Protection of Cetaceans in European waters - A case study on bottom-set Gillnet fisheries within marine protected areas

International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 5-45

  Proelss, Alexander ^a   Krivickaite, Monika ^b   Gilles, Anita ^b   Herr, Helena ^b   Siebert, Ursula ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TRIER   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KIEL   (Germany)

Author keywords

EU Common Fisheries Policy; EU Environmental Policy; exclusive economic zone; protection of harbour porpoises; user environment conflict

Indexed keywords

ANTHROPOGENIC EFFECT; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; EUROPEAN UNION; EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE; GILLNET; HABITAT MANAGEMENT; MARINE PARK; PORPOISE;

ATLANTIC OCEAN; EUROPE; NORTH SEA;

CETACEA; PHOCOENIDAE;

EID: 78650645854     PISSN: 09273522     EISSN: 15718085     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/157180811X543466     Document Type: Article

References (212)

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.
6. Cf. P. Birnie, A. Boyle and C. Redgwell, International Law and the Environment, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) at 159 et seq.;
7. 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;
8. A. Trouwborst, Evolution and Status of the Precautionary Principle in International Law (The Hague, London, Boston: Kluwer Law International, 2002) at 33 et seq.
9. 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
10. see G. Lübbe-Wolff and B. Hansjürgens (eds.) Symbolische Umweltpolitik (Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2000).
11. Meyer, Symbolische Umweltpolitik (Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2000).
12. 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;
13. 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;
14. 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;
15. 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;
16. U. Siebert, A. Gilles, K. Lucke, M. Ludwig, H. Benke, K.-H. Kock and M. Scheidat, 'A Decade of Harbour Porpoise Occurrence in German Waters-Analyses of Aerial Surveys, Incidental Sightings and Strandings' (2006) 56 Journal of Sea Research 65-80;
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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;
20. A. Gilles, H. Herr, K. Lehnert, M. Scheidat and U. Siebert, 'Harbour Porpoises-Abundance Estimates and Seasonal Distribution 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.
21. 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;
22. Siebert et al., op. cit., supra note 8.
23. Gilles et al., op. cit., supra note 9.
24. For information on the legal basis of the sanctuary see infra.
25. Scheidat et al., op. cit., supra note 9.
26. 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.
27. 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 Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Infectious Disease Mortality in Harbour Porpoises from England and Wales' (1999) 243/244 Science of the Total Environment 339-48;
28. 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.
29. See also OSPAR Commission, Regional Quality Status Report II (Greater North Sea), Chapter 3: Human activities (London: OSPAR, 2003).
30. M. J. Witt and B. J. Godley, A Step Towards Seascape Scale Conservation: Using Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) to Map Fishing Activity, PLoS ONE 2 and 10 (2007).
31. 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 Fisheries Policy (OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, pp. 59-80);
32. 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).
33. 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".
34. 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."
35. Art. 17, Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2244/2003, op. cit., supra note 17.
36. 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.
37. In a 2004 communication (on file with the authors) from the Ministry for Environment, 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.
38. 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;
39. 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);
40. ASCOBANS MOP 3 (26-28 July 2000), Resolution No. 3, Incidental Take of Small Cetaceans.
41. W. W. L. Au and L. Jones, 'Acoustic Reflectivity of Nets: Implications concerning Incidental Take of Dolphins' (1991) 7 Marine Mammal Science 258-273;
42. 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;
43. 4 Mesh Gillnets and Warning Sound' (2006) 313 Marine Ecology Progress Series 285-294.
44. 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).
45. 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).
46. 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;
47. 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;
