Could you start by introducing your current research project at SciencesPo médialab? How do you use digital technologies to foster new forms of multistakeholder collaboration?

I'm currently working on marine and coastal ecosystems observation in a project called FUTURE-OBS. Together with marine biologists and oceanographers, we are using a diverse set of sensors to create maps tracking interactions between physicochemical parameters (e.g. water temperature), plankton diversity and distribution, as well as human practices on the coast and on the sea, from fishing to picking up plastic trash underwater. We are also consulting people monitoring protected coastal areas to assess their needs and how they could use this map. For this project, our small team at the medialab combines interviews, social media data, and workshops to create some kind of archive of human practices in relation to ocean issues. 

On the one hand we use social media data to map human practices on the French coasts. For some practices, such as professional fishing, there are other available sources of data to spatialize and quantify more precisely their impact on the ecosystems. But for practices with fewer organizational structures, such as spearfishing, social media can be a valuable source of data. When mobilizing social media as a research tool, it's important to consider that we are using unsolicited data. Throughout our inquiry, we ensure the anonymity and non-traceability of the posts we study.

On the other hand, we are organizing workshops in different coastal cities. Each time, we gather dozens of ocean workers to describe ecological issues they are facing. For these workshops, we are compiling videos produced in the area surrounding the workshop and which are parts of the data we've collected. Many informative elements about the practice are gathered within this content. Videos are created and shared by users to document their practices. This documentation is a window into how they are framing the problems they are facing and how they care for the ocean: the way they are staging their actions, the reactions of other users… The participants use the videos as a starting point to describe their own practices in relation to these problems. Then, we invite them to collectively discuss situated ocean issues, exploring how their experiences add up, potentially finding common troubles.  

So, in short, non-scientist stakeholders are participating at different steps of the project. First, to assess how they could use the results of the project and to define the perimeter of the research, then to react to the collected data to describe their own practices. I would add that their contribution to the project is not representative. There is variety within each stakeholder group, such as “local fishers” for example. So, rather than seeking representativeness, we aim to reflect the diversity of experiences. 

I think that one of the main added value of this project is the adoption of an integrated rather than a siloed approach to explore how different practices come together and to seek a systemic representation of ocean problems. This is useful to gather information about cumulative impacts on the ecosystem. 

The project TEMERAIR that you coordinated focused on fostering better governance of the marine commons, and more specifically on reducing cetaceans bycatches. Can you tell us how technological innovations impacted this issue in recent years?

From 2016 onwards, there has been a significantly higher number of dolphin strandings on the beaches of the Atlantic coast. Most of the dolphin carcasses are showing signs of interaction with fishing vessels. The main hypothesis for the peak of strandings is that, with ocean temperatures rising, plankton is moving closer to the coast, followed by its predators and the predators of those predators, increasing the occurrence of bycatch. The European Commission put on notice three countries, among which France, who were not complying with the Habitats Directive by failing to take measures to prevent cetaceans bycatch. The issue also received considerable media attention and Sea Shepherd started organizing targeted actions. It all contributed to creating a momentum.Since then different policies have been developed to gather more data and to mitigate the risk of bycatch. 

To assess the risk of bycatch for dolphins, you have to compare the rate of bycatch in proportion to the entire population in order to determine if it rises above the estimated threshold. The population of common dolphins is estimated with diverse methods including aerial campaigns, and the occurrence of bycatch is estimated with the number of strandings. These methods present uncertainties, and since fishers report seeing more dolphins around their boats, it is fueling the controversy. An initial mandatory bycatch reporting system was set up, but it has proven ineffective. Some fishers did report, but most did not. They had limited interest in reporting, since there was a chance that the new data may lead to stricter regulations. Cameras were installed on the boats of fishers who were willing to participate in testing the devices to automatically detect bycatch. Now a new list of trawlers and gillnetters for which camera installation is mandatory is regularly published. Not all fishers are pleased with the cameras recording their work. 

Other digital technologies are deployed to limit the occurrence of bycatch. Acoustic repellent devices, also called “pingers”, were tested for example. The tests revealed some limitations. The cetaceans understand that the acoustic signal means that there are fishers thus probably there are fish, thus they are actually chasing the boat, a reaction called the “dinner bell effect”. There is also the risk of excluding the species out of their feeding zones, and the fact that one pinger does not work for all species. Today, pingers are mandatory for some trawlers (i.e. paired pelagic and demersal trawlers).

Another more restrictive measure has been put in place. Spatial-temporal closures of fisheries are applied now, which means that their vessels might be required to remain in port for four or six consecutive weeks each year to reduce bycatch risk.

