l e i n f o

Published on line 23 January 2009

Keywords:

European maritime policy

Marine Strategy Framework

Directive

Marine protection

Fisheries

Eutrophication

Maritime industry

Agriculture

a b s t r a c t

The seas and oceans are increasingly a focus of policy interest in Europe. This is mirrored in

wide-ranging activities to manage and protect the marine environment, which raises the

question of whether such activities go towards developing sustainable management of the

seas. Sustainable management calls for an integrated and cross-sectoral approach in order

to protect highly valuable marine biodiversity from sea- and land-based activities of all

kinds. While some recent developments are fairly promising, there are still no moves on the

policy agenda towards uniting all relevant European policy sectors – and particularly the

Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy – under the shared objective

of sustainable management and protection of the marine environment and its resources.

# 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

avai lab le at www.sc iencedi rect .com

journal homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate /envsc i

1. Introduction

Our seas are under ongoing pressure from a huge number of

anthropogenic factors. The marine environment is affected by

marine activities such as fishing, shipping, oil and gas

exploration, sand and gravel extraction, mariculture and

tourism, and by land-based activities such as agricultural and

industrial production. These activities lead to loss of species

and populations, physical damage to marine habitats, nutrient

and chemical pollution, littering of the sea, introduction of

non-indigenous species, and noise exposure. Anthropogenic

climate change further adds to these diverse pressures,

altering water temperatures, sea levels and the pH levels of

marine waters. All these elements can have an additive impact

on marine habitats. Among other things, the Baltic Sea is

consequently at risk of long-term eutrophication, and the

commercially most important fish stocks in the Northeast

Atlantic already deviate 30% from safe biological limits (ICES,

2003, 2007).

* Tel.: +49 30 263696125.E-mail address: markus.salomon@uba.de.

1462-9011/$ – see front matter # 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserveddoi:10.1016/j.envsci.2008.12.008

This paper is based on the Environmental Report published

by the German Advisory Council on the Environment in June

2008 (SRU, 2008).

2. Problems and action areas

In the following, we survey the main pressures on marine

ecosystems and recent developments in European policies to

protect the marine environment from such pressures.

2.1. Fisheries

Fishing and the harvesting of other marine species for human

and animal consumption comprise the most significant use of

sea and ocean biological resources. Mismanagement in

European fisheries and environmental damage caused by

the fishing industry have been subjects of debate for many

years. The main impacts of fisheries are overexploitation of

.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 2 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 3 5 9 – 3 6 6360

fish stocks, discards and mortality of non-target species, and

physical destruction of marine habitats by fishing activities,

with benthic communities particularly hard hit by trawling.

The prime reason for the failure to implement sustainable

fisheries management in European waters is the Common

Fisheries Policy (CFP), which is still dominated by short-term

economic and political interests. Despite warnings from

various quarters, there are no signs of substantial change in

this misguided policy to date. In its present form, the CFP has

major shortcomings: apart from environmental damage, the

current mismanagement destroys jobs and places the long-

term use of highly valuable natural resources at risk.

Sustainably managed fish stocks can produce higher yields

than overexploited fish stocks (SRU, 2004).

It is not yet known whether the endangered fish stocks can

recover even if the fisheries were to be shut down completely in

the near future. Factors that might speak against fast recovery

include occupation of ecological niches in the meantime by

other species and changes in habitats due to climate change

(Caddy and Agnew, 2003). A very well known example of the

difficulties in predicting trends in fish stocks relates to the cod

population off the coast of Labrador and Newfoundland, which

collapsed in the early 1990s and has not recovered since, despite

near total closure of the fisheries (Hutchings and Myers, 1994).

2.1.1. Fisheries management

There is an urgent need for a new fisheries management system

in Europe that places greater responsibility on fishers by

ensuring that the status of fish stocks features more promi-

nently in their business calculations. A promising approach is

the introduction of a flexible quota management system in the

form of individual transferable quotas (ITQs) or territorial user

rights in fisheries (TURFs) (Hentrich and Salomon, 2006). TURFs

are practicable in areas with a broad distribution of relatively

static stocks of the kinds targeted by coastal fisheries, whereas

ITQs can be implemented for mobile (offshore) fish stocks.

European-wide harmonisation of the catch quota manage-

ment system is necessary in any case. Contrary to current

practice, the total allowable catch (TAC) for the two regulatory

alternatives just mentioned also needs to be set on the basis of

scientific recommendations. As considerable natural variability

makes future trends in fish stocks very hard to predict, extra

weight must be given to the precautionary principle in this

connection.

