Search results

Participatory approaches are nowadays widely used in the field of renewable resources management, but designers of such approaches are facing dilemmas, especially in highly heterogeneous social contexts. On the one hand, some of them stand accused of being naively manipulated by the most powerful local stakeholders, while on the other hand, others are accused of intervening on social systems to empower some particular stakeholders without having the legitimacy to do so. Facing such dilemmas, this dissertation examines the testing of a critical companion approach based on a conceptual framework referring, among others, to negotiation theories. This approach recognizes the necessity to take into account the local stakeholders' power games to avoid the risk of increasing initial inequities. The dissertation draws on the experimentation and reflexive analysis of two companion modelling (ComMod) processes conducted with such a critical approach in two agrarian systems in the highlands of Northern Thailand. We show that local power games express themselves in ComMod processes and that some of them might be obstacles to the emergence of an equitable concerted process. We also demonstrate that, through his methodological choices, the designer of a ComMod process is able to overcome some of these obstacles to a certain extent. Consequently, the implementation of a ComMod process is far from being a neutral exercise. It requires a continual critical reflection on the process, in particular on the designer's legitimacy in the eyes of local stakeholders. The designer should attempt to make explicit all his underlying assumptions so that local stakeholders can choose to accept or reject them.

International audience ; Because of its success, the concept of ecosystem services (ES) is increasingly taken for granted, without sufficient questioning of the strong uncertainties and controversies that surround it. In this paper, we consider this concept as socially constructed and we analyze the surrounding controversies in order to decipher the process through which it is constructed. From a literature review, we identify five main domains of controversies: (i) scientific uncertainties relating to causal relationships that underlie ES production, (ii) multiple understandings of the very concept of ES due to different representations of human–nature relationships, (iii) diverging opinions regarding the idea of valuing ES and the notion of value itself, (iv) conflicts of interests, power plays, and scale issues associated with the management of ES, and (v) controversies around the policy tools derived from the ES concept. In conclusion, we advocate for a greater engagement of human geographers in these debates. We emphasize in particular the need to study the complex social interdependences underlying ES dynamics, and to engage in participatory research exploring the potential of collaborative options for the management of ES.

International audience ; Because of its success, the concept of ecosystem services (ES) is increasingly taken for granted, without sufficient questioning of the strong uncertainties and controversies that surround it. In this paper, we consider this concept as socially constructed and we analyze the surrounding controversies in order to decipher the process through which it is constructed. From a literature review, we identify five main domains of controversies: (i) scientific uncertainties relating to causal relationships that underlie ES production, (ii) multiple understandings of the very concept of ES due to different representations of human–nature relationships, (iii) diverging opinions regarding the idea of valuing ES and the notion of value itself, (iv) conflicts of interests, power plays, and scale issues associated with the management of ES, and (v) controversies around the policy tools derived from the ES concept. In conclusion, we advocate for a greater engagement of human geographers in these debates. We emphasize in particular the need to study the complex social interdependences underlying ES dynamics, and to engage in participatory research exploring the potential of collaborative options for the management of ES.

Participatory approaches are nowadays widely used, but their designers are facing dilemmas, especially in heterogeneous social contexts. On the one hand, some of them stand accused of being naively manipulated by the most powerful local stakeholders; while on the other hand, others are accused of intervening on social systems to empower some particular stakeholders without having the legitimacy to do so. This article examines the testing of a critical companion approach which recognizes the necessity to take into account local power asymmetries to avoid the risk of increasing initial inequities. The paper draws on the experimentation and reflexive analysis of a companion modelling process conducted with such a critical approach in the highlands of Northern Thailand. The process aimed at facilitating dialogue between a national park being established and two surrounding Mien communities whose livelihoods depended on land and forest resources located inside the park. We show that local power asymmetries express themselves in participatory processes and that some of them might be obstacles to the emergence of an equitable concerted process. We also demonstrate that, through his methodological choices, the designer of a participatory process is able to overcome some of these obstacles, but to a certain extent only. Far from being neutral, the designer adopting a critical posture should attempt to make explicit all his underlying assumptions so that stakeholders can choose to accept them as legitimate or to reject them. However, this attempt faces limits in several situations, in particular with stakeholders who refuse to participate.

During the 2000's, social and political interests for pastoralism were reaffirmed in a context of bears reintroductions and rising social expectations oriented to multifunctional agriculture. Since then, the political discourse about defense and legitimization of pastoralism has contained economical terms. In Pyrenees, some agriculture representatives and development agents qualify pastoralism as an "externalities producer". This paper aims at analyzing the appearance of this new approach. The use of economical terms to qualify pastoralism comes from two processes : on one hand a French traditional legitimization of specific public support dedicated to pastoralism, on the other hand an international requalification process of the links between agriculture and society. We bring to light the strategical interests and the analytical limits of this change of discourse. Finally, we show that commoditization of pastoralism multiple effects didn't really happen. Practical and political impacts of economical terms seem limited by the inertia of agricultural public policies. At the same time, notions cycle and shift of discourse continue. New terms - as "agroecology" - appear to qualify pastoralism in compliance with economic and environmental performance highlighted by the last French agricultural law. ; Depuis le milieu des années 2000, le champ lexical du discours public de défense et de légitimation du pastoralisme s'est enrichit de qualificatifs empruntés aux sciences économiques. Dans les Pyrénées, la profession agricole et l'ingénierie pastorale mobilisent ainsi la notion « d'externalités positives » pour désigner cette forme singulière d'agriculture et ses effets positifs pour la société. Nous retraçons ici l'apparition de cette conception du pastoralisme par le prisme de l'économie dans le débat pyrénéen. Nous montrons également l'intérêt stratégique et les limites de ce changement de discours pour les défenseurs de la spécificité collective du pastoralisme. In fine, les conséquences pratiques et politiques du ...

During the 2000's, social and political interests for pastoralism were reaffirmed in a context of bears reintroductions and rising social expectations oriented to multifunctional agriculture. Since then, the political discourse about defense and legitimization of pastoralism has contained economical terms. In Pyrenees, some agriculture representatives and development agents qualify pastoralism as an "externalities producer". This paper aims at analyzing the appearance of this new approach. The use of economical terms to qualify pastoralism comes from two processes : on one hand a French traditional legitimization of specific public support dedicated to pastoralism, on the other hand an international requalification process of the links between agriculture and society. We bring to light the strategical interests and the analytical limits of this change of discourse. Finally, we show that commoditization of pastoralism multiple effects didn't really happen. Practical and political impacts of economical terms seem limited by the inertia of agricultural public policies. At the same time, notions cycle and shift of discourse continue. New terms - as "agroecology" - appear to qualify pastoralism in compliance with economic and environmental performance highlighted by the last French agricultural law. ; Depuis le milieu des années 2000, le champ lexical du discours public de défense et de légitimation du pastoralisme s'est enrichit de qualificatifs empruntés aux sciences économiques. Dans les Pyrénées, la profession agricole et l'ingénierie pastorale mobilisent ainsi la notion « d'externalités positives » pour désigner cette forme singulière d'agriculture et ses effets positifs pour la société. Nous retraçons ici l'apparition de cette conception du pastoralisme par le prisme de l'économie dans le débat pyrénéen. Nous montrons également l'intérêt stratégique et les limites de ce changement de discours pour les défenseurs de la spécificité collective du pastoralisme. In fine, les conséquences pratiques et politiques du ...

Le concept de service écosystémique - idée de services fournis par les écosystèmes à l'humanité - connaît aujourd'hui un succès exponentiel, tant dans les sphères scientifiques que politiques. Mais du fait de ce succès, ce concept est de plus en plus considéré comme un acquis, sans que soient reconnues et prises en compte les fortes incertitudes qui lui sont associées. Cet article souligne d'abord les incertitudes scientifiques qui portent sur les dynamiques sous-jacentes à la production des services. En effet, dans de nombreuses situations, les scientifiques ne sont pas en mesure d'énoncer avec certitude des relations de cause à effet entre l'état d'un écosystème et la fourniture effective d'un service, soit parce que les connaissances sont insuffisantes, soit parce que les systèmes considérés sont par nature imprédictibles. L'article souligne ensuite l'importance des incertitudes sociétales associées à ce concept, c'est-à-dire l'existence de perceptions différenciées, voire contradictoires, avec des controverses d'une part autour du concept même de service et de la place de l'homme dans les écosystèmes, et d'autre part autour des dispositifs de gouvernance issus de ce concept, tels que les paiements pour services environnementaux. À partir d'une revue de la littérature, cet article montre que si les incertitudes scientifiques associées au concept de service écosystémique sont relativement reconnues et prises en compte, les incertitudes sociétales le sont beaucoup moins. Il semble nécessaire de développer des démarches fondées sur la confrontation et l'intégration des points de vue, des intérêts et des connaissances des différents acteurs sur les services et leurs dynamiques, pour que les arbitrages (trade-offs) entre services soient l'objet de choix collectifs explicitement négociés.

