Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Initiative for the sustainable development of the blue economy in the western Mediterranean’ (COM(2017) 183)
Date: 2017-12-06
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: Mediterranean region (EU), Union for the Mediterranean, biodiversity, environmental protection, fishery management, maritime safety, maritime transport, regional cooperation, sustainable development, youth unemployment








C_2018129EN.01008201.xml










11.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/82





Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Initiative for the sustainable development of the blue economy in the western Mediterranean’
(COM(2017) 183)
(2018/C 129/14)






Rapporteur:



Dimitris DIMITRIADIS











Consultation


Commission, 31.5.2017




Legal basis


Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


REX




Adopted in section


7.11.2017




Adopted at plenary


6.12.2017




Plenary session No


530




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


159/1/1




1.   Conclusions and recommendations









1.1.


The socially and environmentally sustainable evolution of sea basins and coastal areas, counteracting the existing disparities and ensuring the conservation of cultural and biodiversity, is of paramount importance. Moreover, it is one of the most privileged fields for setting up schemes for trans-national cooperation, within and outside the EU. In that sense, the EESC fully supports the specific initiative for the sustainable development of the blue economy in the western Mediterranean and calls on the European institutions to conclude the consultation cycle and to set up the relevant Task Force.












1.2.


The EESC considers that the success of this initiative requires good communication and an appropriate climate of cooperation between the States involved in it and, secondly, the European institutions. The Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) is invited to play an important role in efficiently linking all the parties involved.












1.3.


The EESC recognises the need to expand the initiative in the following three ways:












1.3.1.


Besides the chosen areas of action in the specific initiative — (1) a safer and more secure maritime space; (2) a smart and resilient blue economy and the focus on skills development, research and innovation; (3) better governance of the sea — the EESC suggests a further thematic broadening of the initiative in biodiversity and conservation and intercultural communication, as well as a more concrete strategy for supporting small and very small (-scale) productive activities.












1.3.2.


Moreover, the EESC thinks that it will be of great importance to include the progressive evolution of, and trans-national cooperation between, vocational and academic education systems as a horizontal area of intervention, enhancing the effectiveness of the other areas of the blue economy. In that sense, the macroregional strategy approach should be adopted.












1.3.3.


Maritime (transport) safety, security issues, sustainable economic growth and cultural and environmental conservation will not be handled efficiently in the long run, if we overlook the fact that the Mediterranean is a historical, economic and environmental unity (1). Therefore, even though the heightened geopolitical tensions and exacerbation of conflicts in the eastern part of the sea basin explain why the initiative is starting in the western Mediterranean, this should be understood as a pilot application that can provide useful experiences and best practices, to be extended into a holistic Mediterranean approach (see also points 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5).












1.4.


The EESC anticipates that the success of the initiative will require a high degree of trans-national and cross-sectional coordination. The policies and programmes for the Mediterranean implemented over the last 20 years have had poor results and have left enormous amounts of funds unused, due to the different attitudes and lack of effective coordination between the Community institutions and the public administrations in non-EU Mediterranean countries, and because in some cases bureaucracy, hidden behind the pretext of transparency, has created excessive barriers to the use of existing funds. This implies the need for a technical assistance sub-project covering the following issues:












1.4.1.


A thorough comparative analysis that will pinpoint the overlapping areas in the existing plethora of initiatives of similar (if not identical) focus (see points 3.9 and 3.10), in order to save resources and enhance the final outcomes. The EESC highlights the risk of the implementation of the initiative being delayed or even cancelled, if there is no clear definition of the medium- and long-term goals and/or no specific definition of the competences of the participating bodies and institutions.












1.4.2.


An operational master plan, which will define the competences of the Task Force for the blue economy, the specific organisational/administrative instruments, distinct roles for the regional, national and international institutions involved, in addition to a well-specified time schedule (see also points 4.5 and 4.6). Given that research institutions will have a significant role, the author(s) of this master plan should also consider the regional heterogeneity with respect to the existence of a well-experienced and competent R&D sector, as well as any existing examples of successful R&D collaboration from both shores of the Mediterranean.












