Mansholt Lecture: Five dilemmas on the future of land use in Europe

Watch the Mansholt Lecture here live from 14.45 hr.

- Unfortunately, your cookie settings do not allow videos to be displayed. - check your settings

Land is a finite resource that farmers, nature managers, house builders, energy producers and recreationists want to use, the researchers state in the lecture. If we phase out the use of fossil fuels, land claims for materials and chemicals for the biobased economy will increase. In addition, the EU wants to increase food security, designate more nature reserves and achieve climate goals. Therefore, European policymakers must make a number of choices about future land use.

Dilemma 1: To what extent should the EU pursue self-sufficiency in its food and non-food biomass supply?

The EU has a high level of food security when we look at the availability of food, but the EU is highly dependent on imported raw materials such as fertilizers, energy and animal feed. The EU could become more self-sufficient by producing more protein crops and oilseeds, but then the use of biomass for fuel and animal feed must be restricted and consumption patterns in Europe must also change. The first challenge is to produce sufficient energy and fertilizers in the EU, the second challenge is which governance we need to make that happen.

Dilemma 2: What roles are envisioned for animal husbandry in the EU?

Livestock farming provides nutritious and highly valued food and is of great importance for characteristic landscapes in the EU, but the size of the livestock herd has major negative consequences for people, climate, environment and biodiversity. There is also growing attention for animal welfare and the question whether it is justified to keep and kill animals for the benefit of humans. To reduce the ecological impact, livestock farming could focus more on using raw materials and waste streams that do not compete with human food consumption, which may also require reducing the consumption of animal proteins.

Dilemma 3: Climate and biodiversity targets: a shared EU responsibility or tailored to each Member State?

The European Climate Law has set concrete goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Are we going to impose that climate target per country or are we going to trade carbon budgets between the member states? This choice can have major consequences for agricultural and nature development in the member states. Since nature and biodiversity are not evenly distributed across the member states, specific qualities of a country or area could play a role in distributing the emission budgets.

Dilemma 4: At what scale should food and non-food biomass production coexist with biodiversity and address climate targets?

There are many possibilities to combine the production of food and biomass with nature and climate goals, but all measures have an effect on land use. The EU’s ambitions in the areas of food security, biodiversity and climate may therefore lead to competing claims for land. What should have priorities and how do these choices play out at the level of a member state or the EU as a whole?

Dilemma 5: To what extent should policies intervene in consumer behaviour?

Consumer behaviour has a significant impact on climate, environment, biodiversity and public health and a shift towards more sustainable consumption patterns is needed. However, public steering of our consumption, especially of food and fashion, is a delicate issue, because consumers now have freedom of choice. Yet there is also social support for government interventions for more sustainable consumption. The question is: do we want that and how far do we want to go in this direction?

The five dilemmas are all interconnected and choices in one dilemma can influence or limit the other choices.

The Mansholt Lecture is based on a report by Wageningen researchers Theun Vellinga, Petra Berkhout, Jeanne Nel, Tom Schut, Harriette Bos and Floor Geerling-Eiff. The researchers advice to discuss these issues in a ‘Safe and Just Operating Space’ that allows multiple future perspectives possible.

WUR previously formulated six dilemmas for a new vision on agriculture, food and nature in the Netherlands, see Six decisions for a new perspective on agriculture - WUR

- Unfortunately, your cookie settings do not allow videos to be displayed. - check your settings