A legal bottleneck blocking EU marine protection

The European Union (EU) has set a goal to legally and effectively protect at least 30% of its marine waters by 2030¹, with 10% of its waters under ‘strict protection², equivalent to fully protected, no-take areas. This target surpasses the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which lacks a clear quality criterion in its area-based indicator, despite mounting evidence that conservation outcomes depend more on protection effectiveness than on coverage alone^3,4,5. This goal should be achieved by expanding the existing network of marine protected areas (MPAs) consisting of marine Natura 2000 sites under the Birds and Habitats Directives and nationally designated MPAs, while ensuring their effective management.

The recently adopted Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR) adds legal weight to this ambition, requiring that Member States put in place the necessary restoration measures covering, at least, 30% of degraded marine habitats covered by the Regulation by 2030, and restoration measures for habitats of certain species (Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1991)⁶. It includes passive restoration – through effective protection – as a valid measure, reinforcing alignment with the goals of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the EU Biodiversity Strategy, and Birds and Habitats Directives, which require establishment and effective management of Natura 2000 sites and other MPAs.

Despite these policy commitments and legal obligations, strict and effective protection at sea remains rare. Most EU MPAs are concentrated in territorial waters⁷, where easier access, user pressure, and visible impacts historically led to greater protection efforts. There, strong protection, including fully or highly protected areas, per the MPA Guide⁸, covers only 0.2% of EU waters and just 1.7% of total MPA area (Fig. 1). In offshore waters (Exclusive Economic Zones, EEZs), where MPAs are typically larger, strong protection drops to around 1% of MPA area, revealing a critical gap⁷. Fishing pressure remains high within many MPAs, including from destructive bottom trawling, with high costs to society^9,10,11,12. Closing this gap will require not only new and more effective MPAs but robust regulation of extractive uses – particularly for fisheries.

This is where the EU’s common fisheries policy (CFP) becomes central, as any conservation measure to comply with the above-mentioned EU environmental legislation has to be adopted in accordance with CFP rules. While coastal fisheries within 12 nautical miles can be mostly regulated by EU Member States under certain conditions (Fig. 1), management of fishing in Exclusive Economic Zones where countries exercise jurisdiction, is subject to more complex rules under the CFP. For marine protected areas, Article 11 of Regulation 1380/2013¹³ is particularly relevant. Under this article, if the measures involving fishing activities concern other Member States’ fishing fleets, this requires adoption of those measures by the EU as fishing is its exclusive competence under the Treaty (Article 11(2)). Under Article 11, concerned Member States may submit joint recommendations which may be adopted by the European Commission through a delegated act. In theory, this enables cooperative conservation. In practice, it has failed to deliver effective fisheries regulations in most offshore EU MPAs^14,15. In fact, this framework reflects a broader and long-recognised tension between environmental obligations and the Common Fisheries Policy, particularly in offshore waters where implementation remains uncertain¹⁶.

A 2020 report by the European Court of Auditors highlighted the mechanism’s shortcomings. Member States often avoid initiating Article 11 procedures due to complexity, delays, lack of stakeholder engagement guidelines, and a high likelihood of diluted measures¹⁴. Fishing nations effectively hold veto power because there should be unanimity in agreeing on the proposal for a joint recommendation (or at least no objection from a Member State). In practice, this has led to a weakening of the necessary measures proposed by initiating Member State due to fishing interests of other Member States in the area. Inaction resulting from a lack of agreement on joint recommendations may breach EU environmental law, as Articles 6(2) and 6(3) of the Habitats Directive require preventive and precautionary measures against site degradation¹⁷. Yet, so far, there were no legal consequences for inaction¹⁸. These limitations discourage implementation and risk undermining the goals of the Birds, Habitats and Marine Strategy Directives, the NRR and the Biodiversity Strategy, particularly for offshore MPAs, unless the identified serious shortcomings in Article 11 procedure are resolved (Fig. 2). Based on available sources, since the introduction of Article 11 in the last CFP reform in 2013, a small number of delegated acts (seven as of 2023, see Client Earth, 2023¹⁸, with at least two additional acts adopted in 2025¹⁹ and in early 2026²⁰) have been implemented for Natura 2000 sites, MSFD areas and MPAs, largely as successive amendments to two basin-specific regulations (for the Baltic: 2017/117 and North Sea: 2017/118) rather than distinct conservation instruments²¹. All delegated acts related to Article 11 are confined to these regions, and only a few strict protection zones were implemented via this mechanism in the Kattegat (DE) and Bratten (SE) areas. The existing delegated acts in the Baltic and North Sea demonstrate that such regional cooperation is feasible, offering potential best practices that could be replicated in other sea basins, including through stronger coordination and support at EU level. Yet, none covers the Mediterranean or southern Europe, leaving many Natura 2000 and other MPAs without effective fisheries regulation, and only 4% of the Natura 2000 sites with the necessary fisheries regulations¹⁴.

Public pressure for stronger fisheries regulations is increasing. In 2022, 2023 and 2025, the Commission adopted delegated acts closing certain areas in the North Sea MPAs to bottom trawling. A legal challenge from a German fishing group was rejected by the EU General Court in 2025, affirming the legitimacy of these protections²². NGOs are now calling for national roadmaps to eliminate harmful fishing in all MPAs by 2030²³. Further, a growing body of evidence shows that strongly protected no-take MPAs can deliver benefits to adjacent fisheries through biomass export and spillover, including increases in catch rates near reserve boundaries^{24,25,26,27,28}.

