Culture and Tourism Regional Case Study RHONE-ALPES (France) Work Package 9
Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF)
Contract: 2014CE16BAT034
June 2015 1 October 2015 Author: Laura Delponte
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy Directorate B - Policy Unit B.2 Evaluation and European Semester Contact: Violeta Piculescu E-mail: [email protected] European Commission B-1049 Brussels
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007- 2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF) Work Package 9: Culture and Tourism Case Study Rhône-Alpes (France)
Contract: 2014CE16BAT034
Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy
2016 EN
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union.
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
LEGAL NOTICE This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016
ISBN 978-92-79-58799-3 doi: 10.2776/457602
© European Union, 2016 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
Table of Contents
FORWARD ...... 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 9
1. THE REGIONAL CONTEXT ...... 13
1.1 The geo-institutional context in the analysed region ...... 13 1.2 The socio-economic context ...... 14 1.3 Tourism and culture sectors ...... 15 2. THE REGIONAL ERDF 2007-2013 STRATEGY IN THE CULTURE AND TOURISM SECTORS ...... 19
2.1 Overview of the ERDF strategy ...... 19 2.2 Rationale and objectives of the ERDF strategy in the tourism and culture sectors ...... 22 2.3 The main elements of the ERDF strategy ...... 23 2.4 Governance and supportive features of the ERDF strategy ...... 25 2.5 The implementation process ...... 30 3. EFFECTIVENESS AND SUSTAINABILITY OF THE STRATEGY: OUTPUTS AND RESULTS ...... 33
3.1 Outputs achieved ...... 33 3.2 Results achieved ...... 38 4. CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNT ...... 41
REFERENCES ...... 45
ANNEX 1. LIST OF PEOPLE TO INTERVIEW DURING THE WEEK 25-30 MAY ...... 47
ANNEX 2. DATA ON THE REGIONAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT ...... 48
ANNEX 3. CULTURAL AND NATURAL ASSETS OF THE RHÔNE-ALPES REGION ...... 49
ANNEX 4. SITE OF CULTURAL INTEREST IN RHÔNE-ALPES ...... 51
ANNEX 5. KEY DATA ABOUT THE TOURISM AND CULTURE SECTORS .. 52
October 2015 5 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
List of abbreviations
CDDRA Contrat de développement durable Rhône-Alpes
CPER Le contrat de projets Etat - Région
CRE Comité de suivi d’évaluation
CRSN Cadre de Référence Stratégique National (National Strategic Reference Framework)
DIRECCTE Direction régionale des entreprises, de la concurrence, de la consommation, de l'économie et de l'emploi
DOMO Document de mise en œuvre DPT (Direction des Politiques Territoriales) DRAC Direction régionale des Affaires culturelles
EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
ERDF European Regional Development Fund
ESF European Social Fund
ICTs Information and Communication Technologies
INSEE Institute national de statistiques et des études économiques (National Statistical bureau)
OP Operational Programme
PRESAGE Programme Régional et Européen de Suivi, d'Analyse, de Gestion et d'Evaluation
Programme Operationnel Pluriregional Massif des Alpes POMA Programme Operationnel « Massif Central » POMAC
SGAR Secrétariat Général pour les Affaires Régionales
SRDE Schéma Régional de Développement Economique
SRDTLRA Schéma Régional de Développement du Tourism et des Loisirs Rhône- Alpes (regional strategy for tourism and recreation development)
October 2015 6 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
Forward
The European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy (DG REGIO) is undertaking an ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF) during the period 2007-2013 in regions covered by the Convergence, Regional Competitiveness & Employment and European Territorial Cooperation objectives in 28 member states.
Within this framework, the Consortium IRS-CSIL-CISET-BOP has been selected to undertake the ex post evaluation on ‘Culture and Tourism’ (Work Package 9). An important element within the exercise is a series of case-study analyses of NUTS2 regions covering interventions co-financed by ERDF during the 2007-13 programming period.
The case-studies are designed to obtain a better understanding of the ERDF contribution to the overall objectives of CP in the culture and tourism sectors and to set out what has been implemented on the ground, with a particular focus on the interface between the wider context of the intervention and the rationale and design of intervention strategies. In doing so, the relative effectiveness of the adopted strategies will be revealed. The case-studies are designed to identify and assess the effectiveness of the different types of ERDF strategies implemented in the culture and tourism sectors.
This report provides the results of a detailed case study of ERDF approaches to culture and tourism pursued in Rhône-Alpes region (FR) during the 2007-13 programming period.
The case study analysis draws upon desk and field based research. The desk analysis is based on relevant statistical data and researches describing the general socio- economic contexts of the Rhône-Alpes region and the specific circumstances of the tourism and culture sector. Information was collected from various sources, including Eurostat, the French National Statistical Office (Insee), and Rhône-Alpes’s regional observatory on tourism. Besides this, the desk analysis included a careful review of the relevant ERDF programming documents, regional and national policy and strategy documents for the two target sectors, and the findings of a mid-term evaluation.
Interviews were also conducted in a field visit to complement and validate the information gathered through the desk analysis. Interviewees were identified in collaboration with the Managing Authority (MA) to include different types of stakeholders (e.g. technical services responsible for implementing specific measures, regional authorities in charge of promoting the development of the tourism and culture sectors, beneficiaries, and independent experts). The detailed list of interviewees in presented in Annex 1.
October 2015 7
Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
Executive summary
This report provides the results of a detailed case study of ERDF (European Regional Development Fund) approaches to culture and tourism pursued in Rhône-Alpes region (FR) during the 2007-13 programming period. Drawing upon a combination of documentary and data analysis, and field-work, this report looks at the overall strategic coherence and relevance of measures supporting the tourism and culture sectors in the region. It assesses the effectiveness of the co-financed interventions with respect to the expected targets and explores the potential of wider regional development outcomes that are brought about from support to the two sectors.
Situated in south-eastern France, Rhône-Alpes is the biggest French region and one of the biggest regions in Europe. The region is characterized by a large variety of natural and socio-economic landscapes that are based on a combination of large urban areas, industrial hubs, rural, agricultural and mountainous areas. Its economy is one of the most dynamic of France and is comparable to those of Catalonia (ES) and Piedmont (IT) regions. The economic structure is highly diversified and is marked by a strong, albeit declining, industrial tradition. Territorial unbalances are a relevant issue, especially in relation to the juxtaposition between metropolitan and declining industrial or rural areas.
Following Eurostat data, in 2013, the tourist sector employed 3.4% of the regional labour force, but the relevance of the tourist sector is unevenly distributed throughout the region. For three departments (Haut-Savoie, Savoie and Ardèche) tourism is a relevant source of income, whereas other departments are less dependent on tourism. The tourist offer is highly diversified, although the theme of sport and nature (both for winter and summer outdoor activities) prevails. Seasonality is a local rather than a regional issue, as at the regional level the tourist flows are distributed throughout the entire calendar year. The region flagship tourist attractions are the skiable resorts of the Alpine region and the white water sport area in Ardèche, that is where most foreign tourists head to. Local tourism in rural areas is gradually developing and most target local demand from tourists demanding for alternative tourist experiences (e.g. slow tourism). In spite of a large variety of sites of cultural interest, cultural tourism is underexploited in Rhône-Alpes.
The elaboration of the ERDF strategy for culture and tourism was mostly guided by two regional tourist strategies and development plans (i.e. Schéma Régional de Développement du Tourisme et des Loisirs – SRDTL and the Plan Rhône). It followed two different objectives: i) diversify the economy of areas with an underdeveloped tourism potential, and ii) promoting culture and tourism along the Rhône river for the purpose of building a regional identity based upon the river’s cultural and historical heritage. These objectives were implemented through three separate measures: i) develop tourism by developing tourism assets, innovation and sustainable development (19.6 M€ ERDF support), ii) promoting the cultural heritage and identity of the Rhône river (4M€ ERDF support), and iii) ensure the development of quality tourism along the river Rhône and its banks (3.5 M€ ERDF support). The two sectors also received support from other measures of the OP, although these were not specifically targeted to culture and tourism.
Justification for the public intervention was strong and mostly based on missing or incomplete markets. The OP targeted under-developed or emerging tourist areas that were not able to attract sufficient private investments. Public intervention in the field
October 2015 9 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
of culture has a long tradition in France that limited the use of private sponsorship.
Finally, the pursue of social purposes, such as accessible tourism, both for low-income groups and people with disabilities, also created a strong rationale for public intervention. Projects were selected according to a defined number of criteria, and priority was given to projects that aligned with existing national or regional strategies.
Overall, the implementation of the measures concerning the two sectors was satisfactory. Driven by a strong local demand for public interventions and an already established project pipelines within the existing regional or local development plans, funds were fully allocated and payment rates were also well advanced at the end of 2014. Projects selection was based on different instruments, including call for proposals, demand for grants from potential beneficiaries, and national/regional priorities identified by the managing authority (MA). Call for projects were reported to be particularly effective in promoting stronger participation from local stakeholders and increase the quality of the proposals submitted.
In the tourist sector, the geographical distribution of funding strongly benefited the Ardeche department. This is due to the major project of the Chauvet cave at Pont d’Arc, but is also justified by the objective of the strategy (i.e. support economic diversification in areas with an underexploited tourist potential). Departments with a more diversified and solid economic structure, as well as areas with a well-structured tourist offer and infrastructure, benefited far less of these measures. In the culture sector, interventions were strongly concentrated in the Rhône department where most potential beneficiaries were located. This was partly in contradiction with the concept of using the river as a regional cultural asset.
The OP supported a large variety of interventions including both hard (e.g. small and large scale investments) and soft (diagnostic studies, counselling activities) measures. Whereas credit absorption was mostly driven by infrastructure investment, either green field investments or rehabilitation of existing infrastructure, a large variety of soft measures was supported. For the tourist sector, these were mostly geared towards promoting tourism through territorial marketing activities or the development of ICT-based tourist products. For the culture sector, the second largest category of interventions was set to deliver cultural products based upon the historical and cultural heritage of the Rhône river. These included support to performing arts associations, and support to exhibitions and preparation of documentary material.
All completed projects were reported to have delivered the expected outputs and no specific implementation problems were reported. By December 2014, 90% of cultural projects were completed, whereas the same figure was at 87% and 66% for the measures targeting the tourism sector. However, it is relevant to notice that continuous follow up activities were necessary to ensure a successful projects’ completion for cultural projects. This was due to the low administrative capacity of the beneficiary organization.
