The preparation of the Nature Restoration Law is in an active phase both in the EU Parliament and the Council. According to the plan, positions from both institutions should be ready before the summer holidays. The Parliament's AGRI and PECH Committees' opinions to reject the Commission's proposal is a strong message that the proposal is not acceptable without fundamental changes. The Finnish Forest Industries emphasize that the law's obligations must be well justified.


Taking care of biodiversity is important to ensure the functioning of the different ecosystems. The Finnish Forest Industries have done long-term work to enhance biodiversity in commercial forests in Finland and see restoration as one of the essential tools to improve biodiversity in different ecosystems.

‍

The latest turn on the nature restoration law happened on the 31st of May when the EPP Group announced to withdraw from the negotiations on the planned nature restoration law after another round of negotiations with other political Groups. EPP Group said that the proposal is inadequate and that it raises concerns about food security, agricultural productivity, and infrastructure projects. EPP calls for a new proposal with a comprehensive impact evaluation.

‍
The EU Commission published the proposal for the Nature Restoration Law in the summer of 2022. In the proposal, very ambitious targets for restoration have been presented, as well as where and when restoration must be done. For example, for habitat types, restoration measures are required in each group of habitat types, and ultimately, good conditions must be reached for almost each habitat type in each biogeographic region of every member country. At the moment, not all habitat occurrences are even known, nor is their condition.


The challenge with the law is that the impact assessment of the regulation lacks defining its socio-economic effects. The indirect effects on industry, municipalities and tax revenues, among others, should be included in the assessment; even those can be significant. For example, some restoration measures will definitely decrease the area suitable for industry wood procurement, which further affects employment and the regional economy.

According to the Commission's impact assessment, the straight cost impact of restoration for Finland is the third largest in the EU, at nearly EUR 1 billion per year. Substantial cost effects have also been approved by the Natural Resources Institute Finland, which has produced a report on Nature Restoration Law. According to the report on restoration, the goal of restoring natural habitats would involve the restoration of approximately 2–6 million hectares and operational costs of €13–19 billion by 2050 in Finland.


Finnish Forest Industries calls for the socio-economic effects of restoration to be considered. The primary way to achieve improvement of biodiversity at the same time as securing the self-sufficiency of the EU region from natural resources is impactful and cost-effective targeting of restoration measures.


We also emphasize that the objectives of the regulation should be proportionate and achievable so that they encourage Member States to take action. It is essential to steer the legislation to the key objective of restoring degraded ecosystems. At the same time, we do not support using the same indicators for forest ecosystems in all European countries and vegetation zones. Instead, member states flexibility in choosing the indicators should be increased. A comprehensive delegated power for the Commission to amend the regulation should be limited to avoid overly generalized 'one size fits all' legislation, which overlooks regional characteristics. Last but not least, the Finnish Forest Industries consider it necessary that Member States can decide on the essential content and targeting of restoration legislation.

‍