Linking the knowledge and reasoning of dissenting actors fosters a bottom-up design of agroecological viticulture

Wine growing has a high economic value globally, and vineyards, with their centenarian grape varieties, are an integral part of our societies. Yet with the use of spraying to control pathogens and weeds, mainstream viticulture has become a big pesticide consumer. Criticism of this conventional type of viticulture and its environmental/health impacts is increasing strongly throughout society. Until now, mainstream ‘top-down’ scientific-technical developments have focused on breeding for new varieties and on designing new agronomic models. In parallel, organic and biodynamic practices have been developing alternatives. Either way, changes do not develop on the expected time scale. We posit that the diversity of actors concerned, from winegrowers to technical advisers, consumer associations, conservationists, elected representatives, citizens, and scientists, all contribute to the perpetuation of a constrained situation, through their differences in perspectives and practices, positions, knowledge, and reasoning. To untangle this situation, we brought together these dissenting actors. With a view to resolving the epistemological challenges, we then characterized four types of knowledge, along with the reasoning in play, and designed a tetrahedral model to legitimize and inter-relate them. This tetrahedron supported co-construction of a collective epistemology after a paradigm shift, in which the dissensus became a resource on numerous occasions. We then highlighted masked double-bind situations and went further, developing a seven-step Argonaut to conduct the project. New practices were designed, to do away with herbicides and develop ecological grassing. They were implemented on a large scale in vineyards, within a short time frame, while enhancing the value of a neighbouring nature reserve. Projects currently underway in Switzerland, Germany, and France suggest that differences in knowledge are enriching, and yet that the reasoning at play fit with our tetrahedron model. We thus show that dissenting actors can dissolve agronomic/economic/ecological dilemmas, while acting under uncertainty, and foster agroecology development.