Trends vary according to ecosystem type and species
The area of forest and woodland has expanded; the areas of other ecosystem types continue to decline. The picture of ecosystem quality in the Netherlands is also a varied one. The condition of streams and rivers in particular is improving. This is due not only to improved water quality, but also in places to the emerging benefits of habitat development projects. 

Figure 2 A variable trend in ecosystem quality in the Netherlands since 1990 (Source: Statistics Netherlands and NGOs collaborating in the Ecological Monitoring Network, with additional  data from the National Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment and the National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management).

The trends in the state of other ecosystem types are less positive. The impacts of acidification and nitrogen deposition on heaths and dunes can still be seen in the dominance of grasses and the growth of shrubs. Some species that cannot survive in habitats subject to eutrophication, such as the Tawny Pipit, are on the verge of
disappearing from the Netherlands. Many farmland species, including various meadow birds, are in difficulty.
Clear differences can also be seen between species groups. Bats, for example, show a positive trend. Butterfly populations, however, face a much more uncertain future: two thirds of the species in the Netherlands declined between 1990 and 2000. 

Development of the National Ecological Network continues, but on a riskier course
The Nature Policy Plan introduced the concept of the National Ecological Network (NEN) in 1990. The goal is to realize an interconnected network of good quality nature reserves and conservation areas by 2018. The present government has made some alterations to the way the NEN is assembled and managed. The most obvious change is the shift towards less public acquisition of land, coupled with greater scope for wildlife and landscape management by private landowners and farmers. So far, however, management by private landowners has had very limited success and the growth in the area of land under on-farm conservation schemes is tailing off. Central government has abandoned responsibility for establishing the wildlife corridors. It has also dropped its commitment to acquire the small pieces of land needed to joint together existing nature conservation areas to form larger areas. However, a limited budget will be retained for resolving issues that stand in the way of achieving an integrated management of large areas.

Spatial connectivity of ecosystems remains the goal, but results slow to materialize
Lowland forest and fenland ecosystems will remain highly fragmented even after the NEN has been established. The spatial connectivity of forest and woodland ecosystems in the higher areas of the country, which was already relatively good in 1990, has further improved.

Figure 3 The spatial connectivity of forests and woodland ecosystems in the higher parts of the Netherlands, which was already relatively good in 1990, has further improved. Lowland forest and marsh ecosystems, however, remain highly fragmented.

The policy document ‘Nature for People, People for Nature’ proposes establishing robust corridors to link the large nature conservation areas together, but so far progress has been slow. The provincial councils were uncertain about the levels of government grants available for the corridors, but the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality and the provinces have since come to an agreement, allowing implementation to proceed.

Further environmental improvements in the National Ecological Network required
In recent years environmental conditions in some parts of the National Ecological Network have improved, water quality being a case in point. Nevertheless, environmental quality in many areas still needs to be improved to bring the quality of nature reserves and conservation areas up to the levels intended by policy. In recent environmental
policy documents, though, the target date for achieving the quality objectives in parts of the NEN has been put back. The policy document ‘Nature for People, People for Nature’ (2000) states that in 2018–2020 environmental quality should have reached a level at which it forms no obstacle to establishing the ecological objectives within the NEN. In the recently published ‘Agenda for a Living Countryside’ the date when environmental and water quality in the protected areas under the Habitats and Birds Directives must be up to standard is set at 2015, but the government’s final date for the other areas of the NEN is 2027. These last two dates reflect those in the EU Water Framework Directive. 

Zoning: benefits for nature and lower costs through clustering
Dutch environmental policy contains provisions for establishing environmental zones around nature reserves to combat local environmental problems, especially those caused by ammonia emissions. Restrictions are imposed on ammonia emissions and/or the expansion of livestock farms within a certain distance of the protected nature conservation area. The benefits of zoning are greatest for small, vulnerable areas of high nature conservation value that are subject to high levels of nitrogen deposition. An area of highly fragmented and vulnerable habitat requires a relatively large area of buffer zone, and this is reflected in the costs. Clustering these areas together to form larger units, for example by redrawing the local boundaries of the NEN, would considerably reduce costs. Zoning around large nature conservation areas is especially beneficial for vulnerable or valuable habitats on the edges of these areas.

