Protection of Cetaceans in European Waters—A Case Study on Bottom-Set Gillnet Fisheries within Marine Protected Areas
Identifieur interne : 000C64 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000C63; suivant : 000C65Protection of Cetaceans in European Waters—A Case Study on Bottom-Set Gillnet Fisheries within Marine Protected Areas
Auteurs : Monika Krivickaite ; Ursula Siebert ; Helena Herr ; Alexander Proelss ; Anita GillesSource :
- The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law [ 0927-3522 ] ; 2011.
Url:
DOI: 10.1163/157180811X543466
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:982128375217F8995C18E77277486F08BDFB511FLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title>Protection of Cetaceans in European Waters—A Case Study on Bottom-Set Gillnet Fisheries within Marine Protected Areas</title><author><name sortKey="Krivickaite, Monika" sort="Krivickaite, Monika" uniqKey="Krivickaite M" first="Monika" last="Krivickaite">Monika Krivickaite</name></author><author><name sortKey="Siebert, Ursula" sort="Siebert, Ursula" uniqKey="Siebert U" first="Ursula" last="Siebert">Ursula Siebert</name></author><author><name sortKey="Herr, Helena" sort="Herr, Helena" uniqKey="Herr H" first="Helena" last="Herr">Helena Herr</name></author><author><name sortKey="Proelss, Alexander" sort="Proelss, Alexander" uniqKey="Proelss A" first="Alexander" last="Proelss">Alexander Proelss</name></author><author><name sortKey="Gilles, Anita" sort="Gilles, Anita" uniqKey="Gilles A" first="Anita" last="Gilles">Anita Gilles</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:982128375217F8995C18E77277486F08BDFB511F</idno><date when="2011" year="2011">2011</date><idno type="doi">10.1163/157180811X543466</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/982128375217F8995C18E77277486F08BDFB511F/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000C64</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000C64</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a">Protection of Cetaceans in European Waters—A Case Study on Bottom-Set Gillnet Fisheries within Marine Protected Areas</title><author><name sortKey="Krivickaite, Monika" sort="Krivickaite, Monika" uniqKey="Krivickaite M" first="Monika" last="Krivickaite">Monika Krivickaite</name></author><author><name sortKey="Siebert, Ursula" sort="Siebert, Ursula" uniqKey="Siebert U" first="Ursula" last="Siebert">Ursula Siebert</name></author><author><name sortKey="Herr, Helena" sort="Herr, Helena" uniqKey="Herr H" first="Helena" last="Herr">Helena Herr</name></author><author><name sortKey="Proelss, Alexander" sort="Proelss, Alexander" uniqKey="Proelss A" first="Alexander" last="Proelss">Alexander Proelss</name></author><author><name sortKey="Gilles, Anita" sort="Gilles, Anita" uniqKey="Gilles A" first="Anita" last="Gilles">Anita Gilles</name></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">ESTU</title><idno type="ISSN">0927-3522</idno><idno type="eISSN">1571-8085</idno><imprint><publisher>BRILL</publisher><pubPlace>The Netherlands</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2011">2011</date><biblScope unit="volume">26</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="5">5</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="45">45</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0927-3522</idno></series><idno type="istex">982128375217F8995C18E77277486F08BDFB511F</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1163/157180811X543466</idno><idno type="href">15718085_026_01_s002_text.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0927-3522</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></TEI><istex><corpusName>brill-journals</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>porpoise</json:string><json:string>harbour</json:string><json:string>habitats directive</json:string><json:string>proelss</json:string><json:string>fishery</json:string><json:string>harbour porpoises</json:string><json:string>international journal</json:string><json:string>member states</json:string><json:string>tfeu</json:string><json:string>gillnet</json:string><json:string>phocoena</json:string><json:string>para</json:string><json:string>cetacean</json:string><json:string>directive</json:string><json:string>fishing vessels</json:string><json:string>siebert</json:string><json:string>ibid</json:string><json:string>phocoena phocoena</json:string><json:string>gillnets</json:string><json:string>gillnet fisheries</json:string><json:string>precautionary principle</json:string><json:string>harbour porpoise</json:string><json:string>nature conservation</json:string><json:string>council regulation</json:string><json:string>case commission</json:string><json:string>common fisheries policy</json:string><json:string>anthropogenic</json:string><json:string>federal states</json:string><json:string>federal state</json:string><json:string>european commission</json:string><json:string>natura</json:string><json:string>member state</json:string><json:string>species protection</json:string><json:string>gillnet requirements</json:string><json:string>sylt</json:string><json:string>wadden</json:string><json:string>national park</json:string><json:string>coastal</json:string><json:string>marine species</json:string><json:string>fishing effort</json:string><json:string>aerial surveys</json:string><json:string>whale sanctuary</json:string><json:string>fishing activities</json:string><json:string>fish stocks</json:string><json:string>natural habitats</json:string><json:string>marine environment</json:string><json:string>marine mammals</json:string><json:string>anthropogenic impacts</json:string><json:string>nautical miles</json:string><json:string>birds directive</json:string><json:string>target species</json:string><json:string>commission decision</json:string><json:string>annex</json:string><json:string>oxford university press</json:string><json:string>council directive</json:string><json:string>common interest</json:string><json:string>protection standards</json:string><json:string>european union</json:string><json:string>exclusive competence</json:string><json:string>small cetaceans</json:string><json:string>fisheries activities</json:string><json:string>present context</json:string><json:string>community interest</json:string><json:string>national parks</json:string><json:string>european waters</json:string><json:string>management measures</json:string><json:string>federal nature conservation</json:string><json:string>fishery resources</json:string><json:string>fisheries measures</json:string><json:string>mechanical cockle fishing</json:string><json:string>german waters</json:string><json:string>factual situation</json:string><json:string>significant effect</json:string><json:string>internal waters</json:string><json:string>mammal</json:string><json:string>precautionary</json:string><json:string>habitat</json:string><json:string>small cetacean sanctuary</json:string><json:string>marine areas</json:string><json:string>sincere cooperation</json:string><json:string>consolidated text</json:string><json:string>habitat protection</json:string><json:string>wild flora</json:string><json:string>international whaling commission</json:string><json:string>legal regime</json:string><json:string>human activities</json:string><json:string>fisheries management</json:string><json:string>significant effects</json:string><json:string>conservation measures</json:string><json:string>such measures</json:string><json:string>fisheries conservation</json:string><json:string>other member states</json:string><json:string>adjacent parts</json:string><json:string>fisheries regulation</json:string><json:string>german federation</json:string><json:string>integration clause</json:string><json:string>community fishing vessels</json:string><json:string>conservation</json:string><json:string>prey organisms</json:string><json:string>scientific studies</json:string><json:string>effective protection</json:string><json:string>harmful anthropogenic impacts</json:string><json:string>effective implementation</json:string><json:string>grid cell</json:string><json:string>encounter rate</json:string><json:string>marine ecosystems</json:string><json:string>coastal waters</json:string><json:string>coastal state</json:string><json:string>commercial fishing vessels</json:string><json:string>negative impacts</json:string><json:string>migratory species</json:string><json:string>wild animals</json:string><json:string>territorial scope</json:string><json:string>states parties</json:string><json:string>fishing gear</json:string><json:string>national level</json:string><json:string>vessel monitoring system</json:string><json:string>ospar commission</json:string><json:string>vessel monitoring systems</json:string><json:string>european community</json:string><json:string>wild birds</json:string><json:string>classic example</json:string><json:string>special areas</json:string><json:string>sustainable exploitation</json:string><json:string>plant species</json:string><json:string>protection measures</json:string><json:string>continental shelf</json:string><json:string>fisheries resources</json:string><json:string>commission regulation</json:string><json:string>cetacean research</json:string><json:string>such conflicts</json:string><json:string>private projects</json:string><json:string>legislative power</json:string><json:string>landscape management</json:string><json:string>effective measures</json:string><json:string>german nature conservation</json:string><json:string>fisheries practices</json:string><json:string>commercial fishing activities</json:string><json:string>entangling nets</json:string><json:string>data sets</json:string><json:string>stliche deutsche bucht</json:string><json:string>danish gillnet fisheries</json:string><json:string>summer months</json:string><json:string>foreign fishing vessels</json:string><json:string>european parliament</json:string><json:string>gill nets</json:string><json:string>conservation objectives</json:string><json:string>technical measures</json:string><json:string>study years</json:string><json:string>public interest</json:string><json:string>such activities</json:string><json:string>european court</json:string><json:string>scientific uncertainty</json:string><json:string>seasonal distribution</json:string><json:string>waddenzee case</json:string><json:string>avoidance behaviour</json:string><json:string>case ibid</json:string><json:string>waddenzee ruling</json:string><json:string>present situation</json:string><json:string>community waters</json:string><json:string>noise pollution</json:string><json:string>federal regulation</json:string><json:string>offshore wind farms</json:string><json:string>harbor porpoises</json:string><json:string>marine ecology progress series</json:string><json:string>federal waterways</json:string><json:string>common fisheries</json:string><json:string>speed limit</json:string><json:string>general terms</json:string><json:string>rational exploitation</json:string><json:string>predominant component</json:string><json:string>marine conservation</json:string><json:string>darwin mounds</json:string><json:string>legislative competence</json:string><json:string>formal request</json:string><json:string>competent german authorities</json:string><json:string>precautionary approach</json:string><json:string>legal basis</json:string><json:string>unilateral extension</json:string><json:string>scientific assessment</json:string><json:string>union organs</json:string><json:string>fishing opportunities</json:string><json:string>certain fish stocks</json:string><json:string>acoustic deterrent devices</json:string><json:string>anthropogenic noise</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Monika Krivickaite</name></json:item><json:item><name>Ursula Siebert</name></json:item><json:item><name>Helena Herr</name></json:item><json:item><name>Alexander Proelss</name></json:item><json:item><name>Anita Gilles</name></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>EU Environmental Policy</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>exclusive economic zone</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>protection of harbour porpoises</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>EU Common Fisheries Policy</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>user-environment conflict</value></json:item></subject><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string></originalGenre><qualityIndicators><score>5.012</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>453.6 x 680.4 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative><keywordCount>5</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>0</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>15497</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>89930</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>41</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>1</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Protection of Cetaceans in European Waters—A Case Study on Bottom-Set Gillnet Fisheries within Marine Protected Areas</title><refBibs><json:item><author><json:item><name>See,P D Jepson</name></json:item><json:item><name>P,M Bennett</name></json:item><json:item><name>C,R Allchin</name></json:item><json:item><name>R,J Law</name></json:item><json:item><name>T Kuiken</name></json:item><json:item><name>J,R Baker</name></json:item><json:item><name>E Rogan</name></json:item><json:item><name>J,R Kirkwood</name></json:item><json:item><name>U Siebert</name></json:item><json:item><name>C Joiris</name></json:item><json:item><name>L Holsbeek</name></json:item><json:item><name>H Benke</name></json:item><json:item><name>K Failing</name></json:item><json:item><name>K Frese</name></json:item><json:item><name>E Petzinger</name></json:item></author><host><volume>243</volume><pages><last>48</last><first>339</first></pages><author></author><title>Science of the Total Environment</title><publicationDate>1999</publicationDate></host><title>Investigating Potential Associations Between Chronic Exposure to Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Infectious Disease Mortality in Harbour Porpoises from England and WalesPotential Relation Between Mercury Concentrations and Necropsy Findings in Cetaceans from German waters of the North and Baltic Seas</title><publicationDate>1999</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>M,J Witt</name></json:item><json:item><name>B,J Godley</name></json:item></author><host><volume>2</volume><pages><first>10</first></pages><author></author><title>PLoS ONE</title><publicationDate>2007</publicationDate></host><title>A Step Towards Seascape Scale Conservation: Using Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) to Map Fishing Activity</title><publicationDate>2007</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>See Art</name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>80</last><first>59</first></pages><author></author><title>Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371 on the Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Fisheries Resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ L 358</title><publicationDate>1993-01</publicationDate></host><title>); Art. 4, Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2244 Laying Down Detailed Provisions Regarding Satellite-based Vessel Monitoring Systems The VMS requirement has its origin in Art which states that " each Member State shall establish a satellite-based vessel monitoring system, hereinafter referred to as 'VMS', to monitor the position of Community fishing vessels " . The system " shall apply no later than 1</title><publicationDate>1993-01</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><host><pages><first>17</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Art </name></json:item></author><title>Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2244</title><publicationDate>2003</publicationDate></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>1</last><first>20</first></pages><author><json:item><name>M,B Santos</name></json:item><json:item><name>G,J Pierce</name></json:item><json:item><name>J,A Learmonth</name></json:item><json:item><name>R,J Reid</name></json:item><json:item><name>H,M Ross</name></json:item><json:item><name>I,A P Patterson</name></json:item><json:item><name>D,G Reid</name></json:item><json:item><name>D Beare</name></json:item></author><title>Variability in the Diet of Harbor Porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in Scottish Waters</title><publicationDate>1992</publicationDate></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>P,G H Evans</name></json:item><json:item><name>Q Carson</name></json:item><json:item><name>P Fisher</name></json:item><json:item><name>W Jordan</name></json:item><json:item><name>R Limer</name></json:item><json:item><name>I,S E Rees</name></json:item><json:item><name> Shetland</name></json:item></author><host><author></author><title>The Longterm Consequences of Short-Term Responses to Disturbance. Experiences from Whalewatching Impact Assessment</title><publicationDate>2007</publicationDate></host><title>A Study of the Reactions of Harbour Porpoises to Various Boats in the Coastal Waters of</title><publicationDate>2007</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><volume>22</volume><issue>12</issue><author></author><title>See Art</title><publicationDate>1982</publicationDate></host><publicationDate>1982</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name> Jepson</name></json:item></author><host><volume>15</volume><author></author><title>op. cit</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>575</last><first>425</first></pages><author><json:item><name>P,D Jepson</name></json:item><json:item><name>M Arbelo</name></json:item><json:item><name>R Deaville</name></json:item><json:item><name>I,A P