# Role of science and scientists in public environmental policy debates: The case of EU agrochemical and Nature Restoration Regulations

Guy Pe'Er, Jana Kachler, Irina Herzon, Daniel Hering, Anni Arponen, Laura Bosco, Helge Bruelheide, Elizabeth Finch, Martin Friedrichs-Manthey, Gregor Hagedorn, et al.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Guy Pe'Er, Jana Kachler, Irina Herzon, Daniel Hering, Anni Arponen, et al.. Role of science and scientists in public environmental policy debates: The case of EU agrochemical and Nature Restoration Regulations. People and Nature, In press, 17 p. 10.1002/pan3.70064. hal-05137467

HAL Id: hal-05137467

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05137467v1

Submitted on 1 Jul 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

PERSPECTIVE

# Role of science and scientists in public environmental policy debates: The case of EU agrochemical and Nature Restoration Regulations

Guy Pe'er¹,² ID

Jana Kachler¹,²,³,⁴ ID

Irina Herzon⁵ ID

Daniel Hering⁶ ID

Anni Arponen⁷ ID

Laura Bosco⁸ ID

Helge Bruelheide²,⁹ ID

Elizabeth A. Finch¹,²,³ ID

Martin Friedrichs-Manthey¹,²,³ ID

Gregor Hagedorn¹⁰ ID

Bernd Hansjürgens¹¹,¹² ID

Emma Ladouceur²,¹³,¹⁴,¹⁵,¹⁶ ID

Sebastian Lakner¹⁷ ID

Camino Liquete¹⁸ ID

Laura López-Hoffman¹⁹ ID

Isabel Sousa Pinto²⁰,²¹ ID

Marine Robuchon¹⁸ ID

Nuria Selva²²,²³,²⁴ ID

Josef Settele²,²⁵,²⁶ ID

Clélia Sirami²⁷ ID

Nicole M. van Dam²,³,²⁸ ID

Heidi Wittmer²⁹ ID

Aletta Bonn¹,²,³ ID

Correspondence

Guy Pe'er

Email: guy Peer@idiv.de

Funding information

German Research Foundation DFG, Grant/Award Number: 442032008; Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Grant/Award Number: 01UT2102A; Research Council of Finland, Grant/Award Number: 350649; iCAP-BES Project Awarded by the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, through German Research Foundation grant, Grant/Award Number: DFG FZT 118; HORIZON EUROPE, Grant/Award Number: 101060816; Kone Foundation

Handling Editor: Alex Erwin

Abstract

1. Halting biodiversity loss, mitigating global warming and maintaining the long-term viability of rural and urban areas requires urgent policy action. However, environmental policies often trigger resistance and highly polarised public debates, with some actors employing pseudo-scientific claims. This raises concern about the increasing impact of misinformation on policymaking.

2. Here, we analyse the role of science and scientists in the public debate around two pieces of legislation that were proposed in 2022 by the European Commission as part of the Green Deal, namely the Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR) and the Sustainable Use Regulation (SUR) of plant protection products.

3. First, we examine key claims against these two legislative proposals and contrast them with scientific evidence. We show that these claims fail to consider ample scientific evidence that restoring nature and reducing the use of agrochemicals are essential for maintaining long-term agricultural production and enhancing food security. Critics further failed to acknowledge that the NRR and SUR may generate new employment opportunities and stimulate innovation, with high return rates and multiple beneficiaries across society, fostering a transition to sustainable production and consumption models.

4. Second, we examine how the publication of an open letter, signed by 6000 scientists, may have influenced the public debate. We contrast the role that

For affiliations refer to page 10.

This is an open access article under the terms of the [Creative Commons Attribution License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2025 The Author(s). *People and Nature* published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society.
scientific evidence played in the fate of the NRR, which was adopted, against the fate of the SUR, which was rejected by the European Parliament.

5. We draw lessons from these two cases that illustrate the global tension between environmental protection and economic-driven interests to spread misinformation. We argue that scientists should play an important role in making scientific evidence more accessible and available to the general public and policymakers for informed decision-making. We recommend that scientists be proactive and unbiased in providing information and data and that policymakers use scientific evidence and engage scientists in developing much needed, well informed environmental policies.

KEYWORDS

food security, land-use conflicts, misinformation, Nature Restoration Regulation, policy, science policy, sustainable agriculture, Sustainable Use Regulation

# 1 | INTRODUCTION

We are currently facing a combination of global crises, many of which are directly generated by anthropogenic pressures on the Earth's systems. Having already surpassed six out of nine Planetary Boundaries (Persson et al., 2022; Richardson et al., 2023; Rockström et al., 2009), urgent action is needed to find sustainable paths forward for society. Halting biodiversity loss and mitigating climate change, while maintaining long-term productivity of ecosystems used for food provision, require us to reduce the human pressures driving current crises and restore nature's capacity to recover and deliver life-support services.

Pressures to intensify the use of land and sea are still growing. Infrastructure development, land-use change and habitat degradation are continuing throughout the world, and biodiversity losses are accelerating (IPBES, 2019). While various policies and regulations globally are being negotiated and introduced, many of them are weakly designed or poorly implemented (e.g. protected areas and restoring nature; Bekessy et al., 2010; Gill et al., 2017). In other cases, existing policies are being deregulated (Gasparri et al., 2016; Ruggiero et al., 2021). Policy processes around the world are being hijacked to pursue political or economic goals, sometimes in the name of science but often using pseudo-scientific claims. For example, Samet and Burke (2020) document how the United States has deregulated pollution control by reducing the Environmental Protection Agency's research capacity and altering long-established scientific protocols. As of 2025, scientific data are being removed from numerous official US government websites, including epidemiological information, weather, climate and human population demographics (Gafney, 2025; Wikipedia, 2025).

Scientists across disciplines are concerned that public debates and policy processes at all levels are being increasingly polarised and potentially disrupted by misinformation (Yang et al., 2017). In

particular, social media effectively spread misinformation as they selectively circulate content beyond their original source context (Gundersen et al., 2022)—a problem which is well known in the context of climate change (Farrell et al., 2019) and was highly evident in the case of COVID-19 (Hartley & Vu, 2020). This particularly causes problems in times when numerous new targets for national and international environmental policies are being set and ratified (e.g. Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Framework, Convention on Biological Diversity, 2022). Measures to protect the environment are often viewed as barriers to meeting other human needs and interests, such as infrastructure development, food security or economic growth (Samet & Burke, 2020). Since failures to protect the environment have documented long-term costs for society (Ackerman & Stanton, 2008), it becomes urgent to consider how scientific evidence could be operationalised better to support decision-making processes (Cook et al., 2013; Langer et al., 2016). Public debates usually occur over relatively short periods of time, and as a result, scientists who wish to weigh in on the debate need to provide a rapid synthesis of unbiased expert opinions based on the best available evidence, while maintaining a reliable representation of complexities and uncertainties. Thus, the process of debunking misinformation may require proactive intervention in decision-making processes, without violating the role of an honest broker (Pielke, 2007).

Here, we focus on two policies recently proposed in the EU under the EU Green Deal framework, the Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR) and the Sustainable Use Regulation (SUR), as two contrasting case studies. First, we examine eight dominant arguments that were made against the NRR and SUR (Table 1; Table S1) and compare these claims with scientific evidence. We then discuss the role scientists played in the public debates around these negotiations. Finally, we reflect on the role of science and scientists in contributing to evidence-based policies, using the best available science, in highly political or contested circumstances.
## 2 | THE NATURE RESTORATION REGULATION (NRR) AND THE SUSTAINABLE USE REGULATION OF PLANT PROTECTION PRODUCTS (SUR)

These two legal proposals responded to the poor state of the environment in the EU. Eighty-one per cent of so-called 'Sites of Community Importance' that are presumably protected are in unfavourable or poor condition (European Environment Agency, EEA, 2020). The majority of soils in Europe (60%-70%) are classified as degraded (Veerman et al., 2020). Nearly 70% of the fish stocks are subject to overfishing and over half of these are outside of safe biological limits (Froese et al., 2018). Pesticides are detected above thresholds of concern in 83% of agricultural soils (Silva et al., 2019) and in 22% of aquatic monitoring sites (EEA, 2023), as well as in 84% of urine tests among Europeans (Ottenbros et al., 2023). These examples illustrate an overall environmental crisis, impacting our health and well-being.

The European Green Deal, as originally proposed by the European Commission (2019), attempted to respond to this crisis by providing an ambitious long-term strategy to protect and enhance the EU's natural capital. The Green Deal aims to (i) preserve and restore ecosystems and biodiversity, as reflected in the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 (European Commission, 2020a); (ii) develop a fair, healthy and environmentally friendly food system, represented in the Farm to Fork Strategy (European Commission, 2020b); and (iii) reach zero pollution and a toxic-free environment (European Commission, 2021). To achieve the Green Deal objectives, the European Commission proposed several new policies, including the NRR and SUR.

The NRR (a.k.a. Nature Restoration Law) aims to establish effective restoration measures on habitats that are not in good condition (30%, 60% and 90% by 2030, 2040 and 2050, respectively) and sets targets to ensure the resilience of agri-food systems. It includes quantitative targets, timelines, wide geographical coverage and implementation details to track progress, and it addresses some key weaknesses of the present policy framework, which is based on voluntary measures (Hering et al., 2023). The NRR can therefore be considered a global landmark as a legally binding instrument to implement the Global Biodiversity Framework across borders, that is, across all EU member states.

The Sustainable Use Regulation of Plant Protection Products (a.k.a Sustainable Use Regulation or SUR; European Commission, 2022b), primarily aimed to reduce the overall use and risk from chemical pesticides by 50%, and to reduce the use of hazardous pesticides by 50% at the EU level. Other objectives of the SUR proposal were to (i) increase the application and enforcement of integrated pest management and the use of less hazardous and non-chemical alternatives to chemical pesticides, (ii) improve the availability of monitoring data on pesticides, health and environment, (iii) enhance the implementation, application and enforcement of legal provisions across Member States to improve policy effectiveness and efficiency and (iv) promote the adoption of new

technologies toward these goals. The SUR would have required Member States to adopt and implement national targets toward 2030, compared to 2015-2017 as baseline years. However, these targets were not legally binding and lacked specific enforcement mechanisms.

The Green Deal has faced growing resistance, culminating in an intense political campaign against the NRR and the SUR during 2023 (Euronews, 2023). Various societal actors and policymakers argued that the NRR and SUR would impede the swift recovery of European economies from such crises as COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine. Claims were made that the NRR and SUR would have adverse effects on farmers, fishers and society at large, threatening food security, reducing jobs and competing with the transition to renewable energy (Table S1). Despite the somewhat similar claims against both, the two policies had different fates. The NRR was negotiated among Parliament Members from June to November 2023. After its final version was voted favourably in November 2023, it passed final approval by the European Council in June 2024. The SUR was rejected by the European Parliament in November 2023.

## 3 | KEY CLAIMS AGAINST THE NRR AND SUR AND THEIR SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS

Here we analyse eight key claims used in the campaigns against the NRR and SUR (Table 1, concrete examples in Table S1) and compare them with scientific evidence gathered by our multidisciplinary expert group. Since this paper focuses on the policy debate during the negotiations of the legislative proposals, we refer in our NRR analysis to the original legal proposal (European Commission, 2022a).

### 3.1 | Land taken out of production

A key claim against the NRR and SUR was that they would result in farmland being abandoned or taken out of production, thereby leading to significant declines in agricultural production. This claim was primarily based on the fact that the NRR initially proposed that at least 10% of the EU's agricultural area should be covered with high-diversity landscape features (Article 14 in European Commission, 2022a). Taking 10% of agricultural land out of production would obviously be a valid concern for farmers (Wachter-Karpfinger & Wytrzens, 2024), especially in times of increasing demand for global food supply (European Commission, 2022c).

