Hypotheses
During the workshops, all 11 foresight files were presented to the members of the group, who were able to comment on them and add to them. Working from the material in the files, hypotheses on how the macro-variables might evolve were built collectively, distinguishing between:
- Trend-based hypotheses: which relate to dynamics already under way.
- Contrasting hypotheses: which take up uncertainties, controversies and the seeds of change.
- Disruptive hypotheses: which relate to disruptions.
Trend-based hypothesis (H1): Fragmented and disparate support policies
Support policies emerge first at European level, then are applied at national and local level. Under this hypothesis, coordination between the European, national, regional and local levels is weak. Despite the multitude of directives issued by the European Union, the level of commitment of the various EU countries varies, with France and Germany being the most committed EU countries.
This disparity is also found in France across territories, which show differing levels of commitment. The discretion chosen by the European Union also results in an absence of mechanisms to monitor the applicability of the directives intended to accelerate the shift to the circular economy, despite the measures defined by the OECD to assess the progress of the various countries and cities in adopting the circular model. This absence of monitoring mechanisms is also found at national and local level. These two levels are thus characterised by a lack of visibility over the resources available for a rapid shift to the circular economy.
Beyond regulatory measures, support policies can also take the form of funding. Funding offers continue to be plentiful at both European and national level. Nevertheless, the lack of coordination between the European and national levels, and also between national bodies, generates fragmented funding. At national level, funding is focused on technological innovation. Given the complexity of technological innovation, the risk to be taken and the scale of the investment required, this type of funding remains almost exclusively for large companies. The latter benefit from technological support at national level and from eco-conditional support (zero-interest eco-loans for eco-responsible projects that respect natural resources) at regional level. By contrast, small companies and manual craftspeople and, to a lesser extent, SMEs, have no access to these support mechanisms, which could represent a genuine opportunity for them. Moreover, public contracts continue to be awarded on the price criterion, which further increases the difficulties of access for smaller companies.
Contrasting hypothesis (H2): Reorientation of policies in order to create more standardised structures accessible to all
European directives become less plentiful and the European Union focuses its strategy on standardising the structures dedicated to the circular economy across countries. This trend makes it possible to improve vertical coordination between the European and national levels, but also horizontal coordination between European countries. The level of commitment of the various EU countries in adopting European regulatory measures becomes more harmonised under the influence of stronger intervention policies. At national level, a form of homogenisation of support policies also emerges, notably thanks to a more interventionist State policy. This helps significantly reduce the disparities between regions.
Regarding financial support, European and French funding continues to exist but is more targeted. France invests in research that builds bridges between technological, social and economic innovation. To this end, it relies on strengthened collaboration between public and private research bodies. The research projects funded thus aim to achieve technological advances in the shift to the circular economy while taking into account the place of people in this transition. Moreover, policies define more precisely the sectors to be supported, with visibility over the monitoring and mobilisation of available resources, but also an improvement in support for extended producer responsibility schemes. SMEs, small companies and craftspeople benefit from a simplified procedure for accessing support. Finally, environmental criteria are taken into account in the award of public contracts.
Disruptive hypothesis (H3): A one-stop shop with a reassessment of support policies in a context of crisis
Europe goes through a major economic crisis that weakens certain member countries on the brink of bankruptcy. In this context, the order of priorities in defining support policies is completely rethought in order to optimise resources. A one-stop shop is rolled out at European and French level in order to facilitate procedures for accessing funding, particularly for small companies and craftspeople. Coordination offices are thus established at various levels (European, national and local).
The European Union moves towards the agro-ecological transition: an agricultural production system complying with "high environmental quality" approaches. The aim is to develop production systems with a lower environmental impact, notably through mechanisms such as the development of short supply loops and the structuring of producer-consumer relations. European policy thus introduces agri-environmental and climate measures allowing farmers to receive financial support.
At national level, support needs are defined through field observations and interviews conducted directly in the regions, then reported up to national and then European level. France incorporates a clearer view of the available and potential resources when defining its support policies and gives funding priority to companies specialising in waste recovery. In addition, France takes responsibility towards small companies and manual craftspeople by creating support mechanisms suited to them. Public authorities delegate communication about these mechanisms to field officers in order to offset the limited integration of small structures into networks. Support is oriented more towards people than towards technology. France takes an active part in developing social and ecological innovation in order to achieve technological breakthroughs, and bases the award of public contracts exclusively on environmental criteria.
Regarding oversight of the applicability of regulatory measures, the European Union introduces monitoring and optimisation mechanisms for all EU countries, with an adaptation of the targets to be met. In parallel, France also puts in place standardised monitoring and optimisation mechanisms for all regions. A system of penalties and rewards is initiated according to the degree of progress of each country or region in the shift to circularity.