France Action Plan Review 2021-2023

This product consists of an IRM review of France’s 2021–2023 action planAction plans are at the core of a government’s participation in OGP. They are the product of a co-creation process in which government and civil society jointly develop commitments to open governmen.... The action plan is made up of 59 commitments. This review emphasizes its analysis on the strength of the action plan to contribute to implementation and results. For the commitment-by-commitment data see Annex 1. For details regarding the methodology and indicators used by the IRM for this action plan review, see section IV. Methodology and IRM Indicators.

Overview of the 2021–2023 Action Plan

France’s third action plan touches on more topic areas and includes more institutions than any previous action plan. However, there was a lack of meaningful dialogue with civil society during the co-creation processCollaboration between government, civil society and other stakeholders (e.g., citizens, academics, private sector) is at the heart of the OGP process. Participating governments must ensure that a dive..., and most of the 59 commitments have unclear potential for results or lack sufficient detail to be assessed. To revitalize the OGP process, the government could approach implementation of commitments with greater ambitionAccording to OGP’s Articles of Governance, OGP commitments should “stretch government practice beyond its current baseline with respect to key areas of open government.” Ambition captures the po... than written in the plan and in greater collaboration with civil society.

France’s third action plan contains 59 commitments. It carries over topics from its previous action plan, such as citizen engagement in environmental policy, lobbying transparency, procurement transparency, and aid transparency. It also covers new areas, such as transparency of COVID-19 funding and citizen participation in health and education policy. The government took a conscious choice to have a broad plan, that would “initiate and support a cultural change within the public administration”.[1]

The action plan contains one commitmentOGP commitments are promises for reform co-created by governments and civil society and submitted as part of an action plan. Commitments typically include a description of the problem, concrete action... with substantial potential for results. Although the action plan addresses multiple topics, the commitments often lack specific actions (milestones) or clear outcomes, which leads to lower overall potential for results compared with previous action plans. Some commitments are directly taken from existing strategies and roadmaps, but there was a lack of meaningful dialogue with civil society to amend them (or even discuss, further define, and specify proposals) during co-creation. Several commitments are related to broader, ambitious projects, but do not reflect the full potential of reforms in the policy area because they are drafted too vaguely or too narrowly.

The process of developing the action plan fell below minimum Open Government Partnership (OGP) requirements primarily because of a lack of reasoned response.[2] The Interministerial Directorate for Public Transformation (DITP, within the Ministry of Transformation and Public Service) became the lead ministry for OGP shortly before the co-creation process began in February 2021. There were at least ten thematic workshops as part of the two Forum Open d’Etat events in the early stages of co-creation. The Forum Open d’Etat is the current multi-stakeholder mechanism for government to exchange regularly with civil society on the OGP process.[3] The COVID-19 pandemic complicated the process as some events invited only a limited list of participants. In addition to those events, there was a hackathon on health data[4] (branded as an OGP event even though it had limited impact on the final action plan), several online events,[5] and a final debriefing in November. Civil society expressed disappointment that these events had “little actual consultation” and that government did not provide reasoned feedback to their suggestions.[6] There was limited or no government contact with civil society between these early meetings and the final debriefing event. Government representatives said that they prioritized broadening the number of and enhancing a culture of open dialogue between public institutions included in the action plan.[7] In some cases, public institutions invited civil society organizations (CSOs) to partner on commitments they had no involvement in drafting or added them as implementing partners without informing them.[8] Civil society did not see a draft of the action plan before publication of the final version. The final action plan was published in December 2021.

Three promising commitments were identified in this action plan. The implementation of a single centralized database for French development aid as part of Commitment 4 could help civil society and funders track the implementation of development aid programs more efficiently. Commitment 47 on cultivating the emergence of citizen-led public interest initiatives could have a modest but positive impact on civic engagement with government institutions. Commitment 52 from the Supreme Audit Institution (SAI) could introduce a reporting mechanism and a right to petition platform and increase access to works produced by the SAI and information about it.

Thirteen commitments do not have a clear open government lens. As written, these commitments do not contain any actions that would clearly lead to greater transparency, better citizen participationAccording to OGP’s Articles of Governance, citizen participation occurs when “governments seek to mobilize citizens to engage in public debate, provide input, and make contributions that lead to m... More, or enhanced public accountabilityAccording to OGP’s Articles of Governance, public accountability occurs when ”rules, regulations, and mechanisms in place call upon government actors to justify their actions, act upon criticisms ... More. One commitment is not verifiable because it lacks sufficient details to identify what will be implemented. Many commitments do not identify specific milestones, and others include milestones that were completed or scheduled to be completed before or during co-creation or before the action plan was adopted. These factors point to a need for the DITP and a formalized Multi-Stakeholder ForumRegular dialogue between government and civil society is a core element of OGP participation. It builds trust, promotes joint problem-solving, and empowers civil society to influence the design, imple... (MSF) to take a more active role in prioritizing and selecting commitments that are verifiable and relevant to open government for future action plans. Government could approach implementation of some commitments with greater ambition than what is currently written in the plan, taking into account the recommendations from this review and in greater collaboration with civil society.

Monitoring 59 commitments when not all commitments have clear milestones will be a challenge. The updated OGP Participation and Co-creation Standards require that implementation be documented online on the national OGP repository, with links to evidence.[9] Government and civil society should also meet regularly during implementation to discuss the progress being made, and comments on implementation from civil society should receive feedback. While recognizing the value of broad and open engagement with civil society, the development of an MSF with an agreed-upon mandate, rules of procedure, and election of civil society members would help ensure active and regular dialogue between government and civil society. This forum would also help facilitate monitoring of the action plan as well as establish a working relationship (and momentum) toward the next action plan, which would benefit from the government proactively maintaining dialogue with civil society, considering their proposals, and developing fewer but more ambitious commitments that meet both government and civil society priorities. Better interministerial coordination by the lead ministry could ensure consistency and quality of commitments while not discouraging these public actors.

Promising Commitments in France’s 2021–2023 Action Plan

The following review looks at the three commitments that the Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM)The Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) is OGP’s accountability arm and the main means of tracking progress in participating countries. The IRM provides independent, evidence-based, and objective ... identified as having the potential to realize the most promising results. This review will inform the IRM’s research approach to assess implementation in the Results Report. The IRM Results Report will build on the early identification of potential results from this review to contrast with the outcomes at the end of the implementation period of the action plan. This review also provides an analysis of challenges, opportunities and recommendations to contribute to the learning and implementation process of this action plan.

France’s 59 commitments are spread among six overarching themes of participation in public policy, transparency of government actions, digital inclusionPrioritizing digital inclusion — such as by expanding broadband access to remote areas or removing barriers to affordable internet — helps ensure all citizens have the opportunity to participate. ... More, environmental and climate policy, health policy, and openness in Europe and abroad. Government representatives were particularly pleased that the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health appeared in the action plan for the first time.

Commitment 52 (from the Supreme Audit Institution addressing the implementation of its 2025 strategy) has substantial potential for results as is analyzed as a promising commitmentThrough the Action Plan Review, OGP’s Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) recognizes promising commitments that address a policy area that is important to stakeholders or the national context. Pro.... Commitment 4 (on setting up a database on France’s official development assistance)and Commitment 47 (on cultivating the emergence of citizen-led public interest initiatives), are also analyzed in depth as promising commitments.

Nearly a quarter (14 [23%]) of the commitments do not contain enough information to verify the actions to be taken or do not have a clear open government lens.[10] These commitments are spread across multiple themes, including environmental and climate policy, health policy, youthRecognizing that investing in youth means investing in a better future, OGP participating governments are creating meaningful opportunities for youth to participate in government processes. Technical ... More engagement, enhancing openness in Europe and abroad, and transparency of government action. Commitments to improve, raise awareness of, and digitize public service deliveryTo ensure that citizens of all groups are better supported by the government, OGP participating governments are working to improve the quality of and access to public services. Commitments in this are... More would benefit from engaging citizens as part of the decision-making process rather than testing the end stages of implementation. To avoid this lack of information in the future, action plan development processes would benefit from prioritizing and filtering the final action plan commitments.

More than four of five commitments (48 [81%]) have unclear potential for results.[11] In many cases, it is not clear how implementation advances open government beyond current practices in the policy area. Furthermore, many commitments lack clarity on their intended outcomes and the milestones to get there. In some cases, the commitments contain no milestones at all or are scheduled to be completed before adoption of the action plan (and some before the co‑creation process began). To address shortcomings in ambition, public institutions leading implementation could identify aspects of their commitments that could be more ambitious when implemented in collaboration with relevant CSOs. This approach could take commitments beyond their current potential for results and improve collaboration between civil society and government, with an eye toward developing commitments during the co-creation process for the next action plan.

In particular, a more ambitious approach in implementation could be considered for Commitment 15 on opening data from the Ministry of Education so that relevant stakeholders, such as teachers, student unions, and parents’ associations, help establish priorities in publishing open data. The IRM recommends considering publishing more detailed data related to class sizes[12] broken down by location; school; year; and teacher absences, with data on whether the teachers were replaced.[13]

Commitment 17 on public procurement transparency is expected to expand the number of published data points on public procurement and develop a data visualization platform (which was launched before the action plan was adopted).[14] Two experts and a civil society representative were critical of the commitment and pointed out that it does not address the exhaustiveness of data (a key issue for public procurement’s lack of transparency).[15] An interviewed stakeholder also noted that although this commitment aimed to increase transparency, the government had reduced transparency in procurement by raising the threshold for the publication of the essential data of public procurement over €25,000 to those over €40,000,[16] which was already a concern expressed in the IRM Transitional Results Report for France’s 2018–2020 Action Plan.[17] Government and civil society will need to monitor the impact of these changes, although the government remains optimistic about them, arguing that buyers will keep publishing data since the process is entirely digitalized.[18] A more ambitious implementation of the commitment could ensure that visualization of procurement data provides timely and more meaningful detail during the entire procurement life cycle, and allows for civil society feedback.

Commitment 19 seeks to strengthen transparency of France’s post-COVID-19 economic recovery plan. Both civil society and France’s Supreme Audit Institution have criticized the loopholes in the traceability and lack of transparency of France Relance funds.[19] Implementation could focus on increasing the scope of transparency, making new and disaggregated data available in open formats to provide citizens with key and timely information (such as on the final beneficiaries of specific projects or the funds’ social and environmental impacts).[20] Since adopting the action plan, the government now plans an audit in September 2022 and to publish new datasets in 2023.[21] The IRM recommends they conduct these processes in collaboration with civil society.

Commitment 23 seeks to train local officials to run “emblematic” citizen participation projects for three years in 10 to 20 local governments, with €100,000 each year. Implementation of the commitment could introduce the use of innovative participation methods, address difficult issues, and embed feedback mechanisms into local participation processes. Furthermore, implementation would benefit from consideration of the guidance and recommendations that came out of a similar commitment in the United Kingdom’s 2019–2021 Action Plan.[22]

Commitment 44 on an inventory of public algorithms could be an ambitious reform,[23] but the potential for results is lower than in previous plans.[24] An ambitious approach to implementation could introduce a public and centralized register, require proactive engagement with civil society, and find ways to make the use of algorithms understandable to the public so that they can hold authorities to account. The government could publish a dashboard or progress report on the inventories and enable citizen inquiries on the use of algorithms.

Commitment 58 on lobbying transparency could be more ambitious if the government and parliament made significant amendments to address loopholes in data collection that currently prevent the successful implementation of a legislative footprint and disclosure of lobbying information.[25] This approach would require significant legislative and regulatory changes, and the OGP action plan could be a platform to push for commitments beyond administrative adjustments.

