Advertisement

Coviability as a Scientific Paradigm for an Ecological Transition, from an Overview to a Definition

  • Olivier BarrièreEmail author
  • Thérèse Libourel
  • Maud Loireau
  • Voyner Ravena-Cañete
  • Catherine Prost
  • Gilbert David
  • Serge Morand
  • Laurence Pascal
  • Vincent Douzal
Chapter

Abstract

Coviability of Social and Ecological Systems: Reconnecting Mankind to the Biosphere in an Era of Global Change comprises two volumes and forty-three chapters totaling about 900 pages. The book is prefaced by an economist and concluded by an ecologist; its postscript is written by a socio-anthropologist. A hundred researchers, belonging to more than twenty disciplines, contributed to its development; and this under the direction, in full interdisciplinarity, of twelve co-editors. Before closing the book, it is necessary to clarify the main point, rather than offer an inaccessible summary. At this stage, it is important to identify the significance of this scientific paradigm of coviability, especially in an international context confronted with an ecological imperative. The book seeks to draw from the set of works an initial definition of the paradigm of coviability. This goal’s point of departure is the plural definitions and disciplines, the heterogeneous works giving space for reflection.

This new paradigm of socio-ecological coviability offers an ecological transition promoted at the global, national and local scales. An integrative paradigm is suggested to counter the dominant naturalistic paradigm. The goal of this paradigm is “living in harmony with nature,” that is, creating harmony between humans and nonhumans. The challenge consists of breaking free from a reductive anthropocentrism in order to integrate an ontology open to a socio-ecological dimension, with the goal of reconnecting humanity to the biosphere. The diversity of the situations approached by the different research teams makes it possible to test a definition of socio-ecological coviability that may be: a property of interactive dependence between humans and nonhumans joined in a relationship that is contained by regulations and constraints. This relationship establishes a link of viability subjected to an integration threshold of the complex human/nonhuman system determining the limits of coviability’s elasticity, whose realization remains the coevolution in an integrated socio-ecological system.

The legal and political formalization of the coviability paradigm is designed to contribute to the ecological transition by establishing a new general Principle that could reposition the goal of sustainable development in terms of viability.

