Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Framework for Community Action in the field of Marine Environmental Policy (Marine Strategy Directive)  COM(2005) 505 final — 2005/0211 COD
Date: 2006-04-20
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, EU programme, environmental research, marine environment

C 185/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.8.2006

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Framework for Community Action in the
field of Marine Environmental Policy (Marine Strategy Directive)

COM(2005) 505 final — 2005/0211 COD

(2006/C 185/04)

On 29 November 2005, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 175 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 21 March 2006. The rapporteur was Ms Sánchez
Miguel.

At its 426th plenary session, held on 20 and 21 April 2006 (meeting of 20 April), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 137 votes in favour and three abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

coordination would make it possible to intervene in the non-
EU countries where Community action would be feasible and,
in particular, with which the EU has international agreements.

The EESC appreciates the proposal

1.1
for a Directive,
which falls within the context of the thematic strategy for the
protection and conservation of the marine environment; this
could integrate and coordinate certain existing legal measures,
particularly as regards the methodology for action in the field,
which is similar to that set down in the Water Framework
Directive (WFD).

1.2
However, from a critical standpoint, the EESC believes
that while the proposal is necessary, it does not go far enough:
the status of our seas and oceans has deteriorated so badly that
more coercive measures will be needed in order to implement
and monitor compliance with existing measures. Moreover, the
proposal only partially covers the status of the marine environ-
ment. The EESC therefore believes that a framework directive
would be more effective when subsequently integrating and
developing the aspects that are not covered in depth here.

By utilising existing legislative or management instru-
1.3
ments rather than creating new ones, Member States can be
spared additional costs and, above all, increased bureaucracy.
Arrangements are also included for public and stakeholder
consultation and participation, which are key factors for the
public's involvement in environmental issues.

1.4
The EESC wishes to make several recommendations
which it considers necessary in order to improve the proposed
Directive, so that the Commission can evaluate its contributions
as a sector of civil society concerned by this issue.

As the good status of marine waters depends to a
1.4.2
large extent on quantitative factors, the EESC believes that
quantitative descriptors should also be included in the defini-
tions given (particularly the definition of good environmental
status based on general qualitative descriptors), as was the case
for continental waters in the WFD. As pointed out in point 5.5
below, the environmental targets should, at the very least, be
those specified in the Communication,
since the format
proposed in the Directive is so general that it could prevent
them from being fully effective.

1.4.3
The ambiguous wording used in referring to the selec-
tion of special areas (defined by their inability to reach the
environmental targets) could lead to misuse; the EESC therefore
proposes that the reasons for this special status be clearly and
carefully defined, along with the procedures for approval by
the Commission.

if

1.5
Lastly, there are two focus areas which are very impor-
the objectives proposed here are to be effectively
tant
applied. The first concerns the immediate application of all
previous measures affecting the marine environment, such as
those relating to the ERIKA I, II and III packages, in particular
referring to ports of refuge, the trans-European network for
monitoring maritime traffic, setting up a Member State auditing
system for ship registration, investigating and identifying waste
(such as bombs, containers with radioactive products), etc.

Firstly,

1.4.1
it is necessary to clarify and strengthen the
Commission's monitoring and coordinating role vis-à-vis the
regional authorities that are required to assess and plan the
targets and the measures for applying these to the marine
environment under their control. The aim should be to harmo-
nise and balance actions throughout coastal areas, bearing in
mind that seas and oceans stretch across borders. Centralised

1.5.1
The second focus area relates to research in the
marine environment. By increasing and improving knowledge,
it will be possible to set clear objectives and establish the
programmes of measures needed to restore good environmental
status. Greater participation in the European Framework
Programmes for Research is therefore required.

8.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/21

2. Background

agreements (6), whose objectives the Directive should serve to
meet.

Environment

The present proposal is based on a Communication (1)
2.1
which the Commission submitted in 2002.
It establishes a
strategy for the ecological protection and conservation of the
marine environment, with the aim of promoting sustainable
use of the seas and conserving marine ecosystems. The Sixth
Community
already
mentioned the need to set up measures for protecting and
conserving the marine environment, and stressed that
the
objective of sustainable use of European seas and oceans
cannot be achieved through individual policies. It has become
clear that swift action is urgently needed, as many of the
dangers forecast in the Sixth Programme have become reality,
with much greater severity than was ever predicted (2).