The precautionary principle should be taken into con-

sideration in particular in discussions on maximum sustain-

able yield (MSY), a stock management concept agreed to by

member states in Johannesburg. The European Commission

plans to adopt this management tool (European Commission,

2006b) even though it places too little emphasis on the

precautionary aspect and is thus unsuited to the management

of the fish stocks (Kell and Fromentin, 2006). Another criticism

of this somewhat dated concept is that it is based on

insufficient data concerning landings and discards and fails

to incorporate the ecosystem approach. Finally, the MSY

concept permits catch quotas that theoretically guarantee

stock preservation, but the optimum ratio of catch effort to

catch quantity is exceeded (Endres and Querner, 2000).

A substantial reduction of the European fishing fleet is

urgently necessary, especially in fisheries where individual

stocks are under severe pressure. It is therefore essential to

withdraw all subsidies that even indirectly contribute to

maintaining overcapacity or run contrary to sustainable

fisheries management (SRU, 2004).

Alongside structural changes, short-term measures such

as the closure of specific fisheries and recovery programmes

for overexploited fish stocks are a priority to avoid further

damage.

2.1.2. Illegal fishing activitiesIllegal fishing further adds to the overexploitation of fish

stocks. Large quantities of illegally caught fish, including from

European waters, are still landed in ports across the Com-

munity (Clover, 2005). For example, there are still large

numbers of unreported landings of cod from the Baltic Sea

(ICES, 2007). The European Commission is called upon to take

action here, as member state monitoring mechanisms often

fail and the detection of unlawful activities has hardly any

consequences.

Moreover, the European Commission continues to pinpoint

deficits in law enforcement relating to illegal fishing activities

(European Commission, 2007d). Sanctions of severe infringe-

ments of fishing rights are also too mild to be a deterrent.

According to the European Commission, European Union

citizens involved in illegal fishing outside European waters

have rarely been prosecuted to date.

To address the identified deficits, the European Commis-

sion presented on 17 October 2007 a proposal for a Council

Regulation Establishing a Community System to Prevent,

Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU)

Fishing (European Commission, 2007d). The measures pro-

posed by the Commission include:

� A European Community IUU vessel list and a list of non-

cooperating states in fighting IUU fishing activities.

� Requiring member states to inspect in their ports at least

15% of landings, transhipments and on-board processing

operations by third country fishing vessels each year.

� Banning IUU vessels flying the flag of a third country from

entering ports of member states, except in case of force

majeure.

� Prohibiting the import into the Community of fishery

products from IUU vessels.

The proposed Council Regulation is certainly an important

step in the fight against IUU fishing, but it only serves to stop

such fishing outside European waters. What is missing is a

critical analysis of Europe’s policy on IUU fishing in its own

territory where there is a manifest lack of enforcement, with

IUU offences still inadequately pursued (Sissenwine and

Symes, 2007). It is necessary for the European Commission

to take its responsibilities seriously in any case and pay

attention to the enforcement of applicable law by the member

states. Reducing overcapacity in the European fishing fleet and

hence economic pressure on the fleet due to dwindling fish

stocks will also help resolve the problems of IUU fishing.

2.1.3. Marine protected areasAction is also needed to protect non-target species and marine

habitats from fishing activities. To secure area-specific

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 2 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 3 5 9 – 3 6 6 361

protection for particularly valuable and/or sensitive habitats

and species, it is of utmost importance not only to implement

a protected area network in which fishing activities are

banned, as provided for under the Habitats Directive and the

Birds Directive (SRU, 2004) but also to manage this network

effectively.

Work should additionally be stepped up to protect

vulnerable ecosystems outside European waters such as

seamounts, cold-water coral reefs and hydrothermal vents.

In a communication, ‘‘Destructive fishing practices in the high

seas and the protection of vulnerable deep sea ecosystems’’,

the European Commission has announced the presentation of

a proposal for a directive at the end of 2008 under which

fishing vessels operating under European flag will be obliged to

take certain measures for the protection of particular fragile

deep sea ecosystems (European Commission, 2007c). The

proposed measures to protect the deep seas against fishing

include an environmental impact assessment of fishing

activities, improved study of threatened deep-sea ecosystems,

closing sensitive areas to bottom fishing, and a 1000 m depth

limit for the deployment of bottom fishing gear. However, it is

proposed that the directive should only apply to vessels

operating outside areas regulated by Regional Fisheries

Management Organisations (RFMOs), a restriction that only

makes sense if RFMOs are able to guarantee adequate

protection of the ecosystems, which is questionable.

