Scientific evidence showing the impacts of nature restoration actions on food productivity.
Date: 2022-08-10
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: EU environmental policy, agroforestry, aquatic ecosystem, biodiversity, crop rotation, environmental impact, food production, food security, nature restoration, organic farming, research report, soil protection, sustainable agriculture, sustainable development

Scientific evidence showing the impacts 
of nature restoration actions on food 
productivity 

Liquete, C., Prakash, S., Addamo, A.M., Assouline, 
M., Barredo, J.I., Bosco, S., Cardoso, A.-C., 
Catarino, R., Czucz, B., Druon, J.-N., Fellmann, T., 
Gliottone, I., Guerrero Fernandez, I., Montero 
Castaño, A., Panagos, P., Paracchini, M.L., Pardo 
Valle, A., Polce, C., Rega, C., Robuchon, M., 
Roganti, R., Rotllan-Puig, X., Schievano, A., 
Vasilakopoulos, P. 

2022 

EUR 31137 EN 

 
 
 
This publication is a Science for Policy report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge 
service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does 
not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the 
Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. For information on the methodology and quality underlying 
the data used in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should contact the 
referenced source. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion 
whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or 
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. 

EU Science Hub 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc  

JRC129725 

EUR 31137 EN 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-76-54409-8 

ISSN 1831-9424 

doi:10.2760/3032 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2022 

© European Union, 2022 

The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the 
reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under 
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that 
reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. For any use or reproduction of photos or other 
material that is not owned by the EU, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. 

All content © European Union, 2022, except: cover page illustration, © Gamut / stock.adobe.com 

How to cite this report: Liquete, C., Prakash, S., Addamo, A.M., Assouline, M., Barredo, J.I., Bosco, S., Cardoso, A.-C., Catarino, R., Czucz, B., 
Druon, J.-N., Fellmann, T., Gliottone, I., Guerrero Fernandez, I., Montero Castaño, A., Panagos, P., Paracchini, M.L., Pardo Valle, A., Polce, C., 
Rega, C., Robuchon, M., Roganti, R., Rotllan-Puig, X., Schievano, A., Vasilakopoulos, P., Scientific evidence showing the impacts of nature 
restoration actions on food productivity, EUR 31137 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2022, ISBN 978-92-76-
54409-8, doi:10.2760/3032, JRC129725. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents 

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

Executive summary .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 

1 

Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 

2  EU policy context ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 

2.1  Environmental policies ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 

2.2  Agricultural policies ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 

2.3  Fisheries policies .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 

3  Evidence of the impacts of farming practices having a potential to contribute to nature restoration ................. 9 

3.1  No-tillage and reduced tillage ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 9 

3.2  Diversification, intercropping and cover crops ............................................................................................................................................. 10 

3.3  Reduction of fertilisers ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11 

3.4  Reduction of pesticides ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 

3.5  Organic farming ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 

3.6  Agroforestry ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 

3.7  Landscape features................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 14 

4  Further evidence of the impacts of restoration measures on insect pollination ...................................................................... 16 

5  Further evidence of the impacts of restoration measures on soil quality ...................................................................................... 17 

6  Evidence of the impacts of restoration measures in forest ecosystems......................................................................................... 18 

7  Evidence of the impacts of restoration measures in marine ecosystems ...................................................................................... 19 

8  Evidence of the impacts of restoration measures in freshwater ecosystems............................................................................ 21 

9  Reflections on cascade effects on food security aspects ............................................................................................................................... 22 

10 Reflections on links between restoration, climate change and its consequences on land ecosystems ............. 23 

11 Concluding remarks ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 24 

References ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 25 

List of boxes......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 

i 

 
 
 
 
 
Abstract 

This report is a narrative review of the effects reported in the scientific literature (peer-reviewed and indexed 
scientific  publications  showing  quantitative  evidence)  about  the  relationships  between  a  selection  of  nature 
restoration practices and food production. The reported effects are extracted from systematic reviews, meta-
analyses and individual papers. As a narrative review, this is not a representative sample of all the available 
studies conducted on the topic.  

This  report  starts  with  an  overview  of  the  EU’s  legislative  and  policy  frameworks  that  contribute  to  nature 
restoration. Then, it shows some evidence of the impacts of multiple farming practices that can contribute to 
nature restoration, providing key definitions and interrelationships. It presents further evidence of the impact 
of restoration measures on two key natural aspects for food productivity: soil quality and insect pollination. It 
continues with a review of the effects in food production of restoration measures applied in forest, in marine 
and in freshwater ecosystems. The last sections present the scarce information of cascade effects on other 
food  security  aspects  than  food  productivity,  and  a  recap  of  the  missing  aspects  related  to  climate  change 
mitigation  and  adaptation.  Finally,  this  report  concludes  with  a  reflection  of  the  limitations  and  major  gaps 
found during the analysis. 

Although we cannot extract a quantitative estimate without a proper meta-analysis, our review suggests that 
nature restoration measures have a remarkably positive impact on food productivity in the long-term, while 
most of the short-term impacts are context- and species-dependant. Thus, we consider that the restoration of 
degraded  and  overexploited  ecosystems  is  an  insurance  policy  to  ensure  the  long-term  sustainability  and 
resilience of our food systems.  

1 

Executive summary 

This report is a narrative review of the effects reported in the scientific literature (peer-reviewed and indexed 
scientific  publications  showing  quantitative  evidence)  about  the  relationships  between  a  selection  of  nature 
restoration practices and food production. The reported effects are extracted from systematic reviews, meta-
analyses and individual papers. As a narrative review, this is not a representative sample of all the available 
studies  conducted  on  the  topic.  Given  that  the  selected  publications  analyse  the  environmental  impacts  of 
nature restoration practices, and most of these analyses are framed as environmental or ecological studies, 
most of the reported effects are positive.  

Nature  restoration  measures  in  farmland  generally  consist  of  a  variety  of  sustainable  agricultural 
practices that have the potential to regenerate or increase the functionality of agroecosystems, while avoiding 
the  depletion  of  natural  resources  such  as  soil,  water  and  biodiversity.  From  the  selected  publications,  we 
consider two aspects being as relevant for food productivity: the most direct effects on yield, and the effects 
on other elements and ecological processes that sustain the long-term productive capability and resilience of 
agroecosystems, like soil fertility, water retention capacity or avoidance of soil erosion. 

No-tillage  leads  to  a  significant  restoration  of  soil  quality,  even  more  if  this  is  combined  with  organic 
fertilisation.  When  no-tillage  is  combined  with  cover  crops,  it  can  maintain  or  even  increase  crop  yield  and 
reduce costs while enhancing soil fertility. The effects vary depending on the crop and the climatic conditions, 
but  overall  no-tillage  improves  the  soil  characteristics  (organic  matter,  infiltration,  biological  activity,  etc.) 
compared with conventional tillage.  

Mineral fertilisers are considered to play an important role in ensuring food productivity. Still, a wide range of 
studies indicate that there is considerable scope for reducing or stopping the use of mineral fertilisers without 
reducing  yields.  Precision  farming,  nitrification  inhibitors,  biofertilisers  and  integrated  nutrient  management 
are examples of viable alternatives that can reduce costs and avoid the pollution and greenhouse gas effects 
of nutrients surpluses. Identifying the most cost-effective technique requires an analysis of each crop and its 
context.  

Pesticides protect plants or plant products from pests and diseases. However, some studies show that (aside 
from  other  consequences  on  the  environment  and  health)  their  cost  and  side-effects  on  pollinators  can 
actually  decrease  the  economic  returns  of  crops.  A  large-scale  study  indicates  that  pesticide  use  could  be 
reduced  by  more  than  40%  without  negative  effects  on  productivity  or  profitability  in  most  of  the  farms. 
Based  on  several  meta-analyses,  crop  diversification  alone  is  demonstrated  to  enhance  pest  and  disease 
control by 63%, while integrated pest management can maintain or even improve some crops compared to 
herbicide  use.  Another  alternative,  biological  control  and/or  the  introduction  of  natural  pest  enemies  can  in 
some cases, not only control pests, but also increase the average crop yield. All these practices can reduce the 
dependence  of  farms  on  chemical  pesticides.  However, 
important  to  highlight  that  these 
are potential effects.  The  interactions  between  pest  dynamics,  plant  growth  and  yields  are  complex  and 
context-dependent, hence observed effects are highly variable. 

is 

it 

Organic  farming  (production  systems  which  avoid  or  largely  exclude  the  use  of  synthetically  compounded 
inputs)  typically  leads  to  lower  yields  than  conventional  farming.  The  yield  gap  between  organic  and 
conventional  farming  strongly  depends  on  the  crop  (broadly  from  5  to  39%),  although  it  tends  to  decrease 
with time and  decreases  more sharply if it is combined  with diversification practices. Also, organic  products 
have several documented and potential benefits for human health.  

Crop  diversification  is  confirmed  as  a  beneficial  practice  for  biodiversity,  pollination,  natural  pest  control, 
nutrient cycling, soil fertility and water regulation without compromising crop production or even enhancing it 
(by ca. 14%). The magnitude of the positive effects depends on the type of soil and the choice of crop. The 
economic  advantages  of  reducing  insecticide  applications  and  increasing  yields  through  crop  diversification 
have  been  estimated  at  7.5%  for  some  countries.  Intercropping  has  been  widely  observed  to  deliver  higher 
and more stable grain yields and even to improve its nutritional quality. Cover crops prevent soil erosion and 
improve infiltration, and there is a lot of evidence showing that legume cover crops can also increase yields.  

Numerous synthesis  research papers indicate that agroforestry  practices (the inclusion of woody  perennials 
with crops or livestock) have a positive effect on soil quality and erosion, carbon sequestration, biodiversity, 
pollination,  pest-  and  disease  control  and  water  retention,  while  they  show  few  or  no  trade-offs  on 
productivity  compared  with  conventional  agriculture.  The  inclusion  of  landscape  features  in  farms  (not 
necessarily  as  agroforestry  systems),  which  increases  landscape  complexity,  has  similar  positive  effects. 
There is evidence of their pest-control effects (in particular around arable land) and pollination (emphasised 

2 

by  floral  abundance).  An  example  is  the  1.4-fold  increase  in  pest  control  and  the  1.7-fold  increase  in 
pollination  observed  in  landscapes  with  high  edge  density.  Only  in  some  cases  do  these  positive  effects 
translate into higher yields.  

A common denominator of most of the publications reviewed is that the combination of various sustainable 
agricultural  practices  multiply  their  positive  effects  on  the  environment  and  on  food  productivity.  Actually, 
agroecology, the most integrative approach to farming, food and socio-economic systems, seem to produce 
the  best  results.  Several  meta-analyses  and  reviews  conclude  that  agroecological  practices  have  positive 
outcomes  on  food  security  through  higher  yields,  improved  nutritional  content  and  stronger  resilience  and 
stability  against  climate  and  socio-economic  disturbances.  A  global  scenario  analysis  points  to  the  need  to 
tackle not only farming practices but also food waste and meat consumption to find a viable food production 
system. 

Natural insects’ pollination is known to support yields, food quality and economic returns to farmers. A study 
estimates  that  a  collapse  in  pollinators  could  cause  a  drop  of  1-2%  in  the  global  GDP.  Scientific  evidence 
shows  a  great  potential  of  nature  restoration  measures  to  support  pollinators  by  providing  habitats 
with  high  quality  food,  nesting,  and  overwintering  resources  or  by  reducing  their  exposure  to  pesticides.  In 
some  cases,  especially  where  pollen  is  a  limiting  factor,  food  productivity  can  be  enhanced  by  pollinators’ 
abundance  and  diversity.  Some  articles  have  reported  increases  in  crop  yield  following  the  introduction  of 
wildflower  strips  and  field  margins  in  farmlands  (e.g.  +42%  in  avocado,  +12%  in  blueberry  yields). 
Maintaining  high  floral  diversity  and  perennial  floral  plants  is  essential  for  the  effectiveness  of  these 
measures.  At  a  larger  scale,  agricultural  diversification  has  also  proven  to  enhance  biodiversity,  pollination, 
and pest control without compromising crop yields. The type of habitat surrounding crop fields has a strong 
effect on crop pollination and agricultural production; the magnitude of this effect is distance-dependent. 

Soil is a crucial mediator between nature restoration measures and food production. For instance, 
severely eroded croplands in the EU contribute to a loss in agricultural productivity estimated at €1.25 billion 
per  year,  while  a  similar  impact  worldwide  is  modelled  to  cost  $8  billion  annually.  Among  the  possible 
practices,  conversion  from  arable  land  to  grassland  showed  the  highest  soil  organic  carbon  sequestration 
rates,  followed  by  ley  cropping  systems  and  cover  crops.  Leaving  land  fallow  and  increased  earthworm 
presence  have  notable  benefits  for  soil  health,  with  the  latter  found  to  increase  crop  yield  by  up  to  25%. 
Practices such as cover crops, catch crops and green manuring may increase water infiltration and retention 
capacity by one-third with respect to conventional farming methods, and by nearly two-thirds when including 
perennial  grasses,  agroforestry  or  managed  forest.  The  allocation  of  12-28%  of  European  arable  land  to 
combinations of alternative management practices can resulted in a soil organic carbon sequestration of 549-
2141 Mt CO2 equivalent by 2100. Soil conservation practices (e.g. reduced tillage, cover crops, plant residues, 
stone walls, grass margins and contour farming) have reduced soil loss by water erosion ca. 9.5% in EU lands 
during the period 2000-2016. However, a strong package of soil conservation practices is needed to further 
reduce soil erosion in areas with losses greater than the sustainable rates. 

The  restoration  measures  applied  in  forest  ecosystems,  such  as  increasing  the  coverage  of  natural 
forest, have positive effects both on pollinator abundance and on river fish biomass. The distribution of the 
forest,  the  landscape  heterogeneity  and  the  creation  of  landscape  corridors  positively  influence  the 
abundance and richness of pollinators. Planted native trees can provide similar support for insect pollinators 
as original forest habitats. Other practices such as forest thinning or planting adequate species in fire-prone 
areas have been associated with increased production of forage, potential increased production of honey and 
increased pollinator abundance.  

A starting point towards the restoration of marine ecosystems is the protection of certain areas. A global 
study indicates that  having  30% of the ocean  covered by multi-purpose  protected areas is compatible with 
maintaining access to fishing grounds that provide 89% of the global catch. Avoiding the degradation of key 
habitats, like coral reefs or mangroves, results in higher productivity (35% higher in a study of corals). Around 
80% of properly enforced marine protected areas have been observed to have a positive spillover effect on 
surrounding  fisheries,  and  this  effect  can  increase  gradually  over  decades.  The  spillover  effect  is  of  major 
importance around no-take zones, with an example of catches raised 5-fold in a period of only four years and 
beneficial side effects in fishers’ income, tourism, social wellbeing and the regeneration of distant fisheries. 
The active re-creation of some benthic habitats, like oyster reefs or mangroves, has remarkably increased the 
production of fish, crustaceans and other invertebrates that may become the prey of commercial species. The 
restoration  of  seagrass  meadows,  technically  improved  in  recent  years,  enhance  juvenile  fish  populations 
positively affect their recruitment and total biomass. A meta-analysis demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of 
seagrass  restoration  actions  based  only  on  their  effects  on  commercial  species.  Seagrass  restoration 

3 

measures,  even  if  covering  relatively  small  areas,  have  continuous  positive  effects  on  biomass  and  many 
other ecosystem services but require long-term commitments. On the negative side, the restoration of sites 
with  polluted  sediments  may  remobilise  toxic  elements  that  can  end  up  in  the  food  chain.  This  review 
highlights that, in contrast with farming practices, sustainable fishing and aquaculture practices (e.g. halting 
overfishing,  establishing  fisheries  restricted  areas,  increasing  the  biosecurity  of  aquaculture,  restorative 
aquaculture)  are  not  usually  considered  in  the  literature  as  restoration  measures,  even  if  they  might 
effectively restore biodiversity and fish biomass. 

Despite  the  active  field  of  research  on  river  restoration  and  biodiversity  (natural  processes),  there  is  little 
evidence of the impact of freshwater  habitats’ restoration on food productivity. Some observations 
point to the relevance of wetland restoration to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus inputs from land into water 
systems,  while  at  the  same  time  other  important  ecosystem  services  can  be  improved.  Floodplains’ 
restoration can support growth rates of juvenile fish and primary productivity to feed them. Inland fisheries 
can be enhanced by river-wetland filling, the improvement of riparian buffer habitats and riverine ecosystem 
connectivity.  Seed  banks  and  the  monitoring  of  sedge  meadows  can  be  important  tools  for  analysing  the 
success of restored (farmed) wetlands.  

The  literature  review  shows  that  specific  restoration  measures  are  often  context-dependent  and,  thus,  their 
design  should  be  purpose-specific  and  take  into  consideration  the  complex  ecological  and  socio-economic 
settings.  The  appropriateness  of  specific  restoration  measures  should  be  considered  at  local  level. 
Unfortunately, there is little scientific evidence of the effectiveness of restoration efforts over time. This is a 
problem for large-scale scientific estimations that are made to support management decisions. We consider 
that science cannot yet provide an estimation of the consequences of multiple nature restoration measures in 
multiple  sectors  at  larger  (e.g.  continental)  scales,  particularly  if  one  considers  the  complex  interactions 
generated by the different land- or marine-planning options available for different management interests. 

Although we cannot extract a quantitative estimate without a proper meta-analysis, our review suggests that 
nature restoration measures have a remarkably positive impact on food productivity in the long-term, while 
most  of  the  short-term  impacts  are  context-  and  species-dependant.  Thus,  we  consider  that  the 
restoration of degraded and overexploited ecosystems is an insurance policy to ensure the long-
term sustainability and resilience of our food systems. 

4 

 
 
1 

Introduction 

JRC Directorate D on Sustainable Resources has been required to compile in a few weeks scientific evidence 
highlighting the impacts of nature restoration on food security aspects.  

The Society for Ecological Restoration defines ecological restoration as an “intentional activity that initiates 
or  accelerates  the  recovery  of  an  ecosystem  with  respect  to  its  health,  integrity  and  sustainability”  (SER, 
2004).  Traditionally,  active  restoration  implies  management  techniques  such  as  translocation,  planting,  or 
seedlings,  while  passive  restoration  entails  no  action  apart  from  ceasing  environmental  pressures  such  as 
grazing  or  fishing.  However,  recent  views  advocate  for  a  replacing  this  terminology  by  a  continuum-based 
intervention  framework,  which  is  focused  on  the  recovery  of  ecosystems  regardless  of  the  level  of 
intervention  needed  (Chazdon  et  al.,  2021).  There  are  also  open  debates  about  the  kind  of  guidance  and 
flexibility that should be offered to restoration practitioners and policy makers in view of the rapid scaling up 
of  restoration  investment  (e.g.  Higgs  et  al.,  2018).  Ecological  restoration  includes  a  large  variety  of  actions 
devoted  to  erosion  control,  reforestation,  removal  of  non-native  species,  revegetation  of  disturbed  areas, 
daylighting rivers or streams, reintroduction of native species, as well as improving the habitat and extending 
the distribution range of targeted species. 

Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufﬁcient, safe and 
nutritious  food  that  meets  their  dietary  needs  and  food  preferences  for  an  active  and  healthy  life  (FAO, 
1996). Food security is one of the main objectives of Sustainable Development Goals 2 (zero hunger), 14 (life 
below water) and 15 (life on land). The concept of food security has four main pillars: food availability, access 
to enough food, food quality and stability over time. These four pillars are intrinsically linked to each other 
and are underpinned by healthy ecosystems. However, the scientific evidence that measures the effectiveness 
of  nature  restoration  actions  tends  to  focus  on  the  first  pillar,  food  availability  or  productivity.  This  is  the 
reason  why  this  report  focuses  on  the  links  between  nature  restoration  and  food  production.  The 
other pillars of food security would need further research to reveal their relationships with nature restoration. 

This report collects and summarises quantitative evidence reflecting some of the effects of nature restoration 
measures  on  food  productivity.  This  is  a  narrative  review  (i.e.  not  a  systematic  review)  of  selected  peer-
reviewed,  impact  factor  publications.  We  screened  several  hundreds  of  publications,  scrutinised  more  than 
250,  and  extracted  quantitative  evidence  from  185  of  them  (Table  1).  This  evidence-gathering  exercise 
focuses  only  on  direct,  quantitative  relationships  between  restoration  measures  and  food  productivity,  not 
covering  indirect  effects  from  food  productivity  to  food  security,  or  effects  of  restoration  measures  on 
ecological  or  climate  change  aspects  (see  the  ‘concluding  remarks’  section).  Given  that  the  selection  of 
publications was based on nature restoration practices, many aspects of the food systems and in particular 
the comparison with conventional food production, are missing in this work. 

Table 1. Number and type of the selected publications. 

Type of publication 

Ecosystem type 

Agro- and forest ecosystems 
(semi-natural) 
Agro-ecosystems 
Natural forests 
Freshwater ecosystems 
Marine ecosystems 
Total 

Individual 
paper 
14 

Meta-
analysis  
8 

67 
6 
10 
19 
116 

43 
0 
0 
3 
54 

Review 

Total 

2 

7 
0 
1 
5 
15 

24 

117 
6 
11 
27 
185 

This  report  starts  with  an  overview  of  the  EU’s  legislative  and  policy  frameworks  that  contribute  to  nature 
restoration. Then, it shows some evidence of the impacts of multiple farming practices that can contribute to 
nature restoration, providing key definitions and interrelationships. It presents further evidence of the impact 
of restoration measures on two key natural aspects for food productivity: soil quality and insect pollination. It 
continues with a review of the effects in food production of restoration measures applied in forest, in marine 
and in freshwater ecosystems. The last sections present the scarce information of cascade effects on other 
food  security  aspects  than  food  productivity,  and  a  recap  of  the  missing  aspects  related  to  climate  change 
mitigation  and  adaptation.  Finally,  this  report  concludes  with  a  reflection  of  the  limitations  and  major  gaps 
found during the analysis.  

5 

 
 
2  EU policy context 

2.1  Environmental policies 

The backbone of EU’s nature legislation are the Birds and the Habitats Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC and 
Council Directive 92/43/EEC respectively). The Birds Directive aims at maintaining the populations of around 
500  wild  bird  species  naturally  occurring  in  the  European  Union.  It  allows  for  a  sustainable  exploitation  of 
certain  species,  and  it  prescribes  special  conservation  measures  for  a  list  of  threaten  species  and  for 
migratory species. It establishes a network of Special Protection Areas that are included in the Natura 2000 
ecological network, set up under the Habitats Directive. Regarding restoration, the Birds Directive asks for re-
establishing  a  sufficient  diversity  and  area  of  habitats  for  all  the  species  of  birds  (e.g.  re-establishment  of 
destroyed biotopes). 

The objective of the Habitats Directive is the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in 
the European territory. It aims at establishing of measures to maintain or restore, at favourable conservation 
status,  over  1000  animal  and  plant  species  and  200  habitat  types  listed  in  the  directive's  annexes  as  rare, 
threatened,  or  endemic.  The  Habitats  Directive  established  the  EU-wide  Natura  2000  network  of  protected 
areas based on Sites of Community Importance that then turn into Special Areas of Conservation. 

The  Fitness  check  of  the  Birds  and  Habitats  directives  published  in  2016  concluded  that  both  directives 
supported  all  targets  of  the  (previous)  EU’s  Biodiversity  Strategy,  especially  the  restoration  of  ecosystem 
services under target 2. However, these directives alone could not deliver the EU’s biodiversity targets without 
complementary action at EU and national level in other key policy sectors, such as agriculture and fisheries. 
The  most  recent  initiatives  launched  under  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  for  2030  boost  and  reinforce  the 
objectives  of  the  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives  setting  ambitious  quantitative  targets  for  the  protection  of 
habitats and species as well as for their restoration to good conservation status.  

The Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC) aims to protect and enhance aquatic ecosystems 
(both  surface  waters  and  groundwater)  and  promote  sustainable  water  use  across  Europe.  The  primary 
objective is achieving good status of Europe's waters through integrated management plans and appropriate 
measures,  including  restoration  actions.  The  fitness  check  of  the  EU  water  legislation  published  in  2021 
acknowledged that the Water Framework Directive sets a proper governance framework for integrated water 
management,  slowing  down  the  deterioration  of  water  status  and  reducing  chemical  pollution.  Still,  it 
recognises that good status depends also on restoration measures to address pressures from the past, which 
should  have  been  better  developed.  Restoration  measures  (either  to  restore  connectivity  or  to  address 
pollution) can take long time before showing effects but the benefits outweigh the costs. The Commission has 
developed a guidance document1 to assist Member States in identifying and prioritising barriers that could be 
removed to help achieve the Biodiversity Strategy’s goal of restoring 25,000 km of rivers to be free-flowing. 
The main types of action are the removal of barriers and the restoration of floodplains and wetlands.  

The  EU  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  (Directive  2008/56/EC)  was  put  in  place  to  protect  the 
marine  ecosystems  and  biodiversity  across  Europe  while  ensuring  a  sustainable  use  of  their  resources.  For 
this, EU Member States shall take the necessary measures to achieve or maintain good environmental status 
in the marine environment. The Marine Water Framework Directive starts to play an active horizontal role in 
restoring  a  good  environmental  status  at  the  scale  of  the  European  Seas.  The  eleven  descriptors  of  the 
directive raise awareness and start to quantify progress towards good environmental status on such diverse 
anthropogenic impacts than eutrophication, contaminants and plastics, biodiversity and physical disturbance. 
The first objective of this framework  directive is to  prevent the  deterioration of the marine environment or, 
where  practicable,  restore  marine  ecosystems.  Any  action  taken  by  Member  States  to  restore  marine 
ecosystem  will  contribute  to  achieve  a  better  environmental  status  and,  as  such  should  be  included  in  the 
programmes  of  measures  under  the  marine  directive.  However,  the  highly  aggregated  assessment  and 
reporting structure of the directive may prevent a proper follow up of restoration activities.  

The EU Invasive Alien Species Regulation (Regulation (EU) 1143/2014) sets out rules to prevent, minimise 
and mitigate the adverse impact on biodiversity due to the introduction, and spread within the Union, of both 
intentional  and  unintentional  invasive  alien  species.  Member  States  obligations  include  inter  alia  the 
application of proportionate restoration measures to strengthen the ecosystems' resilience towards invasions, 
to repair the damage caused and to enhance the conservation status of species and their habitats. 

1  

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/publications/guidance-barrier-removal-river-restoration_en  

6 

                                           
More recently, the European Green Deal requested to restore nature across Europe as a basis to achieve the 
Union’s biodiversity and climate change objectives. The ambition of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 
(COM/2020/380 final) is to ensure that that Europe's biodiversity is on the path to recovery by 2030 and that 
by  2050  all  ecosystems  are  restored,  resilient  and  adequately  protected.  The  strategy  underlines  that 
protection  alone  is  not  enough  to  reverse  biodiversity  loss  and  commits  to  develop  a  proposal  for  legally-
binding EU nature restoration targets to restore degraded ecosystems, in particular those with the potential to 
remove  and  store  carbon  and  to  prevent  and  reduce  the  impact  of  natural  disasters.  The  Commission 
concluded an impact assessment and drafted a proposal for a new nature restoration regulation that is 
expected to be adopted in the coming weeks.  

The  ambitious  vision  of  the  new  EU  Soil  Strategy  2030  (COM/2021/699  final)  is  to  have  all  EU  soil 
ecosystems  in  a  healthy  condition  by  2050.  The  Strategy  proposes  specific  actions  in  relation  to  climate 
change mitigation, circular economy, biodiversity, desertification, soil restoration, soil monitoring, and citizen 
engagement  to  enable  the  transition  to  healthy  soils.  The  Strategy  considers  proposing  legally  binding 
objectives in the context of the Nature Restoration Law to limit the drainage of wetlands and restore drained 
peatlands,  as  well  as  measures  to  enhance  biodiversity  in  agricultural  land  that  would  contribute  to 
conserving and increasing soil organic carbon.  The European Commission will propose a Soil Health Law in 
2023. Such a legal framework will contribute to the achievement of the Soil Strategy 2030 objectives, grant 
soils the  same level of protection as water and air and improve the condition of soils to  better provide the 
ecosystem services that we depend on. 

The  New  EU  Forest  Strategy  for  2030  (COM/2021/572  final)  is  one  of  the  flagship  initiatives  of  the 
European Green Deal and builds on the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. The Forest Strategy recognises the 
multifunctional role of forests and sets up a process to develop a more ambitious framework for sustainable 
forest  management.  Protecting  and  restoring  EU’s  forest  ecosystems  and  biodiversity  as  well  as  adopting 
biodiversity-friendly  forest  management  practices,  are  necessary  to  combat  climate  change,  reverse 
biodiversity loss and ensure resilient and multifunctional forest ecosystems. Forest habitats and landscapes in 
good  condition  can  enhance  the  condition  of  agro-ecosystems  in  an  integrated  ecosystem-based  approach. 
Restoration  of  forest  ecosystems  can  deliver  benefits  also  at  landscape  level  in  an  integrated  mosaic  of 
synergistic  ecosystems  including  forests,  agro-ecosystems,  grasslands,  soils,  and  water.  The  new  CAP  (for 
2023-2027) offers increased flexibility to design forest-related interventions according to national needs and 
specificities; the recommendations to Member States encourage, among other, protecting and restoring forest 
ecosystems to reach good condition of habitats and species. The Commission will strive to increase the uptake 
of rural development funds available for the purposes of the EU Forest Strategy.  

2.2  Agricultural policies 

Since the introduction of agri-environmental measures in  1992 to steer European agriculture towards  more 
environmentally  sustainable  practices,  the  EU’s  Common  Agricultural  Policy  (CAP)  has  become  an 
essential instrument for maintaining the environmental integrity of European agroecosystems. One of the CAP 
general  objectives  for  the  programming  period  2023-2027  is  to  support  and  strengthen  environmental 
protection in European rural areas. This environmental vocation is detailed in three specific objectives (art. 6 
of the CAP Strategic Plans regulation):  

—  to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation; 

—  to foster sustainable development and efficient management of natural resources; 

—  to contribute to halting and reversing biodiversity loss, enhance ecosystem services and preserve habitats 

and landscapes. 

The renewed CAP should reflect a higher level of environmental and climate ambition. For this, Member States 
are  provided  with  different  tools  organised  in  the  so-called  green  architecture:  enhanced  conditionality, 
sectoral  interventions  and  eco-schemes  in  the  first  pillar,  and  agri-environmental-climate  measures  in  the 
second pillar. While conditionality includes mandatory good agricultural practices and legal requirements, eco-
schemes (voluntary for farmers but mandatory to set up for Member States) and agri-environmental-climate 
measures are voluntary commitments for which farmers receive additional payments.  

7 

 
The  Commission  sets  the  objectives,  the  types  of  interventions  and  the  way  they  are  financed,  while  the 
Member  States  themselves  build  the  green  architecture.  This  is  done  based  on  an  identification  of  regional 
environmental needs, within the framework of the specific objectives mentioned above.  

Particularly  relevant  is  the  shift  from  compliance  with  certain  sustainable  agricultural  practices  to  actually 
achieving  an  improved  environmental  and  climate  performance  of  agriculture.  This  new  delivery  model  has 
been adopted in the new CAP cycle and the CAP Strategic Plan Regulation (Regulation (EU)  2021/2115) 
sets a common framework for the monitoring and evaluation of the results. 

This framework of identifying specific needs at Member State level and the requirement to achieve concrete 
results within ambitious environmental objectives makes the CAP strategic plans a potentially effective tool to 
implement  restoration  actions  in  European  agroecosystems.  These  objectives,  especially  those  related  to 
biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services,  cannot  be  achieved  without  a  solid  intervention  logic,  which  includes 
measures to restore the function of these ecosystems. 

2.3  Fisheries policies 

The  last  reform  of  the  EU’s  Common  Fisheries  Policy  from  2013  (Regulation  (EU)  No 1380/2013)  was 
meant to set sustainable catch limits with the objective to restore stocks, maintain healthy ecosystems and 
safeguard stable, profitable fisheries for the EU fleet. Its first objective is to ensure that the activities of the 
fishing and aquaculture sectors are environmentally sustainable in the long-term and are managed properly 
to achieve economic, social and employment benefits. It also fixes the objective of progressively restoring and 
maintaining populations of fish stocks above biomass levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield. 
To  fulfil  these  objectives  the  European  Union  shall  adopt  conservation  measures,  such  as  measures  to 
minimise  the  impact  of  fishing  on  the  marine  environment  or  measures  necessary  for  compliance  with 
obligations under Union environmental legislation (notably the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the 
Habitats Directive). Therefore, these measures could contain nature restoration actions.  

The  reformed  common  fisheries  policy  came  along  with  the  set-up  of  a  new  European  Maritime  and 
Fisheries Fund (Regulation (EU) No 508/2014) to facilitate its implementation. Among the priorities for this 
fund  there  is  the  protection  and  restoration  of  aquatic  biodiversity  and  ecosystems  as  well  as  the 
enhancement  of  ecosystems  related  to  aquaculture.  In  particular,  the  fund  can  finance  under  shared 
management any measure related to the protection and  restoration of marine biodiversity and ecosystems, 
and  compensation  regimes  in  the  framework  of  sustainable  fishing  activities.  A  new  European  Maritime, 
Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund was adopted in 2021 (Regulation (EU) 2021/1139) keeping as a  priority 
“fostering sustainable fisheries and the restoration and conservation of aquatic biological resources” and as 
one  of  the  specific  objectives  “contributing  to  the  protection  and  restoration  of  aquatic  biodiversity  and 
ecosystems”. 

The  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  for  2030  reiterates  the  need  to  restore  marine  ecosystems  to  ‘good 
environmental  status’.  Some  of  the  foreseen  actions  are  the  full  implementation  of  the  Common  Fisheries 
Policy and Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the restoration of carbon-rich ecosystems, the restoration of 
important  fish  spawning  and  nursery  areas,  a  new  action  plan  to  conserve  fisheries  resources  and  protect 
marine ecosystems, and measures to limit the use of fishing gear most harmful to biodiversity (specifically 
reducing seabed damage and by-catch). 

8 

 
 
3  Evidence  of  the  impacts  of  farming  practices  having  a  potential  to 

contribute to nature restoration 

Nature  restoration  measures  in  farmland  generally  consist  of  a  variety  of  sustainable  agricultural  practices 
that have the potential to achieve a balance between farming and nature: agricultural production should be 
achieved non depleting land, air, soil, water, plant and animal health and welfare, and supporting biodiversity. 
Pressures linked to farming  combined  with the challenges of food security and  climate change, are causing 
mounting  tensions  in  food  systems.  High  impact  factor  scientific  papers  support  that  nature  restoration 
efforts can help reverse declines in terrestrial biodiversity caused by habitat conversion and overexploitation. 
It is suggested that these efforts are economically feasible and consistent with broader sustainability goals, 
while at the same time able to maintain the provision of food for a growing human population (Leclère et al., 
2020). 

The EU’s Green Deal transformations for the agricultural  sector are especially reflected in the Farm-to-Fork 
and  Biodiversity  strategies. Several studies (cited and reviewed in Barreiro-Hurle et al., 2021)  have recently 
tried to assess the impact of specific aspects of both strategies on agricultural  production, focusing on the 
lower use of  pesticides, the  reduction of nutrient losses, an increase of land  under organic farming, and an 
increased  area  under  high  diversity  landscape  features.  Mainly  based  on  economic  modelling  approaches, 
these  studies,  unsurprisingly,  concluded  that  the  reduction  of  inputs  and  land  will  lead  to  a  considerable 
decrease  in  agricultural  production.  However,  as  described  in  Barreiro-Hurle  et  al.,  2021,  the  studies  have 
several  caveats,  among  others,  they  (i)  do  not  consider  the  full  scope  of  the  two  strategies  and  (ii)  neglect 
positive  feedback  effects  on  agricultural  production  that  can  come  along  with  more  environmental-friendly 
production  (e.g.  increase  in  biodiversity  and  improved  soil  health)  and  enhanced  sustainability  of  the  food 
systems.  Accordingly,  additional  work  is  needed  to  provide  a  full  picture  of  the  impact  of  the  Farm-to-Fork 
and Biodiversity strategies (Barreiro-Hurle et al., 2021). 

Most  of  the  effects  of  farming  practices  reviewed  and  compiled  in  this  section  fall  under  the  category  of 
short-term impacts (i.e. observed in less than 5 years). However, (i) the indirect side-effects affecting some 
soil properties (e.g. carbon content), (ii) the indirect side-effects on biodiversity, and (iii) the development of 
agroforestry practices act on longer timeframes (a decade or more).  

Box 1. Conservation agriculture 

Conservation  agriculture  is  a  farming  approach  that  aims  at  preserving  the  long-term  health  of  soil.  The 
European Confederation for Conservation Agriculture defines it as a sustainable agriculture production system 
comprising  a  set  of  farming  practices  adapted  to  the  requirements  of  crops  and  local  conditions  of  each 
region,  whose  farming  and  soil  management  techniques  protect  the  soil  from  erosion  and  degradation, 
improve its quality and biodiversity, and contribute to the preservation of the natural resources, water and air, 
while optimizing yields (ECAF, 2022). 

The three key components of conservation agriculture are: (i) minimum soil disturbance (no or reduced tillage), 
(ii)  maintenance  of  soil  covers,  and  (iii)  crop  diversity  and  crop  rotations.  Some  evidence  on  each  of  these 
three  sets  of  practices  is  provided  here.  However,  bundles  of  practices  can  have  more  positive  synergistic 
impacts on the environment (Baaken, 2022). 

