Governing the transformation towards ‘nature-inclusive’ agriculture: insights from the Netherlands

The challenge of meeting human development needs while protecting the earth's life support systems confronts scientists, technologists, policy makers, and communities from local to global levels. Many believe that science and technology (S&T) must play a more central role in sustainable development, yet little systematic scholarship exists on how to create institutions that effectively harness S&T for sustainability. This study suggests that efforts to mobilize S&T for sustainability are more likely to be effective when they manage boundaries between knowledge and action in ways that simultaneously enhance the salience, credibility, and legitimacy of the information they produce. Effective systems apply a variety of institutional mechanisms that facilitate communication, translation and mediation across boundaries.

Roughly 20% of the European Union's farmland is under some form of agri-environment scheme to counteract the negative impacts of modern agriculture on the environment. The associated costs represent about 4% (1.7 billion euros) of the European Union's total expenditure on the Common Agricultural Policy and are expected to rise to 10% in the near future. Although agri-environment schemes have been implemented in various countries for well over a decade, to date no reliable, sufficiently replicated studies have been performed to test whether such measures have the presumed positive effects on biodiversity. Here we present the results of a study evaluating the contribution of agri-environment schemes to the protection of biodiversity in intensively used Dutch agricultural landscapes. We surveyed plants, birds, hover flies and bees on 78 paired fields that either had agri-environment schemes in the form of management agreements or were managed conventionally. Management agreements were not effective in protecting the species richness of the investigated species groups: no positive effects on plant and bird species diversity were found. The four most common wader species were observed even less frequently on fields with management agreements. By contrast, hover flies and bees showed modest increases in species richness on fields with management agreements. Our results indicate that there is a pressing need for a scientifically sound evaluation of agri-environment schemes.

Over half of the European landscape is under agricultural management and has been for millennia. Many species and ecosystems of conservation concern in Europe depend on agricultural management and are showing ongoing declines. Agri-environment schemes (AES) are designed partly to address this. They are a major source of nature conservation funding within the European Union (EU) and the highest conservation expenditure in Europe. We reviewed the structure of current AES across Europe. Since a 2003 review questioned the overall effectiveness of AES for biodiversity, there has been a plethora of case studies and meta-analyses examining their effectiveness. Most syntheses demonstrate general increases in farmland biodiversity in response to AES, with the size of the effect depending on the structure and management of the surrounding landscape. This is important in the light of successive EU enlargement and ongoing reforms of AES. We examined the change in effect size over time by merging the data sets of 3 recent meta-analyses and found that schemes implemented after revision of the EU's agri-environmental programs in 2007 were not more effective than schemes implemented before revision. Furthermore, schemes aimed at areas out of production (such as field margins and hedgerows) are more effective at enhancing species richness than those aimed at productive areas (such as arable crops or grasslands). Outstanding research questions include whether AES enhance ecosystem services, whether they are more effective in agriculturally marginal areas than in intensively farmed areas, whether they are more or less cost-effective for farmland biodiversity than protected areas, and how much their effectiveness is influenced by farmer training and advice? The general lesson from the European experience is that AES can be effective for conserving wildlife on farmland, but they are expensive and need to be carefully designed and targeted. El Papel de los Esquemas Agro-Ambientales en la Conservación y el Manejo Ambiental Batáry et al. Resumen Más de la mitad de las tierras europeas está bajo manejo agrícola y así ha sido durante milenios. Muchas especies y ecosistemas de interés de conservación en Europa dependen del manejo agrícola y están mostrando una declinación continua. Los esquemas agro-ambientales (EAA) están diseñados en parte para encarar esto. Los esquemas son una gran fuente de financiamiento para la conservación dentro de la Unión Europea (UE) y el mayor gasto de conservación en Europa. Revisamos la estructura de los EAA actuales a lo largo del continente. Desde que en 2003 una revisión cuestionó la efectividad general de los EAA para la biodiversidad, ha habido una plétora de estudios de caso y meta-análisis que examinan su efectividad. La mayoría de las síntesis demuestran un incremento general en la biodiversidad de las tierras de cultivo en respuesta a los EAA, con la magnitud del efecto dependiente de la estructura y el manejo del terreno circundante. Esto es importante a la luz del crecimiento sucesivo de la UE y las continuas reformas a los EAA. Examinamos el cambio en la magnitud del efecto a través del tiempo al fusionar los conjuntos de datos de tres meta-análisis recientes y encontramos que los esquemas implementados después de la revisión de los programas agro-ambientales de la UE en 2007 no fueron más efectivos que los esquemas implementados antes de la revisión. Además, los esquemas enfocados en las áreas fuera de producción (como los márgenes de campo y los setos vivos) son más efectivos en el mejoramiento de la riqueza de especies que aquellos enfocados en las áreas productivas (como los cultivos arables y los pastizales). Las preguntas sobresalientes de la investigación incluyen si los EAA mejoran los servicios ambientales, si son más efectivos en las áreas agrícolas marginales que en las áreas de cultivo intensivo, si son más o menos rentables para la biodiversidad de las tierras de cultivo que las áreas protegidas, y en cuánto influye sobre su efectividad los consejos y el entrenamiento dado a los granjeros. La lección general de la experiencia europea es que los EAA pueden ser efectivos para la conservación de la vida silvestre en las tierras de cultivo, pero son caros y necesitan ser diseñados y enfocados cuidadosamente.