The fate of the proposed Nature Restoration Law, presented by the European Commission as a flagship element of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 with the aim of reversing the alarming decline in biodiversity in Europe, will be sealed on Thursday 15 June in the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment (ENVI).
MEPs will be asked to vote on the compromise package agreed on 31 May between the S&D, Renew Europe, Greens/EFA and The Left groups on the ambitious report by César Luena (S&D, Spanish), amended to incorporate some of the concerns of the right-wing (see EUROPE 13197/7), and on a rejection amendment from the EPP group, opposed to the text mainly on food safety grounds.
The MEPs from the EPP group are hoping for an impact study and for the proposal presented to be withdrawn in favour of a new, better-designed proposal (see EUROPE 13196/8).
With 2 days to go before a very close vote with an uncertain outcome, tensions were palpable between political groups with divergent visions, especially as the liberals’ group, Renew Europe, now divided, will be the kingmaker. The regulatory pause called for by French President Emmanuel Macron and Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo could explain this.
According to France’s Stéphane Séjourné, however, the Renew Europe group, which he chairs, would like “to see the vote go through the Environment Committee and be amended at the plenary session. This is an opportunity to find a consensus, we want to be able to combine the objectives of the text on the preservation of biodiversity with the economy and competitiveness”, he told the press, rejecting the idea that Renew Europe had changed its mind.
On behalf of the S&D group, Mohammed Chahim from the Netherlands sought to dispel the idea that European agriculture and its farmers would be sacrificed. “The biggest threats to agriculture are twofold: the first is climate change, the second is the industrialisation of agriculture”, he defended. He went on to describe “structural opposition to a text that enjoys broad support”.
Terry Reintke, for the Greens/EFA group, reiterated that this legislation was “one of the crucial elements of the European Green Deal” (see EUROPE 13192/22). “There are a lot of examples showing that nature-based solutions are needed in order to adapt to the impact of climate change, like floods in Italy. It won’t happen in 10 years, but we need to find political solutions now”, she argued.
And warning that “if this law is voted down by the European Parliament, it would be a major blow to the agenda for fighting climate change”.
Her French colleague in the same group, Caroline Roose, agreed. “We haven’t had an ambitious text for 30 years, since the Habitats Directive. National restoration plans already exist, and Member States have 2 years to prepare their plans”.
Manfred Weber, President of the EPP, reiterated the well-known view of the Parliament’s largest group, namely the fear of reduced food production and rising prices in times of inflation.
“The EPP is very concerned by this piece of legislation. We support the Green Deal, the Emissions Trading System and linked legislation. But this piece of legislation is simply a bad proposal. This is why the EPP will be asking its colleagues on the ENVI Committee to support our request to reject the proposal”. He added: “It has to be recognised that some Renew members have already said publicly that they would support the rejection of the text by the EPP. All the Renew members on the AGRI and PECH committees supported our rejection amendment” (see EUROPE 13186/15, 13187/6).
The ECR and ID groups will not be supporting the compromise amendments either.
To see the final version (with final technical adjustments) of the 30 compromise amendments: https://aeur.eu/f/7g3 (Original version in French by Aminata Niang, with the editorial staff)