Back-to-back evaluation and impact assessment for the review of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC)
Date: 2022-01-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy

Public consultation as part of 
the review of the Marine 
Strategy Framework Directive 
(MSFD)  

Summary of results  

December 2021 

Disclaimer: This document should be regarded solely as a summary of the contributions made 
by stakeholders during the public consultation on the review of EU rules for the protection of 
the marine environment  (MSFD review). It cannot  in  any circumstances be regarded as the 
official  position  of  the  Commission  or  its  services.  Responses  to  the  consultation  activities 
cannot be considered as a representative sample of the view of the EU population. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS..................................................................................... 4 

1.1.  Respondent groups ....................................................................................... 4 

2. 

PART I: GENERAL QUESTIONS ................................................................................. 8 

2.1.  Your perception about Europe’s seas ............................................................... 8 
2.2.  The building blocks of the MSFD ................................................................... 10 

3. 

PART II: SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ............................................................................. 15 

3.1.  Good environmental status .......................................................................... 15 
3.2.  Use of resources ......................................................................................... 20 
International dimension ............................................................................... 22 
3.3. 
3.4.  Policy coherence ......................................................................................... 23 
3.5.  Added value of the MSFD ............................................................................. 26 
3.6.  Potential improvements of the MSFD ............................................................. 29 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1: Stakeholders by type (n = 205) ............................................................................... 4 

Figure 2: Types of stakeholders by country of origin (n = 205) ................................................. 5 

Figure 3: Scope and level of governance of public authorities by country of origin (n = 30) .......... 6 

Figure 4: Organisation size by stakeholder group (n = 117)...................................................... 6 

Figure 5: Privacy setting by stakeholder group (n = 205) ......................................................... 7 

Figure 6: Overall, in your opinion, what is the state of Europe’s marine environment? (n = 202) ... 8 

Figure 7: Overall, how do you think the state of Europe’s marine environment has changed in the 
last decade? (n = 199) ................................................................................................. 9 

Figure 8: What are you ready to do to improve the health of the marine environment? (n = 205) 10 

Figure 9: How important do you consider the following specific objectives of the MSFD? ............. 11 

Figure 10: How important are, in your opinion, the following aspects when considering if the marine 
environment is in a good state? .................................................................................... 12 

Figure 11: For those aspects considered “not at all important”, why is this? (n = 32) .................. 13 

Figure 12: Do you think your country would have developed a national marine strategy without the 
MSFD? (n = 200) ........................................................................................................ 13 

Figure 13: To what extent do you find that the MSFD has contributed or led to the following (intended) 
benefits in EU Member States? ..................................................................................... 15 

Figure 14: Do you think that the concept of good environmental status is the correct one to steer the 
MSFD? (n = 146) ........................................................................................................ 16 

Figure  15:  Should  Member  States  continue  to  set  the  characteristics  and  the  boundaries  for  the 
determination of good environmental status in their marine waters? (n = 147)................... 17 

Figure 16: According to you, how important are the following potential obstacles? ..................... 18 

2 

 
 
Figure 17: If the  MSFD  2020  deadline  to  achieve good environmental status were changed, what 
should it be? (n = 147) ................................................................................................ 19 

Figure 18: What do you base your previous answer on? (n = 64) ............................................. 19 

Figure 19: In your opinion, what are the actual costs of implementing the MSFD? (n = 145) ....... 20 

Figure 20: Do you think the benefits and added value of the MSFD justify the efforts (costs) spent 
implementing it? (n = 145) .......................................................................................... 21 

Figure 21: In your view, has there been sufficient resources invested to implement the MSFD?.... 21 

Figure 22: In your opinion, has the MSFD contributed to strengthen the coordination to manage the 
marine environment within each marine region? ............................................................. 22 

Figure 23: In your opinion, are the Regional Sea Conventions sufficiently aligned with the MSFD to 
be important contributors to its implementation? ............................................................ 23 

Figure 24: In your opinion, are there any significant gaps, overlaps or inconsistencies between the 
MSFD and the following EU environmental legislation/policies? (n = 205) ........................... 24 

Figure 25: In your opinion, are there any significant gaps, overlaps or inconsistencies between the 
MSFD and the following sectoral EU policies? (n = 205) ................................................... 25 

Figure 26: How important is it to get stronger mutual support between the MSFD and the legislation 
and policies in the following sectors? ............................................................................. 26 

Figure 27: How important do you consider the MSFD to maintaining a dedicated EU framework for 
the integrated protection and sustainable use of the marine environment? (n = 144) .......... 27 

Figure  28:  In  your  opinion,  how  important  is  the  MSFD  contribution  (alone)  to  the  following 
achievements? ........................................................................................................... 28 

Figure 29: Has the MSFD been an important instrument to strengthen collaboration and cooperation 
to protect Europe’s marine waters? ............................................................................... 29 

Figure 30: What do you think should happen with the MSFD? (n = 141).................................... 30 

Figure 31: What is your level of support of the following actions, should they be taken in the future? 
(n = 205) .................................................................................................................. 31 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS  

1.1.  RESPONDENT GROUPS  

In  total,  205  respondents  participated in  the  public  consultation.  The  largest  group  that 
replied  to  the  questionnaire  were  individual  EU  citizens  (87),  representing  42%  of  the 
respondents. The remaining stakeholders mostly replied on behalf of an organisation, with 
the main ones being NGOs (36) and public authorities (30).  

Trade unions (3) and non-EU citizens (1) also filled in the consultation. Figure 1 shows the 
distribution of stakeholders by type1.  

Figure 1: Stakeholders by type2 (n = 205) 

Trade union; 3

Non-EU citizen; 1

Company/business 
organisation; 9

Business 
association; 11

Environmental 
organisation; 11

Academic/research 
institution; 17

EU citizen; 87

Public authority; 30

Non-governmental 
organisation (NGO); 
36

1.1.1.  Distribution by country  

The  consultation  received  replies  from  25  countries,  with  nearly  all  responses  (98%) 
coming from within the EU3. The largest groups originated from France (45), Germany (31) 
and Belgium (28). Stakeholders from France and Germany comprised mostly of EU citizens, 
whereas NGOs and business associations made up the bulk of the Belgian replies. 

