Search

This paper analyses the use of metaphor in discourses around the “superweed” Palmer amaranth. Most weed scientists associated with the US public agricultural extension system dismiss the term superweed. However, together with the media, they indirectly encourage aggressive control practices by actively diffusing the framing of herbicide resistant Palmer amaranth as an existential threat that should be eradicated at any cost. We use argumentative discourse analysis to better understand this process. We analyze a corpus consisting of reports, policy briefs, and press releases produced by state extension services, as well as articles from professional and popular magazines and newspapers quoting extension specialists and/or public sector weed scientists or agronomists. We show how the superweed discourse is powered by negative metaphors, and legitimizes aggressive steps to eradicate the weed. This discourse reinforces the farmers’ techno-optimism master frame, contributes to deskilling of farmers and sidelines ethical concerns.

Cet article propose une réflexion collective sur l’engagement militant à partir de la recherche en agriculture urbaine en France et aux États-Unis. Il s’appuie sur une revue qualitative de la littérature, complétée par une série de séminaires. Ancrée dans la géographie critique et militante, la recherche sur l’agriculture urbaine aux États-Unis se concentre sur le jardinage communautaire et promeut la justice alimentaire. Dans le contexte français, les registres espaces et acteurs considérés sont beaucoup plus diversifiés et la réflexivité critique et politique comparativement moins développée. L’article se conclut par un appel à plus de réflexivité critique en ce domaine.

La notion de « durabilite forte » semble aujourd’hui reinvestie au sein de differentes disciplines des sciences humaines et sociales telles que l’histoire (Quenet, 2016), la geographie (Chartier, 2016), mais aussi l’ethique ou encore les sciences politiques. Elle semble aussi soulever d’importantes questions epistemologiques autour de l’integration des enjeux environnementaux dans les sciences sociales (Blanc et al., 2017). Toutefois, c’est en economie ecologique que la distinction entre durabilite « faible » et « forte » a initialement emerge, a partir du milieu des annees 1990. Cette derniere s’est immediatement inscrite dans des jeux d’acteurs et des conflits de legitimite qui pesent encore sur sa portee heuristique, ainsi que sur sa capacite a nourrir la pluralite des representations des rapports sociaux a l’environnement.

During the last decade, conservation banking mechanisms have emerged in the environmental discourse as new market instruments to promote biodiversity conservation. Compensation was already provided for in environmental law in many countries, as the last step of the mitigation hierarchy. The institutional arrangements developed in this context have been redefined and reshaped as market-based instruments (MBIs). As such, they are discursively disentangled from the complex legal-economic nexus they are part of. Monetary transactions are given prominence and tend to be presented as stand alone agreements, whereas they take place in the context of prescriptive regulations. The pro-market narrative featuring conservation banking systems as market-like arrangements as well as their denunciation as instances of nature commodification tend to obscure their actual characteristics. The purpose of this paper is to describe the latter, adopting an explicitly analytical stance on these complex institutional arrangements and their performative dimensions. Beyond the discourse supporting them and notwithstanding the diversity of national policies and regulatory frameworks for compensation, the constitutive force of these mechanisms probably lies in their ability to redefine control, power and the distribution of costs and in their impacts in terms of land use rather than in their efficiency.

International audience; Since the mid-1990s, the concept of ecosystem services has become increasingly popular in academic circles and among decision-makers. Because of its inclusive character, this concept has given rise to different interpretations in economics. Since its inception, it has been associated with the development of market-based instruments (MBIs) in conservation policies. From this perspective, the sustainable provision of ecosystem services is hindered by market failures (e.g., public good attributes, externalities) and prices that do not capture the full value of the natural assets. MBIs are therefore recommended. According to their promoters, they provide powerful incentives to conserve the environment while at the same time offering new sources of income to support rural livelihoods. Our paper contends that different economic narratives, and associated representations of the market failure at stake with the provision of ecosystem services, may support different policy instruments that are all coined as MBIs. As an illustration, we analyze the economic discourse underlying payments for ecosystem services and eco-labels, and we underline the variety of institutional forms to which they give rise in order to emphasize the differences between discourse and practice.

International audience; La biodiversité est omniprésente dans les arènes nationales et internationales. Affranchie d'une approche exclusivement écologique, elle est devenue un enjeu d’action publique. C’est à cette mise en politique de la biodiversité que s’intéresse cet ouvrage pluridisciplinaire, en reliant des champs scientifiques éclatés et en traitant d’aspects négligés tels que les effets d’échelle, l’impact politique des catégories scientifiques mobilisées par les acteurs et l’instrumentalisation par les États des normes internationales. Ce panorama inédit laisse entrevoir, malgré l’urgence affirmée par les scientifiques et l’enjeu social incontournable qu’elles représentent, un avenir incertain pour les politiques de biodiversité.

Les ONG, et a fortiori celles dont l'action se situe dans le domaine de la biodiversite, sont peu etudiees en tant que telles par les economistes. En dehors de quelques analyses portant sur les mouvements de contestation de la mondialisation, leur prise en compte releve principalement de la nouvelle economie des institutions. Cette derniere se caracterise a la fois par une certaine allegeance a l'egard des modeles et representations dominants en economie, dont la dimension ideale et normative...

At the Rio+20 Conference (June 2012), the biodiversity conservation agenda was subsumed into broader environmental issues like sustainable development, “green economy,” and climate change. This shoehorning of biodiversity issues is concomitant with a trend toward market-based instruments and toward standardized biodiversity assessment and monitoring. This article raises concern that these trends can marginalize important and specific aspects of biodiversity governance, including other policy tools and region-specific socio-ecological environments. Among other trends, this contributes to the marginalization of agroecosystems as habitat and matrix for biodiversity. Such agroecosystems, however, can have a major impact on conservation outcomes as they comprise a major part of terrestrial lands. If the biodiversity crisis is to be curbed, special attention must be drawn to societies, institutional approaches, and environments that are currently marginalized in conservation policies. (Resume d'auteur)

International conventions are seldom reviewed in the literature devoted to environmental policy instruments. However, coordination is needed at a global level for global environmental problems characterised by scientific controversies, uncertainty, irreversibility, long-term impacts, economic and geopolitical dimensions. The Convention on Biological Diversity is a good illustration in this regard. The rules it promotes are clearly inspired by mainstream economics. It has therefore been celebrated as a textbook example of sound environmental policy. However, its success has been limited so far and its position within the international conservation regime is challenged. We argue that an alternative analytical approach to environmental global policies is needed and that the French theories of conventions and régulation open up promising prospects in this respect. Copyright , Oxford University Press.

L'emergence et la diffusion de la notion de biodiversite a partir des annees 1980 traduisent la constitution d'un champ de pensee et d'action, a l'interface de la science et de la politique, en vue de l'appropriation et de la gestion de la nature. L'objet de cet article est de relire sous cet angle trente ans de politiques internationales qui interessent au premier chef les relations Nord-Sud.

Dans un contexte en constante évolution, l’élaboration, la mise en œuvre et l’évaluation des politiques publiques de biodiversité nécessitent d’anticiper les changements futurs possibles afin de pouvoir se préparer à temps. Or les informations concernant ces changements sont nombreuses et les enjeux qui pourraient s’avérer importants à l’avenir sont souvent peu visibles. Pour répondre à ce défi, une expertise multiacteurs et multidisciplinaire s’inspirant des démarches d’horizon scanning et intitulée BioPIQuE 2013 a permis d’identifier 25 questions émergentes, dont 10 questions stratégiques, pour les politiques publiques de biodiversité en France métropolitaine d’ici à 2020. Ces questions émergentes sont autant d’opportunités et de risques que l’ensemble des acteurs qui souhaitent avancer vers une plus grande prise en compte des enjeux de biodiversité peuvent saisir., Because drivers and pressures on biodiversity, societal expectations, and ecological knowledge evolve rapidly, biodiversity conservation policies need to adapt continuously. Anticipating such changes can however be difficult given the profusion and complexity of data and when signals indicating future risks and opportunities may be weak. To tackle this challenge, the French Environment ministry asked a research team at AgroParisTech to develop a new method for identifying emerging issues for biodiversity policies by 2020 in France (except for overseas territories). This project, called BioPIQuE 2013, involved both scientists and stakeholders in an interdisciplinary assessment. As a result, 25 emerging issues were identified, among which 10 issues were highlighted for their strategic interest. A majority of these issues are current trends not yet taken into account by biodiversity policies (such as “why do we have to and how can we improve our ability to restore – with ambitious biodiversity objectives – urbanised and highly degraded areas?”), and a few of them are weak signals (such as “how can we deal with trade-offs and conflicts between biodiversity policies and other environmental policies?”). All stakeholders, including researchers, NGOs, public administrations, private companies and politicians, can find in the results some inputs for developing their biodiversity conservation strategies.

