Local Environment, Vol. 8, No. 6, 615–626, December 2003
ARTICLE
Devising Local Sustainable Development Indicators: from technical issues to bureaucratic stakes. The Greater Lyons experience CHRISTELLE MOREL JOURNEL, FRANC¸OIS DUCHENE, THIERRY COANUS & EMMANUEL MARTINAIS ABSTRACT The paper will draw on the experience of Greater Lyons (France) in the development and implementation of air quality indicators in the framework of an environmental monitoring body, created in 1992. The analysis shows a patent discrepancy between the strength of the political support enjoyed by the monitoring body at its creation and its gradual confinement within the administrative structure of Greater Lyons. In fact, developing and using indicators raises not only technical issues but also political and bureaucratic stakes. The experience provides food for thought as regards the emergence of sustainable development issues within large and complex structures such as that of Greater Lyons. The paper points out that if indicators are hybrid objects, monitoring bodies, which are supposed to devise and promote them, are hybrid as well: their management, in terms of aims, means and position within the administrative body, is at least as important as their so-called ‘technical’ function. How to measure development is a longstanding question, but it has no doubt become more acute since the early 1990s and the increase in popularity of sustainable development issues, subsequent to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Despite considerable criticism, per capita GNP remains the most common means of measuring development. In a special issue of the Revue internationale des sciences sociales, I. Sachs (1995) reminds us that ‘alongside the human development indicator developed by the UNDP, [per capita GNP] finds favour with the media, who are on the lookout for international comparisons that can rouse the reader’s imagination, as if the drama of development were to be likened to a football championship producing a league table of the top countries’. However, a number of studies are underway whose aim is to attempt to measure the level of development reached by the different countries on the planet, a development that today postulates harmonisation of social, economic and environmental objectives. In this framework, how can one help Christelle Morel Journel, Laboratoire RIVES, E´cole Nationale des Travaux Publics de l’E´tat, rue Maurice Audin, F-69120, Vaulx-en-Velin, France. Email:
[email protected] 1354-9839 Print/1469-6711 Online/03/060615-12 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd. DOI: 10.1080/1354983032000152725
C. Morel Journel et al. but see that quantitative measurement of development is closely linked to, not to say indissociable from, its qualitative analysis (McGranahan, 1995), if only because development issues ‘involve administrative and political measures (in the sense of decisions), the debating and justification of which may be based on measuring (in the sense of quantifying), the ends to be met and the measures used to achieve them’ (Desrosie`res, 1992)? From this point of view, and on a larger scale, the construction of indicator sets and their organisation within monitoring bodies are not only technical processes but political ones, since they can be considered as ways of taking a stand on the analysis of a local situation. Downstream, the development and use of indicators may not depend on their technical quality only but on a local context in both its social and territorial dimensions, which include a historical angle. What, then, of the insertion of indicators and monitoring bodies within municipalities? What are the respective roles of political and technical-administrative spheres in the setting up of tools like these? What does their effective use by technicians or politicians depend on? Are they really tools for action or instead do they play a formal role? What happens when the context of their development disappears? We would like to try to answer these questions by considering the experience of the Greater Lyons governing body in the construction of indicators and monitoring bodies. Within the European PASTILLE programme (Promoting Action Through Indicators at Local Level in Europe), the Lyons case study examined the construction of indicators for the measurement of air quality in the conurbation of Lyons, while also observing the beginnings of a global policy for sustainable development. The material gathered in the PASTILLE programme comprised a large number of surveys, studies and administrative correspondence. We also conducted over thirty semi-structured interviews with elected representatives, heads of department and technicians employed by Greater Lyons, from April 2000 to February 2002; the quotations below come from these interviews, whose transcripts cover some 900 pages. The Greater Lyons experience seems to us to be symbolic of the shift from strictly environmental considerations to the global, integrated concerns of sustainable development. The shift is not selfevident, since the combined dimensions of the local context in the setting up of such policies, which (like sustainable development) are defined both on and for a global scale, are a determining factor. After outlining the local context, we would like to return to the birth of the main environmental monitoring body, set up by the Greater Lyons authorities as early as 1992. The political-administrative structure governing its creation came to an end in 1995. Today, it remains a constantly evolving tool that is not firmly established in the Greater Lyons governing body. This example therefore enables us to question the interplay of stakeholders that has developed a structure around this tool and resulted in its relative confinement within the structure of Greater Lyons. At the same time, Greater Lyons has committed itself to a sustainable development approach, initiated in the framework of ‘Mille´naire 3’ (Millennium 3), a prospective and strategic reflection on the evolution of the conurbation of Lyons which formally involves the elected representatives and services of Greater Lyons as well as stakeholders from civil society. This approach means that the existing system must be called into question, on the basis of a 616
