Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the "Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament — Towards a strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment" (COM(2002) 539 final)
Date: 2003-05-14
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU environmental policy, biodiversity, environmental protection, marine environment

C 208/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.9.2003

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament — Towards a strategy to protect and
conserve the marine environment’

(COM(2002) 539 final)

(2003/C 208/04)

On 2 October 2002 the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
communication.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 1 April 2003. The rapporteur
was Mrs Sánchez Miguel.

At its 399th plenary session on 14 and 15 May 2003 (meeting of 14 May), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion with 103 votes for and 3 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

of

One

topics

the many

addressed by

the
1.1.
6th Environment Action Programme (6th EAP) is the protection
and conservation of the marine environment with the aim of
promoting the sustainable use and protection of the seas. To
date, individual policies that have an impact on the marine
environment are clearly not having the desired effect; in fact,
many of the threats that were identified when drafting the
6th EAP have become a reality, with repercussions far exceeding
the worst predictions.

1.2.
Predicted threats such as the degradation or loss of
marine biodiversity, destruction of habitats owing to port
developments and the increase in dangerous nutrients and
substances — combined with other factors, the overall impact
of which is not always appreciated, such as maritime transport
and fishing — all point to the need for coordination between
all sectors affecting the marine environment, with a view to
defining an overall policy to reduce and put an end to the
degradation of our seas.

1.3.
Firstly, this effort to coordinate all policies that impact
upon the marine environment must be planned at Community
level. The geographical area must be limited to seas and oceans
which form part of Community territorial waters or those of
the candidate countries, while at the same time account must
be taken of the potential influence of international treaties and
conventions that have already been signed.

1.4.
This will enable the strategy for the conservation and
protection of the marine environment to remain part of the
Community’s Strategy for Sustainable Development, which
promotes economic and social growth accompanied by
environmental protection.

At international level, recognition must be given to the
1.5.
conclusions of the Johannesburg Summit (1),
in particular
those referring to the chapters on oceans and seas, fisheries,
marine contamination and research. The most important of
these conclusions in terms of their potential global impact are
the following:

— apply, by 2010, the ecosystem approach, noting the
Reykjavik Declaration on Responsible Fisheries in the
Marine Ecosystem, and Decision V/6 of the Conference
of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity;

— implement chapter 17 of Agenda 21, which establishes
the programme of action for achieving the sustainable
development of oceans, coastal areas and seas;

— establish an inter-agency coordination mechanism within

the United Nations system;

— maintain or restore stocks to levels that can produce the
maximum sustainable yield, where possible not later than
2015 for depleted stocks;

— implement the 1995 Code of Conduct for Responsible

Fisheries;

— urgently develop the FAO’s International Plan of Action
for the Management of Fishing Capacity by 2005 and
International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Elimin-
ate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing by 2004;

(1) World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg,
South Africa. 26 August — 4 September 2002. Chapters I-IV.

3.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 208/17

— strengthen donor coordination and partnerships to enable
developing countries to develop their national and
regional capacities for infrastructure and integrated man-
agement;

Available information on the environmental quality of

2.2.
the seas and oceans includes primarily:

— Regional marine conventions (1)

— support the sustainable development of aquaculture;

— European Environment Agency reports

— implement the Global Programme of Action and the
Montreal Declaration on the Protection of the Marine
Environment from Land-based Activities, with particular
emphasis during the period from 2002 to 2006 on
municipal wastewater, and the physical alteration and
destruction of habitats;

— improve measures relevant to transboundary maritime
transportation of radioactive material, radioactive waste
and spent fuel;

— increase scientific and technical collaboration, and estab-
lish a regular process under the United Nations for global
reporting on the state of the marine environment.

It must not be forgotten, however, that European
1.6.
environmental objectives and actions are often better defined
and more advanced than those drawn up at the Johannesburg
Summit. The EU should therefore take the lead in the actions
described above to ensure compliance with the Kyoto and
Gothenburg agreements.

This Communication addresses the debate on a strategy
1.7.
to protect and conserve the marine environment
in the
European Union. It aims to have an impact at both European
and international
level, so that whatever conclusions are
reached can have a knock-on effect. We cannot sit passively
by while the marine environment deteriorates; sector-specific
or national solutions alone are not enough, they need to be
part of a Community and international framework.

— Information on biodiversity collected in the context of
the review of the Common Fisheries Policy (2); develop-
ments in marine zones; eutrophication of water; transpor-
tation and discharge of oil, etc.

