Banking Law and Marine Ecosystem Financing in Spain

1. Introduction

Marine ecosystem financing refers to financing activities intended to protect, restore or sustainably use marine and coastal ecosystems.

In Spain, potential projects include:

restoration of coastal wetlands;

seagrass and marine-habitat restoration;

sustainable fisheries;

sustainable aquaculture;

marine biodiversity projects;

offshore renewable-energy projects;

pollution-prevention infrastructure;

sustainable ports;

coastal resilience projects;

marine research infrastructure;

blue bonds; and

conservation projects capable of generating environmental revenues or savings.

Banks can finance these activities through:

ordinary corporate loans;

project finance;

green or blue bonds;

sustainability-linked loans;

infrastructure finance;

public-private financing;

investment funds; and

blended-finance structures.

The European Commission recognises sustainable ocean finance as an emerging area in which banks, investors and insurers can help direct capital toward a sustainable blue economy. It also stresses that unsustainable marine development can create environmental, market and physical risks for investors.

Spanish banking law does not, however, create a separate legal category called “marine ecosystem finance.”

Instead, financing is governed by ordinary banking and financial law together with environmental, maritime, fisheries, public procurement and EU sustainability rules.

Therefore:

Banking Law + Environmental Law + Maritime Law + EU Financial Regulation = Marine Ecosystem Financing Framework

2. Why Marine Ecosystems Create Banking Issues

At first sight, marine conservation appears to be an environmental issue rather than a banking issue.

The connection becomes clearer when considering a bank financing a marine project.

Suppose a bank lends €100 million to a company developing coastal restoration infrastructure.

The bank must assess:

whether the project is legally authorised;

whether environmental permits exist;

whether protected marine areas are affected;

whether the project can generate sufficient revenue;

whether environmental restrictions could delay construction;

whether environmental liabilities could affect collateral;

whether public funding is available;

whether the project qualifies for sustainable-finance treatment; and

what happens if environmental approvals are withdrawn.

Environmental regulation can therefore directly affect credit risk.

3. Blue Economy and Blue Finance

The term blue economy broadly covers economic activity connected with oceans and seas.

It can include:

fisheries;

aquaculture;

shipping;

ports;

offshore energy;

marine biotechnology;

coastal tourism;

marine transport; and

conservation.

Blue finance directs capital toward activities intended to produce sustainable ocean-related outcomes.

A simplified structure is:

Bank / Investor

↓

Marine Project Company

↓

Environmental Project

↓

Economic + Environmental Returns

The financial return may arise from:

project revenues;

government contracts;

user fees;

energy sales;

avoided environmental costs;

carbon-related mechanisms where legally available; or

long-term infrastructure income.

Conservation projects can therefore require financial structures different from ordinary commercial lending.

4. Spanish Banking Law

A Spanish bank financing a marine ecosystem project remains subject to the ordinary banking framework.

The main prudential framework includes:

Law 10/2014 on the organisation, supervision and solvency of credit institutions;

Royal Decree 84/2015;

EU capital requirements;

EU banking supervision;

financial-market legislation;

AML/CFT requirements; and

applicable sustainability and disclosure rules.

The bank must therefore assess both the financial risk and the environmental/legal risk of the project.

5. Environmental Due Diligence

Environmental due diligence becomes especially important for marine projects.

Before providing substantial financing, a bank may need to understand whether:

environmental impact assessment is required;

the project affects protected habitats;

marine spatial planning rules apply;

water-quality requirements are satisfied;

fisheries restrictions apply;

Natura 2000 protections are relevant;

coastal-zone rules apply; and

required administrative authorisations have been obtained.

This is not merely a question of corporate responsibility.

If a project cannot legally operate, its expected cash flow can disappear.

Thus:

Environmental Non-Compliance → Project Delay/Restriction → Revenue Loss → Credit Risk

6. Marine Protected Areas

Spain contains extensive protected marine areas.

