Land is not being used to its best advantage according to a new study by scientists from the University of East Anglia, who published their research in the journal Science earlier this month. Colleagues who worked on the study from the Basque country's Ikerbasque research organisation have said the findings could be applied to a number of other global regions.

Professor Unai Pascual from the Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3) and University of Cambridge said that allowing land use to be determined purely by agricultural markets results has both financial and environmental implications for the public.

Having contributed to research which focused on the UK and suggested EU Common Agricultural Policy spending in the country gives poor value for the country's citizens, Pascual said the same methods could be applied to any area of the world with similar results for many countries.

The research team, whose findings hit the headlines earlier this month, was led by Professor Ian Bateman from the University of East Anglia. Bateman stirred up controversy two years ago with recommendations made in the UK government-commissioned National Ecosystem Assessment, including advocating the reforesting of large areas of the Welsh uplands.

Land use in most of Europe is dominated by agriculture. Nearly half the total annual value of EU agriculture is based on public financial support; in the UK, subsidies account for almost half of the annual value of agriculture, in Spain the total is lower at 30 percent, but in Ireland subsidies are worth 70 percent of the total industry.

Professor Pascual backed Bateman's suggestions that agriculture policy should be refocused to provide environmental and social benefits to citizens and mitigate the effects of climate change. He too suggested that a major policy rethink could improve recreational access to the countryside, whilst halting the decline of wild species (60 percent of which are threatened in the UK) and reducing the UK's vulnerability to the effects of climate change, all without compromising food production.

Looking to the future, the researchers weighed up the consequences of alternative land uses and assessed a range of alternative scenarios going forward to the year 2060. They said their study demonstrates the importance of bringing 'ecosystem services' into the political decision-making process.

Unai Pascual commented, "This study provides evidence that conventional support for intensive agriculture in Europe is not working well enough for society. Policy should instead confront the reality of over-relying on agricultural markets as this generates unnecessary costs to society in terms of negative environmental impacts, many of which may be irreversible such as biodiversity loss."

"We have put a value to such costs and found that if market dominated agricultural policies in Europe are not changed we will also continue to see a reduction in the flow of benefits that landscapes offer to society (now and for future generations)."

He supported Bateman's suggestion that CAP be restructured to provide payments for preserving and enhancing ecosystem services, rewarding farmers for delivering a bundle of such 'services' including reducing greenhouse gases emissions, improving water regulation, providing recreation and supporting biodiversity conservation.

He concluded, "With the evidence at hand it is imperative that there is a U-turn in land use policies that allow to maximise the economic benefits of landscapes… The EU's Common Agricultural Policy must account for the cost of not working with nature. It is time to reward farmers for securing the vital ecosystem services that are highly valued by society. Farmers can be the stewards of our landscapes so that we as a society we can pass them in a healthy state to the next generations."