Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:00:38.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changing the Base: Legal Implications of Scientific Criteria and Methodological Standards on what Constitutes Good Marine Environmental Status

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2012

Till Markus
Till Markus*
Affiliation:
Research Center for European Environmental Law (FEU) and Bremen Graduate School for Marine Sciences (GLOMAR/MARUM), University of Bremen, Germany. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Decision on Criteria and Methodological Standards on Good Environmental Status of Marine Waters provides the conceptual framework for the assessment and valuation of the marine waters of EU Member States. In particular, it provides concepts for defining what constitutes good marine environmental status – a status which Member States are obligated to achieve by the year 2020 under the 2008 Marine Strategy Framework Directive. This article aims to elucidate the epistemic and normative dimensions of scientific criteria and methodological standards, as well as their importance in the legal treatment of the marine environment of the EU. The article also assesses how and to what extent the transnational process leading up to the Decision was structured, surveying existing ideas and perspectives as to what exactly constitutes good environmental status, and examining whether the structure of the Decision ensures that those affected by it would want to accept it.

Keywords

Good Marine Environmental StatusEuropean UnionMarine Strategy Framework DirectiveScientific Criteria and Methodological StandardsCommission Decision 477/2010/EUTheory-Dependence of Observations
Type
Articles
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , April 2013 , pp. 145 - 165
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Directive 2008/56/EC establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Marine Environmental Policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) (MSFD) [2008] OJ L114/19.

2 Ibid., Art. 1(1) (emphasis added).

3 European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Thematic Strategy on the Protection and Conservation of the Marine Environment, COM(2005)504 final, 24 Oct. 2005, at p. 4; European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council: Fishing Opportunities for 2008 – Policy Statement from the European Commission, COM(2007)295 final, 6 June 2007, at p. 5.

4 European Commission Decision 477/2010/EU on Criteria and Methodological Standards on Good Environmental Status of Marine Waters [2010] OJ L232/14.

5 Ibid.; see also Arts. 5, 8, 9, 10 and 13 MSFD.

6 See, on this topic, the works of Jasanoff, S., The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers (Harvard University Press, 1990)Google Scholar; Jasanoff, S., ‘Science and Judgment in Environmental Standard Setting’ (1998) 11(1) Applied Measurement in Education, pp. 107–20Google Scholar; Majone, G., ‘Science and Trans-Science in Standard Setting’ (1994) 9(1) Science, Technology & Human Values, pp. 15–22Google Scholar; Ladeur, K.-H., Das Umweltrecht der Wissensgesellschaft (Duncker & Humboldt, 1995)Google Scholar; see also contributions in Winter, G. (ed.), Grenzwerte – Interdisziplinäre Untersuchungen zu einer Rechtsfigur des Umwelt-, Arbeits-, und Lebensmittelschutzes (Werner Verlag, 1986).Google Scholar

7 See Hanson, N.R., Patterns of Discovery (Cambridge University Press, 1958)Google Scholar; Chapter 1, at pp. 4–30; see also Kuhn, T., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago University Press, 1970), at pp. 123–47.Google Scholar The most prominent radical and relativistic interpretation of ‘theory-dependence of observations’ is obviously given by Feyerabend, P.K., Against Method (New Left Books, 1975).Google Scholar

8 As Foucault put it, ‘[t]he subject of knowledge itself has a history: the relation of the subject to the object; or more clearly, truth itself has a history’: Foucault, M., ‘Truth and Juridical Forms’, in Faubion, J.D. (ed.), Power: Essential Works of Foucault, 1954–1984: Vol. 3 (The New Press, 2000), pp. 1–89, at 1–2. See alsoGoogle ScholarLuhmann, N., ‘Closure and Openness: On Reality in the World of Law’, in Teubner, G. (ed.), Autopoietic Law: A New Approach to Law and Society (Walter de Gruyter, 1988), pp. 335–48.Google Scholar