2.1.4. Discards and monitoringFurthermore, it is advisable to implement a general ban on

discards. With a discard ban, fishermen are obliged to land

their whole catch, including parts of the catch that are less

lucrative or even worthless. This can give fishermen a stronger

incentive to improve their catch methods and technology so as

to minimise the quantity of unwanted biomass – such as non-

target species and juvenile fish – in the net. It has not proved

possible to solve this problem merely by requiring the use of

less harmful fishing equipment.

The European Commission is thinking of introducing a

discard ban by gradually lowered discard quotas (European

Commission, 2007a). Norway has already implemented such a

ban. Enforcement of a discard ban necessitates strict

monitoring. One option for this is the use of video camera

monitoring systems as have already been adopted for

Canadian fisheries (Jones and Bixby, 2003). Incentives to use

less harmful fishing technology are also needed, however, to

minimise impacts of fishing activities on marine habitats such

as the damage caused by trawl nets.

2.2. Shipping

Transportation of goods by sea is considered less harmful to

the environment than road or air transport. However, this

does not justify paying less attention to discharges by the

marine transport sector than to other sources of pollution.

Major concerns include illegal discharges of oil and waste,

atmospheric emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulphur

dioxide (SO2), particulates and CO2, noise, and accidental

discharges of hazardous substances. While action has been

taken at both European and international level to reduce some

of the environmental problems, not all such action is sufficient

to achieve high standards of protection and in some cases

there is a failure to transpose policy into law.

2.2.1. Port state control

An important measure to diminish the environmental

impacts of shipping is improvement of compliance monitor-

ing. It must be ensured that European ports have reception

facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues.

Incentives must also be provided so that these facilities are

used and there is no benefit in dumping garbage and other

residues at sea. Logbooks and paperwork relating to oil should

additionally be checked on each and every inspection and

breaches of the law must attract heavier sanctions (SRU, 2004).

2.2.2. Atmospheric emissions

Insufficient attention is given to atmospheric emissions from

shipping compared with other polluters. If no further action is

taken, NO2 emissions from this sector are likely to exceed

those from land-based sources at some point in the future

(European Commission, 2005a). Atmospheric emissions from

shipping have already become a serious air quality problem at

some port cities like Travemunde and Hamburg (Kalli et al.,

2005). An important step towards combating this problem

consists of binding restrictions on sulphur content in shipping

fuel and on NOx emissions in European waters.

Issued in 1997, Annex 6 to the MARPOL Convention

(International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from

Ships) prescribes a general 4.5% limit on sulphur content in

heavy oil used in shipping. It is also possible to designate SOx

Emission Control Areas (SECAs) where fuel used by ships must

be below 1.5% sulphur. The North Sea and the Baltic have been

already designated as SECAs with effect from May 2006 and

November 2007, respectively. These SECAs need to be

expanded to include all European waters. The International

Maritime Organisation (IMO) recently approved revised

regulations on ship emissions (IMO, 2008). This welcome

revision reduces the global sulphur cap to 3.5% from January

2012 and 0.5% by January 2025 at the latest. The sulphur limit

in Emission Control Areas is also to be reduced in two steps

from the current 1.5% to 0.1% from January 2015.

Directive 2005/33/EC of the European Parliament and the

Council Amending Directive 1999/32/EC as regarding the

sulphur content of marine fuels limits the maximum sulphur

content of marine fuels used by inland waterway vessels and

ships at berth in Community ports to 0.1% from the beginning

of 2010.

A further option for cutting atmospheric emissions from

vessels in ports is the provision of shore-side electricity for use

by ships at berth. The introduction of shore-side electricity

entails a major capital outlay for both ships and ports. The

European Commission has published a recommendation

(2006/339/EC) calling upon member states to consider provid-

ing for shore-side electricity in ports and to work to promote

the development of harmonised international standards for

shore-side electrical connections.

Two options for promoting clean shipping technologies

such as exhaust gas scrubbers comprise differentiated

berthing fees and the inclusion of shipping in carbon emission

trading. A trial introduction of differentiated berthing fees was

stopped in Hamburg due to high administrative costs

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 2 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 3 5 9 – 3 6 6362

combined with a competitive disadvantage relative to other

ports (Peper, 2004). European initiative is therefore needed

prevent individual ports from being placed at a competitive

disadvantage.

2.2.3. Shipping safetyA further important aspect in protecting the seas from impacts

of sea transport is ship safety. European efforts comprising the

Erika I and Erika II safety packages, including the gradual

phasing out of single-hull tankers, improved monitoring,

strengthening of controls and the establishment of the

European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), are to be welcomed

and should be continued. The European Parliament and the

Council are now debating a third package of measures (Erika

III), which among other things will turn the various Interna-

tional Maritime Organisation conventions on flag state

obligations into binding legislation, improve port state

controls, promote a Community vessels traffic monitoring

and information system, improve the quality of the work of

classification societies and introduce civil liability in the event

of accidents (European Parliament, 2007b; European Commis-

sion, 2005b; Jenisch, 2007).

