European Marine Board
EMB
The European Marine Board is a science policy think tank bridging marine research and policy.
Lobbying Activity
European Marine Board calls for ocean focus in nature credits
22 Sept 2025
Message — Include marine perspective and expertise throughout the process. Standardize marine valuation methods and create open databases. Support sustained ocean monitoring and professional training.123
Impact — Land-based interest groups lose their central influence over nature credit development.6
European Marine Board urges strict standards for ocean carbon removal
9 Sept 2025
Message — The organization requests that the European Climate Law anchors the EU's global energy strategy. They propose high-quality standards to monitor and verify the efficacy of carbon removal techniques.12
Why — The establishment of strict standards provides the necessary framework for a regulated carbon market.3
Impact — Unverified carbon removal projects would face increased scrutiny regarding their actual environmental impact.4
European Marine Board urges coastal focus in tourism strategy
9 Sept 2025
Topic — The EU is developing a strategy to boost sustainable tourism competitiveness and social cohesion.
Message — The board calls for tourism to be integrated into a systems approach for coastal management. They emphasize protecting local communities and future-proofing the industry against rising sea levels.12
Why — Scientific institutions would gain influence by providing research required for sustainable tourism transitions.3
Impact — High-impact tourism operators may face stricter management to prevent environmental and community degradation.4
European Marine Board Urges Ocean Inclusion in Resilience Law
20 Aug 2025
Message — They request that the ocean is included throughout this initiative and climate resilience strategies. The board advocates for a long term, sustained and appropriately funded ocean observing system. They also suggest structural change that is not based on growth paradigms.123
Why — This would secure long-term financial support and scientific relevance for maritime research institutions.4
Impact — Traditional industries may face disruption as the EU moves away from growth-centered economic models.5
Response to European Research Area (ERA) Act
20 Aug 2025
The European Marine Board (EMB) welcomes the ECs ongoing work to fully achieve the goals of the European Research Area and remains a strong supporter of this initiative. We have been advocating for a European Marine Research Area since 2000 (https://www.marineboard.eu/publication/towards-european-marine-research-area) when we highlighted that although European research spending was 1.8% of GDP, only 0.8% of Europes science funding went to the Ocean, this while sustained long-term Ocean observation funding is critical to understanding the changes that are taking place on Earth. EMB views the achievement of all EU countries spending 3% of GDP on research and development as crucial, not only to support the EUs competitiveness, but also to support our ability to address the grand societal challenges that can only be resolved by understanding our Ocean, and are threatening our survival (climate change, biodiversity loss etc.). Addressing these challenges requires a transdisciplinary and holistic approach, thus researchers must break out of traditional silos and work across disciplines and countries. This requires EU-level collaboration, as well as capacity development for and greater recognition and support of inter- and transdisciplinary research. EMB also commends the EC for recognising and moving to secure the protection of freedom and independence in scientific research. We strongly support the call for further improvement in open science measures, including access to publicly funded data and research results. We stress that open access alone is not sufficient. Data must also be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR), which requires the adherence to appropriate data standards across all disciplines. This is particularly pertinent when seeking to conduct research across disciplines. It is also critical to support the development of the European digital twin of the Earth under the Destination Earth initiative. While we support the aim to promote gender equality and equal opportunities in the ERA, we urge the EC to be more ambitious and expand this vision to encompass equality for all forms of diversity. Equality should not just be about gender but also about race, sexual orientation, etc. The ERA requires, and therefore should support and aim to further attract, researchers representing all diversity. In its call for evidence, the EC notes that academic and research careers are still precarious and insufficiently attractive, notably for early career researchers. We disagree that such careers are insufficiently attractive. Rather, particularly for early career researchers, job opportunities are often short-term and insecure. Open-ended contracts are rare and extremely competitive, meaning that many leave the research field out of necessity rather than lack of interest. Ultimately, while we strongly agree with the aims to make the EU the worlds most attractive destination for researchers and innovators, this cannot be achieved without substantial and sustained investment in research and innovation. At a time where even current levels of research spending are threatened, this is particularly pertinent, and the ERA Act must take steps to secure such funding. Coupled with the stated aims to ensure more harmonized labour markets and consistent framework conditions, this will not just make it easier for researchers to work in other countries and sectors, it will ensure that they have any chance of a research career at all.
Read full responseResponse to European Water Resilience Strategy
28 Feb 2025
The European Marine Board (EMB) welcomes this initiative to address water challenges comprehensively across the EU with consideration for global implications. EMB supports the outlined objectives but urges the EC to also consider their wider implications. Reduction of pollution across the water cycle is critical not only for the clean water provision, but also to protect the health of citizens and natural ecosystems. Likewise, a competitive and circular water industry will also be critical for climate action and resilience. EMB applauds the ECs focus on the full water cycle including all water bodies (terrestrial, coastal, marine, groundwater). We highlight the strong links between this initiative, the EU Oceans Pact and the EU Mission: Restore our Ocean and Waters (Mission Ocean) and recommend that the EC reviews all related documentation and project outputs. The Ocean and Fresh Water chapter of EMBs foresight publication Navigating the Future VI (https://www.marineboard.eu/publications/nfvi) calls for the inclusion of additional contaminants (e.g. CECs, microplastics, pharmaceuticals) and for poorly understood water pathways (e.g. submarine groundwater discharge, glacial meltwater, permafrost) to also be considered in EU water policy; and for early warning systems to be developed to monitor and manage new and emerging pollutants. Managing the terrestrial water cycle is critical for healthy coastal ecosystems, and as such there should be a more comprehensive link between land and sea-based EU policies, as also highlighted in EMB Position Paper on Coastal Resilience (https://www.marineboard.eu/publications/building-coastal-resilience-europe). EMB notes that under the Mission Ocean, Europe is already taking steps towards a clean, water-wise and circular economy. For example the RHE-MEDiation project (https://rhemediation.eu/) is testing and validating a chemical pollution remediation technology based on micro-algae solutions that will be integrated within existing water/wastewater treatment systems in the Mediterranean. This technology is enhancing the removal of heavy metals, pesticides, PFAS and other forever chemicals. Challenges in up-scaling these solutions include a lack of detailed knowledge about these technologies (due to the testing phase & Intellectual Property Rights), and concerns about costs, space requirements, waste management, and personnel involvement. Such innovations should continue to be supported beyond the lifetime of respective projects and rolled out across Europe. EMB urges the EC to make climate change a central consideration of the Strategy. It is critical for Europes climate preparedness that the water system is managed with future climate change in mind. Global warming will not only directly affect water conditions, extreme weather and flooding, and sea level rise (among others), but also how society responds. Hotter, drier conditions will place additional demands on already limited supply for agriculture and recreation, and inevitably reduce freshwater flow into coastal areas, impacting blue carbon ecosystems such as coastal salt marshes. The results of extreme weather such as flooding and sea level rise will affect where and how people live, and what demands they place on the drinking water and sanitation systems. The melting of glaciers and permafrost may release past diseases, placing new demands on water treatment systems and threatening human- and ecosystem health. The Strategy must plan for and support this ongoing change. EMB supports the aim to focus monitoring of implementation through existing mechanisms but calls for harmonisation of sampling, analytical research methods, reporting, and interpretation of data from the different components of the water cycle and across disciplines to ensure a proper assessment of the state of the full system. It also calls for harmonisation of legislation and management approaches across the land-sea interface, covering the full water cycle.
