Independent Reporting Mechanism(IRM): France End-of-Term Report
2015-2017
Sofia Wickberg, Sciences Po Paris
Table of Contents........................................................................................................................................ 9
Executive Summary: France ..................................................................................... 9
About the Assessment.............................................................................................. 13
Commitment Implementation .................................................................................. 15
Theme 1: Ensure Accountability ................................................................ 21
1. Enable citizens to consult, have a better understanding and reusefinancial data and decisions of local and regional authorities ..................... 21
1.1: Open Regional and Local Authorities’ data ......................................... 21
1.2: Publish the decisions and reports of municipal council meetings online.................................................................................................................. 21
1.3 Publish information relative to building permits in open data................ 22✪2. Increase transparency in public procurement ..................................... 28
3. Improve transparency in international development aid ......................... 32
4. Open access to evaluations of public policies and to their conclusions .. 37
5. Involve citizens further in the work carried out by the Cour des comptes.................................................................................................................. 40
6. Facilitate access to public officials’ transparency obligations ................. 43✪7. Identify beneficial owners of legal entities registered in France .......... 46
8. Transparency in Extractives .................................................................. 49
9. Increase Transparency in International Trade Commercial Negotiations52
Theme II: Consult, Debate and Co-create ................................................. 55
10.1. Fix my Neighbourhood ..................................................................... 55
10.2. Digital Fix-it....................................................................................... 55
11. Co-produce with civil society the data infrastructure essential to society
and economy ............................................................................................. 58✪12. Further expand the opening of legal resources & the collaboration
with civil society on opening the law .......................................................... 61
13. Leverage previous consultations and reform participatory mechanisms.................................................................................................................. 65
14. Strengthen mediation and citizens’ ability to act in matters relating tojustice ........................................................................................................ 69
Theme III: Open Digital Resources ............................................................ 73✪15. Strengthen Government policy on the opening and circulation of data.................................................................................................................. 73
16. Open Calculation Models and Simulators ............................................ 77
17. Transform government’s technological resources into an open platform.................................................................................................................. 80118. Strengthen interaction with the user and improve public services
through e-government ............................................................................... 83
Theme IV: Open Up Public Administration ................................................ 87
19. Empower Civil Society to Support Schools .......................................... 87
20. Diversify recruitment within public institutions ...................................... 90
21. Grow a culture of openness, data literacy and digital technologies ...... 94
22. Spread public innovation, and develop research on Open Government.................................................................................................................. 98✪23. Empowering and protecting public officials in preventing conflicts ofinterest .................................................................................................... 101
Theme V: Open Government for Climate and Sustainable Development 105
24. Involve civil society in the COP21 conference and promote transparency
regarding the agenda and negotiations ................................................... 105
25. Open Data and Models Related to Climate and Sustainable
Development ........................................................................................... 109
26. Initiate new collaborations with civil society to develop innovative
solutions to meet the challenges of climate and sustainable development................................................................................................................ 111
Methodological Note ............................................................................................... 114

2

Executive Summary:FranceYear 2 Report

Action plan: 2015-2017
Period under review: July 2016- June 2017
IRM report publication year: 2018

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.

HIGHLIGHTS

Commitment

Overview

1.1. OpenRegional andLocal Authorities’
data

Improve the financial transparency of local
government through the proactive
publication of this information in open data
format.

✪2. Increasetransparency inpublicprocurement

Standardize the format of public tender data,
encourage increased publicity of awarded
public tenders, and include open data
clauses in contracts awarded by publicauthorities.

11. Co-producewith civil society
the data
infrastructure
essential tosociety andeconomyInvolve civil society in the development ofcentral and local governments’ data
infrastructure.

✪23.
Empowering andprotecting public
officials in
preventing
conflicts ofinterest

Update the ethical rights and obligations ofcivil servants and strengthen preventive
measures against conflicts of interests.

Potential
starred *Major orOutstanding
Results? **

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

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?’ variable1 Commitment is evaluated by the IRM as being specific, relevant, potentially transformative, and substantially or fully
implemented

2

PROCESSThe 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.

Who was involved during implementation?

Civil society

Government
Narrow/ little
governmental
consultations
Beyond“governance”
civil society
Mostly“governance”
civil society
No/little civilsociety
involvement

Primarily agencies thatserve other agencies

Significant
involvement ofline ministries
and agencies✔

Despite the launch of the Open Ministry consultation platform during the second year of theaction plan, the IRM researcher noted a decline in civil society involvement in the action plan,
and a lack of enthusiasm for the OGP process among stakeholders, including thegovernment.

Level of input by stakeholders during implementation
Level of Input

During implementation

Collaborate: There was iterative dialogue
AND the public helped set the agenda
Involve: The government gave feedback on
how public inputs were considered
Consult: The public could give input✔

Inform: The government provided the publicwith information on the action plan.
No Consultation

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 planThis report was prepared by Sofia Wickberg, Centre d’études européennes, Sciences Po
Paris

COMMITMENT PERFORMANCE
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 interestfor civil servants and increasing transparency in public procurement.

COMPLETEDCOMMITMENTS

Year 1

Year 2

OGP Global Average *

18%

36%

Action Plan 2015-2017

1 of 29 (3%)

3 of 29 (10%)

TRANSFORMATIVE OGP Global Average *COMMITMENTS
Action Plan 2015-2017
STARREDCOMMITMENTS**

Most in an OGP Action Plan
Action Plan 2015-201716%
6 of 29 (21%)
583 of 29 (10%)

5 of 29 (17%)* This indicator is calculated using data from the most recent round of published IRM reports.
** Prior to 2015, the starred formula included commitments with "Moderate" potential impact.

COMMITMENT OVERVIEW
Commitment
Title
1.1. OpenRegional and
Local
Authorities’
data

1.2. Publish
decisionsand reportsof municipal
councilmeetings
online1.3. Publish
information
relative tobuilding
permits inopen data

Potential
starred *Complete

Major orOutstanding
Results? **

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Overview
Local governments are now legallyrequired to publish financial andoperational data. OpenData France
notes that the threshold for opening
data (3,500 residents) represents asignificant step forward fortransparency at the local level.
The 2015 NOTRe Law (which enteredforce in February 2016) requires
municipalities to publish information on
deliberation and meeting minutes.
However, the law does not require
disclosure of this information inelectronic format.
While the government launched a
database for building permits (Sit@del)and organized a hackathon, theworking group to facilitate thepublication of building permit data wasmostly inactive during the reporting
period.

4✪2. Increasetransparency
in public
procurement

3. Improvetransparencyininternational
developmentaid
4. Openaccess toevaluation of
publicpolicies andtheirconclusions
5. Involve
citizens
further in thework of the
Cour descomptes

6. Facilitate
access to
publicofficials’
transparency
obligations✪7. Identify
beneficial
owners oflegal entities
registered in
France8.
Transparenc
y in
extractives

9. Increasetransparency

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

The government set legal requirements
to open data on procurement andconcession contracts, andstandardised data for disclosure.
However, these activities arescheduled to be completed outside thereporting period.
The French Development Agency andthe Ministry of Europe and Foreign
Affairs now publish data on
development projects in open andreusable formats and on a single
platform. This marks a significant
improvement from the status quo.
While the Secretary-General for
Government Modernization has
published new public policy
evaluations on its website, a freelibrary of public policy evaluation
reports already existed prior to theaction plan.
Cour des comptes (France’s supreme
audit institution) made new data
available to the public, andcollaborated with data scientists.
However, the datasets have rarely
been used, and there is no evidence ofimproved civic engagement with Courdes comptes.
Decree N° 2016-570 (May 2016)
requires public officials to declare theirdeclaration through an online reporting
platform (ADEL). By October 2017,
761 declarations were available inopen data format on ADEL,
representing a significant improvement
to transparency of this information.
Decree no. 2016-1635 requires
companies and corporate groups to
identify and register their ultimate
beneficial owners by August 2017.
Citizens must demonstrate a legitimate
interest to make an information request
through a judicial ordinance, though
the term “legitimate interest” isundefined.
This commitment called for France tojoin the Extractives Industries
Transparency Industries (EITI).
However, efforts towards EITI
accession have stalled due todisagreements between thegovernment and civil society over theparameters of EITI in France.
By the end of the action plan period,
the government has made only limited5

ininternational
tradecommercial
negotiations
10.1. Fix myneighborhoodamounts of information on tradenegotiations available to the public,
and this commitment has not improved
transparency in this area.

No

Withdrawn

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

10.2. Digital
Fix-it

11. Coproduce withcivil society
the data
infrastructure
essential tosociety andeconomy✪12.
Open legal
resources &collaboration
with civilsociety on
opening thelaw
13. Leverageprevious
consultations
and reform
participatory
mechanisms
14.
Strengthen
mediationand citizens’
ability to act
in mattersrelating tojustice✪15.
Strengthen
government
policy on the
opening andcirculation of
data

Yes

No

No

The “Fix my Neighbourhood” project
aimed to help local government
dispatch alerts to relevant
departments. This commitment was
officially withdrawn at the midterm.
Digital Fix-it sought to develop a pilot
application to allow citizens to reportincidences of cybervandalism on statecontrolled and semi-public websites.
However, the project has not been
started.
The government opened several setsof reference data and consulted the
public on the development of thecountry’s essential data infrastructure.
Despite the consultations withstakeholders, it is unclear how these
inputs were included in the criteria forreleasing information.
The passage of the Digital Republic
Law in November 2016 represents asignificant step toward improving
access to legal information. However,at the end of the action plan period, thelaw has yet to be fully implemented
and public consultations on bills are
not institutionalised.
This commitment aimed to improve
public consultations through digital
tools. However, by the end of theaction plan period, there was nochange in the level of centralisation oraccessibility of information on public
consultations.
While the law on modernising justiceand the Digital Republic Law containmajor steps forward regarding accessto judicial decisions and access tojustice, the relevant clauses have notbeen implemented at the end of theaction plan period.
The 2016 Digital Republic Law
entrenches the principle of default
open data and represents a significant
change in government practice.
However, the law has yet to be fully
implemented.

616. Open
calculation
models andsimulators
17.
Transform
government’stechnologicalresources
into an open
platform
18.
Strengtheninteraction
with the user
and improve
publicservices
through egovernment
19. Empower
civil society
to support
schools

20. Diversify
recruitment
within public
institutions

21. Grow aculture of
openness,data literacy
and digitaltechnologies
22. Spread
publicinnovation,and develop
research on
open
government✪23.
Empoweringandprotecting
publicofficials in
preventing

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

While the OpenFisca platform was
extended to new areas of legislationand new codes were published, thiscommitment remained limited in scaleand scope.
The government launched an egovernment portal France Connect andcarried out awareness-raising
activities. However, no new information
has been disclosed through his
commitment.

The government updated the digitalpublic services dashboard and carriedout a survey for feedback on users’
habits and satisfaction with theservices provided. However, theinformation on user satisfaction for theservices on the dashboard is very
general.
This commitment sought to allow
citizens to contribute to youth
education. However, the activities did
not create new opportunities for
citizens to engage in the decisionmaking process for education.
The government made preparatory
steps towards improving diversity inthe civil service, this commitment did
not establish public-facing mechanisms
to hold officials accountable fordiscriminatory practices within the civil
service.
While digital literacy trainings for civil
servants took place, there is no clear
evidence that they lead to any
significant change in government
practices.
The commitment aimed to spread
digital innovation across the public
sector, particularly at the local level.
However, the activities carried out forthis commitment were limited in scopeand did not meaningfully contribute to
opening up government.
Law n° 2016-483 has for the first timeclarified the definition of “conflict ofinterest” for civil servants” and clarified
ethical standards in the public sector.
there is no public information on
measures to strengthen whistleblower
protection through this law.

7

conflicts ofinterest
24. Involve
civil society
in the
COP21
conference
and promotetransparency
regarding theagenda andnegotiations
25. Opendata andmodelsrelated toclimate andsustainable
development
26. Initiate
newcollaboration
with civilsociety todevelopinnovative
solutions tomeet thechallenges ofclimate andsustainable
development

No

No

No

No

No

No

While the Ministry of Environment,
Energy and the Sea published aparticipation charter after consulting
relevant stakeholders, no new tools or
platforms were created to encourage
public participation on environmental
policy.

This commitment opened a number of
new datasets on climate andsustainable development. However,the criteria of the data to be publish is
unclear, as is the regularity of which
the data will be updated.
While this commitment encouraged aparticipatory approach and civilsociety-led solutions to environmental
issues, it is unclear if the activities
carried out contributed to permanentchanges in government practices.

No

No

No

* 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

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Sofia Wickberg is a PhD student in political science at Sciences Po in Paris, where she isaffiliated with the Centre for European Studies and the Laboratory for Interdisciplinary Evaluationof Public Policies. Her research focuses on the politics of anticorruption and the definition ofcorruption as a public problem in Western Europe.

The Open Government Partnership (OGP) aims to secure concretecommitments from governments to promote transparency, empower citizens,fight corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance.
OGP’s Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) assesses development andimplementation of national action plans to foster dialogue among stakeholders
and improve accountability.

8

Executive Summary: France
Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) End-of-Term Report 2015-2017
France’s first action plan was ambitious regarding the number of commitments and issue areas
included but was limited by focusing largely on open data reforms. A majority of commitments
were substantially implemented thanks to major concurrent legislative reforms. The
implementation of new open data rules might be a significant obstacle to be considered in thene t action plan
The Open Government Partnership (OGP) is a
Table 1: At a Glance
voluntary international initiative that aims to
MidEndsecure commitments from governments to theirtermofcitizenry to promote transparency, empowerterm
citizens, fight corruption, and harness new
Number of Commitments
29
29
technologies to strengthen governance. The
Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) carries
Level of Completionout a review of the activities of each OGPCompleted
1
3
participating country. France joined OGP in April
Substantial
10
14
2014. This report summarises the results of theLimited15
10
period July 2016 to October 2017.
Not Started
2
1“Mission Etalab” is the lead agency coordinating
Withdrawn
1
1
OGP in France. Etalab is part of the InterNumber of Commitments with…
ministerial Director of Digital Information and
Clear Relevance to OGPCommunication system (DINSIC), tasked
24
24
Valuesprimarily with publishing data and coordinating
France’s open government policy acrossTransformative Potential
6
6
ministries. Etalab is responsible for developing
Impactthe OGP action plan and coordinating its
Substantial or Complete
11
17
implementation with ministries and institutions
Implementation
responsible for specific commitments and35
All Three (✪ )milestones, though it has little legal power toenforce policy changes within ministries.
Did It Open government?
It is notable that 2017 was an important electoral
year in France, with the presidential andlegislative elections held in spring, after anunusually long electoral campaign – most major
parties having organised primaries. The second
year of implementation was thus marked by thispre-electoral climate.

Major

6

Outstanding

0

Moving Forward
Number of Commitments
Carried Over to Next
Action Plan

12

At the time of writing this report (NovemberDecember 2017), the French government had yet to produce and publish its end-of-term selfassessment report, though a draft version of the report was made available to the IRM
researcher and is regularly referenced in this report. Etalab created a digital book to provide
regular updates on OGP activities; however, this was last updated May 2017. In late March
2018, the government published an end-of-term self-assessment report, though it is currently
only available in French.

This report was prepared by Sofia Wickberg, Centre d’études européennes, Sciences Po
Paris

Three of the action plan’s commitments significantly contributed to open government andcreate major changes in government practices. Five commitments were considered ‘starred’commitments by the end of the implementation period.
As of December 2017, France had published the new action plan for its second cycle ofpublic comments and contributions. The consultation period closed 18 December 2017. In its
draft state, the new action plan includes twelve commitments carried over from the previous
plan: opening data by default and building a public data infrastructure; transparency in public
procurement; transparency in development aid; transparency in public officials’ interests andasset declaration; transparency in algorithms; transparency in environmental data;registration of beneficial ownership; public participation in the work of the Supreme Audit
Institution (Cour des comptes); public participation in decision-making concerning theecological transition; assistance to public administration to make better use of public
consultations; and fostering innovation. Two commitments are new and focus ontransparency of in lobbying activities and the encouragement of open science.

10

Consultation with Civil Society during Implementation
Countries participating in OGP follow a process for consultation during development andimplementation of their action plan.
While there was a high level of consultation between government and stakeholders during
the action plan development, there was no regular multistakeholder forum for soliciting
feedback on the implementation of the action plan. The public, however, was able provide
input on action plan implementation through the Etalab website, which offered the possibility
to comment on action plan updates. As indicated in the midterm report, Etalab continued toregularly hold in-person meetings with select civil society organisations (CSOs) who wereinvolved either in the plan’s development or implementation. Therefore, the IRM researcher
found the level of public influence during action plan implementation to be at the “consult”
level (see Table 3 “Level of Public Influence during Implementation”).
During the second year of implementation, the government launched a new form of public
consultation called Ministère ouvert (Open Ministry), aimed at improving dialogue between
different implementing institutions, civil society and experts. The first “Open Ministry” event
was organised on 21 June 2016 in Paris by the Secretary of State for State Reform, theinstitution in charge of implementing 10 of the 30 commitments in the action plan, andbrought together 150 participants.1 Minutes of this first event are available online and show
the meeting focused on consulting with civil society on the second action plan (2017-2019),
and less about reviewing the current action plan. A second “Open Ministry” was organised on
26 September 2016, during a conference for local governments on citizens’ digital identities
in Dijon, with a focus on local government and innovation in the public sector. The IRM
researcher was unable to find the minutes of this event but a video of the introductory
remarks is available online. 2 A third “Open Ministry” was organised on 11 October 2016 by
the Ministry of Higher Education and Research. This event focused more on the principles ofopen government and the potential of open government research than on monitoring
implementation of current commitments, as can be seen from the programme.3 Lastly, an“Open Ministry” was organised on 28 February 2017 to launch the consultation for thesecond action plan (2017-2019).
A number of civil society organisations decided to boycott the OGP Global Summit in Paris in
December 2016 to express their disappointment in the government’s approach to open
government. Ten organisations representing a variety of causes including the environment,
open source/open Internet, human rights, and transparency signed a press release listing
their concern about the government commitment to the principles of OGP and thediscrepancy between discourse and action. They point to the lack of follow-up on public
consultations and the absence of actual co-creation efforts, as well as to the lacking
systematic use of open source platforms. 4 Other interviewed stakeholders recognised
Etalab’s willingness to involve civil society. 5 However, Sarah Labelle, a social scientist
working with Etalab in 2016, notes that Etalab operates, as a heterotopia – existing between
the government and civil society and unable to compel the government to engage in more
open and participatory practices. 6 Over the course of researching for this report, the IRM
researcher found that many requests for interviews with government and CSO stakeholders
went unanswered. The experience of the IRM researcher suggests a decline in civil society
involvement over the implementation period and a lack of enthusiasm for the OGP process
among stakeholders, including the government.
Table 2: Consultation during Implementation
Regular Multistakeholder Forum

Midterm

End of Term

11

1. Did a forum exist?

No

No

2. Did it meet regularly?

No

No

Table 3: Level of Public Influence during Implementation
The IRM has adapted the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) “Spectrumof Participation” to apply to OGP. 7 This spectrum shows the potential level of public influenceon the contents of the action plan. In the spirit of OGP, most countries should aspire for“collaborative.”
Level of Public Influence during Implementation of
Action Plan
The government handed decisionmaking power to members of the
Empower
public.
There was iterative dialogue AND
Collaborate
the public helped set the agenda.
The government gave feedback on
Involve
how public inputs were considered.
Consult

The public could give inputs.

InformThe government provided the publicwith information on the action plan.

No Consultation

No consultation

Midterm✔

End of Term✔

1 “Ministère Ouvert” (21 Jul. 2016), https://www.etalab.gouv.fr/wp-

content/uploads/2016/07/20160721_Minist%C3%A8re-ouvert-1-Synth%C3%A8se-%C3%A0-larbitrage-duSecr%C3%A9taire-dEtat-charg%C3%A9-de-la-R%C3%A9forme-de-lEtat-et-de-la-Simplification-1.pdf.
2 Video available at: http://www.villes-internet.net/articles/576946b34cb238e86709d67e.
3 Programme available here: https://rdv.etalab.gouv.fr/e/9/ce-que-peut-la-recherche-pour-un-gouvernementouvert.
4 The press release is available here: http://republiquecitoyenne.fr/telechargement/open-government-emptypromise.pdf.
5 Member of Open Source Politics, personal communication (email) with the IRM researcher, 31 Oct. 2017; Staff
member of Transparency France, personal communication (email) with the IRM researcher, 7 Nov. 2017.
6 Sarah Labelle, personal communication with the IRM researcher, 2 Nov. 2017.
7 International Association for Public Participation, "IAP2's Public Participation Spectrum" (IAP2, 2014),
c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/foundations_course/IAP2_P2_Spectrum_FINAL.pdf.

12About the Assessment
The indicators and method used in the IRM research can be found in the IRM Procedures
Manual. 1 One measure, the “starred commitment” (✪), deserves further explanation due toits particular interest to readers and usefulness for encouraging a race to the top among
OGP-participating countries. Starred commitments are considered exemplary OGP
commitments. To receive a star, a commitment must meet several criteria:• Starred commitments will have “medium” or “high” specificity. A commitment must lay
out clearly defined activities and steps to make a judgment about its potential impact.
• The commitment’s language should make clear its relevance to opening government.
Specifically, it must relate to at least one of the OGP values of Access to Information,
Civic Participation, or Public Accountability.
• The commitment would have a "transformative" potential impact if completely
implemented.2• The government must make significant progress on this commitment during the action
plan implementation period, receiving an assessment of "substantial" or "complete"
implementation.
Starred commitments can lose their starred status if their completion falls short of substantial
or full completion at the end of the action plan implementation period.
In the midterm report, France’s action plan contained three starred commitments. At the endof term, based on the changes in the level of completion, France’s action plan contained fivestarred commitments.
Finally, the tables in this section present an excerpt of the wealth of data the IRM collects
during its reporting process. For the full dataset for France, see the OGP Explorer at
www.opengovpartnership.org/explorer.
About “Did It Open Government?”
To capture changes in government practice, the IRM introduced a new variable “Did It Open
Government?” in end-of-term reports. This variable attempts to move beyond measuring
outputs and deliverables to looking at how the government practice has changed as a resultof the commitment’s implementation.
As written, some OGP commitments are vague and/or not clearly relevant to OGP values but
achieve significant policy reforms. In other cases, commitments as written appear relevant
and ambitious, but fail to open government as implemented. The “Did It Open Government”
variable attempts to captures these subtleties.
The “Did It Open Government?” variable assesses changes in government practice using thefollowing spectrum:• Worsened: Government openness worsens as a result of the commitment.
• Did not change: No changes in government practice.
• Marginal: Some change, but minor in terms of its effect on level of openness.
• Major: A step forward for government openness in the relevant policy area, but
remains limited in scope or scale.
• Outstanding: A reform that has transformed “business as usual” in the relevant policy
area by opening government.
To assess this variable, researchers establish the status quo at the outset of the action plan.
They then assess outcomes as implemented for changes in government openness.
Readers should keep in mind limitations. IRM end-of-term reports are prepared only a few
months after the implementation cycle is completed. The variable focuses on outcomes that13

can be observed in government openness practices at the end of the two-year
implementation period. The report and the variable do not intend to assess impact becauseof the complex methodological implications and the time frame of the report.
1 IRM Procedures Manual, http://www.opengovpartnership.org/about/about-irm.
2 The International Experts Panel changed this criterion in 2015. For more information, visit
http://www.opengovpartnership.org/node/5919.

14

Commitment Implementation
General Overview of Commitments
As part of OGP, countries are required to make commitments in a two-year action plan. The
tables below summarise the completion level at the end of term and progress on the “Did It
Open Government?” metric. For commitments that were complete at the midterm, the reportwill provide a summary of the progress report findings but focus on analysis of the ‘Did It
Open Government?’ variable. For further details on these commitments, please see theFrench IRM progress report (2017).

Theme 1: Ensure Accountability
1.1. OpenRegional and
Local
Authorities’
data
1.2. Publish
the decisions
and reports ofmunicipal
councilmeetings
online1.3. Publish
information
relative tobuilding
permits inopen data✪2. Increasetransparency
in public
procurement

✔
✔

✔

✔

✔
✔

✔
✔

✔

✔

✔
✔

✔
✔

✔

✔

✔
✔
✔

✔

✔

✔

✔
✔

15

Outstanding

Major

Worsened

Marginal

Did It Open
Government?

Did Not Change

Midterm
End ofTerm

Completed

LimitedNot Started

Transformative

Compl
etion

Moderate

Minor

None

Technology & Innovation
for Transparency &Accountability

Public Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to InformationHigh

MediumLow

None

Table 4: Assessment of Progress by Commitment
Commitment Specificity
OGP Value
Potential
Overview
Relevance (asImpactwritten)Substantial

The national action plan focuses on five key areas – ensuring accountability; consulting,debating and co-creating; opening digital resources; opening public administration; andopening government for sustainable development.

3. Improvetransparencyininternational
developmentaid
4. Openaccess toevaluations ofpublic policies
and theirconclusions
5. Involve
citizens
further in thework carriedout by the
Cour desComptes
6. Access topublicofficials’
transparency
obligations

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔
✔
✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔
✔

✔
✔

✔

✔

✔

✔
✔
✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔
✔

✔
✔

✔

✔

✔

✔
✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔
✔

✔

✔
✔

✔

✔

✔
✔

16

Outstanding

Major

Marginal

Worsened

Did Not Change

Substantial

Completed

Did It Open
Government?

LimitedMidterm
End ofTerm✔

✪7. Identify

beneficial
owners oflegal entities
registered in
France8.
Transparency
in Extractives
9. Increasetransparency
inInternational
Trade
Commercial

Compl
etion

Not Started

Transformative

Moderate

Minor

None

Potential
ImpactTechnology & Innovation
for Transparency &Accountability

Public Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to Information

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)High

MediumLow

Specificity

None

Commitment
Overview

Negotiations
Theme 2: Consult, Debate and Co-Create
10.1. Fix My
Neighbourhood10.2. Digital
Fix-It
11. Coproduce withcivil society
the data
infrastructure
essential tosociety andeconomy✪12. Further
expand theopening of
legal
resources &thecollaboration
with civilsociety on
opening thelaw
13. Leverageprevious
consultations& reform
participatory
mechanisms
14.
Strengthen
mediation and✔
✔

Unclear✔

Unclear✔

Withdrawn
✔
✔

✔
✔

✔
✔

✔

✔

✔

✔
✔

✔
✔

✔

✔

✔

✔
✔

✔
✔

✔

✔

✔

✔
✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

17

Outstanding

Major

Worsened

Marginal

Substantial

Did Not Change

Did It Open
Government?

Completed

Midterm
End ofTerm

Limited

Compl
etion

Not Started

Transformative

Moderate

Minor

None

Potential
ImpactTechnology & Innovation
for Transparency &Accountability

Public Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to Information

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)High

MediumLow

Specificity

None

Commitment
Overview

citizens’
ability to act inmatters
relating tojustice
Theme 3: Open Digital Resources

✔
✔

✔

✔

✔
✔

✔
✔

✔

✔

✔
✔
✔

✔

✔

Unclear

✔
✔

✔
✔

✔

✔

✔

✔
✔

Theme 4: Open up Public Administration
19. Empower
Civil Society
to support
schools
20. Diversify
recruitment✔
✔

Unclear✔

✔
✔

✔

Unclear

✔

✔

✔

18

Outstanding

Major

Marginal

Did Not Change

Worsened

Completed

Did It Open
Government?

✔

✪15.

Strengthen
government
policy on the
opening andcirculation ofdata
16. OpenCalculation
Models andSimulators
17. Transformgovernment’s
technologicalresources into
an openplatform
18.
Strengtheninteraction
with the user
and improve
publicservices
through egovernment

Midterm
End ofTerm

Substantial

LimitedNot Started

Transformative

Compl
etion

Moderate

Minor

None

Potential
ImpactTechnology & Innovation
for Transparency &Accountability

Public Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to Information

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)High

MediumLow

Specificity

None

Commitment
Overview

within public
institutions
21. Grow aculture of
openness,data literacy
and digitaltech
22. Spread
publicinnovationand develop
research on
Open
Government

✔
✔
✔

✔

✔

✔
✔

✔
✔

✔

✔

✔
✔

✪ 23.

Empoweringand protecting
public officials
in preventing
conflicts ofinterest

✔
✔

✔

✔

✔

✔
✔

Theme 5: Open Government for climate and sustainable development
24. Involve
civil society in
the COP21
conference
and promotetransparency
regarding theagenda andnegotiations
25. Open data
and models
related toclimate andsustainable
development

✔
✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔
✔

✔
✔

✔

✔

✔

✔
✔

19

Outstanding

Major

Marginal

Worsened

Did Not Change

Did It Open
Government?

Completed

Midterm
End ofTerm

Substantial

LimitedNot Started

Transformative

Compl
etion

Moderate

Minor

None

Potential
ImpactTechnology & Innovation
for Transparency &Accountability

Public Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to Information

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)High

MediumLow

Specificity

None

Commitment
Overview

26. Initiate
newcollaborations
with civilsociety todevelopinnovative
solutions tomeet thechallenges ofclimate andsustainable
development

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

20

Outstanding

Major

Marginal

Worsened

Did Not Change

Did It Open
Government?

