France

Electricity from Nuclear Plants Regulated by EU laws

The design and maintenence of nuclear power facilities in France are controlled by a host of European and international agreements, including Euratom and the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Euratom Treaty contains chapters on the required safety requirements nuclear plants must have, as well as clear stipulations that atomic material belong to Euratom, and may not be used for any other purpose than peaceful ones. Euratom has the ability to, “satisfy itself that, in the territories of Member States: ores, source materials and special fissile materials are not diverted from their intended uses as declared by the users” (European Atomic Energy Community, Article 77). France possesses nuclear weapons, but cannot legally use uranium from Euratom for the production of its weapons. Nuclear energy is common throughout France, and the international laws that govern it directly affect the health and lives of citizens who both live near nuclear plants and who use nuclear-generated electricity on a daily basis.

The lights of the café and the surrounding apartments are powered by electricity produced by nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plants supply 75% of France’s total electrical needs (Delmas and Heiman 433). France participates in the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) and has signed the Euratom Treaty. By signing the Treaty of 1957, France guaranteed, along with its fellow signees, that, “each Member State shall establish the facilities necessary to carry out continuous monitoring of the level of radioactivity in the air, water and soil and to ensure compliance with the basic standards” (European Atomic Energy Community, Article 35). Nuclear power is the largest source of electricity for France, and it is also one of the most regulated. Regional agreements on nuclear power and standards control the ability of France to construct nuclear power plants.

France also falls under the third category of the International Atomic Energy Agency (ElBaradei, et al.) It posses nuclear weapons, as opposed to countries that have signed or not signed non-proliferation treaties. Under this IAEA classificication, France is recorded as possessing the nuclear weapons that only a very few countries possess.

French laws give parents options for work and childcare

The mother of the baby in this picture has the option of taking a government-subsidized break from work after maternity leave or of obtaining government assistance for hiring a childcare provider should she decide to work. The institutions relating to maternity leave strive to make both staying at home and re-entering the workforce a real choice for parents in France. For children under three, the complement de libre choix d’activité (CLCA, or supplement for the freedom of choice to work of not) gives a parent (usually mothers in France) financial assistance to work part-time or to not work after maternity leave. The allowance pays 340 euros per month for six months after maternity leave for the first child or until the youngest of multiple children reaches age 3. If the mother chooses to work, she can receive a childcare allowance from the prestation d’accueil du jeune enfant (PAJE, or provision of services for young children) until the child is three years old. Another benefit — the complément de libre choix du mode de garde (CMG, or supplement for the freedom of choice in childcare arrangements) — provides childcare allowance for parents of children under 6 years old (Lewis et al., 2009).

The rules for government assistance for working and non-working parents are designed in part with the goal of reducing unemployment. The assistance for parents who stay home with their children gives parents, especially poor women, an incentive to stay out of the labor force. Encouraging more women not to work may reduce unemployment with respect to the population remaining in the labor force (Lewis et al., 2009). However, that method for reducing unemployment is in conflict with the goal of improving workforce gender equality. Between 1965 and 1984, a women’s bureau in the French government sought to promote the idea of the “working woman” and pushed into place an equal employment law. In the 1990’s, the government began emphasizing work/family balance rather than female employment (Revillard, 2006). The earlier emphasis on working women resulted in France having high rates of female employment compared to other European countries, but current institutions provide substantial support for mothers wanting to opt-out of the workforce. The mother with the baby in the picture could be taking advantage of child care services to remain employed and could thus be paying for her meal with money she earned through work. Alternatively, the mother could be enjoying the café at that moment because she is not working and could be paying for the meal with money the government has provided her to support herself and her family.

All timber imported to the EU must come from legal sources

The timber in these chairs is required through a 2010 European Union law to come from legitimate sources, in order to discourage illegal logging. According to the BBC, about 20 percent of all timber imported by the EU is illegal. This illegal logging is not only is detrimental to the environment, but it also accelerates the rich-poor divide in developing countries by removing the source of livelihood for many rural dwellers. In July of 2010, legislation was passed by the EU that requires companies by 2012 to prove the source of all imported timber. This will strengthen the current laws in the EU, as well as prove Europe’s commitment to environmental issues.

