Brussels, 09 February 2023
Interinstitutional files:
2022/0195 (COD)
WK 1825/2023 REV 1
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 13 February 2023 – Revised Presidency
Steering Note
Delegations will find attached a revised steering note prepared by the Presidency with a view to the
meeting of the Working Party on the Environment on 13 February 2023.
The revision concerns the deadline for comments which has been extended to 17 February 2023, at
15:00 (Brussels time) .
WK 1825/2023 REV 1
LIMITE
EN

Presidency Steering note

Meeting of the Working Party for Environment - 13 February
2022 – Nature Restoration Regulation

The Presidency has prepared this steering note to guide discussions at the WPE
meeting on 13 February, focusing on Chapter I (Article 1), Chapter II
(Articles 7, 9, 10) Chapter III (Article), Chapter III (Article 16) and Chapter
V (Articles 19-21). This steering note has been prepared based on previous
comments from Member States and discussions in the WPE and at the
Environment Council of 20 December.
New changes build upon and are made to the CZ Presidency´s compromise
text (Rev 1) on Articles 1-10 (document 14884/22, of 18 November 2022)
and are identified in track-changes.
In Rev 1, a change from 3- to 5-years measuring interval was proposed for
the indicators in Articles 8(1), 9(2) and 10(2). Since the issue of measuring
intervals is closely linked to discussions on monitoring and reporting
intervals, this issue is not proposed to be discussed at the WPE meeting on
13 February.
Pending consultations between the Legal Services of the two institutions,
further information regarding Article 6 might be presented.
The Presidency invites delegations to send written comments and drafting
proposals related to Articles 1, 7, 9, 10, 19, 20 and 21 by 17 February 2023,
at 15:00 (Brussels time).

Subject matter of the NRL (Article 1)
Reference to land degradation (Article 1(1)(b))
In Rev 1, the proposed addition of “Land degradation neutrality” in Article
1(1)(b) met mixed reactions from Member States. While most Member
States supported the addition of a reference to land degradation as such,
some Member States expressed doubts regarding the specific reference to
the neutrality objective. The Presidency notes that the concept of land
degradation neutrality stems from the United Nations Convention to Combat
Desertification (UNCCD), to which the EU is a Party. Furthermore, land
degradation neutrality is included as a target in Agenda 2030 (target 15.3). As
there are currently no other objectives specifically referring to land
degradation within the EU, the Presidency proposes to keep the reference to
land degradation neutrality, as proposed in the Rev 1.
Amendments to Article 1(2)
The Presidency notes general support from Member States regarding the
Rev 1 amendments to Article 1(2), clarifying that the 20% overall restoration
target to 2030 shall be applied to land and sea areas separately.
To conclude, the Presidency does not propose any further amendments to
Article 1.
For discussion:
-  Do you have any objections to or comments on the Presidency´s
proposals to keep the wording from Rev 1 in Article 1?

Restoration of the natural connectivity of rivers and natural
functions of the related floodplains (Articles 7, 3(14bis) and
Recital 45)
Vertical connectivity (Articles 7(1), 7(2) and 3(14bis))
Several Member States have proposed that vertical connectivity should be
included in the concept of connectivity of rivers in Article 7, with reference
to the importance of connection between surface and ground water and its
role for terrestrial ecosystems. Some Member States have argued that the

addition of vertical connecitvity would increase the level of ambition and
make the targets in Article 7 hard to achieve.
The Presidency precives that a majority of Member States support the
inclusion of vertical connecitivity in the scope of Article 7. However, the
Presidency also notes that while article 7(1) and 7(2) focus on identification
and removal of artificial barriers, vertical connetivity is to a large degree
dependent on natural processes (erosion and sedimentation) that are often
affected by other factors than such barriers. To the extent that artificial
structures do hinder vertical connectivity of rivers, the Presidency considers
it appropriate that they are covered by the scope of Article 7. To achieve
this, the Presidency proposes to amend the definition of Free flowing rivers
in Article 3(14bis), while making a more general reference to barriers to
connectivity in articles 7(1) and 7(2), and in Recital 45.
Definitions related to barriers and free flowing rivers (Article 3)
Several Member States have proposed adding new definitions related to
Article 7, and/or proposed extended definitions as well as additions that
further exemplify the term “obsolete barriers” used in Article 7(2).
The Presidency notes that there is ongoing work on definitions within in an
ECOSTAT core group established within the framework of the Common
Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive. The core
group works with definitions and criteria to define what would qualify as a
stretch of free-flowing river. Since the need of harmonization between this
regulation and other related EU law has been stressed by several Member
States, The Presidency finds it appropriate that relevant terms are defined
within ECOSTAT rather than in this regulation.
Furthermore, the Presidency notes that the term “other uses” in Article 7(2)
leaves room for Member States to consider a wide range of uses when
determining whether a barrier is to be considered obsolete or not. On this
basis, the Presidency does not see a need to add further examples of what
barriers are to be considered as obsolete.
Reference to plan for removing obsolete barriers (Article 7(2))
As noted by one Member State, the “plan for removing obsolete barriers”
referred to in Article 7(2), relates to both points (e) and (f) in Article 12(2).

