Nature Restoration Law one step closer to becoming reality – but with loopholes

CCB • November 10, 2023

Intense trilogue negotiations concluded tonight

Brussels, 10 November 2023 Late Thursday night, the intense negotiations between the EU Parliament, Commission, and Council concluded on the eagerly awaited Nature Restoration Law, resulting in a political agreement between the three institutions.   


While we are pleased to see that all ecosystems originally covered by the law are still included in the agreement, the articles have been watered down compared to the original Commission’s proposal and the Council’s position. It is disappointing to see the many exemptions included, and the excessive flexibility regarding obligations for Member States. 


Below follows our initial reaction to the main components of the agreement: 

  • The scope of terrestrial restoration has not been restricted to Natura 2000 sites exclusively, but significant loopholes were added which can decrease the total area to be restored. 
  • The requirement to prevent deterioration has been severely undermined, making it difficult to implement.
  • Fortunately, concrete requirements to increase nature on farmlands, as well as restore peatlands made it into this agreement, but the reintroduction of the article came at a high cost, with significant concessions being made, such as introducing the possibility to pause the implementation of the legislation – also referred to as the ‘emergency brake’.


The so-called trilogue negotiations are reported to have been challenging as the Council and Commission worked to find common ground with Parliament’s significantly weaker position. 


The law, initially designed to implement measures aimed at restoring a minimum of 20% of the EU’s nature on land, rivers, and seas by 2030, unexpectedly became the target of an aggressive disinformation and scaremongering campaign led by Manfred Weber’s EPP group, aiming to prevent this law from ever seeing the light of day. As a result, numerous targets were watered down when the Parliament's position was adopted. Many compromises and concessions were made to accommodate all parties involved, with the expectation of gaining support even from the most conservative factions.


As shown by the latest HELCOM holistic assessment - HOLAS 3, the Baltic Sea is not in a good state. All actors must intensify the efforts and the collaboration towards a healthy and sustainable Baltic Sea and environmental resources and ecosystems in Europe. "Both passive and active ecological restoration strategies are needed, along with the implementation of ambitious, effective and concrete local and outsourced measures. The future role and importance of the Restoration Law will depend on its active nature and specific obligations, surpassing the more general targets of the EU Biodiversity Strategy ", commented Andrea Cervantes, CCB Biodiversity Officer.


The call for an impactful Nature Restoration Law received unprecedented support from over one million citizens, businesses, scientists, and multiple other stakeholders [1]. 


The agreement reached must now be endorsed by Member States, as well as undergo a crucial vote by the EU Parliament’s Environment committee, later this year, where conservative groups may attempt to torpedo the law once again. 


If the proposal successfully navigates these steps, it will subsequently go through a final rubber-stamp vote during the Parliament’s plenary vote, expected to take place in December 2023.

We now call on Member States and the EU Parliament to approve this trilogue agreement, and not delay the much-needed restoration work that will help the EU fight the climate and nature crisis. 


NGOs COMMENTS


Sofie Ruysschaert, Nature Restoration Policy Officer, BirdLife Europe:
We are relieved to see that the negotiators have not completely failed European citizens. The inclusion of restoration targets for farmlands and drained peatlands gives us a modest chance for a brighter tomorrow, as our ability to have food and clean water depends on these ecosystems being healthy and biodiverse. But the true litmus test lies in whether this law will really address the staggering repercussions of the climate and nature crisis. And that will only be seen if and when Member States properly implement the law.” 


Ioannis Agapakis, Nature Conservation Lawyer at ClientEarth:
We finally have a much-needed law that in theory, would force the EU to take concrete action to restore its ailing nature. However, negotiators have hollowed out the law to the point that it risks being toothless in practice and prone to abuse. The numerous exemptions and lack of legal safeguards have set a very frightening precedent for EU law-making, rather than cementing the EU at the forefront of biodiversity conservation. Failing to recognise our vital dependence on nature will leave Europeans exposed to the disastrous impacts of the climate and biodiversity crises."


Sergiy Moroz, Policy Manager for Water and Biodiversity at EEB:
Despite significant concessions made to the opponents of the impactful Nature Restoration Law, the provisional agreement includes several positive elements such as targets to reverse the decline in pollinators or restore free flowing rivers. It is imperative that the law is now formally adopted by the co-legislators before the EU elections in 2024, and its implementation starts without delay to also enable EU to fulfil its global commitments on climate and biodiversity.


