Understanding the Warning Process Through the Lens of Practice: Emancipation as a Condition of Action–Some Lessons from France - Reducing Disaster: Early Warning Systems for Climate Change - page 237

Of course, it is diffi cult to give solutions or fi rm recommendations for one course
of action or another. However, in order to encourage emancipation practices that
promote action within the framework of the WP, it is fair to say that:

￿ Most of the 'ideal' solutions are not ideal and have unintended consequences.
We have seen this in telecommunications, which can seem to be a source of
emancipation or energy-saving, but which also carry the risk of amnesia and
promote the proliferation of entities. It is therefore important not to believe, or
promote belief, in purely technical solutions that will relieve the burden on the
actors. It should not be forgotten that the responsibility for action remains with
the actor, who cannot offl oad it onto technical and procedural tools (Lascoumes
and Le Galès 2004 ), whatever their utility in other respects.
￿ Since trust and community are a major source of emancipation practices, they
need to be fostered, even if this entails a loss of control over the process as a
whole. Trusting the parties concerned, recognising their skills and the power of
their pre-existing social networks is fundamental. The actors on the ground are
the only ones with a grasp of all the dimensions of the issues in context, with
their specifi c constraints - something planners can never fully encompass.

￿ The dual timeframe in which the effectiveness of warning practices is embedded

means that the problem of the proliferation of entities needs to be considered
well in advance, while early warning systems are being developed.

The subtlety lies in the fact that it is rare for the causes and solutions of the prob-
lems to be entirely unconnected. For example, emancipation practices equally result
from, and contribute to, the expansion of AEs. This does not mean that nothing
should be done. Rather it is critical to acknowledge that there are choices, partly
made in advance, partly made on the ground by the actors, and it is a political matter
to decide where action is taken and where it is sidelined.
This aspect is essential: emancipating oneself in order to act is only possible if,
fi rstly, one gives up the idea of controlling everything, and, secondly, one accepts
the responsibility of choosing to act in one sphere rather than another. In this pro-
cess, science can help the actors, but can neither make the choices on their behalf
nor take responsibility for them. All this means moving away from a system of
government by instrument (Lascoumes and Le Galès 2004 ) which, under the cover
of technical effi ciency, tends to deny the political dimension of the choices made
and therefore removes them from the democratic debate.
Given the issues and challenges associated with climate change, the development
of EWSs should therefore begin by taking account of the experience and practices
of the actors concerned. They possess a great deal of knowledge and are committed
to their localities and populations. Research can provide tools for the planners, by
revealing sources of effectiveness that sometimes go unrecognised, by means of
accurate observations of the practices of the actors and by putting forward theo-
retical proposals based on those observations. It is then for the actors to take up and
tackle this question from the perspective of action and policy.