1. EBP BIOSOC February 2007 Main lines of the project

2. Agriculture and sustainable development in the issues of 'Evidence Based Policies'  There is no functional continuity between scientific theory and public decision-making.  Scientific knowledge is simply an aid in public decision-making, yet the use to which it is put changes with time: - Increasing emphasis on scientific arguments in debates on sustainable development - Emergence of the 'Evidence Based Policy' (EBP) concept.  This question can be addressed from the angle of the emergence of new norms for public action (e.g. Latour).  Our perspective is different, without being contradictory: we wish to construct a framework of analysis to examine the way in which the limits of empirical validity of the knowledge mobilized in action are effectively explicated and taken into account.  Validity of knowledge = here, empirical validity, corroboration with facts.  About us = pluri-disciplinary team (social sciences, ecology, biotechnical approaches, philosophy) and multi-national (France, South Africa, Brazil).  Action = public intervention where compliance with regulations related to the maintenance of biodiversity constrains agricultural practices. EBP-BIOSOCC. Laurent

3. Why do people in charge of designing the public intervention draw on knowledge the appropriateness of which is questionable in the situation under consideration, and argue for its scientificity. Several types of explanation exist: 1) Manipulation: the deliberate use of knowledge that is known to be controversial or outdated in order to push through a project. In all areas of public intervention examples abound and have been the subject of abundant research, especially at the intersection between the sociology of science, the sociology of politics, and political science. 2) Tacit complicity: the dominant designers of public interventions in the political field naturally turn towards the prevailing scientific approaches in the social field of science and adopt them. In so doing they trust in the knowledge of scientists promoted to the status of experts, to decide which knowledge is the most appropriate. 3) Ignorance: partial or total ignorance of the fact that controversies exist and that the empirical validity of the knowledge mobilized has to be put into perspective. It is in this register that the approaches in terms of EBD are positioned, simultaneously to diagnose the degree of ignorance about the limits of the knowledge mobilized, and to suggest improvements. We fully subscribe to the existence of the above three types of phenomenon. Yet we also posit that, in addition, there is a sort of affinity between political decision-making and certain types of scientific theory, which stems from the properties of the knowledge that those theories produce and the types of tool that can be built on them (for instance, simplicity and the possibility of providing quantified simulations in the time-frame of political decision-making, or the ability to produce 'consensus'-generating tools).

4. Four work packages (WP) WP1. Direct access to scientific knowledge by the designers of intervention measures. Objectives: Observe how the designers of measures bring into play agriculture/biodiversity conservation/economic cohesion, and in so doing: effectively and directly mobilize sources of scientific knowledge and evaluate their qualities; encounter problems in gaining access to this knowledge. List what they consider desirable concerning this type of direct access (meta- analyses? Systematic reviews with explicit criteria? etc.) Method: For a selection of measures (e.g. in France BCAE/buffer strips, CAD biodiversity objectives) at different stages of their design, and application of the Evidence Based Decision (EBD) method. Expected results: examination of the knowledge effectively used; analysis of the difficulties encountered in gaining access to the knowledge and in evaluating its validity; synthesis of suggestions for better access; critical analysis of advantages and limits of the EBD methods.

5. WP2. Internal analysis of the content of available knowledge and the limits of its empirical validity (epistemology of disciplines and interdisciplinarity). Linking it to the knowledge effectively mobilized. Objectives: Make explicit the limits of empirical validity of available scientific knowledge and reposition the knowledge used by the actors met (WP1) in this analysis. Method: Make explicit theoretical controversies opposing competing research programmes on key questions of relations between agriculture, biodiversity protection, and economic cohesion. Research seminars. Expected results: (i) States of the Art inspired from systematic review methodology –i.e. state of the art with explicit criteria- (on the relations between agriculture, biodiversity and cohesion; on relations between biodiversity conservation and grazing, etc.); (ii) analysis of the position of knowledge selected for action against available knowledge identified in these states of the art. Four work packages EBP-BIOSOCC. Laurent