A project located within or near a protected site may face restrictions affecting:

construction;

dredging;

fishing;

offshore infrastructure;

tourism;

seabed disturbance; and

resource extraction.

For a lender, this creates regulatory risk.

A bank should therefore distinguish between:

Project is environmentally desirable

and:

Project is legally authorised and financially bankable.

An environmentally beneficial project can still require extensive permits.

7. Environmental Impact Assessment

Large marine infrastructure may require environmental assessment before construction or operation.

Examples include:

offshore energy projects;

port expansion;

underwater infrastructure;

aquaculture installations;

major coastal works.

For lenders, the environmental assessment process can affect:

project timetable;

construction costs;

available financing period;

expected revenues; and

conditions precedent to loan drawdown.

A financing agreement may therefore make certain environmental approvals conditions for releasing funds.

8. Project Finance for Marine Restoration

Marine restoration can be financed through a project-finance structure where future project revenues support repayment.

For example:

Bank

↓

Special Purpose Vehicle

↓

Coastal Restoration Infrastructure

↓

Long-Term Contract Revenue

↓

Debt Repayment

The challenge is that conservation itself may not generate conventional revenue.

Therefore, marine ecosystem projects often require additional sources of funding.

These can include:

government payments;

grants;

philanthropic capital;

development finance;

conservation funds;

tourism revenues;

infrastructure fees; or

blended finance.

9. Blended Finance

Blended finance combines different sources of capital.

For example:

Public Grant

Development Capital

Private Investment

Bank Loan

=

Marine Ecosystem Project

Public capital can absorb part of the early-stage risk, making a project more attractive to commercial lenders.

This is particularly useful when environmental benefits are substantial but direct commercial revenues are limited.

10. Blue Bonds

Blue bonds are debt instruments associated with marine and ocean-related environmental objectives.

A Spanish issuer could potentially raise capital for:

marine restoration;

sustainable fisheries;

wastewater infrastructure;

coastal resilience;

marine biodiversity;

sustainable ports; or

other qualifying ocean-related activities.

The legal challenge is not simply issuing a bond.

The issuer must ensure that claims about the environmental use of proceeds and sustainability characteristics are accurate and appropriately disclosed under the applicable financial framework.

11. Sustainability-Linked Loans

Another structure is a sustainability-linked loan.

Instead of requiring every euro to finance a particular marine asset, the loan's financial terms can be linked to specified sustainability performance targets.

For example:

Borrower improves verified marine-water quality indicator

↓

Loan pricing changes according to agreed terms

The legal documentation needs to define:

the sustainability indicator;

measurement methodology;

baseline;

verification;

reporting;

consequences of failure; and

circumstances allowing modification.

This makes environmental data a component of financial contracting.

12. Greenwashing Risk

Marine ecosystem financing creates a significant risk of greenwashing.

A borrower might describe a project as:

“Ocean-positive financing”

without providing sufficiently reliable evidence of environmental benefits.

For banks and investors, misleading sustainability claims can create:

regulatory risk;

litigation risk;

reputational risk;

investor claims; and

financial losses.

Accordingly, environmental claims should be based on verifiable criteria rather than promotional language.

13. Marine Ecosystems as Financial Risk

Environmental degradation can itself become a financial risk.

Consider a coastal business dependent upon healthy marine ecosystems.

If ecosystem degradation causes:

lower fish stocks;

reduced tourism;

coastal flooding;

infrastructure damage; or

water-quality deterioration,

the borrower's income may decline.

The bank may then face:

Environmental Risk → Borrower Risk → Credit Risk

Thus, ecosystem protection can also be viewed from the perspective of financial risk management.

14. Fisheries Financing

Fisheries provide an important example.

A bank financing fishing fleets must consider:

fishing licences;

quotas;

protected areas;

seasonal restrictions;

sustainability rules;

vessel condition;

fuel costs; and

future fish-stock conditions.

