26/02/2014
Contracting and decentralisation
Feedback
Vincent LE DOLLEY, IGPEF, former advisor to DATAR
Contracting and decentralisation
Feedback
Vincent LE DOLLEY, IGPEF, former advisor to DATAR
1 . General context
In modern democratic societies, small or big projects must meet multiple constraints and fit perfectly into their local context in terms of urban planning, environment and employment in particular. Citizens' demands are increasing, and so files are more and more complex ...
In order to make decisions closer to local actors, part of the decision-making power has been delegated to local elected officials accountable to their constituents. This decentralization movement has concerned sides more or less broad of the responsibilities initially assumed by the national government, which has been entrusted to communities of different levels: communes, associations of communes, departments, cities, regions...
Therefore, the development and launch of a project today requires a wide cross-sectoral approach and the coordination of decisions makers from different geographic levels, often involving multiple files and sometimes specific negotiations. The idea of a contract between the partners for a project is an operational response to this increasing complexity, involving the responsibility of everyone in the success of a project in space and in time.
In fact, except for very big projects, the negotiation of a specific contract for each project, however, soon became , with the proliferation of projects , cumbersome and inefficient given the administrative capacity of each. The idea took form of joint contracts to a set of projects on the scale of a sectoral policy (e.g. to a set of agricultural or environmental projects of the same nature), or more general policies for economic and social development.
So the concept of " Contrats de plan " in 1983 appeared as a necessary corollary to the regional decentralization , the perfect tool for a necessary coordination between the central government and local authorities who came new responsibilities to be assigned in 1982 in the field of spatial planning.
The name " Contrats de plan" was initially linked to the idea that decentralization was mechanically lead to the development of "regional plans" which then had to be coordinated with the National Plan. In fact, this concept of decentralized planning has quickly given way, in France as elsewhere, to more strategic approaches, and to the idea of coordination of regional strategies with the national strategy.
This principle of contracting based on shared prior strategic reflection, determining the choice of projects, was also developed at national level in the following years at various scales (“Contrats de pays” rural development , “contrats d’agglomération” urban contracts, “contrats de ville” city contracts, “contrats à l’échelle des parcs régionaux” regional parks contracts, “contrats de site” economic and social zones contracts... ) and even at European level with the emergence of European integrated approaches on priority areas ( including with integrated Mediterranean Programmes implemented in the 80s to accompany the integration of Spain and Portugal in European Union, which have served as a laboratory for the new regional policy of the European Union). It is now the basis of intervention framework of EU funds committed under the cohesion policy (with a 3-tier architecture: European Union – State-Regions.
2 . Review of French CPERs after more than 30 years of experience
• The first interest of CPERs, unanimously agreed, is to have an opportunity to share experiences and to build relationships of trust between government departments (central or regional ) and the new teams of regional authorities. This facilitated notably at the beginning the transfer of responsibility in contributing to the formation of new regional leaders in the areas transferred. More generally, it allows a permanent dialogue between services of different levels, based on common knowledge and values .
• The second advantage of CPERs is to allow reflection and dialogue on strategies and programs specified in cross-sectoral terms, thus facilitating policy choices between different sectors while avoiding the reconstitution in the local governments administrations of current inter-ministerial approaches and divisions. It becomes theoretically possible to compare the respective interest of a project for public transport, a local economic development project or a major regional cultural project.
• The CPERs permit within a national vision to define various policies for economic and social development, appropriate to the reality of Regions and territories, and thus are better able to support specific approaches, original or innovative.
• Finally, the CPERs allow effective coordination in space and time of the partners interventions for the implementation of complex and integrated projects, each deciding normally within its area of responsibility; for projects of exceptional importance, this coordination can take form of pooling of financial resources in the areas of shared competencies.
• In reality, mainly because of the characteristics of French decentralization in the early years, leaving large areas of shared competencies especially in the economic field, CPERs have operated mainly as a tool for co -financing of projects or policies decided in common, with the advantage for the State to keep a look at regional programming and for Regions to benefit from the experience and independent technical services of the State.
In areas where skills were better defined, as in the field of transport, the most common practice was co -financing by the Regions of projects in the field of competence of the State: the State found obvious financial interest in periods when public money became more rare, and the regions would find well in trying to facilitate the programming of the State projects that were directly relevant for them.
• Another problem is related to the overall economic context: the difficulty for the State to meet its financial commitments, particularly in times of crisis. This was partly because some departments had contracted too big amounts, incompatible with the subsequent fiscal discipline, but also because of changing priorities mainly in relation with changes in Government composition during the period of CPERs, the new Ministers preferring to concentrate resources available on new approaches rather than on projects negotiated by their predecessors...
This problem has long been regarded by the authorities as the main problem of the CPERs, involving the overall credibility of the process ...
• Finally, departments have sometimes contributed to complicate the implementation of CPERs by superimposing to them separate contractual approaches to directly implement new priorities: local governments then had the feeling of losing the unity of thought and negotiation that prevailed in the CPER, falling in sectoral negotiations leading to a competition between the regions...
