How can the European Common Agricultural Policy help halt biodiversity loss? Recommendations by over 300 experts

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.


INTRODUCTION
Agriculture is a key driver of declines in biodiversity and associated ecosystem services.In the European Union, approximately 40% of land is farmed (Eurostat, 2021).With expenditures of €55 billion annually (37% of the European Union's 2019 budget; 31% in 2027), the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) markedly influences land-use decisions and biodiversity.The CAP introduced various instruments to reduce the negative environmental impacts of agriculture.These include compulsory conditionality criteria for all farmers receiving subsidies laid down in "Cross Compliance"; voluntary measures in Pillar 2 ("Rural Development Programmes"), in particular through agri-environment-climate-measures (AECM); and since 2014, Greening measures in Pillar 1 (see Figure 1 and Supporting Information 1 for further information).However, overall, the CAP has failed to reverse biodiversity loss or markedly reduce the environmental footprint of European agriculture.Critics propose that this is due to low requirements and broad exemptions in the compulsory instruments, unambitious design of voluntary schemes, overpayment for ineffective environmental measures, and imbalanced investment in the environment compared to other objectives (Alliance Environment, 2019;ECA, 2017;Pe'er et al., 2014Pe'er et al., , 2019)).
To address these weaknesses, the CAP post-2023 proposes a new ''Green Architecture'' around three arearelated environmental instruments: ''enhanced conditionality''; AECM in Pillar 2; and new ''Eco-schemes'' in Pillar 1. Similar to AECM, Eco-schemes are voluntary for farmers, but Member States (MS) have much more freedom in their design.MS are required to invest at least 20% of Pillar 1 payments in Eco-schemes in 2023-2024 and at least 25% after 2025.The minimum share of Pillar 2 payments for environmental instruments increases from 30% currently to 35% after 2023.A new delivery model will also focus more on outcomes than prescriptions, granting MS more flexibility regarding how they intend to achieve the CAP's objectives.
In parallel to the CAP reform, the European Commission introduced the Green Deal, the Farm to Fork Strategy and an updated Biodiversity Strategy and adopted a Climate Law in June 2021.Major agri-environmental targets by 2030 include reduced use of chemical pesticides (−50%), antibiotics (−50%), and fertilizers (−20%); expanding the land share of organic farming to 25%; maintaining or restoring landscape features on at least 10% of farmland; and reducing net GHG emissions by 55%.These ambitious goals require improved environmental performance of European agriculture, with many implications for the CAP.
Following interactions with the European Commission (especially DG AGRI and the Vice-presidency for the European Green Deal) and drawing on inputs from over 300 experts, this study focuses on how the CAP 2023-2027 can improve its performance for biodiversity, in line with the CAP objective to preserve biodiversity and landscapes, as well as the Green Deal objective of halting and reversing farmland biodiversity loss (European Commission, 2020).To address this question, the Commission invited European scientists to collate evidence-based recommendations.In response, 13 national workshops were organized between October and December 2020 and followed up by an online survey between December 2020 and March 2021.Workshop coordinators invited scientists with CAP expertise from various disciplines (ecology, agronomy, economics, and social sciences).In some MS, experts from stakeholder groups participated as well.Workshop protocols and individual expert replies were compiled into a predetermined template, where references supporting their statements were provided.We used MAXQDA software to code and extract relevant quotes throughout the questionnaires.We then organized the experts' insights, distilled important guiding principles, and synthesized key findings for this study (for detailed methods, see Supporting Information 2).Overall, we received inputs from over 300 participants in 23 MS (Figure 2) (further details in Pe'er et al., 2021).

F I G U R E 2
Countries where workshops took place involving scientists (red) or both scientists and stakeholders (blue).Contributions to the online survey were made by individuals in all these countries as well as those marked in yellow.Map created using MapChart (https://mapchart.net/europe.html)

EXPERTS' INSIGHTS ON THE GREEN ARCHITECTURE AND BIODIVERSITY
First, we summarize six key principles that emerged from the workshops as overarching perspectives, providing recommendations for the design, implementation, evaluation, and adaptive management of the CAP's biodiversity goal.The four subsequent sections reflect prominent points with regard to Green Architecture and the CAP's implementation.

