Sittings · Compare
What changed
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
– having regard to the reasoned opinion submitted, within the framework of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, by the Swedish Parliament, asserting that the draft legislative act does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity,
– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of xxx25 January 2023,
– having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of xxx09 February 2023,
– having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the opinionopinions of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,Development and the Committee on FisheriesFisheries,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A90000/2023),(A9-0220/2023),
1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;
1. Rejects the Commission proposal;
2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amendwithdraw its proposal;
3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
24.5.2023
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on nature restoration
(COM(2022)0304 – C90208/2022 – 2022/0195(COD))
Rapporteur for opinion: Anne Sander
(*) Associated committee – Rule 57 of the Rules of Procedure
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to take into account the following amendments:
Amendment 1
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
–
Or. en
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
Amendment 2
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
Proposal for a regulation
26.5.2023
Recital 8
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
Or. en
for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
Amendment 3
on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Nature restoration
Proposal for a regulation
(COM(2022)0304 – C90208/2022 – 2022/0195(COD))
Recital 10
Rapporteur for opinion: Caroline Roose
Or. en
(*) Associated committee – Rule 57 of the Rules of Procedure
Amendment 4
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
Proposal for a regulation
In 2019, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) sounded a global alert: ‘Nature is declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history – and the rate of species extinctions is accelerating, with grave impacts on people around the world.’ But the report also said it was not too late to act, provided we act quickly to conserve and restore nature.
Recital 13
The 2019 European Environment Agency report ‘Marine messages II’ highlighted the urgent need to take action to restore marine ecosystems, in particular to increase resilience to climate change and to halt biodiversity collapse. The 2020 European Court of Auditors Special Report ‘Marine environment: EU protection is wide but not deep’ took stock of the existing legislation and showed that ‘EU protection rules have not led to the recovery of significant ecosystems and habitats’.
Or. en
The evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 concluded that the EU had not achieved the goal of restoring at least 15% of degraded ecosystems by 2020. It is therefore logical for ecosystem restoration to be one of the priorities of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030.
Amendment 5
The proposed regulation allows for a change of approach. As Parliament called for, it sets several binding targets for ecosystem restoration. Member States will have to meet these targets by establishing national nature restoration plans, which should mean that implementation can be as close as possible to the areas concerned.
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 of the proposal directly concerns marine ecosystems, therefore including the fisheries sector. The rapporteur chose not to address in this draft opinion Article 4 and Articles 6 to 10, which concern other ecosystems. It should be noted, however, that the restoration of these ecosystems (coastal ecosystems, watercourses) is likely to have a positive impact on maritime fisheries, for example by putting an end to pollution affecting marine ecosystems or by restoring spawning grounds and nurseries where certain marine species reproduce.
Recital 14
The restoration of marine ecosystems goes hand in hand with the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Without healthy ecosystems there can be no healthy fish populations and therefore no fishing. The restoration of degraded marine ecosystems plays a key role in ensuring the long-term sustainability of fishing activities. It is fully in line with the concept of ecosystem-based fisheries management under the CFP.
Or. en
Ecosystem restoration will require spatial protection measures. A recent study by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies on the costs and benefits of spatial protection measures as tools for fisheries management showed that introducing such measures is economically beneficial for the fisheries and aquaculture sectors, makes it possible to stabilise catches where they are in decline, and is accompanied by job creation and increased income for small-scale fishers.
Amendment 6
The rapporteur therefore supports the general approach of the proposal for a regulation and wishes to draw attention to four points in particular.
Proposal for a regulation
Restoration targets
Recital 15
The proposal for a regulation provides for targets for the surface where restoration measures should be put in place. While these means-based targets have the advantage of being easily measurable, they need to be accompanied by results-based targets. On the basis of Parliament’s resolutions, the recommendations of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the EU Biodiversity Strategy, the rapporteur proposes targets of restoring at least 30% of degraded marine ecosystems by 2030, 60% by 2040 and 90% by 2050. In order to achieve these results-based targets, the rapporteur also proposes increasing the means-based targets.
