Content uploaded by Sebastien Bourdin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sebastien Bourdin on Dec 22, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Territorial governance and actors'
coordination in a local project of
anaerobic digestion
A social network analysis
Authors:
Amadou Niang
UMR SAD-APT, INRAE, AgroParisTech, université Paris-Saclay, 16 rue Claude-Bernard,
75005, Paris, France
amadou.niang@inrae.fr
Corresponding author
André Torre
UMR SAD-APT, INRAE, AgroParisTech, université Paris-Saclay, 16 rue Claude-Bernard,
75005, Paris, France
torre@agroparistech.fr
Sébastien Bourdin
EM Normandie Business School, laboratoire Métis, 9 rue Claude-Bloch,
14052, Caen, France
sbourdin@em-normandie.fr
Abstract:
Biogas is a process for producing renewable energy, which has recently gained interest in
contributing to a territorial strategy for the deployment of the circular economy. The projects,
which are collective in nature, bring together multiple actors or local stakeholders from a wide
variety of backgrounds. The article proposes to analyze the territorial governance of this type
of project by studying the relations of synergy and cooperation between stakeholders in the case
study of the Syndicat Mixte du Point Fort (SMPF) of Cavigny (France). The results of the
analysis of interaction and coordination networks show that local stakeholders develop dense
relational networks that vary throughout the project. This high density is indicative of the
importance of group cohesion in interactions, which is necessary to create a framework of trust
and consultation that favors the success of territorial renewable energy projects. The measure
of centrality of the interacting actors shows that the project leader (SMPF) plays the role of
assembler and facilitator of the interaction networks facilitating the sharing of flows,
knowledge, and collective learning.
Keywords: anaerobic digestion, biogas, territorial governance, social network analysis,
innovation
2
INTRODUCTION
As a result of growing environmental concerns and the desire to reduce the consumption of
non-renewable resources, in recent years new technologies for transforming biomass into
energy and agricultural fertilizers have developed within the framework of circular economy
strategies (Wall et al., 2017). This is particularly the case of anaerobic digestion biogas projects.
They implement a process of biological degradation of organic residues generated by
agriculture, food processing industries, and local authorities and their transformation into
biogas and digestate, which are then reintroduced into the production process in energy inputs
and organic nitrogen fertiliser (Holm-Nielsen et al., 2009). These biotechnological processes
promote the reduction of pollution (Clemens et al., 2006), the revitalization of territories
through the creation of new enterprises and locally anchored jobs, as well as the mobilization
and cooperation of actors in the territorial governance of rural territories (Guenther-Lübbers et
al., 2016).
In its desire to ensure the energy transition and the deployment of the circular economy, France
has promoted the implementation of multiple biogas projects (Ministry for ecological transition
- MTE, 2018), which are divided into different development modes depending on the origin of
the waste treated and the actors involved. A distinction is thus made between (i) biogas on-farm
biogas digester, a small-scale unit generally carried by a farmer who treats most of the waste
from his farm (livestock effluents or crop residues), and (ii) collective anaerobic digestion unit,
which concerns territorial projects carried out by a group of farmers, local authorities or
industries, with a diversity of the types of inputs provided by farms, agri-food companies and
local authorities.
The development of this type of project does not always go smoothly, and the organizational
difficulties related to the complexity of the relationships between stakeholders and the
resistance of local populations fearing negative externalities are the main obstacles to the
implementation of biogas units (Zemo et al., 2019; Bourdin & Nadou, 2020). Work on the
analysis of social acceptability issues in biogas projects is increasing (Giuliano et al., 2018;
Bourdin et al., 2019), but research does not focus on understanding the complex relationships
built and developed between the local actors involved in anaerobic digestion projects. Little
attention is generally paid in academic work to the territorial governance mechanisms at work
in these projects, i.e. the way stakeholders or various actors (producers, associations, citizens,
private individuals, representatives of public or local authorities...) contribute to the elaboration,
sometimes concerted, sometimes conflictual, of joint projects for territorial development (Torre
& Traversac, 2011).
This article aims to understand the organization of the territorial governance of biogas projects
and the dynamics of coordination and cooperation
1
of the local stakeholders, based on a case
study located in the rural city of Cavigny (Normandy - France). The experience reveals that
market coordination is not sufficient in the case of local circular economy experiments and that
local agreements need to rely on the cooperation between local actors, to forecast joint projects
and to share common expectations for future development projects (Bourdin et al., 2019). We
study the evolution of local relations and of cooperation synergy based on an analysis of the
interaction and coordination networks between the actors involved in the project.
1
Let us note that cooperation can be defined as a specific kind of coordination.
3
The anaerobic digestion project developed by the Syndicat Mixte du Point Fort (SMPF) is a
good example of these synergies and territorial approaches to the new valorization of organic
waste. It corresponds to the above definition of governance of territorial projects, bringing
together multiple actors from different backgrounds and different interests. Because of this
diversity, it involves different forms of interaction and coordination that are likely to meet the
common needs of stakeholders and generate positive development effects for the territory.
Our analysis is based on the social network approach (SNA). Issued from graph theory (Keast
& Brown, 2005), which has already been mobilized for analyzing regional innovation systems
(Asheim & Isaksen, 2002; Cooke, 2001), it has recently been applied to organizational issues
of territorial governance to describe the structure of local interactions. It has given rise to
empirical studies on the dynamics of innovation and governance in rural territories, particularly
in the territorial processes linked to the development of the cork industry in Portugal (Ferreiro
& Sousa, 2018) or in the Brazilian Amazon between actors of the dairy industry (Torre et al.,
2019). Other studies have focused on inter-organizational networks, applied to stakeholder
synergies in clusters (Cruz & Teixeira, 2010), in industrial and territorial ecology (Ashton &
Bain, 2012), or on local governance and rural development systems in Brazil (Polge & Torre,
2017).
The example of the biogas project in Cavigny allows us to study the relations of synergy and
cooperation between local actors, based on an analysis of the social networks of interaction and
coordination and their evolution over the periods of implementation and development. First, we
will present our framework of analysis of the territorial governance of biogas projects and its
implications in terms of rural territorial development, before detailing in a second part our
theoretical approach and the methodology of analysis. We will then present the results that
allow to identifying and quantifying the types of links that exist between the actors of biogas
and to characterizing the influence and the dynamics of these social networks. We will end by
a discussion on these results and the.
