- “Thank you Mister Chair, honorable members. Thank you very much for having this debate on this lively topic. Let me start by reminding us all that nature and biodiversity are not just an option or a nice to have because indeed our societies, our economies operate within the biosphere and that depends on nature and biodiversity. So this dependency on ecosystem services should be kept in mind because indeed it's not only from international commitments such as those in the global biodiversity framework, it's an actual necessity. Now, for instance, the Nature Restoration Regulation has indeed created a legally binding framework for restoration, but we all know that for restoration and beyond it there remains a financial bottleneck. There we estimate around thirty-seven point four billion euros annually as the biodiversity funding gap in general. So of course public finance remains very important as the backbone of biodiversity funding including restoration, but it will not be enough. It will not suffice and that's why we consider that new tools are needed to mobilize private capital towards nature positive investments in ways that complement, not substitute public budgets. On the road map on seven July two thousand twenty-five, we did adopt the Commission adopts its road map towards nature credits aiming to launch an exploratory process to develop high integrity certification and crediting schemes by two thousand twenty-seven. The roadmap builds on a simple economic truce which is investing in nature pays off. We know for instance that the average benefit to cost ratio of restoration is eight to one, so eight euros benefit for one euro invested. What happens is that without support schemes, while the benefits accrue to society at large, the costs of investment fall on those that restore, those that manage the land, the foresters, farmers, local communities. That's where net credit can have a role. As President Von der Leyen has underlined, those investing in biodiversity on the ground should be rewarded and this is a principle which is consistent with the EU's vision for agriculture and food with EU for a strategy two thousand and thirty and also with the water resilience strategy which emphasizes resilience to droughts, floods and pollution and recognizing the role of land and water in delivering it. Now nature credits aim to translate this principle into practice. Examples include high nature value features in agro ecosystems, be it hedgerows, riparian buffers, species rich grasslands and converting to more nature friendly practices in agriculture, in forestry, in aquaculture, in fisheries, on wetland restoration, peatland rewetting and so forth. So credits are to be certified nature positive actions that go beyond individual legal obligations and beyond the mitigation hierarchy and this is an important point. They cannot be used to justify harm elsewhere. Rather they value individual contributions to restoration objectives making visible and investable the biodiversity outcomes that underpin food systems, climate adaptation, wildfire prevention, water security and so forth. Now a key design choice in the road map presented is the two step model that aim to show that farmers, foresters, land managers can engage with confidence. First there will be certification so an independent body assesses a project ex ante against robust science based criteria enabling early support or remuneration, for instance via public seed finance or bias pre commitments and giving practitioners certainty to get started. This is the first step. The second step will be crediting itself so only after independent verification of measured biodiversity outcomes can credits issue be issued as transferable units recorded in transparent registries with a clear separation of roles to avoid conflicts of interest. This sequence in our view reduces risks for project developers, build trust for investors and keep incentives aligned with outcomes not with promises. The road map also internalizes lessons from carbon markets and aims to align with EU carbon removal certification framework. From carbon we retain what worked which is the MRV discipline, monitoring, reporting, verification, permanence tests, registry transparency and we avoid what did not: opaque baselines, weak governance, offset claims. The added value of nature credits is that they capture biodiversity outcomes that go beyond the carbon including in places where there's low carbon potential but high ecological values such as dry lands for instance or urban biodiversity as well as better valuing maintenance and conservation activities. So they therefore complement, they do not duplicate nor replace carbon tools and they fit naturally within other policies such as CAP measures, cohesion funding or the Nature Restoration Regulation implementation. For economy and finance this is also about risk management because biodiversity loss is clearly recognized as a financial risk. It threatens yields via pollination decline or soil degradation, it raises insurance claims via floods, droughts, wildfires, it disrupts supply chains and actually a recent analysis by the European Central Bank, by European supervisors and financial institutions highlight the exposure of banks and firms to nature related risks. So nature credits can offer a standardized verifiable channel for companies to co-invest in ecosystems that stabilize inputs, reduce volatility while aligning with disclosure and with transition planning requirements. For farmers, foresters, land managers, managers credits create a new voluntary revenue stream that rewards stewardship, supports transition costs and shares value more fairly along the chain of beneficiaries. Global demand for biodiversity credits is estimated to potentially reach one hundred and eighty billion dollars per year by two thousand and fifty. So even if in the EU there would be just partial uptake, this would help narrow the estimated seven point four billion annual biodiversity funding gap that I've referred to. Now on the interest expressed on the road map, well I can say it was quite broad. Farmers and foresters welcome recognition, potential recognition of their efforts and the prospect for simple predictable procedures. Land stewardship networks see an opportunity to scale good practice. Business associations and financial institutions value a credible EU level framework that can channel investment into high quality projects. And while NGOs remain rightly vigilant on integrity and no offsetting, several of them also acknowledge that a new governed model is preferable to fragmented unregulated initiatives and have welcomed the Commission's commitment that public finance remains indispensable. Finally on next steps, so between two thousand twenty-five and two thousand twenty-seven we will advance with this stepwise approach I've referred towards a transparent program. First we will constitute the expert group on its credits to co-develop methodologies, rules, governance with balanced participation from member states, international organizations and stakeholders representatives of land managers, NGOs, science, business and finance. In parallel we analyze the public feedback on the road map which is still open until thirty September and we launch a EU wide market assessment to size credible demand and identify barriers. In two thousand twenty-six the work will focus on methodology development, selecting fit for purpose indicators, specifying baselines and reference states, defining tests against risks and designing cost effective monitoring, reporting and verification to minimize the burden. By two thousand twenty-seven the Commission aims to present options for governance and registries so rules for issuance and retirement, interoperability to avoid double counting, disclosure and audit requirements and clear separation of roles for developers, certifiers and registries. In parallel we will also explore seed funding and blended finance instruments to de-risk early projects and crowd in private capital ensuring access for small land management managers and territories with ideological value but lower investment capacity. So based on these steps we will then assess whether further EU level measures are needed to scale up nature credit markets. The aim is for us to move gradually with legitimacy, transparency and broad support at each stage. The touchstones will thus remain constant and they are high integrity, trust building and complementarity with public budgets. We believe that done in this way nature credits can help deliver the Nature Restoration Regulation, the global biodiversity framework, strengthens resilient ecosystems, multifunctionality and food security and boost EU competitiveness by turning today's biodiversity risks into tomorrow's investable opportunities while fairly rewarding those who restore nature on the ground. Thank you very much Mister Chair and looking forward for the debate. Thank”
Green Taxonomy · Nature protection and restoration in the EU · Agricultural funding
- “Imagine the economic benefits if forests burn less, if there is less bark beetle outbreaks and less, and they are more resilient in general to disturbances. So we should keep this in mind that it is about costs and benefits. A second about simplification. Well, I have already referred to the potential benefits for compliance and that amounts to simplification. So what we cannot expect is to attain simplification by ignoring problems or backtracking on decisions that at union level were taken, such as those relevant or related to lulucf, carbon removal certification, nature restoration regulation and so forth. On the issue of wider regulation, rather than the directive in our in our evaluation, because it is more efficient, less costly and simpler to implement, that was the single reason. In terms of other indicators we are proposing feasible. Well, to give an example on two that were mentioned on the leaf index or soil erosion. Yes, Copernicus can cover for it. And keep in mind also in terms of costs, that Earth observation from Copernicus will remain free of charge for the member States or or any stakeholder. We will be providing that from the Commission. And now a point on the Standing Forest Committee. We don't think at all that this committee was useless. On the contrary, it was, was and is a very important committee.”
Management of EU forests · Nature protection and restoration in the EU
- “Therefore, we use a very wide range of legislative and non-legislative frameworks instruments to implement the Gbf covering also, for instance when climate change itself, pollution, circular economy and beyond. Indeed, mainstreaming, which is another cop16 decision, remains crucial for reversing biodiversity loss. We need to ensure that biodiversity is, remains or becomes a key consideration across sectors and policy areas from agriculture, transport, climate, land use and so many more. And related to to land use. And in this sense, I think it's a good sign that the institutions did find an agreement on the soil monitoring law, which will be an important tool to improve the protection and management of our soils. And so much that depends on the health. In some, the US made a major commitment to halt and reverse biodiversity loss together with partners across the globe. Our home work at home is done, amongst others, the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2030, which remains the most ambitious in the world. And the Nature Restoration and Deforestation regulations, for instance, which have enabled us to show leadership by example under the Global Biodiversity Framework. In five years time. We aim to see the fruits of all this labour, and to see how far we have come to deliver on new commitments to 2030. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.”
Circular economy · Nature protection and restoration in the EU · Soil protection policy
- “For this opportunity to have an exchange on the CBD. And I would like to start by thanking the Parliament delegation to Cop 15, which was led by MEPs Cesar Luena, which provided us with quite valuable support during the Cop in Cali last year and starting with Cali. As you may recall, we had already important outcomes from Cali, such as the establishment of the Cali Fund, the creation of a subsidiary body for matters related to indigenous peoples and local communities, and also, for instance, the decision on climate change and biodiversity. However, the meeting in Cali, as we also know and remember, could not be concluded due to disagreement on resource mobilisation and a subsequent lack of quorum in the plenary. So that's why negotiations were resumed in late February in Rome, where, and I'm very pleased to say, they were successfully concluded. As our Commissioner highlighted by then in the plenary earlier this month, this Cop 16.2 showed that multilateralism is alive and keeps delivering in turbulent times. And this good outcome also somehow provided a momentum for other ongoing negotiations. For instance, the one on the future Plastics treaty, where means of implementation will also be a difficult issue. Now the negotiations in Rome naturally focused on resource mobilization. But to remember at Cop15, the parties had committed to mobilizing at least $200 billion per year from all sources by 2030 for biodiversity.”
Nature protection and restoration in the EU · EU climate aid for global South
- “Um, the question on financing nature restoration at this stage, the only thing I can tell you is, as the regulation itself requests the commission, we will come with a report by August or by the summer this year on its existing measures, gaps and possible avenues for restoration. But of course, I cannot anticipate anything related to the MFF that is still to be defined. So that's for a bit later. The question of Cesar Luna on, um, wolves and bears. First thing, um, it's true, the global biodiversity framework refers to coexistence with wildlife, but by no means Reducing the protection status of the wolf from strict protection to protection means non coexistence. I've been insisting on that that coexistence and prevention remains as necessary as before, because favourable conservation status still needs to be attained. So be it for wolves or for bears, by the way, member States can act even within strict protection through derogations. Of course, we accompany closely when, uh, when culling of wolves comes up to see if it's aligned with the habitats Directive, and we will keep an attention for that. Certainly. There was also one question on on this, um, the European Biodiversity Observation Centre. Yes, indeed. Mep, we are on the point of launching terms of reference. So we will have that.”
Management of EU forests · Nature protection and restoration in the EU · Large Carnivores
- “We can provide on that. Now, on the support to Member States that need to to develop their own national forest inventories or to make them stronger. First point is there is already nowadays financial support available from EU funds, be it cohesion policy funds, the Life programme and so forth. Further than that, we are involved in providing technical guidance and I can refer, for instance, the technical support instrument. We have broadly diffused among the member states that they can use it specifically for this purpose. So far it was only tapped by two member states. We hope more may wish to come on the issue of the indicators or the similarity of indicators in the several proposals, pieces of legislation, the Nature Restoration Regulation, Lulucf, or the Carbon Removal certification, they are fully coherent. It can happen in some cases that the granularity of data needed for forest monitoring and knowing and fulfilling gaps can go wider than, for instance, to give an example and the nature restoration Regulation. The indicator on Deadwood is at national level. While there may be benefit to have more granularity geographically when there is more or less Deadwood, to give an example. And finally, I would refer to the question of old growth forests and primary forests and how we support member States towards that.”
