PRESS RELEASE

11 October 2022

PUBLIC THEMATIC REPORT

UNIVERSITY REAL ESTATE

As the second largest budget item for universities after the wage bill, real estate is a strategic factor

of primary importance for the integration of universities in their territory, and a central element

for the reception of students and the fulfilment of scientific objectives. It is also at the heart of the

issue of self government. For the State, the stakes are no less high, since it remains the

overwhelming owner of these properties (82% of the total). However, it must, like the universities,

face up to the indispensable task of upgrading this asset

–

representing 18 million m² of premises,

78% of which are devoted to teaching or sports activities

–

a third of which is in a poor or

unsatisfactory condition and which only rarely meets energy saving needs. The Court of Accounts

has repeatedly emphasised the importance of real estate policy, both for the institutions and for

the State. This report, which does not take into account aspects relating to student

accommodation, gives an opinion on the adaptation of the building stock to teaching needs and

student demographics, the diverse methods of financing investments and the conditions to be met

to ensure successful devolution of the stock.

Recognised priorities, scattered results

At the end of its investigation, the Court noted a strong mobilisation of all stakeholders

–

including

the Directorate-General for Higher Education and Professional Integration (DGESIP) for the Ministry

of Higher Education, and the State-Owned Real Estate Department (DIE) for the Ministry of the

Economy and Finance. Universities, on the other hand, have realised the importance of effective real

estate management. However, there is still a long way to go. Knowledge of these assets, although

improved over the years, remains imperfect. All too often, the information systems chosen by

universities are not compatible with those developed by the State. This results in cumbersome data

management, but also in the inaccuracy of certain points in the national reference systems set up by

the DIE, such as the sanitary quality of buildings or their energy performance. Overall knowledge of

university real estate is incomplete. The multi-year real estate strategy plans (SPSIs) are a central

element of knowledge and management by the institutions of their real estate policy. Budgetary

traceability of real estate expenditure is the other aspect of effective property management. Only the

seven universities that have opted for full ownership of their real estate are obliged to draw up a

specific budget, but its content is not standardised. However, respect for the independence of

institutions should not stand in the way of the gradual harmonisation of information systems and the

widespread preparation of specific property budgets in a standard format. Thanks to funding from

the State-Region Plan Contracts (CPERs), which marks an increasing effort by local authorities, or

exceptional State programmes such as the Campus Plan or the Recovery Plan, priority is now given to

the renovation of buildings rather than to construction. However, this effort is not enough to bring

up to standard a stock that suffers from a lack of maintenance, more than a third of which is classified

as being in poor or unsatisfactory condition. Overall energy performance is poor, while this expense

is increasing due to tariff increases and the development of digital technology.

Diverse funding that does not satisfy the overall need

Universities do not have the means to fulfil their maintenance obligations, as the funding of university

real estate remains inadequate. The resources allocated for routine maintenance, as well as for major

maintenance and renewal, are below the level required to keep the assets in good condition. This

shortfall is further accentuated by the fact that the overall amount devoted to real estate in the

State’s public service grant

(SCSP) has stagnated for over ten years. Exceptional programmes have

been implem

ented in response to crises, such as the Campus Plan (€3

billion in 2021), the Future

Investment Programmes (PIAs), and the Recovery Plan following the health crisis. However, this

catch-up effect does not meet the overall need. The Ministry of Higher Education estimates the cost

of the pending rehabilitation at €7 billion, 75% of which would be related to the energy and

environmental transition. For its part, France Universités has put the amount for total renovation at

€15 billion

.

The issue of transfer of ownership

While the transfer of property is still an exception, the Court has repeatedly stressed that there can

be no autonomy for universities without full ownership of their real estate, as is the case in most

European countries. The Government announced in December 2021 that it would continue this

process. The challenge is to increase the value of the property stock (rentals, disposals, etc.) and the

ability to generate recurrent income to ensure better maintenance. The creation of university real

estate subsidiaries could contribute to a more active development policy and more efficient

management, ensuring transparency of financing, a capacity to broker investments, and

accountability of stakeholders, thus opening up the university to its urban environment in partnership

with the local authorities responsible for land use.

Read the report

PRESS CONTACTS:

Emmanuel Kessler

◼

Director of Communications

◼

T

+33 (0)1

42

98

55

62

◼

+33

(0)6

62

48

07

81

◼

emmanuel.kessler@ccompte

Julie Poissier

◼

Head of Press Relations

◼

T

+33

(0)1

42

98

97

43

◼

+33

(0)6

87

36

52

21

◼

julie.poissier@ccomptes.fr

@Courdescomptes

ccomptes

Cour des comptes

Cour des comptes