However, the claim that the NRR would take 10% of agricultural land out of production is erroneous. First, during the early stages of the NRR's negotiations, 'high-diversity landscape features' were redefined in a way that allowed some level of productive activities, and in its final version, the 10% target was removed. Instead, the NRR focused on improving the state of habitat types mainly in the Habitats Directive, including several grassland types that depend on the maintenance of extensive farming practices. Moreover, the
<table><caption>TABLE 1 Synthesis of the claims against the Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR) and Sustainable Use Regulation (SUR) and key elements of the scientific analysis. For concrete examples of the claims see Table S1.</caption><thead><tr><td>Claim</td><td>Scientific analysis</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. NRR will take 10% land out of production</td><td>- Common Agricultural Policy already requires 3% of non-productive areas, and eco-schemes support farmers up to 7%<br/>- Land is already being abandoned in marginal regions<br/>- An adequate spatial strategy would decrease land abandonment</td></tr><tr><td>2. SUR will decrease yield</td><td>- Decreasing pesticide use without changing other practices may result in up to 30% yield loss<br/>- Yield is negatively impacted by soil degradation, climate change and biodiversity loss<br/>- Combining a decrease in pesticide use with agroecological practices is necessary to maintain yields</td></tr><tr><td>3. NRR and SUR will increase food insecurity</td><td>- Food insecurity depends on food production, accessibility, diet and waste<br/>- EU primarily exports animal products and imports feed<br/>- Reducing animal production and overconsumption, food waste and biofuel production is key to increase food security</td></tr><tr><td>4. NRR will decrease fishing activities</td><td>- Increasing restrictions would decrease fishing activities within Marine Protected Areas<br/>- Fisheries are mainly affected by unsustainable fishing and climate change<br/>- Restoring Marine Protected Areas would enhance yield of neighbouring fisheries</td></tr><tr><td>5. NRR and SUR will decrease incomes and kill jobs</td><td>- The farm to fork strategy may result in loss of jobs and farm income<br/>- Jobs are already decreasing despite Common Agricultural Policy investments<br/>- NRR and SUR can generate jobs</td></tr><tr><td>6. NRR and SUR will place a burden on society</td><td>- Restoring nature in protected areas would cost a total of €154 billion but the estimated benefits are at €1860, that is, a 12:1 ratio of benefits to costs<br/>- Climate change and pesticide overuse are a burden on society impacting health and extreme weather conditions</td></tr><tr><td>7. NRR and SUR are too risky in time of war</td><td>- The war generated an increase in food and energy prices in 2022<br/>- Markets have rapidly stabilised in 2023<br/>- Reducing food demand and dependencies on energy imports are more important for increasing resilience</td></tr><tr><td>8. NRR undermines renewable energy targets</td><td>- There are trade-offs between increasing forest biomass harvest and other uses/restoration targets<br/>- Burning biomass produces emissions and is highly contested for climate change mitigation<br/>- NRR could restore natural carbon sinks and mitigate climate change</td></tr></tbody></table>

Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in its current funding period (2023–2027), already requires farmers to dedicate the equivalent of at least 3% of arable land to biodiversity and non-productive elements, with a possibility of receiving support via eco-schemes to reach a 7% target.

Secondly, unrelated to nature restoration efforts, some farmland areas are already gradually falling out of production in the EU. Land abandonment occurs in marginalised regions where regional socio-economic viability is undermined (Alliance Environment, 2020). This is particularly true for so-called “High Nature Value” farmlands, where CAP support is insufficient to prevent the abandonment of the least productive land (Pe'er et al., 2021; Scown et al., 2020).

Finally, the 10% claim does not affect farmers directly: the targets are set for Member States, who are flexible on how they set their own national targets, while farmers can contribute to this target on a voluntary basis. Importantly, this approach can allow for restoring agricultural habitats associated with low productivity levels, such as peatlands or areas with persistent or forecasted waterlogging and flooding (Bonn et al., 2016; Tanneberger et al., 2021).

## 3.2 | Yield losses

Another claim asserted that the NRR and SUR would result in yield losses and therefore a decrease in agricultural production. This was based on the assumption that the SUR would result in a full 50% reduction in pesticide use (Article 4 in European Commission, 2022b) in all crops and all EU Member States. Several studies analysed the potential impacts of such pesticide reduction on crop yields and concluded that it would indeed reduce crop yields—up to 30% in worst-case scenarios, leading to higher food prices, increased imports and reduced exports of commodities (Beckman et al., 2020). Such impacts would indeed be worrying.

However, these studies were based on a simplistic interpretation of how pesticide reduction targets could be implemented and what their impacts are likely to be (Schneider et al., 2023). Typically, pesticide reduction is not implemented in isolation but rather associated with other practices such as precision agriculture or integrated pest management. Accordingly, studies indicated that pesticide use can be reduced by more than 40% without negative effects on
food productivity (Lechenet et al., 2017). This can be achieved by agroecological management practices, such as implementing diversified crop rotation (Deguine et al., 2021; Lechenet et al., 2014) or using cover crops (Wezel et al., 2014). In addition, a range of precision agriculture approaches, such as autonomous weeding robots equipped with specific spectral sensors, combined with online information systems on pest population development, can reduce the application of pesticides considerably (Anastasiou et al., 2023; Finger, 2023; Rajmis et al., 2022) and could be supported by policies (Möhring et al., 2020).

Furthermore, those studies estimating that the SUR would reduce crop yields failed to consider the positive feedback that pesticide reduction would have on yields. Biodiversity loss and associated losses of ecosystem services (Beckmann et al., 2019; IPBES, 2018) are among the main drivers of yield losses, in particular under climate change (Seppelt et al., 2020; Pörtner et al., 2021). Fifty per cent of the EU area planted with pollinator-dependent crops experiences a deficit in pollinators (Maes et al., 2020), and the potential yield losses create an economic loss equivalent to 8.1%-9.9% of the total value of plant production in the EU (FAO, 2023). Yield losses due to droughts in 2018 ranged between 15% and 25% in many German arable systems (D'Agostino, 2018), with an estimated loss valued at around €7-8 bn. (Trenczek et al., 2022); while the drought events of 2018-2020 have led to yield losses across Europe of historical dimensions (Rakovec et al., 2022). Yield losses are further affected by poor soil conditions in more than 60% of the EU area, due to reduced soil biodiversity, pollution, loss of organic matter, compaction, salinisation and soil sealing (JRC, 2023; Veerman et al., 2020). Finally, climate change increases the severity of pest infestations (Harvey et al., 2023; Lenton et al., 2019). A recent study linked the die-off of bats due to an invasive fungal pathogen in the Eastern United States with an increase of 31.3% in pesticide use to substitute losses in natural pest control by bats. This resulted in an increase of 7.9% in infant death rates in the affected counties, while crop revenue nevertheless declined by 28.9% (Frank, 2024).

The measures proposed by the two regulations could help reduce long-term risks of yield loss by increasing functional diversity, which can help alleviate the adverse effects of climate change on crop production (Dainese et al., 2019 and references therein). The values of landscape diversification are well understood and documented (Pywell et al., 2015; Pe'er et al., 2022; Petit & Landis, 2023). It can be achieved through various agroecological practices, such as maintaining semi-natural landscape features, diversifying crops, reducing field sizes, employing soil protection and restoration measures and implementing agroforestry (Reganold & Wachter, 2016).

## 3.3 | Food insecurity

A third claim asserted that by taking land out of production and hampering yields, the NRR and SUR would increase global food insecurity. This claim rested on the EU's central role in world markets. Some studies have estimated that the Farm to Fork and biodiversity

strategies may result in increased food insecurity for an additional 30.1 million (EU-only) to 171 million (Global) people in 2030 (e.g. Baquedano et al., 2022).

However, these studies insufficiently consider that in the EU food production is not a key determinant of food security. Rather, food accessibility, food waste and high consumption of meat in industrial countries have been shown to be as important, if not more important, than global food production (FAO et al., 2021; Holt-Giménez et al., 2012; Tscharntke et al., 2012). Notably, the EU primarily exports dairy and meat products (European Commission, 2023). For instance, between 2010 and 2020, the EU produced more than its own requirements for products such as pork (117%), beef and veal (106%), poultry (111%) and milk (110%) (European Commission, 2023a). In addition, most of the grain produced in the EU is used to produce animal feed (62.4% in 2020/2021; European Commission, 2020c; Lakner, 2023) and an increasing land demand for biofuel production. This leads to increased food prices, making foods less accessible to the poorest in society (Lakner, 2023). Finally, the EU heavily depends upon imports of many products including soy (mostly for feed), palm oil, oil seeds and maize, leading to substantial use of land and resources in the global south for feed and industrial crops (European Commission, 2022d; Zinngrebe et al., 2024).

Considering the EU's huge land demand (Kastner et al., 2021), the most efficient way for the EU to contribute to both local and global food security is to reduce the production and consumption of meat and dairy products (Röös et al., 2017; Costa et al., 2022), to reduce food waste (Parfitt et al., 2010; Shepon et al., 2018) and to reduce biofuel production (Lakner et al., 2022). In Germany alone, approximately 12 million tonnes of food are wasted annually, of which 7-7.6 million tonnes are avoidable (Schmidt et al., 2019). A European legislative framework for sustainable food systems (FSFS), that was originally due for publication in autumn 2023, would have been key to achieve this transformation of food consumption patterns. The combination of the FSFS, the NRR and SUR could have therefore contributed to reaching environmental objectives without jeopardising food production, let alone food security (Röös et al., 2022).

Some misleading arguments were carried into the final formulation of the NRR. For example, Article 27 of the NRR requires the Commission to suspend its implementation in agricultural areas under emergency situations 'with severe Union-wide consequences for the availability of land required to secure sufficient agricultural production for Union food consumption'. With only 30% of agricultural land in Europe used to food crops, we cannot foresee justifiable conditions for this to occur. If real food shortages were to occur, it would be more effective to transition the vast land tracts that are currently used for feed and fuel production to produce food crops, rather than convert the use of fallow and marginal lands—with marginal benefits but high risks.

## 3.4 | Fishing restrictions

A fourth claim asserted that the NRR would have a negative impact on fisheries due to limitations and changes in fishing areas. This
claim was based on the fact that NRR restrictions, within strictly protected Marine Protected Areas (MPAs, Article 5), may cause a 'displacement effect' where some fisheries lose access to certain areas. Such displacements occur especially during so-called transition periods, namely in response to new management measures (Suuronen et al., 2010; Vaughan, 2017).

However, this claim failed to consider that the main risks to fisheries originate from the combination of unsustainable fisheries, climate change and pollution (Moerlein & Carothers, 2012; Pörtner & Knust, 2007). The fraction of marine fish stocks harvested at an unsustainable level globally has increased from 10% in the 1970s to almost 35% in 2017 (Stankus, 2021) and reaches 70% in some parts of Europe (Issifu et al., 2022). Large species, either directly targeted or caught as bycatch, are under exceptionally high risk of extinction (Fernandes et al., 2017). Moreover, no-take zones (i.e. the strictest protection level) cover merely 1% of the area of European MPAs, therefore having a direct effect on a marginal proportion of fisheries—and even when affected, losses can be compensated (Greenstreet et al., 2009; Suuronen et al., 2010).

In contrast, establishing MPAs, especially large and fully protected ones, has been shown to be a cost-effective means to preserve and even enhance fisheries yields (Di Lorenzo et al., 2020; Frid et al., 2023; Pendleton et al., 2018; Sala & Giakoumi, 2018). MPAs can lead to an increase in species biomass and diversity and promote the dispersal of larvae and adults of various taxa (Pendleton et al., 2018 and references therein). For example, a meta-analysis has shown that the biomass of whole fish assemblages in fully protected marine reserves is, on average, 570% greater than in unprotected areas (Sala & Giakoumi, 2018). This increase may benefit adjacent fisheries due to spillover effects from MPAs into nearby less protected or unprotected areas (Di Lorenzo et al., 2020; Edgar et al., 2014; Grorud-Colvert et al., 2021). For instance, fish abundance is 30% higher and biomass is 50% higher along the MPA borders compared to more distant regions (Di Lorenzo et al., 2020). Finally, the positive effects of MPAs are likely to persist also under climate change (Frid et al., 2023), thereby mitigating the impacts of the possibly biggest challenge that commercial fisheries will face in the future (Pendleton et al., 2018).

'High-risk' fishing practices currently take place in over 80% of the total area of MPAs in Europe and the United Kingdom (Perry et al., 2022). For example, bottom trawling, considered as especially destructive for marine flora and fauna (Steadman, 2021), harmful in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and contested in terms of socio-economic impacts (Steadman et al., 2021), has been documented in almost 60% of Atlantic and Baltic Sea MPAs (Dureuil et al., 2018). By improving the protection of a few marine areas, the NRR can therefore contribute to the restoration of key nurseries or essential fish habitats, such as seagrass and macroalgal beds and other coastal habitats, which will help the recovery of fish and shellfish, and in return benefit fisheries.

## 3.5 | Income and job security

Another claim was that the NRR and SUR would 'kill jobs'. Job security is indeed an important issue, since employment in agriculture and fisheries has continuously declined during the last decades. Between 2005 and 2020 alone, the number of farms in the EU declined by 37%, to 9.1 in 2020 (i.e. 5.3 million fewer than in 2005; Eurostat, 2022). Some assessments of the potential impacts of the Farm to Fork strategy did forecast losses of incomes and jobs (e.g. Barreiro et al., 2021; Beckman et al., 2020; Henning et al., 2021). These assessments, however, have been criticised due to their conceptual and practical limitations (Candel, 2022a). For instance, they ignored the socio-economic and technological adaptation capacities of farms, they ignored interactions between complementary policy instruments, and did not consider the entire value chain. Yet more importantly, they ignored the key factors affecting jobs in agriculture and fisheries, namely, structural changes (i.e. increasing centralisation) and technical progress resulting in the replacement of labour by technologies (Westhoek et al., 2014). Current agricultural policies have also disadvantaged small-scale farmers and failed to avert the ongoing rural exodus (Scown et al., 2020). Likewise, the replacement of labour by technologies has resulted in a rapid loss of jobs in the fisheries sector (Gascuel et al., 2011). Finally, the effects of climate change and land degradation further make farming a less attractive livelihood (Buchenrieder, 2007).

Highlighting job losses while ignoring both the drivers of unemployment and the potential for job creation is, at best, misleading. Efficient ways to ensure job security in the agricultural and fisheries sectors would be to improve the resilience of small- and family businesses (Björkvik et al., 2020), improve the distribution of existing subsidies, promote sustainable production and generate greater benefits by shortening value chains (e.g. direct marketing), in line with agroecological principles. By restoring ecosystems and their multiple uses, the NRR could contribute to more sustainable production while bearing the potential to create new employment, through new production models (e.g. paludiculture; Temmink et al., 2023). For instance, business models focusing on extension tend to be more labour intensive and therefore preserve or generate employment opportunities (Vandeplas et al., 2022; Vona, 2019). Most importantly, by complementing the Nature Directives, the measures proposed by both the NRR and SUR could prevent the climate-change-induced collapse of local and regional production systems and, with them, the subsequent collapse of jobs in the coming decades. This, however, will largely depend on implementation, and particularly, the efforts made by Member States in mobilising additional funding (see also Hering et al., 2023).

## 3.6 | Burden on society

Another claim was that the NRR and SUR would generate new restrictions that would increase the burden on society, in a period of crises
when people cannot bear additional burdens. Setting new require-
ments or regulations to restore nature, and developing alternatives
to pesticides, does indeed require significant funding and investment.
There can also be short-term local scale trade-offs between produc-
tion and nature-conservation measures, generating both winners and
losers (e.g. farmers, fisheries or real-estate investors affected).

In the long term and on much larger scales, however, society pays twice for the unsustainable way in which we use land- and seascapes and particularly farmlands. On the one hand, public funds are used to support farmers through the CAP, with an investment of €55 bn./year. On the other hand, unsustainable land uses contribute to climate change, biodiversity losses, soil degradation and reduction in water availability and quality, while enhancing risks, for example, from floods—while calling for compensations when damaged by these. For example, the costs to compensate farmers for yield losses due to the 2018 droughts represented €572 Mio. in Germany, Sweden and Poland alone (Bastos et al., 2020).

Another burden on ecosystems and society originates from the overuse of agrochemicals, with severe health implications. A pan-European study showed that 84% of urine samples collected from adults and children in five countries contained at least two different pesticides, with children being particularly affected (Ottenbros et al., 2023). Among the health impacts, an increased incidence in Parkinson's disease in Europe has been linked to long-term exposure to synthetic pesticides (Paul et al., 2023). The health costs due to nitrogen exposure were estimated at €75-485 bn./year, compared to a net benefit of its usage estimated at €20-80 bn./year at the EU level (Van Grinsven et al., 2013).

By contributing to climate change mitigation and minimising
biodiversity loss and pesticide overuse, the measures proposed
by the NRR and SUR can have economic benefits that outweigh
the costs. It is estimated that restoring 10% of the areas protected
under the Habitats Directive to so-called "good condition" within
EU territory would cost in total circa €154 billion. The projected
benefits of restoring the EU's biodiversity-rich habitats are ex-
pected to reach €1860 billion: a cost-benefit ratio of 1:12 (European
Commission, 2022e). Moreover, restoring carbon-rich ecosys-
tems provides significant economic benefits by mitigating climate
change damages (Hepburn et al., 2020). For instance, the monetary
value of the carbon stock of the seagrass meadows of the Baltic
Sea alone was determined to be €231.9 million (Röhr et al., 2016)
and the value of the carbon stock of European forests has been es-
timated at €1493/ha (€783-3468/ha) (Raihan et al., 2021). Beyond
monetary value, biodiversity and associated ecosystem services
are central to physical and mental well-being across a range of en-
vironments (Dasgupta, 2021), including the protection of lives and
properties in cases of floods (Dixon et al., 2015; Mehl, 2017; Le
Coent et al., 2021; Turkelboom et al., 2021), improving life quality
in urban spaces (Marselle et al., 2021; Methorst et al., 2021), and
supporting intrinsic and relational values (IPBES, 2022; Pascual
et al., 2017). As a result, when considering the number of beneficia-
ries, the NRR and the SUR represent an exceptionally cost-efficient
investment rather than a burden for society.

3.7 | Ukraine war

A related claim to the 'burden on society' was that one cannot
place new policy burdens in a time of war, especially since the war
risks increasing food insecurity and destabilising markets. The
Russian war on Ukraine indeed generated a shock to food and en-
ergy prices and short-term food shortages especially outside the
EU. The price for wheat increased from €275/t to circa €400/t in
June 2022.

However, based on a grain deal between Russia, Ukraine and Turkey, wheat exports from Ukraine through the Black Sea were maintained in the second half of 2022, grain prices dropped to €300/t in January 2023, and the global supply situation stabilised. (Götz & Svanidze, 2023). Despite the termination of the grain initiative by Russia on 17th July 2023, the situation of the global markets continued to be stable since then. In the medium term, a tight supply situation for grain, maize and oil seeds might remain a challenge, but it has no link to biodiversity policies in the EU (Lakner, 2023). In fact, low prices in the Eastern EU and a reported regional oversupply of Ukrainian grain led the EU Commission to restrict deliveries of Ukrainian agricultural commodities from March 2023 onwards. In fact, the EU Commission reported a record high level of exports and imports in 2024 (European Commission, 2024a), contradicting the claim that Europe is facing a severe scarcity of commodities due to the war.

The war in Ukraine offers no argument to delay environmen-
tal legislation, certainly not on the grounds of grain scarcity. As
numerous reports demonstrate, such delays are likely to lead to
ever-increasing costs of action (Ackerman & Stanton, 2008; Ahmed
et al., 2022; OECD, 2019; Sanderson & O'Neill, 2020; Sumaila &
Cheung, 2010). Instead, crises could be wisely used as a window
of opportunity to foster a more rapid transition toward sustainable
socio-economic arrangements.

Finally, several reports provide more thorough analyses on pol-
icy measures that the EU can make in response to the war without
compromising its sustainability ambitions (e.g. ARC2020, 2022),
with some estimating that a reduction in the demand of both food
production and energy for transport and infrastructure develop-
ment would most effectively address the food scarcity concerns
(Creutzig, 2022; Sun et al., 2022). The Green Deal, and the SUR and
NRR therein, should therefore be regarded not as a burden in times
of war but rather as a means to foster transition to sustainable and
resilient models of production and consumption, which can reduce
dependence on imported energy and agrochemicals, and at the same
time ensure that agri-food systems are healthy, fair, self-sufficient
and resilient (Iacobuță et al., 2022).

3.8 | Renewable energy

Finally, claims were made that the NRR would undermine renewable energy in Europe, particularly biofuel production. It is important to acknowledge the role of forest biomass in reducing fossil fuel use
in the short term in industries heavily reliant on them (Bioenergy Europe, 2020; Cowie et al., 2021). However, the combustion of forest biomass is not carbon neutral and the climate mitigation potential of this energy source varies widely (Cowie et al., 2021). Under some conditions, it may even emit more CO₂ per unit of energy than burning fossil fuels (Schlesinger, 2018).

There is an indisputable trade-off in maximising the harvest of wood biomass for bioenergy against restoring and maintaining forests in their natural state for biodiversity, carbon storage and other ecosystem services. This is well illustrated by the case of Finland, where chemical, forest and energy sectors outlined targets for intensified forest biomass use, well above the attainable yield from Finnish forests and over double that of the already high logging level of 2019 (Majava et al., 2022). The increased logging is projected to decrease the carbon sink, jeopardising the 2035 climate neutrality goal and posing further risks to already highly endangered biodiversity.

The targets on both the restoration of carbon-rich agricultural ecosystems and on renewable energy primarily address the mitigation of climate change. The latest independent assessment demonstrated that bioenergy may play a much smaller role in climate change mitigation than suggested by most earlier scenarios (Merfort et al., 2023). Burning residues and post-consumer wood can have the highest additionality, since this avoids the competing needs for forest biomass, but half of wood burnt in the EU is 'primary woody biomass' (about 40% of the EU's renewable energy; Camia et al., 2021). The practice of burning primary woody biomass is currently economically viable due to considerable public subsidies. It is, therefore, a highly contested tool for climate mitigation in the long term, a social burden and a high risk for biodiversity and forest ecosystem functions. Achieving the restoration targets under NRR does not preclude use of the restored and remaining forests for multiple products, including that for bioenergy, primarily from the residues and side-streams. Numerous assessments highlight that the best climate change mitigation measures are (i) protecting and restoring natural climate sinks, of which forests hold a considerable potential (Mo et al., 2023), and (ii) reducing energy demand—especially in transport, buildings and food production, which is possibly even sufficient to cut the EU dependency on imported gas and oil (Creutzig, 2022). Therefore, implementing the NRR is possible on par with restricting burning of primary woody biomass from primary forests and diverting subsidies into zero-emissions renewable energy and energy efficiency measures.

