The adoption of the EU Nature Restoration Law (NRL) in June 2024 marks a historic step for biodiversity conservation across Europe. As a flagship initiative under the EU Green Deal and a central component of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, this law is poised to set ambitious, legally binding targets for restoring ecosystems across member states.
However, this significant legislative achievement has not come without its challenges. Here, we explore five main hurdles facing the NRL as it prepares to shape the future of Europe’s ecological landscape.
1. Political resistance and polarised support
One of the most prominent challenges during the NRL’s formulation was political resistance, particularly from conservative groups, agricultural lobbies and some member states. The path to adoption was marked by fierce debates and standoffs in the European Parliament, led by conflicting priorities between proponents and opponents. Notably, conservative MEPs from the European People’s Party (EPP) and various committees pushed back against the NRL’s provisions, citing potential negative impacts on sectors like agriculture and infrastructure.
This resistance was mirrored at the national level, where countries like Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands raised concerns over the perceived overreach of the law into domestic policy areas such as forest management and land use. These objections were partly based on subsidiarity principles and fears of stringent new legal obligations impacting local economies​.
Despite these significant challenges, the NRL ultimately gained momentum through strategic compromises and collaborative negotiations. Amendments addressing key concerns, such as tailored exemptions and more flexible implementation timelines, helped bridge the gap between stakeholders. Enhanced dialogue between EU institutions, member states, and sector-specific groups played a crucial role in aligning objectives. While the NRL was ultimately passed, political resistance may resurface as the law is implemented and further regulations or updates are proposed.
2. Agricultural sector concerns
Agriculture remains at the heart of the most heated opposition to the NRL. Farmers’ unions and representatives argue that the law could impose new challenges without adequate compensation or support mechanisms. They fear that mandatory restoration targets and new land management practices might reduce available agricultural land, which could pressure food production and economic viability.
Disinformation campaigns that exaggerate the potential impacts on food security have amplified the debate. While the NRL includes measures to sustain and even benefit agricultural productivity through restored ecosystems (e.g., improved soil quality, water retention, and pollinator health), persuading skeptical agricultural communities remains a significant barrier​.
3. Financial challenges and implementation barriers
A recurring concern across member states is how to fund the ambitious goals set by the NRL. The law mandates the European Commission to assess financial resources and propose solutions to bridge funding gaps, aligning this process with the next Multiannual Financial Framework (2028-2034). The financial burden of implementing large-scale restoration projects, especially in countries with limited budgets or differing priorities, raises questions about the sustainability and feasibility of the law’s long-term success.
In addition, many member states currently lack the advanced monitoring systems needed to track progress in ecosystem restoration effectively. As noted, the regulation requires the integration of technologies like Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and remote sensing to monitor and report on restoration efforts, but not all countries have the capacity or resources to implement these tools effectively​.
The NRL’s success hinges on balancing ecological restoration with socioeconomic stability and return on investment. While the law provides mechanisms for landowners and nature project developers to receive governmental support and compensation for restoration efforts, ensuring that these incentives are accessible and substantial enough remains crucial.
​4. Balancing restoration with socioeconomic interests
Providing opportunities for green investment from private markets alongside EU funding may support larger-scale nature restoration. However, robust frameworks for tracing budgets and reporting on ecological impact will be important to ensure a return on investment for all parties.
Conclusion
The EU Nature Restoration Law is a critical component of biodiversity and ecosystem recovery in Europe, but it also embodies the complex interplay of politics, economics and ecological science. Overcoming these challenges requires transparent dialogue, robust support frameworks and adaptive strategies that consider both environmental and socioeconomic factors. Only through collaborative effort and commitment can the ambitious targets of the NRL be met, leading Europe toward a sustainable and resilient future.
Dulra is developing a cutting-edge nature restoration management platform designed to help nature-based solution projects secure funding by converting raw ecological, climate and socio-economic data into actionable reports for funders. Learn more.