Read full responseMeeting with Costas Kadis (Commissioner)
21 Feb 2025 · New Commission mandate & the work of the EMB
European Marine Board urges knowledge-led approach for European Ocean Pact
14 Feb 2025
Topic — This consultation seeks a holistic approach to unify European ocean-related policies and governance.
Message — The European Marine Board calls for ocean observations and scientific research to be the central pillars of the new policy framework. They advocate for integrated land-sea policies and the inclusion of the Nature Restoration Law to ensure complete coherence. The board also stresses the need for equity and inclusion to ensure that all society benefits.123
Impact — Industries relying on business-as-usual practices might face stricter environmental and ecosystem-based rules.6
20 Mar 2024
The European Marine Board (www.marineboard.eu) welcomes the initiative of the European Commission to modernize the public environmental data sharing framework and to make the INSPIRE Directive a more effective and cost-efficient instrument for environmental data sharing, in support of environmental policy development and implementation, and the transition to a more sustainable economy. As aiming to advance Seas & Ocean science, the European Marine Board would like to highlight that the sharing of marine environmental data face different challenges, such as complex sources of data and formats, lack of support for making data Open and FAIR, and lack of encouragement of the inclusion of non-sensitive environmental / resources / social data in EU repositories such as EMODnet (https://emodnet.ec.europa.eu/en/). EMODnet is the in situ marine data service of the EC DG MARE and is the in situ marine pillar for the European Digital Twin Ocean(https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe/eu-missions-horizon-europe/restore-our-ocean-and-waters/european-digital-twin-ocean-european-dto_en), connected to Destination Earth, and the wider European Green Deal Data Space. At the evaluation assessment for EMODnet of the 2014-2020 period by EC (published in 2023): "Overall, the external evaluation study assessed that improvements in productivity, innovation and accuracy yielded cumulative benefits in the order of 20 times the annual cost. Between 2014 and 2020, the funding provided by the EMFF amounted to EUR 51.3 million, i.e. EUR 7.3 million per year. So EMODnet has not only been effective in helping to achieve its objectives, but it is also efficient because it generates benefits that are larger than its cost." https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/5897e1d8-2ba9-11ee-95a2-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-search In addition, the GREAT project, funded by the Digital Europe program, aims to establish the Green Deal Data Space Foundation and its Community of Practice which builds on both the European Green Deal and the EUs Strategy for Data. https://www.egi.eu/project/great-project/ The European Marine Boards Future Science Brief No. 6 Big Data in Marine Science (https://www.marineboard.eu/publications/big-data-marine-science) provides recommendations for scaling-up big data applications for improving our understanding of the marine environment and for managing human activities that impact the ocean. In summary, this document recommends to: Enhance data acquisition through the increase of efficiency of data transfer to allow more real-time, or near real-time analyses and decision making; Enhance data handling and management through more widespread adoption of community data standards and well-designed data management plans based on Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) principles so that data are machine-readable. We also recommend the increased use of existing marine data management infrastructures, such as EMODnet; Increase data interoperability and accessibility by upgrading European marine data management infrastructures to handle and exchange more multidisciplinary and real-time data. These infrastructures should include more integrated cloud computing, data storage and big data analytical tools. We recommend increased participation of the European marine science community in development of Virtual Research Environments (VREs) and European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) initiatives. We also recommend that these infrastructures should be sustained in the long term and that there should be more cross-disciplinary fertilization of computing technology from multimedia and digital sectors. Interoperability and data exchange between European data infrastructures and international counterparts will be important for common access to data on larger sea-basin and global scales and to create a digital ocean twin.
