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

ABSTRACT

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.

KEYWORDS:

• Agriculture
• biodiversity
• governance
• science-policy interactions
• framing

Introduction

It seems to be becoming more and more difficult to reconcile highly productive and efficient agriculture with nature conservation and the preservation of attractive landscapes in which people like to spend their leisure time and with which they identity themselves. Tensions between modern agricultural production processes and these other societal values are increasing, which has given rise to growing scientific, societal and political concerns (e.g. Kleijn, 2012; RLI, 2013; VNC, n.d.; WNF, 2015). Farmers are struggling with the conflicting claims made of them. And there is a variety of initiatives that aim at nature and landscape conservation, by farmers themselves, the government at various scales, by NGOs, by citizen volunteers and, increasingly, by other companies in agri-food chains (Runhaar, Melman et al., 2016). But will this be sufficient to reconcile all demands that are made on modern agriculture?

In this paper the governance of nature conservation in agricultural landscapes is discussed. The focus will be mainly on the Netherlands. Here, just as in many other European countries, the agricultural landscape has been drastically transformed as a result of scale enlargement and agricultural intensification, which in turn are driven by regulations and market forces (Brouwer, van Bruchem, Udo de Haes, & van der Weijden, 2016; O’Rourke, Charbonneau, & Poinsot, 2016; Sanderson, Kucharz, Jobda, & Donald, 2013). The associated intensified mechanisation, canalisation of streams, the removal of hedges, hedgerows and other woody elements and the lowering of groundwater levels have among other things, contributed to habitat loss, more disturbance and consequently a decline in species abundance and diversity (Brouwer et al., 2016; see also EEA, 2015a; 2015b). There is some good news – for some species the decline has been stabilized (CBS, PBL, & Wageningen UR, 2012; Van Strien et al., 2016) and other species, such as Greylag Goose, are doing very well. But the general trend in species abundance and diversity is worrisome. Trends in species abundance and diversity in agricultural landscapes are opposite to those in nature reserve areas (CBS, PBL, & Wageningen UR, 2012) and losses are high compared to other European countries (EEA, 2015b). Species about which there are deep concerns in the Netherlands are meadow birds. An example is the Black-tailed Godwit: a substantial proportion of the European population of this meadow bird breeds in the Netherlands (Van Der Vliet, Oquiñena Valluerca, van Dijk, & Wassen, 2015). But Dutch agriculture also has ecological and landscape impacts abroad. For instance, livestock farmers import soya from Latin and South America for feed (PBL, 2014) and environmental NGOs claim that these imports contribute to deforestation (Milieudefensie, 2015; Natuur en Milieu, n.d.).

In this paper some of the key challenges are explored that need to be addressed in the quest for agricultural landscapes in which economic, ecological and societal values are more aligned. Such landscapes are logically connected with ‘nature-inclusive’ farming, a new policy concept adopted by the Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ, 2014). This term may be a bit ‘Dunglish’ – an Internet search for it only yielded hits on Dutch websites (but see, e.g. IPES Food, 2016, for comparable concepts). Nevertheless, the concept of nature-inclusive agriculture is appealing for three reasons. One, it captures the very essence of what is central to the debate: a more sustainable form of agriculture that minimizes negative ecological impacts, maximizes positive ones and at the same time benefits from natural processes (EZ, 2014; Sanders & Westerink, 2015). Two, the concept is appealing because of its flexibility. ‘Nature-inclusive’ farming has not yet crystallized out. Hence it may act as a ‘boundary concept’, that brings together farmers, stakeholders and policy-makers in order to discuss and negotiate shared meanings and objectives that may contribute to agricultural transformation (see also Velten, Leventon, Jager, & Newig, 2015). Three, and in line with the previous argument, the still undefined meaning of nature-inclusive agriculture also makes it a promising concept that can facilitate the co-production of its meaning and knowledge required to implement nature-inclusive farming practices (cf. Runhaar, van der Windt, & van Tatenhove, 2016).¹

Nature-inclusive agriculture will not be implemented spontaneously (cf. RLI, 2013). There are many barriers to overcome.² For instance, agri-food chains are typically optimized in terms of production and economies of scale (Smit, Driessen, & Glasbergen, 2009). Some companies may benefit from transforming agri-food chains into nature-inclusive ones but others may lose (compare: Virchow, 1999). More knowledge has to be produced about how agriculture can be made more nature-inclusive while at the same time assuring an income for farmers and while fitting within agricultural production styles (e.g. SCAN, n.d.). Inspiration is forthcoming from various studies (e.g. Delbaere, Mikos, & Pulleman, 2014; Sanders & Westerink, 2015; Erisman et al., 2016). Another problem is that the benefits of nature-inclusive farming are less visible than those of conventional agriculture (Carolan, 2006), not only to farmers but also to citizens (SCAN, n.d.). It is important to have more insight into business models for nature-inclusive agriculture (Westerink, Migchels, & Engelsma, 2013). But a transformation towards nature-inclusive agriculture is particularly a matter of governance, and that is the focus of this paper.

