European Court of Auditors: marine protection requires more than designation

The European Court of Auditors has published Special Report 25/2026, whose title carries the verdict: designating a marine protected area is not the same as protecting it. The announcement was carried in the Official Journal of the European Union, C series, on 27 October 2026, under reference C/2026/5525 (CELEX C_202605525), which directs readers to the full report on the Court’s website.

The audit and where to find it

The Court’s notice is short and official: it records the publication of Special Report 25/2026, ‘Marine protected areas – Designation alone is insufficient for meaningful protection’, and gives the address at which the document can be consulted or downloaded. No summary of findings, recommendations or audited Member States is reproduced in the Journal itself.

• Publication: Official Journal of the European Union, C series, 27 October 2026.
• Reference: C/2026/5525; CELEX C_202605525.
• European Legislation Identifier: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/5525/oj.
• Full report: European Court of Auditors’ website (sr-2026-25).

The gap between the map and the water

The audit lands inside a legal architecture built over nearly two decades. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC) obliges Member States to achieve good environmental status in EU sea basins, and the Nature Restoration Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2024/1991) adds binding restoration duties for marine habitats. On top of that sits the political commitment of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: protection of 30 % of EU sea areas.

The numbers published elsewhere in the same Official Journal suggest why designation has become the weak link:

• Marine protected areas covered 13,7 % of EU waters, according to 2025 data from the European Environment Agency cited by the European Parliament in its resolution of 10 March 2026 (C/2026/4007).
• A European Commission study reported on the Mission Ocean and Waters portal found that, in 2023, fisheries were authorised in over 40 % of marine protected area surface.
• In the same study, fishing was restricted in less than 25 % of that surface and explicitly prohibited in only 0,4 %.

Read together, those figures describe protection that is largely nominal: areas counted on the map while extractive activity continues inside them.

Pressure on the EU’s ocean agenda

The report also arrives as the Union redesigns the money behind its maritime policy. The European Committee of the Regions, in an opinion adopted on 26 October 2026 (C/2026/5140), examined the proposal for a regulation on Union support to the Common Fisheries Policy, the European Ocean Pact and maritime and aquaculture policy within the National and Regional Partnership Fund for 2028-2034 (COM(2025) 559 final). The Committee argued that financing for the Ocean Pact must not come at the expense of fisheries objectives, and tied regional funding to the Biodiversity Strategy’s target of protecting 30 % of EU sea areas.

The European Parliament had already gone further, urging the Commission and Member States to adopt science-based management plans for marine protected areas, “including their environmental, social and economic dimensions”, so that conservation measures are “targeted, effective and aligned with ecosystem-specific needs”. It also asked for compensation for fishers who lose access to traditional grounds.

Because it is national authorities that designate and manage these sites, the Court’s conclusions fall directly on the Member States with the largest protected surfaces, and on the Commission as guardian of the treaties. The Court is headed by its President, Tony Murphy.

What changes for readers

The political weight of the finding lies in the word “meaningful”. If designation alone is insufficient, then headline percentages of protected sea say little about fish stocks, seabed integrity or the livelihoods of coastal communities, and the 30 % target for 2030 risks being met on paper while ecosystems keep degrading. The Court’s report gives MEPs, regional governments and environmental litigants an authoritative reference for pressing for management measures, monitoring and enforcement rather than new boundary lines.

Source: Official Journal of the European Union, C series, C/2026/5525, 27 October 2026, p. 1 (official reference: C/2026/5525 / CELEX C_202605525).