Land use and agriculture in Europe under pressure: new research for sharper choices

Debates about agriculture and nature are not new. What makes this study stand out is its scale, level of detail and long-term perspective. The research covers all 27 EU Member States and zooms in to regional level, making differences clearly visible between, for example, North-West Europe, Mediterranean coastal areas and Eastern European rural regions. Historical land-use data from recent decades were combined with scenarios looking ahead to 2050. This shows how today’s policy choices shape tomorrow’s landscape.

The study does not look at farmland in isolation. Changes in land use for nature, urban expansion, infrastructure, and energy and biomass production were also included. In other words, land use was analysed as one interconnected system.

Elbersen explains: “We modelled several scenarios, ranging from ‘business as usual’ to a pathway aligned with the Green Deal and Farm to Fork ambitions. We assessed emissions, water quality, soil health, pesticide use, land loss and production capacity. This integrated approach is exactly where the added value of this research lies – and where the key to future choices can be found.”

The results show that, without additional sustainability and spatial policies, EU agricultural land could shrink by more than 8 million hectares by 2050. This decline is driven by urbanisation, farmers leaving the sector, and land no longer being used productively due to labour shortages or a lack of viable business models.

At the same time, however, the study demonstrates that targeted measures can deliver much greater environmental and climate benefits, while keeping food production and the vitality of rural areas at a stable level.

To reach these insights, researchers combined European datasets on land use and land-use change with information on farming systems, forests, nature areas and urbanisation, supported by model calculations. The result is a series of maps and indicators showing where tensions arise between different functions – such as intensive livestock farming, nature restoration, urban growth, organic farming and carbon sequestration – and which policy mixes can help reduce those tensions.

Although the study covers the whole EU, its real strength lies in highlighting regional contrasts. A few examples: 

• Intensive livestock farming in North-West Europe
  In the Netherlands, Flanders and Germany, the combination of intensive livestock farming and strong urban growth has been debated for years, particularly in relation to nitrogen emissions and water quality. The research by Elbersen and colleagues shows how farmland in these regions is under pressure from housing and infrastructure, and what the effects of different policy options are on emissions, nature and production. This helps policymakers decide where extensification, circular farming or nature development will have the greatest impact – and how the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) can support those choices.
• Mediterranean irrigation regions
  In coastal regions with intensive irrigated agriculture and tourism, such as Andalusia and the Levante region, farming, nature, urban growth and tourism all compete for land and water. The study shows that irrigation covers a relatively small area, yet delivers a large share of production and added value. At the same time, urbanisation and tourism put pressure on farmland and water resources. WUR’s analysis makes clear how different choices around irrigation, nature restoration and urban development affect water use, soil quality and food production, offering valuable input for regional spatial planning and water policy.
• Depopulating rural regions
  In parts of inland Spain and Eastern Europe, the key issue is not urban expansion but land abandonment. Farmland is being left unused in some areas, while buildings and infrastructure expand elsewhere. This research links such trends to scenarios up to 2050 and shows where sustainable agriculture – such as High Nature Value systems, or biomass production for bio-based materials and chemicals – can contribute to biodiversity, climate goals and rural quality of life. This allows member states to provide targeted support to farmers in vulnerable regions, rather than relying on one-size-fits-all policies.

Elbersen concludes: “There is no single solution for Europe’s land-use challenges. Our research shows, and now also proves scientifically, that EU policy can be much more responsive to regional differences. Spatial planning, agricultural policy, nature restoration, climate policy and even migration policy need to be better aligned. Transparent scenarios help everyone involved – farmers, land managers, regional authorities and citizens – to understand which choices lead to which gains and losses in specific places.”

These new insights make discussions about agriculture, nature and space more concrete and less abstract. They provide clear starting points for policies that support food security while also strengthening biodiversity and climate objectives – exactly the challenge Europe will face in the decades ahead.

• WUR study for the European Commission shows how Europe must balance limited land between agriculture, nature, energy, housing and infrastructure.