Two years upon then Environment Minister Leonore Gewessler (Greens) made the EU Nature Restoration Regulation possible with her vote in the EU Environment Council, the dispute has resurfaced — this time with Lower Austria refusing to cooperate.

Image: Facebook/Leonore Gewessler

State resists implementation

According to exxpress.at, Lower Austria’s Finance Councillor Anton Kasser (ÖVP) has announced that the state will not implement the EU Nature Renaturation Regulation until its financing is clarified. Deputy Governor Stephan Pernkopf echoed that position, accusing Brussels of setting impractical requirements and working from flawed assumptions. In particular, he criticized the EU’s satellite data, saying it rates agricultural land far worse than areas such as city parks or vacant building plots.

That could create a serious problem for the Republic. If Lower Austria sticks to its position, the European Commission could launch infringement proceedings, beginning with a formal notice and a reasoned opinion and possibly ending in a case before the European Court of Justice, where daily fines may be imposed. Austria has faced this before: in 2024, 53 such proceedings were already pending against the country.

Lower Austria’s demands

Lower Austria’s position can be summed up in four main demands:

• Funding must be clarified. Kasser says the regulation costs more than 150 billion euros across the EU, with Austria’s share exceeding 200 million euros — money that is currently unavailable.
• The EU should honor its promise. Kasser argues that several member states supported the regulation only on the understanding that Brussels would provide the necessary funding, and that this promise has not yet been kept.
• Assessment criteria should be more practical. Instead of a blanket top-down view, Lower Austria wants land use to be evaluated more realistically.
• Existing efforts should be recognized. The state says a quarter of its territory is already protected, alongside three nature parks, more than 30 LIFE projects, and around 250 revitalization projects. Kasser therefore calls Lower Austria the “European champion of renaturation” and wants those prior efforts acknowledged.

Criticism from Greens and environmental groups

The response was immediate. The Greens called the move an unprecedented attack on the rule of law and accused Kasser of using false figures, arguing that a federal state cannot simply choose which EU laws it follows. WWF also sharply criticized the position, calling it irresponsible and warning that doing nothing is ultimately the most expensive option. The Association of Municipalities took a more cautious line, calling for realistic implementation backed by secure financing, yet without joining the blockade.

Why the rest of Austria cannot just move ahead

The other eight federal states cannot simply continue without Lower Austria. Austria must submit a single national renaturation plan to the European Commission by september 2026, which means the states’ individual plans must be merged into one overall document. Nature conservation is formally a matter for the federal states, yet in the end only the joint result counts.

Lower Austria’s size makes the problem harder. As Austria’s largest federal state, its contribution is essential, and without it the overall plan remains incomplete. Responsibility for implementation is shared among the federal states, the Climate Ministry (BMLUK), and the municipalities. Environmental groups such as ÖKOBÜRO have long warned that Austria’s split responsibilities between federal and state levels could undermine the plan unless cooperation is clearly regulated by law.

A long-running dispute

This is not the first conflict over the Nature Renaturation Regulation. In 2024, Gewessler’s approval in the EU Council triggered a major coalition crisis: the ÖVP accused her of violating the constitution and filed a complaint for abuse of office, yet the public prosecutor later dropped the case. Her decision was made possible upon Vienna and Carinthia broke with the previously unanimous rejection by the federal states.

Two years later, one thing is clear: even though the law is now in force, putting it into practice remains fiercely contested — even in a country like Austria, where nature plays such a central role.

By Okay Altinisik | 5-7-2026, 00:13:16