1. ANAEROBIC DIGESTION AS A TOOL FOR INNOVATION AND RURAL
TERRITORIAL GOVERNANCE
Anaerobic digestion is considered as one of the interesting territorial strategy in the framework
of the “energy transition law for green growth”. More specifically, it is the subject of a so-
called plan “methanisation energy, autonomy, nitrogen” which aimed to develop 1000
methanisers by 2020 (MTE, 2018). It is also part of the European Commission’s Bioeconomy
Agenda and the European Union’s “Climate and Energy Framework for Action”, committing
member countries to increase the share of renewable energy sources to 32% by 2030 (European
commission, 2014). This approach is based on operational principles and the promotion of
change and greening of the practices of the biogas stakeholders. They must pool their needs,
skills and equipment to enhance territorial resources, with the aim of relocating the supply and
consumption of local products (Song et al., 2014). Biogas should contribute to the development
of a circular economy (MTE, 2018), which aims to optimize the use of local biomass to make
material and energy flows more efficient and reduce the negative externalities of human
activities (Ghisellini et al., 2016).
Thus, transforming organic waste into local territorial resources intended for the production of
renewable energy and organic nitrogenous fertilizer (Holm-Nielsen et al., 2009) constitutes an
interesting territorial strategy for implementing circular economy principles in rural territories.
4
Indeed, it contributes to ensure local energy self-sufficiency and energy and nitrogen fertilizer
savings in these areas, making it possible to reduce diffuse pollution and greenhouse gas
emissions while generating value-creating activities and anchored jobs (Guenther-Lübbers et
al. 2016). Its local challenges also concern reducing waste management expenditures for
communities facing budgetary constraints (Bourdin & Nadou, 2020). Thus, anaerobic digestion
biogas contributes in some way to territorial development defined as the improvement of the
well-being and wealth of the stakeholders of a territory, given their relations of competition and
cooperation, their initiatives and their oppositions, and the dynamic of territorial innovations.
Thus, it does not rely solely on the productive actors or the institutions that manage them but
involves other stakeholders: local authorities, decentralized state services, consular bodies,
associations, etc. (Torre, 2019). Anaerobic digestion is also perceived, in the current context of
changes in rural areas, as a response to the territorial challenges of remobilizing local actors.
Indeed, it introduces new forms of organization and coordination in the governance of flows in
these territories characterized by a weakness of interactions between actors, which generates
incomplete innovation processes (Camagni, 1995). The stakeholders come together in a
collective effort in which farmers, industrialists, waste managers, and local authorities mobilize
resources to create a project (Reed et al., 2009), conducive to territorial development. But the
coordination of actors is not an evidence and requires the building of territorial governance
rules. Territorial governance can be defined as a process of building common frameworks to
coordinate territorial representations and strategies (individual and collective). Throughout the
process, actors interact in a confrontational and/or cooperative manner (Torre & Zuindeau,
2009) and make choices to implement territorial development projects. These choices often
involve an asymmetry of power between the stakeholders and could lead to a firm rejection of
the project. The study of territorial governance, therefore, entails both the analysis of the
dynamics of the actors' games (Fournis & Fortin, 2017) and the mechanisms and instruments
to implement them (Rey-Valette et al., 2008; Brullot et al., 2014).
Innovations in territorial anaerobic digestion projects primarily concern biotechnological
processes for the circular recovery of organic waste, which make it possible to produce and
consume renewable energy locally from the resources of the territory and to practice rational
agricultural fertilization. The innovations carried out in this framework are also organizational,
through the development of networks of actors and collaborative relationships on which the
territorial development process is strongly based (Torre & Wallet, 2016). These actor
coordination networks, while guaranteeing the durability and sustainability of the territorial
project (Reed et al., 2009), facilitate the circulation of flows, knowledge sharing, and collective
learning, as well as the mobilization of technological innovations and the management of
neighborhood conflicts (Bourdin & Nadou, 2020).
All the actors present in the project area are thus geographically close to each other and maintain
different types of organized proximity links. This proximity favours direct contact and
productive exchanges, in the sense that it facilitates interactions, mutual knowledge, and trust
(Dupuy & Torre, 2006), which are necessary for the emergence of innovations. The different
actors belong to an organization or the same territorial project, resulting from the social ties that
are created and developed, facilitates collaboration (Torre, 2014, & Torre & Rallet, 2005). It is
expressed through cooperation and the embedding of relationships (Granovetter, 1985) in
interpersonal social ties that strengthen the actors' sense of belonging while fostering mutual
trust (Hewes & Lyons, 2008). Chertow & Ehrenfeld (2012) believe that the climate of trust that
is created can renew synergistic relationships and gradually strengthen over the period of
5
evolution and development of interaction networks. In this case, the actors are in a logic of
building networks of interaction and coordination relations within which they come together,
consult each other, exchange flows, information, and skills and work together around common
challenges.
Local opposition to anaerobic digestion projects appears in many territories (Giuliano et al.,
2018). According to Bourdin et al (2019), they are linked to a lack of trust and consultation
between the stakeholders involved in their implementation. They testify to the growing need
for coordination between these multiple and heterogeneous actors. Bourdin & Nadou (2020)
consider that it is therefore relevant for certain actors to facilitate coordination by acting as
intermediaries between the stakeholders to facilitate their adhesion, the local anchoring of
projects, and the implementation of governance processes and territorial development
(Chodkowska-Miszczuk et al., 2019). Along the same lines, recent work on the governance of
rural territories (Torre & Wallet, 2016 & 2013; Winter, 2006; Marsden, 2004) testifies to the
value of collaboration and coordination of multiple actors in terms of synergy effects on
networks of relations, governance, and territorial development.
2. PRESENTATION OF THE CASE STUDY
To reduce the storage and burial of municipal waste, the Syndicat Mixte du Point Fort (SMPF)
has committed to a sustainable treatment approach by setting up an environmental waste
recovery center in 2009
2
. The Point Fort Environnement (PFE) is a public establishment
responsible for organizing selective collection, transport, operating the network of 14 waste
collection centers and recovering household waste from the SMPF's member local authorities.
Located in Cavigny, a small rural commune of 257 inhabitants, the recovery center includes a
sorting center and a biogas digester treating household and similar waste from 125 communes
in Normandy, representing 116,744 inhabitants (PFE, 2020). Figure 1 below shows the scope
of the SMPF's competencies covering all the administrative territories of the EPCIs.
