Biodiversity as the Foundation of Agricultural Sustainability: Insights from Dr Darko Znaor
Dr Darko Znaor is the Executive Director of the Dutch Avalon Foundation and a member of the FarmBioNet consortium. He was a visiting lecturer and researcher at leading European universities and has over 30 years of experience in environmental and agricultural fields. He shares why he sees biodiversity as the very foundation of agricultural sustainability.
You have been working in environmental and agricultural fields for more than 30 years. Could you share your professional journey and explain how it led you to your current role with FarmBioNet?
I have long worked and studied the links between biodiversity and agriculture, particularly organic farming and agri-environmental systems. After completing my agricultural studies at the University of Zagreb in Croatia, I studied biodynamic farming at a college in England and later organic farming at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. I subsequently obtained my PhD in Environmental Sciences from the University of Essex, UK.
Since joining Avalon in 1993, I have had the privilege of working on more than 150 projects across 25 European and 6 Asian countries. These projects have been commissioned by major international organisations, including the European Commission, the World Bank, the OECD, and UN agencies, as well as by government organisations in EU Member States. I have also been a visiting lecturer and researcher at Dutch, Belgian, Italian, Bulgarian, and British universities, including 12 years at the renowned Wageningen University & Research (WUR) in the Netherlands.
Throughout this extensive experience, I have concluded that biodiversity is the key to agricultural sustainability. It is also the most complex issue I have encountered. I spent much of my career assessing agricultural externalities. Yet despite these efforts, biodiversity remained the one element I was unable to adequately monetise in my true-cost accounting studies. This realisation drove me to explore this critical area more deeply. It ultimately led me to my current role coordinating the FarmBioNet project in the Netherlands, where Avalon leads the national network.
As one of the first Europeans to earn an MSc in organic agriculture in 1992, how did your early experience shape your understanding of biodiversity in farming systems? How have the challenges and opportunities for promoting biodiversity evolved since then?
From the outset of my career, I observed that comparative studies of organic and conventional farming consistently showed that organic farming delivered clear biodiversity benefits. It supports greater species richness and abundance across multiple taxa – plants, pollinators, birds, and soil organisms.
What struck me, however, was that these biodiversity benefits were far more pronounced than the differences observed in other environmental parameters, such as water quality, climate impacts, ammonia emissions, and soil organic matter.
At the same time, I have observed a troubling trend: many organic farms have become increasingly commercialised, scaling up their operations and simplifying their production systems. This commercialisation has often come at the expense of biodiversity, as farms become less diverse in their crop rotations, field margins, and habitat features.
Conversely, a remarkable opportunity has emerged. EU agri-environment schemes and related payments have enabled non-organic farmers to substantially improve biodiversity outcomes. This is encouraging.
This complexity is precisely what drives my work with FarmBioNet – understanding and promoting practices that genuinely deliver for agrobiodiversity, regardless of the farming system label.
Based on your research and policy experience, how do biodiversity-friendly practices contribute to long-term environmental and economic sustainability at the farm and societal level?
Biodiversity-friendly farming practices contribute to sustainability at both farm and societal levels through a mutually reinforcing cycle of ecosystem services and economic benefits.
At the farm level, these practices enhance essential ecosystem services, including pollination, natural pest control, and improved soil health through better nutrient cycling and carbon sequestration. Research shows that agricultural diversification can increase farm profitability while boosting biodiversity, without compromising crop yields.
At the societal level, these practices deliver vital public goods, including clean water and air, climate change mitigation through carbon storage, landscape preservation, and enhanced food security and nutritional diversity.
With over half of the world’s GDP dependent on nature, and 50% of all species in the EU relying on agricultural habitats, biodiversity is not merely an environmental imperative but an economic necessity.
In your experience, what are the main barriers farmers face when implementing biodiversity-friendly practices within Dutch farming systems?
Implementing biodiversity-friendly farming in the Netherlands is not easy and requires considerable courage and commitment. The high price of land and substantial capital investments are among the most significant obstacles.
The Netherlands has the highest agricultural land prices in the EU, with farmers paying an average of €85,000 per hectare, while arable land is now approaching €100,000 per hectare. Rental costs are also the highest in Europe, at €940 per hectare annually.
These extreme land values create immense pressure to maximise short-term productivity rather than allocate land for biodiversity measures. Beyond land costs, implementing biodiversity-friendly practices requires substantial capital investments in design, planting, maintenance, and irrigation. These involve high upfront costs and an initial period of 5–10 years during which farmers must invest their own capital without generating sufficient returns.
Compounding this challenge, banks are generally cautious about providing loans for such transitions due to the lack of proven business models and uncertainty regarding profitability.
Where do you see the greatest opportunities for improving biodiversity within Dutch farming systems today?
In the past couple of years, several biodiversity-friendly farming concepts and practices have emerged and are gaining popularity. The best known is the so-called “Nature-Inclusive Farming”. It is based on the more efficient use of resources (nutrients, energy, farm inputs, etc.), employing nature-based solutions (e.g. water retention and natural pest control), and designating and protecting specific species and habitats. Another popular concept is Regenerative Agriculture, which is backed by €130 million in public funding and aims to support 1,000 farmers in switching to regenerative agriculture by 2030.