3.1  No-tillage and reduced tillage 

No-tillage, or zero tillage, refers to a practice in which a crop is sown directly into soil not disturbed through 
tillage since the harvest of the previous crop. Reduced tillage (including minimum tillage, subsoil tillage, non-
inversion  or  shallow  inversion)  refers  to  methods  applying  lower  degrees  of  soil  disturbance  compared  to 
conventional  tillage,  which  involves  soil  inversion  (Derpsch  et  al.,  2014).  So  far,  there  is  no  robust  scientific 
conclusion about the impact of different tillage practices.  

The soil erosion by water is affected by tillage, depending on the depth, direction and timing of plowing, the 
type  of  tillage  equipment  used,  and  the  number  of  passages  made.  Reduced  tillage  or  no-till  practices  are 
effective in reducing soil erosion by water and leaching of nutrient into ground water. According to literature 

9 

 
experimental results, the no till or reduced tillage may reduce soil loss by water erosion in the range of 65-
75% (Nyakatawa et al., 2001)2. 

A four-year field study in Spain of corn fields under no-tillage combined with organic (cow slurry) or inorganic 
(mineral)  fertilisation  showed  a  significant  restoration  of  soil  quality  in  both  cases  (lower  soil  acidity  and 
enhanced  organic  matter  content).  Soil  quality  index  increased  from  13.8%  to  67.6%  for  organic  plots  and 
from 13.4% to 44.4% for inorganic plots over a period of 4 years (Mijangos et al., 2012). 

A  six-year field  study in Italy showed that no-tillage with cover crops in arable agro-ecosystems led to soil 
fertility restoration while maintaining or enhancing crop yield and reducing costs. No-tillage with cover crops 
maintained wheat, maize and soybean yields, increased soil organic matter from 20% to 30% compared to 
conventional  tillage.  Similarly,  soil  total  nitrogen  increased  from  21%  to  28%  compared  to  conventional 
tillage.  The  study  concluded  that  replacing  conventional  tillage  with  no-tillage  and  winter  cover  crops 
enhances long-term soil fertility in fine-textured soils under temperate climates (Boselli et al., 2020). Another 
no-tillage  with  cover  crops  study  in  an  arid  irrigated  cropping  system  in  California,  USA,  showed  that  soil 
aggregation, water infiltration rates,  carbon  content, nitrogen, water extractable organic carbon and organic 
nitrogen,  residue  cover,  and  biological  activity  were  all  increased  relative  to  conventional  tillage  with  and 
without cover crops. However, effects varied by depth with no-tillage increasing soil bulk density by 12% in 
the 0-15 cm depth and 10% in the 15-30 cm depth (Mitchell et al., 2017).  

However,  an  ongoing  systematic  review  of  16  meta-analyses,  all  including  data  collected  in  Europe,  shows 
that the impacts of no-tillage and reduced tillage on crop yield are inconsistent 3. More specifically: 

—  For no-tillage: 7 results reported no effect (i.e. no variation of crop yield), 7 showed a negative effect (i.e. 
decrease  of  crop  yield),  2  reported  a  positive  effect  (i.e.  increase  of  crop  yield),  and  1  showed  an 
uncertain effect.  

—  For  reduced  tillage:  3  out  of  7  results  reported  a  negative  impact,  2  showed  no  effect,  and  2  reported 

uncertain effect.  

3.2  Diversification, intercropping and cover crops 

Crop  diversification  was  found  to  enhance  crop  production  (+14%),  associated  biodiversity  (+24%),  and 
several  supporting  and  regulating  ecosystem  services  including  water  quality  (+51%),  pest  and  disease 
control  (+63%)  and  soil  quality  (+11%)  (Beillouin,  2021).  A  review  of  98  meta-analyses  concluded  that  a 
combination of agricultural diversification measures including crop and non-crop diversification was found to 
enhance  biodiversity,  pollination,  pest  control,  nutrient  cycling,  soil  fertility,  and  water  regulation  without 
compromising crop yields (Tamburini et al., 2020). Diversification practices had a significant positive impact 
on  organic  yields  (see  under  organic  farming).  Diversification  with  legumes  or  non-legumes  improved  soil 
fertility differently, the former being most beneficial for volcanic soils (with +18% plant biomass production in 
bioassays  and  +26%  soil  inorganic  nitrogen  compared  to  the  low  diversity  management)  and  the  latter  for 
ferralsols (with +39% plant biomass production in bioassays, and +46% soil phosphorous, +26% soil carbon, 
+5% pH) (Sauvadet et al., 2021). There is multi-country evidence that crop diversification significantly reduced 
populations of two key pests, reduced (on average) insecticide applications by 70%, increased grain yields by 
5% and delivered an economic advantage of 7.5% (Gurr et al., 2016). Widespread adoption of diversification 
practices  shows  promise  to  contribute  to  biodiversity  conservation  and  food  security  from  local  to  global 
scales. 

Intercropping  is  a  farming  practice  that  involves  cultivating  two  or  more  crop  species  (i.e.  crop  mixture 
cropping) or genotypes (i.e. cultivar mixture cropping) in the same area and coexisting for a time so that they 
interact  agronomically.  A  literature  review  reinforced  with  field  experiments  and  observations  found 
intercropping to lead to higher and more stable grain yield (0.33 versus 0.27 kg/m2) and higher cereal protein 
concentration (11.1 versus 9.8%) than the mean sole crop. Intercropping is particularly suited for low-nitrogen 
availability systems,  but further  understanding is required to propose generic crop management  procedures 
(Bedoussac  et  al.,  2015).  Shrub  intercropping  in  the  Sahel  led  to  126%  higher  millet  grain  yields  when 
averaged across all fertiliser treatments (Bright et al., 2021).  

2  
3  

See also the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) factsheet at http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/12-051.htm  
These 
https://wikis.ec.europa.eu/display/IMAP/Home  

results  are  part  of  a  comprehensive  database  of  agricultural  practices 

that  will  be  available  soon 

in 

10 

 
                                           
Cover crops are grown to provide vegetative cover between rows of main crops in orchards and vineyards, or 
in the period  between two main arable crops to prevent erosion and  minimize the risk of surface  runoff by 
improving the infiltration. They are temporary crops that can be cut and removed or incorporated into the soil. 
Based  on  various  experimental  site  studies,  it  is  estimated  that  cover  crops  may  reduce  soil  loss  by  water 
erosion in the range of 15%-25% (Nyakatawa et al., 2001; Verstraeten et al., 2002; Panagos et al., 2015a). 
Cover cropping with legumes is significantly beneficial for yield while non-legume cover crops can decrease 
yield. Data meta-analyses of arable farmland in California and in the Mediterranean region showed that food 
crop  yield  was  16%  higher  with  legume  cover  crops  and  7%  lower  with  non-legumes,  compared  to  plots 
without cover crops (Shackelford et al., 2019). Replacing a fallow with legume cover crops led to a mean yield 
increase  of  25%  (Quemada  et  al.,  2013).  Meta-analyses  from  Nordic  countries  show  6%  average  yield 
increase with legume and mixed cover crops and 3% decrease with non-legume cover crops (Valkama et al., 
2015). A meta-analysis of fruit yield and quality showed 9% yield and 7% fruit weight increase with legume 
cover crops (Fang et al., 2021). Non-legume cover crops resulted in 11% yield decrease and no effect on fruit 
weight.  A  comparison  of  cover  crops  with  grain  or  vegetable  crops  showed  no  effect  of  cover  crops  on  the 
former  and  higher  yields  for  the  latter  (Osipitan  et  al.,  2018).  Several  studies  of  no-tillage  and  cover  crops 
show significant positive impacts on soil health (see the no-tillage and soil quality sections). 

3.3  Reduction of fertilisers 

Mineral  fertilisers  are  considered  to  play  an  important  role  in  ensuring  food  security.  However,  especially 
nitrogen surplus contributes to serious atmospheric pollution (Cohen et al., 2017), degradation of vegetation 
and  biodiversity  (Cape  et  al.,  2009),  climate  change  through  nitrous  oxide  emissions  (Frank  et  al.,  2019), 
ground and surface water degradation (Relabais et al., 2009; Smith and Schindler, 2009; van Grinsven, 2010), 
and impacts on freshwater and marine ecosystems (Seitzinger et al., 2010). Accordingly, the management of 
nitrogen is a crucial component of reaching sustainable food systems. One option to manage nitrogen more 
efficiently  is  precision  farming,  which  has  a  high  potential  to  decrease  negative  environmental  effects  of 
agricultural  production  while  at  the  same  time  increasing  the  income  of  farmers  and  the  quality  of 
agricultural  production  (Finger  et  al.,  2019).  Nitrification  inhibitors  are  another  technology  that  can  be  an 
economic  viable  solution  to  increase  both  crop  yields  and  nitrogen  use  efficiency  (Fellman  et  al.,  2021).  A 
recent  modelling  study  found  that  mobilizing  a  range  of  nitrogen  mitigation  options  could  increase  global 
food security while respecting nitrogen surplus boundaries, leading to a reduction of 590 million people at risk 
of hunger by 2050 compared to 2010 (Chang et al., 2021).  

A  wide  range  of  studies  indicate  that  there  is  considerable  scope  for  reducing  or  stopping  mineral  fertiliser 
uses without reducing yields. No significant effect of mineral fertiliser (inorganic nitrogen) was detected in a 
cumulative  field  study  of  294  oilseed  rape  fields  that  yield  was  limited  by  pollinators  rather  than  nutrient 
availability (Catarino et al., 2019a). Empirical analysis based on field surveys coupled with experimental trials, 
where  nitrogen  input  was  manipulated  under  real  farming  conditions,  showed  no  significant  effect  of  high-
nitrogen application on winter wheat yields in conventional farms (Catarino et al., 2019b). 

Biofertilisers and integrated nutrient management can often fill the mineral fertilisers’ gap. Biofertilisers are 
living  microbes  that  enhance  plant  nutrition  by  either  mobilising  or  increasing  nutrient  availability  in  soils, 
presenting  a  promising  strategy  to  reduce  dependency  on  inorganic  fertilisers  (Mitter  et  al.,  2021).  For 
example,  Rhodopseudomonas  palustris strains  TN114  and  PP803  were  found  to  be  effective  biofertilisers 
(Kantachote  et  al.,  2016):  TN114  was  the  most  effective  for  increasing  grain  yield  in  organic  paddy  fields 
while  PP803  was  the  most  effective  in  saline  paddy  fields.  Substitution  with  biofertilisers  also  strongly 
reduces methane emissions. 

Integrated management of phosphorus,  organic  sources,  and  beneficial  microbes  was  found  to  significantly 
improve  the  dry  matter  partitioning  of  maize  in  semiarid  regions.  Dry  matter  partitioning  is  the  process  by 
which  plants  distribute  their  biomass  from  the  source  organs  (leaves  and  stems)  to  the  storage  organs 
(grains),  potentially  affecting  yields.  Compost  application  at  sowing  time  along  with  poultry  manure  (5  tons 
per hectare), 2 weeks before sowing, increased dry matter partitioning significantly, as did the incorporation 
of legume residues (Amanullah et al., 2019).  

Manure  from  healthy  animals  is  a  crucial  fodder  source  for  soil  organisms  and  therefore  stimulating  a 
healthy, fertile soil. However, the quality of manure matters. Manure containing pollutants such as antibiotics, 
pathogens and heavy metals threatens the ecosystem’s intactness.   

11 

 
 
3.4  Reduction of pesticides 

A  pesticide  is  aimed  at  preventing,  destroying,  or  controlling  a  harmful  organism  ('pest')  or  disease,  or  it 
protects  plants  or  plant  products  during  production,  storage  and  transport.  The  term  includes  herbicides, 
fungicides,  insecticides,  acaricides,  nematicides,  molluscicides,  rodenticides,  growth  regulators,  repellents, 
rodenticides  and  biocides.  As  potentially  responsible  for  side-effects  in  agro-systems,  the  goal  of  pesticide 
reduction strategies is to reduce the use of pesticides in cropping systems, while maintaining their productivity 
and economic profitability compared to systems based on intensive use of pesticides. 

Integrated pest management is one of the main pesticide reduction strategies. It is defined as set of practices 
that  carefully  consider  all  available  plant  protection  methods  and  subsequent  integration  of  appropriate 
measures that discourage the development of populations of harmful organisms and  keep the use of plant 
protection products and other forms of intervention to levels that are economically and ecologically justified 
and  reduce  or  minimise  risks  to  human  health  and  the  environment 4.  Integrated  pest  management  thus 
emphasises  the  growth  of  a  healthy  crop  with  the  least  possible  disruption  to  agro-ecosystems  and 
encourages natural pest control mechanisms. 

Meta-analyses of integrated pest management with and without herbicide showed improved crop yield for the 
former and no difference for the latter compared to herbicide use alone in the case of Convolvulus arvensis 
(weed)  control  (Davis  et  al,  2018),  and  improved  crop  yield  without  herbicide  in  the  case  of  Canada  thistle 
(Cirsium arvense) (Davis et al., 2018). One meta-analysis on the effects of integrated pest management on 
perennial crops yields (vineyards and orchards), analysing individual studies from 162 different publications, 
found no significant difference in yields compared with conventional farms (Katayama et al., 2019). Another 
meta-analysis  (Himmelstein  et  al.,  2017)  found  an  increase  in  yields  under  integrated  pest  management 
compared with no integrated pest management. Results in this case should be interpreted with caution in the 
context of the EU as they are based on studies conducted in Africa.   

Hossard et al. (2016) studied the long term effect of low-input systems on wheat and maize yields and found 
that substantially reduced amount of pesticides (and mineral fertilisers) had no impact on maize yields while 
the impact of wheat yields was on average a reduction of 11-13%.      

A  cumulative  field  study  of  294  oilseed  rape  fields  between  2013  and  2016  showed  that  yield  and  gross 
margins are greater (15-40%) in fields with higher pollinator abundance than in fields with reduced pollinator 
abundance (Catarino, et al. 2019a). This effect is, however, strongly reduced by pesticide use. Greater yields 
may be achieved by either increasing agrochemicals or increasing bee abundance, but crop economic returns 
were only increased by the latter: pesticides did not increase yields while their costs reduced gross margins. 
Another  study  estimated  that  total  pesticide  use  could  be  reduced  by  42%  (corresponding  to  an  average 
reduction  of  37,  47  and  60%  of  herbicide,  fungicide  and  insecticide  use,  respectively)  without  any  negative 
effects on either productivity or profitability in 59% of farms (Lechenet et al., 2017). Also, the results of 95 
meta-analyses  integrating  more  than  5000  experiments  on  120  crop  species  in  85  countries  showed  that 
crop diversification enhanced pest and disease control by 63% (Beillouin et al., 2021).  

Biological control methods involving the introduction of flower strips enhanced pest control by 16% (Albrecht 
et al., 2020). A more specific study showed strong reductions in cereal leaf beetle larvae (-66%) and eggs (-
44%) and resulting crop damage (-40%), and 10% increase in average crop yield in winter wheat (Tschumi et 
al., 2016). The positive interactive effect between natural pest control and pollination increased oilseed rape 
yield by 23% with synergistic effects contributing 10% – and single contributions 6% and 7% respectively – 
thus reducing dependence on chemical pesticides (Sutter and  Albrecht, 2016).  

3.5  Organic farming 

Organic  farming  systems  are  production  systems  that  avoid  or  largely  exclude  the  use  of  synthetically 
compounded inputs. In the EU, their certification is regulated according to the prescriptions of EU Regulation 
2018/848.  Organic  farming  is  based  on  principles  and  practices  promoting  environmental  protection  and 
climate action, in particular to maintain soil fertility, animal and plant welfare, and to support biodiversity. It is 
in  line  with  a  growing  demand  for  products  produced  using  natural  substances  and  processes.  It  does  not 
consist of a single practice, but of combined application of several farming practices, such as: 

—  banning the use of genetically modified organisms; 

4  

https://ec.europa.eu/food/plants/pesticides/sustainable-use-pesticides/integrated-pest-management-ipm_en  

12 

 
                                           
—  limiting the use of mineral fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides; 

—  prohibiting the use of hormones and restricting the use of antibiotics to only when necessary for animal 

health; 

—  crop rotation; 

—  growing nitrogen fixing plants and other green manure crops to restore the fertility of the soil; 

—  enhancing natural pest control. 

Overall, organic yields are typically lower than conventional yields (Seufert et al., 2012). On average, the yield 
gap ranges from 5% (for rain-fed legumes and perennials on weak-acidic to weak-alkaline soils), 13% (when 
best organic practices are used), to 34% lower yields (Lesur-Dumoulin et al., 2017; Alvarez et al., 2021).  

The yield gap also  depends  strongly on the  crop, estimated in one study at  37% for  maize and wheat, and 
19% for soybean (Dal Ferro et al., 2019). For cereals in general it was estimated at 30%, at 25% for potatoes 
and at 16% in orchard/vineyard landscapes (Maggio et al., 2008; Katayama et al., 2019). A US study based on 
data  collected  from  over  10,000  organic  farmers  and  a  total  of  800,000  hectares  of  organic  farmland 
showed a 20% average yield gap across all crops – however, several crops showed no significant difference 
in  yield  between  organic  and  conventional  production,  and  organic  yields  surpassed  conventional  yields  for 
some  hay  crops  (Kniss  et  al.,  2016).  The  yield  gap  for  Durum  wheat  was  on  average  15%,  resulting  partly 
from the effects of air temperature, rainfall and weed infestation (Campiglia et al., 2015).  

Organic  farms  produced  strawberries  of  significantly  better  quality  than  their  conventional  counterparts 
(Reganold et al., 2010). Pollination was also more effective in strawberries (Andersson et al., 2012) and field 
beans grown organically (Andersson et al., 2014). Landscape heterogeneity further improved pollination and 
field  bean  yield  in  organic  farms  but  not  in  conventional  ones.  However,  organic  farming  in  isolated 
landscapes did not improve pollination (Brittain et al., 2010). 

A  study  also  shows  a  declining  yield  gap  between  organic  and  conventional  farming  with  time  progressed 
since conversion, coinciding with enhanced N-input efficiency of organic compared to other farming systems 
(Schrama  et  al.,  2018).  Diversification  practices  further  reduce  this  yield  gap:  a  meta-dataset  (115  studies 
containing more than 1000 observations) showed that multi-cropping and crop rotation substantially reduce 
the  yield  gap  (from  19%±4%  to  9±4%  and  8±5%,  respectively)  (Ponisio  et  al.,  2015).  Research  studies 
typically do not account for co-production of fodder/forage through crop diversification techniques (rotations, 
multicropping,  cover crops),  which  were found to  be significantly more frequent in organic farming systems 
(Alvarez  et  al.,  2021).  Organic  systems  with  grass-clover  increased  soil  fertility  but  reduced  rotational  crop 
yield (Shah et al., 2017). Here the yield gap between organic and conventional systems varied between sites: 
the greatest yield gap was found for systems without manure application (31-65%), while for systems with 
manure and catch crops it was 28-35%.  

