Sustainable Governance, Public Engagement and the ...

Sustainable Governance, Public Engagement and the French Experience of Waste-to-Energy Technology

Darren McCauley1 University of St. Andrews WORKING PAPER – PLEASE DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

National policy-making is increasingly re-orienting towards the common goal of achieving effective renewable energy solutions. This paper focuses on technological advances in waste incineration designed to facilitate the generation of „clean‟ renewable electricity on a national scale. France is now leading the promotion of this „new‟ energy solution. However, the policy drive to reduce carbon emissions is transforming the relationship between economy, environment and society. It is argued below that the sustainability of the French approach to the governance of waste-to-energy is threatened by its inability to successfully incorporate civil society input. It is revealed that the development of „voluntary incentive schemes‟, „local waste contracts‟ and „national crisis meetings‟ provides important lessons for the long-term effective governance of new technological energy solutions. Keywords: Energy policy; sustainable development; governance; French politics and society; waste policy

1

Dr. Darren McCauley, Lecturer in Sustainable Development, Department of Geography and Sustainable Development, University of St. Andrews e-mail: [email protected]

1

The drive for a low carbon society is a key imperative for governance processes and structures in Europe (Saikku et al. 2008). Policy-makers and stakeholders must face up to a highly industrialized European economic system that relies on a carbon-intensive energy system. In this way, human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere must be transformed (Giddens 2009). This paper concentrates on the role of new technology in offering alternative renewable sources of energy. Hydro, wind and solar power have maintained a privileged role in multi-level energy reform. However, new approaches (biomass, biofuels, geothermal, biogas) have emerged to diversify the energy mix. I trace below the development of waste incineration practices from a waste disposal solution to a proposed renewable source of energy. I argue that largely failed attempts to integrate civil society input on the waste-to-energy issue may suggest that energy solutions are less subject to „sustainable‟ governance processes and structures. France, as a leader in the technology, provides a stimulating context to explore the challenges faced when implementing new energy based solutions. It is argued below that climate change should be seen in the context of sustainable development. In the EU strategy for sustainable development, climate change is mentioned as one of the main threats to a sustainable future. Energy use is explicitly linked to this threat by proposing an increase in the use of clean energy as a priority objective (European Commission 2001). In particular, sustainable development provides an opportunity to explore the „social‟ dimensions of climate change mitigation. Often associated with the sustainability agenda, governance theory allows researchers to examine how decisions are taken with recourse to not only government, but also business, trade unions, employer federations and more generally civil society (Jordan 2009). This paper explores, therefore, the response of French policy makers to Climate Change as a „governance‟ challenge in policy specific issues. 2

The evidence presented below is derived from thirty-five sponsored interviews with government, businesses (primarily CEWEP and EDF) and civil society throughout France. In addition, the paper draws on documentary evidence collected on site on local waste contracts (both interim and completed reports) and the minutes of national meetings on waste (see Grenelle I an II below). France is selected as a single country case study for two key factors. The traditional exclusion of civil society from policy-making offers, firstly, an intriguing context for exploring how policy makers are approaching the „governance challenge‟ of Climate Change (Cole 2005, Szarka 2004). A long-term commitment to waste-to-energy has, secondly, resulted in a more expansive infrastructure in France than any other Western country (ISWA 2007). It is argued below that the French experience on waste-to-energy provides insight into the consequences of „sustainable governance‟ for France, as well as more generally, the implementation of energy solutions.

Sustainable Governance, Public Engagement and Energy Solutions The term „governance‟, as opposed to government2, has become both increasingly prevalent and highly contested among social scientists. It opens the much narrower term of government to include a myriad of complex relationships between institutions and non-state actors. New forms of bottom-up and horizontal multi-actor understandings of governance have equally assimilated the traditional top-down structures of government (Kohler-Koch and Rittberger 2006, Pierre and Peter 2000, Risse 2004). It refers, above all, to both a variety of institutional arrangements and structures as well as processes and outcomes (Berger 2003). In terms of institutions, governance covers a series of research areas: networks, the inclusion of wider parts of society, multi-level government involvement, new public management and 2

The intimately linked relationship between governance and government is explored in Jordan et al. (2005). This paper focuses on the limited theme of governance as the inclusion of societal actors.

3

hierarchies. As a process, this term reinforces the need to examine policy making in individual sectors. In order to understand governance, it is imperative that changing levels of power and influence among conflicting actors are taken into account (Kohler-Koch and Eising 1999). This paper concentrates on the particular governance issue of „the structural inclusion of civil society and its consequent interaction with state actors‟. Sustainable development is an equally fashionable and multi-definitional term in numerous academic disciplines (Aguirre 2002, Manecbo 2006). Above all, it is argued here that this concept effectively represents a „governance challenge‟ within the context of „energy‟ policy-making. The Johannesburg declaration on Sustainable Development pronounced that “sustainable development requires a long-term perspective and broad-based participation in policy formulation, decision-making and implementation at all levels” (UN 2002). In following, this term has been developed and agreed at the international and supranational levels with the expressed objective of „domestication‟. In this way, Sustainable Development is conceptualised as an “outside-in” normative long-term pressure on national (and sub-national) systems (Lafferty 2004). With reference to the specific governance issue in this paper, the governance challenge involves nation states incorporating the key principle of the „inclusion of civil society‟. There has been a distinct lack of research into the consequences of pursing a low carbon energy agenda for sustainable governance practices (Scrase and Smith 2009). The move towards a low carbon future involves significant challenges for governance at every level (Hourcade and Crassous 2008). Social researchers on climate change mitigation have shifted their focus from a relatively exclusive group of atmospheric scientists towards multilevel and multi-actor governance processes (Jordan 2001, Jordan and Lorenzoni 2007). The much acclaimed Stern report in the UK reinforced this conclusion through declaring that “(c)limate change is the greatest market failure the world has ever seen” (Stern 2007: 3). 4

Policy-makers are, therefore, urged to rapidly design energy solutions. I explore below how sustainable governance is approached by policy actors in France in producing energy from the incineration of waste.

Civil Society and Waste-to-Energy in France The „governance challenge‟ of implementing sustainable energy solutions moves therefore beyond the establishment of UN-sponsored multi-stakeholder partnership initiatives3. Moreover, it is more than simply the creation of broad national sustainable development strategies4. It involves serious questions about governance structures and processes within the implementation of policy specific issues. It is argued in line with Cole and Jones that “countries faced with comparable pressures often adopt dissimilar responses consistent with their own political and institutional traditions” (2005: 584). Within this context, a normative drive to include civil society preferences represents a growing pressure on French energy policy and policy-making. Civil society organisations have, indeed, been structured according to the traditions of individual nation-states (Dryzek et al. 2003). With regards to specifically civil society relations, France is essentially classified as a strong and exclusive state. A strong state makes important political decisions without much recourse to various interests (Kriesi 1995: 164176). As exclusive, movements are excluded from traditionally corporatist forms of national policy making. The French State should not be referred to as one coherent uniform actor. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge the long-term exclusion of such actors from decisionmaking in contrast to other Western states (Cole 2005). Therefore, the „state‟ does not exclude, but rather the „cultural modes of action‟ that guide its various representatives. In this 3 4

See Backstrand (2006) for a discussion on UN-sponsored multi-stakeholder partnership initiatives. See Meadowcroft (2007) for a discussion on national sustainable development strategies.

5

way, the case study addresses how deep-rooted cultural modes of exclusion are adapting to the challenges of sustainable governance.

Waste-to-energy and disjointed opposition in France France is placed as a European specialist in developing waste-to-energy technology. A strategic decision to elaborate a nation-wide localised programme of plant construction provides French policy-makers with a highly developed and unique experience with this technology. There are more waste incineration plants in France than any other EU member state (140 in 2001 and 129 in 2009). Her closest rival Germany has just over half the amount of plants (66 in 2007). The combined total of plants in France and Germany is larger than that of the remaining 13 countries in focus. Since 2001, there has been relatively little change in the number of plants throughout Europe. There have been modest reductions in Belgium, Denmark and France, while incineration plants have maintained or increased their presence in the remaining countries. Moreover, the development of this infrastructure has occurred within the context of wide-spread local based anti-incineration campaigns. Protesters succeeded in the South of France to prevent the establishment of a plant in the small Mediterranean town of Vias near Montpellier in 2005 (Martin and Olivier 29/10/2005). In the North East, a local association „Vigilance Projet Incinérateur Gueugnon‟ (through their charismatic leader Alain Rault) was at the heart of local efforts to reject an incinerator at Gueugnon in 2003 (Jacques 13/05/2003). In the West, four proposed incinerators (St. Capraise, Izon, Grosbreuil and Angers) were officially abandoned since 1998 as a result of local campaigns from a range of both institutional and non-institutional actors (MEDD 2008: 10).

6

The comparatively high number of waste incinerators in France provides an intriguing context for exploring governance systems and their inevitable reform. ISWA and Eurostat reports highlight that France treated significantly less waste in 2009 via incineration than Germany - 12.7 million tonnes in comparison to 17.9 million tonnes - in spite of its superior count in incineration plants (Eurostat 2006, ISWA 2001, ISWA 2009, Kloek and Jordan 2005). Brousse (2005) explains that France has a peculiar mix of many small and large scale incinerators (in contrast to the uniquely large scale incinerators in Germany). Indeed, the geographical spread of the current 129 plants in France reveals concentration in both urban and rural centres. Waste incineration plants are currently present in the nation‟s 22 regions. The scale of this policy challenges governance structures and processes at both national and sub-national level.

The Development of Waste-to-Energy Policy in France I focus in this paper on household and municipal waste incineration. The drive for greater efficiency, up-to-date technological processes and the reduction of emissions has dominated incineration policy in France. Three separate phases are apparent in the recent development of French policy on waste-to-energy: large scale investment coupled with a program of decentralization (1992-1998); scaling back of the incineration program (1998-2003); the application of new technology to reduce harmful emissions and exploit energy generation (2003+). As a result, there have been several key national and sub-national actors in the governance of municipal and household waste. At a national level, the Environment Ministry has developed national plans for coordinating waste collection, and more recently prevention. Despite several changes in nomenclature, the department for „Town and Country Planning‟ has taken the lead on setting the agenda for waste management.

