BDS2030

Biodiversity Strategy for 2030

BHD

Birds and Habitats Directives

CAP

Common Agricultural Policy

CBD

Convention on Biological Diversity

CFP

Common Fisheries Policy

EEA

European Environment Agency

ELD

Environmental Liability Directive

EMFAF

European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund

HD

Habitats Directive

IPBES

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

LAU

Local Administrative Unit

LULUCF

Land use, land use change and forestry

MAES

Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services

MBIs

market-based instruments

MSFD

Marine Strategy Framework Directive

NEC Directive

National Emission reduction Commitments Directive (Directive (EU) 2016/2284)

NGO

Non-governmental organisation

NRP

National Restoration Plan

UNCCD

UN Convention to Combat Desertification

UNFCCC

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

WFD

Water Framework Directive

RSB comments

How did we address the comment?

1st RSB OPINION (16 July 2021)

(Opinion 1.1) Given that there is already a broad set of measures (both existing and recently or soon to be adopted) that tackle the biodiversity challenge and its drivers, the report should be more explicit on the specific gap of the problem that would remain that binding targets could help solve.

Inserted an explanation in section 2.4 (how will the problem evolve).

Inserted an explanation in section 4.2, where legally binding targets are introduced, saying that they would address the specific problem gap.

Explained why gap remains in section 2.2. ‘Specific policy drivers’.

Better description of the baseline in section 5.5 and Annex also makes this clearer.

(Opinion 1.2) It should explain why a better implementation of existing legislation, as concluded by the preceding fitness check, would not be sufficient.

Explanation added in section 2.1.1 above Fig 2 and in section 2.1.2 above table 1.

Explained why gap remains in 2.2. ‘Specific policy drivers’.

(Opinion 1.3) The baseline should be more explicit about the degree of passive restoration that should already happen due to the effects of existing legislation on the drivers of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation.

Better described baseline in 5.1 (policy option baseline) and in the Annex. and elaborated on the expected degree of restoration under existing legislation and policy initiatives in Annex VII.

Added an explanation to 6.2 to highlight the added value of the options in comparison to expected restoration under the baseline.

(Opinion 2.1) Building on a sharper problem definition, the report should be clearer about the objectives. It needs to explain the difference between the overarching aspirational goal of restoring ‘all ecosystems’ and what this particular initiative is meant to achieve via binding targets. There is a reference to ‘at least a broad range of ecosystems’, however the report does not express this objective in sufficiently specific, measurable and time-bound terms.

In section 4 on objectives better explained. General objective slightly revised to be in keeping with an article of TFEU (see also checklist 4.1,4.2,4.3). Issue if “all” and “broad range” ecosystems better explained. In 5.2.1: Policy option 4 ‘overarching goal’ re-defined and better explained.

In 6.4: adapted accordingly.

(Opinion 2.2) The objectives should clarify the reference situation to which ecosystems should be restored. If defining the reference situation requires judgement on a case-by-case basis, the report should clarify how it would define and enforce binding quantitative restoration targets.

Reference situation: explanation added in 4.2.

(Opinion 3.1) The report should better present the functioning of the options and assess more thoroughly their feasibility and effectiveness.

Functioning of options 2 and 4 better explained in 5.2.1 (description of options) and 6.4 (effectiveness of option 4)

Feasibility and effectiveness are more thoroughly explained in 6.1-6.4 (effectiveness of options).

Feasibility is furthermore incorporated in the description of achievability in 6 (approach to IA).

(Opinion 3.2) As regards the option of having a binding overarching goal for ecosystem restoration it should explain how the availability of the necessary data and methodology to establish and monitor an overarching goal (presumably at EU and Member State level) would be ensured and how in practice the final (quantitative) goal would be determined.

5.2.1: Overarching target: limitations of overarching target added in Option 2.

Overarching objective better defined and explained option 4.

(Opinion 3.3) Given that some ecosystems (e.g. urban, soil) are not covered by EU legislation, the report should assess more thoroughly the respect of the subsidiarity principle and the proportionality of legally binding measures.

Ch. 7 (subsidiarity and proportionality) now includes a reference to the legal basis encompassing all ecosystem types

An explanation was also added in the main text on why EU level action is, in terms of subsidiarity/proportionality, warranted on ecosystem types that are partially covered by existing legislation.

(Opinion 3.4) It should clarify whether Member States can reasonably be expected to be able to operationalise the targets for those ecosystems and habitats where there is not already an evidence base and a clear methodology and whether such option would provide the necessary legal certainty.

Further explanation added in ch 5.2.2

(Opinion 4.1) Regarding the specific targets for ecosystems option, the report should clearly identify the evidence base and methodology supporting the proposed detailed targets by ecosystem.

Explanation on evidence base included in option 3.

Methodology and evidence for the specific targets described in detail in Annex IV.

(Opinion 4.2) The views of different stakeholder groups on individual targets should be clearly presented.

More referencing on this throughout the text

How stakeholder views were included in the methodology and evidence for the specific targets now described in Annex IV.

(Opinion 4.3) Concerning the combination option, the report is not clear how the two options would interact in practice and why it should overall perform best, given the shortcomings identified above with the binding overarching goal option.

5.2.1: Hybrid option 4 re-defined and interaction specific targets/overarching objective better described.

6.4 Explanation added.

(Opinion 5.1) The report should elaborate on how an EU wide enforcement of the targets and the achievement of the objectives will be done considering that Member States will determine the specific actions to take through national restoration plans.

New section on enforcement added as a new sub-section of ch. 8. Further details also added in ch 5.2.2.

(Opinion 5.2) It also should explain how the proposed options will ensure Member States’ ownership of the targets.

Explained in sections as above 5.2.2 and new sub-section in ch 8.

(Opinion 5.3) It is not clear how different the efforts to be made by Member States will be, given that they have different ecosystems and habitats on their respective territories.

Tables of costs and benefits per Member state and per ecosystem has been added in Annex III.

Section on distributional aspects of targets added.

(Opinion 6.1) The report should be more explicit about how the costs and benefits were calculated, what assumptions were made and what they are based on for all ecosystem types assessed.

This is now better explained in Annex IV. Additional explanation has also been added on the costs and benefits calculation in each thematic assessment in Annex VI.

(Opinion 6.2) It should also better explain how the opportunity costs were estimated including what assumptions were made and how they are justified.

This is better explained in Annex IV.

(Opinion 6.3) It should also be clear what “ecosystem services” are included in the benefit estimates for each ecosystem type assessed.

Thematic assessments are now clearer on this, with references.

(Opinion 7.1) The report should be clearer about the cumulative effects of the initiative on the different actors (fishers, farmers, etc.) and any resulting distributional impacts.

Impacts on stakeholders addressed in Annex III and in main text, Ch 6. Workshop held that addressed this issue.

(Opinion 7.2) It should also assess the costs for different Member States and regions.

A breakdown of costs and benefits per Member state and per ecosystem has been added in Annex III.

(Opinion 7.3) It should reinforce the 3 assessment of the administrative costs, including quantification whenever feasible.

Section 6.2 and 6.3 (impacts option 2 and 3): Added a more precise admin. costs breakdown for option 2 and 3 in the form of table.

Section 6.4 (impacts option 4): expanded the costs overview with a more detailed cost breakdown for both restoration and maintenance per ecosystem type, and administrative costs.

Chapter 7 (comparison efficiency): expanded the comparison on administrative costs.

Chapter 6 (Intro of chapter: approach to impact assessment): added what is considered as administrative costs, and added a reference to Annex VII.

(Opinion 8) The views of different stakeholder groups should be presented more systematically throughout the report.

More referencing on this throughout the text

Stakeholder views w.r.t. options added in section 5.2.2.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT QUALITY CHECKLIST ( 9 July 2021)

(Checklist 1.1) The report does not sufficiently frame the initiative. While the annexes contain a large amount of information, it is not always clear from the report itself how the initiative links to other elements of the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and to other related initiatives. For example, it is not immediately clear how the initiative will work together with LULUCF – how synergies will be ensured and under which of the two frameworks measures will be monitored and progress assessed.

Moved 6.1 (impacts baseline) to 5.1 (description baseline) and elaborated on the expected degree of restoration under existing legislation and policy initiatives. Description of baseline revised to include effects of other policies more clearly.

Section 6.2: Processed the degree of restoration under current legislation into the policy coherence for option 2.

Section 6.2-6.4: impacts of policy options (policy coherence): explanation added linking to other elements of the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and other Green Deal initiatives.

Section 5.2.2. Now gives a more detailed explanation of the links in the proposed LULUCF Regulation. 

Chapter 9: monitoring: added a paragraph on synergies with monitoring LULUCF

(Checklist 1.2) The report does not sufficiently explain the international dimension of the initiative. The Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 refers to all the world’s ecosystems being restored. It is unclear if this initiative is meant to contribute to that, beyond setting an example and establishing a methodology that might possibly be useful to third countries.

Added text in 1.1 on international commitment to restore ecosystems.

Section added on ‘International dimension’ at the end of Chapter 8.

(Checklist 1.3) It is not clear what the situation is in different Member States in terms of ecosystem condition and restoration efforts. The charts and graphs presented in section 2 of the report refer mainly to what is covered under specific legislation (i.e. the Habitats Directive). It is difficult to understand what this means at EU level and the extent to which there are differences between Member States in terms of their efforts and progress.

Added at the end of section 2.2.1 that degradation applies across the board for all the main ecosystem types. 

Added in 2.1.1 that the main EU assessments (EU-Wide, EEA, and State od Nature) describe the condition of all main ecosystems and give evidence of distribution effects across the EU and MS. 

(Checklist 2.1) The report starts by indicating that the various specific environmental protection pieces of legislation in place are not sufficient to address the problem of biodiversity loss. If existing policies are not working as intended (p. 17-18), the report should explain why they are not being revised. If evidence, for example, shows that the majority of habitats under the Habitats and Water Framework Directives do not have good ecosystem status (p. 11), this shows that there is a problem under these legislations that needs to be tackled. In fact, some legislations are being revised (e.g. the Marine Strategy Framework Directive) and it is unclear whether the expected changes would address the problems in such a way as to ensure the related ecosystems are restored.

An explanation on why the option of revising existing legislation was discarded at an early stage is added to Section 5.3 (options discarded at an early stage).

An explanation was added to 5.1 (description baseline) on what is expected from the MSFD revision.

Section 5.1 and 2.2 (problem drivers) already explain that BHD and WFD were assessed as fit for purpose and will therefore expectedly not be revised, despite the implementation challenges.

(Checklist 2.2) Moreover, the report is unclear on the extent to which other Green Deal initiatives and particularly the broad range of other actions under the new 2030 Biodiversity Strategy will tackle the problem (e.g. gaps, implementation issues etc.) and which part of the problem remains. 

The report should indicate for which specific environmental legislation revisions will be launched (as announced in the 2030 Strategy) to tackle existing legislative gaps. It should clearly explain the specific contribution expected from binding targets on the remaining gap of the problem.

Inserted an explanation in 2.4 (how will the problem evolve).

Inserted an explanation in 4.2, where legally binding targets are introduced, on how they would address the specific restoration gap.

Moved 6.1 (impacts baseline) to 5.1 (description baseline) and elaborated on the expected degree of restoration under existing legislation and policy initiatives.

Baseline revised and more explicit about contributions from other policies.

Section on policy coherence of Annex VIII is moved to 6.1-6.4 (impacts of policy options) and expanded, building on 5.1.

