Environmental Science and Policy 133 (2022) 44–53

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Science and Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

The potential of European abandoned agricultural lands to contribute to the

Green Deal objectives: Policy perspectives
Catherine M.J. Fayet a, b, *, Kate H. Reilly a, Chantal Van Ham a, Peter H. Verburg b, c
a
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), European Regional Office, Boulevard Louis Schmidt 64, 1040 Brussels, Belgium
b
Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1087, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
c
Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Zürcherstrasse 111, CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The European Green Deal sets targets for biodiversity, climate change, sustainable farming, and rural develop­
Agricultural land abandonment ment. For abandoned agricultural lands to contribute to these goals, specific policy measures to support
Land use appropriate land management are required. However, information is lacking on what these policies will mean for
Decision-making
landowners and managers. This paper reviews the role of abandoned lands in European Union (EU) policies
European Green Deal
Rural landscapes
linked to the Green Deal. We interviewed 30 experts to identify the challenges faced by landowners in response
to the identified policies and gather suggestions for future policy improvements. We found few explicit mentions
of abandoned lands in policies. The potential of abandoned lands for alternative trajectories (beyond farming)
was generally implicit. According to experts, landowners perceive the EU Common Agriculture Policy as the most
influential to drive abandonment trajectories and support (or hinder) opportunities for re-management. The
main challenges for landowners to (re-)use their lands included conflicting policies, lack of financial and tech­
nical support, and a feeling of disconnection with policies defined at EU level. To address the gap between
objectives and implementation, policies need to secure support for landowners and managers. We provide three
recommendations to uncover the potential of abandoned lands to contribute to the Green Deal targets: (1) in­
crease their visibility in policies, (2) rely on an integrating policy approach, and (3) careful spatial planning to
account for biophysical, socioeconomic, and cultural variations across regions.

1. Introduction and sea through a network of protected areas, the restoration of

The new European Union (EU) Green Deal sets targets for the con­
servation of species and habitats, land restoration, climate change and
fostering sustainability in European farming and rural areas. To ensure
that these targets can be reconciled and balanced alongside other eco­
nomic and social goals, careful management of land is required, neces­
sitating in some cases considerable changes in practices. The land sector
plays a key role in achieving these objectives (Griscom et al., 2017). This
paper reviews the potential of abandoned agricultural areas to
contribute to the Green Deal and other relevant EU policy targets, as
well as the challenges and opportunities that exist for land owners and
managers of these lands to implement the necessary changes.
The EU’s Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 calls for several actions to
not only protect species and habitats, but also to contribute to carbon
sequestration and climate objectives (European Commission, 2020b).
Key elements of the Strategy include the protection of 30% of EU land
degraded ecosystems and a new European biodiversity governance
framework. Progress towards these objectives will mean that land­
owners and managers will be incentivised to improve their land-use
practices for conservation, restoration, and more sustainable agricul­
ture. However, there is still debate about the implications of the Strategy
for biodiversity conservation and rural activities (ELO, 2020). Previous
research outlined that social and economic sustainability should be
central in the implementation of these measures to ensure that they do
not come at the cost of rural development and livelihoods (Copus and
Dax, 2020; Dwyer et al., 2019).
Regarding climate change and energy, the EU aims to become
climate neutral and resilient by 2050, relying on mitigation and adap­
tation strategies (European Commission, 2019). The Fit for 55 package
will contribute to this goal, providing revisions and better alignment of
the EU’s climate, energy and transport-related legislation, and the
intermediary goal to reduce EU carbon emissions by at least 55% by

