Constance Carr

Luxembourg Sustainable Spatial Development Policy:

General Milestones and Circuits (SUSTAINLUX)

Funded by FNR (CO9/SR/01)

Working Paper 2

Luxembourg, September 2011

Laboratoire de Géographie et

Aménagement du Territoire

www.geo.ipse.uni.lu

ConstanceCarr

Page|2

LuxembourgSustainableSpatialDevelopmentPolicy:GeneralMilestonesandCircuits

ConstanceCarrincollaborationwithMarkusHesseandChristianSchulzGeographyandSpatialPlanningResearchCentre,UniversityofLuxembourg

supportedbythe

FondsNationaldelaRechercheLuxembourg

ABSTRACT

ThereisawealthofplanningliteraturethataddressessustainabledevelopmentinLuxembourg. As planners are confrontedwithfindingwaystomanagegrowth,sus-tainable development as a normativepointofdeparturepermeatesall levelsofplanning in Luxembourg. Theprimary ob-ject of this working paper is to map thetrajectories of sustainable developmentliterature in Luxembourg, while focussingon more recent turns in locally specificeconomic (post-industrial) and infrastruc-tural(housingandtransport)restructuringin Luxembourg. It is also the goal of thispapertocontextualisethesedocumentsinthe specific discourses out of which theywere born. Methods included documentscreening, and grounded theory basedinterviewsthatwerelatertranscribedandcoded. In so doing, the discourse aroundsustainable development policy could bereconstructed and analysed. It was seenthat the mobility of policies through themulti-scalar and cross-national and simul-taneously micro-level governance struc-tures poses many obstructions to imple-mentation of sustainable developmentpolicies.

ConstanceCarr

Page|3

CONTENTSForeword_________________________ 3

Introduction______________________ 4

Methods_________________________ 6

Internationaldiscourses_____________ 9

PlanNationalpourunDeveloppementDurable(PNDD)____________________10

TheLeipzigCharter _________________12

Lux2020__________________________13

Nationaldiscourses _______________ 14

LegalFoundations__________________15

TheProgrammeDirecteur____________18

Transport_________________________20PlanDirecteurSectorielTransport(PST)_ 21IntegrativesVerkehrs-undLandesentwicklungskonzept(IVL)______ 22Mobil2020andPlannationalepourunemobilitédouce_____________________ 25

Housing __________________________25PlanDirecteurSectoriel“Logement”(PSL)27LePacteLogement _________________ 28

DiscourseSynthesis_________________30Luxembourgmaybesmallbutitisnotanisland____________________________ 31IntegrationversusLocalAutonomy ____ 32TopDownvs.Bottom-upParadox _____ 33DividedandConquered______________ 34

Conclusion_______________________ 35

References&FurtherReadings______ 38

FOREWORDThe Government of Luxembourg’s FondsNational de la Recherche is actively en-gaged in generating quality scientific re-search across six thematic domains. Thisresearch intends to satisfy the objectivesoutlined in the CORE Thematic ResearchPriority of “Sustainable Resource Man-agement in Luxembourg,” andmore pre-cisely, to the thematic research prioritiesdescribed in “Spatial andUrbanDevelop-ment” (Fonds National de la RechercheLuxembourg 2010: 10).Given recent eco-nomic and demographic developmentdynamicsandthestrongpressureonland-use,SUSTAINLUXfocusesonanevaluationoftheexistingplanningpolicyinstrumentsand governance patterns in respect tospatialdevelopmentintheGrandDuchyingeneral, and of housing policy andtransport in particular. This FNR COREfunded project shall provide informationabout the strengths and weaknesses ofcurrentpolicytools,andhencerevealpo-tentially new tools and approaches tomore sustainable spatial developmentpolicies.

Theresearchwasconceived incooper-ation with the Helmholtz-Zentrum fürUmweltforschung in Leipzig,who simulta-neouslysubmittedaprojectproposalcon-cerningsustainabilityandgovernanceandEuropean Union water policies to theBundesministerium für Bildung und For-schung–whichhas sincebeenapproved.A draft of this project ideawas also pre-sentedtoboththeConseilSupérieurpourunDéveloppementDurable(CSDD)aswellas to the Conseil Supérieur del’Aménagement du Territoire (CSAT), twoindependent think tanks and advisorycouncils gathering a great variety of non-governmentalactorsinLuxembourg.Bothcouncils signalled their strong interest in

ConstanceCarr

Page|4

thisprojectandofferedpracticalsupport,openness to participatory observation,and assistance with the identification ofinterview partners, organisation of groupdiscussions, access to relevant data anddocumentsforthereconstructionofpolicyprocesses.

Special thanks are extended to Profes-sorsMarkusHesseandChristianSchulzfortheircontinualcommitmentandsolidarityto,andfeedbackon,theSUSTAINLUXpro-ject. Special recognition and appreciationis also extended to Prof. Robert Krueger,whoalsoextendedcontinualsupportdur-inghisstayasaVisitingScholarattheUni-versity of Luxembourg. The research pre-sented here also rested on the co-operation of a variety of interviewees,whose names can only be published incamera,butwhoseparticipationisgreatlyappreciated.TheSUSTAINLXteamhasalsohad the pleasure to welcome Dr. UrsMaier and Hazel Confait for their tran-scription services during the summer of2011.Dr.Maier’scriticalandconstructivefeedbackwasalsoverymuchvalued.

TheSUSTAINLUXprojecthasalsobene-fitted from further feedback generatedfrom the Laboratorymeetings of the Ge-ography and Spatial Planning ResearchCentreat theUniversityof Luxembourg. Ialsofoundgreathelpfromnetworkssuchas the Regional Studies Association Re-search Network for Ecological RegionalDevelopment. Here, acknowledgementsmust be extended to Prof. David Gibbs,Prof.BernhardMüller,andDr.GerdLintz.Iam also grateful for the feedback I re-ceived from Cologne-Luxembourg Ph.D.colloquium,hostedbyProf.BorisBraunattheInstituteofGeographyattheUniversi-ty of Cologne. Last but not least, I thankTom Becker of the Cellule nationaled’Information pour la Politique Urbaine

(CIPU) for helping me navigate throughLuxembourgishsocialspace.

The purpose of the overarching SUS-TAINLUXstudy is to identifydevelopmenttrends and ascertain the impacts andpo-tential of existing and forthcoming plan-ning instruments.Theobjective is thus togenerate and provide valuable infor-mation concerning patterns of policy-making,decision-making,andgovernance,as well as configurations of social spatialtransformationtoplanners,relevantprac-titioners, and other interested parties. Atthesametime,ourfindingswillcontributetothebroaderinternationaldiscussiononsustainabledevelopment.

This document constitutes the secondof five working papers generatedthroughoutthecourseoftheresearch.

INTRODUCTIONLuxembourg’s growth pressures oc-

curred at a timewhen sustainable devel-opment as a planning paradigm wasreaching international recognition, perva-siveness,andpermanency.Inrhythmwiththis tune, sustainable development hasenteredLuxembourgplanningdiscourseatall levels of government and civil society.While a search for “sustainable develop-ment” (developpement durable) amongthe national law archives (atwww.legilux.public.lu) will show that theterm was sporadically mentioned in twogovernmental documents prior to the1990s, over three hundred documentswere found in the period between 1999and 2010, indicating that something haschangedinplanningpolicyinLuxembourgand that sustainable development hadsomethingtodowithit.

AlongsidethisdevelopmentwithinLux-embourg, discourses beyond Luxembourg

ConstanceCarr

Page|5

werebecomingmoreandmorecriticalofurban and regional sustainability, andthere is a growing claim for rethinking itscentral assumptions. A poignant quotefrom Erik Swyngedow in The SustainableDevelopment Paradox: Urban PoliticalEconomy in theUnitedStatesandEurope(Krueger and Gibbs 2007) revealed theproblematicplasticityoftheterm:

“...Greenpeace is in favour, GeorgeBushJr.andSr.,theWorldBankanditschairman(aprimewarmongerinIraq) are, the Pope is,my son Arnois,therubbertappersintheBrazilianAmazon are, Bill Gates is, the laborunions are...” (Swyngedouw 2007:20).

Thefactthateveryoneisforsustainabilityposes a post-political condition that pre-cludesanyrealpoliticoftheenvironment,Swyngedouw further argued (2007: 13).This critique is principally based on com-parableargumentsastothegeneric,non-specific discourse on sustainable devel-opment. As Voss et al. (2007: 194) put it(paraphrased): the goals of sustainabledevelopment are ambivalent, the contex-tual knowledge needed towards its prac-tice is highly uncertain, and the powersable to implement sustainable objectivesare highly distributed. This corroboratesthegrowingwealthofinternationallitera-ture that is critical of the subject of sus-tainability(KruegerandGibbs2007).

It is curious that despite these short-comings in the international literature,sustainable development prevails as aconcept thatpermeatesall levelsofplan-ning in Luxembourg. The Brundtland-Report Our Common Future (United Na-tions 1987: 54) hallmarked the first timethatconsiderationofthenon-humanenvi-ronment as well as thewell-being of the

earth’s future inhabitantsasofequal val-ue to economic and social development,and sustainable development became aframework that would be further devel-oped in later meetings such as in Rio deJaneiro (UnitedNations1992), the Johan-nesburg Summit (United Nations 2003),and the Framework Convention for Cli-mate Change (UnitedNations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change 1992), toname a few. Luxembourg, too, followedsuitandsustainabledevelopmentbecameattheforefrontofurbanandregionalpol-icyinitiativeswith,forexample,thepubli-cation of the Plan National pour un Dé-veloppement Durable (Ministère del’Environnement 1999; Ministerium fürNachhaltige Entwicklung und Infra-strukturen and Spangenberg 2011) theProgrammeDirecteur d’Aménagement duTerritoire (Ministère de l’Intérieur 2003),and the various sector plans that havesince followed. All of these documentsexplicitly pronounce sustainable develop-ment as a primary planning target. Yetwithin Luxembourg, contradictory pro-cessesareeasilyobservable, and interna-tionally many maintain that things havegottenworse, not better since 1987 (Jor-dan 2008: 17). These include the rapidgrowth of outlying municipalities insideand outside of its national borders (Leick2009:53;Sohnand Jacoby2009:60), thetight private property market and lowrental vacancy rates (Beyer 2009: 182),the social and environmental pressuresresulting from commuter flows (Beckerand Hesse 2010: 2), and the cheap gaso-line prices (Thöne 2008: 12; Beyer2009:138) and the related national foot-print (Conseil Supérieur pour un Dé-veloppement Durable and Global Foot-printNetwork2010).They signal that thethree-legged-stool of sustainability re-mainsunevenlybalancedasitwasbefore.

ConstanceCarr

Page|6

Thispaperhasadualpurpose.Firstly,itwill provide the reader with a review ofmorerecentturnsinenvironmentalpolicycloselyrelatedtolocallyspecificeconomic(post-industrial)and infrastructural (hous-ingandtransport)restructuringinLuxem-bourg. This will include a review of whatthe individual policy documentswere de-signed to accomplish, and their relation-ship to the normative of sustainable spa-tialdevelopment.Secondly, thesepolicieswillbepositionedinthewiderorbitalsys-temsofLuxembourgishsustainabledevel-opment policy-making: the internationalstage and the internal national arena. Bystratifying the policy-making process inthis way, it can clearly be seen how andwhichgoverningbodiesareinvolved,howthese policies were conceptualised bytheir designers and perceived by otherstake-holders less directly involved, andconflicts aswell as barriers to implemen-tation of sustainable development normscanbeexposed.

METHODSTheresearchforthispaperwasatwo-

stepprocessthat:first,involvedcollectingrelevant planning documents in Luxem-bourg;andsecond,restedondatacollect-ed from qualitative conversational inter-views.

Theselectedinfluentialdocumentsthatwere formed at the international level,were the Brundtland Report, the LeipzigCharter, and strategies of Lisbon, Göte-burg,andEurope2020.Thesesparkedpol-icy responseswithin Luxembourg such asthe “Plan National pour un Developpe-ment Durable” (PNDD) (Ministère deL’Environnement 2000) and the Luxem-bourg2020strategy.

At the national level, there were vari-ous policy initiatives that addressed sus-

tainable development planning trajecto-ries across the Grand Duchy: an all en-compassing planning law was introducedin 1999 (loi du mai 1999 concernantl’aménagement du territoire), and thisdocument set up the legal and governingframework for the “ProgrammeDirecteurd’Aménagement du Territoire” (Ministèrede l’Intérieur 2003:5). This latter docu-ment provided an overarching spatial vi-sion along which growth in Luxembourgcouldbemanaged.Four“Planssectoriels”(for transport, housing, landscapes, andeconomiczones),whichwereanchoredinthesenational directives, further referredtomorespecificplanninggoals.Itmustbenoted, however, that only draft versionsof the Sector Plans were available forstudy: The final versions are due to ac-quire legal status as Réglements Grand-Ducales in 2012 – second level nationallaws that do not require a vote in theChamberofDeputies,but takeprecedentovermunicipallaw.

Thescopeofgovernmentalpolicydoc-uments that address the many themesumbrellaedbysustainabledevelopmentiswide and diversified. A variety of cross-ministerial andcross-societal groupshavebeen working on various projects to ad-dress emissions reduction or economicinstabilityormobilityofhumancapitalora variety of other socioeconomic and/orenvironmentalproblems,theameloriationofwhichcanbeargued tobetterourhu-man environment for the benefit of ourchildren’s children. “L’EmpreinteÉcologique du Luxembourg” showed thatif the entire world lived like the averageLuxembourger, 12 planets would be re-quired (Conseil Supérieur pour un Dé-veloppement Durable and Global Foot-printNetwork2010:6). “Partenariatpourl’environnement et le climat” is a cross-societalinitiativetolookatwaysofreach-

ConstanceCarr

Page|7

ing climate control goals. Other non-governmentalmilieuxinclude,butarenotlimited to, Friends of the Earth Luxem-bourg (Movement Écologique), Green-peace, Caritas, Climate Alliance Luxem-bourg,Action Solidarité TiersMonde, andtheUniversityofLuxembourg,theUniver-sity of Luxembourg’s Sustainable Devel-opment Working Group, and the GlobalDevelopment Rights Framework Luxem-bourg. Furthermore, a comprehensive listofbusinessesactiveinLuxembourgonthetopicofsustainabledevelopment insomeway, shape,or form, canbe foundat thewebsiteoftheMovementÉcologique–theorganizationthathostsannualeco-fairsatthe LuxExpo on Kirchberg. At the fair, awide ranging variety of actors presenttheir work. Together, these organizationsform a wide-reaching network of tradeandcommercewhoseprimaryobjectiveisthe creation and distribution of productsthat support theobjectivesof sustainabledevelopmentdefinedastherecognitionofclosedecosystemcirculatory systemsandthe protection of natural resources(MovementÉcologique2010).

Intermsofplanningandurbanandre-gional development specifically, theDépartement de l’aménagement du terri-toire of theMinistère du DéveloppementdurableetdesInfrastructuresistheprima-ry administrative body of the nationalgovernment that orchestrates spatialplans for all of Luxembourg. Their dutiesare to carry out the directives ratified inthe Chamber. The documents that theyproducewillplayacentralrole inthispa-per. Their work arises in close co-operation with the Department of Geog-raphy and Development of the researchinstitution, CEPS/INSTEAD, who also pro-duce high quantities of documents con-cerning spatial planning in the GrandDuchy. Of particular note is the work of

L’Observatoire de l´Habitat, which docu-ments transformation trends across all116municipalities.

Sustainabledevelopment isahot topicinLuxembourgthat isbeingassessedandaddressed by a wide variety of govern-mental, non-governmental, private, andsemi-privateactors,who,attheveryleast,iftheyarenotdemocraticallyelectedoffi-cials, are public opinion and capacitybuilding bodies. The project of SUS-TAINLUX acknowledges these processesbutcannotaddresseachof thediscursivepolicy-making spheres. However, by fo-cussing on the nexus of housing andtransport and the development patternstherein: a) an examination of the threespheres of sustainable development froma spatial perspective is possible; and b) areasonableandstructured3-yearresearchprocessispermitted.

With respect to housing, two recentdocuments are of particular interest: thePlan Sectoriel Logement (PSL) (MinistèredesClassesMoyennes,duTourismeetduLogement andMinistère de l’Intérieur etdel’AménagementduTerritoire2009)andthe "Pacte Logement” (PL) (Ministère duLogement 2008). Concerning transport,therearethreepolicies:thePlanSectorielTransport(PST)(MinistèredesTransports,Ministère de l’Environnement, Ministèrede l’Intérieur et de l’Aménagement duTerritoire, andMinistère des Travaux Pu-blics 2008b), the Integratives Verkehrs-undLandesentwicklungskonzept (IVL) (Mi-nistèredel’Intérieur(DATUR)2004b),andMobil2020 (Ministère de l’Environnement2009).

The second part of the research pro-cess involved conversational interviewswith key actors (pro and contra) in theLuxembourg field of spatial planning and

ConstanceCarr

Page|8

development. One hour conversationalinterviews were thus performed withplanners, geographers, journalists, activ-ists, home buyers, and government offi-cials.Thisarrayof interviewpartnerswasconceived as a series of preliminary andexploratory interviewsdesignedtoinformthe researchers of some of the historicalcontextof theplanningdocumentsunderexamination.Atotalofthirteeninterviewswere performed under the conditions ofinformed consent.All informationprovid-edwasdonesovoluntarily,andinaccord-ancewith internationally recognised ethi-cal standards related to the collection,analysis and documentation of peoplerelateddata.

The interviewsweremeticulously tran-scribed, capturing eachword, pause, andstutter. These records are kept locked inthe offices of the Geography and SpatialPlanningResearchCentreattheUniversityof Luxembourg. TheRichText File formatversionswereentered intoatextanalysisprocessor called MAXQDA, which func-tions essentially as an electronic sticky-note system. The texts were thoroughlycodedfortopical,normative,epistemolog-ical, and impressionistic characteristics –each category containing a up to 8 sub-categories(sub-codes),andofthosesomehas sub-sub-categories as well. Suitablepassages for a future Q-study were alsoearmarked. In this way, the interviewtranscriptions could be thoroughly cata-loguedandarchived,forsystematicanaly-sis,andresultswouldbeanchoredinqual-itativeGroundedTheoryapproaches(Cre-swell 2009:13; Carr, Hesse, and Schulz2010:19). The interviewees were thengiven code names for the purposes ofquotationandreferencing. Inthe instanc-es that the interviews, or sections of theinterviews, were performed in French orGerman, quotes from the transcriptwere

translated in English before inserted intothispaper.

Thefindingspresentedinthispaperareconsidered preliminary and basis-formingforfurtherresearch.Themethodsencom-passedadocumentsurveyandanassort-ment of interviews of actors who posi-tioned themselves in variousways in andaround the topic of sustainable spatialdevelopment. Luxembourg is an ideal la-boratory for such studies because of itsmodest territorial and population size.With a population of just over 500,000 itis, indeed, conceivable to, in time, reachallrelevantactors.ForthisWorkingPaper,23 individualswere contacted and it waspossible to plan 13 of them within thetimeframeathand.Whileahigherrateofreturn would have been desirable, 13 isindeedenoughforpreliminaryfindings,asmany were top-ranking officials in theirfield(thelistisconfidential).Furthermore,it must be noted that those interviewedconstitute only a specific milieu of theLuxembourg sustainable developmentpolicy-makingdiscourse. First, sustainabledevelopment is already, in general, awidely discussed topic in Luxembourgspanning agricultural practices to biodi-versity to energy to economics, the SUS-TAINLUXprojectfocusesonlyontheinter-section of housing and transport as theyrelate to the three-pillared normative.Second,ofthe23itcanbenotedthatno-one, unfortunately, from the housing-policy sphere volunteered to participate.Third, all but one of the 13 interviewedwere Luxembourg citizens, thereby ren-deringtheresultsreflectiveofthesustain-able development policy goals as definedbyhalfoftheresidentpopulationatmost.Thus, while the document survey is con-sidered herewith complete, the interviewprocess will continue over the course oftheSUSTAINLUXproject,anditisexpected

ConstanceCarr

Page|9

that further interviewswillbeconducted,thereby generating stillmoredata for fu-tureWorkingPapers. The interviews con-ducted and processed thus far are usedand evaluated for their impressionisticvalue.

INTERNATIONALDISCOURSESJust as Luxembourg has been actively

involvedintheformationofmanyinterna-tional and European-wide institutions(Chilla 2009a), so too, has Luxembourgbeeninvolvedinmanyoftheinternationaltreaties concerning sustainability. Inaddi-tiontotheRioDeclarationprocessesthatfollowed the Brundtland Report, Luxem-bourg participated in theViennaConven-tionin1988,andsignedtheMontrealPro-tocol in 1987 towards the protection oftheozonelayer.Aswell,Luxembourgwaspresentat theUnitedNationsFrameworkConvention on Climate Change in 1994,andalongwith38othercountries,signedtheKyoto agreement in 1997; thus, com-mitting themselves to the reduction ofgreenhousegas(GHG)emissionsby2012.Specifically,thismeantareductionofGHGtargetof -28%relativeto1990(Ministèrede l’Environnement 2006a: 7). At the Eu-ropean level, Luxembourgwasalsoactivein discussions concerning sustainable de-velopment. It signed the Lisbon Strategy,theobjectiveofwhichwastofindwaystostrengthentheEuropeanUnionasacom-petitive and knowledge-based economywithmore jobs, stronger social cohesion,and sustainable economic growth (Euro-peanCommission2010b:2),aswellastheGothenburg Strategy, which was devel-oped a year later to augment the formersuch that, “social policy underpins eco-nomicperformance,andthatenvironmen-tal policy is cost-effective,” (Commissionof the European Communities 2001: 2).The Leipzig Charter for Sustainable Euro-

pean Cities and Europe2020 were alsosignificantpoliciesforLuxembourg.

Several respondents in our interviewscommented that during the 1980s and1990s, Luxembourg went through a dualprocess of, first, reindustrialization (Inter-view with Government Official, June 30,2011, Luxembourg; Interview with Gov-ernment Official, July 15, 2011, Luxem-bourg; Interview with Government Offi-cial, July21,2011,Luxembourg)– that is,the restructuring of the steel industrywithin Luxembourg and thereby retainingits position as amagnet for internationallabour (Interview with Government Offi-cial, June 30, 2011, Luxembourg) – andsecond, economic tertiarization as thefinancial sector began to boom and thusengaged still newerpatternsof economiccross-border in and out migration (Inter-view with Government Official, June 30,2011,Luxembourg).Duringtheseyears, itwas becoming apparent that the existingplanning laws were neither capable ofaddressing the changing infrastructuralneedsofthecountry,nordidtheyprovidemechanisms through which inter-municipal as well as extra-national chal-lenges could be sufficiently co-ordinated.Oneintervieweecommented:

“...overtheninetiestowardstheendof the nineties and especially thebeginningofthenewcentury,therewas a clear common understandingthat we definitely had now to becarefulaboutourdevelopment.”(in-terview with Government Official,July15,2011,Luxembourg).

A new planning approach was necessaryto manage the emerging problems. Yet,just as Luxembourg’s small populationwasn’t able of providing thewo/manpower for the steel and financial

ConstanceCarr

Page|10

industries, the problem of deficient do-mestic competencies existed for policy-makingaswell.Thispeculiarcharacteristicof Luxembourg, which reflects itself as amodestly populated nation well posi-tioned in the Schengen area of Europe,wasnotedonbyseveralofourinterview-ees. One indicative comment from an in-terviewee,forexample,explained:

“Luxembourg, as a country, has al-waysunderstoodEuropeasaprojectwithmanypossibilities. For them, ithasneverbeenthezerosumgame.... For Luxembourg, it has alwaysbeengiveandgetcompetences,butwegowith thecompetences to theupperlevelandwetrytoinfluenceitthere,andhasbeenquitesuccessfulindoingit,andthatcouldbeforspa-tial development too,“ (interviewwith Applied Geographer, June 27,2011,Luxembourg).

Or,asanotherexplained:

“Luxembourgisaverysmallcountry,and on the European level you gotthe opportunity to see the differ-ence in planning cultures betweenthe North and the South. That wasfor us very interesting,” (interviewwith Government Official, July 21,2011,Luxembourg).

The European level provided a logicalvenue for Luxembourgish politicians tolearn, exchange, and generate policymechanisms.

Through this seemingly circular policy-making process, activists and politiciansgenuinely concerned for the non-humanlivingenvironmentwereabletobringen-vironmental concerns to the Europeannegotiating table. In the1980sand1990senvironmental movements were becom-

ingmoreandmorevocalinsideofLuxem-bourg. Again, through information ex-change and solidarity of internationalconnections,organizationssuchasGreen-peace and Mouvement Ecologique(Friends of the Earth Luxembourg) wereraising concerns of limited natural re-sources and economic development, pro-tection of biodiversity and green spaces,and nuclear power. These discussions,unfolding alongside the tertiarization andreindustrialization of the Luxembourgeconomy, came to form significant publicopinion building bodies within the rela-tively small and horizontal political struc-tureofLuxembourg.

Also in the 1990s, the Department ofSpatial Planning was formed within theMinistryoftheEnvironment.Planningwasthus seen as amechanism to address so-cial and environmental concerns. Luxem-bourgishplanners,then,werethuspoisedto argue for a sustainable developmentnormativeattheEuropeanlevel.

Plan National pour un DeveloppementDurable(PNDD)

As a result of policies circulating be-tweenthenationalandinternationallevel,the major international policy milestonesconcerningsustainabledevelopment, thatimpacted Luxembourg, were reached. Alargedelegationwas sent to theRio con-ference in1992: Itwasoneof the largestdelegationsat theconference in termsofperson numbers, and undoubtedly thelargest measured per capita. After theUnitedNation’smeeting,thePlanNation-alpourunDeveloppementDurable(PNDD)(National Plan for Sustainable Develop-ment) (Ministère de L’Environnement2000; Ministère de l’Environnement2006a) became the national governmentof Luxembourg’s response to the Agen-da21commitmentsmade inRio. It culmi-

ConstanceCarr

Page|11

natedinthepublicationandcirculationofthe “PNDD Luxembourg: EinNachhaltigesLuxemburg für mehr Lebensqualität” inMay 2011 (Ministerium für NachhaltigeEntwicklung und Infrastrukturen andSpangenberg2011).

Initially, the Ministry of Environment

maintainedthatthepillarsofsustainabilityasoutlinedintheBruntlandcouldprovidethe framework for development in Lux-embourg, to address the specific set ofchallenged faced as a result of economicrestructuring (Ministère deL’Environnement 2000), and the firstdrafts of the document contained strate-gies of implementation, which involveengaging in (further) international co-operation, managing of spatial planning,supporting local municipalities in theirefforts towards local implementation ofnationaldirectives,mobilizingcommunica-tionsystemstowardsthedisseminationofinformation, and reforming in the educa-tion system to accommodate changes intheLuxembourgishsocialstructure(Minis-tèrede l’Environnement2006a:82–85). Inaddition,mechanisms formonitoringpro-gressover timewerealsooutlined. Inor-der to meet the challenges addressed inthe PNDD, changes in planning law weredue. A task force was set up under theresponsibility of the Ministry of Environ-ment and with participants from otherministries, a National Committee for Sus-tainable Development (Conseil Supérieurpour le développement durable (CSDD))and the Sustainable Development Com-mission (Commission interdepartmentaldu développement durable (CIDD)) wereformed, indicators of sustainability weredeveloped, and periodic strategic envi-ronmental assessments completed, (Min-istèredel’Environnement2006a:82–93).

These commitments crystallised a tra-jectory of internal dialogues, initiatives,and further documentations that encom-passed Luxembourg’s response to theUnited Nations international objectives.TheworkofCSDDandtheCIDDconstitut-ed the two governmental organs thatwere to orchestrate sustainable develop-ment policy in Luxembourg as articulatedin their international commitments. TheprimaryobjectiveoftheCSDDwastocre-ateaforumfordiscussionconcerningsus-tainable development. These missionswere finalised in Article 4 of the Law ofJune 25th 2004 (Developpement Durable2004). They proposed areas of research,sought linkages to similar committees inother European countries, and were re-sponsiblefordrawinginpublicbodiesintodialogueandexchange.Theyalsoadvisedthe Luxembourg government concerningall matters related to sustainable devel-opment.ThemissionsoftheCIDD,whosemembership is composed of representa-tives from various governmental depart-ments, are also outlined in the planninglawof June25th (DeveloppementDurable2004).Thiscommitteewasresponsibleforthe initial write-ups of the sustainabledevelopment plan of action, entitled,“Rapportnationalsurlamiseenoeuvredela politique de développement durable”(Ministère de l’Environnement 2006b), aswell as the “Luxembourg Vision” (Span-genberg and Ministère del’Environnement2007).Itwastheirjobtogenerally ensure the integration of thevarious sectors into theplanningprocess.The PNDD was thus a product of effortsmade by environmentally conscious andpolitically engaged Luxembourg citizenswho were able to learn and profit frominternational forums,andbringthese ide-as as globally legitimated plans to theelectorateofLuxembourg.

ConstanceCarr

Page|12

Thefinalproductwas launched inMay2011, accompanied by amedia campaigntoalertthepublicto,andraiseawarenessof, evolving unsustainable trends. Four-teen trends specific to Luxembourg wereidentified (Ministerium für NachhaltigeEntwicklung und Infrastrukturen andSpangenberg2011:7):

1) theoveruseofnaturalresources;

2) high rates of ground consumptionassociated with a parcelization oflandtothedetrimentoflandscapesand relaxation, ground water andbiodiversity;

3) increasinguseofenergy;

4) increasing traffic with negative im-pacts on energy and land-use con-sumption,aswellastransportsafe-ty;

5) increasingprecarityofpopulationintermsofpoverty;

6) endangeredsocietalcohesion;

7) endangered public health, throughthe rise of such trends as diseasesoftheaffluent;

8) agingofthepopulationwithconse-quenceson social structure, labourmarket, and system of social pro-tection;

9) economic instability through highvolatilityininternationalmarkets;

10) riskofreducedgovernmentalnego-tiationcapacities;

11) ever increasing polarization be-tween the North and South [on aglobalscale];

12) challengesfortheeducationsystemtofostersustainabilityeducation;

13) unequalchancesbetweenmenandwomen;

14) thedeficitincoherentgoverning.

Foreachofthesetrends,severalpagesofsuggestions are proposed – all of which“must integrate” (Ministerium für Na-chhaltigeEntwicklungund Infrastrukturenand Spangenberg 2011: 5) all three di-mensions of sustainability. Thedocumentprovidesguidelines(butnoconcreteplansor actions). It is yet to be seen the rolethat these ideas will play in further Lux-embourgishdevelopment.

TheLeipzigCharterSustainability policy in Luxembourg is

alsogenerated through thecommitmentsthat resulted from the Leipzig Charter—the objective of which was to design asustainable urban development that fos-ters economic prosperity, social balance,healthyenvironments,throughpolycentricurban structures and integrated ap-proaches inspatialplanning,withthefur-ther recognition that cities are on onehand centres for knowledge, growth, andinnovation,butalsofaceproblemssuchassocial inequity, a lack of affordable hous-ing, and unsolved environmental con-cerns. Like the Gothenburg Strategy, theLeipzig Charter recognises that economicgrowth and social progress go hand-in-hand (Präsidentschaft der EuropäischenUnion2007:1;CommissionoftheEurope-an Communities 2001:2). The urban de-velopment objectives of the policy wereordained to be steered at the nationallevel (Präsidentschaft der EuropäischenUnion 2007: 7), whereby the EuropeanUnion provides a platform for the ex-changeofbestpractices,andcollectionof

ConstanceCarr

Page|13

statistics and evaluations. Luxembourgparticipates in this program, through theestablishmentoftheCellulenationaled'In-formationpourlaPolitiqueUrbaine(CIPU)which functions as the office responsiblefor linking local Luxembourg sustainabledevelopment discourse and processeswiththoseofothermemberstatesviatheEuropean platform. Cosponsored by theMinistry for SpatialPlanningand theUni-versity of Luxembourg, CIPU was the di-rectresultofengagementoftheEuropeanMinisters in chargeofurbanpolicyorur-bandevelopment:

“In Leipzig 2007, it was decided bythe Ministers to promote the inte-gratedapproachinthedifferent[Eu-ropean]memberstatesandtheLux-embourgish initiative, as a conse-quence of this initiative, launchedCIPU. [CIPU] is very interesting be-cause you have the different levelsinvolvedaswell.YouhavetheMinis-tries involved,theMinisterofHous-ing, theMinister of Sustainable De-velopment, the Ministry of theEconomy and then you have theuniversitiesandinstitutions,andyouhave the three urban zones repre-sentedbytheLuxembourg–theCityof Esch, and the Nordstad. So youhavepartnersfromdifferentlevels.”(interviewwithAppliedGeographer,May27,2011,Luxembourg).

This interviewpartnercontinuedwiththestatement, “the idea of integrated ap-proach is already in the project itself,”becauseontheground,implementationofthe platform reveals that there is littleconsensusastowhatintegratedsustaina-ble development means or what the ac-tions shouldentail. This interviewees’ob-servations reveal that while the nationalleveladherestotheobjectivesoftheLeip-

zigCharter, local administrators capitaliseonthesimpleopportunitytoparticipate:

“the integrated approach is muchmoreaboutcooperation.It'sjustbe-ingabletogetaroundonetableanddiscuss certain issues and find cer-tain, solutions. It'smore about par-ticipating,” (interview with AppliedGeographer,May27,2011).

Furthermore, the objective of CIPU is tosolely create a platform of exchange. Ac-tualactionsmustbetakenonbytheindi-vidualmunicipalities.

Lux2020Yet,whilepoliciesbasedon the three-

legged stool of sustainabilitywere in for-mation and implementation and/orchangewasonthehorizon,the2000salsomarked an emerging change in emphasisinpolicyplanning,awayfromenvironmen-tal or social concerns to economic con-cerns. Many of our respondents com-mentedthattheeconomyhastakenhigh-er priority than either social or environ-mental issues in recent years. This isshowninthelistofquotesthatfollow:

“thesocialdimensionhasbeendoneneglectedverymuch.So Iamwork-ingactivelyontryingtoengagewithsocial actorswith actors involved inintegration policies in order to en-hance the social dimension and ur-ban planning,” (Interview with Ap-plied Geographer, May 27, 2011,Luxembourg)

“thesocialisnotpresentinfact…I'vebeen leading the discussions [with]differentactorsofpubliclifediscuss-ing the issue of climate change inthe logicofdéveloppementdurable.And what we saw there, also, wasthat therewerealwaysveryprecise

ConstanceCarr

Page|14

points regarding the economy andtheecology,butthesocial levelwasnotreallypresentinourdiscussions”(InterviewwithGovernmentOfficial,July21,2011,Luxembourg)

“I thinkweshouldmore involvethesocialactors,tradeunionsandsoon.Definitely,” (Interview with Govern-mentOfficial, July 15, 2011, Luxem-bourg)

“Theunionareveryscepticalonsus-tainable development. They areafraidofthegreens....Thepresidentof the OSBL was a member of theCSDD. But he resigned after a yearand a half. I think that they areafraid of the green part becausethey are afraid that – they see thatthe crisis pole economic combinedwith social protection [which is notnecessarily supported by environ-mentalists],” (Interview with Gov-ernmentOfficial,June28,2011,Lux-embourg)

Our interviews show that the Venn dia-gramofsustainabilityshowstheeconomyrepresentedbythelargestcircle,theenvi-ronment by themid-sized circle, and thesocial as the smallest circle. It has beenobservedbysomepractitionersthatenvi-ronmentalist and economists in Luxem-bourg have been reaching more consen-suses in recent years. Some even com-mented that those who engage them-selves in social issues in Luxembourg arebecoming wary of environmentalists be-causetheyfearthattheirtopicswilltakeabackseattoissuesthataddressbiodiversi-ty, climate change, or green landscapepreservation.

The emphasis on the economy can betraced again to international circuits of

exchange. The short-term goal of Eu-rope2020 was the survival and resurrec-tionoftheEuropeaneconomyof,andoutof,thefinancialcrisesthathadbeenquak-ing since 2008 (European Commission2010a: preface). Making the most of Eu-rope’seducatedwork force,solid techno-logical and industrial base, as well as itssingle currency, the goal of Europe2020was about creating jobs and better livesfor a thriving and cohesive EuropeanUn-ion (European Commission 2010a: pref-ace).LiketheLisbonstrategy–whichwaslargely considereda failed strategy– sus-tainable growth through reformation ofthe pension system, achieving financialstability, capitalizing on the nation’s eco-nomicandlabourpotential,raisingeduca-tion standards, were the key spheres ofemphasis. Among the priorities namedwere: “smart growth,” “sustainablegrowth,” and “inclusive growth” (Europe-anCommission2010a:3). Theurgencyofthe economy has only sharpened, as thedebt crisis spreads across Europe, and –whilewearinghissecondhatasPresidentof the Euro Group, Luxembourg – PrimeMinister Juncker is left fighting front andcentrestagefor“hisEuro”(Ebeling2011).

NATIONALDISCOURSESWhile dialogues were circulating be-

tween the national and international lev-els,insideLuxembourgvariouspolicyiniti-ativesweretakingform,addressingsimilarissuesasthoseattheEuropeanlevel,con-cerning resource management, economicstability, territorialcohesionetc.,butalsoframedspecificallyforthelocalmunicipal-ities and co-ordinating developmentamong them. These processes were em-bedded ina longhistory (over150years)of informal and very localised and com-partmentalised planning strategies. Thediscussionsofthe1980sand90sdiscussed

ConstanceCarr

Page|15

above, however, culminated in 1999 in anewplanninglawthatsetoutto(a)mod-ernise planning processes by integratinginternal development across various sec-tors, and (b)harmonise Luxembourgwithwider international social spatial process-es, such as labour migration and infra-structure. In terms of their planning ap-proach, these “new generation” planningstrategies are markedly distinct fromthosethatexistedbefore.

The primary policy milestones in Lux-embourg in termsof sustainable landuseand spatial planning concerning housingand transport are: theplanning laws thatwerecreatedin1937,1974,and1999(re-spectively, the Loi du 12 juin 1937 con-cernantl’aménagementdesvillesetautresagglomerationsimportantes,theLoidu20mars1974 concernant l’aménagementduterritoire, the Loi du 21 mai 1999 con-cernant l’aménagementdu territoire), theProgrammeDirecteur d’Aménagement duTerritoire, (PDAT), the sector plans ofHousing (Plan Sectoriel Logement, PSL)and Transport (Plan Sectoriel Transport,PST),theIntegratedTransportandSpatialDevelopment Concept for Luxembourg(Integratives Verkehrs- undLandesentwicklungskonzept, IVL), theHousing Pact (Pacte Logement, PL), andthe Plan for Soft Mobility (Plan MobilitéDouce).

LegalFoundationsThroughoutmost of Luxembourg’s na-

tional history, “planning” existed in theform of local land-use regulation at theprivate individual level. Wider and co-ordinated spatial plansdidnot come intopractice until the twentieth century: Theearliestrecordofastateinstitutedofficialplan is the legislation that was passed in1937demanding that each townofmorethan 10,000 inhabitants submit a devel-

opmentplan1(Concernantl’aménagementdes villes et autres agglomérations im-portantes 1937: 310). This law then re-mainedunabridgeduntil1974whenalawwascreated toestablish the fundamentalprinciplesofco-ordinatedplanninginLux-embourg (Concernant l’aménagementgénéralduterritoire1974:310).While,ononehand:

“it was often said in the 70's: Youknowwedon’tneedspatialplanningpolicy,” (Interviewwith Applied Ge-ographer, June 30, 2011, Luxem-bourg),

The objectives of the 1974 national plan-ninglawwerenevertheless:

“the improvement of living condi-tions for the population as well asthe cleanliness of the environment,the improvement of habitation andtheharmoniousdevelopmentof ur-banandruralstructures,theoptimaluseofeconomicresources, thepro-tection of nature and safeguard ofnatural resources, the conservationanddevelopmentofnationalcultur-al heritage,” 2 (Concernant

1 My interpretation of the law that stated: “JedeOrtschaft mit 10,000 Einwohnern ist gehalten,einen Bebauungsplan aufzustellen,“ Concernantl’aménagementdesvillesetautresagglomérationsimportantes1937:583).

2Mytranslationof:“l’améliorationdesconditionsde vie de la population et l’assainissement del’environnement, l’amélioration de l’habitat et ledéveloppement harmonieux des structures ur-baineset rurales, lavalorisationoptimaledes res-sourceséconomiques,laprotectiondelanatureetlasauvegardedesressourcesnaturelles,laconser-vationetledéveloppementdupatrimoineculturelnational,” (Concernant l’aménagement général duterritoire1974:310).

ConstanceCarr

Page|16

l’aménagementgénéralduterritoire1974:310).

Theprimaryresultofthe1974lawwastheinstitution and adherence to the PartialDevelopment Plan (plan d’aménagementpartielPAP) (ChambredesDeputes 2010:10;Concernantl’aménagementgénéralduterritoire 1974: 311–312). Yet, the crea-tion of this law provided little or noframework for the coordination betweenplans and they remained highly specificand pertained to specific plots of land.Several of our respondents commentedthat the only real objectivewas to find asiteforindustry:

“When I look back at the first lawwhich is from 74. The first law ofspatial planning was purely, an in-strument for economic develop-ment. Because, originally, this lawwas written because we wanted togive Goodyear the opportunity tohave a plant in Colmar Berg whilethecommunedidn'twantit.So,thelawwas, in fact,written togive thegovernmenttheopportunitytobuildthatwithoutthecommuneagreeing.Thatwasthelawof74.Itwasapureinstrumentoftop-down.Togivethegovernment the opportunity to sayto the communes: you have to dothis because of economic interests.Thelawof74wastheframeworkforthe industrial conversion in the 70sand ‘78 we had a plan for reusingthe old industrial areas. And thatwas in the frameworkof the lawof74,”(InterviewwithGovernmentOf-ficial,July21,2011,Luxembourg).

Another respondent formulated it differ-ently,asfollows:

“The first Programme Directeur[was] to create some of the big in-

dustrial areas in the South. Why?Therewas a need to find new landforindustrialestablishmentandcre-ation in the South area to replacewhatdisappearedinthesteelindus-try, [...] It was the end of the steelindustry period in Luxembourg atthe beginning of the steel industrycrisis.Andin'78wereallystartedtohavebigproblemswithoursteelin-dustryandinthefewyearsafter'78welosttwothirdsofthejobsinthesteel industry and Luxembourg wasclose to bankruptcy in '83. So, inotherwords,nobodycaredforwhatwas written in the Programme Di-recteur.Therewereotherproblemsto deal with,” (Interview with Gov-ernmentOfficial, July15,2011,Lux-embourg).

Thetop-downlegacyofthe1974legis-lation was once again revised in 1999(AménagementduTerritoire1999),whichremainstheprimarybackboneofallplan-ning directives in Luxembourg. It is alsothe document that introduced a legalframework for sustainable developmentas a normative planning strategy. In aninterview with the Luxembourger Wort(2003),MichelWolter,whoservedasMin-isteroftheInteriorfrom1995to2004andthus was responsible for spatial develop-ment, stated that the creation of the Loidu21mai1999wasaresponsetogrowthpressure in Luxembourg at the time: Liv-ing,working, andmobility in Luxembourgwere becoming increasingly complex is-sues as the inwardsmigration continuallyincreased. The 1999 lawmarked the firsteffort by the national government to co-ordinatedevelopment tomeet theneedsof a growth region. Chapter 1, Article 1,statesveryclearlythattheobjectiveofthelegislationwas:

ConstanceCarr

Page|17

“…to assure the inhabitants of thecountry optimal living conditionsthrough the harmonious enhance-ment and sustainable developmentof itsregions,theoptimaluseofre-sources,andbymaintainingastruc-tural and economic balance amongthem,” (AménagementduTerritoire1999:1402).

It is in this law that the creation of thesecond Programme Directeurd’Aménagement du Territoire (PDAT)(2003) and the respective sector plans(Aménagement du Territoire 1999) wereordained.

Interviews with governmental officialsremark on the nuances of the law thatreveal itselfasa lawthat:1)originatedinRio; 2) usurps (at least in their originalintent)thetop-downstrategiesthatexist-ed prior; 3) introduces integrated, cross-sectorplanning:

“The Plan of 1999 was really comeout of Rio, because LuxembourgwenttotheRioconferences...anditwasahugedelegation.[...Later,thelawof1999]wasdevelopedbyonlya few ministries - mainly, by theMinistry of Environment. [...] withthehelpof severalotherministries,but… Another conclusion was theneedof theparticipationof society:So to create something where civilsocietywas represented andwherethey could debate and think aboutsustainable development,” (Inter-viewwithGovernmentOfficial,June28,2011,Luxembourg).

“It was the idea of sustainable de-velopmentwhichwehaddiscoveredon the European level [that in-formed the creation of the Law of1999 ...] In parallel, there was the

firstnationalplanonsustainablede-velopment. [...]We had discussionswith the colleagues from Environ-mentwhowanted to integrateeve-rything inthePlanNationalpourunDéveloppement Durable, and wesaid‘No,thisisspatialplanning,thisis something specific.’ When youlook at the first pages in the begin-ning of the Programme Directeur,weshowagraphwherewesaythatitisintegrated,butthatspatialplan-ningisnotapartoftheplannationalpour un développement durable. ...We had this notion of développe-mentdurableasaframeworkofthewholething.Also,[...]wehadpartic-ipation on different levels, whichwas also one of the main ideas ofthe1999 law,” (InterviewwithGov-ernmentOfficial, July21,2011,Lux-embourg).

“Thelawof99wasatotallydifferentconception. Based in spatial devel-opmentbut alsobasedona combi-nationof top-down andbottom-up.So,thephilosophywastohaveasetof instruments for the governmentandthosearethePlanSectoriel:sec-torial plans for transport, for eco-nomic development, for housing[...]Butinmyeyes,andintheeyesofthe people that worked on the lawat the time, there were top-downplans - sector plans – and the bot-tom-upplans - the plans régionaux.Theplansrégionauxwastheideaofcommunes working together to de-fine their visionof regional level onspatialdevelopment[...]Butnowweare in the situation that regionalplans are still in the lawbut there'sno substance behind. So we haveonly top-down instruments.” (Inter-

ConstanceCarr

Page|18

view with Government Official, July21,2011,Luxembourg)

TheProgrammeDirecteurWhen one speaks of the Programme

Directeur today (in 2011) in planning cir-cles, one is speaking of the second Pro-gramme Directeur d’Aménagement duTerritoire (PDAT) (Ministère de l’Intérieur2003:5) that was born out of and an-chored in the law of 1999, and serves astheguidingplatform forall following sec-tor plans. Outlined in the opening pages,theobjectiveswere:

“…to provide a globally acceptedframework for the establishment ofnecessary plans and projects com-plementary to the promotion andimplementation of sustainable de-velopment planning. The principalvisions are anchored in the sectorplans, the regional plans, and land-useplansprovidedintheActofMay21, 1999 concerning regional andterritorialplanningandwhoseestab-lishment fallsunder the responsibil-ity of the state and municipalities,but also smaller projectswhose ini-tiative comes from organizations orindividuals,”3 (Ministère del’Intérieur2003:5).

3 My translation of: “… fournir un cadre de réfé-rence globalement accepté pour l’établissementdesplansetprojetscomplémentairesnécessairesàlapromotionetà lamiseenœuvred’undévelop-pementdurableduterritoire.Sontprincipalementvisés lesplandirecteurssectoriels, lesplansdirec-teurs régionaux et les plans d'occupation du solexpressément prévus par la loi du 21 mai 1999concernant l'aménagement du territoire, et dontl'établissement tombe sous la responsabilité del'Etatetdescommunes,maiégalementdesprojetsplus modestes, dont l'initiative peut émanerd'associations,voiredeparticuliers,”(Ministèredel’Intérieur2003:5)

Sustainable development, too, as definedin theBrundlandt Report (UnitedNations1987), was a central fundament of thePDAT,andthismandatewasexplicitlyex-pressed in the introductory pages (Minis-tère de l’Intérieur 2003:15–16), with ex-plicit references to the careful manage-mentofnaturalresources.Theinterpreta-tionof the three spheresof sustainabilityand their relationship to spatial planningwasasfollows:

“Thecentralobjectiveistofindapo-litical, economic, and social orienta-tionthattodevelopthesocietyandeconomy sustainably, while limitingthe use of natural resources, re-specting the cultural heritage, andpreserving environmental quality.This approach should also ensurethefairdistributionofwealth,whileapplying the concept of economic,social, and territorial cohesion as itprevails in the European Union,”4(Ministèredel’Intérieur2003:16).

It provided a new vision of how Luxem-bourg might be developed in a spatiallyintegrated manner, such that mobility oflabourmigrationandusageof realestateare optimised, and green spaces are pre-served.

In this process, it was hoped that thePDAT could be used as a planning vision

4Mytranslationof:“L’objectifcentralestdoncdetrouver une orientation politique, économique etsociale permettant de développer durablement lasociété et l’économie, en limitant l’usagedes res-sources naturelles, tout en respectant le patri-moine culturel et en préservant la qualité del’environnement. Cette démarche doit égalementpermettre d'assurer une répartition équitable desrichesses, en application du concept de cohésionéconomique,socialeetterritorialeàfaireprévaloirdansl'Unioneuropéenne,”Ministèredel'Intérieur2003:16).

ConstanceCarr

Page|19

for all of Luxembourg. The former PDATthat only addressed particular situationsandparticulartopicswas incapableofad-dressing the social andeconomic restruc-turing that took speed in the 1990s. Themainbodyofthedocument(Ministèredel’Intérieur2003:20)summarises thesitua-tion of Luxembourg – its developmenttendencies,itssocial,economic,andpolit-icalchallengesatvariouslevels–aswellasthe priorities needed (domains of inter-vention,strategies,andmonitoringmech-anisms) to implement sustainable devel-opment policies. Generally, the PDAT re-designs the national territory of Luxem-bourg following a polycentric decentral-isedpoliticalandnodalstructure,protect-ing green spaces, promoting particularpopulation growth patterns, and co-ordinatingtransportinfrastructures.Threefundamental principals were seen neces-sarytowardstheimplementationofdirec-tives (Ministère de l’Intérieur 2003:10–11): coordination between the varioussectorsofspatialplanningandtherespec-tivejurisdictions,participationofthevari-ousrelevantactorsandanovercomingofthebarriersthatmightarisefromthetra-ditional compartmentalization of sectors,and co-operation with the cities in theGreater Region. Generally, it provides aframethatcanleadtothereconversionofindustrial waste lands, the reopening ofthedebateonsustainabledevelopment,areorganization of the roles of the federalstateand localdistricts, and thedevelop-ment of integrative concepts transportand space (Ministère de l’Intérieur2003:7).

The context in which the PDAT wasformed can easily be reconstructed fromthe MAXQDA transcripts. A series ofquotespracticallytell thestory itself.Likethe PNDD, the Programme Directeur(PDAT) was largely inspired by dialogues

thattookplaceattheUN-summitinRiodeJaneiro,1992:

“Firstofallitwasthewholesustain-abledebate–‘bio’andallthisstuff–that really gave a newpush to spa-tial planning, and I think when youread Programme Directeur, I thinkyou can feel a little bit the spirit ofrealdebate.Weweretryingtointe-grate,andtogivesomerealdynamicto spatial planning,” (interviewwithGovernmentalOfficial,June29,2011,Luxembourg).

Luxembourg officials also saw spatialplanning as a practical avenue towardsimplementation of the ideals constructed1992inRiodeJaneiro:

“In Spatial Planningwe are creatingstructures that will last for longertime. So, we have to take the rightdecisionsinordertohavetherobuststructure thatwillworkwhensitua-tions are changing,but still are sus-tainable. And that's the model wetriedtodefineandtodevelopintheProgramme Directeur,” (interviewwithGovernmentalOfficial,June29,2011,Luxembourg).

Again, the participatory spirit was under-lined:

“We focussed the Programme Di-recteurverymuch inaparticipationprocess [...] We put together someworking groups with NGOs, witheconomic stakeholders, with all thecivil society in Luxembourg, andwemade regional workshops with dif-ferent local authorities all over thecountry[...]Wehavehadthefeelingthat – how can I say – pieces aremoving. So, different departmentsarethinkingaboutstrategicplanning

ConstanceCarr

Page|20

[now]” (interview with Governmen-tal Official, June 29, 2011, Luxem-bourg).

Thestyleofpolicyhadalsochanged:

“In the second Programme Di-recteur, [we] have a much morequalitative than quantitative ap-proach - less precise, but more onhow you should do things in princi-ple [….] The second Programme Di-recteur was a lot more qualitative.Youinvolvedthepublica lotmore,”(interview with Governmental Offi-cial,July15,2011,Luxembourg).

Yet, the retrospectivecritiquesarestillabound:

“Youcandoallandyoucandonoth-ingwith this [the PDAT], and this iswhat isdoing.Theydonothingwiththis,” (interview with GovernmentOfficial,June30,2011,Luxembourg).

The core of the critiques, beyond thevagueness of the directives, lays at barri-ers to implementation of real and con-crete strategies. Two of our respondentscommented that there is a barrier at thelevelofthemunicipality:

“[When]westartedthisprocess10yearsago[...]therewas,ofcourse,abig fear that now all the importantthings are going to be decided onnational level, and that there is noroomformaneuveronthelocallev-el. And at our associationswith thelocalauthorities, the first thingtheysay when they have a look at anynew law, or something, is, "don'ttouchlocalautonomy."Sothatisthekeyword.[It]isalso,then,veryverydifficulttodosomething,whichreal-lygivesthemthefeelingthat[there

willbe] some restrictionson [...] lo-cal autonomy. And in my personalopinion this is still the case,” (inter-view with Governmental Official,June29,2011,Luxembourg).

A second respondent, an NGO Repre-sentative commented that the strategiesofthedocumentssuchastheProgrammeDirecteuralso implynewstrategiesofco-operation and thinking about space ingeneral:

“In praxis, the implementation is aproblem, but so is the discourse aswell. There areplans, strategies, di-rectives, and above all the ProgramDirecteur, thatwascreatedbyava-rietyofactors,butarestillnotinter-nalised. The real discourse stillhasn’t taken place, and as a result,thesedirectivesarestillyettobein-ternalisedby thosewhohave to in-ternalise them. And beyond that,there are things thatwe see differ-ently.Weneedarealdiscourse,”(in-terview with NGO Representative,July8,2011).

TransportWhilespatialplanningtookonawhole

newcharacterin1999,itcancertainlynotbesaidthattransportdevelopmentwasinanywayasortofhaphazardaccidentuntilthen, andmuchhasbeenwrittenon19thand early 20th century Luxembourg (seeCalmes1919;Gengleretal.2002;Margue,Polfer, and Scuto 2000; Thewes 2003;Trausch1981).Infact,transportnetworks– the railways to be specific – played animportant role in the building of the na-tion,rightfromLuxembourg’sinceptionasanindependentnation.

Luxembourgreceivedindependenceaf-tertheBelgianrevolutionin1839(Trausch

ConstanceCarr

Page|21

1981: 19). At the time, Luxembourg wasan impoverished region, and the poorestprovinceoftheNetherlands(Calmes1919;Schrobilgen1841).Ninety-fourpercentofits residents lived in rural areas. In termsof infrastructure, there were few traderoutes connecting to neighbouring lands,which were further encumbered geo-graphicallybytheArdennesandtheEifel.Furthermore,aftersuccessionofBelgium,not only were former trade relations af-fected which negatively impacted theleather, glove-making, paper, and stone-ware industries, but the resulting exit oftheBelgianadministrationalsomeantthatLuxembourg had to scramble together anew parliamentary system (Calmes 1919:31). In 1842, on the heels of establishingofthenewConstitution,theTreasury,theChamber ofDeputies, theCourt, the For-est Administration, and the regulation ofthe Belgian border, Luxembourg joinedthe German Customs Union (DeutscherZollverein) – a relationship that wouldstanduntiltheendoftheFirstWorldWarin 1918 (Calmes 1919: 30). Luxembourgthusprofited frombarrier-free tradewithother members of the Zollverein, in par-ticular the Prussian, and later German,Empire(Margueetal.2000:245),andtherapidly growing coal and steelproductionindustry. Seen as prerequisite infrastruc-turefortheeconomiccompetitivityoftheregion, railway arteries were built con-necting Luxembourg City to the Germanborderaswellastothenorthofthecoun-try.TheseweretheGuillaumeLines,builtby the Société royale grand-ducale desChemins de Fer Guillaume-Luxembourg,andtheystretchedapproximately180kmthrough Luxembourg. A second majornetwork was constructed by the Luxem-burgische Prinz Heinrich Eisenbahn undErzgruben Gesellschaft (the PR Lines),which followed first northwards to Ettel-

bruck and Diekirch (through Petange andSteinfort) and then southeast throughEchternachandWasserbillig.RailwaysalsoextendedsouthwardsintoAlsaceandLor-raine. These were built by KaiserlicheGeneral-Direktion der Reichseisenbahnwhich served the Zollverein directly untilcontrolwasgivenbacktoFranceaftertheFirstWorldWar.

Up until the early 1950s, Luxembourgtransport was dominated by railways.Comprehensivedataandhistoricalrecordsare available online at www.rail.lu,map.geoportail.lu, andwww.openstreetmap.org, as well as attrain museums across Luxembourg. Therailways that are in use today, are thosethatsurvivedtheelectrificationofthesys-tem in the 1950s, deindustrialization andtheconsequentialreducedneedsforlocalgoods transport , not tomention the riseof the automobile use and automobileproduction,ofwhichusagehadrisenfrom14,000 units in 1940 to 80,000 units in1964 (Thewes 2003: 166). Today, moststretchesofthePrinceHenrirailroadhavebeentransformedintobikepaths.

PlanDirecteurSectorielTransport(PST)The sector plan for transport was the

Sector Plan was designed to address thespecific medium and long term transportrelated problems identified in the PDAT(Ministère des Transports, Ministère del’Environnement, Ministère de l’Intérieuret de l’Aménagement du Territoire, andMinistèredesTravauxPublics2008b).ThePDAT had highlighted some trends intransport development that were emerg-inginthe1990sinLuxembourg(Ministèredel’Intérieur2003:40):1)thehighwaysinLuxembourghadbeenextendedbyabout10 km per year during the 1990s; 2) alt-hough motorway networks make up foronly4%ofthetotalroutesinLuxembourg,

ConstanceCarr

Page|22

they carried26%of the traffic; 3) railwaynetworkshadbeenreduced from393kmto274kmbetween1960and2001;and4)the number of cars had increased 230%between1970and2001.AccordingtothePDAT,thesetrendsneededtobereversedifsustainabledevelopmentinLuxembourgwas to be achieved. Tackling these prob-lemsintegratively(withrespecttohousingdensification, landscape protection, andeconomy)was the goal of the IVL (Minis-tère des Transports, Ministère del’Environnement, Ministère de l’Intérieuret de l’Aménagement du Territoire, andMinistèredesTravauxPublics2008b:220).

FollowingthedirectivesoutlinedinthePDAT, aworking group comprised by theMinistryofTransport,theMinistryofInte-riorandRegionalDevelopment,theMinis-try of PublicWorks, theMinistry of Envi-ronment, the Administration of Bridgesand Roads, and representatives from theRailway(CFL)formedtoworkonit(Minis-tère des Transports, Ministère del’Environnement, Ministère de l’Intérieuret de l’Aménagement du Territoire, andMinistère des Travaux Publics 2008b: 4).The goal was to identify areas of im-provement and modification needed inorder to reach the political “modal split”goal of 25/75 (percentage publictransport/percentageprivateautomobile)(Ministère des Transports, Ministère del’Environnement, Ministère de l’Intérieuret de l’Aménagement du Territoire, andMinistèredesTravauxPublics2008a:3).

AdraftwaspresentedinOctober2008forfurtherpublicconsultation.Itreportedonthestateoftransportandrelatedinfra-structures in Luxembourg. It prioritisedcertain goals for future developments,suchasmodal sharesbetweenmotorisedandnon-motorisedtransportwithrespectto infrastructural improvements. After its

final ratification–whichasofwritingthisdocument (September2011) is stillyet tohappen– thedirectives included in itwillbecome law.Becoming law isseenas thepivotal moment in Luxembourgish plan-ningprocesses.

“soweareallwaitingfortheSecto-rielPlan,whichwillhavethisregula-tory dimension [...]Without a regu-latorydimensionheretheydon’tdoanything, because the mayors arevery powerful and they don't wantanyonetotell themwhattheyhavetodo.[...]Ofcourse,thereis[anex-isting] process of validation of the,PAP, [Plan d’Aménagement Par-ticulier] by theMinistry. But I knowvery well the people who are ap-provingthesedocuments.Thereare2or3inthewholeservice,andtheyarereceivingeverydaynewproposi-tions, and they just sign becausetheydon'thave themeans to reallyevaluatetherelevanceoftheprojectwhich are submitted. [...]The fourSectoriel Plans will be, from mypointofview,verycrucialtoguaran-teeakindofrespectofthemainori-entations. Without the SectorialPlansyoucannotdoanythinginthiscountry.Youreally[needto]beableto rely on the rules to make theprinciple of spatial planning policyapplicable,andsofar,withoutthesetools all our studies show a totalmismatchbetweenthedynamicandthe expectations,” (Interview withAppliedGeographer, June 30, 2011,Luxembourg).

IntegrativesVerkehrs-undLandesent-wicklungskonzept(IVL)

The IVLwasnotbornoutof thePDATbutwasdevelopedbeforehandin1996.Atthat time, however, integrated spatial

ConstanceCarr

Page|23

planning still was not in existence and itwas difficult to convince politicians thatthis was something that Luxembourgcould use. However, at that time severalparallel processes were in operation thatlaterledtoanincreasedinterestinspatialplanning, the lawof1999, and thePDAT:Integrated planning as a means towardssustainable development was emerging,flooding inLuxembourgwasrevealingtheconcrete need for regional co-operation,andspatialplanningattheEuropeanlevelwasbecomingahot topic.Thus, thetimewasripetorevivetheconceptsintheIVLafewyearsafteritsinitialinception,follow-ing the development of the PDAT, andwhen spatial planning was surfacing as atopic in several ministries. The IVL waslaterpublishedasacollectiveworkoftheMinistryof the InteriorandSpatialdevel-opment,MinistryofTransport,MinistryofPublic Works, Ministry of Environment,Ministry of Economic Affairs and ForeignCommerce, and the Ministry for Middle-ClassEnterprises,TourismandHousing,inco-ordinationwiththreeprivateandinde-pendent planning firms, AS&P, R+T Part-ners, and L.A.U.B., with the additionalfeedback of an international team of ex-perts who are unspecified in the docu-ment (Ministère de l’Intérieur (DATUR)2004:3–4).

