New report: Member States fail to make EU agriculture more sustainable

Eco-schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy fall short as effective measures for nature are neglected.
A new report by BirdLife Europe and NABU (BirdLife Germany) ‘The untapped potential of eco-schemes’ reveals that eco-schemes, supposedly a game-changer for sustainability under the latest EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), are falling far short of their potential.
Eco-schemes were introduced to encourage farmers to adopt more sustainable practices that benefit the environment, such as improving biodiversity and soil health. According to the European Commission[1], 70% of EU agricultural land is now covered by eco-schemes. However, this analysis across 12 EU countries, shows that instead of prioritising measures to deliver for the environment, many Member States opt for the easiest options – practices that require minimal changes on the ground but allow them to tick the sustainability box. Meanwhile, the eco-schemes that could make a real difference are often underfunded or unattractive to farmers.
The report also addresses the 2024 CAP simplifications, which were rushed through in response to farmer protests and have further complicated the implementation of eco-schemes and undermined their potential.
Key findings from the report:
- On average, eco-schemes achieved their planned area targets, but uptake by farmers varied significantly between Member States and measures. There was a high uptake of eco-schemes with limited added value, such as nutrient management schemes, in contrast to poor adoption of biodiversity-focused measures in many countries.
- Administrative challenges, inadequate promotion, and unattractive payment rates limited farmer participation in biodiversity-targeted schemes. Smaller farms faced higher relative administrative challenges, reducing their participation rates.
- Design flaws in some schemes incentivised status quo practices with limited environmental benefit. Innovative approaches, such as Slovakia’s buffer strips introduced as part of the whole-farm eco-scheme and Poland’s water retention initiatives, show promise. In the case of the latter, as with many other biodiversity schemes, more attractive payment and improved targeting are needed.
- Countries with regionally tailored schemes, higher payments, and flexible menus (e.g., Spain and the Netherlands) experienced higher engagement, although these often prioritised less ambitious measures.
- Adjustments to national CAP plans following the 2024 CAP simplification often led to a dilution of environmental ambitions, with several countries reducing the areas dedicated to nature or fulfilling the obligations only in a formal sense.
- There is lack of systematic and targeted monitoring of eco-schemes which hampers the ability to evaluate their effectiveness in achieving biodiversity goals and identifying areas for improvement.
Max Meister, Soil Policy Officer at NABU (BirdLife Germany): “With the climate and biodiversity crises already affecting millions of farms, urgent action is essential. With just three years left in the current CAP cycle, Member States must step up to make eco-schemes truly effective and attractive to farmers. Our report offers practical solutions to help achieve this.”
Tatiana Nemcova, EU Agriculture Coordinator at BirdLife Europe: “If we are serious about having long-term food security, eco-schemes need to do what they were meant to – not just provide farmers with a green-labelled income boost. There is still time to fix them under the current CAP, but the next CAP must go much further. Farmers need the right tools and incentives to make action for the environment a core part of farming, not just an afterthought.”
[1] https://hearings.elections.europa.eu/documents/hansen/hansen_verbatimreporthearing-original.pdf (page 6)
For more information, please contact:
Caroline Herman
Communications Officer, BirdLife Europe
[email protected]
Cover image by Viliam Klescht
You might also be interested in:
![]() | Stichting BirdLife Europe gratefully acknowledges financial support from the European Commission. All content and opinions expressed on these pages are solely those of Stichting BirdLife Europe. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. |