Frequently Asked Questions

Since the entry into force of the Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR) on 18 August 2024, the work is focusing on implementation. A key milestone will be the submission of national restoration plans (NRPs) by Member States.

Member States will have to submit to the Commission their draft NRP by 1 September 2026. The Commission will assess each draft NRP within six months and may address its observations on the draft plan to the Member States. Six months later (~1 September 2027), Member States will have to submit and publish their final NRP. By July 2032, Member States are to revise their NRP for the first time.

The Commission will continue supporting Member States in the development of their NRP. In order to achieve the restoration targets in the NRR, the implementation of restoration measures must already start and not wait until the national restoration plans have been finalised.

The below table lists ‘deliverables’ foreseen in the NRR. Some must be adopted by the Commission, while others have an optional character (they ‘may’ be adopted).

Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (the “SEA Directive”) sets out that an environmental assessment must be carried out for plans and programmes identified as likely to have significant effects on the environment.

Article 14(20) NRR, which lays down rules for the way NRPs should be prepared with regard to public participation and consultation, makes a reference to the SEA Directive. It provides that consultations on NRPs must comply with the requirements of the SEA Directive. This provision however does not set out whether, beyond public consultation, other rules relating to environmental assessment apply to NRPs.

According to Article 3(1) of the SEA Directive, performing a SEA is mandatory for certain types of plans and programmes which are likely to have significant environmental effects. According to Article 3(2), this includes plans and programmes "which are prepared for agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste management, water management, telecommunications, tourism, town and country planning or land use[1] and which set the framework for future development consent for projects listed in Annexes I and II to Directive 2011/92/EU" (the "Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive”).

As was clarified by the Court of Justice, the requirement, according to which the plan or programme concerned must set the framework for future development consent of projects listed in Annexes I and II of the EIA Directive, must be regarded as met where that plan or programme establishes a significant body of criteria and detailed rules for the grant and implementation of one or more of those projects, inter alia with regard to the location, nature, size and operating conditions of such projects, or the allocation of resources connected with those projects. By contrast, that requirement is not met in the case of a plan or programme which, while targeting projects listed in Annexes I and II of the EIA Directive, does not lay down such criteria or detailed rules[2].

The NRR leaves Member States a large margin with regard to the choice of the concrete restoration measures to put in place, provided the targets and obligations under Articles 4 to 13 are complied with, and does not prescribe that the NRPs should necessarily set detailed rules regarding individual projects.

It is therefore for each Member State to verify, depending on the measures to be included, if their draft NRP meets the conditions requiring the application of the SEA Directive in full. In doing so, Member States should consider the specific content of the NRP and in particular the extent to which it conditions future decisions on projects, for example with regard to their nature, location, size and operating conditions. It is important to note that irrespective of the applicability of the SEA Directive, effective public participation is a self-standing requirement in case a plan touches upon environmental issues.[3]

If an SEA is needed, it has to be conducted during the preparation of the NRP, prior to its finalisation in accordance with Article 17(6) NRR.

More information:

• Commission guidance on the SEA Directive

• Case law on the SEA Directive

Notes

[1] The fact that the main objective of a plan or programme is the protection of the environment, which includes protection of the landscape, does not mean that that plan or programme may not also ‘concern’ one of the sectors listed in Article 3(2)(a) of that directive, including town and country planning or land use (see Bund Naturschutz in Bayern eV, C-300/20, EU:C:2022:102, paragraph 51, and case law cited).

[2] See Bund Naturschutz in Bayern eV, paragraph 62 and 63.

[3] Aarhus Convention Article 7.

Some restoration measures implemented or started before 18 August 2024 may have not yet reached their full effect.

In case such measures are included in the NRP, the following conditions should be considered:

• the measure is corresponding to the definition of restoration provided in Article 3(3), and
• the measure is showing the envisaged improvement-effect but the intended full impact of the measure (e.g. full recovery to the good condition of an area of a habitat type or reaching satisfactory levels for the indicators referred to in Articles 8 to 12) has not been achieved yet.

When the restored area has fully recovered or reached the intended state, any subsequent measures on the same area aiming at ensuring the sustained effects of restoration measures (e.g. recurring management) should be considered as non-deterioration measures in the meaning of Articles 4(11), 4(13), 5(9) or 5(10) or as one of the provisions referred to in Article 15(3)(q).

