Live

Maritime affairs and marine parks

Greece and Turkey have almost simultaneously declared new marine parks, with environmental concerns serving as a geopolitical pretext. The Greek government announced the creation of two new national marine parks, one in the Ionian Sea and one in the southern Cyclades. This move was presented by Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis as a tribute to Greece’s maritime heritage. The park in the Ionian Sea covers approximately 18,000 square kilometers, while the one in the Cyclades covers approximately 9,500 square kilometers, with the aim of protecting 30% of Greek waters by 2030, thus fulfilling the commitments made at European Union level for the protection of the sea.

The areas included in Greece’s marine parks are home to rare marine species, such as the Mediterranean monk seal, sperm whales, and sea turtles, while 42 areas of the Natura 2000 network have also been included in the protected zones. The terms under which these parks were announced include a management plan that completely prohibits trawling and fishing with submersible gear, while only traditional forms of fishing, scientific research, and certain tourist activities under certain conditions. The same management plan stipulates that hydrocarbon extraction (process of removing oil, natural gas, or other hydrocarbon compounds from underground reservoirs for energy production and industrial use) is prohibited within and around protected areas, with the government even including the concession area of Katakolo in the Ionian Park, sending a message that priority is given to the natural environment over energy projects. The management framework will be supported by a comprehensive monitoring system, using satellites, radar, and drones, according to the Natural Environment and Climate Change Authority.

The areas in the new South Aegean Marine Park. -Euronews

The ecological footprint of these initiatives is, of course, clear and stated—what is not immediately stated is that, Greece, through these kinds of moves, is indirectly challenging the Turkish–Libyan memorandum (The Turkish–Libyan memorandum is a 2019 maritime deal between Turkey and Libya’s GNA, defining exclusive economic zones in the Eastern Mediterranean, contested by Greece and others) and, on the other hand, is declaring its effective maritime sovereignty through environmental policy. 

A few weeks later, Turkey submitted maps showing two of its own marine protected areas, one in the Aegean Sea and the other off the Mediterranean coast, sparking a strong reaction from Greek diplomats. These areas were presented by the Turkish authorities as “zones of absolute environmental protection,” with the aim, as stated, of protecting the marine ecosystem without hindering navigation or commercial activity.

The area chosen by Ankara extends west of Imbros and Tenedos, and even between Samothrace and Lemnos, i.e. in maritime areas without a defined continental shelf, as pointed out by the Greek Foreign Ministry, which described the Turkish announcements as “unilateral and illegal.”

Turkey’s announced marine parks extend west of the islands of Imbros (Gökçeada) and Tenedos (Bozcaada), while the second covers a large area in the eastern Mediterranean, starting northeast of Rhodes and reaching as far as the Gulf of Antalya, completely omitting the island of Kastellorizo. This was seen as a bit of a problem by Athens, since it ignores a Greek island that’s in the area.

Marine Spatial Planning of Türkiye. (Photo via DEHUKAM)

At the same time, Turkey included in its zones maritime areas extending beyond Turkish territorial waters, more specifically, it included in its maps the area between Lemnos and Samothrace, where no Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) or continental shelf has been demarcated. According to the Law of the Sea, a country does not have the right to unilaterally impose restrictions or protective measures in unmarked zones, something that the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs emphasized. However, the Turkish side, through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has made statements that Athens is “politicising environmental initiatives” in order to promote national claims in areas with an unclear legal status.

In essence, Greece interprets Turkey’s announcements as yet another attempt to create a fait accompli in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean, where for decades the two countries have been at odds over issues of sovereignty, airspace, and maritime boundaries.

The law of the sea and the gray zone of legality

The core of the dispute lies in the Law of the Sea, specifically its interpretation by Greece and Turkey, two countries with conflicting geopolitical objectives. On the one hand, Greece bases its claims on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which it has ratified and systematically invokes. Turkey, on the other hand, has not signed UNCLOS, which allows it to invoke different interpretations. From the Turkish perspective, Greece cannot claim full maritime sovereignty over small and isolated islands such as Kastellorizo, which, it argues, do not affect the EEZ to the same extent as the mainland coast.

In reality, both countries’ plans are based on unilateral spatial arrangements without any commonly accepted demarcation of Exclusive Economic Zones or continental shelves. This creates a “gray zone of legality” in which international law is interpreted through political and geostrategic filters. From the Greek side, the creation of marine parks appears to be an environmental necessity and compliance with European commitments; from the Turkish perspective, however, it is interpreted as the underground imposition of sovereign rights through mapping. Thus, instead of functioning as neutral zones of ecological cooperation, marine parks are evolving into foreign policy tools for asserting influence in the Aegean Sea.

Environment under conditions?

Marine parks, while seemingly serving global sustainability and biodiversity goals, are in this particular case becoming a reflection of the impasses in Greek-Turkish diplomacy. The declaration of the parks is not accompanied by cross-border cooperation mechanisms or joint management programs—on the contrary, each state uses them as a means of political affirmation in unstable and disputed areas while the climate crisis elevates the environment to a field of international importance, the more states use ecology not as a language of cooperation but as a means of mapping influence.

Greece seeks to strengthen its image as a “green power” in Europe. Characteristically, Prime Minister Mitsotakis spoke of the sea as “the silent power of Hellenism,” giving a high level of symbolism and emphasis to this announcement as a natural extension of both the policy of legalisation and historical correlation, announcing the parks shortly before the United Nations Conference on the Oceans.

Turkey’s policy, on the other hand, through practical and non-declarations of its “Blue Homeland” (Mavi Vatan) ideology, incorporates marine parks into a coherent strategy of geopolitical claim by mapping them through state institutions, such as DEHUKAM, with parallel international efforts to define custodians such as UNESCO through their submission to international organizations in Ankara’s effort to create internationally recognized faits accomplis without military cost.

The stakes for the Eastern Mediterranean are not whether there will be parks, but whether these parks will be places of peace or causes for further tension.

 

Written by

Shape the conversation

Do you have anything to add to this story? Any ideas for interviews or angles we should explore? Let us know if you’d like to write a follow-up, a counterpoint, or share a similar story.

Write a counterargument article Write a related article