Marine legislation – The ultimate ‘horrendogram’: International law, European directives & national implementation

Abstract

The EU is a pre-eminent player in sustainable development, adopting more than 200 pieces of legislation that have direct repercussions for marine environmental policy and management. Over five decades, measures have aimed to protect the marine environment by tackling the impact of human activities, but maritime affairs have been dealt with by separate sectoral policies without fully integrating all relevant sectors. Such compartmentalisation has resulted in a patchwork of EU legislation and resultant national legislation leading to a piecemeal approach to marine protection. These are superimposed on international obligations emanating from UN and other bodies and are presented here as complex 'horrendograms' showing the complexity across vertical governance. These horrendograms have surprised marine experts despite them acknowledging the many uses and users of the marine environment. Encouragingly since 2000, the evolution in EU policy has progressed to more holistic directives and here we give an overview of this change.

Observing and modelling phytoplankton community structure in the North Sea

“…This relates to how models are used, terminology, type of outputs, treatment of uncertainty, required quality standards, and the presentation of model products (Hyder et al, 2015). The use of ecosystem models will become increasingly important as the complexity of marine legislation increases (Boyes and Elliott, 2014). Hence, simple assessment of the skill of models in predicting outcomes (validation -Mackinson, 2014), model comparisons (e.g.…”

Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity across the Freshwater, Coastal and Marine Realms: Is the existing EU policy framework fit for purpose?

“…Voulvoulis et al, 2017;Boeuf and Fritsch, 2016;Hering et al, 2010). A similar level of attention has been given to the implementation of the BHDs (see, e.g., EEA, 2015b;Louette et al, 2015;Milieu et al, 2015;Kati et al, 2014) and the MSFD (see, e.g., EEA, 2015c; Boyes and Elliott, 2014;Hendriksen et al, 2014;Freire-Gibb et al, 2013;Van Leeuwen et al, 2012).…”

Bridging the Gap between Policy and Science in Assessing the Health Status of Marine Ecosystems

“…The EU arguably represents the pre-eminent proponent of marine environmental legislation and other aspects of governance (Boyes and Elliott, 2014), but the complexity of the marine system, the need for transboundary action and the joint implementation of different systems have produced anomalies, confusion, and a need for an inter-governmental transboundary approach (Cavallo et al, 2016).…”

“…These may be termed endogenic managed pressures in which the causes and consequences in the region are managed (Elliott, 2011) and under legislative control (Boyes and Elliott, 2014). Exogenic unmanaged pressures (i.e., those aspects emanating from outside a managed system; for example global climate change Elliott et al, 2015) represent the major current challenge; environmental managers cannot control the causes but must respond to the consequences.…”

“…Systematic use of standards that already used within other EU legislation must be applied as minimum requirements. Implementation of the MSP Directive particularly provides measures that will support delivery of the goals of MSFD by facilitating a balance with blue growth objectives (Boyes and Elliott, 2014;Boyes et al, 2016).…”