Pluralité des connaissances scientifiques
et intervention publique:
agriculture, environnement, et développement durable.
Paris Seminar, June, 5th , 2009.
EBP BIOSOC report
Working 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 policies
about agriculture and biodiversity.
A. Trouvé / P. Labarthe / C. Laurent / M. Berriet-Solliec /
P. Bonnafous / M. Kirsch / P. Corroyer / C. Rambaud
Outlines of the presentation
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
Pluralité des connaissances scientifiques
et intervention publique:
agriculture, environnement, et développement durable.
Paris Seminar, June, 5th , 2009.
Section 1.
Research question,
theoretical framework
and method.
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 evaluated
o There are no hierarchy between different categories of knowledge
o Knowledge is a resource for which stakeholders have unequal
access
o 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 far
Group Agriculture Environment Rural developement Total
National CP FNE FDC 6
APCA LPO CNPF
CIVAM
Ardèche FDSEA CREN FDC 10
CA CBNMC CRPF
CIVAM CORA CG
FRAPNA
Ille-et- FDSEA E&R FDC 9
Vilaine CA Bretagne vivante CRPF
CIVAM CG
CIVAM/RAD
Loir-et- FDSEA •CDPNE •FDC 9
Cher CP •Nature Centre •CRPF
CA
ADASEA
CIVAM
Vendée •FDSEA •LPO •FDC 8
•CP •CRPF
•CA •CG
•CIVAM
Total 19 10 13 42
Method (3/4): the national network
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)
Projet Agri-faune Conseil national
(et gpe loup) du Développement Durable
(CNDD)
Conseil national
Com’op’ du Grenelle de protection de la nature
de l’environement (CNPN)
Conseil national
trames bleue et verte de surveillance
Fondation pour la Natura 2000
Recherche sur (et gpes travail)
la Biodiversité
APCA CP FNSEA CIVAM LPO FNE CNPF FNC
Groupe d’intérêts Groupe d’intérêts Groupe d’intérêts
agricoles environnementaux développement rural
Method (4/4): the network in Ardèche
Natura
2000
Région
Rhône-Alpes
CBNMC
CREN CSRPN CRAE
CAD Natura
2000
CDOA CoPil CODERST CDCFS
Ardèche
[07]
CRA
CA CP FDSEA CIVAM CORA. CRPF FDC CG
FRAPNA
Groupe d’intérêts Groupe d’intérêts Groupe d’intérêts
agricoles environnementaux développement rural
Pluralité des connaissances scientifiques
et intervention publique:
agriculture, environnement, et développement durable.
Paris Seminar, June, 5th , 2009.
Section 2.
Main findings.
Result 1. (1/3)
Result 1 = access to scientific knowledge play a key role
but stakeholders face strong difficulties
Yes :
Yes : 6/21
21/30 Content
evaluation?
No :
Yes :
15/21
30/42 Easy
access? No :
9/30
Read
articles? No :
12/42
Result 1. (2/3)
Difficulties are external…
• Competences 30
• Material problems 25 nombre de of
Number
• Human resources 81%
personnes
interviews
interviewées
20
15 dont lisant des
People
46% articles
reading
scientifiques
10 articles
50%
5 19%
dont lisant des
People
articles en ang
reading
0 English
BAC + 2 ou moins BAC + 5 ou plus articles
… 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. (3/3)
Q30a Rural TOTAL
What kind of lack do you Agriculture development Environment
identify in scientific Group Group Group
knowledge?
Knowledge on biodiversity 1 5 4 10
(inventory, etc.)
Effect of farm techniques on 4 1 3 8
biodiversity
Effects of biodiversity 1 1 0 2
public policies on farm
economic performance
General interdisciplinary 5 4 1 10
knowledge
TOTAL 12 10 8 30
Result 2. (1/4)
Result 2 = a diversity of modalities of access and use of
scientific knowledge
• But a lack of formalization of these procedures
21%
What is the most
important type of
knowledge to
support your
10% 52%
decision?
No de hiérérchie
Pas hierarchy
Articles scientifiques
Scientific articles
Expertise
Avis d'experts
17%
Observations de Terrain
Field observations
Result 2. (2/4)
A lack of formalization in the use of scientific knowledge?
Most relevant canal for Reading Asking Participating Diverse TOTAL
access to scientific scientific experts to forum combinations
knowledge articles of answer
Q21
Q36
Type of
knowledge
searched
in priority
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
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
Posit° Exp. ReadAd-
Positions of the interviewed stakeholders
Based Net- Sci hoc
on work Art. Res.
SK? pg
CREN
CNPNE BV E&R LPO
LPO CG CRPF
CRPF
CRPF FDC FDC
FDC Civam
Civam CACA
YES 07 41 35 3585 00 07 074100 07 3500 RAD 00 35 00
YES
NC CGCG
NO 41 35 85
YES Civam CP
YES Scientific interventions 07 85
NO Civam
Civam
NO 35 85
YES
Cnbnc
Frapna Cora
YES 07 07 07
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
CRPF CP CA CA
YES Expert intervention 35 00 07 85
YES CRPF FDC
NO 85 85
YES FDC CA
YES 41 41
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
Political intervention Fdsea
NO 41
NO
YES
NO Civam Adasea Fdsea
Fdsea Fdsea
Conf
NO 41 41 41 85 35 07
Result 3. (1/3)
A diversity of scientific knowledge, with consequences on
the political debate (in terms of difficulties and alliances)
According to actors, diversity of questions, research
objects, disciplines, date, types and degree of evidence
Result 3. (2/3)
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. (3/3)
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
Pluralité des connaissances scientifiques
et intervention publique:
agriculture, environnement, et développement durable.
Paris Seminar, June, 5th , 2009.
Section 3.
Discussion.
Limits and research Agenda
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
Discussion.
To be discussed together !
ogether !