The other part of the equation is the current legislation
2.3.
to protect and conserve the marine environment, where a
distinction must be made between strictly Community legis-
lation and international legislation. The former (3) includes —
in general — the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (4), the
Habitat (5) and Birds (6) Directives, and the IPCC Directive (7)
and — more specifically — directives on waste water treatment
and bathing water, maritime transport legislation, the CAP,
etc.

2.4.
International legislation is laid down in Conventions
governing general aspects such as protecting the marine
environment and specific aspects such as protecting marine
species, preventing contamination by dangerous substances,
chronic oil pollution, etc. The most important Conventions
are OSPAR (8), HELCOM (9) and BARCELONA (10).

2.5.
There is only limited information available about the
effects of existing legislation owing to the fact that, in general,
such effects only manifest themselves in the long term and
because there is no national monitoring of the state of the
marine environment in their maritime waters. The Com-
mission presents the situation from two aspects:

— Gaps in available information.

— A review of current activities regarding monitoring,
assessment, reporting/data management and research (11)

2. Summary of the Communication

The current state of the marine environment presents
2.1.
a significant number of information gaps for Community
authorities. For the Commission, the lack of an integrated
approach based on all the policies with an impact on the
marine environment means that there is a need to draw
up inventories of all the information available. This would
subsequently provide the basis on which to build a thematic
strategy.

(1) Annex I contains information taken from these Conventions.
(2) COM(2002) 181 final — OJ C 85, 8.4.2003.
(3) As listed in Annex 2.
(4) Directive 2000/60/EC — OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.
(5) Directive 92/43/EEC — OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(6) Directive 79/409/EEC — OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(7) Directive 96/61/EC — OJ L 82, 22.3.1997.
(8) Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the

North East Atlantic.

(9) Helsinki Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment

of the Baltic Sea Area.

(10) Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and

the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean.

(11) Annex 3.

C 208/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.9.2003

2.6.
Because the outlook is anything but positive, a number
of objectives are proposed for each specific aspect of the
marine environment. In general, the Communication states
that the Marine Strategy should constitute a contribution
to the Community’s Strategy for Sustainable Development.
Therefore, and as indicated in the 6th EPA, it should promote
the sustainable use of the seas and conservation of marine
ecosystems, including sea beds, estuarine and coastal areas,
paying special attention to sites with a high biodiversity value.

2.6.1.

The specific objectives refer to the following:

— Loss of Biodiversity and Destruction of Habitats (three
objectives are established to contain biodiversity decline)

— Hazardous Substances (one objective)

— Eutrophication (one objective)

— Radionuclides (one objective)

— Chronic Oil Pollution (one objective)

— Litter (one objective)

— Maritime Transport (one objective)

— Health and Environment (one objective)

— Climate Change (three objectives)

— Improving the Knowledge Base (one objective).

twenty-three

The Commission proposes

2.7.
specific
actions aimed at achieving these objectives through prevention
and application of the precautionary principle. All are based
on measures provided for under current legislation and are
essentially designed to conserve biodiversity by designating
special conservation areas and developing regional water
management plans in line with regional marine conventions.

develop monitoring procedures along similar lines to the
Water Framework Directive.

3. General comments

The EESC welcomes the Commission proposal as it
3.1.
opens the debate with all the parties interested in conserving
and protecting the marine environment. However, in response
to the regrettable and increasingly frequent pollution of our
maritime waters,
the EESC calls for a stronger political
commitment from Member States to implementing existing
legislation and for the perpetrators to be held liable in an
effective way.

3.2. With regard to the proposals made in the Communi-
cation, the EESC broadly shares the principles on which they
are based — such as the coordination of policies that impact
(in this case, the marine
upon a particular environment
environment) — and has in fact called for such principles to
be respected in many of its opinions. The EESC understands
that the Community’s Strategy for Sustainable Development is
achieved by implementing such policies across the board.
in continuing to legislate if
However,
legislation is not implemented and monitored by the com-
petent authorities. The division of powers between these
authorities must not result in a legislative vacuum that renders
the laws ineffective.

there is no point

An examination of

3.3.
the aforementioned objectives
reveals that most of them relate to compliance with existing
legislation, analysing and assessing the effects of substances
and other aggressions in the marine environment, observing
and studying other effects, etc. The EESC welcomes the
‘ecosystem-based approach’ insofar as it signals the use of a
new methodology; however, the document does not explain
what this means. Without this, it is impossible to judge if the
strategy presented (objectives and actions) is in keeping with
the above approach (1). Suffice it to say that there are thirty-
three different ecosystems in the Mediterranean, each one
subject to very different pressures and impacts depending on
their precise location.