Or. en
Implementation of measures to restore marine ecosystems
Amendment 7
The restoration of marine ecosystems differs from the restoration of other types of ecosystems due to the transnational nature of marine ecosystems. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that the Union has exclusive competence in the area of conservation of marine biological resources. While Member States will be able to take the necessary measures at national level to implement their national restoration plans for other ecosystems, this will rarely be possible for marine ecosystems.
Proposal for a regulation
The Commission has chosen to base the adoption of restoration measures on existing CFP tools, in particular Articles 11 and 18 of the CFP basic regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013).
Recital 18
The mechanisms in place under the CFP mean that each Member State having an interest in the management of the fisheries activities concerned by a conservation measure must agree with that measure. This requirement for unanimity complicates the adoption of the necessary measures. The European Court of Auditors found in 2020 that in seven years this procedure had been successful in only a very limited number of cases.
Or. en
There is therefore a real risk that Member States which have included conservation measures in their national restoration plans will not be able to implement them if another Member State opposes them. Measures needed to achieve the targets set by the regulation could be blocked.
Amendment 8
In order to avoid this situation, Member States should be encouraged to cooperate in preparing their national restoration plans. It should also be possible for Member States to submit the joint recommendations at the same time as the draft restoration plan. Once the final restoration plan is adopted, a deadline of 12 months should be set for Member States to submit joint recommendations if they have not already been submitted. Finally, in the event of a blockage, the Commission should be able to use the urgency procedure provided for in the CFP basic regulation.
Proposal for a regulation
Species whose habitat needs to be restored
Recital 22
The list of species whose habitat needs to be restored (Annex 3) contains around 20 species and has a number of gaps. The rapporteur considers that the list should be extended to cover these additional species, adding species classified as critically endangered or endangered according to IUCN categories, as well as commercial species whose habitat restoration would improve the status of their stocks and benefit fishers in the long term.
Or. en
Transparency and stakeholder participation
Amendment 9
The successful implementation of this regulation will depend largely on the commitment of local communities, including fishers, to the restoration of marine ecosystems. The rapporteur considers that the provisions on stakeholder consultation and transparency contained in the proposal for a regulation should be strengthened. More frequent updating of national restoration plans is also desirable in order to be able to take into account as quickly as possible the data and assessments that will be available.
Proposal for a regulation
The Committee on Fisheries calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to propose rejection of the Commission proposal.
Recital 24
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
Or. en
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
Amendment 10
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE
Proposal for a regulation
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE
Recital 25
Or. en
Amendment 11
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Or. en
Justification
The 90% is the minimum to reach good condition, according to the document ‘Reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive: Explanatory notes and guidelines for the period 2013-2018’. A higher target of 100% can therefore be set up.
Amendment 12
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
Or. en
Amendment 13
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38
Or. en
Amendment 14
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
Or. en
Justification
According to the Court of Auditors' "Special Report 26/2020: Marine environment: EU protection is wide but not deep", the joint recommendation procedure of Article 11 of the CFP has been poorly implemented and largely failed to meet its objectives. In this framework, some safeguards are added when coming to the restoration measures under this regulation.
Amendment 15
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39 a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 16
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40
Or. en
Amendment 17
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 42
Or. en
Amendment 18
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 43
Or. en
Justification
Vegetated rooftops and walls, often referred to as “green roofs” and “green walls”, are recognized as part of the urban green space, including in EU policies and the Urban Greening Plan draft guidance developed by the Commission. Green roofs and walls can greatly contribute to restoring urban biodiversity by providing a habitat for pollinators, insects and birds in cities, towns and suburbs, and are key to provide ecosystem services, therefore they should be integrated in the recital. The further additions seek to complete the text with services as detailed in the impact assessment.
Amendment 19
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 45
Or. en
Justification
Adding vertical and temporal connectivity will increase the flexibility for Member States to choose the barriers and will cover all dimensions of connectivity. Regarding "high ecological", this is a term used in the framework of the Water Framework Directive.
