ENVE-VI/001
112th plenary session, 3-4 June 2015
DRAFT OPINION
Better protecting the marine environment
_____________
Rapporteur: Hermann Kuhn (DE/PES)
Member of the Bremen City Parliament
_____________
Deadline for tabling amendments:
3 p.m. (Brussels time) on 18 May 2015. Amendments must be submitted using the new online tool
for tabling amendments (available through the Members' Portal at http://cor.europa.eu/members). All
amendments already duly tabled to this draft opinion before it was deferred from the April to the June
plenary session remain valid.
Number of signatures required: 32
COR-2014-07256-00-02-PAC-TRA (EN) 1/11
— Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 101 — 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel — BELGIQUE/BELGIË —
Tel. +32 22822211 — Fax +32 22822325 — Internet: http://www.cor.europa.eu
EN
Reference document
Own-initiative opinion
COR-2014-07256-00-02-PAC-TRA (EN) 2/11
Draft opinion of the European Committee of the Regions –
Better protecting the marine environment
I.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
1.
underlines the central importance of an integrated maritime policy for the European Union.
Europe's maritime areas and its coasts are central to people's well-being and prosperity – they
are Europe's trade routes, climate regulator, sources of food, energy and resources, and a much–
valued location for residence and recreation. A healthy marine environment is a key element for
ensuring the sustainability of life outside this environment too1;
2.
is deeply concerned that Europe's seas are not in a healthy state, in particular, that many fish
stocks are still being exploited above the maximum sustainable yield, and that the inputs and
concentrations of nutrients and hazardous materials and waste, as well as the quantity of non–
native species and non-material inputs (noise, light and heat), all too often exceed
environmentally acceptable levels; it is likewise concerned that climate change is increasingly
affecting marine and coastal ecosystems;
3.
is aware that, at present, seas are subject to ever-increasing pressure from a wide array of
economic activities and that their basic conditions will be at long-term risk if decisive steps are
not taken to achieve "good environmental status". Failure to protect the seas would be costly for
European societies in every respect2;
4.
underlines that future generations are also entitled to a biologically diverse and dynamic marine
environment that is safe, clean, healthy and productive;
5.
therefore reiterates its positive assessment of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD,
2008) as an environmental pillar of the EU's Integrated Maritime Policy, which makes the
achievement of "good environmental status" by 2020 a binding target3;
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) – implementation status
6.
1
2
3
acknowledges the strenuous efforts made to date by the Member States within a tight timeframe
to secure a good environmental status, especially with regard to initial assessment, the definition
of good environmental status, the setting of environmental targets and the creation and
implementation of supervision programmes;
COM(2007) 575 final.
OJ C 206, 29.8.2006, p. 5.
OJ C 206, 29.8.2006, p. 5; OJ C 172, 5.7.2008, p. 34.
COR-2014-07256-00-02-PAC-TRA (EN) 3/11
7.
is nevertheless concerned that the Commission considers the targets set by the Member States to
be generally lacking in ambition, vague and inconsistent, making it very difficult to know how
much still needs to be done to meet the target4;
8.
welcomes the Common Implementation Strategy pursued by the Commission and the Member
States within the Marine Strategy Coordination Group and expects their work to give rise to a
better common understanding of the implementation of the MSFD; calls on the Commission to
present, as soon as possible, its revision of the criteria and methodological standards on good
environmental status (2010/477/EU);
9.
points out that, under the MSFD, Member States currently have until the end of 2015 to draw up
programmes of measures, which must be implemented from 2016 onwards; firmly supports the
Commission's call for a political step-change in marine protection and is convinced that
consultation on the programmes of measures must be used to this end5;
10.
calls on the Member States to maintain a strict interpretation of the exception clauses set out in
the MSFD for the purposes of the future implementation of the directive, so that attainment of
good environmental status is not jeopardised;
11.
stresses that, while success in achieving good environmental status of the seas by 2020 will
yield major benefits for the economy and living conditions in coastal regions as well as regions
far from the coast, any failure could also result in significant adverse economic consequences.
This is one reason why all local and regional authorities must be involved in framing
programmes of measures and contribute to this process;
Knowledge
12.
notes that the Member States have already made considerable efforts in inspecting, analysing
and assessing data on seas; points out, however, that scientific understanding of the condition of
the seas and the exposure pathways of man-made pollution remains patchy6;
13.
urges that incomplete knowledge not be allowed to impede the framing of concrete, ambitious
programmes of measures;
14.
strongly endorses the Commission's proposals to further develop coordination between the
Member States in the procurement, analysis and assessment of scientific information on the
marine environment at Union and regional levels, in particular promoting the pooling of
information between the European Environment Agency, Regional Sea Conventions and the
Member States, and better tie-ins with existing assessments under other EU legislation;
4
5
6
COM(2014) 97 final.