Completed

Midterm
End ofTerm

Substantial

LimitedNot Started

Transformative

Compl
etion

Moderate

Minor

None

Potential
ImpactTechnology & Innovation
for Transparency &Accountability

Public Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to Information

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)High

MediumLow

Specificity

None

Commitment
Overview

Theme 1: Ensure Accountability
1. Enable citizens to consult, have a better understanding and reuse financial data anddecisions of local and regional authorities
Editorial Note: For ease of evaluation, Commitment 1 is broken into Commitment 1.1,
Commitment 1.2, and Commitment 1.3, which are assessed individually.
1.1: Open Regional and Local Authorities’ data
Commitment Text:
To meet the citizens’ legitimate expectations and considering the large proportion of publicfunds spent by local and regional authorities, the financial transparency of these local
authorities must be improved.
ROADMAP•••

Milestone 1.1.1. Allow citizens to better grasp the financial details of local andregional authoritiesoPublish in open data the general operating grant (Dotation globale defonctionnement) which is the State's financial contribution to local and regional
authoritiesoPublish in open data, on data.gouv.fr, all of account balances of local
authorities and groups with specific taxation, from 2013 financial year onwardoMake it compulsory for local executives and chairmen of EPCI to present areport to deliberative assembly (municipal, departmental or regional council)
on the follow-up given to observations made by the regional chamber of the
Cour des comptes

Milestone 1.1.2. Regularly provide the financial data of the financial jurisdictions suchas:o

The data used for the work on local financeoSome data on financial jurisdictions activities, notably the updated list of
publications from the Cour des comptes and the resources of the financial
jurisdictions

Milestone 1.1.3. Strengthen open data in local and regional authorities: enshrine inlaw the requirement for local communities of more than 3500 inhabitants to publish
their public information in open data format

1.2: Publish the decisions and reports of municipal council meetings online
Commitment Text:
The monitoring of decisions made by local authorities is essential for information andparticipation in public life.
ROADMAP•

Milestone1.2.1. Publish the list of administrative measures, deliberations, and local
municipal by-laws in electronic format alongside a paper version, and provide
permanent access free of charge•

Milestone 1.2.2. Post the minutes for municipal council meetings within one week
after the municipal council meeting on the local government website (where it exists)
for at least six years (as opposed to a one-off posting made within eight days for anindeterminate minimum period)

21

1.3 Publish information relative to building permits in open data
Commitment Text:
In accordance with Article L.2121-26 of the General Local Authorities Code, decisions
relating to building permits can be provided to any person requesting said information. Said
decisions must also be published in hardcopy format.
ROADMAP•

Start a working group with the stakeholders concerned to gradually arrange open
data access to building permits data by 2017
This collaboration could bring together Chief Data Officer, Etalab, the General
Commissariat for Sustainable Development, and local authorities (via Open
Data France, for example)oEditorial Note: This is a partial version of the commitment text. For the full commitment text
please see France’s national action plan: https://bit.ly/2MTYhsR.
Responsible Institutions: Ministry of Interior; Ministry of Public Accounts and Action;
Ministry of Spatial Planning, Rurality and Local Government; Court of Accounts; and Ministryof Environment, of Energy and of the Sea
Supporting Institution(s): N/A

1.1 Overall✔ ✔

1.2 Overall

✔ ✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔
✔

✔

✔
✔
✔

✔

Commitment Aim
This commitment aimed to improve transparency at the local government level and to
facilitate access to information about local financial management, decision-making and land
management, specifically the attribution of building permits. For the purposes of analysis, thiscommitment is broken into three parts, each addressing a different aspect of local
transparency and open data initiatives.

22

Outstanding

Major

Marginal

Completed

Did Not Change

Substantial

End ofTerm

Did It Open
Government?

Worsened

Midterm

LimitedTransformative

Completion✔

1.3 Overall✔

Moderate

Minor

Potential
ImpactTechnology & Innovation
for Transparency &Accountability
None

Public Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to Information

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)High

MediumLow

Specificity

None

Commitment
Overview

Not Started

Start Date: Not Specified
End Date: Not Specified

Commitment 1.1 sought to improve the financial transparency of local government. Article
L.2121-26 of the local and regional authorities’ general code requires local governments tocommunicate information about public finances to citizens upon request. Taking access to
information one step further, this commitment provided for the proactive publication of thisinformation in open data format.
Commitment 1.2 required the online publication of municipal councils’ deliberations andmeeting minutes. This would improve access to information about municipal decision-making
as this information was previously posted only in paper version outside the town hall.
Commitment 1.3 aimed to publish information regarding building permits in open data format.
Construction permits are approved by the municipality and information about issuance ofbuilding permits has been available upon request. This commitment sought to makeanonymous data on construction permits available in open data format This information
would facilitate impact studies, enrich national databases, inform social sciences, and allow
tax authorities to exercise control on assets.
StatusCommitment 1.1
Midterm: Substantial
This commitment was substantially completed by the midterm. The website for the Ministry ofInterior (MoI) features a tool to extract data on general operating grant and the sums given toeach local government, as well as the criteria used to calculate the grants. The draft
government self-assessment indicates that in order to complete this commitment, data on the
grants should be made available in open data format, in a single dataset, and should beindexed on data.gouv.fr, with data on grants given since 2014. The Ministry of Economy and
Finance has published account balances of local authorities and groups with special taxationfrom year 2013. The IRM progress report does not indicate progress regarding the obligation
for local executives to present to the local assembly a report on the follow-up from theirrespective local institutions’ audits.
The Ministry of Economy and Finance published the 2015 accounting results for local
governments on the data.gouv.fr platform. It remains unclear if any additional data outside
year 2015 will be published or if the data used by the supreme audit institution to review local
finances will be available to the public.
The commitment activity, which requires local governments with more than 3,500 residents
to comply with open data common requirements, was assessed as only ‘limited completion’since the Digital Republic bill was not passed by the end of the first year of implementation(June 2016). It would later be adopted in October 2016.
End of Term: Substantial
Commitment 1.1 is very broad and both the government self-assessment and the IRM
progress report provide a list of activities to be assessed and coded. While most commitment
activities were substantially completed, the progress made during the second year of
implementation was not significant enough to justify coding Commitment 1.1 as completed.
Regarding the commitment activities to allow citizens to better grasp the financial details of
local and regional authorities:
Publication of general operating grant information: The data extracting tool featured on thewebsite of the Ministry of Interior has been referenced on data.gouv.fr by hyperlinks to the
Minister of Interior website. The tool makes it possible to extract financial data in .csv format
for the current year. Several datasets on grants and financial balances of local governments(municipalities, intercommunalities, departments, and regions) are available from 2014 to23

2017. However, a general overview for each local government is only available for thecurrent year. The physical and financial criteria used to award grants are available for 2016
and 2017. The government self-assessment indicates that the Minister of Interior still needs
to centralise the information in one comprehensive dataset, make the data available in an
open data format and index it on data.gouv.fr.
• Publication of account balances for local authorities: The Ministry of Economy and
Finance has published the account balances of municipalities, departments, regions,groups with specific taxation, and local public institutions on data.gouv.fr in open data
format for the years 2012 to 2015. Data for 2016, however, is only available formunicipalities.
• Compulsory presentation of audit findings: Article 107 of the law on the new territorialorganisation of the Republic (referred to as NOTRe or “our” law in French) modifies
Article L 243-7 of the financial jurisdictions code and requires local executives toreport on how they followed up on observations and recommendations from local
audit institutions. Local executives now must present their reports to the local
assembly within a year and send it to the Court of Audit (Cour des comptes). The
government self-assessment and midterm IRM report note a tracking tool developed
during the Court of Audit #DataSession organised in May 2016 but the IRM
researcher was not able to access the tool while writing this report in October 2017.
Regarding activities on regularly providing financial data of financial jurisdictions:• By October 2017, the Court of Audit had published 82 datasets on data.gouv.fr inopen data format, including anonymous decisions of local audit institutions for 2016
and their final observation reports from 2013, 2014, and 2015. According to Etalab,1
the Court of Audit has published all the underlying data used to produced its reports,
including the evaluations produced by the local audit institutions (Cours regionales
des comptes). The government self-assessment indicates the Court of Audit should
publish updated information about its resources and activities and should provide
more historical depth to the information it provides.
Regarding the commitment activities on strengthening legal requirements for open data inlocal and regional authorities:• The Digital Republic Law adopted 7 October 2016 now requires local governmentswith more than 3,500 residents to comply with open data common law. OpenData
France, an association created in 2013 to help local governments open their data,
has published two guides to assist local governments.2
Commitment 1.2
Midterm: Not started
The NOTRe Law promulgated on 7 August 2015 includes a legal obligation for municipalities
to publish information on deliberation and meeting minutes. The implementing decree
entered into force in February 2016. By the midterm IRM report, it was not clear how manymunicipalities had started to implement the new requirements, nor how many had a website.
End of Term: Limited
The government self-assessment indicates that Articles 124 and 128 of the NOTRe Law
promulgated on 7 August 2015 contain obligations for municipalities to publish online local
administrative acts, deliberations and municipal bylaws. The obligation regarding municipal
council meetings is actually contained in Article 84.
The decree n° 2016-146 provides for different forms of implementation: municipal council
meeting minutes should be published in paper format and in electronic format if themunicipality has a website; and administrative acts that the municipality chooses to publish inelectronic format should be published in their entirety in a non-modifiable format. There isambiguity regarding whether the NOTRe Law and its implementation decree fulfil the24requirements laid out in the commitment text to “publish the list of administrative measures,deliberations, and local municipal bylaws in electronic format alongside a paper version, andprovide permanent access free of charge” (emphasis added). The new text of the local
government code (“code général des collectivités territoriales”) states that the publication ofadministrative acts is guaranteed in paper format and that they can be made available inelectronic format. 3 Similarly, Article 84 indicates that municipal council meeting minutes
should be published online if the municipality has a website.
There are 36,000 municipalities in France and the new legal framework requires
approximately 3,800 municipalities and Public Industrial and Commercial Establishments toopen their data. 4 The IRM researcher conducted a random website search of ten
municipalities 5 and found that all of them published the agenda and minutes of municipal
council meetings, deliberations and administrative acts online in PDF format, with varying
degrees of comprehensiveness and quality of the content of meeting minutes.
Commitment 1.3
Midterm: Limited
A working group had been initiated at the time of writing the midterm IRM report (December2016), but no information about this group’s work was available to the public. The objectiveof the working group was to give access to building permit data by 2017. Concerns over lackof privacy and identifying information in construction permits was posed early in the process
and a consequential step was thus to get the validation of the National Commission for
Information and Freedom (“Commission national de l’information et des libertés” or CNIL) on
anonymisation standards. The Ministry of Environment organised the HackRisks hackathon
in October 2016 and 123 datasets related to construction permits were made available inopen data format.
In the midterm IRM report,6 the previous IRM researcher gauged this sub-commitment to beoverly ambitious for completion within the timeframe. For more information, please see theIRM midterm report. 7
End of Term: Limited
Based on the draft self-assessment and publicly available information, there has been no
advancement on this commitment since the midterm report, therefore the IRM researcher
finds this commitment to remain limited in completion.
The IRM researcher was not able to find any publicly available information on additional
progress made concerning the working group. However, during an interview, Etalab signalledthat the CNIL had not yet approved the anonymisation standards and that work on thiscommitment would continue beyond the implementation of this action plan.
One promising new development since the first year of implementation was the opening of
the database Sit@del, part of the public statistics system. Sit@del addresses theconstruction of new buildings, contains data about construction permits, conversion permits,
destruction permits, and prior declarations. 8 Datasets are limited to issued permits and do
not include permit requests, separated by municipality. 9
The Ministry of the Environment organised a hackathon in October 2016, #Hackrisques,
where 123 datasets were opened, including Sit@del. Among the datasets made available
were of authorised and initiated projects in the Provence Alpes Côte d’Azur and La Réunion
regions between 2013 and 2015. At the time of writing this report (December 2017), thedatasets were no longer downloadable. 10
Did It Open Government?
Commitment 1.1 Access to Information: Major

25

Commitment 1.2 Access to Information: Marginal
Commitment 1.3 Access to Information: Did not change
The commitment to Open Regional and Local Authorities’ data (Commitment 1.1) contributed
significantly to opening government with respect to access to information. Previously, limited
information was made accessible to citizens regarding the operations of local government.
Now, local governments are legally required to publish financial and operational data.
OpenData France notes that the threshold for opening data (3,500 residents) represents asignificant step forward for transparency at the local level. 11 During the timeframe of theaction plan, two important laws were passed which improve access to information from local
governments, namely the Digital Republic Law n° 2016-1321 and the NOTRe Law n° 2015991. Local governments are now required to open data by default which represents asignificant improvement in terms of access to information. Stakeholder comments on the
Etalab forum recommend specifying the datasets that local governments should prioritise,
which would generate more coherence across the country. 12 What prevents this commitment
from being considered “outstanding” in terms of changing government practice is thequestion of whether the published data is being reused and thus, useful. The data.gouv.fr
dashboard indicates that 69 of the 123 datasets were never reused and that seven haverarely been reused. The limited use of this disclosed data might also indicate poor
advertising efforts on the part of the government. To improve visibility and mobilisation,
Transparency France suggests that public authorities identify best practices for existing
initiatives. 13
The commitment to publish the decisions and reports of municipal council meetings online(Commitment 1.2) marginally opened government regarding access to information. The
NOTRe Law n° 2015-991 and related decree n° 2016-146 made it mandatory for local
governments exceeding 3,500 inhabitants to publish online decisions and meeting minutes;
this is an improvement from previously only being required to physically post the minutes at
the meeting premises. The ambiguity of the laws’ wording, which does not systematicallyrequire disclosure, weakens their impact. From desk research, the IRM researcher found thedecision was largely implemented. However, not all the published data is in open data format(e.g. minutes from municipal council meetings) and the level of detail varies substantially.
The quality and quantity of information also varies between localities. Transparency France
recommends that the data be standardised and published in open data format.14
An important consideration for this commitment is the involvement and resources of local
governments. The action plan, midterm assessment or government self-assessment are
unclear whether local authorities were consulted and involved in the development of thiscommitment. Transparency France points to a technical difficulty of this commitment since
not all local governments have a website. OpenData France was commissioned by thegovernment to identify needs of local government and make suggestions to support theirefforts to open data. The report15 notes that there is an important discrepancy between large
metropolitan areas and smaller rural cities where there is a lack of financial resources andinformation. OpenData France finds that even in larger cities where the public interest is
greater, data often is not standardised, making it harder to reuse the published data. The
report recommends the creation of a common local data standard, the creation of an
Application Program Interface (API) for the reuse of local data communicated to theprefecture and opened at the national level, and investment in awareness-raising andtrainings for local administrators. OpenData France was asked to track nine pilot territories intheir effort to open data through trainings and experimentation.16 Etalab also highlighted therole of local governments through recent mechanisms such as the développement concertéde l’administration numérique territoriale (DcANT).17

26

The commitment to publish information on building permits in open data format (Commitment
1.3) has not changed government practice regarding access to information, given the lack ofprogress on the related activities.
Carried Forward?
This commitment was not carried forward to the next action plan.
1 Etalab team, personal communication with the IRM researcher, 23 Oct. 2017.
2 These guides are available at: http://www.opendatafrance.net/ressources/.
3 Art. 124 paragraph 1, “La publication au recueil des actes administratifs du dispositif des délibérations

mentionnées au deuxième alinéa est assurée sur papier. Elle peut l'être également, dans des conditions denature à garantir leur authenticité, sous forme électronique. La version électronique est mise à la disposition du
public de manière permanente et gratuite.”
4 OpenDataFrance, “Rapport sur les dispositifs d’accompagnement des collectivites locales à l’ouverture desdonnees publiques” (Oct. 2016), https://cdn2.nextinpact.com/medias/rapport-odf-ct.pdf.
5 Aix-en-Provence, Allos, Avignon, Bagneux, Bordeaux, Cagnes-sur-mer, Corte, Hénin-Beaumont, Lyon, Nice,and Poitiers
6 Independent Reporting Mechanism, France Rapport D'ètape (OGP, 2017),
https://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/France_Progress-Report_2015-2017.pdf.
7 Independent Reporting Mechanism, France Rapport D'ètape (OGP, 2017),
https://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/France_Progress-Report_2015-2017.pdf.
8 Insee, "Sit @ del2" (Insee, 13 Oct. 2016), thttps://www.insee.fr/fr/metadonnees/definition/c2020 (accessed 19
Sept. 2017).
9 See http://developpement-durable.bsocom.fr/statistiques/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx (accessed 19 Sept.
2017).
10 Ministère de l’environnement, #HackRisques: Comment mieux prévenir les risques naturels?, https://meemmlhd.github.io/hackrisques-data/index.html (accessed 19 Sept. 2017, link broken as of April 2018).
11 OpenDataFrance, Rapport sur les dispositifs d’accompagnement des collectivites locales a l’ouverture desdonnees publiques. (OpenDataFrance, Oct. 2016), https://cdn2.nextinpact.com/medias/rapport-odf-ct.pdf.
12 Etalab Forum, Engagement 1 (Etalab, 2016), https://forum.etalab.gouv.fr/t/engagement-1-permettre-a-tous-deconsulter-de-comprendre-et-de-reutiliser-les-donnees-financieres-et-les-decisions-des-collectivites-territorialesrapport-dautoevaluation-a-mi-parcours-du-plan-daction-pour-la-france-2015-2017-pour-une-action-publiquetransparente-et-collaborative/1902.
13 OpenDataFrance, Rapport sur les dispositifs d’accompagnement des collectivites locales a l’ouverture desdonnees publiques.
14 Etalab Forum, Engagement 1, (accessed 19 Sept. 2017).
15 OpenData France, Rapport sur les dispositifs d’accompagnement des collectivites locales a l’ouverture desdonnees publiques.
16 OpenData locale, “Restitution 1 d’OpenData Locale” (OpenDataFrance, May 2017),
http://site.infocom94.fr/_attachments/articlesarticle7/ODL_restitution1_avril%25202017_02mai2017.pdf?open=true.
17 Etalab team, personal communication with the IRM researcher, 23 Oct. 2017.

27✪2. Increase transparency in public procurement

Commitment Text:
ROADMAP•

Standardize the format of data of public call for tenders•

Release in open data the Official Bulletin of Public Contract Declarations (BOAMP) or
those from other publication entities, and publish buyers profiles.

•

Encourage increased publicity of awarded public tenders•oMake this publication mandatory for tenders above regulation thresholds.
Encourage and support buyers to do it also for tenders below regulationthreshold and to make buyers profiles accessible.

oPromote open data, particularly by standardizing advertising forms andpresenting them in machine readable formats. Data to be opened in priority
will be selected after a study phase that will not exceed one year.

Include open data clauses in contracts awarded by public authoritiesoEncourage service providers to open data produced during the execution of acontract by defining standard open data clauses specifying the requirements
and that public authorities could include in contracts.

Responsible Institutions: Prime Minister’s Office; Ministry of Finance and Public Accounts;
and Ministry of the Economy, Industry and the Digital Sector
Supporting Institution(s): N/A

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Commitment Aim
This commitment aimed to improve transparency in public procurement. Though thegovernment has already established a public procurement economic monitoring centre tooversee collection and analysis of data, not all territories have equal access to the data andknowledge around public procurement. According to a 2013 Senate report, this knowledge

28

Outstanding

Major

Completed

Marginal

Substantial

End ofTerm

Did It Open
Government?

Did Not Change

Midterm

Worsened

Completion

LimitedTransformative

Moderate

Minor

Potential
ImpactTechnology &Innovation forTransparency &NonePublic Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to Information

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)High

MediumLow✪2. Overall

Specificity

None

Commitment
Overview

Not Started

Start Date: Not specified
End Date: Not specifiedgap prevents private companies from developing implementation strategies because the data
they would need to do so is either incomplete, unreliable, or not current.
According to the Deposits and Consignments Fund (Caisse des dépôts) and the Associationof French local authorities (Assemblée des communautés de France), in 2016, €72 billion
was spent on public procurement, out of which €39 billion was spent by local governments. 1
Given the amount of public funds spent on public contracts and the potential of public
procurement for the economic development of local territories, access to information aboutprocurement processes, open calls, and awarded tenders is particularly important. This
commitment aimed to build on the existing legal framework, including the 1993 Loi Sapin and
the Public procurement code, European directives (including directive 2014/24/EU), as well
as local initiatives such as development in the Bretagne region and the city of Paris.
This commitment sought to: (i) standardise the call for tender and make them moretransparent and fair for potential bidders; (ii) improve transparency about buyers andawarded contracts to increase public access to information regarding the use of public funds;and (iii) systematise the opening of information through the inclusion of an open data clausein contracts awarded by public authorities.
StatusMidterm: Limited
The implementation of this commitment was limited at the time of the midterm. Only one
commitment activity, concerning the release of public contractor declarations in open data,
was coded as substantially completed.
Using the pilot program developed by the region of Bretagne, a frame of reference tostandardise the format of public calls for tenders was published on data.gouv.fr in May 2016,
following a BarCamp organised by Etalab and the Bretagne region. The BarCamp was held
to create national procurement-specific data standards compatible with French law andinternational standards. To be considered complete, the pilot frame of reference needed to
be proven as compatible with national and local data and procedures, and existing public
procurement data needed to be transferred to the new format.
Executive order n° 2015-899 was published on the official gazette on 24 July 2015. It
requires all information relating to public procurement to be published in open data format.
The information contained in the Official Bulletin of Public Contract Declarations (BOAMP) is
published on data.gouv.fr. The midterm IRM assessment notes that the data was previously
accessible through a payable license that is scheduled to be abolished with the adoption of
the Digital Republic Law.
Implementation of the third commitment activity on the publicity of awarded contracts wascoded as limited, as the standardisation method was still being tested and implementation
was uneven across regions.
Following the example of the city of Paris, the central government aims to require entities,
who receive public contracts, publish certain data about the execution of the contract. This
commitment is featured in Article 8 of the Digital Republic Law, which had not been adopted
at the time of the midterm assessment. For more information, please see the IRM midterm
report. 2
End of Term: Substantial
The overall completion of this commitment is considered to be substantial at the end of term.
The government has taken steps toward opening data in public procurement since thebeginning of the two-year implementation period, a number of laws and decrees have indeed
contributed to digitising public procurement procedures and increased their transparency.
The commitment is expected to be fully implemented by October 2018. A government

29

spokesperson informed the IRM researcher that the government remained committed tofurther improve the transparency of public procurement and that dialogue was ongoing
among relevant administrations. 3 However, there is no publicly available data tracing thisinteragency dialogue.
The adoption of the Digital Republic Law n° 2016-1321 in October 2016 marks anadvancement for the transparency of public procurement since it provides for the free reuseof BOAMP data. The data published in the BOAMP is now freely available in an API provided
by the Directorate of Legal and Administrative Information (DILA). 4
Completion of this activity is substantial on paper but, given that the implementation deadline
remains a year away at the time of this report, the completion level cannot yet be assessed.
Article 107 of the decree n°2016-360 makes it mandatory, at the latest by 1 October 2018,
for buyers to provide free access to data regarding public contracts above the threshold of
25,000€ (pre-tax value). Similarly, Article 34 of decree n° 2016-86 established obligations forgovernment concessions and Article 94 of decree n° 2016-361 addressed defence andsecurity contracts. Standardisation of data to be disclosed for regular procurement contracts,
defence and security contracts and concessions was achieved through a decree adopted on
14 April 2017, which lists information that should be included on buyer profiles and indicates
how the data will be communicated as of October 2018. This information includes the identity
number of the contract, the identity of the buyer, nature and type of contract, object of thecontract, and the type of procurement procedure. For contracts outside of defence andsecurity, buyers must include, inter alia, information regarding dates, expected budgets,
location, and information on contractor(s). Buyers also must keep this information current
during the implementation of the contract. Buyers have two months to update data, which willremain publicly available for five years after the execution of the contract.
The Digital Republic Law contains legal requirements to include an open data clause inpublic contracts and states that all public service delegation agreements must include anopen data clause requiring contractors to publish information about activities relating to the
public contract.5 The draft government self-assessment indicates that there are no legislative
clauses but that the Secretariat for Digital Affairs was working with the Ministry of Economy
and Finance to encourage contractors to open data and that several events were planned.
The IRM researcher, however, did not find any publicly available information discussingthese events, nor was the IRM researcher able to find any evidence that events were held
during the action plan implementation period.
Did It Open Government?
Access to Information: Major
Prior to the implementation of this commitment, there was no legal requirement to publish
information on public calls for tender in open data format, nor was the format of calls
standardised. Implementation of this commitment has spurred movement toward fortransparency and access to public procurement processes. Full implementation of theactivities will happen outside of the review period. As such, this commitment is a major step
toward opening government in terms of access to information.
This commitment was considered to have transformative potential impact given the economic
importance of public procurement, especially for the development of local communities.
Although many steps were taken toward increased transparency, such as setting a legal
obligation to open data about procurement and concession contracts and standardising thedata to be disclosed, the implementation of these activities will be completed outside of thereview period, which prevents this commitment from reaching its full, transformative potential
by the end of the two years.

30

Besides the lack of full implementation at the national level, there are concerns about thecapacity of local governments to implement the relevant activities (see Commitment 1).
Some local governments have been very active in implementing the new open datarequirements; the Bretagne region set up a platform to centralise data regarding its public
contracts and concessions. 6
In December 2016, France joined Contracting 5, an international initiative started by fivecountries, France, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Ukraine and Colombia, to discuss thedevelopment of an international standard for opening information on public procurement.
France will lead the initiative in 2018. The IRM researcher did not find any publicly available
information on the organisation and its such activities, beyond a date of the next meeting in
Amsterdam on 27 and 28 of November 2017.7
Carried Forward?
This commitment was carried over to the next action plan. The new commitment addresses
implementing international standards (Open Contracting Data Standards), creating a “single
data flow” for public procurement data, opening data beyond pivotal data; and encouraging
innovative usage of public procurement data.
1 AdCF and Caisse des dépôts, Baromètre de la commande Publique 2012 -2016 (Feb. 2017),

http://www.adcf.org/files/DOCS/Note-synthese-AdCF-CDC-21fev2017.pdf.
2 Independent Reporting Mechanism, France Rapport D'ètape (OGP, 2017),
https://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/France_Progress-Report_2015-2017.pdf.
3 Etalab team, personal communication with the IRM researcher, 23 Oct. 2017.
4 Available here: http://api.dila.fr/opendata/swagger-ui.html#/API_Boamp.
5 “Explication des articles” (accessed 21 Sept. 2017), http://www.republique-numerique.fr/pages/explication-desarticles.
6 “My Breizh Open Data” is available at: https://breizh-sba.opendatasoft.com/explore/?sort=modified (accessed 1
Nov.2017).
7 Etalab, Transparence de la commande publique : les enjeux et l’engagement de la France, du local àl’international (Etalab, accessed 28 Oct. 2017), https://www.etalab.gouv.fr/la-transparence-de-la-commandepublique-se-transforme-au-service-de-lopen-data.

31

3. Improve transparency in international development aid
Commitment Text:
ROADMAPThe French Development Agency will gradually open data on funding granted to sectors
under their responsibility in Sub-Saharan Africa, Mediterranean countries, Asia and Latin
America. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development will then add data on
projects funded in these zones to expand the site www.transparence-aide.gouv.fr. All thisdata will be published regularly in the IATI format and hosted or referenced on
www.data.gouv.fr. The transparency threshold of €100,000 will be removed by these two
stakeholders for projects run by NGOs. Transparency will be applicable whatever the amountfrom 2016. The Finance and Economy Ministry will continue to reference, on the sitewww.data.gouv.fr, the definitive declaration of data from France to the OECD, within the
shortest deadlines compatible with maintaining the verification and control function for OECDstatistical data.
• Continue the provision of data on public development aid by extending the scope of zones
and the types of projects covered
2015:•

Opening, in June, of the French Development Agency (AFD) data on funding
granted within their sector of responsibility in the sub-Saharan African andMediterranean countries.

•

Gradual opening in the second half-year by the MEAE (Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and International Development) data for the African zone (countries to be
determined)•

Publication of data relating to priority solidarity fund projects, humanitarian aid,
food aid, co-development projects and actions of the DAECT (Delegation forExternal Action of Local and Regional Authorities) on the portal "data.gouv.fr"

2016:
•

Gradual opening of the MEAE data on Asia-Pacific, Latin America and the
Caribbean (countries to be determined)•

Opening at the end of June, by the AFD data on Asia-Pacific, Latin America andthe Caribbean (sovereign sector for the AFD)•

Publication of the AFD and MEAE open data, in the IATI format, on projects run byNGOs (whatever their amount) in the countries already subject to the publication ofthis data

2017:•

Reduction, by the AFD and the MEAE, of the publication threshold from €100,000
to €50,000 for all projects in the countries already concerned (except NGO
projects, published whatever their amount)

All of these releases should be in open data, published regularly, in the IATI format and for
projects of €100,000 or more.
Editorial Note: This is a partial version of the commitment text. For the full commitment text
please see France’s national action plan: https://bit.ly/2MTYhsR.

32

Responsible Institutions: Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs (MEAE); Ministry of
Finance and Public Accounts; Ministry of the Economy, Industry and the Digital Sector(MINEFI); and French Development Agency (AFD).
Supporting Institutions(s): N/A

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Commitment Aim
This commitment aimed to improve transparency in development aid through the publicationof data on projects funded by France’s main development agencies: AFD, MEAE andMINEFI. France is regularly considered to be less transparent than other OECD countries
regarding aid transparency, as illustrated by Publish What You Fund’s (PWYF) 2016 Aid
Transparency Index assessing AFD as ‘fair,’ MEAE as ‘poor,’ and MINEFI as ‘very poor.’ 1
MEADI launched a pilot transparency platform in 2014, on which this commitment is built.
The midterm IRM assessment considered the potential impact of this commitment to beminor as it does not provide for the release of new information but rather for the
harmonisation of existing data on various websites and its transference to data.gouv.fr.
StatusMidterm: Limited
Completion of this commitment was limited by the midterm. Progress had been made by
MEAE and AFD to publish data on development projects but their efforts fell short of theobjectives set out in the action plan (a detailed assessment can be found in the midterm
assessment). Mae Kurkjian from ONE notes that progress was made regarding the releaseof datasets but that there were delays from all actors. In addition, Kurkijan considers that themultiplicity of platforms makes it difficult for civil society to monitor development projects. The
midterm assessment does not mention MINEFI’s actions. For more information, please see
the IRM midterm report.2
End of Term: Substantial
The government self-assessment codes this commitment as partial completion. It noted that
MEADI has released information regarding priority assistance to 16 sub-Saharan countries
on its websites transparence-aide.gouv.fr and that it has opened data on its Priority Solidarity
Funds (FSP), co-development projects, humanitarian assistance, food aid and DAECT

33

Outstanding

Major

Completed

Marginal

Substantial

End ofTerm

Did It Open
Government?

Did Not Change

Midterm

Worsened

Completion

Limited✔

Transformative✔

3. Overall

Moderate

Minor

Potential
ImpactTechnology &Innovation forTransparency &NonePublic Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to Information

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)High

MediumLow

Specificity

None

Commitment
Overview

Not Started

Start Date: 16 July 2015
End Date: 15 July 2017

actions for 2014. The self-assessment also notes that AFD has published data on its
assistance to sovereign funds in the sub-Saharan and Mediterranean regions. Since 2016,
AFD has published information on its activities in the sovereign sector in the Asia-Pacific,
Latin-America and Caribbean regions. Lastly, the self-assessment indicates that the Ministryof Finance and Public Accounts (MFCP) participated in negotiating changes to the OECD’s
Creditor Reporting System that will now include data on contributions to the private sector indestination countries as well as private funds mobilised by public financing.
One important development since the first year of implementation is the centralisation of
information on a single platform managed by AFD following a decision of the Inter-ministerial
Committee on International Cooperation and Development (CICID) on 30 November 2016.3
AFD and MEAE have merged their transparency platforms into the OpenDataSoft platform. 4
This transparency platform provides data in multiple reusable and open source formats (.xls,.csv, and .rdf), as well as project mapping and an API. The platform features seven datasets
published during the action plan implementation period. 5 MEAE data covers 36 countries(four Asian-Pacific; 25 sub-Saharan; two Mediterranean; and five Latin-American/Caribbean).
AFD data covers 64 countries and can be accessed through a thematic search.
On data.gouv.fr, AFD has published 70 datasets in .xml format on their assistance to the
public sector in various countries. The data was last updated in July 2017. MEAE published
86 datasets on bilateral aid on data.gouv.fr in .xml and .csv format.
PWYF’s 2016 Aid Transparency Index finds that France does not fulfil its aid transparency
commitments. PWYF is particularly worried about the growing gap between AFD, which had
made significant improvements, and MEAE and MFCP, which lag behind.6 PWYF praises theefforts made by AFD to improve transparency and recommends: it increase the frequency of
its IATI publication to at least quarterly, if not monthly; publish a complete organisation file,including forward-looking budgets for three years ahead; and improve the quality of its IATI
publication so that it is comprehensive and consistent for evaluations and tenders, results
and impact appraisals. In particular, it should publish disaggregated budgetary data.
PWYF noted that after an improvement in 2014, MEAE’s rating fell in 2016. “It still remains
unclear whether transparency and open data has been made a priority within the [MEAE] –with appropriate financial and staff resources – so we will take a closer look at theirperformance in the next few months,” said PWYF. 7 It recommends that MEAE: re-prioritise
its IATI publication and focus on publishing more comprehensively according to theinternationally agreed common standard, before extending coverage to other priority
countries and increase the frequency of its publication; publish a complete organisation file tothe IATI Registry, including forward-looking budgets for at least three years ahead; adapt its
information systems and processes to support automated and timely publication of highquality data in the IATI Standard; and improve cooperation with the AFD, MINEFI and the
IATI Secretariat to improve publication.
Lastly, PWYF assess the performance of MINEFI as very poor and gives it the same
recommendations as those addressed to MEAE. 8
Did It Open Government?
Access to Information: Major
The French government has made significant efforts to improve transparency and facilitate
access to information regarding international development aid, largely through thecentralisation of data. Prior to this commitment, limited information was disclosed and thedata was scattered across multiple platforms. As such, the implementation of thiscommitment constitutes a major development in terms of access to information. AFD becamea member of the International Aid Transparency Initiative in December 2016 during the OGP

34

Summit in Paris, reinforcing France’s commitment to making development aid moretransparent. This decision was welcomed with enthusiasm by Publish What You Fund(PWYF). 9
The IRM researcher considers the new platform to be easy to navigate, with maps andsearch filters. To help citizens with different knowledge levels about development aid, theplatform could provide explanatory and pedagogical information. Grouping data by country
could be particularly useful so that the public could get a more complete picture of French aid
per country, as pointed out by a member of the Penplusbytes organisation in Ghana.10
Through this platform, both MEAE and AFD published new information in open and reusableformats. PWYF notes that the fact that “the platform [is] now combining MEAE and AFD data
is definitely an improvement and a welcome one as it makes it easier to have acomprehensive overview of France’s activities in the developing world. It also shows thedifferences in terms of quality of the data provided by both institutions.” 11 Based on desk
research, the IRM researcher considers the information to be regularly updated. The
granularity of the data could be improved, for example, distinguishing between subsidisedloans and non-concessional loans. PWYF also states that greater data detail would facilitate
monitoring by third parties and improvement is needed to ensure that all places in whichthese institutions operate are mentioned.12
The CSO Coordination SUD notes that AFD does not publish all relevant information, suchas its provisional budgets. Coordination SUD regrets that not all data is published in asystematic fashion nor in an acceptable format, noting that calls for tender are not included
on the platform. In addition, it notes that multilateral contributions, notably those managed by
MFCP, are not published on the platform. Lastly, Coordination SUD points to the need tosystematically publish the disbursements made through the Solidarity Funds forDevelopment (FSD) so that civil society can monitor allocations of innovation funds (fonds
innovants). The organisation recommends that the government ensures that data provided
by MEAE, AFD and MFCP is published on the IATI register; completes the centralisation ofdata on the platform and includes multilateral aid; and publishes details on disbursements. 13
PWYF adds that “while portals are important tools, we found that more needs to be done bydonors to engage directly with people in partner countries to identify their needs, respond totheir questions and implement change accordingly so that development outcomes are
improved and stakeholders hold [sic] accountable.” 14
Carried Forward?
This commitment was carried over to the new action plan. The new commitment addresses
extending the scope of data to be opened to new geographical zones and new actors (suchas Proparco, the private sector financing arm of the AFD); including all relevant data in one
single platform; and publishing impact data on AFD projects.
1 Publish What You Fund, 2016 Aid Transparency Index (Publish What You Fund, accessed 21 Sept. 2017),

http://ati.publishwhatyoufund.org/comparison-chart-2016/.
2 Independent Reporting Mechanism, France Rapport D'ètape (OGP, 2017),
https://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/France_Progress-Report_2015-2017.pdf.
3 Comité interministériel de la coopération internationale et du développement, Relevé de décisions, (30 Nov.
2016), http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/161128-releve-de-decisions-cicid-version-longuepropre_cle85fc9d.pdf.
4 Available here: https://afd.opendatasoft.com/page/accueil/.
5 Proparco data from 2014 on aid to private sector (data published upon approval by client); development
assistance from the MEAE (the first project dating back from 2006); consolidated data on results from AFD (20122016); AFD Distribution of the financing authorisations per instrument (2008-2015); AFD financing authorisations(2012-2015); data on AFD development projects (the first project dating back from 2000); and AFD project
evaluations from 2014 onward.

35

6 Publish What You Fund, 2016 Aid Transparency Index.
7 Staff member, Publish What You Fund, personal communication with IRM researcher, 8 Nov. 2017.
8 Publish What You Fund, “France” (Publish What You Fund, 2016),
http://www.publishwhatyoufund.org/donors/france/.
9 Staff member, Publish What You Fund, personal communication with IRM researcher, 8 Nov. 2017.
10 Publish What You Fund, La France ne respecte pas ses engagements en matière de transparence de l’aide,(Publish What You Fund, 2016), http://ati.publishwhatyoufund.org/la-france-ne-respecte-pas-ses-engagementsen-matiere-de-transparence-de-laide/ (accessed 22 Sept. 2017).
11 Staff member, Publish What You Fund, personal communication with IRM researcher, 8 Nov. 2017.
12 Id.
13 Coordination SUD, Consultation.gouv, Plan d'action gouvernement ouvert 2017-2019 : Idéation Consultation en
ligne (2017), https://democracyos.consultation.etalab.gouv.fr/pgo-ideation/topic/58b7ef19de66ce9b9dc93e2c(accessed on Septmebr 22 2017).
14 Staff member, Publish What You Fund, personal communication with IRM researcher, 8 Nov. 2017.

36

4. Open access to evaluations of public policies and to their conclusions
Commitment Text:
ROADMAP• Encourage all actors involved in evaluations to make their work available in the Public
Policies Evaluation Observatory, to improve its comprehensiveness and facilitate researchthrough its database (access by keyword, etc.)-

Make the Public Policies Evaluation Observatory available to all, as the reference
database for public policies evaluations-

Systematize the publication of public policies evaluations launched in the context ofgovernment modernization programs (when not prevented by legal considerations)• Systematize and improve citizens' participation in evaluations coordinated by the SGMAP,
for example through opinion surveys, workshops for citizens' juries, etc.
• Improve the traceability of impact on public action of public policies evaluations launchedunder government modernization programs
Editorial Note: This is a partial version of the commitment text. For the full commitment text
please see France’s national action plan: https://bit.ly/2MTYhsR.
Responsible Institution: Secretary-General for Government Modernisation (SGMAP)
attached to the Prime Minister
Supporting Institution(s): N/A

4. Overall

✔

✔ ✔

✔

✔

✔

Commitment Aim
This commitment sought to make public policy evaluation reports more accessible to the
public. Public policy evaluations facilitate relevant and efficient public action, and contributeto better-informed citizens. However, access to evaluations is limited due to the number ofactors involved and the different methods used. This commitment aimed to make evaluations
accessible to the public, encourage the use of evaluation by public officials, and involve
citizens in the evaluation of public policies.

37

Outstanding

Major

Completed

Marginal

Substantial✔

End ofTerm

Did It Open
Government?

Did Not Change

Midterm

Worsened

Completion

LimitedTransformative

Moderate

Minor

Potential
ImpactTechnology &Innovation forTransparency &NonePublic Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to Information

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)High

MediumLow

Specificity

None

Commitment
Overview

Not Started

Start Date: Not Specified
End Date: Not Specified

To this end, the Secretary-General for Government Modernization (SGMAP) has set up apartnership with the French Evaluation Society (Société Française de l'Évaluation, or SFE),
an association which maintains a repository for public policy evaluations. The repository(called the “Observatoire” in French) is a database of public policy evaluations from agencies
at different government levels (state, local authorities, etc.). It also gives users theopportunity to submit a report themselves.
StatusMidterm: Limited
Completion of this commitment was limited at the midterm. There was a significant differencein progress between the commitment activities; the public policies evaluation repository wascomplete while the other two activities, involving citizens in public policy evaluation andencouraging officials’ use of the evaluation repository, had not started.
The Public Policies Evaluation Repository was made accessible online, free of charge. An
increasing number of evaluations were published during the first year of implementation. The
midterm IRM report notes that the search filters were inadequate given the number of
evaluations. Importantly, stakeholders signalled that the technology used in the repository
was not open source as the software was proprietary. Lastly, the repository did not have adashboard to follow the number of downloads and contributions.
The midterm IRM report indicates that there was no public evidence that the other two
activities had started. For more information, please see the IRM midterm report. 1
End of Term: Limited
The government, with SGMAP in the lead, took some steps forward regarding the production
and publication of public policy evaluations. However, the government self-assessment does
not list any new developments since the midterm assessment. The overall objectives of thecommitment were not achieved by the end of the implementation period. Of particular note is
the fact that there is no evidence that citizens were given a chance to participate in public
policy evaluations nor that the impact of public policy evaluations is more measurable as aresult of this commitment.
Based on desk research, the IRM researcher notes that it is now possible to use multiple
filters to search through evaluations. However, a significant number of evaluations are notlinked to any document or report, making the listing of evaluations less relevant and useful.
Regarding the evaluations launched by the government in 2012 as part of its efforts tomodernise public action, 80 evaluations are listed on the dedicated page on the SGMAP’s
website 2 and 76 feature a public report. The webpage also contains an explanation of themethodology used to evaluate policies, as well as examples of documents and instruments
used during evaluations.
The government self-assessment indicates that an independent evaluation of SGMAP’s
methodology and assessment of public policies has been undertaken by the auditing firm
KPMG and Quadrant Conseil between July 2016 and January 2017. The report is available
on the SGMAP’s website. 3 The report recommends that:• transparency and stakeholder participation be reinforced;• the methodology be more selective in the evaluation themes as not all policies can beevaluated the same way;
• the methodology become more flexible and less time-consuming; and• that evaluations be combined with other methodologies.
The evaluation highlights the absence of a monitoring mechanism that would allow for an
improved follow-up to policy evaluations. It also notes that innovative data collection
techniques (e.g. big data, predictive analysis, or citizen consultations) are not used.4

38

Finally, the IRM researcher did not find any public information that points to the completion of
the activity seeking to make the impact of evaluations on policy more traceable.
Did It Open Government?
Access to Information: Marginal
Civic Participation: Did Not Change
The midterm IRM report considered the milestones of this commitment to have a negligible
potential impact because a free library of public policy evaluation reports already exists (Ladocumentation Française 5) and the activities for increasing citizen participation in SGMAP
evaluations and monitoring the evaluations’ impact are vague and lack measurable actions.
SGMAP has published over 70 public policy evaluations on its website and has started a
discussion on how to improve the traceability and impact of public policy evaluations. As
such, the implementation of this commitment marginally opened government regarding
access to information, given the availability of new information and improvements in the
search functions of the Observatory during the second year of implementation.
However, civic participation showed no improvement. The evaluation produced by KPMG
and Quadrant highlights the absence of public consultations. During Etalab’s forum, civilsociety noted that public evaluations should gather feedback from different stakeholders
using a variety of tools, while a participative evaluation should involve stakeholders startingfrom the very conception of the evaluation in a steering committee. 6 He mentions Région
Rhône-Alpes, Rennes Métropole and Nantes Métropole as local governments having
implemented such methods. Civil society also recommends that evaluations not only becommissioned by public authorities but also by civil society, that evaluators be trained inpublic consultations to make sure both intermediary bodies and beneficiaries are involved in
the process, that a digital evaluation method be piloted at the local level, and that all the data
surrounding evaluations be opened.
Carried Forward?
This commitment was not carried over to the new action plan.
1 Independent Reporting Mechanism, France Rapport D'ètape (OGP, 2017),

https://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/France_Progress-Report_2015-2017.pdf.
2 Available at http://www.modernisation.gouv.fr/laction-publique-se-transforme/en-evaluant-ses-politiques-publiques/toutes-les-evaluations-de-politiques-publiques.
3 Available at http://www.modernisation.gouv.fr/laction-publique-se-transforme/en-evaluant-ses-politiquespubliques/levaluation-des-politiques-publiques-evaluee-a-son-tour (accessed 9 Jan. 2018).
4 SGMAP, L’évaluation des politiques publiques évaluée à son tour : enseignements et perspectives, (SGMAP,
2017), http://www.modernisation.gouv.fr/laction-publique-se-transforme/en-evaluant-ses-politiquespubliques/levaluation-des-politiques-publiques-evaluee-a-son-tour (accessed 22 Sept. 2017); KMPG, Quandrant.
Evaluation de la démarche globale d’évaluation des politiques publiques menée dans le cadre de lamodernisation de l’action publique, (KMPG, 2017), http://www.modernisation.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/fichiersattaches/evaluation_epp-map_rapport.pdf.
5 Stéphane Saurel, “What is the Budget for the European Union after 2020?” (La Documentation Francaise,
accessed 25 Mar. 2018), http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/.
6 “Thomas” (comment), “Commitment 4: Open access to public policy evaluations and their conclusions: Mid-term
self-evaluation report of the Action Plan for France 2015-2017: ‘For a transparent and collaborative public action,’"(Etalab, accessed 25 Mar. 2018), https://forum.etalab.gouv.fr/t/engagement-4-ouvrir-lacces-aux-evaluations-depolitiques-publiques-et-a-leurs-conclusions-rapport-dautoevaluation-a-mi-parcours-du-plan-daction-pour-lafrance-2015-2017-pour-une-action-publique-transparente-et-collaborative/1905/3.

39

5. Involve citizens further in the work carried out by the Cour des comptes
Commitment Text:
ROADMAP
1. Open some of the data collected during inspections and evaluations, as well as data
specific to financial jurisdictions.
The Cour des comptes undertakes to regularly provide the following data sets:a. The budgetary data forming the basis of current or past analyses of State’sbudget execution
b. When possible, the data forming the basis of current or past themed
investigations of the Courc. The data forming the basis of current or past work on local finances
d. Certain data on activity of the financial jurisdictions, notably the update to thelist of publications from the Court and the resources of the financial
jurisdictions
The Cour des comptes will also study, together with the Prime Minister’s Office, theestablishment of a data portal "data.ccomptes.fr", listed on the government portal(data.gouv.fr), in order to systematize a strategy of data management and the opening of
public information.
2. Further involve citizens in the work of the Cour des comptes
This involvement could take several forms:
a. Opinion surveys in order to better identify the expectations of citizens inrelation to the work of the Cour des comptes, both in form and content
b. A contributory platform could be introduced to enable feedbacks from citizens'on their concerns
Editorial Note: This is a partial version of the commitment text. For the full commitment text
please see France’s national action plan: https://bit.ly/2MTYhsR.
Responsible Institution: Cour des comptes
Supporting Institution(s): N/A

5. Overall

✔

✔ ✔

✔

✔

40

Outstanding

Major

Completed

Marginal

Substantial✔

End ofTerm

Did It Open
Government?

Did Not Change

Midterm

Worsened

Completion

LimitedTransformative

Moderate

Minor

Potential
ImpactTechnology &Innovation forTransparency &NonePublic Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to Information

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)High

MediumLow

Specificity

None

Commitment
Overview

Not Started

Start Date: Not Specified
End Date: Not Specified✔
Commitment Aim
The Cour des comptes – France’s Supreme Audit Institution – is responsible for assessing
the use of public funds, auditing the State and Social Security accounts, and evaluating
public policies. Transparency and accountability are at the core of their mission but theinstitution is often perceived as complex by the general public audience. This commitment
thus aimed to make the Cour des comptes more accessible for the public by opening data
produced by the Cour des comptes and inviting citizen participation. The Cour des comptes
sought to better include citizens in its activities through a citizen-feedback platform andopinion surveys.
Since 2014, the Cour des compts has opened a few datasets presenting the results of theirwork, including a dataset listing all the documents produced 1 by the Cour and its regional
chambers, the case law of financial jurisdictions, and all data regarding daily activities of thefinancial jurisdictions. The commitment aimed to further this transparency and open new
data. The midterm IRM report found that the milestones lacked specificity and did not containsufficient details about the implementation, timeline, or potential functionalities.
StatusMidterm: Limited
The completion of this commitment was limited by the midterm. By December 2016, the Courdes comptes had published 52 datasets on data.gouv.fr. In addition to opening new datasets,
the institution organised a hackathon in May 2016 with data scientists, magistrates, public
officials, and students to identify user needs for data access. In December 2016, the Courdes comptes participated in the General Interest Entrepreneurship program coordinated by
Etalab. Lastly, the institution employed a data scientist for ten months to develop a tool forthe public to easily extract data from the reports. For more information, please see the IRM
midterm report. 2
End of Term: Limited
In October 2017, the Cour des comptes had published 82 datasets on data.gouv.fr, mostly in.csv format. Etalab indicates that the Cour des comptes had opened all the underlying data
used to produced its reports as well as the evaluations from local audit institutions. As notedin the midterm report, the lack of specificity of the first milestone (“open some data…”) makes
it difficult for the IRM researcher to assess the completion of this commitment.
Following the DataSession organised in May 2016, five projects were presented to the Courdes comptes:3• OpenBudget.fr: making local government budgets easier to understand for the public;• Reco-tracker: making it easier to track if public agencies follow the Cour’srecommendations;• Datapartage: making it easier to explore the Cour’s data
• FRAP making it easier to geo-reference reports and data; and• Doctrine.fr: indexing of judicial decisions.
The IRM researcher did not find any public information on the follow-up to this event or on
potential support provided to the projects. In June 2017, the Cour des comptes organised asecond DataSession together with the Commission d’accès aux documents administratifs(CADA), the prefecture of the Occitanie region and Etalab, with the aim, inter alia, to better
identify the actors in public transparency in France, to make the Cour des comptes’ data
more user-friendly and to track what tax revenue is used for. The event was organised inparallel in Paris and Montpellier. The IRM researcher could not find any public information
regarding the results and follow-up to this event.

41

The Cour des comptes hosted an entrepreneur in early 2017 named Frédéric Bardolle.
Bardolle worked with Cour des comptes officials to better organise the governance of theinstitution’s data and developed an API. He also assisted the Cour des comptes in its efforts
to open data, both regarding the production of its reports as well as its internal operations.
Did It Open Government?
Access to Information: Marginal
Civic Participation: Did Not ChangeThis commitment made new data accessible to the public and strengthened the relationshipbetween the Cour des comptes and civil society. As such, this commitment marginally
opened government regarding access to information but did not change civic participation.
The Cour des comptes produces many reports and the implementation of this commitment
moved the institution toward opening the underlying data for these reports and analyses. The
dashboard indicates that 75 of these datasets have never been reused and the other sevenhave rarely been reused. There is no publicly available information regarding the criteria forreleasing datasets. This raises the question of the relevance of the data opened by the Courdes comptes and awareness-raising efforts undertaken.
According to Etalab, the Cour des comptes has demonstrated a great interest in making its
data available and usable. The IRM researcher could not find information regarding the Courdes comptes’ strategy for releasing datasets. It does not appear that a mechanism exists tosystematically open data. The project undertaken by Frédéric Bardolle should allow for amore systematic opening of data, but the results of his work were not yet known at the end of
the implementation term. As mentioned above, the released datasets were barely used by
the public, which questions the relevance of the data that has been opened and/or the efforts
made to advertise the new data.
Regarding civic participation, the Cour des comptes has made new efforts to include civilsociety in its work through events and collaborations with data scientists. The results of these
activities are yet to be seen, therefore it is not yet possible to find that this commitment is amajor step forward for government openness.
Carried Forward?
This commitment was carried over to the new action plan. In the new action plan, thecommitment focuses on publicising data opened by financial jurisdictions and improving data
quality; on diversifying the methods used to communicate data and encouraging the reuse ofopened data; and on testing new ways to inform and consult citizens.

1 “Productions des chambres régionales et territoriales des comptes, par chambre régionale et par type deproduction (2010-2015),” (data.gouv.fr, accessed 25 Mar. 2018), https://www.data.gouv.fr/fr/datasets/productionsdes-chambres-regionales-et-territoriales-des-comptes-par-chambre-regionale-et-par-type-de-production-20102015/.
2 Independent Reporting Mechanism, France Rapport D'ètape (OGP, 2017),
https://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/France_Progress-Report_2015-2017.pdf.
3 See https://www.etalab.gouv.fr/datasession-a-la-cour-des-comptes-une-premiere-brique-vers-louverture-desdecisions-de-justice (accessed 9 Jan. 2018).

42

6. Facilitate access to public officials’ transparency obligations
Commitment Text:
Roadmap
Publish public data contained in declarations of assets and interests made using an online
reporting tool in an open, reusable format (declarations of assets made by members of theGovernment and declarations of interests of members of the Government, members of
Parliament, French representatives in the European Parliament and main local elected
officials)-

With the development of the online reporting tool (ADEL), it will be possible tocirculate information in a reusable format within the 2016 year-

Efforts by HATVP to convey the information about the online reporting tool to persons
bound by reporting obligations will be stepped up. The aim is to ensure a high level ofremote reporting and, as a result, a large volume of open-data information

Responsible Institution(s): Haute autorité pour la transparence de la vie publique
Supporting Institution(s): N/A

6. Overall
✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔
✔

Commitment Aim
This commitment aimed to publish data from public officials’ asset and interest declarationsin open data format to prevent conflicts of interest and illicit enrichment.
Since 1988, members of the government, elected officials, and the heads of local
government have been required to declare their assets before entering their position. Thisobligation was expanded in 2013 when two laws on public life transparency were adopted 11
October 2013 (n° 2013-906 and n° 2013-907), expanding the obligation to 15,000 officials
including close aides to the president, ministers and leaders of two legislative assemblies,
magistrates, high-ranking civil servants, and military officials 1 requiring them to declare theirinterests and existing asset declarations in a timely manner.2 The 2013 laws provide for the
publication of the interest declarations by members of government, parliamentarians, MEPs,
local elected officials, and of the asset declarations of members of government. Assetdeclarations by parliamentarians are available for consultation in the préfecture of theirrespective constituencies. The 2013 law also established the High Authority for the43

Outstanding

Major

Completed

Marginal

Substantial

End ofTerm

Did It Open
Government?

Did Not Change

Midterm

Worsened

Completion

LimitedTransformative

Moderate

Minor

Potential
ImpactTechnology &Innovation forTransparency &NonePublic Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to Information

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)High

MediumLow

Specificity

None

Commitment
Overview

Not Started

Start Date: Not specified
End Date: Not specified

Transparency of Public Life (HATVP) who is in charge of collecting and verifying thedeclarations.
Originally, the declarations were filled out by hand and mailed, which created potential
problems of interpreting the handwritten declarations. This commitment provides for theavailability of these declarations in open data format to facilitate the possibility for citizens
and CSOs to hold officials accountable. For this purpose, the HATVP will develop an online
reporting tool (ADEL) for officials to use when declaring their interests and assets. The
commitment also aimed to assist officials in using this tool, ensure they are aware of its
existence, and ensure the highest level of remote reporting, precision and standardisation.
StatusMidterm: Limited
This commitment saw limited completion by midterm. Declarations of interests by elected
officials and asset declarations by government members were published in .pdf format. The
online platform, ADEL, was finalised in 2015 and was increasingly used by public officials tofile their declarations, becoming the primary means of declaring by the end of 2015.3 The
HATVP published a guide (“guide du déclarant”) to be distributed to public officials required
to file declarations but it was unclear how widely the guide was distributed. For more
information, please see the IRM midterm report. 4
End of Term: Complete
This commitment is complete. An online platform is now in place and n° 2016-570 requires
officials file their declaration through this tool. By the end of October 2017, 761 declarations
were accessible in open data format. 5 HATVP officials indicated that new declarations are
published every Thursday. 6
The decree n° 2016-570 promulgated 11 May 2016 mandated the use of the ADEL platform
to file declarations beginning 15 October 2016. All declarations published after 1 July 2017
are now available in open data (.xml) format under Etalab’s open licence. The HATVP willtransfer all declarations to this format, opening new data each week.7 A dataset containing all
the declarations currently transferred to .xml is also available.
In the first year of implementation, the HATVP published a guide to help officials file theirdeclarations, specifying how to use the new ADEL platform. Information about the newrequirements was published in the Gazette des communes8 and in the Courrier des maires
et des élus locaux9 in May 2016 and February 2017 respectively. It is unclear if anawareness-raising strategy was established or what activities were held to educate officials.
Did It Open Government?
Access to Information: Major
Prior to this commitment, officials’ asset and interest declarations were only available in PDF
format sourced from handwritten forms. N° 2016-570 requires officials to declare their assets
and/or interests online on the ADEL platform. As implemented, this commitment has
improved significantly the quality and accessibility of information regarding public officials’
declarations, making them more intelligible, standardised and reusable. The IRM researcher
considers this commitment to be ‘major’ in opening government practice regarding access to
information on officials’ asset and interest declarations.
The HATVP organised a workshop 24 May 2017 with various stakeholders (social scientists,
data-journalists, developers, and engineers) to explore how data provided by the HATVP
might be improved. Participants suggested that additional aggregate information on
declarations could be provided, that a collaborative platform be instituted to improve theagency’s open data initiative and that data visualisation be enhanced to make informationeasier to communicate to the public. 10

44Policymakers could consider re-exploring the accessibility of officials’ asset information toincorporate recommendations from Transparency International France 11 and from the
HATVP itself. The asset declarations of most elected officials are still only available for
consultation at their respective prefecture, which require an on-site visit. In addition,individuals consulting these declarations are not allowed to take notes or to communicate theinformation. This is the result of a compromise between the desire for transparency and theneed to safeguard officials’ privacy. Major stakeholders, such as those cited above, argue
that since publication of asset declarations is the law, they should be online in open data, asis the case for interest declarations and for asset declarations by government members.
Carried Forward?
This commitment was carried over to the next action plan. In the new action plan, thecommitment focuses on making data more intelligible; on diversifying data formats; and onorganising a data session to explore new ways of using data.