The Presidency therefore proposes to amend article 7(2) to include a
reference also to Article 12(2)(e).
To conclude, The Presidency proposes the following amendments to Article
7, Article 3(14bis) and Recital 45.
Article 7
1. Member States shall make an inventory of barriers to
connectivity of surface waters and, taking into account their
socio-economic functions, identify the barriers that need to be
removed to contribute to the achievement of the restoration
targets set out in Article 4 of this Regulation and of the objective
of restoring at least 25 000 km of rivers into free-flowing rivers
in the Union by 2030, without prejudice to Directive
2000/60/EC, in particular Articles 4(3), 4(5) and 4(7) thereof,
and Regulation 1315/2013, in particular Article 15 thereof.
2. Member States shall remove the barriers to longitudinal and
lateral connectivity of surface waters identified based on the
inventory under paragraph 1 of this Article, in accordance with
the plan for their removal referred to in Article 12(2), points (e)
and (f). When removing barriers, Member States shall primarily
address obsolete barriers, which are those that are no longer
needed for renewable energy generation, inland navigation, water
supply, flood protection, or other uses.
Article 3
(14bis) ‘free flowing river’ means a river or a stretch of river
whose longitudinal, vertical and lateral connectivity is not
hindered by artificial structures forming a barrier and whose
natural functions are largely unaffected.
Recital 45
(45) The EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 requires greater
efforts to restore freshwater ecosystems and the natural
functions of rivers. The restoration of freshwater ecosystems
should include efforts to restore the natural longitudinal and
lateral connectivity of rivers as well as their riparian areas and
floodplains, including through the removal of barriers with a

view to supporting the achievement of favourable conservation
status for rivers, lakes and alluvial habitats and species living in
those habitats protected by Directives 92/43/EEC and
2009/147/EC, and the achievement of one of the key objectives
of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, namely, the restoration
of at least 25 000 km of free-flowing rivers. When removing
barriers, Member States should primarily address obsolete
barriers, which are those that are no longer needed for renewable
energy generation, inland navigation, water supply, flood
protection or other uses.
For discussion:
- Do you support the proposed amendments to Article 7(1), 7(2) and
3(14bis)?

Restoration of agricultural ecosystems (Article 9, 3(14ter) and
Annex V)
Grassland butterfly index (Article 9(2)(a))
Some Member States have proposed to delete the indicator “grassland
butterfly index” in Article 9(2)(a), since they find that it could be considered
covered by or included in Article 8, while a majority of Member States have
stressed that it is a suitable indicator of biodiversity in agricultural
ecosystems.
The Presidency does not propose any changes to Article 9(2)(a), but has
noted that the update of “New deal for Pollinators”, that the Commission
presented on 24 January, might have connections to this indicator. During
the meeting, the Commission will give a short presentation concerning this
topic.
Stock of organic carbon (Article 9(2)(b))
A few Member States have raised concerns that the indicator “stock of
organic carbon” in Article 9(2)(b) overlaps with provisions on carbon