Patterson</name></json:item><json:item><name>P Castro</name></json:item><json:item><name>J,R Baker</name></json:item><json:item><name>E Degollada</name></json:item><json:item><name>H,M Ross</name></json:item><json:item><name>P Herráez</name></json:item><json:item><name>A,M Pocknell</name></json:item><json:item><name>F Rodríguez</name></json:item><json:item><name>F,E Howie</name></json:item><json:item><name>A Espinosa</name></json:item><json:item><name>R,J Reid</name></json:item><json:item><name>J,R Jaber</name></json:item><json:item><name>V Martin</name></json:item><json:item><name>A,A Cunningham</name></json:item><json:item><name>A Fernández</name></json:item></author><publicationDate>2003</publicationDate></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>J Hildebrand</name></json:item><json:item><name>D,P Nowacek</name></json:item><json:item><name>L,H Thorne</name></json:item><json:item><name>D,W Johnston</name></json:item><json:item><name>P,L Tyack</name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>81</last><first>37</first></pages><author></author><title>Impacts of Anthropogenic Noise on Cetaceans, International Whaling Commission Report No. 56 (Cambridge: International Whaling Commission</title><publicationDate>2004</publicationDate></host><publicationDate>2004</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>R Bruhn</name></json:item><json:item><name>N Kannan</name></json:item><json:item><name>G Petrick</name></json:item><json:item><name>D,E Schulz-Bull</name></json:item><json:item><name>J,C Duinker</name></json:item></author><host><author></author><title>The Influence of Age, Sex Body-Condition and Regions on the Levels of PBDEs and Toxaphene in Harbour Porpoises from European Waters'</title><publicationDate>1999</publicationDate></host><title>Persistent Chlorinated Organic Contaminants in Harbour Porpoises from the North Sea, the Baltic Sea and Arctic Waters</title><publicationDate>1999</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>3933</last><first>39</first></pages><author><json:item><name>A Beineke</name></json:item><json:item><name>U Siebert</name></json:item><json:item><name>M,S Mclachlan</name></json:item><json:item><name>R Bruhn</name></json:item><json:item><name>K Thron</name></json:item><json:item><name>K Failing</name></json:item><json:item><name>G Müller</name></json:item><json:item><name>W,K Baumgärtner</name></json:item><json:item><name>A Das</name></json:item><json:item><name>K Vossen</name></json:item><json:item><name>G Tolley</name></json:item><json:item><name>K Vikingsson</name></json:item><json:item><name>G Thron</name></json:item><json:item><name>W Müller</name></json:item><json:item><name>U Baumgärtner</name></json:item><json:item><name> Siebert</name></json:item></author><title>Investigations upon the Potential Influence of Environmental Contaminants on Thymus and Spleen of Harbor Porpoises (Phocoena phocoena)Interfollicular Fibrosis on the Thyroid Glands of the Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena): An Endocrine Disruption</title><publicationDate>2005</publicationDate></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>U Siebert</name></json:item><json:item><name>A Wünschmann</name></json:item><json:item><name>R Weiss</name></json:item><json:item><name>H Frank</name></json:item><json:item><name>H Benke</name></json:item><json:item><name>K Frese</name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>102</last><first>124</first></pages><author></author><title>Regional Differences in Bacteria Flora in Harbour Porpoises from the North Atlantic: Environmental Effects</title><publicationDate>2001</publicationDate></host><title>Post-Mortem Findings in Harbour Porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) from the German North and Baltic Sea</title><publicationDate>2001</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><host><author><json:item><name> Siebert</name></json:item></author><title>op. cit., supra note 41 (Post-Mortem Findings)</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>See,J Verschuuren</name></json:item></author><host><volume>265</volume><pages><first>17</first></pages><author></author><title>Journal of Environmental Law</title><publicationDate>2005</publicationDate></host><title>Shellfish for Fishermen or for Birds? Article 6 Habitats Directive and the Precautionary Principle</title><publicationDate>2005</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><pages><last>48</last><first>40</first></pages><author></author><title>on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment (OJ L 175</title><publicationDate>1985-06</publicationDate></host><publicationDate>1985-06</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>ECJ Case C-127/02, op. cit., supra note 81 at paras. 27 et seq</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>See also the opinion of Advocate General Kokott in ECJ Case C-127/02, ibid., at paras. 19 et seq</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>European Commission</name></json:item><json:item><name>Managing Natura</name></json:item></author><host><author></author><title>Sites—The Provisions of Article 6 of the 'Habitats' Directive 92 and 43 and EEC</title><publicationDate>2000</publicationDate></host><publicationDate>2000</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>The Precautionary Principle and Nature Conservation Law</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>E,G </name></json:item></author><host><volume>150</volume><pages><last>31</last><first>12</first></pages><issue>304</issue><author></author><title>Laying Down Measures Concerning Incidental Catches of Cetaceans in Fisheries and Amending Regulation</title><publicationDate>2004-04-26</publicationDate></host><title>) was based on Art. 37 of the EC Treaty (today: Art. 43 TFEU) See also the position taken by the Commission in COM (2001) 143 final, 16 March 2001 Elements of a Strategy for the Integration of Environmental Protection Requirements into the Common Fisheries Policy at 7</title><publicationDate>2004-04-26</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><volume>4</volume><author></author><title>Art</title></host><title>Note that for fisheries measures not aiming at the conservation of marine biological resources, competences are shared between the EU and the Member States; cf</title></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><author></author><title>European Fisheries Law</title><publicationDate>2009</publicationDate></host><publicationDate>2009</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><host><author><json:item><name>Op Proelss</name></json:item></author></host></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><pages><first>17</first></pages><author></author><title>ECJ Case 405</title></host><title>Etablissements Armand Mondiet SA v. Armement Islais SARL. [1993] ECR I-6133 at para</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>See also Communication of the Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Agriculture of the State of Schleswig-Holstein, op. cit., supra note 20 at 28</title></host></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><pages><last>38</last><first>37</first></pages><author></author><title>on the Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Fisheries Resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ L 104, 23</title><publicationDate>2002</publicationDate></host><publicationDate>2002</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><host><author><json:item><name>Art </name></json:item></author><title>1 of Commission Decision</title><publicationDate>2005</publicationDate></host></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><pages><first>14</first></pages><author></author><title>Effectiveness of Acoustic Deterrent Devices (Pingers)</title><publicationDate>2005</publicationDate></host><publicationDate>2005</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><host><author><json:item><name>E,G </name></json:item></author><title>ECR I-1649) the European Parliament (together with the Kingdom of Denmark) brought an action for annulment of a Commission Decision relevant to the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment before the ECJ. It claimed that the Commission, in adopting the contested decision, did not comply with the conditions laid down in the pertinent Directive</title><publicationDate>2008</publicationDate></host></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><author></author><title>10% of all Parliamentary questions put to the Commission; see COM</title><publicationDate>2008</publicationDate></host><publicationDate>2008</publicationDate></json:item></refBibs><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><volume>26</volume><pages><last>45</last><first>5</first></pages><issn><json:string>0927-3522</json:string></issn><issue>1</issue><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1571-8085</json:string></eissn><title>The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law</title></host><categories><wos><json:string>social science</json:string><json:string>law</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>economic & social sciences</json:string><json:string>social sciences</json:string><json:string>law</json:string></scienceMetrix></categories><publicationDate>2011</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2011</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1163/157180811X543466</json:string></doi><id>982128375217F8995C18E77277486F08BDFB511F</id><score>0.010306625</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/982128375217F8995C18E77277486F08BDFB511F/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/982128375217F8995C18E77277486F08BDFB511F/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/982128375217F8995C18E77277486F08BDFB511F/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/982128375217F8995C18E77277486F08BDFB511F/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a">Protection of Cetaceans in European Waters—A Case Study on Bottom-Set Gillnet Fisheries within Marine Protected Areas</title><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>BRILL</publisher><pubPlace>The Netherlands</pubPlace><availability><p>© 2011 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</p></availability><date>2011</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a">Protection of Cetaceans in European Waters—A Case Study on Bottom-Set Gillnet Fisheries within Marine Protected Areas</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">Monika</forename><surname>Krivickaite</surname></persName></author><author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">Ursula</forename><surname>Siebert</surname></persName></author><author xml:id="author-3"><persName><forename type="first">Helena</forename><surname>Herr</surname></persName></author><author xml:id="author-4"><persName><forename type="first">Alexander</forename><surname>Proelss</surname></persName></author><author xml:id="author-5"><persName><forename type="first">Anita</forename><surname>Gilles</surname></persName></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">ESTU</title><idno type="pISSN">0927-3522</idno><idno type="eISSN">1571-8085</idno><imprint><publisher>BRILL</publisher><pubPlace>The Netherlands</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2011"></date><biblScope unit="volume">26</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="5">5</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="45">45</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">982128375217F8995C18E77277486F08BDFB511F</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1163/157180811X543466</idno><idno type="href">15718085_026_01_s002_text.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2011</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>EU Environmental Policy</term></item><item><term>exclusive economic zone</term></item><item><term>protection of harbour porpoises</term></item><item><term>EU Common Fisheries Policy</term></item><item><term>user-environment conflict</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2011">Created</change><change when="2011">Published</change><change xml:id="refBibs-istex" who="#ISTEX-API" when="2016-10-10">References added</change><change xml:id="refBibs-istex" who="#ISTEX-API" when="2017-01-17">References added</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus brill-journals not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" URI="http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/2.3/journalpublishing.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="2.3">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="e-issn">15718085</journal-id>
<journal-title>The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title>ESTU</abbrev-journal-title>
<issn pub-type="ppub">0927-3522</issn>
<issn pub-type="epub">1571-8085</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name>BRILL</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>The Netherlands</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1163/157180811X543466</article-id>
<title-group>
<article-title>Protection of Cetaceans in European Waters—A Case Study on Bottom-Set Gillnet Fisheries within Marine Protected Areas</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Krivickaite</surname>
<given-names>Monika</given-names>
</name>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Siebert</surname>
<given-names>Ursula</given-names>
</name>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Herr</surname>
<given-names>Helena</given-names>
</name>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Proelss</surname>
<given-names>Alexander</given-names>
</name>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Gilles</surname>
<given-names>Anita</given-names>
</name>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<year>2011</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>26</volume>
<issue>1</issue>
<fpage>5</fpage>
<lpage>45</lpage>
<permissions>
<copyright-statement>© 2011 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</copyright-statement>
<copyright-year>2011</copyright-year>
<copyright-holder>Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</copyright-holder>
</permissions>
<self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="15718085_026_01_s002_text.pdf"></self-uri>
<kwd-group>
<kwd>EU Environmental Policy</kwd>
<kwd>exclusive economic zone</kwd>
<kwd>protection of harbour porpoises</kwd>
<kwd>EU Common Fisheries Policy</kwd>
<kwd>user-environment conflict</kwd>
</kwd-group>
<custom-meta-wrap>
<custom-meta>
<meta-name>version</meta-name>
<meta-value>header</meta-value>
</custom-meta>
</custom-meta-wrap>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body>
<p>© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI: 10.1163/157180811X543466 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 brill.nl/estu THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MARINE AND COASTAL LAW Protection of Cetaceans in European Waters—A Case Study on Bottom-Set Gillnet Fisheries within Marine Protected Areas Alexander Proelss* Department of Law, University of Trier, D-54286 Trier, Germany Monika Krivickaite Walther Schücking Institute for International Law, Christian-Albrechts-University at Kiel, Westring 400, D-24098 Kiel, Germany Anita Gilles, Helena Herr and Ursula Siebert Research and Technology Centre Westcoast, Christian-Albrechts-University at Kiel, Hafentörn 1, D-25761 Büsum, Germany Received: 8 June 2010; revised: 4 October 2010; accepted: 12 October 2010 Abstract This article explores the legal regime of the protection of marine species and habitats within European waters by taking the protection of harbour porpoises in the German territorial sea and exclusive economic zone as an example. The analysis is based on a scientific assessment of the occurrence of and the anthropogenic impacts on harbour porpoises in the North Sea. The relationship between the protection of marine species within the European Union (EU) on the one hand and the Common Fisheries Policy of the EU on the other constitutes a classic example of a user-environment conflict. The article explores how such conflicts ought to be solved under the pertinent legal rules. Keywords protection of harbour porpoises; EU Common Fisheries Policy; EU Environmental Policy; exclusive economic zone; user-environment conflict Introduction The relationship between the protection of marine species on the one hand and fisheries on the other has been a matter of dispute for decades. It constitutes * This study was supported in part by the Future Ocean Excellence Cluster 80, funded by the German Research Foundation on behalf of the German federal and State Governments.</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / 6 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 a classic example of a user-environment conflict. 1 Within the legal framework of the European Union (EU), this conflict is enshrined in the duality of two separate EU policies, namely the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the Environment Policy. 2 While the Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna (Habitats Directive) 3 aims to establish a high standard relevant to habitats and species protection, it does not need any detailed explanation that fisheries management measures in many cases have the potential to collide with the objective to protect and conserve both fish stocks and non-target species such as marine mammals and seabirds. How such conflicts between fisheries management and protection of species and habitats ought to be solved is subject to ongoing legal and scientific debate. 