“The Nature Restoration Regulation is society’s opportunity to halt species extinction”

The atmosphere in the European Parliament was rarely as charged as it was during voting on the EU Nature Restoration Regulation. Rarely was a climate of distrust against a piece of legislation created with such energy and so many false claims, rarely was a decision so tight. Maria Noichl was in the eye of the storm in spring 2024 in her capacity as member of the European Parliament and shadow rapporteur in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI). She speaks to eco@work about the causes of the bitter debate and explains why the Regulation could help to bridge the deep divide between farmers and environmentalists.

Ms Noichl, why was the process surrounding the Restoration Regulation so turbulent?

I think the topic was a test field for the new majorities following the 2024 European elections, which resulted in a distinct shift to the right. There is now strong mobilisation along party policy lines in which there is fundamental dispute about regulation and deregulation. At the same time, discussions on the Regulation were framed in such a manner that farming and environmental protection were pitted senselessly against each other. There is now a battle of cultures that is driven massively by the right wing. Conservative forces in Germany were seen – and continue to be seen – as the main agitator of an intense offensive against the Regulation. These forces have no qualms about spreading disinformation and exploit the concerns of Europe’s farmers in a very targeted manner for their purposes. Yet in actual fact the Regulation is designed to reconcile both sides by rewarding the ecosystem services of farmers financially. Of course there are also farmers who already manage their land differently, in harmony with nature. Unfortunately, they did not raise their voices loudly enough in this process.

How can this sort of thing be avoided in future?

It would be a good thing if in European politics, as is commonplace at national level, there were coalition agreements that safeguard majorities. Then the Group of the European People’s Party (EPP) would not constantly swing from one side to the other. And all parties would then be able to achieve results in their key concerns. In our case, this would include, for instance, a European social security card. I wish more stable cooperation – in the interests of Europe’s citizens, too.

You were shadow rapporteur and had to forge comprise in a highly controversial process. What does it take for this to succeed?

You must define in advance which points you can certainly give up, which under certain circumstances, and which not at all. For us, grassland conservation was extremely important and peatland conservation even non-negotiable.

What is your assessment of the Regulation as adopted?

The Nature Restoration Regulation is society’s opportunity to halt species extinction and the ongoing loss of ecosystems across the EU. We should grasp this opportunity in view of the poor condition of many European ecosystems. Majorities have shifted again in the meantime in the European Parliament and under such circumstances many are glad if environmental protections are not rolled back. I take the view, however, that it is still possible to take many small steps forward. This applies to restoration, too – the Regulation is a basis for achieving quite a lot.

What can be done to move away from the polarisation about this topic?

The Regulation could be a bridge. If we succeed in setting financial incentives such that farmers can profit at farm level from restoration actions while doing something that is furthermore held in high esteem in society, we could overcome the distrust between farmers and environmentalists. If in the end only half of the farmers join in, we will have achieved a lot.

What setting will this require?

Sufficient financial resources for one thing. The pricing of restoration actions needs to be transparent and clear. Farmers must know in advance what they are letting themselves in for. Another point is that there must be clear legislation giving farmers long-term certainty. This must, in my view, include accepting that farmers are free to reverse their decision after ten years if they want to do something else with their land.

Thank you for talking to eco@work.
The interviewer was Christiane Weihe.

Talking to eco@work: Maria Noichl, Member of the European Parliament for the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats