Permaculture on the conventional farm: a case study

Milan Besselink: Earth Sciences (10469850)

Guido Knibbe: Anthropology (10421521)

Luut Dingemans: International and European Law (5977959)

Tutor: Jaap Rothuizen

Words: 6.654

Copyright IMAGES on title page:

By Wikibiro (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via

Wikimedia Commons

[[File:View along a field margin - geograph.org.uk - 1355339.jpg|View along a field margin -

geograph.org.uk - 1355339]]

Abstract

This study explores some essential aspects that comprise an effective model for sustainability

applications in modern field crop agriculture. A case study on the Bloeiend Bedrijf project in

the Netherlands with over 550 participating farmers is analysed for its success factors. This

project is a promising model for the modern application of permaculture principles. Systems

thinking provides the basis for an interdisciplinary integration of disciplinary analyses from

the perspectives on Law Science, Earth Sciences and Anthropology. Thus, this integration

includes project structure, practical results of the permaculture application and the

experiences of the participants and regulators in the project, including their interactions with

the Dutch society. Results show that (1) collective subsidy application, (2) the involvement of

civil society and (3) a well-organized communication structure are essential structural aspects

of successful operation models for sustainability projects. Essential practical aspects include

(1) the use of farming applications that serve multiple purposes in accord with permaculture

principles, (2) that these applications show measurable results to the farmer and society, (3) a

particular symbolic and ritual value in these applications and (4) social recognition. All of

these aspects are recommended for consideration by policy makers in both the public sector

and the private sector.

Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 5

Systems Thinking and Permaculture ....................................................................................................... 6

History and Organization ........................................................................................................................ 8

Research Methods ................................................................................................................................... 9

Natural benefits and constraints of FAB-edges ..................................................................................... 10

Predator insects and prey in the FAB-edge ....................................................................................... 10

Impact of FAB-edges on insecticide usage ........................................................................................ 11

Different functions of the FAB-edge and its link to permaculture .................................................... 12

Benefits and downsides of the FAB-edge .......................................................................................... 13

Regulatory Framework .......................................................................................................................... 14

European subsidies in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) ....................................................... 14

Funding of the Bloeiend Bedrijf project ............................................................................................ 14

The participating institutions of Bloeiend Bedrijf: the involvement of civil society ......................... 15

Is public funding necessary to implement FAB-edges? ..................................................................... 15

The future of FAB: regulatory realities and the CAP 2014-2020 ...................................................... 16

Recommendations for policymakers ................................................................................................ 17

In Practice: The Participants’ Perspective ............................................................................................. 18

Experiences with communication...................................................................................................... 18

Experiences with a permaculture approach ....................................................................................... 19

Bloeiend Bedrijf as a Dynamic System ................................................................................................. 20

An integrated system ......................................................................................................................... 23

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 25

References ............................................................................................................................................. 26

Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................................................. 28

Appendix 2 ............................................................................................................................................. 28

Introduction Since the modernization of agriculture from the 1950's till the 1980's efficiency and

yields per hectares have increased greatly in the Western world. The intensification was a

policy specifically intended to push agriculture from the primary sector to the industrial scale

(John Grin lecture,10 november). This was established with the help of uniform mono-culture

crops, inorganic fertilizer and intensification of pesticide usage. Apart from efficiency

benefits, this “productivist” paradigm (Lawrence, 2005) augmented environmental problems

such as decreasing biodiversity (Chapin et. al. 2000) and widespread usage of pesticides

(Botkin, et al. 2009).

In the beginning of the 21st century, society not only asks for productivity and

efficiency, but farmers are pressured to produce more sustainable as well. After decades of

scientific reports since Meadows et. Al. (1972) it is safe to say that many ecologists, climate

scientists and environmental scientists have stressed the importance of minimizing

environmental problems associated with modern agriculture such as biodiversity loss,

(over)usage of agricultural toxins and dealing with nutrient surplus and outflow to

(ground)water. These concerns lead to the incorporation of pillar-2 agro-environmental policy

into the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of Europe (Latacz-Lohmann and Hodge, 2003).

Moving step by step from a more traditional approach of income support for production to an

inclusion of subsidizing ecological services done by farmers under the heading of “rural

development”.

This research focusses on exploring effective operation models that promote

sustainability in modern agriculture. A case study on the “Bloeiend Bedrijf” project (referred

to as BB in this report) is conducted to determine the essential structural aspects that have led

to the successful operation of this project. First, the case study analyses how Functional

Agrobiodiversity (FAB)-edges may offer solutions to aforementioned ecological and

environmental problems. No structural study has yet been done on the practical application of

FAB-edges. Next, the systemic design of the BB case will be examined in accord with

General Systems Theory (GST, see Von Bertalanffy, 1956). Interestingly, FAB-edges are also

applied by experts in the modern field of permaculture, a design approach to sustainable

agriculture that is grounded on systems thinking. We hypothesize that an examination of a

permaculture application within a governmentally subsidizes operation model can provide a

fertile basis to structurally achieve sustainability gains in modern agriculture. More

information on permaculture and systems thinking will be provided in the first chapter.

The central question of this research is: “To what extend can the Bloeiend Bedrijf

project in the Netherlands serve as a model for long-term solutions toward more sustainable

field crop agriculture?” First, this report provides an introduction to systems thinking and

permaculture. Next is the case study of the BB project, which will also include a short note on

the methods of research that were used. Lastly, the system dynamics of the BB project are

analysed to determine essential aspects for success and how these can be applied more

broadly in agricultural operations.

