What changed

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

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.

The Commission proposal seeks to implement the commitment under the Green Deal to halt biodiversity loss by restoring nature. In this regard, the proposed legislation must build up the resilience of ecosystems and ecosystem services.

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’.

The changes that have taken place around the world and in Europe could not have been anticipated when the Biodiversity Strategy was adopted. The opinion highlights the need to determine the exact parameters of this new legislation in relation to food safety, supply chains and the affordability of food.

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.

It is difficult to predict some of its consequences insofar as a number of the provisions pre-empt other European regulations that have just entered into force, such as the CAP via the national strategic plans, or that are currently being examined, such as the proposed regulation on carbon certification. The opinion thus seeks to prevent any overlaps.

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.

Moreover, the objectives and approaches adopted must be realistic and attainable. Climate change is already having a significant impact on ecosystems and these changes have to be taken into account when setting the targets to be achieved and when preparing and implementing future national restoration plans. The opinion also introduces elements where synergies must be sought in relation to this new process, namely the special characteristics and vibrancy of territories, land use, the viability of farms and generational renewal.

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.

Finally, in order to achieve the ambitious objectives proposed, additional, adequate funding will have to be provided.

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.

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.

The rapporteur therefore supports the general approach of the proposal for a regulation and wishes to draw attention to four points in particular.

Restoration targets

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.

Implementation of measures to restore marine ecosystems

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Species whose habitat needs to be restored

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.

Transparency and stakeholder participation

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.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on FisheriesAgriculture 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 7 a (new)

Or. enfr

Amendment 2

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8 a (new)

Or. enfr

Amendment 3

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 39

Recital 9 a (new)

Or. enfr

Amendment 4

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4111

Or. enfr

Amendment 5

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4212

Or. enfr

Amendment 6

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 5913

Or. enfr

Amendment 7

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6917

Or. enfr

Amendment 8

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7719

Or. enfr

Amendment 9

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 2

Recital 19 a (new)

Or. enfr

Amendment 10

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Recital 23

Or. enfr

Amendment 11

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)

Recital 24

Or. enfr

Amendment 12

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 b (new)

Recital 25

Or. enfr

Amendment 13

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 1

Recital 29

Or. enfr

Amendment 14

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 3

Recital 45

Or. enfr

Amendment 15

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 5

Recital 45 a (new)

Or. enfr

Amendment 16

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 6

Recital 48

Or. enfr

Amendment 17

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 7

Recital 49

Or. enfr

Amendment 18

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 8 – introductory part

Recital 50

Or. enfr

Amendment 19

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 8 – point b

Recital 52

Or. enfr

Amendment 20

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 8 – point c

Recital 53

Or. enfr

Amendment 21

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 9 – introductory part

Recital 70

Or. enfr

Amendment 22

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 10 – point a a (new)

Recital 75

Or. enfr

Amendment 23

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 10 – point b a (new)

Recital 76

Or. enfr

Amendment 24

Proposal for a regulation

Article 111 – paragraph 71 – point f a (new)

Or. enfr

Amendment 25

Proposal for a regulation

Article 111 – paragraph 101 – point b

Or. enfr

Amendment 26

Proposal for a regulation

Article 111 – paragraph 112

Or. enfr

Amendment 27

Proposal for a regulation

Article 123 – paragraph 21 – point n3

Or. enfr

Amendment 28

Proposal for a regulation

Article 123 – paragraph 31 – point 4

Or. enfr

Justification

The restoration of ecosystems to a good condition should not, in and of itself, exclude the possibility of carrying out economic activities, be they agricultural, forestry, energy or tourism. Nature, once restored, in addition to its contribution to the fight against climate change, must be able to provide ecosystem services based on sustainable development.

Amendment 29

Proposal for a regulation

Article 133 – paragraph 1 – point 5

Or. enfr

Amendment 30

Proposal for a regulation

Article 143 – paragraph 21 – point 6

Or. enfr

Amendment 31

Proposal for a regulation

Article 143 – paragraph 41 – point 7

Or. enfr

Amendment 32

Proposal for a regulation

Article 143 – paragraph 51 – point 8

Or. enfr

Amendment 33

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 a (new)

Article 4 – paragraph 1

Or. enfr

Justification

D'après le rapport de la Commission européenne sur l'état de conservation de la nature dans l'Union européenne (COM(2020) 635) le réseau Natura 2000 est composé de zones de protection spéciale (ZPS) classées en vertu de la directive «Oiseaux» et de zones spéciales de conservation (ZSC) désignées en vertu de la directive «Habitats». Il représente le plus grand réseau coordonné de zones protégées dans le monde et constitue le principal outil de l’Union européenne pour maintenir/rétablir l’état de conservation des habitats et des espèces protégés. Fin 2019, Natura 2000 couvrait 17,9 % du territoire terrestre de l’Union et 9,7 % et sa superficie avait doublé par rapport à la période précédente. Or, les données récoltées d'un Etat membre à un autre n'étant pas comparables, il est difficile d'établir un véritable état des lieux de ces zones. Il est donc nécessaire de d'abord évaluer de manière commune l'état des zones protégées et en particulier les zones Natura 2000qui constituent déjà un outil précieux de protection de la biodiversité et dont les périmètres sont déjà dégagés.

Amendment 34

Proposal for a regulation

Article 154 – paragraph 12

Or. enfr

Amendment 35

Proposal for a regulation

Article 174 – paragraph 1 – point a3

Or. enfr

Amendment 36

Proposal for a regulation

Article 174 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)4

Or. enfr

Amendment 37

Proposal for a regulation

Article 174 – paragraph 1 – point a b (new)5

Or. enfr

Amendment 38

Proposal for a regulation

Article 174 – paragraph 36

Or. enfr

Amendment 39

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point e a (new)

Article 4 – paragraph 7

Or. enfr

Amendment 40

Proposal for a regulation

Article 184 – paragraph 48 – point a

Or. enfr

Amendment 41

Proposal for a regulation

Article 184 – paragraph 58 – point b

Or. enfr

Amendment 42

Proposal for a regulation

Article 184 – paragraph 68 – point c

Or. enfr

Amendment 43

Proposal for a regulation

Article 194 – paragraph 28 – point c a (new)

Or. enfr

Amendment 44

Proposal for a regulation

Article 194 – paragraph 39 – point a

Or. enfr

Amendment 45

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 a (new)

Article 4 – paragraph 9 – point b

Or. enfr

Justification

Critically endangered species (European Red List of Marine Fishes, European Commission & IUCN)

Amendment 46

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 b (new)

Article 4 – paragraph 10 – point a

Or. enfr

Justification

Critically endangered species (European Red List of Marine Fishes, European Commission & IUCN)

Amendment 47

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 c (new)

Article 4 – paragraph 10 – point b

Or. enfr

Justification

Critically endangered species (European Red List of Marine Fishes, European Commission & IUCN)

Amendment 48

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 d (new)

Article 7 – paragraph 1

Or. enfr

Justification

Critically endangered species (European Red List of Marine Fishes, European Commission & IUCN)

Many small water retention structures on rivers and streams are essential to ensure sufficient water levels in rivers and to fill the water tables. The destruction of many small structures has led to a drop in the water levels of the rivers on which they were installed, sometimes for decades. The drop in river levels has disastrous consequences for fish populations in rivers and for the availability of water resources.

