EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 22.6.2022

SWD(2022) 167 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the

proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council

on nature restoration

{COM(2022) 304 final} - {SEC(2022) 256 final} - {SWD(2022) 168 final}

Table of contents

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

GLOSSARY

1.Introduction: Political and legal context

1.1.Political context

1.2. Legal context

2.Problem definition

2.1. What are the problems?

2.3. Who is affected by the problem?

2.4. How will the problem evolve?

3.Why should the EU act?

3.1. Legal basis

3.2. Subsidiarity: necessity of EU action

3.3. Subsidiarity: added value of EU action

4.Objectives: What is to be achieved?

4.1. General objective

4.2. Specific objective

4.3. Intervention logic

5.What are the available policy options?

5.1.What is the baseline from which options are assessed?

5.2. Description of the policy options

5.3. Options discarded at an early stage

6.What are the impacts of the policy options?

6.1.Impacts of policy Option 1 (Baseline)

6.2.Impacts of policy Option 2 (Legally binding overarching target)

6.3.Impacts of policy Option 3 (Ecosystem-specific targets)

6.4.Impacts of policy Option 4 (Ecosystem-specific targets and an overarching objective)

7.How do the options compare?

8.Preferred option

9.How will impacts be monitored and evaluated?

Annex i: procedural information    

annex ii: stakeholder consultations

Annex iii: who is affected and how?

Annex iv: analytical methods

Annex v: specific targets considered for the main ecosystem types    

Annex vi: analysis by ecosystem                        

1.     Inland wetlands 

2.     Coastal and other saline wetlands  

3.     Forests 

4.     Agro-ecosystems  

5.     Steppe, heath, scrubland, dune and rocky habitats  

6.     Freshwater: rivers, lakes and alluvial habitats 

7.     Marine ecosystems 

8.     Urban ecosystems 

9.    Soils 

10.     Pollinators 

11.     Cost estimates for different speeds of restoration 

Annex vii: description, trends and impacts of the main options

1    Baseline                        

2.    Option 2: Overarching target covering all or most eu ecosystems

3.    Option 3 and option 4                            

4.    Costs of enabling measures                    

Annex viii: background information for potential restoration targets

Annex ix: evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020: summary of key relevant findings

1.    The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020

2.    Evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020

3.    Key findings of relevance to the EU nature restoration targets

4.    Key lessons and their relevance to the nature restoration initiative

Annex x: coherence with eu legislation and policy initiatives related to nature restoration; approach to non-deterioration    

Annex xi: restoration frameworks in member states

Annex xii: financing options at eu level

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

GLOSSARY

1.Introduction: Political and legal context

1.1.Political context

The value of biodiversity and ecosystems has been globally recognised since the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Yet, despite efforts at European and international level, biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystems continue at an alarming rate in the European Union (EU) and globally. This is widely documented, notably by several IPCC reports 5 , 6 , the Global Resources Outlook 7 , the IPBES report 8 , the Global Biodiversity Outlook 5 9 , and the Dasgupta Review 10 . Ensuring healthy nature, through restoration and protection, is essential for our long-term survival, wellbeing, prosperity and security. Healthy ecosystems provide food, clean water, carbon sinks, protection against growing disaster risks due to climate change, as well as boosting resilience and preventing the emergence and spread of zoonotic diseases. 

The 2022 IPCC report6 highlighted that there is a brief, rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future, as the rise in weather and climate extremes has led to some irreversible impacts as natural and human systems are pushed beyond their ability to adapt. It calls for the implementation of urgent actions for the restoration of degraded ecosystems, to mitigate the impacts of climate change, notably by restoring degraded wetlands and rivers, forest and agricultural ecosystems. The report underlines that  climate change and biodiversity loss are the biggest long term threats to food security in the EU.

Furthermore, recent geo-political developments have underlined the need to safeguard food security and the resilience of food systems 11 . Evidence shows that restoring agro-ecosytems has positive impacts on food productivity in the long-term, and more biodiverse and resilient agricultural ecosystems are needed to enhance food security and reduce dependence of imports. The restoration of nature acts as an insurance policy to ensure the EU’s long-term sustainability and resilience, against all these challenges.

More decisive action is needed in the EU to protect and restore biodiversity – including through legal instruments – for the Union to achieve its own climate and biodiversity objectives. The evaluation 12  of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 13 shows that the EU did not manage to halt the loss of biodiversity in the EU in the 2011-2020 period. The voluntary target to restore by 2020 at least 15 % of degraded ecosystems, in line with the global commitment under the Convention on Biological Diversity, Aichi Target 15 14  was equally not met. The overall picture for biodiversity and ecosystems is bleak and points to the fact that the current approaches are not delivering.

The European Green Deal 15  underlined the importance of protecting and restoring nature. The EU biodiversity strategy for 2030 16 set targets to protect nature in the EU, but also underlined that protection alone will not be enough. To reverse biodiversity loss, much more is needed to bring back nature to good health across the EU in protected areas and beyond. The strategy thus includes an ambitious EU nature restoration plan. As part of this plan, the Commission committed to put forward a proposal for legally binding EU nature restoration targets in 2021 to restore degraded ecosystems, and in particular those with the most potential to remove and store carbon and to prevent and reduce the impact of natural disasters. The primary aim is to reverse biodiversity loss.

Other sectoral strategies of the European Green Deal such as the Zero Pollution Action Plan, the Circular Economy Action Plan, the Forest Strategy, the new Soil Strategy 17 , the Farm to Fork Strategy , the EU Adaptation Strategy and the climate-neutrality ambition by 2050 , and the so-called Fit for 55% package all will have a positive bearing on biodiversity. However, policy measures without enforceable restortation objectives are unlikely to halt and reverse the current trend of biodiversity degradation in the EU.

The European Parliament and the Council have also highlighted the need to step up efforts to restore ecosystems, for instance in the Council Conclusions of December 2019 18   (the Council “ stressess the need for urgent additional commitments to halt biodiversity loss, protect and restore terrestrial, freshwater, wetlands and marine ecosystems within and outside protected areas […]”) and in the European Parliament’s resolution of January 2020 19  (which asked to “move away from voluntary commitments and to propose an ambitious and inclusive Strategy that sets legally (and, consequently, enforceable) binding targets for the EU and its Member States"). In its resolution of 9 June 2021 20 , the European Parliament “strongly welcomes the commitment to draw up a legislative proposal on the EU nature restoration plan, including on binding restoration targets”. The resolution emphasised that the legislative proposal, in addition to an overall restoration target, should also include ecosystem-, habitat- and species-specific targets, that it should include forests, grasslands, wetlands, peatlands, pollinators, free-flowing rivers, coastal areas and marine ecosystems, that restoration should contribute to biodiversity as well as to climate change mitigation and adaptation, and stressed the importance of ensuring non-deterioration of restored ecosystems.

Public support for nature restoration is very high and the engagement to protect and restore nature among citizens, and especially among youth, is on the rise. In the Eurobarometer survey on biodiversity (2018-2019) 21 , respondents ranked restoration of nature among the most important actions that the EU should take to protect biodiversity. This public interest is also apparent in the replies (in number and in content) to recent public consultations on nature-related initiatives 22 . Healthy nature delivers a range of services to the society and businesses. Worldwide, the loss of ecosystem services is estimated at about ten trillion euros per year3, more than five times the entire value of agriculture in the market economy. Yet nature’s value goes beyond economic goods and services: most EU citizens highly value its very existence and recognise its intrinsic worth, consistently identifying ecological degradation as an urgent concern.

The restoration of ecosystems is high on the international agenda. The 2050 vision under the Convention on Biological Diversity 23 , the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) 24 , the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 25  and the UN Decade for Restoration 26 , all call for the protection and restoration of ecosystems. 

The Convention on Biological Diversity – agreed at the Rio Summit – will hold an important Conference of the Parties (COP15 starting in October 2021) which is expected to conclude a new Global Biodiversity Framework including ambitious restoration targets to be agreed by the end of 2022. The EU is taking leadership on the global stage to mobilise the international community, all the stakeholders and society at large, to take action to halt the loss of biodiversity. The EU’s Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 is a blueprint to make this a reality in the EU and to project the EU’s commitment also at global level. The nature restoration proposal announced in the Strategy will send a strong signal to the global community that the EU is taking its commitment seriously and aims to enshrine ecosystem restoration targets into law.

Restoration will also help meet the EU’s commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and its Paris Agreement 27 , as ecosystems such as peatlands, wetlands, oceans and forests can, when they are in good condition, remove and store large amounts of carbon dioxide and are also instrumental in contributing to climate change adaptation. Nature and the restoration of ecosystems was one of the five main priorities 28 for the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP 26).

Restoring nature across the EU is among the core pillars of the European Green Deal. It is intrinsically linked to achieving the Union’s biodiversity and climate change objectives. The restoration objectives are specifically spelled out in the Biodiversity Strategy’s headline ambition to ensure that that Europe's biodiversity is on the path to recovery by 2030 and that by 2050 all ecosystems are restored, resilient, and adequately protected. The EU Adaptation Strategy 29  also calls specifically for scaling up nature-based solutions such as ecosystem restoration as they will help adapt to climate change in a cost-effective way. Restoring nature would thus significantly contribute to the EU’s climate mitigation and adaptation objectives, and to the EU’s international commitments.

1.2. Legal context

1.2.1. Existing EU legislation relevant to ecosystem restoration

EU environmental law includes legislation that has a positive bearing on the restoration of EU ecosystems. For instance, the Birds Directive 30  (BD) requires Member States to not only maintain bird habitats but also re-establish destroyed biotopes for birds. The Habitats Directive 31  (HD) aims to maintain or restore, at favourable conservation status, natural habitats and non-bird species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest. The Water Framework Directive 32  (WFD) aims at achieving good status 33  of all EU freshwaters, ground waters, transitional waters and coastal waters by 2015 (with extensions up to 2027).​ The Marine Strategy Framework Directive 34 (MSFD) currently under review, aimed at achieving and maintaining good environmental status of all the EU's marine waters by 2020 and to protect the resource base upon which marine-related economic and social activities depend. The Environmental Liability Directive 35 (ELD) establishes a framework based on the polluter pays principle to prevent and remedy environmental damage. The Invasive Alien Species Regulation 36  provides for a set of measures to be taken acrosse the EU in relation to invasive alien species included in the Union list. All these pieces of legislation contribute to the improvement and restoration of ecosystems but together the outcomes are largely insufficient to address the extent and scale of the problem. Further details of the reasons for some of the policy and legislative failures are given in chapter 2.

As part of the European Green Deal, a variety of initiatives are underway which will be relevant to the restoration of ecosystems. These include the new legal framework for the Common Agricultural Policy 37 , the European  Climate Law 38 , as well as the set of proposals put forward in July 2021 that form the Fit for 55 package, which comprises notably the proposals to revise the Regulation on land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF 39 ), the Energy Efficiency Directive, the Renewable Energy Directive 40 as well as the EU Forest Strategy. Ecosystem restoration will also be facilitated by the new carbon farming initiative 41 and by the law on soil health which is announced in the EU Soil Strategy for 2030. An overview of existing and forthcoming initiatives and explanation of their relevance is included in Annex X.

2.Problem definition

2.1. What are the problems?

2.1.1 General problem: biodiversity loss and degradation of ecosystems in the EU

Recent assessments 42 of the state of biodiversity in the EU show that biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystems, continue at an alarming rate, across the broad range of ecosystem types in the EU. These include forests, wetlands, rivers and lakes, heath and scrub, sparsely vegetated land, agro-ecosytems (grassland and cropland), urban and marine ecosystems. Their restoration is central to ensuring human health, wellbeing and for tackling and adapting to climate change. It is necessary to halt biodiversity loss to ensure that future generations can continue to benefit from the services that nature provides to the society including to a broad range of economic sectors.

The assessments indicate that substantial efforts are needed to put ecosystems on a path to recovery, so that they can deliver benefits to society. The EU Ecosystem Assessment 43  demonstrated that most habitats listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive and water bodies in the Water Framework Directive are not in favourable conservation status (Figure 1). Ecosystem degradation threatens the supply of vital ecosystem services such as food security and carbon sequestration (see 2.1.3).

Figure 1: The share of habitats in favourable conservation status and the share of water bodies in good chemical and ecological status (counted in percentage of number of habitat assessments). (EU Ecosystem Assessment, 2021)

All terrestrial Annex I habitats represent 24 % of the EU land territory and the marine Annex I habitats cover 240 030 km2 (4.8 %) of the EU seas 44 .

Figure 2 below shows the proportion (area) of the EU ecosystem types which is covered by the Habitats and the Birds 45 , Water Framework and Marine Strategy Framework Directives, and the area which is part of the Natura 2000 network. It also shows that large areas of EU ecosystems, primarily heavily modified ones such as urban, cropland and forests are not covered by those pieces of legislation due to their main use for production, habitation or infrastructure and thus do not benefit from the same level of protection, restoration and monitoring requirements. 

As a result, the condition of these ecosystems is less known. However,the continuous decline of common farmland bird species on agricultural land 46 , the rise in clear-cut forest harvesting 47 , evidence of soil degradation and erosion affecting 25% of agricultural land 48 and the dramatic decline of insects and pollinators 49 all point to a need for improvement. Evidence from the Horizon ‘Soil Health and Food’ Mission suggests that 60-70 % of EU soils are in unhealthy condition and costs associated with soil degradation in the EU exceed 50 billion € per year 50 .

The State of Nature in the EU report 51 has shown that in 2018,  81 % of assessments 52 of EU-protected habitats 53  listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive show an unfavourable (‘poor’ or ‘bad’) status (compared to 77 % in 2013), of which 36 % are deteriorating and only 9 % improving. 

Figure 3 shows that large differences exist between Member States in conservation status of those habitats.

Many of the Annex I habitats requiring restoration (such as peatland, forests, grassland, cropland) are particularly carbon-rich, thus offering significant potential to store and sequestrate carbon in the above- and below‑ground biomass and in the soil. Their restoration and maintenance could contribute significantly to climate change mitigation. For example, restoring drained peatlands in the EU by rewetting them could reduce CO2 emissions by about 50 MtCO2 eq per year 54 , as well as provide a healthy habitat for valuable species. Restoration of healthy ecosystems is also crucial for climate adaptation and to mitigate the impacts of natural disasters. For instance, improving the  condition of soils leads to better water absorption and retention, soil retention and temperature cooling. Restoration and climate adaptation are not only important because of the ecosystem services to people, but also for nature itself. Restored ecosystem that are more biodiverse, larger and better connected will be less vulnerability to climate change. In other words, we need more space for nature and natural processes in order to make nature more resilient and to minimise predicted ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss due to climate change. The biodiversity and climate crisis are closely connected and so are their solutions.

Annex VIII provides information on the distribution, condition, pressures and trends for the EU ecosystems which Member States report on under the Habitats Directive. Annex VI provides further data and analysis on these ecosystems and beyond, covering for instance also soils, pollinators and urban ecosystems. A comprehensive overview is also available in the EU Ecosystem Assessment.

In summary, the problem is clear: biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystems continue at an alarming rate in the EU (albeit not at equal rate). This degradation is evident across the main EU ecosystem types: wetlands, forests, agro-ecosystems (including grassland and cropland), marine ecosystems, heathland, scrub, sparse vegetation, lakes, rivers and alluvial ecosystems, urban ecosystems and soils. Their restoration is central to ensure human health, wellbeing and for tackling and adapting to climate change.

2.1.2. Specific problem: ecosystem restoration efforts have been insufficient so far

As stated in the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: “Protecting the nature we have will not be enough to bring nature back into our lives. To reverse biodiversity loss, we need to be more ambitious on nature restoration.” Protecting an ecosystem does not guarantee that it will evolve spontaneously to good condition – and degraded ecosystems that are not protected also need to be restored. The state of ecosystems covered under EU environmental legislation has not improved over the past decade and their condition is to a large part deteriorating.