Governance in the agricultural sector is about how farmers, companies in agri-food chains, banks, governments, NGOs and other stakeholders interact and try to influence each other in order to achieve their objectives (cf. Termeer, Stuiver, Gerritsen, & Huntjens, 2013). Governing towards nature-inclusive agriculture requires that all of these actors, not only farmers, are stimulated to contribute to a transformation of agricultural practices (O’Rourke et al., 2016). This in turn requires other forms of interactions and new arrangements, such as intensified cooperation between farmers, scientists and agri-food companies. New incentives are needed that reward farmers who minimize their ecological impacts, maximize positive impacts, or who switch to biological pest control or use other types of natural processes. And a clear definition and implementation of roles and responsibilities among actors is necessary. But this will not emerge automatically, particularly when nature-inclusive farming does not align with the main interests involved.

In the remainder of this paper three interrelated key challenges in the governance of nature-inclusive agriculture are addressed: (1) enhancing the performance of governance arrangements; (2) dealing with a multiplicity of views and ideas about nature-inclusive farming and (3) organising knowledge production for nature-inclusive agriculture.

Enhancing the performance of governance arrangements for nature-inclusive agriculture

What arrangements are currently in use?

Recently a multidisciplinary team of researchers identified and assessed 10 distinct arrangements that promote forms of nature-inclusive farming (Runhaar, Melman et al., 2016). The arrangements differed in terms of the actors involved and how they interact. Some are top-down arrangements, such as requirements to preserve natural habitats in the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) as preconditions for income support. At the same time there is self-governance, for instance, by environmental cooperatives: farmers who have organized themselves to conserve nature and restore landscapes. A well-known arrangement that has characteristics of both top-down governance and self-governance is agri-environment schemes (AES): financial compensation for nature conservation by farmers who implement predefined conservation measures to protect stipulated species. More recently, companies in agri-food chains have started developing other schemes, in which farmers are rewarded for good performance and penalized for bad (‘bonus-malus’). The focus of these arrangements is not exclusively on nature conservation but on sustainable agriculture in a broader sense: soil quality, use of pesticides, water quality, energy, but also biodiversity (e.g. participation in AES).

How well do these arrangements perform?

In each of the 10 arrangements usually only a small proportion of all Dutch farmers participates. For instance, about 10% of all farmers participate in an environmental cooperative. 20% of all farmers participate in AES, but measures are being applied on only 5% of the area of agricultural land. One bonus-malus arrangement that is currently being developed by a large dairy processor has a very large potential scope in terms of participating farmers. Taken together, the 10 arrangements probably target a large number of farmers but the exact number is unknown.

In ecological terms, the performance of the 10 arrangements is not very impressive. For instance, the new greening requirements in the CAP regarding semi-natural habitat (‘ecological focus areas’) are moderate, and thus very modest ecological impacts are expected (cf. Pe’er et al., 2014 but see Cormont et al., 2016). The ecological performance of AES as it existed until 1 January 2016 was also low. Farmers participated on a voluntary basis and could choose conservation measures themselves. As a consequence, the measures usually selected were easy to implement but had modest ecological impacts. Some of the bottlenecks identified in previous studies (e.g. Kleijn, 2012; Kleijn, Berendse, Smit, & Gilissen, 2001; Melman, Schotman, Hunink, & de Snoo, 2008) are addressed in the AES system that was introduced on 1 January 2016 this year: for example, by the narrower focus on ecological core areas and more regional cooperation that result from the requirement to establish ‘farmer collectives’. This may enhance the performance of AES (but see Melman et al., 2016). In nature reserve areas where traditional agricultural landscapes and their associated species are being maintained, ecological objectives are relatively ambitious. However, even there, the ecological results have been moderate. In various other arrangements, species abundance and diversity is not the sole focus and there are often no specific conservation objectives (see Runhaar, Melman et al., 2016).

