Pluralité des connaissances scientifiques et intervention publique:

agriculture, environnement, et développement durable.

Paris Seminar, June, 5th, 2009.

EBP BIOSOC reportWorking Package n°3 (ET3). Version 1.

Results of field work in France

Access to scientific knowledge and its role in political debate. The case of public policiesabout agriculture and biodiversity.

A. Trouvé / P. Labarthe / C. Laurent / M. Berriet-Solliec / P. Bonnafous / M. Kirsch / P. Corroyer / C. Rambaud

1. Research question, theoretical framework and method• Research question and links to results from WP1 and WP2• Method: Over 43 interviews carried on at national and department level

about three regulation agriculture/biodiversity• Theoretical frameworks: categories of knowledge, and types or level of

evidences

2. Main findings• Importance and difficulties in the use of scientific knowledge• A diversity of access and use of scientific knowledge - A typology of the

use of scientific knowledge by different actors• New spotlights on the role of scientific knowledge within the debates and

arrangements / contradiction between groups of interest (environment, agriculture, rural development)

3. Discussion• Limits• Research agenda

Outlines of the presentation

Pluralité des connaissances scientifiques et intervention publique:

agriculture, environnement, et développement durable.

Section 1.Research question,

theoretical framework and method.

Paris Seminar, June, 5th, 2009.

Research question

ET1 = use of scientific knowledge by policy makers policy makers actually seek scientific knowledge but face lots of

difficulties

ET2 = use of scientific knowledge by researchers researcher also experience difficulties to carry on systemic states of the

art of scientific knowledge with explicit criteria because of number of papers, etc.

ET3 = use of scientific knowledge by stakeholder• Main hypothesis : like for policy makers, stakeholders have difficulties

for access to scientific knowledge and hardly use any in debates• Secondary hypotheses

o If scientific knowledge is used, then it is hardly evaluatedo There are no hierarchy between different categories of knowledgeo Knowledge is a resource for which stakeholders have unequal

accesso But access to this resource play a new role in conflicts, arrangement

and networks between stakeholders

Analytical framework

The framework is based on four main distinctions

i) Between the types of knowledge• scientific / management / traditional

ii) Between the types of evidences• effectiveness / causality / existence / harmlessness

iii) Between the levels of evidences• Opinion of experts / historical and geographical comparisons / study

with controlled parameters / ...

iv) Between the canals used for access to knowledge• direct access / expertise / co-production, etc.

Method (1/4): the case studies

The three regulations studied

* Surface en couvert environnemental (SCE)* Contrat d’agriculture durable (CAD)* Natura 2000 (délimitation des périmètres)

Method (2/4): the interviews performed so farGroup Agriculture Environment Rural developement Total

National CPAPCACIVAM

FNELPO

FDCCNPF

6

Ardèche FDSEACACIVAM

CRENCBNMCCORAFRAPNA

FDCCRPFCG

10

Ille-et-Vilaine

FDSEACACIVAMCIVAM/RAD

E&RBretagne vivante

FDCCRPFCG

9

Loir-et-Cher

FDSEACPCAADASEACIVAM

•CDPNE•Nature Centre

•FDC•CRPF

9

Vendée •FDSEA•CP•CA•CIVAM

•LPO •FDC•CRPF•CG

8

Total 19 10 13 42

Method (3/4): the national network

Groupe d’intérêts agricoles

Groupe d’intérêts environnementaux

Groupe d’intérêtsdéveloppement rural

Conseil national de surveillance

Natura 2000 (et gpes travail)

APCA FNSEA CIVAMCP FNCCNPFFNELPO

Conseil national de protection de la nature

(CNPN)Com’op’ du Grenelle

de l’environementtrames bleue et verte

Projet Agri-faune(et gpe loup)

Conseil national du Développement Durable

(CNDD)

Fondation pour la Recherche sur la Biodiversité

Et aussi (commissions mentionnées par un seul acteur institutionnel):- Comité national PDRH (FNC)- Plan d’action agriculture de la stratégie nationale biodiversité (FNC)- Conseil national de la chasse et de la faune sauvage (FNC)- états généraux du paysage (APCA)- IMPACT (CIVAM)- Com’op’ HVE (CIVAM)

Method (4/4): the network in Ardèche

Groupe d’intérêts agricoles

Groupe d’intérêts environnementaux

Groupe d’intérêtsdéveloppement rural

CDOA CoPil

CRAE

CODERST CDCFS

CSRPNCREN

Natura2000

Natura2000

CAD

Ardèche[07]

CA FDSEA CIVAMCP FDCCRPF CG

CRA

CORA.

FRAPNA

RégionRhône-Alpes

CBNMC

Pluralité des connaissances scientifiques et intervention publique:

agriculture, environnement, et développement durable.

Section 2.Main findings.

Paris Seminar, June, 5th, 2009.

