31 Amendments of Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK related to 2020/2273(INI)
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the high level of ambition of the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030 in seeking to halt and reverse biodiversity loss in the EU; stresses that halting and reversing biodiversity loss in the EU is not only a task to be fulfilled by farmers and land owners, it is a task to be fulfilled by each economic an societal sector equally; considers that this level of ambition encourages policy action at all levels and promotes the development of research and innovative solutions to tackle biodiversity loss; stresses that the continuous decline in farmland biodiversity is a reality and that bold action by society as a whole is needed to counteract this trend;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Regrets the significant differences between the Member States in the implementation of European nature legislation and the consequent uneven playing field as regards the protection regime for Natura 2000 sites, including in relation to critical deposition and threshold values, nitrogen deposition calculation models and the assessment of the overall conservation status of habitats of Community importance, which give rise to inexplicable differences in assessment and policy within the EU’s borders;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Stresses the need for the involvement of all relevant actors at the European, national, regional and local level so that concrete actions can be taken to implement the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and to tackle the shortcomings in the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Regrets that, in the context of the Fitness Check of the European nature directives, the Commission and Member States have not actively reconsidered unachievable targets in certain Natura 2000 sites and have refused to carry out an appropriate revision of the nature directives, which diminishes the recognition of protected areas and European biodiversity policy among stakeholders and continues to cause socio-economic uncertainty;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Without jeopardising the conservation objectives and requirements set within the Nature Directives, recognises that the flexibility of implementation approaches that take into account specific national circumstances contributes to the reduction and progressive resolution of conflicts and problems between nature protection and socioeconomic activities;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Recalls that the coexistence of people and large carnivores, particularly wolves, can have negative impacts in certain regions on the sustainable development of ecosystems and inhabited rural areas, including certain types of farming, which are beneficial for biodiversity;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2d. Stresses that extensively managed farmland (e.g. alpine regions) offers precious habitats for numerous protected species, which only find all prerequisites for their continued existence on this extensively managed farmland; highlights that a growing population of protected large carnivore species can endanger traditional forms of extensive land management, which can lead to a threat to other protected species thriving in these unique extensively managed habitats;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 e (new)
Paragraph 2 e (new)
2e. Highlights that some natural habitats develop better than others under changing climatic conditions and that these habitats are also in natural competition with each other (e.g. certain grassland and forest habitats); stresses that certain species ongoing population development will lead to a change in opportunity for other species population development in the future (e.g. large carnivores and their prey); recalls that in certain areas biodiversity should be managed in order to allow for a balanced development of all protected species present in a habitat;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 f (new)
Paragraph 2 f (new)
2f. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take concrete measures to address these issues, so as not to endanger the sustainable development of rural areas, while recognising the available flexibility within Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 g (new)
Paragraph 2 g (new)
2g. Underlines that correct implementation of nature legislation not only falls in the responsibility of Member States, but also with the European Commission including the need for an assessment procedure to adopt the protection status of species in particular regions to be amended as soon as the desired conservation status is reached, in accordance with Article 19 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that setting abstract, arbitrary, rigid, unrealistic and non- achievable numerical targets undermines good legislation and the credibility of lawmakers, and could undermine the objectives of the Biodiversity Strategy, given that a large portion of MPAs in the EU are considered to lack effective management and equitability creating a dangerous illusion of protection (Milieu et al, 2016);
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that strengthening and efficiently implementing existing closed areas would be much more efficient and meaningful than establishing new MPAs;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises the strong link with the Farm to Fork strategy and the need for a holistic approach to the food system, keeping in mind all three dimensions of sustainability; calls on the Commission to establish an evidence-based evaluation of the implementation of the strategy’s measures and targets, in particular of the individual and cumulative impacts on the social and economic sustainability of agriculture in the EU, food security and prices, and the potential risks of displacing biodiversity losses abroad by the replacement of local agricultural production with imports;
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises the strong link with the Farm to Fork strategy and the need for a holistic approach to the food system; calls on the Commission to establish an comprehensive impact assessment and evidence-based evaluation of the implementation of the strategy’s measures and targets, in particular of the individual and cumulative impacts on the social and economic sustainability of agriculture and rural areas in the EU, food security and prices, and the potential risks of displacincreasing biodiversity losses abroad by the replacement of localregional European agricultural production with imports;
Amendment 94 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Notes with great concern the recent scientific assessment of the cumulative effects of the Farm to Fork and biodiversity strategies by the Economic Research Service of the United States Department of Agriculture1a; _________________ 1aBeckman, Jayson, Maros Ivanic, Jeremy L. Jelliffe, Felix G. Baquedano, and Sara G. Scott, November 2020. Economic and Food Security Impacts of Agricultural Input Reduction Under the European Union Green Deal’s Farm to Fork and Biodiversity Strategies, EB-30, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Amendment 99 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Calls, too, on the Commission to produce an evidence-based impact assessment of the potential risks to (climate) emissions, biodiversity loss, rural and regional viability, food prices and strategic regional food and supply security arising from the effects of possible relocation and displacement of agricultural production within the European Union as a result of implementing the strategy’s measures and objectives;
Amendment 109 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that biodiversity conservation is a key societal goal, requiring a broad and inclusive debate, and the effective participation of everyone in society, in particular those more affected by the measures, such as the farming community, while at the same developing reward systems based on attractive incentives for farmers who want to improve their position as custodians of biodiversity as well as benefiting from their knowledge and experience, and creating a sense of ownership, vital for the successful implementation of the strategy;