These considerations are without prejudice to the specific case of barrier removals for which Article 15(3)(i) states that the NRP includes the length of free-flowing rivers to be achieved by the removal of barriers estimated from 2020 to 2030.

Guidance is available on setting favourable reference values (FRVs) as part of the guidance for reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. It can be found on the “Reference portal for reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive” (Habitats Directive Article 17) through this link: https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/help/habitats_art17/Reporting2025/Final%20Guidelines%20Art.%2017_2019-2024.pdf/   
See page 20 – 31 for species and page 69 – 76 for habitat types.

The guidance on FRVs is currently being improved and will be made available as a separate document in the course of 2025.

The term ‘remaining habitat types’ is used in the context of derogations (see Article 4(2) and 4(5)) that a Member State may, but does not have to, make use of.

In Article 4(3), "remaining habitat types" refers to all Annex I habitat types besides those very common and widespread habitat types that cover more than 3% of the Member State’s European territory for which a Member States makes active use of the derogation as set out in Article 4(2).

In Article 4(6), "remaining habitat types"refers to all those Annex I habitat types for which a Member State does not apply the derogation as set out Article 4(5) (i.e. for which the Member State does not set a lower percentage threshold for reaching the favourable reference area (FRA) targets than specified in Article 4(4)).

Article 4(13) introduces a derogation, that allows for a more flexible implementation approach for the non-deterioration requirements set out in Article 4(11) and 4(12), outside Natura 2000 sites. If a Member State wants to make use of this implementation approach, Article 4(13) sets out that it needs to notify the Commission of its intention to apply this paragraph by 19 February 2025. This notification must be made only once and is valid for the time the regulation is in force.

If a Member States has chosen to apply Article 4(13), it must ensure compliance with the following conditions:

• Any decision to apply the derogation to a specific area would need to demonstrate that there is an absence of alternatives, as set out in Article 4(13). The need for such justification should be reflected in the national framework established to implement this derogation.

• Establish a system of effective compensatory measures for each significant deterioration that occurs (in accordance with Articles 15(3)(g)(i)).

• Ensure compliance with non-deterioration requirements at a biogeographic level for each habitat type and species habitat (in accordance with Article 4(13)).

• Define a targeted monitoring framework for Article 4(13) (in accordance with Articles 20(1)(j))) and comply with the reporting obligations under Articles 21(1)(b) and 21(2)(b) in addition to other monitoring and reporting requirements of the regulation.

• Demonstrate how the objectives and targets of Articles 1, 4, and 5 will still be met (in accordance with Article 15(3)(g)(ii)).

Time of application of Article 4(13)

Article 4(13) is a derogation to Articles 4(11) and 4(12), which apply to different areas and follow a different timeline. Article 4(13) therefore starts to apply depending on the type of area under consideration:

• For areas subject to restoration measures and areas where good condition and/or sufficient quality of species habitats has been reached (Article 4(11)):
  For these areas Article 4(13) applies from the time of notification to the Commission and for both habitat types and habitats of species.
  
  Important note: Areas showing continuous improvement in their condition cannot deteriorate simultaneously. This means that areas subject to restoration measures that have not yet reached a good condition still fall under Article 4(13).

• For areas in good condition or necessary to meet restoration targets (Article 4(12)):
  For these areas, Article 4(13) applies once the final National Restoration Plan is required to be published (within six months from the date of receipt of observations from the Commission as set out in Article 17(6), which means by September 2027 at the latest). It should be taken into account however that continuing deteriorations until that date are likely to increase the restoration obligation.

Monitoring requirements

Once a Member State has notified its intention to apply Article 4(13), it must comply with both, the general monitoring obligations outlined (and in particular those in Article 20(1) (a), (h) and (i)), and the specific additional monitoring requirements provided under Article 20(1)(j).

Article 20(1)(h) and (i) require the monitoring of habitat condition and quality of habitats of species:   

• 20(1)(h): Monitors the area and condition of the areas covered by the habitat types listed in Annexes I and II.
• 20(1)(i): Monitors the area and quality of the habitat of the species referred to in Article 4(7) and Article 5(5).

These provisions ensure that deteriorated or deteriorating areas are properly tracked. The monitoring requirements under Article 20(1) (h) & (i) have no specific starting date and are therefore applicable from the entry into force of the regulation.

Article 20(1)(j) is applicable only when Article 4(13) is used and outlines specific monitoring requirements that must be fulfilled in that case. It requires the monitoring of:

• The extent and location of areas that have significantly deteriorated and will be compensated for.
• The extent and location of areas subject to compensatory measures taken.
• The effectiveness of compensatory measures put in place.