Amendment 20
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 45 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
The smaller water units are covered by the impact assessment and are very important in terms of connectivity.
Amendment 21
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48
Or. en
Amendment 22
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 49
Or. en
Amendment 23
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 50
Or. en
Amendment 24
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 52
Or. en
Amendment 25
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 55
Or. en
Amendment 26
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 56
Or. en
Amendment 27
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 57
Or. en
Justification
Referring to forest ecosystems, it is important to highlight that it is not only about biodiversity but also their ecological integrity and, with it, their performance for climate change mitigation and adaptation, fire prevention, and other ecosystem services that good-quality forests provide. The rest of the amendment is linked to the amendment to Article 10 and to Annex VI.
Amendment 28
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 57 a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 29
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 59
Or. en
Amendment 30
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 61
Or. en
Amendment 31
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 65
Or. en
Amendment 32
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 66
Or. en
Amendment 33
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 67
Or. en
Amendment 34
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 69
Or. en
Amendment 35
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 70
Or. en
Amendment 36
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 70 a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 37
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 72
Or. en
Amendment 38
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 73
Or. en
Amendment 39
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 74
Or. en
Justification
Amendment in line with the text of the Decision on 8th Environmental Action Plan.
Amendment 40
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 75
Or. en
Amendment 41
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 76
Or. en
Amendment 42
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 77
Or. en
Amendment 43
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 78 a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 44
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – title
Or. en
Justification
The Commission's proposal contains overarching objectives to 2030 and 2050 but without explicitly calling it that way. While stating that the proposal sets binding restoration targets and obligations across a broad range of ecosystems to achieve the 2030 objective it does not provide for a process by which this overarching objective would be taken into account by Member States and subsequently monitored. It is important to link it in a legally sound manner with the rest of provisions of this Regulation which is why it is proposed to refer to it in subsequent relevant articles.
Amendment 45
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Justification
To make this Article more coherent and to follow the structure of other pieces of legislation, paragraph 1 becomes paragraph 2 and paragraph 2 becomes paragraph 1.
Amendment 46
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
To make this Article more coherent and to follow the structure of other pieces of legislation, paragraph 1 becomes paragraph 2 and paragraph 2 becomes paragraph 1. To align the overarching objective to 2030 with the European Parliament position as set out in the report on the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, the rapporteur increases it to 30%.
Amendment 47
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Justification
To make this Article more coherent and to follow the structure of other pieces of legislation, paragraph 1 becomes paragraph 2 and paragraph 2 becomes paragraph 1.
Amendment 48
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 49
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 50
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 13
Or. en
Amendment 51
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 15 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
A definition of this term which is used in Article 7 of the Regulation is necessary to provide clarity. The proposed definition is based on the EU Guidance on barrier removal for river restoration published in December 2021, which states that “the Commission considers that the concept of free-flowing rivers – to be achieved through barrier removal and the restoration of floodplains and wetlands – translates into a complete absence of artificial barriers and the reinstatement of the natural, multidimensional connectivity of a river” (page 14).
Amendment 52
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 15 b (new)
Or. en
Justification
The definition has been extracted from the Ramsar Convention’s “Global guidelines for peatland rewetting and restoration”.
Amendment 53
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Justification
The 90% is the minimum to reach good condition, according to the document ‘Reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive: Explanatory notes and guidelines for the period 2013-2018’. A higher target of 100% can therefore be set up.
Amendment 54
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Or. en
Justification
Amendment linked to amendments to Annex III.
Amendment 55
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 5
Or. en
Justification
In addition to the restoration measures adopted under Articles 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3), measures enhancing connectivity among restoration areas, and also between restoration areas and other protected areas, including Natura 2000, should be envisaged. This will increase the effectiveness of the measures adopted, contribute to the non-deterioration of restored areas, to meeting climate adaptation objectives, and is in line with relevant provisions of the Habitats Directive. The initial formulation should be strengthened to establish a clear obligation to improve connectivity.
