Finland’s stance on the EU’s restoration regulation remains a point of contention and uncertainty. Initially, Finland voted against the proposal, then abstained from voting, and now their position is once again “no.” Eveliina Heinäluoma, a member of parliament, questions the government’s handling of the regulation, as it appears inconsistent with their current stance.
The restoration regulation aims to bring binding obligations to improve the state of nature in different habitats, sparking debate in Finland and the EU. Despite Finland voting against the proposal last summer, it narrowly passed the Council of Member States. During tripartite negotiations, flexibilities were added to the regulation to lower costs and give member countries more control over restoration efforts.
When the council voted on the regulation in November, Finland abstained, although this does not count as a vote in qualified majority decisions. Hungary’s changed vote has now added complexity to the situation, as the EU presidency is seeking member states to change their minds and vote in favor of the regulation. However, Finland remains steadfast in its decision to vote against it.
Minister of Environment Kai Mykkänen expressed dissatisfaction with the situation and emphasized the need for consistency in EU decision-making. Heinäluoma believes that Finland missed an opportunity to promote a green transition by not supporting the amended regulation. She compares it to past directives that ultimately benefited Finnish businesses and the environment, urging the government to prioritize coherence and consistency in their decisions.
Finland’s position on restoring nature has been a source of controversy within Europe for some time now. The restoration regulation aims to improve environmental conditions by introducing legal obligations that must be followed by all member states.
Despite initial opposition from Finland last summer, during tripartite negotiations flexibilities were added to reduce costs for member countries and give them greater control over restoration efforts.
However, when voting on this issue took place again in November 2019, Finland decided not to participate once again.
Now Hungary has also changed its vote which further complicates matters for those trying to pass this important legislation.
Eveliina Heinäluoma believes that there are inconsistencies between Finnish policy positions on this issue.
She urged her government colleagues to reconsider their stance and support amended regulations that would benefit both Finnish businesses and protect our environment.
In contrast with other European countries that have supported similar regulations with positive outcomes for both business interests and conservation efforts.