{"id":1008237,"date":"2026-06-06T01:54:27","date_gmt":"2026-06-06T01:54:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/1008237\/"},"modified":"2026-06-06T01:54:27","modified_gmt":"2026-06-06T01:54:27","slug":"a-legal-bottleneck-blocking-eu-marine-protection","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/1008237\/","title":{"rendered":"A legal bottleneck blocking EU marine protection"},"content":{"rendered":"

The European Union (EU) has set a goal to legally and effectively protect at least 30% of its marine waters by 20301<\/a>, with 10% of its waters under \u2018strict protection2<\/a>, equivalent to fully protected, no-take areas. This target surpasses the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which lacks a clear quality criterion in its area-based indicator, despite mounting evidence that conservation outcomes depend more on protection effectiveness than on coverage alone3<\/a>,4<\/a>,5<\/a>. This goal should be achieved by expanding the existing network of marine protected areas (MPAs) consisting of marine Natura 2000 sites under the Birds and Habitats Directives and nationally designated MPAs, while ensuring their effective management.<\/p>\n

The recently adopted Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR) adds legal weight to this ambition, requiring that Member States put in place the necessary restoration measures covering, at least, 30% of degraded marine habitats covered by the Regulation by 2030, and restoration measures for habitats of certain species (Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2024\/1991)6<\/a>. It includes passive restoration \u2013 through effective protection \u2013 as a valid measure, reinforcing alignment with the goals of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the EU Biodiversity Strategy, and Birds and Habitats Directives, which require establishment and effective management of Natura 2000 sites and other MPAs.<\/p>\n

Despite these policy commitments and legal obligations, strict and effective protection at sea remains rare. Most EU MPAs are concentrated in territorial waters7<\/a>, where easier access, user pressure, and visible impacts historically led to greater protection efforts. There, strong protection, including fully or highly protected areas, per the MPA Guide8<\/a>, covers only 0.2% of EU waters and just 1.7% of total MPA area (Fig. 1<\/a>). In offshore waters (Exclusive Economic Zones, EEZs), where MPAs are typically larger, strong protection drops to around 1% of MPA area, revealing a critical gap7<\/a>. Fishing pressure remains high within many MPAs, including from destructive bottom trawling, with high costs to society9<\/a>,10<\/a>,11<\/a>,12<\/a>. Closing this gap will require not only new and more effective MPAs but robust regulation of extractive uses \u2013 particularly for fisheries.<\/p>\n

Fig. 1: Marine fisheries.<\/b>\"Fig.The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.<\/p>\n

Most EU MPAs allows fisheries. Picture by Jo\u00e3o Rodrigues (Chimera Visuals) \/ CCMAR.<\/p>\n

This is where the EU\u2019s common fisheries policy (CFP) becomes central, as any conservation measure to comply with the above-mentioned EU environmental legislation has to be adopted in accordance with CFP rules. While coastal fisheries within 12 nautical miles can be mostly regulated by EU Member States under certain conditions (Fig. 1<\/a>), management of fishing in Exclusive Economic Zones where countries exercise jurisdiction, is subject to more complex rules under the CFP. For marine protected areas, Article 11 of Regulation 1380\/201313<\/a> is particularly relevant. Under this article, if the measures involving fishing activities concern other Member States\u2019 fishing fleets, this requires adoption of those measures by the EU as fishing is its exclusive competence under the Treaty (Article 11(2)). Under Article 11, concerned Member States may submit joint recommendations which may be adopted by the European Commission through a delegated act. In theory, this enables cooperative conservation. In practice, it has failed to deliver effective fisheries regulations in most offshore EU MPAs14<\/a>,15<\/a>. In fact, this framework reflects a broader and long-recognised tension between environmental obligations and the Common Fisheries Policy, particularly in offshore waters where implementation remains uncertain16<\/a>.<\/p>\n

A 2020 report by the European Court of Auditors highlighted the mechanism\u2019s shortcomings. Member States often avoid initiating Article 11 procedures due to complexity, delays, lack of stakeholder engagement guidelines, and a high likelihood of diluted measures14<\/a>. Fishing nations effectively hold veto power because there should be unanimity in agreeing on the proposal for a joint recommendation (or at least no objection from a Member State). In practice, this has led to a weakening of the necessary measures proposed by initiating Member State due to fishing interests of other Member States in the area. Inaction resulting from a lack of agreement on joint recommendations may breach EU environmental law, as Articles 6(2) and 6(3) of the Habitats Directive require preventive and precautionary measures against site degradation17<\/a>. Yet, so far, there were no legal consequences for inaction18<\/a>. These limitations discourage implementation and risk undermining the goals of the Birds, Habitats and Marine Strategy Directives, the NRR and the Biodiversity Strategy, particularly for offshore MPAs, unless the identified serious shortcomings in Article 11 procedure are resolved (Fig. 2<\/a>). Based on available sources, since the introduction of Article 11 in the last CFP reform in 2013, a small number of delegated acts (seven as of 2023, see Client Earth, 202318<\/a>, with at least two additional acts adopted in 202519<\/a> and in early 202620<\/a>) have been implemented for Natura 2000 sites, MSFD areas and MPAs, largely as successive amendments to two basin-specific regulations (for the Baltic: 2017\/117 and North Sea: 2017\/118) rather than distinct conservation instruments21<\/a>. All delegated acts related to Article 11 are confined to these regions, and only a few strict protection zones were implemented via this mechanism in the Kattegat (DE) and Bratten (SE) areas. The existing delegated acts in the Baltic and North Sea demonstrate that such regional cooperation is feasible, offering potential best practices that could be replicated in other sea basins, including through stronger coordination and support at EU level. Yet, none covers the Mediterranean or southern Europe, leaving many Natura 2000 and other MPAs without effective fisheries regulation, and only 4% of the Natura 2000 sites with the necessary fisheries regulations14<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Fig. 2: Infographic illustrating the process of Joint Recommendations under Article 11(2) of Common Fisheries Policy for offshore waters (EEZ) including main obstacles and possible solutions.<\/b>\"Fig.The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.<\/p>\n