## 4 | SYNTHESIS OF CLAIMS AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

Notably, most claims against the NRR and SUR were linked to agriculture and food production, and based on short-term arguments such as risks of pandemics, military conflicts and financial crises. While some claims reflected valid concerns, such as potential yield

declines and losses of specific job types, most were contrary to the scientific evidence (Table 1). Some claims also misinterpreted the actual nature of measures in the proposals, such as the fact that the NRR focuses primarily on improving the status of protected habitat types rather than the expansion of protected areas. Our overview of scientific evidence highlighted the importance of restoring good ecological conditions of habitats, and in particular, the need to reduce the use of agrochemicals. It suggested that benefits that could be achieved by the NRR and SUR would encompass the long-term production capacity of land and marine environments, food security, job creation, innovation and sustainable production models.

## 5 | THE ROLE OF SCIENTISTS IN THE PUBLIC DEBATE

### 5.1 | Scientists' open letter

The campaign against the NRR and SUR, based on the claims addressed above, originally placed the NRR at risk of rejection, with a 44:44 vote at the environmental committee of the EU's Parliament in June 2023. In response to the misinformation-campaign, scientists (many of whom co-authors of this paper) wrote an open letter in favour of the NRR and SUR delineating the arguments listed above. The letter was signed by 6000 scientists (Pe'er et al., 2023). Writing the open letter required understanding the two legislative proposals, identifying the main claims against these policy proposals and gathering relevant scientific evidence to address these claims by multidisciplinary experts, within a short period of time. The open letter was disseminated through scientific networks and its publication was followed by a press conference and invitations for members of Parliament to meet with scientists.

### 5.2 | Adoption of the NRR

The arguments of the open letter provided scientific support to NGOs and businesses, as well as government agencies and parliamentarians making their case in favour of an ambitious NRR and SUR, and voiced by major news outlets (newspapers, radio stations and social media). Overall, public support for the NRR was estimated at 80% in selected EU countries (WWF, 2024). The combined actions of NGOs, businesses, concerned policymakers and scientists moved the next Parliamentary vote toward a tight but favourable outcome for the NRR on 12 July 2023. After several rounds of amendments and further negotiations, and with a considerable delay generated by lobby pressures and re-emergence of the same claims (see #9 in Table S1), the NRR was finally approved by the European Council in June 2024, again with a tight result. During this time, numerous scientists published additional supporting letters within their countries, attended science-policy dialogues and events, and delivered supporting evidence in favour of the NRR. Overall, the intense efforts of providing scientific evidence in accessible form
and direct interaction with politicians were acknowledged by various politicians and stakeholders as an important contribution to the final approval of the NRR.

## 5.3 | Rejection of the SUR

In 2022, following pressure from the Parliament, the European Commission generated a version of the SUR that was significantly weaker on the environmental targets than the original one. Despite such weakening, the SUR was rejected altogether on 22 November 2023, with a majority of 299:207:121 (against: in favour: abstain). In early 2024, in response to the farmers' demonstrations, Commissioner von der Leyen announced a full withdrawal of the SUR meaning that the legislative proposal will not be tabled again. This happened despite public support of the SUR signed by over 1.1 million EU citizens (see www.savebeesandfarmers.eu/eng), and an open letter signed by hundreds of European scientists, appealing the EU to approve it (Candel, 2022b). Thus, in this case, the contribution of scientists did not help.

# 6 | DISCUSSION

## 6.1 | Lessons from the different fates of the NRR and SUR

The differing outcomes of negotiations over the NRR and SUR warrant a reflection on possible reasons, as well as the role of science and scientists. In our opinion, three main differences stand out.

First, the NRR and SUR differed in terms of consensus level within the society. There is a relative consensus both in society and science for the need to restore nature. In a Eurobarometer survey among >27,000 citizens (Kantar, 2020), 94% of citizens expressed that protecting the environment is important for them; and even among farmers, the EU consultation on 'modernising and simplifying the CAP' indicated a majority of farmers supported an improvement in the environmental performance of the CAP (ECORYS, 2017). By contrast, there is less consensus with regards to the feasibility, costs and impacts of reducing agrochemical use. For instance, despite growing evidence (e.g. EEA, 2023), there is still a high level of perceived uncertainty among many citizens about the causal relationship between pesticides and human health impacts. Moreover, implementing alternatives such as Integrated Pest Management requires substantial learning and investments in research, development and extension services (Deguine et al., 2021).

Second, the NRR and SUR differ in the degree of voluntary participation. In the NRR, most of the proposed measures are optional for those involved, while in the SUR, the measures were obligatory. Moreover, arguments in favour of the SUR were mostly about long-term health benefits for consumers, whereas counterarguments

focused on short-term fears regarding food insecurity. For instance, the interruption of supply chains triggered by COVID and the war in Ukraine have influenced the perceptions of food security of European consumers. Moreover, decades of reliance on pesticides have resulted in a high-risk-aversion behaviour among many producers (Chèze et al., 2020). This may explain why misinformation was much harder to address in the case of the SUR than in the NRR.

Third, the role of industry, and sectors that stood most to lose, differed. If approved, the SUR Regulation would have had a direct impact on agrochemical producers, potentially leading toward reduced dependence of farmers on such chemicals. Goulson (2020) highlights the efforts of the agrochemical industry to block initiatives toward the reduction of pesticide use, and Deguine et al. (2021) demonstrate how the agrochemical industry has been shaping the distorted adoption of Integrated Pest Management by lobbying, marketing, and manipulation. As producers of agrochemicals are among the most active and powerful lobbies, pressure on politicians to reject the SUR was likely much higher (Deguine et al., 2021 and references therein). By contrast, the potential impacts of the NRR spread among many sectors, possibly allowing for processes of de-liberation and compromise.

## 6.2 | Global relevance

The debates around the NRR and SUR legislation and environmental policy are not unique to Europe. Globally, land- and sea-use conflicts are worsening and environmental resources are dwindling; while in many parts of the world, environmental legislation and policies are facing increased resistance, pressures for deregulation or complete cancellation. Likewise, the use of misinformation in environmental debates becomes increasingly common globally. Examples are the use of make-believe controversies and misleading arguments to aid the dismantlement of environmental conservation policies in Brazil (Forti et al., 2023; Rajão et al., 2022), inaccurate claims on the impacts of agrochemical products by those working within the industry, demonstrated for example in a case study in Guatemala (Murray & Taylor, 2000), or misleading the public about the causative link between fossil fuel use and climate warming by members of the fossil fuel industry, as, for example, by ExxonMobil in the United States (Supran et al., 2023). The Dublin Declaration, a pro-livestock statement on the societal role of livestock without acknowledging health risks and environmental impacts, provides another recent example of a flawed scientific advocacy that shows how selective evidence and unwarranted polarisation can compromise the integrity of academic engagement (Herzon, 2024; Krattenmacher et al., 2024). It is increasingly difficult to address the misuse of evidence due to the use of sophisticated strategies, including pseudo-scientific claims (e.g. Adams et al., 2023; Farrell et al., 2019; Swire-Thompson & Lazer, 2022) and selective use of evidence by researchers linked to the industry (Krattenmacher et al., 2024). However, as demonstrated by Schmid and Betsch (2019), effective rebuttal strategies of misinformation do work. The case of the NRR provides further evidence
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

on the crucial role of scientists in public debates: by debunking mis-
information, highlighting beneficiaries versus losers and addressing
questions of broad societal interests by the scientific community,
scientists contributed to the passing of an important regulation that
was close to rejection based on misinformation.

6.3 | Toward a constructive dialogue

Societal and political debates are inherent elements of societal
transformations and will become increasingly important in upcoming
urgent, cross-sectoral transitions such as those needed toward more
environmentally sustainable land and water use practices. However,
the robust implementation of environmental and social justice prin-
ciples in the policy process needs to be reliant on using empirical
evidence to deliver on policy targets and impacts.

Inevitably, any new regulation will either directly or indirectly
favour some stakeholders over others: some could take advantage
of these regulations, while others may need support in adapting to
them. Disparities in the consequences on stakeholders may trigger
conflicts, as is known to happen with other sustainability policies,
such as transition to a low- or zero-carbon economy (Radtke &
Scherhaufer, 2022). Accordingly, it is important to identify wide-
ranging and long-term benefits to as many stakeholders as possible
and achieve broad support from society, businesses and policymak-
ers. A constructive dialogue can be guided by highlighting win-wins,
or so-called co-benefits (see, e.g., Karlsson et al., 2020 for climate).
In the case of NRR these include improvements in water quality
(Lehtoranta & Louhi, 2021), carbon sequestration, prevention of nat-
ural disasters and protection of cultural heritage (European Union,
2018).

Fostering policymaking based on sound scientific evidence re-
quires scientists to be more proactive in public communication (see
Fuentes, 2024; Garrard et al., 2016; Nelson & Vucetich, 2009). This
requires (a) balancing evidence to distil the emerging best available
evidence; (b) reflecting and communicating complexity, uncertainty
and gaps in knowledge in accessible, trustworthy, yet not confusing
ways (see also Velado-Alonso et al., 2024); and (c) acknowledging a
diversity of opinions while identifying narratives that address societ-
tal consensus. Here, one must admit that total certainty is unfeasible
in most areas of science, but uncertainty should not be used as an
opportunity for delaying action. Importantly, the experience from
the NRR case provides another indication that societal and political
actors take scientists more seriously when they communicate on the
basis of their expertise as reliable knowledge brokers.

Universities and research institutes should invest in generating
a favourable environment to support science-policy and science-
society interactions, in a coordinated and systematic way. This in-
cludes extension and outreach faculty members whose job is to aid
in science communication and support to local communities, and
where the faculty receives credit and recognition in doing so (Buys
& Rennekamp, 2020). Universities and research institutions should
dedicate science-policy coordination and communication staff to

facilitate the interactions between scientists and policymakers. As
the complexity of environmental problems and the volume of sci-
entific literature grow, meta-analyses, scientific reviews and other
forms of knowledge synthesis are invaluable. However, yet another
step is essential, which is to interpret and communicate science in
accessible formats, as done widely in health research, in order to
effectively inform public debates and to debunk misinformation
(Garrard et al., 2016). We therefore encourage scientists who work
on sustainability topics to be proactive and to ask for institutional
support and training to help avoid communication pitfalls or biases.
For policymakers, we recommend to use scientific evidence and en-
gage scientists toward much needed, ambitious and robust environ-
mental policies—and in the EU, making use of the ‘science-for-policy’
interface that was recently initiated by the European Commission
exactly for this purpose.

7 | CONCLUSION

Sustainable governance of land and sea requires large-scale envi-
ronmental policies. Synergies and trade-offs will always emerge
between nature restoration and economic use of land, sea and bio-
diversity. Science and scientists have a pivotal obligation not only
to provide evidence through their research but also to synthesise
evidence from diverse findings. When false evidence claims are em-
ployed to support the policy interests of lobby groups, scientists
should assume the mandate of debunking misleading information
and speak up as honest brokers. We can speak with authority when
we draw upon our own expertise. To this end, we should collaborate
across disciplines, communicate complexity and uncertainty, and ac-
knowledge different viewpoints. To address complex societal chal-
lenges, both science and science communication are imperative to
inform evidence-based policy.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Scoping of study: Guy Pe'er, Jana Kachler, Irina Herzon, Sebastian Lakner and Aletta Bonn. Literature review: Guy Pe'er, Jana Kachler, Irina Herzon, Daniel Hering, Anni Arponen, Laura Bosco, Elizabeth A. Finch, Martin Friedrichs-Manthey, Gregor Hagedorn, Emma Ladouceur, Sebastian Lakner, Camino Liquete, Laura López-Hoffman, Isabel Sousa Pinto, Marine Robuchon, Nuria Selva and Nicole M. van Dam. Analyses, interpretation and writing: All authors. Revisions and further editing: Guy Pe'er, Jana Kachler, Irina Herzon, Anni Arponen, Laura Bosco, Helge Bruelheide, Laura López-Hoffman, Isabel Sousa Pinto, Marine Robuchon, Nuria Selva, Nicole M. van Dam and Aletta Bonn.

AFFILIATIONS

<footnote n="1">¹Department of Biodiversity and People, UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany; ²German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany;</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Institute of Biodiversity, Ecology and Evolution (IBEE), Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany; ⁴University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany;</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵Helsinki Sustainability Center, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland;</footnote>
⁶Aquatic Ecology, Faculty of Biology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany; ⁷Department of Biology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland; ⁸Finnish Museum of Natural History, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; ⁹Institute of Biology/Geobotany and Botanical Garden, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany; ¹⁰Museum für Naturkunde-Leibniz-Institut für Evolutions- und Biodiversitätsforschung (MfN), Berlin, Germany; ¹¹Faculty for Law and Economics, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany; ¹²Department of Economics, UFZ-Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany; ¹³Department of Physiological Diversity, UFZ-Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany; ¹⁴Department of Biology, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada; ¹⁵Canadian Centre for Climate Change and Adaptation, University of Prince Edward Island, St. Peter's Bay, Prince Edward Island, Canada; ¹⁶School of Climate Change and Adaptation, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada; ¹⁷Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Science, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany; ¹⁸Joint Research Centre (JRC), European Commission, Ispra, Italy; ¹⁹Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy & School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; ²⁰Department of Biology Faculty of Sciences, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; ²¹Cimar and Department of Biology, Faculty of Sciences, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; ²²Institute of Nature Conservation Polish Academy of Science, Krakow, Poland; ²³Faculty of Experimental Sciences, Centro de Estudios Avanzados en Física, Matemáticas y Computación, Universidad de Huelva, Huelva, Spain; ²⁴Estación Biológica de Doñana, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Sevilla, Spain; ²⁵Department of Conservation Biology and Social-Ecological Systems, UFZ-Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Halle, Germany; ²⁶Institute of Biological Sciences, University of the Philippines in Los Baños (UPLB), Laguna, Philippines; ²⁷INRAE-DYNAFOR, Castanet-Tolosan, France; ²⁸Leibniz Institute for Vegetable and Ornamental Crops (IGZ), Großbeeren, Germany and ²⁹Department of Environmental Politics, UFZ-Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The views and opinions expressed in this paper represent those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission, the EU or any other institutions and funding bodies. GP, MFM, LLH, JK, NMvD and AB acknowledge funding awarded by the German Research Foundation for the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig (DFG FZT 118). GP and AB also acknowledge funding from the iCAP-BES project (within iDiv), Agroecology-TRANSECT (Horizon Europe contract, grant No. 101060816, also funding EAF) and CAP4GI (BMBF funding No. 01UT2102A); IH from the Research Council of Finland (350649); MFM and AB from the German Research Foundation (NFDI4Biodiversity, DFG 442032008); LB and AA from the Kone Foundation, Finland. This paper is based on an open letter accompanied by 6000 signatures, published in June and elaborated in July 2023 (Pe'er et al., 2023). We thank Eszter Kelemen and another anonymous reviewer for valuable comments that greatly improved the manuscript. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

## CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

Aletta Bonn is an Associate Editor for People and Nature but was not involved in the peer review and decision-making process.

## DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Not applicable.

## ORCID

Guy Pe'er https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7090-0560

Jana Kachler https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0536-2820

Irina Herzon https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8884-0500

Daniel Hering https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5436-4753

Anni Arponen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6721-7795

Laura Bosco https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6616-2641

Helge Bruelheide https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3135-0356

Elizabeth A. Finch https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7031-5708

Martin Friedrichs-Manthey https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0132-7799

Gregor Hagedorn https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7023-7386

Bernd Hansjürgens https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5650-8300

Emma Ladouceur https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4943-4358

Sebastian Lakner https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5122-8924

Camino Liquete https://orcid.org/0009-0006-8894-2044

Laura López-Hoffman https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8457-8162

Isabel Sousa Pinto https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9231-0553

Marine Robuchon https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5873-2915

Nuria Selva https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3389-201X

Josef Settele https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8624-4983

Clélia Sirami https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1741-3082

Nicole M. van Dam https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2622-5446

Heidi Wittmer https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6966-7258

Aletta Bonn https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8345-4600

## REFERENCES

Ackerman, F., & Stanton, E. (2008). Climate change—the costs of inaction. http://frankackerman.com/publications/climatechange/Climate_Change_US_Econocmy.pdf

Adams, Z., Osman, M., Bechlivanidis, C., & Meder, B. (2023). (Why) is misinformation a problem? *Perspectives on Psychological Science*, *18*(6), 1436–1463.

Ahmed, D. A., Hudgins, E. J., Cuthbert, R. N., Kourantidou, M., Diagne, C., Haubrock, P. J., Leung, B., Liu, C., Leroy, B., Petrovskii, S., Beidas, A., & Courchamp, F. (2022). Managing biological invasions: The cost of inaction. *Biological Invasions*, *24*(7), 1927–1946. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02755-0

Alliance Environment. (2020). Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on habitats, landscapes, biodiversity: Final report. European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2762/818843

Anastasiou, E., Fountas, S., Voulgaraki, M., Psiroukis, V., Koutsiaras, M., Kriezi, O., Lazarou, E., Vatsanidou, A., Fu, L., Di Bartolo, F., & Barreiro-Hurle, J. (2023). Precision farming technologies for crop protection: A meta-analysis. *Smart Agricultural Technology*, *5*, 100323.

ARC2020. (2022). CAP strategic plans: Reforming the CAP in wartime—Project report.

Baquedano, F., Jelliffe, J., Beckman, J., Ivanic, M., Zereyesus, Y., & Johnson, M. (2022). Food security implications for low-and middle-income countries under agricultural input reduction: The case of the European Union's farm to fork and biodiversity strategies. *Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy*, *44*(4), 1942–1954.

Barreiro, H. J., Bogonos, M., Himics, M., Hristov, J., Perez, D. I., Sahoo, A., Salputra, G., Weiss, F., Baldoni, E., & Elleby, C. (2021). Modelling environmental and climate ambition in the agricultural sector with the CAPRI model. *JRC Publications Repository*. https://doi.org/10.2760/98160
Bastos, A., Ciais, P., Friedlingstein, P., Sitch, S., Pongratz, J., Fan, L., Wigneron, J. P., Weber, U., Reichstein, M., Fu, Z., Anthoni, P., Arneth, A., Haverd, V., Jain, A. K., Joetzjer, E., Knauer, J., Lienert, S., Loughran, T., McGuire, P. C., ... Zaehle, S. (2020). Direct and seasonal legacy effects of the 2018 heat wave and drought on European ecosystem productivity. *Science Advances*, 6(24), eaba2724. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba2724

Beckman, J., Ivanic, M., Jelliffe, J. L., Baquedano, F. G., & Scott, S. G. (2020). *Economic and food security impacts of agricultural input reduction under the European union green deal's farm to fork and biodiversity strategies*. EB-30, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Beckmann, M., Gerstner, K., Akin-Fajiye, M., Ceausu, S., Kambach, S., Kinlock, N. L., Phillips, H. R. P., Verhagen, W., Gurevitch, J., Klotz, S., Newbold, T., Verburg, P. H., Winter, M., & Seppelt, R. (2019). Conventional land-use intensification reduces species richness and increases production: A global meta-analysis. *Global Change Biology*, 25(6), 1941–1956. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14606

Bekessy, S. A., Wintle, B. A., Lindenmayer, D. B., McCarthy, M. A., Colyvan, M., Burgman, M. A., & Possingham, H. P. (2010). The biodiversity bank cannot be a lending bank. *Conservation Letters*, 3(3), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00110.x

Bioenergy Europe. (2020). Statistical report 2019-Biomass supply.

Björkvik, E., Boonstra, W. J., Hentati-Sundberg, J., & Österblom, H. (2020). Swedish small-scale fisheries in the Baltic Sea: Decline, diversity and development. In J. J. Pascual-Fernández, C. Pita, & M. Bavinck (Eds.), *Small-scale fisheries in Europe: Status, resilience and governance* (pp. 559–579). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37371-9_27

Bonn, A., Allott, T., Evans, M., Joosten, H., & Stoneman, R. (2016). *Peatland restoration and ecosystem services: Science, policy and practice*. Ecological reviews. Cambridge University Press.

Buchenrieder, G. (2007). *Conceptual framework for analysing structural change in agriculture and rural livelihoods*. Discussion paper, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe (IAMO) 13, 1–83. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/28462

Buys, D. R., & Rennekamp, R. (2020). Cooperative extension as a force for healthy, rural communities: Historical perspectives and future directions. *American Journal of Public Health*, 110, 1300–1303. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305767

Camia, A., Giuntoli, J., Jonsson, K., Robert, N., Cazzaniga, N., Jasinevičius, G., Avitabile, V., Grassi, G., Barredo Cano, J. I., & Mubareka, S. (2021). *The use of woody biomass for energy production in the EU*. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/428400

Candel, J. (2022a). EU food-system transition requires innovative policy analysis methods. *Nature Food*, 3(5), 296–298. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00518-7

Candel, J. (2022b). Scientists call for ambitious sustainable use of pesticides regulation (version 4). *Zenodo*. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7472705

Chèze, B., David, M., & Martinet, V. (2020). Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment. *Ecological Economics*, 167, 106349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.06.004

Convention on Biological Diversity. (2022). *Decision adopted by the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity 15/4*. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-04-en.pdf

Cook, C. N., Mascia, M. B., Schwartz, M. W., Possingham, H. P., & Fuller, R. A. (2013). Achieving conservation science that bridges the knowledge-action boundary. *Conservation Biology*, 27(4), 669–678.

Costa, C., Wollenberg, E., Benitez, M., Newman, R., Gardner, N., & Bellone, F. (2022). Roadmap for achieving net-zero emissions in global food systems by 2050. *Scientific Reports*, 12(1), 15064. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18601-1

Cowie, A. L., Berndes, G., Bentsen, N. S., Brandão, M., Cherubini, F., Egnell, G., George, B., Gustavsson, L., Hanewinkel, M., Harris, Z. M., Johnsson, F., Junginger, M., Kline, K. L., Koponen, K., Koppejan, J., Kraxner, F., Lamers, P., Majer, S., Marland, E., ... Ximenes, F. A. (2021). Applying a science-based systems perspective to dispel misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy. *GCB Bioenergy*, 13(8), 1210–1231. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12844

Creutzig, F. (2022). Fuel crisis: Slash demand in three sectors to protect economies and climate. *Nature*, 606(7914), 460–462. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01616-z

D'Agostino, V. (2018). *Drought in Europe summer 2018: Crisis management in an orderly chaos*. Farm Europe. https://www.farm-europe.eu/blog-en/drought-in-europe-summer-2018-crisis-management-in-an-orderly-chaos/

Dainese, M., Martin, E. A., Aizen, M. A., Albrecht, M., Bartomeus, I., Bommarco, R., Carvalheiro, L. G., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Gagic, V., Garibaldi, L. A., & Ghazoul, J. (2019). A global synthesis reveals biodiversity-mediated benefits for crop production. *Science Advances*, 5(10), eaax0121.

Dasgupta, P. (2021). *The economics of biodiversity: The Dasgupta review*. HM Treasury. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/962785/The_Economics_of_Biodiversity_The_Dasgupta_Review_Full_Report.pdf

Deguine, J.-P., Aubertot, J.-N., Flor, R. J., Lescourret, F., Wyckhuys, K. A. G., & Ratnadass, A. (2021). Integrated pest management: Good intentions, hard realities. A review. *Agronomy for Sustainable Development*, 41(3), 38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-021-00689-w

Di Lorenzo, M., Guidetti, P., Di Franco, A., Calò, A., & Claudet, J. (2020). Assessing spillover from marine protected areas and its drivers: A meta-analytical approach. *Fish and Fisheries*, 21(5), 906–915. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12469

Dixon, S. J., Sear, D. A., Odoni, N. A., Sykes, T., & Lane, S. N. (2015). The effects of river restoration on catchment scale flood risk and flood hydrology: The effects of river restoration on catchment scale flood risk. *Earth Surface Processes and Landforms*, 41(7), 997–1008. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3919

Dureuil, M., Boerder, K., Burnett, K. A., Froese, R., & Worm, B. (2018). Elevated trawling inside protected areas undermines conservation outcomes in a global fishing hot spot. *Science*, 362(6421), 1403–1407. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau0561

ECORYS. (2017). *Modernizing and simplifying the common agricultural CAP: Summary of the results of the public consultation*. Analysis for European Commission, DG for Agriculture & Rural Development.

