Brussels, 08 June 2023
Interinstitutional files:
2022/0195 (COD)
WK 7591/2023 INIT
LIMITE
ENV
CLIMA
FORETS
AGRI
POLMAR
CODEC
This is a paper intended for a specific community of recipients. Handling and
further distribution are under the sole responsibility of community members.
INFORMATION
From:
General Secretariat of the Council
To:
Working Party on the Environment
Subject:
Nature Restoration Regulation: Non-Paper from the Commission
Delegations will find attached a Non-Paper from the Commission, as a contribution to the ongoing
discussions on the proposal for a Nature Restoration Regulation, outlining possible ways forward,
including on the provisions which were highlighted as potentially limiting different economic activities.
WK 7591/2023 INIT
LIMITE
EN
NON-PAPER ON THE NATURE RESTORATION LAW (NRL)
June 2023
The Commission proposed on 22 June 2022 a
Regulation on nature restoration (NRL). The
proposal will contribute to the long-term and sustained recovery of nature across the EU’s land
and sea areas and to achieving Union climate mitigation and climate adaptation objectives.
The Nature Restoration proposal is the flagship proposal of the biodiversity pillar of the European
Green Deal. It has strong interlinkages with the EU’s climate mitigation agenda and the Fit for 55
package, in particular the obligation under the EU Climate Law to enhance removals by natural
sinks and the obligations under the LULUCF legislation.
Nature Restoration is also a
conditio sine qua non for climate adaptation. It is essential for
enhancing the productivity and resilience of forest and agricultural land, which is already severely
threatened by the growing impacts of climate change in almost all parts of Europe, with droughts,
fires and degraded soils that risk food production and livelihoods, especially in rural areas. The
proposal also addresses urban greening to lower temperatures, cooling needs and energy bills in
cities, as well as floodplain and river restoration, which helps to reduce the negative impacts of
floods on European citizens and businesses.
The NRL proposal is key to delivering on EU’s global biodiversity commitments agreed at COP15
in Kunming/Montreal in December 2022, in particular the commitment on ecosystem restoration.
The EU was instrumental in achieving an ambitious result at COP15 and is expected to
demonstrate global leadership also during the implementation phase.
The NRL proposal is based on a thorough impact assessment, which is the result of broad
consultations and data collection, as prescribed by the Commission Better Regulation guidelines1.
In addition, as it announced at the time of adopting the proposal, the Commission has since
published a study into the drivers of food security2, which underlines that climate change and
biodiversity loss are the biggest threats to our food security, in Europe and across the world, further
demonstrating the need for ecosystem restoration. The
Commission will soon also make
available additional information and data, in particular on the link between nature
restoration, food security and the resilience of food production.
Restoring nature as provided in the NRL proposal would lead to
strong economic benefits: every
euro invested is estimated to result in at least 8 euro in benefits. According to the World
Economic Forum, over half of the world’s GDP depends on healthy nature. Many EU companies
are heavily and directly dependent on ecosystem services: the food and beverages, construction
and tourism sectors are obvious examples.
It is important to note that the
NRL does not impose the creation of new protected areas. While
nature restoration will have to take place in the existing protected areas that are not in a good
ecological condition,
restoration measures can go very well hand-in-hand with economic
activity.
1 The Impact Assessment on the proposal can be found here
: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/nature-
restoration-law_en
2
Analysis of main drivers on food security (europa.eu)
1
Several key developments have taken place since the Commission presented the NRL proposal.
To support the inter-institutional discussions, the Commission can envisage the following way
forward.
Way forward
Since the adoption of the proposal in June 2022, the Commission has engaged with the co-
legislators at technical and political level and has clearly signalled that – in line with its institutional
role during the legislative process – it is fully committed to constructively help to find viable
solutions to the issues raised. In the meetings of the Council Working Party
on Environment,
Member States have highlighted several points for clarification and possible modifications. Similar
points were raised in the amendments tabled in the European Parliament’s ENVI, AGRI and PECH
committees.
As a contribution to the ongoing debate of the co-legislators,
this non-paper outlines possible
avenues for moving forward, as a basis for further discussions, specifically on those provisions
that have been highlighted as potentially limiting the possibility of Member States to develop
economic activities. Those concern:
•
EU targets: The Commission proposal was presented shortly before the international
agreement on the Global Biodiversity Framework - which includes a target on nature
restoration (Target 2) - was reached. To fully reflect the international ambition and clarify
that the NRL is the main piece of legislation to implement at EU level the agreed international
target on nature restoration, the Commission is open to align the wording of the NRL 2030
target to the wording of the internationally agreed target.
