Menu
The Nature Restoration Law was proposed by the European Commission in June 2022. This law is part of the EU Biodiversity Strategy which is a key element to the European Green Deal. It aims to help recover Europe’s extreme biodiversity loss by 2030.
The original text which was proposed had restoration targets to cover at least 20% of land and sea by 2030 and all areas in need of restoration by 2050. There were targets on peatlands, forests, freshwater ecosystems, marine ecosystems and other agricultural and urban land.
Three EU parliamentary committees voted on this law (AGRI, PECH and ENVI) as well as the European Council which is made up of representatives from each member state. The AGRI and PECH committee voted to reject the law while the lead committee (ENVI) opposed an outright rejection of the law but the final vote ended in a tie which means the law could not be formally adopted. The Council produced its own version of the law’s text (the General Approach) which a majority of Member States approved. This General Approach was not as strong as the original text proposed by the Commission but still had some ambitious restoration targets within it.
On the 12th July the Plenary vote took place which allowed every member of the European parliament to vote on the law. This was the last vote on this law and determined whether it would be rejected completely or move on to trilogue negotiations.13 Irish MEPs voted on the NRL and the tabled amendments during the plenary vote. They are,
Deirdre Clune – (EU group) European People’s Party (EPP) – (Irish party) Fine Gael
Sean Kelly – EPP – Fine Gael
Francis Fitzgerald – EPP – FIne Gael
Colm Markey – EPP – Fine Gael
Maria Walsh – EPP – Fine Gael
Billy Kelleher – Renew Group – Fianna Fail
Barry Andrews – Renew Group – Fianna Fail
Clare Daly – Left Group – Independents for Change
Luke Ming Flanaghan – Left Group – Independent
Chris MacManus – Left Group – Sinn Fein
Mick Wallace – Left Group – Independents for Change
Ciaran Cuffe – Greens/ European Free Alliance (EFA) – Green Party
Grace O Sullivan – Greens/ EFA – Green Party
The first vote was the outright rejection of the law. The law was not rejected by a margin of 12 votes (324 to 312 with 12 abstentions). All 13 of Ireland’s MEP’s voted not to reject the law including the 5 Fine Gael MEPs who are within the European People’s Party (EPP) group. The EPP group was actively trying to stop the NRL from progressing through a disinformation campaign. MEPs then proceeded to vote on 134 amendments. Some of the votes were recorded via role call and we went through these votes to see how our Irish representatives voted on each amendment.
Positive results for nature
An amendment that increased the percentage of area to be restored but weakened the language to only include degraded ecosystems was opposed by all Irish MEPs (Sean Kelly from the EPP group/Fine Gael, opposed this even though he was one of the politicians who tabled it). This amendment did not go through, which was a positive result as only restoring degraded ecosystems would lower the overall targets of the entire law.
An amendment to accept the Council’s proposal on the NRL was tabled which is an unusual move but after so much pushback to the NRL this was one of the best outcomes for nature restoration. This was accepted and all Irish MEPs voted to pass this amendment except for Luke MIng Flannaghan (The Left/Independent) and Francis Fitzgerald (EPP/Fine Gael). The Council proposal was supported by a majority of Member States including Ireland.
Negative results for nature
An amendment which stated that the NRL must also create synergies and be coherent with ongoing legislation (such as renewable energies, plant protection products, critical raw materials, agriculture and forestry) was passed. All Fine Gael MEPs and MacManus of Sinn Fein voted for this amendment. Luke Flannaghan (Independent) abstained while members from Fianna Fail, Independents for Change, Independents and the Green Party all opposed. This amendment weakens the NRL as existing regulations do not have nature restoration or conservation as their main objective, with some legislation actively going against restoration.
An amendment which weakened the definition of ‘deterioration’ was passed and Irish MEPS Clune, Kelly, Fitzgerald, Markey and Walsh (all Fine Gael MEPs) voted for this as well as Flanaghan and MacManus
An amendment which allows the suspension of the NRL targets under exceptional socioeconomic circumstances was tabled by the EPP group (including Sean Kelly) and this was passed. Clune, Kelly, Fitzgerald and Walsh all from the EPP group (Fine Gael) abstained while Colm Markey (also EPP, Fine Gael) voted for this. The rest of the Irish MEPs voted against this amendment which will open loopholes to stall restoration. Examples of exceptional socioeconomic circumstances include food prices increasing by 10%, food production declining by 5% over a period of 1 year, building and transforming of houses particularly in the social housing sector and the rollout of renewable energy projects to achieve the objectives in European Climate Law.