1 For the  purposes of the analysis, and in  view of consistent stakeholder grouping, respondents’ answers  were 

scanned for errors and inconsistencies, and corrected where relevant.  

2 Originally, 5 respondents replied ‘Other’. However, as some appeared to correspond to existing types, these were 

moved into the relevant groups.  

3 Replies were received from all Member States except Bulgaria, Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary and Slovakia. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Responses from non-EU countries came from the UK (2), Switzerland, and Brazil (1 each). 
NGOs and EU citizens were represented most widely among the various Member States. 
Figure 2 presents the types of stakeholders by country of origin. 

Figure 2: Types of stakeholders by country of origin (n = 205) 

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

2

7

2
1

12

1
2

3

5

3

17

1
1
3

4

2

1

1
1

6

1

5

1
1
1
2

3

1
1
1
1

1
1

AT BE CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES

1
1
1

FI

2
1
2

4

2

3

31

1
2
2
2

8

2
1
2

1
1
1

1
1

6

1
2

1
3

2
2
1

1

2

3

4

2

1

1

1

1

1

1
1

FR HR IE

IT

LT MT NL PL PT RO SE

SI BR CH UK

EU citizen

Public authority

Non-governmental organisation (NGO)

Academic/research institution

Environmental organisation

Business association

Company/business organisation

Trade union

Non-EU citizen

1.1.2.  Public authorities 

Out of all public authorities that responded to the questionnaire (30), the majority had a 
national (13) and regional (12) scope. Most originated from Spain, Portugal (6 each), and 
Germany (5). 

Figure 3 shows the scope and level of governance of public authorities by country of origin. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3: Scope and level of governance of public authorities by country of origin (n = 30) 

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

1

2

2

DE

1

EE

1

EL

1

4

1

ES

1

BE

1

CZ

1

1

FR

1

HR

1

1

IT

1

FI

1

MT

5

1

PT

1

1

SE

International

National Authority

National Agency

Regional Authority

Local

No answer

1.1.3.  Organisation size 

From all of the respondents that replied on behalf of an organisation (117), the sizes were 
distributed relatively evenly. Figure 4 presents the organisation size by stakeholder group. 

Exploring  the  stakeholders  in  more  detail,  NGOs  typically  consisted  of  1-49  employees, 
whilst public authorities were generally medium to large with 50+ employees. 

Figure 4: Organisation size by stakeholder group (n = 117) 

Non-governmental organisation (NGO)

2

3

Public authority

15

18

16

6

5

Academic/research institution

8

4

Environmental organisation

Business association

Company/business organisation

3

1

1

1

1

Trade union

4

5

3

3

4

4

4

4

1

1

Total

30

18

36

33

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Large (250 or more)

Medium (50 to 249 employees)

Small (10 to 49 employees)

Micro (1 to 9 employees)

1.1.4.  Privacy 

Just over half of the responses (51%) were given anonymously.  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5 presents the privacy settings selected by the different stakeholders. NGOs often 
gave their answers publicly, whereas citizens, public authorities and companies tended to 
reply anonymously. 

Figure 5: Privacy setting by stakeholder group (n = 205) 

EU citizen

Non-governmental organisation (NGO)

7

Public authority

Academic/research institution

Environmental organisation

Business association

Company/business organisation

Trade union

Non-EU citizen

53

18

8

4

4

29

34

12

9

7

7

7

2

1

2

1

Total

104

101

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Anonymous

Public

1.1.5. Respondent coordination  

A total of 26 respondents appeared to have coordinated their responses, based on similar 
responses to open questions. However, the responses were not identical across the entire 
survey,  and  the  decision  was  made  to  analyse  these  responses  together  with  other 
responses.  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.  PART I: GENERAL QUESTIONS  

2.1.  YOUR PERCEPTION ABOUT EUROPE’S SEAS  

■  Overall, in your opinion, what is the state of Europe’s marine environment? 

Most  respondents  (74%)  had  an  unfavourable  opinion  of  the  state  of  Europe’s  marines, 
stating that the seas are ‘not good’. EU citizens (72) and NGOs (34) made up the largest 
share  with  this  view,  whilst  100%  of  the  environmental  organisations  (10)  agreed  with 
this. 

Nearly 23% (46 respondents) replied that they are ‘acceptable’. Only 2% rated Europe’s 
marine  environment  as 
‘very  good’,  consisting  of  two  public  authorities,  one 
academic/research institution and one business association. It is notable that over half of 
the  public  authorities  (53%)  and  a  significant  share  of  academic/research  institutions 
(41%) had a relatively positive view.  

Figure 6: Overall, in your opinion, what is the state of Europe’s marine environment? (n = 
202) 

EU citizen

Non-governmental organisation (NGO)

72

34

Public authority

13

Academic/research institution

Environmental organisation

Business association

Company/business organisation

Trade union

Non-EU citizen

Total

10

5

4

1

10

1

15

2

2

1

1

1

1

14

6

2

2

5

150

46

2
4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Not good

Acceptable

Very good

Don’t know

■  Overall, how  do  you  think  the  state  of  Europe’s  marine  environment  has 

changed in the last decade? 

When  asked  about  how  the  state  of  Europe’s  marine  environment  has  developed  over 
recent years, a similar response was received. Overall, 60% of all stakeholders (120) said 
it  has  worsened,  whereas  over  a  quarter  of  the  respondents  (53)  replied  that  it  has 
improved. Most environmental organisations (90%), EU citizens (76%) and NGOs (75%) 
thought  it  has  worsened  in  the  last  decade,  whilst  the  majority  of  academic/research 
institutions  (71%)  and  public  authorities  (70%)  had  seen  either  no  change  or  an 
improvement of Europe’s marine environment.  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In the business sector, opinions were divided over this question. Furthermore, trade unions 
were of the opinion that it has improved to some extent, but one non-EU citizen thought it 
has worsened to a large extent. 