The EU Ecosystem Assessment highlights the need to avoid further degradation and to restore degraded ecosystems. In some cases, passive restoration, by removing pressures, can be sufficient, so that ecosystems can recover by themselves. In other cases, degraded ecosystems need active restoration intervention to recover and become more resilient. In some cases, ecosystem re-creation is needed when land has been transformed into entirely other types of use, so that the ecosystem cannot simply evolve back (see glossary on different types of restoration).

Findings of the evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 56  indicate that the voluntary target to maintain and restore ecosystems has not been achieved. Further results from the evaluation are available in Annex IX. The EEA’s State of Nature in the EU report 57  also points towards the gap in restoration, while deterioration continues and climate impacts and risks increase. Furthermore, the underlying drivers of soil degradation are not projected to change favourably by 2030.

Based on Member States’ reporting, the EEA has made estimates of restoration needs to bring habitats listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive (representing 24% of the EU land area and 4.8% sea area) to favourable conservation status (see detailed data in Annex VIII). The estimates show that significant areas of the EU need to be restored (Table I per habitat type and further broken down in Table II, III and IV). As explained in 2.1.1, the condition of terrestrial ecosystems outside of Annex I habitats, (the remaining 76% of land), because they are not subject to the same protection regime or conservation measures, is likely to be worse and thus their restoration needs are likely to be higher.

The specific problem is that ecosystem restoration across the EU has been insufficient so far, while ecosystems continue to degrade.

Table I: Restoration needs of habitats listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive based on reporting by Member States (2013-2018). Romania is excluded because its reported Annex I areas exceed the terrestrial area of the country. Source: EEA.

1 Areas of Annex I terrestrial habitats reported by Romania exceed the terrestrial area of the Member State; therefore, they were excluded from all numbers in the table.

2 All wetland Annex I habitats (definition of wetlands by the Ramsar Convention) except rivers, lakes, alluvial and riparian habitats, which form a distinct group.

3 All Annex I habitats in the group ‘Forests’, except wet, alluvial and riparian forests and wooded meadows, which were included in other groups (wetlands, rivers & lakes, agro-habitats).

4 Includes Annex I habitat types, mostly semi-natural, that depend on some degree of agricultural activity (e.g. mowing, grazing) and grasslands.

5 Includes all Annex I river and lake habitats and several riparian and alluvial habitats (meadows and forests).

6 Includes all Annex I heath, scrub and steppe habitats, except wet heaths (included in the wetlands group) and some heath and scrub that depend on agricultural activities.

7 Only includes near- and offshore Annex I marine habitats.

8 This means 0,3-0,75% of EU land

9 This means 4,4-13% of EU land

10 This means a total restoration need of 4,7-13,8% of EU land

11 This means 0,65 – 3,7% of EU seas

Table II: Overall restoration needs, by Member State, of habitats listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive, based on reporting by Member States (period 2013-2018) under Art.17 of the HD – EU27 (excluding Romania for data quality reasons). Source: EEA.

Table III: MINIMUM restoration needs, by Member State and by Annex I habitat, based on reporting by Member States (period 2013-2018) under Art.17 of the HD – EU27. Source: EEA.

Table IV: MINIMUM restoration needs, by improvement/re-establishment, by Member State and by Annex I habitats, based on reporting by Member States (period 2013-2018) under Art.17 of the HD – EU27. Source: EEA.

Condition: area reported in 'not-good' condition: in need of improvement. Zeros often reflect that most areas have been reported as 'unknown condition'

Additional: for re-establishment: based on minimum Favorable Reference Areas.

2.1.3. Consequences/why is it an issue

Biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse are one of the biggest threats facing humanity in the next decade because our lives are directly dependent on healthy ecosystems. 62 They also threaten the foundations of our economy and the costs of inaction are high and are anticipated to increase 63 . Insufficient restoration and the further undermining of ecosystem resilience pose significant risks to the security of supply of critical supporting ecosystem services, such as nutrient and water cycles, soil formation, carbon sequestration and pollination. These in turn put at risk the delivery of key provisioning ecosystem services, such as food 64 , freshwater, bio-materials, cultural services (recreation, education, tourism, aesthetics) and rural livelihoods as well as regulating services, such as disease regulation, air and water quality and security, as well as climate change and disaster risk mitigation and adaptation.

Furthermore, forests, grasslands, wetlands, peatlands, marine and soil ecosystems can take up and store large amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. Degradation or loss of these ecosystems not only reduces the capacity of the valuable natural carbon sinks but can also have the effect of releasing greenhouse gasses and thus, contribute to climate change. Securing healthy ecosystem and tackling climate change are intrinsically linked. The IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C points out that climate-related risks depend on the rate, peak and duration of warming, and some impacts may be long-lasting or irreversible, such as the loss of some ecosystems. More biodiverse and better connected ecosystems are more resilient to climate change. Many land and ocean ecosystems and some of the services they provide have already changed due to global warming. Approximately 4% of the global terrestrial land area is projected to undergo a transformation of ecosystems from one type to another at 1°C of global warming, compared with 13% at 2°C. In addition, healthy ecosystem significantly contribute to carbon sequestration and storage. Although wetlands occupy only between 5% and 8% of the earth’s total land surface, they hold 35% or more of organic carbon that is stored in soils. Yet when such ecosystems are degraded, their role is reversed, and drained or damaged wetlands are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, with current rates of release of damaged wetlands estimated at nearly 6% of global human CO2 emissions 65 .

Healthy ecosystems are also important for disaster risk reduction & control and to reduce the negative impacts, including economic losses. For example, in case of heavy rainfall, functioning floodplains along rivers and wetlands can buffer large amounts of water and thus protect downstream villages and cities from floods 66 . Such ecosystems that act like sponges, can also mitigate the impacts of extreme draught. Coral reefs, seagrass and mangroves protect coastlines from waves and storms. Forested slopes and vegetation help stabilise soil, protecting people and their assets from erosion and landslides. When these ecosystems disappear or degrade, so does their risk-reducing capacity.

The overall poor and degrading condition of ecosystems represents a significant economic risk to society, a problem that is also reported at global level. The recent IPCC 2022 report6 points out that biodiversity loss, and degradation, damages to and transformation of ecosystems are already key risks for every region due to past global warming and will continue to escalate with every increment of global warming. At the same time, climate conservation, protection and restoration of ecosystems reduces the vulnerability of biodiversity to climate change. Thus, safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystems is fundamental to climate resilient development. Climate change will increasingly put pressure on food production and access, especially in vulnerable regions, undermining food security and nutrition. At the same time agroecological principles and practices, ecosystem-based management in fisheries and aquaculture, and other approaches that work with natural processes support food security, nutrition, health and well-being, livelihoods and biodiversity, sustainability and ecosystem services. Thus restoring ecosystems will be fundamental in helping to combat climate change and also reduce risks to food security. Over half of global GDP depends 67 on nature and the services it provides and more than 75 % of global food crop types 68 rely on animal pollination. The in-depth global Dasgupta Review 69 , on the economics of biodiversity, made an urgent call to ensure that our demands on nature do not exceed its supply, and that we must tackle the nature crisis in conjunction with the climate emergency for the sake of our economies, livelihoods and well-being - and those of future generations.

As documented in the EU 2021 Strategic Foresight Report 70 , the cost of these environmental challenges is estimated at EUR 3.5-18.5 trillion per year in ecosystem services from 1997 to 2011, which were lost globally owing to land-cover change, and an estimated loss of EUR 5.5-10.5 trillion per year due to land degradation. There is also a link between between climate change, biodiversity loss, environmental degradation and public health: loss of biodiversity, pressure on animal habitats combined with other factors can make future pandemics or diseases more likely. 71  

The failure to restore ecosystems will also have repercussions for the EU to meet its international commitments, as under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement (see 1.1. Political context), and to lead by example. Also the EU’s domestic commitments in the EU Green Deal as the new economic strategy, including the climate package with strengthened focus on natural sinks, cannot be delivered on without restoring nature.

Finally, it needs to be recognised that nature is more than an economic good or service 72 : and most EU citizens highly value its very existence and recognise its intrinsic worth, a natural heritage that should be respected and protected on a par with cultural heritage so that it can continue to benefit future generations. Healthy ecosystems present a range of aesthetic, spiritual and restorative values to people, as it became particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, which cannot always be expressed in quantitative or monetary terms 73 . Economic estimates can give some monetary estimates of the value of specific ecosystem services, however as underlined in the Dasgupta review 74  absolute values of nature are likely to be meaningless, since without nature life would cease to exist, and as the review summarises: “economics, when used with care, is meant to serve our ethical values”.