* Corresponding author at: International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), European Regional Office, Boulevard Louis Schmidt 64, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
E-mail address: catherine.fayet@iucn.org (C.M.J. Fayet).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.03.007
Received 25 October 2021; Received in revised form 2 March 2022; Accepted 9 March 2022
Available online 21 March 2022
1462-9011/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
C.M.J. Fayet et al.
2030 (European Commission, 2021c). These policies will have
high-level implications for land use as investment funds and markets
develop (Keenor et al., 2021) and as new practices for more sustainable
land management are incentivised for landowners, farmers and
industries.
Climate and biodiversity goals are also increasingly incorporated
into agricultural policies with the future Common Agricultural Policy
(CAP) and Farm To Fork Strategy (European Commission, 2020a). Since
agriculture is among the major drivers of climate change, biodiversity
loss and land degradation, the ability of these policies to contribute to
the EU environmental objectives is critical (European Commission,
2020a). Sustainable agriculture practices (as defined in Oberč and
Schnell, 2020) are key to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity. The
2021–2027 CAP will provide new compulsory and optional measures to
incentivise changes in land management that contribute to the three
policy objectives (European Commission, 2019). Although measures
existed in earlier CAP versions, they showed limited results for biodi­
versity (European Court of Auditors, 2020; Pe’er et al., 2017) and
emission reductions (European Court of Auditors, 2021).
Finding sufficient land space and suitable areas to implement these
policy ambitions is challenging, especially in a context of increasing
competition between land uses (Merckx and Pereira, 2015). Abandoned
farmlands have the potential to make an important contribution since
they can provide space for new functions. Farmland abandonment is
ongoing across Europe (Kuemmerle et al., 2016; Schuh et al., 2020;
Stürck et al., 2018) and abandoned lands are estimated to increase by
4.8 million hectares in the EU for the 2015–2030 period, accounting for
3% of total agricultural lands (Perpiña Castillo et al., 2021). Abandoned
farmlands are often defined as lands on which agricultural activities and
management have stopped (Pointereau et al., 2008). However, new
activities or functions can develop on these lands after the initial
abandonment (Fayet et al., 2022; Munroe et al., 2013). These lands can
for instance provide opportunities for carbon sequestration (Chazdon
et al., 2020; Rytter et al., 2016; Schulp et al., 2008), land restoration
(Wolff et al., 2018) or recultivation (Estel et al., 2015). However, there
are no general rules for the development of these trajectories after
abandonment, and opportunities are highly context dependent. In
addition, preventing abandonment for the sake of rural development can
sometimes conflict with other opportunities, such as nature restoration
(Merckx and Pereira, 2015).
For abandoned lands to contribute to the Green Deal objectives,
specific policy measures are needed to support appropriate land man­
agement practices (Fayet et al., 2022). However, climate, biodiversity,
and agricultural policies are not always aligned, sometimes creating
challenges for farmers and landowners’ decision-making. For instance,
EU subsidy schemes to afforest farmlands can be less attractive to
landowners given the irreversibility of this land transition (Vidyaratne
et al., 2020). At EU level, the low internal coherence of CAP instruments
and lack of alignment between the CAP and other major policies for
biodiversity and climate change mitigation have been criticised (Pe’er
et al., 2017; Scown et al., 2020). Landowners, but also farmers, land
managers, and other land decision-makers are therefore potentially
exposed to different policy processes and sometimes contradictory in­
centives. However, it is unclear to what extent they actually perceive the
“policy landscape” in this manner and to what extent these different
incentives conflict in reality. The influence of these incentives will also
vary depending on their nature, the compensation they provide – or not
– for potential losses, as well as the requirements for implementation (e.
g., administrative and time commitment) (e.g., Dessart et al., 2019).
Farmlands can be abandoned for a variety of reasons (MacDonald et al.,
2000; Rey Benayas et al., 2007; van der Zanden et al., 2017). These
different drivers of abandonment can influence the needs for future
policies and changes in management practices. For instance, policies
that aim to prevent abandonment require some type of support when the
land is abandoned because farmers cannot comply with CAP re­
quirements, whereas other types of support may be needed to address
45
Environmental Science and Policy 133 (2022) 44–53
demographic drivers of abandonment (e.g., generation renewal issues).
To address these questions, we first reviewed how abandoned agri­
cultural lands are addressed in the European Green Deal policy frame­
work. Second, through expert interviews, we explored the challenges
faced by landowners to manage abandoned lands given the different
policy options available and collected suggestions to address these
challenges. Building on the results from the policy review and the expert
interviews, we developed recommendations for future policies to
enhance the potential of abandoned lands to contribute to achieving the
European Green Deal. The context dependency of abandonment pro­
cesses and potentials for different land trajectories make it a complicated
issue to address at a general level. By combining the policy review and
expert interviews, our approach allows, nonetheless, to build an over­
view of the current trends and challenges faced in Europe.
2. Methods and material
2.1. EU policy review
We performed a review of the policies linked to the European Green
Deal that are the most likely to affect trajectories in abandoned farm­
lands in Europe. We accessed the full texts of these policies on the EU
law database (eur-lex.europa.eu) and screened for the keywords
“abandoned (agricultural) lands” and “land / agricultural abandon­
ment”. Using a pre-defined coding table, we extracted the reference,
policy type (e.g., regulation, directive) and land uses and/or manage­
ment practices applicable to these lands. We distinguished explicit
mentions (keyword identified) from non-explicit references. The latter
referred to provisions that we assessed as relevant for abandoned lands
as they reflected possible trajectories for these farmlands that were
described in the literature (e.g., Corlett, 2016; Munroe et al., 2013; van
der Zanden et al., 2017). The selection process for the review is further
described in annex (Table A.1).
2.2. Perspectives on policies from experts
We interviewed 30 experts between March and July 2021 to gather
information on the implications of the identified policies for trajectories
in abandoned farmlands. Experts were identified through the authors’
networks, nature conservation projects websites (e.g., http://www.
efncp.org) and recommendations from interview participants. To ac­
count for the contextual specificities of land abandonment in different
European regions, we selected experts from various groups (scientists,
NGOs, landowner organisations, private sector) who worked at different
geographical scales and with different expertise (Table B.1).
We conducted online semi-structured interviews around three
themes. First, we invited experts to describe how European (or national,
when applicable) policy frameworks of the past 10–20 years for envi­
ronment, climate, rural development and agriculture addressed aban­
doned agricultural lands in their area(s) of expertise. Second, we invited
experts to reflect on the land management challenges faced by land­
owners, and how they suggested to address them in future policies.
Third, experts described how they – and estimated that landowners –
perceived the relative influence of policies from different levels (EU,
national and regional level) to incentivise or constrain trajectories in
abandoned lands. We organised the information collected into individ­
ual coding tables structured by potential alternative land trajectory, type
of issue reported and policy suggestions (Tables B.2–B.31). Building on
the individual tables, we counted occurrences of the elements reported
by experts for each type of trajectory and summarised the challenges and
suggestions.
C.M.J. Fayet et al.
3. Results
3.1. Policy review
Fig. 1 is a schematic synthesis of the potential influence of the main
policies linked to the European Green Deal on biodiversity, rural
development, and climate change objectives for abandoned lands and
their future development. Table 1 summarises the results of the policy
review (see Table A.2 for detailed information). Ten of the 39 EU legal
documents reviewed made explicit references to abandoned lands.
We found explicit references to abandoned lands in the EU Forest
Strategy for 2030 (European Commission, 2021b) and related Staff
Working Document (SWD/2021/651 final), both of which are directly
linked to the European Green Deal. These documents acknowledge the
potential of abandoned agricultural lands to contribute to tree planting
(“4.8 million hectares may become available from agricultural land being
abandoned between 2015 and 2030” Perpiña Castillo et al., 2021, as cited
in SWD/2021/651 final, p.6), thus supporting climate change and
disaster risk mitigation along with job opportunities and people’s
health. Tree planting should however remain conditional to the levels of
biodiversity on these lands to avoid negative impacts (SWD/2021/651
final). While different motivations to initiate tree planting are identified
for landowners (e.g., economic and environmental with erosion con­
trol), several barriers are also mentioned, including cultural barriers,
risk aversion, opportunity costs and lack of knowledge (SWD/2021/651
final). However, there is no information on how these obstacles will be
addressed in the Forest Strategy apart from outlining that “Member States
are specifically encouraged, as relevant to their national circumstances, to set
up a payment scheme for ecosystem services for forest owners and managers,
in order to cover for costs and income foregone” (COM/2021/572 final,
p.17). The proposal for the revision of the Land Use, Land-Use Change
and Forestry (LULUCF) regulation further acknowledges the potential of
abandoned (and degraded) lands to increase biomass, biofuels and bio
liquids, thus contributing to the EU 2030 climate objectives
(COM/2021/554 final). This contrasts with a non-binding (preparatory)
document to hinder their use: “non-productive grassland, agriculture land
set aside, fallowed or abandoned […] may represent biodiversity- and
carbon-rich ecosystems, they are therefore considered as pristine ecosystems
in the modelling to specifically account for the potential negative impact of the
conversion to energy crops” (SWD/2020/176 final, p. 104).
We found most other explicit references to abandoned lands in reg­
ulations related to the CAP and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural
Development that existed before the Green Deal, including measures to
Fig. 1. Potential trajectories for abandoned lands in response to landowners’ decision-making regarding the main policies reviewed. Policies with higher weight (law
or regulation) have stronger line border.
46
Environmental Science and Policy 133 (2022) 44–53
prevent abandonment and support entry farming (Regulations EU 1305/
2013; 1307/2013; 2017/2393; and Directive 75/268/CEE). Similar
objectives are also explicitly mentioned in the European Commission’s
long-term vision for rural areas, which includes four “areas for action” to
make rural areas stronger, connected, resilient and prosperous by 2040
(COM/2021/345 and SWD/2021/166). Key elements of this vision
notably include strengthening rural prosperity (including rural tourism),
bio-economy and sustainable farming and forestry. Implementing this
vision may, therefore, guide new trajectories for abandoned lands, even
though they were not explicitly mentioned.
The other documents reviewed did not refer explicitly to abandoned
farmlands. For instance, the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 (Euro­
pean Commission, 2020a) does not detail the land-use types that are to
contribute to agricultural high-diversity landscapes or strict protection
objectives, although abandoned lands could apply. Indeed, protection
and restoration of degraded ecosystems can be relevant for abandoned
farmlands (COM/2011/0244), as well as support for economic activities
favourable to biodiversity (Regulation EU 2020/852). The Birds and
Habitats Directives reviewed are also relevant for the maintenance and
restoration of ecosystems benefiting biodiversity, notably in abandoned
farmlands within the Natura 2000 network (Directive 2009/147/EC and
92/43/EEC).
Although none of the climate change policies mentioned the type of
land concerned for renewable energy and bioenergy crops, we found
relevant provisions regarding the protection of biodiversity value that
could regulate the use of abandoned lands (e.g., Directive EU 2018/
2001; COM/2020/562). The Farm to Fork Strategy could drive the reuse
of abandoned lands and reduce abandonment with new eco-schemes to
encourage agro-ecology, carbon farming and agro-forestry (COM/2020/
381).
3.2. Challenges in EU policies
Experts reported 125 challenges in reusing abandoned lands or
continuing management that we grouped in a number of categories
(Table 2). Policy and governance challenges were frequently mentioned
(34%). These included issues in policy definition (e.g., unclear objec­
tives), conflicting policies (between agriculture, afforestation and nature
conservation policies) and land ownership issues (e.g., inheritance,
cadastral issues) that made new uses of abandoned lands challenging.
Experts also described a gap between policy definition at European (or
national level) and implementation in local contexts. This included a
lack of land planning tools (to map abandoned lands and subsequent
 Table 1

C.M.J. Fayet et al.

Summary of the policy review. Policies of the European Green Deal are in bold. The type of land trajectory identified for abandoned lands is shown with an “x”. (Abbreviation for the type of document are: D – directive, R –
regulation, S – strategy, O – other; Abbreviation for the reference to abandoned lands: E – explicit; N-E – non-explicit). The full version of the table is in Table A.2, including references of policies, access links, quotes of
relevant components, as well as additional policies not directly relevant to this analysis.
Policy area EU policies (by year of publication) Type Reference Refarming Recultivation Sustainable Avoid Afforestation Agro- Restoration, Wind;
(Bioenergy) farming abandonment forestry protected areas Solar
energy

Climate and Forest Strategy for 2030 (COM/2021/572 final) and S E x x x

energy accompanying document (SWD/2021/651 final)
Renewable Energy Directive (Directive (EU) 2018/ D N-E x
2001; Proposal COM/2021/557 final)
LULUCF Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2018/841 and R E x
proposal COM/2021/ 557)
EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change S N-E x x x
(COM/2021/82)
European Climate Law (COM/2020/80 final; and O N-E x x x x x
provisional agreement 2020/0036(COD))
Impact assessment: Stepping up Europe’s 2030 O E x x x
climate ambition (…) (SWD/2020/176 final)
2030 Climate Target Plan (COM/2020/562) O N-E x x
2030 climate & energy framework (COM/2014/015) O N-E x x x
Biodiversity EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 (COM/2020/380 S N-E x x x
final)
Framework to facilitate sustainable investment R N-E x x x x x
(Regulation EU 2020/852)
EU Forest Strategy (COM/2013/659 final) S N-E x
EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (COM/2011/244) S N-E x x
Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/ EC); Habitats D N-E x
Directive (92/43/EEC)
47

Rural A long-term Vision for the EU’s Rural Areas (…) by O E and N-E x x x x x x x
development 2040 (COM/2021/345 final) and accompanying
document SWD/2021/166 final
Farm to Fork Strategy (COM/2020/381) S N-E x x
Regulation EU 2020/2220 on the conditional R N-E x
extension of CAP regulations until the implementation
of the future CAP reform
Regulation EU 2017/2393 amending previous CAP R E x
regulations
Regulation EU 1307/2013 on income support for R E x
farmers under schemes within the framework of the
CAP
Regulation EU 1305/2013 on support for rural R E x x
development by the European agricultural fund for

Environmental Science and Policy 133 (2022) 44–53

rural development
Directive 75/268/EEC on mountain and hill farming D E x
and farming in certain less- favoured areas
C.M.J. Fayet et al. Environmental Science and Policy 133 (2022) 44–53

opportunities for new trajectories), lack of communication with local
populations, economic uncertainties (i.e., for biocrop cultivation), and
administrative complexity (hindering farmers’ motivation to engage in
new management practices).
Experts outlined that addressing these challenges with only agricul­
tural policies is insufficient, unless other social policies are provided to
improve services (health, education, employment) and connectivity
(roads, access to internet). This lack of services often correlated with
economic challenges such as limited economic profits from traditional
or extensive farming systems, lack of funding for land (re-)use and
barriers for economic activities (e.g., loss of agriculture subsidies for
afforestation).
Experts described a combination of social, management, policy, and
economic barriers to sustainable (re-)farming (i.e., agro-ecology and
agro-forestry), including the lack of visibility of these systems in agri­
cultural policies, insufficient advisory and financial support, and com­
plex management. Policy support being limited for this type of farming,
it was mostly supported by private initiatives and organisations, but was
also often difficult to implement in areas with abandonment due to the
lack of workforce and markets available. Experts diverged in their vi­
sions for subsidy access: while some found eligibility to CAP subsidies
too restrictive (excluding traditional systems or not supporting agro-
ecology), others criticised risk of their misuse (e.g., when landowners
prioritise receiving money from subsidies over sustainable management
of their land). Biophysical limitations of the lands for farming and
climate change were also frequently reported as obstacles to the devel­
opment of new trajectories.
One expert reported a growing interest from the private sector to
invest in nature protection and restoration. However, such initiatives
often face issues inherent to the nature of abandoned lands (e.g., small,
scattered plots in some regions) and issues of the risk-return perspective
for investors that limit the scope of interventions (e.g., investing in re-
farming or forestry being more attractive than supporting land
restoration).
3.2.1. Expert analysis of policy results
When asked what policy level was the most influential in driving
trajectories in abandoned lands, experts often mentioned EU level pol­
icies. For instance, EU policies for biodiversity (Birds and Habitats Di­
rectives; Biodiversity Strategy) notably strengthen NGO and Member
State actions for nature conservation (“If the EU asks for it, we will do it.
Otherwise, we don’t do it”, E10). However, some experts (especially from
farmer organisations) were more sceptical about the weight of EU level
environmental policies and reported a feeling of disconnection in
farmers’ perceptions.
Regarding agricultural policies, most experts described the EU CAP
as most important (although conditional to farmers’ eligibility) for its
central role for economic support and to prevent abandonment. How­
ever, some experts outlined that these measures are often limited to
conventional farming systems and do not benefit sustainable farming (e.
g., agro-ecology, agroforestry or else traditional farming), indicating an
issue in the applicability of EU farming policies to local realities of
agricultural abandonment.
3.3. Opportunities in EU policies
We identified 184 suggestions across interviews to overcome the
above-mentioned challenges (Table 3). Changes in policy and gover­
nance were frequently suggested (41%). They included increasing the
use of participatory approaches and landscape planning to protect high
biodiversity value areas, especially from changes with high impacts on
landscapes (e.g., afforestation, wind farms, strictly protected areas).
Suggestions for social and economic changes included a stronger
recognition of the public goods that farmers and landowners provide
with extensive land uses and areas left for nature protection.
Experts did not systematically report why farmers abandoned their
lands. However, we found that different policy support was advised
depending on the reasons for abandonment. For instance, when de­
mographic processes (e.g., ageing farmers, rural exodus) drive

Table 2
Challenges for the different land trajectories. The numbers in the column (#) indicate how many times the issues were reported in interviews.
Trajectory Economic (market) # Social # Resources # Biotic, # Policy and governance #
(management) environmental

Refarming limited economic 2 lack of services 4 high labour costs 2 farming limitations 2 limited inventory of 2
(extensive) profits abandoned lands
difficult entry 5 landownership issues 31
farming political inertia
Sustainable farming lack information 4 requires 2 eligibility issues for 52
management subsidies lack policy
coherence
lack of training 2 administrative burden 1
Avoid abandonment limited economic 5 lack of services 84 high labour costs 5 farming limitations 5 lack policy incentives for 53
profits part of structural management land
changes ownership issues

subsidy eligibility issue 3

Tree planting low economic returns 6 irreversibility of 1 climate change 6 competing policies (loss 3
(afforestation) the land change of cap subsidies)
market competition 1 management costs 1 unclear policy objectives 2

Agro-forestry lack training; 2 requires 1 limited visibility in 2

information management policies
Natural succession, limits economic 41 lack of awareness 2 natural risks 3 competing policies 111
biodiversity, profits lack funding (wildfires, invasive landownership issues
protected areas for species) targets not time-bound
implementation and land-value 1 depends on political will 11
management dependent support varies with land
zoning
Recultivation market uncertainties 1 administrative 1
(bioenergy) complexity
limited bankability 1 uncertainty on subsidy 1
support
Wind; solar energy topography 1 flexibility land zoning 1
TOTAL ¼ 125 26 (21%) 23 (18%) 16 (13%) 18 (14%) 42 (34%)

48
C.M.J. Fayet et al. Environmental Science and Policy 133 (2022) 44–53

Table 3
Suggestions for the different land trajectories. The numbers in the column (#) indicate how many times the issues were reported in interviews.
Trajectory Economic # Social # Resources # Biotic / # Policy and #
(market) (management) environmental governance

Refarming support entry 5 better social 6 network and local 7 economic incentives 71
(extensive) farming services initiatives land planning
market 2 involve local 2
opportunities population
Sustainable reward 4 more information, farm 71 better policy 535
farming management advisory services coherence result
efforts develop networks based payments
flexibility CAP
eligibility
strong legal 2
incentives
Avoid reward market 6 better social 10 support management 2 CAP subsidies, eco- 5
abandonment value services costs schemes
public good 6 address 51
recognition abandonment drivers
protect cultural
landscapes
Tree planting long term payment 21 support management: 2 assess biodiversity 1052 spatial planning 10
(afforestation) reward provision longer term financial species choice rely on rules
of ecosystem support (beyond first natural succession if
services years and planting) sufficient
Agro-forestry training, information 2
Natural reward landowner 3 involve local 3 financial and technical 3 avoid top-down 433
succession, for public good population support for management policies payment for
protected provision (notably where ES policy clear
areas favourable outcomes are restoration targets
unlikely)
CAP reform (free up 2
land)
simplify procedures 3
no need for legal 1
enforcement
Recultivation for secure returns on 2 local initiatives 1 assess biodiversity 7 spatial planning 71
bioenergy investments (training, network) rules use bottom-up
policies
no intensive 5 simplify procedures 2
cultivation
Wind; Solar assess biodiversity 3 spatial planning 32
energy rules combine land
policies (e.g., solar
with biomass)
TOTAL = 184 25 (14%) 27 25 (14%) 32 75 (41%)
(15%) (17%)

abandonment, and if the goal is to prevent (or reverse) abandonment,
support focusing on social and economic aspects is key (as shown with
the “social” and “economic” suggestions for these trajectories in
Table 3). By contrast, if the issue is due to the conditions for CAP
eligibility, other types of policy actions – directed to agricultural policies
themselves, such as a reform of the CAP – were recommended by several
experts.
Experts diverged on the need for flexibility or stringency in policies.
For instance, some suggested that more biodiversity and nature regu­
lations should be added to farming and environmental policies, whereas
others argued that policies were already demanding enough. According
to them, adding legally binding measures would not increase progress
towards the European Green Deal targets, unless the reasons of past
failures were addressed (e.g., inadequacy of policies for local contexts,
lack of support and communication with landowners). Experts also had
diverging suggestions regarding the stringency of national policy tar­
gets. Some suggested more flexibility in environmental policy imple­
mentation (e.g., E22: “The main objectives and the framework must be
defined at the EU level, while at the same time leaving more room to the EU
Member States to create their specific measures to reach the EU targets”)
since socio-economic conditions, wildlife habitats, and the problems to
address vary across Europe. There were also recommendations for a CAP
reform that would increase subsidy eligibility for extensive and tradi­
tional systems, thus helping to avoid abandonment in biodiversity-rich
areas and supporting farmers to sustainably manage their lands. By
contrast, other experts feared that too much freedom for EU Member
States could hinder the potential for change and the benefits to biodi­
versity, since agriculture is a competitive market. To ensure that CAP
subsidies are used wisely and respect environmental objectives, the
creation of an independent body was also suggested.
As low-input farming systems are labour intensive, two experts
suggested that CAP payments should support the creation of “real green
jobs” and reduce market distortion, instead of “supporting large-scale
farming and the acquisition of chemical products” (E7). Another expert
suggested that taxes from urban citizens could support those in rural
areas that dedicate part of their land for nature, as a way to compensate
for lower production and reward the public good provided.
We summarised the results of the policy review and expert in­
terviews, by outlining the challenges, suggestions by experts, and the
potential of policies to address them (Fig. 2). Economic and financial
aspects account for the main challenges for all trajectories and were
often reflected in experts’ suggestions for policy improvements.
Although spatial planning was not often mentioned among the issues, it
was a frequent dimension of policy improvement suggestions, notably to
identify and protect areas of high nature-value from degrading land
transitions. The EU policies reviewed partially meet the suggestions,
although uncertainty on management and economic support remains.