Sustainability of interventions without further support from public finances is poor. This is relevant for both sectors, but there were important differences. While interventions in the tourist sector where designed to be implemented by public authorities and were generally framed within other regional/local/national programmes that could ensure continuous support, most cultural associations have a fragile financial equilibrium that makes sustainability uncertain. In this respect, two extreme cases can be reported: i) the Woostower association that managed to secure a private sponsorship, and ii) the cultural institution Maison du Rhône that was liquidated in 2014.
October 2015 10 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
Overall assessment of results proved to be difficult because of the weaknesses of the monitoring system that failed to set appropriate outcome indicators in the programming phase. The indicator concerning the number of direct job created by the intervention delivered biased results. Onone hand, it overestimates the number of job created by including temporary jobs that were used to deliver the projects’ outputs, and, on the other hand, it fails to consider employment outcomes within the ultimate beneficiaries of the interventions (e.g. tourist facilities in the target area).
A qualitative analysis of the measures’ outcomes was performed by integrating the views of beneficiaries and stakeholders. Interviews highlighted that cohesion outcomes, in terms of improved territorial and social cohesion, were predominant as compared to economic competitiveness outcomes. Interventions helped local communities with weak understanding of tourism sector development practices to think about how to use tourism as an instrument for local development. However, it was also reported that results could have been improved by integrating more market- driven elements within the supported promotional activities.
Strategic coherence and relevance of the intervention was deemed satisfactory for the interventions addressing the tourism sector. Differently, the interventions supporting the culture sector were too constrained by the choice of the Rhône river theme, that also reduced possibility to better integrate culture and tourism. In both sectors, interventions were generally effective with respect to the expected targets, although integration of the ICT theme was lower than expected besides the concerned sub- measure.
ERDF support proved to be a vital source of financing for many interventions supported. It also provided the beneficiary organizations with an opportunity for improving their project design and project management capacity. However, the use of the ERDF fund to support small cultural associations remained contested.
October 2015 11
Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
1. The regional context
1.1 The geo-institutional context in the analysed region
Situated in south-eastern France (Figure 1.1), Rhône-Alpes is one of the 26 French regions1. It lies at a natural crossroads of major national and European axes of communication. For its geographical size and population it is the biggest French region and one of the biggest in Europe. In 2013, the region had about 6,3 million inhabitants, which corresponded to 9.8% of the French population and is almost equivalent to the population of Denmark. Rhône-Alpes has had a good demographic progression (+5.4% from 2007 to 2013) that makes it one of the most dynamic French regions (Insee, 2014).
The region is characterized by a large variety of natural and socio-economic landscapes that are based on a combination of large urban areas, industrial hubs, rural, agricultural and mountainous areas. At the administrative level, Rhône-Alpes is made up of eight departments2. The region has three of France’s largest cities. These are Lyon, Grenoble and Saint-Étienne, which form a triangle that is the economic core of the region. The urban conglomeration of Geneva and Annemasse, next to the Swiss border, completes the urban structure of the region that is the largest of France. The mountain area takes two third of the region’s size along the Italian and Swiss border, whereas major national routes pass through the Rhône and Saône river valleys, where most economic activities cluster together.
Figure 1.1. Map of Rhône-Alpes
Source: Wikipedia
1 France is divided into 26 regions that are governed by Regional Councils (Conseil Régional). Regions are further divided into 100 departments administered by Conseil Général. At the regional and departmental level, the French state is represented by the prefect (préfet). Regions are undergoing major restructuring including a reduction of the existing number of regions from 26 to 13. 2 These are: Ain (Bourg-en-Bresse), Ardèche (Privas), Drôme (Valence), Isère (Grenoble), Loire (Saint- Étienne), Rhône (Lyon), Savoie (Chambéry), Haute-Savoie (Annecy).
October 2015 13 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
The region’s economy is one of the most diversified in France. It has seven types of employment areas, including expanding metropolitan and semi-urban areas, rural and industrial declining districts, and tourist areas that are subject to differentiated trend. This diversified structure is an asset for the region, as it allows tapping into complementarities between different sectors, but introduces several complexities in terms of achieving a balanced territorial development and social cohesion (Insee, 2010).
1.2 The socio-economic context
In terms of GDP, Rhône-Alpes is the second French region and the sixth region in the European Union (Chambre Régionale de Commerce et d’Industrie Rhône-Alpes, 2010). After Île-de-France region (30.4% of the GDP), Rhône–Alpes is the second largest contributor to the national GDP (9.7% of the GDP). Between 2007 and 2013 unemployment rate remained below the national average (Table 1.1). Labour market conditions have deteriorated as a consequence of the economic crisis, but less than the national average.
In spite of the loss of a quarter of the jobs in the industrial sector, the region is still marked by a strong industrial tradition. At the end of 2013 the industrial sector employed 405,000 individuals, which corresponded to 24.9% of the regional labour force. The industrial structure of the region is made of different sector specializations, including mechanical equipment, metalworking, electrical equipment, electronics, rubber, plastics, chemicals and pharmacy (SRDE, 2011). Rhône-Alpes is the French leading region in the energy sector, including nuclear power and renewable energies. In 2013, agriculture employed 2.7% of the labour force that is lower than the French average (3.1%). Most of the labour force (72.3%) is employed in the service sector that contributes to more than 50% of the regional gross value-added.
In terms of overall economic performance Rhône-Alpes is comparable to the European region of Catalonia or Piedmont, but is lagging behind the top performing regions of Northern Europe. The region has several strengths, including a well-educated labour force, a diversified industrial structure, the establishment of several competitive clusters, a good dynamism in creating innovative enterprises, and the availability of several mechanisms to fund innovation. It also has some weaknesses that relate to the suboptimal use of its innovative potential, an insufficient number of medium enterprises, and the mono-industrial culture that prevails in some areas of the region (ERDF OP 2007-2013).
The economic crisis, which began in 2008, heavily impacted on the regional economy. While since 2004 Rhône-Alpes saw employment increase by 1% on an annual basis, the labor market rapidly deteriorated in 2008. Almost 60,000 jobs were lost in one year. The industrial sector proved to be particularly vulnerable, especially the chemical, automotive, logistic and construction sectors. The traditional industrial areas of Arve, Oyonnax, Loire, Maurienne suffered heavily in terms of enterprise and job losses. The service sector was also heavily penalized as a consequence of lower demand from the industrial and construction sector. Average income in the agriculture sector fell by 17% in 2008 and by 20% in 2009. The tourism sector was relatively resilient to the crisis although companies are increasingly affected by higher fluctuation in the consumption of tourist services (SRDE, 2011).
Rhône-Alpes is one of the French regions with the highest standard of living. In 2010, the median gross annual income reached 19,900 euros, which ranked Rhône-Alpes 3rd behind Île-de-France (21,700 euros) and Alsace (20,200 euros). Poverty rate in 2012 was 12.1, which was lower than the national average (14.3%). (INSEE data) However,
October 2015 14 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
the economic crisis resulted in increased inequalities. In particular, it had the effect of radicalizing poverty for already vulnerable populations, including the working poor, elder, young people and women (SRDE, 2011). Territorial disparities also persist and increased in the aftermath of the economic crisis. The region can be roughly divided into two blocks: the most prosperous departments located to the eastern part of the region (Ain, Haute-Savoie, Isère, Rhône and Savoie), and the less prosperous departments of Drôme and Ardèche where incomes have been stagnating.
Table 1.1. A general overview of the social and economic conditions Rhône Alps France EU ∆ ∆ ∆ 2007- 2007- 2007- 2007 2013 2013 2007 2013 2013 2007 2013 2013 (% or (% or (% or pp) pp) pp) Total Population (million) 6.1 6.4 5.4% 63.6 65.6 3.0% 498.4 507.2 1.8% Population Education level (% of tertiary educacated Level 5-6) 28.1 34.3 6.2 pp 26.6 32.1 5.5 pp 23.5 28.5 5.0 pp GDP per inhabitant (PPS, Index Number EU=100)* 109 109 0 pp 108 109 1 pp 100 100 0 pp Total Employment rate (15-64) (%) 65.8 66.5 0.7 pp 63.8 63.6 -0.2 pp 65.2 64 -1.2 pp Total Unemployment rate (15 and over) (%) 6.6 8.4 1.8 pp 8.4 10.3 1.9 pp 7.2 10.8 3.6 pp People at risk of poverty or social exclusion (%) n.a. n.a. n.a. 19.0 18.1 -0.9 pp 24.4 24.5 0.1 pp NEET rate 15-24 (%) 9.2 8.2 -1.0 pp 10.3 11.2 0.9 pp 10.9 13.0 2.1 pp * 2011 instead of 2013 Source: Eurostat (Regional Statistics) Note: Variations (∆ 2007-2013) are expressed in percentage variation between two years (%) when figures are expressed in values (as for total population), and in pp (percentage points) when they are referred to indicators already expressed in % (i.e. total employment rate).
1.3 Tourism and culture sectors
Rhône-Alpes is the third largest French destination for tourism, which is largely triggered by the presence of the largest ski areas in the world. Besides this, a number of natural and cultural assets, including two national parks, seven regional parks, two UNESCO sites, 13 towns of art and history complete and diversify the tourist offer (see Appendix 3 and 4 for a detailed list of major cultural and tourist sites). The region is also an important destination for business tourism, having 30 congress towns, with Lyon being the second French best equipped city for holding international congress.
Thanks to the variety of its landscape and tourist offer, Rhône-Alpes is one of the few French regions that successfully attract tourist both in the winter and summer period, (Insee, 2014). According to the regional Tourist Observatory, the regional tourist offer can be grouped in three different categories. These are:
. Mountain tourism (predominately Haute Savoie). This is the most important tourist destination of the region and has a consolidated tourist offer that is triggered by some of the world best-known ski resorts (e.g. Chamonix) and the attractiveness of Mont Blanc, the highest mountain in Europe. The three most visited sites of the region (cable car of Aiguille du Midi, Chemin de fer du Montenvers-Mer de Glace, cable car of Brévent) are located in this area. The major weakness of this area is to have a tourist offer that is overly focused on sport and nature, and is not able to attract significant flows of tourist in the
October 2015 15 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
summer period. Vulnerability to annual changes in weather conditions is also high. . Urban and cultural tourism (Rhône, Isère and Savoie departments). In this area tourism is based on the diversified cultural resources of the city of Lyon, Grenoble and Chambery, as well as on other minor centers such as Vienne. This is where most of the historical monuments are located. However, with the exception of Savoie, these areas lacks of a well-defined cultural identity, are little attractive to families and are too dependent on business tourism. . Rural tourism (Ain, Ardèche and Drôme departments). Tourism in these areas is based on outdoor activities (e.g. hiking, kayak, mountain bike). The attractiveness of these areas is built upon stunning natural sceneries (Ardèche’s gorges), unique natural parks (e.g. Parc des Oiseaux de Dombes) or generally well-preserved natural sites. These areas are both emerging (Ain and Drôme) and consolidated (Ardèche) tourist destinations and are generally marked by a high seasonality (predominately in the summer period) and vulnerability to annual changes in weather conditions. Territorial marketing is still insufficiently developed and too fragmented, whereas some sites are difficult to access. The tourism economy is unevenly distributed throughout the region, especially in terms of its relevance for the local economy in comparison to other sectors. The departments of Savoie, Haute-Savoie and Ardèche are considered tourist areas. In 2012, the two departments of Haute-Savoie and Savoie had 50% of the hotels of the region. The department of Rhône and Savoie had the highest number of luxury hotels, that corresponded to two-third of the regional offer. Differently, and because of its reputation for summer outdoor activities, the department of Ardèche had 31% of the regional campsites (Insee, 2014).
The contribution of the tourism sector to wealth generation in the region (3.4%), is higher than the national average (3%). Similarly to other French regions, food and accommodation are the activities that most contribute to income generation in the tourism sector (up to 51%), although this figure is much lower than in the neighboring Provence Alpes Cote d’Azur region (66%). A characteristic feature of tourism revenues in Rhône-Alpes is the relevant contribution of sport activities (21%) that are related to the existence of large ski resorts. The region’s cultural heritage contributes less (3.5%) than the national average (5%) to wealth generation in the tourist sector (Insee, 2014).
The economic impact of activities related to tourism can be measured both in terms of employment and enterprise development. Eurostat data (Table 2.1) reports that between 2007 and 2013 the percentage of people working in the tourism sector were 2.9% and 3.4% respectively, slightly lower than the national average. In the same period the percentage of business units in the tourism sector slightly declined from 10.6 in 2007 to 10.4 in 2013. However, national data reports a higher percentage of people employed in the tourism sector (7% in 2012). Most jobs created every year in the tourism sector are temporary in order to meet the seasonality of the tourist demand (Observatoire du Tourisme, 2013).
As compared to other French region, the tourism sector proved to be more resilient to the negative effect of the economic crisis. Between 2007 and 2013 the number of tourist arrivals increased by nearly 8.3% and 11.6% for domestic and foreign tourists respectively. For the same period, Eurostat data reports that total arrivals at tourist accommodation establishment increased by 37%. The increase in the number of
October 2015 16 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
overnight stays reported by Eurostat is too large and is probably due to a methodological change. The average length of stay of tourists in the region declined from 1.8 to 1.9 days. Foreign arrivals especially of British and Swiss tourists in the Alpine area, contributed to increase demand for tourist services. However, French national tourists remained predominant and accounted on average for 80% of the tourists’ arrival between 2007 and 2013 (Insee database). Interestingly, Rhône-Alpes is especially visited by its inhabitant that accounted on average for 26% of the French tourist in the same period (Observatoire du Tourisme, 2013).
Table 1.2. A general overview of the tourism sector3 Rhône Alps France EU ∆ ∆ ∆ 2007- 2007- 2007- 2007 2013 2007 2013 2007 2013 2013 2013 2013 (% ) (% ) (% ) The share of tourism in regional economy (measured in terms of GDP or added value)* N.A N.A N.A 2.7 2.6 -0.1 pp 3.2 3.2 0.0 pp Percentage of workers employed in the sector of tourism (%)** 2.9 3.4 0.5 pp 3.4 3.7 0.3 pp 4.2 4.5 0.3 pp Business Local Units in tourism (Incidence on the total local Units) (%)*** 10.6 10.4 -0.2 pp 9.78 9.47 -0.3 pp 8.5 8.4 -0.1 pp Total arrivals at tourist accommodation establishments (total) per 1,000 inhabitants 1,828 2,510 37.3% 1,996 2,305 15.5% 1,507 1,729 14.7% Total nights spent by residents + non residents (total) per 1,000 inhabitants 4,232 7,637 80.5% 4,744 6,153 29.7% 4,707 5,208 10.6% Net occupancy rate of bed places**** 44.4 44.4 0.0 pp 48.3 47.7 -0.6 pp 42.0 41.3 -0.7 pp * For FR and EU-28: Gross value added (at basic prices), % on the All NACE Activities of I- Accommodation and food service activities, and N79 - Travel agency, tour operator reservation services and related activities ** 2008 instead of 2007 *** 2008 instead of 2007, 2012 instead of 2013; For tourism we have considered I- Accommodation and food service activities, N79 - Travel agency, tour operator reservation service and related activities **** 2012 instead of 2007 Note: Variations (∆ 2007-2013) are expressed in percentage variation between two years (%) when figures are expressed in values (as for total population), and in pp (percentage points) when they are referred to indicators already expressed in % (i.e. total employment rate) Source: Eurostat (Regional Statistics)
In spite of a large variety of sites of cultural interest, cultural tourism is underexploited in Rhône-Alpes. Between 2008 and 2012, the Musée des Beaux-Arts of Lyon ranked only 29th in a national classification and 7th in a classification of provincial France. The number of museums in Rhône-Alpes (97) is almost near to that of the Ile de France region (104), but the difference is much large in terms of annual visitors. The capital city’s museums attract 28.4 million visitors per year, whereas the museums of Rhône-Alpes are visited by 2.6 million tourists per year (Observatoire Régional du Tourisme, 2013).
As a matter of fact, the cultural sector in France is highly marked by a polarization between the Parisian region and provincial France. While the former concentrates 43% of the national labour force of the sector and 35% of the national infrastructure, only three regions, including Rhône-Alpes, emerge for having a relevant contribution of the cultural sector to the regional economy (Insee, 2011).
3 * Regional indicator should be provided (if available). For FR and EU-28: Gross value added (at basic prices), % on the All NACE Activities of I- Accommodation and food service activities, and N79 - Travel agency, tour operator reservation services and related activities . ** 2008 instead of 2007. *** 2008 instead of 2007, 2012 instead of 2013; for tourism we have considered I- Accommodation and food service activities, N79 - Travel agency, tour operator reservation service and related activities; **** 2012 instead of 2007.
October 2015 17 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
The presence of well-diversified digital creative industries is a characteristic feature of Rhône-Alpes’ culture sector. Since 2006 the region fostered the creation of the Imaginove cluster contributing to the expansion of projects and businesses in the main sectors of the cultural and creative images industry (e.g. video games, animation, cinema/ audio-visual, multimedia). The cluster is made of 650 companies, 23 research laboratories, 28 image-related training courses and international events (Imaginove, 2013).
In terms of employment, 1.7% of the regional labour force had a cultural occupation in 2007 and 2.1% in 2013 (table 2.3). The number of business units in culture was 2.6% in 2007 and 2.3% in 2013. These data are substantially aligned with the national averages. The employment structure of the sector has two relevant weaknesses. The number of permanent employees per cultural institute/enterprise is very low, as nearly 62% of Rhône-Alpes cultural institutions has no permanent employees, and 32% have only between 1 and 4 permanent employees. Of the 17,330 cultural institutes/enterprises in the region, only 48 employ at least 50 permanent employees and the largest ones are all located in Lyon or Grenoble. These professions are also characterized by a higher than average job insecurity with a prevalence of short-term contracts (Insee, La Lettre, 2012).
Table 1.3. A general overview of the culture sector Rhône Alps France EU ∆ ∆ ∆ 2007- 2007- 2007- 2007 2013 2007 2013 2007 2013 2013 2013 2013 (% ) (% ) (% ) The share of culture in regional economy (measured in terms of GDP or added value)* N.A N.A N.A 2.6 2.6 0.0 pp 2.6 2.6 0 pp Workers employed in the sector of culture (%)** 1.7 2.1 0.3 pp 2.1 2.3 0.2 pp 2.3 2.3 0 pp Business Local Units in culture (Incidence on the total local units) -0.1 (%)*** 2.6 2.3 -0.3 pp 2.5 2.4 -0.1 pp 2.0 2.0 pp
* For FR and EU-28: Gross value added (at basic prices), % on the All NACE Activities of 59 — Motion picture, video and television programme production, sound recording and music publishing activities; 60 — Programming and broadcasting activities; 90 – Creative, arts and entertainment activities; 91 – Libraries, archives, museum and other cultural activities; 93 - Sports activities and amusement and recreation activities ** 2008 instead of 2007 *** 2008 instead of 2007, 2012 instead of 2013 for culture; For culture we have considered J58 - Publishing activities; J59 - Motion picture, video and television programme production, sound recording and music publishing activities; J60 - Programming and broadcasting activities; G476 - Retail sale of cultural and recreation goods in specialised stores Note: Variations (∆ 2007-2013) are expressed in percentage variation between two years (%) when figures are expressed in values (as for total population), and in pp (percentage points) when they are referred to indicators already expressed in % (i.e. total employment rate) Source: Eurostat (Regional Statistics)
October 2015 18 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
2. The regional ERDF 2007-2013 strategy in the culture and tourism sectors
2.1 Overview of the ERDF strategy
Building on a diagnosis of the regional comparative advantages and disadvantages, the 2007-2013 ERDF OP for the Rhône-Alpes region is focused on three main strategic priorities. These are: 1) improve the knowledge economy and increase innovation to boost the competitiveness of the region both at the European and international level, 2) ensure the sustainable development of the regional territory building on their assets to increase their competitiveness, and 3) implement an action plan for the sustainable development of the Rhône river. At the operational level, these strategic priorities were translated in five axes and further articulated in 20 measures (Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1. Outline of the strategic framework of the Rhône-Alpes 2007-2013 ERDF OP and fund allocation Priority Strategic goals Operational axes Funding (absolute & percentage values) 1 Improve the Support technological 1 Innovation and 121M€ (36%) Knowledge economy and innovation to benefit economic growth increase innovation to enterprises boost the Anticipate changes to competitiveness of the support the development region both at the of SMEs and micro- European and enterprises international level Promote the Information Society 2 Ensure the sustainable Sustainable development 2 Diversification and 83 M€ (25%) development of the of the territory of the promotion of economic regional territory region activities building on their assets Fight against global 3 Environment and risk 48 M€ (14%) to increase their warming prevention competitiveness Improve attractiveness of 4 Accessibility: transport 53 M€ (15%) living conditions and of and ICT the environment 3 Implement an action Promote the cultural 5 Economic 19 M€ (5%) plan for the sustainable heritage of the Rhône development and development of the river environmental Rhône river Water quality, protection of the river biodiversity and sharing Rhône of water resources Foster development of river transport Ensure the development of a quality tourism for the river and its banks 6 Technical assistance 10 M€ (3%) Source: Author’s elaboration from OP and DOMO documents
Overall, the OP was well aligned with the EU key objectives identified in the Lisbon strategy and also responded to the main socio-economic challenges facing the region. Two key themes are prioritized both as specific targets and horizontally integrated targets. These are innovation (Axis I) and sustainable development (Axis II). Because of the highly diversified landscape and economic structure of the region, promoting a balanced territorial development was also another key theme of the 2007-2013 OP (Ernest Young, 2010).
Support to the tourism and cultural sector followed a two-fold approach to fit within
October 2015 19 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
the overall strategy design (Table 2.1). In particular, tourism was considered instrumental for diversifying the regional economy. A measure focused on the tourism sectorwas thus included within the Axis II. This was measure 9 “Develop tourism by developing tourism assets, innovation and sustainable development”. Tourism and culture were also deemed relevant for the sustainable development of the Rhône river and its valleys. Therefore two measures were included under the Axis V. These were: measure 17 “Promoting the cultural heritage and identity of the Rhône river”, and measure 20 “Ensure the development of a quality tourism along the river Rhône and its banks” (ERDF OP 2007-2013).
Table 2.1. Summary of tourism and culture specific measures ERDF allocations Tourism and culture specific measures Axis (% of the Axis) 9 Develop tourism by developing tourism assets, innovation and II 19.6 M€ (24%) sustainable development 17 Promoting the cultural heritage and identity of the Rhône river V 4 M€(21%) 20 Ensure the development of a quality tourism along the river Rhône V 3.5 M€ (18%) and its banks Source: Domo 2011
Other measures supporting tourism and cultures within the OP. Because tourism is a relevant sector of the economy of the region, other ERDF measures also indirectly contributed to support it. This includes support to innovative enterprises or for improving energy efficiency of buildings. For instance, the project concerning the rehabilitation of the holiday center la Fontaine d’Annibal à Buis-les-Baronnies (Axis 3, measure 12 "support to energy efficiency”) had a social and sustainable tourism development purpose. Similarly, because the region attaches great importance to the use of ICTs in developing new cultural products and new modalities of enjoying cultural experiences, creative industries benefited from ERDF financing. As an example, the project Arts and Science, (Axis 1, measure 4 “development of an entrepreneurial and innovation culture”) puts together the work of scientists and artists to create shows or exhibitions that combine science and the art work in relation to new technologies. Within the same measure, another example of innovative project is DYNAM'IT, which supported the advanced use of animation physics in 3D animation and video games industries. The cumulative ERDF contribution for the two projects amounted to EUR 1,131,911 for a total cost of investment of EUR 2,246,723. The urban integrated projects allocated EUR 3,659,934 ERDF to culture, and EUR 71,000 ERDF to tourism.
Complementarities with other EU programmes. Synergies and complementarities with other EU regional programmes targeting the region are well addressed in the OP. The EAFRD (European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development) supports micro-enterprises in rural tourism. The mountainous areas of the region also receive support within the framework of cross-border or interregional OPs. For instance, the Alcotra cross-border programme between the alpine regions of France and Italy includes interventions for tourism, the interregional programme for the Massif des Alpes (POMA) has a measure for developing and renovating the local tourist offer, the OP for the Massif Central (POMAC) has a measure to develop the tourist potential of the area, and the OP Massif du Jura of Franche-Comté region has interventions aiming at improving the existing tourist offer. Finally, the axis V of the ERDF OP can also be seen as a complement to the Interregional Programme for the Rhône River, that does not foresee measures that support culture and tourism. Overall, the measures foreseen by the various EU programmes do not overlap in terms of target beneficiaries and objectives, as areas that already received support from other EU programmes were not targeted by the ERDF OP.
October 2015 20 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
Regional strategy and programmes for the tourism sector. Alignment with regional tourist sector strategies is also high. Acknowledging the contribution of the tourism sector to the economy of the region, in 2008 the Rhône-Alpes regional council released a regional development plan for tourism and leisure (Schéma Régional de Développement du Tourisme et des Loisirs – SRDTL). The strategy considers tourism to be an instrument to achieve a more balanced territorial development that is able to combine economic, social and environmental dimensions. It addresses the challenges of increased competition from other European and international regions, the impact of climate change, the emergence of new modalities of experiencing tourism activities (e.g. slow tourism) and the problems related to the seasonality of tourist demand. The strategy has three operational axes. These are: i) using tourism to improve the attractiveness of the region, ii) making the tourism offer accessible to everyone; and iii) develop a tourist offer that is based on natural assets (e.g. agro-tourism, eco- tourism, less polluting modes of transport). To achieve these objectives the strategy undertakes to support local actors with designing coherent tourism strategy, encourage local tourism, support tourist businesses, and foster innovative tourist offers. The themes of accessible and sustainable tourism, as well that of improved territorial marketing area also relevant for the ERDF OP.
The implementation of the strategy is based upon different instruments, including the regional funds for supporting tourist companies (FRACET - Fonds Régional d’Aide au Conseil pour les Entreprises Touristiques), the regional sustainable development contracts4 (CDDRA - Contrats de Développement Durable Rhône-Alpes), the regional contracts for job training (CTEF - Contrats Territoriaux Emplois Formation), and the network of sustainable tourism associations (TAVS - Tourisme Associatif à Vocation Sociale) (SRDTL, 2008).
Regional strategy and programmes for the culture sector Alignment with regional culture programmes is lower, because the concerned OP measure is narrowly set to promote the cultural heritage and identity of the Rhône river. Traditionally, the French state has had a central and active role in establishing cultural policies and in promoting access to culture as part of individual development and self-fulfillment. The rationale for the state intervention stems on culture being considered a collective property to be shared, protected and promoted (Council of Europe/ERICarts, 2014). Between, 2004 and 2011, the share of budget allocated to the cultural sector by the French regions increased from 2% up to 4%. Rhône-Alpes has the highest amounts allocated to the sector. As in other French regions, the largest chunk of support goes to performing arts (46%), followed by publishing industry (17%) and cultural services (10%) (2008 data from the Regional Council web site). A total of 59 performing arts companies is currently supported by the Regional Council that provides them with financing for over three years to help them better structure their performances and compete on the national scale. Most interventions in favor of the publishing industry are targeted to assist a declining industry.
A relevant priority theme for the regional cultural policy is the use of ICTs for developing cultural products, that also responds to a national priority. The region established a special fund to support digital artistic creations (Fonds de Soutien à la création artistique numérique, Scan), to support artistic renewal and the emergence of a new creative economy sector based on ICTs (Associations des Régions de France, 2012). None of the concerned OP measures address this issue, that is better dealt
4 CDDRA are a partnership tool between the region and the 45 local jurisdictions of Rhone-Alpes. Each CDDRA includes a tourism component that can support the following actions: local tourism development, networking of stakeholders, development of cultural tourism and agro-tourism, improve accessibility of tourism infrastructure, marketing and accommodation development, reduce seasonality of tourist flows.
October 2015 21 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
within the measure “development of an entrepreneurial and innovation culture” of Axis I, as illustrated in the two project examples provide above.
The Rhône River development plan. Because of the strategic importance of the Rhône river for the economic development of the region, starting from 2004, a specific strategy framework was developed to coordinate a variety of public interventions targeting the river and its valleys. The interregional programme 2007-2013 for the Rhône river, establishes the main lines of actions for a sustainable development of the river and its valleys. It includes two priority areas targeting the sector of tourism and culture, that are managed by the Regional Council of Rhône-Alpes. In particular, interventions in the field of culture are set to foster a recovery of the river cultural heritage (identité Rhodanienne) by its inhabitants, through actions that take stock and rehabilitate the river natural and cultural assets, and support cultural events related to the river’s history (e.g. Saison du fleuve Rhône). As a complement to these actions, the tourism component aims at developing sustainable tourism activities along the river’s valley (CPIER Plan Rhône, 2007). As a matter of fact, the Plan Rhône provided the strategic framework for the entire Axis V, including the two measures targeting the culture and tourist sectors.
2.2 Rationale and objectives of the ERDF strategy in the tourism and culture sectors
The three measures of the OP pursue different objectives and are all based on strong rationale for public intervention that are related to different market failures as illustrated in the table below.
Table 2.2. Summary of rationale and objectives of the measures related to culture and tourism Sector Major market failure Major change pursued Regional strategic reference document Tourism Fragmentation of the market Diversify the local economy, Schéma Régional de Missing or underdeveloped achieve a more balanced Développement du market for the primary territorial growth Tourisme et des Loisirs attraction Support innovation and CPIER Plan Rhône Information failure on less competitiveness of the sector developed destinations Provide a driver for development in economically declining areas Culture Missing or underdeveloped Promote a regional identity, social CPIER Plan Rhône markets or community inclusion or Lack of culture/leisure cohesion. infrastructure Source: Author’s elaboration from ERDF OP 2007-2013 and interviews
Develop tourism by developing tourism assets, innovation and sustainable development. Tourism is an important economic activity for the region, both in terms of income and employment creation. However, in spite of a good performance of the sector, as compared to other national peers, the tourist sector has started declining from 1995. From 1995 to 2013, the number of overnight stays declined from EUR 130,6 to EUR 113,5 million, i.e. corresponding to an overall drop of 13% (Observatoire Régional du Tourisme, 2013). Public intervention is perceived as necessary to support emerging tourist destinations, that would help redress existing territorial unbalances, and to renovate the existing tourist offer to better compete with alternative destinations. In most rural areas, the private sector fails to develop adequate tourist services, whereas local communities are not used to actively promote their cultural or natural assets within the framework of well-designed and coherent strategies (Région Rhône-Alpes, 2008). Finally, the pursue of social purposes, such as accessible tourism, both for low-income groups and people with disabilities, also created a strong rationale
October 2015 22 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
for the public intervention, as the lack of uncertainty of profit prospects discourage private investments. Actions planned under this measure generally aims at stopping the declining trend of tourist flows. They are set to promote a sustainable development approach for the tourism industry and to deploy measures that would counterbalance the negative effect of climate change, such as for the ski stations at medium altitudes. By targeting both public and private tourist operators, these interventions aim at improving local capacities to develop a more attractive tourist offer and create new tourist tools, including by making better use of ICTs.
Promoting the cultural heritage and identity of the Rhône river. The idea of promoting the Rhône river cultural, natural and historical heritage is relatively recent and requires thus to be supported through public interventions that lay the foundations for further developments (CPIER Plan Rhône, 2007). In addition, the very nature of the interventions foreseen under this measure (i.e. promote the river cultural heritage as a public good, and raise awareness about the river cultural heritage), that have limited commercial components, establishes a strong rationale for public intervention. Interventions under this measure are set to promote the rediscovery of the river by the inhabitants of the region by building upon the river’s cultural and natural heritage.
Ensure the development of a quality tourism along the river Rhône and its banks. The river Rhône is one of the cornerstones of the cultural identity of region. However, tourism along the Rhône river is underdeveloped, especially in relation to the high number of people that transit every year along the river’s valley to reach the tourist region of Provence-Alpes-Cote d’Azur. The tourist offer along the Rhône river valley is highly fragmented and there has been little coordination amongst the different public and private entities involved in developing and promoting tourist sites and attractions. A long-term and shared vision needed to be elaborated to ensure coherence and coordination of the different stakeholders involved in promoting tourist and leisure activities along the river. In this context, financing from the ERDF is seen as a complement of already planned regional or inter-regional interventions that proved to be difficult to implement in the past (ERDF OP 2007-2013). By establishing strong linkages with other public development plans, including the Interregional OP for the Rhône river, this measure tries to overcome the fragmentation of past interventions through a better coordination of the riverside’s communes and integrating tourist interventions upstream and downstream of the river (e.g. the ViaRhona bicycle route).
2.3 The main elements of the ERDF strategy
As illustrated in the table below, the ERDF strategy supported a large variety of interventions, including both hard and soft measures.
October 2015 23 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
Table 2.3. Mapping of measures and typologies of interventions Measure Actions Typology of ERDF interventions allocations 9. Develop tourism by 9.1 Use of ICTs for information Territorial marketing Not available by developing tourism gathering, reservation services Investments in type of action of assets, innovation and and promotion of the tourist infrastructure typology of sustainable development offer Investment to improve interventions 9.2 Support for projects security of access and building on natural and cultural accessibility heritage and developed with a Events global territorial approach 9.3 Restitution space of the Chauvet Cave and its territorial development 17. Promoting the 17.1 Development of networks Infrastructure Not available by cultural heritage and 17.2 Promotion and investment type of action of identity of the Rhône dissemination of the river (rehabilitation of sites) typology of river heritage Cultural products interventions 17.3 Heritage development Diagnostic and 17.4 Development of counselling communication tools 20 Ensure the 20.1 Development of Infrastructure Not available by development of a quality methodological and strategy investment type of action of tourism along the river tools Investment to improve typology of Rhône and its banks 20.2 Set of accommodation security of access and interventions standards accessibility 20.3 Structuring and Territorial marketing development of existing and Studies new leisure activities 20.4 Support to integrating projects 20.5 Development of river tourism Source: author’s elaboration DOMO, 2011 and Presage
The programming documents do not establish a priority amongst the different actions or typologies of interventions, except for the sub-measure concerning the Restitution space of the Chauvet Cave and its territorial development. An analysis of the actual expenditure is needed to match allocations with typologies of interventions, and is provided in the section dealing with the implementation of the strategy. Similarly, whereas the programming documents articulate in great details actions and sub- actions, they fail to provide a description of the type of projects that would have been supported.
Each measure had a specific territorial target. These were:
Declining tourist destinations or areas that have an underdeveloped tourist potential, including for instance the rural departments of Ardeche or Ain. Rural areas were a major target, whereas the areas of Massif Central, Massif des Alpes and Massif du Jura, that were already covered by the tourism component of other interregional OPs, were not eligible of support.
The Rhône river. These interventions concerned a variety of fluvial, rural and urban landscapes. Interventions that support the culture sector mostly targeted urban areas. To ensure a balanced distribution of funds along the Rhône river, this was divided in three geographical areas.
October 2015 24 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
Table 2.4. Distribution of ERDF allocations by geographical areas Geographical target ERDF allocations M€ Number of planned projects Region wide 19.6 M€ Not defined Rhône river 7.5 M€ Not defined Rhône aval, from Montélimar to the geographical limits of the region. Rhône moyen, from Lyon to Montélimar. Haut Rhône, from the Swiss border to Lyon. Source DOMO 2011
Eligible beneficiaries for the three measures include local associations and groups, public institutions, business consortia and businesses, museums, universities, research laboratories and institutions managing the cultural heritage. Because of the nature of the interventions supported and the lack of markets, these measures were overly geared towards supporting either public sector institutions or not-for-profit organizations, especially in the field of culture. Private businesses were not even included in the list of potential beneficiaries for the projects targeting tourism and culture along the Rhône river (Domo, 2011).
2.4 Governance and supportive features of the ERDF strategy
Governance The Prefect of Rhône-Alpes, through its department in charge of regional affairs (SGAR, Secrétariat général pour les affaires regionals) was the designated Managing Authority for the ERDF OP on competitiveness and employment 2007-2013. As for the tourism and culture sectors, programming and implementing functions were shared between the prefect and the regional council. This introduced a novelty as compared to the previous programming period 2000-2006, when the region was a stakeholder for the two measures5 targeting the tourist and culture sectors and did not have implementation responsibilities.
Within the state services in the region, the Direccte (Direction régionale des entreprises, de la concurrence, de la consommation, de l'économie et de l'emploi) was the implementing agency for projects included under the measure “Develop tourism by developing tourism assets, innovation and sustainable development”. The regional council was the Intermediary Body for the entire Axe V targeting the development of the Rhône river valley. The directorate for local development policies (DPT, Direction des Politiques Territoriales) was responsible for the implementation of all measures foreseen under this Axis, including tourism and culture.
It appears that there was no systematic framework in place to ensure collaboration between the Direccte and the regional authorities on the measures related to tourism and culture. Having a different geographical target, the three measures coexisted rather than then having being integrated in a single strategic framework.
Selection criteria It was established that all co-financed projects had to follow a sustainable development approach, that is based on pursuing the three goals of economic, environmental and social development through a participatory approach (ERDF OP 2007-2013). In addition to this, three horizontal themes were defined as horizontal qualitative selection criteria and were applied consistently by the authorities
5 These were: develop and strengthen the tourist and cultural attractiveness of the Rhône Alpes territories, and strenghten the adaptation capacity of tourist and cultural operators.
October 2015 25 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
responsible for the implementation of each measure. These were innovation6, ICT and environment. The percentage of selected projects that fulfilled thesecriteria is displayed in the charts below.
Most innovations refer to the type of products delivered, whereas partnership arrangements were most innovative for projects financed under the “Develop tourism by developing tourism assets, innovation and sustainable development” measure.
There is a high percentage of non-reported assessment under the two measures targeting the Rhône river (Figure 2.2), which is due to the minor relevance of innovation for this measure, as compared to the other measure.
Figure 2.2. Percentage of projects that fulfil the innovation criteria by type of measures
Source: author’s elaboration from PRESAGE (end of 2014)
Many of the selected projects integrate the environment theme. (Figure 2.3). This reflects the fact that sustainable development and environment protection were used as key selection criteria.
Figure 2.3. Percentage of projects that fulfil the environment criteria by type of measures
Source: author’s elaboration from PRESAGE (end of 2014)
6 Innovation was defined along three dimensions, namely: delivery of an innovative output in terms of products or services, implementation mechanism or partnership arrangement. Projects that fulfilled more than one criteria were classified as “multiple”
October 2015 26 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
Besides the three thematic criteria, more specific selection criteria were identified and applied to each measure (Table 2.5).
Table 2.5. Detailed selection criteria for the OP measures targeting the tourism and culture sectors. Measure Selection criteria 9. Develop tourism by Improve traffic or waste management; economic management of natural developing tourism assets, resources, remarkable leverage effect on the local economy, development innovation and sustainable of all year round tourist activities, coherence with other regional development strategies, improve capacity of local tourist operators. 17. Promoting the cultural Inter-regional relevance, linkages with other Plan Rhône projects, co- heritage and identity of the managed projects, improved networking activities, knowledge Rhône river development and dissemination amongst a wide audience, mobilization of public and heritage interest, potential for dissemination of information 20. Ensure the development of Management of tourist flows, protection of land and river areas, a quality tourism along the development of intermodal transportation, coherence with other regional river Rhône and its banks actions, coherence with the regional tourism plan, development of intermodal transportation, economic value added, integration within a global tourist project Source: Domo 2011
Among these criteria, priority was given to projects which align with existing national or regional strategies and to the so-called enabling projects (projets structurants). These are projects that fulfill a number of specific criteria. First, these projects are expected to bring economic value added and a leverage effect on the local economy. Second, they are based on partnership amongst different institutions and try to integrate different components of the tourist offer to establish a stronger and more complete tourist environment (e.g. accommodation with leisure activities, tourist promotion with leisure activities). Third, they are implemented by a beneficiary with a solid project design and project management capacity. The combination of these criteria effectively allowed identifying interesting projects that were grounded on clear strategic visions and had the capacity to mobilize different resources and partners. In this respect, the two mini-case studies “Saint-Pierre-de-Bœuf’s leisure center renovation” and “Valorisation of destination Ain”, that complement the present report, offer an insight of these types of projects. Another remarkable example is the replica of the Chauvet Cave (Box. 2.1).
Box 2.1. Rhône Alpes region’s flagship project for culture and tourism: la Caverne du Pont D’Arc
Situated in Ardèche department, the replica of the Chauvet Cave, which contains replicas of painting dating back to the Aurignacian Era (i.e. about 36,000 years ago), had a national and international relevance, given that it targeted a site that has been listed within the UNESCO list of the World Heritage Sites. The project had an ERDF financial allocation of 12,7 million euros, that also included measures to rehabilitate tourist sites in the cave’s surrounding area, and a total project cost of 55 million euros. The project is unique both for its size (it covers 3.000 m² of ground and 8.180 m² of geological facies) and its combination of cultural, scientific, and technological features. All the paintings are reproduced on a scale of 1:1 in an environment that recreate the original underground environment (e.g. freshness, humidity and darkness) (www.lacavernedupontdarc.org).
