Symposium: Management of marine protected areas and geopolitical challenges

Summary

Report of the round table on marine protected areas held at the Symposium of European Marine Academies in Marseille in March 2025. Moderated by Catherine Chabaud, it brought together Louis le Hardÿ de Beaulieu on the Belgian legal framework, Moritz Brake and Goran Swistek on the security of critical maritime infrastructure, and Didier Réault on the management of the Calanques National Park.

General information

• Event title: Theme no. 2: marine protected areas (as part of a wider symposium)
• Organiser: Académie de marine
• Date: 25 and 26 March 2025
• Venue: Marseille, École nationale supérieure maritime (ENSM) and CMA CGM’s TANGRAM Center
• Moderator: Catherine Chabaud
• Theme: The issues involved in the creation, management and protection of marine protected areas (MPAs), at the crossroads of biodiversity imperatives, maritime uses (fishing, energy), international governance and security and geopolitical challenges.
• Summary written by: Deep Blue

Presentation of the symposium

This round table, organised by the Académie de marine and moderated by Catherine Chabaud, sailor and former Member of the European Parliament, set out to examine the many facets of marine protected areas (MPAs). In the face of growing pressures on marine ecosystems, MPAs are an essential tool for preserving biodiversity.

The discussions aimed to address the definition, objectives and challenges of these areas, notably in light of the international “30 by 30” target (protecting 30% of the oceans by 2030). The discussion was structured around successive presentations by several experts, covering legal frameworks, the security of critical infrastructure, lessons from local management (Calanques National Park), and the relationship between protection and economic activities such as fishing. The meeting also broadened the perspective to geopolitical issues and the resilience of European supply chains.

Participants

Moderator:

• Catherine CHABAUD — Sailor, former Member of the European Parliament.

Speakers:

• Louis LE HARDŸ DE BEAULIEU — Professor at UCLouvain, visiting professor at the University of Namur, honorary president of the Royal Belgian Marine Academy.
• Dr Moritz BRAKE — Maritime resilience expert, German Navy reserve officer, entrepreneur and academic, delegate of the Deutsches Maritimes Institut (DMI).
• Dr Goran SWISTEK — Deputy director and researcher, Kiel Institute for Security Policy (ISPK).
• Didier RÉAULT — Chairman of the Board of the Calanques National Park, Vice-President of the Aix-Marseille-Provence Metropolis in charge of the sea, the coastline and the water cycle, Vice-President of the Bouches-du-Rhône department in charge of nature-based solutions.
• A member of the audience — Expert in fisheries and international governance.
• Alain LAUREC — Expert in fisheries management.

Other participants mentioned:

• Jean-Emmanuel Sauvée — President of the Académie de marine.
• François Lambert — Director General of the ENSM.
• Admiral Karsten Schneider — President of the Deutsches Maritimes Institut (DMI).
• Colin Cameron — Former friend and mentor of Mr Brake.
• Catherine Mersali, Charles Kyoun — Members of the audience asking questions.
• A merchant navy student, Marseille — Member of the audience asking a question.

Report of the presentations

I. The seven structural challenges of marine protected areas

Presentation by Catherine CHABAUD, sailor and former Member of the European Parliament

Introducing the round table, Catherine Chabaud set out the general framework and the fundamental issues relating to marine protected areas (MPAs). She recalled that these areas are a response to five major pressures on marine ecosystems: climate change, land-based pollution, overexploitation of resources, habitat destruction and invasive species.

A. The international and European framework for marine protected areas

Catherine Chabaud recalled the definition of MPAs: delimited areas at sea where specific measures aim to protect fauna, flora and habitats. Globally, MPAs cover around 7.5% of the oceans, with a target of 30% by 2030 (“30 by 30”). In Europe, protection is mainly provided by the Natura 2000 network at sea.