2.2.4. Criminal law sanctionsThere are severe deficits regarding the prosecution of

environmental offences that lead to pollution of the marine

environment. Current international liability and compensa-

tion rules also fail to act as a deterrent. A key improvement

would be to apply criminal sanctions to all parties involved in

an offence – from the ship’s captain to the classification

society to the company that owns the cargo (SRU, 2004). At

European level, a directive on Ship-source Pollution and on the

Introduction of Penalties for Infringements (Directive 2005/35/

EC) was adopted in 2005. The directive incorporates interna-

tional standards on ship-source pollution into Community law

and aims to ensure that all those responsible for discharges

are subject to adequate penalties. Under its Article 4, member

states must ensure that ship-source discharges of polluting

substances into any marine area are regarded as infringe-

ments if committed with intent, recklessly or as a result of

serious negligence. Although there are various doubts on the

directive’s compatibility with the International Convention for

the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), the directive

is principally a welcome and important step in reducing

existing dangers to the seas from shipping pollutants.

2.2.5. PortsPorts are the interface between land and sea activities. One

important question is whether movements of goods should be

focused at a small number of efficient ports or spread across

many locations. Greater concentration of activities restricts

environmental impacts to a limited number of places. This

relates in particular to port expansion measures and improve-

ments in transport infrastructure. On the other hand, a dense

transport network has the advantage of helping to shift

transportation from roads to shipping. Shipping consumes

less energy than road transport per ton of goods carried.

The European Commission published a communication on

European ports policy on 18 October 2007 (European Commis-

sion, 2007b). In this publication, the Commission highlights the

steady growth of the transport sector and the associated

growing need for port capacity. In the Commission’s view,

thorough planning with participation of all relevant stake-

holders is a prerequisite for any infrastructure measures in this

area. Concerning environmental impacts resulting from further

port development, the Commission points to applicable law on

protection of the environment and plans to draw up guidelines

on the application of this legislation to port development.

The Commission cites European initiatives to cut atmo-

spheric emissions from shipping and to create a European

Maritime Transport Space without Barriers. Apart from

suggestions to improve communication, however, there is a

lack of specific measures to ensure better cooperation between

ports activities in the various member states.

2.3. Agriculture

Agriculture is among the land-based economic activities that

have considerable influence on the seas. The sector is

responsible for a major part of nutrient inputs into the North

Sea and Baltic (HELCOM, 2003; ICES, 2003, 2007). One of the

central challenges for marine environment protection is

therefore reducing nutrient inputs from agriculture. Signifi-

cant reductions in nutrient pollution could be achieved with

the Nitrate Directive and the future implementation of the

Water Framework Directive, however, further action at

European level are necessary, particularly within the Common

Agricultural Policy (SRU, 2008).

A Baltic Sea Protection Plan has recently been drawn up as

part of the work of HELCOM (HELCOM, 2007). A central aim of

the HELCOM strategy is to reduce nutrient inputs into the

Baltic Sea. To achieve this, an approach was developed in

which reduction targets for the agriculture sector are set for

each country in the Baltic Sea catchment area. The main goal

of the Protection Plan is to achieve a Baltic Sea unaffected by

eutrophication. This important HELCOM initiative is intended

as a model for replication under other regional marine

conventions around Europe. The European Parliament pro-

posed that the Baltic Sea should serve as a pilot region for

implementing a programme for protection of a marine area

and that this idea should be incorporated in the Marine

Strategy Framework Directive. This proposal was unfortu-

nately dropped during consultations between Council and

Parliament (European Parliament, 2006). It would have been a

welcome step towards promoting implementation of the

HELCOM recommendations by the signatory parties through

their national legislation.

2.4. Energy production and extraction of raw materials

The seas are important not only for the use of biological

resources, but also for oil and gas drilling and sand and gravel

extraction. These activities can affect marine ecosystems. Oil

drilling pollutes the marine environment and extracting

sediment harms benthic flora and fauna. Obtaining energy

from marine areas requires the construction of rigs and the

laying of pipelines and cables (ICES, 2003, 2007). The latter are

also needed for the utilisation – welcome from a climate

protection standpoint – of offshore renewables such as wind,

ocean current, wave and tidal energy.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 2 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 3 5 9 – 3 6 6 363

The European Commission has identified great potential

for energy production at sea, particularly from renewables

(European Commission, 2006a). In all instances, however,

energy production may have to compete with other uses of

coastal waters, such as shipping and fisheries. This is all the

more so in coastal areas already under severe pressure from

human activities. New forms of energy production must

therefore be developed cautiously. In particular, steps must be

taken to protect representative or sensitive marine commu-

nities and species. Alongside the need for a network of marine

protected areas, this also means competent authorities must

have the planning discretion to strike an optimum balance

between the various interests and protection requirements.