Figure 1: Location of SMPF facilities and implementation area for the biogas project in
Cavigny
2
A syndicat mixte is a type of inter-municipal cooperation structure to enable local authorities to join forces with
each other or with public institutions.
6
The production process of biogas, which favors the reintroduction of energy outputs into the
production process, requires an efficient organization of stakeholders for its smooth operation.
In particular, the local actors must coordinate around issues of input mobilization, co-product
flow, risk management, and social acceptability. Indeed, the different local authorities that are
members of the SMPF, as well as non-member client local authorities, contribute to recycling
waste under agreements and public contracts with the PFE. Waste managers, professional co-
product recovery companies, and farmers who use compost are also involved in the process,
without forgetting the local State services in charge of regulatory control of Installations
Classified for Environmental Protection (ICPE), as well as an association of impacted local
residents (Boursault, 2019). Governance mobilizes different categories of actors (see Table 1)
operating at various territorial scales. It should be noted, however, that the entire biogas project
in Cavigny takes place within the jurisdiction of the joint association, under the principle of
geographical proximity to the waste production and treatment areas. This is to restrict the extent
of flow circulation and guarantee its sustainable nature.
Categories of actors
Number
Participation
2010
2015
2019
Local authorities (members)
13
6
5
Waste collection
Deliberating assembly
38 elected delegates
Local authorities (non-members)
3
4
0
Waste input convention, public
procurement
Decision-making bodies of the SMPF
8 elected members
to the Executive
Board
Administrative and Financial
Management,
management and supervision
of technical services
dialogue and risk management
1 technical
department (the EFP)
SMPF waste treatment units
1 Biogas unit
Transport, sorting and
treatment of waste,
technical services meeting
1 sorting centre
14 waste disposal
sites
Co-product professionals
(Customers)
1 company
Electricity distribution
1 company
Compost distribution
Farmers
Use of compost
Deconcentrated services of the State
4
4
4
Regulatory monitoring
dialogue and risk management
Local residents' association
1
Concertation and risk
management
Table 1: Biogas stakeholders in Cavigny and their participation in the project
The study of the project makes it possible to distinguish both 1) practices and flows of
exchanges of materials and energy (waste, electricity and compost) and 2) communication
relationships between the stakeholders in the anaerobic digestion project. The latter is carried
out through cooperation and consultation, at the deliberative assemblies of the member
authorities, at more or less formal meetings and contacts, and the regulatory meetings of the
site monitoring commission. These interactions make possible exchange of materials and
energy and the sharing of information.
7
The site monitoring commission represents an essential framework for exchange and
information on risk management (BECP, 2019). It involves, in addition to non-member local
authorities and co-product recovery companies, all the stakeholders involved in the project,
including an association of local citizens. The latter also consult periodically with those in
charge of the treatment facilities, particularly about externalities, especially those related to
odors and rolling stock circulation. The participation mechanism involves a relational structure
of actors using consultation and contractualization as local governance mechanisms.
3. METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSING THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNANCE OF
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION PROJECT
Our analysis of synergy and cooperation between the stakeholders of the biogas project in
Cavigny is based on a social network analysis approach applied to territorial innovation systems
and governance. This approach makes it possible to identify and quantify the types of
relationships that exist between stakeholders, to characterize their influence, and to observe the
evolution over time of the social networks they form (Ter Wal & Boschma, 2009). Thanks to
this method, we can describe the relational network of local stakeholders that characterizes the
types of exchanges within the biogas project, its main features, but also to assess its evolution
and changes over the implementation and development periods. We also look at thenetwork of
material flows to compare its evolution with that of the social network and to evaluate their
reciprocal influences. Based on the example of biogas, our network approach converges with
the industrial symbiosis results by highlighting the importance of the intermediary actors that
structure the system and promote productive exchanges (Wall & Paquin, 2015), while raising
the question of the place of communication flows in the urban metabolism analyses (Rosado et
al., 2014).
The objective is to carry out, based on primary and secondary relational data, an analysis of
material and energy exchange networks, as well as governance and communication networks
over the periods 2010, 2015, and 2019. The choice of these periods of analysis was based on
the study of the chronicle of events that have marked the local context of biogas development
(see Boursault, 2019). While the year 2010 corresponds to the start of biogas activities, 2015 is
marked by the implementation of the law NOTRE (New Territorial Organization of the
Republic) which has led to mergers and integrations of local authorities throughout the national
territory that will strongly impact the local biogas system (Bourdin & Torre, 2020). Finally,
2019 is characterized by the SMPF's desire to diversify its input to optimize its installations and
to respond to the drop in household waste tonnages linked to the introduction of a separate
collection of bio-waste.
To better understand the scope of the flows and identify and categorize the actors involved in
the project (see Table 1), we conducted an exploratory interview with the SMPF management
team beforehand. This method enabled us to apply the "roster-recall" approach recommended
by Ter Wal & Boschma (2009), to draw up the list of stakeholders and select their
representatives to be interviewed while ensuring the representativeness of the stakeholders and
types of exchanges.
The collection of primary data on interaction relationships required 27 semi-directive
interviews with representatives of the organizations and structures involved in the innovation
and governance dynamics of the process (see Annex 1 for details of the interviews). For the
data from the temporal dynamic analysis of interaction relations between 2010 and 2015, we
applied the methodology for reconstructing the network's history (Grossetti et al., 2011),
8
interviewing former SMPF managers and employees who had been present since the beginning
of the project. An interview guide developed for this purpose was designed to collect
quantitative and qualitative relational information from the interviewees.
The primary data corresponding to each type of exchange was supplemented by secondary
contextual data (Sousa, 2012) on the anaerobic digestion project. We then processed using ARS
software (NetDraw and Ucinet), allowing the networks to be represented graphically for visual
analysis of the graphs (Card et al., 1999), and statistical measurements reflecting the local and
global properties of the networks (Wasserman & Faust, 1994).
With this method, we measured the link density index and detected the presence or absence of
cohesive subgroups (n-clicks) in interactions as typical indicators of the structural properties of
networks. This approach is complemented using degree centrality indicators (closeness and
betweenness) that allow the analysis of the individual characteristics of position and importance
of actors in the interaction relationships. More specifically, the indicators used are as follows.
