Research results

Biodiversity in nature reserves improving, but ‘output-based management’ could be better

In most nature reserves, the biodiversity has been maintained or improved in recent years. This is partly attributable to the new result-based subsidy schemes that were introduced in 2000. However, it is striking that while managers appear to be largely meeting their scheme targets, the national conservation targets have only been achieved in half of the reserves. To achieve the targets in the other half of the areas, environmental conditions such as groundwater deficit and spatial coherence will have to improve considerably. Statistical analysis shows that, in the longer term, the desired biodiversity of the nature reserves can be achieved, with the management regime now employed in nature reserves, provided that critical problems relating to environmental conditions are resolved.

Result-based funding means that those managing nature reserves and the Forestry Commission receive a subsidy based on conservation results and not, as in the past, a fixed amount of subsidy per hectare. This study shows that an advantage of result-based funding is that the government and the managers now have a better insight into the ecological quality of the areas and, at some of the sites, monitoring has also improved. On the other hand, this form of direction and inspection of site managers has its limitations. The administrative costs are relatively high. Moreover, a manager is judged according to a result which he or she can only partially influence. Generally speaking, national, provincial and local authorities, and the District Water Boards will also have to implement environmental and other measures.

Fragmentation as undesired side-effect of nature reserves under private management

The central government wants to treat all managers equally, and to give them the same rights to develop and manage new nature reserves. In other words: it should in principle be possible for each new area to be managed by a private land owner or, for example, by Natuurmonumenten or the Forestry Commission, so long as the conservation targets remain the same. In principle, private land owners who are subject to the same nature management schemes as those that apply to the large organisations that manage nature reserves, also contribute to the achievement of the national conservation targets. However, the acreage of new nature reserves under private management is considerably less than was intended. Often it is not attractive for private land owners to transform their land or farmland into a nature reserves, and to develop and manage it as such. Former unclear taxation rules and the complicated and drawn-out procedures for changing the land use designation from farmland to nature reserves were partly responsible for this.

Research has shown that having large hydrologically coherent nature reserves under management is an important prerequisite for meeting national conservation targets. The past situation – with seriously fragmented, patchily managed areas and sites – is more likely to continue, when small reserves being managed by many private land owners, spread over broadly defined areas. The more private managers there are in an area, the more people must be involved in making agreements about restoring the hydrological balance, and the greater the likelihood that not everyone will fully agree. This is the negative side of the involvement of private actors in nature conservation. 

The links between evaluation criteria and targets are ambiguous

In agricultural areas, on the whole, biodiversity is still declining. Where agri-environmental schemes targeted at plant biodiversity has been applied for some time, the generally low present level of biodiversity appears to be maintained, but little or no progress is being made towards the national conservation targets. However, farmers and managers do generally comply with the requirements of the current scheme targets for meadow bird protection; i.e. they (still) meet all the requirements for a subsidy. Nevertheless, the number of meadow birds continues to fall. In addition to saying something about the effectiveness of the targets, this also reveals another major problem in the Dutch conservation policy. Full compliance with the scheme targets required by the Stewardship Programme is no guarantee that the national conservation targets will be achieved. Thus a substantial improvement could be made through the proper harmonisation of schemes, conservation and management targets, monitoring and reporting.

• Back to the report