Devising Local Sustainable Development Indicators philosophy whose concrete implementation remains extremely vague. In this framework, resorting to technical tools is a real temptation that could offset the non-existence of a conception of sustainable development. How, then, can indicators become firmly established in a territorial democratic system, and consequently what part is played by political decision making? Greater Lyons: a contextual introduction The Greater Lyons Urban Area and Governing Body The population of the Greater Lyons administrative area (which covers 55 municipalities) is 1,167,532 (1999). Numerous elements, related both to the economic and industrial history of the region (Bonneville, 1997) and to the topographical and meteorological characteristics of the site, make the Lyons area particularly sensitive to atmospheric pollution and industrial hazard: the concentration of chemical and petrochemical industries in the ‘Chemical Corridor’ (which is the greatest concentration of chemical industries in France after the Greater Paris area), the prevailing winds (southerly and northerly) and the area’s specific topography, with two hills (Fourvie`re and Croix-Rousse) in the city centre, thus influence the quality of the city’s air. Finally, another major source of atmospheric pollution is the road traffic specific to the region of Lyons itself and the heavy through traffic on the Paris to South of France motorway that crosses the city. Lyons is, moreover, stigmatised as being ‘the most polluted city in France’, an image that was built up and disseminated by the media. The reality is of course more complex, if only because Lyons was one of the first cities to have a system for the measurement of air quality, which then contributed to its bad reputation. Thus the stakes involved in this issue made it even more relevant for us to observe the construction process of air quality measurement. As far as Greater Lyons is concerned, we must point out that France is currently organised into four territorial levels: state (national), region, de´partement (county) and commune (municipality). Owing to the very large number of municipalities in France (36,000) the last forty years have witnessed many changes in law and organisation. In 1966, the government created, in an authoritarian manner, several ‘Urban Communities’, one of which is the Greater Lyons administration. These ‘super-municipalities’ are funded directly by council tax (housing, economy and land), and receive an additional national contribution from the central state. In 1982 and 1983, two ‘decentralisation laws’ brought many changes to the local stakeholder system. For instance, responsibility for a number of domains was transferred from municipalities to bodies such as Greater Lyons, including town planning and housing policies, public utilities (roads, transport, parking, cemeteries, fire service, water supply and treatment, waste collection) and, as of 1992, economic development. In 1999, these spheres of competence were reinforced by law, giving super-municipal bodies such as Greater Lyons a monopoly on the local tax on businesses, and the ability to increase their field of action (although on an optional basis). As a result of this change, Greater Lyons has chosen to make air quality a legal sphere of 617
C. Morel Journel et al. competence, which despite its previous interest in this field, was not before under its jurisdiction. The Greater Lyons council is not elected by universal suffrage. Greater Lyons councillors are town councillors, nominated by their own town council, and each municipality is represented proportionally in the Greater Lyons assembly, with a minimum of one representative. Overall, therefore, small municipalities are over-represented, even though, historically speaking, the weight of large municipalities (53 councillors for Lyons, 14 for Villeurbanne, etc.) has given the greatest power to the Mayor of Lyons, who has been President of Greater Lyons since the beginning (1969). This, of course, has an effect on the scale of reference of the elected representatives, which frequently remains at a municipal level. When it comes to measurements and indicators, the requests made are sometimes ambivalent, and pressure to obtain data at a municipal rather than conurbational scale is strong. In 2001, the Socialist Party and its Green and Communist allies won the municipal elections and thereby leadership of the Greater Lyons governing body. But, practically, the distribution of power between majority (Socialist Party, Green Party, Communist Party, etc.) and opposition (Centrist Party, Gaullist Party, etc.) is about 50/50. From this point of view, the 37 vice presidencies of Greater Lyons are important. The delegations have been organised into seven ‘poles’, including one dedicated to the environment, which is headed by the 16th vice president. Each pole comprises a representative from