COM(2014) 97 final.
OJ C 62, 2.3.2013, p. 44.
COR-2014-07256-00-02-PAC-TRA (EN) 4/11
15.
calls on all parties concerned to make greater use of the resources available under EU
programmes for the 2020-2014 programming period (especially EMFF, Horizon 2020, Interreg)
in implementing projects to research the marine environment;
16.
takes the view that private stakeholders too, as part of the authorisation of offshore operations
for example, should in future increasingly be required to gather information on the health of the
seas and make this available to be integrated into other data collections and assessments for the
purposes of marine protection;
Governance
17.
is aware that framing programmes of measures for the MSFD falls within the remit and
responsibility of the Member States; is convinced, however, that the only way to protect the seas
is for all tiers of government, business and civil society to pull together, and for this reason the
Committee addresses its calls and expectations to all the parties involved;
18.
is pleased that the Commission wishes to continue playing an active part in analysing and
assessing implementation in the Member States; encourages it to play a supporting, coordinating
and stimulating role to promote the integration of all Union regulation relevant to marine
protection, including support programmes, and to encourage compliance with them;
19.
would like the Commission to submit regular assessments on MSFD implementation, including
in particular the identification of best practices; in order to facilitate the sharing of local
solutions, also offers to make available the existing common Technical Platform for cooperation
on the environment between the European Committee of the Regions and the Commission;
20.
points out that local and regional authorities have a wealth of experience and knowledge, since
they have to deal with the consequences of the condition of the sea; therefore calls for them to
be closely and appropriately involved in framing national programmes of measures;
21.
recommends taking account of the principles of participation, cooperation, transparency,
inclusion and policy coherence, within the meaning of the "rules of good governance", when
developing programmes of measures;
22.
expects Member States to turn to the Union should the solutions to problems fall within the
Union's competence and expects the Union then to take steps to find such solutions;
23.
is concerned by the Commission's statements to the effect that until now cooperation within
regional sea basins has been lacking; is fully convinced that joint regional planning of measures
for sea basins will be the key to ensuring shared success. Water has no borders7;
24.
welcomes the major contribution made by Regional Sea Conventions to marine protection; is of
the view that these agreements might also be suitable platforms for drawing up regionally
7
OJ C 104, 2.4.2011, p. 47.
COR-2014-07256-00-02-PAC-TRA (EN) 5/11
coordinated measures among the Member States and calls for local and regional authorities to
be involved in this work. EGTCs could also make a contribution to regional cooperation here;
25.
suggests that the new procedures for cross-border maritime spatial planning be used in this
connection, not least in order to be able to influence the circumstances of increased pressure on
the seas in line with the objectives of marine protection; in this, consideration should also be
given to a procedure for compulsory compensatory measures at sea8;
26.
notes that implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive will also put the EU and
its Member States in a better position to meet their obligations under international agreements;
27.
suggests that the Commission should draw up proposals as to how to further the objectives of
the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in the waters of the Member States' overseas
territories and the areas of the Mediterranean and Black Sea that are not directly within its
scope;
28.
believes that the EU's macro-regional and sea basin strategies provide a good framework for
integrating marine protection into a more comprehensive regional cooperation set-up9;
General requirements for programmes of measures
29.
calls on the Member States, when drawing up and implementing the programmes of measures,
to take account of the principles of the ecosystem approach as well as the precautionary and
polluter pays principles;
30.
points out that a wide range of EU rules and policies are designed to have a direct or indirect
impact on the protection of the marine environment. In particular, the rules of the Common
Agricultural Policy, Common Fisheries Policy, Water Framework Directive, Habitats and Birds
Directives (Natura 2000), biodiversity strategy and climate policy must therefore be consistent
with the programmes of measures pursued by the Member States;
31.
proposes that the following measures be vigorously pursued, while allowing for the different
starting points and particular circumstances of the various maritime regions and ensuring
proportionality, cost-effectiveness and feasibility;
Measures to protect biodiversity, food webs and the seabed (order in accordance with the MSFD
descriptors (D) - here D1, D4, D6)
32.
