Toekomst voor de natuurinclusieve landbouw: ‘Gebiedsgericht’ als wenkend perspectief?

In the Netherlands, experiments with nature-inclusive agriculture - almost similar
to agroecology - are being conducted in many places. This symposium focused on area-based projects in which various stakeholders collaborate, such as farmers, conservationists, policymakers and researchers. The central question was whether an area-based approach is an attractive prospect and, more generally, how the experiences gained from this can contribute to a healthy future for nature-inclusive agriculture.
The idea for this symposium arose following the end of the so-called Regio Deal
Natuurinclusieve Landbouw Noord Nederland in December 2024. The objective of
the symposium was to bring together researchers and other stakeholders from all over the Netherlands and discuss the state of affairs. The two overarching keynotes about nature-inclusive agriculture in the Netherlands, five presentations on areabased experiments (Regio Deal Noord Nederland, LLB7, VeenVitaal, OoijpolderGroesbeek and Buijtenland van Rhoon) and four thematic working groups (revenue models, governance, biodiversity and knowledge/learning) created a fertile ground for discussion. It turned out that in the areas, experiments were often conducted in similar ways, related successes were achieved and similar problems arose. But it was also evident that substantial differences existed between the projects in terms of their origins, objectives, organization, financing and outcomes.

Main conclusions of the symposium are:
1. The effects on biodiversity vary.
Although the negative effect of the existing agricultural system on nature is not controversial, the ecological effect of natureinclusive agriculture is far from always clear. Some species develop or maintain themselves surprisingly in intensive systems, such as the yellow wagtail in the bulb fields. However, in other nature-inclusive projects, species such as farmland birds do not recover. It is important to better understand the underlying mechanisms why nature-inclusive business operations do or do not lead to biodiversity recovery. It is noteworthy that nature-friendly management does not necessarily appear to lead to a reduction in agricultural production, which is possible through more or
better ecosystem services such as those provided by richer biodiversity. Systematic evaluation of the ecological effects of nature-inclusive agriculture remains crucial in any case to be able to substantiate policy and management.
2. The term nature inclusiveness is broad and has many meanings. The pursuit
of nature inclusive agriculture has not yet yielded a clear picture of what nature
inclusiveness is and how it can best be shaped. This diversity of interpretation can be advantageous by allowing for the adaptation of instruments to local conditions (soil types, crops, scale, financing, etc.). However, it can also create problems. In some cases, collaboration between nature conservationists and agricultural organizations stopped because, over time, there appeared to be too great a difference in views on nature. It is therefore important to fill in the term correctly at the start of an experiment in order to have a shared common view and to pay constructive attention to any divergent interpretations and goals.
3. It is necessary to consolidate learning experiences.
In general, experiments
have proven to be useful, and certainly area-based experiments, but good
monitoring, exchange of insights and consolidation of learning experiences are
often not guaranteed. In all areas discussed, learning takes place by the individual participants who can use what they have learned in subsequent activities. However, what has been learned is rarely recorded in a sustainable manner, meaning that subsequent projects do not benefit sufficiently from it. Support from a knowledge institution can be helpful in this regard. The development of such institutions that are linked to area-based approaches is recommended.
4. Diverse knowledge and knowledge connections are required.
Knowledge and good knowledge exchange appear to be important in all cases for the further development of nature-inclusive agriculture within the experiments. On the one hand, this concerns the integration of existing knowledge into practice when setting up and implementing an experiment. On the other hand, it concerns the consolidation of locally acquired knowledge. In addition, several experiments have developed new approaches, concepts and practices in which practical knowledge is better linked to knowledge from knowledge institutions. Systematic attention to this process of coordination is important for all parties involved. A nice positive example is the so-called insight-practice-knowledge cycle. Experience has also been gained elsewhere with forms of co-creation and co-design, such as the joint collection of data. This resulted in new partnerships that proved to be better suited for interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches.
5. The use of Critical Performance Indicators (CPI’s) should be implemented
gradually.
In nature-inclusive agriculture, the CPI system is widely used, because
it is easy to apply. However, there is a great deal of variation in the CPIs and their
substantiation requires more attention, for example through more structural ecological monitoring. This makes the monitoring systems more valid and reliable and provides better comparisons in the long term. It is best to introduce CPIs step by step, so that learning can take place and, if necessary, corrections can be made.
6. Do not only use knowledge, but also pay attention to values.
The transition towards nature-inclusive agriculture has many dimensions, one of which is science. However, personal and collective values also play a major role. This is often evident in projects involving nature-inclusive agriculture, where values sometimes clash. That is why values are often just as important as knowledge; starting a dialogue about them may not be easy, but it is essential.
7. Formulating goals is necessary, but the path to achieving them can vary.
Various area-based projects have formulated target images and concrete goals.
These provide inspiration, support and direction. At the same time, they are
sometimes formulated too vaguely or in practice it proves difficult to focus entirely on the original goals. Some projects have chosen not to formulate any goals, which facilitates cooperation but leaves open what the end result will be. Formulating goals therefore seems desirable, but depending on the circumstances, it can be jointly decided to fill in the route to this goal differently.
8. Take your time and guarantee continuity.
Starting new area-based projects takes a lot of time and energy, especially if they consist of larger consortia with diverse partners. Sufficient discussion and coordination in the initial phase seems essential for an ultimately successful project. Many large projects around natureinclusive agriculture have a duration of only a few years. This is often too short to properly map out the effects of these initiatives on agriculture, biodiversity and the parties involved. If these consortia stop, a lot of experience about agricultural practices, cooperation and insight into biodiversity effects can be lost. It is therefore very important to continue the ongoing projects and to secure the activities and experiences. This can be done by extending the duration and/or by integrating successful experiments into existing government policy.
