Olivier Ragueneau: “The co-construction of knowledge stimulates transformation to sustainability”

You are the scientific delegate for the Zones Ateliers (workshop zones) network. What is a Zone Atelier?

Olivier Ragueneau: It is an open structure organized on a well-defined territory: a river, a mountain range, a city. Researchers from different fields work on issues linked to sustainability, or the Earth’s habitability, together with local stakeholders. We aim to reconnect human beings and their environment, which scientific studies have separated for at least two centuries, by tackling the complexity of socio-ecosystems, in order to reposition human activities within the environment and the great planetary cycles, taking limits into account. For example, in Brittany, the “Zone Atelier Brest Iroise”, of which I am a member, studies the land-sea continuum, while the “Zone Atelier environnementale rurale Argonne” focuses on hyper-rurality, in the North-East of France. They have a variety of issues, but within each of them, we are developing similar approaches: interdisciplinary, with natural sciences, human and social sciences, and engineering sciences; and transdisciplinary, with local stakeholders involved in joint research.

What does this network do?

O. R.: The Zones Ateliers network is a CNRS Ecology and Environment initiative. There are 16 Zones Ateliers, with two more under construction in overseas France. The existence of a network enables us to link up the experiments and approaches developed in each of the Zones Ateliers, for comparative purposes. We stimulate projects in which we can test hypotheses along gradients, whether climatic, of human impact, and so on. For example, on the question of the history of relations between researchers and stakeholders, and their impact on the transformation of public policies: is the same thing happening in a recent Zone Atelier where researchers are starting to work with stakeholders, and in Zones Ateliers that have been developing links with non-scientific stakeholders and policy-makers for 20 or 30 years? The environmental and political context of agro-ecological transition differs greatly from one Zone Atelier to another, and it is interesting to draw comparisons. For example, in Brittany, with green algae and intensive agriculture, we are in a territory that is extremely blocked from a political and economic point of view, with the whole agro-industrial system. It is less conflictual elsewhere. The adaptation of flora and fauna to climate change is different in alpine pastures, in cities and by the sea, where there are risks of erosion and submersion in coastal areas due to the frequency of storms.

Why is it important to take this diversity into account?

O.R.: The collapse of biodiversity and climate change are creating a situation where transformative action is becoming increasingly urgent. But this cannot be decided in a top-down, uniform and prescriptive way: if we try to apply homogeneous indicators or criteria in different contexts, it will not work. And populations generally rebel against this. We have seen this in Brittany with water quality indicators: those established at national or European level do not work and cause a whole host of problems. It is essential to take into account the diversity of our socio-ecosystems. This will be at the heart of the Transform Priority Program and Equipment (PEPR Transform) currently being contracted by the French national research agency (ANR).

In September 2024, the Zones Ateliers network organized a symposium entitled “Co-constructing research on socio-ecosystems”. What does this mean in concrete terms?

O.R.: For us, the term “co-construction” covers the entire research process, starting with the emergence of research questions. For example, we were approached by fishermen who could no longer fish for scallops in the bay of Brest, because there were toxic phytoplankton, and fishing was banned. Together, we have discussed their problems, we have confronted this with the expertise we have, and the knowledge we lack. If we assess that we can set up a research project together, then we transform a public problem into a research question, and we can engage in co-research with different stakeholders, who will carry out experiments, for example. This can include participatory science, because as the project progresses, we will need to collect data, with the help of citizens and professionals. And then, in the analysis and restitution, we may also want to involve different stakeholders.

Why is this co-construction important?

O. R.: The main interest is to bring politics back to the territories, in the sense of citizen participation in the life of the city: it is more efficient to involve people than just explain things with a conference. Being involved in research, non-scientific stakeholders, participate to the production of knowledge. What is more, as today science is criticized, and fake news are everywhere, this approach enables us to disseminate the scientific methods, and not just the results of research. For example, in Brittany, on the issue of “green tides”, we are running participatory science projects with agricultural high schools: working with young people who are future farmers could help to break the conflict between scientists and farmers, who question the data. Involving students in sampling, measuring nitrates, explaining long-term trends and discussing with them goes far beyond raising awareness. They take ownership of the scientific approach, which gives them empowerment back. This is in line with the theory of inquiry, developed by the American philosopher John Dewey in the early 20^th century, and taken up again in recent decades by the French philosopher Bruno Latour. What is more, we are doing this with people who often do not think they have the capacity to do so: it is rewarding for them. The assumption we make in the Zones Ateliers network is that the co-construction of knowledge has a performance-enhancing effect, and leads to greater transformations in public policy than if we only transmit scientific data to decision-makers, with the hope that they will make the right decisions for sustainability and socio eco-systems good health.