7

However, waste governance in France is dominated by sub-national government. In terms of implementation, ADEME (Agence de l‟Environnement et de la Maitrise de l‟Energie) directs waste management through three national administrations, 26 regional authorities and one permanent representative in Brussels. Created in 1990, ADEME coordinates management strategies with major local representatives including the préfet and the Conseil Général. Outside state authorities, private companies Sita France and Suez Environnement have been heavily involved in providing financial and infrastructural support (particularly with waste-to-energy). Moreover, it is argued below that new governance actors (especially the department for Energy and Climate and the Ministry for Finance) have more recently become involved in waste management due to the potential for energy output from waste incineration plants. Until 1992, waste incineration contributed primarily to heating in France (since 1973). In this sector, it has become the second most productive renewable behind wood (until 2008 – see bio fuel in table 1 below). The mass expansion of incineration in 1992 witnessed a doubling (since 1973) of energy output from 122 to 239 toe (ton of oil equivalent). Despite a drastic reduction in plant numbers, new technological advances doubled again the energy output of waste incineration between 1998 (297 toe) and 2007 (587 toe). Out of 13 million tons (85% of which comes from households), over 95% of waste incinerated now uses stateof-the-art (conforming to EC law) energy recovery technology. Its substantial renovation has indeed placed waste-to-energy as a major renewable source of energy. The Renewable sector in France is traditionally divided into two broad sectors according to production type: electricity and heating (see table 1 below). Firstly, the production of renewable electricity is dominated by hydropower.

8

Table 1: The Composition of Renewable Energy in France

Type of Renewable

Hydropower Wind Power Wood energy Waste-to-Energy Heat pumps Solar Power Geothermal Power Crop based energy Biogas Bio fuel Total in toe

2006 2008 Electricity in Heating in toe Electricity in Heating in toe GWh (inc. non GWh (inc. non (inc. non renewable) (inc. non renewable) renewable) renewable) 56660 64338 2189 5710 1250 7795 1357 8025 1595 310 1887 595 (3340) (814) (4505) (915) 286 460 12 28 36 44 114 114 107 110 527 55 691 57 700 0 2076 14747 17577

Source: French Department for Energy and Climate A doubling of wind power output between 2006 and 2008 still only represents a twelfth of that produced by hydropower. Waste-to-Energy is officially the third largest producer of renewable electricity in France. The position of waste-to-energy as a major component in the renewable energy mix is further cemented by a notably heating output. Wood power offers the most significant source of renewable heating in spite of the recent emergence of bio fuels. Waste-to-energy holds third position just in front of heat pumps. Overall, the output from waste incinerators in France provides the fourth most important renewable energy source for electricity and heating combined (measured by toe). Waste-to-energy is the second biggest generator of both electricity and heating (behind wood energy). However, official statistics on waste incineration renewable energy production does not include electricity or heating output from non-renewable materials. Total energy output from waste-to-energy almost equals wind energy as the second most important renewable in France.

9

Governance Structures in Waste-to-Energy and Civil Society The emergence of waste-to-energy has challenged policy actors to develop inclusive governance structures to reflect its position as a key contributor to national Renewable energy targets in addition to its traditional role in waste management. This section outlines the key shifts in governance structures on waste-to-energy. It assesses to what extent these structures have sought to deal with the energy output of waste incineration. The role of civil society is examined in relation to its structural input into the policy development of waste-to-energy. Two major innovations are identified as a nation wide programme of „local waste contracts‟ (after a failed attempt to introduce „voluntary incentives schemes‟) and „national crisis meetings‟ known as the grenelle de l’environnement. In the former case, new robust inclusive forms of governance have successfully emerged whilst failing to address the waste-to-energy issue. The latter case offers significant progress in institutionalizing civil society input on waste-to-energy. However, its temporary ad hoc status threatens to derail its relative success.

Nation-wide Programme of Waste Contracts: Avoiding the incineration issue Private companies (EDF, Sita France, Suez France) have played a key role in the development of waste-to-energy as an integral solution in both the national waste and energy mix. Before 1992, central state agencies developed waste management strategies in accordance with a national plan of action. Opportunity for civil society involvement was extremely limited. The decentralisation of waste policy in the 1990 Lalonde Green Plan offered non-governmental actors a new venue for action in implementation and decisionmaking processes. However, the period 1992 to 1998 revealed that only private business enjoyed any increased formal access to policy-making as local authorities focused on publicprivate partnerships (Szarka 2002). SITA and Lyonnaise des Eaux (now owned by Novergie) 10

developed a program of small-scale waste incinerators with local authorities (as well as regional authorities in terms of industrial waste) (Bertolini 1998). A review conducted in 1998 by the Environment Ministry underlined the need for more dialogue with societal actors in local waste management strategies. In the same year, private companies involved in establishing waste incinerators proposed a new programme of „voluntary incentive schemes‟ (Novergie 2008). They offered

local community

representatives greater opportunity to participate in siting decisions. At this stage, the siting of a waste incinerator was uniquely decided between the mayor, the préfet, Conseil Général, trade unions, ADEME representatives and the private company involved (either SITA or Lyonnaise des Eaux). The proposed scheme expanded the list of stakeholders to any interested locally based civil society group. In return, the company offered to part-fund (with ADEME) any associated activities (communication strategies, meetings, public debates) of a sustained community based dialogue5. The proposed voluntary incentive schemes failed to be officially adopted by any local government representative. Waste incineration was an issue to be resolved by existing decentralised public-private waste management structures. Civil society organisations were formally placed outside the main decision-making structures. Comprehensive

government

sponsored

„Local

Waste

Contracts‟

(Contrats

Territoriaux Déchets) emerged in December 1998 as a formal mechanism for including civil society organisations in waste policy decisions. The contracts were an expansion of an already established mechanism found within other policy arenas (notably biodiversity). Crucially, these contracts are designed to manage consultation on all areas of waste management (not only the incineration issue). Although the relevant company retains an important role, the environmental agency ADEME took up management of the scheme 5

Interview with Novergie, (21/09/2009) and Ministry for the Environment and Sustainable Development (18/11/2009)

11

nationally, closely coordinating with local authorities. These contracts are signed by local government, business and civil society actors. There are currently 112 contracts either in process or fully completed throughout France since the programme‟s inception in 1998. The contractual agreements resulted in the establishment of local steering committees to execute the agreed objectives. The stated aim of such committees was to „improve meaningful dialogue with local stakeholders‟ (ADEME 2008). The préfet designates the members of the steering committee to include a wide representation of local interests in ameliorating waste management practices, developing new formal and informal relationships and generating new waste solutions6. Contractual objectives7 are established in accordance with the local authority (préfet) in order to achieve a more coherent and publicly supported waste management strategy (with varying levels of funding attached). ADEME administers (government) financial assistance for 50% of all costs (maximum8 260,000 euros per contract) for a three year period (ADEME 2008, Lepellier 2008). However, there is only evidence for such committee structures in 45 contracts. The majority of contracted objectives are still carried out in existing or modified waste decision-making processes (with some significant regional variation in structure). The committees have a profound impact upon waste management strategies throughout France. A wide range of actions (beyond the scope of further examination here) have been undertaken (in order of most cited in final and interim reports): creating local recycling schemes, encouraging small scale composting, setting up educational schemes on waste prevention, reducing waste collection frequency and coordinating existing waste

6

Interview with ADEME (12/04/2009) The six stated aims of the overall national plan to establish local waste contracts are to (1) ensure value for money service (2) prevent waste at source (3) reduce the disposal of dangerous substances by local waste collection (4) maximise the use of existing infrastructure (5) ensure a more localised service (6) develop localised solutions for better waste collection, elimination and incineration. 8 The maximum limit of 260,000 euros per contract is based upon 2007 figures. 7

12

management schemes. There is, however, no evidence of such committees dealing with the establishment of new or the renovation of existing waste-to-energy plants. The progression in the number and capability of waste incineration plants took place without any formal input from local waste committees. At closer inspection, waste-to-energy / incineration more generally is not mentioned in any of the outcomes in completed contracts (27 in total by 2010). In terms of interim reports, levels of waste incineration are cited in 67 cases in the background to the actions of local waste committees. Incineration or related energy production is equally not mentioned in any stated objectives. In ADEME annual reports, the incineration issue is raised in relation to one particular national stated objective for the local waste contract programme to develop „localised solutions for better waste collection, elimination and incineration‟. However, there are only two instances where the waste-to-energy issue was explored within the lifespan of two (in Rhone-Alpes and Midi-Pyrenees) separate local waste committees. Both cases produced feasibility studies on using waste incineration for burning residual waste from household waste. In Rhone-Alpes, the committee concluded in 2003 that incineration would not be viable due to infrastructure inadequacies (Quemin 2005). The results of a three-year (2005-2008) feasibility study in Midi-Pyrenees have not yet been made public (Moreau 2008).

National Crisis Meetings: A new dawn for civil society input on incineration? A series of high profile national crisis meetings in 2007 (with similar informal meetings taking place in 2008 and 2009 on unresolved or new complementary issues) provided an opportunity for government and non-government interests to discuss policy on waste-to-

13

energy. The „grenelle9 de l‟environnement‟ originated from the aftermath of the 2007 Presidential Elections. The (temporarily) new High Minister for Sustainability Jean Louis Borloo (succeeding temporary incumbent Alain Juppé) presided over the meetings in late 2007. They brought together for the first time “state and civil society representatives in an attempt to mobilise French society into constructing a sustainable future” (Parayre 2008: 3). The meetings offered significant (and largely unfulfilled) potential for civil society or public involvement on the incineration10 issue. The „grenelle‟ was itself an ad hoc sophisticated governance structure that initially spanned four months (known as „Grenelle 1‟) before evolving on a more informal basis into „Grenelle II‟ lasting until 2010 (see Figure 1 below). Six working groups were established on „energy‟, „biodiversity‟, „environment and public health‟, „sustainable production and consumption‟, „ecological democracy‟ and „sustainable jobs‟. The composition of each working group always included representatives from the state, sub-national government, civil society, employers‟ confederations and trade unions. Their initial conclusions were then released for discussion in internet forums, the media, political parties and six formal interregional meetings across France. Informally, the working groups have continued to work on implementing more detailed agreements in the form of further working groups (Grenelle 2). The conclusions were then drafted into national legislation in the form of „Grenelle 1‟ (57 articles deposited in the Lower House, the National Assembly) and „Grenelle 2‟ (248 articles deposited in the Upper House, the Senate).

