Brussels, 25 January 2023
Interinstitutional files:
2022/0195 (COD)
WK 1060/2023 INIT
LIMITE
ENV
CLIMA
FORETS
AGRI
POLMAR
CODEC
This is a paper intended for a specific community of recipients. Handling and
further distribution are under the sole responsibility of community members.
MEETING DOCUMENT
From:
General Secretariat of the Council
To:
Working Party on the Environment
Subject:
Nature Restoration Regulation: WPE on 1 February 2023 – Presidency Steering
Note
Delegations will find attached a steering note prepared by the Presidency with a view to the meeting of
the Working Party on the Environment on 1 February 2023.
WK 1060/2023 INIT
LIMITE
EN
Presidency Steering note
Meeting of the Working Party for Environment - 1 February
2022 – Nature Restoration Regulation
The Presidency has prepared this steering note to guide discussions at the WPE
meeting on 1 February, focusing on Chapter II, Articles 4, 5 and 6. This
steering note has been prepared based on previous comments from Member
States and discussions at the WPE and at the Environment Council of 20
December.
New changes build upon and are made to the CZ Presidency compromise text
(Rev 1) on Articles 1-10 (document 14884/22, of 18 November 2022) and they
are identified in track-changes.
Non-deterioration of habitats and continuous improvement of
areas under restoration (Articles 4(6)-4(8), 5(6)-5(8), recital 35)
In the policy debate at the Environmental Council, most Member States
expressed that they recognize the need to take steps to avoid deterioration of
habitats to achieve the purpose of this regulation while, at the same time,
several Member States stressed the need to amend the proposal in order to
limit costs, administrative burden, and consequences for land use rights.
In Rev 1, a proposal to amend Articles 4(6)–4(7) and 5(6)–5(7), in order to
put more focus on the measures necessary to avoid deterioration, gained
support from several Member States. However, some Member States
indicated that Articles 4(7)/5(7) are still too strict regarding habitats outside
the Natura 2000 network. Some Member States have proposed amendments
to change the non-deterioration obligation to a
no net deterioration obligation,
to be applied on biogeographical or national level. A few Member States
have proposed to delete Articles 4(7)/5(7), while several others have
advocated to keep the non-deterioration obligation, seeing it as essential to
achieving the targets of Articles 4/5.
On this basis, the Presidency considers that there is a need for further
flexibility but also that it is important not to undermine the principal
obligations under Articles 4(7)/5(7) and to maintain the overall structure of
the provision. Therefore, the Presidency proposes an amendment to Article
4(8)(c)/5(8)(c) so that derogations can be made not only for projects of
overriding public interest but for all plans and projects of public interest,
thereby widening the scope of that derogation.
To ensure that such derogations do not undermine the achievement of the
targets in Articles 4/5, the Presidency proposes to introduce a requirement
to compensate impacts if such plans or projects are authorized.
Force majeure (Article 4(8)(a)/5(8)(a))
In Rev 1, force majeure was exemplified in Article 4(8) (“including natural
disasters, in particular unplanned and uncontrolled wildfire”). While the
addition of a reference to natural disasters was generally supported by
Member States, the specific mentioning of wildfires in Article 4(8) met
mixed responses.
The Presidency notes that unplanned and uncontrolled wildfires could be
covered by both the general concept of force majeure and the more specific
term “natural disasters”, given that they derive from unforeseeable
circumstances and can’t be avoided with due care. As noted by some
Member States, the prevalence of different kinds of natural disasters varies
among Member States. In light of this, the Presidency proposes to abstain
from including examples of different kinds of natural disasters in Article
4(8), and instead add relevant examples of natural disasters in recital (35).
Entry into force of the requirement to put in place necessary measures
According to the Commission’s proposal, the non-deterioration requirement
shall apply from the time of entry into force of this regulation. Member
States have raised concerns that this would leave no time to implement
necessary national legislation and/or policy instruments to ensure
compliance.
