A marine protected area can appear on a map without fishing being prohibited there. The gap between a site’s official status and the rules that actually apply to it is highlighted in a report by the European Court of Auditors, published on 26 October 2026. The stakes are high: the European Union is far from meeting its marine targets for 2030, and the number of hectares designated is not enough to measure what is actually being preserved.
A European target still a long way off
The European Biodiversity Strategy aims to protect 30% of the Union’s marine waters by 2030, including 10% under strict protection. Yet, according to figures cited by the Court, around 14% of the waters are currently designated as marine protected areas and less than 1% as strictly protected. The Court therefore considers it very unlikely that the 30% target will be met on time.
These proportions describe designations; on their own, they do not describe the state of the seabed or the intensity of human activities. Designating an area does not automatically trigger a ban on fishing or any other activity. The rules depend on the site’s conservation objectives and the measures adopted to achieve them. An area can therefore be protected in an administrative sense while still allowing some fishing.
This distinction is essential when interpreting the statistics. In the marine Natura 2000 sites studied, apparent fishing activity was 72% higher than that observed in other European waters between 2020 and 2024, according to an analysis reported by Mongabay based on vessel-tracking data. Around 85% of this effort involved gear that comes into contact with the seabed, notably bottom trawls. Bottom trawls drag their nets along the seabed and can damage its habitats. However, the comparison of activity does not prove that designation as a protected area caused the observed intensity.
From boundaries to effective protection
Protection works like a chain. It is necessary to define what the site is intended to conserve, adopt rules suited to the pressures threatening these features, provide managers with human and financial resources, monitor activities and track results. This monitoring should then make it possible to adjust the measures. If one link is missing, the boundary drawn on the map does not guarantee that the habitat in question will be preserved.
The report identifies weaknesses at several of these stages. Among the managers surveyed, more than 63% said they had no staff or too few; 40% said their funding was little or not at all secure. Only 23% felt they had put in place monitoring robust enough to adapt management. These responses relate to the audit sample, not to all European marine areas.
The study’s limitations matter when interpreting these results. The Court examined Ireland, France and Sweden in depth, visited or interviewed the managers of 15 sites, and analysed data at the scale of the Union’s seas. For its questionnaire, it had selected 45 areas; 35 managers responded, while the ten other sites were Irish. The responses were based in part on statements from managers, sometimes cross-checked through interviews. The Court specifies that the size and selection method mean the questionnaire percentages cannot be extrapolated to all areas in the Union.
The Court’s overall findings also draw on other elements of its audit, including visits, interviews and public data. It notes the absence of a common method for assessing site effectiveness and gaps in the coverage of offshore and deep-sea habitats. The network is also insufficiently connected in some places: protected areas isolated by vast expanses of exploited waters do not necessarily form a coherent ecological whole.
Why restrictions can take time
Protecting an area sometimes requires limiting fishing activities carried out by fleets from several countries. The European process may then require negotiations between the countries concerned, based on scientific data and socio-economic analyses. The Court considers this process complex and lengthy; it says few conservation measures have been adopted since the Common Fisheries Policy came into force in 2013.
This difficulty does not mean that a country can never act alone. Rather, it shows why adopting common rules can take time when several fleets and interests are involved. For the conservation organisations cited by Mongabay, one challenge is to better regulate practices with the greatest impacts on biodiversity, including bottom trawling. Researcher Joachim Claudet told the outlet that protection must tackle the most damaging activities in the areas concerned.
The challenge does not necessarily pit expansion of the network against better management of existing sites. In its response, as reported by Mongabay, the Court presents both as essential: expanding a map without management resources risks reproducing current weaknesses, while improving only existing sites would leave important habitats unprotected.
Measuring more than surface area
The European Commission told Mongabay that it would support Member States technically, financially and politically. It has also committed 1.6 million euros to the LIFE-PAME Europe project, tasked with developing a method for assessing the effectiveness of marine protected areas. The methodology is expected by the end of 2028. The Court nevertheless considers it unlikely that a harmonised framework will be operational across the Union before 2030, particularly in the absence of an implementation plan.
As the deadline approaches, counting surface areas therefore remains an incomplete indicator. It must also be possible to say which habitats are targeted, which activities are regulated, who is responsible for management and how results are measured. A protected area is not effective simply by virtue of its name: its ecological value depends on the rules and resources that make this status meaningful.
References
- European Court of Auditors, Special Report 25/2026
- Mongabay, investigation into European marine protected areas
A Mediterranean coastline and sailing boats. Illustrative photograph.