References

  1. Aizen MA, Garibaldi LA, Cunningham SA, Klein AM (2008) Long-term global trends in crop yield and production reveal no current pollination shortage but increasing pollinator dependency. Curr Biol 18:1572–1575.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.08.066 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akrich M, Callon M, Latour B (2006) Sociologie de la traduction. Presse des Mines.  https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pressesmines.1181 Google Scholar
  3. Aubin J-P (2010) Valoriser la double nature du temps : une métaphore mathématique, Framework Programme Marie Curie Initial Training Network (FP7-PEOPLE-2010-ITN), project SADCO, Available on line : http://vimades.com/AUBIN/Fluidity.pdf
  4. Aubin J-P (2013) Chaperoning state evolutions by variable durations. SIAM J Control Optim 51:2081–2101.  https://doi.org/10.1137/120879853DOI CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrière O (2011) Pluralisme juridique et patrimonialisation : entre paradigmes de l’« appropriation » et du « patrimoine commun ». In: Fouck SML, Hidair I (eds) La question du patrimoine en Guyane française. Diversité culturelle et patrimonialisation. Processus et dynamiques des constructions identitaires. Ibis Rouge Editions, Matoury, pp 43–75Google Scholar
  6. Barrière O (2017) Human relationship to the land from a legal perspective as a human and environmental security challenge. In: Behnassi M, McGlade K (eds) Chap 14, environmental change and human security in Africa and the Middle East. Springer, pp 259–304.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45648-5_14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Belaidi N (2004) La lutte contre les atteintes globales à l’environnement : vers une ordre public écologique ?, thèse Droit, Université de Bourgogne, 612pGoogle Scholar
  8. Belaidi N (2014) Identité et perspectives d’un ordre public écologique. Droit et Cultures/L’Harmattan 68(2):15–49Google Scholar
  9. Berry T (2000) The great work: our way into the future. Broadway Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Bosselmann K (2015) Global environmental constitutionalism: mapping the terrain. Widener Law Rev 21:1–24Google Scholar
  11. Bourdieu P (2000) Esquisse d’une théorie de la pratique. Editions du seuil, ParisGoogle Scholar
  12. Boutelet M, Fritz J-C (2005) L’ordre public écologique. Toward an ecological public order. Bruylant, BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  13. Boyd DR (2012) The environmental rights revolution: a global study of constitutions, human rights and the environment, Law and Society. University of British Columbia (UBC Press), VancouverGoogle Scholar
  14. Boyd DR (2014) The status of constitutional protection for the environment in other nations, David Suzuki Foundation Working Paper, Canada. Available online http://davidsuzuki.org/publications/2014/whitepapers/DSF%20White%20Paper%204.pdf
  15. Brosse J (2002) Ecologie et spiritualité. Albin Michel, ParisGoogle Scholar
  16. Burdon PD (2010) Wild law: the philosophy of earth jurisprudence. Altern Law J, 35(2), University of Adelaide Law Research Paper No. 2011-009. Available at SSRN https://ssrn.com/abstract=1636564
  17. Cabanes V (2016) Un nouveau droit pour la terre, pour en finir avec l’écocide. Seuil, ParisGoogle Scholar
  18. Caron P, Valette É, Wassenaar T (2017) Coppens d’Eeckenbrugge Geo, Papazian Vatché (coordinators). In: Living territories to transform the world. Quae editionsGoogle Scholar
  19. Ceballosa G, Ehrlichb PR, Dirzo R (2017) Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America).  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1704949114. On line : www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1704949114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Charmont J (1927) La renaissance du droit naturel. Librairie de jurisprudence ancienne et moderne, ParisGoogle Scholar
  21. Comolet A (1994) L’évaluation et la comptabilisation du patrimoine naturel, définitions, méthodes et pratiques. L’Harmattan, coll. Environnement, ParisGoogle Scholar
  22. Costanza R et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cullinan C (2011) Wild law: a manifesto for earth justice, 2nd edn. Green Books, DevonGoogle Scholar
  24. Dalaï-Lama (Le) et Stril-Rever S (2016) Nouvelle réalité. L’âge de la responsabilité universelle. Les Arènes EditionGoogle Scholar
  25. Descola Philippe (2005) Par delà nature et culture, Gallimard/In english : (2013) Beyond nature and culture, University of Chicago Press, Available on line: https://itp.nyu.edu/classes/interspecies/texts/philippe-descola-beyond-nature-and-culture_ch1.pdf
  26. Descola P (2011) L’écologie des autres. L’anthropologie et la question de la nature. Quae, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dion C (2015) Demain, un nouveau monde en marche. Partout dans le monde des solutions existent, Actes Sud/In english: (2017) Tomorrow: All Over the Globe, Solutions Already Exist, Actes SudGoogle Scholar
  28. Emmenegger S, Tschentscher A (1994) Taking nature’s rights seriously: the long way to biocentrism in environmental law. Georget Int Environ Law J 6:545–592Google Scholar
  29. Everard M (2017) Ecosystem services key issues. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Feenberg A (2013) L’anthropologie et la question de la Nature. Réflexions sur L’Écologie des autres, de Philippe Descola. Revue du MAUSS 2–42:105–118.  https://doi.org/10.3917/rdm.042.0105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. François (2015) Lettre encyclique, Laudato Si, sur la sauvegarde de la maison commune Encyclical letter Laudato si’ of the holy father francis on care for our common homeGoogle Scholar
  32. Goldsmith E (2003) Towards a biospheric ethic. Institute of Science and Society. Available online: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/biosphericethic.php