49
C.M.J. Fayet et al.
Fig. 2. Selection of main challenges, suggestions and their relation to EU relevant policies, as identified in expert interviews. The most frequent elements reported for
each trajectory are in bold, based on the results in Tables 2 and 3.
4. Discussion
Most of the literature focusses on the challenges that agricultural
abandonment often brings in rural areas (Perpiña Castillo et al., 2018;
Schuh et al., 2020). However, it can provide opportunities to contribute
to the European Green Deal objectives for biodiversity, climate change
mitigation, and fostering sustainability in agricultural (re-)management.
Our results inform policy-makers about the challenges landowners often
experience in reusing or managing abandoned farmlands in Europe to
contribute to sustainability objectives. Building on the policy review and
expert interviews, we first discuss the limited attention to abandoned
lands in EU policies linked to the Green Deal. Then we address what role
the policy framework plays on the ground to support the management of
abandoned lands to contribute to policy objectives, but also elements of
the policy framework that hinder it, indicating potential gaps.
4.1. Abandoned lands in the EU policy framework
Agricultural abandonment is increasing in many European regions
(Levers et al., 2018; Schulp et al., 2019), with estimates of reaching 3%
of the total agricultural lands by 2030 (Perpiña Castillo et al., 2021).
However, our review shows that abandoned lands have a minor repre­
sentation in EU policies. The new Forest Strategy (European Commis­
sion, 2021b) and the revised LULUCF regulation of the Fit for 55
package (European Commission, 2021d) were the only policy docu­
ments of the Green Deal that made explicit references to the potential of
these lands to contribute to environmental objectives, notably the 3
billion additional trees pledge (which is also included in the Biodiversity
Strategy for 2030, but without mentioning abandoned lands) and
bio-economy. Other explicit mentions were in policies not directly
linked to the Green Deal.
Despite the high potential of abandoned farmlands for carbon
sequestration, ecosystem restoration, recultivation and other uses
(Chazdon et al., 2020; Estel et al., 2015; Navarro and Pereira, 2015),
most functions in EU policies for these lands were identified implicitly.
With such limited explicit visibility of abandoned lands in the overall
Green Deal policy framework, there is a risk of missing opportunities for
new land uses, as few legal incentives or supports exist. In addition,
there is a risk of failing to protect or restore lands that need it, especially
when they have high carbon sequestration or biodiversity values.
50
Environmental Science and Policy 133 (2022) 44–53
4.2. Management of abandoned lands: support and obstacles in the policy
framework
For biodiversity, abandoned farmlands certainly have the potential
to contribute to species protection and land restoration (Navarro and
Pereira, 2015). However, since they are not explicitly mentioned in EU
biodiversity targets (e.g., EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 (European
Commission, 2020b)), there is a management gap on the ground as
landowners and farmers often lack the information and support that
they would need. Similar issues were reported in nature restoration
studies, where the major barriers were socio-economic, with insufficient
funding, conflicting interests between stakeholders, and low political
priority given to restoration (Cortina-Segarra et al., 2021).
Implementation of biodiversity policies is also hampered by their
unequal attractiveness compared to the CAP. The loss of CAP subsidies
and uncertain economic returns of other land trajectories often reduce
landowners’ willingness to engage in trajectories focused on biodiver­
sity and nature conservation (“With the CAP they [farmers] have money
directly now. I think the most important for the farmers is the economic part”
E26). As shown in previous research, economic aspects are indeed
essential for most farmers and landowners (e.g., Cortina-Segarra et al.,
2021; Tokarczyk, 2018). Our results confirm that if abandoned lands are
not integrated within biodiversity and climate policies, there is little
chance of uptake on the ground and opportunities for (re-)management
risk being missed.
Most EU climate change policies did not explicitly mention aban­
doned lands, despite a potential for carbon sequestration (Yang et al.,
2020, 2019) or bioenergy (Campbell et al., 2008; EEA (European
Environment Agency), 2007). Therefore, opportunities to rely on
abandoned lands to contribute to climate change targets are uncertain,
due to lack of support for restoration of carbon sinks, and financial or
institutional challenges for landowners to reuse lands. In the meantime,
the low representation of abandoned lands in EU policies also suggests
that few legal constraints exist to preserve those with potentially high
nature value. Contributions to climate targets can therefore conflict with
biodiversity objectives (Serrano et al., 2020) and although bioenergy
and woody biomass can deliver co-benefits to biodiversity, these bene­
fits are highly dependent on the land use and management practices in
place (Bowyer et al., 2020).
For rural development, a main challenge with translating EU policies
C.M.J. Fayet et al.
to abandoned lands lies in the nature of these lands. Specifically, as
abandonment is often in areas with declining populations (Rey Benayas
et al., 2007), how can these policies apply to abandoned farmlands, if
there is no one to implement them? Therefore several experts outlined that
future policies should improve the socio-economic conditions in rural
areas, to ensure farmers receive a living and support with management
costs. Indeed, afforestation, re-farming, or even nature regeneration
requires at least some form of management to be successful, such as
vegetation control and fire risk mitigation in dry areas (Epple et al.,
2016). However, it seems unclear from the policy review how this can be
achieved, unless social services are strengthened (hence depending on
the future CAP).
4.3. Potential gaps and recommendations to address them
Three main areas of tension emerged from our analysis: (1) the lack
of recognition of abandoned lands in the EU (Green Deal) policy
framework; (2) the lack of policy alignment between biodiversity,
climate change and agriculture/rural development policies; and (3) the
crucial importance of spatial planning. We discuss each point below and
provide recommendations.
4.3.1. Increase the recognition of abandoned lands in EU policies
Our results showed that the potential of abandoned lands to
contribute to various trajectories (Fayet et al., 2022; Munroe et al.,
2013) is rarely explicitly mentioned, as most EU policies currently
address abandonment from an agriculture or rural development
perspective. This approach has several implications. First, addressing
abandonment in agricultural policy often implies that farming is main­
tained at all costs, which can result in harmful environmental effects
(Merckx and Pereira, 2015; Scown et al., 2020). Second, the way
abandonment is addressed in rural development policy is not entirely
successful, as indicated by both the continuation of abandonment and
the difficulties faced by young people in entering the sector (Dwyer
et al., 2019). Third, the lack of explicit mentions of the potential of
abandoned land for trajectories beyond farming means that land man­
agers are often not aware of the various options available for a given
land. Therefore, explicitly referring to “abandoned (agricultural) lands”
in policies is needed to both enhance positive outcomes from land
abandonment and ensure associated risks are managed (given the
context-dependency of abandonment consequences, as described in Rey
Benayas et al., 2007 and van der Zanden et al., 2017). Linking aban­
doned lands to the implementation of different multifunctional trajec­
tories can also help sustainably revive areas at risk of abandonment,
where nature protection and restoration can bring economic benefits
(WWF, 2021) and various activities can be supported in a sustainable
way (e.g., recreation, rural tourism, cultural heritage preservation).
Without increased attention to abandoned lands in policies, opportu­
nities for their reuse or sustainable management (where spontaneous
revegetation is limited) could be missed, or negative consequences, such
