Marine Conservation Society
MCS
Our seas are under immense pressure – too many fish are being taken out, too much rubbish is being thrown in and not enough is being done to protect our marine wildlife , habitats and fish stocks.The Marine Conservation Society is the UK charity dedicated to protecting our seas, shores and wildlife.
ID: 832756518540-09
Lobbying Activity
Response to Interservice consultation on a Commission proposal for the GES Decision
12 Oct 2016
We recognise that the European Commission is attempting to help Member States by providing for a clearer and simpler approach to the determination and assessment of GES under the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive. However, we are concerned that the search for clarity and simplicity involves lowering the overall level of ambition of the Directive, probably following pressure from some Member States. We therefore urgently request you to re-consider the following:
1. Setting of threshold values, especially for habitats: The revised Decision relies extensively on the setting of ‘threshold values’ as the intrinsic mechanism by which Member States are to determine GES. We strongly object to the proposal for Member States to set thresholds for habitats defined as 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 objectives 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. This is the first time as far as we are aware that the EU and Member States have considered approving habitat damage and it sets a very dangerous precedent. For example at the present the Biodiversity objectives for saltmarsh, maerl, seagrass etc are "no net loss". If instead they are set at 10% then this would permit numerous damaging developments at the expense of these habitats biodiversity. So these thresholds and 'maximum allowable extent of habitat loss' would lead to MSFD resulting in more damage than prior to it's conception.
In the present text on thresholds, 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. 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.
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.
Finally, we understand that this public consultation is a mere ticking box exercise and the responses will not be taken on board in the final text. While we appreciate that the Commission organised a consultation in March 2016 of observers of the MSCG, this cannot be seen as a replacement for an open public consultation where organisation like MCS can respond. We therefore request an evaluation of how the feedback collected during the public consultation is reflected in the final Decision.
You will find more detailed comments by our partner organisation Seas at Risk at: http://seas-at-risk.org/images/pdf/Other_pdfs/NGO_comments_GES_decision_Oct2016.pdf
Read full response