The term „grenelle‟ is best known for its usage in 1968 for meetings between trade unions and employer confederations. Two days later, General de Gaulle absolved parliament leading to the election of the RightWing UDR. As a result, „grenelle‟ is associated with „crisis talks‟. 10 This paper is only concerned with the waste-to-energy / incineration issue. There is not enough space to undertake a more broad analysis of the „grenelle‟.

9

14

Figure 1: Governance, Legislation and the Grenelle Process GRENELLE 1: November 2007 – December 2007 Working groups 1. Energy 2. Biodiversity 3. Health 4. Consumption 5. Democracy 6. Jobs

Legislative Process 2008-2010

Regional Forums

Roundtable Conclusions

Internet Forums

GRENELLE 2: 2008-2010

34 informal temporary working groups

Assembly

Legislation Grenelle 1 July 2009

Senate

Legislation Grenelle 2 July 2010

Special Commission

Source: French Ministries for Environment and Energy Unlike local waste contracts, the national crisis meetings examined the incineration issue in comprehensive detail. Discussions in „Grenelle I‟ on incineration were significantly divided between waste management and energy actors. The incineration issue was initially discussed in two (out of six in total) working groups. The „environment and public health‟ group, firstly, concentrated uniquely on waste management concerns. It included a vocal NGO lobby (15/49 members) that called for a “moratorium on new incinerator plants” (Maraninchi 2008: 47). Government and business representatives similarly agreed on the maintenance (but not expansion) in the national waste incineration infrastructure. The second „energy‟ group focused on the production of electricity and heating via waste incineration. The energy group concluded, rather, that “waste presents significant potential for energy production...a key contributor to biomass and renewable energy targets” (Jouzel and Stern 2008: 27). It recommended a modest increase in „waste-to-energy‟ plants alongside a commitment to a technological upgrade of existing infrastructure.

15

Regional consultation underlined an overall objective for “more inclusive decentralised governance structures” to combat social opposition11 (MEDD 2008). Public consultation on waste management revealed impassioned but equally divided opinions on the role of incineration. They ranged from “better exploiting electricity production” to “imposing a moratorium on incineration” (MEDD 2009). This dispute continued into „Grenelle II‟. The national approach to „governing‟ incineration was actually concluded in a third working group on „governance‟ in 2009. A workshop dedicated to waste management, within the broad „governance‟ working group, met six times in 2008 and twice in 2009. It mainly involved members from the initial „environment and public health‟ and „energy‟ groups.12 A strong NGO lobby (17/51) that opposed incineration expansion remained present in the new workshop. The group broadly concluded that “public - private partnerships should continue to be the primary vehicle for the implementation of waste management objectives at a local level...with increased consultation with local communities” (Notat 2008: 21). Negotiation between the NGO lobby and public-private interests resulted in three binding commitments. A proposal (initially raised in the „environment and public health‟ working group) to increase taxes on incineration practices was rejected in this workshop. In contrast, a 12% reduction by 2015 in „needless‟ (i.e. waste that could be recycled or prevented) incineration practices was agreed upon. A third conclusion amounted to a quota (43%) in the total amount of waste that may be incinerated regionally. Civil society involvement at a formal (grenelle I) and informal level (grenelle II) ensured a level of cautious input into the expansion of incineration as an energy solution.

11

A deeper analysis of region-by-region variation is outside the scope of this paper No official membership list is publicly available (unlike Grenelle I). Evidence is derived from interviews with members from the initial „grenelle I‟ working groups.

12

16

All three conclusions are reflected with further amendment in the legislative outcomes of Grenelle 1 and Grenelle 2. Article 46 of Grenelle 1 stipulates that the “quantity of waste to be incinerated will be reduced by 15% (rather than 12%) by 2012”. A tax on incineration was indeed omitted from final legislation. Article 46 suggests, however, that a proposed general carbon tax may have a potentially “reductive effect” upon incineration practices, or at least “lead to a more carbon effecient application of the technology”. Article 78 states that a maximum of 60% of all local (at commune level) waste may be incinerated in order to “avoid discouraging the reduction of waste at source”. Nevertheless, the NGO lobby was unable to hinder an overall government commitment to waste-to-energy. Article 46 was amended by Grenelle 2 to include that “priority should be given to the modernization and energy exploitation of incineration plants”. A key result of the „grenelle II‟ discussions and legislation was the allocation of a one billion Euro „heat‟ budget to ADEME for the period 2008-2011. Indeed, Article 30 under the „Renewable Energy Chapter‟ underlines that priority should be accorded to maximizing heating from “all forms of biomass including geothermal and waste incineration”. This decision contrasted with a more modest amount (356 million Euros) dedicated to waste management and prevention. The „heat‟ budget is specifically designed to allow businesses to develop „renewable heat‟ through the exploitation of biomass and more general waste incineration. This funding was allocated by the Ministry for Energy and Climate as part of a 50 point Renewables action plan in 2010. The national crisis meetings offered a new role for civil society in decision-making on incineration. However, policy implementation appears to remain the purview of local government and business.