What explains performance?

Four preconditions for farmers to participate actively in a nature conservation arrangement were taken into account in the analysis (see Figure 1).³ Firstly, farmers should be motivated. Participation should not be voluntary only however; so secondly, there should be a demand for farmers to participate. Thirdly they should be able to do so (or, if not, be enabled). This means farmers should have the resources and skills required to implement nature conservation measures. Fourthly, their participation should be legitimized: no governmental regulations or social norms should inhibit particular forms of conservation. These conditions can be provided by the governance arrangements themselves, or by other factors, including the farmers’ personal characteristics (e.g. intrinsic motivation; Lokhorst, Staats, van Dijk, & de Snoo, 2011).

Figure 1. Preconditions for farmer adoption and implementation of nature conservation measures.

Source: Runhaar, Melman et al., 2016.

The observation is that the governance arrangements that perform relatively well in terms of how many farmers participate are those that are the most demanding (i.e. EU CAP with its requirements regarding habitat) or that have the potential to do so (i.e. powerful companies in agri-food chains that now promote more sustainable farming with the aid of bonus-malus systems but in future may simply require that farmers implement particular measures). For most of the 10 arrangements, performance also is related to farmers’ motivation to participate, their ability to do so and the extent to which participation is legitimized.

Enhancing the performance of governance arrangements for nature-inclusive agriculture

Few arrangements score high on the extent to which they enable farmers to participate and take nature conservation measures. A major bottleneck for nature-inclusive farming seems to be recouping the costs of implementing conservation measures. Participation in AES is usually only attractive if only a few measures are taken on a small part of the farm (Schrijver, Rudrum, & de Koeijer, 2008; Westerink, Melman, & Schrijver, 2015). Financial compensation or other forms of funding therefore seem an important precondition to enable (and to motivate!) farmers to participate in nature conservation arrangements. Payment can come not only from government subsidies, but also from private actors. Although the bonus-malus systems that are being introduced by companies in agri-food chains are promising because these provide potentially strong incentives for farmers to ‘go green’, it would not be fair to redistribute revenues only among the supplying farmers: if that were to happen, it would ultimately be the farmers who pay for more nature-inclusive farming.⁴

It is unclear to what extent Dutch consumers are willing to pay for nature-inclusive farming. This also seems to be why, for instance, dairy processors are reluctant to introduce dairy products into the market that are produced in ways that promote nature conservation. Only recently one supermarket chain started selling ‘meadow bird milk’ – why not more meadow bird cheese and milk from nature-inclusive agriculture? All kinds of organic food products are on sale at supermarkets. There even is ‘grazing milk’ – milk from cows that are not kept in barns but that are on pasture because consumers want to see cows in fields (The Daily Milk, 2015). Even though much of what is produced in the Netherlands is exported, still, about a third of all milk ‘produced’ in the Netherlands is consumed here (Zuivel.nl., n.d.). More research is needed to explore how consumers can be stimulated to pay a bit more for agri-food products that have been produced in ‘nature-inclusive’ ways.

Mainstreaming nature-inclusive agriculture in other forms of agricultural governance

Ability to participate in nature conservation arrangements is inhibited by other forms of governance that promote ongoing scale enlargement and intensification in the agricultural sector. Decades of agricultural policies, including the CAP, have incentivized farmers to increase their production and efficiency (e.g. Sanderson et al., 2013). In agri-food chains, farmers have far less market power than, for example, food manufacturers, banks, retailers and seed suppliers (PBL, 2014). Not only does this situation restrict farmers’ freedom in making decisions, it also means farmers are usually ‘price-takers’ (Assefa, Kuiper, & Meuwissen, 2014; see also Brouwer et al., 2016). As a consequence, farmers are always looking for ways to reduce costs. Nature conservation in Dutch agricultural landscapes should therefore also be adopted by other stakeholders and mainstreamed or integrated into other forms of agricultural governance. We can observe some first, cautious steps towards this objective, such as the greening of the CAP and the earlier decoupling of income support from production volumes. These are important steps, but more is needed. And more research is needed on the forces driving agricultural intensification: who benefits from further intensification? who has the power to maintain the intensification? how can nature-inclusive agricultural practices be made profitable for these actors? and what is needed to bring about change in agri-food chains (compare: IPES Food, 2016)? From the literature it seems that substantial changes in governance systems require ‘shock events’ such as economic crises, changes in public opinion or other pressures from outside the system (Sabatier & Weible, 2007). Will a near extinction of, for instance, the Skylark, Lapwing, or other iconic species of Dutch agricultural landscapes form the shock event that will drive agri-supply chains towards more nature-inclusive agriculture?

