Banking Law and Marine Biodiversity Finance in Spain

Introduction

Marine biodiversity finance refers to financing designed to protect, restore or sustainably use marine ecosystems while generating an appropriate financial return or delivering a defined public environmental outcome.

In Spain, potential projects include:

restoration of marine habitats;

protection of marine protected areas;

restoration of seagrass meadows;

sustainable fisheries;

sustainable aquaculture;

marine pollution prevention;

coastal and blue-economy infrastructure;

biodiversity monitoring;

marine ecological restoration; and

nature-positive maritime technologies.

Spain does not have a single statute called the Marine Biodiversity Finance Act. Instead, the legal framework combines banking law, sustainable-finance rules, environmental law, marine-protection legislation and EU financial regulation.

The Law 42/2007 on Natural Heritage and Biodiversity expressly covers Spain's marine environment and establishes conservation and sustainable-use principles. It also permits economic and fiscal incentives for private conservation initiatives.

The Law 41/2010 on Protection of the Marine Environment provides the principal general framework for marine environmental protection and marine strategies, with the objective of achieving good environmental status of marine waters and maintaining marine biodiversity.

Spain has also expressly incorporated biodiversity considerations into public financing policy. Its State Strategic Plan for Natural Heritage and Biodiversity 2030 calls for biodiversity-compatibility criteria in public financing through loans, guarantees, grants and subsidies.

1. What Is Marine Biodiversity Finance?

Marine biodiversity finance is broader than ordinary environmental lending.

A conventional bank loan may finance a fishing vessel or aquaculture facility.

A biodiversity-finance transaction instead asks an additional question:

What measurable effect will the financing have on marine ecosystems?

For example, financing could support:

Posidonia restoration → habitat improvement → greater ecological resilience → measurable biodiversity outcome.

Another structure could finance sustainable fishing equipment that reduces accidental capture of protected species.

A third could finance technology that monitors marine protected areas.

The financial institution therefore needs to assess both:

financial performance

and

environmental performance.

2. Spanish Banking Law

Marine biodiversity financing by a Spanish bank remains subject to ordinary banking regulation.

A credit institution must comply with applicable prudential requirements concerning:

capital;

liquidity;

governance;

risk management;

credit assessment;

internal controls;

accounting; and

supervisory requirements.

Environmental characteristics do not remove ordinary banking obligations.

If a bank lends €50 million to a marine-restoration company, it must still assess whether the borrower can repay the loan.

The ecological purpose of the project does not automatically make the credit commercially safe.

3. Biodiversity as a Financial-Risk Factor

The traditional credit analysis of a maritime business may consider:

revenue + costs + debt + collateral + cash flow.

Marine biodiversity finance requires additional analysis:

environmental permits + ecological dependency + biodiversity impact + regulatory exposure + climate risk + restoration obligations.

This matters because environmental degradation can create financial losses.

For example, a coastal tourism company may depend on healthy marine ecosystems.

If biodiversity deteriorates:

ecosystem degradation → reduced tourism value → lower revenue → weaker debt-servicing capacity.

Consequently, biodiversity can become a credit-risk variable.

4. EU Taxonomy and Biodiversity

The EU Taxonomy Regulation provides an important framework for sustainable finance.

Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 specifically recognizes activities contributing substantially to the protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems, including protection and restoration of marine and other aquatic ecosystems.

This is important for Spanish banks because the Taxonomy framework can influence:

sustainable lending;

investment products;

green bonds;

sustainability disclosures;

portfolio classification; and

institutional investment.

The legal significance is that “biodiversity finance” increasingly requires a defined environmental methodology rather than simply calling a loan “green.”

5. Substantial Contribution

For an economic activity to qualify under the relevant Taxonomy framework, it is not enough merely to describe it as environmentally friendly.

The activity must satisfy the applicable technical criteria.

A marine project might therefore need to demonstrate that it contributes substantially to biodiversity protection or restoration.

