| Author (Person) | Smith, Emily |
|---|---|
| Series Title | European Voice |
| Series Details | Vol.12, No.17, 4.5.06 |
| Publication Date | 04/05/2006 |
| Content Type | News |
|
Date: 04/05/06 European Commission officials claim that the maritime strategy could help erase old distinctions between the environment and the economy, promoting both as mutually beneficial components of a future EU maritime policy. They say that by making everyone think about the effect that ocean developments would have on different sectors, damage to the environment could be predicted and avoided at an early stage. But environmentalist groups are not convinced. While several lobby groups are optimistic - or at least diplomatically cautious - ahead of publication, conservation groups have already started to despair of seeing an EU maritime policy making any difference to the environment. Carol Phua of WWF claimed that drafts so far paid no attention to the protection of ocean plants and animals. In particular, she said, the debate proposed by the strategy would help protect perilously low European fish stocks. But the strategy could help protect Europe's historic coastal sites, said Phua and develop the tourist industry. So far, however, it shows no promise of protecting the oceans, by tackling problems such as pollution and endangered wildlife. The real problem for green groups lies with a separate proposal for an EU marine strategy, published last October. The maritime strategy will now propose taking the earlier marine strategy as its environmental segment. Phua called this "completely ridiculous", since the marine strategy was not only years away from being finalised but also proposed no environmental standards that could be included in a maritime strategy. "If the maritime strategy is about incorporating different policy areas then we need to set a baseline for environmental protection. This doesn't exist." The idea of defining "good environmental status" in last year's marine strategy was scrapped at the last minute, to the dismay of conservation groups who saw the published document as toothless. "We need proper guidelines as a basis," said Phua. "This is not going to happen for a very long time - maybe 20 years." Instead of plugging the gap left by the marine strategy, she said, the maritime strategy will be "Barroso's baby", making the same noises as the Commission president's other business-friendly ideas. The marine strategy may try to encourage "an ecosystem-based spatial planning" - in other words, considering how for example other areas such as shipping affect ocean ecosystems. Phua called this a "great idea" but pointed out: "We already struggle to implement this concept in one sector, namely fisheries." Fellow lobbyist Saskia Richards of Greenpeace highlighted yet more environmental holes in the draft strategy. She said it "misses environment- related health problems altogether". Richards was unhappy to see no mention of popular fears about eating fish that swim in polluted water. The health benefits of "maritime recreation" are also ignored, she said. Greenpeace might use next year's consultation period to push for recognition of the costs and benefits of a healthy marine environment, for example the economic cost of pollution. Furthermore, said Richards, the strategy "does nothing to address governance issues". For example it fails to talk about "the international dimension - what role the EU should play to become a responsible actor on the international maritime stage". Article takes a look at environmental aspects of the European Commission's plans for a future EU maritime policy. |
|
| Source Link | Link to Main Source http://www.european-voice.com/ |
| Related Links |
|
| Subject Categories | Business and Industry, Environment, Mobility and Transport |
| Countries / Regions | Europe |
