William’s Daré

Collaborative modelling as a boundary institution to handle institutional complexities in water management

Water management is an area for several sources of institutional complexity, which have been extensively studied but are still poorly handled in practice. In this chapter we add to the family of boundary entities a concept of boundary institution, in order to re-visit the dynamics at stake in participatory modelling. On the basis of a few case studies, we show that participatory modelling, as a process, fits this concept of “boundary institution”. A boundary institution is a step above considering the model as a boundary object, because it provides rules for interaction among stakeholders without prior consensus among them. In addition, these institutions provide prototypes to develop other institutions that address complex water management issues or that could help in providing institutional infrastructure (rules, etc.) to existing boundary organizations. Boundary institutions have no tangible infrastructure. Because they are intangible, how boundary organizations actually function will require further research.

Learning About Interdependencies and Dynamics

As mentioned in previous chapters, the companion modelling approach is based on principles laid down in the ComMod Charter (Collectif ComMod 2005). In this founding document, two fields of application were identified: to produce knowledge on the social and ecological systems under study and to facilitate cooperation between different stakeholders involved in a participatory process.

Power Asymmetries in Companion Modelling Processes

As discussed in the previous chapter, ComMod processes, like most participatory processes, are implemented in social contexts characterized by power asymmetries and conflicts of interest between stakeholders involved at different organizational levels.

The Commodian Stance: Interpersonal Skills and Expertise

As suggested in the introduction, companion modelling is a stance, not merely an approach. By stance we mean someone’s moral attitude. By analogy with the analysis of literary stances by Meizoz (2007), we consider that the scientist involved in ‘implicated’ research becomes part of the social play. So in a companion modelling approach, he goes beyond the boundaries of the scientific field. He enters the public arena and sends out a certain image of himself. His stance presents a double dimension, that is, rhetorical and action based. Stance is conveyed, therefore, by taking a moral, affective, social, philosophical and political standpoint that leads to action. The commodian stance is thus our term for referring to a particular way of considering the position of the researcher in the relationship between science and society.

Governance Across Multiple Levels of Agri-environmental Measures in France

After explaining why agri-environmental measures (AEMs) can be regarded as payment for environmental services (PES), this chapter focuses on the governance issues arising from the introduction of AEMs in France. These issues are examined in several territorial contexts: a metropolitan region (Auvergne) and two overseas regions (Guadeloupe and Reunion). Analysis of the national governance of AEMs highlights the weak communication between the different administrations in charge of agriculture and environment. The design of the AEM instruments was led by a highly centralised administration, in cooperation with the majority farmers’ union, promoting a mass mechanism in favour of farmers. At the regional level, agricultural stakeholders are not yet convinced of the effectiveness of the measures and seek above all to maintain their income. The three case studies underline the strategic role of intermediate actors in the implementation of AEMs at the local level.