Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Setting the course for a sustainable blue planet — Joint Communication on the EU’s International Ocean Governance agenda’

(JOIN(2022) 28 final)

(2023/C 140/11)

Rapporteur:

Stefano PALMIERI

Referral	European Commission, 25.11.2022
Legal basis	Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Plenary Assembly decision	15.6.2022
Section responsible	External Relations section
Adopted in section	20.12.2022
Adopted at plenary	24.1.2023
Plenary session No	575
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	184/0/1

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

Ocean governance should not be considered merely a ‘marine affair’. The marine environment constitutes a complex system in terms of sectors, legislation, stakeholders at different scales (local, regional, global) and dimensions. It is interwoven with land activities, policies and actions, requiring knowledge-based support for decisions with a trans-disciplinary integrated approach and science diplomacy. The EESC welcomes the proposed constitution of an Intergovernmental Panel for Ocean Sustainability.

1.2.

The EESC welcomes the designation of Marine Protected Areas, supports the achievement of carbon neutrality and sustainable ship demolition.

1.3.

Decisions and interventions need coherence between different policies and agreements, with a transparent evaluation of feasibility vs impacts. The EESC supports the EU’s role as a legislative actor and in strengthening networks and partnerships at global level, addressing the role of research and innovation.

1.4.

The EESC calls for financial deterrents to the use of flags of convenience (e.g. establishing a dedicated fund constituted by sureties for ship demolition) and proposes extending the Carbon Adjustment Mechanism to cover the wide range of pollutants that impact the marine ecosystem.

1.5.

The EESC welcomes the ‘zero tolerance’ approach to illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and bycatch, and encourages the EU to support honest operators in achieving the sustainable conservation and management of fisheries. The EESC calls on the Commission to support sustainable low-impact small-scale and industrial fishing, ‘zero-impact’ aquaculture and algaculture to guarantee regions’ environmental, social and economic sustainability.

1.6.

Deep-sea mining still needs robust scientific results to evaluate the long-term impacts on the environment. The EESC welcomes the Commission’s adoption of the precautionary approach and calls for a moratorium on the authorisation of mining licences by the International Seabed Authority (ISA). The EESC calls for the establishment of international independent scientific panels to provide knowledge-based support for decisions and interventions.

1.7.

The impacts of unexploded ordnance, emerging pollutants and natural disasters can transform the use of maritime space and the consequent economic/geo-political scenarios. The EESC welcomes the Commission’s efforts to address these challenges.

1.8.

Safety and security at sea are fundamental. A generational renewal of skills and technologies is needed, accompanied by decent living and working conditions. The EESC also calls on the Member States to ratify Convention No 188/2007 (1) of the International Labour Organization and ensure its effective transposition into national law in EU Member States (2). The EESC welcomes Council Directive (EU) 2017/159 (3) and calls for the procedure’s scope to be broadened to improve living and working conditions and to protect the health and safety of workers in the sea fishing sector.

1.9.

The EESC reiterates the importance that the outermost regions (4) — due to their geographical characteristics — must assume a key role in the framework of ocean governance as defined in the COM(2022) 198 final (5) but totally absent in the JOIN(2022) 28 final.

1.10.

For a new and strengthened international governance of the Oceans, promoted by the EU, the EESC calls for the effective and transparent involvement — at every stage of this process, from consultation and the co-design of plans to implementation and final evaluation — of different stakeholders in the development of knowledge-based support for policy, as well as in communication and outreach. New forms of organisational structure could be adopted to address the complexity of the challenges.

1.11.

The EESC calls for wide dissemination of knowledge of the law of the sea among all EU citizens. An international law is needed to regulate different areas of competence (coastal boundaries, economic zones, protection of marine resources, the definition of ‘safe harbour’, etc.), especially to clarify international obligations regarding rescue and assistance at sea, codifying the concepts of danger and search and rescue methods (6). The EESC calls for proper enforcement of this rule, affirming the fundamental principle that human beings in danger at sea must be saved and taken to a safe port without any doubts and without conditions.

1.12.

Given the geopolitical and environmental importance of the Arctic, the EESC welcomes the EU’s commitment to fully implementing the Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean, the efforts for designating MPAs in the Arctic and the ban on drilling for hydrocarbons (7).

1.13.

The EESC notes a lack of ambition in the planned investments aimed at tackling the challenges in ocean governance and therefore calls for an adequate Ocean Fund to be established to support maritime challenges.

