Finland first voted “no” in the restoration regulation, then abstained from voting and now the position is “no” again.
Member of Parliament of the Social Democrats Eveliina Heinäluoma wonders about the Finnish government’s actions in handling the EU’s restoration regulation.
In his opinion, it is inconsistent that Finland is now planning to tighten its position on the regulation.
The restoration regulation, which has sparked a lot of discussion in Finland, is intended to bring binding obligations to improve the state of nature in different habitats.
Finland voted against the proposal last summer, when the Council of Member States formed its position on it. However, the regulation narrowly passed the council at the time.
A political agreement was reached on the content of the regulation in the tripartite negotiations between the Council of Member States, the European Parliament and the EU Commission in November. In them, various flexibilities were added to the regulation, which bring down the costs of the regulation and give the member countries power over how restoration is carried out.
When the council voted for the approval of the so-called trilogy negotiation result for the first time in November, Finland abstained from voting. Absent voting is, however, considered a non-vote in the Council’s qualified majority decisions.
Usually, the second round of voting in a trilogy is just a formality. This time, however, Hungary has shuffled the deck, as it has changed its yes vote to a no vote.
Now the EU presidency, Belgium, is trying to find member states that could change their minds and vote in favor of the regulation in order to get it through.
Finland does not intend to do this. Minister of the Environment Kai Mykkänen According to (kok), Finland intends to vote against the regulation.
So Finland’s position has been first no, then nothing, and finally no again.
Mykkänen stated on Monday that, according to him, it is, however, an “unsatisfactory situation” that we are in the middle of surprises in the last stage of the legislative process.
“In terms of the coherence and operational capability of EU decision-making, one should be able to trust that when the trilogy agreement has been reached, it will be valid,” Mykkänen said.
Heinäluoma interprets Mykkänen’s statement as meaning that the government would have wanted the restoration decree to go forward in its amended form and not fall.
“It seems that the coalition should now decide whether it wants to genuinely promote the green transition,” says Heinäluoma.
In his opinion, during the trilogy negotiations, the regulation included so many of the flexibility that Finland wanted that Finland would have good reasons to vote in favor of the regulation.
“This tightened line is surprising. Mykkänen calls for consistency from the EU. I demand consistency from Finland itself.”
Heinäluoma compares the restoration regulation to the EU’s sulfur directive, which entered into force in 2015. It concerns the sulfur content of ships’ fuel. The directive once received a lot of criticism from the Finnish business community.
“At the time, there were terrible scares that it would be terribly expensive for Finland. However, the end result was good for everyone. Baltic Sea emissions were reduced, health improved. Finnish companies gained a competitive advantage from being at the forefront.”