The Common Agricultural Policy post-2020: Views and recommendations from scientists to improve performance for biodiversity : Volume 1 - Synthesis Report

Despite significant efforts, substantial investments and some local successes, the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has not succeeded in halting the loss of farmland biodiversity. To address these weaknesses, the CAP post-2020 proposes a new “Green Architecture” comprising, inter alia, compulsory elements (enhanced conditionality through Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions - GAEC), voluntary Agri-Environment-Climate Measures (AECMs), and a new instrument called “Eco-schemes”. Will this new Green Architecture, combined with a result-based orientation of the CAP, help address the biodiversity crisis? To provide science-based feedback on this proposal, more than 300 scientists from 22 Member States (MSs) have provided their expertise through 13 workshops that took place between October-December 2020, as well as a follow up online survey. The results are published as Thünen Working Paper 175 comprising three volumes: Thünen Working Paper Vol.1 (this document) contains a comprehensive synthesis of the results of the workshops alongside experts' assessments of the flagship Eco-schemes proposed by the European Commission. Thünen Working Paper Vol. 2 contains the full reports of the Member State Workshops (Annex I) and the inputs submitted by the experts' regarding their opinions on the Flagship-Eco-schemes proposed by the EU Commission (Annex II). A policy brief is published as Thünen Working Paper Vol. 3. Although the Working Paper focuses on the proposed CAP’s performance for biodiversity as a core topic, benefits for climate change mitigation and other environmental aspects were highlighted by workshop participants; and economic considerations were highlighted where relevant. Six key issues emerged as crucial for the Green Architecture to successfully address the biodiversity crisis: •Protection and restoration of landscape features and semi-natural areas, including grasslands, should be at the core of the Green Architecture and decisive to its success. •Habitat diversity and multifunctionality should be prioritised at both the farm and landscape levels. •Spatial planning is needed in target-setting and implementation. •Collaborative and result-based approaches can and should be promoted for higher effectiveness and efficiency. •A result-based approach is highly recommended for both AECMs and Eco-schemes, with ample experience to support broader implementation. •Communication, education and farmer engagement are key to improve acceptance of compulsory requirements (enhanced conditionality), maximise uptake of effective voluntary measures (AECM and Eco-schemes), enhance learning, and generate a sense of ownership and stewardship. Simplicity in administration and broad farmer participation are central to the success of Eco-schemes. Enhanced conditionality, Eco-schemes and AECMs should be coherent and complementary to each other. In addition, a no-backsliding principle should apply across all instruments to avoid losses of existing landscape structures or habitat quality, and with them, further biodiversity loss. Enhanced conditionality should set high minimum requirements: for instance, the threshold for landscape features and non-productive land (GAEC 9) should be set to at least 5 % of farmland and applied to all agricultural areas. Eco-schemes should serve to expand ambition (e.g. in the case of landscape features, expansion towards 10 %) and improve management. AECMs should receive priority in budgeting and efforts, targeting protected areas, High Nature Value Farmlands (HNVFs), wetlands and peatlands, and long-term restoration efforts. Eco-schemes can supplement AECMs in volatile business environments and serve as entry points to AECMs. Remuneration calculations should be clear, justifiable, and transparent. They should increase with the benefits delivered, and be aligned with AECMs to avoid competition. Farmers should be permitted to top up payments from different instruments into the same parcels if these fulfil multiple objectives, following, e.g., a points-based approach. Member States should strive to achieve a proper balance between “light-green”, spatially broad options versus “dark-green”, targeted measures with high impact. Eco-schemes need to be open to all types of land-users. A menu-based Eco-scheme approach offers the advantage of catering to a wide variety of farms and farm types, while allowing the design of evidence-based measures. However, if a menu-based approach is selected, their biodiversity objectives need to become much more explicit and strengthened. The targets set by the EU Green Deal and associated strategies, notably the Farm to Fork Strategy (F2FS) and the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, should guide target-setting by the Member States. Biodiversity targets should be as specific, ambitious, clearly formulated, and quantitative as possible. Workshops highlighted seven criteria for ambition: 1) acknowledging the problems, 2) a clear intervention logic accompanied by a breadth of proposed actions, 3) adherence to key operating principles, 4) ambition reflected in budgets, 5) Investments into knowledge, 6) Selecting suitable indicators to ensure accountability, and 7) presenting sufficiently detailed strategic plans addressing local needs and adaptive capacities. The transition years of 2021-2022, as well as COVID-19 recovery funds, should be used to prepare for the upcoming CAP implementation period. Key issues to address are: 1) Establishment of support mechanisms for guiding and implementing Eco-schemes; 2) Engagement in mapping efforts to establish baselines, especially for Ecologically Sensitive Permanent Grasslands and landscape features; 3) Expansion of infrastructures (including administrative structures to support Eco-schemes) and capacities for biodiversity monitoring; and 4) Habitat restoration.