Several lessons emerged from this initial work
Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2025 6:03 am
Firstly, it appears that the regionalisation of planning and the modelling tools proposed by the General Secretariat for Ecological Planning have been generally well received. The launch of the COPs was initially quite promising. However, the climate deteriorated following the agricultural demonstrations a year ago and the budgetary restrictions announced in February 2024. The winds then changed direction and this affected the mobilisation of stakeholders, which was concentrated around a very technical format. The regulatory and budgetary russia phone number list instability that characterises the State's action calls into question its ability to reconnect with planning. It cannot fully play the role of "uncertainty reducer" that is expected of it. Similarly, it is quite obvious that this ecological planning calls for reflection in terms of regional planning, backed by prospective exercises. This is currently lacking.
Beyond these reservations, we emphasize the progress of our territorial organization compared to ten years ago. We can measure the growth of knowledge and expertise that can be mobilized on the ground to achieve this "multi-level" governance of planning. It now seems possible to propose differentiated strategies in the territories, moving away from the simple "cloning" of national documents that was practiced a few years ago. "Parrot" planning, which identically reproduces the objectives of the higher scale, makes little sense as soon as we enter into the complexity of public policies and the heterogeneity of territories. This leads to advocating for ac
“tailor-made” support for communities, through contractual policies, rather than through calls for projects or standardized tools. In this sense, the new method of consultation, with its inter-scalar back-and-forths, can generate interesting dynamics, making everyone responsible for their ability to act.
Beyond these reservations, we emphasize the progress of our territorial organization compared to ten years ago. We can measure the growth of knowledge and expertise that can be mobilized on the ground to achieve this "multi-level" governance of planning. It now seems possible to propose differentiated strategies in the territories, moving away from the simple "cloning" of national documents that was practiced a few years ago. "Parrot" planning, which identically reproduces the objectives of the higher scale, makes little sense as soon as we enter into the complexity of public policies and the heterogeneity of territories. This leads to advocating for ac
“tailor-made” support for communities, through contractual policies, rather than through calls for projects or standardized tools. In this sense, the new method of consultation, with its inter-scalar back-and-forths, can generate interesting dynamics, making everyone responsible for their ability to act.