Tweet

Sommer Ackerman

Dec 20 • 23 tweets • 8 min read

Right now the Environment Council are meeting in Brussels to discuss the EU’s #NatureRestorationLaw and I have travelled from Finland to Brussels by train and boat to remind them that the longer we wait to restore nature, the more it will cost. 1/21

The EU Nature Restoration Law is an integral part of the EU Biodiversity strategy, which calls for binding targets to restore degraded ecosystems. More than 80% of the EU’s habitats are in poor condition and biodiversity is rapidly declining. 2/

It is vital to hold the EU responsible for this loss and immediately start taking action to increase biodiversity by restoring wetlands, rivers, forests, grasslands and marine ecosystems. It will not be possible to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees unless nature is restored. 3/

The first target is that restoration measures should cover 20% of the EU’s land and seas by 2030 and all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050. The Biodiversity Strategy sets a target of protecting 30% of EU land and seas by 2030 - both need to be achieved. 4/

Currently, EU Ministers are meeting in Brussels to discuss their member state positions on the EU Nature Restoration Law, but these positions do not reflect the wants of EU citizens and are not compatible with the science that proves we need greater ambition. 5/

It is no secret that EU environmental policies are not only inconsistent but often become distorted and unfulfilled, the Nature Restoration Law is no exception. I have seen first-hand how the debate around the Nature Restoration Law has been distorted where I live in Finland. 6/

Politicians have taken hold of the new law and have used it as an excuse for political drama. On top of this, the law has previously been delayed on EU level and agriculture and forestry lobbyists have been trying to derail the law for quite some time now. 7/

I will write more in detail now about what has been happening in Finland to paint a picture of the kinds of national attempts to destroy the law. Politicians and lobbyists have tried to convince citizens that this new law is a punishment from the EU. 8/

The EU isn’t forcing Finland or any Member state alone to restore nature, they’re making it mandatory for all member states because every country has destroyed and exploited nature. This isn’t a punishment, this is an opportunity. 9/

Let me start by telling you the facts about nature loss in Finland: 1/9 species are threatened. 76% of forest habitats in Finland are now threatened. About 1% of the most diverse forests disappear each year and only 6% of Finnish forests are protected. It is really bad. 10/

Instead of taking this law seriously, Finland's parties have spent a lot of time questioning the law. Instead of debating how Finland must restore nature, parties and politicians took the opportunity for short-sighted party politics. 11/

It’s not just the opposition parties that objected to this law but parties within the government too. Finland’s Prime Minister, Sanna Marin said at COP27 “the longer we wait, the more it costs”, yet her own party opposed the law. These are the words written on my sign. 12/

This law is very much needed in Finland. The current and the previous governments committed to stopping biodiversity loss first in 2010 and then in 2020, but failed; therefore, it is important that Finland takes a new 2030 target seriously. 13/

The opposition to this law came mostly from an economic standpoint, which is confusing as not only does restoration have a significant role in stopping biodiversity loss, but the economic benefits of restoration to Finland are estimated to be up to 10x higher than the costs. 14/

The opposition to this law is making claims that this law would threaten the Finnish forest industry; however, the biggest threat to the forestry industry is the forest industry itself. Finland's land-use carbon sinks have collapsed due to overlogging. 15/

Finland says they are committed to combating nature loss. So, If Finnish forestry is as sustainable as Finland and the forestry industry constantly advertises, why did they try to stop the EU Nature Restoration law? Why is their position not in line with science? 16/

The position that Finland ended up agreeing upon does not reflect the wants of the people. Finnish people are worried about the loss of nature, more than 80% of Finns are worried about climate change or the loss of nature and want more protection. 17/

Finland is not the only country to try and destroy the Nature Restoration Law, attacks against the law have also been seen from Sweden and Estonia, I am sure there are also more instances that I do not know of. 18/

Finland’s official position is still that it costs too much money to Restore Nature, but to that, I have to say: if you have destroyed nature, then you must pay for it because the longer we wait the more it will cost. That applies to every EU member state. 19/

Every Member State needs a strong plan to restore nature and not one that will fail. This law is essential for people’s health, forests, climate adaption, rebuilding species populations, food security, restoring waters and so much more. 20/

We do not have the time to lose, emissions are rising, biodiversity is being lost and people are suffering and even losing their lives, mostly those who contribute the least emissions. Those with power must use this as an opportunity to do what is needed and restore nature. 21/21