Systems Thinking and Permaculture Systems thinking as a scientific method was pioneered around the 1950s by biologist

Ludwig Von Bertalanffy in his general systems theory (GST) (Von Bertalanffy, 1956). Von

Bertalanffy believed that a perception of the world in terms of interacting systems could be a

framework for the basic unity of human knowledge. The systems approach provides models

for comparison that could for the first time bridge the gap between the natural and social

sciences.

From the 1950’s onward, the systems approach has been further developed into a

practical method for interdisciplinary research. The famous systems theorist Ervin Laszlo

points out that this approach can be used to “build models of certain perspectival features of

phenomena and hold up the models for investigation and comparison” (Laszlo, 1971: p.175).

He explains that by modelling the interactions between the ‘features’ and ‘phenomena’ that

comprise a system, the scientist is able to map organized complexity.

The systems approach has two important implications for the research project that we

have conducted. First, it allows for the transcendence of monodisciplinarity through holistic

thinking, as described in Repko (2011: 274-278). This study thus recognizes that human

beings are interwoven into a hierarchy of isomorphic open systems that include ecosystems,

political systems and cultural systems. Human beings (in our case farmers, people who pass

by their lands, and the general Dutch society) thus represent the common ground between the

disciplines of earth science, law and anthropology in our interdisciplinary research. Second, as

a research method, the systems approach allows for the systemic analysis of the features and

phenomena relevant to each discipline and how they relate to others. This can help to identify

the mechanisms of feedback that are involved in and between the different systems that we

will describe. This approach creates common ground, both by organizing systemic

interactions and extending the scope of each discipline’s findings, as described in Repko

(2011: 340-347). Systems thinking thus allows for an overview perspective that is essential in

understanding how sustainability can be achieved in conventional farming.

One profound aspect of systems thinking is that it not only provides a theoretical tool

for the unity of science, but its philosophical and practical aspects are also available to anyone

who wants to apply them in the ‘real world’. Arguably the most straightforward and effective

form of such an application is found in the form of ‘Permaculture’, a design system that was

invented in the late 1970’s by Bill Mollison and David Holmgren (Mollison & Holmgren,

1978). Originally referring to gardening practices inspired by natural ecosystems,

permaculture practices have now stretched out through the whole realm of human habits.

These habits, ranging from economics to the use of technology and education, are all

approached as systems that together comprise human culture. Permaculture takes an

integrative systems approach to design human culture according to the model of nature. In the

words of Holmgren (2007, p.3): “Thus the permaculture vision of permanent or sustainable

agriculture has evolved to one of permanent or sustainable culture”.

The FAB-edge is a natural design solution that the field of permaculture is already

familiar with. This study will take a systems approach to explore how the application of this

technique in the BB project connects to natural, social and political systems. The goal of this

approach is to provide an overview perspective that can serve to map the complexity of

successful sustainability projects. Ultimately, this mapping can be used to design for more

sustainability in modern agriculture.

Part 1: Case: Bloeiend Bedrijf

History and Organization “Bloeiend Bedrijf “, which can be translated as “Blossoming Venture”, is a project

based in The Netherlands from 2011 until 2014, in which a total of 550 farmers where

subsidized for applying specific ecological measures on their open field farm. The farmers

were professionally supported by various knowledge and agricultural institutions to do so.

Farmers implemented on their farms FAB-edges, known as “Akkerranden” in the project.

These are rows of flowers and herbs that attract biodiversity. The aim of the project was to

decrease pesticide usage of the farmers by attracting natural predators of insect pests,

increasing Functional Agro Biodiversity (FAB) and decreasing the amount of insecticides

used by the farmer (Bloeiend Bedrijf 2014).

In this report a thorough analysis of the project is made. In which we wish to answer

the research questions with the data, interviews and literature found concerning the BB

project. This will give an academic insight into how ecological measures work on the farm

and how governments and other stakeholders can be involved to contribute to a more

sustainable and more biologically diverse open field agriculture. Contributing to an

agricultural system where less pesticides are used and with a more biological diversity on

(and around) the farm. A complete analysis of the project is given in order to understand the

workings of a subsidized regulation with many different stakeholders involved, varying from

the European Common Agricultural Policy to regional farmer’s collectives, knowledge

institutes and the outlook of the individual farmers that play a role.

The “demoregeling beheer akkerranden” was a scheme by the Dutch Ministry of

economic affairs, agriculture and innovation (LE&I) from 2010 until 2014, and was

specifically aimed at subsidizing FAB- edges. It was co-funded by the Dutch ministry of

Agriculture, Economics and Innovation (LE&I) and European agriculture subsidies through

the Common Agricultural Policy.

A farmer named Teunis Jacob Slob was the main applicant of the subsidy and worked

at farmer organisation ‘Veelzijdig Boerenland’ while applying (2010). With the help of

another hundred farmers the BB project was able to start its first year. Two years would

follow and 550 farmers were ultimately involved. This research intends to look at the effects

and results BB managed to realise, as well as the way it was done. We thank the farmers and

institutions involved for their openness that enabled us an inside look into the workings of the

BB project.

Research Methods

The case analysis is carried out through various research methods. First, a literature study

examines scientific papers, newsletters, and reports about the BB project and FAB-edges.

