“In Grenoble, researchers allow us to correct and enrich our public policies”

Christophe Ferrari, president of Grenoble-Alpes Métropole, and Magali Talandier, researcher-professor in urban planning and land use planning at Grenoble-Alpes University, testify to the close and long-standing links that exist in their territory between researchers and local governance.

Among the cities chosen to embody the “Green Capitals of Europe”, Grenoble-Alpes Métropole is the first to have a scientific council. Why ?

Christopher Ferrari : Because the question of the environment and ecological transitions is above all a scientific question. It is certainly also a political subject, but political orientations must be based on research work. Ecology is a science, it is not a dogma.

Magali Talandier: With this proposal made in 2019 by the president of the metropolis, the mayor of the city and the president of the university at the time, the idea was to have a kind of local IPCC, a group of researchers who watch over the impact of public policies on the environment and transition. This scientific council was then mandated to support the “Green Capital” project and also the Climate, air and energy plan for the metropolis.

Is this link between research and public action new?

M.T. : No. The articulation between research, industry and local governance is old in Grenoble. It’s part of his DNA. For a long time, this territory has been part of a logic of business clusters and research laboratories that work together and generate innovations. It is also customary to say that the Grenoble model inspired the idea of ​​a competitiveness cluster. This link between industry and research embeds local governance, because these innovations are also at the origin of structuring projects for the territory. Not to mention that many elected officials come from the scientific community. Grenoble is an open-air laboratory for two reasons, firstly because the community calls on the work of researchers in order to obtain scientific results on subjects it deems a priority, but also because many scientists take over this territory. as a testing ground for their research.

C.F.: This hybridization between researchers, companies and communities is indeed old. The Popsu program (observation platform for urban projects and strategies) in which we take part is an illustration of this. For a long time, we have been co-financing theses which allow us to develop a reflection on the basis of local elements. Elements that improve our understanding of the phenomena of the territory. Research allows us to get out of false debates and debate real issues.

Does this contribution of research lead to a different approach to public action?

C.F.: Researchers bring us both the contradiction and elements that allow us to correct and enrich our public policies. They can also bring out approaches that were not at all within the metropolitan “scope” and on which we must nevertheless move forward. For example, the MobilAir research program, which identified the number of premature deaths due to poor air quality, enabled us to objectify the debate and thus accelerate our entire Air strategy. The elect can be convinced of certain things, but when they confront the demonstration of the scientist, they become acculturated with the reality of the subjects. The question of public health has thus become an uncontested subject.

This is what led us to extend the low emission zone (ZFE), set up in 2018 over ten municipalities, to the twenty-seven of the metropolis, all political sensibilities combined. Or to develop the offer of rental and aid for the purchase of electric bikes, which were not in our priorities but proved by research to be a particularly useful tool for accelerating changes in mobility. Likewise, the fact of discovering that 45% of the particles in the air of Grenoble, and even 70% in winter, were due to inefficient heating led us to increase the Air Bois bonus and to equip households with analyzers of particles, to make them aware and convince them to change the heating method.

M.T. : Another example is the survey work in sensitive neighborhoods which gave rise to the idea of ​​adopting, in 2012, a well-being indicator [soutenable et territorialisé], iBEST. This indicator, renewed every four years, makes it possible to support public action with analysis tools other than the usual quantitative indicators on employment, income, etc.

What is the place of citizens in this dynamic?

M.T. : The links between researchers and associations are numerous and, here again, old. But the Green Capital label provides us with an exceptional opportunity to share research with as many people as possible. Each month, on a given theme, the scientific council proposes a sharing of knowledge during conferences, but also in more original formats such as plays, photo exhibitions, urban wanderings. Artists were in residence for a month in a research laboratory, to understand and discuss with scientists in order to then be able to present the results. By using sensitive approaches, we hope to attract a wider audience, but also to reach them by conveying the messages in a less anxiety-provoking, less negative, less peremptory way.

C.F. : We are also in the process of setting up a citizens’ convention for the climate, which will be led by a scientific committee. And we are building a science center, a place dedicated to the meeting between scientists and citizens which will allow the public to learn about the sciences of the Earth, the Universe and the climate.