•
Non-deterioration: Concerns have been voiced that the provisions requiring the non-
deterioration of habitat types could create issues for future developments, e.g. for housing,
renewable energy or other socio-economic activities, especially in densely populated areas.
On this important issue, the Commission would like to highlight that:
o The NRL proposal includes clear exceptions from the non-deterioration principle,
among which an exception for projects “of overriding public interest for which no
less damaging alternative solutions are available, to be determined on a case by case
basis”.
o The obligation set out in NRL for areas outside Natura 2000 is less strict than the
existing obligation that applies to Natura 2000 sites under the Habitats Directive, as
NRL requires neither an appropriate assessment for projects of overriding public
interest (OPI) nor any compensation for those OPI projects that lead to deterioration.
o The non-deterioration provisions can be reformulated to make the obligation effort-
based, i.e. requiring efforts by the Member States (putting in place measures) but not
a specific outcome (ensuring effective non-deterioration) and to specify that regional
and local specificities are to be taken into account by the Commission when assessing
the national restoration plans.
•
Alignment with RED III and the goal of accelerating the deployment of renewables:
Questions have been raised about the compatibility of certain provisions of the NRL proposal
2
with the EU renewable energy targets. Renewables deployment is a key priority of the EU
and lies at the heart of the European Green Deal. The fast deployment of renewable energy
has been defined as a key priority not only to achieve climate targets but also to become
independent from Russian fossil fuels3.
The NRL proposal is neither an alternative to nor in conflict with the deployment of
renewables. To the contrary, renewables deployment could in many cases reinforce nature
restoration and improve biodiversity. For example, offshore wind installations can offer space
where fish stocks recover, and can be combined with food production from sustainable
aquaculture; submerged parts of wind turbine structures act as artificial reefs, providing new
habitats for marine life; solar farms can be combined with wildflower meadow vegetation to
support the restoration of bees and other pollinators. This has also been highlighted by
industry representatives in public letters. NRL encourages such positive practices and
synergies between renewable energy projects and restoration. However, it does in no way
mandate any specific practices, nor does it change the agreed approach under RED III to
accelerate permitting and renewable energy deployment. To further clarify this and address
the concerns raised by Member States and Members of the European Parliament, the
following options could be considered:
o The overriding public interest provision under RED III, which aims at facilitating the
fulfilment of one of the conditions set out in specific EU environmental legislation by
establishing a presumption of overriding public interest for renewable energy
projects, refers to the Habitats, Birds and Water Framework Directives. The same
provision on the overriding public interest of renewables deployment can be explicitly
included in NRL and hence, established for NRL as well.
o The Commission is ready to clarify how the planning of restoration activities can be
consistent with the possibility to designate areas subject to restoration measures also
as renewables acceleration areas or dedicated grid areas.
o The Commission is also ready to help ensure that the deployment of offshore
installations is not hindered by the restoration of soft sediment habitat types (Group
7). This could be achieved by lowering the ambition of the restoration targets for this
group of habitat types, provided that the achievement of the existing obligations under
the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive is not prevented.
•
Alignment with the Critical Raw Materials Act: Critical raw materials are crucial for the
green and digital transitions, and the Commission has recently presented a proposal for a
Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA), which aims to secure a sustainable and competitive
critical raw materials value chain in Europe. The CRMA proposal aims in particular to ensure
an acceleration of projects’ approval for critical raw materials while providing environmental
safeguards.
3 Much has been achieved to speed up permitting and renewable energy deployment since the NRL proposal was
tabled in June 2022. The Council adopted the Emergency Regulation under Article 122 TEU, and political
agreement on the revised Renewable Energy Directive (RED III) was found.
3
As the CRMA was proposed after the NRL, and to increase policy coherence and clarity, the
Commission is open to reflecting those CRMA priorities and goals in NRL and to considering
including dedicated language in the NRL proposal, in line with the CRMA proposal.
•
Urban ecosystems: The proposed NRL urban greening targets, inspired by the good
practices of many European cities, are important to adapt cities to the impacts of climate
change by lowering temperatures and reducing urban heat island effects. The targets aim to
ensure that more green is integrated to urban development to provide a healthier, cleaner and
more enjoyable living environment to the 40% of EU citizens that live in cities. Electricity
costs for cooling would also go down, given the temperature-lowering effect of urban green.