1 Full list available here: http://www.hatvp.fr/les-declarants-2/.
2 The declarations must be submitted within two months of taking office, failing which, they risk three years

imprisonment and a 45 000€ fine (five years and 75 000€ for members of government).
3 HATVP, Rapport d’activité 2016 (HATVP, accessed 15 Sept. 2017), 25, http://www.hatvp.fr/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2017/04/RA2016.pdf.
4 Independent Reporting Mechanism, France Rapport D'ètape (OGP, 2017),
https://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/France_Progress-Report_2015-2017.pdf.
5 31 interest declarations from the current government, 11 asset declarations from former members ofgovernment, 629 interest declarations from members of the National Assembly, 7 interest declarations fromsenators and 83 interest declarations from local elected officials
6 HATVP official, personal communication with IRM researcher, 3 Nov. 2017.
7 HATVP, Les déclarations des responsables publics désormais accessibles en open data (HATVP, 27 Jul. 2017),
http://www.hatvp.fr/presse/les-declarations-des-responsables-publics-desormais-accessibles-en-open-data/(accessed on 15 September 2017).
8 Brigitte Menguy, Elus locaux : les déclarations de patrimoine et d’intérêts devront être dématérialisées au 15
octobre (lagazette.fr, 17 May 2016), http://www.lagazettedescommunes.com/442322/elus-locaux-lesdeclarations-de-patrimoine-et-dinterets-devront-etre-dematerialisees-au-15-octobre/ (accessed 15 Sept. 2017).
9 Le Courrier des maires et des élus locaux, 50 questions La transparence de la vie publique, n°309, (Feb. 2017).
10 HATVP, #OpenGov : retour sur l’atelier ouvert organisé par la Haute Autorité (HATVP, 30 May 2017),
http://www.hatvp.fr/presse/opengov-retour-sur-latelier-ouvert-organise-par-la-haute-autorite/ (accessed 15 Sept.
2017).
11 Transparency International France, Lois sur la transparence de la vie publique et la lutte contre la délinquancefinancière deux ans après : bilan et perspectives (Transparency International, 6 Oct. 2015),
https://www.transparency-france.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/lois_2013_bilan_et_perspectives_061020151.pdf (accessed 15 Sept. 2017).

45✪7. Identify beneficial owners of legal entities registered in FranceCommitment Text:
Identify the beneficial owners of legal entities registered in France.
ROADMAPUse a centralized registry, composed of various data, including data from the French central
public registry for companies called Registre du Commerce et des Sociétés (RCS), in orderto keep and provide a widely open access to adequate, accurate and timely information on
beneficial owners of companies and other legal entities, consistently with the new 4th
Directive on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money
laundering and terrorist financing provisions
Editorial Note: This is a partial version of the commitment text. For the full commitment text
please see France’s national action plan: https://bit.ly/2MTYhsR.
Responsible Institutions: Ministry of Justice; Ministry of Finance and Public Accounts;
Ministry of the Economy, Industry and the Digital Sector
Supporting Institution(s): N/A
Start Date: Not Specified
End Date: Not Specified✪7. Overall

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Commitment Aim
This commitment aimed to create, publish, and open a centralised beneficial ownershipregister for both companies and trusts.1 The creation of a registry including company
beneficial ownership stemmed from a series of national and international commitments onmoney laundering, tax evasion, and corruption, such as the EU’s fourth Anti-Money
Laundering Directive (AMLD) adopted in October 2014. This commitment addressed
information not been previously available in a central repository in France, much less madepublicly available.
A number of aspects of this commitment, as well as relevant international agreements,
remain unclear, such as the EU’s potential restriction on people with a ‘legitimate interest.’
Similarly, the commitment states that access will be “widely open,” which is still notsatisfactory for some civil society stakeholders who underline the importance of this register
being fully publicly accessible. Nonetheless, since this information has not been available
previously in a central repository in France, let alone available for external publication, if fully

46

Outstanding

Major

Marginal

Did Not Change

Completed

End ofTerm

Did It Open
Government?

Worsened

Midterm

Substantial

LimitedModerate

Minor

Transformative✔

Not Started

Completion

Potential
ImpactPublic Accountability
Technology &Innovation forTransparency &At bilitNone

High

MediumLow

None

Commitment
Overview

Civic Participation

Specificity

Access to Information

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)implemented the data released by the two registers will significantly contribute to improving
transparency of beneficial ownership by companies registered in France.
StatusMidterm: Limited
Completion of this commitment was considered limited by the midterm. In July 2016, a public
register of trusts was created with data on 16,000 trusts. The register was suspended by theConstitutional Court in October 2016, following a judicial complaint on the grounds of privacy
violation. After a failed attempt to create a public register of beneficial ownership for trusts,
none of the registers were available at the time of writing the midterm report (December2016).
Infogreffe, the entity responsible for the company register (“Registre du commerce et dessociétés”), has released datasets in open data format. Stakeholders have noted thatimportant information such as the name of the company director and the number ofcompanies registered in France is missing. There are also issues with the quality of the data.
Transparency International France has signalled that key data are not defined. Data was only
available in PDF or image format and was not standardised.
End of Term: Substantial
In the second year, the government took steps to resolve the privacy concerns identified in
the October 2016 Constitutional Court decision and identify beneficial owners of legal entities
registered in France. Revised implementation decrees enacted during the second year set
timelines and requirements for the creation of two registers to list the beneficial owners oflegal persons and trusts respectively. 2 The deadline for complying with the new requirements
is outside of the review period and since neither register will be open for public access, it is
not possible to assess the level of compliance. Decree n° 2017-1094, however, lists thepeople and entities with access to the information contained in the registers. 3 The IRM
researcher, therefore, finds this commitment to be substantially completed.
Following the Constitutional Court’s decision of October 2016, declaring the second
paragraph of Article 1649 AB unconstitutional, the article was replaced by Article 10 of
Decree no. 2016-1635 dated 1 December 2016, which transposes and implements
provisions from the EU fourth anti-money laundering directive (EU Directive 2015/849, 20
May 2015) into French domestic law. The decree creates a register of beneficial owners for
credit institutions, electronic currency institutions, and banking intermediaries. The full list ofentities can be found in of Decree no. 2016-1635, Article 2. The decree requires French andforeign companies and corporate groups to identify and register their ultimate beneficial
owners by 1 August 2017 for new companies and 1 April 2018 for existing companies.
The decree also resolves the privacy issue identified by the Constitutional Court decision by
specifying that registers of beneficial owners will not be open to the public, but will beaccessible to the persons and entities listed in Decree n° 2017-1094 dated 12 June 2017
when acting in accordance with their authorised powers. Citizens justifying a legitimate
interest in the information can request access to the register through a judicial ordinance.4
During an interview, the Etalab team indicated that case law would clarify what is meant by“justifying legitimate interest.”
Two texts currently cover the issue of beneficial ownership: Law n° 2016-1691, referred to as“loi Sapin II,” adopted 9 December 2016 and decree n° 2016-1635 adopted 1 December
2016. There are thus two laws that provide guidance on beneficial ownership and can create
confusion. Etalab clarified that decree n° 2016-1635 and its related decree, n° 2017-1094
dated 12 June 2017, were the standard which would be implemented.

47

Did It Open Government?
Access to Information: Marginal
Information on beneficial owners was not previously available in a central repository inFrance. This commitment thus represents a significant improvement in identifying beneficial
owners. The commitment states that the register should provide “widely open access.” Theinitial statement is ambiguous and it is thus difficult to assess the selected system against theinitial goal of the national action plan. However, it is clear that the envisioned beneficial
ownership register would be widely open to the public. Despite the valid privacy concerns
raised by the Constitutional Court, the lack of public access to centralised information makes
it difficult to consider that these activities significantly opened government practice in thispolicy area. As such, this commitment marginally opened government regarding access to
information.
Ordinance no. 2016-1635 and Law n° 2016-1691 require companies and trusts tocommunicate information about their beneficial owners to the Commercial Court. This isprogress in France’s struggle against money-laundering and tax evasion. The EU Directive
2015/849/UE encourages member states to provide wide access to information contained in
the register but the legal framework in France only provides access to a select group ofentities. Citizens with a legitimate interest in the information are required to make a request
to access this information through a judicial ordinance. The ambiguity of the term “legitimate
interest” makes it hard to understand who is allowed to make an access request.
Carried Forward?
This commitment was not carried over to the next action plan.

1 Art. L. 561-2-2 of the Monetary and Financial Code defines a beneficial owner as “the natural person who
directly or indirectly controls the client or the natural person on whose behalf a transaction or activity is being
conducted.”
2 Etalab team, personal communication with IRM researcher, 23 Oct. 2017.
3 The list includes, but is not limited to, judges, customs officials, officials from the Public finance general
directorate, law enforcement officials
4 Infogreffe, Registre des bénéficiaires effectifs (Infogreffe, 25 Jul 2017), https://www.infogreffe.com/registre-desbeneficiaires-effectifs (accessed on 28 September 2017).

48

8. Transparency in Extractives
Commitment Text:
Strengthen transparency in payments and income from the extractive industries.
ROADMAP•

Join the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and work on theaccessibility ofopen data as part of ITIE and of the declarations of companies, according to chapter
10of the European accounting directiveoSummer 2015: designate a French high representative for ITIE and set up a
projectteam with the necessary human and financial resources to prepare the French
application to join ITIEo

September 2015: establish a national tripartite committee for ITIEoMarch 2016: first declaration of companies as required by chapter 10 of theaccounting directiveoBefore December 2016: presentation of the French application to join EITIo

1st half-year 2017: France becomes a "candidate country" for the EITI

Editorial Note: This is a partial version of the commitment text. For the full commitment text
please see France’s national action plan: https://bit.ly/2MTYhsR. ITIE is the French acronym
for EITI. The two acronyms are used interchangeably in the commitment text.
Responsible Institution: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development; Ministryof Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy; Ministry of Finance and Public Accounts;
and Ministry of the Economy, Industry and the Digital Sector
Supporting Institution(s): N/A

8. Overall
✔

✔ ✔

✔

✔

✔

Commitment Aim
This commitment aimed to strengthen transparency in payments and income involved in theextractive industry by joining the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). This

49

Major
Outstanding

Completed

Marginal

Substantial✔

End ofTerm

Did It Open
Government?

Did Not Change

Midterm

Worsened

Completion

LimitedTransformative

Moderate

Minor

Potential
ImpactTechnology &Innovation forTransparency &NonePublic Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to Information

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)High

MediumLow

Specificity

None

Commitment
Overview

Not Started

Start Date: Summer 2015
End Date: September 2017

commitment sought to implement Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament andDirective of the EU Council of 26 June 2013 concerning transparency within extractive
industries. French civil society considers the implementation of these directives essential tocombatting corruption and exposing cases of questionable practices by French multinational
extractive companies. Nineteen French CSOs published a paper supporting the CBCR –Country-by-Country Reporting – as applied to global companies.
President François Hollande first announced France’s wish to join EITI in May 2013 but theprocess was not begun by the time of drafting France’s first action plan. In 2014, France wasone of the first countries to enact the transparency and accountability elements of the EU
Directive by publishing public reports of extractive enterprises, which were useful but failed tomeet the level of disclosure of CBCR. In 2013, the French parliament reviewed a proposal torequire financial establishments to release reports on each country in which they operate.
However, this bill was never voted on.
StatusMidterm: Limited
Implementation of this commitment was limited by the midterm. The process lacked
inclusiveness and stakeholders were unable to agree on priorities and geographicaldelimitation.
In an effort to form a multistakeholder group, two inter-administration meetings took place inMarch and April 2016 and civil society representatives held a roundtable discussion on 3
June 2016. Disagreements about the financial and geographical limits of EITI in France
stalled further progress on forming the multistakeholder group. Civil society believes EITI
practices should extend to all overseas French territories, particularly French Guiana and
New Caledonia, to ensure that French petroleum, gas, and mineral companies will be held toa standard of transparency even when operating abroad. The government, meanwhile, would
like to limit the EITI to “mainland” France (France métropolitaine).
Oxfam France noted that the project lacked ambition and did not take into account the viewsof the 15 CSOs that constitute Publish What You Pay (PWYP) France. The organisation saysthat the process was not sufficiently inclusive and that many relevant groups were not invited
to the table.
The Ministry of Economy and Finances - in charge of France’s EITI application - halted theprocess altogether in anticipation of the presidential election of May 2017. For more
information, please see the IRM midterm report. 1
End of Term: Limited
The IRM researcher did not find any publicly available information signalling that further
steps were taken by France to establish a multistakeholder group and move toward joining
EITI during the implementation period. The government self-assessment indicates thatcompletion is limited and that efforts toward accession to EITI have been suspended
indefinitely. The self-assessment recognises that this commitment will not be fulfilled if
sufficient resources are not allocated to these activities. Then Minister of Economy and
Finances announced during the OGP Summit in December 2016 that the revision of the
Mining Code, then discussed in Parliament, should move the process of accession forward
and allow France to join EITI by the end of 2017.
Etalab indicated that there are still disagreements between the government and civil society
as to the perimeters of EITI in France, and that fiscal secrecy remains an obstacle. The teamindicated that there was a leadership issue and that joining EITI is currently at a standstill.
Quentin Parrinello from Publish What You Pay France notes that the government has notmade any progress toward joining and implementing EITI. He adds that after the roundtableorganised in June 2016, there was no outreach to civil society, and that informal statementsfrom French officials suggested that France would not implement EITI despite continuing to50

promote it on an international level. However, no official declaration has been shared withcivil society to formally announce this decision.
Did It Open Government?
Access to Information: Did Not Change
Civic Participation: Did Not Change
Due to a lack of implementation, the IRM researcher concludes this commitment did notopen government practice regarding access to information or civic participation.
It is important to note that during this implementation period, circumstances relevant to thesuccessful implementation of this commitment have become more restrictive. The law “Sapin2,” adopted December 2016, initially contained an article on publicly reporting industry
involvement in each country, a critical component for joining EITI and therefore related to thiscommitment. Though this country-by-country report was limited in scope, the Constitutional
Court as an obstacle to free enterprise censured the article. 2 CSOs like CCFD-Terre solidaireconsider this a political decision since the Constitutional Court had previously declared that
freedom of enterprise was not absolute. Additionally, constitutional experts have declaredthat country level reporting and fiscal openness was not unconstitutional. 3
Carried Forward?
This commitment was not carried over to the next action plan.
1 Independent Reporting Mechanism, France Rapport D'ètape (OGP, 2017),

https://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/France_Progress-Report_2015-2017.pdf.
2 Cour constitutionnelle, Décision n° 2016-741 DC du 8 décembre 2016, http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-decisions/acces-par-date/decisions-depuis-1959/2016/2016741-dc/decision-n-2016-741-dc-du-8-decembre-2016.148310.html (accessed on 17 December 2017).
3 La Croix, Loi Sapin 2 : « la censure du reporting pays par pays est une décision désastreuse » (La Croix, 9 Dec.
2016), https://www.la-croix.com/Economie/France/Loi-Sapin-2-censure-reporting-pays-pays-decisiondesastreuse-2016-12-09-1200809335 (accessed 28 Sept. 2017).

51

9. Increase Transparency in International Trade Commercial Negotiations
Commitment Text:
Roadmap••

Increase transparency on the content of international trade commercial
negotiationso

The elements relating to each new international trade negotiation cycle will
be made available to the public continuously on the dedicated page on
diplomatie.gouv.fr and in open data format on data.gouv.froAdditional elements, such as mandates, may be added according to thedeclassification decisions taken by the European UnionoElements from past international trade negotiations made available to the
public will be added to this corpus, such as negotiating mandates from theEuropean Commission, official position documents and the text of ratified
trade treaties

Ensure as much publicity as possible on evaluations and monitoring ofinternational agreementsoStudies and elements used for the analysis and evaluation of trade
agreements ex post and ex ante, whether transverse or sectorial, mayalso be addedo

The Parliament may be informed through the presentation of an annual
report on international trade negotiationso

All of the minutes of the committee for the strategic monitoring of trade
policy subjects will be made available to the public, together with theannual reports on trade negotiations

Editorial Note: This is a partial version of the commitment text. For the full commitment text
please see France’s national action plan: https://bit.ly/2MTYhsR.
Responsible Institutions: Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy;
Ministry of the Economy, Industry and the Digital sector; and Ministry of State for Foreign
Trade, the Promotion of Tourism and French Nationals Abroad, attached to the Ministry ofForeign Affairs and International Development
Supporting Institution(s): N/A
Start Date: Not Specified
End Date: Not Specified
Commitment
Overview

Specificity

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)Potential
ImpactCompletion

Midterm
End ofTerm

Did It Open
Government?

52

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔
Commitment Aim
This commitment aimed to increase transparency in France’s international trade policy
negotiations by publishing information about past and current trade negotiations, evaluations,and monitoring of international agreements, including meeting minutes from the Committee
for the Strategic Monitoring of Trade Policy Subjects. This commitment’s objective was toimprove access to information regarding commercial negotiations and their impact onnational economic policies.
The significance of this commitment emerges in the context of a strong civil society
movement opposing international treaties and the opacity of negotiations, shaped by the
proliferation of citizen initiatives aimed at obtaining information on the content of the treatiesand disseminating it to the general public. An example is the “Stop Tafta” movement which
opposes the Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement, otherwise known as the Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The organisation “La Quadrature du Net”
publishes on its website comprehensive information regarding the TTIP and CETA treaties 1
including official and leaked documents, translations of the treaties, official communications,and more.
StatusMidterm: Limited
The completion of this commitment was considered limited at the midterm. Twenty
documents had been published in PDF format on the open data portal data.gouv.fr on a page
dedicated to the TTIP, CETA and TiSA (the Trade in Services Agreement) treaties. Available
documents included five of 14 TTIP negotiation cycle reports and six of eight sets of meeting
minutes from the committee for the strategic monitoring of trade policy (the rest of theminutes were found on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website). Overall, few documents wereavailable on the open data portal and the page had not been regularly updated. Regarding
evaluations and monitoring of international agreements, a page had been created on thewebsite of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (diplomatie.gouv.fr) to provide information on thecommittee for the strategic monitoring of trade policy. The page shows the minutes of thecommittee’s meetings from October 2014 until July 2016. It also includes seven thematicgroup reports. However, the annual report evaluating international trade agreements had notbeen published. For more information, please see the IRM midterm report.2
End of Term: Limited
The government self-assessment codes this commitment as substantially complete but does
not provide any evidence of new activities implemented since the midterm. The IRM
researcher therefore finds completion of this commitment remains limited. The dedicatedpage for data on trade negotiations on data.gouv.fr still contains twenty documents andnothing indicates that the page had been updated since 2 December 2015.

53

Outstanding

Major

Marginal

Did Not Change

Worsened

Completed

Substantial

LimitedNot Started

Transformative

Moderate

Minor

Technology &Innovation forTransparency &NonePublic Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to InformationHigh

MediumLow

None
9. Overall

The government-self assessment does not provide any new information regarding the
publicity of evaluations and monitoring of agreements. The dedicated page for MEAE
contains links to the minutes of meetings that took place in 2014. The IRM researcher did not
find any information about current activities of the monitoring committee.
Did It Open Government?
Access to Information: Did Not Change
Under the leadership of then Secretary of State Matthias Fekl, France committed to making
trade negotiations more transparent. 3 Etalab noted that since Mr. Fekl left the Secretariat ofExternal Commerce in March 2017, the issue of transparency of trade negotiations lost
traction despite France’s international commitments.
The lack of transparency in trade negotiation content and the lack of sustained publicity oftrade agreement monitoring and evaluations lead the IRM researcher to conclude that it did
not contribute to open government with respect to access to information.
Carried Forward?
This commitment was not carried over to the next action plan.

1 CETA, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, is a free-trade agreement between Canada andthe EU
2 Independent Reporting Mechanism, France Rapport D'ètape (OGP, 2017),
https://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/France_Progress-Report_2015-2017.pdf.
3 France Diplomatie, “Politique commerciale - Transparence - Entretiens de Matthias Fekl avec le comité de suivi
stratégique (28 au 30 octobre 2014)” (France Diplomatie, 2014), https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/politiqueetrangere-de-la-france/diplomatie-economique-et-commerce-exterieur/accords-de-libre-echange/comite-de-suivistrategique-des-sujets-de-politique-commerciale/article/politique-commerciale-transparence-116729; “OGP in theNews - Week of November 7, 2016” (OGP, 11 Nov. 2016), https://www.opengovpartnership.org/stories/ogp-newsweek-of-november-7-2016.

54

Theme II: Consult, Debate and Co-create
10.1. Fix my Neighbourhood
Commitment Text:
i. Fix My Neighbourhood
ROADMAP• Launch the "Fix My Neighbourhood" call for projects in June 2015
• Make a first version of the digital solution for reporting incidents available in September
2015 (objective: 100 municipalities involved before the end of the year)• In mid-2016, launch the solutions that may be generalized
10.2. Digital Fix-it
Commitment Text:
ii. Digital Fix-it
ROADMAP• An experimental reporting platform will be put in place during 2016
• The platform will be open to the public by the end of 2016
Editorial Note: This is a partial version of the commitment text. For the full commitment text
please see France’s national action plan: https://bit.ly/2MTYhsR.
Responsible Institutions: Prime Minister’s Office, Ministry of State for the Digital Sector,
attached to the Ministry of the Economy, Industry and the Digital Sector; Ministry of State for
Urban Policy, attached to the Minister of Urban Affairs, Youth and Sport
Supporting Institution(s): N/A

10.1. Fix my
Neighbourho
od10.2. Digital
Fix-it✔

✔

Unclear✔

Unclear✔

Withdrawn
✔
✔

✔

✔

55

Outstanding

Major

Completed

Marginal

Substantial

End ofTerm

Did It Open
Government?

Did Not Change

Midterm

Worsened

Completion

LimitedTransformative

Moderate

Minor

Potential
ImpactTechnology &Innovation forTransparency &NonePublic Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to Information

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)High

MediumLow

Specificity

None

Commitment
Overview

Not Started

Start Date: Not Specified
End Date: 2016

Commitment Aim
This commitment sought to launch a call for tenders to: 1) develop a national digital tool toreport street incidents and monitor their resolution; and 2) develop a pilot digital application toallow citizens to report incidences of cybervandalism or other cyber security issues on statecontrolled and semi-public websites.
Fix my Neighbourhood (Commitment 10.1) aimed to help local government dispatch alerts to
the relevant departments and provide opportunities to hold officials answerable for theiractions. However, the text is limited simply to publishing a call for tenders for tool
development; the commitment is thus of unclear relevance to OGP.
Digital Fix-it (Commitment 10.2) sought to develop a pilot digital application to allow citizens
to report incidences of cybervandalism or other cyber security issues on state-controlled andsemi-public websites. The activities and timeline are unclear as is the relevance of thiscommitment to OGP values.
StatusCommitment 10.1
Midterm: Withdrawn
The government self-assessment reports that the Ministry of State for the Digital Sector nolonger considers Fix my Neighbourhood as relevant since similar tools already exist. The
midterm assessment notes that this sub-commitment has been withdrawn.
Commitment 10.2
Midterm: Not Started
At the time of the midterm, the IRM researcher was unable to find publicly available evidence
that the government has started the Digital Fix-it project. The government self-assessment
did not reference Digital Fix-It. Therefore, the commitment was considered “Not Started.”
End of Term: Not started
The information provided by the government in its self-assessment and desk research doneby the IRM researcher indicate that this commitment was never started.
The government self-assessment indicates that the Ministry for Digital Affairs refocussed on
the development of a toolbox for local governments and on supporting civic techorganisations. Etalab wishes to make use of public consultation tools developed by nongovernmental actors (civil society organisations and civic techs) to facilitate to work of the
public administration and create bridges with the public. Thus, the platform
consultation.etalab.gouv.fr has replaced Fix my Neighbourhood. The platform features four
tools following certain criteria including open algorithms and privacy of personal data andwhich are bound to evolve. Civil society organisations that were not directly involved in thedevelopment of this platform were unaware of its existence and of the intention of thegovernment to redirect this commitment to support civic techs.1
The new objective is relevant to OGP values but does not relate to the initial commitment,
therefore these efforts cannot be taken into account in the assessment.
The self-assessment codes the sub-commitment on Digital Fix-it ‘not started.’ The IRM
researcher submitted a request for additional information on implementation to the National
Agency on the Security of Information Systems (ANSSI) but no information could be foundon the agency’s reaction.
Did It Open Government?
Access to Information: Did not change
Civic Participation: Did not change

56

Public Accountability: Did not change
Given the lack of implementation and the obscure relevance to OGP values, this commitment
has not changed government practices and thus not contributed to opening government. The
government self-assessment points to a redirection of efforts to support the French civic techwith the development of public consultation tools. The new objective of this commitment fitswith OGP values of civic participation but cannot be taken into account in terms of opening
up government practice since it has not yet been implemented.
Carried Forward?
The original commitment was not carried over, but the refocussed commitment was
integrated in the new action plan, with a focus on the development of the
concultation.etalab.gouv.fr platform and the organisation of public events.

1 Members of Démocratie ouverte, personal communication with IRM researcher, 27 Oct. 2017.

57

11. Co-produce with civil society the data infrastructure essential to society andeconomyCommitment Text:
The new forms of collaboration between administrations and civil society enable to create
new common goods, necessary to public service, society and economy, in faster, more
efficient and more cost effective ways than in the past.
With the diffusion of digital power in society, citizens are becoming more and morecommitted to producing resources that, until now, only public authority could produce. Thissituation could be a key opportunity for public authority to learn working with civil society. It is
not only a source of democratic progress and a resource for improving the quality of public
service, but also a means of retaining, in the public area, common assets which could
eventually be threatened by the emergence of new de facto digital monopolies.
For example, in April 2015, the National Institute of Geographical and Forestry Information(IGN), the La Poste Group, the Secretariat-General for Government Modernization and
OpenStreetMap France inaugurated a collaborative national address database containing 20
million open data addresses. It was released under a "share-alike” license by the French
Postal Services (La Poste Group) and the IGN and under an ODBL license by the
OpenStreetMap association.
This agreement initiated a new chapter in the government's open data policy and the policyof open government, which goes beyond access to administrative documents. It involves
supporting the creation and maintenance of major collaborative common assets to serve theeconomic dynamism, the efficiency of public service and the autonomy of citizens.
This effort is continuing with the development, still under ODBL license, of a databaseincluding all establishments open to the public, along with their characteristics.
ROADMAP• Increase cooperation between public players and civil society in constituting
essential data infrastructure and key registers
Responsible Institutions: Ministry of State for State Reform and Simplification attached to
the Prime Minister; Ministry of State for the Digital Sector, attached to the Ministry of the
Economy, Industry and the Digital Sector
Supporting Institution(s): N/A

11. Overall

✔

✔ ✔

✔

✔

✔

58

Outstanding

Major

Completed

Marginal

Substantial

End ofTerm

Did It Open
Government?