I think the use of technologies for bycatch monitoring is a perfect case study to observe how these devices tend to not provide an easy fix and how the scientific process of assessing their efficiency is inherently political. When working on ecological problems, we have the responsibility to consider the technoscientific approach adopted by some institutions with reflexivity. New technologies can increase productivity and reduce errors and pressures when extracting fish or producing data. Still, it is crucial to look at the context in which they are used and to keep track of the interactions they trigger. 

In the current context of intensification of international tensions, what is the role of ocean science in informing international governance forums like UNOC?

Working as a researcher, you very often find yourself facing the question of how your research contributes to policy making. The interaction between knowledge production and decision-making at any level is fascinating.

Science-policy discussions between countries are crucial to transform our extraction and production processes, to improve ecosystem restoration and to set climate change adaptation and mitigation policies, while caring for environmental justice. It goes without saying that ecological systems are not ruled by our administrative borders. The lines that we draw on maps can not contain the flows of water, carbon dioxide, birds, fish, seaweeds and pollution. We have to consider our transnational interdependencies, both the interconnectedness of the ecosystems and the links created by global trade.

Scientific production of knowledge has taken a considerable role in the international discussions with regards to ocean decision making. New investments into research was one of the key announcements of the UNOC. This is great news, because ecological systems are complex by nature, but for the ocean it is especially difficult to gather data to create inventories and observe ecosystemic interactions. We are terrestrial beings, and despite all the tech development, the marine environment is still hostile and tremendously vast. On the coast, many practices co-exist at the same time and the environment is constantly changing. There are persistent uncertainties, some of which were discussed in the UNOC, especially on deep-sea mining. Sensors deployed all along the coast and in the ocean can help make more informed decisions when setting a threshold for example, or when deciding on the location of a zone of production or a protected area.

It's also important to highlight that this announcement of new funding stands in contrast to national-level announcements in France, which have recently tended to reduce investment  for the academic sector.  

Another key result of the UNOC was the new ratifications of the Agreement on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ), aimed at establishing a legal framework for the High Seas and the international seabed. As a result of these new ratifications, the Agreement is now expected to enter into force in September 2025, marking the culmination of two decades of negotiations in which ocean sciences have played a key role. Researchers provided foundations for the framework of the Agreement, including the definition of key steps for the exploitation of marine genetic resources, the identification of ecologically or biologically significant areas, the methods for environmental impact assessments, and regarding the remaining knowledge and technology gaps.

As for the concrete science-policy process during a forum, the UNOC was preceded by a scientific week during which researchers worked on policy briefs and on events for non-scientists. But this process is realized on a timescale that extends well beyond the forums. Scientists are increasingly taking time to communicate their results beyond scientific publications and congresses, translating them into new forms that can reach a larger audience. 

Now, regarding the impact of international tensions on governance forums, there are so many other factors besides biodiversity conservation that are playing a role in these discussions and in shaping our modes of interaction with the ocean: industries’ interests, colonial power, national political elections, hostility towards multilateralism or towards a specific country… We are seeing countries with major power regarding the health of marine ecosystems refusing to ratify international treaties. For instance, Russia did not sign the BBNJ, China and the US did not ratify it yet. The withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement also shook things up. 

Producing scientific knowledge takes time. Negotiating and collectively describing transnational interests also takes time. I find it frustrating to remain patient with the outcomes of these two processes for different reasons. We are facing the urgency to implement measures to reduce our impact and adapt to the multiple effects of climate change. Too often, the policies being considered rely on incremental innovation, when we truly need  deeper, systemic transformations to face challenges ahead. Finally, even when there is scientific consensus, policy measures tend to lag behind. It’s difficult not to overlook the discrepancy between IPCC’s recommendations, the national policies undertaken and local resources available for transformation. Producing knowledge is not enough. Contributing to better-informed decision-making is essential—but using science as a political display to justify inaction or delay meaningful policy implementation, especially when scientists have already provided clear recommendations, is unacceptable.

Overall, I think there is a form of disillusionment regarding international forums, but we can not afford to give up on them, since they are instrumental to ensure environmental justice and to address global issues and the multiple situated problems deriving from them.

Can you tell us a bit about your participation in the FUTURE EARTH and the APOLIMER networks? What is the added value of this type of large, interdisciplinary research networks when working on transnational issues?

Just as we need international political discussions on ecological issues, developing and sustaining international and interdisciplinary research networks is crucial to produce and circulate knowledge between countries.

Working at Future Earth, I grew a deep understanding of the importance of creating a dialogue between different experiences and diverse forms of knowledge to explore complex ecological issues. The core mission of Future Earth is to manage international research networks working on global issues. Its objective is also to create an inclusive infrastructure for researchers who are working in countries with less resources available for academia, by favoring their participation in congresses and their access to international funding for example. I was particularly involved in an initiative called the “Pathways for sustainability”. We were working with interdisciplinary scientific committees to organize workshops gathering researchers and other workers with diverse sets of expertise to develop normative scenarios, such as how transformations of the housing, energy, and agricultural sectors could contribute to reach a defined objective by 2030. 

