13, rue Cambon
75100 PARIS CEDEX 01
T +33 1 42 98 95 00
www.ccomptes.fr
SPECIFIC CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT SUPPORT TO
HERITAGE DURING THE HEALTH
CRISIS
2020 fiscal year
–
1
st
half 2021
FLASH AUDIT
September 2021
2
CONTENTS
PROCEDURES AND METHODS
..............................................................................
3
INTRODUCTION
..........................................................................................................
6
1
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT'S SPECIFIC BUDGET RESPONSE
...............
7
A.
Schedule and amounts of budget support
.........................................................
7
B.
Ministry of Culture 2020 emergency appropriations
.......................................
7
C.
Higher ordinary appropriations in 2021 to support investment
.......................
9
D.
Other ministries also contribute funding to support historic monuments in
PLF 2021
........................................................................................................
10
E.
The France Recovery plan
..............................................................................
11
1.
Funding for programme 363 delegated to the Ministry of Culture
........
11
2.
Energy renovation of historical monuments delegated to other
ministries via programme 362
Ecology
.....................................................
12
2
KEY SUPPORT FOR ESTABLISHMENTS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
.......
13
A.
Support provided by the recovery plan to major museums and monuments .15
1.
The tight financial situation of certain major operators
...........................
16
2.
How major operators have adapted to crisis conditions
.........................
18
B.
How the Centre des Monuments Nationaux has responded to the crisis
.......
19
1.
How major operators have adapted to crisis conditions
.........................
19
2.
A structured response with a focus on investment and innovation
.......
19
C.
Operation of private monuments supported by cross-sectoral schemes
........
21
3
THE RECOVERY PLAN REQUESTED FOR THE RESTORATION OF
HISTORICAL MONUMENTS
...........................................................................
22
A.
The financial impact of the pandemic on major projects
...............................
22
B.
Priority given to restoration work on historical monuments
..........................
23
1.
Restoration of heritage made into a priority reform
.................................
23
2.
Centralising heritage management
............................................................
25
3.
The effort made by the local offices of central government
...................
26
C.
In the absence of prior sectoral analysis, incentives have caused an
"overheating" effect
........................................................................................
27
CONCLUSION WHAT ARE THE PROSPECTS AS WE COME OUT OF
THE CRISIS?
........................................................................................................
33
ANNEXES
....................................................................................................................
35
RESPONSES FROM AUTHORITIES AND BODIES CONCERNED
..........
43
3
PROCEDURES AND METHODS
Court of Accounts reports are produced by one of the Court's six chambers or by a group
involving several chambers and/or several regional or territorial chambers of accounts.
Three fundamental principles govern the organisation and activity of the Court as well as of the
regional and territorial chambers of accounts, thus the performance of their audits and investigations
as well as the preparation of the resulting public reports: independence, review and collegiality.
The
institutional independence
of the financial courts and the statutory independence of their
members ensure that the audits conducted and the conclusions drawn are done with complete
freedom of assessment.
Review
implies that all findings and assessments made during an audit or investigation, as
well as all subsequent observations and recommendations, are systematically submitted to the heads
of the authorities or bodies concerned; they can only be made final after taking into account the
responses received and, where appropriate, after hearing the views of the officials concerned.
Except for reports made at the request of parliament or the government, the publication of a
report is necessarily preceded by the communication of the draft text that the Court proposes to
publish to ministers and officials of the bodies concerned, as well as to other directly interested legal
or natural persons. In the published report, their responses are presented in the annex to the Court's
text.
Collegiality
intervenes to conclude the main steps of the audit and publication procedures. All
audits and investigations are entrusted to one or more auditors. The investigation report, as well as
subsequent draft observations and recommendations, provisional and final, are reviewed and
discussed on a collegial basis by a group involving at least three judges. One of the judges acts as
quality reviewer and ensures the quality of the audits.
Notified on 15 March 2021, this audit resulted in questionnaires being sent from 22 March to
the Directorate-General for Heritage and Architecture (DGPA
Direction Générale des Patrimoines et
de l'Architecture
), the Ministerial Budget and Accounting Controller (CBCM
Contrôleur Budgétaire et
Comptable Ministériel
), the Budget Department, the Regional Cultural Affairs Departments (DRACs
Directions Régionales des Affaires Culturelles
) and the Centre des Monuments Nationaux (CMN
National Monuments Centre). The responses from the authorities and agencies were received across
a period until early June.
Interviews were held with the DGPA, the Budget Department, the CBCM, eleven of the thirteen
mainland DRACs, the Central Government Property Department (
Direction de l'Immobilier de l'État
),
the Justice Department Property Department, the grouping of historical monument restoration
undertakings (GMH
Groupement des entreprises de restauration des Monuments Historiques
), the
La Demeure Historique association and the Fondation du Patrimoine (Heritage Foundation).
The investigation also used the work of a sectoral survey on monumental heritage currently
being carried out. Around fifty interviews were carried out in total.
The draft report was discussed on 7 July 2021 by the third chamber chaired by Mr Gautier,
composed of Messrs Barbé, Mousson, Glimet and Samaran, senior audit managers, Ms Prost, senior
audit manager on special assignment, as well as, acting as auditor, Ms Le Lagadec, temporary
external auditor, and, as quality reviewer, Mr Tournier, senior audit manager and president of division.
It was examined and approved on 15 July 2021 by the publication and planning committee of
the Court of Accounts, composed of Mr Moscovici, First President, Ms Camby, general rapporteur of
the committee, Mr Andréani, Ms Podeur, Messrs Charpy and Gautier, presidents of chambers of the
Court, Messrs Martin, Meddah, Lejeune and Advielle and Ms Bergogne, presidents of regional
chambers of accounts, Mr Viola and Ms Soussia, presidents of divisions, and Ms Hirsch, General
Prosecutor, whose opinions were noted.
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the context of the health crisis, the Court of Accounts conducted a flash audit on
central government's support for heritage. This audit, while respecting professional standards,
is characterised by the speed of the investigation. The aim is to draw up an initial review of the
financial effort made in 2020 and the first half of 2021 to help the heritage sector and the
resumption of its activities.
The inventory of exceptional budgetary support for heritage leads to combining the
appropriations deployed by the Ministry of Culture with those from other ministries managing
historical monuments or obtained via the France Recovery plan.
The total amount of
additional resources provided by the Ministry of Culture in 2020 and 2021 is around
€710m in appropriations (commitment authorities
-
CAs), or €870m of CAs
if the
exceptional contributions from other ministries via their ordinary appropriations or via the
recovery plan are added.
Direct central government contributions focused mainly on very large cultural
operators whose self-financing capacity it was important to preserve, while private
owners of monuments were helped through cross-sectoral schemes.
On the other hand,
the specific and general emergency aid schemes benefited very unequally professionals
involved in the activities of heritage establishments, such as tour guides, who, due to their
status, found themselves in difficulty.
In the context of the economic recovery measures adopted during the health
crisis
,
very significant funds were also committed to the restoration of protected and
unprotected heritage.
This recovery concerns both major projects (Villers-Cotterêts in
particular) and cathedrals, non-state-owned historical monuments and heritage assets
entrusted to the Centre des Monuments Nationaux (CMN). Building projects have definitely
resumed, but
the influx of funding seems to be generating bottlenecks and price
pressures
. Extensions of schedules for completing projects will probably have to be accepted
in order to absorb this public procurement shock at a reasonable price. The health crisis
highlights the Ministry of Culture's poor knowledge of its professional sectors and of the
projected changes in jobs in the field of historical monument restoration.
More fundamentally, the prospects as we come out of the crisis are forcing major
operators to change their business model
, particularly due to the decline in foreign tourist
numbers as well as visitors' new expectations during their physical or online visits.
Finally, it is important to note the challenges to central government finances
posed by the need for cash-limit appropriations caused by the recovery plan for heritage
on the implementation of appropriations in 2023-2024
, due to the very ambitious nature of
the multi-year plan of major work that has been undertaken. This plan is at an unparalleled
level, with a very tight timetable and €438m in cash
-limit appropriations excluding additional
costs still to be provided before 2026 in addition to the Notre-Dame project in Paris. These are
all background factors that affect the sustainability of the "historical monuments" component
of the recovery plan.
5
Main audit conclusions
1. The Ministry of Culture's emergency appropriations for heritage in 2020 remained largely
limited to five major cultural operators whose own income fell dramatically. In 2021, the Ministry of
Culture's support for heritage was deployed via the recovery plan and additional ordinary appropriations
dedicated to investment that were agreed. The implementation of the 2020 appropriations for
Programme 175
Heritage
, with €972m agreed in the initial budget act (LFI
loi de finances initiale),
amounted to €1,108m
1
; while in 2021, the amount of appropriations for heritage was increased to a total
of €1,465m.
2
2. The business model of the largest museums and monuments, the Louvre, the Palace of
Versailles, the Centre des Monuments Nationaux, RMN-Grand Palais and the Musée d'Orsay, was
undermined by the desertion of foreign tourists. While in recent years they managed to self-finance up
to 50%, the pandemic has forced them to reconsider their level of expenditure and their visitor policy
and to develop other forms of resources, particularly via digital tools. Support for these operators, which
is continuing and even been amplified by the recovery plan in 2021/2023 (€327.5m), is particularly costly
and may be difficult to sustain.
3. Based on the idea that building works contribute to the recovery of the economy, in a context
of high uncertainty over the duration of the crisis, the "exceptional funds provided for the restoration of
heritage" are the main focus of recovery for the Ministry of Culture. In 2021, the ministry therefore
doubled its appropriations for work on historical monuments (€664m in cash
-limit appropriations (CLAs)
provided instead of the €327m implemented in 2018), while other ministries are also participating in this
policy via ordinary appropriations or "recovery" appropriations dedicated to the energy renovation of
historical monuments and heritage facilities. Launched without really considering the absorption
capacity of the restoration industries, this exceptional funding is likely to lead to delays and price
pressures.
4. The services of the Regional Historical Monument Conservation departments (CRMHs
Conservations Régionales des Monuments Historiques
) and
Département
Architecture and Heritage
Units (UDAPs
Unités Départementales de l'Architecture et du Patrimoine
) are very much sought after
as all works, regardless of their scale and origin, require their authorisation, scientific and technical
control or project management. This is a point on which the Directorate-General for Heritage and
Architecture and the ministry's general secretariat need to be vigilant.
1
Total appropriations for programme 175 in the 2021 LFI (€1,015m) + heritage component of action
5
of programme 363 (€351m) + carry
-
forwards (€94m) + exceptional support for the Chantilly estate
(€4.5m).
2
Including the accounts earmarked for Notre-Dame in Paris.
6
INTRODUCTION
In 2019, the heritage sector had nearly 60,000 employees and primarily self-employed
persons and had a value added of €4.8bn
3
. However, non-commercial activities contributed to
approximately 90% of the value added
4
. The pandemic seems to have had an impact, after
public intervention, on the income of a sector
5
that had previously experienced strong growth,
reducing it by 10%.
Via programme 175
Heritage
, in 2019, the Ministry of
Culture spent €946.7bn in cash
-
limit appropriations (CLAs)
–
including €385.4m for historical monuments and €336.7mn for
"Musées de France" museums
6
–
with the rest of the public contributions being provided by
ministerial programme 224
Support for the Ministry of Culture's policies
for staff expenditure,
by other ministries for the historical monuments entrusted to them and, of course, by local
authorities.
This audit, devoted to the specific support provided by central government to the
heritage sector during the health crisis, identifies the main consequences of the pandemic on
the activity of museums, historic sites and monuments, tour guides and preventive
archaeology.
Heritage cultural establishments, museums and monuments open to the public
were most affected by the first administrative closure and the social distancing
measures put in place when they reopened between 12 May and the end of June 2020,
until the second administrative closure from 30 October 2020 to 19 May 2021.
Projects to maintain and restore historical monuments as well as archaeological
digs were also interrupted during the first lockdown. They therefore faced additional
costs incurred by extensions and compliance with sanitary measures.
Once these
difficulties were overcome, resumption of activity was rapid and sustained. Authorities, schools
and archive services had to set up new organisational arrangements in lockdown and working
from home has become widespread.
In spring 2021, the sector appears to be experiencing mixed fortunes. Central
government's initial support was given to major operators to help them avoid excessive
financial stress. However, with the 2021-2023 recovery plan, public funding has focused more
on the maintenance and restoration of historical monuments. The resulting increase in the
number of heritage projects poses a risk of sustainability and additional costs, fuelled by a
strong recovery in the construction and public works sector, against a backdrop of a shortage
of materials and products that they require.
3
INSEE,
National Accounts
, 2019. INSEE estimates the share of non-commercial activities at 92%, the
Studies, Forecasting and Statistics Department (DEPS
Département des Études, de la Prospective et
des Statistiques
) of the Ministry of Culture at 88%.
4
In May 2020, DEPS estimated that, without the pandemic, the sector would have grown by 11% in
2020 according to counter-factual forecasts made at the beginning of the year. (
Analysis of the impact
of the Covid-19 crisis on the cultural sectors
- heritage sector, DEPS, May 2020)
5
DEPS,
Economic report
, December 2020. These figures record the exceptional central government
support.
6
Annual performance report (RAP
Rapport Annuel de Performance
) 2020.
7
1 CENTRAL GOVERNMENT'S SPECIFIC BUDGET RESPONSE
The immediate impact of the health crisis was a massive decrease in the number of
visitors to heritage sites, which caused their operators a significant reduction in cash flow. In
2020, consultation between the Ministry of Culture and the Budget Department focused on
operational support for these operators. Based on the "minimum requirement", this support
was financed by the redeployment of initial appropriations and appropriations passed under
the supplementary budget act (LFR
loi de finances rectificative
). The continuing effects of the
crisis on these operators and the decision to invest in heritage maintenance and restoration
works to support the economy then resulted in a very significant provision of new
appropriations, partly under the 2021 LFI and, above all, via the recovery plan for 2021/2023.
A.
Schedule and amounts of budget support
Chart no. 1: Exceptional support to Heritage delegated to the Ministry of Culture
(CLAs
, €m)
Source: LFR 2020 and PLF (budget bill) 2021
–
Court of Accounts restatement
B.
Ministry of Culture 2020 emergency appropriations
The ministry considered that it was important to limit the emergency support passed
under the supplementary finance act in July 2020 (LFR3
7
) to a few large operators whose
business model is highly dependent on visitor numbers, with this support enabling them to
complete the fiscal year maintaining the minimum working capital required to continue in
business. The budget discussion focused on the loss of
own resources and the level of
compensation, as the budget department wanted to know about what cost savings had been
7
Law 2020-935
of 30 July 2020 supplementary finance act for 2020.
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
unfreezing
of reserve
progress
P 175 LFI
2021
recovery
plan 2021
advance
decree
announceme
nt
recovery
plan 2022
recovery
plan 2023
LFR3 2020
Jul 20
27.4
15
43.7
351.7
4.5
227.3
42
Jul 20
Dec 20
Dec 20
Mar 21
Dec 21
Dec 22
8
made as a result of the shutdown of activities. At the end of this fiscal year, via the
supplementary finance act and the unfreezing of the precautionary reserve, four major
monuments and museums were helped, plus the National Institute for Preventive
Archaeological
Research
(INRAP
Institut
National
de
Recherches
Archéologiques
Préventives
) with a very clear beneficial effect. (See table no. 1).
Table no. 1: Exceptional support for major heritage establishments in 2020
(LFR3 + unfreezing of precautionary reserve) in CAs=CLAs and €m
Alternatives
€m
Cash at
31/12/2019
o/w
earmarked
cash
(provisions,
reserves,
emergency
response
plan)
2019
expenditure
(excluding
investment)
Projected
cash
position
at
31/12/2020
(Covid
impact)
Prudential
cash level
(45 days)
Additional
management
needs 2020
Cash at
31/12/2020
Chambord
4.3
3.2
21.5
0
2.7
2.7
2.7
Orsay
24.7
13.4
66
-1.9
8.3
10.2
8.3
Versailles
60.8
23.5
100.3
6.5
12.5
6
12.5
INRAP
22
22.2
157.8
5.2
19.7
14.5
19.7
Pompidou Centre
32.2
29.6
109.6
4.7
13.7
9
13.7
Sub-total P175 Heritage
143.9
91.9
455.2
14.5
56.9
42.4
56.9
Source: Budget Department
A particularly favourable 2020 for INRAP
Emergency credits were also given to support the National Institute for Preventive
Archaeological Research (INRAP). The health crisis initially exacerbated INRAP's difficulties and
confirmed, if such confirmation were needed, the structural fragility of its business model. The additional
costs associated with the first lockdown were initially estimated at €30m
8
, which was not in line with
those of other operators. As an administrative public agency, INRAP did not have access to the wage
subsidy system for reduced activity, but the payment of special allowances for staff absent as a result
of the interruption of archaeological field work, with the extension of fixed-term contracts interrupted
during the period of the first lockdown, made it difficult to explain an estimated additional cost of nearly
one-third of staff expenditure. After precise figures were produced by both sides, the ministry agreed to
compensate the additional costs of the non-
competitive sector with €14.535m.
This emergency aid is
the highest granted in 2020 to central government cultural operators.
Activity rebounded strongly in the second half of the year, part of the time lag was offset and
new operations were scheduled at a rate unparalleled for several years, leading INRAP to recruit
additional employees on fixed-term contracts (its expenditure i
ncreased by €7.8m over the initial budget,
unlike other operators).
2020 ended with a very favourable balance sheet, due to the sustained
recovery in commercial dig activities, ultimately resulting in higher own income
(€28.5m above
the initial budget) which improved its management situation.
However, at the same time, INRAP managed to have its need for additional support, both
exceptional and permanent, admitted. It was thus able to benefit from a €5m increase in basic funding
as of 2021 to cover its non-commercial research and preventive archaeology activities and is eligible for
the recovery plan (€15m in 2021 and €5m in 2022).
8
Response to the Court of Accounts, investigation of 2020 NEB (budget performance report).
9
C.
Higher ordinary appropriations in 2021 to support investment
Programme 175
Heritage
received additional appropriations in LFI 2021. The additional
€43.7m of CLAs are only for investment operations (financed under sections 5, 6 and 7
depending on whether it is direct or subsidised expenditure or an operator that is its own project
owner), with the exception of the permanent increase
of €5m in INRAP's allocation and
intervention appropriations (€2m) forming part of the financing of local authorities'
archaeological diagnostics.
Table no. 2:
Additional appropriations for programme 175 in LFI 2021 (€m)
Breakdown of additional appropriations
compared to 2020 (CLAs)
CAs
CLAs
Action 1: Historical monuments
and monumental heritage
Central appropriations for restoration of
historical monuments entrusted to the Heritage
and Cultural Property Projects Operator (OPPIC
Opérateur du Patrimoine et des Projets
Immobiliers
): +€3m
Decentralised appropriations: cathedrals
security + €5m, Partner Incentive Fund for
investment by non-state-owned historical
monuments
+€5m
Increase in capital allocations for the master
plans of the Palace of Ve
rsailles +€4m and
RMN-
Grand Palais +€3m
9
+10.3
+17.4
Action 3: Musées de France
heritage
Decentralised appropriations: investment in
regional museums (State/Region Planning
Contract 2021/2027) +€10m
Capital allocations for the master plan of the
Centre National d'Art Contemporain-Georges
Pompidou +€3m and for the restoration of the
Palais de la Porte Dorée +€1m
+13.7
+13.5
Action 4:
Archival heritage and national
celebrations
Central investment appropriations for national
archive services: +€2.8m
Decentralised appropriations: renovation of
département
and municipal archive services
(CPER (State/Region Planning Contract)
2021/2027) +€3m
+7.6
+5.8
Action 9:
Archaeological heritage
Subsidies for public service expenditure to
INRAP to cover the performance of preventive
archaeology diagnostics and research missions
+€5m
Operating expenditure for local authorities'
archaeological diagnostics +€2m
+7
+7
Total
38.6
43.7
Source: 2021 Annual Performance Plan (PAP Projet Annuel de Performances)
9
Only additional appropriations are specified here, and not margin adjustments, which explains the
difference with the change in CLAs in the third column.
10
D.
Other ministries also contribute funding to support historic monuments
in PLF 2021
In addition to the additional appropriations for Programme 175
Heritage
, other ministries
that are responsible for historical monuments have put in special funding, based on the
widespread intuition that building works can be a lever for economic recovery. The "yellow"
annex to the budget entitled
Central government financial provision in the area of culture and
communication
(budget bill (PLF) 2021) reports a significant increase in appropriations for the
restoration of registered or classified heritage for which the Ministries of Justice and the Interior
and the administrative courts are responsible
10
.
Table no. 3: Funding for Heritage re
storation from other ministries (€m)
Programme
2019
(appropriatio
ns
implemented
)
2020 (LFI)
2021 (PLF)
CAs
CLA
s
CAs
CLAs
CAs
CLAs
Operations
P 166 - Judicial
justice
4.4
2.08
6.04
4.89
10.42
13.93
Former bishops' palaces (Carpentras,
Laon), former sovereign courts (Arras,
Besançon, Dijon, Douai), 17th and
18th-century buildings (Nancy, La
Rochelle) and courts characteristic of
19th-century judicial architecture
(Bordeaux, Colmar, Montpellier, Nîmes,
Paris)
P 354 -
Regional
administration
of the state
5.75
5.51
6.21
6.58
12.79
8.8
Restoration of buildings classified as
prefectures and sub-prefectures in
mainland France and overseas
P 165
–
Council
of State and
other
administrative
courts
0.79
1.41
1.74
1.43
0.51
4.65
Palais-Royal, administrative courts of
appeal of Nancy, Douai and Paris,
registered or classified administrative
courts located in town house.
Total
10.94
9
13.99
12.9
23.72
27.38
Source: Yellow budget annex 2021 - Central government financial provision in the area of culture and communication
The Chantilly estate, owned by the Institut de France, received exceptional support of
€4.5m financed by a transfer decree, from Programme 357
Solidarity fund.
The Agreement of
26 March 2021 signed between the Institut de France and the Ministry of Culture states that
this aid will preserve jobs and enable monitoring and maintenance of collections and the estate.
According to the press release, "
the amount of this aid may be reviewed before the end of the
year, depending on the actual reopening date of the estate.
"
11
. The agreement provides for a
10
On the other hand, the Ministries of Research and Higher Education and Defence, which have a strong
involvement in heritage policy through their museums, have maintained funding comparable to that of previous
years (around €45m of CAs=CLAs for the Ministry of Defence and €105m of CAs=CLAs for the Ministry of Research
and Higher Education excluding staff appropriations).
11
The Ministry of Culture's involvement in the restoration work on the Chantilly estate, capped until then at 50%,
increased from November 2020
to 80%, giving an annual subsidy of €0.8m.
11
review clause in September 2021 and the commitment to leave Chantilly two months of cash
at the end
of 2021.
E.
The France Recovery plan
1. Funding for programme 363 delegated to the Ministry of Culture
The France Recovery Plan chose to provide the culture sector (action 5 of programme
363
Competitiveness
) with specific measures of support and cultural investment "
for heritage
in the regions and for employment
." This choice was motivated by the scale of the crisis in the
cultural industries and because of the importance of heritage to the attractiveness of France.
Central government support for the resumption of heritage activities as part of the
recovery plan (programm
e 363) thus amounts to €621m of CAs=CLAs for 2021
-2023, including
€351.7m
12
of CLAs in 2021.
The amounts allocated and the distribution of appropriations were determined more by
political choices based on the expression of needs than by prior macroeconomic and sectoral
analysis.