2.1
Guiding principles for effective biodiversity protection

2.1.1
Landscape features and seminatural areas, including grasslands, are central for biodiversity Participants in all workshops highlighted seminatural areas, landscape features, and extensively managed, species-rich grasslands as the most critical elements for farmland biodiversity in Europe (Concepción et al., 2020;Jeanneret et al., 2021).Measures in both pillars should ensure protection of existing features, reward effective management for biodiversity, and incentivize restoration efforts.In the post-2023 CAP, the default "Good Agriculture and Environmental Condition" (GAEC) 8 requires a minimum share of nonproductive features of 4%, applied only to arable land.MS should utilize other instruments to reach the minimum 10% target for nonproductive features required by the Biodiversity Strategy and recommended by science to apply on all farmland (Kremen & Merenlender, 2018) and avoid losses of area or quality where current coverage is above 10% (Jeanneret et al., 2021).MS should use the opportunity granted by the CAP's improved definitions of grasslands and eligible areas to set land eligibility definitions that support farmers in protecting landscape features on all farmland and habitats under the Habitats Directive (e.g., scrublands, ponds, wood pastures).

2.1.2
Diversity and multifunctionality should be prioritized and rewarded at the field, farm, and landscape levels Diverse, multifunctional farms and landscapes support a diversity of habitats and species.They also promote farm resilience and adaptability, both environmentally (Martin et al., 2019) and economically (e.g., through income diversification).At the farm level, supporting diversity can be achieved by paying proportionally to the environmental services delivered (O'Rourke & Finn, 2020); prioritizing measures addressing multiple environmental objectives; supporting bundles of complementary measures in the same field or farm; and supporting crop diversity in both space and time.

Spatial planning is needed in target setting and implementation
To survive, species require networks of functionally connected habitats of sufficient size and quality.This requires dedicated measures at the landscape level (Concepción et al., 2020), whose impact depends on various environmental conditions.Therefore, MS should ensure the spatial targeting of measures to secure habitats in terms of size, quality, and connectivity.Specific focus should also be given to maintaining key habitats, landscape complexity and heterogeneity, particularly in high nature value farmland (HNVF) regions.

Collaborative and coordinated implementation enhances the achievement of biodiversity targets
As ecological responses are governed by landscape properties, current financial supports (focusing on individual farms) limit the reach and success of measures (Concepción et al., 2012;Leventon et al., 2017).By extending the spatial scale of interventions, MS can enhance ecological success and improve landscape-scale benefits from ecosystem services.This can be achieved by collaborative and coordinated implementation within target areas, with economic and social benefits for the farming community (Westerink et al., 2017).MS can do so by both AECM and Eco-schemes.

Result-based approaches provide multiple advantages
In contrast to action-based (or prescription-based) approaches, result-based payments are linked to achieving specific environmental outcomes.Experts in 10 of the 13 workshops highlighted that these approaches reward farmers who maintain farmland with high biodiversity (O'Rourke & Finn, 2020), empower farmers to use their knowledge and experience, and incentivize adaptive management and innovation (De Snoo et al., 2013).However, result-based approaches require careful design to reduce unnecessary risks to farmers (Herzon et al., 2018;O'Rourke & Finn, 2020).Therefore, a combination of both result-based and action-oriented payments is likely optimal.

2.1.6
Communication, education, and farmer engagement can improve acceptance, cooperation, and uptake of voluntary measures Farmer involvement, extension services, and training were repeatedly highlighted as important to improve the acceptance of compulsory requirements and to maximize the uptake of effective voluntary measures (de Snoo et al., 2013;Díaz et al., 2021).Farmer engagement can improve the design and implementation of measures, facilitate communication, and enable rapid learning and adaptive management (O'Rourke & Finn, 2020).It also generates a sense of ownership and stewardship that can help expand good practices.MS should therefore improve the support of local action groups and farmer engagement programs for biodiversity, for example, through the European Innovation Partnership for Agriculture (EIP-AGRI) and the LEADER program.

