The deal was finally sealed on a historic European nature law
An 11th hour change of heart by Austria’s Green party climate minister this week saw the EU pass landmark biodiversity legislation, which requires member states to begin restoring a fifth of the bloc’s land and oceans by the end of the decade.
Leonore Gewessler ended a months-long deadlock by defying the Austrian chancellor – and opposing farming lobbies – to back the Nature Restoration Law, which also aims to mitigate climate change and the effect of natural disasters.
Regions with the most potential to capture and store carbon will be prioritised under the legislation, as well as habitats in poor health and in Natura 2000 sites: an EU-network of protected areas with at-risk species or ecosystems.
Environmental activists welcomed the move, with Greenpeace hailing it a “ray of hope for Europe’s future”.
The #RestoreNature coalition, consisting of BirdLife Europe, ClientEarth, The European Environment Bureau and the World Wide Fund for Nature EU, said in a statement: “We are jubilant that this law is now reality – this day will go down in history as a turning point for nature and society.”
All well and good, but I am concerned about the loss of good agricultural land both to so-called "re-wilding" and to buildings like large-scale solar-array installations.
A fifth of the EU's area would be gigantic, even if it includes land that cannot be farmed anyway.
Of course we need protect Nature having spent centuries trying to wreck it (taking ourselves with it); but humans also seem to need to eat. Making ourselves rely more and more on importing food so our own countries can become nature-walk paradises and gigantic photovoltaic cell "farms" is not sensible environmentally, let alone economically.
@Illyria I don't know the situation in other European countries, but the UK alone imports a lot of food needlessly, driven by the supermarket chains. Food we should be growing domestically.
I do agree there is a vast amount of needless waste, especially by the supermarkets who also suppress individuality and local producers, and by households.
Even if we have enough farm land in the UK at the moment, far too much good land is being lost to building developments mostly not locally "affordable", "green energy" installations and self-virtuous schemes like artificial marshes. Even before importing wild animals into ecologies that have adjusted over several hundreds of years to not having them.
There seems no balance, just an anti-agriculture drive by all sorts of single-interest urban groups who seem to want us all to exist on water and imported soya; or they at least demonstrate little understanding of, and respect for farming, the environment, etc.
There are many farmers who do take their land management roles seriously, by planting new hedges and trees, leaving wider field margins, using sustainable animal/crop/fallow rotation systems, etc. But we cannot blame them for retiring and selling their land to property speculators building enormous NIMBY-planned housing-estates with no regard for local pay, employment, public services etc. In that case which is worse environmentally: reducing food imports by maintaining large crop fields and dairy farms, or replacing them with shoddily built, overpriced houses extending London's commuter-belt to well over 100 miles from Canary Wharf?
Environmental protection is vital, but its aims and methods should be considered very carefully, not driven by sentiment and bureaucrats who barely know hay from straw, or a Watt from a Joule.
I should add I am not a farmer nor from a farming family, I live in a fairly suburban area and certainly can't afford a second-home to help destroy a Cornish or Costwolds village - but because my leisure pursuits take me into the countryside I endeavour to understand and respect both Nature and those trying to grow the food I eat.
@ArishMell Extreme weather events, soil degradation, and labour shortages are also important factors in the growth of food insecurity. At the end of the day, farmers are businessmen and want to make a living like the rest of us. Short of nationalising agricultural land or restricting demand, it is difficult to see what more could be done.
Even before importing wild animals into ecologies that have adjusted over several hundreds of years to not having them.
But these habitats have evolved with the animals over tens of thousands of years if not hundreds of thousands. A few hundred years is not enough for a healthy habitat to adapt. What we see is all we know but by looking at equivalent habitats in other countries which are untouched or "pristine" we know the effects up and now the ecological chain.
Not to mention the current urban or semi urban habitat we have is riddled with introduced and non native species which can actively hinder or kill off native keystone species.
If you'd like to know more I have posted a few videos in the Environment forum about the various projects these eco groups are spearheading. It's all backed by observation and science. They are very methodical and they break it down very easily for lay people like you and me to understand.
They also don't rely on clickbait headlines etc, they go quite indepth about what they are doing and why they do it.
@Longpatrol it may have been bogged down if it had been delayed another few months. But this is legally binding and, to be honest, enjoys pretty broad support.
@Longpatrol They made gains in some countries (France, Germany, Italy), losses in others (Poland, Hungary). Overall the majority liberal bloc made a net loss of about 40 seats, but still has more than enough support to form a working coalition.