As well as ensuring they are skilled enough,[26] non-government stakeholders state that implementation of Commitment 59 on training public officials responsible for access to information (PRADAs) could be more ambitious in improving compliance with the law if it were to map and proactively publish the names and contact details of PRADAs[27] and, as such, identify and make public which institutions have or do not have PRADAs.[28]

The IRM welcomes the two commitments from the Ministry of Justice which has engaged in the OGP process for the first time. Commitment 25 of the Ministry of Justice includes an important consultation, the national consultation on justice, but its milestones (scheduled for before the publication of the action plan) do not clarify follow up actions which could increase the IRM assessment of the potential for results. The IRM acknowledges that an official report has been published and further consultations are due, but these will be addressed in the Results Report at the end of the action plan cycle.[29] The Ministry of Justice could act to ensure that during implementation, the consultations are conducted transparently, openly and that it explores the possibility of using innovative (or even deliberative) engagement methods. Commitment 26 supports a broad and ambitious ongoing project of open data in the judiciary[30] by establishing working groups and organizing dialogues. However, the IRM mandate and this Action Plan Review only assesses the commitment as written, rather than the broader policy area. Civil society welcome this commitment and feel that it could help foster a dialogue on open justice.[31] Implementation of this commitment could be strengthened if it explicitly ensured that feedback opportunities and working groups were transparent and open to a wide community of data users and new stakeholders working in the justice sector.[32]

Multiple commitments on environmental and climate policy could be made more ambitious by engaging with the vibrant and active civil society community working on climate and environmental topics in France.[33] Civil society have expressed their dissatisfaction with consultation processes (such as on Commitment 6’s low carbon strategy), blaming a disconnection between the outcomes of public consultations on energy policy and political declarations on nuclear energy.[34] The government has stated that consultations for commitment 6 are not required by law. They also confirmed that they had no contact with civil society to elaborate this commitment.[35] The proposed consultations in relation to Commitment 7 are required by law[36], so it is not clear what added value this commitment has being in an OGP action plan. New commitments could build on actions from previous commitments and use recent, innovative approaches to environmental dialogue (such as the Citizen Convention on Climate).

The Ministry of Health and the Health Data Hub agency are institutions that have newly joined the OGP process in France. The Ministry of Health’s co-creation process had political support and involved stakeholder activities (such as the hackathon and second Open forum d’Etat), but the commitments in the action plan are disconnected from the content of these events. The commitments of the Health Data Hub were extracted from pre-existing roadmaps,[37] and do not fully reflect the discussions and activities of the co-creation process. Almost all of Health Data Hub’s milestones in the action plan are related to actions that started in 2021 from before the adoption of the action plan. The remaining milestones that were evaluated for the Action Plan Review have unclear potential for results. The IRM recommends that the Ministry of Health and Health Data Hub continue working in collaboration with civil society and relevant stakeholders to ensure ambitious actions for the next OGP action plan.

Commitment 37 on open science shows France’s commendable approach towards greater transparency in science. However, a civil society organization partnering with the government said that they understood that discussions they participated in were part of the action plan for open science, not the OGP process.[38] The commitment contains six objectives (which could each be their own commitment) that are extracted from an existing roadmap and includes some activities that are overdue implementation (such as transparency of funding of research projects which is required under the Digital Republic Act 2016).[39] The IRM recommends that, in parallel to publishing a barometer and developing the Recherche Data Gouv platform, the Ministry of Research and Higher Education set an ambitious target for sharing academic papers published in free and open formats. The activities to foster research on Great Debate data (something not also in the national roadmap) could seek to release all data, including those that are not yet digitalized.[40]

Table 1. Promising commitments

[1] Interministerial Directorate for Public Transformation, Comments received during pre-publication period, 4 Jul. 2022.

[2] See Annex 2 for the assessment on the co-creation process.

[3] See Annex 2 for the assessment and more detail on the Forum Open d’État as the Multi-Stakeholder Forum.

[4] “Hackathon Covid,” Interministerial Directorate for Public Transformation, accessed 13 Jun. 2022, https://hackathon-covid.fr.

[5] These “micro ouverts” sessions were open to anyone and had guest speakers and a question-and-answer session.

[6] Kevin Gernier (Transparency International), interview by the IRM, 22 Feb. 2022; Alexandre Léchenet (Association of Journalists for Transparency), interview by the IRM, 3 Mar, 2022; Mathilde Bouyé (Démocratie Ouverte), interview by the IRM, 5 Apr, 2022.

[7] Pauline Lavagne d’Ortigue, Christopher Costes, and Alban Pracquin (Interministerial Directorate for Public Transformation), interview by the IRM, 8 Mar, 2022.

[8] Thomas Landrain (Just One Giant Lab), interview by the IRM, 15 Apr. 2022.; Interview by the IRM of a civil society representative (who does not want to be quoted).

[9] “OGP Participation and Co-Creation Standards,” Open Government Partnership, effective 1 Jan, 2022, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/ogp-participation-co-creation-standards/; Commitment 38 (on equipping open government) specifically addresses the implementation of an OGP repositoryAccess to relevant information is essential for enabling participation and ensuring accountability throughout the OGP process. An OGP repository is an online centralized website, webpage, platform or ....

[10] Commitments 7, 10, and 27 were not verifiable. Commitments 1, 2, 12, 13, 29, 31, 41, 43–45, 48, and 56 did not have a clear open government lens.

[11] Three commitments are not verifiable, 46 commitments have unclear potential for results, and 10 commitments have modest potential for results.

[12] There is no open database on class sizes, despite this being one of the indicators of the government’s Public Action Barometer (Commitment 39 to foster citizen involvement in monitoring public policy outcomes).

[13] For instance, a leading parents’ association has raised the issue of non-replaced teachers as a “national cause” and launched a crowdsourcing initiative to document the issue in the absence of available data. “Signal Non-replaced Absences! [Absences non-remplacées, signalez-les!]”, Federation of Councils of Parents [Fédération des Conseils de Parents d’Elèves], accessed 13 Jun. 2022, https://www.fcpe.asso.fr/campagne/absences-non-remplacees-signalez-les.

[14] “Essential Data on Public Procurement [Données Essentielles de la Commande Publique],” Government of France, accessed 13 Jun. 2022, https://datavision.economie.gouv.fr/decp/?view=France; Colin Maudry, (independent consultant and owner of data visualisation website https://decp.info), interview by the IRM, 21 Apr. 2022.

[15] Maudry, interview; Gernier, interview.

[16] Gernier, interview. In practice, buyers continue to publish information between €25,000 and €40,000 and in July 2022 the Ministry will launch a project to identify missing buyers, information received by Ministry of Economy during pre-publication period, 4 Jul. 2022.

[17] “France 2018-2020 Transitional Results Report,” Open Government Partnership, 15 Jun. 2021, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/france-transitional-results-report-2018-2020/.

[18] Ministry of Economy, comments received during pre-publication period, 4 Jul. 2022.

[19] Davide Basso, “The President of the Supreme Audit Institution Points at the ‘Complexity’ of the French Recovery Plan [Le président de la Cour des comptes pointe du doigt la « complexité » du plan de relance français],” Euractiv, 10 Mar. 2022, https://www.euractiv.fr/section/economie/news/le-president-de-la-cour-des-comptes-pointe-du-doigt-la-complexite-du-plan-de-relance-francais/; Maxime Combes and Olivier Petitjean, “Aid to the Private Sector: ‘The State and the Public Authorities Are Asserting Themselves as Insurers of Last Resort of Shareholder Remuneration’ [Aides au privé : « l’Etat et les pouvoirs publics, s’affirment comme assureurs en dernier ressort de la rémunération des actionnaires »],” Le Monde, 16 Jul. 2021, https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2021/07/16/aides-au-prive-l-etat-et-les-pouvoirs-publics-s-affirment-comme-assureurs-en-dernier-ressort-de-la-remuneration-des-actionnaires_6088421_3232.html.

[20] Gernier, interview; Maxime Combes (economist), interview by the IRM, 20 Apr. 2022.

[21] Bercy Hub representatives (Ministry of Economy), comment received during pre-publication period, 4 Jul. 2022.