For example:

Marine habitat restoration

could potentially qualify where the applicable Taxonomy requirements are satisfied.

But:

ordinary construction near the coast

does not become biodiversity finance merely because the borrower plants a small number of marine plants elsewhere.

This distinction is important for preventing greenwashing.

6. Do No Significant Harm

Sustainable-finance classification also requires consideration of the Do No Significant Harm (DNSH) principle.

A project may have one environmental benefit while producing serious damage elsewhere.

For example:

Project restores one marine habitat

but

construction significantly damages another protected ecosystem.

The financing analysis therefore needs to consider the entire environmental profile of the activity.

This is particularly important for large maritime infrastructure projects.

7. Marine Protected Areas

Marine protected areas are central to Spanish biodiversity policy.

Spain's biodiversity legislation allows conservation measures to apply to marine areas, while fisheries and maritime activities are regulated through overlapping legal frameworks.

The Spanish Government has continued expanding and managing marine protected areas through measures under the Natura 2000 framework.

For example, Royal Decree 531/2025 declared additional conservation areas and established measures for marine Natura 2000 sites in the Mediterranean region.

For financiers, this creates an important due-diligence question:

Is the financed activity located in or near a protected marine area?

If yes, the bank may need to understand the applicable restrictions before approving financing.

8. Marine Spatial Planning

Marine biodiversity finance also interacts with marine spatial planning.

A project involving:

offshore energy;

aquaculture;

ports;

shipping;

tourism;

fishing; or

marine infrastructure

may compete for the same marine space.

Financial institutions therefore need to understand whether a proposed project is compatible with the relevant marine-management framework.

A technically viable project can still face financial difficulty if its permits cannot be obtained.

9. Environmental Permits and Lending

A bank does not normally obtain environmental permits for its borrower.

However, environmental authorization can be an important condition precedent to financing.

For example:

Loan agreement signed

↓

environmental authorization required

↓

authorization obtained

↓

construction financing released.

This structure can reduce the lender's exposure to a project that cannot legally operate.

10. Environmental Impact Assessment

Large marine projects can require environmental assessment.

This is important because biodiversity risk may become a legal condition of project development.

A lender financing a marine infrastructure project should therefore consider:

environmental-impact assessment;

Natura 2000 assessment;

protected-species requirements;

marine pollution rules;

fisheries restrictions;

coastal legislation; and

restoration obligations.

Environmental permitting can therefore become a financial-risk issue.

11. Natura 2000 and Banking Due Diligence

Natura 2000 is particularly important for marine biodiversity.

A project capable of significantly affecting a protected site can require appropriate assessment under EU nature-protection rules.

The Spanish framework applies these principles to marine protected areas as well. Royal Decree 531/2025 expressly refers to evaluating plans, programmes, projects and human activities that may have an appreciable effect on marine Natura 2000 sites.

For a bank, the legal question becomes:

Could environmental restrictions materially affect project cash flow?

If yes, environmental due diligence becomes part of credit analysis.

12. Sustainable Fisheries Finance

Fisheries provide an important example.

Spain's Law 5/2023 on Sustainable Fisheries and Fisheries Research establishes measures concerning sustainable exploitation, protection and regeneration of marine resources and protected marine areas.

A bank might finance:

low-impact fishing equipment;

selective fishing technology;

vessel modernization;

monitoring systems;

sustainable aquaculture;

cold-chain improvements; or

habitat-friendly fishing infrastructure.

The financing terms could potentially incorporate environmental performance conditions.

13. Fisheries and Biodiversity Risk

A fishing business depends directly on marine biological resources.

If fish stocks decline:

lower stock → lower allowable catch → lower revenue → weaker repayment capacity.

The environmental condition of the marine ecosystem is therefore also an economic variable.

This is one reason biodiversity risk is particularly relevant to fisheries finance.

14. Sustainable Aquaculture

Aquaculture can also require biodiversity-sensitive financing.

