[ View menu ]

So Much for the Trialogue Fixing the Nature Restoration Law…

Back when an awfully weak form of the Nature Restoration Law was adopted by the European Parliament, there were some hopes that the trialogue will bring some improvements, but that hardly happened. I mean, getting rid of the result-based approach and asking for “efforts” and “measures which shall aim to achieve” the desired results means that there’s basically no way to enforce anything, since anyone could say that they intended to achieve something, regardless of what actually happened or what they actually did. There are also all of the caveats regarding rewetting, and the “emergency break” that will suspend implementation in case of events that threaten food security…
As I already mentioned, even the most ambitious proposals were a huge distance from what was necessary, but what is there left to say when even those ended up being so watered down that the whole thing barely has any “teeth” left? And it’s not even certain that this form will actually be formally adopted anyway, as there are more steps to go. And then, even if it will, when there’s no real way to actually enforce it, what’s the use? Just for some politicians to be able to claim that they did something? If anything, that may even make things worse, since it’s likely to reduce the backlash…


No comments

RSS feed Comments | TrackBack URI

Write Comment

Note: Any comments that are not in English will be immediately deleted.

XHTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>