Land
degradation and nature degradation are widespread phenomena. From an economic
and cost-efficiency point of view, avoiding degradation in the first place is
ideally the best option. When degradation has occurred, however, the best course
of action is restoration.
Restoration
efforts are key inside and outside of (EU) protected areas as more resilient
nature, whether protected or not, contributes to the fight against biodiversity
loss and climate change and to the achievement of key human-related ecosystem
services (such as the provision of food related to e.g., the restoration of
agroecosystems and pollinators, independently of economic considerations). In
addition, nature does not know borders.
This is
where nature conservation and restoration might enter into conflict with
certain economic activities, such as agricultural production and forestry. Cue the
proposed Nature Restoration law, which has sparked an intense political and
societal debate in the past months, leading up to the adoption of the Council General
Approach, the European Parliament’s (EP’s)
Position and, finally, the interinstitutional agreement.
This
contribution intends to shed some light on the latest policy and legislative
developments on nature restoration and highlight possible conflicts between nature
restoration and the Nature Restoration Law (both the Proposal and the final
agreement) and agriculture and forestry to consider whether nature restoration
and these economic activities are, indeed, on the opposite side of the fighting
ring or if, perhaps, they can be reconciled.