The Belgian Presidency has 13 days to convince seven Member States (plus itself) that they can live with agreed Parliament-Council compromise text on a Commission proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on nature restoration. Failure to do so will likely mean the proposed law will fall. For supporters of the law, this will be seen as a major setback given the state of biodiversity within the EU. For detractors and those opposed, it will be seen as a push-back against “draconian” interference in the use of land, seas and marine environments for a range of economic activities.
There is no doubt that the scope of the proposed nature restoration law (NRL) is far reaching. It’s going beyond, for instance a focus on addressing existing issues around protection of Natura 2000 sites and addressing important. species declines. It wants Member States to “restore” degraded habitats and ecosystems including agricultural, forest and marine ecosystems and habitats. The targets set for ecological restoration are substantial: 30% by 2030 of the total area of all habitats that are not in good condition and 60% by 2040 up to 90% by 2050.
To understand where these targets came from one needs to refer to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), adopted in 2022 under the UN Convention on Biodiversity. This important meeting reset key global targets for addressing and reversing biodiversity decline. Of the 23 targets agreed, targets two and three are especially relevant in the NRL context:
Target 2 - Ensure that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of areas of degraded terrestrial, inland water, and marine and coastal ecosystems are under effective restoration, in order to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, ecological integrity and connectivity.
Target 3 - Ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of terrestrial and inland water areas, and of marine and coastal areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, recognizing indigenous and traditional territories, where applicable, and integrated into wider landscapes, seascapes and the ocean, while ensuring that any sustainable use, where appropriate in such areas, is fully consistent with conservation outcomes, recognizing and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, including over their traditional territories.
So, in effect, the NRL is the EU demonstrating that it is implementing agreed obligations under the Convention on Biodiversity. A point to note here is that even if the NRL proposal is not adopted in the coming weeks, the EU and the Member States are still on the hook with respect to meeting the commitments of the KMGBF.
As with all legislative proposals and particularly with this one, the devil is in the detail. While the targets for restoration appear eye watering to some, its worth noting that the first phase of any such restoration would be largely concentrated, quite rightly, on Natura 2000 sites many of which, according to the EEA, are not in good condition.
A second point is that there will be a process for determining which habitats and ecosystems or parts of ecosystems are not in good condition (mediated using a range of scientific criteria and indices).
Thirdly, Member States will then need to come forward with Nature restoration Plans (NRPs) within which they will have identified the areas subject to restoration, the measures to be taken, the financial resources to implement the restoration and measures for monitoring the impact. NRPs have to be developed in a transparent manner with full consultation of stakeholders, in keeping with EU Treaty and national obligations and processes.
A final point to note is that restoration activities are not intended to put a stop to existing land uses. Even the Commission Impact Assessment for the proposal stated this very clearly. A cautionary note here relates to the timeframes involved in the proposal. All I can say is these will be challenging, very challenging. However, on the positive side, the entire exercise of developing and adopting NRPs, could be the basis for a new “deal” between land users and nature.
Here is hoping that the law will make it. If it does not, we only kick the can down the road. Because without a focused approach to nature and biodiversity in the EU, it’s difficult to see how further declines in biodiversity and associated species and habitat loss will not occur.
Add comment
Comments