the main political parties, in an attempt to achieve a so-called balance of power. The Environment pole is run by five vice presidents: ‘Environment and Risk Prevention’, ‘Waste Collection and Treatment’, ‘Water Supply and Treatment’, ‘Cleaning’ and ‘Sustainable Development and Urban Ecology’, under the authority of a member of the Green Party. ‘Sustainable Development’ is a new delegation among the vice presidencies, and is 22nd (out of 37) in order of protocol and importance. Air pollution control is still an important issue within the Environment pole, since it attracted the interest of several persons when the position was allocated. Providing Data on Air Quality: the COPARLY network For nearly forty years, the conurbation of Lyons has been equipped with sensors that measure the atmospheric levels of substances that are harmful for human activity. This technical tool is managed today by COPARLY (Committee for Control of Atmospheric Pollution in the Rhoˆne department and the Region of Lyons), a non-profit-making association in charge of the production and the diffusion of air quality measurements in the Lyons region. COPARLY was created in the early 1980s, its minimum aim being to gather and harmonise the measurements collected by the three existing networks, i.e. those of the City of Lyons Health Department and the chemical industries, as well as a small network linked to a power station located to the southern suburbs, beyond the Chemical Corridor. This association is managed by a board of directors composed of three colleges (local representatives of the state, the local communities concerned and representatives of the industrialists). A fourth college composed of users associations can be associated to this. In the early 1990s, following 618
Devising Local Sustainable Development Indicators important pollution warnings, the state intervened and imposed a merging of the three networks. More recently, COPARLY has entered into close collaboration with the other measurement networks at a regional scale. Greater Lyons has gradually asserted itself within this set-up. Its new responsibility for air quality could possibly change its relationship with COPARLY by increasing the influence of the urban area body through the provision of a greater role for COPARLY and an increase in funding. Today, then, COPARLY supplies the data needed by the Greater Lyons environment monitoring body to calculate the air quality indicators and proposes its own indicators on the issue. The ‘Observatoire de l’Environnement’: a complex tool seeking legitimacy The ‘Observatoire de l’Environnement’ was created in the early 1990s and enjoyed strong political support. How, then, can one explain that it is now relatively confined within the Greater Lyons governing body? We would like to analyse its birth and the way in which it functions, in order to show the difficulties that arise when environmental concerns, which are by definition transversal, are permanently placed within the framework of the administrative and compartmentalised structure of Greater Lyons. Devising the Environment Monitoring Body: a long process … The ‘history’ of environmental issues definitely originated during Michel Noir’s mandate (1989–1995). For both political and tactical reasons, this young, ambitious Mayor of Lyons and President of Greater Lyons, who was also one of the potential candidates for the French presidency, decided that more attention should be paid to environmental matters. He felt deeply concerned by the new environmental problems and by the issue of sustainable development which was emerging at the time; besides which, he had attended the Earth Summit in Rio (1992). He also took into account the emergence of environmentalist parties in the field of politics: the green vote was about 10% in the local elections. This being so, he brought in as an advisor a young journalist who was close to the green networks and president of an important environmental association, who joined the Mayor’s advisory committee and became a kind of spokesman on environmental issues. During our interview, this former advisor underlined the room for manoeuvre he enjoyed in a position that was very close to Michel Noir, and the audacity shown by the latter, notably when dealing with industrialists from the chemical industry. This was the background to the creation of the ‘Mission E´cologie Urbaine’ (Urban Ecology Mission), a small unit supposed to get round the inertia of regular bureaucratic departments—a very common practice in the recent history of the French state (Theys, 1991). The manager in charge of this unit, an environmental engineer, had been called upon by Michel Noir at the very start of his mandate to integrate environmental issues in the policy of the Greater Lyons. As early as January 1990, this person was assigned responsibility for the issue ‘Environment and Risk’ and appointed to develop the project that, in 1992, was to become the Urban Ecology Mission. He was a close partner for the young journalist and he confirmed the statement 619
C. Morel Journel et al. as to the flexibility, closeness and efficiency of their relationship with Michel Noir. However, neither of these official representatives was able to secure the strategic position demanded for the Urban Ecology Mission in the course of their dealings with the General Secretary of Greater Lyons. In fact, unlike many technical domains such as water supply and treatment, waste collection, town planning, etc., the environment was not strictly speaking a legal sphere of competence for Greater Lyons. As a result, the institutional position of the Urban Ecology Mission within the Greater Lyons organisation chart is not so very transversal: the Urban Ecology Mission is not linked to a central decision-making level, but is part of the Urban Development Department. Hence, we can say that the position of the Mayor is somewhat ambivalent, for beneath the strength of the discourse lies genuine weakness in terms of influence. Nevertheless, the Urban Ecology Mission was assigned the preparation of the first Urban Ecology Charter (1992–1995), which included the setting up of a new body called at that time ‘OCEGLY’ (Observatoire des changements de l’environnement du Grand Lyon; Greater Lyons Monitoring Body for Environmental Change). The task of setting up OCEGLY was given to an engineer with a PhD in the technical science of waste collection. On secondment at Greater Lyons, he spent two years working towards the setting up of this body, assisted by a colleague whose assignment was to liaise with the different Greater Lyons departments. Originally, its (difficult) task was: (a) to monitor the state of the environment in the Greater Lyons territory; (b) to follow through the programme of action of the Urban Ecology Charter and to assist in decision making. Two ‘follow-up’ committees were created, one composed of experts, the other of elected representatives. OCEGLY therefore comprises decision support methods for the prioritisation of actions to be undertaken and, more broadly speaking, a decision-making procedure for the development of an environment policy. It defines two main types of systems—urban and environmental—to monitor the state of the environment, each of which is then subdivided. It sets up three assessment modules: a report on the state of the environment based on the flow of pollutants and on pressure indicators, an opinion poll of the stakeholders involved in environmental issues (which has not been carried out) and a report on the Charter comprising an assessment of the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of actions undertaken. The prioritisation of actions to be undertaken is achieved by coordinating these three modules using a four-stage procedure: the natural environments are ranked according to the evolution of their state and to the sensitivity of the stakeholders; the polluting urban systems are classified according to their degree of responsibility in the degradation of each medium; with the help of the Greater Lyons services, the different actions to be instigated are identified for each classified environment; finally, the action to be undertaken is chosen according to a number of guidelines. It is obviously a complex tool influenced by very strong environmental concerns. The second Charter was ratified in 1997 during Raymond Barre’s mandate. Raymond Barre is an economist and experienced politician at a national and international level, and has been Mayor of Lyons and President of Greater Lyons (1995–2001). This second Charter focused on assessment and public infor620
Devising Local Sustainable Development Indicators mation, and reinforced OCEGLY, a name that is no longer used—or even known—by technicians or politicians. This body is now usually called the ‘Observatoire de l’Environnement’ or more usually ‘Observatoire’. … But an Uncertain and ‘Floating’ Position For a number of reasons, the body could be said to be still ‘under construction’ today. Besides, certain themes are not part of the original assignments: waste collection, for example. The current head of the Observatoire speaks of it as being in a ‘mixed phase, comprising the setting up of indicators and the monitoring of results from existing indicators’. But according to him the ‘philosophy’ has changed radically: the logic behind the initial work on indicators was more one of research than of assessment, and this continues to weigh down many projects. This logic of assessment underlies the will to join the Respect project and to develop a partnership with suppliers of data such as COPARLY. When the PASTILLE project began, the Observatoire had failed to communicate effectively with elected representatives (data were too difficult to understand for non-specialist users), and to influence the work of other technical departments. The ‘follow-up’ committee composed of elected representatives has never materialised. Several elements explain this failure. The Observatoire had three different directors (and even had none at all for a whole year). The varied backgrounds of the coordinators, the evolutions in environmental regulations, and various opportunities such as the European project Respect have produced many changes for the Observatoire. The initial political support was short-lived, since the environment was not a major priority during M. Barre’s term of office. Moreover, on the air pollution front scientific rigour sometimes appears to conflict with the need for communication. To understand the current position and role of the Observatoire, we need to come back to the set-up of the Environment pole, especially to the relationship between its head and the councillor responsible for ‘Sustainable Development and Urban Ecology’, who both are the leading representatives of the Observatoire. Their political commitment, the way they run their careers and their political and social interests linked to their positions make them very different. From the beginning of the current term of office, they have disagreed over the question of air quality. Both want full responsibility for the air pollution issue. This is obviously a problem for the technicians in charge of the Observatoire, especially in the administrative context we described above. Furthermore, faced with a member of the Green Party who was the first to support environmental issues in the political field, the leader of the pole seems to emphasise his own legitimacy, which, for him, is underpinned by his professional career. He was, in fact, originally a chemical engineer and worked for twenty years as a researcher with Rhoˆne-Poulenc (now Aventis). In 1980, he gave up research and was put in charge of environment issues in Rhoˆne-Poulenc plants, where, he says, he devoted his chemical abilities to communication and training. This attitude seems to reinforce the disagreement between the two councillors but it may also lead to distortion, especially with respect to public information and relationships with industrialists. 621