These specific monitoring requirements take effect as soon as a Member State submits its notification to the Commission (from 19 February 2025, as set out in Article 4(13)), in accordance with Article 20(5).

Article 4(17) is an outcome-based requirement, namely that the restoration measures taken by a Member State under Article 4 show a result on the ground and increase the overall area of habitat types that are in good condition and species habitats with sufficient quality and quantity.  

As Article 4 is built on the requirements and concepts of the Habitats Directive, the 90% reference in Article 4(17)(a) is taken from the threshold in the assessment matrix for assessing favourable conservation status for habitat types under the Habitats Directive[1]. This matrix requires that at least 90% of the total area of a habitat type needs to be in good condition in order for the habitat types to be assessed as favourable for the ‘structure and function’ parameter.

Notes

[1] See relevant format (with assessment matrix) and guidance in the reference portal: https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/help/habitats_art17

The NRR defines ‘good condition’ in Article 3(4) as a state where a habitat’s key characteristics, including its structure, functions and typical species or typical species composition, ensure its long-term maintenance and contribute to achieving both favourable conservation status under the Habitats Directive and good environmental status under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). The ‘condition’ of a habitat is assessed in a particular location and represents just one parameter for the assessment of the conservation status under the Habitats Directive and the good environmental status under the MSFD, both of which are to be assessed at larger geographical scales (biogeographical region and MSFD regions or sub-regions, respectively).

Assessing habitat condition under the NRR should rely, as much as possible, on the methodologies and indicators established by Member States for the implementation of the Habitats Directive and the MSFD.

Data collected under the MSFD, particularly on biodiversity, seafloor integrity, and ecosystem functioning, can and should be used for implementing the NRR. This includes data coming from the monitoring programmes about the condition of habitats, pressures and data about the measures taken under programmes of measures. 

The monitoring requirements of the NRR can build upon the existing frameworks and methodologies established under the MSFD. By using the knowledge, data, and infrastructure developed for MSFD monitoring, Member States can develop a consistent approach to assessing marine habitats under the NRR. This also offers an opportunity to integrate NRR-specific requirements into the broader marine monitoring framework, improving data coherence and reducing duplication of effort. Since the obligations under the NRR build on the MSFD but also include more detailed obligations, additional and more targeted monitoring efforts will probably be necessary in some cases to fully meet the NRR's specific monitoring requirements.

The threshold values established under the MSFD can play an important role in informing the implementation of the NRR. These thresholds provide clear benchmarks for achieving certain targets. For example, restoration targets for Group 7 (soft sediments) are aligned with threshold values for adverse effects established under the MSFD, ensuring that the work done under the MSFD directly supports the restoration and assessment efforts under the NRR.  

The table below summarises the data sets that should be used for implementing the urban targets of the NRR.

As Member States are free to establish their urban ecosystem area (UEA) boundaries anywhere withing the LAU - as long the UAE consists of at least the urban centres and urban cluster – there is no obligation to set any specific peri-urban area (at 1km, or any other distance). It is, however, strongly recommend that a peri-urban area is included around the built-up area of the city to avoid any unwanted displacement of development to an area just outside the current built-up area.

Article 3(20) and (21) provides definitions of urban green space and urban tree canopy cover.  The official datasets, as specified in the NNR, to measure and monitor urban green spaces and urban tree canopy cover are produced and maintained by Copernicus Land Service. However, according to Articles 3(20) and 3(21), if available, Member States can also calculate the areas of urban green space and tree canopy cover on the basis of other appropriate supplementary data. Supplementary data should be used to improve or complement the information already included in the datasets provided by the Copernicus Land Monitoring Service.

Article 9 applies to any river in the geographical scope of the NRR, as set out in Article 2.  It is not limited to water bodies reported under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). More generally, it is worth noticing that Article 9 targets the removal of barriers to “the connectivity of surface waters”. Surface waters also include lakes and coastal waters.

The objective to restore 25.000 km is an EU-level objective, set out in the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. It is not ‘split up’ in quantitative targets per Member State. Each Member State has to indicate in its draft NRP how much it will contribute, so that the Commission can evaluate this contribution when it assesses the draft NRP under Article 17(2)(c).