Read full responseEuropean Marine Board urges life-cycle and community-focused energy auctions
14 Feb 2024
Message — The board recommends a risk-based approach to environmental impact that adapts to new scientific understanding. Auctions should consider the full lifecycle impact, including circular economy principles and supply chain sustainability. Engagement with local coastal communities and promoting multi-use of marine space should also be prioritized.123
Why — This ensures marine research priorities shape offshore energy policy and development standards.4
Impact — Energy developers would face higher costs to manage complex supply chains and decommissioning.5
Response to Managing EU climate risks
15 Dec 2023
The European Marine Board (and its Secretariat) hereby want to thank the European Commission for its consultation on Social resilience managing the EUs climate risks. We also wish to make you aware of the outcomes of two of our newest documents that are of relevance to this consultation. These documents were written by eminent European natural and social scientists and reviewed by external and internal reviewers. First our Position Paper on Building Coastal Resilience in Europe, presents key policy, scientific and community recommendations on how to build coastal resilience from a socio-ecological perspective, and enhance capacity to cope with impacts from climate change and other pressures. It includes chapters on the concepts and frameworks to assess coastal resilience; pressures and impacts on the coast; tools, barriers, enablers to build coastal resilience; European case-studies; and future challenges and recommendations. It highlights the science and policy needs required for building coastal resilience in Europe including: the need for a systems approach to coastal management; including nature and people in the design process; building adaptive capacity at all scales of governance; reflecting the value of natural capital; and following a best practice 6 step approach to building coastal resilience. The Position Paper also makes the following scientific recommendations: establishing integrated transdisciplinary research on coastal social-ecological systems; developing sufficient observational, monitoring and data capacity; developing and operationalizing stadardised coastal resilience indicators for Europe; improving model prediction capacity; and investing in research on Nature-based Solutions and hybrid solutions on land and at sea. Finally, it provides community recommendations, including to: obtain systematic natural and social scientific knowledge that is useful to individual communities and share this among all interested parties with clear messages; develop and adhere to coherent national coastal plans to coordinate community actions with the regional priorities of local authorities; co-design citizen science initiatives that support communities to collect and understand coastal data and resilience issues; and enhance the adaptive capacity of local communities. The second document is a Policy Brief on Blue Carbon: Challenges and opportunities to mitigate the climate and biodiversity crises, which describes: what Blue Carbon is; the benefits of Blue Carbon ecosystems; the role of the Ocean in the carbon cycle; examples of Blue Carbon ecosystems in Europe; uncertainties and questions yet to be resolved; and recommendations. The recommendations include to: reduce uncertainties about the amount of carbon removed and stored by Blue Carbon ecosystems; quantify the possible production of methane and nitrous oxide that might arise from coastal restoration efforts over the long term, and impact on greenhouse gas emissions; understand the dynamics of offshore carbon stocks and sequestration, and the possible impact of human activities, such as trawling and deep-sea mining; create tailored monitoring and observations of carbon (stocks, fluxes, process rates temporal and spatial scales) to improve our understanding of the global Ocean carbon budget, the biological carbon pumps (BCP, CCP) and sedimentary carbon storage; support sustained observations to better parameterize processes (e.g. remineralisation, fragmentation, sinking) in carbon cycle models; and promote multi-disciplinary collaboration between environmental scientists, social scientists and engineers to ensure the integration of Blue Carbon solutions. We hereby hope that you find this information useful and would be happy to support you in any information you may need.
Read full responseResponse to Communication on the functioning of the Common Fisheries Policy
19 Sept 2022
The European Green Deal and the Biodiversity Strategy 2030 recognise the central role of biodiversity and healthy ecosystems in combating both the biodiversity crisis and the climate crisis. The Biodiversity Strategy 2030 therefore sets the target to protect 30% of the sea, of which 10% should be strictly protected. These requirements are complemented by the quantitative restoration targets set by the EU Nature Restoration Law. However, currently, marine protected areas (MPAs) in Europe offer limited protection [1], hampering their effectiveness. For effective MPAs, conservation measures need to be put in place, which is a difficult and lengthy procedure under the CFP.
The current CFP regulation offers Member States the possibility to adopt conservation measures based on joint recommendations by the Member States concerned (Reg.1380/2013, article 11). Thus, to implement any conservation measure (e.g. excluding fishing from a MPA) all Member States fishing in that area must agree on a joint recommendation, making implementation extremely difficult. Hence, effective conservation measures are lacking and management measures implementation can take more than a decade (e.g., Dogger Bank SAC ). The article 11 procedure has also been criticised by the European Court of Auditors and the EEA for not ensuring timely protection from fishing for a large number of Natura 2000 sites [2], and for favouring commercial fisheries interests over nature conservation requirements [3].
Ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) is central to achieving good environmental status (GES). Implementation of EBFM is enshrined in the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), the Marine Spatial Planning Directive (MSP) and the Biodiversity Strategy 2030 but sustainable fisheries and GES have not been achieved. The scientific community has highlighted why that is, including the impacts of: subsidies on the economic sustainability of European fisheries (see [4] and others); the discard ban on biodiversity [5]; and climate change induced habitat changes [6]. These studies show the ongoing challenges of addressing marine biodiversity and habitat loss in Europe’s seas.
Resource extraction and damage to the sea floor are still key pressures on the EU’s seas [2]. Therefore, to achieve the ambition of the European Green Deal and the Biodiversity Strategy, fisheries policy needs to be better informed by science, coordinated with marine protection and there need to be improved pathways for implementing conservation measures and EBFM. Without this coordination and implementation, it will be difficult to achieve the vision of the European Green Deal and the Biodiversity Strategy 2030.
References
[1] Perry, et al. 2020. “Unmanaged = Unprotected: Europe’s marine paper parks,” 2020. https://europe.oceana.org/sites/default/files/oceana_2020_unmanaged_equals_unprotected_marine_paper_parks.pdf.
[2] European Court of Auditors, 2020. “Marine environment: EU protection is wide but not deep,”. https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR20_26/SR_Marine_environment_EN.pdf
[3] EEA, 2019. “Marine Messages II: Navigating the course towards clean, healthy and productive seas through implementation of an ecosystem‑based approach,”. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/marine-messages-2.
[4] Heymans, et al. 2011. "The impact of subsidies on the ecological sustainability and future profits from North Sea fisheries", PLOS ONE, 6: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020239.
[5] Fondo EN, et al. 2015. "Banning Fisheries Discards Abruptly Has a Negative Impact on the Population Dynamics of Charismatic Marine Megafauna" PLoS ONE, 2015. 10(12): e0144543.
[6] Bentley, et al. 2020. Retrospective analysis of the influence of environmental drivers on commercial stocks and fishing opportunities in the Irish Sea. Fish. Oceanogr., 29: 415-435. DOI:10.1111/fog.12486
Read full responseResponse to New modules for European environmental economic accounts
19 Aug 2022
The European Marine Board (EMB) Secretariat commends the European Commission’s inclusion of Ecosystems and Environmental Subsidies to its Environmental Economic Accounts. However, we believe that these modules do not go far enough to address the policy questions highlighted in the ‘Roadmap’. The lack of specific Marine Accounting will reduce the ability to address the EU’s climate change ambitions, the ‘Farm to Fork’ strategy, the protection and preservation of biodiversity, the mainstreaming of sustainability in all EU policies and addressing the SDGs.