1.4.3.


Planning and implementation of a sufficiently far-reaching communication strategy that will publicise the content of the Initiative for the blue economy and the resulting opportunities and prospects, in order (i) to record all the institutions and stakeholders that may be included and/or affected, especially at the regional and local level; and (ii) to circulate the relevant information among them.












1.5.


Following on from the above general recommendations, detailed conclusions and relevant proposals are as follows:












1.5.1.


The EESC agrees that, in order to succeed in the struggle against crime and terrorism, there is a need for more effective networking of the land and sea border authorities on both shores, as well as the systematic exchange and analysis of data, in close collaboration with Frontex and other global, transnational institutions like the International Maritime Organisation (IMO).












1.5.2.


Nevertheless, given the networking of land and sea border authorities, the EESC wishes to pay particular attention to the rules of ‘good governance’, and to the need to carefully consider human rights, both individual and collective (see also point 4.1).












1.5.3.


In order for spatial planning and coastal management to be efficient, the quadruple helix approach should be adopted, at trans-national and especially regional/local level. Strengthened involvement of local authorities (municipalities and regions), as well as social partners and civil society organisations, within their respective areas of activity, is required. To that end, the Commission should invite local public and private-sector stakeholders to the consultation on the Communication and on the specific areas of action — transport safety and security, fisheries, tourism and energy, social cohesion and environmental sustainability (see also points 4.2.1 and 4.3).












1.5.4.


‘Blue Growth’ (2) is one of the main long-term strategies for achieving the Europe 2020 goals of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth: fishing and aquaculture, coastal (eco-) tourism, maritime logistics (of increased significance for the Mediterranean due to present geopolitical and economic developments), marine biotechnology, ocean energy and seabed mining provide new multi-facetted entrepreneurial opportunities.












1.5.5.


Small and very small enterprises, cottage industries and family businesses with traditional organisational structures, operational schemes and activities are the backbone of local economies on both shores of the Mediterranean basin. In that sense, networking and cooperative schemes for small and micro-producers may also improve resilience and cost-competitiveness by at the same time preserving the much-needed differentiation of the goods and services they provide. Therefore, the EESC considers that, in addition to innovative and technologically advanced entrepreneurship, it is at least equally important to promote specific, well-adjusted programmes for traditional economic activities as well, taking into consideration local particularities (see points 3.6, 3.7, 4.2.2, 4.2.3 and 4.2.4).












1.5.6.


As poverty and youth unemployment may deteriorate in the years to come, particularly in the southern Mediterranean countries, ensuring better matching on the labour market may be significant, but this will surely not be sufficient in dealing with unemployment, social coherence and sustainability. In that sense, the developmental actions summarised in point 1.5.5 are essential for creating new, sustainable vacancies and for improving living standards in the specific areas. These developmental actions have to be carefully planned in cooperation with local institutions and authorities. Moreover, these localised policies are the most efficient way to reverse the push-factors of migration — therefore, they should be understood as a major instrument for dealing with rising migratory flows and the resulting socio-economic problems on both shores, as well as with the related safety and security issues and the struggle against crime and terrorism (point 1.5.1).












1.5.7.


With regard to fishing, the EESC considers that: (i) the flexibility of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) should be enhanced in order to remove barriers between levels of public administration; and (ii) the role of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) should be strengthened, in order to reverse the still unfavourable situation of the fish stocks of many species, in close cooperation and coordination with non-EU Mediterranean countries (see also points 4.3.4 and 4.3.5).




2.   Background to the Communication









2.1.


In November 2015, the ‘Ministerial Conference on Blue Economy’ (3) of the UfM adopted a Declaration for the further development of the Blue Economy (4) by strengthening investment in relevant technology, innovation, knowledge and skills, as well as maritime governance.












2.2.


In October 2016, the Foreign Affairs Ministers of the ‘5+5 Dialogue’ — Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia plus France, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Spain — encouraged further work on an initiative for the sustainable development of the blue economy, in the framework of the Union for the Mediterranean (5).












2.3.


This Communication (6) and the accompanying Framework for Action (SWD(2017) 130) (7) stem from that request. They set out to utilise the opportunities and face the challenges in a region that demands multilateral coordination and international cooperation that has to extend beyond the borders of the European Union (EU).












2.4.


Moreover, the EC initiative that underlies this Communication builds on the long-standing experience with sea basin and macro-regional strategies — see for instance the Atlantic Strategy, the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea and the EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (8). It also benefits from the regional dialogue taking place on the blue economy in the framework of the UfM (mentioned above), the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (9), the Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and Coastal Region of the Mediterranean (10), as well as the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (11) and the efforts made to implement the Mediterranean Strategy for Sustainable Development (12).












2.5.


Furthermore, this Communication is in accordance with the evolving scientific and socio-political discussion worldwide. The blue economy is already one of the most important contemporary issues; first because of the importance of sea and ocean assets and the respective potential for sea- and ocean-related economic growth and, second, due to the fact that sea and ocean sustainability is the major parameter for global environmental preservation (13).












2.6.


The Communication recognises the need for increased safety and security, sustainable economic growth and jobs, as well as the preservation of ecosystems and biodiversity in the western Mediterranean. In other words it wants to contribute to the promotion of socially and environmentally sustainable economic development in the sea basin, the northern and southern coastal areas, the ports and the cities that constitute an integrated system for the mobility of people and commodities, going far beyond the existing administrative and political discontinuities. To that end it outlines three areas of challenges:












2.6.1.



Safety and security of maritime activities: according to the Communication the western Mediterranean has traffic congestion areas which will be facing increased risks (in terms of transport accidents) because of future geopolitical and economic developments like the doubling of the Suez Canal. On the other hand, security issues are already significant — illegal migration is an indication of this — while the current socioeconomic and demographic trends along with the climate change effects are expected to amplify competition for resources and geopolitical instability.












2.6.2.



High youth unemployment rates versus an ageing maritime workforce: the Communication recognises a well-known ‘employment paradox’, namely an untapped workforce on the one hand and unfilled job vacancies on the other, especially concentrated in blue economy sectors and industries. The Commission believes that the current situation is mainly (if not solely) the result of a mismatch. Therefore, it focuses on the lack of dialogue and cooperation between industry and the educational system.












2.6.3.



Diverging and competing interests at sea: according to the data presented in the Communication, the western Mediterranean has the greatest biodiversity in the entire basin. At the same time it concentrates approximately half of Mediterranean GDP from mainly maritime activities — tourism, aquaculture, fisheries and transport — which leads to growing coastal urbanisation, over-exploitation of fish stocks, marine pollution and wider conservation issues. Given the trans-national nature of the interests involved and the serious socio-economic disparities, these factors fully justify the Communication’s view that the area is ‘a hotspot of economic, demographic and environmental pressures’.












2.7.


Overall, the Commission recognises that the existing framework of cooperation schemes on both shores of the sea basin have not proved efficient enough. In that sense, the initiative addresses an existing need. Nevertheless, success in dealing with this depends on many general and specific amendments and adjustments, many of which we will try to present in the following paragraphs.




3.   General comments









3.1.


The EESC supports the Commission’s efforts to consolidate and develop an environmentally sustainable production and consumption chain, e.g. through the use of clean forms of energy for desalination, the promotion of energy efficiency and clean energy more generally, and the promotion and strengthening of green freight and shipping. This is of particular importance given the enormous potential for entrepreneurial activities in the area of interest.












3.2.