Si de nombreux auteurs dénoncent le manque de prise en compte des asymétries de pouvoir entre les acteurs dans les processus participatifs, plus rares sont ceux qui abordent la question du comment, à savoir comment prendre en compte ces asymétries de pouvoir dans la mise en œuvre d'un processus participatif ? Cette question implique pour les porteurs de ces processus (chercheurs ou professionnels de la participation) de réfléchir à leur positionnement vis-à-vis de ces asymétries, et donc d'interroger un certain nombre de présupposés théoriques voire idéologiques, souvent inconscients et rarement formulés. Revendiquent-ils une certaine neutralité, une absence de parti pris, au risque de participer à une simple reproduction voire à un renforcement des asymétries de pouvoir initiales ? Revendiquent-ils au contraire une non-neutralité, en choisissant de renforcer la voix des acteurs ou des points de vue les moins influents, au risque de voir questionnée leur légitimité à intervenir ainsi sur les rapports de force au sein d'une société ? Dans cet article, nous présentons un outil que nous avons développé, un test destiné à faire expliciter aux porteurs de processus participatifs leur positionnement vis-à-vis des asymétries de pouvoir. Nous l'avons soumis à une cinquantaine de chercheurs et professionnels de la participation. L'analyse des résultats nous a permis de mettre en évidence cinq grands types de positionnements dont la cohérence interne renvoie à différentes façons de concevoir la légitimité de leur intervention.

If many authors denounce the lack of consideration of power asymmetries between actors in participatory processes, the more rare are those who address the question of how to take these power asymmetries into account in the implementation of a participatory process? This question implies that the promoters of these processes (researchers or participation professionals) need to reflect on their position in relation to these asymmetries, and thus to question a number of theoretical or even ideological assumptions, often unconscious and rarely formulated. Do they claim a degree of neutrality, a lack of bias, the risk of participating in a mere reproduction or even a strengthening of initial power asymmetries? On the contrary, do they claim non-neutrality, by choosing to strengthen the voice of the least influential actors or viewpoints, at the risk of questioning their legitimacy to intervene in this way on the balance of power within a society? In this article, we present a tool that we have developed, a test designed to explain to those involved in participatory processes their position in relation to power asymmetries. We have submitted it to around 50 researchers and participation professionals. Analysis of the results allowed us to identify five main types of positioning, whose internal coherence refers to different ways of designing the legitimacy of their intervention. ; Many papers in the recent literature on participatory approaches emphasize the need to take better account of the complexity of the social contexts in which they are conducted, and to pay greater attention to power asymmetries among stakeholders. However, very few authors address the "how" question, that is, how to take into account power asymmetries when designing and implementing a participatory process. This question is frequently overlooked because it is not so much a matter of method as a matter of posture. The postures adopted by the designers of participatory processes are indeed driven by norms, values, or ideologies that are rarely ...

International audience ; Ethnic minorities living in the highlands of northern Thailand have long been accused of degrading the upper watersheds of the country's major basins. In the nineties, the government reinforced his environmental policies and further restricted their access to farm and forest resources. In the meanwhile, the policy framework also favoured decentralization and public participation. This contradiction resulted in an increasing number of conflicts over land-use between local communities and state agencies, calling for the need for adapted participatory methodologies to facilitate coordination among multiple stakeholders with competing interests. Companion Modelling (ComMod) is one of them. When drawing the lessons from many past participatory projects, several authors highlight their limited impact due to the lack of support at higher institutional levels. Moreover, because of a lack of attention to the local socio-political situations, the less powerful stakeholders were often left behind. This article discusses the usefulness of an area diagnostic study prior to the launch of a ComMod process to avoid such pitfalls and to facilitate genuine communication among stakeholders within and across institutional levels. The article is illustrated by a ComMod experiment conducted in Nan province and focusing on a conflict between two Yao communities and a recently established National Park. We suggest that a relatively short but well-structured initial agrarian and institutional analysis to assess the various stakeholders' characteristics, perceptions of the issue to be solved, and interactions is useful to identify the constraints to an equitable outcome of a subsequent participatory process. It is also used to adapt the ComMod process in order to mitigate these constraints. Moreover, such a picture of the initial situation is necessary to assess the effects of the following participatory process.

