With just one week to go before the vote in the European Parliament’s Committee on Environment on the proposed Regulation on nature restoration, it is difficult to predict whether the compromises supported by the left of the Assembly and the liberals, but rejected by the right, will win a sufficient majority. The EPP is vehemently opposed to this text and on Wednesday predicted “a 50/50 vote”.
In the opinion of the S&D, Renew Europe, Greens/EFA and The Left Groups, the compromises they support have incorporated the concerns of the EPP Group, without success (see EUROPE 13196/8).
Judging by these compromises, the ambition of César Luena’s draft report has been maintained, in terms of the EU’s collective overall target of restoring at least 30% of terrestrial and marine areas in need of restoration by 2030 and, by 2050, of all ecosystems in need of restoration - a general objective that will be broken down into quantified objectives by habitat type and legally binding restoration plans (see EUROPE 13098/3).
However, some clarifications and flexibility have been added. The text specifies in particular that these plans will be prepared taking into account the constitutional and institutional provisions of the Member States.
Article 4, which is highly controversial, has been amended to make the requirements more flexible. Thus, for the ecosystem restoration objectives, Member States would give priority to the implementation of restoration measures in Natura 2000 sites until 2030.
For habitats whose status is unknown, instead of considering that they will automatically be in poor condition, the compromise stipulates that this will only be the case if the results of monitoring and reports on this subject are not available within 3 years of the entry into force of the Regulation.
On the principle of non-deterioration, which is unacceptable to the right, the text stipulates that Member States must adopt appropriate and effective measures to prevent the deterioration of areas over time.
For organic soils in agricultural use that are drained peatlands, it is intended that Member States should encourage rewetting on a voluntary basis and aim to make rewetting an attractive option for farmers and landowners.
Member States shall draw up a strategy for the protection, restoration and sustainable use of peatlands, to be developed and implemented in consultation with the regions concerned.
For the EPP, it is the whole text that is problematic “in terms of its impact on food production, price rises and the EU’s other strategic interests, in particular the ‘zero net emissions’ industrial plan and the strategy for critical raw materials”, Esther de Lange (EPP, German) told a press conference on Wednesday, denouncing a text that is full of good intentions, but poorly conceived. On Thursday, MEP Mohammed Chahim, speaking on behalf of the S&D Group, of which César Luena, the rapporteur, is a member, said he was “shocked by this press conference”.
Compromise amendments: https://aeur.eu/f/7BT (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)