One of the pillars of the Green Deal is hanging by a thread. There is an appeal to Polish MEPs

At stake in the upcoming vote, experts say, is to ensure “a stable and secure future for European societies.” On Wednesday, the European Parliament will decide on the adoption (or rejection) of the Nature Restoration Law. Behind the nave of the couple, which has largely not yet made it to consciousness, is one of the pillars of the European Green Deal.

The European Union wants, apart from moving away from harmful fossil fuels, to take better care of nature. The crises of climate change and extinction of wildlife threaten not only forests and animals, but also people. Therefore, the law assumes that EU countries will work to restore forests, rivers and wetlands degraded by man; better greenery also in cities; or the protection of species living in these places. Corrective actions are to be spread over almost 30 years, and 1/5 should be carried out by the end of this decade.

However, there is no consensus among the politicians of the European Parliament on this directive, and several months of work on its final shape turned into a fierce political battle. It is criticized by by the European People’s Party (EPP), which is the largest faction in the European Parliament, which includes the Civic Platform and PSL. Now a coalition of social organizations is appealing to Polish MEPs – including PO politicians – to support the project.

Political dispute over nature

During the work on the law, the EPP started scaring about its consequences, which, according to critics, should include restrictions on farming and food shortages. Proponents of the law believe that nature conservation will help ensure food security in the long term.

According to organizations campaigning for the adoption of the directive, talking about a threat to food security is a “myth” created by the anti-law agri-food industry. ‘Our food system relies on healthy ecosystems, such as pollinators,’ they write.

EPP leaders say they support the intentions of the law, but specific solutions, such as setting specific targets for what areas are to be renatured, he writes. This is supposed to mean less agricultural production and higher prices for consumers, another argument strongly disagreed with by organizations calling for the adoption of the law.

In addition, politicians from other parties accuse the EPP of “distorting” work on the directive in order to block its adoption. French MEP Pascal Canfin said EPP leader Manfred Weber had replaced some members of the European Parliament’s environment committee on voting day with those who would oppose the directive – and indeed it was rejected.

One million signatures for restoring nature

In addition to opponents, the project has also gathered a wide range of supporters. Around one million Europeans have expressed their support by signing the petition. Dr Raphael Weyland of the European environmental organization NABU wrote that in eight years of working in Brussels he had not seen such mobilization and support from ‘hundreds of companies and thousands of scientists’.

The Polish 10% Coalition, which brings together leading organizations dealing with nature and climate, emphasizes that nature restoration is “a key and profitable investment in food security, climate change resilience and the health and well-being of European societies.” And at the moment – they inform – the vast majority of valuable nature is not properly protected. Speaking of “investment” in nature, they refer to the estimates of the European Commission, according to which every euro spent on nature restoration brings a return of 8 to 38 euros of benefits.

Organizations associated in the 10% Coalition appeal to “all political parties whose representatives sit in the EU Parliament, for support of the law on the restoration of natural resources“. It will be their opinion test before the parliamentary electionswhich will show “whether parties care about the future of Polish women and men and whether they act in accordance with their election declarations”. In turn, a journalist – who himself talks about environmental problems, such as deforestation in Poland – to convince PO MEPs to vote for the law, even against the EPP guidelines.