B. The seven major challenges identified for MPAs

The moderator structured her analysis around seven main challenges:

• 1. The knowledge challenge: Identifying the species and ecosystems to be protected.
• 2. The challenge of identifying pressures: Assessing pressures locally and setting up monitoring indicators.
• 3. The co-construction challenge: Involving all stakeholders (“socio-systemic approach”) in the creation of MPAs.
• 4. The management and funding challenge: Ensuring financial resources and surveillance capacity, particularly against illegal fishing.
• 5. The challenge of the level of protection: Debating the definition of protection (strict, strong), highlighting France’s specific position on “strong protection” (protection forte) which, while relevant, could undermine its international credibility as it is not recognised elsewhere.
• 6. The connectivity challenge: Creating networks of interconnected MPAs, such as the “Great Blue Belt” initiative (Blue Belt).
• 7. The diplomatic challenge: Overcoming the political obstacles to the creation of MPAs on the high seas (BBNJ negotiation) or in Antarctica, where a project has been blocked for ten years by China and Russia.

To conclude her remarks, Ms Chabaud expressed her attachment to the concept of “educational marine areas”, launched in 2012 in the Marquesas Islands.

II. The dual protection of the marine environment and critical infrastructure: the Belgian approach

Presentation by Louis LE HARDŸ DE BEAULIEU, professor at UCLouvain and member of the Royal Belgian Marine Academy

Professor le Hardÿ de Beaulieu focused his presentation on the Belgian legal framework, highlighting the recent convergence between environmental protection and the security of critical infrastructure.

A. Strengthening the Belgian legal framework for marine protection

A 1999 law was replaced in 2022 to extend its scope to the planning of marine areas. This change is explained by the strategic position of Belgian waters, changing risks and infringement proceedings by the European Commission. The new law introduces the notion of “environmental disturbance” and a general authorisation regime for any activity in protected areas, which account for 37% of the marine areas under Belgian jurisdiction.

B. An extended spatial and personal scope

The law applies to everyone, including the armed forces, in the territorial sea, the EEZ and on the Belgian continental shelf. More strictly, it applies to Belgian nationals and vessels anywhere in the world, exposing them to penalties for offences committed outside national waters. In protected areas, a principle of prohibition prevails: any activity is prohibited unless authorised.

C. The convergence between environmental protection and the security of critical infrastructure

The speaker stressed that the protection of infrastructure (pipelines, cables, wind farms) has become inseparable from the protection of the marine environment, as a North Sea summit showed in 2023. Damage to these installations would have major environmental consequences. Conversely, he mentioned the threat posed by foreign vessels which, under cover of “innocent passage”, map these infrastructures in breach of the law of the sea. Sabotage would constitute a form of hybrid warfare.

III. Maritime planning, protected areas and positive-impact infrastructure

Presentation by the moderator (Catherine Chabaud)

The moderator provided the transition between the presentations, highlighting the link between the growth of MPAs and maritime spatial planning. She promoted the concept of “positive-impact” maritime infrastructure, designed to foster biodiversity, and invited participants to put forward proposals for a final declaration of the symposium.

IV. Protection and resilience of critical maritime infrastructure: a German perspective

Presentation by Dr Moritz BRAKE, maritime resilience expert, delegate of the Deutsches Maritimes Institut (DMI)

Dr Moritz Brake situated his remarks (in English after a preamble in French) at the interface between sustainability, security and geopolitics, conveying the greetings of Admiral Karsten Schneider, President of the DMI.

A. The relationship between sustainability, environmental protection and security

Following on from the previous presentations, Dr Brake asserted that there is a “strong link” between sustainability, environmental protection and security/geopolitics. In his view, none of these dimensions can be addressed while ignoring the others, and working on one will benefit the others. Invoking the figure of Joseph Conrad, he argued that the maritime perspective is essential to understanding the human condition and today’s geopolitical issues.

B. Professional and methodological positioning

Dr Brake described his career from the tactical level (Navy) to the strategic and political levels (think tanks, consultancy), announcing that he wished to share reflections on the protection and resilience of critical maritime infrastructure from a German perspective applicable to the European challenge.

V. The security imperative as a condition for maritime sustainability

Presentation by Dr Goran SWISTEK, Deputy Director and researcher at the Kiel Institute for Security Policy (ISPK)

Dr Swistek argued that national security and geopolitical issues are inseparable from questions of sustainability. The aggressiveness of certain state actors, such as Russia, means that the protection of critical infrastructure and sea lines of communication must be reconsidered as an absolute priority.

A. The multiple security dimensions of maritime activities

Dr Swistek illustrated the interconnection between security and maritime activities:

• 1. Piracy in Somalia: Maritime security was a prerequisite for the livelihoods of local fishermen.
• 2. Mine clearance in the Baltic Sea: This environmental project is a potential target for “the aggressor in the East”, requiring a security-based approach.
• 3. The protection of offshore wind farms: The development of offshore renewable energy creates a dilemma. These infrastructures, vital but vulnerable, are exposed to attacks and complicate defence, as in Sweden, where projects have been abandoned for defence reasons.

B. The security of critical maritime infrastructure as a fundamental issue

The speaker distinguished two types of infrastructure to be protected:

• 1. Tangible infrastructure: pipelines, cables, platforms and, above all, offshore wind farms. The North Sea is set to become a global “power station”, requiring a new approach to protection.
• 2. Intangible infrastructure: the global trading system and sea lines of communication. Any disruption (Red Sea, Strait of Malacca) has direct economic consequences for Europe.

C. The geopolitical urgency in the face of current threats

Dr Swistek contrasted the European approach of cooperation (aimed at “making the cake bigger”) with that of Russia and China, which see international relations as a zero-sum game. Faced with the threat of a Russian attack on a NATO country within four years, the absolute priority is to strengthen deterrence and defence capabilities. Without this, “we will lose the future”. Finally, he noted the complexity of maritime security governance in Germany, which hampers coordinated action.

VI. Managing a marine protected area: the example of the Calanques National Park

Presentation by Didier RÉAULT, President of the Calanques National Park

Didier Réault presented the origins, objectives and actions of the Calanques National Park as a case study in the integrated management of a natural area under heavy pressure, on the doorstep of a large metropolis.

A. The origins of the Park: a local will for integrated protection

The project, born twenty years ago out of a local concern (protection against fires), aimed to organise the coexistence of preservation and public access. National park status was chosen after twelve years of complex debates which, paradoxically, gave the park a high profile.

B. The challenges of an interdependent land-sea territory

The park faces multiple challenges: integrating uses (fishing, leisure), managing overcrowding, combating pollution and ensuring ecological continuity with neighbouring parks. It must protect an exceptional heritage, with many threatened species.

C. Concrete actions to protect the marine environment

Mr Réault described several initiatives:

• 1. Characterisation of noise pollution using hydrophones.
• 2. Monitoring of climate change and its impact on sessile species such as gorgonians.
• 3. Development of a “blue carbon” methodology to assess the storage capacity of Posidonia meadows, in order to mobilise funding (carbon credits), although the project faces methodological difficulties.
• 4. Protection of mobile species (fish, seabirds), in particular to understand the interactions with future offshore wind farms.

D. Adjustments with wind farm developers and management of uses

Mr Réault highlighted the good cooperation with wind farm developers to reduce impacts. At the same time, the park has worked with fishermen and passenger transport operators. The number of trawlers has fallen from seven or eight to just one, a trend attributed both to the park’s actions and to structural factors.

E. Visitor reception, citizen science and business model

He stressed the park’s threefold mission: protection, knowledge and outreach. Rather than prohibiting, the aim is to welcome and guide the public. He highlighted citizen science (grouper counts), which shows an “extremely significant” improvement in the indicators. Finally, he called for a mixed business model, inspired by Anglo-Saxon practices, to supplement State funding, as the park operates with 60 staff whereas 100 would be needed.

VII. General discussion and exchanges with the audience

A. Marine protected areas and fishing: a long-standing and necessary relationship

Contribution by a member of the audience, an expert in fisheries and international governance

The speaker challenged the opposition between MPAs and fishing, calling it “artificial”. He recalled that fisheries have been using protected areas for decades. Regarding the agreement on marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ), he pointed out that it does cover fishing, which also has its own management instruments. He cited as an example the cooperation in the North-East Atlantic between the OSPAR Convention (environment) and NEAFC (fisheries), which coordinate their protection measures on the high seas. He concluded on the need for consistency between national and international policies.

B. Sustainability and defence: a necessary convergence

Contribution by Dr Moritz BRAKE

Dr Brake drew a parallel between the debates pitting fishing against conservation and those pitting sustainability against defence. He argued that navies play a key role in enforcing ocean governance, including the protection of fisheries and infrastructure. Environmental regulations can be robust instruments for protecting interests at sea against threats such as the Russian “shadow fleet”.