- The link density is an overall measure of network structure, ranging from 0 to 1, relating the
number of relationships maintained by actors to the number of possible connections. The higher
the density, the greater the trust between actors and the group cohesion in interactions. A low-
density value, close to 0, therefore reveals the low potential for synergistic relationships within
the network.
- The n-clicks (Borgatti, 2002), expressed as the number of sub-groups observable within the
network, make it possible to identify cohesive groups of actors who are strongly linked to each
other, as well as the potential relay actors (intermediaries). They provide the link between the
sub-groups. The presence of many n-clicks implies a weakness of relations between actors,
resulting in a non-cohesive network. In contrast, a limited number of n-clicks is synonymous
with solidarity, social control and information circulation.
- The degree of centrality (Freeman 1979), measured by the number of links involving an actor,
makes it possible to highlight the central actors in the interaction network. They possess the
most significant number of relationships. The higher an actor's degree value, the more central
and active he is in the network, playing an essential role in the circulation of flows (Wasserman
& Faust, 1994).
- The betweenness centrality (Newman, 2003), highlights, among the central actors with high
values, those who act as intermediaries in the interaction relationships. The more a player is
associated with a high value of this indicator, the more it occupies an intermediary position of
within the network, by linking the other players and by facilitating the circulation of flows of
information, knowledge and collective learning, particularly between cohesive subgroups
(Diani, 2003).
- The Closeness centrality (Sabidussi, 1966) makes it possible to highlight the peripheral actors
of the network, who maintain fewer relationships. The higher the value of this indicator for an
actor, the less important it is in the structure of the interaction network.
4. NETWORKS OF ANAEROBIC DIGESTION STAKEHOLDERS
Interviews with the project stakeholders made it possible to identify the modalities of
productive and territorial partnerships between local authorities producing waste, public and
private companies, waste and co-product managers, specialized public support services, and
local population (see Table 1). Indeed, the anaerobic digestion project in Cavigny seeks to
9
optimize the local recovery of household and similar waste. It implements a productive
partnership between local actors exchanging materials and energy and also involves relations
of coordination and governance of the flows and risks associated with the project. These
partnerships (which bring together the actors within two networks) correspond to (i) exchanges
of material and energy flow taking place in the formal relations of belonging to SMPF and
informal relations with customers and (ii) interactions between participants in terms of
exchange of information in a collaborative context'.
Based on the data collection, we have developed two categories of graphs representing the
social networks of cooperation and interaction, analyzed separately in their dynamics of
evolution and development in 2010, 2015, and 2019. The first graph corresponds to the relations
of exchanges of materials and energy between local authorities (members and non-members)
establishments of the waste management project holder, companies and farmers specialized in
the recovery of co-products (Figure 2). The latter correspond to the graphs of the
communication network that mobilizes the local population and the technical services of the
State within the framework of the shared and concerted regulatory governance of anaerobic
digestion flows (Figure 5). They involve only certain actors participating in the exchanges of
materials and energy, in particular, the local authorities and the management bodies of the joint
association.
4.1. The network of exchange of material and energy flows
Analysis of the graphs of material and energy exchange relations (Figure 2) shows that each of
the actors is in a direct relationship of sharing inputs (waste) or co-products (heat, electricity,
and compost) with at least two other stakeholders in productive partnerships. The exchanges
are structured around the central actors, consisting of the technical department (PFE), the waste
treatment plants (UT1, UT2, UT3), and the project leader (SMPF), who interact more or less
with all the other peripheral actors. The local authorities that are members of the SMPF are very
strongly connected to the network by the importance of waste exchanges with all the central
actors. On the other hand, the non-member local authorities (which establish commercial
relations for the supply and treatment of their waste) and the client companies distributing the
co-products (EnrP1 and EnrP2) have few ties with the whole set of actors. Given their low level
of direct exchanges with the waste treatment plants through agreements and public contracts
with the FEP, they can be considered, alongside the farmer's final customers of compost
(AgrP1), among the peripheral players with little or no relations with the other participants.
The number of actors participating in the productive exchange network decreases over time,
going from 15 member and non-member local authorities to 5 member local authorities between
2010 and 2019. This phenomenon is linked to the desire of the SMPF to encourage the taking
of “competence treatment of household waste” by the communities of communes and
agglomeration communities, which are slightly replacing the communes. Following the
territorial reform of August 2015, the NOTRe law (Bourdin & Torre, 2020), this competence
becomes mandatory for these EPCI. As a result, at the local level, in January 2017, the
Département de la Manche (NUTS 3 level) ended up with only 8 EPCI, 5 of which are currently
members of the SMPF.
10
2010 2015 2019
Density 0.576
Nber of clicks 266
2 2-clicks
Density 0.441
Nber of links 120
2 2-clicks
Density 0.652
Nber of links : 86
2 2-clicks
Decision-making bodies and waste treatment plants local authorities
Farmers compost customers Co-product client companies
Figure 2: Structural characteristics of the material and energy exchange network
Legend: the nodes of the networks represent the actors, the arcs their relations, the shape of the nodes corresponds
to the actors' scales of action (the circle at the local level, the triangle at the NUTS-3 level, and the square at the
national level). The size of the nodes represents the number of relationships involving an actor in proportion to its
degree centrality value.
The measurement of relationships reveals that the network is dense, as shown by the very high-
density indices, which represent, over the development period, more than half of the possible
combinations of relationships between actors. Indeed, if we see in 2015 a decrease in this
proportion of productive exchange relations between the actors, it then increases to become
denser again at the end of the period (in 2019).
In terms of individual influence in productive interactions, the measurement of centrality
indices shows that the players' positioning has not changed throughout evolution and
development of the network, between 2010 and 2019 (see Appendix 2).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
EPCI1
EPCI2
EPCI3
EPCI4
EPCI5
EPCI6
EPCI7
EPCI8
EPCI9
EPCI10
CA2
CA3
CNA1
CNA2
CNA3
CNA4
PFE
UT1
UT2
UT3
EntrP1
AgrP1
EntrP2
Betweenness centrality
2010 2015 2019
11
Figure 3: Measuring the influence of actors in the material and energy exchange
network
Legend: Figures 3 and 5 present the indices of centrality of intermediation (betweeness) and proximity (closeness),
characteristic of the positions and importance of the actors in the network structures. In terms of intermediarity,
the higher the value of this index, the more the actor is associated with it. The more he is positioned as a relay
intermediary with the most control over exchanges and interactions. Whereas actors with high values of proximity
centrality have a lower importance in the networks of relations, and on the contrary, the lower this value, the more
central the actor is and the easier it is to interact.
