Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 5 July 2022 - Strasbourg

12. Question Time (Commission) Increasing EU ambitions on biodiversity ahead of COP 15

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Fragestunde mit Anfragen an die Kommission gemäß Artikel 137 der Geschäftsordnung.

Ich begrüße Herrn Kommissar Sinkevičius zu dieser Fragestunde.

Das Thema dieser Fragestunde lautet: Ehrgeizigere Ziele der EU im Bereich der biologischen Vielfalt im Vorfeld der COP 15.

Die Fragestunde wird etwa 90 Minuten dauern. Die Fragen werden nicht einzelnen Mitgliedern im Voraus zugewiesen. Die Redezeiten sind: eine Minute, um eine Frage zu stellen, zwei Minuten für die Antwort, 30 Sekunden für eine Zusatzfrage und zwei Minuten für die Antwort.

Ich weise Sie darauf hin, dass eine mögliche Zusatzfrage nur dann zulässig ist, wenn sie in einem engen Zusammenhang mit der Hauptfrage steht und keine neue Frage enthält.

Wenn Sie eine Frage stellen möchten, ersuche ich Sie, Ihren Antrag jetzt zu registrieren, indem Sie die Funktion Ihres Abstimmungsgeräts für spontane Wortmeldungen nutzen, nachdem Sie Ihre Stimmkarte eingeschoben haben.

Entsprechende Anleitungen sind im Plenarsaal verfügbar.

Ich erinnere Sie daran, dass mit Ausnahme der ersten beiden Reihen, die für die Fraktionsvorsitzenden vorgesehen sind, freie Sitzplatzwahl besteht.

Während der Fragestunde erfolgen Wortmeldungen von Ihrem Sitzplatz aus. Ich ersuche alle Redner, die ihnen zugewiesene Redezeit einzuhalten.

Die Kolleginnen und Kollegen benötigen möglicherweise einige Augenblicke, um ihren Antrag, eine Frage zu stellen, über ihr Abstimmungsgerät zu registrieren. Daher ersuche ich Sie erneut, Ihren Antrag jetzt zu stellen.

  Alexander Bernhuber (PPE). – Herr Kommissar! Herzlichen Dank, dass wir hier so schnell zu Wort kommen dürfen. Die Biodiversität ist eine allumfassende Krise. Ich finde es gut, dass wir uns hier beraten, und ich finde es sehr gut, dass wir sehr ehrgeizige Ziele auf europäischer Ebene umsetzen.

Meine Frage ist aber: Wie können wir dazu beitragen, die Biodiversitätskrise auch in anderen Teilen der Welt sichtbar zu machen? Welche konkreten Schritte setzen Sie als Kommissar in diesem Bereich, um hier wirklich Aufmerksamkeit zu schaffen und Biodiversität auch wirklich nicht nur in Europa zu fördern, sondern auch in anderen Teilen dieser Welt?

Denn ich gehe schon stark davon aus, dass wir, wenn wir alle unsere Ziele des Green Deals umsetzen, trotzdem noch Versorgungssicherheit mit Lebensmitteln gewähren wollen. Wie gehen Sie davon aus, dass nicht Teile der Produktion in anderen Teilen der Welt unter schlechteren Bedingungen stattfinden und die Umwelt in anderen Teilen der Welt mehr zerstören? Das ist eine ganz konkrete Frage.

  Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – Thank you very much for your question and of course, thank you very much to all Members of this Parliament for putting this question, this important question, on the agenda as we are heading towards COP15. Finally, the date and the place is clear.

So of course, for us to have an ambitious outcome, we need to be united and also lead by example. So the first part of my answer to you is that we have strong legislation here in the EU with the biodiversity strategy, now also with the nature restoration legislation and other pieces of legislation, which allows us to lead the way.

Secondly, I think what’s extremely important is to seek an agreement which would be a landing zone for all regions around the globe, finding a perfect match between an ambition but also realistically what can be implemented and also, of course, funded.

Last but not least, I’m very thankful that you have mentioned the food security issue there, because exactly due to biodiversity loss, exactly due to ecosystem degradation, this is the biggest threat to our food security and I think this has to be addressed immediately. One of the steps forward is, of course, nature restoration legislation, which on one hand does not maybe directly produce the crops and yields, but on the other hand plays a vital role to ensure food security in the long term for our people. The same goes for other regions.

So I think this food insecurity which is now very much at the centre of attention, caused by Russian war crimes and even a bigger war crime is committed when the Port of Odessa is blocked, must be also one of the topics that should be mentioned in COP15 and especially the biodiversity’s and ecosystem’s importance for food production.

  Alexander Bernhuber (PPE). – Mr President, first of all, I want to mention the sound of the Commission is very low, so maybe the technicians can increase the sound a bit.

My further question would be, do you think that with regard to the COP15 resolution, can there be really part of food security, and also with the context of the war in Ukraine and with the changes of delivery of wheat to North Africa – what is your expectation on this topic?

  Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – At the moment, it does not have a mention, and of course, knowing the dynamic of the COP and the UN, that might be challenging. But I think what’s extremely important is that we keep it in mind and we know what is the issue.

As I said, you know, the issue as regards the Odessa port blocking is, first of all, a war crime. Secondly, it is a logistical issue. But then, when we see the situation also here in the EU, our farmers already lose every year more than EUR 1 billion in crop yields just because of biodiversity loss. The same applies to other parts of the world.

I think that’s inevitably going to be underpinning and therefore I think it’s going to be inevitably applied. And I think, you know, when we look at developing countries, we see that there is an urgent need to help them, but to help them not only with development funding, but also ensuring that they have the environment which can produce.

  César Luena (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, los resultados que hemos tenido en Ginebra, en Nairobi, no son muy halagüeños. Y las expectativas, que realmente fueron frustradas, de las metas de Aichi, pues tampoco deben ser el ejemplo. Entonces, mi pregunta es: ¿usted cree que tenemos que tener un acuerdo, pero que sea vinculante como lo es, en relación con el clima, el Acuerdo de París? Un acuerdo vinculante significa que tiene que tener metas e indicadores específicos, un plazo de cumplimiento, un mecanismo de implementación, un mecanismo de revisión.

Por otro lado, en relación con los objetivos —le hablo de los objetivos tanto de recuperación como de protección, de los dos—, ¿no cree usted que es el momento de aumentarlos al 30 %? Es decir, las expectativas son muy altas y necesitamos que la Comisión Europea, que representa ahí a la Unión Europea, sea muy ambiciosa en objetivos y en que el acuerdo sea vinculante, como el Acuerdo de París lo es para el clima.

  Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – Thank you very much for your question and for the very clearly expressed ambition, but I think we have to be realistic on the ambitious targets that we set.

There’s nothing wrong with being realistic, because, looking back, we have failed to implement the targets before. And every time we return, we return with new targets. And of course, I’m happy to do so. But I think there is a clock ticking and asking for urgent implementation. So I think the 30x30 target which is proposed, which is there, is enough. Because if you look back at the Aichi targets, they are still relevant and they are not implemented.

Secondly, what we have to have, in order to successfully implement it, is a monitoring framework review clause, which would allow us a successful implementation.

Last but not least, when we speak about the Paris moment for biodiversity and the environment, what we want to do with the COP, and when you mentioned at the beginning that the rounds in Geneva and Nairobi didn’t bring the result that we expected, you’re absolutely right. I think there are many reasons for that. But one of the key reasons was, of course, that COP15 was constantly postponed and, of course, it didn’t get the political momentum that it should have. So hopefully now, when we have clarity, that will pick up pace.

I think if you compare the Nairobi round and the Geneva round, there was already progress. Yes, that progress is still in brackets. And we will have to do a lot of work to take it from brackets and make it an agreement, because we have to be also, you know, very clear here that there is no broad agreement between countries, and that will require a huge effort negotiating even 30x30 targets, and then, at the end of the day, it’s implementation. But I am optimistic. I think the EU has the credibility to talk and to lead. We managed not only to already have a significant increase on biodiversity funding, but also we have very ambitious domestic legislation, which has been proven to be working.

  César Luena (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, me alegra escucharle con esa pasión y esa fuerza. Este Parlamento le va a acompañar en Montreal con esas ambiciones y con esas metas, pero también con otras expectativas. Y le hablo de algo que es muy importante: hace falta inversión para proteger y para recuperar la biodiversidad —según algunos expertos, hasta 700 000 millones de dólares—, pero tan importante es poner como quitar. Y aquellas subvenciones, aquellos subsidios que perjudican a la naturaleza —lo hemos pedido en este Parlamento reiteradas veces— hay que eliminarlos. Hay que invertir donde hay que invertir y retirar aquello que perjudica a la naturaleza.

  Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – Absolutely. I think when we speak about any agreement, funding we know is going to be a complicated part, especially when we talk about biodiversity.

Remember the Paris Agreement? For Paris to become a reality there was a Copenhagen before, where actually the number on funding was finally met and then it sort of started a true dialogue towards an ambition. We don’t have that time for COP15. We all have to become a bit more, let’s say, pragmatic and realistic about what can be put on the table. Because when I also hear calls for a EUR 100 billion per year from the current EUR 6 billion, we understand that it’s unrealistic – although, you know, creating additional funding, additional funds and so on, we are ready to explore those opportunities. We are ready to have a look how they’re going to work.

We as the EU, and President von der Leyen, have very clearly showed our leadership already in doubling our funding for biodiversity from EUR 3.5 billion to EUR 7 billion. I hope – and I’m working together with colleagues especially in the high ambition coalition – that others will follow. But I think here, in order to really have as much as possible funding available, we also need to look at other sources, at private funds, where we can get additional support to increase that number as much as possible.

That will require lots of creativity. That will require additional solutions. As I said, we are ready to explore those options, but nevertheless we have to be realistic as to what it is possible to allocate. Now I fully agree with you as regards the harmful subsidies. I think some progress has been reached and the question is becoming a centre of attention. Here within the EU we also need to fully implement the ‘do no significant harm’ principle – and especially now when we are in the middle of a transition where Member States are going to be using funds as regards the post—COVID restoration, as regards the war in Ukraine and so on. So it is extremely important that those funds would be used without doing harm to our environment, to our climate targets.

  Valter Flego (Renew). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, poštovani povjereniče, klima se mijenja. Ne treba biti nikakav genijalac za to ustvrditi, ali ono što mislim da trebamo znati je činjenica da taj utjecaj klime ima utjecaj i na različite temeljne resurse.

Temeljni resursi jesu zrak, da, jest zemlja, ali za nas koji živimo na Mediteranu, to je apsolutno i voda odnosno more. Iz tog razloga ja imam feeling da smo mi malo manje koncentrirani na more, a malo više na onečišćenje u zraku i zemlji i želim da se to ispravi.

Iz tog razloga, a s obzirom da vidimo da se mijenja bioraznolikost u moru, posebice u Jadranskom moru, dolaze nove vrste riba i tako dalje i tako dalje... Pitam vas, da li je Komisija toga svjesna i što će Komisija učiniti da se taj problem riješi? I to hitno.

  Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – First of all, there is no chance that we can succeed in the fight against climate change or halting biodiversity loss without the oceans playing a vital role, oceans, of course, including the sea basins that we all know best. And here, I think, speaking against the background of the Ocean Conference in Lisbon, we can clearly say that this year we need to use, as much as is possible, to actually put the ocean nexus into the final documents of COP15.

It must be also a clear visibility at COP in Sharm el-Sheikh, too, because without healthy oceans, without their mitigation functions, without absorption of CO2, we won’t be able to fight climate change. And you are absolutely right. Climate change is already putting huge pressure on our oceans and we see this with very quickly changing ecosystems, biodiversity, within our oceans.

Another thing which I think is going to be an important step on the way to Montreal is negotiations on so-called BBNJ – beyond national jurisdictions – on the protection of the high seas. That can give a great booster towards the meeting in Montreal in finding an agreement on protection of the high seas and having clear rules there. So I hope that we will be able in August to have a final meeting in New York to close these negotiations. That would be a big step further as regards our oceans’ protection.

The final thing is, of course, we also have to look and protect marine resources better in our seas. I think what’s very important is to step up the implementation of marine protected areas. So far we’ve seen significant steps done by some Member States and we just had a huge announcement of the largest marine protected area, but still, it’s not enough. We need to do more. We need to be aiming at and reaching our 30% goal that we have in our biodiversity strategy. And of course, the Member States will have to step up their efforts.

  Valter Flego (Renew). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, drago mi je da sve to čujem, drago mi je da vidim da postoji strategija, da postoji dobra volja.

Ono što bih vas ja htio zamoliti jesu vrlo konkretni operativni planovi. Siguran sam da ćete u tome imati pomoć, partnerstvo, sinergiju gradova, općina, županija, država, različitih centara za istraživanje mora. I onda na temelju struke, na temelju svih njih i zajedničkog promišljanja da idemo zajedno napraviti vrlo konkretne projekte: od ovih o kojima vi govorite, dizanja mora pa do zaštite različitih onečišćenja.

