energy autonomy in le mené: a french case of grassroots innovation
TRANSCRIPT
Energy autonomy in Le Mené: A French case of grassroots innovation
Melike Yalçın-Riollet a,n, Isabelle Garabuau-Moussaoui b, Mathilde Szuba c
a Centre Maurice Halbwachs (CNRS-EHESS-ENS), ENS, 48 Boulevard Jourdan, 75014 Paris, Franceb EDF R&D, 1, Avenue du Général de Gaulle, 92141 Clamart Cedex, Francec CETCOPRA (Paris 1 – Panthéon Sorbonne), 17, Rue de la Sorbonne, 75005 Paris, France
H I G H L I G H T S
� The case study is the Le Mené, a pioneer case for local energy autonomy.� This case is an emerging grassroots innovation in France.� Hybridisation (combining diversity and frames) is at the centre of the innovation.� This study focuses on the hybridisation of actors, sociotechniques and discourses.� Examines the potential diffusion of grassroots initiatives in France.
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 19 November 2013Received in revised form10 February 2014Accepted 11 February 2014Available online 7 March 2014
Keywords:Grassroots innovationsLocal energy autonomyFrance
a b s t r a c t
Local citizen-led initiatives relating to energy are developing strongly in Anglo-Saxon countriesand a growing body of research is examining their innovative potential. In France, similar grassrootsinitiatives – albeit with certain specificities – only began to emerge recently and so far, very fewstudies have dealt with them. The purpose of this article is to propose an exploratory and in-depthanalysis of one advanced French case: Le Mene ́, a pioneer in local energy autonomy. We examinethe conditions under which the initiative emerged and the processes through which a grassrootsinnovation is formed. In studying this case (interviews, analysis of documents), comparing it withother sources of data (expert interviews, comparative observation of other initiatives) and takingstock of various social sciences studies, we show that a social innovation was produced in Le Mene ́through the hybridisation of actors, sociotechniques and discourses. This initiative was innovativenot only in terms of the scope of the mechanisms implemented, but also in terms of the socialorganisation behind the development of the projects and the capacity to use energy production as asocial resource. Finally, we reflect on the possible diffusion of these grassroots initiatives and their policyimplications in France.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Local and citizen-led initiatives relating to energy (renewableproduction, energy efficiency, energy sufficiency) are developingstrongly in Anglo-Saxon countries (United Kingdom, Germany,Austria, Luxembourg) and a growing body of research is examiningthe innovative potential of these grassroots initiatives knownas “community energy” (Seyfang and Smith, 2007; Walker andDevine-Wright, 2008; Hielscher et al., 2013).
Yet this kind of initiative is not common in France. Nadaï et al.(2012a) point to approximately 10 local experiences distributedover 9 French regions. Although these experiences are few and farbetween, they often have a significant reach in terms of models forthe future of energy, such as finding alternative models forrenewable energy project development, becoming (co-operative)actors in the electricity market or anticipating emergent markets(rehabilitation of individual housing). In this article, we explorethe emergence of one of these initiatives (Le Mené) in France, acountry where the energy market is highly concentrated andwhere policies generally remain top-down.
The French macro-sociological context is that of a verycentralised and oligopolistic energy system. Two main companiesshare the network energy market (gas and electricity): EDF(Electricité de France) and GDF (Gaz de France), which up until
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol
Energy Policy
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.02.0160301-4215 & 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
n Correspondence to: 3 Rue Jean Vallet, 92120 Montrouge, France.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Yalçın-Riollet),
[email protected] (I. Garabuau-Moussaoui),[email protected] (M. Szuba).
Energy Policy 69 (2014) 347–355
2008 were a single company. Since 2007 the market has beenopen and other companies have arrived on the scene, thoughthey have few customers and they essentially use energy produc-tion and distribution methods dating back to the 1946–2007period. Electricity represents half of the country's energyconsumption, across all sectors. Nuclear power accounts forapproximately 75% of France's electricity production (www.edf.fr).The energy system thus remains highly centralised and linked tothe two historical networks – gas and electricity of nuclear origin.
Public policies are also very much linked to this sociotechnicalpast (Brugidou and Garabuau-Moussaoui, 2013). Managed in atop-down manner and based on very large production units with ahigh level of sophistication, this technical macro-system (Gras,1993) leaves little room for local production initiatives. Even ifmore recent political measures tending towards decentralisationare designed to encourage regions to take the energy challenge onboard (such as the Regional Climate Air and Energy Schemes or theLocal Climate Action Plans (Binet and Eiller, 2011; Yalçın andLefèvre, 2012), most are the local translation of a national publicpolicy).
In relation to this specific context, Nadaï et al. (2012b) high-lighted the limited development of French academic literature onthe subject. Analyses of local issues in the climate-energy fieldhave mostly focused on the state of implementation of climate-energy policies or on the role of local authorities and local energyproducers. French research is initially directed towards an in-depth and exploratory analysis of each emerging initiative. Whenseveral monographs have been produced, we might hypothesisethat research will examine the more general mechanisms and willbe able, for example, to ask whether these initiatives are innova-tion “niches” (as is currently the case in the UK) (Smith, 2012).Positioning ourselves within this initial monographic phase, wehave chosen to study one specific project: the energy autonomyinitiative by Le Mené, a French rural territory engaged in numer-ous energy-related projects.
We make the hypothesis that in the French context, this localenergy initiative, driven by local actors and by the “civil society”in particular, is a form of sociotechnical innovation. We examineon what foundations this initiative is based, what specificforms are being developed and what aspects of the project areinnovative.
The study reveals the importance of the hybridisation of thediscourses, actors and mechanisms as the driving force behindthe sustainability of the initiative – that said hybridisation beingbased on a balance between framing and diversity. It points outto the construction of a founding myth based on a mobilisationhistory and a charismatic leader, the capacity to unite differentkinds of actors and skills and the multiplicity of the socio-technical projects focused on one central issue – energy. Thislocal initiative is innovative not just through the scope of themechanisms which are implemented, but also via the socialorganisation behind the development of the project and throughthe capacity to use energy production as a social resource,particularly with a view to bringing value to the territory. WhilstLe Mené's objective was to achieve energy autonomy, above allelse the territory earned the status of innovator among peopleinvolved in less advanced projects and a more positive imagewithin the region.
2. Case study and methodology: an exploratory studyof a pioneer in local energy autonomy
Our case study examines one of the most advanced Frenchinitiatives that might be considered as a grassroots innovation.Le Mené is a French rural Communauté de Communes (CdC,
community of municipalities)1 and is a pioneer in local energyautonomy.2 The CdC is engaged in numerous energy-related projects(methane plant, oil mill, wood-fired heating plant and network,participatory wind energy, low-energy buildings, incubator for com-panies dedicated to renewable energies and eco-construction, etc.).
The multiplicity and the diversity of local actors involved makethis case highly relevant to empirical study within the frameworkof grassroots innovation research. In addition, Le Mené's initiativeshave a relatively long history and tangible outcomes. This case canthus be analysed with some hindsight. Finally, Le Mené's actors arekeen to share and advertise their experience. This had twoimplications for our research. Firstly, their initiatives were rela-tively well documented. Secondly, they were willing to participatein the research project and to be interviewed. To explore this case,we conducted a qualitative study using written sources, interviewswith experts and semi-directive interviews.
