The report must have made people cringe at the Elysée. This Monday, October 21, the president of the Provence-Alpes-Côte-d’Azur regional chamber of accounts, Nathalie Gervais, presented the first assessment carried out by the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the “Marseille en grand” plan. And the least we can say is that the financial jurisdiction did not hesitate to adopt a critical tone, showing that “the reality of the exceptional and global nature of the plan deserves to be qualified”.
A more than mixed result
“Designed in a hasty manner” and “without prior consultation with the stakeholders”, the plan presents “a lack of overall coherence” and “poor follow-up […] which is not up to the challenges”. These are the words chosen by the Court of Auditors to define “Marseille en grand”, regretting the “lack of coherence” and the “intrinsic inadequacies” which “weigh on its implementation work”. The authors of the report do not stop there and also point out the absence of an “overall calendar” as well as the “insufficient nature of governance and management means” between the State, the city of Marseille from the various left Benoît Payan and the metropolis led by the various right Martine Vassal Result: the plan is progressing very slowly At the end of 2023, only 1.31% of the 5 billion euros announced had been disbursed by the State.
In their responses to the Court, the State, town hall and metropolis passed the buck, the Prime Minister’s services emphasizing a “lack of consensus between local actors” and the inability “of local authorities to adhere to the ambition of the plan”. Emmanuel Macron himself had already regretted the “local chicanas”. To remedy this, the Sages therefore recommend defining “a contractual framework” accompanied by a timetable and an evaluation system, and “formalizing governance arrangements” by associating “the different actors within the same instance”.
A “chance for the Marseillais”?
Three years after its launch with great fanfare by Emmanuel Macron, “Marseille en grand” does not seem to be producing the expected effect. However, the plan was well intentioned. In March 2021, just two months after being elected mayor of the city, Benoît Payan went to the Elysée. In his baggage, the ambition to obtain the support of the State to renovate the schools of the Marseille city. A few months later, in September 2021, the President of the Republic announced a larger-scale project: “Marseille en grand”. The objective is clearly announced by the Elysée: “to make Marseille a laboratory for new public policies carried out on seven priorities: security, social, health, education, employment, culture and transport to change the lives of Marseille residents”. To achieve this, the State wishes to renovate unsanitary schools, develop public transport, reduce the geographical and social divide between the northern and southern districts and strengthen the police force. A plan that was intended to be “exceptional” in terms of its amount and content.
But today, on the transport side, the 15 projects planned by the plan “only partially meet the State’s stated objective of opening up the northern districts”. On housing, “the plan does not provide for any action relating to the strengthening of social diversity and the fight against residential segregation, nor on the issue of housing production, particularly social housing”. As for employment, the measures are limited to “entrepreneurship of young people from disadvantaged neighborhoods” while neglecting “the diversity of the public affected by the difficulties of access to employment”.
Despite the disappointing results, Nathalie Gervais was keen to recall the meager list of positive points, namely “the first deliveries of new or renovated schools”, which constitute “an opportunity for the people of Marseillais”. On the other hand, “no specific measures aimed at improving the school climate, strengthening student health or increasing social diversity” were noted.
And the situation is unlikely to improve as the government plans major budget cuts to deal with the public deficit. In the report written before the change of government, the Court of Auditors already underlined that, due to the lack of “formalization” of the plan, “some of its financing has not been the subject of any legal commitment and is therefore not guaranteed” .