Did Not Change

Midterm

Worsened

Completion

LimitedTransformative

Moderate

Minor

Potential
ImpactTechnology &Innovation forTransparency &NonePublic Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to Information

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)High

MediumLow

Specificity

None

Commitment
Overview

Not Started

Start Date: Not Specified
End Date: Not Specified✔
Commitment Aim
This commitment aimed to involve civil society in the development of central and local
governments’ data infrastructure. Through the Digital Republic Bill, which would require thestate to generate and release data as a public service and to make reference data open by
default, this commitment sought to ensure that the process of identifying and prioritisingessential data involved civil society. The commitment, however, was unclear regarding
activities and outputs.
StatusMidterm: Limited
The first year of implementation largely focused on reflection and gathering inputs fromstakeholders. The government intended to carry out the majority of the commitment
deliverables in the second year of implementation. During this time, the government joined
several national-level, collaborative initiatives, such as the publication of the national address
database (BAN), a result of continued cooperation between the National Geographic Institute(IGN), La Poste, SGMAP, the association OpenStreetMap France, and local authorities.
In July 2016, the State Secretariat for Digital Affairs commissioned the organisation Open
Data France to establish, along with civil society and local governments, a list of essential
and reference datasets to be published. Open Data France published the list in an October
2016 report. It is also worth mentioning that according to stakeholders, the collaboration todefine reference datasets created an ongoing dialogue between civil society, local
governments, and national administrations. In addition, Etalab organised multiple initiatives
to continue opening more reference datasets. In November 2016, Etalab held two
hackathons. The first focused on preparations to open the national company register,
SIRENE, containing more than 10 million legal entities. The second involved collaboration
between the Ministry of Interior and civil society to define the data schema needed to open
polling station data.
End of Term: Substantial
The government self-assessment considers this commitment complete due to the opening ofnine reference datasets. The commitment text however concerns cooperation with civilsociety rather than the opening of new data. Due to the ambiguous commitment text and thescarcity of public information, the IRM researcher considers the commitment to be substantial
rather than complete.
Etalab is responsible for the newly established public service of data, created by Article 14 of
the Digital Republic Law. In September 2017, there were nine datasets available on thedata.gouv.fr platform: the national address database, the national company register SIRENE,
the Official Geographic Code, the digital cadastral plan, the graphic parcel register, reference
data for the state’s administration, large scale reference data, the National Association
Directory, and the Operational Directory of occupations and employment. Six of thesedatasets had been identified as key reference datasets in the impact study of the Digital
Republic Law (all except the geographic code, the administration data, and the Operational
directory). 1 The datasets had all been updated within the last six months.
The government self-assessment notes that prior to the production of Decree n° 2017-331,
adopted 14 March 2017, Etalab organised a public online consultation from 29 September
2016 to 20 October 2016 on the list of relevant reference data, the conditions of data
provision, and the quality criteria. Etalab received 160 contributions from public officials(40%), private citizens (30%), private companies (20%), and associations (10%). The dataset
containing the contributions has not been cleaned and does not link the contributions toactors or groups. There is no public information on the mechanism used by Etalab to takethese contributions into account in the implementation decree. An interview with a former

59

government stakeholder confirmed that civil society contributions were important in selecting
the essential datasets but indicated that other factors also played a part, such as theavailability and quality of the datasets, the amount of available resources to maintain them,and their recognised structural value.2
A bylaw published 14 June 2017 3 sets the rules regarding the publication of reference data
as well as provides information about producing reference data, the frequency of updates,
and methods of accessing the data. It provides a list of minimum metadata and indicates
which datasets are to be updated daily, weekly, or monthly. It also states that reference data
should be made available as a downloadable dataset and through an API.
Did It Open Government?
Access to Information: Major
Civic Participation: MarginalDuring the implementation period, the government opened several sets of reference dataand consulted the public on the development of the country’s essential data infrastructure. As
such, the commitment is a step forward for government openness in access to information.
This commitment marginally opened government with respect to civic participation, since
stakeholders were consulted on identifying key data but it is unclear how these inputs were
included in the criteria for releasing information nor is there information about themechanisms used to include public contributions in decision-making.
As a result of this commitment, the government discloses more information than previously,
and does so in an open data format. The Digital Republic Law, Article 14, provides for publicaccess to reference data while the bylaw published 14 June 2017 provides operational andtechnical guidance for the publication of reference data. The dedicated webpage on
data.gouv.fr contained nine datasets in September 2017 and five of them had been reused atleast once, with the result published on data.gouv.fr.
Regarding civic participation, the government appears to have made an effort to consult civilsociety in identifying key data but the IRM researcher did not find any public information on
the criteria for selecting which data would be considered as reference data. The consultation
findings 4 list many datasets that contributors identified as key but that were not included in
the final reference data. Moreover, the commitment title reflected ambition greater thansimply a public consultation as the data infrastructure was to be co-constructed.
Carried Forward?
This commitment was carried over to the next action plan. In the new action plan, thecommitment focuses on opening new datasets; on improving the open data platform(data.gouv.fr); on assisting government agencies with opening their data and fostering
dialogue with public officials; and on evaluating the impact of the efforts already taken in
opening data.
1 National Assembly, Projet de loi pour une République numérique – étude d’impact (9 Dec. 2015),

http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/projets/pl3318-ei.asp (accessed 30 Sept. 2017).
2 Former member of the Prime Minister’s cabinet, personal communication with IRM researcher, 6 Nov. 2017.
3 Arrêté du 14 juin 2017 relatif aux règles techniques et d'organisation de mise à disposition des données deréférence prévues à l'article L. 321-4 du code des relations entre le public et l'administration,
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000034944648&dateTexte=&categorieLien=id. (accessed 30 Sept. 2017).
4 Available at https://www.etalab.gouv.fr/consultation-spd (accessed 13 April 2018).

60✪12. Further expand the opening of legal resources & the collaboration with civilsociety on opening the law
Commitment Text:
ROADMAP•

Continue the open-data provision of legal and legislative resources that already exist
Continue the opening of legal data in reusable formatso•Continue the collaborative process with civil society for the production of innovative
services and open source tools facilitating the understanding of texts and their
preparation•

On the Digital Bill, continue the participative process in collaboration with civil society
by opening the draft bill (“avant projet de loi”) to consultation for citizens to comment it
and suggest amendments

Editorial Note: This is a partial version of the commitment text. For the full commitment text
please see France’s national action plan: https://bit.ly/2MTYhsR.
Responsible Institutions: Prime Minister’s Office; Ministry of the Economy, Industry and theDigital Sector; Ministry of State for State Reform and Simplification attached to the Prime
MinisterSupporting Institution(s): N/A✪12. Overall

✔

✔ ✔

✔

✔

✔

Commitment Aim
This commitment sought to publish legal information in open data and reusable formats andencourage the reuse of data through collaborative innovation and tools that facilitate theprocess and understanding of law-making. This commitment also aimed to experiment withincreased citizen participation in law-making through the draft Digital Republic Bill, which has
since been opened up to review by citizens via a digital platform. This changed method of
law-making is unprecedented in France.
The opening of legal data in France started in 2014 with civil society projects such as“Manufacture of the Law” from the association Regards Citoyens, which allows citizens tofollow the evolution of texts voted upon in Parliament. 1 On the government side, the61

Outstanding

Major

Completed✔

Marginal

Substantial

End ofTerm

Did It Open
Government?

Did Not Change

Midterm

Worsened

Completion

LimitedTransformative

Moderate

Minor

Potential
ImpactTechnology &Innovation forTransparency &NonePublic Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to Information

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)High

MediumLow

Specificity

None

Commitment
Overview

Not Started

Start Date: Not Specified
End Date: Not Specified

Directorate of Legal and Administrative Information (DILA) has opened all of its data as partof the open data policy announced after the 18 December 2013 meeting of the interministerial Committee for the Modernisation of Public Action (CIMAP). At this meeting, thegovernment made two important decisions: to set up the principle of free reuse of public databy stopping the creation of new royalties; and making certain data free, including those of the
DILA.
StatusMidterm: Substantial
This commitment was substantially implemented by the midterm. Regarding open data
provision of legal data, the DILA opened some case law data in September 2015, which is
published on Légifrance on behalf of the State Council and the Court of Cassation. Under theOpen Law Europa programme, DILA, the Open Law association, and their partners madeseveral proposals on how to encourage reuse of this new information. The government also
encouraged the development of open source tools. Created January 2015, Open Law is aninnovation and digital co-creation project designed to encourage the opening up of data andresources on legislation, and to encourage collaborative innovation among public
administrations, civil society organisations and the private sector. Open Law also coordinates
the Legal Tech French community and innovative lawyers. Lastly, the public consultation on
the Digital Republic Bill was opened on a dedicated platform, tracking changes to the text ofthe bill. Information received during the consultation was published on data.gouv.fr and a
Digital Republic hackathon took place on 12 December 2015. The National Assembly passed
the Digital Republic Bill into law in November 2016. A proposal was submitted in Parliamenton 20 April 2016 to make online public consultations the norm for all bills before they go to
Parliament. The proposal was inspired by the success of the Digital Bill consultation. For
more information, please see the IRM midterm report. 2
End of Term: Substantial
At the end of the implementation period, this commitment is considered to be substantiallycompleted. The government engaged in activities aiming to facilitate access to information,such as the adoption of the Digital Republic Law, and to encourage civic participation
through new public consultations on bills. The Digital Republic Law is still not fully
implemented, especially regarding opening judicial decisions, therefore the commitment is
not considered to be fully completed.
In the second year of implementation, the Digital Republic Bill was adopted (November 2016)
with two articles addressing access to judicial decisions. Articles 20 and 21 provide for open
access to judicial decisions, within the limits of respect for people’s privacy. Personal privacy
a concern for State Secretary for Digital Affairs Axelle Lemaire, who was worried thatanalysing decisions for personal privacy issues would be an obstacle to open data.3
Moreover, regarding jurisprudential data, the government published a white paper in January
2017, formulising the results of the open caselaw programme. This paper4 informed
discussions on the implementation of the Digital Republic Law. A decree specifying theimplementation of the opening of legal resources of the law has yet to be adopted.5
Information from the Ministry of Justice, gathered by Xavier Berne, indicates that theimplementation of these articles would need to be gradual and would most probably takeseveral years. 6
In May 2017, the new Minister of Justice commissioned a study on the implementation of
Articles 20 and 21 of the Digital Republic Law by Loïc Cadiet, a law professor at La
Sorbonne. Sorbonne worked with a member of the Council of State, a member of the Courtof Cassation, a representative of the national bar association, a representative of the
National Commission of Information and Liberties (CNIL), and representatives from various
courts and administrative jurisdictions. The initial publication of the report was planned for theend of October 2017 7 but has been rescheduled for the end of November 2017.8

62

Regarding open source tools, an OGP Open Toolbox, developed by Etalab, French civic techgroups, and international partners, was presented at the OGP Summit in December 2016.
The association, OGPToolbox.org, was created in February 2017 to ensure the toolbox was
implemented and used. In February 2017, the OGP Toolbox contained 1,230 tools. The
responsibility for the toolbox was moved from the state to civil society. Stakeholders haveindicated that the management of the toolbox has been put on hold for the moment.9 The
objective of OGP Toolbox is to identify promising open source tools and to function as arepository. The association hopes to assist CSOs and public institutions worldwide inchoosing the most appropriate advocacy and training tools to progressively open data andfacilitate civic participation and public accountability. A board member of OGPToolbox statedthat the association has helped setting up the cooperative Mednum,10 which specialises indigital mediation. OGP Toolbox will start soon a project assisting the Conférence d’Afrique
Francophone sur les Données Ouvertes (CAFDO) in providing the coordinating organisation(to be announced) with the necessary digital tools and knowledge to promote open data infrancophone Africa. 11
Lastly, public consultations have been used to encourage the public to participate in lawmaking for a few additional bills since the pilot consultation on the Digital Republic Law. The
government self-assessment lists the biodiversity and citizenship equality laws as examples.
A synthesis report is available for the consultation on the equality and citizenship law. 12 The
consultations are organised either through a dedicated website, as was the case for the
Digital Republic Law, or through the organisation Parlement &Citoyens, 13 as was the case forthe biodiversity law.
Did It Open Government?
Access to Information: Marginal
Civic Participation: Marginal
A number of developments have facilitated access to legal information. DILA has opened
access to new legal information and an Open Law organisation was set up by Etalab, DILA
and NUMA. 14 The adoption of the Digital Republic Law also is a significant step toward
creating a legal obligation to improve access to legal information. However, at the end of theaction plan implementation period, the law has yet to be fully implemented and therefore,
there remains no decree mandating the opening of judicial data.
At the outset of this commitment, its potential impact was assessed as transformative but the
major concern for implementation of the commitment was that it relied heavily on the
successful passage of the Digital Republic Bill, which had not happened by the midterm IRM
report. The Bill was passed during the second year of implementation but in the interim ninemonths between the adoption of the Bill and the end of the action plan period, actual change
in government practice in terms of access to information was marginal as the law is not yet
fully implemented and faced privacy challenges in the Constitutional Court.
The government has taken several steps to collaborate with civil society, especially the civic
tech community, and develop tools to facilitate public participation. The government held anumber of public consultations on bills prior to parliamentary debates, which is a new
government practice. The consultations, however, are still experimental and there is a needto institutionalise the process. Transparency International France recommends that areference document and a standard methodology be developed for public online
consultations, 15 which indicates that standardised methodology for consultations does not yet
exist. The midterm IRM report and the government self-assessment refer to a proposal
submitted to Parliament on 20 April 2016 to make online public consultations the norm for all
bills before parliamentary debates. The proposal was forwarded to the Law Commission

63though at the time of writing this report, it does not seem to have been taken any further. 16 As
such, this commitment marginally opened government with respect to civic participation.
Carried Forward?
This commitment was not carried over to the next action plan.
1 Available at https://www.lafabriquedelaloi.fr/ (accessed 13 April 2018).
2 Independent Reporting Mechanism, France Rapport D'ètape (OGP, 2017),

https://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/France_Progress-Report_2015-2017.pdf.
3 NextImpact, Mise en Open Data des décisions de justice : un rapport attendu pour fin octobre (Sept. 2017),

https://www.nextinpact.com/news/105283-mise-en-open-data-decisions-justice-rapport-attendu-pour-finoctobre.htm.
4 Available here: http://fr.calameo.com/read/005075651e5c75eb4e579 (accessed 1 Oct. 2017).
5 Ministère de l’économie et des finances, La loi pour une République numérique (17 May 2017),
https://www.economie.gouv.fr/republique-numerique (accessed 1 Oct. 2017).
6 NextImpact, Mise en Open Data des décisions de justice : un rapport attendu pour fin octobre.
7 La Gazette des communes, Où en est l’ouverture des données de jurisprudence ? (29 Sept. 2017),
http://www.lagazettedescommunes.com/526366/ou-en-est-louverture-des-donnees-de-jurisprudence/ (accessed
1 Oct. 2017).
8 NextImpact. Le rapport sur la mise en Open Data des décisions de justice reporté à fin novembre (6 Nov. 2017),
https://www.nextinpact.com/brief/le-rapport-sur-la-mise-en-open-data-des-decisions-de-justice-reporte-a-finnovembre-1031.htm.
9 Members of Démocratie ouverte and Open source politics, personal communication with IRM researcher, 27
Oct. and 1 Nov. 2017.
10 More information available here: https://lamednum.coop/.
11 Board member OGP Toolbox, personal communication with IRM researcher, 9 Nov. 2017.
12 Available here: https://www.egalite-citoyenneteparticipez.gouv.fr/media/default/0001/01/e758ede1b4919b5139ddb39e3eda5aacd82b522e.pdf (accessed 1 Oct.
2017).
13 Available here: https://parlement-et-citoyens.fr/projects (accessed 1 Oct. 2017).
14 Company specialised in digital innovations.
15 Transparency International France (comment), “Engagement 12 : Poursuivre l’ouverture des ressources
juridiques et la collaboration avec la société civile autour de l’élaboration de la loi | Rapport d’autoévaluation à miparcours du Plan d’action pour la France 2015-2017 “‘Pour une action publique transparente et collaborative’”(Etalab, July 2016), https://forum.etalab.gouv.fr/t/engagement-12-poursuivre-louverture-des-ressourcesjuridiques-et-la-collaboration-avec-la-societe-civile-autour-de-lelaboration-de-la-loi-rapport-dautoevaluation-a-miparcours-du-plan-daction-pour-la-france-2015-2017-pour-une-action-publique-transparente-etcollaborative/1914/2 (accessed 1 Oct. 2017).
16 National Assembly, “Généralisation de la consultation publique en ligne, par l'internet, sur les textes de loi avant
leur examen par le Parlement” (accessed 1 Oct. 2017), http://www.assembleenationale.fr/14/dossiers/consultation_publique_textes.asp.

6413. Leverage previous consultations and reform participatory mechanisms
Commitment Text:
ROADMAP
1. Capitalize on previous consultations: improve listing and strengthen accessibility to publicdebates that took place in France•Continue the effort of listing public debates in France by extending the “DebatesCore”
standard throughout the whole territory, to facilitate collection and accessibility, at asingle access point, for consultations performed

2. Empower public actors to successfully lead public consultations••

The Secretariat-General for Government Modernization is committed to proposing asimple and agile mechanism for consultation in the form of “Citizens’ Workshops”
oCarry out trials, with pilot ministries, of this mechanism, which is more flexible
and agile than conventional consultation formatsoPresent, to partner administrations, the charter establishing the mainprinciples of "Citizens' Workshops" and their implementation protocoloSupport partner administrations in implementing these workshops

The Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy is committed tooffering a “toolbox” to guide the institutions in choosing and implementing participative
mechanisms

Editorial Note: This is a partial version of the commitment text. For the full commitment text
please see France’s national action plan: https://bit.ly/2MTYhsR.
Responsible Institutions: Prime Minister’s Office; Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable
Development and Energy; Ministry of State for State Reform and Simplification attached to
the Prime Minister; National Commission for Public Debate

13. Overall

✔

✔ ✔

✔

✔

Commitment Aim
This commitment aimed to improve stakeholders’ awareness and access to public
consultations through digital tools and enhance the capacity of government agencies and65

Outstanding

Major

Completed✔
✔

Marginal

Substantial

End ofTerm

Did It Open
Government?

Did Not Change

Midterm

Worsened

Completion

LimitedTransformative

Moderate

Minor

Potential
ImpactTechnology &Innovation forTransparency &NonePublic Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to InformationHigh

MediumLow

None

Start Date: Not Specified
End Date: Not Specified
Commitment
Specificity
OGP Value
Overview
Relevance (aswritten)Not Started

Supporting Institution(s): N/Aother stakeholders to hold participative consultations. This commitment would provide bettersearching and tracking for public consultations by applying the DebatesCore standard toevents listed on the vie-publique.fr platform. DebatesCore was created by the Legal and
Administrative Information Department (DILA) to establish a digital standard for
consultations, so that consultation tools are better referenced and released in open data.
This was expected to resolve ongoing issues with the online inventory of public
consultations, including poor traceability and tracking of content.
The second objective is to improve the capacity of government agencies to engage with the
public by piloting citizen consultation workshops and creating a toolbox to help agencies
choose appropriate mechanisms for citizen engagement. The aim of this commitment is toincrease citizens’ engagement in consultations and participatory policymaking. The
commitment assumes that if more information on existing participatory mechanisms is madeavailable to the public, disaffected stakeholders will have a renewed interest in using public
consultations to engage in dialogues with government officials.
StatusMidterm: Limited
The implementation of this commitment was limited by the midterm. The first milestone was
not started since the DebatesCore standard was not expanded. The IRM researcher was
unable to find evidence of any new activities related to the development of the standard since2014. During the first year of implementation, the IRM researcher observed regular updates
to the public debates listed on the data.gouv.fr portal, though it was clear that only a few
government agencies were using the portal to list their events. In an interview with the IRM
researcher, the author of the DebatesCore standard said one reason the expansion project
had been abandoned was the difficulty of finding agency contacts to regularly upload theirinformation.
The second commitment activity regarding the pilot citizen workshops saw limited
implementation. An initial pilot workshop of 17 participants was held at the Ministry of Health,with the stated outcome of offering guidance on a draft public policy addressing use of big
data in the health sector. However, participants were not experts in either open data or
health. At the end of the process, the participants wrote a report reviewing the workshop andissuing findings. The report says they were selected by the Ministry of Health though specificselection criteria but details of the workshop process was not made available either to themor the general public. They urged the Ministry of Health to follow up and explain how theresults of the workshop were incorporated in drafting the health policy proposal. The IRM
researcher was unable to find evidence of any follow up by the Ministry of Health. At the timeof the midterm report, the IRM researcher was also unable to find publicly available evidenceof a charter establishing principles for citizen workshops, nor was there any evidence ofadditional pilot workshops in other ministries or agencies. For more information, please see
the IRM midterm report.1
End of Term: Limited
Implementation of this commitment remains limited. The government self-assessment2 points
to the new website of the National Commission of Public Debate (CNDP), which archives
CNDP’s public consultations on environmental issues. Other consultations have beenaccessible on DILA’s website, Vie Publique,3 since 2012. The IRM researcher finds no
significant change in the centralisation and accessibility of information regarding publicdebates. The self-assessment notes that the DebatesCore norm has not been implemented.
However, Etalab indicates that the norm has not been abandoned but is being redevelopedfor easier use.4 Etalab notes that the most essential aspect of the tool should be to makepublic consultations accessible to attract new audiences. During the second year of
implementation, Etalab, CSOs and civic techs developed a platform,
consultation.etalab.gouv.fr, to encourage administrations to use public consultations.

66With regards to citizen workshops, the Secretariat for the Modernisation of Public Action(SGMAP) has organised a second citizen workshop (two weekends between April to June2017) on the role of schools in preventing addictions in youths.5 The recommendations of the
Citizen Workshop are available online. 6 A third citizen workshop will be launched November
2018 but the topic has yet to be announced. The SGMAP has set itself the goal of organising
two citizen workshops per year; it lacks resources to host any more despite numerous
requests from administrations. An explanation of these workshops is available via an online
toolbox that also contains various participatory methods that could be used by thegovernment.7 Some requirements are imposed on the hosting administrations, such as theobligation to provide access to all information relevant to the workshop, consider the findingsof the workshop, and provide feedback to participants on how their suggestions will be used.8
In 2015, the Ministry of Ecology launched a discussion on the development of a public
participation charter. The charter was developed with the help of two committees – a
restricted committee of participation experts and a steering committee of stakeholders,
including contractors, ministerial officials, associations, practitioner networks, the CNDP and
researchers – and three participatory workshops gathering a total of 230 people in Paris,
Lyon and Bordeaux. 9 The charter was finalised in 2016 as a non-legal, voluntary tool toencourage exemplary participation. In November 2016, there were only 27 organisations,from the central and local governments as well as from the private sector, adhering to thecharter. 10 On 21 April 2016 and 3 August 2016, the government passed two decrees
enabling citizens and parliamentarians to demand that the CNDP hold a public debate on
identified projects. 11 It also created follow-up mechanisms with guarantors recruited to follow
implementation and inform the public. The guarantors go through a competitive recruitment
process and, when selected, receive trainings to familiarize with their role, which is to ensurethat the public has sufficient information prior to public consultations to be able to take part inpublic debates. There are currently 251 guarantors. 12 The CNDP also developed a number ofinnovative tools to generate public debates, such as the DP-Bus or itinerant debates on
trains.
Did It Open Government?
Access to Information: Did Not Change
Civic Participation: Marginal
The Director of Legal and Administrative Information (DILA) launched vie-publique.fr in 2012
to collect and display notices of public consultations and the CNDP has published a list of
public consultations predating this national action plan. The innovation proposed by thiscommitment, standardising DebatesCore for all online consultations, was not implemented
and there was no significant change in the level of centralisation and accessibility of
information regarding public consultations. Etalab, however, created a platform of tools
developed by non-government stakeholders to encourage government agencies tovoluntarily increase access to information. As implemented, the activities did not actuallychange government practice as agencies are not required to use the platform tools.
Therefore, there was no change in the status quo and this commitment did not open
government with respect to access to information.
With respect to civic participation, steps were taken to develop new channels for public
participation in policymaking through citizen workshops. SGMAP partnered with CNDP in2016 to encourage civic participation and the Ministry of Health held a pilot consultation in
2016. As noted in the midterm assessment, it is essential to publish the consultation process,consider the public input, explain when suggestions are not adopted, and discuss the role of
the administration in the discussed topic. The report produced by the participants in the pilot
project signalled that such follow up does not happen and that they remain unaware of how

67their contributions were used. SGMAP commissioned an independent evaluation of its pilot
workshop in addition to the evaluation provided by the participating citizens. 13
The Ministry of Ecology did publish a charter on the participation of the public, which
addresses participation beyond citizen workshops and is a collection of good practices rather
than a mandatory document. As such, this commitment marginally opened government
regarding civic participation, since it introduced new government practices that have yet to beinstitutionalised. Stakeholders note that there is now a movement toward more public
consultations as in the case of the Digital Republic Bill and the French National Food
Conference.14 Consultations are not yet centralised and ministries and administrations eachcreate their own consultation platforms. There is also an accessibility issue for online
consultations and the risk that it excludes certain groups. A stakeholder mentioned the
public-private cooperative Mednum,15 which could train groups to use digital tools andenliven consultations. 16 The government should identify the best methods for advertisingpublic consultations and making them accessible as there does not seem to be a clear
strategy at the time of this report.
Carried Forward?
This commitment was not carried over to the next action plan.
1 Independent Reporting Mechanism, France Rapport D'ètape (OGP, 2017),

https://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/France_Progress-Report_2015-2017.pdf.
2 "Engagement 13: Capitaliser sur les consultations menées et rénover les dispositifs d'expression citoyenne"(accessed 18 Dec. 2017), http://suivi-gouvernement-ouvert.etalab.gouv.fr/fr/Engagement13.html.
3 "Débats et consultations" (accessed 18 Dec. 2017), http://www.vie-publique.fr/forums/.
4 Members of the Etalab team, interview with IRM researcher, 23 Oct. 2017.
5 The Citizen Workshops are composed of a panel of 10 to 30 citizens supposed to be representative ofsocioeconomic diversity. The methodology of the Citizen Workshop is available at
http://www.modernisation.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/fichiers-attaches/boite-outils-demarches-participation.pdf, pp.
6-7 (accessed 13 April 2018). Little information is available about the selection of the sample. The list ofparticipants’ first names is found at the end of their report, available at
http://www.drogues.gouv.fr/sites/drogues.gouv.fr/files/atoms/files/avis_citoyens.pdf (accessed 13 April 2018).
6 Available at http://www.drogues.gouv.fr/sites/drogues.gouv.fr/files/atoms/files/avis_citoyens.pdf (accessed 13
April 2018).
7 Available here: http://modernisation.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/fichiers-attaches/boite-outils-demarchesparticipation.pdf.
8 SGMAP official, personal communication with IRM researcher, 3 Nov. 2017.
9 Ministère de l’écologie. La Charte de la participation publique. 2016, available at https://www.ecologiquesolidaire.gouv.fr/charte-participation-du-public (accessed 13 April 2018).
10 Ministère de la transition écologique et solidaire, La charte de la participation du public (17 Nov. 2016),
https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/charte-participation-du-public#e4 (accessed 2 Oct. 2017).
11 CNDP, “Communiqué de presse, décret paru au journal officiel le 27 avril 2017 de nouvelles compétences pourla commission nationale du débat public” (CNDP, 27 Apr. 2017).
12 CNDP. Liste nationale de garants. Available at https://www.debatpublic.fr/garants/ (accessed 13 April 2018).
13 SGMAP official, personal communication with IRM researcher, 3 Nov. 2017.
14 Information available here: https://www.egalimentation.gouv.fr/.
15 Information available here: https://lamednum.coop/.
16 Member of Open Source Politics, personal communication with IRM researcher, 1 Nov. 2017.

68

14. Strengthen mediation and citizens’ ability to act in matters relating to justiceCommitment Text:
ROADMAP•

Opening up justice to society via the formation of jurisdiction councilsoCreate jurisdiction councils within courts of first instance and courts of appeal
to facilitate a joint analysis of common issues such as jurisdictional
assistance, access to the law, access to justice, conciliation, mediation, andassistance to victims. Chaired by jurisdiction leaders, these jurisdiction
councils will bring together public prosecutors and magistrates, jurisdiction
and prison management officials, judicial protection for young persons, localoelected representatives and representatives from trade union organizations,
local government representatives, and representatives from the legal
professions, local authorities, and associations.

•

Facilitate access to mediation and conciliation based on the report published by theinterministerial mission for the evaluation of mediation and conciliation services in
April 2015•

Enable citizens to better assess their chances of success in taking legal actiono

In certain civil litigation cases (those relating to alimony, compensatory
allowance, compensation for bodily harm, etc.), information on judgments
usually handed down by national jurisdictions will be made available to the
publico

On a local level, pilot jurisdictions have formed a partnership with universities
in order to analyze their jurisprudence. Useful to magistrates to ensure that
their judgments are consistent, these analyses will also provide lawyers andcitizens with a document that facilitates their procedures and a possible
amicable resolution to their dispute

Editorial Note: This is a partial version of the commitment text. For the full commitment text
please see France’s national action plan: https://bit.ly/2MTYhsR.
Responsible Institution: Ministry of JusticeSupporting Institution(s): N/A

14. Overall

✔

✔ ✔ ✔

✔

✔
✔

✔

69

Outstanding

Major

Completed

Marginal

Substantial

End ofTerm

Did It Open
Government?

Did Not Change

Midterm

Worsened

Completion

LimitedTransformative

Moderate

Minor

Potential
ImpactTechnology &Innovation forTransparency &NonePublic Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to Information

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)High

MediumLow

Specificity

None

Commitment
Overview

Not Started

Start Date: Not Specified
End Date: Not Specified

Commitment Aim
This commitment aimed to improve citizens’ access to justice by forming jurisdiction councils
and publishing civil case judgments by national courts. Specific commitment activities form
part of the broader “Justice of the 21st Century” agenda led the Ministry of Justice. The
agenda includes reinforcing access to legal information and the courts, improving
transparency in court procedure, and developing alternative modes for dispute resolution. It
includes the creation of councils within courts of first instance and courts of appeal tofacilitate a joint analysis between citizens and magistrates of issues, including jurisdictional
assistance, access to justice and assistance to victims. These councils will facilitate dialogue
between civil society members and members of the court. The commitment also involves
follow-up on an evaluation of mediation and conciliation services. This report assessed how
citizens might settle disputes outside of court, thereby relieving the overburdened judicial
system. Lastly, the commitment aimed to publish information on national court judgments on
certain civil or administrative litigation cases, and at forming partnerships between
jurisdictions and universities to analyse the consistency of jurisprudence practices acrossdifferent courts.
StatusMidterm: Substantial
This commitment was substantially implemented by the midterm. After a pilot experiment ofjurisdiction councils in January 2015, the Ministry of Justice issued a decree extending theestablishment of the councils to all courts. The midterm assessment notes that the only
permanent members on these councils are the judges, thus there is little possibility for othermembers to collect support and push an agenda since their participation is ad hoc.
On mediation and conciliation, completion was only limited. A law to modernise 21st century
justice was in draft form as of June 2016 but was not passed until November 2016, outside
the midterm assessment period. This law includes the development of mediation services
and, in certain instances, it is now mandatory and free to try a conciliation before going tocourt. The law also facilitates mediation in administrative courts and an administrative judge
may require parties to try mediation before going before the court. On experimental grounds,
mediation has a requirement, for a four-year test, for very specific cases relating to civil
servants’ personal situation 1. At the end of the first year of action plan implementation, theMinistry of Justice indicated that conciliators were being hired. The commitment was thus
completed in legal terms but was not yet implemented.
Lastly, the publication of certain civil and administrative judgements was limited. The Ministryof Justice created an information portal, justice.fr, for litigants as part of this commitment.
This was the first stage of the PORTALIS project for reforming the Ministry’s civil caseapplications. The portal offers three simulators (maintenance/alimony, legal aid and seizureof remunerations) that allow a potential plaintiff to estimate the amount she or he might beawarded if successful. Court decisions had not yet been published as the Digital Republic
Law, defining the relevant data and facilitating the publication of judicial decisions in open
data format, had not yet been adopted. One problem identified in the midterm assessment
was the lack of provision for anonymisation and identification risk assessment prior to
publication, that had raised concerns both from CSOs and Axelle Lemaire, then minister incharge of the law. By the midterm assessment, the decrees necessary for these provisions to
be implemented had not yet been published or submitted to the Commission for Informationand Liberties (CNIL) and the Council of State, which must give their opinion on the draft
decree.
According to the government self-assessment, local-level partnerships are developing to
publish some case law. However, the report does not name any universities that haveformed such partnerships to carry this work forward.

70

End of Term: Substantial
This commitment remains substantially implemented by the end-of-term assessment due tothe lack of public information on the implementation of the law to modernise justice.
As noted in the midterm assessment, Decree n° 2016-514, issued 26 April 2016, generalises
the creation of jurisdiction councils to all regional courts (tribunaux de grande instance) andcourts of appeal. The IRM researcher did not find any public information on the extent towhich these jurisdiction councils had been created but found scattered evidence of thecreation of such councils in various courts. 2 An interview with a magistrate revealed that thejurisdiction councils were still largely unknown to judicial officials. 3 An internal note from the
Ministry of Justice gives a positive evaluation of these jurisdiction councils, provides details
on how to organise them, and encourages their expansion. 4
Decree n° 2017-566, implementing the law on modernising 21st century justice, issued 18
April 2017, provides for mediation in litigation before an administrative judge. The
implementation schedule for this law states that the list of mediators should have been
published in January 2017,5 but no additional public information could be found.
The government self-assessment does not provide any new information since the midterm
assessment. Regarding the publication of judicial decisions, the assessment of Commitment
12 in this report provides an overview of the current situation. In brief, Articles 20 and 21 of
the Digital Republic Bill provide for open access to judicial decisions and the new Minister ofJustice commissioned a study on the implementation of these articles in May 2017, whichshould be handed in by the end of October 2017.6
Did It Open Government?
Access to Information: Did Not Change
Civic Participation: Did Not Change
Public Accountability: Did Not Change
The law on modernising justice and the Digital Republic Law contain major steps forward
regarding access to judicial decisions and access to justice. However, the clauses relevant tothis commitment have not yet been implemented and, as noted in the midterm assessment,
the implementation of this commitment will reveal its impact. Questions remain. Will civilsociety be able to permanently participate in the jurisdiction councils? Will judicial decisions
be opened and provide sufficient information? As such, this commitment has not yet opened
government regarding access to information, civic participation or public accountability.
Jurisdiction councils have only started to form in various courts during Summer 2017. It isthus too early to assess if they will change government practices. As noted in the midterm
assessment, the two key judicial trade unions, the Syndicat de la Magistrature (SM) andUnion Syndicale de la Magistrature (USM), both expressed reservations as to the usefulnessof these councils for improving access to, and information about justice.
Regarding the enabling of citizens to assess their chances of success in taking legal action,some jurisdictions had established partnerships with universities before the development of
the action plan, such as the court of appeal of Montpellier and Reims.7 However, thegovernment self-assessment does not provide any additional information on the extension ofthese partnerships. The IRM researcher thus considers that this sub-commitment did notcontribute to change government practice in this policy area.
Carried Forward?
This commitment was not carried over to the next action plan.

71

1 Association des Médiateurs des Collectivités Territoriales. Mediation et justice administrative. Available at
http://www.amct-mediation.fr/m%C3%A9diation-et-justice-administrative (accessed 13 April 2018)
2 E.g. TGI d’Evry, http://unafam.91.free.fr/04-lettres%20adherents/2016/2016-09-00-lettre.pdf; TGI de Draguignan,
Une nouvelle présidente au tribunal de grande instance de Draguignan; http://www.varmatin.com/justice/unenouvelle-presidente-au-tribunal-de-grande-instance-de-draguignan-170152; TGI de Toulouse,
https://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2017/09/29/2654990-conseil-juridiction-doit-ouvrir-justice-vers-exterieur.html(accessed 2 Oct. 2017).
3 Magistrate, member of Anticor. personal communication with IRM researcher, 11 Oct. 2017.
4 Bulletin, “Officiel du Ministère de la Justice, Note du 26 juillet 2016 relative à la mise en œuvre des dispositions
du décret n° 2016-514 du 26 avril 2016,” http://www.textes.justice.gouv.fr/art_pix/JUSB1622161N.pdf. (accessed
29 September 2017)
5 Légifrance, Echéancier de mise en application de la loi (23 Aug. 2017),
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichLoiPubliee.do;jsessionid=2B1AB79A526C62E128619EEEED095E24.tpdila08
v_3?idDocument=JORFDOLE000030962821&type=echeancier&typeLoi=&legislature=14 (accessed 2 Oct.
2017).
6 La Gazette des communes, Où en est l’ouverture des données de jurisprudence ? (29 Sept. 2017),
http://www.lagazettedescommunes.com/526366/ou-en-est-louverture-des-donnees-de-jurisprudence/ (accessed
1 Oct. 2017).
7 Ministère de la Justice, Synthèse des contributions des juridictions, (16 Jun. 2014),
http://www.justice.gouv.fr/publication/justice21-synthese-contributions-juridictions.pdf (accessed 2 Oct. 2017).

72

Theme III: Open Digital Resources✪15. Strengthen Government policy on the opening and circulation of data
Commitment Text:
ROADMAP
1.

Continue the opening of data that have a strong economic and social impact,
particularly "pivotal data"

2.

Strengthen open data in local and regional authorities: Enshrine in law the obligation
to publish the public information of local authorities of more than 3,500 inhabitants(including municipalities and public institutions for inter-municipal cooperation)

3.

Enshrine in law the principles of default opening of public data (with closure being
exceptional) and its unrestricted and cost-free reuse

4.

Improve the opportunity study on the opening of "general interest data”

Editorial Note: This is a partial version of the commitment text. For the full commitment text
please see France’s national action plan: https://bit.ly/2MTYhsR.
Responsible Institutions: Ministry of State for State Reform and Simplification attached to
the Prime Minister; Ministry of State for the Digital Sector, attached to the Ministry of the
Economy, Industry and the Digital Sector
Supporting Institution(s): N/A✪15. Overall

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Commitment Aim
This commitment aimed to create a legal framework to implement an open data policy. It
seeks to do so by entrenching the principles of proactive data disclosure in law, as well as
ensuring access to data is free and unrestricted. This commitment is a precondition to theimplementation of other commitments in the action plan, such as Commitment 1 regarding
the opening of budget data at the local level. Before this action plan, there was nogovernment-wide policy for defaulting to open data and, in turn, no obligation for publishinggovernment-held data. This commitment creates formal, time-bound requirements to bridge
the critical stage between passing a law and its successful implementation.

73

Major
Outstanding

Completed

Marginal

Substantial

End ofTerm

Did It Open
Government?

Did Not Change

Midterm

Worsened

Completion

LimitedTransformative

Moderate

Minor

Potential
ImpactTechnology & Innovation
for Transparency &Accountability
None

Public Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to Information

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)High

MediumLow

Specificity

None

Commitment
Overview

Not Started

Start Date: Not Specified
End Date: Not Specified

StatusMidterm: Substantial
This commitment was substantially implemented by the midterm. Its milestones were
implemented to varying degrees. For example, during the first year of implementation, no
pivotal data were opened and steps toward completion were not yet taken. However, amilestone concerning opening local data was completed through the adoption of the NOTRe
Law in August 2015, which requires public institutions for inter-municipal cooperation, local
and regional authorities (with more than 3,500 residents) to make public information available
in open data format. Similarly, the default opening of public data was ensured by the
adoption of the Digital Republic Law in October 2016. Lastly, the midterm assessment
considered that only limited advancements were made regarding studying the opening ofgeneral interest data.
End of Term: Substantial
This commitment is still considered as substantially implemented by the end-of term
assessment. The government self-assessment also codes all the milestones as substantiallycompleted. Adoption of the Digital Republic Law in 2016 was a significant development toimprove access to information, but implementation of the law has not started.
Pivotal data has started to be opened. Etalab defines “pivotal data” as synonymous toreference data and mentioned the public service of data and the nine reference datasets thathave been opened (see Commitment 11). 1 An example of progress is the National Institute of
Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE) opening SIRENE, which is a directory of French
companies and establishments that is critical for monitoring beneficial ownership in France.
Article 6 of the Digital Republic Law requires that administrations – except legal persons withless than 50 agents or employees 2 – publish online data having an economic, social, sanitaryor environmental interest, with the exception of information that concerns procedural secrets,
economic and financial information, or commercial and industrial strategies if the service issubject to competition. The Digital Republic Law’s second section concerns the requirement
to publish public interest data relating to concession contracts (Article 17) – extending open
data requirements to private contractors, the energy industry (Article 23), to judicial decisions(Articles 20 and 21), and to state’s property (Article 24).
Article 6 of the Digital Republic Law also addresses local governments. It abrogates theprovisions of Article 106 of the NOTRe Law and imposes the ‘default open data’ rule to local
governments of more than 3,500 residents. Decree n° 2016-1922, issued 28 December
2016, specifies the law’s implementation. Commitment 1 of this national action plan seeks to
implement this Decree. Stakeholders from civil society note that the ‘default open data’ rule is
not respected in practice because local government, with the exception of several bigger
cities, do not have the financial and technical capacity to implement the new law. 3 As
indicated in the evaluation of Commitment 1, a support pilot mission was launched by thegovernment in nine local governments to help them implement the new law and open thenecessary data. The execution of the project was delegated to OpenData France. The
project was ongoing when this report was written (October 2017) and the conclusions of thepilot experimentation should be presented in December 2017.4
The ‘default open data’ rule does not seem to be fully implemented in the central government
either. All administrations with more than 50 staff are required to open certain data: all
documents communicated following a Freedom of Information request (by April 2017); all
documents listed as public information (by October 2017); their databases (by October
2018); all data of particular economic, social, sanitary or environmental interest (by October
2018); and the rules that define the algorithms that guide individual decisions (by October
2018). 5 Journalist Xavier Berne tested the implementation of the new law by comparing74

documents requested by citizens to CADA, the Commission d’accès aux documents
administratifs. The documents requested by citizens should be published online per the newlaw, and the websites of the relevant ministries, but Berne found that very few of these
documents had been posted online. 6 Officials interviewed by the journalist point to theabsence of sanctions to explain the low level of implementation. Berne states a lack ofknowledge and awareness among public officials is another factor that explains the low levelof implementation. 7 Additionally, he finds that Etalab, responsible for implementation of thiscommitment, had limited financial and human resources to devote to the commitment
activities. 8
Did It Open Government?
Access to Information: Marginal
As outlined in the midterm IRM report, prior to this action plan, there was no governmentwide policy of open data by default and therefore no obligation to publish government-helddata. Developments made by the government under this commitment, and the adoption of
the Digital Republic Law in particular, are a step forward for government openness regarding
access to information. However, the Digital Republic Law still needs to be fully implemented;
therefore, the commitment’s scope and scale remain limited and has only contributed
marginally to open government. The potential of full implementation remains transformative.
The Digital Republic Law entrenches in law the principle of default open data, which is asignificant change in government practice. It contains clauses on the opening of public
information in central and local governments as well as public interest data produced byprivate contractors. Although these are important improvements to increase access to
information and government openness, the legislation still includes a number of exceptions
concerning strategic information. In addition, it remains unclear how the government will
support local entities in their efforts to open data. Indeed, interviews with stakeholders revealthat the new by default clause is not respected and that both national administrations andlocal governments experience financial, technical, and cultural difficulties in implementing the
new law. Stakeholders identified significant cultural obstacles to the implementation of theDigital Republic Law, including a general lack of awareness of the benefits of open data andgovernment within the government and civil society, therefore leaving a small community ofinterested parties. 9 Bloom, an ocean protection association, shared the obstacles they met
when trying to access information on the attribution of European fishing subsidies in France:(i) the poor governance of data leading to a diluted responsibility for managing and sharing
data; (ii) the poor quality of the data received, which reduces its usability; and (iii) the
absence of visibility of public data, making it difficult to know what data is available and canbe requested, and from whom. The last point was shared by other stakeholders as well. 10
Carried Forward?
This commitment was carried over to the next action plan. In the new action plan, the focus ison opening new datasets; on improving the open data platform (data.gouv.fr); on assisting
the government agencies and local governments to open their data and fostering dialogue
with public officials; on designating specialised data administrators in Ministries; and on
evaluating the impact of the efforts undertaken so far to open data.
1 Members of the Etalab team, interview with IRM researcher, 23 Oct. 2017.
2 See decree n° 2016-1922 issued 28 December 2016.
3 Member of Open Source Politics, personal communication with IRM researcher, 31 Oct. 2017.
4 Opendatafrance, Le planning, https://bourgogne.gitbooks.io/presentation-opendatalocale/content/le-planning.html (accessed 2 Oct. 2017).
5 Xavier Berne, Mais que faut-il pour que l’État se mette à la transparence ? (NextImpact, 30 Oct. 2017),
https://www.nextinpact.com/news/105503-mais-que-faut-il-pour-que-letat-se-mette-a-transparence.htm.
6 Xavier Berne, On a testé les premiers pas de l’Open Data « par défaut » (NextImpact, 20 Sept. 2017),
https://www.nextinpact.com/news/105213-on-a-teste-premiers-pas-lopen-data-par-defaut.htm.

75

7 Ibid.
8 Id.
9 Member of Open Source Politics, personal communication with IRM researcher, 31 Oct. 2017; Former memberof the Prime Minister’s cabinet, personal communication with IRM researcher, 6 Nov. 2017.
10 Member of Bloom, personal communication with IRM researcher, 2 Nov. 2017; Former member of the Prime
Minister’s cabinet, personal communication with IRM researcher, 6 Nov. 2017.

76

16. Open Calculation Models and Simulators
Commitment Text:
PROMOTE THE OPENING OF CALCULATION MODELS AND SIMULATORSROADMAP

Extend the opening of models to other areas of public action-

Continue to work with the different administrations to support them in opening
their calculation and simulation models

Produce simulators from existing open models-

Leverage the OpenFisca platform to extend it to other areas of legislation andpropose adaptations of simulators useful to citizens, economic players andpublic players. For example, simulation model for energy costs, extension of
local taxation, pension calculations, etc.

Editorial Note: This is a partial version of the commitment text. For the full commitment text
please see France’s national action plan: https://bit.ly/2MTYhsR.
Responsible Institution: Ministry of State for State Reform and Simplification attached to
the Prime Minister
Supporting Institution(s): N/A

16. Overall

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Commitment Aim
This commitment sought to open and develop calculation models currently used by many
public services in open source, under a free license. The objective was to increase use of themodels by different administrations, and ultimately develop simulation tools or platforms in
different areas like social or education affairs. In the social field, this commitment aimed tocontinue the development and replication of OpenFisca, an open simulation of the sociofiscal system, and build simulation tools or platforms.
StatusMidterm: Substantial
This commitment was substantially implemented by the midterm. Several new simulators
were made available in open format, including the source code for the tax calculator of the77

Outstanding

Major

Completed✔

Marginal

Substantial

End ofTerm

Did It Open
Government?

Did Not Change

Midterm

Worsened

Completion

LimitedTransformative

Moderate

Minor

Potential
ImpactTechnology &Innovation forTransparency &NonePublic Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to Information

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)High

MediumLow

Specificity

None

Commitment
Overview

Not Started

Start Date: Not Specified
End Date: Not Specified

Direction générale des finances publiques (DGFiP). The midterm IRM report also indicatesthat the source code for the Post-Bac Admission (PBA) platform, notably the algorithm thatassigns prospective students to universities, of the National Education Ministry was expected
to be opened during the second year of implementation.
OpenFisca was extended to other areas of legislation. Several versions and reuses of
OpenFisca have emerged including: the mes-aides.gouv.fr platform, which calculates
individuals’ social benefits and provides information on how to access these benefits; a hiring
cost simulator (http://embauche.sgmap.fr/) that allows companies to estimate the cost of
hiring and the employee’s net salary; the effective tax rate, which allows individuals tovisualise the evolution of the effective tax rate according to salary and capital; and an
alimony comparator for divorced couples. For more information, please see the IRM midterm
report. 1
End of Term: Substantial
The completion of this commitment is considered substantial, mostly due to the extension of
OpenFisca and the publication of new codes. During the second year of implementation, theDepartment of public finances (Direction générale des Finances publiques) published thesource code for the calculation of household income taxes for the years 2010 to 2015, in
addition to the already-published code for 2014.2
In October 2017, the OpenFisca platform contained simulators on social assistance (mesaides.gouv.fr), on hiring costs, effective tax rates, on the dependent spouse allowancereform, and on capital and labour tax rates. In the summer of 2016, the National Statistics
Institute and the Ministry of Social Affairs published the source code for their microsimulation
model Ines, which calculates social contributions and social assistance programmes. 3 The
simulator code is available through a platform managed by the association Adullact, which
requires the creation of an account. 4 A journalist tried to access the source code and notes
the response time from the platform administrator could be rather slow. 5
The issue of opaque models and algorithms gained notoriety in the second year of
implementation when the Admission Post-Bac (APB) platform failed to find suitable university
placements for thousands of students. 6 The Minister in charge, Ms. Frédérique Vidal
announced that the APB platform would be replaced by a new platform backed by an ethics
committee. 7 The previous Secretary of State for Higher Education and Research had
commissioned Etalab to make recommendations on how to open the source code and dataof the APB platform. Etalab published a report in April 2017 of their findings, including theneed to publish the source code in an open format and develop future versions in acollaborative manner. 8 The APB platform was abandoned in October 2017 and will be
replaced by a new platform called Parcoursup.9 The IRM researcher could not find sufficient
information to gauge if Etalab’s recommendations were considered in developing the newplatform.
Did It Open Government?
Access to Information: MarginalPrior to this commitment, only limited information was provided regarding the source codes ofpublic services, calculations and simulations. The opacity and complexity of the procedure
related to social benefits resulted in people not using these rights. As the midterm
assessment reports, there was traffic to the simulators developed under this commitment –an average 300,000 visits per day in July 2016 on mes-aides.gouv.fr, suggesting that thesesimulators meet a real demand. However, given the few source codes and simulation models
that have been opened, this commitment remains limited in scope and scale. As such, itmarginally opened government with respect to access to information.

78

Carried Forward?
This commitment was carried over to the next action plan. In the new action plan, thecommitment focusses on evaluating existing algorithms in collaboration with civil society; onproviding recommendations to public administrations on the use of algorithms; on developing
a guide on open source code; and on organising hackathons on the opening of algorithms.
1 Independent Reporting Mechanism, France Rapport D'ètape (OGP, 2017),
https://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/France_Progress-Report_2015-2017.pdf.
2 Etalab, Ouverture du code du calcul de l’impôt sur le revenu, années 2010 à 2015 (Etalab, Sept. 2017),
https://www.etalab.gouv.fr/ouverture-du-code-du-calcul-de-limpot-sur-le-revenu (accessed 1 Nov. 2017).
3 NextImpact, Le modèle de simulation Ines, de l’INSEE et la DREES, passe en open source (NextImpact, Jun.
2016), https://www.nextinpact.com/news/100233-le-modele-simulation-ines-l-insee-et-drees-passe-en-opensource.html (accessed 1 Nov. 2017).
4 Available here: https://adullact.net/projects/ines-libre.
5 NextImpact, Le modèle de simulation Ines, de l’INSEE et la DREES, passe en open source (NextImpact, Jun.
2016), https://www.nextinpact.com/news/100233-le-modele-simulation-ines-l-insee-et-drees-passe-en-opensource.htm (accessed 1 Nov. 2017).
6 Camille Stromboni, “APB 2017 : plus de 65 000 jeunes toujours sans affectation dans l’enseignement supérieur”(Le Monde, 22 Jul. 2017), http://www.lemonde.fr/bac-lycee/article/2017/07/22/apb-2017-22-891-candidats-sont-dores-et-deja-inscrits-en-procedure-complementaire_5163736_4401499.html?xtmc=admission_post_bac&xtcr=66(accessed 17 Dec. 2017).
7 Séverin Graveleau, “La CNIL remet en cause le fonctionnement de la plate-forme APB” (Le Monde, 29 Sept.
2017), http://www.lemonde.fr/campus/article/2017/09/29/la-cnil-remet-en-cause-le-fonctionnement-de-la-plateforme-apb_5193207_4401467.html#sjzCyY5TsG0kiX6c.99 (accessed 5 Oct. 2017).
8 Etatlab, Rapport de la mission Etalab sur les conditions d’ouverture du système Admission Post-Bac (Etalab,2017), https://www.data.gouv.fr/s/resources/rapport-sur-les-conditions-douverture-du-systeme-admission-postbac/20170421-101632/20170420_Rapport-Etalab-missionAPB-VF.pdf (accessed 1 Nov. 2017).
9 Ministère de l’éducation nationale, Plateforme d'admission dans l'enseignement supérieur : nouvelle formule,nouveau nom (2017), http://www.education.gouv.fr/cid122995/plateforme-d-admission-dans-l-enseignementsuperieur-nouvelle-formule-nouveau-nom.html (accessed 17 Dec. 2017).

7917. Transform government’s technological resources into an open platform
Commitment Text:
ROADMAP
1 Validate the strategic framework "Government as a Platform and France Connect" andapply its main principles during the year 2015 in the general reference systems or standards
documents issued by the DISIC (Interministerial Directorate for Information andCommunications Systems)
2 Launch France Connect on the portal www.service-public.fr/langue/english/-

The France Connect project will hold first trials in autumn 2015, followed by a launchin January 2016 on the portal www.service-public.fr (several million users)-

Generalization will take place from 2016

3 Launch public forge on Etatplateforme.gouv.fr website, along with a repository of open API
before the end of the 2015 year, in order to encourage the creation, in a collaborative
manner, of new public services
4 Launch several cycles of awareness-raising for the development of APIs and the creationof new services amongst actors in the public sphere and its partners
Editorial Note: This is a partial version of the commitment text. For the full commitment text
please see France’s national action plan: https://bit.ly/2MTYhsR.
Responsible Institutions: Prime Minister’s Office; Ministry of State for State Reform andSimplification attached to the Prime Minister
Supporting Institution(s): N/A

17. Overall✔

Unclear✔

✔

✔

Commitment Aim
This commitment aimed to develop digital services as well as put in place an e-government
state portal. France Connect is a tool that is meant to allow users (individuals andrepresentatives of legal entities) to obtain a state-granted digital identity, which can be used
to access all digital public services with a secure single sign-on. This tool allows access tovarious administrative services online without having to create separate accounts.

80

Outstanding

Major

Completed✔

Marginal

Substantial

End ofTerm

Did It Open
Government?

Did Not Change

Midterm

Worsened

Completion

LimitedTransformative

Moderate

Minor

Potential
ImpactTechnology &Innovation forTransparency &NonePublic Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to Information

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)High

MediumLow

Specificity

None

Commitment
Overview

Not Started

Start Date: Not Specified
End Date: Not Specified

The envisioned activities were e-government initiatives that simplify access to online public
services. While these are important measures for integrating and harmonising governmentheld information across government institutions, the commitment does not clearly articulate
how these efforts will open the government by disclosure of more public interest information,or how it creates opportunities for civic participation or public accountability.
StatusMidterm: Substantial
This commitment was substantially implemented by the midterm. The strategic framework,“Government as a Platform and France Connect,” was validated by a 20 April 2016 decree.1
A final version of the general interoperability framework was made available online on 27
April 2016. A decree authorised the launch of France Connect in July 2015 and, after a pilot
phase, France Connect was launched officially on 29 June 2016 by the Secretary of State for
Reform and Simplification and the Digital State Secretary. In addition, the api.gouv.fr portal,
which registers all APIs that were developed the services using these APIs, was launched on
21 June 2016.
The last milestone of this commitment, regarding the awareness-raising activities, was the
only milestone not considered completed by the midterm. According to the government selfassessment, a special tool named ATENA (dispositif d’Accompagnement à la Transformation
Numérique des Administrations) that accompanies new digital services was created in 2015.
End of Term: Complete
This commitment is now considered fully implemented. Most milestones had already been
completed by the midterm. The government self-assessment indicates that information andawareness-raising events are organised on a monthly basis.
In addition to raising-awareness, efforts have been made to develop new tools and APIs to
facilitate access to certain services. The self-assessment indicates that 70 relevant projects
aiming at creating new services had been identified through the ATENA (dispositifd’Accompagnement à la Transformation Numérique des Administrations) tool. Moreinformation can be found on the ATENA blog. 2 Twenty projects received financial support
from “Investing in the Future” programmes through the “Digital identity and user relationship”
and “Tell us once” calls for projects.
Did It Open Government?
Access to Information: Did Not Change
Civic Participation: Did Not Change
Public Accountability: Did Not ChangeThis commitment sought to develop digital services and facilitate citizens access to public
services. Its envisioned activities are e-government initiatives and not immediately relevant to
OGP values. The government successfully implemented the milestones of this commitment,
but they do not contribute to improving access to information as no new information has been
disclosed. Nor do they facilitate civic participation or public accountability. Etalab noted that
this commitment’s activities can help open government, for example, by changing
administration procedures and improving their collaboration through APIs.3
Carried Forward?
This commitment was carried over to the next action plan, with a focus on further
development of the France Connect platform and the development of priority public serviceson the platform.
1 “Arrêté du 20 avril 2016 portant approbation du référentiel général d'interopérabilité” (Legifrance, 2016),
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/eli/arrete/2016/4/20/PRMJ1526716A/jo.

81

2 Avilable at: http://atena.blog/index.php/2017/02/16/atena-letat-plateforme-en-action/.
3 Member of the Etalab team, interview with IRM researcher, 23 Oct. 2017.

82

18. Strengthen interaction with the user and improve public services through egovernment
Commitment Text:
ROADMAP
Improve satisfaction measurement and take into account user feedback, involve
stakeholders into services design and transformation•

Launch the publication by each ministry of key figures on the use of public serviceson their various channels•

Map inflows and outflows, in order to measure the integration of various public sites
according to theme or time of life, and, in doing so, detect websites that are notdirectly involved in assisting users with sufficient or relevant hypertext•

Extract statistical data from software common to government websites (around 650
sites, some of which have been monitored for over 10 years), and analyze them using
data sciences methods•

Develop and roll out co-construction methods (OpenLab, design, user-civil service
workshops…)

Editorial Note: This is a partial version of the commitment text. For the full commitment text
please see France’s national action plan: https://bit.ly/2MTYhsR.
Responsible Institution: Prime Minister’s Office; Ministry of State for State Reform andSimplification attached to the Prime Minister
Supporting Institution(s): N/A

18. Overall

✔

✔ ✔

✔

✔

✔
✔

Commitment Aim
The commitment aimed to improve existing digital services by collecting and analysing key
use statistics of digital services platforms, and by building new digital services in response tocollaborations with users. The two objectives of the commitment are to disclose more
information on how effectively these digital public services platforms are used and to create
opportunities for citizen input on the design of e-government services. A central aspect of thecommitment revolves around analysing website usage but the text does not specify the exact

83

Outstanding

Major

Completed

Marginal

Substantial

End ofTerm

Did It Open
Government?

Did Not Change

Midterm

Worsened

Completion

LimitedTransformative

Moderate

Minor

Potential
ImpactTechnology &Innovation forTransparency &NonePublic Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to Information

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)High

MediumLow

Specificity

None

Commitment
Overview

Not Started

Start Date: Not Specified
End Date: Not Specifiednumber of websites to be analysed, nor does it define the “key figures” to be published about
ministry websites. The commitment does not specify which services will be addressed byuser feedback, nor does it detail the collaboration involved in improving public services. This
commitment was a step forward in tracking data on the use and efficacy of digital public
services and toward increasing access to e-government services.
StatusMidterm: Limited
Completion of this commitment was limited by the midterm. The government had not yet
started publishing key figures on the use of public services. The IRM researcher noted thatduring this period, there was no standard definition for “key figures” or other usage indicatorsfor online public services, and was unable to find public evidence that each ministry had
published their key figures. The government self-assessment argues that this commitment
achieved substantial completion, but the evidence provided is an update to the digital public
services dashboard, which took place in September 2016, outside of the period covered by
the midterm report. A data science expert noted that the dashboard enables tracking thenumber of visitors to specific ministry websites and the frequency of visits but is insufficient totrack how visitors navigate between government websites or even inside a single ministry’s
website. The government self-assessment confirmed that mapping activities did not takeplace during the first year of implementation.
Regarding the statistical analysis of data from government websites, the government madelimited steps forward. While the commitment specifies “around 650 sites,” in July 2016 thegovernment only published audience analytics for approximately 100 government websites.
However, the data offers increased levels of granularity for statistical data on government
websites including analytics on a monthly and daily level. The data is available only at thewebsite level and not on individual pages, except for the 50 most visited ministry web pages
per day. The same goes for referrals, sources and supports used to visit the website. Data
related to 97 different websites is published on a daily level.
Lastly, the SGMAP had organised multiple and regular open labs for Simplified Public
Procurement projects; the labs allow collaboration between stakeholders on project
construction. It also organised similar co-design workshops during the creation of the France
Connect project, the national single sign-on service. At the time of the midterm report, there
was no publicly available information with specific metrics regarding the attendance of thoseworkshops, feedback from the participants, or how exactly those workshops ultimately
impacted the project.
End of Term: Substantial
The completion of this commitment is still considered limited by this end-of-term assessment.
The government self-assessment does not provide any evidence of new developments forthis commitment.
The main development in the second year of implementation were updates to the digitalpublic services dashboard published in September 2016 (3rd edition) and in May 2017 (4thedition). The dashboard helps administrations adjust their digital services to meet users’
needs. The dashboard contains the results of an annual telephone survey of 1006 private
individuals and 600 private companies. The survey asks for users’ habits and satisfaction,
and, for 30 specific services, administrative statistics on the actual portion of digitalised
services undertaken in the last year. The IRM researcher could not find the dashboard datain open data format and the methodological note lacks detail, especially regarding
information taken from the administration.
The government also started to provide data on total visits, visit frequency, and the audienceof ministry websites through a dashboard and .cvs datasets on data.gouv.fr. There are threedatasets on monthly visitors to the prime minister’s website, gouvernement.fr: (i) a dataset for84webpages on governmental actions, decisions and policy; (ii) a dataset on audience bytheme; and (iii) a general dataset on the audience. These contain very limited informationand the granularity is low (e.g. the latter merely contains the pages viewed, visits, cumulated
visits, pages/visit, duration, and bounce rate). There is also a dataset of the daily visits to all
governmental websites.
The IRM researcher did not find any evidence that the data provided by the government
could allow mapping of web traffic or a measure the integration of governmental websites.
Lastly, the Secretariat for the Modernisation of Public Action (SGMAP) has developed
multiple tools to better serve the end-user when developing or reforming services. They use
various methodologies to measure user satisfaction, such as an opinion barometer for
instance. The SGMAP’s role is to assist other administrations in changing their work methods
and they have developed a kit to better measure and account for user feedback 1 and a list ofguidelines for taking the user into account in digitalised public services.2 The SGMAP alsofunctions as an incubator for developing new digitalised public services. 3 The team also
developed a co-construction method that can be used by other administrations. 4
Did It Open Government?
Access to Information: Did Not Change
Civic Participation: Did Not Change
The objective of this commitment was to digitalise public services and provide an opportunity
for end-users to influence this digital transition. It relates to OGP values as far as it had thepotential to track user data and increase access to public services. Given that the
government failed to complete most milestones, this commitment did not open government
practice with respect to access to information and civic participation.
The IRM researcher did not find any evidence that these activities created an opportunity forthe public to influence decisions. The digital public services dashboard provides information
on user satisfaction but at a very general level. The questionnaire asks users if they weresatisfied with their experience when they opened an account or searched for information; theIRM researcher did not find evidence of an opportunity given to users to provide more
precise feedback. The lack of information provided on the co-construction events andmethods further support coding the changes to government practices and openness as ‘did
not change’ since these participation opportunities were one-off events and do not seem toindicate a change in government practice to include regularly user co-construction andfeedback in public service design.
The government does provide information on the audience of governmental websites or on
the use of digital public services. The data is general and insufficiently granular to be useful.
The IRM researcher did not find any public information regarding the reuse of these datasets.
It is thus hard to assess the relevance of the information provided. As such the changes canonly be considered as minor.
Carried Forward?
This commitment was carried over to the next action plan, with a focus on the developmentof a list of services accessible online, on the publication of an open and collaborative
dashboard on digital public services and on the publication of civil society and user feedback.
1 Available here: http://www.modernisation.gouv.fr/la-qualite-des-services-publics-sameliore/par-la-consultation-

et-lecoute/kit-satisfaction-des-usagers.
2 Available here: http://www.modernisation.gouv.fr/ladministration-change-avec-le-numerique/par-des-servicesnumeriques-aux-usagers/les-10-principes-dune-demarche-en-ligne-exemplaire.
3 More information available here: https://beta.gouv.fr/.

85

4 Available here in beta version: http://comment-faire.modernisation.gouv.fr/index.html.

86Theme IV: Open Up Public Administration
19. Empower Civil Society to Support Schools
Commitment Text:
ROADMAP
1. Empower young people to get involved via new civic service missions within schools.
The Ministry of National Education, Higher Education and Research has a recruitment
objective of 5,000 young people for civic service at the beginning of the 2015-2016 school
year and 10,000 volunteers in 2016-2017. By the beginning of the 2017 school year, theobjective is to offer 37,000 missions including missions run by associations within the school
and university field.
Civic service within schools is aimed at young people between 18 and 25 years old. It is avoluntary commitment that can last from 6 to 12 months (average commitment being about 8months), from October/November 2015 to June 2016. The missions take place in elementary
schools, high school, information and orientation centers or local education authorities.
Priority is given to missions in elementary schools, priority education and boarding schools.
The voluntary work is done in most cases by pairs of volunteers when the mission is carriedout before pupils and aims to allow experience of social diversity and contact with the public
and other volunteers of diverse backgrounds.
The nine main types of mission of volunteers for civic service are: contribution to educative,
teaching and civic responsibility activities in primary school; support to projects for educationin citizen matters; support to actions and projects in the fields of artistic and cultural
education and sport; support to actions and projects for education in sustainable
development; organization of the national education department's civic reserve; contribution
to the organization of the free time of boarders in developing new activities; prevention of
addictions; information and support to young people who are failing at school or who wish to
resume qualifying training; help with providing information and orientation to pupils.
2. Allow citizens to support schools in the transmission of the Republic’s values: thenational education department's civic reserve.
This new arrangement (as outlined in the circular dated May 12th 2015 31) allows adults who
desire to have the opportunity to dedicate their time and provide their experience to serve
schools, particularly in the following fields of expertise:•

Education in citizen matters and secularism (“laïcité”),•

Education in gender equality,•

Education in the media and information,•

The fight against racism, anti-semitism and all forms of discrimination,•

The connection between schools and the professional world.

For schools, this is an opportunity to mobilize and benefit from civil society’s strengths
beyond the various components of the educational community and actors who also act in of
associations, civic service or in the form of ad hoc intervention. Teachers may therefore
regularly call upon external speakers to illustrate their teaching within classes. The
associations, and more generally, all people and legal entities wishing to promote thenational education department's civic reserve can be associated as civic reserve’s
ambassadors. Several institutions are already involved in the national education
department's civic reserve (National School of administration, Conferences of the university
presidents, CDEFI, CEMEA, League of education, CNOUS, "les Francas", French network ofeducational cities, Association of members of the Order of Academic Palms). Reservists arealso called upon, if they wish, to intervene in extracurricular activities.

87Editorial Note: This is a partial version of the commitment text. For the full commitment text
please see France’s national action plan: https://bit.ly/2MTYhsR.
Responsible Institutions: Ministry of National Education, Higher Education and Research;
Ministry of Urban Affairs, Youth and Sport
Supporting Institution(s): N/A

19. Overall✔

Unclear✔

✔
✔

✔

Commitment Aim
This commitment sought to allow citizens to contribute to youth education through two
milestones: 1) create a volunteer civic service program for youth; and 2) involve citizens inteaching civic education courses in schools.
The civic service program was created in 2010, though at the time the Ministry of National
Education was not one of the hosts for civil servants. Civic service can be performed either
through a public agency at the local level, or with CSOs and NGOs pending an approval
process. The government sees it as providing direct access to professional experiences, aswell as a way of addressing the social exclusion of youth groups. In theory, the program
offers youths aged 16 to 25 (and 30 for persons with disabilities) the opportunity to work forsix to twelve months in one of nine priority areas defined by the government including
education, health, culture and leisure, environment, international development and crisis
emergency response.
In a speech given one month after the January 2015 Paris attacks, President Hollandeestablished a connection between the massive and spontaneous march for peace andsolidarity with the victims, citizens' desire to help and serve the common good of France, andthe need for a civic youth service to reinforce national cohesion and shared common values.
Civic service was extended in this way to all citizens willing to share what the government
identified as the values of the French Republic in education activities within national schools.
This program is called the citizen reserve for education. Future participants can enrol througha digital platform.
While the commitment strives to engage young people in civic education and could help
schools throughout the country, it does not create new opportunities for opening thedecision-making processes to more citizens. While the engagement of youth in community

88

Outstanding

Major

Completed

Marginal

Substantial

End ofTerm

Did It Open
Government?

Did Not Change

Midterm

Worsened

Completion

LimitedTransformative

Moderate

Minor

Potential
ImpactTechnology &Innovation forTransparency &NonePublic Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to Information

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)High

MediumLow

Specificity

None

Commitment
Overview

Not Started

Start Date: Not Specified
End Date: Not Specified

service and encouraging citizens to teach civic education are well-intended initiatives, these
efforts are not new. Without evidence on how the civic service program has worked so far, it
is not clear if increasing the number of participants represents an ambitious step.
StatusMidterm: Substantial
This commitment was substantially implemented by the midterm. According to the Ministry of
National Education, the objective to recruit 5,000 youths for the 2015-2016 school year was
almost completed, with 4,657 individuals recruited. The second year of implementation
aimed to recruit a further 10,000 youths for the 2016-2017 school year. The aim of thesecond milestone, to create the reserve, saw substantial implementation during the first yearof the action plan. A circular dated 12 May 2015 outlined the arrangements for the reserve,
and an 11 April 2016 decree established a High Commissioner for Civic Engagement. The
High Commissioner would be placed under the Prime Minister’s office and be in charge ofthe creation and promotion of the civic reserve. In the second year of implementation, theEquality and Citizenship Law of 27 January 2017 provided a legislative background for the
reserve, going beyond the Ministry of National Education, and ensuring the reserve’s
continuity. For more information, please see the IRM midterm report. 1
End of Term: Substantial
This commitment remains substantially implemented at the time of the end of term. The
government self-assessment provides no evidence that new steps were taken toward fullcompletion of this commitment. The website dedicated to the civic service in education foryouth was last updated in October 2016, providing the information listed in the midterm
assessment.
The civic reserve has been institutionalised through the Law on Equality and Citizenship n°
2017-86 adopted 27 January 2017. The civic reserve for the national education is enacted
through Article L.911-6-1 of the education code. According to an article published in
Libération, in April 2016 there were about 5,000 volunteers in the civic reserve. When thearticle was published, volunteers began to get frustrated, as no meaningful action had
occurred, despite being enrolled for months; this suggests the policy is mostly symbolic. 2
Did It Open Government?
Access to Information: Did not change
Civic Participation: Did not change
Public Accountability: Did not change
In the midterm IRM report, this commitment was assessed as not relevant to any OGP
values since the activities did not create any new opportunities for citizens to engage in thedecision-making process for civic education. Moreover, the IRM researcher did not find any
information regarding any evaluation of the programs or on concrete, positive results of these
activities. As such, this commitment, as implemented, did not open up government practicein terms of access to information, civic participation, or public accountability.
Carried Forward?
This commitment was not carried over to the next action plan.
1 Independent Reporting Mechanism, France Rapport D'ètape (OGP, 2017),

https://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/France_Progress-Report_2015-2017.pdf.
2 Marie Piquemal, “Réserve citoyenne : «J’en ai assez de cette mascarade, j'abandonne»” (Libération, 6 Apr.

2016), http://www.liberation.fr/france/2016/04/06/reserve-citoyenne-j-en-ai-assez-de-cette-mascarade-jabandonne_1444274 (accessed 5 Oct. 2016).

8920. Diversify recruitment within public institutions
Commitment Text:
ROADMAP
1. Develop new access channels to the civil service, to improve its opening to societyoIn the Bill on ethics and the rights and obligations of civil servants, insert
measures to renew access channels to civil service and open them a larger
diversity of profilesoRenew the preparatory classes mechanism for access to competitive
examinations of category A in the three branches of the civil service,
particularly by increasing by 25% the number of places offered in the
integrated preparatory classes preparing candidates for the competitive
examinations for entry to the civil service from 2015. The objective for 2016 is
to double the number of students, to reach 1,000 placesoDevelop apprenticeship in the civil service by multiplying by 10 the number ofapprentices, to reach an objective of 4,000 by the beginning of the 2016school year and 10,000 for 2017

2. Address discriminatory biases upon entry into the civil serviceoUpon request from the Prime Minister, launch an expert appraisal mission on
discrimination issuesoModify the texts on juries and selection committee’s composition for eachministry to open them to at least one member outside the recruiting
administrationoGeneralize training courses on discrimination prevention for all future
members of juries and selection committeesoGeneralize the procedures for the quality certification of human resources
departments in order to evaluate all their procedures with regard to any
discriminatory risks

Editorial Note: This is a partial version of the commitment text. For the full commitment text
please see France’s national action plan: https://bit.ly/2MTYhsR.
Responsible Institution: Ministry for Decentralization and the Civil Service
Supporting Institution(s): N/A
Start Date: Not Specified
End Date: Not Specified
Commitment
Overview

Specificity

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)Potential
ImpactCompletion

Midterm
End ofTerm

Did It Open
Government?

90✔

Unclear✔

✔
✔

✔

Commitment Aim
This commitment aimed to diversify recruitment of government civil service through twochannels: (i) develop new channels for entry into the civil service; and (ii) address thediscriminatory biases in the recruitment process.
The lack of civil servant diversity has long been the subject of public debate in France. A
2004 report prepared for the Ministry of Public Function and State Reform studied theeducation level, social background, and ethnicity of 38,000 civil servants. It found that
recruitment requirements have become stricter regarding education levels, and candidates
report facing gender, age, ethnic, and disability discrimination. In July 2016, another reportfound that the civil service is not representative of the French population and that the profile
of civil servants at the state and local level is not that of the average French person.
Schools that train civil servants, such as the National School of Administration (ENA), areoften criticized for their lack of diversity. There are 75 public service schools in France which
train future civil servants and that might be affected by the activities proposed in thiscommitment. The commitment does not describe which discrimination issues have been
identified in the civil service recruitment process or whether the proposed measures areappropriate for tackling the identified problem. Due to the complexity of reasons that
contribute to diversity issues in the civil service, it is not clear how modifying access toentrance exams or training courses for the relevant HR personnel can address such issues.
This commitment is of unclear relevance to OGP values, as all proposed initiatives areinternal to government and refer to avenues to apply to either civil service positions or toenrol in a preparatory school.
StatusMidterm: Substantial
This commitment was substantially implemented by the midterm. A “troisième concours” (apre-existing third entrance exam and additional channel for entrance to the civil service) was
created for external candidates coming from civil society, trade unions, or those who haveone or more mandates as assembly members at the local level, including apprenticeship andprofessional contracts. Article 159 of the Equality and Citizenship Act enacted 27 January
2017 establishes that the third exam will allow candidates from more socio-economic
backgrounds and different levels of education to apply to the public service, in all three publicspheres: The State level, the local level, and the hospital public service.
Regarding an increased number of available seats in preparatory classes for entrance exam
A (the highest level of entrance exam), implementation was limited. In 2017, ENA offered 24
spots in its preparatory class, an increase from the 17 offered in 2016 and 2015. While thisactivity aimed to double the number of enrolled students in 2016 to 1,000, it is difficult toquantify. Not all schools publish data on student matriculation and available school data has

91

Outstanding

Major

Marginal

Did Not Change

Worsened

Completed

Substantial

LimitedNot Started

Transformative

Moderate

Minor

Technology &Innovation forTransparency &NonePublic Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to InformationHigh

MediumLow

None
20. Overall

only been published in open data format up to 2014. Regarding an increase in public service
apprenticeships, the government ran a national-level campaign to promote recruitment ofapprentices. An official report, published in June 2016, indicated a 370 percent increase inpublic service apprenticeships, from 763 in 2014 to 3,589 in 2015. In 2015, 4,390
apprenticeships were signed.
Two appraisals of discrimination issues occurred. Olivier Rousselle, a State Council
member, was in charge of one appraisal and its report was published 16 February 2017.
Another appraisal was led by Yannick L’Horty and was handed to the Prime Minister on 12
July 2016. The Rousselle report recommended amending the legislation to open juries andrecruitment committees to at least one person outside the administration. Institutionalisationof this measure within the national public service could be mandated by a State Council
decree. A mandatory sensitisation training and a diversity certification were already inexistence before the national action plan was developed. For more information, please see
the IRM midterm report.1
End of Term: Substantial
This commitment remains substantially implemented by the end of the term. Based on desk
research, there were no significant developments in the second year of implementation.
The issue of access to public service has been integrated in the Law n° 2017-86 on Equality
and Citizenship, adopted 27 January 2017. The government self-assessment indicates thatfive additional seats were created in the ENA preparatory classes and 86 in the preparatoryclasses for the Regional Administrative Institute (IRA). Data was provided on the preparatoryclasses from 2010 to 2014 but has not been updated since 2014. The government selfassessment also indicates that the objectives for 2016 have been fulfilled, with an increase ofalmost 25%, 2 and 10,000 apprenticeships expected for 2017. The IRM researcher did not
find any publicly available information in the number of apprenticeships created during thesecond year of implementation of the action plan. The Ministry of Public Service was active
in a number of reforms to modify access to civil service, including the composition of juries
which should be more professionalised since the circular of 24 June 2015.3
Did It Open Government?
Access to Information: Did Not Change
Civic Participation: Did Not Change
Public Accountability: Did Not Change
Increased access to, and diversity within, the civil service is important for maintaining trust in
public institutions and the legitimacy of public authority. However, as indicated in the midterm
IRM report, this commitment largely focused on internal government reforms and hence was
not relevant to OGP values. As implemented, the commitment activities made some
preparatory steps towards more significant reforms to the civil services, such as the inclusionof a more diverse public, but did not create opportunities for citizens to further engage indecision-making regarding diversity in the civil service, nor were there public-facing
mechanisms established to hold public officials accountable when addressing discriminatory
practices within the civil service. Therefore, the commitment did not clearly relate to OGP
values. Moreover, the IRM researcher did not find any information regarding any evaluationof the initiatives. As such, this commitment did not contribute to open government.
Carried Forward?
This commitment was not carried over to the next action plan.

1 Independent Reporting Mechanism, France Rapport D'ètape (OGP, 2017),

https://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/France_Progress-Report_2015-2017.pdf.

92

2 Ministère de la fonction publique, Les nouveaux apprentis dans la fonction publique en 2015 (2016),

https://www.fonction-publique.gouv.fr/files/files/statistiques/stats-rapides/apprentis-2015.pdf (accessed 6 Oct.
2017).
3 Ministère de la décentralisation et de la fonction publique, Guide pratique Des concours administratifs à l’usage
des présidents et membres de jurys (2015), https://www.fonctionpublique.gouv.fr/files/files/publications/coll_outils_de_la_GRH/guide-concours-administratifs-jurys-2015.pdf(accessed 6 Oct. 2017).

9321. Grow a culture of openness, data literacy and digital technologies
Commitment Text:
ROADMAP
1. Produce, jointly with civil society, training modules on open data, the use of data andopen government, targeting public officials
2. Include more modules on the use of data and open government in initial andcontinuing training programs provided by national and regional civil service training
schools•

Include these modules in the curricula of the Ecole Nationale del’Administration (ENA), of the Ecole de la Modernisation de l’Etat (EME) and inany other schools that wish to support these programs

3. Increase awareness on digital issues for central administration managers and support
the implementation of digital transformation projects:•

Identify requirements, practices, difficulties and desires of central
administration managers concerning digital transformation issues for society
and public policies within their scope of action•

Set up a first seminar in Autumn 2016, for awareness-raising, training andaction on digital issues they have identified and wish to address

Editorial Note: This is a partial version of the commitment text. For the full commitment text
please see France’s national action plan: https://bit.ly/2MTYhsR.
Responsible Institutions: Ministry for Decentralization and the Civil Service; Ministry ofState for State Reform and Simplification, attached to the Prime Minister; Ecole Nationaled’Administration (ENA)
Supporting Institution(s): N/A

21. Overall

✔

✔

✔

✔

Commitment Aim
This commitment aimed to increase the digital literacy of public officials, as well as civil
service students who are prospective public officials. Digital literacy, defined as a set of

94

Major
Outstanding

Completed✔
✔

Marginal

Substantial

End ofTerm

Did It Open
Government?

Did Not Change

Midterm

Worsened

Completion

LimitedTransformative

Moderate

Minor

Potential
ImpactTechnology &Innovation forTransparency &NonePublic Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to Information

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)High

MediumLow

Specificity

None

Commitment
Overview

Not Started

Start Date: Not Specified
End Date: Not Specified

competencies required for full participation in the digital society, has become a core skill for
the workforce and citizens in general. It has been argued that the public sector and elected
officials in France have significant knowledge gaps in digital literacy. An article by Laure
Belot, a journalist at Le Monde, claimed that even the political and social elite in France are
overwhelmed by digital technology. 1 This commitment aimed to address this insufficiency byproducing training modules on open data and open government for current public officials
and civil servants, as well as including modules on these issues in the initial training of future
public officials and civil servants.
Overall, the commitment activities focus on changing internal government practices andreinforcing affirmative attitudes toward openness in data and digital information, and do notdisclose a significant amount of new information or improve the quality of disclosed
information. One of the commitment activities does include engaging civil society to train
public officials, which is participation. However, there is no specific description of what thiswould entail. These activities are a critical first step toward improving the culture of access to
information, but by itself they are not relevant to access to information because the activities
do not include publishing resources or data.
StatusMidterm: Limited
Completion of this commitment was limited at the midterm. During the first year of
implementation, several training modules were developed:• the National Conservatory for Arts and Crafts in Paris and Bretagne launched a oneyear vocational certificate, “National innovation and digital data,” for civil servants;• Open Data France launched a training with Datactiv.ist2 called “Introduction to R and
Data Science” for local civil servants; and• the Next-Generation Internet Foundation (FING) designed the Infolab program for the
public and private sectors.
Most of these trainings were developed by civil society in partnership with public institutions
and attracted few civil servants. The French government was not the driving force behind thetrainings and did not sufficiently advertise the programs. In addition, the midterm assessment
noted that the trainings were too technical and targeted civil servants who already had agood sense of data literacy rather than a broader, less technical audience. Trainings for civil
service schools were more successful, with the National School of Administration (ENA)
launching a continuing training program entitled “Ouvrir et partager des données publiques”(opening and sharing public goods). At Sciences Po Paris, two classes provide training tocivil service students on the use of data and open government.
Lastly, at the Regional Institute of Administration (IRA), students organised a two-day
seminar on how digital technologies can transform government administration. According to
the self-assessment, the government held a 2016 seminar for directors of central
administrations; the seminar discussed digital innovation and e-government but no public
information on decisions made during this seminar was available.
End of Term Limited
Completion of this commitment is still considered limited at the end of term. The government
began training and awareness-raising initiatives but these were hindered by a lack of highlevel support and resources.
Etalab works with a network of open data (not open government) correspondents in eachministry and organises monthly meetings to facilitate communication and collaboration within
this group. There is also a network of ministerial data administrators for higher level civil
servants. Stakeholders note that the awareness and interest for open data and open
government is not equal across ministries. 3 Etalab still lacks sufficient leverage to centralise95and spread information in an efficient manner4 and stakeholders recognised that despite theefforts of the Etalab team, awareness and uptake remain anecdotal. One of the problems
identified by stakeholders is the general lack of high-level support for the topic overall as well
as for the activities of the open data correspondents in each ministry. 5 The Etalab team iscurrently working on an open data guide to train administrators and raise awareness about
the benefits of open data.
On the issue of data literacy, Etalab works with intermediaries, such as OpenData France,
for local governments. OpenDataFrance organised a training of trainers on open data anddata literacy in Aix-en-Provence in September 2017 and in Valence in July 2017. Ten people
became trainers after these sessions. Additional sessions will be organised in Paris in
October 2017.6
Did It Open Government?
Civic Participation: Did Not Change
As written, this commitment was found not largely relevant to OGP values, since the activities
were restricted to reforming internal government procedures. Given the lack of a digital
culture and awareness within the administration, the activities of this commitment are notcompletely irrelevant.7 However, they do not fit OGP standards for impacting government
beyond internally-focused activities. The lack of public information regarding high-level
activities concerning digital knowledge and training makes it difficult for the IRM researcher
to gauge completion of this activity.
One potential avenue for increased civic participation was the involvement of civil society inproducing open data training modules. However, as indicated in the midterm IRM report,these trainings developed by civil society attracted few civil servants (the target audience)and based on public information, there is no clear evidence of the trainings leading to any
significant change in government practices. As such, this commitment did not contribute to
opening government with respect to civic participation. It should be noted that the need fortraining and awareness-raising was seen as central by a large number of stakeholders.
Sarah Labelle, a scholar on the Etalab team in 2016, identified insufficient knowledge about
open data as an important obstacle to opening government in France.8 OpenData France
came to the same conclusion regarding local governments.9
As noted in the midterm report, at the start of this commitment implementation period, theculture of openness, data literacy, or open government was not common knowledge for the
majority of students of public affairs. Such training modules simply did not exist in the
curriculum of high-ranking administration schools and the creation and implementation ofsuch a culture was seen as highly beneficial and would impact all levels of government. This
commitment constitutes a step towards data literacy in the civil service, which in turn is a prerequisite for contributing to better access to information and a more open government ingeneral.
Carried Forward?
This commitment was carried over to the next action plan, with a focus on the designation ofdata administrators in all ministries and on the creation of digital service incubators in all
ministries.

1 Laure Belot, “Les elites debordees par le numerique” (Le Monde, 6 Apr. 2016).

http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2013/12/26/les-elites-debordees-par-lenumerique_4340397_651865.html (accessed 6 Oct. 2017).
2 Disclaimer: Datactivi.st, the organization involved in training local civil servants on statistical analysis tools, hired
the IRM researcher, Cecile LeGuen, responsible for assessing implementation of the first year of the OGP Action

96Plan. However, while the researcher attended the training module, the researcher was not involved in the designof this training program.
3 Member of Open Source Politics, personal communication with the IRM researcher, 31 Oct. 2017; Former
member of the Prime Minister’s cabinet, personal communication with the IRM researcher, 6 Nov. 2017.
4 Etalab team, personal communication with the IRM researcher, 23 Oct. 2017.
5 Former member of the Prime Minister’s cabinet, personal communication with the IRM researcher, 6 Nov. 2017.
6 OpenData France, OpenDataLocal: 1e promotion de formateurs (OpenData France, 27 Sept. 2017),
http://www.opendatafrance.net/2017/09/27/opendatalocale-1ere-promotion-de-formateurs/ (accessed 6 Oct.
2017).
7 Former member of the Prime Minister’s cabinet, personal communication with the IRM researcher, 6 Nov. 2017.
8 Sarah Labelle, personal communication with the IRM researcher, 2 Nov. 2017.
9 OpenData France, Rapport sur les dispositifs d’accompagnement des collectivites locales a l’ouverture desdonnees publiques (OpenData France, Oct. 2016), https://cdn2.nextinpact.com/medias/rapport-odf-ct.pdf.

9722. Spread public innovation, and develop research on Open Government
Commitment Text:
ROADMAP
1. Drive the development of territorial public innovation•

Constitute a national network of "public accelerators": creation of territorial innovation
platforms, "structures for sharing expertise and resources between administrations,elected representatives, State services, civil society and private organizations in aregion, to accelerate innovative projects in the general interest". Prototypes are being
implemented in several territories at the initiative of local authorities and private
players•

Make the digital a driver for transformation in the territories through "territorial
hackathons" modeled on Etalab’s practices and intended for local authorities.

•

Develop a reference social network and national web platform for the projects andactors of regional and local innovation

2. Set up a program of applied research on open government•

In partnership with the Interdisciplinary Research Centre, organize collaborative
events and explore the mobilization of collective intelligence and communities ofcitizens for the creation of public innovations, the co-construction of public action andopen government

Editorial Note: This is a partial version of the commitment text. For the full commitment text
please see France’s national action plan: https://bit.ly/2MTYhsR.
Responsible Institutions: Ministry for the Decentralization and the Civil Service; Ministry ofState for State Reform and Simplification, attached to the Prime Minister
Supporting Institution(s): N/A

22. Overall

✔

✔

✔

✔

Commitment Aim
The commitment aimed to help local authorities develop digital innovation in the public sector
by creating innovation platforms, supporting local hackathons, and developing a social
network for local innovation. Secondly, it sought to promote better understanding of open

98

Outstanding

Major

Completed

Marginal

Substantial✔
✔

End ofTerm

Did It Open
Government?

