1. Introduction
The state of the global biodiversity crisis is worrying, with habitats and species disappearing at an unprecedented rate.Footnote 1 By now, it has become clear that conserving what is left of nature no longer suffices, as many habitats are too degraded to sustain life.Footnote 2 Against this backdrop, restoration has gained prominence in environmental policy, and has become an integral part of the solution for the biodiversity and climate crises.Footnote 3
Recognizing the urgency of these challenges, the European Union (EU) has taken a significant step by adopting the Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR),Footnote 4 the first law that mandates large-scale binding restoration efforts across Member States. However, translating this legal ambition into practice requires more than ecological and legal expertise – it demands an understanding of the broader societal context in which restoration takes place. While ecological restoration is often framed as a scientific and technical endeavour, it also has deep political, economic, and social dimensions.Footnote 5 Even though perhaps not immediately apparent, the relationship between biodiversity and inequality is strong: in a 2019 report, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) found that more unequal societies tend to experience higher rates of biodiversity loss.Footnote 6 This, in turn, can create a vicious cycle, as the decline in biodiversity and ecosystem services can exacerbate existing inequalities and give rise to new ones, disproportionally affecting marginalized communities.Footnote 7 Ecological restoration can thus be a double-edged sword: it can reduce inequalities by restoring access to essential ecosystem services, but it can also reinforce existing disparities, for instance, when restoration projects restrict land access or exclude local communities.Footnote 8 Moreover, incorporating justice considerations in a restoration project can help to boost legitimacy perception and,Footnote 9 consequently, increase the success rate of the project.Footnote 10 With restoration projects being increasingly widespread, the question of what exactly entails ‘just ecological restoration’ becomes both an ethical consideration and a practical strategy to ensure long-term sustainability of interventions.Footnote 11
The contribution is structured as follows. Section 2 outlines the key features of ecological restoration. Section 3 then turns to the conceptual foundations of environmental justice and explores its three dimensions in relation to ecological restoration. It is against this background that Section 4, finally, presents the case study of the NRR. The three dimensions of environmental justice serve as an analytical framework to assess the extent to which its provisions allow for ‘just ecological restoration’ and where potential shortcomings still exist.
2. What is Ecological Restoration?
There is no universally agreed definition of ecological restoration, and this plurality reflects the diverse goals, actors, and contexts in which restoration takes place.Footnote 12 A widely cited definition by the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) describes it as ‘the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed’.Footnote 13 Similarly, IPBES refers to it as ‘any intentional activity that initiates or accelerates the recovery of an ecosystem from a degraded state’.Footnote 14 Ecological restoration can encompass a broad spectrum of intervention: from reforestation and wetlands rehabilitation, to the reintroduction of native species or passive rewilding.Footnote 15 Such activities are often presented as capable of simultaneously promoting biodiversity and well-being through enhanced ecosystem services such as flood regulation, carbon sequestration, or soil fertility.Footnote 16 Yet, beyond these ecological framings lies a web of competing visions, practices, and assumptions that can be highly contentious and tricky to navigate.Footnote 17 This is as a result not only of structural disparities underlying degradation,Footnote 18 but also of the fact that restoration activities are value-driven.Footnote 19 As Löfqvist and co-authors note, ‘what qualifies as restoration depends on what outcomes are valued from the perspectives of which stakeholder’.Footnote 20 Therefore, broader social conflicts are often reproduced in restoration activities, such as decisions on where restoration should take place, its specific aims, and the choice of baseline.Footnote 21 Indeed, ‘different restoration interventions produce diverse mixes of outcomes’.Footnote 22
This contested nature is compounded by temporal mismatches: while ecological recovery typically unfolds over decades, social demands for land use or economic returns operate on much shorter timescales.Footnote 23 As a result, conflicts emerge between long-term environmental goals and short-term social or economic pressures. Trying to address this issue, the SER has begun to include social dimensions more explicitly through the concept of a ‘Social Benefits Wheel’ (SBW), which frames restoration as a process embedded within broader social, cultural, and economic systems. This model encourages practitioners to consider diverse values, local knowledge, and long-term community engagement, rather than merely ecological metrics.Footnote 24 Of course, as noted by different scholars, following this procedure does not guarantee socially just outcomes.Footnote 25 Moreover, the SBW is designed primarily for better planning and management of single projects, and is not applicable to wider and large-scale intervention.
Having elaborated on the concept of ecological restoration, the next section introduces environmental justice. We will discuss its key theoretical features and demonstrate how it is intertwined with restoration activities.
