By  Baker, D.J., Nye, C., Wheeler, R., Masquelier, C., Binner, A., Gaston, K.J., Heard, M., Lobley, M., Smith, D. and Maclean I.M.D.

Read the full paper here.

To effectively restore nature, it is essential to allocate conservation resources where they are most needed and in amounts that support both wildlife and the environment. Agri-environment schemes (AES) are among the most significant tools in Europe for promoting environmental health across farmland. However, despite large investments, the benefits to biodiversity remain limited because these schemes often lack a coordinated, landscape-wide strategy. In England, AES are usually applied on a farm-by-farm basis, which means conservation resources are not strategically arranged, reducing their impact on large-scale nature recovery. Additionally, the single-site focus of previous AES has likely slowed the shift toward more conservation-friendly farming approaches, for example, by limiting opportunities for farmers to share knowledge and experiences.

To improve nature recovery outcomes, AES must target conservation resources based on specific biodiversity goals and targets (for example, increasing the abundance of Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella by 10%). These targets should be clearly defined and measurable, with monitoring sufficiently resourced. This approach requires a plan that considers the wider landscape and connects conservation efforts across farms. Conservation planning approaches in ecology can identify suites of actions across landscapes necessary to achieve specific outcomes for multiple species.

However, successful nature recovery through AES also depends on effective participation by land managers. Therefore, conservation planning must address barriers to engagement and be flexible enough to offer alternative but effective management options where there is resistance to participation. Encouraging cooperation among neighbouring farms can help ensure resources are pooled to benefit more species across larger areas. When scheme engagement occurs at the farm scale, uptake should be guided by spatial conservation planning tailored to the landscape (for example, through accessible digital platforms).

Finally, achieving nature recovery through AES requires a blend of ecological, economic, and social insights. Conservation actions should reflect an understanding of farmers’ needs and preferences, as their engagement is crucial to success. Monitoring and feedback are vital to motivate farmers and to inform adjustments to spatial conservation planning, ensuring progress toward long-term nature recovery targets and goals. With better integration of planning and participation, AES can more effectively contribute to reversing biodiversity loss and building more resilient ecosystems.