A bank may assess:

water quality;

ecological impact;

disease management;

feed sources;

waste;

habitat impacts;

licensing;

operational resilience.

The objective is not to prohibit aquaculture but to determine whether the business model is environmentally and financially sustainable.

15. Blue Bonds

A Spanish institution could potentially participate in blue-bond structures.

A blue bond is a debt instrument in which proceeds are dedicated to eligible ocean or marine-related projects.

A typical structure could be:

Investor → bond issuer → dedicated project portfolio → marine conservation projects.

Legal documentation would need to establish:

eligible-project categories;

use of proceeds;

reporting;

impact measurement;

governance;

verification; and

consequences of non-compliance.

The central financial-law concern is preventing environmental claims from exceeding what the financed activities actually achieve.

16. Sustainability-Linked Loans

Marine biodiversity can also be incorporated into a sustainability-linked loan.

Instead of requiring every euro to finance a particular project, the loan may link financial terms to measurable environmental targets.

For example:

interest adjustment

could depend upon achieving:

marine habitat-restoration targets;

reductions in ecological damage;

improved biodiversity indicators; or

certified sustainable-resource management.

The legal difficulty is selecting metrics that are objective and independently verifiable.

17. Biodiversity-Linked Finance

Biodiversity-linked finance differs from traditional green finance because biodiversity outcomes can be much harder to measure than carbon emissions.

Carbon has a relatively standardized measurement unit.

Biodiversity is multidimensional.

A marine project might affect:

species abundance;

habitat quality;

ecosystem connectivity;

species diversity;

water quality;

ecological resilience.

A financing agreement therefore needs clearly defined measurement methodology.

18. Marine Restoration Finance

Spain's public framework expressly recognizes financing for biodiversity restoration.

The State Strategic Plan for Natural Heritage and Biodiversity 2030 identifies the need to mobilize public and private sources of financing for biodiversity conservation and restoration.

The Restoration Ecology and Resilience Fund also covers marine protection and conservation, including the maritime-terrestrial public domain and marine ecosystems.

This creates potential opportunities for blended finance:

public funds + EU funds + bank lending + private investment.

19. European Maritime Funding

Spain also has access to the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF).

Spanish rules provide for funding supporting sustainable fisheries, sustainable aquaculture, the blue economy and healthy marine ecosystems.

This can help reduce the financing gap for projects that may generate important environmental benefits but do not initially produce sufficient commercial returns for conventional lending alone.

20. Blended Finance

Blended finance can combine:

public grant + concessional finance + commercial bank loan + private investment.

For example:

A marine restoration project requires €20 million.

Possible structure:

€5 million public support;

€5 million concessional financing;

€7 million bank debt;

€3 million private capital.

The public component can reduce project risk and make private financing more feasible.

21. Credit Guarantees

Government or EU-backed guarantees can also support marine biodiversity projects.

A guarantee can reduce the bank's loss exposure if the borrower defaults.

This may be useful for projects with:

high ecological value;

uncertain early cash flow;

substantial upfront investment; or

limited traditional collateral.

The financing structure therefore becomes partly a public-policy mechanism for correcting market failures.

22. Biodiversity as Collateral Risk

Traditional lending often focuses on physical collateral.

Marine biodiversity projects may instead depend heavily on:

ecosystem services;

permits;

concession rights;

environmental credits;

long-term contracts;

grants; and

future cash flows.

Many of these assets are difficult to pledge in the same way as real estate.

Consequently, biodiversity finance may rely more heavily on contractual cash flows and guarantees than on traditional collateral.

23. Nature-Related Disclosure

Banks and investment institutions increasingly need to understand environmental risks in their portfolios.

For marine projects, relevant risks can include:

physical ecosystem risk

and

transition/regulatory risk.

Physical risk might involve ecosystem degradation affecting a borrower's business.

Transition risk might arise from new marine-protection rules making an existing business model more expensive or restricted.

24. Greenwashing Risk

Greenwashing is a significant legal and reputational risk.