ContainedintheIVLareonlyconceptsfor spatial planning: It does not contain,nor is it supported by any legal mecha-nisms,asisthePDAT.ThePDAT,however,is a frameworkwithmore general guide-lines, and the sector plans are, as thename suggests, sector specific. The IVLwas thusa) amore informal guidelineonwheretogointhefuture,andb)atooltoachieveaquantifiedanalysisthatcouldbeused to address various growth scenariosthat could then inform the PST and thePDAT.Theprimaryobjectivewas:

“...to investigate how the settle-mentstructure,commuterstructureand transport infrastructure can bedeveloped and coordinated in thefuture.[TheIVL]aimstoincreasetheshare of public transport from thecurrentfigureof12%to25%bytheyear 2020, to develop the housingstructure further in suchaway thatit helps to avoid and relocatetransport and to reduce the use ofthe landscape,[... and] to put intopracticetheessentialtargetssetoutin the ProgrammeDirecteur,” (Min-istère de l’Intérieur (DATUR)2004a:3).

Premised on the recognition of Luxem-bourg as a growth region (with an ob-served annual economic growth of 4%(Ministèredel’Intérieur(DATUR)2004:3),theIVLaimedtoconceiveoftransportandmobility challenges in a concrete way, inorder to find solutions that guaranteedqualityoflifestandardsofLuxembourgaswellas itsoverall competitiveness (Minis-tèredel’Intérieur(DATUR)2004a:3).

Like the PDAT, the IVL built upon thedecentraliseddevelopmentmodel of Lux-embourg – identifying the three urbanagglomerationsofLuxembourg,Nordstad,and thenetworked regionof cities in thesouth (Ministère de l’Intérieur (DATUR)2004a: 9), as well as 12 other mid-sizedcities distributed across the nation. Thegoal of the IVL was to determine howtransportcouldbemanagedtoreducethereliance on private automobiles, and toincreasetheuseofpublictransit.Planningforgrowth,however,meantnot justcon-trolling densities and the laying down oftrain tracks, but also the controlled une-ven population growth of particular cen-tres.TheIVLsummarisedtwogrowthsce-narios, both of which were premised on

ConstanceCarr

Page|24

optimistic prognoses of employment de-velopment: That by 2020 Luxembourg,there will be 395,000 employment posi-tions,ofwhich91,000willhavetobefilledeither by commuters of new residents(Ministère de l’Intérieur (DATUR) 2004b:53).Optimisticprojectionswerepreferredover pessimistic projections, because thepessimistic estimation of 292,000 posi-tions had already been reached (Minis-tèredel’Intérieur(DATUR)2004b:53).

Thefirstscenarioisthecommutersce-nario, which presupposes that the in-crease in jobs in Luxembourgwill not at-tractmoreresidentsbutcommutersfromGermany, France, andBelgium (Ministèrede l’Intérieur(DATUR)2004a:11).Specifi-cally,itispredictedthat75%ofthe91,000projected employment vacancies will befilled by commuters (Ministère del’Intérieur(DATUR)2004a:11).Thiswouldmeanapopulation increaseto511,000,arise in commuter flows to 168,000 daily,andmoreover,littlemoderationtocurrentzoning laws (Plan d’Aménagement Par-ticulier,PAP)(Ministèredel’Intérieur(DA-TUR)2004a:11).Thesecondwasthe“res-ident scenario”, which presupposed that40%ofnewemploymentvacancieswouldbe occupied by commuters, and the re-mainderbynewresidentsofLuxembourg;thus,thepopulationwouldriseto561,000andthecommuterflowwouldincreaseto136,000 (Ministèrede l’Intérieur (DATUR)2004a: 12). Achieving this developmenttrajectory is based on five, “principles ofurban, transport and open-space devel-opment,” (Ministère de l’Intérieur (DA-TUR)2004a:15):

“...[1] Polycentricity and comple-mentaryrelationshipbetweenurbanand rural regions [...2]Higherbuild-ingdensityandurbanconcentration[...3] Bringing settlement develop-

mentandlocalpublictransportclos-er [...4] New urbanism [...and 5]Landscape-andenvironmentalcom-patibility,” (Ministère de l’Intérieur(DATUR)2004a:17).

Manyofourrespondentswhowerein-volved in conceptual or applied spatialplanningconfirmthatthisdocumentstandby itasadocumentthatdeliversasoundorganizationofLuxembourgthatisneces-sarytoensureoptimaluseofspaceanditsresources, forsustainabledevelopment initsbroadestsense:

“If you read the IVL, it talks aboutsustainingtheconditionsforgrowth,and part of it is [about] structuraleconomicconditionswhereyoucre-ate more jobs, add value, .... Butthereisalsotheaestheticofaplace,too, [...] that is attractive to peoplewho’d want to locate businesseshere.It’snotnecessarilythenorma-tive idea of sustainable develop-ment,but[...]tosay,“well,wehaveto go this way. Otherwise we arecompromising our ability to grow,”(Interview with governmental offi-cial,June30,2011,Luxembourg).

It is thus a valued document by spatialplanningpractitionersandseenasaprac-ticaland logicalsolutiontothe infrastruc-turalneedsofagrowingnation.

There are several factors, however,that rendered its implementation impos-sible.First,ishasnolegalbacking.Noneofthe directives are anchored in a legal ap-paratus to which politicians are bound.Second, Luxembourg has 116 municipali-tiesthatretainahighdegreeofautonomy(thereisnoregionallevelofgovernment).ManyoftheseMayorsalsohaveasecondrole as Chamber Deputy in the federalgovernment.Thiscirculardecision-making

ConstanceCarr

Page|25

structure puts these governmental offi-cials in a conflict of interest, where deci-sions made at the federal level whoseelectorate come from the Canton, mustthenbring thosepoliciesback to themu-nicipal level that have control over land-use.Oneofourrespondentscriticisedthisaspect heavily as one of Luxembourg’scentral democratic problems (interviewwith Government Official, June 27, 2011,Luxembourg). Compounding this problemistheobfuscatedrealestatemarketthatisregulated by developers and real estatebrokers, and whose low supply rendersexorbitanthousingpricesandlandvalues.These forces have played a powerful im-pedingrolefortheIVL,anddatapublishedby CEPS has shown that development intheGrandDuchyhasbeenquitecontraryto the development visions in the IVL(CEPS/INSTEAD2006:4).Thistrendisalsoofconcerntothegovernment:

“Ifyou lookat the IVL it's, therewetriedtohavearealpracticalbasisfordevelopment, for developing spatialplanning in a balance between theneed to havemore space for hous-ing, the need of nature protectionandtheneedformobilityandtore-spect the environment, that is theIVL, [...] But if you look now atwhat'shappeninginrealityandwhatis written in the IVL it's driftingapart.” (Interviewwithgovernmen-tal official, July 21, 2011, Luxem-bourg).

Mobil2020andPlannationalepourunemobilitédouce

The couple of other documents showsomeofthepracticalandsmallerchangesin and around Luxembourg that wouldfacilitatetransportdevelopmentalongthelines of the IVL. TheMobil2020 brochure

(Ministère des Transports 2007) summa-rised transport projects thatwere in pro-cess. It documents the inland existing, aswellasplanned,railways,tramways,trainstations at Dommeldange, Howald,Cessange, Belval, and Luxembourg. Inter-nationally,Eurocaprail shallextendnorthtowards Brussels via Arlon and Namur,southtowardsStrasbourgviaNancyorviaTrier, and northeast towards Koblenz viaTrier (MinistèredesTransports2007:25).Bus lines and their frequency are alsosummarised (Ministère des Transports2007: 28–29). Park and Ride stations areplanned to reduce automotive travel intothe centre (Ministère des Transports2007:33).Thesemeasureswouldfacilitatecross-bordermovement inandoutof theCityofLuxembourg.Inthecontextofwid-er Luxembourg visions concerning spatialplanning, these changes seem entirelyspecific and incremental. Each individualprojectalsohingesonfundingandmicro-political discussions for support. One ofour respondents commented, however,that exactly these smaller changes couldeasepressurequitea lot forexistingresi-dents, and complained that not enoughattentionwas given to another publisheddocument,“MobilitéDouce”,thatlooksatmechanisms that can be put in place toincrease the number of trips by bicycle,foot, rollerblades,andskateboards. It canbenoted aswell that noneof the spatialplanningpractitionersthatweinterviewedmentionedthisdocument,meaningeitherthat our interview methodology steeredtheinterviewinanotherdirection,orthatintervieweessimplydidnothavethisdoc-umentontheirscreen.

HousingPerhapsmoreso than transport,hous-

ing in Luxembourg is tightly integratedinto an extraordinary real estate market

ConstanceCarr

Page|26

that is compounded by opposing andsometimes conflicting processes. Just asimplementation of coherent transportstrategies is impeded by the “circular”political structure and tight real estatemarket,sotooishousing.

GenerallyinLuxembourg,homebuyingis encouraged. Some say “home owner-ship iswhat Luxembourgerswant” – thathome ownership is some kind of charac-teristicofsocalledLuxembourgishculture.Others may also note the building subsi-dies,interestratereductions,andbuildingpremiums (Ministère des Classes Moy-ennes, du Tourisme et du Logement andMinistère de l’Intérieur et del’Aménagement du Territoire 2009: 16;Hemmer and Bauer 2003: 14) – that this“culture” is socially produced. In 2009,90%ofthehousingstocktooktheformofprivately owned single family homes,twenty-eight percent of thesewere rent-ed, and the number of squaremetres ofliving space per unit was recorded asamong the highest in Europe (MinistèredesClassesMoyennes,duTourismeetduLogement andMinistère de l’Intérieur etde l’AménagementduTerritoire2009:8).The remaining housing stock is rental orsocialhousing,wherebyonly2%aresocialhousing–thelowestrateinEurope.Socialhousing is managed by the National Af-fordable Housing Company (Société Na-tionale des Habitations à Bon MarchéSMHBN) which was created in 1919, andthe Fonds du Logement. These organiza-tionshelpwithfindingsubsidisedhousingforlowincomeearners.

The Sector Plan forHousing (Plan Sec-toriel Logement, PST) and the HousingPact (Le Pacte Logement, PL) are the pri-mary planning documents concerninghousing. Both are based on housing pro-jectionscreatedbyStadtlandandtheMin-

istry of the Middle Class and (Stadtlandand Ministère des Classes Moyennes, duTourisme et du Logement 2007b), andboth address the other leg of spatial de-velopment – the consumption of privateproperty. The PST is one of the sectorplansoutlinedinthePDAT.Onceitisrati-fied,ittoowillbecomelaw.ThePL,inthemeantime, was put in place to regulateland use and redistributes tax money tomunicipalities that increase their popula-tionsaccordingtothedecentralisedpopu-lationstructureoutlinedinthePDAT.

These policy-making processes are oc-curring, however, against thebackgroundofatightrealestatemarket.Forthisrea-son, itwasnecessarytoviewthehousingsituationfromaconsumerspointofview.All of the home buyers that we inter-viewed - and this is easily confirmed byhousing advertisements atwww.athome.luorwww.habitat.lu–noth-ing inside the City of Luxembourgwill besold for under a half a million Euros. Anaverage, non-renovated home of 150 m2witha10m2gardencouldeasilycatch1.5millionEurosaswouldasimilarhomesit-tingon400m2of landat thecity’sedge.Within the national borders, cheaperhouses (of about300,000€) canbe foundin the north of the country as well as inthe south. Our interviewees commented(interviewwithHomeBuyer,July22,2011,Walferdange),however,thatinthenorth,housesarepoorlyconnectedwithnarrowroads, sporadic bus schedules, and non-existent trains,while in thesouththesoilis contaminated from over a century ofiron and steel industry. Under these cir-cumstances, those that have are able topurchase a home in Luxembourg are ei-ther top earning wage earners, or thosewhohave contactwith families thathavelongownedlandandarewillingtosell.

ConstanceCarr

Page|27

Accessto land inLuxembourg isadeli-cate dance between land owners, devel-opers, local mayors, and the Ministry ofthe Middle Class, Tourism and Housing(Ministère des Classes Moyennes, duTourisme et du Logement). One HomeBuyerdescribedthathesent50letterstoMayors around the country requesting ifthere was building land for sale in theirmunicipality.Hereceived15responses,ofwhichonly1hadanofferforland70,000€per Ar (100 m2) (interview with HomeBuyer, July 22, 2011,Walferdange). A se-cond interviewee commented that herstrategy involved sticking to one munici-pality and repeatedly approaching theMayor, in person, and asking if land wasavailable.Afterayearof requests forup-dates on the availability of land, theMayorconcededthat landmightbecom-ing available in the coming months – aresponse that one would not receivethrough letter-writing (interview withHomeBuyer,July26,2011,Walferdange).TheFundforHousingDevelopment(Fondsdu Logement (FLCM) is also available forthoseseekinglowerpricedhomesforsale.One of our respondents noted, howeverthat the landonwhichthehousesitswillonly be leased. Thebuyer thereforedoesnotprofitfrominvestment(InterviewwithHomeBuyer,July22,2011,Walferdange).

PlanDirecteurSectoriel“Logement”(PSL)Adraftof thehousing sectorplanwas

first presented in April of 2009 as a jointeffortby theMinistryof theMiddleClas-ses,TourismandHousing, theMinistryofthe Interior and Regional Development,andtheresearchgroupCEPS-Instead.Pro-jectionsandestimationsofhousingneedsupuntil2021conductedbyStadtlandhadshown that between 52,000 and 78,000homeswouldbeneed tomeet thehous-ing demand (Stadtland andMinistère des

Classes Moyennes, du Tourisme et duLogement 2007a: 57; Ministère des Clas-ses Moyennes, du Tourisme et duLogement andMinistère de l’Intérieur etde l’AménagementduTerritoire2009:5).Taking the average calculation of 69,000homes, the PSL concluded that Luxem-bourgwillhavetofaceanannualincreaseof housing demand equivalent to about3,400 housing units per year. It may benoted that the actual growth rate at thetimeofthispublication(2011) isnomorethantwothirdsthisprojection(BeckerandHesse 2010). At the same time, shrinkingfamily size and changing living needs arealsoexpectedtoalterthedemandfornotjustmore units but for different kinds ofunits(MinistèredesClassesMoyennes,duTourisme et du Logement and Ministèrede l’Intérieur et de l’Aménagement duTerritoire 2009: 5). According to the PSL,the primary challenges that Luxembourgfaces in terms of housing are: the man-agement of a sustainable regional andspatial distribution of new housing, theactivation of building properties on themarket and their efficient usage, the en-couragementofecologicalbuildingstand-ards for sustainable development, thesecuritization of housing market accessi-bility, and the maintenance of coordina-tion strategies and communication chan-nels (MinistèredesClassesMoyennes,duTourisme et du Logement and Ministèrede l’Intérieur et de l’Aménagement duTerritoire2009:28).ThePSLtherebyposi-tions itself along the IVL (Ministère del’Intérieur (DATUR) 2004b) and foreseesthat this increase cannot be negotiatedwithin the framework models of spatialorganizationpreviously traditional to Lux-embourg.

These housing shortage problems aretobetackledbysteeringtheproductionofhousing spatially and regionally, by acti-

ConstanceCarr

Page|28

vating building lands and ensuring theirefficient usage, by encouraging a sparingusage of land and supporting sustainablebuilding forms, by increasing the buildingcapacityoftheindustry,andbyfacilitatingco-ordination and communication aroundthe topic (Ministère des Classes Moy-ennes, du Tourisme et du Logement andMinistère de l’Intérieur et del’AménagementduTerritoire2009),whicharequiteambitiousanddistinctgoalsthatmayormaynotbeachievesimultaneous-ly.WhilethefinalPSLisyettobepresent-ed, thedraft versionof thePSLonlyout-linesintentions.Littleintermsofconcretemeasures isoutlined. Intended is,howev-er,theregulationoftherealestatemarketthrough procedures of certification andtaxation. At present, municipalities arerequired to submit their local buildingplanstothefederalMinistryoftheInteri-or for assessment and ratification. ThemeasurescontainedinthePSLwillchangethedemandsoftheauthoritativeministry,thus changing the conditions on whichlocalplanswill beapproved. Such legisla-tive measures might include rule overwhich landmay be used. For example, aparceloflandattheperipheryofthebuiltup landand locatednear forestsorotherrural landscapes might be less likely toreceivebuildingapprovalthanonelocatedin the centre. To prevent land ownersfrom holding onto land without using it,taxesmightalsobeimplemented.

