OpenLobby.EU
Explore

OceanCare

OC

OceanCare is an international non-governmental organisation founded in 1989 to protect and conserve marine animals and the ocean.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Raül Hernández Sagrera (Cabinet of Commissioner Dubravka Šuica)

15 Dec 2025 · Explore opportunities for cooperation under the Pact for the Mediterranean on environment and fight against climate change

Meeting with César Luena (Member of the European Parliament)

21 Oct 2025 · Decarbonization of the Mediterranean region // underwater noise

Meeting with Costas Kadis (Commissioner) and

16 Sept 2025 · Petition Handover “Because our Planet is Blue”

Response to Restrictions on bisphenol A (BPA) and other bisphenols in food contact materials

6 Mar 2024

OceanCare welcomes the Commission initiative. Since long, evidence shows that we need to limit societys exposure not just to BPA, but to all types of bisphenols. Hence, we applaud the Commissions proposal to address some other bisphenols too. In this regard, we recall the importance of EU decisions beyond its own borders. Considering the Unions position as a powerful economic block, the EU can set the example for other smaller countries, which are often hesitant to take more decisive action, precisely because they are waiting the EU to move. The shift from individual chemicals towards a more group-centred approach is promising. However, for the new regulation to be fully effective, it should be avoided for such grouping approach to remain too narrow. That is why, in addition to the promising developments set out by the draft regulation, OceanCare urges the EU to further expand the scope of other bisphenols to all those meeting category 2 CMR and EDC criteria. This is necessary to ensure a high level of protection for the public; especially as we know that data gaps are likely to remain a limiting factor in the classification of many existing bisphenols. Furthermore, the precautionary principle should be key to the use of any bisphenols. The largest array of bisphenols should be prohibited for use in food packaging, especially to avoid any exposure of particularly sensitive populations like children or pregnant women. In that sense, we also ask to harmonise and further expand the scope of the prohibition to all FCMs, rather than providing different lists for BPA and other bisphenols. Also, we warn for regrettable substitution. Although the proposed regulation would remove BPA from the list of authorised substances under Regulation 10/2011, the fact that the authorisation of BPS used in plastics would not change, creates a loophole and encourages replacement of BPA with BPS (although itself already included in CLP regulation as a Reprotoxic 1B substance). We therefore encourage the Commission to remove BPS from the list of authorised substances under Regulation 10/2011. For authorisation in very specific applications, companies then should re-apply in accordance with this new regulation. Regarding such authorisations, the Commission should introduce a review clause ensuring that if such derogations are allowed, exposure is indeed negligible. Another important aspect is the presence of bisphenols in recycled products. Today, BPA is found in recycled plastics at levels not being presented in the virgin material. More particularly, this is the case for PET bottles sold on the European market: although BPA is not intentionally used in PET production, there have been observed higher migration levels of BPA from rPET compared to virgin PET. Furthermore, in a survey carried out for the Commission, ECHA notes that paper manufacturers are already substituting BPA with BPS. As a result, there is an increasing risk that paper & board articles containing recycled material are contaminated with BPS. Considering these observations, EU authorities must ensure that contamination and migration of BPA and other bisphenols from FCMs and articles containing recycled materials does not present a risk to consumers. Accordingly, the monitoring of contamination of recycled materials should not be limited to BPA. And the current proposal of a 5% monitoring rate should only be applied after a preliminary 20% rate; only to decrease to 5% if BPA - and ideally other bisphenols like BPS, are not detected in any sampled batch within 6 months from the start of the monitoring (or counting from the previous detection of bisphenols). Finally, the current proposal which would allow business operators to sell off their remaining stocks without time limits is unacceptable. We call upon the Commission to limit the exhaustion of stock period to maximum 12 months for all FCMs and not just for single-use FCMs as currently proposed.
Read full response

Response to Review of the requirements for packaging and feasibility of measures to prevent packaging waste

24 Apr 2023

OceanCare welcomes the Commissions proposal for the revision of EU rules on packaging and packaging waste. The proposed conversion from a Directive to a Regulation is a welcome signal that the EU is willing to streamline and strengthen its actions on packaging and packaging waste. In that regard, especially the proposed waste prevention and reuse targets, and the enhanced requirements of tackling packaging waste, put forward in the proposal, or promising steps. They could incentives other European countries outside the EU, such as Switzerland, to take further action too. However, we call upon the Commission to go further. The proposal as it stands, remains vague on measures to reduce the use of packaging where such use is not strictly necessary. The preamble to the regulation indeed recognizes that unnecessary, or avoidable packaging should not be allowed to be placed on the market. Yet, the proposal for regulation does not sufficiently elaborate on this, as article 22 and Annex V to which it refers, remain as of now too limited in their scope. Furthermore, notably the level of ambition with regard to reuse and recycling should be scaled up. Targets for a.o. refill and reuse for beverages and take away as outlined in article 26 are too limited. Especially considering the increasing trend of on the on-go consumption, and the expectation of its continuous future increase, the low rates and spacious time-frame proposed risk to make these measures practically ineffective in absolute terms. Also requirements for minimum recycled content in plastic packaging deserves more ambition. Generally, the proposal still leaves too many loopholes and exemptions. This could limit its effectiveness in reversing the trend of growing levels of packaging waste, and for reducing the adverse impacts of packaging and packaging waste on the environment and human health. In this sense, it is important, that the legal basis of the proposed regulation should not just be article 114 TFEU (single market), but also article 192 TFEU (environment). In line with art. 191 TFEU, new legislation should strive to preserve, protect and improve the quality of the environment, and protect human health. It should be focused on assuring a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment (art. 3 TEU). Furthermore, in line with article 36 TFEU, or similar provisions within the relevant bilateral agreements, Member States or third-party countries should not be kept from their possibility to take provisions that go further than the proposed regulation, where they deem fit to do so in accordance with the grounds and procedures provided in this regard.
Read full response

Response to Setting the Course for a Sustainable Blue Planet -Update of the International Ocean Governance Agenda

15 Feb 2022

OceanCare very much welcomes the European Commission’s effort to review the EU’s international ocean governance agenda. The ocean is critical to our very survival and offers important ecosystem services to current and future generations. The ocean is however increasingly under threat, including from underwater noise and plastic pollution. Given the transboundary nature of contemporary threats facing the ocean, no country or any one region can tackle the challenge on its own, and therefore the EU’s international ocean governance agenda is more important than ever. Please find attached a more detail overview of what OceanCare would kindly ask the Commission to consider as it progresses in this important endeavour.
Read full response