The PFE and the waste treatment plants (UT2) are mentioned by the participants as the central
actors with the most relationships in the anaerobic digestion production process (see Figure 2).
In charge of coordinating the operational implementation at all levels of the biogas project, the
PFE, together with the waste treatment plants, is the main intermediate player in the materials
and energy exchange network, as shown by its high value of centrality of intermediation (see
Figure 3). The waste collection centres owe this dominant position because (i) they organize
the transport of waste to the anaerobic digester digester, (ii) the relations they maintain directly
as relay collection points, downstream, with the farmers who come to recover part of the
compost. The stakeholders who participate the least in these exchanges of materials and energy
are the SMPF's customer partners, particularly non-member local authorities that bring waste,
and the companies that are customers of the co-products. Characterized by limited exchange
relationships (low degree of centrality) and higher proximity centrality values (see Figure 3),
these participants only interact with the network through relay actors.
4.2. The exchange network in terms of communication
The network of communication relations corresponds to the governance mechanism of the
territorial biogas project; it allows the dissemination of information and knowledge, gives the
possibility to the local populations to participate in its management, and lessen neighborhood
conflicts. The exchanges and interactions described here take place through face-to-face
dialogue and consultation at the deliberative assemblies of the SMPF, more or less formal
meetings and contacts, and at the regulatory meetings of the site monitoring commission.
This communication network takes a different form from that of the material and energy flows,
It was slightly denser during the first years of project implementation (see Figure 4). Still, the
communication interactions have stabilized at the same density level since 2015, while the
relations of productive exchanges of materials and energy became denser in 2019.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Closeness centrality
2010 2015 2019
12
2010 2015 2019
Density 0.681
Nber of clicks 286
2 2- clicks
Density 0.648
Nber of clicks 136
2 2- clicks
Density 0.648
Nber of clicks 118
2 2- clicks
Decision-making bodies and waste treatment plants Local authorities
Deconcentrated government services Residents' Association
Figure 4: Structural characteristics of the exchange network in terms of communication
Legend: the nodes of the networks represent the actors, the arcs their relations, the shape of the nodes corresponds
to the actors' scales of action (the circle at the local level, the triangle at the NUTS2 level, and the square at the
national level). The size of the nodes represents the number of relationships involving an actor in proportion to its
degree centrality value.
Only two cohesive subgroups
3
(2, 2 cliques) interact with each other during the evolution and
development of the project. The first is composed of the members of the site monitoring
commission involving the decision-making bodies of the project owner (SMPF), the Cavigny
town council, and the State technical services and the local residents' association in the
framework of the regulatory monitoring of the biogas project. The second brings together these
players and the local authorities that are members of the SMPF, which are waste suppliers. Only
one public stakeholder, SE4 (ADEME) participates in the first cohesive sub-group without
being a member of this commission: ADEME (French Agency of Environment and Energy).
This institutional structure plays an essential role in developing anaerobic digestion in France,
and communicates with the stakeholders through the other deconcentrated State services.
ADEME does not support the present biogas project. At the scale of the value chain of the
biogas production network, the two cohesive sub-groups overlap and are composed of almost
the same people and all the actors, from upstream to downstream of the biogas project: local
authorities supplying waste, professionals of the valorization of the by-products (except the
electricity customer company and the farmers using compost who each participate separately
in a single sub-group), decision making bodies and treatment establishments of the project
leader, waste managers.
This governance mechanism is organized around central stakeholders with high degree values
(see Figure 4 and Annex 3 for details). Among them, the PFE (participating in the exchanges
of materials and energy) and the executive board of the SMPF, both carrying the biogas project,
are established as relay actors with higher values of centrality of intermediation (Figure 5)
alongside the Cavigny town hall.
3
A cohesive subgroup is a subset of actors who are more connected to each other than to the rest of the network,
whereby an actor can participate in several cohesive subgroups at the same time. They can be identified in terms
of the number of subgroups (n-clicks, with n=2) (Borgatti, 2002).
13
Figure 5: Measuring the influence of actors in the exchange network in terms of
communication
Cavigny town hall represented by its mayor is the only community at the center of the
operational and regulatory governance of biogas. It is involved in thinking about mobilizing
inputs, product disposal, risk management, and local social acceptability. Its central role is
reinforced by its position as an ex-officio member of the site monitoring commission, for having
hosted the biogas installations. The local authorities involved in the project delegate their
functions to the SMPF, the public establishment that is the project leader, which manages their
waste. These authorities provide exchange of materials and energy. They also participate in
dialogue and consultation through their delegates on the trade union committee and the elected
members of the executive board (SMPF) who represent them at the deliberative assembly and
on the monitoring committees.
5. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNANCE OF
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION?
Our analysis of the networks of stakeholders in the Cavigny biogas project, first in terms of
material and energy exchanges and then in terms of communication relations, led us to identify
dense relational structures conducive to stakeholder cooperation and coordination and to
analyze how they relate to material flows. The high density of all the networks is indicative of
0
5
10
15
20
Betweenness centrality
2010 2015 2019
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Closeness centrality
2010 2015 2019
14
the strong group cohesion in the exchanges of biogas flows. Close professional relations
between actors 'facilitate the circulation of flows and the success of the territorial anaerobic
digestion biogas project (Bourdin & Nadou, 2020). The presence in the networks of only two
interdependent cohesive sub-groups confirms the stakeholders' sense of belonging to the same
project. Indeed, a limited number of subgroups is synonymous with solidarity and the
circulation of information and knowledge that strengthen social ties and facilitate collaboration
(Borgatti, 2002). This logic of belonging, linked to the geographical proximity of the actors,
enables the construction and consolidation of relational networks and the cohesion of the
network as a whole.