Amendment 56
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 6
Or. en
Justification
Member States’ significant financial investments in restoration will only bear returns (in both economic terms and in the form of ecosystem services), if restored areas remain in good condition over a prolonged period of time, without degrading again. The choice of what measures should be adopted to comply with this obligation should be science-based. By doing so, Member States can - in parallel- also contribute their fair share to the EU Biodiversity Strategy’s Union-wide target of a total of 30% protected areas on land and at sea, 10% of which shall be strictly protected.
Amendment 57
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 8 – introductory part
Or. en
Justification
The potential use of the derogation set out in this paragraph should be made clearer.
Amendment 58
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 8 – point a
Or. en
Justification
The potential use of the derogations set out in this paragraph should be made clearer.
Amendment 59
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 8 – point b
Or. en
Justification
This derogation is too open-ended, since habitat deterioration is one of the most usual effects of climate change and it is often exacerbated by insufficient collective climate change mitigation efforts, making it extremely difficult to establish whether the transformation is “unavoidable” or not.
Amendment 60
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 8 – point c
Or. en
Justification
This amendment follows the wording of Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC.
Amendment 61
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 62
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 9
Or. en
Justification
The Habitats Directive, and notably its Article 6(4), already provides which exemptions may apply inside Natura 2000 areas. Any attempt at expanding the list of derogations to the Member States’ obligations deriving from Article 6 of the Habitats Directive should be removed. Invoking this derogation should also be limited to a certain percentage of the Natura 2000 areas.
Amendment 63
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 9 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
The areas that are in fact not covered by restoration measures should not count towards the achievement of the target. If public funding was received, but at the end no restoration measure was effectively taken, funding should be returned.
Amendment 64
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 10 – point a
Or. en
Amendment 65
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 10 – point b
Or. en
Amendment 66
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 10 – point b a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 67
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Justification
The 90% is the minimum to reach good condition, according to the document ‘Reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive: Explanatory notes and guidelines for the period 2013-2018’. A higher target of 100% can therefore be set up. The Annex II scope for marine habitats is limited to a few marine habitats types, which only cover a small proportion of Union seas (4.5%). The degraded portion of these habitats represents less than 4% of the Union sea area (3.78%, data from the impact assessment) and represents only a small portion of the overarching restoration objective in Article 1.
Amendment 68
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 5
Or. en
Justification
In addition to the restoration measures adopted under Articles 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3), measures enhancing connectivity among restoration areas, and also between restoration areas and other protected areas, including Natura 2000, should be envisaged. This will increase the effectiveness of the measures adopted, contribute to the non-deterioration of restored areas, to meeting climate adaptation objectives, and is in line with relevant provisions of the Habitats Directive. The initial formulation should be strengthened to establish a clear obligation to improve connectivity.
Amendment 69
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 6
Or. en
Justification
Member States’ significant financial investments in restoration will only bear returns (in both economic terms and in the form of ecosystem services), if restored areas remain in good condition over a prolonged period of time, without degrading again. The choice of what measures should be adopted to comply with this obligation should be science-based. By doing so, Member States can - in parallel- also contribute their fair share to the EU Biodiversity Strategy’s Union-wide target of a total of 30% protected areas on land and at sea, 10% of which shall be strictly protected.
Amendment 70
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 8 – introductory part
Or. en
Justification
The potential use of the derogations set out in this paragraph should be made clearer.
Amendment 71
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 8 – point a
Or. en
Amendment 72
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 8 – point b
Or. en
Justification
This derogation is too open-ended, since habitat deterioration is one of the most usual effects of climate change and it is often exacerbated by insufficient collective climate change mitigation efforts, making it extremely difficult to establish whether the transformation is “unavoidable” or not.
Amendment 73
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 8 – point c
Or. en
Amendment 74
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 75
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 9 – introductory part
Or. en
Justification
The Habitats Directive, and notably its Article 6(4), already provides which exemptions may apply inside Natura 2000 areas. Any attempt at expanding the list of derogations to the Member States’ obligations deriving from Article 6 of the Habitats Directive should be removed. Invoking this derogation should also be limited to a certain percentage of the Natura 2000 areas.
