Danish Society for a Living Sea
LLH
Working for a sustainable use of the ressources in the oceans
ID: 276501014481-16
Lobbying Activity
Response to Interservice consultation on a Commission proposal for the GES Decision
10 Oct 2016
We would like to bring to your attention some fundamental improvements that are still needed to ensure that the revised Decision leads to a more effective implementation of the MSFD.
We recognise that the proposed draft Decision is an improvement upon Decision 2010/477/EU by providing for a clearer and simpler approach to the determination and assessment of GES. We welcome the greater importance given to regional and EU-level processes, increasing chances of a coherent implementation of the MSFD. However, we are concerned that the search for clarity and simplicity risks lowering the overall level of ambition of the Directive. We therefore urgently request you to consider the following:
1. Include a clear safeguard mechanism for the setting of threshold values: The revised Decision relies extensively on the setting of ‘threshold values’ as the intrinsic mechanism by which Member States are to determine GES. In the present text, there is neither an independent process that is established to recommend these values, nor is the European Commission empowered to review and agree to these values. Furthermore, Member States are left to put forward these values without any clear guidance on timeline. The use of the expression ‘as soon as possible’ leaves far too much room for interpretation and a cut-off date is essential to ensure that Member States do not indefinitely delay doing so. Finally, the application of the precautionary principle, as per Article 4(1), should also apply at national level and not just at regional/EU level, reflecting the potential risks to the marine environment, the need to be consistent across different criteria when they relate to the same ecosystem element, and the necessity to make use of best available science.
2. Include a control mechanism in case Member States decide not to use secondary criteria: The current text gives a large degree of discretion to Member States in the selection and use of secondary criteria. This is not compensated by an appropriate control mechanism that would guarantee that this selection is made in the circumstances foreseen by the Decision, i.e. as complement to a primary criterion or when the marine environment is at risk of not achieving or not maintaining GES. This is particularly worrying when considering that certain Descriptors are now covered only by secondary criteria. At least, Member States should be required to provide the Commission with a justification for their selection, as is foreseen in Article 3(1) for the primary criteria.
3. Ensure that the revised Decision is fully coherent with other EU policies and objectives: Inconsistencies have been identified, which are extremely worrying at this late stage in the process. Specifically, the language used for criterion D3C1 on fishing mortality needs to be brought in line with the language used in Article 2(2) of the CFP Regulation. We also strongly object to the possibility given to Member States to define a ‘maximum allowable extent’ of habitat loss under criteria D6C4 and D6C5. Allowing Member States to set an acceptable level of habitat loss is contrary to the spirit of the Directive, as well as to the ‘Not Net Loss’ objective of the EU Biodiversity Strategy and the objective of the Convention on Biological Diversity to halt biodiversity loss.
Finally, we have come to understand that the ongoing public consultation is a mere ticking box exercise without any scope for the responses to be taken on board in the final text. While we appreciate the efforts made by the Commission to organise in March 2016 a stakeholder consultation involving the observers of the MSCG, this cannot be seen as a replacement for an open public consultation. We request an evaluation of how the feedback collected during the public consultation is reflected in the final Decision.
You will find our more detailed comments at: http://seas-at-risk.org/images/pdf/Other_pdfs/NGO_comments_GES_decision_Oct2016.pdf
Read full response