Specifically, the list of characteristics that Member States need to account for on ecosystem condition only refers to coastal beaches, dunes, and wetlands, but provides no guidance for marine ecosystems. However, given that the Exclusive Economic Zones of the EU countries is 4.5 times that of its total land mass area (including the overseas territories, and 77% of land mass for continental Europe), this seems insufficient. The ability of the European Seas and Ocean to help adapt and mitigate for Climate Change to carbon sequestration, and for the ability of feed Europeans through the ‘Farm to Fork’ strategy is not being considered. And without addressing SDG 14: Life below Water, the EU will not mainstream sustainability into all its Policies.
On regulating and maintenance services for global climate regulation, only reporting on sequestration of carbon by terrestrial systems excludes the very important carbon sequestration taking place in blue carbon systems . Carbon sequestration by coastal vegetation occurs 40 times faster than in tropical forests and healthy marine ecosystems with sufficient Ocean predators are important to keep it that way [1]. Thus, keeping account of the carbon sequestered in the coastal Ocean, and the marine ecosystems that live in these ecosystems is critical to keep track of the regulating services they provide. The data collected under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive can and should be used to create more comprehensive Natural Capital Accounts of the Marine ecosystems. However, currently the provisioning accounts seem to only take account of terrestrial crops, and do not seem to include any food provision from the Ocean.
The objective of Ecosystem Accounts in Annex IX highlights the need for using earth observations, environmental reporting, and other data sources to create the accounts. However, in the Ocean the observations to record the extent of the ecosystems, the conditions of these ecosystems, or the flow of services from these ecosystems do not always exist and are not well coordinated. The current DG MARE initiative on “Ocean observation – sharing responsibility” will enable the coordination of the observations needed to record the extent, condition, and flow of services from Ocean ecosystems.
While the proposal mentions cultural services, it does not account for the links between ecosystems and human health benefits.
Finally, as highlighted in the EMB Future Science Brief on Valuing Marine Ecosystem Services [2], there are issues with the implementation of the UN’s SEEA concerning spatial scale, boundaries and aggregation of data, specifically with regards to marine ecosystems. In the Ocean there is often a mismatch between the place where the services are supplied and where the benefits accrue, or demands are made. The Future Science Brief recommends that issues such as scale, aggregation and ecosystem degradation should be addressed to facilitate their inclusion in Natural Capital Accounting.
References:
1. Atwood, T.B., et al., Predators help protect carbon stocks in blue carbon ecosystems. Nature Clim. Change, 2015. 5: p. 1038-1045.
2. Austen, M.C., et al., Valuing Marine Ecosystems - Taking into account the value of ecosystem benefits in the Blue Economy, in Future Science Brief 5, J. Coopman, et al., Editors. 2019, European Marine Board: Ostend, Belgium. p. 32.
Read full responseEuropean Marine Board advocates big data approach for chemicals
2 Aug 2022
Message — The board recommends adopting FAIR data principles and a big data approach for chemical assessments. They suggest developing community standards, standardized algorithms, and connecting with existing marine data networks.123
Why — This would optimize data use and improve management of chemical safety.4
European Marine Board urges inclusion of oceans in nutrient plan
19 Apr 2022
Message — The Board believes the marine environment should be included in the integrated approach. They urge finding ways to recycle nutrients rather than mining them to achieve zero pollution. Cumulative pressure assessments should also be used to evaluate nutrient impacts.123
Why — Stronger marine protections help prevent the reduction in fisheries caused by nutrient pollution.45
Meeting with Charlina Vitcheva (Director-General Maritime Affairs and Fisheries)
1 Dec 2021 · Presentation on how the EU supports the UN Ocean Decade
Response to Protecting the environment in the EU’s seas and oceans
21 Apr 2021
The EMB Secretariat supports the ambition for holistic protection of the marine environment laid out in the MSFD, however as the 2020 goals have not been achieved, we also welcome this review.
It is critical to view EU policy in a holistic manner. While the ambition for GES in all European waters is to be celebrated, as noted in Navigating the Future V (www.marineboard.eu/publications/navigating-future-v) this is not always supported by other EU policies, and in some cases could be contradictory. It will therefore be important to identify additional policy barriers to implementation, as well as taking a more integrated viewpoint with regards to new initiatives such as the EU Green Deal and the Farm to Fork strategy. Research by Piroddi et al. from 2021 (www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2021.596797/full) shows that proposed nutrient reduction measures may not significantly improve the European marine ecosystems. EEA’s Marine messages II provides relevant solutions in line with the objectives of the MSFD and should be consulted.
The roadmap refers to links between the ocean and human health and wellbeing, which we wholeheartedly welcome. This is another step towards a holistic view with humans as part of the marine ecosystem. Both positive and negative ocean-human interactions should be considered, not just pollution. There is an opportunity to be more explicit about how these interactions can be managed for mutual benefit, potentially with additional ocean and human health indicators. Cost-benefit analyses should be conducted to make the case for new indicators, balancing additional monitoring costs against the benefits of protected ecosystem services and savings in public health and healthcare costs from achieving GES.
With the strong mandates for ocean observations in the MSFD, Member States have largely provided adequate resourcing to monitor and report on indicators. However more widely, the ocean observing mandate is often spread across ministries and national bodies, leading to inefficiencies and lack of national-level coordination. Member States are thus not taking advantage of other ocean observation efforts beyond MSFD monitoring. This lack of efficiency and clarity is further compounded by a lack of regional coordination of ocean observations.
The MSFD should be guided by scientific knowledge, with relevant new research periodically identified and where appropriate, integrated. For example, the impact on GES of multiple different stressors in combination is not well considered at present. In addition, the MSFD sets indicators for quantification of a given stressor, but does not require further biological monitoring to understand whether the intended impact has been achieved. It is important to also ensure that the intended aims of the MSFD are actually being achieved with the current indicators.
We also welcome the focus on increased digitalisation to modernize monitoring and reporting and to decrease their costs. This is in line with recommendations that emerged from our Big Data in Marine Science document and 7th Forum (www.marineboard.eu/big-data-and-digitalization). The adoption of big data and artificial intelligence for MSFD monitoring and reporting will allow analyses to gain a more holistic overview of marine environmental status.