In response to growing concerns, the Commission launched the Pact for Fisheries and Oceans in 2023, stating that the CFP already contains adequate tools and does not need structural reform. The associated Marine Action Plan calls on Member States to adopt national roadmaps, regulate fishing in MPAs, and phase out mobile bottom fishing in MPAs by 2030²⁹. However, without addressing the legal and procedural constraints of Article 11, these goals may remain unfulfilled.

At the 2025 UN Ocean Conference in Nice (UNOC3), Commission President Ursula von der Leyen introduced the European Ocean Pact, a €1 billion commitment to marine protection across six pillars: ocean health, coastal resilience, marine science and innovation, maritime security, the blue economy, and global governance³⁰. Yet, even with this ambitious agenda, Article 11 remains a bottleneck to delivering the strict protection the EU now champions globally.

While the European Union holds exclusive competence over the conservation of marine biological resources under the CFP, Member States retain shared responsibility for environmental protection and remain legally obliged to ensure compliance with the Habitats Directive across all components of marine ecosystems, including through the regulation of fishing activities, even in the absence of coordinated EU measures^16,17. In this context, a potential reform of the CFP should be approached with caution: rather than weakening conservation objectives, efforts should prioritise targeted improvements to Article 11 and leverage existing environmental obligations and the Nature Restoration Regulation to ensure effective and timely implementation of conservation measures¹⁸. This is consistent with the European Commission’s recent evaluation of the CFP (2014–2024), which highlights uneven progress and persistent challenges in delivering sustainable and effective fisheries management³¹.

Portugal has recently positioned itself at the forefront of marine conservation in Europe, aligning bold national action with international biodiversity goals while offering a case study of both progress and persistent governance obstacles. Since 2022, the country has designated: i) the largest no-take MPA in the northern Atlantic up to 2024³² in Madeira (2500 km²); ii) a multi-zone MPA co-designed through a participatory, bottom-up process in one of southern Europe’s most intensively used coastal areas³³ in mainland Portugal (early 2024; Fig. 3); iii) and the EU’s largest MPA network in the Azores, including the new largest no-take area in the northern Atlantic and EU waters³⁴ (153,000 km²; late 2024).

At UNOC3, Portugal announced an additional 100,000 km² MPA to protect western Europe’s tallest underwater mountain (Gorringe Bank) – a seamount reaching approximately 5000 m in height—, reinforcing its global conservation leadership³⁵; this has since been followed by the proposed designation of the much larger Madeira–Tore ‘D. Carlos’ Marine Natural Reserve ( ~ 173,000 km²), for which the public consultation phase has recently concluded, although its current design does not yet ensure strong or strictly protected zones³⁶.

Yet these successes also reflect broader EU challenges. Despite political will from certain sectors, Portugal – like other Member States and countries outside the EU – faces mounting political pressure to backtrack on environmental policies. Reopening no-take areas, driven by political shifts and pressure to accommodate fisheries interests, threaten strong protection such as at Selvagens MPA (Sala et al., 2024), mirroring recent reversals elsewhere, including in the U.S. Pacific Remote Islands Heritage Marine National Monument³⁷.

Further obstacles, not exclusive to Portugal, include the lack of standardized monitoring for large offshore MPAs with diverse ecosystems and objectives; limited enforcement due to scale and remoteness; and weak institutionalized co-management, which limits community participation and long-term support.

While the Habitats Directive establishes clear obligations to regulate activities that may affect Natura 2000 sites, the implementation of fisheries restrictions in multi-fleet contexts depends on instruments under the CFP, notably Article 11(2).

In practice, Portugal cannot fully enforce fishing restrictions in offshore MPAs without support from other Member States through Article 11(2) in the EEZ, and via Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) in MPAs in the Extended Continental Shelf, meaning that measures often apply only to Portuguese vessels. Unilateral measures may therefore be implemented offshore to comply with environmental obligations, but risk remaining limited to national fleets, raising concerns over their discretionary and potentially discriminatory nature, as EU law requires non-discriminatory fisheries measures ensuring equal access across Member States (CFP Regulation Article 5(1)¹³)¹⁶. This constraint jeopardizes both national ambition and broader EU protection targets.

The EU has laid out an ambitious agenda for protection and restoration of marine biodiversity, backed by funding, legislation, and international leadership. But delivery remains obstructed by structural legal barriers – particularly ineffective implementation of Article 11 of the CFP. To meet restoration targets and strict protection commitments, scientifically grounded national proposals must swiftly result in binding fisheries regulations either through a reformed and simplified joint recommendation process or through clearer allocation of environmental competences, ensuring that conservation remains the primary objective. This should be a top priority for EU leaders to address, namely in the ongoing evaluation and potential revision of the CFP³⁸. Recognising strictly protected MPAs as a core component of sustainable fisheries management could help align conservation and fisheries objectives within EU policies. Without targeted reform to streamline this mechanism, the EU risks falling short of its 2030 goals despite rhetorical commitments and national leadership. In a time of rising geopolitical uncertainty and environmental rollback, the EU must reaffirm its leadership and align fisheries governance with biodiversity objectives – offering lessons not only for Member States but also for high seas governance, where future BBNJ Treaty MPAs will face similar coordination challenges with RFMOs.