The European Parliament yesterday gave its approval to the nature restoration law, whose main objective is to protect the ecosystems and biodiversity of the European Union. The narrow margin by which he got ahead –336 votes in favor and 300 against, plus 13 abstentions– was celebrated by the defenders of the law as a great victory, since since the European Commission proposed the rule a year ago, it has been the reason for a heated debate that has practically divided the European Parliament in two.
On the one hand, socialists and greensfor whom there is no more time to lose in the protection of the terrestrial and marine habitats if we do not want to find ourselves at a point of no return. On the other hand, the Conservativesled by the European People’s Party (EPP), who see the law as a attack on agriculture. This division into blocks gives the victory a bittersweet point that overshadows the celebration.
The nature restoration law still has the path of negotiation with the Council of the EU (that is, the governments of the Twenty-seven), from which the final text will emerge. We are, then, before a great step, but only a step.
One of the main objectives of the standard is recover 20% of the terrestrial and marine soil degraded by 2030, and all habitats degraded by 2050. A very ambitious goal, but one that is at the level of the problem we are facing: it is estimated that 80% of protected habitats in the EU are in poor or very poor condition. Given the scientific evidence that the variety of animal and plant species is in clear decline in Europe, it is no longer acceptable to do nothing or refuse to adopt any change, without offering an alternative for improvement.
With everything, it is an exaggeration to treat all those who disapprove of the law as deniers. The majority of farmers and fishermen who protested yesterday were not denying the loss of biodiversity or the effects of climate change, they were defending their way of earning a living.
One of the biggest challenges of environmental legislation is, precisely, addressing changes, even if they are unpopular. From traffic management in cities to the location of renewable energy parks. Agriculture must also adapt for a more sustainable future, as the experts reiterate. And if that means damage, we should find a way to compensate him, give a fair return to his effort because the whole of society benefits. Helping change is a much more responsible policy than the confrontation that has been adopted by the PPE, even resorting to hoaxes and half truths that create confusion.
This attitude can bring partisan gains in the short term, but it means delaying measures that sooner or later will have to be adopted, and that will be more costly, economically, socially and environmentally, the longer it is delayed.
The lack of consensus on a crucial issue like this also responds to the current social and political polarization. It is unfortunate that the defense of the environment is considered as a war of factions, because in any case it is a fight in which we must go together. Despite the pitfalls, the European nature restoration law must run its course.