The Finnish government did not want the restoration decree to be the savior | Foreign countries

The Finnish government did not want the restoration decree to

Belgium, the country holding the EU presidency, is still trying to hammer out a solution for the restoration regulation. The regulation is in danger of falling after Hungary turned against the proposal.

BRUSSELS The restoration regulation is in danger of collapsing, when the proposal, which has already been approved to a large extent in the EU, unexpectedly ran into headwinds. The environment ministers had to vote at the meeting today and give the decree the final blessing. The EU presidency, Belgium, withdrew the issue from the vote because it would not have received enough support.

Environment Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius did not hide his frustration at the ministerial meeting.

– I’m worried about how devastating a signal this sends about our credibility and institutions internationally. The question of unity and stability in EU decision-making arises.

The motion had already been approved in the mutual negotiations between the member states, the Commission and the Parliament, and the Parliament had approved the content of the regulation. The narrow majority of the restoration fell when Hungary, which previously supported the issue, reversed its sledge last week and said that it was against the motion.

– We are fooling ourselves if we think we can fight climate change without nature, Sinkevičius said.

Belgium, the country holding the presidency, is still trying to come up with a solution to the restoration regulation in its term that lasts until the end of June. Many environment ministers hoped for it.

Finland moved from an absent voter to a voter

Finland also strengthened its position and said it would vote against.

Minister of the Environment Kai Mykkänen (collect.) the reason is especially the estimated costs for Finland.

According to the Commission’s impact assessment, the costs are the largest for Finland in the EU, considering the size of the economy.

Although the show changed for the better, according to Mykkänen, the costs are still too high for Finland compared to others.

He emphasizes that Finland has been consistent in its handling and has not changed its position on a text that has remained the same, unlike some other countries.

However, the level of negativity in Finland has varied. At first, Finland opposed the proposal, but after the mitigations made to the proposal, it voted no, along with Belgium, Austria and Poland. This is not of great importance, as an abstention is still counted as a non-vote, even though it is milder in tone. Therefore, the tightening of Finland’s position did not affect the final result.

They tried to persuade Finland to support the show, from Hungary’s live reeds.

According to Mykkänen, Finland’s position is now negative for the sake of clarity, because the abstention raised questions.

The Netherlands, Italy, Poland and Sweden also oppose the restoration decree. The big countries Germany and France support the show.

At least 15 member states, represented by 65 percent of the citizens, are needed to approve the decision.

Industry, farmers and the right oppose

There is no more detailed information about the reasons for Hungary’s coattails. Hungary, which is at odds on various issues, often wants to promote its own issues.

Hungarian Minister of the Environment Anikó Raisz stated when he came to the ministerial meeting that one third of Hungary’s territory is close to nature and measures can be taken nationally. He emphasized flexibility.

The spectacular protests of farmers in various parts of Europe have especially alarmed centre-right politicians. They fear that the farmers’ votes will flow from them to the far right in June’s EU elections because of the regulation.

Farmers fear that restoration will bring additional costs. In Finland, there is a lot of marshland, both as fields and as a forest floor, which should be restored to a marsh.

In Finland, the forest industry in particular has been vocal about restoration.

The restoration proposal has progressed very haphazardly, and the supporters have only had a Heiveröinen majority at every stage. The presentation has also been toned down a lot from the Commission’s original.

The leadership of the largest group in the parliament, the European group of the coalition EPP, still tried last month to get their own group and the liberal Renew group to vote against the proposal, but they were not completely successful. For example, members of the Communist Party Henna Virkkunen and Sirpa Pietikäinen voted for the motion. The third coalition member Petri Sarvamaa was not there.

What is a restore setting?

  • In June 2022, the European Commission published a proposal for a restoration regulation, i.e. a so-called regulation on improving the state of nature. 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 EU Parliament’s press release, 80 percent of the EU’s natural habitats are in poor condition.
  • The costs for Finland were initially estimated at one billion euros per year, and the requirements were considered tough. 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.
  • An emergency brake was also added to the regulation, according to which the agricultural goals can be temporarily abandoned in exceptional circumstances.
  • yl-01