12
The €351.7m of CLAs in 2021 comprises €202m of operating appropriations for museums, monuments and
INRAP and €150m of investment appropriations.
12
Table no. 4:
Distribution of recovery plan appropriations in the heritage field (€m)
Title of measure financed
by program P 363
Competitiveness
CAs
2021
CLAs
2021
CLAs
2022
CLAs
2023
CLAs
2020-
2023
Cathedrals plan
80
30
40
10
80
Reinvestment in national
monuments (CMN)
40
20
20
40
Restoration of non-state-
owned historical monuments
40
10
15
15
40
Acceleration of the Villers-
Cotterêts restoration project
100
43
40
17
100
Reinvestment in other
heritage facilities (museums,
archaeology, archives)
20
10
10
20
Support for national heritage
operators (investment)
62
37
25
62
Support for national heritage
operators (operations)
279
201.7
77.3
279
Total
621
351.7
227.3
42
621
Source: Budget Department
The main guidelines of the recovery plan were based on the following recitals:
Following the fires in Notre-Dame Paris and Nantes cathedrals, the ministry wanted to
ensure that 89 buildings can have a satisfactory level of fire safety, to protect people
as much as the cultural heritage. The "cathedral safety" action plan published by the
Heritage Inspectorate in April 2020
13
led to a €80m programme of work;
A goal of spreading support across the country was also sought;
The recovery plan also made it possible to find a way to complete the financing plan
for the "conservation" component of the future Cité Internationale de la Langue
Française (International French Language Centre) in Villers-Cotterêts by providing
€100m.
The operating needs of major heritage operators due to the extension of the
health crisis have been reassessed. This support mitigates losses but does not rebuild
large establishments' self-financing capacity, which contributes to a significant portion
of their investments (Versailles and the Louvre in particular). This justifies the additional
support of €37m in 2021 (€62m in total over the 2021
-2023 period) for their investment
projects.
2.
Energy renovation of historical monuments delegated to other
ministries via programme 362
Ecology
Programme 362
Ecology
of the recovery plan also funds the renovation of historical
monuments owned by the state, either for a long time or recently. This energy renovation work
does not always relate to the roofs and outer walls of buildings, but it must be authorised by
the DRACs and, whenever renovations of façades or envelopes are planned, specific skills are
required and these need to be checked by a CRMH (see list and amount of works in Annex 5).
13
This "cathedral safety" action plan was coordinated by Lieutenant-Colonel Thierry Burger.
13
The former head office of the newspaper
L'Humanité,
built by Oscar Niemeyer, a
registered monument since 2007, which central government acquired in 2011, is receiving
€47m for its renovation and the future installation of DIRECCTE (Regional Department of
Enterprise, Competition, Consumer Affairs, Labour and Employment) in Saint-Denis (93). The
works on the Ilot de la Cité
14
in Paris, which is fully classified and made available to the Ministry
of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior, will receive €32m from 2021. The Ministry of
Ecological Transition held two calls for proposals (education/sciences/research and other
projects) and selected energy renovation works on protected or heritage buildings. Several of
the winning operations concern either historical monuments or heritage establishments. They
include the Hôtel de Blossac in Rennes, occupied by the DRAC, the Louvre Museum, the
Palais de la Porte Dorée and the Mobilier National in Paris, the Ecole Nationale Supérieure
d'Architecture de Versailles in the Great Stables and the Maison des Megalithes de Carnac
entrusted to the CMN.
As the Ministry of Culture does not know the corresponding amounts, they have been
provided by the central government property department, amounting to
€99.8m
in
appropriations
granted
to
state-owned
historical
monuments
and
€46.2m
in
appropriations to national public agencies linked to heritage.
2 KEY SUPPORT FOR ESTABLISHMENTS OPEN TO THE
PUBLIC
Visitor numbers at major public agencies, museums and monuments have been heavily
affected by more than nine months of administrative closure or the implementation of social-
distancing measures, accompanied by pre-booking on the Internet. Paris museums and
monuments have seen the types of visitors change with far fewer foreign visitors, especially
non-Europeans (an almost exclusively paying public). The preponderance of families and
visitors from Paris or Ile-de-France has reduced the average age of visitors, resulting in more
free entries. Group visits have collapsed.
Table no. 5: Change in visitor numbers of 10 cultural operators between 2019 and 2020
(number of visitors)
2019
2020
Change (2020/2019)
CMN
9,971,000
3,510,000
-65%
CNAC-Georges Pompidou
3,273,867
912,803
-72%
Palace of Fontainebleau
539,592
160,305
-70%
Musée d'Orsay and Orangerie Museum
4,681,541
1,098,430
-77%
Palais de la Porte Dorée Museum
525,594
210,213
-60%
Louvre Museum
9,600,000
2,700,000
-72%
Palace of Versailles
8,178,000
2,000,000
-76%
MuCem
1,207,000
526,723
-56%
Rodin Museum
570,650
153,063
-73%
Picasso Museum
629,312
115,408
-82%
Total
39,176,556
11,386,945
-71%
Source : direction of budget
14
The Ilot de la Cité is the complex formed by the Paris Palais de Justice and the office of the Police Prefecture.
14
The net impact of the health crisis on the operating budget of museums
15
and
monuments falling within the scope of the Directorate-General of Heritage and Architecture
was assessed at -
€254m in 2020. The loss of income amounted to €353m, or 54% less than
in 2019. Two-thirds of the losses were due to lower ticketing income. The operating savings
recorded in the 2020 financial accounts amounted to €99m, a decrease of 10% compared to
2019, which reflects a certain rigidity of expenditure.
Operating expenditure fell more (-19%) than staff expenditure, which was relatively
stable compared to 2019 (-3%). However, the situation varies from one establishment to
another. The loss of own resources of the Louvre, CMN, RMN-Grand Palais and the Palace of
Versailles amounted to €275m, or 80% of
the losses seen from the museums and monuments
supported by the DGPA. In value terms, the Louvre alone accounted for a quarter of the losses
of own resources, due to a 72% decrease in visitor numbers in 2020 compared to 2019, with
only 2.7 million visitors.
Table no. 6 highlights the asymmetric effects of the health crisis, which affected the
largest institutions to a much greater extent. Some smaller museums even improved their
forecast results as they cancelled part of their expenditure related to cultural programmes. This
is the case with the Cité de l'Architecture et du Patrimoine (CAPA), the Quai Branly, Decorative
Arts, Guimet, Palais de la Porte Dorée and MUCEM museums. Analysis of the changes in their
financial statements between 2019 and 2020 leads to the same finding.
15
For national museums only (museum operators and RMN-Grand Palais), the net impact on operations
is estimated at -
€136m in 2020: loss of income of €217m, or 50% less than in 2019, while operating
savings amounted to €81m.
15
Table no. 6: Effects of the health crisis on the accounts of major cultural operators
open to the public in 2020 (€m)
Operators
(1): Savings
achieved
(+)/additiona
l
expenditure
(-) compared
to 2020
initial
budget (IB)
(2) Lower
income
(-
)/additiona
l income
compared
to IB 2020
(+)
(1)+(2):
differenc
e
(3)
Exceptiona
l support
due to the
crisis
compared
to IB
"Gross"
impact of
the crisis
(4)
= (1)+(2)-
(3)
(
difference
corrected
by
exceptiona
l support
)
Difference
between
profit/loss
in 2020
and 2019
financial
statement
s
MUSEUMS
CAPA
2.4
-2.3
0.1
-0.2
0.3
0.7
CNAC-Georges
Pompidou
16.1
-12.9
3.2
10
-6.8
-6.5
EPM Quai Branly
6.5
-4.7
1.8
1.8
0.4
Decorative Arts Museum
6.2
-2.7
3.5
2.5
+1
0.6
MUCEM
-3.9
6.6
2.7
2.7
2.5
Musée d'Orsay
10.6
-16.2
-5.6
10.2
-15.8
-16.1
and Orangerie Museum
Louvre Museum
17.6
-84.5
-66.9
6
-72.9
-79.3
Guimet Museum
0.7
0.2
0.9
0.4
0.5
1.3
Picasso Museum
0.1
-2.5
-2.4
3.5
-5.9
-4.4
RMN-Grand Palais
15.6
-45.6
-30
2.4
-32.4
-33.6
Palais de la Porte Dorée
1.3
-0.3
1
0.1
0.9
0.7
CASTLE MUSEUMS
Versailles
4.8
-36.1
-31.3
Palace +6
subsidiary
+5
-42.3
-56
Fontainebleau
1
-0.1
0.9
1.4
-0.5
0
MONUMENTS
Centre des Monuments
Nationaux
25.6
-63
-37.4
2021
carry-
forward
Recovery
Plan
-37.4
-56.3
Source: RAP 2020 / CBCM / Court of Accounts restatement. Last column DGPA
Key: mauve background, redeployment to management; blue background, LFR3
A.
Support provided by the recovery plan to major museums and
monuments
Although supported by emergency appropriations, major operators dependent on
visitor numbers were forced in 2020 to use their earmarked cash to cope with mandatory
spending.
The health crisis has weakened them over the long term and their specific
investment plans could be compromised
if they fail to rebuild their self-financing capacity.
They are thus supported at very high levels by the recovery plan.
16
Table no. 7:
Breakdown of allocations to Culture programme operators (CLAs, €m)
and the Chambord EPIC (industrial and commercial public institution) in the recovery
plan for 2021 (P 363 Competitiveness)
2021
Ops
2021 Inv
TOTAL
2021
2022
Ops
2022 Inv
TOTAL
2021-
2022
Chambord
4.5
5
9.5
2
0
11.5
CMN
50
0
50
39.3
0
89.3
CNAC-Georges
Pompidou
11.7
5
16.7
5
0
21.7
Versailles
35
20
55
7
25
87
INRAP
15
0
15
5
0
20
Louvre
40
0
40
6
0
46
Orsay
12
0
12
3
0
15
RMN-Grand
Palais
26.75
0
26.75
10
0
36.75
Programme
175
194.95
30
224.95
77.3
25
327.25
Source: Budget Department
1. The tight financial situation of certain major operators
The Directorate-General of Heritage and Architecture once again consulted the
17 central government operators in May 2021 to update their non-earmarked and earmarked
cash needs and their likely out-turn at the end of the year, which is changing fairly rapidly.
According to the ministry, the net impact of the crisis could be higher in 2021 than in 2020,
when the near-total interruption of activity during the first lockdown generated more operational
savings, which was not the case in the first months of 2021.
For two major museums in particular, namely the Louvre and the Musée d'Orsay and
Orangerie Museum, the Budget Department is not sure that the allocations in the recovery plan
will ultimately be sufficient.
The Louvre's had €88m in
cash in January 2021. The cash position forecast for the end
of 2021 decreased from an estimated €40.7m in the initial budget passed in November 2020
to €17.2m at the time of the consultation with the operator in May 2021. This amount does not
cover the average monthly amount of expenditure and is not enough to cover capital
expenditure, which accounts for additional earmarked cash of €25m.
The forecasts are also pessimistic for the Musée d'Orsay and Orangerie Museum. It
had €15.3m in cash in the 2020
financial statements. The forecast for the end of 2021 fell in a
few months from €10m to €2.8m, a level well below thirty days' expenditure
16
.
It is highly likely that the ministry will be forced to deploy further appropriations for these
two establishments in the second half of the year, unless a very high number of visitors return
immediately. However, they are not covered by the supplementary finance act of 3 June 2021,
the bill for which proposes, on the contrary, cancellation of €5.52m of appropriations for
Programme 175
Heritage
.
The castle of Chambord reduced its staff expenditure by €1.4m (
-13.9%) and its
operating expenditure by €2.7m (
-26.7%) compared to the initial budget, but the estimated loss
16
The Musée d'Orsay had total expenditure of €42.8m in its 2019 financial statements.
