Two and a half hours of debate on the proposal for an EU regulation on nature restoration at the plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Tuesday 11 July confirmed the political polarisation between supporters and opponents of this major piece of legislation in the ‘European Green Deal’, ahead of Wednesday’s crucial vote and the European elections in June 2024.
No one could say whether the motion to reject – on which Parliament is required to vote first by a simple majority, following the vote to reject the compromise negotiated in the Committee on the Environment, Health and Food Safety (ENVI) (see EUROPE 13210/6, 13197/7) – might prevail over the desire of the groups on the left of the hemicycle and the majority of the Liberals (Renew Europe) to move forward to stem the alarming loss of biodiversity in Europe. One thing is certain, however: the outcome of Wednesday’s vote will be extremely close (see EUROPE 13218/3).
The Commission’s proposal, presented a year ago, tackles biodiversity loss for the first time in thirty years by setting binding targets for the restoration of at least 20% of the EU’s terrestrial and marine ecosystems by 2030 and of all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050 (see EUROPE 12977/17). It stems from the EU’s 2030 Biodiversity Strategy (see EUROPE 12491/2).
“For the future, we need to restore habitats, 81% of which are in poor condition. 70% of Europe’s soil is degraded, jeopardising food production and threatening resilience to climate change”, argued rapporteur César Luena (S&D, Spanish). He tabled amendments incorporating most of the compromises negotiated with the Renew Europe Liberals, the Greens/EFA, The Left and the EPP before the latter group withdrew from the negotiations at the end of May. “There can be no food security without fertile soil and pollinators”, he insisted. In his view, “the biodiversity crisis and the climate change crisis are two sides of the same coin”.
Beyond this argument to “try to convince”, he stressed the importance of a “cordon sanitaire around the far right”, with which the centre-right is accused of forming an alliance, and “the historic responsibility of the European Parliament”.
Behind this alliance, the chairman of the EPP group, German Manfred Weber, who was absent from the plenary session, was singled out for criticism. “Mr Weber, you claim to win votes with a false defence of farmers and rural communities, lies and climate denial”, said the chair of the S&D group, Iratxe Garcia Pérez, Spanish.
In her view, at a time when a million species are threatened with extinction, “the EPP has declared war on a law that is essential for food security, for guaranteeing business growth, for curbing the impact of climate change and for making our planet habitable”.
Referring to the many warnings about the loss of biodiversity, Caroline Roose (Greens/EFA, Belgian), on behalf of Parliament's Fisheries Committee, said that “fish populations are collapsing. The law on the restoration of nature is as close as possible to the regions, but the EPP is churning out fake news” by brandishing the risk of famine. “That is incorrect. We need bees. Without nature there is no food! Our debates deserve better”.
Speaking to the press, Terry Reintke (German), co-president of the Greens/EFA – the group that tabled amendments on higher targets for rewetting drained wetlands, reducing light pollution and ecosystem connectivity – said she hoped to “amend the proposal to improve it”.
However, she did not make it clear whether her group would support the EU Council’s position. In plenary, she accused Mr Weber of playing politics “against what Ursula von der Leyen has proposed”.
Towards a return to the Council’s position? The chairman of the Renew Europe group, Stephane Séjourné (French), expressed his ambition to “bring together all those who have ecology at heart”, with the amendments reflecting the general aproach of the Council decided on 20 June by the environment ministers of the 27 Member States, and deplored the absence of Vice-President Timmermans from the debate.
Manon Aubry (The Left, French) reminded him that the Renew Europe group was divided and that the French President, Emmanuel Macron, a member of this political group, had “opened the breach where the bad winds rush in” by calling for a regulatory pause. Together with the Greens/EFA Group, The Left has tabled an amendment on the creation of a renaturation network for the exchange of knowledge and access to justice for environmental organisations and citizens.
The EPP sticks to its position. The EPP (the largest group in the Parliament), the ECR group and the ID group will vote to reject the Commission’s proposal, which is considered to be ill-conceived and detrimental to food safety.
“I fully share the need to protect the environment and restore nature, but restoring nature must not mean the end of all economic, industrial, forestry and agricultural production in Europe. No, ‘Produce’ is not a dirty word”, said Anne Santer (French EPP). She added: “The Commission considers that simply setting aside 10% of our agricultural land does not represent a threat to our food security”.
Christine Schneider (EPP, German), negotiator for her group, stated that the EPP is “in favour of the objectives of the Green Deal and the Kunming-Montreal Accord” concluded in December 2022 on a global framework for biodiversity “but has differences of opinion on the means. Biodiversity protection cannot work by sidelining farmers and fishermen”. And asked: “How can this legislation be reconciled with 23 other regulations that already protect nature?”.
On behalf of the ECR Group, Alexandr Vondra (Czech) described the Council’s position as “a contradictory text, which aims to help pollinators and preserve water in the countryside, but makes life more difficult for farmers, affects Member States’ competences and creates hidden costs”. Many MEPs from this conservative group condemned the failure to respect subsidiarity, the “attack on property rights” and “climate fanaticism”.
Aurélia Beigneux, from the ID Group (French), shares this view. “The greening of towns and cities is a matter for the Member States and local elected representatives, not the Commission. And forest management is the responsibility of the nations”. She spoke of “economic and political nonsense in the name of the Green Deal”, in the face of “an imminent food crisis”.
The European Commission and César Luena are confident. Battling the arguments of the right and the conservatives, the European Commissioner for the Environment, Virginijus Sinkevičius, stressed in particular that there would be “no set-aside” and that the percentage of 10% only represented an indicator of high biodiversity – a figure that the Commission is prepared to revise.
“We need innovation, carbon farms, new genomic techniques”, he also emphasised, referring to the recent proposal on new GMOs (see EUROPE 13216/1) and stressing the importance, when negotiating an agreement, of considering all the proposed legislation as a whole and not in silos, as also advocated by the Spanish Presidency of the Council of the EU.
“What we do for nature will help us to be less strict about the climate. If we reject this, we will be throwing away our best chance of achieving our climate neutrality objective” by 2050, he warned.
He saw the debate as a sign that the Council’s position could be supported, since “even the parties that don’t want to negotiate have tabled amendments”. He reiterated that the Commission was ready to help reach an agreement as “an honest broker, as is our role”.
For the Commissioner, it is essential that the EU respects its international commitments on both climate and biodiversity. “Many have this sense of urgency”, he said, calling for the adoption of a mandate for inter-institutional negotiations (trilogues) “in time for COP28 and the next COP on biological diversity”.
“We will negotiate. Come back to the negotiating table! And when the text is adopted, there will be a trilogue”, César Luena told the EPP group at the end of the debate.
Always ready to negotiate and “optimistic” about the adoption of the Council’s general approach, supported by many Christian Democrat governments, “such as Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Lithuania and Greece”, he reiterated his hope that “the EPP will agree to support it”.
He added: “We must defend Europe’s position in the world”.
Wednesday’s vote will show whether or not he has been heard. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)