The contentious Nature Restoration Law, which up until this week seemed like a done deal, has run into difficulty in the Council of the EU today (Friday, March 22).
A vote that was due to take place on Monday (March 25) in the council – also known as the Council of Ministers – to give the final rubber stamp to the law, is now likely to be postponed to a later, undetermined date, Agriland understands.
This is because a preliminary vote, which was due to take place today among EU member state representatives, did not go ahead, as it was not clear that a majority would vote in favour of the law.
Late last month, the European Parliament, in a full sitting, ratified the law by 329 votes to 275, with 24 abstentions.
This vote was on an agreed text of the law that came out of the ‘trilogue process’, in which the council and the parliament – with the European Commission also involved – agreed a negotiated stance, after several months of debate within both institutions on the controversial law.
Following that vote in parliament last month, politicians and lobby groups backing the law celebrated, while its opponents took a disappointed though resigned stance that the law would be adopted as soon as the council gave its backing.
Up until this week, there was no indication that the likely-postponed vote on Monday would be anything other than a formality.
However, support among member states for the law has seemed to wane considerably in recent weeks, with Belgium – which currently holds the rotating six-month presidency of the council – along with a number of other member states getting cold feet (though sources indicate that Ireland was not one of those countries).
The Council of the EU votes by qualified majority, meaning that, rather than a simple majority being required, 15 (or in some case 20) member states have to be in agreement, and those countries have to account for 65% of the EU’s population.
Before a council votes, a group of member state representatives (who act in a similar function to ambassadors to the EU) meet in order to determine if there is enough support among member states for a proposition.
This preliminary vote was due to take place today as a precursor to the ‘official’ council vote on Monday. However, it is understood that both votes have now been taken off the agenda and postponed to an undetermined later date, unless member states indicate a change to their voting intention over the weekend.
In other words, there is currently no known date by which the Nature Restoration Law will be adopted, if at all, as a result of today’s developments.
It is unclear if a rescheduled vote will take place before the European Parliament elections in June, or before a new European Commission taking office after that.
Nature Restoration Law
The highly controversial law was originally proposed by the European Commission in June 2022.
It has seen near universal criticism from farm organisations in Ireland and abroad, who are concerned that it will see large swathes of land removed from agriculture. On the other side, environmental groups firmly back the law as they see it as necessary to secure biodiversity.
Farm organisations have raised concerns over the impact it may have on payments under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) as well as food production, and believe that it will enhance restrictions on farmers already in place under the Natura 2000 land designations.
The law’s proponents say that its measures will be voluntary for farmers, and that they won’t have to take land out of production.
The text of the law sets targets to restore 30% of drained peatlands under agricultural use by 2030, 40% by 2040 and 50% by 2050. Drained peatland under agricultural use is just one of the land types on which “restoration measures” will be required.
Farm org reaction
Following the decision to withdraw the NRL from the agenda today, Irish Farmers’ Association (IFA) president Francie Gorman said it should be “parked” until after the European Parliament elections and the appointment of a new EU Commission.
“We said at the time of the parliament vote last month that a vacuum of information still existed around the Nature Restoration Law,” O’Gorman said.
“That uncertainty has persisted and there’s a strong case for the NRL to be re-examined by those who will have a fresh mandate after June’s elections.”
Gorman said it would be “ironic” if the EU Commission were to try and push ahead at the same time as it has announced simplification measures.
“Too often, proposals on a laptop don’t work on the land. The EU Commission now has an opportunity to rectify this, and they should take it,” Gorman said.
He said fundamental concerns remain regarding the proposed regulation that have not been addressed.
These include: a lack of clarity on the requirements and impact of certain definitions; uncertainty on the potential impact on farmland and production; the lack of dedicated funding to support the implementation of regulation.
Additional reporting by Rubina Freiberg.