Sharing and distributing environmental data: Study cases in the French and Brazilian Amazonian context.

Transcription

1 Sharing and distributing environmental data: Study cases in the French and Brazilian Amazonian context. Sandra Nicolle, AgroParisTech PhD student Observatoire Hommes/milieux Oyapock (CNRS), UMR Ecofog & MRM ERFI Orientators : F Grenand and M. Leroy International seminar - Sharing environmental information: Issues of open environmental data in Latin America UFRGS, August 24 & , Porto Alegre (Brazil) 1

2 Plan Context Problematic and methodology 1st case study : The conservatory of natural areas of French Guiana (CENG) 2nd case study : The observatory of the mining activity (OAM) Discussion Conference BAGUALA August, 23/ Porto Alegre 2

3 Context In France: Aarhus convention INSPIRE Directive ratified in 2002 transposed in 2003 The environmental law (Article L-124) that gives Le droit de toute personne d'accéder aux informations relatives à l'environnement détenues, reçues ou établies par les autorités publiques» Multiplication of initiatives for managing and sharing environmental data in French Guiana (Nicolle 2010) Choice of 2 study cases Even though sharing and diffusing data is often considered as a technical issue, we try to show here that it is also highly a matter of social interactions. 3

4 Methodology 1) CENG case study : Semi-directive interviews (14) with the participants and financers Participation to technical workshop and general assemblies 2) OAM case study : Semi-directive interviews (10) with some participants, local NGOs and ministry employees 3) + comparison with Brazil s monitoring of deforestation 4

5 1 First case study : The «Conservatory of Guiana natural areas» (CENG) A network of protected areas managers in French Guiana Source : DIREN

6 1 First case study : The «Conservatory of Guiana natural areas» (CENG) Natural areas managers: Municipalities, ONGs, state organisms Financing organisations Members Areas employees CENG 1 employee Areas guards Create a protected areas network build common projects One of them : Sharing naturalist data 6

7 First case study : The «Conservatory of Guiana natural areas» (CENG) 1 - All the areas produce some naturalist data : it is considered as one of their prioritary missions Nearly none of the areas has a structured database One of the first mission identified for the CENG was the homogeneisation, managment and sharing of these naturalist data. Why is it important to organize their data? And to share it? Financers Managers Employees «La mutualisation, c est bien» «Nous dans un premier temps on serait clairement à dire que c est là la priorité.» «c est eux qui ont fait remonter ce besoin» «C est une partie intégrante de leur travail (de systématiser leurs données)» «Ils ne peuvent pas toujours attendre de l extérieur, il faut sortir de l assistanat.» -Save time for communicating data -Make data accessible to anyone -Securize data -Have common protocols Choice of a given database (SERENA) Organization of a common formation for using it. High rate of participation. 1,5 years later, still nothing done Why? 7

8 1 First case study : The «Conservatory of Guiana natural areas» (CENG) Some technical difficulties with the SERENA database -The tool seems complicated to them -Need adaptation to French Guiana -Not as powerful as expected A matter of effective priorities The idea to manage and share their data is important to all BUT -considered as not-paid activity by them -not a real day-to-day need for them -not imposed by anyone else (not conditional to get subsidies) They want a special person in charge of doing it What expectations from the mutualisation? Some very different needs in each natural space (history and management) A lack of conceptualisation on the type of data that can be shared Other parallel projects of mutualisation Works on the «Ecological conservatory» for exemple 8

9 Second case study : The «observatory of mining activity» (OMA) 2 Actors Images Seas DEAL FAG Pref. ONF FTP Server Police force BRGM PAG Aim Produce and share data to fight against illegal goldmining Monitor the impacts of goldmining on the environment Operations -Semi automatised treatment of satellite images (SPOT) - Deforestation monitoring -Control flights and field data -Monitoring of the evolution of the situation (annual report) Environmental data produced Deforested and impacted areas Rivers impacted by the activity 9

10 2 Second case study : The «observatory of mining activity» (OMA) It does work Interest at the operational level National security army & police force Environment preservation Ministery Technical possibility Satellite imagery analysis tool implemented Cirad/ONF/DIREN Creation of a platform Filled by interested actors Animated by convinced people and with an employee for the technical aspects. but the information is not released to the civil society. Why? Despite several demands, the annual reports are kept secret since Need of the prefecture s agreement but : 1)Considered as sensitive data diffusion would make harder the police activity 2)Fear of the media deformation 3)Fear of the police force loss of motivation 10

11 2 Second case study : The «observatory of mining activity»(oma) What reactions? WWF Guianas Map on the whole Guiana shield Annual interviews with the local population National park (PAG) Participation in the OMA : field measurements, financing of more aerial missions. Diffusion on the information concerning illegal gold mining inside the park

12 3 Third case study : Brazil s deforestation observatory A comparison with other strategic data: the deforestation rates in the brazilian Amazonia International pressure Satellite imagery free to downloading (Landsat, Cibers) Federal state data treatment of the images PRODES : maps of annual deforestation DETER : detection of heat points ONGs (IMAZON) produce second opinion annually Free release of the reports Free release of the reports Transparency of the information 12

13 Discussion Synthesis CENG OAM Brazil case (PRODES) Data characteristics Naturalist data Heterogeneous quality and quantity, mainly available. Various sources of data : field data, satellite analysis of deforestation and water quality, administrative data Geographical data of deforestation (less precise) Objective Share and make available Optimize the fight, monitor the impacts Monitor the impacts, help the fight Data use? Public administration only Public diffusion / ONGs, research project Environmental second opinion Public use / Organizing sharing it: Diffusing it and to the public: Financial andmodifies human ressources for doingreduces it Also highly power repartition: power asymety? A strong interest ( get a benefit from doing it) or external incentives Linked to international engagement, but also a lot to local power interaction. Sharing data implies some modifications of power repartition (internal or external) 13

14 Thank You! Merci! Obrigada! Gracias! 14