Nature Restoration and Agriculture and Forestry: At the Opposite Side of the Fighting Ring or Compatible After All? An Analysis of the Proposal and the Final Agreement on the Nature Restoration Law

Abstract

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. Nature restoration, EU Nature Restoration Law, biodiversity, agriculture, forestry, restoration