The results also reveal the importance of intermediation in developing interactions (Torre,
2014; Bourdin & Nadou, 2020). The intermediary actors (the PFE, the SMPF, and the Cavigny
town hall) maintain more or less strong communication relations with all the other stakeholders,
including those who participate the least in the interactions. Their role is all the more critical in
the productive and territorial interactions as they guarantee the efficient mobilization of material
resources to make the anaerobic digestion plant profitable (Wellinger et al., 2013) prevent any
conflicts or oppositions that may emerge. Thus, by ensuring the strategic coordination role of
the biogas project, they make communication, sharing of material and energy flows, as well as
the dissemination of information, knowledge, and collective learning possible (Wall & Paquin,
2015). They also foster the emergence and maintenance of trust relationships, often considered
as a decisive condition for the success of territorial renewable energy projects (Walker et al.,
2010 ; Bourdin et al., 2019), and industrial and territorial synergies between companies (Paquin
& Howard-Grenville, 2012). Our results confirm the results about the social acceptability of
wind energy projects (Devine-Wrigh, 2012), the synergy networks in industrial and territorial
ecology (Paquin & Howard-Grenville, 2012) or the role played by local authorities about the
development of biogas projects (Bourdin & Nadou, 2020).
However, this approach raises a question about the reproducibility and generalization of the
governance mode studied: each anaerobic digestion biogas project is specific to its territory and
its stakeholders, and transposition cannot be free of local realities of implementation (Asthon
& Bain, 2012). Beyond mobilizing inputs (local biomass), the territorial context should
encourage the interplay of stakeholders and the interactions. The multi-actor nature of the
network structure is not in itself a hindrance to the development of the biogas project but instead
enlarges the opportunities to activate the links between the actors. It reveals the influence of
geographical proximity in production partnerships and the participation of local authorities and
populations, which ensures the sustainability of the process. However, the collective action that
emerges is essentially based on the feeling of actors to belong to the same networks. It is also
basedon the sharing of similar references concerning environmental values of anaerobic
digestion. It also results from the integration of conflicting potentialities and the intermediaries'
role that structure the system and promote interactions through moments of exchange and
sharing of information. The challenge is to succeed in maintaining these modes of territorial
governance, which guarantee the effective mobilization of energy and communication flows
for the success of the project and the valorization of local biomass (Wellinger et al., 2013), in
the hope of reinforcing the emerging dynamics of cooperation and to avoid conflicts.
15
CONCLUSION
Today considered as one of the interesting territorial strategies for implementing the ecological
and energy transition, biogas relies for its success on the synergies between public and private
actors working together around shared challenges at a local scale. In this context, it is interesting
to evaluate the role of the interplay between actors and their governance to highlight their
possible contribution to the processes of innovation and sustainable territorial development.
The article contributes to identify and characterize, from a network approach, the links existing
between the actors of the biogas project to report on the structure of interactions in the territory.
It is based on the analysis of the multi-stakeholder interaction relationships built and developed
in a collaborative environment between the stakeholders of the territorial anaerobic digestion
project of the SMPF in Cavigny.
The results show the coexistence of two synergy networks, which correspond to material and
energy flow exchange relations and communication relations. They make it possible to account
for a relational context favorable to the cooperation and coordination of players as the biogas
project evolves and develops over time. The climate of trust between stakeholders was created
from the start of the project, then gradually strengthened within the networks, confirming that
trust and collective action may take several years to build (Chertow & Ehrenfeld, 2012).
One can wonder about the role played by these new territorial dynamics in the processes of
territorial development. Our social networks approach has allowed us to identify and discuss
the conditions of success and governance of biogas projects. Still, it is indeed challenging to
apply to spatial and territorial issues. It is necessary to go beyond the light it sheds on the
problems of coordination between actors and governance and find new ways to focus on the
emergence of new viable and sustainable projects compatible with a territorial development of
anaerobic digestion biogas.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Syndicat Mixte du Point Fort (SMPF) and the people and
structures that agreed to collaborate to this research. Our warmest thanks go to Emma
BOURSAULT for conducting the interviews and collecting the data that made this work
possible. This research has been funded by ADEME and PSDR programmes.
16
REFERENCES
Asheim, B., Isaksen, A., 2002. Regional innovation systems: The integration of local '''sticky'
and global '''ubiquitous' knowledge, Journal of Technology Transfer, 27, 77-86.
Ashton W. S., Bain A.C., 2012. Assessing the ""short mental distance"" in eco-industrial
networks. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 16, 70–82.
BECP, 2019. Commission de suivi de site du pôle environnement de Cavigny. Procès-verbal de
la réunion du 3 juillet 2019. Service de la coordination des politiques publiques et de l’appui
territorial, préfecture de la Manche, p.7.
Borgatti S.P., 2002. A Statistical method for comparing aggregate data across a priori groups,
Field Methods, 14(1), 88-107.
Bourdin S., Nadou F., 2020. The role of a local authority as a stakeholder encouraging the
development of biogas: A study on territorial intermediation. Journal of Environmental
Management, 258. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.110009.
Bourdin S., Torre A., 2020, The territorial big bang: which assessment about the territorial
reform in France? European Planning Studies
Bourdin, S., Colas, M., Raulin, F., 2019. Understanding the problems of biogas production
deployment in different regions: territorial governance matters too."" Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management, p. 1-19.
Boursault E., 2019. Analyse de la gouvernance territoriale de l’économie circulaire appliquée
au cas de la méthanisation. Mémoire de fin d’études, Agrosup Dijon, p.53.
Brullot, S., Maillefert, M., Joubert, J. (2014). Stratégies d’acteurs et gouvernance des
démarches d’écologie industrielle et territoriale. Développement durable et territoires.
Économie, géographie, politique, droit, sociologie, 5(1).
Camagni R., 1995. The concept of innovative milieu and its relevance for public policies in
European lagging regions. Papers in Regional Science, 74(4), 317-340.
Card Stuart K., Mackinlay, Jock D., Shneiderman, B., 1999. Readings in information
visualization: using vision to think, Academic Press, San Diego, USA.
Chertow M., 2000. Industrial symbiosis: Literature and taxonomy. Annual Review of Energy
and the Environment, 25, 313-337.
Chertow M., Ehrenfeld J., 2012. Organizing self-organizing systems. Journal of Industrial
Ecology, 16, 13-27.
Chodkowska-Miszczuk, J., Martinat, S., Cowell, R., 2019. Community tensions, participation,
and local development: factors affecting the spatial embeddedness of anaerobic digestion in
Poland and the Czech Republic. Energy Research & Social Science 55, 134–145.
Clemens J., Trimbornm M., Weiland P., Amon B., 2006, Mitigation of greenhouse gas
emissions by anaerobic digestion of cattle slurry. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, n°
112, p. 171-177.
Cook K. S., Hardin R., Levi M., 2005. Cooperation without trust? Russell Sage Foundation,
268p.