3.6  Agroforestry 

Agroforestry is a  particular type of land-use system and  technology  where woody  perennials (trees, shrubs, 
etc.)  are  deliberately  used  on  the  same  land  management  unit  as  agricultural  crops  and/or  animals.  It  is  a 
form  of  multiple  cropping  that  can  be  considered  at  a  range  of  spatial  scales  from  field  to  landscape,  and 
that satisfies at least three basic conditions: (i) there are at least two species that interact biologically; (ii) at 
least one of the  species is a woody  perennial; (iii) at least one of the  plant  species is managed for forage, 
annual or perennial crop production. This section is closely related to the ones on landscape features and on 
restoration measures applied in forests, since all of them explain some natural functions of woody vegetation. 
However,  not  all  landscape  features  and  restoration  measures  applied  in  forests  can  be  considered 
agroforestry practices. 

Agroforestry  systems,  compared  to  conventional  agriculture,  have  a  positive  effect  on  a  wide  range  of 
environmental/climate  impacts  and  little  or  no  trade-offs.  In  particular,  agroforestry  significantly  increases 
soil  nutrients’  stocks,  carbon  sequestration,  biodiversity,  pollination,  pest-  and  disease-control  and  water 
retention, while decreasing soil erosion and greenhouse gas emissions (Pumariño et al., 2015; Torralba et al, 
2016; De Stefano and Jacobson, 2017; Shi et al., 2018; Basche et al., 2019; Kuyah et al., 2019; Muchane et 
al.,  2020).  Agroforestry  systems  can  also  yield  similar  or  sometimes  higher  amounts  of  food  products  per 
hectare, while delivering more diversified types of products from the same land (Bayala et al., 2012; Rivest et 
al., 2013; Jezeer et al., 2017; Félix et al., 2018; Akinnifesi et al., 2021). For example, agroforestry increased 

13 

 
soil organic  carbon stocks by 18% (Shi,  et  al.  2018), and  was estimated to  mitigate around 27.2 tons CO2-
equivalents  per  hectare  per  year,  at  least  for  the  first  14  years  after  establishment  (Kim  et  al.,  2016). 
Depending  on  the  type  of  agroforestry  system,  biodiversity  can  increase  by  40-50%  considering  only 
European data (Torralba, 2016). 

3.7  Landscape features  

Agricultural landscape features are small fragments of non-productive natural or semi-natural vegetation in 
agricultural  landscapes  that  provide  ecosystem  services  that  affect  soil  health,  pollination,  pest  control  and 
crop  yield  in  adjacent  fields.  Historically,  farmers  have  taken  advantage  of  the  natural  elements  already 
present in the agricultural landscapes or have created them for various purposes: to use their wood, to create 
shelter for crops and livestock as well as windbreak barriers, to delimit parcels, or to be able to cultivate on 
land  with  steep  slope.  Examples  considered  here  consist  mainly  of  hedgerows,  trees  (in  line  or  group  or 
isolated),  field  margins,  flower  strips,  and  other  planted  areas.  The  presence  of  landscape  features  is  also 
referred to as landscape complexity, and their removal as landscape simplification.  

A  recent  second  order  synthesis  (building  on  systematic  reviews  and  meta-analyses)  has  documented  an 
overall positive impact of landscape features / landscape complexity on biodiversity and ecosystem services 
(Baaken, 2022).  The effect of landscape features on crop yield is more ambiguous: most of the studies did 
not  inspect  this  question,  and  the  ones  that  did  found  mixed  impacts.  A  global  synthesis  (674  fields  in  42 
studies) showed that cascading effects of landscape simplification led to lower crop production (Dainese, et 
al. 2019).  

In a meta-analysis of services provided by semi-natural landscape features, out of the publications reporting 
pest control effects, 81% reported positive effects (although 67% of these used as a proxy for pest control 
the  abundance,  diversity  and  predation  or  parasitism  rates  of  natural  enemies,  which  do  not  necessarily 
translate into reduced pest abundance or plant damage). Most positive effects were reported for arable crops. 
Of  these  publications,  52%  recommended  field  boundary  habitats  such  as  hedgerows,  hedgebase  or  field 
margins. Out of the publications reporting effects on pollination, 79% reported positive effects, of which 25% 
recommended field  boundary habitats while 25% emphasized floral abundance irrespective of habitat type. 
Most publications reporting effects on soil erosion and soil organic matter reported positive effects (Holland, 
et al., 2017). 

In  landscapes  with  high  edge  density  pollination  and  pest  control  were  found  to  increase  1.7  and  1.4-fold 
respectively  (Martin  et  al.,  2019).  A  comparative  study  of  landscape  complexity  effects  on  pollinators  and 
natural  enemies  showed  positive  effects  on  bees  and  spiders  but  inconclusive  effects  on  parasitoids  and 
predatory beetles (Shackelford et al., 2013).  

Several studies (Carvalheiro et al., 2011; Feltham et al., 2015; Albrecht et al., 2020; Muñoz et al., 2021) point 
to  significant  impacts  of  flower  strips,  hedgerows  and  other  landscape  features  on  pollination  rates  or 
pollinators  abundance,  which  in  some  cases  are  also  translated  into  higher  yields  (see  the  section  on 
pollination  for  details).  One  study  estimated  flower  strips  and  hedgerows  to  enhance  pest  control  by  16% 
(Albrecht et al., 2020). In another study, flower proximity affected natural enemies and increased wheat yield 
by 15% (Mei et al., 2021).  

The maintenance of landscape features such as stone walls (and terraces) and buffer strips (grass margins) 
has positive effect in trapping sediments within the borders of the agricultural fields, therefore reducing soil 
erosion  (Dabney  et  al.,  2009;  Maetens  et  al.,  2012;  Panagos  et  al.,  2015b).  Dry  stone  walls  are  widespread 
landscape  features  in  the  Mediterranean  region  (e.g.  Malta,  Sicily,  Cyprus,  Balearic  Islands,  Aegean  Islands) 
and can be effective in reducing  runoff and  soil erosion,  especially in hilly areas. Grass margins are  mainly 
located  at  the  edge  of  the  fields,  between  cropped  areas  (beetle  banks)  or  bordering  roads  and  tracks 
(roadside verge).  

A synthesis for hedgerows and grass strips on arable land indicated that crop yield was reduced by 29% up to 
a  distance  twice  the  hedgerow  height  and  increased  by  6%  beyond  this  up  to  a  distance  20  times  the 
hedgerow  height.  Parcels  with  hedgerows  showed  higher  pest’s  predators  diversity  but  not  density,  while 
those  with  grass  strips  showed  higher  predator  density  as  well  as  diversity  and  lower  aphid  (small  sap-
sucking insects) density (van Vooren et al., 2017). 

In  a  study  on  landscape  greening  along  with  landscape  features  (sown  wildflower  strips  and  hedgerows) 
around 18 winter oil seed rape fields, insect pollination potential and pest predation increased on average by 

14 

 
10%  and  13%  respectively  when  the  landscape-scale  greening  share  (within  a  1  km  radius  around  focal 
fields)  was  increased  from  6%  to  26%.  For  pollination,  the  increase  was  14%  stronger  in  fields  adjoining 
landscape  features.  However,  neither  significantly  affected  crop  yield,  of  which  agricultural  management 
practices were the main determinants (Sutter et al., 2018). 

Box 2. Agroecology 

Agroecology  can  be  considered  jointly  as  a  science,  a  set  of  practices  and  a  social  movement.  It  integrates 
agricultural production, ecological principles, social impacts, economic performance, food sovereignty, right to 
food, social justice, governance issues, addressing the whole food system and beyond. The key agroecological 
principles  that  concern  more  specifically  the  ecological  dimension  of  farming  (and  are,  thus,  more  closely 
linked to restoration) are the following ones (HLPE, 2019):  

—  Soil heath. Secure and enhance soil health and functioning for improved plant growth, particularly by 

managing organic matter and by enhancing soil biological activity.  

—  Input reduction. Reduce or eliminate dependency on purchased inputs  

—  Recycling. Preferentially use local renewable resources and close as far as possible resource cycles of 

nutrients and biomass. 

—  Animal health. Ensure animal health and welfare. 

—  Biodiversity. Maintain and enhance diversity of species, functional diversity and genetic resources and 

maintain biodiversity in the agroecosystem. 

—  Synergy. Enhance positive ecological interaction, synergy, integration, and complementarity amongst 

the elements of agroecosystems. 

Each of these principles can be linked to one or more of the farming practices described in this section. 

Agroecology offers the possibility of win-win solutions: by building synergies across the positive effects of the 
individual farming practices, it can increase food production and food & nutrition security while restoring the 
ecosystem services and biodiversity that are essential for sustainable agricultural production (FAO, 2014). 

15 

 
4  Further  evidence  of  the  impacts  of  restoration  measures  on  insect 

pollination 

Given  that 70%  of  the  124  global  crops  used  directly  for  human  consumption  rely  on  or  benefit  from  
pollinators  for  their  reproduction  (Klein  et  al.,  2007),  the  loss  of pollinators  in  agricultural  land  is a  major 
threat  to  food  production.   Many  studies  have  analyzed  the  importance  of  insect  pollination  for  food 
production  by  conducting  pollinator  exclusion  experiments.  In  most  cases,  open  pollination  (i.e.  when 
pollinators  are  allowed  to  access  the  flowers)  provided  higher  yields,  fruit  quality,  fruit  set  and  seed  set, 
compared to cases where pollinators were excluded (Bartomeus et al., 2014; Garratt et al., 2014; Klein et al., 
2003; Geslin et al., 2017; Wietzke et al., 2018). Similarly, experiments where pollen was added manually have 
also  shown  higher  yields  (e.g.,  fruit  and  seed  sets)  compared  to  open  pollination,  indicating  that  for  some 
crops  in  some  areas  there  is  pollen  limitation  (Holland  et  al.,  2020).  Therefore,  higher  pollinator  abundance 
could potentially translate into higher yields. Food production can be enhanced by pollinator abundance and/or 
pollinator  diversity  depending  on  the  context  (Woodcock  et  al.,  2019),  and  many  articles  highlight  the 
importance of wild bees and other non-bee wild pollinators for crop production (Blitzer et al., 2016; Garibaldi 
et al., 2013; Mallinger and Gratton, 2015; Bishop et al., 2016; Grass et al., 2018; Pérez-Méndez et al., 2020). 
The  loss  of  pollinators  comes  along  with  considerable  economic  costs,  with  a  study  estimating  that  the 
worldwide short-term welfare effects due to a collapse in pollinators could be between 1 and 2% of global 
GDP (Lippert et al., 2021). 

Despite  their  importance,  insect  pollinators  are  declining  worldwide.  The  loss  of  their  habitat,  the  use  of 
pesticides,  invasive  species  or  the  spread  of  pathogens  are  among  their  main  threats  (Potts  et  al.,  2010). 
Scientific  evidence  shows  a  great  potential  of  nature  restoration  measures  to  support  pollinators 
and pollination  services  by  providing  them  habitat  with  food,  nesting  and  overwintering  resources  or  by 
reducing  their  exposure  to  pesticides.  As  insect  pollinators  are  mobile  organisms,  restoration  measures 
targeted to favour pollination services can cover multiple spatial scales, from local (e.g. wildflower strips) to 
field  (e.g.  organic  farming)  and  landscape  scale  (e.g.  restoration  or  preservation  of  semi-natural  areas). 
Regarding  temporal  scales,  the  re-creation  of  adequate  habitats  for  pollinators  may  take  from  short  to 
medium time scales (i.e. from 1 to 10 years) but, once settled, their effect can be rapid.  

At  local  scale,  scientific  evidence  shows  that  the  creation  of  wildflower  strips  and  diverse  field  margins 
enhances pollinator richness and abundance, generally leading to an increase in pollination of adjacent crops 
(Feltham et al., 2015; Martin et al., 2019; Sutter et al., 2018). Some articles have reported increases in crop 
yield  through  enhanced  pollination  service  or  reduction  of  pest  damage  following  the  implementation  of 
wildflower  strips  and  field  margins  in  farmlands  (e.g.  42%  in  avocado,  12.2%  in  blueberry,  10  to  15%  in 
wheat)  (Blaauw  and  Isaacs,  2014;  Isaacs  and  Kirk,  2010;  Mei  et  al.,  2021;  Muñoz  et  al.,  2021).However,  a 
recent review suggests that the effects of these local measures on yield through crop pollination are variable 
(Lowe  et  al.,  2021).  To  increase  the  effectiveness  of  these  local  restoration  measures  on  the  provision  of 
pollination services, ensuring a high floral diversity and perennial floral plantings is essential (Albrecht et al., 
2020). 

At field scale, agricultural management practices can affect pollination. Yet, their effects on pollination seem 
to  be  context  dependent.  While  some  authors  show  positive  effects  of  organic  farming  on  pollination 
(Andersson et al., 2012; Andersson et al., 2014), others found no significant differences between organic and 
conventional  farming  (Brittain  et  al.,  2010;  Porcel  et  al.,  2018).  As  already  stated  in  the  section  of 
‘diversification’,  a  recent  meta-analysis  showed  that  agricultural  diversification  (including  a  variety  of 
practices  such  as  intercropping  and  crop  rotation,  non-crop  diversification,  organic  farming,  organic 
amendment and reduced tillage) enhanced biodiversity, pollination and pest control amongst other ecosystem 
services, without compromising crop yields (Tamburini et al., 2020).  

At    landscape  scale,  the  composition  of  the  landscape  matrix  and  the  type  of  ecosystem  surrounding  crop 
fields  have a  strong  positive effect on crop pollination and agricultural production (Carvalheiro  et al.,  2010; 
Garibaldi et al., 2011; Holland et al., 2017; Morandin and Winston, 2006). Scientific evidence shows a positive 
relation  between  the  presence  of  natural  and  semi-natural  habitats  and  the  provision  of  pest  control  and 
pollination services (e.g. significant increases in fruit set in almond and cherry, and in seed mass in sunflower 
crops) (Carvalheiro et al., 2011; Holzschuh et al., 2012; Klein et al., 2012). The magnitude of these effects is 
distance  dependent,  with  the  highest  benefits  received  near  the  natural/semi-natural  patch.  The  effect  of 
natural and semi-natural habitats directly on crop yield is explored by a small number of studies, which point 
out positive contributions for instance through the increase of bee abundance (Kremen et al., 2004).  

16 

 
5  Further evidence of the impacts of restoration measures on soil quality 

While the soil is itself an ecosystem, containing more than 25% of the planet's living organisms, it is also a 
crucial mediator of the impact of all terrestrial nature restoration measures on food production and security – 
including  those  described  in  the  previous  sections.  Soil  health,  fertility  and  water  retention  capacity  are 
indispensable  for  improving  and  maintaining  crop  yields  and  nutritional  content,  as  well  as  food  system 
resilience  against  climate  change,  drought  and  other  pressures.  Soil  erosion  is  a  serious  problem  affecting 
nearly all of Europe: approximately 12 million hectares of severely eroded croplands in the EU contribute to 
an annual loss in agricultural productivity estimated at 1.25 billion euro (Panagos et al., 2016; Panagos et al., 
2018). Combining a biophysical and an economic model, a study estimates that the economic impact of soil 
erosion by water on the world economy may cause global annual costs of 8 billion US dollars, simultaneously 
impacting  food  security  by  reducing  global  agri-food  production  by  33.7  million  tonnes  with  accompanying 
rises in agri-food world prices (Sartori et al., 2019). 

In  addition  to  the  impacts  of  specific  farming  practices  on  soil  health  and  fertility  already  described  in  the 
previous  sections,  some  general  results  are  described  below.  The  application  of  soil  conservation  practises 
(reduced tillage, cover crops, plant residues, terraces, contour farming and grass margins) had positive effect 
in reducing soil loss by water erosion by around 9.5% in the European Union lands in the period 2000-2016 
(Panagos et al., 2015c; Panagos et al., 2020). In 2016, conservation tillage was applied in 22.4% of EU arable 
lands  (+0.8%  compared  to  2010)  and  no-till  farming  has  a  share  of  4.2%.  (+0.2%).  Cover  crops  have 
increased  quite  substantially  in  6-years  (2010–2016)  as  they  were  applied  in  8.9%  of  EU  arable  lands, 
compared to 6.5% in 2010 (Borrelli and Panagos, 2020). The total number of grass margins in the EU have 
increased to 29% of the observed LUCAS points (+8% compared to 2012). 

A study of the impact of six management practices in increasing soil organic carbon in soils concluded that 
conversion  into  grassland  showed  the  highest  soil  organic  carbon  sequestration  rates,  ranging  between  0.4 
and 0.8 t of carbon per hectare per year, while the opposite extreme scenario (100% of grassland conversion 
into arable) gave cumulated losses of up to 2 Gt of carbon by 2100. Among the other practices, ley cropping 
systems  (rotation  of  grass/legume  crops  with  grain/tilled  crops)  and  cover  crops  gave  better  performances 
than straw incorporation and reduced tillage. The allocation of 12 to 28% of European arable land to different 
alternative  management  practices  combinations  resulted  in  a  potential  soil  organic  carbon  sequestration  of 
101–336 Mt CO2 equivalent by 2020 and 549-2141 Mt CO2 equivalent by 2100 (Lugato et al., 2014). Leaving 
land  fallow  also  contributes  to  soil  health,  resulting  in  a  18%  increase  in  soil  organic  carbon  (Kämpf  et  al., 
2016).  Increased  earthworm  presence  was  found  to  stimulate  plant  growth  –  predominantly  by  releasing 
nitrogen locked away in residue and soil organic matter – thus increasing crop yield by 25% and aboveground 
biomass by 23%. Earthworms were found crucial for farming without nitrogen fertiliser (van Groenigen et al., 
2014). 

A meta-analysis of conventional and sustainable farming  methods showed that infiltration rates and water 
retention capacity increased under cover crops, catch crops and green manuring (mean = 34.8%, CI = 19.8-
50.0%)  and  by  including  perennial  grasses,  agroforestry  or  managed  forest  (mean  =  59.2%,  CI  =  18.2-
100.2%) (Basche and DeLonge, 2019). 

17 

 
6  Evidence of the impacts of restoration measures in forest ecosystems 

The  literature  review  revealed  an  array  of  forest  restoration  measures  affecting  positively  food  production. 
The  measures  are  in  general  associated  with  specific  environmental  traits,  including  biotic  and  abiotic 
characteristics of forest ecosystems. Therefore, forest and landscape features should be considered at local 
level for a proper understanding of the appropriateness of specific restoration measures. Regarding temporal 
scales,  the  restoration  of  forests  habitats  and  species  usually  require  long-term  measures  to  show  their 
effects.  

Among  the  measures  assessed,  increasing  the  proportion  of  natural  forest  at  landscape  level  has  a 
clear  positive  effect  on  pollinator  abundance  (Taki  et  al.,  2011).  Likewise,  an  increase  in  the  proportion  of 
forest area at catchment level was associated with an increase of river fish biomass (Tanentzap et al., 2014). 