  33. Goulson D, Elizabeth N, Cristina B, Ellen LR (2015) Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers. Science 347(6229):1255957.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255957 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gudynas E (2016) Bem viver. In: D’Alisa G, Demaria F, Kallis G (eds) Decrescimento. Vocabulário para um mundo novo. Editorial, Porto Alegre, pp 260–264Google Scholar
  35. Hermitte M-A (2011) La nature, sujet de droit ?, Annales Histoire Sciences sociales, Editions de l’EHESS, 1, 173–212. On line: http://www.cairn.info/revue-annales-2011-1-page-173.htm CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Higgins P (2015) Eradicating ecocide: laws and governance to prevent the destruction of our Earth. Shepheard-Walwyn, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Howe HR (2017) Making wild law work—the role of ‘connection with nature’ and education in developing an Ecocentric property law. J Environ Law 29:19–45.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqw029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hull V, Tuanmu M-N, Liu J (2015) Synthesis of human-nature feedbacks. Ecol Soc 20(3):17.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07404-200317 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. IPBES (2017) The assessment report on pollinators, pollination and food production. IPBES, BonnGoogle Scholar
  40. Kopps AM, Sherwin WB (2012) Modelling the emergence and stability of a vertically transmitted cultural trait in bottlenose dolphins. Anim Behav 84(6):1347–1362.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.08.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Laastad SG (2016) Nature as a subject of rights, a discourse analysis on Ecuador’s constitutional rights of nature, master thesis in human geography. Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo. On line Avalaible: https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/51892
  42. Lagadeuc Y, Chenorkian R (2009) Les systèmes socio-écologiques: vers une approche spatiale et temporelle. Nat Sci Soc 17(2):194–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Laland KN, Janik VM (2006) The animal cultures debate. Trends Ecol Evol 21(10).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.06.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Larrère C (1997) La communauté biotique: l’héritage d’Aldo Leopold. In: Larrère C (ed) Les philosophies de l’environnement. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, pp 60–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Latouche S (2012) L’âge des limites. Editions Mille et une nuits, ParisGoogle Scholar
  46. Latour Bruno (2004) Politiques de la nature. Comment faire entrer les sciences en démocratie, La Découverte (first edition 1999)/Politics of nature: how to bring the sciences into democracy (translated by Catherine Porter), Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  47. Lay B, Neyret L, Short D, Oposa A (2015) Timely and necessary: ecocide law as urgent and emerging. J Jurisprud 28:431–452Google Scholar
  48. Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter SR, Alberti M, Folke C, Moran E, Pell AN, Deadman P, Kratz T, Lubchenco J, Ostrom E, Ouyang Z, Provencher W, Redman CL, Schneider SH, Taylor WW (2007) Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317(5844):1513–1516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Luke R, Whitehead H (2001) Culture in whales and dolphins. Behav Brain Sci 24(02):309–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Madelin P (2017) Après le capitalisme. Essai d’écologie politique. Ecosociété, MontréalGoogle Scholar
  51. Maris V (2014) Nature à vendre. Les limites des services écosystémiques. Quae, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Maris V (2016) Philosophie de la biodiversité: Petite éthique pour une nature en péril. Buchet-Chastel, ParisGoogle Scholar
  53. Martin C (2015) A re-examination of the pollinator crisis. Curr Biol 25:R811–R826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mathevet R, Thompson J, Delanoë O, Cheylan M, Gil-Fourrier C, Bonnin M (2010) La solidarité écologique: un nouveau concept pour une gestion intégrée des parcs nationaux et des territoires. Nat Sci Soc 18:424–433.  https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2011006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mathevet R, Thompson JD, Folke C, Chapin FS (2016) Protected areas and their surrounding territory: socioecological systems in the context of ecological solidarity. Ecol Appl 26(1):5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Médevielle G (2010) Nature et loi naturelle comme concepts théologiques. Rech Sci Relig 2–98:245–265Google Scholar
  57. Michelot A (dir.) (2016a) La dette écologique: mise en perspective de ses définitions et de ses implications. VertigO – la revue électronique en sciences de l’environnement [En ligne], Hors-série 26Google Scholar
  58. Michelot A (2016b) « La dette écologique en questions : propos introductifs », VertigO – la revue électronique en sciences de l’environnement [En ligne], Hors-série 26, mis en ligne le 01 octobre 2016, consulté le 20 juin 2017. URL: http://vertigo.revues.org/17751
  59. Millenium Ecosystem Assesment MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human Well-being: biodiversity synthesis. Washington, DC, World Resources InstituteGoogle Scholar
  60. Murray J (2015) Earth jurisprudence, wild law, emergent law: the emerging field of ecology & law. Liverpool Law Rev 36:105.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-015-9170-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Neyret L (2015) Des écocrimes à l’écocide. Le droit pénal au secours de l’environnement, bruylant. Bruylant, BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  62. Noad MJ, Cato DH, Bryden MM, Jenner M-N, Jenner KCS (2000) Cultural revolution in whale songs. Nature 408(6812):537–537.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35046199 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Norgaard RB (2010) Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol Econ 69:1219–1227.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. OECD (2012) OECD environmental outlook to 2050. The consequences of inaction. OECD Publishing, Paris.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264122246-en CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ost F (1995) La nature hors la loi. L’écologie à l’épreuve du droit. éditions la découverte, ParisGoogle Scholar