Spatial planning is a key policy instrument here, and spatial

planners need to have the possibility of specifically designat-

ing areas as being suitable for economic activities at sea.

2.5. Climate change

European maritime policy also faces changing conditions. One

of the main challenges is the anthropogenic release of carbon

dioxide, leading to ocean warming, ocean acidification and

rising sea levels. A particular concern for Europe would be a

slowing of the Gulf Stream. According to the latest report of

the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it has not

been possible to pinpoint evidence of such changes in the past,

but they are accepted as very likely for the future (Bindoff et al.,

2007). Sea level rises have both consequences for coastal

ecosystems and influence human activities in coastal regions.

Acidification is very likely to affect coral reefs and marine

food webs (WBGU, 2006). Alongside consistent policies to

mitigate climate change (COM (2007) 2 final), efforts must be

stepped up to protect marine ecosystems from other human

impacts – especially in areas where the marine environment is

extra-sensitive to such changes. In general, climate change

makes it all the more important to enforce high standards of

environmental protection and create a network of marine

protected areas, because more-or-less intact ecosystems are

more likely to adapt successfully to the coming changes.

3. The European Marine Strategy FrameworkDirective

The most important recent initiative for the protection of

marine ecosystems in Europe is the European Marine Strategy

Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) dated 17 June 2008. For the

first time, EU member states are required by law to formulate

strategies to protect and preserve the marine environment and

takemeasures toreach ormaintaingoodmarineenvironmental

status – an undisputable success after many years of effort

towards marine environmental protection in Europe.

The pressures on our seas are influenced by multiple

national as well as European policies and initiatives. The EU is

committed to the principles of subsidiarity, however protec-

tion of the marine environment calls for a comprehensive,

integrated approach, requiring activities on national and

European level (Salomon, 2006). Unfortunately, such an

approach was not delivered in the Framework Directive.

Instead, the directive hands responsibility for solving the

diverse, multi-layered problems of marine environmental

protection to member states and places them under sole

obligation to formulate marine protection strategies. The

European Commission justifies this restriction with reference

to the diverse conditions and needs of the European marine

environment. While there is no doubt that such diversity

exists at regional and national level, the requirements of the

international conventions for the protection of the marine

regions (OSPAR, HELCOM etc.) alone show that despite this

diversity it would still be possible to give the Framework

Directive’s provisions greater normative force. Given the

tremendous cross-border dimensions of marine environment

protection, there would be no real concerns as regards the

subsidiarity principle contained in Article 5 (2) of the EC Treaty

(SRU, 2006).

Not only does the European Commission consider agri-

culture and fishing to be key causes of environmental damage

in marine regions as discussed above. Both agriculture and

fishing policy are primarily shaped by EU requirements. No

significant progress can be made in these policy areas with

national marine protection strategies of the kind now planned

(SRU, 2006). The Marine Strategy Framework Directive aims to

help integrate environment protection issues into relevant

European sectoral policies, and also to help member states and

the Community fulfil their obligations under international

conventions for the protection of the marine environment. It

remains unclear how this is to be ensured in practice.

The member states are to develop their own national

strategies by 2015. The Framework Directive at least calls for

cooperation between neighbouring states and regions and for

coordination in developing programmes of measures, risk

assessments and monitoring programmes. The Commission

is also required to compile its own evaluation of the various

national marine protection strategies. Member states are

required to base their programmes of measures on the

precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle.

The main target of the Marine Strategy Framework

Directive is to reach good environmental status (GES) in

European waters by 2020. Given that comprehensive status

reports have already been drawn up in international coopera-

tion activities on marine protection, the directive’s imple-

mentation schedule is not particularly ambitious, especially

for member states bordering the Northeast Atlantic. It is also

inconsistent: Member states are given until 2016 to implement

their programmes of measures but only four years after that to

attain GES. This appears unrealistic under the premise of

ambitious environmental objectives.

