Dr. Humberto Delgado Rosa:

I thank the Vice Chairman. I am very honoured to address the committee. Members may notice that I have picked my best green tie in honour of the great Irish nation and also because it is appropriate for nature. I am director for biodiversity in the Directorate-General for Environment of the European Commission and so I hold responsibility for the proposal of the nature restoration law. I will try to make the best use of these 15 minutes. The committee asked me to make a presentation on nature restoration. I hope members can see my slides and hear me well.

The subtitle of the EU Nature Restoration Law on my first slide is "Restoring ecosystems for people, nature and the climate". This is derived from the fact that we have a global biodiversity crisis, including in the EU, with close links with climate. We have a lost a lot of nature and services. I would like to press the point that this is a proposal for people, for humans' sake, not for the sake of nature, because we have lost ecosystem services that we need to put back.

As members will probably know, the nature restoration law proposal derives from the European Green Deal, within which you will find this area of protecting and restoring nature right next to the strategy From Farm to Fork, as well as clean energy and climate. There is a recognition that the European Green Deal aims at an integrated approach to what is the prevailing crisis of unsustainability, of which biodiversity is one of the elements, very linked to climate. As even science shows, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC is telling us, we need nature restoration for the sake of climate. The World Economic Forum is telling us repeatedly that one of the top global risks for the economy is biodiversity loss.

From the European Green Deal, a biodiversity strategy for 2030 was derived. In this view, we need to provide for EU leadership and EU leadership internationally can only come from setting an example. That is why we have an ambitious strategy with these four blocks: protecting nature, restoring nature, enabling transformative change and what we want globally. Restoration is one fundamental element of the biodiversity strategy. The biodiversity strategy includes what was called the EU nature restoration plan, of which one fundamental element was announcing that we would come out with a nature restoration law.

I refer to my second slide which is about the logic of what one finds in the biodiversity strategy. First, there is recognition of the continuing loss and degradation of biodiversity. I want to show members the rest of the slide but I am afraid they can only see the first sentence. I can complement it by saying that protection remains very important. We have targets for more protected areas, in land and seas, being effectively managed. However, the voluntary targets of the previous biodiversity strategy were not met so we need a reinforced approach. That means coming forward with a proposal for legally binding targets for nature restoration. That is one element of the nature restoration plan of the biodiversity strategy to 2030.

I refer to some of the considerations behind the proposals. The first area we considered is regulation on the grounds that it is quicker to apply, is more coherent and still allows a lot of flexibility, which I will refer to later. We also considered the proposals should build on and complement the existing policy framework and that there would be a link with nature restoration, namely, the nature directives, the water framework directive and the marine strategy framework directive. It is also very much about building on the synergies between climate change and nature, that being the service and mitigation and adaptation, and the perception of the need for large-scale restoration effort. In addition, the proposed targets should be area or indicator based in order for them to be measurable, monitorable and verifiable.

The next two slides contain images showing the kinds of restoration we have in mind. In the first slide, we put back a more diverse ecosystem and brought more nature elements into the landscape during restoration. There are other examples, such as in agriculture. On the next slide, the image on the left shows intensive agriculture fields and on the right it shows how we can bring more diversity into the landscape. We still maintain the agricultural use but we have restored landscape features and included more ecosystem services that can help agriculture. These are images amidst words.

This is nothing new; restoration is indeed already happening everywhere in Europe, including in Ireland. The issue is that restoration efforts, so far, were not enough. That has brought about the need for restoration on a larger scale to ensure the introduction of what we want, which is ecosystem services. There are two kinds of restoration. It can be either active, where components of nature are actively put back, or passive, where pressures are reduced and nature is allowed to bounce back and recover.

I will now get into the proposal. I refer to the slide on structure where members will see our overarching objective, to which I will refer later, that derives from the concrete, binding restoration targets for the types of ecosystems. It will also foresee an implementation framework within which there are the key elements of subsidiarity, which include the national restoration plans that member states should do, and provisions on monitoring and reporting. Let me say a bit more about all of this.

The overarching object includes restoration measures to cover 20% of EU’s land and sea by 2030, and the putting in place of measures for all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050. This is the objective that derives from what the binding targets - the other targets - will entail. Within the restoration targets, we see two basic different types. The first two are for habitats, including habitats of protected species that are already protected in the birds and habitats directives. In a way, the duty to restore pre-exists in the directives because member states are expected to attain favourable conservation status for these habitats and species. However, there were no timeline or numbers attached to this. That is one set of targets.

We also have targets for other kinds of ecosystems that were not previously protected, such as: marine habitats; urban ecosystems; rivers; pollinators and other species; agro-ecosystems; and forest ecosystems. For these ecosystems, the approach is different, some of which I will speak a bit more about although it will not be exhaustive. First, I refer to those based on existing legislation, namely, the birds and habitats directives. There are two kinds of targets that are effort based, meaning restoration measures to improve the conditions of habitat types, to a certain extent, by 2030, 2040 and 2050, as well as in other cases where the re-establishment of ecosystems is needed to attain favourable reference areas. In addition, measures are for habitats of species to improve the quality and quantity of the habitats. There are also provisions that are outcome based, including improvement in areas and non-deterioration provisions, with exceptions. By way of a general comment, for these kinds of habitats, we do have the baseline for reference level and what we want to obtain, which is favourable conservation status, as per the birds and habitats directives. What we bring as a novelty is how much to attain by each decade.

