Search

L’article porte sur la mise en œuvre des politiques environnementales à partir du cas du parc national de la Vanoise. Sur la base d’un travail de comparaison entre deux vallées, la Maurienne et la Tarentaise, l’article montre d’abord comment les usagers de cet espace protégé, en surmontant le caractère problématique de leur coopération, font émerger deux formes d’organisation contrastées de leurs territoires. Il explique ensuite comment ces deux formes d’organisation conditionnent la portée de la politique du parc et comment les agents de terrain influent localement sur les pratiques qui y ont cours. La coexistence de ces deux formes d’action publique territorialisées, si elle nous montre comment sont négociés localement les enjeux environnementaux, interroge toutefois la cohérence des décisions du parc et n’est pas sans créer d’importantes tensions au sein de l’établissement.

In Western economies, several agriculture models coexist. For instance, intensive agriculture organization, which has increased yields while causing major pollution and resource depletion, competes with alternative models, which tackle these sustainability issues and lead to lower yields. An agronomical typology of current agriculture models in Western societies is proposed that describes multiple sustainability issues through an agroecological perspective. However, in order to choose between these agroecological pathways, we must understand their social structure and the principles underlying them. Thus, our purpose is to characterize the institutional aspects of the alternative models using socioeconomic convention theory. We conducted a series of workshops with specialists in the natural sciences (agronomy, landscape ecology and entomology) and social sciences (economics and sociology) to describe sustainable agriculture models. This characterization revealed the values underlying six different sustainable agriculture models, their forms of organization and the institutions governing them. We discuss the implications of the coexistence of these six models in light of sustainable transition issues. From this coexistence perspective, transition (i) refers to an intertwined process of legitimation and disqualification and (ii) means seeing pathways as the multiplicity and degree of interconnection between models. Therefore, we (i) identified the elements in each model that legitimize its mode of organization and (ii) disqualified the elements that are incompatible with the principles underlying the model's practices. Moreover, we emphasize that multiple transition pathways are possible based on complex, complementary combinations of different models. This revealed the intricate processes of competition and complementarity involving these models. Finally, our study on the coexistence, interdependence and coevolution of multiple agriculture models led us to advocate a precautionary principle so that marginal innovative models are not prevented from emerging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Sciences de la Societe is the property of Universite Toulouse, Le Mirail and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)