This data is appropriated to explore the role of FAB-edges in the natural environment, the

experiences of participants in the BB project, and the design of BB’s regulation structure.

Secondly, empirical data is collected in the form of interviews with BB’s project

regulators and one in-depth interview was held with a participating farmer. This empirical

information is used to complement and support the literature study.

Thirdly, inside knowledge into the project is obtained by participating in an evaluation

meeting that was hosted by the civil society groups involved in the BB project and which was

attended by participants. The information gathered at this meeting will not explicitly be

expressed in this report, but rather serves to complement the general knowledge that the

research team obtains from the internet and other sources with hands-on experience.

It was crucial that this research had an interdisciplinary approach, in order to fully

understand the project. The 4 criteria of interdisciplinary research that Repko (2012) explains

can all be seen in the report: (1) It was a complex case study, sustainable farming is (2) a

societal issue, (3) no single discipline could have addressed the case study, and (4) insights

from various disciplines are offered in the research.

Natural benefits and constraints of FAB-edges

The FAB-edges are

used in agricultural

practices and in BB. It is

defined as the whole of the

crop edge, any margin strip

present and the semi-natural

habitat associated with the

boundary (Greaves &

Marshall, 1987). The

boundary (figure 1) is the

barrier between fields or

two different types of land

use, usually in the form of

hedges and if present with a watercourse (Marshall & Moonen, 2002). The strip settled in the

field or at the edge of the field between boundary and the crop is defined as the margin strip.

This margin strip includes wildflower strips, grass strips, buffer strips, strips sown to bird

cover crops and buffer strips. The outer few metres of the crop is the crop edge (Marshall &

Moonen, 2002). The report of BB (2012) indicated that the herbal and flower mixtures they

used for the FAB-edges, stimulated useful biodiversity. For instance, the sown herbs and

flowers produce nectar and pollen which are also easy to reach for insects with short

mouthparts. Thereby, the sown herbs itself do not cause weed pressure and they don’t attract

pests and plagues. Another result is that the mixtures bloom as early and as long as possible,

therefore the multi-year mixtures forms habitat for beneficial insects to winter.

Predator insects and prey in the FAB-edge

Out of the latter it becomes clear that the FAB-edges have different functions, one of

these functions is that it serves as a hide out for different kinds of insects (Van Rijn, Willemse

& Alebeek, 2011). In this way the use of pesticides can be reduced or become unnecessary.

The results of the BB (2012) report indicated that the FAB-edges attracts two important

groups of natural predators. The species including lacewings, hoverflies and ichneumon flies,

are attracted to the nectar and pollen in flowers after which their larvae fight against the

harmful insects. And the species that are attracted to places for wintering and reproduction,

and from there hunt on other harmful insects. Examples include ground beetles, spiders and

ladybugs.

According to research of the BB (2013) report, the FAB-edges have especially a

positive effect on the Hoverfly populations. If there is sufficient bloom and there are sufficient

prey insects present in the crops, then in the late summer there are great quantities of

Hoverflies. Hoverflies can have up to 10 generations per year therefore populations can

increase tremendously. Also lacewings benefit from FAB-edges, but they only have two

generations per year. Therefore, the populations respond slower to increasing pest pressure.

The third important group of natural enemies are the ichneumon, for aphid control. This group

Figure 1, Source: Marshall & Moonen, 2002

appears to be independent on nectar and pollen because the honeydew that aphids secrete are

sufficient to build up an ichneumon population.

The FAB-edges of BB (2012) were primarily

developed for natural control of aphids in particular

cereals and consumption potato. BB observed in

their studies that most profits of FAB-edges could

be achieved in crops that meet the following criteria:

- They are prone to aphids;

- Aphids are a major reason to use

insecticides;

- For aphids there is not a "zero-tolerance": it

is tolerable that some aphids are present

before it exceeds the damage threshold

(figure 2).

Crops that meet these criteria are cereals, sugar beet and consumption or starch potato.

However, the function of FAB-edges on outbreaks are obviously wider, the outbreaks of

whitefly and snails can be reduced when well-developed populations of natural enemies are

present.

Impact of FAB-edges on insecticide usage

In the field meetings of BB (2013) it became

clear that natural enemies are not only present when the

FAB-edges flourish, but also before that. Landscapes

have naturally much to offer. The most important factor

that determines the presence of certain natural predators

is the presence of prey. If there were no aphids, then

there were no or very few natural enemies. At the

insecticide-treated plots beneficial insects were almost

absent (figure 3). According to the report of BB (2013)

this is caused by the insecticides, because it eliminates

the most important food source of natural predators.

The participants of BB indicated in the report that when

they do not use insecticides the chance of aphid

outbreaks may increase. But according to the results of

the BB (2013) report, the problem lies in the fact that

insect control occurs preventive. To overcome this they

recommend inspections on pest pressure. The excellent results of BB (2012) report of crop

protection in 2011 emphasizes the importance of crop inspections. Because at two-thirds of

the farmlands, aphids were observed and at just a third of them the threshold was exceeded.

Eventually the BB made clear that 67% of insecticide use by the participants is reduced and

Figure 3: The aphids pressure (upper) and the number of natural predators (bottom) in sprayed (left) and unsprayed (right) grain fields (numbers per 100 grain culms). Source: BB, 2012

Figure 2: Natural aphid suppression. Source: BB, 2012.

even 40% of the 67% did not even sprayed insecticides on their crops. Moreover, BB also

observed 116 natural predators and 26 species of wild bees.