3 . The importance of a good initial strategic framework :
To avoid these pitfalls, the first condition is that the State defines its strategy of contracting upstream of negotiation:
a- The choice of partners of the CPER: given the decentralized policies that may be contracted, what are the indispensable partners : Regions only , or Departements, local communities…? The multiplication of partners makes the negotiation more complex, but in some areas the lack of competent authorities may make it impossible to achieve certain objectives...
In France, the choice of a contracting process focused on economic development has made the natural designation of the Region as a hub of trading, without excluding the involvement of other levels.
b- The strategic framework: the choice of contracting may only come from a national political will, related to a certain conception of participatory and decentralized democracy, but the content must in all cases be the result of a strategic approach, based first on statistical analysis, on prospective thinking and specialized expertise that can be recognized by all contracting partners.
A clear mandate must be given as soon as possible to the competent national services (in France, it is DATAR) to initiate prospective work and preparatory studies, to study with national statistical services and the competent teams in the Departments and Regions the various options for contracting, otherwise the policy choices may be too subjective ...
c- The territorial targeting, with at least three key questions:
i . Is the State in his role in encouraging and facilitating interregional approaches: the French response was rather yes, but on very specific topics where an inter- regional approach carried clear added value, and with limited financial contributions, in order to avoid challenging the pivotal role of the regional level : for instance the economic development of mountain areas , supported by the European Union since more recently , approaches to sustainable development of large river basins to facilitate solidarity upstream and downstream , and sometimes major transport infrastructures on inter- regional corridors , requiring coordinated decisions of the various regions.
ii . Should the State get involved in sub-regional territorial approaches through territorial aspects of CPERs ( country contracts , city contracts , contracts with regional parks , areas of industrial restructuring , contracts for integrated coastal management... ) and how? This is clearly development planning skills transferred to the Regions, but the projects of these territories often concern specific ministerial responsibilities, and also pilot experiences of integrated territorial development approaches may interrest the national level.
iii . The State should it interfere in border procedures, whether interregional or inter-communal? France has chosen since several years to entrust the responsibility of the European territorial cooperation to the Regions, but in reality, many policies interesting directly the quality of cross-border relations comes under national competence...
d- The choice of areas:
From the beginning, it is necessary to analyze where " CPER method" is likely to bring the maximum value, and avoid dispersion on too many issues.
i . As we have seen, the CPERs are particularly relevant for the implementation of territorial inter-sectoral projects, whether for big regional or national projects, or for metropolitan, urban or rural integrated development projects.
ii . They are also well suited to support the local economy and partnership between universities, research, development and SMEs, in conjunction with several government departments to mobilize all energies on this thematic fruitful for jobs and innovations;
iii . CPERs can effectively contribute to the search for energy savings and climate change adaptation , and more generally to many environmental issues , to the extent they should engage many local actors in various fields (companies, housing, agriculture, wood industry , tourism ...) as well as civil society;
iv . They can be widely used on more thematic policies such as transport, very present in French CPERs, insofar as the public transport projects , cargo and port development are often of particular importance for regional development while requiring the mobilization of substantial financial resources ;
v . The CPERs are also a major tool to implement coordinated inter- regional policies for economic development of regions lagging behind or larger areas facing common problems .
In any cases, it is essential that the services of the Ministries are heavily involved in the scoping and public intervention within the CPERs to take ownership as an instrument of their own policies and well articulate their sectoral policies with the CPERs. CPERs are also often for the Ministries good opportunity to develop interdepartmental approaches and work with their colleagues, under the coordination of DATAR.
4 . Conditions of the negotiation
• The first requirement is the political will of partners; these being almost never all the same political edge, it requires prior high-level contacts to try to get a minimum consensus on the very principle of contracting, its timing, its general content and financial framework (in practice at the level of the Prime Minister and representatives of the Presidents of the concerned institutions).
• The national strategic framework being supposed to be assumed as mentioned above , it should be encouraged parallel drafting of regional strategies , based on existing regional planning documents , on the regionalized policies already implemented, on studies and reflections of national and regional prospective ... This regional policy work can be valued more broadly, and may be shared or provide a framework for other national and European strategic approaches; this should indeed avoid unnecessarily increasing strategic thinking on the same thematic , and unnecessarily increasing the correlative administrative workload ...
• The exchanges must then take place between national and regional authorities, and must allow the consistency of these documents, which may require reviewing the initial national guidelines or make some pre- selection on some iconic and key projects for regional economy.
• The actual negotiation concerns the practical implementation of these strategies in terms of policies and projects to be implemented in the period of the contracts. It may be to coordinate sovereign decisions of the State and one or more communities, some co-financing big projects , to mobilize national public institutions, to link with the European structural funds, to share equipment or human resources on the basis of shared objectives ... In this phase , the role of prefects of Region is essential to transmit messages from the national level, to trace the concerns of regional and local authorities, and converging points of view of each other in a negotiation in which they are directly responsible on behalf of the State.
