Documents | Cour des comptes

Télécharger le PDF, 104 Ko
Page de la publication
Envoyer à un ami
Partager cette page sur Facebook
Partager cette page sur X
Partager cette page sur LinkedIn

OUR DES

OMPTES

Urban policy

Ten years of reform

July 2012

Notice

Summary

the Public Thematic Report

his summary is designed to make the Cour des

Comptes report easier to read and use.

The Cour des Comptes is responsible only for the

content of the report.

The responses of government departments, councils

and other organizations concerned are appended to

the report.

Introduction

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Disparities between districts remain despite ten

years of reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Lack of policy management

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

An unprecedented urban renewal effort that

does not tie in sufficiently with the social

aspects of urban policy

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Poor mobilization of public policies in

underprivileged areas

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Uneven distribution of specific resources for

urban policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Recommendations

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary

of the Public Thematic Report by the

Cour des Comptes

Contents

For nearly thirty years, worsening living conditions in a number of urban areas

affected by severe social insecurity have induced national government and local authori-

ties to sign a partnership agreement to conduct a series of initiatives, aimed at comba-

ting the exclusion of people living in these areas and improving their living conditions.

These initiatives are part of what is generally referred to as urban policy.

For this policy to succeed, coordination is required on two fronts. Firstly, the various

ministries concerned (education, employment, housing, interior, etc.) must coordinate

their efforts with those of national public bodies and agencies. Secondly, action by natio-

nal government and local authorities must be coordinated, as success is clearly depen-

dent on initiatives properly targeting each specific district.

The report by the Cour des Comptes and its regional chambers gives an overview

of the joint surveys conducted since the end of 2009. It shows that despite the efforts

of many stakeholders and the progress made under the French urban renewal pro-

gramme, underprivileged area have seen little improvement. The report also shows that

this lack of results can be explained by poor coordination across ministries and insuf-

ficient cooperation between national government and local authorities.

Summary

of the Public Thematic Report by the Cour des Comptes

Introduction

Disparities between

districts remain despite

ten years of reform

Ten years of a

policy governed by

laws and numerous

other provisions

Since the last survey conducted by

the Cour des Comptes in 2002, the

Planning Act on Cities and Urban

Renewal, voted on 1 August 2003, has

radically reformed urban policy, with the

clear goal of significantly closing the

development gap that puts priority areas

at a disadvantage. To support this ambi-

tion, France launched a far-reaching

national urban renewal programme,

worth an estimated €42 billion. The pro-

gramme is driven by ANRU, the newly

created national urban development

agency.

This has led to reforms - legislative

for the most part - being passed nearly

every year for the past ten years, which

have significantly modified the frame-

work and objectives of urban policy.

Cour des Comptes

Summary

of the Public Thematic Report by the Cour des Comptes

Ten years of urban policy reforms

- The Planning Act on Social Cohesion of 18 January 2005 reinforced the

social aspects of urban policy and provided for greater financial support to muni-

cipalities with the fewest resources.

- The Decrees of 22 and 27 December 2005 created six “préfets délégués à

l’égalité des chances” in charge of implementing equal opportunity policy;

- The Equal Opportunities Act of 31 March 2008 increased the number of

urban enterprise zones (ZUF) and set up ACSE, the national agency for social

cohesion and equal opportunities;

- France’s new urban social cohesion contracts (CUCS), which replaced the

former ‘city contracts’, were introduced as of 2007 in a circular to ensure that ini-

tiatives funded in priority development areas were mutually consistent;

- In 2008, the French President announced the

dynamique Espoir banlieues

, an ini-

tiative to implement a new urban policy that favoured underprivileged areas

without doing away with the contractual mechanisms which had just been set up.

