The Agricultural Context for the EU’s Unprecedented Nature Restoration Law

Lily Robinson – ILCN program coordinator Mónica Vidal – Eurosite project officer Carolina Halevy – ILCN regional representative for Europe

As a child, Attila Tóth used to ski in the hills of Slovakia. Looking out over expansive steppes, lowland hay meadows, and species-rich dry grasslands, he dreamed of one day grazing cows there. But when he grew up to become a farmer, he found himself with a fragmented property that was difficult to manage and unable to support healthy grazing. Luckily, he was able to establish a partnership with BROZ, a non-profit conservation organization in Slovakia, which works to protect and restore important habitats in the Danube region and in the Carpathians. The partnership enabled him to receive funding from the European Union (EU) LIFE program for nature conservation, through which he was able to expand and restore his farmland and submit part of his property to the European Union’s protected area network, Natura 2000, while maintaining it as working lands.

Success stories like this, that bring together agriculture and conservation outcomes, are the intended result of the new European Union Nature Restoration Law (NRL) that binds nations to nature restoration targets. However, with little precedent and uneven support across the 28 European Member States, many are uncertain what the new law’s actual impacts will be. Farmers’ concerns are at the forefront of the debate.

The NRL went into effect on August 18, 2024 and is the first EU-wide legislation to hold nations to biodiversity commitments. To do so, it calls on EU Member States to develop individualized strategies, called National Restoration Plans. Each of these plans must target restoring 20 percent of degraded ecosystems by 2030 and 100 percent by 2050.

Within this framework, the law also delineates targets and indicators for specific species, habitats, and land-use types.

Agricultural land is a major focus of the law and was almost its Achilles’ heel as the NRL struggled to reach a majority Parliamentary vote. Specifically, the NRL targets improvements in soil quality and the health and productivity of pollinators, which are in rapid decline across the EU. While progress in these areas will benefit producers alongside the rest of society, many working farmers and ranchers worry they will not receive the necessary support to carry out restoration at the scale called for.

Conservation of the land Tóth farms is an example of effective cross-sector partnership

The case of the collaboration between Tóth and BROZ gives this concern context—showing both the key benefits of financial and political support for biodiversity restoration on agricultural lands and the nuance with which these projects must be carried out if they are to succeed.

Before partnering with BROZ, Tóth was leasing four segments of grasslands for grazing that were surrounded—and divided into small parcels by—arable land. Separated like this, the plots’ smalls sizes precluded effective and sustainable management, and they soon became overgrown with dominant grasses, shrubs, and invasives. However, BROZ was active in Tóth’s region and was looking for projects that might be eligible for financial support from the LIFE program. After visiting the site and discussing the property with Tóth, BROZ learned that neither the grasslands nor arable land were productive. Together, they worked out a plan to turn all the land into biodiversity-friendly pasture and implement a sustainable management strategy that included habitat monitoring and reporting. Soon, the land became healthier and was able to support herds of cattle, allowing Tóth to realize his childhood aspirations. He even agreed to sign a request for parts of his property to be incorporated into the Natura 2000 protected and conserved area network, enlarging the existing protected area of Ploská hora from 27 hectares to 90 hectares (about 222 acres).

Environmental NGOs like BROZ play a key role in nature conservation across the EU. To secure sites, they must find common ground between the sometimes-competing interests of landowners, funders, government agencies, and the NGO itself. In this case, Pavol Littera, environment manager for BROZ, identified the critical elements of success as: close cooperation with the farmer, Tóth; initial funding to put a management plan in place; cooperation from state authorities; and the NGO’s capacity to foster collaboration, negotiate the project and facilitate its technical aspects.

This kind of bottom-up approach treads lightly on the interests of everyone involved, wrote Littera. “In such manner, many possible conflicts and disagreements with landowners or land users can be avoided or overcome.”

Efforts like these have allowed private land conservation to make an important contribution to biodiversity conservation initiatives in the European Union over the past several decades. Nonetheless, efforts to date have not been enough to staunch massive biodiversity loss across EU landscapes that began in the 1960s.

To meet the urgency of the moment, private land conservation can be fertilized with public funding, as the NRL encourages. But Littera noted that this must not come at the expense of flexibility and the voluntary nature of current best practice. “The objectives of the NRL are very ambitious but we cannot rely only on the [top-to-bottom] approach. If only this is used, [then] we’ll be facing the disagreement of [landowners] and increased tension.”

Many are concerned about how the law will be translated in practice

The NRL has already stirred up significant tension, which began long before it was signed into law. In 2023, while the NRL was being drafted, the European People’s Party (EPP)—a center-right party and the largest party in the European Parliament—became vocal dissenters and launched an opposition campaign focused on its perceived impact on farmers, who the EPP argued would be disproportionately burdened by the law and disenfranchised by its land-use requirements.

Many of the arguments the EPP made in opposition to the NRL were based on unsubstantiated claims, but EU producers and conservationists themselves have concerns about the law. Most are based on unanswered questions regarding support for the financial and other costs of implementation.