as increased wildfire risk, could occur. This would also require propos­
ing short to long-term perspectives to landowners, where these areas are
reintegrated with specific objectives in estate management plans. As
discussed below, better alignment in policy objectives and land planning
would support this change.
4.3.2. An integrating policy approach, with a stronger alignment between
EU policies for abandoned land trajectories
The current sectoral approach in the policy framework indicates a
gap between discourses for sustainable landscape uses and what is
accessible in reality to landowners. Consequently, more support should
be provided in terms of information, training and management to pro­
mote sustainable management of abandoned areas, including conser­
vation (as described in interviews and the literature (e.g., Disselhoff,
2015)). In addition, a better balance between policy objectives would
help reconnect farmers with the EU policy level, reduce tensions and
51
Environmental Science and Policy 133 (2022) 44–53
increase synergies between agricultural and biodiversity policies (Farkas
and Kovács, 2021) and between forestry and biodiversity (Burrascano
et al., 2016). Future policies should strengthen the (economic) attrac­
tiveness of abandoned land trajectories that do not primarily focus on
agricultural production (such as restoration trajectories), provide tech­
nical support, and reduce administrative complexity (interviews and
literature (e.g., Leverkus et al., 2020)). Payments to private landholders
for engaging in conservation can also contribute to biodiversity (Herzon
et al., 2018), even outside protected areas (McDonald et al., 2018). This
would be particularly relevant for future land abandonment that may
happen outside protected areas (e.g., Perpiña Castillo et al., 2020).
Moreover, landowners and farmers should be properly rewarded for the
benefits they provide to nature and people through sustainable man­
agement, measured for instance with ecosystem services (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) or nature’s contributions to people (Díaz
et al., 2018). Echoing some experts’ suggestions, we recommend
stronger measures in the CAP to reward activities and public good
provision rather than farm production or property size itself (as is the
case with per hectare subsidy schemes), with a focus on rural develop­
ment and incentives to farmers, as well as landowners and land man­
agers. This would align with interviews and previous research (Zahrnt,
2009) claiming that public money (financing the CAP) should be used
for the provision of public goods.
4.3.3. Stronger reliance on land planning
In parallel to the alignment between policy objectives, a more inte­
grated land planning is necessary to fill the gap between EU (or national)
policy targets and implementation on the ground. Landscape mapping of
the value of abandoned lands and their management potential would
inform decision-makers on suitable areas to contribute to policy targets
and identify potential developments that contribute most to the objec­
tives. Spatial planning is also of particular importance given the context
dependency of both the potential opportunities and threats of aban­
donment. This would for instance help identify, for different contexts:
(1) areas suitable for contributing to the strict protection target of the EU
Biodiversity Strategy, where there would already be low conflicts with
other uses due to the nature of abandonment, and good functional
quality for rewilding at different scales (e.g., Fernández et al., 2020;
Perino et al., 2019); (2) areas suitable for re-farming, where access to
land for new generations would be the most needed, which would revive
landscapes, for instance using sustainable farming practices as those
described in Oberč and Schnell (2020); or (3) lands suitable for
renewable energy and afforestation that are identified with impact
assessment to minimise trade-offs (Bowyer et al., 2020; Rowe et al.,
2009). Synergies between policies and land uses could also be increased
by assessing local ecosystem functions and connectivity, to combine for
instance land restoration in abandoned lands with solar panels (Her­
nandez et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2020). This would also be in line with
the Target 1 of the first draft of the new post-global biodiversity
framework (“Ensure that all land and sea areas globally are under integrated
biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning addressing land- and sea-use change,
retaining existing intact and wilderness areas” (CBD, 2021, p. 6)). We also
recommend planning under a “landscape approach” which includes
local stakeholders. For example, extensive grazing systems can benefit
conservation ecology and the sustainable reuse of abandoned lands,
while relying on integrated land planning that brings together tradi­
tional and scientific knowledge for a fair implementation in different
cultural and socio-economic contexts (Molnár et al., 2016).
A major limitation of our study is that, despite our focus on land­
owners’ challenges and opportunities in managing abandoned lands, we
did not speak with them directly. However, addressing the wide varia­
tion of landowners across the entire EU would require a very large
sample. To address this issue, we interviewed a wide range of experts,
including some working directly with landowners and farmers, thus
providing a more overarching perspective. However, this does not
exclude that there might be biases in the responses we collected and our
C.M.J. Fayet et al.
interpretation of the results. Moreover, as we took a comprehensive
approach to EU policies, we could not assess implementation challenges
in different countries or regions. A case-study approach with fieldwork
interviews would address these issues, but would only be valid in a
specific context. Across our study and the recommendations we provide,
we acknowledge that shortcomings with the terminology of “abandoned
agricultural lands” should be kept in mind. This term implies that these
lands remain framed within the agricultural context despite potential for
other uses, does not capture the reasons for abandonment (e.g., whether
ownership, management or both has been abandoned) and retains the
dominant view of framing the land based on its (economic) value. We
did not assess the different types of policy incentives (economic, legal,
voluntary) even if they do not have the same weight or effectiveness
(Primdahl et al., 2013). Our analyses and subsequent recommendations
reflect the policy landscape at the time of writing this paper. Un­
certainties still remain and debates are ongoing internally on the final­
isation of the Green Deal-related policies; consequently some of the
elements discussed are likely to evolve over time. Finally, future
research is needed to inform land managers on how to spatially identify
where to implement which policy objective to fit with local contextual,
socio-economic and biophysical conditions.
5. Conclusions
Overall, the European Green Deal and other related environmental
policies provide few mentions of areas with high potential to develop
land uses and practices for their objectives, such as abandoned farm­
lands. Increasing attention to these lands should not be at the cost of
their intrinsic values and future generations’ uses. This requires an in­
tegrated policy approach and careful spatial planning for a nuanced
treatment, accounting for the variations in biophysical and socio-
economic characteristics, as well as governance and culture that char­
acterise different European regions. The gap between policy objectives
and implementation by land-use deciders needs to be reduced to more
rapidly and effectively achieve the objectives defined in the European
Green Deal for climate, biodiversity and rural development.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Catherine M.J. Fayet: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investiga­
tion, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Kate H. Reilly: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review &
editing. Chantal Van Ham: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing –
review & editing. Peter H. Verburg: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors express their gratitude to the 30 experts who partici­
pated in the interviews for their time and valuable contributions to this
