1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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.]"

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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 .

16. 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
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.