Revision of Decision 2010/477/EU 18th meeting of Marine Strategy Coordination Group 7 April 2016, Brussels Revision of Decision 2010/477/EU European Commission DG Environment Marine Environment and Water Industry Unit

MSCG comments Consultation of MSCG in lieu of "feedback mechanism" Section No. of comments (total) General 277 D1 188 D2 29 D3 151 D4 31 D5 132 D6 131 D7 36 D8 95 D9 23 D10 133 D11 89 Part C 17 Annex III 61 Total 1393 Broader participation at MSCG General or descriptor- specific Including MS & stakeholder comments Consultation of MSCG in lieu of "feedback mechanism" Over 1300 comments 9 stakeholders 15 Member States Comments still being looked into Latecomers Non-use of template

No. of comments (Member States) No. of comments (stakeholders) Section No. of comments (total) No. of comments (Member States) No. of comments (stakeholders) No. of comments (Commission) General 277 194 67 16 D1 188 131 57   D2 29 23 6 D3 151 40 59 52 D4 31 8 D5 132 101 D6 48 34 49 D7 36 26 5 D8 95 68 20 7 D9 1 D10 133 92 27 14 D11 89 Part C 17 15 2 Annex III 61 Total 1393 890 358 145

Structure of decision Recitals Rationale & concepts explained Articles and general provisions Annex PART A  'pressure and impact' descriptors Annex PART B  'state' descriptors Annex PART C  spatial aspects Rationale & concepts explained Relevant definitions Relevant general principles

General elements from comments (MSCG + Committee) Links with other legislation Maturity of science Spatial extent One out – all out Legal considerations Regional/sub-regional cooperation Setting of thresholds Use of criteria Timeline Flexibility Cost & administrative burdens Risk-based approach

… however not all are common or understood in the same way…

Threshold values definition ‘Threshold values’ means the value, values or ranges of values [established at Union, international, regional or subregional level] which define the quality level to be achieved for the criterion. - How have we defined thresholds? (see definition) - Looking at the decision, 4 types of threshold values emerge: Those already set in existing legislation Those that are defined through this decision Those that require defining by MS in a regional or sub-regional process/context Those that require defining together with MS within the CIS context (e.g. litter or noise) - Thresholds are there to ensure consistency and comparability and assess extent to which GES is achieved. - They can take into account regional or subregional specifities

Thresholds Phased approach to allow for scientific developments Precautionary principle More lenient requirement if data is lacking Links with regional/sub-regional levels appreciated Consider ranges when values cannot be found Links with Part C (spatial extent) One out – all out Scientific knowledge Difficulty in using regional /sub-regional mechanisms Decision may not set mandatory threshold values Implications for other policy areas 2018: cannot be set/ consider trends/ realistic Should not be established by MS unilaterally

Timeline Solution: Article 3(4) amended "Article 3(4): Where the Annex to this Decision provides for Member States to establish threshold values or list of elements at regional or subregional level, this shall be done in time for the first review of their initial assessment and determination of good environmental status in accordance with point (a) of Article 17(2) of Directive 2008/56/EC, i.e. by 15 July 2018. [In exceptional circumstances, Member States may only establish these threshold values at regional or subregional level for the second review of their initial assessment and determination of good environmental status in accordance with point (a) of Article 17(2) of Directive 2008/56/EC, i.e. by 15 July 2024, provided the reasons for the delay are duly justified to the Commission in the notification made pursuant to Article 9(2) or 17(3) of Directive 2008/56/EC.]"

Risk-based approach This Decision should allow sufficient flexibility to Member States when determining their good environmental status. This flexibility is underpinned by different concepts in this Decision. First, Member States should be able to consider that some of the criteria are not appropriate, provided this is duly justified. Secondly, a risk-based approach should be introduced in some criteria, by which Member States may decide not to consider certain elements or may focus monitoring on certain matrices, provided this is based on a risk-assessment. Finally, criteria are further labelled as primary or secondary in this Decision. While primary criteria should be used to ensure consistency across the Union, flexibility is introduced with regard to secondary criteria, which can either substitute or complement primary criteria, or be used where there is a possibility of risk not covered by the primary criteria.

Risk-based approach Embed risk-based approach in main provisions Compatibility with spatial extent questioned Define risk assessment Possibility to not use certain criteria should be more general Use of approach needs to be made clearer Not only for exceptional circumstances – should apply in all cases How and under what circumstances it can be used Should help focus on main problems Does not provide enough flexibility to regions

Cost & administrative burdens Subregional features & characteristics – flexibility Regional approach crucial Use of RSCs reduces costs and admin burdens Additional monitoring and reporting costs Implications for other sectors Socio-economic implications in peripheral regions

Criteria Primary criteria - ensure consistency across the Union Secondary criteria Substitute/complement primary criteria Risk not covered by primary criteria Possibility not to use criteria in exceptional & duly justified circumstances

Criteria Separation of pressure/impact & state criteria (Part A - Part B) One out-all out should be explicitly mentioned Standardised methods Exclusion of criteria – should be made at regional level for coherence Criteria should not be detailed to allow for different circumstances Make it easier to exclude criteria - Not only for “exceptional circumstances” Use of primary & secondary criteria Acknowledge that gaps still need to be filled

Regional/sub-regional cooperation Reduction in duplications Reduction of administrative effort Need of stronger wording for use of RSCs (not “endeavour”) Implications for future work of & outcomes from RSCs Need of more flexibility – subregional characteristics & features Important structures for setting threshold values .

Process 4 Committee meetings planned Elements of text sent to MSCG 27.01 01/02.03 19/20.05 14/15.06 4 Committee meetings planned Elements of text sent to MSCG MSCG meeting 07.04.2016 Commission feedback on stakeholders' comments Adoption November 2016 What will we do with these comments? We are now looking into each and every one of them. We are treating all equally – be they comments made through the committee process or through MSCG. We will provide feedback, the way we provided feedback to the Committee following Version 1 of the text. The Commission was to put in place a so-called "feedback mechanism" but this was not aligned with the timeline of this decision (would not have been technically available), hence why we held the consultation with MSCG. The planning announced to the Committee largely remains the same If need be planning will be updated at the next committee meeting Thank you.