Auteur moral

Auteur secondaire

Résumé

"The Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD) and the Nature Restoration Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 (NRR) both require Member States to restore freshwater ecosystems. This study analyzes how these two instruments interact, identifying both synergies and conflicts. It examines the overlap between the objectives of the two instruments; the potential tensions between the targets of "good ecological status" under the WFD and "good condition" in the NRR, as well as inconsistencies between their non-deterioration obligations; the possible integration of existing river basin governance with new NRR requirements; the enforcement mechanisms under the WFD and their applicability to the NRR; and the coherence of freshwater restoration with other policy domains, especially agriculture. Findings suggest that the NRR's more flexible, broad-scale approach to restoration could help overcome several regulatory and practical weaknesses that have limited the WFD's effectiveness, but only if Member States and the Commission address the regulatory mismatch between the two regimes. The WFD's clear non-deterioration obligations and established enforcement mechanisms could reinforce Member States' duties under the NRR. Nonetheless, the new regime could exacerbate implementation problems stemming from limited policy coordination, as the NRR neither requires coordination among the multiple authorities involved in restoration projects, nor establishes a framework for conflict resolution. In short, the NRR ignores the experience of WFD that effectiveness depends not only on ambition, but also on governance design. This gap could significantly hinder the achievement of the NRR's objectives, including its goal of restoring 25,000 km of free-flowing rivers across the EU."

Editeur

Society for Ecological Restoration

Descripteur Urbamet

Descripteur écoplanete

qualité et traitement de l'eau ;restauration de site ;restauration de cours d'eau ;restauration de lac ;méthodologie

Thème

Environnement - Nature ;Environnement - Paysage ;Méthodes - Techniques ;Sciences de la terre

Texte intégral

NATURE RESTORAT ION LEG I SLAT ION , IMPLEMENTAT ION AND ENFORCEMENT : S TATUS , CHALLENGES AND SOLUT IONS REV I EW ART ICLE The Nature Restoration Regulation and the Water Framework Directive: enhancing restoration of freshwater ecosystems, or muddying the waters? Eleonora Ciscato1,2 , Morgan E. Harris3 The Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD) and the Nature Restoration Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 (NRR) both require Member States to restore freshwater ecosystems. This study analyzes how these two instruments interact, identifying both synergies and conflicts. It examines the overlap between the objectives of the two instruments; the potential tensions between the targets of ?good ecological status? under the WFD and ?good condition? in the NRR, as well as inconsistencies between their non-deterioration obligations; the possible inte- gration of existing river basin governance with new NRR requirements; the enforcement mechanisms under the WFD and their applicability to the NRR; and the coherence of freshwater restoration with other policy domains, especially agriculture. Findings suggest that the NRR?s more flexible, broad-scale approach to restoration could help overcome several regulatory and practical weaknesses that have limited the WFD?s effectiveness, but only ifMember States and the Commission address the regulatory mismatch between the two regimes. TheWFD?s clear non-deterioration obligations and established enforcement mechanisms could reinforce Member States? duties under the NRR. None- theless, the new regime could exacerbate implementation problems stemming from limited policy coordination, as the NRR neither requires coordination among the multiple authorities involved in restoration projects, nor establishes a framework for conflict resolution. In short, the NRR ignores the experience of WFD that effectiveness depends not only on ambition, but also on governance design. This gap could signif- icantly hinder the achievement of the NRR?s objectives, including its goal of restoring 25,000 km of free-flowing rivers across the EU. Key words: ecological restoration, free-flowing rivers, Nature Restoration Regulation, river restoration, Water Framework Directive Implications for Practice ? Strengthening policy coordination is essential to avoid conflicts and inefficiencies in nature restoration. ? Betteralignmentbetweenenvironmentalandsectoralpolicies, particularly agriculture, will be critical to effective delivery. ? Governance and implementation mechanisms must be reinforced: cross-sectoral coordination and harmonization between National Restoration Plans and River Basin Man- agement Plans are necessary to ensure coherent outcomes. ? Greater clarity on the relationship between the Water FrameworkDirective2000/60/EC?s?goodecological status? and the Nature Restoration Regulation (EU) 2024/1991?s ?good condition? is needed to prevent regulatory conflicts and secure consistent ecological objectives. ? By integrating these elements, policymakers can increase the resilience of Europe?s freshwater ecosystems. Introduction Freshwater ecosystems are essential for biodiversity, climate regulation, and human well-being, yet they are among the most degraded ecosystems in Europe (European Commission 2020). To address these losses, the recently adopted Nature Restoration Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 (NRR) sets ambitious objectives, including the restoration of 25,000 km of free-flowing rivers by 2030. The successful implementation of the NRR, however, will depend on its coherence with existing European Union (EU) environmental law, above all the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD). The latter, designed to be the overarching legal instrument governing the quality of surface waters, Author contributions: MEH, EC designed the study, reviewed and edited the manuscript; EC drafted the Introduction, Governance, Accountability and enforcement, synergies and conflicts, conclusions; MEH drafted the NRR and surface waters, objectives and scope of the WFD and the NRR, good ecological status versus good condition, restoration of free-flowing rivers, non-deterioration duties. 1Department of Italian and Supranational Public Law, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Festa del Perdono 7, Milan, Italy 2Address correspondence to E. Ciscato, email eleonora.ciscato@unimi.it 3Department of Law, Università degli Studi Roma Tre, Via Ostiense 161, Rome, Italy © 2025 The Author(s). Restoration Ecology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Ecological Restoration. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. doi: 10.1111/rec.70233 Restoration Ecology 1 of 10 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7606-9077 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0047-791X mailto:eleonora.ciscato@unimi.it http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1111%2Frec.70233&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2025-10-15 groundwaters, and coastal waters, introduced an innovative approach of integrated water management and set targets for improving the ecological and chemical status of surface waters (Lee 2009; van Rijswick & Keessen 2017). Yet, a quarter century after its adoption, only 39.5% of surface waters have reached good ecological status or good ecological potential (European Commission 2025b). It is clear that the WFD has failed to live up to its objectives: the question is now whether the NRR can help to address the gap between the WFD?s ambitions and the current state of surface waters in the EU, or whether it may further compli- cate efforts to restore these critical ecosystems. Studies have attempted to understand the reasons behind the gap between the WFD?s goals and its actual impact. Some scholars emphasize the governance problems?understood here as the structures, processes, and mechanisms at various levels of decision-making influencing environmental actions and out- comes (Keessen et al. 2010; Domorenok 2017). Others have instead focused on regulatory conflicts between the WFD regime and other areas of law and policy, especially agriculture (Platjouw et al. 2023). As the Commission has highlighted, additional issues include the incomplete harmonization of implementing measures, such as monitoring methodologies, the limited powers of river basin district authorities, and the lack of adequate data, technical skills, and funding (European Commission 2025b). These shortcomings suggest that freshwa- ter management challenges in the EU are not only related to per- sistent pressures and hydrological changes, but are also institutional and regulatory in nature. The Nature Restoration Regulation has now added to this pic- ture. To assess its possible impact, this study seeks to shed light on the potential interaction between the NRR and the WFD, focusing on regulatory and governance issues. We acknowledge that a