Quel est le rôle des États membres dans le Groupe d'experts intergouvernemental sur l'évolution du climat, organisation connue généralement pour les scientifiques de renom qui participent à ses évaluations globales des connaissances sur les changements climatiques ? En combinant les approches des études des sciences et des techniques et de la sociologie des organisations internationales, je propose tout d'abord une analyse détaillée de la manière dont les États membres du GIEC influencent les activités de l'organisation. Je montre en particulier comment cette influence se décline lors de la définition des plans des rapports et de l'approbation de leurs résumés politiques. Je reviens ensuite sur la façon dont la négociation entre auteurs et représentants des États membres façonne le texte des rapports du GIEC et sur les implications de ces pratiques sur le cadrage de la crise climatique. Ce faisant, je montre la pertinence d'une étude des groupes d'experts intergouvernementaux en tant qu'organisations internationales.
AbstractThis paper starts from the premise that international practices are neither stable nor universal but are in fact the product of time and space. It analyzes the processes of formalization and change in international practices using the case of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an intergovernmental institution producing regular assessment of the state of the knowledge on climate change. The IPCC is particularly interesting because of the numerous external and internal controversies that it has faced since its establishment in 1988 and the institutional and organizational changes that they triggered. The paper highlights the potential of controversies as methodological occasions to observe the situatedness of international practices and trace change over time. Controversies represent moments of contention in which the normalizing and universalistic effect of routines and procedures is momentarily suspended, thus facilitating the investigation of the particular space and time in which practices evolve.
La diplomatie scientifique multilatérale a le vent en poupe. Dans le domaine de l'environnement, plusieurs institutions rassemblant scientifiques et diplomates ont vu le jour dans le but de produire une compréhension commune des problèmes environnementaux globaux et de proposer des mesures pour y faire face. Comment ces rencontres se structurent-elles ? Et quelles conséquences ont-elles sur la construction d'une gouvernance globale de l'environnement ?
This article investigates the practices through which consensus is reached on policy-relevant scientific conclusions in intergovernmental assessment bodies. Using the case of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the production of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the Synthesis Report published in 2014, it sheds light on the procedural, visual, and rhetorical arrangements in the weaving of an intergovernmental expert consensus. Drawing on ethnographic methods, the main point of the article is that the consensus emerging from the approval of the SPM is best understood as an accumulation and juxtaposition of scientific/diplomatic consensuses. It shows that these consensuses result from a layering of compromises negotiated at various stages in the assessment process and contingent on the issues at stake and the strategies of actors. In this context, consensus is not reached on individual statements but on the document as a whole, as both authors and governments seek to have their perspectives reflected. Finally, the article draws attention to the entanglement between the scientific and diplomatic rhetoric in the fabric of the SPM, which tends to construct climate change as a decontextualized and nonpolitical problem.
In the last decades, international expertise has been essential to put global environmental problems on the international agenda. These assessments are often contested, especially on issues where facts and values are profoundly entangled. This thesis investigates the case of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), one of the most authoritative, albeit contested expert organisation. It is more generally interested in how these organisations construct and maintain their authority, drawing on insights from Science and Technology Studies and sociological approaches to international organisations. A central argument is that, partly as a result of the controversial universe in which it has evolved, the IPCC has grown into an international bureaucracy. The thesis identifies four institutional arrangements on which the organisation has relied to maintain its authority. First, it has strived for a balanced representation of all nations, and in particular between developed and developing countries. Second, it has put in place governing mechanisms that allow governments to play a central role in the assessment process, encouraging the 'ownership' of its conclusions. Third, it has increasingly proceduralised the assessment, to formalise the role of its different parts and protect the organisation against criticism. Four, it has been more attentive to the management of the information displayed about its work. These arrangements are regularly renegotiated in the context of new challenges and controversies. Beyond the IPCC, they provide relevant lenses to observe the intertwining of political and epistemic authority at the international level. ; L'expertise internationale joue un rôle important dans la mise à l'agenda d'enjeux environnementaux globaux. Ces évaluations sont souvent contestées, en particulier là où les faits et les valeurs sont fortement imbriqués. Cette thèse examine le cas du Groupe d'experts intergouvernemental sur l'évolution du climat (GIEC), une des organisations d'experts les plus ...
