zemeunvalsts.lv introduction

When analysing the content of various legislative acts being developed and already created in European Union institutions, one involuntarily recalls the end of February and the beginning of March last year, when, following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the media in Latvia and neighbouring countries concluded that many think tanks, seminars, discussions, conferences, declarations, experts and “experts” had failed miserably. Another equally important point is that more than one high-level EU official, as well as officials from EU member states, have over the year emphasised and acknowledged a serious mistake – not listening to the Baltic states and Poland regarding Russia. This also indicates that the EU does not always listen to those with expertise.

Why is this important?

Firstly, if there is a group of EU member states that clearly do not listen to experts, to what extent and how uncritically can we rely on this group of countries in other matters?

Secondly, voices are becoming louder in Latvia which, just as clearly without delving into the matter (let’s not even talk about analytical assessment – the owners of these loud voices do not understand such a concept, or pretend not to), say: “Latvia wants EU money but does not want to follow EU instructions, that is not right”... How should one evaluate or describe such a stance?

Thirdly, in our Saeima, there are also deputies who, instead of a precise and clear action plan, want a respectful attitude towards the nonsense created in EU offices.

It is clear that Latvia has degraded, overgrown, dilapidated etc. territories, places, buildings, parks etc., that require work and focus on solutions. But! Still, no one has explained clearly and directly – why we will restore or protect not the restorable or the protectable, but specific percentages of the country's territory. I think that professionals, activists, experts and non-experts alike will quite deftly find and create a list of what needs to be done in connection with the Nature Restoration Law. That is what we should start with, and in this regard, both the regulation and Latvia's actions concerning it should be evaluated – what do we need, what needs to be done, when and in what way. And – who will earn the funding for all this (there is usually no shortage of money distributors in Latvia).

For Finland, the EU's proposed Nature Restoration Law could generate total costs of 13-19 billion euros (approximately 500 million euros per year) by 2050, with the area to be restored being 2-6 million hectares. Most of the costs required to implement or comply with this regulation will be covered by member states, Finnish MEPs point out.

Member of the European Parliament Mauri Pekkarinen (Mauri Pekkarinen) is calling on the EU to provide financial assistance to Finland to offset the costs of the Nature Restoration Law proposed by the European Commission. Mr Pekkarinen, who represents the Renew Europe group and is a member of the Finnish Centre Party, compares the situation to the new emissions trading system that was agreed upon last December and which applies to heating and transport.

“It was expected that this EU decision would affect some countries, mainly in the eastern part of Central Europe, more than others, which is why the EU established a social fund of 87.5 billion euros,” explains Mr Pekkarinen.

The most significant requirements included in the Nature Restoration Law proposed by the EU Commission are: by 2030, 30% of degraded habitat areas must be restored, by 2040 – 60%, and by 2050 – 90%.

“The EU will implement legislation on habitat restoration, and seeing that the costs for some countries will be much higher than for others, the idea that the EU will not invest its own funds in this measure is simply silly. It would be a shame for the European Union if it tried to push something like this forward,” asserts Member of the European Parliament Mauri Pekkarinen.

The Natural Resources Institute Finland has calculated that the regulation will cause Finland costs of 13-19 billion euros (approximately 500 million euros per year) by 2050, with the area for restoration estimated at 2-6 million hectares.

For comparison: it is estimated that for Germany, whose population is more than 15 times larger than Finland's, costs could be no more than 190 million euros* per year, while for Belgium and Austria, it is approximately 65 million euros per year for each.

Ville Niinistö: Restoration measures will bring financial benefit

A different opinion is held by Ville Niinistö (Ville Niinistö) from the Green League. He compares the EU Nature Restoration Law to the goals of the UN Biodiversity Conference held in Montreal at the end of 2022. In Montreal, an agreement was reached to strive to halt the decline of biodiversity by 2030.

Mr Niinistö believes that a large part of the nature restoration measures requested by the EC will provide financial benefits in other areas. As an example, he mentions the regulation on carbon sinks, which imposes an obligation on Finland to increase its carbon sinks.

“If forests in peatlands are managed with continuous cover forestry, they will sequester more carbon. Both the carbon balance and natural values will improve. By carrying out nature restoration measures, carbon sink systems will increase, meaning there may be opportunities to increase harvesting volumes elsewhere,” says Mr Niinistö. In his opinion, about half of the 500 million euros required for nature restoration measures is already included in the state budget. Existing forest-related financial support, such as support for private forest owners for forest management, could also be used for restoration.

Mr Niinistö points to EU funds that member states can apply for to implement nature restoration measures.

Too large differences in figures

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (Miapetra Kumpula-Natri) from the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats and the Finnish Social Democratic Party expresses regret that the figures estimating the financial impact of nature restoration are so vastly different. According to a previous estimate by the Natural Resources Institute Finland, the costs would be 930 million euros; over time, these estimates have been reduced by almost half – to 500 million euros.

“There are many variable figures in the total estimates. That is not a very good way to explain this issue,” says MEP Miapetra Kumpula-Natri.

“And then there are estimates that say every euro invested will pay off and provide eight or thirty-eight euros in return. Such empty talk is not really appropriate for serious political debates in Finland. If every euro invested in nature restoration returned at least eight, in my opinion, for example, it would be worth it for Germany to invest a couple of billion more,” argues Ms Kumpula-Natri.

Finland has more than 600,000 private forest owners who own more than half (60%) of the annual tree increment and 70% of the carbon sinks. Ms Kumpula-Natri believes that the costs of nature restoration should be covered by the government.

“When talking about compensation related to property protection, it is unclear how these have been assessed. Losses to the forestry sector, which is important for many countries, have not been calculated – for example, if the sector is no longer profitable,” explains Ms Kumpula-Natri.

Different views

The opinions of deputies from Finland's National Coalition Party, which represents the European People's Party (EPP) group, are divided on the Nature Restoration Law.

Henna Virkkunen (Henna Virkkunen) emphasises the EPP's view, saying that the regulation should be abandoned. “From the Finnish perspective, we have concluded that the regulation is unfair,” says MEP Henna Virkkunen (Henna Virkkunen).

Another EPP representative and member of the Coalition Party, Sirpa Pietikäinen (Sirpa Pietikäinen), supports the regulation.

“Yes, there will be additional expenses,” says Ms Pietikäinen, pointing out that preventing biodiversity loss now will undoubtedly be significantly cheaper than in ten years' time. She believes that the additional costs that nature restoration would create, which could also be called a “reasonable limitation of property rights”, would be approximately one-fifth of the total costs, though she does not specify the person or institution that would be affected by these additional costs.

“In cases where the costs are significant – for example – if a farm has to be closed (liquidated) or a wider area has to be protected, they will be compensated in accordance with the Nature Conservation Act. Such cases have occurred before. It is difficult to achieve or make changes if you never allow anything to change,” says Ms Pietikäinen.
* https://www.ecologic.eu/sites/default/files/publication/2023/mcdonald-22-Nature-Restoration-Law-and-Funding.pdf