Revisions of the MSFD, Climate are addressed in 5.1, and new/revisions of other legislation/initiatives are addressed in Annex X.

(Checklist 2.3) In this framework, it is not clear what are the key drivers of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation that need to be tackled by this initiative. Most, if not all, of the presented drivers (climate change, pollution, over-exploitation, invasive species, changes in land and sea use; p. 15) are being addressed by other EU and national policies.

Explanation added in 2.2. (above ‘Specific policy drivers’) on how restoration addresses the drivers.

Mentioned also in the box/summary at the end of section 2.2.

(Checklist 2.4) When it comes to problem drivers, it is not clear why the intervention logic does not also list funding challenges and the political commitment and ownership by Member States.

Political commitment now included in section on drivers. Intervention logic has been revised.

(Checklist 2.5) The report briefly touches on the difference between protection and restoration, clarifying that a protected ecosystem is not guaranteed to evolve by itself to good condition. It is not clear however what the magnitude of the problem is. The report does not explain the extent of the problem beyond what is covered by the Habitats Directive annexes.

Explanations added in section 2.1.1 and also above Fig 4

and in 2.1.2 above table 1.

It is (was already) also explained in 2.2 under ‘Lack of comprehensive approach.

(Checklist 2.6) The report argues that guidance from the Commission on ecosystem restoration was followed by some Member States ‘which suggests that it was appropriate’ (p. 16). It is not clear what evidence supports this statement. Could the reason not be that some Member States are more ambitious and committed about biodiversity protection and restoration than others? Could the reasons not relate to different funding and resources priorities or a lack of capacity?

The paragraph has been rephrased in the section 2.2 ‘Voluntary targets have been ineffective’

(Checklist 2.7) The argument that healthy ecosystems lead to disaster risk reduction and control (p. 15) needs more evidence or should be nuanced. It is not obvious, for example, that having more forest will lead to less forest fires or that more natural coast lines will lead to less flooding from storms (e.g. a sizeable part of the Netherlands are below sea level).

Explanation with examples and references added in 2.1.3

(Checklist 3.1) The report should better demonstrate the respect of the subsidiarity principle.

Addressed under Opinion 3.3

(Checklist 3.2) For the ecosystems not yet covered by EU legislation (i.e. non-Annex I habitats forest area) and potentially subject to a binding target, the report needs to establish the necessity and value added of EU action for each newly added ecosystem or area (e.g. urban, soil).

See answer to opinion 4.1. opinion. This describes how targets proposals were arrived at. Needs for targets are also described in the thematic assessments.

(Checklist 3.3) Some ecosystems or habitats might be near border areas and their protection and restoration would require the concerned Member States to act together. The report is not clear whether (and if so, how) the planned initiative will address this aspect. It should be also clearer on the magnitude of the transboundary effects across all ecosystems as well as the frequency of “free riding” practices.

Examples of transboundary aspects added in 3.3. Little quantitative data available. Section on transboundary issues and how to address them included.

Deleted ‘free riding practices’ from text since we have little actual evidence.

(Checklist 4.1) When describing the objectives, the report is unclear about how the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 goals will be reached. The strategy aims for all EU ecosystems to be restored by 2050. While this objective seems to be reproduced as the general objective also for this initiative, the linked specific objective however limits its ambition to (at least) a ‘broad range of ecosystems’ and introduces priority criteria according to which these should be selected (e.g. carbon capture, natural disaster impact).

General objective slightly revised (checklist 4.3) Reference to how BDS2030 will be implemented included. Revised also the explanation of specific objective.

“all” and “broad range” addressed below (checklist 4.2).

There is an implementation plan for the BDS2030 details of this are beyond the scope of this IA.

(Checklist 4.2) The report acknowledges (in footnote 19) that “it may not be possible to restore all ecosystems”. While this transparency is welcome, it is important to be clear in the specific objectives on what realistically should be achieved. The current wording of the specific objective of a broad range of ecosystem is not sufficiently expressed in SMART terms. It will prevent effective progress monitoring and will likely repeat the problems identified earlier in the report (p.17). For instance, it is not clear what the specific meaning of “restored” is. It is also not clear whether this concerns only an EU level objective or whether this applies also at the Member State level.

Meaning of ‘restored’ explained in section 4.2 (just above ‘Operational objective’

A description has been added in 4.2 of the reference situation towards which ecosystems need to be restored.

Specific ecosystem types to be covered are highlighted (bold).

The additions make the objectives more SMART (more specific, measurable and achievable - they were already relevant and time-bound.)

Clarified in 4.2 that the specific objective applies to Member States and EU-wide.

(Checklist 4.3) In terms of (public) expectation management and coherence, it may help to present the general objective rather as an aspirational long-term objective (not for 2050), while targeting the specific objectives on those ecosystems where the evidence base realistically allows imposing binding targets.

Suggestion taken on board in definition of general objective.

(Checklist 4.4) The objectives should clarify what is the reference situation to which ecosystems should be restored. The report seems to indicate that it is not about restoring lost ecosystems (e.g. Brussels used to be a swamp), but about repairing the damage to still existing ecosystems. This should be made explicit in the objectives.

Reference situation explained in section 4.2

(Checklist 4.5) The report highlights the need for urgent action. Is the 2030 horizon a realistic timeframe considering the long time needed for concerned measures to have effect?

4.2: Explanation inserted on ‘restoration’ versus ‘recovery’.

(Checklist 5.1) The baseline scenario is the one against which all options are compared. As such, section 6.1 should be integrated into 5.1 and into the narrative of the sections 6.2 through 6.4. The description of the baseline could then be more complete and useful for understanding the current situation and its likely development in the near future.

See response to Opinion 1.

(Checklist 5.2) The baseline should sufficiently reflect the other Green Deal initiatives, in particular the ‘Fit for 55’ package and broad set of measures announced in the new 2030 Biodiversity Strategy. It should clarify how it relates to the MIX scenario informing the initiatives of the ‘Fit for 55’ package. It should illustrate the evolution of the part of the problem that would be not tackled if binding target measures were not part of the new policy response.

See response to Opinion 1.

Section 5.1 (description baseline) is expanded to cover the Climate Law, Fit for 55’s LULUCF and RED revision, and BDS2030 measures.

See also revised baseline in Annex VII.

(Checklist 5.3) Given the broad set of related (legislative) measures under the Green Deal and the 2030 Strategy, the report should avoid giving the impression that the effective delivery of the 2030 Strategy depends only on binding targets. Similarly, the report seems to underestimate the expected contribution of all the other measures (as indicated in section 5.1) when claiming that “in the absence of binding restoration targets the problem … risks to be further aggravated” (p.20). The baseline should also not assume that measures under the Green Deal will not be fully implemented (p.20).

More precision as regards existing measures is now given and how exactly the targets can contribute. It should be understood that the binding targets would only be a component of delivery of the BDS2030, I.e to deliver on the pillar 2 on restoration.

Following agreement at the upstream meeting, the baseline is continued to be estimated as the implementation of all the contributions of the existing initiatives deriving from the Green Deal, that is realistic and as based on experience, and does not assume their full implementation. 

(Checklist 5.4) While some details are included in the annexes, the report does not sufficiently present the issue of achievability of options and of ‘realistic’ implementation of existing measures by Member States.

Included in 6.4 (effectiveness option 4) and 7 (comparison) why option 4 scores higher on achievability than option 3.

Realistic implementation of existing EU legislation is covered in the revised 5.1 (description baseline). Annex XI outlines restoration frameworks in a number of MS but national measures are not mapped in detail due to the voluntary nature and limited reporting.

(Checklist 5.5) The options are not sufficiently clear on what they aim to achieve:

Policy Option 2 aims that “by 2050, ecosystems in the EU are restored to and maintained in good status” in principle covering “a broad range of ecosystem”. It is not clear what success would look like (e.g. how many restored ecosystems and how are “restored” and “good” defined?) and who would be responsible for achieving it (EU, Member States, joint responsibility?). It is also not clear how “a broad range of ecosystem” goal is easy to communicate (p.34)

Explanation added in 5.2.1 (Policy Option 2) that it applies to EU- and MS-level, that ‘success’ is difficult to establish.

Explanation of reference situation to which ecosystems should be restored (good ecosystem status) and the meaning of ‘restoration’ has been added in section 4.2.

What success would look like is now described in section 5.2.2.

(Checklist 5.6) Policy Option 2 envisages a “binding overarching goal” in absence of a sufficiently developed evidence base for ecosystems not yet covered by EU legislation (this would be left to the Member States). It is not clear how sufficient legal certainty on what needs to be achieved will be provided and how effective delivery could be ensured. The respective responsibilities at EU and Member State level are not sufficiently clear.

Section 5.2.1. Policy option 2 has been revised to better describe these aspects.

(Checklist 5.7) More generally, the report should better explain why option 2 is a valid one to consider. Would changing the nature of a target (binding as opposed to the previously voluntary one) be sufficient to solve the problems identified until now? Will the flexibility it includes for Member States not risk that the objectives cannot be reached? How will it address the issues of insufficient funding and insufficient integration with other policies referred to in section 2.2?

Option 2 changed from ‘goal’ into ‘target’. 5.2.1. Policy option 2 has been revised to better describe validitiy.

(Checklist 5.8) Given the questions that option 2 raises, the report is not sufficiently clear in option 4 what adding this (diluted) overarching goal would bring. The report clearly states that option 2 ‘by itself it would most likely fail to restore biodiversity at a level required to meet EU-wide and international biodiversity objectives’(p.35).

Option 4 is redefined and better explained to distinguish from option 2.

Adapted wording in 6.4.

(Checklist 5.9) For option 3, the report mentions some sub-options (e.g. different target timelines) without providing any details. Without making the report too long, the description of the option should at least briefly explain what aspects the sub-options considered.

Text has been added to explain the sub-options (different target timelines).

(Checklist 5.10) In option 3, there are very detailed targets by ecosystem (in annex V). It is mostly not clear what is the evidence basis for these detailed targets. The report also does not specify the opinions of different stakeholder groups on these individual targets. Without this information, it is not clear on what basis policy makers should take decisions on setting these targets.

As answered in opinion 4.1

(Checklist 5.11) As an example of the lack of evidence, it is not clear whether the proposed targets to increase green areas and tree coverage in urban areas would be suitable. Reducing the built surface in cities can be achieved by extending the overall surface of the city, reducing the living space by person, or replacing housing by high-rise buildings. None of these solutions seems obviously desirable.

The impact assessment on urban ecosystems has been revised and improved.

(Checklist 5.12) It is also not clear whether the “range of ecosystems” under options 2 and 3 would be the same or whether there is a difference in terms of ambition.

Better explained in options section.

(Checklist 5.13) For all options, it is not clear how effective enforcement of the binding targets would be ensured.

As answered in opinion 5.1

(Checklist 5.14) The report should be clearer about the methodology that would be used to monitor and measure progress towards the achievement of the targets. It should explain whether this is already being developed (p. 55 seems to indicate that efforts are ongoing), whether it would apply in all options, the extent to which it would imply new requirements in addition to existing legislation ones.

As answered in opinion Opinion 3.4.

(Checklist 5.15) The report should explain how effective ownership for eco-system restoration will be ensured for eco-systems where effective cooperation of third countries (e.g. Russia, UK, Turkey, Norway) will be essential.

Section on transboundary effects included.

(Checklist 6.1) The report should better explain its evidence base and methodology – as it stands it is difficult to form a view about the robustness and credibility of the analysis. Annexes III, IV and VI do not include sufficient detail.

As answered under opinion 4.1, I.e. in Annex IV and as addressed in each revised ecosystem assessment (Annex VI). Detail on impacts has been added to Annex III.

(Checklist 6.2) For many ecosystem types, Annex VI does not explain how the projected costs were estimated, what assumptions were made and what they are based on. Although Annex IV explains that the unit costs were based on a review of “EU wide evidence” on ecosystem management costs including the “study of the costs of implementing Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy (Tucker, et al, 2013)” (Annex IV, p. 17), there are no references to the Tucker study or systematic references to other studies in Annex VI. 

More detailed explanations and references have been provided in Annex VI. See also further details and references on the methodology in Annex IV. 

(Checklist 6.3) On the benefit side, Annex IV explains that the benefit estimates are based on the values from studies estimating carbon sequestration and storage benefits and multiple ecosystem services. For many ecosystem types assessed, they are not referenced or the references are incomplete in Annex VI. 

As in opinion 6: references and explanations have been added in Annex VI.

(Checklist 6.4) Annex VI should include explanations how the costs and benefits were calculated, what assumptions were made and what they are based on for all ecosystem types assessed. It should also better explain how the opportunity costs were estimated including what exact assumptions were made and how they are justified. It should also be clear what “ecosystem services” are included in the benefit estimates for each ecosystem type assessed.

As in opinion 6: more detailed explanations have been added in Annex VI.

(Checklist 6.5) The report should clarify to what extent the estimates and underlying assumptions have been cross-checked with stakeholders.

As in opinion 6.1 and opinion 7.

(Checklist 6.6) The benefit cost ratios for some of the ecosystems are very low when only the carbon benefits are taken into account but they increase, in some cases dramatically, when the ecosystem service benefits are included. In view of significant differences between the benefit cost ratios with and without the ecosystem service benefits, the report should explain the risks of the ecosystem service benefits being lower than expected.

As in opinions 6.

Box on robustness of data added in Section 6.3, in option 3, conclusions. It refers to annex IV (‘analytical methods’))

(Checklist 6.7) The report provides some indication of how different actors (fishers, farmers, etc) would be affected by targets on specific ecosystems or habitats. It is not clear what the cumulative effects of the initiative would be on them. It is also not clear on the distributional impacts between the different affected groups.

As in opinion 7.

(Checklist 6.8) The report should assess (and quantify if significant) the administrative costs for business (farmers, fishers etc.) and citizens.

As in opinion 7.

(Checklist 6.9) It is not clear how different the efforts to be made by Member States will be, given that they have different ecosystems and habitats on their respective territories.

Breakdown of costs per Member State and per ecosystem has been added in Annex III

(Checklist 6.10) It is also not sufficiently clear on how the impact on equality and non-discrimination have been considered. Would a transparency obligation and access to justice provisions be sufficient to ensure those? How big an issue is it in this case?

Text slightly revised, not likely to be a big issue for restoration.

(Checklist 7.1) The assessment of effectiveness, coherence and subsidiarity is too important to leave entirely to the annexes. If an option will not be effective (see box 5 questions about option 2), then its efficiency or lack thereof may be of less importance. Moreover, coherence is a crucial element; thus without providing information on how options compare in terms of coherence it is difficult to arrive at a meaningful conclusion on how the options compare. For instance, how will the initiative work together with LULUCF? Will it overlap or reinforce or change the scope/measures of any of the existing environmental protection pieces of legislation? How will the different options interact with the future CAP?

As in opinion 1.3.

Moved the assessment on effectiveness and coherence from Annex VIII to Chapter 6.

Integrated the assessment of subsidiarity and proportionality from Annex VIII into Chapter 7.

Expanded the assessment of coherence in Chapter 6.

(Checklist 7.2) It is not clear why the report argues in favour of option 4 by stating that ‘having an overarching goal makes the objectives more achievable’. As mentioned above option 2 de facto also concerns (only) a broad range of ecosystems and it is difficult to understand how this will help in terms of communication or gaining more support as stakeholders will notice that the Commission is not going at this stage (step 1) for binding targets covering all ecosystems. It is not clear from the analysis whether option 4 will lead to any ecosystem covered by a binding target not already included in option 3.

See reply opinion 3.1.

Explanation added in section 5.2.1 Option 4.

Alex: Included in section 6.4 why option 4 scores higher on achievability than option 3.

(Checklist 7.3) The choice of preferred option should be better explained, including by better reflection the shortcomings of option 2. Why would option 3 not be sufficient to achieve the goals of the initiative? In terms of performance there seems to be no significant difference. As said above, the higher performance on achievability seems very much debatable, and could be argued less positive, also in view of the additional complexity (and confusion) it may introduce. It is not clear why policy options 4 performs better than option 3 in terms of proportionality.

See reply opinion 3.1.

Weaknesses/shortcomings of option 2 explained in section 5.2.1. and 6.2.

Why policy option 4 performs better, is now better explained in 6.4. and in 5.2.1 (Policy option 4)

(Checklist 7.4) The report should provide further elements to support the claim that a Regulation would be better than a Directive as it would ‘enable coherent action across the EU and is the most effective way to ensure rapid action’. The implementation under all options is still left to Member States through national plans and will still rely on a methodology to be developed for the monitoring and measuring of progress. How then would the choice of instrument make a difference in this setup?

Additional explanation added at the end of Chapter 8 (under ‘Legal form’).

(Checklist 8.1) The report should be explicit about when an evaluation would be carried out.

Periodic review of progress is expanded in 5.5.5

(Checklist 8.2) The report is not sufficiently clear about how the overarching target would be set/calculated and how it would be monitored. Section 9 should be more explicit about whether existing legislation requirements would be sufficient and if not what gaps would need to be addressed.

Addressed in Opinion 3.2

(Checklist 9.1) Stakeholder views are not sufficiently integrated throughout the report but rather are gathered together in a single section. Section 5.4 does not provide absolute numbers, only percentages, making it difficult to understand the support behind the views presented. It is also not clear what other groups besides the citizens that were mobilised by NGOs think. It would in particular be useful to understand the views of those that will be most affected by the initiative (Member States, land owners, forest managers, farmers, fishers, industry, etc). The different views of stakeholder groups should be presented throughout the report.

As in Opinion 8.

(Checklist 9.2) It is not clear how implementation challenges will be addressed with this initiative when it is clearly such a crucial element. Without ownership, political commitment and adequate funding, the targets will not be reached. The report should explain this aspect more clearly.

See reply opinion 5.1, 5.2

Alex: An explanation on the use of state aid for restoration is added to Annex XII.

(Checklist 9.3) As mentioned in box 6, the report should better explain to what extent the figures and cost-benefit analyses it presents are robust and what assumptions or estimates were included. It should clarify to what extent the estimates and underlying assumptions have been cross-checked with stakeholders, given the 2050/70 timeline.

As in option 6.

(Checklist 9.4) It would be helpful to briefly explain in the report (rather than in the annexes) how the specific targets were developed. The impacts on different actors and the distributional effects across Member States should be better explained.

See answer Opinion 4.1

(Checklist 10.1) The report should provide the main elements to enable the understanding of the situation, the context, the problem, objectives and options. However, many of the key elements are only in the annexes making it sometimes difficult to understand the robustness of the analysis. Without making the report too long, it would be useful for instance to present an example of how the targets for a specific ecosystem or habitat have been arrived at. 

See responses Opinion 4.1

Annex IV now includes section on how targets were arrived at.

(Checklist 10.2) The report should provide more explanations to help non-expert readers (e.g. brief explanation on MAES, Aichi Target 15, etc.). The report does not sufficiently explain the various types of actions that would be covered in terms of restoration – when is passive restoration enough? Can it only be applied in specific situations?

Explanation added on Aichi target in 1.1 (in text and footnote).

Explanation added on MAES (text box) in 2.1.1

(Checklist 10.3) The section on the upstream support meeting with the RSB and the reproduced meeting minutes should be deleted. Only the recommendations of the Board opinion(s) and how the DG has responded to them need to be reported in Annex 1.

Annex I: Info of upstream RSB meeting and related follow-up table of comments deleted.

New follow-up table included.

(Checklist 10.4) The report should be more systematic in presenting the sources when providing figures and findings (section 6.3 may rely on annexes and in turn on the study but it should still show sources for figures it presents). For instance, on page 14 it states that ‘costs of inaction are high and are anticipated to increase’ – a footnote would be better than a hyperlink as this is a rather important aspect. More generally, the report should use a unique system to reference evidence and studies. In many cases, this is done through hyperlinks, in other cases in footnotes. As not everyone consults documents in electronic format, the use of footnotes seems preferable.

Done across the board as much as possible.

(Checklist 10.5) Acronyms should be spelled out at first use.

Done

(Checklist 10.6) The line spacing should be harmonised to the standard 1.15, as foreseen in the impact assessment template.

Done

(Checklist 10.7) In Figure 3 (p.11), it is not clear why the Baltic Sea ecosystem is presented twice, with different assessments of its status.

Fig 3 is replaced by a corrected version (one instance of ‘Baltic Sea’ corrected into ‘Black Sea’)

(RSB meeting) Is there evidence that ecosystems beyond the HD are degraded and in need of urgent restoration?

MAES, IPBES, Dasgupta and other reports showed we have big problems beyond Annex I. These are now referenced upfront.

RSB comments  in its 2nd Opinion  (28 October 2021)

How did we address the comment?  

Overall opinion :

The report is not sufficiently clear on the justification, functioning and performance of some options.  

 Addressed as detailed below.

The report is not sufficiently specific on some costs and benefits estimates and underlying assumptions. 

 Addressed as detailed below.

What to improve:  

1.The report should better explain how the overarching legally binding EU target option would be implemented in practice, in particular how effective monitoring, reporting and enforcement would be ensured.  

Explanation provided on implementation in practice, including monitoring, reporting and enforcement.  

2.The report should explain why it uses the contribution to climate change as a selection criterion for including ecosystems in this initiative. It seems that the EU has already sufficient actions to reach its climate change goals, independently of an additional contribution from this initiative. In particular, the report should better justify why it excludes sparsely vegetated land (which could have high biodiversity potential) into the list of covered ecosystems, while it includes urban ecosystems (which would seem to have 2 limited biodiversity potential). 

Climate change: importance and contribution of ecosystem restoration to climate adaptation further elaborated on. 

In addition, it was already addressed in section 2.1.3 on p18-19 

Sparsely vegetated land is no longer excluded from the assessement. As it was added late, only a partial cost-benefit analysis could be included. 

3.The report should be clearer when it comes to the reference condition that ecosystems would need to be restored to. It is unclear who would decide on the conversion of various habitats and ecosystems and how this decision would be made. It should explain how trade-offs between (green) policy objectives (e.g. climate adaptation flood prevention measures vs restoration) will be managed. 

Explanation inserted, in section 4.2 where reference condition is defined and in section 5.2.2 (on NRPs) on re-establishment. 

4.The report should better justify why it considers the option that combines legally binding ecosystem-specific targets with an overarching objective to be clearly more effective than the specific target option only, given that the quantitative comparison scores differ only marginally and that the 2030 Biodiversity Strategy has already set an overarching aspirational objective. It should also better justify why the combination option performs significantly better in terms of proportionality. 

Explanations provided as to why option 4 is clearly more effective and also more proportionate.  