sequestration under LULUCF and have therefore proposed to delete this
indicator. The Commission has clarified that LULUCF does not cover the
stock of organic carbon, only the flux, and that the indicator can also be
considered a proxy to several ecosystem services, as well as soil
biodiversity.
The Presidency does not perceive a general support to delete the indicator
and does not propose any changes to Article 9(2)(b).
Share of agricultural land with high-diversity landscape features
(Article 9(2)(c) and Annex IV)
Several Member States have raised concerns regarding the description of the
indicator “Share of agricultural land with high-diversity landscape features”
in Annex IV. In particular, the need to allow for management of high-
diversity landscape features dependent on grazing or mowing has been
stressed by several Member states. The Presidency notes that the
Commission has stressed that larger elements like pastures are not intended
to be covered by this indicator, but that does not solve the issue of
management of for example permanently grass covered margins adjacent to
stonewalls, hedgerows or solitary trees in arable land.
The Presidency proposes an amendment to the description of high-diversity
landscape features in Annex IV, with the intention to allow for management
that is necessary for the maintenance of the biodiversity. As the exception
would only apply to management that is necessary to maintain biodiversity, it
would not include grazing or fodder production on land lying fallow that
otherwise comply with criteria for high diversity landscape features (also
covered by GAEC 8 in the CAP).
Furthermore, the potential need to allow for use of pesticides to battle
invasive alien species (IAS) has been highlighted by one Member State.
Actions to battle IAS are very important, but since they are likely to only
concern a minor share of the total amount of landscape features, the
Presidency does not propose any amendments of Annex IV concerning use
of pesticides.
Restoration of drained peatlands under agricultural use (Article 9(4))
Several Member States have questioned the feasibility of the targets for
restoration of drained peatlands in Article 9(4) and have raised particular

concerns regarding detrimental effects on agricultural production,
neighbouring land and challenges in managing rewetted areas. To increase
feasibility of the targets, some Member States have suggested that the
percentage of rewetted peatlands under other land uses should be raised, or
that the specification of which land uses the rewetting target covers should
be deleted altogether.
To increase flexibility, the Presidency proposes that the percentage of
drained peatlands under other land uses than agriculture or peat extraction
that may contribute to the achievement of the rewetting targets referred to in
the first subparagraph, points (a), (b) and (c), is raised from 20% to 30%.
Definition of ”rewetting peatland” (Article 3(14ter))
Following comments from Member states, a definition of “rewetting
peatland” was proposed by the CZ Presidency in Article 3(14ter) in Rev 1.
The proposal met mixed responses, as several Member States saw the
definition as overly restrictive, while others welcomed the focus on resumed
peat formation and stressed that only full rewetting is effective for
restoration of organic soils.
The presidency notes that Chapter 1 of the 2013 Supplement to the 2006
IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands,
presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
contains a general definition of rewetting, as follows:
Rewetting - The deliberate action of changing a drained soil into a wet soil, e.g. by
blocking drainage ditches, disabling pumping facilities or breaching obstructions.
The Presidency notes that the IPCC definition is well established and allows
for an interpretation that can be adapted to differences in national
conditions. The definition is also referred to in Recital 54 of this regulation.
The Presidency therefore proposes a revised definition of rewetting
peatland, based on the IPCC definitions.

To conclude, the Presidency proposes the following amendments to Article
9 and related definition and Annex

Article 3
(14ter)  ‘rewetting peatland’ means a the deliberate action of
changing a drained peat soil into a wet soil,.that aims to bring
the water table of a drained peatland back to that of the peat-
forming peatland; the peatland is rewetted when the mean annual
water table is near or at the soil surface
Article 9
(4) For Organic soils […]
Member States may […]
In addition, Member States may put in place restoration measures
to rewet organic soils that constitute drained peatlands under land
uses other than agricultural use and peat extraction and count
those rewetted areas as contributing, up to a maximum of 230%,
to the achievement of the targets referred to in the first
subparagraph, points (a), (b) and (c).
Annex IV
Share of
Description: High-diversity landscape features are
agricultural land
elements of permanent natural or semi-natural vegetation
with high-diversity  present in an agricultural context which provide
landscape features
ecosystem services and support for biodiversity. In order
to do so, landscape features need to be subject to as little
external disturbances as possible to provide safe habitats
for various taxa, and therefore need to comply with the
following conditions:
a) they cannot be under productive agricultural use
(including grazing or fodder production), except when
such management is necessary for the preservation of
biodiversity, and
b) they should not receive fertilizer or pesticide treatment


Land lying fallow can be considered as high diversity
landscape features if it complies with criteria (a) and (b)
above. Productive trees part of arable land agroforestry
systems and productive elements in non-productive
hedges can also be considered as high diversity landscape
features, if they comply with criterion (b) above, and if

harvests take place only at moments where it would not
compromise high biodiversity levels.
Unit: Percent (share of Utilised Agricultural Area).
Methodology: as developed under indicator I.21, Annex I
of Regulation 2021/2115, as based on LUCAS for
landscape elements, Ballin M. et al., Redesign sample for
Land Use/Cover Area frame Survey (LUCAS), Eurostat
2018, and for land laying fallow, Farm Structure,
Reference Metadata in Single Integrated Metadata
Structure, online publication, Eurostat.

