Mobilisation capacity for agri-environmental management Ann Van Herzele a, b, * , Nicolas Dendoncker c , Lilibeth Acosta-Michlik d, e a Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Kliniekstraat 25, B-1070 Brussels, Belgium b Department of Human Ecology, Free University of Brussels, Laarbeeklaan 103, B-1090 Brussels, Belgium c Department of Geography, Facultés Universitaires Notre Dame de la Paix (FUNDP), Rue de Bruxelles 61, B-5000 Namur, Belgium d Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Telegraphenberg A62, 14473 Potsdam, Germany e Unit of Rural Economy (ECRU), Université Catholique de Louvain, Place Croix du Sud, 2, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium article info Article history: Received 10 March 2010 Received in revised form 9 October 2010 Accepted 9 November 2010 Available online 3 December 2010 Keywords: Agri-environmental measures Actor-Network Theory Policy instruments Social networks Fluidity abstract The integration of environmental concerns into agricultural policies e through agri-environment measures (AEM) e has seen a fast development across Europe. This paper conceives AEM as an evolving instrument, a product that takes shape, gets diffused and taken up in, by and through networks of relations. Success then depends on the mobilisation or active participation of all those who may support and develop it. Using the examples of the Flanders’ and Walloon regions of Belgium, the paper sets out to examine the mechanisms by which mobilisation for agri-environmental management develops, and by doing so, to gain a better understanding of mobilisation capacity as a concept to be used for evaluating policy implementation in this area. The study follows AEM along the various trajectories of imple- mentation (design, distribution, application). The findings reveal how mobilisation capacity is gradually built-up by the interplay between AEM and the networks it connects to. The case illustrates well how such interactions occur all the way from administration offices to farmers’ fields, and that their nature can be very different (e.g., formal and informal, durable and short-lived, expected and unexpected). It is concluded that in evaluating actor-networks, one should look at them in an open and fluid manner, that is, not to privilege any particular configuration or form of attachment over the other, not take intentions and objectives as a starting point but instead address the opportunities for synergies, and be aware that any network built around the instrument may change its content and the way it functions. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The integration of environmental concerns into agricultural policies has seen a fast development over the last few decades across Europe. Agri-environment policies are implemented through a variety of policy instruments, which target the achieve- ment of both environmental effectiveness and economic efficiency (Bonnieux and Dupraz, 1999). Agri-environment programmes e often subdivided into different ‘schemes’ and made up of a series of ‘measures’ e have been introduced to support specific farming practices that help protect the environment and maintain the countryside. Central to the approach is the contractual agreement between the member state (or regional authority) and individual farmers. Farmers who commit themselves for a five-year minimum period to adopt environmentally-friendly farming techniques that go beyond usual good farming practice receive in return payments that compensate for additional costs and loss of income that arise as a result of altered farming practices (European Commission, 2003, 2005). The European Union (EU) enacted comprehensive legislation in this area. However, following the principle of subsidiarity, much room has been left for the member states and regional authorities to translate the European requirements in agri-environment measures (AEM) that correspond to the specific environmental and socio- economic needs (for examples, see Curry and Winter, 2000; Mazorra, 2001). Furthermore, to ensure both effectiveness and efficiency AEM should be tailored to the predominant farming styles in place (Schmitzberger et al., 2005), the styles and rules of political and administrative decision-making within the regions (e.g., Clark et al., 1997), the available budgets and expertise, the amount of decision-power within departments, and established modes of institutional organisation (e.g., Prager and Freese, 2009). Finally, and importantly, since AEM are applied voluntarily and at the level of individual farms, their success largely rests on the willingness and ability of farmers to implement them. Several studies found that AEM should not require major modifications in existing farming practices to get widely accepted by farmers (Wilson, 1997; Morris * Corresponding author. Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Kliniekstraat 25, B-1070 Brussels, Belgium. E-mail addresses: ann.vanherzele@inbo.be (A. Van Herzele), nicolas.dendoncker@ fundp.ac.be (N. Dendoncker), lilibeth@pik-potsdam.de (L. Acosta-Michlik). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Environmental Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman 0301-4797/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.11.013 Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 1023e1032