Edgar, G. J., Stuart-Smith, R. D., Willis, T. J., Kininmonth, S., Baker, S. C., Banks, S., Barrett, N. S., Becerro, M. A., Bernard, A. T. F., Berkhout, J., Buxton, C. D., Campbell, S. J., Cooper, A. T., Davey, M., Edgar, S. C., Försterra, G., Galván, D. E., Irigoyen, A. J., Kushner, D. J., ... Thomson, R. J. (2014). Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features. *Nature*, 506, 7487. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13022

EEA. (2020). *State of nature in the EU. Results from reporting under the nature directives 2013–2018*. https://www.eea.europa.eu/92477618-65fa-4c93-a31b-9cf1b03a2900

EEA. (2023). *How pesticides impact human health and ecosystems in Europe*. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/how-pesticides-impact-human-health/

Euronews. (2023). *Nature Restoration Law survives knife-edge vote in the European Parliament amid right-wing backlash*. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/07/12/nature-restoration-law-survives-knife-edge-vote-in-the-european-parliament-amid-right-wing

European Commission. (2019). *Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions—The*
European Green Deal, COM/2019/640 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52019DC0640

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-EU biodiversity strategy for 2030-Bringing nature back into our lives, COM/2020/380 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0380

European Commission. (2020b). 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, COM/2020/381 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0381

European Commission. (2020c). Directorate general for agriculture and rural development. In J. Peyraud & M. MacLeod (Eds.), *Future of EU livestock: How to contribute to a sustainable agricultural sector? Final report*. Publications Office. https://doi.org/10.2762/3440

European Commission. (2021). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions-Pathway to a healthy planet for all. EU action plan: 'Towards zero pollution for air, water and soil', COM/2021/400 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=COM:2021:400:FIN

European Commission. (2022a). Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on nature restoration, COM/2022/304 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022PC0304

European Commission. (2022b). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the sustainable use of plant protection products and amending Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, COM/2022/305 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022PC0305

European Commission. (2022c). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Safeguarding food security and reinforcing the resilience of food systems, COM(2022) 133 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52022DC0133

European Commission. (2022d). Monitoring EU agri-food trade. European Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural Development. https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/7b271dbb-cc64-4191-ac1-f7c6ddda3478_en?filename=monitoring-agri-food-trade_dec2022_en.pdf

European Commission. (2022e). Restoring nature: For the benefit of people, nature and the climate. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2779/439286

European Commission. (2023). Short-term outlook: Arable crops. Spring 2023. https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/data-and-analysis/markets/outlook/short-term_en

European Commission. (2024). Monitoring EU agri-food trade. European Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural Development, Brussels. https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/f8ada447-9c99-402c-8bc2-2adb2da27453_en?filename=monitoring-agri-food-trade_jan2025_en.pdf

European Union. (2018). Europe's cultural and natural heritage in Natura 2000. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxemburg. https://doi.org/10.2779/95197

European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 on nature restoration and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1991/oj

Eurostat. (2022). Farms and farmland in the European Union-Statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Farms_and_farmland_in_the_European_Union_-_statistics

FAO. (2023). FAOSTAT-Crops and livestock products. https://www.fao.org/fastat/en/#data/QCL

FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. (2021). The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2021.

Farrell, J., McConnell, K., & Brulle, R. (2019). Evidence-based strategies to combat scientific misinformation. *Nature Climate Change*, 9(3), 191-195.

Fernandes, P. G., Ralph, G. M., Nieto, A., García Criado, M., Vasilakopoulos, P., Maravelias, C. D., Cook, R. M., Pollom, R. A., Kovačić, M., Pollard, D., Farrell, E. D., Florin, A.-B., Polidoro, B. A., Lawson, J. M., Lorance, P., Uiblein, F., Craig, M., Allen, D. J., Fowler, S. L., ... Carpenter, K. E. (2017). Coherent assessments of Europe's marine fishes show regional divergence and megafauna loss. *Nature Ecology & Evolution*, 1(7), 0170. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0170

Finger, R. (2023). Digital innovations for sustainable and resilient agricultural systems. *European Review of Agricultural Economics*, 50, 1277-1309. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbad021

Forti, L. R., Travassos, M. L. D. O., Coronel-Bejarano, D., Miranda, D. F., Souza, D., Sabino, J., & Szabo, J. K. (2023). Posts supporting anti-environmental policy in Brazil are shared more on social media. *Environmental Management*, 71(6), 1188-1198.

Frank, E. G. (2024). The economic impacts of ecosystem disruptions: Costs from substituting biological pest control. *Science*, 385(6713), eadg0344.

Frid, O., Malamud, S., Di Franco, A., Guidetti, P., Azzurro, E., Claudet, J., Micheli, F., Yahel, R., Sala, E., & Belmaker, J. (2023). Marine protected areas' positive effect on fish biomass persists across the steep climatic gradient of the Mediterranean Sea. *Journal of Applied Ecology*, 60(4), 638-649. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14352

Froese, R., Winker, H., Coro, G., Demirel, N., Tsikliras, A. C., Dimarchopoulou, D., Scarcella, G., Quaas, M., & Matz-Lück, N. (2018). Status and rebuilding of European fisheries. *Marine Policy*, 93, 159-170.

Fuentes, A. (2024). Scientists as political advocates. *Science*, 385(6724), eadt7194.

Gafney, A. (2025). Science data may soon disappear from government websites. *New York Times*. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/21/climate/government-websites-climate-environment-data.html

Garrard, G. E., Fidler, F., Wintle, B. C., Chee, Y. E., & Bekessy, S. A. (2016). Beyond advocacy: Making space for conservation scientists in public debate. *Conservation Letters*, 9(3), 208-212.

Gascuel, D., Bez, N., Forest, A., Guillotreau, P., Laloë, F., Lobry, J., Mahévas, S., Mesnil, B., Rivot, E., Rochette, S., & Trenkel, V. (2011). A future for marine fisheries in Europe (Manifesto of the Association Française d'Halieumétrie). *Fisheries Research*, 109(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2011.02.002

Gasparri, N. I., Kuemmerle, T., Meyfroidt, P., Le Polain de Waroux, Y., & Kreft, H. (2016). The emerging soybean production frontier in southern Africa: Conservation challenges and the role of south-south telecouplings. *Conservation Letters*, 9(1), 21-31.

Gill, D. A., Mascia, M. B., Ahmadia, G. N., Glew, L., Lester, S. E., Barnes, M., Craigie, I., Darling, E. S., Free, C. M., Geldmann, J., & Holst, S. (2017). Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas globally. *Nature*, 543(7647), 665-669.

Götz, L., & Svanidze, M. (2023). Getreidehandel und Exportbeschränkungen während des Ukrainekrieges. *Wirtschaftsdienst*, 103(13), 37-41. https://doi.org/10.2478/wd-2023-0065

Goulson, D. (2020). Pesticides, corporate irresponsibility, and the fate of our planet. *One Earth*, 2(4), 302-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.03.004

Greenstreet, S. P. R., Fraser, H. M., & Piet, G. J. (2009). Using MPAs to address regional-scale ecological objectives in the North Sea: Modelling the effects of fishing effort displacement. *ICES Journal of Marine Science*, 66(1), 90-100. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsn214
Gorud-Colvert, K., Sullivan-Stack, J., Roberts, C., Constant, V., Horta e Costa, B., Pike, E. P., Kingston, N., Laffoley, D., Sala, E., Claudet, J., Friedlander, A. M., Gill, D. A., Lester, S. E., Day, J. C., Gonçalves, E. J., Ahmadia, G. N., Rand, M., Villagomez, A., Ban, N. C., ... Lubchenco, J. (2021). The MPA guide: A framework to achieve global goals for the ocean. *Science*, 373(6560), eabf0861. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abf0861

Gundersen, T., Alinejad, D., Branch, T. Y., Duffy, B., Hewlett, K., Holst, C., Owens, S., Panizza, F., Tellmann, S. M., Van Dijck, J., & Baghramian, M. (2022). A new dark age? Truth, trust, and environmental science. *Annual Review of Environment and Resources*, 47, 5-29. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-120920-015909

Hartley, K., & Vu, M. K. (2020). Fighting fake news in the COVID-19 era: Policy insights from an equilibrium model. *Policy Sciences*, 53(4), 735-758.

Harvey, J. A., Tougeron, K., Gols, R., Heinen, R., Abarca, M., Abram, P. K., Basset, Y., Berg, M., Boggs, C., Brodeur, J., & Cardoso, P. (2023). Scientists' warning on climate change and insects. *Ecological Monographs*, 93(1), e1553.

Henning, C., Witzke, P., Panknin, L., & Grunenberg, M. (2021). *Ökonomische und Ökologische Auswirkungen des Green Deals in der Agrarwirtschaft. Eine Simulationstudie der Eekte der F2F-Strategie auf Produktion, Handel, Einkommen und Umwelt mit dem CAPRI- Modell*. https://www.bio-pop.agrarpol.uni-kiel.de/de/f2f-studie/vollversion-der-studie-deutsch

Hepburn, C., O'Callaghan, B., Stern, N., Stiglitz, J., & Zenghelis, D. (2020). Will COVID-19 fiscal recovery packages accelerate or retard progress on climate change? *Oxford Review of Economic Policy*, 36(Suppl. 1), S359-S381. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/graa015

Hering, D., Schürings, C., Wenskus, F., Blackstock, K., Borja, A., Birk, S., Bullock, C., Carvalho, L., Bou Dagher Kharrat, M., Lakner, S., Lovrić, N., McGuinness, S., Nabuurs, G.-J., Sánchez-Arcilla, A., Settele, J., & Pe'er, G. (2023). Securing success for the Nature Restoration Law. *Science*, 382(6676), 1248-1250.

Herzon, I. (2024). *What can the Dublin Declaration teach us about credible scientific advocacy? The Table Debates*. https://tabledebates.org/essays/what-can-dublin-declaration-teach-us-about-credible-scientific-advocacy

Holt-Giménez, E., Shattuck, A., Altieri, M., Herren, H., & Gliessman, S. (2012). We already grow enough food for 10 billion people ... and still can't end hunger. *Journal of Sustainable Agriculture*, 36(6), 595-598. https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.695331

Iacobută, G. I., Onbargi, A. F., Bolduc, N., Dzebo, A., Keijzer, N., & Malerba, D. (2022). *The European Green Deal and the war in Ukraine: Addressing crises in the short and long term*. European Think Tanks Group. https://ettg.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/The-European-Green-Deal-and-the-war-in-Ukraine.pdf

IPBES. (2018). *The IPBES assessment report on land degradation and restoration* (L. Montanarella, R. Scholes, & A. Brainich, Eds.). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3237393

IPBES. (2019). *Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services* (S. Díaz, J. Settele, E. S. Brondízio, H. T. Ngo, M. Guêze, J. Agard, A. Arneth, P. Balvanera, K. A. Brauman, S. H. M. Butchart, K. M. A. Chan, L. A. Garibaldi, K. Ichii, J. Liu, S. M. Subramanian, G. F. Midgley, P. Miloslavich, Z. Molnár, D. Obura, ... C. N. Zayas, Eds.). IPBES Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.3553579

IPBES. (2022). *Methodological assessment report on the diverse values and valuation of nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services* (P. Balvanera, U. Pascual, M. Christie, B. Baptiste, & D. González-Jiménez, Eds.). IPBES Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.6522522

Issifu, I., Alava, J. J., Lam, V. W. Y., & Sumaila, U. R. (2022). Impact of ocean warming, overfishing and mercury on European fisheries: A

risk assessment and policy solution framework. *Frontiers in Marine Science*, 8, 770805. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.770805

JRC. (2023). *EU soil observatory and EUSO soil health dashboard*. Joint Research Centre of the European Union. https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/esdacviewer/euso-dashboard/

Kantar. (2020). *Attitudes of Europeans towards the Environment (Eurobarometer survey)*. European Commission. https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2257

Karlsson, M., Alfredsson, E., & Westling, N. (2020). Climate policy co-benefits: A review. *Climate Policy*, 20(3), 292-316.