Response to Measures to reduce microplastic pollution

17 Jan 2022

OceanCare welcomes the EC’s commitment to tackling microplastic pollution through precautionary measures and EU wide legal action. Please find below our input. A more detailed submission is attached. Transversal recommendations • Legal basis should be article 192 TFEU (environment), not 114 TFEU (single market). • Existing scientific evidence is clear: microplastics leak into the environment on a large scale. Immediate and widespread action must be taken. • Monitoring of all microplastic pollution sources is crucial. Measuring, however, should not be an objective in and of itself, but should serve as a basis for effective action. • Prevention and precaution are key. The entry of any further pollutants into the environment must be stopped without delay. • Focus should be on stringent measures, rather than on self-regulation and voluntary action. Except in words, the plastics industry has not started the shift to a more sustainable model. • Microplastics should be dealt with comprehensively. All sources should be considered and legislative fragmentation should be avoided. • A comprehensive and harmonised definition of microplastics is needed as a basis for effectively reducing emissions. • Measures should not just alleviate an otherwise growing pollution. They will only have real effect if the initial sources of pollution are reduced too. • Technical measures are not sufficient. Europe should question its continuously increasing material and energy consumption. • Pollution by (micro)plastic should be considered within a planetary boundary perspective. • The microplastic problem does not stand apart from other environmental predicaments. We have to rethink our relationship with the rest of nature and change how we see ourselves in relation to the overall web of life. Actions to tackle specific sources and issues Tyres: • In line with Reg. (EU) 2020/740, the Commission should push for a suitable testing method to measure tyre abrasion and include tyre abrasion into tyre labels. • Minimum requirement on tyre abrasion should be included in the Type approval regulation (EU) 2019/2144. • Regulation should include measures for the removal of harmful chemicals from tyres. The Commission should fund research for alternatives to problematic chemicals used in tyres. • Tyre wear relates to vehicle weight and distance travelled by car. The trend towards ever more heavy cars should be reversed and road transport reduced. • The Commission should apply a holistic approach, capturing additional sources of road related microplastic. Textiles: EU regulation should, amongst other things: • Set binding limits for microfibre release, both by consumer use and production of clothes. • Put forward eco-design requirements on microfibre release, as well as the requirement for appropriate filters for washing machines and dryers. • Raise consumer awareness through the introduction of label information on microfibre release by the garment. • New clothes emit more microfibres. Therefore, regulation should impose industrial pre-washing of textiles and garments. • Measures should be taken to deflate the galloping apparel market. Pellets: Voluntary measures can no longer be enough. Legally binding measures are needed, including: • Mandatory requirements for public disclosure of data on pellet loss. • Mandating best practices on pellets. • Independent third-party auditing of plastic resin handling operations. • Annual reporting on the overall amounts and types of pellets being used, handled, or transported and lost. • Banning plastic production - and converters facilities near Natura 2000 sites. • Furthering technical measures on the handling of pellets. • Regulation to preventing the overloading of cargo ships and to mandating the storage of pellet containers below deck. • Regulate the release of microplastics in greywater for all ships. Fishing / Bioaccumulation: • Monitor microplastic levels in wild and farmed fish and seafood.
Read full response

Meeting with Anja Hazekamp (Member of the European Parliament)

13 Jan 2022 · Ban on Fossil Fuel Exploration