48. on file with the authors.
49. 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.
50. 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;
51. D. Lusseau and L. Bejder, 'The Longterm Consequences of Short-Term Responses to Disturbance. Experiences from Whalewatching Impact Assessment' (2007) 20 International Journal of Comparative Psychology 228-236.
52. See Art. 22 (1) and (2) of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC; 1833 UNTS 396).
53. Jepson et al., op. cit., supra note 15.
54. 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.
55. J. Hildebrand, Impacts of Anthropogenic Noise on Cetaceans, International Whaling Commission Report No. 56 (Cambridge: International Whaling Commission, 2004);
56. D. P. Nowacek, L. H. Thorne, D. W. Johnston and P. L. Tyack, 'Responses of Cetaceans to Anthropogenic Noise' (2007) 37 Mammal Review 81-115.
57. 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).
58. 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 Conservation and Agriculture of the State of Schleswig-Holstein; see Communication, op. cit., supra note 20 at 28.
59. H. von Nordheim and D. Boedeker, Umweltvorsorge bei der marinen Sand und Kiesgewinnung (Bonn: Selbstverlag, 1998) at 86.
60. H. von Nordheim and D. Boedeker, Umweltvorsorge bei der marinen Sand und Kiesgewinnung (Bonn: Selbstverlag, 1998) at 86.
61. Jepson et al., op. cit., supra note 29.
62. See http://www.badewasserqualitaet.schleswig-holstein. de/kreise.htm+++NF.
63. See http://www.bsh.de/de/Meeresdaten/Beobachtungen/BLMP-Messprogramm/PDF/ Ber-99-02/nord-see9902c.pdf.
64. See, e.g., Jepson et al., op. cit., supra note 15;
65. Siebert et al., op. cit., supra note 15.
66. R. Bruhn, N. Kannan, G. Petrick, D. E. Schulz-Bull and J. C. Duinker, 'Persistent Chlorinated 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;
67. 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.
68. 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 Contaminants on Thymus and Spleen of Harbor Porpoises (Phocoena phocoena)' (2005) 39 Environmental Science and Technology 3933-3938;
69. 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.
70. 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;
71. 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.
72. Siebert et al., op. cit., supra note 41 (Post-Mortem Findings).
73. See UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 of 13.6.1992, Agenda 21, Chapter 17.18;
74. UN Doc. A/59/62/Add.1 of 18 August 2004, Oceans and the Law of the Sea:
75. Report of the Secretary-General at 29 (para. 97);
76. OSPAR Commission, Quality Status Report 2010 (London: OSPAR, 2010) at 37 et seq.
77. 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;
78. T. Agardy, 'Advances in Marine Conservation: The Role of Marine Protected Areas' (1994) 9 Trends in Ecology & Evolution 267-270 at 267 et seq.
79. 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 Europarecht (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2004) at 105 et seq.;
80. N. Wolff, Fisheries and the Environment (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2002) at 66.
81. 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.
82. 1651 UNTS 333.
83. 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 International Law (MPEPIL), online edition, 1 February 2009, at paras. 9 et seq.
84. Art. 1 of the Annex to the Agreement.
85. Consolidated text: OJ C 115, 9.5.2008, pp. 47-199.
86. 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."
87. See ECJ Case C-6/04, Commission v. United Kingdom [2005] ECR I-9017 at para. 117.
88. Consolidated text: OJ C 325, 24.12.2002, pp. 33-159.
89. Council Directive 79/409/EEC, 2 April 1979 on the Conservation of Wild Birds (OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, pp. 1-18).
90. Supra note 3.
91. 1760 UNTS 79.
92. The Habitats Directive generally does not apply to the high seas.
93. 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
94. see e.g., ECJ Case C-256/98, Commission v. France [2000] ECR I-2487 et seq.;
95. ECJ Case-C-103/00, Commission v. Greece [2002] ECR I-1147 et seq.;
96. ECJ Case C-117/00, Commission v. Ireland [2002] ECR I-5335 et seq.;
97. ECJ Case C-75/01, Commission v. Luxembourg [2003] I-ECR 1585 et seq.;
98. ECJ Case C-143/02, Commission v. Italy [2003] ECR I-2877 et seq.;
99. ECJ Case C-98/03, Commission v. Germany [2006] ECR I-53 et seq.
100. Sonntag et al., op. cit., supra note 10.
101. See also 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).
102. See supra Fig. 1.
103. 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.
104. As of today, nature conservation and landscape management are subject to concurrent legislative 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.
105. 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.;
106. P. Pernthaler, 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;
107. 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
108. D. Czybulka, 'Zur Geltung des nationalen Rechts in der AWZ', in: P. Ehlers and W. Erbguth (eds.) Aktuelle Entwicklungen im Seerecht II (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2003) 43-60, at 50 et seq.;
109. H. D. Jarass, Naturschutz in der Ausschlieβlichen Wirtschaftszone (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2002) at 51 et seq.;
110. A. Proelss, 'Ausschlieβliche Wirtschaftszone (AWZ) ', in: W. Graf Vitzthum (ed.), Handbuch des Seerechts (München: C. H. Beck, 2006) 222-264 at 258.
111. Proelss, 'Ausschlieβliche Wirtschaftszone (AWZ) ', in: W. Graf Vitzthum (ed.), Handbuch des Seerechts (München: C. H. Beck, 2006) 222-264 at 258.
112. BGBl. 2002 I, 1193. The act, which constituted the statutory source for all relevant conservation measures implemented to date, expired on 9 March 2010.
113. 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.
114. See Art. 38 (2) of the Federal Nature Conservation Act.
115. BGBl. 2009 I, 2542.
116. See Arts. 22, 57 of the revised Act.
117. Gesetz zum Schutze des schleswig-holsteinischen Wattenmeeres of 17 December 1999 (GVOBl. Schl.-H. 1999, 518).
118. See § 5 (1) No. 2 and 3 NPL.
119. Landesverordnung über die Ausübung der Fischerei in den Küstengewässern of 11 November 2008 (GVOBl. Schl.-H. 2008, 640).
120. Cf. para. 5 of the Annex to the Regulation.
121. 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.
122. See supra note 20. From the perspective of the CFP
123. 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.:
124. "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 target species of the fisheries concerned; whereas this trend should be checked and the mesh sizes 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".
125. 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 fshing vessels that traditionally fish in those waters from ports on the adjacent coast [...]." In accordance 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.
126. See supra note 22.
127. See § 1 (2) No. 2 of the National Park Law of the Federal State of Schleswig-Holstein.
128. 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;
129. see Regulation of the German Federation of 15.9.2005 (BGBl. 2005 I, 2782). The area "Sylter Auβenriff" was incorporated in the list of sites of Community importance in terms of Art. 4 (2) of the Habitats Directive
130. (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.
131. It has been a matter of dispute what protection standard applies in the period between notification and designation of a site;
132. see A. Proelss, 'Arten-und Habitatschutz nach der FFH-Richtlinie: Welche Anforderungen gelten für potentielle Schutzgebiete?', Annotation to Judgment of the ECJ of 13.01. 2005
133. Società Italiana Dragaggi SpA et al., C-117 and 03 (2005) Europarecht (EuR) 642-50 at 644 et seq.
134. Source: Federal Agency for Nature Conservation 2007.
135. 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.
136. 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.
137. 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).
138. ECJ Case C-127/02, op. cit., supra note 81 at paras. 27 et seq.
139. See also the opinion of Advocate General Kokott in ECJ Case C-127/02, op. cit., at paras. 19 et seq.
140. 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/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/ provision-of-art6-en.pdf.
141. ECJ Case C-127/02, op. cit., supra note 81 at paras. 26, 28 and 38.
142. See also H. Tegner Anker, 'The Precautionary Principle and Nature Conservation Law', in: N. de Sadeleer (ed.) Implementing the Precautionary Principle (London: Earthscan, 2007), pp. 270-290, at 275;
143. M. Gellermann, 'Herzmuschelfischerei im Lichte des Art. 6 FFH-Richtlinie' (2004) Natur und Recht (NuR) 769-773, at 771;
144. 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 [...]."
145. ECJ Case C-127/02, ibid., at para. 44.
146. Arguing that an effect is only "significant" in terms of the Waddenzee ruling if the area concerned no longer qualifies as a SAC is not convincing. Such a view would render the conservation objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive superfluous.
147. See Verschuuren, op. cit., supra note 82 at 280 et seq.
148. See § 3 of the Federal Fisheries Act of Germany (Seefschereigesetz); § 36 et seq. of the Danish Fisheries Act (Bekendtgørelse af fiskerilov), available at: > http://faolex.fao.org/docs/texts/den26268. doc<.
149. See Gellermann, op. cit., supra note 87 at 771.
150. Supra note 83.
151. 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;
152. 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.
153. Note that the opposite is true in respect of trawlnet fisheries; cf. Gellermann, op. cit., supra note 87 at 771.
154. Supra note 17.
155. Verschuuren, op. cit., supra note 82 at 279.
156. 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 protection relevant to the sea turtle Caretta caretta.
157. ECJ Case 804/79, Commission v. United Kingdom [1981] ECR 1045 at para. 18.
158. See Churchill and Owen, op. cit., supra note 4 at 190-193.
159. 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).
160. 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.
161. 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.
162. See, e.g., T. Markus, European Fisheries Law (Groningen: Europa Law Publishing, 2009) at 51 et seq.;
163. Wolff, op. cit., supra note 45 at 168 et seq.
164. ECJ Case 336/00, Austria v. Huber, [2002] ECR I-7699 at paras. 30 et seq.
165. Proelss, op. cit., supra note 45 at 315 et seq.;
166. Wolf, op. cit., supra note 45 at 170.
167. ECJ Case 405/92, Etablissements Armand Mondiet SA v. Armement Islais SARL. [1993] ECR I-6133 at para. 17.
168. ECJ Case 405/92, Etablissements Armand Mondiet SA v. Armement Islais SARL. [1993] ECR I-6133 at paras. 18, 19, 24.
169. Markus, op. cit., supra note 102 at 55.
170. 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;
171. see D. Owen, Interaction Between the EU Common Fisheries Policy and the Habitats and Birds Directives, IEEP Policy Briefing, 2004 at 5;
172. 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.
173. COM (2001) 143 final, op. cit., supra note 100 at 7.
174. 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 Protection 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 trawling in the area of the "Darwin Mounds". The Regulation was based on Art. 37 EC Treaty (today: Art. 43 TFEU).
175. Proelss, op. cit., supra note 45 at 316;
176. contra Markus, op. cit., supra note 102 at 52.
177. Proelss, op. cit., supra note 102 at 52.
178. ECJ Case 405/92, op. cit., supra note 105 at para. 27;
179. COM (2001) 143 final, op. cit., supra note 100 at 4;
180. see also J. H. Jans, European Environmental Law, 2nd ed. (Groningen: Europa Law Publishing, 2000) at 25 et seq.;
181. Proelss, op. cit., supra note 45 at 383 et seq.;
182. Wolff, op. cit., supra note 45 at 172.
183. See Wolff, op. cit., supra note 45 at 172.
184. ECJ Joined Cases C-164/97 and C-165/97, Parliament v. Council [1999] ECR I-1139 at para. 9.
185. ECJ Joined Cases C-164/97 and C-165/97, Parliament v. Council [1999] ECR I-1139 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).
186. ECJ Case 96/98, Commission v. France [1999] ECR I-8531 at para. 40.
187. 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.
188. The document is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ natura2000/marine/docs/fish-measures.pdf.
189. The document is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ natura2000/marine/docs/fish-measures.pdf. at 3.
190. 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 Fisheries Policy (OJ L 104, 23.4.2005, pp. 37-38).
191. Art. 1 of Commission Decision 2005/322, op. cit., supra note 121.
192. Supra note 17.
193. European Court of First Instance, Case T-13/99, Pfizer Animal Health v. Council [2002] II-3305 at para. 143.
194. 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 environment". Notwithstanding this expression of intent, it has been argued that the annual setting of total allowable catch quotas (TACs) by the Council of Ministers, which has constantly resulted in fshing mortalities exceeding the maximum reproductive potential, violates both the LOSC as well as the TFEU.
195. 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.
196. ECJ Case 804/79, op. cit., supra note 98 at para. 19.
197. ECJ Case 804/79, op. cit., supra note 98 at para. 20.
198. ECJ Case 804/79, op. cit., supra note 98 at paras. 30 et seq.
199. Supra note 121.
200. Consolidated text: OJ C 115, 9.5.2008, pp. 15-45.
201. 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;
202. cf. ECJ Case 230/81, Luxemburg v. Parliament [1983] 255 at para. 37;
203. Case 2/88 Imm., J. J. Zwartveld and others [1990] I-3365 at para. 17;
204. Case 350/93, Commission v. Italy [1995] ECR I-699 at para. 16.
205. 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
206. 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".
207. 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.
208. 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.
209. 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 14 et seq.
210. 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 contested decision, did not comply with the conditions laid down in the pertinent Directive, and submitted that the Commission breached the precautionary principle.
211. In a 2008 Communication the Commission stated that the environment accounted for about 10% of all Parliamentary questions put to the Commission;
212. 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.