Because French literature on energy-related local initiatives isin an emergent state, publications in this field are still rare.However, some researchers are working on related areas. Wetherefore carried out an initial round of interviews with five socialscientists working on France (some have also worked on the UK).The choice of experts was designed to identify themes whichmight fuel the issue of grassroots innovations: political consumer-ism; “radical” groups advocating behavioural changes in relationto climate change; contemporary social movements; studiesrelating to the notion of community, grassroots actions andenvironmental activists. This allowed us to compare our emergentsubject with similar areas of research.3
The second stage involved a field study in Le Mené. Nine in-depth interviews were carried out with Le Mené's elected officialsand members of associations (pioneering actors). All pioneeringactors cited in the article were interviewed by the authors, withthe exception of D. Rocaboy (see below), whose public interviewswere used. Some inhabitants involved in energy projects and oneintermediary actor, who works for the CLER association (Renew-able Energy Liaison Committee) that created a network of ruralactors interested in energy initiatives,4 were also interviewed. Theinterviewees were mostly questioned about the roles they playedin Le Mené's energy autonomy project (practices, motivations,challenges faced) as well as their social relationships, opinions andvalues. Finally, our study was completed using publications (news-letters, leaflets, etc.) from the Le Mené CdC and numerous reportsand recordings of events (study trips, encounters, etc.) organisedwithin the Le Mené region.
3. Literature review and research questions: hybridisationbetween framing and diversity as an innovative mechanism
The issue of local energy initiatives has been raised anddiscussed in Anglo-Saxon literature (especially in the UK), butremains sparse in France. A review of the literature from bothcountries is required in order to take account of theoreticalinternational progress and of the specificities of French initiatives.
The literature on community energy mainly studied the dis-tinctive characteristics of community projects and technology
1 In France, municipalities can choose to group together to exercise a certainnumber of competences on the members' behalf (economic development, townand country planning, environment, roads, sports and cultural infrastructures, etc.).
2 Its autonomy targets include direct consumption by industry (excludingtransportation of goods) and consumption by inhabitants within the territory(including electricity, heating and mobility). It aims to increase the share of renew-ables in total energy consumption to 25% by 2013. 75% should be achieved by 2020and renewable and local energy production should exceed consumption by 2030.
3 Findings from this first set of interviews have been reported in Moussaoui(2011).
4 The TEPos network http://www.territoires-energie-positive.fr.
M. Yalçın-Riollet et al. / Energy Policy 69 (2014) 347–355348
installations – geographical boundaries, involvement of localactors in different phases of projects (Hathway, 2010; Rogerset al., 2008), open and participatory processes and collectiveoutcomes (Walker and Devine-Wright, 2008) – examined theirlinks with government polices and support programs (HoughtonResearch, 2010; Walker et al., 2007) and identified the challengesand incentives for communities (Heiskanen et al., 2010; Walker,2008). Moreover, a new body of research has called for attentionfor the innovative potential of community energy and the diffusionof those innovations. Seyfang and Smith (2007) consider commu-nity actions as a “site of innovative activity”. In contrast tomainstream business innovation, grassroots initiatives tend tooperate in “civil society” (i.e. driven neither by the governmentnor by commercial interests, even though the latter can oftenprovide considerable support during the different phases of theprojects). These groups are relatively critical of the mainstreamenergy “socio-technical regime” (Seyfang and Smith, 2007).They try to “change the contexts”, by changing their behaviour,their environment, with “multi-faceted” actions, an “engagement”,a “focus on participation”, and some concrete “challenges”(Hielscher et al., 2013). They involve committed activists withshared values – in particular those of sustainable development andenergy transition – and collective interests, who experiment withsocial innovations as well as using greener technologies andtechniques (Seyfang and Smith, 2007; Davies, 2012).
Can these characteristics be found in the French context?A bibliographical analysis and interviews with experts (Moussaoui,2011) showed that the French term communauté (community) hastraditionally had negative connotations.5 French researchers aretrying to reintroduce the notion into social sciences (Laville et al.,2007; Sainsaulieu et al., 2010). It is only very recently that the term“energy community” has emerged in French research programmes(Nadaï et al., 2012b, 2012a). The term “community” thus makes itpossible to describe an emerging reality in France: local initiativeslooking to evolve production, consumption and housing systems, in apragmatic and integrative perspective, i.e. with a view to integratingexisting constraints and resources and not position themselves solelyas a demand “against” the system. However, French field studies oninitiatives that are community-related in the Anglo-Saxon sense ofthe term (Dobigny, 2009; Nadaï et al., 2012a; Cacciari and Fournier,2012) suggest certain specificities in terms of the actors involved. Inparticular, CdCs and municipalities are not just a support for theseinitiatives; they are real driving forces, far more so than is the case inthe UK. Elected officials are both professionally and personallyengaged in the projects. The “community” label might cause thisFrench specificity to disappear, which is why we will prefer the termgrassroots initiatives.
Our main research questions are the following: how does anenergy-focused grassroots initiative emerge? What innovationproduces this kind of initiative?
These questions relate to several complementary fields ofresearch: social movements, the sociology of alternative forms ofmarket (or alternatives to markets) and the sociology of innova-tion. Within the framework of this article, we cannot establish anexhaustive state of the art for all of these areas of research. Cross-fertilisation is still rare and remains to be constructed. Here wewill try to bring the different issues together and we offer theconcept of hybridisation as a notion which will allow us to takeaccount of the sociotechnical innovation in local French initiatives.
One angle for the analysis of grassroots initiatives is that of thesociology of social movements and of collective action in France. In
particular, the “frame” concept has been borrowed from Goffman(1991) by social movement analysts, to designate the product ofthe activity of constructing the meaning by the members andleaders of social movements and also by actors such as the State,public authorities, the elite, the media. So through the action of“framing”, the actors give meaning, interpret the pertinent eventsand conditions, in such a way as to rally supporters and potentialparticipants and to win support and demobilise opponents(Benford and Snow, 2000). The notion of framing was also usedin Actor Network Theory (ANT), and was applied to the local wind-power installation, leading to “local controversies” (Jolivet andHeiskanen, 2010). Analysis shows a hybridisation between framingprocesses and overflowing processes. In our study however, inrelation to the literature on community energy, the notion ofdiversity (Walker and Devine-Wright, 2008) would appear to bemore operative as the mirror of the notion of framing than is thenotion of overflows, which relates to controversies and protests.
Note that analysis of social movements in relation to thequestion of energy essentially develops around militant protestgroups, which come together to protest about a particular project(Ollitrault interview, in Moussaoui (2011)). Our study rather pointsout to an “activits-pragmatist” group.
