2 Strategy for the protection and conservation
of the marine environment
| (a)
(26969)
13700/05
+ ADD 1
COM(05) 504
(b)
(26971)
13759/05
COM(05) 505
+ ADD 1
|
Commission Communication: Thematic strategy on the protection and conservation of the marine environment
Draft Directive establishing a Framework for Community Action in the field of Marine Environmental Policy (Marine Strategy Directive)
Commission Staff Working Document: Annex to the Commission Communication "Thematic Strategy on the protection and conservation of the marine environment" and to the draft Directive establishing a Framework for Community Action in the field of Marine Environmental Policy (Marine Strategy Directive)
|
| Legal base | (a) —
(b) Article 175(1) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Documents originated | 24 October 2005
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 3 November 2005
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 14 November 2005
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information awaited
|
Background
2.1 According to the Commission, the marine environment is under
significant pressure, with depleted fish stocks and harmful algal
blooms being just two of the most significant examples of "accelerating,
abrupt and potentially irreversible" changes. It notes that
these concerns were reflected in a Communication[2]
it put forward in October 2002, and in the commitment which the
Community made in its Sixth Environmental Action Programme to
develop a thematic strategy for the protection and conservation
of the marine environment. That latter commitment is now reflected
in these two documents, which comprise respectively a Commission
Communication outlining the elements in such a strategy and a
draft Directive which seeks to establish a framework for Community
action in this field.
The current documents
(A) THE THEMATIC STRATEGY
2.2 The Commission says that the principal threats to the marine
environment include the effects of climate change; pollution from
land-based, offshore and sea-borne sources; commercial fishing;
the introduction of non-native (exotic) species; nutrient enrichment
(eutrophication); and illegal radioactive discharges. It adds
that, if these are not addressed, the capacity of the relevant
sectors to make a strong contribution to the Lisbon Agenda will
be undermined, with the impact being felt most severely by tourism
and the fishing industry. It suggests that there are institutional
barriers to improved protection, namely the fact that at both
Community and national level measures which may to some extent
contribute to that aim are sectoral, and hence not specifically
designed for the purpose; that many of the regional seas in Europe
are the subject of international conventions which have few enforcement
powers; and that, at global level, there is little articulation
between the various strategies, conventions and agreements which
are in place. It therefore believes that a strong common policy
on marine protection will complement and bolster the current patchwork
of arrangements by providing a legally enforceable framework.
The Commission also suggests that much depends upon the existence
of high quality information, and that a new approach is needed,
which would identify and fill gaps in knowledge, reduce the duplication
of data collection and research, and promote the dissemination
and use of marine science and data, thus leading to substantial
efficiency gains.
2.3 The Commission defines the overall objective
of the strategy as being the protection and restoration of Europe's
seas, and ensuring that human activities are carried out in a
sustainable manner. More specifically, it sees such a strategy
as containing four main elements:
- a dual EU/regional approach,
setting common cooperation and approaches among Member States
and neighbouring third-countries, whilst leaving planning and
execution to the regional level, so as to take into account the
diverse problems and solutions;
- a knowledge-based approach, in order to achieve
informed policy-making;
- an ecosystem-based approach, under which activities
would be managed in an integrated manner; and
- a cooperative approach, providing for the broad
engagement of all interested parties.
2.4 The Commission also considers that the Community
must have the means to deliver the objectives which it sets itself,
and says that it has considered several options. These include
simply tightening up existing legislation and policies affecting
the marine environment, and the promotion of cooperation through
voluntary commitments. However, it rejects each of these —
the first on the grounds that existing policies have tended to
be sectoral, and thus address marine issues in isolated, and often
contradictory, ways, and the second on the grounds that it would
not be effective. As a result, it has concluded that a legally
binding commitment is needed, in the form of a Marine Strategy
Directive, which would be ambitious in scope but not overly prescriptive
(see (b) below).
2.5 The remainder of the Communication considers
the synergies between the proposed strategy and other Community
policies. It recalls that a Communication in March 2005 on future
Community Maritime Policy[3]
underlines the growing international recognition that maritime
issues are interlinked and require a comprehensive approach to
manage effectively the competing uses of the seas, and it says
that the current strategy will deliver the environmental pillar
of that Policy. It also points out that one of the central issues
to be addressed in this wider context is the regulatory framework
applying to uses (and users) of the seas, and that this will be
considered further in a proposed Green Paper, which was foreshadowed
in the earlier Communication.
2.6 More generally, the Commission identifies a number
of other environmental measures and initiatives taken by the Community,
which — though not specific to the marine environment —
it says nevertheless contribute to some extent to its protection.
These include the Water Framework Directive (which seeks to enhance
the state of inland catchment areas); the Urban Waste Water and
Nitrates Directives (which will lead to reductions in marine eutrophication);
wider efforts to combat climate change; the Habitats and Birds
Directives (which the Commission says would be supported by the
measures now being proposed); Integrated Coastal Zone Management
(which should benefit similarly); and other thematic strategies
being developed as part of the Sixth Environmental Action Plan,
and covering such areas as air, soil, pesticides, recycling, resources
and urban development. It also notes that contributions to improving
the marine environment will result from the recent reforms of
the Common Fisheries Policy; from the extensive maritime safety
packages which the Community has developed over the last few years;
from the integration of marine protection considerations into
policies affecting key land-based activities (notably agriculture,
energy, industry, tourism, and coastal and regional development);
from the further applied research activities on marine ecosystems
envisaged in the Seventh Framework Programme for Research; and
from the proper management of industrial and civil wastes (including
nuclear wastes).