3. What is Environmental Justice?
The concept of environmental justiceFootnote 26 emerged in the United States during the 1970s and 1980s, driven by social movements that exposed the systemic racism embedded in planning and development decisions, which particularly affected minority groups.Footnote 27 In Europe, the concept has only recently gained prominence, particularly in relation to the increasing evidence of low air quality in poorer neighbourhoods in urban areas, drawing attention to the environmental burdens faced by disadvantaged communities.Footnote 28 Currently, environmental justice debates have evolved into a broader framework, encompassing social, economic, and political rights related to the environment, reflecting a growing awareness of the need for systemic and intersectional approaches.Footnote 29 Environmental justice is thus understood not only as a normative goal but also as an analytical lens to assess how power, identity, and history shape human–environment relations.Footnote 30 Scholars commonly distinguish three interrelated dimensions – distributive justice, recognitional justice, and procedural justice – which we now illustrate, considering their relevance in the restoration context.Footnote 31
3.1. Distributive Justice
Distributive justice concerns the allocation of environmental costs and benefits among different groups and individuals, with the aim of achieving a fair distribution and ensuring equal access to resources and protection from environmental harm.Footnote 32
Theories of justice have long debated which principles – such as equality, need, or aggregate social utility – should govern this allocation, with each approach placing significant importance on the outcomes of the distribution.Footnote 33 In the context of ecological restoration, intervention can yield significant economic, health-related, and environmental advantages for certain groups while simultaneously imposing disadvantages or costs on others.Footnote 34 For example, several studies on mine reclamation efforts,Footnote 35 or on the conversion of abandoned spaces into green urban areas, have emphasized the great potential of restoration in improving the quality of life for affected communities.Footnote 36 In other cases, achieving net-positive outcomes is more difficult. For instance, peatland restoration often involves the rewetting of land previously drained for agricultural purposes.Footnote 37 While this transformation is highly advantageous for climate and biodiversity,Footnote 38 it forces farmers to change their traditional and/or extensive practices by, for example, only growing crops suitable for paludiculture (i.e., wet agriculture).Footnote 39 This trade-off can create dissatisfaction and even conflict, as the burden of transition falls disproportionately on individual stakeholders, while society as a whole benefits from improved ecosystem services.
Distributive justice also has an intergenerational dimension.Footnote 40 In the case of restoration, the burden of today’s projects lies primarily with current generations, whereas future generations will be the ones to benefit most from those efforts.Footnote 41 Simultaneously, proceeding with business-as-usual practices will severely compromise the ability of future generations to access essential resources, potentially violating the principle of sustainable development.Footnote 42 While identifying the sources of uneven cost–benefit distribution is quite straightforward, designing effective policies to address these imbalances is far more complex.
3.2. Recognitional Justice
Recognitional justice involves acknowledging and respecting cultural differences and diverse worldviews in environmental decision-making: the right of a group to raise claims or express their views in the decision-making process, whatever the content of those claims or views may be.Footnote 43 As suggested by Bennett and co-authors, it is the ‘very basis of all forms of justice’, as ‘without it, neither procedural nor distributional justice will be possible for some groups’.Footnote 44 This requires acknowledging and respecting ‘the distinct rights, worldviews, knowledge, needs, livelihoods, histories and cultures of different groups in decisions’.Footnote 45
In ecological restoration, recognitional justice plays a crucial role because different communities perceive nature, ecosystem services, and environmental intervention in diverse ways. What is deemed just, essential, or desirable as an outcome of a project is therefore shaped by social, economic, and cultural values,Footnote 46 making it clear that one-size-fits-all approaches can unfairly disadvantage marginalized or underrepresented groups.Footnote 47 Agroecology, for example, illustrates how the failure to recognize diverse knowledge systems can hinder sustainable environmental practices.Footnote 48 While agroecological practices – such as agricultural diversificationFootnote 49 – enhance soil health and contribute to resilient food systems,Footnote 50 their adoption remains limited. This is primarily as a result of the lack of recognition of the role, knowledge, and contributions of peasant farmers and local communities, whose valuable insights, rooted in traditional practices, have been marginalized and delegitimized by industrial farming.Footnote 51
3.3. Procedural Justice
Procedural justice, in turn, focuses on fairness in decision-making processes,Footnote 52 investigating how the design and implementation of regulations and policies increase or diminish inequalities.Footnote 53 At its core, procedural justice addresses who gets to participate in and influence decision-making processes, as well as how power imbalances are managed.Footnote 54 Research has focused on the principles that should guide the engagement and the decision-making process,Footnote 55 and the methodology for including relevant communities and actors,Footnote 56 recognizing that enabling participation does not necessarily constitute a guarantee for procedurally just outcomes. Yet, as convincingly argued by Gellers and Jeffords, procedural environmental rights ‘matter for the environment, the pursuit of environmental justice, and the quality of democratic governance in a state’.Footnote 57 A just process requires access to information, meaningful participation, and access to justice, ensuring that affected communities can influence the policies that have an impact on them.Footnote 58
In ecological restoration, procedural justice is particularly relevant because decision-making often reflects power imbalances, with technical experts and policymakers dominating discussions while marginalized groups struggle to be heard. Even when public participation is legally required – as is, for example, the case with the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD)Footnote 59 – its effectiveness depends on how it is implemented. Indeed, it was repeatedly reported that participation under the WFD has too often been limited to mere consultation rather than active decision-making, with bureaucratic dominance, inaccessible technical information, and uneven national implementation restricting the impact of the participatory process.Footnote 60
The above discussion of the three dimensions of environmental justice highlights several normative considerations that emerge when applying them to ecological restoration. Ensuring distributive justice calls for policy mechanisms that can support groups that are disproportionately affected by restoration so that the costs of ecological transition are not unfairly concentrated on specific communities. Recognitional justice, in turn, demands that restoration efforts move beyond technocratic approaches and instead integrate local knowledge systems, worldviews, and cultural values, particularly those of historically marginalized communities. Procedural justice requires more than formal participation: decision-making must be inclusive, transparent, and genuinely capable of shaping outcomes.
Taken together, these reflections suggest that achieving justice in ecological restoration involves actively addressing structural inequalities, fostering inclusive governance, and designing context-sensitive intervention.Footnote 61
4. Environmental Justice in the EU
While the three dimensions of environmental justice have been elaborated mostly within sociological scholarship, they are also present in legal frameworks. In this section, we provide an overview of how environmental justice considerations have been incorporated into the EU law acquis to date, highlighting key trends and developments.
4.1. Primary EU Law
Environmental justice has received limited recognition in the EU policy and legal framework. While sustainability and environmental protection have become central to EU law, explicit engagement with environmental justice remains underdeveloped.Footnote 62 This is not entirely surprising as, for a long time, the EU prioritized economic integration as a means to achieve peace and unity.Footnote 63 Even though social considerations have been present from the outset,Footnote 64 it was only at a later stage that socio-ecological concerns began to enter the core of the EU agenda.Footnote 65
Nevertheless, primary EU law does encompass some provisions relevant to environmental justice. To begin with, Article 2 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU)Footnote 66 lists the fundamental values of the EU, including equality.Footnote 67 Similarly, Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EU Charter) affirms the principle of equal treatment,Footnote 68 which the Court of Justice of the European Union has recognized as a general principle of EU law.Footnote 69 Considering the inherent link between inequal societies and biodiversity loss discussed in the Introduction,Footnote 70 these provisions provide a legal basis for addressing all three dimensions of environmental justice. Indeed, resolving the biodiversity crisis will also require ‘acknowledging and resolving the entrenched heritage of inequality’.Footnote 71
A more direct entry point for procedural justice in environmental matters comes from the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention).Footnote 72 This international treaty, to which the EU acceded in 2005,Footnote 73 introduces three pillars of procedural rights to reach its objectives: (i) access to information, (ii) public participation, and (iii) access to justice in environmental matters.Footnote 74 These provisions were further implemented through the Aarhus Regulation in 2006,Footnote 75 making them an integral part of the EU law acquis.Footnote 76 Despite these efforts, the implementation of the treaty, and in particular the provisions on access to justice, has not been fully completed. Indeed, the EU has very strict rules on standing for actors, such as environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs),Footnote 77 who wish to litigate public interests.Footnote 78
Looking at EU environmental policy more broadly, a couple of provisions come to the forefront. Article 11 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)Footnote 79 introduces the so-called integration principle, which prescribes that environmental protection requirements have to be integrated throughout all EU policies and activities. While this does not entail that environmental considerations are granted priority over other concerns, it mandates their consideration and offers potential leverage for addressing environmental injustices through policymaking.Footnote 80 Article 11 TFEU further stipulates that environmental protection requirements should be integrated ‘with a view to promoting sustainable development’.Footnote 81 Both the concept of sustainable development as such and its significance for environmental justice are somewhat contested.Footnote 82 In any case, because of the intergenerational focus of sustainable development and its potential to expose ‘past acts of oppression and environmental impact’ and ‘reveal contemporary privilege’, its built-in social notion and its capacity to strengthen procedural obligations, sustainable development could also be used as tool to integrate all three dimensions of environmental justice in EU policy.Footnote 83
