This session explores how international environmental law can support restoration by better integrating with national legal systems. It examines both normative and institutional dimensions of restoration across national and international legal frameworks, with a focus on coordination.
We invite contributions that explore ecosystem restoration across diverse environments, focusing on:
1. The legal basis for restoration under multilateral environmental agreements (e.g. CBD, Ramsar Convention, UNCCD, UNCLOS) and their operational mechanisms;
2. The formulation, assessment, and reporting and monitoring of restoration plans under treaty regimes, and how these obligations are integrated into national laws;
3. Jurisdictional and sovereignty challenges in restoration implementation, including coordination between States and among central and subnational authorities;
4. The roles of international organizations, treaty bodies, dispute settlement mechanisms, NGOs, and private actors in developing and enforcing restoration-related norms at international and national levels;
5. Innovative legal approaches at national and international levels to scale up restoration, including rights-based frameworks, due diligence duties, and ecosystem-based obligations.
Research on biodiversity governance and especially the restoration of natural ecosystems highlights the role of international agreements and national regulatory mechanisms. In particular, there is growing attention to the concept of becoming “nature positive.”
In parallel, there is strong recognition that business has long been a major driver of biodiversity loss and ecosystem depletion, yet its role in restoration governance remains underexplored relative to its impacts. Recent work on business responses to the biodiversity crisis has expanded across sectoral analyses, accounting and reporting practices, voluntary initiatives, and regenerative approaches.
This paper examines how different governance mechanisms—rules, goals, and norms—seek to promote the restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems. Drawing on secondary data analysis, we map and analyse different governance efforts as differentiated steering mechanisms affecting particularly business and investment decisions and behaviours.
By illustrating their evolution and interactions, our paper contributes to research and knowledge by critically analysing the landscape on biodiversity governance mechanisms. This exploration provides novel empirical evidence on the state and trends of relevant steering mechanisms of relevance to stakeholders concerned about the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem integrity. This is important because understanding which governance mechanisms are at play, their relative prevalence and influence is of critical concern for decision makers in both business and policy.
Conceptually, our research also advances knowledge on the growing recognition of “purpose ecosystems” as potential new governance approaches for complex sustainability challenges. Our findings suggest that rule-, goal- and norm-based governance efforts may complement each other by providing the respective foundations and feedback mechanisms needed to translate and diversify implementation pathways. In doing so, our research contributes to empirical and conceptual perspectives on the need for viewing different governance mechanisms collectively through the systemic lens of purpose-driven governance ecosystems. Understanding whether and how such purpose ecosystems can be developed and fostered is essential for assessing their effectiveness, impact and limitations, both for ecosystem restoration and other systemic sustainability challenges, such as those covered by the planetary boundaries framework.
How to cite: Dahlmann, F., Beaudoin, S., and Schleifer, P.: Towards transformative ecosystem restoration governance: Exploring the potential of a nature positive purpose ecosystem, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-140, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-140, 2026.
International environmental law has progressively evolved to recognize and articulate obligations concerning the restoration of degraded ecosystems. These obligations are embedded in several multilateral environmental agreements, including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Ramsar Convention, and are complemented by soft law instruments such as decisions of the Conference of the Parties (COP) and regional legal frameworks. The International Court of Justice confirmed the existence of a duty to restore in the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua case. Quantitative restoration targets have been put forward by the CBD Aichi Biodiversity Targets and, more recently, the Global Biodiversity Framework adopted in 2022. Despite this growing international attention, many of these instruments remain limited in scope, lacking concrete, measurable, and enforceable obligations. Their effective transposition into national legal systems is therefore indispensable for scaling up restoration efforts in line with the objectives of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration.
At the national level, restoration obligations are often narrowly framed, typically confined to offsetting requirements or liability regimes. Proactive obligations for governments to address historical degradation and to upscale restoration remain largely absent. This paper seeks to address this gap by introducing the essential elements of a model law on ecological restoration. The proposed framework draws on two sources. First, the EU Nature Restoration Regulation, adopted in 2024, which represents the first comprehensive and binding international legislation mandating proactive restoration. Secondly, this paper is based on a project, coordinated by the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER), that aimed to develop a model law on ecological restoration.