International audience; Since the end of the 1980s, conservation policies have focused on the search for market solutions to environmental problems. Several attempts have been made over years to turn various parts or facets of nature into economic assets, from genetic resources through ecosystem services. Similarly, several types of institutional arrangements have been in turn presented as markets. The relative failure of these tentative market policies has just led to shifts from one aspect or component of biodiversity to others and to the adoption of new 'business models' as previous arrangements proved ineffective. The latest product of this speculation surrounding nature is attached to ecosystem services that have become an inclusive framework encompassing most environmental issues (climate change, desertification, soil erosion, water, biodiversity, etc.). The concept of ecosystem services has begun spreading after the release of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment by the mid 2000s. This notion was formed at the interface of science and policy and is grounded neither in ecological nor in economic theories. Setting back ecosystem services in the history of environmental and ecological economics enables to restore the cognitive background from which this notion emerged and to explain both its hegemony and its impacts. Indeed, in line with green economy, it conveys a vision of nature as exempt from any conflict and danger and is quite positive about the feasibility of a harmonious combination of human activities and environmental protection, sustained by market development. It does not provide an adequate framework to deal with vulnerability and risk.

International audience; Depuis vingt ans, la communauté internationale promeut le développement de contrats d'accès aux ressources génétiques afin d'assurer une exploitation durable et équitable de la biodiversité. On constate cependant que les impacts de telles politiques sont limités, en termes de conservation de la nature comme de justice environnementale ou de retombées financières pour les populations locales. Leur influence sur les agendas et les positionnements des gouvernements des pays émergents et de certains scientifiques est en revanche manifeste. Une grande partie de ces derniers a en effet été convertie aux instruments économiques de mise en valeur de la biodiversité : filières de produits naturels, projets d'écotourisme, paiements pour services environnementaux... Les formes de savoirs et de pouvoirs construits sur la biodiversité et les services écosystémiques témoignent de ce ralliement. Le pari de cet ouvrage est ainsi d'analyser le "pouvoir de la biodiversité" en termes d'économie politique, à partir de l'examen des régimes de propriété industrielle sur le vivant dans trois pays émergents - le Vietnam, le Brésil et le Mexique - et d'études de cas sur la mobilisation des savoirs de communautés autochtones et locales dans ces pays. Les notions de biodiversité et de services écosystémiques et leur diffusion ne seraient-elles pas avant tout les marqueurs d'une néolibéralisation des politiques de conservation de la nature ?

This Special Issue on “Ecosystem Services and Institutional Dynamics” is composed of a selection of papers which were originally presented during the 10th biennial conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics held in June 2013 in Lille. Ecosystem services, i.e. the material and immaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems, has become a topic of increasing attention, over the past two decades, from both scientists and policy makers. This enthusiasm for such a concept can be understood, as an ideological option (commodification of nature), a pragmatic view at the (best) ways to conduct policies dealing with human–nature interactions—focusing on human well-being—or simply as a tool which has to find its place in the already existing toolbox. Various valuation methods have been developed or adapted to ecosystem services, ranging from monetary valuation to more sophisticated valuation/quantification methods taking into account more directly the incommensurable nature of human and natural capital (deliberative monetary valuation, multi-criteria analysis, integrated assessment). In parallel, an important development of policy instruments incorporating ecosystem services has been witnessed in recent years,. This Special Issue will deconstruct discourses and explore practices on the ground on all the above mentioned topics.

The erosion of biological diversity pertains to the category of problems that are brought to the fore in ‘debated universes’. There are scientific controversies about their definition, import and possible solutions and they involve opposing economic interests and political strategies. A ‘convention’–commonly shared values, set of definitions, rules and norms–implying a compromise among various actors and groups is needed to define and enforce policies. The Convention on biological diversity can be seen as an attempt to define such a middle ground. The rights and policy orientations it promotes are however challenged by overlapping norms and rules enacted in other arenas, such as the WTO. The purpose of this paper is to take up a conventionalist stance on the complex international regime that governs biodiversity management and conservation policies.

Valérie Boisvert, Armelle Caron, Estienne Rodary — Privatization for conservation ? The compromises of new resources economics with reality The very free-market inspired current of new resources economics the privatisation of natural resources as a way of ensuring their conservation. Despite its shaky theoretical foundations and the tendency to bend reality to fit arguments, the current has some influence on the determination of policies. We shall demonstrate that it contributes to spreading an erroneous representation of the rights-market and that it is based on questionable experiences wildlife management., Boisvert Valérie, Caron Armelle, Rodary Estienne. Privatiser pour conserver ? Petits arrangements de la nouvelle économie des ressources avec la réalité. In: Tiers-Monde, tome 45, n°177, 2004. Marchés de droits et environnement, sous la direction de Alain Karsenty et Jacques Weber. pp. 61-84.

