In the context of the Smart City Expo World Congress 2022, IFRI, the French Institute of International Relations, published on November 16, the study ” Neither surveillance nor algorithmic consumerism. Towards an alternative European model for smart cities”. Jacques Priol, president and founder of CIVITEO, and Joé Vincent-Galtié, a consultant with CIVITEO, describe the European smart city, far from the Chinese or North American models.

This study follows on from the report “From the smart city to the reality of connected territories”, in which Jacques Priol and Joé Vincent-Galtié took part, which aimed to define a French model for smart territories. Nearly 200 projects were identified, deployed in cities of all sizes, including rural areas. They were very varied, as were their deployment methods, and the authors noted that the French model did not yet exist.

The study outlines the contours of a possible European model that avoids the errors of two models that are unanimously opposed: the one implemented by China and the one implemented by certain North American cities.

The Chinese monitoring model

In 2011, the 12th Five-Year Plan mentioned for the first time the Chinese Communist Party’s desire to develop digital cities. Today, more than 800 smart city projects in China have emerged.

Although the projects cover a wide range of topics, from waste management to firefighting, the security aspect is predominant, with the population under constant surveillance. The model is based on a vast identification and recognition system, including facial recognition in public spaces, and allows the establishment of a social credit.

It is socially unacceptable and incompatible with the principles of a democratic society, whose legislation ensures the protection of privacy and personal data. However, China is trying to export it, including to Europe through
initiatives such as the Huawei Online Smart City Tour organized in France in 2020.

A North American consumerist model inspired by California

A different kind of model, mainly promoted by American companies
deployed in many cities (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Seattle, Austin…), combines algorithmic modeling, optimization of the management of major urban functions, but also predictive policing, recourse to private services that massively exploit public space, the arrival of new players and the “uberization” of these services, i.e., a fragmented management of these services by multiple private players…

This model is inspired by some of the first Californian experiments that use technology, and especially data science and now artificial intelligence (AI), to optimize the management of public action.

The report cites the example of Google, which has invested nearly $50 million in R&D to prepare a highly innovative project for a city entirely driven by data: optimized energy management, low-carbon construction, individualized management of waste flows, roads that can be adjusted according to needs at different times of the day, sensitive weather control of infrastructures, etc.

Data management has been the subject of much criticism, especially since Google refused to anonymize them. It preferred to abandon the project.

The smart city, at the heart of geopolitical struggles

For the authors of the report, a geopolitical struggle to impose a smart city model is already underway: city management is a soft power tool, the smart city a geopolitical object.

The communication campaign launched by Saudi Arabia last summer around NEOM’s The Line project illustrates this perfectly. A vertical city 500 meters high and 200 meters wide, stretching over 170 kilometers, is to be built at a total cost of over 500 billion euros.

Africa is one of the major areas of confrontation between smart city models: the model of a monitored surveillance society promoted by China confronts the model of a smart city at the service of sustainability promoted by France in the framework of the Smart Africa Alliance.

An alternative European model

After showing the examples that should not be followed, and looking at examples from which the European model could be inspired (French intelligent territories: Dijon, Caen, Montreal, Helsinki, Seoul, etc.), the study outlines the contours of a possible European model.

If it emerges, its cornerstone will be the protection of privacy and will be based on the strict application of the RGPD in urban management. The values, principles, methods and tools that are currently favored by local elected officials meet multiple European initiatives currently being developed, including the Data Act, Data Governance Act and Artificial Intelligence Act.

The tools will have to be pooled, with massive recourse to open source to guarantee interoperability, transparency and sovereignty. This future model will preserve the trust of citizens, maintain human relations and avoid the creation of new digital divides with citizens. It will be sustainable, while remaining sober (including in data management).

Translated from L’IFRI publie une étude esquissant le modèle de la smart city européenne