Suchergebnisse

It is becoming increasingly difficult to combine nature conservation by farmers with intensive and large-scale farming. The Dutch government recently adopted the new policy concept of 'nature-inclusive' farming, which aims at promoting more sustainable agricultural practices that minimizes negative ecological impacts, maximizes positive ones and at the same time benefits from natural processes. A transformation towards 'nature-inclusive' farming faces three key governance challenges that are elaborated upon in this paper. First, agri-environment schemes and other conservation arrangements need to become more effective. At the same time, nature conservation should be mainstreamed in agricultural policies and in agri-food chains. Second, we need shared meanings about nature-inclusive farming. Third, other forms of knowledge production for nature-inclusive farming are required that focus more on farmers' knowledge needs.

In order to reverse the trend of continuous decline in species diversity and abundance in agricultural landscapes, various governance arrangements have been implemented that promote, organise and finance nature conservation by farmers. The scientific literature predominantly focuses on agri-environment schemes (AES), i.e. publicly funded financial compensation schemes for farmers who implement prescribed conservation measures. Less attention has been paid to governance arrangements initiated by actors outside the public domain. This paper analyses a unique partnership between a nature conservation NGO – BirdLife Netherlands (VBN/BLN) - and a network of about 130 dairy and cattle farmers, aimed at meadow bird protection in the Netherlands. Meadow birds breed in large numbers in the Netherlands, mainly on farmland, but their numbers have been declining as a consequence of agricultural intensification, urbanisation and predation, amongst other things. Established in 2010, the partnership is gradually evolving from bilateral cooperation between VBN/BLN and individual farmers into a network. Based on desk research, interviews and five focus group sessions with almost 40 representatives of the partnership, we conclude that the main (perceived) achievements include: a large contribution to awareness of and recognition for the important role and efforts of farmers in meadow bird protection among citizens, politicians, policy-makers and companies in agri-food chains; a modest contribution to improving conservation efforts by participating farmers; and a modest contribution to their knowledge about conservation of meadow birds. The main success factors are the alignment of interests and complementarity of the partners and motivation derived from meeting peers. The partnership clearly complements AES in terms of its functions. ; peerReviewed

Intensive and worldwide usage of conventional pesticides on arable land has led to varying problems for the environment and human health. Consequently, many governments and several private actors actively stimulate reduction of pesticide use. This paper focuses on the effectiveness of public and private policy instruments in terms of reducing pesticide use by farmers via a systematic literature review of 78 articles published between 1967 and 2017. The geographical focus area was Europe. The review determined that no specific instrument is guaranteed to reduce pesticide use. Instead, characteristics comprising an instrument were confirmed to be beneficial to reducing pesticide use. In particular, mixes of instruments, with varying degrees of authoritative force, applied at multiple scales with stakeholder collaboration were identified as beneficial to reducing farmer pesticide use. It is implied within the literature that instruments comprised of such characteristics aid reducing pesticide use due to facilitating consideration of heterogeneous farm and farmer characteristics.

A variety of public policies and private strategies have been implemented to stimulate farmers to implement nature conservation measures. Examples include publicly funded agri-environment schemes (AES) but also eco-labels and Alternative Food Networks; strategies that have been implemented in response to the continuous decline in species abundance and diversity due to agricultural intensification and scale enlargement. Whereas AES as a distinct governance strategy has been evaluated in detail, less is known about other strategies. In this paper, we assess the relative importance of the variety of public and private strategies aimed at enhancing species abundance and diversity in Italian olive farming through a reduction in agrochemical use. In a survey of olive farmers in the region of Tuscany, we found that although farmers are exposed to a variety of public and private strategies, personal motives to reduce agrochemical use are most important. Moreover, having a Corporate Social Responsibility plan or engaging in direct sales to consumers are the only strategies that are related to a reduction in agrochemical use. These findings suggest self-governance is a powerful strategy for enhancing species diversity and abundance in agricultural landscapes. Yet it also means contributing to nature conservation and restoration is a voluntary act. Olive farmers who do not voluntarily contribute to nature conservation by reducing agrochemicals need to be incentivized by show-casing farmers who did reduce their agrochemical use, by critical consumers or by stricter rules in AES or in generic agri-environmental legislation.

Agricultural environmental schemes (AES) have been implemented in twenty-eight countries in Europe. In 2013 the agricultural area under agri-environmental schemes was 26.3 % of the utilised agricultural area in the twenty-eight countries (Eurostat, 2017). There is however still mixed evidence about their effectiveness and efficiency (Kleijn, Berendse, Smit, & Gilissen, 2001; Kleijn, Rundlöf, Scheper, Smith, & Tscharntke, 2011; Kleijn & Sutherland, 2003; RLI, 2013). Over the past ten years different directions of enhancing a more effective and efficient AES have been conducted. One of these directions is the collaboration between farmers, government and other organizations. The new EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for the period 2015-2020 made it possible for collectives of farmers and other land users to be applicant and final beneficiary of subsidies. The Dutch Government decided on the renewal of the agri-environment scheme (AES). In this new system new farmer collectives have the role of final beneficiary for the AES. This should lead to higher effectiveness of nature management and lower implementation costs. One of the ambitions in the new system of AES is working with ''professional'' farmer collectives (Kamerbrief 390202a3 Nieuwe Stelsel Agrarisch Natuurbeheer, 2013). In 2013 the government and the agriculture associations started an extensive process of development, design and implementation of the new system. In 2015 a countrywide network of 40 new farmer collectives was established. (Snoo et al. 2016). Depending on the results of this period of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), the next period of CAP 2021-2026 the farmer collectives will have again the role of final beneficiary for the AES. There has not been research about the current professionalization of the farmer collectives. As part of my PhD thesis to gain insight in the professionalization process of the farmer collectives in the new system of AES and the contribution to a more effective and efficient AES. The research question of this paper is: How to conceptualize professionalization of farmer collectives with an assignment for a government task? What are the essential key-elements in the professionalization? Professionalisation is a process by which individuals, organizations and systems in close collaboration become a professional association (Dowling et al., 2014). The first results of this research is a theoretical framework for professionalization checked by farmer collectives. In my presentation I will discuss this framework with examples of the farmer collectives. ; peerReviewed

PurposeThe paper seeks to propose the basic competencies of environmental social scientists regarding policy analysis for sustainable development. The ultimate goal is to contribute to an improvement of educational programmes in higher education by suggesting a toolbox that should be integrated in the curriculum.Design/methodology/approachStarting from the basic research questions regarding governance for sustainable development, five methods are identified capable of answering the following questions: reconstruction of policy theories; stakeholder analysis; impact assessment; cost‐benefit analysis; discourse analysis. Relevant information was collected through a literature review and practical experience by the authors.FindingsThese include: minimum content of the toolbox with methods of policy analysis for sustainable development; examples of how the toolbox can be applied; strengths and weaknesses of the methods; specification of competencies of environmental social scientists active in the area of policy analysis for sustainable development.Practical implicationsThe paper proposes which methods of policy analysis for sustainable development should be integrated in higher education as well as how this should be done.Originality/valueThe paper systematically analyses the implications of the policy context in the domain of sustainable development for policy analysis in this area. In addition it gives a review of five basic methods: how they can be used to analyse policy issues from a sustainable development perspective. Aiming at reinforcing the input of scientific research in policy‐making, the paper eventually aims to promote sustainable development.