Solutions for restoring Europe’s agricultural ecosystems

The importance of biodiversity for agriculture

Food production is one of the vital human activities most directly interacting with and affecting nature. Agriculture relies on essential natural processes such as pollination and soil formation. Biodiversity supports the resilience of agriculture and food security (Box 1). Functioning, healthy ecosystems are also important contributors to climate change mitigation and adaptation.

However, due to degradation of Europe’s nature, ecosystems’ capacity to support farming has decreased (EC, 2020). The demand for ecosystem services has exceeded supply in many cases (La Notte et al., 2022).

The intensification of agricultural production has led to biodiversity loss. Agriculture is the main source of pressure on habitats and species (EEA, 2020). Two-thirds of the EU’s semi-natural habitats dependent on biodiversity-friendly agricultural management are classified as in ‘bad’ conservation status (Figure 1).

Agriculture has become highly reliant on chemical pesticides, mineral fertilisers and large-scale irrigation. Their excessive use has degraded ecosystems, biodiversity and soils (EEA, 2023b, 2023c). It polluted freshwater bodies and led to the eutrophication of at least one-quarter of Europe’s marine ecosystems (EEA, 2019). Additionally, declining genetic crop diversity poses risks to the food supply (Khoury et al., 2022).

Increasing water scarcity is a concern. Droughts and changing weather patterns put pressure on ecosystems and damage agriculture. In addition, water extraction remains unsustainable in large parts of Europe. Pollution also impacts clean water availability in parts of Europe. While agriculture is one of the sectors most heavily impacted by these pressures, the sector itself exerts widespread pressures on both surface and ground waters.

The economic and financial risks stemming from nature degradation are gaining attention and financial institutions are developing strategies to address them. Agriculture and farmers are significantly exposed to nature-related risks such as yield and income loss due to soil erosion and declines in pollination. The cost of productivity loss due to soil erosion in the EU is estimated at EUR 1.2 billion per year (Panagos et al., 2018). The contribution of pollinators to the market value of agricultural crops in the EU is estimated to be more than EUR 15 billion per year (EC, 2021). 

Incorporating the restoration of agricultural ecosystems into farming practices holds the potential to reverse these trends. It would enhance biodiversity and resilience in food production against a backdrop of the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution (Poux and Aubert, 2018; Rega et al., 2019; Leclère et al., 2020; Mora et al., 2023).

Policy context

The importance of agricultural food production for food security, human well-being, the reduction of pollution, climate change mitigation and environmental health is acknowledged by the European Green Deal and the Eight Environment Action Programme (8th EAP).

Science-based global initiatives such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) promote integrating biodiversity conservation and restoration into farming systems (Calvin et al., 2023; IPBES, 2019). In Europe, bringing back nature and transitioning to sustainable agricultural practices are key objectives of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, which align with the commitments of the Kumming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. The NRR sets out legally-binding targets for EU Member States to put in place effective nature restoration measures for all ecosystems, including agricultural ones.

Restoring ecosystems and implementing biodiversity-friendly agricultural practices are also key for delivering on the EU’s Climate Law. If embraced, these actions can increase carbon storage and carbon removals from the atmosphere, and support adaptation to climate change. This is acknowledged by the proposed EU-level certification framework for carbon removals and carbon farming.

The EU’s CAP for 2023 to 2027, comprising almost one-third of the EU’s budget (EUR 386.6 billion), is the public policy with the most impact on the EU’s agricultural sector. Contributing to halting and reversing biodiversity loss, enhancing ecosystem services and preserving habitats and landscapes is one of the CAP’s key objectives.

Reaching the policy’s biodiversity objective would mitigate the increasing economic risks and damages caused by climate change (EEA, 2024). However, for this to occur, the CAP and its country-level policy implementation needs to improve by contributing in a cost-effective way to reversing biodiversity loss while maintaining the economic viability of farming.

EU Member States have the flexibility to contribute to the CAP’s objectives by tailoring their national CAP strategic plans. They also have the possibility to review their plans, allowing for potential adjustments to strengthen support for biodiversity-friendly practices. In parallel, Member States have until 1 September 2026 to prepare their national restoration plans under the NRR.

The discussions and report compiled from the “Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture”, held in 2024, set out the foundations for the ‘Vision for Agriculture and Food’. This vision will focus on how to ensure the long-term competitiveness, resilience and sustainability of the farming and food sector in the EU.

Agricultural solutions to restore agro-ecosystems

A clear strategy is needed to successfully restore nature on farmland while yielding efficient and resilient food production to support food security. This strategy needs to identify and apply farming practices that most effectively support biodiversity under different farming systems in different regions across Europe. Conversion to biodiversity-friendly farming practices must be part of a systemic transformation, which involves moving away from ‘business as usual’ and rethinking the relationships between food systems, human well-being and nature (EEA, 2022).

The agricultural sector can employ three approaches to conserve and restore agro-ecosystems:

Reduce pressures on biodiversity and manage soil and water sustainably

Reducing pollution and other pressures assists ecosystem recovery within and beyond agro-ecosystems, including for soil, freshwater and marine ecosystems. Ecosystem recovery, in turn, enhances ecosystem services that benefit agricultural production. Therefore, reducing these pressures increases nature’s capacity to contribute to the resilience of sustainable, biodiversity-friendly agriculture.

(Re)-establish multifunctional, biodiverse agricultural landscapes including semi-natural habitats and landscape features such as tree lines, hedges and grass margins

Creating landscape features in agricultural landscapes not only provides additional habitats and resources for species but also increases the connectedness of the surrounding (semi-)natural habitats. This also enhances soil health and ecosystem services beneficial for agricultural production.

Maintain or restore semi-natural habitats

A wide range of farmers manage biodiversity- and carbon-rich habitats. These include habitats protected under the EU’s Habitats Directive like grasslands, heathlands, wooded pastures, traditional agro-forestry systems and orchards. Maintaining or reviving biodiversity-friendly agricultural management is crucial to protect and restore species and habitats that are dependent on adequate agricultural management.

Combining the three approaches to conserve and restore agro-ecosystems helps to maximise restoration benefits (Tscharntke et al., 2021). Integrated systems like agro-ecology incorporate these approaches in a coherent way. Agro-ecological practices can make food production more resilient and sustainable. They can increase efficiency, diversify farming and income sources, and mitigate the risks related to climate change (Mouratiadou et al., 2024).

To ensure positive medium to longer-term trends in both biodiversity benefits and productivity, more quantitative evidence is needed to understand the trade-offs and identify the best practices in different pedoclimatic and socio-economic conditions. For example, trade-offs related to organic farming include usually lower crop yields compared to conventional systems (EC, 2023); however, the potential reduction in yield can be offset, at least partially, by enhanced ecosystem services and improved soil health (Schrama et al., 2018). In the EU, funds for research on organic farming and agro-ecology have been boosted and the land under organic farming has been increasing (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Share of the utilised agricultural area used for organic farming in the EU-27, 2012-2021

Please select a resource that has a preview image available.

Examples of biodiversity-friendly agricultural practices

Certain farming practices can be considered win-win solutions for biodiversity, climate mitigation, adaptation and pollution reduction (Figure 3). However, it is important that these practices are tailored to local or regional socio-ecological conditions, landscape structures and biodiversity objectives.

All the beneficial practices shown in this briefing can reduce fertiliser and pesticide use and risk. They can also have co-benefits for climate change mitigation. The practices with the highest climate benefits include some major changes in farming systems such as rewetting peatland, paludiculture and establishing agro-forestry systems. Diversified crop rotation can increase soil fertility and crop health, reducing the need for fertilisers and pesticides. Moreover, an easily implementable practice is leaving crop residues on the field as soil cover. Finally, maintaining or restoring semi-natural grasslands and semi-natural habitats through agricultural practices is particularly important for biodiversity.

The potential biodiversity and environmental benefits of various biodiversity-friendly agricultural practices are generally well-documented by scientific evidence (EC, 2023) and by research and innovation projects building on farmers’ and other stakeholders’ complementary knowledge, such as the EIP-AGRI Operation Group projects. The knowledge about cost-effectiveness and upscaling potential is accumulating with increasing implementation.

To identify the key farming practices to restore nature at scale in Europe, their effectiveness in restoring ecosystems and reducing pollution needs to be assessed along with the co-benefits and trade-offs for climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Barriers and challenges can limit the upscaling of these practices. The most important barriers to implementing biodiversity-friendly practices include the need for major change in farming business models or access to new supply chains, as well as low profitability in certain cases. Barriers include low awareness about the benefits for farmers and for nature as well as uncertainty about future policy developments. Some of these practices need more labour, planning and business management, which can be challenges. In addition, specific barriers, such as short-term farmland rental agreements, hinder decisions to take up longer-term commitments.

On the other hand, these agricultural practices are readily implementable and do not require significant additional technological developments. Various solutions exist to overcome the barriers. These include co-operation in developing and using new supply chains and marketing opportunities.

The scaled-up implementation of these practices is needed to reach the EU’s biodiversity objectives and to reduce climate and nature-related risks. It is crucial to maintain resilient agricultural production. Therefore, strategic policy support is needed to ensure their continued and increased implementation.

Agricultural policy to support biodiversity-friendly practices in Europe

The CAP plays an important role in setting baseline environmental standards for farmers for agricultural management. Several standards are relevant for the biodiversity objectives covered in this briefing (Box 2). These standards have however been impacted by derogations and postponed implementation at Member State level. Most recently, the Regulation itself has been revised, relaxing some of the standards relevant for soil cover, crop rotation and landscape features (GAEC 6, 7 and 8 in the current consolidated version of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115.

The CAP is also the policy that can best encourage the voluntary uptake of agricultural practices that are highly beneficial for biodiversity, the climate and pollution reduction. The actual benefits depend on the farmers who must decide if committing to these management practices is beneficial for their businesses.

To incentivise voluntary uptake and maintenance of biodiversity-friendly agricultural practices, the CAP provides a framework of policy interventions (Box 3). In the current CAP strategic plans, such interventions are offered to varying degrees in the EU Member States. The effectiveness of these interventions is often limited by having an environmental ambition that is set too low or is not attractive enough to farmers. In many cases, the overall budget or the targeted payments are too low. This is compounded by a contradiction in CAP policy instruments: while a range of incentives provide payments for biodiversity-friendly practices, other CAP payments support economic objectives at the expense of biodiversity.

The coherence of the CAP with the NRR objectives will be crucial for effective nature restoration. The NRR requires putting in place the restoration measures necessary to enhance biodiversity in agro-ecosystems while taking into account climate change, the social and economic needs of rural areas, and the need to ensure sustainable agricultural production in the EU.

The EU’s agricultural policies can contribute effectively to the EU’s biodiversity objectives by identifying and scaling up policy interventions that have been proven to deliver biodiversity benefits. Identifying the key agricultural practices and their barriers can help in designing effective policies.

Well-designed policy interventions establish clear links between the farming practices supported, the benefits for biodiversity, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and the resilience of farming. Examples for effective agricultural policy tools with clear links between payments and benefits for biodiversity include locally tailored, result-based policy interventions with ambitious and feasible targets; adequate payments for the initial transition to biodiversity-friendly farming systems; and progressive financial support or bonus payments for longer-term commitments and for practices with increasing biodiversity benefits.

Providing farmers with integrated environmental, technological and business knowledge and advice can help in selecting and implementing the most environmentally beneficial and feasible interventions tailored to their farming systems and local conditions.

Achieving sustainable agricultural production while reversing biodiversity loss can be accomplished by restoring ecosystems and ecosystem functioning, reducing agricultural pressures on biodiversity and improving soil health and water management. These actions can help nature thrive, which in turn, benefits agricultural resilience through enhanced ecosystem services.

For successful policy implementation, increased awareness and cooperative participation from farmers, land managers, consumers and all actors along the food value chain are necessary. Strategic and coherent policies and financial instruments, recognition and reward systems can enable farmers to apply biodiversity-friendly farming, which is crucial for resilient agriculture and biodiversity.