Meeting with Cyrus Engerer (Member of the European Parliament)

6 Sept 2021 · Ocean Biodiversity

Response to Protecting the environment in the EU’s seas and oceans

4 May 2021

We would like to first thank the European Commission for giving OceanCare the opportunity to comment on this roadmap for review of the MSFD. Despite the fact that more than 10 years have lapsed for the implementation of the MSFD, its main objectives have not yet been reached, especially in relation to GES of EU seas by 2020. This holds particularly true in respect to D11 Introduction of energy, including underwater noise where the claim- as noted by Dr Weilgart in a separate submission in more detail- that ‘not enough is known’ continues to be used as a pretext for inaction by Member States (MS), even though the precautionary principle lies at the heart of the EU’s approach to conservation. Furthermore, MS have insufficiently acted to reduce noise emissions at a source level, which is of continued concern. We agree with the EC‘s statement that with the MSFD “the EU has a holistic and comprehensive marine policy in place that puts into practice the ecosystem-based approach to manage human activities in Europe’s seas. Importantly, it also helps in delivering key international commitments.” It is therefore indeed worrying that implementation of the MSFD has been too slow, due to limited ambition in setting definitions, targets and measures and lack of political will to adequately fund and enforce necessary measures, as well as far too limited involvement of the relevant sectors (fisheries, aquaculture, energy, transport, agriculture, etc). The development of further guidance and infringement actions should be taken to ensure better implementation and compliance with the Directive. To achieve this, it is critical to improve MS GES definitions, increase effectiveness of measures to address pressures, better coordination at MS and regional level, ensuring timely reporting, while also increasing protection, management, and enforcement of MPAs. In addition, implementation of other regulations, like the CFP, in achieving the objectives set out in Art 2.2 would be necessary in order to achieve MSFD objectives. With respect to measures, the EC should consider introducing a mechanism that promotes the implementation of best practice measures, technologies, and procedures on a regional and subregional level by and through MS. With this in mind, we welcome the EC’s ‘review’ of the MSFD. The primary goal and scope of a review should be to reach GES in EU waters as soon as possible. A revision of the MSFD itself, albeit targeted, is a lengthy process and carries the risk of causing further delays and implementation-failures as this may be used as an opportunity to refrain from taking action until the revision is concluded. Also, any attempt to simplify and reduce the administrative burden for MS must not result in a lowering of the overall level of ambition of the MSFD. OceanCare therefore supports the EC’s third option, which is to “Strengthen implementation and enforcement of the Directive without changing its provisions”. There is a need for more efficient and synergetic use of resources, including for example with resources dedicated to Natura 2000, WFD, MSP directives and the CFP. There is also a need for more effective and efficient regional cooperation and cross-sectoral management to tackle key pressures, as well as enhanced protection for marine biodiversity. It has above all become evident that stronger political will and ambition, especially by MS, is needed to achieve the objectives of the MSFD. There is a need for coherence. The Directive could be a significant contribution in delivering the EU Green Deal, the EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy, the Zero Pollution Action Plan and the forthcoming Climate Adaptation Strategy. Such alignment could be facilitated with new legislative tools for better implementation and coverage of issues currently missing without reopening the Directive. Please see attachment for supplementary information in regard to this submission (including referenced reports/publications).
Read full response