The share and distribution of natural forest in the landscape mosaic are both key factors for pollinators. 
Several crop pollinator species depend on accessible (distance criterion) natural forests for their food and nest 
resources (i.e. nest in the cavities of natural trees). Similarly, replanting native trees, shrubs, and understory 
plants in degraded riparian habitats, has a positive effect on bee communities, which reach levels of richness 
and  abundance  equal  to  those  found  in  nearby  remnants  of  riparian  habitat  in  good  condition  (Williams, 
2011). The proportion of forest cover close to wildflower strips and landscape heterogeneity are influential 
landscape elements determining more complex ecosystem relations resulting in communities with increased 
abundance and richness of species, thus improving pollination services (Fabian et al., 2013).  

There  is  evidence  indicating  that  conservation  and  restoration  measures  such  as  forest  thinning  (i.e.  the 
selective  removal  of  trees  taken  on  to  improve  the  growth  rate  or  health  of  the  remaining  trees),  and 
plantation of resprouting species in fire-prone areas provide enhanced ecosystem attributes associated 
with increased food production such as forage for livestock and potential production of honey (Moghli et al., 
2022).  In  addition,  forest  restoration  through  thinning  could  be  oriented  to  create  open  canopy  forest  with 
increased  plant  diversity  and  plant  production,  thus  benefiting  pollinator  abundance,  specifically  butterflies 
(Waltz and Covington, 2004).  

Restoration  measures  increasing  landscapes  corridors  positively  affect  pollination  services.  For  instance, 
measures  such  as  wooded  and  grassland  corridors  enhance  connectivity  in  cropland-dominated  landscapes. 
There is evidence indicating that wasp abundance in grass strips connected to forest edges improved notably, 
thus increasing pollination services (Holzschuh et al., 2009).  

Other  benefits  of  forest  restoration  measures  that  could  indirectly  affect  food  production  (like  support  to 
birds,  mammals  and  herbivorous  that  can  aid  on  weed  control  or  seed  dispersal;  support  of  berries  and 
mushrooms harvest; etc.) are identified as a gap in this section.  

18 

 
7  Evidence of the impacts of restoration measures in marine ecosystems 

The restoration of marine ecosystems can follow a passive approach (the control or ban of harmful activities 
or threats for the ecosystems) or an active approach (with methods such as seeding and planting, introduction 
of species, removal of invasive species, creation of artificial substrates, or removal of contaminants). In the 
EU  context,  the  MERCES  project  (http://www.merces-project.eu/)  has  done  a  wide  compilation  of  marine 
restoration practices (see for instance Carballo-Cárdenas et al., 2018; Morato et al., 2018). In terms of time 
scales,  some  short-lived  species  (e.g.  small  pelagic  fish)  can  be  recovered  rapidly  after  an  improvement  of 
their habitat or condition (including a decrease on their exploitation rate), while a proper restoration of benthic 
habitats and bioconstructors (e.g. seagrass meadows, some reefs) can take from 5 years to decades.    

Regarding passive restoration, global models of the potential benefits of ocean protection have shown that 
protecting 30% of the ocean using a multi-objective solution could protect 89% of Representative Biodiversity 
Areas and 89% of threatened species, while at the same time maintain access to fishing grounds that provide 
89%  of  global  catch  (data  from  2,170  exploited  species)  (Jefferson  et  al.,  2022).  At  a  more  local  scale, 
healthy  coral  reefs  that  did  not  suffer  from  erosion  (i.e.  losing  of  structural  complexity)  sustain  fisheries 
productivity  at  least  35%  higher  than  degraded  ones  (Rogers  et  al.,  2018).  Protecting  one  hectare  of 
mangroves has been associated with increased fish yields valued between $18,000 per year (de Groot et al., 
2012) and $37,500 per year (Aburto-Oropeza et al., 2008).  

The spillover effect (i.e. export of fish biomass) from marine protected areas towards adjacent fished areas 
was observed in 80% of the empirical studies analysed in a systematic review (Di Lorenzo et al., 2016). This 
review highlighted that the protected areas must be properly enforced to allow fish recovery and, only then, 
fish spill across the boundaries because of higher population density inside the protected area.  

A quantitative meta-analytical approach using 28 data sets from marine protected areas in Southern Europe 
concluded that protection had positive effects on the catch of the surrounding fisheries, with a mean increase 
from 2 to 4% per year over a period of at least 30 years (Vandeperre et al., 2011). These effects depended 
on the size of the no-take area (i.e. area where fishing is not allowed) and on the duration of protection: the 
influence  of  the  size  is  complex  and  sometimes  contradictory,  while  a  long  timeframe  is  considered  as 
necessary for the export functions.  

After  a  complete  fishing  ban  of  four  years  within  a  no-take  area  in  Torre  Guaceto  (Adriatic  Sea),  artisanal 
professional  fishing  in  the  buffer  zone  surrounding  the  no-take  area  had  a  catch  per  unit  effort  five-fold 
higher than unprotected areas farther away. With the resumption of fishing activities in the buffer zone, that 
value then declined and stabilized at a rate about 2.5 higher than the areas farther away from the no-take 
zone  (Guidetti  et  al.,  2010).  In  the  same  protected  area,  high-quality  Slow  Food  labels  were  assigned  to 
several species of fish and agricultural products inside the terrestrial protected area, which also contributed to 
boost tourism and the local economy. Research and evidence gathering from the effects of fishery restrictions 
in Torre Guaceto on fish catch, fishermen income, labelled agricultural products, tourism and social conditions 
are compiled in Russi (2020). Moreover, the dispersal of plant fragments that are able to settle and grow and 
of seabream juveniles of two-banded seabream (Diplodus vulgaris) grown within the protected area can reach 
over 100 km away from the site, representing a high regeneration potential for other fisheries (Di Franco et 
al., 2015). 

The efficiency of closing areas to fishing should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Economically, it can be 
a more attractive solution when the value derived from spillover outweighs the value of fishing. The condition 
is  more  likely  to  be  satisfied  when  the  closed  area  is  a  net  exporter  of  biomass  and  has  higher  costs  of 
fishing, and for fish populations with settlement that depend on adult movement rather than larval passive 
dispersal (Sanchirico et al., 2006).  

The  re-creation  or  improvement  of  benthic  habitats,  like  oyster  grow-out  sites  and  artificial  reefs, 
increases fish abundance and decrease the mortality and emigration of commercial fish species (Tallman and 
Forrester, 2007). An area of 10 m2 of restored oyster reef is expected to yield an additional 2.6 kg per year of 
production of fish and large mobile crustaceans, meaning that a reef lasting 20 to 30 years would augment 
such a production by 38 to 50 kg per 10 m2 (Peterson et al., 2003). Oyster reefs enhance also the abundance 
of resident invertebrates that comprise more than 90% of juvenile fish prey biomass (Grabowski et al., 2005). 
However, in the case study that  generated these  results,  the increase in food availability did not affect the 
abundance of juvenile fish because food resources may not limit juvenile fish. 

A meta-analysis of the outcomes of mangrove restoration reflects positive benefit-cost ratios ranging from 
10.5  to  6.8  under  variable  discount  rates,  suggesting  that  mangrove  restoration  is  a  cost-effective  form  of 

19 

ecosystem  management  (Su  et  al.,  2021).  Overall,  there  was  no  difference  between  restored  and  natural 
mangroves in the production and diversity of fish, crab and other macrobenthic fauna. 

Restoration  of  seagrass  meadows  has  mostly  been  limited  in  extent  due  to  previous  experiences  of  low 
success,  although  the  most  recent  experiments  and  protocols  are  promising.  Incorporating  positive  species 
interactions  into  restoration  methods  appears  to  increase  plant  growth  with  little  additional  resource 
investment  (Valdez  et  al.,  2020).The  enhancement  of  juvenile  fish  by  seagrass  habitats  was  quantified 
through a meta-analysis of in southern Australia. Thirteen fish of commercial importance were identified as 
being recruitment enhanced in seagrass habitats, twelve of which were associated with sufficient life history 
data to allow for estimation of total biomass enhancement: the identified species were enhanced in seagrass 
by 0.98 kg/m2 per year, equivalent to ca. $A230,000 per hectare per year. Having accounted for the time lag 
between  fish  recruiting  to  a  seagrass  site  and  entering  the  fishery  and  for  a  3%  annual  discount  rate,  the 
meta-analysis finds that seagrass restoration efforts costing $A10,000 per hectare have a potential payback 
time  of  less  than  five  years,  and  that  restoration  costing  $A629,000 per  hectare  can  be  justified  based  on 
enhanced  commercial  fish  recruitment  where  these  twelve  fish  species  are  present  (Blandon  and  zu 
Ermgassen, 2014).  

Eelgrass restoration over only 6% of the total restored area in coastal lagoons of Virginia, USA, during a long-
term  commitment  (20  years)  was  able  to  revive  this  essential  habitat.  The  study  estimates  a  total 
invertebrate biomass increased by ca. 700 t, finfish biomass by ca. 3000 t and a tendency to stabilization in 
nearly  20  years  (Orth  et  al.,  2020).  The  restored  area  serves  as  a  key  steppingstone  for  the  movement  of 
fauna,  including  juveniles  of  many  key  fisheries  species,  along  the  east  coast  of  the  United  States.  Other 
quantified  benefits  include  improved  water  clarity,  enhanced  carbon  and  nitrogen  burial  in  sediments  and 
erosion prevention. The well-developed meadows now foster productive and diverse animal communities and 
have prompted a parallel restoration for bay scallops.  

On the negative side, the restoration of sites with polluted sediments remobilise trace and toxic elements that 
can  end  up  filtered  and  accumulated  in  the  edible  tissues  of  commercial  species  such  as  mussels,  risking 
human health (Parolini et al., 2022). However, the results of this study suggest that the native mussels are 
safe for human consumption regardless of restoration activities. 

The  regulation  and  management  of  fishing  or  aquaculture  practices,  apart  from  no-take  zones,  is  not 
commonly considered a restoration action at sea (in contrast with the farming practices on land presented in 
this report), although their effects are very effective to restore biodiversity and fish biomass. The comparison 
of  the  effective  catch  yields  corrected  with  the  local  potential  fish  production  of  a  highly  and  moderately 
overfished European shelf areas exploited by sea-bottom trawling, reveals that sustainable fisheries lead to 
substantially higher catches (by a factor of 2 to 3) than overfishing (Druon et al., 2021). 

One of the possible management measures are ‘fisheries restricted areas’ designed to maintain stocks and 
populations. A recently established fisheries restricted area in the central Adriatic Sea, the Jabuka/Pomo pit, 
has been recognised as a critical habitat for demersal species (in particular, hake and Norway lobster) (Russo 
et  al.,  2018)  and  the  monitoring  activities  carried  out  in  the  area  show  the  positive  effects  of  the  closure, 
although  the  fishery  restricted  area  is  too  recent  to  have  peer-reviewed  impact  publications  on  the  effects 
yet. The Jabuka/Pomo pit is  quantitatively confirmed as sound and necessary  since it  is the most important 
spawning  area  (with  good  spawning  performances)  in  the  Adriatic  for  Norway  lobster  (Melaku  Canu  et  al., 
2020).  Experts  consider  that  a  combination  of  managed  areas,  control  measures  of  effort  and  increase  of 
selectivity  is  the  most  indicated  approach  for  increasing  sustainability  and  efficiency  of  fisheries  (FAIRSEA, 
2021). 

The  concept  of  restorative  aquaculture  merits  some  assessment  in  future  studies.  This  is  a  type  of 
commercial  or  subsistence  aquaculture  providing  direct  ecological  benefits  to  the  environment,  with  the 
potential  to  generate  net-positive  environmental  outcomes  (The  Nature  Conservancy,  2021).  For  example, 
seaweed aquaculture accounts for 51.3% of global mariculture production and can deliver a broad range of 
ecosystem  services  (source  of  food  and  industrial  products,  nature-based  solution  for  climate  change 
mitigation and adaptation, remediation of eutrophication, supporting biodiversity) (Duarte et al., 2022). 

20 

 
8  Evidence  of  the  impacts  of  restoration  measures  in  freshwater 

ecosystems 

Despite the importance of freshwater ecosystems for food provision (i.e. water supply for drinking, agriculture 
and  industry;  water  purification;  inland  fisheries)  and  the  existing  practice  restoring  natural  processes  in 
freshwater  ecosystems  (e.g.  Wohl  et  al.  2015),  it  is  hard  to  find  quantitative  evidence  of  the  effects  of  
freshwater habitats’ restoration on food productivity. This section collects some observations, but they rarely 
measure changes in food supply or yields.  

Rising nitrate concentrations in freshwater are of concern throughout the developed world: for human health 
as  well  as  due  to  eutrophication.  Wetland  restoration  in  agricultural  areas  can  improve  water  quality  by 
reducing concentrations of sediment, total phosphorus, and nitrate in runoff (Almendinger, 1998). There has 
been  a  35%  average  decline  in  area  of  natural  inland  wetlands  since  1970  (UNEP,  2021).  Drainage  of 
wetlands leads to deteriorated wetland conditions and lowered water tables (Bring et al., 2020).  

The costs of losing wetland ecosystem services are often overlooked in land-use planning (Gómez-Baggethun 
et al., 2019). Multidisciplinary efforts are needed to integrate other benefits of wetland restoration, such as 
improvement  of  wildlife  habitat  and  flood  abatement,  even  if  the  restoration  focus  is  on  water-quality 
benefits.  There  are  some  proposed  protocols  to  select  wetland-restoration  sites  at  the  watershed  scale,  for 
example for improving wastewater from irrigated agricultural land (Comín et al., 2014).  

The Baltic Sea is one of the world's most oxygen-depleted seas. Scientists consider that the region requires 
large-scale restoration of wetland buffer zones to significantly reduce nitrogen and phosphorus inputs from 
land through rivers (Giergiczny et al., 2021). A survey among citizens of the Baltic Sea region concluded that 
re-meandering, rewetting of floodplains, and restoration of wild marshes (i.e. natural wetland vegetation) or 
development of wetland agriculture, could gain a lot of public support in Europe (Giergiczny et al., 2021). 

Seed banks, an important source of regenerative material, can be a valuable resource for the restoration of 
farmed wetlands when the seeds survive periods of cultivation. A study in China reported consistently higher 
values of species richness and seed density in natural sedge meadows compared with those in soybean and 
paddy fields farmed. Most sedge meadow species disappeared when farmed for more than 10 years (Wang 
et  al.,  2015).  A  study  of  rapid  seedbank  development  in  restored  tidal  freshwater  wetlands  suggested  that 
seed  banks  are  a  useful  metric  of  wetland  restoration  success  because  they  integrate  processes  affecting 
growth  and  reproduction  of  standing  vegetation.  The  density  and  richness  of  emerging  seedlings  from 
Kingman Marsh seed bank samples increased from less than 4 seedlings and 2 taxa in a 90-cm2 sample in 
the  year  of  restoration  to  more  than  130  seedlings  and  10  taxa  in  the  same  sample  three  years  later 
(Middleton, 2003; Neff et al., 2009). 

In 2015, inland fisheries provided an amount of animal protein equivalent to the full dietary consumption of 
at  least  158  million  people.  Higher  reliance  on  wild-caught  freshwater  fish  is  associated  with  lower  overall 
consumption  of  terrestrial  animal-sourced  food,  but  it  is  dependent  upon  the  maintenance  of  healthy, 
freshwater habitats. About 90% of global catch from riverine fisheries comes from river basins with above-
average stress levels (McIntyre et al., 2016).  

Long cumulative river-wetland filling (Beesley et al., 2012) in temperate floodplain wetlands was shown to be 
associated  with  greater  total  abundances  of  newly  recruited  (0+)  fish  and  better  body  condition;  this  was 
particularly true  for  common carp and carp gudgeon. Restoring floodplains support  growth  rates of juvenile 
fish and primary productivity (i.e. food for fish) along with other multiple benefits (Jeffres et al., 2020; Serra-
Llobet et al., 2022).  

A study demonstrating the importance of riparian buffer habitat and water temperature on the composition 
of food availability for fish species of concern (such as brook trout) emphasizes the need to include food web 
dynamics  into  riparian  habitat  restoration  design  to  guide  future  rehabilitation  projects  (Albertson  et  al., 
2018).  

Reduction  of  riverine  ecosystem  connectivity  has  long-lasting  impacts  on  food  webs.  For  example,  the 
ecosystem  role  of  anadromous  fish  has  been  affected  by  widespread  riverine  habitat  fragmentation  and 
other impacts mainly derived from anthropogenic sources, resulting in eradication and increased susceptibility 
to environmental factors. A study highlighting the benefits of increased connectivity between freshwater and 
ocean ecosystems demonstrates the significant role anadromous forage fish could play in improving specific 
fisheries  and  overall  ecosystem  functioning  (Dias  et  al.,  2019).  The  large  and  recent  amount  of  evidence 
analysing the restoration of river connectivity in Europe deserves further review.   

21 

9  Reflections on cascade effects on food security aspects  

With  this  literature  review  we  could  not  cover  the  influence  that  nature  restoration  may  have  on  the 
sociological  and  equity  aspects  of  food  security,  namely  (i)  access  to  enough  food,  (ii)  food  quality  and  (iii) 
stability over time. However, we present in this section some evidence gathered on the topic.  

The  scientific  literature  shows  that  many  of  the  agricultural  practices  discussed  in  this  report  are  key  to 
achieving  food  security  through  higher  yields,  improved  nutritional  content  and  stronger  resilience  and 
stability  against  drought,  climate  change  and  other  disturbances  (e.g.  war  and  conflicts).  Effects  on  yields, 
resilience  and  other  facets  of  food  security  are  often  mediated  by  improvements  in  aspects  such  as  soil 
health and fertility, pollination efficiency, pest and disease control, and nutrient management. 

A  meta-analysis  of  the  impact  of  agroecology  on  food  security  and  nutrition  noted  positive  outcomes  of 
agroecological  practices  on  food  security  and  nutrition  in  78%  of  the  56  studies  reported.  The  positive 
outcomes  are  mostly  linked  to  households  in  low-  and  middle-income  countries.  The  most  common 
agroecological  practices  with  positive  outcomes  on  food  security  and  nutrition  included  crop  diversification, 
agroforestry, mixed crop and livestock systems, and practices improving soil quality. There was also a slightly 
positive  trend  between  the  number  of  agroecological  practices  applied  and  the  strength  of  the  positive 
relationship, indicating that  complexity in farm management can lead to additional benefits (Bezner Kerr et 
al., 2021). 

A review of the contribution of agroecology to selected human, financial and social indicators found evidence 
of  agroecology’s  positive  contribution  to  improving  financial  capital  (financial  capital  increases  using 
agroecological  practices  in  93  out  of  147  comparisons  (63%)  compared  to  conventional  agriculture) 
(D’annolfo et al., 2017). However, data extracted does not provide statistically significant information on other 
human and social capital indicators.  

