Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Towards a strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment"

(2003/C 244/08)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the European Commission Communication - Towards a strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment (COM(2002) 539 final);

having regard to the European Commission's decision of 2 October 2002 to consult it on this subject, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

having regard to the decision of its Bureau of 12 March 2002 to instruct the Commission for Sustainable Development to draw up an opinion on this subject;

having regard to its Opinion on the Sixth Environment Action Programme (CdR 36/2001 fin)(1);

having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 24/2003 rev.) adopted by the Commission for Sustainable Development on 20 February 2003 (rapporteur: Mr Wim van Gelder, Queen's Commissioner for the Province of Zeeland (NL-EPP)),

unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 49th plenary session of 9 and 10 April 2003 (meeting of 9 April).

1. The Committee of the Regions' views

The Committee of the Regions

1.1. welcomes the plans for a European strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment, as required under the Sixth European Environment Action Programme;

1.2. endorses the need for an overall, integrated marine protection policy at EU level, given the regional and sectoral fragmentation of policy;

1.3. is convinced that healthy seas and oceans, including coastal zones and estuaries, (in other words the marine environment) are of vital importance not only on ecological grounds, but also from an economic and social point of view;

1.4. would also stress the importance of a healthy marine environment for local and regional communities. The contrary was clearly illustrated recently by the impact of the Prestige oil tanker disaster on local communities on the northern coast of Spain, and, more recently still, by the Tricolor disaster off the Belgian and south-west Netherlands coast;

1.5. would welcome a strategic, pan European approach to such disasters managed by the European Maritime Safety Agency; one of the objectives of the Agency should therefore be to ensure that disaster control mechanisms are put in place immediately after an accident and enabled to act without delay in controlling pollution from maritime disasters;

1.6. recognises that a healthy marine environment is under serious threat from countless human activities both at sea and on land. These include the discharge of hazardous substances and nutrients, the extraction from the marine environment of commodities such as fish, oil, sand, gravel and energy, and all climate-changing activities;

1.7. believes that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to repair the damage done to the marine environment. This is often virtually irreversible, particularly given the sheer scale of the processes involved. It is essential, as far as possible, to avoid the need for reactive measures. That can be done by pursuing a pro-active approach underpinned by the precautionary principle and reflected in "no-regret" measures;

1.8. endorses the view that an ecosystem approach is essential for any sustainable use of the seas. This is the only way to ensure that the seas are not used in ways detrimental to their ecology, to other uses or to future generations. The ecosystem approach must be applied at global level;

1.9. considers that greater attention must be paid to spatial planning as a tool for giving practical shape to sustainable use. Sustainability must be reflected not only in the intensity and type of use, but also in its location as well. As a tool, spatial planning can be seen as a practical expression of the precautionary principle and, for that reason, must be applied not only in any special areas of conservation set up, but outside them as well. Specific spatial planning rules must be drawn up, underpinned by an overall approach to EU sea areas;

1.10. considers that a sustainable use of the seas is impossible without support from the regional and municipal communities as well. Interactive planning procedures can play a key role in this regard, and due consideration must be given to this aspect in developing the strategy;

1.11. feels that policy integration is needed not only at EU level but at municipal and regional level as well. That will help address the need for regional support referred to above, both for the policy itself and for the development of spatial planning as a tool for the sustainable use of the marine environment;

1.12. endorses the communication's point about lack of adequate knowledge. Work must be stepped up to improve the knowledge base;

1.13. recognises at the same time that we cannot wait until that knowledge base is in place and, also, that there are limits to how far such knowledge can be developed. These limiting factors must be borne in mind when formulating policy. The precautionary principle must therefore be a key starting point in any policy development. Furthermore, this aspect must also be reflected in the enforceability of rules and regulations. One example of that is the "Clean Ship" concept, which thus requires active support;

1.14. backs EU Commissioner Loyola de Palacio's policy regarding tighter timetables for the double-hulling of seaworthy ships, and the training requirements and professional skills of seafarers;

1.15. considers that the difficulties facing the marine environment can be tackled more effectively if the costs of (potential) environmental damage are carried by the polluter. Environmental costs should become an integral part of company accounts. Potential environmental damage should also be reflected in insurance premiums, for instance for ships;

1.16. agrees that, given the complex nature of the issues involved, the communication cannot at this stage set out the strategy itself, but is just one step towards it. The Committee appreciates the structured approach to the proposed actions, but wonders whether some of the actions could not be couched in more specific terms. Also, a number of the objectives have no deadline for completion. The Committee, feels, however, that deadlines could be set;

1.17. wonders when, if ever, a communication will be published setting out the strategy (in more detail).

2. The Committee of the Regions' recommendations

The Committee of the Regions

2.1. recommends that, given the limits on knowledge development and the virtual irreversibility of the damage to the marine ecosystem, more explicit attention should be paid to the precautionary principle. This must be reflected, among other things, in:

2.1.1. the broader use of spatial planning and strategic environmental assessment, not just in special areas of conservation;

2.1.2. proposals to incorporate environmental costs more fully into company accounts;

2.1.3. the active encouragement of the "Clean Ship" concept;

2.2. recommends policy integration not only at EU level but at regional level as well by building on the model of Regional Advisory Councils mentioned in Action 20, which also involve the relevant local authorities, to establish Integrated Regional Advisory Councils covering all the relevant sectors. This contrasts with Action 20's proposal to "apply this model to other sectors";

2.3. recommends promoting the global application of the ecosystem approach;

2.4. recommends that the Commission strategy recognise and address the potential for a major release of radioactivity to the marine environment arising from an accident or incident involving the transport of radioactive materials;

2.5. recommends that deadlines be set for the achievement of Objectives 9, 10 and 12;

2.6. recommends a more precise wording for Actions 7 and 9;

2.7. recommends the publication of a more detailed integrated strategy in conjunction with the report mentioned in Action 19;

2.8. drawing on these recommendations, proposes the following amendments:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

AMENDMENT 1

Section 7: Objectives

>TABLE>

Reason:

The objective set in the Commission's strategy to eliminate eutrophication problems by 2010 is unrealistic, particularly from the standpoint of local and regional authorities.

AMENDMENT 2

Section 7: Objectives

>TABLE>

AMENDMENT 3

Section 7: Objectives

>TABLE>

AMENDMENT 4

Section 7: Objectives

>TABLE>

AMENDMENT 5

Section 8.1: Policy action

>TABLE>

AMENDMENT 6

Section 8.1: Policy action

>TABLE>

AMENDMENT 7

Section 8.1: Policy action

>TABLE>

AMENDMENT 8

Section 8.1: Policy action

>TABLE>

AMENDMENT 9

Section 8.1: Policy action

>TABLE>

AMENDMENT 10

Section 8.2: Enhancing coordination and cooperation

>TABLE>

AMENDMENT 11

Section 8.2: Enhancing coordination and cooperation

>TABLE>

AMENDMENT 12

Section 8.2: Enhancing coordination and cooperation

>TABLE>

Brussels, 9 April 2003.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert Bore

(1) OJ C 357, 14.12.2001, p. 44.