No sooner had the tension of the European Parliament’s vote on 12 July on the proposed nature restoration regulation subsided than the interinstitutional negotiations (trilogues) began on the evening of Wednesday 19 July, reflecting the Spanish Presidency’s desire to make progress on this matter, which is considered a priority by the Spanish Minister for the Ecological Transition, Teresa Ribera. On Wednesday evening, she expressed her delight at a “good meeting to ensure that the law on the restoration of nature is adopted as quickly as possible”.
The Parliament’s negotiators, led by MEP César Luena (S&D, Spanish), the Spanish Presidency and the European Commission were content at this stage to present their respective positions, as is customary for an initial ‘trilogue’.
At this stage, no discussion has taken place on the substance of the regulation proposed in June 2022 by the Commission to set binding targets to restore at least 20% of the EU’s terrestrial and marine ecosystems by 2030 and all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050 in order to restore biodiversity and contribute to the EU’s climate objectives (see EUROPE 12977/17). Within an hour, the trilogue was over.
“The atmosphere was constructive and everyone expressed a desire to move forward quickly”, confirmed a source close to the matter on Thursday. Negotiations will resume after the summer break, probably in September, but no date has yet been set.
As is well known, the Council significantly weakened the Commission’s proposal by introducing flexibilities concerning both the objectives and the timetables for implementation to take account of national, regional and local conditions and particularities (see EUROPE 13205/12).
The European Parliament took up most of the Council’s position in its own, but weakened the restoration targets by ecosystem (terrestrial, coastal and freshwater ecosystems (Article 4) - especially agricultural ecosystems (Article 9) - see EUROPE 13221/1).
It also called for the possibility of postponing targets in the event of exceptional socio-economic consequences, such as a negative impact on food prices, food production, renewable energy or social housing.
Parliament’s negotiating position is identical to that of the Council with regard to a number of relaxations, in particular: - a principle of non-deterioration of habitats based on effort, not results; - the removal of quantified targets for 2040 and 2050 for the restoration of urban ecosystems (Article 6); - the exception, for flood protection reasons, to the obligation to remove obsolete river barriers so that at least 25,000 km of rivers become free-flowing by 2030 (an exception to Article 7 requested by the two institutions).
It goes further than the Council on pollinators and tree planting.
It is less ambitious than the Council’s position in that it removes the whole of Article 9 on the restoration and rewetting of drained peat bogs used for agricultural purposes and on peat extraction sites.
When it comes to funding, the concerns are similar. The Council requests that the Commission prepare, one year after the entry into force of the regulation, a report on all EU financial resources that might be available to assist Member States through dedicated funding, without prejudging the post-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework. Parliament is also calling for an analysis of the funding gaps outside the CAP and for compensating landowners and farmers.
The EU Council’s position: https://aeur.eu/f/7ly
The European Parliament’s position: https://aeur.eu/f/873 (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)