JOINT STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Synopsis of the outcome of the consultation on international ocean governance Accompanying the document JOINT COMMUNICATION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS International ocean governance: an agenda for the future of our oceans
Date: 2016-11-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: biodiversity, conservation of resources, exploitation of the seas, fishery management, international cooperation, law of the sea, maritime safety, ocean, resources of the sea, scientific research

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION HIGH REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNION FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND SECURITY POLICY Brussels, 10.11.2016  SWD(2016) 352 final   JOINT STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  Synopsis of the outcome of the consultation on international ocean governance Accompanying the document JOINT COMMUNICATION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS International ocean governance: an agenda for the future of our oceans {JOIN(2016) 49 final}  
 
 
Introduction 

The call for action on ocean governance has gained international momentum, notably in 
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. International ocean governance is linked 
to three EU policy areas: sustainable development, growth and jobs, and the EU’s role as 
a  global  actor.  For  Europe,  the  importance  of  the  maritime  economy  and  international 
competitiveness  is  as  relevant  in  this  context  as  the  increasingly  worrying  state  of  the 
world’s  oceans  and  the  impact  of  human  activity  on  them.  In  both  respects,  successful 
management is a challenge that has to be tackled at global level, and through the EU and 
its Member States acting more strongly together. 

Karmenu  Vella,  the  Commissioner  for  the  environment,  maritime  affairs  and  fisheries, 
has  given  the  subject  priority,  in  line  with  his  mandate  from  President  Juncker  (‘to 
engage  in  shaping  international  ocean  governance  in  the  UN,  in  other  multilateral  fora 
and bilaterally with key global partners’). 

The consultation process described below was launched in order to prepare an initiative 
on international ocean governance proposing first steps to tackle the above challenges. It 
consisted of a formal consultation and a ‘listening tour’, with the personal participation 
of the Commissioner, to exchange views with stakeholders on the subject. 

1.  CONSULTATION 

The  Commission  launched  a  public  consultation  on  international  ocean  governance  on 
4 June 2015.  It  was  targeted  at  all  private  and  public  stakeholders  and  international 
governmental and non-governmental organisations, and aimed to gather input on how the 
EU  could  contribute  to  improving  international  governance  of  oceans  and  seas.  The 
consultation ended on 15 October 2015. The text of the consultation report is attached. 

The  objective  of  the  stakeholder  consultation  activities  was  to  seek  views  from  all 
stakeholders  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  current  ocean  governance  framework,  on 
possible gaps, and on ways to improve both at international and regional levels. 

A  total  of  154  contributions  were  received.  Respondents  included  governments,  public 
bodies, business representatives, associations, NGOs, academics and citizens.   

In  addition  to  the  consultation,  Commissioner  Vella  conducted  a  ‘listening  tour’  to 
collect  stakeholders’  and  international  partners’  views  at  the  highest  political  level  and 
discuss possible ways forward. 

2. 

PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS 

As  illustrated  below,  the  largest  group  of  respondents  were  public  authorities  (26 %), 
followed by citizens (19 %), NGOs (17 %) and businesses (17 %). 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Type of stakeholder 
 (%) 

1% 

19% 

26% 

11% 

6% 

17% 

17% 

3% 

Public authority

Intergovernmental organisation

Business

Association

NGO

Research

Citizens

No category

Figure 1:   Replies by type of stakeholder (%) 

Contributions were received from representatives of 13 Member States, Iceland, Norway, 
the  United  States,  Korea  and  international  organisations,  including  the  UN  DOALOS, 
UNESCO  and  UNEP.  Some  15 %  were  from  stakeholders  who  could  be  considered  as 
international or from countries outside Europe. 

3. 

LISTENING TOUR 

Commissioner  Vella  participated  in  27  events  with  partners  and  stakeholders  to  discuss 
international  ocean  governance1  and  a  number  of  regular  service-level  meetings  with 
maritime stakeholders and Member States were used to explore further the subjects raised 
in their responses to the consultation. 

In  particular,  specific  discussions  on  international  ocean  governance  took  place  at  the 
launch of the consultation2 and on European Maritime Day in 2016.3 

4. 

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES AND CONTRIBUTIONS  

4.1.   The ocean governance framework 

Nearly all contributors consider that the current framework for ocean governance is not 
effective enough in ensuring sustainable ocean management. They argue that this is not 
due  to  the  framework  itself,  but  to  inefficient  implementation  and  insufficient 
coordination. 