Figure 7: Overall, how do you think the state of Europe’s marine environment has changed 
in the last decade? (n = 199) 

EU citizen

Non-governmental organisation (NGO)

Public authority

Academic/research institution

Environmental organisation

Business association

Company/business organisation

Trade union

Non-EU citizen

51

21

4

8

8

8

4

1

1

1

1

3

2

3

2

1

14

6

5

14

1

1

8

11

8

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

3

Total

83

37

21

50

3

5

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Worsened to a large extent Worsened to some extent

No change

Improved to some extent

Improved to a large extent

Don’t know

■  What are your 3 major concerns when you think about Europe’s seas? 
Respondents provided a  variety of  responses to this open question. Almost all identified 
pollution (including plastic, microplastic, and chemical pollution, as well as pollution from 
shipping, land-based activities, tourism, and other human activities), climate change, and 
overfishing/fishing  activities.  Biodiversity  and  ecosystem  degradation  was  another 
common  concern.  Other  responses  included  a  lack  of  political  will,  lack  of  enforcement, 
coherence or implementation of existing legislation, and lack of knowledge.  

■  What are the 3 major positive things that you attach to or you enjoy from 

Europe’s seas? 

Respondents also provided a wide range of responses to this question. The most common 
responses referred to the natural beauty of the marine environment; its rich biodiversity; 
cultural aspects; the opportunities for recreation; and its role in mitigating climate change. 
Other  responses  referred  to  the  resources  it  offers,  including  food,  energy  production, 
economic benefits and other ecosystem services. Transport was also mentioned by several 
respondents.  

Some  respondents  focused  more  on  marine  management,  highlighting  (among  other 
things)  success  with  regard  to  improved  (regional)  cooperation,  increased  fish  stocks, 
reduced contaminants and/or improved water quality, new legislation and marine protected 
areas, as well as an increase in knowledge and research projects.  

■  What are you ready to do to improve the health of the marine environment? 

The most often proposed measure was to buy less plastic; 78% of total respondents (159) 
mentioned this. Other behavioural changes often selected were to buy ‘greener’ products 
(69%) and to reduce energy consumption and/or switch to renewable energy (68%).  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
More  respondents  answered  that  they  would  choose  sustainable  (shell)fish  (67%) 
compared to choosing sustainable meat, vegetables and fruits, or eat less fish and meat 
(57%).  

At the end of the spectrum, relaying concerns to political representatives (53%) and paying 
for ecotourism alternatives, taxes or fees (52%) received slightly fewer positive responses.  

Figure 8: What are you ready to do to improve the health of the marine environment? (n 
= 205) 

Buy less plastic

Buy "greener" products

Reduce energy consumption and/or switch to renewable
energy

Choose sustainable fish and shellfish

Change your travel and/or commuting habits

Pay more in function of the polluting content of 
products (‘polluter pays’ principle)

Sponsor nature conservation or restoration

Eat less fish and meat

Choose sustainable meat, vegetables and fruits

Relay your concerns to political representatives

Pay for ecotourism alternatives, taxes or fees

78%

69%

68%

67%

61%

58%

58%

57%

57%

53%

52%

Other

32%

Nothing

0,5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2.2.  THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE MSFD 

■  Achieving good environmental status is not the only objective of the MSFD. 
How  important  do  you  consider  the  following  specific  objectives  of  the 
MSFD? 

Overall,  the  respondents  considered  all  of  the  listed  MSFD  objectives  to  be  valuable:  at 
least 94% of all respondents believed these objectives are ‘moderately important’ or ‘very 
important’. 

Respondents mainly considered the following objectives to be very important: to prevent 
and reduce pollution in the marine environment (95%), to protect and preserve the marine 
environment (93%), and to prevent deterioration and restore marine ecosystems (93%). 
Another objective considered ‘very important’ is to achieve or maintain good environmental 
status (89%). 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 9: How important do you consider the following specific objectives of the MSFD? 

Protect and preserve the marine environment (n = 204)

Prevent deterioration and restore marine ecosystems (n
= 203)
Prevent and reduce pollution in the marine environment
(n = 203)
Establish a strong and integrated framework to protect
the marine environment (n = 203)

Integrate and expand the knowledge on the marine
environment (n = 199)

Foster joint (EU-level and/or regional) concrete action to
protect and improve the marine environment (n = 200)
Strengthen regional (cross-border) coordination (n =
203)
Achieve or maintain good environmental status (n =
201)

190

189

192

160

151

160

149

179

12

2

13

1

1
10

30

3
10

38

7

3

32

3
1
4

44

3
1
6

16

6

Very important

Moderately important

Slightly important

Not at all important

Don't know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

■  To help Member States interpret what good environmental status means in 
practice,  the  MSFD  sets  out  eleven  aspects  (called  ‘descriptors’)  which 
characterise  the  condition  of  and  the  pressures  on  the  marine 
environment.  How  important  are,  in  your  opinion,  the  following  aspects 
when considering if the marine environment is in a good state? 

When  deciding  whether  the  marine  environment  is  in  a  good  state,  almost  94%  of  the 
respondents  deemed  the  state  of  marine  biodiversity  to  be  a  very  important  descriptor. 
After that, the most important aspect was the levels of contaminants and their pollution 
effects, with 89% thinking this is very important.  

Relatively,  a  number  of  descriptors  receive  smaller  share  of  ‘very  important’  responses. 
This includes the input and spread of non-indigenous marine species (61% of respondents 
chose ‘very important’, and four considered it not at all important), levels of contaminants 
in seafood for human consumption (65% ‘very important’, and five considered it not at all 
important), and introduction of energy by human activities (66% ‘very important’, and two 
considered  it  not  at  all  important).  However,  considering  the  replies  with  ‘moderately 
important’, all listed aspects were seen as important by at least 89% of all respondents. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 10: How important are, in your opinion, the following aspects when considering if 
the marine environment is in a good state? 