9 See more specifically Demeritt, D., ‘What is the “Social Construction of Nature”? A Typology and Sympathetic Critique’ (2002) 26 Progress in Human Geography, pp. 767–90Google Scholar; Castree, N., ‘Socializing Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics’, in Castree, N. & Braun, B. (eds.), Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics (Blackwell, 2001), at pp. 1–21Google Scholar; Castree, N. & Braun, B., ‘The Construction of Nature and the Nature of Construction’, in Braun, B. & Castree, N. (eds.), Remaking Reality: Nature at the Millennium (Routledge, 1998), pp. 3–42.Google Scholar

10 Recital 1, Commission Decision, n. 4 above.

11 Tribe noted that all social choices ‘alter, and not merely implement, the values of the societies in which such choices are made’: see L.T. Tribe, ‘Technology Assessment and the Fourth Discontinuity: The Limits of Instrumental Rationality’ (1973) 46 Southern California Law Review, pp. 616–60, at 634 and 640.

12 Arguing in this direction, Mee, L.D. et al. ., ‘How Good Is Good? Human Values and Europe’s Proposed Marine Strategy Directive’ (2008) 56(2) Marine Pollution Bulletin, pp. 187–204Google Scholar; on the epistemic dimension of standard setting, see Majone, n. 6 above, pp. 15–22; Jax, K., Die Einheiten der Ökologie: Analyse, Methodenentwicklung und Anwendung in Ökologie und Naturschutz (Peter Lang, 2002).Google Scholar

13 See generally on the temporary nature of scientific knowledge Popper, K., Logik der Forschung (Akademie-Verlag, 2010).Google Scholar

14 Kitcher, P., Science, Truth & Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2002), at pp. 43–55Google Scholar; for similarities in the area of environmental standard setting, see Jasanoff, n. 6 above.

15 Arguing in favour of a strong involvement of the public in relation to the conversion of science to policy under the MSFD, see S. Fletcher, ‘Converting Science to Policy through Stakeholder Involvement: An Analysis of the European Marine Strategy Directive’ (2007) 54(12) Marine Pollution Bulletin, pp. 1881–6.

16 See, e.g., European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament – Towards a Strategy to Protect and Conserve the Marine Environment, COM(2002)539 final, 2 Oct. 2002, at pp. 9–13.

17 See, e.g., Frank, V., The European Community and Marine Environmental Protection in the International Law of the Sea (Brill, 2007), at pp. 79–85Google Scholar; Krämer, L., EC Environmental Law (Sweet & Maxwell, 2007), at p. 299.Google Scholar

18 Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR), Paris (France), 22 Sept. 1992, in force 25 Mar. 1998, available at: http://www.ospar.org.

19 Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (HELCOM), Helsinki (Finland), 9 Apr. 1992, in force 17 Jan. 2000, available at: http://www.helcom.fi/Convention/en_GB/convention.

20 See European Commission, Communication on an Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union, COM(2007)575 final, 10 Oct. 2007.

21 N. 1 above.

22 Recital 3, MSFD, ibid.; see also Markus, T., Schlacke, S. & Maier, N., ‘Legal Implementation of Integrated Ocean Policies: The EU’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ (2011) 26 The International Journal for Marine and Coastal Law, pp. 59–90Google Scholar; Juda, L., ‘The European Union and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Continuing the Development of European Ocean Use Management’ (2010) 41(1) Ocean Development & International Law, pp. 34–54, at 44.Google Scholar

23 Art. 1(1) MSFD.

24 See particularly restrictions in Arts. 13(5), 14(1)–(4) and 15(1)–(2) MSFD.

25 Markus et al., n. 22 above; Juda, L., ‘The European Union and Ocean Use Management: The Marine Strategy and the Maritime Policy’ (2007) 38(3) Ocean Development & International Law, pp. 259–82Google Scholar; Barnes, R. & Metcalfe, D., ‘Current Legal Developments: The European Union’ (2010) 25(1) The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, pp. 81–91, at 82.Google Scholar

26 In that sense it resembles, to a large extent, the EU’s Water Framework Directive (WFD) (Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy [2000] OJ L327/1), which has been characterized by Maria Lee as follows: ‘Rather than clear and obviously binding directions, the [WFD] is dominated by tools to influence the mind of the decision-makers.’ According to Lee, ‘[t]here is a distinct emphasis in the [WFD] on mechanisms that encourage institutions to learn, to revisit decisions, and to generate and absorb new information’: see M. Lee, ‘Law and Governance of Water Protection Policy’, in J. Scott (ed.), Environmental Protection: European Law and Governance (Oxford University Press, 2009), pp. 27–55, at 36.

