Law of The Sea and Marine Protection

MARINE PROTECTED AREAS
INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK, STATE OF THE ART, THE BELGIAN SITUATION

Rabaut, M., Cliquet, A., and Maes, F.
Table of Content
TABLE OF CONTENT
I. Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 1
II. Analysis......................................................................................................................................................... 3
1 International Framework for MPAs .......................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Global Agreements ............................................................................................................................... 3

1.1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1.2 UNCLOS, Law of the Sea Convention (1982) ................................................................................ 3
1.1.3 CBD, Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) .......................................................................... 3
1.1.4 Global Protected Area Conventions and Programmes..................................................................... 4
1.1.4.1 Ramsar convention on Wetlands of International Importance (1971).................................... 4
1.1.4.2 World Heritage Convention (UNESCO, 1972)...................................................................... 4
1.1.4.3 MAB, Man and the Biosphere Programme (UNESCO, 1971)............................................... 5
1.2 Regional Agreements............................................................................................................................ 5

1.2.1 Regional Nature Conservation Agreements and Directives............................................................. 5
1.2.1.1 General Concept..................................................................................................................... 5
1.2.1.2 EC Directives ......................................................................................................................... 6
1.2.2 Regional Marine Agreements .......................................................................................................... 6
1.2.2.1 OSPAR Annex V (1998)........................................................................................................ 6
1.2.2.2 Others..................................................................................................................................... 7
1.3 MPAs Related to Specific Aims of International Conventions.............................................................. 7

1.3.1 Regional Shipping Measures under Global Agreements ................................................................. 7
1.3.1.1 MARPOL............................................................................................................................... 8
1.3.1.2 PSSAs (IMO) ......................................................................................................................... 8
1.3.2 Marine Protected Species ................................................................................................................ 8
2 State of the Art: Some Examples .............................................................................................................. 10
2.1 U.S. - Stellwagen Bank ....................................................................................................................... 10

2.1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 10
2.1.2 Species and Habitat Protection ...................................................................................................... 10
2.1.3 Management Problems .................................................................................................................. 11
2.2 Australia - Great Barrier Reef ........................................................................................................... 11

2.2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 11
2.2.2 Management .................................................................................................................................. 12
2.3 Europe- North Sea- Wadden Sea........................................................................................................ 13
i
International Legal Framework for MPAs, focused on Belgian Situation M. Rabaut
Table of Content
2.3.1 International framework – European Situation.............................................................................. 13

2.3.2 Wadden Sea ................................................................................................................................... 14
3 The Belgian North Sea............................................................................................................................... 15
3.1 Biological Relevance for MPAs.......................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Legal Basis for MPAs: the MMM-Act ................................................................................................ 16

3.2.1 The MMM-Act, a Framework Law for MPA designation............................................................. 16
3.2.2 Designation of Belgian MPAs possible ......................................................................................... 16
3.2.3 Effectiveness of the Framework Law in a Federal State ............................................................... 17
3.3 State of the Art.................................................................................................................................... 18
III. Conclusions................................................................................................................................................. 20
IV. Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................... 22
ii
Introduction
I. INTRODUCTION
The general understanding that we have for terrestrial systems is unlikely to hold in marine
systems because for marine systems: 1) a much larger proportion of the biological action
(productivity and biomass) is in the water column, and 2) the density of water allows
organisms easily to migrate for long distances. The first observation suggests that we need to
protect water masses as they move; the second point implies that protection is needed over
larger spatial scales (Stevenson, 2000). The dual oceans agenda for the 21st century is to
maintain the benefits and functions of marine ecosystems and to reconcile the sector-specific
thread of international legal instruments. Ecosystem functioning is important for the
communities dependent upon them and for human society as a whole. An ecosystem-based
approach is necessary to diagnose complex problems, determine the relative importance of
different sources of stress, and establish priorities (Kimball, 2001). A nature conservation
policy to reverse the loss of biodiversity in marine areas is necessary for several reasons, such
as ecological, economical, social, scientific and ethical reasons.
Attention for marine area protection is increasing in international and national law (Cliquet,
1999 & 2003). The term "marine protected area" (MPA) has been in use for over two decades.
The concept of marine protected areas has been around for centuries. A marine protected area
has come to mean different things to different people, based primarily on the level of
protection provided by the MPA. Some see MPAs as sheltered or reserved areas where little,
if any, use or human disturbance should be permitted. Others see them as specially managed
areas designed to enhance ocean use (NOAA, 2003). According to the World Conservation
Union (IUCN, 1988) a Marine Protected Area is defined as any area of intertidal or subtidal
terrain together with their overlying waters and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural
features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the
enclosed environment (Kelleher, 1995 & IUCN, 1988). The marine protected areas cover a
wide rage of habitats and they include different terms, such as marine reserve, marine
sanctuary, marine park, protected seascape. According to Agardy ‘the ultimate goal of any
marine protected area is marine conservation – that is, the protection of critical ecological
processes that maintain the ecosystem and allow for the production of goods and services
beneficial to humankind, while allowing for utilisation of ocean space and resources that is
1
Introduction
sustainable in an ecological sense’ (Agardy, 1997). It is rather clear that specific goals will
vary from area to area.
Throughout this paper, the global agreements with respect to marine protected areas will be
discussed. Several regional marine instuments contain provisions on the designation and
management of marine protected areas. Regional agreements will be discussed. An overview
of states which implemented specific law about marine protected areas will be given, as well
as the real state of the art: how common are MPAs? Where do MPAs exist? All these clarified
with a focus on a few examples. In this international framework, the situation for the Belgian
North Sea and the (legal) possibility for marine protected areas will be analysed.
2
Analysis
II. ANALYSIS
1 International Framework for MPAs

1.1 GLOBAL AGREEMENTS
1.1.1 Introduction
The marine environment poses a unique problem: restrictions on international navigation.
While the coastal state has the duty to protect the marine environment, its rights to curtail
activities by foreign ships is carefully circumscribed by the Law of the Sea Convention 1982.
The protected area conventions take two forms. Both identify the values that area
designations are intended to protect. Some provide for geographic areas to be defined where
activities may be prohibited or restricted. Others prohibit or regulate a narrow range of
activities and provide for the identification of areas particularly vulnerable to these activities
where more stringent protections apply. There is no specific global convention for marine
area protection. The desingnation of marine protected areas is either based on regional marine
conventions, or on general nature conservation conventions, which also apply to the terrestrial
environment.
1.1.2 UNCLOS, Law of the Sea Convention (1982)