Amendment 76
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 9 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
The areas that are not covered by restoration measures should not count towards the achievement of the target. If public funding was received, but at the end no restoration measure was effectively taken, funding should be returned.
Amendment 77
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 10 – point a
Or. en
Amendment 78
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 10 – point b a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 79
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Or. en
Justification
Linked to the increase of the objective in point (a) of this paragraph.
Amendment 80
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point a
Or. en
Justification
The mean urban tree cover in European cities was in 2018 28.5% (EEA39), 30.2% (EEA38) of the city area and 34.7% (EEA39), 35.8% (EEA38) of the Functional Urban Area.https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/dashboards/urban-tree-coverhttps://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/how-green-are-european-cities
Amendment 81
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Justification
In order to provide a sound basis for action, the inventory of barriers needs to include all the dimensions of connectivity. Regarding the deleted provisions, there is no need to mention them as they continue to apply.
Amendment 82
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Amendment 83
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
There are different barrier assessment protocols in Europe, the SNIFFER, ICE and ICF protocols being the most well developed. Results in the identification and assessment of barriers can vary depending on the protocol used. It is desirable to have a harmonized procedure.https://amber.international/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/D1.1-Guidance-on-Stream-Barrier-Surveying-and-Reporting.pdf
Amendment 84
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3 b (new)
Or. en
Justification
Small water units are already covered by the impact assessment.
Amendment 85
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Justification
There is some work already done on this subject. JRC proposal on this method: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC122225
Amendment 86
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3
Or. en
Amendment 87
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point c
Or. en
Amendment 88
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 89
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – point b
Or. en
Amendment 90
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Or. en
Justification
The rewetting is the most effective restoration measure, and should be increased.
Amendment 91
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Or. en
Justification
The rewetting is the most effective restoration measure, and should be increased.
Amendment 92
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Or. en
Justification
The rewetting is the most effective restoration measure, and should be increased.
Amendment 93
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Justification
It is important to highlight that it is not only about biodiversity but also their ecological integrity and, with it, their performance for climate change mitigation and adaptation, fire prevention, and other ecosystem services that good-quality forests provide.
Amendment 94
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 95
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 96
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 b (new)
Or. en
Justification
According to Art 12(2)(i), Member States will include in their Restoration Plans a list of measures ensuring the continued, long-term and sustained effects of the restoration measures adopted to deliver the targets listed in Articles 4 to 10a.Otherwise, Member States risk reversing all the positive outcomes deriving from their restoration activities which would mean both failure to secure the provision of the desired ecosystem services, but also a significant waste of the financial resources invested in such activities.
Amendment 97
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Amendment 98
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
According to the Court of Auditors' "Special Report 26/2020: Marine environment: EU protection is wide but not deep", the joint recommendation procedure of Article 11 of the CFP has been poorly implemented and largely failed to meet its objectives. In this framework, some safeguards (deadlines) are added when coming to the restoration measures under this regulation.
Amendment 99
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Or. en
Amendment 100
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Or. en
Amendment 101
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
Or. en
Amendment 102
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 6
Or. en
Amendment 103
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 7 – introductory part
Or. en
Amendment 104
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 7 – point a
Or. en
Justification
The Natura 2000 sites are established both in accordance with the Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC) as well as the Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC). Consequently, both directives should be mentioned here.
Amendment 105
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 7 – point a a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 106
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 7 – point d
Or. en
Amendment 107
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 7 – point f a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 108
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 7 – point f b (new)
Or. en
Amendment 109
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 8
Or. en
Amendment 110
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 10
Or. en
Justification
Seas are cross-border. The Maritime Spatial Planning process would be an appropriate instrument already in place to find synergies between Member States.