C. Morel Journel et al. These relationships and the difference in involvement of those concerned are of little help to the technicians of the Urban Ecology Mission, who are in need of clarifications and political instructions, especially when it comes to the Observatoire, which lacks directives. Today, it also seems very difficult to obtain clarifications from the councillors on the tasks assigned to the environmental monitoring body and the role it should play in measuring and monitoring environmental issues. In other words, it is extremely difficult for the Observatoire to be acknowledged as a tool that is central to the policy on environmental action, and this role will, we suppose, become increasingly difficult insofar as the second Ecology Charter, which began in 1997, is nearing its end. This means that in Greater Lyons policies there is now no framework document for environmental issues. It is also true that there are other basic problems to solve in regard to the role of the Observatoire: the position of the Urban Ecology Mission within the Greater Lyons organisation, as well as sustainable development issues and their place in Greater Lyons policies. If truth be told, the actual position of the Urban Ecology Mission within the General Delegation for Urban Development is still a controversial issue. Nowadays, some technicians would like to leave the Urban Development Department, while others are afraid of being cut off from urban planning, a field that is a highly effective lever for environmental policies. Be that as it may, the main issues are the connections and links between the Urban Ecology Mission and the possible Sustainable Development Mission. The idea of changing the Urban Ecology Mission into a larger Sustainable Development Mission is no longer accepted, since for some stakeholders sustainable development must not be confused with urban ecology. Maintaining two bodies may help to clearly distinguish sustainable development from urban ecology, which deals with environmental issues only. In fact, it seems as if the construction of a Sustainable Development Mission weakens the positions of both the Urban Ecology Mission and the Observatoire. For the moment, we would like to stress the discrepancy between the extremely strong political support given to the creation of the Observatoire and its gradual confinement within the structure. There are three reasons for this confinement: the construction process for the indicators, which are the basis of the body’s watchdog and assessment role, was neither easy to see nor easy to understand; the Observatoire was disconnected from political priorities, and this is obviously related to the managerial changes observed; thirdly, it was more or less powerless within the framework of the Urban Ecology Mission. In other words, the intrinsic scientific quality of the indicators built for the Observatoire does not help, so far as their use and legitimacy are concerned. Sustainable Development Issues and Indicators: emergence of a new consensus within the Greater Lyons structure The problems involved in sustainable development, which are making a marked appearance in Greater Lyons, are also leading to plans for measurements using indicator sets. Before we address this question, we would like to analyse the way 622
Devising Local Sustainable Development Indicators in which these problems took root and are now becoming a focal point in the sphere of action of Greater Lyons. To do so, we will return briefly to the Millennium 3 project that was set up in 1998. We will then consider the very notion of sustainable development, with reference to our interviews and to several studies on the theme that were carried out in the Greater Lyons governing body. The Influence of the Millennium 3 Process In 1997, the Millennium 3 process began a prospective brainstorming process, led by the newly created Prospective and Strategy Mission. This mission was directly attached to the General Secretary for Greater Lyons, a position that, as we have already said, is of strategic interest for the active involvement of the different departments. A symposium was organised to confront the points of view of experts, elected representatives, scientists, civil servants and citizens. Five discussion groups were created, including an ‘Urban Ecology and Quality of Life’ group, their task being to draw up a Local Agenda 21 plan from a European perspective, in the framework of the Eurocities network. This, in fact, was when the issue of sustainable development first made its appearance. In the final document published at the end of the Millennium 3 process, the concept was still limited to environmental concerns, and so failed to bring together many other policies. Most of the people we met in the PASTILLE programme, mainly