2.2. What are the problem drivers?

According to the State of Nature Report, the EU Ecosystem Assessment and the IPBES report 75 , the main drivers of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation are changes in land and sea use, over-exploitation of natural resources, climate change, pollution and invasive alien species.

The drivers are, to an extent, being addressed by EU legislation such as the Birds and Habitats Directives, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the Water Framework Directive and the Regulation on Invasive Alien Species. However, despite significant effort and some progress, the existing EU legislation has so far not led to a significant recovery of the targeted ecosystems. The reasons for these failures have been examined 76 and are covered in detail later in this section. Furthermore, not all ecosystems that suffer degradation, such as forests and agricultural ecosystsems, are comprehensively covered by the above-mentioned legislation.

A number of the drivers and pressures on biodiversity are being addressed to a degree by the actions under the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 together with other initiatives under the European Green Deal (e.g. Zero Pollution, Circular Economy, Farm to Fork, Soil Strategy, Forest Strategy, Adaptation Strategy, climate neutrality), but it is too early for these to show results. They will have positive contributions to restoration but on their own, will not be sufficient to meet tangible verifiable restoration objectives (see sections 2.4 and 5.1).

The evaluation of the Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 has also revealed insufficient progress towards restoration. Therefore, there is a significant and specific problem to be addressed, the insufficient restoration of degraded ecosystems due to policy and legislative failures, which is therefore the focus of this impact assessment.

Specific policy drivers: policy and legislative failures

The main policy failures can be broken down in 1) ineffectiveness of voluntary targets, 2) shortcomings in existing legislation, and 3) lack of a comprehensive and coherent approach.

1)Voluntary targets have been ineffective

In 2011, a key voluntary target of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 was to restore at least 15 % of degraded ecosystems by 2020. This voluntary target has not been met. The evaluation study of the Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 identified, among the reasons for the failure in ecosystem restoration, the voluntary rather than legally binding nature of the targets. The subsequent lack of commitment and political priority for restoration activities is regarded as a key barrier leading to a lack of financing and resources being allocated to restoration. On the other hand, another target of the Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 on invasive alien species that was made legally binding, with the adoption of a new regulation, did result in this target being implemented to a large extent and in benefits that would not have been delivered if they would have been voluntary 77 .

Reasons why the voluntary restoration target has not been met, include:

oLack of obligation for Member States to act: Despite the guidance 78  developed and the explicit request by the Commission, only a few Member States developed the strategic frameworks to set priorities for ecosystem restoration, and restoration progress has been slow and uneven. The absence of these strategic frameworks has been a barrier to the strategic planning, financing, implementation and monitoring of restoration activities. The fact that the guidance was followed by some Member States suggests that developing such frameworks was feasible. However, in the absence of an obligation and of a linked dedicated EU-level governance framework to steer the process and regularly review progress, most Member States did not follow on the commitment, to deliver such strategic frameworks and to effectively prioritise restoration, leading to insufficient funding and insufficient restoration effort. This indicates that a stronger and more binding framework is needed with clear targets, resource planning, monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to support strategic planning and implementation and to ensure delivery.

oThe formulation of the target as an overall percentage of degraded ecosystems: In the absence of an agreed methodology to comprehensively map, assess, monitor and report on the condition of ecosystems , progress towards reaching the target was not measurable. The Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services 79 initiative (under Action 5 of the Biodiversity Strategy to 2020) has made progress in developing an EU methodology and enhancing knowledge on the condition of EU ecosystems and their services. However, there are still significant data gaps for certain ecosystems, such as marine, soils, forests, and agro-ecosystems. This has made it impossible for Member States to assess their performance against the voluntary target.

oBiodiversity targets of a voluntary nature were not systematically prioritised for funding in the design and implementation of EU instruments in other policy areas, and measures of low or no positive biodiversity impact were often favoured in national programming.

2) Shortcomings in existing legislation

The evaluation of the Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and of the main pieces of relevant legislation have revealed implementation problems, reflecting the complexity of the issues at hand. Beyond that, a number of shortcomings remain, since aspects of legislation are not sufficiently specific, time-bound or measurable to achieve restoration objectives. For instance:

The Habitats Directive (HD) sets an objective to maintain or restore, to favourable conservation status, natural habitats and species of Community interest, but without deadlines or timeframes, i.e. there are no time-bound targets to reach favourable conservation status. The Birds Directive sets a similar objective for all species of naturally occurring birds in the wild state in the EU, also without a deadline to reach secure status. Both directives also lack effective requirements to restore habitats outside the Natura 2000 network. The Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives 80 (2016) found that the directives are fit for purpose, but fully achieving their objectives and realising their full potential will depend on substantial improvement in their implementation. In particular, it found that the lack of precise timelines/targets makes it difficult to fully judge whether progress is in line with expectations, and it is not possible to determine when the general objectives of the directives will be achieved. The pace of implementation of measures towards favourable conservation status has been very slow; action has been concentrated in setting up Natura 2000 sites and to date it has been mainly linked to protection of the habitats and species in the sites, rather than to their restoration. The most frequently reported factors affecting implementation are funding availability, stakeholder awareness and cooperation and availability of knowledge, as well as ineffective integration with other policies. 

All in all, this underlines that explicit, well-defined time-bound targets are needed, accompanied by effective enabling measures, including planning, monitoring, reporting and funding.

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) sets out a broad goal to achieve good environmental status in EU marine territories by 2020. The 2020 report from the Commission on the first implementation cycle of the directive 81 concludes that progress in reaching good environmental status has not been fast enough. In particular, the broad goal of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive has proven very difficult to achieve; the reasons for that include the lack of specific measures, lack of sufficiently fine-grained monitoring of specific habitats or species, coupled with a lack of specific focussed targets. This does not cater for, and hinders, the needed specific restoration measures for specific habitats or species, that need to be rapidly addressed. 

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) sets out an obligation to restore all water bodies to good status by 2015, with the latest deadline by 2027. The Fitness Check of the Water Framework Directive and Floods Directive 82 (2019) concluded that the Water Framework Directive is broadly fit for purpose. However, the objective of reaching good (ecological and chemical) surface water status has not been reached – only 40 % of water bodies are in good ecological status. This difficulty in implementation is in part due to the fact that the water body condition is affected by diffused pollution (e.g. nitrates and pesticides) coming from surrounding habitats (the catchment). These, if restored and protected, would help accelerate progress. Another factor is that the WFD does not necessarily require the removal of barriers that may disrupt the natural connectivity of a river/lake system (only where this would be required to achieve good status and with possible exemptions where justified). However, many terrestrial ecosystems, such as wetlands and floodplains and several habitats and species protected by the Birds and Habitats Directives, directly depend on the aquatic ecosystems being in near natural conditions (free-flowing state). Thus, the WFD may not be sufficiently equipped to guarantee such natural connectivity to the extent necessary to sustain these habitats and species and guarantee thriving floodplains. Furthermore, while the WFD addresses all waters in the EU, the methodologies prescribed to delineate the water bodies, which are the units of measures for compliance checks, are such that smaller rivers or lakes below a certain size threshold may in practice not be fully addressed. These shortcomings can be addressed with supplementary restoration requirements. 

3) Lack of a comprehensive approach

Ecosystems underpin much of our livelihoods, yet there is a lack of a policy approach to deal with the broad range of ecosystems in a comprehensive manner. Ecosystems are dealt with separately by different pieces of legislation, which has resulted in some challenges in coordinated implementation. Although there are differences in their objectives, the Birds and Habitats Directives (BHDs), the Water Framework Directive (WFD), and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) are generally coherent with each other and mutually reinforcing. The Fitness Check of the BHD has nevertheless revealed some challenges in implementation that need to be addressed. This is particularly relevant where these Directives interact, for example water bodies whose status depends on their surrounding riparian habitats, and should be dealt with in an integrated way to achieve specific restoration objectives, such as for flood plains.

Moreover, there are habitats/species/ecosystems that are not or insufficiently covered by legislation. While the Birds Directive aims to protect all wild bird species and their habitats across the EU, its most specific provision on habitat protection (Article 4) only concerns bird species listed in Annex I of the directive as well as regularly occurring migratory species not listed in Annex I. For those species, Member States must set up Special Protection Areas which form part of the Natura 2000 network. The provision concerning the preservation and restoration of the habitats of all bird species (Article 3) provides a general obligation which is largely not implemented. Hence, many bird habitats are, in practise, not subject to protection and restoration measures.

The Habitats Directive (HD) covers 1 200 threatened or endemic species of wild animals and plants, collectively referred to as species of Community interest (listed in its Annexes II, IV and V), as well as 231 rare habitat types, listed in its Annex I. Its provisions that are most relevant for restoration mainly relate to Annex I habitats as well as habitats of the species listed in Annex II within Special Areas of Conservation (part of the Natura 2000 network). For those Annex I habitats and habitats of Annex II species that are located outside Natura 2000, there is no specific provision on restoration, albeit the achievement of the directive’s objective would require this to happen. The same goes for species listed in Annex IV and V of the directive, for which no specific habitat restoration provisions are set, in spite of the objective to maintain or restore them, at favourable conservation status. Moreover, for habitats of the protected species which do not overlap with Annex I habitats, the restoration requirements only concern the necessary action to address the ecological requirements of the protected species, including birds, while there is no requirement to implement restoration for any other purposes.

The Natura 2000 network on land currently covers 18% of the EU surface (764 000 km2) 83 , ranging from 8,3% in Denmark to 36,7% in Croatia, which reflects differences in biodiversity richness but also different designation strategies by the Member States. The network covers approximately 34% of the surface of all Annex I habitat types, which means that about two thirds lies outside.

Therefore, it can be concluded that – as regards the Habitats and Birds Directives - the areas for which there is no effective provision on restoration cover all land and sea that do not fall within Natura 2000 sites, i.e. the majority of the EU territory, large parts of which are undergoing continuous degradation (EU Ecosystem Assessment 2020). 

Although protection and restoration of habitats (e.g. peatlands) under the Birds and the Habitats Directive will benefit soil health and soil biodiversity, this is not an explicit objective of the Directives. Soil health and soil biodiversity are not yet covered by EU legislation in an explicit comprehensive and coherent manner. As stated in the State and Outlook of the Environment Report 2020 (EEA): “The lack of a comprehensive and coherent policy framework for protecting Europe’s land and soil resources is a key gap that reduces the effectiveness of the existing incentives and measures and may limit Europe’s ability to achieve future objectives related to development of green infrastructure and the bioeconomy”. The legislative proposal (‘Soil Health Law’) announced in the recently adopted EU Soil Strategy for 2030 84 is expected to address this. For these reasons, soil-related legal obligations will be taken up in that proposal. Furthermore, although some pollinators are protected under the Habitats Directive (e.g. rare butterfly species) and they also benefit from habitat conservation measures (e.g. for grasslands) they are not a particular focus of the Nature Directives. Finally, there is no EU legislation requiring the restoration of urban ecosystems. 

The key policy and legislative failures can be summarised as follows:

1)Voluntary targets have not been effective and have not led to the achievement of the agreed EU voluntary restoration targets in the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020.

2)There are significant shortcomings and gaps in existing legislation to address restoration effectively (for example there are no terrestrial time-bound targets, there is a lack of specific provisions on restoration, etc).

3)Many ecosystems are not covered by legislation, and are degraded, representing significant areas of the EU territory. This includes soils and some forests, grasslands and urban ecosystems. Furthermore, key species groups such as pollinators are not covered by legislation.

4)The lack of a common methodology for assessing ecosystem condition for these ecosystems not covered by existing legislation blocks progress since condition cannot be measured consistently.

Whilst better implementation of existing legislation would improve the situation, it would not be sufficient to address the problem of reversing the trend of biodiversity loss and restoring ecosystems. To address the policy gaps and shortcomings mentioned above, new legislation is needed. This should supplement the existing legal instruments to protect nature, with additional means to restore nature in order to reverse these downward trends. In other words, to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, protection of nature needs to be supplemented by more efforts to restore degraded ecosystems. The new legislation should build on and work in synergy with existing legislation, but go further to ensure that restoration can be addressed explicitly and extensively across the EU.

2.3. Who is affected by the problem?

The poor condition of ecosystems and the decline of biodiversity impacts on the whole of society, through the loss of ecosystem services, which support economic activity and human livelihoods. The World Economic Forum has identified biodiversity loss as the third most pressing global risk by severity for the next decade, after climate action failure and extreme weather 85 . Biodiversity loss has critical implications for the whole population, from the collapse of food and health systems to the disruption of entire supply chains. Over half of global GDP depends on nature and the services it provides, with three key economic sectors – construction, agriculture, and food and drink – all highly dependent on it 86 .  The Banque the France found that 42% of the market value of securities held by French financial institutions comes from issuers (non-financial corporations) that are highly or very highly dependent on at least one ecosystem service 87 .

The degradation of ecosystems particularly affects farmers, foresters, landowners, fishers, the water sector and agri-food sectors, the insurance sector (increased impact of disasters), the financial sector (investments dependent on biodiversity) and the tourism sector. At the same time society as a whole also stands to gain significant benefits once ecosystem health is improved.

The OECD estimates 88 that the world lost EUR 3.5-18.5 trillion per year in ecosystem services from 1997 to 2011 owing to land-cover change, and an estimated EUR 5.5-10.5 trillion per year from land degradation. Although figures for the EU were not specifically calculated, one can deduce corresponding losses for the EU. Soil erosion costs European countries and farmers EUR 1.25 billion per year solely in loss of agricultural productivity 89 .

Furthermore, biological diversity of microorganisms, flora and fauna also provides extensive benefits for biological, health, and pharmacological sciences. Loss in biodiversity would limit discovery of potential treatments for many diseases and health problems. Loss of biodiversity including pollinators in agricultural soils is also a threat to food production and food quality affecting farmers and citizens alike.

Moreover, there are costs of at least EUR 169 billion per year due to poor management of oceans such as over-exploitation of fisheries, nutrient pollution and invasive marine species carried in ship ballast water. 90  

Degraded ecosystems also have a reduced capacity to mitigate and adapt to climate change, so that people and nature will face more severe consequences such as heat, drought, wildfires, floods and other disasters, when ecosystems continue to decline.

However, biodiversity conservation and nature restoration can avoid many of these costs. They have potential direct economic benefits for many sectors of the economy. For example, conserving marine stocks could increase annual profits of the seafood industry by more than EUR 49 billion, while protecting coastal wetlands could save the insurance industry around EUR 50 billion annually through reducing flood damage losses. 91  

In addition, the Nature Fitness Check 92 showed that the benefits of Natura 2000 are valued at between EUR 200-300 billion per year. The investment needs of the network are expected to support as many as 500,000 additional jobs. 93 For example in the forestry sector a first estimate suggests that Natura 2000 supports 73,000 jobs. 94   

Box 1: Views of stakeholders and authorities on the problem, its impacts and drivers in the EU:

2.4. How will the problem evolve?

As described in Chapter 2, biodiversity loss and degradation of ecosystems continues in the EU, and the restoration efforts to improve the condition of ecosystems have been largely insufficient.

Halting all greenhouse gas emissions would still not prevent the impacts of climate change that are already occurring. These will continue for decades, even if global and European efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions prove effective. Studies suggest that up to half of Europe’s land area may experience major climate-induced changes during this century 96 , 97 . Marine ecosystems and the oceans are also projected to change significantly 98 .

Estimates of how the problem will evolve are also described in the evolution of the baseline for each main ecosystem type in the thematic assessments in Annex VI. Annex VII provides a description of the trends of the baseline in broad terms.

The initiatives under the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and under the European Green Deal (see Chapter 1) can help to tackle several of the drivers and pressures of ecosystem degradation, and the set of existing and upcoming policy measures of the Green Deal can be expected to help ecosystems to recover to a small degree, for instance by contributing to passive restoration, for instance by reducing pollution or reducing over-exploitation (see policies and their relevance to restoration in Annex X). However, the analysis of their overall impacts indicates that this does not sufficiently address the problem (Annex VII see baseline) and extensive restoration will not be achieved by these policies. Many degraded ecosystems require focussed and location-specific passive restoration measures, as well as a range of location-specific active restoration measures. All of these are needed for ecosystems to recover. Thus, without significant intervention, the problem of the lack of restoration will continue and persist across the EU.

Biodiversity and ecosystems and the need to restore nature is at the core of the Green Deal, and the economic transformation of the Green Deal goes hand in hand with having healthy ecosystems. Failure to address the problem of restoration will pose risks to addressing core objectives of the Green Deal, including reaching climate neutrality. EU climate policy is increasingly relying on natural sinks to capture and store carbon (such as in the LULUCF Regulation). Ecosystems, such as wetlands or forests, need to be in a heathy state in order to be able to effectively capture and store carbon. Likewise, more biodiverse and healthy ecosystems are more resilient to climate change and also provide more effective form of disaster reduction and prevention. Healthy croplands and grasslands, rich in biodiversity and pollinators are needed in order to assure crop provision in terms in quantity and quality, and without these the likely evolution of the problem would increase the likelihood of not reaching objectives of strategies of the Green Deal such as the Farm to Fork Strategy.

In summary, because of the various shortcomings and gaps in the existing legislation as described above, this will not by itself be able to drive a restoration agenda. In the absence of binding restoration targets and proper planning, monitoring, reporting and enforcement mechanisms, the problem of poor ecosystem condition risks to be further aggravated. This would also significantly hamper reaching the objectives of the Green Deal.

3.Why should the EU act?

3.1. Legal basis

The legal basis is Article 192(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union​. On the basis of this provision, the Union can take action to achieve the objectives of Article 191:

Union policy on the environment shall contribute to pursuit of the following objectives:

- preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment,

- protecting human health,

- prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources,

- promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change.

3.2. Subsidiarity: necessity of EU action

Intervention at EU level is justified in view of the scale and transboundary nature of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation, the impacts of environmental degradation on citizens across the Union as well as the risks to its economy. Coordinated measures by all Member States are necessary to achieve significant levels of biodiversity and ecosystem restoration in the EU. The roll out of the Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 has shown that the voluntary commitments of Member States are not sufficiently conducive to reaching EU objectives for restoring ecosystems.

Moreover, given that several ecosystems are already covered by EU legislation, EU action is needed to complement existing requirements where necessary and to fill policy gaps for ecosystems that are not yet fully covered.

3.3. Subsidiarity: added value of EU action

·Coordinated action is needed at a sufficiently large scale to address biodiversity loss and degradation and to benefit from synergies at that level. The more ecosystems are restored, the greater their capacity to reverse the decline of species and habitats. Working at European scale is essential, for instance for the recovery of birds and pollinators which is a problem across the EU and cannot be solved by only working in some Member States. Likewise, addressing problems at European scale is also essential given the extent of mobility of many terrestrial/aquatic/marine species and for addressing pressures such as aquatic and air pollution. In terms of synergies, restoring one ecosystem has positive effects on other neighbouring or connected ecosystems and their biodiversity, since many species thrive better in connected networks of ecosystems on a large geographical scale. 

·EU-level action allows to address the transboundary nature of biodiversity-related and ecosystem degradation issues, including the pressures on ecosystems, which could not be tackled efficiently at Member State level alone. EU-level action brings effectiveness/efficiency gains.

·EU-level action is also needed to ensure a consistent approach to restoring towards good ecosystems condition across the EU. Without this there would be no common targets of what restoration efforts are aiming towards.  

·Taking ambitious, coordinated action on biodiversity and ecosystem restoration at EU level, will give the EU the necessary credibility to ‘lead by example and by action’ at international level.

·Further analysis of subsidiarity for each of the policy options is presented in Chapter 7.

Box 2: Views of stakeholders and authorities on the need for EU action.

4.Objectives: What is to be achieved?

4.1. General objective

The general objective is that the EU’s biodiversity should be on the path to recovery and that all EU ecosystems should be restored.

This general objective is in line with the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and supported by other initiatives under the European Green Deal. This general objective is at a level consistent with Article 192(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (see section 3.1 above).  The implementation of the strategy is in progress, with a large number of specific actions being carried out. 99  The more ecosystems are restored the greater their capacity to revert the decline of species and habitat types, thereby avoiding extinctions and regaining habitats and species in what is their natural range. In addition, the more biodiverse and better connected ecosystems we have, the greater is their capacity to adapt to climate change (by allowing species to migrate northwards and upwards) and the greater the overall resilience of Europe’s nature to predicted weather extremes. In addition (and as important), the more we restore ecosystems that capture and store carbon, the more contribution there is to climate policy in terms of climate adaptation and mitigation. Ecosystem restoration is an essential part of climate policy and vice versa: climate adaptation and mitigation is needed to prevent further biodiversity loss and ecoystems degradation. This should apply to all regions of the EU including the outermost regions 100 , 101 . 

4.2. Specific objective

Following from the general objective, the specific objective is:

To restore degraded ecosystems across the EU, in particular those that have the most potential to ​remove and store carbon and prevent and reduce the impact of natural disasters; and to restore the broad range of ecosystems in the EU, with restoration measures in place by 2050 and ecosystems on the path to recovery by 2030.

For the specific objective, one should note that:

1.The primary objective is an ecological one (i.e to improve the condition of ecosystems). However, improved ecosystem condition also goes hand in hand with the delivery of a range of ecosystem services that result from improved condition. Thus, the specific objective will naturally entail the improvement of a wide range of ecosystems services, of which climate mitigation and disaster risk reduction are particularly highlighted. The emphasis given to restoration that in particular contributes to climate mitigation and disaster risk reduction was specified in the Biodiversity Strategy to 2030.

2.To define the breadth of ambition and set dates for progress for the specific objective, further reference to the biodiversity strategy has been made. The strategy specifies that the EU’s biodiversity will be on the path to recovery by 2030, and that by 2050 all ecosystems are restored. Given that in practice it may not be possible to restore all ecosystems, the specific objective needs to address at least “a broad range” of ecosystems 102  in the EU. Furthermore, given the dates specified in the Biodiversity Strategy, ecosystems should be restored by 2050 and on the path to recovery by 2030. This sets the breadth of ambition of the specific objective and provides milestones dates for progress for the specific objective.

3.The “broad range” of ecosystems to be addressed is taken to correspond to the main ecosystem types in the EU: wetlands, forests, agro-ecosystems (including grassland and cropland), marine ecosystems, heathland, scrub, rocky and dune habitats (which encompasses sparse vegetation), lakes, rivers and alluvial ecosystems and urban ecosystems. Carrying out restoration of these ecosystems would help improve their condition and restore biodiversity. Restoration of these ecosystems would also typically, and to varying degrees depending on the specific restoration carried out, contribute to removing and storing carbon and preventing and reducing the impact of natural disasters. The marine and terrestrial ecosystems in the EU’s outermost regions (including tropical and sub-tropical) are also included given their exceptionally high biodiversity value. 

4.The condition towards or to which most ecosystems need to be restored – “good condition” – means a state where the key characteristics of an ecosystem, namely physical, chemical, compositional, structural and functional state, and landscape and seascape characteristics, reflect the high level of ecological integrity, stability and resilience necessary to ensure the long-term maintenance. For habitat types listed in Annex I and II the condition is assessed via the “structure and functions” parameter, as referred to in Article 1(e) of the Habitats Directive. Under the Nature Directives, Member States have elaborated for Annex I habitats what a good condition is and how it is monitored in their specific biogeographical circumstances. The result of the monitoring is reported , as part of the Conservation Status assessment under Art.17 of the Habitats Directive to the Commission every 6 years. 

5.Restoration of ecosystems does not require to achieve a certain historic condition (e.g. cities don’t have to be reverted back into wetlands or forests, biodiverse grasslands do not have to be converted into forests, etc. ) but it considers current and predicted changes in environmental conditions. In the case of re-establishment of ecosystems, Member States would be expected to identify (where possible) where ecosystems were lost in the last 70 years in order to take this information into account when drafting their restoration plans and planning the areas of ecosystems to be re-)established. This does however not mean that they have to re-establish a situation as it was 70 years ago.

6.For ecosystems currently not covered by the Nature Directives, good condition will be defined by the EU-wide methodology to be set up in the context of the Nature Restoration Law implementation (as explained in 5.2.2 under ‘EU-wide methodology’). 

7.Restoration not only includes measures to improve the condition of the ecosystems but also their re-establishment, in particular but not exclusively in the areas where they were lost.

8.One needs to also ensure that restored ecosystems and all others subject to the specific objective be maintained and do not (further) deteriorate (for example by ensuring protection or appropriate management). Restoration approaches need to take into account the fact that future restored ecosystems should be climate-resilient.

In order to put EU’s nature on the path to recovery by 2030, the initiative needs to act with urgency and lead to measurable results by that date. However, since data (e.g. on condition) and monitoring mechanisms are not available for all ecosystems, these would need to be developed based on a step-wise approach. This is described further in 5.2.1 in more detail; see also Figure 6.

The specific objective would apply directly to Member States, taking into account Member States’ bio-geographical characteristics, as not all ecosystems are represented in each Member State (see Annex VIII for geographical distribution and condition per Member State). At EU level we would aim to reach the specific objective EU-wide and at Member State level we would aim to ensure that the appropriate efforts are put in place that will jointly help achieve the EU-level objective. Such appropriate efforts are later described in section 5.2.2 which outlines the implementation framework and the requirements placed on Member States for the options considered.

Box 3: Views of stakeholders and authorities on the general and specific objectives.

Operational objectives: ​

Following from the specific objective, and the rationale described in section 2.2, the operational objectives are to:

​

·​Restore and maintain ecosystems to good condition by establishing legally binding nature restoration targets​, in a way that complements existing relevant instruments and fills EU policy and legal gaps. The targets should be ‘SMART’, i.e. specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-bound.

·Ensure that targets are properly implemented by establishing an effective implementation framework that includes requirements for monitoring, assessment, planning, reporting, enforcement, financing and capacity building, and when necessary, remedial or corrective action.

Legally binding targets and an associated implementation framework are considered to be the appropriate instruments to fill the gaps identified in the problem definition because they would directly address the persisting restoration gaps as well as underlying policy and legislative failures outlined in section 2.2.

Box 4: Views of stakeholders and authorities on the operational objectives:

4.3. Intervention logic

5.What are the available policy options?

©GettyImages

5.1.What is the baseline from which options are assessed?

The baseline scenario assumes the implementation of the Green Deal and Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 with the exception of the legally binding restoration targets. Beyond that, the baseline also assumes that other EU and Member State policies relevant to restoration would be implemented. Information on national restoration policies is provided in Annex XI.

The baseline scenario would therefore include:

-Non-binding targets included in the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2030 related to restoration, such as: no deterioration in conservation trends and status of all protected habitats and species by 2030 and that at least 30% of species and habitats not currently in favourable status are in that category or show a strong positive trend by 2030; 25 000 km of rivers is restored to be free-flowing; by-catch of species threatened with extinction is eliminated or reduced to a level that allows full recovery; and a reverse in the decline of pollinators.

-Broad commitments for financing for biodiversity as well as potential market‑based instruments and voluntary approaches to remove harmful subsidies (as outlined in the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030).

-Implementation of relevant EU policies and legislation, particularly the BHD, MSFD, WFD and those under the European Green Deal such as the Zero Pollution Action Plan, the Soil Strategy and Chemicals Strategy, the Fit for 55 Package (mainly LULUCF), the Climate Law, the proposed revision of the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) and the proposed Regulation on deforestation and forest degradation 103 .

-Implementation of national policies relevant to restoration.

For the baseline scenario, we interpret “implementation” of relevant policies, voluntary commitments and legislation as “realistic”, based on expected implementation by Member States and based on experience to date (which has shown that implementation has not been perfect and with many insufficiencies). So specifically, it considers the “realistic” implementation of BHD, WFD, MSFD and climate laws (see Annex VII).

Contribution of existing EU legislation and initiatives (see Annex VII for more details)

The ‘realistic’ implementation of relevant EU environmental and climate legislation will contribute to the recovery of degraded ecosystems by addressing the drivers of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation.

The Birds and Habitats Directives (BHD) are expected to see enhanced implementation towards 2030 as a result of the efforts resulting from the implementation of the Action Plan for nature, people and the economy that was developed following a thorough Fitness Check of the legislation. Following the completion of the Natura 2000 designation process on land, Member States are in the decisive phase of developing site-specific conservation objectives and measures (including restoration) which are critical to yield results on the ground. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) is also expected to see enhanced implementation in light of the deadline to achieve good status of water bodies by 2027, and the Fitness Check that identified some priorities for better implementation. There is, however, little likelihood that Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) implementation will improve towards 2030, as there are several implementation challenges for which it is too early to tell how effectively they will be tackled in the ongoing review. Moreover, the benefits of the review are unlikely to be felt in the short term.

With the European Green Deal, biodiversity has become a political priority at the highest political level in the EU. The EGD sets out a strategy for a wide range of initiatives that have the potential to address some of the biggest drivers in ecosystems degradation. The Climate Law legally commits all Member States to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. To get on track towards this goal, the Fit for 55 package sets the EU on course to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 55 % by 2030 by introducing new and revised legislation on energy and climate. This would mainly help mitigate climate change. The revision of LULUCF, through reduced emission and increased carbon removal requirements for the land use sector, would in particular yield biodiversity co-benefits such as reduced tillage to enhance soil carbon, or increasing standing biomass in forests. The revision of the Renewable Energy Directive and related guidance has the potential of reducing negative impacts on forest ecosystems as a result of stricter requirements for using forest biomass for energy production. Other elements in this package are expected to have less notable effects on biodiversity.

The Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 also contains other proposed objectives and initiatives that can contribute to the recovery of ecosystems. BDS2030 pillar 1 on protection outlines voluntary protection targets. The protection of at least 30% of EU land and sea will help promote passive and active restoration in these protected areas. The commitment ‘to ensure no deterioration in conservation trends and status of all protected habitats and species by 2030’ and ‘to ensure that at least 30% of species and habitats not currently in favourable status are in that category or show a strong positive trend’ will only be achieved if it goes hand in hand with a significant restoration of the ecosystems in which these habitats and species occur.

BDS2030 pillar 2 on restoration provides some aspirational targets for restoration of agro-habitats for which the biodiversity strategy would work in tandem with the Farm to Fork Strategy. This sets voluntary commitments to increase organic farming, reduce pesticide and fertiliser use, introduce landscape features, and improve soil health. The EU Pollinators Initiative is furthermore currently being reviewed to put in place enabling measures with the aim of reversing the decline of pollinators by 2030.

The latest Common Agricultural Policy agreement gives the opportunity to Member States to use funds for environmental purposes. However, all Member States face competing priorities, and the 2014-20 experience of greening measures is that they have made a limited contribution to improving the environmental performance of farming 104 . This combined with past experience with voluntary commitments (as outlined in Section 2.2) makes that significant additional restoration cannot be expected unless Member States are mandated to achieve a certain level of restoration of degraded agro- or forest ecosystems.

For restoring marine habitats, the biodiversity strategy sets out the commitment to reduce bycatch and damage to seabeds. To achieve this, the strategy not only relies on the MSFD but also on the Common Fisheries Policy and the Marine Spatial Planning Directive (MSPD). The evaluation of the Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 noted high negative biodiversity impacts and continuing overfishing in certain EU sea basins. In the Mediterranean, for instance, most stocks are still massively overfished while a large number of north-east Atlantic stocks are fished sustainably. As regards the MSPD, several Member States have not adopted their maritime spatial plans by the implementation deadline of the MSPD. While ongoing policy developments, such as strengthening national marine spatial plans, providing guidance on priority areas and improving knowledge, will surely focus minds on ecological objectives in the marine environment, it remains to be seen in how far they will result in actual restoration outcomes.

For freshwater ecosystems, the strategy sets the voluntary target to restore 25 000 km of rivers to free-flowing state through barrier removal. To help Member States achieve this, the Commission will provide technical guidance to identify sites and mobilise funding. However, broad uptake cannot be guaranteed because of the target’s voluntary nature. For urban ecosystems the strategy commits to stop the loss of green urban ecosystems, and calls on European cities of at least 20 000 inhabitants to develop ambitious Urban Greening Plans by the end of 2021. Again, the level of uptake and effectiveness cannot be guaranteed.

The strategy aims to halve the number of Red listed species threatened by invasive alien species, which is to be made possible by implementing the Invasive Alien Species Regulation. The Forest Strategy furthermore announced that definitions, indicators, guidelines, cooperation and a certification scheme will follow, most of which are voluntary. Without a legally binding basis, including provisions for achieving a certain level of forest ecosystem condition, it is questionable that it will lead to significantly more restoration. The Zero Pollution Action Plan, Circular Economy Action Plan, Adaptation Strategy, Soil Strategy and the proposed Regulation on deforestation and forest degradation will furthermore address pollution, over-exploitation of natural resources, climate change, soil health and deforestation.

BDS2030 pillar 3 on enabling transformative change announces several initiatives such as a new governance framework and further commitments to dedicated funding. However, without legally binding obligations it remains to be seen how much uptake this will generate and how much would be focussed on restoration as such. BDS2020 pillar 4 on the global biodiversity agenda underlines a commitment to the ambition that ‘by 2050, all of the world’s ecosystems are restored, resilient, and adequately protected’. If adopted at the next CBD COP 15, which is to adopt a new Global Biodiversity Framework, it will put additional pressure on the EU to fulfill its commitments and lead by example.

The above EU policies will all have positive contributions to restoration but on their own will not be sufficient to lead to tangible verifiable restoration objectives outlined in Chapter 4 and thus leaving significant gaps that the legally binding targets can address.

Estimates of the evolution of the baseline for each main ecosystem type are given in the thematic assessments in Annex VI. Annex VII provides a description of the likely trends of the baseline in broad terms.

5.2. Description of the policy options

This section describes the policy options. These describe four main policy options: the baseline and three options for legally binding restoration targets that aim to address the shortcomings in EU policy. In essence, these consider different ways of setting targets, either aiming at broad overarching restoration targets, or much more specifically defined restoration targets at the level of specific ecosystems, or a form of hybrid target. These are: 2) an overarching legally binding target for ecosystem restoration, 3) legally binding ecosystem-specific targets, and finally 4) legally binding ecosystem-specific targets with an overarching objective. The options are described further described below in 5.2.1, and then 5.2.2. describes how implementation would be ensured for these options.

5.2.1 Options for setting targets

Policy Option 1 – Baseline

The baseline is described in section 5.1. and assumes the implementation of policies in the Green Deal and Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and other relevant existing polices with the exception of the legally binding restoration targets. A more detailed description of the baseline is given in Annex VII.

Policy Option 2 – An overarching legally binding EU target for ecosystem restoration

Considering that the voluntary target set out in the Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 was not achieved, this option considers putting in a place a clearly defined legally binding version of this overarching target to restore ecosystems with deadline dates. Such an overarching target could be defined as: By 2050, ecosystems in the EU are restored to and maintained in good condition, complemented by legally binding milestones, that “by 2030, 20%, and by 2040, 60% of ecosystems in the EU are restored to and maintained in good condition” 105 . This EU target would be defined to cover the broad range of ecosystems in the EU, as described and listed in 4.2.

Such an overarching legally binding EU target would be established in legislation, and Member States would be required to reach the target on their own territories. They would be required to set up national restoration plans to reach the overarching target. This would give each Member State the freedom to decide how to best achieve their target based on their geographical characteristics and national preferences. The Commission could also provide guidance on which ecosystems to prioritise according the different milestone dates.

Overarching targets for restoration across the EU have also been proposed by the European Parliament and some stakeholders. For example, the Parliament resolution proposes a target to restore at least 30 % of the EU’s land and seas, which should be fully implemented by each Member State throughout their territory 106 . The assessment in section 6.2 also applies to a large extent to that proposed target, given that this target is very similar to the one analysed, other than the percentages that are slightly different.

The option would also include the requirement of no deterioration of ecosystems, to avoid that restored ecosystems are subsequently destroyed or damaged. See Annex X for a more detailed description of how this could be accomplished.

Monitoring and reporting of ecosystems covered by the BHD, WFD or MSFD, could be addressed by the monitoring and reporting mechanisms of that legislation. This would enable Member States and the Commission to measure progress towards a subset of the target. This, however, would only allow for partial coverage of ecosystems that would contribute to the target being reached. For other ecosystems, for which information about condition is not available through existing monitoring and reporting mechanisms (e.g. agro-ecosystems or forest habitats not listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive), additional methodologies and monitoring mechanisms would have to be developed (so that Member States can determine which of those ecosystems need to be restored. The requirement to develop such an EU wide methodology could also be set in legislation. This could be an EU wide methodology across ecosystems in the EU or be based on the approach as described in option 3.

Policy Option 3 – Legally binding ecosystem-specific targets

The legislation would set legally binding ecosystem-specific targets for a range of ecosystems, habitats, or (groups) of species that should be restored by 2050. Targets would be established for each of the EU’s main ecosystem types (i.e. wetlands; forests; agro-ecosystems and grasslands; heathland and scrub; rivers, lakes and alluvial habitats; marine; urban ecosystems; and pollinators as a specific species group) that would be directly applicable at Member State level. For soils, a target (rewetting of drained peatland) and an indicator (on soil organic carbon) have been included under agro-ecosystems. The targets and sub-options for the specific targets for each of the main ecosystem types are provided in Annex V. A summary table of the targets selected is provided below.

Member States would set up national restoration plans to reach these targets at national level. This would give each Member State the obligation to restore based on their national biographical situation (for example land-locked Member States would obviously not have any marine ecosystems to restore) and they would have ownership of exactly how to plan to reach the targets.

The evidence base and methodology for arriving at a set of specific targets is described in Annex IV. This evidence base stems from stakeholder workshops, in-house expertise in the Commission, as well as the EEA. Data and information about Annex I habitats and the related targets comes primarily from reporting by Member States under the Habitats Directive, providing evidence of how much area needs to be restored, that was analysed in detail with the help of the EEA. Other targets such as for farmland birds are underpinned by the farmland bird index or follow from studies, including the EU Ecosystem Assessment, and related work by the JRC, the EEA and the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity.

The option would also include the requirement of no deterioration of ecosystems (the approach of how to address this is given in Annex X).

This option would use a stepwise approach (Figure 6). In step 1 (the initial adoption of the legislation), targets would be set for ecosystems, habitats or groups of species for which data, baselines and monitoring mechanisms are available. This would result in targets being set for each of the main ecosystem types in step 1 (see table below and Annex V). For terrestrial ecosystems, targets to restore Annex I habitats of the Habitats Directive would cover 24% 107  (949 990 km2) of the EU’s land area, corresponding to areas both within Natura 2000 and outside of Natura 2000. Of the terrestrial Annex I area, 182 985 to 536 669 km² would need to be restored (see table 1, section 2.1.2). Other species targets such as on protected species, farmland birds or pollinators would indirectly address a bigger part of the EU land area. Using a stepwise approach was proposed and supported at the stakeholder workshops.

For ecosystems, habitats or species for which data and monitoring mechanisms are not yet present or not yet sufficiently developed-, such as agro-ecosystems and forest habitats not listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive, Member States would be required to achieve a positive trend of certain key biodiversity indicators. Meanwhile a process would be established in the legislation to develop an EU-wide methodology for assessing their condition. The methodology is described further below as an enabling measure, and would be developed by the Member States and the Commission. This would lay the basis for setting baselines and thresholds of good condition for further restoration targets to be established in step 2. Based on this, impact assessments of these targets would be carried out. The targets then established in step 2 would then gradually increase coverage and in principle cover all of the EU’s area. Step 2 targets would be established by revising the legislation adopted in step 1 (see Figure 6). Developing an EU-wide methodology was proposed and supported at the stakeholder workshops.

Figure 7: Two-step approach for ecosystem-specific targets (policy option 3), in combination with an overarching objective (policy option 4).