News
Dialogue about the pitfalls of contract research
Is it desirable for WUR to carry out contract research commissioned by parties wanting to use it to support or criticise policy plans? Yes, says WUR economist Roel Jongeneel: such studies are vital. No, says WUR public administration expert Jeroen Candel: WUR should be much more critical about the political use of reports by interest groups. A dialogue.
In 2021, Wageningen Economic Research conducted research on the impact of the EU's Farm to Fork policy for CropLife, the association of agrochemical companies. According to one of the researchers, Roel Jongeneel, this study was vital. He embraces the EU's Farm to Fork strategy to make agriculture more sustainable but there was no impact analysis into how this policy would affect food prices, farm incomes and food security. In fact, the only impact analysis had been done by USDA, the US Department of Agriculture, but that analysis lacked substance, says Jongeneel. When CropLife asked Wageningen Economic Research to perform its own analysis into the impact of the policy, he agreed.
WUR public administration expert Jeroen Candel believes that the research institute has thereby allowed itself to be used as a political puppet to undermine the Farm to Fork strategy. The study concluded that the Farm to Fork goals - halving chemical crop protection, significant increase of organic agriculture - would lead to higher food prices and lower food security in Europe. Although Candel thinks that Jongeneel's study is methodologically sound, he criticises CropLife's research question and its exclusion of the broader food system. By only analysing the economic and production impact of Farm to Fork and not the economic and ecological damage caused by today's intensive agriculture, for example, Wageningen Economic Research provided CropLife with ammunition to undermine the EU's pesticide legislation, which it subsequently did.
Climate costs
Candel believes that the EU's sustainability agenda is vital to combat biodiversity loss and climate change. The economists should therefore have calculated the default option too: what are the climate and biodiversity costs of continuing the status quo? According to Jongeneel, such a calculation is tricky because it involves many uncertainties and assumptions. “The impact of biodiversity and climate on food production is contested in scientific circles. Some argue that nature is on the verge of collapse, but I don't think that agricultural production is collapsing because of nature degradation. Furthermore, that process is very difficult to monetise.”
Wealthy clients
Candel: “We see many specific problems in today's agriculture: the number of pollinators is decreasing, as is the availability of clean water. Ecological limits are being exceeded, which is hitting agriculture hard. The current agricultural system can only be kept afloat with technological stopgap measures. But opinions can vary on that. What concerns me is that most impact studies of agricultural policies are conducted by or for wealthy parties with an interest in the status quo. And that ‘science' influences politics. Food security was pitted against nature by the lobby parties. Nature consequently lost out, despite being necessary for ecologically sound agriculture.”
Lessons
Jongeneel: “I did learn some lessons from CropLife's presentation of our research. We did 25 case studies in Europe to calculate the impact of Farm to Fork. However, two case studies ran out of time, but we had agreed with the client that we would complete the study in October 2021, before it was debated in the European Parliament. We then issued a prepublication without the two case studies which, incidentally, would not have had a major impact on the final result. I regret that now because it meant we had no underlying report and no communication of our own during the presentation of the prepublication. As an institution, we need to learn from that. CropLife did not interfere with the outcomes of our research, but what we should have done is provide the research with proper context. That would have enabled us to better indicate the limitations of the research. Jeroen may say that we should have included biodiversity gains in the research, but the client wasn’t willing to pay for that.”
Integrated research assignments
Candel: “I can quite believe that CropLife did not put pressure on the research results and I am not against contract research. However, I am convinced that CropLife already exercised influence when commissioning the research assignment. This is a very limited study. WUR could also have said: we are going to do integrated research into the effects of Farm to Fork and involve ecologists from ESG, for example. Or we will accept research assignments that also involve NGOs. We are surely more than a consulting firm; an integrated multidisciplinary approach is precisely our strength! We have a public role and this type of contract research makes us vulnerable. I don't think WUR should answer unilateral questions from clients.”
Public clients
Jongeneel: “That is argued from the perspective of the university, but I work at an economic institute which conducts commissioned research and answers economic questions, mainly for public clients.”
Candel: “I also mean unilateral research for the Ministry. I often see research results that are at odds with the latest scientific knowledge. The outside world does not always recognise that distinction between university and research institute. We should work from the same principles, I think. I feel we should always be able to critically reflect on policy.”
Political agendas
Jongeneel: “I work as a research associate in a political environment, and I am aware of that. Policy makers in government want to implement policy, they have more questions which they then ask us. So, I am not the one who says: nice question, but I know better. We are used for political agendas, you say, but that does not mean that we need to have a political agenda ourselves. We do policy-supporting research. The Minister has a political agenda, asks for our opinion and we say: with this knowledge, this solution could work. Including the limitations and uncertainties of our research. To me, that’s a clear approach.”
How do you avoid being used as a research associate in the process? Jongeneel: “We have a protocol at WUR that ensures that the client does not interfere with the outcomes of the research. However, I agree with Jeroen that we should integrate knowledge from multiple sciences groups into contract research more often. I just don't know what the practical solution is, not least because what we do will have to be paid for. The point is that we must not lose touch with policy consultancy in the process.”