An amendment which states that robust scientific data be provided by the Commission on the necessary conditions to guarantee long term food security before the NRL comes into force was also passed. Every Irish MEP voted against this amendment (including Sean Kelly, although he was included in the EPP members who tabled this amendment).
Negative results for nature
A very worrying amendment was passed which significantly weakens the language used for terrestrial ecosystems. It states that Member States shall ‘aim’ to put in place restoration measures and also restricts it to existing Natura 2000 sites. This restricts conservation measures to habitats which are listed on the Annex I that are not in good condition. Time bound percentage targets were also deleted. All Irish MEPs voted against this amendment apart from MacManus of Sinn Fein who abstained. This is a very damaging amendment for nature restoration on land as the weakened language allows Member States the leeway to not actually put any effective restoration measures in place as long as they show some evidence of trying. A law needs to have strong definitive language which cannot be twisted and interpreted to suit opposing agendas and nature restoration needs outcome based targets rather than effort based targets. Limiting the scope to existing protected areas is also very damaging as there are many ecosystems across Europe which are in need of restoration and are not part of the Birds and Habitats Directives protected sites. Deleting the time constraints also means that Member States do not have a deadline to show that they have ‘aimed to put restoration measures in place’. This will allow the law to basically be ignored and for time to go by without any incentives to restore nature.
An amendment which was proposed by Luke Ming Flanaghan was opposed by a majority of MEPs but every Irish MEP voted to support it which is encouraging to see. This amendment would have taken into account existing High Nature Value farmland and maintained these low intensity farming systems when establishing restoration measures. This amendment was a very positive one which would have taken into account the efforts which are already being done by farmers but unfortunately did not go through.
An amendment which deleted the entire article 9 on agricultural land and peatlands was passed. This removed all targets and timelines for restoration of these areas and is one of the most damaging amendments to go through. All Irish MEPS voted against this amendment apart from Chris MacManus who abstained.
Damaging amendments to forestry on standing and lying deadwood were passed with all Fine Gael MEPs voting for this and the rest of the Irish MEPs voting against.
Positive results for nature
Amendments strengthening the text on pollinators were passed with all Irish MEPs voting positively
Positive results for nature
Another two amendments were put forward for marine ecosystems which would have weakened the language and timelines as well as limiting the marine scope of the law to only Natura 2000 sites. This amendment was opposed. Every Irish MEP voted against these amendments which again is encouraging to see.
An amendment on funding was passed with all Fine Gael MEPs voting for it as well as Luke Ming Flannaghan. All other Irish MEPs voted against it. This amendment stated that no funding from the CAP, the CFP or other agricultural and fisheries funding systems will be used to fund nature restoration.
The next stage will be the trilogue negotiations between the Parliament and the Council with the Commission mediating (although the Commission has little to do at this stage). In previous trilogue negotiations the Council position has generally been found to be stronger. Although the NRL has gone against many of the norms of previous EU files so it is hard to know whether this will be the case. The Council’s position is more environmentally ambitious than the final agreed Parliament position although the Parliament has some strong amendments as well which were not included in the Council position. Cesar Luena is the rapporteur on the ENVI committee and the lead on the NRL. He will be representing the Parliament in the negotiations and he has been a champion for nature throughout this entire process. However, because he is representing the Parliament he must tow the line between the Parliament position and the ambitious text which he would have liked to have seen from the beginning. Nature has a good ally to have him on side negotiating this text.
The NRL has been severely weakened but this is not the final position. There is still time for negotiations to improve on some of the most damaging amendments and hopefully we will end up with a stronger text than the current Parliament position.
The IWT would like to thank every citizen who took the time to sign up to the RestoreNature campaign, attend one of the Irish rallys or shared eNGO articles and posts on the NRL. There was huge public support for the NRL and this support played a huge role in motivating MEPs to vote positively for nature.
Grace Carr
Marine Advocacy Officer