The majority of the center-right EPP, the EU group of the coalition, opposed the regulation. Kokomus members Virkkunen and Pietikäinen voted in favor.
The European Parliament approved the restoration regulation in the final vote. 329 MPs voted in favor of the regulation, 275 were against it. 24 MPs abstained.
Finnish MPs supported the restoration decree Sirpa Pietikäinen (collect.), Henna Virkkunen (collect.), Nils Torvalds (r.), Eero Heinäluoma (sd.) Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (sd.), Silvia Modig (left), Alviina Alametsä (green), Heidi Hautala (green) and Ville Niinistö (green).
They voted against Elsi Katainen (middle), Mauri Pekkarinen (middle), Pirkko Ruohonen-Lerner (ps.) and Teuvo Hakkarainen (p.s.).
The coalition Petri Sarvamaa was not there.
Most of the representatives of the largest group in Parliament, the center-right European People’s Party, or EPP, voted against the regulation. There were 20 supporters, among them Pietikäinen and Virkkunen.
A representative of the EPP chairman said in advance that the group would vote against the restoration decree. Protests by farmers across Europe added to the opposition. The group fears that farmers will move to support far-right parties in June’s European Parliament elections.
The Liberals’ Renew group was divided by the presentation. From Finland, the group includes centrists and RKP.
The billion bill that Finland feared was reduced
Restoration aims to stop the loss of nature. According to the regulation, EU countries must carry out restoration measures on at least 20 percent of land and sea areas by 2030. By 2050, the regulation would apply to all ecosystems in need of restoration.
According to the Parliament’s press release, 80 percent of the EU’s natural habitats are in poor condition.
The restoration decree has progressed shakily. The EPP has opposed the restoration regulation all along. However, several changes have been made to the regulation compared to the Commission’s original proposal.
An emergency brake was also added to the decree, according to which the objectives concerning agriculture can be temporarily abandoned in exceptional circumstances.
Finland opposed the regulation for a long time, along with Sweden and Austria, among others. The costs for Finland were initially estimated at one billion euros per year, and the requirements were considered tough. In Finland, requirements for the restoration of marsh areas have been a particular concern.
The price tag for the restoration has become more reasonable during the preparation and the presentation has been toned down. For example, the reference year of restoration in 1952 was abandoned. Originally, the habitat types should have been returned to this state of the reference year.