Amendment 49

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 e (new)

Article 7 – paragraph 2

Or. enfr

Justification

Critically endangered species (European Red List of Marine Fishes, European Commission & IUCN)

Amendment 50

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 f (new)

Article 8 – paragraph 1

Or. enfr

Justification

Critically endangered species (European Red List of Marine Fishes, European Commission & IUCN)

Amendment 51

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 g (new)

Article 8 – paragraph 3

Or. enfr

Justification

Critically endangered species (European Red List of Marine Fishes, European Commission & IUCN)

Amendment 52

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 h (new)

Article 9 – paragraph 1

Or. enfr

Justification

Critically endangered species (European Red List of Marine Fishes, European Commission & IUCN)

Amendment 53

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 i (new)

Article 9 – paragraph 2

Or. enfr

Justification

Critically endangered species (European Red List of Marine Fishes, European Commission & IUCN)

This article pre-empts the competences laid down in other legislation (CAP and also carbon farming).

Amendment 54

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 j (new)

Article 9 – paragraph 3 – point a

Or. enfr

Justification

Critically endangered species (European Red List of Marine Fishes, European Commission & IUCN)

Amendment 55

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 k (new)

Article 9 – paragraph 3 – point b

Or. enfr

Justification

Critically endangered species (European Red List of Marine Fishes, European Commission & IUCN)

Amendment 56

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 l (new)

Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Or. enfr

Justification

Critically endangered species (European Red List of Marine Fishes, European Commission & IUCN)

Amendment 57

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 m (new)

Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point a

Or. enfr

Justification

Endangered species that is endemic to Europe (European Red List of Marine Fishes, European Commission & IUCN)

Amendment 58

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 n (new)

Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point b

Or. enfr

Justification

Endangered species that is endemic to Europe (European Red List of Marine Fishes, European Commission & IUCN)

Amendment 59

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 o (new)

Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point c

Or. enfr

Justification

Endangered species that is endemic to Europe (European Red List of Marine Fishes, European Commission & IUCN)

Amendment 60

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 p (new)

Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3 a (new)

Or. enfr

Justification

Endangered species (European Red List of Marine Fishes, European Commission & IUCN) for which a retention ban has been decided by ICCAT

Amendment 61

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 q (new)

Article 9 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3 b (new)

Or. enfr

Justification

Commercial species that is in a critical state due to, among other things, the degradation of their habitat. Their inclusion in this list would encourage States to restore the habitats of these species. In addition to the environmental benefits, this would improve the state of these stocks and benefit fishers in the long term.

Amendment 62

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 r (new)

Article 10 – paragraph 1

Or. enfr

Justification

Commercial species that is in a critical state due to, among other things, the degradation of their habitat. Their inclusion in this list would encourage States to restore the habitats of these species. In addition to the environmental benefits, this would improve the state of these stocks and benefit fishers in the long term.

Amendment 63

Proposal for a regulation

Annex III – point 25 s (new)

Article 10 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

Or. enfr

Amendment 64

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point a

Or. fr

Amendment 65

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point b

Or. fr

Amendment 66

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point c

Or. fr

Amendment 67

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point d

Or. fr

Amendment 68

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point e

Or. fr

Amendment 69

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point f

Or. fr

Amendment 70

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new)

Or. fr

Amendment 71

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point f b (new)

Or. fr

Amendment 72

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point f c (new)

Or. fr

Amendment 73

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 2 – point f d (new)

Or. fr

Amendment 74

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Or. fr

Amendment 75

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 1

Or. fr

Amendment 76

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 2 – point a – point i

Or. fr

Amendment 77

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 2 – point a – point ii

Or. fr

Amendment 78

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 2 – point a – point iii

Or. fr

Justification

Commercial species that is in a critical state due to, among other things, the degradation of their habitat. Their inclusion in this list would encourage States to restore the habitats of these species. In addition to the environmental benefits, this would improve the state of these stocks and benefit fishers in the long term.

There is no uniform way of assessing the conservation status of favourable reference areas across all the Member States over the last 70 years, and nor can they necessarily be compared. What is more, the first measures to protect biodiversity were not introduced until the 1980s, and they were then stepped up from the 1990s onwards. With that in mind it would seem inappropriate to set a reference date that is so long ago.

