Action without change? On the use and usefulness of pilot experiments in environmental management

One of the most common approaches to environmental action consists in designing and implementing pilot experiments, which aim at testing new practices and organisations. These technical or socio-political innovations are then supposed to spread. However, the way such a juxtaposition of experiments is expected to lead to a global transformation of our development paths and of their environmental dimension remains quite mysterious, if not mythified. Analysing the pilot approach as a strategy of change, this article offers a concise view on what is at stake in the replication hypothesis underlying the approach.L’une des approches les plus répandues de l’action environnementale consiste à concevoir et à mettre en œuvre des expériences pilotes destinées à tester de nouvelles pratiques, de nouveaux modes d’organisation. Ces innovations techniques ou sociopolitiques ont ensuite vocation à « faire tache d’huile ». Pourtant, la façon dont cette juxtaposition d’expériences est censée accoucher d’une transformation globale de nos modes de développement et de leur « contenu » environnemental demeure assez mystérieuse, voire largement mythifiée. Analysant l’approche pilote de l’action en tant que stratégie de changement, cet article se propose d’apporter un éclairage concis sur les enjeux fondamentaux du mécanisme de réplication qui en est l’hypothèse sous-jacente

Integrated Coastal Zone Management: four entrenched illusions

The considerable efforts undertaken on all continents to carry out field experiments and refine the concept of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) have resulted in its adoption as the key paradigm for the sustainable development of coastal areas. Having reached a first phase of maturity, ICZM should now be challenged by critical assessments if it is to advance both theoretically and operationally. In this perspective, our paper highlights four deep-rooted illusions: the illusion that round table discussions can solve any problem, the coastal manager myth, the community illusion and the positivist illusion. It is argued that these illusions result from unproved conceptual over-simplifications and lead to a naive conception of action that often impedes ICZM implementation

Biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation: a way out of the deadlock?

The rural poor often depend on biodiversity for a wide range of natural resources and ecosystem services essential for their well-being, and are therefore potentially affected by its degradation. Against this backdrop, conservationists, development practitioners and policy makers often have differing opinions on how—and whether—to link biodiversity conservation with poverty reduction. Nonetheless, the growing volume of literature on the subject often results in platitudes that fail to confront real problems faced by development projects, plans and policies. Indeed, the linkages between biodiversity and poverty are much more complex and dynamic that often assumed; this is why endeavours to address the real issues—rather than pretending they do not exist—as well as efforts to be more specific about definitions, contexts and activities when undertaking assessments, are so badly needed. As a result, this paper first synthesises the biodiversity-poverty debate in a static perspective by investigating scientific evidence on the links between biodiversity per se, ecosystems and well-being; it further questions whether poor households particularly rely on biodiversity for their livelihoods. In dynamic terms, it thereafter explores whether biodiversity conservation is a route to poverty alleviation, and conversely if poverty alleviation is a route to better biodiversity management. We continue by presenting two emerging (or re-emerging) issues which challenge some key preconceived ideas about the poverty-biodiversity nexus: the “environmentalist paradox” and the need to re-open the Millennium consensus so as to give more weight to inequalities reduction as opposed to poverty alleviation

Biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation: a way out of the deadlock?

The rural poor often depend on biodiversity for a wide range of natural resources and ecosystem services essential for their well-being, and are therefore potentially affected by its degradation. Against this backdrop, conservationists, development practitioners and policy makers often have differing opinions on how—and whether—to link biodiversity conservation with poverty reduction. Nonetheless, the growing volume of literature on the subject often results in platitudes that fail to confront real problems faced by development projects, plans and policies. Indeed, the linkages between biodiversity and poverty are much more complex and dynamic that often assumed; this is why endeavours to address the real issues—rather than pretending they do not exist—as well as efforts to be more specific about definitions, contexts and activities when undertaking assessments, are so badly needed. As a result, this paper first synthesises the biodiversity-poverty debate in a static perspective by investigating scientific evidence on the links between biodiversity per se, ecosystems and well-being; it further questions whether poor households particularly rely on biodiversity for their livelihoods. In dynamic terms, it thereafter explores whether biodiversity conservation is a route to poverty alleviation, and conversely if poverty alleviation is a route to better biodiversity management. We continue by presenting two emerging (or re-emerging) issues which challenge some key preconceived ideas about the poverty-biodiversity nexus: the “environmentalist paradox” and the need to re-open the Millennium consensus so as to give more weight to inequalities reduction as opposed to poverty alleviation

