1. Agnès Ricroch & Patrick Bonnafous Jacques Baudry, Audrey Boisron, Christophe Giraud, Catherine Laurent, Carine Lecoeur, Daniel Perraud, Anne Thurneyssen & Aurélie Trouvé Scientific knowledge used in three French agri-environment schemes related to European agriculture and biodiversity policies Connectivity between sciences and public policy: some preliminary results Rio Seminar, August 29, 2008.

2. Since the start of the new European policy, the EU has invested considerable effort in monitoring and evaluating its impacts on the various environmental items and progress has been made. However, less is known so far on the use of scientific knowledge by policy-makers.  How do policy-makers use scientific knowledge?  Does the necessity of articulation between these three objectives involve new difficulties? Introduction The objectives between agricultural production, economic coherency and biodiversity protection allow new contradictions as the debate about multi-fonctionality of agriculture showed. IntroductionMethodsResults/DiscussionConclusion

3. 3 History (I): start of agriculture policies in EU 1957 : the Treaty of Rome established the common market between the 6 member states. 1960 : the creation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) aimed at the following production and economic objectives : –to increase productivity by promoting technical progress and ensuring the optimal use of the factors of production, –to ensure a fair standard of living for the farmers, –to stabilise markets, –to secure availability of supplies, –and to provide consumers with food at reasonable prices.  The CAP is a central element in the European institutional system. IntroductionMethodsResults/DiscussionConclusion

4. 4 History (II) : impact of CAP on biodiversity 1974 : in a context of agricultural intensification, the CAP allowed farmers to use unecological ways of increasing production such as the indiscriminate use of fertilizers and pesticides. 1992 : the first agri-environmental schemes in Europe appeared as included in the second pillar of the CAP concerning rural development. 2003 : a total re-focusing of the payment scheme recognized the environment as a major element in agricultural policies. IntroductionMethodsResults/DiscussionConclusion 2000 1974

5. Methods

6. Three agri-environmental schemes in France  A measure from the first pillar (CAP) included in Good Agri-Env. Conditions : the grassy strips. Cross-compliance links direct payments to farmers to their respect of environmental and other requirements set at EU and national levels.  A measure from the second pillar (CAP) : The sustainable farming agreement with biodiversity conservation objective (technical recommendation to preserve wild biodiversity).  The ecological network “Natura 2000” : area zoning. Vegetative buffer zone : 5 meters between culture and water IntroductionMethodsResults/DiscussionConclusion

7. The four départements chosen with various agriculture and biodiversity objectives. They correspond to 4 different régions among the main french agricultural areas. Ardèche (07) : région Rhône-Alpes Ille et Vilaine (35) : région Bretagne Loir et Cher (41) : région Centre Vendée (85) : région des Pays de la Loire IntroductionMethodsResults/DiscussionConclusion

8. 8 Loir-et-Cher Hunted species Intensive practices & protected species Wetland Protected species Amphibians Reptiles Invertebrates Mammals  otter (lutra lutra)‏ Plants Fishes  Salmon of the Atlantic Birds Vendée Biodiversity priorities habitat preservation, and traditional practices. Biodiversity and nature preservation in the 4 départements studied Decrease of agriculture Closing of landscape Few remarkable biodiversity Quality of water Ille-et-Vilaine To conjugate agriculture and biodiversity preservation’s objectives Ardèche Landscape

9. Who has been interviewed?  All the people considered as persons in charge of designing the technical content of the measures at local (département=local, région), national and European level have been interviewed.  Interviews were carried out in face-à-face during approx. 2 hours.  48 persons were interviewed using a questionnaire, 35 at local, region and national levels. A total of 64 questions were asked concerning professional experience, educational level, use of information, access to scientific information, and the way in which the empirical validity of available scientific knowledge is evaluated and taken into account in public intervention. ► Our goal was to realize a sample to identify the main characteristics of very different situations. IntroductionMethodsResults/DiscussionConclusion

10. Results/Discussion

11. 11 IntroductionMethodsResults/DiscussionConclusion From Feb. 2007 to Feb. 2008, 35 interviews have been done in the 4 départements. SchemesGrassyFarmingZoningTotal stripagreementarea National 4 4 210 Régional 0 6 511 Local ( département ) 5 5 414 Total 9151135 Implication of French administrative levels as seen by the interviewed persons. CAD SCE CAD Scale National Régional Local (département) Grassy strip SCE Farming agreement CAD Zoning area Natura 2000

12. 12 Grassy strip (SCE) Farming agreement (CAD) Zoning area (Natura 2000)DDAF Chamber of Agriculture Farmer Union Water Protection Office Farmers Ministry of Agriculture Regional dir. Agri Ministry of Ecology DIREN Prefecture DDAF Chamber of agriculture hunters fishers associations game forestry offices local NGO’s Local expert group CNASEA Ministry of Agriculture Regional dir. Agri DDAF ADASEA Chamber of Agriculture Farmers Union Hunters associations env. NGO’s Local stakeholders and scheme’s conception designs DDAF (Departemental Direction of Agriculture and Forestry) ; DIREN (Direction Régionale de l’Environnement) Very reduced room to manoeuvre at local level Large room to manœuvre and restricted frame of stakeholders at local level. Large room to manœuvre with a diversity of stakeholders at regional and local level. Ministry of Ecology MNHN IntroductionMethodsResults/DiscussionConclusion

13. 13 The use of scientific knowledge is not systematic. They used a majority of EU texts: Nitrates Directive (91/676/CEE), Birds Directive (79/409/CEE), and Habitat Directive (92/43/CEE). A few scientific literature was used by policy-makers. IntroductionMethodsResults/DiscussionConclusion –the use of scientific knowledge was reduced by two means: the room to manœuvre, the lack of time and access to the database. –the adaptation of technical recommendations to the local context was difficult as scientific data can be replicated, extrapolated or transposed to a local context according to EU recommendations.  They used their own professional experience or field knowledge (22 persons in 35). or working group (12 persons).

14. 14 17 persons have never used scientific knowledge from the literature for policy- making process. And 22 persons have not read a scientific paper in the year. Agronomy, ecology, and economy were the most mobilized fields. Moreover geography is never used although this field would be useful (defining watercourse for the grassy strip or Natura 2000 network). ► In France, almost nobody is conversant with the notion of «Evidence-Based Policy » (4 persons in 35). IntroductionMethodsResults/DiscussionConclusion No data about relations between social processes, agriculture practices, and ecological particularities are found in literature.

15. 15 The change of scale is done through working groups to enable the adaptation of technical recommendations to the local context. At the local level, the use of working groups was essential in the designation of biodiversity sites and the adaptation of EU agri-environmental measures. They were seeking the precise technical recommendations (thresholds, numerical values and dates) from different sources of scientific knowledge. These precise technical recommendations aimed to having an impact on biodiversity. IntroductionMethodsResults/DiscussionConclusion

16. Time factor is crucial. They stressed that a lack of time limits their research of scientific knowledge. However, in medicine, Evidence-Based Medicine showed that this problem must be solved with collective organization and with use of intermediate tools such as meta-knowledge.  This problem must not be assigned to lack of organization of each individual. IntroductionMethodsResults/DiscussionConclusion

17. We observed a great diversity of types of measure redaction. IntroMethodologyResultsConclusion We identified three main principles that guide the choice of relevant knowledge: 1. The legalistic type : First of all the measure should be conform to legislative texts. 2. The political type : First of all the measure should be in accordance with point of view of all stakeholders based on a search of consensus. 3. The scientific type : The measure should take in account scientific data by various range of means to build the technical content. IntroductionMethodsResults/DiscussionConclusion

19. 19 Conclusion on use of scientific knowledge: a top-down approach Scientific knowledge mobilized were mainly those of official documents, administrative bodies European and national (Birds Directive (1979), Nitrates Directive (1991), Habitats Directive (1992), and R.1782 (2003) of the Common Agricultural Policy). It depends on the three types of redaction process (legalistic, political and scientific type). The various levels of policy-decision have always had a margin of manoeuvre which may be variable depending on the devices. In the case of farming agreement (SCE) and grassy strip (CAD), policy-markers had to adapt the technical guidelines to the local context: agronomic, economic and social. The designation of biodiversity sites in Natura 2000 was also the subject of a consultation process at the local level. IntroductionMethodsResults/DiscussionConclusion

20. 20 A bottom-up use of scientific knowledge by policy-makers could be also considered. They were facing a gap in the literature: studies and research in ecology do not fit with agricultural practices. These difficulties lead to search a consensus with local stake-holders or the use of local expertise to define precisely the conditions of the EU agri-environmental measures. Scientists need to become much better at communicating their findings to policy- makers, and understanding from them the science knowledge that is required to make policy. IntroductionMethodsResults/DiscussionConclusion ►This approach is justified by the diversity of agricultural activity and ecosystems. Meta-analyses are transferable to take into account this diversity. In addition, the top-down approach is still necessary for a consistent administrative organisation at the national level.

21. Muito obrigada obrigado pela vossa atenção …