• Meanwhile, DATAR is responsible to assess at inter-ministerial level all issues reported by the Prefects and prepare the decision to be taken by the cabinet of the Prime Minister. The authority of the Prime Minister is then indeed often necessary to force departments to come within the scope of these negotiations, which may be more complex and sometimes far from their own initial sectoral objectives ...
• Finally, it is very useful to have some inter-departmental financial resources to facilitate the conclusion of the negotiations: in France, the National Fund for the Development of Territories (FNADT ) plays this role well because of its flexibility (it can finance areas for which there is no departmental section proved, intervene in integrated complex cases, meet the specific needs of partner local governments, finance projects engineering or training ... )
5 . The control and monitoring
• The credibility of the contractual approach requires the establishment of a monitoring and performance evaluation system, like the tools set up for the European programs. The experience of the first CPERs where monitoring financial commitments involved only amounts of credits from Ministries and Regions has shown its limits, each accusing the other of not respecting its commitments, without any possible control...
• The monitoring of the programs requires joint structures (programming committees ) and rigorous controlling instruments . The experience of the last CPERs has also shown the value of a monitoring system based on recording projects, but at the same time the difficulty of recording quality data for all partners. The management tool should be able to automatically integrate data from financial software management of the State and different partners.
• The evaluation should be the permanent instrument of monitoring, from drafting the programs (ex- ante evaluation), the observation of their implementation, to the assessment of results and their possible reorientation. Specialized committees integrating academics and researchers must have the means to bring this objective eye and guarantee the independence between evaluation and policy decisions.
• Communication must be an integral part of programs to continuously inform partners and civil society, and promote the emergence of new projects or new ideas.
6 . Conclusions
• The French experience of contracting with the Regions has often been criticized for various reasons: lack of strategic vision, dispersion of funding, non- compliance to initial commitments, the complexity of negotiating and monitoring ... And each maturity , the question of the continuation of this policy was raised ...
• But each time, surveys of national and regional authorities and with partners concluded unanimously in the direction of further experience , subject to a refocusing of objectives and some improvements to the method ...
• Because in reality the CPERs appear despite their shortcomings as an irreplaceable tool to translate concretely the necessary partnership between the State and the various local governments in our decentralized organization and to synergize the resources of each other while respecting the diversity of regional situations.
• And at this very moment, DATAR prepares the sixth generation of contracts ...
Reference: "Les contrats de projets Etat-Régions" - DATAR- collection "Territoires en mouvement." La Documentation Française - October 2007.
Vincent LE DOLLEY is a civil servant in the French National Administration, specialized in territorial development and European Cohesion Policy. Recently he has been working 7 years in DATAR (Prime Minister Office) as an Advisor to the Interdepartmental Delegate, responsible for the negotiations of National-Regional contracts (CPER), the implementation in France of Cohesion Policy, and more generally regional economic and social development policies designed and implemented by DATAR. Before that, he was a Director in several regional and departmental services, responsible for Agriculture, Rural development, Environment, Forestry, Water management, and Agro-industrial development.
Reference: "The contracts of state-region projects" - DATAR- collection "Territories en mouvement." La Documentation Française - October 2007.
A comment? a question? please send a message to [email protected]
Vincent LE DOLLEY is a civil servant in the French National Administration, specialized in territorial development and European Cohesion Policy. Recently he has been working 7 years in DATAR (Prime Minister Office) as an Advisor to the interdepartlental delegate, responsible for the negotiations of National-Regional contracts (CPER), the implementation in France of Cohesion Policy, and more generally regional economic and social development policies designed and implemented by DATAR. Before that, he was a Director in several regional and departmental services, responsible for Agriculture, Rural development, Environment, Forestry, Water management, and Agro-industrial development.
Vincent LE DOLLEY is graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, General Engineer on Bridges, Water and Forestry (IGPEF); he participated recently as Component Leader to the French-Romanian-Moldovan Twinning on regional development.
Vincent LE DOLLEY is a civil servant in the French National Administration, specialized in territorial development and European Cohesion Policy. Recently he has been working 7 years in DATAR (Prime Minister Office) as an Advisor, responsible for the negotiations of National-Regional contracts (CPER), the implementation in France of Cohesion Policy, and more generally regional economic and social development policies designed and implemented by DATAR. Before, he was a Director in several regional and departmental services, responsible for Agriculture, Rural development, Environment, Forestry, Water management, and Agro-industrial development.
Vincent LE DOLLEY is graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, General Engineer on Bridges, Water and Forestry (IGPEF); he participated recently as Component Leader to the French-Romanian-Moldovan Twinning on regional development.
Vincent LE DOLLEY is graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, General Engineer on Bridges, Water and Forestry (IGPEF); he participated recently as Component Leader to the French-Romanian-Moldovan Twinning on regional development.