The world’s forests are extremely important to protect from the risk of illegal logging as well as from agricultural land conversion. They contain about “90 percent of the total terrestrial biodiversity,” and therefore logging threatens to destroy many unique plant and animal species (Bosello). Furthermore, deforestation generates about 17 percent of the total carbon released into the atmosphere, which may be accelerated due to unregulated logging. Thus, it is important that the Western nations take a stand against illegal logging. Through this new piece of legislation, the EU hopes to guarantee consumers that their wood and furniture are not contributing to climate change and deforestation.

The first steps towards banning illegal logging began at the G8 summit in 1998, when the first official statement was issued on the international level. In 2003, the EU created an Action Plan on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance, and Trade that used “Voluntary Partnership Agreements” to tackle illegal loggers (Bosello). Developing countries partnered with the EU to license all loggers and combat deforestation. However, this Action Plan was only implemented within these specific developing countries and did not apply to all illegal timber entering the EU. Thus, the introduction of this legislation in 2010 provided a much stronger message towards the illegal loggers and about their negative effect upon the environment. The two major exporters to France, Russia and Africa, will find it hard to find new customers outside of Europe. Instead, they will be forced to internally prevent deforestation in order to prevent economic repercussions.

Euro Currency can be used in 16 Nations

The European Union citizens and international tourists seen in the image are paying for their meal in Euros. This currency may be used in any of the 27 nations that comprise the European Union and have agreed to adopt the euro as their currency. Currently, 16 countries form the “eurozone” (European Commission on Economic and Financial Affairs). Within the eurozone, the euro currency is the only authorized currency; national currencies are now gone. The administration and exchange rates of the Euro are governed by European Central Ban, while the Bank and the euro were created by the Maastricht Treaty of 1992.

The basis for this shared currency is the Maastricht Treaty, originally signed by 11 EU states in 1992. European delegates planned on creating a framework for establishing a common currency in the European Union, and they were successful. Article 1091 of the Maastricht Treaty mandates the, “introduction of the ECU [European Currency Unit, Euro] as the single currency of those Member States” which agree to participate in the euro program (European Union). With the signing of this document, French citizens became part of a regional economic zone in which they would not need to change money when crossing borders.

Even before the European Union existed, France cooperated with other European nations in organizations collectively known as the European communities. These organizations were the precursors to the European Union we know today. Originally founded as economic groups to promote closer ties among the nations of Europe, currency integration became a necessity as countries removed tariffs, established free-trade zones, and cooperated more closely on economic matters. For the citizens of France, the Maastricht Treaty created the European Union and its accompanying currency.

French laws make it likely that pharmacy consumers will purchase generic drugs

A consumer at this pharmacy is likely to purchase generic drugs thanks to institutions in place to encourage their use. The use of generic drugs in France has historically been low, but the French government has recently implemented rules to promote the usage of generic drugs. Since France has universal health insurance, the French government is keen to reduce the prices of drugs. The state health insurance agency—Statutory Health Insurance—signed an agreement in 2006 with pharmacists towards achieving a 70% prescribing rate for generic drugs by the end of that year (Grandfils and Sermet, 2006). France has also put into place specific rules about how much compensation pharmacists receive for various generic drugs. Pharmacists receive 17% discounts on the prices of generic products, and if generics make up at least 35% of sales for a particular drug ,then pharmacists are guaranteed the same profit margins for the generic medicine versus the branded product (Sermet et al., 2010). These measures give pharmacists greater incentives to sell generic drugs versus branded products.

The government’s rules on drug prices also give consumers incentives to buy generic drugs. If a patient buys a specific drug product that exceeds the median price for generic versions of the product, the patient must pay the difference in price out of pocket (Sermet et al., 2010). The state healthcare system gives the government considerable power in dictating the kinds of drugs consumers can buy. The government has also tried to change social norms regarding the usage of generic drugs by launching multiple public relations campaigns promoting generic drugs. Generic drugs now have favorability ratings of 90%. Social norms regarding generic drugs have also changed in regards to doctors’ practices; doctors in France have made a commitment to using the International Non-proprietary Name (INN) system for prescriptions. Under the INN system, doctors do not prescribe a specific branded version of a drug but use a non-proprietary for the drug. The use of the INN system thus gives patients the option of choosing whether to buy a branded or generic version of a drug (Grandfils and Sermet, 2006).

Foie Gras is protected by French law

Inscribed in the Countryside Code, Section 3, Act No. 2006-11, the French government has declared, “Foie gras is part of the cultural and gastronomic heritage protected in France. Meaning foie gras, the liver of a duck or a goose specially fattened by gavage” (Legifrance). While other nations have enacted laws against the production and consumption of foie gras, France maintains the food as part of its cultural heritage. Although other European Union nations have taken a stand against the production and use of foie gras in the culinary arts, France has defended its consumption and specifically labeled it a part of French culture.

The reasons for including a paragraph concerning the importance of a controversial food item in law are severalfold. First, 33 of France’s neighbors in the Council of Europe have signed the European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes, which includes prohibitions against the force feeding of ducks and geese. Producing quality foie gras involves a process known as “gavage,” which involves constantly feeding the bird large amounts of food. Under Council of Europe guidelines, the production of foie gras is considered a violation of the rights of animals (Council of Europe).

Second, the continued production and consumption of foie gras is a point of pride for the French. An important part of French culture is the cuisine. While each culture maintains its own special foods and delicacies, French cuisine is noted for a number of innovative foods. Fattened goose liver is one of those delicacies. Though the methods of production are considered cruel by some, foie gras continues to be an integral part of French cuisine.

Freedom of Movement between Borders

The tourists pictured in the example image have their travel to and from France governed by laws between their host countries and France, but for the Europeans whose countries are signatories to the Schengen Agreement, arriving from one country to this French café was a simple process expedited by no border crossings and no passport. This smooth movement from one country to another is facilitated by the Schengen Agreement of 1985. Under the agreement, 23 countries (out of 27) in the European Union participate in, “a territory where the free movement of persons is guaranteed. The signatory states to the agreement have abolished all internal borders in lieu of a single external border. Here common rules and procedures are applied with regard to visas for short stays, asylum requests and border controls” (European Union). With the Schengen Agreement, the people and vehicles pictured are free to travel to and in other European Union members that have ratified the Schengen Agreement.

The Schengen Agreement was a substantial first step toward the creation of an intergovernmental policy and common borders. Nations enacted laws that would require the opening of their borders; they also created an information-sharing system to nullify concerns about a lack of security with open borders between states. As noted by Elizabeth Whitaker, “the Treaty requires it… and the SIS provides a counterweight to the freedom of personal movement within the Schengen area” (Whitaker 200). While citizens are free to cross borders without passports or restrictions, they are subject to surveillance and control by the European Union. The SIS is the Schengen Information System, a computer system used by police and immigration officials throughout the area of the Agreement (Whitaker 200). For the people pictured in the image, their free movement from nation to nation is ensured by the Schengen Agreement and their security maintained by the SIS.

Many French Buildings are built to HQE sustainable building certification

The Haute Qualité Environmentale (HQE) certification in France is a voluntary program that ensures building owners and contractors adhere to certain environmental standards, much like the LEED certification in the US. Although this is not a mandatory rule, it is quickly becoming the standard for all new buildings as the French Environmental and Energy Management Agency (ADEME) institutes policy reforms in order to meet the G8 goal of reducing carbon emissions by 50% by 2050. According to their website, this goal will require operational buildings to reduce their primary energy consumption by 100 kWh per square meter by 2050. Thus, the use of HQE certification is being stressed in order for France to reach this international goal.

The HQE utilizes a flexible approach in order to allow its certification to adapt to different situations, rather than trying to make all buildings fit into the same set of requirements. Furthermore, its main goal is to “create or rehabilitate buildings with enhanced environmental preoccupations, for their users and the community as well” (Bidou). It desires to reach a balance between creating a happy and healthy work or living environment and designing a building that is beneficial for the environment. Certain environmental standards include “good integration of urban services, […] and the rejections of waste” to fight against the greenhouse effect (Bidou). Becoming an HQE building also requires these goals to be continually met; therefore the building must be updated overtime to ensure the building is always environmentally friendly.