Management of EU forests
- “Thank you Mister Sheers. Thank you honorable members for all the rich questions. I'll try to reply to all of them. So there was one first question about how do we take into account national initiatives, how are the EU pilots going on. We had actually two pilots in EU, one in France with one in Estonia. The Estonian one was actually referred. They both have delivered lessons and ideas that we have incorporated into the road map. It's true that in the case of the Estonian project there was an issue popping up with clear cutting, but the pilot was not at all linked to clear cutting. So actually when that risk kicked in, we were actually aiming to test biodiversity friendly measures. When the risk kicked in, well the forest owner has withdrawn and the project is now redefining the geographical focus based on new voluntary partnerships under the same principles towards biodiversity positive actions. So these pilots plus other pilots that are happening in other member states we follow with a great interest in order to feed into not only the road map but what we'd follow. There was also a comment on how this aligns with agriculture with the Common Agriculture Policy. What it aligns pretty well if you see not only the current Common Agriculture Policy also the following one. It does aim overall to foster a transition towards sustainable sustainable farming and also the next CAP to move towards incentives. Well precisely one thing that we need to put into practice is this reality that nature and farming must go hand in hand. Indeed whenever you move towards a more sustainable farming practice you will be reducing the pressure, replacing some chemicals for something else, less fertilization, more diversification, crop rotation, no tillage whatsoever. That normally amounts to restoring some of the indicators notably in the Nature Restoration Regulation. So we see here a great potential synergy. The issue of complementarity I was very clear on that. We by no means to replace public funding by nature credits, not least because the concept is still to be developed. The demand and the potential dimension of the market is still to be seen. So complementarity indeed. Now the debate on the MFF, on the next MFF, it's a different debate and I would just remind that in the Commission's proposal you still find the climate and the environment target which certainly will also cover biodiversity including its complementarity with climate. And in addition to that we are internationally committed to maintain the biodiversity tracking because we also need to deliver on the global biodiversity framework targets themselves which are also financial. So there are plenty of hooks and opportunities for biodiversity financing the next MFF as proposed by the Commission pending very much of course on options by the member states too. But nowadays on Horizon Europe, on LIFE or funding by the European Investment Bank there's also quite funding opportunities available to seed funding, to blended finance, to the risk remover. So we don't think there's nothing blocking the launch of nature credit as we are foreseeing them. A very important point Mister Vondra said that carbon removals would be voluntary, nature credit would be obligatory. Not true. Nature credits will be totally voluntary. So of course if you want to build a robust system yes there is some administrative burden that you need to put in place but that's for the willing, for those that want the benefit of the nature credits. So by no means it will bring in a vog for farmers, foresters, fishers etcetera. Rather the contrary, we hope to bring in an opportunity for these sectors. Now who will pay the bill? We are convinced that there are many businesses that do understand they have a risk that goes beyond climate or financial risk or standard financial risk. It also goes into nature risk. We see that more and more so through derisking, through aligning with transition plans, with disclosure and with reputation issues. We are convinced there will be business moving into paying the bill into the beginning. Now of course there's a very important point that other MEP has also raised which is well the difficulty of nature credits as compared for carbon credits. It's certainly much more complicated to robustly measure biodiversity or ecosystem services than to measure CO2. We are aware of that. We are also very much aware there was greenwashing under carbon credits in some instances. That's why we put this focus on the robustness, the integrity, the transparency, developing a methodology, developing a governance system that builds trust and when it's ready then we can go while avoiding the risk of greenwashing. On the involvement of small actors that's something we keep very much in mind including in the expert group that is to that is being created right now. Actually some avenues that we keep in mind and want to explore with the expert group amount for instance to group initiative certification so that small actors can be joined up and helped or for instance on cost effective monitoring that could cover wider than just the difficulty of a two small project. So that's a point for us very important. I think there's a rather important philosophical discussion on this issue of the value of nature or nature as a financial asset. I'm the first one to recognize that nature is more than market value. Many people believe there's some sort of intrinsic value on nature. So without entering into that philosophical discussion, putting a money tag on nature does not aim to replace other values. I would just like to remind yes nature how do we sell it nowadays? Very often for value zero. It's not counted, it's an externality in many cases. It's simply destroyed without taking into account its actual economic value. And that confirmed others have said putting an economic value is absolutely fundamental to help whatever regulatory measures to make so that our economy, our society takes into account that value. That's why we believe that putting a value for nature not for offsetting for nature positive actions can actually help incorporate into human economy what is often forgotten and should not be so. Again I'm referring this is not about offsetting. We are very firm or not willing to engage on offsetting with this EU nature credits. Now MEP Timido raised a very important point which is yes data, indicators, monitoring. I referred monitoring, reporting, verification is fundamental for whatever initiative on nature credits. So of course some of the Commission proposals so far have actually aimed to help the EU and the member states be very solid on data notably the forest monitoring law was referred. One key tool is earth observation. We regret that the proposals from the Council for instance are dropping earth observation. Well I don't think at all that earth observation as a tool having Copernicus ready to deliver and delivering will disappear and I also trust very much on the capacity of member states themselves getting more solid data including through technological approaches that are available. So that's something we need to keep pushing for a solid data and indicators for all this to be robust enough. Mister Gavande referred well again no offsetting but what about the rest I mean for environmental and for subsidies and so forth. Well I would just remember I don't have the timing at the roadmap to bring to you. I would just signal that both the EU biodiversity strategy that was referred but also the global biodiversity framework to which we are politically binded requires us to address harmful subsidies and replacement so and replace them. So we are not here truth mentioning that the credits forgetting all the other nature relevant financial aspects that need we we need to for the past towards sustainability. It's true that nature is a common good so but it's also a part of it or its benefits are often local geographically or appropriated by some activities. So it is in that sense that we do believe and to repeat myself that is not only necessarily sub mandatory approaches that we may have businesses recognizing their own benefit on the risk in their activity on ensuring their supply chain their reputation or other values that they may will to come into biodiversity credits nature nature credits when they they are they are ready. Well I think I referred enough to no offsetting also issue of greenwashing risk is a very important one because imagine if we come with nature credits that would prove to be just blah blah and could not be verified robustly that will simply fail from scratch. That's why again we are so keen on the robustness and taking the time needed to have a robust methodology on what is a complex matter and again ensuring no double counting and having indeed a registry that ensures no duplication that we can be sure that whenever there is a certificate it can amount to a credit that then can then be transferable. That's an important point. Another issue is if we reach the stage of credits that can be transferable it doesn't mean that we say that the restoration activity on a river somewhere is equivalent to a close to nature forestry practice in a distant spot. We are just saying there was some recognized value created that is amounting to a credit so the holder of that credit can be recognized of having put the money on nature somewhere. MEP Confell also referred again to how do we link the carbon certification with nature credits. Well one point to keep in mind is the carbon removal certification foresees obligatory biodiversity co-benefits from carbon certification. There's a first link with biodiversity but of course this does not amount to nature credits themselves because there are some aspects of nature that are not necessarily carbon related. If you do an action that restores pollinators or if you restore a dry land that has not much carbon involved but is very valuable for biodiversity or if you remunerate maintenance activities conservation activities though that they have been acting in a way that is biodiversity friendly all this can be better captured than the nature credits in a way that is complementary to carbon credits. All this is about ecosystem service we agree on that and there may be cases of overlap on biodiversity benefits and carbon benefits but nature credits themselves will be done in a coherent manner and with all the synergies we aim with common certification. I think possibly the final point is what about outside EU. At this stage one of the pilots we have actually supported is in Peru precisely to understand how to develop and the biodiversity credits elsewhere than Europe can go. What we aim at and we are very keen on keeping the link and reinforcing it with international organizations dealing with biodiversity credits. What we want is whatever biodiversity credit system that you may wish to develop for them to be coherent and in a way ideally standard setting towards other global initiatives so that we can move together globally and coherently on this topic which is an important point. I hope I did not forget NSC fundamental. Mister Chair, thank you very much.”