Response to Modernising the EU’s batteries legislation

26 Feb 2021

Dear Madam, Dear Sir, OceanCare welcomes the initiative of the European Commission to minimize batteries’ harmful effects on the environment and would like to seize to opportunity to provide some input to the Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL concerning batteries and waste batteries, repealing Directive 2006/66/EC and amending Regulation (EU) No 2019/1020. Please find our feedback in the attached document. Sincerely, Fabienne McLellan About OceanCare: OceanCare is a Swiss non-profit organisation. It was founded in 1989 and has a strong commitment to realistic and cooperative initiatives. The organisation works at national and international level in the areas of marine pollution, environmental changes, fisheries, whaling, sealing, captivity of marine mammals and public education. OceanCare holds Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) and is a partner of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM), the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), and the UNEP/CMS Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS), as well as UNEP/MAP. OceanCare is accredited observer at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). OceanCare has also been accredited as a Major Group to the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA), which is the governing body of UNEP and is a part of the UNEP Global Partnership on Marine Litter. www.oceancare.org
Read full response

Response to Revision of EU rules on food contact materials

29 Jan 2021

OceanCare welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the European Commission Roadmap on the revision of EU rules on Food contact Materials (FCM). Please find attached our detailed input.
Read full response

Response to Climate Law

4 Feb 2020

Europäisches Klimagesetz – bis 2050 Klimaneutralität verwirklichen Ein Europäisches Klimaschutzgesetz bietet eine einmalige Gelegenheit, die Rahmenbedingungen für die Erreichung der Klimaneutralität bis 2050, bzw. rascher, festzulegen. Einige der im European Green Deal vorgesehenen Eckpfeiler müssen mit Maßnahmen komplementiert werden, um sowohl den Schutz der marinen Artenvielfalt als auch die Zielerreichung der Gesetzesinitiative zu gewährleisten. Wir zeigen auf, dass die Reduktion von Unterwasserlärm in zumindest zwei wesentlichen, industriellen Sektoren eine effiziente Klimaschutz- sowie gleichzeitige Meeresschutzmaßnahme ist. Dekarbonisierung versus Run auf Öl und Gas: Eines der Ziele des EGD ist die Versorgung der EU mit sauberer Energie (EK: 4). Hierbei wird insbesondere die dafür notwendige „Dekarbonisierung des Energiesystems“ (EK: 6) hervorgehoben. Gänzlich fehlt bislang jedoch das verbindliche Auslaufen der Suche nach fossilen Brennstoffen. Die Suche nach Öl- und Gasvorkommen im Meeresboden nimmt in einigen europäischen Regionen, z.B. in südosteuropäischen Gewässern im Mittelmeer, sogar zu. Forderung: Ein europäisches Klimaschutzgesetz muss ein unmittelbar umzusetzendes Verbot der Suche nach neuen Öl- und Gasvorkommen am Meeresboden in europäischen Gewässern, sowie einen rechtsverbindlichen Ausstieg aus der Förderung von Öl und Gas aus bestehenden Lagerstätten (Phase-Out). Eine solche Maßnahme ist komplementär zu bestehenden EU-Rechtsakten, die den Schutz mariner Arten vor Lärmbelastung (EU-FFH-Richtlinie), sowie eine Reduktion von Unterwasserlärm zur Erreichung eines guten Umweltzustands der Meere (Meeresrahmenrichtlinie) vorsehen. Die bei der Suche nach Öl- und Gasvorkommen im Einsatz befindlichen Schallkanonen gehören zu den am lautesten vom Menschen erzeugten Lärmquellen. Die negativen Auswirkungen von intensivem Unterwasserlärm sind mehrfach belegt und betreffen die gesamte Artenvielfalt, inkl. Zooplankton - die Basis des gesamten marinen Nahrungsnetzes, sowie kommerziell genutzte Fischarten. Reduktion von CO2 als auch Unterwasserlärm-Emissionen seitens der Schifffahrt Der EGD thematisiert die Reduktion von Treibhausgasemissionen im Verkehrssektor und nennt hierbei explizit die Schifffahrt. Um Klimaneutralität zu erreichen sollen die verkehrsbedingten Emissionen um 90% gesenkt werden (EK: 12). Zielt die aktuelle Diskussion vermehrt auf technische Erneuerungen und alternative Treibstoffe ab, so urgieren wir, eine Verringerung der Geschwindigkeit auf den Wasserstraßen rechtsverbindlich vorzusehen. Eine Reduktion der Fahrtgeschwindigkeit bei Transportschiffen führt zu einer Reduktion der Emission von Treibhausgasen und von Unterwasserlärm. Jüngere Berechnungen kalkulieren für eine 10%igen Geschwindigkeitsreduktion der globalen Transportschifffahrtsflotte eine Reduktion der Treibhausgase um 13% dieses Sektors, sowie eine Lärmreduktion um 40% (R. Leaper 2019). Maßnahmen, die den gesamten ökologischen Fußabdruck der Schifffahrt reduzieren, und somit eine Senkung der Treibhausgase mit der Senkung von Lärmemissionen verknüpfen, sind notwendig. Blue Economy, inklusive Forcierung erneuerbarer Energieproduktion in marinen Gebieten Um Dekarbonisierung voranzutreiben, wird die Entwicklung eines weitgehend auf erneuerbaren Energieträgern gestützten Energiesektors und die sogenannte „Blue Economy“ forciert. Begleitend muss die Anwendung von Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungen (UVPs) vorgeschrieben sein und auch für in Entwicklung befindliche, nicht erprobte Technologien gelten, die im Zuge der Blue Economy Entwicklung einen Aufschwung erleben und entfalten. Die hier dargelegten Maßnahmen und Forderungen unterstützen die Erreichung der Nachhaltigen Entwicklungsziele der Agenda 2030, insbesondere SDG 13 und SDG 14.
Read full response

Response to Review of ecodesign requirements for household washing machines and washer-driers