Sabien Leemans, Senior Biodiversity Policy Officer at WWF European Policy Office:
While this deal is more ambitious than the weak Parliament position, it is still a far cry from what science tells us is necessary to tackle the climate and biodiversity emergencies. Yet, given the fierce opposition to the law, we are relieved that an agreement was reached. Without this, the EU’s international credibility would have suffered severely. There is hope now that the EU will make concerted efforts to bring nature back, for the sake of biodiversity, people and our climate - it's the best chance we have.


ENDS.


Notes for editors: 

[1] The Nature Restoration Law has received support from EU Member States, the wind energy and solar industry, scientists, the progressive farming community, European hunters, financial institutions, European mayors, an increasing number of companies and business associations and European youth. Almost 1,200,000 signatures and messages for an ambitious Nature Restoration Law have been collected through various campaigns, which were launched by the #RestoreNature coalition (incl. Avaaz), WeMove, etc.


[2] For more information about the Nature Restoration Law, please visit, www.restorenature.eu or

https://www.ccb.se/restorenature-campaign


For more information, please contact:

Honey Kohan, Communications Manager, BirdLife Europe:
honey.kohan@birdlife.org

+32 482 55 95 43


Ola Miklasińska
Communications Officer, Biodiversity
amiklasinska@wwf.eu
+32 456 37 60 64

Bianca Vergnaud,
EU Communications Manager, ClientEarth
bvergnaud@clientearth.org
+32 471 88 70 95 


