1

DIFFERENCES IN THE WAY INSTITUTIONS DEAL WITH

KNOWLEDGE WITHIN A REGION

The case of Ardèche

Aurélie Trouvé Carine Lecœur

Séminaire EBP-BIOSOC Paris 18 et 19 juin 2007

2

OUTLINE

I. Methods, problems and their solutions

II. Ardèche: Which institutional framework…

III. …for what kind of relation to scientific knowledge?

IV. Thoughts on WP1/WP3

Séminaire EBP-BIOSOC Paris 18 et 19 juin 2007

3

INTRODUCTION

Séminaire EBP-BIOSOC Paris 18 et 19 juin 2007

4

INTRODUCTION

5 month training period

WP1 : the 3 measures in Ardèche

WP3 : first experiment in Ardèche

Training period calendar

Séminaire EBP-BIOSOC Paris 18 et 19 juin 2007

Bibliography

WP1 interviews

preparation WP1 interviews

Analysis of WP1 results

and preparation of

WP3

WP3 interviews

Analysis of WP3 and

synthesis on WP1/WP3

Writing of the memo

APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST

« End of studies » training period 2007

Séminaire EBP-BIOSOC Paris 18 et 19 juin 2007

6

I. Method, problems and their solutions

Séminaire EBP-BIOSOC Paris 18 et 19 juin 2007

7Method Institutions Evidence Thoughts

Method

Searching for regulation texts within each measure and level.

Studying regulation text in order to identify local writers.

Phone contact to set a date for the interviews.

Interviews.

Séminaire EBP-BIOSOC Paris 18 et 19 juin 2007

8

The problems we met

The links between the regulation texts are quite complex.

« Translation » of the regulation text to interpret everyone’s function.

Availability of the writers (distance and time).

Séminaire EBP-BIOSOC Paris 18 et 19 juin 2007

Methodology Institutions Evidence Thoughts

9

The solutions we found

Regulation texts : being patient and asking for details to the interviewed people.

Example of natural spaces academy of Rhône-Alpes.

Actually writers do have questions on the topics we discuss. Thus we generally observe an active

participation and a certain involvement.

Séminaire EBP-BIOSOC Paris 18 et 19 juin 2007

Methodology Institutions Evidence Thoughts

10

II. Ardèche: Which institutional framework…

Séminaire EBP-BIOSOC Paris 18 et 19 juin 2007

11

The framework of the levels seen by the interviewed people

Methodology Institutions Evidence Thoughts

Séminaire EBP-BIOSOC Paris 18 et 19 juin 2007

SCE : Surface en couvert environnemental

N2000 : Natura 2000

CAD : Contrat d’agriculture durable

12

The framework of the local actors seen by the interviewed people

SCE : fixed without a real local debate and locally adapted by the Département Direction of Agriculture.

Farmers do not really accept this measure.

CAD : written by the Département Dir. of Agri. after coordination within a working party.

Farmers accept and request this measure.

Natura 2000 : the implementation is done in 2 parts (the Région Direction of Environment performed a quick consultation of experts and now the Département Dir. of Agri. does a meticulous work through the coordination of the local participants.).

The Département Dir. of Agri. is present on each measure.

Séminaire EBP-BIOSOC Paris 18 et 19 juin 2007

Methodology Institutions Evidence Thoughts

13

Relations between agricultural and environmental actors

SCE : an agricultural measure about the eligibility for subsidies under the responsibility of the Département Dir. of Agri.

CAD : an agricultural measure with environmental issues under the responsibility of the Département Dir. of Agri.

Natura 2000 : an environmental measure at first under the responsibility of the Région Dir. of Environment and now under the responsibility of the Département Dir. of Agri.

This provides us some way of explanation and may have consequences on the balances of power and the way the scientific evidence are used.

Séminaire EBP-BIOSOC Paris 18 et 19 juin 2007

Methodology Institutions Evidence Thoughts

14

III. …for what kind of relation to scientific knowledge?

Séminaire EBP-BIOSOC Paris 18 et 19 juin 2007

15

Assessment of the difficulties to access to scientific knowledge

Methodology Institutions Evidence Thoughts

Séminaire EBP-BIOSOC Paris 18 et 19 juin 2007

Cf Tableau

16

DIREN DRAF DDAF

N° Survey

Questions

1 2 3 4 5 6

39 What was your general experience of finding relevant information to support your decision-making ?

2 7 9 7 3 (opportunisme)

7

40 In your experience, how much published information is available to you to support your decision-making?

3 3 8 5 5 10

45 Were you able to identify knowledge gaps that required further research ?

O O N N O O

48 Did you search information enabling you to evaluate the outcome of the measure according to the farm size?

N N N N N N

51 Have you approached any person or organisation with a view to getting the research done?

O O N N O O

52 If yes: Was this person an expert? A private consultant ? …

Expert, université, institut de recherche, association

stagiaire Association

Conservatoire botanique, bureau d’étude

53 Has any research subsequently been initiated?

O O O O

17

Available Scientific evidence sources

Séminaire EBP-BIOSOC Paris 18 et 19 juin 2007

At the Région level, resource centers are available in the workplace but the 3 interviewed people use them sparsely : « sometime » or « never ».

At the Département level, there are no resource center. At best, the interviewed people have their own sources of scientific documents. All the offices are connected on the Internet for a period of 1 year.

Methodology Institutions Evidence Thoughts

18

Analysis of the local methods

2 factors restrict the direct access to scientific knowledge : the room for manœuvre and the lack of time.

The recourse to working party which builds a compromise is kind of an answer to the lack of time :

– No loss of time in the search of scientific evidence on each topic.

– It saves a considerable amount of time in acceptance thanks to the openness and the implication of local participants it means.

Methodology Institutions Evidence Thoughts

19

The paradox of Ardèche

The Région has put in place a huge research program on agricultural development. This program (« Pour et Sur le Développement Régional ») exists since 1994.

The government (DRAF, DDAF) is associated with this program.

However no one spoke to me about this program during the interviews and they confess that they do not consider the size of the farm for the writing of the measures.

Methodology Institutions Evidence Thoughts

20

IV. Thoughts on WP1/WP3

Séminaire EBP-BIOSOC Paris 18 et 19 juin 2007

21

The recourse to working party…

Within the working party, the access to scientific evidence is not direct anymore : the relations to scientific evidence interfere with the relations between stakeholders.

The working party generates a compromise or consensus.

Methodology Institutions Evidence Thoughts

22

What is the balance of cause and effect between the scientific evidences access difficulties and the recourse to a working party?

In another way : do the writers have recourse to the working party method because they have difficulties to access to scientific evidences? Or are there any other motivations (search for compromise, consensus)?

…generates questions…

Methodology Institutions Evidence Thoughts

23

This leads us to the central hypothesis of the project : how do writers evaluate and account the validity of scientific evidence?

According to the recourse to a working party : What balance of power?

What kind of argument are defended?

What kind of scientific evidence/ quality of scientific evidence are called on?

Methodology Institutions Evidence Thoughts

Séminaire EBP-BIOSOC Paris 18 et 19 juin 2007

…in the centre of the EBP-Biosoc analysis

24

Thank you for your attention