Setting ambitious targets
Setting S.M.A.R.T targets (Specific, Measurable, Ambitious, Reasonable, and Time-bound) is a key issue for MS in meeting objectives of the CAP and related strategies.To do so, workshop participants highlighted the need for explicit conservation and restoration priorities that should align with the Green Deal, Farm to Fork, and Biodiversity Strategies.The intervention logic must be clear, namely how the choice of instruments and the allocated budgets can achieve targets in an effective and timely manner, including explicit milestones and adaptive strategies (Concepción et al., 2020).
The "no-backsliding" principle (Article 105 of the CAP Strategic Plan Regulation) requires MS to retain at least the current level of environmental investment and calls for "greater overall contribution to the achievement of the specific environmental-and climate-related objectives" (European Commission, 2021).This principle should be reflected in instruments, budgets and management prescriptions and should be applied to existing habitats and landscape features to avoid any losses of area or quality.The Commission should seek to ensure transparent evaluation of results and clarify what incentives are available for MS who develop ambitious programs.The Commission should also clarify what sanctions will apply to MS who are not on track to achieve the EU targets or fail to provide sufficient data for assessing progress.

2.1.8
Setting ambitious Eco-schemes Eco-schemes can more than double the CAP's budget for biodiversity, climate, and other environmental objectives compared to current AECM investments.To deliver substantial benefits, Eco-schemes should prioritize measures that are proven to achieve environmental objectives (Gouriveau et al., 2019) and be financially attractive and administratively simple.However, MS should address several risks: • Inappropriate payment levels can incentivize the uptake of measures with low or no ecological benefits.Similarly, since Eco-schemes pursue several objectives simultaneously, MS choices can yield low uptake of biodiversityrelevant interventions.Thus, MS should exclude options that are damaging for biodiversity and set a low reward for ineffective options (Table 1); ring-fence sufficient budgets for biodiversity-support options; and prioritize measures that simultaneously fulfil multiple environmental objectives.• Eco-schemes will be implemented on an annual basis.
To enhance biodiversity benefits that increase over multiple years, MS should consider multiannual agreements, bonus payments, or progressive payment systems based on, that is, a points system.Short-term options (e.g., flower strips for several months) should be monitored and (re)assessed to avoid undesirable effects.• There is a considerable risk of watering down environmental ambitions and of windfall effects if MS choose to fund primarily existing practices, some of which should have been better included under Conditionality.
Generally, MS should maximize their efforts to monitor, learn, continuously adapt and further develop Ecoschemes.In particular, MS should use the opportunity of the increased budget of Eco-schemes (from 20% to 25% from 2025) to remove ineffective options and add missing (effective) options for biodiversity, following the principles above. 2.1.9 Enhancing coherence between CAP instruments Coherence and complementarity among conditionality, Eco-schemes and AECM are important in terms of both content (which measures support which objectives and targets) and payment levels (to avoid light green interventions competing with more effective dark green ones).
Eco-schemes can optimally operate as an intermediate instrument between conditionality (minimum standards) and AECM (target areas with complex ecological requirements, such as Natura 2000 sites or HNVF).Ecoschemes can complement AECM, especially in simplified landscapes.For example, where landscape features are protected by Conditionality (GAEC 8), Eco-schemes could support an expansion to 10%, while AECM may reward either further improvement of habitat quality or restoration of landscape elements (Díaz et al., 2021) or an expansion beyond 10%.Additionally, nonproductive investments can be used to support habitat restoration and maintenance.Workshop participants highlighted that, especially for biodiversity-valuable AECM options, complementarity with Eco-schemes (i.e., multiple payments for different actions on the same parcels) can help enhance the uptake of more demanding measures aimed at improving habitat quality.
MS should establish effective and justifiable payment approaches and consider the pros and cons of income foregone and costs incurred (currently in AECM) compared to ''top-up'' options that are additional to the basic income support (Eco-schemes option; Table 2).
Beyond the Green Architecture, MS should strive for improved coherence and balance among CAP objectives, instruments, and investments to ensure that other CAP instruments do not counteract environmental measures.This applies particularly to payments coupled to production, productive investments that are harmful for biodiversity, and payments for areas facing natural or other specific constraints, which are counted toward the biodiversity objective (at 50% weight) without justification.