The Law of the Sea Convention of 1982 contains no specific articles on the designation of
protected areas. Though, the convention states in article 194.5 in full that pollution control
measures must 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." (UNCLOS, 1982; Kimball, 2001). The convention remains crucial as it defines the
rights and obligations for coastal and other states in the different marine legal areas. In those
areas in which coastal states have sovereignty (territorial sea) or can exercise sovereign rights
(EEZ, continental shelf), coastal states have a right to designate marine protected areas. The
management measures that can be taken within these areas will differ however and will
depend on the legal regime that applies to that area.
1.1.3 CBD, Convention on Biological Diversity (1992)

CBD is a framework treaty hence member states have to implement rules in the national
jurisdiction. The CBD supports existing arrangements in a general sense by calling on states
International framework for MPAs
3
Analysis
to establish a network of protected areas at the national level where special conservation
measures are needed. However, it is only three years later, in 1995, the convention explicitly
gives attention to the marine and coastal environment with the Jakarta Mandate on Marine
and Coastal Biological Diversity. The Jakarta mandate consists of five programme elements.
Marine and coastal protected areas (MCPAs) are one of those programme elements.
Decisions are made by consensus, which implies that no serious obligations are found
throughout this text, but the value of the convention may lie in promoting a more systematic
approach to the use of the large number of international agreements promoting coastal/marine
protected area designations (holistic approach).
1.1.4 Global Protected Area Conventions and Programmes

There are essentially three global instruments that define geographic areas for special
protection. None of these provides for designation of marine areas beyond the 12-mile
territorial sea, thus avoiding any issue related to navigation freedoms.
1.1.4.1 Ramsar convention on Wetlands of International Importance (1971)
The Ramsar Convention was the first global convention on habitat protection. The
document's vision of the Ramsar List is: "to develop and maintain an international network of
wetlands which are important for the conservation of global biological diversity and for
sustaining human life through the ecological and hydrological functions they perform."
This convention is of importance with respect to MPAs because it includes coastal wetlands.
Coastal wetlands are a critical component in marine conservation. They may be protected
through other global arrangements, under the regional conventions, and as habitat pursuant to
protected species conventions, but the Wetlands Convention offers a unique source of
guidance and expertise. Designations may include areas of marine water no more than six
meters deep at low tide. More than a third of the designated wetlands have a marine or
coastal component. (Kimball, 2001; Ramsar Convention, 1971). Examples of marine Ramsar
sites in Europe are the Vlaamse Banken (Belgium), the Wadden Sea (the Netherlands,
Germany and Denmark), the Mont St. Michel (France).
1.1.4.2 World Heritage Convention (UNESCO, 1972)
The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage covers
both natural and cultural areas of outstanding value. The sites are selected by an international
committee of government representatives with the consent of the state concerned. Marine
4
Analysis
areas can be designated and must lie within the territory of a contracting party, i.e. in the
territorial sea. Although the designation of World Heritage provides a potentially valuable
mechanism for conserving marine ecosystems, such potential has remained relatively
untapped. Of the World Heritage sites listed to date, fewer than 7% of them (56 sites) target
coastal or marine features, and fewer than 10 of these are primarily marine. An initiative is
now underway to expand the application of World Heritage across a range of ocean
ecosystems, in part by demonstrating the special strengths of this legal instrument. The idea
is that the prestige associated with having a World Heritage site provides an incentive for
national governments to ensure their sites do not become degraded (Kokkonen, 2003). The
criteria for selecting natural sites require that they be of sufficient size and contain the
necessary elements to ensure the integrity of ongoing ecological and biological processes.
1.1.4.3 MAB, Man and the Biosphere Programme (UNESCO, 1971)
This programme of the UNESCO has to be considered as soft law, i.e. its biosphere reserves
do not function under a legally-binding convention. An international committee is
responsible for designating reserves. The 1995 Strategy emphasises the importance of coastal
and marine designation.
1.2 REGIONAL AGREEMENTS
1.2.1 Regional Nature Conservation Agreements and Directives
1.2.1.1 General Concept
Those agreements provide of protected area designation. Usually they refer to designating
areas under national control. In the African convention on the Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources this national control is defined as territorial waters, whereas in the
ASEAN Agreement on the conservation of Nature and Natural Resources it is referred to as
national jurisdiction, which includes also EEZ waters. The latter is also the case for both the
EC Birds and Habitats Directives. Although the directives do not explicitly mention the EEZ,
there is little doubt that these directives extent as far as this particular zone (Kimball, 2001;
Cliquet, 2003).

5
Analysis
1.2.1.2 EC Directives
The most stringent requirements are to be found in the framework of the EC Birds Directive
(Council Directive 79/409/EEC) and Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC).
Because of that and because of the important implications for Belgium, these directives are
described more detailed in this paper.
In the obligations with respect to the Birds Directive, two types of measures exist. A first
group concerns about all bird species of art. 1; a second group refers to specific measures of
all species of Annex I of the Directive. In the latter, special area protection obligations are
integrated. There, the member states designate so called Special Protection Areas (SPA),
taking in account the protection of those species in the specific zone. As mentioned above,
marine zones can be designated as SPA, when the zone is under the jurisdiction of the
particular state (EEZ included).
With the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive, a European ecological network of special
protection zones is established. This network is called "Natura 2000". This network consists
of areas of two types: the natural habitats (Annex I) and habitats of specific species
(mentioned in Annex II). The member states contribute to Natura 2000 through the
designation of special protection zones. The Directive defines clearly what is meant with a
Special Area of Conservation (SAC).
1.2.2 Regional Marine Agreements
1.2.2.1 OSPAR Annex V (1998)
For the North Sea recent opportunities have been created by adding a new Annex V to the
Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic (OSPAR
Convention). Annex V is on the Protection and Conservation of the Ecosystems and
Biological Diversity of the Maritime Area (OSPAR Commission Annex V, 1998). Although
the expectations were rather high, the qualifications are vague and do not include new
categories of protected areas nor detailed management measures. Annex V is very general
and is little more than a legal basis for further measures in the framework of OSPAR. Much
will depend on the work of the OSPAR commission. Recently, progress has been made with
developing criteria and a list of threatened and/or declining species and habitats. (Cliquet
2000 & 2003; OSPAR commission 2000).