Concluding: more effective governance for nature-inclusive agriculture

Governing nature-inclusive agriculture requires that governance arrangements for nature conservation that are currently in use need to be reinforced in terms of the preconditions for participation that were discussed earlier. Particularly there should be a demand for farmers to participate and they should be rewarded for their participation. This in turn requires that nature-inclusive farming is mainstreamed in the CAP and in the practices in agri-food chains and that consumers are willing to pay for it.

Dealing with a multiplicity of views and ideas about nature-inclusive agriculture

Different ideas: merits and pitfalls

The second governance challenge has to do with the often differing views, ideas or frames about what nature-inclusive agriculture is or should be and how to deal with them. A plurality of ideas can have merits: for example, it can promote policy innovation. New ideas about reducing environmental pressure arising from agriculture and nature conservation by farmers have given rise to various new governance arrangements, such as the environmental cooperatives (Horlings, 1997).

Ideas that are too divergent easily lead to controversy and deadlock (Van Eeten, 1999). People involved in debates about nature in agricultural landscapes often have very different ideas (cf. Hermans, Horlings, Beers, & Mommaas, 2010). And that does not always result in productive dialogue. There are not only very different ideas about nature conservation in agricultural landscapes, but also often there is conflict and distrust among farmers and other stakeholders (see also De Snoo et al., 2016). The critical evaluations of Dutch AES have annoyed many farmers, because they feel their efforts have not been recognized; only the results seem to count in the evaluations. A lack of appreciation – actual or perceived – however, easily reduces farmers’ motivation to participate in AES or other governance arrangements for nature-inclusive agriculture.

It is unclear what the average citizen sees when in the countryside; many Dutch citizens seem to associate cows and grass with nature (Driessen, 2005). But there are particularly large differences in opinion about what ecosystems on agricultural landscapes we should aim for (cf. PBL, 2012). It is understandable why many ecologists and others are concerned about the decline in meadow bird populations in the Netherlands, particularly about the Black-tailed Godwit; few people will probably be indifferent. Yet, the question is what population size to aim for, where and at what price? And more generally – what types of nature do we want in what agricultural landscapes? And who should decide upon that? Farmers? The agri-food industry? Experts? The government? Citizens? Or all of these actors in cooperation? The latter seems to be most promising for bringing together, reconciling and implementing ideas about nature-inclusive farming.

What explains the plurality of ideas and frames?

More research is needed in order to provide explanations for differences in interpretations of what nature-inclusive agriculture is or should be. In part this will have to do with core beliefs about what is most important (Van Herten & Runhaar, 2013), in terms of interests at stake and also people’s backgrounds and histories (e.g. Buijs, 2009). These factors are undoubtedly related. Particularly interesting are people’s frames of reference. On a personal note on several occasions it was noticed that people often have a particular historical situation in mind, especially when talking about the decline in species diversity and abundance (even though these frames of reference are often kept implicit). Being aware of such frames of reference, and eliciting these, also has instrumental value as it may help to identify ‘common ground’ and prevent the emergence of ‘dialogues of the deaf’ (Van Eeten, 1999; Van Herten & Runhaar, 2013).

Concluding: nature-inclusive agriculture as a ‘boundary concept’ for negotiating shared meanings?

The concept of nature-inclusive agriculture is still rudimentary and therefore there is potential for farmers, citizens, scientists, policy-makers, agri-food companies and other stakeholders to jointly give it meaning. Similar to ‘sustainable agriculture’, nature-inclusive agriculture is a concept with which most people will associate ideas. Probably most people will have a positive attitude towards nature-inclusive agriculture. And the concept has not been predefined in too much detail or hi-jacked by a particular actor (in contrast to, for instance, AES that prescribe target species and measures). Nature-inclusive agriculture can be a boundary concept around which farmers and other stakeholders can be brought together to discuss the opportunities that farmers and others see for this farming approach. However, such dialogues need to be carefully organized, in order to guarantee participation, to contribute to the production of shared meanings and to avoid certain fundamental discussions being ignored (Cuppen, Brunsting, Pesch, & Feenstra, 2015). And again the question is how to ensure that farmers and stakeholders are willing to engage in such dialogues, there is a demand for them to do so and they are enabled and legitimized to do so (see Figure 1).