For discussion:
- Do you agree with the proposed amendments to the definition of rewetting
peatlands in Article 3(14ter)?
- Do you agree with the proposed increase from 20% to 30% of drained
peatland from other land uses than agriculture and peat extraction that can
contribute to the rewetting target in Article 9(4)?
- Do you agree with the proposed additions to the description of the
indicator Share of agricultural land with high-diversity landscape features in Annex
IV?

Restoration of forest ecosystems (Article 10)

The Presidency perceives that most Member States are of the opinion that
inclusion of a common set of indicators for restoration of forest ecosystems
on EU level is appropriate and relevant, although some Member States have
questioned the relevance of such a common list.
Furthermore, Member States have proposed several deletions or
amendments of the indicators in Article 10(2). At the same time, several
additions (tree species diversity, native/autochthonous species composition, forest
fragmentation and old growth forest) have been proposed. Suggested deletions,
amendments and proposals for new indicators have been met with mixed
responses from Member States. Furthermore, several Member States has
noted the need of alignment between this regulation and the Commission
proposal for a new EU Framework for Forest monitoring.

The Presidency notes that each Member State has the option to add
indicators deemed relevant for tracking forest ecosystem condition on
national level in their NRPs. Given the disparity in comments received from
Member States so far and the ongoing work on an EU Framework for
Forest monitoring, the Presidency proposes to keep the list of indicators in
Article 10(2) as proposed by the Commission.
The presidency notes that several member states have welcomed the Rev 1
proposal to add a non-fulfilment clause in Article 10(3) and consider the
proposed derogations appropriate.
To conclude, the Presidency doesn´t propose any amendments to article 10.
For discussion:
-  Do you have any objections to or comments on the Presidency´s
proposal regarding Article 10(2) and (3)?

Access to justice (Article 16)

In the steering note for WPE on 9 January, the Presidency noted that access
to justice is relevant in several ongoing negotiations on EU legislation and
that possibility of a uniform approach would be explored. The
Commission’s proposals for this regulation, amendments to IED, a new
Urban Wastewater Directive and a new Air Quality Directive all include
provisions on Access to justice. However, since the ongoing WPE
negotiations of these proposals are in different phases, the Presidency
considers that there is little room for a horizontal approach at this point.
A few Member States have questioned the need for a separate article on
Access to Justice and whether it should be replaced by a recital text.
Furthermore, some Member States have expressed that they would prefer a
horizontal EU legislation on Access to justice while others have raised
questions regarding the coherence between Article 16 in this regulation and
the Aarhus Convention.
However, the Presidency notes that there are currently only a few concrete
proposals for amendments and specific questions regarding Article 16.

Therefore, the Presidency currently doesn’t propose any amendments to
Article 16.
For discussion:
- Do you have any objections to or comments on the Presidency´s
proposal not to amend Article 16?

Chapter V: Delegated powers and committee procedure
Objectives of the delegated powers (Article 19)
A number of Member States have made comments on the objectives for
adapting Annexes I–VII through delegated acts, and, in particular, noted the
lack of objectives for adaptation of Annexes I, II, V and VII. Furthermore,
some Member States have asked for clarification of the concept of “latest
scientific evidence” being the objective for adaptations pursuant to Article
19(3), (4) and (6). The Presidency also notes that the Council Legal Service,
at the WPE on 16 September, expressed that Member States may want to
explore how to further limit the delegated powers.
Firstly, the Presidency notes that pursuant to Article 290(1) TFEU, the
objectives of the delegation of powers shall be explicitly defined.
Secondly, while “latest scientific evidence” (used in paras (3), (4) and (6))
does not seem to be commonly used in similar provisions in other EU law,
there are many examples of provisions empowering the Commission to
adapt legislative acts to “technical and scientific progress”. Where, as one
Member State noted, the current wording could be perceived as implying
that adaptations must be made ad hoc, or as soon as new scientific evidence
appears, this would not be the case for “technical and scientific progress”.
The Presidency considers this wording to be appropriate as an objective for
all amendments possible under Article 19, except for para (2)(a) (see below).
In addition, for regrouping of habitat types in Annexes I and II, as well as
for amendments to the list of examples in Annex VII, it would also be
relevant to take into account lessons learned from applying this regulation.
For example, the Commission could find it necessary to regroup the habitat

