While MEPs are all convinced of the need for stronger EU action to reverse the alarming decline in biodiversity, the first debate in the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment (ENVI) concerning the proposed regulation imposing binding nature restoration targets showed, on Thursday 12 January, that this dossier involving the Agriculture and Fisheries Committees will be difficult to negotiate and that the EPP group is not prepared to sacrifice European agriculture on the altar of biodiversity.
Presenting his draft report, César Luena (S&D, Spanish) stressed the importance of raising the overall target to restore at least 30% of land and sea areas by 2030, saying it was “logical to adapt it to the target agreed in Montreal” at the COP15 on a global biodiversity framework.
He also called for the raising of some specific restoration targets by ecosystems and habitats, for a permanent European fund that could finance nature restoration in the long term, a shortening of the deadlines for the whole regulation and a specific article for information, awareness raising and mobilisation of citizens (see EUROPE 13097/7). This is, according to him, “an ambitious but pragmatic position”.
The Greens/EFA, Renew Europe and The Left groups supported it, with some nuances, as they all believe, like the European Commission, that this proposal contributed to the success of COP15 and that this regulation should be adopted during this legislature.
For the ENVI committee Chair, Pascal Canfin, (Renew Europe, French), “aiming for a vote in plenary before the summer would be a good commitment to start the trilogues under the Spanish Presidency”.
Christine Schneider (EPP, German), while acknowledging that we should not “go backwards”, stressed the need to “develop both biodiversity and food security”, which is why her group is calling for a moratorium on the setting aside of agricultural land.
Citing a lack of analysis of why nature protection objectives have not been achieved under the Natura 2000 network, she said it was essential to “base measures on concrete data” and called for monitoring of future measures to ensure that they are “globally beneficial”.
Jutta Paulus (Greens/EFA, German) said that the European Environment Agency’s report on the state of nature “provides sufficient scientific data and sets out the measures to be taken”. She wants to go further than the rapporteur in the objectives of restoring wetlands.
Mick Wallace (The Left, Irish) welcomed the funding aspect, as “the measures will be expensive and landowners and farmers will need to be able to get compensation if necessary”. He wants the Commission to have the power to reject inadequate national plans.
Through the voice of the Italian MEP, Pietro Fiocchi, the ECR group said it was very committed to nature restoration, but concerned about: - the lack of legal advice on the impact of the proposed measures on spatial planning (Article 6), water management (Article 7) and forest management (Article 10); - the lack of a financial impact assessment of this project, including the bureaucratic burden; - questions about the proportionality of the measures.
On behalf of the Committee on Agriculture, Anne Sander (EPP, French) called for consistency with other texts under negotiation and with the reformed green CAP that has just entered into force, pointing out, for example, that the new indicator for measuring the biodiversity of agricultural ecosystems (reaching 10% of high-diversity topographical features by 2030) contradicts the 4% in the CAP.
On behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, Caroline Roose (Greens/EFA) called for a comprehensive approach. She also wants to add several threatened species to the list of species whose habitats need to be restored.
To see the draft ‘Luena Report’: https://aeur.eu/f/4vn (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)