The paper argues that an effective restoration law must include clear definitions, legal principles, recognition of rights, detailed restoration obligations, institutional frameworks, and mechanisms for implementation through planning, monitoring, and reporting. Enforcement provisions are equally critical to ensure compliance. Particular emphasis in this paper is placed on restoration obligations, which should form the normative core of any restoration legislation. By outlining these components, the paper contributes to the ongoing discourse on how international commitments can be operationalized at the national level in order to upscale ecological restoration.
How to cite: Cliquet, A.: Towards a model law on ecological restoration, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-343, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-343, 2026.
The financing of nature restoration is under pressure. For example, in the Flanders Region, under the current Flemish government, subsidies for NGOs to purchase land for management as nature reserves have been cut by 75%, and no additional budget has been allocated for the implementation of the European Nature Restoration Law. It is therefore pivotal to explore legal mechanisms that can generate funding for ecosystem restoration.
In this contribution, I aim to examine:
-
first, several new as well as established instruments in nature conservation legislation in various Western European countries that provide financial resources for nature conservation. For instance, the German Eingriffsregelung obliges developers to offset biodiversity loss either in kind or, where this is not possible, through monetary compensation; in France, a 1% tax is levied on construction works that is used for the state to acquire (mostly) coastal areas, which are in general expensive; and in Flanders, a system has been developed to value species and ecosystems, called Bioval, so that offenders must pay for the societal damage they cause;
-
second, potential synergies with emerging instruments in land-use legislation aimed at compensating land take by “unsealing” other areas and converting them into natural or agricultural land; this fits within the European Union’s objective of achieving net zero land take by 2050;
- third, the role of the judiciary in compelling governments to restore ecosystems. For example, in Belgium a 2025 judgment obliges the Flemish Region to restore the habitat of the common wild hamster, after the species had become nearly extinct in the region, this implies of course that the state must also finance it.
I want to conclude with some recommendations for NGO’s as well as governmental bodies, based upon this research.
How to cite: Van Hoorick, G.: National Legal Mechanisms to Fund Ecosystem Restoration, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-353, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-353, 2026.
China shares over 110 transboundary rivers and lakes with 13 of its 14 neighboring States (excluding Afghanistan) and three additional downstream states. This extensive hydrological network positions China’s transboundary water governance as a pivotal factor in regional stability.
China’s transboundary freshwater basins are under increasing ecological pressure due to hydropower development, altered flow regimes, pollution, and climate change. Domestically, China has promoted ecological restoration through national environmental legislation. At the international level, China participates in several multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) that explicitly or implicitly support ecological restoration, including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Ramsar Convention, and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). Despite these domestic and international commitments, China’s water agreements with co-riparian states take a more cautious approach, paying little attention to ecosystem restoration. This creates a significant gap in the legal framework governing the restoration of transboundary water ecosystems.
This paper examines China’s obligation to restore shared freshwater ecosystems through the synergistic interaction of MEAs, international water law, and domestic environmental legislation. It starts with analyzation on how China’s restoration obligation under the CBD, the Ramsar Convention, and the UNCCD, although territorially focused, can generate expectations in transboundary contexts where ecosystem degradation affects neighboring states. The paper further explores whether customary principles of international water law, such as the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization, the duty to prevent significant harm, and the duty to cooperate, can support an implied restoration duty in China’s water agreements. Finally, it considers how domestic environmental laws related to restoration can reinforce China’s responsibilities in transboundary water governance.
The paper argues that, while China currently has no explicit restoration obligations in its water agreements, the combined influence of MEAs, international water law principles, and domestic legislation establishes a normative basis for cross-border ecosystem restoration. This legal framework clarifies China’s legal duties and provides a foundation for more integrated management of shared freshwater resources, bridging domestic and international legal frameworks.
