Event:16 September | Carbon Removal Policy Summit
Restoration and Land-Use Framework LawsStandards and Obligations

RESTORATION AND LAND-USE FRAMEWORK LAWS

Lever last updated: 14 September 2026

A legal duty to restore degraded ecosystems to a specified condition by a set deadline.

Cost

Very low to Medium

Public authorities pay for legal drafting, land records, restoration plans, monitoring and enforcement. Local rules can use existing teams; national coverage needs specialist assessment and data systems. Restoration works, land purchases and compensation require separate delivery budgets.

Complexity

Low to High

Existing land-use law can support local restoration conditions. A national or supranational regime may require new legislation, ecological monitoring systems and coordination among land, agriculture, water and finance authorities.

Timeline

Medium

From formal initiation, legislation, mapping and consultation may take two to five years before restoration plans alter land management, public spending or permit conditions across the first covered areas.

Integrity, Transparency & MRV

2–3

Innovation & Cost Reduction

N/A

Social & Environmental Safeguards

2–4

Energy, Transport & Storage Infrastructure

N/A

Inputs & Capacity

1–2

Demand Formation

1–3

Bankability and Cost of Capital

N/A

Policy Architecture & Coordination

2–4

Overview

Government makes restoration of degraded ecosystems a legal responsibility for public authorities, landowners or both. The law specifies the areas or ecosystem types to restore, the condition they should reach and the deadlines for action. Responsible bodies then have to organise work such as restoring native woodland or repairing damaged wetlands, rather than decide each year whether to pursue a voluntary project. For CDR, the benefit arises where that work increases carbon stored in vegetation or soils after emissions caused by restoration are deducted.

Key Considerations

Lawmakers need to decide who must restore which ecosystems, how recovery will be judged and who will pay for continuing management. Restoration plans should connect each duty to specific areas, responsible agencies and available support. Landholders and communities need clear rights where changes affect farming, customary use or access to water. Where the law permits compliance through restoration or protection elsewhere, the replacement area must serve the ecological purpose of the original duty. Carbon accounting should separately record new uptake and avoided losses; mandatory work may also fail a crediting scheme's test that credited activities go beyond legal requirements.

Opportunities

Statutory restoration duties give public bodies and land managers a continuing reason to repair whole landscapes, including areas that attract little voluntary funding. A planned sequence of work lets nurseries prepare planting material and allows restoration providers to retain skilled staff. Where damaged ecosystems recover, additional carbon uptake can accompany better habitats, water regulation and resilience to drought or flooding. Shared plans also help adjacent landholders choose actions that work together, such as restoring vegetation across a river catchment. These benefits depend on sustained management and ecological recovery, rather than the number of hectares listed in a plan.

Risks

Authorities may count trees planted or drainage ditches blocked as successful restoration even when ecological condition and carbon stocks fail to improve. Poorly chosen duties can encourage monocultures, displace food production or restrict established local practices such as grazing, cultivation, wood collection or access, including where users lack formal land titles. If compliance can be bought through certificates from another location, activity may move to cheaper land that does not replace the damaged ecosystem's functions. Fire, drought or later clearing can erase carbon gains after the initial work. Weak monitoring and enforcement leave these failures uncorrected while the legal target appears to be met.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Evaluation should compare planned and completed restoration with measured ecosystem condition and net carbon-stock change. Hectares treated, survival, reversals, public and private spending, rights disputes and enforcement action reveal whether legal duties are producing durable results. Persistent ecological failure, overstated carbon or delayed plans should change methods, timelines, funding responsibilities or penalties.

Stakeholder Engagement

Design needs early agreement among landholders, Indigenous peoples, local communities, farmers, foresters, fishers and regional authorities on rights, feasible actions and responsibility. Ecologists and carbon-accounting experts test baselines and monitoring, while water, agriculture and conservation agencies resolve competing objectives. Legislatures, courts and civil society shape accountability and remedies when plans or protections fail.

Governance Levels

SupranationalNationalRegional / StateCity / Municipal

Supranational lawmakers can establish common restoration targets and require national plans where treaty powers allow. National legislatures can set duties across land tenures, assign funding and enforcement, and coordinate agricultural, water and climate law. Regional and state governments can legislate where land and environmental powers are devolved or implement national duties through spatial plans and permits. Municipalities can set local restoration duties through land-use or environmental powers.

Implementation Strategies

  • Legislatures should define covered ecosystems, responsible actors, target dates and what restored condition means. Carbon gains should be assessed separately from avoided loss and wider ecological recovery.

  • Agencies should map baselines, tenure, existing pressures and suitable restoration areas with landholders and rights-holders. The assessment should identify where food production, water needs or livelihoods require a different approach.

  • Implementation plans should connect each duty to land-management action, budgets, skills and monitoring. Existing agricultural and conservation programmes can supply delivery support, but the law should identify who acts when those resources are insufficient.

  • Reporting should compare ecological condition and carbon stocks with the baseline and planned trajectory. Reviews should change methods, resources or enforcement where results lag, with continued management to protect restored areas.

Case Studies

European Union Nature Restoration Regulation

The EU’s Nature Restoration Regulation creates legally binding duties to restore degraded ecosystems, backed by national plans and reporting. Adopted in 2024, it calls for restoration measures covering at least 20 per cent of EU land and sea by 2030 and all ecosystems needing restoration by 2050. The Commission’s September 2026 implementation update describes submission of draft national plans and the assessment leading to final plans within a year. Governments must identify actions, priorities and links to other policies, turning a common objective into country-specific delivery choices. Restoration can increase vegetation and soil carbon, but the update reports planning progress rather than verified additional removals. Carbon gains would need their own baseline, measurement and continued protection.

Brazilian Forest Code

Brazil’s 2012 Forest Code places native-vegetation duties on rural landowners. Properties must protect permanent preservation areas and retain a legal reserve, reaching 80 per cent for specified forest areas in the Legal Amazon. Owners with eligible historical deficits may restore vegetation, allow regeneration or compensate elsewhere under specified conditions, including using certificates backed by protected native vegetation. The Rural Environmental Registry records property information needed to assess compliance. The mechanism makes land management a continuing legal responsibility rather than a voluntary project choice. Its flexibility also matters for CDR accounting because protecting existing vegetation or compensating elsewhere need not add atmospheric removal. The case supports the architecture of enforceable land-use duties; each restoration claim still needs evidence of additional carbon gains and their persistence.

More Standards and Obligations

©2026 Alexander Mäkelä and Carbon Gap.
Except where otherwise indicated, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial–ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence.
Headline and barrier scores based on Carbon Gap analysis.