The Forest Strategy aims to establish 25,000 hectares of agroforestry and 1,000 hectares of food forests by 2030. This resonates particularly among younger farmers. Strip cropping and mixed cropping experiments have shown remarkable potential to achieve nearly 30% higher yields than separate crops, require 20% less land, and attract more birds. Finally, a range of precision agriculture and innovations is being tested. Among these, particularly interesting are fixed tractor tracks to prevent soil compaction and drones for pest control and targeted irrigation.
What role do knowledge exchange, advisory services, and farmer-to-farmer learning play in accelerating the adoption of biodiversity-friendly practices?
The Dutch are very well organised. Their centuries-long fight against water has taught them how to cooperate. Agri-biodiversity-related knowledge sharing, advisory services, and farmer-to-farmer learning are exceptionally well developed. Numerous organisations and platforms exist and operate effectively. They maintain close communication with participating farmers through regular newsletters, educational meetings, and field visits.
Farmers are significantly more motivated to work toward biodiversity objectives when approached by colleagues, as they trust their peers most. Farmer-to-farmer training represents a particularly promising approach, training farmers on biodiversity topics and enabling them to advise other farmers creates a bottom-up dynamic in which advice comes from someone “on eye level” who can discuss the practical effects of new measures.
Discussion groups exist throughout the country, providing open forums that encourage farmers to learn, reflect, and share best practices. Participation in such groups has been shown to increase the adoption of new technologies and practices.
How can tools such as Navigator (An online platform showcasing BFF incentives) and Calculator (A cost-benefit analysis tool for evaluating BFF practices) help farmers?
We’ll make both tools available through the FarmBioNet project. They can significantly support farmers in multiple ways.
The Navigator will aggregate available incentives and help farmers navigate the complex landscape of biodiversity-related schemes and subsidies, enabling them to identify which programmes they qualify for and how to access financial support.
The Calculator will allow farmers to compare the costs and benefits of different biodiversity-friendly practices, assess their financial feasibility, and support evidence-based decision-making that optimises both economic returns and environmental outcomes.
We hope that both tools will be of great assistance to farmers. Digital decision-support systems have been shown to help farmers achieve measurable improvements, one study demonstrated a 2% increase in biodiversity indicators alongside significant yield gains when farmers used such tools.
What lessons from the Dutch context could be relevant for other European countries seeking to balance productivity with biodiversity protection?
The Netherlands has exceptionally high levels of human and social capital. The Dutch are curious, innovation-driven, eager to cooperate, and entrepreneurial. They are always seeking new solutions (especially for export 😊).
It is no wonder they have developed an innovative, bottom-up, collective agri-environment governance model that is unique in Europe and practiced only in the Netherlands. CAP funds for biodiversity-oriented agri-environment measures are not paid directly to farmers but to agrarian collectives. These regional, farmer-led organisations act as the sole intermediaries between the government and individual farmers. They receive public funding and coordinate which biodiversity measures are implemented where across the landscape.
By pooling local knowledge and leveraging trust between farmers, these 40 collectives ensure that conservation efforts are spatially coordinated at the landscape level rather than fragmented across individual farms, making them far more effective for species that require connected habitats. In essence, the government sets biodiversity targets and provides funding, while the collectives, together with their member farmers, decide how best to achieve those targets on the ground.
Currently, 9,000 farmers and landowners and over 100,000 hectares participate in this scheme. The model is gaining popularity among farmers, and the government has significantly increased its budget for it. Given its success, this Dutch agrarian collective model could be “exported” to other EU countries, particularly those where small-scale farmers prevail.
Looking ahead, what key actions or mindset changes are most needed over the next decade to protect and restore farmland biodiversity?
Perhaps the most profound change needed is a cultural shift in farmers’ identity and in how society perceives them. The traditional definition of a “good farmer”- one who maintains tidy, productive fields with high yields – must evolve to include the skill of creating landscapes that host biodiversity.
At the same time, consumers and governments must be willing to pay more for the hard work of farmers and the public goods and services they provide. It is not sufficient to simply tap them on the shoulder and tell them they are biodiversity guardians.
The current EU agri-environment payment models, based on additional costs incurred and income foregone, are unfair and insufficiently stimulating. They do not account for the associated risks and provide no additional incentives. This compensation-only approach essentially asks farmers to work for free, they bear all the risks and effort of implementing environmental practices while receiving nothing beyond what they would have earned anyway. Who would establish a business on the supply side if legally required not to make a profit?
The solution lies in moving toward results-based or hybrid payment schemes that reward environmental performance rather than merely compensating for losses. Another powerful possibility is monetising and verifying the environmental costs and benefits that farmers provide to or impose upon society. If these were placed on the balance sheet, the economic calculus would shift dramatically. Biodiversity-friendly farmers would no longer be seen as sacrificing profitability for environmental idealism; they would become economically rational actors and heroes who generate genuine value.