between April 2000 and February 2001, did not broach the theme of sustainable development of their own accord. It is a notion that we researchers have to bring up ourselves if we want opinions on the subject, opinions that are frequently imprecise and wavering. During the first phase of PASTILLE, some of our interviews made us doubt whether we were speaking a common language. Most of the people we interviewed admitted hesitantly that ‘understanding the concept of sustainable development does not come … does not come spontaneously’. Although sustainable development is called a ‘concept’, the latter is ‘hollow’ or even a ‘pet subject’. And despite the work of Millennium 3, the tone adopted within the departments of the Greater Lyons is scarcely different. For one high-ranking official, the notion of sustainable development is to be found ‘in brochures and trends’ and its meaning is ‘about as clear as when you talk about the inward-looking City or withdrawal into oneself’. In other words, sustainable development ‘is a bit of a nebula’. Consequently, the elected representatives and heads of department of Greater Lyons are awaiting an operational dimension that, they all acknowledge, is by no means established. The technicians who are working most closely on related themes admit that things are vague, and as a result have difficulty in adopting an operational approach. Greater Lyons asked Rhoˆne-Alpes-Energie, a consultancy agency, to produce a diagnosis of Greater Lyons policies that would take into account the criteria for sustainable development. The consultancy in question is, in fact, one of the 12 regional agencies for Energy and the Environment, which were created on the initiative of the Regional Councils and grouped into a network that developed a methodology for the implemen623
C. Morel Journel et al. tation of Local Agenda 21 programmes. One of the representatives of RhoˆneAlpes-Energie is prepared to take a stand for a form of sustainable development that would give preference to environmental stakes in a spirit that, he claims, is that of the Rio conference. The studies carried out do not appear to have contributed a great deal as regards methodology, and their content is seldom referred to. All that is mentioned is their existence, as if to offer proof of the real headway made by the notion of sustainability within the Greater Lyons authorities. One of the official representatives of Greater Lyons specifically in charge of Agenda 21, who is also critical of the method, nonetheless qualifies the work done by Rhoˆne-Alpes-Energie as having ‘pedagogical virtues, in the sense that we can place the conurbation within the whole, and that we can at least assess the strengths and weaknesses … underlying all the actions of Greater Lyons. And it enables us to go a bit further, and move on to concrete reflections on a certain number of aspects.’ Be that as it may, these reflections and these first ‘translations’ were left aside during the transition period undergone by Greater Lyons after the change in political majority. Furthermore, this kind of study based on indicators measuring sustainability within active policies may give de facto a content to the notion of sustainability, without any political debate. A Long Way to Sustainability Indicators However, since the beginning of 2002, the concept of sustainable development has been used increasingly within Greater Lyons. It can, at least, be seen from the outside. The programme devised by the Socialist majority for their term of office is based on sustainability issues. The development of an Agenda 21 is mentioned as a commitment and some previous commitments to sustainability are to be honoured. Even if the Sustainable Development Mission has not yet been set up (June 2002), an expert for sustainable development and Agenda 21 was appointed to advise the Greater Lyons president; this person held the same type of post in the Urban Community of Strasbourg (France). The urban area project, an outcome of the Millennium 3 process, planned to set up a Development Council, bringing together stakeholders from economical, social and cultural fields, and also from associations. The Council, composed of 50 members representing institutions and nearly 400 volunteers, first convened in February 2001. Five workgroups were created, the second dealing with sustainable development and Agenda 21. Like Millenium 3 a few months ago, this process highlights how difficult it is to give concrete content to sustainability, even in an assessment framework. Nevertheless, like several European cities, Greater Lyons is trying to develop its own Agenda 21. But there are at least two ways of building up such an Agenda 21: one ‘endogenous’, the other ‘exogenous’. The first leads to an umpteenth planning document but makes few changes in habitual practices, either ‘internal’ or ‘external’. The second stands more chance of giving impetus to real changes in institutional ways of acting and thinking. Building up an Agenda 21 may lead to changes in the organisation, practices and the institution. A lot is at stake here, and the difficulties are considerable. The reduction of working hours (from 39 to 35 hours/week) could 624
