Who doesn’t like the European Nature Restoration Law that wants to save biodiversity

The lighthouse that guides the path to nature’s restoration is ready, but not everyone wants to turn on the light. In Europe, 80% of habitats are in decline and over 60% of soils are unhealthy: in a context where the effects of the climate crisis are increasingly evident, it is indisputable that a revolutionary effort is needed to try to restore nature that is collapsing.

From this basis was born, within the Green Deal, the European proposal of the Nature Restoration Law: a law, with binding targets for member states, which aims to restore 20% of land and sea areas in order to stop the loss of biodiversity.

However, the law is now at a crossroads: on 11 July the MEPs will meet to discuss it and evaluate further amendments and on 12 July there will be a vote in a context which sees on the one hand various political realities in favor of what is a strongly promoted by the Vice-President of the EU Commission Frans Timmermansby hundreds of environmental associations and thousands of scientists who signed manifestos and letters of appeal, and on the other opposed by the European right, with the PPE leader of an action aimed at rejecting the law to defend categories such as farmers and fishermen who fear having serious repercussions.

European Nature Restoration Law, what it is

The starting point of the law is the idea of ​​restoring damaged ecosystems, from seas to wetlands, rivers to forests, before it’s too late. A goal that aims to ensure food security, climate resilience and health and well-being for the population, fauna and flora.

The aim is to protect at least 20% of EU land and marine areas by 2030 with nature restoration measures and subsequently extend the law to all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050.

This involves, in addition to the idea of ​​reducing chemical pesticides by 50% by 2030, increasing protected areas, efforts to save pollinators, ensuring no loss of urban green spaces by 2030 and planning a 5% increase by 2050. But also “a minimum of 10% tree cover in each city”, the rewetting of dried up peatlands that help us absorb carbon, actions to increase biodiversity in agricultural land, the restoration of habitats in the seabed marine, the removal of river barriers to free 25,000 kilometers of rivers and much more.

All of this implies that Member States develop national recovery plans with precise reporting of what has been done. The EU, for its part, puts around 100 billion euros on the plate, partly destined for the restoration of nature and estimates that investments for the recovery of the environment, for every euro spent, will bring between 8 and 38 euros in benefits.

The process of the law

The path to reaching the July vote was very long: first the Habitats directives, then in May 2020 the publication of the EU strategy on biodiversity for 2030 and finally, after a long series of consultations and comparisons, the first concrete step to arrive towards the law took place last June when the proposal for the Restoration Law was questioned in the classrooms of the Environment Commission.

There 88 MEPs, with respect to an amendment presented by the EPP (European People’s Party with a majority in Parliament) which wanted to reject the law to revise everything, completely split: 44 votes in favor and 44 against. The tie showed the fragility of support for Restoration, but it was enough to continue the process that will lead to the final discussion from July 11 onwards (vote expected on the 12th). If there is no majority, the Restoration Law is in serious danger of being scuttled and as Timmermans himself said “in which case we will not resubmit it”.

pros and cons

Twenty-one of the member states have come out in favor of the law in recent meetings. But others, including Italy (along with Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Sweden) voted against.

The rift is mostly linked to the fear that the binding law could affect “food safety” and the sector “of agriculturethe forestry and the fishing” the opposing countries let it be known, including Italy strongly based on agriculture and the northern states linked to the wood industry and fishing.

The legislation

Green light from the EU to the Nature Restoration Law, but Italy votes against

edited by the Green&Blue editorial staff

June 20, 2023

Right from the start, with a letter and a petition that gathered over a million signatures from the citizens of the Old Continent, almost 4,000 European scientists embraced the cause of the Nature Restoration Law, defining it as “the greatest opportunity to regenerate nature in Europe and ensure sustainability, future and well-being for its citizens”. Cause also supported byIUC extension (International Union for the Conservation of Nature), today deeply concerned about the latest developments that jeopardize the passage of the law.

Recently, signed by all the main Italian universities and by around 150 associations, a Manifesto in favor of the law was also born in Italy. All the Italian environmentalist and ecological associations, contrary to the positions expressed by the executive of our country, are strenuously fighting for the law to be approved.

From the lipu recall, for example, that it is a historic opportunity “to change the pace of nature conservation policies and sustainability in general” while from the WWF, which is carrying out several campaigns in support of the initiative, respond to those who oppose the restoration of nature in agricultural areas “that we cannot afford to make agricultural land non-productive, putting food security at risk, but ignoring that these natural areas actually produce ecosystem services that are fundamental for agriculture, such aspollinationthe soil fertility and agricultural retentionthe biological pest controlthe water purification“.

On the other hand, those who oppose it are the main right-wing parties in Europe and also trade associations frightened by how the law could impact, for example, on the future of farmers and among these there are Coldiretti, Confragricoltura, Copa Cogeca and others.

The general thought of those who would like to scuttle the current proposal is well summed up in the words spread by Coldiretti Tuscany: “Protection of the environment and loss of biodiversity is fought not with ideological positions, removing productive land from the availability of farmers, or prohibiting interventions on tens of thousands of km of river routes, but rather by favoring the development of multifunctionality, of direct sales and opposing the homologation and standardization of production.Restoring ecosystems in bad condition is a goal that can certainly unite all stakeholders but the European Commission should do self-criticism and listen to the various doubts posed by many MEPs and various European countries on a proposal and on a general approach to sustainability issues that would penalize the agricultural sector, leading to a significant reduction in production potential”.

The campaign against the law is mainly carried out by the EPP. As the party chief explained, Manfred Weberthey said the law would risk driving up food prices and threaten farmers’ livelihoods.

Yet, with a very clear letter addressed to the EU about 90 of the largest European companies representing the consumer, finance and food distribution sectors, contest this vision and support “the urgent adoption of a European law on the restoration of nature that is both ambitious and binding”, write brands ranging from Nestlé to Unilever passing through Danone, Ikea and many others.

One of the points most contested by opponents is a passage that establishes how at least 10% of the total agricultural area must be restored. According to detractors, this would lead to “loss of space and productivity”. Accusations to which environmentalists clearly respond that instead “a more environmentally sustainable management – for example – of agriculture, is the only way to have a profitable production capable of ensuring lasting profits for companies”.

Italian ecosystems at risk

The law, argue those in favor, is a unique tool to be able to protect even the Italian territories which more than others, in the heart of an increasingly warm Mediterranean and impacted by the climate crisis, need to conserve their extraordinary biodiversity, unique for species in Europe.

Currently 68% of Italian ecosystems are at risk and in 15 years some 1,200 square kilometers of land were consumed by urban sprawl, an average of 77 square kilometers a year. In general, 89% of Italian habitats are currently in “a bad state of conservation”. Also, remember the wwf“all seas are considered problematic areas and biodiversity is threatened by the modification of natural and semi-natural habitats, due to human activities such as agriculture, tourism and residential development”.

The impacts of the recent flood in Emilia Romagna they also remind us of the need to restore “the regular flow of rivers through the elimination of obsolete infrastructures and the reconstruction of the original beds in order to make the territory safer in the event of floods and extreme events”.

Also for this reason the environmental associations, in view of 12 July, are launching a further appeal to citizens to make themselves heard from the MEPs: ranging from Lipu which has drawn up a list of politicians to contact up to the WWF which recalls how “we must demand from our MEPs a strong signal of attention and consensus on this law, because our future and our climate and food security depend on its approval”.