types based on either its own evaluation or on information from the
Member States on problems that they have encountered in the
implementation of Articles 4 and 5 due to the grouping of habitat types.
Finally, the Commission has proposed that it should be empowered to adapt
the list of habitat types in Annex II (para 2) but not the corresponding list in
Annex I (para 1). Where both Annexes I and II contain references to habitat
types listed in Annex I to the Habitats Directive, only Annex II contains
references to the Eunis habitat types. To the understanding of the
Presidency, the objective of the delegated powers to adapt the list of habitat
types in Annex II, would therefore be to enable changes to the habitat types
list in Annex II to ensure that they are in line with any changes to the Eunis
habitat types. The Presidency considers it appropriate to clarify that this is
the objective for changes to the list of habitat types (para (2)(a)). In this
context, the Presidency also considers it appropriate to further clarify the
difference between amendments to adapt the groups of habitat types and to
adapt the list of habitat types.
Content and scope of the delegated powers (Article 19)
Several Member States have expressed concerns regarding the content and
scope of the delegated acts that the Commission is empowered to adopt
under Article 19, and some Member States question whether the delegated
powers are limited to non-essential elements. The Presidency notes that
under Article 290(1) TFEU, “The essential elements of an area shall be
reserved for the legislative act and accordingly shall not be the subject of a
delegation of power”. The Presidency also notes that the Council Legal
Service, at the WPE on 16 September, expressed that Article 19 as currently
formulated could be seen as including delegated powers allowing the
Commission to extend the scope of application of the Regulation.
For example, substantial additions of habitat types or marine species to
Annexes II and III would imply that the obligations on Member States
pursuant to Article 5 would increase. Regrouping of habitat types in Annexes
I and II and changes to the descriptions, units and methodologies applied to
the indicators for agricultural and forest ecosystems in Annexes IV and VI as
well as changes to the list of common farmland birds in Annex V could also
have effects on the Member States’ obligations.

The Presidency considers that the proposed amendments (see above) to the
objectives of the delegations in Article 19(1)–(7), as well as the clarification
on regrouping of habitat types, will further limit the delegation to the
Commission to adopt delegated acts compared to the Commission’s
proposal. The Presidency also proposes to clarify, in the recitals, the existing
requirement on the Commission to carry out impact assessments in
accordance with the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better
Law-Making. Besides that, the Presidency also suggests that the word adapt is
used in all paras in Article 19.
The Presidency proposes the following amendments to Article 19:
Article 19
1. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in
accordance with Article 20 to amend Annex I in order to adapt
the way the groups of habitat types are grouped to technical
and scientific progress and to take into account the
experience gained from the application of this Regulation.
2. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in
accordance with Article 20 to amend Annex II in order to adapt:
(a) the list of habitat types to ensure consistency with [any
changes to Annex I to Directive 92/43/EEC or] updates to the
typology to the European nature information system
(EUNIS) habitat classification, and;
(b) the way the groups of habitat types are grouped to technical
and scientific progress and to take into account the
experience gained from the application of this Regulation.
3. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in
accordance with Article 20 to amend Annex III in order to adapt
the list of marine species referred to in Article 5 in accordance
with the latest scientific evidence to technical and scientific
progress.
4. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in
accordance with Article 20 to amend Annex IV, in order to adapt
the description, unit and methodology of indicators for

agricultural ecosystems in accordance with the latest scientific
evidence to technical and scientific progress.
5. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in
accordance with Article 20 to amend Annex V in order to adapt
update the list of species used for the common farmland bird
index in the Member States to technical and scientific progress.
6. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in
accordance with Article 20 to amend Annex VI in order to adapt
the description, unit and methodology of indicators for forest
ecosystems in accordance with the latest scientific evidence to
technical and scientific progress.
7. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in
accordance with Article 20 to amend Annex VII in order to adapt
the list of examples of restoration measures to technical and
scientific progress and to take into account the experience
gained from the application of this Regulation.