Amendment 79

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 2 – point a – point iv

Or. fr

Amendment 80

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 2 – point b

Or. fr

Amendment 81

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 3

Or. fr

Amendment 82

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 4

Or. fr

Amendment 83

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 5 – introductory part

Or. fr

Amendment 84

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 7 – point g a (new)

Or. fr

Amendment 85

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 7 – point g b (new)

Or. fr

Amendment 86

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 7 – point g c (new)

Or. fr

Amendment 87

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 11

Or. fr

Amendment 88

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point a

Or. fr

Amendment 89

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point j

Or. fr

Amendment 90

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point k – point iv a (new)

Or. fr

Amendment 91

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point k – point iv b (new)

Or. fr

Amendment 92

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point l

Or. fr

Amendment 93

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point n

Or. fr

Amendment 94

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point o a (new)

Or. fr

Amendment 95

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point o b (new)

Or. fr

Amendment 96

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Or. fr

Amendment 97

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – title

Or. fr

Justification

The Commission does not formally approve the national restoration plans.

Amendment 98

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 1

Or. fr

Justification

Given the extent of the assessments the Member States will be required to provide, it is very important that they have enough time to draw up their national restoration plans.

Amendment 99

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 1

Or. fr

Justification

The Commission does not formally approve the national restoration plans. As the Commission is only consulted by the Member States, it is not in a position to evaluate the plans. This means it will simply check them.

Amendment 100

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 2

Or. fr

Amendment 101

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 3

Or. fr

Amendment 102

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 4

Or. fr

Amendment 103

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 5

Or. fr

Amendment 104

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 1

Or. fr

Amendment 105

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 2

Or. fr

Amendment 106

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 3

Or. fr

Amendment 107

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 2

Or. fr

Amendment 108

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point c

Or. fr

Amendment 109

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point f

Or. fr

Amendment 110

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – paragraph 5

Or. fr

Justification

This amendment aims to bring the whole text into line with the amendments proposed above.

Amendment 111

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – paragraph 8 a (new)

Or. fr

Amendment 112

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – paragraph 8 b (new)

Or. fr

Justification

The data collected from one Member State to another, particularly on the status of Natura 2000 areas, are not comparable and do not allow definitive conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of the Natura 2000 network. The Commission should therefore proceed to establish a common assessment methodology, in particular for Natura 2000 areas, with a view to taking further restoration measures.

Amendment 113

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – paragraph 9 – subparagraph 1 – point a

Or. fr

Amendment 114

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – paragraph 9 – subparagraph 1 – point b

Or. fr

Amendment 115

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – paragraph 9 – subparagraph 1 – point c

Or. fr

Justification

This amendment aims to ensure Member States benefit from flexibility in setting up their national restoration plans.

Amendment 116

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Or. fr

Amendment 117

Proposal for a regulation

Chapter IV a (new)

Or. fr

Justification

If we wish to enable the effective restoration of ecosystems in need of such action, adequate financial support must be provided. This support can only be provided if sufficient EU funding is available.

Amendment 118

Proposal for a regulation

Article 19 – paragraph 1

Or. fr

Amendment 119

Proposal for a regulation

Article 19 – paragraph 2

Or. fr

Amendment 120

Proposal for a regulation

Article 19 – paragraph 4

Or. fr

Amendment 121

Proposal for a regulation

Article 19 – paragraph 6

Or. fr

Amendment 122

Proposal for a regulation

Article 19 – paragraph 7 a (new)

Or. fr

Amendment 123

Proposal for a regulation

Article 22 – paragraph 2

Or. fr

Amendment 124

Proposal for a regulation

Annex IV

Or. fr

Amendment 125

Proposal for a regulation

Annex VI – table – row 2

Or. fr

Amendment 126

Proposal for a regulation

Annex VI – table – row 3

Or. fr

Amendment 127

Proposal for a regulation

Annex VI – table – row 4

Or. fr

Amendment 128

Proposal for a regulation

Annex VI – table – row 5

Or. fr

Amendment 129

Proposal for a regulation

Annex VI – table – row 6

Or. fr