Abstracts
Résumé
Le concept de service écosystémique – idée de services fournis par les écosystèmes à l’humanité- connaît aujourd’hui un succès exponentiel, tant dans les sphères scientifiques que politiques. Mais du fait de ce succès, ce concept est de plus en plus considéré comme un acquis, sans que soient reconnues et prises en compte les fortes incertitudes qui lui sont associées. Cet article souligne d’abord les incertitudes scientifiques qui portent sur les dynamiques sous-jacentes à la production des services. En effet, dans de nombreuses situations, les scientifiques ne sont pas en mesure d’énoncer avec certitude des relations de cause à effet entre l’état d’un écosystème et la fourniture effective d’un service, soit parce que les connaissances sont insuffisantes, soit parce que les systèmes considérés sont par nature imprédictibles. L’article souligne ensuite l’importance des incertitudes sociétales associées à ce concept, c’est-à-dire l’existence de perceptions différenciées, voire contradictoires, avec des controverses d’une part autour du concept même de service et de la place de l’homme dans les écosystèmes, et d’autre part autour des dispositifs de gouvernance issus de ce concept, tels que les paiements pour services environnementaux. À partir d’une revue de la littérature, cet article montre que si les incertitudes scientifiques associées au concept de service écosystémique sont relativement reconnues et prises en compte, les incertitudes sociétales le sont beaucoup moins. Il semble nécessaire de développer des démarches fondées sur la confrontation et l’intégration des points de vue, des intérêts et des connaissances des différents acteurs sur les services et leurs dynamiques, pour que les arbitrages (trade-offs) entre services soient l’objet de choix collectifs explicitement négociés.
Mots-clés :
- Services écosystémiques,
- services environnementaux,
- incertitude,
- système complexe,
- système multi-acteurs,
- perceptions,
- conflits d’intérêts,
- arbitrage entre services écosystémiques,
- participation,
- négociation
Abstract
The concept of ecosystem services – benefits supplied to human societies by ecosystems- is a fast spreading concept, both in scientific and political arenas. Because of this success, this concept is more and more used as a robust and stabilised concept, with a lack of recognition of the high uncertainties associated with it. This paper first highlights the scientific uncertainties concerning the socio-ecological dynamics of production of services. In many cases, scientific have no certainties about the cause-effect relationships between the state of an ecosystem and the effective production of a service, either because of a lack of knowledge on these relationships, either because the complex systems under study are by their nature unpredictable. The paper also underlines the importance of societal uncertainties associated with ecosystem services, due to the existence of diverse and sometimes contradictory perceptions among stakeholders, about the concept of service and the framing of human-nature relationships, and about the governance devices and tools using this concept, such as payments for environmental services. Based on a literature review, this papers shows that several communities of researchers take scientific uncertainties into account, but very few deal with societal uncertainties. We emphasize the need to develop methods aimed at confronting and integrating the diversity of stakeholders’ perceptions, interests and knowledge about ecosystem services and their dynamics, seeing trade-offs among ecosystem services as explicit collective and concerted choices.
Keywords:
- Ecosystem services,
- environmental services,
- uncertainty,
- complex systems,
- multi-staleholders system,
- perceptions,
- conflicts of interests,
- trade-off among ecosystem services,
- participation,
- negotiation
Download the article in PDF to read it.
Download
Appendices
Remerciements
Ces travaux ont été réalisés dans le cadre d’un post-doctorat financé par le Cirad et en association avec le projet Serena financé par l’ANR dans le cadre du programme Systerra. Les auteurs remercient les deux relecteurs anonymes qui par leurs commentaires ont permis d'améliorer cet article.
Bibliographie
- Abler, D., 2004, Multifunctionality, Agricultural Policy, and Environmental Policy. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 33, 1
- Aznar, O. et P. Perrier-Cornet, 2002, Les services environnementaux : diversité des conceptions et réalité des contours. Colloque SFER Multifonctionnalité. Paris.
- Aznar, O. et P. Perrier-Cornet, 2003, Les services environnementaux dans les espaces ruraux Une approche par l'économie des services. Economie rurale, 153-168.
- Balmford, A., A. Bruner et al., 2002, Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature. Science 297, 5583, 950-953.
