In WP1, building on the completed baseline analysis and previous work in RP1, we considerably improved and upgraded our WebGIS system, including large‑scale data migration to Azure, improved visualisation tools, and the launch of a public‑facing platform with anonymized spatial coordinates.
In WP2, RP1 had been used to design and develop appropriate biodiversity monitoring approaches that can be deployed across European farmland and agricultural landscapes. In RP2, we expanded the monitoring work into large‑scale deployment, testing, and validation across European and Peruvian sites using a grid-based sampling design that is aligned with other European monitoring approaches (e.g. LUCAS soil sampling grid system, EU pollinator and bird monitoring approaches in 1x1 km squares). Biomolecular, optical, and acoustic methods were rolled out and evaluated, including soil eDNA metabarcoding for soil‑health indicators, automated optical systems for insect and novel nematode monitoring, and passive acoustic monitoring for birds and insects, relevant for current and future EU agrobiodiversity monitoring. Substantial progress was also made on data processing, bioinformatics, and computer‑vision workflows.
In WP3, we continued the coordinated field work initiated in RP1, managing extensive monitoring activities in close collaboration with WP2 and key stakeholders. Field efforts focused on assessing and validating biodiversity monitoring systems across different agricultural systems, providing agricultural biodiversity monitoring applications relevant for stakeholders, with potential for application in future results-based policy schemes.
In WP4, we built on the extensive stakeholder interviews and surveys conducted in RP1, where we assessed how useful the new agrobiodiversity data and measures would be from a stakeholder perspective and explored socio‑economic impacts and adoption pathways. During RP2, we gathered farmers’ and farm advisors’ perceptions of agrobiodiversity through focus groups, and broader stakeholder views through co-creation workshops. We also analysed farmers’ preferences, attitudes, and perceived trade-offs related to biodiversity measures and technologies and CAP-aligned management options.
WP5 built on the methodology developed earlier for creating a European observatory database and for outlining new CAP agro-biodiversity measures. During the RP2, this work was further expanded by systematically identifying and documenting agrobiodiversity observatories across Europe and consolidating this information into an online database. In parallel, the development and refinement of new CAP Bio-Schemes continued, integrating scientific, behavioural, and policy perspectives and drawing on results from WP1-WP4. WP5 also strengthened the project’s outreach to farmers by preparing advisory materials and engaging with advisory networks to improve knowledge transfer on farmland biodiversity. In addition, the work examined barriers and enablers for implementing biodiversity monitoring with farmers and other stakeholders, providing the basis for future policy recommendations.
In WP6, we built on the communication and outreach foundations established in RP1. During RP2, these tools were actively used and further refined to strengthen knowledge transfer and stakeholder engagement. The stakeholder database and target group analysis enabled more targeted communication, supporting activities across WPs. Dissemination of project progress and emerging results intensified through established channels and expanded links to external initiatives such as EuropaBON and related projects. WP6 also supported coordination of stakeholder engagement and promoted synergies with related networks to enhance the visibility and policy relevance of the project.