While the proposal already includes several flexibilities, the Commission is ready to consider
further flexibility to better address large divergences within and between Member States
regarding urban green, notably in relation to those towns or cities that already have very large
green areas. This could be achieved by setting a threshold above which such towns or cities
would not count for the purposes of applying the no-net-loss provision. In addition, the
Commission is ready to consider replacing the quantified targets with an obligation to ensure
increasing trends for both urban green space and tree canopy cover at national level.
•
Reference to 10% of high-diversity landscape features on agricultural land: The
Commission would like to clarify a number of elements and provide possible options to
address the concerns raised in relation to the reference made in NRL to 10% high-diversity
landscape features:
o High-diversity landscape features as defined in NRL are particularly important for the
resilience and adaptation of agricultural land, and for ensuring long-term agricultural
production in the context of climate change. Such landscape features prevent soil
erosion, reduce wind speed, help retain water and nutrients in soil, and help build
resilience against floods, droughts, landslides and mudslides. They also provide
habitats for pollinators and pest predators, enabling pollination and biological pest
control.
o The definition proposed in NRL allows to count in productive elements, such as fruit
and nut trees.
o The figure of 10% landscape features in NRL is not a mandatory target, neither for
individual Member States, nor at farm level, and hence there is no obligation at all for
individual farmers to take 10% of their land out of production. It is mentioned in NRL
only as a benchmark referring to the EU-level political objective set in the EU
Biodiversity Strategy for 2030.
o Member States would only be asked to increase the share of agricultural land with
high-diversity landscape features at national level until a satisfactory level is reached.
Member States would define themselves, in their national restoration plans, the
satisfactory level they aim to achieve, and that level could be below 10%.
o Already today, Member States have different ambition levels on landscape features.
On the basis of all national restoration plans, the Commission would be able to assess
whether, when putting all plans together, the EU as a whole would reach the 10%
4
political goal or not. Since this is a benchmark, not reaching it could not be held
against any individual Member State or farm.
o The Commission is ready to consider further flexibility for Member States by:
▪ Allowing them to complement the proposed monitoring method (LUCAS land
survey) with their own methods, thereby better capturing the productive
elements that fall under the NRL definition. In addition, it will important to
regularly update the LUCAS methodology to enhance the reliability of the
data, and the Commission is committed to doing it.
▪ Listing in an exhaustive manner the high number of features that would count
towards the EU-wide goal.
▪ Acknowledging that if a productive use of landscape features is necessary for
the preservation of biodiversity, such features could nevertheless count
towards the target.
▪ Should co-legislators ask for it, considering the deletion of the reference to
10%, as it is a political EU-level objective already established in the EU
Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, and the Commission could assess progress
towards its achievement even in the absence of NRL provision.
•
Restoration of drained peatlands: The proposed
NRL targets on restoring and rewetting
organic soils are strongly interlinked with the EU’s climate commitments, as they have a high
potential to reduce GHG emissions. Regarding agricultural land, restoring drained peatlands
is one of the most cost-effective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the
agricultural sector, and it provides simultaneously important biodiversity benefits.
While constituting a relatively small portion of all agricultural areas (roughly 3% of EU
agricultural area), drained peatlands under agricultural use cause 25% of the GHG emissions
of the EU’s agricultural sector. Calculations show that restoration activities on agricultural
land could – at EU level – generate more than half the effort required to meet the agreed
LULUCF targets for 2030. Conversely, doing nothing on such drained peatlands would pose
a serious risk to or even prevent the achievement of EU and national LULUCF objectives.
At the same time, when developing the NRL proposal the Commission recognised that some
regions and some Member States have a higher percentage of drained peatland under
agricultural use than others. This requires flexibilities to avoid any disproportionate impacts
on the most affected Member States or areas. That is why the NRL proposal includes two
flexibilities to allow Member States to restore and partially rewet drained peatland in other
relevant areas, such as peat extraction sites and or other land uses, instead of agricultural land.
The peatland targets are also aligned with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The 2023-
27 period introduced a new GAEC standard on the protection of wetlands and peatlands,
requiring Member States to identify land management practices that avoid carbon release,
such as low tillage, a ban on the conversion of wetlands and peatlands, or a ban on the
drainage or burning and extraction of peatland.
