[en] Through the issue of pesticide management in Belgium, this article offers an empirical and conceptual grasp on what Ulrich Beck called the second-order reflexive modernity; that which is exercised among citizens when they are confronted with threatening and uncertain situations. To achieve this, we use two case studies of two public policy instruments, which we offer to the public for discussion: food product labelling, and the modelling of toxic effects linked to pesticide use. To this end, we organised two focus groups designed to encourage discussion, composed of citizens/practitioners. The results obtained plead in favour of a collective deconstruction-reconstruction of these tools and can lead to what we propose calling a “pragmatic collective interest.” This “pragmatic collective interest” can take the form of a new set-up or new associations that enable the coexistence of conflicting propositions and points of view, and a suspension of efforts to hierarchize causes and required solutions.
Disciplines :
Sociology & social sciences
Author, co-author :
Melard, François ; Université de Liège - ULiège > DER Sc. et gest. de l'environnement (Arlon Campus Environ.) > DER Sc. et gest. de l'environnement (Arlon Campus Environ.)
Mormont, Marc ; Université de Liège - ULiège > DER Sc. et gest. de l'environnement (Arlon Campus Environ.) > Socio-économie, Environnement et Développement
Language :
English
Title :
The "Pragmatic Collective Interest" as the Product of Civic Deliberation: The Case of Pesticide Management in Belgium
Alternative titles :
[fr] L'intérêt Collectif Pragmatique comme produit de la délibération citoyenne: le cas de la gestion des pesticides en Belgique
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.
Bibliography
The acronym of the project stands for: "Feasibility of a Participatory Modelling Process for Pesticides Risk Assessment" (cfr. Section 3.2.).
Wilson, C.; Tisdell, C. Why farmers continue to use pesticides despite environmental, health and sustainability costs. Ecol. Econ. 2001, 39, 449-462.
Van Loqueren, G.; Baret, P. How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develps genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations. Res. Policy 2009, 38, 971-983.
Carson, R. Silent Spring; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA, USA, 1962.
Kuchler, F.; Ralston, K.; Unnevehr, L. Reducing pesticide risks to us food consumers: Can agricultural research help". Food Policy 1997, 22, 119-132.
Beck, U. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity; Sage publications: London, UK, 1992; p. 260.
EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR). Scientific Opinion on the science behind the development of a risk assessment of Plant Protection Products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees). EFSA Journal 2012, doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2668.
Karabelas, A.J.; Plakas, K.V.; Solomou, E.S.; Drossou, V.; Sarigiannis, D.A. Impact of european legislation on marketed pesticides-a view from the standpoint of health impact assessment studies. Environ. Int. 2009, 37, 1096-1107.
Beck, U. The Reinvention of Politics: Rethinking Modernity in the Global Social Order; Blackwell Publisher Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 1997.
Voss, J.-P.; Kemp, P. Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development-Incorporating Feedback in Social Problem Solving. In Proceedings of the ESEE Conference-Special Session on Transition Management, Lisbon, Portugal, 14-17 June 2005.
Stewart, D.W.; Shamdasani, P.N. Focus Groups: Theory and Practice; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2007.
Kitzinger, J. The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociol. Health and Illness 1994, 16, 103-121.
Callon, M.; Lascoumes, P.; Barthe, Y. Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy; The MIT Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2011; p. 298.
Habermas, J. The Theory of Communicative Action; Beacon Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1984.
Habermas, J. Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemicdimension". The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Commun. Theory 2006, 16, 411-426.
Lascoumes, P.; Le Galès, P. Understanding public policy through its instruments-from the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance 2007, 20, 1-21.
Deleuze, G.; Guattari, F. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia; Continuum: London, UK/New York, NY, USA, 2004.
Van Huylenbroeck, G.; Steurbaut, W.; Mormont, M.; Pussemier, L. Sustainability of Certified Production Systems: The Case of Labels in the Food Sector; Belgian Science Policy: Bruxelles, Belgium, 2006.
Cannell, E. European Famers Plough Ahead. Pesticides News, December 2007.
Phillips, P.W.B.; McNeill, H. Labeling for gm foods: Theory and practice. AgBioForum 2000, 3, 219-224.