Radujem se takvim projektima i vjerujte da su oni nužni, potrebni i hitni.

  Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – I always say that in order to fight issues like climate change or biodiversity loss or pollution, they respect no borders. Of course we have to cooperate transboundary, but also at the regional level because, at the end of the day, implementation comes to the regional level.

Especially when we speak about our sea basins, about our seas, we know how our regions are heavily dependent on activities. COVID, unfortunately, very clearly exposed that our coastal regions are mainly dependent on two activities: fisheries and tourism. We know that with ecosystem decline at the rate that we have, the places where eutrophication is taking place and dead zones are forming there will be neither fisheries or tourism.

So of course we have to deploy all the possible efforts. We are already working very closely as regards the fisheries management with the regional fisheries management organisations, which helps us to get the specifics and, of course, successfully address them. I am sure that also with the deployment of funds as regards the cohesion funds or fisheries fund, we can also engage even closer with the regions, with the coastal communities, because at the end of the day we are speaking here about their social and economic well-being, which is unfortunately with the declining of our ocean ecosystems might be severely impacted as well.

  Μαρία Σπυράκη (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, εξαιτίας της κλιματικής αλλαγής, ανθρώπινης αμέλειας και κάποιων σημαντικών ατυχημάτων, οι πυρκαγιές έχουν ήδη ξεσπάσει στη Μεσόγειο και ειδικά στη χώρα μου, την Ελλάδα, η οποία τις τελευταίες μέρες αντιμετωπίζει σοβαρό πρόβλημα.

Το πρώτο μου ερώτημα αφορά στο εάν προτίθεστε ενόψει και της COP15 να ζητήσετε από την Επιτροπή να προχωρήσει στη θεσμοθέτηση εξειδικευμένων μέτρων που αφορούν στην αποκατάσταση της βιοποικιλότητας στις περιοχές που καίγονται, και μέσω της ανταλλαγής τεχνογνωσίας μέσα από ειδική πλατφόρμα, και πέρα από τον σχεδιασμό από τα κράτη μέλη ειδικών προγραμμάτων για την αποκατάσταση τέτοιου είδους βιοποικιλότητας.

  Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – Thank you very much for your question. So you’re absolutely right. We already see that this summer, the beginning of the summer is very hot. We had heat waves in the regions and of course, early forest fires in some parts of Europe, particularly in Greece. I would say that we were prepared as much as possible and rescue deployed its capacities around Europe, especially around those regions where the forest fires are most likely. I think, you know, Greece and I visited myself places which were severely impacted by the forest fires have huge experience in managing the forests and then restoring it’s, of course, unique ecosystems. I think what’s extremely important, I’m sure, and we always find the capacities to rebuild. But of course we have to realise that for ecosystems the investment and our efforts to rebuild is relevant. But most importantly that it takes years to replenish. So, therefore, we have to deploy all possible efforts to prevent forest fires from happening as much as it’s possible, deploying all the possibilities of monitoring and so on, ensuring that the least possible amount of land is affected.

And therefore, I think that's where we should put all the possible effort. And it’s not only in regards to the COP15, I think we as Europeans and citizens of Europe, we value every piece of our land, and especially forests which bring so much into our lives, which are our lungs and our support system. So, of course, we have to be prepared and ensure that we do not lose them in the first place.

  Μαρία Σπυράκη (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, Επίτροπε Sinkevičius, έχετε επισκεφθεί τις πληγείσες περιοχές από τις πυρκαγιές στην πατρίδα μου, την Ελλάδα, και γνωρίζετε ότι ένα από τα είδη που έχει πληγεί από τις πυρκαγιές αυτές είναι οι επικονιαστές, και συγκεκριμένα οι μέλισσες. Εφόσον το έχετε αυτό υπόψη σας, θα ήθελα να γνωρίζω εάν η Επιτροπή προτίθεται, ειδικά για τις περιοχές που υφίστανται φυσικές καταστροφές εξαιτίας της κλιματικής αλλαγής, να προχωρήσει σε μέτρα στήριξης των προσπαθειών των καλλιεργητών εκεί, και λόγω της επείγουσας ανάγκης οι άνθρωποι να μείνουν στον τόπο τους.

  Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – Absolutely, pollinators are a crucial part of our ecosystem, and we are seeing a steep decline in pollinators, especially wild pollinators, in our nature.

Therefore, in nature restoration legislation, as a specific target, we actually have a target on pollinators, ensuring that they do not decline and instead reach a positive status.

Secondly, when we speak about pollination and so on, I think it must be addressed not only from an environmental point of view, but also from our CAP and agriculture. I think we know that it is not only forest fires, which destroys forests, destroys pollinators, but there are other pressing chemical uses and so on that also do harm to the population of pollinators, which also have to be addressed. So I truly hope that, with the implementation of nature restoration legislation, Member States will have two years to prepare their plans, and within those plans, we will see a prominent role for protecting and ensuring the protection of pollinators.

  Delara Burkhardt (S&D). – Herr Kommissar! Sie haben es ja in einigen Antworten anklingen lassen: Die Hausaufgaben für die COP 15 machen wir ja nicht erst in der Woche der Vorbereitung, sondern die machen wir jeden Tag hier im Parlament, Sie in der Kommission. Und ein Meilenstein, mit dem wir anreisen werden auf die COP, ist das EU-Entwaldungsgesetz.

Ich hätte dazu eine Nachfrage, weil wir ja doch mit Erstaunen gesehen haben, dass einige der Produkte, die nachweislich zur Entwaldung beitragen, wie auch Ihre eigene Impact-Assessment-Studie deutlich macht – Mais und Kautschuk in dem Fall –, momentan nicht von dieser Verordnung abgedeckt werden. Wie begründen Sie das und welche Rolle spielt da zum Beispiel die Automobilindustrie?

  Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – Thank you very much for your question. So our proposal was based on an impact assessment, and it addressed the six commodities that have the biggest impact currently on deforestation.

We account that in our impact assessment these six commodities are responsible for 80% to 85% of deforestation globally. So of course we wanted to ensure addressing the biggest part, let’s say, of deforestation, but we also have included a very clear review clause which will allow market monitoring. If we see that certain product groups or deprived products or commodities are responsible for deforestation and that number is increasing, we would, of course, be able to include it into our legislation.

The work is now, of course, within co-legislators. We have a Council opinion and Parliament will be soon voting on their opinion and then we will have three trilogues where I think also these questions can be addressed. I think at the end of the day, what’s most important is not the long list of commodities – even though I think that including two additional commodities can be an important step forward – but it’s implementation on the ground. We have to ensure that we learn the past lessons, lessons which showed that very often coming out with a very ambitious proposal and really good aims, we ended up with no implementation and unfortunately seeing the catastrophic numbers, with every year a larger and larger area being destroyed due to deforestation.