Programme

Action

2.2
The starting point of the strategy proposed in the above-
mentioned Communication is the situation of the European
marine environment, which is undergoing severe deterioration
and is suffering from the effects of climate change, pollution by
hazardous substances, commercial fishing, eutrophication, and
the added danger of introduced exogenous species. If other,
institutional obstacles are also taken into account, such as the
exclusive jurisdiction that Member States have over their own
international conventions
territorial waters,
that also apply to non-EU countries, and various global agree-
ments (3),
it becomes clear that this strategy must be imple-
mented, despite all the hurdles identified.

the existence of

Another communication (4) was issued on the same date
2.3
as the present proposal, but was not referred to the EESC. It
states that a Green Paper is to be drawn up on the marine
environment strategy. The EESC believes that the Commission
should take into account the observations and content of its
opinions, and that the best way to achieve this would be to
carry out a further consultation that would incorporate the
EESC's expertise and opinions on policies affecting the marine
environment
is
important for the EESC to make its stance known, as the repre-
sentative of civil society.

transport, hydrocarbons, etc.).

(fisheries,

It

3. Summary of the proposals

The proposed Directive includes an instrument for the
3.1
implementation of the strategy for conservation and protection
of the marine environment. It also takes account of interna-
tional conventions, particularly those signed by the Commis-
sion and Member States under UN auspices (5) and regional

(1) COM(2002) 539 final – Communication from the Commission to
the Council and the European Parliament: Towards a strategy to
protect and conserve the marine environment.

(2) For a deeper insight, see Opinion OJ C 133, 6.6.2003 on the
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Euro-
pean Parliament: Towards a strategy to protect and conserve the
marine environment. Rapporteur: Ms Sánchez Miguel.

(3) Chapters I-IV of the conclusions of the Johannesburg Summit, held
on 26 August - 4 September 2002, include agreements on oceans
and seas, fisheries, marine pollution and research. See opinion OJ C
133, 6.6.2003.

(4) COM(2005) 505 final of 14.10.05.
(5) United Nations Convention on the Law of

the Sea (UNCLOS)

adopted by Council Decision 98/392/EC, 23 March 1998.

3.2
The proposal is divided into five chapters, the first of
which sets out the subject matter (Article 1), scope (Article 2),
marine regions and sub-regions (Article 3), marine strategies
(Article 4), rules for coordination and cooperation between
Member States (Article 5) and competent authorities (Article 6).

3.3
In this first section, particular attention should be paid
to Article 4, which covers the marine strategy which Member
States should establish for each marine region and which
should include, at least:

— an initial assessment of the environmental status of the
waters, and the environmental impact of human activities
thereon;

— a definition of

the good environmental status of

these

waters;

— the establishment of environmental targets;

— the establishment and implementation of a monitoring

programme for targets.

This should be accompanied by a programme of measures to
be implemented by 2016, at the latest, in order to achieve the
good environmental status of seas and oceans.

The marine strategies are developed in the second and
3.4
third chapters: Chapter II sets down the rules for drawing up
these strategies, and Chapter III covers the programmes of
measures.

3.4.1
The measures for establishing the marine strategies
are based on the requirement for Member States to carry out
an initial assessment of their marine waters (Article 7). This is
to include various aspects, such as an economic and social
analysis of their use and of the cost of their degradation. The
good environmental status (Article 8 and Annex II) and envir-
onmental targets (Article 9 and Annex III) are defined, and,
lastly, the means of establishing the monitoring programmes
(Article 10 and Annexes II and IV) and the approval method
(Article 11) are set down.

(6) Convention on the protection of the marine environment in the
Baltic Sea, Decision 94/157/EC; Convention for the protection of
the marine environment of
the north-east Atlantic, Decision
98/249/EC; Convention for the protection of the Mediterranean Sea
against pollution, Decision 77/585/EEC, amended in 1995.

C 185/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.8.2006

3.4.2
The third chapter lays down the Programmes of
measures to be implemented by the Member States for each of
their marine regions (Article 12 and Annex V)
in order to
in line with the initial
achieve good environmental status,
assessment. The Commission must also be notified of these
(Article 14) so it may subsequently approve them (Article 15).
Ad hoc measures are included for special areas (Article 13).

3.5
Chapter IV covers the rules for updating the strategies
for each marine region (Article 16), and the requirement to
draw up interim reports every three years (Article 17). Article
18 is worth noting, as it sets down the rules for public infor-
mation and consultation,
in compliance with Directive
2003/35/EC. The Commission is also required to draw up
evaluation reports on the implementation of
the Directive
(Article 19), whose content is to be reviewed 15 years after
entry into force.

b) however, a clear and efficient methodology for action is
required, similar to that set down in the Water Framework
Directive (WFD);

c) this methodology, based on ecosystems, should include
provisions on the ‘good status of waters’, zoning of the
marine environment, definition of criteria and coordination
mechanisms for authorities, etc.