Stengers, I. La Vierge et le Neutrino. Les Scientifiques Dans la Tourmente; Les empêcheurs de penser en rond: Paris, France, 2006; p. 283.
Piñeros Garcet, J.; Deblonde, M.; Mélard, F.; Louviaux, M.; Goorden, L.; Mormont, M. Feasibility of a Participatory Modelling Process for Pesticides Risk Assessment-PEPAM; Research contract N° 0A/00/027; Belgian Science Policy: Brussels, Belgium, 2006; p. 83.
Here are the associated class of pesticides according to thoses compartments : fungicides pose the highest risk for consumer (e.g., thiram, fenpropimorph, epoxiconazole), operator (e.g., fentin hydroxide, mancozeb, fluazinam and an important soil disinfectant is methyl bromide) and earthworms (e.g., mancozeb, fenpropidin, fentin hydroxide); insecticides persuasively for birds (e.g., aldicarb, carbofuran and carbosulfan), bees (e.g., vamidothion, chlorpyrifos, imidacloprid) and aquatic organisms (e.g., flufenoxuron, lindane, endosulfan), and herbicides for groundwater (e.g., lenacil, atrazine, isoproturon) (Vergucht et al. 2007).
Vergucht, S.; Piñeros Garcet, J.; Pussemier, L.; Steurbaut, W. Development of a Pesticide Risk Indicator for the Evaluation of the Belgian Reduction Plan. In Towards a Safer Food Supply in Europe; Van Peteghem, C., de Saeger, S., Daeseleire, E., Eds.; Belgian Science Policy (BELSPO): Brussels, Belgium, 2007.
These decisions are just as much political as they are technical (for example: "Consider solely risks linked to agricultural pesticides", "Zero danger for certain products", "no spatial relationship, no bee displacement, to pesticide displacement", "no ecosystem-type effect").
Thiery, O.; Cerf, M. Penser la Recherche Participative Comme une Pratique-proposition de Diagnostique. In Dynamique des Savoirs, Dynamiques des Changements; Béguin, P., Cerf, M., Eds.; Octarès: Toulouse, France, 2009; pp. 29-50.
We say "opening" insofar as a true democratisation of the technical choices assumes a commitment by the public authorities to take account of these openings (see next section)
The modeller/project initiator gave this introspective work concrete expression by writing a document dozens of pages long, rich in details and reflections. This working document was not published, but has been used in the present section as a source for the quotations. One part of this document is also available in the PEPAM report ("Analysis from a modeller perspective") and in his doctoral thesis, (currently being written).
Which is, in the present case, all the more comfortable since the modeller belongs not to the model conception team (FOCUS-Gw), but to the evaluation team (APECOP scientific consortium).
This link between new learnings in behalf of experts and the manner in which these modify their future practices is rarely discussed (if not with their colleagues in the privacy of their inner sanctums). However, in uncertain situations for which the experts have no readymade solutions to propose, the conditions of their creation, especially of their learning, is essential. What the deliberative focus group enabled to come to light was the character of the posture adopted by the modeller in order to give life to this pragmatic collective interest. Because of the necessary interdependence between experiments conducted in the course of this deliberative focus group, we could say that this pragmatic collective interest is jointly the product of the participants and the modeller, since this collective interest is shared by all members of the deliberative focus group set-up.
Mélard, F. Écologisation: Objets et Concepts Intermédiaires; P.I.E. Peter-Lang: Bruxelles, Belgium, 2008
This website uses cookies to improve user experience. Read more
Save & Close
Accept all
Decline all
Show detailsHide details
Cookie declaration
About cookies
Strictly necessary
Performance
Strictly necessary cookies allow core website functionality such as user login and account management. The website cannot be used properly without strictly necessary cookies.
This cookie is used by Cookie-Script.com service to remember visitor cookie consent preferences. It is necessary for Cookie-Script.com cookie banner to work properly.
Performance cookies are used to see how visitors use the website, eg. analytics cookies. Those cookies cannot be used to directly identify a certain visitor.
Used to store the attribution information, the referrer initially used to visit the website
Cookies are small text files that are placed on your computer by websites that you visit. Websites use cookies to help users navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. Cookies that are required for the website to operate properly are allowed to be set without your permission. All other cookies need to be approved before they can be set in the browser.
You can change your consent to cookie usage at any time on our Privacy Policy page.
