The shale gas controversy: the need for participation

“In 2010, European discussions about unconventional gas were limited to energy experts and the industry, but this year [2011] they were translated into political decisions, public campaigns and legal measures, such as ban on hydraulic fracturing in France” (Wyciszkiewicz, 2011). In 2012, shale gas exploitation is again under debate in France, as some members of the new French government have shown openings to introduce it into the energy debate of the environmental conference to be held on September 14th and 15th.

In France, South Africa, and some states of the US, the vote of a moratorium or a ban by members of Parliament appears more as a reaction to civil society actions or to media campaigns than as the result of the collective intelligence created by public debate.

Such a dynamic of action-reaction in public policies can bring concern about future developments, as it appears to induce case-by-case reactions to a controversy, which is not always followed by the necessary debate on energy policies. Civil society organizations believe that companies also have their own strategic plans at 3, 5 or 10 years, and may withdraw temporarily from a country, to sooth public concern, before coming back years later, when the context has evolved (Jobert and Veillerette, 2011). Thus, temporary moratoriums don’t necessarily change their perspectives and mid-term plans.

Participation in sustainability assessment aims at having all stakeholders contribute to the debate on social choice. There are several ways of organizing a participative debate on an issue of collective interest such as shale gas exploitation. The value added of a multi-stakeholder deliberation, the option presented here, is that while it acknowledges the multiple dimensions of sustainability, as do other multicriteria assessment methods, it also suggests a dynamic to explore this complexity and elaborate an answer that is satisfying from different perspectives.

Information concernant le grain

Language : English

Sources :

Antunes P (2010): Evaluation and participation in environmental decision making, Lessons from the TAV conflict. CEECEC course.

Briceno T. (2011): An epistemological comparison of ecological and economic approaches within valuation practices work for thesis on integrating ecological principles in environmental valuations, Université de Montréal - HEC Montréal, Environmental Economics, September 6th 2011.

Forester J. F., The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes (1999), MIT press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England.

Munda, G., 2004: Social multi-criteria evaluation: methodological foundations and operational consequences, European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 158.

Munda, G., 2008: Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation for a Sustainable Economy, Springer, Heidelberg, Germany.

O’Connor, Le modèle politique de la démocratie délibérative

Douguet, JM, Janssen, P. H. M., O’Connor, M, Petersen, A.C., van der Sluijs, J.P., 2006, Tools to assess uncertainty in a deliberative perspective. A catalogue, Cahier C3ED n°06-02, 2006

O’Connor M, Frame B, 2009: Integration through Deliberation: Sustainability of What, Why and for Whom?, Environmental Science and Policy.

Paneque et al. 2009: Participative multi-criteria analysis for the evaluation of water governance alternatives. A case in the Costa del Sol (Málaga), Ecological Economics, 2009, vol. 68, issue 4, pages 990-1005.

Wyciszkiewicz, E. (ed.), A. Gostynska, et al. (2011): Path to Prosperity or Road to Ruin? Shale Gas Under Political Scrutiny. Warsaw, the Polish Institute of International Affairs.

Rights and obligations :

(c) Pierre Johnson