4.3
In this context, the proposed Directive incorporates a
number of points from the EESC opinion, which it interprets
from its own angle, and establishes a methodology for action
similar to that put forward by the WFD. However, there are
clear differences regarding the role of the Commission and
Member States and the organisation of various aspects of the
methodology. The reasons for these differences, or their useful-
ness, are not clearly explained, and there are some sharp
contradictions. For example:

Finally, Chapter V contains the technical provisions,
3.6
with particular reference to the Annexes (Article 21) and the
committee that will assist the Commission with its task (Article
22).

a) the Communication points out the inefficiency of individual
policies and the Community framework, and yet this model
of action is maintained in the proposal for a Directive;

4. Comments on the proposal

4.1
The current proposal for a Directive should be consid-
ered in relation to the aforementioned Communication from
the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament:
Towards a strategy to protect and conserve the marine environ-
ment (for a deeper insight, see opinion CESE/578/2003 on this
Communication). The key points of the Communication are as
follows:

— the individual policies of Member States are not having the
desired effect of improving the marine environment; in fact
the state of Community waters is gradually deteriorating;

— Member States are not efficiently monitoring the status of

marine waters;

— scientific knowledge of the marine environment is insuffi-

cient and requires a greater commitment to research;

— in connection with the need for a strategy to protect and
restore the marine environment,
there are well-defined
criteria and targets, which are to be pursued via 23 possible
actions.

4.2

The following points were raised in the EESC opinion:

b) the Communication gives an exhaustive definition of
criteria, targets and actions, yet they correspond only in part
to those in the proposal for a Directive.

4.4

The EESC believes that the proposal for a Directive:

a) is necessary but not sufficient to rehabilitate and protect the
marine environment of interest to the EU, which extends
beyond the marine waters under its jurisdiction;

b) is a good starting point, with significant aspects that need

fine-tuning;

c) is not complete; new elements should be developed subse-
in order for it to
quently and included in the proposal,
become a framework Directive with the required scope and
depth.

Application of the Directive falls almost entirely upon
4.5
the Member States;
the Commission provides guidance for
initiatives, is updated by Member States and approves or rejects
the definitions of the environmental status, the environmental
targets and indicators, the monitoring programme, and the
programme of measures for special areas, mutatis mutandis.

The Directive does not establish new legislative or
4.6
management
instruments, but makes use of existing Com-
munity instruments and the international agreements signed by
the European Union.

a) the Communication represents a step towards the establish-
ment of measures to protect and restore the marine environ-
ment;

It clarifies the way in which the public and stakeholders

4.7
will participate via the Member States.

8.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/23

5. Specific comments

— chronic oil pollution;

5.1
Experience gained from the implementation of more
ambitious European measures in Member States (WFD, IPPC)
shows that the Commission must play an active role not only
in monitoring but also in coordinating and centralising the
initiatives undertaken in order to support Member States, while
complying with the subsidiarity principle. To this end, the
Commission should arrange and chair a forum of competent
authorities for each marine sub-region and region, attended by
from scientific institutions with proven
interested parties
experience in the field, and by the authorities responsible for
fisheries and radio-nuclides policy.

status,

environmental

5.2
As well as covering the information and approval
requirements for the proposed initial assessment, good environ-
mental
the monitoring
programme and the programme of measures (including ad hoc
measures for special areas), the Directive should establish a
procedure for action and a timeframe for processing any objec-
tions that might arise. This procedure should involve stake-
holders and the general public, and include sufficient incen-
tives.

targets,

5.3
The initial assessment is described in Annex II. In the
table on pressures and impacts, it would be useful (in line with
the criterion given in the Communication prior to the proposal
for a Directive) to define the anthropogenic causes and their
relation to the pressures and impacts, and to the criteria and
targets for marine protection, in order to link these with the
actions and policies of the strategy.

The definition of ‘good environmental status’ and ‘envir-
5.4
onmental status of
is based on
the marine environment’
‘generic qualitative descriptors, detailed criteria and standards’.
Quantitative descriptors should also be included, as they are
necessary for certain variables relating both to the initial assess-
ment and the good environmental status. Quantitative reference
points are also needed for tracking certain variables in the
monitoring programmes (e.g. phytoplankton density).

5.5
The environmental targets are defined in Article 9 and
Annex III using overly general criteria. It would be useful to set
minimum criteria and targets; at the very least, those contained
in the 2002 Communication should be included:

— residues and waste;

— maritime transport;

— health and environment;

— climate change.