LePacteLogementWhile thePSLwas indevelopment the

Housing Pact (Pacte Logement, PL) wasimplemented by theMinistry of theMid-dle Classes, Tourism and Housing, as ameans to steer growth along the decen-tralised structure outlined in the PDAT.Thebrochure, in FrenchandGermanandwidely available at public websites, is a

layman’s version of a law created on 22October2008calledthe“PacteLogement”(Ministère du Logement 2008; ServiceCentraldeLégislation2008). It summaris-es the five main elements of the plan,which are describred in the next para-graph(MinistèreduLogement2008).

First, is the Building Agreement (PacteLogement/Wohnungsbaupakt), wherebythe government will financially supportmunicipalities that increase their popula-tions by 15% over a period of 10 years(ServiceCentraldeLégislation2008:2230–2231) – regardless whether they add tothehousingstockor just rise thenumberof inhabitants.Theamountofsubsidyde-pendsontherateofgrowth,andstatusofthemunicipalityasoneofthe“Centresdedéveloppement (CDA)” (Ministère del’Intérieur 2003: 140–142) as designatedby the PDAT. Any municipality whosegrowth rate exceeds 1% in a given year,will receive 4500€ per new inhabitant(MinistèreduLogement2008:1).CDAmu-nicipalities will receive an additional 70%of this sum (7650€) (Ministère duLogement 2008:1). Given that these dif-ferences are rather marginal, a steeringimpact isunlikelytobeachieved.Second,istheRightofFirstRefusalorRightofPre-emption (Droit de pré-emption/Vorkaufsrecht)which gives thenational or municipal government theright of first refusal so long as their in-tendeduseofthepropertywillbenefitthecommon good (such as social housing,public institutions or infrastructure, orprevention of fallow lands) (Ministère duLogement2008:1).Third,isRightstoEm-phyteutic Lease (Droit d’empythéose etdroitdesuperficie/ErbpachtrechtundErb-baurecht),whichallowsapieceof landtobeleasedforupto99years,duringwhichthe leaser receives fullpropertyrights forthedurationoftheagreement.Whenthe

ConstanceCarr

Page|29

emphytheutic lease expires, the land andany infrastructure built upon it becomesthepropertyoftheoriginalowner(Minis-tèreduLogement2008:1).Fourth,aretheAdministrative and Tax Measures(Mesures administratives etfiscales/BehördlicheundsteuerlicheMass-nahmen) which induce taxes on certainforms of buildings and uses, such as ele-vatedtaxesonbuildingsthatremainemp-tyfor longerthan18months,oronprop-ertiesthatqualifyforabuildingpermitbuthave remained undeveloped for over 3years (Ministère du Logement 2008: 1).Fifth, are the Amendments, Transitionaland Repeal Provisions (Dispositionsmodi-ficatives, transitories et abroga-toires/Änderungs-, Übergangs- und Auf-hebungsbestimmungen) which were aseries of amendments to previous lawsconcerningsubsidiestoprospectivehomeownersandcategoriesandclassificationofvarious property types (Ministère duLogement 2008:1). The Pacte Logement(MinistèreduLogement2008:1)wasthenconstructedasanartsignedtreaty(calleda “convention”) between the municipali-tiesandthenationalgovernment.

In effect, thePLpromises a redistribu-tionoffederalfundstomunicipalitiesthatcandemonstrate population growth. Sev-eralofour interviewpartnerscomplainedthat the PL was ineffective in addressingspatialplanningneedsofLuxembourg,

“Iwould say that themainproblemwas that the Ministry of Housingwanted to implement the PactLogement as fast as possible, to besure that itwould be published be-fore the Sectoriel Plan. And therewas really a competition betweenthe Sectoriel Plan, which includes astrong spatial planning policy, andthe Pact Logement which is only

about building, building, and build-ing without really asking the ques-tion, the fundamental question,wheretobuild.Andofcourse,therearea few lines [in thePL]which trytofosterthebuildingofhouses intothe 15 CDR [as seen in the PDAT],but it'snot that importantandeve-rybody, every community can winwhen they sign this Pact Logement.Theyhavetorealisea10%growthofthe population on a period of 10years.So,itforcesallthecommunityto grow,” (interview with AppliedGeographer, June 30, 2011, Luxem-bourg).

Indeed,fundsareallocatedaccordingtoahierarchical system of cities that followsthe Programme Directeur and IVL. Butgenerally, allmunicipalities areputundergrowthpressureinordertoaccessfederalfunds. The development trends further-more do not reflect planning goals, as itcan be seen that some small towns aregrowingwherezeropublictransportinfra-structure exists, and none are planned –not tospeakofbuildingqualitiesassuch.One respondent also remarked that theunitofmunicipality(Gemeinde)isnotspe-cific enough (interview with NGO Repre-sentative, July 8, 2011, Luxembourg).Somemunicipalities cannot grow for onereasonoranother,andasaresultsmallermoreremotecommunitiesaregrowing.

“The PL encourages too muchgrowth of allmunicipalities and theeffects, in our opinion, are veryproblematic, because it renders allmunicipalities under growth pres-sure, in order to receive financing .[...] The PL is very very problematicwith respect to land-use planningand transport development prob-lems. There are localities now that

ConstanceCarr

Page|30

are developing where it will simplynot be possible to connect themwith public transport, because theywill remain remote. The secondproblem is that municipalities arerankedbut theword“Gemeinde” isused and not “Ortschaft”. Betten-burg,forexample,isahigherrankedGemeinde,butwhichdoesnothavemuch building potential for variousreasons. So now, the neighbouringlocalitiesaredeveloping,”(interviewwith NGO Representative, July 8,2011,Luxembourg).

The PL, according to this respondent,wasdevelopedsimplyasameanstoredis-tribute federal funds. At the time of thedevelopmentof thePL, therewasevenadiscussionofwhetheritwouldn’tbemoreeffective to discuss the reform of federalfundsdistributionpractices:

“[The PL] was a result of the banalproblem that we have a very poorsystem of financial redistributionacross the municipalities in Luxem-bourg. [...]Everyoneknowsthatthedistribution is poor in every aspect.Itisnotfair,itisnotmodern,andsoforth.Butnoonehastheconfidenceto address reform. And there wasthe Pacte Logement as an easy fi-nance instrument. Therewas also aRound Table, where [the question]wasaskedwhetheritwouldn’tmakemoresense todiscuss reformfinan-cial redistribution than the PacteLogement,andtheMinister replied:Yes, you are right, but I have beenMinisterfor30yearsandIdon’tbe-lieve anymore that finance reformwill come,” (interview with NGORepresentative, July 8, 2011, Lux-embourg).

Comments from other respondents echothis frustration.Severalnoted that thePLis retroactive, and therefore is ineffectivein steering future growth (interview withApplied Geographer, May 27, 2011, Lux-embourg). Some note too that some ofthe laws contained in the document areunused – such as the Right of Pre-emption. Such laws, given the value ofland in Luxembourg, are unrealistic, andwereapolitician toenforce it, shewouldbe engaging in political suicide (interviewwith Government Official, June 30, 2011,Luxembourg). One respondent was alsoannoyed that the PL came about fasterthan thesectorplans.The ineffectivenessof thePLcombinedwith the timingof itsimplementation were seen as evidencethat the PLwasn’t about spatial planningat all but about financial resources. Thiswas a reflection of the government’sknackforforgettingintegratedplanning:Itwas easier to make a quick law, than itwas to implement more complex plansthat address various aspects of land-usedevelopment, andmoney was alsomuchmore appreciated by the municipalitiesthanwereplanssuchasIVL.

DiscourseSynthesisWhatwasseeninthedataarethetwo

primary circuits of sustainable develop-ment policy-making in Luxembourg: theinternationalcircuitsandtheircontactandexchange points with Luxembourg, andthe national and domestic policy circuits.By tracing the trajectoriesof Luxembourgsustainable development policies, it canbeseenveryclearlyhowthesepoliciesaregenerated, how they flow through thevarious orbits of governance, and howthey are influenced, shaped by, and nu-anced by various epistemological influ-ences.

ConstanceCarr

Page|31

The data presented in this paper canpoint to at least four interrelated soci-ostructural dilemmas that slow processesof policy implementation. First, Luxem-bourg is inextricably interwoven with in-ternationalinstitutionsandforums.Thisisononehandprofoundlynecessary,butonthe other handnotwithout its problems.Second, a disjuncture in sustainable de-velopment policy circuits reveals a mis-match between directives originating atthe international levelandthoseoriginat-ingdomestically.Third,thereisaparadox-icaltop-downand/orbottom-updecision-makingstructure,andthefourth,conflictsof interest in the government structuredisengage decision-making from govern-mentalpolitics,thusposinganotherpossi-blebarriertopolicyimplementation.

Luxembourgmaybesmallbutitisnotanisland

This paper did not address the policyandspatialdevelopmentcircuitsthatcon-nect Luxembourg, at various levels, withthose of the neighbouring nations ofFrance, Belgium, or Germany. There isalreadymuchworkandresearchcomplet-edontheGreaterRegionbyChilla(2009b,2009a), Schulz (2009), and Affolderbach(forthcoming).Chilla (2009a) showed thatLuxembourg has historically taken signifi-cantinterestinEuropeanandotherinter-national affairs. Schulz (2009) describedthe high degree of cross-border overlapsin theGrand Region. Affolderbach (forth-coming)isresearchingtherelationshipsofcross-border retail. These internationalrelationshipswere forged, inpart, for thepurpose of keeping the nation economi-callyafloat(Luxembourgcannotsurviveasa littlenationwithtightborders)andrec-ognized as an independent nationon theglobalstage.

The data collected and shown heresupportstheseobservations.First,deeperresearch into the history of the railroadshows thatLuxembourghad internationalarrangements and commitments alreadyinthe19thcentury.Second,thedatatrac-ingmorerecentpolicycircuitsofsustaina-ble development show the inextricableconnection between Luxembourg and in-ternational bodies. The PNDD and PDATwere specific products of Rio de Janiero.CIPU was a result of the Leipzig Charter,and Lux2020was the direct result of Eu-rope2020and,indirectly,theLisbonStrat-egy. Third, interviewswith AppliedGeog-raphers (May27,and June27,2011,Lux-embourg) also confirmed that Luxem-bourg has a necessary interweaving withinternationalbodies–theEuropeanlevel,inparticular.Theyconfirmed that Luxem-bourgprofitsquiteabitfromtheEurope-anandinternationallevelintermsofedu-cation, information exchange, and finan-cial resources.Witharesidentpopulationof 500,000, Luxembourg is only going tohave somuch capacity to administer anddrive the country. This limited capacitywasmentioned inthe interviews intermsof a competency gap (interviewwith Ap-plied Geographer, May 27, 2011, Luxem-bourg), and was also observed from theinterviewees themselves, as many hadseveralroles,notjustone.

The data thus shows that Luxembourgis inter-dependent and profoundly inter-twinedwithnationsnearandfarnotonlyin terms of labour and capital flows, butalso capacity-building and policy-making.Thisinterweavingattheinternationallevelis, as our interviewees have claimed, inmanyways beneficial. It is, however, notwithout its problems and dilemmas. Thefollowing sections reveal barriers in sus-tainable development policy implementa-tion.

ConstanceCarr

Page|32

IntegrationversusLocalAutonomyWhat is curious in the case of Luxem-

bourgistheverycleardemarcationofonlytwolevelsofgovernment(local/municipal,and national), and that the discoursesgeneratedattheselevelsdiffer.

Whatwasnewin1999wastheideaofspatial integration and integrated devel-opment. What all the Plans, which weregenerated at the national level, have incommon is their cross-municipal, cross-border, cross-sector character. It wouldseem, too, that there is resistance (per-haps at the local level) in terms of theirimplementation. To date, no plans thatwere generated as a result of the direc-tiveslaidoutintheLawof1999havebeenimplemented or made law. The ProgramDirecteur is still just a guiding document.The Sector Plans for Housing andTransport are still only in their “draft”stages. Moreover, a third Program Di-recteur is already on the horizon, leavingonetowonderhowthentheSectorPlanswill change yet again. Also, while not anexample of a document arising from the1999planninglaw,theintegrativeIVLwasalsonevergiven legalbacking.Given thatatthetimeofwritingthispaper(2011)12yearshavepassedsincetheideaofspatialintegration and sustainable developmentwas formally introduced to Luxembourg,one might wonder if there are any realmeans to implement these directives atall.

Luxembourg,asanoldernationhavinghavingoperatedasanindependentGrandDuchysincethecloseoftheBelgianwarinthe1830s,hasahistoryof land-useman-agemententrenched inandcharacterisedby a tradition of municipal autonomy, aswell as an atomized conceptualisation ofterritory related to a territorially based

polity5. Theaverage territorial jurisdictionof the116municipalities is22km2 (Sohn2006:3)--theresidentpopulationofeachranging from 320 to 29,000, with onlyLuxembourgCityandEsch-sur-Alzettehav-ingover30,000.Eachmunicipality, there-fore, has a modest voting membership,and limited sociospatial political and fi-nancial reach. Land-usemanagementwashistoricallyframedwithinthisreach.

Until1999, land-useplanningwascon-cerned with questions such as whereschools shall be located, where amotor-wayshallbebuilt,andhowandwheretheelectricity lines would be laid (Interviewwith Government Official, June 30, 2011,Luxembourg).Theconstructionofspecificstructureswaslargelyalateralnegotiationof costs and benefits among respectiveMayors. If something were needed tobenefit the nation as a whole, top-downinstruments were implemented, and thatwastheperceptionofthefirstProgrammeDirecteur. Our interviewees noted that itwas created in the 1970s, and viewed asaninstrumentof,by,andfor,thenationalgovernmenttoenabletheenforcementofasingledecisiononanotherwisereluctantmunicipality.

Curiously, the first Program Directeurwas not only top-down, but also particu-late. It did not involve integrative, cross-sector planning and co-operation. It wasbothoftheseaspectsthatthesecondPro-gramDirecteurwasoriginally intended toaddress and overcome (Interview withGovernmentalOfficial,July21,2011,Lux-embourg). Needless to say, its legal im-plementation has been rather slow. In-deed, finding consensus among 116 mu-

5Foranexplanationofvariousformsofterrito-

rial and non-territorial based political structuresseeBenhabib(2004).

ConstanceCarr

Page|33

nicipalities isadauntingtask,and indeed,thereareconflictsofinterestinthedemo-cratic systemas it is setupnow(see“Di-vided and Conquered” below). But, thelethargic legal implementation processesof the PDAT and associated integrativeplansareonlyunderscoredbytheeaseofwhich particulate and atomized laws areindeed passed. One wonders if Luxem-bourg finds itdifficult toescapeoldplan-ning traditions. As one interviewee re-marked:

“When they want to change some-thingtheydoalaw.Theydon’tdoasector plan,” (Government Official,June30,2011).

It iseasier topass laws thataddressveryparticularactions– suchas thePL,whichismoreaboutgrowthandredistributionoffederalfunds–thanit istoapplyacross-municipal, cross-sector sustainable devel-opment plan, which may require co-operation and compromises from variousmunicipalities. This conflict between thetraditions of an atomized land-use man-agement style and themore recent inte-grated approach ultimately results in abarriertopolicyimplementation.

