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.

Increasing pressures on natural areas and limited conservation budgets require, particularly in rural landscapes in the Western world, an immediate answer to the question how much natural area is required to provide a sustainable future for wild plant and animal species on farmland.The European Union proposed in its Common Agricultural Policy that 3-7% of EU farmland should be managed as ecological focus area (EFA) in order to halt biodiversity loss. For the first time, we empirically assessed the implications of this policy by evaluating the effects of the density of natural elements in agricultural landscapes on multi-taxon species richness, including vascular plants, breeding birds, butterflies, hoverflies, dragonflies, and grasshoppers for an entire European country. We found that species richness increased either as linear or as a logarithmic function of the proportion of natural elements in the landscape, but not with a sigmoid function as predicted by the 'intermediate landscape complexity' hypothesis. Even landscapes with 3-7% of natural elements harboured generally 37-75% of maximum species richness, indicating good potential of implementing the CAP target to preserve farmland biodiversity. However, differences between the 3 and 7% limits were considerable for butterflies, birds, and hoverflies. Also, the shape of the species richness response was shown to differ between landscape types for butterflies. Thus, it may be necessary to develop tailormade guidelines at regional levels.

As goose populations increase in abundance, their influence on ecological processes is increasing. We review the evidence for key ecological functions of wild goose populations in Eurasia and North America, including aquatic invertebrate and plant propagule transport, nutrient deposition in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, the influence of goose populations on vegetation biomass, carbon storage and methane emission, species diversity and disease transmission. To estimate the implications of their growing abundance for humans, we explore how these functions contribute to the provision of ecosystem services and disservices. We assess the weight, extent and trends among such impacts, as well as the balance of their value to society. We examine key unresolved issues to enable a more balanced assessment of the economic costs or benefits of migratory geese along their flyways, including the spatial and temporal variation in services and their contrasting value to different user groups. Many ecological functions of geese are concluded to provide neither services nor disservices and, ecosystem disservices currently appear to outweigh services, although this varies between regions. We consider an improved quantification of ecosystem services and disservices, and how these vary along population flyways with respect to variation in valuing certain cultural services, and under different management scenarios aimed at reducing their disservices, essential for a more balanced management of goose populations.

Melman, Th.C.P., A.G.M. Schotman, H.A.M. Meeuwsen, R.A. Smidt, B. Vanmeulebrouk en H. Sierdsema, 2016. Ex-ante-evaluatie ANLb-2016 Ex-ante evaluation ANLb2016 for learning management; a first look at size and spatial quality of managed units in the new agri-environmental system in the Netherlands.Outine: An ex ante evaluation was performed for the new system for agricultural nature and landscape in the Netherlands (ANLb-2016), in which managers (collectives of farmers) have more responsibility as before. Objects were size, location in suitable areas and spatial coherence of the managed plots. Special attention is paid to the quality as meadow bird habitat. A comparison is made with 2010. Attention is paid to four agricultural habitats: grassland, arable fields, dry and wet veining. The focus is put on meadow birds: much knowledge is available and the greater part of the managed area concerns this group. Results: the managed area declined from about 143,000 to 90,000 ha (of which approx 23.000ha concerns expiring contracts of which continuation is uncertain). Meadow bird management is about 62-64% in suitable area (58% in 2010); 65% of it is fairly concentrated, 35% more or less dispersed. With the so called heavy management, as far as situated within suitable area, is expected to result for about 50% into a reasonable to good quality habitat. Recommendation: To improve the management it is crucial to come to objectified insights, shared by all parties concerned: managers (collectives of farmers), scientists and policy-makers. Basic items for this moment are reconnition of suitable areas, lower limits for spatial coherence and habitat quality. Here, so called learning management (learning by doing, bench mark, sharing knowledge and experience) may be very important to come to ecological effects.Trefwoorden: Agrarisch natuurbeheer, leefgebiedtypen, ruimtelijke kwaliteit, ruimtelijke samenhang

No abstract

Data on botanical composition from 3 studies involving drainage of peat grasslands in 1940-75 were reanalysed by means of analysis of variance using total number of plant species, number of quality-indicating species and a system in which species were weighted according to rarity and rate of decline. Alopecurus geniculatus, Glyceria fluitans and Phalaris arundinacea were used as moisture indicators, and Dactylis glomerata and Poa pratensis as drought indicators. On extensively exploited grasslands drainage alone had considerable adverse effects on species richness whereas on intensively managed grasslands the N supply had the dominant effect. Results indicated that there was little or no advantage to nature conservation in omitting drainage where grassland was intensively managed. (Abstract retrieved from CAB Abstracts by CABI’s permission)

Om effecten op natuur van beleidsscenario's door te rekenen, zijn modellen ontwikkeld om toe te passen in het agrarisch gebied. Bij het opbouwen van de modellen is daartoe onderscheid gemaakt tussen abiotische/ landschappelijke factoren en beheer. Van de afzonderlijke abiotische factoren worden kaarten gemaakt die de kwaliteit weergeven. Vervolgens worden deze kaarten geïntegreerd tot één kaart die de landschappelijke, 'potentiële kwaliteit' beschrijft. Het beheer is opgevat als de factor die bepaalt in hoeverre de potentiële kwaliteit ook daadwerkelijk wordt gerealiseerd. Dit resulteert in de kaart 'gerealiseerde kwaliteit'. Bij het potentiële en gerealiseerde habitat wordt onderscheid gemaakt tussen het reproductie-en het foerageerhabitat. De ruimtelijke verhouding en-rangschikking van deze beide habitats bepaalt de uiteindelijke geschiktheid als habitat. Een beknopte beschrijving wordt gegeven hoe het model kan worden ingezet om scenario's door te rekenen. Aangrijpingspunten hiervoor zijn veranderingen in de factorenkaarten (door bijvoorbeeld inrichting) of in de beheerkaart (uitbreiding of intensivering in het beheer).

No abstract