The importance of integration and sustainable development is also echoed in Article 37 of the EU Charter, which prescribes that a high level of environmental protection must be integrated into the Union polices ‘and ensured in accordance with the principle of sustainable development’.Footnote 84 Although Article 37 belongs to the category of principles (and not rights),Footnote 85 it confirms the importance and role of the integration principle and sustainable development principleFootnote 86 within the EU legal order.Footnote 87
A final provision of interest is Article 191 TFEU, which forms the legal basis of the NRR.Footnote 88 It stipulates that the environmental policy of the EU has to preserve, protect and improve the quality of the environment as well as protect human health.Footnote 89 This provision has often been interpreted alongside principles such as solidarity, sincere cooperation between Member States, and the aforementioned sustainable development, thereby straddling both environmental and socio-economic considerations.Footnote 90 Importantly, it further refers to the precautionary principle, the principle of prevention, and the polluter pays principle, while also stipulating that policies shall take ‘into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union’.Footnote 91 These principles can have several and contrasting environmental justice implications. For instance, Pedersen suggests that while the polluter pays principle can support equitable outcomes by internalizing environmental costs, it may also unintentionally burden low-income households if poorly implemented (for example, through regressive carbon taxes or price increase on eco-friendly goods).Footnote 92
4.2. Secondary EU Law
Turning to secondary EU legislation, environmental justice as such is not explicitly taken into consideration, yet there exist various regulations and directives that can (in)directly affect its dimensions. In this regard, Van Gool raises a worthwhile consideration. He points out that EU environmental law norms generally impose an environmental standard that is then uniformly applied.Footnote 93 Although this can lead to a level playing field of environmental standards, it is not always necessary – and, arguably, desirable – to have uniform implementation: sometimes it is crucial to take into consideration national idiosyncrasies. The degree of flexibility that is given to Member States in transposing a directive into national legislation could be an opportunity to accommodate such national characteristics and weave in environmental justice considerations.Footnote 94 This pattern is reflected, for example, in the Birds DirectiveFootnote 95 and the Habitats Directive,Footnote 96 two key biodiversity legislative instruments. They are focused primarily on protecting high-quality habitats and threatened species, irrespective of their location or potential impacts on local communities.Footnote 97 Yet, these areas are often located in rural or coastal areas where local communities depend heavily on agricultural, fishing or industrial activities for their livelihoods, and conservation measures can disproportionately generate conflicts.Footnote 98 By contrast, urban green spaces, like parks, rarely fall within the scope of the Directives, even though they can be of crucial importance to the urban dwellers who live around them.
A similar disregard of environmental justice concerns can be found in respect of legislation targeting air pollution.Footnote 99 As Van Gool notes, positive justice outcomes resulting from EU environmental law tend to be co-benefits rather than deliberate policy objectives.Footnote 100 The same view was also upheld by the European Environment Agency (EEA): in 2018, the EEA wrote that ‘more emphasis is needed in environmental, social and economic policies on addressing the unequal exposure to hazards and unequal vulnerabilities of different groups’.Footnote 101
Since the adoption of the European Green Deal (EGD),Footnote 102 however, there has been a change in the right direction. This strategy, which strives to transform the EU into a climate-neutral continent by 2050, aims to bring a transition that is ‘just and inclusive’: the EGD will ‘put people first, and pay attention to the regions, industries and workers who will face the greatest challenges’.Footnote 103 Furthermore, ‘careful attention will have to be paid when there are potential trade-offs between economic, environmental and social objectives’ to ensure that ‘no one is left behind’.Footnote 104 Although several authors have expressed doubts as to the robustness of the social considerations in the EGD, it still marks an important shift in EU discourse: it shows that the EU is willing to take environmental justice considerations seriously.Footnote 105 However, this momentum is at risk of stalling. In February 2025, the Von der Leyen II Commission presented its new policy agenda – the ‘Clean Industrial Deal’Footnote 106 – a strategy that, at first glance, diverges from the EGD’s socially conscious rhetoric. At the same time the Commission has maintained that it intends to support the efforts to achieve the objectives of the EGD.Footnote 107 It remains to be seen if it will continue with this ambition.
