Sweden reportedly wants to push the controversial proposal to Spain (which assumes the presidency in July) because the proposal is highly disputed in Swedish forestry, and because the European Parliament has not yet reached an agreement on it.
The ambassadors of the EU countries advised on Friday, after the still unfinished votes in the environment committee, that the ministerial meeting in Luxembourg on Tuesday should simply go ahead.
This indicates that the ambassadors expect the 27 ministers to agree, partly due to last-minute adjustments and relaxations. For example, the no-deterioration obligation would no longer involve 'result' obligations but 'effort' obligations, something the Netherlands has insisted on from the beginning.
Minister Christianne van der Wal (Nature & Nitrogen) reported last month that she is concerned the no-deterioration obligation would include legally binding elements. The Netherlands fears that all nature will have to be mapped, and that various permits will be required that could later be annulled by courts, including looming damage claims.
Brussels says that member states themselves may decide which (construction) activities they want to exclude from that legal system.
The fact that Brussels can say countries can decide this themselves, but that ultimately a Dutch judge could decide whether the Netherlands has ‘made sufficient effort’ or not, is one of the arguments by the EPP/CDA against the nature restoration plan. Reportedly, legal advisers of Minister Van der Wal have also pointed to that alleged risk.
The annotated parliamentary letter also shows that for most parts of the bill there is a qualified majority among the Environment Ministers, and that voting against is practically pointless. If the Environment Ministers align on Tuesday, that could be a boost for the proponents in the European Parliament.
The ENVI environment committee will complete the votes on 27 June on the many hundreds of amendments submitted. Due to these amendments, the final report has been adjusted in parts, so it must also be presented in full for a vote. If, like last week, this ends in a 44-44 tie, the final report is rejected and the environment committee has no position.
However, among the many amendments, proposals submitted by EPP/CDA or Renew/VVD were also accepted. It is possible that one of the four dissenting Renew members will still accept the adjusted final report.