How to cite: Liu, Y.: Integrating Restoration into China’s Transboundary Water Governance: The Synergy of MEAs, International Water Law, and Domestic Law, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-743, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-743, 2026.
Soils are increasingly under threat. In Europe, there are 2.8 million potentially contaminated sites, and yet only a few have been remediated. Issues such as cadmium contamination, pesticide residues and mixtures of residues, mercury deposition, and excessive nutrient inputs, among others, all endanger EU soil health. Additionally, croplands and drained peatlands steadily lose carbon, while parts of European soils also suffer from erosion, compaction, and desertification.
The resulting environmental impacts (in relation to climate change mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity loss, pollution, etc) and effects on human health and wellbeing are profound, underscoring the urgent need to protect and restore soils.
Against this background, the question arises as to which initiatives the EU has undertaken to protect and restore soils. The answer, as is often the case, is not straightforward: while considerable (preparatory) work has been done, the results have been, unfortunately, fairly limited over the past two decades, as soils have largely been protected only indirectly through the action of instruments with a different scope. However, efforts have increased in recent years. In addition to the adoption of the Nature Restoration Law (NRL), which has significant implications for soil health, the EU institutions have recently reached a provisional agreement on a Soil Monitoring and Resilience Directive (SML).
The relevance of these instruments for European soils and the potential interaction between the Regulation and the Directive in relation to soil restoration raise several questions, which the proposed presentation will address and explore: What is the framework for soil restoration in the EU? What are the novelties brought about by the NRL and the SML concerning soil restoration? What obligations exist regarding soil restoration and the achievement of soil health? Are these sufficient? Will the NRL and the SML collectively assist the EU in meeting its international commitments and initiatives, such as the Land Degradation Neutrality goal?
How to cite: Cavallin, E.: Legal roots for healthy soils: towards a (more) coherent legal architecture for soil restoration in the European Union, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-413, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-413, 2026.
Despite the increasing focus on progressive rehabilitation, successful mine closures and post-closure economic transition remain limited in both China and Australia. Both countries face significant legal and regulatory barriers when it comes to bringing mines up to a safe and stable standard. These include inconsistent legal application of some critical concepts, such as ‘rehabilitation’ and ‘restoration’, as well as insufficient or ineffective legal regulatory requirements that fall short of international best practices. Such challenges could pose a risk to discerning and demonstrating compliance with mine rehabilitation and closure conditions. International soft law could provide valuable guidance to address these regulatory gaps. This research critically examines the extent to which international soft law can provide relevant guidance on mine rehabilitation and closure to enhance regulatory compliance in China and Australia. It utilises desktop legal study, case analysis, and comparative legal analysis to identify notable problems and leading practices across these legal frameworks. First, the research sets the scene by defining a consistent use of the most relevant terminology and the goals of mine rehabilitation and closure, with a focus on the 2019 Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) International Standard and the 2022 SER Mine Site Restoration Standards. Second, it examines the most relevant laws, policies, and guidelines on mine rehabilitation and closure in China and Australia, with a particular focus on Western Australia. Then, it compares the key legal elements of the international, Chinese, and Australian legal and policy frameworks, including the definitions, scope of application, substantive principles, procedural requirements, institutions, and financial liability mechanisms. This analysis also incorporates practical examples to assess the regulatory approaches to post-closure economic transition in both countries. Finally, based on a previous study, this aims to provide actionable recommendations for aligning Chinese and Australian regulatory frameworks with international best practices, with the goal of enhancing regulatory compliance and supporting more effective ecosystem restoration outcomes.
How to cite: Rong, Z.: Enhancing regulatory compliance with mine rehabilitation and closure requirements: a comparative study of the international, Chinese, and Australian legal and policy frameworks, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-146, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-146, 2026.
