CAP 2023–2027 provides freshwater restoration opportunities but falls short in implementation

A review of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for 2023–2027 found that the policy provides funding mechanisms and technical options that could support freshwater ecosystem restoration, but national plans do not consistently direct enough support toward restoring rivers, lakes, wetlands and peatlands. The analysis examined the national CAP Strategic Plans (CSPs) of all 27 Member States using data from the European Commission’s publicly available Agri-Food Data Portal.

The review focused on agricultural practices that can improve the hydrology and physical structure of freshwater habitats. These included restrictions on ploughing, grazing or mowing along watercourses, temporary storage of floodwater on agricultural fields, drainage bans and restrictions, hedgerows and field margins, ponds and small wetlands, wetland and peatland management, agroforestry, and soil and grassland practices intended to increase water retention. Agricultural pollution was outside the review’s direct scope, although the authors noted that restoring natural hydrological and morphological processes may also reduce pollution.

CAP funding for 2023–2027 comprises EUR 307 billion in planned public expenditure from EU and national sources, with spending scheduled through 2029. The “Green Architecture” combines conditionality, eco-schemes, Environment and Climate interventions (ENVCLIM), and investment support, alongside smaller categories such as support for Areas of Specific Disadvantage, cooperation, knowledge exchange and innovation. Regulations require at least 25% of European Agricultural Guarantee Fund direct payments to be allocated to eco-schemes and at least 35% of European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development funding to support climate, environment and animal-welfare interventions.

Approximately 29% of the annual CAP budget, equivalent to EUR 89 billion, is allocated to interventions contributing to the sustainable management of natural resources, including water, soil and air. Of that total, EUR 2 billion is exclusively dedicated to measures targeting that objective, excluding direct payments without an explicit environmental purpose. The review found that 35% of the eco-scheme budget and 66% of the ENVCLIM budget were linked to area-based payments contributing to improved water quality beyond conditionality. Funding linked to sustainable water use and water-balance measures was lower, at 14% of the eco-scheme budget and 8% of the ENVCLIM budget.

Conditionality provides the broadest baseline reach, applying to 89% of the EU’s utilised agricultural area. GAEC 2 requires Member States to ensure appropriate protection of wetlands and peatlands by 2025, while GAEC 4 establishes minimum 3-metre buffer strips along watercourses with restrictions on fertiliser and pesticide use. GAEC 8 requires retention of landscape features that can reduce runoff and increase infiltration when positioned on slopes or in riparian areas. Small ponds, streams and small wetlands are eligible under this standard but were rarely selected by Member States.

The review identified important limitations in the baseline rules. Implementation of GAEC 2 was delayed, some definitions were ambiguous, and exemptions were widely used. In the approved CSPs, every Member State exempted farms below 10 hectares from GAEC 7, representing 76% of EU farms and about 26% of arable land. Simplification packages adopted in April 2024 and May 2025 also allowed Member States to remove GAEC 2 from conditionality, align watercourse definitions with national legislation, remove the minimum landscape-feature requirement under GAEC 8, extend permanent-grassland status from five to seven years, and increase the allowable reduction in permanent grassland from 5% to 10% before triggering reconversion requirements.

National plans nevertheless contained examples of interventions with potential restoration value. Poland’s “Water retention on permanent grassland” eco-scheme has EUR 97.3 million in planned public expenditure, targets up to 315,000 hectares annually and pays EUR 62 per hectare. Ireland’s ACRES Cooperation intervention combines fixed and result-based payments, assesses drainage conditions, and gives substantial emphasis to commonages and peatlands; it has EUR 460 million in planned public expenditure for 2023–2029, targets 2 million hectares and represents 26.17% of Ireland’s ENVCLIM budget. Finland’s “management of run-off waters” intervention regulates drainage to reduce runoff and nutrient leaching, maintain groundwater levels outside active cultivation periods and recycle drainage water through storage and later irrigation.

Investment support is mixed. Twenty-four Member States planned at least one non-productive on-farm investment, while 22 planned off-farm non-productive investments. Green investments account for 62% of investment interventions and EUR 28 billion in public expenditure, while non-productive on- and off-farm investments specifically linked to environmental and climate goals account for EUR 17 billion, approximately 30% of the investment allocation. However, many water-related investments focus on technical efficiency, including irrigation, fertiliser and pesticide use, rather than habitat restoration. Support for creating or restoring drainage schemes appears in at least 11 CSPs, a practice the authors identify as potentially undermining freshwater restoration.

The authors’ overall assessment is that CAP 2023–2027 has substantial potential to support freshwater restoration, but that national flexibility has often favoured political feasibility and farmer participation over environmental ambition. The review identifies inconsistent conditionality, limited targeting of eco-schemes and ENVCLIM measures, investment focused more on “grey” infrastructure than ecosystem restoration, and a CAP budget still dominated by income support. It recommends more consistent enforcement of baseline standards, better-targeted interventions, robust monitoring, a larger role for non-productive investments and cooperation, and payments more directly tied to measurable environmental outcomes. The review did not assess whether particular restoration measures produced ecological improvements, so the findings concern the design and planned allocation of CAP interventions rather than demonstrated restoration outcomes.

Subject of Research: Evaluation of EU Common Agricultural Policy plans for freshwater ecosystem restoration

Article Title: Does the Common Agricultural Policy 2023–2027 support the restoration of freshwater ecosystems?

Article References: Rouillard, J., Meier, J., Blackstock, K. L., Matthews, K. B., & Birk, S. (2026). Does the Common Agricultural Policy 2023–2027 support the restoration of freshwater ecosystems?. Nature Conservation, 62, 337-354. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.62.148845

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.62.148845

Keywords: Common Agricultural Policy, freshwater restoration, EU agriculture, wetlands, peatlands, rivers and lakes, agricultural policy, environmental payments, CAP Strategic Plans, Does, Common, Agricultural