[22] Renaisi, Innovation in Democracy Evaluation Report (29 Jun. 2020), https://renaisi.com/2020/06/29/innovation-in-democracy-evaluation-report/; “Innovation in Democracy Programme (IiDP),” Government of the United Kingdom, 30 May 2019, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/innovation-in-democracy-programme-launch.

[23] Public official (Interministerial Directorate for Public Transformation), interview by the IRM, 14 Apr. 2022.

[24] “Transparency of Public Algorithms (FR0035): France Action Plan 2018-2020,” Open Government Partnership, 3 Apr. 2018, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/members/france/commitments/FR0035/.

[25] Gernier, interview.

[26] Kevin Gernier (Transparency International), comment received during pre-publication period, 4 Jul. 2022

[27] Léchenet, interview; Samuel Goeta (Datactivist), interview by the IRM, 4 April 2022.

[28] Goeta, interview.

[29] France Info, INTERVIEW: National Consultation on Justice: “The ultimate goal is to bring justice closer to our compatriots” says Éric Dupond-Moretti [ENTRETIEN. Etats généraux de la Justice : “L’objectif final, c’est de rendre la justice plus proche de nos compatriotes”, estime Éric Dupond-Moretti], 8 Jul 2022, https://www.francetvinfo.fr/economie/emploi/metiers/droit-et-justice/entretien-etats-generaux-de-la-justice-l-objectif-final-c-est-de-rendre-la-justice-plus-proche-de-nos-compatriotes-estime-eric-dupond-moretti_5245333.html

[30] The broader project of open data of court decisions is required by two laws (Digital Republic Act in 2016, and Law on the reform of the JudiciaryWhile a majority of open government reforms occur within the executive branch, OGP members are increasingly taking on commitments to increase the openness of the judicial branch. Technical specificati... in 2019). The project entered its operational implementation phase on 30 September 2021 with the publication of decisions by the Court of Cassation and the Council of State. This was followed by publishing decisions of the administrative courts of appeal and the courts of appeal in civil, social and commercial matters on 31 March and 15 April 2022 respectively, and by the administrative courts on 30 June 2022. This matches the implementation schedule, as planned in the decree of 28 April 2021. The government says this project carries high potential for change in terms of open government. Ministry of JusticeTo address barriers that prevent citizens from having their justice needs met, OGP participating governments are working to expand transparency, accountability, and inclusion into all systems of justi... representatives, comments received during pre-publication period, 4 Jul. 2022.

[31] Sumi Saint-Auguste (Open Law), interview by the IRM, 2 Mar. 2022.

[32] Saint-Auguste, interview.

[33] Juliette Kacprzak (World Wildlife Fund and member of the Environmental and Social Council), interview by the IRM, 17 Feb. 2022 ; Bouyé, interview.

[34] Kacprzak, interview; Félix Gouty, “The Launch of a New Nuclear Reactor, Decided by Emmanuel Macron, Provokes Atomic Reactions [Le lancement du nouveau nucléaire, décidé par Emmanuel Macron, provoque des réactions atomiques],” ACTU-Environnement.com, 10 Nov. 2021, https://www.actu-environnement.com/ae/news/nouveau-nucleaire-emmanuel-macron-reactions-atomiques-38511.php4.

[35] Ministry of Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion, comment received during pre-publication period, 4 Jul. 2022.

[36] Alix Menahem (Ministry of Environment), correspondence with the IRM, Apr. 2022.

[37] Health Data Hub, Annual Report 2021, Mar. 2022, https://www.health-data-hub.fr/sites/default/files/2022-03/Rapport%20annuel%202021%20HDH-site.pdf; Health Data Hub, Roadmap 2022, Mar. 2022, https://www.health-data-hub.fr/sites/default/files/2022-03/HDH_Feuille_De_Route_2022_0.pdf

[38] Interview with Wikimedia, March 14th, 2022.

[39] Plan national pour une Science Ouverte https://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/fr/le-plan-national-pour-la-science-ouverte-2021-2024-vers-une-generalisation-de-la-science-ouverte-en-48525

[40] A request of several academics and NGOs, such as the « Rendez-nous les Doléances » initiative https://rendezlesdoleances.fr/contexte/