17

Discussion: When Energy Demands? The inclusion of non-state actors in policy-making processes and structures is a key objective for the sustainable development agenda (Jordan 2007). International and European agreements stipulate that long-term decision-making must include broad based participation at every stage of the policy process (European Commission 2001a, 2001b, 2005, UN 2002). I concentrated here upon national level experience, namely that of France, in confronting this „governance challenge‟. With reference to Berger (2003) and Kohler-Koch and Rittberger (2006), this challenge focused on structurally including civil society in an effective sustainable way in and between policy sectors. Indeed, France presented an invigorating national context for exploring to what extent governments are embracing the sustainable governance agenda. Longstanding traditions of civil society exclusion in policy-making are clearly at odds with the pluralistic inclusive logic of sustainable development. Does this logic, however, extend to national energy policies? There has been little research into the applicability of sustainable governance to the climate change agenda (Scrase and Smith 2009). The intimate link between sustainable development and climate change is often assumed, especially in relation to encouraging renewable clean energy solutions (European Commission 2001, UN 2002)13. At a national level, the drive towards a low carbon society is considered to be an ultimately joint objective (Hourcade and Crassous 2008, Stern 2007). However, it is argued in this paper on the French approach towards generating energy from waste incineration that sustainable governance as the development of effective long-term durable pluralistic structures and processes is at best periodically ignored, and at worst, avoided. More specifically, a stark contrast between waste management and waste-to-energy governance structures and processes questions whether 13

A detailed assessment of international agreements is outside the scope and limitations of this current paper. Focus is retained upon the national level.

18

energy policy is less (or not al all) exposed to the rules of sustainable governance than environmental policy.

Changing the Rules of the Game? Policy on waste-to-energy is the result of decisions made by governance actors in the waste management and energy sectors (as explored in detail above). The former (and environmental policy more generally) involves a culture that has traditionally encouraged a pluralistic stance to both policy processes and structures (Weale 2000). The decentralization of waste management practices throughout Europe has provided opportunities for local stakeholders to demand various forms of community engagement (Mazanti and Montini 2009). In this way, the „governance challenge‟ posed by sustainable development is potentially less arduous. In contrast, the latter has relied upon government and selected powerful interest groups in a largely meso-corporatist format. Indeed, policy-making on energy matters has remained the purview of national government, often wrapped up in foreign and security affairs (Jordan et al., 2010, Matlary 1997). It is indeed argued that the sustainable governance challenge has largely failed to encourage new „rules of the game‟ in the latter case. Nevertheless, the Grenelle process does provide some evidence of such a shift, albeit on an ad hoc short-term basis. The establishment of local waste contracts in 1998 marked the first significant differential treatment of environmental and energy policies. In terms of waste management, the contracts set up local steering committees with a set of agreed objectives to be attained in coordination with local stakeholders and governmental representatives. An analysis of the objectives achieved in all 112 contracts underlines its success in encouraging sustainable waste management through systematic dialogue. The government‟s approach to 19

environmental policy (in this case waste management) resulted in the development of an inclusive nation-wide scheme of local steering committees. In contrast, the waste-to-energy issue was not considered to be within the remit of the local waste contracts. Policy on wasteto-energy largely remained the purview of government and private companies. A series of national crisis meetings offered the potential for stakeholders (especially government) to recognize, at least in principle, that sustainable governance as inclusive structures and processes should (or not) be applied to energy policies. Firstly, the meetings succeeded in offering the first (albeit ad hoc) structure for sustained debate (throughout both „Grenelle I and II‟) between civil society and government on the incineration issue. The structural innovation of the „Grenelles‟ provided a range of venues for civil society to systematically input its preferences on the future of waste-to-energy. Secondly, the opposition of civil society to further expansion in waste-to-energy was partly reflected in the final legislative outcomes. Nevertheless, waste management policy and governance structures remain largely distinct from the issue of energy production. The empirical case of waste-to-energy must, however, be set within the larger context of sustainable development as a governance challenge. International and supranational commitment to the sustainability agenda has urged nation states to adapt their governance practices. The example of waste-to-energy underlines the real difficulties involved in changing both structures and processes on cross-sector issues. Governance research should, indeed, refer to institutional arrangements as well as processes / outcomes via in-depth policy specific empirical study. In this way, the case study on waste-to-energy in France has demonstrated that the „rules of the game‟ in environmental policy still differ from those applied in the energy arena. The latter appears, in this case, to be less subject to the rigours of inclusive forms of sustainable governance. Before drawing further conclusions, it must be

20

firstly questioned whether this policy case is largely a result of the strong, exclusive and exceptional French state.

