The faction’s claims that the bill threatens farmers’ livelihoods and food security have been debunked by thousands of scientists.
In a highly charged vote on Tuesday, a significant committee of the European Parliament rejected a law intended to restore the natural environment, casting doubt on the EU’s ambitious goals for its flagship Green Deal net zero plans.
Due to opposition from the conservative European People’s Party, the majority party in the parliament, the vote in the environment committee ended in a tie at 44–44. The faction’s claims that the bill threatens farmers’ livelihoods and food security have been debunked by thousands of scientists.
As a result, on July 10, the parliament will be asked to vote to reject the entire proposal, putting to the test the EU’s promise to make the fight against climate change one of its top priorities.
Last week, the plan had the support of EU governments. The bill would have to be completely rewritten if it were to be rejected by parliament at a time when international organisations are urging increased efforts to reduce the effects of climate change.
The bill is an important component of the lauded European Green Deal, which aims to establish the world’s best climate and biodiversity targets and establish the EU as the authority on all related issues.
By 2030, the plans put forth by the EU’s executive commission hope to have at least 20% of the region’s land and sea areas covered by restoration efforts for specific habitats and species.
Parliament Speaker Cesar Luena argued that the law is necessary due to the decline of biodiversity caused by human intrusion and climate change. He stated that 90% of natural habitats are in bad shape and one million species are endangered.
Luena rejected the EPP’s argument that the law would endanger food security and land access for farmers, stating that many lies have been spread about the proposal.
The law, according to Mr. Luena, would strengthen ecosystems and increase resilience to climate change, both of which are good for businesses. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission and an EPP member, was urged to respond publicly.
The first biodiversity law in Europe cannot be based on an argument within a political party, according to Mr. Luena.
In a press conference, the chairman of the environment committee, Pascal Canfin, stated that there is currently a “clear battle” within the EPP ahead of the EU elections next year, with Ms. von der Leyen and Manfred Weber representing opposite sides.
Mr Canfin, a French politician from the centrist Renew party, said, “It’s up to them to decide on which line they are going to be for the vote and next electoral campaign.”
According to Mr. Canfin, “This text makes it clear that one element of the EPP is anti-nature.What we are currently observing, which is relatively new, is what I refer to as European Trumpism: anti-feminism, anti-green, and anti-migrant.
He claimed that the German members of the Christian Democratic Union who were against the law were substituted for one-third of the EPP’s committee members.
Manfred Weber’s manipulation of the ENVI vote, he claimed, was very obvious.
Mr. Canfin asserts that the law would have passed with a “clear majority” absent these replacements.
Peter Liese, a member of the EPP and CDU, refuted Mr. Canfin’s claims in a separate press conference and dubbed him the “worst and most partisan chair of the ENVI committee” he had ever witnessed in his three decades as an MEP.
The group had wanted to be “safe side in case something happens,” he said, citing health and personal issues as examples. He acknowledged that there had been substitutions in the vote. He did not elaborate on why the EPP had more replacements than the other factions.
Mr. Liese claimed that the primary factor in his decision to oppose the law was the requirement that EU nations restore 25,000 kilometres of rivers at the expense of hydropower. Mr. Liese said, “This law is bad, it’s contradictory, and for some it’s just too much.”
He frequently criticised Frans Timmermans, the law’s proponent and the vice president in charge of the European Commission’s Green Deal.
Christine Schneider, a fellow EPP MEP, stated that her group had been waiting for an impact assessment for nearly a year.
Ms. Schneider and Mr. Liese argue that scientists supporting the law did not understand the viewpoint of farmers. They emphasize that future food security depends on insects and bees, but also on farmers and sufficient areas for food production. They do not want a vote at the July plenary and hope Timmermans withdraws the proposals to avoid voting in July or September.