8
9
emphasises the importance of the marine protected areas designated under international,
European and national agreements. for protecting and maintaining marine biological diversity;
OJ C 415, 20.11.2014, p. 9.
OJ C 391, 18.12.2012, p. 1.
COR-2014-07256-00-02-PAC-TRA (EN) 6/11
33.
is convinced that the designation of marine protected areas must be followed by the
establishment of clear protection and management strategies which ensure that protected areas
are protected and maintained, guaranteeing that they yield environmental benefits; believes that
restrictions on fishing and marine mineral mining in such areas (including no–take-areas) are
needed to ensure that the level of protection of marine protected areas is not jeopardised, but
improved; recommends that the imposition of any such restrictions occur after dialogue with the
sectors concerned;
34.
highlights the need to review whether existing marine protected areas form a consistent,
representative network which provides appropriate coverage of marine ecosystems in all their
diversity; is convinced that the cross-border regional establishment and management of such
areas is more cost–effective and environmentally more beneficial than unilateral national
measures;
35.
calls for new marine protected areas to be designated where this is needed to achieve good
environmental status10;
36.
furthermore, considers more rigorous research is needed into the potential impact of maritime
operations on the seabed (fisheries, but also the laying of pipelines, cables, etc.), so that
standards and rules can be framed;
Measures to protect against non-indigenous species (D2)
37.
points out the environmental and economic risks posed by the spread of invasive alien species in
Europe's seas; for this reason, welcomes in principle the regulation on invasive alien species and
expects in particular that the observing and, where applicable, blocking of man–made
immigration routes of invasive species to make a positive contribution to achieving good
environmental status;
38.
calls on Member States to compile national inventories of alien and invasive species, agreed
among themselves on a regional basis, and use these in working together across borders to
combat them;
39.
supports the European Union's ratification and implementation of the IMO's Ballast Water
Management Convention;
40.
requests that only indigenous species be bred in open aquaculture systems;
Measures to protect commercially exploited species (D3)
41.
10
points out that for many coastal regions in the EU fishing still carries considerable economic
and cultural weight; recognises the multi-facetted nature of fisheries in the EU and stresses that
the Common Fisheries Policy must bring their various economic needs into line with the
environmental requirements of the marine environment;
OJ C 172, 5.7.2008, p. 34.
COR-2014-07256-00-02-PAC-TRA (EN) 7/11
42.
therefore welcomes the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy and now expects the newly
defined objectives, in particular the restrictions on use, to be set in such a way that the
populations of harvested species are maintained or restored above the level of the maximum
sustainable yield, and that landing requirements are met and monitored effectively11;
43.
urges that the EMFF funds be used in such a way that they do not contradict the MSFD
objectives; among other things is in favour of promoting the use of new selective fishing
techniques to reduce bycatch mortality (including the bycatch mortality of birds) and to protect
seabed habitats;
Measures against eutrophication (D5)
44.
stresses that the over-enrichment of nutrients in different regions of Europe's maritime waters
poses a serious environmental problem;
45.
believes that the use of fertilisers should be significantly reduced as part of a forthcoming
review of the nitrate directive and its implementation; the use of alternative, less harmful
fertiliser methods should be promoted under the Common Agricultural Policy;
46.
calls for a substantial expansion of the funding for organic farming so that it accounts for more
than 10% of farming by 2020;
47.
calls for the mandatory imposition of a ban on farming and fertilisation in the vicinity of water
bodies, so that nutrient inputs into these and ultimately into the marine environment can be cut
significantly;
48.
calls for the authorisation of open aquaculture systems in European marine waters to be made
conditional on the nutrient inputs they cause not jeopardising the objective of good
environmental status12;
49.
takes the view that SECA (Sulphur Emission Control Area) agreements must, as a matter of
priority, be broadened to cover all EU marine regions; expects the Commission and Member
States to energetically pursue efforts to establish NECA (NOx Emission Control Areas) areas
too;
Measures to reduce contaminants (D8, D9)
50.
11
12
notes that the input of a variety of harmful substances, individually and cumulatively, affects
and endangers marine life and also reaches humans via the food chain; for this reason, considers
as fundamental the goal of a zero input of such substances by 2020 and the implementation of
agreements already concluded;
OJ C 225, 27.7.2012, p. 20.
OJ C 391, 18.12.2012, p. 84.