1  

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/maritimeaffairs_fisheries/consultations/ocean-governance/doc/ocean-
governance-summary_en.pdf  

2   World Ocean Summit (3-5 June 2015);  

Announcement  of  ocean  governance  public  consultation  and  listening  tour  (Lisbon,  4  June  2015); 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/vella/announcements/announcement-ocean-governance-
public-consultation-and-listening-tour-world-ocean-summit-lisbon-4_en 

3  

Thematic Session II: Improving ocean governance;  
https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/maritimeday/en/programme-items/thematic-session-ii-improving-
ocean-governance  
Conference report:   https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/maritimeday/sites/mare-emd/files/2016-
emd-conference-report.pdf  

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
General problem definition 

6% 

11% 

83% 

agree

disagree

not applicable

Figure 2:   Responses  to  question  on  general  problem  definition  –  ineffectiveness  of 

current framework for international ocean governance 

A need for better implementation and better coordination 
There is broad agreement that the system is fragmented and existing instruments are not 
implemented or enforced uniformly. Better implementation and coordination are crucial 
to improve ocean governance. 

Do you agree with the list of specific problems? 

7% 

14% 

5% 

agree

disagree

74% 

partially agree

reply partially to the
question

Figure 3:   Responses  to  the  question  on  specific  problems  listed  in  the  consultation:  
(1)  gaps in the existing international ocean governance framework; 
(2)  inefficient implementation and insufficient coordination; and 
(3)   lack of knowledge about oceans 

Ranking of the specific problems 

60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Gaps in the existing
international ocean governance
framework

Inefficient implementation or
insufficient coordination

A lack of knowledge about the
oceans

Figure 4:   Ranking of specific problems (%) 

(includes only respondents who provided a ranking) 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Many  respondents  refer  to  instruments  that  have  been  signed  but  either  have  not  been 
ratified  or  are  not  effectively  implemented.  Promoting  good  application  of  existing 
agreements  within  maritime  fora,  sanction  mechanisms  and  capacity-building  are  the 
most frequently cited forms of action needed to address the implementation gap. 

Many point to the fragmentation of the ocean governance framework, due, for example, 
to the prevalence of sectoral ‘silos’. Increasing competition for marine space means that 
the  current  approach  is  inadequate  and  more  cooperation  is  needed,  including  when  it 
comes to protecting marine biodiversity. 

All respondents call for better coordination at global and regional levels. This should be 
both  ‘horizontal’  (i.e. between  UN  agencies  and  programmes,  and  between  regional 
organisations) and ‘vertical’ (i.e. between the global, regional and national levels). 

A  minority  of  respondents  argue  for  the  creation  of  an  overarching  body  to  act  as 
coordinator.  For  most,  better  coordination  should  be  achieved  by  making  better  use  of 
existing  structures.  Any  coordinating  body  should  ensure  closer  cooperation  between 
organisations involved in ocean affairs, thus reducing potential conflicts and overlaps. 

Several  respondents  call  for  more  transparency  in  the  decision-making  process  and 
greater stakeholder participation in the new governance structure, which are also central 
to improving its functioning. 

Filling the legal gaps 

Many  point  to  gaps  in  the  legal  framework  applicable  to  areas  beyond  national 
jurisdiction (ABNJ) and the regulatory framework applicable to new activities.   

Biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) 

There  is  broad  agreement  on  the  need  for  an  international  legal  instrument,  under 
UNCLOS,  on  the  conservation  and  sustainable  use  of  marine  biodiversity  in  ABNJ. 
Some  respondents  refer  to  the  possible  creation  of  an  international  mechanism  to 
establish  marine  protected  areas  in  the  high  seas,  modalities  for  carrying  out 
environmental impact assessments in the high seas and the legal status of marine genetic 
resources. 

The future formulation of such an instrument  is also regarded as a good opportunity to 
strengthen coordination and cooperation between international and regional organisations 
and across sectors. 

Emerging activities 

Legal gaps are highlighted by several respondents with regard to emerging activities such 
as  offshore renewable energy, deep-water hydrocarbon exploitation and seabed mining. 
These  are  linked  to  the  need  to  ensure  that  such  activities  are  properly  regulated  and 
managed,  inter  alia  through  the  promotion  of  best  practice.  Defining  clear  rules  also 
provides legal certainty for businesses and secures new investment. 

Principles and new arrangements that should guide future action 

5 

 
Respondents  call  for  future  action  to  be  guided  by  the  ecosystem  approach,  the 
precautionary  and  polluters-pay  principles  and,  in  a  broader  sense,  the  cross-sectoral 
approach. They also underline the importance of environmental impact assessments. 

Many  refer  to  the  2030  Agenda  for  Sustainable  Development  and,  more  specifically, 
SDG 14  (‘conserve  and  sustainably  use  the  oceans,  seas  and  marine  resources’),  the 
implementation of which is essential for better ocean governance. 

