Isabel Estrada Carvalhais (MEP | Full Member of the Committee of Agriculture and Rural Development and of the Committee of Fisheries | Member of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of the Socialists and Democrats)
▪
Introduction[1]
This is not an article with academic purposes and even its modest informative and reflective intent is far from complete. Its main aim is to contribute to further information and reflection on a quite important topic presently on top of the European political agenda: the Nature Restoration Law.
I suggest we look at the European Commission’s (EC) proposal for a regulation on the restoration of nature (hereinafter referred to as the Nature Restoration Act or NRL), at the on-going negotiation process in the European Parliament (EP) with recent votes in two associated committees (the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on Fisheries) and in the EP leading committee (Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety).
Let us start from the beginning and the beginning is not in the EC proposal itself, but a bit further back, in the conclusions of the European Council of 20 June 2019, immediately after the European elections of 26 May.
The conclusions provided (and still do) a clear preview of the key priorities for action in the European political agenda, as understood by the heads of state and government of the 27 Member States. It is important here to make this reference especially in a social context where we tend to ignore (or are instrumentally led to ignore) the active role that our states and our rulers play in the design of the European project. Chapter III of the conclusions of the European Council[2] reads as follows: “The European Council underlines the importance of the Climate Action Summit that the UN Secretary-General will organise in September 2019 to strengthen global climate action in order to achieve the objective of the Paris Agreement, including by pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, and welcomes the active participation of Member States and the Commission in the preparations.”
In the same document: This strategic agenda sets out a general framework and orientation for such a response. Its aim is to guide the work of the institutions over the next five years. The agenda focuses on four main priorities:
- Protecting citizens and freedoms
- Developing a strong and dynamic economic base
- Building a climate-neutral, green, fair and social Europe[3]
- Promoting European interests and values on the global stage
And in addition: “As the effects of climate change become more visible and widespread, we urgently need to step up our action to manage this existential threat. The EU can and must take a leading role by undertaking an in-depth transformation of its own economy and society in order to achieve climate neutrality. This process should be conducted in such a way as to take account of national constraints and to be socially fair. The climate transition will give us a real opportunity to modernise and, at the same time, take a leading global role in a green economy. Our policies should be consistent with the Paris Agreement. The EU cannot be the only one to act: all countries should move forward and step up their climate action. (…) At the same time, we must continue to improve the environment in our cities and rural areas, increase air and water quality and promote sustainable agriculture, which is vital to ensure food safety and foster quality production. We will lead efforts to fight biodiversity loss and to preserve environmental systems, including the oceans.”
These quotes reveal not only full awareness about climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation, but also the political commitment to take transformative action in order to reversing this path of collective self-destruction. It becomes also clear the Member States’ firm intention to make the European Union (EU) the first carbon-neutral economy by 2050. In addition to assuming the environmental agenda as an ethical imperative of the EU in its relationship with Nature and with future human generations, there is also a proclamation of the intention to act, to create the conditions of context to reverse the decline of our terrestrial and marine ecosystems.
Hence, when the European Commission presented the implementation of the European Green Deal as one of its main political priorities, it did nothing but to seek to follow up on a priority for action that the European Council itself had already identified as essential.
I would also like to highlight the conclusions of the European Council of 15-16 October 2020, in particular point 3 on climate change: “In order to meet the objective of a climate-neutral EU by 2050, in line with the objectives of the Paris Agreement, the EU needs to increase its ambition for the next decade and update its climate and energy policy framework. In that context, the European Council discussed the Commission communication entitled ‘Strengthening Europe’s 2030 climate ambition’, including the proposal for an emission reduction target of at least 55 % by 2030, as well as the actions needed to achieve that ambition.”[4]
In the same vein, the European Parliament, as co-legislator, also adopted its resolution on the “EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: bringing Nature back into our lives” with a very comfortable majority reached with votes from left to right in the Chamber.
This introduction is intended to help highlight the following: that the environmental agenda does not stem from any ideological whim! The European environmental agenda ends up asserting itself, with society, in the face of what is empirical and scientific evidence that only the fruitful imagination of the negators can reject.
Allow me also to quote Pope Francis’ Encyclical Laudato Si (2015) paragraph 25[5]: “Climate change is a global problem with serious implications: environmental, social, economic, policy and distribution of goods. It represents one of the main challenges facing humanity in our day. Its worst impact is likely to be felt by developing countries in the coming decades. (…)”.
And in paragraph 26: “Many of those with more resources and economic or political power seem to focus primarily on masking problems or hiding their symptoms, seeking only to reduce some negative impacts of climate change. But many symptoms indicate that such effects may be worse and worse if we continue with current models of production and consumption. Therefore, it has become urgent and imperative to develop policies that can cause the emission of carbon dioxide and other highly polluting gases in the coming years to be drastically reduced, for example by replacing fossil fuels and developing renewable energy sources.”
Pope Francis states that it is not enough to recognise the existence of climate change, but it is necessary to act in an “urgent and imperious” way. And the European institutions, governments and public opinions have been showing growing awareness and willingness to act, as I tried to illustrate here.
The truth is that climate change and biodiversity degradation are no longer limited to hypothetical scenarios and simulations that were made 30 or 40 years ago based on more or less dramatic mathematical models. They are a reality, as we observe on an almost daily basis, with the frequency of extreme events and of news on plant and animal species at serious risk of conservation or already extinct[6]. In this sense, it is more than reasonable that the European Commission has moved forward with non-legislative proposals (such as the Biodiversity Strategy, the Farm to Fork Strategy) and legislative proposals (such as the proposal for a European regulation on the restoration of Nature) which seek to lay the foundations for a collective effort towards a new paradigm of action, production and consumption that will rebalance our relationship with Nature and secure our own survival.
It should be noted that in 70 years of European legislation, there has never been a single piece of legislation dedicated to restoring Nature.[7]
But, what is the proposal for a Nature Restoration Act about? What are its main aspects? How has the European Parliament’s position been worked out in view of adopting its mandate to proceed the negotiations with its co-legislative partner, the Council? Do the attacks that certain political sectors (all of them on the right and far right of the EP) and economic sectors have made both to the original EC proposal and to the ENVI report led by the Spanish MEP César Luena of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), make sense? Could it be that the whole discussion around the NRL is already the prelude of escalating political tensions in face of the European elections that will happen next year on the 9th of June? Is there a conflict between agriculture and Nature as the right-wing and the far-right political groups in the EP insist there is, or is this instead an artificial confrontation that the European right and far right parties are fueling envisaging their electoral intents? And where does the process of ecological transition stay in all this? What happens to the need to act in an ‘urgent and imperative’ way, and to the urgency of reconciliation with Nature? Does attacking the creation of a NRL really help the protection of the rural world, in particular of its millions of small-scale farmers, shepherds and small-scale fishermen whose lives depend upon Nature’s resources?
The proposal for a law on the restoration of Nature
The proposal for a Nature restoration law emerges from the finding that there is an urgent need to respond quickly to Nature’s alarming decline across Europe, with more than 80 % of its habitats in degraded status and countless species suffering abrupt declines. The Red List of Endangered Species published by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) helps us illustrate this reality and is here a good pedagogical tool to understand the conservation states of thousands of vertebrate and invertebrate species, animals and plants. For example, in the Red List, regarding the 48 states and regions monitored in the European continent, only 3 countries (Spain, Greece and Italy) outnumber Portugal (with 540 records) in the overall total of endangered species (sub-categorized in critically endangered species; threatened or vulnerable ones)[8] which is, I dare saying, very alarming for all of us. Particularly worrying in Europe is the condition of European endemic pollinators[9]. Considering that around 84 % of the cultivated species relevant for our food and 78 % of wildflower species in Europe depend at least partially on the work of pollinators, I suppose it becomes crystal-clear that their conservation status is actually a strategic issue of food security[10].
In order to halt this decline, the initial EC proposal indicates among other objectives that Member States implement effective restoration measures, which together contribute to the common goal of restoring 20% of the Union’s territory by 2030. This should include measures to halt the decline in pollinators by 2030 and increase their number from that year onwards; to halt the loss of urban green spaces by 2030, increasing them by 5 % by 2050 and to promote the restoration of marine habitats such as marine meadows (very important carbon sinks), sedimentary funds, as well as the elimination of river barriers. In general terms, the Commission’s proposal for the NRL is in line with the Biodiversity Strategy 2030.
Based on this legislative proposal published on 22 June 2022, the European Parliament, in full use of its role as co-legislator, immediately started working in view to define its position and future mandate to negotiate with the Council and the Commission. To this end, three committees were involved: the lead committee (Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, henceforth simply ENVI) and two associated committees (the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development – COMAGRI and the Committee on Fisheries COMPECH) called upon to produce Opinions. These opinions could have been, I believe, important contributions for the final text of ENVI. I say ‘could have been’ because they did not survive to their committees’ voting. The MEPs of the right-wing and far-right groups have chosen to table an initial amendment rejecting the Commission’s proposal. As they formed a majority, this initial amendment passed. Therefore, the opinions that had already been negotiated among the political groups (the right-wing ones included) and were ready to be voted, did not survive. By killing the possibility of voting the Opinions, the right and far right MEPs in COMAGRI and COMPECH simply eliminated the voice of these committees and with that the possibility of having more contributions sensitive to the claims of fishermen and farmers in the ENVI’s final report. This was these political groups (EPP, ECR and ID, with a few votes from Renew) first step of a strategy of boycotting the Nature Restoration Act in the EP.
As full member of COMAGRI and COMPECH, I followed very closely the whole process, I must confess I felt rather disappointed with this outcome. While the EC proposal needed quite a revision, I believe that it would be much preferable that as co-legislators we could contribute constructively for the proposal’s improvement, making sure that valid concerns and views from agricultural and fisheries sectors were also taken into consideration. Instead, the right-wing majority only contributed for the negative idea that these two committees are always backwards, change-resistant, and to spread even more the idea that agriculture and fisheries are against nature. For those of us who fight hard to show that there is no such rivalry, these political tactics are really deplorable.
It should be say, that even without the opinions of these two associated committees, ENVI’s rapporteur César Luena did make a remarkable work of conciliation of political visions and sensitivities. Indeed, the compromises that Mr. Luena had managed to achieve over months and months of hard negotiations with all other political groups (the right and far right included), showed great evolution of the Parliament’s position from the initial EC proposal. But despite all the efforts, the ENVI’s draft report was also rejected in the ENVI Committee, in a vote literally split in half: 44 votes against and 44 votes in favour.
It is reasonable to put the question: why does the right wing in the EP chose a dramatic rejection and prefer to menace the existence of a clear EP mandate regarding one of the most relevant pieces of legislation for the implementation of the European Green Deal?[11] The right wing and far right political groups claim that nothing moves them against Nature; that they do not deny climate change; that they do not oppose the Green Deal. However, they choose to work to boycott the Parliament’s mandate on the NRL[12]. Why? Before answering this, let us look at some of their arguments and explain why they can’t stand still.
Behind the arguments contrary to the NRL
One of the arguments put forward by right-wing and far-right political groups says that if the NRL goes forward, it will have a negative impact on European food security. This is a weak argument. In January this year, the EC itself presented a document detailing how the biodiversity crisis is already having a direct impact on the EU’s food security. Extreme droughts such as those affecting the Iberian Peninsula, sudden storms, tragic floods such as those recently experienced in Italy, are all examples of weather extremes that are destroying entire crops, resulting in the loss of millions of euros, endangering the economic viability of thousands of farmers and threatening the availability of healthy and affordable food to millions of Europeans. So, it’s not restoring Nature that is going to cause food insecurity. It is not to do so that will deepen the food insecurity that already exists.
Science is clear: at European level, around 50 % of pollinator-dependent crops already face considerable pollination deficits; 70 % of farmlands have nutritious poverty; the desertification of agricultural land is increasing; and about 30 % of our groundwater is under pressure. Restoring Nature is therefore not only an ethical imperative, but also a very pragmatic one, considering the positive impact it will have on Europe’s food security. Reversing the loss of biodiversity, including that on agricultural land, and improving soil quality are key objectives if we are to ensure food production and farmers’ incomes in the coming decades and not just in the immediate future. To this end, it is important to take measures that do not just try to mitigate the impact of climate change, but that help farmland maintain the productive capacity needed for decades ahead.
The main objective of a NRL is precisely to help increase the health and resilience of agricultural ecosystems, because without improving biodiversity and achieving stronger and more resilient ecosystems, it will simply not be possible to guarantee sustainable agricultural production in the medium to long term, nor a thriving bioeconomy in rural areas, nor guarantee the continuity of the way of life of our farmers.
Another frequent criticism relates to the agricultural indicators included in the NRL, and the possibility for them to add too much burden on farmers. The proposal however, as negotiated in ENVI by the Socialists and Democrats, is mostly based on indicators that are already incorporated in the Common Agricultural Policy. In any case, they are recognised as the best indicators to measure the health of the agricultural ecosystems, such as grassland butterflies, organic carbon stock in crop soils, farmland birds and high diversity landscape features. If these indicators increase, it means that agricultural ecosystems will be experiencing an improvement in their biodiversity, as well as an improvement in the services provided to the entire agricultural ecosystem, including agricultural production. The indicator on farmland birds is a good example. The number of farmland birds provides a very good indication of ecosystem conditions, as these birds are at the top of the food chain and occupy a number of ecological niches. By restoring their populations, they will contribute to the restoration of the populations of many other species, as well as to the overall quality of the ecosystem and associated ecosystem services. Also the organic carbon indicator (not being a biodiversity indicator in the CAP) is among the most suitable indicators for assessing the health of agricultural land. Higher levels of organic matter mean more organisms that live in the soil. Soil organisms are in turn the main drivers of the nutrient cycle and regulate the dynamics of organic matter and the fixation of carbon in the soil.