The initiative included the appointment of 350 “délégués du préfet” in those areas

with the greatest difficulties;

- Lastly, the Decree of 14 May 2009 on urban policy authorities substituted the

general secretariat for urban and social development (SGCIV) for the interminis-

terial delegation for urban and social development (DIV). The task of the SGCIV

is to assist the Minister of Urban Policy in preparing laws and regulations, mobi-

lizing other ministries, coordinating the activities of public organizations and run-

ning the secretariat of ONZUS, the national observatory of urban areas in diffi-

culty, created under the Act of 1 August 2003.

Summary

of the Public Thematic Report by the

Cour des Comptes

Disparities between districts

remain despite ten years

of reform

Continuing disparities

Joint assessments performed by

national government and local authori-

ties do not support or shed any light on

numerous and repeated criticisms of

urban policy for its lack of clarity and

limited impact on the populations

concerned. However, ONZUS, the

national observatory of urban areas in

difficulty, now provides more accurate

knowledge both of the people living in

the areas concerned and of changes in

their living conditions.

According to the last ONZUS

report, efforts at reducing disparities

between priority development areas and

the surrounding towns, a goal defined as

the top priority in the Act of 1 August

2003, have produced few results ten

years later; disparities have remained lar-

gely the same, whatever the indicator

considered. Dependence on social bene-

fits remains greater in urban areas in dif-

ficulty than elsewhere. Regarding acade-

mic success, deviations from the mean

are on the rise in general courses. Even

if feelings of insecurity are on the

decline, they are still experienced more

often in areas with difficulties.

The gap has even widened as far as

employment is concerned. The ONZUS

report for 2011 showed that between

2003 and 2010 the unemployment rate

rose from 17.3% to 20.9% in urban

areas in difficulty (ZUS) but only from

9% to 10.3% in other areas. In 2010, the

unemployment rate among people aged

15 to 59 years in urban areas in difficulty

was twice as high as in neighbouring

urban areas. According to the report,

this was the greatest difference recorded

since 2003.

Summary

of the Public Thematic Report by the Cour des Comptes

Disparities between districts

remain despite ten years

of reform

Lack of policy management

The number of

priority action areas

is constantly growing

Urban policy initiatives have, from

the outset, been undermined by the fai-

lure to reform the overcomplex map of

priority development areas, and to

spread initiatives too thin on the

ground.

Urban policy now concerns 751

urban areas in difficulty (ZUS). These

include 416 urban revitalization areas

which, in turn, include 100 urban enter-

prise areas. Added to these are 2,493

areas targeted by urban contracts for

social cohesion (CUCS), 70% of which

are not classified as urban areas in diffi-

culty.

The French approach thus differs

from that adopted by other European

countries, which have opted for a much

more restrictive definition of areas sub-

ject to urban policy. In Germany, for

instance, only 392 areas qualify for the

country’s “social city” programme,

while Spain has singled out 17 districts

as being “vulnerable” on the basis of

physical, social, economic and political

criteria.

It had been planned to redefine

priority development areas under the

2008 Finance Act, but this was put off

until 2014. Consequently, all the planned

reforms were put on hold, especially the

reform for renewing urban contracts for

social cohesion, which was initially sche-

duled for 2012, and the review of the

urban solidarity grant (DSU). That

being the case, no new reform will be

possible until priority development

areas have been redefined.

Fragmented

organizational

structure

Continual poor governance and

coordination have done little to improve

efficiency.

Urban policy suffers from a lack of

effective coordination between minis-

tries in an area which involves ever more

stakeholders

(1)

, especially since ANRU

and ACSE came into being. The general

secretariat for urban and social develop-

ment (SGCIV) does not allow ensure

___________

(1) In particular, the Ministers of the Interior, Economy and Finance, Budget, Equal

Opportunities and Housing, Labour and Industrial Relations, Education and Urban

Policy.

Cour des Comptes

Summary

of the Public Thematic Report by the Cour des Comptes

Lack of policy management

Summary

of the Public Thematic Report by the

Cour des Comptes

proper coordination between the activi-

ties of these national agencies and those

of the relevant ministries. Neither has

the new organizational structure of

devolved services allowed prefects to

play any effective role on the ground.

