The European Parliament in Strasbourg on Wednesday, May 10th, hotly debated the EU’s ‘Nature Restoration Law,’ a proposed law critics say would unfairly disadvantage certain regions while hurting Europe’s farmers and the continent’s food security.
The Nature Restoration Law, part of the European Green Deal, aims to halt the deteriorating condition of Europe’s biodiversity. According to the Commission, which proposed it last June, 80% of Europe’s ecosystem is in poor condition; its program would help ensure that by 2030, at least 20% of it would be restored. By 2050, all ecosystems in need of restoration would be similarly covered.
In a cross-party initiative, spearheaded by Flemish MEP Tom Vandenkendelaere (CD&V), a letter co-signed by 25 MEPs from 15 Member States, was sent out to several EU Commissioners.
In it, signatories asked for an impact assessment on the regional level for each member state, as they critiqued the law’s inflexibility if applied to those regions which would be “hit the hardest” by it.
The European People’s Party (EPP), the center-right party composed primarily of Christian democrats and conservatives, and which includes the CD&V, positions itself as a voice for farmers.
Last week, during its congress in Munich, it rejected the Nature Restoration Law outright, with the motivation that the implementation of existing nature legislation had already “led to a bureaucratic nightmare and planning deadlock,” which, the party said, endangered the “economic viability in rural areas, food security, renewable energy production, crucial infrastructure etc.”
Considering the law’s aim of “taking 10% of farmland out of production,” the EPP termed it “a direct assault on private property rights,” which, the party expressed, would be irresponsible in the current context—referring to the Russo-Ukrainian war.
During an impassioned speech before the EU Parliament on Wednesday, MEP Vandenkendelaere cited Flanders as an example. In that region, he said, almost 15% of all agricultural areas would be taken out of production as a result, which amounts to 172,000 hectares of fertile ground, with each hectare having an economic value of €100.000. This, he added, would put the farmer’s trade in Flanders at risk.
He went on to urge the Commission “to go do [their] homework again” so that they could “come to the same conclusions that we have noted for a long time now.” He ended by stressing that farmers “want to be included in the green transition and enable it, but that there would have to be “predictable, stimulating and attainable legislation in place.”
The European Conservative contacted Mr. Vandenkendelaere for comment. He replied he had nothing further to add.
During the debate, several MPs from the liberal Renew Europe (RE), the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), and the Rightist Identity and Democracy (ID) groups voiced their support for the EPP’s position.
Another Commission proposal, to halve pesticide use by 2030, is facing equally strong opposition from certain EU countries and within the EU Parliament.
Meanwhile, Social Democrats, Greens, and some members of the Liberals argue that agriculture, as it is currently practiced, pollutes soil and water, which in turn reduces biodiversity. This, they say, would end up harming agriculture and thus, food production.
Sustainable agriculture, which helps reduce CO2 emissions, they added, would also be vital in combatting the effects of climate change, among them, droughts.
Present in the debate was European Commissioner Mairead McGuinness, who said that while she was listening to all concerns being voiced, the focus must be maintained on the sustainability of agriculture:
Perhaps we need to reassure those who are worried about the implementation [of the ‘Nature Restoration Law’]. We can work on that together—Parliament, Council and Commission—and find a way to ensure that farmers feel fully respected.
