The future of the EU’s flagship environment law hangs in the balance after a coalition of centrist and right-wing parties mounted an attack campaign in the European Parliament. The Nature Restoration Law now heads to a decisive vote on Wednesday with the EU’s climate neutrality targets at stake.
A fierce struggle is underway in the European Parliament.
“Ill-conceived, ideological and completely divorced from reality”, is how French MEP Anne Sander characterised the Nature Restoration Law. It’s a piece of legislation that has met strong opposition from the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) – the largest party in the European Parliament. A large share of MEPs from the liberal Renew Europe party also oppose it. After being rejected by three separate EU parliamentary committees, the law now hangs in the balance ahead of a plenary session on Wednesday.
By setting “binding targets to restore degraded ecosystems”, the Nature Restoration Law plans make the EU more resistant to the effects of global warming. The law proposes initiatives for protecting marine, urban and agricultural ecosystems, such as removing obstacles to waterways and ring-fencing 10 percent of EU land for conservation. It is the latest piece of legislation from the European Green Deal, a set of policies aiming to make the EU climate neutral by 2050. But that target may be in jeopardy.
The legislative process ground to a halt last week when EPP chief Manfred Weber launched a scathing attack on the law, even substituting party members who refused to vote it down. The Nature Restoration Law is the first piece of Green Deal legislation not to pass the Environment Committee. Its rejection in the European Parliament would suggest a growing backlash against international environmental commitments.
A parliament divided
The Nature Restoration Law has reignited old tensions between farming and environmentalism. Critics of the Nature Restoration Law cite the dangers to food security.
“We would be reducing the arable land area significantly”, Belgian EPP member Benoît Lutgen told FRANCE 24. Lutgen believes that in order for the Nature Restoration Law to work, it needs its own EU budget to compensate the agricultural sector.
“We can only do nature restoration together with our farmers, not against them”, affirms German EPP member Christine Schneider.
In the context of the war in Ukraine and the aftermath of Covid-19, decoupling European energy and supply chains from the rest of the world has become a priority for EU lawmakers.
“With this proposition, the European Commission completely ignores what’s happening in the world. We need to produce more in Europe”, Sander told FRANCE 24. By removing such obstacles to free-flowing rivers as hydroelectric dams, Sander believes the EU will risk its energy output.
“How can we respond to energy demands, knowing that we are currently distancing ourselves from Russian gas?” she asks.
European Commission executive vice president Frans Timmermans has taken the brunt of the EPP’s criticism.
“He tried everything to put pressure on different MEPs to support this proposal, and we cannot accept this,” says Schneider. European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen, herself a member of the EPP, has so far been spared the same criticism.
Progressive parties such as the Greens have condemned the EPP move to oppose the Nature Restoration Law.
“It’s a pity to see that the right is aligning with the far right”, says Franziska Brantner, state secretary at Germany's Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action. She believes that it's “the first time a conservative party has decided not to be part of the democratic game”. These developments suggest that far-right parties have garnered more sway at the European level in recent years.
How nature restoration can boost growth
Europe is the fastest-warming continent in the world, according to the World Meteorological Organisation. Extreme weather events like droughts and floods have had a significant effect on European agriculture. In an open letter, CEOs and executives from over 70 companies including Nestlé and Unilever came out in support of the Nature Restoration Law:
“We recognise that our dependence on a healthy environment is fundamental to the resilience of our economies and, ultimately, our long-term success,” it read. Climate scientists, NGOs and progressive parties have similarly argued that nature restoration could be an economic boon in the long-term.
Andre Faaij is the director of science energy and material transition at TNO, the largest think tank on energy in the Netherlands. He believes the Nature Restoration Law could be a “win-win”. Faaij told FRANCE 24 that without the law “we’re going to face much more expensive consequences and ultimately lose more productive land”.
By increasing the biomass of EU ecosystems, Faaij argues, the legislation will “bring more revenues to the agricultural sector, improve soil quality over time and protect us from extreme rainfall”. These could increase the economic value of EU land in the long-term. Indeed, the European Commission claims every 1 euro invested into nature restoration adds between €8 and €38 in benefits.
Europe's climate leadership at stake
Having advocated for broader nature protection targets at COP15, the credibility of the EU as a leader on climate policy may be at stake with the result of the Nature Restoration Law vote.
"We were the force behind the ambition at COP15," environment commissioner Virginijus Sinkevicius said recently. "And then to be the first ones backtracking, that would be a truly shameful moment."
The result is expected to hinge on centrist Renew Europe lawmakers, who might defy their group's stance and reject the law, as well as dissenting EPP members, who could break the party line and abstain from voting against it. If the law is rejected on Wednesday – which is now a strong possibility – the executive says it will not table a second proposal.
The Nature Restoration Law touches many policy arenas, including agriculture, energy and environmental policy. This places many obstacles in its way at the European level. Some see it as a necessary measure for biodiversity and agricultural resilience, others see it as an economic handicap to an EU striving for strategic autonomy.
Either way, a rejection of the Nature Restoration Law would signal a shift in EU priorities away from international environment commitments.
