STATE MONUMENTAL
HERITAGE POLICY
Public thematic report
Executive Summary
June 2022
2
Executive Summary
Established in the 19
th
century out
of a desire to save the nation’
s heritage, the State's
monumental heritage policy has continued to expand with the development of legal
arrangements to increase the scope of protection.
Distribution of monuments according to status, type and period
Source: Ministry of Culture, Conservation Review 2020
Although the rate of increase in the number of buildings covered by the system of historic
monuments in the strict sense of the term (44,540 to date) has slowed down over the last
twenty years, all the systems created over the last two centuries (classified or listed historic
buildings and monuments, their surroundings, protected areas, remarkable heritage sites, etc.)
have led to the protection of several hundred thousand buildings and their surrounding areas.
A long-standing policy facing the challenges of protecting a vast
heritage
The scale of this policy is reflected in the resources that the state devotes to it. Public
spending on monumental heritage is significant and mainly focused on conservation. Before
the health crisis, it stood at more than €1.3 billion and was divided equally between the State
and local authorities. Between 2019 and 2021, this effort grew significantly with the large
increase in State credits allocated to major works, mainly on key monuments or included in the
recovery plan. In addition, in order to encourage the conservation of privately owned
monuments, the State long ago developed an appropriate and effective tax system.
3
Breakdown of expenditure on historic monuments (action 1 P 175, implemented in
payment credits, € million)
Source: RAP 2011-2020 reprocessed by the Court of Auditors. Funds for public
institutions (EP) include the Notre-Dame contribution fund
Although the State and local authorities can claim to have made a constant effort, the
overall expenditure is still poorly understood. The Ministry of Culture does not have
comprehensive knowledge of the consolidated expenditure of the State. The budgetary yellow
paper entitled “
Effort financier de l
’
État dans le domaine de la culture et de la communication
”
(Financial effort of the State in the area of culture and communication) is incomplete with
regard to the expenditure of other ministries responsible for historical monuments and the State
aid received by local authorities for local heritage. As for the effort made by the latter, its
estimate is even less precise and is moreover proving to be irregular over time.
4
Overview of public spending
Public budgetary and tax expenditure on
historic buildings/monuments and heritage
spaces (payment credits, € million)
2019
implemen
tation
2020
implement
ation
2021
implement
ation
Ministry of Culture - Historic Buildings and
Monumental Heritage (action 1 - P 175)*
385
502
687
Ministry of Culture - heritage sites and teaching part
École de Chaillot CAPA (fractional share 2 - P 175)
10
10
10
Ministry of Culture - staff costs (P 224)
85
87
90
Recovery plan for the culture sector (P 363
competitiveness)
payment credits voted
-
-
230
Total Ministry of Culture (excluding educational
expenditure)
480
599
1017
Other ministries owning historical
buildings/monuments (estimate)
60**
60**
60**
DSIL and other territorial grants (FNADT, DETR)
not
available
not
available
28
Recovery Plan (P 362 Ecology)
payment credits
voted
-
-
146
Total other ministries
60
60
234
Direct tax expenditure for historic
buildings/monuments + Heritage Foundation labels
84
81
74
Tax expenditure linked to donations and
sponsorship (excluding major operators)
31
31
31
Total tax expenditure
115
112
105
Total estimated state expenditure
655
771
1355
Local authority expenditure for the maintenance of
municipal heritage 2017 estimate
310
310
310
Departments (intervention credits and own assets)
2017 estimates
243
243
243
Regions (mainly intervention credits) 2017
estimates
110
110
110
Total local authorities
663
663
663
Total estimated public expenditure
1318
1434
2018
European funds: ERDF and Interreg
A few million euros per year
Figures in italics are estimates.
* Total expenditure including funds for Notre Dame de Paris transferred to the newly created public institution
EPRNDP (total of €152
m in payment credits between 2019 and 2021) and matching Incentive and Partnership Funds
-
FIP (€7
m in 2020) and from the Heritage at Risk Mission -
MPP (€5.3
m in 2020).
** Expenditure by the other ministries involved varies substantially depending on the scheduling of the work.
Source: Chorus, Annual performance reports for the Culture Mission, Budget Directorate, State Property Directorate
(DIE), Ways and Means Volume 2 PLF 2021 and 2022, Yellow Paper 2021 Financial effort of the State in the area of
culture and communication
Implementation of this policy is also based on a structured organisation divided between
central administration, decentralised departments (regional directorates of cultural affairs -
DRAC) and operators (mainly the Centre des monuments nationaux
–
CMN (Centre for
National Monuments) and the Operator for the Ministry of Culture
’
s property programmes
–
OPPIC) and on recognised scientific and technical expertise, both in terms of project ownership
and project management.
Nevertheless, despite these resources, the latest assessment of the state of health of
historic buildings/monuments carried out in 2018 showed that almost a quarter of them are in
a worrying state.
5
Persistent structural weaknesses in the face of new challenges for
the heritage policy
A major reform of conservation project ownership and management took place in 2009.
Traditionally the State has been responsible for all classified buildings/monuments, but now it
is the owners who are in charge of conservation operations, whether they are local authorities
(51% of historic monuments) or private owners (43%).
In the area of project management, the exclusivity enjoyed since the beginning by the
chief architects of historic buildings/monuments for all classified monuments has been
discontinued. They have in fact only retained the exclusive right to manage the work on listed
buildings/monuments belonging to the State.
The results of these two very important reforms are disappointing. In terms of volume,
the expected increase in conservation operations has not materialised, in particular because
local authorities have not sufficiently organised their project ownership practices. As a result,
the scientific and technical control assumed by the State compensates for their shortcomings
and makes use of resources that put the roles of the DRAC out of balance.
Implementation of regional credits for the maintenance and restoration of historic
buildings/monuments* (in payment credits, € million)
*Excluding national monuments managed by the Centre for National Monuments.
Source: RAP 2006 to 2020 - Court of Accounts restatement
The reform of project management has certainly led to an increase in the number of
heritage architects, but their uneven regional distribution and their inconsistent technical level
are two weak points. The reform of the roles of chief architects of historic monuments and,
moreover, the reduced availability of French building architects have also weakened the top
level of expertise in architecture and heritage.
The modernisation of legal protection systems remains incomplete, while the reform of
heritage sites is slow in coming to fruition. This last reform was intended to provide uniform
and effective tools for
“
remarkable heritage sites
”
by generalising the delimited perimeters of
the surroundings and merging all the former protected areas into a single system. However,
the merger process is proceeding at a very slow pace and the complex way in which the
statuses overlap is still proving harmful. As a result, monuments and sites are still protected
on a piecemeal basis, to the detriment of a comprehensive approach to enhancement.
6
Changes in the protections ruled for heritage areas (2001-2021)
Source: Court of Auditors, on the basis of the annual balance sheets of protected areas, Ministry of Culture
In this context, the weakening of the human resources in charge of implementing this
policy is a matter of increasing concern. Widespread retirements in the coming years, with
competitive procedures organised irregularly, unattractiveness due to insufficient remuneration
and career prospects, the growing share of freelance work among chief architects of historic
monuments and the excessively administrative nature of the tasks of building architects in
France require the overall management of human resources to be reconsidered. The state
should act to prevent a depletion of technical skills that would have serious consequences in
the years to come. In addition, the initial and ongoing training of architects authorised to work
on historic monuments must be strengthened, in particular by establishing a genuine
professional doctorate. Given the importance of public conservation orders and the proven
risks of bottlenecks, it is also essential for the Ministry to have a reliable forecast available of
the number of staff in the heritage sectors.
Forecast trends in departures from technical professions by 2024
Trade
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Heritage Curator of the inventory of
Historic Buildings/Monuments
1
0
6
3
2
2
State Architects and Planners
10
10
10
2
4
2
Head of documentary studies
6
2
4
1
1
2
Cultural and heritage services engineer
12
7
8
8
4
8
Cultural department and French
Buildings technicians
13
10
8
16
14
12
Total for all professions
42
29
36
30
25
26
Source: Ministry of Culture
An overall strategy requiring more cross-cutting approaches
The dominant approach of heritage policy in favour of the conservation and legal
protection of monuments and sites leaves too little room for an integrated approach involving
advice to local authorities and consultation with local stakeholders. However, such an
approach is essential for small and medium-sized old towns with a remarkable heritage but
facing real economic and social difficulties. The State must be much more active in promoting
development strategies for urban heritage districts.
7
In terms of enhancement, it is essential for the State to strengthen its action on the
economic side. Despite the advantageous tax tools they benefit from, most private
entrepreneurs who operate monuments open to the public find it difficult to develop a
sustainable economic model based on seasonal activity. They must be able to count on more
regular, fluid and efficient cooperation between the cultural administration and tourism
development players.
