Research and consultancy firm CLM helps clients achieve sustainability by making knowledge accessible and turning polarization into connection.
‘CLM lets the good grow’, is displayed prominently on the homepage of the CLM Onderzoek en Advies BV website. That sounds beautiful, but also quite abstract. ‘A deliberate choice of motto’, according to current director Edo Dijkman, who will remain with the organization until October 31. Within the fixed framework of sustainability, it intentionally leaves room for individual interpretation. CLM strives to make agriculture and food production future-proof, with minimal impact on the environment. The independent research and consultancy firm thus constantly operates at the intersection of policy, science, and agricultural practice; a complex position. ‘The good’ therefore does not manifest as one extreme, but as a system in which ecology and production move and develop together.
Driven by the conviction that sustainability within the agricultural system is both necessary and achievable, CLM supports governments, supermarkets, and social organizations, among others. An integrated approach, where multiple challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and water quality are interconnected, is characteristic of the organization. ‘We focus on research, but subsequently also on the implementation and monitoring of sustainability efforts’, says Dijkman. The firm aims to bridge the gap between theoretical insights and daily applications. Dijkman: ‘Nature gains nothing from promising study results that ultimately end up unused on a dusty shelf. Transforming scientific knowledge into concrete measures that are feasible for farmers, companies, and policymakers—that is what makes progress possible.’
According to Dijkman, it is logically not the research itself, but precisely that translation process—where the interests of all parties are weighed—that is the most difficult step in CLM’s sustainability processes. ‘Many farmers experience policymakers and nature organizations as nuisances; a threat to their business operations and future prospects. Constantly a new face coming to tell them what needs to change in the yard or in the chain. With an accusing finger and a heavy list of demands, but often without a counter-offer or understanding of their reality. That is not motivating.’ Providing support and actionable perspectives are therefore a crucial part of CLM’s advice. ‘Of course, it is fantastic if farmers are far ahead in terms of sustainability—we fully applaud that—but above all, we believe in the power of achievable steps for a large group of entrepreneurs. Solutions must be both ecologically and economically viable.’
Harmful
Practical tools that make choices concrete help in this regard. CLM therefore develops instruments and methods that are directly applicable: such as the CLM Environmental Yardstick, which allows growers to compare which crop protection products are least harmful to the environment. Or the Biodiversity Yardstick, which shows how a farm scores on nature-friendly management. The organization not only investigates which measures are effective for nature but also looks at the consequences for the farmers’ business operations. Dijkman: ‘If we can demonstrate in black and white that one product has less negative environmental impact than another, without further effects on the harvest, there is no reason for farming businesses not to choose it.’ He emphasizes: ‘This creates not only a more objective picture of the contribution farmers can make to environmental goals, but also of the support required from policy parties.’
In addition, CLM advocates for a price premium for farmers who are willing to take production measures that go beyond legal requirements. Self-funded research into the possibilities for such compensation for fruit growers even served as the seed for the establishment of an innovation fund a few years ago. ‘Every year, employees propose project ideas that qualify for realization through an investment of our own profits,’ Dijkman says proudly. For example, the first project funded by this fund investigated the presence of pesticides in honey and beeswax, in collaboration with beekeepers. ‘That gave us the opportunity to discuss the distribution of these substances locally with land users.’