A JRC report (i.e. grey literature without impact factor) found in 50% of the 172 papers reviewed a positive 
contribution  of  agroecological  practices  to  food  security,  notably  due  to  improved  yields  and/or  a  better 
economic situation of producers (Paracchini et al, 2020). For example, an improved use of organic fertilisers 
(with manure or compost) results in a significant improvement in yields. However, access to manure can often 
be a problem in the absence of significant crop-livestock integration. In fact, throughout different articles, the 
lack of access to inputs is a recurring issue,  particularly  for what concerns the improvement of soil fertility 
(manure,  mineral  fertilizer,  leaf  litter,  etc.)  remaining  a  major  hindrance  for  food  security.  Diversified  crop 
systems,  including  the  introduction  of  agroforestry,  improved  household  nutritional  status  and  had  positive 
links to better health conditions.  

A  scenario  analysis  compared  agriculture  as  forecast  by  FAO  (the  baseline  scenario)  with  scenarios  of 
increased uptake of organic farming plus reduction in food waste and meat consumption (reduction in food-
competing feed) (Muller et al., 2017). The results showed that (1) switching to 100% organic farming with no 
other measure, production leads to increases in land use of 16-33% due to yield gaps on average 8% lower in 
organic  yields.  Land  occupation  increases  further  when  the  model  includes  the  adverse  effects  of  climate 
change. But (2) a partial conversion to organic production (40%) combined with 50% food wastage reduction 
and  100%  reduction of food-competing feed components becomes viable, with equal  or even reduced land 
demand compared to the reference scenario, even including the impacts of climate change. 

22 

 
10  Reflections  on  links  between  restoration,  climate  change  and  its 

consequences on land ecosystems 

We do not specifically address the impact of nature restoration measures on climate change mitigation and 
adaptation, an important gap that needs to be filled by other studies. However, there are many synergies in 
terms  of  nature  restoration  measures  that  boost  food  security  via  increased  long-term  productivity  and 
resilience  while  advancing  climate  change  adaptation  and  mitigation.  Many  of  these  measures  –  including 
agroecological  practices,  conservation  agriculture  and  agroforestry  –  have  been  partially  covered  in  this 
document.  

Climate  change  creates  additional  stresses  on  land,  exacerbating  existing  risks  to  food  systems.  Increasing 
impacts on land are projected under all future greenhouse gas emission scenarios (IPCC, 2019). At the same 
time,  an  estimated  23%  of  total  anthropogenic  greenhouse  gas  emissions  (2007-2016)  derive  from 
Agriculture,  Forestry  and  Other  Land  Use  (AFOLU).  The  total  technical  mitigation  potential  from  crop  and 
livestock activities and agroforestry is substantial, estimated as 2.3-9.6 Gt CO2 equivalent per year by 2050 
(medium confidence). 

The  IPCC  special  report  (Chapter  6)  identified  five  main  land  challenges:  climate  change  mitigation, 
adaptation, desertification, land degradation, and food security. Nine options were found to deliver medium-
to-large  benefits  for  all  five  land  challenges.  These  were:  increased  food  productivity,  improved  cropland 
management,  improved  grazing  land  management,  improved  livestock  management,  agroforestry,  forest 
management, increased soil organic carbon content, fire management and reduced post-harvest losses.  

A  range  of  integrated  agricultural  systems  has  been  found  to  lead  to  low-carbon  and  climate-resilient 
pathways for sustainable food security, thus advancing both mitigation and adaptation goals. These include 
agroecology  and  conservation  agriculture,  which  have  been  covered  in  this  document.  Specific  outcomes 
include  increased  yield,  yield  stability  and  resilience  via  improved  soil  health  (soil  carbon  sequestration  and 
increased soil organic matter), prevention and reversal of soil erosion and land degradation, pest and disease 
control,  and  reduction  of  the  use  of  mineral  fertilisers.  Agroecology  has  been  proposed  as  a  key  set  of 
practices  in  building  climate  resilience  and  enhancing  adaptation  of  crop  production  systems.  There  is  also 
considerable  scientific  evidence  for  the  benefits  of  conservation  agriculture  (including  cover  crops,  crop 
rotation and no-tillage) for soil health and carbon sequestration. 

Another  aspect  associated  to  climate  change  is  the  proliferation  of  extreme  events.  There  is  also  evidence 
(not screened in this report) that some restoration measures can help mitigating their effects. One example is 
a study in Central American which after Hurricane Mitch showed that farmers using diversification practices 
such  as  cover  crops,  intercropping,  and  agroforestry  suffered  less  damage  than  their  conventional 
monoculture  neighbours  (Altieri  et  al.,  2015).  Sustainable  plots  had  20  to  40  %  more  topsoil,  greater  soil 
moisture and less erosion and experienced lower economic losses than their  conventional neighbours (Holt-
Giménez, 2002). After Hurricane Ike hit Cuba in 2008, researchers found that diversified farms had losses of 
50%  compared  to  the  90-100%  losses  in  neighbouring  monocultures.  Likewise,  agroecologically  managed 
farms showed a faster recovery than monoculture farms (Rosset et al., 2011).  

23 

 
11  Concluding remarks 

A  synopsis  of  the  scientific  evidence  compiled  in  this  report  is  presented  in  the  executive 
summary. These concluding remarks highlight some gaps and challenges encountered while developing this 
report.  

It should be noted that this report focuses solely on the benefits of nature restoration to food production, and 
does  not  cover  other  notable  benefits  like  biodiversity  support,  carbon  sequestration,  aesthetic  values, 
remediation  of  pollution  and  eutrophication  or  tourism  and  recreation.  Future  studies  should  address  these 
important  benefits.  However,  our  screening  of  the  scientific  literature  highlighted  the  scarcity  of 
quantitative scientific evidence, especially long-term, of the effectiveness of restoration efforts. 

The  socio-economic  aspects 
linked  to  restoration  and  food  productivity  (including  socio-economic 
consequences  of  restoration  actions  and  cost-benefit  analyses)  are  too  loosely  covered  in  the  literature  to 
draw  any  conclusion.  This  is  particularly  the  case  if  one  considers  the  complex  interactions  generated  by 
different land- or marine-planning options available in response to different management interests. Only local 
data or complex modelling exercises can provide some estimates. However, the modelling approaches (as well 
as  the  scientific  publications)  tend  to  focus  on  either  ecological  or  economic  aspects  and  generally  fail  to 
capture  the  wide  range  of  cause-effect  mechanisms.  We  consider  that  science  cannot  yet  provide  an 
estimation  of  the  consequences  of  multiple  nature  restoration  measures  in  multiple  sectors  at 
continental  scales.  A  compilation  of  best  practices  or  quantitative  evidence,  like  those  presented  in  this 
report, can instead be a good starting point. 

Although without a proper meta-analysis we cannot extract a quantitative estimate, our review suggests that 
nature restoration measures have a remarkably positive impact on the environment and on food 
productivity in the long term (also in terms of yield stabilisation), while most of the short-term 
impacts  are  context-  and  species-dependant.  Thus,  we  consider  that  the  restoration  of  degraded  and 
overexploited ecosystems is  an insurance policy to ensure the long-term sustainability and resilience of our 
food systems. 

24 

 
References 

Aburto-Oropeza, O., et al. (2008). Mangroves in the Gulf of California increase fishery yields. Proc. Natl. Acad. 
Sci. U.S.A., 105(30): 10456–10459. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0804601105   

Akinnifesi,  F.K.,  Ajayi,  O.C.,  Sileshi,  G.,  Chirwa,  P.W.,  Chianu,  J.  (2011).  Fertiliser  Trees  for  Sustainable  Food 
Security  in  the  Maize-Based  Production  Systems  of  East  and  Southern  Africa.  In  Sustainable  Agriculture.  In: 
Lichtfouse,  E.,  Hamelin,  M.,  Navarrete,  M.,  Debaeke,  P.  (eds)  Sustainable  Agriculture  Volume  2.  Springer, 
Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0394-0_9  

Albertson,  L.K.,  Ouellet,  V.,  Daniels,  M.D.  (2018).  Impacts  of  stream  riparian  buffer  land  use  on  water 
temperature  and 
fish.  Journal  of  Freshwater  Ecology,  33(1),  195–210. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/02705060.2017.1422558  

food  availability 

for 

Albrecht,  M.  et  al.  (2020).  The  effectiveness  of  flower  strips  and  hedgerows  on  pest  control,  pollination 
Letters,  23(10),  1488–1498. 
services  and 
https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13576  

yield:  A  quantitative 

synthesis. 

Ecology 

crop 

Almendinger,  J.E.  (1998).  A  Method  to  Prioritize  and  Monitor  Wetland  Restoration  for  Water-Quality 
Improvement. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 6(4),241–52. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008439031165 

Altieri, M.A., Nicholls, C. I., Henao, A., Lana, M.A. (2015). Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient 
farming  systems.  Agronomy  for  Sustainable  Development,  35(3),  869–890.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-
015-0285-2  

Alvarez,  R.  (2021).  Comparing  Productivity  of  Organic  and  Conventional  Farming  Systems:  A  Quantitative 
Review. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2021.1946040  

Amanullah.  et  al.  (2019).  Integrated  Management  of  Phosphorus,  Organic  Sources,  and  Beneficial  Microbes 
Improve Dry Matter Partitioning of Maize. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 50(20), 2544–
2569. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2019.1667378  

Andersson, G. K. S., Ekroos, J., Stjernman, M., Rundlöf, M., Smith, H. G. (2014). Effects of farming intensity, crop 
rotation and landscape heterogeneity on field bean pollination. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 184, 
145–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.12.002  

Andersson,  G.  K.  S.,  Rundlöf,  M.,  Smith,  H.  G.  (2012).  Organic  Farming  Improves  Pollination  Success  in 
Strawberries. PLOS ONE, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031599  

Baaken,  M.C.  (2022).  Sustainability  of  agricultural  practices  in  Germany:  A  literature  review  along  multiple 
environmental  domains.  Regional  Environmental  Change,  22(2),  39.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-022-
01892-5  

Barreiro-Hurle, J., et al. (2021). Modelling Transitions to Sustainable Food Systems: Are We Missing the Point? 
EuroChoices, 20(3), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12339 

Bartomeus, I., et al. (2014). Contribution of insect pollinators to crop yield and quality varies with agricultural 
intensification. PeerJ, 2014(1). https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.328  

Basche,  A.  D.,  DeLonge,  M.  S.  (2019).  Comparing  infiltration  rates  in  soils  managed  with  conventional  and 
alternative 
14(9). 
farming 
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215702  

meta-analysis. 

methods: 

PLOS 

ONE, 

A 

Bayala,  J.,  Sileshi,  G.  W.,  Coe,  R.,  Kalinganire,  A.,  Tchoundjeu,  Z.,  Sinclair,  F.,  Garrity,  D.  (2012).  Cereal  Yield 
Response to Conservation Agriculture Practices in Drylands of West Africa: A Quantitative Synthesis. Journal 
of Arid Environments, 78, 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2011.10.011  

Bedoussac, L.,  et al. (2015).  Ecological principles  underlying the increase of productivity achieved by  cereal-
grain  legume  intercrops  in  organic  farming.  A  review.  Agronomy  for  Sustainable  Development,  35(3),  911–
935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0277-7  

Beesley,  L.,  et  al.  (2012).  Does  Flooding  Affect  Spatiotemporal  Variation  of  Fish  Assemblages  in  Temperate 
Floodplain  Wetlands?:  Effects  of  Wetland  Watering  on  Fish  Assemblage  in  Floodplain  Wetlands.  Freshwater 
Biology, 57(11), 2230–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2012.02865.x 

25 

Beillouin,  D.,  Ben-Ari,  T.,  Malézieux,  E.,  Seufert,  V.,  Makowski,  D.  (2021).  Positive  but  variable  effects  of  crop 
diversification  on  biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services.  Global  Change  Biology,  27(19),  4697–4710. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15747  

Bezner  Kerr,  R.,  et  al.  (2021).  Can  agroecology  improve  food  security  and  nutrition?  A  review.  Global  Food 
Security, 29, 100540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100540  

Bishop, J., Jones, H. E., Lukac, M., Potts, S. G. (2016). Insect pollination reduces yield loss following heat stress 
in 
Environment,  220,  89–96. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.12.007  

Ecosystems  and 

L.).  Agriculture, 

(Vicia 

bean 

faba 

faba 

Blaauw,  B.  R.,  Isaacs,  R.  (2014).  Flower  plantings  increase  wild  bee  abundance  and  the  pollination  services 
provided 
Ecology,  51(4),  890–898. 
pollination-dependent 
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12257  

of  Applied 

Journal 

to  a 

crop. 

Blandon, A., zu Ermgassen, P. S. E. (2014). Quantitative estimate of commercial fish enhancement by seagrass 
habitat 
1–8. 
southern 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2014.01.009  

Estuarine, 

Australia. 

Science, 

Coastal 

Shelf 

141, 

and 

in 

Blitzer,  E.  J.,  Gibbs,  J.,  Park,  M.  G.,  Danforth,  B.  N.  (2016).  Pollination  services  for  apple  are  dependent  on 
1–7. 
diverse  wild 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.01.004  

communities. 

Environment, 

Ecosystems 

Agriculture, 

221, 

and 

bee 

Borrelli, P., Panagos, P. (2020). An indicator to reflect the mitigating effect of Common Agricultural Policy on 
soil erosion. Land Use Policy, 92, 104467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104467 

Boselli,  R.,  et  al.  (2020).  Cover  crops  during  transition  to  no-till  maintain  yield  and  enhance  soil  fertility  in 
intensive agro-ecosystems. Field Crops Research, 255, 107871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107871  

Bright, M. B. H., et al. (2021). An overlooked local resource: Shrub-intercropping for food production, drought 
resistance  and  ecosystem  restoration  in  the  Sahel.  Agriculture,  Ecosystems  &  Environment,  319,  107523. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107523  

Bring,  A.,  Rosén,  L.,  Thorslund,  J.,  Tonderski,  K.,  Åberg,  C.,  Envall,  I.,  Laudon,  H.  (2020).  Groundwater  storage 
effects  from  restoring,  constructing  or  draining  wetlands  in  temperate  and  boreal  climates:  a  systematic 
review protocol. Environmental Evidence, 9 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-020-00209-5  

Brittain, C., Bommarco, R., Vighi, M., Settele, J., Potts, S. G. (2010). Organic farming in isolated landscapes does 
not  benefit  flower-visiting 
(8),  1860–1867. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.029  

insects  and  pollination.  Biological  Conservation,  143 

Campiglia,  E.,  Mancinelli,  R.,  De  Stefanis,  E.,  Pucciarmati,  S.,  Radicetti,  E.  (2015).  The  long-term  effects  of 
conventional and organic cropping systems, tillage managements and weather conditions on yield and grain 
quality of durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) in the Mediterranean environment of Central Italy. Field Crops 
Research, 176, 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.02.021  

Cape, J.N., van der Eerden, L.J., Sheppard, L.J., Leith, I.D., Sutton, M.A. (2009). Evidence for Changing the Critical 
Level for Ammonia. Environmental Pollution, 157(3), 1033–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2008.09.049  

Carballo-Cárdenas, E., van Tatenhove, J., Papadopoulou, N., Smith, C.J., Ounanian, K., Ramirez, P., Delaney, A., 
Long, R. (2018). Review on restoration, conservation and recovery of marine ecosystems in the four regional 
EU  seas.  Deliverable  D6.3.  MERCES  Project.  113  pages  and  2  Annexes.  Available  at  http://www.merces-
project.eu/sites/default/files/MERCES%20D6.3%20Final.pdf 

Carvalheiro, L. G., et al. (2011). Natural and within-farmland biodiversity enhances crop productivity. Ecology 
Letters, 14(3), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01579.x  

Carvalheiro, L. G., Seymour, C. L., Veldtman, R., Nicolson, S. W. (2010). Pollination services decline with distance 
from  natural  habitat  even  in  biodiversity-rich  areas.  Journal  of  Applied  Ecology,  47(4),  810–820. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01829.x  

Catarino, R., Bretagnolle, V., Perrot, T., Vialloux, F., Gaba, S. (2019a). Bee pollination outperforms pesticides for 
oilseed crop production and profitability. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 286 (1912), 
20191550. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.1550  

26 

Catarino, R., Gaba, S., Bretagnolle, V. (2019b). Experimental and empirical evidence shows that reducing weed 
control 
is  a  viable  strategy  for  farmers.  Scientific  Reports,  9(1),  9004. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45315-8  

in  winter  cereal  fields 

Chang, J., et al. (2021). Reconciling Regional Nitrogen Boundaries with Global Food Security. Nature Food, 2(9) 
700–711. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00366-x 

Chaplin-Kramer, R., O’Rourke, M. E., Blitzer, E. J., Kremen, C. (2011). A meta-analysis of crop pest and natural 
enemy response to landscape complexity: Pest and natural enemy response to landscape complexity. Ecology 
Letters, 14(9), 922–932. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01642.x  

Chazdon, R. L., Falk, D. A., Banin, L. F., Wagner, M., J Wilson, S., Grabowski, R. C., Suding, K. N. (2021). 
The  intervention  continuum  in  restoration  ecology:  rethinking  the  active–passive  dichotomy. 
Restoration Ecology, e13535. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13535.  

Cohen,  A.  J,  et  al.  (2017).  Estimates  and  25-Year  Trends  of  the  Global  Burden  of  Disease  Attributable  to 
Ambient  Air  Pollution:  An  Analysis  of  Data  from  the  Global  Burden  of  Diseases  Study  2015.  The  Lancet, 
389(10082), 1907–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30505-6  

Comín, F. A., Sorando, R., Darwiche-Criado, N., García, M., & Masip, A. (2014). A protocol to prioritize wetland 
restoration and creation for water quality improvement in agricultural watersheds. Ecological Engineering, 66, 
10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.04.059  

D’Annolfo,  R.,  Gemmill-Herren,  B.,  Graeub,  B.,  Garibaldi,  L.A.  (2017).  A  Review  of  Social  and  Economic 
International  Journal  of  Agricultural  Sustainability,  15(6),  632–44. 
Performance  of  Agroecology. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2017.1398123  

Dabney, S.M., McGregor, K., Wilson, G. and Cullum, R. (2009). How Management of Grass Hedges Affects their 
Erosion Reduction Potential. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 73, 241-254. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2007.0434 

Dainese,  M.,  et  al.  (2019).  A  global  synthesis  reveals  biodiversity-mediated  benefits  for  crop  production. 
Science Advances, 5(10). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax0121  

Dal Ferro, N., Zanin, G., Borin, M. (2017). Crop yield and energy use in organic and conventional farming: A case 
study in north-east Italy. European Journal of Agronomy, 86, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2017.03.002  

Davis,  S.,  et  al.  (2018).  A  Meta-analysis  of  Canada  Thistle  (Cirsium  arvense)  Management.  Weed  Science, 
66(4), 548–557. Cambridge Core. https://doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2018.6  

Davis, S., et al. (2018). A Meta-Analysis of Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Management in Annual and 
Perennial Systems. Weed Science, 66(4), 540–547. https://doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2018.25  

de Groot, R., et al. (2012). Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. 
Ecosystem Services, 1(1): 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005  

De  Stefano,  A.,  Jacobson,  M.  G.  (2017)  Soil  Carbon  Sequestration  in  Agroforestry  Systems:  A  Meta-Analysis. 
Agroforestry Systems, 92, 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0147-9  

Delmotte, S., Tittonell, P.,  Mouret, J.-C.,  Hammond, R., Lopez-Ridaura, S. (2011). On farm assessment of rice 
yield  variability  and  productivity  gaps  between  organic  and  conventional  cropping  systems  under 
Mediterranean 
223–236. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2011.06.006  

Agronomy, 

European 

climate. 

