<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Governing Interdependencies between Biodiversity, the Socio-Economic and Land-Use: Insights from a Systematic Assessment of Regional Policies and Practices

Caitriona Carter

► To cite this version:

Caitriona Carter. Governing Interdependencies between Biodiversity, the Socio-Economic and Land-Use: Insights from a Systematic Assessment of Regional Policies and Practices. Ecology and Conservation Science Open Access, 2021, 1 (4), 10.19080/ECOA.2021.01.555568. hal-03364982

HAL Id: hal-03364982

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03364982

Submitted on 5 Oct 2021

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Mini Review

Volume 1 Issue 4 - June 2021
DOI: 10.19080/ECOA.2021.01.555568

Ecol Conserv Sci

Copyright © All rights are reserved by Caitriona Carter

# Governing Interdependencies between Biodiversity, the Socio-Economic and Land-Use: Insights from a Systematic Assessment of Regional Policies and Practices

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

Caitriona Carter*

Research Unit, Environment, Territory, Infrastructure, INRAE, France

**Submission:** June 18, 2021; **Published:** June 28, 2021

*Corresponding author: Caitriona Carter, Research unit, Environment, Territory, Infrastructure, UR, ETBX INRAE, New Aquitaine, France

**Keywords:** Integrated governance; Regional Policies; Biodiversity; Socio-Economic

## Introduction

From 2017-2019 scientists working in New Aquitaine, Southwest of France, carried out a scientific assessment of the role of biodiversity in the region's major socio-ecosystems [1]. As well as evaluating interdependencies between biodiversity, the regional economy and local culture, the study also assessed public action governing these interdependencies. This focus emphasized that the governance question was an important one to be discussed by decision-makers, working with social scientists and, ultimately, with stakeholders and citizens.

The report found first that public policies have been designed in a variety of ways to integrate biodiversity issues into the governance of production (food, wood, energy) or land use change [2]. However, as underlined by the FAO in a recent study on 'The State of the World's Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture' [3], we continue to lack knowledge on the extent and use of new integrated approaches, including on their regional and local effects. More specifically, we lack knowledge derived from aggregating published social science case study data in different regions compared.

To fill this gap in the case of New Aquitaine, we analyzed social science publications on public action aimed at reconciling political objectives protecting biodiversity with those governing economic activities (food, energy, wood production) and land use change (urban transformation). In total, 258 scientific references were analyzed: 178 internationals; 80 regionals [4].

Our assessment revealed two principal modes of integrated governance: i) reformist approaches (for cereal plains, viticulture, cultivated forest and oyster farming: e.g., for forest, [5] and ii) transformative approaches (alfalfa production, small scale fisheries, trout farming and socio-economic activities on river watersheds and in marine regions, e.g., forest [6]. These differences in mode mattered and it is worth analyzing their underlying conditions. Whereas for reformist approaches biodiversity questions were introduced into public policies through an adaptation of existing public policy instruments, transformative approaches were put in place through the development of new types of policy tools addressing anthropic biodiversity impacts in holistic ways, i.e., not independently from one another.

Another difference was over which actors and values were given priority. Reformist integrated governance neither jeopardized dominant governing logics, nor hierarchies of actors, and was largely premised upon an individualization of biodiversity responsibility, e.g., offering financial incentives to farmers to change their practice. Transformative integrated approaches by contrast were supported by those actors wanting to make a structural paradigm shift in governing frames, both considering the limits of sectoral approaches addressing ecosystem dynamics and acknowledging re-distributional effects of policy choices.

Examples of reformist approaches included the adaptation of agro-environmental measures in the European Union (EU) Common Agriculture Policy integrating biodiversity
considerations (cereal plains), or the gradual integration of rules on pesticide use in the setting of product standards on quality wine [7]. Examples of transformative approaches came from either 'bottom up' or 'top down' initiatives. For example, a form of 'bottom up' transformative governance was seen to emerge over time when an accumulation of ecosystem discourses, social norms, dynamic spatio-temporal policy instruments and professional techniques slowly changed the meaning of public action governing small-scale fisheries in the Bay of Biscay; similarly, actors seeking ecological continuity in urban development projects in Bordeaux have encouraged the reframing of the purpose of urban transformation around a 'quality of life' discourse [8]. Examples of 'top down' transformative governance were found in freshwater and marine ecosystems. Here, ecosystem approaches enacted in EU legislation established integrated policy frameworks in which regional and local actors were expected to work to reconcile biodiversity and socio-economic objectives via inter-sectoral governance (e.g., the EU Water Framework and Marine Strategy Framework Directives).

