Alarmed by a local association, researchers have been conducting an interdisciplinary survey on the ecological and social effects of Gravières in Ariège since 2023 and underlining a deficit in democratic consultation. From 13th to May 29th, an exhibition in the Fugace Museum in Saverdun will present the results of research to the public.
The 45 -year -old Muriel Duitra coordinates the end of the exhibition thanks to the financing of the university together with a dozen scientists. Interview.
How was this research project born?
The idea of giving this project was born from a warning, which was made aware of the researchers and their effects on the groundwater by a local environmental association, the APRA association, which asked the researchers. […] And in order to study the question of the Gravières, the prism of hydrology is not enough to see the whole thing, which it raises as a question from an ecological point of view, but also socially and territorially. It is therefore a dozen scientists from different disciplines that have worked together. Scientists who specialize in matter and living sciences, hence hydrologists, biogeochemists, geochemists and on the side of human and social sciences, sociologists, geographers and sciences of sustainability. The majority of scientists are part of the ateopoly [un collectif de scientifiques créé en 2018 pour réfléchir aux bouleversements écologiques en cours et à venir].
What were the goals of this interdisciplinary research and this exhibition?
In this project we tried to first summarize the available data in order to have the challenges relativized. […] The time for research is much longer, so we have opened many questions, but we didn’t answer all of them.
A few months ago, a study showed by State Services to unexpected water analyzes in the gravel pits that there was no proven contamination of the groundwater. Could you study this question on your page?
Rather, we have analyzed the social effects and the consequences of the connection between the mobilizations of the citizens and the reaction of the state. […] In various territories, there are compared to industrial controversy and the development of large -scale projects in the sense that citizens increase an ability to confiscate topics to confiscate topics. It is also a reaction to what seems to be a failure of environmental democracy. […] Everything that is set up in relation to the consultation, the consultation with the citizens, seems to be quite inconsistent in terms of the concerns of the residents. Who can study an 800 -page file in three weeks in the summer?
Do you think you have to rethink this environmental democracy?
Yes, of course. What is being set up today is probably not satisfactory for the residents and from a democratic perspective. What we point out is that it no longer works today. There are too many tension points. […] There is also a development of the position of local officers who are quite disadvantaged. And gradually the choice of regional planning, a little expropriated to act their authority. [Il faudrait] that the balance of power between prefectures, industrial, local, local officers and environmental associations are much more balanced.
One of the questions raised in their study is associated with the acceptance of land use. Why are these gravières less accepted than intensive agriculture?
I think it can be due to a territorial attachment to the agricultural and rural tradition of the territory. What particularly crystallized the dissatisfaction of the residents compared to the Gravières is their rather sudden expansion and on a scale that has become very visible and very effective on the territory. […] It seems more acceptable to have agricultural soil than a floor that seems to be torn down. Because this agricultural tradition is in lower ariège. Even if part of the grain industrial industry is not a groceryland.