What changed

ORDINARY LEGISLATIVE procedure

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

Follow up to the European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on nature restoration

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.

1. Rapporteur: César LUENA (S&D / ES)

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’.

2. Reference numbers: 2022/0195 (COD) / A9-0220/2023 / P9_TA(2024)0089

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.

3. Date of adoption of the resolution: 27 February 2024

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.

4. Legal basis: Article 192(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

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.

5. Competent Parliamentary Committee: Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI)

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.

6. Commission's position: accepts all amendments. The Commission presented the following statement:

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.

Commission Statement on access to justice:

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

The EU and its Member States are parties to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters of 25 June 1998 (the ‘Aarhus Convention’).

Restoration targets

Member States should ensure that members of the public concerned, who have a sufficient interest or that maintain the impairment of a right in accordance with national law, have access to a review procedure before a court of law, or an independent and impartial body established by law, to challenge the substantive or procedural legality of the national restoration plans and any failures to act of the competent authorities, regardless of the role members of the public concerned have played during the process for preparing and establishing such national restoration plans. This shall be in line with the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union related to access to justice in environmental matters and in full respect of the obligations Member States have undertaken as parties to the Aarhus Convention (1).’

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.

(1) See also Communication on ‘Improving access to justice in environmental matters in the EU and its Member States’ (COM(2020)0643)

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.

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.

PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION