IENE 2016

The effects of infrastructure on biodiversity are now analysed in terms of the infrastructural fragmentation of ecosystems. To study these effects, the term most often used is “impact”. This term comes from ballistics, and indicates that the damage is in one direction only. However, these effects also have consequences for the infrastructure itself and how the actors concerned manage its environment. For these reasons, a preferable term is “interaction”, because it implies a feedback effect, reflecting the complexity of anthropo-ecological processes. Meanwhile, the term “adaptation” is most often used in research on biodiversity. We prefer the more relevant term “adjustment”, which expresses the ways in which the organisation of social actors changes in the most significant ecosystem evolutions. Using the term “adaptation” implies that social activities adapt to nature, which is constantly evolving and lays down its law for humanity. Which law is meant here? When an agreement must be discussed for an issue of damaged biodiversity, nature will not be at the negotiating table to sign the agreement (Michel Serres).

This presentation will discuss the implications of these ideas, using the example of interactions between infrastructure, agriculture and landscapes, and focusing on several complex situations in France and abroad. It will explain the many different interrelations between agricultural activities, infrastructure and the actors involved, drawing conclusions that make it possible to rethink the relationship between societies and nature.