- Barnaud, C., T. Promburom et al., 2007, An evolving simulation and gaming process to facilitate adaptive watershed management in mountainous northern Thailand. Simulation and Gaming 38, 398-420.
- Bennett, E. M., G. D. Peterson et al.,2009, Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters 12, 1-11.
- Bienabé, E. et R. R. Hearne, 2006, Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and scenic beauty within a framework of environmental services payments. Forest Policy and Economics 9 : 335-348.
- Billaud, J.-P., 1996, Négotiations autour d'une nature muette. Etudes rurales 141-142 : 63-83.
- Bohensky, E. L., B. Reyers et al., 2006, Future Ecosystem Services in a Southern African River Basin : a Scenario Planning Approach to Uncertainty. Conservation Biology 20, 4, 1051-1061.
- Boisvert, V. et F.-D. Vivien, 2010, Gestion et appropriation de la nature entre le Nord et le Sud. Revue Tiers Monde 202, 15-32.
- Börner, J., S. Wunder et al., 2010, Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon : Scope and equity implications. Ecological Economics 69, 6, 1272-1282.
- Bousquet, F., O. Barreteau et al., 1996, Modélisation d’accompagnement : systèmes multi-agents et gestion des ressources renouvelables. Quel environnement au XXIème siècle ? Environnement, maîtrise du long terme et démocratie. Abbaye de Frontevraud.
- Brugnach, M., A. Dewulf et al., 2008, Toward a relational concept of uncertainty : about knowing too little, knowing too differently, and accepting not to know. Ecology & Society 13, 2, .
- Bruijnzeel, L. A., 2004, Hydrological functions of tropical forests : not seeing the soil for the trees ? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 104, 1, 185-228.
- Carpenter, S. R., H. A. Mooney et al., 2009, Science for managing ecosystem services : Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. PNAS 106, 5, 1305–1312.
- Carpenter, S. R., G. D. Peterson et al., 2006, Scenarios for Ecosystem Services : An Overview. Ecology & Society 11, 1, 29.
- Chapin, F. S., E. S. Zavaleta et al., 2000, Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405, 6783, 234-242.
- Chazal, J. d., F. Quétier et al. 2008, Including multiple differing stakeholder values into vulnerability assessments of socio-ecological systems. Global Environmental Change 18, 508-520.
- Chevassus-au-Louis, B., J.-M. Salles et al., 2009, Approche économique de la biodiversité et des services liés aux écosystèmes. Rapports et documents du Centre d'Analyse Stratégique. Paris.
- ComMod, C., 2005, La modélisation comme outil d'accompagnement. Natures Sciences Sociétés 13, 165-168.
- Cork, S., G. D. Peterson et al., 2005, Four scenarios , chapter 8, . Ecosystems and human well-being : scenarios. M. E. Assessment, Island Press. 2.
- Costanza, R., 2006, Ecosystems without commodifying them. Nature 443, 7113,749-749.
- Costanza, R., R. d'Arge et al., 1998, The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecological Economics 25, 1, 3-15.
- Costanza, R., R. d’Arge et al., 1997, The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 15 mai, 353-360.
- Daily, G. C., S. Alexander et al., 1997, Ecosystem Services : Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems Issues in Ecology.
- Daily, G. C. et K. Ellison, 2002, The New Economy of Nature. The Quest to Make Conservation Profitable Shearwater. Washington, DC, Island Press.
- de Groot, R. S., M. A. Wilson et al., 2002, A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41, 3, 393-408.
- Descola, P., 2005, Par-delà nature et culture. Paris, NRF Gallimard.
- Dewulf, A., M. Craps et al., 2005, Integrated management of natural resources : dealing with ambiguous issues, multiple actors and diverging frames. Water Science & Technology 52, 6, 115-124.
- Diaz, S., S. Lavorel et al., 2007, Incorporating plant functional diversity effects in ecosystem service assessments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 52, : 20684-20689.
- Ehrlich, P. R. et H. A. Mooney, 1983, Extinctions, substitutions and ecosystem services. BioScience 33, 4, 248-254.
- Engel, S., S. Pagiola et al., 2008, Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice : An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics 65, 4, 663-674.
