Doortje Verwey September Master s thesis for the Spatial Planning programme Specialisation: European Spatial and Environmental Planning

(1)

1 Doortje Verwey

September 2021

Master’s thesis for the Spatial Planning programme Specialisation: European Spatial and Environmental Planning Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University

(2)

Colophon

Title Nature inclusive dairy farming in the province of Noord- Brabant

Subtitle The case of Altena and Tilburg

Author Doortje Verwey

University Radboud University, Nijmegen

Student number s1061382

Supervisor Prof. dr. P.M. Ache (Peter) Second reader Dr. H.J. Kooij (Henk-Jan)

Date 09-16-2021

(3)

3

Summary

Nature inclusive farming has recently gained the interest of governments as a possible solution to the environmental challenges that agriculture poses nowadays. It makes optimal use of ecological processes and integrates them into farming practices, while positively impacting the environment and biodiversity. This research has investigated the different factors that influence dairy farmers to choose a more nature inclusive approach in the province of Noord-Brabant.

Fifteen interviews were conducted with farmers, other actors, and the municipality of Altena and Tilburg, that serve as case study areas to form a deeper understanding of the motivation of local governments. The main question was formulated as follows: Which ecological, economic, and social factors influence a farmer’s choice for nature inclusive dairy farming in Noord-Brabant and how can a further transition to more nature inclusive dairy farming be stimulated by local governments?

The literature review revealed different advantages of nature inclusive farming, the measures that farmers can take to become more nature inclusive, but also the difficulties that arise with the approach. The main bottleneck for the upscaling of nature inclusive dairy farming appeared to be the revenue model, as it is difficult to make a living while operating at the highest level of nature inclusivity.

Resulting from the interviews, it appeared that economic factors are crucial in the transition to a more nature inclusive approach. It was found that farmers, in general, have little financial space and that farming more extensively reduces a farmer’s income. Next to these economic restraints, societal opinions and risk aversion cause a negative motivation for nature inclusive farming, while ecological factors as internal motivation and a view on nature are important positive influences on a farmer’s choice. Therefore, local governments such as municipalities should inspire and facilitate farmers that want to make the transition to nature inclusive farming.

Keywords: Nature inclusive farming, sustainability, transitions, Noord-Brabant

(4)

Samenvatting

Natuurinclusieve landbouw heeft de laatste jaren de interesse gewekt van overheden als mogelijke oplossing voor de negatieve effecten die de landbouw deels heeft op het milieu. Natuurinclusieve landbouw maakt optimaal gebruik van ecologische processen, terwijl het ook een positief effect heeft op de omgeving en de biodiversiteit. In dit onderzoek zijn de verschillende factoren onderzocht die invloed hebben op de keuze van melkveehouders in Noord-Brabant om een natuurinclusieve manier van werken aan te nemen.

In totaal vormen vijftien interviews met boeren, andere actoren en de gemeente Altena en Tilburg de basis van dit onderzoek. Deze gemeenten dienen als ‘case study’ om een completer beeld te krijgen van de motivatie van lokale overheden. De volgende hoofvraag was leidend in dit onderzoek: Welke ecologische, economische en sociale factoren beïnvloeden de keuze van een melkveehouder om natuurinclusief te gaan melkveehouden in Noord-Brabant en hoe kan een verdere transitie naar meer natuurinclusief melkveehouden gestimuleerd worden?

Het literatuuronderzoek bracht verschillende voordelen van natuurinclusieve landbouw naar voren, maakte duidelijk welke maatregelen een boer kan invoeren om meer natuurinclusief te worden, maar ook de moeilijkheden dat bij deze aanpak horen. Het grootste knelpunt leek toch wel het verdienmodel te zijn voor de agrariër. Het is op dit moment lastig om een goed inkomen te verdienen wanneer een boer het hoogste niveau van natuurinclusiviteit behaalt.

Uit de interviews bleek inderdaad dat de economische factoren een cruciale rol spelen in de transitie naar een meer natuurinclusieve aanpak. Agrariërs hebben over het algemeen maar weinig financiële speling, terwijl de meer extensieve aanpak behorend bij natuurinclusief boeren een verkleining van het inkomen teweeg brengt. Naast deze economische factoren, hebben ook meningen van mensen in de omgeving en de eigenschap van risicoaversie een negatieve invloed op de mogelijkheid om voor natuurinclusieve landbouw te kiezen. Ecologische factoren zoals de interne motivatie van de boer om het landschap mooier te maken of meer natuur te creëren en de algehele kijk op natuur hebben aan de andere kant een positieve invloed op de keuze voor natuurinclusieve landbouw. Lokale overheden spelen een vrij kleine rol omdat ze weinig instrumenten hebben om de transitie naar natuurinclusieve landbouw te sturen. Zij kunnen echter wel een belangrijke rol spleen door agrariërs te inspireren en faciliteren die de omslag naar natuurinclusief willen maken.

(5)

5

Preface

This Master’s thesis: Nature inclusive dairy farming in the province of Noord-Brabant: The case of Altena and Tilburg is conducted to finalize the Master’s programme Spatial Planning at the Radboud University in Nijmegen. From March to September 2021 I have worked on researching agriculture, or more specific nature inclusive dairy farming. Beforehand, I did not possess much knowledge of agriculture, although it is an important subject in spatial planning. I therefore chose to dive into it for a longer period and conduct a research on it. This was combined with an internship at the Province of Noord-Brabant, where I was part of the Foodup! Brabant team, allowing me to gain some practical experience in the work field I’m interested in.

Writing a thesis is however not only an individual process. I would therefore like to thank my supervisor from Radboud University, Peter Ache, for his time, feedback, and guidance during this period. The involvement and kindness of Marcel Webster, my supervisor from the province of Noord-Brabant, has played a major role in supporting me during the process, which I would also like to thank him for.

Additionally, friends and family have helped me by motivating and supporting me at all times. Finally, I would like to thank all respondents that were open and willing to help me gain information on the subject and others that have helped me indirectly through conversations or connecting me to new persons. Without them, I would not have been able to write my thesis.

Doortje Verwey

Utrecht, September 16, 2021

(6)

List of figures

Figure 1: Relation between the biodiversity per farm and intensity ... 13

Figure 2: Preconditions for farmer adoption and implementation of nature conservation measures ... 13

Figure 3: Links and interactions of nature-based agriculture ... 16

Figure 4: Agricultural trends in the Netherlands from 1945 to present ... 17

Figure 5: Four scenarios for implementing different policy objectives for agriculture by 2050 ... 18

Figure 6: Natura 2000 areas (green) in Noord-Brabant ... 20

Figure 7: The Farm to Fork strategy of the EU ... 20

Figure 8: The multi-level perspective on transitions ... 23

Figure 9: Explanatory factors for governance shifts ... 24

Figure 10: Scales and levels in the MLP ... 24

Figure 11: The tetrahedron that symbolises the connection between the four dimensions of a policy arrangement ... 25

Figure 12: The conceptual framework, based on Geels (2011) ... 27

Figure 13: The position of Altena and Tilburg in the province of Noord-Brabant ... 31

Figure 14: The adjusted conceptual framework, based on Geels (2011) ... 51

List of tables

Table 1: The function and municipality of the respondents ... 30

(9)

9

1 – Introduction

Agriculture increasingly poses challenges to the environment and society worldwide. Earth’s population has grown strongly in the past century (WWF, 2015) and to meet the equally growing demand for food, farms must scale up and intensify their practices (Runhaar, 2017). Farmers have specialised in one species of animal or crop to achieve higher production and therefore landscapes have homogenized (Buizer et al., 2016). Intensifying agricultural practices reduces production costs for the farmer and as economic competition is strong in the agricultural sector, this is essential for the businesses to stay profitable (Jongman, 2002). The natural habitat of animals is taken over by agriculture, threatening the biodiversity of areas used for agriculture (Aznar-Sánchez et al., 2019), but also causing soil degradation, air, and water pollution (Hermans et al., 2016).

1.1 – Research problem statement

As the Netherlands is the second-largest export country in agricultural products globally (Schelfaut, 2020), it clearly deals with these issues. However, European landscapes have been influenced by human activities such as farming for centuries and about 50% of all species depend on this created habitat (Bos et al., 2013), just like humans depend on agriculture as it provides our food (Boogaard et al., 2011). The Netherlands is relatively small, yet one of the world’s most densely populated countries:

not only by humans but also by high numbers of animals (Smit & Heederik, 2017). The emission of nitrogen is one of the problems that is caused by the high density of animals and the sustainability of livestock farming is therefore debated (Stokstad, 2019). Nitrogen can pollute both the air and soil, causing losses of biodiversity and possibly negative implications on human health (Loyon et al., 2016).

However, agriculture has always had an important economic and cultural position in the Netherlands as a driver of growth and development and thus also contributes to society in a positive manner (Bos et al., 2013).

Dutch agriculture was characterized by small-scale mixed farming around the 1950s (Smit & Heederik, 2017). The number of farms has however decreased by 70% between 1960 and 2008, although the number of animals increased. This is in line with trends of scale enlargement and specialisation (Bos et al., 2013) and promoted by the Dutch state that prioritized food security after World War II (Buizer et al., 2016). Farmers were stimulated to produce as much food as they could against a low price, strongly subsidized. This way of producing food has formed the agricultural sector of the Netherlands as it is nowadays (Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (LNV), 2019), characterised by increasing productivity as prices are under large pressure and farmers need to make a living out of their products (Berckmans, 2017). Van den Berg (2019) therefore claims that governments need to give farmers the same financial means they did 70 years ago to transform their agricultural business to a more sustainable one, as it is hard to stay competitive on the global market in the current system.

One of the main movements in the Netherlands at this moment to contribute to solving the challenges described above is nature inclusive farming. Erisman et al. (2017) have formulated an extensive definition of nature inclusive farming:

“Nature-based agriculture is a form of sustainable agriculture and part of a resilient ecosystem and food system. It makes optimal use of ecological processes and integrates them into farming practice. Nature-based agriculture also directly contributes to the quality of the natural environment itself, producing food within the boundaries set by the environment and having a positive impact on biodiversity” (page 9).

(10)

Nature inclusive farming is appealing in comparison to traditional farming as it benefits from natural processes while decreasing negative environmental impacts and increasing positive ones. It can also enhance cooperation between different stakeholders. At the same time, the concept is still flexible as it has not taken a strict form yet (Runhaar, 2017). As nature inclusive practices are soil-based (Erisman et al., 2017), this applies to extensive livestock farming such as dairy farming or agriculture. More than 60% of the agricultural land in the Netherlands is used for dairy farming and is thus an important sector to consider in the transition to more nature-sustainable farming (Oenema et al., 2012). The province of Noord-Brabant is specifically known for its livestock farming compared to other provinces (Dijkstra et al., 2012) and is investing in the transition of their agriculture to a more nature inclusive model.

They offer subsidies and information, provide coaches for farmers that want to make the transition to more nature inclusive, and work on soil regulations to enable extensification (Provincie Noord- Brabant, n.d. a). Therefore, this research will focus on dairy farming in the province of Noord-Brabant.

1.2 – Research aim and research questions

It can thus be seen that farming carries both environmental and societal challenges. Changing economic, climatic, and technological contexts have also introduced more risk and uncertainty in the system of agricultural production (González et al., 2020). When an agricultural landscape is designed properly, it can provide adequate circumstances for biodiversity, increase connections between protected areas, and increase the resilience of species in unexpected situations, thus contributing to the robustness of the system (Wanger et al., 2020). Biodiversity can then form insurance against ecological risks (Béné & Doyen, 2008).

For nature inclusive farming to become the standard, a broader transition must take place (Smits et al., 2016). The main aim of this research is to find out what influences dairy farmers in choosing a more nature inclusive approach, including both internal and external motivations. Internal motivation comprises the personal circumstances of a farmer. The external motivation can involve ecologic, economic, social, and societal factors, but also the institutional context, meaning policies and rules.

The division between ecologic, economic, and social factors is often applied when researching sustainable developments, as will be elaborated on in the literature review in chapter 2.

The main question and sub-questions are therefore formulated as follows:

Which ecological, economic, and social factors influence a farmer’s choice for nature inclusive dairy farming in Noord-Brabant and how can a further transition to more nature inclusive dairy farming be stimulated by local governments?

1. In what way does nature inclusive dairy farming differ from conventional dairy farming?

2. How do ecological values change when a dairy farmer adopts a more nature inclusive strategy?

3. How do economic factors relate to the business prospects of dairy farms and to what extent is nature inclusive dairy farming profitable?

4. In what way do social and societal factors influence nature inclusive dairy farming and how can nature inclusive dairy farmers respond to that?

