17 Amendments of Pär HOLMGREN related to 2021/2006(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Welcomes the Commission proposal for a Methane Strategy in seeking to reduce overall methane emissions within the EU; recalls that within a 20 year timespan, methane emissions are 86 times more potent than CO2 in terms of its effect on global warming, and that it contributes to tropospheric ozone formation, a potent local air pollutant, damaging crops, forests and other vegetation, affecting biodiversity and causing serious health problems;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 a (new)
Paragraph -1 a (new)
-1 a. Regrets the failure of the previous efforts to decrease methane emissions in the agriculture sector, which is responsible for 53% of the EU’s methane emissions; recalls that from 2010 to 2018, methane emissions in the agricultural sector increased with 0.62% instead of decreasing;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 b (new)
Paragraph -1 b (new)
-1 b. Calls on the Commission to set up a target on methane reduction within the agriculture sector by 2030;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Regrets the lack of aWelcomes the Commission efforts to develop a more comprehensive EU monitoring framework for methane emissions; calls on the Commission, therefore, to improve the measurement, reporting and verification of methane emissions in the agricultural sector in the agriculture sector, which will be of interest to encourage individual action within national frameworks; recalls that the existing monitoring system already allows us to take action, as Tier 2 methodology is used for reporting and monitoring, e.g. to report under the NEC Directive;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Urges the Commission to ensure positive synergies between climate regulation and the Industrial Emissions Directive in order to avoid double regulationopen the Industrial Emissions Directive and NEC Directive in order to extend its scope to methane and better cover the agriculture sector;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Underlines that methane and ammonia emissions are related to livestock farming and manure management, and that the Methane Strategy should be seen as a powerful tool to set synergistic measures which will reduce both methane and ammonia together;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights that research and investment in mitigation measures and technologies is of paramount importance; considers that there technologies can contribute to reducing methane emissions from the agriculture sector; recalls that, as underlined in an IIASA study on methane1a, technical solutions only have limited impact for the agriculture sector and will not enable the EU to achieve neither the Paris Agreat potential in adapting diet of and developing feed additives forement objectives, nor carbon neutrality by 2050 and must be complemented with a shift in livestock farming practices; considers that technical solutions, such as adapting the diet of ruminant and bovine species, which couldcan help reduce methane emissions without having negative effectfrom the agriculture sector but that they must be founded on fact-based evidence and peer- reviewed science, and should not negatively impact animal welfare nor incentivise large-scale industrial farming; _________________ 1a According to the Commission’s con the livestock sector;sultant IIASA, the maximum technical potential –at any cost –could reduce EU methane emissions by only 62% from 2005 to 2050, compared to a 42% reduction in the baseline - REFERENCE NEEDED http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/16324/1/H %25C3%25B6glund- Isaksson_2020_Environ._Res._Commun. _2_025004.pdf
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Acknowledges the many negative impacts of industrial farming on the environment, climate, animal welfare and socio-economic aspects of the agriculture sector; calls for a shift from intensive, industrial animal farming towards an extensive farming based on grazing and home-grown fodder, and to limit livestock production to our EU carrying capacity;
Amendment 92 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. Highlights that historical reductions of agricultural methane emissions in the EU have been driven by reductions in ruminant livestock numbers; notes that neither livestock numbers nor methane emissions have decreased in the past decade;
Amendment 97 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3 c. Stresses that current levels of meat and dairy production and consumption need to be significantly reduced;
Amendment 110 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that value-addedthe utilisation of agricultural residues and other by-products is an importantcan be a driver of the circular economy and bio-economy; calls for the accelif stringent sustainability criteria are applied, so that only genuine waste and residues, for which no more sustainable alternation of European biogas production from agriculture waste, as an important tool for reducing methane emissionsve use exists, are considered as potential sources of feed for the biogas plants, following a cascading principle of use; calls for the development of on-farm, small biogas plants, fed with agriculture waste only;
Amendment 123 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Recalls that circularity first means less waste, slowing the consumption of resources and energy, and implementing long-term waste prevention solutions, and that the role of biogas shall therefore be limited;
Amendment 148 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that farm level certification schemes for climate effective farming, including common measurement and verification data for methane reductions, will be an important tool for monitoring and incentivisingaction must be taken to mitigate the impact of our food system on climate, which includes methane reductions at farm level;
Amendment 153 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Believes this regulatory framework should be built on the basis of best available science and ensure no negative impacts on the environment, in particular biodiversity; reminds of the importance of nature-based solutions, such as agroecology or ecosystem restoration, especially peatland restoration, for increasing natural carbon sinks in accordance with the EU Climate Law;
Amendment 162 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that within thee important role of a wider circular economy, the uptake of carbon removals and increased circularity of carbon should be incentivised; calls in reducing GHG emissions; takes note of the work onf the Commission, in accordance with the EU Climate Law, to exploreing the development of a regulatory framework for the certification of carbon removals on the basis of robust and transparent carbon accounting that takes into account the differences between the greenhouse gases, and to verify the authenticity of carbon removals and reward farmers for their mitigation efforts.;
Amendment 166 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Believes this regulatory framework should be built on the basis of best available science and ensure no negative impacts on the environment, in particular biodiversity; reminds of the importance of nature-based solutions, such as agroecology or ecosystem restoration, especially peatland restoration, for increasing natural carbon sinks in accordance with the EU Climate Law;
Amendment 177 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. Highlights that the sink strength from forest soils is large, and that the global methane budget is sensitive to disturbances of forests; Highlights that certain forestry practices, like forest management operations that involve clear-cutting and waterlogging, cause significant methane emissions from the soil; Calls on the Commission to introduce a phase-out of these practices and to consider the effects of all greenhouse gases on the climate for any forest management policy;