As the law was being developed and discussed, Eurosite’s Agricultural, Biodiversity, and Climate (ABC) working group—which convenes conservation practitioners, farmers, and researchers around agricultural conservation innovation—met regularly to discuss the NRL. Anton Gazenbeek, chair of the ABC Working Group, shared his insights from these sessions, which outline the group’s hopes and fears for the law as it is rolled out.

Too little detail about the how of the NRL is giving conservationists and producers pause

The group’s overarching complaint is a lack of transparency about how the NRL will function in practice. As the text stands, the future is blurry. In the first two years, from August 2024 – 2026, Member States must draft individual National Restoration Plans. Once in place, it is not clear how the plans will be carried out.

To make the law more widely appealing to lawmakers, the language from early drafts of the NRL was softened in the final version, such that nations do not need to show measurable results to be in compliance, but rather must prove intent to work toward the established targets. The only other defined requirement is that nations then carry out continuous monitoring and report their data to the European Commission, the European Parliament, and a council formed to head the law’s implementation. It is not yet clear what, if any, repercussions nations might face for lack of compliance.

Proper financing could make or break NRL policies

The availability of funding will play an important role in the success or failure of the NRL. The ABC Working Group noted that the proposed restoration work will come with both financial and opportunity costs, as land will be pulled out of production to accommodate the law. While the text of the legislation points out sources of EU funding that could be tapped to fuel the projects, Gazenbeek notes that it is not ring fenced for that purpose.

Even if all possible EU funds were allocated to implement the NRL, the group says it would not be enough. Member States will need to finance much of the plan themselves, either through taxes or reallocating funds within an existing budget.

In a statement regarding the law, a representative from the Dutch network of farmer collectives BoerenNatuur wrote, “farmers are willing to participate, but as the saying in the Netherlands goes: ‘farmers can’t do green when they are in the red’.” The NGO pointed out that the ecosystem services farmers provide to society should be recognized for their value and rewarded through mechanisms including competitive long-term payments. “This will bring agriculture and nature closer together, which will benefit both, and thus has the potential to also bring the goals of the nature restoration law within reach.”

The NRL may not serve equal portions of burden and benefit to everyone at the table

Finally, the group worries about inequity in cost sharing across society. While everyone will benefit from healthier landscapes, urban residents will do so without the burden of implementation or disruption to their businesses and lifestyle. Meanwhile, rural residents, who are often socioeconomically disadvantaged, will carry its burdens for all of society. Christine Bajohr, who represents a farmer association from the Alpine region in the ABC Working Group, wrote that the law lacks a detailed incentive structure and does not adequately expand on or add to existing agricultural subsidies enough to motivate farmers to change their behavior.

The law could help match the seriousness of the moment regarding environmental degradation

Producers are not without hope for the law, however. If implemented with the necessary safeguards in place, it presents remarkable new opportunities for cross-sector collaboration that could catalyze the EU’s already growing private land conservation movement.

The actual impact of the NRL will be largely influenced by Member States’ approaches to developing Nature Restoration Plans. Gazenbeek wrote that the two years during which this will occur are a “golden opportunity” for Member States. While the EU has long led the world in championing biodiversity conservation and in crafting measurable targets to work toward, most Member States have struggled to deliver on their promises.

The NRL is a response to already alarming and rapidly worsening conditions in EU landscapes. An assessment by the European Environment Agency in 2020 showed that—despite nearly 50 years of laws governing biodiversity conservation—only 15 percent of EU habitats are in “good condition”. Suddenly, elected officials, private landowners, and conservation NGOs will all be facing this issue with similar urgency.

Private land conservation could help unlock the law’s greatest potential

Long before the NRL was a concept, a robust network of citizens, environmental NGOs, and other land-use stakeholders was already blossoming across Europe. Today, the private land conservation movement has taken shape as a competent and highly influential cross-sector force, with strong domestic and international support. These people have already been enthusiastically carrying out nature restoration work, often on a volunteer basis. With more robust and reliable government support, they could quickly mobilize to scale up their impact.

Another opportunity for collaboration comes in the form of recent European Commission policies, such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, which incentivizes the private sector to invest in nature restoration. Requirements for companies to report their environmental impacts may help the corporate sector align its investments with the EU’s climate and biodiversity goals, contributing new streams of private funding for NRL projects.

Bajohr and Gazenbeek agreed that, if Member States are savvy, they will partner closely with farmers and conservationists to develop clear and informed Nature Restoration Plans, complete with budgeting strategies, and guided by socially representative advisory committees.

The lack of such an advisory committee during the law’s development was an oversight, Bajohr said. During that period, she wrote, lawmakers did not provide enough opportunities for direct participation and co-creation by farmers. A new expert group is now being put together to help with the implementation of the law but has not yet been finalized.

Bajohr summed up the mixed emotions the NRL stirred up among the agricultural conservation community, writing, “In principle a law for the restoration of nature is what we need for this planet but there has always been a significant gap between policy goals and on-the-ground realities as well as an unhealthy gap between nature and agriculture.”

Have news? Share updates from your organization or country by emailing ilcn@lincolninst.edu.