The “right-to-farm” in Lac Saint-Pierre (Québec, Canada) floodplains: Are problem-framing processes able to foster conservation conflict resolution?

Using qualitative data, we investigate the impact of the problem-framing process on stakeholder mobilization for fish habitat restoration and its influence on transforming agricultural practices in floodplains. Problem-framing involves defining and delineating a problem to suggest practical and measurable solutions for addressing it. We are examining how the conservation conflict changes over time in Lac Saint-Pierre (LSP), part of the St. Lawrence River Basin in Québec, Canada. Such conflicts arise when there are differing perspectives, interests, or actions regarding conservation goals and objectives. In recent decades, the LSP floodplain has undergone significant changes, particularly the conversion of perennial crops to intensive annual crops, which are deemed incompatible with the ecological needs of yellow perch. This species has experienced a notable decline in LSP since the 1990s, prompting Québec authorities to impose a moratorium on yellow perch fishing in 2012 to safeguard stocks. This moratorium has catalyzed efforts at the policy level to restore its habitat. However, it has also engendered tensions between agricultural activities and conservation endeavors aimed at restoring yellow perch habitat, constituting the conservation conflict under investigation. To investigate this issue, we adopt a post-normal science approach characterized by reflexivity, inclusivity, and transparency in addressing epistemological and ontological uncertainties among LSP stakeholders. Our findings offer insights into stakeholders' perspectives on the problem-framing process and its outcomes, highlighting both supportive actions enhancing the effectiveness of certain strategies among LSP stakeholders and barriers hindering their mobilization. These results underscore the importance of incorporating diverse stakeholder perspectives during the problem-framing process to enhance the robustness of the science–policy interface.