State of marine biodiversity (n = 202)

189

2
1
10

Input and spread of non-indigenous marine species (n =
201)
Intensity of fishing activities and the state of commercial
fish & shellfish stocks (n = 204)

Health of entire marine food webs/chains (n = 200)

Excess of nutrients in the seawater and their polluting
effects (n = 201)

Integrity of seabed habitats (n = 203)

Alteration of hydrographical conditions (n = 202)

Levels of contaminants and their pollution effects (n =
204)

Levels of contaminants in seafood for human
consumption (n = 203)

Presence of marine litter (n = 200)

Introduction of energy by human activities (n = 202)

123

56

13

4

5

165

155

170

164

148

182

171

132

133

25

7

5
2

34

7

4

26

3
2

27

5
3
4

41

5
2
6

20

1
1

51

12

3
5

24

1
3
1

46

16

5
2

Other (n = 40)

32

4

4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Very important

Moderately important

Slightly important

Not at all important

Don't know

Although  only  32  respondents  answered  the  follow-up  question  regarding  those  aspects 
considered ‘not at all important’, we can still draw some conclusions regarding the more 
negative responses. The main reason given (with 26% of the replies) was that a descriptor 
is not significant compared to others on the list. Some indicated that a descriptor overlaps 
with others (20%), that it is confusing/imprecise (18%), or too difficult to measure (17%). 

12 

 
 
Figure 11: For those aspects considered “not at all important”, why is this? (n = 32) 

The list is overall too 
long, and some should 
be cut; 4%

I don’t know; 15%

Not significant 
compared to others on 
the list; 26%

Too difficult to 
measure; 17%

Confusing / imprecise; 
18%

Overlap with others in 
the list; 20%

■  Do  you  think  your  country  would  have  developed  a  national  marine 

strategy without the MSFD? 

Almost half of the respondents (48%) thought their country would not have developed a 
national marine strategy without the MSFD. This view was most prevalent among NGOs, 
environmental organisations, and EU citizens. Only 6% of the respondents (12) believed 
that their country would have one of similar or greater quality and ambition. 

Figure  12:  Do  you  think  your  country  would  have  developed  a  national  marine  strategy 
without the MSFD? (n = 200) 

Non-governmental organisation (NGO)

EU citizen

3

1

21

6

51

22

Public authority

Academic/research institution

Environmental organisation

4

2

Business association

1

Company/business organisation

Trade union

Non-EU citizen

4

2

4

1

12

11

1

1

1

1

12

6

4

4

9

6

5

4

1

Total

12

61

95

32

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Yes, one of similar or greater quality and ambition

Yes, but one of less quality and ambition

No

Don’t know

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
■  To  what  extent  do  you  find  that  the  MSFD  has  contributed  or  led  to  the 

following (intended) benefits in EU Member States? 

The  development  of  strong  and  integrated  marine  strategies  to  protect  the  marine 
environment is the benefit most immediately associated with the MSFD by respondents; 
this received the highest percentage of ‘very important’ responses (51%). Contribution to 
the  EU's  global  commitments;  monitoring  mechanisms  and  the  establishment  of  marine 
protected areas also received a relatively high share of very positive responses. 

Less popular choices included the restoration of marine habitats and species (57% believed 
it was slightly or not at all important). Other benefits that the MSFD  has reportedly not 
contributed to significantly were adequate action and progress to achieve or maintain good 
environmental status, and increased awareness of the public and economic operators about 
the state of the marine environment and the impact of human activities on it (49% believed 
these were slightly or not at all important). 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 13: To what extent do you find that the MSFD has contributed or led to the following 
(intended) benefits in EU Member States? 

Strong and integrated marine strategies to protect the
marine environment (n = 199)

101

51

24

7

16

Adequate action and progress to achieve or maintain
good environmental status (n = 199)

36

52

82

15

14

More control and sustainability of the human activities
that can affect marine ecosystems (n = 201)

A more efficient monitoring of marine ecosystems and
of the human pressures affecting them (n = 201)

More transparency, data availability and shared
knowledge to support marine management at all scales
(n = 200)
Increased awareness of the public and economic
operators about the state of the marine environment
and the impact of human activities on it (n = 201)
Facilitated involvement of the public and other
stakeholders in the development of marine strategies (n
= 199)

The establishment and/or coherence of marine
protected areas (n = 201)

40

41

75

86

70

82

52

41

17

16

60

29

11

15

101

30

8

21

47

82

16

15

54

44

17

14

56

31

16

16

The restoration of marine habitats and species (n = 200)

30

39

96

18

17

An increase of resources for marine environmental
protection (n = 200)

38

85

43

13

21

Greater coordination at national, regional and EU levels
(n = 201)

Contribution to the EU's global commitments to protect
the marine environment, like the Sustainable
Development Goals (n = 198)

52

99

24

9

17

92

55

25

10

16

Other (n = 68)

51

4

5

8

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Very important

Moderately important

Slightly important

Not at all important

Don't know

3.  PART II: SPECIFIC QUESTIONS 

3.1.  GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS 

■  Do you think that the concept of good environmental status is the correct 

one to steer the MSFD? 

Overall, 73% of the respondents agreed that the concept of good environmental status is 
the  correct  one  to  steer  the  MSFD.  Only  4%  believed  this  is  not  the  case.  A  significant 
portion of public authorities (42%) were not sure. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 14: Do you think that the concept of good environmental status is the correct one 
to steer the MSFD? (n = 146) 

Non-governmental organisation (NGO)

EU citizen

Public authority

Academic/research institution

Environmental organisation

Business association

Company/business organisation

1

Trade union

Total

36

14

26

14

8

1

6

106

14

10

5

1

3

1

1

2

1

2

32

6

2

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Yes Maybe

No

Don’t know

■  Should  Member  States  continue  to  set  the  characteristics  and  the 
boundaries  for  the  determination  of  good  environmental  status  in  their 
marine waters? 

