Tools and institutions of international cooperation built up after the 2nd World War seemed to be underperforming when facing global threats on the environment, the importance of which is underlined by many recent scientific reports. International Law must go beyond its traditional purpose of supporting inter-state cooperation since it must now define rules and standards likely to be incorporated into the national legislation to help coordinate, if not harmonise, national environmental legal and policy frameworks. Beyond this remarkable expansion of international Law (some say treaty congestion) these institutions and instruments have been significantly transformed to cope with the above-mentioned threats with some new kinds of expert advice, the development of multilateral treaty making, some new types of norms, the growing role of private actors, and the development of new forms of international control --both public and private. However the global environmental governance remains fragmented. Without a world executive and legislative power, there is a proliferation on the international scene of norm producers and disseminators. The creation of a World Environmental Organisation is still in limbo and it is also disputable whether such an organisation would suffice to integrate the “multiple sites of governance” [Snyder, 2010]. The latter are loosely articulated, among themselves and with the other regulation mechanisms in domains such as trade, investment or human rights and so on, although some research points at the burgeoning architecture mixing or alternating synergy, cooperation and conflict relations between different regimes [Biermann, 2009]. The international governance of the environment was first understood through international regime analysis, where regimes are defined as sets of principles, norms, rules, and procedures, which shape the behaviour of actors in a specific area. In practice this corresponds to international conventions and subordinate treaties. More recently though, it was suggested that these regimes are embedded in some more elaborated settings labelled “regime complexes”. These are made of three or more international regimes addressing some different issues within a common domain, which not only co-exist by also interact on substance or at operational level, without being formally coordinated, and by working alongside with other governance mechanisms involving private corporations and NGOs. On the basis of this conceptualisation that saddles International Law, International Relations, Political Science, Political Economy and Sociology, this research project aims to analyse the enabling conditions, the forms and the impacts of norm circulation within actor networks by focusing on two important regime complexes, biodiversity and climate change. The fragmentation diagnosis being well established, it seems important to analyse these process through actor network analysis and focus on circulation of norms and actors. The core concept here is the “permeability” of the various elements of the regime complex, how circulation takes place and what are the impacts on the complex itself, and beyond on international governance as a whole.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stresses the urgency of adapting to Climate Change, relayed by the ‘Take urgent action’ injunction of the 13th goal of United Nations. States efforts consist mainly in climate plans. But climate risk is amplified by a governance risk. The more the implementation of climate plans and policies and their change capacity are incremental, the more their failures and ‘myopia’ are proven, and the more the ‘climate super wicked problem’ becomes a ‘tragedy’, because time is dramatically running out. Climate governance is confronted to two major challenges that deals with political and policy temporalities : how to integrate long term climate impact into today’s policy ? How to accelerate the implementation of climate plans? Literature identify two pathways to end this 'tragedy': institutional innovation and reinforcement of authority, even noting that authoritarian environmentalism is more efficient than democracy. From the case of adaptation of agriculture, the main assumption of the project is that institutional innovation in the procedural instruments for climate governance is one of the main ways to end the ‘tragedy’. However, there is a scientific weakness that prevents answering the APIICC project issues : i) the literature on institutional innovation in climate governance is scarce ii) or it states broad principles with little empirical knowledge ... iii) ... especially on procedural instruments (rarely observed, monographs) iv) or the themes on institutional innovation, procedural instruments, and political and policy temporalities are disconnected. The project has three objectives: i) To ameliorate this weakness by producing first-hand empirical knowledge on innovative procedural instruments, by focusing in particular on their links with political and policy temporalities (capacity of accelerating implemention and integrating long term) and with authority, and by studying them on a large comparative scale (11 countries, 11 national and 11 local plans) ii) To produce a model for assessing institutional innovation iii) to develop sets of recommendations for innovative governance for agricultural transformational adaptation, collaboratively with stakeholders (approach of social responsibility of science). The project