research
Fact check: Claims about EU nature conservation law are questionable
Dawn in Riedlingen in Baden-Württemberg. photo
© Thomas Warnack/dpa
With the Nature Conservation Act, the EU Commission wants to do something for the ecosystems. The Christian Democrats in particular are railing against these plans – but the claims are sometimes misleading. A fact check.
Renaturing moors, reforesting forests and greening cities: The EU wants to do something for the environment and against climate change and species extinction. There was recently no majority in the European Parliament’s Environment Committee for the “Law for the Restoration of Nature”; the whole plenary session is to discuss it today. Because the needs of farmers, for example, were not taken into account enough in the opinion of a number of MPs, the Christian Democrats in the EPP group, in particular, objected. Three of her claims in the fact check.
Allegation: Farmers would be forced to give up ten percent of their agricultural land, according to the parliamentary group.
Rating: Misleading.
Facts: The Christian Democrats are referring to a passage in the draft law that states: By 2030, at least ten percent of the agricultural area should be designed with “landscape elements with great biological diversity”. This was already laid down in the legally non-binding EU Biodiversity Strategy in 2020, which was adopted the following year by the EU Parliament with 515 votes in favour, 90 against and 86 abstentions. Dozens of EPP politicians voted for it at the time.
Although it is envisaged that these landscape elements may not be used productively for agriculture, there are exceptions: According to the draft law, “productive trees” such as fruit trees can in certain cases be regarded as such landscape elements with great biological diversity. The cultivation of blackberries, for example, would also be permitted as part of a hedge on these areas. Trees and berries are not allowed to be fertilized or treated with pesticides, and animals must be taken into account when harvesting. In addition, brownfield sites could also meet these requirements.
So it’s not about giving up these areas completely. The wording “abandon” chosen by the EPP in the English post, which is usually translated as “leave” or “give up”, is therefore an exaggerated formulation. It is also unclear how binding the requirement is and whether EU states that do not comply with it could actually be penalized for it.
Claim: The draft law would “endanger our food security,” said CDU MP Christine Schneider.
Rating: Unlikely.
Facts: At the request of the German Press Agency (dpa), the EPP refers, among other things, to a position paper by the German Farmers’ Association (DBV). Accordingly, the loss of more than a million hectares of agricultural land is threatened. According to the DBV, there are around 16.5 million hectares of agricultural land in Germany. The EPP therefore fears that food prices will rise.
But there are no reasonable indications that the project could mean that there is no longer enough food in Europe. When asked, the EPP also specified that for them the affordability of healthy and sustainable food, especially for low-income households, also falls under the concept of food security.
There is criticism of this line of argument: a letter signed by several thousand scientists states that, among other things, the restoration of nature is essential for maintaining long-term production and improving food security. Helge Bruelheide, Professor of Geobotany at the University of Halle, recently emphasized: “The greatest threats to food security are all due to climate change.”
In principle, many aspects have an influence on harvests and thus on food prices. For example, nature that is not intact can also have a negative impact on harvests. Droughts and extreme weather, which can occur more frequently as a result of climate change and which the law is intended to mitigate, can destroy large parts of harvests.
Claim: There is no point in tearing down 100-year-old villages to create Moore, says a tweet from the EPP Group.
Rating: Not intended.
Facts: In the comprehensive nature protection law that the EU Commission wants to introduce, there are also plans to rewet moors. However, this is not about villages having to be demolished for this purpose. In response to a dpa request from the EPP Group, the tweet from March said: It refers “indirectly to the very unclear passages on rewetting in the Nature Restoration Act”. In addition, it was a shortened and exaggerated presentation.
The EPP now specified that the Commission had not yet answered where the planned rewetting should take place. Therefore, it cannot be completely ruled out that villages will also have to be demolished in individual cases.
All information on the dpa fact checks Contact page for the dpa fact check team