The regional ocean governance framework 

Many contributors consider that international ocean governance cannot be limited to the 
global framework. They regret the fact that the consultation document does not refer to 
the regional framework. 

They  recommend  better  cooperation  between  international  and  regional  organisations. 
Many emphasise the relevance of the regional approach for states sharing a sea basin. 

All  acknowledge  the  importance  of  regional  seas  conventions  (RSCs)  and  regional 
fisheries  management  organisations  (RFMOs),  which  both  play  a  key  role  in  the 
protection of the marine environment and the sustainable management of fish stocks, are 
confronted by challenges such as marine pollution and overexploitation – and need to rise 
to the task, including through improved performance. 

Regional seas conventions 

Perceived  shortcomings  of  RSCs  by  many 
include  geographical 
fragmentation,  lack  of  implementation,  lack  of  capacity  and  the  lack  of  coordination 
between entities. Some also underline the limited scope of their action, e.g. in ABNJs. 

respondents 

Structures  could  address  issues  such  as  marine  pollution  more  effectively  if  they  were 
better coordinated; this applies not only to cooperation among RSCs, but also to RFMOs. 
Respondents  mention  the  memoranda  of  understanding  between  OSPAR  and  NEAFC, 
and between UNEP/MAP/Barcelona Convention and the General Fisheries Commission 
for the Mediterranean (GFCM) as good models for this. 

Regional fisheries management organisations    

Most respondents recognise the positive role and functioning of RFMOs. However, some 
highlight the persistence of overexploitation and IUU fishing, and propose that capacities 
related to RFMOs in developing countries be improved. 

Several respondents believe that IUU fishing should be addressed in a more cross-cutting 
way, so as to tackle the complete chain from catch to market. This requires commitment 
from  all  stakeholders  and  strong  cooperation  between  RFMOs  and  the  IMO  and  FAO, 
the ratification and application of existing instruments such as the FAO’s world register 
of fishing vessels and vessel monitoring system, and the use of new technologies such as 
satellite monitoring. 

4.2.  Ocean knowledge 

Knowledge gaps 

6 

 
Nearly  all  respondents  confirm  that  the  lack  of  knowledge  about  oceans  weakens  the 
international  ocean  governance  framework,  particularly  when  it  comes  to  assessing  the 
impact of maritime activities. 

The  major  difficulties  seem  to  lie  in  how  to  coordinate  data  collection  better,  ensure 
data-sharing  among  stakeholders  and  secure  research  funding.  The  EU’s  role  in 
providing the latter is highlighted. 

Areas where better knowledge is needed 

Economic activities 

All  economic  activities  would  benefit  from  greater  availability  of  maritime  knowledge. 
Some consider that this would primarily benefit the emerging sectors. Others think that it 
would also provide traditional sectors with solutions to address challenges such as ocean 
warming  and  reducing  greenhouse  gas  emissions,  and  with  opportunities  to  develop 
sustainable technologies. 

Improving  knowledge  is  crucial  for  the  sustainable  management  of  ocean  resources, 
including the better assessment of fish stocks and the impacts of certain fishing methods. 
More  broadly,  a  better  understanding  of  the  marine  environment  will  help  operators  to 
act in a more informed manner and authorities to plan activities at sea.   

Marine environment 

Some  participants  stress  the  need  for  better  knowledge  to  improve  application  of  an 
ecosystem-based approach to planning activities, and for a greater understanding of the 
role of oceans in the global climate and the consequences of climate change for oceans. 

Improving coordination and data-sharing  

Nearly all respondents mention  coordination  and data-sharing in  marine research. Most 
believe  this  is  more  about  the  effective  use  of  existing  data  and  making  data  available 
than about more comprehensive databases, which are expensive and take time to set up. 

The  current  system  is  seen  as  fragmented,  leading  to  a  potential  duplication  of  data  or 
failure to use it. Respondents point to the EU’s EMODnet as a good example and support 
the  creation  of  a  global  EMODnet,  with  common  standards  and  contributions  from  all 
data providers, including the private sector. 

Other ways of improving data-sharing and cooperation suggested by respondents include:  

  strengthening the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission; 

  establishing 

‘knowledge  bridges’  between 

regional 

and 

international 

organisations (e.g. cooperation between ICES, OSPAR and HELCOM); 

  international research alliances (such as the Galway Statement); 

  creating synergies between research programmes; and  

  dialogue between scientists and policymakers. 

7 

 
4.3.  The EU’s role in shaping ocean governance 

Many respondents believe that the EU has a major role to play in improving international 
ocean governance, because: 

  it is an active player in relevant global and regional fora and negotiations; 

  it is a global player in maritime activities; and 

  it has the expertise to contribute to better international ocean governance. 