Biodiversity came out as a global issue from the mid 1980s, under the pressure of converging forces: the threatening increase in species extinction and the changes in the theory as well as in the practice of nature conservation, but also the expansion of genetic engineering and the intrusion of industrial interests into areas from which they had been hitherto excluded. These elements have participated in the development of utilitarian perceptions of nature, reduced to a set of resources thanks to new technologies that have made its extensive economic exploitation possible. The Convention on Biological Diversity, adopted in 1992 during the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, is in line with this approach (UNEP 1992). Indeed, the Convention rests on the notion of sustainable use of biological resources (first article), that is, an exploitation that meets the criteria of efficiency and equity and is meant to finance conservation but also to foster development in countries of the South and to benefit pharmaceutical and agricultural industries. The Convention presents the definition of adequate property rights to biological resources and related knowledge as an essential prerequisite for the institution of the sustainable use—hence of the conservation—of biodiversity. This analysis comes to adhere implicitly to the conventional view of biodiversity erosion as a consequence of the appropriation failure that prevailed prior to the adoption of the Convention. Transnational corporations then had free access to indigenous resources—including knowledge—and after screening they could patent parts of these resources or their applications, depriving their former holders of their traditional use rights, as attested by the examples of neem in India or yellow bean in Mexico, both patented by American

A price for biodiversity, economic valuation at the core of several legitimacy orders. Economic valuation takes up a central place in the economics of biodiversity as well as in the discourses of the different actors taking part in the negotiations and in the process of social construction of biodiversity. Valuation appears first as a theoretical necessity for economists who consider the determination of a price as the essential prerequisite for an optimal management of natural resources. It has acquired an institutional legitimacy through its widespread use in the context of cost-benefit analysis. NGOs also resort to economic valuation for strategic purposes, to back their opposition to planned policies, to stress the despoliation of the South and to promote alternative proposals with second assessments. Because of this takeover of valuation by all the actors, it is not to be considered as a merely economic tool. Though the valuations done for some aspects of blodiversity such as non-timber forest products, medicinal plants or ecotourism are to some extent based on economic methods, their purpose is not that suggested by economic theory. They are not revealing concealed values that would exist prior to valuation. They are instrumental in building these values. This bias is not only due to the strategic use of their results by the actors but to the very valuation methods and procedures. Some economists hold the valuation methods to be preferable to other consultation procedures because of their pretended characteristics of neutrality, democracy and optimality. The calling into question of the latter should lead to relativize the significance of economic valuation.

Intellectual property rights in favour of biodiversity, a most debated implementation. The discussions about biodiverslty are crystallized around the question of commoditization of knowledge and life forms by means of intellectual property rights. Though there were other protection systems, adapted to the particular characteristics of plant genetic resources, the Convention on Biological Diversity has confirmed the extension of patents to life forms. NGOs, organizing the opposition to the commoditizatlon of life forms emphasize the unsuitability of intellectual property rights for community knowledge on plant cultivars and medicinal herbs in the South. Acting as advocates and allies of local populations of farmers and indigenous peoples, they advocate the passing of farmers’rights and peoples’rights that would be grounded in tradition and community property.

The erosion of biodiversity is found alongside with the global environmental problems. As such, the stages of Its definition and of the elaboration of the measures to address It are organized along the same lines as for climate change. It was first brought to the fore by scientists who saw in the Increasing rhythm of species extinction an alarming evolution. The widespread adoption of the term biological diversity to account for the objectives of life sciences testified the development of a more complex, evolutionary and Integrated approach within these sciences. Then, scientific questions came Into the public domain. Their objectives was seized by various groups with diverse perceptions and interests, referring to several legitimacy orders, conveying conflicting views of rationality and efficiency (NGOs, representatives of the industrial world, United Nations agencies, ...). The Issue ceased to be a purely scientific concern, it entered the arena of social choices. This shift In the very definition of the question and of Its stakes was accompanied by a change In the words: biological diversity was turned Into biodiversity. Then a compromise among the participants - the convention on biological diversity - was sought and organized, In particular under the pressure of the Industries using biotechnologies. It confirmed the trends that had been outlined in the preceding years: the tendency to reduce bodiversity to its genetic components considered as resources, that Is potential inputs for Industry, and the claim for property rights, presented as the means to ensure access to genetic materials and to favour International trade agreements and technology transfer. Market logic and rationality have finally prevailed over concerns for ethics and heritage. Biodiversity has been reduced to a set of resources, the valuation and adequate appropriation of which appear as prerequisites for the institution of a market held to be a guarantee of sustainable management.