We support policy option 3 and 4 as outlined in the roadmap, namely strengthening implementation and enforcement, or targeted changes to the Directive. Repealing the MSFD would be a disastrous step backwards at a time where we should be increasing our protection of the Ocean and its biodiversity, and continuation of a policy that has already failed to meet its targets would mean GES will never be achieved. This is an ideal opportunity to build on and improve one of the most important marine environmental policies in Europe to make real positive changes, and we should make the most of it.
The position of the EMB Secretariat does not necessarily reflect that of its members.
Read full responseResponse to Bathing water quality – review of EU rules
12 Mar 2021
The European Marine Board (EMB) Secretariat support and welcome the aims of this review.
We stress the importance of considering bathing water quality within the wider context of the zero pollution ambition and in connection with other relevant EU Directives. Our soil, inland waters and Ocean are all interconnected: a pollutant entering the system via soil or fresh water can flow through the system into downstream inland waters and/or the Ocean. It is therefore critical to take a holistic view of pollutants, aiming where possible to address them at their source. Reducing or removing the influx of pollutants in one medium will also prevent them flowing through the system and improve conditions in another. This will also have a naturally beneficial impact on biodiversity and ecosystem health, which are key drivers to ensure resilience of coastal areas to the impacts of climate change, e.g. sea-level rise and warming. There are additional associated benefits, e.g. an increase in food safety (fish and shellfish) as a result of reduced cumulative pollutant loads on species in different habitats along the chain.
Bathing waters are a common good that should be seen as a benefit for all (e.g. recreational users, residents, workers), not just tourists. We are seeing temperature increases in many areas as a result of climate change, with heatwaves becoming more frequent and severe. It is natural for people to seek bathing areas as a means to cool down. It is therefore critical to ensure that all areas where bathing is possible are identified as such, and are monitored and maintained to the same standards, including those in urban areas. This will ensure equality in the protection afforded to all users of all bathing waters. Therefore, we support the phasing out of the “sufficient” classification or modification of applicable standards.
As noted in the consultation, bathing waters are often used by recreational users all year round, rather than being restricted to the traditional bathing season. It is therefore critical to monitor bathing water quality year-round. The ability to demonstrate safe bathing waters in the off-season may also boost year-round tourism, which could provide additional economic benefits if appropriately managed.
At present, the Directive only requires monitoring of two faecal bacteria parameters, which while important, does not adequately address additional parameters for existing or emerging pollutants that are harmful to human health, and for which appropriate indicators and testing procedures have been developed. We would support the inclusion of additional parameters within this revision and a regular programme of Directive revisions to enable the addition of parameters in future.
Finally, although digitalization and EU space services are quite efficient at measuring and reporting on many parameters, it is not clear how these can be used to help with monitoring the current parameters on faecal bacteria or possible new parameters e.g. microplastics. We therefore encourage consideration of all options including citizen science. This could be a means to gather additional data and information from the relevant stakeholders (e.g. residents, recreational users, workers, tourists, tourism operators) to supplement official monitoring data gathered by Member States, over wider geographical and temporal scales. This can be coupled with improving water quality literacy and awareness. Within the scope of the H2020 Project SOPHIE (Seas, Oceans and Public Health in Europe, 2017-2020), a pilot citizen science project was launched with ecotourism operators to map Ostreopsis outbreaks in Europe, which successfully demonstrated the potential of citizen science in such applications. There is more about this work online (https://sophie2020.eu/activities/citizen-science/).
Please note that the position of the EMB Secretariat does not necessarily reflect that of its members.
Read full responseResponse to Ocean Observation
18 Nov 2020
We welcome the European Commission’s efforts to centralise the information on what ocean variables are measured where, how often, and by whom. We also find the broad definition used for marine observation, including all survey and monitoring campaigns and sampling programmes currently conducted for different purposes (e.g. military, environmental and fisheries monitoring, research, navigation, etc.) beneficial. The aim of the European Commission to simplify the reporting by national authorities is also appreciated.
Even though the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (UNESCO-IOC) has made a collaborative international effort in creating a system of programmes under the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), ocean observing is still mainly financed nationally. As a consequence of the historic approach to understanding and managing the ocean, countries fund and programme ocean observations according to their national priorities and interests. However, many countries do not have a clear overview on what variables are being measured by which of their competent institutions and programmes.
Current efforts like EOOS (European Ocean Observing System) exist to coordinate different ocean observation initiatives by sectors, or at national or regional levels, but Europe and its marine environment would benefit from a harmonised and overarching approach to reporting the ocean observations made, which in turn could trigger closer collaboration and sharing between EU Member States and Associated Countries. We encourage the European Commission to recommend to the EU Members States and Associated countries to reinforce national coordination, sustainability and FAIR data discussions in this framework.
In addition, the integration of different legal instruments and policies could simplify the overarching conflicting objectives of national, European, regional and international policies, and connect the competent governing bodies with interest in the ocean. Such integration will also highlight the reasons why the current efforts to improve the health of the ocean do not translate into achieving the objectives. In addition, this will be an opportunity to check the design of current ocean observations programmes and include new, augmented or currently not integrated ocean observations such as biodiversity and ecosystem functioning observations.
The achievement of the European Green Deal is time sensitive. We therefore strongly recommend that the EU institutes an instrument to ensure uniform, direct, quick and simpler implementation, in close cooperation with the Member States. As mentioned before, Members States are the funders and implementers of ocean observation in Europe, and therefore, key to endure the success of this initiative. Careful discussions need to be considered to avoid this initiative becoming a very large financial burden on the EU.
Still, the seas and ocean are common European resources, as water and animals are not controlled by national borders. A centralized ocean observation approach would benefit all EU Member States and Associated Countries. Inaction cannot be an option. A non-binding regulation will mean a continuation of uncoordinated and inefficient ocean observations, and will result in scattered, incomplete and delayed information.
Finally, this initiative would likely improve the efficiency in use of public funds for ocean observation, creating both economic and social benefits. The harmonization of information on what ocean variables are measured where, how often, and by whom, would get us closer to achieving the goals of the EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy, the implementation of a Digital Twin Ocean and the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development.