Our analysis not only produced results on the differences between these forms of public action, but also revealed institutional obstacles specific to each mode of integrated governance. In some cases, reformist approaches lacked intermediary institutional resources (training, exchange, evaluation) seen as essential for accompanying producers making changes considering a diversity of production practices and professional identities. Such institutional initiatives could be especially useful when set at an intermediary scale of governance (regional partnerships, professional networks) opening the door for a more collective approach to biodiversity governance. Tensions were also evident implementing transformative approaches, for example, between urban actors over how to reconcile civil engineering rationalities held in town planning departments with ecological rationalities on ecosystem services [9], or frustrations for public actors governing water quality due to a lack of data, financial or human resources for the putting in place of holistic governing approaches [10]. A particular set of challenges emerged over the participatory governing styles which were often associated with transformative approaches. Whereas research revealed a variety of such initiatives in New Aquitaine, they also showed mixed results concerning their effectiveness. In particular, the aims of participation were often uncertain and failed to generate a clear understanding of the purpose of stakeholder engagement [11].

In summary, the systematic assessment of public action
revealed its very complexity, both over the effectiveness of the

different approaches identified protecting biodiversity but also
over political choices to either individualize or collectivize the
biodiversity 'problem'. Taken together, and in detail [4], its results
underline the general need to 'take governance seriously' and not
reduce this question to one of vague and unspecified 'political
will'. They also reframe the debate away from polarized thinking
about public action to focus instead on hierarchies of values which
lie at the root of competing integrated approaches to biodiversity
and its governance.

References

1. Bretagnolle V, Alard D, Bâcles C, Carter C, Deuffic P et al. (2020) Rapport d'évaluation sur le rôle de la biodiversité dans les socio-écosystèmes de Nouvelle-Aquitaine, Rapport Ecobiose.

2. Compagnon D, Rodary E (2017) Les politiques de biodiversité. Sciences Po Presses. Paris, France.

3. FAO (2019) The State of the World's Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organisation. Washington D.C., USA.

4. Carter C, Berthet E, Boschet C, Bouleau G, Bretagnolle et al. (2020) La gouvernance de la biodiversité en Nouvelle-Aquitaine: Enjeux et défis. Concilier la biodiversité, la production et la fourniture de services écosystémiques. Chapter 7 of the regional-style IPBES Scientific Assessment Report of the role of Biodiversity providing Ecosystem Services in New Aquitaine, Ecobiose.

5. Conchon P (2021) Ordres idéologiques entre Sciences et Politique dans la forêt des Landes de Gascogne: Obstacles et potentiels pour une approche écosystémique, PhD thesis defended University of Bordeaux.

6. Berthet E, Bretagnolle V, Segrestin B (2014) Surmonter un blocage de l'innovation par la conception collective. Cas de la réintroduction de luzerne dans une plaine céréalière: L'innovation en systèmes fourragers et élevages d'herbivores: un champ de possibles, Fourrages 217: 13-21.

7. Ansaloni M, Smith A (2014) Whither the state when it acts through markets? The case of pesticide reduction in the vineyard of Bordeaux, Economic sociology. The European electronic newsletter 15(2): 34-40.

8. Sahraoui Y, De Godoy Leski C, Benot ML, Revers F, Salles D et al. (2021) Integrating ecological networks modelling in a participatory approach for assessing impacts of planning scenarios on landscape connectivity, Landscape and Urban Planning 209,104039.

9. De Godoy Leski C (2021) Vers une gouvernance anticipative des changements globaux. L'emprise des interdépendances socioécologiques sur une métropole estuarienne. Bordeaux Métropole et l'estuaire de la Gironde, PhD thesis defended University of Bordeaux.

10. Bouleau G, Carter C, Thomas A (2018) Des connaissances aux décisions: la mise en œuvre des directives européennes sur l'eau douce et marine. Participations 21(2): 37-64.

11. Salles D, Bouet B, Larsen M, Sautour B (2014) A chacun ses sciences participatives. Les conditions d'un observatoire participatif de la biodiversité sur le Bassin d'Arcachon, ESSACHESS - Journal for Communication Studies 7(1): 13.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

This work is licensed under Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 License
DOI: 10.19080/ECOA.2021.01.555568

Your next submission with Juniper Publishers
will reach you the below assets

* Quality Editorial service

* Swift Peer Review

* Reprints availability

* E-prints Service

* Manuscript Podcast for convenient understanding

* Global attainment for your research

* Manuscript accessibility in different formats
  (Pdf, E-pub, Full Text, Audio)

* Unceasing customer service

Track the below URL for one-step submission

https://juniperpublishers.com/online-submission.php