Cooke P., 2001. Regional Innovation Systems, Clusters, and the Knowledge Economy,
Industrial and Corporate Change. 10(4), 945-974.
17
Cruz Sara. C. S., Teixeira Aurora. A. C., 2010. The Evolution of the Cluster Literature:
Shedding Light on the Regional Studies-Regional Science Debate. Regional Studies 44 (9),
1263‑1288.
Devine-Wright, P., 2012. Fostering public engagement in wind energy development: the role
of intermediaries and community benefits. In: Szarka, J., Cowell, R., Ellis, G., Strachan, P.A.,
Warren, C. (Eds.), Learning from Wind Power: Governance, Societal and Policy Perspectives
on Sustainable Energy. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 194–214.
Diani M., 2003. Networks and Social Movements. A Research Programme, in Diani M., Doug
M. Social (eds), Movements and Networks. Relational Approaches to Collective Action.
Oxford University Press, 299-319.
Dupuy C., Torre A., 2006. Local Clusters, trust, confidence and proximity, in Pitelis C., Sugden
R., Wilson J. (eds.), Clusters and Globalisation: The Development of Urban and Regional
Economies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham UK, Northampton USA, 195p.
European commission, 2014. Communication from the commission to the European
parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the
regions. A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030. Brussels.
Ferreiro M. de F., Sousa C., 2018. Governance, institutions and innovation in rural territories:
The case of Coruche innovation network. Regional Science Policy and Practice, 11, 235-250
Fournis Y., Fortin M. J., 2017. From social 'acceptance'to social 'acceptability’of wind energy
projects: towards a territorial perspective. Journal of environmental planning and management,
60(1), 1-21.
Freeman L.C., 1979. Centrality in social networks: conceptual clarification. Social Networks,
1(3), 215-239.
Ghisellini P., Cialani C., Ulgiati S., 2016. A review on circular economy: the expected transition
to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleaner Production,
114, 11-32.
Giuliano, A., Gioiella, F., Sofia, D. Lotrecchiano, N., 2018. À novel methodology and
technology to promote the social acceptance of biomass power plants avoiding nimby
syndrome. Chemical Engineering Transactions, p. 67.
Granovetter M., 1985. Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.
American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.
Grossetti M., Barthe J-F., Chauvac N., 2011. Studying Relational Chains from Narrative
Material. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology, 110, 11–25.
Guenther-Lübbers W., Bergmann H., Theuvsen L., 2016. Potential analysis of the biogas
production - as measured by effects of added value and employment. Journal of cleaner
production, 129, 556-564.
Hewes A., & Lyons D., 2008. The humanistic side of eco-industrial parks: Champions and the
role of trust. Regional Studies, 42, 1329-1342.
Holm-Nielsen J. B., Al Seadi T., Oleskowicz-Popiel P., 2009. The future of anaerobic digestion
and biogas utilization. Bioresource technology, 10022, 5478-5484.
18
Keast, R. Brown, K., 2005. The network approach to evaluation: Uncovering patterns,
possibilities and pitfalls. Australasian Evaluation Society International Conference, South
Bank, Brisbane, 10-12 October 2005, p. 10.
Marsden, T. 2004. The Quest for Ecological Modernisation: Re-Spacing Rural Development
and Agri-Food Studies. SociologicaRuralis, 44(2), 129-146.
MTE, 2018. Plan de libération des énergies renouvelables, Groupe de travail "méthanisation.
Paris.
Newman, M. E. J., 2003. The Structure and Function of Complex Networks. SIAM Review,
45(2), 167-256.
Paquin R. L. Howard-Grenville J., 2012. The evolution of facilitated industrial symbiosis.
Journal of Industrial Ecology, 16(1), 83-93.
PFE, 2020. Rapport annuel sur le prix et la qualité du service public du traitement des déchets
2019. Point Fort Environnement, p. 28.
Polge E. Torre A., 2017. Territorial governance and proximity dynamics. The case of two public
policy arrangements in the Brazilian Amazon. Papers in Regional Science, 97(4), 909- 929.
Reed, M.S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., et al., 2009. Who’s
in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J.
Environ. Manag. 90 (5), 1933–1949.
Rey-Valette, H., Lardon, S., Chia, E., 2008. Governance–institutional and learning plans
facilitating the appropriation of sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable
Development, 11(2-4), 101-114.
Rosado L., Niza S., Ferrão P., 2014. An urban material flow accounting case study of the Lisbon
Metropolitan Area using the Urban Metabolism Analyst method. Journal of Industrial Ecology
18(1): 84-101.
Sabidussi, Gert (1966). The centrality index of a graph. Psychometrika, 31(4), 581-603.
Song, Z., Zhang, C., Yang, G., Feng, Y., Ren, G., Han, X., 2014. Comparison of biogas
development from households and medium and large-scale biogas plants in rural China. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 33, 204–213.
Sousa, C., 2012. Using social network analysis to study entrepreneurship: Methodological
issues, in Salavisa, I., Fontes, M., (eds), Social networks, Innovation and the Knowledge
Economy, Routledge, London and New York.
Ter Wal A., Boschma R., 2009. Applying Social Network Analysis in Economic Geography:
Framing Some Key Analytic Issues. The Annals of Regional Science 43(3), 739-756.
Torre A., 2019, Territorial development and proximity relationships, in Capello R. and Nijkamp
P. (eds.), Handbook of Regional and Development Theories, 2nd edition, Edward Elgar
Publishers, Cheltenham, 674 p.
Torre, A., 2014. Proximity relations at the heart of territorial development processes: from
clusters, spatial conflicts and temporary geographical proximity to territorial governance. In:
Torre, A., Wallet, F. (Eds.), Regional Development and Proximity Relations. Edward Elgar.
19
Torre, A., Polge, E., Wallet, F., 2019. Proximities and the role of relational networks in
innovation: The case of the dairy industry in two villages of the “green municipality” of
Paragominas in the Eastern Amazon. Regional Science Policy & Practice. 11, 279-294.
Torre A., Rallet A., 2005, Proximity and localization, Regional Studies, 39, 1, 47-60.
Torre A., Traversac J.B. (eds), 2011, Territorial Governance. Local Development, Rural Areas
and Agrofood Systems, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg & N. York.
Torre A. Wallet F., 2013. Innovation and governance of rural territories, in Coudel E.,
Devautour H., Soulard C.T., Faure G., Hubert B. (eds), Renewing Innovation Systems in
Agriculture and Food: How to go towards more sustainability?, Wageningen Academic
Publishers, 240.
