Search

The European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has not halted farmland biodiversity loss. The CAP post‐2023 has a new "Green Architecture," including the new "Eco‐scheme" instrument. How can this new Green Architecture help tackle the biodiversity crisis? Through 13 workshops and an online survey, over 300 experts from 23 European Member States addressed this question. From experts' contributions, key principles for success include preserving and restoring (semi)natural elements and extensive grasslands; improving spatial planning and landscape‐scale implementation, including through collective actions; implementing result‐based approaches; and improved knowledge exchange. To maximize the effectiveness of Eco‐scheme for biodiversity, experts highlighted the need to prioritize evidence‐based actions, allocate a sufficient budget for biodiversity, and incentivize management improvements through higher payment levels. Additionally, stronger coherence is needed among CAP instruments. For effective CAP implementation, the European Commission and the Member States should expand investments in biodiversity monitoring, knowledge transfer, and capacity‐building within relevant institutions. The remaining risks in the CAP's ability to reverse the loss of farmland biodiversity still require better design, closer monitoring, greater transparency, and better engagement with farmers. Additionally, greater involvement of scientists is needed to guide the CAP toward restoring farmland biodiversity while accounting for synergies and trade‐offs with other objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract The European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has not halted farmland biodiversity loss. The CAP post‐2023 has a new ‘‘Green Architecture,’’ including the new ‘‘Eco‐scheme’’ instrument. How can this new Green Architecture help tackle the biodiversity crisis? Through 13 workshops and an online survey, over 300 experts from 23 European Member States addressed this question. From experts’ contributions, key principles for success include preserving and restoring (semi)natural elements and extensive grasslands; improving spatial planning and landscape‐scale implementation, including through collective actions; implementing result‐based approaches; and improved knowledge exchange. To maximize the effectiveness of Eco‐scheme for biodiversity, experts highlighted the need to prioritize evidence‐based actions, allocate a sufficient budget for biodiversity, and incentivize management improvements through higher payment levels. Additionally, stronger coherence is needed among CAP instruments. For effective CAP implementation, the European Commission and the Member States should expand investments in biodiversity monitoring, knowledge transfer, and capacity‐building within relevant institutions. The remaining risks in the CAP's ability to reverse the loss of farmland biodiversity still require better design, closer monitoring, greater transparency, and better engagement with farmers. Additionally, greater involvement of scientists is needed to guide the CAP toward restoring farmland biodiversity while accounting for synergies and trade‐offs with other objectives.

Lower diversity of plant and animal farmland species are usually reported where cropland has been aggregated into larger fields, which raises prospects of curbing declines in European farmland biodiversity and associated ecosystem services by halting trends to field size increases associated to agricultural intensification, without having to set aside arable land for conservation. Here, we consider the factors underlying trade‐offs between farmer income and biodiversity as mediated by field size at local and landscape scales, and how these trade‐offs may be overcome. Field sizes are still increasing, facilitated by increasing farm sizes and land consolidation. Decreases in working time and fuel expenses when fields are larger, uptake of larger machinery and subsidies favoring larger farms provide incentives to manage land in larger units, putting farmland biodiversity further at risk. Yet, field size‐mediated ecological–economic trade‐offs are largely ignored in policy and research. We recommend internalizing the ecological effects of changes in landscape‐scale field size into land consolidation scheme design, ensuring that EU Common Agricultural Policy post‐2020 rewards farmers that maintain and recreate fine‐grained landscapes where these are essential for farmland biodiversity targets, and reducing economic–ecological trade‐offs by stimulating agricultural research and innovation for economically efficient yet biodiversity‐friendly farming in fine‐grained landscapes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Major conservation efforts in human-dominated systems, such as farmland, have focused on the establishment of subsidies and compensation promoting low-impact management practices to reverse the impacts of conservation threats in the short term (reactive approaches). In this study, we discuss how a different way of framing conservation policy (proactive approaches) could lead to fundamentally different long-term conservation outcomes. We define proactive approaches as those not necessarily including measures directly addressing the threats affecting biodiversity, but promoting transitions from current scenarios in which species are threatened to new states in which the threat is no longer present. We illustrate reactive and proactive approaches using as a case study two contrasting conservation frameworks for a vulnerable farmland bird, the Montagu’s harrier (Circus pygargus) in northeastern Spain. This example shows that reactive approaches can lead to “conservation traps,” which we defined as situations where the application of biologically focused actions in response to conservation problems results in an unsustainable need to perpetuate the implementation of those actions. Our aim is to offer a fresh perspective on biodiversity conservation in human-dominated systems and to stimulate alternative, more holistic approaches in conservation promoting transitions to new states not requiring long-term active and costly conservation action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conservation agencies within the European Union promote the restoration of traditional land uses as a cost-effective way to preserve biodiversity outside reserves. Although the European Union pursues the integration of the environment into strategic decision-making, it also dictates sectoral policies that may damage farmland biodiversity. We illustrate this point by outlining the socioeconomic factors that allow the persistence of traditional free-ranging horse husbandry in Galicia, northwestern Spain. Free-ranging Galician mountain ponies provide ecological and socioeconomic services including the prevention of forest fires, the maintenance of heathlands and wolves, and the attenuation of wolf-human conflicts. This traditional livestock system may have persisted because it entails negligible costs for farmers. Wolf predation upon Galician mountain ponies does not threaten farmer's economies and seems to be tolerated better than attacks to more valuable stock. Recently, European Union's regulations on animal welfare, carcass management, or meat production put new economic and administrative burdens on farmers, make free-ranging horse rearing economically unsustainable, and incentivize its abandonment. The aim of the European Union to integrate environmental policies may be successful to preserve farmland biodiversity only through careful anticipation of the side effects of apparently unrelated regulations on the fragile equilibrium that sustain traditional land uses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many traditional farming landscapes have high conservation value. Conservation policy in such landscapes typically follows a 'preservation strategy,' most commonly by providing financial incentives for farmers to continue traditional practices. A preservation strategy can be successful in the short term, but it fails to acknowledge that traditional farming landscapes evolved as tightly coupled social-ecological systems. Traditionally, people received direct benefits from the environment, which provided a direct incentive for sustainable land use. Globalization and rural development programs increasingly alter the social subsystem in traditional farming landscapes, whereas conservation seeks to preserve the ecological subsystem. The resulting decoupling of the social-ecological system can be counteracted only in part by financial incentives, thus inherently limiting the usefulness of a preservation strategy. An alternative way to frame conservation policy in traditional farming landscapes is a 'transformation strategy.' This strategy acknowledges that the past cannot be preserved, and assumes that direct links between people and nature are preferable to indirect links based on incentive payments. A transformation strategy seeks to support community-led efforts to create new, direct links with nature. Such a strategy could empower rural communities to embrace sustainable development, providing a vision for the future rather than attempting to preserve the past. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]