Kastner, T., Chaudhary, A., Gingrich, S., Marques, A., Persson, U. M., Bidoglio, G., Le Provost, G., & Schwarzmüller, F. (2021). Global agricultural trade and land system sustainability: Implications for ecosystem carbon storage, biodiversity, and human nutrition. *One Earth*, 4(10), 1425-1443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.09.006

Krattenmacher, J., Espinosa, R., Sanders, E., Twine, R., & Ripple, W. J. (2024). The Dublin declaration: Gain for the meat industry, loss for science. *Environmental Science & Policy*, 162, 103922.

Lakner, S. (2023). *Auswirkungen des Ukrainekrieges auf die EU-Agrarpolitik. Wirtschaftsdienst*, 103(13), 42-49. https://doi.org/10.2478/wd-2023-0066

Lakner, S., Klümper, W., & Mensah, K. (2022). *Ukraine-Krieg und globale Lebensmittelversorgung: Auswirkungen und agrarpolitische Handlungsoptionen*. Politische Studie im Auftrag von Martin Häusling, MEP und Sarah Wiener, MEP. https://www.martin-haeusling.eu/images/STUDIE_Ukraine-Krieg_und_globale_Lebensmittelversorgung_WEB.pdf

Langer, L., Tripney, J., & Gough, D. (2016). *The science of using science: Researching the use of research evidence in decision-making*. UCL Institute of Education, EPPI-Centre.

Le Coent, P., Graveline, N., Altamirano, M. A., Arfaoui, N., Benitez-Avila, C., Biffin, T., Calatrava, J., Dartee, K., Douai, A., Gnonlonfin, A., Hérivaux, C., Marchal, R., Moncoulon, D., & Piton, G. (2021). Is it worth investing in NBS aiming at reducing water risks? Insights from the economic assessment of three European case studies. *Nature-Based Solutions*, 1, 100002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2021.100002

Lechenet, M., Bretagnolle, V., Bockstaller, C., Boissinot, F., Petit, M.-S., Petit, S., & Munier-Jolain, N. M. (2014). Reconciling pesticide reduction with economic and environmental sustainability in arable farming. *PLoS One*, 9(6), e97922. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097922

Lechenet, M., Dessaint, F., Py, G., Makowski, D., & Munier-Jolain, N. (2017). Reducing pesticide use while preserving crop productivity and profitability on arable farms. *Nature Plants*, 3(3), 17008. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2017.8

Lehtoranta, V., & Louhi, P. (2021). Does conservation in Natura 2000 areas promote water quality improvement? Findings from a contingent valuation study on environmental benefits and residents' preferences. *Environmental Science & Policy*, 124, 226-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.06.019

Lenton, T. M., Rockström, J., Gaffney, O., Rahmstorf, S., Richardson, K., Steffen, W., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2019). Climate tipping points—Too risky to bet against. *Nature*, 575(7784), 592-595. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03595-0

Maes, J., Teller, A., Erhard, M., Condé, S., Vallecillo, S., Barredo, J. I., Paracchini, M. L., Abdul Malak, D., Trombetti, M., Vigiak, O., Zulian, G., Addamo, A. M., Grizzetti, B., Somma, F., Hagyo, A., Vogt, P., Polce, C., Jones, A., Marin, A. I., ... Santos-Martín, F. (2020). Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services: An EU ecosystem assessment. EUR 30161 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Ispra. https://doi.org/10.2760/757183, JRC120383

Majava, A., Vadén, T., Toivanen, T., Järvensivu, P., Lähde, V., & Eronen, J. T. (2022). Sectoral low-carbon roadmaps and the role of forest biomass in Finland's carbon neutrality 2035 target. *Energy Strategy Reviews*, 41, 100836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2022.100836
Marselle, M. R., Lindley, S. J., Cook, P. A., & Bonn, A. (2021). Biodiversity and health in the urban environment. *Current Environmental Health Reports*, 8(2), 146–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-021-00313-9

Mehl, D. (2017). 25 Jahre Fließgewässerrenaturierung an der mecklenburgischen Nebel: Auswirkungen auf den ökologischen Zustand und auf regulative Ökosystemleistungen [PDF]. Hydrologie und Wasserbewirtschaftung/BfG – Jahrgang: 62.2018, 1ISSN 1439. https://doi.org/10.5675/HYWA_2018_1_1

Merfort, L., Bauer, N., Humpenöder, F., Klein, D., Strefler, J., Popp, A., Luderer, G., & Kriegler, E. (2023). Bioenergy-induced land-use-change emissions with sectorally fragmented policies. *Nature Climate Change*, 13(7), 685–692. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-06723-z

Methorst, J., Rehdanz, K., Mueller, T., Hansjürgens, B., Bonn, A., & Böhning-Gaese, K. (2021). The importance of species diversity for human well-being in Europe. *Ecological Economics*, 181, 106917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106917

Mo, L., Zohner, C. M., Reich, P. B., Liang, J., De Miguel, S., Nabuurs, G. J., Renner, S. S., van den Hoogen, J., Araza, A., Herold, M., & Mirzagholi, L. (2023). Integrated global assessment of the natural forest carbon potential. *Nature*, 624(7990), 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06723-z

Moerlein, K. J., & Carothers, C. (2012). Total environment of change: Impacts of climate change and social transitions on subsistence fisheries in northwest Alaska. *Ecology and Society*, 17(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04543-170110

Möhring, N., Ingold, K., Kudsk, P., Martin-Laurent, F., Niggli, U., Siegrist, M., Studer, B., Walter, A., & Finger, R. (2020). Pathways for advancing pesticide policies. *Nature Food*, 1(9), 535–540. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-00141-4

Murray, D. L., & Taylor, P. L. (2000). Claim no easy victories: Evaluating the pesticide industry's global safe use campaign. *World Development*, 28, 1735–1749. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00059-0

OECD. (2019). *Biodiversity: Finance and the economic and business case for action*. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/a3147942-en

Ottenbros, I., Lebret, E., Huber, C., Lommen, A., Antignac, J.-P., Čupr, P., Šulc, L., Mikeš, O., Szigeti, T., Középesy, S., Martinsone, I., Martinsone, Z., Akulova, L., Pardo, O., Fernández, S. F., Coscollá, C., Pedraza-Diaz, S., Krauss, M., Debrauwer, L., ... Vlaanderen, J. (2023). Assessment of exposure to pesticide mixtures in five European countries by a harmonized urinary suspect screening approach. *International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health*, 248, 114105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2022.114105

Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., & Macnaughton, S. (2010). Food waste within food supply chains: Quantification and potential for change to 2050. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences*, 365(1554), 3065–3081. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0126

Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Watson, R. T., Başak Dessane, E., Islar, M., Kelemen, E., Maris, V., Quaas, M., Subramanian, S. M., Wittmer, H., Adlan, A., Ahn, S., Al-Hafedh, Y. S., Amankwah, E., Asah, S. T., ... Yagi, N. (2017). Valuing nature's contributions to people: The IPBES approach. *Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability*, 26–27, 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j cosust.2016.12.006

Paul, K. C., Krolewski, R. C., Lucumi Moreno, E., Blank, J., Holton, K. M., Ahfeldt, T., Furlong, M., Yu, Y., Cockburn, M., Thompson, L. K., Kreymerman, A., Ricci-Blair, E. M., Li, Y. J., Patel, H. B., Lee, R. T., Bronstein, J., Rubin, L. L., Khurana, V., & Ritz, B. (2023). A pesticide and iPSC dopaminergic neuron screen identifies and classifies Parkinson-relevant pesticides. *Nature Communications*, 14(1), 2803. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-38215-z

Pe'er, G., Birkenstock, M., Lakner, S., & Röder, N. (2021). *The Common Agricultural Policy post-2020: Views and recommendations from scientists to improve performance for biodiversity. Vol. 2—Annexes (working paper no. 175-Volume 2).* Thünen working paper. https://doi.org/10.3220/WP1620647428000

Pe'er, G., Finn, J. A., Díaz, M., Birkenstock, M., Lakner, S., Röder, N., Kazakova, Y., Šumrada, T., Bezák, P., Concepción, E. D., Dänhardt, J., Morales, M. B., Rac, I., Špulerová, J., Schindler, S., Stavriniides, M., Targetti, S., Viaggi, D., Vogiatzakis, I. N., & Guyomard, H. (2022). How can the European Common Agricultural Policy help halt biodiversity loss? Recommendations by over 300 experts. *Conservation Letters*, 15(6), e12901. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12901

Pe'er, G., Kachler, J., Herzon, I., Hering, D., Arponen, A., Bosco, L., Bruelheide, H., Friedrichs-Manthey, M., Hagedorn, G., Hansjürgens, B., & Ladouceur, E. (2023). Scientists support the EU's Green Deal and reject the unjustified argumentation against the Sustainable Use Regulation and the nature restoration. *Zenodo*. https://zenodo.org/records/8128624

Pendleton, L. H., Ahmadia, G. N., Browman, H. I., Thurstan, R. H., Kaplan, D. M., & Bartolino, Vcrop. (2018). Debating the effectiveness of marine protected areas. *ICES Journal of Marine Science*, 75(3), 1156–1159. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fxs154

Perry, A. L., Blanco, J., García S., & Fournier, N. (2022). Extensive use of habitat-damaging fishing gears inside habitat-protecting marine protected areas. *Frontiers in Marine Science*, 9, 811926. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.811926

Persson, L., Carney Almroth, B. M., Collins, C. D., Cornell, S., de Wit, C. A., Diamond, M. L., Fantke, P., Hassellöv, M., MacLeod, M., Ryberg, M. W., Søgaard Jørgensen, P., Villarrubia-Gómez, P., Wang, Z., & Hauschild, M. Z. (2022). Outside the safe operating space of the planetary boundary for novel entities. *Environmental Science & Technology*, 56(3), 1510–1521. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c04158

Petit, S., & Landis, D. A. (2023). Landscape-scale management for biodiversity and ecosystem services. *Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment*, 347, 108370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2023.108370

Pielke, R. A. (2007). *The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics*. Cambridge University Press.

Pörtner, H. O., & Knust, R. (2007). Climate change affects marine fishes through the oxygen limitation of thermal tolerance. *Science*, 315(5808), 95–97. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1135471

Pörtner, H.-O., Scholes, B., Agard, J., Archer, E., Arneth, A., Bai, X., Barnes, D., Burrows, M., Chan, L., Cheung, W. L., Diamond, S., Donatti, C., Duarte, C., Eisenhauer, N., Foden, W., Gasalla, M. A., Handa, C., Hickler, T., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., ... Ngo, H. T. (2021). Scientific outcome of the IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop on biodiversity and climate change. *Zenodo*. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4659159

Pywell, R. F., Heard, M. S., Woodcock, B. A., Hinsley, S., Ridding, L., Nowakowski, M., & Bullock, J. M. (2015). Wildlife-friendly farming increases crop yield: Evidence for ecological intensification. *Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences*, 282(1816), 20151740. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1740

Radtke, J., & Scherhaufer, P. (2022). A social science perspective on conflicts in the energy transition: An introduction to the special issue. *Utilities Policy*, 78, 101396.