The vast majority of the respondents (86%) thought that Member States should continue 
determining good environmental status in their marine waters in some way. Most of the 
stakeholders (102) would have liked to see this happen together with stronger minimum 
requirements/guidance provided by the EU. Only 13% believed Member States should not 
set the characteristics and boundaries, of which public authorities had the highest share. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 15: Should Member States continue to set the characteristics and the boundaries 
for the determination of good environmental status in their marine waters? (n = 147) 

EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Academic/research institution
Environmental organisation
Business association
Company/business organisation
Trade union
Total

4
2
2
1

12

41

23

15
11

1

102

1

3
3

5

3

1

4

2
1
1

1

2

2
1

12

11

8

2

5

1

2

5

3
1

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Yes

Yes, but there should be stronger minimum requirements/guidance provided by the EU

Yes, but only for some of the ‘descriptors’

No, these should be defined at a marine region only

No, these should be defined at EU level only

Don’t know

■  As  of  2020,  despite  progress,  many  Member  States  had  not  yet  fully 
achieved good environmental status for all descriptors in all their marine 
waters.  According  to  you,  how  important  are  the  following  potential 
obstacles? 

Around  two-thirds  of  the  respondents  identified  insufficient  effectiveness  or  actual 
implementation of the programmes of measures (99), and inadequate governance (96) as 
very  important  obstacles.  A  significant  share  of  the  respondents  (35%)  believed  that  a 
very tight timeline for achieving good environmental status is not an important obstacle at 
all.  

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 16: According to you, how important are the following potential obstacles? 

Unsuitable implementation of the Directive (n = 150)

88

38

16

3

5

 Lack of enforceability or concreteness in the Directive (n
= 150)

49

82

9

4

6

Too tight timeline for achieving GES (n = 150)

35

33

27

52

3

Insufficient effectiveness or actual implementation of
the programmes of measures (n = 151)

99

31

10

1

10

 Lack of data, information or knowledge (n = 151)

Lack of transboundary common monitoring and
assessment methodologies and harmonised standards
(n = 151)

40

44

39

62

5

5

75

23

2

7

Scarce stakeholder/public involvement (n = 150)

24

80

32

6

8

Insufficient collaboration with the sectors/activities that
ultimately affect the marine environment (n = 148)

 Lack of internal coherence in EU policy and legislation (n
= 151)

Lack of national policy and legislative coherence (n =
151)

77

81

81

53

9

1

8

31

26

3

10

38

17

5

10

 Insufficient resources (n = 151)

55

38

50

1

7

Inadequate governance (n = 152)

96

34

15

7

Other (n = 57)

51

3

3

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Very important

Moderately important

Slightly important

Not at all important

Don't know

■  If  the  MSFD  2020  deadline  to  achieve  good  environmental  status  were 

changed, what should it be? 

Overall, 44% of the respondents would like to see the MSFD 2020 deadline to achieve GES 
changed  to  2026-2030.  NGOs  had  the  highest  share  with  this  answer,  followed  by 
environmental organisations and EU citizens.  

The second most common response was that the deadline should depend on the descriptor 
and/or  region  in  question.  This  was  mainly  mentioned  by  business  associations, 
academic/research institution, and public authorities.  

Moreover,  a  few  respondents  wanted  to  see  the  deadline  extended  beyond  2040  or  no 
deadline at all. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 17: If the MSFD 2020 deadline to achieve good environmental status were changed, 
what should it be? (n = 147) 

EU citizen

Non-governmental organisation (NGO)

2

1

Public authority

Academic/research institution

Environmental organisation

Business association

Company/business organisation

Trade union

12

6

2

2

3

1

28

18

4

10

2

1

8

2

3

5

8

7

1

5

4

1

1

5

1

2

1

1

Total

24

65

11

4

38

2

3

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2020-2025

2031-2040

2026-2030

Longer

Different per ‘descriptor’ and/or region No deadline

Don't know

When asked about the reasoning for changing the deadline, the most common response 
was that action is urgent, but time is also needed for ecosystems to recover (66%).  

Figure 18: What do you base your previous answer on? (n = 64) 

Action is urgent but need time for ecosystems to
recover

Action is urgent

The response from ecosystems is different across
pressures and across regions

66%

44%

39%

It should be a continuous exercise

29%

To provide time for economic activities to adjust

21%

Alignment with international commitments

Other

The goal is unreachable

5%

13%

13%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2.  USE OF RESOURCES 

■  In your opinion, what are the actual costs of implementing the MSFD? 

Overall,  58%  of  the  respondents  consider  the  actual  implementation  costs  of  the  MSFD 
‘affordable’.  NGOs  and  environmental  organisations  had  the  highest  shares  of  the 
stakeholder groups who hold this opinion. Only 18% believed the costs are cumbersome, 
mostly made up of EU citizens (12) and public authorities (7).  

Figure 19: In your opinion, what are the actual costs of implementing the MSFD? (n = 145) 

EU citizen

30

6

12

9

Non-governmental organisation (NGO)

24

2

2

1

Public authority

Academic/research institution

11

9

Environmental organisation

6

Business association

Company/business organisation

3

1

3

7

4

5

3

1

2

2

1

1

Total

84

16

26

19

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Affordable

Relatively low

Cumbersome

Don’t know

■  In  your  opinion,  do  you  think  the  benefits  and  added  value  of  the  MSFD 
(improve the health of the marine environment, foster coordinated action 
to  protect  marine  ecosystems, 
integrate  and  expand  the  marine 
knowledge) justify the efforts (costs) spent implementing it? 

According to a significant majority (80%), the added value of the MSFD far exceeds  the 
efforts of implementing it. The responses were similar across the five biggest stakeholder 
groups.  

Only 6% of the respondents thought the costs are greater than the benefits, and 9% did 
not know.  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 20: Do you think the benefits and added value of the MSFD justify the efforts (costs) 
spent implementing it? (n = 145) 

EU citizen

Non-governmental organisation (NGO)

Public authority

Academic/research institution

Environmental organisation

Business association

Company/business organisation

Trade union

Total

47

28

17

13

7

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

6

1

3

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

4

1

116

7

1

6

2

13

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Benefits much greater than costs

Benefits slightly greater than costs

Costs similar to benefits

Costs slightly greater than benefits

Costs much greater than benefits

Don’t know

■  In  your  view,  has  there  been  sufficient  resources  invested  to  implement 

the MSFD? 

Most respondents do not believe that sufficient resources have been invested to implement 
the MSFD. 

Overall,  123  respondents  (83%)  thought  that  polluters  have  not  invested  enough 
resources. Also, 58% were of the opinion that national funding has been insufficient. 31% 
of the responses showed that the EU invested adequate funds, but to a moderate extent.  

Figure  21:  In  your  view,  has  there  been  sufficient  resources  invested  to  implement  the 
MSFD? 

From EU funding (n = 149)

7

46

71

From polluters in line with the ‘polluter pays‘ principle (n 
= 149)

2
3

123

From national funding (n = 149)

3

36

87

25

21

23

From other funding (e.g. private funding, fees from
users, payment for ecosystem services) (n = 148)

13

102

33

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Yes

Yes, to a moderate extent

No

Don’t know

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.3.  INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION 

■  In your opinion, has the MSFD helped strengthen the coordination needed 

to manage the marine environment within each marine region? 

Respondents generally had mixed views regarding the role of the MSFD in strengthening 
coordination within marine regions. Responses were  rather negative regarding the Black 
Sea region, but more positive for the North-east Atlantic and Baltic Sea regions.  

Figure  22:  In  your  opinion,  has  the  MSFD  contributed  to  strengthen  the  coordination  to 
manage the marine environment within each marine region? 

North-east Atlantic Ocean (n = 147)

22

54

33

6

32

Baltic Sea (n = 146)

18

47

30

2

Mediterranean Sea (n = 149)

12

24

Black Sea (n = 144)

4

17

11

21

42

42

49

50

70

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Very important

Moderately important

Slightly important

Not at all important

Don't know

■  In your opinion, are the Regional Sea Conventions sufficiently aligned with 
the MSFD to be important contributors to its implementation (e.g. agree on 
standards required by the decision on good environmental status, develop 
joint assessments that can be reported under the MSFD, align programmes 
of measures)? 

Regarding the Regional Sea Conventions, respondents were mostly positive about the Oslo-
Paris Convention and the Helsinki Convention. Respectively, 64% and 63% believed these 
were at least moderately important in contributing to the implementation of the MSFD. 

However, 43% of the responses indicated that the Barcelona Convention was either slightly 
or not at all important, and 37% did not know its contribution. 

More notably, 29%  of the respondents thought the Bucharest Convention was not at all 
important, and 50% did not know. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 23: In your opinion, are the Regional Sea Conventions sufficiently aligned with the 
MSFD to be important contributors to its implementation? 

Oslo-Paris Convention (n = 146)

Helsinki Convention (n = 146)

24

21

Barcelona Convention (n = 145)

11

19

70

71

60

12

2

38

6

2

48

53

Bucharest Convention (n = 145)

5

12

14

42

72

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Very important

Moderately important

Slightly important

Not at all important

Don't know

3.4.  POLICY COHERENCE 

■  In your opinion, are there any significant gaps, overlaps or inconsistencies 
environmental 
the 

the  MSFD 

following 

and 

EU 

between 
legislation/policies? 

Respondents  noted  many  significant  gaps,  overlaps  and/or  inconsistencies  between  the 
MSFD  and  EU  environmental  legislation/policies.  In  total,  most  issues  were  mentioned 
regarding the Birds and Habitats Directives (193), followed closely by the Nitrates Directive 
(167), and REACH and other chemical legislation (161).  

Gaps  were  most  frequently  observed  with  the  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  and 
Strategic Environmental Assessment Directives (70), and the Single-use Plastics Directive 
(69). 

Fewer  issues  were  identified  for  the  European  Green  Deal  initiatives  (e.g.,  Biodiversity 
Strategy,  Zero  Pollution  Action  Plan,  Farm  to  Fork),  for  which  56  replies  indicated  that 
there are no problems at all. 

Furthermore,  there  appeared  to  be  several  pieces  of  legislation  or  policies  which  the 
respondents were less familiar with. The Directives for which most respondents had either 
opted  for  ‘Don’t  know’  or  not  responded  at  all  included  the  Floods  Directive  (171),  the 
Priority Substances Directive (163), and the INSPIRE Directive (142). 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  24:  In  your  opinion,  are  there  any  significant  gaps,  overlaps  or  inconsistencies 
between  the  MSFD  and  the  following  EU  environmental  legislation/policies?  (n  =  205; 
multiple choices possible) 

Water Framework Directive

43

76

22

13

26

62

Floods Directive

15

6

6

9

102

69

Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive

Drinking Water Directive

66

51

9

52

4

4

25

13

55

Environmental Quality Standards Directive

17

14

19

18

85

Priority Substances Directive

17

13

11

8

93

45

64

Nitrates Directive

Birds and Habitats Directives

Bathing Water Directive

Waste Framework Directive

REACH and other chemical legislation

Industrial Emissions Directive

Single-use Plastics Directive

Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic
Environmental Assessment Directives

Regulation on invasive alien species

57

64

52

58

64

60

69

70

66

60

50

12

51

68

61

17

30

14

43

22

52

12

9

46

59

48

49

9

58

8

53

8

22

10

19

60

44

20

47

19

40

13

15

19

39

INSPIRE Directive

37

4

5

18

70

The European Green Deal initiatives

23

21

17

56

67

67

65

70

69

67

66

64

66

66

62

66

65

72

66

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Gaps

Overlaps

Inconsistencies

No problem

Don’t know

No response

■  In your opinion, are there any significant gaps, overlaps or inconsistencies 

between the MSFD and the following sectoral EU policies? 

As  in  the  previous  question,  respondents  also  saw  significant  gaps,  overlaps  and/or 
inconsistencies between the MSFD and the sectoral EU policies. Most issues were observed 
regarding  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (227),  followed  closely  by  the  Maritime  Spatial 
Planning Directive (190), and the EU strategy on offshore renewable energy (180). 

Gaps, in particular, were identified for the Regulation on fisheries control (73), the Common 
Fisheries Policy (71), and the  EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change (68). There 
were frequent ‘don’t know’ or no responses for sectoral policies, in particular the energy 
union strategy (131), the Directive on safety of offshore oil and gas operations (124) and 
the Regulation setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (123). 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  25:  In  your  opinion,  are  there  any  significant  gaps,  overlaps  or  inconsistencies 
between  the  MSFD  and  the  following  sectoral  EU  policies?  (n  =  205;  multiple  choices 
possible) 

66

69

65

68

68

Common Fisheries Policy

71

Regulation on fisheries control

73

Maritime Spatial Planning Directive

64

65

16

63

75

8

28

63

14

29

91

7

20

64

Port Reception Facilities Directive

61

11

48

13

53

Regulation on the European Fund for Maritime, Affairs
and Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund

The energy union strategy followed up by the 2019
Clean energy for all Europeans package

63

52

54

13

47

59

6

46

7

63

EU strategy on offshore renewable energy

62

53

65

9

42

69

Directive on safety of offshore oil and gas operations

57

8

52

5

56

Ship-source Pollution Directive

60

10

20

8

52

Regulation setting maximum levels for certain
contaminants in foodstuffs

56

14

53

7

56

Communication on innovation in the Blue Economy

25

7

58

9

51

Common Agricultural Policy

22

8

72

7

47

68

66

67

67

67

EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change

68

11

56

11

45

68

Gaps

Overlaps

Inconsistencies

No problem

Don’t know

No response

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

■  How important is it to get stronger mutual support between the MSFD and 

the legislation and policies in the following sectors? 

The vast majority of the respondents considered it very important to get stronger mutual 
support in Fisheries and aquaculture (92%), followed by Climate policies (84%), Maritime 
spatial planning (82%), and Maritime transport and ports (80%). 

On the other hand, less popular sectors, for which respondents believed it was slightly or 
not important to get more support, included Space policy (18%), Maritime defence (17%), 
and Neighbourhood policies (13%). 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 26: How important is it to get stronger mutual support between the MSFD and the 
legislation and policies in the following sectors? 

Maritime spatial planning (n = 142)

Fisheries and aquaculture (n = 142)

Maritime transport and ports (n = 141)

Tourism (n = 142)

Marine renewable energy / Ocean energy (n = 143)

Non-renewable energy (n = 141)

Climate policies (n = 141)

Blue bioeconomy (n = 142)

Marine minerals (n = 142)

116

131

113

94

102

102

118

101

97

12

4

10

5

2

4

20

2

6

29

11

8

25

22

8

2

6

8

1

8

13

6

3
1

23

6

2

10

18

11

4

12

Maritime defence (n = 142)

72

29

17

7

17

Emissions control (n = 143)

Product and industrial policies (n = 141)

Agricultural policies (n = 143)

95

113

112

17

2
2

9

25

8

1

12

18

6

7

Neighbourhood policies (n = 142)

34

65

15

4

24

EU Regional policies (n = 139)

Research policies (n = 143)

49

62

65

62

Space policy (n = 143)

41

65

Other (n = 36)

21

1

1

10

2

13

9

2

8

4

11

22

13

Very important

Moderately important

Slightly important

Not at all important

Don't know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

3.5.  ADDED VALUE OF THE MSFD 

■  How  important  do  you  consider  the  MSFD  to maintaining  a  dedicated  EU 
framework for the integrated protection and sustainable use of the marine 
environment? 

With  almost  90%  of  the  responses  (129),  there  was  near  consensus  among  the 
stakeholders that the MSFD is very important to maintain a dedicated EU framework for 
the integrated protection and sustainable use of the marine environment.  

This  included  91%  of  the  EU  citizens  (51),  and  100%  of  the  NGOs  (28),  environmental 
organisations (8) and companies/business organisations (3).  

There were no responses stating that the MSFD is not at all important in this regard.  

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  27:  How  important  do  you  consider  the  MSFD  to  maintaining  a  dedicated  EU 
framework for the integrated protection and sustainable use of the marine environment? 
(n = 144) 

EU citizen

Non-governmental organisation (NGO)

Public authority

18

Academic/research institution

Environmental organisation

Business association

6

Company/business organisation

Total

51

28

15

8

3

129

4

1

1

1

5

2

1

12

1
2

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Very important

Moderately important

Slightly important

Don’t know

■  During  the 

last  decade,  the  EU  has  accomplished  the  following 
achievements  to  a  certain  extent.  In  your  opinion,  how  important  is  the 
MSFD contribution (alone) to them? 

Respondents  were  most  likely  to  state  that  the  MSFD  contribution  was  ‘very’  or 
‘moderately’  important with  regard  to  data  collection  and  monitoring, knowledge  on  the 
marine  environment  and  coordination  at  the  regional  level.  Less  popular  choices  were 
raising  public  awareness  and  the  political  level  of  ambition,  consistent/adequate 
programmes of measures and reducing pressures on the marine environment. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  28:  In  your  opinion,  how  important  is  the  MSFD  contribution  (alone)  to  the 
following achievements? 