The term ‘blue economy’ refers to the socially and environmentally sustainable evolution of sea basins and coastal areas, counteracting the existing disparities and ensuring the conservation of cultural and biodiversity, which is especially crucial in the light of the history, and with a view to the future, of the Mediterranean. In that sense, the chosen areas of action in the Communication — (1) maritime safety and security; (2) a smart and resilient economy; (3) better governance of the sea — although important, may be ineffectively restrictive with respect to the needs of the basin. The EESC suggests a further broadening of the initiative in the areas of biodiversity and conservation, intercultural communication, as well as a more concrete strategy for supporting small and very small (-scale) productive activities, for instance in fishing etc.












3.3.


Maritime (transport) safety but especially security issues, although very important, cannot be limited to the western Mediterranean. On the contrary, the geopolitical history and the current deterioration, along with the exploding refugee crisis in the eastern part of the sea basin, point to the need for a holistic Mediterranean approach to dealing with these issues.












3.4.


This also applies to the rest of the defined areas of interest — sustainable economic growth, cultural and environmental conservation issues, etc. The Mediterranean should not be divided into western and eastern. Even if this has to be the case for administrative reasons and for short-term tactics, in the long run, strategic planning has to deal with the basin as a whole.












3.5.


The EESC fully understands that, given the heightened geopolitical tensions and the exacerbation of conflicts in the eastern Mediterranean, starting with the initiative for the western Mediterranean might be an easier, more realistic and more quickly accomplished approach. But, if this is not followed by an analogous initiative for the eastern Mediterranean, there is a significant risk that the goals set may not be accomplished. The same problems, but with much more tension due to geopolitical conditions, are faced by the eastern Mediterranean, for which analogous rules and policies should be scheduled and applied.












3.6.


Although the lack of ‘dialogue’ between industry on the one hand, and academia and the R&D sector on the other, may be an important consideration when dealing with unemployment (especially in the long run and in times of economic growth), it is inefficiently one-sided to focus only on this matter. On the contrary, the existing economic disequilibria (with the lack of new job vacancies and high unemployment being a major aspect) and the widening socio-economic disparities in the western Mediterranean sea basin should be addressed in the light of the persistent systemic crisis in the northern part of the region and the general lack of willingness to make productive investments.












3.7.


Whenever economic activity strongly interacts with conservation issues, where there are (macro-) economic externalities (either demand or supply-driven), and where the sum of free individual choices generates socio-economic and environmental sustainability issues, there is a need for effective policy intervention, which, in times of intensified internationalisation, has to be cross-nationally adjusted. In cases of over-exploitation of fish stocks, maritime pollution, over-urbanisation and inefficiently growing agglomerations, persistent economic/financial crises and growing trans-regional and social disparities within and outside the EU, the doctrine of ‘freeing market forces’ is not enough.












3.8.


In that sense, the recognised shortcomings in the existing policy-making framework in the area, which are mainly due to the lack of cooperation between the different countries — the Communication refers to these when discussing the third group of challenges and gaps for the diverging and competing interests — are an extremely important factor when dealing with both the environmental and the socio-economic disputes in the region. Existing and future bilateral agreements between neighbouring EU and southern Mediterranean countries should be effectively respected. The absence of a united and therefore strong EU voice on foreign policy issues may not help in this respect, yet, on the other hand, the countries on the southern shore of the basin should expect the EU to be their main (if not only) partner, with a strong and sincere interest in promoting the common prospects for sustainable development and prosperity in the area.












3.9.


Apart from the existing lack of cross-national cooperation, another policy coordination need results from the confusing plethora of initiatives and platforms of similar (if not identical) focus. The Communication we are commenting on refers for instance to the EU Blue Growth Strategy and the Maritime Policy (14), the EU Strategy for more jobs and growth in coastal and maritime tourism (15), the BLUEMED Initiative (16) and FAO Blue Growth (17). Moreover, there are other activities that include both shores of the basin, such as the Action Plan for Sustainable Consumption and Production and the Regional Transport Action Plan for the Mediterranean Region (18).












3.10.


