Peut-on vivre avec le ragondin ? Les représentations sociales reliées à un animal envahissant

Can we live with the Coypu? Social representations of an invasive animal

¹ Sociologue, SEED/Département Sciences et gestion de l'environnement, Université de Liège, Bâtiment BE FUL, 185 avenue de Longwy, 6700 Arlon, Belgique
² Écologue, SEED/Département Sciences et gestion de l'environnement, Université de Liège, Bâtiment BE FUL, 185 avenue de Longwy, 6700 Arlon, Belgique

Résumé

Aujourd'hui les introductions d'espèces exotiques, souvent qualifiées d'espèces invasives, sont vues comme une menace pour les écosystèmes. En menant une enquête sur les représentations liées au ragondin, introduit en Europe depuis près de cent ans, nous avons découvert que cet animal a aussi une nature domestique, sauvage et nuisible. De notre étude, il ressort également que ces représentations sont liées aux actions menées contre lui. En effet elles supposent des formes d'organisation et des choix techniques qui ont des impacts sur la nature et les hommes eux-mêmes. De là découle qu'il n'y a pas de clivages simples entre humains et espèces animales, mais de nombreuses lignes de partage, fortement contextualisées, inscrites dans des lieux et des moments. Les représentations de la nature sont aussi liées à celles des territoires, aux risques sanitaires acceptables et au profil des acteurs qui doivent mener les actions de lutte. On comprend alors qu'il est bien difficile aujourd'hui d'aligner tous ces points de manière satisfaisante.

Abstract

It has by now been demonstrated that introducing non-indigenous (exotic) species can threaten ecosystems, but how are these species perceived? This article considers a specific case, the coypu, introduced into Europe over one hundred years ago for trade in its fur. From our survey, carried out among 79 people (managers of natural areas, agricultural producers, scientists and decision-makers), it is evident that this animal has a special story because it has been transformed and, at the same time, has been attributed “many natures”, that is, it has been given many representations. The coypu is perceived both as a domestic and as a wild animal, as well as an exotic animal and as a pest. Nevertheless, in France, the law first and foremost defines the animal as a pest, which gives good reason for the two principal means of trying to control it: poisoning and trapping. However, such methods presuppose forms of organization and technical choices that have an impact on nature and on humans themselves, and are thus debated and sometimes challenged. This explains why, in the present study, representations of this animal are also systematically connected to the actions taken to control it. In the words of the people questioned, place is being sought that should be given – or denied – this animal. The comments thus emphasize the many choices that remain to be made because they depend on questions that are persistently open-ended and overlapping. New categories of representations piece together the different natures of the coypu. From this it follows that there is no simple cleavage between humans and animal species, but many shared traits, clearly dependent on context, including time and place. Representations of nature are also connected to representations of the territories, to acceptable health risks (the coypu is in fact a leptospirosis carrier) and to the profile of those who should lead the fight. In addition, it is understood that it is very difficult to coordinate these different elements in a satisfactory manner.