From a regional development perspective the project remains highly interesting, as its goal extends beyond the creation of a tourist facility, and tries to diversify the tourist offer of the department that is overly oriented towards outdoor sport activities (ADE, 2012). The project managed indeed to catalyse a discussion about the quality and the structure of the cultural and tourism offer in the area and made possible the realization of other cultural and tourist projects in the area with ERDF support (e.g. Valorisation du site archéologique départemental d'Alba-la- Romaine and Réhabilitation du site féodal du Vieux Vallon). The project also initiated a debate on environmental and sustainable development issues looking, as an example, at how to
October 2015 27 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
promote local and bio food supply to the restaurants of the area (ADE, 2012). The project goal was to attract between 300,000 and 400,000 visitors annually. The cave is currently a flagship attraction for the area. Since its opening on 25th April 2015, it has been visited by an average daily number of 3,000 visitors and there are already 100,000 reserved tickets for the next months (Le Figaro, 2015). It remains however to be seen whether the other complementary measures, that were designed to use the leverage effect of the cave on the neighboring area, are going to materialize.
A major weakness in the applied selection criteria is the lack of consideration for the financial sustainability of projects. As a matter of fact, the financial sustainability of projects was not defined as an overall selection criterion to be used consistently throughout the OP, but it rather applied to specific measures or sub-measures (e.g. support to the ICT sector). The financial solidity of beneficiaries, especially in the case of cultural associations, was assessed to ensure project completion, but projects were not selected for their capacity to generate revenues that help sustain the operational costs in the future.
From the beneficiary perspectives, it was reported that selection and eligibility criteria were too much driven by the Lisbon objectives concerning innovation and sustainable development. This excluded or marginalized some categories of interventions, such as social tourism and supporting measures for renovating the existing accommodation infrastructure, that were deemed relevant by the local stakeholders to respond to local needs (Ernest & Young, 2010). As an example, improving access to tourist facilities to low income groups from the region was another objective of the OP, as well as of the regional tourism strategy. However, because of limitation of eligible expenditures, it was addressed only through one project (Augmentation de l'offre de séjour EEDF à destination des jeunes issus de familles à faibles revenus).
Quality of the monitoring and evaluation systems
Standardization of monitoring practices and the finalization of the monitoring system proved to be a challenge, because of the number of different regional and state authorities involved in implementing the ERDF OP. In 2010, a consulting company (EDATER) was selected to assist the identification and the collection of monitoring indicators and to store them properly in the PRESAGE (programme for monitoring, managing and evaluation co-financed programmes) database. The monitoring system was finalized and became fully operational in 2010, when monitoring indicators were fully recorded based on common rules and principles (RAE, 2012).
Identification of indicators that monitor the performance of the measures related to culture and tourism proved to be problematic (Table 2.6). Output indicators, in terms of number of projects assisted, were only set for the measures concerning the Rhône river. The target values were defined at the axis level, but not disaggregated by measure.
Table 2.6. Selected output and outcome indicators for measures related to culture and tourism
Measure Output indicators Outcome indicators 9 Develop tourism by developing Not defined Growth rate of attendance of the tourism assets, innovation and assisted tourist site sustainable development 17 Promoting the cultural heritage Number of projects by Not defined and identity of the Rhône river geographical area 20 Ensure the development of a Number of projects by Not defined quality tourism along the river geographical area Rhône and its banks Source: Domo 2011 and ERDF OP 2007-2013
October 2015 28 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
The measure “Develop tourism by developing tourism assets, innovation and sustainable development” identified the percentage change in the number of visitors to a site at the end of the ERDF support as outcome indicator (Domo, 2011). However, the indicator was not systematically collected from beneficiaries, because of difficulties in collecting this information for certain interventions which did not address a specific site (e.g. territorial marketing projects). The need to reduce and minimize the number of indicators applied to the OP, led the managing authority towards identifying a synthesis indicator that was however not appropriate to account for the variety of interventions supported.
The three target measures were annually monitored in terms of project progress (e.g. number of project assisted, funds planned and disbursed) and results reported in the annual implementation report. For some projects, the annual reports also provide a qualitative of the most successful projects supported.
Use of public-private partnerships The delivery of the financed interventions was not based on a public-private partnership, as most projects were designed to target public actors and were thus built upon a public-public partnership involving different territorial authorities. A notable exception is the Chauvet cave project that was financed through public funds, but is operated by a private company (Kleber-Rossillon), within the framework of a public service delegation contract.
Typologies of contracts As interventions mostly target public actors, and were not designed to get an immediate financial return, all ERDF funds under the concerned measures were delivered in the form of grant.
Interventions were identified upon three different modalities: i) call for projects, ii) open-end call for projects, and iii) identification through national or regional planning documents (Table 2.7). Call for projects were used more frequently than in the previous funding period, and were reported to be valuable instruments for ensuring selection of quality projects, avoid dispersion of funding on too many micro-projects, and strengthen relevance of projects to the local contexts thanks to a reinforced participation of local actors.
Table 2.7. ERDF allocation by typologies of contracts by measure or sub- measure Measure Typology of contract ERDF amount 9.1 Use of ICTs for information gathering, Call for projects 505,04 reservation services and promotion of the tourist offer
9.2 Support for projects building on natural and Call for projects 7,176,835 cultural heritage and developed with a global territorial approach
9.3 Restitution Space of the Chauvet Cave and its National strategy 12,703,861 territorial development 17. Promoting the cultural heritage and identity of Open-end call for projects 5,937,599 the Rhône river (first come first served principle, along with adherence to the Plan Rhône) 20. Ensure the development of a quality tourism Open-end call for projects 4,140,248 along the river Rhône and its banks (first come first served principle, along with adherence to the Plan Rhône) Source: Presage data at December 2014
October 2015 29 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
Tools for the involvement of the stakeholders and the management of partnerships.
In France, regional policies and EU Structural Funds are mainly designed and managed at the regional level, but also involve a close cooperation between different regional and local authorities. Each region and departments has a prefect who represents the state and supervises the services of the State at the regional or departmental level (ADE, 2012). A network of public authorities (référents Europe) was established to facilitate the exchange of information and experiences amongst the different authorities in charge of managing the ERDF programmes. The network included persons responsible for managing the ERDF components within the regional and departmental prefects, intermediary bodies within state services. Meetings were regularly organized during the year and the regional council services were also invited to participate. This mechanism was considered particularly useful to achieve a better local ownership and representativeness of local issues within the selected projects (Ernest & Young, 2010).
However, it appears that the two services responsible for implementing the measures concerned by this evaluation, the Direccte and the regional council, used their own institutional network of contacts separately.
2.5 The implementation process
Because the three concerned measures were implemented by different public bodies and followed different delivery modalities, the realization of these interventions faced different challenges.
Develop tourism by developing tourism assets, innovation and sustainable development. The decision to use call for projects introduced an innovation in the system that initially overburdened the responsible services. The first two calls for projects were organized with a short delay that did not give adequate time to support beneficiaries of the first call in the initial phase of projects’ implementation. Projects’ assessment also proved to be challenging because of the large number of proposals received (160 for the first call and 101 for the second call to be assessed in six months) and a lack of clarity concerning eligibility and selection criteria. It should be noted that the first call occurred at a critical time for local communities in the aftermath of municipal election that led to the deposit of numerous but uncompleted applications. There was an initial concentration of funding that favored the actors that already had a strong project design capacity and financial absorption capacity. This distortion was redressed in the second call for projects when a more balanced territorial distribution of projects was achieved (Ernest & Young, 2010).
The phasing of project calls, in terms of type of interventions targeted, was reported to be well-structured, given that the first call for projects aimed at supporting feasibility studies and diagnostic analysis, whereas the second call was more geared towards supporting physical interventions and more complex projects that allows to fully allocate the available funds (Ernest & Young, 2010).
Development of tourism and culture along the Rhône river and its valley. The interventions concerning these measures had a delayed start, because of the initial difficulty in identifying projects. A risk of under-performance, in terms of use of the available funding, and of excessive fragmentation of the available financial envelope across too many small projects (especially for culture), was reported in the mid-term evaluation of the OP in 2010. For instance, for the measure targeting the culture sector, there was merely 500.000 euro of ERDF funds programmed for less than 15 projects at the beginning of 2010. In the same period, the number of programmed
October 2015 30 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
projects for the measure targeting tourism was equal to 5.
The measure related to culture had the highest fragmentation of ERDF credits. This was indeed the measure that supported the highest number of projects in relation to the funds available. This resulted from the large number of projects targeting events and cultural products (63 projects with an average ERDF contribution of approximately EUR 38,000). In spite of a high number of projects approved under this category, the number of beneficiaries was far more limited, as most cultural associations or institutions received financing for at least two projects. For instance, the Association Woodstower7 received four ERDF grants for four consecutive years for putting in place shows that valorize the Rhône river. Similarly, the performing art company Louxor Spectacles et Créateurs received six grants for organizing shows along the river. Fragmentation is also related to the high number of applications received under this measure. This was reported to be related to the declining public resources for the culture sector, that made the ERDF funds a vital source of financing. Differently, the potential number of applicants for the measure targeting the tourist sector was structurally limited by the underdevelopment of fluvial tourism in Rhône Alpes.
Implementation delays were determined by three factors. First, 2007-2013 was the first ERDF programming period in which the regional council was acting as intermediary body. It was reported that the staff of the DPT had to familiarize with new tasks and procedures at the beginning of implementation. Secondly, the low familiarity with ERDF procedures for some beneficiaries, especially cultural associations, was reported to be another cause of delay, as projects needed to be revised and strengthened before being eligible for approval. Changes of the implementation rules throughout the programming period were also reported to be a source of instability for beneficiaries. As a consequence, many follow up actions were necessary to assist the beneficiaries with the lowest administrative capacity (e.g. management of a large number of clarification requests, many back and forward of administrative documentation). These also included site visits that were necessary to put projects back on track. Thirdly, there were a limited number of potentially eligible projects for tourism development along the Rhône river.
To sum up, implementation of the three measures followed a different path that was determined by the experience of both the beneficiaries of the measures and the implementing agency. For the measure related to culture implementation was more problematic and close monitoring and assistance had to be delivered to avoid possible project failures. This added additional workload to the responsible public services. . The selection procedure and the typologies of intervention financed contributed to limit fragmentation of allocations in the two measures addressing the tourist sector. Differently, the need to support a large number of associations over the programing period led to high fragmentation of grants in the measure for the culture sector.