Different functions of the FAB-edge and its link to permaculture Another function is that the margin strips of the FAB-edge can influence the

environmental impacts of agriculture, such as pesticide and fertilizer application. The FAB-

edges can reduce the impacts because it can act as a buffer, which reduces runoff from the

fields in the water courses and leaching of nutrients and agrochemicals. There are optimal

dimensions of margin strips to reduce erosion by runoff and to function as a buffer (Van Dijk

et al., 1996). BB (2012) recommends 3 meter wide margin strips because their results

indicated that this size is sufficient to create the buffering effect. The interviewed farmer

Kamper (2014) responded as followed to the size of the FAB-edges:

“It appears that FAB-edges at every 50 meter in your crops with a size of at least 3

meters wide have an effect. But my plots are 200 meter wide and I'm not going to put

a margin at every 50 meter, because that needs more work than it actually yields me,

instead of using chemicals despite the fact that I don’t want that. Those chemicals cost

money, but those resources are reliable in operation and the margins aren’t. But FAB-

edges certainly contribute to the soil quality of the piece of land where it is placed, but

not in the widening of it. The FAB-edges have a contribution to the emission of crop

protection. Because you are further away from the ditch and FAB-edges catches the

spraying chemicals before it reaches the ditch”.

The interviewee acknowledges the functioning of the FAB-edges regarding the buffering

effect and the soil quality. But despite the fact that he acknowledge that, the interviewee

indicates that the FAB-edges are not always reliable and that it takes a lot of time and effort to

maintain the FAB-edges.

Marshall, West and Kleijn (2005) state that the margins are important for some bird

species. But on the other hand, the other species that forage over considerable areas, the 3

meter margin strips appeared to be of little significance. When Kamper (2014) was asked

about the increase in biodiversity and birds he responded:

“Concerning ecology the FAB-edges have a major influence, I sow a certain mixture

of flower seeds that are nice for you to see and which are useful for the insects. But

actually the entire biodiversity increases, and whether you're talking about animals or

insects or birds that doesn’t matter, I think everything increases due to FAB-edges”.

It is made clear that FAB-edges have different natural and sustainable functions; therefore it is

well suited as a permaculture technique. Because in permaculture everything has multiple

functions. Therefore, the FAB-edge with its multiple functions could be implemented very

well in a system to design human culture according to the model of nature. So the FAB-edge

is in line with the vision of Holmgren (2007) about permaculture.

Benefits and downsides of the FAB-edge According to Bos and Dirks (2014) the most important obstacles for the partitioning

in the BB project are the implementation of FAB-edges and the lack of suitable crops, weed

suppression, the experience of insufficient results and the complexity of the matter (

determine the damage thresholds and recognizing species). Furthermore, the FAB-edges

replace agricultural production and therefore mean yield loss. Integrated pest management

takes more time than preventive spraying of insecticides. These two factors are driving the

costs up, and that is not recouped automatically via the product price. But on the other hand,

the FAB-edges also have multiple benefits. Some important insights are the reduction of

pesticide use, the buffer effects, the increase in biodiversity and the recreational function.

A financial incentive from the society is therefore justified and for most farmers also a

prerequisite to stay in this business (Bos & Dirks, 2014).

Regulatory Framework

European subsidies in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)

After a period of homogenization and increased productivity starting roughly in the

period from the 1950’ until the 1980’s (Brown & Mitchell 1997), the adverse effects of

modernized agriculture became visible in the 1970’s, especially in Northern European Union

member states such as Denmark, The Netherlands and Germany (Latacz-Lohmann and

Hodge, 2003). After acknowledging problems of overproduction and pollution, agri-

environmental policies were slowly implemented into the CAP in the 1980’s (Appendix 2).

With landscape conservation groups lobbying becoming stronger in the 1980’s, a

strong argument was made for redirecting money from production grants into conservation

schemes as was observed by Potter (1987) according to Latacz-Lohman and Hodge (2003).

Funding of the Bloeiend Bedrijf project

A large part of the funding for the BB came from the European Common Agricultural

Policy. In the period between 2007 and 2013 the Dutch implementation of the Common

Agricultural Policy was under the “Plattelandsontwikkelingsprogramma 2” or “POP2” and

fell under pillar 2, rural development (Agrarisch natuurbeheer) from the Common

Agricultural Policy (CAP). Pillar 1 is direct payment for production subsidies; pillar 2 is rural

development, or specific subsidies for ecological services that farmers may provide. Bloeiend

Bedrijf was erected under the funding of a pillar 2 project for Rural development. The POP 2

had in the plan funding for the demoregeling beheer Akkerranden (scheme for FAB-edges),

the Dutch program that ran from 2011-2014 to support FAB-edges. It was under this scheme

that the farmer Teunis Jacob Slob, “Veelzijdig Boerenland” and a hundred other farmers

applied for the pillar 2 funding and started the beginning fase of the project in 2010

(www.bloeiendbedrijf.nl).

As said, the scheme for FAB-edges was under the responsibility of the departement

“Dienst regelingen” of the Dutch ministry for agriculture, economy and innovation (LE&I).

The set-up is an example of co-operation between European and national policy to implement

a pillar 2 project. This structure is visualized in figure 4.

