Finland’s stance on the EU’s restoration regulation has been a topic of much debate and uncertainty. Initially, the country voted against the proposal, then abstained from voting, and now their position is once again “no.” Eveliina Heinäluoma, a member of parliament, is questioning the government’s handling of the regulation, as it seems inconsistent to now tighten Finland’s position on it.
The restoration regulation aims to bring binding obligations to improve the state of nature in different habitats, sparking discussion 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.
Kai Mykkänen, Minister of the Environment, 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 stance on this issue has been met with criticism from environmental groups who argue that it goes against efforts to protect biodiversity and restore damaged ecosystems across Europe.
In conclusion, Finland’s position on this issue remains uncertain due to its inconsistency with previous decisions made by both itself and other European Union member states. The government will have to carefully consider its next move before making any further decisions regarding this contentious issue.