17
from visitors amounted to €8.7m at the end of 2020 or 45% lower than the operating income
included in the initial budget. Having become an EPIC (government-owned industrial and
commercial establishment) as a result of its significant commercial activities, its operational
balance is greatly affected by the health crisis. The recovery plan (+€6.5m for operations)
enables it to regain its self-financing capacity.
However, we consider that the major French museums and monuments are in a
more favourable situation than their foreign equivalents, which are less subsidised
,
some of which have had to lay off staff, sell works (which do not have the inalienable character
of the collections of the "Musées de France"), or even close their doors (more than 10% of
museums worldwide according to a UNESCO study of May 2020
17
). In the United States in
particular, a July 2020 survey of 750 US museum directors identified a risk of permanent
closure that could affect a third of them
18
.
The special situation of tour guides
The profession of tour guides
was particularly exposed to the health crisis and does not
appear to have been supported effectively by cross-sectoral schemes (excluding ministerial action). A
survey of 1249 tour guides after eight months of the health crisis
19
highlighted that a quarter of
respondents had not had access to any aid, that employees of several employers had rarely been able
to benefit from short-time work and those on fixed-term contracts even less.
Tour guides who are employees or with a mixture of employment and self-employment contracts
were the most vulnerable as a result of having used up their unemployment rights (their rights have
been temporarily extended since that time
20
). Some may have been eligible for the exceptional bonus
for "
permittents
" (those who are employed and self-employed) created in November 2020 by the Ministry
of Labour, Employment and Integration (MTEI)
21
, of a maximum of €900 per month.
Self-employed tour guides were better covered by the Solidarity Fund in proportion to their loss
compared to their
2019 income, which enabled them to receive a maximum of €1,500 per month.
The profession, which suffers from being represented by multiple organisations
22
, has not been
supported so far by specific aid. In addition, the "Heritage and Architecture" fund of the Institute for the
Funding of Film and Cultural Industries (IFCIC
Institut pour le Financement du Cinéma et des Industries
Culturelles
) as it is currently established (see below) may not cover them, as they often have the special
autoentrepreneur
self-employed status.
17
UNESCO,
Museums around the world in the face of Covid-19
,
report of May 2020
.
18
American Alliance of Museums,
National Survey of Covid-19 impact on United States museums
, July
2020.
19
Survey of tour guides on aid put in place (March-September 2020) after eight months of the health
crisis conducted by the National Federation of Tour Guides and Interpreters (FNGIC
Fédération
Nationale des Guides Interprètes Conférenciers
).
20
Jobseekers reaching the end of their entitlement during the health crisis were granted a temporary
extension of their unemployment insurance entitlements. However, tour guide non-profit organisations
have appealed to the Council of State for the reform of unemployment insurance. On 10 June 2021, the
urgent applications judge requested additional information on these professions, which are mainly
carried out by people on very short-term fixed-term contracts (four or eight hours).
21
To be eligible for this bonus of up to €900, jobseekers had to have worked 138 days in 2019. Not all
tour guides were able to benefit from this, as many declare their work in hours and not in days.
22
No fewer than four organisations represent tour guides alongside regional non-profit organisations:
Association Nationale des Guides-
Conférenciers des Villes et Pays d’Art et d’Histoire (ANCOVART),
Fédération Nationale des Guides Interprètes Conférenciers (FNGIC), Syndicat National des Guides-
Conférenciers (SNG-C), Syndicat Professionnel des Guides Interprètes Conférenciers (SPGIC).
18
Finally, it should be noted that, as it was aware of the difficulties caused by the closure
of establishments for cultural tourism players, owners of historical monuments and heritage
restorers and architects
23
, the Ministry of Culture arranged for a loan fund (€4m) and a loan
guarantee fund (€1m) to be opened with the Institute for the Funding of Film and Cultural
Industries (IFCIC). The first loans could be launched from June 2021. A sectoral committee
will issue an opinion on loan and guarantee applications submitted by professionals. An annual
review will be carried out to assess the fund's activity and monitor its direction.
2. How major operators have adapted to crisis conditions
The major heritage operators (the Louvre, Palace of Versailles, Musée d'Orsay, Grand-
Palais, CNAC Georges Pompidou) as well as the Chambord EPIC have been faced with a
probably lasting fall in their own resources (ticketing, shops, restaurants, sponsorships), as
they are very dependent on foreign visitors. Their own resources ratio was particularly high
before the health crisis, fluctuating depending on the year around 50% (49% in 2017, 54% in
2018, 43% in 2019, a decline in profits related to social movements)
24
, and fell to 29% in
2020
25
.
In an April 2021 economic report, Atout France estimates that French tourism income
fell by 49.6% in 2020. In 2021, compared to the first two months of 2020, income fell by 55.9%
in January and 59.8% in February. Analysis of international tourism, whose predictive nature
must be assessed with caution, does not expect a return to pre-crisis levels of visitor numbers
before 2023-2024.
Since 2020, the health crisis has led major museums and monuments to
reconsider their visitor policies. Faced with the desertion of foreign tourists, they have
had to adapt to local visitors while maintaining links with their more geographically
distant audiences through digital offerings.
Cultural activities policies have focused more on the relationship with the local area
where possible, with the aim of reintegrating the museum or monument in its local, social and
institutional environment (for example, through the
Eté culturel et apprenant
Cultural and
Learning Summer initiative for example). In spring 2020 and during the following lockdowns,
cultural institutions also spontaneously made available many free digital products to the
general public, who could not visit museums and monuments. However, defining a business
model around digital technology, in which some operators have already invested a lot, is not
simple as it depends on the attractiveness of what is offered and the prices likely to be
accepted by virtual visitors.
The publicity of major operators was also redirected to French audiences who, as
taxpayers, contribute to their funding. In recent years, there have been significantly fewer
French visitors to the Louvre or Versailles because excessive visitor numbers had led to a less
satisfactory visitor experience. The health crisis has highlighted this challenge of how to bring
French visitors back.
23
Order of 6 May 2020
pursuant to Article 6 of the 2020 supplementary finance act 2020-289.
24
RAP 2019 - Financial Accounts of the following national museums: CNAC-Georges Pompidou,
Louvre, Versailles, Rodin, Henner-Moreau, Orsay-Orangerie, Guimet, Quai Branly, Decorative Arts,
Palace of Fontainebleau, MUCEM and Picasso Museum. Financial accounts of CMN, Domaine National
de Chambord and CAPA.
25
RAP 2020.
19
B.
How the Centre des Monuments Nationaux has responded to the crisis
1. How major operators have adapted to crisis conditions
The Centre des Monuments Nationaux was one of the operators most affected by the
health crisis. Despite the influx of visitors to provincial sites in the summer of 2020, the lack of
foreign tourists led to major income losses primarily affecting its major Paris monuments. The
CMN's own resources in 2020 decreased by 57.8% compared to the 2019 financial statements
to €35.7m. Ticketing income amounted to €21m for 2020, down €37.5m compared to the 2019
financial statements. Income from bookshops and gift shops came to €6.1m, compare
d to
€15.5m in 2019, a decrease of 60.4%. At the end of 2020, the deficit amounted to €41.7m
26
.
The first five months of a fiscal year usually account for 35% of total annual visitors
(average 2018-2019). With reopening on 19 May, losses are expected to be
around €13m,
provided that the monuments are not required to close again before 31 December and the
recovery of visitor numbers is confirmed.
In 2020, CMN froze recruitment of staff to operate the Hôtel de la Marine; other
recruitment was postponed and the use of seasonal or backup jobs was limited. These
measures led to an underperformance of payroll of around €4.5m. For 2021, the effect will be
less significant as the Hôtel de la Marine did open and the first recruitments required to start
operating the Cité Internationale de la Langue Française in Villers-Cotterêts in spring 2022
were made. At this stage, the financial impact of reducing the use of seasonal or backup jobs
is estimated at €550k for 2021, but this calculation may still change.
2. A structured response with a focus on investment and innovation
CMN asked each of its monuments to draw up organisational plans during lockdown,
which were agreed in early November 2020. Continuity plans were drawn up for the
monuments' various activities depending on whether they could be carried out from home
(design and administrative activities), required attendance on a rota (monitoring, reception of
construction companies, scientists inventory of gift shops, etc.) or had to be suspended
(reception, ticketing). These plans aimed not to interrupt all the projects undertaken and to
anticipate a resumption of activity.
The 2020 and 2021 fiscal years made it possible to relaunch a major programme of
works, either via the P 175 appropriations under ordinary law or via the recovery plan (see
Annex 3). Although it took significant effort, monument administrators and CMN's project
management teams worked during the period of closure to implement the investment
programme and to accelerate the maintenance work programme in
2020 and especially 2021.
The ministry and CMN focused through the recovery plan on monuments located in the
regions: the Pays de la Loire, Occitanie and PACA received significant budgets for their
national monuments, unlike monuments located in Île-de-France which were not concerned
(see
maps
below
)
.
26
Total income amounted to €150.8m and total expenditure to €192.5m.
20
Map no. 1: Investment appropriations for CMN's national
monuments 2019-2020 (ordinary appropriations)
Source: Court of Accounts based on Ministry of Culture data
Map no. 2: Investment appropriations for CMN's national monuments 2021-2023
under the recovery plan (at 23/07/2021)
Source: Court of Accounts based on Ministry of Culture data
CMN's focus on local visitors and the development of a broader digital offering require
specific investments in terms of IT developments, training and marketing. According to CMN's
management, these investments should help to avoid "cultural deflation", which would add to
the difficulties of cultural tourism. CMN is thus launching new activities such as remote visits
and training as part of a new Institute
27
to increase its income. However, these activities are
27
CMN training institute, which recently obtained DIRECCTE accreditation.
CAs in €m
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
2.8
0.5
4.4
3.7
10.6
12.2
20.2
0.8
20.2
0.0
With Bing
© GeoNames, Microsoft, TomTom
3.4
Total 2021-
2022 (€m)
2.5
1.0
2.0
6.5
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
9.6
2.2
0.0
0.0
10.0
With Bing
© GeoNames, Microsoft, TomTom
21
far from offsetting the €37m in net losses related to the closure of monuments and the absence
of international tourists.
C.
Operation of private monuments supported by cross-sectoral schemes
Different support depending on the legal status
National and regional state-owned museums and monuments
, which are part of
the non-
commercial economy
, have been supported
either by emergency aid and the recovery plan
of the
Ministry of Culture for national institutions or services,
or by local authorities
for local public agencies
or state-run facilities. While the DRACs do not subsidise the operations of regional museums, they have
helped museums and historical monuments to reopen by disseminating a ministerial guide. Several of
them highlight the imbalances caused by excessive visitor numbers at sites and monuments, observed
in the summer of 2020, due to the restrictions on foreign travel.
On the other hand,
privately owned museums and monuments
in the commercial economy
were supported by cross-sectoral schemes not specific to the cultural sector.
Privately owned historical monuments that are open to the public were able to
benefit from the
Solidarity Fund set up by central government and the regions to help the
small businesses most affected by the crisis, from the postponement of payment of certain
invoices, the exemption from social security contributions and the staggering of tax payments.
Eligibility for government-backed loans (PGEs) has taken longer to obtain for commercial or
non-trading property companies (SCI)
28
. It is still hard for owners in their own name with a Siret
number to access and cannot be accessed by owners not registered in the register of
companies and not liable for corporation tax. Similarly, owners without a Siret number were
not able to benefit from the Solidarity Fund
until the publication of the decree of 5 May 2021,
which opened the scheme to them.
Cross-sectoral aid therefore seems to have worked well for the most professional
establishments, as CRMHs did not observe, on the contrary, any slowdown in commitments
for the maintenance and restoration of privately owned historic monuments in 2021. The
DRACs were also not informed of any major difficulties.