has three original features: i) unlocking knowledge on climate governance ii) comparing large-scale data in the North and South and iii) producing solutions for climate action with stakeholders themselves. To achieve this goals, the variables mobilized are: i) objectives of innovation (horizontal policy integration, quality of governance, adaptive governance, that allow acceleration of implementation and integration of long term objectives) ii) types and structure of the procedural instruments iii) their positioning on the authority/innovation cursor iv) origin of the instruments (politics, administration, international…) v) origin of the innovators (expertise, production chain, administration…) vi) their innovation capacity (analytic, navigating complexity, learning collaboratively…) vii) political regimes, policy styles. A first work package (WP1) will refine these variables. WP2 deals with variables i) to iii) (‘Product innovations’, types and structures of innovative procedural instruments). WP3 deals with variables iv) to vii) (‘process innovations’, institutional innovation policy process and innovation capacity). WP4 will elaborate recommendations and guidelines for institutional innovation for transitional governance for adaptation. The WP0 will : i) manage the progress of the project tasks ii) harmonize the implementation of the research protocol and the challenge of data collection and treatment for 11 countries. An international and interdisciplinary team (political scientists, sociologists, economists, agronomists and ecologist) of 17 researchers, specialized in climate issues, will develop the project and supervise 24 young researchers (master, PhD, post-do

During the last 2 decades, a growing literature has underlined potential effects of Climate Change (CC) on economic development, environment and wellbeing of population especially in tropical rural areas. While contributing to CC, agriculture is also strongly affected by CC and climate variability. Hence adaptation to CC has become a stringent challenge in vulnerable agricultural tropical landscape. To face this challenge, concepts to tackle CC issues in agriculture have been proposed, CC national adaptation policies framework have been formulated, and local initiatives have been flourishing. However, the lack of articulation between interpretations of concepts, policy design, levels and sectors in the implementation of policies, and farmers’ situation and practices may lead to maladaptation processes. The objective of ARTIMIX project is to determine the conditions of successful design and implementation of articulated adaptation to CC policy mixes in order to foster ecological transition in tropical vulnerable agricultural landscapes. For this purpose, the project will 1) analyze the concepts proposed to tackle adaptation issue in agriculture (Agro-ecology, Climate Smart Agriculture, Ecosystem Based Adaptation) and the way they are integrated in policies; 2) Identify the enabling and limiting factors for effective implementation of CC adaptation policies, considering their coordination and interactions with sectorial policies; 3) Characterize how current policy mix are affecting farmers’ practices and their related environmental, technical-economic and social outcomes. The ARTIMIX will be implemented by a multidisciplinary team encompassing policy scientists, economists, sociologists, agronomists, animal and environmental scientists. It will be implemented in Ultramarine French territories (Guadeloupe and Martinique), Brazil and Colombia. The innovation of the ARTIMIX project is twofold. First, it will develop and test an integrated and multilevel approach to address the different phases of policy cycle (design, implementation, effects) and the different levels from national to farmer level with emphases on the local arena. Second, it will support mainstreaming of CC adaptation in local actors and policies that are lagging in Martinique and Guadeloupe, mobilizing experience from Latin American countries (Colombia and Brazil) that are developing policies to tackle similar issues regarding CC adaptation. The expected overall outcomes of ARTIMIX is to contribute to the design or adjustment of CC adaptation policy mix that takes into account farmers’ strategy and local actors’ agenda. Specific scientific results will encompass: 1) A characterization of convergence and divergence between concepts to tackle CC adaptation and an assessment of their integration in the design of CC adaptation policy frameworks, 2) An identification of the factors affecting the implementation of the adaptation to CC policies and an analysis of synergies and trade-offs between instruments aiming to enhance farmers’ CC adaptation capacities; 3) An assessment of practices promoted by policies regarding their ability to increase farmers’ CC adaptation capacity and their socio-economic and environmental outcomes. In addition to publications and diffusion in academics and large audience, the results will be shared with stakeholders in the research sites through workshops. They will enable to define a set of specific recommendations: 1) for a better integration of concepts in the design of context-specific coherent policy mix aiming to strengthen farmers’ adaptation capacities; 2) for improving articulation among actors in implementation of relevant policy mix regarding local conditions; 3) for supporting farmers’ adoption of practices improving their adaptation capacity to face CC.