The distribution of responsibilities

among the various local and regional

authorities remains unclear. Inter -

municipal authorities have yet to find

their place in the system, even if they

clearly have a role to play in implemen-

ting urban policy by providing the

means to develop a coherent approach

to areas across the country. The involve-

ment of departments and regions is

both unequal and inadequate.

However, the “délégués du préfet”

instituted as part of the “Espoir ban-

lieues” initiative mentioned earlier are a

welcome innovation. They bring the

state more effectively into urban areas in

difficulty and improve the flow of infor-

mation among local stakeholders.

Summary

of the Public Thematic Report by the Cour des Comptes

Cour des

An unprecedented urban

renewal effort that does

not tie in sufficiently

with the social aspects of

urban policy

Residents

are satisfied

but doubts remain

as to the future

of urban renewal

programmes

The French national urban renewal

programme (PNRU) is behind an

unprecedented effort in favour of urban

areas in difficulty. Its results are viewed

positively by rehoused residents who,

according to opinion polls, are satisfied

on the whole with their new home and

with the impact the programme has had

on their living conditions. A survey

conducted by the CSA institute in spring

2011 showed that 81% of respondents

in the areas concerned thought that,

once completed, the programme would

improve the quality of life in the area,

while 79% thought it would improve

transport and 78% believed it would

make better facilities available.

In terms of quantity, however, the

PNRU has not delivered on its objec-

tives. In all, 53% of planned demolitions

have been carried out, 30% of available

homes are new and 39% have been

renovated.

Overall, housing has not been suffi-

ciently diversified. The hoped-for social

and functional variety in housing has

not been achieved. The number of

homes

planned

‘diversification’

schemes now stands at around 41,600.

This is less than a third of all new hou-

sing units, for which the current target is

128,258.

The PNRU is

underfunded in

view of its

objectives

So far, a total of more than €40 bil-

lion has been allocated to France’s natio-

nal urban renewal programme (PNRU),

broken down as follows: €10 billion

from local authorities, €12 billion from

national government and the UESL

(social economics union for housing)

and €18 billion from social landlords.

Although these funds are considerable,

they are not enough to complete all the

schemes planned in agreements.

As local authorities have increased

their contribution, national government

has reduced its funding. Public funding

is now dependent on the growing invol-

vement of management and labour

representatives, making use of the

employers’ contribution to housing

construction costs (known in France as

the “1% housing mechanism”) which

has only been negotiated until 2013.

Although available data on the

implementation and funding of the

PNRU is incomplete and imperfect, it

does show that available financial

resources are not compatible with the

initial targets of the programme.

Indeed, there are real doubts as to the

possibility of funding the PNRU com-

pletely, at a time when the current state

of public finances imposes spending

cuts and the programme objectives defi-

ned by law are far from being met.

Insufficient

consideration of

economic and

social objectives

The actual urban renewal aspect has

not been adequately tied in with the

social and economic aspects of urban

policy. Not enough use has been made

of initiatives defined in the social part of

the PNRU itself, such as local urban

management, the social integration

clause or rehousing. When such initia-

tives have been taken, the residents of

the areas concerned have not always

been properly consulted beforehand. A

recent report produced by the French

national council of cities (CNV) on

local democracy and citizen involve-

ment

(3)

pointed to the lack of recogni-

tion given to citizens’ opinions. Social

measures to accompany rehousing

should be developed further, as in the

initiatives supported by the local autho-

rities and government departments in

Bondy, Toulouse and Roubaix. Lastly,

although the national urban renewal

programme has found employment for

31,000 people, including 85% from

areas in difficulty, the number of hours

worked has frequently fallen short of

targets at the local level.

Lack of general,

coherent urban

planning contracts

As of 2006, urban contracts for

social cohesion were aimed at achieving

greater consistency between the many

thematic, urban and social initiatives

planned for priority development areas.

Five years on, the contracts have not

delivered the hoped-for consistency.

This is due to a lack of preliminary diag-

nostics

and

in-depth

consultation

among national agencies, government

departments and local authorities.

The urban aspect continues to out-

weigh the others for a number of rea-

sons: its financial weight, the complexity

of the arrangements that need to be set

up, and other operations such as

Summary

of the Public Thematic Report by the

Cour des Comptes

An unprecedented urban renewal effort

that does not tie in sufficiently

with the social aspects of urban policy

Summary

of the Public Thematic Report by the Cour des Comptes

An unprecedented urban renewal effort

that does not tie in sufficiently

with the social aspects of urban policy

restructuring the urban fabric, urban

renewal agreements and social cohesion

contracts. The various projects have

been managed side by side at the institu-

tional level, without proper coordina-

tion. At the end of the day, the urban

contracts for social cohesion have failed

to produce the coherent planning fra-

mework for which they were designed.

Summary

of the Public Thematic Report by the Cour des Comptes

Cour des Comptes

Poor mobilization of public

policies in underprivileged

areas

Doubts concerning

the budgetary priority

theoretically granted

to areas targeted by

urban policy

Urban policy funding methods also

help to explain persistent disparities bet-

ween priority development areas and the

rest of the country. Although the mobi-

lization of funds for priority develop-

ment areas has repeatedly been the

focus of legislation and successive

reforms, it remains an unknown quan-

tity. This is because it was not organized

beforehand by the national government

or local authorities, making it impossible

to assess. There is a budget document

that records the funds assigned to prio-

rity development areas by all the natio-

nal and local government bodies, but

the data it contains is neither exhaustive

nor reliable.

This has led to uncertainties as to

what public policy initiatives have

actually been taken in the areas concer-

ned. In 2011, an experiment was started

to negotiate amendments to 33 urban

contracts for social cohesion (CUCS).

The aim was to identify all the funds

mobilized by government departments

and by local authorities. However, the

implementation conditions of the expe-

riment are not sufficiently clear about

the role of the local authorities and the

first amendments signed provide evi-

dence that commitments remain vague.

The “Espoir

banlieues” initiative:

disappointed hopes

of extensive general

funding

Before the new amendment experi-

ment had even begun, the “Espoir

banlieues” initiative set out to mobilize

general interministerial policies to res-

pond to the difficulties faced in

underprivileged areas. In reality, this

ambition was gradually abandoned for

want of any resolute effort at the inter-

ministerial level or any clear definition

of scope and objectives, and even

before a true ‘consolidated balance’

could be produced.

Employment

policy does not

target priority

development areas

General initiatives are not suffi-

ciently geared to priority development

areas in the field of employment, even

though the unemployment rate in such

areas is far higher than the national ave-

rage, especially among young people. In

2009, the youth unemployment rate

stood at 30% in urban areas in difficulty

(ZUS), compared with 17% in reference

metropolitan areas.

Between 2006 and 2010, the share

of people benefiting from subsidized

contracts in urban areas in difficulty

dropped from 9.7% to 7.8% in the

market sector and from 18.4% to 11.6%

in the non-market sector.

Areas covered by an urban contract

for social cohesion (CUCS) do not

always have a local job centre (known as

“Pôle emploi”) in France. The number

of job seekers per job centre adviser can

be up to twice the national average.

The main employment initiative

aimed at residents of priority develop-

ment areas is the “contrat d’autonomie”,

a professional integration contract

introduced as part of the “Espoir

banlieues” initiative. It met with relative

success, with 41,000 contracts signed in

June 2011. Less than 25% of contracts

signed, however, led to a job or

qualification.

Summary

of the Public Thematic Report by the

Cour des Comptes

Poor mobilization of

public policies in

underprivileged areas

Summary

of the Public Thematic Report by the

Cour des Comptes

Uneven distribution of

specific resources for

urban policy

Funds specifically dedicated to the

urban policy programme and intended

to supplement general resources from

the various ministries amounted to

€535.8 million.

Unsuitable allocation

of funds

These funds are not allocated as a

priority to the areas in the greatest diffi-

culty. The ratios of a number of large

departments in urban areas that are spe-

cifically targeted by urban policy are well

below the national average (Seine-Saint-

Denis, Val-de-Marne and Bouches-du-

Rhône, in particular), whereas those of

many rural or semi-rural departments

far exceed this average ratio. In the Ile-

de-France (i.e. Greater Paris) region,

Seine-Saint-Denis is the department

with the smallest budget after Paris, yet

it concentrates most of the social and

economic difficulties of the region.

Specific urban policy funds allocated to

the priority development areas of the

department amount to €31 per capita,

€10 less than the regional average.

Furthermore, the associations that

benefit from these funds are not set par-

ticularly stiff targets. Neither are their

results adequately evaluated by govern-

ment departments, ACSE and local

authorities, even if the efforts of the

“délégués du préfet” on the ground

have brought about some recent impro-

vements in this respect.

Risk of substituting

specific funds for

general funds

Funds intended specifically for

urban policy are sometimes used to

finance activities that are normally part

of ministry policies, in cases where the

government departments concerned do

not mobilise enough resources. This

negative effect is particularly prevalent

in education and employment.

ACSE, for example, devoted €94.8

million to educational support activities

for 365,000 children, even though aca-

demic success is essentially a matter for

the Ministry of Education. In addition,

some activities concerning certain

school support activities and the “Ecole

ouverte” mechanism, which can be like-

ned to refresher courses organized

under ordinary law, are unnecessarily

duplicated by ACSE and the Ministry of

Education.

Specific funds worth €38 million are

allocated to employment, for the most

part targeting social integration through

economic activity. This investment,

modest though it may be, is sometimes

Uneven distribution of

specific resources for

urban policy

Summary

of the Public Thematic Report by the

Cour des Comptes

used in replacement of funding that

should normally be provided by the

Ministry of Employment or its opera-

tors. Initiatives taken in some parts of

the country (e.g. Rhône) show that

improved coordination among local sta-

keholders can lead to more effective use

of funds.

The impact of

the urban solidarity

grant on urban policy

is unclear

According to the French general

local authorities code, the urban solida-

rity grant (DSU) is intended to improve

living conditions in urban municipalities

where resources are scarce and expendi-

ture is high

(4)

. From the outset, it has

chiefly benefited municipalities classi-

fied as urban policy priorities. This

connection was made stronger when the

DSU was reformed under the Planning

Act on Social Cohesion of 18 January

2005.

It has now become a vital resource

for beneficiaries in view of the new cal-

culation rules. The DSU has more than

doubled in five years in Roubaix (Nord),

Vernouillet (Eure-et-Loir) and Creil

(Oise) and in 2009 accounted for a signi-

ficant percentage of real revenue. It

represented nearly 10% of revenue for

Sevran and Le Portel and 16.3% for

Roubaix.

The real impact of the urban solida-

rity grant, however, is hard to assess as

the reports that local authorities are

required to produce to account for its

use do not include the necessary indica-

tors on reductions in inequalities.

It was decided to reform the grant in

2008 to focus on municipalities in the

greatest difficulty. The same year, the

urban development grant (DDU) was

created as an interim solution, as the

local councillors concerned feared the

effects of overconcentration.

In order to pass the DSU reform,

the equalization objective pursued from

the outset should be ‘decoupled’ from

the urban policy objective. This would

entail allocating a grant to local authori-

ties in the greatest difficulty, which they

could use at will, and an additional grant

to those classified as urban policy prio-

rities as part of a reduced map of prio-

rity areas.

