Vote on Monday?

Renaturation Act: EU debate continues

A dried-up riverbed in Lower Austria

(Bild: P. Huber)

The EU environment ministers could vote on the renaturation law on Monday. It remains unclear how Austria's representative Leonore Gewessler (Greens) will vote. Overall, a majority in favor of the law was not yet foreseeable this Friday.

A discussion on the planned EU regulation is scheduled for Monday. Whether or not a decision will be made afterwards was unclear for the time being. So far, the EU Parliament has given its approval, but now the green light from the EU member states is still required. This requires a majority of at least 15 countries, which together make up at least 65% of the EU population.

This majority was not achieved by a narrow margin until recently. If one more environment minister were to speak out in favor, that would be enough. Austria's representative had so far abstained.

What is at stake?

• The aim of the EU Restoration Act is "the restoration of degraded ecosystems in all Member States." This includes, for example, the reforestation of forests and the rewetting of areas such as moors.
• All member states must draw up national plans on how to achieve the targets.
• For example, all ecosystems that are in poor condition are to be restored by 2050.

One more approval needed
Gewessler had repeatedly said in the past that he was in favor of the EU restoration law, but was not allowed to approve it due to an opinion of the federal states. After the governments of Vienna and Carinthia gave up their veto, it was unclear whether the minister was still bound by this opinion.

It is also not yet clear whether Agriculture Minister Norbert Totschnig (ÖVP), who has spoken out against the renaturation law, must also agree to it. The governments of Slovakia and Poland, where there has recently been a change of government, are also unstable candidates in the vote.

Environmental organizations in favour
In Austria, environmental organizations such as the WWF are in favour of the planned law, while the Chamber of Agriculture is against it. Supporters argue in favor of more climate protection and biodiversity, while opponents argue in favor of more bureaucracy and costs.