In a paper for the Rousseau Institute, Guillaume Heim (E21) expresses the view that the environmental plan envisaged by the French State is necessary, but that its success will depend on legal and budgetary conditions that are yet to be put in place. Insight.

ESSEC Alumni: How did you come to examine the issues of the environmental plan? 

Guillaume Heim: I have always been fascinated by public policy issues, specifically from a legal point of view; in other words, the way in which legal standards are drafted for the implementation of a policy. From this perspective, the law on ecological transition is of particular interest to me, because while it is inherently technical, it also encompasses much broader considerations, such as the legitimacy of Parliament, citizen participation or the acceptance of energy transition.

EA: Why did you choose the Rousseau Institute to address the subject?

G. Heim: The Rousseau Institute is one of the most prolific think tanks in terms of environmental transition and I support their approach. On that subject, I recommend ESSEC members with an interest in these issues to take a look at the Institute’s 2% for 2°C report, which estimates, sector by sector, the public and private investments required to achieve a decarbonised world.

EA: What has France’s historical stance been with regard to the notion of planning? 

G. Heim: In France, the notion of planning remains widely associated with the post-war boom: it revives the spirit of major industrial and technological plans, such as the Monet Plan which was developed to support the rebuilding of the country in the wake of the Liberation. It is therefore no accident that this form of public action has found new favour since the health crisis, with the High Commission for Planning and then the General Secretariat for Ecological Planning (SGPE).

EA: This form of planning had nevertheless been largely abandoned since the 1990s. 

G. Heim: In 1993, the deputy Jean de Gaulle submitted a report to Prime Minister Édouard Balladur which marked a turning point. It claimed that as of 1975, plans had systematically failed, and that more fundamentally, planning was no longer compatible with the context of globalisation and the State’s disengagement from the economy, marked by a series of privatisations. This explains why, as of the 2000s, planning subsisted only in its prospective aspect, with the Centre for Strategic Analysis, which became France Stratégie.

EA: Your paper claims, however, that France has been exercising environmental planning for several years. What measures are you referring to?

G. Heim: Paradoxically, as France Stratégie reveals, ‘there have never been some many ‘plans’ since the end of the Plan.’ On a national scale, the most emblematic tools are undoubtedly the multiannual energy programmes (PPE) and the National Low-Carbon Strategy (SNBC) which set aims for a reduction in greenhouse gases to be imposed on public authorities, at their level. Moreover, public authorities must take into account and comply with the SNBC in their own planning documents. There are also numerous sector-based plans, such as the hydrogen roll-out plan, or the biomass plan, etc.

EA: And on a regional level? 

G. Heim: The task of regional authorities is to develop regional climate-air-energy plans (PCAET), in addition to territorial development and sustainable development plans (SRADDET and SRCAE). The aim of these documents is to transpose targets, on the scale of each region, in terms of energy and urban planning, etc.

EA: What results have these measures achieved up to now? 

G. Heim: The targets for greenhouse gas emissions and protection of biodiversity have not been reached; the High Council for Climate points this out in its reports, as do think tanks devoted to climate change. Public authorities have even gone as far as to adapt planning tools a posteriori to comply with results; in other words, the plan adapts retrospectively to the reality.

EA:  In the light of these results, your report puts forward three proposals. The first is to improve the readability of the planner arsenal. Through which means primarily? 

G. Heim: Whether you’re a citizen or an expert, how could you not be lost among the PPE, SNBC, SRADDET, SRCAE, PLU or SCOT plans? With decentralisation, which is particularly marked in environmental terms, local schemes, sector plans and urban planning documents have proliferated...not to mention the number of European plans for energy and climate. We suggest rationalising all these tools around a genuine national climate Plan, which would be broken down by sector and region. The timing is perfect; by 1 July 2023, France must pass a climate-energy programme law, let’s seize this opportunity!

EA: The second proposal is to improve the monitoring of planning tools. What are your main recommendations? 

G. Heim: We believe that, without constraints, the environmental plan cannot succeed. You have to understand that the notion of constraint remains a blind spot for our public authorities. In legal terms, the various regional planning tools in existence are bound to report on ‘taking into account’. In practice, this term means that regional plans must take national planning ‘into account’, but are not obliged to comply strictly with the targets set. A plan obviously needs to be adapted to local specificities; this is the point of decentralisation, but if we do not set a limit to this degree of latitude, we risk diluting the effectiveness of plans set on a national level. In our view, this is the weakness of the France Nation Verte plan, presented recently by Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne, which evokes consultation with stakeholders as its sole watchword, without mentioning constraint.

EA: How do you explain this reluctance to legal constraint?

G. Heim: Perhaps because France, as I said earlier, remains marked by the role of planning in the achievement of its post-war prosperity during the Trente Glorieuses. Its success was due to two factors. Firstly, the French economy was far less open to the world. Secondly, the public sector was much broader; the plan did not need to be legally limiting because all the State had to do was manage the numerous companies it controlled to ensure their activities complied with the Plan’s directives. The situation has changed radically today, but it appears our politicians do not always realise this.

EA: Your third and final proposal is to provide arms to environmental planning. What are the main solutions you put forward?

G. Heim: Planning needs more than just legal or political tools. It also requires financial, human and technical resources. There are several estimations, but we can say that in France alone, between €30 and €50 billion of additional annual investment (public and private) is needed to ensure ecological transition. Public spending must be re-examined accordingly. 

EA: Does environmental planning depend necessarily and exclusively on public action? 

G. Heim: Historically, it was up to public authorities to develop and implement plans. Planning implies making strong choices for society. In France, in accordance with the Constitution and the spirit of nation, this legitimacy lies with Parliament and the State. However, certain recent climate-related disputes, such as the Affaire du Siècle (‘Case of the Century’) or the Grande-Synthe case, demonstrated that the involvement of NGOs and stakeholders can be useful and even necessary to achieve the environmental plan, by condemning the State for its failure to act. The private sector is obviously another driving force in planning, through green investments, innovation, and change in production methods.

EA: What resources would you recommend to ESSEC alumni looking for more information on this topic?

G. Heim: France Stratégie recently published an interesting paper entitled ‘Planning: a Bygone Idea or a Lead for the Future?’ which deals with the topic from a historical perspective and offers several seminars around the theme. I’d also recommend L’État post-moderne [The Post-Modern State] by Jacques Chevalier, often hailed as a doctrinal reference, to understand how the State’s role and legitimacy has changed since the 1990s, as well as the incompatibility of historical planning with the new economic and political context, even if such planning can serve as a form of inspiration. And you can read  my paper (in French) for the Rousseau Institute, of course.

Interview by Louis Armengaud Wurmser (E10), Content Manager at ESSEC Alumni  Want more content? Join us now so that we can keep bringing you news about the ESSEC network.