Figure 4: Funding and structure of BB

At the top (dark blue) are the structural funds for agriculture by the European Union. The

Dutch program (orange top) is the rural development program, POP2. The Dutch ministry is

responsible for the FAB-edge scheme (orange under). In Dark green is the head applicant,

both farmer and civil society worker. In light blue civil society is represented. On top the

central organs, below the regional farmer organizations.

The participating institutions of Bloeiend Bedrijf: the involvement of civil

society As became clear from the BB project, a crucial aspect of the success was the

intensive support by civil society. The knowledge sharing, meetings and newsletters, as well a

as the administrative support could not have been done without the involvement of civil

society groups. The involvement of civil society in the form of farmer, nature and knowledge

institutions can be considered a successful practice picked that can be picked up from the BB

project. Because the civil society groups were of great importance to the project, it is only

right to introduce the actors (Appendix 1). This can also shed some light for future projects

and the type of organizations needed for a functioning sustainable project.

Is public funding necessary to implement FAB-edges? A modern farm is run like a business. A farmer has a set and limited amount of land,

time and working hours. FAB-edges take up land, and thus less production space, time

invested in the required knowledge and the labour hours to plant and maintain a FAB-edge on

the farm.

Only a limited amount of farmers will find it acceptable to pay this price for the

benefits of a FAB-edge. Economically, the only advantage for a farmer is the decreased

amount of pesticides used.. It is obvious that the investment in time, work and the space to

create FAB-edges weigh heavy on a farmer. Although more specific economic analyses is

recommended for future policymakers on the subject, it is safe to conclude that the

investments required by a farmer weighs much heavier on a farmers professional/financial

balance than the benefits derived from decreasing the purchases of pesticides.

FAB-edges however, have several benefits that are enjoyed by society at large: of

which esthetic value and increased, functional and non-functional biodiversity are only a few

examples. In a situation where there is no public financial support for Functional Agro

Biodiversity, the farmer invests, while the society gets the benefits.

Furthermore, one of the keys to success for BB was the intense involvement of civil

society in the form of knowledge institutes and farmer- and nature conservation organizations.

The newsletters, workshops, and skill-sharing, people hours and meetings all have to be paid

for somehow. Sustainable agriculture does not come cheap, and if the public and political

establishment desire a more sustainable agriculture, then financial support is required.

In Article 21 of the Dutch Constitution it is said that “the protection and enhancement

of the environment are for the concern of the government”1. In order to compensate the

farmers for their ecological services, it is the government that is responsible for it and thus

should pay for it. From the BB project can be concluded that subsidies remain necessary in

the short to mid-long term to supply farmers with necessary knowledge and skills. This

generation of farmers is mostly not familiar with ecological practices, so they must learn them

and get compensation for the lost income due to the investment in time, labor and land.

Another suggestion can be made for the long-term: if governments decide to adopt

certain successful ecological measures, these measures can be included in school curriculums.

It is therefore imaginable that for generations of farmers that are growing up with for example

Functional Agro Biodiversity in mind, much less subsidies are necessary in future. The lost

production surface however remains eligible for compensation even for the long term.

The future of FAB: regulatory realities and the CAP 2014-2020

CAP 2007-2013 : CAP 2014-2020:

Pillar 1 direct income subsidies Greening demand of 5% included in

order to get direct income subsidies

Pillar 2

Rural development

Rural development

Table 1: Common Agricultural Policy two timeframes

Table 1 shows that the Greening demand in the 2014-2020 period comprises a set of

demands a farmer must comply with in order to receive funding through pillar 1. This is the

first time this is demanded for direct subsidies. Apart from a certain crop rotation scheme,

additional ecological measures must be taken. This involves among other possible measures

the use of FAB-edges. When a farmer reserves a certain space for FAB-edges, he or she is

eligible for European income subsidies.

However, FAB-edges are as mentioned not the only possibility a farmer has in order to

comply with the Greening demand. Farmers may be compelled to take a more easy route in

the form of catch crops, certain crops that take up excess nutrients but do little or no good for

biodiversity or pesticide usage. The adding of easy measures such as that can prove to be a

lost opportunity from the EU to stimulate biodiversity through FAB-edges. Farmers need

more skill to implement these than they need for planting another crop after a production

crop. The civil society groups involved in Bloeiend Bedrijf viewed especially catch crops as a

threat for the development of FAB-edges (interview H. Begeman, 2014). In the BB case the

FAB-edges have multiple benefits (see previous chapter), for farmers as well as for society at

large. It is recommended that in order for a Greening measure to be eligible for funding, it

must have multiple benefits. In this case FAB-edge will be eligible for funding, while catch

crops may not.

Recommendations for policymakers Financial public support for the short and mid-long term remains necessary for ecological

services produced by farmers.

Involvement of civil society is crucial in a project concerning implementing ecological

measures on (conventional) farmland.

Including catchrops in Pillar 1 Greening is likely to have negative effects on the adoption of

measures such as FAB-edges, which are harder to implement but have more benefits for

society.

In order for a Greening measure to receive public funding, it should have various benefits for

society as well as for the farmer.

In Practice: The Participants’ Perspective This part of the study takes an anthropological perspective to analyze two systems in

the context of BB. One is a system of interaction which involves communication among

participants and regulators and the interactions between these two types of actors. The other

system comprises the application of a permaculture approach by participants. Both are

concerned with experiences and perceptions of the people involved in BB. Hence, in the

analysis of these systems the significance lies in subjective accounts as opposed to a critical

evaluation of the factual accuracy of what people say or do.

