Ebp Biosoc 1st September 2008 Rio Seminar, August, 29 th, 2008.

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, application of the Evidence Based Decision (EBD) diagnosis methodology, complementary questions/interviews to have a wider approach. 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.

ET1 Access to scientific knowledge by people in chazrge of the writting of the technical content fo measures involving agriculture and environment E3 C.Giraud, E4 A.Ricroch. Contribution : all teams Teams In charge ET1. Conception générale dispositif observation. Séminaire démarrage Toutes les équipes C.Girauld, A.Ricroch, C.Laurent ET1. Surveys FranceE1,E2, E3, E4, E5 A.Ricroch ET1.. Surveys BrésilE8B, E1,MJ Carneiro ET1. Surveys Af. SudE8A, E1, E3, F.Matose ET1. Data analysesE1, E2,E3,E4, E5,E8A, E8B C.Giraud, MJ A.Ricroch Carneiro, C.Laurent, F.Matose ET1.Students reportsE1, E2,E3,E4, E5,E8A, E8B A.Ricroch P.Bonnafous, MJ Carneiro, C.Laurent, D.Perraud, F.Matose, A.trouvé ET1. P2 / P3. Research reports E1, E2,E3,E4, E5,E8A, E8B C.Giraud, C.Laurent, A.Ricroch MJ Carneiro F.Matose,.

WP1. To be completed To finalize national reports -Final writing of version 1. - Reading and comments; Final writing of version 2 To agree on synthetic elements - cf. first synthesis To finalize final version of general report (compulsory deadline 30th november 2008) To agree on publication strategy To agree on what should be put on line

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. EBP-BIOSOCC. Laurent

WP2. On meta knowledge E2 F.Burel, E6 B.Tinel, E8 A N.Allsopp.Contribution : all the teams TeamsIn chargeComments ET2. General designAll the teams F.Burel, B.Tinel ET2. Studenys works and testsE2, E6, E1, E4,E8B F.Burel, B.Tinel, C.Laurent, A.Ricroch, MJ.Carneiro, R.Guedes S.Leite Completed. 10 tests os application of systematic review methodology ET2. Interdisciplinarity seminarAll teamsN.Allsopp, R.Rhode, C.Laurent Completed November 2007 ET2. P6. Publication of outcome of seminar on interdisciplinarity E1, E2, E4, E6, E7, E8A, E8B N.Allsopp, F.Burel, C.Laurent, B.Tinel, In progress ET2. Systematic reviews according to Cochrane methodology E1, E2, E4, E6, E7, E8A, E8B F.Burel, B.Tinel, C.Laurent, Impossible ET2. P4. Research reportE1, E2, E6, E8A F.Burel, B.Tinel, C.Laurent, Methodological report based on a critical assessment of systematic review tests

WP2. Book on interdisciplinarity Introduction (collective) : the need to build a new type of meta knowledge that is requested to enhance connectivity between science and policy making A. From discipline to research programme Social science, natural science: boundaries, conflicts, cooperation (M.Kirsch) Beyond disciplines (Laurent) Outlining research programmes in economics, a first step (Légé, Tinel) Research programmes in ecology (Burel et al.) B. Plurality and collaborations in sciences Biodiversity from genes to natural landscape (Ricroch, Allsopp, Baudry, Burel, Boiron, Guedes) Disciplining biodiversity? The political ecology of academic enterprise in South african biodiversity conservation (B.Büscher) The spatial dimension in ecology and economics (Baudry, Laurent) Kinds of knowledge and levels of evidence Other contributions ?? (Nicky? Maria José? Frank? Others? Conclusion on the research programme that is open. Its perspectives to build a new type of meta knowledge that may favour interdisicplinarity and enhance connectivity between science and policy making

WP2. Report on systematic reviews The dangerous illusion of exhaustiveness Introduction 1.The ideal 1.1Diverse ways to build state of the art 1.2Lessons from the Cochrane foundation 1.3Transposition from medicine to new areas 2From ideal to practice 2.1 Practical implementation of the methods (for each step, comments on practical dimension –for ex. time consumption, difficulties to access data- and analysis of limits and advantages) -stage 1, -stage 2, - etc 2.2Practical and methodological consequences 3. Discussion on the issues concerning the production of this kind of meta knowledge for research and for decision making Annexes Test of systematic reviews ("monographies with the same guidelines describing different steps and problems met). F.Burel, B.Tinel, C.Laurent, A.Ricroch, M.J Carneiro, R.Guedes, S.Leite… Analysis of the universes of available databases (M.Tichit, E.Bénicourt, + one Brasil? Etc.

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. EBP-BIOSOCC. Laurent

WP3. Stakes of new types of use of scientific knowledge in the economic and political regulation of contradictions between cohesion and conservation objectives MJ Carneiro,F.Matose, D.Perraud, A.Trouvé. Contribution : all teams ET3. Seminar « EBP and agricultural policies ». Rio. Toutes les équipes M.J.Carneiro, S.Leite, Août 2008 ET3. Co-organisation international seminar on agricultural policy E1, E8BMJ. Carneiro, A.Maluf, S.Leite, Août 2008 ET3. P9. Publication rio seminar E8B ; E3, E5, E8A ???MJ Carneiro S.Leite??A.Trou vé??? ET3. P8. Bibliographical investigation on EBPand more broadly on "evidence" E3, E1, E5, E7, E8A, E8B D.Perraud M.Kirsch Bibliographical analysis in progress ET3. Surveys France E5, E3, E1 A.TrouvéIn progress ET3. Surveys Brésil E8B MJ CarneiroIn progress ET3. Surveys Af. Sud,E8A, E3 F.MatoseIn progress ET3. Reports a)National b)Synthesis

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.). EBP-BIOSOCC. Laurent

TeamsIn chargeComments ET0. General scientific coordination (E1. C.Laurent et E2. J.Baudry), with E8A (N.Allsopp) and 8B (MJ Carneiro), administrative co-ordination (E1. P.Bonnafous), First Project seminar February 2007 All teamsC.Laurent, J.Baudry P.Bonnafous Réalisé février 2007 Second Project seminar June 2007 All teamsC.Laurent, J.Baudry P.Bonnafous réalisé juin2007 Third project seminarAll teamsC.Laurent, J.Baudry. P.Bonnafous Réalisé février 2008 Fourth project seminarAll teams February 2009 Date AAAS symposiumE1, E2,..E8A, E8B, C.Laurent J.Baudry, V.Guillin February 2009 Final "event"All teams Baudry, Kirsch, Laurent, et al End 2009 To be specified Web siteAll teams LabartheShort presentation

General co ordination Information on reporting issues and controls by ANR Decisions on next meetings and tasks to be implemented Decision on final event Publication rules (ANR requirements, rules for publication of common results, etc. Publication strategy