The increase in agricultural prices has triggered a debate on the role of Europe’s agriculture in combating the global food crisis and in redefining the priorities between food, feed and biofuel production. This debate is at risk of being manipulated by those who support a “productivist” and “protectionist” agenda. Many farming representatives and agriculture politicians claim that there is no space for extensification and nature conservation schemes anymore since Europe needs to intensify and maximise its food production. However, agricultural expansion at the expense of natural habitats coupled with agricultural intensification is by far the most important cause of biodiversity loss and contributes largely to climate change. When these practices are associated with policies that provide price-distorting incentives, this leads to a further degradation of environmental resources in both developed and developing countries.

The argument for intensification is even less justified when we realise that the underlying reason for world hunger is not a lack of global food production. The main problems are unfair trade conditions, poor governance, the neglect of small-scale farmers in developing countries, a lack of access to credit and secure land tenure and the dumping policies of developed countries. Therefore, there is no reason to argue for further intensification and new production subsidies in Europe. Europe’s role is not to feed the world, but to reduce its global footprint by changing its land-use related production and consumption patterns. According to the “World Agriculture Report” (IAASTD), for instance, rapid growth in demand for meat and milk is projected to increase competition for land, with more land set to be used for crop production, putting pressure on the price of maize and other grains and meals.

Europe has a long tradition in supporting a multifunctional agriculture, which produces not only commodities such as food, feed or bioenergy, but also ecosystem services, cultural heritage and high nature value landscapes. Even in the most productive regions, landscape features and small pockets of habitat must be maintained to ensure production is not maximised at the expense of the environment.

Europe has a long tradition in supporting a multifunctional agriculture, which produces not only commodities such as food, feed or bioenergy, but also ecosystem services, cultural heritage and high nature value landscapes. Even in the most productive regions, landscape features and small pockets of habitat must be maintained to ensure production is not maximised at the expense of the environment. This is particularly important due to the recent abolishment of the set-aside obligation. Therefore, every farm should be obliged to establish at least 10% of its agricultural area as “Environmental Priority Areas”, which includes landscape features, extensive grassland or flower-rich fallows. If integrated smartly into the farmland, it doesn’t seriously influence production, yet it could even produce side-benefits such as energy from hedges or grassland. Moreover, the EU should revise its current biofuel policy. Incentives should go in a technology neutral way to any renewable energy that can demonstrate significant greenhouse gas savings while supporting biodiversity. In future, preference should be given to the use of waste streams or to synergetic effects between biodiversity and bioenergy, e.g. by establishing strips of short rotation coppice in arable areas or along water courses, or by using mixed cropping systems which don’t need pesticides or mineral fertilisers.