Recital 75
(75) In order to ensure the necessary adaptation of this
Regulation, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article
290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in respect of
amending Annexes I to VII to adapt the group of habitats, to
adapt the list of bird species used for update the information on
the common farmland bird index, as well as to adapt the list of
biodiversity indicators for agricultural ecosystems, the list of
biodiversity indicators for forest ecosystems and the lists of
marine habitats and species to the latest scientific evidence and
the examples of restoration measures to technical and
scientific progress, to take into account experience from the
application of the Regulation or to ensure consistency with
the EUNIS habitat types. Such delegated acts should not result
in significant additional burdens on the Member States.  It is of
particular importance that the Commission carries out impact
assessments and appropriate consultations during its preparatory
work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be

conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the
Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-
Making. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the
preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the
Council receive all documents at the same time as Member
States’ experts, and their experts systematically have access to
meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the
preparation of delegated acts.

Exercise of the delegation (Article 20)
Some Member States have raised concerns that the duration of the
delegation in accordance with Article 20(2) overlaps with the deadline for the
NRPs, pointing out that amendments to the Annexes may have implications
on the restoration measures included in the NRPs and that there is
insufficient time for Member States to adapt to such changes in the
Annexes.
The Presidency notes that at the WPE on 16 September, the Council Legal
Service expressed that Article 20 is drafted in line with the principles and
standard clauses laid down in the Common Understanding between the
European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on Delegated Acts
annexed to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-
Making. Furthermore, the proposed amendments to Article 19 aims to limit
the risk of delegated acts causing additional burden on Member States.
To conclude, the Presidency does not propose any amendments to Article
20.
Implementing acts (Article 21)
References to Article 21 on implementing acts are made in Articles 8(2),
12(4), 17(9) and 18(3).
In its steering note for the WPE on 9 January, the Presidency proposed
amendments to Article 12(4). The Presidency notes support for those
amendments.
Apart from that, several Member States have raised questions regarding
Article 17(9) and the option therein for the Commission to develop a

framework for setting the satisfactory levels referred to in Article 11(3).
While some Member States have expressed the need for a level playing field
as regards the satisfactory levels and to replace the option to adopt such
implementing acts with an obligation on the Commission to adopt them,
other Member States have stressed the importance of setting these levels
nationally to safeguard subsidiarity.
To strike a balance between Member States comments, the Presidency
proposes to set a deadline before which the Commission is required to adopt
implementing acts, while at the same time proposing that the framework for
setting the satisfactory levels should be guiding rather than prescriptive.
Similar deadlines for adoption exist in other legislative acts, for example in
the Renewable Energy Directive 2018/2001/EU, Article 29(9). The
Presidency considers such a deadline for adoption appropriate, as long as the
time frame is long enough. The Presidency also proposes an editorial
amendment, replacing develop by establish, to clarify that the framework is to
be put in place through the implementing act(s). Against this background,
the Presidency proposes the following amendments.
Article 17(9)
9. The Commission may adopt implementing acts to:
(a) specify the methods for monitoring the indicators for
agricultural ecosystems listed in Annex IV;
(b) specify the methods for monitoring the indicators for forest
ecosystems listed in Annex VI.
9bis. By [2028], the Commission shall adopt implementing
acts to
(c) establishdevelop a guiding framework for setting the
satisfactory levels referred to in Article 11(3).
9ter. Such Iimplementing acts pursuant to paragraphs (9) and (9bis) shall
be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in
Article 21(2). Article 11(3)
3. Member States shall set, by 2030 at the latest, satisfactory
levels for each of the indicators referred to in Articles 8(1), 9(2)

and 10(2), through an open and effective process and
assessment, based on the latest scientific evidence and the
guiding framework referred to in Article 17(9bis).
For discussion:
-  Are you in favour of the amendments to Article 19(1)–(7)?
-  With the proposed amendments to Article 19, is it sufficiently clear
that the delegation is limited to non-esssential elements?
-  If not, how do you propose to further limit the scope of the
delegations to non-essential elements?
-  Are you in favour of a requirement on the Commission (instead of
an option) to adopt implementing acts on a guiding framework for
setting satisfactory levels and to set a deadline for their adoption
(Article 17(9bis))?
-  Do you find that Article 17(9bis) strikes an appropriate balance
between the need for harmonization and the need for adaptation
of satisfactory levels to national circumstances?

Document Outline