A Political Ecosystem Divided: Europe’s Nature Restoration Law | IIEA
The Institute of International & European Affairs
Hit enter to search or ESC to close

A Political Ecosystem Divided: Europe’s Nature Restoration Law

The Nature Restoration Law: A Timeline

  • June 22, 2022: The European Commission tables a proposal for a regulation on nature restoration
  • July 12, 2022: The ENVI Committee appoints César Luena (S&D, Spain) as rapporteur
  • December 6, 2022: ENVI rapporteur César Luena publishes draft report
  • June 15, 2023: ENVI voting session begins
  • June 20, 2023: Council adopts its general approach on the file
  • June 27, 2023: Final ENVI vote (44 in favour, 44 against)
  • July 12, 2023: Plenary vote passes (336 in favour, 300 against)

Introduction

The European Commission’s proposal for a Nature Restoration Law (NRL) has garnered much publicity across Europe in recent weeks, attracting both lavish praise and harsh criticism. Its supporters claim that it is a fundamental step towards protecting and restoring ecosystems across Europe, while its detractors argue that its targets are unrealistic and can only be fulfilled at great cost to the economy and to society, and to agricultural communities in particular. A recent vote by the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) threatened to prevent bill from being enacted, but the law’s prospects were resuscitated when the Parliament narrowly voted in its favour at its last meeting before the summer recess. But what exactly is the controversial NRL and why is it so divisive at both the Irish and European levels?

The Nature Restoration Law

Last year, the European Commission tabled a proposal for a regulation on nature restoration, which would be the first continent-wide, comprehensive law of its kind. The NRL is a key element of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, which calls for binding targets to restore degraded ecosystems in Europe [1]. According to the Commission, Europe’s nature is in alarming decline, with more than 80% of habitats in poor condition. It was envisioned that the NRL would arrest and reverse this decline by restoring ecosystems and habitats, helping to prevent global warming from rising above 1.5°C, and enabling the long-term and sustained recovery of nature [2].

Articles 4 through 10 of the proposed NRL set out the areas in which legally binding restoration targets are to be set. For many, the word ‘nature’ conjures up images of lush grasslands, dense forests, or rocky, mountainous regions, and while these areas are all included within the auspices of the bill, the wide-reaching proposal also provides for the restoration of marine, river, and even urban landscapes. The overarching objective of the legislation is for measures to cover at least 20% of the EU’s land and sea areas by 2030, and ultimately, all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050 [3].

National Restoration Plan

Articles 11 through 15 of the Commission’s proposed bill outlines how a National Restoration Plan (NRP) must be drafted by each member state within two years of the regulation coming into force. The NRP should specify how targets for each of the ecosystems outlined in Articles 4 through 10 will be delivered by 2030, 2040, and 2050. This means that national governments will have to quantify and map out areas that are to be restored, describe restoration measures, and outline timescales and financing requirements. This poses a considerable challenge for many member states, including Ireland, as the resources for preparing, implementing, and monitoring the NRP are not currently in place [4].

Division in Ireland

The NRL proposed by the Commission generated heated political debate in Ireland, particularly in relation to Article 9, which deals with ‘agricultural ecosystems,’ and stipulates that 7.5% of Ireland’s drained peatlands should be rewetted by 2030, 25% by 2040, and 35% by 2050. Domestically, the Green Party drove the pro-restoration agenda in the lead-up to the ENVI Committee vote on the proposal, which took place on June 27, 2023. In an address to the IIEA the day before the vote took place, Green Party Minister of State for Land Use and Biodiversity, Pippa Hackett, assured her audience that rewetting targets could be met entirely through the use of State-owned land, noting that farmers would participate in restoration schemes only if they wished to do so [5]. Her government colleague and Fianna Fáil Minister for Agriculture, Charlie McConalogue, was also busy reassuring farmers across the country that their participation in restorative measures would be voluntary [6].

The Article 9 provisions, however, provoked the ire of the agricultural community, who feared it would negatively impact the farming sector. Their concerns were echoed by the Fine Gael party, and by Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, who stated that, while his government supported the EU’s Biodiversity Strategy, his party had serious concerns about the impact of the regulation in its proposed format [7].

Division in Europe

The political divisiveness caused by the NRL in Ireland was mirrored on the European stage, with the European People’s Party (EPP) - of which Fine Gael is a member – campaigning against the legislation, and with EPP MEPs withdrawing from Committee negotiations in May [8]. Among the concerns expressed by the EPP and its allies was that the proposal would damage the livelihoods of farmers and would threaten food security. That same month, the associated Committees on Fisheries (PECH) and on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) rejected the Commission’s proposal [9].