La Demeure Historique, which brings together more than 3000 historical monuments
29
,
does not interpret the situation in the same way and reports a profession that has been much
affected
30
by the crisis. However, the operating losses of the owners of historical monuments
28
The decree of 6 May 2020 amended the decree of 23 March 2020 and allowed "
non-trading property
companies whose assets consist mainly of historical monuments classified or registered within the
meaning of the law of 31 December 1913 on historical monuments and which collect income from
receiving members of the public"
to access government-backed loans. According to La Demeure
Historique, given the concept of
"income from receiving members of the public",
some banks did not
want to grant government-backed loans to non-trading companies that hired out floor space for reception
purposes (for weddings, for example).
29
Nearly half the member monuments welcome about 9 million visitors each year.
30
La Demeure Historique has taken action to ensure private owners can gradually benefit from all the
cross-sectoral schemes regardless of the monument's legal status: commercial company, SCI,
management in own name. It hopes that the historical monuments will be able to benefit, in particular
alongside eight other categories of companies in closely related sectors (botanical gardens, zoos, theme
parks, etc.) from the new aid with no turnover criterion, complementing the Solidarity Fund, set up on
31 March 2021 by the Ministry of Economy and Finance. This aid covers up to 90% of fixed costs since
1 January 2021 for companies that have had to pay maintenance and upkeep expenses, particularly
gardens, without receiving any income.
22
open to the public and/or hiring out spaces have not been comprehensively measured. La
Demeure Historique conducted a survey of a representative sample of its members according
to which they recorded a loss of 30% of turnover in 2020 and, in 2021, an almost total loss of
visitor numbers and turnover until 19 May, with very few authorised gardens having stayed
open.
The Ministry of Culture has asked the Ministry of Economy and Finance and Recovery
not to call into question for 2020 the tax advantages linked to an obligation to open to the public
(deduction of property charges, reductions for sponsorship and exemption from transfer duties
on donations), when the monuments could not open as much as required to meet the eligibility
thresholds for these tax arrangements.
The already old debate on expanding the concept of historical monuments being open
to the public has thus resurfaced. For the time being, the Tax Legislation Department has not
made any changes that would better take into account the current reality of the operating
conditions
31
of privately owned monuments.
3 THE RECOVERY PLAN REQUESTED FOR THE RESTORATION
OF HISTORICAL MONUMENTS
A.
The financial impact of the pandemic on major projects
The Regional Historical Monument Conservation departments found that construction
stoppages were short-lived, not exceeding two months. Marginally, the health crisis may have
been a brake for maintenance projects of privately owned monuments. After the health and
safety guide of the professional organisation for the health and safety of construction and public
works (OPPBTP)
32
was published at the beginning of April, projects started to return to normal
from May, with specific health protocols. All central government projects have a Covid officer
and the project owners of complex projects have been strongly encouraged to do the same.
CRMHs have paid very few emergency expenses
33
. Thus, in the Burgundy-Franche-
Comté region and despite the DRAC advertising them, only nine requests for expenses to be
covered, totalling €96,296, were received. In the Occitanie region, the additional costs of the
nine projects in progress and the three projects in preparation concerning state-owned
historical monuments (section
5) amounted to €182,950 and the additional costs for non
-state-
owned historical monuments (section
6) amounted to €95,977. In Normandy, the only
additional costs paid by the DRAC for a project are anecdotal and amounted to €7,000. Co
vid
amendments were subsidised at the same rate as the initial subsidy in accordance with DGPA
directives. DGFIP was also asked by the DRACs to relax the conditions for the payment of
subsidies, as projects had to be delayed due to the closure of construction sites, delays in
consultations and the postponement of municipal elections.
An acceleration in building work permits could be observed at the end of 2020 and even
more in the first quarter of 2021, particularly for projects on privately owned or local authority-
owned monuments. The resumption of projects is slower on state-owned monuments
according to the Grouping of Historical Monument restoration undertakings (GMH). The GMH's
main regret is not knowing the timetable for public tenders, while the Centre des Monuments
31
IGF/IGAC (General Inspectorate of Finances/Cultural Activities), joint report on
Modernising the fiscal
concept of being open to the public for private owners of monuments
, 4 January 2021, which offers a
comprehensive presentation of the tax issues.
32
Organisme Professionnel de Prévention du Bâtiment et des Travaux Publics.
33
Scaffolding maintenance, additional adjustments to site accommodation, etc.
23
Nationaux recently announced the timetable for its projects. The following lockdowns had little
impact on the restoration of historical monuments, as construction projects were allowed to
continue.
The Notre-Dame project, like other major projects, was relatively unaffected by the
health crisis, with the various trades accustomed to very strict health standards (in particular
on lead). For the project management teams of the Chief Architects of Historical Monuments,
after being significantly destabilised as a result of building projects being shut down, the
various lockdowns were used to carry out studies, preliminary diagnostics, evaluations, etc.
According to the DGPA, it was investment operations under project management
delegated to the Heritage and Cultural Building Projects Operator (OPPIC) that were mainly
affected by the crisis. Although certain projects saw costs rise, by up to 20% over the period
May-June 2020, analysis by OPPIC showed an 8.3% increase compared to the amounts still
t
o be authorised (€14.6m out of €175m) on a range of 28
operations representing a total cost
of €993m.
For example, the amendment to the OPPIC project management agreement for the
Richelieu quadrilateral building site shows an additional cost estimated at €5.8m directly
related to the shutdown and the slow resumption of the work due to constraints of health
measures, supply difficulties and potential compensation related to the extension of
deadlines
34
.
Such overruns are in contrast to the low additional costs generated by the
pandemic for regional projects
.
The health crisis has thus provided an opportunity to have delays and overruns
of a different kind admitted for major projects on a national scale. Exceptional support
granted as a result of the crisis were able to cover hidden cost slippages for certain
projects
35
.
B.
Priority given to restoration work on historical monuments
1. Restoration of heritage made into a priority reform
The government has identified
"exceptional action for the restoration of heritage",
according to the terminology used, as one of the
"Ministry of Culture's priority reforms"
,
alongside the roll-out of the Culture Pass and the project to offer each child artistic and cultural
education. This priority fulfils three objectives: improve the condition of historical monuments
throughout the country, enable specialist companies to restart better after the health crisis, and
reassure non-profit organisations and the general public about central government's attention
to cathedral conservation. The declared aim is to carry out significant "recovery plan" projects
without delaying the ordinary programme of projects. For 2021, this reform intends to commit
to recovery appropriations at least
€60m of CAs
for cathedrals and
€28m of CAs for CMN
monuments while maintaining significant commitments through ordinary appropriations
(€35m
34
An amendment to the project management agreement delegated to OPPIC by the Ministry of Culture
was drawn up in November 2020, concerning the Richelieu quadrilateral. It reported an additional cost
associated with the impact of the shutdown and resumption of the work due to the constraints of Covid
health measures estimated at €5.8m and a delay of 6.5 months to the acceptance of the project planned
for May 2021.
35
While the central government project management quality indicator monitored by Annual Performance
Plans and Annual Performance Reports, namely the ratio between the actual price of OPPIC operations
and the initial expected price, did not exceed 111% from 2016 to 2018, it rose to 120% in 2019, then to
123% in 2020, reflecting pressure on the cost of historic monument projects and more frequent overruns
over the last two years, in a context of an increase in the number of major projects.
24
of CAs f
or cathedrals and €15m of CAs for the CMN)
. These indicators have been
monitored monthly and presented to the Council of Ministers since October 2020.
The first results point to a relatively slow start, which is not surprising in view of the
complexity of the heritage chain and the minimum time needed to consult project managers
and then the various trades. However, the CMN's latest programme updated in June 2021
provides for €28.73m of CAs committed from the recovery plan and €26.35m of ordinary loans,
suggesting that the objectives set for the CMN will be achieved.
Chart no. 2:
Chart no. 3: Indicators of the priority reform and their progress at the end of June 2021
Source: Ministry of Culture - DGPA-July 2021
The objectives for restoring historical monuments are also included in the
national recovery and resilience plan presented to the European institutions.
The
national recovery and resilience plan
summarises the indicators, targets and milestones that
France must achieve in order to qualify for the EU to reimburse national appropriations
committed as part of the
France Recovery
programme.
As part of the "
support for cultural
industries and heritage renovations
" measure, the Ministry of Culture must have initiated in
total
62 projects to restore cathedrals and national monuments in 2021
, invested
€30m
for the restoration of local authority-owned historical monuments in 2022
and assisted
50 live entertainment structures by 2023. Out of €1.6bn of appropriations dedicated to culture
planned as part of the France Recovery plan, France could then benefit from the
reimbursement of €702.5m at the end of the process
. However, at this stage of the
negotiations, the channel for collecting these European reimbursements under the
Recovery
and Resilience Facility
(RRF) has not been formally set up.
Finally, support for heritage maintenance and restoration was the subject
of a tax
measure
36
that covered
the extension
of the conditions for granting the Fondation du
Patrimoine label:
36
Article 7
of Law no. 2020-935 of 30 July 2020 amending Article L.143-2 of the French Heritage Code.
Indicator 1: Amount of ordinary appropriations
committed for maintenance and restoration of
cathedrals and national monuments
Indicator 2: Number of maintenance and
restoration operations undertaken on cathedrals
and national monuments, not in recovery plan
Indicator 3: Amount of appropriations from the
recovery plan committed for restoration of
cathedrals and national monuments
Indicator 4: Number of restoration operations
undertaken on cathedrals and national
monuments under the recovery plan
Indicator 5: Number of undertakings benefiting
from the restoration of the cathedrals and national
monuments covered by the recovery plan
Achieved 2019
Achieved 2020
Achieved 2021
(1
st
half)
Final target 2022
(sum
2019 to 2022)
€240m
4,400
€80m
for cathedrals
€40m
for national monuments
53
for cathedrals
14
for national monuments
Not taken into account in the
progress rate
€22.4m
665
€11.8m
for cathedrals
€8.8m
for national monuments
31
for cathedrals
11
for national monuments
185
€75.3m
1,198
€0m
for cathedrals
€6.3m
for national
monuments
0
for cathedrals
9
for national
monuments
€58.2m
1,159
25
To buildings not protected as historical monuments located in rural areas, villages and
small towns with
fewer than 20,000 inhabitants
(compared with 2,000 inhabitants
previously). Uninhabitable buildings characteristic of the rural heritage are not subject
to these geographical restrictions;
To buildings located in
sites classified under the Environmental Code
(those located
in outstanding heritage sites were already able to benefit);
To buildings
not visible from public roads
but which the owner undertakes to make
available to the public;
To
unbuilt properties
such as
parks and gardens.
The tax deduction is reserved for buildings receiving minimum co-financing of 2% of
the amount of the works carried out by the Fondation du Patrimoine. In March 2021, the
Ministry of Culture sent a draft decree to the Tax Legislation Department (DLF
Direction de la
Législation Fiscale
) to specify the procedures for deducting property charges borne by the
owners.
The Fondation du Patrimoine states that "new" labels make up 13.3% of the labels
granted after their implementation from August to December 2020 and 17.1% of the labels
granted from January to April 2021. This share of the new labels is all the less negligible since
the above-mentioned draft amending decree, which opens up tax benefits, has not yet been
published. It should be noted that granting labels represented a
tax expenditure
estimated at
€29.5m for the five years 2013
-2017, a little less than
€6m
on average
per year
for €292 million
of works carried out (including
€155m of works
eligible for the tax deduction)
37
.
2. Centralising heritage management
The recovery plan for the Culture sector (programme 363
Competitiveness
) is managed
by the Minister of Culture's office, the general secretariat and the directorates-general on how
management is delegated by the Budget Ministry, whose third deputy director is the
programme manager (RPROG) for the cultural appropriations under the terms of the
agreement signed on 18 December 2020. This mode of operation enables the delegated
Ministry of Culture to organise the programming and management of the appropriations for
which it is the executive authorising officer, controlled by CBCM departments for the central
appropriations and the regional budgetary controllers (CBRs) for the decentralised
appropriations. It also leaves the Budget Ministry the flexibility to decide how to reallocate
resources from one scheme to another. However, the implementation of the plan is
accompanied by a complex system of committees in a tight human resources context both in
central government and in the DRACs
38
.
