Farmed icons: a deliberative decision/policy making case study. Marennes Oysters in the Pertuis

Charentais, France.

Jean-Paul Vanderlinden1, Claire Kostrzewa1, Jean Prou2, Scott Bremer1, Jean-Marc Douguet1 and Martin O’Connor1.

1

Center of economics

and ethics for the

environment and

development

Université de Versailles

Saint Quentin-en--Yvelines

1

2 IFREMERStation de La

Tramblade

• Introduction• Context

– The SPICOSA project– Marennes Oysters and the

Pertuis Charentais– Freshwater allocation issues

• Challenges– Deliberative decision making– Ker-DST deliberation support

tool– Getting to a dual scale

structuring of deliberation

2

• Issue mapping– Method– Summary results– Discussion

• Conclusion− Real world results− Challenges related results− Comparative perspective?

OU

TLI

NE

3

INT

RO

DU

CT

ION

CONTEXT

The SPICOSA Projet

Science and Policy Integration for COStal Areas.

5

CO

NT

EX

T

13 Work Packages54 research institutes4 years12*106$Mid term evaluation just finished17 Application sites

Marennes Oysters as a strong identity marker in the Pertuis Charentais

6

CO

NT

EX

T

A picture (thing)

representing something of

greater significance

The freshwater allocation ISSUE

7

CO

NT

EX

T

From Granjou et Garin (2006)

The freshwater allocation ISSUE

8

CO

NT

EX

T

From Filali (2007)

CHALLENGES

Deliberative decision making

10

Economics

Society

Environment

How can policy makers make sense of intertwined dynamic discourses

CH

ALL

EN

GE

S

Identity

Employment

Marshlands

Deliberative decision making

11

Economics

Society

Environment

How can policy makers make sense of intertwined dynamic discourses

CH

ALL

EN

GE

S

Identity

Employment

Marshlands

Ker-DST deliberation Support Tool

12X-axis — The Governance Issues

(or principal evaluation categories)

Y-axis — Categories of Stakeholders

Z-axis — Scenarios ofPossible futures

CH

ALL

EN

GE

S

Ker-DST deliberation Support Tool

13

Part of SPICOSA’S suites of science and policy integration toolshttp://kercoast.c3ed.uvsq.fr/

CH

ALL

EN

GE

S

Dual scale deliberation

• How to articulate the constant dialog between local issues and overarching ICZM goals?– How to contextualize local deliberation?

• How to move further once an issue fades away/ is dealt with.– How to prepare for learning circles/spirals?

14

?

CH

ALL

EN

GE

S

ISSUE MAPPING

Methods

• Part of larger stakeholder issue mapping thing (4 Maps produced)• Semi structured interview

– Coding• Issues• Connexions between issues

– Representation• Table (Map 1 and Map 4)• Diagram (Map 2 and Map 3) – Use of VUE software

– Validation• Other methological routes available

– Desktop + focus group– Focus groups– Participatory mapping etc…

16

ISS

UE

MA

PP

ING

Results in a nutshell

17

ISS

UE

MA

PP

ING

Short discussion

18

ISS

UE

MA

PP

ING

CONCLUSION

Real life results

• Iterative co-construction of maps– Creation of progressively shared narratives

• Pre-deliberative deliberation?????– Setting up the rules of future deliberation

• Appropriation of the clarifying nature of the mapping• Appropriation of the simplifying nature of the mapping

SETTING THE FOUNDATION FOR A DELIBERATIVE COMMUNITY?

20

CO

NC

LUS

ION

Challenge related results

21

Economics

Society

Environment

Identity

Employment

Marshlands

CO

NC

LUS

ION

Challenge related results

22

CO

NC

LUS

ION

Challenge related results

23

CO

NC

LUS

ION

Two connected matrices : local and overarching issues

THANK YOU !To my fellow IACA team mateTo the conference organizing teamTo the EC and SPICOSA partnersTo IFREMER

jean-paul.vanderlinden@uvsq.fr