27 Art. 5(2) MSFD.

28 Ibid., Art. 3(5)(a–b).

29 Ibid., Art. 3(5)(2).

30 Ibid., Art. 9(1). Compare the similar approach under the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), n. 26 above. Regarding implementation of environmental objectives under the WFD, see Lee, n. 26 above, at pp. 30 and 48–50.

31 Arts. 9(3) and 25(3) MSFD. As the MSFD was adopted prior to the entry into effect of the Lisbon Treaty, its provisions on delegation and implementation are governed by the amended Comitology Decision of 2006, and not by Arts. 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (Lisbon (Portugal), 13 Dec. 2007, in force 1 Dec. 2009, available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0047:0200:en:PDF). See Decision 1999/468/EC laying down the Procedures for the Exercise of Implementing Powers Conferred on the Commission [1999] OJ L184/23, as amended by Decision 2006/512/EC [2006] OJ L200/11.

32 N. 4 above.

33 See Recitals 2 and 5, Commission Decision, n.4 above; the Directorate-General for Health and Consumers (DG Sanco) was responsible for Descriptor 9 – Contaminants in Fish and Seafood for Human Consumption.

34 Recital 3, Commission Decision, ibid.

35 Ibid., Recital 4.

36 These three specific descriptors were chosen because (a) they are particularly suitable for illustrating different qualities of scientific criteria and methodological standards, and (b) the author had access to scientific data as well as legal and political background information regarding their creation.

37 See text to Descriptor 11, Part B, Commission Decision, n. 4 above.

38 See Dancy, J., Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology (Blackwell, 1985), at p. 1. On the different branches of epistemology, see Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy athttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology.Google Scholar

39 See Commission Communications, n. 3 above.

40 As L. Wittgenstein elegantly put it: ‘The limits of my language mean the limits of my world’, in Tractatus-Logico Philosophicus, available at http://filepedia.org/tractatus-logico-philosophicus, at Section 5.6.

41 See text to Descriptor 11, Part B, Commission Decision, n. 4 above.

42 International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES), Report of the Ad-hoc Group on Impacts of Sonar on Cetaceans and Fish (AGISC), CM 2006/ACE:06 25, Copenhagen, 2005, p. 39, available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/whales_dolphins/docs/ices_second_report.pdf.

43 National Research Council (NRC), Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals (National Academic Press, 2003), at p. 49.Google Scholar

44 For current developments, see ICES, n. 42 above. See also Marine Mammal Commission, Advisory Committee on Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals, ‘Report to the Marine Mammal Commission’, Washington DC, 2006, available at: http://mmc.gov/reports/workshop/pdf/soundFACAreport.pdf National Research Council (NRC), Marine Mammal Populations and Ocean Noise: Determining When Noise Causes Biologically Significant Effects (National Academic Press, 2005). See alsoGoogle ScholarGillespie, A., ‘Establishing Reliable Foundations for the International Scientific Investigations of Noise Pollution in the Oceans’ (2006) 15(2) Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, pp. 221–6.Google Scholar

45 From this perspective, the assessment of ‘legal implications of scientific criteria and methodological standards’ bears close resemblance to the discourse on technical standard setting. See on this, for example, contributions by S. Jasanoff, n. 6 above; K.-H. Ladeur, n. 6 above, pp. 89–99; see also G. Majone, ‘The Uncertain Logic of Standard-Setting’ (1982) 5(4) Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik, pp. 305–23.

46 European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Common Fisheries Policy, COM(2011)425 final, 13 Jul. 2011; European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, COM(2011)417 final, 13 Jul. 2011; European Commission Green Paper – Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy COM(2009)163 final, 22 Apr. 2009, at p. 15; European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament – Implementing Sustainability in EU Fisheries through Maximum Sustainable Yield, COM(2006)360 final, 4 Jul. 2006.