Measures taken under the WFD can help Member States to comply with Article 9 NRR, as river continuity, connection to groundwater bodies, and structure of the riparian zone, which are among the relevant criteria listed in Annex V WFD for assessing the ecological status of a river under the WFD, pertain respectively to longitudinal, vertical, and lateral connectivity, which are the three dimensions of connectivity tackled by Article 9 of the NRR. However, that provision has more stringent connectivity objectives, since it aims at removing artificial barriers, while under the WFD, mitigating them (for example with a fish pass in the case of barriers to longitudinal connectivity) can be considered as sufficient to reach the environmental objectives. Besides, the NRR tackles the removal of lateral barriers more explicitly than the WFD, as well as the restoration of the related floodplains, so that it looks at the river ecosystem in a wider sense.

The provision refers to rivers (and related floodplains) restored under Article 9(2) and Article 9(3). However, it is to be noted that the WFD includes a non-deterioration provision in Article 4(1)(a) (i) that applies to all water bodies in the scope of that Directive and that river continuity is one of the hydromorphological quality elements listed under Annex V WFD for the assessment of the status of water bodies for the purpose of the WFD.

Article 9 of the NRR requires Member States to take measures to improve river connectivity to contribute to the restoration targets under Article 4, as well as to the target of 25 000 km of free-flowing rivers set out in the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030.

In order to help Member States estimate the number of km of free-flowing rivers a methodology developed by the JRC (JRC technical report on free-flowing rivers) can be used. 

The JRC technical report on free-flowing rivers is the result of a technical exercise done in the framework of the work of the working group ECOSTAT (ECOlogical STATus) of the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) of the WFD to help Member States identify stretches of rivers that are free-flowing or that can become free-flowing by removing certain barriers. It is a non-binding guidance document that can be used by Member States to contribute to the objectives of the Biodiversity Strategy 2030.

Although an initial version of the report was published, the work is still in progress, and the methodology is currently being tested on a wider scale to establish if it is fit for purpose and user-friendly. This sort of “sensitivity analysis” will allow the core group of ECOSTAT working on free-flowing rivers to make adjustments and adapt the methodology, and finetune it in the first part of 2025.

The 25 000 km of free-flowing rivers target is set out in the biodiversity Strategy 2030, which was published in 2020. Hence, in accordance with Article 15(3) (i) NRR and Recital 50, which provides that the restoration of at least 25 000 km needs to be compared to 2020, 2020 is the starting point for estimating the length of free-flowing rivers.

The 25 000 km should be additional to the length of free-flowing rivers in 2020 – if a river stretch was restored before 2020 or was always free-flowing, it cannot be included in the NRP.

Article 3(22) of the NRR states that ‘free-flowing river’ means a river or a stretch of river the longitudinal, lateral and vertical connectivity of which is not hindered by artificial structures forming a barrier and the natural functions of which are largely unaffected. The term barrier is thus to be understood as an artificial structure and hence as a physical obstacle, likely to have an impact on river ecosystem connectivity (impeding migration of aquatic species or connection to flood plains for example). Natural obstacles are not considered as barriers.

Article 9 of the NRR requires the removal of artificial barriers to the connectivity of surface waters to contribute to the NRR’s restoration targets (specified in Article 4) and fulfilling the objective of restoring at least 25 000 km of rivers into free-flowing river by 2030.

Dams and weirs are examples of artificial barriers in the longitudinal dimension, and their removal will contribute to Article 9 targets by restoring longitudinal connectivity. Dykes are examples of barriers in the lateral dimension and their removal will contribute to Article 9 targets by providing more space to river dynamics and restore lateral connectivity.  In this regard it is important to note that it is for Member States to identify the barriers that need to be removed and that they should primarily target obsolete barriers, which are no longer needed for renewable energy generation, flood protection or other uses.

The formulation in Annex VII NRR, which includes examples of restoration measures, ‘remove longitudinal and lateral barriers’ means removing barriers which are situated across the main flow of the river as well as along the river on the floodplain.

The monitoring methods are specified in Annex IV of the NRR. Sources of relevant data and guidance are indicated below.

a) Grassland Butterfly index (GBI):

• Butterfly Conservation Europe (BCE) is responsible for the European Butterfly Monitoring Scheme (eBMS) and the calculation of the GBI from these data.

• The GBI on a national (or regional) level has to be calculated, produced and published by each National or Regional co-ordinator of the Member State Butterfly Monitoring Scheme (BMS), or, in cases where there are more BMS's per country, this can be done on country level by co-operation between all the co-ordinators in a particular country. 