research. This work was supported by the project TERRANOVA the
European Landscape Learning Initiative, which has received funding
from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No.
813904. The output reflects the views only of the authors, and the Eu­
ropean Union cannot be held responsible for any use, which may be
made of the information contained therein.
52
Environmental Science and Policy 133 (2022) 44–53
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
online version at doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2022.03.007.
References
Bowyer, C., Tucker, G., Underwood, E., Nanni, S., Becerra, G., Pantzar, M., Edwards, L.,
2020. Potential Impacts of Bioenergy Developments on Habitats and Species
Protected Under the Birds and Habitats Directives. Final Report Under EC Contract
ENV.D.3/SER/2017/0002 Project: “Reviewing and Mitigating the Impacts of
Renewable Energy Developments On. 〈https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec/2011/
833/oj〉.
Burrascano, S., Chytrý, M., Kuemmerle, T., Giarrizzo, E., Luyssaert, S., Sabatini, F.M.,
Blasi, C., 2016. Current European policies are unlikely to jointly foster carbon
sequestration and protect biodiversity. Biol. Conserv. 201, 370–376. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.005.
Campbell, J., Lobell, D.B., Genova, R.C., Field, C.B., 2008. The global potential of
bioenergy on abandoned agriculture lands. Environ. Sci. Technol. 0–3.
CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity), 2021. First Draft of the Post-2020 Global
Biodiversity Framework. 〈https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/abb5/591f/2e46096d3f0
330b08ce87a45/wg2020-03-03-en.pdf〉.
Chazdon, R.L., Lindenmayer, D., Guariguata, M.R., Crouzeilles, R., Rey Benayas, J.M.,
Lazos Chavero, E., 2020. Fostering natural forest regeneration on former agricultural
land through economic and policy interventions. Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (4) https://
doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab79e6.
Copus, A., Dax, T., 2020. ESPON ESCAPE Final Report Annex 01 – Policy Context.
〈https://www.espon.eu/escape〉.
Corlett, R.T., 2016. The role of rewilding in landscape design for conservation. Curr.
Landsc. Ecol. Rep. 1 (3), 127–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40823-016-0014-9.
Cortina-Segarra, J., García-Sánchez, I., Grace, M., Andrés, P., Baker, S., Bullock, C.,
Ventocilla, J.L., 2021. Barriers to ecological restoration in Europe: expert
perspectives. Restor. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13346.
Dessart, F.J., Barreiro-Hurlé, J., Van Bavel, R., 2019. Behavioural factors affecting the
adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review. Eur. Rev. Agric.
Econ. 46 (3), 417–471. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbz019.
Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R.T., Molnár, Z.,
Shirayama, Y., 2018. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359 (6373),
270–272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826.
Disselhoff, T., 2015. Alternative Ways to Support Private Land Conservation. 〈http://ec.
europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/generalpublications/do
cuments/support_land_conservation.pdf〉.
Dwyer, J., Micha, E., Kubikanova, K., van Bunnen, P., Schuh, B., Maucorps, A.,
Mantino, F., 2019. Evaluation of the Impact of the CAP on Generational Renewal,
Local Development and Jobs in Rural Areas. Directorate-General for Agriculture and
Rural Development. https://doi.org/10.2762/364362.
EEA (European Environment Agency), 2007. Environmentally Compatible Bio-energy
Potential from European Forests. 〈https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/techn
ical_report_2007_12〉.
ELO, 2020. ELO Reflections on the Proposed EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 “Bringing
Nature Back Into Our Lives.” CountrySide, pp. 3–5. 〈https://www.europeanla
ndowners.org/images/CS_Magazines/CS188_GB.pdf〉.
Epple, C., García Rangel, S., Jenkins, M., Guth, M., 2016. Managing Ecosystems in the
Context of Climate Change Mitigation: A Review of Current Knowledge and
Recommendations to Support Ecosystem-based Mitigation Actions That Look Beyond
Terrestrial Forests. Technical Series No. 86. Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, Montreal.
Estel, S., Kuemmerle, T., Alcántara, C., Levers, C., Prishchepov, A., Hostert, P., 2015.
Mapping farmland abandonment and recultivation across Europe using MODIS NDVI
time series. Remote Sens. Environ. 163, 312–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rse.2015.03.028.
European Commission, 2019. The environmental objectives of the future CAP. 〈http
s://ec.europa.eu/info/news/environmental-care-and-climate-change-objectives-
future-cap-2019-jan-25_en〉.
European Commission, 2020a. Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions A Farm to Fork Strategy for A Fair, Healthy and
Environmentally-friendly Food System. 〈https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/
EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0381〉.
European Commission, 2020b. EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 – Bringing Nature Back
Into Our Lives. 〈https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=159057412
3338&uri=CELEX:52020DC0380〉.
European Commission, 2021a. Commission Staff Working Document the 3 Billion Tree
Planting Pledge for 2030 Accompanying the Document Communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. In SWD(2021) 651 Final.
European Commission, 2021b. Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions New EU Forest Strategy for 2030. In COM(2021) 572 Final
Communication.
European Commission, 2021c. Fit for 55 – Delivering the EU’s 2030 Climate Target on
the Way to Climate Neutrality. COM(2021) 550 final. 〈https://eur-lex.europa.eu/le
gal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0550〉.
C.M.J. Fayet et al.
European Commission, 2021d. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and
of the Council Amending Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament
Regards the Promotion of Energy from Renewable Sources, and Repealing Council
Directive (EU) 2015/65. 〈https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/amendment-
renewable-energy-directive-2030-climate-target-with-annexes_en.pdf〉.
European Court of Auditors, 2020. Biodiversity on Farmland: CAP Contribution Has Not
Halted the Decline. 〈https://doi.org/10.2865/336742〉.
European Court of Auditors, 2021. Common Agricultural Policy and climate. Half of EU
Climate Spending But Farm Emissions Are Not Decreasing. 〈https://doi.org/10.28
65/285879〉.
Farkas, J.Z., Kovács, A.D., 2021. Nature conservation versus agriculture in the light of
socio-economic changes over the last half-century–case study from a Hungarian
national park. Land Use Policy 101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2020.105131.
Fayet, C.M.J., Reilly, K.H., Van Ham, C., Verburg, P.H., 2022. What is the future of
abandoned agricultural lands? A systematic review of alternative trajectories in
Europe. Land Use Policy 112, 105833.
Fernández, N., Torres, A., Wolf, F., Quintero, L., Pereira, H.M., 2020. Boosting Ecological
Restoration for a Wilder Europe.
Griscom, B.W., Adams, J., Ellis, P.W., Houghton, R.A., Lomax, G., Miteva, D.A.,
Fargione, J., 2017. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114 (44),
11645–11650. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710465114.
Hernandez, R.R., Hoffacker, M.K., Murphy-Mariscal, M.L., Wu, G.C., Allen, M.F., 2015.
Solar energy development impacts on land cover change and protected areas. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112 (44), 13579–13584. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1517656112.
Herzon, I., Birge, T., Allen, B., Povellato, A., Vanni, F., Hart, K., Pražan, J., 2018. Time to
look for evidence: results-based approach to biodiversity conservation on farmland
in Europe. Land Use Policy 71, 347–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2017.12.011.
Keenor, S.G., Rodrigues, A.F., Mao, L., Latawiec, A.E., Harwood, A.R., Reid, B.J., Reid, B.
J., 2021. Capturing a soil carbon economy. R. Soc. Open Sci. 8, 202305 https://doi.
org/10.1098/rsos.202305.
Kuemmerle, T., Levers, C., Erb, K., Estel, S., Jepsen, M.R., Muller, D., Reenberg, A., 2016.
Hotspots of land use change in Europe. Environ. Res. Lett. 11 https://doi.org/
10.1088/1748-9326/11/6/064020.