Green Taxonomy · Nature protection and restoration in the EU · Green claims
- “We are indeed very grateful to the European Parliament for its continued commitment and support to strong EU action on pollinators. So thank you for this opportunity to provide some highlights on the progress of the implementation of this new deal for pollinators. We are currently implementing more than 40 actions through the revised EU Pollinators Initiative, and these actions aim to mitigate the drivers of pollinator decline to generate actionable knowledge to foster Member States actions on the need to mobilize society. Since this House last held a debate on pollinators, which was in June 2025, there was important progress achieved in implementing these actions, including, for instance, a conference on the outcomes of the project, European Monitoring of Biodiversity and Agriculture that we call Embl, which maps habitat quality, which is crucial for pollinators. We have also prepared a robust scientific pollinator monitoring method, and we call on Parliament and the member states to support it, because indeed, high quality data is fundamental to enable smart and well guided investments in the restoration of wild populations and ecosystems. Now budgets are under increasing constraints, so we must also maximise the cost effectiveness of our actions. But these environmental investments, they do pay off by enhancing the agricultural production potential and by yielding substantial savings.”
Nature protection and restoration in the EU
- “Also there are new business opportunities coming in from forest data including the digital data. And to give a good example, this upscale upscaling business models that tap from ecosystem services as relevant as carbon removals, including by empowering foresters to engage in certification schemes. They are certainly facilitated by better access to data. Next slide please. So we have a monitoring framework set up proposed under this forest monitoring law Which is based on geographically explicit, explicit identification of forest units that then feed into a forest data collection framework and into a forest data sharing framework linked to the Forest Information System for Europe. Basically, there will be data collected by the Commission through Earth observation. The member states can use those data or opt out and go themselves for Earth observation. It will be for the Member States, largely based on the existing national forest inventories, to pick ground data with some harmonization where needed, and there will be additional forest data to come through methodologies to be developed. So this is in a nutshell the monitoring framework. The next slide. So again the proposal aims to combine the advantages that come from monitoring forests through Earth observation Acknowledges with the accuracy that ground based observation done by the Member States also allows. So this does require quite some close cooperation between commission and member states.”
Management of EU forests · Digital and precision farming
- “In the longer term, the member states are currently defining planning their restoration strategies, and they are expected to submit their national restoration plans by September next year. At the same time, at international level, the EU leads by example. I am happy to note that pollinators will also feature prominently at next week's IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the World Congress in Abu Dhabi, where we will present updated red list of threatened species. Among the key wild pollinator groups here in Brussels last weekend, we had the first meeting of the Young Citizens Assembly on Pollinators, which is part of the pilot project initiated by the European Parliament. 100 young people from all over Europe. They met and enthusiastically discussed how to address pollinator decline, and this work will be accompanied by the European Fund for Youth Action on Pollinators and by the Buzzing Schools Project, also supported by this parliament. While indeed youth is our future, but the future does need pollinators and pollination. So I thank you very much for this support and for the overall commitment to EU action for pollinators. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr..”
Nature protection and restoration in the EU · EU engagement with youth
- “So in conclusion on this the forest proposal, it was done with quite an extensive consultation with member state experts and stakeholders, and we are very much looking forward to hear from you, from the Parliament and to help achieve an agreement on this relevant proposal. I would move then to the next slide on the Commission proposal for a new Forest and Forestry expert group. First point I wanted to say this is a proposal that fulfils a very important aspect of the EU forest strategy. And just sorry, just for the sake of some background information. In 1999, the Council has established the Standing Forest Committee to ensure closer cooperation in the forestry sector between the Member States and the Commission, namely in what regards forestry measures initiated under the Agriculture and Rural Development. While in 2018 the Commission established the working group Forest and Nature to provide specific information to the Commission on Forest Ecosystems as related to the EU Biodiversity Strategy or the Convention on Biological Diversity. The next slide, please. Now, in the 2021, the New Forest EU Forest Strategy took the view that the wider contribution of forests to the Green Deal, including for climate, biodiversity and the sustainable bioeconomy, would necessitate a more inclusive and better coordinated EU forest governance structure. And the next slide please.”
Management of EU forests · Nature protection and restoration in the EU
- “Updates and complements to the monitoring framework to the Global Biodiversity Framework. Priorities for the next replenishment of the Trust Fund under the Global Environmental Facility, and the decision on cooperation with other conventions and organizations. We think that closing Cop 16 successfully was a rather crucial message to the world that, as I said, multilateralism still works and that countries are and remain committed to deliver on the global biodiversity objectives they have agreed to. It was not easy to have these negotiations, but in the course of the final days, it's fair to say that parties did demonstrate willingness to come to an agreement and thus we had all these decisions successfully adopted. Now, honourable members, following this Cop 16.2, it's time to also look ahead of us on biodiversity policy. At this stage, we are currently working on a report on our progress in implementation which all parties, including the EU, are required to submit by February next year to to the CBD. For this report, we will use the globally agreed monitoring framework which helps us track progress. Then at Cop 17, which is scheduled for next year in Yerevan, Armenia, we will take stock of the progress made so far in reaching the goals and targets of the Global Biodiversity Framework. This stocktaking will likely reveal a need for many parties, including the EU, to step up efforts if we are to achieve the global biodiversity targets.”
Nature protection and restoration in the EU · EU climate aid for global South
- “And this includes, among others, enhancing biodiversity financing from all sources to achieve the referred target of mobilising to $100 billion per year. The EU needs to do its part, of course, and we do stand by the commitments taken back at Cop 15, both as regards support for external action on biodiversity, but also as regards investment in biodiversity in the EU, now both under the current MFF and certainly for the future MFF. There will be opportunities for biodiversity financing, for which it is very important that Member States and partner countries take the steps to make maximum use of these possibilities that are offered by EU programmes at EU level. One relevant piece is the Nature Restoration Regulation and the upcoming nature Restoration plans that each Member State will need to make to determine what investments in restoring biodiversity will be made. These investments can draw in part from EU funds and in part from member states, public and private finance. As you are aware, the Nature Restoration Regulation is indeed a major instrument related to the Global Biodiversity Framework, which has a target in itself, but only by tackling more widely the direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss can we aim to put nature on a path of recovery beyond the restoration regulation per se.”
