IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01331096.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The pretext of foresight to debate on irrigation groundwater management: lessons from six cases studies in France

Author

Listed:
  • Marielle Montginoul

    (UMR G-EAU - Gestion de l'Eau, Acteurs, Usages - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement - IRD - Institut de Recherche pour le Développement - AgroParisTech - IRSTEA - Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies pour l'environnement et l'agriculture - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier)

  • Anne-Gaëlle Figureau

    (BRGM - Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières)

  • Patrice Garin

    (UMR G-EAU - Gestion de l'Eau, Acteurs, Usages - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement - IRD - Institut de Recherche pour le Développement - AgroParisTech - IRSTEA - Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies pour l'environnement et l'agriculture - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier)

  • Cécile Hérivaux

    (BRGM - Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières)

  • Laurianne Morel

    (Chambre d'Agriculture des Bouches du Rhônes)

  • Jean-Daniel Rinaudo

    (BRGM - Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières)

Abstract

The transcription of the 2000's European Water Framework Directive in France has led to define maximum volumes that can be abstracted in water bodies. In many French contexts, it requires reducing more or less drastically current water consumption, especially in agriculture where farmers were granted permits by the water policy authority, regardless the real level of water availability. To do so, French water law imposes, where water bodies are structurally in water scarcity, to create irrigation associations charged to share available water between farmers. And the challenge is particularly high in the groundwater case, where farmers are not embedded in collective irrigation schemes. Sharing rules have then to be designed from the ground up. This communication presents and critics the way that innovative management instruments were explored in six cases' studies representative of the diversity of agricultural products and hydrogeological situations. These instruments were debated during 18 foresight workshops held with institutional representatives (50) and farmers (87). Foresight workshops had the advantages to make credible institutional and resource changes, and to retrieve from current but side-debates. In five cases, researchers took the lead of these workshops, and in the last one it was directly carried by a stakeholder (an Agriculture Chamber), which allows to test the transferability of such a method in real context with a direct implementing goal. Lessons are drawn at several levels. Firstly, debating on contrasted scenarios is a robust way to facilitate discussions on something not implemented yet in France. Secondly, the context highly matters, in particular the perception of the reality of groundwater scarcitylevel. Thirdly, to debate on groundwater management tools has to be firstly embedded in a more general discussion, on the future of agriculture or at least on more broadly water challenges (like in terms of quantity and quality).

Suggested Citation

  • Marielle Montginoul & Anne-Gaëlle Figureau & Patrice Garin & Cécile Hérivaux & Laurianne Morel & Jean-Daniel Rinaudo, 2016. "The pretext of foresight to debate on irrigation groundwater management: lessons from six cases studies in France," Post-Print hal-01331096, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01331096
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://brgm.hal.science/hal-01331096
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://brgm.hal.science/hal-01331096/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    groundwater; foresight;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01331096. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.