In the European Union, there are many other certification programs that also focus on sustainable development. However, France appears to have little interest in adapting these currently used foreign programs. Instead, they would rather create new processes for sustainable urban planning, preferring not to “translate” these foreign ideas into the French context (“Sustainable Construction”). Nevertheless, France appears to be successfully making progress towards their environmental goals through the use of HQE certification requirements. Hopefully, this certification program will help France achieve their international environmental goals.

Alcohol is served and taxed in this restaurant

The fact that alcohol is being sold in the restaurant is dictated by French social norms. Alcohol consumption is part of French culture, with French adults over 15 years of age drinking an average of 12.4 liters of alcohol a year (Cnossen, 2007). That norm is not static, however; France has taken measures to encourage more responsible alcohol consumption. One example of such measures is the “Loi Evin,” which is a law that restricts alcohol advertising in France. The law was challenged in EU courts as preventing free trade between EU countries but was ultimately upheld because of the law’s goal to improve public health (Casswell and Thamarangsi, 2009). Additionally, France imposes greater taxes on products called “alcopop” than on other drinks with similar alcohol content in an effort to combat drinking among young people. “Alcopop” beverages are those combining alcohol with non-alcohol beverages and are thought to be appealing to youth; higher alcopop taxes have been demonstrated to reduce alcohol consumption by young people (Cnossen, 2007).

Although alcohol products that appeal to youths in particular are taxed the most, all alcohol sold in France is taxed due to EU and France-specific rules. The EU directive 92/84/EEC mandates that member states must have certain minimum duties (taxes) on alcohol; the exact minimum depends on the type of alcohol. However, member states have the ability to set their own duties above the minimum. France imposes both excise duties on alcohol and a Value-Added Tax of 19.6%. The excise duties vary based on the type of alcohol, and are highest for liquors. Although taxes between different types of alcohols can vary, the EU mandates that tax laws cannot be discriminatory against certain member nations. France and Italy tried to impose lower taxes on grape-based alcohols versus grain-based alcohols regardless of alcohol content , but the European Court of Justice found such a taxation scheme to be discriminatory. The taxes were considered discriminatory because their principal purpose was favoring French and Italian alochol producers (Cnossen, 2007).. EU and French rules play an important role in shaping the price of alcohol sold at the restaurant in this picture and through influencing the price may also influence the type of alcohol sold.

Water Pricing and Testing Controlled by Central Government and Mandated by EU

Water for public consumption in France is regulated by the central government, which delegates the responsibilities for managing and advising on water policy to 6 Agences de bassin (water basin authorities). These 6 authorities have neither power to build infrastructure nor police the water. Instead, “they have only the right to levy taxes on local users/members so as to subsidise environmentally friendly projects” (Barraqué 204). Under the policies of the central government, French citizens pay the Agence de bassin in charge of their area for their water. Citizens are also directly funding environmentally-orientated projects that will benefit their communities. This organizational structure is not mandated by the European Union, but is the structure that France has chosen to comply with the Water Framework Directive.

The European Union Water Framework Directive mandates certain responsibilities to the French government concerning the quality of drinking water and how to price water. “Each individual source which is actually, or possibly, utilized for drinking water must be identified, catalogued, and surveyed to determine what protection is needed (Chave 105). For every source of water that provides drinking water to French citizens, the French government is required to subject the area to regulation and testing. This is done to ensure not only the protection of sources of drinking water, but also the health of French citizens. This directive applies to all members of the European Union, who are required to implement the directive using whatever devices they deem necessary. The Water Framework Directive also directs member states to ensure that, “water pricing policies act as incentives towards efficient water usage so as to ‘contribute to the environmental objectives of the Directive’” (Chave 103).

Seafood caught according to environmental standards

The seafood in this restaurant is caught by anglers who are required to join an “authorized angling association for the protection of the aquatic environment” (AAPPMA) according the 1941 and 1984 Fisheries Act. Each member must pay a fishing fee to support national environmental fishing interests. Furthermore, each association must belong to a county federation that works with governments and lawyers to maintain the aquatic environment. By instituting this hierarchal organization, it allows for governmental legislation to be put into effect on the local level, and for environmental practices to be used state wide.

However, although France has a strong method of environmental enforcement in fishing practices, there are a few flaws due to the decrease of privatization within this industry. The 1984 law required private landowners to work together with angling associations in order to receive public support for maintenance of the riverbanks. Unfortunately, although the AAPPMA are supposed to protect the environment, there is no monetary or other type of incentive for these associations. According to Le Goffe and Salanié, the few privately owned ponds also have no motivation to provide these environmental services as there is simply “no market for them anymore.” Instead, they focus on creating a “high quality experience” for the anglers by increasing the number of fish in their privately owned ponds and rivers to create high catch rates and providing trophy sized fish. Similarly, the AAPPMAs resort to stocking ponds and rivers with farmed fish. All of these measures, according to hydro biologists, decrease the environmental quality of the surrounding habitats.

Despite these slight drawbacks, the Fishing Acts of 1941 and 1984 have successfully introduced norms and standards into the fishing industry, that have prevented the total decline of the natural river and pond habitat. Furthermore, the study by Goffe and Salanié suggests that the French public is actually quite willing to pay for environmental improvements, perhaps due to the efforts of the National Fishing Council and the country’s overall increasing interest in environmental problems. The last remaining step is to fully link these rules and social norms together by pressuring the fishing management to take a step towards fully implementing environmental strategies.

This car was made in accordance with EU emissions standards

The manufacturer of this car must make its cars adhere to certain carbon dioxide emission standards. In 1999, the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) entered a voluntary agreement to reduce car emissions. The goal of the agreement was to reduce emissions of new cars to an average of 130 g carbon dioxide per km by 2015 (Fontarasa and Samaras, 2007). The agreement appears to have had a considerable impact on carbon dioxide emissions in the EU between 1996 and 2007, although some studies suggest that the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by cars was consistent with the historical rate of progress and may have occurred independently of the ACEA . The ACEA was not supported by many supplementary measures to help automobile manufacturers achieve the goals set, and any success of the ACEA may be attributed to competition within the automobile industry or to changing social norms in favor of reduced emissions (Whitmarsh and Kohler, 2010).

In 2009, the EU implemented mandatory regulations for car manufacturers. The principal goal set by the legislation was the same as the goal set by the ACEA—reduction of emissions to 130 g of CO2 emissions per km by 2015. That target represents the average emissions for all cars in the EU; a limit value curve, which sets the specific emissions allowed for a specific car, allows heavier cars to have higher emissions. The legislation also adds in a phasing in of requirements; from 2012 to 2015, the percentage of a manufacturer’s fleet of cars that adheres to the requirement set by the limit value curve must increase from 65% to 100%. The legislation also sets a long term goal of 95 g/km for carbon dioxide emissions by 2012. If car manufacturers do not abide by the legislation, they will face monetary penalties; the penalties will initially be low but will increase significantly by 2019 (Reducing CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles, 2010). Since the EU directive on car emissions is mandatory rather than voluntary, it may have a greater effect on car emissions than the ACEA.

Vehicle will be recycled according to EU standards

Every year in Western Europe, 12 million cars become “end-of-life vehicles” (ELV), and countries must figure out what to do with the 2.2 million tons of waste generated from the cars. In France, this waste especially becomes an issue as these vehicles cannot be incinerated along with other trash. Instead, cars are shredded and their useful materials are recycled; about 67 percent of each car can be reclaimed under these conditions. Other countries tend to “dismantle” cars by disassembling parts by hand, but this tends to leak oils and fuels into the top soil, introducing harmful chemicals into the environment. Nevertheless, both methods for ELV recycling have successfully reduced waste production, and all European Union nations are now required to implement one of these programs.

ELV recycling became instituted into Western Europe in 1990 through the German Federal Ministry of the Environment, which drafted a proposal that created the foundation for current ELV recycling techniques. The main principles of the proposal required that the process focus on recycling rather than landfill, stimulating environmental products, and that the “polluter pays principle.” That is, the car manufacturer must pay for the recycling efforts; this makes the cost of the car include the cost of recycling, rather than allowing car manufacturers to put this cost onto society. France at that time had also been considering ELV recycling, but according to Orsato, et. al, France did not have as much of a historical foundation upon which to base this environmental policy decision. Thanks to the efforts of a leading French shredder company and the influence of the German proposal, the voluntary Accord cadre, which sets targets for reducing ELV waste amounts, was implemented in France in March of 1993. There were some opponents to this plan, as it prevented smaller car companies from entering the market (as they could not afford to build a recycling plant of their own), but the Accord cadre became the norm for car manufacturers in France.

ELV recycling has also become the norm for the European Union. In 1997, the European Commission presented a “Proposal for a Council Directive on End-of-Life Vehicles” (COM 97-358) in order to unify the differing ELV policies through Europe. Placed into law in 2000, it allows each state to translate the Directive into their own nation’s economy, in order to meet the overall EU targets. Car companies in France now comply with the EU Directive (which supersedes French law) and have been successfully reducing landfill waste as a result.

An EU directive regulates the incineration of this trash

The trash in the picture may end up in an incinerator. In 2003, 12.6 Mega tons of non-dangerous waste was incinerated in France; that incineration produced almost 3 million mega watts of energy (Autret et al., 2007). Once the trash ends up in an incinerator, the precise handling and treatment of the trash is governed by certain institutions, most importantly European directive 2000/76/CE. The directive has over 190 legal requirements for incinerators. The requirements include limits on atmospheric pollutant emissions like acid gas, dioxins, and mono-nitrogen oxides (NO or NO2). They also impose certain structural requirements for incinerators. For example, plants must have automatic systems to prevent waste feed when the temperature of the incinerator is below required temperatures or when emissions of pollutants exceed the allowable concentrations (Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste, 2000). Incinerator plants had to begin complying with the directive by December 2005.

In 2003, all incinerators in France had to report whether they were achieving the mandates of the 2000/76/CE directive (Autret et al., 2007). The vast majority of plants were not in compliance at that date; 95% did not have automatic systems to prevent waste feed, and 70% did not adequately control emissions of mono-nitrogen oxides. However, incineration plants in France had already undergone major changes to improve their efficiency and environmental footprint by 2003 and the need to comply with the EU directive has sparked even more improvements. For example, dioxin emissions decreased by 90% between 1995 and 2003 and then by another 90% between 2003 and 2006. Incinerators have also become significantly more efficient as many small, inefficient plants were closed when faced with new environmental regulations. The EU directive prompted significant changes in the incineration industry in France, but those changes came with a cost. Average investment costs per facility to comply with the EU directive after the 2003 report were predicted to be between 5.2 and 6.7 million euros (Autret et al., 2007). The EU directive 2000/76/CE has had a big impact on waste management in France and probably affected how the trash in the picture was processed.

Smoking banned in public places, but hardly enforced

Since 2007, these café patrons cannot smoke in public places, or they risk a fine of 68 Euros. However, a recent study by the Non-Smokers Right’s association suggests that this ban is not being taken seriously, due to a lack of government enforcement coupled with a long-lasting cultural norms of smoking (Crumley). France’s government may need to determine other methods of deterring its citizens from smoking, as it spends an estimated 15 billion dollars on smoking-related healthcare each year.

According to an essay by Kagan and Vogel, states have a desire for tobacco regulation as they believe that it is wrong to allow the marketing of the products and that the government has an obligation to prevent any cause of disease in its citizens. However, this regulation can be hard for a government to achieve. In France, there is a strong centralist state tradition which has typically not used public opinion to influence policy decisions. Therefore, the state must self-generate policies and proposals. Furthermore, the “French detest being told what to do.” This general belief prevents the government from effectively regulating the “behavior” of its citizens, instead having to rely on introducing other measures to discourage certain actions. In France, this has manifested itself in high taxes on tobacco products.

The French cigarette market is comprised mainly of the state owned SEITA (Societe d’Exploitation Industrielle des Tabacs et Allumettes) which allows the French government to effectively regulate the sale and taxation of tobacco products. In 1976, a ban was placed upon many forms of cigarette advertisements, partially triggered by international laws passed earlier in the decade. Tobacco regulation slowly increased through the end of the 20th century, until 75 percent of a cigarette’s price was comprised of taxes. However, the implementation of behavioral laws was never able to gain traction, due to the well-rooted social norm of smoking. For example, unlike other countries where anti-smoking campaigns began at a grassroots level, in France these efforts came from elites (doctors and other medical professionals) who placed pressure upon the political leaders of the time. France still continues to heavily tax cigarettes, and will continue to try and further its behavioral regulations, despite public opposition.