Yet,while it isperhapseasytocriticisethat integrative policies are not receivinglegal backing, it must also be noted thattheir legal enforcement would also likelyspark revolution and outrage across Lux-embourg land-use management circles.Suchameasurewouldonceagaingivethenational governmentauthority toenforceitswillon themunicipalities,endangeringtheir jurisdictional autonomy. One Gov-ernmental Official even claimed that thiswas the central problem (June 27, 2011,Luxembourg).

TopDownvs.Bottom-upParadoxThedataprovidedinthispaperalsore-

vealscertainpeculiaritiesanddilemmasofLuxembourgish local autonomy versusnationalinterestplanning–thefirstoftenreferred to as “bottom-up” and the se-condoftenreferredtoas“top-down”.

One peculiarity is the problem of per-ceived top-down planning as policiesstrategies are imported from abroad. In-vestment of human capital into interna-tional policy circuits pays off for Luxem-bourg because for these venues are im-portant places to tap into more widelyknownknowledgebases andat the sametimemaketheirownissuesknowntooth-erwisemorepowerfulnations(aswasex-plained to us by oneAppliedGeographerin an interview onMay 27, 2011, in Lux-embourg).Also, liaisonsandambassadorscan return to Luxembourg with interna-tionally legitimated policy mechanisms(interview with Government Official, July21, 2011). Once back at home, chosenpolicy mechanisms will also have fewerdomestichoopstojumpsthroughrelativeto neighbouring states, as the domesticpolicyarena ismodest insize.Thesepoli-cies therefore – by way of internationalcomparison – arrive more or less prêt-a-porter.

This policy importation may functiontragicallyasadoubleedgesword.Luxem-bourg has always had its means andmechanismsof regulatingspace.Thearri-valofpoliciescreatedbeyondthenationalboundaries of Luxembourg onto a policyfield already in place, may leave otherLuxembourgishcitizensperhapssuspiciousastowhynewpoliciesandplanningstrat-egies are necessary, and mistrustful thatpoliciesarebeingdecideduponinvenuesthatareaboveandbeyondtheirparticipa-tion and influence. Thus, sincere as na-

ConstanceCarr

Page|34

tionalpolicymakersmaybe–andtheevi-dence shows that sustainability aroseoutof a sincere care and concern for the so-cial, political and economic environmentof the nation and its citizens (Interviewwith Government Official, July 21, 2011,Luxembourg; Interview with Applied Ge-ographer, May 27, 2011, Luxembourg) –theperceived top-downapplicationback-fires and slows or prevents policy imple-mentation.

The secondpeculiarity is theparadoxi-cal top-down character of otherwise per-ceived bottom-up decision-makers.Whilenational governmental officials are re-sponsible for nation-wide spatial devel-opmentproblems,localMayorscarrycon-siderablevetopower.(Thisisgovernmen-tal structure is explained further in thenext section.) The power to block canequallybeperceivedastop-down,leavingonetowonderwhothenactuallypossess-esdecision-makingpowerinLuxembourg,andwherethepoliticalbarriertosustain-abledevelopment implementationactual-lylies.

DividedandConqueredThestructureofgovernmentinLuxem-

bourghas inpartalreadybeenreferredointheprevioussections. It isnecessarytounderscore this structure though, to re-veal a further barrier to national policydirectives concerning sustainable spatialdevelopment.

Asnotedearlier,therearetwolevelsofgovernment(local/municipal,)andnation-al. IfyouincludetheEuropeanlevel,thenthere are three. A problem, in terms ofpolicy-making implementation, is the ap-parent circular decision-making structure:Approximately one third of theMembersof Parliament (Chamber of Deputies) arealso members of Executive Municipal

Councils(Schöffenrat).Thisrendersasitu-ationwhere thosemaking decisions on anational level,canonlydosowhilesimul-taneouslyprotectingtheir interestsatthemunicipallevel.Thisresultsinanapoliticalsituation.Asoneinterviewputit:

“Luxembourg will never make anykindofdecisionbecausesometimes–Iwouldsay–wehavenopoliticsinLuxembourg,” (interview with NGORepresentative,July7,2011).

This interviewee was referring to a per-ceptionofgovernanceinLuxembourgthatresemblesadead-lockindecision-making.The conflict of interests that someDepu-ties have as members of the ExecutiveMunicipal Council (Schöffenrat) slows orblocksmanydecisionsbecausetheseMPswill always beworrying about their voterconstituencies at the municipal level. Todootherwise,wouldbe tocommit social,politicalandeconomicsuicide.Asaresult,many of the policies such as integrativeplanningdonotget legallyendorsed,andevenofthosethatdo,suchastheMunici-palRightofFirstRefusallistedinthePacteLogement, do not even get used (Inter-view with Government Official, June 30,2011, Luxembourg). This reveals a situa-tion, inwhichitappearsthatLuxembourghas divided and conquered itself.Mayorsfulfilling the double role of representingnational interests as well as particulateinterests of individual municipalities areincapable of ratifying policies that donotspeak to both policy circuits at the sametime.

To complement or even offset thisproblem,however,onemightrefertothepeculiar layer of informal politics in Lux-embourg.Severalofourrespondentsnot-ed that the smallness of Luxembourg’spolitical community of roughly 200,000

ConstanceCarr

Page|35

votingcitizensrendersasituationinwhichmany residents know their Mayor orChamber representativepersonally (inter-view with Applied Geographer, May 27and June 30,2011, Luxembourg). As oneintervieweeexplained:

“…the politicians have to look totheir public environment. So this iswhat you call the ‘horizontal level’.Yes, you can influence them easilyon that level. [via relations of] par-ents, family etc. [...] And these cir-cles are really absolutely flat be-cause someone from 'here' [gestur-ing to someone outside the admin-istration yet on the same level] cantalktohim.It'scompletelyflat,”(In-terview Media Analyst, July 14,2011,Luxembourg).

It is thus not uncommon in Luxembourgthat environmentally and/or socially con-scious citizens sit across the table fromgovernmentofficialsandeither informallyor formally influencenationalpolicy.Asafurther illustration: On page four of deKéisecker, a newsletter published by andfor members of the MouvementEcologique (MECO), there is one photoshowing thepresidentofMECObrowsingan exhibition alongside the Grand Duke,andanotherphotoofhersittingbetweenthe two Ministers of Sustainable Devel-opment and Infrastructure (MouvementEcologique 2011: 4). These are non-surprising displays of the unusually closeand largely horizontal power distancesthat characterise politics in Luxembourg.This political closeness is, on one hand,open – as our interviewee described. Onthe other hand, it is closed because itleavesonewonderinghowmanydecisionsaremade through informal and interper-sonal ties rather than formal and demo-craticpoliticalforums.

CONCLUSIONThegoalofthispaperwastosurveythe

primary and most relevant policy docu-mentsinLuxembourgwithrespecttosus-tainable spatial development in general,and housing and transport in particular.Beyond a simple document survey, how-ever,anothergoalwastounderstandthehistoricalandconceptualcontextsofeach:To be able to understand why and bywhomtheywerecreated,whattheyweresupposed toachieve,why theywereper-ceivedimportantandbywhom,andlastlyto delineate possible conflicts or barriersin sustainable spatial development policyimplementation.

Thispaperhasfocussedonhousingandtransport as a spatial dimension of sus-tainable development planning policy. Itmightwellbereiteratedherethatsustain-able development, in broad terms, is al-readyextremelypervasiveinotherdiscur-sive spheres in Luxembourg.Housing andtransport are only two specific arenas,chosen here as the object of study be-causetheintersectionofthesetwocarriesa strong material and spatial dimension.Theseareofparticularconcern inLuxem-bourg, too, as it strugglesand transformsunder its cross-border tertiary economy(ThisspecificsetofcircumstancesthatsetthebackgroundfortheSUSTAINLUXstudywere outlined in the first working paper(Carretal.2010)).All thedocumentsandall of the interviewed participants agreethat the coordination of real estate andmobilityiscriticalinordertosteerLuxem-bourg’s development trends. Several in-terviewees claimed that barriers neededtobeaddressed (InterviewswithGovern-ment Representatives, June 27 and June30, 2011, Luxembourg; Interviews withApplied Geographer, June 30, 2011, Lux-embourg).

ConstanceCarr

Page|36

Beyond barriers to policy implementa-tionasdiscussedintheprevioussection,itwasalso seen in thispaper that sustaina-bledevelopmentaroseinsideLuxembourgasaresultofenvironmentalmovementsinthe1990s,andquicklybecamewellpoisedto become integrated as a planning nor-mative through the existence of interna-tional forums, and the simultaneousemergence of the Department of SpatialPlanning as a section of the Ministry ofEnvironment(InterviewswithGovernmentOfficials, July 15 and 21, 2011, Luxem-bourg). The roots of the concept, there-fore,seemtohavearisenoutofasincerecare for the environment and ecology oftheregionatatimewhensustainablede-velopment as a planning normative wasgaininginternationalrecognition.

Overtheyears,itseemsthatthethree-pillared normative of sustainable devel-opmentwasdiluted to somedegreeas itbecame integrated into national policies.In the same way that sustainable devel-opment lost some of its edge as it wasmainstreamed by the United Nations in1987(ParraandMoulaert2011),sotooithasbeensoftenedthroughlegitimationinthe policy-making arena in Luxembourg.At least,thedefinitionsofsustainablede-velopment are just as varied inside Lux-embourg as they are internationally. Atthenationallevel,thisnewwatered-downsense, sustainable development is largelyequatedwith integrative planning aswasseen in the documents. At themunicipallevel,sustainabledevelopment isequatedwithparticipation.While integrativeplan-ning and participation can be viewed asstrategies of addressing sustainable de-velopment holistically, perhaps moretroubling was the observation that thefocus of sustainable development in Lux-embourg has morphed into a marriagebetween the ecological awareness and

economic necessity, at the expense andexclusionofthesocialdimension.

Thus, to a certain degree, sustainabledevelopment in Luxembourg seems thento warrant the same criticism that thetermreceives internationally(seeKruegerandGibbs2007).Thedatahasshownthatcontrol mechanisms seem lacking in Lux-embourg, as sustainable development atthe international level regularly shifts be-tween ecological sustainability (Rio) tosocial sustainability (Göteborg (orGothenburg), Leipzig) and economic sus-tainability(Europe2020).Thus,sustainabledevelopment changes in Luxembourg aswell, followingwider international trendsandinfluences.

Many have challenged the notion ofsustainable development precisely be-cause its plasticity can have so manymeanings,suchthatanyonecandrawsig-nificance from it. Some even claim thatsustainabledevelopmentwouldbeentire-ly counterproductive as progressive plan-ningobjectivebecausechangeispreciselywhat is needed, thereby questioningwhether or not sustainable developmentisnormativeatall(Buckingham2007:66).Thus, that there is a component of theSUSTAINLUX research that requires a se-mantic debate over the question ofwhatsustainable development implicates, andhowitcanbeapplied(ifatall).EvansandJones (Evans and Jones 2008: 1417) havenoted too the ambiguity of the term hasgenerated much critique, and that theambiguityhasbeenobservedtobeahin-derance to actual implementation of sus-tainability goals. Evan and Jones (2008:1417) further argue, however, that theambiguitycanalsobe thestrengthof theplanning normative. They argue that theambiguityleavesspacefordeliberationasa shared territory. Similar observations

ConstanceCarr

Page|37

weremadebyHolden,whoproposedthatsustainabilitycanbeseenasa:

“…struggle to learn more, to learnbetter, and to learn in amore con-textualized fashion within the com-munities of our lived experience,”(Holden2006:172).

Given the pervasiveness of sustainabledevelopment in Luxembourgurban trans-formation discourse, perhaps thesemorepositiveoutlookswouldbeamorefruitfuloutlook. Integratedapproaches inLuxem-bourg would certainly demand sharingterritory in a literal and material sense.Thediscursivesphereofparticipationanddiscussion,which is sovaluedby themu-nicipalities (Interview,May27,2011, Lux-embourg)mightfurtherbeconceivedasashared logico-epistemological territory. Inthis way, there is room for optimism forsustainable spatial development in Lux-embourg.

Concerning the specific situation thatLuxembourg finds itself in today, perhapsthe notion of Luxembourg as a nation ofhalfamillionforeverengagedinacycleofinformationexchangesattheinternationallevel, reliant on an external labour force,and generally forging itself as a centralplayerontheinternationalstage,hitsper-haps at one of the hearts of Luxembour-gish popular discourses:Mir wëllebleiwewat mir sinn, whichmeans “We want tostaywhatweare” and is aphraseoutofthe original national anthem. If so, thedata here would further support it. Theconflict-ripe mismatch between national-internationalpolicycircuitandthenation-al-local policy circuit might suggest thatthereisatensionbetweenstayingLuxem-bourgish (whatever “Luxembourgish”means) and exchanging with Others (as,for example, in policy generation at the

European level). While this tension in-vokes notions of nationalism and, in theextreme, xenophobia, the tension mightalsobeastartingpointtoaddressLuxem-bourg as a nation in perpetualmotion ofbecoming, or as Péporté et al. (2010) ar-gued,“inventing.”

Curiously, close examination of thehousing andmobility projections of needoverthenexttwentyyearsdonotindicatea shortage of space in terms of absolutesquare meterage. Quick internationalcomparisonsshow immediately that largescaleprojects that canhousemany thou-sandsonsmallterritoriesalreadyexistandare therefore possible, as much as theymay be undesired (Carr 2010). The docu-ments also indicate that the new cross-borderpost-industrialeconomyisofmoreconcernintermsofexistinginfrastructuralcapacity, but not in terms of any sort ofneo-colonizationof the tertiary industriesperse.Thecruxoftheissue,then,seemstobethelackofdecision-making,notonlyin terms of governmental structure, butalsointermsofwidervisioningconcerningthe future course of Luxembourg as awhole.

Whenaskedaboutthemainchallengesfacing Luxembourg in the coming years,ourrespondentscitedamyriadofspecificproblems that need to be tackled: com-muter balance, landscape protection(Government Official, July 21, 2011, Lux-embourg); integrative planning law im-plementation (Applied Geographer, June30, 2011, Luxembourg); gasoline tourism(GovernmentOfficial, June 27, 2011, Lux-embourg);economicgrowthandwhetherit is necessary (NGO Representative, July8, 2011); and, decision-making structure(Media Analysis, July 14, 2011, Luxem-bourg; Government Official June 27,

ConstanceCarr

Page|38

2011). OneAppliedGeographerwas lessspecific:

“In terms of spatial planning, it willbemostinterestingifitjustgoesongrowing here. What will happenthen? Will they really succeed tobuildmorehighways, and toorgan-isethetrainsinabetterway,andtolink it to theothermetropolitan re-gions,andtoorganisethe–theset-tlement areas in a better way, toachieve a real polycentric territorialdevelopment [...] I’m really curious.[...But]Isimplydon’tknow.I’mreal-ly just curious,” (interviewwith Ap-plied Geographer, June 27, 2011,Luxembourg).

Clearly problems are abound, and clearlythe situation is so particular that Luxem-bourg’sfuturetrajectoryishardtopredict.

When asked about what Luxembourgneeds,oneNGOrepresentativesaid:

„We need national consistency. Butalso citizens from below, communi-ties that support [sustainabledevel-opment]andsee itas their role [...]We need cultural change with re-specttothedimensionsofsustaina-bility,” (interview with NGO Repre-sentative, July 8, 2011, Luxem-bourg).

Perhaps visioning then is a public dis-coursewaiting to happen. The interviewsindicate that there is a need to revisionLuxembourg together, to decide on thepath that Luxembourg’s spatial develop-ment transformations should take, andthen find a way to steer it in that direc-tion.Whetheravisioningprocesswilltakeplace,andtowhatdegreeitwillbeacol-lective process remains, of course, to beseen. But therein lies the chance for a

realized balanced three-legged stool ofsustainabledevelopment.

