Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 61, Issue 5, pp 834–847 | Cite as

Who Really Wants an Ambitious Large-Scale Restoration of the Seine Estuary? A Strategic Analysis of a Science–Policy Interface Locked in a Stalemate

  • Audrey Coreau
  • Jean-Baptiste Narcy
  • Sarah Lumbroso
Article
  • 150 Downloads

Abstract

The development of ecosystem knowledge is an essential condition for effective environmental management but using available knowledge to solve environmental controversies is still difficult in “real” situations. This paper explores the conditions under which ecological knowledge could contribute to the environmental strategies and actions of stakeholders at science–policy interface. Ecological restoration of the Seine estuary is an example of an environmental issue whose overall management has run into difficulties despite the production of a large amount of knowledge by a dedicated organization, GIP Seine Aval. Thanks to an action-research project, based on a futures study, we analyze the reasons of these difficulties and help the GIP Seine Aval adopt a robust strategy to overcome them. According to our results, most local stakeholders involved in the large-scale restoration project emphasize the need for a clear divide between knowledge production and environmental action. This kind of divide may be strategic in a context where the robustness of environmental decisions is strongly depending on the mobilization of “neutral” scientific knowledge. But in our case study, this rather blocks action because some powerful stakeholders continuously ask for more knowledge before taking action. The construction and analysis of possible future scenarios has led to three alternative strategies being identified to counter this stalemate situation: (1) to circumvent difficulties by creating indirect links between knowledge and actions; (2) to use knowledge to sustain advocacy for the interests of each and every stakeholder; (3) to involve citizens in decisions about knowledge production and use, so that environmental issues weight more on the local political agenda.

Keywords

Ecological restoration Strategic management Environmental actor Science–policy interface Futures study Action research 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank all members of the Groupement d’Intérêt Public Seine Aval team for this very fruitful partnership, and especially Stéphanie Moussard. We are also grateful to all scientists and stakeholders involved in the project, through interviews or workshops participation, and to Emmanuel Bulot and Clotilde Blanc-Lapierre for their help during workshops. The contribution of two anonymous reviewers was very useful to improve the content of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by a grant from “Fondation de France” as a project from the research call “Quels littoraux pour demain?” [Adeprina/D706R] and by Groupement d’Intérêt Public Seine Aval (GIP Seine Aval) as a partner for the action-research project. GIP Seine Aval was involved in designing the study plan and in the collection and analysis of data. The research team was fully independent in the interpretation of results, in the writing of the paper, and in the decision to submit it for publication.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

267_2018_1003_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (11.1 mb)
Supplementary Materials

References

  1. Adams WM, Sandbrook C (2013) Conservation, evidence and policy. Oryx 47:329–335.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605312001470 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albæk E (1995) Between knowledge and power: utilization of social science in public policy making. Policy Sci 28:79–100.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01000821 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell W (2003) Foundations of futures studies: history, purposes and knowledge (New Edition). Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Billen G, Garnier J, Ficht A, Cun C (2001) Modeling the response of water quality in the Seine River estuary to human activity in its watershed over the last 50 years. Estuaries 24:977–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blanc S, Chapuy P, Guezennec L (2004) Démarche prospective à l’horizon 2025 sur l’estuaire de la Seine. Rapport pour l'agence de l'eau Seine-Normandie et pour la Direction régionale de l'environnementde Normandie p 129Google Scholar
  6. Bocking S (1997) Ecologists and environmental politics. A history of contemporary ecology. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  7. Callon M (1986) Eléments pour une sociologie de la traduction. La domestication des coquilles Saint-Jaques et des marins-pêcheurs dans la baie de Saine-Brieuc. Année Sociol 36:169–208Google Scholar
  8. Capderrey C, Olivier J-M, Moussard S, Foussard V, Bacq N (2016) Retours d’expériences de restauration écologique en milieu estuarien. Analyse de la littérature scientifique publiée (Rapport final). GIP Seine Aval—Onema, RouenGoogle Scholar
  9. Cash D, Clark W, Alcock F, Dickson N, Eckley N, Jäger J (2002) Salience, credibility, legitimacy and boundaries: linking research, assessment and decision makingGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark WC, Majone G (1985) The critical appraisal of scientific inquiries with policy implications. Sci Technol Hum Values 10:6–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins HM, Evans R (2002) The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Soc Stud Sci 32:235–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coreau A, Nowak C, Mermet L (2013) L’expertise pour les politiques nationales de biodiversité en France: quelles stratégies face aux mutations en cours. VertigO 13, onlineGoogle Scholar
  13. Coreau A, Pinay G, Thompson JD, Cheptou P-O, Mermet L (2009) The rise of research on futures in ecology: rebalancing scenarios and predictions. Ecol Lett 12:1277–1286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cortner HJ (2000) Making science relevant to environmental policy Environ Sci Policy 3:21–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1462-9011(99)00042-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Couvet D, Prevot A-C (2015) Citizen-science programs: towards transformative biodiversity governance. Environ Dev 13:39–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2014.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Donner SD (2014) Finding your place on the science-advocacy continuum: an editorial essay. Clim Change 124:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1108-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ducrotoy J-P, Dauvin J-C (2008) Estuarine conservation and restoration: the Somme and the Seine case studies (English Channel, France). Mar Pollut Bull 57:208–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dunlop C (2014) The possible experts: how epistemic communities negotiate barriers to knowledge use in ecosystem services policy. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 32:208–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fisson C, Leboulenger F, Lecarpentier T, Moussard S, Ranvier G (2014) L’estuaire de la Seine: état de santé et évolution (Fascicule No. 3.1.). GIP Seine Aval, RouenGoogle Scholar
  20. Foucault M (1975) Surveiller et punir. Naissance de la prison. Gallimard, ParisGoogle Scholar
  21. Gieryn TF (1983) Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interets in professional ideologies of scientists. Am Sociol Rev 48:781–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Granjou C, Arpin I (2015) Epistemic commitments: making relevant science in biodiversity studies. Sci Technol Hum Values 40:1022–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Granjou C, Mauz I (2007) Un “impératif scientifique” pour l’action publique? Analyse d’une compétition pour l’expertise environnementale. Socio-Logos Rev. Assoc. Fr. Sociol. 2, (online)Google Scholar
  24. Guillet F, Coreau A (2016) Développer les connaissances pour améliorer les décisions? Une analyse stratégique du rôle des scientifiques de la biodiversité pour l’action en faveur de la conservation. In: A. Liarsou, C. Beck, F. Kohler, M. Kreutzer, C. Lévêque, P. Pech (eds.), Sciences et Biodiversité. Acteurs, Enjeux, Temporalités. L’Harmattan, Paris, pp 67–88Google Scholar
  25. Guston DH (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Hum Values 26:399–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hilderbrand RH, Watts AC, Randle AM (2005) The myths of restoration ecology. Ecol Soc 10(1):19Google Scholar
  27. Jasanoff SS (1987) Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Soc Stud Sci 17:195–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jasanoff SS (2004) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Jolibert C, Wesselink A (2012) Research impacts and impact on research in biodiversity conservation: the influence of stakeholder engagement. Environ Sci Policy 22:100–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jordan A, Russel D (2014) Embedding the concept of ecosystem services? The utilisation of ecological knowledge in different policy venues. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 32:192–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Juntti M, Russel D, Turnpenny J (2009) Evidence, politics and power in public policy for the environment. Environ Sci Policy 12:207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kok K, Patel M, Rothman DS, Quaranta G (2006) Multi-scale narratives from an IA perspective: part II. Participatory local scenario development. Futures 38:285–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Latour B (1987) Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Latour B (2014) War and peace in an age of ecological conflicts. Wall Institute for Advanced Studies, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  35. Marris C, Joly P-B, Ronda S, Bonneuil C (2005) How the French GM controversy led to the reprocical emancipation of scientific expertise and policy making. Sci Public Policy 32:301–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mermet L (2011) Strategic environmental management analysis: addressing the blind spots of collaborative approaches (Working Paper No. 5). IDDRI, ParisGoogle Scholar
  37. Mermet L, Barnaud G (1997) Les systèmes de caractérisation des zones humides: construire l’expertise sous pression politique. Nat Sci Sociétés 5:31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mermet L, Leménager T (eds) (2015) Development and biodiversity: Navigating the environmental turning point. Paris, AFD, Recherches p 342Google Scholar
  39. Mintzberg H, Ahlstrand B, Lampel J (1999) Safari en pays stratégie, l’exploration des grands courants de la pensée stratégique. Village Mondial, ParisGoogle Scholar
  40. Olivier de Sardan JP (1995) La politique du terrain. Sur la production des données en anthropologie. Enquête 1:71–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pielke RAJ (2007) The honest broker. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. Primmer E, Karppinen H (2010) Professional judgment in non-industrial private forestry: forester attitudes and social norms influencing biodiversity conservation. For Policy Econ 12:136–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rabaud S (2016) Les indicateurs de biodiversité entre connaissances et actions: impasses, détours ou raccourcis pour les stratégies environnementales? Ph.D. Dissertation, AgroParisTech, ParisGoogle Scholar
  44. Robinson JB, Rothman D, Tansey J, VanWynesberghe R, Carmichael J (2001) The Georgia Basin Futures Project: bringing together expert knowledge, public values, and the simulation of sustainable futures (Report)Google Scholar
  45. Sabatier PA (1998) The advocacy coalition framework: revisions and relevance for Europe. J Eur Public Policy 5:98–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Treyer S (2007) Considering foresight as an intervention within an already existing future oriented debate: renewing the approach for the design, implementation and evaluation of foresights? Athenes, 9, 10 and 11 juilletGoogle Scholar
  47. Treyer S, Billé R, Chabason L, Magnan A (2012) Powerful international science-policy interfaces for sustainable development: organise their proliferation, accept and clarify their political role (Policy Brief No. 6). IDDRIGoogle Scholar
  48. Turnhout E (2009) The effectiveness of boundary objects: the case of ecological indicators. Sci Public Policy 36:403–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tushman ML, O’Reilly III CA (1996) The ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif Manag Rev 38:8–30.  https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Winter R (2005) Some principles and procedures for the conduct of action research. In: Zuber-Skerritt O (ed) New directions in action research. Falmer Press, London, pp 9–22Google Scholar
  51. Wright AJ (2015) Defending the ivory tower against the end of the world. J Environ Stud Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0227-y
  52. Wynne B (2004) Misunderstood misunderstandings: social identities and public uptake of science. In: B. Wynne, A. Irwin (eds.), Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology, Cambridge, pp 19–46Google Scholar
  53. Young JC, Waylen KA, Sarkki S, Albon S, Bainbridge I, Balian E, Davidson J, Edwards D, Fairley R, Margerison C, McCracken D, Owen R, Quine CP, Stewart-Roper C, Thompson D, Tinch R, van den Hove S, Watt A (2014) Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: having conversations rather than talking at one-another. Biodivers Conserv 23:387–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre Alexandre Koyré—UMR 8560ParisFrance
  2. 2.AgroParisTechParisFrance
  3. 3.AScAParisFrance
  4. 4.UMR SADAPT, AgroParisTech, INRAUniversité Paris-SaclayThiverval-GrignonFrance

Personalised recommendations