ebp biosoc
Post on 19-Jan-2016
52 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
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.
top related