As an essential condition for an effective monumental heritage policy, the management
tools leave clear room for improvement. This applies both to policies shared with local
authorities in terms of protection and inventory and to the competences exercised by the DRAC
in conjunction with all heritage stakeholders, particularly in terms of allocating state aid and
carrying out the review of the condition of the assets. The record of the condition of the assets
should thus be designed as a shared tool for knowledge and monitoring of protected buildings,
regardless of their ownership.
However, improved management tools and procedures cannot replace an overall cross-
cutting strategy. State monumental heritage policy is excessively partitioned between its three
pillars: protection, conservation and enhancement. A heritage policy must be based on a
strategy to promote the place of historical heritage in society, at all levels and with all
stakeholders. In this respect, the effects of the health crisis on the number of visitors to heritage
sites are creating a new context for reconsidering the links that the French have always had
with their heritage and for pursuing the emerging discussions and activities on the
enhancement and use of monuments, an essential condition for their conservation, and
consequently for their transmission to future generations.
8
Recommendations
The following summary is organised into four themes:
Public expenditure on monumental heritage
1.
Consolidate the total annual expenditure of the State in the budget document entitled
“
Effort financier de l
’
État dans le domaine de la culture et de la communication
”
(Financial
effort of the state in the area of culture and communication) and track the financial efforts
of local authorities in favour of monumental heritage more regularly and more precisely
(Ministry of Culture)
.
6.
Standardise the conditions for modulating the aid granted by the DRAC to historic
buildings/monuments according to pre-established and published criteria
(Ministry of
Culture)
.
Protection of historic buildings/monuments
7.
Draw up a regularly updated health report on the condition of each listed or classified
building, to be shared with all stakeholders in the heritage chain (Ministry of Culture).
Conservation and enhancement of historic buildings/monuments
2.
Review the reform relating to the chief architects of historic buildings/monuments and
adopt forward-looking management of staff in accordance with the objectives to be
achieved (Ministry of Culture).
3.
Strengthen the roles of the architects of the buildings of France among public and private
project developers and for the preventive conservation of state heritage (Ministry of
Culture).
4.
Accelerate the effective implementation of the 2016 law on the freedom of creation,
architecture and heritage (LCAP) with regard to the delimited perimeters of the
surroundings and remarkable heritage sites (Ministry of Culture).
Taxation
5.
Undertake an inter-ministerial assessment of the tax arrangements applicable to historic
buildings/monuments (Ministry of Culture and Ministry of the Economy, Finance and
Recovery).
9
Appendix: protection of monumental heritage
abroad
The cooperation and cultural action departments (SCAC) of the French embassies in the
United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain and Belgium were sent a
questionnaire on the monumental heritage policies implemented in their respective countries.
The distribution of heritage protection competences depends on the political and
administrative organisation of each State.
In federal states, heritage protection is primarily a state responsibility. However,
Germany and Belgium differ from the United States in that jurisdiction lies exclusively with the
Länder and the regions, whereas Washington maintains a national register of protected
buildings. There is no national list in Germany or Belgium. Interconnection between two levels
of protection norms is also characteristic of the British system and Spanish system, where
national legislation coexists with the rules of the autonomous communities. Across the
Channel, protection policy is the responsibility of each of the four nations, but the systems are
similar and coordinated nationally by the Ministry of Culture.
While the number of degrees of protection varies, each State under review has a list of
protected monuments.
The logic of listing buildings of artistic and historic interest applies in all six States. Only
in the United Kingdom (3 levels) or the United States are there several levels of protection.
Like France, Germany offers protection systems for buildings and for sectors. In the United
Kingdom, England and Wales provide near-automatic protection for any building built before
1700 that remains in a condition approaching its original state.
Statistical comparisons between States are difficult. The 1.8 million properties in the US
National Register, the 500,000 buildings protected in the United Kingdom or the one million
buildings protected by the German Länder cannot be compared to the 45,000 buildings listed
or registered as historic monuments in France. In order to make comparisons, for France it
would be necessary to add the monuments protected as
“
sites patrimoniaux remarquables
”
(remarkable heritage sites), as
“
surroundings
”
, as national domains and under protection
established by the urban planning documents. The Ministry of Culture has not undertaken such
a survey but considers that it would result in the inclusion of several hundred thousand
buildings within the scope of protection.
Everywhere, protected buildings are subject to an administrative system of authorisation
for works.
In each of the six countries studied, the legal system for the protection of a monument
subjects its owner to a system of authorisation to carry out restoration or alteration works and
places it under the potential control of the competent authorities.
As in France, the constraints to which private owners are thus subjected entitle them to
public funding and tax benefits.