6
Analysis
1.2.2.2 Others
Similar provisions exist for the Baltic Sea, within the framework of the Helsinki Convention.
Within UNEP regional seas programme, four regions (out of 13) have specific protocols on
protection of biodiversity, all containing provisions on marine protected areas. These regions
are the Mediterranean, East-Africa, the Southeast Pacific and the Caribbean. All of these
protocols call on member states to designate marine protected areas. In some cases, such as
the Mediterranean, an international list of marine protected areas is created. Although most of
these regional instruments are similar in their purpose, there are differences. Some of them
apply only to the territorial sea of the member states; others go beyond the territorial sea and
apply to the exclusive economic zones or even to the high seas. The revised Mediterranean
Protocol (1995) is the first regional marine instrument to incorporate many elements from the
CBD, effectively becoming a regional vehicle for implementing the CBD in respect of coastal
and marine biodiversity. It provides for ex situ as well as in situ conservation measures. In
geographic scope, the Mediterranean Protocol contemplates the possibility of designating
areas lying partly or wholly on the high seas (Art. 9); these areas are called SPAMI (Specially
Protected Areas of Mediterranean Importance).
None of these instruments contain quantitative obligations. Management provisions are also
different. As is often the case in international law, some obligations are rather vague and
sometimes weak (i.e. legal soft law). HELCOM is, in comparison with other
intergovernmental agreements, very successful and a model in co-operation and efficiency.
Recently the designation of parts of the Baltic Sea Area as a PSSA (cf. infra) was submitted
(HELCOM HABITAT 4/2003). For a brief assessment of their implementation, read section
2 (State of the Art) in this chapter.
1.3 MPAS RELATED TO SPECIFIC AIMS OF INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
1.3.1 Regional Shipping Measures under Global Agreements

With respect to pollution due to shipping, several initiatives have been taken on an
international level. The most important ones are established through the International
Maritime Organisation (IMO), either in a clear concept (MARPOL), or rather vague (PSSAs).
Lots of regional concepts have been worked out, but there is mostly no distinction with other
initiatives, such as mentioned above.

7
Analysis
1.3.1.1 MARPOL
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL73/78)
contains the international rules to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine
environment from vessels. This convention covers all technical aspects of pollution from
ships, except dumping. Several Special Areas are designated under MARPOL, where a
stricter regime holds. Among others, the North Sea is considered to be a special area (Annex
I, Oil pollution; Annex V, Garbage) (MARPOL, 1991).
1.3.1.2 PSSAs (IMO)
PSSA stands for Particular Sensitive Sea Area and is designated by the International Maritime
Organisation (IMO). PSSA is defined as “an area that needs special protection through action
by IMO because of its significance for recognised ecological, socio-economic or scientific
reasons and because it may be vulnerable to damage by international shipping” (cf. Annex 2,
Paragraph 1.2 of the IMO Assembly Resolution A.927(22) “Guidelines for the designation of
special areas under MARPOL 73/78 and guidelines for the identification and designation of
particularly sensitive sea areas”) (HELCOM HABITAT 4/2003). Thus, the identification of a
PSSA is linked to the special character of the sea area and the need to protect the sea area
against damage arising from international shipping activities. The PSSA concept has no legal
status, as it is based on an IMO Assembly resolution.
Only six PSSAs have been designated until now, which are The Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park (GBRMP, Australia), the Sabena-Camaguey Archipelago (Cuba), the Paracas National
Reserve (Peru), Archipelago of Malpelo (Colombia), the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary (FKNMS, US) and the Wadden Sea (Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands) (Owen,
2003). Recently the designation of parts of the Baltic Sea Area as a PSSA was submitted
(HELCOM HABITAT 4/2003).
1.3.2 Marine Protected Species

With the purpose to protect a specific (endangered) species, it is obvious that its habitat has to
be protected. Within the context of species protection, the designation of MPAs could be of
importance, though the link is not always obvious. A clear relationship between species
protection and habitat conservation can be found in the protected areas designated for the
conservation of marine mammals, especially cetaceans.

8
Analysis
The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was set up under the International Convention
for the Regulation of Whaling which was signed in Washington DC on 2 December 1946.
The purpose of the Convention is to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and
thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry.
The main duty of the IWC is to keep under review and revise as necessary the measures laid
down in the Schedule to the Convention which governs the conduct of whaling throughout the
world. These measures, among other things, provide for the complete protection of certain
species; designate specified areas as whale sanctuaries; set limits of the numbers and size of
whales which may be taken; prescribe open and closed seasons and areas for whaling; and
prohibit the capture of suckling calves and female whales accompanied by calves. It is clear
that those whale sanctuaries are in fact MPAs with the only objective of protecting certain
species, in casu whales. (International Convention for the regulation of Whaling, 1946). It
concerns areas both under national jurisdiction and areas in the high seas.
Important regional conventions for the protection of species are the Bonn Convention on the
protection of migratory wild animals (including marine species) and the Berne Convention for
the conservation of wild fauna and flora and their natural environment. Marine species are
included here also, through the protection of the marine environments. In both conventions it
is clear that the legitimate marine areas include those under national jurisdiction, i.e. territorial
sea and EEZ. (Cliquet, 2000 & 2003). Those conventions can be important when MPAs are
established in some region, though it should be clear that species conservation not necessarily
has a spatial component. There is no obligate link between MPAs and those conventions.

9
Analysis
2 State of the Art: Some Examples

MPAs are a relatively new concept; most sites were established only within the past two
decades. About 1,300 MPAs currently exist (1% of marine environment), but there is limited
information about their effectiveness. An assessment of 383 sites found that about 31 percent
were generally achieving their management objectives. (Kelleher et al, 1995).
In 1995, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA, cf. infra), the World
Bank, and IUCN released the first ever global assessment of MPAs. That report reveals that
most MPAs are too small to adequately protect the species within them and that many
globally unique habitats receive no protection whatsoever. Comparison of these results with
data on global protected area systems indicates strongly that, in general, marine ecosystems
receive far less protection than their terrestrial counterparts. (Kelleher et al, 1995).
Instead of repeating all global and regional conventions with respect to MPAs, several
examples of MPAs all over the world will be given. For each example the international
framework, major environmental problems and some management aspects and difficulties
will be dealt with.
2.1 U.S. - STELLWAGEN BANK
2.1.1 Introduction
Upon the creation of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS) in 1992, a
management plan was developed. That plan, released in 1993, has been in effect ever since.
However, legislation requires that these plans be revised periodically to keep them up-to-date
with current science, management policies and resource issues. (Studds, 2003).
The Stellwagen Bank management plan must address many challenging conservation issues,
including pollution from outfall pipes, diffuse source runoff, dumping of ballast water,
shipping traffic, and communication cables being laid across the ocean floor of the sanctuary.
The most significant and politically challenging issues for Stellwagen Bank are overfishing
and protecting whales.
2.1.2 Species and Habitat Protection

The Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary provides seasonal habitat for several
threatened and endangered species of whales including the Northern right whale, which is
State of the Art

10
Analysis
thought to be in danger of extinction. Whales are being killed by collisions with ships -
including whale watching boats - and by entanglement in fishing gear such as drift nets and
lobster lines. The Great South Channel (GSC) between Cape Cod and Georges Bank is
important habitat for right whales, particularly during whale migration in late winter and early
spring. The Massachusetts Port Authority, however, has visions of an economic boom that
includes increased shipping which, in turn, would lead to increased traffic in the GSC.
(Stevenson, 2000). Fishing is the most important issue in marine conservation as overfishing
is a problem world wide (Pauly et al., 1998 & 2002). Current rates of harvesting are not
sustainable. (Stevenson, 2000).
2.1.3 Management Problems

When the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary was founded in 1992, most resource
use issues were decided locally. The New England fishing industry argued successfully that
fishing would not be regulated by the sanctuary manager. Although the sanctuary is charged
with protecting biodiversity and ecological integrity, sanctuary managers have had very little
input about fishing within the sanctuary.
Furthermore, the last sanctuary director, Brad Barr, was moved to another position more than
a year ago and was not replaced, leaving the SBNMS program without local leadership. The
difficulties of sanctuary management are clear from the large number of suits brought by the
fishing industry and conservationists against SBNMS.
2.2 AUSTRALIA - GREAT BARRIER REEF
2.2.1 Introduction
Australia has both the largest MPA (the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park) and the greatest
number of MPAs of any country in the World. As well, it is recognised as having developed
the theory and practice of marine management further than any other country. Large, multiple
use MPAs covering entire ecosystems, like the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP),
provide the organisational framework for integrated management and sustainable
development.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) is an area of unique national and international
significance. It covers around 345500 square kilometres in area and stretches some 2000 km
along Queensland’s coastline. It contains the largest and healthiest coral reef system in the
State of the Art

11
Analysis
world, having 2900 coral reefs and 900 islands, along with mangroves, sea grass beds, rocky
reefs, sand flats, open ocean and deep sea floor. The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area
(GBRWHA), which incorporates the Marine Park, was inscribed on the World Heritage List
in 1981 in recognition of its outstanding natural universal value. (Nicoll, 2002).
2.2.2 Management
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) is responsible for the management
of the marine park. To accomplish this, the Authority delegates some responsibilities for day-
to-day management to other Commonwealth and Queensland agencies, in particular the
Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service (QNPWS). Most of the day-to-day
management of the GBRMP is carried out by the QNPWS under special agreement with the
Commonwealth.
The GBRMPA, established under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act, has three members
who reflect the co-operative arrangements between the Commonwealth and Queensland. The
Chairman is a Commonwealth nominee, one member is nominated by the Queensland
Government and the third represents non-government interests. The administration of most
islands in the region is the responsibility of the Queensland Government. (UNEP).
In 1994, The 25 Year Strategic Plan for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area was
produced to provide strategies for managing and preserving the Great Barrier Reef World
Heritage Area for a 25 year period.
From the beginning, emphasis was placed on the concerns and opinions of all stakeholders.
These included governments, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities,
conservationists, scientists, recreational users and established Reef industries such as fishing,
shipping and tourism.
Overall, the Strategic Plan was endorsed by almost 70 organisations representing all levels of
government, recreational and commercial users, conservation and scientific groups and
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
State of the Art

12
Analysis
2.3 EUROPE- NORTH SEA- WADDEN SEA
2.3.1 International framework – European Situation

The Helsinki Convention and the OSPAR Convention are the most important regional
agreements concerning MPAs in European waters. The WWF report of 13 June 2003
evaluates what has been done in the framework of these conventions.
Nine years after HELCOM Parties recommendation to create a network of 62 Baltic Sea
protected areas, only five have been fully implemented. That shows an appalling lack of
progress in protecting the highly threatened resources of the Baltic Sea.
Only one HELCOM country, Lithuania, has implemented all areas designated for protection.
In Denmark, the early progress has been stalled by the current conservative government's
decision to dramatically cut funds for nature conservation.
Of OSPAR contracting parties, none was considered to provide fully adequate protection to
marine species and habitats in coastal marine protected areas. Most of coastal MPAs still lack
effective management and offshore MPAs have yet to be implemented. Within OSPAR, there
was a general tendency for northern nations (Scandinavian countries, Germany, the UK) to
have made more significant progress than southern countries (Spain, Portugal, France).
According to the report, one of the biggest hurdles to effectively protecting marine habitats
and species is the continued fractured, sectoral approach toward maritime affairs and marine
conservation taken by European governments, particularly a lack of communication and co-
ordination between marine habitat conservation and fisheries management authorities.
Several countries have devoted inadequate human and financial resources toward marine
conservation. (WWF, 2003).
Most of the North Sea MPAs are in the southern-eastern parts of the area, along the Wadden
Sea coasts of Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands. Most of this area is now under legal
protection as the Wadden Sea National Park. This contrasts with the western and northern
parts of the North Sea, where there is only one small voluntary MPA. There are no MPAs in
the central part of the North Sea. The whole North Sea has however been declared a special
area under Annex V of the MARPOL Convention (the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships) which prohibits release and disposal of garbage and other
domestic wastes from ships. (MARPOL, 1991) (cf. supra).
State of the Art
13
Analysis
OSPAR, in collaboration with relevant scientific institutions including ICES and the
European Environment Agency (EEA), will assess which habitats in the OSPAR area need to
be protected. The OSPAR Working Group on Impacts on the Marine Environment (IMPACT)
has recently developed criteria for the selection of marine species and habitats for protection.
Countries are designating main coastal areas and some marine areas, mainly close to the
shore, for protection under the global Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International
Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat, the European Bern Convention and the EU birds
and habitats directives (cf. supra). (European Environment Agency, 2003).
2.3.2 Wadden Sea