Amendment 130 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the key role of the common agricultural policy (CAP) in protecting and promoting farmland biodiversity while keeping in mind the main objectives of the CAP written down in Art. 39 TFEU; underlines the potential of the green architecture components of the upcoming CAP in promoting and providing incentives for the transition to more sustainable agricultural systems for producing food and maintaining high nature value farmland; considers that Member States must ensure the timely development and uptake of actions which contribute to enhancing the delivery and potential of biodiversity benefits in line with the required level of ambition; points out that the market needs to realise higher prices for products deriving from biodiversity-friendly cultivation methods;
Amendment 140 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Amendment 165 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Highlights the importance of both maintaining and restoring high-diversity landscape features in agricultural landscapes for their value in terms of biodiversity, pollinators and the natural biological control of pests, as well as maintaining and supporting farming practices and/or productive characteristics beneficial to biodiversity, pollinators and natural biological pest control; calls on the Member States to develop the necessary measures under their CAP Strategic Plans to promote non-productive areas and features with the aim of achieving an area of at least 10%voluntarily creating an appropriate area of high diversity areathat is beneficial for biodiversity at national level, promoting interconnectivity between habitats and thereby maximising the potential for biodiversity;
Amendment 175 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Stresses the importance of adequate funding through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and Horizon Europe in order to achieve the EU’s goals on biodiversity;
Amendment 191 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Stresses that fishing has the lowest carbon footprint if compared with other food production industries, since wild- caught seafood does not require being artificially fed, the use of water supply, antibiotics or pesticides. In light of this, the impact of the fishing sector in the marine environment, mainly concern commercial fish species. However, commercial fishing does have an influence on species abundance and presence in specific regions but has not ever caused the extinction of any fish species in the oceans. While, in terrestrial areas, whole ecosystems have been destroyed and completely replaced as a consequence of land-based industries whose impact deeply affects the marine environment as well. As an example, over 80% of the so called ‘marine’ litter comes in reality from land-based sources.
Amendment 193 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Welcomes the recognition of organic farming as a strong component on the EU’s path towards more sustainable food systems; underlines that the development of organic food production must be accompanied by research, innovation and scientific transfer, market and supply chain development, and measures stimulating demand for organic food, ensuring both the stability of the organic products market and the fair remuneration of farmers; points out that the EU goal on organic production needs to be accompanied by a broad variety of promotion measures, and therefore become a production as well as a consumption target, otherwise European organic farmers are expected to suffer from market pressure;
Amendment 194 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Emphasises the importance of ensuring an adequate and fair income to fishers and farmers, as well as a level playing field with imported food; highlights that highly-demanding measures within the EU will significantly increase imports from third countries with lower standards, resulting in negative impacts on the world biodiversity and thus undermining the objectives of the EU Biodiversity Strategy;
Amendment 200 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Welcomes the recognition of organic farming as a strong componentone of several building blocks on the EU’s path towards more sustainable food systems, especially with regard to biodiversity; underlines that the development of organic food production must be market-driven, and accompanied by research, innovation and scientific transfer, market and supply chain development, and measures stimulating demand for organic food, ensuring both the stability of the organic products market and the fair remuneration of farmers;
Amendment 275 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses the importance of plant protection products and tools for the stability of agricultural production and the sustainability of farmers’ incomes; considers that, although progress has been made, a substantialfurther reduction in the use and risks of chemical pesticides accompanied by development of alternative sustainable protection technologies is needed; stresses the key role of integrated pest management in reducing pesticide dependency, and urges the Member States to ensure it is applied and, its implementation is assessed systematically and products deriving from this integrated production system are paid sufficiently; stresses that farmers need a bigger toolbox of crop protection solutions and methods, as well as bolstered training and advisory systems;
Amendment 276 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses the importance of plant protection products and tools for the stability of agricultural production and the sustainability of farmers’ incomes; considers that, although progress has been made, a substantial reduction in the use and risks of chemicalhazardous pesticides is needed, but emphasizes the need to assess the impact of this measure; stresses the key role of integrated pest management in reducing pesticide dependency, and urges the Member States to ensure it is applied including the availability of new bio- pesticides and its implementation is assessed systematically; stresses that farmers need a bigger toolbox of crop protection solutions and methods, as well as bolstered training and advisory systems;
Amendment 311 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Regrets the fact that due to market demands agricultural production is being increasingly concentrated in a limited range of agricultural crops, varieties and genotypes; underlines that preserving genetic variability in all its components is crucial to promoting the diversity and richness of agricultural ecosystems and to the preservation of local genetic resources, in particular as a repository of solutions to help in facing the environmental challenges that lie ahead.
Amendment 321 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that any target for non-productive agricultural land, non-productive landscape features and protected areas is flexible enough to be implemented according to the exact circumstances and possibilities of each Member State, and respects the rights of farmers, fishermen, land and forest owners, while maintaining strict protection as a voluntary option for land and forest owners;
Amendment 323 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Emphasises that, in order to increase the recognition of protected areas among relevant stakeholders, positive incentives and voluntary bottom- up participatory designation processes and ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ (OECMs) should be prioritised at all levels of government; stresses the need to propose much more appropriate compensatory measures for designated areas, protection and conservation measures, and reduced income due to increased production costs; emphasises that compensatory funding must reach affected farmers and forest owners effectively;
Amendment 329 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 c (new)
Paragraph 10 c (new)
10c. Emphasises the need to develop business models by rewarding farmers, market gardeners, fishermen and other area owners and users for the ecosystem services they provide.