As for the geographical allocation of the ERDF funds (Table 2.6), the following can be noted:
Coherently with the ERFD strategy for the tourist sector, funds were directed to areas with an underdeveloped tourist potential. This is the case of the rural departments of Ardeche, Ain and, to a lesser extent, Drome and Loire department. Ardeche is the department whichreceived the highest amount of funding to support tourism development. This is linked to the large investments required for developing the Chauvet cave project, but also includes other type of support. As a matter of fact,
7 Since 1996, the Association organizes the Woodstower Festival, a music and theater festival in the city of Lyon.
October 2015 31 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
Ardeche, as compared to the other rural departments of the region, has a far less diversified economy and relies much more on developing tourism as an alternative economic activity. Symmetrically, the Haute Savoie, Rhône and Isere departments, that have a more developed tourist sector and diversified economic activities, received little assistance. In contrast with this picture, Savoie, also a department with a well- developed tourist offer and infrastructure, was the second largest recipient of ERDF support. This is due to the fact that Savoie’s economy heavily depends on tourism, that is strongly concentrated in a limited geographical area (Tarentaise). Actually, in terms of wealth generated by the tourism sector Savoie is the most developed tourist department of France (Insee, 2014).
Funds for culture were overwhelmingly allocated to the Rhône department. This is clearly an asymmetrythat was justified by the fact that most potential beneficiaries had their siege in Lyon, and that there were little alternatives in other areas, especially considering the limited theme addressed by these interventions. Furthermore, by concentrating cultural initiatives in Lyon, a larger public attendance was ensured. However, this is somehow in contrast with the purpose of building a regional identity upon the Rhône river, as this would have implied a more balanced geographical distribution of initiatives.
In line with with the objectives set by the ERDF strategy for developing tourism along the Rhône River, funds were evenly allocated in the concerned departments. As compared to the other tourist measure, these interventions were more evenly distributed, following the concept of developing the river area as an integrating factor for regional identity. The department of Savoy was the largest recipient, but interventions did not concern highly developed tourist areas. It is also important to notice that possibilities to intervene were determined by the river structure and environmental constraints.
Table 2.8. Geographical distribution of ERDF allocations by type of measure Department Develop tourism by Promoting the cultural Ensure the development developing tourism heritage and identity of of a quality tourism assets, innovation and the Rhône river along the river Rhône sustainable and its banks development Ain 1,046,208 179,276 710,207 Ardeche 14,799,631 216,513 316,308 Drôme 525,214 18,156 401,988 Isère 521,894 0 128,762 Loire 1,068,622 0 848,064 Rhône 292,789 2,993,650 434,776 Savoie 1,349,010 41,015 1,109,521 Haute-Savoie 389,930 13,183 0 Multiple 366,852 1,257,156 190,621 Source: Author’s elaboration of data provided by the MA
October 2015 32 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
3. Effectiveness and sustainability of the strategy: outputs and results
3.1 Outputs achieved
At the end of 2013, 98.4% of the ERDF funds for the OP 2007-2013 were allocated to specific interventions and 62.1% of payments were already made. This made the Rhône-Alpes region one of the top-permoning French regions in terms of ERDF absorption. (RAE, 2013). The measures supporting the tourism and culture sector also achieved a similar good performance (Table 3.1).
Table 3.1. Programming and payment rate at December 2014 by type of measure No. of Programming Payment Type of measure projects rate rate no. 9 “Develop tourism by developing tourism assets, 117 98.74% 61.7% innovation and sustainable development” no. 17 “Promoting the cultural heritage and identity of the 80 120.7% 68.4% Rhône river” no. 20 “Ensure the development of a quality tourism along 27 101.39% 63.5% the river Rhône and its banks” Source: Managing Authority
In spite of an initial risk of under-commitment of funds, especially for the measures linked to the Rhône river plan, funds were fully committed, as demand and project design capacity of potential beneficiaries proved to be strong. Differences in programming rate were due to the different methods used for allocating funds.
Initially, the ERDF 2007-2013 OP, and the related implementation plan (Domo), did not set a target number of projects to be used as a baseline to verify whether planned outputs were achieved. In 2011 an updated version of the Domo identified a target number of projects to be implemented under Axis V. However, it was elaborated following a geographical criterion rather than by type of measure, and it cannot be used for the purpose of this analysis.
At the end of 2014, approved projects were well progressed. Because of the initial delays, completion rate is lower for projects targeting the Rhone river area (Table 3.2).
Table 3.2. Number of completed and on-going projects at December 2014 by type of measure Approved Completed Completion Type of measure projects projects rate no. 9 “Develop tourism by developing tourism 117 102 87% assets, innovation and sustainable development” no. 17 “Promoting the cultural heritage and identity 80 72 90% of the Rhône river” no. 20 “Ensure the development of a quality 27 18 66% tourism along the river Rhône and its banks” Source: Author’s elaboration from PRESAGE
The average ERDF contribution to all the three measures was 41.1 %, beign the highest for cultural projects (48%), and lowest for tourism projects targeting the Rhône river valleys (32.6%). A summary table of the interventions supported by the
October 2015 33 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
ERDF funds by categories of interventions is presented below.
Table 3.3. Summary table of approved projects by type of measure ERDF support (total and per project) * Media N° of Total Maximum Largest of projects at action Lines of activity/Actions n Minimum projects (mil. (mil. level (mil. (euro) euro) euro) euro) Measure 9. Develop tourism by developing tourism assets, innovation 117 20.4 0.05 3,299 7,3 and sustainable development Pôle touristique Mode, chapeau et métiers d'arts (991,831), Création Territorial marketing 73 4.9 0.05 3,299 0.99 d'une vitrine touristique de l'Ain au Parc des Oiseaux (600,000) Réalisation de l'Espace de Restitution de la Grotte Chauvet- Infrastructure investment 29 14.8 0.15 19,505 7.3 Pont d'Arc- Tranche 3 (7,300,638), Tranche 2 (2,914,791) Valorisation du patrimoine Infrastructure (improve touristique naturel et culturel security of 10 0.5 0.06 15,035 0.33 (339,581); Aménagement de la access/accessibility) maison du terroir et du patrimoine (202,000) Ardéchoise Permanente - Mise en place d'un dispositif de Others (events and tourism chronométrage (198.329), 5 0.2 0.03 16,238 0.10 development instruments Accompagnement en ingénierie des pôles touristiques du patrimoine (93.000) Measure 17. Promoting the cultural heritage and 80 5.9 0.13 8,033 3.7 identity of the Rhône river La réhabilitation et la scénographie du Centre eau et Infrastructure 6 3.2 0.26 45,120 3.7 nature des Allivoz (3,758,800), Réhabilitation du vieux pont de Rochemaure (1,353,204) Banque de données Fleuve Patrimoine et photothèque du Fleuve Rhône, phase de Diagnostic and counselling 11 0.25 0.13 8,033 0.14 développement 2010 (142,854); Développement du site portail fleuveRhône.com (93,000) La Turbine (556,985);Le chant du Events or cultural products 63 2,45 0.03 6,720 0.55 fleuve (263,154) Measure 20. Ensure the development of a quality 27 4.14 0.04 5,686,98 1.9 tourism along the river Rhône and its banks Signalisation directionnelle et d'informations touristiques sur les tronçons réalisés par le Conseil Territorial marketing 3 0.18 0.05 22,510 0.10 général de la Drôme (103,335) ; Communication relative au projet d'itinéraire ViaRhôna (84,925) Aménagement d'un site portuaire sur la commune de Virignin - phase 2 (1,973,890); Infrastructure investment 18 3.87 0.16 7,916 1.9 Requalification de l'espace eaux vives du Pilat Rhodanien à Saint- Pierre-de-Boeuf (1,827,550) Infrastructure (improve Création d'une mission d'expertise security of 2 0.04 0.02 21,469 0.04 en accessibilité des sites du Haut access/accessibility) Rhône 2e année (44,561) Réalisation d'une étude pour l'intégration de la dimension Others (studies) 4 0.05 0.01 5,687 0.03 Développement durable dans le projet de rénovation du Port des Roches de Condrieu (38,850) Total 224 30.5 0.05 468 14.12 Source: Regional monitoring data base of ERDF Project 2007-2013 (UPDATED AT 31.12.2014) * Average co-financing rate = 58.3%
October 2015 34 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
Funds absorption was driven by infrastructure investments. More than 50% of total ERDF funds went to support infrastructure investments. This occurred in all the three concerned measures, although it was more prominent for the tourist sector, especially for projects targeting the Rhône river area. In the measure addressing the culture sector, infrastructure investments concerned a limited number of projects (7.5%), but with a large amount of funding as compared to other categories of intervention. Infrastructure investments can be further classified in three sub-categories.
Building of new infrastructure. These were the largest investments and concerned the building of new cultural or sport and leisure facilities. The most relevant investment supported by the ERDF in the 2007-2013 period was the Chauvet cave project that was addressed by a specific sub-measure that co- financed both the infrastructure (7 projects with a total ERDF contribution of nearly EUR 9.7 million) and a number of complementary projects to upgrade the tourist offer in the area of the cave (10 projects with a total ERDF contribution of nearly EUR 2.9 million). In addition to this large scale investment, other support to new infrastructure were set to promote fluvial tourism by developing new port facilities or recreational areas along the Rhône river. For instance, two projects, for a total ERDF contribution of EUR 679,753 supported the development of a fluvial port in the municipality of Virignin. Rehabilitation of existing sites. This sub-category includes different types of interventions that include the rehabilitation of cultural heritage sites (e.g. rehabilitation of the Rochemaure bridge on the Rhône river, ERDF contribution of EUR 1.3 million ), or the upgrading of sport and leisure facilities (e.g. the development of bathing sites in Ardeche, ERDF contribution of EUR 363,110). Improved accessibility of tourist sites. This is a rather residual sub-category. An example of these projects is the rehabilitation of a hiking path to make it accessible to disabled people (Valorisation du site de la Tour d'Albon et boucles de randonnée accessibles à tous, rendre accessible aux personnes handicapées le lac des sapins, EUR 63,725 of ERDF financing). As a matter of fact, accessibility was also integrated in other infrastructure projects and there are several examples that can be mentioned. For instance, for the requalification of the white water sport center in Saint-Pierre-de-Boeuf, specific facilities were developed to allow disabled people to practice white water sports. Similarly, the requalification of the trail in the National Nature Reserve of Marais Lavours was also done in order to ensure accessibility. Territorial marketing activities were the second most important categories of intervention for the tourist sector. These categories of intervention can be grouped in different actions.