The offshore area west of Sylt fulfils the requirements of a protected area according to the
Ramsar Convention (waterfowl) and according to the EU Habitats Directive, which requires
the designation of habitats particularly important to harbour porpoises and grey seals (Annex
II).
Since 1978, The Netherlands, Denmark and Germany have been working together on the
protection and conservation of the Wadden Sea covering management, monitoring and
research, as well as political matters. In 1982, a Joint Declaration on the Protection of the
Wadden Sea was agreed upon in which the countries declare their intention to co-ordinate
their activities and measures for the protection of the Wadden Sea. At the Eighth Trilateral
Governmental Conference in Stade in October 1997, a Trilateral Wadden Sea Plan was
adopted. The plan was elaborated in accordance with the Leeuwarden Declaration entailing
the common policies, measures, projects and actions of the countries for their joint efforts to
fulfil the ecological targets. In the framework of the Trilateral Wadden Sea Co-operation, the
conservation and management of the Wadden Sea harbour seal population is of high
importance. The first "Conservation and Management Plan for the Wadden Sea Seal
Population 1996 - 2000", was adopted in March 1996 and prolonged until 2001. At the
Esbjerg II Conference (October 31, 2001) a new Seal Management Plan was adopted for the
period 2002-2006. (Eighth Trilateral Governmental Conference in Stade, 1997).
However, according to WWF, thorough management and enforcement measures are urgently
needed as breeding and resting mammals and birds urgently require undisturbed resting places
and low-level noise. An evaluation of impacts from extraction of mineral resources, military
activities, offshore wind parks, power cables and large touristic events should result in
appropriate measures. (WWF, 1998).
State of the Art
14
Analysis
3 The Belgian North Sea

3.1 BIOLOGICAL RELEVANCE FOR MPAS
Although the Belgian coastal zone is small, it comprises several types of marine and coastal
habitats, which are important for a variety of flora and fauna. The habitats in the Belgian
marine zone are typical of the shallow coastal waters of tidal, temperate seas. The sediment
consists mainly of sand (shallow offshore sandbanks, sandy beaches, intertidal salt marshes),
but various obstacles, such as groins or shipwrecks, also provide a habitat for a community of
animals and plants characteristic of rocky coastlines. The western part of the Belgian coastal
zone, with its remarkable, very shallow sandbanks, is the most important area in ecological
terms, given the density and diversity of the animals that live in its depths. The interest of this
zone is officially recognised by its status of 'marine area of international importance, in
particular for sea birds', in the context of the RAMSAR Convention1. (MUMM, 2003). This
site is described as a bathymetrical, geomorphologic and hydrodynamic highly diverse, near
shore sandy beach - sandbank-swale system, composed of clay to coarse soft-sediments.
(Vincx & Degraer, 2003). Several of the bird species are included in regional convention
texts as the EC Directives, Bonn Convention and Berne Convention. (Cliquet, 2003).
There are many human activities in the Belgian marine environment and coastal zone,
including recreation, shipping, fisheries, industry and mineral extraction. These activities
have resulted in a qualitative and quantitative degradation of the marine and coastal
ecosystem. (Cliquet, 2003). According to the Quality Status Report of the OSPAR2
commission, the consequences of fishing, the inflow of harmful substances and the excessive
quantities of nutrients in the sea (eutrophication) cause the main problems in the North Sea.
(OSPAR commission, 2000).
1
The marine habitats of international importance: 1900 ha of the habitat is designated as a Ramsar site, and the
government has asked the European Commission to designate an area of 1700ha, the Vlaamse Banken, as a
Special Area of Conservation under the Habitats Directive. (Cliquet, 2003).
2
This report describes the current state of health of various areas of the North East Atlantic.
The Belgian North Sea
15
Analysis
3.2 LEGAL BASIS FOR MPAS: THE MMM-ACT
3.2.1 The MMM-Act, a Framework Law for MPA designation

The "MMM" act (act of 20 January 1999 on the protection of the marine environment in sea
areas under Belgian jurisdiction) establishes the legal basis for the protection of the Belgian
part of the North Sea against sea-related pollution and for the conservation, restoration and
development of nature.3 For the Belgian marine environment, this is an explicit legal basis
for the implementation of existing international conventions and directives (in chapter III,
section 1, art. 6 the act refers explicitly to: the Ramsar Convention, Convention of Bonn, the
Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention of Berne and the EC Directives on
Habitats (92/43/EEC) and Birds (79/409/EEC)). The basic principles of international
environmental law form the basis of the MMM-act. These are the precautionary principle,
the prevention principle, the principle of sustainable management, the polluter pays principle
and the principle of restoration; the principle of objective liability is also established.
(Belgisch Staatsblad - Belgian Official journal, 1999b). The purpose of this law is to create a
legal framework for nature conservation and to protect against marine pollution in the Belgian
territorial sea and EEZ (Cliquet & Maes, 1998). The EEZ- Act is established to claim rights
in the exclusive economic zone (Act of 22 April 1999 relating to Belgian's exclusive economic
zone in the North Sea). (Belgisch Staatsblad - Belgian Official Journal, 1999a).
3.2.2 Designation of Belgian MPAs possible

Chapter III, section 2, articles 7,8,9 form a legal basis for the establishing of Marine Protected
Areas, while articles 10,11,12,13,14 of section 3 of this chapter give provisions concerning
species protection. As this paper is about MPAs and their legal basis, it is clear that most
attention will be given to section 2 of chapter III in the MMM-act.
MPA is a general name and is specified in art. 7 as several categories:
3
Prior to the MMM-act, the most important implementation measures for Belgian MCPAs (Marine and Coastal
Protected Areas) are those in the framework of the Ramsar convention and the European directives on Nature
Conservation. Belgian marine habitat conservation legislation was limited to the designation of one area, the
"Vlaamse Banken", included on the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance. However, as no
further measures were taken to Vlaamse Banken subsequent to its listing, the designation was merely symbolic.
(Cliquet, 2003).

16
Analysis
(a) Integral Marine Reserves: to make a natural evolution of natural events possible.
(b) Specific Marine Reserves: to conserve or to restore the present situation (or situation
which allows ecological function) through measures of management.
(c) Special Protected Areas or Special areas of Conservation: for the conservation of certain
marine habitats and species. This designation will facilitate the establishment of protected
seas in Belgian marine areas, provided by EC directives (cf. supra).
(d) Closed Areas: (temporal) prohibition of one or more activities.
(e) Buffer Zones: additional protection of MPAs; the conservation measures will be less strict
than in the protected areas.
The King takes all measures to clearly define MPAs on sea maps and to inform the public
about the protection measures. The measures do not hold for military activities (cf. also
art.8).
A negative, exhaustive list (Art. 8) specifies which activities are not forbidden in Integral
Marine Reserves and Specific Marine Reserves (all other activities are forbidden):
• Surveillance and control;
• Monitoring and scientific research by or with the permission of the government;
• Shipping, except when limited by Art. 20 of the same law: the MPAs may not limit the
right of innocent passage in the territorial sea (as defined in the UN Convention on the
Law of the Sea, 1982) (UNCLOS, 1982); other paragraphs refer to regulations of the
International Maritime Organisation (IMO), with respect to routing systems.
• Professional Fishing activities, except when limited or prohibited by the King and
collective submitted by the minister and the minister of agriculture; recreational and non-
commercial fisheries are clearly prohibit in the MMM-act;
• All the conservation and restoration measures taken on the basis of Art 9 of this law in
specific marine reserves: these are measures for management, conservation, education,
restoration or nature development. A management commission will implement the
management and conservation measures for each specific reserve; and
• Military activities, as mentioned in Art. 7, cf. supra.
3.2.3 Effectiveness of the Framework Law in a Federal State

Because this is largely a framework law, its ultimate effectiveness depends on the
development of sound implementation measures. The first attempts for taking measures for
17
Analysis
the establishment of marine nature reserves and for nature conservation measures within these
reserves failed due to strong negative reaction from various user groups such as fisheries and
sailing clubs. Negative newspapers articles and even demonstrations were held against the
reserves. There was a lot of misunderstanding and even misinformation on the consequences
of the designation of these areas. Finalisation of the implementation measures was postponed
until after a thorough consultation round with all the user groups. Although this consultation
process took place in 1999, no new attempts have been made to designate marine nature
reserves.
Another problem is the responsibility fragmentation. The institutions responsible for the
management of the coastal zone are highly fragmented and include three levels of
governance: federal, regional and local. The process of the Belgian State reform resulted in
the federalisation of the State. The regions have obtained the jurisdiction over matters such as
nature conservation and environmental protection. However, the marine areas are not
included within the territory of any of the regions and they remain under federal competence.
The competences in the coastal zone are divided between the federal government (the marine
part of the coastal zone) and the Flemish region (most matters on the landward side of the
coastal zone and some matters at sea). The division is formed by the baseline.
3.3 STATE OF THE ART

So far, nine sites were considered: two larger and one smaller area, in combination with the
near environment of six ship wrecks. One of the larger ones consists of the proposed primary
site (situated nearby the Belgian – French border), but no definitive decisions has been made4.
A lack of scientific knowledge about valuable marine sites could be one of the reasons,
although a lot of research has been done lately.
Even though there are no formally designated Special Protection Areas, this does not mean a
complete lack of protection. According to a ruling by the European Court of Justice, areas
that satisfy the scientific criteria to be designated are subject to the protection regime of the
Birds Directive, even if they have not been formally designated as such.
4
Under the former federal government, the minister for the environment announced the designation of three
Special Protection areas under the Birds Directive (part of Vlakte van de Raan, a zone north of the Wenduine
bank and a part of the Trapegeer-Stroombank).
18
Analysis
Additionally, the former government has certainly shown a lack of political will. The new
government has announced its intention of taking on the work that has been done in the past
and, recently, the designation of the site as a marine protected area has become a top priority
of the Environmental Department of the Belgian federal government. (Vincx & Degraer,
2003; Cliquet, 2003; MUMM, 2003).

19
Conclusions
III. CONCLUSIONS
The urgent need for protective measures for the marine environment is reflected in the broad
international framework that has been established the latest years. Both some global
conventions and programmes and numerous regional agreements exist to achieve a significant
protection of the marine environment. They depart all from the global accepted principles of
international environmental law.
Since 1986, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) Commission on National Parks and
Protected Areas has been promoting the establishment and management of a global system of
marine protected areas (MPAs). Some national governments have already established MPAs,
and many have identified priorities for protection in documents such as national
environmental action plans and national conservation strategies. Three examples from
different parts of the world are briefly discussed. In general, MPAs seem to be too small, or
do not have thorough enforcement measures. Highly destructive fishing activities are often
difficult to ban, though necessary to reach some level of protection for the marine
environment.
For the Belgian North Sea, a framework law has been established to make the designation of
MPAs possible. This so-called MMM-Act refers explicitly to the regional international
agreements concerning protection of marine environment (which in turn are mainly based on
the global agreements). Strong negative reactions from different user groups made it until
now impossible to implement concrete conservation measures. Further on, the fragmentation
of responsibilities in the federal State Belgium (different competence within the coastal for
different levels of governance) makes a fast and transparent conservation management often
difficult. However, the designation of the site as a marine protected area has become a top
priority of the Environmental Department of the Belgian federal government. Nine sites were
considered. One of the larger ones consists of the proposed primary site (situated nearby the
Belgian – French border), but no definitive decisions has been made. Another argument for
the slow progress is the lack of scientific knowledge about valuable marine sites. However,
the potential benefits of MPA establishment to ecosystems, fisheries, and relevant
stakeholders have been much discussed and the use of MPAs as efficient means to sustain
fishery stocks and protect habitats as well as biological diversity has been advocated largely.
(FSBI, 2001). Lots of research programmes concerning the marine environment of the North
Sea have been set up lately (Basford et al., 1993; Rees & Eleftheriou, 1989; Cattrijsse &
20
Conclusions
Vincx, 2001; Cattrijsse & Degraer, 2001; Dyer et al., 1983; Vincx et al., 2002; Bonne &
Vincx, 2003). Lots of science has been produced and attempts have been made to establish
legal instruments which make the implementation of MPAs possible. The challenge is to
incorporate all existing scientific data in a thorough management programme. There is a need
for clear criteria for the establishment of Marine Protected Areas in the Belgian North Sea and
impacts should be included in a conceptual model (flow chart). Continuous monitoring and
effective enforcement measures should be the basis for sustainable establishment of
conservation, once an MPA is designated.
The international call for the protection of the marine environment, the Belgian framework
law (MMM-Act) and the scientific relevance together stress the need for a concrete
implementation plan for MPAs.
21
Bibliography
IV. BIBLIOGRAPHY
♦ Agardy, T.S., 1997. Marine Protected Areas and Ocean Conservaton. Austin, R.G. Landes
Company, 244p.
♦ Basford, D. J., Eleftheriou, A., Davies, I. M., Irion, G., and Soltwedel, T. 1993. The ICES
North Sea benthos survey: the sedimentary environment, ICES J. mar. Sci., 50: 71-80.
♦ Belgisch Staatsblad, 1999a. Wet van 22 april 1999 betreffende de exclusieve economische
zone van België in de Noordzee (Act of 22 April 1999 relating to Belgian's Exclusive
Economic Zone in the North Sea), Staatsblad van 10 juli 1999/ eerste editie, found in:
http://www.mumm.ac.be/Downloads/EEZ-ZEE_fr_nl.pdf, 12/02/2004.
♦ --, 1999b. Wet van 20 januari 1999 ter bescherming van het mariene milieu in de
zeegebieden onder de rechtsbevoegdheid van België (act of 20 January 1999 on the
protection of the marine environment in sea areas under Belgian jurisdiction), Staatsblad
12 maart 1999/ tweede editie, found in: http:/
/www.mumm.ac.be/Downloads/MMM_fr_nl.pdf, 12/02/2004.
♦ Bonne, W. & Vincx, M., 2003. Structural Biodiversity of Benthic Copepod Communities
on Two Subtidal Sandbanks.. Bonne, W., 2003. Benthic copepod communities in relation
to natural and anthropogenic influences in the North Sea. Ph.D. thesis, University Gent,
Belgium, 165-202.
♦ Cattrijsse, A. & Degraer S., 2001. Macrofauna Biodiversity Patterns of the Belgian
Waters. In Biodiversity of the benthos and the avifauna of the Belgian Coastal waters,
pp17-20, Federal Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs, Brussels, 48 pp.
♦ Cattrijsse, A. & Vincx M., 2001. Biodiversity of the Benthos and the Avifauna of the
Belgian Coastal waters. Federal Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs,
Brussels, 48 pp.
22
Bibliography
♦ Cliquet, A. & Maes, F., 1998, The New Belgian Law on the Protection of the Marine
Environment, Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy: 395-402.
♦ Cliquet, A., 2000. Natuurbehoud in het mariene en kustzonemilieu. Overzicht en analyse

