Lisbon: The Nature Restoration Law has entered its implementation phase under conditions that are very different from those in which it was negotiated. The regulation requires member states to put in place restoration measures covering a defined share of ecosystems by 2030 and progressively more thereafter, with national restoration plans the central instrument of delivery. The negotiation was politically difficult, the final text included substantial flexibilities, and the operational test is now whether those flexibilities prove sufficient to manage national resistance or whether they erode the substantive content of the regulation.
Portugal has taken a relatively forward position on the design of its national restoration plan, drawing on existing investments in coastal ecosystems, cork oak woodlands and Mediterranean wetlands. The country’s experience illustrates the gap between policy ambition and delivery capacity. Restoration is not primarily a question of regulation; it requires land management changes, scientific monitoring, local consent and sustained financing. None of these are abundant in any member state, and the regulation’s deadlines depend on rapid expansion of all four.
The political backdrop has shifted since the regulation’s adoption. The Strategic Dialogue on the Future of Agriculture explicitly acknowledged tensions between restoration ambition and the productive use of agricultural land. Member states have used the flexibility built into the regulation to defer measures that conflict with food security objectives, and the Commission has signalled openness to interpretative guidance that would allow restoration to be pursued in ways compatible with active farming. Environmental groups argue that this risks hollowing the regulation; agricultural representatives argue that it is the only way to maintain consent for the underlying policy.
The financing question is acute. The regulation does not establish a dedicated funding instrument and instead expects member states to mobilise resources from the CAP, cohesion policy, the LIFE programme, Horizon Europe and private sources. The fragmentation creates substantial administrative friction. National authorities responsible for restoration plans typically do not control the largest funding streams, while the authorities that do control them have other priorities to balance. Proposals on a nature credits framework would create a private financing channel, but the methodological questions and the integrity concerns are substantial and will require careful design.
The scientific underpinning has improved in the years since the regulation was first proposed. The European Environment Agency’s assessments of ecosystem condition provide a baseline that is significantly more detailed than was available a decade ago, including remote sensing data, biodiversity monitoring networks and species-level indicators. The data infrastructure is not yet sufficient for the precision the regulation requires, and several member states are running parallel programmes to fill the gaps before national plans must be operationalised.
Beyond the regulation itself, the broader question is whether European biodiversity policy is converging on a coherent architecture or fragmenting into a series of overlapping instruments. The Birds and Habitats Directives, the Pollinators Initiative, the Soil Monitoring Law and the Nature Restoration Law each address pieces of the puzzle. Coordination across them is a continuing administrative challenge, and the simplification agenda that has shaped legislative work over the past year is unlikely to leave biodiversity policy untouched.
The credibility of the European green commitment will be tested through these instruments at least as much as through climate policy. Climate metrics are more legible to public debate; biodiversity metrics are more diffuse but the long-term consequences of failure are not less severe. The next several years will indicate whether the regulation can survive its implementation.