2.8.
Particular attention must be paid to those proposed
actions that are designed to foster coordination and cooper-
ation at both Community and international
level, e.g. the
proposal for improved coordination between all bodies dealing
with marine protection in the framework of the United Nations
and Agenda 21.

2.9.
Improving the knowledge base is at present one of the
most advanced actions, as a timetable has already been set to

(1) The stakeholder Conference on the Commission proposal held on
4-6 December 2002 in Køge, Denmark defined the concept as
‘the comprehensive integrated management of human activities
based on best available scientific knowledge about the ecosystem
and its dynamics, in order to identify and take action on influences
which are critical to the health of the marine ecosystems, thereby
achieving sustainable use of ecosystem goods and services and
maintenance of ecosystem integrity’. Furthermore, the ecosystem
approach is the primary framework for action under the Conven-
tion on Biological Diversity. An ecosystem approach to marine
and coastal biological diversity is still under development.

3.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 208/19

3.4.
Secondly, the strategy outlined merely reiterates exist-
ing guidelines and activities, the achievements of which — as
is the case for many other environmental policies — can be
summed up as ‘one step forward for environmental protection,
but two steps back for the state of the environment itself’.
Thus all the actions proposed to achieve the objectives are
limited to:

— complying with and/or adapting existing directives;

— assessing, studying, analysing, observing;

— coordinating conventions and reports.

3.5.
Another strategy may need to be found and, among
the various options to be explored, a central role could be
given to effectiveness, i.e. the EU’s real capacity for influencing
marine issues, by enhancing:

— legislative instruments (whether binding and mandatory,

or simple agreements and conventions);

— economic instruments (trade agreements, third country

funding programmes).

Actions could therefore be drawn up by area,

3.6.
example:

for

— Area 1. Coastal waters, corresponding to the territorial
waters of Member States, where the Community has full
powers to regulate, monitor and penalise and where
many Community and national provisions already exist.

— Area 2. Waters and seas in maritime areas where the
Community has strong powers (200 miles), either because
they fall within its territorial waters or because it has
political or economic influence.

— Area 3. Waters and seas where the Community has few
powers owing to the fact that they are international
waters (e.g. Community fleet fishing grounds, holiday
destinations for EU citizens).

3.7.
An examination of the aforementioned Community
legislation with an impact on the marine environment reveals
many gaps in environmental protection measures; in fact, a
number of measures are currently under review and others are
unlikely to be implemented owing to the moratorium on their
entry into force, opposition from many Member States (1), and
delays in their transposition and subsequent implementation.

( 1) Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. COM(2002) 181 final

— OJ C 85, 8.4.2003.

3.8.
The very important role given to marine conventions
in the Communication must be downgraded and partially
replaced by EU legislative initiatives. Such international agree-
ments impose considerable restrictions, in general concerning
binding obligations. They are of considerable value in defining
strategies for achieving objectives,
in involving different
countries, etc., but lack teeth when it comes to penalising
infringements if they are not duly recognised in the specific
legislation of each state. Moreover, their potential for adapting
to scientific, technical or social progress is very limited owing
to lengthy procedures for drafting, ratification and entry into
force.

The Committee also wishes to point out that inter-
3.9.
national conventions are very limited. Firstly, they only apply
to a limited geographical area and therefore only cover certain
areas of oceans and seas — namely waters that fall under the
jurisdiction of Member States and, at best, some bordering
countries — and cannot protect other areas in which Com-
munity interests are at stake, such as fishing grounds in the
African Atlantic that are exploited by European enterprises.
Secondly, such conventions are not completely binding as they
cannot be enforced and are therefore somewhat ineffective.

3.9.1.
However, although it recognises their limited impact,
the EESC believes that the EU must continue to develop its
environmental policy within international conferences and
organisations as a way of defending the model of sustainable
development.

3.10. With regard to the proposed objectives, it would be a
good idea to extend them in at least three crucial areas:

— prevention of serious accidents with environmental
consequences for marine waters, occurring both on land
and at sea and for which Directives already exist (e.g.
Seveso II, Erika);

— management of the use of coastal areas, as regulated in
the WFD (e.g. urban planning, infrastructures, related
economic activities, waste water treatment);

— international maritime transport and the use of dubious
legal ploys, such as ‘flags of convenience’ which are
largely responsible for the current disarray in this area
and for the considerable environmental consequences
(e.g. spillages, accidents, transportation of dangerous
products without guarantees, use of products that are
toxic for the marine environment).