van de juridische mogelijkheden, met bijzondere aandacht voor het mariene en
kustzonemilieu van België, Proefschrift tot het behalen van graad van doctor in de
rechten, Universiteit Gent, 620p. (Research on Nature Conservation in the Marine and
Coastal Environment. Overview and Analysis of the Legal Possibilities with Specific
Reference to the Belgian Marine and Coastal Environment (in Dutch)).
♦ --, 2003. Constraints and Opportunities for Marine Protected Areas, the Belgian Example,
MARE conference People and the Sea II, Amsterdam 2003.
♦ Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the Conservation of Wild Birds

Official Journal L 103 , 25/04/1979 P. 0001 - 0018 found in:
http://europe.eu.int/servlet/portail/RenderServlet?search=DocNumber&lg=en&nb_docs=2
5&domain=Legislation&coll=&in_force=NO&an_doc=1979&nu_doc=409&type_doc=D
irective, 26/03/2004.
♦ Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and
of wild fauna and flora Official Journal L 206 , 22/07/1992 P. 0007 – 0050, found in:
http://europe.eu.int/servlet/portail/RenderServlet?search=DocNumber&lg=en&nb_docs=2
5&domain=Legislation&coll=&in_force=NO&an_doc=1992&nu_doc=43&type_doc=Dir
ective, 26/03/2004.
♦ Dyer, M.F., Fry, W.G., Fry, P.D. & Cranmer, G.J., 1983. Benthic Regions within the
North Sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 63, 683-
693.
♦ Eighth Trilateral Governmental Conference in Stade, 1997. Common Wadden Sea

Secretariat, found in: http://www.waddensea-secretariat.org/management/Plan.html,
26/03/2004.
23
Bibliography
♦ European Environment Agency, 2003. Europe’s Biodiversity – Biogeographical Regions

and Seas, found in: http://reports.eea.eu.int/report2002_0524_154909/en/page
131.html/#3.2, 12/02/2004.
♦ FSBI, 2001. Marine Protected Areas in the North Sea. Briefing Paper 1, Fisheries Society
of the British Isles, Granta Information Systems, 82A High Street, Sawston, Cambridge
CB2 4H, UK, found in http://www.le.ac.uk/biology/fsbi/fsbi.pdf, 12/02/2004.
♦ HELCOM HABITAT 4/2003. found in http://www.helcom.fi/dps/docs/documents/Nature,

12/02/2004.
♦ Herrier, J.L. and Thomas, K., 1995. The Belgian Coast: First Steps Towards an Integrated
Coastal Zone Management in Healy, M.G. and Doody, J.P. (Eds.), Directions in European
coastal Management, Cardigan, samara Publishing Limited, 776-379.
♦ International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946. International Whaling

Commission. http://www.iwcoffice.org/iwc.htm#History, 26/03/2004.
♦ IUCN — The World Conservation Union. 1988. Resolution 17.38 of the 17th General
Assembly of the IUCN. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.
♦ Kelleher, G. 1999. Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK: IUCN — The World Conservation Union. xxiv + 107 pp
♦ Kelleher, G., Bleakley, C., Wells, S., 1995. A Global Representative System of Marine
Protected Areas, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, The World Bank, and the
World Conservation Union, Vols. I-IV, , eds. (The World Bank, Washington, D.C., 1995).
♦ Kimball, L.A., 2001. International Ocean Governance, Using International Law and
Organisations to Manage Marine Resources Sustainably, IUCN 2001.
♦ Kokkonen, M., Hillary, A., Wilson, M., 2003. Effort Underway to Expand Use of World
Heritage Convention for MPAs, MPA-news, Vol.5, n°6: 5-6.
24
Bibliography
♦ MARPOL, 1991. Annex V, Garbage, North sea as a Special Area, found in

http://www.zetnet.co.uk/coms/kimo/res2_94.html, 18/02/2004.
♦ MUMM, 2003. Management Unit of the North Sea Mathematical Models. Management,
Nature Conservation: http://www.mumm.ac.be/EN/Management/Nature/index.php,
18/02/2004.
♦ Nicoll, P., Robinson, J., 2002. Commonwealth Management of the Great Barrier Reef
Follow-up Audit, GBRMPA, found in http://www.anao.gov.au/WebSite.nsf/Publications,
11/02/2004.
♦ NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 2003. Marine Protected

Areas of the United States, found in http://mpa.gov/mpadescriptive/whatis.html#varying,
12/11/2003.
♦ OSPAR Commission Annex V, 1998. Annex V: The Protection and Conservation of the
Ecosystems and Biological Diversity of the Maritime Area, found in
http://www.ospar.org/eng/html/convention/ospar_conv10.htm, 23/03/2004.
♦ OSPAR commission 2000. Quality Status report 2000 for the North East Atlantic. Found
in: http://www.ospar.org/eng/html/qsr2000/QSR2000welcome3.htm, 12/11/2003
♦ Owen, P., 2003. IFSMA newsletter n°40, found in http://www.ifsma.org/newsletters/nl

40.pdf, 12/02/2004.
♦ Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R., Torres, F., 1998. Fishing Down
Marine Food Webs. Science February 6; 279: 860-863.
♦ Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Guénette, S., Pitcher, T.J., Sumaila, U.R., Walters, C.J.,
Watson, R., Zeller, D., 2002. Towards Sustainability in World Fisheries, Nature vol 418
(2002): 689-695.
25
Bibliography
♦ Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, 1971. Found in www.ramsar.org, 12/11/2003.