A Case of French Exceptionalism? French „exceptionalism‟ is defined as the situation where policy-making in France is different from the equivalent style in any other country (Knapp and Wright 2006). Waste-to-energy in France has indeed developed at a uniquely rapid pace. Since the 1990s, large-scale public and private investment has been committed to incineration as a waste solution. This policy decision has positioned the French government and business as leaders in the recent nationwide technological renovation of incineration practices. New plants that generate heat and power have allowed France to exploit waste-to-energy in order to achieve renewable electricity targets. In this way, waste incineration practices in France have led, firstly to the involvement of both waste and energy governance actors at a local and national level. Moreover, societal opposition has, secondly, emerged in response to the expansive nature of the policy. This paper offers, therefore, new insight into the respective roles of the French state and civil society in implementing sustainable governance practices. The traditional role of the French state is classified as Jacobin, which stipulates that elected governments are mandated with the will of the people directly, without the mediation of other interests (Hazareesingh 2002). In this paper, a strong and exclusive state is observable within a meso-corporatist framework, depending upon the intimate relations between government and business in the waste-to-energy sector. However, the establishment of local waste contracts suggests that the French state is receptive (on certain issues) to the input of various stakeholders in new

21

consultative structures. Existing research has equally reinforced the emergence of more inclusive participatory structures and processes at a local level (Cole and John 1995). The Jacobin French state is equally showing signs of dissolution at a national level. The series of national crisis meetings since 2007 mark a sea change in how the French state regards outside interests. The relative complexity of the „Grenelle‟ structure allowed, firstly, for the structural (albeit ad hoc) inclusion of various outside interests in a wide-ranging policy review on the environment and climate change mitigation. It revealed, above all, that the French state considers inclusive governance structures and processes as integral components of sustainable development and climate change adaptation. Secondly, the „Grenelle‟ structure underlined the difficulty involved for governments to address crosssector issues such as waste-to-energy. Debates in the „environment and public health‟ and „energy‟ working groups emphasized the over-sectoralization of policy-making and the „Grenelle‟ governance structure. Civil society exclusion is indeed a French cultural norm that is increasingly under threat from the governance challenge promoted by sustainable development (Szarka 2004). It is argued that sustainable governance has provided the ideological basis for promoting the inclusion of civil society at member state level. However, substantial opposition to waste-toenergy continues to be ignored by local and national French government representatives. At a local level, waste contracts and steering committees refuse to debate the issue of waste incineration. This refusal takes place within a context of high profile community based campaigns against waste-to-energy plants. At a national level, the incineration issue has been, in contrast, debated within the „Grenelle‟ working groups. The budgetary commitment to waste-to-energy reveals, nevertheless, an avoidance of opposition arguments. The inclusive reformist account of waste management differs markedly with the largely exclusionary approach to waste-to-energy 22

Conclusion The reinforcement of Global and European commitments to sustainable development has challenged nation states to adapt to new inclusive governance practices. The French case showed that a traditional predilection for excluding civil society is in confrontation with the „outside-in‟ long-term normative pressure of sustainable development. After examining this „governance challenge‟ through the example of waste-to-energy, it is argued that the sustainability agenda has confronted national and sub-national decision makers with an important „interpretation dilemma‟: when does „sustainable development as the „inclusion of civil society‟ apply? Environmental policy-making, in this case waste management, has led the way in demonstrating how new inclusive structures and processes can be implemented. The Grenelle process in France reveals that energy policy is capable of embracing „outside‟ interests. A more sustained approach could assist in quelling social opposition to the implementation of controversial energy policies. The expansive, rapid and sustained development of French waste-to-energy infrastructure, and subsequent contribution to renewable and low carbon targets, poses an uncomfortable question for future research in this area: should energy policy be subject to the rules of sustainable governance at all?

Word Count: 7,189

REFERENCES ADEME, 2008. Contrats Territorial Déchets: Syndicat Mixte du Pays Thouarsais, Poitiers: Délégation Régionale Poitou-Charentes. Aguirre, B., 2002. "Sustainable Development" as Collective Surge. Social Science Quarterly, 83(1), pp. 101-118. 23

Backstrand, K., 2006. Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Rethinking Legitimacy, Accountability and Effectiveness. European Environment, 16, pp. 290-306. Berger, G., 2003. Reflections on Governance: Power Relations and Policy Making in Regional Sustainable Development. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 5(3), pp. 219-234. Bertolini, G. 1998. La politique française des déchets‟, In Barraqué, B. and Theys, J. (eds.) Les Politiques d’Environnement: Evaluation de la première generation 1971-1995, pp.171-188, Paris: Editions Recherches. Brousse, J. 2005. Incinération des déchets ménagers: La grande peur. Paris: Le Cherche Midi. Cole, A. and John, P., 1995. Local Policy Networks in France and Britain: Policy Coordination in Fragmented Political Sub-systems. West European Politics, 18(4), pp. 89109. Cole, A. and Jones, G., 2005. Reshaping the State: Administrative Reform and New Public Management in France. Governance, 18(4), pp. 567-588. Dryzek, J., Downes, D., Hunold, C., Schlosberg, D. and Hernes, H., 2003. Green States and Social Movements: Environmentalism in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany and Norway. Oxford: Oxford University Press. European Commission, 2001b. A Sustainable Europe for a Better World. 269. Luxembourg: Office for the Publications of the European Communities. European Commission, 2001a. European Governance: A White Paper. 428. Luxembourg: Office for the Publications of the European Communities. European Commission, 2005. The Review of Sustainable Development Strategy: Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. 658. Luxembourg: Office for the Publications of the European Communities. Eurostat, 2006, Municipal waste by type of treatment: Metadata SDSS, TSIEN130, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications for the European Communities. Giddens, 2009. The Politics of Climate Change. Wiley, John and Sons: London. Hourcade, J. and Crassous, R., 2008. Low-carbon societies: a challenging transition for an attractive future. Climate Policy, 8(6), pp. 607-612. ISWA, 2007. Energy from Waste Statistics, State of the Art Report. 6th Edition. Paris: International Solid Waste Association. ISWA, 2001. Energy from Waste Statistics, State of the Art Report. 1st Edition. Paris: International Solid Waste Association. Jacques, M., 13/05/2003. Non à l'Incinération à Gueugnon: Pas de trêve pour les opposants au project d'implantation de l'incinérateur. Hérault Tribune, Environnement, pp. 8-8. Jordan, A., 2001. A climate for policy change? The contested politics of a low carbon economy. Political Quarterly, 72(2), pp. 249-254. Jordan, A. and Lorenzoni, I., 2007. Is there now a political climate for policy change? Policy and politics after the Stern Review. Political Quarterly, 78(2), pp. 310-319. Jordan, A., Huitema, D., Asselt, H., Rayner, T. and Berkhout, F., 2010, Climate Change Policy in the European Union, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jouzel, J. and Stern, N., 2008. Synthese Rapport: Lutter contre les changements climatiques et maitriser l'energie. Groupe 1. Paris: La Republique Francaise. Kloek, W. and Jordan, K., 2005. Waste Generated and Treated in Europe: Data 1995-2003. Edition 05. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Kohler-Koch, B. and Rittberger, B., 2006. The „Governance Turn‟ in EU Studies. Journal of Common Market Studies, 44(1), pp. 27-49. Kohler-Koch, B. and Eising, R., eds, 1999. The transformation of governance in the European Union. London: Routledge. 24

Lafferty, W., 2004. Governance for Sustainable Development: The challenge of adapting form to function. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Lepellier. L. 2008. La Démarche territorial: Elements de la contractualisation et le Contrat Territorial Déchets (CTD), Paris: ADEME. Manecbo, F., 2006. Le Developpement Durable. Paris: Armand Colin. Maraninchi, D., 2008. Synthese Rapport: Instaurer un environnement respectueux de la sante. Groupe 3. Paris: La Republique Francaise. Martin, V. and Olivier, G., 29/10/2005. Le compostage à Vias: Une des solution à la problématique de nos déchets. Hérault Tribune, Environnement, pp. 6-7. Matlary, J., 1997, Energy Policy in the European Union, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Mazanti, M. and Montini, A., 2009, Waste and Environmental Policy, London: Routledge Meadowcroft, J., 2007. National Sustainable Development Strategies: Features, Challenges and Reflexivity. European Environment, 17, pp. 152-163. MEDD, 2009. Synthèse du Forum Internet: Intergroupe “Déchets”. Paris: Ministere de l'Environnement et de Developpement Durable. MEDD, 2008. Déchets: Carte des Incinérateurs en Fonctionnement. Paris: Ministere de l'Environnement et de Developpement Durable. Moreau, A., 2008. Intitule de l'action: Developpement de la filiere "bois-energie". A8SydedLot. Labege: ADEME Midi-Pyrenees. Notat, N., 2008. Synthese Rapport: Construire un democratie ecologique. Groupe 5. Paris: La Republique Francaise. Parayre, B., 2008. Le Lancement du Grenelle de l'Environnement. EJP12. Paris: Ministère de l'Ecologie. Pierre, J. and Peter, G., 2000. Governance, Politics and the State. London: Macmillan Press. Quemin, R., 2005. Intitule de l'action: Collecte selective du bois en dechetteries. A24SudRhone. Lyon: ADEME Rhone-Alpes. Risse, T., 2004. Global Governance and Communicative Action. Government and Opposition, 39(2), pp. 288-313. Saikku, L., Rautiainen, A. and Kauppi, P., 2007. The Sustainability Challenge of meeting carbon dioxide targets in Europe by 2020. Energy Policy, 36(2), pp.730-742. Scrase, I. and Smith, A., 2009. The (non-)politics of managing low carbon socio-technical transitions. Environmental Politics, 18(5), pp. 707-726. Stern, N., 2007. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Szarka, J., 2004. Sustainable development strategies in France: institutional settings, policy style and political discourse. European Environment, 14(1), pp. 16-29. Szarka, J., 2002. The Shaping of Environmental Policy in France. New York: Berghahn. UN, 2002. Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development: From Origins to the Future. Johannesburg: United Nations Publications. Weale, A., Pridham, G., Cini, M., Konstadakopulos, D., Porter, M. and Flynn, B. (2000) Environmental Governance in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press. SELECTED INTERVIEWS ADEME (Agence de l’Environnement et de la Maitrise de l’Energie); 2 interviews with a representative from waste management, 12/04/2009 Parti Socialiste: 1 interview with a representative from the office of Marie Noelle Lienemann MEP, 14/09/2008 Ministry for Energy and Climate; 2 interviews with two representative from the subdivisions on biomass and Renewable Energy, 13/04/2009 25

Ministry for the Environment and Sustainable Development; 2 interviews with one representative from the waste management subdivision, 14/04/2009 and 18/11/2009 Novergie; 3 interviews with two representatives from the waste-to-energy division, 21/09/2009 and 22/09/2009

26