Conservation Learning Initiative: Learn from evidence. Improve Conservation

The conservation community needs smarter and more successful actions to improve the impact of its work. For example, it is not always clear how to create training programmes that improve performance in a lasting way, or what the ingredients of a successful conservation partnership are, or how donors can set up funding so that grantees can work in a strategic and sustainable way.One way of designing successful, effective actions is through using insights from evidence-based learning. Recent years have seen significant steps forward in developing concepts for defining and using evidence in conservation. In late 2021, the MAVA Foundation, Foundations of Success (FOS), and Conservation Evidence joined forces in an initiative to build further on this work.Combining the strengths of their approaches with MAVA's treasure of nearly 30 years of conservation data, they set out to formulate assumptions and collect evidence to answer key learning questions. The results of this joint work are now available on the Conservation Learning Initiative website (https://conservation-learning.org/) and in a consolidated report.The website and report present:A practical 5-step approach for evidence-based learning in conservation, designed for combining different sources of evidence, dealing with differences in reliability and relevance, and drawing conclusions.Valuable insights based on data regarding four widely used conservation strategies: capacity-building, forming partnerships and alliances, providing flexible funding, and research and monitoring.The lessons learned will help conservationists fine-tune their work or investment to increase their conservation impact. By applying the approach on their own data, they can learn from evidence to make better decisions and improve strategies over time

Action without change? On the use and usefulness of pilot experiments in environmental management

One of the most common approaches to environmental action consists in designing and implementing pilot experiments, which aim at testing new practices and organisations. These technical or socio-political innovations are then supposed to spread. However, the way such a juxtaposition of experiments is expected to lead to a global transformation of our development paths and of their environmental dimension remains quite mysterious, if not mythified. Analysing the pilot approach as a strategy of change, this article offers a concise view on what is at stake in the replication hypothesis underlying the approach

Gestion intégrée des zones côtières: quatre illusions bien ancrées

Les efforts considérables qui ont été déployés sur tous les continents pour approfondir la compréhension du concept de Gestion Intégrée des Zones Côtières (GIZC) et mener des expériences de terrain, ont abouti à son adoption comme paradigme central du développement durable des littoraux. Ayant ainsi atteint une première phase de maturité, la GIZC doit maintenant, pour progresser tant sur le plan théorique qu’opérationnel, être soumise à des bilans critiques indispensables à la consolidation et à l’assainissement de ses fondations. Cet article s’atèle à cette tâche en mettant en discussion plus particulièrement quatre illusions tenaces qui toutes relèvent d’une conception naïve de l'action et portent préjudice à la mise en œuvre de la GIZC : l’illusion du tour de table comme solution à tous les problèmes, le mythe du coastal manager, l’illusion communautaire et l’illusion positiviste.The considerable efforts undertaken on all continents to further deepen the common knowledge of the ICZM concept, and to carry out field experiments, have resulted in its adoption as the key paradigm for sustainable development of coastal areas. Having reached a first phase of maturity, ICZM should now be challenged by critical assessments if it is to advance both theoretically and operationally. In this perspective, our paper highlights four deep-rooted ICZM illusions which draw on a naïve view of action and hamper ICZM implementation: the illusion that sitting together can solve any problem, the coastal manager myth, the community illusion and the positivist illusion

Agir mais ne rien changer ? De l’utilisation des expériences pilotes en gestion de l’environnement

L’une des approches les plus répandues de l’action environnementale consiste à concevoir et à mettre en œuvre des expériences pilotes destinées à tester de nouvelles pratiques, de nouveaux modes d’organisation. Ces innovations techniques ou sociopolitiques ont ensuite vocation à « faire tache d’huile ». Pourtant, la façon dont cette juxtaposition d’expériences est censée accoucher d’une transformation globale de nos modes de développement et de leur « contenu » environnemental demeure assez mystérieuse, voire largement mythifiée. Analysant l’approche pilote de l’action en tant que stratégie de changement, cet article se propose d’apporter un éclairage concis sur les enjeux fondamentaux du mécanisme de réplication qui en est l’hypothèse sous-jacente.One of the most common approaches to environmental action consists in designing and implementing pilot experiments which aim at testing new practices and organisations. These technical or socio-political innovations are then supposed to spread. However, the way such a juxtaposition of experiments is expected to lead to a global transformation of our development paths and of their environmental dimension remains quite mysterious, if not mythified. Analysing the pilot approach as a strategy of change, this article offers a concise view on what is at stake in the replication hypothesis underlying the approach

Agir mais ne rien changer ? De l’utilisation des expériences pilotes en gestion de l’environnement

One of the most common approaches to environmental action consists in designing and implementing pilot experiments which aim at testing new practices and organisations. These technical or socio-political innovations are then supposed to spread. However, the way such a juxtaposition of experiments is expected to lead to a global transformation of our development paths and of their environmental dimension remains quite mysterious, if not mythified. Analysing the pilot approach as a strategy of change, this article offers a concise view on what is at stake in the replication hypothesis underlying the approach