One fundamental philosophical insight from anthropology that has become generally

accepted is that the human world is continually being created through subjective meaning.

While people are often not conscious of this subjectivity, they believe that their own values

are part of the natural order (Wilk, 1996). Culture in this sense is actively created by people,

but at the same time it is also taken for granted. The pattern is one of cyclical causality.

People shape culture through their actions, but culture simultaneously conditions people into a

certain worldview, which is the basis of their actions.

Culture conditions people primarily through ideology and symbols. Clifford Geertz

(1973) describes ideology as a dual phenomenon: it offers models of the world (ontology)

while at the same time providing a system for action (ethos). Ontology in this regard provides

a concept of what reality truly is, in all factuality, and so gives an understanding of existence.

Ethos is a practical attitude towards the self and the world, which is reflected by how people

live their life. Symbols, Geertz argues, are necessary to ‘store’ the meaning of ontology and

ethos and link the two together. Through the process of ritual, symbols re-enact the meaning

behind the worldview and relate it to a proper way of life. Geertz’ theory provides a

framework that can be usefully applied to systemically analyze the experiences of participants

in the BB project. What follows is an examination of literature and interviews, which is then

related to the concepts of ontology, ethos, symbol and ritual.

Experiences with communication

The main goal of the BB project is to stimulate participants in knowledge sharing by

demonstrating the effectiveness of new farming approaches. According to the project leaders,

group meetings and communication is therefore essential in this project (Bos & Dirks, 2014:

5-7).

Before setting out to explore the experiences of the participants involved with the

project, it is useful to understand why they have decided to join in the first place. In the

newsletters we find four main motives: “financial support, social recognition, interest in

biodiversity and heart for nature and sustainability.” (Newsletter 7, 2013). Practically, this

means that the participants are curious to find out how they can integrate biodiversity and

natural pest-control in their companies. (Newsletter 1, 2011). This information already hints at

how the participants value their position in society and that they are eager to develop a certain

worldview and put it into practice. However, these topics will be dealt with in the next

paragraph. For present purposes, the eagerness itself is of interest.

The active involvement of the participations illustrates their motivation: during one

season (2011) 40 study meetings on crop inspection were attended by almost all participants

(Newsletter 2, 2011). In a period of 3 years, participants have exchanged knowledge with

colleagues and experts during hundreds of local and national meetings (Bos & Dirks, 2014).

These meetings have proven to be of key importance to acquire the necessary knowledge and

experiences for a competent integration of natural pest-control. “On a normal day, the time is

lacking to properly think about these issues. The study meetings are an outstanding chance to

brainstorm with colleagues” (Newsletter 9, 2014). According to the project directors, trusting

nature to deal with pest problems is essential and the sharing of skills and knowledge with the

participants provides the basis for that trust. This is supported by the data on what farmers are

saying: 84% says BB is their most important source for knowledge about natural predators

and pests. 70% of the participants think the study meetings are essential for a more

sustainable pest control (Newsletter 9, 2014).

In addition to knowledge sharing, the BB project has also led to more communication

between farmers and society. Participants experience a significant increase in positive contact

with passers-by and others that are aware of the FAB-edges (Bos et al., 2014: 45). Participant

Hein in ‘t Hout: “I am suddenly credited for the fact that I am a farmer” (Newsletter 7, 2013:

5). Farmers indeed explain that this aspect of FAB-edges is the most important as they feel

that it leads to social support for sustainability.

Experiences with a permaculture approach

This paragraph will focus on the experiences that participants have with the

application of FAB-edges in their business. As will be shown, the experiences of a new

farming approach are not just limited to the physical tasks that are involved, but collaboration

is also important.

The concept of the study meeting, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, is a

particularly relevant example of such collaboration. The goal of these meetings is for

participants to learn how they can detect useful natural predators for themselves. This so-

called ‘scouting’ is supervised by experts from the Louis Bolk institute. By teaching them a

‘first look, then act’ approach, participants are stimulated to gain the skills and knowledge

that are necessary to become autonomous experts in making informed decisions on whether it

is necessary to use pesticides on their land (Newsletter 2, 2011).

Results show that 63% of the participants have changed their view on crop protection.

Farming guidance-expert Jaap Flikweert: “I notice that farmers are pushing their boundaries.

Spraying is becoming much less of a habit for most farmers. They are looking at their crops

with a different eye.” (Jille, 2012).

The positive effect that such a simple permaculture approach as FAB-edges has on a

more sustainable view on farming is very promising. Project leader Bos: “Farmers get a new

chance to show useful craftsmanship. That innovation leads to real gains in sustainability. (…)

The change in behavior leads to less spraying and more contact with the environment” (de

Vré, 2013. Our translation). This attitude is definitely shared by participant Theo Salomé who

points out that “the flowering edge stimulates awareness”.

Part 3: Synthesis and Conclusions

Bloeiend Bedrijf as a Dynamic System

First, we forget the BB project for one moment and look at how an individual farmer

would go about installing an FAB-edge through a state subsidy. This will provide a clearer

understanding of the functions that the BB project fulfils for farmers and society. In a

‘normal’ scenario such as visualized in figure 5 below, a farmer would individually apply for

the available subsidy and engage in natural pest control by installing, maintaining and using

the FAB-edge with his own knowledge and skills. However, as we have seen, farmers often

lack the required expertise and initiative to successfully do so.