Definition of GES is largely left to member states, although

the Marine Strategy Framework Directive gives qualitative

descriptors for its determination. The European Commission

intends to propose qualitative criteria and standards for

determining GES. The European Parliament suggested that the

Framework Directive should provide more detailed specifica-

tions of GES (European Parliament, 2006). Unfortunately, these

specifications were dropped in consultations between Parlia-

ment and Council. The risk therefore remains of member

states stipulating either inconsistent or differently ambitious

targets for the same marine areas.

Overall, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive is a very

important step forward for the protection of the marine

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 2 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 3 5 9 – 3 6 6364

ecosystems in Europe; it is, however, weak regarding certain

aspects:

– Stronger integration of the protection of marine ecosystems

into relevant sectoral policies such as the Common

Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the Common Fisheries Policy.

– More explicit integration into the European marine strategy

of targets and programmes already agreed under interna-

tional conventions for the protection of marine areas.

– Development of a realistic schedule including necessary

intermediate goals making the attainment of good environ-

mental status in European waters realistic by 2020.

4. The Green Paper on European maritimepolicy

In June 2006, the European Commission published a Green

Paper, ‘‘Towards a Future Maritime Policy for the Union: A

European Vision for the Oceans and Seas’’ (European

Commission, 2006a). The Commission’s aim in this policy

initiative was to help find the right balance between economic,

social and environmental interests in maritime policy. The

Green Paper’s five main chapters deal with maritime devel-

opment, quality of life in coastal regions, tools to manage

human relations with the oceans, maritime governance, and

the European maritime heritage and maritime identity. The

primary objective of future European maritime policy is

implementation of the Lisbon strategy. The focus of the Green

Paper is unquestionably on economic development in marine

and coastal areas rather than environmental protection

issues.

Important economic sectors covered in the Green Paper

that have significant impact on the seas and are strongly under

the influence of European policies include shipping and ports,

fishing, tourism and energy use. The agriculture sector goes

unmentioned despite being responsible for severe pressures

on marine waters. A major challenge for future maritime

policy identified by the European Commission comprises

anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions with their major

impacts on the climate and the oceans.

One key reason why the Commission sees the need for a

new start in maritime policy is a lack of integration in this

medium-term policy area. Maritime issues have historically

been addressed at European level in several separate policy

sectors. As a result, the Commission sees a danger of

conflicting interests being left unresolved, of divergent action

in different policy areas, and of failure to exploit available

synergies.

The Green Paper also addresses the value of the marine

ecosystems. It states that preservation of an intact marine

environment is fundamental to realising the full potential of the

oceans in the long-term. The Commission identifies increasing

biodiversity lossdue topollution, impacts ofclimate changeand

overfishing as warning signals that must not be ignored. When

it comes to solving the environmental problems, however, the

Commission merely points to the ineffectual Marine Strategy

Framework Directive, which is intended as the ‘environmental

pillar’ of future European maritime policy.

One main point of criticism is the Green Paper’s strong

focus on commercial exploitation of marine resources. As a

result, insufficient weight is given to the fact that the value of

marine ecosystems goes far beyond their immediate eco-

nomic utility. It is not without reason that the Convention on

Biological Diversity (CBD) makes specific reference to ‘the

importance of biodiversity for evolution and for maintaining

life sustaining systems of the biosphere’. Future European

maritime policy should take these aspects into account. As a

signatory of the CBD, the EU has taken on an obligation to

integrate the convention’s principles into its own policies.

After a 1-year consultation period, the European Commis-

sion published a further communication, ‘‘An Integrated

Maritime Policy for the European Union’’ (Blue Book) on 10

October 2007 (European Commission, 2007e). Part of the Blue

Book is an action plan in which the Commission commits itself

to the following measures:

– Organise a structure for regular stakeholder consultations.

– Invite member states draw up national integrated maritime

policies.

– Create tools for an integrated policy approach, including a

more interoperable surveillance system for shipping, a

roadmap to facilitate the development of maritime spatial

planning by member states, and a European marine

observation and data network.

The Commission additionally plans to:

– Take steps towards a European Marine Observation and

Data Network.

– Propose a European Maritime Transport Space without

barriers and a new ports policy, and make proposals to

reduce levels of air pollution from ships in ports.

The European Commission also intends to take firm action

towards eliminating discards and destructive fishing practices

such as high seas bottom trawling in sensitive habitats, and to

promote the development of an environmentally safe aqua-

culture industry in Europe. The Commission announced that it

would present a European marine research strategy in 2008.

Most measures promoted in the Blue Book by the European

Commission are not entirely new but are based on initiatives

already in the planning phase, as mentioned earlier. This is

particularly the case with the measures for the shipping and

fishing sectors. A new element is the obligation on the member

states to draw up national integrated marine policies.

In principle, the Commission’s initiatives as set out in the

Blue Book are welcome. It remains unclear, however, how the

aim of greater integration between different European policy

sectors is to be achieved. Greater policy coherence would

require the agreement of binding guidelines and targets for

future sustainable management of the seas. These objectives

are absent from the Blue Book and are not on the forward

agenda.

It is also regrettable that neither the Green Paper nor the

Blue Book covers key challenges for the ongoing evolution of

sustainable management of marine resources. This would

include, for example, a strategy for implementing sustainable

fisheries management in Europe.

On comparison of the Green Paper and the Blue Book, it also

appears that the consultation process either did not attract

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 2 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 3 5 9 – 3 6 6 365

any new impetus for the development of maritime policy or

that new ideas were not taken up. Various sides have

criticised, for example, the failure to incorporate the use of

the seas as a sink for all kinds of substances discharged by

land-based emitters. This would make it necessary to

integrate the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) with maritime

policy, because the agricultural sector is responsible for huge

quantities of nutrients and pesticides entering the marine

environment, as mentioned earlier. This deficit is not picked

up in the Blue Book.

Overall, the Green Paper gave welcome stimulus to the

debate on sustainable use of marine regions and more

integration among the various different sectoral policies

concerning the seas. However, a clear way of achieving

greater coherence between the different policies is still

missing.

5. Conclusions

The success of future European maritime policy heavily

depends on whether marine habitats and resources can be

lastingly protected from anthropogenic impacts. This makes it

necessary to implement not only a comprehensive protection

strategy, but also a strategy for sustainable use of the marine

environment.

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive and other recent

initiatives for the protection of the seas – notably measures to

reduce ship pollution and impacts of fisheries – are important

steps towards this goal. Remarkably, however, fundamental

challenges calling for structural changes in the relevant

European sectoral policies have not been tackled either in

the Marine Strategy Framework Directive or in the debate on

future maritime policy. This relates in particular to further

reform of the Common Fisheries Policy and the Common

Agricultural Policy. It is especially important to agree binding

targets for these policy sectors. The targets agreed on in the

Marine Strategy Framework Directive are not sufficient to this

end because they do not create an obligation to take

preventive action at European level. Important policy ele-

ments to be taken into consideration include the objectives of

the CBD along with the precautionary principle and the

ecosystem approach. The latter requires a sound basis of

knowledge on the seas. Targets and measures agreed under

international conventions for the protection of marine regions

and their respective programmes also need to be better and

more explicitly integrated into the process.

r e f e r e n c e s

Bindoff, N. L., Willebrand, J., Artale, V., Cazenave, A., Gregory, J.,Gulev, S., Hanawa, K., Le Quere, C., Levitus, S., Nojiri, Y.,Shum, C. K., Talley, L. D., Unnikrishnan, A., 2007.Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level. In:IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (Eds.):Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth AssessmentReport of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 385–432.

Caddy, F., Agnew D.J., 2003. Recovery plans for depleted fishstocks: an overview of global experience. Invited PlenaryLecture. ICES Working Group on Comprehensive FisheryEvaluation, www.ices.dk/products/CMdocs/2003/INVITED/INV2PAP.PDF.(24.10.2008).

Clover, C., 2005. Fisch kaputt. Vom Leerfischen der Meere undden Konsequenzen fur die ganze Welt. Riemann, Munchen.

Endres, A., Querner, I., 2000. Die Okonomie NaturlicherRessourcen. 2. Auflage. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart.

European Commission, 2005a. Annex to: The Communicationon Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution and The Directive on‘‘Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe’’. ImpactAssessment. SEC (2005) 1133. Brussels.

European Commission, 2005b. Communication from theCommission. Third package of legislative measures onmaritime safety in the European Union. COM (2005) 585final, Brussels.

European Commission, 2006a. GREEN PAPER. Towards a futureMaritime Policy for the Union: A European vision for theoceans and seas. COM (2006) 275 final, Brussels.

European Commission, 2006b. Implementing sustainability inEU fisheries through maximum sustainable yield. SEC (2006)868. Brussels.

European Parliament, 2007b. The third maritime package:where Parliament stands. Brussels. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?language=EN&type=IM-PRESS&reference=20070417BKG05371.(26.10.2008).

European Commission, 2007a. Reducing by-catches anddiscards: a priority for European fisheries. Fisheries andAquaculture in Europe 34, 3–8. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/magaz/fishing/mag34_en.pdf (02.06.2008).

European Commission, 2007b. Communication on a EuropeanPorts Policy. COM (2007) 616 final, Brussels.