As the proposed non-deterioration requirement would also apply to habitats
outside the Natura 2000 network, amendments to national legislation might
be necessary to ensure compliance. The Presidency therefore considers it
appropriate to allow Member States some time to implement the necessary
measures and considers a period, in line with the time for development of
the draft national restoration plans (NRP), of [2] years, to be an appropriate
time frame for putting in place the necessary measures according to Article
4(7)/5(7). A corresponding amendment to recital (35) is proposed.
To conclude, the Presidency proposes the following amendments to Articles
4(7)/5(7), 4(8)/5(8) and recital (35):
Article 4 and 5
7.
[Member States shall,
no later than [2 years after entry into
force of this regulation], put in place necessary measures to
prevent deterioration of ensure that areas where the habitat
types listed in Annex I/Annex II occur do not deteriorate.
]
8. Outside Natura 2000 sites, the non-fulfilment of the
obligations set out in paragraphs 6 and 7 is justified if it is
caused by:
(a) force majeure
including natural disasters, in particular
unplanned and uncontrolled wildfire; or;
(b) unavoidable habitat transformations which are directly
caused by climate change; or
(c) a
plan or project of overriding public interest
;
(i) for which no less damaging alternative solutions are
available, to be determined on a case by case basis
, and
(ii) on condition that the Member State takes all measures
necessary to compensate the deterioration caused by the
plan or project,
In addition for Article 5(8);
(d) action or inaction for which the Member State
concerned is not responsible.
Recital 35
(35) It is important that the areas covered by habitat types falling
within the scope of this Regulation do not deteriorate as
compared to the current situation, considering the current
restoration needs and the necessity not to further increase the
restoration needs in the future.
Member States should be given
adequate time to implement measures to prevent
deterioration of areas covered by habitat types outside the
Natura 2000 network. Furthermore, it is, however, appropriate
to consider the possibility of force majeure
including natural
disasters, in particular unplanned and uncontrolled wildfire,
floods and droughts, which may result in the deterioration of
areas covered by those habitat types, as well as unavoidable
habitat transformations which are directly caused by climate
change, or as a result of a plan or project of overriding public
interest, for which no less damaging alternative solutions are
available, to be determined on a case by case basis,
and subject
to compensatory measures, or of a plan or project authorised in
accordance with Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC.
For discussion:
- Are you in favour of specifying, in Article 4(7)/5(7), that necessary
measures to prevent deterioration shall be put in place no later than [2]
years after entry into force of this Regulation?
- Are you in favour of the proposed amendments to the derogations in
Article 4(8)/5(8)(c) from the obligations in Article 4(6)–(7)/5(6)–(7)?
- Can you accept the proposed deletion in Article 4(8)(a)?
Flexibility between groups of habitats (Articles 4(1) and 5(1))
One Member State, with support from others, has expressed that the
grouping of habitat types poses potential challenges in reaching the
restoration targets to 2030 in Article 4(1)/5(1) in cases where the area of one
of the habitat types within a group is much larger than the area of other
habitat types in that same group. Furthermore, several Member States have
expressed general concerns regarding the feasibility of reaching the 2030
targets for some groups of habitats.
To provide increased flexibility for Member States between groups of
habitats with regard to the 2030 targets, the Presidency proposes the
following amendments to article 4(1) and 5(1).
Article 4 and 5
1. Member States shall put in place the restoration measures that
are necessary to improve to good condition areas of habitat types
listed in Annex I/Annex II which are not in good condition. Such
measures shall be in place on at least 30 % of the area of each
group of habitat types listed in Annex I that is not in good
condition, as quantified in the national restoration plan referred to
in Article 12, by 2030, on at least 60 % by 2040, and on at least 90
% by 2050.