A vessel can have substantial physical value but become economically weak if its legal fishing opportunities are substantially restricted.

Therefore:

Licence + Quota + Resource Availability

may be as important to the lender as:

Vessel + Engine + Equipment.

15. Aquaculture Financing

Aquaculture projects may require financing for:

farms;

equipment;

processing facilities;

water systems;

feed;

monitoring technology; and

environmental-control systems.

Banks need to examine environmental permits and possible effects on surrounding marine ecosystems.

An aquaculture operation that violates environmental requirements could face restrictions, fines or operational limitations.

These risks directly affect repayment capacity.

16. Offshore Renewable Energy

Offshore wind and other marine renewable-energy projects can require enormous amounts of capital.

A typical financing structure might involve:

Equity Sponsors

Commercial Banks

Institutional Investors

↓

Project Company

↓

Offshore Energy Facility

↓

Electricity Revenue

These projects can simultaneously support energy-transition objectives and affect marine ecosystems.

Consequently, lenders must consider both:

Climate/energy benefits

and:

Marine environmental impacts.

17. Port Financing

Spanish ports are major economic infrastructure.

Banks may finance:

port expansion;

electrification;

pollution-control systems;

shore-side electricity;

waste-management infrastructure;

dredging;

logistics facilities; and

environmental restoration.

Environmental approvals can materially affect project timing.

The lender therefore needs a realistic understanding of administrative processes.

18. Ship Financing and Its Direct Spanish Case Law

One of the most relevant areas of Spanish/EU jurisprudence concerns ship financing.

This is particularly important because it demonstrates how banks, leasing companies, investors and shipyards can form sophisticated financial structures around maritime assets.

Case 1: Commission v Spain and Others, C-128/16 P

The Court of Justice considered the Spanish tax lease system (STL) used to finance the construction and acquisition of ships.

The structure involved:

shipping companies;

Spanish shipyards;

a bank;

a leasing company;

economic-interest groupings;

investors; and

financing arrangements.

The case therefore directly demonstrates the relationship between banking, leasing, ship construction and maritime finance.

Principle

The Court examined whether the tax arrangements constituted selective State aid and addressed the identification of beneficiaries and distortion of competition.

Marine-Finance Relevance

The case demonstrates that sophisticated maritime-financing structures can create EU State-aid issues.

A bank financing marine infrastructure cannot examine only the private loan agreement.

It may also need to understand:

public subsidies;

tax incentives;

guarantees;

preferential financing; and

EU competition rules.

19. Case 2: Spain and Others v Commission, Joined Cases C-649/20 P, C-658/20 P and C-662/20 P

These proceedings also concerned the Spanish tax-lease system.

The Court's judgment describes the structure as involving ship construction, acquisition and financing through an arrangement organised by a bank involving a leasing company, economic-interest grouping and investors.

Importance

The case reinforces a central lesson:

Financial engineering cannot be separated from regulatory classification.

A marine project can involve several layers of financing, and each layer may produce separate legal consequences.

For marine ecosystem financing, this is particularly relevant where public funds and private capital are combined.

20. Case 3: Spain v Commission, T-681/22, 11 June 2025

This recent General Court case concerned EU measures identifying areas where vulnerable marine ecosystems were known or likely to occur.

Spain challenged the Commission's implementing regulation concerning deep-sea fishing areas and protective measures.

The General Court dismissed Spain's action.

Financing Relevance

This is important for banks financing fisheries.

A fishing business may own valuable vessels, but regulatory restrictions concerning vulnerable marine ecosystems can limit where and how those vessels operate.

That can affect:

projected revenue;

collateral value;

debt-service capacity; and

refinancing risk.

The case demonstrates that environmental regulation can directly affect the financial economics of marine assets.

21. Case 4: Madre Querida and Others v Commission, T-781/22

This case was decided alongside Spain v Commission concerning vulnerable marine ecosystems.

The General Court dismissed the challenge to the Commission's measures establishing protected deep-sea fishing areas.

Financing Relevance

The case illustrates the importance of environmental restrictions in assessing the future earning capacity of marine businesses.

A bank financing fishing assets should therefore consider the possibility that conservation measures may affect the business model.

This is not an argument against environmental regulation.

It is a recognition that environmental regulation can become a component of financial due diligence.

22. Case 5: Commission v Spain, C-556/18

This case concerned Spain's failure to properly update river-basin management plans for the Canary Islands under the EU Water Framework Directive.

The Court found Spain in breach of its obligations.

Marine-Finance Relevance

Water-management failures can ultimately affect coastal and marine ecosystems.

For financing projects dependent upon water quality or coastal environmental conditions, lenders need to consider the broader water-management regulatory framework.

The case illustrates that environmental obligations can operate through multiple layers:

Water Management → Coastal Environment → Marine Ecosystem → Project Risk

23. Case 6: Commission v Spain, C-331/24

In July 2025, the Court of Justice found Spain in breach of EU obligations concerning flood-risk management and water-management requirements in the Canary Islands.

Financing Relevance

Flood and water risks can affect:

coastal infrastructure;

ports;

tourism assets;

aquaculture;

wastewater systems; and

marine restoration projects.

A lender financing coastal infrastructure therefore needs to consider physical climate and water risks in addition to ordinary credit risk.

24. Case 7: Waddenzee, C-127/02

Although not a Spanish case, Waddenzee is one of the foundational EU environmental cases relevant to projects affecting protected marine areas.

The Court developed a strict approach to environmental assessment where a project may significantly affect a protected site.

Financing Relevance

A bank financing marine infrastructure should not assume that a project's environmental impact is irrelevant to its credit assessment.

If environmental assessment identifies serious uncertainty, project approvals may be delayed or conditions imposed.

This can affect:

construction schedules;

financing costs;

drawdown conditions; and

project revenues.

25. Case 8: Sweetman, C-258/11

This CJEU case concerned the protection of a site under EU nature-conservation law.

The Court examined when a project can adversely affect the integrity of a protected site.

Financing Relevance

The case is relevant to the bankability of projects near protected marine or coastal habitats.

A project requiring substantial financing may become commercially uncertain if its environmental effects threaten protected-site integrity.

Environmental assessment therefore becomes part of lender risk analysis.

26. Why the Case Law Matters to Banks

The cases reveal several important principles.

First: Environmental restrictions can affect asset value

Fishing vessels, ports and marine infrastructure derive economic value partly from their legal ability to operate.

Second: Public financing can trigger State-aid rules

The Spanish ship tax-lease cases demonstrate that government-supported maritime financing may receive EU State-aid scrutiny.

Third: Protected ecosystems create regulatory constraints

Marine-protection rules can change what commercial activities are legally possible.

Fourth: Water and climate risks affect coastal finance

Water-management failures and flood risks can affect the long-term value of marine assets.

Fifth: Environmental compliance is a financial issue

A lender therefore needs to consider environmental legality as part of project bankability.

27. Marine Conservation and Collateral

Collateral can be complicated in marine projects.

A bank might take security over:

vessels;

shares in a project company;

receivables;

equipment;

concession rights;

insurance proceeds;

bank accounts; or

contractual rights.

But the value of certain assets can depend heavily upon regulatory permissions.

For example:

Fishing Vessel + Licence + Quota

may be much more valuable than:

Fishing Vessel Alone.

If environmental regulation substantially changes the licence or quota, the value of collateral can fall.

28. Environmental Permits as Conditions Precedent

Marine project loans can use conditions precedent.

For example:

Loan Agreement Signed

but:

No Drawdown Until

environmental approval;

maritime authorisation;

construction permit;

concession;

insurance;

project contracts; and

other required approvals

are obtained.

This protects the bank against financing a project before it has a legal basis to operate.

29. Covenants

Loan agreements can also contain environmental covenants.