There have been few local projects to set up renewable energysystems and therefore few studies in this area. Local collectivesproposing innovative initiatives are studied to a greater extent inareas other than energy, by a highly dynamic sociological fieldwhich is under construction, that of the meeting between economicsociology (market sociology) and political sociology (sociology ofsocial movements). This perspective makes it possible to under-stand the hybrid forms of links between civil society, marketplaceand politics (political consumerism, sociology of alternative mar-kets, etc.) and how the technical, social and economic options arethe result of joint decisions by producers and consumers(Dubuisson-Quellier, 2013). In particular, these researches analysethe “socio-technical networks” (Latour, 1993) that these initiativesdeploy, and in particular, propose the notion of hybridisation.
This notion was developed by Latour (1993) and by researchersbelonging to sciences and technology studies (STS): our modernsocieties separate domains (nature/culture in particular) whichshould be analysed as hybrids. Innovation is an interesting focus ofstudy in this respect, as technology and society come together, asdo culture, economy and politics, to create hybrid “socio-technicalnetworks”. In particular, Latour argues in favour of a combined andsymmetrical analysis of three elements which are often separatedyet which are in fact inextricably linked: the things, the discoursesand social relations, and their “involvement with collectives andobjects” (Latour, 1993).
An energy-related grassroots innovation can therefore beanalysed using this notion of hybridisation. How does a networkof actors develop around a project? How are the socio-techniquesdeployed in relation to these networks? What discourses areconstructed on this network and on these socio-techniques? Wewill see that a grassroots innovation is a sociotechnical system, i.e.a set of actors, discourses and things which mutually constructthemselves and which evolve together.
In particular, the cross-fertilisation of these social sciencecorpuses shows that hybridisation and framing come together, inthe sense that they show the processes at work to constructhuman and non-human collectives. They make it possible to takeaccount of the social activities of local groups: to act on theirenvironment, to engage, to take up challenges, in a dual move-ment of diversification and framing.
We find these processes in the Le Mené case study, exploringits innovative potential. After presenting the conditions underwhich the initiative emerged, we will examine the processesthrough which a grassroots innovation is formed and developed.
5 Relating to two figures: the “traditional community” and “communitarian-ism” (religious or corporatist in particular), both in contrast to the principles of theRepublic and a society of individuals.
M. Yalçın-Riollet et al. / Energy Policy 69 (2014) 347–355 349
Finally, we will reflect on the possible diffusion of such grassrootsinnovations and their policy implications in France.
4. How energy emerged as a problem: historical legacy andcontemporary issues
The history of the “territory” (which designates a place with acollective identity in French social sciences) is important whentrying to understand the current state of affairs. As early as the1960s, Le Mené had begun an exemplary approach to localdevelopment. The example set by this region even gave birth toa “spontaneous generation of pioneer territories” which threwthemselves into local development with no support from centralpublic authorities between 1965 and 1972 (Gontcharoff, 2010).
A determining frame in the collective action of the 1960s and1970s led these actors to construct a “story”: Le Mené, a small,isolated and forgotten territory whose “riches are not necessarilyimmediately apparent” (INT5), shifted from resignation to thedesignation of injustice (Turner, 1969) and refused to accept thefate technocrats had reserved for it (Théry, 2009). It therefore“took charge of its own destiny”, i.e. took charge of its own localdevelopment, without waiting for any help from “up above” – atleast, not at first. The mobilisations taking place at the timeconstituted the founding myth on which current mobilisation isbased. Moreover, various issues – the determination to achieveeconomic and social diversity, autonomy in relation to the outsideworld and to a dominant employer, environmental and agricul-tural constraints – led Le Mené to focus on a single theme: energy.
4.1. Birth of a founding myth: Le Mené up until the 1990s
Le Mené, which means “mountains” in the Breton language, is arural zone located in the south-west of the Côtes d'Armourdépartement. Le Mené's CdC is comprised of seven municipalities(Collinée, Le Gouray, Saint Jacut du Mené, Saint Gouéno, Saint Gillesdu Mené, Langourla, Plessala) spread over an area of 163.2 km2, andhas 6500 inhabitants. The actors we met in Le Mené base theirdiscourse on the fact that the territory's commitment to energystems from its “difficult” conditions: “What nurtures [the mobilisa-tion], is a region and people who have a tough time of it.” (INT1)
At the beginning of the 19th century, textile arts and craftsaccounted for the greater part of the territory's economy. In the1850s, with industrialisation, people could no longer make a livingfrom arts and crafts and began to work the land, even though thesoil was relatively infertile and the yield low. The population of LeMené, which at that time comprised 23 municipalities, fell due tothe First World War and then to the rural exodus. Between 1936and 1962, Le Mené lost 20% of its inhabitants. The population agedconsiderably (Martin et al., 1977).
Between 1960 and 1965, Paul Houée, from the municipality ofSt. Gilles du Mené, completed a sociology thesis on cooperativefarming and development in Central Brittany. With students fromthe agricultural school in Angers, he carried out a voluntary surveyof the population's collective needs. On the 12th April 1965, inSaint-Gilles, he organised a meeting with the slogan “Le Mené, aterritory which refuses to die”. The organisers expected 30 peopleto attend – 340 came. “Of all the meetings I've been to in my life, thatwas the one that moved me the most. You could sense that peoplewanted to do something, but they didn't know what” (INT3). Duringthe summer of that same year, other meetings took place in themunicipalities to draw up a demographic and economic report andto listen to inhabitants who were worried about their futures andthat of the territory.
Le Mené is a poor and remote territory; it is far from the mainroads and railways and from urban centres. It had undergone a
major rural exodus. The inhabitants felt “that they have been ignored,abandoned” (INT3) and the mobilisation made it possible to trans-form what was perceived as misfortune or fate into a “socialinjustice” (see Turner, 1969) to which the inhabitants could react.
The local meetings organised after the 1965 local elections,backed by the newly elected officials, mobilised approximately8000 inhabitants who talked about their problems and putforward their projects. The local development groups createdfollowing these meetings combined to form the Le Mené Expan-sion Committee, an association whose purpose was “to remedy thedecline and depopulation” (Meynier and Goales, 1966). The LeMené initiative became famous both nationally and internation-ally. In 1966, national and European members of parliament andkey figures were invited to Le Mené, but no European funding wasmade available; Le Mené simply received one-off payments fromthe French Ministry of Agriculture, whereas the Expansion Com-mittee wished to achieve global and endogenous territorial devel-opment through intense participation from the local populationand active help from all competent departments (Martin et al.,1977): “There was a global demand but only sectorial responses. […]the problem is to reconcile a bottom-up approach comprising multi-ple initiatives and a top-down approach which has to rationalise. […][Just like now] the government was not ready for that; Le Mené wasthe first French territory to adopt this sort of approach.” (INT3)
This period gave rise to micro-projects. According to ourinterviewees, this mobilisation essentially had a “socio-psychological effect” (INT1) and served “to switch from a depressiveidentity (‘there's nothing that can be done here, all that's left is to getthe hell out) to the perspective of ‘Le Mené, a territory takingcharge of its destiny.” (INT3).
The first success by the mobilisation, and more particularly bythe resulting Expansion Committee, was that a company wassaved (Théry, 2009). The Gilles slaughterhouse, a family businessfounded in 1955, had problems towards the middle of the 1970s.Thanks to the efforts made by the Expansion Committee, it wasbought out in 1975 by the Leclerc group, one of France's leadingsupermarket chains. The company was renamed Kermené, grewand became the leading employer in the département.