Narrow Margins

On June 27, the ENVI Committee of 88 members cast their vote on the proposed NRL. With 44 in favour and 44 against, the Committee failed to garner majority support and was therefore bound to table a proposal to reject the Commission’s text. This meant that the decision to on whether or not to progress the NRL now lay with the entirety of the European Parliament, who would decide the fate of the proposal in a plenary vote [10].

 

On July 12, the European Parliament voted narrowly to support the NRL, by a margin of just 12 votes out of 648. The EPP and its allies were unable to muster a majority vote against the bill, with a coalition of MEPs from the centre-left Socialists & Democrats (S&D) Group, The Left Group, the Greens, and the centrist Renew Europe rallying in support of the proposal [11]. Shortly after, the lawmakers in the plenary voted to pass a diluted version of the NRL, which still aims to restore 20% of the EU’s degraded ecosystems by 2030, but which includes 140 amendments. Among the important changes is the deletion of the controversial restoration targets for drained peatlands and agricultural land, which had proven particularly controversial in Ireland. The vote passed by a narrow margin, with 336 in favour, 300 against, and 13 abstentions [12].

 

What’s Next?

With the approval of the plenary now secured, the Parliament can begin inter-institutional negotiations with EU governments through the Council of the EU. The Spanish Presidency of the Council has signalled that the file will be among its priority items. Trilogue negotiations are expected to be protracted and divisive, as attempts are made to reach a compromise text, which could include the reintroduction of previously deleted restoration targets, such as those for peatland and agricultural areas [13].

These negotiations will be of particular interest to Ireland and other member states with strong agricultural economies. Last year, many observers of Irish politics watched as a heated debate over turbary rights was ignited in response to a Green Party proposal to limit the sale and use of smoky fuels [14]. While the so-called ‘turf wars’ shook the Irish coalition, causing tensions to arise within the Government, the sweeping remit of the NRL means that its relevance extends beyond turf cutters to include farmers, fishing communities, and conservationists alike. This means it also carries with it greater potential for political destabilisation, unless the Government’s position is carefully considered and effectively communicated. Whatever the outcome of the trilogue negotiations, this is certainly not the last that the Irish public will be hearing about a law which, in seeking to restore the EU’s natural habitats, has divided its political ecosystem.

 

Sources

[1] The European Commission. (2023). ‘Biodiversity strategy for 2030.’ Biodiversity strategy for 2030 (europa.eu)

[2] The European Commission. (2023). ‘Nature Restoration Law.’ The EU #NatureRestoration Law (europa.eu)

[3] Halleux, Vivienne. European Parliamentary Research Service. (2023). ‘EU nature restoration regulation: Setting binding targets for healthy ecosystems.’ EU nature restoration regulation (europa.eu)

[4] Ibid.

[5]. IIEA. (2023). The Nature Restoration Regulation: Implications for Ireland and Europe | IIEA

[6]. Hurson, Niall. Irish Independent. (2023). Farmers will not be forced to rewet their land, Minister pledges | Independent.ie

[7]. Finn, Christina. TheJournal.ie. (2023). Some aspects of proposed Nature Restoration Law 'go too far' says Taoiseach (thejournal.ie)

[8]. Boland, Lauren. TheJournal.ie. (2023). Highly awaited EU vote on Nature Restoration Law postponed to end of month (msn.com)

[9]. European Parliament. Legislative Train Schedule. (2023). ‘Proposal for a regulation on nature restoration.’ Carriages preview | Legislative Train Schedule (europa.eu)

[10]. O’Leary, Naomi. The Irish Times. (2023). Nature restoration law in peril after EU committee vote – The Irish Times

[11]. Guillot, Louise. Politico. (2023). Parliament backs new EU nature law in blow to conservatives – POLITICO

[12]. Ten Brick, Patrick; Bas-Defossex, Faustine; Hildt, Laura. Social Europe. (2023) Nature Restoration Law: an opportunity crucial to seize (socialeurope.eu)

[13]. Open Access Government. (2023). European Parliament approves Nature Restoration Law (openaccessgovernment.org)

[14]. McQuinn, Cormac. The Irish Times. (2023). Truce in ‘turf wars’ as Coalition politicians relieved at revised plans for sales restrictions – The Irish Times