In the 1990s, a discourse emerged within global environmental change research underlining the need to go beyond previously held boundaries between science and society. While not entirely new, this discourse has however reached the highest levels of scientific cooperation embodied among others in the Future Earth (FE) platform and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Using the concept of (anti)-boundary work developed in Science and Technology Studies (STS), we trace shifts in discourses about the boundaries between social and natural disciplines; between scientists and societal actors; and finally, between the definition of problems and the provision of solutions. We do so analyzing the emergence of global sustainability and solution-oriented science in the discourses of scientific and political actors involved in FE and the IPCC. We conclude with a discussion of challenges connected to the implementation of solution-oriented research and assessment. This article is part of a special issue on solution-oriented GEAs.

Highlights

• Solution-oriented research and assessment are transforming the role of science in society.

• It challenges boundaries between social and natural disciplines; experts and social actors; problems and solutions.

• Illustrations of anti-boundary discourses are given in Future Earth and IPCC.

Voir la publication originale

Longtemps enfant oublié de la gouvernance climatique, les efforts d’adaptation se sont ancrés à l’échelle territoriale en France en 2010. L’obligation légale des Plans climat–énergie territoriaux (PCET) a en effet confronté les acteurs locaux aux complexités de l’adaptation et aux blocages émanant du développement de leur stratégie puis de sa mise en œuvre. L’exercice est avant tout marqué par une incertitude ontologique qui oblige les acteurs à réinventer leur perception du territoire. L’étude analyse comment l’architecture du territoire, au sens des compétences institutionnelles et des connaissances du territoire disponibles, structure en grande partie l’outillage de ces PCET. Elle identifie les leviers d’action, marges de manœuvre mais aussi les barrières sociales et institutionnelles qui l’accompagnent. En conclusion, des régularités s’observent malgré la singularité de chaque mobilisation des acteurs pour leur PCET : soit l’adaptation est réduite à minima, soit elle embarque la collectivité dans un chantier territorial transversal difficile à mener jusqu’au bout. Par ailleurs, la combinaison de savoirs profanes et experts affirme le souhait de mieux connaître son territoire. Cette ambition dépasse le décalage entre les intentions et les ressources affectées aux PCET dans certains cas.

Mots clés: Gouvernance climatique; adaptation locale; incertitude; barrières socio-institutionnelles ; savoir ; PCET ; territoire.

Abstract:

For a long time forgotten from climate governance, local adaptation efforts have emerged in France in 2010. Territorial actors have a legal obligation to implement Climate-energy territorial Plans (PCET). These PCET have confronted them to complex adaptation challenges including locking effects during their strategic elaboration and implementation. An ontological uncertainty marks this exercise, and therefore pushes actors to reinvent their perception of territory. The study analyses how the territorial architecture, understood as the available institutional competence and knowledge of the territory, structures PCET’s adaptation approaches. It identifies leverages, room for manoeuvre as well as social and institutional barriers. As a conclusion, regularities are observed, in spite of the singularity of each actors’ mobilisation during the PCET: either adaptation is reduced to the legal minimum, or it embarks the actors in a transversal project difficult to achieve. Nonetheless, the process combines expert and non-expert knowledge along with the intention to assess the territory. To some extent, this ambition is more important than the lack of resources affected to PCETs.

Key words: Climate governance; local adaptation; uncertainty; social and institutional barriers; knowledge; PCET; territory

Voir la publication originale