Read full responseResponse to EU Action Plan Towards a Zero Pollution Ambition for air, water and soil
12 Oct 2020
We urge the European Commission not to forget about the ocean! We welcome the EU’s ambition to end environmental pollution, but this ambition should include the achievement of zero pollution of our coasts and seas. The inclusion of seas and ocean under the category of “water” may not been seen as obvious to everyone. This is especially important if you consider that most of the problems of the ocean originate from land, including nutrient and chemical pollution from agriculture such as herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers and antibiotics.
We recommend the strengthening of implementation and enforcement, seeking improvements to the governance of pollution policies, and increasing the connectivity with current EU ocean-based regulations, such as the 2008 Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the marine environmental pillar of the EU, the 2006 Waste Shipment Regulation and the 2000 Port Reception Facilities Directive, among others.
Read full responseResponse to EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change
29 Jun 2020
We welcome the holistic approach of the proposed strategy, as climate change is already affecting the daily lives of the European citizens and the decisions we all make. We also welcome that that strategy will support the resilience of natural ecosystems through better conservation, management and restoration. This will be key, as adaptation should go hand with hand with mitigation measures, and nature remains the biggest ally to store carbon from the atmosphere.
One third of the EU population lives within 50 km of the coast. Adaptation to climate change for vulnerable coastal and marine areas will be key, also in line with the ‘leaving no one behind’ ambition of the President of the European Commission. But high coastal human population density and excessive exploitation of natural resources puts enormous pressure on our coastal ecosystems. The health of humans are intricately linked to the health of the ocean, not just at the coast but also inland, through sustainable seafood provision, health and wellbeing through coastal tourism, and marine biodiversity and biotechnology providing future medicines. In line with the One Health concept, the health of the ocean and of humans are fully interlinked and inter-dependent. This means that it will be vital to adapt the management of these and other sectors in an appropriate manner to make them more resilient. However, these adaptation measures should not negatively affect the health of either the ocean or humans. In line with “building back better”, this will also provide an opportunity to explore and implement eco-friendly solutions.
Restoration of vegetated coastal ecosystems, such as tidal marshes and seagrass meadows (coastal ‘blue carbon’ ecosystems), could provide climate change mitigation through increased carbon uptake and storage of around 0.5% of current global emissions annually (IPCC). The paper by Duarte et al. (2020) shows the key opportunities of saltmarsh, seagrass, kelp and oyster reef restoration all pointing to the importance of Blue Carbon and coastal defences as well as water quality improvement and coastal protection, which will be important in the future. The current voluntary guidelines on how to include coastal wetlands in a country’s greenhouse gas inventory (Guidelines on The 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands (Wetlands Supplement)) should be considered for future actions in line with this strategy.
Duarte, C.M., Agusti, S., Barbier, E. et al. Rebuilding marine life. Nature 580, 39–51 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2146-7
Read full responseResponse to 2030 Climate Target Plan
6 Apr 2020
We welcome the ambition to include the contribution of all sectors of the economy and society for an increased climate target for 2030, to prepare the EU for the transition towards climate neutrality by 2050. But in the current roadmap, only maritime transport is considered while the rest of the blue economy and general seas and ocean are not considered. The ocean has taken up between 20–30% of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the 1980s (IPCC figures) and ocean-based mitigation options could reduce global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by nearly 4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per annum in 2030 and by more than 11 billion tonnes per annum in 2050, relative to projected business-as-usual (BAU) emissions (Hoegh-Guldberg. O., et al. 2019). Reductions of this magnitude are larger than the emissions from all current coal fired power plants world-wide and more than China’s total emissions in 2014.
We request the inclusion of the ocean and seas, the blue economy and ocean-solutions into the EU’s 2030 Climate Target Plan, as almost half of the EU population lives less than 50 km from the sea and majority of large urban areas are concentrated along the coast (Eurostat figures). In addition, Tyedmers, et al. (2005) calculated that fishing fleets consume the same quantity of oil as the whole of the Netherlands. By limiting the action on the blue economy to maritime transport, the fisheries (or other) fleets are not considered.
The Climate Target Plan also referred to the land use sector and agriculture only for food provision, but the ocean-based food system (wild capture fisheries, aquaculture, and shifting human diets towards food from the sea) should be considered for climate action as well. The EU Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (2014/89/EU) provides a unique opportunity to address climate action at European coasts. Effective Maritime Spatial Planning integrates many activities affecting ocean and coastal areas, and prioritization of renewable energy and nature conservation can be explored.
Nature conservation is not highlighted in the Roadmap, but referred to as “natural sink”, even though nature remains the biggest ally to store carbon from the atmosphere. Restoration of vegetated coastal ecosystems, such as tidal marshes and seagrass meadows (coastal ‘blue carbon’ ecosystems), could provide climate change mitigation through increased carbon uptake and storage of around 0.5% of current global emissions annually (IPCC). The paper by Duarte et al. (2020) shows the key opportunities of saltmarsh, seagrass, kelp and oyster reef restoration all pointing to the importance of Blue Carbon and coastal defenses as well as water quality improvement and coastal protection, which will be important in the future. There are guidelines on how to include coastal wetlands in a country’s greenhouse gas inventory, which remain voluntary to adopt (Guidelines on The 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands (Wetlands Supplement)), but should be made more explicit in this Plan.
Climate change is a trans-boundary problem, but the actions and solutions has to be enforced at national and local level. The Roadmap should refer to which mechanisms will be in place to follow up and support implementation at EU Member State level.
Finally, an assessment on the society readiness to implement this higher level of ambition is crucial for the success of the 2030 Climate Target Plan, especially as investment by households and businesses are expected to rise the most. Developing a communication strategy to EU citizens will be needed, and lessons could be learned from the COVID-19 crisis, as citizens were able to accept difficult decisions with regard to their social life and ability to work, for the larger goal of sparing the health system.
Read full responseResponse to Farm to Fork Strategy
21 Feb 2020
Do not forget about food from the ocean! We welcome the EU’s ambition, but the roadmap still lacks strong explicit connections with food coming from the sea, even though it mentions fishers and the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) several times. In addition, there is no mention of “strong connections with and directly contribution to” the 2008 Marine Strategy Framework Directive. This is especially important as many of the problems of the ocean originate from land, including chemical pollution from agriculture such as herbicides (in addition to pesticides, fertilizers and antibiotics, as mentioned in the roadmap).
