Scale and self-governance in agri-environment schemes: experiences with two alternative approaches in the Netherlands

Reconciling productive agricultural practices with nature conservation is not only an ecological challenge, but also a demanding matter of governance. This paper analyses the potential as well as the limitations of various governance arrangements, and explores ways to enhance the governance of nature conservation in agricultural landscapes. We assume four conditions to contribute to the performance of these arrangements: farmers should be motivated, demanded, enabled, and legitimized to participate in arrangements that promote nature conservation by farmers. We analyse 10 distinct Dutch governance arrangements in the period 2000-2016, including agri-environment schemes but also privately initiated arrangements. The arrangements target a large but unknown share of farmers and farmlands, but nature conservation ambition levels are generally low to moderate. The expected low-to-moderate performance is associated with a low-tomoderate motivation, demand, and ability. Underlying are stronger forces driving towards intensification and problems farmers face in recuperating the cost of nature conservation. New greening requirements in the EU Common Agricultural Policy and in agri-food supply chains are first, cautious steps addressing these fundamental drivers of ecological degradation. More ambitious greening requirements may contribute to a higher motivation and ability of larger groups of farmers to implement nature conservation measures.

show abstract

“…higher water tables) but that also have major repercussions for farming practices (cf. Westerink, Melman, & Schrijver, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Promoting nature conservation by Dutch farmers: a governance perspective

Runhaar

Melman

Boonstra

et al. 2016

International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In all three cases the stakeholder groups approached their area as socialecological systems and both social and ecological aspects were taken into account in the research and planning process. Results of these research and planning efforts have been reported elsewhere (Buizer, 2008;Steingröver et al, 2010;Westerink et al, 2015a;Westerink et al, 2013b). Our own involvement in the processes was an important source of information: for each project we could draw on an archive of minutes, emails, joint products and research reports.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The long-term agreement between the farmer and the province involved a yearly payment for the environmental services provided by the farmer. The agreement differed considerably from the national agri-environment scheme, because of the farming system approach and the related space for self-governance (Westerink et al, 2015a).…”

Section: Biesland Poldermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, self-governance means collaboration within the self-governing group. There are many examples of farmers collaborating in landscape management OECD, 2013;Prager, 2015b;Prager et al, 2012;Westerink et al, 2015a). In order to develop a landscape with many landscape services, landholders as a group would need to negotiate the design of the landscape, the choice of management measures, landscape services and payments, jointly with their beneficiaries.…”

Section: Collaborative Landscape Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…As such, both categories and boundaries are social constructs (Foucault, 1972;Jones, 2009). Alternative terms for boundary include interface, demarcation, delineation and divide (Ostrom, 1996;Schut et al, 2013;Westerink et al, 2015a).…”

Section: Boundaries In Spatial Governance: Institutional Social and mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations