Dramatic final vote to get EU's Nature Restoration Law across the line

Tue, 25 Jun, 2024 - 17:57

Stephen Cadogan

Former EU Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler warned last week that the nature restoration law is "not well drafted, and contains unresolved property issues and financial consequences".

The Austrian politician was close to the political intrigue which surrounded the law's final push over the line into EU legislation.

He is a member of the conservative OVP party which governs in Austria in coalition with the Greens. Austria’s nine federal states unanimously opposed the law, forcing Austria to abstain from voting for it in the EU Council of environment ministers.

With seven other EU member states also not supporting the law, it fell narrowly short of the required Council qualified majority of 55% of EU countries representing 65% of the EU population. This led to the unprecedented rejection at the final legislative step of a law already approved by the Parliament, Commission and member states.

However, when the Council met again last week, it required only one extra member state's support to push the nature restoration law over the line.

Sweden opposed it, believing the EU is overstepping by regulating how countries manage their forests. Finland feared disproportionate costs. Hungary, which had previously supported the law, also raised concerns about costs. In Belgium, like Austria, regional governments opposed the law, preventing their federal governments from voting for it.

The Netherlands, with much to lose as the home of much of Europe’s drained peatlands, said No, in line with a resolution backed by the vast majority of its parliament.

Poland was opposed chiefly because of a “failure to guarantee adequate financial resources for nature restoration”.

The votes against probably also reflected support for the farmers who protested earlier this year across Europe, with Italian Minister Vannia Gavao saying, "We cannot accept an increase in economic and administrative burdens on the agricultural sector".

This continued the very troubled progress of the nature restoration law since the Commission proposed it two years ago. Along the way, it has been much watered down by opponents in the Parliament and member states, with supporters saying it has been left "toothless" and prone to abuse.

Its fiercest opponent was the European People's Party, the Parliament's biggest group, which said the law threatened the livelihoods of European farmers and fishers, would disrupt long-established supply chains, decrease food production, push prices up for consumers, and wipe out urban areas to make way for green spaces.

In the end, it has now got across the line only because of a last-minute decision by Austria's environment minister Leonore Gewessler, against the wishes of her government. She should be fired by Federal Chancellor Karl Nehammer, said Fischler. "I'm not a lawyer, but there are several arguments that the minister did not act in accordance with the law."

"I don't think it's very likely that there will be criminal consequences. But strictly speaking, it would have been the logical course of action, if the Chancellor had dismissed the Minister," said Fischler.

Austria's ruling coalition nearly collapsed, after the Chancellor and his OVP party said Gewessler was legally required to obtain the agreement of the Agriculture Ministry before supporting the nature restoration law.

The OVP said it would launch a criminal complaint against Gewessler, and bring a legal challenge to the European Court of Justice seeking the annulment of Monday's vote.

But it is likely to settle for an uneasy peace with its coalition partner until the Austrian election in September, rather than fire Gewessler and call for snap elections.

Meanwhile, Gewessler basks in her EU Green hero status after her deciding vote for the legally binding targets to restore 20% of the EU’s degraded land and sea ecosystems by 2030, and all ecosystems by 2050. EU countries must restore at least 30% of forest, grassland, wetland, river and lake habitats from poor to good condition by 2030, and 90% by 2050. Areas cannot be allowed to deteriorate once restored.

However, an “emergency brake” on targets affecting agriculture, if nature restoration threatens food security, is one of the amendments agreed along the ardous course of the law through the EU legislation process. Will this be enough to reassure opponents of a law agreed in controversial circumstances?

Like Gewessler, the Greens across Europe can clap themselves on the back.

Passing the law has allowed Ireland's Environment Minister Eamon Ryan to go out with a win. On his return from the EU Council, he announced he will step down as Green Party leader.

He may have played a vital role in passing the nature restoration law. With his Green Party colleague, Malcolm Noonan, he wrote to fellow ministers across the EU calling for leadership and unity on the law to restore Europe’s nature.

They could also count on the support of Alain Maron, environment minister for the Brussels-Capital Region, also a Green Party member, steering talks on the law as part of Belgium's rotating EU presidency until the end of June.

Also urging member states to pass the Nature Restoration Law was EU Environment Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevicius, who is newly elected as an MEP for Lithuania, and will join the Greens/EFA Group in the Parliament.

He had warned member states that rejecting a law already agreed in the EU's trilogue decision process would raise “serious questions about the consistency and stability” of the EU legislative process.

And in the end, it was Austria's Gewessler, also of the Green Party, who risked political suicide to push the law over the line.