Finally, an NRL will certainly not be the panacea for all environmental ills, but it will be essential to help recover fish stocks, halt soil erosion, halt the decline of pollinators, the complete disappearance of species, halt the destruction of sensitive ecosystems and traditional agroforestry systems (e.g. montados, groves, wetlands) and stimulate the creation and protection of thousands of jobs directly and indirectly related to the provision of ecosystem services and bioeconomy. And, very importantly, it will help farmers and fishermen become much more resilient to climate change.
Of course, there is still work to be done to make sure that the EU will have a good Nature Restoration Law, and in no way can the questions and doubts of farmers and fishermen be underestimated, especially when it comes to know how the financial and technical support will be provided so that they can carry forward the implementation of a new law. However, it seems shear demagogy (as well as dangerous recklessness in times of growing social unrest) to opt for a populist strategy that does not contribute to finding valid solutions to the challenges of fisheries and agriculture and simply contributes to jeopardize the efforts of bringing the rural world, farmers and fishermen closer to public opinion.
Conclusion
The previous section in no way exhausts the arguments contrary to the NRL or the way in which they can be contradicted. The intention is simply to illustrate briefly what seems to me to be an excessive politicisation of this dossier for essentially electoral purposes, given the proximity of the European elections in 2024. The right-wing groups in the European Chamber may have a rationale, but I wonder at what price. Is it honest to spread the idea that only the European right and far right parties care about farmers and fishermen?
I do not believe that our children and grandchildren will understand these manipulative diatribes that work against the urgency of restoring nature, for electoral purposes. Therefore, before continuing this crusade against the NRL, I believe that all those who oppose it and who seek to have the European Parliament as their ‘resonance box’, should ask themselves whether to boycott a law dedicated to the restoration of Nature, is in fact a legacy of political struggle of which they can be proud in the future.
[1] Note: Sections of this text were previously published in a short chronicle in Correio do Minho (July 6).
[2] See at https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/39962/20-21-euco-final-conclusions-pt.pdf
[3] Bold by the author.
[4] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/pt/press/press-releases/2020/10/16/european-council-conclusions-15-16-october-2020/. The conclusions were also adopted at the Council of the Ministers of Environment on 23 October 2020 ( https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11829-2020-INIT/en/pdf)
[5] See at https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/pt/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html
[6]For more information, see the Red List provided by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, available at https://www.iucnredlist.org/statistics. Very recently it was also reported the high degree of threat of extinction of steppe birds in Portugal, such as the sison and the bustard (Public, 29 June 2023, available at https://www.publico.pt/2023/06/29/azul/noticia/preparado-despedir-sisao-medidas-extincao-portugal-inevitavel-2054804).
[7] To this day, the Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC) and the Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC) have a different scope of action. On the one hand, because they are directives and not regulations, they therefore do not exempt national legislative acts for their transposition. Moreover, this may help explain why only 15 % of habitats in Europe have a good conservation status (see more at https://www.eea.europa.eu/pt/highlights/ultima-avaliacao-mostra-que-a). On the other hand, those directives aim at the protection of species and habitats, and protection may even entail the limitation or prohibition of certain human activities. On the contrary, restoring means, above all, actively improving environmental conditions by making use of the good cooperation of agricultural activities, fishing activities, among others such as hunting itself, by way of example.
[8] See at https://www.iucn.org/.
[9] See more at https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/pollinators-15-2020/pt/.
[10]See at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/pt/headlines/society/20191129STO67758/porque-estao-a-desaparecer-as-abelhas-e-os-polinizadores-infografia.
[11] I would also point out that, at this stage, even the Council of the European Union has a mandate. It was approved on June the 20th. Indeed, the ministers of environment of the 27 Member States have not only succeeded in conveying a common position but have also shown a constructive approach to the EC proposal. While they did not agree with all that was proposed by the EC, they opted though not to reject it, but to submit contributions which in their view improve it. For example, the Council proposal points to a balance between maintaining ambitious targets for Nature restoration and giving Member States flexibility in the implementation of the Regulation. In parallel, it also affirms the need for binding measures by 2030 to restore at least 30 % of listed habitats, relating to terrestrial, coastal, freshwater, and marine ecosystems that are not in good condition. Member States shall also establish restoration measures of at least 60 % and 90 % (by 2040 and 2050 respectively) of the area of each habitat group that is not in good condition.
[12]By the time this text is submitted, it is not yet possible to know what the outcome of this whole process will be. The final vote will occur in plenary in Strasbourg, next 12th July.
Picture credits: by Photo by Kelly on Pexels.com.
Official Blog of UNIO 