5.The report should be more specific on some costs and benefits estimates and underlying assumptions. On benefits, it should be explicit about precisely what is meant by ‘ecosystem services’ and the timescales for benefits occurring in the medium and long term. In view of significant differences between the benefit-to-cost ratios with and without the ecosystem service benefits, the report should be clear on the risk that these benefits will not materialise. On costs, the report should clarify the magnitude of the cost increase when referring to delayed action on restoration leading to a requirement for costlier measures. It should be more explicit to what extent it takes into account costs to surrounding ecosystems (e.g. effects of re-wetting peatland on neighbouring agricultural land). 

The method of estimating benefits of ecosystem services is explained in section 6.3.  

The types of benefits identified are listed per ecosystem.  

The risks that these benefits will not be realised are also explained. 

An explanation on possible impacts of restoration on surrounding (agricultural) land has been included at the end of section 6.4 and annex IV. 

6.While the report assumes a ‘realistic’ level of implementation for the measures included in the baseline, it is not clear whether the same implementation assumption has been made when estimating the costs and benefits of the options. The report has added some useful information on the cost implications at Member State level in the annex. It should briefly explain in the main text how large the difference in effort between Member States would be. 

The implications of less-than-full implementation are explained and a costs and benefits have been calculated for alternative scenarios of 90%, 80% and 70% implementation. 

Cost of implementation at Member State level: analysis and explanation included at the end of section 6.4. 

7.The report should not only report on stakeholder views but also show how the input received has been taken into account. The Board notes the estimated costs and benefits of the preferred option in this initiative, as summarised in the attached quantification tables. 

In each of the boxes on stakeholder views, explanation has been added on how this feedback has been taken into account. 

Overview of benefits for the preferred option – until 2070 (Present Value)

Scenario A (15-40-100% targets for 2030-2040-2050)

Scenario B (30-60-100% targets for 2030-2040-2050)

Restoration of ecosystem type

Carbon benefits in EUR million

Benefits from all ecosystem services (including carbon) in EUR million

Carbon benefits in EUR million

Benefits from all ecosystem services (including carbon) in EUR million

Beneficiaries and further comments

Peatlands

10 629    

38 702

13 042

47 488

-Entire population and economy through carbon benefits;

-Companies and consumers, and the tourism sector.

Marshlands

(na)

6 388

(na)

7 838

Coastal wetlands

1 091

181 614

1 339

222 842

-EU inhabitants, especially 55.7 million people who are estimated to live in coastal zones by 2060;

-Fishers and farmers as well as related value chains.

Forests

3 832

203 564

4 701

249 775

-The economy, including tourism/ recreation sectors, and conservation organisations, especially in rural economies.

Agro-ecosystems

17 073

229 589

18 624

250 451

-Farmers and the agricultural sector benefit from improved soils quality, reduced soil erosion and soil compaction, greater abundance of pollinators, etc. 

Steppe, heath and scrub

3 971

24 191

4 722

28 768

-Tourism sector, farmers.

-Society and the economy, through the delivery of enhanced ecosystem services

Rivers, lakes and alluvial habitats

(na)

862 349

(na)

1 053 042

-Local populations through increased safety and house prices due to decreased flood risk potential

-Water suppliers and consumers through overall reduced water pollution and increased availability

-Recreational users of freshwater ecosystems through greater access to previously restricted areas (due to barrier removal) and enhanced aesthetic values

-Society at large through enhanced ecosystem services. 

Sub-total

36 596

1 546 397

42 428

1 860 204

This excludes benefits for non-Annex I habitats as well as marine, urban, soils and pollinators.

Marine

(na)

(na)

(na)

(na)

No monetary estimates available. However, EU citizens and economic sectors (e.g. fishing/ aquaculture/ tourism/ energy) benefit in terms of climate change mitigation as well as improved biodiversity, water quality and land and seascapes.

Urban

(na)

(na)

(na)

(na)

No monetary estimates available. However, urban dwellers would experience benefits in terms of flood prevention, biodiversity, human health, property values, air and water pollution as well as climate (e.g. heat control)

Soils

(na)

(na)

(na)

(na)

No monetary estimates available. However, citizens and farmers would experience benefits in terms of climate change mitigation, biodiversity, flood risk mitigation, water quality control, sustainable use of rewetted land, erosion control, increased crop yields and productivity, soil organic carbon, and soil fertility

Pollinators

(na)

(na)

(na)

(na)

No monetary estimates available. However, EU citizens, farmers and related supply chains as well as beekeepers would experience benefits in terms of crop and plant pollination, natural biological control, decomposition of organic matter, tourism, and culture and aesthetics.

Overview of costs for the preferred option – until 2070

Action

One-off costs in EUR million

Annual costs in EUR million

Total in EUR million for scenario A

Total in EUR million for scenario B

Comments

Costs for restoration and maintenance per ecosystem type for both Member States and businesses

Peatlands

4 779

5 125

These restoration and maintenance costs include re-creation costs and foregone income losses for businesses for Annex I habitats.

The sub-total excludes non-Annex I habitats as well as marine, urban, soils and pollinators.

Marshlands

3 643

       3 721

Coastal wetlands

5 141

5 852

Forests

50 082

53 850

Agro-ecosystems

26 559

27 732

Steppe, heath and scrub

3 051

3 111

Rivers, lakes and alluvial habitats

35 232

40 211

Sub-total

128 487

139 602

Marine, urban, soils, pollinators

(na)

(na)

Quantitative cost estimates are not available

Costs for enabling measures for Member States

Surveys of ecosystems  

1 099

Development of national restoration plans

12.8

Development of methodologies and indicators (5 ecosystems) 

6.6

Administration of restoration measures

438.3

Monitoring of restored ecosystems  

20.6

Reporting progress against restoration targets 

0.1

Sub-total 

1 118.4

459

Costs from 2022 to 2050

1 118.4

12 854

13 972.4

13 972.4

Total costs: restoration, maintenance and enabling measures

Total

142 459.4

153 574.4

This excludes restoration and maintenance costs for non-Annex I habitats, and marine, urban, soils and pollinators, as well as opportunity costs of potential land use changes (e.g. turning grassland into an industrial site).

Coastal wetlands

Freshwaters

Forests

Grasslands

Heath, steppe & scrub

Peatlands

Total

AT

7

690

47

27

1

1

774

BE

16

494

84

35

-

2

631

BG

17

306

0

288

18

0

630

CY

1

17

17

1

2

-

38

CZ

0

242

44

74

-

1

361

DE

731

1,594

89

166

1

13

2,595

DK

2,271

761

49

79

-

10

3,171

EE

6

380

23

25

-

15

449

ES

426

1,932

2,209

2,851

515

6

7,939

FI

381

7,327

613

5

272

1,094

9,694

FR

854

7,517

3,350

2,752

93

52

14,618

GR

352

154

18

14

3

-

541

HR

0

352

1

269

-

0

622

HU

300

785

136

170

0

1

1,392

IE

437

1,259

1

144

4

76

1,922

IT

87

1,626

236

437

33

5

2,424

LT

-

1,001

25

41

-

15

1,081

LU

-

3

0

29

-

-

32

LV

15

471

27

82

-

17

611

MT

0

0

-

1

1

-

2

NL

894

123

6

30

-

2

1,056

PL

496

4,124

316

1,020

1

24

5,981

PT

3

43

26

766

67

11

915

RO

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

SE

228

4,191

802

400

-

260

5,881

SI

0

226

116

73

1

0

415

SK

0

97

195

179

2

0

473

EU 27

7,522

35,715

8,431

9,963

1,015

1,603

64,249

Coastal wetlands

Freshwaters

Forests

Grasslands

Heath, steppe & scrub

Peatlands

Total

AT

0.3

44.0

15.5

4.1

0.4

0.2

64.5

BE

0.7

31.5

27.5

5.2

-

0.3

65.3

BG

0.7

19.5

0.0

43.5

5.6

0.0

69.4

CY

0.1

1.1

5.4

0.2

0.6

-

7.3

CZ

0.0

15.4

14.2

11.2

-

0.1

41.0

DE

31.6

101.6

29.1

25.0

0.4

1.9

189.6

DK

98.2

48.5

16.0

11.9

-

1.5

176.2

EE

0.2

24.2

7.4

3.8

-

2.2

38.0

ES

18.4

123.1

720.6

430.3

157.6

0.9

1 450.9

FI

16.5

467.0

200.1

0.8

83.3

163.5

931.2

FR

36.9

479.1

1 092.7

415.4

28.5

7.7

2 060.3

GR

15.2

9.8

5.8

2.2

1.0

-

34.0

HR

0.0

22.4

0.3

40.6

-

0.0

63.4

HU

13.0

50.0

44.5

25.7

0.1

0.2

133.4

IE

18.9

80.2

0.5

21.8

1.2

11.3

134.0

IT

3.7

103.7

76.9

65.9

10.2

0.7

261.1

LT

-

63.8

8.1

6.3

-

2.2

80.3

LU

-

0.2

0.0

4.3

-

-

4.5

LV

0.6

30.0

8.9

12.4

-

2.5

54.4

MT

0.0

0.0

-

0.2

0.2

-

0.4

NL

38.7

7.8

2.0

4.6

-

0.3

53.4

PL

21.4

262.8

103.1

154.0

0.3

3.6

545.3

PT

0.1

2.7

8.4

115.7

20.4

1.6

148.9

RO

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

SE

9.9

267.1

261.5

60.4

-

38.8

637.6

SI

0.0

14.4

37.7

11.0

0.2

0.1

63.3

SK

0.0

6.2

63.6

27.0

0.6

0.1

97.5

EU 27

325.2

2 276.3

2 749.8

1 503.6

310.5

239.6

7 405.0

Public Authorities

Farming/forestry sectors

Fishing sector

Nature Managers

One-off

Recurrent

One-off

Recurrent

One-off

Recurrent

One-Off

Recurrent

Inland wetlands and peatlands

Re-wetting at least 25  % of HD Annex I peatland habitat area degraded due to drainage

Restore all HD Annex I peatland habitat area to good condition

Re-create the area necessary to achieve Favourable Conservation Status of HD Annex I peatlands

Restore and re-create area to improve status of EU-protected species associated with inland wetlands and peatlands

Peatland converted to cropland- Reduce by 15 % the area of managed or drained organic soils that are losing carbon

Forests

Restore all HD Annex I forest habitat area to good condition

Restore and re-create area to achieve FCS of EU protected species associated with forests

Restore degraded non-Annex 1 habitats forest area to a good condition

Steppe, heath and scrub

Restore all HD Annex I steppe, heath and scrub habitats to good condition

Re-create habitat area required to achieve FCS of HD Annex I steppe, heath and scrub habitats

Maintain, restore and re-create steppe, heath and scrub habitats as necessary to achieve FCS of EU protected species associated with steppe, heath and scrub

Agro-ecosystems

Restore all HD Annex I agricultural habitats to good condition

Re-create additional habitat area required to achieve FCS of HD Annex I agricultural habitats

Restore and recreate agro-ecosystems as necessary to increase the populations of common farmland birds as measured by the common farmland bird indicator

Restore and recreate agro-ecosystems as necessary to achieve the secure status of birds that are predominantly associated with agro-ecosystems

Maintain, restore and re-create agro-ecosystems as necessary to achieve FCS of EU protected species associated with agro-ecosystems

Restore or recreate semi-modified and seminatural grassland

Restore or recreate unploughed / untilled grassland to replace historic losses

Rivers, lakes and alluvial habitats

Restore all HD Annex I freshwater and alluvial habitat area to good condition

Re-create area as necessary to achieve FCS of HD Annex I rivers, lakes, and alluvial habitats

Develop an inventory of barriers to longitudinal and lateral connectivity of rivers and a detailed plan of which barriers will be removed, to achieve free-flowing status where possible and necessary to restore the habitats depending on such connectivity

Mapping out of small water units, identify their restoration and recreation potential and assess their contribution to improve connectivity between habitats as part of high diversity landscape features, contributing to the restoration of habitats and species.