5. In what way can local governments stimulate nature inclusive dairy farming?

Question one will portray the differences between traditional and nature inclusive dairy farming, to clarify the transition that is taking place. Sub-questions 2, 3, and 4 will respectively explore the relations between the dairy farmer and the ecological, economic, and social/societal dimensions. The final sub-question will gather all acquired information for a recommendation to local governments on how to stimulate nature inclusive dairy farming.

(11)

11

1.3 – Societal relevance

Farmers possess increasing numbers of animals (Berckmans, 2017) and as the Netherlands is so densely populated, these animal farms are often situated close to residential areas, causing friction between the two. The large number of harmful gases emitted by farms can impact the health of neighbouring residents as air pollution occurs and they can experience personal hindrance from large livestock farms (Smit & Heederik, 2017). On the other hand, inhabitants of cities have proven to benefit from the ecosystems that these rural areas contain. These are often being preserved by rural inhabitants, such as farmers (Lafortezza et al., 2013).

There is also a certain disconnect between rural food producers and urban food consumers, as cities and rural areas are seen as two separate areas, respectively a place to live and to produce food (Jansma

& Wertheim-Heck, 2020). Consumers often know little of agriculture, but nonetheless criticise farming practices. They are however reliant on agriculture for their food safety and quality (Boogaard et al., 2011). Consumers’ interest in local food is growing and short supply chains are gaining importance and the support for new initiatives is growing from a societal point of view (Ministerie van LNV, 2019). The current socio-technical regime that the agricultural system finds itself in does, however, not enable a nature inclusive dairy farming system to succeed in every case yet. Researching nature inclusive dairy farming is therefore of societal relevance as it could increase a more nature inclusive farming approach, improving the ecosystems of rural areas and the quality of the food that it produces.

1.4 – Scientific relevance

Since nature inclusive farming was first mentioned in the Rijksnatuurvisie 2014 (Grin et al., 2015), numerous studies have been executed on this topic. Erisman et al. (2017) discuss the different measures that can be taken in a more nature inclusive approach. Research is also carried out on the socio-cultural values Dutch citizens attach to dairy farming (Boogaard et al., 2008) and on how citizens can contribute to the transition to more nature inclusive farming (Buijs et al., 2019; Farjon et al., 2018).

Nature inclusive farming is already discussed in light of transition theories by Smits et al. (2016) and Smits et al. (2019). However, combining transition theory with the different ecological, economic, and social factors and in particular dairy farming is not often-executed research.

Some research comes close to the particular subject of this research. Buizer et al. (2016) write about landscape governance in relation to nature and agriculture in the Netherlands and Westerink et al.

(2018) published a report on dairy farmers in the province of Flevoland and what drives them to transition to nature inclusivity. However, the crucial role of local governments in stimulating the transition to more nature inclusive dairy farming is not thoroughly researched yet (Grin et al., 2015).

Most research only focuses on the Netherlands in general, rather than conducting an in-depth perspective on a specific region. This can however be valuable. The main challenge for farmers is to expand the amount of land they possess as nature inclusive practices are more extensive. Land is however very expensive and local governments play a crucial role in its redistribution (Provincie Noord- Brabant, n.d. b). As such, this research contributes to the existing body of knowledge as it focuses on a specific region and the role of local governments.

1.5 – Structure

The following chapter will provide a literature review of the already existing knowledge on nature inclusive dairy farming, which will lead to the design of a conceptual model in the final paragraphs.

Chapter three will then go further into the methodology of the empirical research and in chapter four the results will be discussed. Chapter five will provide an answer to the main research question, as well as contain a discussion and recommendations for further research.

(12)

2 – Literature review and theoretical framework

This chapter will give an overview of the current academic knowledge on nature inclusive dairy farming and other relevant themes to this research. The second paragraph will go further into the policy context of dairy farming on different scales. The theoretical and conceptual frameworks are then discussed in the final two parts.

2.1 – Review of the academic literature

Farmers are on the one hand seen as caretakers of their surrounding nature, while on the other hand they sometimes negatively impact nature (Ahnström et al., 2009). Nature inclusive farming focuses on the first dimension, which will be further elaborated on in the first paragraph of this literature review.

The consideration of farmers, profitability of nature inclusive farming, and other influencing factors will then be explained in more detail. The next subparagraphs will relate nature inclusive farming to the larger debate on sustainable agriculture and to current trends. Finally, nature inclusive dairy farming will be compared to traditional farming, and the policy context will be elaborated on.

Nature inclusive dairy farming

Nature inclusive agriculture consists of three dimensions: taking care of nature, making better use of natural processes, and impacting nature less (Smits et al., 2020). While conventional agriculture focuses on food production and the production of animal feed and nutrients, nature inclusive farming also focuses on creating a better habitat for animals and plants, a more attractive landscape, healthy soil, water regulation, and using natural resources as pesticides (Van Doorn et al., 2016). There are different measures a dairy farmer can include in his practices to transition to a more nature inclusive way of farming. Erisman et al. (2017) gathered a couple of them in their report: grassland rich of herbs, outdoor grazing, flooding parts of the land, fully grass-fed animals, field borders with flowers, and landscape elements such as tree lines, nature-friendly banks, and hedgerows. These different measures leave ecosystems more intact, take in more nitrogen or enlarge the diversity of animal species present in the area (Erisman et al., 2017). The report of Bouma et al. (2019) identifies many more measures a farmer can take to transform its company to more nature inclusive. Leaving out what was already mentioned by Erisman et al., these are: mowing later in the year, using natural fertilizer, adjusting manure use, permanent grassland (more than five years), dual-purpose animals, and using less heavy machinery.

The main advantage of nature inclusive farming is that a farmer can take nature into consideration more as well as profit more from natural resources (Grin et al., 2015). The goal is to increase the biodiversity of the agricultural land and its surroundings. Increased biodiversity has multiple benefits for a dairy farmer, namely healthier cows through the herbs in the grassland and more efficient use of manure or fertilizer (Sanders et al., 2015). Adopting a more nature inclusive approach can lead to fewer costs for the farmer, as fertilizers and medication for the cows become irrelevant, while its soil increases in worth (Van Doorn et al., 2016). Nature inclusive farming can also contribute to a more positive image of the farmer and the sector in general, as it contributes to society (Provincie Noord- Brabant, n.d. b).

Different levels of nature inclusivity can be distinguished at the farm level (figure 1). Level 0 means no nature inclusivity, and the farmer only meets legal requirements. At level 1 the farmer takes certain measures to increase the biodiversity, while at level 2 the farmer also aims at optimising the cycles at the farm, gives more space to the natural behaviour of animals, and applies landscape elements to increase biodiversity. Level 3 is the final level, where the farmer has created an adaptive system, with

(13)

13 optimal cycles and smart use of the landscape: the farm forms one system with the surrounding

landscape and companies in the neighbourhood. Thus, a higher level of nature inclusivity means a lower measure of intensity and a higher measure of biodiversity (Smits et al., 2019; Erisman et al., 2017).