Did Not Change

Midterm

Worsened

Completion

LimitedTransformative

Moderate

Minor

Potential
ImpactTechnology &Innovation forTransparency &NonePublic Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to Information

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)High

MediumLow

Specificity

None

Commitment
Overview

Not Started

Start Date: Not Specified
End Date: Not Specifiedgovernment by supporting research on the topic. This commitment is based on the idea that
digital innovation must be spread evenly across the public sector, especially at the local
level. The commitment activities include joining local and state authorities in the challenge to
identify and test new methods for designing public policy involving all stakeholders.
StatusMidterm: Limited
Completion of this commitment was limited at the midterm. Two calls for proposals financedby the Future Investments Program (Investissements d’Avenir) were launched in 2016:“Professional territorial communities” and “Territorial innovation laboratories. 1” A hackathon
on open contracting data was organised by SGMAP, Bretagne Regional Council, and Breizh
Small Business Act association in Rennes organised and gathered 70 participants who
worked in four thematic groups.
Regarding the program of applied research on open government, no formal research
program had been established at the end of the first year. However, a partnership agreement
was concluded with CNRS (National Centre for Scientific Research) to include a researcher(Sarah Labelle from the University Paris 13) on the Etalab team. Her work was featured
during an event organised in October 2016 to debate and discuss emerging participative
practices taking place in local administrations as well as in the private sector. Lastly, theCenter for Research and Interdisciplinarity (CRI), the French Embassy in London, and theinnovation foundation, Nesta, organised a seminar entitled “Digital Government: Next Steps& Potential Futures,” with 26 researchers from France and the UK.
End of Term: Limited
Completion of this commitment is still considered limited in accordance with the government
self-assessment. Several activities were undertaken during the implementation period but
they do not fulfil the objectives that the government set out in the commitment text.
The calls for proposals financed by the Future Investments Program selected twelve
initiatives in the “Territorial innovation laboratories” category, of which three had a digitalcomponent, mostly focussed on generating collaboration between public and private actors
on digital issues. The IRM researcher, however, was not able to find any publicly available
information regarding initiatives awarded in the “Professional territorial communities”
category.
Sarah Labelle spent five months with the Etalab team, splitting her time between supporting
the team’s operations and conducting her research. Her activities focused on developing aframework to understand civil servants’ training needs, developing communication material,and providing visual supporting materials for meetings. She worked with OpenData France todevelop a series of modules that have since been tested.2 Her main suggestion from thistime spent with the Etalab team is that such innovations should be influenced both byresearch (data science, computer science, sociology, political science, communication, etc.)
and the host administration.
Regarding the commitment activity to develop a formal research program, the IRM
researcher could not find any publicly available information on whether this was started.
Did It Open Government?
Civic Participation: Did Not ChangeThis commitment aimed to improve opportunities for the public to inform or influence
decisions through territorial public innovations and investment in applied research on the
topic of open government. The limited completion of the activities makes it hard to observe
any significant change in government practices. The activities that were implemented,
namely the call for proposals and the short-term integration of a researcher within the Etalab99

team did not contribute to any significant changes in government practice regarding civic
participation because the scope of the activities was too limited. Insufficient publicly-available
information exists on any permanent adoption of the activities implemented. As such thiscommitment is considered to have not opened government practice with regards to civic
participation.
Carried Forward?
This commitment was carried over to the next action plan. In the new action plan, thiscommitment is focussed on the General Interest Entrepreneurs (EIG) (Entrepreneursd’intérêt general), which the government want to institutionalise through consistent funding
and the development of an alumni network. The commitment also mentions an objective todevelop bills and regulations based on the EIG experience to foster technological innovationin public administrations. The new action plan contains a commitment on the development ofan “open science” ecosystem, with planned actions such as increasing transparency of
research funding, develop an open archive and promote open access to research.

1 In French, territoire refers to a sub-national geographic area.
2 More information can found here: http://opendatalocale.net/index.php/jeu-serieux-les-explorateurs-des-donnees-

territoriales/ (accessed 2 Nov. 2017).

100

✪23. Empowering and protecting public officials in preventing conflicts of interest
Commitment Text:
ROADMAP

Appoint an official, a service, or a legal entity under public law to provide agents
under their authority with all relevant advice in respect of ethical obligations andprinciples

Introduce legal provisions to better prevent conflicts of interests and to protect civil
servants- Put in place a system for agents responsible for certain functions to declaretheir interests- Reinforce and widen the area of competence of the ethics committee, which
will be expanded to include the prevention of conflicts of interest andreinforced in the area of the control of civil servant’s transitions to the private
sector- Introduce a protection mechanism in the general statute of officials, so as toallow an agent acting in good faith to report the existence of a conflict ofinterest without fear of reprisals

Responsible Institution: Ministry of Public Action and Accounts
Supporting Institution(s): N/A

✔ ✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

Commitment Aim
This commitment aimed to update the ethical rights and obligations of civil servants and tostrengthen preventive measures against conflicts of interests. The commitment builds on
recent efforts to reinforce transparency, such as the laws on the transparency in public life
adopted 11 October 2013. The commitment has three main objectives: (i) assisting civil
servants with ethics advice; (ii) extending interest and asset declaration obligations; and (iii)
introducing a whistleblower protection mechanism. The commitment creates an ethics
advisor in all ministries and expands the ethics commission’s authority to ensuring stability inthese new positions and creating a new advisory role regarding codes of conduct for public

101

Outstanding

Major

Completed

Marginal

Substantial

End ofTerm

Did It Open
Government?

Did Not Change

Midterm

Worsened

Completion

LimitedTransformative

Moderate

Minor

Potential
ImpactTechnology &Innovation forTransparency &NonePublic Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to Information

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)High

MediumLow✪23. Overall

Specificity

None

Commitment
Overview

Not Started

Start date: Not specified
End date: Not specified

services. This commitment promises legal innovation: modifying the statute for civil servants
to emphasise six core values (dignity, fairness, integrity, probity, neutrality, and separation ofchurch and state); introducing preventive measures against conflicts of interest; andwidening whistleblower protection over officials reporting conflicts of interest.
StatusMidterm: Complete
This commitment was complete by the midterm. The promulgation of Law n°2016-483 in
April 2016 on the ethics, rights, and duties of civil servants contains provisions on: (i) thedefinition of a conflict of interest and civil servants’ duties to prevent them; (ii) the extensionof whistleblower protection over conflicts of interest; (iii) the mandatory declaration of assets
and interests for certain high-level civil servants; (iv) the extension of the ethics commission’s
authority to ensure stability in ethics-code advising to public services; and (v) the creation ofan ethics advisor position in all national and local administrations. The midterm report could
not assess the implementation of the law since it fell outside its timeframe. Decrees n° 20161967, n° 2016-1968, n° 2017-105, and n° 2017-519 specify how the law will be implemented.
For more information, please see the IRM midterm report. 1
According to the government self-assessment, the government considers the first milestoneof its roadmap (ethics advisors) to be complete. The second milestone, comprising civil
servants’ declarations, the extended authority of the ethics commission, and the protection ofwhistleblowers to be substantially implemented. The government issued four decrees
detailing how the law will be implemented.
Decree n° 2017-519, introducing ethics advisors in national and local administrations,specifies that the ethics advisor can be (i) one or several individual(s) presently or formerly
working for the administration; (ii) a committee of individuals internal or external to theadministration whose prerogatives are set by the head of the administration; or (iii) a sharingof the function between several administrations. The IRM researcher did not find sufficientpublic information to assess if these ethics advisors were nominated by the time of this report(September-October 2017).
Decrees n° 2016-1967 and n° 2016-1968 provide a list of targeted civil servants, such as
managing directors of national administrations, ministerial procurement officers, and generalsecretaries for regional affairs, who are required to declare interests and assets.2 The High
Authority for the Transparency of Public Life (HATVP) notes that the key change in the April
2016 law is the establishment of obligations and control mechanisms proportional to thedegree that civil servants are exposed to conflicts of interest. The 11 October 2013 law
requires elected officials to file their declarations with the HATVP; the 20 April 2016 law
makes the requirement more personal, requiring officials to file their declarations with theirsuperior and are only to be sent to the HATVP in case of doubt. 3 The law also authorised the
HATVP and the Ethics Commission to exchange information, and leaders of these agencies
signed a protocol to reinforce their collaboration on 27 September 2017.4
Decree n° 2017-105 extends the responsibilities and competences of the Ethics Commission
and modifies its composition. As a result of this decree, the Ethics Commission is now
authorised to examine public official leaving public service to work in the private sector, thecompetitive public sector (service public concurrentiel), or to start their own company. The
examination of these cases by the Ethics Commission is now mandatory, following which,the commission gives a judgment within two months.5 This judgement is mandatory if thecommission expresses reservations or judges the case to be incompatible with ethicalstandards.6 The new law also prolongs the timeframe for direct referral (auto-saisine) by thecommission. In addition, the commission is now allowed to request from private and publicpersons all the documents and information it deems necessary for its work. In its 2015
annual report, the Ethics Commission comments on the new law and regrets that certain
lucrative activities undertaken by civil servants remain out its realm of control, namely those102with micro-enterprise status (formerly auto-enterprise). 7 Since 2016, full-time civil servantscannot be involved in micro-enterprises, with a few exceptions like consulting projects orteaching.8
Regarding whistleblower protection, the new 2016 law states that no measures can be taken
as reprisal against an official who reports facts that could constitute a conflict of interest – aprotection that previously only concerned the reporting of criminal offenses.
Did It Open Government?
Access to Information: Did not change
Public Accountability: Major
When France joined OGP, the government initiated a series of reforms to increasetransparency in public life but the ethical rights and obligation of civil servants required
updating. There was no definition in the general statute of civil servants of what constituted a
conflict of interest and whistleblowers reporting conflicts of interest were not protected.
Adoption and implementation of Law n° 2016-483 on the ethics, rights and duties of civil
servants clarified ethical standards in the public sector and, as such, contributed to opening
government regarding public accountability, but the developments remain limited in scope.
There is now a definition of “conflict of interest” and the new legal framework creates
obligations and control mechanisms proportional to the risk that civil servants are exposed toconflicts of interest. Through ethics advisors, a mechanism is legally provided to help civil
servants understand and deal with ethical problems. However, the absence of information on
the mechanisms proposed to protect whistleblowers, the vagueness as to the prerogatives
and training of ethical advisors, and the obscure modification of the Ethics Commission makeit difficult to assess implementation at this stage. The IRM researcher did not find any
information on how these developments specifically affect the composition and resources
allocated to the commission which could represent a risk of undermining the work of thecommission. Therefore, this commitment is considered to have contributed to a major, rather
than an outstanding, opening of government practice in this area.
The commitment was also coded as relevant to access to information. However, mostactivities constituted internal reforms with no additional information available to the public.
Though some civil servants will be required to declare their interests and assets, thisinformation will not be published as the declarations are addressed to their superiors and to
the HATVP only if necessary. Therefore, the IRM researcher finds government practice, interms of increasing access to information in this area, was not changed.
Carried Forward?
This commitment was not carried over to the next action plan. The new action plan howevercontains a commitment on increased transparency of lobbying.

1 Independent Reporting Mechanism, France Rapport D'ètape (OGP, 2017),

https://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/France_Progress-Report_2015-2017.pdf.
2 Decree 2016-1967, chapter 1 and articles 1 – 5 of Decree 2016-1968.
3 Gabriel Poifoulot, Probité de la vie publique : vers une harmonisation du cadre déontologique applicable à
l’ensemble des responsables publics (HATVP, 28 Jul. 2016), http://www.hatvp.fr/presse/vers-une-harmonisationdu-cadre-deontologique-applicable-a-lensemble-des-responsables-publics/ (accessed 11 Sept. 2017).
4 HATVP, La Haute Autorité et la Commission de déontologie renforcent leurs relations (HATVP, Sept. 2017),
http://www.hatvp.fr/presse/la-haute-autorite-et-la-commission-de-deontologie-renforcent-leurs-relations/.
5 Commission de déontologie de la fonction publique, Rapport d’activitié 2015 Accès des agents publics au
secteur privé Rapport au Premier minister (accessed 11 Sept. 2017), https://www.fonctionpublique.gouv.fr/files/files/publications/coll_outils_de_la_GRH/deontologie/2015-rapport-deontologie.pdf.

103

6 Les centres de gestions de la fonction publique territoriale de Bretagne, Analyse détaillée de la loi déontologie
Impacts statutaires – FPT (10 Oct. 2016),
https://portail.cdg35.fr/beacdf17e90166e1ba64332030865eexy/iedit/11/76162_105288_fi_deontologie_Mutualise
e_V6.pdf (accessed 11 Sept. 2017).
7 Commission de déontologie de la fonction publique, Rapport d’activitié 2015 Accès des agents publics au
secteur privé Rapport au Premier minister.
8 More information can be found here: https://www.legalstart.fr/fiches-pratiques/autoentrepreneur/fonctionnaireautoentrepreneur/.

104

Theme V: Open Government for Climate and Sustainable Development
24. Involve civil society in the COP21 conference and promote transparency regarding
the agenda and negotiations
Commitment Text:
ROADMAP••

Bring together civil society’s representatives before each informal negotiating meetingo

A first meeting was organized before the informal session on climate
negotiations on 6-8 May 2015, with civil society (French and internationalNGOs, representatives of unions at the UN…) in order to present the workand the state of progress of negotiations and take part in the discussionoNew meetings will take place alongside the forthcoming negotiation sessions

Create a participatory platform to mobilize civil society in preparation for COP 21,
which may be extended to other consultationsoo•Between June and November 2015, draft a first version, with the aim of:raising awareness of environmental dialogue and the main stakes ofthe energy transitionorganize a network involving inhabitants, action groups, project
holders, companies, local authorities and stakeholders

facilitate contacts and cooperation between the various players inenvironmental e-citizenship, including through online exchanges

create decentralized cooperation and develop a community of players
in environmental e-citizenshipcollect the suggestions and opinions of Internet users to allow thecollaborative listing of local initiatives and constitute a broad database

Develop of a second version of the platform in order to ensure that citizens'
mobilization lasts beyond COP 21. This second version could be extended
further to support future citizens' consultations led by the Ministry of Ecology,
Sustainable Development and Energy

Continue the consultation on climate issues in order to follow up on from the global
citizens' debate on 6 June 2015, which assembled more than 10,000 citizens from 75
countries

Editorial Note: This is a partial version of the commitment text. For the full commitment text
please see France’s national action plan: https://bit.ly/2MTYhsR.
Responsible Institutions: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development;
Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy; National Commission for Public
DebateSupporting Institution(s): N/A
Start Date: Not Specified
End Date: Not Specified
Commitment
Overview

Specificity

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)Potential
ImpactCompletion

Midterm
End ofTerm

Did It Open
Government?

105

✔
✔

✔

Commitment Aim
This commitment aimed to mobilise civil society for COP21 by, among other tools, an online
platform. The commitment was included in the action plan in light of the 21st Session of theConference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(COP21/CMP11), hosted and chaired in Paris in December 2015. The aim of this conference
was to achieve a new international agreement on climate change, applicable to all countries,
with the aim of keeping global warming below 2°C.
Given the high interest of civil society in previous COPs and the Paris Agreement, climate
activists were already mobilised for COP21. Civil society, both French and international, hadbeen preparing for the conference, both through offline and online engagement. This
commitment added little to the already ongoing massive mobilisation efforts by civil society.
Commitment activities contained no details on how many meetings were planned, which civilsociety representatives would be invited, or what mechanisms would be used to sustain
citizens’ engagement beyond COP21.
StatusMidterm: Limited
Completion of this commitment was limited at the midterm. A meeting with representatives ofcivil society took place in an informal consultation session on 15-16 April 2016 in Paris to
discuss how future informal meetings with civil society should be held at COPs. Participants
agreed on the process for organising these meetings including: “agreeing on a guidance
document as a base to conduct the informal meetings; starting the informal meetings process
as early as possible ahead of the COP conference; utilizing various inputs and submissions;and making sure those inputs are incorporated into the negotiations.”
In the run-up to the conference, and independent of the government, French andinternational civil society organised numerous debates and initiatives to be held in andaround Paris during the two weeks of COP21. At no point was the government involved in
the above activities. The terror attacks that occurred in Paris of November 2015 led to a
State of Emergency that continued during COP21 and restricted public protests, including the
Climate March, and obstructed civil society engagement in COP21 activities.
The Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy created a participatory
platform to mobilise civil society in preparation for COP 21. The platform can be used bycitizens to offer ideas and comments on environmental issues but the platform was not used
for input on the Bill on Biodiversity; a separate platform was used for this purpose between
21 December 2015 and 8 January 2016. Results of conversations from this platform were notavailable and the development of the second version of the platform was not started during
the first year of implementation.
End of Term: Limited

106

Outstanding

Major

Marginal

Did Not Change

Worsened

Completed

Substantial

LimitedNot Started✔

Transformative✔

Moderate

Minor

Public Accountability

Civic Participation✔ ✔

Technology &Innovation forTransparency &None✔

Access to InformationHigh

MediumLow

None
24. OverallCompletion of this commitment is still coded as limited at the end of term. The government
self-assessment marks the commitment as completed but does not provide any evidence of
new activities being implemented since the midterm assessment. Most activities of thiscommitment relate to COP21 and were thus bound to be achieved in the first year of
implementation.
Decree n° 2016-1060, issued 3 August 2016, concerns access to information and public
participation in decision-making on environmental issues. Implementing measures are
specified in Decree n° 2017-626 issued 25 April 2017 and provide new tools for civil society
to participate in the elaboration of environmental policies, clarify the procedures of public
consultations, establish what documents should be shared beforehand, and largely digitalize
public consultations to facilitate access.
During the first year of implementation, the National Commission for Public Debate (CNDP)
organised a debate and presented its results at COP21. In order to continue the debate, theCNDP held a session during the OGP Summit in Paris in December 2016 on the topic “Howto involve citizens in meeting the commitments made by governments in the Paris
Agreement?" The IRM researcher did not find any public information on the outcomes of thissession.
The IRM researcher found no public information on the development of a second version of aplatform facilitating citizen participation in environmental policy.
In the second year of implementation, the government self-assessment mentions that, after
consulting public and relevant stakeholders, the Ministry of Environment, Energy and the Sea(MEEM) published a public participation charter with four articles: Article 1 states that public
participation requires a clear and shared framework; Article 2 adds the requirement of aconstructive mind-set; Article 3 states that such participation requires the government to seek
and facilitate a wide mobilisation; and Article 4 that public participation should encourage
citizens’ power of initiative.1
Did It Open Government?
Access to Information: Did Not Change
Civic Participation: Did Not ChangeThis commitment first and foremost concerned the preparation for COP21 and thenegotiations during that conference. Given that the commitment is context-bound, it did nothave the ambition to change long-term government practices. However, the activities
undertaken during COP21 could be said to create a precedent for including the public ininternational negotiations. None of the activities undertaken in the framework of thiscommitment led to more or better information disclosed to the public. As such, thiscommitment did not open government regarding access to information.
Public consultation has increased on environmental issues due to a favourable legal
framework. MEEM developed a public consultation website in 2013 following Law n° 20121460, adopted 27 December 2012, on public participation. The website is still actively used
but cannot be considered in the IRM coding since it was developed prior to the action plan.
Except for the public participation charter, the IRM researcher found no new tools or
platforms to encourage public participation on environmental policy. Decrees n° 2016-1060
and n° 2017-626 facilitate public consultation and coordinate action on environmental issues
but the measures are yet to be implemented.
Carried Forward?
This commitment was carried over to the next action plan. In the new action plan, thecommitment focuses on including public contributions in the monitoring and evaluation of the107National Plan for Adaptation to Climate Change; on coordinating ministries for the action
plan; and on raising public awareness to encourage participation.
1 The charter is available here: https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/Charte_participation_public.pdf (accessed 9 Oct. 2017).

10825. Open Data and Models Related to Climate and Sustainable Development
Commitment Text:
ROADMAP• Provide on the platform data.gouv.fr data, models and simulators regarding climate, energy
transition and sustainable development• Release and publish data from impact assessment studies realized by the Ministry of
Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy
Editorial Note: This is a partial version of the commitment text. For the full commitment text
please see France’s national action plan: https://bit.ly/2MTYhsR.
Responsible Institutions: Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy;
Minister of State for State Reform and Simplification attached to the Prime Minister
Supporting Institution(s): N/A

✔

✔

✔

✔
Commitment Aim
This commitment aimed to raise awareness of climate issues using open data to produce
current and informative data visualisations paired with a new range of datasets, as well as
providing opportunities for third parties to suggest solutions to climate challenges, using this
newly-released data.
It includes two activities: 1) provide models regarding climate and sustainable developmenton the government open data platform; and 2) publish data from impact assessment studies
carried out by the Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy.
StatusMidterm: Substantial
This commitment was substantially implemented by the midterm. Out of the 500 datasets on
climate, energy and sustainable development that were supposed to be published todata.gouv.fr according to the government self-assessment, the midterm assessment found
27 of these datasets were tagged as "climate," 81 datasets as "energy," and 52 datasets
were tagged as “sustainable development.” If other datasets related to those three topics
exist, they were said to be difficult to identify. Météo France published its models on

109

Outstanding

Major

Completed✔

Marginal

Substantial

End ofTerm

Did It Open
Government?

Did Not Change

Midterm

Worsened

Completion

Limited✔

Transformative✔

25. Overall

Moderate

Minor

Potential
ImpactTechnology &Innovation forTransparency &NonePublic Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to Information

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)High

MediumLow

Specificity

None

Commitment
Overview

Not Started

Start Date: Not Specified
End Date: December 2015

data.gouv.fr and its own platform, donneespubliques.meteofrance.fr, providing prediction andatmospheric forecasting models and simulators. 458 datasets were compiled on thegovernment’s open data portal for the Climate Change Challenge and were presented during
a series of hackathons, which Etalab helped organise. As of July 2016, data on air quality
models was missing from the platform.
End of Term: Substantial
Completion of this commitment is still coded as substantial at the end of term. The mostsignificant development in the second year of implementation was the adoption of the law on
biodiversity n° 2016-1087 on 8 August 2016.
The government self-assessment reports that raw data from impact studies should betransferred to the Museum of Natural History and published in open data format. The IRM
researcher however finds the law (Article 7) to have a slightly different meaning, namely thatraw data on biodiversity, gathered by project managers – public or private – during an impact
assessment shall be included in the national inventory of natural heritage, managed andvalidated by the Museum of Natural History. The IRM researcher could not find any public
information on the publication of this data. The law on biodiversity also created the French
Agency on Biodiversity, but it is not clear how this agency is relevant to OGP values.
In October 2017, there were 33 datasets tagged "climate," 83 datasets tagged "energy," and97 datasets tagged “sustainable development.” The government self-assessment indicatesthat data on air quality should be available on data.gouv.fr. The IRM researcher finds that the
information provided through the data.gouv.fr link consists only of a map of air quality inmetropolitan France and that no dataset was available. Information is provided by PREV’AIR,
the national platform on air quality prevision.
Did It Open Government?
Access to Information: Marginal
This commitment opened a number of new datasets on climate and sustainable
development. However, the relevance of the data opened in the framework of thiscommitment remains unclear. As such, this commitment marginally opened government
regarding access to information.
Despite the new datasets available on data.gouv.fr in open data format, the lack of specificityof this commitment’s activities and the difficulty of measuring resulting changes ingovernment practices limits the impact of the commitment, as pointed out in the midterm IRM
assessment. Moreover, the IRM researcher could not find any public information on thecriteria and logic of selection of data to be publish, nor on the regularity of which the data
should be updated.
Carried Forward?
This commitment was carried forward to the next action plan. In the new action plan, thecommitment focuses on making an inventory of the data produced by the Ministry of
Ecological Transition and by the Ministry of Territorial Cohesion; on opening new data on
waste management, construction permits, pesticide sales; and on giving public access todata on environmental impact.

11026. Initiate new collaborations with civil society to develop innovative solutions tomeet the challenges of climate and sustainable development
Commitment Text:
ROADMAP• Launch and organize the first stages of the C3 operation throughout 2015
• Reward the winners of the C3 operation during the COP21 Conferenceo Laureates of the C3 challenge organized in parallel by the Mexican
government will also be present in Paris• Continue the operation in 2016 and 2017o Monitor and support the best innovative projects capitalize on the best
challenges to issue new calls for proposal, perpetuate online tools forexpression by citizens
Editorial Note: This is a partial version of the commitment text. For the full commitment text
please see France’s national action plan: https://bit.ly/2MTYhsR.
Responsible Institutions: Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy,
Ministry of State for State Reform and Simplification, attached to the Prime Minister; Météo
France; Institut national de l’information géographique et forestière (IGN); Centre Nationald’Etudes Spatiales (CNES)
Supporting Institution(s): N/A

26. Overall

✔

✔ ✔

✔

✔
✔

✔

Commitment Aim
The C3 (Climate Change Challenge) is an international initiative to mobilise citizens, public
and private actors and experts to take action on climate change. This commitment aimed toorganise meetings and a competition to foster collaboration to come up with innovative
solutions for climate change and sustainable development. These activities were launched in
May 2015 in preparation for COP21 and occurred in four different French cities for threemajor milestones: a vision camp, which includes collaborative creativity workshops on
climate change needs, a challenge workshop to clarify and enrich ideas and challenges, andan innovation hackathon to develop selected solutions.
StatusMidterm: Substantial

111

Outstanding

Major

Completed

Marginal

Substantial

End ofTerm

Did It Open
Government?

Did Not Change

Midterm

Worsened

Completion

LimitedTransformative

Moderate

Minor

Potential
ImpactTechnology &Innovation forTransparency &NonePublic Accountability

Civic Participation

Access to Information

OGP Value
Relevance (aswritten)High

MediumLow

Specificity

None

Commitment
Overview

Not Started

Start Date: Not Specified
End Date: 2017

This commitment was substantially implemented by the midterm. The first stages of C3
operation were launched and the winners of the C3 challenge were awarded during COP21.
This momentum continued with the “100 projects for the climate” competition.
The three stages of C3, which consist of organising three workshops, are: the expression ofneeds; the clarification of needs into actionable projects; and a hackathon to develop theideas identified in phase 2. Those stages were carried out in four cities (Paris, Lyon,
Toulouse and Nantes) in 2015. However, two of these meetings were held before thepublication of the action plan on 15 July 2015. The first stage of C3, “Vision Camp,” waslaunched in May 2015, the second stage, “Challenge Workshop”, was held 7-9 July 2015,
and the third stage, “Innovation Jam,” occurred 6-8 November 2015.
The first stage resulted in identifying eight priority themes, ranging from biodiversity to healthand the economy. The second stage consisted of workshops that clarified the problems
identified during the first stage using the open datasets published by the government andshaping them into solvable challenges. The third stage, Innovation Jam, was a hackathon
where teams with multiple areas of expertise had to develop solutions in 36 hours. These
three workshops were attended by citizens, students, experts, and public and private sector
representatives. During the events, more than 200 people participated through 29 teams.
In 2016, the Ministry of the Environment, Energy and Marine Affairs issued two calls for best
projects on energy consumption and biodiversity. A dedicated website was created enabling
citizens to vote for the 100 best projects fighting climate change. The winners were selected
in July 2016. The project covered a wide range of environmental issues, including
reforestation, poverty reduction, sustainable agriculture, waste collection, prevention of foodwaste, recycling, clean cookstoves, threats to biodiversity, fair trade, green transportation,
electric cars, and sustainable energy.
End of Term: Substantial
This commitment is still considered substantially implemented by the end-of-term. Most
activities of the commitment were completed during the first year of implementation. The C3
initiative was scheduled to be implemented in 2015 and the winners of the challenges were
to be announced during COP21. The momentum was planned to be extended into thesecond year of implementation but the lack of specificity in the commitment makes it difficult
to gauge completion. Building on the momentum of COP 21, “100 projects for climate” aimed
to encourage citizen-led initiatives to combat global warming. The initiative enabled citizens
to vote for their 100 favourite innovative solutions from around the world. The selected
projects were presented at COP22 in Marrakesh, held on 7-18 November 2016.
Did It Open Government?
Access to Information: Did Not Change
Civic Participation: Did Not ChangeThis commitment was considered to be relevant for access to information and civic
participation. However, the activities undertaken as part of this commitment concerned civic
participation far more than access to information. Even regarding civic participation, theactivities were time-bound and the government did not play a leading role. As such, thiscommitment did not open government regarding access to information or civic participation.
This commitment encouraged a participatory approach to environmental issues andpromoted civil society-led solutions. However, the activities were timebound and it is unclear
if they contributed to permanent changes in government practices. In addition, the “100projects for climate” is an international initiative led by France and it is hard to identify
engagement of the French government beyond this coordination.

112

Carries Forward?
This commitment was not carried over to the next action plan.

113

Methodological Note
The end-of-term report is based on desk research and interviews with governmental andnongovernmental stakeholders. The IRM report builds on the findings of the government’s
self-assessment report; other assessments of progress by civil society, the private sector, orinternational organisations; and the previous IRM progress report.
This report is based on a desk review of governmental programmes, laws andimplementation decrees; a review of Etalab’s digital monitoring platform; stakeholderinterviews and monitoring of the media; and institutional and CSO websites.

Sofia Wickberg is a PhD student in political science at Sciences Po in Paris, where she is affiliated with
the Centre for European Studies and the Laboratory for Interdisciplinary Evaluation of Public Policies.
Her research focuses on the politics of anticorruption and the definition of corruption as a public
problem in Western Europe. Her work has been published in Ethique Publique, Palgrave McMillian, and
the Presses de l’Université de Laval. Before starting her PhD, she worked as a research officer forTransparency International's secretariat in Berlin. She is a founding member of the Interdisciplinary
Corruption Research Network (https://www.icrnetwork.org/) and regularly collaborates with theOECD, the U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, and Transparency International.
The Open Government Partnership (OGP) aims to secure concrete commitments fromgovernments to promote transparency, to empower citizens, to fight corruption, andto harness new technologies to strengthen governance. OGP’s Independent Reporting
Mechanism assesses development and implementation of national action plans tofoster dialogue among stakeholders and to improve accountability.

114