Journal 

35(4), 

of 

Derpsch, R., et al. (2014). Why do we need to standardize no-tillage research?. Soil and Tillage Research, 137, 
16–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2013.10.002  

Di Franco, A., et al. (2015). Dispersal of larval and juvenile seabream: Implications for Mediterranean marine 
protected areas. Biological Conservation, 192, 361–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.10.015  

Di Lorenzo, M., Claudet, J., Guidetti, P. (2016). Spillover from Marine Protected Areas to Adjacent Fisheries Has 
an  Ecological  and  a 
for  Nature  Conservation  32,  62–66. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2016.04.004  

Fishery  Component. 

Journal 

Dias, B. S., Frisk, M. G., Jordaan, A. (2019). Opening the tap: Increased riverine connectivity strengthens marine 
food web pathways. PLOS ONE, 14(5), e0217008. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217008  

Druon, J.-N., et al. (2021). Mesoscale productivity fronts and local fishing opportunities in the European Seas. 
Fish and Fisheries, 22(6), 1227–1247. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12585  

27 

Duarte,  C.  M.,  Bruhn,  A.,  Krause-Jensen,  D.  (2022).  A  Seaweed  Aquaculture  Imperative  to  Meet  Global 
Sustainability Targets. Nature Sustainability 5(3), 185–93. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00773-9 

European  Conservation  Agriculture  Federation  (ECAF)  (2022).  What  is  Conservation  Agriculture?  On  line: 
https://ecaf.org/what-is-conservation-agriculture/ (last accessed, May 23rd, 2022) 

Fabian,  Y.,  et  al.  (2013).  The  importance  of  landscape  and  spatial  structure  for  hymenopteran-based  food 
webs  in  an  agro-ecosystem.  Journal  of  Animal  Ecology,  82(6),  1203–1214.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-
2656.12103  

FAIRSEA. (2021). D5.3.1 Report on the results from the application of scenarios for fisheries management in 
https://www.italy-croatia.eu/web/fairsea/docs-and-tools-
the 
details?id=1433067&nAcc=1&file=51  

Retrieved 

Adriatic 

Region. 

from: 

Fang, L., et al. (2021). The effects of ground cover management on fruit yield and quality: A meta-analysis. 
Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2021.1937607  

FAO  World  Food  Summit.  (1996).  World  Food  Summit:  13-17  November  1996,  Rome,  Italy.  FAO,  Food  and 
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 

FAO. (2014).  Agroecology for Food Security and Nutrition—Proceedings of the FAO International Symposium 
(pp. 1–426). FAO. https://www.fao.org/3/i4729e/i4729e.pdf  

Félix,  G.F.,  Scholberg,  J.M.S.,  Clermont-Dauphin,  C.  et  al.  (2018).  Enhancing  Agroecosystem  Productivity  with 
Woody Perennials in Semi-Arid West Africa. A Meta-Analysis. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 38(6), 
57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0533-3 

Fellmann, T. et al. (2021). Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Technologies in Agriculture: Regional Circumstances and 
Interactions  Determine 
128406. 
Journal 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128406  

Cost-Effectiveness. 

Production, 

Cleaner 

317, 

of 

Feltham,  H.,  Park,  K.,  Minderman,  J.,  &  Goulson,  D.  (2015).  Experimental  evidence  that  wildflower  strips 
increase 
3523–3530. 
pollinator 
https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1444  

Evolution, 

Ecology 

5(16), 

crops. 

visits 

and 

to 

Finger,  R.,  Swinton,  S.  M.,  El  Benni,  N.,  Walter,  A.  (2019).  Precision  Farming  at  the  Nexus  of  Agricultural 
Production  and 
the  Environment.  Annual  Review  of  Resource  Economics,  11(1),  313–35. 
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100518-093929  

Frank, S., et al. (2019). Agricultural Non-CO2 Emission Reduction Potential in the Context of the 1.5 °C Target. 
Nature Climate Change, 9(1), 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0358-8  

Garibaldi,  L.  A.,  et  al.  (2011).  Stability  of  pollination  services  decreases  with  isolation  from  natural  areas 
despite  honey  bee  visits.  Ecology  Letters,  14(10),  1062–1072.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-
0248.2011.01669.x  

Garibaldi, L. A., et al. (2013). Wild pollinators enhance fruit set of crops regardless of honey bee abundance. 
Science, 340(6127), 1608–1611. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230200  

Garratt, M. P. D., Breeze, T. D., Jenner, N., Polce, C., Biesmeijer, J. C., Potts, S. G. (2014). Avoiding a bad apple: 
Insect pollination enhances fruit quality and economic value. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 184, 
34–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.10.032  

Geslin, B., et al. (2017). The impact of honey bee colony quality on crop yield and farmers’ profit in apples and 
pears. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 248, 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.07.035  

Giergiczny,  M.,  et  al.  (2021).  Re
Small Rivers in the Three Baltic Sea Basin Countries. Restoration Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13575   

meander,  Rewet,  Rewild!  Overwhelming  Public  Support  for  Restoration  of 

Gómez-Baggethun,  E.,  et  al.  (2019).  Changes  in  ecosystem  services  from  wetland  loss  and  restoration:  An 
ecosystem  assessment  of 
(1960–2010).  Ecosystem  Services,  39,  100965. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100965  

the  Danube  Delta 

‐

Grabowski,  J.  H.,  Hughes,  A.  R.,  Kimbro,  D.  L.,  Dolan,  M.  A.  (2005).  How  habitat  setting  influences  restored 
oyster reef communities. Ecology, 86(7), 1926–1935. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-0690  

28 

Grass,  I.,  Meyer,  S.,  Taylor,  P.  J.,  Foord,  S.  H.,  Hajek,  P.,  Tscharntke,  T.  (2018).  Pollination  limitation  despite 
managed  honeybees  in  South  African  macadamia  orchards.  Agriculture,  Ecosystems  and  Environment,  260, 
11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.03.010  

Guidetti, P., Bussotti, S., Pizzolante, F., Ciccolella, A. (2010). Assessing the potential of an artisanal fishing co-
management  in  the  Marine  Protected  Area  of  Torre  Guaceto  (southern  Adriatic  Sea,  SE  Italy).  Fisheries 
Research, 101(3), 180–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2009.10.006  

Gurr, G. M., et al. (2016). Multi-country evidence that crop diversification promotes ecological intensification of 
agriculture. Nature Plants, 2(3), 16014. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2016.14  

Higgs,  E.,  Harris,  J.,  Murphy,  S.,  Bowers,  K.,  Hobbs,  R.,  Jenkins,  W.,  Kidwell,  J.,  Lopoukhine,  N.,  Sollereder,  B., 
Suding,  K.,  Thompson,  A.,  Whisenant,  S.  (2018).  On  principles  and  standards  in  ecological  restoration. 
Restoration Ecology, 26(3), 399-403. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12691  

Himmelstein, J., Ares, A., Gallagher, D., Myers, J. (2017). A meta-analysis of intercropping in Africa: impacts on 
crop  yield,  farmer  income,  and  integrated  pest  management  effects.  International  Journal  of  Agricultural 
Sustainability, 15(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2016.1242332  

HLPE.  (2019).  Agroecological  and  other  innovative  approaches  for  sustainable  agriculture  and  food  systems 
that  enhance  food  security  and  nutrition.  A  report  by  the  High  Level  Panel  of  Experts  on  Food  Security  and 
Nutrition  of 
from:  
https://www.fao.org/3/ca5602en/ca5602en.pdf  

the  Committee  on  World  Food  Security 

(pp.  1–163).  FAO.  Retrieved 

Holland, J. M., et al. (2017). Semi-natural habitats support biological control, pollination and soil conservation 
in Europe. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 37(4), 31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-
0434-x  

Holland,  J.  M.,  et  al.  (2020).  Moderate  Pollination  Limitation  in  Some  Entomophilous  Crops  of  Europe. 
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 302, 107002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107002  

Holt-Giménez, E. (2002). Measuring farmers’ agroecological resistance after Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua: a 
case  study  in  participatory,  sustainable  land  management  impact  monitoring.  Agriculture,  Ecosystems  & 
Environment, 93(1-3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-8809(02)00006-3 

Holzschuh,  A.,  Dudenhöffer,  J.-H.,  Tscharntke,  T.  (2012).  Landscapes  with  wild  bee  habitats  enhance 
pollination, 
cherry.  Biological  Conservation,  153,  101–107. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.04.032  

set  and  yield  of 

sweet 

fruit 

Holzschuh,  A.,  Steffan-Dewenter,  I.,  Tscharntke,  T.  (2009).  Grass  strip  corridors  in  agricultural  landscapes 
enhance nest-site colonization by solitary wasps. Ecological Applications, 19(1), 123–132.  

Hossard,  L.,  Archer,  D.  W.,  Bertrand,  M.,  Colnenne
Analysis of  Maize and Wheat Yields in Low
108(3), 1155-1167. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-0384.1  

David,  C.,  Debaeke,  P.,  Ernfors,  M.,  et  al.  (2016).  A  Meta

Input  vs. Conventional and Organic Systems.  Agronomy Journal, 
‐

‐

‐

IPCC  (2019).  Climate  Change  and  Land:  an  IPCC  special  report  on  climate  change,  desertification,  land 
degradation,  sustainable  land  management,  food  security,  and  greenhouse  gas  fluxes  in  terrestrial 
ecosystems [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. 
Slade,  S.  Connors,  R.  van  Diemen,  M.  Ferrat,  E.  Haughey,  S.  Luz,  S.  Neogi,  M.  Pathak,  J.  Petzold,  J.  Portugal 
Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley, (eds.)]. In press. https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/  

Isaacs, R., Kirk, A. K. (2010). Pollination services provided to small and large highbush blueberry fields by wild 
and  managed  bees.  Journal  of  Applied  Ecology,  47(4),  841–849.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2664.2010.01823.x  

Jefferson, T., Palomares, M. L. D., Lundquist, C. J. (2022). Safeguarding Seafood Security, Marine Biodiversity 
and  Threatened  Species:  Can  We  Have  Our  Fish  and  Eat  It  too?  Frontiers  in  Marine  Science,  9. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.826587  

Jeffres,  C.  A.,  Holmes,  E.  J.,  Sommer,  T.  R.,  Katz,  J.  V.  E.  (2020).  Detrital  food  web  contributes  to  aquatic 
ecosystem  productivity  and  rapid  salmon  growth  in  a  managed  floodplain.  PLOS  ONE,  15(9),  e0216019. 
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216019  

Jezeer, R. E., Verweij, P. A., Santos, M. J., & Boot, R. G. A. (2017). Shaded Coffee and Cocoa – Double Dividend 
for 
136–145. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.019  

Small-scale 

Biodiversity 

Economics, 

Ecological 

Farmers. 

140, 

and 

29 

Kaempf,  I.,  Hoelzel,  N.,  Stoerrle,  M.,  Broll,  G.,  Kiehl,  K.  (2016).  Potential  of  temperate  agricultural  soils  for 
carbon sequestration: A meta-analysis of land-use effects. Science of the Total Environment, 566, 428–435. 
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.067 

Kantachote, D., Nunkaew, T., Kantha, T., Chaiprapat, S. (2016). Biofertilizers from Rhodopseudomonas palustris 
strains  to  enhance  rice  yields  and  reduce  methane  emissions.  Applied  Soil  Ecology,  100,  154–161. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2015.12.015  

Katayama, N., Bouam, I., Koshida, C., Baba, Y. G. (2019). Biodiversity and yield under different land-use types 
in 
125–133. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.11.020  

A  meta-analysis. 

orchard/vineyard 

Conservation, 

landscapes: 

Biological 

229, 

Katayama, N., Bouam, I., Koshida, C., Baba, Y.G., 2019. Biodiversity and yield under different land-use types in 
orchard/vineyard 
125-133. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.11.020  

A  meta-analysis. 

conservation, 

landscapes: 

Biological 

229, 

Kim, Dong-Gill, Miko U.F. Kirschbaum, Tracy L. Beedy. (2016). Carbon Sequestration and Net Emissions of CH4 
and  N2O  under  Agroforestry:  Synthesizing  Available  Data  and  Suggestions  for  Future  Studies.  Agriculture, 
Ecosystems & Environment, 226, 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.04.011  

Klein,  A.-M,  (2007).  Importance  of  Pollinators  in  Changing  Landscapes  for  World  Crops.  Proceedings  of  the 
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 274(1608), 303–13. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3721 

Klein, A.M., et al. (2012). Wild pollination services to California almond rely on semi-natural habitat. Journal of 
Applied Ecology, 49(3), 723–732. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02144.x  

Klein,  A.-M.,  Steffan-Dewenter,  I.,  Tscharntke,  T.  (2003).  Fruit  set  of  highland  coffee  increases  with  the 
diversity  of  pollinating  bees.  Proceedings  of  the  Royal  Society  B:  Biological  Sciences,  270(1518),  955–961. 
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2306  

Kniss, A. R., Savage, S. D., Jabbour, R. (2016). Commercial Crop Yields Reveal Strengths and Weaknesses for 
Organic 
e0161673. 
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161673  

Agriculture 

States. 

United 

11(8), 

PLOS 

ONE, 

the 

in 

Kremen, C., Williams, N. M., Bugg, R. L., Fay, J. P., Thorp, R. W. (2004). The area requirements of an ecosystem 
service:  Crop  pollination  by  native  bee  communities  in  California.  Ecology  Letters,  7(11),  1109–1119. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00662.x  

Kuyah,  S.,  Whitney,  C.W.,  Jonsson,  M.  et  al.  (2019).  Agroforestry  delivers  a  win-win  solution  for  ecosystem 
services in sub-Saharan Africa. A meta-analysis. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 39(47). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-
019-0589-8  

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  

Leclère,  D.,  Obersteiner,  M.,  Barrett,  M.  et  al.  (2020).  Bending  the  curve  of  terrestrial  biodiversity  needs  an 
integrated strategy. Nature, 585, 551–556. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2705-y  

Lesur-Dumoulin,  C.,  Malézieux,  E.,  Ben-Ari,  T.,  Langlais,  C.,  Makowski,  D.  (2017).  Lower  average  yields  but 
similar yield variability in organic versus conventional horticulture. A meta-analysis. Agronomy for Sustainable 
Development, 37(5), 45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0455-5  

Lippert, C., Feuerbacher, A., Narjes, M. (2021). Revisiting the Economic Valuation of Agricultural Losses Due to 
106860. 
Populations. 
Large-Scale 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106860 

Economics 

Ecological 

Pollinator 

Changes 

180, 

in 

Lowe,  E.  B.,  Groves,  R.,  Gratton,  C.  (2021).  Impacts  of  field-edge  flower  plantings  on  pollinator  conservation 
and  ecosystem  service  delivery  –  A  meta-analysis.  Agriculture,  Ecosystems  and  Environment,  310. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107290  

Lugato,  E.,  Bampa,  F.,  Panagos,  P.,  Montanarella,  L.,  Jones,  A.  (2014).  Potential  carbon  sequestration  of 
European arable soils estimated by modelling a comprehensive set of management practices. Global Change 
Biology, 20(11), 3557–3567. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12551  

30 

Maetens,  W.,  Poesen,  J.,  Vanmaercke,  M.  (2012).  How  effective  are  soil  conservation  techniques  in  reducing 
plot  runoff  and  soil  loss  in  Europe  and  the  Mediterranean?  Earth-Science  Reviews,  115  (1–2),  21-36. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2012.08.003 

Maggio,  A.,  et  al.  (2008).  Potato  yield  and  metabolic  profiling  under  conventional  and  organic  farming. 
European Journal of Agronomy, 28(3), 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2007.10.003  

Mallinger,  R.  E.,  Gratton,  C.  (2015).  Species  richness  of  wild  bees,  but  not  the  use  of  managed  honeybees, 
increases  fruit  set  of  a  pollinator-dependent  crop.  Journal  of  Applied  Ecology,  52(2),  323–330. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12377  

Martin,  E.  A.,  et  al.  (2019).  The  interplay  of  landscape  composition  and  configuration:  New  pathways  to 
manage  functional  biodiversity  and  agroecosystem  services  across  Europe.  Ecology  Letters,  22(7),  1083–
1094. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13265  

McIntyre, P. B., Reidy Liermann, C. A., & Revenga, C. (2016). Linking freshwater fishery management to global 
food  security  and  biodiversity  conservation.  Proceedings  of  the  National  Academy  of  Sciences,  113(45), 
12880–12885. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1521540113  

Mei, Z., et al. (2021). Flower availability drives effects of wildflower strips on ground-dwelling natural enemies 
107570. 
yield. 
and 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107570  

Environment, 

Ecosystems 

Agriculture, 

319, 

crop 

& 

Melaku Canu, D., et al. (2021). Nephrops norvegicus in the Adriatic Sea: Connectivity modeling, essential fish 
habitats, and management area network. Fish Oceanogr., 30(4), 349–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/fog.12522  

Middleton,  B.A.  (2003).  Soil  Seed  Banks  and  the  Potential  Restoration  of  Forested  Wetlands  after  Farming. 
Journal of Applied Ecology, 40(6), 1025–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2003.00866.x  

Mijangos,  I.,  Epelde,  L.,  Blanco,  F.,  &  Garbisu,  C.  (2012).  Evaluating  the  Restoration  of  Degraded  Agricultural 
Soils Under Organic Fertilization. In: C. Trasar-Cepeda, T. Hernández, C. García, C. Rad, & S. González-Carcedo 
(Eds.),  Soil  Enzymology  in  the  Recycling  of  Organic  Wastes  and  Environmental  Restoration  (pp.  211–218). 
Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21162-1_15  

Mitchell, J. P.,  et al. (2017).  Cover Cropping and No-Tillage Improve Soil Health in an  Arid Irrigated Cropping 
System 
in  California’s  San  Joaquin  Valley,  USA.  Soil  and  Tillage  Research,  165,  325–35. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2016.09.001  

Mitter, E. K., Tosi, M., Obregón, D., Dunfield, K. E., Germida, J. J. (2021). Rethinking Crop Nutrition in Times of 
Modern  Microbiology:  Innovative  Biofertilizer  Technologies.  Frontiers  in  Sustainable  Food  Systems,  5. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.606815  

Moghli,  A.,  Santana,  V.  M.,  Soliveres,  S.,  Baeza,  M.  J.  (2022).  Thinning  and  plantation  of  resprouting  species 
redirect overstocked pine stands towards more functional communities in the Mediterranean basin. Science of 
The Total Environment, 806, 150715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150715  

Morandin,  L.  A.,  Winston,  M.  L.  (2006).  Pollinators  provide  economic  incentive  to  preserve  natural  land  in 
agroecosystems. 
289–292. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.02.012  

Environment, 

Ecosystems 

Agriculture, 

116(3–4), 

and 

Morato,  T.,  Carreiro-Silva,  M.,  Smith,  C.J.,  Bilan,  M.,  et  al.  (2018).  Review  on  the  principles  of  the  deep-sea 
restoration and on the ecological benefits of passive and active restoration in the deep sea. Deliverable D4.1. 
MERCES project, 112 pages and 2 Annexes. http://www.merces-project.eu/sites/default/files/D.4.1_0.pdf 

Muchane,  M.  N.,  Gudeta  W.  Sileshi,  Gripenberg,  S.,  Jonsson,  M.,  Pumariño,  L.,  Barrios,  E.  (2020).  Agroforestry 
Boosts  Soil  Health  in  the  Humid  and  Sub-Humid  Tropics:  A  Meta-Analysis.  Agriculture,  Ecosystems  & 
Environment, 295, 106899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.106899  

Muller,  A.,  et  al.  (2017).  Strategies  for  feeding  the  world  more  sustainably  with  organic  agriculture.  Nature 
Communications, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01410-w  

Muñoz, A. E., Plantegenest, M., Amouroux, P., Zaviezo, T. (2021). Native flower strips increase visitation by non-
bee 
insects  to  avocado  flowers  and  promote  yield.  Basic  and  Applied  Ecology,  56,  369–378. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2021.08.015  

Neff,  K.  P.,  Rusello,  K.,  &  Baldwin,  A.  H.  (2009).  Rapid  Seed  Bank  Development  in  Restored  Tidal  Freshwater 
Wetlands. Restoration Ecology, 17(4), 539–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100x.2008.00415.x  

31 

Nyakatawa,  E.Z.,  Reddy,  K.C,  Lemunyon,  J.L.  (2001).  Predicting  soil  erosion  in  conservation  tillage  cotton 
production systems  using the revised universal soil loss  equation (RUSLE). Soil and Tillage Research,  57 (4), 
213-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(00)00178-1 

Orth, R. J., et al. (2020). Restoration of seagrass habitat leads to rapid recovery of coastal ecosystem services. 
Science Advances, 6(41), eabc6434. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abc6434  

Osipitan, O. A., Dille, J. A., Assefa, Y., Knezevic, S. Z. (2018). Cover Crop for Early Season Weed Suppression in 
Crops: 
2211–2221. 
https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2017.12.0752  

and  Meta-Analysis. 

Systematic 

Agronomy 

Journal, 

110(6), 

Review 

Panagos, P.,  Ballabio, C., Poesen, J., Lugato, E., Scarpa, S., Montanarella, L., Borrelli, P.  (2020).  A Soil Erosion 
Indicator  for  Supporting  Agricultural,  Environmental  and  Climate  Policies  in  the  European  Union.  Remote 
Sensing, 12(9), 1365. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12091365 

Panagos,  P.,  Borrelli,  P.,  Meusburger,  K.,  Alewell,  C.,  Lugato,  E.,  Montanarella,  L.  (2015a).  Estimating  the  soil 
erosion 
scale.  Land  Use  Policy,  48,  38-50. 
the  European 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.05.021 

cover-management 

factor  at 

Panagos,  P.,  Borrelli,  P.,  Meusburger,  K.,  van  der  Zanden,  E.H.,  Poesen,  J.,  Alewell,  C.  (2015b).  Modelling  the 
effect  of  support  practices  (P-factor)  on  the  reduction  of  soil  erosion  by  water  at  European  scale. 
Environmental Science & Policy, 51, 23-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.03.012 

Panagos, P., Borrelli, P., Poesen, J., Ballabio, C., Lugato, E., Meusburger, K., Montanarella, L., Alewell, C. (2015c). 
The  new  assessment  of  soil  loss  by  water  erosion  in  Europe.  Environmental  Science  &  Policy,  54,  438-447. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.012 

Panagos,  P.,  et  al.  (2016).  Soil  Conservation  in  Europe:  Wish  or  Reality?  Land  Degradation  &  Development, 
27(6), 1547–1551. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2538  

Panagos, P., et al. (2018). Cost of agricultural productivity loss due to soil erosion in the European Union: From 
direct  cost  evaluation  approaches  to  the  use  of  macroeconomic  models.  Land  Degradation  &  Development, 
29(3), 471–484. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2879  

Paracchini, M.L., Justes, E., Wezel, A., Zingari, P.C., Kahane, R., Madsen, S., Scopel, E., Héraut, A. Bhérer-Breton, 
P., Buckley, R., Colbert, E., Kapalla, D., Sorge, M., Adu Asieduwaa, G., Bezner Kerr, R., Maes, O., Negre, T. (2020). 
Agroecological practices supporting food production and reducing food insecurity in developing countries - A 
study  on  scientific  literature  in  17  countries,  EUR  30329  EN,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union, 
Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-21077-1, https://doi.org/10.2760/82475 , JRC121570. 

Parolini,  M.,  et  al.  (2022).  Trends  and  potential  human  health  risk  of  trace  elements  accumulated  in 
transplanted blue mussels during restoration activities of Flekkefjord fjord (Southern Norway). Environmental 
Monitoring and Assessment, 194(3), 208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-022-09835-7  

Pérez-Méndez, N., et al. (2020). The economic cost of losing native pollinator species for orchard production. 
Journal of Applied Ecology, 57(3), 599–608. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13561  

Peterson,  C.  H.,  Grabowski,  J.  H.,  Powers,  S.  P.  (2003).  Estimated  enhancement  of  fish  production  resulting 
from  restoring  oyster  reef  habitat:  quantitative  valuation. Marine  Ecology  Progress  Series, 264,  249–264. 
http://www.jstor.org/stable/24867515 

Ponisio, L. C., et al. (2015). Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proceedings of 
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1799), 20141396. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1396  

Porcel,  M.,  Andersson,  G.  K.  S.,  Pålsson,  J.,  Tasin,  M.  (2018).  Organic  management  in  apple  orchards:  Higher 
impacts  on  biological  control  than  on  pollination.  Journal  of  Applied  Ecology,  55(6),  2779–2789. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13247  

Potts,  S.  G.,  Biesmeijer,  C.J.,  Kremen,  C.,  Neumann,  P.,  Schweiger,  O.,  Kunin,  W.E.  (2010).  Global  Pollinator 
in  Ecology  &  Evolution,  25(6),  345–53. 
Declines: 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.007  

Impacts  and  Drivers. 

Trends, 

Trends 

Pumariño, L., et al. (2015). Effects of Agroforestry on Pest, Disease and Weed Control: A Meta-Analysis. Basic 
and Applied Ecology, 16(7), 573–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2015.08.006  

32 

Quemada,  M.,  Baranski,  M.,  Nobel-de  Lange,  M.  N.  J.,  Vallejo,  A.,  Cooper,  J.  M.  (2013).  Meta-analysis  of 
strategies  to  control  nitrate  leaching  in  irrigated  agricultural  systems  and  their  effects  on  crop  yield. 
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 174, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.04.018  

Rabalais, N. N., Turner, R. E., Díaz, R. J, Justić, D. (2009). Global Change and Eutrophication of Coastal Waters. 
ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66(7), 1528–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsp047   

Reganold, J. P., et al. (2010). Fruit and Soil Quality of Organic and Conventional Strawberry Agroecosystems. 
PLOS ONE, 5(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0012346  

Rivest,  D.,  Paquette,  A.,  Moreno,  G.,  Messier,  C.  (2013).  A  meta-analysis  reveals  mostly  neutral  influence  of 
scattered  trees  on  pasture  yield  along  with  some  contrasted  effects  depending  on  functional  groups  and 
rainfall 
74–79. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.12.010  

Environment, 

Ecosystems 

Agriculture, 

conditions. 

165, 

& 

Rogers,  A.,  Blanchard,  J.  L.,  Mumby,  P.  J.  (2018).  Fisheries  productivity  under  progressive  coral  reef 
degradation. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55(3), 1041–1049. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13051  

Rosset, P.  M., Machín Sosa, B., Roque Jaime,  A. M., Ávila Lozano, D. R. (2011). The Campesino-to-Campesino 
agroecology  movement  of  ANAP  in  Cuba:  social  process  methodology  in  the  construction  of  sustainable 
Journal  of  Peasant  Studies,  38(1),  161–191. 
peasant  agriculture  and 
https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2010.538584  

sovereignty. 

food 

Russi, D. (2020). Governance strategies for a successful marine protected area – The case of Torre Guaceto. 
Marine Policy, 115, 103849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103849  

Russo, T., et al. (2018). A model combining landings and VMS data to estimate landings by fishing ground and 
harbor. Fisheries Research, 199, 218–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2017.11.002   

Sáez,  A.,  Morales,  C.  L.,  Ramos,  L.  Y.,  Aizen,  M.  A.  (2014).  Extremely  frequent  bee  visits  increase  pollen 
deposition  but  reduce  drupelet  set  in  raspberry.  Journal  of  Applied  Ecology,  51(6),  1603–1612. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12325  

Sanchirico,  J.  N.,  Malvadkar,  U.,  Hastings,  A.,  Wilen,  E.J.  (2006).  When  Are  No-Take  Zones  an  Economically 
Optimal Fishery Management Strategy? Ecological Applications 16(5), 1643–59. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-
0761(2006)016[1643:WANZAE]2.0.CO;2  

Sartori,  M.,  Philippidis,  G.,  Ferrari,  E.,  Borrelli,  P.,  Lugato,  E.,  Montanarella,  L.,  Panagos,  P.  (2019).  A  Linkage 
between  the  Biophysical  and  the  Economic:  Assessing  the  Global  Market  Impacts  of  Soil  Erosion.  Land  Use 
Policy 86, 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.05.014 

Sauvadet, M., et al (2021). Agroecosystem diversification with legumes or non-legumes improves differently 
soil 
type.  Science  of  The  Total  Environment,  795,  148934. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148934  

fertility  according 

soil 

to 

Schrama,  M.,  de  Haan,  J.  J.,  Kroonen,  M.,  Verstegen,  H.,  Van  der  Putten,  W.  H.  (2018).  Crop  yield  gap  and 
stability in organic and conventional farming systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 256, 123–130. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.12.023  

Seitzinger,  S.  P.,  et  al.  (2010).  Global  River  Nutrient  Export:  A  Scenario  Analysis  of  Past  and  Future  Trends: 
GLOBAL 
24(4). 
https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GB003587  

Biogeochemical 

SCENARIOS. 

EXPORT 

Cycles, 

Global 

RIVER 

Serra-Llobet,  A.,  et  al.  (2022).  Restoring  Rivers  and  Floodplains  for  Habitat  and  Flood  Risk  Reduction: 
Experiences in Multi-Benefit Floodplain Management From California and Germany. Frontiers in Environmental 
Science, 9, 778568. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.778568 

Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N., Foley, J. A. (2012). Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. 
Nature, 485(7397), 229–232. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11069  

Shackelford,  G. E., Kelsey, R., Dicks, L.  V. (2019). Effects  of cover crops on multiple ecosystem services: Ten 
meta-analyses  of  data  from  arable  farmland  in  California  and  the  Mediterranean.  Land  Use  Policy,  88, 
104204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104204  

Shackelford, G.,  et  al. (2013). Comparison of pollinators and natural enemies:  A meta-analysis of landscape 
and 
in  crops.  Biological  Reviews,  88(4),  1002–1021. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12040  

local  effects  on  abundance  and  richness 

33 

Shah,  A.,  Askegaard,  M.,  Rasmussen,  I.  A.,  Jimenez,  E.  M.  C.,  Olesen,  J.  E.  (2017).  Productivity  of  organic  and 
conventional arable cropping systems in long-term experiments in Denmark. European Journal of Agronomy, 
90, 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2017.07.001  

Shi, Lingling, Wenting Feng, Jianchu Xu, Yakov Kuzyakov. (2018). Agroforestry Systems: Meta-Analysis of Soil 
Carbon  Stocks,  Sequestration  Processes,  and  Future  Potentials.  Land  Degradation  &  Development,  29  (11), 
3886–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3136  

Smith, V. H., Schindler, D. W. (2009). Eutrophication Science: Where Do We Go from Here?. Trends in Ecology & 
Evolution, 24(4), 201–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.11.009  

Society for Ecological Restoration Science and Policy Working Group. (2004). The SER International Primer on 
Ecological  Restoration,  Version  2.  Retrieved  from:  https://www.ser-rrc.org/resource/the-ser-international-
primer-on/  

Su,  J.,  Friess,  D.  A.,  Gasparatos,  A.  (2021).  A  meta-analysis  of  the  ecological  and  economic  outcomes  of 
mangrove restoration. Nature Communications, 12(1), 5050. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-25349-1  

Sutter, L., Albrecht, M. (2016). Synergistic interactions of ecosystem services: Florivorous pest control boosts 
crop  yield  increase  through  insect  pollination.  Proceedings  of  the  Royal  Society  B:  Biological  Sciences, 
283(1824), 20152529. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.2529  

Sutter, L., Albrecht, M., Jeanneret, P. (2018). Landscape  greening and local creation of  wildflower  strips and 
hedgerows  promote  multiple  ecosystem  services.  Journal  of  Applied  Ecology,  55(2),  612–620. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12977  

Taki,  H.,  Yamaura,  Y.,  Okabe,  K.,  Maeto,  K.  (2011).  Plantation  vs.  Natural  forest:  Matrix  quality  determines 
pollinator abundance in crop fields. Scientific Reports, 1(1), 132. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00132  

Tallman, J. C., Forrester, G. E. (2007). Oyster Grow-Out Cages Function as Artificial Reefs for Temperate Fishes. 
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 136(3), 790–799. https://doi.org/10.1577/t06-119.1  

Tamburini,  G.,  et  al.  (2020).  Agricultural  diversification  promotes  multiple  ecosystem  services  without 
compromising yield. Science Advances, 6(45), eaba1715. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba1715  

Tanentzap,  A.  J.,  et  al.  (2014).  Forests  fuel  fish  growth  in  freshwater  deltas.  Nature  Communications,  5(1), 
4077. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5077  

The  Nature  Conservancy  (2021).  Global  Principles  of  Restorative  Aquaculture.  Arlington,  VA.  Retrieved  from: 
https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/TNC_PrinciplesofRestorativeAquaculture.pdf  

Torralba, M., Fagerholm, N., Burgess, P. J., Moreno, G., Plieninger, T. (2016). Do European agroforestry systems 
enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services? A meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 230, 
150–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.06.002  

Tschumi,  M.,  et  al.  (2016).  Perennial,  species-rich  wildflower  strips  enhance  pest  control  and  crop  yield. 
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 220, 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.01.001  

United  Nations  Environment  Programme  (UNEP)  (2021).  Becoming  #GenerationRestoration:  Ecosystem 
restoration 
from: 
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/36251/ERPNC.pdf  

Retrieved 

climate. 

Nairobi. 

people, 

nature 

and 

for 

Valdez, S. R., Zhang, Y. S., van der Heide, T., Vanderklift, M. A., Tarquinio, F., Orth, R. J., & Silliman, B. R. (2020). 
Positive  Ecological  Interactions  and  the  Success  of  Seagrass  Restoration.  Frontiers  in  Marine  Science,  7. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00091  

Valkama,  E.,  Lemola,  R.,  Känkänen,  H.,  Turtola,  E.  (2015).  Meta-analysis  of  the  effects  of  undersown  catch 
crops  on  nitrogen  leaching  loss  and  grain  yields  in  the  Nordic  countries.  Agriculture,  Ecosystems  & 
Environment, 203, 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.01.023  

van Grinsven, H. J. M., Rabl, A., de Kok, T. M. (2010). Estimation of Incidence and Social Cost of Colon Cancer 
Due to Nitrate in Drinking Water in the EU: A Tentative Cost-Benefit Assessment. Environmental Health, 9(1) 
58. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-9-58  

van Groenigen, J. W., et al. (2014). Earthworms increase plant production: A meta-analysis. Scientific Reports, 
4(1), 6365. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep06365  

34 

van  Vooren,  L.,  et  al.  (2017).  Ecosystem  service  delivery  of  agri-environment  measures:  A  synthesis  for 
hedgerows  and  grass  strips  on  arable  land,  Agriculture,  Ecosystems  &  Environment,  244,  32-51. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.04.015  

Vandeperre,  F,  Higgins,  R.  M.,  Sánchez-Meca,  J.,  Maynou,  F.,  Goñi,  R.,  Martín-Sosa,  P.,  Pérez-Ruzafa,  A.,  et  al. 
(2011). Effects of No-Take Area Size and Age of Marine Protected Areas on Fisheries Yields: A Meta-Analytical 
Approach:  MPA  Size  and  Age:  Effects  on  Fisheries.  Fish  and  Fisheries  12(4),  412–26. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00401.x  

Verstraeten,  G.,  Van  Oost,  K.,  Van  Rompaey,  A.,  Poesen,  J.  and  Govers,  G.  (2002).  Evaluating  an  integrated 
approach to  catchment management to reduce  soil loss  and sediment  pollution through  modelling. Soil Use 
and Management, 18, 386-394. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2002.tb00257.x 

Waltz, A. E.  M., Wallace Covington, W. (2004). Ecological  Restoration Treatments Increase Butterfly Richness 
and Abundance: Mechanisms of Response. Restoration Ecology, 12(1), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1061-
2971.2004.00262.x  

Wang, G., Wang, M., Lu, X., Jiang, M. (2015). Effects of farming on the soil seed banks and wetland restoration 
potential 
265–274. 
Sanjiang 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.01.039. 

Plain,  Northeastern 

Engineering, 

Ecological 

China. 

77, 

in 

Wietzke,  A.,  et  al.  (2018).  Insect  pollination  as  a  key  factor  for  strawberry  physiology  and  marketable  fruit 
quality. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 258, 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.01.036  

Williams,  N.  M.  (2011).  Restoration  of  Nontarget  Species:  Bee  Communities  and  Pollination  Function  in 
Riparian Forests. Restoration Ecology, 19(4), 450–459. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00707.x  

Wohl,  E.,  Lane,  S.N.,  Wilcox,  A.C.  (2015).  The  science  and  practice  of  river  restoration.  Water  Resources 
Research 51(8), 5974-5997. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016874  

Woodcock,  B.  A.,  et  al.  (2019).  Meta-analysis  reveals  that  pollinator  functional  diversity  and  abundance 
enhance  crop  pollination  and  yield.  Nature  Communications,  10(1).  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-
09393-6  

35 

 
List of boxes 

Box 1. Conservation agriculture ....................................................................................... 9 

Box 2. Agroecology ....................................................................................................15 

36 

 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the address of the centre 
nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service: 

- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or 

- by electronic mail via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at: 
https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. 
Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

 
 
 
 
K
J
-
N
A
-
3
1
1
3
7
-
E
N
-
N

doi:10.2760/3032 

ISBN 978-92-76-54409-8