I am just giving some examples of the other habitats and will then focus a bit more on the agricultural ones. For rivers, we expect member states to identify and remove barriers that prevent connectivity in order to attain targets for protecting the riverine habitats and ecosystems. It also includes the objective of restoring at least 25,000 km of free-flowing rivers. There are many obsolete barriers that are doing nothing in the rivers and their removal would bring a benefit.

We do have a target for pollinator populations and members will see the trend of the targets in the next slide. Through these targets, what we propose is an increasing trend in indicators until a satisfactory level is reached. That is the case for pollinators. We propose such a trend in addition to a methodology for annual monitoring.

I refer to the targets that may be of most interest to this committee, that is, the agricultural ecosystem targets. There are some types of grasslands, forests and peatlands that are protected habitats in themselves. They are covered under the previous articles of the birds and habitats directives. I refer to those that are not previously protected ecosystems. These provisions require an increasing trend in some indicators until a certain satisfactory level can be achieved, examples of which are: grassland butterfly index; organic carbon in mineral soils; the sharing of agricultural land with landscape features; and a specific target to enhance the farmland bird index by 2030, 2040 and 2050. In addition, there is a specific target on an issue I know is sensitive and relevant for Ireland, which is drained peatlands and their agricultural use.

First, why are we targeting drained peatlands and their agricultural use? Members will understand it easily from the climate prognosis. We estimate that 3% of EU agricultural lands is on drained peatland in agricultural use, but 25% of agricultural emissions come from this land. When there are requirements for climate policy to reduce emissions, it is a good choice to go for peatlands and their agricultural use. What we are proposing is restoration measures of at least 30% by 2030, 50% by 2040, and 70% by 2050, of which a quarter by 2030 and a half by 2040 and 2050 will be rewetted. However, we do have many flexibility clauses within it from the sensitivity of addressing agricultural land, including options to work on other kinds of peatland, such as peat exhaustion sites.

It is partly for other types of drained peatlands, such as peatland where afforestation took place. I suspect we can discuss peatlands further after my presentation.

I refer to forest ecosystem targets. To put it succinctly, it is an equivalent approach. We propose to achieve an increasing trend in some indicators until they reach satisfactory levels. The set of indicators relates to sustainable forest management. They are indicators which member states are already monitoring. They relate to both biodiversity and to forest resilience, which is an important topic, and to our approach.

I refer to the implementation framework, which has two components. The first is national restoration plans. We expect member states, first, to prepare their national restoration plans. That includes identifying the measures through monitoring and research, quantifying and mapping the restoration areas, defining the satisfactory levels I referred to for some indicators, and identifying synergy with other goals, including climate change and other plans and strategies. I am sorry the slide in my presentation is not showing the content for the framework. It will include quantification and description of the concrete restoration measures, the non-deterioration measures, the timing, details on how to finance the implementation from several sources, and how to engage with the public in a participatory process. Be aware we are proposing two years for the submission of the plans and for the Commission to have a role in assessing them but not approving them. It is for the member states to take into account the comments of the Commission.

There are provisions in the implementation framework regarding monitoring and reporting. We expect member states to monitor several aspects, conditions, trends, areas, indicators and populations, and to report on the implementation. The Commission, along with the European Environment Agency, will assess the progress and then report to the European Parliament and European Council. There is a section on my slide, in a blue dot, to show that this involves significant technology nowadays, including Earth observation, which can simplify and help with such monitoring and reporting.

To describe our impact assessment in a nutshell, based on several scientific studies, it has concluded there are costs for restoration but the benefits far outweigh the costs. We get €8 for each €1 invested in restoration, but this is an underestimation because some ecosystem services are not easily measurable. In some specific ecosystems, it can go as far as €1 delivering €32 in benefits. Examples include reversing the decline in pollinators, which provides better production in some crops. Increasing biodiversity in forests makes them more resilient to climate change. They will burn less and have fewer outbreaks of bark beetle. They are less affected by droughts, so production also benefits. There will be a particular impact on marine ecosystems where fish stocks are allowed to get more habitat and more protection. Fish grow bigger, lay more eggs, and fisheries benefit. A specific French case has demonstrated it.

I have a word on financing, which is relevant. Let us keep in mind that in the current general financial framework of the EU, much money is available for biodiversity, up to €100 billion, which amounts to up to €14 billion per year from several sources, including the Common Agricultural Policy, Cohesion Funding, the international fund, the marine and fisheries fund, the LIFE fund, Horizon Europe, and others for research and so on. More than €20 billion should be unlocked for biodiversity every year until 2030 as part of the green deal. This comes together with the specific biodiversity target we have for the multi-annual financial framework, MFF, which amounts to 7.5% of the budget dedicated to biodiversity from 2024. While it is not clearly visible on my slide, it will be 10% from 2026. Beyond the MFF, there is the EU recovery and resilience facility, which brings more money for the green transition and which should include biodiversity. There is already much national funding for biodiversity. My presentation notes the figure since 2019. More and more businesses and companies are taking up this nature-positive approach to biodiversity, which requires several instruments to have private funding for biodiversity, including for restoration.

I think this covers the essence of matters. I thank members for their attention and look forward to a debate and replying to members' questions.