C 208/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.9.2003

3.11.
The remaining objectives listed in the Communi-
cation are very ambitious and undoubtedly rational in the
context of the overall objective (i.e. sustainable use of the seas
and conservation of its ecosystems). However, neither the
actions or the proposed timetable properly correspond to the
objectives.

3.12.
The twenty-three actions linked to the fourteen
objectives are in no way innovative and lack an element or
elements on which to build an integrated policy. In the Water
Framework Directive, this ‘cornerstone’, which acts as a basis
for the integration of policies, is the ‘good state’ of waters.

4. Proposed new actions to be considered in relation
to the protection and conservation of the marine
environment

The EESC believes it is necessary for the proposed
4.1.
actions to be extended, as events since the drafting of the
Communication clearly demonstrate the need for these actions
to be strengthened and for them to include all rules that
improve compliance with Community legislation already in
force.

3.13. Many actions are not given a timescale for compliance
and those that are have such long deadlines that it is unlikely
they will achieve the desired results. Some analyses are an
exception (e.g. the 2004 review of the relationship between
OSPAR and radioactive substances, the strategy to eliminate
discharges of oil from different sources, and litter).

4.2. Without losing sight of the aim of this Communication
— i.e. the protection and conservation of the marine environ-
ment — the following proposals should therefore be included
in the actions, as they both improve coordination between the
various policies affecting the marine environment and seek to
deal with situations that cause alarm among European citizens.

By way of example, the deadlines for reducing chronic oil
pollution are:

— 2010 to comply with existing discharge limits

— 2020 to act on the sources of such discharges.

This delay is incomprehensible when in reality the technology
available enables illegal discharges by ships to be detected and
located in real time (ENVISAT satellites).

3.14. With regard to assessing the impact of Community
directives, there are various viewpoints on and interpretations
of
the state of Community waters. Marine environment
indicators do not reveal any major progress and in many cases
demonstrate a decline. For example, fishing levels off the
Mediterranean coast reveal that ‘coastal
fishing’ areas are
depleted, fish farms have problems of environmental sustaina-
bility, etc.

3.15.
The situation is deteriorating despite the many direc-
tives governing the management and use of marine waters
under Member State jurisdiction. The impact of Community
legislation must therefore be assessed in order to identify the
causes for its relative failure, and the necessary measures taken
to improve its effectiveness. It is vital that the interested parties
(e.g. ecologists, trade unions,
industry) participate in this
assessment and that financial, scientific and technical resources
are released. The European Environment Agency must also
play a key role in this.

4.2.1.
From the point of view of consistency between
policies, the Commission should define the concept ‘good state
of the marine environment’ as the ultimate objective of the
23 actions linked to the 14 objectives. This would provide a
link between all the actions, and a single innovative and
unifying methodology.

4.2.2. Moreover, reducing the deadlines for implementing
the legislation and the periods proposed for the conservation
and protection actions would be an effective way of slowing
down the deterioration of the marine environment. The
generous deadlines currently provided for many of the actions
would make them ineffective, while at the same time the
marine environment is deteriorating at an alarming rate.

At international

4.2.3.
improving the monitoring
level,
of compliance with international Conventions through the
the
International Maritime Organisation, as
Copenhagen European Council on 12-13 December 2002 (1),
will help extend the impact of protection and conservation
legislation. At the same time, means should be sought to make
these Conventions more effective, using economic instruments
that reward compliance by third country signatories with
technical and financial assistance.

agreed at

(1) See the Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament and to the Council on improving safety at sea
COM(2002) 681 final and the Presidency Conclusions, Copen-
hagen European Council, 12-13.12.2002 Vease (13.12.2002,
No 400/02).

3.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 208/21

4.2.4.
One very important issue that has been highlighted
during recent maritime disasters is that of scientific research
into bioremediation systems that enable damage to be repaired
in a way that is more respectful of the marine environment (1).
The Commission should therefore increase coordination
between
the
6th Environment Programme so that some of their resources
can be set aside for practical environmental research.

Programme

Research

and

6th

the

The EESC believes that,

in addition to the new
4.2.5.
actions proposed, actions designed to inform people about
environmental policies must not be overlooked and, in particu-
lar, education must continue to be used as a means of raising
awareness of and applying these policies in the future.

4.2.6. With regard to including new actions designed to
help prevent the causes of recent marine disasters — many of
which have already been approved, and in circumstances
similar to today’s (2) — a distinction should be made between
actions that only concern legislation awaiting implementation,
actions that require economic assistance in order to be carried
out, and actions that have still to be developed.