9. Scale and form can and may vary.
The scale on which an area-based initiative takes place is an important issue. A size of at least several thousand hectares is favourable for biodiversity restoration and often also for governance. However, this can be too large for the formation of local networks and effective learning processes. In any case, securing results is important to subsequently enable scaling up in the region or elsewhere. This is not easy given the major physical, cultural, ecological, economic and social differences between areas. For example, the experience on the island of Schiermonnikoog is difficult to transfer to larger areas on the mainland. It is therefore not only about scale but also about different forms of area-based policy and the context in which this plan is implemented. It is important that in area-based policy the specific financing for activities in the area, the measures, the governance and the revenue models are aligned with each other and with the agricultural and natural situation of the area.
10. Bottom-up area-based initiatives are important, but not always sufficient.
Initiatives that arise bottom-up are useful and have proven successful in a number of cases. However, they have limitations and success depends on many factors, such as a sense of urgency to take action. Top-down initiated initiatives are also vulnerable because they work more with imposed visions of the future than with shared visions of the future. Connection with top-down frameworks and generic (new) national policy is unavoidable, whereby there must be room for regional bottom-up initiatives. Only in this way the intended goals in the field of nature, agriculture, water and soil can be achieved.
11. A long-term perspective is required.
Many parties involved in nature-inclusive agriculture lack a long-term perspective due to the relatively short-term projects. The prospect of continuing farms or restoring nature, even after the project, is essential to keep people motivated. If this is not the case, the activities related to the
project may cease.
12. Guaranteeing the quality of the collaboration is necessary but difficult; figureheads help.
Various collaboration models have been tested that arose spontaneously on the basis of financing possibilities and varying combinations of initiators. In general, it seems that seriously involving as many parties as possible from start to finish is useful, including citizens, but this is not always easy. Some projects ran very well thanks to the homogeneity of the group, but at some point, collaboration with other parties was inevitable. An important question is how to ensure sufficient involvement of everyone in the various phases of the project. Important conditions for success seem to be shared ownership within which different interests are given a place, and undertaking joint activities. Building on existing social structures is also often fruitful. In addition, the presence of local heroes, figureheads or key figures is important, if not crucial. They can pull other farmers or others along and maintain their enthusiasm and involvement. However, good experiences have also been gained with (farmer) coaches. Finally, it is important to safeguard the learning processes within the collaborative relationships.
13. Existing structures often start from yesterday’s problems.
Existing financial, economic and decision-making structures, including land policy, often hinder the progress of nature-inclusive agriculture and therefore require adjustment. Implementation of nature-inclusive agriculture requires new solutions and institutions for current and future problems.
14. Developing appropriate policy remains difficult.
In many cases, developing and implementing policy that stimulates nature-inclusive agriculture proves to be difficult. There is no appropriate regulation, no adequate policy framework and insufficient capacity. More space is needed, both in terms of financial support, starting experiments, guidance, and institutional frameworks at various government levels that can promote integration. Well-formulated and timely government policy is important to develop initiatives to sustain the results in the long term.
15. Good policy stems from a clear vision.
There is widespread advocacy for a leading vision and mission for nature-inclusive agriculture in the larger agricultural policy. It is currently not yet clear what this policy looks like, who will promote it and who will be responsible for its implementation. There are various area-oriented initiatives locally, but success depends to a substantial extent on the national government.
16. The role and nature of food supply chains can change.
New revenue models are being developed in various places. Nature-inclusive agriculture can lead to healthy business models in which products are grown under different conditions. However, the direct involvement of other links in the entire food supply chain (from producer to consumer) is crucial. This is an important step to achieve the right level of coordination, and it may be possible to make a substantial contribution to the economic viability of nature-inclusive business operations. But there is not one model that can be applied everywhere. Various revenue models have been developed that suit different companies, more or less intensive, more or less nature-oriented. Success depends, among other things, on the creativity and entrepreneurship of farmers, the physical conditions, food supply chain parties, the cooperation of citizens and finally the facilitating role of governments. As with governments, the contribution of food supply chain parties to nature-inclusive agriculture varies. Here and there they make positive contributions, but the experience is not positive everywhere and these parties often seem to have little interest in such a transition.
17. The importance of ecosystem services is increasing.
As long as the decline in harvest in nature-inclusive agriculture threatens the economic viability of the agricultural business, it is necessary to make other “revenues” financially attractive. A wide range of potential sources of income are emerging, such as the financial valuation of ecosystem services provided. At the same time, it is important to interweave ecosystem services with existing subsidy flows in the agricultural sector to prevent perverse incentives. This will greatly increase interest in nature-inclusive agriculture in some areas.

All in all, nature-inclusive agricultural experiments with an area-based approach
vary in size and design. The design and implementation of the various experiments in the Netherlands appear to yield successes, but are also accompanied by obstacles and disappointments, not to mention open questions. The current situation in Dutch agriculture - and beyond - calls for new visions of the future, concrete steps and experiments that offer new opportunities for as many stakeholders as possible. Hopefully, this symposium will provide new leads for this.