But in 1989 the company asked the municipalities for newplanning permission and large subsidies, threatening to leave to setup in another area. Local elected officials, including Houée, who hadbecome Mayor of Saint-Gilles in 1977, succeeded in meeting thecompany's demands and the latter remained in Le Mené. But thisepisode caused major tensions between elected officials in themunicipalities where Kermené was based and those in othermunicipalities. In 1992, Le Mené split into two communities ofmunicipalities and nowadays reflection on local development alwaysincludes the hypothesis of the company's potential departure.
As from the mid-1960s, Le Mené has undoubtedly had areputation as a local development pioneer in France. But therefollowed a period of decline during the 1980s. As we will see, it“becomes a star once again”, due to its energy initiatives (INT3) andrevisits its local history of civic mobilisation.
4.2. Dynamics behind the emergence of an initiative which“becomes” energy-based: Le Mené as from the 1990s
We need to put the Le Mené back into its regional context.Brittany's energy independence is one of the lowest in France,with less than 7% being produced locally. In particular, Brittany'sgeographical distance from electricity production plants placesconsiderable constraints on the electricity transport network andrenders the area vulnerable in terms of supply (www.ademe.fr).In this region, the separatist movement came into being during thefight against centralised electricity production and local plants(amongst others). This regional context aside, issues specific to the
M. Yalçın-Riollet et al. / Energy Policy 69 (2014) 347–355350
territory and not directly related to energy led to the emergence ofenergy-related initiatives.
First of all there were the agricultural issues which encouragedfarmers to develop innovative projects. Even before formulation ofthe CdC's energy self-sufficiency policy, a group of farmers werealready starting to develop such ideas. In 1997, one of them, D.Rocaboy created the Le Mené Initiatives Rurales (MIR) association.Le Mené's first renewable energy projects, and the Géotexiamethane plant in particular, were developed by MIR. The methaneplant, which produces electricity and heat, was initially built todeal with the problem of the pig manure surplus which had beencaused by a local policy of the 1990s to maximise the use of landfor increasingly intensive pig farming, at the expense of thesurface area needed for muck spreading. So energy was notinitially the priority issue; it was the agricultural problems(reabsorption of the nitrogen from the manure and preservingsmall farms) which dominated.
At the same time, the municipality's global policy began to takeoff. The issues of economic and social diversity were a priority forthe CdC. The presence of the Kermené slaughterhouse, employing2500 people at a single industrial site, was considered to be ablessing, but with two negative consequences. Firstly, it discour-aged any other industrial companies from attempting to set upshop, as it had dried up the local work force, with unemploymentstanding at less than 5% (Théry, 2009). Secondly, it had created asociological imbalance, because the jobs were essentially manual;Kermené employed just 90 executives (Théry, 2009), few of whomlived in the region, just like the teachers at the college and theCdC's employees (INT1). 43% of the population were classified asfactory workers (INT4). The first objective behind the globalinitiative to develop energy activities was thus to diversify theeconomic and social fabric. Within this context, the energyprojects also presented the advantage of not being relocatableand of solving the problems of the rural milieu by making theterritory's “own activity independent of the global economic situa-tion” (INT1).
Energy thus emerged as a solution at the intersection ofhistorical elements, various different challenges (that are notnecessarily directly linked to the energy issue) and many differentactors.
5. A grassroots innovation: the hybridisation of discourses,techniques and actors
In a manner which converges with several analyses on grass-roots innovations and community projects (Seyfang and Smith,2007; Capener, 2009; Steward et al., 2009), strictly speaking the LeMené innovation does not necessarily involve the use of newtechniques. The most important in this case is the dense combina-tion of policies and projects which have sometimes already beenimplemented in other French territories, though only in a piece-meal manner. Innovation is the fruit of the emergence of a hybridsociotechnical system, which is a set of complementary mechan-isms and of diverse and multi-positioned actors, who evolvetogether, developing a common identity and a common language.
5.1. Multi-faceted actors creating a collective
In 1990s the energy initiatives were begun in Le Mené by asmall core of individuals, who “created a common culture, and sawthings together” through events such as study trips abroad (INT4).Numerous energy projects saw the day over a 10-year period. LeMené's success was that everyone had rallied around the samecause:
� Native leaders who declared themselves to be mainly moti-vated by their love for the region, and who learned whileacting;
� and people who did not come from Le Mené, but who hadchosen to live and/or work there, bringing their technical,economic, managerial and social skills to projects
The “natives”, who were born in Le Mené and have lived therepractically ever since, repeatedly talk about their love for theregion as the basis for their motivation to become involved: “I'mfrom here, you see. And that is undoubtedly one of the reasons whyI'm very involved in associative matters”; “I have this soil runningthrough my veins. It's not blood, it's soil.” Although they chose not to“uproot themselves” (INT6), these actors wanted to bring in fromthe outside expertise which was not to be found within theterritory. To achieve this, they went on study trips and joinednational and foreign networks: “We learned to find skills from allover. We educated ourselves. I have a vocational high-school certifi-cate. But it's become a passion for me” (PI01).
Two native farmers, Dominique Rocaboy and Jacky Aignelplayed a crucial role in implementing work on renewable energies.The former founded the MIR association and is Chairman ofGéotexia. The latter is Mayor of St.-Gouéno and CdC's energyVice-President. Among other things he convinced the otherelected officials of the pertinence of developing a regionaldynamic for renewable energies. These two people had returnedto Le Mené to take over their parents' farm after having worked inother places for a few years. They had both been involved in themobilisation which had taken place in Le Mené as from 1965.
Other people, the “non-natives”, were recruited to the initiativedue to their specific expertise. Marc Théry, a Polytechniquegraduate, electrical engineer and former company director, hadleft his job due to his opposition to the relocation of his company.He had ended up in Le Mené somewhat by accident, after buying ahouse in St.-Gouéno. In 2007, he was taken on as the CdC's energyadvisor by Aignel, who wished to benefit from his technical andfinancial skills. The fact that he spoke German was importantwhen it came to building networks with territories in Germanyand Austria. Since 2009 he has been producing and distributing amonthly electronic newsletter which reports on energy initiativesin Le Mené and in other areas of France and abroad. LaurentGaudicheau, another “non-native” with farmer parents, has abackground in economics. After some experience in teaching andthen with agricultural unions, he became interested in ruraldevelopment. He is the director in charge of the economicmanagement of the CdC, but says that his main job is that ofintermediating between local elected officials, associations andprofessionals and motivating them to become involved in devel-oping and realising transversal local projects. This hard core ofactors have been later joined by a new generation of inhabitantswho developed new projects.
5.2. The socio-technical projects as actors' engagement in collectives
Le Mené is the only territory in France to offer such a diversityof initiatives using such a diversity of local resources (solar panels,wind turbines, farming, wood, etc.). They feed off one another andbenefit different actors throughout the territory. In this article wewill set out three flagship projects around which coalitions (andsometimes conflicts) were formed by multiple and diverse actors.
5.2.1. Collective methane productionThe Géotexia project was developed in response to regulations
on the reabsorption of excess nitrogen and to process manurefrom pig farms. Initially oriented towards composting, thirty or so
M. Yalçın-Riollet et al. / Energy Policy 69 (2014) 347–355 351
farmers grouped together in a CUMA.6 The farmers adoptedmethane production as a solution, after trips to Germany,Denmark, Sweden and Austria. The installation enables collectiveand transversal processing (by working in partnership with themunicipalities and the agro-industry) of the excess manureproduced on the farms and of other organic matters (slaughter-house waste in particular) and produces both electricity and heat.The project was subjected to the discontent of certain residentswho were concerned about the smells, noise and pollution whichwould be generated by the unit. A local association challenged theoperating authorisation in the administrative courts, thus causingconsiderable delays. The methane plant went into operation in2011, but in a different location from that which was initiallyplanned, further away from the villages, which it no longersupplies with heat (greenhouses benefit instead).
5.2.2. Production of fuel oilMénergol was put into operation in 2007 by a CUMA bringing
together 40 or so farmers and inspired by the town of Güssing inAustria. The specificity of this project is that it is a cooperative oilmill, with several of the farmers having already attempted to maketheir own oil on an individual basis, with no real success. Theobjective is to enable the farmers to limit their purchases and toreplace them with their own production. Locally produced rape-seed oil thus replaces diesel in farming machines and rapeseedmeal (the solid residue) replaces imported soya meal. In this way,the farmers are not affected by fluctuations in prices and, inaddition, have a better carbon footprint.
5.2.3. Participatory wind energyThe inhabitants of Le Mené were already familiar with wind
turbines, because of the nearby Trébry wind farm in operationsince 2005 but were concerned that “local wealth was goingelsewhere” (INT9). In 2007, when energy operator Idex wanted tobuild a second wind farm in Le Mené, the elected members of theCdC forced the company to leave part of the share capital for theinhabitants. The citizen's wind energy projects being something ofa rarity at that time, due in particular to regulatory constraints, theoperator was at first reluctant, before accepting a 5% civic share-holding. The inhabitants initiated a civic dynamic to invest in thewind farm and demanded a 30% shareholding. Approximately 140people have now decided to invest in the wind farm, in the form ofCIGALES.7 This type of organisation is part of the alternative andsolidarity economy encouraging local development (the creationof jobs, the fight against exclusion, protection of the environment,etc.) and constitutes an innovative organisational form for windenergy. The building permit having been granted (after 27months), the 6 wind turbines will be put into operation. Participa-tion would appear to considerably improve the ownership for suchoperations: “We don't hear the wind turbines' noise because theybelong to us” (INT3).
Overall, a sequence and a coherent interlinking over time ofenergy projects launched within the same territory help projectsto be accepted and even encourage inhabitants to develop newprojects in the same vein. As we have seen, the projects wereinitiated, developed and driven by several types of actor (institu-tions, associations, professional organisations, private citizens,companies, etc.) who fulfilled different roles at different stages
of the projects. The political determination of elected officials isclearly a determining factor in the emergence and development ofthe initiative. Working in partnership with a municipality is thepreferred method due to the following conviction: “the manage-ment of such local projects requires, especially in France where thevery least one can say is that there is no overabundance ofencouragement, real political determination on the part of electedofficials, for the duration” (Théry, 2009). Activists consider thatsupport from local institutions is necessary, especially if one is toachieve objectives of any real scope.
But, in Le Mené's case we do not feel that it is pertinent todistinguish between initiatives stemming from the CdC andinitiatives by civil society or inhabitants. Le Mené is a smalllocality in which it is relatively easy for “active” inhabitants tobe employed in local affairs or to have a role in associative life(INT6); almost all such “active” individuals thus have institutionalpositions. Furthermore, the inhabitants have social relationshipsand work together independently of whether or not they areelected officials. Actors often have multiple affiliations (inhabitant,association member, elected official, farmer, etc.). People can takepart in the same energy projects in different ways. It is in this waythat, for example, a mayor participates as a farmer in the biofuelproject, or some of the CdC's elected officials and techniciansinvest, as inhabitants, in the wind turbine site. The actors also playcomplementary roles in the completion of energy projects andthose belong to several different types of actors. For example, thewind turbine project was first developed and suggested by aprivate investor. The CdC then asked the company to open thefarm's capital to inhabitants, and in the end it was the inhabitantswho mobilised and who demanded and obtained the right to 30%of the investment.
5.3. A hybrid and framed discourse on local energy autonomy,between local interests and values
Above and beyond their differences, the actors produce aunified discourse, which can be found in our interviews and innumerous communications (media reports, participation at con-ferences, study trips, etc.). This helps them to advertise andpopularise the energy initiatives, but also makes them evolvetowards becoming a group with a common identity, sharedinterests and values.
This group must confer credibility upon its initiative and findsupport from both within (the inhabitants'/voters' adherence ornon-opposition to the projects) and without (media coverage toreach the attractiveness objective, financial support from variouspublic actors). The work of framing is thus one of the activities thatthe pioneering actors perform on a continuous basis. An appro-priate cognitive and rhetorical form strengthens the action in asmuch as it makes it possible to render its cause intelligible andacceptable and thus to win new support for said cause (Cefaï andTrom, 2001).
As we saw in part one, an initial framing takes place in therelationship with history. As it was noted with some surprise, “thecurrent leaders, those driving this [energy] operation, refer to thepast” (INT3). The mobilising actors appear to willingly accept, oreven accentuate, the inspiration they get from past mobilisations.Paul Houée and his founding myth (see Section 4.1.) seem to be anessential resource for current mobilisation. Today's leaders arereferred to as “Paul Houée's spiritual children” (interviewees,various media articles). By integrating current mobilisation intolocal history, reference to a recognised past can allow one to shiftfrom specific projects to a common cause (Boltanski and Thévenot,2006; Lafaye and Thévenot, 1993), to broaden local support toinclude the energy initiative and to defuse any opposition.
6 Coopérative d'Utilisation de Matériels Agricoles, i.e. cooperative for the use ofagricultural equipment, a legal structure which enables a group of at least fourfarmers to acquire agricultural equipment.
7 Club d'Investisseurs pour une Gestion Alternative et Locale de l'ÉpargneSolidaire, i.e. Investment Clubs for an Alternative and Local Management of savings,which is a solidary risk capital structure that uses its members' savings to createand develop small local companies and cooperatives.