Result 1 = access to scientific knowledge play a key role but stakeholders face strong difficulties

Result 1. (1/3)

Read articles?

Easy access?

Content evaluation?

Yes : 30/42

No : 12/42

Yes : 21/30

No : 9/30

Yes : 6/21

No : 15/21

Difficulties are external…• Competences• Material problems• Human resources

… but also internal to scientific knowledge• Too many publications• Lack of knowledge on specific topic (multidisciplinarity, etc.)• Lack of codification (which theory? Which domain of validity?)

Result 1. (2/3)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

BAC + 2 ou moins BAC + 5 ou plus

nombre depersonnesinterviewées

dont lisant desarticlesscientifiques

dont lisant desarticles en anglais

Number of interviews

People reading articles

People reading Englisharticles

50%

81%

19%

46%

Result 1. (3/3)

Q30a What kind of lack do you identify in scientific knowledge?

AgricultureGroup

Rural development

GroupEnvironment

Group

TOTAL

Knowledge on biodiversity (inventory, etc.)

1 5 4 10

Effect of farm techniques on biodiversity

4 1 3 8

Effects of biodiversity public policies on farm economic performance

1 1 0 2

General interdisciplinary knowledge

5 4 1 10

TOTAL 12 10 8 30

Result 2 = a diversity of modalities of access and use of scientific knowledge• But a lack of formalization of these procedures

Result 2. (1/4)

52%

17%

10%

21%

Pas de hiérérchie

Articles scientifiques

Avis d'experts

Observations de Terrain

What is the most important type of

knowledge to support your

decision?

No hierarchy

Scientific articles

Expertise

Field observations

Result 2. (2/4)

Most relevant canal for access to scientific knowledge

Q21 Q36Type of knowledgesearched in priority

Reading scientific articles

Asking experts

Participating to forum

Diverse combinations of answer

TOTAL

Scientific articles 1 1 3 2 7

Expert opinion 0 3 0 1 4

Field experiences 2 3 2 2 9

No hierarchy 0 8 7 7 22

TOTAL 3 15 12 12 42

A lack of formalization in the use of scientific knowledge?

Result 2. (3/4)

Questions about the practices of stakeholders for access to and use of scientific knowledge

• Only few direct access to scientific knowledge, with very unequal situations

• Many more access to experts' demands• Other important access : production of knowledge by the actors

themselves (participation of research programs, and above all, experiments and building of data base)

Differences between stakeholders• Fewer knowledge used by agricultural group through direct access• Toward a typology

BV 35

E&R 35LPO

85

Posit°Basedon SK?

ReadSciArt.

Exp.Net-work

Ad-hocRes.pg

Positions of the interviewed stakeholders

YES

NO

YES

YES

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

CG07

CREN 07

CRPF07

FDC07

CA 35

Civam RAD

CNPNE 41

CA 00

Civam 00

LPO 00

FDC35

CRPF41CRPF

00FDC00

CG35

CG85

CRPF35

CRPF85

FDC85

Civam 07

Civam 35

CA 07

CA 85

CP 00

Fdsea 41

Fdsea 07

Fdsea 35

Adasea 41

Civam41

Conf 41

CA 41

FDC41

Political intervention

Expert intervention

Scientific interventions

NC 41

CP 85

Civam 85

Fdsea 85

Frapna 07

Cnbnc 07

Cora 07

According to actors, diversity of questions, research objects, disciplines, date, types and degree of evidence

Result 3. (1/3) A diversity of scientific knowledge, with consequences on

the political debate (in terms of difficulties and alliances)

Consequences of this diversity on the political debate

Ignorance of the evidences supported by others

But some actors are useful for crossing these different evidences and knowledge (cf. environmental/economic knowledge by CIVAM or hunters)

Result 3. (2/3)

Building of actors networks and alliances for mobilizing specific knowledge :• Alternative agricultural practices• Ecological conservation face to economic interests• Economic interests face to ecological interests

Scientific knowledge with different influence according the the actor which mobilizes it ?• Ex : lack of means of the Confédération paysanne for supporting the

question of social cohesion

Result 3. (3/3)

Pluralité des connaissances scientifiques et intervention publique:

agriculture, environnement, et développement durable.

Section 3.Discussion.

Paris Seminar, June, 5th, 2009.

Complexity of the questionnaire

Weighting the effects of different variables on the access and use of scientific knowledge by various stakeholders• Competences, Scale and local context, Effects of internal characteristics

of scientific knowledge...

Still to be done // research agenda• Investments and costs / acquisition of scientific knowledge• Assessing the content and validity of the scientific knowledge actually

used by stakeholders • Integrating the question of plurality of disciplines or research programs

mobilized by actors

Following WP3 for renewing institutional analyzes of agriculture/biodiversity contradictions• Studies of scientific knowledge used by actors in precise spaces of

debates / what about hybrid forums ?• Scientific knowledge as a resource

Limits and research Agenda

To be discussed together !

Discussion.