In the light of the broad range of existing initiatives of similar orientation, the EESC calls for a thorough comparative analysis that will pinpoint the overlapping areas, making it possible to use the initiatives in a way that saves resources and enhances the final outcomes. Best practices applied in other macro-regional strategies (also in the Baltic Sea) and initiatives (like the Smart Islands Initiative) (19), should be given closer study and consideration.












3.11.


Unrealistic requirements that restrict the effectiveness of European programmes in the Mediterranean, on the one hand, and on the other hand bureaucracy resulting from a phobia of misspending EU funds, as well as corruption and inefficiency in parts of/cases involving the public administration on both shores of the basin have led to serious shortcomings in the take-up of existing European funds for the Mediterranean.












3.12.


On the other hand, the UfM has so far not succeeded in playing the role it should, despite the different projects that have been announced. Therefore, its intervention in the region has to be further strengthened. Blue economy initiatives could be of great importance for general prosperity, but they need to be effectively linked with the existing structures and frameworks.




4.   Specific comments

4.1.   A safer and more secure maritime space









4.1.1.


The Communication focuses on two specific areas of intervention: (1) cooperation between coastguards; and (2) data-sharing and administrative collaboration for enhancing capacity for responding to and countering marine pollution from accidents.












4.1.2.


The EESC considers the strengthening of networking and hence cooperation between the land and sea border guard and control authorities on both shores, with the assistance of Frontex, to be essential. Systematic exchange and analysis of information by a supranational data analysis centre is also necessary, in order to succeed in the struggle against crime and terrorism. Nevertheless, the rules of ‘good governance’ as well as human rights, both individual and collective, have to be carefully considered, especially given the negative experience of specific regimes.












4.1.3.


The EESC considers that these two well-defined approaches are an effective way of dealing with the issue of a safer and more secure maritime space. Analysis of the underlying quantitative targets needs to be improved, however, for the continuous surveillance and evaluation of this priority, and efforts should be made to coordinate and collaborate with global, transnational institutions like the IMO (20).




4.2.   A smart and resilient blue economy









4.2.1.


The EESC is disappointed that the social partners and civil society organisations are at best under-represented (if not entirely absent) in the Communication, although these institutions could be extremely useful in planning, as well as in implementing specific policies and programmes, due to their experience in dealing with critical situations and their proven ability to intervene directly in, and solve, socio-economic problems.












4.2.2.


Poverty and youth unemployment may worsen in the years to come due to climate change, which will particularly affect conditions in the southern Mediterranean countries. The Commission, in cooperation with local authorities and social partners, should undertake developmental actions at local level — e.g. encouragement of SMEs, support for cottage industries, special actions to support the primary sector and promote local agricultural and fishery products in European markets, etc. — along with appropriate improvements in local education and vocational training, to improve the living standards of residents and prevent migration. The blue economy can provide a decent income to thousands of families through modern, small-scale and high-quality approaches to fishing, conservation and the supply of fisheries products.












4.2.3.


Family businesses, small and very small enterprises with traditional organisational structures, operational schemes and activities are the backbone of local economies on both sides of the Mediterranean basin, especially in the sectors and industries that constitute the blue economy. For this reason, the EESC considers that, in addition to the initiatives to support innovative and technologically advanced entrepreneurship, it is at least equally important to promote programmes for traditional economic activities as well.












4.2.4.


In that sense, the EESC argues that the second group of actions in this priority, dealing with maritime clustering, has to be reinforced. Networking and cooperative schemes for small and micro-producers may improve resilience and cost-competitiveness by at the same time preserving the much-needed differentiation of the goods and services they provide. Clustering, on the other hand, may be effective in specific sectors where capital concentration is essential — like that of renewable energy and freight. Nevertheless, the EESC considers the ideas of clustering, the creation of incubators and the promotion of business plans through business angel services as being quite premature even for the more advanced economies in the EU, which points to the need to plan well-specified support services, especially for the small producers, craftsmen and traders on the southern shore of the basin.












4.2.5.


Moreover, in accordance with the 4th strategic priority of the aforementioned recently published report of WWF on reviving the Economy of the Mediterranean Sea, the redirection of public and private financing into unlocking the potential of natural assets in the area is both, possible and necessary. It can generate income, while taking into account social and environmental sustainability, via carbon finance mechanisms such as the Payment for Ecosystem Service (PES) (21). For instance, the Mediterranean seagrass beds are among the most efficient systems for sequestering carbon, which means that public and private investment in this direction may combine strengthening local economic growth with contributing to the global climate strategy.




4.3.   Better governance of the sea









4.3.1.


In order to succeed with the first group of actions — spatial planning and coastal management — the quadruple helix approach should be adopted (22). Strengthened involvement of local authorities (municipalities and regions), academia and R&D, social partners, as well as civil society organisations, within their respective areas of activity, is required, due to their better knowledge of local socio-economic and environmental conditions and also because of their administrative flexibility.












4.3.2.


In that sense, organised economic and social interests can and should play a decisive role in the socio-economic development of the Mediterranean. The Commission, in cooperation with the UfM, should invite private-sector stakeholders to the consultation on the Communication, guaranteeing their substantive contribution to planning and thereby more efficient involvement in the implementation of relevant programmes and activities. With regard to fishing, measures should be adopted to reinforce joint management schemes by ensuring that stakeholders are efficiently involved in the decision-making process.












4.3.3.


Emphasis should be placed on the lack of cooperation between European and non-European countries in the western Mediterranean, especially with respect to security and immigration issues that affect economic development.












4.3.4.


Fishing is a key factor in the economic activity of the Mediterranean and the second most important source of wealth, following tourism. The EESC agrees that there is a need to plan specific actions in this industry — of the kind set out in the fourth group of actions in this priority. The programmes should aim to reduce over-fishing and develop support services and funding to ensure the survival of small-scale fisheries and the parallel development of coastal communities. The flexibility of the EMFF (23) needs to be enhanced in order to remove barriers between levels of public administration when defining effective initiatives.












4.3.5.


The EESC considers that the role of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) should be strengthened, in order to ensure that necessary, consistent and compatible administrative measures are adopted, aimed at reversing the unfavourable situation of fish stocks, in close cooperation and coordination with non-EU Mediterranean countries.












4.4.


The EESC has repeatedly pointed out that the policies and programmes for the Mediterranean implemented over the last twenty years have had poor results and have left enormous amounts of funds unused, due to the different attitudes and lack of effective coordination between the responsible Community institutions and the national governments and public administrations in non-EU Mediterranean countries. Strong support and technical assistance in this regard are urgently needed to improve the level of response of non-EU institutions to the requirements of European funding, as is greater adaptability on the part of the Commission.












4.5.


The effective implementation of the actions set out in the Communication is particularly threatened by cumbersome bureaucracy, as is clear from the chapter on ‘Governance and Implementation’, but also by the involvement of completely different institutions with different structures and attitudes, such as the ministerial meetings, the Commission, the UfM etc. An operational plan is needed with specific organisational/administrative instruments and distinct roles.












4.6.


The EESC considers that the Task Force for the blue economy, along with a clearly defined action and competence plan, should be set up immediately, linked to the working groups of the UfM. The Task Force should have the necessary flexibility to react quickly to emergencies — natural and environmental disasters, etc. — but also to fulfil specific tasks and responsibilities. The EESC is cautious in its assessment of the effectiveness of the Task Force, which will depend on its membership and on the direct involvement of the European institutions and non-EU national governments. Therefore, the EESC considers that the Task Force should be carefully designed from the beginning, with a well-defined organisational chart and an efficient system of processes and procedures, as well as a competently designed, specific business plan.