C. MPA governance: co-construction and visitor management

Question from Catherine (participant)

A participant asked about the governance of access quotas in the Calanques, recalled the pioneering role of fishermen in the Côte Bleue, and stressed the importance of co-construction.

Answer from Didier RÉAULT

Mr Réault confirmed that raising public awareness is a key mission. He recalled that while fishermen were co-creators of the Côte Bleue marine park, they were more reluctant in the Calanques before adopting more sustainable practices. He identified illegal recreational fishing (“braquo”) as a major issue, addressed through dedicated legal action. On overcrowding, he described the free booking system for the Sugiton calanque, which limits access to 400 people a day, has halted erosion and has met with “complete” social acceptance.

D. Questions and answers on fishing, security and diplomacy

Question from Charles Kyoun (member of the audience)

A member of the audience asked three questions:

• 1. On the possibility of an “economic stabiliser” for fisheries.
• 2. On increasing the legitimacy of MPAs through communication (“making it known”).
• 3. On the investigations into the sabotage of Nord Stream.

Answer from Alain LAUREC, expert in fisheries management

Mr Laurec answered the first question. Reducing the exploitation rate makes it possible to rely on several age classes, which dampens stock volatility. This approach offers a double benefit: economic (less volatility for fishermen) and ecological (biomass closer to its natural state).

Answer from Dr Moritz BRAKE

Regarding Nord Stream, Dr Brake recalled the absence of official findings but stressed that actors (citing Russia as the “natural” suspect) will exploit existing vulnerabilities. He insisted on the imperative of securing assets, and of monitoring and documenting suspicious behaviour.

Clarification by the moderator

The moderator, Catherine Chabaud, qualified the threat analysis by recalling that China played a facilitating and decisive role in the negotiations on the high seas (BBNJ) and biodiversity (COP15).

E. Offshore wind and security of supply

Contribution by Louis LE HARDŸ DE BEAULIEU

Asked about the integration of wind farms into MPAs, the lawyer reported that these infrastructures can have a positive reef effect on local biodiversity. He nevertheless insisted on the need for stronger public oversight to prevent collisions, citing the risk of ships sailing on autopilot without a lookout.

Contribution by Dr Moritz BRAKE

Answering a merchant navy student on the defence of strategic supplies, Dr Brake called for comprehensive planning of European needs (transport, human resources), inspired by Cold War practices. Security of supply aims not only to avoid civilian shortages but also to maintain the industrial production needed for the defence effort, in order to deter the adversary.

General conclusion

This round table highlighted the complexity of managing maritime areas, at the junction of environmental, economic and geopolitical logics.

• The main points of convergence lie in the recognition that security is a sine qua non for sustainable development (Dr Swistek) and that the opposition between protection and uses (fishing) is artificial and must be overcome through co-construction (Mr Réault and the fisheries expert from the audience). There was unanimous agreement on the need to involve users, manage visitor numbers and disseminate knowledge.
• A fundamental tension emerges between two timeframes: the short-term security emergency in the face of state threats (Dr Swistek, Dr Brake) and the need for long-term environmental protection. Striking a balance between the deployment of energy infrastructure and the strategic vulnerability it creates remains a challenge.
• Concrete approaches were presented: management through visitor quotas (Calanques), cooperation between fisheries and environmental management bodies (OSPAR/NEAFC), and strategic planning of maritime supplies.
• The questions that remain open are numerous: How can the management of MPAs be funded sustainably beyond public budgets? How can the security of new offshore infrastructure be harmonised at European level? How can regulatory frameworks evolve to integrate these dimensions (environment, energy, defence), which are often seen as contradictory?

Ultimately, the discussion underlined the imperative of integrated and coordinated ocean governance, at local, national and European level, to respond simultaneously to multiple emergencies. The moderator concluded by inviting the marine academies to pursue a common political ambition for the sea, summed up by the motto: “Unity is strength.”

Bibliographic information

Type

Conference

Date

March 2025

Author

Deep Blue Foundation

Editor

Deep Blue Foundation

Study Centres

ONS · SMGM

Original language

French

Original document

PDF, 11 pages

Full text

Transcription of the original document

← All publications