2.1.10
Improved monitoring and transparent reporting to support a result-oriented policy implementation Workshop participants highlighted that environmental monitoring and reporting of the CAP are insufficient, especially for biodiversity (ECA, 2019;Geijzendorffer et al., 2016), and need to be expanded.Public administrations in many MS have insufficient experience with result-oriented measures and inadequate resources for "Top-up" payment approach "Income-foregone" payment approach • Simple to administer and attractive to farmers, potentially leading to high uptake, particularly for measures with a high impact on biodiversity (regardless of their relation to farm income) • Allows rewarding environmental services above the level of ''income foregone'' + transaction costs.
• Can improve uptake in places where overall income from farming, or income foregone associated with the measure, are low and thus the payment is unattractive (e.g., for small-scale, low intensity grazing and/or for part-time farmers).
• Can advance a more positive perception of nature conservation as a benefit rather than a cost.
• Can support innovative practices.
• The existing system works if well designed and implemented, e.g., taking into account public and private transaction costs.
• The ''cost-incurred'' element serves as an objective economic benchmark for the level of payment.
• Allows consistency among funding modalities for agri-environment-climate-measures and Eco-schemes, thus reducing the risk of competition and the lack of comparability.
• Prevents Eco-scheme payments from becoming income-support in disguise.
• Limits rent-seeking by lobby groups • Avoids misspending of taxpayers' funds by providing a solid baseline for calculus.
wildlife monitoring (Šumrada et al., 2021).These require significantly increased investments in funding, human resources, scheme design, training (e.g., of farmer advisors), and in situ monitoring.
Workshop participants proposed that monitoring and evaluation efforts should be proportional to CAP invest-ments in different instruments and to their potential impact on biodiversity.This especially applies to direct payments and payments for areas facing natural and other constraints, which remain poorly assessed despite having significant budget allocations and affecting large areas (Alliance Environment, 2019).Landscape heterogeneity Indicators on diversity of composition and configuration in farmland landscapes (Martin et al., 2019) Crop diversity, field size Indicators on diversity of composition and configuration of complex/heterogeneous farmland landscapes The European Commission should guide MS in ensuring the selection of suitable indicators for biodiversity (Table 3a), as well as for habitats and landscape structures (Table 3b).The new delivery model requires tight monitoring of these indicators to enable rapid performance evaluation, especially of HNVF, landscape features and grassland management.
MS should employ improved and harmonized standards in recording and archiving relevant biodiversity, landscapes, and socioeconomic data and improve access to databases, especially the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS), for researchers and the public.Otherwise, existing barriers to data access will continue impeding evidence-based evaluation of the CAP's performance.Mapping efforts can be readily expanded by increasing the comprehensiveness of Land Parcel Identification Systems (LPIS) to generate a broader picture of the state of European farmlands.

2.2
Outlook: How to still improve the CAP for biodiversity

2.2.1
The environmental ambition of the post-2023 CAP is not yet guaranteed With the lion's share of EU biodiversity conservation budgets (SM1 in Pe'er et al., 2014), the CAP is fundamental to achieve the EU Biodiversity Strategy.The CAP post-2023 is equipped with new opportunities to significantly address the biodiversity and climate crises.However, the Green Architecture is no guarantee of success.First, changes in the new CAP are disproportionately small compared to the challenges of halting biodiversity loss and combating climate change (Mace et al., 2018).Second, despite the forthcoming CAP offering more flexibility to implement higher environmental ambition, most MS seem unwilling to use this opportunity.Support for this assessment includes, inter alia, the pressure exerted by the Council to minimize environmental requirements toward the Trilogue agreement achieved in June 2021, the National Strategic Plans submitted to the Commission, and the rapid decision to allow production on Focus Areas in response to the war in Ukraine (Pe'er et al., 2022).Third, many MS lack the capacity to support a transition to resultbased implementation in terms of the required ambition, design, monitoring, reporting, and adaptability.
The Eco-schemes proposed by the MS within their national strategic plans show varying levels of ambition.Although some Eco-schemes include options with biodiversity benefits (e.g., expansion of landscape features), many others support existing practices with little or no added value (e.g., support for crop rotation, merely substituting a weak GAEC 7), and some may even yield negative biodiversity impacts (e.g., supporting the replacement of existing habitats, such as species-rich grasslands or longer-term fallow land).Spatial diversification, bonuses for improved spatial design, multiyear implementation of Eco-schemes, and collective options seem prominently absent.The risk therefore prevails that large proportions of Eco-scheme budgets will be spent on maintaining a status quo rather than improving farmland management for biodiversity.The Commission should ensure that strategic plans are improved either prior to implementation or after a performance review by suggesting how MS can make appropriate alterations.Such alterations may include the addition of effective Eco-scheme options (such as fallow land, Table 1), the removal of counterproductive options, and reduced remuneration for options with limited added value.Regular reviews comparing the likely impacts of CAP interventions with intended impact levels are crucial for the adaptive development of Eco-schemes as a new policy instrument.These reviews should consider criteria such as added environmental value, uptake, and adherence to the S.M.A.R.T framework as a means to achieve the nine CAP objectives.