6. WP3. Analyse the way in which the limits of scientific knowledge are taken into account in the economic and political regulation of cohesion/environment contradictions. Objective: observe how use of 'scientific evidence' is manifested, how the limits of available knowledge are taken into account in local issues related to biodiversity and cohesion (in relation with ecologists and biotechnicians for this dimension of knowledge mobilized and on the basis of the results of WP2). Method: institutional analysis in fields of observation selected in relation to the results of earlier work (participants: the social sciences). Expected results: (i) analysis of the capacities of different types of actor to mobilize or criticize justifications by means of evidence, and to report on the limits of available knowledge; (ii) analysis of the difference in status that knowledge from different disciplinary corpuses (ecology, economics, etc.) can have in reaching a compromise. Four work packages EBP-BIOSOCC. Laurent

7. WP4. Synthesis Objectives: Formalization and validation of a framework of analysis for examining the way in which the limits of the validity of scientific knowledge mobilized in actions on sustainable development are effectively explicated, evaluated and taken into account. Method: From the beginning to the end of the programme, the organization of seminars allows for the common analysis of the results of WP1, WP2 and WP3. External experts are invited to the seminars (philosophers of science, sociologists of science, decision-makers concerned by sustainable development issues, specialists in EBP, etc.). Expected results: (i) methodological results on perspectives opened by approaches in terms of EBP to design more judicious modes of using available scientific knowledge; (ii) analysis of the advantages and limits of this approach, especially in its normative uses relative to sustainable development; (iii) synthetic reflection on the empirical validity of data and how it is taken into account in action, by articulating external and internal aspects. Identification of the properties which are sources of particular compatibility between scientific theories and public decision-making (Operationality of results? Simplicity? Ability to supply quantified simulations in the time-scale of decision-making? etc.). Four work packages EBP-BIOSOCC. Laurent

8.  France: INRA (SAD, SAE2), INA-PG, University Paris 1 (MATIS, IHPST), Collège de France  South Africa: University of the Western Cape (School of Government PLAAS, ARC/Dpt of Biology Conservation)  Brazil: Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro. Main research institutions involved and schedule EBP-BIOSOCC. Laurent M1 S0. Inception seminar. WP1. Direct access to scientific knowledge by the designers of intervention measures. M6. July S1. Review seminar. WP1 First results WP2. Internal analysis of the content of the knowledge mobilized and the limits of their empirical validity (epistemology of disciplines and of interdisciplinarity). Agreement on work to be completed M10 November Interdisciplinarity seminar in RSA M12 February 2008 Review seminar. First results WP2 WP3. Analysis of the way in which the limits of scientific knowledge are taken into account in the economic and political regulation of cohesion/environment contradictions. Agreement on final work to be completed M18 July 2008 S3. Seminar results WP3. August 2008 Seminar EBP and agricultural and rural policies. Brazil. WP4. Synthesis. M30 June 2009 S4. Final seminar.

10. Three new methodological "tools" 1. EBD surveys on sources of knowledge effectively mobilized 2. Systematic reviews (+ meta-analyses) 3. Lakatos' concept of a research programme instrumentalized.

11. Hard core (irrefutable hypotheses) Ad hoc hypotheses (e.g. behaviours) e.g. fields of hypotheses to test on agriculture Standard economy - Institutions are entities defined by their functional role; the market, in which prices are set, has a key role in individuals' socialization. - Harmonious economic functioning can be obtained in a context of perfect competition. - Postulate of methodological individualism: the decisions of agents, who are rational, are the result of internal deliberation. Individuals have rational behaviour. Actions are intentional Irrational behaviours are explained by cultural, biological and other factors, whose impact can be eliminated by reasoning in terms of 'all things being equal', based on the behaviour of one representative individual for particular situations. - Configuration of agricultural markets in a context of perfect competition. - Models of resource allocation at the farm or farm household level. Example of formalization of a research programme

12. Hard core (irrefutable hypotheses) Ad hoc hypotheses (e.g. behaviours) e.g. Hypotheses to test, on agriculture Stardard economy - Harmonious functioning can be obtained in a context of perfect competition. - Postulate of methodological individualism: the decisions of agents, who are rational, result from internal deliberation. -Institutions are entities defined by their functional role. The market in which prices are set has a key role in individuals' socialization. -Individuals have rational economic behaviour (homo oeconomicus). Actions are intentional. Irrational behaviours are explained by cultural, biological and other factors whose impact can be eliminated by reasoning in terms of 'all things being equal', based on the behaviour of one representative individual for particular situations. - Configuration of agricultural markets in a context of perfect competition. - Models of resource allocation at the farm or farm household level. Heterodox economy Historical institutionalism -The process of accumulation is decisive in an overall economic dynamic. -It is not spontaneously balanced by the market and competitive dynamics, and has varying forms in space and time. -Institutions and structural forms are decisive for channelling this process through a set of collective and individual behaviours. -Individuals' behaviours are partly determined by their integration in historically constructed institutions. Actions are determined by conscious and unconscious processes. The emergence of new institutions is explained by the emergence of collective procedures during conflicts – which relate to sociology and political science. They will be analysed ex-post. - The roles of agriculture in the regulation of regimes of accumulation in different countries. - Evolution of institutional integration of different forms of agricultural activity.

13. Analysis of the sources of scientific knowledge mobilized (closed questionnaire, interviews, analysis of the measures) 1.the sources (scientific literature, reports, expertise, etc.) 2.the content selected for the measures and the way in which it is taken into account in controversies (proposal of alternatives? etc.) 3.the knowledge mobilized compared to the available knowledge (WP1 + WP2) 4.the difficulties of access to scientific knowledge outside expertise 5.the preferred ways of accissing scientific knowledge (e.g. systematic reviews?) 6.questions on which further information is required regarding the measure.

14. Realization of systematic states of the art Objective: explicitly present the controversies and contradictory results around the same question so that the most appropriate knowledge can be chosen. 1.formulation of the question 2.preparation of the protocol (keywords, types of journal, analysis frameworks, etc.) 3.selection of articles/studies 4.quality assessment 5.content analysis for high-quality articles clearly setting out the steps and results in writing.

16. Expected outputs P1. Research Report 1. Proposal to transpose the two EBD methods to agriculture/biodiversity issues: (i) surveys on the use of scientific knowledge by the designers of measures and (ii) states of the art in terms of systematic criteria. P2. Research Report 2. Critical analysis of the possibilities of transposition of the EBD method. Advantages and limits of the methods based on the first factual results of surveys on the use of scientific knowledge in drawing up measures concerning biodiversity-agriculture management. P3. Research Report 3. Taking into account the empirical validity of data by the designers of intervention measures. Intermediate internal document (proceedings of the seminars on this topic in February and June 2007). First results of reflection on the empirical validity of data by the designers of intervention measures and in scientific articles on the subject (results, analysis grids, lessons for the States of the Art). P4. States of the Art drawn up according to explicit criteria (EBD method). States of the art conducted from disciplinary points of view and a synthetic state of the art on the question of the contribution of small farms to the conservation dimension of biodiversity. P5. Research Report 4. Taking into account the empirical validity of knowledge in the scientific field. Intermediate internal document (proceedings of the days WP2 June 2007 and February 2008). Empirical validity of knowledge in the scientific field. Analysis grid and results. P6. Proceedings of seminars on "Interdisciplinarity", in South Africa. P7. Research Report 5. Results of field observations and analyses conducted in WP3. P8. Research Report 6. Taking into account the empirical validity of scientific knowledge in the political debate. Intermediate internal document (proceedings of the seminars in February and September 2008 on this topic and lessons/discussions of the Rio seminar). P9. Proceedings of the seminar Agricultural and rural policies and "Evidence Based Policies" in Brazil P10. Working document for students and researchers. "Advantages and limits of the States of the Art drawn up according to explicit criteria". P11. Meeting for submitting and discussing the results at the Ministry of Agriculture in France. P12. Collective volume consisting of the proceedings of the final conference and scientific articles.