Improved management and systematic planning for the
conservation of marine ecosystems and its sustainable
use (n = 144)

33

39

58

3

11

Reduce pressures on marine ecosystems (n = 144)

29

35

65

5

10

Enhance coordinated action at regional level (n = 145)

Improved knowledge on the marine environment (n =
145)

33

36

79

80

17

5

11

16

3

10

Improved data collection and monitoring (n = 143)

45

76

10

1

11

Improved data availability, knowledge sharing and best
practice (n = 142)

Consistent and adequate programmes of measures to
protect the marine environment (n = 144)

33

31

75

21

2

11

28

64

9

12

Raise public awareness and political level of ambition (n
= 144)

22

33

63

16

10

Other (n = 57)

37

6

1

13

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Very important

Moderately important

Slightly important

Not at all important

Don't know

■  Has  the  MSFD  been  an  important  instrument  to  strengthen  collaboration 

and cooperation to protect Europe’s marine waters? 

80% of the respondents (113) thought that the MSFD has been either moderately or very 
important  in  strengthening  collaboration  and  cooperation  to  protect  Europe’s  marine 
waters  among  EU  Member  States  in  the  same  marine  region.  Following  this  was  the 
collaboration between/with other stakeholders (74%).  

Moreover, respondents indicated that the MSFD was either slightly or not important in the 
cooperation  between  non-EU  countries  in  the  same  marine  region  (56%),  between 
organisations  working  on  land-based  and  marine  issues  (56%),  and  between  public 
organisations responsible for different policies (49%).  

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  29: Has the MSFD been an important instrument to strengthen collaboration and 
cooperation to protect Europe’s marine waters? 

Among EU Member States in the same marine region (n
= 142)
With non-EU countries in the same marine region (n =
140)

34

15

25

79

67

13

5

11

12

21

Between/with private sector entities (n = 143)

9

19

31

16

68

Between/with scientific institutions (n = 143)

27

42

55

5

14

Between/with other stakeholders, like NGOs (n = 141)

Between public organisations responsible for different
policies (n = 142)
Between organisations working on land-based issues
and marine issues (n = 140)

20

20

85

18

1

17

35

63

7

17

9

29

67

11

24

Very important

Moderately important

Slightly important

Not at all important

Don't know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

3.6.  POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS OF THE MSFD 

■  What do you think should happen with the MSFD? 

Most of the respondents (81%) thought that the MSFD should become more prescriptive 
and there should be stronger enforcement.  

This  was  the  prevailing  view  for  EU  citizens  (48),  NGOs  (26),  public  authorities  (18), 
academic/research institutions (12), and environmental organisations (7).  

Among the nine business associations, five of them  stated a preference for the MSFD to 
continue as it is. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 30: What do you think should happen with the MSFD? (n = 141) 

EU citizen

Non-governmental organisation (NGO)

Public authority

Academic/research institution

Business association

1

Environmental organisation

Company/business organisation

1

Trade union

Total

48

26

18

12

5

7

1

1

1

2

5

1

1

1

2

2

2

3

1

114

10

7

10

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Become more prescriptive and stronger enforcement

Continue as it is

Become less prescriptive

Don’t know

■  What is your level of support of the following actions, should they be taken 

in the future? 

Respondents  mainly  thought  it  was  very  important  to  change  the  process  to  determine 
good  environmental  status  to  ensure  more  quantifiable  and  harmonised  EU/regional 
objectives  (108),  and  to  set  legally-binding  quantifiable  objectives  to  facilitate  fair  and 
uniform enforcement (106).  

Moreover,  around  90%  of  the  answers  indicated  it  is  at  least  ‘moderately  important’  to 
adopt  specific  measures  or  legal  initiatives  for  specific  risks/pressures  to  the  marine 
environment  (128),  and  to  improve  access  to  funding  or  dedicate  new  instruments  to 
benefit the management, protection, and restoration of the marine environment (128). 

Less support was seen for reducing the administrative burden by decreasing the frequency 
or  the  content  of  the  reported  information,  and  for  changing  the  format/governance  of 
regional cooperation, with 51 and 39 respondents, respectively, selecting ‘not important at 
all’. 

Also, 38% of the replies mentioned it is only ‘slightly important’ to simplify key messages 
from  MSFD  implementation  to  demonstrate  progress  in  the  achievement  of  good 
environmental status. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 31: What is your level of support of the following actions, should they be taken in 
the future? (n = 205) 

Change the process to determine good environmental
status to ensure more quantifiable and harmonised
EU/regional objectives

Co-design and investment on a pan-EU ocean
observation and modelling service to support MSFD
implementation

Set legally-binding quantifiable objectives to facilitate
fair and uniform enforcement

108

14

6
1
11

65

84

31

13

3

11

63

106

23

6

1
7

62

Use non-MSFD reported information to support marine
assessments under the MSFD

48

79

5
1
10

Simplify key messages from MSFD implementation to
demonstrate progress in the achievement of good
environmental status

46

32

54

7

4

62

62

Require an estimation of the effectiveness of the
programmes of measures put in place by Member States

62

64

6

4

6

63

Change the format/governance of regional cooperation

24

21

25

39

32

64

Improve access to funding or dedicate new instruments
to benefit the management, protection and restoration
of the marine environment

Adopt specific measures or legal initiatives for specific
risks/pressures to the marine environment

101

103

27

10
2
4

61

25

4

5

5

Add more specific requirements about marine protected
areas or restoration actions within the MSFD

89

36

8

3

6

Reduce administrative burden by decreasing the
frequency or the content of the reported information

31

27

19

51

14

Investigate new aspects

Improve the alignment and re-use of information from
other EU legislation

89

98

30

14

4
4

64

24

9

1

8

Enforce digitalisation requirements

37

72

18

10
2

63

63

63

65

66

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Very important

Moderately important

Slightly important

Not at all important

Don't know

No response

31