- FAO , 2007, Paying farmers to conserve biodiversity and other environmental services.
- Farber, S. C., R. Costanza et al., 2002, Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 41, 3, 375-392.
- Fearnside, P. M., 1997, Environmental services as a strategy for sustainable development in rural Amazonia. Ecological Economics 20, 1, 53-70.
- Funtowicz, S. O. et J. R. Ravetz, 1993, Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25, 739-755.
- Funtowicz, S. O. et J. R. Ravetz, 1994, The worth of a songbird : ecological economics as a post-normal science. Ecological Economics 10, 3, 197-207.
- Gordon, L. J., C. M. Finlayson et al., 2010, Managing water in agriculture for food production and other ecosystem services. Agricultural Water Management 97, 4, 512-519.
- Grieg-Gran, M., I. Porras et al., 2005, How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor ? Preliminary lessons from Latin America. World Development 33, 9, 1511-1527.
- Hansson, C. B. et M. Wackernagel, 1999, Rediscovering place and accounting space : how to re-embed the human economy. Ecological Economics 29, 2, 203-213.
- Hein, L., K. van Koppen et al., 2006, Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 57, 2, 209-228.
- Hirchmann, A. O., 1995, Des conflits sociaux comme piliers de la société démocratique de marché. Un certain penchant à l'autosubversion. Paris, Editions Fayard, 337-362.
- Holling, C. S., 1973, Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 4, 1-23
- Holling, C. S., 2001, Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological and social systems. Ecosystems 4, 390-405.
- Hope, R. A., I. Porras et al., 2007, Negotiating Watershed Services. London, International Institute for Environment and Development.
- Kaplowitz, M. D., 2001, Assessing mangrove products and services at the local level : the use of focus groups and individual interviews. Landscape and Urban Planning 56, 1-2, 53-60.
- Karsenty, A., 2004, Des rentes contre le développement ? Les nouveaux instruments d’acquisition mondiale de la biodiversité et l’utilisation des terres dans les pays tropicaux. Mondes en Développement 32, 127p
- Kergreis, S., 2009, Les valeurs et les actes : une perspective transdisciplinaire pour l'éducation à l'environnement. Education relative à l'environnement 8, 91-108.
- Lamarque, P., F. Quétier, et al., sous presse, The diversity of the ecosystem services concept and its implications for their assessment and management. Comptes rendus Biologies.
- Larrère, C. et R. Larrère, 1997, Du bon usage de la nature. Pour une philosophie de l’environnement., Aubier.
- Lewis, C., 2004, Communication for rural innovation. Rethinking agricultural extension. Oxford, Blackwell publishing Ltd.
- Lescuyer, G., 2000, Evaluation économique et gestion viable de la forêt tropicale. Socio-économie du développement. Paris, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales. Thèse de doctorat, 415p.
- Limburg, K. E., R. V. O'Neill, et al., 2002, Complex systems and valuation. Ecological economics 41, 2002, 409-420.
- Locatelli, B., V. Rojas et al., 2008, Impacts of payments for environmental services on local development in northern Costa Rica : a fuzzy multi-criteria analysis. Forest Policy and Economics.
- Mathevet, R., 2010, Wetland Management, Social Conflicts and Environmental Crisis in the Biosphere Reserve of Camargue , Rhone river delta, Southeastern France, : Lights and Shadows of Policies, Sciences and Land Uses Interactions. Association of American Geographers - 2010 Annual Meeting. Washington, D.C.
- Mathevet, R., J. Thompson et al., 2010, La solidarité écologique : un nouveau concept pour une gestion intégrée des parcs nationaux et des territoires. 18, 424-433.
- McCauley, D. J., 2006, Selling out on nature. Nature 443, 27-28.
- MEA , 2005, . Ecosystems and Human well-being : current states and trends. Washington, DC, Island press.
- Mehta, L., L. M. et al., 1999, Exploring understanding of institutions and uncertainty : new directions in Natural resource management. IDS discussion paper 372, 48p.
- Morin, E., 1990, Introduction à la pensée complexe. Paris, ESF editeur.
- Morin, E. et A. B. Kern, 1993, Terre-patrie. Paris, Seuil.