(a) on at least 30 % of the total area of all habitat types listed
in Annex I/Annex II that is not in good condition by 2030;
(b) on at least 60 % and by 2050 on at least 90 % of the area of
each group of habitat types listed in Annex I/Annex II that is
not in good condition by 2040;
as quantified in the national restoration plan referred to in
article 12
For discussion:
- Are you in favour of the proposed amendments to Articles 4(1)/5(1),
allowing for flexibility between groups of habitats until 2030?
Habitats in unknown condition and a stepwise approach to
developing NRPs (Articles 4(4), 4(4bis), 5(4), 5(4bis) and 15)
The proposed Article 4(4bis)/5(4bis) in Rev 1 was recognised by many
Member States to be in the right direction, but several Member States
expressed concerns that the provision may still require Member States to put
in place restoration measures on habitats in unknown conditions before
2030. Based on the comments received so far, the Presidency proposes
amendments to Article 4(4bis)/5(4bis) that in practice exclude habitats in
unknown condition from the 2030 targets in Article 4(1)/5(1).
The Presidency finds it appropriate that all knowledge gaps are addressed by
2030. However, the Presidency considers that the wording of Article 4(4bis)
and 5(4bis) should be adjusted to ensure that the condition for all areas of
habitat types is determined by the Member States by 2030, not only that the
knowledge gaps are removed.
Some Member States have raised concerns that it would be challenging to
meet the 2040 targets if all restoration measures are postponed until after
2030 in habitats where the condition is not known by the time of adoption
of the NRP.
The Presidency notes that Articles 4(1)/5(1) apply as soon as a habitat is
evaluated and found not to be in good condition, but at the same time, the
restoration targets in these Articles are linked to the quantification of areas
to be restored presented in the NRP. In the WPE on 9 January and in
written comments thereafter, the Presidency has noted that a stepwise
approach to developing NRPs has gained support from many Member
States. If the Presidency’s proposals to exclude habitats in unknown
condition and to keep the requirement to ensure that the condition is known
for all areas of habitat types in Annex I/II by 2030 both gain support, the
Presidency intends to propose an amendment to Article 15 to ensure that
Member States present a revised NRP with an updated quantification of
restoration requirements under Articles 4(1)/5(1) before the 10-year review
required under Article 15(1). The Presidency sees such an update as
necessary to ensure that restoration measures are planned as soon as the
condition of a habitat is known. However, the drafting of a revised article 15
with regard to knowledge gaps will have to be coordinated with other
elements of a stepwise approach.
To conclude, the Presidency proposes the following amendments to address
the issue of habitats with unknown status:
Article 4 and 5
4bis. For areas where habitat types listed in Annex I are in
unknown condition, Member States shall, in addition to the
restoration measures in accordance with paragraph 1, put in
place appropriate restoration measures on 30 % of the area of
each group of habitat types listed in Annex I in unknown
condition and ensure, by 2030 at the latest, that the condition is
known for all areas of habitat types in Annex I/Annex II all
knowledge gaps that do not allow for habitat type condition
assessment are removed by 2030 at the latest.
For discussion:
- Are you in favour of the proposed amendments to Articles
4(4bis)/5(4bis), including adding a provision in article 15?
Restoration of marine ecosystems (Article 2, 5 and 11(10))
Geographical scope in marine waters (Article 2(b))
Some Members Sates have raised the need to better align the geographical
scope of Article 2(b) with both the United Nations Conventions of the Law
of the Seas (UNCLOS) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive
(MSFD).
The Presidency recognizes UNCLOS Article 56
Rights, jurisdiction and duties of
the coastal State in the exclusive economic zone, as the basis for the proposed
geographical scope for the NRL, as well as for the definition of marine
waters in Article 3(1)(a) MSFD.
Article 56(1)(a) in UNCLOS outlines that the coastal state has
sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the
natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to
the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other
activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as
the production of energy from the water, currents and winds.
Article 56(1)(b) lays out that the coastal states have
jurisdiction for the
establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures, marine
scientific research and the protection and preservation of the marine
environment. The term
exercising is introduced in Article 56(2) regarding how
coastal States shall act with regard to other States.