4 In this article, we explore the legal regime of the protection of marine spe- cies and habitats within marine areas over which the EU Member States exer- cise jurisdiction by taking the protection of harbour porpoises in the German territorial sea and exclusive economic zone (EEZ) as an example. Our analysis is based on a scientific assessment of the occurrence of and the anthropogenic impacts on harbour porpoises in the relevant part of the North Sea. Although in the legal part of our analysis we focus on the negative impacts of fisheries activities on the species concerned, we believe that it is helpful to give a com- prehensive overview of the scientific background, which includes other impacts such as, e.g., those caused by sand and gravel mining and by pollu- tion. We appreciate that, according to the precautionary principle, scientific uncertainty must not be used to postpone measures to prevent environmental degradation, 5 but environmental regulations aiming at the protection of spe- 1 See Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, Marine Spatial Planning (Manual and Guides No. 53) (Paris: IOC/UNESCO, 2009) at 19. The document is available at: http://www.unesco-ioc-marinesp.be/uploads/ documentenbank/d87c0c421da4593fd93bbee 1898e1d51.pdf. 2 See Art. 3(1)(d) and Art. 4(2)(e) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). 3 Council Directive 92/43/EEC, 21 May 1992 on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, pp. 7–50). 4 Cf. R. Churchill and D. Owen, The EC Common Fisheries Policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) at 258 et seq . 5 See Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 31 ILM 874 (1992). The status of the principle as international customary law is subject to ongoing debate. Cf. P . Birnie, A. Boyle and C. Redgwell, International Law and the Environment , 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) at 159 et seq .; J. Cameron and J. Abouchar, ‘The Status of the Precautionary Principle in International Law’, in: D. Freestone and E. Hey (eds.) The Precautionary Principle and International Law (The Hague, Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1996) 29–52; A. Trouwborst, Evolution and Status of the P recautionary Princi- ple in International Law (The Hague, London, Boston: Kluwer Law International, 2002) at 33 et seq .</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 7 cies and habitats ought to be based on scientific facts. As is well known, a statute will defeat its purpose if and to the extent to which the enacted measure(s) do(es) not correspond with a reality which has been accepted as true in the legislative procedure. 6 Such ‘symbolic’ or ‘alibi’ laws may not only give rise to concerns as to their compatibility with constitutional and/or inter- national law. 7 Rather, they may even worsen the factual situation, because the adoption of effective measures is further delayed. This is particularly problem- atic in the field of species protection where delay may ultimately lead to the extinction of a species. The abundance of harbour porpoises in the North Sea area, which will be analyzed below, is a telling example of such a develop- ment. Against this background, by assessing the factual situation and the legal foundations, as well as implications and interdependencies of the rele- vant measures in force, we hope to contribute to the implementation of an effective protection regime and to finding solutions to user-environment conflicts within European waters. Occurrence of and Anthropogenic Impacts on Harbour Porpoises in the Eastern North Sea The harbour porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena ) is the smallest cetacean inhabiting temperate to cold waters throughout the northern hemisphere. In the North Atlantic, the species inhabits coastal waters of Europe, North America and northern Africa. It is the only cetacean species regularly found in both the German North and Baltic Seas. 8 Due to its occurrence, mainly but not 6 See, e.g., S. Meyer, ‘Die Verfassungswidrigkeit symbolischer und ungeeigneter Gesetze’ (2009) 48 Der Staat 278–303. For a discussion of the environmental policy sector see G. Lübbe-Wolff and B. Hansjürgens (eds.) Symbolische Umweltpolitik (Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2000). 7 Meyer, ibid . 8 P.J.H. Reijnders, ‘Harbour Porpoises Phocoena phocoena in the North Sea: Numerical Responses to Changes in Environmental Conditions’ (1992) 26 Netherlands Journal of Aquatic Ecology 75–85; H. Benke, U. Siebert, R. Lick, B. Bandomir and R. Weiss, ‘The Current Status of Harbour Porpoises ( Phocoena phocoena ) in German waters’ (1998) 46 Archive of Fishery and Marine Research 97–123; P.S. Hammond, P. Berggren, H. Benke, D.L. Borchers, A. Collet, M.P. Heide-Jørgensen, S. Heimlich, A.R. Hiby, M.F. Leopold and N. Oien, ‘Abundance of Harbour Porpoises and Other Cetaceans in the North Sea and Adjacent Waters’ (2002) 39 Journal of Applied Ecology 361–376; M. Scheidat, K.-H. Kock and U. Sieber, ‘Summer Distribution of Harbour Porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena ) in the German North Sea and Baltic Sea’ (2004) 6 Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 251–257; U. Siebert, A. Gilles, K. Lucke, M. Ludwig, H. Benke, K.-H. Kock and M. Scheidat, ‘A Decade of Harbour Por- poise Occurrence in German Waters—Analyses of Aerial Surveys, Incidental Sightings and</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / 8 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 exclusively, in coastal or shelf waters, it is threatened by a variety of anthro- pogenic impacts arising from human activities like fisheries, sea traffic, explo- ration of natural resources and pollution. Harbour Porpoises in the Eastern North Sea: Distribution and Abundance Knowledge of temporal and spatial cycles of harbour porpoise distribution provides valuable insights into the uses and relative importance of investigated areas. The most appropriate and standardised method for investigating abun- dance and distribution of cetaceans are dedicated visual surveys. The method- ology for aerial surveys follows the ‘line-transect distance-sampling’ technique, according to which the observer travels along a transect line and records detected objects and the distance from the line to each object. 9 In this study we used two data sets that were collected in the eastern part of the North Sea, using the same methodology but during different years. 10 The earlier data set was collected in the summer months of 1995 and 1996 during aerial surveys in the eastern North Sea, covering the whale sanctuary estab- lished later. The most recent data were collected by means of aerial surveys that were conducted year-round between May 2002 and October 2006 to assess distribution and abundance of harbour porpoises in the German North Sea EEZ and territorial sea. 11 Data of the five study years were pooled when collected in the same season. Table 1 provides information on effort and har- bour porpoise sightings within the boundary of the small cetacean sanctuary (SCS) 12 established within the limits of the German territorial sea west of the Strandings’ (2006) 56 Journal of Sea Research 65–80; A. Gilles, M. Scheidat and U. Siebert, ‘Seasonal Distribution of Harbour Porpoises and Possible Interference of Offshore Wind Farms in the German North Sea (2009) 383 Marine Ecology Progress Series 295–307. 9 S.T. Buckland, D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, L.J. Lee, D.L. Borchers and L. Thomas, Introduction to Distance Sampling—Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) at 448. Further details on field protocol and data analysis can be found in M. Scheidat, A. Gilles and U. Siebert, ‘Evaluating the Distribution and Density of Harbour Porpoises ( Phocoena phocoena ) in Selected Areas in German waters’, in: H. von Nordheim, J.C. Krause and D. Boedeker (eds.) Progress in Marine Conservation in Europe (Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 2006) 189–208; A. Gilles, H. Herr, K. Lehnert, M. Scheidat and U. Siebert, ‘Harbour Porpoises—Abundance Estimates and Seasonal Distri- bution Patterns’, in: K. Wollny-Goerke and K. Eskildsen (eds.) Marine Mammals and Seabirds in Front of Offshore Wind Energy (Wiesbaden: B.G. Teubner, 2008) 19–36. 10 Details on the results of the aerial surveys conducted in June 1995 and July 1996 can be found in R.P. Sonntag, H. Benke, A.R. Hiby, R. Lick and D. Adelung, ‘Identification of the First Harbour Porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena ) Calving Ground in the North Sea’ (1999) 41 Journal of Sea Research 225–232; Siebert et al., op. cit., supra note 8. 11 Gilles et al ., op. cit., supra note 9. 12 For information on the legal basis of the sanctuary see infra .</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 1–32 9 islands of Sylt and Amrum. Fig. 1 shows estimated mean density of harbour porpoises per grid cell (5×5 km) in the area of the sanctuary and in its sur- roundings (about 30 km to the west and to the south respectively). Usage of the area clearly varied across seasons. Encounter rate was highest during the summer months, which is also the season with the highest propor- tion of mother-calf pairs. Encounter rate was lowest in winter, started to increase in spring, reached highest values in summer and decreased again in autumn. In 1995 and 1996, surveys were only conducted in summer, there- fore it is not possible to compare the situation of those years with other sea- sons, but encounter rates in summer were similar between the two data sets. The spatial distribution of harbour porpoises in the SCS and immediate vicinity is not homogeneous throughout the year. Fig. 1 shows various ‘hot spot’ areas: in spring they are in the south and west; in summer they are to the west and north of the SCS. In autumn and winter densities are lowest and harbour porpoises are more evenly distributed. The summer season clearly shows the importance of the area for mother-calf (m-c) pairs. Figure 1 b) shows the locations of 65 pairs. Not only is the SCS an important habitat for m-c pairs, but the adjacent part of the German EEZ especially is shown to be the most important area in the south-eastern North Sea. 13 Anthropogenic Impacts As the North Sea is one of the most intensely exploited marine areas in the world, 14 human activities include fisheries, oil and gas exploration, sand and 13 Scheidat et al . , op. cit., supra note 9. 14 B.S. Halpern, S. Walbridge, K.A. Selkoe, C.V. Kappel, F. Micheli, C. D’Agrosa, J.F. Bruno, K.S. Casey, C. Ebert, H.E. Fox, R. Fujita, D. Heinemann, H.S. Lenihan, E.M.P. Madin, M.T. Perry, E.R. Selig, M. Spalding, R. Steneck and R. Watson, ‘A Global Map of Human Impact on Marine Ecosystems’ (2008) 319 Science 948–952. Table 1. Harbour porpoises. Main aerial survey results in the area of the small cetacean sanctuary (1,240 km 2 ) survey km on effort sightings individuals calves % calves encounter rate (sighting/km) June 1995 126 14 16 2 12.5 0.11 July 1996 353 28 34 4 11.8 0.08 spring (2002–2006) 818 51 65 0 – 0.06 summer (2002–2006) 988 105 127 7 5.5 0.11 fall (2002–2006) 793 23 29 2 6.9 0.03 winter (2002–2006) 335 2 2 0 – 0.01 total 3413 223 273 15</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / 10 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 a) b)</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 11 Fig. 1. Distribution of harbour porpoises in the SCS and adjacent sea areas. The map shows mean densities (individuals/km 2 ) per grid cell (5×5 km). Locations of mother- calf pairs are denoted by a star. Data from the study years 2002–2006 were pooled. a) spring (March–May), b) summer ( June–Aug.), c) autumn (Sep.–Nov.), d) winter (Dec.–Feb.). c) d)</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / 12 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 gravel extraction, shipping, military exercises, construction of pipelines and offshore wind farms and recreational activities. Additionally, all of these uses constitute, to varying degrees, sources of marine pollution. 15 Not all of them apply to the SCS, though. Oil and gas are not extracted within that area. As of today, wind farms will be restricted to the EEZ, and major shipping routes are placed in the south and the centre of the German North Sea. Among the remaining anthropogenic activities in the SCS which are likely to have an influence on harbour porpoises, fisheries are probably the most intense human use. Fisheries To assess fisheries in the North Sea, vessel monitoring data provide a good means to spatially calculate fishing effort within national borders. 16 As from 1 January 2005, all commercial fishing vessels exceeding 15 metres length overall, which fly the flag of one of the EU Member States, are obliged to operate a satellite-based vessel monitoring system (VMS), which enables the monitoring of the position, time at a position, course and speed of the ves- sels. 17 Third-country vessels are obliged to have an operational satellite track- ing device installed on board as long as they are in EU waters. 18 By means of 15 See P.D. Jepson, P.M. Bennett, C.R. Allchin, R.J. Law, T. Kuiken, J.R. Baker, E. Rogan and J.R. Kirkwood, ‘Investigating Potential Associations Between Chronic Exposure to Polychlo- rinated Biphenyls and Infectious Disease Mortality in Harbour Porpoises from England and Wales’ (1999) 243/244 Science of the Total Environment 339–48; U. Siebert, C. Joiris, L. Holsbeek, H. Benke, K. Failing, K. Frese and E. Petzinger, ‘Potential Relation Between Mercury Concentrations and Necropsy Findings in Cetaceans from German waters of the North and Baltic Seas’ (1999) 38 Marine Pollution Bulletin 285–295. See also OSPAR Com- mission, Regional Quality Status Report II (Greater North Sea), Chapter 3: Human activities (London: OSPAR, 2003). 16 M.J. Witt and B.J. Godley, A Step Towards Seascape Scale Conservation: Using Vessel Monitor- ing Systems (VMS) to Map Fishing Activity , PLoS ONE 2 and 10 (2007). 17 See Art. 22 (1)(b), Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002, 20 December 2002 on the Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Fisheries Resources under the Common Fisher- ies Policy (OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, pp. 59–80); Art. 4, Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2244/2003, 18 December 2003 Laying Down Detailed Provisions Regarding Satellite-based Vessel Monitoring Systems (OJ L 333, 20.12.2003, pp. 17–27). The VMS requirement has its origin in Art. 3, Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2847/93, 12 October 1993, which states that “each Member State shall establish a satellite-based vessel monitoring system, hereinafter referred to as ‘VMS’, to monitor the position of Community fishing vessels”. The system “shall apply no later than 1 January 2000 to all Community fishing vessels exceeding 20 metres between perpendiculars or 24 metres overall length wherever they operate.” 18 Art. 17, Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2244/2003, op. cit., supra note 17.</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 13 a filter developed by Fock, 19 fishing effort can be separated from steaming effort and calculated for each fishing method (metier). Although most com- mercial fishing vessels in the North Sea exceed 15 metres of length, it remains unclear to what extent smaller (international) fishing vessels use the area. According to VMS data evaluation, applying the filter by Fock, commercial fishing activities in the whale sanctuary in 2006 amounted to approximately 47,000 hours of fishing effort. Small beam trawlers constituted the largest fleet, accounting for 96% of all effort. Effort was evenly distributed within the sanctuary (see Fig. 2). Other types of fisheries carried out in the whale sanctu- ary were large beam trawling, seining, and trawling with various other gears. Gillnets are the major source of by-catches and therefore particularly prob- lematic for marine mammals. 20 These nets consist of a series of panels of meshes that can be set to fish at any depth in the water column. Porpoises often fail to detect nylon fibres of gillnets, because the material produces almost no echo. 21 According to a study by Vinther and Larsen, the average number of porpoises caught as by-catch between 1987 and 2001 by only Danish gillnet fisheries in the North Sea area was between 5,500 to 5,800 p.a. 22 In 2003, only seven gillnet vessels flying the flag of Germany fished in 19 H.O. Fock, ‘Fisheries in the Context of Marine Spatial Planning: Defining Principal Areas for Fisheries in the German EEZ’ (2008) 32 Marine Policy 728–739. 20 In a 2004 communication (on file with the authors) from the Ministry for Environ- ment, Nature Conservation and Agriculture of the State of Schleswig-Holstein (which argues in favour of extending the gillnet requirements applicable within the SCS to the adjacent sea areas), gillnet fisheries are identified as the primary threat to harbour porpoises. See also T.A. Jefferson and B.E. Curry, ‘A Global Review of Porpoise (cetacea: phocoenidae) Mortality in Gill Nets’ (1994) 67 Biological Conservation 167–183; G.P. Donovan, C.H. Lockyer and A.R. Martin, Cetaceans and Gill Nets , Reports of the International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 15 (Cambridge: International Whaling Commission, 1994); ASCOBANS MOP 3 (26–28 July 2000), Resolution No. 3, Inci- dental Take of Small Cetaceans. 21 W.W.L. Au and L. Jones, ‘Acoustic Reflectivity of Nets: Implications concerning Incidental Take of Dolphins’ (1991) 7 Marine Mammal Science 258–273; R.A. Kastelein, W.W.L. Au and D. de Haan, ‘Detection Distances of Bottom-set Gillnets by Harbour Porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) and Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) ’ (2000) 49 Marine Environmental Research 359–375; S. Koschinski, B.M. Culik, E.A. Trippel and L. Ginzkey, ‘Behavioral Reac- tions of Free-ranging Harbour Porpoises ( Phocoena phocoena ) Encountering Standard Nylon and BaSO 4 Mesh Gillnets and Warning Sound’ (2006) 313 Marine Ecology Progress Series 285–294. 