complete analysis of the freshwater regimes in the EU would need to include the numerous other instruments applica- ble to aquatic areas. However, as the WFD is the principal, over- arching instrument governing freshwater habitats in the EU, it is a logical starting point for such an analysis. To structure our study, we follow an approach informed by the analytical framework for policy coherence developed by Nilsson et al. (2012) and Platjouw et al. (2025). Specifically, our methodology consists of three steps: (1) identifying and inventorying the relevant objectives and provisions in the WFD and NRR; (2) screening for interactions between these ele- ments to detect potential synergies or conflicts; and (3) analyzing in depth key areas of interaction that are likely to affect imple- mentation outcomes. Our study is primarily based on a textual analysis of the two instruments. In addition, we have taken into account relevant case law, which has played an important role in developing theWFD?s substantive rules over time. No such case law yet exists for the NRR, so our conclusions are based solely on a preliminary analysis of the text and its preparatory docu- ments, with the caveat that it will be necessary to see how the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) interprets it when future disputes arise. Our study reveals that the two regimes directly intersect and syn- ergiesmay be found on certain core elements of both instruments? notably their ecological objectives, non-deterioration duties, restoration targets, and provisions on barrier removal; however, in some circumstances, conflicts may also arise, which could result in divergent or misaligned implementation. The article is structured as follows. First, the obligations con- cerning surface waters and coastal waters in the NRR are briefly illustrated (Section 2). Following this, we analyze how these obligations interact with those contained in the WFD (Section 3). Finally, we offer considerations about what poten- tial issues may arise in restoring surface waters, as well as the means by which synergies between the two instruments may aid in upscaling the restoration of aquatic habitats (Section 3.2). The NRR and Surface Waters The Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 on Nature Restoration, adopted in June 2024, aims to restore at least 20% of land and sea areas by 2030 and all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050. It applies to surface waters in as much as they fall within habitat types listed in Annex I NRR, are located in areas which must be restored to secure their long-term resilience, or are critical habitats for protected species. In addition, the NRR contains provisions that require Member States to restore habitats of all kinds, such as forests and agricultural areas, which will indi- rectly benefit aquatic ecosystems. Specifically, Member States are required to restore these areas to ?good condition.? This standard is based solely on the target habitat type and whether its ?structure, functions and typical spe- cies or typical species composition reflect the high level of ecolog- ical integrity, stability and resilience necessary to ensure its long- term maintenance and thus contribute to reaching or maintaining favourable conservation status for a habitat? (Article 3[4]). In addition, Article 9 introduces a specific obligation to increase the extent of free-flowing rivers in the EU, defined (Article 3[22]) as those where ?the longitudinal, lateral and ver- tical connectivity? is not hindered by artificial structures form- ing a barrier? and whose ?natural functions ? are largely unaffected.? To restore 25,000 km of rivers to free-flowing sta- tus by 2030, Member States must inventory all artificial barriers to connectivity and identify those to be removed. Article 9 (2) provides that they should simply prioritize obsolete barriers, defined as ?those that are no longer needed for renewable energy generation, inland navigation, water supply, flood protection and other uses,? taking into account their socio-economic func- tions. However, the NRR does not specify how much each Member State should contribute to the Union?s overall target. In order to fulfill their obligations under the NRR, Member States must prepare National Restoration Plans (NRPs) indicat- ing specifically the measures they intend to take, with a deadline of August 2026 for draft plans to be completed. The Commis- sion will then have until March 2027 to offer its observations, following which the final NRP must be adopted by the Member State before September 2027. Beyond these planning requirements, the NRR also includes several very significant non-deterioration obligations. For one, Member States must prevent deterioration of habitats under res- toration, and they must show a continuous improvement in the same until good condition is reached (Article 4[11]). A similar Restoration Ecology2 of 10 The NRR and the WFD 1526100x, 0, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/rec.70233 by IN SE E , W iley O nline L ibrary on [12/11/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense obligation applies to Annex I habitats that are already in good condition or which must be restored at a future point (Article 4 [12]) to reach the Member States? 2040 or 2050 targets. Excep- tions to this non-deterioration duty are allowed. Besides factors that are generally outside the control of Member States?force majeure, unavoidable habitat transformation directly caused by climate change, and action or inaction by third countries for which the Member State concerned is not responsible? deterioration is also permitted in the case of a ?plan or project of overriding public interest for which no less damaging alterna- tive solutions are available? or one that is otherwise authorized under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive (Article 4[14?16]). Crucially, Article 9(4) NRR contains a further non- deterioration obligation, setting out that: ?Member States shall ensure that the natural connectivity of rivers and natural func- tions of the related floodplains restored [through barrier removal] are maintained.? Unlike Article 4, this provision does not foresee exceptions. One could argue that a systemic interpre- tation of this provision with Article 4(14?16) would permit new barriers where necessary for overriding public interests; how- ever, the text of this provision quite clearly prohibits new pro- jects that will add barriers to restored free-flowing river segments. This is a question where critical conflicts with the WFD may arise, as will be discussed below. As regards governance, the NRR leaves Member States an ample margin of freedom to determine which authorities will be called upon to implement its provisions. It does not require them to create new governance structures to coordinate agencies or to resolve conflicts. Finally, as for public participation, it requires that the preparation of the NRP be ?open, transparent, inclusive and effective? and that the public is meaningfully involved in the NRP, in accordance with the arrangements set out in the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive 2001/42/EC (Article 14[20]). Given the scope of this regulation, it has been welcomed for its potential to drive large-scale ecosystem restoration efforts across the EU. However, the experience of the WFD shows that its effectiveness will depend not only on its ambition, but on how regulatory and governance issues are managed?especially its integration and coherence with the preexisting legal frame- work. This is particularly critical for surface and coastal waters, many of which fall under the scope of both the NRR and the WFD. The potential conflicts and synergies between these two instruments will be explored in the next section. The NRR and the Gaps in the Current Legal Framework Objectives and Scope of the WFD and the NRR Both the WFD and the NRR aim to preserve and improve the quality of ecosystems on land and at sea. The WFD frames its objectives in terms of environmental quality: preventing deteri- oration, protecting and improving the status of the aquatic envi- ronment, and promoting sustainable use of surface and groundwaters (Article 1). To this end, it sets out planning obliga- tions, adopting an integrated approach to water management (Lee 2009; Vlachopoulou et al. 2014; Voulvoulis et al. 2017). The NRR pursues similarly ambitious ecological goals, aiming to ensure ?the long-term and sustained recovery of biodiverse and resilient ecosystems across the Member States? land and sea areas? (Article 1). In addition to ecological aims, both instruments also address human interests. The WFD specifically seeks to contribute to mitigating the impact of floods and droughts as well as to ensure ?the provision of the sufficient supply of good quality surface water and groundwater as needed for sustainable, balanced and equitable water use? (Article 1[e]). The NRR, rather, aims to contribute to the Union?s climate goals and to enhance its food security (Article 1[1]). It is clear that the multiple objectives of these two instruments generally overlap. However, because the NRR has a broader scope, it may open up opportunities to take measures that could not be justified under theWFD alone, such as floodplain restora- tion or projects targeting temporary streams and ephemeral waters (Stubbington et al. 2018). The fact that the NRR rein- forces objectives set out in the WFD may also have other posi- tive impacts. Experience in restoring surface waters in Natura 2000 sites shows that projects that contribute simultaneously to the realization of multiple environmental objectives are particu- larly beneficial (van Rijswick & Keessen 2017; Blicharska & Rönnbäck 2018). Thus, if Member States prioritized projects con- tributing to both WFD and NRR objectives, this could have the effect of amplifying ecosystem recovery (Temmink et al. 2023). Targets: Good Ecological Status Versus Good Condition As mentioned, the WFD and the NRR both set restoration tar- gets aligned with their objectives, but these targets do not neces- sarily coincide and may even conflict. Under the WFD, Member States are bound to ?protect, enhance and restore? surface waters; specifically, they must assess the ecological and chemical status of water bodies and ensure that both are, at a minimum, classified as ?good? by 2027. Ecological status is defined based on several parameters relating to biological, hydrological, and physio-chemical quality elements. ?Excellent? status reflects conditions equivalent to a ?totally or nearly totally undisturbed? state, as assessed against a reference ecosystem selected by the river basin management authority (RBMA) in accordance with guidance provided by the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS). ?Good? status cor- responds to conditions ?slightly? varied compared to excellent status, and ?moderate? describes a ?moderately? disturbed state, without regard to whether the disturbance is caused by anthropo- genic or natural factors (CJEU, C-671/22 Bezirkshaupt- mannschaft Spittal an der Drau [2024], para. 37). Significant criticism has been raised about the WFD?s defini- tion of good ecological status. This definition has faced criti- cism. For one, there is often a lack of public input in determining the reference model corresponding to an ?undis- turbed? state, against which the ecological status of a body of water is assessed (Bishop et al. 2009; Valinia et al. 2012). More generally, some question whether it is realistic and reasonable to use the ?undisturbed state? as the target for restoration efforts, Restoration Ecology 3 of 10 The NRR and the WFD 1526100x, 0, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/rec.70233 by IN SE E , W iley O nline L ibrary on [12/11/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense given that it is typically based on the historic conditions of a site (Balaguer et al. 2014; Higgs et al. 2014; Reyes-Aldana 2023). Such a target may be realistic for remote sites, but not for the majority of European surface waters (Moss 2008; Valinia et al. 2012). For another, the difference between good status and moderate status hinges on the difference between a ?slight? and a ?moderate? deviation from the undisturbed state, leaving a broad margin of discretion to the Member State in setting qual- itative thresholds between the two. ForMoss, this indeterminacy is a problem, as ?it is the boundary between moderate and good that is crucial, for that is the standard to which member states will aspire as the least expensive objective in restoring their hab- itats to good status? (Moss 2008 p 35). The Member States and the Commission have attempted to address this criticism by adopting the Intercalibration Decision (EU) 2024/721, which specifies in detail the ecological quality boundaries (Birk et al. 2013). Despite this, concerns about the interpretation of the WFD?s quality targets remain. By contrast, the NRR requires Member States to reach ?good condition? in habitats subject to restoration. This concept is not necessarily equivalent to an ?undisturbed? state: indeed, for many habitat types listed in Annex I, human activity is necessary to maintain ecosystem health. Similarly to the WFD, good con- dition is assessed in relation to the structure and functions of an ecosystem, especially its species composition. However, instead of comparing sites to historical reference conditions, which empha- sizes ecosystem structures over functions (Josefsson 2015), ?good condition? assesses whether a habitat is sufficiently stable and resil- ient to ensure its maintenance in the long term, including in the face of climate change. It is a forward-looking standard, one that con- siders the projected evolution of a site above all, encouraging adap- tive management practices (Bouleau & Pont 2015). The NRR thus moves away from static models and allows for evolving targets adapted to changing environmental conditions. However, it lacks the same intercalibrated methodologies developed under the WFD for assessing habitat condition, leaving each Member State an even broader margin of discretion in determining when habitats and species are sufficiently intact and resilient to be deemed in good condition. It remains to be seen how Member States will use the discretion they enjoy in this area and whether guidance from the Commission might be necessary. It follows that, by definition, a site could be in good condition for the NRR without achieving good ecological status for the WFD. Thus, projects aiming to reach good condition might not necessarily contribute to the achievement of good ecological status, and vice versa. Indeed, similar conflicts have arisen between the WFD and the Habitats Directives (Irvine 2009; Connor 2016). It could be argued that this divergence may lead public authorities, especially river basin management authori- ties, to prioritize compliance with the WFD due to its well- established monitoring and intercalibration mechanisms, at the expense of the long-term functioning of ecosystems. On the contrary, compliance with the NRR may be an easier target to achieve in the short term. Both instruments include flexibility mechanisms that allow Member States to adapt their efforts to the specific conditions of a site. Under the WFD, a water body can be designated as ?artificial or heavily modified? when it has been created by human activity (i.e. artificial lakes and canals) or when ?as a result of physical alterations by human activity [it] is substan- tially changed in character? (Article 2[9]). Once designated as artificial or heavily modified, Member States are exempted from the duty to reach good ecological condition. Instead, they must achieve ?good ecological potential,? a significantly more gener- ous target, as it takes into account what is realistically achievable given the alterations that have occurred. However, Member States may not use this flexibility mecha- nism without limits. TheWFD and the CIS guidance documents specify that waterbodies may be designated as heavily modified only when the achievement of good ecological status is not pos- sible due to significant and permanent alterations to the physical characteristics of the waterbody. In such cases, the alterations must be needed for human development activities, and the need for such activities must be reviewed every 6 years (European Commission 2003). In other waterways, such as those where a smaller number of barriers are present, Member States may use the derogation under Article 4(5) to set a lower ecological target if reaching good status would be infeasible or dispropor- tionately expensive, and there is no significantly better means of realizing the benefits, such as flood control, not entailing dis- proportionate costs. Some Member States have made use of these flexibility mechanisms to significantly lower their ambitions under the WFD. The recent report of the Commission on the third river basin management plans (RMBPs) 2021?2027 reveals that 12.4% of surface water bodies have been designated as heavily modified and 4.4% as artificial, but the variation between states is significant: at one extreme, the Netherlands has designated over 95% of its water bodies as artificial or heavily modified (European Commission 2025b, p 20). When it comes to such water bodies, the gap between what is required under the WFD and the NRR can be even greater than for ?natural? ones. The duties under the NRR may apply even to artificial or heavily modified waterbodies, if they fall within its scope; thus, Member States are no longer exempt from taking action in and around them. Accordingly, the NRR may encourage the restoration of ecosystems connected to artificial water bodies such as canals and urban waterways, which can have significant biodiversity benefits. Agricultural drainage canals, for example, can serve as ecological corri- dors and pollinator oases within landscapes otherwise hostile to biodiversity (Frantzeskaki & Malamis 2025). In this way, the NRR?s targets can drive more ambitious, yet also more realistic, action to restore freshwater ecosystems, including