So I think what’s most important is the implementation on the ground, working mechanisms across the value chain, ensuring that our proposal is actually the largest nature protection act, which is what we want.

  Delara Burkhardt (S&D). – Ja, da kann ich sehr gut anschließen, denn gerade bei Kautschuk wissen wir, dass es für Indonesien eine sehr große Herausforderung ist bei der Waldzerstörung. Dementsprechend wäre es gut, dort auch kollegial auf die COP blickend genauer hinzuschauen.

Aber Sie sprechen mit Ihrer Antwort auch ein wichtiges Problem an, nämlich die Frage des Monitorings, der Implementierung von unseren ambitionierten Zielen, die wir ja nicht nur im Entwaldungsgesetz haben, sondern auch im Nature Restoration Law.

Genau da schließt die Frage an: Wie kriegen wir es denn hin, dass die Ziele, die wir uns setzen, besser implementiert werden, dass das Monitoring besser wird? Was plant die Kommission, um da aus Versäumnissen der Vergangenheit auch zu lernen?

  Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – Thank you very much for your question. So absolutely. That’s what I probably meant by saying that implementation is crucial. So, of course, traceability and monitoring, verification of data that is received based on geolocation data at the source by operators is crucial to have. Then we can ensure that our legislation reaches its aims and we have approved data that can prove the origin of the commodity rather than, you know, we know that very often through the value chains, the product can travel through a few countries. And then we do not receive accurate data and might be misled and that would leave a major loophole. So we have to ensure that, of course, the monitoring framework is strong ensuring that the implementation is fully deployed.

  Caroline Roose (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, il y a deux semaines, la Commission européenne a proposé des mesures législatives ambitieuses de restauration des écosystèmes et de réduction des pesticides. C'est un signal fort envoyé avant la COP 15. La surpêche est aujourd'hui le premier facteur du déclin de la biodiversité marine. Le plan d'action sur la protection des ressources halieutiques et de la biodiversité marine doit donc jouer un rôle crucial pour protéger et restaurer les écosystèmes marins. Sa publication a pourtant de nouveau été reportée.

Cela aura-t-il des conséquences sur son ambition? Comment la Commission européenne va-t-elle s'assurer que les aires marines protégées soient vraiment protégées en y interdisant enfin les activités extractives industrielles comme les forages en mer, l'extraction minière et les techniques de pêche qui ont le plus d'impact sur les fonds marins? Comment la Commission européenne entend-elle mettre fin à la surpêche en dehors des aires marines protégées? Et quelle sera l'articulation entre la loi sur la restauration de la nature et la politique commune de la pêche, notamment en ce qui concerne les mesures de restauration qui ont jusque-là échoué à être mises en œuvre dans le cadre de la politique commune de la pêche?

  Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – Thank you very much for your question. So, as regards the marine resources protection, we are working on the plan, which will be finalised this year, as regards the marine resources protection action plan.

Then, as regards fisheries activities, of course, our CFP has to play a crucial role, but not only CFP, also our fisheries fund, which is actually aimed at investing into more sustainable fisheries practices, helping our fishermen to transition.

Secondly, I think that what’s extremely important when we talk about deep-sea mining is that we cannot rush. We cannot rush things here, and we have to ensure that we have a proper impact assessment of what such activities would have as regards the sea’s ecosystems and environment in general. Only by having these results could we advance. But I am already really happy about the calls of the European leaders at the Lisbon Ocean Conference for actually halting such activities, which I think, especially as regards when we speak about the MPAs, is a crucial element. So I think there is a lot of work to be done as regards stepping up, the protection of the MPAs. We should not forget the principle of, of course, how the MPA is done, and there is always research and evidence behind the MPA into what is protected and what is aimed to be protected. But clearly, I think it has to address, first of all, the seabed, which is crucial for a thriving ecosystem.

  Caroline Roose (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, certaines mesures sont demandées par les pêcheurs eux-mêmes. Par exemple, les pêcheurs du nord de la France demandent avec insistance un moratoire sur l’utilisation de la senne danoise, notamment dans la Manche. Seriez-vous prêt à soutenir cette demande?

  Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – I think it’s not mentioning and highlighting any Member State, because I think what’s extremely important is ensuring a level playing field to our fishermen and that the rules should be applicable across the board. Only then can we advance with the implementation and ensure that our fishermen and women, first of all, by doing their activities, will respect the rules. So a level playing field is, of course, crucial here.

  Karolin Braunsberger-Reinhold (PPE). – Herr Kommissar! Gebiete, die unter Naturschutz stehen, gerade im europäischen Raum, sind oft festgelegt auf genau den Moment, in dem sie unter Naturschutz gestellt wurden. Das betrifft zum Beispiel Natura 2000. Aufgrund geänderter Klimabedingungen haben sich allerdings in den letzten Jahren und auch Jahrzehnten diese Lebensräume teilweise geändert. Gefördert, gerade im finanziellen Bereich, werden allerdings nur Maßnahmen – Erhaltungsmaßnahmen und Entwicklungsmaßnahmen –, die sich auf den ursprünglichen, damals festgelegten Naturzustand beziehen.

So werden zum Beispiel Bäume und Sträucher mit Fördermitteln gepflanzt, die nicht mehr ins Gebiet passen, weil sich dieses Gebiet eben geändert hat. Es werden teilweise Tiere zwangsangesiedelt, die schon längst woanders Lebensraum gefunden haben und in dieses Gebiet gar nicht mehr passen. Alle Beteiligten wissen im Endeffekt – das haben sie mir auch mitgeteilt –, dass die Maßnahmen, die sie mit europäischen Fördermitteln durchführen, nicht zweckführend und auch nicht zielführend sind.

Warum findet da keine Anpassung statt? Warum pumpen wir also finanzielle Fördermittel in Gebiete, die wir durch andere Maßnahmen wirklich unterstützen und entwickeln könnten? Und warum können wir die Richtlinien in dem Fall nicht anpassen?

  Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – Thank you very much for your question. First of all, it’s our responsibility what is planted and what management plans are prepared, especially for Natura 2000 areas.

Usually for Natura 2000 areas that’s extraordinary cases, but we see this trend more dangerous outside Natura 2000 areas.

I think one of the major aims of our 3 Billion Trees initiative is not only to plant the 3 billion additional trees in Europe, but it’s actually education – education that there must be a right tree at the right place planted, which would be resilient to future shocks, because we have a very diverse ecosystem across Europe, north and south, different geographical locations, and we’ve seen the mistakes done in the past where species that were planted unfortunately today have proved one of the major impacts on forest fires as well in some regions. So of course we have to avoid such mistakes.

We have to also educate people who really passionately takes the duty of planting more trees. But, as you said, we need to build the forest of the future. So through the 3 Billion Trees initiative that can be addressed.

As regards the Natura 2000 areas, these have to have solid management plan, and within those plans, of course, such questions also must be addressed.

  Karolin Braunsberger-Reinhold (PPE). – Nur die Nachfrage: Wir wissen ja, welche Bäume wir in unseren Gebieten pflanzen können. Wir dürfen sie aber nicht pflanzen, weil sie nicht finanziell durch die EU unterstützt werden, eben aufgrund dessen, dass quasi der alte Erhaltungszustand wiederhergestellt werden muss. Und das ist die Problematik, die geändert werden müsste. Also: Wir wollen. Wir wissen, was. Wir dürfen aber nicht, weil es finanziell nicht gefördert wird.

  Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, so speaking about the funding, of course we have a LIFE fund which could be helpful, which is our environment fund. Even so, it’s a very little fund.

Secondly, I think what’s very important when we speak about natural areas, about the management and so on, that also should be a part of the Member States’ recovery and resilience funding, which can be addressed through those funds. Some Member States actually took that into account and of course, I hope that is going to be implemented.

  Aurélia Beigneux (ID). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, la préservation de la biodiversité est primordiale, tant pour lutter contre le réchauffement climatique que pour la sauvegarde des espèces animales. Vous affirmez vouloir préserver notre biodiversité. Soit. Toutefois, votre hypocrisie naturelle revient au galop lorsqu'il s'agit de signer des traités de libre-échange avec le monde entier. Le dernier exemple en date est celui conclu le 30 juin avec la Nouvelle-Zélande.

Saviez-vous qu'un aller-retour en avion entre Auckland et Paris pollue plus qu'un ménage européen en un an? Pensez-vous vraiment que les super-cargos qui parcourent nos océans ne détruisent pas notre biodiversité marine?

Vous mentez aux Européens, car tous les efforts que nos concitoyens fournissent pour lutter contre le réchauffement climatique sont réduits à néant par les effets pervers de votre politique économique désastreuse. Ce modèle détruit notre biodiversité et fait disparaître les espèces animales et végétales. Alors oui, pour relever le défi de la COP 15, il va vous falloir abandonner cette mondialisation outrageuse et intensifier la recherche scientifique.

  Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – Thank you very much for your remarks. I can only say that, absolutely, our trade agreements overall, our policies when it comes to environmental protection or the fight against climate change, has to be horizontal and of course, has to intake our Green Deal policies. Otherwise, it’s going to be extremely difficult to implement the Green Deal if we will see the Green Deal or the environmental policies such as nature restoration legislation or others as some nature beauty legislation, that’s not the case. So, absolutely that also has to be addressed in the economic activities. And trade agreements can be an excellent tool which can successfully export our Green Deal to other regions. That would, of course, ensure also a level playing field. So I think there is still a lot to be done in the future as regards to looking at the trade agreements and introducing the Green Deal component into our trade deal agreements.

  Aurélia Beigneux (ID). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, vous trouvez donc que la religion du libre-échange est bien au-dessus de l’environnement dans l’échelle des valeurs des fonctionnaires européens. Pouvez-vous nous promettre qu’aucun autre traité de libre-échange ne sera signé? Sinon, je vous encourage vivement à écouter la majorité des citoyens qui en ont plus que marre de la politique schizophrène menée par ce Parlement.

  Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – I can only say that we always listen to the majority of citizens and I’m extremely happy to see huge involvement into our policies from citizens. Every policy or proposal that had a large amount of citizens’ signatures behind it usually went through this House also extremely successfully. So we always call for citizens’ involvement and very carefully listen to their voice.

The European Green Deal was actually a result, and one of the first proposals – actually the first – of this Commission very carefully listening to what our citizens want. So I am sure we will continue to do so, matching the differences that we have between our regions, between the Member States and between the Members of this Parliament.

  Silvia Modig (The Left). – Mr President, biodiversity, of course, has an absolute value in itself, but it’s also a crucial part in our fight against climate change. The stronger the biodiversity is, the better is our planet’s resilience ahead of the inevitable warming we are heading to. That is why we need a strong international agreement. I refuse to accept that the momentum has gone due to these postponements. I think if it is gone, then we have to regain it, and I think that the EU is a key player here.

So, Mr Sinkevičius, how do we do that? I think that, first of all, we have to put our own house in order – and we are not quite there yet – and then we have to have real ambition. You were talking about the finance earlier, and I really didn’t get exactly your position. What is the Commission’s position on the Global South demand, which I think is very reasoned and very sound? What is the Commission’s position exactly on the Global South demand to get international finance, because they need the finance as otherwise they will not meet the targets.

  Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – Thank you for your very concrete question. Don’t get me wrong, the momentum is actually just arrived, I would say, and that will pick up with the clear date and place of COP15 happening due to postponement of the event. I think that’s why the momentum wasn't there. Now it’s there for sure. What can we do? I think, first of all, of course, President von der Leyen made a huge step when she announced the doubling of our resources for biodiversity outside the EU. Doubling it from three and a half billion to 7 billion. We, of course, need to get everyone else on board as well, especially here I am speaking about the G20 countries. They also have to increase and chip in to have as large as possible amount. Secondly, there are different ideas floating. I fully agree with you that demands from Global South are based on their needs. But we also have to see what is the reality to get this money actually on the table. Not to create fake expectations and not to over promise what actually have been done before and then that failed to reach the goal.

So my first aim is to raise as many funds as possible. Use the resources that are not only international development funds, but also private funds, philanthropies etc., which also can play a crucial role. And then try to use that amount as efficiently as possible. Finding the possible agreement with the Global South. Their demands also have to be realistic. Creating additional funds, raising 800 billion per year, that’s going to be extremely difficult in this very short time. We can look at the timeline. We should see what is going to be realistic. But also we cannot only focus on funds because with funds obligations and implementation must also come. And it has to be very clear. And so far, I don’t really see it happening as well. Well, all the goals are still in brackets.

  Silvia Modig (The Left). – Thank you, Commissioner Sinkevičius. And what about the measurable targets? Because we need an agreement with measurable targets. How will we bind the finance to the measurable targets? Because as we have failed completely in our 2020 targets, so have all the countries I know, including my own, has failed their biodiversity targets for 2020. So, we don’t have a very strong reference there to give us guidane. So, how to bind the finance to measurable targets so that you get finance when you proceed, because that would probably be the only way to get this part of the country, Europe, to do its part as well.

  Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – So the measurable targets are probably the crucial part. First of all, of course, the overarching target ‘30 by 30’ is the fundamental one. Secondly is, of course, we want to have a measurable target on nature restoration, also the same as we just proposed within the EU of 20%, most likely 10% for the oceans, 10% for terrestrial areas. And then, of course, looking at direct and indirect drivers of ecosystem loss, addressing them within the targets and then not only having those measurable targets, but also very clear milestones, how we reach those targets, having a very clear review mechanism, returning back every two years to the target and see are we able to reach that first, second or third step towards the ‘30 for 30’ target, how the implementation is done and what measures are deployed in one or the other ecosystem.

As I said, a lot can be done not only within the COP 15. We have already some very strong proposals on the table as regards the marine resources, as regards our oceans, so if we are able to agree on rules beyond national jurisdiction and protect the high seas, which was mapped by scientists as the rules that requires and could be protected. Secondly, of course, we have our proposal as regards the ocean around Antarctica that would protect 1% of the world’s ocean.

So there are already even clear proposals on the table which we could be advancing with. And I think that would be the best way to go forward: measurable and concrete. And for that, of course, we could do our utmost to raise the fund.

There is another idea, you know, returning to funding coming from Colombia as regards the working project where we would have additional fund and then certain projects implemented from that fund, that is also measurable and implemented on the ground, which could be considered.

  Catherine Chabaud (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, comme cela a été largement évoqué la semaine dernière à Lisbonne au sommet des Nations unies sur l’océan, l’océan se trouve dans une situation d’urgence absolue du fait du réchauffement climatique, des pollutions et de nos activités. Comme le rappelle la mission Starfish que vous avez lancée, nous devons impérativement non seulement protéger, mais aussi régénérer nos mers, nos rivières et l’océan si nous voulons continuer à équilibrer le climat, à réduire l’immersion côtière et à nourrir les populations.

L’océan est dans une urgence absolue et malgré tout, j’ai été dans l’incapacité de proposer une résolution au Parlement européen cette semaine. Je la reproposerai au mois de septembre.

Pour autant, je voudrais saisir l’opportunité de cet échange parce que les Nations unies, comme vous l’avez rappelé, vont prendre des décisions absolument majeures sur plusieurs négociations d’ici la fin de l’année, et même avant la COP15. L’Union européenne joue un rôle fondamental dans ces négociations et je tiens à saluer, Monsieur le Commissaire, l’engagement de la Commission et de vos équipes, que je soutiens. Je voudrais vous dire mon soutien, mais aussi vous poser une première question dans le cadre de la négociation sur la préservation de la biodiversité en haute mer. Est-ce qu’à Lisbonne, vous avez pu avancer sur la...

(Le Président retire la parole à l’oratrice)

  Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – First of all, thank you for your leadership as regards the oceans and their protection. Of course, it was great to meet such a large group of European parliamentarians in Lisbon, which clearly showed that international ocean governance is a key question for the European Union.

Now, as regards the progress made in Lisbon, I have had numerous meetings with my counterparts discussing the possibilities and the outcome of the BBNJ agreement and the meeting in New York. But, as always in negotiations, everything will be done at the very last moment and to say we have made progress or not, is very hard. I hope that we are very close. But even our closest allies have to make a step towards a middle ground in order for us to advance. I think that would be an historic step, which we have to deploy all the possibilities, all the efforts, all the pressures in order to get it done.

So my team is currently focusing mainly on the August meeting. We are reaching out to stakeholders. We welcomed additional countries in our high ambition coalition. Hopefully all these efforts are going to help. But, as I said, you know, it’s extremely hard to predict the outcome of the negotiations.

I was going to the WTO negotiations with a good mood, and thought that we had a deal in sight. Then it took two additional days and nights to get at least a partial deal. So I won’t estimate what I think we should deploy all the possible efforts and then of course ensure that it’s really, really happening. I think that can have a fundamental role than going to Montreal and COP.

  Catherine Chabaud (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, deux autres questions concernant l’agenda climat.

La première: l’Union européenne va-t-elle rejoindre la coalition pour le carbone bleu et inscrire les écosystèmes du carbone bleu dans l’agenda climatique, dans les contributions déterminées des États membres?

Et deuxième question: à Lisbonne, la France s’est prononcée pour l’exploration, mais contre l’exploitation des grands fonds marins. Allez-vous appuyer cette position attendue pour engager d’autres États membres dans cette voie?

  Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – So as regards the Blue Carbon Coalition, you know, EU usually supports the ambitious coalitions, coalitions which lead to example. I’m a bit afraid that after the COP in Glasgow there is more and more coalitions created. But as long as that leads to result and we not devalue the meanings of coalition and we really manage to get the countries, like—minded countries together to make a push, that’s fine.

Now, as regards the announcement by the French President, I was of course extremely happy to hear it. And, of course, that depends on Member States if they will be able to join. But my call remains the same. We also put a very clear language into our nature restoration legislation that such activities can be only done when we have a clear scientific evidence, which means that at the moment they cannot be happening and deployed and, of course, I’m happy by President Macron’s clear leadership here and a clear call for other Member States as well to join.

  Pernille Weiss (PPE). – Tak fordi du er her, Kommissær Sinkevičius. Nu handler COP'en jo i høj grad om at blive enige om høje ambitioner, men den handler jo også om at række ud til hinanden med værktøjer og med initiativer. Og jeg kunne godt tænke mig at høre – for det har vi ikke snakket så meget om i den her debat: Hvad kommer EU-Kommissionen til at sende af signaler til forskere, til iværksættere og til investorer, om hvad det er for et fællesskab, hvad det er for et agilt samarbejde, som vi meget gerne vil have i EU, også med forskere og virksomheder, som inviterer nye løsninger – f.eks. biologiske løsninger som biologiske pesticider i stedet for kemiske pesticider, mere digitalisering – også af vores fødevareproduktion, sådan at vi bliver bedre til at passe både på klimaet og på miljøet med indflydelse på biodiversiteten. Hvad bliver beskeden til de investorer og virksomheder, som vi simpelthen ikke har råd til at miste fra EU, så vi kan gøre den forskel for verden, som vi gerne vil.

  Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – I mean, of course, I think our Green Deal policy through these two and a half years from the very beginning when it was adopted, then of course, we had we heard tries to shut down the Green Deal during COVID. We hear similar calls as regards Russia’s war in Ukraine. But we kept on implementing the Green Deal. And the Green Deal proved to be the right direction. And I think this is a very clear signal to the market. I do not really think that the market needs additional calls to really see the way forward and where to deploy their capabilities, what decisions will be needed for us, for example, to transit, to fully decarbonise our economy. But then when you look at the opportunities and the funding opportunities, they are all there. First of all, our Horizon Europe programme, which very well funds the transition and so on, Member States deploying their research action to the green policies. So I think there are very clear opportunities for the market, for the private sector and I don't really think that it's going to be left behind. Left behind can be only those who didn’t believe, didn't invest and then find themselves in a few years in a disadvantage position. But at the end of the day, I think all that demand is very much going to be created by the market. And when we speak about agricultural policy, transport, energy policies, we clearly see where the trend is going and where the biggest investments are being put. So there is no chance of implementing the Green Deal without solutions that are coming and going to come from the private sector. And most importantly, I truly count that our companies, those who, let’s say, are early on this transition path, they will be able to reap the advantages and we will be the ones leading in this technological change, which will require an enormous amount of technology as regards the transition. But just to finalise - I’m very sorry I’ve gone over the time - but you know, I remember very well when we proposed our decarbonisation goals. There were just a few countries on board and now we have quite a club which formed. And that’s also a very clear signal to companies that the market for clean technologies is there.

  Pernille Weiss (PPE). – Jeg har det tillægsspørgsmål og den opfordring til kommissæren, at jeg synes, du skal forholde dig til, at man ude i markederne beder om, at der bliver lavet en et nyt kapitel i taksonomien for "enabling technologies". Det mangler der! Det har vi ikke endnu. Jeg synes også, at du skal lytte til, at der fra rigtig mange stakeholdere bliver bedt om, at der bliver lavet nogle fast track-godkendelsesprocedurer i Kommissionen i forhold til de nye innovative løsninger, som ser anderledes ud end det, som jeres medarbejdere er vant til at se. Det fungerer ikke endnu, og det vil jeg gerne have et svar på, om du kan svare markedet på til COP-15?

  Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – Thank you very much. I think that call was well addressed in REPowerEU as regards the clear need for deployment of renewable technologies and fast—track procedures. The proposal by the Commission is on the table and now I think it will be, of course, in the hands of the co-legislators. I hope for a swift adoption which will allow us, of course, a swift transition and faster permitting procedures for private investments.

  Grace O’Sullivan (Verts/ALE). – Good to see you here today, Commissioner. Look, it’s clear that environmentally harmful subsidies given by the EU are causing significant harm to biodiversity. So can you tell us, is the EU in the high ambition camp regarding commitments to phase out or reform environmentally harmful subsidies?

And related to this, is the Commission on track to produce a methodology to identify environmentally harmful subsidies by 2023, as we committed to in the eighth environmental action programme (8th EAP).

And then in terms of consumption: food production, consumption and overconsumption are having an impact on biodiversity. So what is the EU pushing for in relation to consumption footprint targets and when will the Commission introduce the EU 2030 reduction targets for consumption footprint, another commitment that was in the 8th EAP?

And lastly, in terms of political will: Commissioner, you’re going to the COP15 later in the year but I genuinely feel that we need to call for a legally binding agreement at that Conference because we’ve seen that we failed in the past in terms of biodiversity and monitoring isn’t enough. It has to be legally binding otherwise, as you know and I know, it won’t happen.

  Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – Thank you for your question. And again, thank you for your work on the ETAP, which I think we have achieved a great result.

So first of all on the first part on harmful subsidy, so the work is already ongoing and as it’s framed in the ETAP, we will propose it in 2023. We started, of course, with the stakeholder consultations and so we will move on, work with the Member States and then finalise the proposal in 2023.

As regards the footprint and reduction of waste, so of course one thing is our waste legislation. Secondly, our ecodesign sustainable product policy, which is really transformative legislation. And last but not least, of course, our proposal on food waste. These all will have a major impact on reduction of the footprint.

I think what’s very clear, of course, we have to implement the circular economy action plan. The circular economy action plan will help us to significantly reduce the footprint of our consumption, allowing, first of all, to take responsibility for the consumption patterns that we have here in the EU. But secondly, we also have to look at other legislation which can also significantly contribute. And of course, I count on Parliament’s support on the proposals that already are put on the table.

As regards the binding targets in COP 15, so first of all we have to agree on what those targets are. And then depending, I guess, on the outcome of negotiations, depending on the possibilities of funding, we can see what is there to be achieved. At the moment it doesn’t look like the binding targets would be accepted and approved, but we of course must work to ensure and find a way, let’s say, to ensure that what is going to be agreed is implemented. So that’s why the review clauses, the implementation review mechanism and monitoring mechanism can be those tools, and there are many reasons for that. It is not only – I am very sorry I am over the time – there are many reasons for that because for some countries to accept the binding targets is extremely difficult due to national rules, etc., so we also have to bear that in mind. Therefore, I think we have to put very clear and very strong implementation mechanisms.

  Grace O’Sullivan (Verts/ALE). – I know you are a man of ambition and I really do believe you should push for those binding targets. We have them in the climate law and, as I said, if we do not have them binding, they won’t happen.

Lastly, on the environmentally harmful subsidies: maybe you could think of a hierarchy, once you identify the environmentally harmful subsidies, a hierarchy of the ones that would give us the greatest effect over the shortest period of time.

  Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – You know, talking about the COP15 agreement, of course I hope and I count on support from Parliament as well and we will be getting that agreement and negotiating together.

Now as regards the harmful substances, I think one core element which we maybe didn’t mention in our debate today is, of course, the ‘do no significant harm’ principle in our spending – as regards our funds, as regards our multiannual financial framework, as regards our other funds. If that is kept in line, I think that will already have a significant contribution, especially also looking at the recovery and resilience plans from the Member States, which have a very clear notion of ‘do no significant harm’, which was kept in the plans but of course, it’s very important that it would be kept also in the implementation phase.

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE). – I have a very brief question. If we look at the EPAs and the scientific community, they are very clear that 40% of the land and water area should be in a favourable state to support our ecosystems. If we look at that, what are your plans to proceed with this rewilding target in biodiversity of about 20%? Because there seems to be one half missing.

This leads to a second question. How are you going to push the higher ambition level internationally? I am not going to take the second question because I can very briefly add then, when we have the targets, what about using Copernicus and artificial intelligence better on supervision and make it more binding?

  Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – So, first of all, I fully agree with you and now I think our nature restoration legislation is exactly addressing that we find in bad or poor quality around 81% of our ecosystems. So, of course, deploying for 20% nature restoration, just not to mix it with rewilding because it’s not the same. Nature restoration efforts would of course, allow us to bring that back to around 40%. But of course, we want to go even beyond that; the 2030 and 20% target, this is what it is realistic to achieve. Even so, it’s quite ambitious but further on we want, of course, to deploy nature restoration efforts on all ecosystems that are in bad or unfavourable status.

Now, when we speak, what we’re able to do. So, first of all, of course, we need to lead by example. We need to prove that our legislation works. We need to use the High Ambition Coalition. During the Lisbon COP, we welcomed the 101st country to the High Ambition Coalition for Nature, which I think is a very positive step, which shows that there is a strong club of ambitious countries which clearly understand the need. We, of course, need to push, together with them, for an ambition which would be implementable, realistic, but yet would allow us to reach a common agreement.

Last but not least on artificial intelligence: I think this is very much an untapped potential, an area which I think can be very well addressed now, during the Czech Presidency, where the Czech Presidency of the Council put the digital and green transitions together, and I think in a very good way we can really rethink on where the digital solutions are going to be crucial to implement our Green Deal ambition. And very quickly, we will be able to see that without the digital solution, we cannot really advance much.

So far in speaking about the COP15 and its resolution, there is no mention of the use of artificial intelligence. But again, I think when it comes to implementation across the board, across the countries, it will be very vastly used.

  Anja Hazekamp (The Left). – De Europese landbouw, met name de intensieve veehouderij, speelt een belangrijke rol bij het biodiversiteitsverlies. Decennialang is er gestuurd op groei en intensivering van de veehouderij door subsidies, door overheden, door banken.

Nederland is nu een van de landen die eindelijk inziet dat de hoeveelheid stikstof die in natuurgebieden terechtkomt, drastisch moet verminderen. En dat betekent onherroepelijk ook dat het aantal dieren in de vee-industrie drastisch moet verminderen. Eindelijk, zou ik zeggen.

Minder dieren betekent ook minder mest en minder ammoniak. Maar dat leidt ook tot heftige protesten van boeren, die wegen blokkeren, ministers intimideren en zelfs natuurgebieden vernietigen. Wat zou uw boodschap zijn aan ministers die nu geconfronteerd worden met een verlies aan biodiversiteit, maar ook met boze boeren? Hoe leg je uit dat jarenlang een beleid van onverschilligheid niet langer houdbaar is? En hoe leg je uit dat uitstel geen optie is en dat onze planeet enkel een kans maakt als de doelen eindelijk gehaald worden?

  Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – Of course, when we see the current situation, it’s very difficult, and I really appreciate the Dutch Government’s efforts to deploy a plan with the funding to solve this issue.

But this issue aggravated, not yesterday and not even a year before, the implementation of the Nitrates Directive has been hanging there since around the 1960s. So the answer here is of course very simple, even so, that it is hardly applicable for today. But in order to be compliant with the EU rules, you had to take measures since the very beginning, and of course over time that wouldn’t be so drastically painful. But unfortunately, when the measures were taken in the opposite direction, we find ourselves in a very difficult situation which will require now a significant investment from taxpayers’ money to ensure that of course there is a full compliance with EU legislation.

Just this morning I was discussing with Spanish colleagues the situation in Mar Menor, in which a very dynamic, very touristy area became basically uninhabitable. This is what happens at the end of the day when you have a nutrient runoff.

So I think we have agreed a very clear plan with the Dutch Government of how to implement the legislation. Many Member States went through that and did the implementation, and I think we will find a way forward with the Dutch Government as well. It’s very important that the funds that are allocated would be of course precisely used for those who will be affected most in that transition.

  Anja Hazekamp (The Left). – Well I would prefer to give up my time for a second question. Maybe another MEP can ask a question.

  Jutta Paulus (Verts/ALE). – Thank you very much for giving me your space. And I’ll be very brief in trying to make the circle to come back to where we started, because the question was EU ambitions on biodiversity ahead of COP 15. And I think if we’ll look at the restoration law which you presented last week, it is already quite good. But the crucial point is, what means of governance do we have? What means of actually enforcing what is there as an ambition? And it’s a bit the same on the global level, whereas it is much easier within the European Union because there we have the structures where the Commission can actually tell Member States, well, if you do not abide by the law, then we might start writing letters and later infringement procedures, which is not possible on the global level.

So how do you think might the restoration law influence the negotiations at the COP 15? And especially, how can it be perceived in the Global South that the EU, or generally spoken the Global North, does not come forward as colonialist, telling the Global South how to act on biodiversity?

  Virginijus Sinkevičius, Member of the Commission. – First of all, we all sitting at the same table, we all share the same urgency. Yes, there are different ideas of how to implement, what steps should be taken. But I think we are all sitting at the same table because we are talking about the biodiversity and ecosystem loss, which is a loss of our lifeline basically, of our health support system. So I think, you know, what's extremely important is, as I mentioned multiple times during my answers, is the framework of implementation of how to put the right mechanism into place to ensure that we can do checks and balances later on, that we can return and we can monitor what has been done and what has been achieved and what impact it had. That's not easy.

One of the ways could be through the funding mechanism, as I've mentioned, through the agreed possible fund per project, where that could be possibly achieved. Secondly, of course, monitoring can be done always returning back at the meetings, at the COP meetings, where we could evaluate the progress and then, of course, the reporting also has to be very clear. So it's not an easy way through that. But I think what's very important, first of all, is to reach the commitment of all, all sitting at that table and agreeing on the urgency. Then secondly, we have to meet that urgency with funding mechanisms which would allow us to then ensure the implementation of the proposed targets.

  Der Präsident. – Damit ist die Fragestunde beendet.

Ich bitte auch um Verständnis. Wir haben für die Fragestunde 90 Minuten angesetzt. Die sind jetzt um. Wir wissen nicht, wie viele Zusatzfragen jeweils kommen. Wir versuchen, das auszubalancieren.

Ich will auch einmal sagen, dass wir dafür vereinbart haben, dass d’Hondt für die Fraktionen Anwendung findet und dass, wenn alle Fraktionen ihre Möglichkeiten ausgeschöpft hätten, die letzten zwei oder drei Redner beziehungsweise Fragesteller nicht zum Zuge gekommen wären.

Das heißt: Wir haben da schon ein Maß an Flexibilität, und jetzt sind auch schon wieder Leute weggegangen, die ich dann zuerst berücksichtigen sollte. Da habe ich vorhin meine Entscheidung getroffen und will sie auch nicht mehr ändern.

Damit ist die Fragestunde abgeschlossen.

VORSITZ: OTHMAR KARAS
Vizepräsident