22 M. Vinther and F. Larsen, ‘Updated Estimates of Harbour Porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena ) Bycatch in the Danish North Sea Bottom-set Gillnet Fishery’ (2004) 6 Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 19–24, at 22. Note that the methods used in that study estimate a significant reduction of by-catch in the most recent years (2001: 3,800 and 2,800 by-catches respectively).</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / 14 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 the North Sea, but the by-catch rates were similar to those reported from Danish gillnet fisheries. 23 Small beam trawlers mainly trawl for shrimp. Incidental by-catch of por- poises in shrimp fishing gear has not yet been recorded and is not considered a threat. However, large by-catch of small flat fish in shrimp fisheries is a known problem. As adult porpoises largely feed on flatfish 24 and shrimps are 23 K.-H. Kock and C. von Dorrien, Research into the Reduction of By-catch of Marine Mammals in German Fisheries in EU Waters , 2009, at 3 (manuscript on file with the authors). 24 M.B. Santos and G.J. Pierce, ‘The Diet of Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the Northeast Atlantic’ (2003) 41 Oceanography and Marine Biology 355–390; N. Guse, N. Markones, B. Mendel, N. Sonntag and S. Garthe, Feeding Ecology of Marine Mammals and Sea Birds for the Management of NATURA 2000 Areas, Final Report to the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, 2008, at 67; on file with the authors. Fig. 2. Fishing effort and travelling hours of fishing vessels in 2006 calculated from VMS data. Calculations are summarised for a 10×10 km grid cell scheme. The black circles refer to small beam trawl effort only; travelling effort comprises all fishing vessels equipped with VMS. VMS data was kindly provided and prepared by Heino Fock.</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 15 an important component of juvenile porpoise diet, 25 resource competition could be of concern in the whale sanctuary and the adjacent sea areas. More- over, intense fishing effort can mean stress for marine mammals, as passing vessels and nets may interrupt the animals during essential activities like feed- ing, mating or nursing, and may trigger short-term or long-term avoidance behaviour, just as sea traffic in general may do. 26 A further anthropocentric impact caused by fishing is the amount of traffic arising from fishing vessels (Fig. 2). In 2006, apart from trawling activities, fishing vessels spent 3,450 hours travelling through the sanctuary and proba- bly held the highest share of vessel activity within the area. Other commercial vessels such as freighters or tankers do not travel through the area, as they are bound to use the larger shipping routes. 27 No ferry routes are placed within the sanctuary. The remaining traffic in the area consists of recreational vessels, such as sailing boats, excursion boats, angling boats and small motorboats. Apart from increasing the risk of pollution, 28 vessels greatly contribute to noise pollution of the sea, 29 which can cause stress, lead to avoidance behav- iour and disturb communication, orientation and prey location among ceta- ceans. 30 It should be noted, though, that according to the Federal Regulation on Navigation in the North Sea National Parks, all vessels travelling on the 25 M.B. Santos, G.J. Pierce, J.A. Learmonth, R.J. Reid, H.M. Ross, I.A.P. Patterson, D.G. Reid and D. Beare, ‘Variability in the Diet of Harbor Porpoises (Phocoena phocoena ) in Scottish Waters 1992–2003’ (2004) 20 Marine Mammal Science 1–27. 26 P.G.H. Evans, Q. Carson, P. Fisher, W. Jordan, R. Limer and I. Rees, ‘A Study of the Reactions of Harbour Porpoises to Various Boats in the Coastal Waters of S.E. Shetland’, (1994) 8 European Research on Cetaceans 60–64; D. Lusseau and L. Bejder, ‘The Long- term Consequences of Short-Term Responses to Disturbance. Experiences from Whale- watching Impact Assessment’ (2007) 20 International Journal of Comparative Psychol ogy 228–236. 27 See Art. 22(1) and (2) of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC; 1833 UNTS 396). 28 Jepson et al., op. cit., supra note 15. 29 P.D. Jepson, M. Arbelo, R. Deaville, I.A.P. Patterson, P. Castro, J.R. Baker, E. Degollada, H.M. Ross, P. Herráez, A.M. Pocknell, F. Rodríguez, F.E. Howie, A. Espinosa, R.J. Reid, J.R. Jaber, V. Martin, A.A. Cunningham and A. Fernández,, ‘Gas-Bubble Lesions in Stranded Cetaceans’ (2003) 425 Nature 575–576. 30 J. Hildebrand, Impacts of Anthropogenic Noise on Cetaceans , International Whaling Com- mission Report No. 56 (Cambridge: International Whaling Commission, 2004); D.P. Now- acek, L.H. Thorne, D.W. Johnston and P.L. Tyack, ‘Responses of Cetaceans to Anthropogenic Noise’ (2007) 37 Mammal Review 81–115.</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / 16 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 federal waterways within the national parks must adhere to a speed limit of 12 knots, 31 possibly reducing the level of noise pollution. 32 Sand and Gravel Mining Sand is extracted in the specifically authorised field Westerland III, located in the middle of the sanctuary (Fig. 3). Since 1984, sand has continuously been 31 See § 3 (2) of the Revised Verordnung (Regulation) über das Befahren der Bundeswasserstraßen in Nationalparken im Bereich der Nordsee of 15 February 1995 (BGBl. 1995 I 211). 32 Whether the speed restriction is limited to the considerably smaller area of the national parks in their borders of 1985 is subject to debate. Although the Regulation refers to the National Park Law of the Federal State of Schleswig-Holstein of 1985 (cf. Art. 1(1) No. 1), that law in its entirety was replaced by the National Park Law of 1999 (NPL). Thus, it seems well justifiable to hold that the speed limit is applicable on all federal waterways within the larger national park ‘Wadden Sea of Schleswig-Holstein’ as established in 1999, which, again, includes the SCS. The opposite view is taken by the Ministry for Environment, Nature Con- servation and Agriculture of the State of Schleswig-Holstein; see Communication, op. cit., supra note 20 at 28. Fig. 3. Sand extraction field (black) and military practice areas (green) in the small cetacean sanctuary.</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 17 extracted in the context of coastal protection measures for the island of Sylt (beach nourishment). Until 1995, yearly extractions amounted to approxi- mately 2 million m 3 , since then to 1 million m 3 . 33 It is to be expected that the main effects of sand extraction on porpoises are disturbance/displacement due to noise pollution and destruction of nursing grounds for prey organisms such as sand eels. 34 Military Activities and Lying of Cables More than 70% of the area of the SCS is in the German and Danish military practice areas, namely the German areas “Sylt ED-D41” and “Luft-Boden- Schießen”, and the Danish (air space) area “Rømø Vest” (Fig. 3). The degree of utilisation of these areas is known only to the German and Danish military forces. However, the name of the second German area indicates shooting practices from the air to the ground. Although there is still a considerable degree of scientific uncertainty, it cannot be ruled out that sonar activities, as well as other activities producing underwater noise (such as explosives/ammu- nition), represent a considerable danger for harbour porpoises. 35 Additionally, several cable routes cross through the sanctuary, and more are scheduled to be installed. The effect of cables on porpoises has not been the subject of scien- tific studies. Nevertheless, potential impacts include electromagnetic fields which might disturb harbour porpoise orientation. Pollution Although the water quality around Sylt and Amrum is generally judged as good, 36 detailed investigations show that heavy metal and chemical pollutant concentrations in the North Sea increase towards the coast and often exceed background levels in coastal waters. 37 For porpoises the accumulation of pol- lutants in prey organisms is of concern. Studies have shown a negative influ- ence of pollutant concentrations and diseases of marine mammals. 38 In comparison to animals from Greenlandic, Icelandic and Norwegian waters, 33 H. von Nordheim and D. Boedeker, Umweltvorsorge bei der marinen Sand und Kiesgewin- nung (Bonn: Selbstverlag, 1998) at 86. 34 Ibid . 35 Jepson et al., op. cit., supra note 29. 36 See http://www.badewasserqualitaet.schleswig-holstein.de/kreise.htm#NF. 37 See http://www.bsh.de/de/Meeresdaten/Beobachtungen/BLMP-Messprogramm/PDF/Ber_ 99_02/nord-see9902c.pdf. 38 See, e.g., Jepson et al., op. cit., supra note 15; Siebert et al., op. cit., supra note 15.</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / 18 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 harbour porpoises from the North Sea show higher levels of pollutants. 39 Individuals with higher PCB and PBDE concentrations have shown lesions indicative of immune-suppression and endocrine disruption. 40 Strandings Carcasses of porpoises are constantly found along the beaches of the north Frisian islands and the Wadden Sea coast. Seasonal distribution and age com- position of the findings substantiate the status of the SCS as an important calving ground, as many neonate porpoises are found (Fig. 4) and findings peak in the early summer months during the birth period of the animals. Between 1988 and 2008, 1,035 carcasses were collected along the coast in the vicinity of the sanctuary (Fig. 4), of which 25 revealed indications for poten- tial by-catch and one individual was considered a true by-catch. The main pathological findings in harbour porpoises were bronchopneumonia caused by parasites and secondary bacterial infections, as well as septicaemia due to α - and/or β -haemolytic Streptococci. 41 Newborn harbour porpoises showed signs of aspiration of amniotic fluid (foetal atelectasis with numerous desqua- mated cells and keratinised squamous epithelial cells in the alveoli), presumed to be the result of dystocia. 42 39 R. Bruhn, N. Kannan, G. Petrick, D.E. Schulz-Bull and J.C. Duinker, ‘Persistent Chlori- nated Organic Contaminants in Harbour Porpoises from the North Sea, the Baltic Sea and Arctic Waters’ (1999) 237/238 The Science of the Total Environment 351–361; K.U. Thron, R. Bruhn and M.S. McLachlan, ‘The Influence of Age, Sex Body-Condition and Regions on the Levels of PBDEs and Toxaphene in Harbour Porpoises from European Waters’ (2004) 13 Fresenium Environmental Bulletin 146–155. 40 A. Beineke, U. Siebert, M.S. McLachlan, R. Bruhn, K. Thron, K. Failing, G. Müller and W. Baumgärtner, ‘Investigations upon the Potential Influence of Environmental Contami- nants on Thymus and Spleen of Harbor Porpoises ( Phocoena phocoena )’ (2005) 39 Environ- mental Science and Technology 3933–3938; K. Das, A. Vossen, K. Tolley, G. Vikingsson, K. Thron, G. Müller, W. Baumgärtner and U. Siebert, ‘Interfollicular Fibrosis on the Thyroid Glands of the Harbour Porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena ): An Endocrine Disruption?’ (2006) 51 Archive of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 720–729. 41 U. Siebert, A. Wünschmann, R. Weiss, H. Frank, H. Benke and K. Frese, ‘Post-Mortem Findings in Harbour Porpoises ( Phocoena phocoena ) from the German North and Baltic Sea’ (2001) 124 Journal of Comparative Pathology 102–114; U. Siebert, E. Prenger-Berninghoff and R. Weiss, ‘Regional Differences in Bacteria Flora in Harbour Porpoises from the North Atlantic: Environmental Effects’ (2009) 106 Journal of Applied Microbiology 329–337. 42 Siebert et al., op. cit., supra note 41 (Post-Mortem Findings).</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 19 Protection of Harbour Porpoises in the Eastern North Sea under International, European and National Law Effective protection of harbour porpoises requires a considerable reduction of (potentially) harmful anthropogenic impacts on these animals, as well as an effective implementation of habitat and species conservation measures. It is generally accepted that the vast majority of harmful anthropogenic impacts on the marine environment is caused by pollution from land-based sources. 43 A comprehensive analysis of this category of pollution would go well beyond the scope of the present study. Therefore, in taking the SCS west of the Islands of Sylt and Amrum as a starting point, the following submissions will focus 43 See UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 of 13.6.1992, Agenda 21, Chapter 17.18; UN Doc. A/59/62/Add.1 of 18 August 2004, Oceans and the Law of the Sea: Report of the Secretary- General at 29 (para. 97); OSPAR Commission, Quality Status Report 2010 (London: OSPAR, 2010) at 37 et seq . Fig. 4. Locations of 1,035 strandings and by-catches collected by the Research and Technology Centre between 1988 and 2008. In the upper left corner the age compo- sition of all findings is shown in a histogram.</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / 20 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 on the protection standards applicable within the sanctuary and the adjacent sea areas. Furthermore, the compatibility of these standards with the require- ments of international and, in particular, European law will be examined. It will be shown that the issue of fisheries activities conducted within marine protected areas serves as the test case for assessing the effectiveness of any legal regime aimed at the protection and conservation of marine species such as those protected under the Habitats Directive. General Survey of the Applicable Law Generally, the designation of particularly vulnerable and relevant sea areas as Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) is considered to be the most promising tool of species protection. 44 In waters under the territorial sovereignty of the coastal State, i.e., the internal waters and the territorial sea (cf. Art. 2(1) LOSC), the creation of MPAs is primarily governed by the standards of national law. In a federally structured State such as Germany, it is the national Constitution which decides whether the Federation or the Federal States hold the compe- tence to enact laws. Art. 56(1)(b)(iii) in conjunction with Art. 194(5) LOSC clarify that depending on the circumstances, the coastal State may also be entitled to establish MPAs in its EEZ. 45 On the international plane, the 1991 Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (ASCOBANS) 46 is of par- ticular importance in the context at hand. This treaty entered into force in 1994. It is an agreement giving effect to Art. IV(4) of the 1979 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS—Bonn Convention), 47 which: 44 Cf. C. Corrigan and F. Kershaw, Working Toward High Seas Marine Protected Areas: An Assessment of Progress Made and Recommendations for Collaboration (Cambridge: UNEP- WCMC, 2008) at 9; T. Agardy, ‘Advances in Marine Conservation: The Role of Marine Pro- tected Areas’ (1994) 9 Trends in Ecology & Evolution 267–270 at 267 et seq . 45 Art. 194(5) LOSC reads: “The measures taken in accordance with this Part shall include those necessary to protect and preserve rare or fragile ecosystems as well as the habitat of depleted, threatened or endangered species and other forms of marine life.” For a discussion of the disputed nature of this provision see A. Proelss, Meeresschutz im Völker- und Euro- parecht (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2004) at 105 et seq .; N. Wolff, Fisheries and the Envi- ronment (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2002) at 66. 46 1772 UNTS 217. Following the adoption of an amendment in 2003 by which its territorial scope was expanded to the North-East Atlantic, the Agreement was renamed as “Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas”. The amendment entered into force in February 2008. 47 1651 UNTS 333.</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 21 encourages the parties to the CMS to take action with a view to concluding agreements for any population or any geographically separate part of the popula- tion of any species or lower taxon of wild animals, members of which periodically cross one or more national jurisdiction boundaries. 48 ASCOBANS is a framework convention, whose comparatively soft substan- tial obligations are contained in the annexed conservation and management plan. It merely obliges the States parties to: [w]ork towards (a) the prevention of the release of substances which are a poten- tial threat to the health of the animals, (b) the development, in the light of avail- able data indicating unacceptable interaction, of modifications of fishing gear and fishing practices in order to reduce by-catches and to prevent fishing gear from getting adrift or being discarded at sea, (c) the effective regulation, to reduce the impact on the animals, of activities which seriously affect their food resources, and (d) the prevention of other significant disturbance, especially of an acoustic nature. 