M. Yalçın-Riollet et al. / Energy Policy 69 (2014) 347–355352
A second frame concerns the relationship with politicisation.In a similar manner to the observation made by certain research-ers in relation to Transition Towns (Szuba and Semal, interview, inMoussaoui, 2011; Semal and Szuba, 2010), committed actors donot give any political meaning to their activities. Even Le Mené'selected officials8 say they are not involved in politics (PI02). Actorsalso seem reluctant to mention notions such as ecology andsustainable development. The non-green elected officials are care-ful not to be seen as being ecologically-minded (see also Zélem,2010). Their discourse is founded more on a criticism of thecurrent method of industrial development and on praise for “are-found harmony between Man and Nature”, which meansdignifying local matters, the community and one's roots (Lafayeand Thévenot, 1993): “People who take care of nature, like JackyAignel, i.e. people who take responsibility for the way they work withliving things. This is the rationale of Le Mené's small pig farmers, whodo not practice intensive farming, who respect agricultural practices,who respect a certain tradition. […] Maybe it's good old-fashionedpeasant-farmer […] in the sense of someone who maintains a certaincontact with the land.” (INT7)
A third frame relates to the global-local debate and theecological versus economic argument. The actors sometimesdeliberately avoid referring to the global stakes so as not to createa “bobo” (bourgeois bohemian) image. For example, to describethe rented “community suburban house” programme expressionssuch as “zero-cost” housing are used to the detriment of “energy-saving houses” or “passive houses”. Indeed, ecological argumentsare considered to belong to high-income households which arevery much in the minority in the CdC, whereas economic argu-ments carry more weight: “Our programme for 35 suburban houseswith the aim of generating zero heating expenditure for the inhabi-tants […] will allow 35 families to live in such houses, which is good,thus showing that it's not just the bohemian bourgeoisie who live inhouses like that. […] Without this economic approach we'll neverbring people to ecology, that's for sure.” (INT4)
A fourth frame relates to the relationship with dependency.Autonomy is a value which structures the collective choice tocommit to the objective of 100% renewable energies. Théry pointsout that in the rural milieu, less than 60 years ago, and unlike now,each farm's quasi-energy self-sufficiency was the general rule(Théry, 2009). Less dependency is considered to be vital, not justfor the territory, but for France as a whole. The actors weencountered are not necessarily against nuclear energy, but theycriticise France's choice to be dependent on a single source ofenergy or on the “international deal” (regarding oil). They never-theless remain careful about their choice of terms. The CLERassociation which very recently launched a network of rural areasworking together on energy, suggests the term “positive energyregion” instead of “energy autonomy”, a term which publicfunding bodies do not like (INT7). Théry explains that Le Menéprefers the term “self-sufficiency” to that of “autonomy” or“autarchy” which it deems to have negative connotations. On thispoint he notes that “one must not confuse this with Brittany'spolitical autonomy, of which the governing bodies in Paris take avery dim view” (Théry, 2009).
Finally, the fifth frame concerns the relationship with themarketplace. The main actors do not stigmatise the market (thiscould potentially discredit the group). They say that they arelooking for “a certain independence” because “you can't be com-pletely independent, that won't work” (INT5). Whilst these actorsare often highly critical of globalisation and industrial
development in its current state, the local “self-sufficiency” systemremains fully integrated into the global system, from which and towhich it imports and exports certain energy products. Théry takesa stance somewhat against what he calls the modern “neo-colonialsystem of exploitation” (PI03), whereby territories do not use theirresources, or else let them escape elsewhere.
In summary, the actors want to prevent their initiatives fromgaining a “political”, “critical”, “bourgeois bohemian” and “ecolo-gical” image. They try to construct a more “pragmatic” approach,which is nevertheless built on an ambiguity, as it highlights localinterests and defines the initiative as being “integrated into thesystem”, though without denying a critical relationship withnational authorities and a clear preference for changing certainelements of the political/institutional system. They appear to bemainly motivated by a need for local development, but this doesnot mean an absence of values, which they need to form acollective identity. The cost of commitment to this type of localaction relating to energy can be higher in France than in someother countries. Because of the unstable political and regulatorycontext, which complicates the implementation of projects andmakes them uncertain of success, these militant values arenecessary to overcome the “pioneers'” obstacles.
6. From isolation to diffusion: new partnerships and“innovation networks” in France
Our analysis focused on one innovative case may raise aquestion concerning the possible diffusion of this type of grass-roots initiatives. In fact, Le Mené is not an isolated case. Thenumber of local innovative experiments is on the increase inFrance.
For instance, in Montdidier (Picardie), the local energy author-ity9 (one of the rare preserved in France) launched an energyinitiative in 2006 and already covers 53% of the town's needs fromlocal sources. Another case is the Pays de Vilaine, which is soon tosee a wind turbine park that is financed, managed and controlledby several hundred local residents, a first of its kind in France.
Each initiative has some distinctive characteristics, but they allface similar challenges. The local actors cite common constraintssuch as incompatibility with national “top-down” policies, the lackof predictability in terms of regulations (e.g., an increase in VAT forfire wood in 2012) and red tape (the lack of financial tools, thelength and the complexity in obtaining building permits andconnecting to the electricity network, the air force's restrictionson the height of wind turbines etc.).
Up until two years, different territories pursuing similar objec-tives knew virtually nothing about the other (even those locatedwithin a few kilometres apart, like Le Mené and the Pays deVilaine) (INT7). More recently, those behind local initiatives havestarted to share the knowledge and exchange their experiences indifferent ways and on different scales.
First and foremost it is a case of bilateral exchanges. Actors,which were at the origins of pioneering projects, such as theGéotexia CUMA and the CIGALES, are in the process of becomingreferences in this area. They are being asked by other groups ofcitizens to explain their initiatives during study visits. They are alsocalled upon by private actors, who now recognise the “expertise”of local investors and see the importance of participatory projects.For example, Le Mené's participatory wind turbine experiencemight therefore help to disseminate this.
8 Three elected officials from the intercommunal executive belong to theFrench socialist party and four are “unlabelled” (two of these being classified as“left-wing” and two as “right-wing”).
9 A local public establishment which supplies and transports electricity tothe town.
M. Yalçın-Riollet et al. / Energy Policy 69 (2014) 347–355 353
Secondly, “social innovation networks” like Taranis10 are cre-ated to bring together people backing different civic projects. Thistype of networking helps to provide encouragement for citizenswho come across the same obstacles and to “pool all theirexperiences to try to create a toolbox which might allow futureprojects to run more smoothly” (INT6).
Finally, the municipalities harbouring these civic projects andcommitted to renewable energy policies are creating networks,such as that of the positive energy regions (TePos), which bringstogether actors from the rural world working on energy. At thisstage, French communities take inspiration from experimentsabroad, but one of their priorities today is to pool experiencesand knowledge at a national level.
7. Conclusions and policy discussion
In this article, elements were introduced to make it possible totalk about innovation in Le Mené. If the Le Mené experiment is soadvanced and if it would appear to be a success story, this isbecause it was able to build itself around several pillars, whichcombined diversity and frames:
� The history of Le Mené, built both on a common foundation (afounding myth), and on the conjunction of several local andhistorical “particularisms”.
� The socio-technical projects, which vary in terms of techniques,support organisation, energy and commercial efficiency, butwhich are coherently linked together by the issue of energyautonomy and by local actors.
� The different actors, who build a collective identity and justifytheir energy-related actions by a unified discourse, which alsobrings together.
� The highly ambivalent objectives, which denounce the domi-nant system whilst at the same time relying on it.
Our case study showed how the hybridisation of actors, socio-techniques, discourses and objectives in relation to energy led to asocial innovation in Le Mené, based around “committed citizens”and concrete projects which embedded discourses in acts, butwhich also served to showcase the collective commitment. Energybecame a material, social and symbolic resource with which torenew the territory, in the sense of a place with a commonidentity. Beyond the attainment of the energy production andconsumption targets, commitment to renewable energies hasmade it possible to create new jobs, to limit the rural exodus,contribute towards social diversity and to win recognition fromoutside, changing its image as a “pig region” (INT4).