At the request of former Commissioner Karmenu Vella, the EU Group of Chief Scientific Advisors provided scientific advice (Food from the Oceans, EC, 2017), with specific recommendations on how to benefit sustainably from the opportunities provided by the ocean in terms of food. We recommend that the strategy take into account these results, and consider other scientific advice from the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors on agricultural biotechnology, health risks of microplastic pollution and glyphosate. Highlighted in this report, the biggest potential for increasing seafood production in the future is through the farming of marine species (i.e. mariculture or aquaculture at sea), especially those at lower levels in the oceanic food chain. However, farming marine species will require significant marine space, and no links have yet been made between the ‘farm to fork’ strategy and the 2014 EU Directive on Marine Spatial Planning (MSP). The development of spatial planning tools for aquaculture remains a key enabler for the development of locally sustainable aquatic food production systems in European waters.
It is mentioned that the ‘farm to fork’ strategy will directly contribute to the 2030 EU Biodiversity Strategy, and that that the CFP will be key a tool. We would like to highlight that commercially exploited fish are part of marine biodiversity. The IPBES global assessment report found that fishing has had the most impact on marine biodiversity due to an increasing proportion of marine fish stocks being overfished. Small-scale fisheries account for more than 90% of commercial fishers (over 30 million people globally), and yet, only half of global fish catch (industrial fishing catch the rest). The EU Group of Chief Scientific Advisors emphasized that it is essential to continue efforts such as those under the EU Common Fisheries Policy to return to traditional small-scale sustainable fishing, reversing the decline in fish stocks. This will also permit increased harvest in the future. Aquaculture and feed for aquaculture should also be included in fisheries partnership agreements between the EU and Southern partner countries. Imported food products from third countries must comply with the EU’s environmental standards. We call on the EU to ensure fair and just conditions of the people working in these third countries and to ensure that the fishing undertaken in those countries do not overexploit their ecosystems, and thereby exporting the environmental impacts of the fish we eat in Europe to less developed nations.
Finally, the ‘farm to fork’ strategy should include climate change impacts, not only on land (the IPCC report on Climate change and Land is mentioned), but also in the ocean – by including predictions from the IPCC Report on the Ocean. According to the IPBES global assessment report, climate change impacts are expected to be geographically variable, with many fish populations projected to move poleward due to ocean warming, meaning that local species extinctions are expected in the tropics. However, that does not necessarily imply an increase in biodiversity in the Polar seas, because of the rapid rate of sea ice retreat and the enhanced ocean acidification of cold waters. The ‘farm to fork’ strategy should include the impact of these dramatic changes in the food we will consume in Europe in the future.
Read full responseResponse to Climate Law
27 Jan 2020
All human activities conducted in Europe must comply to the upcoming Climate Law. Future climate change depends on current and future greenhouse gas emissions, which in turn depend on international policy. The only option to avoid catastrophic climate change is to make rapid and fundamental changes to our energy, industrial, transport, agricultural and consumption systems such that we move towards net-zero or negative carbon emissions within 20-30 years. This may sound dramatic, but compared to the potential human cost, it is essential.
Considering this, do not forget about the “blue” Europe! Europe has the world’s largest maritime territory (including outer regions), covering more than 11 million km2. This is much larger than the land it holds and accounts for almost half of Europe’s GDP. The ocean drives climate: warmer oceans result in sea-level rise and climate-related extreme events, which affect coastal activities and affect millions of lives in Europe, due to, for instance, increased coastal erosion, hurricanes, meteotsunamis or catastrophic mass mortalities of organisms due to climate stress. Climate change also has a direct role in the loss of biological diversity. This loss contributes to the alteration of ecosystems, affecting essential services provided by these ecosystems, such as food provision and coastal natural protection.
It is imperative that global climate policy discussions are underpinned by the clear understanding that we are already committed to significant global warming and sea-level rise that will have profound impacts on future generations and on Earth’s ecosystems. Moreover, that continued emissions, even if reduced, will commit us to further warming and sea-level rise. The policy discussions must also recognise and support the critical role of climate and ocean science in ensuring an appropriate, evidence based response to the inevitable changes to come.
In addition, global frameworks need to be aligned, which require national-level reporting of, for example the voluntary national reviews of the SDGs. Member States will also have to comply both with their obligations at a regional level, such as EU legislations, and international obligations from e.g. treaties, and adjust their national legal and policy frameworks to meet their requirements. Do not allow achieving the objectives of climate-neutrality by 2050 at all costs, to avoid institutionalized destruction of the natural environment (e.g. windmills in natural reserves); and co-design an efficient enforcement of implementing measures at Member State level and at the European institutions (European Parliament, Directorate Generals, etc.). Other important aspects not mentioned in the text are the “just transition” and the “leave no-one behind” principles, pivotal for the success of the climate law, and to enable a sustainable behavioural change towards climate-neutrality.
Detailed recommendations on what to do are listed in the WWF’s Climate, Nature and our 1.5°C Future: A synthesis of IPCC and IPBES reports (WWF, 2019) and detailed IPCC Special Reports. In addition, the framework of the World Climate Research Programme Grand Challenge Weather and Climate Extremes is useful to outline the developments required for science at the European level.
Read full responseResponse to A new Circular Economy Action Plan
20 Jan 2020
Do not forget to make the Blue Economy circular! The EU has the world’s largest maritime territory (including outer regions), which is larger than the land it holds, houses almost half of its population and accounts for almost half of its GDP. The European blue economy represented €174 billion of added value in 2016 and the ocean economy is expected to double its contribution to global added value between 2010 and 2030 (European Commission, 2018; OECD, 2016). It is therefore important to include coastal and marine environments as part of the (future) circular economy. The 2019 OECD report “Rethinking Innovation for a Sustainable Ocean Economy” presents priority areas for action which must be considered for ensuring an encompassing Circular Economy.
Science sits at the nexus of the blue economy, which depends critically on scientific data for sustainability. The New Circular Economy Action Plan must ensure a sustainable knowledge-based circular blue economy, so that we are able to organize diverse uses of ocean space across time, while balancing conservation efforts, minimizing the human impact on the environment, and harnessing ocean resources in a sustainable and equitable manner, including food and energy production. Enabling permanent dialogue between ecology and economy can fully exploit the potential for sustainable development, taking into account their interactions and conflicts.