The Presidency notes that the geographical scope in the COM proposal is
only referring to
sovereign rights as used in
Article 56(1)(a), while the definition
in MSFD, using
jurisdictional rights, only refers to jurisdiction as
used in Article
56(1)(b). The Presidency recognises that both said provisions in Article 56(1)
UNCLOS are relevant for restoration measures falling within the NRL
proposal. The Presidency also finds it more correct to use the term
has instead of
exercises as Article 2 is outlining the geographical scope of this
Regulation, rather than how the coastal States are exercising their rights.
The Presidency has noted that the use of
territory in Article 2(1) may not be
consistent with the notion of territory when used in
Articles 4(10)(a)/5(10)(a), 11(2) och 17(1)(g)-(h).
To conclude, the Presidency proposes the following amendments to Article
2(b);
Article 2
This Regulation applies to ecosystems referred to in Articles 4 to
10:
(a) in the territory of Member States;
(b) in waters, the seabed and subsoil on the seaward side of the
baseline from which the extent of the territorial waters is
measured extending to the outmost reach of the area where a
Member State exercises
has sovereign rights
and jurisdiction, in
accordance with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea.
Clarifying linkages with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive -
Definitions related to Articles 4 and 5 (Article 3(4)-(7))
Several Member States have raised that the linkages to the Marine Strategy
Framework Directive (MSFD) need to be clarified, in particular in the
definitions relevant for Article 5 but also in relation to Annex II and III,
which include habitats and species not included in Directive 92/43/EEC.
The Presidency notes that the definitions in Articles 3(4)–(7) are of equal
importance for both Articles 4 and 5 and need to include the elements
relevant also for marine ecosystems. Following the additions already made in
Rev 1 in these definitions relating to the Habitats Directive and the Birds
Directive, the Presidency also considers that it is needed to include
references to MSFD.
The Presidency proposes the following amendments to Article 3:
Article 3
(4) ‘good condition’
of a habitat type means a state where the
its key characteristics of an ecosystem, namely ,
in particular its
physical, chemical, compositional, structur
eal and function
s and
its typical species or typical species composition al state, and
its landscape and seascape characteristics, reflect the high level
of ecological integrity, stability and resilience necessary to
ensure its long-term maintenance
and thus contribute to
reaching and/or maintaining favourable conservation status
according to Article 1, point (e) of Directive 92/43/EEC,
where the habitat type concerned is listed in Annex I of that
Directive, and, in marine ecosystems, contribute to achieving
and/or maintaining good environmental status according to
Article 3(5) of Directive 2008/56/EC;
(5) ‘favourable reference area’ means the total area of a
habitat type in a given biogeographical region or marine region at
national level that is considered the minimum necessary to ensure
the long-term viability of the habitat type and its
typical species
or typical species composition, and all its significant ecological
variations in its natural range, and which is composed of the area
of the habitat type and, if that area is not sufficient, the area
necessary for the re-establishment of the habitat type;
where the
habitat type concerned is listed in Annex I of Directive
92/43/EEC, such reestablishment contributes to reaching
favourable conservation status according to Article 1, point
(e) of that Directive and, in marine ecosystems, such re-
establishment contributes to achieve and/or maintain good
environmental status according to Art 3(5) of Directive
2008/56/EC;
(6) ‘sufficient quality of habitat’ means the quality of a habitat of
a species which allows the ecological requirements of a species
to be met at any stage of its biological cycle so that it is
maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of
its habitat in its natural range
, contributing to reaching and/or
maintaining favourable conservation status of species
according to the Article 1, point (i) of Directive 92/43/EEC
for species listed in Annex II, IV or V of that Directive and
securing populations of wild bird species covered by Directive
2009/147/EC and, in addition, in marine ecosystems,
contributing to achieving and/or maintaining good
environmental status according to Article 3(5) of Directive
2008/56/EC;
(7) ‘sufficient quantity of habitat’ means the quantity of a habitat
of a species which allows the
ecological requirements of a
species to be met at any stage of its biological cycle so that it is
maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of
its habitat in its natural range,
contributing to reaching and/or
maintaining favourable conservation status of species
according to the Article 1, point (i) of Directive 92/43/EEC
for species listed in Annex II, IV or V of that Directive and
securing populations of wild bird species covered by Directive
2009/147/EC and, in addition, in marine ecosystems,
contributing to achieving and/or maintaining good
environmental status according to Article 3(5) of Directive
2008/56/EC;
For discussion:
- Are you in favour of the proposed amendments of the reference to
MSFD in the definitions in Article 3(4)-(7))?