COR-2014-07256-00-02-PAC-TRA (EN) 8/11
51.
points out that the increasing pollution of the coastline by paraffin wax from the flushing of
tanks at sea means that a ban on this kind of discharge at sea is urgently necessary;
52.
calls for a revision of the limit values for oily waste water (from shipping, oil production,
industry, etc.);
53.
repeats its call for a European action plan for the disposal (primarily recovery and destruction)
of munitions on the sea floor, which are presenting an increasing danger to shipping, offshore
activities and tourism;
54.
reiterates its position that sea pollution must be reduced at source (production and
consumption); believes, however, that measures such as the "fourth phase" should be promoted
in sewage treatment plants which are capable of reducing micro-pollutants in wastewater. At the
same time, the spreading of sewage sludge on agricultural land must be stopped;
55.
points out that single-hull tankers are still endangering European waters and calls for tight
oversight and even stricter rules to eliminate these risks;
56.
is convinced that emergency port strategies should be drawn up to protect damaged ships,
primarily those carrying hazardous cargo, and that adequate response capacities should be
ensured to prevent shipping accidents caused by already damaged ships, not least in the vicinity
of the growing number of off-shore wind farms. Regional, cross-border coordination is essential
here;
Measures for reducing marine waste (D10)
57.
calls for a general ban on waste disposal at sea – in principle incineration too, since this cannot
be monitored. The costs of on-shore disposal should, as far as possible, be included in port
charges on the basis of a flat rate;
58.
proposes promoting the efforts that fishermen make in the "fishing for litter" campaign,
especially by means of free waste disposal in ports and differentiated port charges;
59.
calls for greater efforts to avoid production of plastics and to recycle them, given the dramatic
pollution of the seas with plastic waste; expects the Member States above all to be vigorous in
implementing the new rules to restrict and even ban plastic bags13;
60.
supports activities such as "Coastal Cleanup Day" specifically on the coasts and beaches of
Europe, which, in addition to the direct benefits, could also help to raise awareness and educate
people about the environment;
61.
recognises the serious impact of micro-plastics on marine organisms; calls, therefore, as a first
step, for an EU-wide ban on the use of micro-plastics in cosmetics and cleaning products;
13
OJ C 356, 5.12.2013, p. 30; OJ C 280, 27.9.2013, p. 44.
COR-2014-07256-00-02-PAC-TRA (EN) 9/11
Measures for reducing the introduction of energy into the sea (D11)
62.
points out that the introduction of energy (noise, light, heat and radiation) into the seas clearly
has an impact on the marine environment, the consequences of which urgently require more
thorough investigation;
63.
is of the opinion that, following the establishment of international criteria and standards for
noise mapping, a noise register should be set up for the European Union's maritime waters. The
aim should be to develop legal standards and limit values to reduce noise in the marine
environment;
64.
calls for the cessation of particularly noise-intensive exploitation in protected areas (including
buffer zones), which has been shown to have a negative impact on individual species;
65.
supports the promotion of alternatives when carrying out seismic exploration and setting up
offshore wind farms;
Final remarks
66.
underlines that public information and dialogue is the key to the success of marine protection;
therefore calls on the Member States to allow enough time and resources for public discussion
when drawing up their programmes of measures and offers the cooperation of local and regional
authorities in this connection;
67.
continues to support the implementation of the "European Maritime Day" (EMD) and expects
that, in the coming years, the EMD will contribute to the successful implementation of the
MSFD as a forum for scientific and political exchange with local and regional authorities too.
Brussels, ...
COR-2014-07256-00-02-PAC-TRA (EN) 10/11
II.
PROCEDURE
Title
Better protecting the marine environment
Reference document
Legal basis
Procedural basis
Date of Council/EP referral/Date of
Commission letter
President's decision
Commission responsible
Own-initiative opinion
Article 307(4) TFEU
Article 41 b) ii of the Rules of Procedure
2 December 2014
Commission for the Environment, Climate Change and
Energy (ENVE)
Hermann Kuhn (DE/PES)
Rapporteur
4 December 2014
Analysis
3 March 2015
Discussed in commission
3 March 2015
Date adopted by commission
Result of the vote in commission Unanimity
(majority, unanimity)
Scheduled for 3/4 June 2015
Date adopted in plenary
Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the
Previous Committee opinions
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) and on the Communication
from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament - Thematic Strategy on the Protection and
Conservation of the Marine Environment
CdR 46/200614
N/A
Date of subsidiarity monitoring
consultation
_____________
14
OJ C 206, 29.8.2006, p. 5-9.
COR-2014-07256-00-02-PAC-TRA (EN) 11/11