Organising knowledge production for nature-inclusive agriculture

Two distinct approaches … 

Since the first AES contracts were concluded in the Netherlands in 1981, much fundamental, ecological research has been conducted on effective nature conservation measures to be taken in agricultural landscapes (De Snoo et al., 2016). Elsewhere in Europe and beyond, scientists have also evaluated AES and provided advice how AES can be improved (e.g. Batáry, Dicks, Kleijn, & Sutherland, 2015). Experience in the Netherlands, however, suggests that the most effective measures from an ecological perspective are also those that are the most difficult to incorporate into agricultural production processes (Westerink et al., 2015).

Other studies have therefore taken a different approach: focusing not on which measures are most effective from an ecological perspective, with predetermined target species or habitats in mind, but exploring which measures can be integrated into agricultural processes and what is required to enable farmers to implement them. These studies qualify as applied, participatory research. An example is the so-called Farming for Nature arrangement, in which farmers and researchers together examine how more sustainable agriculture could be promoted, with nature conservation as an objective that had not been defined beforehand (see Buizer, Arts, & Westerink, 2015; for comparable approaches, see Schneider, Ledermann, Rist, & Fry, 2009; Pretty et al., 2010).

 … with one objective: producing ‘useful’ knowledge

Although the two knowledge production approaches start from opposite standpoints, they have the same aim: to generate ‘useful’ knowledge. Ecologists regularly complain about their knowledge not being used sufficiently by policy-makers and politicians. On the other hand, there are complaints about the (unsurprisingly) abstract character of results from ecological research (although there are probably other reasons why policy-makers and politicians have not adopted all the recommendations from AES evaluations). A key problem however is that ecological research insufficiently takes into account the problems farmers face when implementing effective nature conservation measures (as a form of nature-inclusive farming). More knowledge is therefore needed about measures that work well from an ecological perspective and from the farmer’s perspective (De Snoo et al., 2013). The balance, or in other words, levels of ecological ambition, will probably differ from region to region. How can the production of ‘useful’ knowledge be organized in specific situations? And including the use of farmers’ knowledge of ecology, traditional or other farming styles (Doré et al., 2011)?

Useful knowledge for nature-inclusive agriculture: what can be learned from other research?

The literature includes various analyses of successful cases of knowledge co-production by researchers and farmers for more sustainable farming practices (e.g. Schneider et al., 2009). Problems related to knowledge production and use have also been analysed in other domains, such as coastal management (e.g. Van Enst, Runhaar, & Driessen, 2016), where at issue is not nature-inclusive agriculture, of course, but ‘nature-inclusive’ fisheries, gas mining and other human activities. In a recently published special issue of Environmental Science & Policy, a team of researchers analysed a range of different ‘knowledge production arrangements’ in the Dutch Wadden Sea, which differ in how researchers, policy-makers and stakeholders interact, their objectives and ultimately in the use of knowledge outputs (Runhaar, van der Windt et al., 2016; Van Tatenhove, Runhaar, & van der Windt, 2016). The starting point is that useful knowledge should be robust from a scientific and a societal perspective, in other words, credible, salient and legitimate (Cash et al., 2003). Credibility is defined as the scientific adequacy of information, salience as the relevance to the policy debate and legitimacy as the perceived degree to which the production of knowledge has respected the values and interests at stake (Cash et al., 2003).

As was stated at the beginning of this paper, the concept of nature-inclusive agriculture is appealing because it can serve as a boundary object that can make it easier for farmers, researchers and other stakeholders such as nature reserve area managers to co-produce useful knowledge about what nature-inclusive agriculture is. Future research is needed, both with farmers who are frontrunners in terms of participation in nature conservation arrangements and those who are not, in order to experiment with the co-production of knowledge about nature-inclusive farming: what forms of nature-inclusive agriculture are already being practised? what are the opportunities for other forms of nature-inclusive agriculture? which questions need to be answered to become more nature-inclusive?

Concluding: relevant research for useful knowledge for nature-inclusive agriculture

The literature offers a growing knowledge basis about how to organize processes of knowledge co-production and learning, as a starting point for creating knowledge for nature-inclusive agriculture (see, e.g. Runhaar, van der Windt et al., 2016). Our understanding about what is needed to make these processes successful is less advanced (cf. Hegger, van Zeijl-Rozema, & Dieperink, 2014). Why and under what conditions people participate in learning processes or in knowledge co-production arrangements? This is not self-evident (Van Buuren & Edelenbos, 2004). The framework depicted by Figure 1 can be of help in order to learn more about the preconditions for the production and use of useful knowledge and for learning (building e.g. on Young et al., 2014, who provide suggestions for incentives). A hypothesis is that learning for more effective nature conservation requires motivation in particular, but should also be required; it should not be voluntary.

