Increased use of annual payments to land managers for ecological outcomes indicates a growing interest in exploring the potential of this approach. In this viewpoint, we drew on the experiences of all schemes paying for biodiversity outcomes/results on agricultural land operating in the EU and EFTA countries with the aim of reviewing the decisive elements of the schemes' design and implementation as well as the challenges and opportunities of adopting a results-based approach. We analysed the characteristics of results-based schemes using evidence from peer-reviewed literature, technical reports, scheme practitioners and experts in agri-environment-climate policy. We developed a typology of the schemes and explored critical issues influencing the feasibility and performance of results-based schemes. The evidence to date shows that there are at least 11 advantages to the results-based approach not found in management-based schemes with similar objectives, dealing with environmental efficiency, farmers' participation and development of local biodiversity-based projects. Although results-based approaches have specific challenges at every stage of design and implementation, for many of these the existing schemes provide potential solutions. There is also some apprehension about trying a results-based approach in Mediterranean, central and eastern EU Member States. We conclude that there is clear potential to expand the approach in the European Union for the Rural Development programming period for 2021-2028. Nevertheless, evidence is needed about the approach's efficiency in delivering conservation outcomes in the long term, its additionality, impact on the knowledge and attitudes of land managers and society at large, development of ways of rewarding the achievement of actual results, as well as its potential for stimulating innovative grassroots solutions.

Farmlands are currently among the dominant uses of the land. When managed under low‐input farming systems, farmlands are associated with diverse cultural and natural heritages around the world. Known in Europe as high nature value (HNV) farmlands, these agricultural landscapes and their associated farming systems evolved as tightly coupled socioecological systems, and are essential to biodiversity conservation and the delivery of ecosystem services to society. However, HNV farmlands are vulnerable to socioeconomic changes that lead to either agricultural intensification or land abandonment. We present a range of plausible future scenarios for HNV farmlands, and discuss the related management options and expected socioecological outcomes for each scenario. We then provide recommendations for policy, practice, and research on how to best ensure the socioecological viability of HNV farming systems in the future.

While the importance of permanent grasslands (PG) for the conservation of high nature value habitats is often acknowledged, their role in most of the main sustainable food system scenarios published in the last few years is less explicit. In the best case, the place of permanent grassland in scenarios and policy agendas is their conservation; in the worst one, they are simply replaced by afforested land or cropland, considered as a better option when the focus is on GHG emissions only. In this paper, we defend the idea that several misinterpretations of the positive and negative impacts of ruminants, the ‘natural’ users of PG, explain why ruminants are poorly addressed by most scenarios. Based on the findings of an agroecological scenario for Europe—TYFA, standing for Ten Years For Agroecology—in which extensive permanent grassland and ruminants together play a prominent role for biodiversity conservation, nitrogen cycling and climate change mitigation and adaptation, we call for a research agenda that would better inform the specific role of PG in the provision of ecosystem services—and in particular those that depend on nitrogen management.

In response to the sustainability issues that agriculture faces in advanced economies, agroecology has gained increasing relevance in scientific, political, and social debates. This has promoted discussion about transitions to agroecology, which represents a significant advancement. Accordingly, it has become a growing field of research. We reviewed the literature on and in support of farm transitions to agroecology in advanced economies in order to identify key research challenges and suggest innovative research paths. Our findings can be summarized as follows: (1) Research that supports exploration and definition of desired futures, whether based on future-oriented modeling or expert-based foresight approaches, should more explicitly include the farm level. It should stimulate the creativity and design ability of farmers and other stakeholders, and also address issues of representation and power among them. (2) Research that creates awareness and assesses farms before, during or after transition requires more holistic and dynamic assessment frameworks. These frameworks need to be more flexible to adapt to the diversity of global and local challenges. Their assessment should explicitly include uncertainty due to the feedback loops and emergent properties of transitions. (3) Research that analyzes and supports farms during transition should focus more on the dynamics of change processes by valuing what happens on the farms. Research should especially give more credence to on-farm experiments conducted by farmers and develop new tools and methods (e.g., for strategic monitoring) to support these transitions. This is the first review of scientific studies of farm transitions to agroecology. Overall, the review indicates that these transitions challenge the system boundaries, temporal horizons, and sustainability dimensions that agricultural researchers usually consider. In this context, farm transitions to agroecology require changes in the current organization and funding of research in order to encourage longer term and more adaptive configurations.

High Nature Value (HNV) farmlands currently retain most of the biodiversity associated with agricultural landscapes in Europe. In a time of globalized food systems, the social-ecological conditions to maintain these low-intensity and thus less productive HNV farming systems are difficult to meet. Halting the loss of HNV farmland requires fostering the socioeconomic viability of HNV farming systems that is compatible with social, cultural, and ecological values. Pursuing such viability calls for tailored actions to steer the development of HNV farming systems based on the strength of their local assets. Such a transformational learning process involves changing the territorial dynamic towards better integration of biodiversity at several levels of management (from farm to territorial level). Based on the description and analysis of ten HNV territories distributed across Europe, we explore how HNV innovation brokers can strategically engage with local actors to preserve the environmental characteristics of HNV farmland areas while improving their socioeconomic viability. The aim of this research is to improve the understanding of the range of approaches and strategies of innovation brokers to meet the challenges of HNV farmland conservation. The study analyzes the different innovation processes that took place in each area, concentrating on the engagement phase. Our results demonstrate that HNV farming situations across Europe are quite diverse from an agroecological and socioeconomic point of view. There are distinct conservation challenges and associated risks for each HNV farming context. The need for a strategic approach to HNV conservation at landscape-territory level is discussed. The key role of innovation brokers is highlighted, together with the need for a strategic approach to innovation brokerage, which is explicit in relation to territorial needs and the changes required. We demonstrate the importance of the landscape-territorial vision as an entry point for shaping HNV farming systems towards socially desirable scenarios.