Can we balance biodiversity targets with socio-economic needs? With good policy and planning it’s possible, says a new study.

Making decisions on changing land use whilst also prioritising Europe’s biodiversity targets is a critical balancing act. Agriculture, forestry and bioenergy needs can conflict with pledges to protect and restore wildlife areas and meet carbon capture needs. Under the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and constituent Nature Restoration Regulation the EU intends to increase protected areas to cover 30% of land and sea, and restore 20% of its land and sea areas by 2030. However, tension comes with most EU land being in some form of human use, with 38% of EU land farmed and 39% under the domain of forestry mainly for timber production. 

This study tested a new integrated spatial planning approach to identify where conservation, restoration and production should be prioritised across different types of terrain, using data on species, soil carbon sequestration and land use.

Researchers estimated the distribution of 729 species by modelling data from the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive. They applied Corine Land Cover mapping data, a product of the EU’s Copernicus Earth observation programme, to identify land use in different areas, aligning it with information on the Natura 2000 network of protected areas. They also modelled carbon stocks at risk from land use change and emissions figures from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and assigned management zones. They applied species conservation targets for each country, using the minimum habitat area necessary to qualify species populations as ‘least concern’ as defined by the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

The researchers used the GLOBIOM and G4M models to explore land use competition in farming, forestry and bioenergy; and just forestry, respectively. They ran 12 scenarios of land allocation and set a series of constraints around nature restoration regulations, to explore the impact of sharing conservation needs in differing ways between EU countries.

The researchers concluded that restoration targets could be met without jeopardising food, energy crops and timber-producing areas. This was despite a projected increase of 9-12% in the area required for farming and forestry over the next decade. The ‘high nature’ scenario, involving the restoration of up to 6% of EU land, could improve the conservation status of up to 42% of species of concern.

Such gains don’t come without trade-offs —but this is where considered planning comes in. One way to balance production and conservation would be a strategically targeted expansion of high-intensity farming and forestry, allowing for areas to be de-intensified for nature recovery or carbon sequestration. 

They suggested the mix of intensification in some areas and restoration in others highlighted the importance of the nature restoration regulation. Their results showed that intensification without strong policy would likely harm biodiversity. In this case, there would be a projected 7.3-8.5% increase in species whose habitat needs are not met. While changing production demands threaten more biodiversity loss by 2030, it is possible to avert these worst-case scenarios. If the right strategic restoration measures are put in place, landscapes could improve the conservation status of more than 20% of species of conservation concern, while also increasing carbon sequestered on land.

The authors stressed the importance of burden-sharing between EU countries, with a need to balance efficacy and efficiency in meeting nature restoration regulations. Their model’s projections suggested either taking a flexible burden-sharing approach where countries have up to 10% additional restoration priority within an overall fixed EU target, or applying unconstrained burden-sharing, where restoration can occur anywhere with no limits on the amount shouldered by individual countries. The latter may prove the better option. There were greater predicted benefits on biodiversity and carbon when using more flexible options than when each country took an equal share. 

The European Environment Agency has noted that while EU biodiversity policies remain highly relevant and fit for purpose, implementation is short of where it needs to be, with the gaps between legislation and reality particularly large in the conservation of European bird species and forests. With Member States’ National Restoration Plans due for draft submission by 1 September 2026, finalised in 2027, and revised by 2032, these findings are timely.

The spatial planning approach proposed by this study offers a method to help decision-making and effective governance, and aligns with analyses by the Bruegel Institute, which stressed that integrated planning is the only way to align biodiversity with food and energy security. However, the authors stress that benefits are not always consistent across different scales. The best quality local data, models and assumptions should be used wherever possible, to ensure the projected gains for both nature restoration and the bioeconomy are realised.

Reference:

Chapman, M., Jung, M., Leclère, D., Boettiger, C., Augustynczik, A.L., Gusti, M., Ringwald, L. and Visconti, P., 2025. Meeting European Union biodiversity targets under future land-use demands. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 9(5), pp.810-821.

www.nature.com/articles/s41559-025-02671-1

To cite this article/service:

“Science for Environment Policy”: European Commission DG Environment News Alert Service, edited by the Science Communication Unit, The University of the West of England, Bristol.

Notes on content:

The contents and views included in Science for Environment Policy are based on independent, peer reviewed research and do not necessarily reflect the position of the European Commission. Please note that this article is a summary of only one study. Other studies may come to other conclusions.