Beyond biodiversity
Meeting the nine CAP objectives requires a balance among all three sustainability dimensions (Pe'er et al., 2019).Developing the capacity to achieve this balance requires institutional support as well as a transdisciplinary approach and multiactor research and innovation networks (Š ūmane et al., 2018).Participants in many workshops highlighted synergies and trade-offs between biodiversity and other CAP objectives, including climate change mitigation and the efficient use and protection of natural resources.There was a distinct concern that a strong focus on carbon farming and on water protection measures could result in a net loss of biodiversity; thus, measures that promote synergies should be identified and strongly prioritized.

2.2.3
The role of science in the CAP reform and its long-term future This study emerged from a unique interaction among scientists and policymakers, where scientists were invited by the Commission to deliver their recommendations on the basis of the best available evidence.During workshops, participants emphasized the need for a more structured dialog between science and policy.The European Union is placing greater responsibility on MS to adapt EU policy to local needs.Science, in return, can provide evidence-based solutions to support such needs (Díaz et al., 2021;Jeanneret et al., 2021) to identify win-win options, address trade-offs, and reach compromises among interests and objectives.
Misconceptions and misinformation abound in many contentious topics in modern society, and the CAP is not immune.Social sciences and interdisciplinary research can help address these issues.Science plays an important role by providing accurate and reliable information and alerting when policy instruments, or prevailing discourses and narratives, fail to accord with the best available evidence.
Complex challenges lie ahead for the Commission, national and regional administrations, farmers, and society.Alternative pathways to success are needed to support societal transformation and sociopolitical discourse and enhance political will.This includes communicating nature conservation as an investment and insurance and highlighting the values of biodiversity.The science-policy interface needs strengthening to improve transparency and engagement.Scientists can support policy development by evaluating outcomes, maximizing success within the realms of existing flexibility, and identifying innovative paths away from business-as-usual and toward models that reconcile food production and consumption, nature conservation, and economic and social objectives.

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S
We are grateful to all workshop coordinators, particularly Sonja Karoglan Todorovic (Croatia), Alan Matthews (Ireland), Edward Majewski (Poland), and Lovisa Nilsson (Sweden), and to all contributors for their valuable inputs.A preprint version of this paper was published in Volume 3 of "Thünen Working Paper 175" (Pe'er et al., 2021) as a summary of the full synthesis of results (Volume 1).The independent study emerged from interactions with DG AGRI and the office of European Commission Executive Vice-Presidency for the European Green Deal.

F
I G U R E 1 Schematic overview of the biodiversity relevant instruments of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) pre-and post-2020.Box width (x-axis) reflects the relative extent of area affected by measures (not to scale).Green color intensity reflects the potential effectiveness for biodiversity.Adopted from EC communication of the new CAP, we note that the three instruments of the "Green Architecture" (Conditionality, Eco-schemes, and agri-environment-climate-measures [AECM]) only cover the "area-related" payments of the CAP.Other CAP instruments are relevant for meeting environmental objectives as well-summarized here in the three boxes of ANC, nonproductive investments, and knowledge support instruments.For further details and an extended figure, see Supporting Information 1. ANC = Areas facing natural or other constraints.OO = implementation obligatory for Member States, obligatory for farmers; OV = implementation obligatory for Member States, voluntary for farmers; VV: implementation voluntary for Member States, voluntary for farmers; (O)V = implementation Member states must ascertain a minimum implementation over several interventions, voluntary for farmers.Note: under ''Agri-Environmental and Climate Measures.''we also include payments for organic farming and Natura 2000 support, and in the CAP post-023, nonproductive investments.The shares of spending for Agri-Environmental Climate Measures in the post-2023 CAP (30%/35%) refer to all measures Examples of measures proposed by workshop participants for inclusion versus exclusion in Eco-schemes in relation to their expected impact on biodiversity protection and restoration TA B L E 1 TA B L E 2 Main attributes of ''top-up'' versus 'income-foregone' payment approaches