Brussels, 6 December 2017.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Georges DASSIS




(1)  In the recently published WWF Report — ‘Reviving the Economy of the Mediterranean Sea — Actions for a sustainable future’ — the authors argue for both first the necessity of a holistic approach and second the fact that ‘the Mediterranean Sea is a major contributor to the regional GDP and that its natural resources represent a huge asset for the Blue Economy not only for the region but also globally’.
(See page 7 of the report, http://www.wwf.gr/images/pdfs/Reviving_Mediterranean_Sea_Economy_Full%20rep_Lowres.pdf).

(2)  https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/blue_growth_en

(3)  For the agenda of the ‘Ministerial Conference on Blue Economy’ of the UfM held on 17 November 2015 see http://ufmsecretariat.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Agenda_UfM_Ministerial-on-Blue-Economy_MARE-D1.pdf

(4)  See http://ufmsecretariat.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015-11-17-declaration-on-blue-economy_en.pdf

(5)  For a brief overview of the decisions adopted by the Foreign Affairs Meeting on 28 October 2016, see http://ufmsecretariat.org/foreign-affairs-ministers-of-the-55-dialogue-discuss-pressing-regional-challenges-and-highlight-the-positive-contribution-of-ufm-activities-to-the-enhancement-of-regional-cooperation/ .For the history of the ‘5+5 dialogue’ from 2003 see http://westmediterraneanforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/131017_chronology5+51.pdf

(6)  https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/sites/maritimeaffairs/files/com-2017-183_en.pdf

(7)  https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/sites/maritimeaffairs/files/swd-2017-130_en.pdf

(8)  For the three EU regional strategies see the following websites: http://www.atlanticstrategy.eu/ for the Atlantic Strategy, https://www.balticsea-region-strategy.eu/ for the EU strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) and http://www.adriatic-ionian.eu/ for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (EUSAIR).

(9)  http://www.fao.org/gfcm/en/

(10)  The Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution (the Barcelona Convention) was adopted on 16 February 1976 by the Conference of Plenipotentiaries of the Coastal States of the Mediterranean Region for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea, held in Barcelona. The original Convention has been modified by amendments adopted on 10 June 1995 (UNEP(OCA)/MED IG.6/7). It entered into force on 9 July 2004.

(11)  https://www.un.org/pga/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/08/120815_outcome-document-of-Summit-for-adoption-of-the-post-2015-development-agenda.pdf

(12)  https://planbleu.org/sites/default/files/upload/files/smdd_uk.pdf

(13)  See in ‘Reviving the Economy of the Mediterranean Sea — Actions for a sustainable future’, WWF Report with the support of Boston Consulting Group, 2017, http://www.wwf.gr/images/pdfs/Reviving_Mediterranean_Sea_Economy_Full%20rep_Lowres.pdf

(14)  See for instance the latest report on the Blue Growth Strategy — SWD(2017) 128 final — at https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/sites/maritimeaffairs/files/swd-2017-128_en.pdf

(15)  COM/2014/086 final.

(16)  https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/content/bluemed-initiative-blue-growth-and-jobs-mediterranean_en

(17)  For more details on the Blue Growth Initiative of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN see http://www.fao.org/3/a-mk541e/mk541e02.pdf

(18)  See http://www.unep.org/ourplanet/june-2017/unep-publications/regional-action-plan-sustainable-consumption-and-production and https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/themes/international/european_neighbourhood_policy/mediterranean_partnership/docs/rtap2014_2020_en.pdf respectively.

(19)  http://www.smartislandsinitiative.eu/en/index.php

(20)  http://www.imo.org/en/Pages/Default.aspx

(21)  PES occurs when a beneficiary or user of an ecosystem service makes a direct or indirect payment to the provider of that service. In the case of the Mediterranean basin, PES can be also anticipated as an environmental justification for the transfer of funds from the northern to the southern shore.

(22)  See in http://cor.europa.eu/en/documentation/studies/Documents/quadruple-helix.pdf

(23)  See https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/emff_en for more information.