After that, I joined APOLIMER, which is a network of coastal and marine researchers. My best memory working within this network is an event we organized in Vancouver, with Sea Around Us (University of British Columbia), the Ocean Decade Collaborative Center Northeast Pacific, the French Consulate in Vancouver, Ottawa University, Simon Fraser University and the Ocean Knowledge Action Network. We had invited a great panel of speakers, both researchers and representatives from Indigenous communities, from British Columbia, Quebec, Columbia, Spain, and French Polynesia. Different initiatives were presented, each time they were contextualized according to the countries’ specific history, with respect to colonization, resource management systems, and knowledge production. Exchanges eventually led to building a list of key learnings from their respective experiences. 

How does the concept of "ecological solidarity" open up new potential policies to remediate conflicts around limited resources? What would it take to scale up this principle, from your experiments in the Gulf of Biscay to informing international ocean governance?

Ecological solidarity is the principle of caring for those beyond your community, human and non-human beings, and of acknowledging close interdependence of living beings across different geographical spaces. In some non-Western countries, this principle has been embedded in local culture for centuries. Rather than a concept, ecological solidarity can be considered as an exercise to practice decentering from anthropocentrism and caring for all beings that pay the price for our current trajectory and pace. Of course, it can be considered tainted with utopian ink and open to conflicting interpretations. It’s only when grounded in mundane interactions, and in their relational and regional specificities that the principle becomes action.

The notion has been integrated in the French legal framework. The 2016 Law on the Recovery of Biodiversity, Nature, and Landscapes transformed the concept of ecological solidarity into a true principle of environmental law and it was incorporated into the French Environmental Code. The legal establishment of a moral link between humans and non-humans implies that within a given territory, the actors involved are to act in solidarity with the ecosystems. Of course, it did not lead to the systematic integration of the principle in decision making, but it represents a line of conduct and it can become a tool for ecological goals. It resonates with the broader question of sparking transformation with the rule of law in order to enforce the rule of morality.

I think “scaling up” is maybe not the movement we should aim for. The gesture of paying particular attention to other species could probably spread through social assemblages, helped by the media, like other cultural matters do. It's not an easy process as we decide our way out of different problematic situations. We may have to resist other external or internal incentives that are going against ecological solidarity. This is why discussing this principle collectively, at the level of a company for example, is so important. We could integrate this principle when pursuing production objectives.

You have written about the need to better integrate local fishers' knowledge within scientific research. Why is that critical in "co-designing marine science beyond good intentions”? Looking back on UNOC, what are the key barriers and opportunities you see for transforming how international organizations engage with local stakeholders in marine research, governance, and conservation?

The need to create a dialogue between scientists and people whose work is closely related to marine ecosystem health has been extensively highlighted in the literature. The Ocean Decade, an initiative for ocean sciences launched in 2021 by the UN, put a lot of emphasis on stakeholder integrations in research projects. This means that fundings tend to prioritize initiatives that include local actors in their methods.

When describing complex ecological issues, there is a complementary use of knowledge inferred from data collected by a set of sensors, knowledge acquired by training and knowledge built through practices. And I think this question is not just about knowledge. The myth of the scientific experts holding exclusively the power to define things and problems in our worlds is called into question, especially when considering the historical role of science in legitimizing violence against marginalized groups. We have to consider patterns of oppression and privilege. There is also a question regarding the structure of research - in service of whom are these sciences deployed? I think this is particularly important to avoid forms of participation-washing.

One challenge I've been confronted with lately regarding stakeholder engagement is the compensation for participation. Participating in research projects means that people may have to take a day off from their full-time job, or that they may have to manage to find a solution to have their children looked after. Thus, the people participating are often already involved in some kind of ecological efforts and have the necessary resources to participate. One challenge we encounter is that current research funding frameworks are not designed to compensate stakeholders, although this may evolve in the future.

Another challenge is that local stakeholders receive lots of solicitation to participate in research programs, especially fishers when it comes to ocean sciences. So we bear the responsibility to communicate well between current and previous research projects to build on knowledge created by previous initiatives and value the time dedicated to advancing the state-of-the-art. Carefully designing the spaces and modes of interaction that are to be collectively used is also an important step. The goal is to avoid practicing knowledge extractivism. The progressive transformation of the academic infrastructure towards project-oriented research presents both challenges and opportunities to that end.

Lastly, keeping the door of international organizations and events open to local stakeholders is important too. I think fostering multiple spaces for sharing situated experiences about ecological issues and getting inspired by others’ initiatives is crucial to build collective capacity to tackle future socio-ecological challenges.