International audience ; Ethnic minorities living in the highlands of northern Thailand have long been accused of degrading the upper watersheds of the country's major basins. In the nineties, the government reinforced his environmental policies and further restricted their access to farm and forest resources. In the meanwhile, the policy framework also favoured decentralization and public participation. This contradiction resulted in an increasing number of conflicts over land-use between local communities and state agencies, calling for the need for adapted participatory methodologies to facilitate coordination among multiple stakeholders with competing interests. Companion Modelling (ComMod) is one of them. When drawing the lessons from many past participatory projects, several authors highlight their limited impact due to the lack of support at higher institutional levels. Moreover, because of a lack of attention to the local socio-political situations, the less powerful stakeholders were often left behind. This article discusses the usefulness of an area diagnostic study prior to the launch of a ComMod process to avoid such pitfalls and to facilitate genuine communication among stakeholders within and across institutional levels. The article is illustrated by a ComMod experiment conducted in Nan province and focusing on a conflict between two Yao communities and a recently established National Park. We suggest that a relatively short but well-structured initial agrarian and institutional analysis to assess the various stakeholders' characteristics, perceptions of the issue to be solved, and interactions is useful to identify the constraints to an equitable outcome of a subsequent participatory process. It is also used to adapt the ComMod process in order to mitigate these constraints. Moreover, such a picture of the initial situation is necessary to assess the effects of the following participatory process.

International audience ; Ethnic minorities living in the highlands of northern Thailand have long been accused of degrading the upper watersheds of the country's major basins. In the nineties, the government reinforced his environmental policies and further restricted their access to farm and forest resources. In the meanwhile, the policy framework also favoured decentralization and public participation. This contradiction resulted in an increasing number of conflicts over land-use between local communities and state agencies, calling for the need for adapted participatory methodologies to facilitate coordination among multiple stakeholders with competing interests. Companion Modelling (ComMod) is one of them. When drawing the lessons from many past participatory projects, several authors highlight their limited impact due to the lack of support at higher institutional levels. Moreover, because of a lack of attention to the local socio-political situations, the less powerful stakeholders were often left behind. This article discusses the usefulness of an area diagnostic study prior to the launch of a ComMod process to avoid such pitfalls and to facilitate genuine communication among stakeholders within and across institutional levels. The article is illustrated by a ComMod experiment conducted in Nan province and focusing on a conflict between two Yao communities and a recently established National Park. We suggest that a relatively short but well-structured initial agrarian and institutional analysis to assess the various stakeholders' characteristics, perceptions of the issue to be solved, and interactions is useful to identify the constraints to an equitable outcome of a subsequent participatory process. It is also used to adapt the ComMod process in order to mitigate these constraints. Moreover, such a picture of the initial situation is necessary to assess the effects of the following participatory process.

International audience ; Ethnic minorities living in the highlands of northern Thailand have long been accused of degrading the upper watersheds of the country's major basins. In the nineties, the government reinforced his environmental policies and further restricted their access to farm and forest resources. In the meanwhile, the policy framework also favoured decentralization and public participation. This contradiction resulted in an increasing number of conflicts over land-use between local communities and state agencies, calling for the need for adapted participatory methodologies to facilitate coordination among multiple stakeholders with competing interests. Companion Modelling (ComMod) is one of them. When drawing the lessons from many past participatory projects, several authors highlight their limited impact due to the lack of support at higher institutional levels. Moreover, because of a lack of attention to the local socio-political situations, the less powerful stakeholders were often left behind. This article discusses the usefulness of an area diagnostic study prior to the launch of a ComMod process to avoid such pitfalls and to facilitate genuine communication among stakeholders within and across institutional levels. The article is illustrated by a ComMod experiment conducted in Nan province and focusing on a conflict between two Yao communities and a recently established National Park. We suggest that a relatively short but well-structured initial agrarian and institutional analysis to assess the various stakeholders' characteristics, perceptions of the issue to be solved, and interactions is useful to identify the constraints to an equitable outcome of a subsequent participatory process. It is also used to adapt the ComMod process in order to mitigate these constraints. Moreover, such a picture of the initial situation is necessary to assess the effects of the following participatory process.