Circular economy · Nature protection and restoration in the EU · EU climate aid for global South
- “At Cop 16, then we were discussing how to deliver on this. We were not discussing how much to finance, but notably whether a new fund should be created for mobilising the amount that had been agreed at Cop 15. Developing countries insisted on establishing a new fund for official development assistance, but the EU and other donor countries called for a wider approach to close the finance gap, arguing that a new fund per se and alone would not resolve anything and could, on the contrary, even increase costs and bureaucracy. The political agreement that was reached in Rome in the final days represents a workable compromise between donor countries and the global South, and it includes a two track approach. One of the tracks focuses on the wider objective of mobilising resources from all sources. The other track focuses on establishing or designating the permanent financial mechanism for the convention, which has been, as we know, the global environmental facility that since the first Cop in 1994. So the compromise is indeed an important step on this sensitive and difficult issue of financing the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework. And also, importantly, it unlocked other relevant outstanding decisions from the CBD Cop. Among these decisions, the establishment of clear procedure procedures for the global review of implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework, which will happen in Cop 17 and Cop 19.”
EU climate aid for global South · EU Development & Humanitarian Aid
- “So this is not when I say that Cop 16.2 was a success. Well, it's a fact. It was in the sense that we achieved the results of the Cop. It could be finalised and consensus was taken. I don't mean, of course, that the biodiversity puzzle is solved. Far from it. It faces big challenges still, be it in Europe and beyond. Now, this issue of the value of nature, financing, etc. there are several questions around that. I would say the following. I couldn't agree more that nature is extremely valuable. For some it has even an intrinsic value that goes beyond measuring it. And to those I say, well, nowadays if we only stick to intrinsic value. Well, the value for the economy is zero. So we need to add to intrinsic value the economic value. It does have it and the ecosystem services it provides. And that's where developing biodiversity certification nature credits will hopefully become a relevant tool. It's not a tool to say, well, now we don't need public funding because private funding will come. But it can become a tool as carbon certification and carbon credits can be towards attributing the right value to actions that bring back biodiversity and ecosystem services it provides. So in this sense, this is part of the Innovative Finance Instruments toolbox that the GCF itself foresees.”
Green Taxonomy · Nature protection and restoration in the EU · Green claims
- “I cannot tell you at this stage what will be accomplished on biodiversity credits, because yes, we are still in testing and pilot phase. We have announced that in the in the cop of itself. But we, we aim certainly during this mandate to come with more clarification on the communicating what can be achieved. And we certainly also will keep in mind that carbon certification methodology should be at least aligned or coherent with whatever methodology on biodiversity credits, but it is much too soon to know if there will be any regulatory approach on biodiversity credits. We are indeed in listening mode, and even today Commissioner Roosevelt held a round table with several experts specifically invited to explore more on biodiversity credits. Now, the relevant issue of harmful subsidies because yes, we all know if all environmental subsidies of the world would be directed toward positive action on biodiversity, would have no financing difficulties. And this means both the subsidies from, let's say, the energy subsidies harmful to the environment, including fossil fuel subsidies, but also the other non-energy environmentally harmful subsidies. And it's an obligation under the gbf for the parties, including the member states, to report. And the report is actually due for the first time this year. We have a guidance documents on the methodology to to do so that has been agreed also with input from expert groups of the Member States.”
Fossil fuels · Green Taxonomy · Nature protection and restoration in the EU
- “Go ahead and let me start by also thanking the kind words that were directed to me. Um, I will certainly keep an eye on biodiversity. Whatever I do in my life, I believe. But let me start by saying the following on this reference to a planetary terror crisis that goes beyond climate change. I couldn't agree more from the simple fact that her systems are inherently linked and integrated, so there's no chance whatsoever of resolving the climate change challenge without solving, at the same time, the biodiversity challenge and loss, this great extinction spasms caused by human beings and pollution and so forth. So this idea that we can just focus on Co two and all the rest will sink later. It makes no sense in itself. So it's very important indeed to pay attention at the same time both to climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution and etc. which I do think that, uh, got an impulse from the Green Deal as such. That was pretty much an integrated approach to these problems. And from the influence that we could also, I think it's fair to say, However, the European Union towards the Global Biodiversity Framework, because we had approved a rather ambitious EU biodiversity strategy, which in the end became very much aligned with what we got in the global biodiversity framework, notably on having much more quantification, quantified targets of several kinds, including protected areas, restoration and several others.”
Green Taxonomy · Nature protection and restoration in the EU
- “And we have this commitment to report on this report due for February 2026. One of the aspects to be covered is environmental harmful subsidies. The Commission intends to publish an overview of these environmental subsidies before February next year. Of course, we do depend on member states reporting to the Commission on the on their non-energy environmental subsidies. But it's a work in progress and certainly not forgotten. Um, another thing that came up this fund. Well, it's important to keep in mind that this Kaylie fund was devised in order to indeed bring a compensation to countries that were the origin of the digital genetic information that is now used in productive processes. But this fund is predominately for large biotech firms to contribute voluntarily. Um, and they can select the contribution method that aligns with their financial contracts, contexts, other, uh, either 1% of profits or one point or 0.1% percent of revenue. It's of course just voluntary, but it does include or it means a strong call for clear rules and a level playing field around these elements of digital sequence information and its financing. The decision does not impose a mandatory international tax on products or research and development activities, but is certainly an important first step, and the EU in the EU will remain vigilant on how this fund can develop, which is an important point for several of our developing countries partners.”
Nature protection and restoration in the EU
- “And it's a very important point certainly also for monitoring, uh, Of biodiversity. Um, let me say maybe trying to to sum up, um, the question of MEPs Sergio Humberto on, um, WhatsApp for the future. I think very honestly, the most important step that we can take collectively, as both as you and as a global community, is to address in an integrated manner what is the key challenge for humankind in this century, which is the quest for global sustainability and that we cannot get without biodiversity, nor can we get it without tackling together the several challenges of the degradation of the earth systems degradation of the atmosphere, degradation of land, degradation of sea and this amounts for integrative approaches towards sustainability. I do believe that the global biodiversity framework is an important part of that. I think also, Lorena had asked when we will report on the state of progress of the biodiversity strategy. We will come at the JRC, will come on report relatively soon. That will set the stage where we where we stand. There are certainly progress in several areas, likely less so on others and more stepping up that will be needed. Let's wait for that. But I think finally it's maintaining what was the gist of the Green Deal that will lead us towards this quest for sustainability? Thank you very much. I will stop here.”
Circular economy · Nature protection and restoration in the EU
- “There was one question on the indigenous peoples and local communities. Well, the support to indigenous peoples, local communities is part of our general commitments on biodiversity. And I would signal that in Cali there was an interesting decision on people of African descent, which is relevant indigenous or local communities, especially in Latin America, that have their own role. And that was an important point for our hosts. In Colombia, the question of MEP policy on the protected areas target first won distinction as a quantified target in the gbf. 30% protected areas on land and sea by 2030. And we have an equivalent one in the EU Biodiversity Strategy. 30% of EU land and sea by 2030. One third of which strict protection. This one is specific to to our biodiversity strategy. The state where we are is we are working with member States, including in what we call the biogeographic process related to Natura 2000, on their own pledges. Some member states have brought their own pledges, others not yet. Um, and these pledges will tell us how far we will be or not of this kind of target, which seems to be easier to attain on land than on sea. But I remember that the biodiversity strategy did refer. The Commission will then evaluate if any legislative approach might be needed. So it's far too soon to know if we will need to do more on protected areas within the EU.”
Management of EU forests · Nature protection and restoration in the EU · EU ocean policy
- “So the uniform format has no bearing on this. Furthermore, this digital tool was designed to minimise the administrative burden because it enables the re-use of data already reported under other policies. It allows the pre-filling of available information that already exists and it avoids duplication of any reporting. So it's actually a report once principle that we are applying to facilitate Member States planning efforts. Now the objection refers to potential risks for agriculture, food security or, uh, or trade. Uh, it's very important to clarify, again, that uniform format itself does not define any restoration target or measure. These are set in the Nature Restoration Regulation as approved by the co-legislators, Legislators, which includes actually provisions to specifically address any risk, for instance, for food security. And the format provides space for the member states to reflect any synergies with agriculture and forestry, or to describe the socio economic considerations, including those related to food security, as rural development as actually required by the regulation. The concerns regarding the financing of restoration first, and we have been voicing this very often. There's a wide variety of EU funds available, um, to to fund restoration and no obligation for member states to reprogram any existing funding. Likewise, we know that both public and private investment is to be stimulated for nature restoration. That's why we are, for instance, exploring nature credits.”
Nature protection and restoration in the EU · Digitalization of public governance & administration
- “And actually, member States are obliged to use the uniform format as from article 53. So we consider that the objection fails to demonstrate exactly where the Commission would have exceeded its implementing powers. First, the format does not bring any new obligation or constraint beyond what are those already in the nature in the nature restoration regulation? It is basically a procedural tool for implementation to support implementation. Flexibility is fully embedded in the format. Member states can describe their measures at the level they deem appropriate, and explain what are the choices based on their specific conditions. And we also offer flexibility in the sense the format for the post 2020 32 period offers the option of limiting the planning exercise to a strategic overview. So a less detailed input, which is in line with article 15 two of the regulation. And moreover, the Nature Restoration Regulation itself is largely based on subsidiarity. Subsidiarity. It leaves full flexibility to national authorities to identify which measures they implement, where they they do it and take into account local circumstances.”
Nature protection and restoration in the EU
- “Mrs. Chair, and all the honourable members, for this opportunity to address the issues as expressed in the draft motion and explain what is uniform format for national restoration plans. Means, first, I do not need to recall you how much of a landmark legislation is the Nature restoration Regulation, which allows us to tackle simultaneously the biodiversity loss, but also climate change, environmental degradation, disaster prevention and indeed the overall resilience of agriculture and of our economic sectors and the long term competitiveness of our economy. The regulation entered into force last summer is now its time for implementation. It's starting by the member States, and the Commission is very committed to support the Member States in this implementation, of which the preparation of national restoration plans is a fundamental element due for as early as quarter two of 2026. That is why we have developed this proposal of uniform format. And I must say to begin with that we were particularly careful on preparing it in accordance with the implementation, implementing powers that were delegated to the Commission under the Nature Restoration Regulation. We started early on the preparation work with close involvement with Member States and stakeholders, including via the public feedback process and the corresponding expert group. As said already, the format was approved by the Nature Restoration Regulation Committee with practically unanimity except one abstention. This implementing regulation was proposed on the basis of article 57 of the regulation, which explicitly mandates the Commission to establish a uniform format for the national restoration plans, and it actually provides what is a structured framework for member states member states to plan their restoration measures in a consistent, comparable, transparent and as simple as possible manner.”
Agriculture (green) · Climate efforts · Nature protection and restoration in the EU
- “If we go for precision farming, regenerative agriculture, all those practices organic farming, crop rotation, crop diversification, less or no tillage, less or alternative chemical inputs, mixed farming, agroforestry, buffer strips. All this reduces pressures and allows for pollinators, wild pollinators, to bounce back and pay back in terms of the service they provide. So I think this is very much a moment of trying to find the coherence, indeed the non-contradiction, the convergence around what is an important subject. Uh, A other points that were mentioned. Pollinators can also benefit from greening urban areas. For sure, we need to tackle invasive alien species that we do with the invasive Alien Species Regulation. Species of concern all the measures related to nature conservation, nature restoration, soil and land climate change, EU Biodiversity Strategy, EU Green Deal all of them allow this coherence towards pollinators. Pollinators bouncing back. Um, the only last point I would like to do is, it seems to me very obvious also from what I said, that mentioning pollination, addressing pollination in this decline is not at all against farmers. It's actually something absolutely in favour of farmers. Farmers need that service. Agriculture, well done, supports wild pollination and domestic pollination also. But there are also unsustainable practices that erode pollination and other ecosystem services, which are fundamental for farming itself, for food security, etc. so this is a very positive agenda that we should keep striving to get the point on funding. Of course, there's a lot in open for the next MFF, but one thing is sure from the commission proposal, including the proposed target on climate and environment, does allow a lot of leeway for the Member states, if so willing to have money for biodiversity measures, including pollinators. Thank you.”
Nature protection and restoration in the EU
- “Good morning, and thank you, Mr. President. I will then address the two proposals in a row. And let me start as we have the slides. Yes. Let me just start first by saying why do we need a monitoring framework? Well, it's basically because it's easy to identify that there's a lack of complete, accurate, accessible information on the condition and development of forests, especially in the context of increased disturbances that forests suffer from, namely those related to climate change, biodiversity, ecosystem dynamics, and this lack of data makes it difficult to act efficiently. Indeed, if we take into account the many large wildfires, bark beetle outbreaks, storms, droughts that have affected forests, this does put at risk the the rural communities and the economy of the forests. So in this sense, now that we want to use forests towards climate neutral, sustainable circular bioeconomy, making them future proof and to ensure their multifunctionality is crucial, and for that we do need reliable data. Can I have the next slide first or the first slide? So essentially what the proposal aims at is to provide this comprehensive, comprehensive picture of where we stand on trends and status of our forests. And that comes by two ways by one side, ensuring the quality and the compatibility of forest data and also through better integrated governance, supporting the the the approach on knowledge and on planning and and also and this is for what first this efficient and effective policy making and implementation on forest related issues.”
Management of EU forests
- “Now for the member states that already have this capacity. The proposal does not change the way they already collect forest data through ground observation. What it does add is some useful data sets, as mentioned, to that same effort. And we do propose to develop all this together in a coherent manner. The next slide. Thank you. This is about the integrated long term plans. There is this encouragement by the proposal for the Member States on a voluntary basis to develop or develop or adapt existing plans with a long term perspective based on common aspects. And this is because currently information, let's say, on biodiversity aspects, climate change aspects or bioeconomy aspects related to forests are often scattered in different planning tools, not necessarily fully coherently. The next slide. This is on governance. And basically we do aim to increase the cooperation between member states and the Commission as well the cooperation between member states and including cooperation with other entities like the the European Network of National Forest Inventories. On the next slide, the important topic of costs. The proposal does entail costs, which are mainly for EU institutions and public administrations. From the angle of public administrations. It's it varies a lot. It depends on the current level of development of national forest monitoring systems, those countries, and there are many that have their own foreign forest in their own national forest inventory, will not face many costs.”
Management of EU forests
- “Those that do not, the costs that we Foresee for developing and running a system matching the proposal requirements. Runs around €42 per square kilometer of forest area. An extra cost that can come is for those member states with larger forest areas. They might face additional costs from, for instance, mapping old growth forests or forest habitats, although this depends a lot on the mapping methods to be used on the extent of mapping that already exists. In any case, the example there I'm afraid you won't be able to to read the figures there, but is an example from Finland, from Finnish authorities, and it does show that the costs entailed are not at all disproportionate for the benefits of this, of getting this monitoring. And the next slide please. I would also call attention that there are also benefits, economic benefits that are derived from the proposal. For instance the proposed legislation can, by facilitating the use of satellite imagery for the monitoring of compliance of forest related regulations, has the potential to save up to €38 million by 2035 across the EU, and for forest managers themselves, they can benefit by using satellite data provided through the monitoring system to improve their compliance with forest management requirements, and this can bring benefits ranging between 6 to €11 million annually. So and also, for instance, for the certification of carbon removals by the forests, the the the entry costs are lower by using the data provided by this proposal.”
Management of EU forests
- “So basically this reinforced coordination of these different policies to ensure a multidisciplinary exchange involving a wide variety of experts and stakeholders would be achieved by picking the stakeholders from the Civil Dialogue Group on Forestry and Cork, as well as those in the Forest and Nature Working Group, and the member state experts from the Standing Forest Committee and the Forest and Nature Working Group. Towards this new two new entities, the Forest and Forestry Stakeholder Platform Understanding Forest and Forestry Expert Group on the next slide. So what the proposal aims at is to amend the Council decision from 1999 by updating the legal basis and the and the policy. References. And the next slide. And also to rename the Standing Forest Committee. Now as sorry as Standing Forest and Forestry Expert Group. Thank you. And extending the tasks of this committee. So there is the task of assisting the commission, of providing advice and expertise, promoting cooperation and fostering the exchange of knowledge. And the next and last slide please. Also, the proposal would clarify membership for sure. It is for Member States authorities to be members of the group and to nominate their representatives. But we would aim Member States to ensure the participation of authorities that cover this breadth of policies climate, forestry, biodiversity and so forth that are related to the EU Forest Strategy. Mr. chairs, I would stop here. Thank you very much for your attention.”
Management of EU forests
- “But leveraging these latest advances in remote sensing technology has indeed a great potential from one side, improving the cost efficiency and also the timeliness of access to data. And it does create new business opportunities in the field of digital services and digital data. One point I want to stress is this proposal by no means aims to replace the existing national forest information systems. It aims to build on them to make the best out of a combined approach, especially through Earth observation being calibrated by ground based by ground based data. Also, the next slide please. This slide is on the collection framework. So indeed we have proposed a set of indicators and I would just call attention to some of these. For instance, the growing stock volume or the Deadwood that are already monitored in the in the vast majority of countries. So for these indicators, there's actually a minimum level of harmonisation that will be needed for the for the sake of comparability, but for some other indicators will require a bit more effort as they are not yet subject to regular data collection. But it does pay off to do this extra effort, because they refer to forest characteristics that are more and more critical for the adaptive management of forests under the pressures of biodiversity loss and climate change. To give a couple of examples. Indicators on forest disturbances caused by factors other than fires, for instance, as well as the diversity of non-tree vegetation.”
Management of EU forests
- “Chair. And I would like to first thank all the words listened to both support and criticism. We aim very much to make this a better proposal. So let me go right to go directly to the most relevant points. The first one is one issue that we have been dismissing now for years, and on that we are supported by decisions of the EU Court of Justice, which is foresees a shared competence between the Member States and the Commission. Of course, there is a lot of subsidiarity on forests, especially forest management, forest planning, but we have been exercising this shared competence for long. It is no novelty. Lulucf was referred to the Habitats Directive, the Invasive Alien Species regulation, for the simple reason that forests are part of the environment. Second point is, it's true. Of course there are many good forest systems. Forest information systems in member states for quite some time, especially in some member States. Not in all, though. Not all member states have, for instance, national forest inventories, but even those that do have this good knowledge and good systems. Sometimes there are some lack of knowledge and some lack of coherence, even internally between different parts of administration. So by no means we aim to disturb what exists and functions well. What we want is to bring to all of us at union level, more knowledge and information in order for that to be applied by Member States as adequate for the sake of forest management.”
Management of EU forests · Nature protection and restoration in the EU
- “This proposal is not about forest management, it is about forest data. Forest knowledge. Second. One point I would like to do very strongly is on this concern on data confidentiality, which is a relevant point. And first of all, we will very strongly work with member States to establish confidentiality safeguards. Those related, let's say, to the geographical coordination of plots to calibrate those observations will not be publicly disclosed, and there will be no collection of data on who owns the forests or who owns the land. So we are very open to ensure to further ensure the confidentiality, because we know it's a concern and for us, a very relevant one also. I also also like to call attention. There's no administrative burden whatsoever in this proposal for forest owners. If there is anything at stake, it is for public authorities and the commission itself. But here I would like to refer to the issue of costs versus savings. The extra costs are very present as I presented in the, in the, in the presentation. But there is also savings that can be taken out of costs of implementation, reduce costs of implementation, but especially if through knowledge we can better ensure the resilience of our forests.”
Management of EU forests · Privacy & law enforcement
- “That's why we extend it the breadth of what the Standing Committee has been doing. There was one question on our views as commissioner, on the commission proposal for this committee. And indeed, we do have a serious concern on the general approach on what regards to three fundamental aspects, and I can refer to them. First is the expert group as an advisory purpose. So the Commission is entitled to decide if and when to consult the experts, depending on the topics it needs advice on and not the other way around. And of course, the Commission will by no means impose on the Member States which representatives to attend. That's fully on the hands of the Member States. However, we do consider that the composition of the expert group should cover all the relevant EU policy matters pertaining to forests and forestry, so as to fulfil its role and mandate. And finally, the Commission is institutionally and administratively autonomous and therefore we will decide internally which services will represent it. Just to clarify on this committee, on other issues I would like to still relate to. Oh, yes. On the issue of costs related to indicators, first of all, the impact assessment of the proposal goes in depth in that and with derived indicators as proposed from that analysis. Of course, we will be available for any further clarification.”
Trade impact on forests · Management of EU forests
- “First of all, we do believe that having further knowledge, as this proposal would entail, is in itself a help for Member States to know where the remaining old growth and precious primary forests are there. But we did develop guidelines in consultation with Member States and stakeholders, and we have doing seminars about them in several member states, notably upcoming on Finland, Sweden and the Baltic states. We are open, of course, to do it elsewhere, including the Carpathians, if that's the case. So we are very much on top of supporting member states for that important objective. So in a nutshell and finalizing, we do believe that here we are proposing something that for us as a union will be relevant, very relevant first for rural communities, for those that depend on the forest to make them more resilient. And I've also heard this idea why are we spending money instead of planting trees? Well, planting trees is very important. That's an objective we have in the biodiversity strategy, in the nature restoration regulation. But if we just plant where it burned before and having in mind my country, I'll tell you what will happen. It will burn again if we don't plant something different in a different way. Knowledge will allow us to plan and manage forests better at national level. Thank you very much.”
Trade impact on forests · Management of EU forests · Nature protection and restoration in the EU
- “Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And honourable members. Um, I would like to say that insect pollination is indeed one of my favorite ecosystem services because it's one that everyone can understand. The layperson, the economist, the ecologist, the farmer, for sure. And because indeed, without this ecosystem service, our food security, livelihoods and nature as such would be under major threat. The service provided by pollinators to agricultural production in the EU is estimated at at least 5 to €15 billion per year, so it's indeed also very much an economical issue. Yet while pollinator populations have dramatically declined in recent decades, we are speaking about populations of wild bees, butterflies, hoverflies and other species. Actually, 1 in 3 wild bee, butterfly or hoverfly species are collapsing and many, many species are indeed on the verge of extinction. So it's a major problem related to pollination to step up the efforts for reversing this decline. We have reinforced the EU Pollinators Initiative in 2023 and its action plan. And in addition, the co-legislators have enshrined in the Nature Restoration Regulation a specific target to reverse the decline of pollinators by 2030. Together, these efforts are what we call the New Deal for pollinators, which is, in our view, a powerful response to the demand to act now and to act decisively for pollinators.”
EU policy on pesticides · Nature protection and restoration in the EU
- “Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and all honourable members for the questions. Let me try to try to group them. The first point I would do is very positive that there is no single voice that is not in favour of defending pollinators pollination. So there's here some room for convergence around the problem. Is the problem known enough? Yes, we know it exists very well. We know there is pollination deficit, including within the EU. There are studies about it. Don't ask me the numbers, the figures. I don't have them in the US also. And this is about a decline of wild pollinators. Irrespectively of the problems of energy production, which are serious and relevant and have not been declining while pollinators have been declining. Now, do we know which of the drivers of this decline exactly? How much is climate change? How much is pesticides? How much is something else? We know each of these drivers correlate with the loss. How much for how much. That's where we need monitoring and data, which will allow them to use indicators properly. We have proposed a methodology for monitoring pollinators that is very scientifically sound, while also very efficient in terms of cost benefit. And we hope that it will help a lot. But now a main point I would like to do runs around the following. We know again, climate change and sustainable practices, um, loss of production related to pollination. The bright side of this is we can find a convergence around this problem by taking attention that we can also all agree that farming as such, benefits from having a transition to sustainable practices that needs to be supported. But all this, this transition will amount to passively or actively allowing for restoring pollination and other ecosystem services.”
EU policy on pesticides · Nature protection and restoration in the EU
- “But the uniform format per se has no implications for financing of nature restoration and actually on reducing administrative Burden. It of course reduces administrative costs also. I would also just like to say that the timely adoption of the format is very important, even vital, for Member States to prepare their plans within the deadline set by the regulation. And it's also very important, this timely adoption for the important condition of having an effective and meaningful consultation process, which is a point that relevant authorities engaging with stakeholders will need to do and is labeled as very important in the public consultation we have done. So, in conclusion, what I would like to stress is that restoring nature is not only an environmental necessity, it is also a social and economic necessity and opportunity that can enhance resilience over the board towards a more sustainable future. So we need to start implementation now, and we cannot start implementation now without this uniform format. We will stand ready to continue supporting Member States on implementation, and very committed also to maintaining an open and constructive dialogue with the European Parliament and clarifying the remaining issue. In essence, one can, of course, disagree with the Nature Restoration Regulation, but the uniform format is not the right venue for that in our view. Thank you.”
Nature protection and restoration in the EU