Greece to create new marine reserves to protect underwater wildlife
ATHENS: Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis on Monday said that his government was creating two new protected marine areas, fulfilling a promise he made at a United Nations conference on the oceans in June.
The new protected areas in the Ionian Sea and in the Southern Cyclades in the Aegean Sea would be "among the largest marine protected areas in the entire Mediterranean", he said in a video message in English.
The prime minister said that the "hugely damaging practice of bottom trawling" by commercial fishing boats would be banned within the new marine reserves and in all Greece's marine protected areas by 2030, making it the first country in Europe to take such a significant step in preservation.
Fishing is generally allowed in protected marine areas worldwide, even by trawlers which scrape the seabed with a huge funnel-shaped net, to devastating effect.
Mitsotakis said that he had "made a promise to honour (Greece's) unique marine heritage" at last month's UN Oceans Conference in southern France, "and to protect it for generations to come".
"Today I am delivering on that promise with the establishment of two new marine national parks...
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
This Could Be the Best Time to Trade Gold in 5 Years
IC Markets
Learn More
Undo
because when we protect our ocean, we protect our own future."
Greece is located in the eastern Mediterranean and has around 13,600 kilometres (8,450 miles) of coastline and hundreds of islands.
Greece, Brazil and Spain all used the UN conference in Nice, to announce new protected marine reserves and measures to ban bottom trawling, in order to better protect marine wildlife.
Mitsotakis said that the size of the new Greek marine reserves "will enable us to achieve the goal of protecting 30 percent of our territorial waters by 2030".
He said that the government would work with "local communities, local fishermen, scientists (and) global partners (to) make these parks examples of what is possible".
In May, Athens banned bottom trawling in the waters of the Fournoi Korseon island chain in the Aegean to protect recently discovered coral reefs that are exceptionally rich in marine wildlife.
Neighbouring Turkey, whose western coast is close to the Aegean islands, responded to Monday's announcement by criticising such "unilateral action".
"International maritime law encourages cooperation between the coastal states of these seas, including on environmental issues," the foreign ministry in Ankara said.
It said that Turkey was willing to cooperate with Greece and would soon announce its own plans to protect maritime areas.
Greece and Turkey, both members of NATO, have historical disputes over maritime boundaries in the Aegean Sea.
They signed an agreement in 2023 aimed at easing tensions.
Mitsotakis said that "Ocean", a new documentary by British natural history broadcaster Sir David Attenborough, had inspired Greece to accelerate efforts to protect life below the waves.
"Ocean", which features spectacular footage of undersea habitats and marine life, emphasises the importance of healthy seas for tackling climate change and the current sweeping loss of wild species across the planet.
Mitsotakis said "Ocean" showed that the sea was "not just beautiful scenery".
"It is life itself. Delicate. Powerful. And under threat."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
4 minutes ago
- Mint
'I will not speak in English': BJP's Nishikant Dubey on Tamil Nadu MPs request in LS amid glitch in translating system
BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, on Tuesday, refused to speak in English, rejecting Tamil Nadu MPs request in Lok Sabha amid a glitch in translating system. He further claimed that the MPs 'only had a problem with Hindi.' The BJP MP made the comments in the Lok Sabha after after Tamil Nadu MPs requested Nishikant Dubey to speak in English following a a technical glitch in the translator (system) in the Lok Sabha. Responding to them, Dubey said "...It would have been better if you had asked me to speak in Tamil or Bengali. English is a foreign language, and your insistence on it reflects your mindset. Someone spoke in Bengali for half an hour, yet Tamil Nadu MPs didn't object. You only have a problem with Hindi. Congress and its allies don't like North Indians or Hindi. If you keep promoting English, we'll end up becoming England. 'Hum phir se gulaam ho jayenge' (We will become slaves again)..." During the Monsoon Session of the Parliament on Tuesday, several leaders launched scathing attacks on the government about India's Operation Sindoor in the aftermath of the brutal Pahalgam terror attack in April that killed 26 people. Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav said the launch of Operation Sindoor after the Pahalgam attack was a "symbol of the government's intelligence failure". Uttar Pradesh's former chief minister also said that India's foreign policy has 'completely collapsed,' while labelling China as a 'monster' that will "gobble up our (India's) land and market". "Who will take responsibility for the intelligence lapse in the Pahalgam attack?' Akhilesh Yadav said about the tragedy. Rahul Gandhi also took a swipe at the government, daring PM Modi to call 'Trump a liar,' referring to the POTUS's repeated claims of brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. While India has consistently denied these assertions, the US President continues to highlight his alleged role in de-escalating tensions between the two nations following the Pahalgam terror attack. Following Rahul Gandhi's claims, PM Modi while addressing the Lok Sabha, refuted claims made by US President Donald Trump regarding his role in halting India's military action against Pakistan. He said said no world leader asked India to stop its military action against Pakistan during 'Operation Sindoor' after four days of conflict in May in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack.