This research has been carried out in the context of the SERENA project, funded by the French National Research Agency (Systerra Programme). We also acknowledge the financial support of the Biodiversa Framework Project INVALUABLE: Values, Markets, and Policies for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.; International audience; Recent years have seen widespread experimentation with market-based instruments (MBIs) for the provision of environmental goods and ecosystem services. However, little attention has been paid to their design or to the effects of the underlying pro-market narrative on environmental policy instruments. The purpose of this article is to analyze the emergence and dissemination of the term “market-based instruments” applied to the provision of environmental services and to assess to what extent the instruments associated are genuinely innovative. The recommendation to develop markets can lead in practice to a variety of institutional forms, as we show it based on the example of payments for environmental services (PES) and biodiversity offsets, two very different mechanisms that are both presented in the literature as MBIs. Our purpose is to highlight the gap between discourse and practice in connection with MBIs

Depuis le milieu des années 1990, la notion de services écosystémiques a connu une popularité croissante tant académique qu’opérationnelle. L’objectif de cet article est d’en analyser les différentes significations dans le champ disciplinaire de l’économie. Dans ce cadre, il est important de revenir sur la généalogie du terme de services écosystémiques pour proposer par la suite une typologie qui les traitent sous l’angle, soit des externalités, soit des prestations de services, soit de services intégrés à un produit de consommation faisant l’objet d’un échange marchand. Sur la base de la typologie que nous avons élaborée, nous analysons de manière critique plusieurs instruments de régulation des services concernés., Since the mid-1990s, the concept of ecosystem services has been growing in popularity at academic and operational level. The aim of this paper is to analyse the different meanings of these concepts in economic science. In this context, it is important to explain the origin of the notion of ecosystem services in order to put forward a typology that treats them as externalities, or as provision of services, or as services included in a product subject to a market transaction. On the basis of our typology, we develop a critical analysis on various regulating instruments for these services.

Since the end of the 1980s, the development of genetic engineering and the extension of patents to life forms have suggested that new lucrative uses of natural substances might arise, and that new demands for these resources might appear especially in the pharmaceutical, cosmetics and food industries. The Convention on Biological Diversity, adopted during the Rio Conference in 1992, was an attempt to reconcile theconservation of biodiversity with the claims of indigenous communities who hold these resources through the institution of markets. Its purpose was to put an end to biopiracy and to secure the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources. The promotion of these “biodiversity markets” has been supported by the free trade movement of the 1980s. These markets have aroused speculations. But beyond slogans, what about the commoditization of life forms today? Which forms does it take in the North and in the South? Is the legal and political framework settled by the Convention on Biological Diversity still relevant in the face of scientific progress and technical change? Does it prove adapted to the complexity of real life situations? Our research illustrates the way social sciences address global environmental issues.

International audience; Les Parcs naturels Régionaux (PNR) français créés en 1967 constituent des laboratoires pour la mise en œuvre d'un développement durable avant la lettre. Ils ont en effet expérimenté divers modes de valorisation et de conservation des patrimoines naturel et culturel de leurs territoires, dont le marquage de produits et de services territorialement ancrés. À ce titre, ils sont l'objet d'un intérêt renouvelé au niveau international et apparaissent comme un modèle possible de gestion des aires protégées et de valorisation de la biodiversité, notamment pour les pays du Sud. Nous étudions les impacts en termes de développement local durable de la mise en œuvre des marques " Parc Naturel régional ", à partir de l'exemple du PNR des Grands-Causses, un territoire rural de moyenne montagne situé au Sud de la France. Notre ancrage analytique - l'économie de proximités - nous conduit à privilégier la dimension " sociale " de la durabilité en nous intéressant tout particulièrement aux impacts du marquage en termes d'action collective. Il nous permet d'identifier des éléments clés de la réussite d'une telle politique et de son applicabilité dans des contextes différents, en particulier dans des pays en développement.

On sait que le fantasme d’une ruee vers l’« or vert » a joue un role de premier plan dans la maniere dont s’est pose le probleme de l’erosion de la biodiversite dans les annees 1980 et dans la facon dont on s’est efforce d’y repondre une dizaine d’annees plus tard. Une autre source d’inspiration releve de la recherche de la rationalite collective et de la science qui en a fait son objet. La lutte contre l’erosion de la diversite biologique est exemplaire en matiere d’elaboration et de justifi...