Following today’s release of the long-awaited Nature Restoration Law proposal by the European Commission, Copa and Cogeca warn that if left unchecked, this law has the ability to grow in an uncontrolled manner running away from its true purpose, the rejuvenation of nature. It is essential that Member States and stakeholders are part of the creation of any future targets, especially those of a legally binding nature which will have direct impacts on Member State governments, and especially farmers, forest-owners, and cooperatives on the ground. Restoration will primarily take place on private land, and can only be achieved with the full- backing of those who own, and whose livelihoods depend on the land.
It is of the utmost importance that the restoration measures, especially rewetting on agricultural and forested peatlands, or peat extraction zones, are done in areas that will have as little econom ic, social and environm ental im pact on the owners as possible, especially on the economic activity they currently carry out there. In addition, in the EU, as regards forests, the political responsibility and competence lies with Member States, who should also take decisions in accordance with existing national legislation and based on regional and local expertise.
European farmers, forest-owners, and their cooperatives are particularly concerned with the potential overstepping of the law. For Copa and Cogeca m em bersall m easures m ust be voluntary, and with the full acknowledgement and understanding of the landowner. There is a true concern that through the use of delegated acts there will be an increased control over EU Member State’s ability to govern their own native habitats and species.
The restoration targets must be achievable and realistic in order to actually accomplish the work necessary for recreation. For the European agriculture and forest sector it is already clear that the targets being set right now, will be delayed due to a variety of reasons; financing, planning, and adm inistrative issues, to nam e just a few. While there is a firm understanding of the importance of being ambitious, a balance must also be struck with the down to earth realism in expecting results for arbitrary deadlines such as 2030.
Another key point is that of financing. Restoration is expected to cumulatively cost approximately 7 billion euro annually, which must be drawn down by each Member State’s Restoration Plans, through a variety of EU, Member State, and private funding mechanisms. The majority of this is expected to come from the CAP. However, currently the biodiversity measures inherent in the CAP Strategic Plans will not even cover the targets up until the year 2030, as the CAP finishes well before this! Financing for EU-wide restoration is expected to come from the 14-billion-euro annual biodiversity spending under the Multiannual Financial Fram ework (MFF). As a result, Copa and Cogeca members do not see this as feasible, or implementable; and as a result, call for further, more concrete, financial planning from the Commission before it is possible to move forward with the restoration plan.
Finally, Copa and Cogeca believe that a directive would have been a better option for this EU legislation, allowing for the proper long-term planning of restoration measures and the precise tailoring to fit Member State realities. National Restoration Plans do not allow for the same tailor-made approach that a nationally-implemented law would have, and ensure that restoration is as efficient and effective a process as possible. This is especially so when restoration can take up to 70 years in some cases.
It is essential that the Commission plan to succeed in its goals for restoration, and not aim for failure. Currently this proposal is out of step, unachievable in its current objectives and insufficiently supported.
As the initiatives under the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity Strategy start piling up, the weight that will be put on farmers’ shoulders will become increasingly difficult to bear. This is why Copa and Cogeca will continue to insist that a comprehensive impact assessment of the entire Green Deal is carried out, as individual assessments do not adequately address the cumulative effects of these proposals on the ground, on productivity, or on food security.
Artigo publicado originalmente em Copa Cogeca.
Discussão sobre este post