Amendment 111
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 11
Or. en
Amendment 112
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Amendment 113
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point a
Or. en
Amendment 114
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point b
Or. en
Amendment 115
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point c
Or. en
Amendment 116
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 117
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d
Or. en
Amendment 118
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point e
Or. en
Amendment 119
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point f
Or. en
Amendment 120
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point h
Or. en
Amendment 121
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point i
Or. en
Amendment 122
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point k – point i
Or. en
Amendment 123
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point k – point iii
Or. en
Amendment 124
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point l
Or. en
Justification
A decisive factor for the successful implementation of restoration plans is the identification of staffing needs (both in terms of number and in terms of capacities/expertise). The same applies to adequate staff capacity for ensuring the long-term, continuous and sustained maintenance of restoration outcomes and the monitoring of progress.
Amendment 125
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point m
Or. en
Amendment 126
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point o
Or. en
Amendment 127
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point o a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 128
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point o b (new)
Or. en
Amendment 129
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3
Or. en
Amendment 130
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
According to the Court of Auditors' "Special Report 26/2020: Marine environment: EU protection is wide but not deep", the joint recommendation procedure of Article 11 of the CFP has been poorly implemented and largely failed to meet its objectives. In this framework, some safeguards (deadlines) are added when coming to the restoration measures under this regulation.
Amendment 131
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Amendment 132
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Amendment 133
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Amendment 134
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Or. en
Amendment 135
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 4
Or. en
Amendment 136
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5
Or. en
Amendment 137
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6
Or. en
Amendment 138
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Amendment 139
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Amendment 140
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3
Or. en
Justification
When progress of a Member State is not sufficient, there should be an obligation on the Commission to act.
Amendment 141
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 3
Or. en
Amendment 142
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 4
Or. en
Amendment 143
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 144
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 b (new)
Or. en
Amendment 145
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Or. en
Justification
No requirement as regards rivers is included in this Article although this is mentioned in recital 67.
Amendment 146
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point g
Or. en
Amendment 147
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point h
Or. en
Amendment 148
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point h a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 149
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point h b (new)
Or. en
Amendment 150
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Amendment 151
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 5
Or. en
Amendment 152
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 7
Or. en
Justification
Alignment with recital 67.
Amendment 153
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 8
Or. en
Amendment 154
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 8 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
It is important that the overall monitoring by Member States takes place in an as uniform way as possible.
Amendment 155
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 9 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Or. en
Amendment 156
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 9 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 157
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 9 – subparagraph 1 b (new)
Or. en
Amendment 158
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Or. en
Amendment 159
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e
Or. en
Amendment 160
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Or. en
Amendment 161
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 5
Or. en
Amendment 162
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 6
Or. en
Amendment 163
Proposal for a regulation
Chapter IV a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 164
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Amendment 165
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Amendment 166
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 3
Or. en
Amendment 167
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 5
Or. en
Amendment 168
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Amendment 169
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 3
Or. en
Amendment 170
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 6
Or. en
Amendment 171
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Amendment 172
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Amendment 173
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – title
Or. en
Amendment 174
Proposal for a regulation
Annex III – point 25 a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 175
Proposal for a regulation
Annex IV
Text proposed by the Commission
LIST OF BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS FOR AGRICULTURAL ECOSYSTEMS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 9(2)
Amendment
LIST OF BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS FOR AGRICULTURAL ECOSYSTEMS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 9(2)
Or. en
Amendment 176
Proposal for a regulation
Annex VI
Text proposed by the Commission
LIST OF BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS FOR FOREST ECOSYSTEMS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 10(2)
Amendment
LIST OF BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS FOR FOREST ECOSYSTEMS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 10(2)
Or. en
Amendment 177
Proposal for a regulation
Annex VII – point 14 a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 178
Proposal for a regulation
Annex VII – point 22 a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 179
Proposal for a regulation
Annex VII – point 22 b (new)
Or. en
Amendment 180
Proposal for a regulation
Annex VII – point 27 a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 181
Proposal for a regulation
Annex VII – point 28
Or. en
Amendment 182
Proposal for a regulation
Annex VII – point 28 a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 183
Proposal for a regulation
Annex VII – point 28 b (new)
Or. en
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
I. Background
Healthy ecosystems provide us with numerous ecosystem services essential to our long-term survival, well-being, prosperity and security. They provide us with clean food, water and air, act as carbon sinks contributing to the regulation of our planet’s temperature and combat climate change, protect us against the increasing risks of natural disasters and prevent the emergence and spread of zoonotic diseases. They are also a vital element of our cultural heritage, treasured for their recreational, educational and aesthetic values.