Concepts such as “the 24-hour open city” or “the leisure city” highlight not only the importance of the urban night in the revitalization of many post-industrial cities but also the growing nocturnalization of everyday life in Western society. The night-time economy has become a key feature of the urban economy, a crucial element of many city’s branding strategy and international reputation, and an important factor in tourism competitiveness .Yet, despite these potentialities, the development of nightlife is also characterized by negative trends. The night-time economy remains clearly segmented socially, racially and spatially. It is strongly dominated by white youth (15-35 years) and non-whites, the lower social classes, women and elderly people are (to some extent) excluded. At the same time, the recent expansion of the night-time economy causes problems like increased noise pollution and anti-social or violent behaviors often related to excessive alcohol and drugs consumption (Gwiazdzinski, 2007). Despite the growing number of studies concerned with these dynamics , some issues remain unaddressed in existing night-time studies. In particular, the effects produced by the recent expansion of university student-oriented nightlife in several medium-size university cities have received little attention. This might be related to the existing lack of preparedness for the current rise of several nightlife-related problems in numerous medium-size university cities (Crozat, 2008). Indeed several cities are experiencing an increase of critical problems regarding the co-existence of residential communities and alcohol-fueled nightlife entertainment uses (Nofre et al., 2017; Nofre et al., 2018). These dynamics are currently undermining community liveability during night-time hours and putting at risk the sustainable coexistence of diverse urban social groups. The aim of this project is to form the knowledge basis to develop sustainable university student-oriented nightlife policies in medium-size university cities, by unravelling the sources of inequalities and conflicts that arise from the recent expansion of university student-oriented nightlife. -In this study, night life is defined as the consumption practices and social activities realized at night time by youth and people in other age groups that take place in the public space or in nightlife establishments, such as pubs, clubs, cinemas and theatres, as well as in facilities and events specifically dedicated to students-. These issues are clearly a theoretical scope but they cannot find answer only as part of a rigorous empirical approach through a reasoned comparison method. The project combines researchers who have demonstrated by their work (theses of doctorate and publications) of their ability to explore on one hand the evolution of the urban night and on the other hand the experience of the young people. The consortium will conduct an un-depth study on the nocturnal experiences of university students in four medium-sized university cities: 1) Montpellier 2) Reims, 3) Lyon, 4) Grenoble .

By all standards, water is today and tomorrow's most coveted resource. Although it has often been a vector of cooperation among multiple actors, observers generally agree that environmental conflicts around water management are likely to harden and entail severe risks of social and political unrest in overpopulated cities, both in the South and in the North. Worrying trends include recurring droughts and flooding, increasing volatility of resource availability, the melting of glaciers, and resource contamination due to industrial pollution, modern agricultural practices and lack of adequate sanitation. However, the specific way whereby mounting environmental challenges reinforces and/or modify the traditional dynamics of water conflicts has received remarkably scant attention. It is partly due to a technical bias that has devoted studies at identifying best practices and efforts at joint regulation by stakeholders rather than recognizing the pervasiveness of tensions, however evolving these tensions may be. By contrast, the BLUEGRASS project sets out to understand the evolving logics of water conflicts in front of new environmental challenges, rising from the encounter of two processes: climate change and urban dynamics, that contribute to produce freshwater insecurity. The will do so, in particular, by analyzing the vagaries of the exportation of the two-dimensional “French model” (i.e. a focus on management at the level of the water catchment area, and the promotion of the private sector to address environmental challenges) in the Americas. The research will focus on the way environmental problems are socially perceived and constructed, but also strategically appropriated and used by a wide range of actors. Case studies will include cities and their surrounding rural region in the West of the United States, Mexico, Colombia, Bolivia and Brazil. Brazil will especially be devoted a lot of attention, as the project fits within the framework of a bilateral ANR-FAPESP agreement. Theoretically and methodologically speaking, this comparative with a small number of cases project seeks to highlight the interplay between multi-level coalitions, by analyzing both the fabrication of a global model, different national appropriations of and reactions to this model, and the way local conflicts play out. It also sets out to pinpoint the interactions between rural and urban issues, and to document the evolving tensions between the city centers and their peripheries in various contexts.