Under Article 11(1), Member States may adopt fisheries conservation measures necessary to comply with EU environmental legislations (Habitats and Birds Directives, MSFD, and more recently the NRR), provided these do not affect vessels of other Member States (typically in Territorial Waters); where multiple member States have a direct management interest, measures must be adopted through Article 11(2) \u2013 the focus of this infographic. Blue boxes \u2013 steps planned under Article 11(2) process; Red boxes \u2013 what happens in practice; Yellow boxes \u2013 possible pathways to unblock the process; these include prioritising targeted improvements to Article 11 while strengthening implementation of existing environmental obligations and the Nature Restoration Regulation. JR: Joint Recommendation; TW: territorial waters; EEZ: Exclusive Economic Zones; EC: European Commission; MS: Member States; EU: European Union; EC: European Commission; ABNJ: Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction; RSC: Regional Sea Convention; RFMOs: Regional Fisheries Management Organizations.<\/p>\n

Public pressure for stronger fisheries regulations is increasing. In 2022, 2023 and 2025, the Commission adopted delegated acts closing certain areas in the North Sea MPAs to bottom trawling. A legal challenge from a German fishing group was rejected by the EU General Court in 2025, affirming the legitimacy of these protections22<\/a>. NGOs are now calling for national roadmaps to eliminate harmful fishing in all MPAs by 203023<\/a>. Further, a growing body of evidence shows that strongly protected no-take MPAs can deliver benefits to adjacent fisheries through biomass export and spillover, including increases in catch rates near reserve boundaries24<\/a>,25<\/a>,26<\/a>,27<\/a>,28<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In response to growing concerns, the Commission launched the Pact for Fisheries and Oceans in 2023, stating that the CFP already contains adequate tools and does not need structural reform. The associated Marine Action Plan calls on Member States to adopt national roadmaps, regulate fishing in MPAs, and phase out mobile bottom fishing in MPAs by 203029<\/a>. However, without addressing the legal and procedural constraints of Article 11, these goals may remain unfulfilled.<\/p>\n

At the 2025 UN Ocean Conference in Nice (UNOC3), Commission President Ursula von der Leyen introduced the European Ocean Pact, a \u20ac1 billion commitment to marine protection across six pillars: ocean health, coastal resilience, marine science and innovation, maritime security, the blue economy, and global governance30<\/a>. Yet, even with this ambitious agenda, Article 11 remains a bottleneck to delivering the strict protection the EU now champions globally.<\/p>\n

While the European Union holds exclusive competence over the conservation of marine biological resources under the CFP, Member States retain shared responsibility for environmental protection and remain legally obliged to ensure compliance with the Habitats Directive across all components of marine ecosystems, including through the regulation of fishing activities, even in the absence of coordinated EU measures16<\/a>,17<\/a>. In this context, a potential reform of the CFP should be approached with caution: rather than weakening conservation objectives, efforts should prioritise targeted improvements to Article 11 and leverage existing environmental obligations and the Nature Restoration Regulation to ensure effective and timely implementation of conservation measures18<\/a>. This is consistent with the European Commission\u2019s recent evaluation of the CFP (2014\u20132024), which highlights uneven progress and persistent challenges in delivering sustainable and effective fisheries management31<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The European Union (EU) has set a goal to legally and effectively protect at least 30% of its…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1008238,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[5174],"tags":[2311,196537,3978,12309,27173,52020,56060,2000,299,5187,1699,279337,279336,16477,24228,3016,222116],"class_list":["post-1008237","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-eu","tag-climate-change","tag-climate-change-management-and-policy","tag-climate-change-climate-change-impacts","tag-ecology","tag-environmental-sciences","tag-environmental-social-sciences","tag-environmental-studies","tag-eu","tag-europe","tag-european","tag-european-union","tag-freshwater-marine-ecology","tag-marine-freshwater-sciences","tag-ocean-sciences","tag-oceanography","tag-scientific-community","tag-social-sciences"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/116700675140354877","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1008237","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1008237"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1008237\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1008238"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1008237"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1008237"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1008237"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}