Figure 1: Relation between the biodiversity per farm and intensity (determined by outdoor grazing, fertilization, and mowing); the dotted line is the maximum amount of biodiversity per yield (translated from Erisman et al.,

2017, p. 30).

Farmers are indispensable in keeping the rural areas in the Netherlands viable, but the need to transform their practices to more sustainable is increasing (Meerburg et al., 2009). Runhaar (2017) has created an overview of what influences farmers to make more sustainable choices, influenced by both internal factors and external factors (figure 2). For farmers, the most important factors are motivation and the ability to adopt certain measures. Motivation does not stand alone as participation is not voluntary, and therefore goes hand in hand with the demand created by other actors. Ability means that farmers should have the resources and skills that are required to adopt a certain strategy and legitimation concerns the conditions provided by governance arrangements or other factors (Runhaar, 2017).

Figure 2: Preconditions for farmer adoption and implementation of nature conservation measures (Runhaar, 2017, p. 342)

(14)

There are large diversifications between farmers, caused by certain characteristics of the farm and farmer itself, such as size, environment, soil type, historic development, risk aversion, expectations of the future, and culture (Erisman & Verhoeven, 2019). Whether certain dairy farmers will cooperate and invest in nature inclusive farming and others will not is, therefore, an individual case. For a farmer to choose nature inclusive dairy farming he or she needs to consider investments, costs, returns, and risks. Considering the position of the farm, the possibilities of the landscape, amount of ground the company earns, current way of producing, and whether there is a successor all play a role. The internal motivation of the farmer is influenced by his personal situation, perception of nature, the influence of its surrounding network, and whether he considers himself a good farmer (Westerink et al., 2018). The personal view of the farmer and whether nature inclusive agriculture fits him or her, but also personal affinity with nature and biodiversity are other factors that influence a farmer’s choice for nature inclusive farming. Young farmers are often more recipient of innovative ideas, compared to older farmers who have been practicing agriculture for a long time already (Van Doorn et al., 2016). Bouma et al. (2019) added that most farmers that take the risk to adopt a more nature inclusive approach are not afraid to do so. They mostly see the intensification of agriculture as a negative development and view more extensive practices as the more sustainable option.

Gender is also an interesting subject in farming, as it seems that a ‘farmer’ is exclusively a profession for men. Women are involved in farming if they marry a farmer and often take care of the household and family in the discourse of the family farm (Brandth, 2002). This has changed over the past decades, as both the social status of farmers and the position of females in current society have altered. Women are often even the main earners within farmer families with their off-farm work (Shortall, 2014).

Ecofeminism considers that women are closer to nature than men and would feel more responsible for conserving and taking care of nature. However, since the 1980s there have been made some nuances to this statement. Gender matters for sustainability, but the ecofeminist view is too simplistic in making a distinction between men and women, while other factors such as access to resources and knowledge also matter (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2014).

Profitability of nature inclusive farming

The research of Cuperus et al. (2019) amongst 30 Dutch farmers on their attitude towards nature inclusive farming revealed that the farmers that gave a negative response to the question ‘how do you view nature inclusive farming?’ were mostly concerned with the profitability of their farm. The farmers that took a positive position were also acknowledging the importance of the system to be economically viable when they would transition their company to more nature inclusive (Cuperus et al., 2019).

Transforming a farm to more nature inclusive comes with many risks, as it is costly to take certain measures while it is uncertain whether the farmer will earn this money back, as there is no revenue model for nature inclusive practices yet. It is also questionable if nature inclusive products can be profitable in the current chain organisation (Farjon et al., 2018). Grin et al. (2015) also concluded that incorporating nature in the business model of a farm is for now not possible. Nature inclusive practices are difficult to merge into the dominant neoclassical economic theory, which acknowledges nature as a public good. It is therefore difficult to make it a profitable good, as everyone can enjoy it freely as well (Smits et al., 2016).

The initiatives of nature inclusive agriculture that have been developed thus mostly aim at the niche market, as only a couple of farmers have been able to realise a revenue model around nature inclusive products (Smits et al., 2019). Van Haaster-De Winter et al. (2018) researched the view of consumers on nature inclusive products. The main motive to buy such products appeared to be the more sustainable character, but also the unique concept. There is thus potential for nature inclusive agriculture to become more mainstream and profitable. Grin et al. (2015) describe three main options to make nature inclusivity viable for farmers: payment through governmental policies or nature

(15)

15 conservation; a higher price for the product; or integrating the concept in a wider context, with

activities that nature inclusivity adds value to, such as recreation.

Four steps are therefore advised to take in order for a farm to transition to more nature inclusive, from an economic viewpoint: describe the surrounding of the company and make the vision clear; analyse the network for agriculture with nature; review what the customer would like to buy; clarify what nature brings to the value of the farm (Van Doorn et al., 2016). There are then different types of revenue models for nature inclusive farming. The first is where the farmer’s main activity is production while using natural resources more efficiently, thus not investing too much in nature inclusivity. The second type is a farmer that wants to maximize the positive effects of nature on its business, making smart use of the relation between production, ecology, and climate, for example through taking care of the soil and thus lowering its costs or even asking a higher price for its products. A third, less common, type of farmer is the one who produces food but also aims at nature conservation as a separate goal of its farm. This company will be more resilient for natural and economic shocks and the farmer has invested a lot to achieve this (Grin et al., 2015).

Other influencing factors

Civilians can indirectly influence the social-ecological system that concerns the relationship between nature and society, to stimulate the transition to a more nature inclusive society. This can be a direct influence, by for example taking care of their garden, or an indirect influence through market forces or politics. The extent to which people contribute to nature is dependent on the way they value nature and their willingness to do something for society. This results in self-organisation, individual behaviour, and participation, which in turn influences nature in a physical, political or social manner (Buijs et al, 2019). The view of farmers towards nature inclusive farming often improves when they are part of a group that is also concerned with nature, or when they are close with civilians that are involved in nature conservation. However, farmers and civilians often stand right across each other, for example in the ‘megastallen’ issue or when the q-fever hit the Netherlands (Van Doorn et al., 2016). And as fewer civilians are farmers or come from an agricultural background, the links between society and agriculture are weaker than they used to be 50 years ago. As such, societal knowledge on agricultural production has declined quickly (Meerburg et al., 2009).