Devising Local Sustainable Development Indicators have given rise to transversal projects between the different services. This opportunity to open up services and practices was missed, but the search for coherence in public policies and participation in decision-making remains the main objective of sustainability. There is not, as was once planned, a ‘correspondent for sustainable development’ in each administrative department of Greater Lyons. The Development Council puts into practice the Greater Lyons interest for governance issues, but has not been given any role in the development and use of local sustainable development indicators. In fact, these fluctuations show how complex it is to ‘territorialise’ the concept of sustainable development. Theoretical discourse on sustainable development was largely developed by economists and scientists (or more specifically ecologists), as they were trying to reflect on the global way to reconcile development and the renewal of natural and human resources on a planetary scale. Seen like this, sustainable development implicitly refers to a double macro approach. When the time comes to apply this approach on a smaller scale to a defined area with its own particular form and stakeholder dynamics, things become increasingly complex—the lower the level, the more complex the situation. This being so, there is a real risk of wanting sustainable development indicators to give, in fact, content to a concept that has no clearly defined content, over and above the role already required of them by most stakeholders. As a matter of fact, they are required, often simultaneously, to be: tools to describe reality and to rigorously and scientifically synthesise complex phenomena; decision support tools, giving the clearest possible directions to follow or the tendencies to correct; communication tools, to give the simplest possible information; tools for comparison (Grand Lyon, 2002). In other words, the production of sustainable development indicators must not compensate for a lack of reflection on the concept of sustainable development, a concept that presupposes political objectives that are clear and democratic. This, in any case, was one of the main conclusions of a colloquium on the stakes involved in sustainable development indicators, organised by Greater Lyons at the end of June 2002, as part of the PASTILLE programme. In the Greater Lyons governing body of today, sustainable development is commonly referred to by stakeholders in political and administrative spheres. A large number of misunderstandings are, however, possible, owing to the virtual non-existence of an operational dimension of the concept. But the terms of the debate have been set, as we can see from the organisation of the above-mentioned colloquium, and highlight the need to formulate objectives and ends prior to the construction of indicators These objectives and ends must suit the territories to which they apply, which means that the question of possible contradictions between sustainable development policies formulated on different scales remains unanswered. The point we have addressed here is to show that what is basically at stake is the appropriation of indicators and monitoring bodies and their respective limits by the different stakeholders involved. The Observatoire and its indicators don’t have a lot of credibility within the Greater Lyons body and outside it. Beyond all historic and social explanations, this also shows that taking the 625
C. Morel Journel et al. environment into account is not only a technical issue. The difficulty increases with sustainable development issues because of their conceptual woolliness and their reference scale. Nevertheless, the Greater Lyons example concerning either environmental or sustainability policies shows that the construction of indicators must not remain the business of technicians alone, and nor must their utilisation be thought of in purely pedagogical terms. Clear-cut division of the work involved (development for the scientists and technicians, utilisation—often limited—for the elected representatives and the citizens) tends to make us forget that indicators are hybrid objects, involving ‘science, politics, economics, law, religion, technique and fiction’ (Latour, 1991). They are not, therefore, technical facts that cannot be grasped by sociological analysis, but have a history and incorporate one or several worldviews as well as the balances of power governing their development (Ducheˆne et al., 2000). We must also ask ourselves how seriously we are prepared to see the concept as an alternative to development that focuses on a solely economic dimension, before embarking on the work of building indicators and environmental monitoring bodies. References Bonneville, M. (1997) Lyon. Me´tropole re´gionale ou euro-cite´? (Paris, Anthropos/Economica). Desrosie`res, A. (1992) Discuter l’indiscutable. Raison statistique et espace public, Raisons pratiques, 3(92), pp. 131–154. Ducheˆne, F., Morel Journel, C. & Coanus, T. (2000) Social construction of indicators and decision making process: the, easurement of air pollution in the Greater Lyons area (France), Ecological Indicators, 2(1–2), pp. 187–196. Grand Lyon (Ed.) (2002) Indicateurs de de´veloppement durable, jeux et enjeux (Lyon, Communaute´ urbaine de Lyon). Latour, B. (1991) Nous n’avons jamais e´te´ modernes. Essai d’anthropologie syme´trique (Paris, La De´couverte). McGranahan, D. (1995) Mesure du de´veloppement: recherches effectue´es par l’Institut de Recherche des Nations Unies pour le de´veloppement social, Revue internationale des sciences sociales, 143, pp. 53–73. Sachs, I. (1995) Le quantitatif et le qualitatif. Quelques questions sur les enjeux et les limites de la mesure du de´veloppement, Revue internationale des sciences sociales, 143, pp. 9–20. Theys, J. (1991) Le savant, le technicien et le politique, in: J. Theys (Ed.) Environnement, science et politique. Les experts sont formels, GERMES, Cahier n°14, 2, pp. 13–24.
626