A bank should not market a loan as “marine biodiversity finance” merely because the borrower operates near the sea.

The financing should have a demonstrable connection with environmental objectives.

For example:

ordinary port expansion

is not automatically:

marine biodiversity financing.

A project may have to demonstrate measurable biodiversity benefits and compliance with the applicable sustainable-finance framework.

25. Marine Biodiversity and Bank Risk Management

For a Spanish bank, biodiversity can enter several risk categories.

Credit Risk

Environmental deterioration reduces the borrower's revenue.

Market Risk

Changes in environmental regulation can reduce asset values.

Operational Risk

Environmental incidents can interrupt operations.

Legal Risk

Failure to comply with environmental requirements can produce penalties or remediation costs.

Reputation Risk

Financing environmentally damaging activity can create reputational consequences.

Concentration Risk

A bank heavily exposed to fisheries, coastal tourism or maritime infrastructure may be disproportionately exposed to marine ecosystem deterioration.

Relevant Case Law

There are no six reported Spanish judgments specifically titled “marine biodiversity finance.”

The following cases are nevertheless highly relevant because they establish legal principles concerning environmental assessment, protected habitats, biodiversity and the limits on activities affecting protected ecosystems.

Case 1 – Waddenzee, C-127/02

Waddenzee is a foundational EU habitats-law case.

The Court of Justice established a strict approach to assessing whether a plan or project may adversely affect a protected Natura 2000 site's integrity.

The principle is highly relevant to marine finance.

A bank financing a project in or near a protected marine area cannot treat environmental assessment as an incidental issue.

If the project requires authorization based upon an appropriate assessment, the outcome can materially affect the project's legal and financial viability.

For financing purposes:

environmental uncertainty → permitting uncertainty → cash-flow uncertainty → credit risk.

Case 2 – Commission v Spain, C-461/14

This case concerned Spain and the application of EU environmental-protection requirements involving protected areas and environmental assessment.

The case demonstrates that Spain's compliance with EU nature and environmental-assessment rules can be subject to judicial scrutiny.

For financial institutions, this reinforces the importance of environmental due diligence.

A lender cannot assume that a project has no EU-law environmental exposure simply because a national or regional administrative process is underway.

Case 3 – Commission v Spain, C-404/09

This case concerned Spain's obligations under the Habitats Directive in relation to mining activities affecting protected areas.

The Court found Spain had failed to fulfil obligations concerning protection of habitats and species.

Although the underlying activity was mining rather than marine finance, the case is important by analogy.

It demonstrates that economic activity can face EU environmental obligations where protected habitats or species are affected.

For banks, environmental non-compliance can therefore translate into:

project restrictions + remediation costs + litigation risk + reduced repayment capacity.

Case 4 – Sweetman and Others, C-258/11

The Sweetman judgment concerned the integrity of protected habitats under the Habitats Directive.

The Court interpreted the concept of adverse effects on site integrity strictly.

The principle is relevant to marine biodiversity finance because a project cannot necessarily be justified simply by showing that the affected area is relatively small.

A financing assessment should consider whether the project affects the ecological characteristics for which the protected site was designated.

Case 5 – People Over Wind and Sweetman, C-323/17

This judgment concerned the relationship between mitigation measures and the requirement for an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Directive.

The Court held that certain mitigation measures cannot simply be used at the screening stage to avoid the appropriate-assessment requirement.

For marine finance, this is important.

A project developer might tell a lender:

“We have mitigation measures, so no detailed environmental assessment is necessary.”

That proposition may not always be legally sufficient.

A bank should therefore examine the actual regulatory position rather than relying solely on a borrower's environmental summary.

Case 6 – Commission v Poland, C-441/17

Although this case concerned Poland rather than Spain, it is an important EU nature-protection authority.

The Court considered the protection of Natura 2000 habitats and species and emphasized the obligations arising from the Habitats Directive.

Its relevance to Spanish marine finance comes from the fact that the same EU nature-protection principles apply across Member States.

