By Bosphorus News Geopolitics Desk
On October 27, 2026, a new European Court of Auditors report exposed a persistent gap in the European Union's marine conservation policy: apparent fishing effort inside marine Natura 2000 sites was 72% higher than in comparable waters outside them. The audit, released on October 26, found that official protection boundaries frequently lack effective restrictions, management and monitoring. Its findings arrive as Greece prepares new fishing rules for a South Aegean marine park and Türkiye faces questions about the management of two parks designated in August.
The EU aims to protect 30% of its seas by 2030, including 10% under strict protection. Yet European Environment Agency figures used in the audit show that only 13.7% had protected-area status at the end of 2023, an increase of 80,567 square kilometres, or 1.6 percentage points, since 2020. Less than 1% was designated for strict protection. The auditors consider both 2030 targets unlikely to be met.
The headline coverage figure is also questioned
Special Report 25/2026 questions what the EU is counting. Areas designated as protected enter the coverage statistics regardless of the restrictions actually imposed on fishing or other activities. The Court says this presents an overly favourable picture of conservation at sea.
It also identifies a problem with the denominator. The European Environment Agency's calculation uses a marine assessment area about 7% smaller than the combined exclusive economic zones of EU coastal states, potentially raising the reported protection share by roughly one percentage point. That is a measurement issue in addition to the much larger difference between legally designated waters and areas where effective conservation is demonstrated.
The EU has no harmonised classification specifying permitted activities for all marine protected areas. Different sites may carry the same protected label while applying quite different rules. The auditors also found that deep-water habitats are under-represented and that Mediterranean protected sites often remain separated by more than 100 kilometres of heavily used waters, limiting their value as a connected ecological network.
What the 72% fishing figure actually measures
The Court compared apparent fishing effort within and outside marine Natura 2000 sites in ten EU marine subregions, drawing on Global Fishing Watch vessel-tracking estimates for 2020–2024. The unit was estimated hours of fishing activity per square kilometre, rather than tonnes of fish landed or the number of vessels. Overall, effort inside the protected sites was 1.72 times that recorded outside them.
About 85% of the apparent effort inside these areas came from gear the auditors classified as seabed-contacting. The category covers bottom trawls and dredges, but also anchored nets, bottom-set lines and other fixed gear. The 85% figure is not a bottom-trawling estimate.
The report's regional chart includes the Eastern Aegean and shows greater estimated fishing effort within the marine Natura 2000 sites there than in surrounding waters. This is a dataset comparison, not a field inspection of Greek or Turkish fishing fleets. Automatic Identification System (AIS) records also provide incomplete coverage of smaller coastal vessels. The figures identify fishing pressure; they do not prove illegal fishing or show that protected-area designation caused activity to increase. The auditors note that some protected sites overlap naturally productive fishing grounds.
Fishing rules lag behind the maps
A marine protected-area designation does not itself impose an EU-wide fishing ban. Under the Common Fisheries Policy, restrictions affecting vessels from several member states can require scientific assessments, consultations and a joint recommendation before the Commission can act. The Court found that since 2013, just ten EU legal acts under the procedures examined had restricted fishing in about 40 protected sites. The wider network contains thousands of sites requiring measures appropriate to their conservation objectives.
The Commission's 2023 action plan sought to phase out mobile bottom fishing in marine protected areas by 2030, but that commitment is not a prohibition already in force across all EU protected waters. Nor do designations guarantee management capacity. In a questionnaire covering 45 sites in France, Ireland and Sweden, only 23% of respondents said management was fully directed towards agreed conservation objectives. Staffing, secure funding and continuous ecological monitoring were recurring weaknesses. Those three countries formed the audit's detailed management sample; the fishing dataset covered a wider European area.
Greece's Aegean proposal specifies fishing restrictions
Greece's Environment and Energy Ministry announced on October 19 that a draft presidential decree for the South Aegean 1 marine national park, covering the southern Cyclades, had been submitted to the Council of State on October 16. The proposed park encompasses more than 9,000 square kilometres of sea, 73 island and islet groups and 196 management zones.
The draft would prohibit towed fishing gear that contacts the seabed, including bottom trawls, while providing for compensation to affected fishers. It also proposes a seasonal fishing ban within half a nautical mile of the coast from April 15 to May 31, restrictions on uncontrolled anchoring over Posidonia seagrass and other sensitive habitats, and continued small-scale coastal fishing subject to the applicable rules.
These are proposed measures awaiting completion of the decree process, with some implementation details still to be set out in a management plan. They do not establish that the entire park is a no-take zone. Athens defines its marine portion as lying within Greek territorial waters, a statement of the Greek government's position rather than a resolution of outstanding Aegean disputes.
Türkiye's two parks pose their own management questions
Türkiye established the Fethiye–Kaş and North Aegean marine national parks through presidential decisions published on August 16. They cover 21,706.03 and 1,742.14 square kilometres respectively. The August designations established park boundaries and legal status, but do not by themselves demonstrate a fishing ban throughout either area.
On August 18, the Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TÜDAV) said fishers had asked whether the new parks would close their fishing grounds. The foundation called for clear fisheries authority and management arrangements that preserve sustainable fishing. Its concerns involve implementation at sea, distinct from the maritime-jurisdiction dispute with Greece.
Ankara's July 21, 2025 statement maintained that Greek marine park declarations could not change Türkiye's position on unresolved Aegean sovereignty and jurisdiction questions, while expressing readiness for environmental cooperation. Athens later challenged the legal reach of Türkiye's new parks. Those opposing legal arguments concern jurisdiction, rather than an identified new restriction specifically imposed on Turkish fishing vessels. The Court's own maps carry a disclaimer that they take no position on sovereignty or maritime boundaries.
Across the whole Mediterranean, a separate MedPAN and SPA/RAC assessment found that 9% of the basin held protected status at the end of 2024, while only 0.07% was fully protected. Those figures include non-EU waters and are not directly comparable with the EU-only audit figures. For Greece and Türkiye, the outstanding questions are concrete: which gear will be restricted in which zones, who will monitor compliance, how small-scale fishers will be affected and whether sensitive habitats recover.
Sources: European Court of Auditors, European Environment Agency, European Commission, Greek Ministry of Environment and Energy, Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Türkiye Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, TÜDAV, MedPAN, SPA/RAC, Bosphorus News review and reporting.