2.   General comments on the reference framework

2.1.

One of the main challenges for marine and maritime issues is coherence between actions at different levels (global, national, regional and local) and between sectors. Many competing claims can jeopardise interventions and drastically reduce impact.

2.2.

Ocean governance requires knowledge-based support for decisions. The impact of humans on the marine environment is not limited to activities at sea (mining, fishing, transport), but also encompasses actions on land that result in pollution on a wider scale (waste, pesticides, antibiotics, phosphates, plastics, explosives, etc.). It is therefore crucial to embed oceans not only in SDG 14 but also in those goals that address industrial production and collective behaviours. A healthy and productive marine ecosystem requires a more integrated approach, including aspects that are not limited to marine and maritime issues.

2.3.

In recent years, when complexity has emerged in many contexts, new modes of governance have been developed, primarily driven by market and network science. Complex systems are difficult to control and their dynamics cannot easily be predicted in the long-term. Oceans constitute a complex system where the huge discrepancy in rules between coastal and offshore areas, disputes at national government level and private sector suggest that it could be necessary to adopt a renewed science diplomacy to tackle the challenges. The EESC recognises the need to develop fit-for-purpose management tools and policy interfaces as initiatives to integrate the different and interconnected dimensions.

2.4.

The EESC supports the EU’s role as a legislative actor and in strengthening networks and partnerships at global level, addressing the role of research and innovation, providing solutions and guidelines, and promoting specific initiatives.

3.   An evaluation of the Commission Communication

We will focus on the four areas of the proposal: 1) Strengthening the international ocean governance framework; 2) Towards ocean sustainability by 2030; 3) Ensuring security and safety at sea; 4) Building up ocean knowledge.

3.1.   Strengthening the international ocean governance framework

3.1.1.

The EESC welcomes the commitment of the Commission to support the highest international standards in relation to transparency, good governance and stakeholder inclusiveness in international organisations, such as the International Seabed Authority (ISA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

3.1.2.

The EESC reaffirms the role of the EU in the legislative field, also through science diplomacy and the strengthening of networks and partnerships at global level. In particular, the Committee emphasises the need to implement a system to monitor and adopt appropriate interventions. The designation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ (OECMs), with a target of 30 % by 2030, is welcomed, wherever their relevance in the functioning of the ocean system is recognised and the adoption of interventions is based on the analysis of the efficiency and effectiveness of each specific area, taking into account costs, responsibilities, timescales and monitoring.

3.1.3.

The EESC notes that, despite some technological progress in recent years, the long-term impacts of deep-sea mining are reported to still be visible, and the ecosystem still in the course of recovery, for areas excavated many decades ago (8). The EESC welcomes the adoption of a precautionary approach and calls for a moratorium on the authorisation of mining licenses by the ISA. The EESC calls on the ISA to establish an international independent scientific panel to transpose knowledge-based analysis into well-defined policy decisions. The EESC also suggests promoting investments in Research and Development for alternative solutions to materials excavated from the seabed.

3.1.4.

Small-scale coastal fishing and aquaculture are vital factors in the survival of many coastal communities and in the conservation of their cultural heritage. The fishing sector in general and in particular traditional and small-scale fishing paid the highest price of the economic crisis, which is why today the sector needs a specific strategy to recover a solid position in the market (9). The EESC calls for appropriate interventions to reinforce these activities, diversify the income sources of local communities (e.g. coastal tourism and recreational aquatic activities), support the reorientation of careers, aid depressed local regions and environmental sustainability (10).

3.1.5.

The EESC welcomes the ‘zero tolerance’ approach to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and encourages the EU to support honest operators towards a sustainable conservation and management of fisheries. The Committee reaffirms the EU’s role in fisheries dialogues with non-EU countries to promote the compliance with international obligations. In this context, the EESC recognises the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements (SFPAs) as a relevant contribution for a solid framework with a number of non-EU partner countries.

3.1.6.

The Arctic is facing drastic changes that may result in the putting at risk the environment and the geopolitical equilibrium. The EESC welcomes the EU’s commitment to fully implementing the Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean, the efforts to designate MPAs in the Arctic and the ban on drilling for hydrocarbons (11).

3.1.7.

The EESC recognises the difficulties in implementing actions in the Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, emphasising the need to guarantee coherence between different partnerships and agreements, and supporting the EU’s efforts in the ongoing negotiations for a High Seas Treaty.

3.2.   Towards ocean sustainability by 2030

3.2.1.

The EESC salutes the commitments and efforts in achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. The EU has a relevant role in the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) in a global legislative and operational process meant to decarbonise the maritime and fishing sector.

3.2.2.

The EESC recognises that fighting marine pollution is a challenge. The interconnection of different sources, including land-based sources, along with the diversity of stakeholders and legislative boundaries make the framework more complex. The Committee underlines the need to address the diversity of pollutants and promote effective interventions. The EESC underlines the need for coherence and involvement of aspects beyond ocean governance (e.g. those addressed in the Zero Pollution, Biodiversity Strategy and From Farm to Fork strategy (12)) that impact strongly on marine pollution (13).

3.2.3.

Unexploded ordnance (UXO) includes both conventional explosive and chemical weapons dumped at sea. Undeniable threats resulting from UXO at sea have been low-ranked in the past. The problem calls for an urgent strategy, since the demand for marine space by economic sectors is increasing and most munitions are facing corrosion, leakage of toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic products. Detection, monitoring and mitigation interventions are needed with joint European knowledge and technological support (14).

3.2.4.

The EESC welcomes the Commission’s efforts to reduce the environmental impacts of dumped munitions, and notes that the risks are not limited to UXO from WWI and WWII but also concern other conflicts (e.g. in the Balkans and Ukraine), and are not limited to the possible toxicity of leaked substances but also to accidental or auto-detonation.

3.2.5.

The EESC recognises the environmental impacts of fishing gears on the ecosystem, and notes that the costs of many proposed solutions are not sustainable, or their effects are negligible at global level. The EESC calls for the introduction of new technologies/materials to mitigate the challenge, accompanied by compensation measures and customised campaigns to make fishermen aware of the opportunities (15).

3.2.6.

The over-exploitation of fish stocks and bycatch fishing are recognised as real issues at global level. The fishing sector widely impacts on many species, there are therefore valid concerns that this could endanger the sustainability of some species putting at risk the equilibrium of the whole marine ecosystem. On the other hand, local fishermen’s activities constitute a significant aspect of territorial cultures and sustainable economy providing healthy food to citizens in a sustainable process from the environmental, social and economic points of view. Anthropogenic pressure on fish stocks can be reduced by promoting zero-impact aquaculture (including algaculture).

3.2.6.1.

On the basis of these aspects the EESC calls for a) more strict controls and sanctions in relation to IUU fishing; b) monitoring and regulating the fishing sector in a way that eliminates the over-exploitation of fish stocks and bycatch and promote the effective sustainability of this sector; c) promotion and support for zero-impact aquaculture and algaculture, including the aspects of feeding and energy consumption; d) provision of economic compensation for workers during the transitional phases towards a transformation of technologies and production systems.

3.2.7.

Maritime transport represents over 90 % of the world’s traded cargo, constituting the backbone of the global economy. Ocean-going ships can impact as a significant source of pollution also at the end of their life. Ship owners in high-income countries often disguise the true identity of ships by registering them in tax havens, also to avoid environmental rules. In this context, international and regional efforts have failed to fight these behaviours. (16). Flag-of-convenience nations are still used as last flag including by EU countries to escape rules and save money. The EESC suggests considering ship demolition as a significant source of marine pollution, and calls on the EU: a) to take action to ensure stronger binding regulation, b) monitor activity to prevent any workaround for evading environmental protection, c) introduce a financial deterrent to the use of flags of convenience, e.g. establishing a dedicated fund constituted by sureties — throughout the life of the vessel — to guarantee respect for EU standards in environmental and safety protection, also beyond EU Jurisdiction.

3.3.   Ensuring security and safety at sea

3.3.1.

The EESC commends the EU for strengthening its role as a maritime security provider within and beyond its borders. The EESC invites the EU to identify potential Maritime Areas of Interest (MAIs) in view of recent geo-political developments and to focus on emerging priorities.

3.3.2.

The EESC welcomes the EU’s efforts to promote and implement any intervention for increasing safety at sea. The Committee invites the EU to widen the range of sectors involved in activities at sea that can put the environment and human health at risk, including tourism, ship demolition and construction, energy and aquaculture. The EESC also calls for emphasis on the modernisation of technologies (e.g. green propulsion), workspaces and labour conditions in the diversity of logistics that frame marine and maritime activities (e.g. shipyards, ports, boats etc.).

3.3.3.

The EESC recommends ensuring regulatory consistency between measures relating to the conservation of marine ecosystems and the rules governing safety and working conditions at sea, through impact assessments concerning: i) employment, ii) wages, iii) technologies, iv) decent living and working conditions, and v) the training of workers. It also calls for better coordination between the various services of public administrations at all levels, for the purposes of integrated management of the marine space (17).

3.3.4.

The EESC calls on the Member States to ratify Convention No 188 of the International Labour Organisation, making available the means necessary for its correct transposition into national legislation and its application. The EESC welcomes Council Directive (EU) 2017/159 (18) and calls for work to start on broadening its scope also to cover the cumulative effects of the long-term impacts on human health. Furthermore, the EESC points out the need for truly ambitious EU legislation on corporate sustainability and forced labour (19).

3.3.5.

The EESC considers it essential to develop general principles and practical guidelines for fair services relating to work in these sectors, including: a) sufficient and adequate guidance for fishing vessel owners and (cross-border) labour market services; b) standard contracts for (cross-border) services relating to the labour market; c) sufficient and adequate guidance for fishermen seeking employment on board (foreign) fishing vessels; and d) mechanisms for lodging complaints (20).

3.3.6.

An element linked to knowledge of the sea and oceans and safety at sea is that of the necessary wide dissemination of knowledge of the law of the sea and its real enforcement. An international law is needed to regulate different areas of competence (coastal boundaries, economic zones, protection of marine resources, definition of ‘safe harbour’, etc.), especially for clarifying international obligations regarding rescue and assistance at sea codifying the concepts of danger and search and rescue methods.

3.3.7.

Natural disasters (floods, tsunamis, extreme events) can impact on the marine environment resulting in indirect risks to human activities and health. The EESC underlines the need to address natural disasters as possible sources of risks for the environment and for activities at sea in general.

3.4.   Building up ocean knowledge

3.4.1.

The EESC recognises the complexity of the ocean system in terms of interconnected environmental variables, and diversity of stakeholders, legislation, cultures and local capacities. The EESC calls for an effective and transparent involvement of different disciplines and expertise (data, complexity and network sciences, psychology, sociology, economy) in the development of knowledge-based support for policy (as proposed for the Intergovernmental Panel for Ocean Sustainability — IPOS).

3.4.2.

Knowledge and practices demonstrate new modes of governance for tackling the challenges of complexity with self-organising structures, where decentralised organisation has been successfully developed. The EESC calls for the extension of good practices and models to all sectors of the blue economy, including those that can provide new jobs and growth (e.g. tourism, diving etc.) and the public sector. The allocation of funds for a sustainable blue economy should ensure social and economic benefits for current and future generations, restore and preserve the diversity, productivity, resilience and intrinsic value of marine ecosystems and promote clean technologies, renewable energy sources and recycling (21).

3.4.3.

Civil society and local stakeholders should be involved at every stage of the process, from consultation and co-design of plans to the implementation and final evaluation. Ocean literacy is fundamental to engender a societal transformation toward the integrated sustainability of the system. Organisational structures and processes should prioritise the social dimension and scientific support towards integrated sustainability, enhancing and funding measures to promote and support social dialogue, increase security, improve working conditions, create quality jobs, develop workers’ skills and ensure ‘generational renewal’ (22).

3.4.4.

The EESC commends the EU practice of sharing marine data and ocean observations. It recognises the relevance of marine services and their impact on the economy, as well as the costs of marine infrastructures that require huge investments from national funds. The Committee notes that modelling the complexity of the marine ecosystem is still struggling to provide understanding of the ecosystem and its coupling with human activities. The EESC invites the EU to promote open access and reuse of data, also funding innovative approaches to reduce the costs of observations and providing an effective assessment of Good Environmental Status (23).

3.4.5.

The EESC underlines the need to adopt a scientific methodology in approaching science diplomacy and negotiations. The Committee calls for the introduction of training courses for end-users and managers, also at local level, to achieve effective sustainability and the feasibility of actions.

4.   Critical issues

4.1.

The concept of governance is associated with a wide variety of different phenomena, from decision-making processes to policy instruments. The vastness of the notion of governance may have contributed to its abundant popularity, and most likely its abuse. The oceans do not know political boundaries, and are also closely entangled with land use. Challenges cannot be resolved by individual countries and require a transnational approach, following a feasible and effective sharing of efforts and responsibilities, adopting co-designed systems, joint action plans and interventions that link local efforts into comprehensive regional frameworks. A single mode of governance cannot be adopted to provide organisational structures for different dimensions. In this context, the EESC notes that knowledge-based support for decision-making, science diplomacy and coherent legislation across countries and sectors are crucial to tackle the complexity of marine challenges.

4.2.

The continuous demand for marine space by the economy is increasing the complexity of the ocean system in terms of interconnected environmental variables. The diversity of stakeholders, legislation, cultures and local capacities is entangled in the design and implementation of interventions that can be sustainable in the environmental, economic and social dimensions. The EESC calls for the transparent adoption of scientific methodology in the involvement of different disciplines (data, complexity and network sciences, psychology, sociology, economy, etc.) when developing knowledge-based support for ocean governance.

4.3.

An issue of crucial importance for the future of many sectors involved in activities at sea is ‘generational renewal’. Some aspects that seem far from governance indirectly contribute to the success of effective management of activities at sea. Many initiatives aiming at facilitating the modernisation of technologies, professional training and the improvement of working conditions are useful, but they also need accompanying measures and an acceptable return on invested capital (24).

4.4.

Sustainable activities continue to be the main objective of a fruitful ocean governance, and all sectors should be enabled to achieve this. The EESC calls for funding for the measures aimed at improving safety and working conditions, e.g. in the fields of training, advisory services, promotion of human capital, social dialogue, health and safety. The EESC urges the co-legislators to prioritise the social dimension in the adoption of organisational structures and processes (i.e. governance) by strengthening and funding measures to promote and support social dialogue, safety, working conditions, and skills.

4.5.

The EESC notes a lack of ambition in the planned investments aimed at tackling the challenges in ocean governance. The fight against sources of pollution, mitigation interventions, and management of activities at sea in all sectors need appropriate financial efforts, structural action and civil society engagement. The EESC welcomes the efforts aiming to reduce GHG emissions and to incentivise best-performers and innovation (25). This can both support the ambition to decarbonise the maritime transport sector and to establish an Ocean Fund to support maritime challenges. The EESC also calls for the Carbon Adjustment Mechanism to be expanded to cover the environmental and social aspects.

4.6.

The outermost regions for their geographical characteristics can play a fundamental role to capitalize all the opportunities in the area of oceans, seas and marine resources and which must be prioritised, as they have great potential to boost economies, create high-quality jobs and ensure people’s well-being (26). For all these reasons the EESC believes that the specific role that ORs can play in the implementation of Ocean Governance should be enhanced, particularly in: a) the ‘Restore our Ocean and Waters by 2030’ mission; b) in the collection and monitoring of fishing data; c) in the fight against illegal and indiscriminate fishing and in supporting sustainable fishing; d) and in the exchange of knowledge on maritime spatial planning (27).

4.7.

Ocean literacy has contributed to communicating the marine challenges, and can contribute to promoting solutions. Plastics have received considerable attention in the media and from politicians, but are just one of the several challenges for seas and oceans. The links between marine challenges and both land use and consumer behaviour are often neglected. The EESC calls for more comprehensive and transparent communication on the oceans, also linking legislation and interventions both at sea and on land. This will hopefully pave the way for the transformation of industrial production, and the creation of new technologies and jobs that are more focused on environmental sustainability.

4.8.

The recent war in Ukraine has changed the political scenario and attracted attention to unexpected emergencies (energy supply, inflation). Unexpected challenges (such as the security of the Nord Stream pipelines and dumped munitions in the Black Sea, as well as the geopolitical strategic importance of the Arctic) require additional efforts to adopt appropriate joint interventions. Despite the fact that war has also impacted on the number of migrants on the Western Balkan route, the pressure remains high at crossings on the Mediterranean routes, putting strain on the reception capacities of some EU countries and exposing people to the risk of incidents. The EESC calls on the EU to strengthen efforts to fund initiatives to support safety at sea, in a scenario that is expected to exacerbate due to climate and economic pressures.

---

(1)  ILO Work in Fishing Convention no 188/2007,

(2)  Currently 167 States have not ratified Convention 188, of which 19 are EU Member States, including significant coastal countries such as Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Spain and Sweden.

