Search

This book [2 vol.] considers the principle of 'sustainable development' which is currently facing a growing environmental crisis. A new mode of thinking and positioning the ecological imperative is the major input of this volume. The prism of co-viability is not the economics of political agencies that carry the ideology of the dominant/conventional economic schools, but rather an opening of innovation perspectives through science. This volume, through its four parts, more than 40 chapters and a hundred authors, gives birth to a paradigm which crystallizes within a concept that will support in overcoming the ecological emergency deadlock.

This second volume is the work of more than 55 authors from 15 different disciplines and includes complex systems science which studies the viability of components, and also the study of empirical situations. As readers will discover, the coviability of social and ecological systems is based on the contradiction between humanity, which adopts finalized objectives, and the biosphere, which refers to a ecological functions. We see how concrete situations shed light on the coviability's determinants, and in this book the very nature of the coviability, presented as a concept-paradigm, is defined in a transversal and ontological ways. By adopting a systemic approach, without advocating any economic dogma (such as development) or dichotomizing between humans and nature, while emphasizing what is relevant to humans and what is not, this work neutrally contextualizes man's place in the biosphere. It offers a new mode of thinking and positioning of the ecological imperative, and will appeal to all those working with social and ecological systems.

National (State) and international environmental law is based on a scientific dimension that places man at the heart of a normative system founded on a naturalist rationale. However, the dichotomy enacted between societies and ecosystems is questioned by the idea that humankind is part of nature (Stockholm Declaration, 1972; World Charter for Nature 1982), and by the fact that nature is part of a cultural construction (Descola P, Par delà nature et culture. Gallimard, Paris, 2005) leading to the concept of an anthroposystem (Lévêque C, Muxart T, Abbadie L, Weil A, Van der Leeuw S, L'anthroposystème: entité structurelle et fonctionnelle des interactions sociétés-milieux. In: Lévêque C, Van der Leeuw (dir) Quelles natures voulons-nous? pour une approche socio-écologique du champ de l'environnement. Elsevier, Paris, pp 110–129, 2003). The ecological imperative (pressing ecological needs), defined by climate change and biodiversity degradation, raises questions about the desirability of an anthropocentric environmental law, subjected to a neoliberal economic paradigm (we take here the example of French law). Furthermore, this law the vocation of which is to provide a response to the urgent ecological situation, is based on a technical dimension, obliterating the anthropological dimension of human diversity. The ensuing challenge consists of integrating an anthropological dimension to environmental law which is based essentially only on an ecological dimension in an anthropocentric manner, by being open to legal pluralism through accepting a “legal endogeneity” (i.e. law developed by the social body).

Environmental law, whose purpose is to respond to the ecological urgency, is based on technical aspects, i.e. legal; obliterating the anthropological aspects of human diversity. It is from the assumption of an interweaved society-environment viability within the biosphere, that the legal approach can be revisited and re-established based on the adequacy of (social) usefulness to an (ecological) function, based on field studies. The adoption of a paradigm based on an approach of social viability within the Earth system, i.e. coviability, has resulted in a socio-ecological link being highlight and which needs to be formalized in legal regulation by though an adequacy between human needs and the ecological function.

International audience; This introductory chapter delineates the challenge of formalizing a concept-paradigm and provides specific examples that could be considered as models of socio-ecological viability. We investigate the benefits that the concept of coviability brings to the concept of "sustainable development". Contributions will be given throughout the book and will be summarized in a final chapter, which will define the concept-paradigm through a transdisciplinary approach.

This chapter is part of a critical debate on the concept of ecosystem service. Since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, ecosystem services are seen as the key component of the relationship between nature (ecosystems) and human beings (sociosystems). We assume that this perspective is partly wrong. Ecosystems services are not always provided in a sustainable way. In order to bridge nature and human beings and to reach comprehensive coviability, a feedback loop is required between ecosystem and sociosystem services. The first part is dedicated to a critical presentation of ecosystem services definitions and their input to the viability of human societies. The second part focuses on the identification and the classification of ecosystem services attached to the reef environment of the Reunion Island. The third part focuses on the concept of sociosystem services whose four main types are: the 'sanctuary of habitats' service, the ecological engineering service, the service of 'reduction of the anthropogenic pressure on ecosystems', and the reduction of pollution service.

Protected areas (PA) are a central element of Human/Nature coviability. During the last twenty years, their number has increased dramatically and new, diverse objectives have been set. This diversification is accompanied by an increase in the lack of effectiveness on the conservation of biodiversity and endangered species. The financial shortages and the low social acceptability can also heavily impact the functioning of many PAs Faced with the increasing risk of “paper parks”, this chapter shows that governance of PAs is a critical tool for sustaining this aspect of human/nature coviability. Governance of PAs is proper to a decision-making process and deals with the management of information flow and the monitoring of actions. In the first part, the concept of environmental governance applied to PAs is specified. In the second part, governance is taken as a decision-making process, through the management of information flows. This approach is detailed in a third section. The PAs steering and control module and the social acceptance of PAs are introduced as a central element of their governance.