49 It is clear that the success of the Agreement depends on the taking of effective implementation measures relevant to the identified fields on the supranational and national level. In this respect, States parties: shall endeavour to establish (a) the prohibition under national law, of the inten- tional taking and killing of small cetaceans where such regulations are not already in force, and (b) the obligation to release immediately any animals caught alive and in good health. Measures to enforce these regulations shall be worked out at the national level. With a view to the implementation of these duties within European waters, EU Member States have conferred on the Union the competence to enact laws on the field of protection of the environment (cf. Art. 191(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union—TFEU), 50 which includes the protection and conservation of species and habitats. With a view to its territorial scope, the authority of the Union extends to marine areas insofar as the Member States are similarly entitled to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction or at least individual sovereign rights under public international law, and, thus, also applies to the internal waters, territorial seas, EEZs and continental 48 Art. 8.1 ASCOBANS. For an overview on the CMS see A. Proelss, ‘Migratory Species, International Protection’, in: R. Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public Interna- tional Law (MPEPIL ), online edition, 1 February 2009, at paras. 9 et seq . 49 Art. 1 of the Annex to the Agreement. 50 Consolidated text: OJ C 115, 9.5.2008, pp. 47–199.</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / 22 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 shelves of the Member States. 51 This explains why the requirements of European law on species protection are particularly relevant in the present context. Based on Art. 174(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (which has meanwhile been replaced by the TFEU), 52 the Community (today: Union) adopted the Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (Birds Directive) 53 and the Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna (Habitats Directive). 54 The Habitats Directive intends to “maintain or restore, at favourable conservation status, natural habitats and species of wild flora and fauna of Community interest” (Art. 2(2)). It aims to contribute to the implementation of the commitments of the EU and its Member States undertaken under the 1992 Convention on Biological Diver- sity (CBD). 55 The main goal of the Directive is to create a coherent European ecological network known as Natura 2000 (Art. 3(1)). This network consists of a series of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) within which habitats and species of “Community interest” are to be protected. Areas classified as Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the Birds Directive are integrated in the Natura 2000 network (cf. Art. 3(1) Habitats Directive). Once established, the Mem- ber States are obliged to protect and restore the sites included in the network in accordance with Art. 6 of the Habitats Directive, which outlines procedural and substantial minimum protection standards. Annex II of the Habitats Directive contains a list of animal and plant spe- cies of “Community interest” whose protection and conservation requires the designation of SACs. Because the list also includes the harbour porpoise, the standards contained in Art. 6 of the Habitats Directive are directly relevant with regard to the protection measures applicable in the SCS as well as in the adjacent sea area of the German EEZ. Additionally, Art. 12(1)(d) of the Hab- itats Directive obliges the Member States to “take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex 51 See ECJ Cases 3, 4 and 6/76, Kramer and others , [1976] ECR 1279 at paras. 30 and 33. As regards the Habitats Directive, the Court has meanwhile expressly confirmed that “it is common ground between the parties that the United Kingdom exercises sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf and that the Habitats Directive is to that extent applicable beyond the Member States’ territorial waters. It follows that the directive must be implemented in that exclusive economic zone.” See ECJ Case C-6/04, Commission v. United Kingdom [2005] ECR I-9017 at para. 117. 52 Consolidated text: OJ C 325, 24.12.2002, pp. 33–159. 53 Council Directive 79/409/EEC, 2 April 1979 on the Conservation of Wild Birds (OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, pp. 1–18). 54 Supra note 3 . 55 1760 UNTS 79.</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 23 IV(a) in their natural range [. . .].” This obligation includes the prohibition of deliberate capture or killing the species in the wild, and deliberate distur- bance, particularly during the life periods where the species are more sensi- tive to impacts or where impacts have a more negative effect on their population, i.e., during breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration. Fur- thermore, according to Art. 12 (4) of the Habitats Directive, Member States have to monitor by-catch of Annex IV species, in order to improve their management measures. In respect of cetaceans, Annex IV(a) refers to “all spe- cies”, which in turn covers the harbour porpoise. Consequently, any human activity undertaken within the area under German jurisdiction, 56 which is likely to have a negative impact on harbour porpoises, must meet the protec- tion requirements of the Habitats Directive. Also, all measures taken by the German authorities must conform to the requirements of the Habitats Direc- tive due to the well-established principle that European law enjoys suprem- acy vis-à-vis the national legal order. 57 Protection of Harbour Porpoises under National Law: The Example of the Small Cetacean Sanctuary West of the Islands of Sylt and Amrum In 1999, the Federal State of Schleswig-Holstein established a SCS in the waters west of the Islands of Sylt and Amrum. It encompasses the first por- poise calving ground found in the North Sea. 58 The SCS forms part of the national park “Wadden Sea of Schleswig-Holstein”, which was recently included in the UNESCO list of world heritage sites, and is entirely located within the limits of the German territorial sea. 59 Although the harbour por- poises which inhabit the area migrate between the sanctuary and the adjacent parts of the German EEZ, it was impossible to cover the entire habitat because of the division of competences between the German Federation and the Fed- eral States in the field of environmental and species protection under German 56 The Habitats Directive generally does not apply to the high seas. 57 For foundation see ECJ Case C-6/64, Flaminio Costa v. ENEL [1964] ECR 585 et seq . Regarding cases before the ECJ where the Court held that national measures are not sufficient to achieve the requirements of the Habitat Directive, see e.g., ECJ Case C-256/98, Commis- sion v. France [2000] ECR I-2487 et seq .; ECJ Case-C-103/00, Commission v . Greece [2002] ECR I-1147 et seq .; ECJ Case C-117/00, Commission v. Ireland [2002] ECR I-5335 et seq .; ECJ Case C-75/01, Commission v. Luxembourg [2003] I-ECR 1585 et seq .; ECJ Case C-143/02, Commission v. Italy [2003] ECR I-2877 et seq .; ECJ Case C-98/03, Commission v. Germany [2006] ECR I-53 et seq . 58 Sonntag et al., op. cit., supra note 10. See also Council Directive 85/337/EEC, 27 June 1985 on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environ- ment (OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, pp. 40–48). 59 See supra Fig. 1.</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / 24 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 law. Thus, legal constraints derived from German federalism have the poten- tial to undermine effective protection of the species concerned. According to the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (BL), i.e., the German Constitution, the Federation may only enact laws on individual fields if the basic law authorises it to do so. Art. 70(1) BL states that “[t]he Länder [i.e. Federal States] shall have the right to legislate insofar as this Basic Law does not confer legislative power on the Federation.” 60 Prior to the 2006 reformation of the Basic Law, 61 the issue of “hunting, nature conservation, and landscape management” was subject to framework legislation powers of the Federation (cf. Art. 75(1) No. 3 BL). This means that the Federation had the competence to legislate on this matter only “if and to the extent that the establishment of equal living conditions throughout the federal territory or the maintenance of legal or economic unity renders federal regulation neces- sary in the national interest” (Art. 75(1) in conjunction with Art. 72(2) BL). 62 Additionally, framework legislation was allowed to contain detailed or directly applicable provisions “only in exceptional circumstances” (Art. 75 (2) BL). Having said that, the Federation held and still holds concurrent legislative powers with regard to, inter alia , “deep-sea and coastal fishing” (Art. 74(1) No. 17 BL) and “maritime and coastal shipping, as well as navigational aids, inland navigation, meteorological services, sea routes, and inland waterways used for general traffic” (Art. 74(1) No. 21 BL). With a view to limiting the scale of such concurrent powers, “the Länder [Federal States] shall have power to legislate so long as and to the extent that the Federation has not exercised its legislative power by enacting a law” (Art. 72(1) BL). Having regard to the protection of the marine environment, the assump- tion that the Federation is a priori entitled to exercise jurisdiction in the EEZ 60 Quotations from the German Basic Law follow the official translation by C. Tomuschat and D.P. Currie published by the German Parliament (Bundestag), available at: https://www .btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf. 61 As of today, nature conservation and landscape management are subject to concurrent leg- islative powers of the Federation (cf. Art. 74(1) No. 29 BL). The Federal States are, however, entitled to enact laws on nature conservation that depart in substance from the concurrent legislation of the Federation (cf. Art. 72(3) No. 2 BL). This again does not apply with regard to the general principles of nature conservation, species protection and the protection of the marine environment. 62 The federalist scheme established by the Basic Law can be seen as an inherent reference to the principle of subsidiarity; cf . O. Kimminich, ‘Das Subsidiaritätsprinzip und seine Auswirkungen im geltenden Verfassungsrecht’ (1987) 296 Politische Studien 588–628 at 588 et seq .; P. Perntha- ler, Der differenzierte Bundesstaat (Wien: Braumüller, 1992) at 18 et seq . It may well be said that federalism is the peculiarity of the principle of subsidiarity as an organizational form; see P . Häberle, ‘Das Prinzip der Subsidiarität aus der Sicht der vergleichenden Verfassungslehre’ (1994) 119 Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts (AöR) 169–206 at 186 et seq ., 200.</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 25 reflects a common misunderstanding. 63 In respect of the distribution of com- petences between the Federation on the one hand and the Federal States on the other, the Basic Law does not follow a spatial approach, but is based on a functional approach. 64 Thus, even where the Basic Law expressly assigns cer- tain competences to the Federation, the Federal States remain entitled to leg- islate on the fields concerned, as long as the Federation has not invoked its competence by enacting laws on the subject. However, that is exactly what happened in respect of the matter that is under the discussion here. The Fed- eration relied on its competence under Art. 75 (1) No. 3 BL in order to pass the Federal Nature Conservation Act ( Bundesnaturschutzgesetz ). 65 According to § 22(1) of this Act, it was up to the Federal States to decide on the estab- lishment of nature reserves, national parks and similar protected areas, but this authorisation did not extend to the EEZ and to the continental shelf (see § 38 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act). Consequently, whereas under German nature conservation law the Federal States were responsible for determining marine protected areas within the internal waters and territorial sea, it was the Federation, primarily represented by the Federal Ministry of the Environment, which ultimately decided on the establishment of such areas in the EEZ. 66 This explains why Schleswig-Holstein was not entitled to extend the national park “Wadden Sea of Schleswig-Holstein” and the SCS to the adjacent EEZ area. From the scientific perspective, an integrated man- agement of harbour porpoises would undoubtedly appear to be the most rational approach to achieving long-term conservation, but the federal struc- ture of Germany, as it stands, forms an obstacle to the implementation of any such comprehensive approach. The recently agreed revision of the Federal Nature Conservation Act, 67 which entered into force on 10 March 2010, did not touch upon the division of competences between the Federation and the Federal States on the designation of marine protected areas. 68 Viewed from 63 D. Czybulka, ‘Zur Geltung des nationalen Rechts in der AWZ’, in: P. Ehlers and W. Erb- guth (eds.) Aktuelle Entwicklungen im Seerecht II (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2003) 43–60, at 50 et seq .; H.D. Jarass, Naturschutz in der Ausschließlichen Wirtschaftszone (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2002) at 51 et seq .; A. Proelss, ‘Ausschließliche Wirtschaftszone (AWZ)’, in: W. Graf Vitzthum (ed.), Handbuch des Seerechts (München: C.H. Beck, 2006) 222–264 at 258. 64 Proelss, ibid . 65 BGBl. 2002 I, 1193. The act, which constituted the statutory source for all relevant conser- vation measures implemented to date, expired on 9 March 2010. 66 Note, however, that the competent authorities of the Federation are obliged to consult with the relevant Federal State authorities on the decision of which parts of the German EEZ should be designated as marine protected areas. See Art. 38(2) of the Federal Nature Conservation Act. 67 BGBl. 2009 I, 2542. 68 See Arts. 22, 57 of the revised Act.</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / 26 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 this perspective, the limitation of the sanctuary to the territorial sea cannot be considered as an expression of symbolic law, but must be regarded as a result of a strict (even though scientifically inconclusive) application of German nature con servation law. Taking a closer look at the protection standards applicable to the SCS, § 5(4) of the National Park Law of the Federal State of Schleswig-Holstein (NPL) 69 prohibits any substantial impact on the harbour porpoises living in the area. This prohibition includes the disposal or changing of the animals’ habitat, as well as their taking, harming or disturbing by noise or by any other means. 70 With regard to fisheries, the provisions of the NPL are further sub- stantiated by the requirements of the 2008 Regulation of the Federal State of Schleswig-Holstein on Fisheries Practices in Coastal Waters, 71 which fixes in its Annex the spatial limits of the sanctuary. 72 According to § 7(1) and (2) lit. b of that Regulation, only the following fisheries activities are permissible: (1) dragnet fisheries, if and to the extent to which these activities directly provide for human consumption, (2) all fisheries using other equipment than dragnets; however, gillnets are only allowed with a maximum height of 130 cm and a maximum mesh size of 150 mm. 73 Following a detailed analysis of by-catches by German and Danish bottom-set gillnet fisheries in the North Sea area, the Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Agriculture of the State of Schleswig-Holstein concluded in a 2004 communication that the requirements contained in the Regulation are adequate to minimize the dangers for harbour porpoises resulting from the fisheries. 74 As far as can be seen, this conclusion seems to have found general recognition within the scientific community. 69 Gesetz zum Schutze des schleswig-holsteinischen Wattenmeeres of 17 December 1999 (GVOBl. Schl.-H. 1999, 518). 70 See § 5 (1) No. 2 and 3 NPL. 71 Landesverordnung über die Ausübung der Fischerei in den Küstengewässern of 11 November 2008 (GVOBl. Schl.-H. 2008, 640). 72 Cf. para. 5 of the Annex to the Regulation. 73 For an analysis of the amount of commercial fishing activities in the whale sanctuary and the adjacent sea areas see supra . Note that due to tidal and other currents, gillnets do normally not stand completely straight. Therefore, the average gillnet height in situ is about 80 cm. 74 See supra note 20. From the perspective of the CFP see Council Regulation (EC) No. 894/97, 29 April 1997 Laying Down Certain Technical Measures for the Conservation of Fishery Resources (OJ L 125, 27.4.1998, pp. 1–36), Recital 11 et seq. : “ Whereas there is an increasing tendency to use smaller and smaller mesh sizes for bottom set gillnets, entangling nets and trammel nets, which is resulting in increasing mortality rates for juveniles of the tar- get species of the fisheries concerned; whereas this trend should be checked and the mesh sizes</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 27 However, beyond a three-nautical-mile national fisheries zone (which results from a lawful application of Art. 17 of Regulation (EC) No. 2371/ 2002), 75 the relevant rules only apply to fishing vessels flying the German flag. This clarification is of the utmost importance in the present context because gillnet fisheries responsible for harbour porpoise by-catches are mainly under- taken by Danish fishing vessels. 76 In this respect, it must be borne in mind that the SCS, being part of the national park “Wadden Sea of Schleswig- Holstein”, was established in accordance with the selection criteria of the Habitats Directive. 77 The adjacent parts of the German EEZ (“ Östliche Deutsche Bucht ” and “ Sylter Außenriff ”) were notified to the European Com- mission as protected areas in accordance with Art. 4(1) of the Habitats Direc- tive (see Fig. 5). 78 This means that following the designation of these sites as SACs, European law on species and habitat protection is applicable. 79 Against this background, it needs to be analysed whether the Federal State of Schleswig- Holstein (for the SCS) and the Federation (with regard to the EEZ), respec- tively, will be entitled or even obliged under the terms of the Habitats Directive to extend the gillnet requirements of the Regulation on Fisheries Practices to foreign fishing vessels. used for passive gear such as bottom set gillnets, entangling nets and trammel nets should be designed to achieve selective catches of the target species or group of target species”. 75 Art. 17(2), Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 ( op. cit., supra note 17) reads: “In the waters up to 12 nautical miles from baselines under their sovereignty or jurisdiction, Member States shall be authorised from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2012 to restrict fishing to fishing vessels that traditionally fish in those waters from ports on the adjacent coast [. . .].” In accor- dance with this rule, Germany has restricted access to the waters at a distance from three to twelve nautical miles from its North Sea coast to its own fishing vessels and vessels flying the flag of Denmark and the Netherlands. Access to waters landward of three nautical miles measured from the baselines is limited to German vessels only. See Annex I to Regulation No. 2371/2002. 76 See supra note 22. 77 See § 1(2) No. 2 of the National Park Law of the Federal State of Schleswig-Holstein. 78 Note that the area “Östliche Deutsche Bucht” has already been designated as a protected area under the Birds Directive, but not (yet) under the Habitats Directive; see Regulation of the German Federation of 15.9.2005 (BGBl. 2005 I, 2782). The area “Sylter Außenriff ” was incorporated in the list of sites of Community importance in terms of Art. 4(2) of the Habitats Directive (see Commission Decision No. 2008/23/EC, 12 November 2007, OJ L 12, 15.1.2008, pp. 1–117 at 8), but has not yet been designated as a special area of conservation by the German Federation under Art. 4(4) of the Habitats Directive. 79 It has been a matter of dispute what protection standard applies in the period between notification and designation of a site; see A. Proelss, ‘Arten- und Habitatschutz nach der FFH- Richtlinie: Welche Anforderungen gelten für potentielle Schutzgebiete?’, Annotation to Judg- ment of the ECJ of 13.01.2005, Società Italiana Dragaggi SpA et al., C-117 and 03 (2005) Europarecht (EuR) 642–50 at 644 et seq .</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / 28 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 Fig. 5. NATURA 2000 areas notified to the European Commission, which are located in the territorial sea and internal waters (dark grey) and the EEZ (light grey) of Germany. 80 Protection of Harbour Porpoises under the European Habitats Directive As stated above, the Habitats Directive obliges the EU Member States to des- ignate SACs in areas under their national jurisdiction to protect animal and plant species of Community interest, such as the harbour porpoise. Legal Consequences of the Designation of a SAC Art. 6(1) of the Habitats Directive requires the Member States to establish the necessary conservation measures relevant to SACs. This obligation includes 80 Source: Federal Agency for Nature Conservation 2007.</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 29 the adoption of appropriate management plans, which should contain detailed descriptions of the site, the environmental assets and the conservation objec- tives, as well as technical measures of conservation and restoration. According to Art. 6(2) of the Directive, Member States must take steps to avoid the dete- rioration of habitats, as well as the disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, irrespective of whether the potentially adverse effects are caused within the area or are brought in from outside. Art. 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive contain the core requirements of the conservation regime which applies within Natura 2000 sites. “Plans” and “projects” which are “not directly connected with or necessary to the manage- ment of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon” may only be authorised by the competent national authority subject to a prior accomplish- ment of an environmental impact assessment (EIA). The preliminary assess- ment of the impacts of a plan or project shall enable the authority to evaluate whether the activity concerned will adversely affect the integrity of the SAC. Only where this is not given may the authority give its consent to the plan or project. In the case of negative results, plans and projects may not be autho- rised, unless the exceptions provided for under Art. 6(4) of the Habitats Direc- tive apply. This provision refers to the existence of imperative reasons of overriding public interest (including those of a social or economic nature), the absence of alternative solutions, or the maintenance of the overall coherence of Natura 2000 even if a plan or project will be carried out. Gillnet Fisheries as “Plans” or “Projects” in Terms of the Habitats Directive? It seems difficult to argue that Danish bottom-set gillnet fisheries activities within the SCS and/or the adjacent parts of the German EEZ represent such an overriding public interest. We are not aware of any information according to which the Danish fishing industry is dependent on such activities, and that they must necessarily need to be undertaken inside the protected areas. Hav- ing said that, the obligation to accomplish an EIA only applies if bottom-set gillnet fisheries constitute a “plan” or “project” in terms of Art. 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. The Habitats Directive does not define these concepts, but the issue was addressed by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in its land- mark Waddenzee ruling. 81 This case dealt with mechanical cockle fishing in the Dutch part of the Wadden Sea, which has been designated as an SPA under the Birds Directive and as a SAC under the Habitats Directive. The Dutch 81 ECJ Case C-127/02, Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee and Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Vogels v. Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij [2004] ECR I-7405.</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / 30 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 part of the Wadden Sea harbours large stocks of cockles which are an impor- tant source of food for several bird species. The intensified shellfish exploita- tion by mechanical fishing was and is considered to be one of the main reasons for high mortality of shellfish-eating birds. 82 In its judgment, the ECJ relied on the definition of “project” contained in the EIA Directive 83 and concluded that: an activity such as mechanical cockle fishing is covered by the concept of plan or project set out in Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. [. . .] The fact that the activity has been carried on periodically for several years on the site concerned and that a license has to be obtained for it every year, each new issuance of which requires an assessment both of the possibility of carrying on that activity and of the site where it may be carried on, does not in itself constitute an obstacle to considering it, at the time of each application, as a distinct plan or project within the meaning of the Habitats Directive. 84 Prior to the decision, it had been a matter of discussion whether fishing activ- ities can be subject to the EIA requirement under Art. 6(3) of the Habitats Directive at all. 85 In its manual on Art. 6 of the Habitats Directive, the Euro- pean Commission indicated that it did not consider the EIA requirement as being applicable to fishing: The scope of this article [Art. 6[2]) is broader than that of Article 6(3) and (4) which apply only to plans and projects requiring an authorisation. It is also appli- cable to the performance of activities which do not necessarily require prior authorisation, like agriculture or fishing. 86 In contrast, the ECJ in the Waddenzee case regarded the question of whether or not a project is likely to have a significant effect on the area concerned as the determining factor—not whether an activity is subject to any kind of permit procedure. 87 The requirement of likelihood of significant effects clearly 82 See J. Verschuuren, ‘Shellfish for Fishermen or for Birds? Article 6 Habitats Directive and the Precautionary Principle’ (2005) 17 Journal of Environmental Law 265–283 at 277 et seq . 83 Council Directive 85/337/EEC, 27 June 1985 on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment ( OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, pp. 40–48). 84 ECJ Case C-127/02, op. cit., supra note 81 at paras. 27 et seq . 85 See also the opinion of Advocate General Kokott in ECJ Case C-127/02, ibid., at paras. 19 et seq . 86 European Commission, Managing Natura 2000 Sites—The Provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92 and 43 and EEC , 2000, p. 24; available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environ- ment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/provision_of_art6_en.pdf. 87 ECJ Case C-127/02, op. cit., supra note 81 at paras. 26, 28 and 38. See also H. Tegner Anker, ‘The Precautionary Principle and Nature Conservation Law’, in: N. de Sadeleer (ed.)</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 31 reflects the precautionary principle, because it is the effect probability and not the effect certainty that triggers the appropriate impact assessment. The ECJ clarified that: the triggering of the environmental protection mechanism provided for in Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive does not presume [. . .] that the plan or project considered definitely has significant effects on the site concerned but follows from the mere probability that such an effect attaches to that plan or project. 88 This statement implies that in the case of uncertainty or doubt regarding the absence of significant effects, an appropriate EIA ought to be carried out. The ECJ, thus, seemed to have aimed at an effective implementation of the pre- cautionary principle, which is a binding principle of EU law under Art. 191(2) of the TFEU. Against this background, the decisive question is whether the Waddenzee ruling can be adopted, by way of analogy, in the issue of bottom-set gillnet fisheries in the German SACs. Prima facie , it seems that the answer to this question must be yes. As shown above, the use of gillnets constitutes a major threat to the harbour porpoises which inhabit the protected areas. Based on what is known today, and keeping in mind the requirements of the precau- tionary principle, there can be no shadow of a doubt that these activities are likely to have a serious effect on the conservation status of the species pro- tected in the areas concerned. 89 Additionally, according to the pertinent national laws, fishermen in Germany, as well as in Denmark, cannot pursue their business without applying for a fishing concession on an annual basis. 90 Thus, the decisive elements mentioned in the ECJ’s judgment seem to be met also with regard to gillnet fisheries. This result does, however, not withstand closer observation. Mechanical cockle fishing typically involves trawls being dragged over the seabed, remov- ing the top five centimetres and sieving the content hydraulically. By contrast, Implementing the Precautionary Principle (London: Earthscan, 2007), pp. 270–290, at 275; M. Gellermann , ‘Herzmuschelfischerei im Lichte des Art. 6 FFH-Richtlinie’ (2004) Natur und Recht (NuR) 769–773, at 771; European Commission, op. cit., supra note 86, 31: “[. . .] the key limiting factor is whether or not they are likely to have a significant effect on a site [. . .].” 88 ECJ Case C-127/02, ibid. , at para. 44. 89 Arguing that an effect is only “significant” in terms of the Waddenzee ruling if the area con- cerned no longer qualifies as a SAC is not convincing. Such a view would render the conserva- tion objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive superfluous. See Verschuuren, op. cit., supra note 82 at 280 et seq . 90 See § 3 of the Federal Fisheries Act of Germany (Seefischereigesetz); § 36 et seq . of the Dan- ish Fisheries Act (Bekendtgørelse af fiskerilov), available at: .</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / 32 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 bottom-set gillnet fisheries lack a sufficient spatial correlation, i.e., impact on the seabed, necessary to qualify as “plan” or “project”. 91 Although the ECJ did not mention this element explicitly, its relevance can be drawn from the refer- ence made to the EIA Directive. 92 This Directive defines the term “project” in Art. 1(2) as “the execution of construction works or of other installations or schemes [and] other interventions in the natural surroundings and land- scape including those involving the extraction of mineral resources”. In her opinion rendered in respect of the Waddenzee case, Advocate General Juliane Kokott emphasized that: [o]n account of its wide-ranging effects on the upper layer of the seabed it [mechanical cockle fishing] is in principle comparable, in terms of its environ- mental impact, with the extraction of mineral resources. 93 It becomes clear from the aforementioned analysis that the ECJ implicitly based its finding on the assumption that the existence of “plans” and “proj- ects” necessarily involves some kind of ground impact, which is given, e.g., in the case of the construction of a highway, but, arguably, not in the present situation in which gillnets are merely secured on the seafloor. 94 Even if gillnet fisheries were to be considered as “plans” or “projects” in terms of the Habitats Directive, it should be noted that the obligation to con- duct an EIA would fall under the responsibility of the authorities of Denmark. Although the activities concerned are undertaken within German waters, the Danish authorities are responsible for issuing the required fishing permit. Under the CFP, the competence to adopt and implement individual fisheries measures is affiliated with the flag of the fishing vessels. In contrast to the case of the obligations arising under the EIA Directive which must be fulfilled in the Member State where a “plan” or “project” is initiated, the CFP is not based on a territorial approach. This conclusion is confirmed by Art. 17(1) of Regulation 2371/2002, 95 which states that “Community fishing vessels shall have equal access to waters and resources in all Community waters [. . .].” 91 See Gellermann, op. cit., supra note 87 at 771. 92 Supra note 83. 93 ECJ Case C-127/02, op. cit., supra note 81 at para. 31. The Advocate General’s opinions are comprehensive and thoroughly reasoned accounts of the law governing the pertinent aspects of the case; see P.P. Craig and G. de Búrca, EU Law , 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) at 94. Although the opinions do not bind the Court at all, the ECJ follows the line of argument contained therein in the majority of cases. 94 Note that the opposite is true in respect of trawlnet fisheries; cf. Gellermann, op. cit., supra note 87 at 771. 95 Supra note 17 .</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 33 Relationship between the Protection Standards Applicable within SACs and the Common Fisheries Policy The fact that bottom-set gillnet fisheries undertaken within a SAC do not require a prior EIA does not lead to the conclusion that such activities are not subject to any European protection standards. On the contrary, Art. 6(2) of the Habitats Directive serves as a “safety net” 96 by obliging the EU Member States to: take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deteriora- tion of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive. Additionally, as shown above, the species protection standards contained in Art. 12 of the Habitats Directive are also applicable to the present situation. The ECJ clarified in 2002 that Art. 12 of the Habitats Directive requires a high protection standard to be implemented by the Member States for Annex IV(a) species. 97 If it is further taken into account that on the general level, Art. 193 of the TFEU empowers the Member States to maintain or introduce even more stringent protection measures than those adopted by the organs of the EU, one must conclude that following the designation of SACs, Germany will be obliged under the Habitats Directive to extend the gillnet requirements contained in the Fisheries Regulations of the State of Schleswig-Holstein to foreign fishing vessels. The contrary submission would except and exclude, of all things, the primary source of danger for the harbour porpoises inhabiting the SACs from the protection scheme contained in the Habitats Directive. It is difficult to see how this result could be in conformity with the objectives set by European law on species and habitats protection. The view advocated here involves a serious problem in the division of com- petences between the EU and its Member States, because the necessary regula- tion would have to be considered as a species protection measure as well as a fisheries management measure. Both fields, the protection of the environment on the one hand and the conservation of marine biological resources under the CFP on the other, fall within the EU sphere of competence, and the ECJ 96 Verschuuren, op. cit., supra note 82 at 279. 97 ECJ Case C-103/00, Commission v. Greece [2002] ECR I-1147 at paras. 19 et seq . The case dealt with the question whether Greece had implemented a sufficiently strict system of protec- tion relevant to the sea turtle Caretta caretta .