Nature inclusive farming does not only contribute to realise ecological goals but also to strengthen and contain societal and political support (Farjon et al., 2018). To manage the niche innovations of nature inclusive agriculture strategically, provinces and the state should be more flexible, financing possibilities should be set up and arrangements between nature organisations and farmers should be established for a longer time to give the farmer more security. Pioneers should then be better able to experiment and test what works for the long run (Grin et al., 2015). This is also mentioned by Sanders et al. (2015) who conclude that the government can help farmers through financing, motivating, or increasing control of rules and norms.

The regime in the agrarian food system contains practices such as food production, procession, distribution, and consumption, but also innovation and research practices. The institutional domain and its formal rules have also adjusted to this regime (Grin et al., 2015). For a transition to take place and scale up to a larger scale level, several steps must take place. Upscaling can be recognised when actors start to organise themselves in networks, rules or arrangements change or when new techniques and revenue models are applied in a wider context (Farjon et al., 2018). To work together with other organisations involved in taking care of the landscape and nature, social capital is crucial.

This means the ability to achieve things together, for example through resources and knowledge (Van Doorn et al., 2016).

(16)

Sustainable agriculture

Nature inclusive dairy farming can be placed in a larger debate on sustainable agriculture in general.

There is no objective or neutral definition of sustainable agriculture (Boogaard et al., 2008). The Brundtland Report ‘Our Common Future’ of 1987 addressed the need for sustainable development (Meerburg et al., 2009) and defined it as “meeting the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Aznar-Sánchez et al., 2019). One option is returning to more local food chains. Local food would be more sustainable, more ecological, and healthier and the interest is growing amongst consumers and social movements (Schmitt et al., 2017).

Longo et al. (2019) focus on consumers adopting a more sustainable lifestyle. They claim that consumers are often locked into unsustainable patterns of consumption, while peer influence, policies, social norms, and regulation can motivate individuals to rethink their motives. Consumers thus do not think rationally when making decisions. To stimulate consumers to make more environmentally friendly choices, they must possess knowledge of the features of products. Too much information, on the other hand, can increase the difficulty of choosing as different sources often give conflicting statements on what is the ‘right’ decision (Longo et al., 2019). However, Cadillo-Benalcazar et al.

(2020) stress that more ecologically friendly production systems often have lower profits than regular systems, while demanding more work. De Olde et al. (2017) therefore describe sustainable agriculture as “production that is economically viable, ecologically sound and socially acceptable” (page 153).

This three-way division between social, ecological, and economic dimensions is dominant in the literature on the sustainability of businesses. John Elkington introduced the concept of people, planet, profit (the three P’s) in 1997, which correspond with the three dimensions. These form the minimum or bottom line of the performance of a business to be considered sustainable. Businesses that desire to be more sustainable need to integrate not only economic goals, but also environmental and social objectives (Cramer, 2002). Kuhlman and Farrington (2010) also claim that sustainability is almost always seen in social, economic, and environmental dimensions combined. Van Calker et al. (2005) agree on the three pillars that define sustainability but add that sustainability is a time-specific subject, meaning that definitions and views on the concept can vary over time.

Figure 3: Links and interactions of nature-based agriculture (Erisman et al., 2017, p. 11)

The sustainability of dairy farming can best be regarded at the farm level, as economic, ecological, and social aspects come together at this scale (Van Calker et al., 2005). Farms are socio-economic units as they are embedded within a larger landscape and economic and social environment (Ahnström et al., 2009). The economic sustainability consists of the economic viability of a dairy farm, social sustainability relates to both the working conditions on the farm and the impact of agriculture on the well-being of humans and animals. Finally, ecological sustainability concerns the soil, water, climate, flora, and fauna (Van Calker et al., 2005). Hooijmeijer et al. (2001) add to this ecological dimension

(17)

17 that if landscapes have a rich history, a lot of nature, and ecological values, they are considered as

landscapes with cultural heritage. Erisman et al. (2017) created a schematic overview of links and interactions of nature-based agriculture (figure 3). There is a causal relationship between improving the biodiversity, fewer losses to the environment, and eventually, a biodiversity increase when there is a basis for a robust system.

Trends

Certain trends in agriculture play a role in the future development of the sector. Meerburg et al. (2009) made an overview of the agricultural trends in the Netherlands from 1945 to 2010, as can be seen in figure 4. Outstanding is the divide between monofunctional and multifunctional agriculture, from until the 1970s when more environmental awareness emerged. Nature-oriented farming is placed at the multifunctional pillar, as it is often combined with secondary activities (Meerburg et al., 2009).

Figure 4: Agricultural trends in the Netherlands from 1945 to present (Meerburg et al., 2009, p. 515) Nieuwenhuizen et al. (2015) define five global trends for the future: rural areas will transform into more multifunctional residential and working areas; scale enlargement of farms will continue at the same pace as small, local initiatives; technological innovation will enlarge the efficiency; the quality of the environment in rural areas is under pressure, and finally; local initiatives can only succeed with the support of local governments. Gies et al. (2019) defined five different future scenarios for nature inclusive farming based on different soil types. Two will be discussed: extensive use of sand soils and nature inclusive farming in river areas, as these two soil types are present in Noord-Brabant and applicable to this research. The extensive use of sandy soils is ideally of mixed-use where livestock farming and agriculture do not exceed the natural borders of the land. The produced manure is not distributed further than the region and grasslands contain herbs that benefit the health of the animals that graze on them. Residents of the area use it to recreate and the connection between agriculture

(18)

and consumers is restored, as products are more directly distributed to the region it is produced in.

These practices will stimulate increased biodiversity and natural processes will take control of plagues in plants and animals. Nature inclusive farming in river areas should focus on decreasing the monoculture that is present now. Cows are ideally used for both meat and milk production and grassland with herbs increases the biodiversity (Gies et al., 2019).

Lesschen et al. (2020) describe four different scenarios for agriculture in the Netherlands in 2050, of which two are focused on productivity and two on nature inclusivity (figure 5). Interesting conclusions of this research are that if greenhouse gas reduction targets are differentiated amongst EU member states, the number of livestock in the Netherlands must hardly decrease in numbers. In the nature inclusive scenarios, returns on investment are expected to go through the market or the provision of other services and the general vision is that the Netherlands will be less export-oriented (Lesschen et al., 2020).

Figure 5: Four scenarios for implementing different policy objectives for agriculture by 2050 (Lesschen et al., 2020).

In dairy farming, an ongoing trend is the certification of products to create an incentive for the farmer.

The dairy processor Royal Friesland-Campina created a Focus planet quality programme and is coupled to the Planetproof system of supermarkets. If farmers reach all targets, they get a reward, although it is difficult for farmers to reach all targets (Erisman & Verhoeven, 2020). This will help to stimulate farmers in matching the societal demands nowadays in terms of sustainability (Meerburg et al., 2009).

(19)

19 Conclusion

Nature inclusive agriculture combines taking care of nature, with making better use of natural processes and increasing natural values such as biodiversity. Many measures belong to a nature inclusive approach, and farmers do not need to reach the highest level of figure 1 to be portrayed as nature inclusive. Individual factors, such as risk aversion, internal motivation, and a farmer’s social surroundings are of influence in his choice for nature inclusive farming. It is however still difficult to create a beneficial revenue model if for farmers that transition to a more nature inclusive approach, as you lose profitability but there are only a few options to gain income again. The overall task to transition the agricultural sector to a more sustainable one can however not be ignored. Different future visions have been formed by researchers, but the future will tell which road the sector will eventually take.

2.2 – Policy context

Since the publication of the ‘Limits to Growth’ report in 1972, governments and citizens have been more aware of the effects of environmental issues. As societal concern on sustainability issues grew after this, governments could not ignore the negative impacts of agricultural intensification on soil, water, and biodiversity anymore (Meerburg et al., 2009). Political attention went mostly to reducing certain emissions, such as ammonia, but it was only later that nature and biodiversity were also included in environmental policymaking (Farjon et al., 2018).

European Union

The policy context of dairy farming is complex. Starting at the scale of the European Union, the Nitrates Directive of 1991 plays an important role. To reduce nitrogen deposition and therefore positively influence the biodiversity in nature areas, this directive sets limits to the amount of nitrate that countries can emit. Farms can thus sometimes be limited in expanding or building, as nitrogen levels are already exceeded (De Vries et al., 2015). Secondly, Natura 2000 areas have a large influence on agriculture in the Netherlands. This is a network of nature areas in Europe that is protected to conserve the biodiversity of the areas. The Netherlands has 161 nature sites that belong to the Natura 2000 network and agricultural entrepreneurs that are located close to these areas must consider certain aspects to protect the areas. They can often, for example, excrete less harmful gasses than farms located further away from these Natura 2000 sites (Ministerie van LNV, 2021). Figure 6 gives an overview of the natural areas that belong to this agreement in Noord-Brabant. The green areas cover quite a large part of the province and are thus important to notice.

(20)

Figure 6: Natura 2000 areas (green) in Noord-Brabant (Ministerie van LNV, 2021)

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the EU was originally designed to ensure that Europe would not depend on other continents for food, as there had been shortages in both world wars. Since 2003, with the reform of the CAP, the focus is more on environmentally friendly farming systems, rather than producing enough food (Meerburg et al., 2009). This was proved when the European Commission published the European Green Deal (EGD) in 2019, which is defined as “a new growth strategy that aims to transform the EU into a fair and prosperous society, with a modern, resource-efficient, and competitive economy where there are no net emissions of greenhouse gases in 2050” (European Commission, 2019). An important aspect in the promise of the EGD to make food systems more environmentally friendly is the Farm to Fork strategy, of which the main aims are schematically displayed in figure 7 (European Commission, n.d.). It can be seen that this strategy does not only focus on improving food production, but also on consumption, processing, and waste prevention after consumption. The whole chain is taken into account can thus be said.

Figure 7: The Farm to Fork strategy of the EU (European Commission, n.d.)

(21)

21 The Netherlands

These European aspirations influence Dutch policy, as they are a member of the European Union.

However, the Netherlands also has its own aims and policies on food production and agriculture.

Carola Schouten, the Dutch Minister of Agriculture, Nature, and Food Quality has published a vision document advocating for circular farming as a solution to its current unsustainable nature (Schouten, 2018). Circular agriculture is defined as “agriculture with the lowest possible harmful emissions to the environment and the highest possible resource efficiency” (Vrolijk et al., 2020, page 7). This means that resources are recycled as much as possible to prevent the negative impacts of nitrogen on the environment (Stokstad, 2019). The vision includes both environmental goals, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, nature inclusive farming, and a reduction of food waste, as well as socio- economic targets such as improving the consumer-producer relations in agriculture (Vrolijk et al., 2020). Schouten aims at strengthening the connection between agriculture and nature, as they belong together and agriculture has a key position in improving the natural values in the Netherlands. Circular farming and nature inclusive agriculture have in common that they both make more careful use of natural resources, manage the soil sustainably, and minimalize emissions. What separates both approaches is that nature inclusive means producing with and for the natural environment, while circular production focuses on minimalizing resource use and emissions (Smits et al., 2020).

The Dutch government has also formulated specific goals to increase the sustainability of livestock farms. Producing as little waste as possible and recycling, buying feed more locally, minimizing the emission of greenhouse gas emissions to decrease air pollution, preventing illnesses so that fewer antibiotics must be used and space for the natural behaviour of animals. Farmers can choose the scale to set up a circular system (regional, national or international) themselves and finally, the share of sustainable products in supermarkets should be enlarged (Rijksoverheid, 2019).

Noord-Brabant

All provinces of the Netherlands are dependent on national decisions that are made. They do however also have the power to implement their own goals and policies.

The province of North-Brabant has established a transition fund for livestock farmers. Farmers that do not have enough financial means to invest in their enterprise to lower its greenhouse gas emissions can apply for a loan from the fund (Provincie Noord-Brabant, 2021 a). The province wants to increase the amount of nature inclusive livestock farms by 40 in the following three years (ANB Brabant, n.d.).

The depute of agriculture, food, and nature of the province, Elies Lemkes-Straver, speaks highly of nature inclusive as a solution to multiple issues. Food chains become more sustainable, the water and soil quality increases, and it contributes to more biodiversity. Next to that, the landscape will be more attractive, something that benefits all. Staatsbosbeheer is very cooperative, as farmers will contribute to the nature they preserve. They, therefore, lease land to farmers in return for a proactive attitude towards nature conservation (Staatsbosbeheer, 2020). The Groen Ontwikkelfonds Brabant, in cooperation with the province, is also aiming at establishing sustainable soil rent. Farmers can lease land from this fund for a lower price, in return for performing measures such as mowing only in certain months, not using fertilizer, adding landscape elements, and working on water storage (Groen Ontwikkelfonds Brabant, 2020).

The province is also working closely with different educational institutions to obtain new knowledge.

One of the main partners doing a lot of research in the field of agriculture and food systems is the HAS¹

1 Hogere Agrarische School, or higher agrarian school

(22)

Hogeschool in Den Bosch. They have numerous research tracks on nature inclusive farming and the transition of the food system (HAS, n.d.). The network Goed Boeren, consisting of farmers involved in nature inclusive agriculture, has published an advice of ten points for the provincial government of Noord-Brabant on how to stimulate nature inclusive agriculture. The points contain the following statements: support nature inclusive agriculture, use it to solve current issues, differentiate between intensive and extensive agriculture, pay nature inclusive farmers for their contribution to society, create space to experiment, learn from biological agriculture, appreciate farmers that have already taken steps, facilitate extensification, organise independent advice, and stimulate biological agriculture (Netwerk Goed Boeren, 2020). Some of these points have been taken up in the plans for a new policy framework for agriculture and food by the province. This new framework will describe the future of agriculture and food in 2030 and present the goals of the province, as such providing clarity and a new perspective for farmers and other actors (Provincie Noord-Brabant, 2021 b).

2.3 – Theoretical framework

As the change from traditional dairy farming to nature inclusive dairy farming concerns the transition to a new system (Smits et al., 2019), the multi-level perspective (MLP) on sustainable transitions will be discussed. To extrapolate the socio-technical regime that is important in the MLP theory, the policy arrangement approach forms the second part of the theoretical framework.

The multi-level perspective on transitions

The multi-level perspective on sustainable transitions by Geels describes the changes in both environmental and societal fields as socio-technical transitions (figure 8). Niche-innovations imply changes in the current socio-technical regime and a window of opportunity opens. This gives space for a niche innovation to gain more importance and influence the current regime that exists. The new regime that will eventually become the norm influences at a higher scale the socio-technical landscape, or exogenous context (Geels, 2011). Regimes and niches are easier to change than a complete socio- technical landscape, as these two levels are less comprehensive than the landscape level (Shove et al., 2012). To transform the present-day global food system towards a more sustainable one, innovation, and experimentation should therefore be encouraged to create space for new developments to succeed (Desa & Jia, 2020).

Visions of the future are important in enabling structural change and experiments can be used to try out new pathways (Meadowcroft, 2009; Rotmans & Kemp, 2003). Landscapes are however increasingly harder to change as different dimensions are more and more interlinked and the path is more dependent (Shove et al., 2012). Such situations of path dependency or a ‘lock-in’ in the current socio-technical system can complicate the transformation to a more sustainable system (Meadowcroft, 2009). This can also be seen in agriculture in the Netherlands, as the focus on producing more food after the second World War has formed the current landscape and this path is difficult to deviate from (Vrolijk et al., 2020). Path dependency makes it complex for farmers to make a structural change in their business model. To steer towards a transition the state could therefore initiate a public debate and hold stronger control over the complete chain. Decentralising practices, meaning what can be decided locally should be decided locally, can also improve the speed of transitions (Smits et al., 2019).

(23)

23 Figure 8: The multi-level perspective on transitions (Geels, 2011, p. 28)

A small win’s approach can be relevant to step out of the macro-level of the landscape in Geels’ figure.

Termeer and Dewulf (2019) refer to the paper of Weick (1984) that first coined this approach. The basis is that even the smallest wins can contribute to a larger transition: they often even originate from the most innovative ideas. The visible outcome of one small win may energize the motivation of other actors, activate learning by doing mechanisms, and attract new resources as it appears to be successful (Termeer & Dewulf, 2019).

No actor can steer a transition alone, but Rotmans et al. (2001) emphasise that governments should play a central role in transition management by inspiring and encouraging other actors to participate.

They can introduce regulations to influence the market and stimulate niche management and experiments. Actors that initiate change are policy entrepreneurs, as their proactive attitude creates windows of opportunity for the current system to change. The latter is referred to as internal change, but change can also occur due to external change when a shock event happens, surrounding policy domains go through developments, or when political modernisation occurs. This can be seen in the schematic overview in figure 9 (Arnouts et al., 2012).

(24)

Figure 9: Explanatory factors for governance shifts (Arnouts et al., 2012, p. 47)

The MLP does not specifically mention scales but divides transitions into three levels. It is often assumed that the landscape level refers to the international scale, the regime to national, and niches to local features. However, these assumptions are not straightforward, as the different levels are constituted of social, institutional, and actor networks (Raven et al., 2012). The geographical and spatial context of sustainability transitions is therefore interesting to consider, because why do transitions occur in one place and not in another? Historical path dependencies, local cultures, and localised institutions can all play a role in answering this question. Informal localised institutions can be defined as norms, values, and practices bound to a certain location (Hansen & Coenen, 2014). Raven et al. (2012) therefore propose a multi-scalar MLP, where different scales of time, space, and structure exist in different levels (figure 10). Striking is especially the difference in the time it takes for a particular level to go through change. While the niche level takes zero to ten years to change, a regime can take decades and the landscape even a longer period.

Figure 10: Scales and levels in the MLP (Raven et al., 2012, p. 67) The Policy Arrangement Approach

Policy is an important aspect building up the regime, as also indicated in figure 8. Although policies are often analysed from a strategic point of view, structural political changes are also of considerate importance. The policy arrangement framework combines both (Arts et al., 2006). A policy arrangement is defined as “the temporary stabilisation of the content and organisation of a particular policy domain at a certain policy level or several policy levels in case of multi-level governance” (Leroy

& Arts, 2006, p. 13). Policy arrangements contain a multi-level character, meaning they cannot be coupled to one particular policy level. The different policies at different levels influence each other, making the process of policy-making more complex. One explanation for this increased complexity is the internationalisation that has faded national boundaries. The aim of the policy arrangement

(25)

25 approach (PAA) is to analyse policy arrangements and the way they are constituted in ongoing

processes of social and political change (Arts et al., 2006). The PAA analyses institutional patterns of change and stabilisation, as policy arrangements are institutional concepts (Leroy & Arts, 2006). Or, as Liefferink (2006, p. 45) describes it: “The overall objective of the policy arrangements approach is to analytically link changes in day-to-day policy practices to broader, structural changes in contemporary society”.

The policy domain consists of four dimensions that are interrelated in understanding policy arrangements (figure 11): actors and their coalitions; the division of power (referring to resources and influence) between these actors; the rules of the game, both political interaction and formal procedures; and the current discourse, meaning the norms, values and views of the actors involved.