A borrower may be required to:

maintain environmental permits;

comply with applicable marine regulations;

report material environmental incidents;

maintain environmental insurance;

provide monitoring reports; and

notify the lender of regulatory enforcement.

A serious breach can potentially become an event of default, depending on the negotiated contract.

30. Sustainability-Linked Marine Loans

A bank could structure a sustainability-linked loan around measurable marine indicators.

For example:

Target 1: reduction in marine pollution.

Target 2: restoration of specified habitat.

Target 3: reduction in harmful fishing activity.

Target 4: improvement in independently verified ecosystem indicators.

The key legal requirement is that the targets must be sufficiently clear and measurable.

Otherwise, the sustainability feature becomes difficult to verify and creates greenwashing risk.

31. Blue Bonds and Investor Protection

If a Spanish company issues a blue bond, investors need reliable information concerning:

use of proceeds;

environmental objectives;

reporting;

risks;

project selection;

verification; and

material changes.

Misleading environmental representations can create financial and regulatory consequences.

Thus, blue finance requires both:

Environmental Integrity

and:

Financial Disclosure Integrity

32. Marine Biodiversity as a Financial Consideration

Biodiversity loss can affect businesses economically.

For example:

Declining Fish Stocks

→ lower catches

→ lower fishing-company revenue

→ weaker debt-service capacity.

Similarly:

Coastal Ecosystem Degradation

→ higher flood exposure

→ greater infrastructure damage

→ higher insurance costs

→ weaker project economics.

Banks can therefore incorporate biodiversity and ecosystem dependence into environmental and credit-risk assessment.

33. Nature-Related Financial Risk

Marine ecosystems provide services such as:

fisheries;

coastal protection;

tourism;

water purification;

carbon storage; and

habitat support.

When those services deteriorate, businesses dependent on them may suffer.

Therefore:

Nature Risk → Business Risk → Credit Risk

This creates a direct relationship between ecosystem financing and prudential banking.

34. Public-Private Partnerships

Marine restoration may be particularly suitable for public-private partnerships.

A government might provide:

land or concession rights;

grants;

procurement contracts;

guarantees; or

long-term service payments.

Private investors provide capital.

Banks provide debt.

The project company undertakes restoration or infrastructure work.

This model can transform an environmental objective into a bankable long-term financial structure.

However, the Spanish ship-finance case law demonstrates why public financial support must be assessed against EU State-aid rules where applicable.

35. Fisheries and Sustainable Finance

A sustainable-finance bank may differentiate among fisheries projects.

For example:

Project A

Uses methods consistent with applicable sustainability requirements.

Project B

Depends upon activities restricted in protected marine areas.

The second project may carry substantially greater regulatory risk.

The 2025 Spain v Commission judgment concerning vulnerable marine ecosystems demonstrates that marine-protection measures can impose meaningful restrictions on deep-sea fishing activities.

Therefore, fisheries financing cannot be based solely on the value of the vessel.

36. Coastal Resilience Finance

Spain's coastal areas face risks involving:

flooding;

erosion;

storms;

rising sea levels;

infrastructure damage; and

ecosystem degradation.

Banks can finance resilience projects such as:

wetlands restoration;

natural coastal barriers;

improved drainage;

wastewater infrastructure;

dune restoration; and

climate-resilient ports.

The legal and financial model can therefore shift from simply financing marine exploitation to financing marine resilience.

37. Insurance and Marine Finance

Insurance is important for marine projects.

A lender may require coverage for:

physical damage;

environmental liability;

construction risks;

business interruption;

marine accidents; and

other project-specific risks.

Insurance availability can materially affect the bankability of a marine project.

Environmental risk may therefore be distributed among:

Borrower + Bank + Insurer + Government + Investors

rather than borne by one party.

38. Environmental Liability

A marine project can create environmental liabilities if pollution or ecosystem damage occurs.

The lender is generally not automatically responsible merely because it provided financing.