  66. Pelt J-M (1977) L’homme renaturé. Du Seuil, ParisGoogle Scholar
  67. Potts et al (2010) Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol Evol 25(6):345–353.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pouchain D (2014) La dette écologique: d’une notion politique à un concept philosophique ?/The ecological debt: from a political notion to a philosophical concept? Développement durable et territoires 5-1: Écologie industrielle, économie de la fonctionnalitéGoogle Scholar
  69. Ramose MB (2016) Ubuntu. In: D’Alisa G, Demaria F, Kallis G (eds) Decrescimento. Vocabulário para um mundo novo. Editorial, Porto Alegre, pp 273–275Google Scholar
  70. Ravena-Cañete TM, Ravena-Cañete V (2011) Por uma sociologia do campo jurídico na/da Amazônia: as populações tradicionais amazônicas em foco. Rev Sociol Jurídica 13(1):26–54Google Scholar
  71. Richard J (2012) Comptabilité et développement durable. Economica, ParisGoogle Scholar
  72. Robertson MM (2006) The nature that capital can see: science, state, and market in the commodification of ecosystem services. Environ Plann D: Soc Space 24:367–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rühs N, Jone A (2016) The implementation of earth jurisprudence through substantive constitutional rights of nature. Sustainability 8(2):174.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020174 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sachs I (1980) Stratégies de l’éco-développement. Editions ouvrières, Coll. Développement et civilisation, Paris, p 250Google Scholar
  75. Schoon M, van der Leeuw S (2015) The shift toward social-ecological systems perspectives: insights into the human-nature relationship. Nat Sci Soc 23(2):166–174.  https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2015034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Selosse M-A (2017) Jamais seul, Ces microbes qui construisent les plantes, les animaux et les civilisations. Acte Sud editionsGoogle Scholar
  77. Serres M (1992) Le contrat naturel. Flammarion, ParisGoogle Scholar
  78. Silvertown J (2015) Have ecosystem services been oversold? Trends Ecol Evol:641–648.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.08.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Steffan-Dewenter I, Potts GS, Packer L (2005) Pollinator diversity and crop pollination services are at risk. Trends Ecol Evol 20(12):651–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (2016) Protected planet report 2016 how protected areas contribute to achieving global targets for biodiversityGoogle Scholar
  81. Thompson D et al (2011) Ecological solidarity as a conceptual tool for rethinking ecological and social interdependence in conservation policy for protected areas and their surrounding landscape. C. R. Biol 2011.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2011.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Van Hooidonk R et al (2016) Local-scale projections of coral reef futures and implications of the Paris Agreement. Sci Rep 6:39666.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep39666 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Weber JP (1986) Le patrimoine naturel, In Les Comptes du Patrimoine Naturel, Comptes et Planification, Les collections de l’Insee (n°137–138). INSEE, Paris, pp 35–62Google Scholar
  84. Weber J (2013) Gestion des ressources renouvelables: fondements théoriques d’un programme de recherche (juin 1995), in Rendre possible, Jacques weber, itinéraire d’un économiste passe-frontière, 35–52, dir. Meriem Bouemrane, Antona Martine, Robert Barbault, Marie-Christine Cormier-Salem, Quae editionGoogle Scholar
  85. Whiten A, Goodall J, McGrew WC, Nishida T, Reynolds V, Sugiyama Y, Tutin CEG, Wrangham RW, Boesch e C (1999) Cultures in chimpanzees. Nature 399(6737):682–685.  https://doi.org/10.1038/21415 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wilson EO (2007) Foreword. In: Penn DJ, Mysterud I (eds) Evolutionary perspectives on environmental problems. Aldine Transaction, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  87. Winfree R (2008) Pollinator-dependent crops: an increasingly risky business. Curr Biol 18(20).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.08.039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zierler D (2011) The invention of ecocide, agent orange, Vietnam, and the scientists who changed the way we think about the environment. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olivier Barrière
    • 1
    Email author
  • Thérèse Libourel
    • 2
  • Maud Loireau
    • 1
  • Voyner Ravena-Cañete
    • 3
  • Catherine Prost
    • 4
  • Gilbert David
    • 5
  • Serge Morand
    • 6
  • Laurence Pascal
    • 7
  • Vincent Douzal
    • 8
  1. 1.IRD - French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development, UMR ESPACE-DEVMontpellierFrance
  2. 2.Université Montpellier, UMR ESPACE-DEVMontpellierFrance
  3. 3.The Federal University of ParáBelémBrazil
  4. 4.The Federal University of BahiaSalvadorBrazil
  5. 5.Space for DevelopmentUMR Espace-Development, IRD – French National Research Institute for Sustainable DevelopmentMontpellierFrance
  6. 6.CNRS-ISEM, University of MontpellierMontpellierFrance
  7. 7.University of MontpellierMontpellierFrance
  8. 8.IRSTEA, National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and AgricultureMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations