Energy transition and city–region planning: understanding the spatial politics of systemic change

Abstract

This paper contributes to an emerging literature focused on cities and regions as strategic sites for systemic sustainability transformation processes. We analyse how aspiration and ambition for transformation of the energy system in the Paris–Ile-de-France region of France translates more vividly into the transversal strategic spatial planning policy arena than in the energy policy sector. The intensity of inter-actor tensions here suggests that these are key contested issues for future orientations of energy systems on any level. Some of the contradictions and competing viewpoints around energy-concerned planning issues are discussed. It is argued that this highlights the importance of understanding the socio-political geographies of systemic change. We suggest that thinking through the multiple spatio-temporal rhythms of transitions could be a useful way of pushing research and policies towards more explicit, sympathetic and political engagement with the socio-spatial differentiations and inequalities inherent to place-based transformations.

Keywords:

• energy transition
• regional planning
• politics
• systemic change
• governance
• society
• technology
• environment
• Paris
• France

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge financial assistance from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) for project ANR-05-BLAN-0344, and from the Région Ile-de-France. We wish to thank the organisers and participants of the ‘Reproducing city regions’ workshop in Manchester and at the ‘Transforming the energy system’ conference in Deutschlandsberg (Austria) to whom earlier versions of this paper were presented in summer 2007.

Notes

See, for example, the Paris municipality's Climate Plan (Mairie de Paris 2007), the Mayor of London's Energy Strategy (Mayor of London 2004), or the City of Stockholm's Action Plan against Greenhouse Gases (City of Stockholm 2003).

In contrast, many dominant discourses on sustainable development evacuate politics, conflict and the diversity of positions and viewpoints in favour of an eternal search for consensus and unanimity. For example, in the conclusions to a European Commission seminar on the post-carbon society it is argued that ‘Effective action depends upon shared normative visions of the future and agreement about the means to get there’ (European Commission 2007, 47).

The original concept of ‘factor 4’ proposed a dramatic increase in resource efficiency/productivity to sustain greater levels of energy production while using/consuming half the resources (see von Weizsacker, Lovins and Lovins 1997). It has been adapted in policy circles, notably in France, to refer to policies which aim for a four-fold division of greenhouse gas emissions (1990 levels) over coming decades (generally to 2050).

Solar power only became a political priority again in 2000, so results remain basic in spite of financial assistance and a professionalisation of the sector. 470,000 homes are heated by wood, although there is debate as to how ecological this method actually is, as it draws on the forest resources of the region which are sites of great biodiversity. Wind power is, by contrast, virtually non-existent in the region.

We can note, however, that only three such agencies have so far been created, and the contribution of the Region to the one at Vitry, for example, amounts to a paltry €30,000 (Ile-de-France region website).

Regional policy previously focused finance on collective housing and public infrastructure such as schools and sports centres. There has therefore been a downscaling from the urban to the household level.

The 2007–2008 SDRIF is also the first time that the state has not been responsible for the production of the regional spatial plan for Ile-de-France since the first such plan in 1965. In order to be implemented, however, the national government must validate the definitive SDRIF plan, something which had not been done as of January 2010 (see below).

That is, emissions from activities located outside the region but which benefit the region, but including transit traffic.

Some studies show however that if long distance, weekend and holiday trips are included in the picture, then the city-centre dweller produces more CO₂ than her/his suburban counterpart. Revenue and social category are key explanations of this difference: on average, wealthier urban dwellers travel more (both for leisure and work) than suburban ones. Yet the question remains open whether, all other things being equal, a ‘desire to escape’ high density city centres significantly contributes to the propensity to long distance, weekend and holiday travel (see, for example, Orfeuil and Soleyret 2002; Holden and Norland 2005).

Regional officials countered that the SDRIF's superseding role does not amount to ‘control’ by one local authority over another, insofar as the planning regulations included in the SDRIF leave enough room for local governments to develop local plans.

These divergences are evident in the fact that during the finalisation of the SDRIF plan in 2008, the French President both created a new Secretary of State for the capital region with the task of elaborating a new planning and economic development strategy for the Paris region (and implicitly therefore countering the SDRIF), and initiated a consultation project with ten teams of international architects for proposals for the development of a Grand Paris.