Flagship experiences like Le Mené are also important becausethey provide an example for other grassroots initiatives in France.However, those local groups willing to engage in an energyinitiative seem concerned about the unstable political and regu-latory context and consider France to look less favourable on thedevelopment of bottom-up initiatives in the field of energy.11
France is actually not lagging behind in terms of the promotionof devices supporting the energy transition. But the French energypolicies tend to promote the implementation of centralised andindividualised devices (Brugidou and Garabuau-Moussaoui, 2013).
For example, the installation of renewable energy technologies athome is growing fast.12
In countries where energy communities are developed (as inthe UK), the challenge is to move from community pioneers'practices to mainstream adoption. In France, the issue would berather to go beyond the individual implementation of technicaldevices by households and move towards a more “territorial” wayof thinking, for example by building on existing local initiatives onother issues (Alternative Food Systems, local environmental asso-ciations, etc., Lamine et al., 2011). Institutions supporting localinitiatives through funding, technical and administrative assis-tance (i.e., minimising red tape for implementing devices) couldplay an important role in the development of energy communities,which would make it possible to go beyond the mere aggregationof individual choices.
This change could be based on elements inspired by the LeMené case: local roots and a hybridisation of means (varioustechniques, awareness-raising, etc.), action levels (from house-holds to communities), objectives (local and global issues). It alsodepends on the consistency of policies, that is to say their ability tosupport the individual and collective practices during the longprocess of the energy transition.
Acknowledgements
This article is part of a CISE research project (CommunityInnovation for Sustainable Energy, www.grassrootsinnovations.org), funded by EPSRC UK – Energy Programme – and ECLEER.The authors thank the organisers of the “grassroots innovations”workshop which was held in Brighton on the 16th–18th May,2012, Adrian Smith and Gill Seyfang, and all those who took part inthe workshop (in particular, Rebecca White, discussant of ourpaper) for their helpful comments following presentation of thefirst draft of this article.
The authors also thank Aude Binet and Anne-Christine Eiller(EDF R&D) for their workpaper and discussion on French regionalenergy policies.
References
Benford, R.D., Snow, D.A., 2000. Framing processes and social movements: anoverview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology. 26, 611–639.
Binet, A., Eiller, A.-C., 2011. Les collectivités territoriales, décideurs des politiquesénergétiques locales de demain? Internal note EDF R&D, December.
Boltanski, L., Thévenot, L., 2006. On Justification: Economies of Worth. PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton, New jersey.
Brugidou, M., Garabuau-Moussaoui, I., 2013. From energy policies to energy-relatedpractices in France: the figure of the “consumer citizen” as a normativecompromise. In: Fudge, S., Peters, M. (Eds.), The Global Challenge of Encoura-ging Sustainable Lifestyles: Opportunities, Barriers, Policy and Practice. EdwardElgar Publishing Ltd., London, pp. 143–163
Cacciari, J., Fournier, P., 2012. Quelle politique de “transition énergétique” pour uneancienne commune du charbon: entre impératif et opportunisme. 1st Interna-tional Colloquium on the Sociology of Energy. Toulouse II-Le Mirail University,25–26 October 2012.
Capener, P., 2009. People-powered response to climate change. Research Summaryfor NESTA's Big Green Challenge, NESTA.
Cefaï, D., Trom, D., 2001. Les Formes de l'action collective. Éditions de l'EHESS, Paris.Davies, A., 2012. Enterprising Communities: Grassroots Sustainability Innovations.
Emerald, Bingley.Dobigny, L., 2009. L'autonomie énergétique: acteurs, processus et usages. De
l'individuel au local en Allemagne, Autriche, France. In: Dobré, M., Juan, S.(Eds.), Consommer Autrement. La réforme écologique des modes de vie.L'Harmattan, Paris, pp. 73–87
Dubuisson-Quellier, S., 2013. A market mediation strategy: how social movementsseek to change firms' practices by promoting new principles of productvaluation. Organization Studies. 34 (5), 683–703.10 Taranis Network for sustainable civic energy comprises over 20 Breton civic
project developers.11 In reality, previous research (Seyfang et al., 2013; Hargreaves et al., 2013)
shows that local initiatives elsewhere run up against similar difficulties to thoseencountered in France. However, several elements, such as work legislation, VATissues and administrative restrictions differ from one country to another.
12 Between 2005 and 2008, one in 20 French households took advantage of thesustainable energy tax breaks by installing a renewable energy system (solarsystem, wind micro-turbines, wood biomass, heat pumps).
M. Yalçın-Riollet et al. / Energy Policy 69 (2014) 347–355354
Goffman, E., 1991, Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience.Harper and Row, London.
Gontcharoff, G., 2010, Regards croisés sur 45 ans de développement local. Actes del'Université d'été du développement local, Foix September 9–11.
Gras, A., with the participation of Poirot-Delpech S.L., 1993, Grandeur et dépen-dance: sociologie des macro-systèmes techniques. PUF, Paris.
Hathway, K., 2010. Community power empowers. Research Report for LocalCommunities Charity ‘Urban Forum’. Urban Forum, London.
Hargreaves, T., Hielscher, S., Seyfang, G., Smith, A., 2013. Grassroots innovations incommunity energy: the role of intermediaries in niche development. GlobalEnvironmental Change 23, 868–880.
Heiskanen, E., Johnson, M., Robinson, S., Vadovics, E., Saastamoinen, M., 2010. Low-carbon communities as a context for individual behavioural change. EnergyPolicy 38, 7586–7595.
Hielscher, S., Seyfang, G., Smith, S., 2013. Grassroots innovation for sustainableenergy: exploring niche development processes among community energyinitiatives. In: Cohen, M., Szejnwald Brown, H., Vergargt, J. (Eds.), Innovations inSustainable Consumption: New Economics, Socio-technical Transitions andSocial Practices. Edward Elgar, London, pp. 133–158
Houghton Research, 2010. Galvanising community-led responses to climate change.Policy Paper for NESTA, London.
Jolivet, E., Heiskanen, E., 2010. Blowing against the wind – an exploratoryapplication of actor nework theory to the analysis of local controversies andparticipation processes in wind energy. Energy Policy 38 (11), 6746–6754.
Lafaye, C., Thévenot, L., 1993. Une justification écologique? Conflits dans l'amén-agement de la nature. RFSP 34 (4), 495–524.
Lamine, C.l., Le Velly, R., Dubuisson-Quellier, S., 2011. Citizenship and consumption:mobilisation in alternative food systems in France. Sociologia Ruralis. 51 (3),304–323.
Latour, B., 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Harvard University Press,Cambridge, MA, USA
Laville, J.-L., Sainsaulieu, I., Salzbrunn, M., 2007. La communauté n'est pas lecommunautarisme. Esprit Critique 10, 1.
Martin, M., Crozet, M.-A., Lambert, Y., Lebot, M., Gillet, J., 1977. Expériencesd’animation rurale: Le secteur d’ancenis. Études rurales 65, 139–155.
Meynier, A., Goales, A.-M., 1966. Chronique de Bretagne et du Bas-Maine. Norois 50,298–308.
Moussaoui, I., 2011. ‘Community’: Analysis of the French Term and the French SocialReality [and Comparison with the United Kingdom] (CISE project report,ECLEER/EPSRC).
Nadaï, A., Régnier, Y., Debourdeau, A., Dobigny, L., 2012a. Communautés énergé-tiques, état des experiences. CIRED, Nogent-sur-Marne.
Nadaï, A., Debourdeau, A., Dobigny, L., 2012b. Communautés énergétiques, état desanalyses et enjeu. CIRED, Nogent-sur-Marne.
Rogers, J.C., Simmons, E.A., Convery, I., Weatherall, A., 2008. Public perceptions ofopportunities for community-based renewable energy projects. Energy Policy36, 4217–4226.
Sainsaulieu, I., Salzbrunn, M., Amiotte-Suchet, L., 2010. Faire communauté ensociété. Dynamique des appartenances collectives. PUR, Rennes.
Semal, L., Szuba, M., 2010. Villes en transition: imaginer des relocalisations enurgence. Mouvements 63, 130–136.
Seyfang, G., Smith, A., 2007. Grassroots innovations for sustainable development:towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics 16 (4),584–603.
Seyfang, G., Park, J.J., Smith, A., 2013. A thousand flowers blowing? An examinationof community energy in the UK. Energy Policy 61, 977–989.
Smith, A., 2012. Civil society in sustainable energy transitions. In: Verbong, G.,Loorbach, D. (Eds.), Governing the Energy Transition: Reality, Illusion, orNecessity. Routledge, New York, pp. 180–202
Steward, F., Liff, S., Dunkelman, M., 2009. Mapping the Big Green Challenge. AnAnalysis of 355 Community Proposals for Low Carbon Innovation (Projectreport, NESTA).
Théry, M., 2009. L'autosuffisance énergétique d'un territoire rural, Le Mené: Dupassé au futur. XLVIeme Colloque ASRDLF, Clermont-Ferrand, July 6–8.
Turner, R.H., 1969. The theme of contemporary social movements. Brirtsh Journal ofSociology. 20, 390–405.
Walker, G., 2008. What are the barriers and incentives for community-ownedmeans of energy production and use? Energy Policy 36, 4401–4405.
Walker, G., Hunter, S., Devine-Wright, P., Evans, B., Fay, H., 2007. Harnessingcommunity energies: explaining and evaluating community-based localism inrenewable energy policy in the UK. Global Environmental Politics. 7 (2), 64–82.
Walker, G.P., Devine-Wright, P., 2008. Community renewable energy: what shouldit mean? Energy Policy 36 (2), 497–500.
Yalçın, M., Lefèvre, B., 2012. Local climate action plans in France: emergence,limitations and conditions for success. Environmental Policy and Governance22 (2), 104–115.
Zélem, M.-C., 2010. Politiques de maîtrise de la demande d'énergie et résistances auchangement. Une approche socio-anthropologique. L'Harmattan, Paris.
Websites (last accessed: 19 November 2013)
ADEME Direction Régionale Bretagne, ⟨http://www.ademe.fr/bretagne/⟩.Communauté de communes du Mené, ⟨http://energies.ccmene.fr/⟩.EDF, ⟨www.edf.fr⟩.Élevage-net, ⟨http://www.web-agri.fr⟩.L'Agora de Bretagne, ⟨http://lagoradebretagne.free.fr⟩.Ligue ENR France, ⟨http://www.res-league.eu/fr/⟩.Paysan Breton Hebdo, ⟨http://www.paysan-breton.fr⟩.Réseau Taranis, ⟨http://www.eolien-citoyen.fr/nos-actions/taranis.html⟩.TEPos, ⟨http://www.territoires-energie-positive.fr⟩.
Interviews (INT)
INT1 Le Mené CdC's Energy Advisor, Collinée, 06.12.2011.INT2 Energy Coordinator at the MIR association, St. Gilles du Mené, 07.12.2011.INT3 Sociologist, Priest, former Mayor of Saint-Gilles du Mené (1977–1995), St.
Gilles du Mené, 07.12.2011.INT4 CdC Director, Collinée, 08.12.2011.INT5 Mayor of St. Gouéno, CdC Vice-director, in charge of Energy, St. Gouéno,
08.12.2011.INT6 Le Mené Inhabitant, Managing Director of the 1st Cigales created for the wind
turbine farm, Collinée, 08.12.2011.INT7 Local Energy Policy Advisor, Programme Manager (“Territoires à énergie
positive”) at the CLER, Montreuil, 15.12.2011.INT8 Le Mené Inhabitant, Cigales member, interviewed by phone, 07.02.2012.INT9 Le Mené Inhabitant, Cigales member, interviewed by phone, 08.02.2012.
Public interviews (PI) of the Le Mené actors
PI01: D. Rocaboy, concerning the methane plant Géotexia, during the study trip“vers des territoires à énergie positive” organised by the CLER (CentreBretagne), 11–13 October, 2010, Ligue EnR, ⟨http://www.res-league.eu/fr/french-league/french-news/compte-rendu-du-voyage-detudes-europeen-en-centre-bretagne-france?Itemid=274⟩, (last accessed 25.1.12).
PI02: J. Aignel, concerning the oil mill Ménergol and the territorial aspects of theCdC's energy projects, during the study trip “vers des territoires à énergiepositive” organised by the CLER (Centre Bretagne), 11–13 October, 2010, LigueEnR, ⟨http://www.res-league.eu/fr/french-league/french-news/compte-rendu-du-voyage-detudes-europeen-en-centre-bretagne-france?Itemid=274⟩, (lastaccessed 25.1.12).
PI03: M. Théry, during the study trip “vers des territoires à énergie positive” organisedby the CLER (Centre Bretagne), 11-12-13 October, 2010, Ligue EnR, ⟨http://www.res-league.eu/fr/french-league/french-news/compte-rendu-du-voyage-detudes-europeen-en-centre-bretagne-france?Itemid=274⟩, (last accessed 25.1.12).
PI04: D. Dessaudes, ⟨http://www.web-agri.fr/dossier_special/space-2006/?idDoss=39&idrub=1014&id=34754⟩, (last accessed 28.1.12).
PI05: A. Ridard, Managing Director of Eoliennes en Pays de Vilaine, L'Agora de Bretagne,“Réseau Taranis - pour une énergie durable et citoyenne en Bretagne”, ⟨http://www.eolien-citoyen.fr/nos-actions/taranis.html⟩ (last accessed 7.2.12).
PI06: J. Aignel, L'Agora de Bretagne, “Le Mené, une petite lumière dans le paysageénergétique français !”, le 18/06/2011, ⟨http://www.lagoradebretagne.fr/article-ce-territoire-breton-de-6-500-ames-joue-une-nouvelle-fois-les-locomotives-nationales-le-mene-un-ecl-84733371.html⟩, (last accessed 12.11.11).
M. Yalçın-Riollet et al. / Energy Policy 69 (2014) 347–355 355