• Member States are invited to contact BCE in order to get in touch with their national coordinators for the BMS, and to see the stage of development of the national GBI.

b)    Stock of organic carbon in cropland mineral soil

• Currently, this indicator can be calculated based on comparable data available at national level based on LUCAS Soil Module and the CAP Context Indicator for arable land https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/Soil.html (the units are different, therefore, a conversion is needed).

• The latest data point is 2018. Samples collected in 2022 are currently being analysed and an update should be available during 2026.

• Member States may also have data relevant for calculating this indicator in their reporting under the Regulation on land use, land use change, and forestry (LULUCF), based on their national measurements of soil organic carbon concentration combined with national modelling. However, those data may not be comparable between countries.

• The methodology in Annex IV of the NRR also refers to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, which describe the use of a tiered approach to estimate/assess national inventories of greenhouse gas fluxes (emissions and sinks).

• A proposal for a Directive on Soil Monitoring and Resilience is currently being discussed. If adopted, its monitoring requirements would provide the best available, comparable data on SOC concentration as key input for the NRR indicator.

c)     Share of agricultural land with high-diversity landscape features:

This indicator is composed of different elements:

• The I.21 indicator under Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 on Strategic Plans under the Common Agricultural Policy for the landscape features and areas, based on the latest update of LUCAS for landscape features, 2024 update: JRC Publications Repository - Estimation of the share of Landscape Features in agricultural land based on the LUCAS 2022 survey
  

• For Land Laying Fallow: Farm Structure Surveys (now called ‘Integrated Farm Statistics Survey’)
  

• where applicable, for high diversity landscape features not covered by the methodology above (productive trees part of sustainable agroforestry systems, trees in extensive old orchards on permanent grassland, and productive elements in hedges):  methodology developed by Member States in accordance with Article 14(7) of the NRR and with the related Guidance adopted by the Commission.
  This means that the data to be used depends on the Member States’ choice of methodology.

d)    Common farmland bird index:

• Bird monitoring schemes are in place in all EU Member States. They are produced and owned by Birdlife in 21 Member States, by museums of natural history, research institutes, state institutes, universities in 6 Member States. The European Bird Census Council (EBCC) and the PanEuropean Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS) use the national monitoring schemes to create the EU index and can play a facilitating role for questions addressed to the national monitoring schemes.

• A national Common Farmland Bird Index is produced in all EU Member States annually, the information is publicly available in 13 Member States, is used in 22 Member States and can be shared with national authorities in 25 Member States.

• Overview: Countries | PECBMS - PECBMS.

• This means practically all Member States already have access to the data required for the index.

According to Art 11(2), the indicator trend should be ‘measured in the period from 18 August 2024 until 31 December 2030, and every six years thereafter, […]’.

Art 20(3) provides: ‘The monitoring in accordance with paragraph 1, points (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), shall start on 18 August 2024.’ Whereby (c) refers to 3 of the indicators of agricultural ecosystems and (d) refers to the Common Farmland Bird indicator.

So the baseline should be the first value of the indicator measured on or after the date of entry into force. In practice, in absence of a monitoring value at or soon after the entry into force, the most recent available value could also be used as a baseline (for indicators that are already being monitored and reported).

For the Common Farmland Bird Index, the baseline is more specifically defined in Art 11(3): ‘indexed on 1 September 2025 = 100’.

According to Art 12(2) and 12(3) of the NRR, Member States have to achieve an increasing trend at national level ‘measured in the period from 18 August 2024 until 31 December 2030, and every six years thereafter […]’.

Art 20(3) provides: ‘The monitoring in accordance with paragraph 1, points (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), shall start on 18 August 2024.’ Whereby (e) and (f) refer to the indicators in forest ecosystems.

So the baseline should be the first value of the indicator measured on or after the date of entry into force. In practice, in the absence of a monitoring value at or soon after the entry into force, the most recent available value could also be used as a baseline (for indicators that are already being monitored and reported).

Article 3 (14) defines ‘native tree species’ as ‘a tree species occurring within its natural range, past or present, and dispersal potential, i.e. within the range it occupies naturally or could occupy without direct or indirect introduction or care by humans;’

The NRR does not set numerical criteria (e.g. for the natural range), but guidance is available in  the Guidelines on Biodiversity-Friendly Afforestation, Reforestation and Tree Planting, section 1.3.2.