Dr.ConstanceCarrconstance.carr@uni.lu

REFERENCES&FURTHERREADINGSAffolderbach, Julia. forthcoming. “Negoti-

ating border regions: Retail develop-ment in Luxembourg and the GreaterRegion.” inTheorizingBorders throughAnalysesofPowerRelationships,editedby Harlon Koff, Peter Gilles, CarmenMaganda, and Christian Schulz. Brus-sels:P.I.E.PeterLang.

AménagementduTerritoire.1999.Memo-rialA-No61-JournalOfficielduGrand-Duché de Luxembourg, Service CentraldeLégislation.RetrievedDecember31,2010(http://www.legilux.public.lu/).

Becker, Tom, and Markus Hesse. 2010.“Internationalisierung und Steuerungmetropolitaner Wohnungsmärkte: DasBeispielLuxemburg.”InformationenzurRaumentwicklung5(6):1-13.

Benhabib, Seyla.2004.TheRightsofOth-ers. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Beyer, Antoine. 2009. “Tanktourismus -EineinträglicherUnterschied.”Pp.138-139 inDerLuxemburgAtlasduLuxem-bourg, edited by Patrick Bousch et al.Cologne:Hermann-JosefEmonsVerlag.

Buckingham, Susan. 2007. “Microgeogra-phiesandMicoruptures:ThePoliticsofGender in the Theory and Practice ofSustainability.” Pp. 13-40 in The Sus-tainable Development Paradox: UrbanPolitical Economy in the United StatesandEurope,editedbyRobertJ.Krueger

ConstanceCarr

Page|39

and David Gibbs. New York: The Guil-fordPress.

Calmes, Albert. 1919. Der Zollanschlussdes Grossherzogtums Luxemburg anDeutschland (1942-1919): Der EintrittLuxemburgs in den Deutschen Zollver-ein. Frankfurt a.M.: Universität Frank-furta.M.

Carr,C.2010.“Density.” inP.Robbins,N.Cohen,andJ.G.Golson(eds)GreenCit-ies: An A-to-Z Guide, Thousand Oaks:Sage Publications.(http://orbilu.uni.lu/handle/10993/1471)

Carr, C. 2010. Sustainable Spatial Devel-opmentinLuxembourg.PresentationattheRegionalStudiesAssociationWork-shop on Ecological Regional Develop-ment, June 2010.(http://orbilu.uni.lu/handle/10993/2706)

Carr., C. 2010. Introducing SUSTAINLUX.Presentation at the Doktorandenkollo-quium für UmweltorientierteWirtschaftsgeographie(http://orbilu.uni.lu/handle/10993/2707)

Carr,Constance,MarkusHesse,andChris-tian Schulz. 2010. “Sustainable SpatialDevelopment in Luxembourg (SUS-TAINLUX).” Laboratoire de Géographieet Aménagement du Territoire. Retrie-ved(http://wwwen.uni.lu/).

Carr, C., Hesse,M. Schulz, C. 2010. "Sus-tainable Spatial Development in Lux-embourg(SUSTAINLUX):Summary.” In-stitute of Geography and Spatial Plan-ning, University of Luxembourg(http://orbilu.uni.lu/handle/10993/3464)

Carr, C., Hesse,M. Schulz, C. 2010. "Sus-tainable Spatial Development in Lux-embourg." Institute of Geography andSpatial Planning, University of Luxem-bourg(http://orbilu.uni.lu/handle/10993/1851)

Carr, C., Hesse,M. Schulz, C. 2010. " Na-chhaltige Raumentwicklung in Luxem-burg(SUSTAINLUX):Kurzfassung."Insti-tuteofGeographyandSpatialPlanning,University of Luxembourg(http://orbilu.uni.lu/handle/10993/1852)

Carr,C.,Krueger,R.2011.ExaminingSus-tainable Spatial Development in Lux-embourg. Presentation at theRegionalStudies Association Research NetworkEcological Regional Development, Uni-versity of Hull.(http://orbilu.uni.lu/handle/10993/2709)

CEPS/INSTEAD. 2006. “La note del’Observatoire de l´Habitat.” RetrievedOctober 21, 2011(http://observatoire.ceps.lu/).

ChambredesDeputes.2010.ChambredesDeputes, No 6124, Session ordinaire2009-2010.ProjetdeLoimodifiantlaloidu 21 mai 1999 concernantl’aménagementduterritoire.

Chilla, Tobias. 2009a. “Europa in Luxem-burg: Die EU-Institutionen.” Pp. 16-17inDerLuxemburgAtlasduLuxembourg,edited by Patrick Bousch et al. Calbe:Hermann-JosefEmonsVerlag.

Chilla, Tobias. 2009b. “Luxemburg in Eu-ropa:ProminentePositioneineskleinenStaates.” Pp. 14-15 in Der LuxemburgAtlasduLuxembourg,editedbyPatrick

ConstanceCarr

Page|40

Bousch et al. Calbe: Hermann-JosefEmonsVerlag.

Commission of the European Communi-ties.2001. “ASustainableEurope foraBetterWorld:AEuropeanUnionStrat-egy for SustainableDevelopment.” Re-trievedDecember29,2010(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/).

Concernant l’aménagement des villes etautres agglomérations importantes.1937. Memorial du Grand-Duché deLuxembourgSamdi7août1937No57,ServiceCentraldeLégislation.RetrievedDecember 31, 2010(http://www.legilux.public.lu/).

Concernant l’aménagement général duterritoire. 1974. Memorial A-No 18 -Journal Officiel du Grand-Duché deLuxembourg,ServiceCentraldeLégisla-tion. Retrieved December 31, 2010(http://www.legilux.public.lu/).

ConseilSupérieurpourunDéveloppementDurable,andGlobalFootprintNetwork.2010. “L’Empreinte écologique duLuxembourg.”RetrievedSeptember21,2010(http://www.myfootprint.lu/).

Creswell, JohnW.2009.ResearchDesign:Qualitative, Quantitative, and MixedMethod Approaches. Thousand Oaks:SagePublications.

Developpement Durable. 2004.MemorialA-No 102 - Journal Officiel du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, Service CentraldeLégislation.

Ebeling, Dieter. 2011. “Junker kämpft um‘seinen’ Euro.” Tageblatt, July 1 Re-trieved September 15, 2011(http://www.tageblatt.lu/nachrichten/story/29251331).

European Commission. 2010a. “EUROPE2020: A European strategy for smart,sustainable and inclusive growth.” Re-trieved September 30, 2010(http://ec.europa.eu/).

European Commission. 2010b. “LisbonStrategy Evaluation Document.” Re-trieved September 30, 2010(http://ec.europa.eu/).

Evans, James, and Phil Jones. 2008. “Re-thinking sustainable urban regenera-tion: ambiguity, creativity, and theshared territory.” Environment andPlanningA40:1416-1434.

Fonds National de la Recherche Luxem-bourg. 2010. “COREMulti-annual The-maticResearchProgramme.”RetrievedOctober4,2010(http://www.fnr.lu/).

Gengler, Claude,MichelMargue, JeannotMetzler,andGilbertTrausch.2002.His-toire du Luxembourg: Le destin euro-péen d’un “petit pays.”Toulouse: Édi-tionsPrivat.

Hemmer, Dagmar, and Werner Bauer.2003. “Privatisierung und Liberalisie-rung öffentlicher Dienstleistungen inderEU-15:Wohnen.”RetrievedJanuary12,2011(http://www.iut.nu/).

Holden,Meg.2006.“Urbanindicatorsandthe integrative ideals of cities.” Cities23(3):170-183.

Innenministerium, Transportministerium,Ministerium für Öffentliche Bauten,andUmweltministerium. 2004. “An In-tegratedTransport andSpatialDevelo-pmentConcept for Luxembourg (IVL).”Retrieved September 22, 2010(http://www.ivl.public.lu/).

ConstanceCarr

Page|41

Jordan, A. 2008. “The governance of sus-tainabledevelopment:takingstockandlooking forward.” Environment andPlanning C: Government and Policy26(1):17-33.

Krueger, Rob J., and David Gibbs. 2007.The SustainableDevelopment Paradox:Urban Political Economy in the UnitedStatesandEurope.1sted.TheGuilfordPress.

Leick, Annick. 2009. “Suburbanisierung:Wenn die Stadt ins Umland wächst.”Pp. 52-53 in Der Luxemburg Atlas duLuxembourg, edited by Patrick Bouschet al. Cologne: Hermann-Josef EmonsVerlag.

Margue,Michel,Michel Polfer, andDenisScuto.2000.EntdeckenundVerstehen-GeschichtsbuchfürdenTechnischenSe-kundarunterrichtLuxemburg:CornelsenVerlagGmbh.

Ministère de l’Environnement. 2009.“Avant-projetduPlanNationalpourunDéveloppementDurable:Conférncedepresse du 27 avril 2009.” RetrievedSeptember 8, 2010(http://www.environnement.public.lu/).

Ministère de l’Environnement. 2006a.“Luxembourg’s InitialReportundertheKyoto Protocol.” Retrieved December28,2010(http://unfccc.int).

Ministèredel’Environnement.1999.“PlanNational pour un Développement Du-rable.” Retrieved September 8, 2010(http://www.environnement.public.lu).

Ministère de l’Environnement. 2006b.“Rapportnationalsurlamiseenoeuvrede la politique de développement du-

rable.” Retrieved September 8, 2010(http://www.environnement.public.lu).

Ministère de L’Environnement. 2000.“PlanNationalPourUnDéveloppementDurable.” Retrieved August 24, 2010(http://www.environnement.public.lu/).

Ministère de l’Intérieur. 2003. “Pro-grammeDirecteur D’Aménagement duTerritoire.” Retrieved August 23, 2010(http://www.miat.public.lu/).

Ministère de l’Intérieur (DATUR). 2004.“Un concept intégre des transports etdu développement spatial pour leLuxembourg.”RetrievedSeptember22,2010(http://www.ivl.public.lu/).

MinistèredesClassesMoyennes, du Tou-risme et du Logement, and Ministèrede l’Intérieur et de l’Aménagement duTerritoire.2009.“PlanDirecteurSecto-riel ‘Logement’ - Vorentwurf.” Retrie-ved September 30, 2010(http://www.logement.lu/).

Ministère des Transports. 2007. “Mobil2020:Mobilitéitdéibeweegt.”

Ministère des Transports, Ministère del’Environnement, Ministère del’Intérieuretdel’AménagementduTer-ritoire, and Ministère des Travaux Pu-blics. 2008a. “Avant-projet de Plan Di-recteur Sectoriel Transports - Pre-sentation Powerpoint.” Retrieved Ja-nuary 10, 2011(http://www.mt.public.lu/).

Ministère des Transports, Ministère del’Environnement, Ministère del’Intérieuretdel’AménagementduTer-ritoire, and Ministère des Travaux Pu-blics. 2008b. “Plan Directeur SectorielTransports / Projet de Rapport Tech-

ConstanceCarr

Page|42

nique-Resume.”RetrievedJanuary10,2011(http://www.mt.public.lu/).

Ministère du Logement. 2008. “Le PacteLogement.”

Ministerium für Nachhaltige Entwicklungund Infrastrukturen, and Joachim H.Spangenberg.2011.PNDDLuxembourg:EinNachhaltigesLuxembourg fürMehrLebensqualität. Luxembourg:Ministeri-umfürNachhaltigeEntwicklungunInf-rastruckturen.

Mouvement Ecologique. 2011. “de Kéi-seckerinfo.”No.12.

Movement Écologique, and OekozenterLëtzebuerg. 2010. “GesamtregisterAussteller2010Registredesexposants2010.” Retrieved November 12, 2010(http://oekofoire.oeko.lu/).

Pacte Logement. 2008. Memorial A-No159 - Journal Officiel du Grand-DuchédeLuxembourg,ServiceCentraldeLégi-slation. Retrieved January 12, 2011(http://www.legilux.public.lu/).

Parra, Constanza, and Frank Moulaert.2011.“Whysustainability issofragilely‘social’.”in Strategic Spatial Projects:Catalysts for Change, edited by StijnOosterlynck, JefVandenBroeck, LouisAlbrechts, Frank Moulaert, and AnnVerhetsel.NewYork:Routledge.

Péporté,Pit,SonjaKmec,BenoitMajerus,and Michel Margue. 2010. InventingLuxembourg: representations of thepast, space and language from thenineteenth to the twenty-first century.BRILL.

Präsidentschaft der Europäischen Union.2007. “Leipzig Charter on SustainableEuropeanCities.”

Schrobilgen, L. 1841. Relation du voyagedesamajestéGuillaumeII,roidesPays-Bas... :Grand-DucdeLuxembourg,etc.dans le Grand-Duché, en Juin 1841. J.Lamort.

Schulz,Christian.2009.“LuxembourgdanslaGrandRégion.” Pp. 12-13 inDer Lu-xemburg Atlas du Luxembourg, editedby Patrick Bousch et al. Calbe: Her-mann-JosefEmonsVerlag.

Sohn, Christophe. 2006. “Villes et agglo-mérations au Grand-Duché de Luxem-bourg.Propositiond’unenomenclaturedesunitésurbaines.”Population&Ter-ritoire(CEPS/INSTEAD)(10):1-16.

Sohn, Christophe, and Anouck Jacoby.2009. “La place de Luxembourg - Villedans la Grande Région.” Pp. 60-61 inDer Luxemburg Atlas du Luxembourg,editedbyPatrickBouschetal.Cologne:Hermann-JosefEmonsVerlag.

Spangenberg, Joachim H., and Ministèrede l’Environnement. 2007. “Luxem-bourg Vision.” Retrieved September 8,2010(http://www.environnement.public.lu/.

Stadtland, and Ministère des ClassesMoyennes, du Tourisme et du Loge-ment. 2007a. “Wohnungsbe-darfsprognose 2001-2021.” RetrievedSeptember 30, 2010(http://www.logement.lu/).

Stadtland, and Ministère des ClassesMoyennes, du Tourisme et du Loge-ment. 2007b. “Wohnungsbedarfsprog-nose 2001-2021 - Zusammenfassungder Ergebnisse.” Retrieved September30,2010(http://www.logement.lu/).

Swyngedouw,Erik.2007.“Impossible‘Sus-tainability’ and the Postpolitical Condi-

ConstanceCarr

Page|43

tion.”Pp. 13-40 in The Sustainable De-velopment Paradox: Urban PoliticalEconomy in the United States and Eu-rope, edited by Robert J. Krueger andDavid Gibbs. New York: The GuilfordPress.

Thewes,Guy.2003.LesgouvernementsduGrand-Duché de Luxembourg depuis1848.Luxembourg:ServiceInformationetPresse.

Thöne, Michael. 2008. “Laffer in Luxem-burg: Tankverkehr und Steueraufkom-men im Grossherzogtum.” FiFo-CPEDiscussion Papers, 1-55 Retrieved Sep-tember21,2010.

Trausch, Gilbert. 1981. Le Luxembourg àl’époque contemporaine. Luxembourg:EditionsBourg-Bourger.

United Nations. 1992. “Earth SummitAgenda 21: The United Nations Pro-grammeofActionfromRio.”RetrievedSeptember 22, 2010(http://www.un.org).

United Nations. 2003. “JohnannesburgPlanofImplementation,WorldSummiton Sustainable Development.” Re-trieved August 23, 2010(http://www.wsscc.org/).

United Nations. 1987. “Report of theWorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopment: Our Common Future.”Retrieved August 23, 2010(http://www.un.org).

UnitedNationsFrameworkConventiononClimate Change. 1992. Retrieved Au-gust23,2010(http://unfccc.int/).

Voss, Jan-Peter, Jens Newig, Britta Kas-tens, Jochen Monstadt, and BenjaminNölting.2007.“SteeringforSustainable

Development: a Typology of Problemsand Strategieswith respect to Ambivi-lence, Uncertainty and DistributedPower.”JournalofEnvironmentalPolicy&Planning9(3-4):193-212.

ConstanceCarr

Page|44