Marine

Restore EU marine habitats, prioritizing Annex I habitats.

Coastal wetlands

Restore all HD Annex I wetland habitat to good condition

Re-create area as necessary to achieve FCS of Annex I wetland habitats

Restore and re-create the area to enhance the conservation status of EU protected species associated with coastal wetlands

Urban

No net loss of green urban space, including tree canopy cover, by 2030, compared to 2021, within each LAU containing cities, towns and suburbs; A national average increase in the area represented by green urban space, including tree canopy cover, across LAUs containing cities, towns and suburbs, of at least 3% of the total area of these LAUs by 2040 and at least 5% of the total area of these LAUs by 2050, compared to 2021.

A minimum of 10% tree canopy cover in each LAU containing cities, towns and suburbs by 2050.

Soils

Package of measures to conserve and increase SOC in organic soils under agricultural use

Package of measures focused on improving SOC on forest soil

Pollinators

Target to restore 30-60-90  % of Annex I habitats to good condition in grasslands, heaths and scrub, wetlands, and forests categories, with no additional actions specifically targeted at pollinator conservation

Target to reverse trends in pollinators listed in the EU Habitats Directive

All necessary restoration and re-creation actions taken to restore pollinator populations by 2030, including through the following intermediate actions:

Ecosystem type/target

Types of benefits identified

Number of studies used to estimate per ha benefits

Inland wetlands

Flood alleviation; water quality improvements; recreation- and other cultural services.

22

Coastal and other saline wetlands

Storm surge mitigation; protection against coastal erosion; water filtration; fish stock restoration; recreation and other cultural services.

13

Forests

Timber products and non-timber forest products, water- and soil quality, flood prevention, increased resilience against natural disturbances (droughts, fires, pests, and diseases); recreation- and other cultural services.

Meta-analysis by De Groot et al (2013), which was based on 58 source studies

Agro-ecosystems

Food and fibre; water quality; flood management; pollination; soil quality; erosion control; climate regulation; cultural services (recreation, landscape, aesthetic values).

>50

Steppe, heath and scrubland

Erosion control; water quality; flood management; fire prevention; food and fibre; cultural services (recreation, landscape and existence values).

15

Rivers, lakes and alluvial habitats

Fresh water; fisheries; genetic resources; waste treatment; water quality; flood management; soil quality; cultural services (landscape, aesthetic, inspirational and recreational).

>30

Total ecosystem service benefits of river and lake restoration from de Groot et al (2020). Bankside ecosystems based on analyses for grassland and forest ecosystems.

Marine ecosystems

Flood mitigation, erosion control, water quality, food and fibre (including indirectly through fish stock regeneration), recreational services.

No full quantified benefits estimate could be made because of data gaps, but the assessment identified monetised benefits for 3 out of 8 key habitat types in focus (seagrass beds, kelp & macro-algal forests, and shellfish beds).

Urban ecosystems

Health and wellbeing; cooling and insulation (e.g. against urban heat island effect); recreation; food- and fibre; flood risk reduction; water quality; air quality, noise reduction, property value.

No full quantified benefits estimate could be made because of data gaps and large contextual differences. However the assessment identified a range of qualitative benefits and positive cost-benefit ratios from EU-wide and regional/local studies on urban tree and -green spaces limiting on a narrow set of benefits only (e.g. urban heat island effect).

Soil ecosystems

Water quality; flood risk mitigation; drought risk mitigation; pest control; reduced input costs; soil subsistence and -degradation prevention (and herewith resilience of food- and fibre).

No full quantified benefits estimate could be made because of data gaps, but the assessment identified and described qualitatively a wide range of benefits and various examples of positive cost-benefit ratios.

Pollinators

Sustainable provision of animal-pollinated crops and associated benefits; healthy ecosystems dependent on the diversity of wild animal-pollinated plants (and wide-range of regulating ecosystems based on them); cultural, aesthetic, wellbeing.

No full quantified benefits estimate could be made because of data gaps, but the assessment identified and described qualitatively a range of benefits to stakeholders.

Type of risk

Consequence

Mitigation

Implementation risk – targets are not implemented as specified

Failure to implement the targets will mean that full benefits of restoration will not be realised. Costs will also be reduced, so benefit cost ratios should still be favourable.

Accompanying measures – communications, guidance, incentives – will be required to support implementation.

Legal enforcement measures can be applied if necessary.

The B:C analysis assumes that only 90% of ecosystems will in practice be restored by 2050.

Technical risk – restoration actions fail to achieve target condition, because of scientific uncertainties; failure to undertake appropriate actions; adverse effects of climate, pollution, invasive species etc.

Failure to restore ecosystem to good condition will mean that anticipated benefits for biodiversity and ecosystems are not realised. Costs will still be incurred, and may exceed benefits.

Knowledge sharing, provision of advice, guidance and technical support, monitoring and adaptive actions can help to reduce risk

Ecosystem service risk – even if ecosystems are restored to good condition, they may not deliver anticipated benefits to people – e.g. because benefits occur in places remote from people and property

Locational factors may mean that the value of benefits may be less than anticipated – e.g. few recreational visitors are attracted, water is purified in places where it is not consumed, flooding is reduced in areas of low population; biodiversity and global climate benefits may still be realised.

Locational variations in benefits need to be understood. Benefits assessment has applied median values, which is more conservative than applying mean or maximum values.

Temporal risks – risk that delays in achieving good ecosystem condition and associated enhancements in ecosystem services will reduce the overall value of benefits delivered.

Costs are normally incurred before benefits are realised. Time preference means that delays in securing benefits will reduce the present value of benefits, and may cause them to be outweighed by costs.

Linked to mitigation of technical risks, as above. Prioritising restoration of ecosystems that take longest to recover (e.g. woodland and species rich grasslands) increases the probability of benefits being delivered within a specified timescale.

Financial risks – even if benefits are fully realised, additional costs of restoration may impact B:C ratios

Higher than anticipated costs could mean benefits exceed costs in some locations

Linked to mitigation of technical risks, as above. Understanding variations in costs and benefits, and reflecting this in restoration plans, is important.

90% restoration by 2050

80% restoration by 2050

70% restoration by 2050

Restoration of ecosystem type

Benefits

Costs

Net Benefits

Benefits

Costs

Net Benefits

Benefits

Costs

Net Benefits

Peatlands

38 702

4 779

33 923

34 402

4 248

30 154

30 102

3 717

26 385

Marshlands

6 388

3 643

2 745

5 678

3 238

2 440

4 968

2 833

2 135

Coastal wetlands

181 614

5 141

176 473

161 435

4 570

156 865

141 255

3 999

137 257

Forests

203 564

50 082

153 482

180 946

44 518

136 428

158 328

38 953

119 375

Agro-ecosystems

229 589

26 559

203 030

204 079

23 608

180 471

178 569

20 657

157 912

Steppe,  heath and scrub

32 658

9 198

23 460

29 029

8 176

20 853

25 401

7 154

18 247

Rivers,  lakes and alluvial habitats

862 349

35 232

827 117

766 532

31 317

735 215

670 716

27 403

643 313

Subtotal

1 554 864

134 634

1 420 230

1 382 101

119 675

1 262 426

1 209 339

104 716

1 104 623

Potential targets and obligations

Step 1

Step 2

WETLANDS (incl. Peatlands, marshlands & coastal wetlands)

·Restore all HD Annex I wetland habitat area to good condition, with all necessary restoration measures completed on 30 % (or 15 %) of degraded areas by 2030, 60 % (or 40 %) by 2040 and 100 % by 2050 18 .

·Recreate 30 % (or 15 %) of additional habitat area required to achieve favorable conservation status of HD Annex I wetland habitats by 2030, 60 % (or 40 %) by 2040 and 100 % by 2050.

·Restore and re-create the area as necessary to enhance the conservation status of species listed in Annex II, IV and V of the Habitats Directive as well as wild birds associated with wetlands in view of achieving their favourable conservation status by 2050, with at least 30 % achieved by 2030 and at least 60 % by 2040 19 .

Target option discarded as a result of the Impact Assessment (explanation in annex VI):

·General habitat restoration and re-creation of marshlands

·Recreate salt marshes (excluded as specific targets as largely covered under HD Annex I target).

·Phasing out bottom-disturbing (shell-)fishing in Natura 2000 sites.

FORESTS

·Restore all HD Annex I forest habitat area to good condition, with all necessary restoration measures completed on 30 % (or 15 %) of degraded areas by 2030, 60 % (or 40 %) by 2040 and 100 % by 2050.

·Recreate 30 % (or 15 %) of additional habitat area required to achieve favorable conservation status of HD Annex I forest habitats by 2030, 60 % (or 40 %) by 2040 and 100 % by 2050.

·Restore and re-create the area as necessary to enhance the conservation status of species listed in Annex II, IV and V of the Habitats Directive as well as wild birds associated with forests in view of achieving their favourable conservation status by 2050, with at least 30 % achieved by 2030 and at least 60 % by 2040.

·Achieve a continuously improving trend of each of the following indicators, until satisfactory levels are achieved or until new targets are in place: deadwood, age structure, forest connectivity, tree cover density, abundance of common forest birds, soil organic carbon in forest land.

Restore degraded non-HD Annex I forest habitat areas.

AGRO-ECOSYSTEMS AND GRASSLANDS

·Restore all HD Annex I agricultural habitat area to good condition, with all necessary restoration measures completed on 30 % (or 15 %) of degraded areas by 2030, 60 % (or 40 %) by 2040 and 100 % by 2050.

·Recreate 30 % (or 15 %) of additional habitat area required to achieve favorable conservation status of HD Annex I agricultural habitats by 2030, 60 % (or 40 %) by 2040 and 100 % by 2050.

·To increase the populations of farmland birds as measured by the common farmland bird index re-set at 100 at year X [one year after the entry into force of this Regulation] to:

o110 by 2030, 120 by 2040 and 130 by 2050, for Member States with historically depleted populations of farmland birds;

o105 by 2030, 110 by 2040 and 115 by 2050, for Member States that do not have historically depleted populations of farmland birds.

·Restore and re-create the area as necessary to enhance the conservation status of species listed in Annex II, IV and V of the Habitats Directive as well as wild birds associated with agro-habitats and grassland in view of achieving their favourable conservation status by 2050, with at least 15 %/30 % of all necessary actions carried out by 2030 and 40 %/60 % by 2040 and 100 % 2050.

·For drained peatlands under agricultural use, to put in place restoration measures, including rewetting, on at least:

o30% of such areas by 2030 of which at least a quarter is rewetted;

o50% of such areas by 2040 of which at least half is rewetted, and

o70% of such areas by 2050 of which at least half is rewetted.

·Achieve a continuously improving trend of each of the following indicators:

ograssland butterfly index;

oorganic carbon content in cropland mineral soils;

until satisfactory levels are achieved or until the new targets are in place; and

oshare of agricultural land with high-diversity landscape features until 2030, with the view to achieving the EU commitment to bring back at least 10% of agricultural area under high-diversity landscape features by 2030;

opercentage of species and habitats of Union interest related to agriculture with stable or increasing trends until 100% is reached at the latest by 2050.

·Restore and recreate semi-modified and semi-natural grasslands.