</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / 34 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 decided already in 1981 that the latter competence is of an exclusive nature. In consequence, the Member States are generally: no longer entitled to exercise any power of their own in the matter of conserva- tion measures in the waters under their jurisdiction. The adoption of such mea- sures, with the restrictions which they imply as regards fishing activities, is a matter [. . .] of Community law. [. . .] [T]he resources to which the fishermen of the Member States have an equal right of access must henceforth be subject to the rules of Community law. 98 The exclusivity of EU competence in the field of fisheries conservation is expressly stipulated in Art. 3(1)(d) of the TFEU. Exceptions to this rule exist only insofar as the Member States are allowed to adopt stricter measures solely applicable to fishing vessels flying their own flag. Since the Member States completely transferred their competence to enact fisheries conservation measures to the Union, the EU had to explicitly re-authorise the Member States to adopt such measures. In this respect, Art. 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 states that: Member States may take measures for the conservation and management of stocks in waters under their sovereignty or jurisdiction provided that: (a) they apply solely to fishing vessels flying the flag of the Member State concerned and registered in the Community [. . .] and (b) they are [. . .] no less stringent than existing Community legislation. As regards the territorial sea (i.e., the waters up to twelve nautical miles mea- sured from the baselines), being the relevant maritime zone in the case of the SCS, Art. 9(1) of Regulation 2371/2002 entitles every EU Member State to adopt stricter protection measures within its territorial sea in order to mini- mize the negative impacts of fisheries activities on the marine ecosystem. This authorization applies if and to the extent to which the organs of the EU have not (yet) enacted any special conservation and management measures appli- cable to the fish stocks of the particular area concerned. However, such unilat- eral measures may, again, only affect fishing vessels of third States following a consultation process and subject to a positive decision by the European Com- mission (which the Council may, again, overrule at the request of the affected third State). It is obvious that due to the high political nature of the matter such a course of action has little prospect for success. 99 98 ECJ Case 804/79, Commission v. United Kingdom [1981] ECR 1045 at para. 18. 99 See Churchill and Owen, op. cit., supra note 4 at 190–193.</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 35 No further authorization has ever been given by the organs of the EU in respect of fishing vessels flying the flag of other Member States. In particular, it is impossible to regard the pertinent provisions of the Habitats Directive as an expression of implicit authorization. Such an understanding would not only be contrary to EU practice. 100 Rather, keeping in mind that its exclusive competence only covers the field of conservation of marine biological resources under the CFP (cf. Art. 3(1)(d) of the TFEU), it would have been necessary for the EU to rely on Art. 43(3) of the TFEU as the appropriate legal basis for the enactment of such an authorization. In contrast, the Habitats Directive was based on Art. 175(1) of the EC Treaty (today: Art. 192(1) TFEU). Finally, it is submitted that in light of the exclusivity of EU competence, any authori- zation would have to be made in specific terms (which has not happened in the case of the Habitats Directive). Viewed from that perspective, one must conclude that due to the exclusive competence of the EU in the field of fisheries conservation, Germany would be legally prevented from extending the gillnet requirements contained in the Fisheries Regulation of Schleswig-Holstein to vessels flying the flag of other Member States, provided that these requirements were to be considered as falling under Art. 3(1)(d) of the TFEU, i.e., measures relevant to the “conser- vation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy”. 101 The implementation of even stricter conservation standards by the national authorities would appear to be superfluous, because the activities of those primarily responsible for the endangerment of harbour porpoises could not be covered by the rules concerned. This result clearly conflicts with the obliga- tion deriving from the Habitats Directive to establish a strict protection scheme in favour of the harbour porpoise and its habitats. Therefore, it needs to be analysed whether fisheries measures taken for environmental purposes necessarily and exclusively fall under the auspices of the (exclusive) compe- tence of the EU in terms of Art. 3(1)(d) of the TFEU. The (horizontal) relationship between the EU competences on the field of fisheries (cf. Art. 38(1) and Art. 43(3) of the TFEU) and on the field of 100 E.g., Council Regulation (EC) No. 812/2004, 26 April 2004 Laying Down Measures Concerning Incidental Catches of Cetaceans in Fisheries and Amending Regulation (EC) No. 88/98 (OJ L 150, 30.4.2004, pp. 12–31) was based on Art. 37 of the EC Treaty (today: Art. 43 TFEU). See also the position taken by the Commission in COM (2001) 143 final, 16 March 2001 Elements of a Strategy for the Integration of Environmental Protection Requirements into the Common Fisheries Policy at 7; available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2001:0143:FIN:EN:PDF. 101 Note that for fisheries measures not aiming at the conservation of marine biological resources, competences are shared between the EU and the Member States; cf. Art. 4(2)(d) TFEU.</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / 36 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 protection of the environment (cf. Art. 192(1) of the TFEU) has been subject to legal debate for quite a while. 102 In particular, the individual case of overlap between the CFP and the Habitats Directive has so far not been addressed by the ECJ, which has dealt with the problem at hand only in general terms. In Austria v. Huber , it summarized its settled case-law as follows: the choice of the legal basis for a Community measure must rest on objective factors which are amenable to judicial review, including in particular the aim and the content of the measure [. . .]. If examination of a Community act shows that it has a twofold purpose or twofold component and if one of these is identifiable as main or predominant, whereas the other is merely incidental, the act must be founded on a sole legal basis, that is, the one required by the main or predomi- nant purpose or component [. . .]. Exceptionally, if it is established that the act simultaneously pursues a number of objectives, indissociably linked, without one being secondary and indirect in relation to the other, such an act may be founded on the various corresponding legal bases [. . .]. 103 Naturally, determining which component of an EU measure is the predomi- nant one is a difficult task. 104 This is particularly true in the present context, as may be demonstrated by reference to the Armand Mondiet case. In this case, one of the parties claimed that an EU regulation which, inter alia , restricted the use of driftnets, was invalid because: it was adopted not in order to preserve fishery resources but for ecological reasons to do with the protection of species, other than the target species, captured in by-catches. The regulation at issue should therefore have been adopted by the Council, acting unanimously, on the basis of Articles 130r and 130s of the Treaty [Art. 191 and Art. 192 of the TFEU]. 105 However, the ECJ decided that: [i]n this connection, it should be noted first that the regulation at issue lays down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources, including in particular a limitation on the use of driftnets. In the second place, it is clear from the preamble to the regulation that those measures were adopted by the Council primarily in order to ensure the protection of fishing grounds, the conservation and balanced exploitation of the biological resources of the sea 102 See, e.g., T. Markus, European Fisheries Law (Groningen: Europa Law Publishing, 2009) at 51 et seq .; Wolff, op. cit., supra note 45 at 168 et seq . 103 ECJ Case 336/00, Austria v. Huber , [2002] ECR I-7699 at paras. 30 et seq . 104 Proelss, op. cit., supra note 45 at 315 et seq .; Wolff, op. cit., supra note 45 at 170. 105 ECJ Case 405/92, Etablissements Armand Mondiet SA v. Armement Islais SARL. [1993] ECR I-6133 at para. 17.</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 37 and the limitation of the fishing effort. [. . .] It must therefore be concluded that the limitation on the use of driftnets, imposed by the regulation at issue, was adopted primarily in order to ensure the conservation and rational exploitation of fishery resources and to limit the fishing effort. Those rules are therefore an integral part of the common agricultural policy, whose objectives under Article 39 of the Treaty [Art. 39 of the TFEU] include ensuring the rational develop- ment of production and assuring the availability of supplies, and could therefore be validly adopted by the Council solely on the basis of the provisions govern- ing the common fisheries policy. 106 Although the Court did not explicitly preclude the Member States from adopting measures relating to the protection of marine species or the conser- vation of the marine environment in general, 107 but only referred to measures taken with a view to the conservation and rational exploitation of fishery resources, 108 the European Commission stated in a communication of 2001 that both the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive: build on Article 174 of the Treaty [Art. 191 of the TFEU] and define manage- ment requirements which fall mostly within the responsibility of Member States. However, whenever these requirements imply the regulation of fishing activities, then it is for the Community, on the basis of Article 37 of the Treaty [Art. 43 of the TFEU], to adopt the necessary measures. 109 Thus, it seems that the Commission acted on the assumption that whenever a certain environmental measure is likely to (also) affect the conservation of European fish stocks, the EU is exclusively competent to adopt the measure concerned on the basis of its competence under Art. 3(1)(d) in conjunction with Art. 38(1) and Art. 43(3) of the TFEU, no matter whether the fisheries component contained therein is predominant or not. 110 106 Ibid ., at paras. 18, 19, 24. 107 Markus, op. cit., supra note 102 at 55. 108 The fact that the EU has exclusive legislative jurisdiction regarding the conservation of marine biological resources under the CFP does not mean that it has the power to deal with every aspect of a fishing vessel’s activities; see D. Owen, Interaction Between the EU Common Fisheries Policy and the Habitats and Birds Directives , IEEP Policy Briefing, 2004 at 5; available at: www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/64608.pdf. However, it is true that from a factual perspective, restricting fisheries management and species protection ultimately share the same beneficial consequences for the marine environment; cf. Markus, op. cit., supra note 102 at 54. 109 COM (2001) 143 final, op. cit., supra note 100 at 7. 110 It is submitted that evidence for this conclusion is provided by Council Regulation (EC) No. 602/2004, 22 March 2004, amending Regulation (EC) No. 850/98 as regards the Protec- tion of Deepwater Coral Reefs from the Effects of Trawling in an Area North West of Scotland (OJ L 97, 1.4.2004, pp. 30–31), by which the Council agreed to a permanent ban on bottom</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / 38 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 It is submitted that the position taken by the Commission is essentially correct. 111 Apart from the difficulties in determining the predominant compo- nent of an EU measure, one must recognize the different structure of the two pertinent rules of primary European law. Compared with Art. 192(1) of the TFEU, which is drafted in very general terms, Art. 43(3) of the TFEU is the more specific and task-oriented provision. If priority were to be assigned to Art. 192(1) of the TFEU, this would threaten to undermine the exclusivity of EU competence in general and the dominant role of the Council on the field of the CFP foreseen by Art. 43(3) of the TFEU in particular. 112 The require- ments of species and habitat protection are sufficiently safeguarded by the integration clause embodied in Art. 11 of the TFEU, according to which “[e] nvironmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Union policies and activities, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development”. The prescriptive wording of the integration clause reveals that observance of the environmental principles in terms of Art. 191 of the TFEU is not only a political option but a strict legal requirement. 113 Even if one disagrees with the conclusion drawn here that Art. 43(3) of the TFEU constitutes a lex specialis over Art. 192(1) of the TFEU in cases of over- lap between the conservational side of the CFP and the protection of the environment, the integration clause at least shifts the centre of gravity towards the fisheries policy where measures aim at fisheries as well as environmental protection. 114 This general rule does not apply only if and to the extent to which the predominant component of an EU measure is unambiguously identifiable. In this respect, the ECJ correctly held that certain measures on the protection of European forests against atmospheric pollution and fire, which contained “by virtue both of the aim which they pursue and of their content, schemes specifically concerned with the environment”, 115 and only indirectly and marginally affected the common agricultural policy, did not constitute rules on the production and marketing of agricultural products (for trawling in the area of the “Darwin Mounds”. The Regulation was based on Art. 37 EC Treaty (today: Art. 43 TFEU). 111 Proelss, op. cit., supra note 45 at 316; contra Markus, op. cit., supra note 102 at 52. 112 Proelss, ibid. 113 ECJ Case 405/92, op. cit., supra note 105 at para. 27; COM (2001) 143 final, op. cit., supra note 100 at 4; see also J.H. Jans, European Environmental Law , 2nd ed. (Groningen: Europa Law Publishing, 2000) at 25 et seq .; Proelss, op. cit., supra note 45 at 383 et seq .; Wolff, op. cit., supra note 45 at 172. 114 See Wolff, ibid. 115 ECJ Joined Cases C-164/97 and C-165/97, Parliament v. Council [1999] ECR I-1139 at para. 9.</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 39 which Art. 43 of the EEC Treaty [today: Art. 43 of the TFEU] would have been the appropriate legal basis), but were to be based on Art. 130s of the EEC Treaty (today: Art. 192 TFEU). 116 Consequently, the Member States are legally prevented from enacting man- agement measures which aim at fulfilling the binding requirements of species protection contained in the Habitats Directive. However, this legal obstacle, which results from the exclusivity of the competence of the EU on the field of fisheries conservation, does not release the Member States from fulfilling their duties under the Habitats Directive. On the contrary, the ECJ held in the Marais Poitevin case that: it should be pointed out that, even assuming [. . .] a certain lack of consistency between the various Community policies were [. . .] shown to exist, this still could not authorise a Member State to avoid its obligations under that directive […]. 117 By virtue of their lacking legislative competence in the relevant field, Ger- many and the State of Schleswig-Holstein are, thus, forced to constantly vio- late their obligations under the Habitats Directive. Conclusions It is obvious that the aforementioned situation is not acceptable. It not only ignores the strong position that the protection of the environment is given by the TFEU. Rather, Germany is put in the irresolvable dilemma to either fulfil the obligations contained in the Habitats Directive or those established in the context of the CFP. A permanent (even though unavoidable) breach of the obligations contained in Arts. 6(2) and 12 of the Habitats Directive could ultimately lead to a situation in which Germany is subjected to the imposition of a penalty payment pursuant to Art. 260(2) of the TFEU. In order to solve this dilemma, it is submitted that the obligations of Ger- many deriving from the Habitats Directive turn into a legal duty to request the EU organs to take the necessary measures for species protection, i.e., to make the gillnet requirements of the Fisheries Regulation adopted by the Fed- eral State of Schleswig-Holstein applicable in the SACs located within the German EEZ, and to extend their scope of application to fishing vessels flying 116 Ibid ., at para. 19. However, in contrast to the field of the conservation of marine biological resources under the CFP, the EU does not and did not have exclusive competence relevant to the agriculture sector (cf. Art. 4(2)(d) TFEU). 117 ECJ Case 96/98, Commission v. France [1999] ECR I-8531 at para. 40.</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / 40 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 the flag of all EU Member States. 118 Interestingly, the European Commission seems to have drawn the same conclusion. In a document entitled “Fisheries Measures for Marine Natura 2000 Sites”, 119 it stated with regard to fisheries measures to be enacted in protected areas located beyond twelve nautical miles of the Member States’ coasts that: [i]n this case the proposed measures fall under the scope of the Common Fisher- ies Policy, for which the Community has exclusive competence. Therefore, Mem- ber States must address a formal request of adoption of such measures to the Directorate General of Fisheries and Maritime Affairs (DG MARE) of the Commission [. . .]