Summary

of the Public Thematic Report by the

Cour des Comptes

undertake to reform the map of

priority areas without delay as no new

urban policy action is possible until

this reform has been carried out:

- focus efforts on areas in the grea-

test difficulty;

define legal and contractual areas

according to the same criteria;

support interministerial adminis-

trative action through regular policy

initiatives; ensure that the interministe-

rial committee for cities (CIV) meets

twice a year;

strengthen the role of local

government and provide the condi-

tions for them to fully assume this role:

take stock of the new geographi-

cal

organization

government

departments;

bring together all the human and

material resources devoted to urban

policy within specific departments in

priority development areas;

place all these human and mate-

rial resources under the direct respon-

sibility of the prefects;

promote greater job stability

among “préfets délégués à l’égalité des

chances” and “sous-préfets ville” res-

ponsible for implementing city-speci-

fic urban policy;

mobilize intermunicipal authorities:

associate them with all local

contracts;

define community interests

more broadly;

reform procedures for assessing

urban policy actions:

draw up a methodology shared

by all stakeholders (national govern-

ment, local authorities, associations);

define a reasonable number of

objectives and indicators;

follow up progress using a com-

mon analysis chart;

draw up as precise an inventory

as possible of commitments set out in

the national urban renewal pro-

gramme, in terms of available funding

to secure its completion before defi-

ning new objectives;

ensure that single urban policy

contracts take greater account of

objectives relating to social conditions

and the integration of people living in

underprivileged areas, including via a

reinforced social integration clause;

Recommendations

Summary

of the Public Thematic Report by the

Cour des Comptes

consolidate and build on the ini-

tial achievements of urban renewal

projects:

urge local stakeholders to define

joint goals for their activities;

ensure that underprivileged

areas are given consideration in gene-

ral local policies;

implement the local strategic

plans recommended by the national

urban development agency when cur-

rent agreements come to an end;

continue to bring together the

two national agencies responsible for

urban renewal and social cohesion

(ANRU and ACSE) with a view to

negotiating the termination of urban

development agreements and imple-

menting new projects;

identify in advance the amount

of general funding mobilized in

favour of underprivileged areas:

set up national agreements bet-

ween the Ministry of Urban Policy

and the other ministries to organize

the methods and financial commit-

ments of this mobilization;

put the finishing touches to the

interdisciplinary policy document for

the 2013 budget year by defining joint

directives for the general secretariat

for urban and social development

(SGCIV) and the budget directorate;

set up a mechanism that is

supervised by the “préfet de région”

and standardized across the various

government departments to identify

the amount of general funding inves-

ted in underprivileged areas;

include general funding in

future urban policy contracts;

ensure that the general funds

mobilized in favour of underprivile-

ged areas are greater than the average

amount mobilized across the country

as a whole;

step up employment policy in

priority development areas;

produce regular reports to track

progress and highlight the impact of

performance target and educational

resource contracts on young people

living in urban areas in difficulty over

the period 2011-2015;

ensure that people living in

urban areas in difficulty are targeted

by job centre ‘support’ initiatives that

are intended for jobseekers encounte-

ring redeployment problems;

promote job centre actions in

priority development areas once the

map of priority areas has been refor-

med and the number of target areas

reduced;

Recommendations

Summary

of the Public Thematic Report by the Cour des Comptes

continue efforts to achieve a bet-

ter balanced distribution of funds for

urban policy initiatives, focusing on

the six departments considered as

being in the greatest difficulty (where

“préfets délégués à l’égalité des

chances” have been appointed, namely

Bouches-du-Rhône, Essonne, Nord,

Rhône, Seine-Saint-Denis, Val-d’Oise);

assess the results of associations

and reconsider agreements that do not

live up to expectations;

develop a long-term contract for

ACSE funds, taking close account of

realities on the ground and monitoring

its effects;

step up coordination between

the Ministry of Education, ACSE and

SGCIV to make educational initiatives

financed in underprivileged areas by

general and specific funds work toge-

ther more effectively;

make specific and general funds

allocated to employment more com-

plementary;

reform the urban solidarity grant

(DSU) by splitting it into two parts

with different objectives: one part

aimed at equalization, the other at

other specific objectives;