The analysis of participant experiences and facts provided by BB in the previous

chapters have shown that the BB project initially plays an important role in attracting a large

number of farmers to participate and to equip them with the necessary expertise to engage in

natural pest control effectively, as shown in figure 6 below.

In the previous chapter we have seen how participants have experienced the application of

FAB-edges in combination with group meetings and active communication. The participants

Figure 5: Scenario for subsidy application by an individual farmer

Figure 6: Scenario for collective subsidy application through Bloeiend Bedrijf

and project leaders both regard knowledge sharing and the resulting skills and trust as vital.

Participants also say that positive social recognition is an important driver for their

involvement in the project and for sustainability in general.

Furthermore, participants show a more environmentally conscious work ethic and a

more holistic view on crop protection. A recap to the anthropological literature will provide a

relevant context to understand these findings. It has become clear that the participants have

changed their practical farming approach, their ethos, by engaging in natural pest control. The

effectiveness of this new approach is largely dependent on knowledge and skills, and

ultimately trust in nature. This different view on nature that comes with a new ethos suggests

a corresponding change in ontology as well. The FAB-edges thus act as symbols that connect

a different view on nature with a new approach on farming. The maintenance of the edges and

the cooperative study meetings are rituals that re-enact the newly acquired meanings. Figure 7

below provides a systemic visualization.

We have also seen that the new ethos and the esthetical value of a FAB-edge gain significant

support from society. Importantly, this social recognition triggers positive emotions in farmers

that are directly associated with their new approach, thus legitimizing it. Another important

effect of social appreciation is that society can ultimately stimulate the government to

subsidize sustainability projects. In other words, a society that is satisfied by ecological

measures can keep their systemic application running, as visualized in figure 8 on the next

page.

Figure 7: The symbolic effect of FAB-edges and the ritual effect of natural pest control on the worldview and work ethic of a farmer

Figure 8: The role of society in driving the Bloeiend Bedrijf project

An integrated system

Figure 9: Interconnectedness of the BB

Figure 9 shows the interconnectedness of the BB project as a whole. All parts that can

be separated as different disciplines are dependent on other parts and are connected either

directly or indirectly. Let us examine this with the help of Figure Y. In which the different

colours represent a different sub-system or discipline. The dark blue nodes are the regulation

structure and it is vital for funding of a complex agro-environmental project. Without the dark

blue parts, the civil society (light blue) would not be able to deliver work and invest time for

the setup and skill-sharing necessary for a complex project. The two central light blue

institutes do most of the central knowledge (newsletters, website) and administrative work,

while the regional organizations help local farmers with practical issues such as sowing the

FAB-edge. The farmer (light green) is able to implement a FAB-edge measure because the

farmer receives help from civil society institutes and public funding to compensate for

investments in time, work and land. When the FAB-edge is installed, it has certain ecological

and economic benefits represented by the dark green nodes. These positive results together

with the knowledge gained from working with Functional Agro Biodiversity, changes the

worldview of a farmer and the way they work -with nature- on the farm, represented by the

yellow node.

The FAB-edge also connects the policymakers with the project, because society

recognizes the beauty and benefits of a FAB-edge and in doing so create support for public

investment in these measures. Viewing the project as an integrated system in this way, it can

be concluded that different factors such as policy, ecology, farmer's ethos and the general

public's opinion, cannot be seen separate from one another. It was therefore crucial that this

research had an interdisciplinary approach, in order to fully understand the project.

Conclusions The lesson learned from this project is that BB in several ways can be a model for

successful projects. Although farmers were enthusiastic, farmers will not do such a project

alone. Public financial support remains essential in similar projects. Moreover, farmers will

need intensive guidance by civil society to overcome their lack of knowledge and experiences

of insufficient results. This is particularly applicable for recognizing species and determining

the damage threshold of pest insects. With this knowledge the farmers will experience

measurable results of reduced pesticide usage. Besides, an integrated communication structure

is also a crucial structural aspect for the success of BB.

Apart from these structural essential aspects, the practical aspects are at least as

important. For example, the field inspections in relation to FAB-edges are crucial ritual

activities in that it stimulates the meaning of the FAB-edges as a sustainable tool for the work

ethic of the farmers. Moreover, a visual aspect is also important, because the FAB-edges are

visual symbols that give a farmer and society the idea that they are really engaging in

sustainability. The research of the functioning of the FAB-edges made clear that the FAB-

edge has multiple purposes, this is in fact an important aspect of permaculture. These practical

aspects will eventually lead to social value which is important to stimulate the farmers but

also give incentives to the government to subsidize sustainability projects.

Therefore it can be concluded that the BB project serves in multiple ways as a model

for long-term solutions toward more sustainable field crop agriculture.

References Begeman, H (5 November 2014). Retrieved on 17-12-2014 from http://www.toekomstglb.nl/glb-in-de-

praktijk-voor-harmannus-begeman-akkerbouwer-1301.html

Bloeiend Bedrijf (2014). Official website (www.bloeiendbedrijf.nl)

Bos, M & Dirks, D. (2014) Bloeiend Bedrijf 1 Eindverslag Projectjaar 3.

Bos, M, Musters, C & de Snoo, G (2014) De effectiviteit van akkerranden in het vervullen van

maatschappelijke diensten. Universiteit Leiden.