With some temporary assistance but without permanent additional human resources,
the ministry has managed, in the heritage area, the effects of the health crisis, urgent
responses and the subsequent recovery. The recovery plan thus reactivated centralised
management that had disappeared, requiring knowledge and uniform reporting tools that no
longer existed across the DGPA, the local offices of central government and the general
secretariat. Previously, performance audits were biannual. The ministry has had to provide
37
As a precaution, the tax expenditure was estimated by the Fondation du Patrimoine based on the average tax
rate of the wealthiest 1% of households (19%).
38
Recovery monitoring committee chaired by the Prime Minister, recovery steering committee led by
the Ministry of Finance, half-yearly interministerial council at central level, regional monitoring
committees, direct allocations to local authorities by regional prefects at the regional level. See:
IGAC
flash audit on the implementation of the regional component of the recovery plan, Annex 1 - Government
steering of the recovery plan.
26
quarterly then monthly tables monitoring disbursement rates and deviations from forecasts and
must request express validation of any changes to the initial programme desired by the local
offices of central government.
3. The effort made by the local offices of central government
The operations expected to be included in the recovery plan were sometimes pre-
selected by the regional departments in summer 2020. However, some CRMHs told the Court
that they only had a few days to propose operations they wanted to see included in the plan.
Operations were validated by the DGPA in October 2020. The CRMHs favoured emergency
sanitary operations costing large amounts (rarely less than €
500,000) that had been
authorisized and were in the consultation phase, and which could be started immediately and
completed in 2022. The cathedrals plan was put together using a rebalancing strategy in favour
of buildings located in La Réunion, Brittany, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes and the Pays de la Loire
(see Table no. 8).
Table no. 8: Regional rebalancing strategy of the Cathedrals plan
(€)
Programmed
recovery plan
(1)
Ordinary appropriations
implemented 2019-2020-
Q1 2021 (2)
Ratio
(1)/(2)
La Réunion
1,600,000
39,295
4,072%
Brittany
5,310,000
1,908,959
278%
Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes
8,642,000
4,043,934
214%
Pays de la Loire
5,830,000
3,744,066
156%
Burgundy-Franche-Comté
9,600,000
7,796,960
123%
Nouvelle-Aquitaine
9,152,000
8,531,855
107%
Normandy
4,595,000
4,836,038
95%
Île-de-France
3,915,000
4,200,361
93%
Centre-Val de Loire
11,900,000
12,834,800
93%
Grand Est
4,328,586
5,997,018
72%
Provence-Alpes-
Côte d’Azur
4,650,000
7,308,359
64%
Hauts-de-France
7,970,000
12,978,975
61%
Occitanie
2,410,000
10,403,877
23%
Guadeloupe
-
251,820
0%
Total
79,902,586
84,876,318
94%
Source: DGPA - Court of Accounts restatement
The need to simultaneously implement investment and operational appropriations for
the historic monuments under programme 175 significantly increased the CMRHs' workload.
In addition, the interventions of the Fonds Incitatif Partenarial (Partnership Incentive
Fund) and the Mission Patrimoine en Péril (Heritage in Peril Mission) since 2018 have led to
an additional management complexity for the Heritage programme's ordinary appropriations,
which means that some DRACs say that it feels as if they are actually carrying out four
programmes at the same time. The work overload can be seen by the use of appropriations
for temporary staff at the beginning of 2021. The allocation of temporary staff appropriations
for DRACs, which was initially €975,000, was increased to €1,475,000 after being approved
by the minister's office.
27
Table no. 9:
Use of temporary staff appropriations by DRACs (Heritage services) in €
Use authority
2019
implementation
2020
implementation
2021
allocation
Use at
end
of May
2021
DAT - DRAC Heritage Services
563,393
653,933
n/d
399,670
DAT - DRAC (all services combined)
1,063,924
1,158,541 1,475,000 749,331
DGPA
1,401,255
1,366,916
1,590,000 554,004
Source: General Secretariat, Ministry of Culture
Regional departments also receive requests from regional and departmental
prefectures and sub-prefectures for the recovery if necessary. CRMHs must issue an alert if
the provisional timetable slips. Conversely, they are unable to give enough time and resources
to publicise operations, beyond what has been planned at national level (location can be given
using a geographical information system,
France Relance
logo applied to documents and
building site signs).
The Court can only agree with the conclusions of a flash audit carried out by the Cultural
Affairs General Inspectorate of the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes DRAC, stressing that "
the choice
of a budget architecture dedicated to the recovery plan is a source of complexity and
constraints in the management of appropriations and leaves little autonomy to the DRACs."
Finally, it should be noted that the health crisis has accelerated the change in working
methods for UDAPs and CRMHs. The Architectes des Bâtiments de France (ABF) association
and CRMH planning services have become accustomed to examining requests for work
authorisations from digital files. However, some CRMHs are tempering their interest in this
innovation, which cannot completely replace field surveys. This change preceded the move to
make all the procedures relating to the administration of land law paperless, which will
gradually be implemented from June 2021.
C.
In the absence of prior sectoral analysis, incentives have caused an
"overheating" effect
The priority given to work on historical monuments has not been accompanied
by a specific sectoral forward-looking study of the response capabilities of the entire
heritage chain from project management, assistance for private or public project
management and construction management to performance of the work by the trades
and the scientific and technical control
carried out by the CRMHs and the Architectes des
Bâtiments de France. Only the Grouping of Historical Monument restoration undertakings
(GMH), which includes 206 of the 871 undertakings with one or more Qualibat qualifications
39
,
was asked by the Ministry of Culture about its capacity to absorb public procurement projects.
It estimated that restarting projects would lead to an increase
"of 5 to 6%"
only in the turnover
of its members.
39
Qualibat qualification certificates are issued to companies with the necessary skills to work in the
various specialities (dressed stone and masonry, framework, roofing, ironwork, etc.) specific to historical
monuments, but undertakings with "equivalent references" can also participate in these projects without
these qualifications.
28
Chart no. 4: Expenditure on historical monuments (action 1 P 175) agreed in LFI 2021
(CLAs, €m)
Source: Annual performance reports 2011/2020, postponement rulings. For 2021: appropriations agreed in LFI P175 action
1+postponements + Historical Monuments component of the Recovery Plan P 363 action 5. Court of Accounts restatement.
N.B.: This chart covers only the Ministry of Culture's programmes and does not include other funding sources.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that the health crisis occurred at a time when the
sustainability of historical monument restoration was the subject of alerts
40
, linked, on the one
hand, to the timetable for the completion of major projects costing more than €20m (including
Villers-Cotterêts and the Grand Palais) at the same time as the major reconstruction project in
Notre-Dame and, on the other hand, to the impetus given to regional restoration activities since
2018. While the DGPA has taken care to distribute the restoration operations chosen for the
recovery plan throughout the country and to cover all the trades concerned, the volume effect
is undeniable and strengthened by the very tight timetables set. A breakdown of the regional
operations of the recovery plan for historical monuments is set out in Annexes 3 and 4.
The tensions caused by the recovery on the activity of the various services can be seen
at several levels:
1 -
The effects of the recovery can be seen in the daily regulatory and management
work of
the
département
architecture and heritage units (UDAPs)
in their three areas of
work: protection and preservation of built heritage, creation and monitoring of protected
spaces, and promotion of quality architecture and urban planning.
While the regional offices of central government were already very active before the
health crisis on development and living environment issues, due to the succession of
lockdowns that led individuals to schedule projects, they were faced with an influx of requests
for authorisations and ABF opinions in protected spaces and sectors. For nearly half of UDAPs,
activity increased by more than 30% compared to 2019
41
. Similarly, the new municipal teams
elected in 2020 restarted actions to protect their heritage by creating outstanding heritage sites
40
Alerts expressed in the Budget Performance Reports and in the parliamentary Heritage reports
appended to the 2018, 2019 and 2020 Budget Review Acts.
41
The number of cases processed by UDAPs increased from 170,643 (1 January-31 May 2019) to
209,907 (1 January-31 May 2021), source DGPA.
800.0
600.0
400.0
200.0
-
314.0
304.0
299.9
277.8
310.7
301.3
301.6
327.5
385.4
497.4
667
29
or starting major development operations. Finally, the interministerial policies implemented at
département
level add to UDAPs' involvement in schemes aimed at improving the living
environment (Action Coeur de Ville (Town Centre Action), Petites Villes de Demain (Small
Towns of Tomorrow), Plan Contracts) closely linked to the recovery policy.
2 -
The situation is the same
for the CRMHs
. The recovery is such that the Chief
Architects of Historical Monuments (ACMHs) are struggling to meet expectations, due to the
combination of numerous large-scale projects on state-owned classified monuments and
private orders on non-state-owned classified monuments.
- The
increases in the level of aid agreed in certain regions, for ordinary
appropriations and for recovery appropriations
to support the historical monument
restoration activity, have led to a sharp rise in requests for subsidies from local authorities and
private owners since the last quarter of 2020. On this point, however, the ability of private
owners to contribute to the work gives rise to a genuine difficulty. It is often assessed
approximately when the funding plans are examined, in accordance with the provisions of
Article R.621-82 of the French Heritage Code
42
. The subsidy rates for registered monuments
are capped at 40% in accordance with the provisions of Article L.621-29 of the French Heritage
Code; however, classified monuments, works on which are usually subsidised at more than
50%, may benefit from bonuses agreed by the Regional Prefect on the DRAC's
recommendation.
42
Article R.621-82 of the French Heritage Code states that "
when central government contributes
financially to the maintenance, repair or restoration of a classified or registered building, the size of its
contribution is determined taking into account the particular characteristics of this building, its current
condition, the nature of the planned works and, finally, the funding provided by the owner or any other
person interested in the conservation of the monument."
30
Table no. 10: Recovery plan operations on privately owned historical monuments:
owners in own name, companies or non-profit organisations (appropriations provided
in €)
Dép
t
Municipali
ty
Monument
Operation
TOTAL
2021-
2022
Cent.
govt
participa
tion
63
Ravel
Castle
Salle des États and
roofs
400,00
0
40%
89
Cruzy-
le-Châtel
Maulnes Castle
Restoration of façades
and roofs (tranche 5/5)
472,99
3
60%
70
Ray-sur-
Saône
Ray Castle
Restoration of façades
531,68
6
60%
58
Saincaiz
e-
Meauce
Meauce Castle
End of the restoration
of the castle and
protection of
outbuildings
1,000,
000
50%
37
Amboise
Royal castle
Restoration of terraces,
SE walls of St Hubert's
chapel
2,160,
000
60%
41
Vendôm
e
Castle
Restoration of the
Poitiers tower and
castellum
896,82
0
60%
36
Châtillon
-sur-
Indre
Castle
Restoration of terraces
and the west façade of
the house
672,00
0
60%
62
Béthune
Hôtel de
Beaulaincourt
Restoration of joinery
300,00
0
50%
27
Mesnil-
en-
Ouche
Beaumesnil
Castle
Work on the south wing
500,00
0
100%
24
Rouffign
ac-Saint-
Cernin
l'Herm Castle
General restoration -
2
nd
tranche
465,52
5
40%
79
Glénay
Glénay Castle
Restoration of roofs
and floors
880,00
0
80%
87
Ambaza
c
Montméry Castle
Restoration of interiors
- 2
nd
tranche
600,00
0
38%
49
Angers
Adam House
Restoration of façades
614,00
0
40%
44
Rezé
Le Corbusier's
Maison radieuse
Restoration of façades
(test tranche)
250,00
0
50%
Total
9,743,
024
Source: DGPA and DRAC/CRMH
–
Court of Accounts restatement
The support granted to private owners by the recovery
plan make up €10m out of the
€40m allocated to non
-state-owned monuments. With each project being for a very high
amount, they are likely to cause difficulties in the future. In particular, the levels of aid granted
to Beaumesnil Castle (100%) and Glénay Castle (80%) raise questions: the first, as to whether
its owner's ability to contribute was taken into consideration seeing as the owner sets relatively
high ticket prices and, for the latter, as the 80% rate contribution was not subject to a
requirement in terms of opening to the public (see
Table no. 10).
31
People may be surprised by the contrast between the
very precise conditions
concerning opening to the public to access tax schemes and the absence of any
conditions
under the recovery plan or the allocation of ordinary appropriations. It would be
legitimate to link the increased rates granted to commitments to open monuments, in line with
the stated objectives of promoting heritage to the general public. As this condition is left for the
local offices of central government to assess, practices differ from region to region, resulting
in owners not being treated the same.
- The restoration activity is also boosted
by the possibility of combining several
central government grants for a single operation.
This is the case with the restoration of
cathedrals and the CMN's national monuments, which can combine appropriations from the
recovery plan and ordinary appropriations, due to their status as a priority reform. This is also
the case in several regions for restoration operations for local authority-owned historical
monuments, which this year can receive co-financing approved by
département
prefectures.
The Normandy DRAC states that "DRAC subsidies and prefect
’
s aid schemes:
DETR
43
,
DSIL
44
, FNDAT
45
, etc are increasingly sought to complement central Government aid.
Combining aid from these schemes sometimes requires derogations."
The Burgundy Franche-
Comté DRAC has also noted a number of operations to restore historical monuments
supported by the DSIL of the regional prefect financed by the recovery plan, including five
operations (Vézelay basilica, Colette's house in St-Sauveur-en-Puisaye, Joigny church, etc.)
in the Yonne
département
totalling more than €2m.
3 -
The high level of public procurement
in a context of constraints on the supply
of basic materials has had several effects since the beginning of the year: labour
shortages, delays and additional costs, which will only be accurately assessed upon
completion of the work
.
The ACMHs of the Notre-Dame de Paris and the Palace of Versailles projects, like
several CRMHs, note that economists are forced to raise the cost of projects compared to the
diagnostic phase and are concerned about a shortage of skilled workers in the various trades,
in view of the number of major projects being launched at the same time. Some work has had
to be deferred due to the lack of available qualified undertakings. This shortage extends to
health and safety coordinators for major projects using main and external contractors.
Furthermore, the very strong recovery in the United States and China has led to significant
increases in the prices of materials used on construction sites
46
. In a March 2021 economic
report, the Fédération Française du Bâtiment raised the alarm about the risk of penalties for
delays on deals signed at fixed prices, as a result of failing to procure the materials to be used.
Moreover, as noted by the services of the ministerial CBCM and central government's cultural
operators, setting provisional completion dates too quickly risks leading to additional costs
(overtime, weekend work, etc.) that might add to current inflation.
4 -
Finally, the crisis has highlighted uneven coverage of the country by the professions
involved in heritage architecture and restoration of historical monuments, which has led to the
recent price pressures and delays. In the absence of new generations of young skilled workers
who are already trained and immediately available,
the sector is faced with bottlenecks that
cannot be resolved in the short term
, as the corresponding, highly qualified, professions
require a long apprenticeship. These difficulties related to available skills, which are keenly felt
43
Dotation d'Equipement des Territoires Ruraux
(allocation for equipment for rural areas).
44
Dotation de Soutien à l'Investissement Local
(allocation to support local investment).
45
Fonds National d'Aménagement et de Développement du territoire
(national fund for regional
improvement and development).
46
The price per metric ton of copper has doubled since May 2021; the price of wood quadrupled in one
year on the Chicago futures markets.
32
at a time when much funding is available, are supplemented by the structural complexity of the
heritage chain, which hinders the rapid implementation of projects (not only are the skills of
each profession required, but they are required simultaneously, together with all the necessary
opinions, controls and authorisations).
The DGPA should have better knowledge of the sector and of the foreseeable changes
in the number of trained professionals (heritage architects, qualified workers, safety specialists,
etc.) so that public-sector projects can be carried out under satisfactory price and time
conditions. It would therefore seem appropriate to develop interministerial expertise on the
heritage professions, for example in the form of a
Forward-looking Studies Contract (CEP
Contrat d'Etudes Prospectives
)
with the Directorate-General for Employment and Vocational
Training, the Directorate-General for Enterprises and the Ministry of National Education, in
order to identify medium- and long-term training needs. The planned Observatoire des Métiers
de
l'Architecture
(Architecture
Professions
Observatory),
financed
via
emergency
appropriations in 2020, can contribute to this.
33
CONCLUSION
WHAT ARE THE PROSPECTS AS WE COME OUT OF THE
CRISIS?
The need for large operators to think about how to change their business
model
The greatest uncertainty currently affects heritage sites open to the public, which are
dependent on the outlook for tourist numbers and the progress of the pandemic.
The largest
operators, which used to self-finance 50% of their costs, will have to develop their thinking, which they
began to do during the first administrative closures, on how they need to change their business model,
to incorporate the constraints of their public service mission.
Many proposals are being considered: improving the visit experience, reducing the scale of
large exhibitions the costs of which for insuring and transporting works from abroad have become
prohibitive, moving back to promoting permanent collections, speeding up digital propositions and
diversifying commercial activities. French museums' international partnerships (loans of works, travelling
exhibitions, cultural brands) should also continue to be developed.
The experiment with making ticket pricing more flexible is mentioned, such as, for example,
selective increases in prices for visitors who are not EU residents
–
if the application of differentiated
prices does not cause practical difficulties
–
or seasonal prices to promote the return of French visitors
during periods when there are few foreign tourists. These are all ideas that may have an impact on large
establishments' own resources.
Appropriations allocated to historical monuments must be managed
appropriately
The budget department has begun to think about the financial conditions as we come out of the
crisis. Some exceptional emergency measures may have a windfall effect so there is a need to look out
for any "ratchet" or "foundation" effect. This risk appears to be primarily related to support for the
economic heritage sectors (restorers-conservers, tour guides, architects, etc.). The budget department
has indicated that it also intends to ensure that appropriations for heavy maintenance of historical
monuments are ring-fenced in future years to avoid higher restoration budgets being needed in a few
years' time.
Furthermore, it is important to avoid paying out the recovery appropriations too slowly as this
would have a major impact on the implementation of appropriations in 2023/2024 by breaching the
budgetary standard. The ministerial consultation on the large operators' disbursement forecasts for
2022/2024 should prevent this type of breach of the standard. As also pointed out by the cultural affairs
and education committee
47
, the €60m recovery plan in 2009 actually led to an under
-use of
appropriations during the following three fiscal years (2010-2012) resulting in a subsequent reduction in
the initial budget allocation. Obviating these hysteresis effects implies calibrating the budget correctly,
actively monitoring the use of appropriations and maintaining the level of public commitment.
47
National Assembly, Cultural Affairs Committee,
"Flash" audit on support for protected property
heritage
, communication by Ms Emmanuelle Anthoine and Mr Raphaël Gérard, 18 April 2018.
34
The multi-year investment plan for major projects has just been reviewed by the ministry's
general secretariat in order to better prioritise projects and stagger the expected delivery dates.
However, the nuance between the "unavoidable", "essential " or "priority" nature of these major projects
has been difficult to establish. It is certain that some major projects (RMN-Grand Palais, Cité
Internationale de la Langue Française (CILF) at Villers-Cotterêts) are very restrictive. The new scheme
adopted for CNAC-Georges Pompidou has kept a tight timetable even if it has been delayed.
The fact remains that we regret that there is no consolidated approach to central
government expenditure on historical monument projects at an interministerial level, in order to
assess its sustainability and economic impact on undertakings in the specialised architecture,
restoration and construction industries.
35
ANNEXES
Annex no. 1: Glossary
...........................................................................................
36
Annex no. 2: Impact of the pandemic on the Heritage programme
........................
38
Annex no. 3: Capital expenditure in the recovery plan for CMN monuments
excluding Villers-Cotterêts (as at 23/07/2021)
...................................
39
Annex no. 4: Regional appropriations of the recovery plan (CAs, €)
- (as at
23/07/2021)
.......................................................................................
40
Annex no. 5: Appropriations for state-owned historical and cultural assets* and for
heritage or protected facilities of national public agencies** financed
via P 362
Ecology
(recovery plan)
.....................................................
41
36
Annex no. 1: Glossary
ANCOVART
Association Nationale des Guides-Conférenciers des Villes et Pays
d'Art et
d'Histoire (national association of tour guides working in towns
and areas known for their art and history)
ABF
Architecte des Bâtiments de France (architects responsible for heritage
buildings)
ACMH
Architecte en Chef des Monuments Historiques (Chief Architect of
Historic Monuments)
CAPA
Cité de l'Architecture et du Patrimoine (public agency promoting French
architecture and heritage)
CBCM
Contrôleur Budgétaire et Comptable Ministériel (ministerial budget
controller and accountant)
CBR
Contrôleur Budgétaire Régional (regional budget controller)
CILF
Cité Internationale de la Langue Française de Villers-Cotterêts
(international French language centre)
CMN
Centre des Monuments Nationaux (National Monuments Centre)
CNAC-GP
Centre National d’Art Contemporain –
Georges Pompidou (Georges
Pompidou National Centre for Contemporary Art)
CRMH
Conservation Régionale des Monuments Historiques (regional body for
conserving historical monuments)
DEPS
Direction des Etudes, de la Prospective et des Statistiques (Studies,
Forecasting and Statistics Department) of the Ministry of Culture
DGPA
Direction Générale des Patrimoines et de l’Architecture (Directorate
-
General of Heritage and Architecture) of the Ministry of Culture
DH
La Demeure Historique non-profit organisation
DLF
Direction de la Législation Fiscale (Tax Legislation Department)
DRAC
Direction Régionale des Affaires Culturelles (Regional Cultural Affairs
Department)
RRF
Recovery and Resilience Facility
FNGIC
Fédération Nationale des Guides Interprètes Conférenciers (National
Federation of Tour Guides and Interpreters)
GMH
Groupement des entreprises de restauration Monuments Historiques
(Grouping of Historical Monument Restoration Undertakings)
IFCIC
Institut pour le Financement du Cinéma et des Industries Culturelles
(Institute for Funding the Film and Cultural Industries)
37
INRAP
Institut National de Recherches Archéologiques Préventives (National
Institute for Preventive Archaeological Research)
MUCEM
Musée des Civilisations de l'Europe et de la Méditerranée (Museum of
European and Mediterranean civilisations in Marseilles)
OPPBTP
Organisme Professionnel de Prévention du Bâtiment et des Travaux
Publics (professional organisation for the health and safety of
construction and public works)
OPPIC
Opérateur du Patrimoine et des Projets Immobiliers de la Culture
(heritage and cultural building projects operator)
NRRP
National Recovery and Resilience Plan
SNG-C
Syndicat National des Guides-Conférenciers (national tour guides'
union)
SPGIC
Syndicat Professionnel des Guides Interprètes Conférenciers (trade
union for tour guides and interpreters)
UDAP
Unité Départementale de l’Architecture et du Patrimoine (
Département
Architecture and Heritage Unit)
38
Annex no. 2: Impact of the pandemic on the Heritage programme