waterways that might otherwise fall outside the scope of WFD restoration priorities. Restoration of Free-Flowing Rivers and Barrier Removal While the WFD aims to maintain and improve the aquatic envi- ronment, it has not catalyzed the removal of barriers such as weirs, dams, levees, and channels at scale. Indeed, although Member States must assess the hydromorphological quality of rivers, barrier removal is required only to the extent that is Restoration Ecology4 of 10 The NRR and the WFD 1526100x, 0, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/rec.70233 by IN SE E , W iley O nline L ibrary on [12/11/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense necessary to achieve good ecological status (Annex V, 1.2.1). In practice, waterways with multiple barriers are more likely to be designated as ?heavily modified,? which reduces the restoration target to achieving good ecological potential. Under Article 4 (7)WFD,Member States may leave barriers in place if their eco- logical targets can be met through less disruptive measures such as fish ladders (Kemp & O?Hanley 2010). As a result, complex and costly removal projects are rarely prioritized. By contrast, the NRR introduces specific obligations to map and remove barriers. However, it provides little guidance on how to select barriers for removal, aside from prioritizing obso- lete ones; indeed, many barriers cannot be removed without compromising essential public interests, such as flood preven- tion, water and food security. It also does not distinguish between those located on ?natural? and ?heavily modified? waterways. While this flexibility respects the principle of sub- sidiarity, experience shows that clear frameworks are essen- tial for guiding public authorities? interventions (Kemp & O?Hanley 2010; Kujala et al. 2018). Although the Commission has attempted to help Member States accelerate barrier removal through soft law (European Commission 2022; van de Bund et al. 2024), these acts are not binding and some may continue to prioritize their national development objectives over river res- toration (Darre et al. 2025), undermining the achievement of the Union?s free-flowing river goal. Once barriers are removed, it would seem reasonable to reclassify ?heavily modified? watercourses as ?natural,? as it is paradoxical to imagine that a river could be considered both free-flowing for the purposes of the NRR yet still heavily mod- ified under theWFD. However, reclassification would mean that the Member State was bound to reach good ecological status instead of good ecological potential. In some cases, barrier removal may greatly improve river ecology (Kemp & O?Han- ley 2010). However, when irreversible changes have occurred or when upstream and downstream pressures remain, removing barriers may have little to no impact (Shaw et al. 2016; Rinc?on et al. 2017). Reclassification in such cases would only increase the gap between the ecological conditions of a waterway and the Member State?s quality target under the WFD. However, Article 9(1) NRR specifies that it applies without prejudice to Article 4(5)WFD; as such, Member States will be able to invoke this flexibility mechanism to set more realistic targets for water- course segments following barrier removal. Otherwise, the con- sequences of reclassification might disincentivize barrier removal, unintentionally complicating efforts byMember States to contribute to the Union?s free-flowing river restoration goals. Non-Deterioration Duties in the WFD and NRR Both the NRR and the WFD contain non-deterioration obliga- tions, which aim to preserve gains made through restoration efforts and to prevent degradation that would aggravate future restoration needs. While these non-derogation duties differ sig- nificantly in their nature and structure, they may be mutually reinforcing. Under the WFD, as clarified by the CJEU in the Weser case, Member States must not allow the deterioration of any qualitative status of a water body, even temporarily (CJEU, C- 461/13 Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland eV [2015] para. 70; CJEU, C-525/20 Association France Nature Environnement [Impacts temporaires sur les eaux de surface] [2022] para. 45). The strictness of this non-deterioration obliga- tion is tempered by the exception provided in Article 4(7). Spe- cifically, the failure to reach good status or to prevent deterioration is not a violation of the WFD when certain condi- tions are met: deterioration is due to modifications to the physi- cal characteristics of the water body (excluding chemical or ecological changes); all practicable steps are taken to mitigate the adverse impact of the changes; the modifications are pro- vided in the RMBPs; the intervention is of ?overriding public interest? or otherwise in the interest of human health, human safety or sustainable development to an extent that outweighs the benefits to the environment and society of achieving good status in the waterbody concerned; finally, the benefits brought by the modification are not, for reasons of technical feasibility or disproportionate cost, achievable by other, less-damaging means. Both the Commission and the CJEU have indicated that they intend to interpret these requirements strictly and expect Member States to as well (European Commission 2025a, 2025b). Indeed, the CJEU has held that Member States must not authorize projects that could worsen the status of surface water bodies or otherwise jeopardize their recovery (CJEU, C-664/15 Protect Natur-, Arten- und Landschaftschutz Umweltorganisation [2017] para. 31). The NRR takes a different approach. Article 4(11) NRR states that Member States ?shall put in place measures which shall aim to ensure? non-deterioration. This language suggests that it is an obligation of best efforts, not results (de Leeuw & Backes 2024; Lees & Pedersen 2025). Even if it were interpreted as an obligation of result, Article 4 (14?16) NRR is significantly more flexible than Article 4 (7) WFD. The NRR simply requires the Member State to show that the project causing deterioration is of ?overriding public interest for which no less damaging alternative solutions are available.? Furthermore, while the WFD requires mitigation measures, the NRR imposes this requirement only for projects affecting protected areas, those where Article 6(4) of the Habi- tats Directive anyway applies. The overall impact of the non- deterioration duty in the NRR is accordingly likely to be far less significant than that of the WFD. Nonetheless, the WFD?s more stringent non-deterioration obligation will continue to be appli- cable even where the weaker regime of the NRR would other- wise permit backsliding. Indeed, the specification in Article 9 (1) NRR that it applies ?without prejudice to [the WFD], in par- ticular Article 4(7) thereof? emphasizes that the NRR does not affect this existing obligation under EU water law. In at least one respect, the NRR imposes a stricter non- deterioration duty than the WFD. As mentioned, Article 9 (4) NRR appears to set out an absolute prohibition of new bar- riers in restored free-flowing river segments, going well beyond what is required by the WFD. A strict interpretation of this pro- vision could prohibit projects that might otherwise be permitted under theWFD. Such rigiditymay discourageMember States from removing existing barriers if doing so would preclude future flood Restoration Ecology 5 of 10 The NRR and the WFD 1526100x, 0, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/rec.70233 by IN SE E , W iley O nline L ibrary on [12/11/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense protection projects or water storage infrastructure?particularly given uncertainties about how climate change will affect hydrolog- ical flows. In sum, while theWFD?s non-deterioration standard is gener- ally stricter than that of the NRR, the latter introduces targeted prohibitions that may, in practice, significantly influence future river management decisions. It can be questioned whether this serves to protect the gains obtained through restoration or may be an obstacle to the same. Governance The institutional arrangements for freshwater management in the EU have been shaped predominantly by the WFD, which introduced an integrated, river basin-based management approach. This model, designed to align institutional structures with natural hydrological systems, required Member States to designate river basin district authorities (Article 3) tasked with planning, coordinating, and implementing programs of mea- sures to reach WFD goals, which they set out in their river basin management plans (RBMPs). Despite this, the implementation of the WFD has encountered persistent governance challenges. According to the Commission?s 2025 report on the third RBMP cycle, while coordination mechanisms are formally in place in all Member States, they are still insufficient (European Commission 2025b, p 14). It is clear that the need for institu- tional reform has been substantially underestimated, limiting the effectiveness of water governance (Keessen et al. 