COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on nature restoration
Date: 2022-06-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, adaptation to climate change, biodiversity, ecosystem, environmental cooperation, environmental protection, quality of the environment, sustainable development, wildlife

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 22.6.2022  SWD(2022) 168 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  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) 167 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet (Max 2 pages) 

Impact assessment on the Nature Restoration Law  

A. Need for action  

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level?  

The  general  problem  is that  biodiversity  loss  and  the degradation  of ecosystems  continue  at  an  alarming  rate.  As 
outlined in the European Green Deal, this is one of the biggest threats facing the EU in the next decades because our 
society  and  economy  are  heavily dependent on the  benefits  that  healthy  ecosystems  provide.  Geo-political 
developments in Europe have underlined the need to safeguard the security and the resilience of food systems, and 
furthermore, climate change and biodiversity loss pose significant long-term threats to agricultural productivity. The 
restoration of nature acts as an insurance policy to ensure the EU’s long-term sustainability and resilience across a 
range of economic sectors. However, to date, ecosystem restoration across the EU has been widely insufficient to 
address  these  challenges,  and  ecosystems  continue  to  degrade. Although  there  are  some  specific  policies  that 
contribute  to  the  restoration  of  ecosystems,  there  are  many  shortcomings:  the  lack  of  specific  targets 
in existing legislation  such  as  the  Habitats  Directive,  the  fact  that  several  ecosystems (such  as  forests  and 
agroecosystems)  are  not  comprehensively  covered  by legislation,  and  the  ineffectiveness  of  voluntary  targets  that 
have  previously  been  set. Overall, the  attempts  to  date  have  not  resulted in  sufficient  restoration  at  the scale  and 
level of effort required.    

What should be achieved? 

the 

impact  of  natural  disasters.   This  should  help  ensure 

The  specific  objective  is  to  restore  degraded  ecosystems across  the  EU  (e,g.  wetlands,  forests,  marine,  agro-
ecosystems, rivers and lakes and alluvial habitats) and in particular those that have the most potential to capture and 
store carbon, and  prevent  and  reduce 
that 
the EU’s biodiversity is on  the  path  to  recovery  by  2030,  and  that  restoration  measures  are  put  into  place  for 
all EU ecosystems  in  need  of  restoration  by  2050.   Responsibilities  to  achieve  the  objective  will  be  at  EU  and 
Member State level. The operational objectives are: (a) to establish legally binding targets to restore ecosystems and 
to  maintain them  in  good  condition,  working  in  complement  with  existing  legal  instruments;  and  (b)  to 
establish an effective implementation framework where Member States develop National Restoration Plans on how 
to  reach  the  targets,  outlining  assessments  of  condition,  restoration  planning,  reporting, and  financing.  The 
Commission will review the plans and periodically assess progress.  
What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)?  

There is added value at EU level due to the transboundary nature of ecosystem degradation. Building on existing EU 
legislation,  coordinated  and  coherent  action  is  needed  to  achieve  significant  levels  of  restoration,  and  give  the 
EU the necessary credibility to lead on the global scene. 

B. Solutions  

What are the options to achieve the objectives? Is there a preferred option or not? If not, why? 

Option 1: the baseline scenario assumes implementation of the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and relevant EU and 
national policies, without introducing legally binding restoration targets. Option 2: an overarching legally binding 
target to restore ecosystems in the EU by 2050. Option 3: a number of ecosystem-specific legally binding targets 
and obligations to restore a broad range of ecosystems by 2030, 2040 and 2050 (e,g. wetlands, forests, marine, agro-
ecosystems,  rivers  and  lakes  and  alluvial  habitats).  Additional  targets  for  those  ecosystems  for  which  sufficient 
information is not yet available, can be introduced at later stages based on an EU-wide methodology. Option 4: is a 
hybrid  of  options  2  and  3:  an  overarching  objective  to  drive  overall  progress  supported  by  legally  binding 
ecosystem-specific targets. This is the preferred option.   
What are different stakeholders' views? Who supports which option?  

