The European Environment Agency (EEA) published a note on Tuesday outlining the declining trends in biodiversity across the continent and highlighting how restoration will benefit both nature and social objectives, key points in the wake of parliamentary ruckus surrounding the bloc’s proposed Nature Restoration Act.

The EEA briefing “the importance of restoring nature in Europe” summarises science-based evidence on why European ecosystems are in urgent need of restoration.

Some 81% of protected habitats, 39% of protected birds, and 63% of other protected species are in a poor or bad state, according to an EEA assessment, with only small and isolated examples of improvements to these metrics in recent years.

These trends underpinned the draft EU Nature Restoration Law that was tabled by the European Commission last June, proposing multiple legally-binding targets to ensure that nature restoration measures are in place on at least 20% of land and sea areas by 2030, or 100% by mid-century.

But the bill is facing opposition in the European Parliament, where groups such as the centre-right EPP have claimed the law favours “nature” over “people”, pointing to issues such as a perceived negative impact on food security.

But nature, along with its inherent biodiversity, is key to functioning societies and economies, the EEA note pointed out, stating further that “it provides the food we eat, filters the water we drink, cleans the air we breathe, and is important for our mental and physical health”.

“The restoration of Europe’s habitats and species is important not only for the inherent value of nature itself: it is also key for improved human health and well-being, and reduced climate change impacts,” it added.

RESTORE, NOT KEEP OUT

One of the arguments raised by opponents to the EU nature restoration law is that it would undermine the economy and people, by essentially blocking human activity within a significant and increasing share of land and water mass from 20-100% through 2030.

But establishing these priority habitat areas as protected – where economic activity is prohibited – is only one way to meet the goals, according to the draft rule.

“Not all restored areas have to become protected areas. Most of them will not, as restoration does not preclude economic activity,” the Commission’s proposal stated.

“Restoration is about living and producing together with nature by bringing more biodiversity back everywhere, including to the areas where economic activity takes place like managed forests, agricultural land, and cities for example,” it added.

Member states will have the flexibility to develop their own national restoration plans for meeting targets, which must be completed within two years of the regulation coming into force.

These plans must include details for how countries will meet specific 2030 targets such as reversing the decline of pollinator populations, ensuring no net loss to green urban spaces, improved biodiversity metrics on agriculture and forest land, restoration and rewetting of drained peatlands, restoring marine habitats, and removing river barriers.

FOR AND AGAINST

Given the complexity and breadth of the nature package, there have also been concerns related to practicality, and how targets will be translated into feasible policies.

The proposal spans a variety of issue areas, including plastic packaging as well as improving air and water quality. It also includes targets to reduce chemical pesticides by 50% by 2030, improve livestock-related emissions and degradation, and improve animal welfare.

Data and funding have been raised by various groups as key barriers to implementation, including when developing state-level targets and plans.

Key opposition has also been raised from the farming and fishing lobby, while representatives from Scandinavian countries have been hesitant to support the proposal, noting the importance of their forestry sectors and autonomous decision making in this regard.

The EPP, the largest group in the European Parliament, recently adopted a resolution rejecting the EU Nature Restoration Law while also opposing the bloc’s proposed sustainable use of pesticides regulation, positioning itself as defending the farming community and food security.

But green groups have slammed this opposition, pointing to the escalating biodiversity crisis in the EU and globally, and noting that the EU needs to do its part to implement the Global Biodiversity Framework, secured last December at the UN’s COP15 biodiversity talks.

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) last week described the EPP’s rejection of the proposal as a “shameful move”.

“In its opposition to the Green Deal targets, the EPP has resorted to scaremongering and acting in bad faith,” said Sabien Leemans, senior biodiversity policy officer at the WWF European policy office.

Biodiversity loss will directly threaten farmer’s ability to produce food, the WWF said, pointing to the decline in pollinators and healthy soils as risk factors to farmers’ yields.

WWF also said that nature protection policies may often have important co-benefits, including helping farmers build resilience to climate change.

Tuesday’s EEA publication backs these statements with the science, noting that restoring natural landscapes such as rivers, wetlands, and grasslands not only “improves the overall resilience and quality of nature in Europe, but would bring many broader societal benefits”.

“For example, the health of habitats for pollinators, such as bees and beetles, is critical for long-term food security in Europe. The condition of forests and wetlands is vital for climate change mitigation, and healthy ecosystems also provide better protection from extreme weather events and pollution,” the EEA briefing said.

The informal deadline to pass the nature proposal through the legislative process is the middle of next year before the European Parliament elections.

By Katherine Monahan – katherine@carbon-pulse.com