The Commission’s proposal for an EU Nature Restoration Law was published in June 2022. There has been intense debate about the proposal during the past year, and its drafting has caused controversy. The votes of the MEPs were divided almost evenly when the Parliament voted on its position on the Nature Restoration Law on 12 July.
21.7.2023
The controversial EU Nature Restoration Law moves forward
Konsta Peussa
Related services
The Parliament first voted on rejecting the Nature Restoration Law, but it did not go through: 312 MEPs voted in favour, 324 voted against and 12 abstained. The Parliament adopted its position on the Nature Restoration Law with 336 votes in favour, 300 votes against and 13 abstentions. The votes of the Finnish MEPs were also divided rather evenly as six of them voted against and eight in favour of adopting the proposal.
The proposal is based on the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. The general aim of the proposal is to cover at least 20% of the EU’s land and sea areas by 2030 with nature restoration measures and all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050. Even though the proposal adopted by the Parliament is lighter than the Commission’s original proposal, the general aim remained the same.
In order to achieve it, the proposal includes binding restoration targets for ecosystems, habitats and species as well as ways to reach these targets. The proposal sets an obligation for Member States to prepare a National Restoration Plan that determines the objects of restoration and restoration measures. The proposal includes both new targets and targets that are based on the current regulation on restoration.
A major amendment was introduced to Article 4 on the restoration of terrestrial, coastal and freshwater ecosystems, as its scope of application was limited to the Natura 2000 sites. Leila Suvantola, Senior Ministerial Adviser, Legal Affairs at the Ministry of the Environment of Finland, stated in an interview given to the Finnish Broadcasting Company that the scope is unclear. Suvantola interprets the Parliament’s decision to mean that other areas outside the Natura 2000 sites have not been completely removed from the scope of application but that the Member States should primarily restore Natura 2000 sites and secondarily other areas. The limitation concerning the Natura 2000 sites, as well as some other aspects of the scope of Article 4 of the National Restoration Law, should therefore be specified further.
The discussion on the Nature Restoration Law continues next in trilogue negotiations where the Parliament, the Commission and the Council are to agree on the final contents of the law. When an agreement is reached in the trilogue negotiations, the proposal can be finally adopted. The Council adopted its position on the proposal on 20 June. Finland voted against the adoption.
After the Nature Restoration Law has entered into force, Finland and the other Member States need to submit a Nature Restoration Plan to the Commission within 24 months, and the plan needs to determine how the restoration targets are intended to be reached. Progress towards reaching the targets needs to be monitored and reported to the Commission. In Finland, there have been particular concerns about the costs of the Nature Restoration Law and its impact on forestry.
The Nature Restoration Law that moves on to the trilogue negotiations is the result of difficult negotiations. Therefore, it includes certain compromises in comparison to the Commission’s proposal of one year ago. The current version aims to take the Member States’ national circumstances better into account by, for example, providing flexibility for the restoration of forest ecosystems.
The legislative procedure of the Nature Restoration Law reflects the impacts of the current geopolitical situation and energy policy issues as some of the priorities of the law have shifted from the emphasis of biodiversity to highlighting the green transition. In practice, the impacts of the Nature Restoration Law will depend on the type of restoration measures the Member States include in their National Restoration Plans.
Latest news
Latest references
A. Ahlström – ESG advisory and corporate sustainability due diligence process planning
We advised A. Ahlström in establishing a corporate sustainability due diligence process plan which incorporates best practices and tailored solutions based on our expertise within relevant business sectors. Our comprehensive ESG offering also included tailored training for members of the investment team and management team and the board of directors of several portfolio companies. ‘The ESG team at Castrén & Snellman provided us with legal and practical advice around the ESG regulatory tsunami that we need to incorporate in our ESG work,’ comments Camilla Sågbom, Director, Sustainability and Communications, at A. Ahlström Oy. A. Ahlström is a family-owned industrial company, developing leading global specialist positions in Forest & Fiber and Environmental technology sectors.
Case published 5.9.2024
Vapaus Bikes Finland – Series A funding round
We represented Vapaus Bikes Finland Oy, a company offering employee benefit bikes, in its international EUR 10 million Series A funding round. The investors behind the funding are private equity investors Shift4Good and Superhero Capital Ltd as well as Tesi together with the European Guarantee Fund of the European Investment Bank. The equity-based funding will support the company’s international expansion, software development, platform automation, and the growth of its concept for the second-hand market of bikes. Vapaus Bikes Finland is at the forefront of sustainable mobility services and has been a pioneer in the Employee Benefit Bikes sector since late 2020. It has been ranked among Finland’s fastest growing companies. Shift4Good is an impact venture capital fund focused on the decarbonisation of the transportation sector. Tesi (officially Finnish Industry Investment Ltd) is a state-owned, market-driven investment company that invests in venture capital and private equity funds and directly in Finnish startups and growth companies.
Case published 21.8.2024
City of Rovaniemi – Former employees ordered to pay damages in an investment decision matter
We successfully acted for the City of Rovaniemi in a matter concerning offence in public office and damages claims in relation to a significant investment decision made by the city. The defendants were the city’s former municipal corporate officer, who was in an employment relationship, and a city treasurer, who was in a public-service employment relationship and acted as the supervisor of the municipal corporate officer. The criminal matter related to the City Board’s decision to invest EUR 2 million of the city’s funds in bonds offered by a newly established investment company in accordance with a decision prepared by the defendants. A significant part of the company’s operations involved quick loan business. The main legal question in the matter was whether the investment of public funds constitutes an exercise of public authority and whether regulation on offences in public office therefore becomes applicable even to a person in an employment relationship. The municipal corporate officer in an employment relationship was charged with aggravated abuse of public office based on her negligence in the preparation and presentation of the investment decision as well as based on a conflict of interest due to the fact that she had invested her own money in a company that received funding from the investment target presented to the City Board. The charges of an offence in public office against the city treasurer concerned his position as the supervisor and reporter of the city’s investment activities. He was also involved in the preparation and presentation of the City Board’s decision. The processing of the matter started in the District Court of Lapland in June 2022. In its judgment given in August 2022, the District Court stated, based among other things on our argumentation, that the investment of public funds constitutes an exercise of public authority and that regulation on offences in public office can therefore be applied to the municipal corporate officer. The District Court deemed that the conduct of the former municipal corporate officer fulfils the characteristics of abuse of public office and that the conduct of the former city treasurer fulfils the characteristics of violation of official duty with respect to the preparation of the investment decision, but the right to bring charges had become time-barred. Punishments could therefore not be imposed on the defendants, but the defendants were ordered to jointly and severally pay the city approximately EUR 114,000 in damages plus interest for late payment. The city treasurer’s share of the amount was 10%. The prosecutor accepted the judgment but the other parties appealed it to the Court of Appeal. Acting for the city, we pursued claims for both punishment and damages in the Court of Appeal. The Rovaniemi Court of Appeal processed the matter in November and December 2023. In its judgment given in June 2024, the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s judgment with respect to the abuse of public office and violation of official duty. The Court of Appeal deemed that the municipal corporate officer had failed in her duty to declare the conflict of interest. In addition, she had failed in her duty to ensure that the prepared decision was in compliance with the city’s investment guidelines and that it had been properly put out to tender. The Court of Appeal also found that the text of the investment proposal was insufficient and misleading and that the municipal corporate officer’s conduct was intentional. As regards the city treasurer, the Court of Appeal held that he had failed in his duty to ensure that the investment proposal to the City Board complied with the investment guidelines, that the presentation was not misleading and that risks were taken into account as required by the investment guidelines. With the judgement, the Court of Appeal took a clear position that abuse in public offices and when exercising public authority is not acceptable. The judgment is also significant as it declares that investing public funds constitutes an exercise of public authority and that the liability for acts in office therefore becomes applicable even to persons in employment relationships. In addition, a key question for the Court of Appeal to assess was defining the amount of economic damage in a matter related to investment activities. The Court of Appeal held based on our arguments that the conduct of the municipal corporate officer and the city treasurer had caused damage to the city. The Court of Appeal increased the amount of damages to EUR 210,000 with the city treasurer’s share limited to 10%. The amount was increased because the Court of Appeal deemed that the city had suffered damage not only in terms of the loss of capital but also in terms of the loss of estimated return on investment. The judgement is not final.
Case published 21.8.2024
Tesi – Investment in Sisu Auto
We advised Tesi (Finnish Industry Investment Ltd) in its investment in the heavy duty vehicles company Oy Sisu Auto Ab. With this investment, Tesi became an owner in the company with a share of 24.4 per cent. Sisu Auto is a pioneer in the Nordic market in the development of heavy duty vehicles. Sisu’s core competences are in the product development and production of trucks and military vehicles. Tesi is a state-owned, market-driven investment company that invests in venture capital and private equity funds and directly in Finnish startups and growth companies. The investments managed by Tesi total 2.1 billion euros.
Case published 19.8.2024