The Hindu
6 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Dead fences and crumbling walls, Kerala's prisons vulnerable to more breaches
The escape of rape and murder convict Govindachamy from the Kannur Central Prison has exposed deep-rooted lapses in Kerala's prison security system, where outdated infrastructure and administrative inertia have long gone unaddressed. The electric fencing at the prison, meant to deter such breakouts, has not been functioning for nearly three years. This is not an isolated lapse. Except for the Viyyur Central Prison and the adjacent High Security Prison, all central prisons in the State suffer from similar vulnerabilities. Sources point to chronic underfunding and poor interdepartmental coordination as key reasons delaying much-needed security upgrades of prison facilities. While electric fencing has been installed around the central prisons, except the Thavanur Central Prison and the High Security Prison, several years ago, the absence of live power supply has rendered these systems ineffective. At the Poojappura Central Prison, the fencing has been inoperative for nearly two years. The issue stems from expired annual maintenance contracts (AMC) and persistent delays by implementing agencies, including the Public Works department, in preparing repair estimates. Even the High Security Prison stares at a similar situation, with its AMC having lapsed. Compounding the problem, the lack of periodic maintenance has also hampered the surveillance infrastructure within prisons, as many CCTV cameras lack technical support. Further exposing prisons to more potential jailbreaks, boundary walls in certain facilities are crumbling, forcing prison superintendents fund makeshift repairs using their own funds. These challenges are particularly acute in ageing institutions built during the British era. The situation has been exacerbated by Kerala's ongoing fiscal crisis. The government had allocated ₹20 crore in the last State Budget for prison upgrades, despite proposals for nearly ₹100 crore being submitted. Half of the allocated amount was later slashed due to budgetary constraints, further straining prison resources. The Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services has now pinned its hopes on the decisions taken at a recent meeting chaired by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan that resolved to make electric fences fully operational in all major prisons. The prison authorities have also expedited the ongoing security audit of its correctional facilities. At present, the periodic assessment is complete in 39 prisons, with steps under way to conduct the exercise in the remaining 18. Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services Balram Kumar Upadhyay told The Hindu that a number of steps are being planned to enhance security measures. 'Electric fencing will be the top priority for all central prisons. In addition, we will soon install 340 more CCTV cameras across jails to strengthen the existing network of nearly 1,500 cameras,' he says. To improve night-time security, high-mast lighting has already been installed on five major prison complexes. 'We are looking into every aspect (of security vulnerabilities) after the incident. Security measures are being reassessed. We hope to implement the upgraded measures within a couple of months,' he says. Sources indicate that the Home department is also exploring new technologies, including motion-sensing surveillance systems. The possibility of partnering with start-ups to pilot motion sensors is also being explored to detect unauthorised movement and potential breaches.
Time of India
15 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump vs. Harvard: A battle that tests the strength of American democracy and the price of intellectual freedom
Harvard's standoff with the Trump administration tests the price of dissent in American academia. January 2025 wasn't supposed to read like the script of a dystopian campus drama. Yet, within days of Donald Trump's second inauguration, American higher education found itself back in the crosshairs. Harvard University, that centuries-old fortress of intellectual prestige, became the frontline in a clash not over grades or graduation rates, but over politics, power, and the weaponisation of federal authority. This isn't the same old 'Trump vs. Academia' skirmish we saw in 2017. This time, it's a stress test of whether a White House—any White House—can muscle its way into university governance, dictate the fate of billions in research funds, and even toy with student visas as leverage. If you think this saga only concerns one elite campus, think again. What happened to Harvard between January and July 2025 may well be the blueprint for how political control over universities could be asserted in America for years to come. January–February 2025: The opening moves On January 29, barely a week after the oath-taking ceremony, Trump signed Executive Order 14188. Following this, the Department of Justice established the Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism on Campuses. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo At first glance, it seemed like another culture-war skirmish wrapped in civil rights language. But the fine print gave federal agencies unprecedented authority to probe universities, condition funding, and scrutinise so-called 'alien students' for ideological leanings. Harvard, along with dozens of institutions, received its first formal letter of 'concern' on February 27 from the Department of Justice, demanding meetings over alleged Title VI violations. For the uninitiated, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act bars institutions receiving federal funds from discriminating on the basis of race, colour, or national origin. These weren't polite invitations. They were the opening salvo in a campaign that would escalate beyond anything seen before in federal–academic relations. The groundwork was laid: The administration now had a legal hook (civil rights), a moral shield (antisemitism), and a political target (elite universities often painted as 'woke havens'). Harvard was merely the first domino. March–April 2025: From review to retaliation On March 31, the Task Force formally launched a federal review into Harvard's use of billions in federal research grants, citing alleged failures to protect Jewish students. Boston University Radio (WBUR) and multiple outlets reported that this review was the precursor to unprecedented fiscal scrutiny and laid the foundation for later punitive actions. Just days later, the White House sent a letter demanding sweeping changes at Harvard: Dismantle DEI programs, overhaul governance, adopt 'merit-based' hiring, submit to viewpoint diversity audits, and revise admissions policies. In other words, the federal government wasn't just enforcing civil rights, it was trying to rewrite campus rules by diktat. Harvard refused. What followed was a fiscal guillotine. On April 14, $2.2 billion in federal research grants were frozen, along with $60 million in contracts. The message was blunt: Comply or watch your labs go dark. Trump's Truth Social post on—calling Harvard a 'JOKE' teaching 'Hate and Stupidity' and suggesting it lose tax-exempt status—wasn't just an online bluster. It was the President setting policy through grievance politics. By April 16, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem piled on, demanding detailed records on every international student, threatening SEVP decertification (loss of Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification), and cancelling an additional $2.7 million in grants. Harvard struck back legally on April 21, filing its first lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to challenge the funding freeze as unconstitutional. The complaint asked the federal court to vacate punitive actions and restore billions in research dollars. But the damage was already done: Projects stalled, faculty recruitment froze, and students with research assistantships were left dangling, unsure if their stipends would arrive next semester. May 2025: Visa warfare on campus If April was about money, May targeted people. On May 5, Trump signed a proclamation declaring Harvard an 'unsuitable destination' for foreign students, citing nebulous national-security concerns. It was a shot across the bow, signalling that visas could be wielded as a political weapon. Then came May 22. ICE revoked Harvard's SEVP certification, effectively threatening the legal status of roughly 5,500–6,000 international students overnight. The timing was surgical: Just as spring exams wrapped, thousands of students risked being forced to leave the country or transfer. Harvard's emergency lawsuit on May 23 pulled it back from the brink—Judge Allison Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order hours later, halting the move. But the message was clear: Even the most prestigious university couldn't shield its students from the whims of political power when visas were used as leverage. For every prospective international student watching this unfold, the warning was unmistakable: In the US, your ability to study may hinge less on your merit than on whether your university angers the Oval Office or not. June–July 2025: Courtroom standoff and settlement signals By summer, the conflict had crystallised into two major lawsuits: One over the funding freeze, another over SEVP decertification. Both landed in Boston's federal court, with Harvard arguing that the administration's actions violated the First Amendment, Title VI protections, and due process laws. The Trump team countered that grant money was a privilege, not a right, and universities failing 'agency priorities' could have funding yanked at will. On July 21, oral arguments over the $2.2 billion freeze saw Judge Allison Burroughs grill both sides. A final ruling has not yet been issued, but the hearing laid bare the stakes: if Harvard loses, future presidents could dictate university policy through the purse strings, turning research funding into a political loyalty test. If Harvard wins, it would carve out a legal shield for academic freedom, albeit one forged in bitter litigation. Meanwhile, The New York Times revealed Harvard is exploring a potential settlement with the Trump administration, reportedly willing to pay up to $500 million to resolve the dispute. Negotiations reportedly focus on restoring access to more than $2 billion in frozen research funds while preserving governance autonomy, but the very premise of these talks is chilling. The figure is staggering, not just because of the money involved, but because of what it signals: Even the wealthiest and most powerful university in the country might have to 'pay tribute' to the White House to unlock funding it was already lawfully awarded. The talks mirror Columbia University's earlier $200 million settlement, but this is a higher‑stakes game. Harvard's endowment has become both shield and target, a financial bullseye for an administration eager to make an example of elite academia. Behind the headlines, DHS expanded its scrutiny to J-1 visas, research visas, and campus-linked foreign programs. Even without a final ruling, universities nationwide began quietly reviewing policies, fearing they'd be next. The chilling effect on student speech, faculty hiring, and international enrolment was immediate and measurable. Harvard's choice: Buy relief or win the law If Harvard settles, it risks sidelining the judiciary altogether, dodging the constitutional answer: Can a White House weaponise federal funding to police campus thought? The money tap may reopen, but the chance to set a legal boundary closes. The precedent becomes fear, telling every university president that when Washington knocks, resistance is futile and freedom negotiable. It transforms education into a marketplace where political compliance can be bought and dissent carries a billion-dollar price tag. If Harvard bows to this arrangement, it legitimises a dangerous precedent: Federal funding as ransom, with intellectual independence up for sale. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