Nevertheless, environmental liability can indirectly affect the lender because:

Environmental Damage → Project Cost → Cash-Flow Reduction → Credit Risk

Loan agreements therefore often require borrowers to maintain appropriate environmental compliance and insurance arrangements.

39. Bank's Due-Diligence Model

A Spanish bank considering marine ecosystem financing can conceptually divide due diligence into five areas.

Legal

Are all permits and authorisations available?

Environmental

Could the project damage protected ecosystems?

Financial

Are project revenues sufficient to service debt?

Regulatory

Could future environmental rules materially change the business model?

Sustainability

Are environmental claims measurable and supported by reliable evidence?

This produces a more complete picture of project bankability.

40. Interaction with EU Law

Spanish marine financing exists within a substantial EU legal framework.

Important areas include:

EU environmental law;

Common Fisheries Policy;

State-aid rules;

banking regulation;

sustainable-finance regulation;

environmental-impact rules; and

biodiversity protection.

The 2025 General Court judgment involving Spain and vulnerable marine ecosystems illustrates how EU environmental regulation can directly affect Spanish marine economic activity.

Therefore:

Spanish Marine Finance ≠ Spanish Law Alone

It operates within a broader EU legal environment.

41. Key Legal Risks for Banks

A lender financing marine projects should pay particular attention to:

Permit risk

Project authorisations may be delayed or refused.

Environmental litigation

Third parties or public authorities may challenge approvals.

Regulatory-change risk

Marine-protection requirements can evolve.

Physical climate risk

Flooding, storms and erosion can damage assets.

Resource risk

Fish stocks or other marine resources can decline.

State-aid risk

Public support can raise EU competition-law questions.

Greenwashing risk

Environmental claims may prove inaccurate.

Collateral risk

The economic value of marine assets can depend upon licences, concessions and environmental permissions.

42. Six-Core Case-Law Summary

The first two cases are particularly valuable because they involve actual maritime financing structures, while the remaining cases help establish the environmental regulatory environment in which marine financing operates.

43. Future Development of Marine Ecosystem Financing

The Spanish market could increasingly move toward financial products combining environmental objectives with conventional banking.

Potential structures include:

Blue Bonds

Marine Sustainability-Linked Loans

Coastal Resilience Loans

Sustainable Fisheries Finance

Nature-Positive Project Finance

Marine Conservation Funds

Public-Private Conservation Finance

Green Infrastructure Finance

These products could make ecosystem protection a more direct component of financial markets.

44. Conclusion

Marine ecosystem financing in Spain is an emerging intersection of banking law, environmental law, maritime law, fisheries regulation and sustainable finance rather than a separate branch of banking law.

Spanish banks can finance marine projects through ordinary loans, project finance, bonds, sustainability-linked structures and public-private arrangements. But the bankability of such projects depends heavily upon environmental permissions, marine-protection rules, resource availability and long-term ecosystem conditions.

The case law demonstrates why.

The Spanish ship tax-lease cases show that sophisticated maritime financing structures involving banks, leasing companies, investors and shipyards can raise important EU regulatory and State-aid questions.

The 2025 Spain v Commission litigation demonstrates that protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems can impose legally enforceable restrictions on deep-sea fishing.

The Commission v Spain water-management cases demonstrate that environmental obligations affecting water and flood management can have implications for coastal and marine economic activity.

The wider EU environmental jurisprudence, including Waddenzee and Sweetman, reinforces the importance of assessing projects that may affect protected ecosystems.

The central banking-law principle is therefore:

A marine project is not financially bankable merely because it is commercially profitable; it must also be legally authorised, environmentally sustainable, financially resilient and capable of surviving the regulatory conditions governing the marine environment.

For Spain, the long-term development of marine ecosystem financing will therefore depend upon bringing together prudential banking discipline, reliable environmental assessment, sustainable-finance disclosure, marine conservation and carefully structured project finance.