Tensions are running high among the political groups in the European Parliament ahead of the vote on the proposed EU regulation on nature restoration, which will take place on Wednesday 12 July, following what promises to be a lively debate on Tuesday morning (see EUROPE 13217/4). Who could have predicted the outcome of the vote on Friday 7 July?
This regulation, proposed as part of the ‘European Green Deal’ and its 2030 biodiversity strategy, has become the focus of a political battle of invective since the Christian Democrat (EPP) group withdrew from the negotiations (see EUROPE 13191/22) over the report by César Luena (S&D, Spanish). As amended, this report went further than the Commission’s proposal in its general objective, while introducing some flexibility, particularly in the requirements broken down by habitat type and ecosystem (see EUROPE 13197/7), but it was rejected by the Parliament’s Environment Committee (see EUROPE 13210/6).
There are two opposing visions of the sustainability of tomorrow’s agriculture. They have crystallised in the run-up to the European elections in 2024.
On the left of the Chamber and for a majority of Liberals, this law, if it succeeds, will be good for farmers and future generations. These political groups believe that the main threat to farmers’ productivity and survival is climate change, that there is an urgent need to halt the sixth extinction of species and that the EU must respect its UN commitments, in particular the Kunming-Montreal agreement on a global framework for biodiversity.
On the right and far right of the Chamber, MEPs are concerned about food security in Europe and around the world. They are worried about too many constraints for farmers who are already struggling and about rising food prices in a period of inflation, and are calling for difficult economic and social conditions to be taken into account.
The chairman of the EPP group, Manfred Weber, has been calling for the proposal to be withdrawn since the end of May, arguing that it was poorly conceived by the Commission and needs to be completely rethought. Those in favour of maintaining the regulation see the EPP’s fears as spurious arguments and a political tactic to challenge the current majority of the President of the European Commission, the Christian Democrat Ursula von der Leyen - namely: the Christian Democrats of the EPP, the Social Democrats of the S&D group and the Liberals of Renew Europe.
All bets are off. A few days before the vote at the plenary session, César Luena said he was confident that the proposal would be maintained (see EUROPE 13217/4), while the EPP group spokesman predicted on Friday 7 July that “given the tensions in the other groups, they will not have a majority on this issue”.
On Wednesday, Parliament will first vote, by a simple majority, on the motion to reject the Commission’s proposal - an essential step if Parliament is to adopt a position following the rejection by the ENVI Committee.
In a second stage, and only if the motion to reject fails to secure a majority, the European Parliament will vote on 141 amendments tabled by the various political groups or supported by 36 MEPs each.
Of these 141 amendments, twelve were tabled by César Luena on behalf of the S&D group, which include the bulk of the compromises he had negotiated before the withdrawal of the EPP group.
The amendments tabled by the Renew Europe group take up the EU Council’s general approach (political agreement with a view to negotiating with the Parliament), adopted on 20 June, with the support of 20 out of 27 Member States. “This is the only way to increase the chances of support, since the majority of EPP governments have supported the general approach”, said the chairman of the ENVI Committee, Pascal Canfin, on Friday.
This general approach would introduce flexibilities concerning, in particular, the decried principle of non-deterioration of habitats, the considerable extension of deadlines for the adoption of national nature restoration plans, resulting from a step-by-step approach, the taking into account of national, regional and local particularities, and provides for a Commission report on possible financing by European funds to help with implementation.
The EPP has already announced that it will vote against the EU Council’s policy amendments. Its rejection of the 12 amendments resulting from the compromises negotiated by César Luena has long been known.
The amendments tabled by the EPP, ECR and ID groups are essentially aimed at weakening or even halving the quantified requirements by type of habitat and ecosystem. Greens/EFA to raise their ambitions. On Friday, the group’s spokesman said that he hoped an agreement would be reached, and that it was important for the issue to be resolved.
A rejection vote would not yet bury the proposed regulation. If MEPs were to vote in favour of the motion to reject, the text would still not be dead and buried. According to one of Parliament’s legal experts, unless a vote is called for a return to the Environment Committee, the motion to reject would simply end Parliament’s first reading.
It would then be up to the EU Council to decide whether or not to go ahead with the project. Should the EU Council decide to go ahead, the EU Council’s general approach would be referred to the European Parliament for a second reading.
Under no circumstances can Parliament, at first reading, force the European Commission to withdraw its proposal. It is up to the Commission to decide for itself before Parliament’s second reading.
See the amendments: https://aeur.eu/f/7za (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)