Concluding: the future of nature-inclusive agriculture

Policy concepts come and policy concepts go (e.g. Boezeman, Leroy, Maas, & Kruitwagen, 2010). Political interest in nature conservation also fluctuates (Buijs, Mattijssen, & Arts, 2014). Nature-inclusive agriculture is not the first concept to be advocated in the quest to integrate nature conservation into agriculture. Various other concepts have been popular such as ‘ecosystem services’, ‘functional agrobiodiversity’ and, more recently, ‘Natural Capital’; concepts that emphasize the value of particular species and natural processes.

Nature-inclusive agriculture as currently being developed at the Ministry of Economic Affairs may or may not be around in 10 years’ time. But there is optimism about the survival of the underlying idea, namely that agriculture cannot continue working against nature and at the expense of an attractive landscape. There is no hard evidence, but the impression is that this idea is gaining ground among farmers, industry and politicians. And agriculture in its current form does not seem to be financially sustainable for many farmers, either. The proportion of farm household members working on the farm has declined, from >80% in 1980 to 70% in 2014. Notwithstanding the income support to Dutch farmers from the CAP, at least 20% of farming households in the Netherlands are below the low-income threshold of 22,000 euros per annum (Agrimatie, n.d.). On 2 April 2016, Rabobank, the bank which most Dutch farmers are customers of, announced that one third of all its dairy farmer customers with Rabobank loans were in financial difficulty. Although the number of bankruptcies in the Dutch agricultural sector has decreased, it has risen within subsectors such as pig farming and dairy farming (CBS, 2016).

The ‘greening’ of the income support for farmers in the CAP will not disappear, although many would like to see more ambitious objectives. The growing attention being paid within agri-food chains to nature-inclusive farming will not vanish either. It is naïve to think that the agricultural sector will return to how it was until 40–50 years ago, with a relatively low ecological impact and characterized by mosaics of small-scale landscapes. But it is also naïve to think species such as the Black-tailed Godwit will go extinct. History has taught us that often, problems have to become grave before they are put on the agenda. Species such as the Badger and the Stork have been successfully protected; in the case of other species (Otter, for example), ongoing efforts are promising but need to be reinforced.⁵

But as was shown at the beginning of this paper, the adoption of nature-inclusive agriculture will not happen by itself. It will require more effective governance arrangements for nature-inclusive agriculture, as well as the mainstreaming of ‘nature-inclusiveness’ in agricultural policy and in agri-food chains. This in turn requires political will, leadership from industry and support from citizens in their roles of consumers, voters and recreationists. Governance arrangements for nature-inclusive agriculture should be less voluntary than they are now. At the same time they should enable farmers, citizens, agri-food companies, policy-makers and other stakeholders to negotiate and co-produce shared meanings about nature-inclusive farming. In some agricultural landscapes the emphasis may then be on the Black-tailed Godwit but in others on other species, natural processes, or other aspects of what we call ‘nature’. Of course this will require new knowledge. But first and foremost farmers should receive generous rewards, and not compensation, for transforming into nature-inclusive farmers.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

ORCID

Hens Runhaar http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7790-097X

Notes

1. The concept of nature-inclusive farming is not the first concept that has been proposed in order to promote agricultural practices that have far less negative impacts on species and on environmental quality. The concept of ‘sustainable intensification’ (Pretty & Bharucha, 2014) but also ‘agroecosystems’ (Altieri, 1999), ‘resilient agriculture’ (Erisman et al., 2016) and ‘farmer-managed public goods’ (Blom-Zandstra, Korevaar, Stuiver, & Groot, 2016) bear many resemblances with nature-inclusive farming, including the flexibility of these concepts (see, e.g. Pretty & Bharucha, 2014).

2. Compare: Sathiya Priya & Vivek, 2016.

3. For comparable frameworks see, for example, Hemerijck & Hazeu, 2004.

4. Of course some forms of biodiversity are ‘functional’ and therefore benefit farmers (think of pollination).

5. Of course this success story does not apply to all species that are of were endangered (e.g. Black Grouse).