The European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has not halted farmland biodiversity loss. The CAP post‐2023 has a new ‘‘Green Architecture,’’ including the new ‘‘Eco‐scheme’’ instrument. How can this new Green Architecture help tackle the biodiversity crisis? Through 13 workshops and an online survey, over 300 experts from 23 European Member States addressed this question.From experts’ contributions, key principles for success include preserving and restoring (semi)natural elements and extensive grasslands; improving spatial planning and landscape‐scale implementation, including through collective actions; implementing result‐based approaches; and improved knowledge exchange. To maximize the effectiveness of Eco‐scheme for biodiversity, experts highlighted the need to prioritize evidence‐based actions, allocate a sufficient budget for biodiversity, and incentivize management improvements through higher payment levels. Additionally, stronger coherence is needed among CAP instruments.For effective CAP implementation, the European Commission and the Member States should expand investments in biodiversity monitoring, knowledge transfer, and capacity‐building within relevant institutions. The remaining risks in the CAP's ability to reverse the loss of farmland biodiversity still require better design, closer monitoring, greater transparency, and better engagement with farmers. Additionally, greater involvement of scientists is needed to guide the CAP toward restoring farmland biodiversity while accounting for synergies and trade‐offs with other objectives.

Despite increasing interest, a lack of comprehensive knowledge regarding the efficient design and implementation of carbon farming schemes remains. These schemes must efficiently achieve higher carbon sequestration, incentivize farmers, and increase farmers' participation in global carbon markets. Our study systematically reviews, describes, and maps available evidence related to carbon farming contracts to assess different incentive mechanisms for carbon farming. We conduct a systematic mapping review of articles extracted from various databases employing the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence method. We shortlist 52 articles and analyze about 40 global case studies, identifying three main incentive mechanisms of carbon farming contracts, namely, result-based, action-based, and hybrid payments. We examine how these incentive mechanisms are designed, in addition to associated payment types, monitoring approaches, and barriers to implementation. Result-based payments include stringent monitoring and can be implemented through auctions, carbon credits, product labels or certificates. Action-based payments are found to be simpler, with lower monitoring requirements for farmers and can be paid upfront or after contract implementation. Hybrid payments combine both techniques, offering low-risk and guaranteed payments for farmers and definite environmental mitigation impacts. Result-based and hybrid payments motivate farmers to innovate to meet environmental objectives while also connecting them to carbon markets. The major challenges to developing a successful carbon farming project include lack of permanence, non-additionality, and the absence of stringent monitoring, reporting, and verification standards, all of which affect farmers' incentives. This study determines that carbon farming contract design and efficiency can be improved by analyzing the lessons learned from previous experiences. By examining and improving the attributes that define different incentive mechanisms, farmers can be better motivated to enroll in carbon farming schemes and benefit from increased access to carbon markets to potentially transform agriculture into a viable tool for climate action.

Building new value chains, through the valorization of biomass components for the development of innovative bio‐based products (BBPs) aimed at specific market sectors, will accelerate the transition from traditional production technologies to the concept of biorefineries. Recent studies aimed at mapping the most relevant innovations undergoing in the field of BBPs (Fabbri et al. 2019, Final Report of the Task 3 BIOSPRI Tender Study on Support to R&I Policy in the Area of Bio‐based Products and Services, delivered to the European Commission (DG RTD)), clearly showed the dominant position played by the plastics sector, in which new materials and innovative technical solutions based on renewable resources, concretely contribute to the achievement of relevant global sustainability goals. New sustainable solutions for the plastic sector, either bio‐based or bio‐based and biodegradable, have been intensely investigated in recent years. The global bioplastics and biopolymers market size is expected to grow from USD 10.5 billion in 2020 to USD 27.9 billion by 2025 (Markets and Markets, 2020, Bioplastics & Biopolymers Market by Type (Non‐Biodegradable/Bio‐Based, Biodegradable), End‐Use Industry (Packaging, Consumer Goods, Automotive & Transportation, Textiles, Agriculture & Horticulture), Region ‐ Global Forecast to 2025), and this high growth is driven primarily by the growth of the global packaging end‐use industry. Such relevant opportunities are the outcomes of intensive scientific and technological research devoted to the development of new materials with selected technical features, which can represent feasible substitutes for the fossil‐based plastic materials currently used in the packaging sectors and other main fields. This article offers a map of the latest developments connected to the plastic sector, achieved through the application of biotechnological routes for the preparation of completely new polymeric structures, or drop‐in substitutes derived from renewable resources, and it describes the specific role played by biotechnology in promoting and making this transition faster.

Water recycling is becoming progressively more important as the need for Integrated Urban Water Management (IUWM) is increasing to ensure a transition towards a more sustainable use for water. Perceptions and public acceptance of water reuse are recognised as paramount factors for the successful introduction of wastewater reuse projects, regardless of the strength of scientific evidence in their favour. This article analyses perceptions of risks and benefits of using treated wastewater for irrigation purposes in agriculture when dealing with different crops. Data from an original farmer survey are analysed through descriptive statistics and a classification tree approach. The study reveals limited knowledge of wastewater treatment, yet a good level of openness towards the reuse of wastewater for irrigation. A lower risk perception and a higher acceptance level are mainly explained by positive expectations with regard to the environmental characteristics of effluent water, higher education, and specific cropping choices. Enhancing information availability is also found to positively affect social acceptance. The ease of converting current water-management practices to the new water source explains the perceived benefits of reusing water.