2010; Reese 2021; Rowbottom et al. 2022). The NRR adds a new layer of governance complexity to this picture. It leaves Member States free to determine which author- ities will be responsible for the implementation of the NRPs. Whatever authorities are designated, they will need to coordi- nate with those responsible for river basin management. In par- ticular, given the divergence between the NRR and the WFD in relation to barrier removal, it will matter greatly who exercises authority over such projects and what their priorities will be. If responsibility for approving NRR-related barrier removal pro- jects falls solely to RBMAs, they may prioritize projects that help them achieve their WFD targets on a local scale over those contributing exclusively to the Union?s free-flowing river goal. This underscores the need for strong coordination between the two institutional frameworks. The timing of planning cycles adds further complexity. Any measures affecting surface waters should be accounted for in both the RBMP and the NRP. The fourth RBMP is due by December 2027, but Member States will not receive the Com- mission?s comments on their draft NRP until March of that year. This leaves a narrow window for RBMAs to change their plan- ning in the light of any revisions to the NRP required by the Commission?such as increasing barriers removals or freshwa- ter habitat restoration. If the fourth RBMPs fail to fully reflect NRP commitments, 2030 targets could be jeopardized. While better alignment may be achievable in the fifth RBMP cycle (2034?2039), it may be worth considering a postponement of the fourth RBMP deadline to allow proper integration with the finalized NRPs. Finally, another source of governance complexity may arise from new cross-border coordination mechanisms. The NRR introduces governance structures for coordinating marine resto- ration efforts (Article 18), requiring joint planning and imple- mentation of interventions under the common fisheries policy. Since marine ecosystem health (Article 5 NRR) depends heavily on upstream water quality, these coordination mechanisms will likely extend their reach to surface waters inland in application of the source-to-sea approach (European Commission 2025a). This approach acknowledges that marine biodiversity cannot be secured without tackling freshwater quality as well. RBMAs will therefore need to account for strategies developed under these new marine governance frameworks. Accountability and Enforcement Well-structured accountability and enforcement mechanisms are essential to ensure that EU objectives are effectively trans- lated into concrete action on a local scale. A key condition for accountability is the availability of com- plete and accurate data (Beijen et al. 2014). Under Article 8 WFD, Member States must establish monitoring programs to assess the ecological and chemical status of surface and ground- water bodies. These include surveillance, operational monitor- ing, and assessments of water volume and flow rate. The CIS has provided detailed technical guidance to aid Member States in carrying out these duties (Carvalho et al. 2019). Moreover, Member States must regularly submit reports on their progress to the European Commission, which reviews their implementa- tion (Articles 3 and 12). The NRR similarly includes data collection and reporting requirements (Articles 20 and 21), but it currently lacks harmo- nized tools and methodologies comparable to those developed under the CIS. Such guidance would be particularly valuable in helping Member States best use new data collection and assessment tools, such as remote imagery and eDNA surveys (Stoffers et al. 2024). High-quality data are also needed for evaluating the environ- mental impact of new projects in light of Member States? non- deterioration obligations. Even projects that aim to realize the NRR?s objectives, such as barrier removal, can significantly impact water quality, protected species, and habitats, and may require environmental impact screening under the Environmen- tal Impact Assessment Directive 2011/92/EU (Annex II, Article 13[a], Article 4[2]) (CJEU, C-301/22 Sweetman [2024] para. 57?58). In doing so, public authorities will need to carefully bal- ance competing interests?biodiversity protection, renewable energy production, socio-cultural factors, and flood management?while ensuring compliance with principles of sound administration and proportionality. In addition to robust data gathering, the effective implementa- tion of restoration duties in both the NRR and the WFD depends on enforcement mechanisms (Cortina-Segarra et al. 2021). While the European Commission can bring infringement pro- ceedings against a Member State, it enjoys broad discretion to decide which infringements to prioritize and which to leave uncontested (Krämer 2024). As a result, national courts remain Restoration Ecology6 of 10 The NRR and the WFD 1526100x, 0, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/rec.70233 by IN SE E , W iley O nline L ibrary on [12/11/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense the principal authorities able to adjudicate disputes over compli- ance with EU environmental law and the fulfillment of Member States? commitments under the same. This reliance on national courts places particular importance on the availability of judicial remedies, yet neither the WFD nor the NRR contains explicit provisions on access to justice. Nonetheless, this has not hindered enforcement of the WFD: indeed, the CJEU has held that such a right is required by the principle of effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter for Fundamental Rights, interpreted in the light of Article 9(3) of the 1998 Aarhus Convention (Krämer 2022). In particular, individuals may access court when aMember State fails to adopt a planning instrument required by EU law, or adopts one that is manifestly not in compliance with legal requirements (CJEU, C-237/07 Janecek [2008], CJEU, C-197/ 18 Wasserleitungsverband Nördliches Burgenland and Others [2019]). Furthermore, the non-deterioration obligations found in Article 4 WFD can be invoked by individuals and associa- tions to challenge projects that risk worsening the quality sta- tuses of a body of water (CJEU, C-535/18 IL and Others v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [2020] para. 135). The result is that individuals and associations meeting any criteria under national law have access to justice to challenge both RBMPs and specific projects that are contrary to the Member State?s obligations under the WFD. It is likely that individuals and associations will have similar rights to challenge the compatibility of Member States? actions with the NRR. However, there is a key difference: while the non-deterioration obligation in the WFD is an obligation of result, the wording of that in the NRR is less clear, suggesting that it may be significantly more flexible. This may limit the grounds for challenging projects that would lead to deterioration of sites subject to restoration. The CJEU will have the final word on this matter. In any case, where a project affects both NRR objectives and water quality, the remedies available for enfor- cing the WFD would likely offer stronger remedies. By contrast, judicial review of NRPs may be highly con- strained. Indeed, given the broad margin of discretion enjoyed byMember States in determining the content of their plans, only manifest non-compliance with EU law would constitute suffi- cient grounds for challenging their contents. Synergies and Conflicts With Other Policy Areas The failure to coordinate water management with other policy areas, such as agriculture and transport, has emerged as a key rea- son that Member States have fallen short of their WFD targets (Voulvoulis et al. 2017). Despite its proclamation of an integrated approach to water management, in practice, land use decisions impacting water quality and quantity are often made without con- sidering their ecological consequences (Söderberg 2016; van Rijswick & Keessen 2017). Poor alignment with agricultural pol- icy, in particular, has been especially damaging, limiting progress toward good chemical and ecological status in surface waters (Mostert 2020; Platjouw et al. 2023). Additionally, RBMAs have often favored projects that deliver quick, visible improvements in water quality over those addressing more systemic pressures (Carvalho et al. 2019). Evidence also suggests that socio-economic factors are often prioritized over ecological benefits when determin- ing the location and timing of restoration projects, reflecting the lack of coordination between economic and water policy (Hagen et al. 2013). To address these issues, some authors argue that a cohesive, unified regulatory approach prioritizing environmental objectives is needed (De Vito et al. 2020; Copetti & Erba 2024). One striking consequence of weak policy coordination is the widespread failure to guarantee minimum ecological flows. The WFD mandates that freshwater bodies maintain such flows to support the functioning of aquatic ecosystems, yet reports have shown that over-abstraction for intensive agriculture and hydropower has frequently reduced river flows, lowered groundwater levels, and drained wetlands, especially in Medi- terranean regions (Kampa & Schmidt 2023). Addressing these challenges, however, cannot be the sole task of water manage- ment bodies, but requires interventions by other public authori- ties with powers over water licensing, enforcement action against illegal water extraction, and hydropower operations (Rouillard et al. 2017). As the potential reach of the NRR goes beyond that of the WFD, the need for effective coordination with other policy areas is even greater. However, the NRR leaves this matter to Member States. The fact that it is a regulation, not a directive, is signifi- cant in this regard. While regulations have the benefit of being directly applicable and thus having an accelerated timeline for entering into force, the legislative process for transposing a directive can offer an opportunity for Member States to reform existing laws and address regulatory conflicts. While the NRR offers no such opportunity by default, Member States would benefit from pursuing them to ensure policy and regulatory coherence (Foster & Bell-James 2024). Indeed, this could pre- sent an opportunity to also address long-standing shortcomings in water governance. Otherwise, the experience of the WFD offers a clear warning about what happens when Member States fail to integrate restoration objectives into other areas of law and policy and to ensure that their agricultural, industrial, urban, and transport policies are coherent with EU environmental law. Conclusions The NRR presents a significant opportunity to enhance freshwa- ter restoration efforts in the EU. For one, it extends the scope of restoration duties to surface waters and their surrounding habi- tats beyond what is currently required under the WFD. More- over, it offers the potential to address some of the governance and regulatory shortcomings that have hindered the implemen- tation of the WFD so far. However, the coexistence of the two regimes also creates new challenges. Differences in restoration targets?good ecological status under the WFD and good condition under the NRR? may lead to conflicts in implementation. Divergences in their non-deterioration obligations could likewise create uncertainties regarding the level of protection afforded to restored ecosys- tems. Indeed, while the WFD imposes a strict obligation of results, the NRR?s non-deterioration standard is far more flexi- ble, potentially weakening long-term commitments. Restoration Ecology 7 of 10 The NRR and the WFD 1526100x, 0, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/rec.70233 by IN SE E , W iley O nline L ibrary on [12/11/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense The NRR?s barrier removal target is undoubtedly an impor- tant addition to the existing legal framework, but it comes with challenges. Limited guidance on how to prioritize barriers for removal and complex trade-offs may produce suboptimal eco- logical outcomes. Additionally, the NRR?s strict conditions for new barriers on restored watercourses may potentially create perverse incentives for Member States to make only incremental rather than transformational restoration efforts. Furthermore, the discretion granted to Member States under the NRR may limit the public?s ability to enforce its obligations through access to justice, which is essential for the effectiveness of environmental legislation. The established enforcement mechanisms under the WFD may help fill this critical gap. Governance remains a central challenge. While the WFD has already exposed the limits of existing institutional arrange- ments, the NRR risks adding further complexity by leaving coordination largely to Member States. Without clear mecha- nisms for aligning NRPs with RBMPs, restoration efforts are at risk of becoming fragmented and inefficient, especially in the short term. Finally, although policy coherence is praised in the NRR, there are currently nomechanisms in place to ensure coordination between the NRP and agricultural policies, a gap that has already undermined the effectiveness of the WFD. Despite these challenges, the combined impact of the NRR and the WFD offers an unprecedented opportunity to scale up freshwater restoration in Europe. By fostering synergies between the two frameworks, such as prioritizing projects that simultaneously contribute to WFD and NRR objectives, Mem- ber States can maximize ecological benefits and improve the resilience of aquatic ecosystems. Effective policy coordination, coherent governance, and robust enforcement mechanisms will be crucial in ensuring that the NRR complements rather than complicates existing restoration efforts under the WFD. Acknowledgments We are grateful to the editors and the anonymous reviewers for their detailed, constructive comments and suggestions. This study was carried out within the National Research Project PRIN 2022 PNRR ?RINASCI? funded by the European Union?Next Generation EU, Mission 4, Component 1, CODE: P2022KCBM7_001 CUP F53D23012010001. Open access publishing facilitated by Università degli Studi di Milano, as part of the Wiley - CRUI-CARE agreement. LITERATURE CITED Balaguer L, Escudero A, Martín-Duque JF, Mola I, Aronson J (2014) The histor- ical reference in restoration ecology: re-defining a cornerstone concept. Biological Conservation 176:12?20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon. 2014.05.007 Beijen BA, van Rijswick HFMW, Tegner Anker H (2014) The importance of monitoring for the effectiveness of environmental directives a comparison of monitoring obligations in European environmental directives. Utrecht Law Review 10:126?135. https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.273 Birk S, Willby NJ, Kelly MG, Bonne W, Borja A, Poikane S, van de Bund W (2013) Intercalibrating classifications of ecological status: Europe?s quest for common management objectives for aquatic ecosystems. Science of the Total Environment 454-455:490?499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2013.03.037 Bishop K, Beven K, Destouni G, Abrahamsson K, Andersson L, Johnson RK, Rodhe J, Hjerdt N (2009) Nature as the ?natural? goal for water manage- ment: a conversation. Ambio 38:209?214. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044- 7447-38.4.209 Blicharska M, Rönnbäck P (2018) What factors enable or hinder engagement of civil society in ecosystem management? The case of ?pike factories? and wetland restoration in Sweden. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 61:950?969. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568. 2017.1350145 Bouleau G, Pont D (2015) Did you say reference conditions? Ecological and socio-economic perspectives on the European water framework directive. Environmental Science and Policy 47:32?41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. envsci.2014.10.012 Carvalho L, Mackay EB, Cardoso AC, Baattrup-Pedersen A, Birk S, Blackstock KL, et al. (2019) Protecting and restoring Europe?s waters: an analysis of the future development needs of the water framework directive. Science of the Total Environment 658:1228?1238. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.scitotenv.2018.12.255 CJEU Judgment of 1 July (2015) Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V. v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C-461/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:433. CJEU Judgment of 20 December (2017) Protect Natur-, Arten- und Land- schaftsschutz Umweltorganisation v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Gmünd, Case C-664/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:987. CJEU Judgment of 21 March (2024) Bezirkshauptmannschaft Spittal an der Drau, C-671/22, ECLI:EU:C:2024:256. CJEU Judgment of 25 April (2024) Sweetman, C-301/22, ECLI:EU:C:2024:347. CJEU Judgment of 25 July (2008) Dieter Janecek v Freistaat Bayern, C-237/07, ECLI:EU:C:2008:447. CJEU Judgment of 28 May (2020) IL and Others v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, C-535/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:391. CJEU Judgment of 3 October (2019) Wasserleitungsverband Nördliches Burgen- land and Others, C-197/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:824. CJEU Judgment of 5 May (2022) Association France Nature Environnement v Premier ministre andMinistre de la Transition écologique et solidaire, Case C-525/20, ECLI:EU:C:2022:350. Connor ÁO (2016) Incorporating nature conservation objectives and measures into the water framework directive. Biology and Environment 116B:329? 337. https://doi.org/10.3318/bioe.2016.29 Copetti D, Erba S (2024) A bibliometric review on the water framework directive twenty years after its birth. Ambio 53:95?108. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13280-023-01918-0 Cortina-Segarra J, García-S?anchez I, Grace M, Andrés P, Baker S, Bullock C, et al. (2021) Barriers to ecological restoration in Europe: expert perspec- tives. Restoration Ecology 29:e13346. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13346 Darre ME, Constantinides P, Domisch S, Floury M, Hermoso V, Ørsted M, Langhans SD (2025) Evaluating the readiness for river barrier removal: a scoping review under the EU nature restoration law. Science of the Total Environment 959:178180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv. 2024.178180 de Leeuw BJ, Backes CW (2024) The non-deterioration obligation in the nature restoration regulation ? a necessary and proportionate addition to the habi- tats directive or a monstrosity with disastrous consequences for society? Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law 21:22?40. https:// doi.org/10.1163/18760104-21010004 De Vito L, Fairbrother M, Russel D (2020) Implementing the water frame- work directive and tackling diffuse pollution from agriculture: lessons from England and Scotland. Water 12:244. https://doi.org/10.3390/ w12010244 Domorenok E (2017) Traps of multi-level governance. Lessons from the imple- mentation of the water framework directive in Italy. Journal of European Integration 39:1?15. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2017.1322076 European Commission (2003) Common implementation strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) guidance document n. 4. Identification Restoration Ecology8 of 10 The NRR and the WFD 1526100x, 0, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/rec.70233 by IN SE E , W iley O nline L ibrary on [12/11/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.05.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.05.007 https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.273 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.03.037 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.03.037 https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-38.4.209 https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-38.4.209 https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1350145 https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1350145 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.10.012 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.10.012 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.255 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.255 https://doi.org/10.3318/bioe.2016.29 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01918-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01918-0 https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13346 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.178180 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.178180 https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-21010004 https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-21010004 https://doi.org/10.3390/w12010244 https://doi.org/10.3390/w12010244 https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2017.1322076 and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies. https:// circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/f9b057f4-4a91-46a3-b69a-e23b4cada8ef/Guidance %20No%204%20-%20heavily%20modified%20water%20bodies%20-% 20HMWB%20%28WG%202.2%29.pdf (accessed 26 Feb 2025) European Commission (2020) Report from the Commission to the European Par- liament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. The state of nature in the European Union: report on the status and trends in 2013?2018 of species and habitat types protected by the Birds and Hab- itats Directives COM(2020) 635 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52020DC0635 (accessed 26 Feb 2025) European Commission (2022) Biodiversity strategy 2030: barrier removal for river restoration. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-12/ Barrier%20removal%20for%20river%20restoration.pdf (accessed 26 Feb 2025) European Commission (2025a) Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Commission?s assessment of the Member States? programmes of measures as updated under Article 17 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) COM/2025/3 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/? uri=celex:52025DC0003 (accessed 26 Feb 2025) European Commission (2025b) Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) COM(2025) 2 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/? uri=celex:52025DC0002 (accessed 26 Feb 2025) Foster R, Bell-James J (2024) Legal barriers and enablers to upscaling ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology 32:e14203. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14203 Frantzeskaki N, Malamis S (2025) The missing piece in restoring Europe?s eco- systems: urban riverscapes. Bioscience 75:203?206. https://doi.org/10. 1093/biosci/biae116 Hagen D, Svavarsdottir K, Nilsson C, Tolvanen AK, Raulund-Rasmussen K, Aradòttir ÀL, Fosaa AM, Halldorsson G (2013) Ecological and social dimensions of ecosystem restoration in the Nordic countries. Ecology and Society 18:34. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05891-180434 Higgs E, Falk DA, Guerrini A, Hall M, Harris J, Hobbs RJ, Jackson ST, Rhemtulla JM, ThroopW (2014) The changing role of history in restoration ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12:499?506. https:// doi.org/10.1890/110267 Irvine K (2009) Harmonizing assessment of conservation with that of ecological quality: fitting a square peg into a round hole? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 19:365?369. https://doi.org/10.1002/ aqc.1050 Josefsson H (2015) Ecological status as a legal construct - determining its legal and ecological meaning. Journal of Environmental Law 27:231?258. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqv009 Kampa E, Schmidt G (2023) Implementation of ecological flows in the EU - final report. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium Keessen AM, van Kempen JJH, van Rijswick M, Robbe J, Backes CW (2010) European River basin districts: are they swimming in the same implemen- tation Pool? Journal of Environmental Law 22:197?221. https://doi.org/10. 1093/jel/eqq003 Kemp PS, O?Hanley JR (2010) Procedures for evaluating and prioritising the removal of fish passage barriers: a synthesis. Fisheries Manage- ment and Ecology 17:297?322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2400. 2010.00751.x Krämer L (2022) Article 47 of the charter and effective judicial protection in envi- ronmental matters: the need to grant civil society the right to defend the environ- ment. Pages 195?212. In: Bonelli M, Eliantonio M, Gentile G (eds) Article 47 of the EU charter and effective judicial protection, volume 1The court of Jus- tice?s perspective. Bloomsbury Publishing, London, United Kingdom Krämer L (2024) The EU Commission?s infringement procedures in the water sector. Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law 21:5?21. https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-21010003 Kujala H, Lahoz-Monfort JJ, Elith J, Moilanen A, Lopez-Sepulcre A (2018) Not all data are equal: influence of data type and amount in spatial conservation prioritisation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9:2249?2261. https://doi. org/10.1111/2041-210X.13084 Lee M (2009) Law and governance of water protection policy. Pages 27?55. In: Scott J (ed) Environmental protection: European law and governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10. 1093/acprof:oso/9780199565177.003.0002 Lees E, Pedersen OW (2025) Restoring the regulated: the EU?s nature restoration law. Journal of Environmental Law 20:1?22. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn. 5167830 Moss B (2008) The water framework directive: total environment or political compromise? Science of the Total Environment 400:32?41. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.04.029 Mostert E (2020) Law and politics in River Basin management: the implementa- tion of the water framework directive in the Netherlands. Water 12:3367. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12123367 Nilsson M, Zamparutti T, Petersen JE, Nykvist B, Rudberg P, McGuinn J (2012) Understanding Policy coherence: analytical framework and examples of sector?environment policy interactions in the EU. Environmental Policy and Governance 22:395?423. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1589 Platjouw FM, Nesheim I, Enge C (2023) Policy coherence for the protection of water resources against agricultural pollution in the EU and Norway. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 32:485?500. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12509 Platjouw FM, Trubbach S, Friedrich L, Sander G, Boteler B, Passarello C, Kyrönviita J (2025) Handbook on policy coherence ? an easy guide to assess and understand policy coherence. CrossGov Deliverable 4.2. https://www.policycoherencehandbook.eu/ (accessed 26 Feb 2025) Reese M (2021) Transformation to healthy water ecology?institutional require- ments, deficits and options in European and German perspective. Sustain- ability 13:3368. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063368 Reyes-Aldana HE (2023) Restoration conundrum: between nostalgia and futuralgia, moving beyond the reference state. Restoration Ecology 32:e14071. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14071 Rinc?on G, Solana-Gutiérrez J, Alonso C, Saura S, García de Jal?on D (2017) Longitudinal connectivity loss in a riverine network: accounting for the likelihood of upstream and downstream movement across dams. Aquatic Sciences 79:573?585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-017- 0518-3 Rouillard J, LagoM, Abhold K, Roeschel L, Kafyeke T, Klimmek H, Mattheiß V (2017) Protecting and restoring biodiversity across the freshwater, coastal and marine realms: is the existing EU policy framework fit for purpose? Environmental Policy and Governance 28:114?128. https://doi.org/10. 1002/eet.1793 Rowbottom J, GraversgaardM,Wright I, Dudman K, Klages S, Heidecke C, et al. (2022) Water governance diversity across Europe: does legacy generate sticking points in implementing multi-level governance? Journal of Envi- ronmental Management 319:115598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman. 2022.115598 Shaw EA, Lange E, Shucksmith JD, Lerner DN (2016) Importance of partial bar- riers and temporal variation in flow when modelling connectivity in frag- mented river systems. Ecological Engineering 91:515?528. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.01.030 Söderberg C (2016) Complex governance structures and incoherent policies: implementing the EU water framework directive in Sweden. Journal of Environmental Management 183:90?97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2016.08.040 Stoffers T, Altermatt F, Baldan D, Bilous O, Borgwardt F, Buijse AD, et al. (2024) Reviving Europe?s rivers: seven challenges in the implementation of the nature restoration law to restore free-flowing rivers. WIREs Water 11:e1717. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1717 Stubbington R, Chadd R, Cid N, Csabai Z, Milisa M,Morais M, et al. (2018) Bio- monitoring of intermittent rivers and ephemeral streams in Europe: current practice and priorities to enhance ecological status assessments. Science of the Total Environment 618:1096?1113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv. 2017.09.137 Restoration Ecology 9 of 10 The NRR and the WFD 1526100x, 0, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/rec.70233 by IN SE E , W iley O nline L ibrary on [12/11/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/f9b057f4-4a91-46a3-b69a-e23b4cada8ef/Guidance%20No%204%20-%20heavily%20modified%20water%20bodies%20-%20HMWB%20%28WG%202.2%29.pdf https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/f9b057f4-4a91-46a3-b69a-e23b4cada8ef/Guidance%20No%204%20-%20heavily%20modified%20water%20bodies%20-%20HMWB%20%28WG%202.2%29.pdf https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/f9b057f4-4a91-46a3-b69a-e23b4cada8ef/Guidance%20No%204%20-%20heavily%20modified%20water%20bodies%20-%20HMWB%20%28WG%202.2%29.pdf https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/f9b057f4-4a91-46a3-b69a-e23b4cada8ef/Guidance%20No%204%20-%20heavily%20modified%20water%20bodies%20-%20HMWB%20%28WG%202.2%29.pdf https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52020DC0635 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52020DC0635 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-12/Barrier%20removal%20for%20river%20restoration.pdf https://environment.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-12/Barrier%20removal%20for%20river%20restoration.pdf https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025DC0003 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025DC0003 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025DC0002 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025DC0002 https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14203 https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biae116 https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biae116 https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05891-180434 https://doi.org/10.1890/110267 https://doi.org/10.1890/110267 https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.1050 https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.1050 https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqv009 https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqq003 https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqq003 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2010.00751.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2010.00751.x https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-21010003 https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13084 https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13084 https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199565177.003.0002 https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199565177.003.0002 https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5167830 https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5167830 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.04.029 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.04.029 https://doi.org/10.3390/w12123367 https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1589 https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12509 https://www.policycoherencehandbook.eu/ https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063368 https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14071 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-017-0518-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-017-0518-3 https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1793 https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1793 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115598 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115598 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.01.030 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.01.030 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.040 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.040 https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1717 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.137 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.137 Temmink RJM, Robroek BJM, van Dijk G, Koks AHW, Kaarmelahti SA, Barthelmes A, et al. (2023) Wetscapes: restoring and maintaining peatland landscapes for sustainable futures. Ambio 52:1519?1528. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s13280-023-01875-8 Valinia S, Hansen HP, Futter MN, Bishop K, Sriskandarajah N, Fölster J (2012) Problems with the reconciliation of good ecological status and public participation in the water framework directive. Science of the Total Environment 433:482?490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012. 06.087 van de Bund W, Bartkova T, Belka K, Bussettini M, Calleja B, Christiansen T, et al. (2024) Criteria for identifying free-flowing river stretches for the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg van Rijswick M, Keessen A (2017) The EU approach for integrated water resource management: transposing the EU water framework directive within a national context ? key insights from experience. Pages 51?64. In: Rieu-Clarke A, Allan A, Hendry S (eds) Routledge handbook of water law and policy. Taylor and Francis, Florence, Italy Vlachopoulou M, Coughlin D, Forrow D, Kirk S, Logan P, Voulvoulis N (2014) The potential of using the ecosystem approach in the implementation of the EU water framework directive. Science of the Total Environment 470-471: 684?694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.09.072 Voulvoulis N, Arpon KD, Giakoumis T (2017) The EU water framework direc- tive: from great expectations to problems with implementation. Science of the Total Environment 575:358?366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2016.09.228 Guest Coordinating Editor: Volker Mauerhofer Received: 5 March, 2025; First decision: 25 May, 2025; Revised: 1 October, 2025; Accepted: 2 October, 2025 Restoration Ecology10 of 10 The NRR and the WFD 1526100x, 0, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/rec.70233 by IN SE E , W iley O nline L ibrary on [12/11/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01875-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01875-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.06.087 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.06.087 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.09.072 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.228 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.228  The Nature Restoration Regulation and the Water Framework Directive: enhancing restoration of freshwater ecosystems, or mud...  Introduction  The NRR and Surface Waters  The NRR and the Gaps in the Current Legal Framework  Objectives and Scope of the WFD and the NRR  Targets: Good Ecological Status Versus Good Condition  Restoration of Free?Flowing Rivers and Barrier Removal  Non?Deterioration Duties in the WFD and NRR  Governance  Accountability and Enforcement  Synergies and Conflicts With Other Policy Areas  Conclusions  Acknowledgments  LITERATURE CITED