For Spanish banks financing projects affecting Natura 2000 marine sites, EU jurisprudence concerning protected-site integrity can therefore be highly relevant.

Case 7 – Spain v Commission, T-681/22

This is particularly relevant to marine biodiversity.

In June 2025, the General Court dismissed Spain's challenge to the EU Commission's designation of deep-sea fishing areas where vulnerable marine ecosystems were known or likely to occur.

The Court accepted the Commission's approach to identifying vulnerable marine ecosystems and upheld the protective framework challenged by Spain.

This case is important for finance because restrictions on fishing activity can directly affect the revenue and asset values of fisheries businesses.

A lender financing a fishing company therefore needs to consider whether protected marine areas could restrict the borrower's future operations.

Spain subsequently appealed the judgment to the Court of Justice in 2025, so the litigation has a continuing procedural dimension.

Case 8 – Spanish Constitutional Court Fisheries Jurisprudence

Spanish constitutional jurisprudence has repeatedly addressed the division of powers concerning marine fishing and the protection and conservation of fishery resources.

The principles are reflected expressly in Spain's 2023 Sustainable Fisheries Law, which cites, among others, STC 147/1991, 44/1992, 57/1992, 149/1992, 184/1996 and 38/2002.

These decisions are important because they establish the constitutional relationship between fisheries regulation and conservation of marine biological resources.

For finance, the significance is practical:

who has regulatory authority over a marine activity can determine whether the underlying project can legally operate.

26. Why These Cases Matter to Banks

Environmental cases are not normally banking cases.

Nevertheless, they can affect banking decisions because a financing transaction depends on the legal ability of the financed business to operate.

Consider a simplified structure:

Bank finances fishing company

↓

Company depends on fishing rights

↓

Environmental law restricts fishing in protected area

↓

Allowable activity declines

↓

Revenue falls

↓

Credit risk increases.

Environmental jurisprudence can therefore indirectly become relevant to banking risk.

27. Marine Biodiversity Finance and Insolvency

Suppose a company finances a marine restoration project but later becomes insolvent.

The lender may have security over:

equipment;

bank accounts;

receivables;

contractual rights; or

shares.

But the ecological value of a restored ecosystem may not itself be a conventional collateral asset.

This creates an important distinction:

environmental value ≠ automatically realizable collateral value.

Banks therefore need conventional financial security alongside biodiversity objectives.

28. Performance-Based Finance

A sophisticated Spanish biodiversity loan could contain environmental performance conditions.

For example:

Target 1: restore a defined marine habitat area.

Target 2: achieve an independently verified ecological condition.

Target 3: maintain compliance with protected-area requirements.

Target 4: maintain monitoring and reporting.

The loan pricing or availability could then be connected to achievement of agreed indicators.

This approach creates a direct relationship between finance and environmental performance.

29. Verification

Verification is essential.

A borrower should not be able to declare:

“Marine biodiversity improved by 20%.”

without an objectively defined methodology.

Verification could involve:

ecological surveys;

scientific monitoring;

satellite or remote sensing;

biodiversity indicators;

independent environmental assessors; and

regulatory data.

The stronger the environmental claim, the stronger the evidence required to support it.

30. Public-Private Financing

Spain's biodiversity policy expressly encourages mobilization of both public and private financing.

The State Strategic Plan identifies public budgets, European funds and private financing as sources that can contribute to biodiversity objectives.

This creates opportunities for banks to participate alongside:

central government;

autonomous communities;

municipalities;

EU institutions;

development banks;

foundations; and

private investors.

31. Marine Biodiversity and Blue Economy

The Spanish legal framework increasingly connects biodiversity with the broader blue economy.

The 2023 rules supporting sustainable fisheries and aquaculture specifically connect European maritime funding with sustainable blue-economy development and healthy, protected and sustainably managed seas and oceans.

This provides a useful bridge between environmental objectives and commercial finance.