·Restore and recreate unploughed / untilled grasslands.

Target option discarded as a result of the Impact Assessment (explanation in annex VI):

·Increasing landscape features in the farming landscape to a minimum coverage of 10 %.

STEPPE, HEATHLANDS & SCRUB, DUNES AND ROCKY HABITATS

·Restore all HD Annex I steppe, heath and scrub, dunes and rocky habitat area to good condition, with all necessary restoration measures completed on 30 % (or 15 %) of degraded areas by 2030, 60 % (or 40 %) by 2040 and 100 % by 2050.

·Recreate 30 % (or 15 %) of additional habitat area required to achieve favorable conservation status of HD Annex I steppe, heath and scrub, dunes and rocky habitats by 2030, 60 % (or 40 %) by 2040 and 100 % by 2050.

·Restore and re-create the area as necessary to enhance the conservation status of species listed in Annex II, IV and V of the Habitats Directive as well as wild birds and associated with steppe, heath and scrub, dunes and rocky habitats in view of achieving their favourable conservation status by 2050, with at least 30 % (or 15 %) of all necessary actions carried out by 2030 and 60 % (or 40 %) by 2040 and 100 % by 2050.

FRESHWATER: RIVERS, LAKES AND ALLUVIAL HABITATS

·Restore all HD Annex I rivers, lakes and alluvial habitat area to good condition, with all necessary restoration measures completed on 30 % (or 15 %) of degraded areas by 2030, 60 % (or 40 %) by 2040 and 100 % by 2050.

·Recreate 30 % (or 15 %) of additional habitat area required to achieve favourable conservation status of HD Annex I rivers, lakes and alluvial habitats by 2030, 60 % (or 40 %) by 2040 and 100 % by 2050.

·Restore and re-create the area as necessary to enhance the conservation status of species listed in Annex II, IV and V of the Habitats Directive as well as wild birds associated with rivers, lakes and alluvial habitats in view of achieving their favourable conservation status by 2050, with at least 15 % achieved by 2030 and at least 40 % by 2040.

·Develop an inventory of barriers to longitudinal and lateral connectivity of rivers and a detailed plan of which barriers will be removed, with a view to achieving free-flowing status where possible and necessary to restore the habitats depending on such connectivity.

·Mapping out of small water units, with a view to identify their restoration and recreation potential and assess their contribution to improve connectivity between habitats as part of high diversity landscape features, contributing to the restoration of habitats and species.

·Numerical target on the restoration of free flowing rivers. 20  

·Restoration of small water units.

Target option discarded as a result of the Impact Assessment (explanation in annex VI):

·Implement standardised ecological flow assessments.

MARINE ECOSYSTEMS

·

·To put in place the necessary restoration measures to improve all areas that are not in good condition to good condition in specified marine habitat types, with measures put in place on at least 30 % of such areas by 2030, on at least 60 % of such areas by 2040, and on at least 90 % of such areas by 2050 21 :

a.HD Annex I marine habitats (sub-types of Annex I habitat types, such as seagrass beds, macro-algal forests, sponge, coral and coralligenous beds, maerl beds, shellfish beds, vents and seeps);

b.Marine habitats outside HD Annex I (such as marine shelf sediments).

·To put in place the restoration measures necessary to re-establish those habitat types on at least 30 % of the additional area needed to reach the favourable reference area of each group of habitat types by 2030, at least 60 % of such areas by 2040, and 100 % of such areas by 2050;

·To put in place restoration measures for the habitats of marine species listed in Annexes II, IV and V of the HD and Annex I to Regulation 2019/1241 and of wild birds covered under Birds Directive, that are needed to improve the quality of those habitats, re-establish those habitats and create sufficient connectivity among those habitats corresponding to the ecological requirements of those species.

·Target on specific marine animal species.

Targets discarded as a result of the Impact Assessment (explanation in Annex VI):

·To restore habitats in order to maximise the delivery of key ecosystem services.

·Restore and re-create the area as necessary to enhance the conservation status of species listed in Annex II, IV and V of the Habitats Directive as well as wild birds associated with marine ecosystems in view of achieving their favourable conservation status by 2050, with at least x % achieved by 2030 and at least y % by 2040.

URBAN ECOSYSTEMS

·To ensure that there is no net loss of urban green space, and urban tree canopy cover by 2030, compared to 2021, within all cities and towns and suburbs;

·To ensure that there is an increase in the total national area of urban green space in cities and towns and suburbs of at least 3 % of the total area of cities and towns and suburbs in 2021, by 2040, and at least 5 % by 2050. In addition Member States shall ensure:

I.a minimum of 10 % urban tree canopy cover in all cities and towns and suburbs by 2050; and

II.a net gain of urban green space that is integrated into existing and new buildings and infrastructure developments, including through renovations and renewals, in all cities and towns and suburbs.

Targets discarded as a result of the Impact Assessment (explanation in Annex VI):

·No net soil sealing in Functional Urban Areas by 2030.

POLLINATORS

·Reverse the decline of pollinators (*): This target relates in particular to the following ecosystems: agro-habitats and grasslands, wetlands, forests and heathlands & scrub.

Targets discarded as a result of the Impact Assessment (explanation in Annex VI):

·To achieve good condition of pollinator species protected by the EU Habitats Directive. 

·To achieve good condition of pollinator habitats protected by the EU Habitats Directive.

An EU wide methodology for assessing the condition of ecosystems would be established.

Ecosystem

Ecosystem extent

Technical feasibility

Need for coordinated international action

Cost per hectare

Cost: benefit ratio

Opportunity cost/ stakeholder resistance

Contribution to climate mitigation and adaptation

Contribution to disaster prevention and protection

Overall assessment

Agro-ecosystems

High

Strong evidence base and good experience through agri-environment interventions

Moderate

Moderate for semi-natural habitats, high for improved grasslands and croplands

Good B:C ratios

Would support extensive farming systems. High opportunity costs for intensively farmed areas, which could give rise to resistance without adequate incentives under the CAP

Moderate potential for carbon storage and sequestration; high contribution to adaptation by increasing soil health

Moderate: reducing bare ground, erosion, soil compaction and tillage reduces run-off rates and flooding and landslides

Extensive ecosystem with potential for large scale restoration; depends on incentivising farmers to change land management practices under area-related interventions including agri-environment interventions

Forest

High

Restoration needs and practices are relatively well understood, but recovery takes many decades

Moderate

Moderate per hectare costs

Good B:C ratios

Moderate – main trade-off is with more commercial forestry

Strong carbon sequestration potential through forest restoration and re-creation [adaptation]

Restoration involves significant capital costs, but likely to be a priority given extensive area of degraded forest, and potential to contribute to climate agenda

Heathland and scrub

Low

Restoration needs and practices are relatively well understood

Moderate

Relatively low costs per hectare

Good B:C ratios

Low – relatively low value land with few alternative uses

Strong carbon sequestration potential through restoration,

Moderate: reducing bare ground and overgrazing, reduces run-off, flooding, erosion, and landslides. Risk of intense large fires can be reduced by grazing, scrub management and managed burning

Likely to be prioritised because of relatively low restoration and opportunity costs; however, limited ecosystem area restricts its contribution to overall target

Marine

High

Many habitats may be difficult to restore and/or restoration hampered by evidence gaps. However, other habitats may require passive restoration only.

High – the need for co-ordinated action could be a barrier to restoration without specific marine ecosystem targets.

Variable – potential for extensive use of low cost, passive restoration techniques, while active restoration measures may be expensive.

Uncertain – difficult to assess with given evidence and may vary widely for different restoration methods and habitats. May be strong B:C ratios where passive restoration applied.

Restoration may face significant resistance from fishing sector in response to limits on fishing activity and perceived opportunity costs (at least in short term)

Varies by marine habitats; significant uncertainties regarding impact of restoration actions

Only relevant for MS with a coastline; extent of marine ecosystem restoration uncertain due to significant knowledge gaps. Could be an attractive option for extensive marine habitats suitable for passive restoration, especially where resistance from fisheries sector does not present challenges.

Peatlands and wetlands

Low

Re-wetting of most drained semi-natural peatland is straightforward, full restoration of highly degraded peatland is difficult

Moderate

Moderate per hectare costs

Good B:C ratios

Low for Annex 1 habitats

Exceptionally high potential for carbon storage and sequestration, improved water retention can also contribute to adaptation

High in flood prone catchments where reversing drainage reduces run-off rates and downstream flooding

Likely to be a priority for restoration for those MS with degraded peatlands, given strong climate mitigation benefits.

Rivers and Lakes

Low

Technical challenges in barrier removal and floodplain restoration

High – the need for co-ordinated action could be a barrier to restoration without specific freshwater ecosystem targets.

High – often requiring substantial capital works

High B:C ratios, given high ecosystem service values for freshwaters

Opportunity costs are a barrier to floodplain restoration

Relatively low priority for mitigation, but floodplain restoration plays important role in adaptation

High – Restoring wetlands and floodplains can contribute to flood prevention and mitigation through improved connectivity

Restoration has relatively high costs but offers strong benefit cost ratios; as freshwaters represent a small proportion of overall area, likely to be driven more by MS priorities than an overall target

Urban

Low

Significant technical challenges in unsealing land, recycling developed and contaminated sites

Moderate

High – costs of unsealing land, remediating contaminated sites, changing construction practices

High B:C ratios for urban green space, especially through health and wellbeing benefits

High land prices and many competing demands for land in urban areas

Importance of urban green space, tree cover, sustainable drainage in climate change adaptation

Limited land area and high costs, but also high benefits. Urban ecosystem restoration more likely to be driven by MS priorities than its contribution to an overarching target.

Requirement/ section

Time input per ecosystem (days)

Total days per plan (based on 6 ecosystems)

Compile and present data on ecosystem extent, condition, pressures

100

600

Define ecosystem restoration targets and actions

50

300

Define resources and funding arrangements

30

180

Define monitoring and reporting arrangements

30

180

Public consultation/ engagement

40

240

Compile overall national plan

100

Total time

250

1,500

Cost item

Amount in EUR

EU staff

1.5 million

MS own financing

5 million

EU support to member states (through EU budgets under LIFE, Regional, service contracts H2020, EEA grants Norway):

10 million

Total

16.5 million

Cost item

Amount in EUR

EU staff: 2 FTE for 4 years at EU level

800 000

MS own financing

4 million (150 000 per MS)

EU projects to give overall support and guidance

3 million

Total

7.8 million

Ecosystem

Estimated Annual Average Costs, 15 % restoration target (2022-2030)

Estimated Annual Administration Costs at 10 %

Forests

2 607 607 200

260 760 720

Grasslands

1 220 709 426

122 070 943

Heathlands and scrublands

168 896 807

16 889 681

Marshes

164 950 693

16 495 069

Peatlands

221 050 458

22 105 046

Total

4 383 214 584

438 321 458

Estimated Costs

One-off costs

Annual costs

Surveys of ecosystems

1 099 000 000

Development of national restoration plans;

12 800 000

Development of methodologies and indicators (5 ecosystems)

6 580 000

Administration of restoration measures (2022-2030; 15 % target)

438 321 000

Monitoring of restored ecosystems    

20 643 103

Reporting progress against restoration targets

107 000

Sub-total 

1 118 380 000 

459 071 103

Costs from 2022 to 2050

1 118 380 000 

12 853 990 884

Total costs from 2022 to 2050

13 972 370 884

Headline target: Halt the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and restore them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss.

Target 1: Fully implement EU Nature Legislation

To halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats covered by EU nature legislation and achieve a significant and measurable improvement in their status so that, by 2020, compared to current assessments, 100 % more habitat assessments and 50 % more species assessments under the Habitats Directive show an improved conservation status; and 50 % more species assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure or improved status.    

Target 2: Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services

By 2020, ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by establishing green infrastructure and restoring at least 15 % of degraded ecosystems

Target 3: Increase the contribution of agriculture and forestry to biodiversity

By 2020, maximise areas under agriculture across grasslands, arable land and permanent crops that are covered by biodiversity-related measures under the CAP so as to ensure the conservation of biodiversity and to bring about a measurable improvement in the conservation status of species and habitats that depend on or are affected by agriculture and in the provision of ecosystem services.

By 2020, Forest Management Plans or equivalent instruments, in line with Sustainable Forest Management (SFM), are in place for all forests that are publicly owned and for forest holdings above a certain size that receive funding under the EU Rural Development Policy so as to bring about a measurable improvement in the conservation status of species and habitats that depend on or are affected by forestry and in the provision of related ecosystem services.

Target 4: Ensure sustainable fisheries and support healthy marine ecosystems

Achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) by 2015. Achieve a population age and size distribution indicative of a healthy stock, through fisheries management with no significant adverse impacts on other stocks, species and ecosystems, in support of achieving Good Environmental Status by 2020, as required under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

Target 5: Combat Invasive Alien Species

Target 6: Help avert global biodiversity loss

Horizontal measures: Strengthen financing, partnerships and governance

Box 1. Cost-effectiveness of biodiversity protection and restoration

Despite significant variations of magnitude in estimates, evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the benefits flowing from healthy ecosystems far exceed the costs related to their protection, restoration and sustainable management, across all biodiversity targets.

The actual costs of Target 2 implementation activities in 2016 were estimated at between €4.8 million and €33.1 million (highly uncertain). The one-off cost of restoring 15 % of degraded ecosystems has been estimated at around €9.6 billion, and the additional cost of maintaining all restored ecosystems in good condition was estimated at €618 to €1 660 million per year. Restoration activity has been significantly below what would be required to fulfil Target 2, and the realised total expenditure during the 2010-2020 period is significantly lower.

The total benefits of implementation across the EU cannot be estimated or monetised due to lack of systematically collated evidence on the restoration undertaken. Economic activity associated with ecosystem restoration has been estimated to be between €11.5 and €79.5 million. Restoration and the deployment of green infrastructure contribute to a range of socio-economic benefits linked to improved air and water quality, flood control, noise reduction, recreation and social opportunities, pollination, soil fertility and health. The restoration of forest, wetlands and other ecosystems has brought millions of euros in savings across the EU due to lower water retention and purification costs 66 , 67 . National parks can generate substantial employment both directly and indirectly in the broader region 68 . Urban green infrastructure can generate benefits in the form of enhanced health and well-being 69 . According to some estimates, 110 000 direct FTE jobs each year can be supported by investment needed to achieve Target 2 (15 % restoration) 70 . However, very little of the required investment and restoration effort has materialised, and thus most of these benefits and jobs were not created.

EU and international studies have shown that investments in marine biodiversity can generate high economic returns in enhanced yields, higher quality fish products, and tourism. Funding allocated to measures for the protection and restoration of marine biodiversity under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund has been estimated at around €199 million in 2015, €134 million in 2016, €136 million in 2017, €90 million in 2018 and €128 million in 2019. The benefits provided by healthy fish stocks and oceans are immeasurable.

The Strategy has not fully achieved any of its Targets. This means that not only the full benefits provided by the Strategy’s targets and actions have not materialised, but also natural capital and ecosystem services are further deteriorating. Other socio-economic impacts, such as health impacts, social vulnerability, and safety, can also emerge due to the failure to protect biodiversity and ecosystems. Human induced biodiversity loss also undermines efforts to mitigate climate change and adapt to its inevitable impacts.

Box 2: The nature of the Strategy as an instrument

The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 had an important role in providing a coherent, strategic EU level framework, giving rise to political commitment, setting common targets, actions and mechanisms for their coordinated implementation and progress tracking, and providing links with other relevant EU policies and legislation. At the same time, the Strategy constituted a largely voluntary framework within which a range of instruments, from voluntary to binding ones, needed to work together to ensure delivery. The evaluation examined whether alternative policy tools would have had the potential to better deliver the targets in a cost-effective manner than a strategy. Implementation experience has helped to identify areas within this wider strategic framework, within which:

-voluntary mechanisms and incentives worked well based on the motivation of stakeholders to engage in biodiversity efforts, such as cooperation of front-running businesses in the EU Business@Biodiversity Platform, or the development of green infrastructure in EU regions and cities that had already set for themselves ambitious biodiversity objectives.

-voluntary instruments worked well in support of the implementation and enforcement of EU legislation in the Member States, such as the provision of Commission guidance on Natura 2000 for different sectors, or the biogeographical cooperation process helping to implement the EU Nature Directives.

-reliance on voluntary instruments alone was not sufficient to ensure delivery, in particular when urgent, strategic and large scale action was needed. This was the case of one of the flagship targets to reverse biodiversity loss: Target 2 to restore at least 15 % of degraded ecosystems in the EU, which also reflected the global Aichi Target and the EU’s commitment under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Legislative and regulatory instruments are the main tool for environmental policy and have been widely used at EU level. According to SOER 2020 , there are significantly fewer binding targets for biodiversity than for other environment areas, such as climate change, air pollution, waste, and chemicals. When biodiversity policy objectives and targets are not met (as has been the case for several consecutive biodiversity policy instruments), there is a tendency to reiterate them and extend the timeframe for their achievement. SOER 2020 points to six key areas for bold action, one of which is the development of systemic policy frameworks with binding targets to mobilise and guide actions across actors and levels.

It was a clear conclusion of the evaluation, and a view held by a high number of stakeholders consulted that, while voluntary instruments could play an important role in certain contexts, the lack of legislative teeth was a significant factor in the Strategy’s failures in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. For the operationalisation of the biodiversity targets, the Strategy could have benefited from a different combination of regulatory and market-based instruments. The EP Resolution of January 2020 called upon the Commission 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".

Policy initiatives and laws

Status

Relevance for ecosystem restoration

Possible alignment/overlap/synergies with the proposed Nature Restoration Law (NRL)

EU Directives, Regulations and Decisions

Birds and Habitats Directives 76  

Existing

·HD Article 2(2) requires that measures taken pursuant to the HD shall be designed to maintain or restore, at favourable conservation status, natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest (habitats listed in Annex I and species listed in Annex II and/or IV or V). However, it does not set a deadline or timeframe for achieving this objective. 

·According to HD Article 3, Natura 2000 shall enable the natural habitat types and the species' habitats concerned to be maintained or, where appropriate, restored at a favorable conservation status in their natural range.

·HD Article 10 furthermore states that MS shall in their land-use planning and development policies encourage the management of landscape features with the aim of improving connectivity within the N2000 network.

·HD Article 6 is the key provision governing the protection and the management of Special areas of conservation. In particular:

oHD Article 6(1) states for special areas of conservation, MS shall establish the necessary conservation measures involving, if need be, appropriate management plans specifically designed for the sites or integrated into other development plans, and appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual measures which correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in Annex II present on the sites. 

oHD article 6(2) states that MS shall take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive. 

·The BD requires restoration to FCS for all species of naturally occurring birds in the wild state in the European territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies. This shall be achieved by means of protection, management and restoration of species and their habitats across the territory of the Member States, as well as in Special Protection Areas (SPA) for certain bird species.

·By virtue of article 7 of the HD, obligations arising under Article 6 (2) (and (3) and (4)) of the HD also apply to SPA classified under the BD.

·Definition of good ecosystem status under NRL has to be aligned with favourable conservation status (FCS) under BHD.

·NRL will support delivering the voluntary target in the BS2030 that habitats and species show no deterioration in conservation trends and status and at least 30 % reach favourable conservation status or at least show a positive trend.

·Restored ecosystems outside Natura 2000 under NRL could be designated as (strictly) protected areas thus contributing to the relevant BDS2030 targets.

·The NRL will complement the BHD by: (1) setting a deadline for achieving FCS for birds, Annex I habitats and species listed in Annex II and/or IV or V, which is missing in both the Birds and Habitats Directives; (2) creating more explicit restoration obligations for Annex I habitats and habitats of birds and species listed in Annex II and/or IV or V outside of the Natura 2000 network; (3) putting in place the mechanism to achieve FCS, e.g. by requiring MS to prepare restoration plans; and (4) creating links with the climate change policy, e.g. by requiring Member States to restore carbon and nature rich habitats.

Water Framework Directive (WFD) 77

Existing

·Establishes a framework for the protection of inland surface waters (including rivers, lakes, transitional waters, coastal waters) and groundwater which i.a. prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems. 

·The NRL definition of good ecosystem condition does not duplicate, nor substitute the 2027 target of good status for all water bodies under WFD; it rather complements it.

·In line with the BDS2030, the NRL targets on freshwater ecosystems reinforce and work in synergy with the targets of the WFD (achieve good ecological status for all water bodies by 2027)

·NRL targets contribute to accelerate the implementation of WFD and reinforce the synergies between WFD and the nature legislation.

·NRL requirement on non-deterioration would match the existing WFD requirement to take measures to prevent deterioration of the status of all bodies of water

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) 78

Existing

·Establishes a framework within which Member States shall take the necessary measures to reach the target of achieving or maintaining good environmental status in the marine environment by the year 2020 at the latest.

·Requires MS to develop marine strategies that protect and preserve the marine environment, prevent its deterioration or, where practicable, restore marine ecosystems in areas where they have been adversely affected.

·Definition of good ecosystem status under NRL aligned with good environmental status under MSFD.

·The MSFD implementation of Art.13 (and the ongoing MSFD review) may consider the NRL targets as measures to achieve good environmental status.

·NRL targets reinforce existing MSFD targets (and do not create a derogation from the deadline/ambition).

·NRL targets focus on the maintenance of ecological functions at a higher resolution than the normal management/reporting scales under the MSFD, ensuring consistency and synergy of the policy objectives.

Marine Spatial Planning Directive (MSPD) 79

Existing

·Requires MS to consider i.a. environmental aspects to support sustainable development and growth in the maritime sector, applying an ecosystem-based approach. 

·Requires MS to set up marine spatial plans that consider interactions of activities and uses and contribute to i.a. the preservation, protection and improvement of the environment, including resilience to climate change impacts. 

·NRL could provide concrete objectives and measures to apply the ecosystem-based approach enshrined in the MSPD

·The links between NRL and marine protected areas could provide more certainty and usefulness to the spatial plans

Floods Directive (FD) 80

Existing

·Establishes a framework for the assessment and management of flood risks, aiming at the reduction of the adverse consequences for i.a. the environment.

·NRL reinforces FD because the restoration of the ability of marine and freshwater ecosystems to provide regulating services, such as natural water retention, could help prevent and mitigate the effects of floods (climate adaptation).

·Also, healthy ecosystems are more resilient to the effects of severe floods.

Climate Law

Existing (Regulation 2021/1119 of 30 June 2021).

·Establishes a framework for the irreversible and gradual reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and enhancement of removals by natural or other sinks in the Union.

·Sets a legally binding target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions (climate neutrality) by 2050 and negative emissions thereafter.

·Introduces a new EU target for 2030 of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 %, compared to 1990. This includes the review and possible revision of climate and energy laws to be able to achieve this updated target (fit for 55 package).

·Requires MS to develop and implement adaptation strategies to strengthen resilience and reduce vulnerability to the effects of climate change.

·Strengthens existing provisions on adaptation to climate change. 

·Establishes a framework for achieving progress in pursuit of adaptation goals, in a consistent manner in all policy areas, including biodiversity (in particular nature-based solutions).

·NRL, by focusing on restoring ecosystems with a high potential for climate adaptation/mitigation (e.g. through carbon removals), will contribute to achieving Climate Law targets. 

·The Climate Law contributes to the NRL by strengthening EU policies on climate change (both mitigation and adaptation), which is a major pressure on biodiversity loss.

·The Climate Law acknowledges the role of ecosystem restoration in maintaining, managing and enhancing natural sinks and promoting biodiversity (consideral 23).

·Under the Climate Law, Member States shall promote nature-based solutions and ecosystem-based adaptation.

Climate Governance Regulation 81  

Existing

·Specifies common rules on the planning, monitoring and the reporting of climate action, in particular emissions and removals associated to land use, land-use changes and forestry.

·The review of the LULUCF Regulation proposes to introduce high-level monitoring provisions for land with high carbon stock, land under restoration, land under protection and land with high climate risk.

·The NRL would allow to amend this list, when restoration targets will be clarified.

Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (EIAD) 82

Existing

·Requires ‘developers’ to do an environmental impact assessment for a wide range of defined public and private projects, and covers impacts on biodiversity, with particular attention to species and habitats protected under BHD. 

·The potential NRL requirements for non-deterioration and to identify, describe, assess and disclose the impacts of (new) sectoral policies likely to exacerbate ecosystem degradation processes, could be aligned with the EIA Directive.

·NRL could say that assessment of project-level impacts needs to be done according to the EIAD where this could apply, including for interests that go beyond the species/ habitat protected under the BHD. 

Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (SEAD) 83

Existing

·Examines the likely environmental impacts of certain plans or programmes in order to take them into account in the decision-making process, with the aim of achieving a high-level protection of the environment and to promote sustainable development. 

·The potential NRL requirements for non-deterioration and to identify, describe, assess and disclose the impacts of (new) sectoral policies likely to exacerbate ecosystem degradation processes, could be aligned with the SEAD. Restoration plans under the NRL themselves would also require SEAD. 

Eel Regulation No 1100/2007 84

Existing

·Sets a framework for the recovery of the European Eel.

·NRL will greatly help in the restoration of eel habitats (in particular in river and coastal areas) and ultimately in the recovery of eels.

Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) 85

Existing

·Lays out rules and guidance on the conservation, management and sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources.

·The CFP provides a framework for the conservation of marine biological resources and the management of fisheries and fleets exploiting those resources; it aims to ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long-term and consistent with achieving socio-economic benefits.

·NRL marine targets could contribute to achieve sustainable fishing.

Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)

Existing (renewal being negotiated)

·To reach the MFF/NextGen target to spend 30 % on climate objectives, 40 % of CAP spending must be dedicated towards these objectives. If CAP budget will be spent on e.g. carbon removals, this would contribute to achieving the NRL targets.

·Possible NRL targets on agroecosystems may also be addressed by the CAP, e.g. in terms of crop diversity, nutrient balance, fertiliser use, pesticide use and risk reduction. Depending on the target some indicators might be available under CAP monitoring. 

·NRP might introduce additional targets/indicators on agroecosystems that supplement requirements in the coming CAP to further improve the balance between farming and nature. For such cases, CAP might not provide the framework for monitoring and evaluation.

Environmental Accounts Regulation (EAR)

Incoming

·Proposes a new ecosystem accounting module providing legal definitions of ecosystem extent, ecosystem condition, conversion and ecosystem services, as well regular reporting on these by MS.

·Definitions under EAR and NRL are streamlined where beneficial.

Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) 86

Existing

·Establishes a framework of environmental liability, i.a. to prevent and/or remedy environmental damage to water, protected species and natural habitats (both within and outside N2000 under certain circumstances, as confirmed by the Commission Guidelines/Notice on environmental damage in paragraph 90) through restoration of the environment to its baseline condition - in case of strict/fault-based liability. 

·The potential NRL requirements might contribute to knowledge of baseline conditions through monitoring, and knowledge of remediation techniques through methodological provisions on restoration. 

·ELD establishes a precedent of legally binding prevention and restoration obligations outside N2000. 

·“Environmental damage” under ELD includes not only damage to Annex I habitats themselves but impairments of the “natural resource services” that they provide. As paragraph 42 of the Notice notes, these can include carbon services and flood protection.  

LULUCF Regulation 2021-2030

Existing (Regulation 2018/841)

Establishes a non-debit rule at MS level,

Require that all land categories contribute to the reduction of emissions and the enhancement of removals.

·MS forest reference levels should be consistent with the objective of contributing to the conservation of biodiversity.

MS have published national forest accounting plans, which, among other, explains how forest reference levels are consistency with biodiversity conservation objective.

LULUCF Regulation 2021-2030 (525/2013) proposal

Existing COM (2021) 554 final

·Strengthen LULUCF objectives at EU and MS level.

·Compliance reports shall include an assessment of synergies between mitigation and biodiversity.

·Maps and monitors certain habitats relevant for restoration.

·Potential co-benefits for restoration in terms of carbon sinks in the land use sector.

·Monitoring requirements are being streamlined (through amendments to the Governance Regulation). NRL will be able to update the elements introduced by the LULUCF Regulation Review.

·LULUCF targets will push Member States to enhance natural carbon sinks. 

·Compliance reports will assess synergies between climate and biodiversity

8th Environmental Action Programme (Commission proposal for a Decision of the EP and Council) 87

Being adopted, provisional agreement reached by co-legislators on December 1, 2021

·Legal framework that guides environmental and climate policymaking and implementation until 2030.

·Includes a policy objective to i.a. restore biodiversity.

·Lists potential indicators that overlap with the NRL (common birds, grassland butterflies, fish stock, and land take or soil cover/ sealing).

·Potential co-benefits for restoration.

·The foreseen 8th EAP headline indicator set should be coordinated with the indicators and monitoring foreseen in the NRL, to ensure overall coherence and reduction of administrative burden.

Taxonomy Regulation 88

Delegated acts on (1) biodiversity and ecosystems, (2) Climate Adaptation and (3) Mitigation

Existing and Incoming, 2021.

Climate delegated act (Del Reg 2021/2139)

·It outlines criteria for activities so that they substantially support at least one of six areas (incl. biodiversity and ecosystems) without doing any significant harm to another. 

·Economic activities qualifying as environmentally sustainable will support reaching the NRL targets for protection and restoration of ecosystems. 

·Restoration of wetlands (including peatlands) is identified as a sustainable investment under the EU Taxonomy Regulation Climate Delegated Act.

·The Taxonomy Regulation and its Delegated Act defines technical screening criteria for sustainable activities, including

oBiodiversity DNSH criteria for activities with a significant contribution to climate change mitigation or adaptation

oMitigation and adaptation DNSH criteria for activities with a signification contribution to biodiversity and ecosystem restoration.

Legislation and guidance on green public procurement (to boost NBS) 89

Incoming, 2022

·The existing EU GPP sets criteria to facilitate the inclusion of green requirements in public tender documents with the aim to reach a good balance between environmental performance, cost considerations, market availability and ease of verification.

·Potential co-benefits for restoration when environmental performance criteria reduce pressures on biodiversity.

Invasive Alien Species (IAS) Regulation 90  

Existing

·Invasive alien species (IAS) generally cause damage to ecosystems, reduce their resilience, including to climate change and affect (mostly negatively) the ecosystem services provided.

·Degraded ecosystems are particularly prone to the establishment of IAS. Many IAS thrive particularly in heavily modified, ecologically degraded environments.

·The IAS Regulation calls for undertaking proportionate restoration measures to strengthen the ecosystems' resilience towards invasions and to repair the damage caused.

·Article 20 of the IAS Regulation requires Member States to “carry out appropriate restoration measures to assist the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed by invasive alien species of Union concern unless a cost-benefit analysis demonstrates, on the basis of the available data and with reasonable certainty, that the costs of those measures will be high and disproportionate to the benefits of restoration.

·Article 20 further specifies that these restoration measures shall include at least the following: (a) measures to increase the ability of an ecosystem exposed to disturbance caused by the presence of invasive alien species of Union concern to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of disturbance and (b) measure to support the prevention of reinvasion following an eradication campaign.

·Article 21 of the Regulation states that, in accordance with the polluter pays principle Member States shall aim to recover the costs of measures needed to prevent, minimise or mitigate the adverse impacts of invasive alien species, including environmental and resources costs as well as the restoration costs.

·The list of IAS of Union concern was updated the last time in 2019 and currently includes 36 plants and 30 animals. A new update of the list is currently under preparation. The species listed are to be addressed as a priority across the Union. As these may negatively affect a wide range of ecosystems, whether terrestrial, aquatic or marine, implementation of the measures foreseen under the IAS Regulation contribute to the objectives of the NRL.

·On the other hand, the NRL can be expected to contribute to achieving the objectives of the IAS Regulation as ecosystem restoration often requires the removal of invasive alien species. Restored, healthy ecosystems can reduce the risk of establishment of new IAS and reduce their spread in the case of already established ones.

·A pre-requisite for ecosystems to qualify as restored under the NRL could be that IAS are removed or controlled so that they don’t significantly alter their main structure and function.

National Emission reduction Commitment Directive (NECD) 91

Existing

·Sets national reduction commitments for the periods 2020-29 and 2030 onwards for a range of air pollutants that affects ecosystems and biodiversity negatively and contributes to off-setting restoration efforts through eutrophication, acidification and tissue damage.

·NECD helps reduce pressures on biodiversity loss, thereby also contributing to the foreseen non-deterioration requirement under the NRL.

Regulation on deforestation-free products 92

Existing

·This Regulation does not cover restoration but focuses on minimising deforestation and forest degradation. 

·It aims to guarantee that the products that EU citizens consume on the EU market do not contribute to deforestation and forest degradation within the EU and globally.

EU strategies, programmes or initiatives

European Green Deal 93  

Existing

·Key elements of the European Green Deal depend on or contribute to the restoration of ecosystems, including the BDS2030, Farm to Fork Strategy , the climate-neutrality ambition by 2050  and the increased climate ambition by 2030 , the new EU Climate Adaptation Strategy , the zero pollution ambition/action plan , the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability , the Circular Economy Action Plan , and the Just Transition Mechanism . Also relevant are the new EU Forest Strategy and the new EU Soil Strategy.

·NRL contributes to various elements of the Green Deal, which are specified in separate rows dedicated to these elements.

Mid-term review and final evaluation of the Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 94  

Existing

·Provides lessons learned related to restoration.

·The following lessons learnt have informed the NRL development: (1) successful local examples demonstrate the feasibility of, and the benefits from restoration, (2) reliance on voluntary instruments alone proved insufficient to mobilise coordinated restoration action of sufficient scale; (3) targets need to be specific enough to guide implementation and monitoring, and backed by clear definitions; (4) insufficient funding is a major barrier to restoration; and (5) an EU-wide monitoring effort is necessary to fill knowledge gaps. For more information see Annex IX.

Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 (BDS2030) 95

Existing

Contributes to restoration through I.a. the following commitments:

·Legally binding targets to be proposed in 2021.

·No deterioration of any protected habitats and species by 2030 - trend to be positive for at least 30 %.