5.6
The programme of measures (Article 12, Annex IV)
should, at least, include the measures that are mandatory under
EU law, particularly in relation to coastal waters, where the
action programme aims to prevent damage caused by the
abovementioned sources of pollution. It should also include the
mandatory measures set down in international agreements and
conventions, and the ‘ad hoc’ measures designed to alleviate the
deterioration of the marine environment in ‘special areas’. This
has the advantage of bringing together all the measures and
initiatives spread between different provisions and regulations,
thus making them easier to comply with.

it

is

that

However,

to ensure

5.6.1
these
important
programmes of measures do not remain restricted to this
minimum: as has been shown,
it has not been sufficient to
prevent the deterioration of the environment, and it is unlikely
to be sufficient
to achieve the desired good environmental
status in the marine environment. In this context, it would be
useful to circulate good eco-technology practices (eco-friendly
toilets, phosphate-free detergents, buffer zones and restrictions
applicable to coastal areas, etc.) throughout coastal countries,
on a regular basis.

The proposal allows Member States to select special
5.7
areas in which the environmental targets cannot be achieved
for the following reasons:

— action or inaction by another State (EU or non-EU country);

— natural causes or force majeure;

— physical modifications or alterations brought about by
‘actions taken for overriding reasons of public interest’.

5.7.1
misapplication. Therefore:

This wording is so ambiguous that it could lead to

— deterioration of biodiversity and destruction of habitats;

1. these causes should be clearly and carefully defined, by:

— hazardous substances;

— eutrophication;

— radio-nuclides;

— listing the actions or lack of action by other States that
the environmental

the achievement of

could affect
targets;

— specifying the phenomena considered as natural causes

and the criteria determining force majeure;

C 185/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.8.2006

— specifying the criteria for defining the concept of

‘general interest’;

2. procedures should be set up for the Commission to approve
these exceptions, with the involvement of stakeholders and
the general public.

5.8
In terms of coordination and cooperation, it is impor-
tant to consider the non-EU countries bordering EU waters, not
just those countries that are parties to international agreements,
so as to encourage them to cooperate and achieve good envir-
onmental results.

Lastly,

5.9
the proposal channels stakeholder and public
participation through the existing State systems. These are
subject to doubt in many countries, sometimes because of a
lack of transparency, sometimes due to delays in responding to
queries, and sometimes because of the ambiguity surrounding
‘stakeholder’ organisations. The Commission should therefore
establish a practical, effective procedure for collecting and
managing complaints from stakeholders and the public, and
guaranteeing the public's right to information, consultation and
participation. The mutatis mutandis criterion should therefore be
removed from the approval system, as stated above.

Brussels, 20 April 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on The management of industrial
change in cross-border regions following EU enlargement

(2006/C 185/05)

On 20 July 2005 the future Austrian Presidency of the Council of the European Union decided to consult
the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European
Community, on The management of industrial change in cross-border regions following EU enlargement

The Consultative Commission on Industrial Change, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's
work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 22 March 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Krzaklewski.

At its 426th plenary session, held on 20 and 21 April 2006 (meeting of 21 April), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 69 votes to two with five abstentions.

Part 1 — Summary of the EESC's conclusions and recom-
mendations

tiveness of Community instruments used in these areas before
and after accession and to establish the time lag with which EU
policies were implemented in these regions as compared with
elsewhere.

for the
The Austrian Government
Consultative Commission on Industrial Change (CCMI)
to
prepare an exploratory opinion on Industrial change and EU
enlargement: Examining the effects in border regions.

issued a formal request

The Committee considers that, in the course of the next Presi-
dency, it is important to establish a precise and distinct defini-
tion of what is meant by the term ‘REGION’ in a cross-border
and industrial
should distinguish regions
bordering non-EU Member States and take into account
whether or not a given neighbouring state is a candidate
country.

context. One

It is important to establish how one can distinguish between
the effects of the changes that occurred in these regions in the
1990s and those arising from EU accession, to assess the effec-

The Committee notes that a very important and possibly deci-
sive factor which has affected the conduct and development of
industrial policy in cross-border regions in the enlarged Europe,
both now and in the past, is the ability of stakeholders in these
regions to access EU Structural Fund resources. Increasing their
role in these regions is absolutely vital. The Proposal for a
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
establishing a European grouping of cross-border cooperation
is a new opportunity in this area. The Committee
(EGCC)
places particular emphasis on the need to include economic
and social interest groups as well as other civil society organisa-
tions, particularly training establishments. concerned in the