Chart no. 5: Approved and implemented appropriations from the Heritage programme
and the Heritage component of the recovery plan implemented by the Ministry of
Culture (CLAs, €m)
Source: Annual Performance Report, Culture 2019 and 2020, LFI 2021
Chart no. 6: Breakdown by programme P
175 actions in the 2021 PLF (CLAs, €m)
Source: Annual Performance Plan, Culture Programme, 2021
LFI IMPLEMENTATION
2020
LFI IMPLEMENTATION
2019
LFI
2021
Ministry of Culture
Programme 175
Recovery plan
Programme 363 "Competitiveness"
Action 5 Culture (Heritage sector)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
909.9
971.9
1015.6
1108.6
946.8
351.7
monuments
architecture et espaces
collections publiques;
patrimoine
acquisition and
enhancement of public
collections, 9.8
archaeological
heritage, 144
archival heritage
and national
celebrations, 36.4
historical monuments and
monumental heritage,
430
heritage of Musées de
France, 363.2
architecture and
protected spaces, 32.2
39
Annex no. 3: Capital expenditure in the recovery plan for CMN monuments
excluding Villers-Cotterêts (as at 23/07/2021)
Monuments
Operation
TOTAL
2021-2022
Villeneuve-Lembron
Castle (63)
63
Hydraulic networks and restoration of the
counterscarp wall
2,200,000
Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes
2,200,000
Bussy-Rabutin Castle,
Bussy-le-Grand
21
Restoration of the Sarcus wing +
Restoration of collections
1,000,000
Burgundy-Franche-Comté
1,000,000
Palace of Tau, Reims
(51)
51
Restoration of façades excluding chapel
2,500,000
Grand Est
2,500,000
Pierrefonds Castle (60)
60
Restoration of roofs and outer walls of the
Preuses wing, Alexandre tower and
Godefroi de Bouillon tower
3,400,000
Hauts-de-France
3,400,000
Mont-Saint-Michel
Abbey and ramparts
(50)
50
Completion of the restoration of the
Merveille building, roof and outer walls
(Optional Tranche 2)
1,000,000
Carrouges Castle (61)
61
Restoration of the Bishop's Chamber
1,000,000
Normandy
2,000,000
Castle of the Dukes of
Épernon, Cadillac (33)
33
Restoration of the northern terrace
3,000,000
Nouvelle-Aquitaine
3,000,000
Beaulieu Abbey,
Ginals (82)
82
Development of a museum and general
restoration
3,000,000
Montal Castle, Saint-
Céré (46)
46
Restoration of roofs and chimneys
1,500,000
Medieval city of
Aigues-Mortes (30)
30
Restoration of the Governor's lodgings
1,000,000
Medieval city of
Carcassonne (11)
11
Restoration of the east front - restoration
of towers, courtyards and development of
tour route
4,500,000
Occitanie
10,000,000
Angers Castle (49)
49
Restoration of the north front - west zone
1
6,500,000
Pays de la Loire
6,500,000
Château d'If, Marseille
(13)
13
Development of a new pontoon,
restaurant, new reception areas
6,000,000
Mont-Dauphin
fortifications (05)
5
Works on Rochambeau barracks
framework (phase 2)
3,600,000
Provence-Alpes-
Côte d’Azur
9,000,000
Total
40,200,000
Source: DGPA
–
Ministry of Culture
40
Annex no. 4:
Regional appropriations of the recovery plan (CAs, €)
- (as at
23/07/2021)
REGION
Cathedrals
Non-state-
owned HM
total DRAC
CMN
Total
AUVERGNE-
RHÔNE-
ALPES
8,642,000
1,973,000
10,615,000
2,200,000
12,815,000
BURGUNDY-
FRANCHE-
COMTÉ
9,600,000
2,004,680
11,604,680
1,000,000
12,604,680
BRITTANY
5,310,000
4,500,000
9,810,000
0
9,810,000
CENTRE-VAL
DE LOIRE
11,900,000
3,728,820
15,628,820
0
15,628,820
CORSICA
0
1,800,000
1,800,000
0
1,800,000
GRAND EST
4,328,586
880,000
5,208,586
2,500,000
7,708,586
GUADELOUPE
0
1,100,000
1,100,000
0
1,100,000
GUIANA
0
1,060,000
1,060,000
0
1,060,000
HAUTS-DE-
FRANCE
7,970,000
1,618,487
9,588,487
3,400,000
12,988,487
ÎLE-DE-
FRANCE
3,915,000
4,511,270
8,426,270
0
8,426,270
MARTINIQUE
0
0
0
0
0
MAYOTTE
0
690,000
690,000
0
690,000
NORMANDY
4,595,000
7,920,000
12,515,000
2,000,000
14,515,000
NOUVELLE-
AQUITAINE
9,152,000
4,182,973
13,334,973
3,000,000
16,334,973
OCCITANIE
2,410,000
2,854,700
5,264,700
10,000,000
15,264,700
PAYS DE LA
LOIRE
5,830,000
1,480,000
7,310,000
6,500,000
13,810,000
PROVENCE-
ALPES-CÔTE
D'AZUR
4,650,000
3,910,056
8,560,056
9,600,000
18,160,056
RÉUNION
1,600,000
780,000
2,380,000
0
2,380,000
TOTAL
79,902,586
44,993,986
124,896,572
40,200,000
165,096,572
recovery
plan
allocation
80,000,000
40,000,000
120,000,000
40,000,000
160,000,000
Difference
97,414
-4,993,986
-200,000
Source: Ministry of Culture
–
DGPA
41
Annex no. 5: Appropriations for state-owned historical and cultural assets* and
for heritage or protected facilities of national public agencies** financed via
P 362
Ecology
(recovery plan)
NAME
Amount
Ministry
in euros
Bel-Air lighthouse
–
Réunion
1,046,785
Ecology
DEAL Dodu (93) - Building F
590,000
Ecology
Morbihan UDAP
85,670
Culture
Brescou island lighthouse (Cap d’Agde)
513,695
Ecology
Fort Richelieu Sète, Semaphore station. Main building
658,000
Armed forces
Paris Palais de Justice
32,480,000
Multi-occupation
Palais de Chaillot
7,964,880
Culture
Ministry of Justice, Vendôme site - Stables building
2,938,500
Justice
Gobelins Factory - Berbier du Mets wing
158,480
Culture
Valence barracks, Agen
–
Bldg 016
1,090,000
Interior
Hotel des Douanes
4,953,450
Finance
Former L'Humanité headquarters - Oscar Niemeyer DREETS
47,000,000
Social Affairs
Various works for less than €70,000
317,642
TOTAL STATE-OWNED
99,797,102
National Monuments Centre Carnac Megaliths site
323,328
Culture
Louvre Museum
9,644,616
Culture
CIUP (Paris University international campus)
7,944,351
Higher
Education -
Research
CIUP (Paris University international campus)
3,752,000
Higher
Education -
Research
National Conservatory of Arts and Crafts
2,550,968
Higher
Education -
Research
Paris 2 University Panthéon-Assas
2,305,000
Higher
Education -
Research
National Natural History Museum
1,229,862
Higher
Education -
Research
Paris 3 University - Sainte-Geneviève library
888,000
Higher
Education -
Research
INI - National Institution of les Invalides
866,800
Higher
Education -
Research
National Natural History Museum
194,110
Higher
Education -
Research
Palais de la Porte Dorée
6,934,000
Culture
Versailles National School of Architecture - Great Stables
7,966,139
Culture
Caen Normandy University
1,656,500
Higher
Education -
Research
TOTAL PUBLIC AGENCIES
46,255,674
Source: DIE (Direction de l'Immobilier de l'Etat - State-owned property department)
* Historical and cultural assets are partially or fully protected as HMs
** For national public agencies, the list is based on data reported by project initiators collected by the DIE
Responses from
authorities and
bodies concerned
Contents
Réponse from the minister of culture
..................................................
42
Recipient with no observations
President of the Centre des Monuments Nationaux (CMN)
President of La Demeure Historique
42
RESPONSE FROM THE MINISTER OF CULTURE
By letter dated 23 July 2021, you were kind enough to send me the audit drawn up by
the Court of Accounts on the specific support provided by central government to the heritage
sector in the context of the health crisis.
First of all, I would like to thank you for the quality of this analysis, which makes it
possible to measure the extent of central government support for heritage and to highlight the
responsiveness and strong involvement of the Ministry of Culture's teams, both at the level of
central government and its local offices and of its cultural operators in the development and
implementation of emergency measures to support this sector.
I would also like to make the following comments on the Court's observations in the
draft report.
In the first days of lockdown, the Ministry of Culture, faced with the urgency of a global
health crisis that kept on changing and has lasting effects, responded to provide the most
appropriate responses to support this sector. Central government financial support for the
heritage sector firstly involved the rapid payment of specific sectoral aid, which supplemented
the cross-sectoral support intended mainly for the operation of privately owned monuments
(solidarity fund, wage subsidies for reduced activity, exemption from social security
contributions, etc.). In this regard, the Court states that "the Ministry of Culture's emergency
appropriations for heritage in 2020 were essentially limited to five major operators."
But as the Court rightly sets out, I would like to point out that the ministry's assistance
to the heritage and architecture sector during the crisis went far beyond just supporting large
establishments, particularly via an increase in ordinary appropriations in PLF 2021 to support
investment and via the priority given to restoration work on historical monuments as part of the
recovery plan (€614m).
The support for heritage operators, some of which are responsible for
the project management of major investment programmes across the country, enabled us to
provide funds to undertakings in the heritage sectors with a view to these projects continuing.
Wi
th regard to the situation of heritage operators and more specifically the "need […]
to think about how to change their business model", I would like to point out that my
departments have begun, in conjunction with the establishments concerned, to consider their
socio-economic model. This thinking takes into account the lack of a rapid return to 2019 visitor
levels, which will significantly limit the ability of establishments most dependent on international
tourists to return to levels of own resources as high as before the crisis, the certain rigidity of
the level of their expenditure and the need to reconcile these parameters with heritage
operators' other objectives in terms of carrying out their public service missions, such as
cultural democratisation, for example. While waiting for the conclusions of this thinking and the
end of the crisis, I am particularly aware of the financial position of each of these operators
affected over the long term by the crisis.
With regard to the post-crisis recovery, the Court stresses that "projects have definitely
resumed, but the influx of funding seems to be generating bottlenecks and price pressures"
and that "extensions of schedules for completing projects will probably have to be accepted in
43
order to absorb this public procurement shock at a reasonable price." In the heritage sector, it
appears that the phasing of field operations has not yet led to actual delays in construction
projects. Price pressures are mainly due to a strong recovery in activity in Asia and the US,
which has affected the availability of construction materials and commodity prices.
With regard to "the Ministry of Culture's poor knowledge of its professional sectors and
of the projected changes in jobs in the field of historical monument restoration", I would like to
stress that an important project has been carried out by the Directorate-General for Heritage
and Architecture in order to improve the quality of its statistical and sector-specific information,
and ultimately its knowledge of the heritage industries. These analyses have made it possible
to observe the relatively fragmentary nature of this sector (excluding architecture). At the same
time, since the start of the health crisis, the Ministry of Culture, in conjunction with the Ministry
of Economy, Finance and Recovery, has passed on and examined requests for support from
privately owned museums and monuments with a constant concern to coordinate networks of
professional federations. As suggested by the Court (page 31), we might envisage using a
forward-looking study contract, provided that it reflects professionals' willingness to structure
themselves according to their heritage restoration profession. However, with the exception of
a few specialised companies (organ manufacturers, stained-glass window manufacturers), the
undertakings concerned are not involved in the historical monuments sector alone.
With regard to the "specific situation of tour guides" mentioned by the Court, it is worth
remembering that the latter have been the subject of a number of aid measures under ordinary
law as a result of the health crisis (solidarity fund, wage subsidies for reduced activity,
extension of unemployment insurance entitlements, exceptional aid of 900 euros). As the tour
guide profession is characterised by high dispersion within different collective agreements, the
sectoral knowledge of this profession remains imperfect and the number of tour guides in the
profession is difficult to specify. It is in this context that by the end of 2021, together with the
Ministry of Economy, Finance and Recovery, a special study on this profession is due to be
launched based on a specification agreed with representatives of the main professional
federations.
Finally, I have noted the Court's request to have a "consolidated approach to central
government expenditure on historical monument projects at an interministerial level." It would
indeed be appropriate to know, each year, the appropriations that the nation devotes to the
conservation of its historical monuments, especially if appropriations for the heavy
maintenance of historical monuments are ring-fenced in the budgets of the most affected
operators.