The European Commission is “ready to consider further flexibility” on certain aspects of the proposed Nature Restoration Law, according to a commission document.
The commission’s document is a response to a raft of concerns that have been raised in relation to the law, which would see large swathes of peatland rewetted, which would potentially include peatland under agricultural use.
The proposed law has seen much criticism from farming organisations here and across Europe, as well as many MEPs.
In order to reassure MEPs and EU member states who are concerned over farmland being rewetted, the commission has outlined some clarifications. as well as a number of areas where it is willing to introduce certain flexibilities.
The commission said it may consider increasing the share of drained peatlands that can be rewetted on land that is not under agricultural use.
It also said that it “fully recognises the importance of involving farmers and landowners, and making rewetting economically attractive for them, including through financial support, recognising the high value of the ecosystem services provided, as well as through new business models and income possibilities such as carbon farming”.
The commission insisted that the targets in the proposed Nature Restoration Law are “strongly interlinked” with the EU’s climate commitments, and that restoring drained peatlands is one of the most cost-effective measures to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions in the agriculture sector.
The commission said that its original draft proposal already contained flexibilities that recognised that some member states have a higher percentage of drained peatland under agricultural use than others, and which would have allowed those member states restore and partially rewet drained peatland in other relevant areas, instead of agricultural land.
On questions over funding, the commission document said that farmers, fishers, foresters and other land users are not expected to bear the cost of nature restoration.
In fact, its says that those who contribute to reaching the targets under the law should “not only be compensated, but be rewarded for the high value of the ecosystem services they will provide”.
The document outlines a number of pre-existing funding measures, that are either partly or in whole already earmarked for biodiversity, that can be used to fund the implementation of the law.
These include (among others) the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund; the Programme for Environmental and Climate Action (LIFE); the European Regional Development Fund; the Just Transition Fund; the EU Recovery and Resilience Facility (which was set up during the Covid-19 pandemic); and the main EU budget as a whole.
The commission also believes that there is “significant potential” for leveraging public/private investments to cover the costs of restoring and rewetting.
It said that it is ready to support member states to “enhance their capacity” to absorb EU funding for biodiversity.
The commission said it would also assess any gaps between the member states’ restoration funding needs from the EU budget and the EU funding available for supporting them in the implementation of the law; and would identify potential solutions to bridge the identified gaps.