- Muradian, R., E. Corbera et al., 2010, Reconciling theory and practice : An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 69, 6, 1202-1208.
- Murphy, J. M., D. M. H. Sexton et al., 2004, Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations. Nature 430, 7001, 768-772.
- Norgaard, R. B. , 2010, Ecosystem services : From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics 69, 6, 1219-1227.
- Norgaard, R. B. et C. Bode, 1998, Next, the value of God, and other reactions. Ecological Economics 25, 1, 37-39.
- Ollagnon, H., 1989, Une approche patrimoniale de la qualité du milieu naturel. Du rural à l'environnement, la question de la nature aujourd'hui. N. Mathieu and M. Jollivet. Paris, L'harmattan, 258-268
- Pagiola, S., 2007, Payments for Environmental Services : From Theory to Practice. Global Workshop on Payments for Environmental Services. Mataram, Indonesia.
- Pahl-Wostl, C., 2005, The implications of complexity for integrated resources management. Environmental Modelling & Software 22, 5, 561-569.
- Palumbi, S. R., 2001, Humans as the World's Greatest Evolutionary Force. Science 293, 5536, : 1786-1790.
- Patterson, T. M. et D. L. Coelho, 2009, Ecosystem services : Foundations, opportunities, and challenges for the forest product sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257 : 1637-1646.
- Pearce, D., 2007, Do we really care about biodiversity ? . Environmental and Ressource Economics 37, 1, : 313-333.
- Perrings, C., 2005, Economics and the value of biodiversity and ecosystem services. International Conference on Biodiversity, Science and Governance, Paris, Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle.
- Peterson, G. D., T. D. J. Beard et al., 2003, Assessing future ecosystem services : a case study of the Northern Highlands Lake District, Wisconsin. Conservation Ecology 7, 3, .
- Pritchard, L., C. Folke et al. ,2000, Valuation of Ecosystem Services in Institutionnal Context. Ecosystems 3, 36-40, .
- Quétier, F., S. Lavorel et al., 2009, Assessing ecological and social uncertainty in the evaluation of land-use impacts on ecosystem services. Journal of land-use science 4, 3, : 173 - 199.
- Raudsepp-Hearne, C., G. D. Peterson et al., 2010, Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. PNAS 107, 11, 5242-5247.
- Rodríguez, J. P., T. D. Beard et al., 2006, Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecology and Society 11, 1, 28.
- Schneider, S. H., 2001, What is 'dangerous' climate change ? Nature 411, 6833, : 17-19.
- Sébastien, L. et C. Brodhag, 2004, A la recherche de la dimension sociale du développement durable. Développement durable et territoires Dossier 3 : Les dimensions humaine et sociale du Développement Durable.
- Serres, M., 1990, Le contrat naturel. Paris, François Bourin.
- Stern, P. C. et T. Dietz, 1994, The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues 50, 3, : 65-84.
- Sullivan, S., 2009, Green capitalism, and the cultural poverty of constructing nature as service provider. Radical Anthropology 2009-2010, 3, 18-27.
- Vinck, D., 1999, Les objets intermédiaires dans les réseaux de coopération scientifique. Revue Française de Sociologie 40, 2, : 385-414.
- Vitousek, P. M., H. A. Mooney et al., 1997, Human Domination of Earth's Ecosystems. Science 277, 5325, : 494-499.
- Walker, B., S. Carpenter, et al. , 2002, Resilience management in social-ecological systems : a working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conservation Ecology 6, 1, : 14.
- Walker, W. E., P. Harremoû s, et al. , 2003, Defining Uncertainty : A Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Management in Model-Based Decision Support. Integrated Assessment 4, 1, : 5 - 17.
- Weber, J. ete D. Bailly, 1993, Prévoir c'est gouverner. Natures, sciences, sociétés 1, 1, .
- Westman, W., 1977, How much are nature’s services worth. Science 197, 4307, : 960-964.
- Wilson, M. A. et R. B. Howarth , 2002, Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services : establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation. Ecological Economics 41, 3, : 431-443.
- Wunder, S., 2005, Payments for environmental services : Some nuts and bolts. CIFOR Occasional Paper 42.
- Zhang, W., T. H. Ricketts, et al. , 2007, Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecological economics 64 : 253-260.