An example of a discourse that influenced policy arrangements is the concept of sustainable development, and for rules of the game can be thought of new agreements of the European Union.

These four domains hold temporary stability but can be changed over time. When the domains are stable for a longer period, there is a policy arrangement (Liefferink, 2006).

Figure 11: The tetrahedron that symbolises the connection between the four dimensions of a policy arrangement (Liefferink, 2006, p. 48)

Since the 1980s, concepts such as sustainability and biodiversity have been introduced and influence the discourse of environmental policies. Environmental problems are defined differently since this discursive turn as they are more linked to social, technological, and economic issues, and increasingly linked to other policy domains such as agriculture (Leroy & Arts, 2006). Structural changes in individual policy arrangements can therefore invoke changes in a larger social, cultural, economic, or political context (Liefferink, 2006). At the same time, the matter of environmental policy became one of shared responsibility, instead of a state-dominated approach, and new rules of policymaking were introduced (Leroy & Arts, 2006). Policymakers are increasingly focusing on designing policy for the long-term, to instigate a sustainability transition and a change in societal systems. In transition management, this long-term vision is combined with short-term experimental learning to find possibilities of realising a future vision (Voß et al., 2009). However, as environmental policy has become a more transnational and transboundary practice, resulting in a multi-level field of policy making, this is increasingly difficult (Leroy & Arts, 2006). Several issues play a role in designing long-term policy in transition management:

politics, context, and design as a process. The actors with political power display uncertainty in policymaking, as it is hard for them to make evolutionary decisions as they seek democratic legitimacy from society. The context of policy design refers to the existing patterns and historic structures of policies that might be difficult to change. The process of long-term policy-making is one of distributed agency, meaning that many actors and stakeholders are involved. This causes struggles as not everyone has the same amount of power. Next to that, policies are interpreted flexibly, which is on the one hand a strength but on the other hand a weakness (Voß et al., 2009).

(26)

2.4 – The conceptual framework

The conceptual framework (figure 12) is based on the multi-level perspective on transitions by Geels (2011) and forms an overview of the transition that will be researched. The nature inclusive dairy farmer is now placed at the level of a niche innovation. When a change in the regime occurs, a window of opportunity can open and provide an occasion to change the practices of a farmer. Policy entrepreneurs stimulate the transition even further as they are early examples.

A farmer’s internal motivation, future perspective, and view on nature are factors that positively influence his or her choice for nature inclusive farming. On the other hand, risk aversion, ground, income, and policy restrictions have a negative impact on choosing a more nature inclusive approach.

Nature inclusive dairy farmers will invent personal initiatives that inspire others and enlarge the movement. The small win’s approach can be placed at the niche-innovations level. Even the smallest successes can inspire someone or others that notice them to keep going. Best practices provide an example, and eventually, multiple nature inclusive farmers unite and form cooperation’s and networks, that will strengthen the position of nature inclusive dairy farmers and eventually become the norm in the regime.

The current socio-technical regime influences this transition, consisting of the current market, societal values on nature, food consumption and agriculture, and environmental policy. Based on the policy arrangement approach, policy consists of discourses, actors, power and resources, and rules of the game. The revenue model is placed in between the regime influencing the new regime and the upscaling from nature inclusive practices to the new regime, as this is a crucial factor that can either stimulate or stop the transition.

Looking at the socio-technical landscape, traditional dairy farming is placed there. Choices made in the past and the way that traditional dairy farming is arranged currently plan a certain path dependency.

This can cause hindrance for the regime to transition to a new one, as situations and setups are sometimes difficult to deviate from and change.

(27)

27 Figure 12: The conceptual framework, based on Geels (2011).

(28)

3 – Methodology

In this chapter, the different choices are discussed made regarding the empirical research that is conducted. Paragraph one explains the ontology, epistemology, and research strategy. The following paragraphs go deeper into the research method, collection, and analysis. Finally, the validity and reliability of the research are discussed, after which a description of the two cases is given.

3.1 – Research strategy and philosophy

Different strategies can be chosen when conducting research. As this research aims to form an in- depth view of a specific group and context, and as the research questions are mainly explorative, the most fitting research strategy is case study research. As both Van Thiel (2014) and Yin (2011) describe, is the aim of taking case study as a research strategy to form an in-depth understanding and holistic view of a particular group in a real-life, everyday setting. Context-dependent knowledge and experience are acquired in case study research (Flyvbjerg, 2006).

Case study research is not aligned with one fixed ontological, epistemological, or methodological position (Harrison et al., 2017). The ontology of the research is concerned with the nature of social entities and the question of what is reality? Epistemology revolves around the question: what is knowledge? (Bryman, 2016). As qualitative data will be generated and analysed by the researcher, its personal view is determinative in the eventual results of this research. The ontology of this research is therefore of constructivist nature. Reality is constructed through the cultural and personal background of the researcher, instead of objective. The epistemological position suited to this position is the interpretative philosophy, where all reality is subjective, and all knowledge is interpretation. (Van Thiel, 2014; Bryman, 2016). The aim of this research is not to test certain hypotheses, but to understand the different perceptions of the researched units.

Finally, this research was combined with an internship at Foodup! Brabant, a team of the province of Noord-Brabant. This enlarged the researcher’s accessibility to information and important actors in the field of nature inclusive farming.

3.2 – Research method

Noord-Brabant counted 2.080 dairy farms in 2020 (CBS, 2020), but the number of dairy farmers that adopted a nature inclusive approach is not determined. As this group of farmers is nevertheless too extensive to all include in this research, a smaller group was selected. As the research also focuses on the role of municipalities, two municipalities were chosen as case study areas within the province of Noord-Brabant, namely Altena and Tilburg. A more detailed description of the two cases will follow in paragraph 3.5. As such, this research can be labelled a holistic multiple case study.

Multiple methods have been used to answer the sub-questions and eventually the main question. As chapter 2 displayed, extensive desk research has been conducted, where the existing literature on different themes was gathered. In preliminary investigation to this research, the researcher has also performed participant observation, through attending conversations and meetings with important actors at the province of Noord-Brabant. The main method of this research was interviews with different types of farmers, local networks, and both municipalities.

The first sub-question: In what way does nature inclusive dairy farming differ from conventional dairy farming? can mainly be answered after the desk research, but information is added after the empirical research. It is meant to clarify the transition that is being researched. Sub-questions 2, 3, and 4 are all answered with both desk research and the information gained from the interviews with different