It was a tough political battle, but the proposed EU regulation on nature restoration was narrowly saved on Wednesday 12 July in the European Parliament, much to the delight of its supporters on the left of the Chamber and 70% of liberals, who were holding their breath.
With 336 votes in favour, 300 against and 3 abstentions, the Parliament adopted its negotiating position on this flagship legislation of the European Green Deal, following a lengthy vote on amendments, made possible once the risk of the European Commission’s initial proposal (see EUROPE 13220/3) being rejected had been removed.
The motion to reject was narrowly defeated (312 votes in favour, 324 against, 12 abstentions), prompting cheers in the Chamber and a victory gesture from rapporteur César Luena (S&D, Spanish).
The text voted on was referred back to the Environment Committee (ENVI) so that negotiations can begin between Parliament, the Council and the Commission (trilogues).
In its position, the Parliament takes up most of the Council’s ‘general approach’, which has weakened the proposal through numerous flexibilities (see EUROPE 13205/12, 13203/10). It also supplements it with amendments that, in some cases, weaken it still further, particularly in terms of agriculture (article 9, which improved on the Commission’s position, has disappeared). Amendments from the ECR group limit the restoration of ecosystems to Natura 2000 areas, while amendments from the S&D group strengthen the protection of pollinators, among other things.
According to the voted text, the regulation will not prevent the creation of new protected areas in the EU. Nor will it prevent the deployment of new renewable energy infrastructures, since a new article, added by Parliament, emphasises that these installations are predominantly in the public interest.
Parliament stresses the importance of the EU implementing its international commitments under both the Paris Agreement and the Kunming-Montreal agreement on a global framework for biodiversity (see EUROPE 13087/3).
It specifies that the law will only apply once the Commission has provided data on the conditions required to guarantee long-term food security and once EU countries have quantified the area that needs to be restored to meet the restoration targets for each habitat type. Parliament also provides for the possibility of postponing targets in the event of exceptional socio-economic consequences.
Within 12 months of the regulation coming into force, the Commission will have to assess any gap between the financial needs for restoration and the European funding available and seek solutions to bridge this gap, in particular by means of a specific European instrument.
“A great victory for nature and Parliament”. For the S&D, Greens/EFA and The Left groups, and for 70% of liberals in the Renew Europe group who were in favour of this legislation, “having a law is better than no law at all”.
“After 70 years of European integration, for the first time we are going to have a law to restore nature. It’s a great victory for society, and excellent news for nature. This is a law for the restoration of degraded ecosystems in Europe, not a law against anyone”, declared César Luena at a press conference. This was an allusion to the fears of the EPP, ECR and ID groups for farmers, fishers and forest managers.
The rapporteur also welcomed the fact that Parliament was “playing its role, that of enacting laws, not refusing to negotiate”, as the EPP group has been doing since the end of May with regard to this future regulation.
Delighted that the majority of MEPs had “countered the alliances within the right”, Mr Luena said he was “extending a hand to Christine Schneider” (EPP, German), the chief negotiator for her group, and to “all the EPP negotiators” for the forthcoming interinstitutional negotiations.
César Luena hoped the Spanish elections on 23 July would not change the balance of political forces, and he was delighted that trilogues could begin with the Spanish socialist minister, Teresa Ribera. “It’s good for me”, he said.
The Chair of the Environment Committee, Pascal Canfin, described it as a “clear victory for nature and a clear defeat for Manfred Weber”. He says that 80% of the text voted on is identical to the Council’s political agreement. “The main difference is the watered-down agricultural part”, he said.
In the words of Jutta Paulus (Greens/EFA, German), “the European Parliament has voted for protection against drought, fires and floods, and for long-term food security. The Nature Restoration Law is good for the climate, good for biodiversity, good for farmers and good for the economy”.
“Huge victory in Parliament. The alliance of right, far right and liberals has not managed to kill this text”, Manon Aubry (The Left, French) celebrated on Twitter.
The right-wing in the European Parliament has not conceded defeat. Despite the defeat, the Chair of the EPP group, Germany’s Manfred Weber, highlighted the influence his fight had had on the text approved by Parliament. “We fought for what we believed in and came very close. We had a great deal of influence on the text, and many EPP amendments were accepted”, he asserted, wondering why the environmentalists had voted in favour of the text.
The Christian Democrat is counting on the trilogues to achieve, “perhaps, a convincing result”. In his view, Parliament’s position still raises questions about the impact on food prices and legal certainty, and his group will continue “to argue against a law that polarises rather than unifies our climate efforts”.
The European Commissioner for the Environment, Virginijus Sinkevičius, hailed it as “a good day for Europe”. He hoped for a final agreement “by the end of the year”, assuring that the Commission would help “to find balanced compromise solutions”. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang, with Thomas Mangin)