Longread
System Transitions and Political Will: Positioning SSG in a New Reality
During the lastest Lebo Talk, I was asked to reflect on a statement by our new Minister of Agriculture Femke Wiersma. In her recent remarks, she emphasized that agriculture is always evolving. She suggested that while agricultural practices will look different 100 years from now, this evolution should not be called a "transition," as this term implies a value judgment. Instead, she framed it as a "continuous development." This perspective is worth reflecting on, particularly in light of how we understand the concept of a 'transition' in the context of agriculture and societal systems.
Lebo Talk recap and opinion piece by Cees Leeuwis
Defining 'Transition'
To fully assess the Minister's statement, it’s important to define what we mean by ‘transition.’ Key elements of a transition include:
- Timeframe: A transition typically spans a long period, often around 20 years.
- System-Level Change: It involves shifts at the level of entire systems where humans and non-humans interact.
- Radical Outcomes: A true transition has happened when the logic of interactions in the system changes meaningfully, resulting in very different outcomes. For example, the outcomes of the agricultural system become nature positive and environmentally sustainable instead of harmful and degrading. .
- Structural Changes: Changing the logic of interaction in the system requires new institutions, that is: new rules, incentive systems, standards, procedures and market arrangements that re-orient interactions in the system.
- Technological change: New technologies can play a role as well, as they also shape interactions in the system
Indeed such new logics, institutions and technologies reflect changes in what we value or do not value in the system. In this sense, the Minister is correct that transitions are linked to shifts in dominant values.
Looking Back: Was the Past Merely Continuous Development?
If we reflect on the last 100 years of agricultural history, we can argue that the changes that occurred were far more significant than mere "continuous development." Between 1950 and 1980, agriculture underwent a profound transition. This was not a natural or inevitable process; it was driven by political choices and massive government intervention, especially in the post-war era. Key examples include:
- Land Reclamation and Consolidation: Large-scale efforts to allow for the enlargement of farms, often met with protests.
- Price Guarantees: Governments introduced price supports to incentivize production.
- Inheritance Models: New laws were established to prevent land fragmentation.
- Advisory Services and Research Stations: Publicly funded extension services and research initiatives supported cultural and technological shifts at the farm level.
- EU Policies: The creation of the EU’s common market, alongside storage and overproduction management programs.
These interventions radically altered the agricultural system, leading to the intensification, export-orientation, and industrialization of the sector. While this transition achieved desirable outcomes like economic growth and affordable food, it also led to environmental degradation, loss of biodiversity, and significant social costs—such as the displacement of nearly 300,000 Dutch farmers. The changes were not a smooth evolution but a transition driven by clear political will and institutional innovation.
Looking Ahead: A New Transition?
Today, we face the limits of the past transition. Many stakeholders envision an agricultural future that is radically different—one characterized by zero emissions, circular economies, nature-positive practices, and biological pest control. This vision represents another potential transition rather than a continuation of past trends.
However, realizing this new vision requires the same level of political commitment, institutional innovation, and coalition-building that drove the previous transition. Currently, we do not see such strong coalitions forming in the Netherlands or the broader EU. The hands-off approach of recent governments, particularly under Rutte, focused on individual behavior change, shifting responsibility to farmers and consumers without addressing the systemic structures that underpin the agricultural industry. This contrasts sharply with the bold government interventions of the past.
The Role of Science and Wageningen’s Social Sciences Group
The role of scientists, particularly at institutions like Wageningen University, is crucial in any transition. In the post-war agricultural transition, social and natural scientists were deeply involved in informing policy and supporting the government's interventions. Today, scientists must also chose whether they want to study transition from a distance, or become part of coalitions for change:
Science for Impact: Wageningen positions itself as a value-driven university, committed to making a societal impact. This requires that scientists engage directly with societal values and contribute to shaping the future of agriculture. Indeed, the questions we ask are often far from neutral.
Institutional Innovation: One area where more attention is needed is the development and testing of new institutional options that can alter the logic of the agricultural system. For example, exploring new rules that distribute the responsibility for sustainability across the entire value chain, or testing new financial models that discourage short-term investments in agriculture.
Challenges and Opportunities for Wageningen’s Social Sciences Group (SSG)
SSG has a unique position to contribute to transitions, with a diverse array of social science disciplines and strong ties to the natural and technical sciences. However, to make an impactful contribution, we must address certain challenges:
Engagement with Real-Life Coalitions: Research embedded in real-life transition initiatives is more likely to contribute to change. We need to align our research more closely with the needs of coalitions working towards system change. The currently dominant modes of initiating, financing and staffing research projects are not very conducive to doing so.
Organizing for Impact: We have the potential to offer interdisciplinary solutions, but we must break down internal silos and foster greater collaboration within SSG to leverage our full capabilities.
Visibility and Positioning: Compared to other institutions like DRIFT or Copernicus, Wageningen is not always seen as a leader in transition research. We need to clearly articulate our unique contributions to potential stakeholders.
In conclusion, while agriculture will continue to evolve, framing this evolution as a transition acknowledges the systemic, value-driven changes required to address the current challenges facing our food systems. Wageningen and SSG have a critical role to play in supporting and strengthening societal initiatives and coalitions that work towards transition, but doing so will require not only scientific insight but also a transformation in how we organize and position ourselves within these processes.