. 120 The Commission further obliged the Member States to follow the procedure outlined in that document. Whether or not the competent German authori- ties have followed the specified course of action in an appropriate manner is unclear. In any case, staying silent on this issue would give rise to the respon- sibility of Germany for a violation of the Habitats Directive. Let us assume for a moment that Germany has submitted a formal request to the Commission in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the afore- mentioned document. What happens then if the EU stays silent, e.g., because the Member States’ Ministers of Fisheries and Agriculture gathered in the Council are unwilling to enact the measures proposed by the Commission? That this situation is not a completely theoretical one may be demonstrated by referring to Commission Decision 2005/322 of 26 February 2005, 121 by which the Commission rejected a request, submitted by the United Kingdom because of concerns about levels of by-catch of common dolphins in a certain (coastal) pair trawl fishery, to extend the closure of the fishery concerned to vessels of other Member States. 122 It argued that the United Kingdom had not supplied sufficient scientific evidence that the proposed measure was likely to contribute to a minimization of the impact of the fishing activities on the marine ecosystems. 118 See also Communication of the Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Agriculture of the State of Schleswig-Holstein, op. cit., supra note 20 at 28. 119 The document is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/ docs/ fish_measures.pdf. 120 Ibid ., at 3. 121 Commission Decision 2005/322, 26 February 2005 on the Request Presented by the United Kingdom Pursuant to Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 on the Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Fisheries Resources under the Common Fisher- ies Policy (OJ L 104, 23.4.2005, pp. 37–38). 122 Art. 1 of Commission Decision 2005/322, op. cit., supra note 121.</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 41 Without being able to evaluate the factual situation relevant to the fishery concerned, it seems questionable whether the decision of the Commission was based on a proper application of the precautionary principle. In the absence of scientific information, it is not possible to provide any further cri- tique on this issue. It should be noted, though, that the request of the United Kingdom was made in accordance with Art. 9 of Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 123 and did not affect a SAC designated in accordance with the Habitats Directive. In the present context, the discretion of the Commission in deciding upon a Member State’s request to enact certain fisheries measures is, arguably, considerably smaller. While it is true that “a preventive measure cannot properly be based on a purely hypothetical approach to the risk, founded on mere conjecture which has not been scientifically verified”, 124 an application of that principle in accordance with the jurisprudence of the ECJ gives rise to the duty to carry out an EIA, whenever a certain plan or project is likely to have a significant effect within a SAC established under the Habi- tats Directive. It is interesting to see that within the context of the CFP, the EU itself seems to follow a comparatively strict understanding of what consti- tutes a “precautionary approach to fisheries management”. 125 So what if scien- tific studies reveal that, as is the case with the Danish bottom-set gillnet fishery, it is not unlikely that certain activities within a SAC have a considerable neg- ative impact on a protected species, but the EU organs nevertheless refrain from taking any protective action? In such a situation, one might tend to regard the Member State concerned as a trustee of the common interest, and assume a reassignment of the legis- lative competence on the field of conservation of the marine biological resources. The legal concept of trusteeship was accepted by the ECJ with regard to cases characterized by the fact that, in a matter in which the powers are in the hands of the Union, the Council has not adopted, within the 123 Supra note 17. 124 European Court of First Instance, Case T-13/99, Pfizer Animal Health v. Council [2002] II-3305 at para. 143. 125 According to Art. 3(i) of Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 ( supra note 17), “‘precautionary approach to fisheries management’ means that the absence of adequate scientific information should not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take management measures to conserve target species, associated or dependent species and non-target species and their envi- ronment”. Notwithstanding this expression of intent, it has been argued that the annual set- ting of total allowable catch quotas (TACs) by the Council of Ministers, which has constantly resulted in fishing mortalities exceeding the maximum reproductive potential, violates both the LOSC as well as the TFEU. See R. Froese and A. Proelss, ‘Rebuilding Fish Stocks No Later that 2015—Will Europe Meet the Deadline’ (2010) 11 Fish and Fisheries 194–202; Markus, op. cit., supra note 102 at 74 et seq ., 78 et seq .</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / 42 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 required period, the conservation measures referred to by a certain legal act. 126 However, the ECJ also stressed “that the transfer to the Community of pow- ers in this matter being total and definitive, such a failure to act could not in any case restore to the Member States the power and freedom to act unilater- ally in this field”. 127 While this line of reasoning does not generally exclude the possibility of Member States acting as trustees of the common interest (such as, e.g., the protection of the environment), the procedural require- ments to be fulfilled in such a situation are high: [A] Member State cannot therefore, in the absence of appropriate action on the part of the Council, bring into force any interim conservation measures which may be required by the situation except as part of a process of collaboration with the Commission and with due regard to the general task of supervision which Article 155 [. . .] gives to the Commission. Thus, in a situation characterized by the inaction of the Council and by the maintenance, in principle, of the conser- vation measures in force [. . .], the requirements inherent in the safeguard by the Community of the common interest and the integrity of its own powers, imposed upon Member States not only an obligation to undertake detailed consultations with the Commission and to seek its approval in good faith, but also a duty not to lay down national conservation measures in spite of objections, reservations or conditions which might be formulated by the Commission. 128 In light of this jurisprudence, a unilateral extension of the gillnet require- ments contained in the Fisheries Regulation adopted by the Federal State of Schleswig-Holstein to fishing vessels flying the flag of all EU Member States could, arguably, only be considered as lawful if the Commission approves the enactment of this conservation measure by the competent German authori- ties. Keeping in mind the position taken by the Commission in its Decision 2005/322, 129 the prospect of success of such a course of action does not seem to be too high. We submit that this is not the end of the story. Permanent unwillingness of the EU organs to enact measures for the protection of the harbour por- poise as required by the Habitats Directive conflicts with the principle of sin- cere cooperation codified in Art. 4(3) of the Treaty on the European Union (EU Treaty). 130 Unlike its predecessor provision, Art. 10 of the EC Treaty, the wording of that provision refers to both the Union and the Member States 126 ECJ Case 804/79, op. cit., supra note 98 at para. 19. 127 Ibid ., at para. 20. 128 Ibid ., at paras. 30 et seq . 129 Supra note 121. 130 Consolidated text: OJ C 115, 9.5.2008, pp. 15–45 .</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 43 and obliges them to assist each other, in full mutual respect, in carrying out tasks which flow from the European Treaties. 131 This legal obligation would be undermined if the Union organs were not considered as carrying the duty to effectively assist the Member States in the fulfilment of the obligations deriving from the Habitats Directive. Thus, if a unilateral extension of the gillnet requirements to vessels flying the flag of other Member States cannot be justified on grounds of the doctrine of trusteeship in the common inter- est, the Union organs are obliged under European law to adjust its existing fisheries legislation correspondingly, subject to the condition that Germany has urged the EU to take the appropriate measures in the prescribed way. This could be done by either including a corresponding provision on tech- nical measures in the annual regulation by which the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required, are fixed, 132 or by adopting a regulation specifically addressing the protection of harbour porpoises in a particular sea area. 133 Although the EU has, indeed, enacted a general prohibition on the use of certain types of bottom-set gillnets, the mesh size requirements codified in the pertinent reg- ulation do not at all correspond to those adopted by the Federal State of Schleswig-Holstein in respect of the SCS. 134 Furthermore, it adopted a ban on the use of bottom-set gillnets in the North Sea Region without the simultaneous use of active acoustic deterrent devices (“pingers”), but for bottom-set gillnets whose lengths do not exceed 400 metres, this rule only applies between 1 August and 31 October. 135 Given the factual situation described above, it seems justified to conclude that these measures do not satisfy the strict requirements of the Habitats 131 According to the established case law of the ECJ, the Community organs were subject to a duty of genuine and sincere cooperation also under Art. 10 of the EC Treaty; cf. ECJ Case 230/81, Luxemburg v . Parliament [1983] 255 at para. 37; Case 2/88 Imm., J.J. Zwartveld and others [1990] I-3365 at para. 17; Case 350/93, Commission v. Italy [1995] ECR I-699 at para. 16. 132 For 2009 see Council Regulation (EC) No. 43/2009, 16 January 2009 Fixing for 2009 the Fishing Opportunities and Associated Conditions for Certain Fish Stocks and Groups of Fish Stocks, Applicable in Community Waters and, for Community vessels, in Waters where Catch Limitations are Required (OJ L 22, 26.1.2009, pp. 1–205). 133 An example of a potential outcome of such a course of action is Council Regulation (EC) No. 602/2004, op. cit., supra note 110, by which the Council, at the request of the UK, agreed to a permanent ban on bottom trawling in the area of the “Darwin Mounds”. 134 See Art. 2(10)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 894/97, op. cit., supra note 74 . 135 See Art. 2(1) in conjunction with Annex I of Council Regulation (EC) No. 812/2004, op. cit., supra note 100.</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / 44 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 Directive. This is even more so due to the fact that the obligation to use acoustic deterrent devices only covers fishing vessels of 12 metres or more in overall length, and is, thus, applicable only to one sub-group of the vessels involved in bottom-set gillnet fisheries. Furthermore, the effectiveness of these devices is not beyond doubt. 136 If, for example, their operation carries the risk of causing habituation as well as habitat exclusion, 137 it is difficult to regard the duty to use pingers as a means of habitat protection. The pertinent Council Regulation (EC) No. 812/2004 does not differentiate between marine SACs on the one hand and other marine areas on the other. There- fore, one must conclude that the organs of the EU have not yet taken suffi- ciently effective measures to prevent incidental catches of cetaceans in bottom-set gillnet fisheries as required by the Habitats Directive. Failure to assist the Member States in the fulfilment of their duties under the Habitats Directive would constitute a violation of the principle of sincere cooperation pursuant to Art. 4(3) of the EU Treaty and could be challenged before the ECJ by the Member States and/or the European Parliament in accordance with Art. 265 of the TFEU. Because the affected Member State will naturally have an immediate interest to escape the uncomfortable situa- tion of being subjected to two colliding legal obligations, it is submitted that challenging the Commission and/or the Council for not assisting it in the fulfilment of its duties under the Habitats Directive might appear to be a promising course of action for that State. The same is true with regard to the European Parliament, 138 which, after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lis- bon on 1 December 2009, might decide to further enhance its control powers vis-à-vis the Commission and the Council in order to make the European species and habitat protection policy more effective. 139 Assuming that gillnet 136 See, e.g., R. Franse, Effectiveness of Acoustic Deterrent Devices (Pingers) , 2005 (available at: http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/students/richard_franse/acoustic_deterrent_uk.pdf ) at 13 et seq . 137 Ibid ., at 14. 138 E.g., in the Joined Cases C-14/06 and C-295/06 ([2008] ECR I-1649) the European Parliament (together with the Kingdom of Denmark) brought an action for annulment of a Commission Decision relevant to the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment before the ECJ. It claimed that the Commission, in adopting the con- tested decision, did not comply with the conditions laid down in the pertinent Directive, and submitted that the Commission breached the precautionary principle. 139 In a 2008 Communication the Commission stated that the environment accounted for about 10% of all Parliamentary questions put to the Commission; see COM(2008) 773/4, Communication on Implementing European Community Environmental Law at 9; available at: http://impel.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Communication-on-implementing-European- Community-Environmental-Law-2008-com_2008_773_en.pdf.</p>
<p>A. Proelss et al. / The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2011) 5–45 45 fisheries were to be considered as “plan” or “project” in terms of Art. 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, the Commission could, in the alternative, bring a claim against Denmark before the ECJ for not having accomplished an EIA relevant to gillnet fisheries undertaken within the SCS and the adjacent SAC established inside of the German EEZ by Danish fishing vessels.</p>
</body></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo><title>Protection of Cetaceans in European Waters—A Case Study on Bottom-Set Gillnet Fisheries within Marine Protected Areas</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA"><title>Protection of Cetaceans in European Waters—A Case Study on Bottom-Set Gillnet Fisheries within Marine Protected Areas</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Monika</namePart><namePart type="family">Krivickaite</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Ursula</namePart><namePart type="family">Siebert</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Helena</namePart><namePart type="family">Herr</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Alexander</namePart><namePart type="family">Proelss</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Anita</namePart><namePart type="family">Gilles</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>BRILL</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">The Netherlands</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2011</dateIssued><dateCreated encoding="w3cdtf">2011</dateCreated><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2011</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><subject><genre>keywords</genre><topic>EU Environmental Policy</topic><topic>exclusive economic zone</topic><topic>protection of harbour porpoises</topic><topic>EU Common Fisheries Policy</topic><topic>user-environment conflict</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>ESTU</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0927-3522</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1571-8085</identifier><part><date>2011</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>26</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>1</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>5</start><end>45</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">982128375217F8995C18E77277486F08BDFB511F</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1163/157180811X543466</identifier><identifier type="href">15718085_026_01_s002_text.pdf</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 2011 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>BRILL Journals</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Rhénanie/explor/UnivTrevesV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000C64 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000C64 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Rhénanie
|area= UnivTrevesV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:982128375217F8995C18E77277486F08BDFB511F
|texte= Protection of Cetaceans in European Waters—A Case Study on Bottom-Set Gillnet Fisheries within Marine Protected Areas
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.31. |  |