5
Taking those elements into account, the Commission:
o is ready to consider further flexibility, e.g. by increasing the share of drained peatlands
that can be rewetted on land that is not under agricultural use;
o fully recognises the importance of involving farmers and landowners and making
rewetting economically attractive for them, including through financial support,
recognising the high value of the ecosystem services provided, as well as through new
business models and income possibilities such as carbon farming.
•
Funding and financial compensations: Both the European Parliament and the Council have
raised the need for additional financing for restoration, notably through a dedicated fund on
nature restoration. Concerns have also been raised on the need for the proposal to be more
explicit on financial compensations, in particular for farmers or foresters, in case the
restoration measures negatively impact their activities. The Commission would like to point
out that:
o Farmers, fishers, foresters and other land owners and managers are not expected to bear
the costs of nature restoration. To the contrary, those who will contribute to reaching
the targets should not only be compensated, but be rewarded for the high value of the
ecosystem services they will provide.
o Funding needs for EU nature restoration have been estimated at EUR 6-8 billion per
year. Several opportunities are available at the EU level. In particular, the co-legislators
have decided that the CAP 2023-2027 (EUR 387 billion) must support interventions
fulfilling its nine specific objectives, among which to ‘contribute to the protection of
biodiversity, enhance ecosystem services and preserve habitats and landscapes’. The
CAP should, therefore, work in synergy with restoration efforts.
o Moreover, the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund, the Programme for
the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE), the European Regional Development
Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the Just Transition Fund, as well as Horizon Europe and
InvestEU, likewise support nature restoration.
o The Recovery and Resilience Facility is a further source of funding for the protection
and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems.
o Overall, the EU agreed to dedicate 7.5% in 2024 and 10% in 2026 and 2027 of annual
spending under the current Multiannual Financial Framework to biodiversity
objectives, including nature restoration. The EU (draft) budgets are expected to reach
8% in 2024 but only ca. 9% in 2026 and 2027. Including the Recovery and Resilience
Facility, there are an estimated EUR 112 billion in total available for biodiversity and
ecosystem restoration for the period 2021-2027 (i.e. EUR 16 billion per year on
average). The proposal could explain further how this could be used by Member States
in order to provide financial compensations, as relevant.
o At the national level, Member States budgets are already mobilizing 14 billion EUR
per year for biodiversity, including ecosystem restoration.
6
o The 2022 Guidelines on State aid for climate, environmental protection and energy
offer large possibilities of funding nature restoration by Member States.
o There is significant potential for leveraging private and public/private investments –
for instance through the EU taxonomy, and the Business for Biodiversity movement.
Through the InvestEU programme and the GreenAssist initiative, the Commission is
working with the European Investment Bank and other implementing partners to build
a pipeline of green investments and scale up public/private blended finance for nature
restoration.
o Next to that, the Commission will create new tools and business models to provide
additional income opportunities for capturing carbon and improving biodiversity to
land owners and managers. A key initiative here is the Carbon Removal Certification
proposal that is currently being negotiated by the co-legislators.
o The Commission will promote effective biodiversity mainstreaming across all relevant
Union programmes and financing instruments and is committed to exploring further
options as considered useful by the co-legislators. The Commission stands ready to:
▪ support Member States enhance their capacity to absorb Union funds for
biodiversity, including by providing training and technical support;
▪ assess any gaps between the Member States’ restoration funding needs from
the EU budget and the Union funding available for supporting them in the
implementation of this Regulation, and identify potential solutions to bridge
the identified gaps.
•
Reference to 70 years: The NRL proposal refers to “the documented losses over at least the
last 70 years” as a reference point, so that Member States would look at historical records of
habitats’ distribution on their territory and take this data into account when designing their
National Restoration Plans and establishing their nature restoration needs, priorities and
measures. Concerns have been raised that this provision could be interpreted as a requirement
for Member States to restore their nature to the condition in the 1950s which is obviously not
the case. To clarify this, the Commission can support a different language, which however
still serves the purpose of providing a reference to historical records.
•
Including a “stepwise” approach to designing the National Restoration Plans: The
Commission is ready to consider breaking down the process of preparing National
Restoration Plans into different steps. The first plans could focus on measures aiming to reach
the 2030 targets, and only give a strategic overview for the period beyond; subsequent
revision(s) could then cover the period up to 2050. Regional and local specificities would be
taken into account both by Member States when preparing their Plans and by the Commission
when assessing them.
7
Document Outline