Having elucidated the main dimensions of environmental justice and their embeddedness in EU law, the next section takes a closer look at the NRR, and assesses the extent to which environmental justice considerations were integrated into this new legislation.
5. The Nature Restoration Regulation
5.1. General Overview
In June 2022, the European Commission first presented its proposal for a new Nature Restoration Regulation, as part of the implementation of the objectives of the EGD.Footnote 108 The NRR has a fourfold objective: (i) to enable the recovery of nature, (ii) to contribute to climate mitigation and adaptation, (iii) to contribute to the EU’s international commitments, and (iv) to enhance food security.Footnote 109
The legislative process was tumultuous, to say the least. Defamation and disinformation campaigns led to a high number of amendments, which severely weakened the proposal.Footnote 110 Yet, on 17 June 2024, the NRR was finally adopted. Below, we briefly discuss key provisions of the Regulation, as published in the Official Journal of the EU.
The NRR puts forward an EU-wide target, which stipulates that by 2050 restoration measures must be in place in all ecosystems in need of restoration.Footnote 111 This overarching objective is further complemented and fleshed out by additional individual targets. For instance, in all terrestrial and coastal, freshwater, and marine ecosystems – as listed in Annex I and Annex II – Member States shall put in place measures necessary to restore degraded areas to good condition.Footnote 112 Other provisions address, for instance, agricultural lands, forests, and pollinator populations.Footnote 113 An important feature is that the restoration measures are also applicable to non-Natura 2000 sites, although Member States are expected to focus on these protected sites until 2030.Footnote 114
The NRR also introduces a novel instrument for its implementation: Member States are required to adopt a national restoration plan (NRP), in which they set out how they will implement the obligations of the NRR.Footnote 115 The plans are required to map the different areas in need of restoration and list the measures that will be taken in order to return them to a good condition.Footnote 116 The Commission will assess the NRPs and make observations where needed, which the Member State in question must take into consideration.Footnote 117 Every ten years, the NRPs will be reviewed and revised.Footnote 118 Monitoring of the implementation will be carried out by the Commission, with assistance from the EEA.Footnote 119
5.2. Assessment of the NRR Against the Three Dimensions of Environmental Justice
This section assesses the NRR against the three dimensions of environmental justice. At first reading, the Regulation does not include any specific reference to environmental justice; however, justice-related considerations are implicit throughout the text. For example, the word ‘fair’ is repeated three times, whereas the participatory dimension is underscored by repeated use of the terms ‘participation’ and ‘stakeholder(s)’ – appearing, respectively, three and ten times. Interestingly, the word ‘justice’ is mentioned only once.
Distributional justice
One of the main aspects emerging from the first articles of the NRR is the collaborative and collective nature of the envisioned effort: the NRR intends ‘to jointly cover, as a Union target, throughout the areas and ecosystems … at least 20% of land and at least 20% of seas areas by 2030, and all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050’.Footnote 120 The positive effects of restoration are not only evident at the national level but also at the regional level, considering, for instance, restored rivers crossing multiple countries, the well-being of migratory birds, and the health of Mediterranean coasts. However, the contribution from each Member State may vary significantly and, at this stage, it is still unclear how the overarching target will be broken down at Member State level.Footnote 121 According to the data circulated by the Commission,Footnote 122 France, Spain, and Finland will incur the highest absolute costs, while other countries (such as Austria, Germany, and Italy) will face more moderate expenses, especially in the first phase, where Natura 2000 sites are prioritized.Footnote 123 The Commission emphasized that, despite these differences, ‘costs and benefits are reasonably equally spread between EU Member States’.Footnote 124 Countries with higher costs are expected to experience greater long-term benefits, effectively countering concerns of distributional injustice.Footnote 125 Yet, the full picture of the balance between costs and benefits will become clear only once NRPs are drafted and the expected costs are revealed.
