Last week, the European parliament approved an historic bill, the Nature Restoration Law. Through a series of extremely unpredictable voting rounds, the bill was first of all kept alive by a majority of 12 voters only : 324 MEPs voted against the motion to reject the bill en bloc submitted by the conservative forces of the European People’s Party, while 312 voted in favour and 12 abstained. Then, the bill went through the consideration of specific amendments and the adoption of 140 of them through separate votes, what emptied substantial parts of the bill compared to what the European Commission had initially proposed. Then a final global poll took place, and still the winning majority was narrow : 336 MEPs voted in favour, 300 voted against and 13 abstained. The adopted proposal supports the compulsory implementation of recovery measures on 30% of the EU’s degraded terrestrial and marine ecosystems by 2030, rising to cover all degraded ecosystems by 2050[1]. The European Parliament is now ready to start negotiations with the EU Council of Ministers on the final shape of the legislation.
I was at the European parliament at the time when the Natura 2000 network was effectively « under construction », after its legal establishment in 1992. Natura 2000 is a network of core breeding and resting sites for rare and threatened species, and some rare natural habitat types which are protected in their own right. It stretches over 18% of the EU’s land area and more than 8% of its marine territory. Upon establishment, Member States were required to propose the designation of protection areas under the Birds Directive and the Habitat Directive[2]. Those years, for nature conservationists it was a matter of daily political and legal battles, since governmental entities were often obstructing the designation of those areas or were authorising deleterious development projects within those same areas. Dozens were the legal claims submitted to the EU administration for non- or improper implementation of the two Directives every year, and as a EP policy advisor I was following or initiating many of those claims. The brandished slogans you could hear in society and in government were always the same : « We cannot stop development. Our economy must continue to turn. Nature conservation is a costly restriction we cannot afford. ». A mix of poor environmental awareness and mediocre science-based knowledge, ideological approach to development, private or corporate interests, and electoral calculations was slowing down the recognition of the importance of biodiversity for the preservation of functional ecosystems and healthy climate conditions, and for the sustainability of economic and production chains. Then, within a few years, the severity of the environmental crisis was fully manifested, the climate had already changed for the worse, and biodiversity continued inexorably to decline.
Even a carefree tourist now realises the side effects of that. Take the region where I am right now. A couple of days ago, many Veneto’s areas were hit by heavy hailstorms with lemons-sized hailstones that shattered car windows. On the other hand, sport fishermen hardly fish on Lake Garda anymore because there is nothing left to catch.
I read the statement delivered by an Italian MEP, Madam Rosanna Conte, on the eve of last week’s vote in the European parliament, who was declaring : « Less land for farmers, less sea for fishermen, less activity for businesses, and fewer European products and jobs for our citizens. These are the heavy repercussions of the proposals contained in a regulation permeated with ideology and counterproductive for nature itself »[3]. I was unable to understand what she meant. I trust scientists, not re-election hunters.
On July 9, six thousands scientists published an appeal expressing the deep concern of the scientific community about the ongoing discussions on the EU’s Green Deal. Of particular concern were the current criticisms targeting the Sustainable Pesticides Use Regulation and Nature Restoration Law. Opponents of these new regulations – scientists say – argue that they will have adverse effects on farming, fisheries and society at large, suggesting that they will threaten food security and kill jobs. Those claims not only lack scientific evidence, but even contradict it. As a matter of example, scientists explain that conserving 20% of (semi-)natural habitat in farmed landscapes is both possible and desirable to mitigate climate change and increase biodiversity and associated ecosystem services. This can enhance food security in the long term, by making food production and consumption more resilient and better adapted to climate change. The appeal lists at least twenty arguments in favor of nature restoration that challenge those used by its opponents.
At the end of the day, again, it is a cultural battle more than a political one. Electoral agitation and a biased public debate are the main tools of a political mobilisation which ignores facts and studies, and that comes from a cultural imprinting : Nature does not exist except for being a pool of resources that can be used in the cycles of capitalist production, as if humans were living in a system disconnected from the rules of our planet’s biological life.
Representing this battle as a mere Left – Right dispute is wrong, it is a deeper issue. Conservative forces linked to rural societies or defending national identities have often been attentive to the needs related to natural cycles or to the imperative of preserving the cultural and natural heritage of the nation. The current debate seems to erase even those references, the whole cultural elaboration of our communities is at stake, and the use of easy negationist slogans is undermining the efforts toward building a new alliance between civilisation and nature. Large swathes of the population still see nature as an external, hostile force, that we have to domesticate and exploit to our benefit, without realising the importance of the environmental and social costs caused by our production and consumption practices. Politicians are de facto basic ignoramuses in what refers to the laws of life and the way how the Earth functions. Part of the reason for this is related to the business interests they represent, but part of it is also related to ignorance, and ignorance can only be combated with educational and cultural measures.
As a matter of example, do you know that in Italian high schools geography is not taught any more ? Not even in scientific high schools ! There is therefore a need for an « ecological transition » also in our mindsets. This transition will mean studying and working in a different way, integrating the study of the planet and the living world into the school curricula, holding lessons in open environments to learn to reflect by observing nature. It will also mean inventing new jobs and new professions that respond to the challenge of limits: making things using less energy and fewer raw materials; experimenting with new technologies inspired by the solutions adopted by plants and animals; creating spaces for the production of goods and services that stimulate sociality and resource sharing and exchange. And finally, we are called upon to review the codes by which we select our ruling classes and the body of public officials. The parameters of the « ecological transition » should become discriminating even in governmental appointments, and the public administration should take the lead in setting an example to private citizens, starting for instance with the reconversion of their buildings, offices and services towards reaching zero environmental impact targets. On the other hand, training schools on ecology and society will have to be part of the armamentarium of every political party. In short, it should no longer be possible to talk a lot about ecology in public and continue to live, work or legislate as one has always done, or even worst.
Now, going back to the Nature Restoration Law, its text has been profoundly altered by the voting procedure, but at least it was finally adopted. « There is no longer any obligation to achieve results in this final text », lamented French MEP Pascal Canfin, chairman of the European Parliament’s Environment Committee, after the final vote[4]. The new version « completely deletes the measure that set binding targets for the restoration of agricultural ecosystems [and] also reduces the target for the restoration of river ecosystems », highlighted Politico[5]. The final text even sets out the conditions under which application of the law may be suspended. However, there is now a European law text about to be finally examined and endorsed by the EU Council of Ministers, and we cannot go back any longer. The notion of « restoration » must now become the core principle of our cultural reflection and engagement. Forget about « growth », think of « restoration » as a fundamental principle inspiring our education, animating the public debate and injecting innovation in our economic sectors.
We have a great responsibility, which is, however, also a great opportunity to do something useful and necessary. And to change ourselves. If we do so, we will also get rid of the dinosaurs that still survive among leaders and politicians in these countries of ours.
Lake Garda, 21 July 2023.
[1] See Toute l’Europe and The Guardian.
[2] See European Commission.
[3] See The Guardian. Her statement in Italian is here.
Gianluca Solera 