A blue-economy project can generate ordinary revenue while also producing measurable environmental benefits.

32. Future Transformation of Spanish Banking

Marine biodiversity finance could develop through several stages.

Stage One – Environmental Due Diligence

Banks assess environmental risks before financing maritime projects.

Stage Two – Green and Blue Lending

Banks create financing products specifically for sustainable marine activities.

Stage Three – Biodiversity-Linked Finance

Loan pricing becomes linked to measurable ecological outcomes.

Stage Four – Blended Finance

Public and private capital are combined to finance projects with significant ecological benefits.

Stage Five – Nature-Positive Banking

Banks begin integrating ecosystem dependencies and biodiversity impacts into broader portfolio-management and risk frameworks.

This represents a transition from:

“Does the borrower have sufficient financial collateral?”

toward:

“Is the borrower's business financially viable while remaining compatible with environmental constraints and biodiversity objectives?”

33. Main Legal Risks

Marine biodiversity finance in Spain presents several important legal risks.

Environmental-permitting risk

The project may not receive the necessary authorization.

Protected-area risk

Natura 2000 or other marine-protection rules may restrict operations.

Biodiversity-impact risk

The project may cause ecological damage and face remediation obligations.

Regulatory-change risk

Marine protection rules can become stricter.

Greenwashing risk

Environmental claims may exceed the actual impact of the financed activity.

Credit risk

Environmental deterioration may reduce the borrower's revenues.

Measurement risk

Biodiversity improvements may be difficult to quantify.

Litigation risk

Environmental organizations, competitors or public authorities may challenge project approvals.

Collateral risk

Ecological benefits generally do not function as conventional collateral.

34. Long-Term Legal Significance

The long-term importance of marine biodiversity finance is that environmental law is increasingly becoming relevant to the financial system.

A bank may traditionally have asked:

Can the borrower repay?

It may increasingly also need to ask:

Does environmental regulation permit the borrower's business to continue?

Does the business depend materially on a degrading ecosystem?

Could biodiversity loss reduce revenues?

Could environmental restrictions impair collateral value?

Does the project satisfy sustainable-finance classification requirements?

These questions transform biodiversity from an external environmental concern into a component of financial risk management.

Conclusion

Marine biodiversity finance in Spain is an emerging intersection of banking law, sustainable finance, marine environmental law, fisheries regulation, EU taxonomy and project finance rather than a standalone banking-law field.

Spain's Law 42/2007 establishes the broader natural-heritage and biodiversity framework and expressly provides for incentives and economic measures supporting conservation.

Law 41/2010 provides the principal framework for marine environmental protection and the achievement of good environmental status in Spanish marine waters.

The State Strategic Plan for Natural Heritage and Biodiversity 2030 goes further by expressly calling for biodiversity-compatibility criteria in financing through loans, guarantees, grants and subsidies and by seeking greater mobilization of private finance.

The EU Taxonomy Regulation also expressly recognizes substantial contributions to the protection and restoration of marine ecosystems as a biodiversity objective.

The case law—Waddenzee (C-127/02), Commission v Spain (C-461/14), Commission v Spain (C-404/09), Sweetman (C-258/11), People Over Wind (C-323/17), Commission v Poland (C-441/17), Spain v Commission (T-681/22), and the Spanish Constitutional Court's fisheries decisions including STC 147/1991 and related cases—demonstrates why environmental authorization, protected habitats, fisheries restrictions and biodiversity protection can materially affect the financial viability of marine projects.

The central legal principle is therefore:

Marine biodiversity is increasingly relevant to banking not because biodiversity itself becomes a bankable asset in every case, but because environmental condition, regulatory protection and ecosystem dependency can materially affect a borrower's cash flows, project permissions, asset values and credit risk.

For Spanish financial institutions, effective marine biodiversity finance consequently requires the integration of financial due diligence + environmental due diligence + protected-area assessment + sustainable-finance classification + measurable biodiversity outcomes + appropriate contractual safeguards.