The EU’s Nature Restoration Regulation is a historic victory for nature – one person played a critical role.

The EU’s Nature Restoration Regulation was passed on Tuesday, June 18th, by the EU Environment Council, but not without some drama. The decision is historic and required at least one rebel. A narrow majority was achieved when Austria’s Green Environment Minister, Leonore Gewessler, who had previously abstained, voted in favor of the proposal, against the wishes of her country’s government.

The Nature Restoration Regulation aims to halt biodiversity loss and the decline of natural habitats as part of the EU’s Biodiversity Strategy. This regulation helps protect ecosystems vital to human well-being, food security, and climate resilience. Through restoration efforts, the ecosystem services provided by nature will bring significant economic and environmental benefits in the long term.

The process will proceed as follows:

1. By 2030, efforts can be directed freely towards different habitats (e.g., pollinators, forests, meadows, wetlands, rivers, lakes), as long as restoration actions are taken on 30% of the area that is not in good condition. These actions are primarily to be undertaken within the Natura 2000 network.
2. The next target year is 2040, by which restoration measures must be implemented on at least 60% of the areas of habitats that are in poor condition.
3. By 2050, at least 90% of poor-condition habitats must be restored accordingly within each habitat group.

The regulation requires the development of a national restoration plan, outlining the means to achieve the goals. This plan must be completed within two years of the regulation’s entry into force, which is scheduled for July-August 2024.

The EU’s Nature Restoration Regulation lost its majority in March when Hungary joined the ranks of the opposition. The reasons behind Hungary’s change of heart are unknown, but it has been speculated as one of Orbán’s populist moves and an attempt to advance his own agenda. Additionally, Finland shifted from abstaining to opposing the regulation.

In Finland, the majority of the opposition supported the adoption of the restoration regulation, but the government parties and the Center Party opposed it. Environment and Climate Minister Kai Mykkänen (National Coalition Party) voted against the proposal, citing unreasonably high costs in his speech.

According to a WWF study, however, the restoration regulation has broad public support in Finland and other countries opposing the regulation. A survey published in May revealed that even in countries opposing the EU’s Nature Restoration Regulation (e.g., the Netherlands, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Poland, and Sweden), up to 75% of citizens supported the adoption of the regulation. In Austria, 77% supported the regulation, while the corresponding figure for Finns was 70%.

In Finland, the main opposition to the regulation is related to its costs. According to Minister Mykkänen, Finland has a large number of inland water and coastal areas compared to other countries, for which strict criteria and schedules have been set for restoration. It has been estimated that Finland’s costs due to the restoration regulation would be the highest in Europe relative to GDP, at 0.4%. The next highest is Latvia at 0.2%. However, what has not been considered is that Finland is also expected to benefit the most from nature restoration. Finland’s estimated benefit is 4.1% of GDP, while the next highest benefit percentage is in Lithuania at 2.2%.

The original Commission estimate suggested that the costs for Finland could be around 930 million euros per year, but the estimate has since been halved to about 500 million euros.

In the longer term, and somewhat exaggeratedly, delayed action to halt biodiversity loss could prove more costly, leading to an uninhabitable and inhumane living environment, dwindling or “useless” natural resources, undrinkable water, and food that must be artificially grown after pollinators die off. According to an estimate by the EU Commission, every €1 invested in nature restoration generates €8-38 in economic value, thanks to ecosystem services that support food security, ecosystem and climate resilience, and human health—benefits that far outweigh the costs. Wouldn’t it make sense to consider the costs of nature restoration more as an investment in the future?

A decisive majority in the EU Commission is achieved if two conditions are met simultaneously (double majority rule):

• 55% of member states vote in favor—this practically means 15 out of 27 countries.
• The supporting member states represent at least 65% of the EU’s total population.

• In the vote on the Nature Restoration Regulation, 20 out of 27 countries approved the regulation (compared to a minimum of 15), representing 66.07% of the population (with the minimum threshold being 65%). Austria’s share of the total population is 2%.

The decisive role was played by Austria’s Environment Minister, Leonore Gewessler, who voted in favor of the EU’s Nature Restoration Regulation against her country’s government. She stated on her Instagram account beforehand (note: author’s own translation):

“Without pristine nature, there is no healthy and happy life. Nature conservation secures our future. We owe it to future generations. That’s why we searched intensively for a solution to the restoration law and found one. My conscience cannot allow this opportunity to be wasted. That is why I will vote for this environmental protection law tomorrow in the EU Environment Council.” – Leonore Gewessler

And that’s exactly what she did, and thus the Nature Restoration Regulation achieved a narrow majority. Assuming the results of the WWF survey are even somewhat indicative of reality, this could also be seen as the realization of democracy (77% in favor).

Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer announced that he would take the decision to the EU Court of Justice. Additionally, Austria’s People’s Party (ÖVP) announced that it would sue Gewessler for abuse of office. According to Nehammer, Gewessler had no right to vote in favor of the regulation. It remains to be seen what the future holds for both the restoration regulation and Leonore Gewessler.

In my opinion, Leonore Gewessler’s actions demonstrate immense courage, selflessness, and leadership. The decision to vote in favor of the restoration regulation, possibly at the cost of her own career, shows a genuine commitment to environmental protection and creating a better future for future generations.

Gewessler will leave her mark on the history of sustainable development, her courage inspiring gratitude. I want to end this text with Leonore Gewessler’s encouraging and original words (translation at the end):

“Diese Entscheidung war keineswegs einfach, aber ich weiss und mein Gewissen sagt mir das: Genau in solchen Momenten braucht es Mut. Deswegen seien wir mutig.” – Leonore Gewessler

“This decision was not easy by any means, but I know, and my conscience tells me: It is in moments like these that courage is needed. So, let us be courageous.” – Leonore Gewessler

Sources:

1. Consilium. ”Nature Restoration Law: Council Gives Final Green Light.” 17. kesäkuuta 2024. Saatavilla: [https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2024/06/17/nature-restoration-law-council-gives-final-green-light/](https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2024/06/17/nature-restoration-law-council-gives-final-green-light/)

2. Consilium. ”Qualified Majority.” Saatavilla: [https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/qualified-majority/](https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/qualified-majority/)

3. EUfactcheck. ”True, but Requires Context: Finland Faces the Highest Costs under EU’s Environmental Restoration Law Relative to Its Economy.” Viitattu 19.6.2024. https://eufactcheck.eu/factcheck/true-but-requires-context-finland-faces-the-highest-costs-under-eus-environmental-restoration-law-relative-to-its-economy/.

4. Eunews. ”Nature Restoration: EU Approves Law, Italy Votes Against, Chaos in Austria.” 17. kesäkuuta 2024. Saatavilla: [https://www.eunews.it/en/2024/06/17/nature-restoration-eu-approves-law-italy-votes-against-chaos-in-austria/](https://www.eunews.it/en/2024/06/17/nature-restoration-eu-approves-law-italy-votes-against-chaos-in-austria/)

5. Forest.fi. ”Kuka Maksaa Ennallistamisasetuksen Kustannukset: Valtio vai EU? Suomen Euroedustajat Erimielisiä.” Saatavilla: [https://forest.fi/fi/artikkeli/kuka-maksaa-ennallistamisasetuksen-kustannukset-valtio-vai-eu-suomen-euroedustajat-erimielisia/](https://forest.fi/fi/artikkeli/kuka-maksaa-ennallistamisasetuksen-kustannukset-valtio-vai-eu-suomen-euroedustajat-erimielisia/)

6. Gewessler, L. (2024). [Instagram-postaus]. Saatavilla: https://www.instagram.com/p/C8RqsXrNxE4/

7. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP). ”Nature Restoration Law and Funding.” Saatavilla: [https://ieep.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/4_-Nature-Restoration-Law-and-Funding.pdf]

8. Yle. ”EU hyväksyi luonnon ennallistamisasetuksen – ympäristöministeri Mykkänen: ”Aiempia versioita toteuttamiskelpoisempi.” Saatavilla: [https://yle.fi/a/74-20094549](https://yle.fi/a/74-20094549)

9. Yle. ”Itävallassa hallituskumppani aikoo haastaa ympäristöministerin oikeuteen – syynä ennallistamisasetus.” Saatavilla: [https://yle.fi/a/74-20094549](https://yle.fi/a/74-20094549)