Natura 2000 areas protect Dutch species and habitats
In recent years the Dutch government has been successful in proposing and designating areas for protection under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives. These areas will become part of the European ecological network of conservation areas, Natura 2000. 

Although the Netherlands is a small country, it possesses a relatively high diversity of ecosystem and habitat types, which is reflected in the list of proposed Special Areas of Conservation submitted to the European Commission. These include 51 natural habitat types, almost a quarter of all those on the European list. The Netherlands contains
important areas of salt meadow, coastal dunes, dry sand heath on inland dunes, natural eutrophic lakes and raised bogs.

Now the Dutch sites are on the European map, attention has shifted to the quality of these areas. An important consequence of the Habitats and Birds Directives is the demands they make regarding the impacts of surrounding activities on the quality of the protected natural habitats (external impacts). This places restrictions on activities outside Natura 2000 areas that influence the species and natural habitats these areas were designated to protect. About 15% of the land within 500 metres of the Special Areas of Conservation (Habitats Directive) in the Netherlands is urban land and 55% is agricultural land.

Twenty-five years of the Birds Directive: the foundation has been laid
This year the Birds Directive is 25 years old. Taking stock, we see that across Europe as a whole the designation of Special Protection Areas has proved difficult. At the moment only Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands have more or less completed the designation of these areas. The majority of the habitats of the Dutch populations
of listed species are protected under the Birds Directive. Whether this will ensure the sustainable conservation of these species will depend in part on the control over external influences on the protected areas. 

Within the Special Conservation Areas, 40% of the breeding bird species have increased in numbers. But this positive trend has been accompanied by some negative developments. At least 17 species are now less numerous in the Netherlands than they were when the Birds Directive first came into effect. Ten species of breeding birds have
shown a decline or further decline in numbers during the last ten years, including Avocet, Great Reed Warbler, Short-eared Owl and Hen Harrier.
In the EU many wetland species have shown an increasing or stable trend. It has recently become clear that farmland birds in particular have sharply declined in numbers throughout Europe. In the Netherlands this applies especially to meadow birds. 

Meadow birds in decline despite thirty years of policy measures
Policies to protect meadow birds have not been very effective. Most meadow bird species show a decline, and for some species the situation is critical. Snipe and Ruff, which are only found in nature reserves, are doing poorly; the numbers of Black-tailed Godwit are falling across large areas of farmland; and since the 1980s three-quarters
of the breeding population of Skylark has been lost. The policy for meadow birds has a thirty-year history. Despite this continuous effort, policy objectives have shifted over time. The goal of ensuring sustainable populations of meadow birds has gradually slipped from view, even on sites managed by nature conservation organizations. For example, habitat development projects on flood plain grasslands have led to the emergence of habitat types that are less suitable for meadow birds.

Figure 6 In Special Conservation Areas the populations of many breeding birds and winter visitors show a positive or stable trend. Fifteen species are declining (Sources: Sovon, Statistics Netherlands).

Opportunities for an area-based and integrated approach
The protection of meadow birds and other species, such as geese, requires an areabased approach. Populations of meadow birds are best maintained by concentrating efforts in large core areas. It is essential that all the required conditions are optimized together: the payments for land management, preservation of the open landscape and the right ground water levels. The obvious partners for area-based cooperation are farmers and nature management organizations. Various such groups are already working on the ground, with farmers often playing a significant role. 

New policy developments also offer opportunities. The area-based approach for meadow birds and geese combines well with the policy for the National Landscapes: a number of designated National Landscapes contain important habitats for meadow birds and/or geese. Serious attention to preserving core qualities in these areas, such as openness, would improve prospects for meadow birds and geese, with greater benefits if central government funding is concentrated in the National Landscapes. 
Another option is to channel EU payments into ‘green services’ in the National Landscapes, such as meadow bird and geese management schemes. Such measures could also contribute to the protection of other species groups, such as plants, insects, amphibians, reptiles, fish and mammals.

Figure 7 A number of National Landscapes identified in the National Spatial Strategy contain important areas for meadow birds and geese.