Bos, M., Dirks, D., (2013). Tussenverslag projectjaar 2: 11 maart 2012 - 10 maart 2013. Bloeiend

bedrijf, 1-31

Bos, M., Dirks, D., (2012). Tussenverslag projectjaar 1: 11 maart 2011 - 10 maart 2012. Bloeiend

bedrijf, 1-94

Brown, L. and Mitchell, J. (1997) The Agricultural Link: How Environmental Deterioration Could

Disrupt Economic Progress. World Watch paper 136, world watch institute, Washington

Chapin III, F. S., Zavaleta, E. S., Eviner, V. T., Naylor, R. L., Vitousek, P. M., Reynolds, H. L., … Díaz,

S. (2000). Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature, 405(6783)

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (Vol. 5019). Chapter 5: Ethos, World

View, and the Analysis of Sacred Symbols, p. 126-142. Basic books.

Grin, J. (November 10, 2014). Food Systems: Europe and the Netherlands. World Food System.

Universiteit van Amsterdam

Holmgren, D. (2007). Essence of Permaculture.

Jille, K. (2012, August, 11) Biodiversiteit is spelen met de natuur. Nieuwe Oogst, p.15. Retrieved on

22-11-2014 from

http://www.bloeiendbedrijf.nl/sites/default/files/artikelen/artikel_no_11_augustus_2012_-

_biodiversiteit_is_spelen_met_natuur

Jordan, C, F. (2004). Organic farming and agroforestry: Alleycropping for mulch production for organic

farms of southeastern United States. Agroforestry Systems, 61, 79–90.

Kamper, G, J.(2014) Interview with participating farmer. Date, 18-11-2014. Place: Boesingheliede.

Laszlo, E. (1971). Systems and structures—toward bio-social anthropology.Theory and decision, 2(2),

174-192.

Latacz-Lohmann, U. and Hodge, I. (2003), European agri-environmental policy for the 21st century.

Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 47: 123–139.

Lawrence, G (2005). Book review on Food wars: the global battle for mouths, minds and markets.

International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture, Volume 13. University of Queensland.

Marshall, E.J.P., Moonen, A.C., (2002). Field margins in northern Europe: their functions and

interactions with agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 89, 5-21.

Mollison, B., & Holmgren, D. (1978). Permaculture one. Morebank, NSW Australia: Transworld

Publications.

Newsletter 1 (2011, June) Bloeiend Bedrijf. Retrieved on 13-11-2014 from

http://www.bloeiendbedrijf.nl/

Newsletter 2 (2011, September) Bloeiend Bedrijf. Retrieved on 13-11-2014 from

http://www.bloeiendbedrijf.nl/

Newsletter 7 (2013, June) Bloeiend Bedrijf. Retrieved on 13-11-2014 from

http://www.bloeiendbedrijf.nl/

Newsletter 9 (2014, May) Bloeiend Bedrijf. Retrieved on 13-11-2014 from

http://www.bloeiendbedrijf.nl/

Repko, A. F. (2011). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory. Sage Publications.

Van Dijk, P.M., Kwaad, F., Klapwijk, M., (1996). Retention of water and sediment by grass strips.

Hydrological Processes, 10(8), 1069-1080

Von Bertalanffy, L. (1956). General system theory. General systems, 1(1), 11-17.

de Vré, K. (2013, January 21) Boer wordt natuurvorster. Trouw, p. 8-9. Retrieved on 13-11-2014 from

http://www.bloeiendbedrijf.nl/sites/default/files/artikelen/trouw_21jan2013

van Rijn,P., Willemse,J., & van Alebeek, F. (2011) FAB en akkerranden voor natuurlijke

plaagbeheersing. Wageningen universiteit.

Wilk (1996) The Moral Human: Cultural Economics in Economies and Cultures: Foundations of

Economic Anthropology. Boulder, Westview Press.

Appendix 1

The Louis Bolk institute is an independently operating international knowledge and

research institute. Focusing on sustainable agriculture, food and health issues. They describe

themselves as having a multidisciplinary approach on environmental / human problems they

research and are always looking at the whole system and context of a particular problem.

`Veelzijdig Boerenland (Versatile Farmland), is a Dutch cooperation of nature- and

landscape conservation organizations focused on the Western part of the Netherlands. The

main focus is on the quality of the regulation of nature and biodiversity in an agricultural

landscape.

ZLTO or Southern Land and Horticulture Organisation is based in the three Southern

provinces, and is an association to support agriculture entrepreneurs. Helping them with

among others corporate sustainability and professionalisation of the business. Boerennatuur or

“Farmers Nature” is a similar organisation for the Northern part of the Netherlands.

De Natuurweide (The Natural Pasture) is the association for organic dairy farmers in

the Netherlands.

The Common Agricultural Policy or CAP, is the structural fund for the stimulation of

European agriculture. About a third of the European Union budget is spent on agricultural

subsidies.

Appendix 2

The 1985 European regulation (ECC 797/85) can be marked as the beginning of agro-

environmental policies. By the late 1980’s, most northern Member States applied agro-

environmental incentives schemes, while the Southern Member States were still fully

entrenched in the productivist paradigm and had ignored the opportunity that the legislation

797/85 gave for rural environmental programs.

To solve this, in 1995 regulation (ECC 2078/92) came which sought to include the

Southern member states in the agro-environmental schemes. The most important change was

the ability for member states to co-fund with EU subsidies, setting the environmental

measures on equal footing with the CAP’s pillar 1 income subsidies. These adjustments

established paid stewardship or rural development firmly across the entire European

community (ibid. 2003).