♦ Rees, H.L. & Eleftheriou, A., 1989. North Sea benthos: A Review of Field Investigations
into the Biological Effects of Man's Activities, J. Cons. int. Explor. Mer, 45:284-305.
♦ Stevenson, R.D., 2000. New Management Plan for Stellwagen Bank National Marine
Sanctuary (SBNMS), Conservation Perspectives, found in http://www.massscb
.org/epublications, 12/02/2003.
♦ Studds, G.E., 2003. Introduction to Sanctuary Management, found in

http://stellwagen.nos.noaa.gov, 12/02/2004.
♦ UNEP, 2004. United Nations Environmental Programme, found in http://www.unep-

wcmc.org, 12/02/2004.
♦ United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea, 1982. Convention text found in
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.ht
m, 12/11/2003.
♦ Vincx M., W. Bonne, A. Cattrijsse, S. Degraer, A. Dewicke, M Steyaert, J. Vanaverbeke,

G. Van Hoey, E. Stienen, J. Van Waeyenberghe, E. Kuijken, P. Meire, H. Offringa, J.
Seys, F.A.M. Volckaert, E. Gysels, B. Hellemans, T. Huyse, C. Pampoulie, 2002.
Sustainable Management of the North Sea: Structural and functional biodiversity of North
Sea ecosystems: species and their habitats as indicators for a sustainable development of
the Belgian continental shelf, Final Report, The Prime Minister's Services Federal Office
for Scientific, Technical and Cultural affairs: 106 p.
♦ Vincx, M., Degraer, S., 2003. Biomare Primary site Questionnaire (Western Coastal
Banks as Proposed Primary site), found in http://www.pml.ac.uk
/biomare/webquest/Second%20questionnaire%20Degraer.htm, 8/02/2004
♦ WWF, 1998. The Waters of West Sylt – A Potential MPA. Found in

http://www.ngo.grida.no/wwfneap/Publication/briefings/Sylt.pdf, 16/02/2004.
26
Bibliography
♦ --, 2003. Poor Protection for Europe’s Marine Treasures, New WWF Report, Press
Release, june 2003,found in http://www.ngo.grida.no/wwfneap/Publication/pr130603.htm.
27

Law of The Sea and Marine Protection

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Law of The Sea and Marine Protection

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MARINE PROTECTED AREAS

INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK, STATE OF THE ART, THE BELGIAN SITUATION

1 International Framework for MPAs .......................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Global Agreements ............................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Regional Agreements............................................................................................................................ 5

1.3 MPAs Related to Specific Aims of International Conventions.............................................................. 7

2 State of the Art: Some Examples .............................................................................................................. 10

2.1 U.S. - Stellwagen Bank ....................................................................................................................... 10

2.2 Australia - Great Barrier Reef ........................................................................................................... 11

2.3 Europe- North Sea- Wadden Sea........................................................................................................ 13

2.3.1 International framework – European Situation.............................................................................. 13

3 The Belgian North Sea............................................................................................................................... 15

3.1 Biological Relevance for MPAs.......................................................................................................... 15

3.2 Legal Basis for MPAs: the MMM-Act ................................................................................................ 16

3.3 State of the Art.................................................................................................................................... 18

IV. Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................... 22

1 International Framework for MPAs

1.1.2 UNCLOS, Law of the Sea Convention (1982)

1.1.3 CBD, Convention on Biological Diversity (1992)

1.1.4 Global Protected Area Conventions and Programmes

1.1.4.1 Ramsar convention on Wetlands of International Importance (1971)

1.1.4.2 World Heritage Convention (UNESCO, 1972)

1.1.4.3 MAB, Man and the Biosphere Programme (UNESCO, 1971)

1.2 REGIONAL AGREEMENTS

1.2.1 Regional Nature Conservation Agreements and Directives

1.2.1.1 General Concept

International framework for MPAs

1.2.2 Regional Marine Agreements

1.2.2.1 OSPAR Annex V (1998)

International framework for MPAs

1.3 MPAS RELATED TO SPECIFIC AIMS OF INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

1.3.1 Regional Shipping Measures under Global Agreements

International framework for MPAs

1.3.1.2 PSSAs (IMO)

1.3.2 Marine Protected Species

International framework for MPAs

International framework for MPAs

2 State of the Art: Some Examples

2.1 U.S. - STELLWAGEN BANK

2.1.2 Species and Habitat Protection

State of the Art

2.1.3 Management Problems

2.2 AUSTRALIA - GREAT BARRIER REEF

State of the Art

State of the Art

2.3 EUROPE- NORTH SEA- WADDEN SEA

2.3.1 International framework – European Situation

2.3.2 Wadden Sea

3 The Belgian North Sea

3.2 LEGAL BASIS FOR MPAS: THE MMM-ACT

3.2.1 The MMM-Act, a Framework Law for MPA designation

3.2.2 Designation of Belgian MPAs possible

The Belgian North Sea

3.2.3 Effectiveness of the Framework Law in a Federal State

3.3 STATE OF THE ART

The Belgian North Sea

♦ Cliquet, A., 2000. Natuurbehoud in het mariene en kustzonemilieu. Overzicht en analyse

♦ Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the Conservation of Wild Birds

♦ Eighth Trilateral Governmental Conference in Stade, 1997. Common Wadden Sea

♦ European Environment Agency, 2003. Europe’s Biodiversity – Biogeographical Regions

♦ HELCOM HABITAT 4/2003. found in http://www.helcom.fi/dps/docs/documents/Nature,

♦ International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946. International Whaling

♦ MARPOL, 1991. Annex V, Garbage, North sea as a Special Area, found in