PRESS RELEASE
22 June 2022
Public thematic report
STATE MONUMENTAL HERITAGE POLICY
Established in the 19
th
century out
of a desire to save the nation’
s heritage, the monumental
heritage policy has continued to expand to cover an increasingly wide range of monuments
and heritage sites. While 44,540 buildings were covered by the historic monuments system
in the strict sense
in 2020, in reality several hundred thousand buildings and surrounding
areas are protected as the surroundings of historic monuments (national domains,
remarkable heritage sites, classified and listed sites and cultural properties listed as world
heritage). Essentially focused on conservation, public spending - which stood at more than
€1.3
bn before the health crisis - increased significantly between 2019 and 2021 due to the
sharp increase in state credits allocated to major works and the amounts committed under
the recovery plan. Yet, while the state and local authorities can make claims about the scale
and constancy of this support, the overall expenditure remains poorly estimated. In
addition, the latest assessment of the condition of historic monuments carried out in 2018
revealed that almost a quarter of them are in a worrying state. In the report published
today, the Court of Auditors makes a series of recommendations aimed at consolidating
public spending while ensuring the protection and enhancement of the monuments and
sites.
A long-standing policy facing the challenges of protecting a vast heritage
The monumental heritage policy is facing the challenges of protecting a vast heritage (including
listed historic buildings/monuments, their surroundings, remarkable heritage sites, etc.) which
requires substantial public expenditure. In 2021, total pu
blic spending on this was €2.01
bn,
compared to €1.31
bn in 2019 and €1.43
bn in 2020. However, the overall expenditure remains
poorly understood. The Ministry of Culture does not have exhaustive knowledge of the State
’
s
consolidated expenditure and the estimate of the effort made by local authorities appears even
more patchy. In addition, in 2018, 23.3% of historic monuments were classified as being in poor
condition or at risk.
Persistent structural weaknesses in the face of new challenges for the heritage policy
In 2009, a major reform of the project ownership and management of conservation operations
took place, whereby the development of conservation projects is now the responsibility of the
owner and the management of historic buildings/monuments is no longer the exclusive
responsibility of chief architects. However, the Court considers that 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. Furthermore, although the reform of
project ownership has led to an increase in the number of heritage architects, their regional
distribution and their inconsistent technical level are two weak points. The modernisation of
legal protection mechanisms remains unfinished, while the reform of heritage sites is slow to
be completed. In this context, the weakening of the human resources in charge of
implementing this policy is a matter of increasing concern. Widespread retirement in the
coming years among the architects of French buildings recruited during the 1980s, the
unattractiveness (both in terms of remuneration and career prospects) and the excessively
administrative nature of their tasks make it necessary to reconsider the overall management of
human resources.
An overall strategy requiring more cross-cutting approaches
The Court points out that, to date, there are major disparities between regions and that the
dominant orientation of heritage policy towards the conservation and legal protection of
monuments and sites leaves too little room for an integrated approach involving consultation
with local stakeholders. Such an approach is essential for small and medium-sized towns that
have a remarkable heritage but are facing economic and social difficulties. The State must
therefore do much more to promote strategies for the development of urban heritage districts.
Finally, state heritage policy is excessively partitioned between its three pillars: protection,
conservation and enhancement. The Court considers that this policy should be more
comprehensive and integrated, taking into full consideration all the possible uses of classified
buildings and ensuring that they are better promoted and enhanced at all levels of society.
Read the report
PRESS CONTACTS:
Emmanuel Kessler
◼
Director of Communications
◼
T
01 42 98 97 43
◼
06 62 48 07 81
◼
emmanuel.kessler@ccomptes.fr
Julie Poissier
◼
Press Relations Manager
◼
T
01 42 98 97 43
◼
06 87 36 52 21
◼
mailto:
julie.poissier@ccomptes.fr
@Courdescomptes
ccomptes
Cour des comptes
Cour des comptes