2.7 Finally, the Communication addresses the international
dimension. It says that implementation of this strategy would
enable the Community to fulfil its obligations under relevant
international agreements, and that, given the trans-boundary nature
of the marine environment, the Community should as a priority
continue its efforts to advance protection at a global level.
In particular, it points out that this will involve cooperation
within regional seas conventions, as well as bilaterally with
third-countries, where it says that appropriate financial support
should be provided.
(B) MARINE STRATEGY DIRECTIVE
2.8 The Directive would only define common objectives
and principles at Community level, with the aim of achieving good
environmental status for Europe's marine environment by 2021,
thus coinciding with the first review of River Basin Management
Plans under the Water Framework Directive (WFD), and allowing
for synergies on the further implementation of both Directives.
It would:
- establish European Marine Regions
and identify potential sub-regions as management units for implementation,
on the basis of hydrological, oceanographic and bio-geographic
features, though no specific management measures will be set down
at Community level;
- require each Member State to develop for the
marine waters under their sovereignty or jurisdiction within each
Marine Region (or sub-region),[4]
and in close cooperation with one another, a Marine Strategy,
which would include an assessment of the Region's essential characteristics,
and of the main pressures and threats[5]
impacting upon its marine environment; a determination of what
constitutes good environmental status; regional environmental
objectives; and indicators and monitoring measures to evaluate
progress towards those objectives;
- oblige Member States to develop and implement
by 2016 integrated programmes of cost-effective and technically
feasible measures in order to achieve good environmental status;
and
- encourage them to do this by working within regional
seas conventions, and in close collaboration with other Member
States and those third-countries concerned, building upon existing
activities as far as possible.
The Directive also provides for strategies to be
reviewed at regular intervals, taking into account the data collected
from monitoring programmes, new developments and the impacts of
the measures introduced, and for them to be updated as necessary
2.9 Where issues identified by Member States fall
within Community competence, they will be required to inform the
Commission, which may indicate how Community policies (such as
the Common Fisheries Policy and Common Agricultural Policy) are
addressing the problem, or refer to the measures which need to
be taken in connection with these policies. The Commission would
also need to be informed where a Member State concludes that it
is impossible for it to achieve the environmental targets which
have been set, for example, due to over-riding consideration of
public interest, or because of force majeure or the actions
of another Member State or third-country. In addition, where issues
concern activities dealt with in the context of global agreements
and conventions (such as United Nations convention on the Law
of the Sea or the International Maritime Organisation), the Directive
would enable a coordinated Community position to be developed.
2.10 Both the Communication and draft Directive are
accompanied by a Commission Staff Working Document, which sets
out the background to the two main documents in greater detail.
It also to provide an estimate of the costs involved if the Directive
were to be implemented. It suggests that setting up and operating
the necessary framework would involve about €90 million over
the initial two year phase, and slightly more than €70 million
a year thereafter. It adds that there would also be more significant
implementation costs resulting from the programmes of measures
adopted at regional level, but that it is not possible at this
stage to anticipate the content of these (and hence their precise
costs). However, it suggests that there may be important social
and economic costs in the short-term for certain sectors such
as fisheries, but that other sectors, notably mineral extraction,
dredging and shipping, are also likely to be affected.
The Government's view
2.11 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 14 November
2005, the Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare
at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr
Ben Bradshaw) recognises that cooperative measures are needed
to tackle many of the problems facing the marine environment,
and that a number of areas are already regulated primarily at
Community level (for example, fishing) or internationally (notably
shipping). He says that many of the elements proposed are already
being pursued, for example through regional conventions; that
there is strong support from Member States for the overall objectives
of the strategy; and that Community action provides the opportunity
to address shared challenges and to establish common principles
and approaches.
2.12 On the other hand, views on the proposed legislative
under-pinning are mixed, and, although many Member States already
have in place marine strategies, with well developed monitoring
and assessment programmes, these would need to be sufficient to
undertake the initial assessments required by the Directive. Other
concerns are that it is not currently known which parameters will
be used to define good environmental status (and hence which measures
will be needed to achieve this), and the greater role which the
Commission would assume in managing waters over which Member States
exercise jurisdiction.
2.13 More specifically, the Minister points out that,
although the proposal contains a caveat about the need to measures
being cost-effective, it is impossible to estimate their cost,
though the Commission's impact assessment notes that these could
be "considerable". He adds that the Government is preparing
its own Regulatory Impact Assessment, and that this will be provided
shortly. However, although the preliminary findings are the initial
costs of the first stage assessment required appear to be reasonably
robust, it is impossible to estimate the overall costs because
of the uncertainty surrounding the definition of good environmental
status.
Conclusion
2.14 Although we will await the Regulatory Impact
Assessment which the Minister has promised before taking a final
view on this Communication, it is clear that it deals with a subject
of some importance, and where the costs involved may well be significant,
even if they are difficult to quantify. In the meantime, we are
drawing the document to the attention of the House.
2 (23869) 12815/02; see HC 152-xli (2001-02), para
11 (6 November 2002). Back
3
This was not a Communication from the Commission, but one
addressed to it by President Barroso and Commissioner Borg. It
was therefore not deposited. Back
4
For example, the North East Atlantic would be regarded as a Region,
and the North Sea as a sub-region. Back
5
For example, physical damage, noise and visual disturbance, contamination
and changes in biodiversity. Back
|
