In an opinion piece, an interdisciplinary group of scientists analyses the role of researchers in the public debate around two regulations proposed by the European Commission in 2022 as part of the Green Deal: the Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR) which was eventually adopted by the EU, and the Sustainable Use Regulation (SUR) which was rejected. The lead author Dr. Guy Pe’er, scientist at UFZ and iDiv, in an interview.
What role did scientists play in the debates on the EU’s Nature Restoration Regulation and the Sustainable Use Regulation of plant protection products?
Guy Pe’er: The run-up to both decisions to be taken by the EU Parliament was characterised by a controversial public debate, in which misinformation played a significant role. When we realised it, we - colleagues from various disciplines and institutions - considered how we could counter this. This led to the idea to compare the claims that were made against the regulations against scientific evidence, and publish it as an open letter to expose misinformation. Collecting and synthesising the evidence was therefore the first crucial step, requiring experts from many fields to join forces.
Our initiative was met with much approval from many colleagues in the scientific community, ending up with more than 6,000 scientists who signed the letter. We handed it over to the media and to political decision-makers at the European level. Our letter generated huge attention. We were invited to meet members of the European parliament, to attend hearings, and to speak at public events and debates. By delivering balanced evidence and clear arguments, we tried to objectify the debate – and I strongly believe we helped reduce polarization around it.
The EU Parliament adopted the Nature Restoration Regulation, but rejected the Sustainable Use Regulation. Why was that? And what role do you think fake news played?
In our paper we analysed the genesis of the two regulations. People have a strong positive attitude towards nature and therefore a general consensus that we urgently need to protect it. The reasoning is relatively simple: we need nature in order to survive. When it comes to pesticides, the dominant narrative is different: We need some pesticides to protect crops and to secure food, so people perceive a risk in reducing pesticide use. Also practically, it can be complex to replace pesticides without losing yields, so it is easy to highlight the risk and ignore the benefits of pesticide-reduction. In such an environment, it is much easier to spread disinformation, for example by emphasising crop losses, that may indeed occur at local scales, to make it look as if large-scale pesticide reduction could jeopardise food security.
But there are other differences: the NRR does not impose any direct restrictions on farmers due to the voluntary nature of the measures, whereas pesticide reduction imposed by the SUR would require restrictions, for example on the type, extent and timing of chemical use. It was therefore easier to invoke resistance and anger by farmers against it, even if the end outcome would benefit most of society including the farmers themselves. But last and definitely not least, the SUR would have resulted in a loss of revenue for the agrochemical industry, who act as powerful lobbies in Brussels and around governments - unfortunately with great success in the case of the SUR.
What pseudoscientific claims did opponents of the regulations use to try to influence politicians' decisions?
Most disinformation came from lobby organisations in the food, farming, fisheries and forestry sectors. For example, it was claimed that the regulations will reduce food production and can risk food security. This is if course wrong – in Europe we use around 70% of the agricultural areas to feed animals and cars, not to feed people directly. In fact, we produce more than we need, and even export a lot – especially animal products like meat and cheese. The real risks to food security come rather from climate change, from droughts, floods, land degradation and the loss of pollinators - and these risks can actually be reduced by protecting rather than removing nature. We also heard that these regulations will take away jobs, for example in farming or fisheries. But it’s not nature-protection or nature-restoration that is driving job losses: it’s rather technology, land concentration and industrial forms of agriculture and fisheries that drive small producers out of these sectors. The NRR and SUR could rather help maintain or even generate green jobs, against the claims of those who combatted the regulations seemingly on behalf of small farmers.
Another staggering claim was that these regulations place a burden on farmers which we cannot sustain, especially given the war in Ukraine. But the claim somehow ignores that society is already paying twice for the current farming model: on the one hand we pay farmers through the Common Agricultural Policy, irrespective of their business model; while on the other hand we all bear the consequences of unsustainable farming and the damages caused especially by agrochemicals, leading to adverse health effects, climate change, the loss of biodiversity and the deterioration of water quality.
To what extent did scientists succeed in refuting the fake news with the help of scientific evidence?
In the case of the NRR, I can say that our letter and our arguments really had an impact on the entire process of decision-making. We helped clarify the benefits of the NRR, and we saw that our arguments were echoed not only by environmental NGOs and politicians fighting for the NRR, but also by other policymakers, for instance from members of the conservative EPP group. Although the majority of the EPP had expressed doubts about the NRR, some members finally spoke out in favour of the regulation, which led to its adoption. It is unfortunate that this was not the case for the SUR, despite the fact that the claims that were made against NRR and SUR were almost identical.
What can scientists learn from this for future environmental policy debates?
The example of the Nature Restoration Regulation shows that it is worthwhile for scientists to intervene when misinformation is used, where the claims reside in our realm of expertise. In such cases scientists have not only the authority but even the mandate to speak for themselves, representing the knowledge they generate, to proactively bring scientific facts into the discussion. As long as we scientists can maintain our role as providers of balanced evidence, we stand a good chance to be listened to.
Publication:
Guy Pe’er, Jana Kachler, Irina Herzon, Daniel Hering, Anni Arponen, Laura Bosco, Helge Bruelheide, Elizabeth A. Finch, Martin Friedrichs-Manthey, Gregor Hagedorn, Bernd Hansjürgens, Emma Ladouceur, Sebastian Lakner, Camino Liquete, Laura López-Hoffman, Isabel Sousa Pinto, Marine Robuchon, Nuria Selva8, Josef Settele, Clélia Sirami, Nicole M. van Dam, Heidi Wittmer, Aletta Bonn: Role of science and scientists in public environmental policy debates: The case of EU agrochemical and nature restoration regulations, People and Nature,
https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.70064
Further information
Dr. Guy Pe'er
UFZ department Biodiversity and People
guy.peer@ufz.de