47 Iudicello, S., Weber, M.L. & Wieland, R., Fish, Markets, and Fishermen – The Economics of Overfishing (Island Press, 1999) at pp. 45–7Google Scholar; Markus, T., ‘Making Environmental Principles Work under the Common Fisheries Policy’ (2010) 19(3) European Energy and Environmental Law Review, pp. 132–44Google Scholar; Froese, R. and Proelß, A., ‘Rebuilding Fish Stocks No Later than 2015: Will Europe Meet the Deadline?’ (2010) 11(2) Fish and Fisheries, pp. 194–202. See generallyGoogle ScholarBirnie, P., Boyle, A. & Redgwell, C., International Law & the Environment (Oxford University Press, 2009), at pp. 199–201.Google Scholar

48 European Commission, COM(2009)163 final, n. 46 above, at p. 7.

49 Villasante, S., García-Negro, M., González-Laxe, F. & Rodríguez, G.R., ‘Overfishing and the Common Fisheries Policy: (Un)successful Results from TAC Regulation?’ (2011) 12(1) Fish and Fisheries, p. 34–50Google Scholar; ICES, ‘Environmental Status of the European Seas’, Copenhagen, 2003, at pp. 37-42, available at: http://www.ices.dk/reports/germanqsr/23222_ICES_Report_samme.pdf. European Commission, Green Paper on the Future of the Common Fisheries Policy, Vol. 1, COM(2002) 135 final, 20 Mar. 2001, at pp. 6–8; M. Holden, The Common Fisheries Policy (Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1996), at pp. 57–60; Karagiannakos, A., ‘Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Quota Management System in the European Union’ (1996) 20(3) Marine Policy, pp. 235–48, at 244.Google Scholar

50 As of 1 December 2009, Arts. 43(2) and 43(3) TFEU (n. 31 above) recognize the role of the European Parliament as co-legislator in all decisions adopted under the CFP except measures on ‘fixing prices, levies, aid and quantitative limitations and on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities’. See also Markus, T., European Fisheries Law – From Promotion to Management (Europa Law Publishing, 2009), at pp. 27–58Google Scholar; van Hoof, L. & van Tatenhove, J., ‘EU Marine Policy on the Move: The Tension between Fisheries and Maritime Policy’ (2009) 33(4) Marine Policy, pp. 726–32.Google Scholar

51 See Art. 192(1) TFEU, n. 31 above.

52 See Mee et al., n. 12 above, at pp. 187–204.

53 Howarth, W., ‘The Progression towards Ecological Quality Standards’ (2006) 18(1) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 1–25Google Scholar; I owe this reference to M. Lee’s article mentioned at n. 26 above, at pp. 31–2. See also Pardy, B., ‘Changing Nature: The Myth of Inevitability of Ecosystem Management’ (2003) 20(2) Pace Environmental Law Review, pp. 675–93, at 684–5Google Scholar

54 See Mee et al., n. 12 above, pp. 191–4.

55 Ibid.

56 Pauly, D., ‘Anecdotes and the Shifting Baseline Syndrome of Fisheries’ (1995) 10 Trends in Ecology & Evolution, p. 430, at 430.Google Scholar

57 European Commission COM(2007) 295 final, n. 3 above, at p. 5.

58 See Art. 3(m), Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 on the Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Fisheries Resources under the Common Fisheries Policy [2002] OJ L358/59.

59 See Markus, n. 50 above, at pp. 75–9 and 125–8; see also Markus, n. 47 above, at pp. 132–44.

60 See Majone, n. 6 above, at p. 19.

61 See text of Descriptor 1, Part B, Commission Decision, n. 4 above.

62 N. 18 above.

63 N. 19 above.

64 See text at Annex I, MSFD, and Annex, Part A, No. 8, Draft Commission Decision, n. 33 above.

65 Art. 9(1) MSFD; Annex I MSFD and Annex Part A, No. 8 of the Draft Commission Decision, ibid.

66 See Arts. 5(2), 10 and 13 MSFD.

67 Ibid., Art. 14.

68 Ibid., Art. 14(4). I thank Dr Harald Ginzky of the German Federal Environmental Agency for making me aware of this problem. On associated problems, see Markus et al., n. 22 above, at pp. 59–90.

