1. The governance of land use in France—Lessons for Prague
The previous case of Amsterdam has some similarities with Prague. They are both historical cities with a large tourism industry – both places have a growing population. Both places face water management challenges; both places has relatively low fiscal autonomy compared to other OECD countries.
However, in other respects they are very different.
A key difference is that spatial and land use planning in the Czech Republic has in recent decades shifted from a communist regime towards a market democracy.
In the early days—the so called “wild 1990s”—there was a massive privatisation of formerly public lands and foreign investment flooded into the city, particularly into its historic core. Opaque processes led to a low level of trust between developers, residents and public officials which have coloured relations between these groups to this day.
There are ongoing efforts to rebuild these relationships. It issue is of particular importance since Prague is in a period of growth and investment which requires cooperation between these groups.
Key issues that this case study speaks to are: how to build trust among actors; how to govern across a fragmented metropolitan space; how to speed up planning processes to be more responsive to the need for new housing and investment while also protecting heritage and the environment.
These are issues that many metropolitan areas of the OECD face. Prauge is not alone…
Tamara Krawchenko, Policy Analyst, CFE

2. Spatial planning in France
Planning in France is comprehensive and integrated:
Strong mechanisms for co-operation between communes at multiple scales
Strong multi-sectoral planning
In recent decades successive decentralization reforms have lessened the role of the central government and increased the responsibilities and capacities at the local and regional levels.
France has evolved unique institutions to address the need for planning across functional territories. That is, across the places where people live, work and commute.
Planning it at once integrated and comprehensive. It is increasingly integrated across the thematic areas of ecosystem protection, climate change mitigation and adaptation, management of land uses and comprehensive, in the sense that inter-municipal planning is encouraged through forms of municipal association and intercommunalities and through joint strategic and even joint land use plans among communes.
This is important for a number for a number of reasons – but especially because trends of peri-urbanisation—it is one of the most critical issues facing land use planning in France. Approximately a third of the population of France lives in peri-urban areas and they have been the fastest growing demographic over the past 30 years (Bonnet, 2016).
But the success of this integrated and comprehensive approach depends in large part on the governance institutions that develop plans, and on the capacity of communes and intercommunalités to implement them. This capacity is one of the most critical issues facing the planning system today.

3. Levels of administration
State
13 regions in mainland France as of 1January 2016 (formerly 22 regions)
101 départements including 5 overseas departments
342 arrondissements
2 054 cantons as of April (formerly 4 035)
2 062 intercommunal groups
communes

4. Many unique institutions for spatial planning and land use…
Recent reforms
Regions are now the lead actors in the field of planning and sustainable development
Since 2000, strategic spatial plans across a functional area—Plan for Territorial Coherence
Many unique institutions for spatial planning and land use…
Regional planning is in the midst of change—there is a new type of regional spatial plan that requires conformity by lower order plans (Planning, Sustainable Development and Territorial Equality Regional Plan has a much greater influence on planning policies than did its predecessor—it places regions as lead actors in the field of planning and sustainable development.
The new law requires regions to develop an integrated spatial plan including a specific plan on the prevention and management of waste by 2017.
Over the past two decades there has been a significant rise in the number of strategic spatial plans across urban agglomerations in the OECD and in France this is achieved by Territorial Coherence Plan (Schéma de Cohérence Territoriale, SCoT), which were created in They cover the “local labour market” and establish a reference framework for territorial planning over a time frame of 20 years. Local plans must align with the principles or fundamental guidelines presented in them.
Every municipality covered by the same SCoT commits itself to integrated and joint development, which can help mediate and settle territorial issues for the whole area. In total, SCoTs have been approved or are presently in the process of being developed for around 60% of national territory.
It bears mentioning that there are many unique institutions in France for spatial and land use planning – too many to mention. There are over 50 urban planning agencies which provide specialised expertise on plans.
To address the need for better coordination, recent legislation has also established regular conferences in each region to promote the concerted use of planning competences by every level of local authority in order to support an integrated and cross-disciplinary planning process, instead of a sector-specific one.
Land agencies and the PEAN (Périmètres de protection des Espaces Agricoles et Naturels), as a way to protect and recapture agricultural land.

5. Old versus new planning framework
First a remark about the planning system of the country as a whole.
Like many OECD countries, there is a national spatial development policy followed by regional development principles and finally local territorial plans or in some cases, regulatory plans for specific areas such as protected areas. Subordinate plans must conform. There are also a number of sectoral plans such as plans for water catchment areas and waste management plans that influence land use.

6. Select recommendations for France
Based on two in depth case studies: Clermont Ferrand and Nantes Saint Nazaire…
Strengthen the political authority and visibility of strategic planning authorities
Strengthen the planning capacities of smaller communes
Enhance monitoring and management of peri-urban zones
Combine regulatory and economic incentives
Strengthen the political authority and visibility of strategic planning authorities. Developing territorial coherence plans (SCoT) can be a lengthy and complicated process. In both case study areas, public engagement in these plans was limited. Consequently, there is a risk of capture by organised interests. Major efforts should be made to inform residents about this process and how it affects their communities. To be successful in the longer term, these associations need to be visible and understandable to citizens across the areas that they govern.
Strengthen the planning capacities of smaller communes. The territorial coherence plan establishes ambitious sustainable development goals. However, interpretations of what is “sustainable” can vary substantially across communities and contexts. These are not politically neutral instruments, and asymmetry in human, financial, or political/institutional capital can create real differences in the ability of the various actors involved to monitor, assess and implement plans. If the ambitions of the new regional plan and the territorial coherence plans are to be realised, there will need to be strong community capacity building among local actors who face such limitations, particularly in the smaller communes. This will help overcome the risk that the shift to ever more multi-sectoral and integrated plans across a larger functional scale are inadequately implemented in practice.
Enhance monitoring and management of periurban zones. Periurban areas are under a great amount of development pressure in France and face the greatest number of land-based conflicts (i.e. appeals to plans and development decisions). Both the SCoT and PLUi can help overcome the many demands and conflicts affecting these areas. However, there is a risk that these plans, in brokering among multiple interests, will not tackle some of the most difficult and potentially fractious challenges they face. Furthermore, periurban interests may be particularly weak in such negotiations. It is important that these places be recognised in their own right, not just as spillover or transition zones. More should be done to monitor and asses land-use changes in these spaces and to share best practices among communes and the planning community.

7. Spatial planning in France: Main lessons for Prague
Strong and increasingly compulsory mechanisms for inter-municipal planning
Integrated planning – multiple sectoral plans at the regional level inform metropolitan and municipal planning
Institutions for planning expertise (Urban Planning Agencies)
National mechanism for dispute resolution
Vertical coordination: Territorial Conferences for Public Action

8. Comments to Tamara.Krawchenko@oecd.org
Thank You
Comments to