In the last decades, international expertise has been essential to put global environmental problems on the international agenda. These assessments are often contested, especially on issues where facts and values are profoundly entangled. This thesis investigates the case of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), one of the most authoritative, albeit contested expert organisation. It is more generally interested in how these organisations construct and maintain their authority, drawing on insights from Science and Technology Studies and sociological approaches to international organisations. A central argument is that, partly as a result of the controversial universe in which it has evolved, the IPCC has grown into an international bureaucracy. The thesis identifies four institutional arrangements on which the organisation has relied to maintain its authority. First, it has strived for a balanced representation of all nations, and in particular between developed and developing countries. Second, it has put in place governing mechanisms that allow governments to play a central role in the assessment process, encouraging the 'ownership' of its conclusions. Third, it has increasingly proceduralised the assessment, to formalise the role of its different parts and protect the organisation against criticism. Four, it has been more attentive to the management of the information displayed about its work. These arrangements are regularly renegotiated in the context of new challenges and controversies. Beyond the IPCC, they provide relevant lenses to observe the intertwining of political and epistemic authority at the international level. ; L'expertise internationale joue un rôle important dans la mise à l'agenda d'enjeux environnementaux globaux. Ces évaluations sont souvent contestées, en particulier là où les faits et les valeurs sont fortement imbriqués. Cette thèse examine le cas du Groupe d'experts intergouvernemental sur l'évolution du climat (GIEC), une des organisations d'experts les plus contestées. Elle s'intéresse plus généralement à comment ces organisations maintiennent leur autorité, en croisant les apports théoriques des études des sciences et des techniques et de la sociologie des organisations internationales. Un argument central est que le GIEC, en partie à cause de l'univers controversé dans lequel il évolue, est devenu une bureaucratie internationale. La thèse identifie quatre arrangements institutionnels sur lesquels l'organisation s'est appuyée pour maintenir son autorité. Premièrement, elle s'est efforcée de maintenir une représentation équilibrée des États, principalement entre pays développés et pays en développement. Deuxièmement, il a mis en place des mécanismes de gouvernance qui permettent aux gouvernements de jouer un rôle dans le processus d'évaluation, encourageant la "reappropriation" de ses conclusions. Troisièmement, il a procéduralisé le processus d'évaluation pour formaliser le rôle de ses différentes parties et protéger l'organisation contre les critiques. Quatrièmement, il est plus attentif à la gestion de la communication. Ces arrangements sont régulièrement renégociés dans le contexte de nouveaux défis et controverses. Au-delà du GIEC, ils offrent de nouvelles perspectives pour observer l'imbrication de l'autorité politique et épistémique.
Foreword / N.K. Dubash -- Why the need for this book? / M. Hulme and K. De Pryck -- Origin and design / T. Skodvin -- Procedures / O. Leclerc -- Venues / F. Hartz and K. De Pryck -- Reports / J.E. Livingston -- Learning / S. Beck and B. Siebenhüner -- Participant diversity / A. Standring -- Early career researchers / K.M. Gustafsson -- Governments / H. Hughes -- Observers / Y. Yamineva -- Peer review / P.N. Edwards -- Disciplines / A.C. Petersen -- Indigenous knowledge systems / B. Van Bavel, J. Petrasek MacDonald and D. Sambo Dorough -- Climate models / H. Guillemot -- Scenarios / B. Cointe -- Controversies / S. Asayama, K. De Pryck S. Asayama, K. De Pryck and M. Hulme -- Uncertainty / J. O'Reilly -- Integration / M. Vardy -- Scientific consensus-seeking / M. Hulme -- Governmental approval / K. De Pryck -- Policy relevance and neutrality / M. Mahony -- Political context / R. Lidskog and G. Sundqvist -- Civic epistemologies / J.C.H. Miguel, R.R. Taddei and M. Monteiro -- Boundary objects / B. Lahn -- Visuals / I. Lorenzoni and J. Harold -- Communications / W. Pearce and A. Lindemer -- Re-imagining the IPCC : a proposal / C.A. Miller -- What has this book achieved? / K. De Pryck and M. Hulme.
In this paper, we devise a machine learning protocol to tackle a complex sociological task: to create a research sample from a few examples of interest, but in the absences of a clear definition of the target subset. As an example, we create a sample of organisational leaders starting from a list of nominees for the Bureau of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The difficulty in this task lies in the impossibility to spell out the characteristics that define leadership in a complex and highly distributed organization like the IPCC. To bypass this lack of explicit definition, we use a series of techniques for anomaly detection to identify IPCC contributors with profiles similar to official Bureau nominees. We find that we can construct a precise (albeit implicit) model of IPCC leadership despite its social and political complexity, and that we can usefully use this model to expand our initial sample.
In this paper, we devise a machine learning protocol to tackle a complex sociological task: to create a research sample from a few examples of interest, but in the absences of a clear definition of the target subset. As an example, we create a sample of organisational leaders starting from a list of nominees for the Bureau of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The difficulty in this task lies in the impossibility to spell out the characteristics that define leadership in a complex and highly distributed organization like the IPCC. To bypass this lack of explicit definition, we use a series of techniques for anomaly detection to identify IPCC contributors with profiles similar to official Bureau nominees. We find that we can construct a precise (albeit implicit) model of IPCC leadership despite its social and political complexity, and that we can usefully use this model to expand our initial sample.
In this paper, we devise a machine learning protocol to tackle a complex sociological task: extending a sample of organisational leaders starting from a list of individuals nominated for the Bureau of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The difficulty in this task lies in the impossibility to spell out the characteristics that define leadership in a complex and highly distributed organisation. To bypass this lack of explicit definition, we use a series of techniques for anomaly detection to identify IPCC contributors with profiles similar to official Bureau nominees. We found that we can build an accurate model of IPCC leadership despite its social and political complexity and that we can usefully use that model to extend our initial sample.
In this paper, we devise a machine learning protocol to tackle a complex sociological task: extending a sample of organisational leaders starting from a list of individuals nominated for the Bureau of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The difficulty in this task lies in the impossibility to spell out the characteristics that define leadership in a complex and highly distributed organisation. To bypass this lack of explicit definition, we use a series of techniques for anomaly detection to identify IPCC contributors with profiles similar to official Bureau nominees. We found that we can build an accurate model of IPCC leadership despite its social and political complexity and that we can usefully use that model to extend our initial sample.