Turning to the national level, some authors have argued that the implementation of the NRR could negatively affect the fundamental right to conduct business and jeopardize the sustainability of economic activities, raising concerns about intragenerational justice.Footnote 126 The alleged infringement of Article 16 of the EU CharterFootnote 127 appears misplaced in this case, as a thriving environment is not just a limit to economic activities, but also a prerequisite to them.Footnote 128 Moreover, the final version of the NRR includes several references to the ‘socio-economic impacts and estimated benefits’ and establishes derogations to restoration activities with the aim of mitigating the potential negative effects on society.Footnote 129 However, the NRR does not specify the nature of the derogations and leaves their scope and application open to interpretation.Footnote 130
This discussion, stemming from distributional concerns, highlights the importance of carefully designing funding allocations to support restorative practices and the ecological transition. To face this issue, the European Commission presents a list of possible sources of funding in the Annexes to the Proposal. It is stated that ‘to support the transition to enhanced ecosystem condition and to compensate the stakeholders who may experience foregone income, incentive payments and opportunity costs can be compensated through EU, national, regional, local and private funds’.Footnote 131 The report further indicates that the estimated costs to reach restoration objectives could reach ‘around EUR 6 to 8 billion annually until 2030, excluding restoration and maintenance costs for marine, urban and soil ecosystems as well as pollinators’, to be collected from existing EU funding sources, market-based instruments and national budgets.Footnote 132 Importantly, the Commission points out that these estimates will materialize only on the condition that restoration efforts become a priority of Member States action.Footnote 133
Despite these general statements, the final version of the NRR ignores the need to support a just transition in sectors disproportionately affected by restoration, such as agriculture, fishery, and forestry.Footnote 134 While paragraph 70 of the Preamble to the NRRFootnote 135 stipulates that Member States are allowed to allocate funding from different sources, such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the LIFE programmes,Footnote 136 they are not obliged to reprogramme their funding under the CAP and the Common Fisheries Policy within the multi-annual financial framework of 2021 to 2027.Footnote 137 This is a missed opportunity to immediately steer affected sectors towards less harmful practices, such as paludiculture, agroecology, and aquaculture.Footnote 138
In its wording, the NRR is strongly future-oriented: the expression ‘long-term’ appears 26 times in the text. Restoration of nature itself is described as an ‘insurance policy to ensure the EU’s long-term sustainability and resilience’,Footnote 139 aligning with the ambition of the EGD to transform unsustainable production systems.Footnote 140 Indeed, the NRR is presented as a multiplier of opportunities, where ‘the benefits of restoring degraded ecosystems to good condition in all land and sea areas far outweigh the costs of restoration’.Footnote 141
Despite this forward-looking aspiration, the NRR has faced criticism, particularly concerning the costs associated with its implementation. While such concerns – particularly from sectors like agriculture – are frequently voiced, they are often raised in advance of implementation, when empirical evidence on actual economic repercussions is still limited. The key question is whether today’s sacrifices, such as potential reductions in yields or new restoration obligations, will be compensated by long-term gains in productivity or climate resilience. However, the uncertainty surrounding these potential benefits fuels a narrative of short-term economic losses and contributes to resistance that may overshadow the broader vision of sustainable livelihoods and resilient ecosystems.
As NRPs are developed and restoration measures take shape, it will be crucial to monitor whether policies maintain a balance between immediate socio-economic needs and long-term environmental goals.Footnote 142 Intragenerational and intergenerational justice are closely intertwined: failure to ensure fair and inclusive outcomes for communities today can generate resistance, erode public trust, and ultimately jeopardize the long-term viability of restoration initiatives. In this sense, unjust outcomes in the present risk not only reinforcing existing inequalities, but also compromising the ability of future generations to enjoy the benefits of a restored environment. Without careful attention to these dynamics, there is a risk that short-term interests could undermine the ambitious objectives of the NRR, especially in ensuring a just transition for future generations.Footnote 143
Recognitional justice
The implementation of the NRR will require a significant collective effort and, with that, a complex multi-level governance system. To ensure uniform enforcement across the EU, the Commission opted for a regulation instead of a directive, bypassing the need for national transposition and imposing directly applicable obligations on Member States. This choice was justified on various grounds: the extraordinary scale and transboundary nature of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation, the risks to the EU economy, and the failure of voluntary commitments.Footnote 144 While the NRR sets overarching objectives and coordinates intervention, it also provides Member States with significant flexibility in deciding how to achieve these goals through national restoration plans, which are later assessed and approved at the EU level.Footnote 145
Even though the flexibility granted to Member States under the NRR is intended to tailor governance strategies to local ecological and socio-economic conditions, it also creates risks of unequal participation in practice. Without clear safeguards, historically underrepresented communities – such as Indigenous groups, rural populations, and small-scale land users – may be sidelined in both the planning and implementation phases of restoration projects.Footnote 146 The Regulation requires coordination with subnational authorities and stakeholders to ensure there is alignment with existing environmental plans (for example, river basin and Natura 2000 site management plans). However, there are no explicit guarantees that marginalized voices will be meaningfully considered. Without mechanisms to prevent power imbalances, restoration decisions may disproportionately reflect the interests of more politically and economically influential actors, undermining recognitional justice and the equitable distribution of restoration benefits.
