Debate: Nature restoration
Date: TUESDAY, 11 JULY 2023
Speaker: Virginijus Sinkevičius
Language: EN

So what can we take away from today’s debate? First, I think it has illustrated very well what’s at stake. It has shown that stakes are high and that nature will not allow us to lose time. Far too much of Europe’s nature has now been degraded or destroyed; it’s vital to reverse that trend and time is running out. The world is watching us – so are our children – and we all need to take responsibility. If we want to deliver on Europe’s global biodiversity commitments agreed at COP15 in Montreal in December 2022, if we want to maintain the role of the EU as a global climate leader, we have to deliver. Nature restoration is not a luxury legislation. Healthy ecosystems, they are just fundamental assets of our economy and society. We cannot simply opt out or postpone. Today, I hear again that the Green Deal is not the Nature Restoration Law. Honourable Members, yes it is! This law is the flagship initiative of the European Green Deal. Nature and biodiversity is a key pillar and the equivalent of the Climate Law for nature, and it is the first dedicated EU legal proposal on nature in 30 years. You may be surprised to hear this, but to me this debate has shown that an agreement is possible if we remain engaged and if we take our responsibilities. Why am I rather optimistic? Because most of your interventions have shown that there is a willingness to discuss this law. And because even those of you who claim that this law has to be rejected have proposed amendments. This is positive and this is what co-legislators and the codecision process are all about. If there is anything to change or improve, the Commission is here is to discuss and support you. This is our role: to facilitate an agreement. And this is what we are determined to do. I am optimistic because today I have heard concerns on issues which have already been addressed and solved on the Council’s side and which we have already reflected in the non-paper on 8 June. And in spite of our genuine efforts to clarify and explain, I still hear and read many misconceptions and misunderstandings. I still hear questions to which there are very straightforward answers – which we have already provided to many of you on a bilateral basis, but which we are more than happy to reiterate. So let me mention just a few of them. Ms Sander and Mr Mato, you raised the concern that nature restoration will impact food security and that we are going to increase food imports. Well, the EU food system has achieved a high level of security and a wide offer for consumers. And actually 20% of food in the EU goes to waste. The challenge is to maintain the EU’s agricultural food production potential to ensure food security in the mid to long term. And this requires a transition to sustainable food production and sustainable food systems. I am afraid that food availability is not the issue, but food affordability. The biggest threat to food security in the EU and globally are the combined, interlinked climate and biodiversity crises leading to depletion of soil, pollinator loss, desertification and drought. This is reflected in the very comprehensive study on the drivers of food security, which the Commission published in January. I heard Ms Schneider ask for data and impact assessments. All data on the relation between healthy ecosystems and food security can be found there. On food security, I make a plea to all of you who have expressed concern to actually look at Article 9 of the proposal, and see with your own eyes what this article is about. Requirements are about increasing trends in indicators, which scientists tell us are the best proxies to tell us the health of our agriculture. And Member States can set their own levels to be achieved on those indicators. So when we talk about the regional dimension and Member State flexibilities, they are there. Mr Vondra, Mr Dorfmann and Mr Torvalds, you expressed concern that the proposal would put Member States into a straitjacket. The opposite is true. It provides for a large degree of flexibility and subsidiarity. It will be for Member States to decide which restoration measures they wish to put in place, where and when. The proposal asks Member States to do this together with stakeholders, involving them closely, all of them: that means farmers, foresters, fishers, civil society, scientists. Ms Zalewska, let me also reassure you that the Commission will only assess Member States’ plans to see the EU trends, but it will not approve or validate them. Mr Liese, you and some other Members have expressed concern that the Nature Restoration Law would hamper hydropower from dam removals in rivers. Nowhere does the Nature Restoration Law proposal require de-establishment of hydropower. To the contrary, it says literally in Article 7(2): ‘Member States shall primarily address obsolete barriers, which are those that are no longer needed for renewable energy generation [...] or other uses’. So we would expect Member States to target primary obsolete barriers. Experts estimated that at least 20% of all barriers in the EU are obsolete, so they no longer serve any purpose. The number of hydropower plants in the EU is estimated to be 23 000, which represents barely 2% in the total number of barriers. It is therefore possible easily to respect the proposed requirements without having an impact on hydroelectricity generation. Mr Liese, you said we need to make compromises to reconcile nature protection and economic activities or infrastructure, and you said you believe in cooperation. I am glad to hear this because I hope you are ready to finalise this codecision procedure in the same constructive spirit as we have started one year ago or, I would say, four years ago – the first time I met you and we had a discussion on this upcoming mandate. Finally, let me also use this opportunity to clarify once and for all that the Nature Restoration Law will not put 10% of land out of production. First of all, the 10% is not a mandatory target, neither for individual Member States, and especially not at farm level. Hence there is no obligation for individual farmers to take 10% of their land out of production. It is mentioned as a benchmark, referring to the EU-level objective set in the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Member States are asked to increase the share of agricultural land with high diversity landscape features at national level until a satisfactory level is reached. Member States would define themselves in their national restoration plans the satisfactory level they aim to achieve, and that level could be way below 10%. As stressed in the non-paper, the Commission is ready to clarify the objective of this provision and adapt if it is necessary. Dear colleagues, last but not least, I remain optimistic because I know that, since the beginning of this mandate, we have always worked constructively. We have always shown that we can find compromises and solutions. We carve them out in the most difficult legislations, and we have already reached agreements on many important files – sometimes very difficult files. It would be regretful and difficult to explain why we didn’t manage to do so also for one of the most important pieces of the legislation of the European Green Deal. Honourable Members, let me be very clear and honest: a compromise is possible and in reach. The divergences are not as big as to justify rejection. Other files have been even more complicated and we managed. I sincerely hope we will not miss this opportunity to bring the Nature Restoration Law to a successful conclusion. The Commission will play its role as an honest broker and do everything it can to make it happen. Honourable Members, some of you voiced concerns that this law may hamper our economies – putting farmers, foresters, fishers out of work. Let me be clear: there will be no work, no income when nature is sick. Today, we are proposing the medicine. The first to benefit from this medicine will be those whose livelihoods directly depend on our natural resources. They need nature to be healthy. They need that for the resilience and productivity of the land and of the seas. They need it to ensure food security. Some of you said that they are in favour of nature restoration, but they simply ask for a new proposal from the Commission. Let me be very clear. We do have a proposal. A proposal based on a solid impact assessment. A proposal that has already evolved, on which we have presented a non-paper in June and on which Member States have already presented many amendments, touching upon many issues also raised in this House. A proposal on which, until April, all groups worked constructively and proposed important amendments. A proposal on which even those groups who plead for rejection have now tabled amendments for the plenary vote tomorrow.  Honourable Members, this is called codecision. Let’s finalise this process. It is possible, and with a constructive approach we could conclude it actually quite quickly. Let’s not miss this opportunity. We cannot lose time and we don’t need to lose time. Restoration is our best hope of getting nature back in shape. We need that for climate mitigation. We need that for climate adaptation. We need that for our economy. The world is watching us. Our citizens are watching. We set the pace at COP15 in Montreal, and this is our chance to deliver at home, proving to the world that it can be done, proving to our citizens that we keep our promises. For the last time, honourable Members, let’s secure a better future for our citizens, our farmers, our fishers, our businesses, our children.