Stakeholders support the view that much more needs to be done on restoration and in legal terms. This is supported 

1 

 
 
by several views for an overarching goal as well as ecosystem-specific targets. Some stakeholders, including those 
who are working with natural resources/habitats on a daily basis (especially foresters and some land users) question 
the added value for additional legislation.  

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?                                     

The preferred option 4 will provide a range of benefits. Firstly, it will bring significant improvements in the state of 
biodiversity  and  the  health  of  ecosystems  across  the  EU.  The  phased  approach  brings  positive  gains  quickly  and 
broad  coverage  is  also  ensured  in  the  longer  term.  Improvements  in  the  health  of  ecosystems  will  also  result  in 
significant increases in their capacity to deliver several benefits such as climate change mitigation, preventing and 
reducing  the  impacts  of  disasters,  improved  water  quality,  cleaner  air,  healthier  soils  and  overall  wellbeing.  The 
assessment  shows  that  the  benefits  by  far  outweigh  the  costs.  The  benefits  of  restoring  a  broad  range  of  EU 
peatlands,  marshlands,  forests,  heathland  and  scrub,  grasslands,  rivers,  lakes  and  alluvial  habitats,  and  coastal 
wetlands can be estimated as of the order of EUR 1 860 billion (with costs estimated as of the order of EUR 154 
billion).  Significant  benefits  are  also  estimated  for  other  ecosystem  types,  such  as  marine  and  urban,  and  the 
restoration of pollinator populations.  

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?                                    

The main costs will stem from the restoration of ecosystems and their maintenance. Some costs may occur due to 
foregone  incomes,  such  as  to  farmers,  forest  owners  or  fishers,  while  transitioning  to  more  sustainable  practices; 
these  costs  could  be  partially  or  totally  covered  under  EU  and  other  sources  funding.  The  preferred  option  also 
entails administrative costs to develop common monitoring systems, to develop and implement national restoration 
plans, to check progress. Costs would occur at both Member State and EU level. 

What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness?  

The preferred option will generate especially in the longer term positive impacts on businesses that directly depend 
on  healthy  ecosystems  (less  floods,  droughts, better water  quality  and  quantity,  SMEs  involved  in  the  restoration 
activities), as well as the tourism business. Some costs are expected for farmers, foresters, and fishers in changing 
the management of the land, from reduced fishing, or by adapting it to new practices.  

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  

There  will  be  costs  for  undertaking  active  restoration  efforts,  as  well  as  for  purchasing  land,  compensating 
landowners, land users, or fishers for additional costs and income foregone, as well administrative costs for Member 
States in developing and executing national restoration plans. A significant part of the 10% of the MFF foreseen for 
biodiversity by 2026, can be used to support the Member States. 

Will there be other significant impacts?  

The  EU  would  lead  by  example  in  international  negotiations  on  biodiversity,  such  as  the  under  Convention  on 
Biological Diversity. Simplification benefits will stem from the development of common monitoring methodologies 
and potential reuse of data in other EU ecosystem monitoring contexts.  The Nature Restoration Law will also be a 
key contribution towards the achievement of the European Green Deal, including the objectives of the Climate Law, 
the 2030 climate objectives and the EU Adaptation Strategy.  

Proportionality?  

A law with an overarching objective of restoration coupled with a number of specific targets covering a broad range 
of ecosystems is commensurate to the scale and extent of the objectives to be reached.  

D. Follow up 

2 

 
 
When will the policy be reviewed?  

It is estimated that the legal act would enter into force in 2023 and would be reviewed by 2035. Amendments could 
include  additional  -targets  whenever  sufficient  data  and  knowledge  would  be  available.  Based  on  the  data  and 
information  made  available  by  Member  States  on  a  regular  basis,  the  Commission  shall  assess  progress 
towards reaching the objectives.   

3