Torre A. Wallet F., 2016. Regional Development in Rural Areas. Analytical tools and Public
policies, Springer Briefs in Regional Science, Springer, 110.
Torre A. Zuindeau, B., 2009. Proximity Economics and Environment: Assessment and
Prospects. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 52, 1-24.
Walker, G., D-W., P., Hunter, S., High, H., Evans, B., 2010. Trust and community: Exploring
the meanings, contexts and dynamics of community renewable energy. Energy Policy, 38(6),
2655-2663.
Wall D. M., McDonagh S., Murphy J. D., 2017. Cascading biomethane energy systems for
sustainable green gas production in a circular economy. Bioresource Technology, 243, 1207-
1215.
Walls, J. L., Paquin, R. L., 2015. Organizational perspectives of industrial symbiosis: A review
and synthesis. Organization and Environment, 28(1), 32–53.
Wasserman, S., Faust, K., 1994. Social network analysis: Methods and applications, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Wellinger, A., Murphy, J.D., Baxter, D. (Eds.), 2013. The Biogas Handbook: Science,
Production and Applications. Elsevier.
Winter, M. (2006), Rescaling rurality: Multilevel governance of the agro-food sector, Political
Geography, Vol 25(7), 735–751.
Zemo K. H., Panduro T. E., Termansen M., 2019. Impact of biogas plants on rural residential
property values and implications for local acceptance. Energy Policy, 129, 1121-1131.
20
ANNEX 1 : INTERVIEW DETAILS
Categories of
actors
Structure/Organisation
Ref.
Number of
interviews/Function
Date of
interview
Project leader
Executive committee
SMPF
(1) President
(1) Former President
(3) Vice-presidents
12/06/2019
04/06/2019
12/06/2019
Technical direction
PFE
(1) Director
(1) Deputy director
(1) Head of communication
05/04/2019
03/06/2019
Biogas plant
UT1
(1) Director
Waste disposal sites
UT2
(1) Director
Sorting plants
UT3
(1) Director
Local
authorities
Saint-Lô Agglo
EPCI1
(1) Mayor
20/05/2019
Coutances Mer et Bocage
EPCI2
(1) President of the local
authorities assembly
12/06/2019
Baie du Cotentin
EPCI3
(1) Mayor
06/06/2019
Villedieu Intercom
EPCI4
(1) Mayor
25/05/2019
Côte Ouest Centre Manche
EPCI5
(1) Mayor
06/06/2019
Cavigny town hall
CA1
(1) Mayor
17/06/2019
Co-product
recovery
professionals
Customer company compost
EntrP1
(1) Sales manager
03/06/2019
Electricity customer
company
EntrP2
(1) Sales manager
03/06/2019
Farmers using compost
AgrP1
(3) Heads of holdings
10/06/2019
Government/Sta
te services
Préfecture de la Manche
SE1
(1) Waste project manager
13/06/2019
DREAL
SE2
(1) Inspector
05/06/2019
ARS
SE3
(1) Former inspector
13/06/2019
ADEME
SE4
(1) Engineer
13/06/2019
Residents
Association « Vivre au pays
de Daye »
Asso
(1) President
17/06/2019
21
ANNEX 2: MEASURES OF CENTRALITIES IN THE MATERIAL AND ENERGY
EXCHANGE NETWORK
Degree
Closeness
Betweeness
2010
2015
2019
2010
2015
2019
2010
2015
2019
EPCI1
15
9
8
27
23
14
0
0
0
EPCI2
15
9
8
27
23
14
0
0
0
EPCI3
15
9
8
27
23
14
0
0
0
EPCI4
15
9
8
27
23
14
0
0
0
EPCI5
15
9
8
27
23
14
0
0
0
EPCI6
15
9
0
27
23
0
0
0
0
EPCI7
15
0
0
27
0
0
0
0
0
EPCI8
15
0
0
27
0
0
0
0
0
EPCI9
15
0
0
27
0
0
0
0
0
EPCI10
15
0
0
27
0
0
0
0
0
CA2
15
0
0
27
0
0
0
0
0
CA3
15
0
0
27
0
0
0
0
0
CNA1
2
2
0
40
30
0
0
0
0
CNA2
2
2
0
40
30
0
0
0
0
CNA3
2
2
0
40
30
0
0
0
0
CNA4
0
2
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
PFE
20
15
10
22
17
12
39
32
6,5
UT1
17
11
10
25
21
12
12
7,33
6,5
UT2
20
15
10
22
17
12
45
35,83
9,5
UT3
15
9
8
27
23
14
0
0
0
EntrP1
4
4
4
38
28
18
1,5
1,5
1,5
AgrP1
2
2
2
41
31
21
0
0
0
EntrP2
2
2
2
41
31
21
0
0
0
22
APPENDIX 3: MEASURES OF CENTRALITIES IN THE NETWORK OF
COMMUNICATION RELATIONSHIPS
Degree
Closeness
Betweeness
2010
2015
2019
2010
2015
2019
2010
2015
2019
EPCI1
15
9
8
26
20
19
0
0
0
EPCI2
15
9
8
26
20
19
0
0
0
EPCI3
15
9
8
26
20
19
0
0
0
EPCI4
15
9
8
26
20
19
0
0
0
EPCI5
15
9
8
26
20
19
0
0
0
EPCI6
15
9
0
26
20
0
0
0
0
EPCI7
15
0
0
26
0
0
0
0
0
EPCI8
15
0
0
26
0
0
0
0
0
EPCI9
15
0
0
26
0
0
0
0
0
EPCI10
15
0
0
26
0
0
0
0
0
CA1
19
13
12
21
15
14
18
9,2
7,7
CA2
15
0
0
26
0
0
0
0
0
CA3
15
0
0
26
0
0
0
0
0
BE-SMPF
19
13
12
21
15
14
18
9,2
7,7
PFE
19
13
12
21
15
14
18
9,2
7,7
UT1
17
11
10
23
17
16
7,2
3,6
3
SE1
8
8
8
32
20
18
7,5
5,1
4,7
SE2
7
7
7
33
21
19
4,9
3,1
2,8
SE3
7
7
7
33
21
19
4,9
3,1
2,8
SE4
3
3
3
49
21
28
0
0
0
Asso
7
7
7
33
31
19
0,4
0,4
0,4