Raihan, A., Ara Begum, R., & Mohd Said, M. N. (2021). A meta-analysis of the economic value of forest carbon stock. *Malaysian Journal of Society and Space*, 17(4), 321–338. https://doi.org/10.17576/geo-2021-1704-22

Rajão, R., Nobre, A. D., Cunha, E. L., Duarte, T. R., Marcolino, C., Soares-Filho, B., Sparovek, G., Rodrigues, R. R., Valera, C., Bustamante, M., & Nobre, C. (2022). The risk of fake controversies for Brazilian environmental policies. *Biological Conservation*, 266, 109447.

Rajmis, S., Karpinski, I., Pohl, J.-P., Herrmann, M., & Kehlenbeck, H. (2022). Economic potential of site-specific pesticide application scenarios with direct injection and automatic application assistant in northern Germany. *Precision Agriculture*, 23(6), 2063–2088. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-022-09888-1

Rakovec, O., Samaniego, L., Hari, V., Markonis, Y., Moravec, V., Thober, S., Hanel, M., & Kumar, R. (2022). The 2018–2020 multi-year
drought sets a new benchmark in Europe. *Earth's Future*, 10(3), e2021EF002394. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EF002394

Reganold, J. P., & Wachter, J. M. (2016). Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. *Nature Plants*, 2(2), 15221. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2015.221

Richardson, K., Steffen, W., Lucht, W., Bendtsen, J., Cornell, S. E., Donges, J. F., Drüke, M., Fetzer, I., Bala, G., von Bloh, W., Feulner, G., Fiedler, S., Gerten, D., Gleeson, T., Hofmann, M., Huiskamp, W., Kummu, M., Mohan, C., Nogués-Bravo, D., ... Rockström, J. (2023). Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. *Science Advances*, 9(37), eadh2458.

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellhuber, H. J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C. A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., ... Foley, J. (2009). Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. *Ecology and Society*, 14(2), 33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26268316

Röhr, M. E., Boström, C., Canal-Vergés, P., & Holmer, M. (2016). Blue carbon stocks in Baltic Sea eelgrass (*Zostera marina*) meadows. *Biogeosciences*, 13(22), 6139–6153. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-6139-2016

Röös, E., Bajželj, B., Smith, P., Patel, M., Little, D., & Garnett, T. (2017). Protein futures for Western Europe: Potential land use and climate impacts in 2050. *Regional Environmental Change*, 17(2), 367–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1013-4

Röös, E., Mayer, A., Muller, A., Kalt, G., Ferguson, S., Erb, K. H., Hart, R., Matej, S., Kaufmann, L., Pfeifer, C., & Frehner, A. (2022). Agroecological practices in combination with healthy diets can help meet EU food system policy targets. *Science of the Total Environment*, 847, 157612.

Ruggiero, P. G., Pfaff, A., Nichols, E., Rosa, M., & Metzger, J. P. (2021). Election cycles affect deforestation within Brazil's Atlantic Forest. *Conservation Letters*, 14(5), e12818.

Sala, E., & Giakoumi, S. (2018). No-take marine reserves are the most effective protected areas in the ocean. *ICES Journal of Marine Science*, 75(3), 1166–1168. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsx059

Samet, J. M., & Burke, T. A. (2020). Deregulation and the assault on science and the environment. *Annual Review of Public Health*, 41, 347–361.

Sanderson, B. M., & O'Neill, B. C. (2020). Assessing the costs of historical inaction on climate change. *Scientific Reports*, 10(1), 9173. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-66275-4

Schlesinger, W. H. (2018). Are wood pellets a green fuel? *Science*, 359(6382), 1328–1329. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat2305

Schmid, P., & Betsch, C. (2019). Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions. *Nature Human Behaviour*, 3, 931–939. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0632-4

Schmidt, T., Schneider, F., Leverenz, D., & Hafner, G. (2019). Lebensmittelabfälle in Deutschland—Baseline 2015 (No. 71; Thünen report, p. 109). Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut. https://doi.org/10.3220/REP1563519883000

Schneider, K., Barreiro-Hurle, J., & Rodriguez-Cerezo, E. (2023). Pesticide reduction amidst food and feed security concerns in Europe. *Nature Food*, 4(9), 746–750.

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.onecar.2020.07.011

Seppelt, R., Arndt, C., Beckmann, M., Martin, E. A., & Hertel, T. W. (2020). Deciphering the biodiversity-production mutualism in the global food security debate. *Trends in Ecology & Evolution*, 35(11), 1011–1020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.06.012

Shepon, A., Eshel, G., Noor, E., & Milo, R. (2018). The opportunity cost of animal based diets exceeds all food losses. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America*, 115(15), 3804–3809. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1713820115

Silva, V., Mol, H. G. J., Zomer, P., Tienstra, M., Ritsema, C. J., & Geissen, V. (2019). Pesticide residues in European agricultural soils—A hidden reality unfolded. *Science of the Total Environment*, 653, 1532–1545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.441

Stankus, A. (2021). State of world aquaculture 2020 and regional reviews: FAO webinar series—ProQuest. FAO Aquaculture Newsletter, 63, 17–18

Steadman, D. (2021). Towards ecological and social impact through collaborative governance of a seaspcape of marine protected areas in Honduras. *Oryx*, 55(4), 507–518. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605320001155

Steadman, D., Thomas, J. B., Villanueva, V. R., Lewis, F., Pauly, D., Deng Palomares, M. L., Bailly, N., Levine, M., Virdin, J., & Rocliffe, S. (2021). *New perspectives on an old fishing practice: Scale, context and impacts of bottom trawling*. *Report 44*. Our Shared Seas.

Sumaila, U. R., & Cheung, W. W. L. (2010). *Cost of adapting fisheries to climate change*. World Bank.

Sun, Z., Scherer, L., Zhang, Q., & Behrens, P. (2022). Adoption of plant-based diets across Europe can improve food resilience against the Russia–Ukraine conflict. *Nature Food*, 3(11), 905–910. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00634-4

Supran, G., Rahmstorf, S., & Orekes, N. (2023). Assessing ExxonMobil's global warming projections. *Science*, 379, eabk0063. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abk0063

Suuronen, P., Jounela, P., & Tschernij, V. (2010). Fishermen responses on marine protected areas in the Baltic cod fishery. *Marine Policy*, 34(2), 237–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.07.001

Swire-Thompson, B., & Lazer, D. (2022). Reducing health misinformation in science: A call to arms. *The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science*, 700(1), 124–135.

Tanneberger, F., Appulo, L., Ewert, S., Lakner, S., Ó Brolcháin, N., Peters, J., & Wichtmann, W. (2021). The power of nature-based solutions: How peatlands can help us to achieve key EU sustainability objectives. *Advanced Sustainable Systems*, 5, 2000146.

Temmink, R. J. M., Robroek, B. J. M., van Dijk, G., Koks, A. H. W., Käärmelahti, S. A., Barthelmes, A., Wassen, M. J., Ziegler, R., Steele, M. N., Giesen, W., Joosten, H., Fritz, C., Lamers, L. P. M., & Smolders, A. J. P. (2023). Wetscapes: Restoring and maintaining peatland landscapes for sustainable futures. *Ambio*, 52, 1519–1528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01875-8

Trenczek, J., Lühr, O., Eiserbeck, L., Sandhövel, M., & Ibens, D. (2022). Projektbericht "Kosten durch Klimawandelfolgen". *Schäden der Dürre- und Hitzeextreme 2018 und 2019. Eine ex-post-Analyse*. Prognos AG, Düsseldorf.

Tscharntke, T., Clough, Y., Wanger, T. C., Jackson, L., Motzke, I., Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J., & Whitbread, A. (2012). Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. *Biological Conservation*, 151(1), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.01.068

Turkelboom, F., Demeyer, R., Vranken, L., De Becker, P., Raymaekers, F., & De Smet, L. (2021). How does a nature-based solution for flood control compare to a technical solution? Case study evidence from Belgium. *Ambio*, 50(8), 1431–1445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01548-4

Van Grinsven, H. J. M., Holland, M., Jacobsen, B. H., Klimont, Z., Sutton, M. A., & Jaap Willems, W. (2013). Costs and benefits of nitrogen for Europe and implications for mitigation. *Environmental Science & Technology*, 47(8), 3571–3579. https://doi.org/10.1021/es303804g

Vandeplas, A., Vanyolos, I., Vigani, M., & Vogel, L. (2022). The possible implications of the green transition for the EU labour market (discussion paper 176). European Commission.

Vaughan, D. (2017). Fishing effort displacement and the consequences of implementing Marine Protected Area management—An English
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

perspective. *Marine Policy*, 84, 228–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.07.007

Veerman, C., Pinto Correia, T., Bastioli, C., Biro, B., Bouma, J., & Cienciela, E. (2020). *Caring for soil is caring for life*. EU Soil Health and Food Mission Board.

Velado-Alonso, E., Kleijn, D., & Bartomeus, I. (2024). Reassessing science communication for effective farmland biodiversity conservation. *Trends in Ecology & Evolution*, 39(6), 537–547.

Vona, F. (2019). Job losses and political acceptability of climate policies: Why the 'job-killing' argument is so persistent and how to overturn it. *Climate Policy*, 19(4), 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2018.1532871

Wachter-Karpfinger, M., & Wytrzens, H. K. (2024). Beyond the preservation of agricultural land—identifying Austrian farmers' farming-related interests in local spatial planning. *Journal of Rural Studies*, 105, 103170.

Westhoek, H., Lesschen, J. P., Rood, T., Wagner, S., De Marco, A., Murphy-Bokern, D., Leip, A., van Grinsven, H., Sutton, M. A., & Oenema, O. (2014). Food choices, health and environment: Effects of cutting Europe's meat and dairy intake. *Global Environmental Change*, 26, 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.02.004

Wezel, A., Casagrande, M., Celette, F., Vian, J. F., Ferrer, A., & Peigné, J. (2014). Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture. A review. *Agronomy for Sustainable Development*, 34(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0180-7

Wikipedia. (2025). 2025 United States government online resource removals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_government_online_resource_removals

WWF. (2024). Citizens' perceptions on nature and biodiversity in the EU. Survey results. https://wwfeu.awssassets.panda.org/downloads/citizens-survey-nature-biodiversity-NRR-eu.pdf

Yang, J., Ward, M. D., & Kahr, B. (2017). Abuse of Rachel Carson and misuse of DDT science in the service of environmental deregulation. *Angewandte Chemie*, 129(34), 10158–10164.

Zinngrebe, Y., Berger, J., Bunn, C., Felipe-Lucia, M. R., Graßnick, N., Kastner, T., Pe'er, G., Schleyer, C., & Lakner, S. (2024). Prioritizing partners and products for the sustainability of the EU's agri-food trade. *One Earth*, 7(4), 674–686.

## SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this article.

**Table S1.** Key examples of organizations, places and texts where claims were made against the Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR) and Sustainable Use Regulation (SUR) that are based on misinformation.

**How to cite this article:** Pe'er, G., Kachler, J., Herzon, I., Hering, D., Arponen, A., Bosco, L., Bruelheide, H., Finch, E. A., Friedrichs-Manthey, M., Hagedorn, G., Hansjürgens, B., Ladouceur, E., Lakner, S., Liquete, C., López-Hoffman, L., Pinto, I. S., Robuchon, M., Selva, N., Settele, J., ... Bonn, A. (2025). Role of science and scientists in public environmental policy debates: The case of EU agrochemical and Nature Restoration Regulations. *People and Nature*, 00, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.70064