4.2.6.1.

The first group of actions would include:

— Redrafting of Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 of

the
European Parliament and of the Council of 18 February
2002 (3) on the issue of double hull or equivalent design
requirements for oil tankers, to include the objective of a
safe and clean ship.

— Immediate implementation of Directive 2001/106/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 Decem-
ber 2001 amending Directive 95/21/EC concerning the
enforcement of international standards for ship safety,
pollution prevention and shipboard living and working
conditions.

— Adoption and implementation of the proposal for a
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
on environmental liability with regard to the prevention

and remedying of environmental damage, and the pro-
posal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of
the Council on the protection of the environment through
criminal law (4).

4.2.6.2.
The second group — i.e. actions that only require
economic assistance from the EU to be put into force (5) —
would include:

— the immediate implementation of the measures contained
in the Erika I and Erika II packages, in particular those
referring to preparing ports of refuge for ships in distress;
strengthening a trans-European network for monitoring
maritime traffic; and ensuring that the Member States
provide a sufficient number of inspectors for Community
ports,

— keeping dangerous ships away from the main maritime

routes by creating corridors far from the coast,

— setting up an auditing system for States in which ships

are registered,

— investigating and identifying waste (such as chemical
bombs, containers with radioactive products) deposited
in the marine environment.

4.2.6.3.
Finally, the third group would include the develop-
ment of new procedures for applying the rules aimed at
stopping companies and competent authorities from using
flags of convenience, registering ships to brass plate companies,
etc. to water down and evade responsibilities, checks and taxes.

The EESC is concerned by the lack of coordination
4.3.
between the competent authorities, not only at Member State
level but also at regional level, whether in the same Member

( 1) Such systems were used, with positive results, at the time of the

Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska.

( 2) The measures adopted by the European Parliament and the
Council, and contained in the Erika I and Erika II packages, enter
into force on 1.1.2003 for single hull tankers.

( 3) The Commission presented a proposal to amend the Regulation

on 20.12.2002.

(4) The application of the polluter pays principle is based on the
model in force in the USA. Operators should not be allowed,
however, to sidestep responsibility by using flags of convenience
and thereby evade Community legislation, as has been happening
in practice. The Commission has just presented COM(2003) 92
final, a Proposal for a Directive on ship-source pollution/criminal
sanctions.

(5) The European Council of 21/22.3.2003 approved the strengthen-

ing of these economic measures.

C 208/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.9.2003

State or not. The Committee would therefore suggest using
some of the systems already provided for this purpose in
Community legislation, such as the stipulation in the Water
Framework Directive that the various authorities in a river

basin must coordinate with each other when implementing
the designated river basin plan and, above all, must provide
regular information on each of the jurisdictional areas in
which this plan is developed.

Brussels, 14 May 2003.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament and the Council — Action plan to counter the social,
economic and regional consequences of the restructuring of the EU fishing industry’

(COM(2002) 600 final)

(2003/C 208/05)

On 6 November 2002 the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
communication.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 1 April 2003. The rapporteur
was Mr Chagas.

At its 399th plenary session on 14 and 15 May 2003 (meeting of 14 May), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 103 votes in favour, with 2 against and 7 abstentions.

1. The Commission proposal

1.1.
The action plan proposed by the Commission was
intended to address the probable social, economic and regional
consequences of restructuring the fishing industry in response
to the depletion of certain fisheries resources.
It seeks to
identify the impact of limiting fishing effort for certain species
in certain areas as part of the reform of the Common Fisheries
Policy (CFP).

involve a reduction in the number of fishing days fishing
vessels could target specific stocks, which are likely to result in
reductions of income, either because these vessels would have
to switch to alternative but less profitable fisheries, or because
of tie-ups. Modifications to the fleet aid policy will also involve
social costs: the proposed restriction of aid for modernisation,
as well as the proposed elimination of aid for renewal and
export of fishing vessels and the more attractive scheme to
permanently reduce capacity are likely to have consequences
for the sector.

1.2.
The Commission feels that, despite the social cost
associated with the reform of the CFP and particularly that
resulting from a reduction of fishing effort within the frame-
work of multi-annual management plans, the cost of postpon-
ing the measures now considered necessary would be far more
serious. Such effort
limitation schemes are likely to be
translated by Member States into tie-up schemes. These would

The present Communication from the Commission

1.3.
includes:

— an assessment of the likely socio-economic impacts of
fishing effort limitations and reductions in vessel numbers
in particular a review of the provisional estimate of lost
jobs;