(3)  Council Directive (EU) 2017/159 of 19 December 2016 implementing the Agreement concerning the implementation of the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 of the International Labour Organisation, concluded on 21 May 2012 between the General Confederation of Agricultural Cooperatives in the European Union (Cogeca), the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF) and the Association of National Organisations of Fishing Enterprises in the European Union (Europêche) (OJ L 25, 31.1.2017, p. 12).

(4)  The outermost regions (ORs) are islands, archipelagos and one land territory (French Guiana). Nine of these regions are located in the western Atlantic Ocean, the Caribbean basin, the Amazon forest and the Indian Ocean: French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Saint-Martin, Réunion and Mayotte (France), the Azores and Madeira (Portugal) and the Canary Islands (Spain).

(5)  COM(2022) 198 final, Putting people first, securing sustainable and inclusive growth, unlocking the potential of the EU’s outermost regions.

(6)  International Convention on maritime search and rescue, 29 April 1979, Hamburg; United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982, Montego Bay; International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 25 May 1980.

(7)  Joint COM/EEAS Communication JOIN(2021) 27 final, on ‘A stronger EU engagement for a peaceful, sustainable and prosperous Arctic’.

(8)  See https://www.jpi-oceans.eu/en/ecological-aspects-deep-sea-mining

(9)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Social dimension of fisheries’ (exploratory opinion) (OJ C 14, 15.1.2020, p. 67).

(10)  https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/publications/communication-commission-towards-strong-and-sustainable-eu-algae-sector_en

(11)  Joint Communication JOIN(2021) 27 final ‘A stronger EU engagement for a peaceful, sustainable and prosperous Arctic’.

(12)  Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements (OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p. 11); Directive (EU) 2019/883 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on port reception facilities for the delivery of waste from ships, amending Directive 2010/65/EU and repealing Directive 2000/59/EC (OJ L 151, 7.6.2019, p. 116).

(13)  OECD Guidelines for Multinational enterprises 2011; UN guiding principles on business and human rights 2011.

(14)  See: https://www.jpi-oceans.eu/en/munition-sea

(15)  See: the FAO voluntary guidelines on the marking of fishing gear and the work done by the Regional Fisheries Management Organizations and Regional Seas Conventions.

(16)  See: Wan et al. Marine Policy, 2021.

(17)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Social dimension of fisheries’ (exploratory opinion) (OJ C 14, 15.1.2020, p. 67).

(18)  Council Directive (EU) 2017/159 of 19 December 2016 implementing the Agreement concerning the implementation of the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 of the International Labour Organisation, concluded on 21 May 2012 between the General Confederation of Agricultural Cooperatives in the European Union (Cogeca), the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF) and the Association of National Organisations of Fishing Enterprises in the European Union (Europêche) (OJ L 25, 31.1.2017, p. 12).

(19)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Social dimension of fisheries’ (exploratory opinion) (OJ C 14, 15.1.2020, p. 67); Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 (COM(2022) 71 final); Proposal for a regulation on prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market (COM(2022) 453 final).

(20)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Social dimension of fisheries’ (exploratory opinion) (OJ C 14, 15.1.2020, p. 67).

(21)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and the Council’ (COM(2018) 390 final — 2018/0210 (COD)) (OJ C 110, 22.3.2019, p. 104).

(22)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and the Council’ (COM(2018) 390 final — 2018/0210 (COD)) (OJ C 110, 22.3.2019, p. 104).

(23)  https://jpi-oceans.eu/en/science-good-environmental-status

(24)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Social dimension of fisheries’ (exploratory opinion) (OJ C 14, 15.1.2020, p. 67).

(25)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union, Decision (EU) 2015/1814 concerning the establishment and operation of a market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading scheme and Regulation (EU) 2015/757’ (COM(2021) 551 final — 2021/0211 (COD)) ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision (EU) 2015/1814 as regards the amount of allowances to be placed in the market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading scheme until 2030’ (COM(2021) 571 final — 2021/0202 (COD)) (OJ C 152, 6.4.2022, p. 175); Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Making ETS and CBAM work for EU cities and regions (OJ C 301, 5.8.2022, p. 116); European Parliament Revision of the EU Emissions Trading System, adopted on 22.6.2022.

(26)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘The benefits of the outermost regions for the EU’ (exploratory opinion) (OJ C 194, 12.5.2022, p. 44).

(27)  COM(2022) 198 final.