Leadership 

Many respondents see the EU as a major actor in all international and regional maritime 
organisations. Together with the Member States, it has the ability and legitimacy to play 
a  significant  role  in  promoting  the  ratification  and  effective  implementation  of  existing 
agreements and improving the coordination of international and regional arrangements. A 
majority of respondents point to the need for the EU to play an active role in the BBNJ 
negotiations and in promoting SDG 14 and other SDGs.   

Some  argue  that  the  EU  should  be  a  frontrunner  in  ensuring  a  level  playing-field  for 
maritime  stakeholders  and  supporting  innovation  and  sound  competition  between 
businesses.  It  should  take  advantage  of  its  economic  weight  to  participate  actively  in 
developing rules for emerging activities. 

Some also see the EU  as well placed to (continue to) take the lead in the fight against 
IUU  fishing  and  the  promotion  of  decent  working  conditions  in  maritime  sectors.  It 
should  continue  to  act,  notably  with  regard  to  improving  the  enforcement  of  existing 
rules. 

Expertise 

The  majority  of  respondents  see  the  added  value  of  the  EU  in  its  expertise  in  several 
areas.  They  stress  that  it  has  developed  tools  to  manage  maritime  activities  better, 
promote  sustainable  growth  and  protect  the  marine  environment.  In  particular,  they 
mention  EU  maritime  policy,  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive,  the  Maritime 
Spatial Planning Directive and the reformed common fisheries policy. 

Cooperation with non-EU partners 

Several  contributors  acknowledge  that  developing  countries  may  lack  the  capacity  to 
ensure the proper application of existing agreements and the sustainable development of 
their  maritime  activities.  They  call  on  the  EU  to  cooperate  closely  with  developing 
countries and provide them with the expertise fully to seize ocean-related opportunities 
and participate in international and regional fora. 

A  few  respondents  mention  the  need  for  cooperation  with  neighbouring  countries  on 
oceans and maritime activities. They consider that the EU neighbourhood policy could be 
useful in this area. 

5.  CONCLUSION 

The  consultation  process  including  the  listening  tour  broadly  confirmed  the  assessment 
that  action  on  international  ocean  governance  needs  to  be  more  robust  and  more 
coherent. The Commission has fed the findings into its ocean governance initiative.  

8 

 
The contributions confirm that there are gaps in international ocean governance that need 
to  be  addressed,  including  through  better  implementation,  more  support  for  developing 
countries, the closing of legal gaps and improved coordination.  

They also points to continued need for more and better research.The Ocean Governance 
Communication takes these views into account, both in the analysis of the state of play 
on international ocean governance, and in its set of proposed actions. 

The  Commission  has  therefore  proposed  14  actions  to  address  the  issues  raised  by 
stakeholders in three priority areas. In particular: 

  The  call  for  better  implementation  and  coordination  of  the  international  and 
regional  ocean  governance  framework  is  reflected  in  actions  1,  2  and  3  of  the 
Joint communication. Action 1 also aims at addressing legal gaps. 

  Cooperation  with  third  countries  is  reflected  in  most  actions,  and  notably  in 

actions 3, 4, 13 and 14. 

  Actions 6 to 11 attempt to reduce pressure on oceans, which was highlighted by 

several stakeholders. 

  Actions 12, 13 and 14 intend to strengthen international ocean research and data. 

The actions set out in the Joint Communication are integral to the EU’s response to the 
2030 Agenda, and notably SDG 14 and related SDGs, in line with the call for action from 
respondents, on the basis of these agreed commitments. 

9 

 
 
 
ANNEX: LIST OF ACRONYMS 

ABNJ: area beyond national jurisdiction 

BBNJ: biological diversity in ABNJ 

CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity 

UN DOALOS: UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea 

EMODnet: European Marine Observation and Data Network 

FAO: UN Food and Agriculture Organisation 

GFCM: General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean 

HELCOM:  Baltic  Marine  Environment  Protection  Commission  (also  known  as  the 
Helsinki Commission) 

ICES: International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 

IMO: International Maritime Organisation 

ISA: International Seabed Authority 

IUU fishing: illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing  

NEAFC: North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission 

OSPAR:  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  the  Marine  Environment  of  the  North-East 
Atlantic 

PSMA: Port State Measures Agreement and flag state performance 

RFMO: regional fisheries management organisation 

RSC: regional seas convention 

SDG: sustainable development goal 

UNEP/MAP: UN Environment Programme/Mediterranean Action Plan 

UNESCO: UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation 

10