Federica Pastore
CCB Communication Officer

federica.pastore@ccb.se


By CCB March 30, 2026
Brussels, 30 March 2026 - Today, Fisheries Ministers from EU Member States meet with the European Commission for the AGRIFISH Council. On this occasion, Oceana, BLOOM, ClientEarth, Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB), Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF), Seas At Risk and WWF EU, handed a symbolic ''Pandora’s Box'' to the EU Commissioner Costas Kadis, sending a clear message as the European Commission prepares its 2026 evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The box represents the risks of revising EU’s main fishery policy framework: once opened, competing demands from Member States, industry, small-scale fishers, and coastal communities could quickly spiral into division, regulatory delays and uncertainties. This would put at risk the hard-won progress made in restoring Europe’s fish populations and improving the profitability of the fishing sector. NGOs urge decision makers to build on the progress made to date and to prioritise the full and timely implementation of the existing rules. Reopening the CFP and its related provisions would undermine ocean health and the long-term future of Europe’s fishing communities. '' Europe's fisheries policy is facing a credibility test. The law is already there. The tools to rebuild our seas already exist. What's missing is the political will to deliver. Overfishing should have ended by 2020 at the latest. Reopening the CFP would signal that missed deadlines carry no consequences, erode trust, revert the progress made, and put the future of our fisheries and coastal communities at stake ’’, said the NGO coalition. *** Oceana: Vera Coelho, Executive Director and Vice President in Europe BLOOM: Claire Nouvian, Founder and General Director ClientEarth: John Condon, Lead of Marine Ecosystems Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB): Ida Carlén, Co-Chair Environmental Justice Foundation: Steve Trent, CEO/Founder Seas At Risk: Dr Monica Verbeek, Executive Director WWF EU: Ester Asin, Director
By CCB March 10, 2026
Uppsala, March 2026 - CCB has closely worked with the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) ever since its adoption and welcomed the opportunity to give feedback to this crucial directive for marine biodiversity and ocean health through the EU Call of Evidence . Evaluations conducted by the EU Commission previously found many positive effects for EU marine waters stemming from the directive, but also that the directive has some shortcomings. CCB however, maintains that the largest obstacle to fully implementing the directive and achieving Good Environmental Status (GES) is the lack of political will among Member States to do so. This forthcoming revision must therefore result in a framework directive that is more easily enforceable, measurable and implementable, accompanied by sufficient funding to carry out the measures. Furthermore, in order to achieve GES as fast as possible other key pieces of EU legislation must also support reaching it and focus on achieving the goals of the MSFD in their objectives. Seeing that European seas generally are in poor condition and under mounting pressure from human activities and that in the Baltic Sea the situation is especially dire there is an urgent need for truly ecosystem-based management of our seas and for reaching GES. The revised MSFD can help us achieve this, but only if it includes the points outlined below and the directive is fully and swiftly implemented: *** [Short version]*** Operationalise the overarching GES goal: EU sea areas were supposed to reach GES already in 2020, but due to low political ambition, sadly did not do so. Member States should therefore strive to reach GES as fast as possible now. Setting a new overall deadline for when to reach GES is not the answer on how to achieve this goal most efficiently, instead tools that address pressures and measure progress and ensure actual, timely implementation of ambitious measures must be included in the revised directive in order to operationalise achieving the overall GES goal. CCB therefore recommends making the existing and forthcoming threshold values for the descriptors and their criteria legally binding and part of the main directive. Improving regional coordination and implementation: To improve the coherence, coordination and effectiveness of MSFD implementation, assessment of GES, monitoring and the national PoMs the role of the Regional Seas Conventions (RSCs) must be clarified. CCB would welcome collating all the national PoMs into one regional PoM for the Baltic Sea, which should be aligned with, in addition to reaching the goals of the MSFD, with achieving the goals of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP). Land-sea interface: For the Baltic Sea to achieve GES it is key that land-based pressures, primarily nutrient runoff from agriculture causing severe eutrophication, is also addressed and that implementation of the MSFD goes hand in hand with the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The goals of the MSFD and achieving GES should also be included when implementing and shaping the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), as well as any synergies with implementing the EU Zero Pollution Action Plan which are also important to identify and utilise. The Baltic Sea also has a too high prevalence and level of other pollutants and hazardous substances affecting marine life. Fisheries and aquaculture: As one of the main pressure factors on the marine environment in general, as well as in the Baltic Sea, fisheries and aquaculture and the effects they have on the marine ecosystem and its biodiversity must be addressed in order to achieve GES. This is especially crucial when considering the MSFD descriptor for Biodiversity (D1), Fish and Shellfish (D3), Food webs (D4) and the one for Seabed integrity (D6). Climate change: Climate change is also affecting the Baltic Sea faster than other marine regions and must be factored in when managing the sea area and its resources to ensure EBM and the full implementation of the MSFD and achieving GES. The effects of the climate crisis should be accounted for when setting pressure reduction targets and threshold values for the descriptors and their criteria, in a way that when an effect cannot be measured nor predicted the precautionary principle must be used. Revising Art. 14 of the MSFD: Article 14 in the MSFD outlines the acceptable exceptions when reaching GES is not possible. The article needs to be revised in the forthcoming revision, since it contains too many and too broad in scope possibilities for exemptions (e.g. in Art. 14(4)), which jeopardise the implementation and fulfilment of the directive as a whole. A possible way of modifying it would be to introduce an obligation for Member States to demonstrate that they have taken all measures within their control nationally and that they have tried to address the problem and advance solving it on a regional level through cooperating with other Member States, before they can apply for a possible exemption. Make the Programme of Measures contain ambitious & concrete measures: One of the cornerstones of the MSFD is the national PoMs that are published every six years and are precluded by an assessment of GES in national waters and a monitoring programme. Unfortunately, the current approach to PoMs where Member States freely can choose measures has led to an overall too low level of ambition in the PoMs, and to large differences within regions and between neighboring countries in terms of which measures are included. In order to fully implement the directive and to achieve GES it is of paramount importance that the national PoMs have a high level of ambition and contain concrete, implementable measures and that there is regional coordination. Easing the reporting burden: One of the results from the evaluation of the MSFD was that the current reporting burden is considered to be too high and a possible way to address this is to align the reporting obligations of the MSFD to more reassemble those of the WFD, that has a more simplified 6-year cycle compared to the MSFD. The implementation cycle however should not be revised or at least not in a way that delays reaching GES. Improve coherence with other legislation: To ensure that the revised MSFD is fully implemented it is essential that coherence with other relevant legislation is improved. The MSPD (foundation for the forthcoming Ocean Act) is also currently being revised and to reach the goals for both the directives achieving GES needs to be a cornerstone of the Ocean Act. This is the only way to deliver truly ecosystem-based management of our seas, and the revision of both directives should therefore be coordinated and focused on achieving GES. CCB looks forward to continuing to provide input to the revision process of the MSFD as well as working with the implementation of the MSFD, especially in the Baltic Sea. CCB expects that the revision will result in a more enforceable directive that leads to the fast implementation of ambitious measures to improve the state of the Baltic and European Sea areas and to the achievement of GES. The full text of the submission is available here . *** Links to supplemental documents supporting our positions: CCB’s submission to the Call for Evidence for the Ocean Act Guiding Recommendations for Source-to-Sea Restoration in Riverine, Coastal, and Marine Ecosystems (Coalition Clean Baltic, 2025) Position Paper on Marine Protected Areas (Coalition Clean Baltic 2024) Don’t sink the Common Fisheries Policy – fulfil its potential (joint NGO Briefing 2025) Blue Manifesto (joint NGO paper)