Have you already gathered evidence in favor of this hypothesis?

O. R.: There are success stories, and examples of failure too, both sometimes in close proximity. For example, a Zone Atelier in Moselle has developed the same type of approach on two rivers that are quite close. On one, it worked, but not at all on the other. They are now working with human and social sciences specialists to understand this difference. We have several projects underway to understand the obstacles to transformation, but also the levers that facilitate it. As part of the ANR EQUIPACT project, we are studying intermediation between researchers and stakeholders, and impact assessment: in the social innovation projects we are developing, where there is institutional innovation, we cannot measure impact in the same way as for a technological innovation project, for example. Instead, we need to evaluate the project over time, to identify what works, what does not, and how to include new players in the project who we feel could play an important role in increasing the project’s transformative impact. This will take time.

Who are the non-scientific players involved in these projects?

O. R.: Local authorities: regions, towns, communities of communes, départements. For example, we are working on erosion and submersion risks in coastal areas with the Conseil Départemental du Finistère. In Strasbourg, the city has been involved since the creation of the “Zone Atelier environnementale urbaine”, and funds it as much as the CNRS. Researchers are working with the Strasbourg metropolitan authority on urban biodiversity, heat islands and other issues. Another major type of player are managers: protected area managers (marine areas, regional natural parks, national parks, etc.), watershed managers in the Zones Ateliers devoted to rivers or coastal areas, managers of water development and management schemes (SAGE), who interface with the entire agricultural world. Another category of stakeholders are professionals from the livestock, fishing, hunting and forestry sectors. For example, the “Zone Atelier Plaine et Val de Sèvre” has been working for almost 20 years on pesticide issues and agro-ecological transition with farmers, who carry out experiments. We also work a great deal with the associative world: environmental education, the social and solidarity economy, or the interface with health. And then, of course, there is the whole world of education. Finally, more recently, we have begun to develop links with artists.

Would it be relevant to develop this way of doing research?

O. R.: There is a disconnection between citizens and policy makers. Transdisciplinary research is one way of bridging this gap. It is part of a wider drive to revive participatory democracy. It is absolutely essential.

What are the obstacles?

O. R.: Some players have no interest in it. We have observed in several places that some political leaders are attached to their prerogatives: we have to be careful to involve them early enough in the process, so that they do not feel dispossessed of the decisions. But above all, there is a lack of funding. For example, the ANR devotes 1% of its budget to research projects “with and for society”. They can fund non-academic players, but they do not fund more than 50% of a project. So, if you set up a research project with associations and ask the ANR for €100,000, the associations have to find €100,000 elsewhere too, which is rarely possible. The Transform PEPR, which must include co-research, will not even be able to fund non-academic stakeholders! And yet, if we work with artists, fishermen or farmers, they carry out experiments that may not produce as much as if they had not participated: we have to pay for their loss, and for the time they devote to these research projects.

Do you see other obstacles?

O. R.: When we ask researchers why they do not get involved in transdisciplinary activities, many reply that they do not have time. They are chasing projects, funding and publications. We need to work with our supervisory bodies to transform the research evaluation criteria. Interdisciplinarity, joint research with stakeholders, has a very high entry cost in terms of time spent researching, understanding other disciplinary fields and non-academic stakeholders: this time is not devoted to writing publications. The time question is not only for professional researchers: when we propose a collaboration to teachers, farmers or associations, they are all under pressure. We need to conduct experiments to find ways of organizing work to free up time so that these stakeholders can, without losing income, engage in research projects and participate in the ecological transition.

Interview by Luc Allemand