EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/6

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Better protecting the marine environment

(2015/C 260/02)

Rapporteur Hermann KUHN (DE/PES), Member of the Bremen City Parliament Reference document Own-initiative opinion

I. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1. underlines the central importance of an integrated maritime policy for the European Union. Europe’s maritime areas and its coasts are central to people’s well-being and prosperity — they are Europe’s trade routes, climate regulator, sources of food, energy and resources, and a much-valued location for residence and recreation. A healthy marine environment is a key element for ensuring the sustainability of life outside this environment too (1);

2. is deeply concerned that Europe’s seas are not in a healthy state, in particular, that many fish stocks are still being exploited above the maximum sustainable yield, and that the inputs and concentrations of nutrients and hazardous materials and waste, as well as the quantity of non-native species and non-material inputs (noise, light and heat), all too often exceed environmentally acceptable levels; it is likewise concerned that climate change is increasingly affecting marine and coastal ecosystems;

3. is aware that, at present, seas are subject to ever-increasing pressure from a wide array of economic activities and that their basic conditions will be at long-term risk if decisive steps are not taken to achieve ‘good environmental status’. Failure to protect the seas would be costly for European societies in every respect (2);

4. underlines that future generations are also entitled to a biologically diverse and dynamic marine environment that is safe, clean, healthy and productive;

5. therefore reiterates its positive assessment of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, 2008) as an environmental pillar of the EU’s Integrated Maritime Policy, which makes the achievement of ‘good environmental status’ by 2020 a binding target (3);

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) — implementation status

6. acknowledges the strenuous efforts made to date by the Member States within a tight timeframe to secure a good environmental status, especially with regard to initial assessment, the definition of good environmental status, the setting of environmental targets and the creation and implementation of supervision programmes;

7. is nevertheless concerned that the Commission considers the targets set by the Member States to be generally lacking in ambition, vague and inconsistent, making it very difficult to know how much still needs to be done to meet the target (4);

8. welcomes the Common Implementation Strategy pursued by the Commission and the Member States within the Marine Strategy Coordination Group and expects their work to give rise to a better common understanding of the implementation of the MSFD; calls on the Commission to present, as soon as possible, its revision of the criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status (2010/477/EU);

9. points out that, under the MSFD, Member States currently have until the end of 2015 to draw up programmes of measures, which must be implemented from 2016 onwards; firmly supports the Commission’s call for a political step-change in marine protection and is convinced that consultation on the programmes of measures must be used to this end (5);

10. calls on the Member States to maintain a strict interpretation of the exception clauses set out in the MSFD for the purposes of the future implementation of the directive, so that attainment of good environmental status is not jeopardised;

11. stresses that, while success in achieving good environmental status of the seas by 2020 will yield major benefits for the economy and living conditions in coastal regions as well as regions far from the coast, any failure could also result in significant adverse economic consequences. This is one reason why all local and regional authorities must be involved in framing programmes of measures and contribute to this process;

Knowledge

12. notes that the Member States have already made considerable efforts in inspecting, analysing and assessing data on seas; points out, however, that scientific understanding of the condition of the seas and the exposure pathways of man-made pollution remains patchy (6);

13. urges that incomplete knowledge not be allowed to impede the framing of concrete, ambitious programmes of measures;

14. strongly endorses the Commission’s proposals to further develop coordination between the Member States in the procurement, analysis and assessment of scientific information on the marine environment at Union and regional levels, in particular promoting the pooling of information between the European Environment Agency, Regional Sea Conventions and the Member States, and better tie-ins with existing assessments under other EU legislation;

15. calls on all parties concerned to make greater use of the resources available under EU programmes for the 2020-2014 programming period (especially EMFF, Horizon 2020, Interreg) in implementing projects to research the marine environment;

16. takes the view that private stakeholders too, as part of the authorisation of offshore operations for example, should in future increasingly be required to gather information on the health of the seas and make this available to be integrated into other data collections and assessments for the purposes of marine protection;

Governance

17. is aware that framing programmes of measures for the MSFD falls within the remit and responsibility of the Member States; is convinced, however, that the only way to protect the seas is for all tiers of government, business and civil society to pull together, and for this reason the Committee addresses its calls and expectations to all the parties involved;

18. is pleased that the Commission wishes to continue playing an active part in analysing and assessing implementation in the Member States; encourages it to play a supporting, coordinating and stimulating role to promote the integration of all Union regulation relevant to marine protection, including support programmes, and to encourage compliance with them;

19. would like the Commission to submit regular assessments on MSFD implementation, including in particular the identification of best practices; in order to facilitate the sharing of local solutions, also offers to make available the existing common Technical Platform for cooperation on the environment between the European Committee of the Regions and the Commission;

20. points out that local and regional authorities have a wealth of experience and knowledge, since they have to deal with the consequences of the condition of the sea; therefore calls for them to be closely and appropriately involved in framing national programmes of measures;

21. recommends taking account of the principles of participation, cooperation, transparency, inclusion and policy coherence, within the meaning of the ‘rules of good governance’, when developing programmes of measures;

22. expects Member States to turn to the Union should the solutions to problems fall within the Union’s competence and expects the Union then to take steps to find such solutions;

23. is concerned by the Commission’s statements to the effect that until now cooperation within regional sea basins has been lacking; is fully convinced that joint regional planning of measures for sea basins will be the key to ensuring shared success. Water has no borders (7);

24. welcomes the major contribution made by Regional Sea Conventions to marine protection; is of the view that these agreements might also be suitable platforms for drawing up regionally coordinated measures among the Member States and calls for local and regional authorities to be involved in this work. EGTCs could also make a contribution to regional cooperation here;

25. suggests that the new procedures for cross-border maritime spatial planning be used in this connection, not least in order to be able to influence the circumstances of increased pressure on the seas in line with the objectives of marine protection; in this, consideration should also be given to a procedure for compulsory compensatory measures at sea (8);

26. notes that implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive will also put the EU and its Member States in a better position to meet their obligations under international agreements;

27. suggests that the Commission should draw up proposals as to how to further the objectives of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in the waters of the Member States’ overseas territories and the areas of the Mediterranean and Black Sea that are not directly within its scope;

28. believes that the EU’s macro-regional and sea basin strategies provide a good framework for integrating marine protection into a more comprehensive regional cooperation set-up (9);

General requirements for programmes of measures

29. calls on the Member States, when drawing up and implementing the programmes of measures, to take account of the principles of the ecosystem approach as well as the precautionary and polluter pays principles;

30. points out that a wide range of EU rules and policies are designed to have a direct or indirect impact on the protection of the marine environment. In particular, the rules of the Common Agricultural Policy, Common Fisheries Policy, Water Framework Directive, Habitats and Birds Directives (Natura 2000), biodiversity strategy and climate policy must therefore be consistent with the programmes of measures pursued by the Member States;

31. proposes that the following measures be vigorously pursued, while allowing for the different starting points and particular circumstances of the various maritime regions and ensuring proportionality, cost-effectiveness and feasibility;

Measures to protect biodiversity, food webs and the seabed (order in accordance with the MSFD descriptors (D) — here D1, D4, D6)

32. emphasises the importance of the marine protected areas designated under international, European and national agreements. for protecting and maintaining marine biological diversity;

33. is convinced that the designation of marine protected areas must be followed by the establishment of clear protection and management strategies which ensure that protected areas are protected and maintained, guaranteeing that they yield environmental benefits; believes that restrictions on fishing and marine mineral mining in such areas (including no-take areas) are needed to ensure that the level of protection of marine protected areas is not jeopardised, but improved; recommends that the imposition of any such restrictions occur after dialogue with the sectors concerned;

34. highlights the need to review whether existing marine protected areas form a consistent, representative network which provides appropriate coverage of marine ecosystems in all their diversity; is convinced that the cross-border regional establishment and management of such areas is more cost-effective and environmentally more beneficial than unilateral national measures;

35. calls for new marine protected areas to be designated where this is needed to achieve good environmental status (10);

36. furthermore, considers more rigorous research is needed into the potential impact of maritime operations on the seabed (fisheries, but also the laying of pipelines, cables, etc.), so that standards and rules can be framed;

Measures to protect against non-indigenous species (D2)

37. points out the environmental and economic risks posed by the spread of invasive alien species in Europe’s seas; for this reason, welcomes in principle the regulation on invasive alien species and expects in particular that the observing and, where applicable, blocking of man-made immigration routes of invasive species to make a positive contribution to achieving good environmental status;

38. calls on Member States to compile national inventories of alien and invasive species, agreed among themselves on a regional basis, and use these in working together across borders to combat them;

39. supports the European Union’s ratification and implementation of the IMO’s Ballast Water Management Convention;

40. requests that only indigenous species be bred in open aquaculture systems;

Measures to protect commercially exploited species (D3)

41. points out that for many coastal regions in the EU fishing still carries considerable economic and cultural weight; recognises the multi-facetted nature of fisheries in the EU and stresses that the Common Fisheries Policy must bring their various economic needs into line with the environmental requirements of the marine environment;

42. therefore welcomes the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy and now expects the newly defined objectives, in particular the restrictions on use, to be set in such a way that the populations of harvested species are maintained or restored above the level of the maximum sustainable yield, and that landing requirements are met and monitored effectively (11);

43. urges that the EMFF funds be used in such a way that they do not contradict the MSFD objectives; among other things is in favour of promoting the use of new selective fishing techniques to reduce bycatch mortality (including the bycatch mortality of birds) and to protect seabed habitats;

Measures against eutrophication (D5)

44. stresses that the over-enrichment of nutrients in different regions of Europe’s maritime waters poses a serious environmental problem;

45. believes that the use of fertilisers should be significantly reduced as part of a forthcoming review of the nitrate directive and its implementation; the use of alternative, less harmful fertiliser methods should be promoted under the Common Agricultural Policy;

46. calls for a substantial expansion of the funding for organic farming so that it accounts for more than 10 % of farming by 2020;

47. calls for the mandatory imposition of a ban on farming and fertilisation in the vicinity of water bodies, so that nutrient inputs into these and ultimately into the marine environment can be cut significantly;

48. calls for the authorisation of open aquaculture systems in European marine waters to be made conditional on the nutrient inputs they cause not jeopardising the objective of good environmental status (12);

49. takes the view that SECA (Sulphur Emission Control Area) agreements must, as a matter of priority, be broadened to cover all EU marine regions; expects the Commission and Member States to energetically pursue efforts to establish NECA (NOx Emission Control Areas) areas too;

Measures to reduce contaminants (D8, D9)

50. notes that the input of a variety of harmful substances, individually and cumulatively, affects and endangers marine life and also reaches humans via the food chain; for this reason, considers as fundamental the goal of a zero input of such substances by 2020 and the implementation of agreements already concluded;

51. points out that the increasing pollution of the coastline by paraffin wax from the flushing of tanks at sea means that a ban on this kind of discharge at sea is urgently necessary;

52. calls for a revision of the limit values for oily waste water (from shipping, oil production, industry, etc.);

53. repeats its call for a European action plan for the disposal (primarily recovery and destruction) of munitions on the sea floor, which are presenting an increasing danger to shipping, offshore activities and tourism;

54. reiterates its position that sea pollution must be reduced at source (production and consumption); believes, however, that measures such as the ‘fourth phase’ should be promoted in sewage treatment plants which are capable of reducing micro-pollutants in wastewater. At the same time, the spreading of sewage sludge on agricultural land must be stopped;

55. points out that single-hull tankers are still endangering European waters and calls for tight oversight and even stricter rules to eliminate these risks;

56. is convinced that emergency port strategies should be drawn up to protect damaged ships, primarily those carrying hazardous cargo, and that adequate response capacities should be ensured to prevent shipping accidents caused by already damaged ships, not least in the vicinity of the growing number of off-shore wind farms. Regional, cross-border coordination is essential here;

Measures for reducing marine waste (D10)

57. calls for a general ban on waste disposal at sea — in principle incineration too, since this cannot be monitored. The costs of on-shore disposal should, as far as possible, be included in port charges on the basis of a flat rate;

58. proposes promoting the efforts that fishermen make in the ‘fishing for litter’ campaign, especially by means of free waste disposal in ports and differentiated port charges;

59. calls for greater efforts to avoid production of plastics and to recycle them, given the dramatic pollution of the seas with plastic waste; expects the Member States above all to be vigorous in implementing the new rules to restrict and even ban plastic bags (13);

60. supports activities such as ‘Coastal Cleanup Day’ specifically on the coasts and beaches of Europe, which, in addition to the direct benefits, could also help to raise awareness and educate people about the environment;

61. recognises the serious impact of micro-plastics on marine organisms; calls, therefore, as a first step, for an EU-wide ban on the use of micro-plastics in cosmetics and cleaning products;

Measures for reducing the introduction of energy into the sea (D11)

62. points out that the introduction of energy (noise, light, heat and radiation) into the seas clearly has an impact on the marine environment, the consequences of which urgently require more thorough investigation;

63. is of the opinion that, following the establishment of international criteria and standards for noise mapping, a noise register should be set up for the European Union’s maritime waters. The aim should be to develop legal standards and limit values to reduce noise in the marine environment;

64. calls for the cessation of particularly noise-intensive exploitation in protected areas (including buffer zones), which has been shown to have a negative impact on individual species;

65. supports the promotion of alternatives when carrying out seismic exploration and setting up offshore wind farms;

Final remarks

66. underlines that public information and dialogue is the key to the success of marine protection; therefore calls on the Member States to allow enough time and resources for public discussion when drawing up their programmes of measures and offers the cooperation of local and regional authorities in this connection;

67. continues to support the implementation of the ‘European Maritime Day’ (EMD) and expects that, in the coming years, the EMD will contribute to the successful implementation of the MSFD as a forum for scientific and political exchange with local and regional authorities too.

Brussels, 3 June 2015. The President of the European Committee of the Regions Markku MARKKULA

(1) COM(2007) 575 final.

(2) OJ C 206, 29.8.2006, p. 5.

(3) OJ C 206, 29.8.2006, p. 5; OJ C 172, 5.7.2008, p. 34.

(4) COM(2014) 97 final.

(5) See footnote 4.

(6) OJ C 62, 2.3.2013, p. 44.

(7) OJ C 104, 2.4.2011, p. 47.

(8) OJ C 415, 20.11.2014, p. 9.

(9) OJ C 391, 18.12.2012, p. 1.

(10) OJ C 172, 5.7.2008, p. 34.

(11) OJ C 225, 27.7.2012, p. 20.

(12) OJ C 391, 18.12.2012, p. 84.

(13) OJ C 356, 5.12.2013, p. 30; OJ C 280, 27.9.2013, p. 44.