69 Arts. 5(1) and 8 MSFD.

70 Member States are required to coordinate themselves regionally: see Recital 1 and Arts. 3(9), 5(2), 6 and 8(3) MSFD.

71 Art. 11 TFEU, n. 31 above. See Art. 12, European Commission, COM(2011)425 final, n.46 above; see also the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling of 9 Sept. 2004 in Case C-127/02, Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee, Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Vogels v. Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (Waddenzee Case), [2004] ECR I-7405; such integration may also be promoted by the Member States under the procedures provided under Art. 15(1) MSFD.

72 See generally on the normative aspects of the question of ‘whose knowledge is taken seriously’, M. Fricker, Epistemic Injustice – Power & Ethics of Knowing (Clarendon, 2007); see also contributions in Fortman, L. (ed.), Participatory Research in Conservation and Rural Livelihoods: Doing Science Together (Wiley-Blackwell, 2008)Google Scholar.

73 For discussions regarding similar or related questions regarding legitimacy in the area of regulatory standard setting, see Jasanoff, n. 6 above, at p. 119; or in relation to the implementation of environmental objectives under the Water Framework Directive, Lee, n. 26 above, at pp. 50–5.

74 See n. 31 above.

75 Scharpf, F., ‘Legitimationsprobleme der Globalisierung – Regieren in Verhandlungssystemen’, in Böhre, C. & Wewer, G. (eds.), Regieren im 21. Jahrhundert (Leske+Budrich, 1993)Google Scholar; Schliesky, U., Souveränität und Legitimation von Herrschaftsgewalt: Die Weiterentwicklung von Begriffen der Staatslehre und des Staatsrechts im europäischen Mehrebenensystem (Mohr Siebeck, 2004)Google Scholar; Herberg, M., ‘Global Governance Networks in Action: The Development of Toxicological Test Methods at the OECD’, in Dilling, O., Herberg, M. & Winter, G. (eds.), Transnational Administrative Rule-Making (Hart Publishing, 2011), at pp. 79–87.Google Scholar

76 See the many different contributions in Dilling, Herberg & Winter, ibid.

77 It should be noted here that the particular case of ‘criteria and methodological standard setting’ brings about slightly different challenges from the ‘regular’ regulatory process of technical standard setting: the degree of uncertainty is even higher and the immediate regulatory force is somewhat lower.

78 Warning, M., Transnational Public Governance: Networks, Law and Legitimacy (Palgrave, 2009), pp. 225–6 and 236.Google Scholar

79 DG Sanco (n. 33 above) was responsible for Descriptor 9 – Contaminants in Fish and Seafood for Human Consumption.

80 The Commission was asked by stakeholder representatives whether they were allowed to further distribute the Working Group documents. The Working Group’s chairman responded that ‘participating organizations were allowed to further distribute internally Working Group meeting documents to facilitate and prepare their participation. However, in case of further document distribution, it may be helpful if participants can provide sufficient context to the information distributed so that any feedback can be sufficiently targeted’: European Commission, Directorate-General Environment, Working Group on Good Environmental Status of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy, Draft Minutes of Meeting, 14 May 2009.

81 Art. 5(a), Council Decision 468/1999/EC laying down the Procedures for the Exercise of Implementing Powers Conferred on the Commission [1999] OJ L184/23, as amended.

82 Recital 3, Commission Decision, n. 4 above.

83 Ibid., Recital 4.

84 de Witte, B. et al. ., ‘Legal Instruments, Decision-Making and EU Finances’, in Kapteyn, P.J.G. et al. ., The Law of the European Union and the European Communities (Wolters Kluwer, 2008), pp. 342–6.Google Scholar

85 Art. 191 TFEU, n. 31 above.