About

There is often a misfit between established governance approaches, including the institutional structures created for governance implementation, and the spatial, temporal and functional requirements for an effective ecosystem service (ES) provision and biodiversity protection in agricultural landscapes. This is referred to as the problem of ‘institutional misfit’.

Against this backdrop, cp³ hypothesises that collaborative governance approaches - understood as partnerships between actors from the civil, public and private sphere of society - can help in mitigating institutional misfit and in offering valuable insights to stakeholders who face similar challenges.

The cp³ objectives are to:

• Identify, describe, and analyse collaborative governance models that are successful in providing institutional fit for better protecting biodiversity and delivering ecosystem services in agriculture.
• Identify, describe, and analyse agricultural production practices linked to the different governance models to explore their relations to ES, food production and biodiversity targets, including existing trade-offs and synergies.
• Develop an inventory of ES provided by and needed to sustain agro-ecosystems, including spatial and temporal scales of delivery, and ES flows.
• Derive recommendations for stakeholders, i.e. policy makers, market actors, civil society initiatives, farming communities on how development of such collaborative governance models can be supported by specific policies.

Results

Spatial misfit could be mitigated as collaborative governance approaches are typically open to all concerned actors of a problem, who then can engage to work out solutions specifically adjusted to the local conditions. Temporal misfit could be mitigated through the creation of more durable and flexible solutions, also providing actors with opportunities for learning, innovation, and adaptive management. Functional misfit could be addressed through improved decision making and leveraging additional resources, e.g. through voluntary work and raising additional private funds.

By cooperating more closely, the different governance actors started to understand the added value of other ecosystem services (e.g. a farmer understand the added value of biodiversity or more recreational possibilities) which allowed for reducing trade-offs between different ecosystem services. Actors could also mobilise different forms of knowledge, contributing to a better understanding of the problem. Further advantages included increased participation options for different actors and thus more inclusive decision making, building up social capital which lowers control costs, and the possibility to re-strengthen the focus on locally demanded ecosystem services. Altogether, the leeway for farmers and other land managers could be improved, which allowed them to change their management towards more sustainable production practices to enhance ecosystem services provision.