Procedural justice
The influence of the Aarhus Convention is clearly visible in the text, with references to all three of its pillars (access to information, participation, and access to justice). As for access to information, it is relevant to start by saying that there is, to date, often still limited availability of consistent and accurate information on the status of nature in the various Member States.Footnote 147 It is therefore not surprising that the term ‘monitoring’ appears frequently throughout the NRR, reflecting a desire to increase commitments in this regard.Footnote 148 Article 20 lists the elements that Member States are expected to monitor,Footnote 149 and mandates that the resulting data be made publicly available.Footnote 150 The same goes for the three-/six-yearly reports that Member States are required to submit to the Commission.Footnote 151 There has been criticism in respect of the delaying of the reporting obligations, but it is positive that there is a fairly high degree of transparency with regard to the monitoring obligations.Footnote 152 Still, it is unclear how the monitoring will be made available to the public.
The second pillar of the Aarhus Convention also features throughout the NRR. As stated in the Explanatory Memorandum, the European Commission carried out an online public consultation and organized stakeholder consultations and workshops before drafting the text of the proposal.Footnote 153 The stakeholders that were involved in the process included ‘in particular representatives of Member States, environmental organizations, research institutes, agriculture and forest associations, and business representatives’,Footnote 154 focusing on ‘potential social, economic and wider environmental impacts’.Footnote 155 In the further roll-out of the NRR, citizens and other stakeholders are also assigned a role. For instance, the Commission also looks at citizen science to fill knowledge gaps.Footnote 156 The Commission expects the Member States to put in place the necessary measures to engage a broad range of local and regional stakeholders as well as the general public in the preparation, review, and implementation of the NRPs, but also to foster dialogue and to diffuse information about biodiversity and the benefits of restoration.Footnote 157
Notably, the Commission’s NRP template includes a dedicated section on public participation (Part A, Section 2.1), requiring Member States to summarize how participation and stakeholder engagement were conducted.Footnote 158 This formal requirement reflects a clear intent to institutionalize transparency and inclusiveness in the planning process. Although promising, it remains to be seen whether all relevant stakeholders will be considered and the extent to which they will be able to influence the drafting of the NRPs, as the actual design and delivery of this consultative process lies with the Member States.Footnote 159 Additional guidance on how this process should be carried out could be useful to ensure it is in line with the standards put forward by the Aarhus Convention.
There are also two references to education in the Preamble;Footnote 160 however, nowhere in the Proposal is this further concretized. There were several amendment proposals to reinforce participation rights in the Report of European Parliament Rapporteur Luena of December 2022.Footnote 161 Most remarkable was the suggestion to introduce a new article focused solely on ‘public participation, access to public information and public awareness’, which put special emphasis on educational programmes to raise awareness.Footnote 162 The amendment, however, was discarded.
The third pillar – access to justice – is where the NRR falls short. The initial proposal included a separate provision on access to justice, which stated explicitly that environmental NGOs were considered to have a sufficient interest to challenge the substantive or procedural legality of NRPs.Footnote 163 This explicit recognition would have significantly strengthened their position to litigate and serve as an additional watchdog to monitor progress and implementation. Indeed, as remarked by Born and Schoukens, to date there are ‘no explicit provisions [which] guarantee broad access to justice in biodiversity-related cases under EU law, with the exception of such Directives as the E[nvironmental] I[mpact] A[ssessment] and the Industrial Emissions Directive’.Footnote 164 The provision was deleted during negotiations, and now the only reference to access to justice is in the Preamble, which refers to Article 19(1) TEU and the Aarhus Convention.Footnote 165 At this point, it is hard to predict what the exact impact of this deletion will be.
To summarize, it follows from our assessment that the NRR does take into account the different dimensions of environmental justice, albeit sometimes in a more implicit manner. However, the Regulation contains significant ambiguities, particularly in key provisions, which open the door to misinterpretation or even misuse, potentially resulting in unjust outcomes. As Member States begin to draft and implement their national restoration plans, it is essential that they remain attentive to justice considerations throughout the process.
We see, however, two essential actions that can guide the Member States in the right direction. Firstly, the European Commission, assisted by the EEA, should provide clarification on ambiguous concepts, such as the content and relevance of ‘foreseeable socio-economic impacts and estimated benefits of the implementation of the restoration measures’,Footnote 166 or of what can be considered a ‘project of overriding public interest’,Footnote 167 to avoid counter-effective interpretations. Secondly, Member States should enable participatory processes and incorporate the input they receive in their NRPs.
6. Conclusion
To face the twin biodiversity and climate crises, ecological restoration of degraded nature is pivotal. The impact of restoration projects, moreover, can extend beyond merely ecological aspects and can potentially increase inequalities. Creating synergies between both types of benefit is challenging, yet crucial, in order to bring about the much-needed ecological change without prejudicing people’s livelihoods. In this article, we assessed the Nature Restoration Regulation through the lenses of distributive, procedural, and recognitional justice, the three components of environmental justice. Our main research question was to what extent the NRR allows for ‘just ecological restoration’.
From a distributive justice perspective, our analysis shows that the NRR promotes collaborative restoration efforts, as its overarching goal to restore at least 20% of land and sea areas is to be achieved collectively. However, the burden of restoration efforts appears to be unevenly distributed across Member States and economic sectors. Although that can be justified as the types of ecosystem and their conditions vary significantly between countries, it also means that some Member States will need to undertake far greater restoration efforts than others, raising concerns about how responsibilities are shared if no additional burden-sharing measures are integrated. Similarly, while the Regulation broadly acknowledges financial support mechanisms – such as the CAP and the Just Transition Fund (JTF)Footnote 168 – there are gaps in ensuring adequate funding for a just transition in key sectors like agriculture, forestry, and fishery. The lack of specific financial instruments to assist industries in undergoing significant change risks exacerbating inequalities and failing to incentivize more sustainable practices.
The long-term vision of the NRR aligns with intergenerational justice principles and reflects the EGD goal of transforming environmentally unsustainable production systems. While the Regulation sets ambitious future-oriented objectives, concerns over immediate costs and economic disruptions have fuelled resistance from certain industries. This tension between short-term economic interests and long-term ecological sustainability is likely to persist as restoration policies unfold.
From a recognitional justice perspective, the NRR emphasizes inclusive decision-making and mandates coordination with subnational authorities and stakeholders. However, it lacks concrete assurances that historically marginalized communities – such as rural populations and small-scale landowners – will have a meaningful voice in restoration planning. Without clear mechanisms to address power asymmetries, there is a risk that economically and politically dominant actors will shape the process to their advantage, leaving vulnerable communities with limited influence over decisions that have a direct impact on their livelihoods and cultural heritage.
Finally, in terms of procedural justice, the assessment revolved around the three pillars of the Aarhus Convention: access to information, participation in environmental decision-making, and access to justice. The first two indicators are fairly well incorporated, as the NRR addresses the knowledge gap in a transparent manner. This will not only enable policymakers to improve the design of their legislative and policy instruments, but also facilitate the monitoring of the implementation of obligations. Participation is also included, and Member States should put in place participatory processes to involve their citizens in the drafting and roll-out of NRPs. Access to justice is the least prominent of the three Aarhus pillars, with merely a reference to general provisions. This is a missed opportunity to bolster the enforcement of obligations. A proposal by the European Parliament to include a specific provision on access to justice, which also aimed to foster awareness about restoration and stimulate educational initiatives, was discarded.
In essence, while the NRR demonstrates a strong commitment to ecological restoration and constitutes a groundbreaking piece of environmental legislation, our analysis reveals areas for improvement to ensure environmental justice and equitable outcomes for all stakeholders involved in restoration projects. The NRR can play a pivotal role in transforming damaged ecosystems, but it can also tackle social issues. However, much remains to be seen as it is only the implementation of the NRPs that will reveal how Member States put the targets into practice. In addition, the Commission should provide guidance by interpreting ambiguous articles of the NRR to facilitate more fruitful dialogue with and within Member States, and to promote the appropriate distribution of funding opportunities for a fair and just ecological transition.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to expressly thank Morgan Eleanor Harris, as well as the two anonymous TEL reviewers, for their extensive feedback on the manuscript. Both authors contributed equally to the conceptualization of, research for, and revision of this article. In particular, MM drafted paragraphs 1, 2, 3.2, 3.3, 4, 5.1, 5.2 (procedural justice) and 6, while EC drafted paragraphs 1, 3.1, 5.1, 5.2 (distributive and recognitional justice) and 6.
Funding statement
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare none.
Open access