Leverkus, A.B., Rey Benayas, J.M., Solís, P., Sierra, J.M., 2020. Enabling conditions for
the implementation and conservation outcomes of a private nature reserve. Ecol.
Solut. Evid. 1 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12019.
Levers, C., Müller, D., Erb, K., Haberl, H., Jepsen, M.R., Metzger, M., Kuemmerle, T.,
2018. Archetypical patterns and trajectories of land systems in Europe. Reg. Environ.
Chang. 18, 715–732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0907-x.
MacDonald, D., Crabtree, J.R., Wiesinger, G., Dax, T., Stamou, N., Fleury, P., Gibon, A.,
2000. Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: environmental
consequences and policy response. J. Environ. Manag. 59 (1), 47–69. https://doi.
org/10.1006/jema.1999.0335.
McDonald, J.A., Helmstedt, K.J., Bode, M., Coutts, S., McDonald-Madden, E.,
Possingham, H.P., 2018. Improving private land conservation with outcome-based
biodiversity payments. J. Appl. Ecol. 55 (3), 1476–1485. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1365-2664.13071.
Merckx, T., Pereira, H.M., 2015. Reshaping agri-environmental subsidies: from marginal
farming to large-scale rewilding. Basic Appl. Ecol. 16 (2), 95–103. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.baae.2014.12.003.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis.
Island Press, Washington, DC.
Molnár, Z., Kis, J., Vadász, C., Papp, L., Sándor, I., Béres, S., Varga, A., 2016. Common
and conflicting objectives and practices of herders and conservation managers: the
need for a conservation herder. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2 (4) https://doi.org/
10.1002/ehs2.1215.
Munroe, D.K., van Berkel, D.B., Verburg, P.H., Olson, J.L., 2013. Alternative trajectories
of land abandonment: causes, consequences and research challenges. Curr. Opin.
Environ. Sustain. 5 (5), 471–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.06.010.
Navarro, L.M., Pereira, H.M., 2015. Rewilding abandoned landscapes in Europe.
Rewilding European Landscapes, pp. 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
12039-3_1.
Oberč, B.P., Schnell, A.A., 2020. Approaches to Sustainable Agriculture. Exploring the
Pathways Towards the Future of Farming (Iucn Euro, Ed.). 〈https://doi.org/10.2305
/IUCN.CH.2020.07.en〉.
Pe’er, G., Lakner, S., Müller, R., Passoni, G., Bontzorlos, V., Clough, D., Zinngrebe, Y.,
2017. Is the CAP Fit for purpose? An Evidence-based Fitness-check Assessment.
Leipzig, German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv), Halle-Jena-
Leipzig.
Perino, A., Pereira, H.M., Navarro, L.M., Fernández, N., Bullock, J.M., Ceauşu, S.,
Wheeler, H.C., 2019. Rewilding complex ecosystems. Science 364, eaav5570.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav5570.
53
Environmental Science and Policy 133 (2022) 44–53
Perpiña Castillo, C., Aliaga, E.C., Lavalle, C., Llario, J.C.M., 2020. An assessment and
spatial modelling of agricultural land abandonment in spain (2015-2030).
Sustainability 12, 560. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020560.
Perpiña Castillo, C., Jacobs-Crisioni, C., Diogo, V., Lavalle, C., 2021. Modelling
agricultural land abandonment in a fine spatial resolution multi-level land-use
model: an application for the EU. Environ. Model. Softw. 136, 104946 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104946.
Perpiña Castillo, C., Kavalov, B., Diogo, V., Jacobs, C., Batista E. Silva, F., Lavalle, C.,
2018. Agricultural Land Abandonment in the EU Within 2015–2030 | EU Science
Hub. 〈https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-re
search-reports/agricultural-land-abandonment-eu-within-2015-2030〉.
Pointereau, P., Coulon, F., Girard, P., Lambotte, M., Stuczynski, T., Sánchez Ortega, V.,
Del Rio, A., 2008. Analysis of the Driving Forces behind Farmland Abandonment and
the Extent and Location of Agricultural Areas that are Actually Abandoned or are in
Risk to be Abandoned. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports. 〈http://publications.
jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC46185〉.
Primdahl, J., Kristensen, L.S., Busck, A.G., 2013. The farmer and landscape management:
different roles, different policy approaches. Geogr. Compass 7 (4), 300–314. https://
doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12040.
Rey Benayas, J.M., Martins, A., Nicolau, J.M., Schulz, J.J., 2007. Abandonment of
agricultural land: an overview of drivers and consequences. CAB Rev. Perspect.
Agric. Vet. Sci. Nutr. Nat. Resour. 2 (057) https://doi.org/10.1079/
PAVSNNR20072057.
Rowe, R.L., Street, N.R., Taylor, G., 2009. Identifying potential environmental impacts of
large-scale deployment of dedicated bioenergy crops in the UK. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 13 (1), 271–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2007.07.008.
Rytter, L., Ingerslev, M., Kilpeläinen, A., Torssonen, P., Lazdina, D., Löf, M., Stener, L.G.,
2016. Increased forest biomass production in the Nordic and Baltic countries – a
review on current and future opportunities. Silva Fenn. 50 (5), 1–33. https://doi.
org/10.14214/sf.1660.
Schuh, B., Derszniak-Noirjean, M., Gaupp-Berghausen, M., Hsiung, C.-H., Münch, A.,
Dax, T., Brkanovic, S., 2020. Research for AGRI Committee – The Challenge of Land
Abandonment after 2020 and Options for Mitigating Measures. 〈https://bit.ly/39El
cFJ〉.
Schulp, C.J.E., Nabuurs, G.-J., Verburg, P.H., 2008. Future carbon sequestration in
Europe-effects of land use change. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 127 (3–4), 251–264.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.04.010.
Schulp, C.J.E., Levers, C., Kuemmerle, T., Tieskens, K.F., Verburg, P.H., 2019. Mapping
and modelling past and future land use change in Europe’s cultural landscapes. Land
Use Policy 80, 332–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.030.
Scown, M.W., Brady, M.V., Nicholas, K.A., 2020. Billions in misspent EU agricultural
subsidies could support the sustainable development goals. One Earth 3 (2),
237–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.07.011.
Serrano, D., Margalida, A., Juan, M., Juste, J., Traba, J., Carrete, M., Aihartza, J., 2020.
Renewables in Spain threaten biodiversity. Science, 370(6522), pp. 1282–1283.
〈http://science.sciencemag.org/〉.
Stürck, J., Levers, C., van der Zanden, E.H., Schulp, C.J.E., Verkerk, P.J., Kuemmerle, T.,
Verburg, P.H., 2018. Simulating and delineating future land change trajectories
across Europe. Reg. Environ. Chang. 18 (3), 733–749. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10113-015-0876-0.
Tokarczyk, N., 2018. Challenges for the conservation of semi-natural grasslands in
mountainous national parks - case studies from the Polish Carpathians. Carpathian J.
Earth Environ. Sci. 13 (1), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.26471/cjees/2018/013/
017.
van der Zanden, E.H., Verburg, P.H., Schulp, C.J.E., Verkerk, P.J., 2017. Trade-offs of
European agricultural abandonment. Land Use Policy 62, 290–301. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.01.003.
Vidyaratne, H., Vij, A., Regan, C.M., 2020. A socio-economic exploration of landholder
motivations to participate in afforestation programs in the Republic of Ireland: the
role of irreversibility, inheritance and bequest value. Land Use Policy 99, 104987.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104987.
Wolff, S., Schrammeijer, E.A., Schulp, C.J.E., Verburg, P.H., 2018. Meeting global land
restoration and protection targets: What would the world look like in 2050? Glob.
Environ. Chang. 52, 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.08.002.
WWF, 2021. Factsheet 2 Economic Benefits of Investing in Nature Restoration. 〈https
://wwfeu.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_factsheet_nature_restoration_soc_
economic_web.pdf〉.
Yang, Y., Tilman, D., Furey, G., Lehman, C., 2019. Soil carbon sequestration accelerated
by restoration of grassland biodiversity. Nat. Commun. 10 (1), 1–7. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41467-019-08636-w.
Yang, Y., Hobbie, S.E., Hernandez, R.R., Fargione, J., Grodsky, S.M., Tilman, D.,
Chen, W.-Q., 2020. Restoring abandoned farmland to mitigate climate change on a
full earth. One Earth 3 (2), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
oneear.2020.07.019.
Zahrnt, V., 2009. Public Money for Public Goods: Winners and Losers From CAP Reform.
ECIPE (European Centre for International Political Economy) Working Paper, 32
(08), pp. 1–37.