Our main objective is to elicit (The act of helping experts in constructing their knowledge to allow them to saved/shared) the notions of coviability, viability and perenniality, as they address man's relationship with his environment. The analysis focuses on the Society-Environment relationship, and is based on a systemic approach. This leads us to consider "System Earth" as a whole when the following crucial question is asked: how can we ensure the perenniality of this relationship while also respecting equity for and between peoples? As is the case for knowledge representation and reasoning, we use the notion of "angle" (semantic relativism) in order to better perceive and describe the main concepts and relationships that reside in this complex system. By adopting an angle on a system, a compartment is extracted, which is easier to analyze. It is through this compartmentalization that we base the reasoning about the perenniality of the Society-Environment relationship and the viability of "System Earth." We demonstrate that the term coviability used to relate the Society-Environment relationship, and deriving from a vision of Man vs Nature, is neither a systemic (nor holistic) vision. Other than at the global level, we believe that it is a mistake to take this term as a marker for decision-making and action. The compartmentalization protocol and its accompanying tools are commented upon and illustrated in two cases: the "Ecosystemic Service" angle and the "Territorial" angle. In the course of our study, we put forward a coherent set of concepts and relationships by adopting a systemic approach, which enriches our understanding of "System Earth" and of its viability. We also adopt an approach by compartmentalization that focuses on the “Organizational Function” that Society endows itself with, including that of managing the Society-Environment relationship.

Ethnoecology attempts to understand how societies interact with their environment by focusing in particular on the processes of ecological knowledge constructions. These processes are part of a particular socio-cultural context, and they are the result of numerous interactions with non-human elements of the environment such as animals, plants, landscapes, artifacts, and so on. Local knowledge, as it is often called, is constantly renewed through daily relations. It constitutes a privileged indicator of environmental changes, and it allows societies to adjust their behavior within ecological and socio-cultural frameworks, which are more or less restrictive but relatively dynamic. Studying ecological knowledge, its dynamism, and the dynamism and implementation of the ecological and socio-cultural frameworks assist in sketching coviability models. The latter are considered as temporary and renewed adjustments of societies and their environment, adjustments that do not compromise the sustainability of their relationship and which emanate essentially from negotiation processes.

Coviability of Social and Ecological Systems: Reconnecting Mankind to the Biosphere in an Era of Global Change comprises two volumes and forty-three chapters totaling about 900 pages. The book is prefaced by an economist and concluded by an ecologist; its postscript is written by a socio-anthropologist. A hundred researchers, belonging to more than twenty disciplines, contributed to its development; and this under the direction, in full interdisciplinarity, of twelve co-editors. Before closing the book, it is necessary to clarify the main point, rather than offer an inaccessible summary. At this stage, it is important to identify the significance of this scientific paradigm of coviability, especially in an international context confronted with an ecological imperative. The book seeks to draw from the set of works an initial definition of the paradigm of coviability. This goal's point of departure is the plural definitions and disciplines, the heterogeneous works giving space for reflection. This new paradigm of socio-ecological coviability offers an ecological transition promoted at the global, national and local scales. An integrative paradigm is suggested to counter the dominant naturalistic paradigm. The goal of this paradigm is "living in harmony with nature," that is, creating harmony between humans and nonhumans. The challenge consists of breaking free from a reductive anthropocentrism in order to integrate an ontology open to a socio-ecological dimension, with the goal of reconnecting humanity to the biosphere. The diversity of the situations approached by the different research teams makes it possible to test a definition of socio-ecological coviability that may be: a property of interactive dependence between humans and nonhumans joined in a relationship that is contained by regulations and constraints. This relationship establishes a link of viability subjected to an integration threshold of the complex human/nonhuman system determining the limits of coviability's elasticity, whose realization remains the coevolution in an integrated socio-ecological system. The legal and political formalization of the coviability paradigm is designed to contribute to the ecological transition by establishing a new general Principle that could reposition the goal of sustainable development in terms of viability.

One critical concern for Thailand reservoirs which are used for irrigated agriculture (mainly paddy rice) and aquaculture is the lack of information on contamination from trace metal element (TME) in waters and biological compartments of the reservoirs. TME are both from natural and anthropogenic origins and may affect the quality of lake waters and food chain. The goal of this study was to evaluate the contamination in TME and study their transfer between the different compartments in and downstream of the reservoir. Fourteen TME have been measured in water column (dissolved phase), fishes, and sediments of the Mae Thang Reservoir (northern Thailand) as well as soil and rice grains of irrigated area. Analyses were performed by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometer (ICP-MS). This 2-year study showed that TME concentrations in water were lower than standards for irrigation and aquatic life. However, localized values of Fe and Mn were higher than the standard in the bottom of the reservoir in dry season. TME in sediments were relatively high compared to pristine lakes. Two species of fish were contaminated in As and Ni. Soils exceeded standard values for Cr, Ni, and Cu, while rice grains showed contamination in Ni that indicated a transfer between soil and rice grain. The accumulation of TME in sediments showed that upstream cultivated areas may have contributed to bring TME in the reservoir. TME concentrations in fishes were thus affected and should be controlled. Accumulation of TME in soils of paddy field due to the use of pesticides and fertilizer may increase contamination of rice in the long term.