Soils are fundamental to environmental resilience, food security, and human wellbeing, with soil organisms underpinning nutrient cycling, vegetation recovery, and long-term ecosystem stability. Despite this, soil biodiversity remains largely absent from monitoring programmes, especially within post-conflict environmental assessment and recovery planning. As modern conflicts increasingly degrade landscapes, there is an urgent need for a framework that enables rapid, robust evaluation of soil health in their aftermath.
Fewer than 10% of peace agreements include substantive environmental restoration provisions, reflecting persistent policy gaps and the lack of standardised, comparable environmental data – including for soils. Existing assessments prioritise physicochemical indicators while overlooking biological dimensions, leaving critical aspects of soil system damage undocumented.
Using examples from conflicts worldwide, this presentation presents the findings of the first meta-analysis of war-related impacts on soil biodiversity and highlights the key limitations in the existing research. The analysis evaluates how armed conflict alters not only species richness and abundance but also the functional composition of soil communities, focusing on shifts in key functional groups and the ecosystem services they underpin (i.e. decomposers, nitrogen-fixing bacteria, detritivores and ecosystem engineers). The study also examines how soil functional diversity relates to ecosystem recovery trajectories and potential indicators for post-conflict restoration. By critically comparing methodologies used across case studies – ranging from traditional morphological identification to molecular metabarcoding approaches – the study assesses the reliability, comparability, and spatial coverage of current evidence.
To address limitations in this field, we outline a pathway for integrating soil ecology into post-conflict assessment from determination of effective bioindicators to harmonised protocols for sampling, processing, and analysis. A comprehensive framework must incorporate biological indicators alongside chemical contamination and physical disturbance to capture the full scope of ecological disruption. Establishing consistent, biodiversity-inclusive methodologies will improve evaluations of wartime impacts, support evidence-based remediation, and strengthen the role of environmental stewardship within peacebuilding processes.
How to cite: Beddoe, N., Ross, G., Sollen-Norrlin, M., and Rintoul-Hynes, N.: The Missing Layer of Environmental Peacebuilding: Why Soil Biodiversity Matters in Post-War Recovery, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-278, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-278, 2026.
This article examines the international legal challenges associated with creating ecological compensation mechanisms for transboundary river basins. The inquiry arises from recurring scenarios in which upstream states invest substantial resources in ecological conservation—such as maintaining environmental flows, protecting wetlands, or curbing land-based pollution—while the resulting ecological improvements primarily benefit downstream states. Despite the growing acknowledgment of the ecological services provided by shared freshwater systems, international water law still lacks a structured framework defining when and how downstream beneficiaries may bear compensatory obligations. To address this normative gap, the study explores the suitability of applying a beneficiary-pays approach to international watercourse governance, grounding its analysis in general principles of international environmental law.
The article first revisits the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization as codified in the 1997 UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. When interpreted in conjunction with the prevention and precautionary principles, this foundational rule supports a distributive conception of responsibility, particularly in situations where ecological benefits and environmental management burdens are asymmetrically shared among riparian states. This reading is reinforced by the evolution of international environmental law, which increasingly emphasizes preventive action and cooperative burden-sharing. The analysis also draws on the logic of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR), adapting its rationale to the transboundary context to highlight differentiated yet complementary obligations among states sharing a river basin.
The article then develops two dimensions for grounding transboundary ecological compensation. First, it argues that the ecosystem integrity principle provides the legal and factual basis for establishing the causal relationship between upstream conservation measures and downstream ecological gains. This principle facilitates the identification of measurable ecological services that may justify compensation. Second, the study outlines potential legal pathways for operationalizing the beneficiary-pays approach, including criteria for defining compensable ecological benefits, methods for identifying responsible downstream actors, and procedural avenues for recognizing such obligations through treaties, basin organizations, or soft-law instruments. Recognizing the positive externalities created through upstream ecological stewardship ultimately offers a normative rationale for downstream compensation within contemporary international water law.
How to cite: Zheng, C.: Transboundary Ecological Compensation in International Water Law: A Beneficiary-Pays Approach for Shared River Basins, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-583, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-583, 2026.