Correction of linkages with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive –
(Article 5(4) and 18(5))
In Rev 1, a reference to reporting under the Habitats Directive, Birds Directive
and Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) was added to Article 5(4).
Regarding MSFD, a specific reference was made to Article 18.
The Presidency notes that Article 18 in MSFD only concerns interim reporting
of progress in the implementation of the programme of measures. The
Presidency considers Article 17, that concerns updating of all reporting
obligations, more relevant and proposes to change the reference in Article 5(4).
The same goes for the corresponding reference in Article 18(5).
Article 5
4. The […] the habitats of the species referred to in paragraph 3 of
this Article
, making use of information reported under Article 17
of Directive 92/43/EEC, Article 12 of Directive 2009/147/EC and
Article 17 18 of Directive 2008/56/EC. Areas where the habitat
types listed in Annex II are in unknown condition shall be considered
as not being in good condition.
Article 18
5. The EEA shall provide to the Commission a Union-wide technical
report on the progress […] and Article 18
17 of Directive
2008/56/EC. The report shall be provided by June 2032 and
subsequent reports shall be provided every three years thereafter.
Article 11(10) Preparation of the national restoration plans and cross
border cooperation
One Member State has proposed amendments to Article 11(10) as well as
additional paragraphs to adequately provide for coherence and consistency
of NRPs of different Member States, in particular in cross border marine
regions or subregions. The intention of the proposal gained support from
some Member States while others raised concerns regarding both the
interpretation of the legal obligation to cooperate with third countries as well
as on timing and administrative burden. The Presidency notes that many
activities in marine waters are transboundary, for example fishery, and it is
the same for pressures impacting habitats (nutrients, contaminants, litter and
underwater noise). The Presidency recognizes that many of the pressures
mentioned above are dealt with through cooperation under current regional
and international fora. Bearing in mind the comments from Member States,
the Presidency considers that Article 11 on preparation of the NRP could
benefit from further clarification regarding the procedure for such
cooperation, where the Member State concerned deems such cooperation
necessary. However, the Presidency also considers that there can be issues in
terrestrial, coastal and freshwater ecosystems that need cross-border
cooperation, and in some cases, also with third countries.
There are also several activities, in particular marine, impacting habitats
linked to other Community policies, in particular the CFP, but possibly also
the CAP, or international agreements which cannot be tackled solely by
measures at national level.
Against this background, the Presidency proposes a compromise text that
addresses the relevance and possible procedure for consultations also with
third parties in cross-border regions or subregions on a voluntary basis.
Article 11
(10) Member States shall, where possible, foster synergies with
the national restoration plans of other Member States, in
particular for ecosystems that span across borders
or where
Members States share a marine region or subregion within
the meaning of Directive 2008/56/.
(10bis) For the purpose of establishing and implementing
national restoration plans, in relation to the restoration and
re-establishment of transboundary habitats and habitats of
species, Member States may, where practical and
appropriate, use existing regional institutional cooperation
structures, (such as regional sea conventions), or where
relevant other relevant international fora or bilateral
cooperation to coordinate actions, including with third
countries.
Restoration of urban ecosystems (Article 6, Article 3(10)-(14))
Geographic scope of Article 6
Several Member States have raised questions or made comments and
proposals regarding the geographic scope of Article 6.
First of all, the Presidency believes that a separation of the different targets
in Article 6, together with text clarifications, are appropriate to clarify which
of the targets should be fulfilled at national level or at local level, in other
words in each city, town and suburb. To the understanding of the
Presidency, Article 6(2) apply on a national level, in contrast to Article 6(1)
and 6(2)(a) and (b), which apply for each LAU being either a city or a town
and suburb. Therefore, to clarify these differences, the Presidency proposes
the following editorial adjustments:
- Division of Article 6(2) into two separate paragraphs; one for the
target applying on a national level, one for the targets applying on
LAU level.
- Changed place and wording of the phrase “in
all cities and in towns
and suburbs” (proposed wording: “in
each city and in
each town and
suburb”).
Some Member States have expressed that water areas, for example large
lakes, should not be included when calculating obligations under Article 6 to
increase urban green space or urban tree canopy cover. In addition to the
amendment of “land” to Article 6(2), already made in Rev 1, the Presidency
proposes a corresponding amendment:
- Addition of “on land” in the 2050 target for urban tree canopy cover
(new Article 6(3)(a)).
Further, the Presidency perceives support among the Member States that the
aim of Article 6 should be to ensure restoration of
urban ecosystems. By
contrast, other Articles of this Regulation apply to restoration and non-
deterioration of ecosystems which can be found in the entire landscape. The
urban green areas/urban tree canopy cover are not intended to be measured
in rural areas, which would be the case in several Member States where
LAUs extend far beyond more densely populated areas (in other words, even
though a LAU meets the criteria of
cities or
towns and suburbs, that LAU can
include vast rural areas).
The addition of the concepts urban centres and urban clusters in Rev1
narrowed the geographical scope for Article 6(2)(first part) and for
Article 6(2)(a). These additions gained support from some Member States.
At the same time, the importance of peri urban nature and the risk of urban
sprawl, have been raised in the WPE when discussing the proposal to limit
the geographical scope to urban centres and urban clusters.
With this in mind, the Presidency proposes:
- to apply the obligations under Article 6 on the whole LAU area, and
- to add an
optional possibility (New Article 6(4)) for Member States, to
apply the obligations in Article 6 only on a
smaller area inside the LAU,
namely
urban centres,
urban clusters and
peri-urban areas.
If a Member State does not find the LAU to represent an appropriate
geographical scope for Article 6 and therefore opts for the use of a smaller
area, that area shall include urban centres and urban clusters as well as peri
urban areas. Peri urban areas shall be defined by the Member State but shall
have a minimum range (from urban centres and clusters) to ensure a not too
narrow geographical scope of Article 6 (bearing in mind the value of peri
urban ecosystems and the risk of urban sprawl). The maximum range will be
the border of the LAU. (New Article 3(12bis)).
During preparation of the NRPs the Member States shall define and present
the geographical scope used. (The Presidency awaits comments on the
amendments proposed above before drafting amendments in Articles 11 and
12.)
Water elements in urban green space (Article 3(13))
Several Member States have proposed to add water related elements in the
definition of urban green space (Article 3(13)).
The Presidency considers that creation and restoration of water elements in
urban areas would provide valuable ecosystem services of a similar kind as
provided by the elements already included in the definition of urban green
space. Therefore, the Presidency proposes to add
ponds and
watercourses in the
definition of urban green space. This will enable Member States to include
inter alia new ponds or open water management systems, when reporting on
the increase of urban green space. Ponds and watercourses are elements
mentioned in Annex VII (29).
Possibility to use national data (Articles 3(13)-(14))
Member States have made comments on the possibility to use national data
when calculating urban green space and also raised questions about how well
Copernicus data can be used to calculate/monitor for example urban green
space integrated in buildings. In the steering note for the WPE on
11 October, the CZ Presidency presented a compromise proposal for
Article 3(13) which was supported by several Member States. Drawing from
that compromise proposal, the Presidency finds it appropriate to amend the
definitions in both Article 3(13) and 3(14) to enable Member States to use
national data that complements Copernicus data.
Quality aspects of urban green space
Some Member States propose that the quality aspects of urban ecosystems
should in some way be addressed in NRL, and a few Member States have
also proposed to add quality indicators. However, at the same time several
Member States have expressed that the quality to be achieved is something
that has to be addressed on a national level. From the discussions at the
WPE on the 9 December and from written comments thereafter, the
Presidency concludes that a majority of the Member States are of the
opinion that quality of urban green space is important but should primarily
be addressed at the national level. Against this background and taking into
account the difficulties to monitor and assess quality in a standardized way,
quality aspects are not included in Article 6 in the Presidency’s current
proposal.
To conclude, the Presidency proposes the following amendments to Articles
3(13)–(14) and Article 6.
Article 3
(12bis) ‘peri-urban areas’ means all areas within at least
[X] kilometres of urban centres or urban clusters, and
located in the same city or the same town and suburb as those
urban centres or urban clusters;
(13) ‘urban green space’ means all
trees, bushes, shrubs,
permanent herbaceous vegetation, lichens and mosses,
ponds
and watercoursesgreen urban areas; broad-leaved forests;
coniferous forests; mixed forests; natural grasslands; moors and
heathlands; transitional woodland-shrubs and sparsely vegetated
areas - as found within cities or towns and suburbs calculated on
the basis of data provided by the Copernicus Land Monitoring
Service as established by Regulation (EU) 2021/696 of the
European Parliament and of the Council
, and other appropriate
data provided by the Member States;
(14) ‘urban tree canopy cover’ means the total area of tree cover
within cities and towns and suburbs, calculated on the basis of
the Tree Cover Density data provided by the Copernicus Land
Monitoring Service as established by Regulation (EU) 2021/696
of the European Parliament and of the Council
, and other
appropriate data provided by the Member States;
Article 6
1. Member States shall ensure
, in each city and in each town
and suburb, that there is no net loss of urban green space, and
of urban tree canopy cover by 2030, compared to 2021 in all
cities and in towns and suburbs.
2. Member States shall ensure that there is an increase in the
total national area of urban green space in cities and in towns
and suburbs of at least [3 %] of the total
land area of
urban
centres and urban clusters in cities and of towns and suburbs
in 2021, by 2040, and at least [5 %] by 2050. In addition
Member States shall ensure:
3. (a)
Member States shall ensure, in each city and in each
town and suburb,
(a) on land, a minimum of 10 % urban tree canopy cover
in
urban centres and urban clusters in all cities and in towns and
suburbs by 2050; and
(b) a net gain of urban green space that is integrated into
existing and new buildings and infrastructure developments,
including through renovations and renewals, in all cities and in
towns and suburbs.
4. By way of derogation from,
(a) paragraphs 1 and 3, Member States may choose to
comply with the obligations only within urban centres and
urban clusters and peri-urban areas, and
(b) paragraph 2, Member States may choose to ensure that
there is an increase in the total national area of urban green
space in urban centres and urban clusters and peri-urban
areas of at least [3 %] of the total land area of urban centres
and urban clusters and peri-urban areas in 2021, by 2040,
and at least [5 %] by 2050.
For discussion:
- Do you support the proposal to add a derogation possibility in Article 6
for Member States that do not find that LAUs represent an appropriate
geographical scope for Article 6?
- Do you support the proposal to include the concept of peri-urban areas
(Article 3(12bis))?
- Are you in favour of adding water elements in Article 3(13)?
- Are you in favour of adding an option to include national data when
calculating urban green space and urban tree canopy cover in article 3(13)
and 3(14)?
Document Outline