The EU and the world as a whole are facing environmental challenges of unprecedented urgency and magnitude. Numerous studies such as the IPBES report, IPCC reports, the Global Biodiversity Outlook or the report on the state of the environment in Europe show that, despite efforts, biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation continue at an alarming rate in the EU and around the world.
As set out in the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, the EU has legal frameworks, strategies and action plans to protect nature and restore habitats and species, but under existing frameworks, protection has been incomplete, restoration has been on a small-scale and the implementation of the legislation has been insufficient.
II. Position of the rapporteur
The rapporteur welcomes the proposal for a regulation on nature restoration and its design, containing an overarching restoration objective as well as specific objectives by ecosystems, habitats and species, such as specific targets for forests, agricultural ecosystems, urban ecosystems, peatlands, pollinators, free-flowing rivers, as well as for terrestrial, coastal and freshwater ecosystems and marine ecosystems, as requested by this Parliament.
While fully supporting the proposal, the rapporteur considers that biodiversity loss has such disastrous consequences for our society, economy and human health and well-being, that the proposal should be strengthened while maintaining a realistic approach. To ensure a successful implementation, the rapporteur considers it essential to strengthen the provisions regarding transparency and information, the participation of the public and the sectors concerned, the exchange of best practice and financing.
Objectives
With regard to the objectives, the rapporteur considers it appropriate to support the position previously adopted by this Parliament in relation to the general restoration objective, to ensure that at least 30 % of the EU’s land and seas are restored by 2030. In addition, the rapporteur proposes to increase some of the specific objectives, such as the restoration of terrestrial, coastal and freshwater ecosystems in Article 4, the restoration of marine ecosystems in Article 5, the objectives of restoring urban ecosystems and the objective of rewetting drained peatlands under agricultural use. In the case of terrestrial, coastal and freshwater ecosystems and of marine ecosystems the target of 90 % of the Commission proposal is the minimum required to achieve good status for these ecosystems, according to the guidelines on reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. This does not mean that the EU should not aim for 100 % by 2050, given the urgency of the situation and the need for action.
As regards urban ecosystems, according to data from the EEA, most European cities already have more than 10 % urban tree cover, so the rapporteur sees it feasible to increase this target and the Member States’ objectives of increasing the total national area of urban green spaces.
As regards the peatlands targets, the rapporteur welcomes the inclusion of a specific peatland target as requested by this Parliament, and supports the objectives for the restoration of organic soil for agricultural use that constitute drained peatlands. Given that the impact assessment accompanying the proposal stipulates that there is insufficient data to set a target for forestry uses, and since returning only 3 % of EU agricultural peatlands to their wet state would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture by up to 25 %, the rapporteur prefers to focus on the restoration of agricultural peatlands and not extend the target to drained peatlands under forestry use. The rapporteur considers that the restoration of peatlands under other uses should be addressed when the Commission assesses the implementation of this regulation and has more data on it. However, as the most effective solution for peatlands restoration and climate mitigation and adaptation is peatlands rewetting, the rapporteur proposes to increase the objectives of rewetting of peatlands under agricultural use. In the EU, drained and degraded peatlands account for approximately 5 % of the EU’s total greenhouse gas emissions, so their restoration is key on our path to climate neutrality.
In relation to the provisions that allow derogating from the restoration objectives of Articles 4 and 5, certain adjustments are proposed by the rapporteur to make them more precise and avoid their inappropriate use. In particular, in the case of Natura 2000 areas, derogations should be limited to what is already set out in Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, which remains applicable. Otherwise, a “de facto” amendment of the Habitats Directive would be made via this regulation. The rapporteur also limits the possible use of this derogation to a maximum of 5 % of the areas covered by the objectives of Articles 4(1), 4(2), 4(3) and 5(1), 5(2), 5(3), to prevent Member States from continually using projects of overriding public interest as a reason for not complying with the provisions of this regulation.
Furthermore, the rapporteur proposes new indicators to measure the biodiversity of agricultural and forest ecosystems. In the case of agricultural ecosystems, the rapporteur includes the objective already contained in the Biodiversity Strategy of reaching 10 % of high diversity landscape elements by 2030 and adds the percentage of species and habitats listed in the Annexes to Directive 92/43/EEC related to agricultural ecosystems. In the case of forest ecosystems, the rapporteur proposes to add the indicator of native tree species composition, and adjusts some indicators in Annex VI to address the problem of forest fires and phytosanitary risks.
As regards free-flowing rivers, the rapporteur considers not only lateral and longitudinal but also vertical and temporal barriers, to include all dimensions of connectivity in the inventories and to give Member States greater flexibility in their choice of barriers that should be dismantled. The rapporteur also addresses not only obsolete barriers but also those whose removal has a high ecological impact, including the impact on connectivity between marine and freshwater ecosystems and migration corridors.
Planting 3 billion trees
The EU’s 2030 Biodiversity and Forest Strategies set out the objective of planting at least 3 billion additional trees in the EU by 2030, while fully respecting ecological principles. The rapporteur has decided to include this objective in his amendments given the enormous importance of it for the restoration of terrestrial, urban or forest ecosystems in Articles 4, 6 and 10.
Principle of non-deterioration
The rapporteur strengthens the principle of non-deterioration by creating a specific article on the continuity of the effects of restoration measures through the designation of protected areas, the implementation of other effective area-based conservation measures, or the promotion of private land conservation measures. It will be up to Member States to decide whether and how to extend their network of protected areas. Notwithstanding the foregoing, when restoration measures applies to primary and old growth forests, the rapporteur proposes that Member States strictly protect them.
Financing
The availability of public and private financial resources is key to the proper implementation of this regulation. Public funding for restoration should be secured at European, national and regional levels. At European level, there is funding available for the restoration of our biodiversity and ecosystems, but it is not sufficient and is currently dispersed in various instruments and funds, which may render it less effective. Therefore, the rapporteur proposes an article addressing the future need for a dedicated permanent financial instrument for restoration, which would entail coherent financial planning of all EU legal instruments and strategies that improve biodiversity over the next decade and beyond.
Speeding up deadlines
Given the urgent need for restoration measures to have an impact in this decade, the rapporteur proposes to shorten the deadlines for the submission of national nature restoration plans, for their revision, for the submission of the first reports and for the Commission’s assessment of the implementation of this regulation. The rapporteur believes that we are at a critical time if we want to be able to reverse the loss of biodiversity and therefore proposes to speed up the whole process set out in this regulation.
Delegated acts
The rapporteur considers that certain topics in the Commission proposal that are to be specified in secondary legislation should clearly be subject to delegated acts, instead of implementing acts as proposed by the Commission, given the considerable margin of discretion left. This concerns, for example, the establishment of a method for monitoring pollinator populations or the framework for setting satisfactory levels.
Public participation, access to public information and public awareness
Support of the public and stakeholders for the foreseen restoration measures is crucial to ensure the successful implementation of this regulation. The rapporteur therefore proposes to create a specific article on public participation, access to public information and public awareness, to ensure there is an open, inclusive and cross-cutting approach in the preparation, review and implementation of national restoration plans. The rapporteur also considers it essential that young people are made aware of the importance of biodiversity and nature restoration and are engaged through programmes and concrete projects and through education and general information.
Finally, in order to continue the restoration actions of this regulation, the rapporteur lays the foundations for the Commission to present new restoration targets from 2030 onwards, such as for small water units or ecosystems not covered by Articles 4 and 5 as well as intermediate targets by 2040.
ANNEX: LIST OF ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT
The following list is drawn up on a purely voluntary basis under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur. The rapporteur has received input from the following entities or persons in the preparation of the draft report: