French local authorities face a complex equation: cutting spending, improving services for citizens, and accelerating their ecological transition. To address this, more and more territories are relying on field data from connected sensors. This guide covers the key challenges, tools, and best practices for a successful connected and sustainable territory project.
The Connected and Sustainable Territory (TCD, from the French "Territoire Connecté et Durable") is the French take on the smart city concept, with one major difference: frugality. While the Anglo-Saxon smart city model focuses primarily on technology, the TCD approach places ecological transition and the optimisation of public resources at the heart of the strategy.
In practice, this means deploying sensors and connected devices across a local authority's infrastructure (buildings, water networks, public lighting, waste collection points, etc.) to collect reliable data in real time. This data is then used to manage public services based on facts: detecting a water leak before it becomes critical, adjusting street lighting according to actual footfall, or prioritising waste collection routes based on how full the containers are.
The goal isn't to accumulate data for its own sake, but to act on it: reducing the carbon footprint, preserving resources, controlling energy spending, and improving day-to-day life for both staff and citizens. The primary ambition is to optimise public resources while improving citizens' quality of life.
Not all municipalities have the same budgetary and human resources. According to the Observatory's analysis, territories can be grouped into three profiles based on their theoretical level of digital autonomy:
In most local authorities, each department works with its own tools: one piece of software for water management, another for lighting, a third for buildings. These systems don't talk to each other, creating data silos that are impossible to cross-reference.
An IoT platform solves this problem by acting as a unified technical foundation. It connects to every sensor deployed in the field, regardless of manufacturer or protocol, and centralises their data in a consistent format. It decodes raw data frames, stores historical records, and makes the information available to existing business systems via APIs.
This technical foundation delivers three immediate benefits to local authorities: a complete inventory of connected equipment, real-time supervision of operating status, and the ability to configure automatic alerts in the event of an anomaly (overconsumption, failure, threshold exceeded). Technicians can then shift from reactive intervention to preventive maintenance, which is more efficient and less costly.
An IoT platform doesn't replace business software: it feeds it reliable data and finally lets these systems talk to each other.
IoT applied to local authorities covers a broad range of use cases. Some generate quick, measurable savings, while others stem from regulatory obligations or public safety concerns. Here are the most common deployments and their observed benefits in the field.
| Use case | Deployed solution | Measured benefits |
|---|---|---|
| Water management | Remote meter reading, leak-detection sensors, river level probes | 811 million m³ saved by 2035 (national projection), flood prevention, accurate billing |
| Building energy | Consumption sensors, remote thermal control, automatic load shedding | -15% observed consumption, compliance with the French "décret tertiaire" |
| Indoor air quality | CO₂ and temperature sensors in public buildings (schools, nurseries, care homes) | Regulatory compliance, improved focus and health outcomes |
| Public lighting | Remote control of lighting cabinets, brightness dimming, fault detection | Up to -40% on electricity bills, reduced light pollution |
| Waste collection | Fill-level sensors in bins and drop-off points | -20% distance travelled, lower CO₂ emissions, cleaner streets |
| Environmental risk | Fire video-detection, weather stations, flood sensors | Early warning, an estimated 42,500 hectares of forest preserved by 2035 |
| Parking | Vehicle presence sensors (accessible spaces, deliveries), dynamic guidance | Smoother traffic flow, more local business footfall, fewer unnecessary fines |
Not all IoT platforms are equal. Before committing, a local authority should evaluate any solution against four key criteria.
These four criteria, interoperability, multi-tenancy, sovereignty, and scalability, should guide any specification document. A platform that checks these boxes protects the investment over the long run and preserves the freedom to evolve the project without depending on a single vendor.
Kuzzle IoT was designed to meet the specific requirements of local authorities and resource-pooling structures:
In short, Kuzzle checks the four structural criteria for an IoT platform suited to local authorities: interoperability, multi-tenancy, sovereignty, and scalability, with the flexibility of a modular solution that adapts to the reality of each territory.
The Observatory for Connected and Sustainable Territories is an initiative led by InfraNum, the FNCCR, and several other players in territorial digital transformation. Its goal: to provide local authorities with a fact-based framework for assessing the relevance and return on investment of their IoT projects.
Key findings from the Observatory:
For local authorities looking to structure their thinking, the Observatory's work is a solid starting point before launching any project.
A connected territory project rarely fails for technical reasons. It's the lack of buy-in from field teams that causes it to stall. The point isn't to deploy technology; it's to concretely improve public service.
Involving business units isn't a box to tick at the start of a project. It's ongoing work. A connected territory only truly mobilises people once staff can see its practical value in their day-to-day work.
Launching a connected territory project doesn't happen by chance. Here are the six key steps to structure the approach and avoid common pitfalls.
1. Clarify the political vision. A TCD project must respond to explicit objectives: improving public service, optimising spending, accelerating ecological transition. Without a clear direction set by elected officials and senior management, the initiative risks fragmenting into isolated efforts without coherence.
2. Carry out a diagnostic. Before choosing tools, analyse what's already in place: the authority's digital maturity, existing information systems, ongoing projects, business priorities. This step helps identify operational pain points and opportunities for pooling resources, avoiding the addition of another technology layer onto an already complex IT system.
3. Structure governance. The project must be steered cross-functionally, involving elected officials, senior management, IT, and business units. Appointing a clearly identified project lead facilitates coordination and ensures continuity. Without structured governance, budget decisions quickly become bottlenecks.
4. Prioritise use cases. It's better to start with one or two targeted, high-value projects (energy monitoring, remote lighting control, route optimisation) rather than trying to cover everything at once. These early wins serve as proof points and build internal momentum.
5. Define the technical architecture. This means choosing an interoperable, scalable platform, defining data governance rules, anticipating cybersecurity needs, and planning integration with existing systems. The stakes are strategic: avoiding vendor lock-in and protecting the long-term value of the investment.
6. Deploy progressively. Rollout must be accompanied by a change management plan: training staff, explaining the benefits, gathering field feedback, and adjusting continuously. Tool adoption is built over time, not on the day of go-live.
These six steps aren't a rigid framework. Depending on the size and maturity of the local authority, some can be run in parallel or adjusted. The key is to maintain a logical progression and not skip any foundational steps.
The choice of communication network should never come before the project itself. It follows from the use cases to be addressed: what range is needed? What data volume? What battery life? What budget?
In practice, a connected territory often combines several connectivity options depending on the use case. The IoT platform must therefore be able to aggregate flows from heterogeneous networks, without imposing a single technology choice.
Hypervision sits as the decision-making layer above the IoT platform. It aggregates data from multiple sources (sensors, but also business software, GIS, billing systems) and presents it in unified dashboards. It's the tool used daily by senior management, elected officials, and department heads: it turns heterogeneous data flows into readable indicators, dynamic maps, and actionable KPIs.
Neither is as effective without the other. An isolated IoT platform collects data, but without a consolidated view, each department stays in its own silo. Conversely, a hypervisor without a robust IoT platform depends on fragmented, poorly synchronised data sources. Real power emerges when the two building blocks work together: the IoT platform feeds the hypervisor with reliable, real-time data, while the hypervisor provides the cross-functional view needed for strategic decision-making across the territory.
Connected territory projects are no longer experiments. Several local authorities and syndicates have already deployed operational solutions with measurable results.
Three structures, different in nature and size, reaching the same conclusion: digital sovereignty and energy performance aren't just promises. They're results already achieved on the ground.
The TCD is the French take on the smart city, with a strong emphasis on frugality and ecological transition. While the Anglo-Saxon smart city model focuses primarily on technology, the TCD approach places resource optimisation and environmental impact at the heart of the strategy.
There's no single answer. The budget depends on the scope (number of buildings, sensors, use cases) and the deployment model (pooled or independent). An initial pilot on a few buildings can start with a few tens of thousands of euros. Scaling up across an entire portfolio represents a larger investment, but the resulting savings (energy, maintenance, route optimisation) generally deliver a return on investment within 2 to 4 years.
Not necessarily. Local authorities that rely on a syndicate or pooling structure benefit from shared technical expertise. For large urban areas wanting to bring skills in-house, a gradual upskilling path is possible, particularly thanks to open-source solutions that avoid vendor dependency.
LoRaWAN is a long-range, low-power communication technology, ideal for 80% of IoT use cases (water, energy, waste, buildings). By deploying a private network, the local authority keeps control of its infrastructure, retains data sovereignty, and avoids recurring per-device subscription fees.
No. The recommended approach is to start with a targeted pilot on the most critical (or most energy-intensive) buildings or networks, then scale up gradually based on results and available budget.
Digital or energy syndicates cover the initial investment (platform, network, expertise). They then offer a catalogue of services to member municipalities at a shared cost. A municipality of 500 residents can thus benefit from the same tools as a major city, without bearing the investment alone.
A pilot can be up and running within 1 to 3 months, depending on complexity. The Smart Côte d'Or project, for example, deployed a full demonstrator (200 sensors, 6 use cases) in 45 days. Scaling up then takes 6 to 18 months depending on scope.
The main risks are organisational, not technical: lack of buy-in from business units, absence of clear governance, choosing a proprietary solution that locks the authority in. Good upfront preparation (diagnostic, governance, business unit involvement) helps avoid these pitfalls.