19 Feb 2018

OceanCare welcomes this European Commission initiative and the invitation being extended to provide comment. We particularly welcome the recognition by the Commission that the eco-design and energy labelling of washing machines and washer-driers will contribute to the use of less energy and thus contribute to cleaner air and more ecological water consumption. We welcome the assessment of policy options in view of proposals for revised regulations. However, considering the tiny plastic particles (fibres) washed off products such as synthetic clothes, which are adding to the plastic pollution of rivers, lakes and the world’s oceans, we wish to highlight that the absence of this aspect is a concerning omission from the proposed initiative and means that alignment to the EU plastic strategy is also missing. According to the IUCN report Primary microplastics in the oceans, between 15 and 31% of the estimated 9.5 m tonnes of plastic released into the oceans each year could be primary microplastics, almost two-thirds of which come from the washing of synthetic textiles (but also the abrasion of tyres while driving). As an overarching comment OceanCare strongly recommends ‘Option 4’ as the preferred policy option and for the ‘increased ambition’ for washing machine eco design requirements to include a broader objective of contributing towards reduction and elimination of marine debris and micro plastics via the inclusion of a criteria for a filter which prevents microfibres entering the waterways. Objectives and Policy Options (Section B) It is important that the objectives and policy options presented take all aspects for an eco-design and energy labelling into consideration. In particular, we advocate for the impact assessment to adopt Option 4 as the preferred option, under which a new requirement relating to a criteria for filters to prevent the release of microfibres into the waterways should be included. The addition of this requirement would ensure that this initiative aligns with the EU’s Plastic Strategy and contributes towards Sustainable Development Goal 14 (SDG14), and specifically target 14.1 which aims for a significant reduction of marine pollution of all kinds by 2025. Preliminary Assessment of Expected Impacts (Section C) Consideration of “likely environmental impacts” should take into account the existing negative impacts of fibres from synthetic clothes being released into the waterways via washing machines , which can be prevented by filters. The inclusion of the requirement for appropriate filters is expected to reduce microplastic introduction into waterways considerably as also stated by the MERMAIDS Life+ project.
Read full response

Response to Reducing marine litter: action on single use plastics and fishing gear

11 Jan 2018

Oceancare welcomes this Initiative and we strongly agree that urgent action at EU Level is necessary and that dedicated regulatory action at EU level to tackle marine litter is needed. Our detailed feedback is provided in the attached file, however these are our summarised key points: To transition towards a circular economy approach for tackling ocean plastic, an overarching objective to reduce or even eliminate single use plastic must be made explicitly clear within this initiative and the importance of the circular economy approach to the EU should be more clearly stated within the context setting section. There are clear precedents already in place within the EU to move towards regulating single use plastic. The international imperative to urgently address the marine litter issue should be included and maintained within the context of creating any EU legislative measures. It should be explicitly acknowledged that marine litter is a priority issue at UN level and that international strategies and targets exist which this EU Initiative should be striving to contribute to. Throughout the document the significance of the impacts on marine species, particularly with regards to animal welfare and conservation impacts, is grossly underplayed. It is not sufficient to cover such specific and significant impacts under the broad scope of ‘environmental impacts’ because the most harmful types of marine litter from an animal welfare and conservation perspective may be different from those that are the most harmful to the broader environment. Several sources of marine plastics are omitted but should be considered for inclusion, such as microplastics in cosmetic and household products, microplastics originating from textiles or clothing, plastic resin pellets and fragments and rubber dust from car tyre abrasion. The description of the problem and the potential approach for dealing with Abandoned, Lost or otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear (ALDFG) is significantly more vague and lacks detail in comparison with the sections focussed on single use plastic. The eventual initiative must adequately and comprehensively address the matter of ALDFG which makes up a significant proportion of marine litter and represents some of the most harmful types of litter in terms of animal welfare and conservation impacts. In terms of policy options, OceanCare recommends that increased emphasis is placed on the role of market forces, the private sector and implementing regulatory approaches that would support an economic as well as an environmental approach to tackling this issue since a lack of economic incentives could be a barrier to change within key sectors. Extended Producer Responsibility, bans on the worst types of single use plastic, classification of plastic according to its hazardousness, stricter regulations on the transport of plastic resin pellets, the creation of economic incentives targeting consumption such as mandatory fees, improved legislation regarding the labelling of plastic items and their chemical components are just some examples of regulatory measures that should be considered within this initiative. Circular Economy tools also play a critical role in reducing ALDFG, in particular via increasing recycling possibilities and access for end-of-life fishing gear, creating incentives which add economic value to end of life fishing gear and regulating the role that fishing gear manufactures might play through Extended Producer Responsibly schemes. The complex nature of the ALDFG problem must be reflected and a holistic regulatory framework for fishing gear management throughout its life-cycle considered. Mandatory measuring and monitoring of the plastic marine litter problem by Member States should be implemented. It is vital that accurate baselines and targets are established and that the effectiveness of interventions can be monitored at both a national and EU-wide level.
Read full response

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.
Read full response