The New Circular Economy Action Plan must also address the importance of reducing waste and the problems of current recycling systems, including the citizen’s unwillingness to change and efforts to address this through behavioural change studies, expectations of recyclability and must define a process of priority setting for tackling problems impacting the environment. We also call for more interlinkages between other EU directives, policies and strategies (EU’s nature protection directives, Common Fisheries Policy, Clean energy for all Europeans package, etc.) to avoid institutionalized destruction of the natural environment; and the efficient enforcement of implementing measures at Member State level and at the European institutions (European Parliament, Directorate Generals, etc.).
Read full responseResponse to EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy
17 Jan 2020
Do not forget about the marine biodiversity! Europe’s seas cover more than 11 million km2, and range from shallow, semi‐enclosed seas to vast expanses of the deep ocean. They host a wide, highly diverse range of coastal and marine ecosystems with a large variation of habitats and species (EEA Biodiversity in Europe's seas, 2019). Despite occupying the largest habitable space on Earth, known marine species make up only 13% of the current described world biodiversity, largely due to our lack of knowledge of the depths of the ocean and of marine microorganisms. With only 270,000 marine species described to date, we need to increase research effort on marine biodiversity to make sure we can continue to discover important products and services they could provide, and their important role in maintaining a healthy ocean.
Recent figures from the IPBES regional assessment (IPBES 6th plenary) show negative biodiversity trends for all available marine indicators for all sea basins in Europe. The European Commission also highlighted the lack of effort from several EU Member States in protecting the marine environment from pollution, biodiversity loss and unsustainable fishing (COM/2018/562). Coastal areas are zones of concentrated biodiversity and natural productivity and will be particularly affected by multiple human stressors because this is where most human activities take place and where pressure accumulates due to the migration of humans to the seashore. In addition, the upcoming Strategic Research Agenda on Oceans and Human Health (March 2020) highlights that marine biodiversity is essential for human health.
Europe’s economic prosperity and well-being is underpinned by its natural capital, which deliver ecosystem services essential for human activity, as promoted in the EU Biodiversity Strategy and the priority objective of the 7th Environment Action Programme. The EU has the world’s largest maritime territory (including outer regions), which is larger than the land it holds, houses almost half of its population and accounts for almost half of its GDP. So it makes sense that marine biodiversity is pivotal to the EU’s ambition for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework to be adopted in October 2020 at the UN Biodiversity Conference.
Detailed recommendations on what to do to halt biodiversity loss in the marine environment are listed in the EEA’s European Topic Centre on Inland and Marine Waters report from 2019 (Vaughan et al. 2019) and WWF’s Climate, Nature and our 1.5°C Future: A synthesis of IPCC and IPBES reports (WWF, 2019). We also call for more interlinkages between other EU directives, policies and strategies (Common Agricultural Policy, Common Fisheries Policy, Clean energy for all Europeans package, etc.) to avoid institutionalized biodiversity loss.
Read full responseMeeting with Karmenu Vella (Commissioner) and
10 Jul 2018 · Marine Research, Horizon Europe
Response to Update of the 2012 Bioeconomy Strategy
19 Mar 2018
We welcome the update of the EU Bioeconomy Strategy and Action Plan, aimed to respond in a better way to political priorities, and changes in European context and citizen’s priorities and to impact across all sectors of the Bioeconomy. We believe the marine and maritime sectors were not previously seen as key sectors for the Bioeconomy in the implementation of the current Bioeconomy Strategy, and we hope it will be in the updated one, as the proposed update Strategy features a general consideration of the marine and coastal environments as part of the EU Bioeconomy. The Bioeconomy Strategy must emphasise the land-sea connection in its policy communication. It would face the challenge in changing behaviour by making the connection between activities in inland areas and how it affects the ocean for people who do not live in or have access to coastal areas.
On the 8 actions to reach this objective the updated Strategy and Action Plan, we miss the consideration and involvement of the European citizens and the end-consumers of the Bioeconomy products. Raising public awareness of different ways to consume is a key action towards sustainable consumption and the success of the Bioeconomy Strategy and the EU Circular Economy Strategy. This doesn’t only mean to recycle/ re-use more and consider waste as a resource, but also to reduce the unnecessary generation of waste. To put it in another way, replacing single-use plastics with single-use bioplastics is not a long-term solution. There is a need for public engagement to increase uptake of the Bioeconomy Strategy as simply presenting facts about the problem is insufficient to influence behavioural change. Humans are an important component of the ecosystem and understanding their attitudes towards the environment is vital to the success of the Bioeconomy strategy. The communication style chosen should be transparent and free of jargon. It is also important to build public trust in government and industry as sources of credible information and disprove commonly held negative views. This can be done by improving their transparency and accountability. We believe the Bioeconomy Strategy has a huge opportunity to help achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goal 12 (SGD12) “Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns” and its targets, especially target 8: “By 2030, ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature”.
Related to this, we believe the Bioeconomy Strategy and Action Plan could learn from the successes of public awareness initiatives in the marine environment, with the concept of Ocean Literacy as a standard-bearer. Ocean Literacy is defined as having an understanding of the ocean’s influence on you and your influence on the ocean. A common feature of the EU policies is that many of them acknowledge the importance of public information and participation and stakeholder dialogue for effective implementation. EU maritime policy is largely based on the concept of ocean literacy, evidenced by reference to the ocean literacy principles and fundamental concepts either in the policy text itself or in associated communication products. This is in spite of the fact that the term ‘ocean literacy’ is not used in the policies. Communication products represent the avenue through which the majority of people learn about policy content and its context, not by reading the policy itself. The use of a number of media formats for policy communication products ensure that knowledge of the policies appeal to as wide an audience as possible. In this regard, the Common Fisheries Policy provides a good example of a policy which employs several media formats and strategies to communicate the policy and its associated regulations (e.g. infographics, videos, consumer guides and campaigns targeting different audiences).
More information: http://www.seachangeproject.eu/resources#audience=policy-makers
Read full response