Search

In the middle of the last century, the emergence of a new risk, the climate risk, was a sudden and largely unexpected phenomenon that has significantly changed our vision of environmental issues. Of course, the link between humans and nature is strong and ancient: a country like France has very few landscapes that have not been shaped by generations of builders, foresters or farmers. But climate change linked to greenhouse gas emissions has brought about a radically new problem, whose novelty results from its very nature. The risk of climate change was revealed by equations or very indirect observations, before it was even really observable. But the speed of its progression, with greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere which have so far never stopped increasing and accelerating their growth, has made a huge difference. Moreover, this evolution has developed in a context where it has been intimately intertwined with other rapidly changing issues: energy, environmental, social, political and demographic. However, despite the variety of warning signals put forward by the scientific community, despite the now widely shared recognition of the existence of strong climate challenges, the dynamics with which these changes have developed, very often remain underestimated and even misunderstood. Climate risk is still very often associated with a certain form of immobility, marked by the repetition of discourse that gives the impression that the stakes have changed little over the last few decades. This incomplete awareness is one of the most important brakes on the development of effective environmental policies, because it erases an essential dimension of current climate issues: we are facing a problem that is very advanced in its development and everything is no longer possible today. The future world will necessarily be marked by the need to arbitrate between partially contradictory issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The sociotecimical infrastructure required to implement environmental policies has a definite political content: it frames and influences public action, most often in an implicit way. In this paper we take a normative stance on democratic governance, which raises the need for making this infrastructure debatable. We focus on the specific case of drought management in France, which has developed an infrastructure that consists of zoning, measurement networks and threshold definition for critical flows in order to be able to assess a current hydrological situation in any place and to associate it to a specific crisis level. First we identify the various criticisms voiced by stakeholders in drought commit- tees such as challenging the infrastructure's technical validity setting out its inadequacy to a specific context, disqualifying its use due to the gap between science and the existing practice. We then suggest introducing a tool borrowed from the anthropology of techniques : the operational chain. We propose to use it to render explicit and debatable the infrastructure, its structure and content and on top of that the “regulatory science” which it stems from. This tool entails overcoming the various forms of criticism observed as well as dealing collectively with the tension between principles of justice and adaptation to local conditions. We argue that it may also provide a medium to associate lay people in the development or the revision of the infrastructure itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]