The long-running dispute in the European Parliament about the restoration regulation was concluded last week, but will it save Finland’s nature? The expert doubts it.
Before the European Parliament’s vote, there was no certainty as to whether the restoration regulation would be approved or not. Now, however, the regulation has been approved and tomorrow, Wednesday, the final filing of the regulation will begin in the EU together between the Commission, the member states and the Parliament.
The Parliament took the negotiation result of the EU member states to vote, to which it made some changes. Finland had gotten the member countries to agree on many of their goals on paper.
What exactly did this restoration mean?
Restoration refers to returning nature close to its original state. In practice, this could mean, for example, filling in ditches and returning the forest to a swamp.
Professor at the Natural Resources Center (Luke). Anne Tolvanen has evaluated the Parliament’s decision from the point of view of the cities.
– The cities’ goals were relaxed very significantly. Parliament decided that in cities, tree canopy coverage must be more than 45 percent. All Finnish cities manage to cross this limit.
Also a legislative adviser to the Ministry of the Environment Leila Suvantola comment on the regulation from the point of view of cities.
– The commission’s proposal was absolutely outrageous. The Parliament’s decision was, as it were, an acknowledgment to Finland that our cities are already in good condition.
Restoration areas will be significantly limited
– Only natura 2000 protected areas are protected according to the parliament’s decision. It’s a pretty big limitation, because the commission’s original policy was much broader, says Tolvanen.
Natura 2000 areas are land and water areas that are under protection. The goal of the regions is to preserve natural diversity.
Leila Suvantola, legislative advisor of the Ministry of the Environment, does not completely agree with Tolvanen.
– I interpreted the parliament’s decision to mean that the priority should be restoration in natura 2000 areas. So other regions are not directly removed, but the position of the parliament is unclear.
According to Suvantola, the Parliament’s position follows Finland’s position.
– In the Commission’s presentation, there was a ban on weakening (ie no habitat type should be weakened from its current state) for all occurrences of habitat types, regardless of whether they are in protected areas or not. Now the parliament outlined that there is no need for a ban on weakening aquatic habitat types and habitat types of the Habitats Directive regarding.
Toivanen adds that the parliament removed the restoration goals set for different years. However, he believes that some target years must be set later.
– At some level, they need to be put in place to get a schedule for how quickly the restoration needs to be done.
Parliament also abandoned the reference year 1952, which indicated that the different habitat types should be returned to this reference year state.
Large climate emissions in agricultural peatlands
In the Parliament’s decision, the biggest change for agriculture is that peatlands would not need to be drained at all. Watering means, for example, filling ditches in peat fields, which would cause water to rise on the peat land.
According to the European Commission’s original proposal, 70 percent of agricultural peatlands should have been improved, and half of this would have been done by irrigation.
I read the professor Kristiina Långin involving would have been the most cost-effective way to improve agriculture’s climate action.
– Peat lands, which are often used for agriculture, are the largest single source of emissions in agriculture. The climate emissions per hectare of peatlands are the highest compared to any other land use.
According to the Commission’s original proposal, the removal of peat fields would be problematic for the farmer who cultivates peat fields. In practice, food could no longer be produced on these fields.
However, Lång points out that not all peat fields are currently productive for farmers because they are too wet. So they are not important for Finnish food production.
How many such unproductive peat fields are there in Finland?
– Tens of thousands of hectares. We don’t really have any national solution to this, because the national and EU agricultural support system encourages keeping unproductive fields in production.
This will not stop the loss of biodiversity
According to Tolvanen, the commission’s original proposal was extremely ambitious.
– In the Parliament’s decision, quite important things were left out, at least in Finland the deterioration of diversity cannot be stopped. Protection measures must also be taken outside protected areas.
However, Tolvanen reminds that restoration is already being done in Finland without an EU regulation.
– We have one that safeguards Finland’s natural diversity and ecosystem services gem program and based on the voluntary nature of landowners metso conservation program.
In addition, Tolvanen is happy that the diversity of nature has taken center stage in social discussions.
– When the restoration of nature on a larger scale started in Finland 20 years ago, it was not even understood what it was and what the point was.
Can Finland still reach its goal of climate neutrality by 2035?
– It’s hard to see that we can get there without extensive watering of the peatlands. The need for restoration will not go away, even if there is no incentive from the EU level.
“Annual savings of 60 million euros”
Estimates have been presented in Finland that the restoration of nature would cost Finland almost a billion euros.
– Finland’s decline is going down considerably, Tolvanen estimates.
Lång points out that the effectiveness of nature protection is also affected by the parliament’s decision. Although Finland’s bill is decreasing, it does not mean that we will not pay anything. Money is already being spent on restoration.
Suvantola agrees, reminding us that Finland already spends hundreds of millions of euros a year to restore nature.
– These costs cannot be changed because they are already existing.
Lång needs incentives to give up fields that are harmful to the environment and do not produce food, because they would yield significant financial savings.
– We could save at least 60 million euros in agricultural subsidies every year if we didn’t have to pay subsidies every year to maintain poor production. Now, such savings are potentially lost if they are not included in the restoration regulation.
What thoughts did the story evoke? You can discuss the topic until 23:00 on July 19.