European Commission, 2007c. Destructive fishing practices inthe high seas and the protection of vulnerable deep seaecosystems. COM (2007) 604 final, Brussels.

European Commission, 2007d. Proposal for a Council Regulationestablishing a Community system to prevent, deter andeliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. COM(2007) 602 final, Brussels.

European Commission, 2007e. Communication from theCommission to the European Parliament, the Council, theEuropean Economic and Social Committee and theCommittee of the Regions. An Integrated Maritime Policyfor the European Union. COM (2007) 575 final, Brussels.

European Parliament, 2006. Report on the proposal for adirective of the European Parliament and of the Councilestablishing a framework for Community Action in the fieldof Marine Environmental Policy (Marine Strategy Directive).Brussels. A6-0373/2006.

HELCOM (Helsinki Commission), 2003. The Baltic MarineEnvironment 1999–2002. HELCOM, Helsinki, Baltic SeaEnvironment Proceedings 87.

HELCOM, 2007. The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan. http://www.helcom.fi/press_office/news_helcom/en_GB/BSAP_full/ (28.10.2008).

Hentrich, S., Salomon, M., 2006. Flexible management of fishingrights and a sustainable fisheries industry in Europe. MarinePolicy 30 (6), 712–720.

Hutchings, J.A., Myers, R.A., 1994. What can be learned from thecollapse of a renewable resource? Atlantic cod, Gadusmorhua, of Newfoundland and Labrador. Canadian Journalof Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51, 2126–2146.

ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea), 2007.Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on the FisheryManagement, Advisory Committee on the MarineEnvironment and Advisory Committee on Ecosystems, 2007.Book 8: Baltic Sea. ICES, Copenhagen, ICES Advice 2007, 8.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 2 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 3 5 9 – 3 6 6366

ICES, 2003. Environmental Status of the European Seas.Copenhagen, http://www.ices.dk/reports/germanqsr/23222_ICES_Report_samme.pdf (28.10.2008).

IMO (International Maritime Organisation), 2008. IMOenvironment meeting approves revised regulations on shipemissions. http://www.imo.org (14.06.2008).

Jenisch, U., 2007. Pravention zur Vermeidung von Unfallen undvon Umweltverschmutzung auf See. Natur und Recht 29 (6),392–398.

Jones, L., Bixby, M., 2003. Managing fish. In: Ten Case Studiesfrom Canada’s Pacific Coast, Fraser Institute, Vancouver.

Kalli, J., Alhosalo, M., Erkkila, A., Akerstrom, J., Sundberg, P.,2005. Ship originated air emissions, solid waste andwastewaters - a Feasibility Study of the New HansaProject. Center for Maritime Studies, Universityof Turku, Turku.

Kell, L.T., Fromentin, J.-M., 2006. The illusion of MSY. ICES CM2006/R:14. In: ICES (International Council for the Explorationof the Sea) (Eds.): Proceedings of ICES 2006 Annual ScienceConference, Kopenhagen.

Peper, M., 2004. Vorlaufig gescheitert. Der Versuch einerUmweltdifferenzierung von Hafengebuhren in Hamburg.Wuppertal Bulletin 7 (2), 20–23.

Salomon, M., 2006. The European Commission proposal for amarine strategy: lacking substance. Marine PollutionBulletin 52, 1328–1329.

Sissenwine, M., Symes, D., 2007. Reflections on the CommonFisheries Policy. Report to the General Directorate for

Fisheries and Maritime Affairs of the EuropeanCommission. http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/sweden/rapporter-och-dokument/fisheries-policy.pdf(24.10.2008).

SRU (German Advisory Council on the Environment), 2008.Environmental Report 2008. http://www.umweltrat.de(18.06.2008).

SRU, 2006. The European Commission Proposal for a MarineStrategy: Shying European Responsibility? http://www.umweltrat.de/03stellung/downlo03/komment/kom_nr5_eng.pdf (02.06.2008).

SRU, 2004. Marine Environment Protection in the North andBaltic Seas. Nomos, Baden-Baden, http://www.umweltrat.de/english/edownloa/specrepo/SG_Meer_en.pdf (02.06.2008).

WBGU (German Advisory Council on Global Change), 2006. TheFuture Oceans – Warming up, Rising High, Turning Sour.Special Report. Berlin. http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_sn2006_en.html (02.06.2008).

Markus Salomon is scientific expert of the German AdvisoryCouncil on the Environment (SRU), an independent scientificbody giving advice on environmental policy to the Germanfederal government. He studied hydrobiology and fisheriesscience at the University of Hamburg and has a PhD in biology.In the last six years his work focus has been water (marine)protection, risk assessment of chemical substances and airpollution.