A consultative body, not a territorial tier
The CESER is the regional consultative assembly advising regional councils on economic, social and environmental consequences and contributing to foresight and evaluation. Members and presidents may receive allowances within regulatory ceilings, while regions provide operational resources. [1][2]
The legal route is simpler than for the national CESE
Unlike the national CESE, CESERs are not constitutional bodies. Their abolition or transformation falls within ordinary legislation and the General Code of Local Authorities. Procedures requiring or providing for their opinions must nonetheless be amended so no legal reference points to a non-existent body. [1]
Replace the permanent assembly with targeted consultation
Abolition should be paired with an alternative model: temporary panels, public hearings, professional stakeholder consultation, citizens’ juries or online contributions depending on the issue. The idea is to fund consultation when needed rather than maintain a permanent assembly if its use is not demonstrated. [1][3]
Audit €75 million region by region
The €75 million target requires a consolidated region-by-region inventory of allowances, seconded staff, premises, travel, studies, communications and support. Shared costs within regional administrations must not be artificially allocated to CESERs. Replacement consultation mechanisms must be deducted from savings. [2][3]
Prevent equivalent committees from reappearing
A region that abolished its CESER and then recreated unlimited ad hoc committees would lose the benefit of reform. A capped annual consultation budget, a public list of temporary bodies and automatic sunset dates are stronger safeguards. [1]
What must be demonstrated before retaining the 75 million euros per year target
The thirteen targeted CESER bodies require region-by-region evidence
Regional economic, social and environmental councils are consultative bodies created within the legal framework for French regions. [1] Because the measure targets thirteen councils, the impact file should name the precise regions in scope rather than imply that one national average describes every body. Budgets, members, allowances, premises and consultation practice can differ. The first annex should therefore be a regional table of executed spending, staff resources and advisory output, followed by a column showing what would disappear and what would be replaced.
Abolishing a CESER does not necessarily remove the policy need to hear economic, social, environmental and civic stakeholders. The replacement could use ad hoc public consultations, temporary regional committees, citizens’ panels, hearings or digital participation. Each option has a different cost, representativeness and ability to produce expertise. The net saving should therefore deduct the cost of the replacement mechanism instead of treating the present allocation as fully avoidable. The statutory provisions on CESER resources provide the legal baseline. [2]
Success should be tested against the quality of advice received by regional decision-makers. Before reform, the audit should record the number of opinions, turnaround time, how they are used and what they cost. After reform, the same questions apply: diversity of contributors, time to prepare advice, publication of submissions and influence on decisions. That approach distinguishes an institution that may be too heavy from a consultative function that remains useful, and prevents consultancy spending from quietly replacing the abolished body.
Thirteen regions require thirteen starting positions
A CESER reform remains weak if it relies on a national average. Each region needs its own baseline: executed budget, membership, permanent staff, premises, allowances, number of opinions and subjects examined. Those data show whether some councils are heavily used, others lightly used, and which costs are genuinely avoidable. The political decision can still be national, but the costing should be territorial. A consolidated annex can then sum comparable lines while visibly leaving missing data unresolved instead of silently replacing them with estimates.
Replacement consultation deserves the same precision. Regions may use ad hoc hearings, citizen panels or temporary committees, none of which has the same cost or representativeness. Evaluation should compare expenditure, diversity of participants, publication of contributions and actual use by regional decision-makers. If abolishing a CESER leads to more consultancy contracts, that spending belongs in the reform account. If a region obtains equivalent expertise through much lighter temporary mechanisms, the difference becomes a defensible saving rather than an assumed one.
After the CESERs: redesign regional consultation instead of renaming it
Abolishing regional economic, social and environmental councils requires a clear answer to which consultation functions remain necessary and how they will be delivered. The reform should inventory recurring opinions, evaluation work, optional referrals and contributions from economic, social and environmental representatives. Some can disappear; others can be absorbed into regional procedures or commissioned from temporary panels. The aim is not to recreate a permanent council under another name, but to match each genuine consultation need with the least permanent mechanism capable of meeting it.
Costs should be examined region by region. Staffing, premises, secondments and contracts are unlikely to be identical everywhere. A national estimate should therefore be built from a regional matrix of executed expenditure, own staff or seconded staff, property, services and transition commitments. Two years after abolition, success should be assessed through both expenditure and outputs: consultations produced, response times and the cost of the mechanisms that replaced the former councils.
Common audit method: double-counting controls, transition costs and budget reconciliation are centralised in the versioned budget-methodology register. For measure 1.13, those rules apply only to the flows and risks documented on this page; no saving is booked without executed baseline spending, an identifiable base and transferred costs deducted.
Open the technical appendix: evidence required before validating the costing
| Stage | Expected evidence | Timing | Treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zero baseline | Executed expenditure, headcount, contracts, allowances, property and directly related resources | Before legislation | Publish |
| Avoidable cost base | Lines that genuinely cease, with date and legal basis | Impact assessment | Justify |
| Transition | Mobility, compensation, redistricting, IT, contracts and transfers | Year 1 | Separate from recurring |
| Transferred costs | Expenditure taken over by another administration or tier | Years 1–2 | Deduct |
| Net result | Recurring saving on a like-for-like basis with confidence level | After 12 stable months | Audit |