France End-of-Term Report 2015-2017

France’s first action plan was ambitious regarding the number of commitments and areas included but was limited by focusing largely on open data reforms. A majority of commitments were substantially implemented thanks to concurrent legislative reforms. The implementation of new open data rules might be a significant obstacle to be considered in the next action plan.

Commitment	Overview	Potential starred *	Major or Outstanding Results? **
1.1. Open Regional and Local Authorities’ data	Improve the financial transparency of local government through the proactive publication of this information in open data format.	No	Yes
✪2. Increase transparency in public procurement	Standardize the format of public tender data, encourage increased publicity of awarded public tenders, and include open data clauses in contracts awarded by public authorities.	Yes	Yes
11. Co-produce with civil society the data infrastructure essential to society and economy	Involve civil society in the development of central and local governments’ data infrastructure.	No	Yes
✪23. Empowering and protecting public officials in preventing conflicts of interest	Update the ethical rights and obligations of civil servants and strengthen preventive measures against conflicts of interests.	Yes	Yes

* Commitment is evaluated by the IRM as being specific, relevant, and potentially transformative
** Commitment is evaluated by the IRM as having major or outstanding results in terms of the ‘Did it Open Government?’ variable
✪ Commitment is evaluated by the IRM as being specific, relevant, potentially transformative, and substantially or fully implemented

The government did not maintain any regular multistakeholder forum during the action plan. During the second year of implementation, the government launched “Open Ministry”, to at serve as a dialogue forum for implementing institutions, civil society, and experts. “Open Ministry” held four meetings, though these meetings were largely not focused on reviewing the first action plan.

France did not act contrary to OGP process A country is considered to have acted contrary to process if one or more of the following occurs: The National Action Plan was developed with neither online or offline engagements with citizens and civil society The government fails to engage with the IRM researchers in charge of the country’s Year 1 and Year 2 reports The IRM report establishes that there was no progress made on implementing any of the commitments in the country’s action plan

No/little civil society involvement Primarily agencies that serve other agencies

While most of France’s commitments in the first action plan saw substantial implementation, only a few were fully implemented. The action plan saw improvements on defining conflict of interest for civil servants and increasing transparency in public procurement.