Qualité Tourism. A number of projects were set to assist tourist enterprises to get the national certification “Qualité Tourisme” (total of EUR 463,000 of ERDF contributions). Eight local chambers of commerce were involved providing assistance at different level (e.g. diagnosis, development of improvement plans, coaching, training, exchange of experiences between professionals). At the end of 2013, 200 tourist enterprises were reported to have been certified (Rhône-Alpes CCI web site). However, the project was reported to have a lower target than expected in terms of enterprises involved. This was due to a perceived lower importance of the national policy concerning the introduction of this quality standard, and to the too many requirements that proved to be
October 2015 35 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
challenging for small independent and family run hotels in rural areas. Promotion of ICT use. Other territorial marketing projects were grouped around the ICT theme (sub-measure 9.1: use of ICTs for information gathering, reservation services and promotion of the tourist offer). These initiatives relied on the use of ICTs to better structure and advertise the regional tourist and cultural offer. They supported a limited number of projects (15), with a total ERDF contribution of approximately EUR 505,000 and an average ERDF contribution of about EUR 33,000. These included 4 interventions for setting up web sites for tourist information, and 3 projects to develop geo-located tourism services that applied more modern ways of communicating and advertising the tourist offer. This limited support to ICT use in the tourism sector, is somehow in contrast with the emphasis attached to this theme in the ERDF OP. Local tourism development plans. Other projects followed local specific needs related to the advertisement of cultural or tourist sites, or assisted local public authorities in better structuring the tourist offer. This is the sub-category that received the largest amount of ERDF financing, as it includes a large array of interventions. A relevant example is the establishment of a showcase facility for Ain department within the Ornithological Park of Dombes that is included in the mini case studies that complement this report. Other type of projects concerned the establishment of new tourist route (e.g. Créer une route touristique des vins du Beaujolais) or new itineraries within the regional parks. Within the measure concerning the promotion of tourism along the Rhône river, territorial marketing activities were a residual category and were all linked to the via Rhona cycling path. In the culture sector the largest number of projects concerned support to cultural associations for the delivery of cultural products. A general feature of these projects was that of being accessible to the largest possible public, as no fees were charged. This category of interventions can be grouped in different actions.
Support to performing art associations. This is the most relevant category and includes 32 projects and a total ERDF contribution of nearly 1.7 million euros. The average ERDF contribution for each intervention amounted to nearly 54,000 euros. Support was delivered to cultural associations that organized shows along the Rhône river linked to the cultural and historical heritage of the river. As an example, the Woodstower association received funding for four consequtive years for putting in place a show (une dimanche à bord de l’eau) that proposed street art performances based on a popular local ball. Support for preparation of documentary material concerning the history of the Rhône river. This action covers different outputs, such as books, DVDs or animated documentaries. For instance, the association “Les films pour demain” prepared a short film of 15 minutes and a documentary film 57 min as a memorial project on the history of the Rhône river told by its inhabitants (26,100 euros of ERDF support). The association Panoramistes prepared a photographic book that describes the Rhône river from the Alpes to the Mediterannean delta (30,600 euros of ERDF support). Support for exibitions or other educational events. These interventions amounted to 13 projects that were carried out by the cultural association Maison du Rhône that had the mission to raise awarness about the Rhône river
October 2015 36 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
cultural and natural heritage amongt its inabitants. They either consisted in permanent exibitions or theme-specific workshops having the Rhône river as a common background theme. Studies concerning the tourist and culture sectors were also supported as a residual category (1.6% of the total ERDF allocations). These interventions were often instrumental to support other projects, as in the case of feasibility studies, or were used to support diagnostic studies that take stock of the existing cultural heritage of a specific area. For instance support was provided in 2011 and 2012 to develop a database of the Rhône river heritage.
No specific problems were reported in terms of achieving the expected outputs for all the concerned measures, as close follow up activities were put in place to assist beneficiaries in achieving the planned targets. For instance, only 2 projects were cancelled for the measures concerning the Rhône river.
With respect to the sustainability criteria, the interventions supported can be classified in three different categories.
Projects for which sustainability is ensured by continuous public financing. This is the case of interventions targeting the tourist sector that had a public institution as beneficiary organization and were framed within or anchored to regional or national tourist strategies. As an example, in the case of projects implementing national quality systems for hotels and restaurants (Qualité-Tourisme™ and Tourisme et Handicap), assistance will be further delivered within the framework of national or regional programmes. Maintenance of the infrastructure investments will also have to be secured through public funding.
Projects whose sustainability is uncertain. This is the case of projects targeting the culture sector, as public funding for cultural initiatives is set to decline in the coming years. Participation in EU-funded programmes helped small cultural associations to set up a better organizational structure and to elaborate better business plans that are building block for further progress. However, financial sustainability remains uncertain. There was only one reported case of a cultural project (Woodstower) that was able to secure future financial support from Electricité de France (EdF).
Unsustainable projects. This is the case of the assistance provided to Maison du fleuve Rhône (21 projects for a total of 460,217 euro of ERDF support), a cultural association, that created more than twenty years ago the idea of a regional cultural identity based upon the cultural and historical heritage of the Rhône river. The association was subject to a liquidation procedure in 2014, as it was not able to achieve a financial equilibrium (Communiqué DRAC Rhône-Alpes January 2014). There was also another reported case in which the intervention was detrimental to the recipient association, as the business plan developed overestimated the actual number of product sold in the market.
No cultural and tourist projects supported during the 2007-2020 were reported to be the target of future assistance under the new funding period 2014-2020, as culture and tourism are not any more priority sectors. Tourism and culture won’t be addressed by specific measures, but tourist enterprises will be able to receive support through other measures that target innovation and energy efficiency (Région Rhône- Alpes, 2014). A tourism component will however be included in the 2014-2020 interregional programme for the Rhône and Saône rivers. It will be targeted to develop tourism along the rivers’ valleys by better developing the offer of slow travel modalities such as bicycle tourist (e.g. ViaRhona) and fluvial tourism. Actually, the
October 2015 37 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
focus on the ViaRhona is the only element of continuity between the two funding periods. Development of cultural and natural heritage will only be addressed within the framework of the Alcotra and Espace Alpine cross-border programmes.
3.2 Results achieved
The monitoring system in place failed to provide adequate indicators to assess development projects’ outcomes for the measures addressing the tourism and culture sectors. The original plan to track changes in site attendance was not systematically implemented, as it could not be consistently applied to all categories of interventions supported by the ERDF.
Direct employment creation is the only quantitative indicator of regional economic impact that was monitored for all measures supported by the 2007-2013 OP. This indicator refers to jobs that were created within the beneficiary organization and does not account for the possible indirect jobs that were created within the ultimate beneficiaries of the interventions (e.g. the accommodation structures that received assistance under the quality tourism scheme). The indicator has thus some weaknesses. Onone hand it overestimates contribution to long/medium-term employment, as some projects only create temporary jobs that are limited the implementation of the project. On the other hand, it fails to consider the possible employment impacts on the enterprises assisted by a public intermediary.
Overall, most jobs were created through the Axes I and II, accounting for 69% of the employment envisaged by the 2007-2013 OP. This is not surprising, as these axes include mostly interventions which target innovative enterprises and promote economic activities. As for the measures supporting tourism and culture, the state of achievement of this indicator is summarized in the Table below. The number of jobs created through the measure “Promoting the cultural heritage and identity of the Rhône river” is impressively high. However, it remains an open issue whether these jobs are sustainable in the future, as most jobs are likely to have been created for completing projects. For the two measures targeting the tourist sectors, the number of direct jobs created was below the expected targets. This is due to the fact that these interventions targeted the public or semi-public sector, and were mostly carried out with the existing staff.
Table 3.4. Number of expected and created jobs No. of jobs No. of jobs Type of measure (expected) (actual)
9 “Develop tourism by developing tourism assets, innovation and 106 55 sustainable development” 17 “Promoting the cultural heritage and identity of the Rhône river” 274 272
20 “Ensure the development of a quality tourism along the river Rhône and 36 6 its banks” Source: Managing Authority
Without result indicators, most outcomes of the target measures could only be assessed through a qualitative analysis that integrates the views of beneficiaries and stakeholders. The following benefits were reported:
Improved territorial cohesion. Interventions were planned in a way to target emerging tourist destinations, rather than improving the competitiveness of already developed tourist areas. For instance, by promoting local tourism along the Rhône river, two objectives were achieved. On one hand, tourist facilities (e.g. the sport and leisure center at Saint Pierre en Boef) were established in an area that lacked of tourist
October 2015 38 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
attractions. On the other hand, the development of local tourism allowed low income groups to benefit from affordable tourist experiences. Similarly, the interventions in the culture sector mostly pursued social purposes, such as supporting local cultural associations and granting access to cultural events and products to a large public (e.g. the Woostower festival). When relevant, projects also included measures for accessible tourism. As an example the cultural association Turbine received funding for building an elevator that will make its facilities accessible to disabled persons.
Increased perception of tourism as income generating activities. Interventions helped local communities with weak understating of tourism sector development practices, to think about how to use tourism for local development as an alternative to declining agricultural or industrial activities. For instance, in the case of the project that supported the development of tourism in the department of Ain (mini-case study), it clearly appeared that the department had never made an inventory of its natural and cultural assets for the purpose of attracting more tourists and better structuring of its tourist offer.
Increased used of ICTs in the tourist sector. The use of ICTs in emerging tourist destinations was reported to be underdeveloped. The approach followed by the measure targeting tourism development was to support a limited number of pilot projects (15 projects) that show the potential of using ICT to support tourist promotion or improve the attractiveness of a site (e.g. facilitating access to on-line information and reservation in Ain department, creation of ten virtual visits of vucanos’ sources in Ardeche). However, projects were reported to follow an experimental approach that does not integrate with marketing and commercial strategies. In this area, interventions were limited to establish instruments that improve visibility or usability of sites, but were not able to follow the project into a sort of commercialization phase.
Improved capacity of cultural associations in project design and management. Interventions were reported to have helped beneficiaries to improve their fund-rising capacity and develop more sustainable business plans. This resulted in a strengthened organizational structure that often includes a person dealing with administrative and accounting issues. However, involvement of the private sector in sponsoring cultural activities remained low and was not improved by the 2007-2013 OP.
Improved capacity to integrate tourist projects within the public system. Areas with an underdeveloped tourist potential lacked projects that integrate the existing and fragmented tourist offer. Interventions targeting the tourist sectors prioritized projects that have a systemic impact and involved multiple public institutions. The most relevant example from the 2007-2013 programming period is provided by the project of the replica of the Chauvet Cave, which was regarded as a high national and regional priority. The project was designed to integrate the construction of a flagship tourist cultural attraction with measures that were set to diversify and expand the local tourist sector. Recently opened, the cave has already attracted an impressive number of visitors, although data on wider economic outcomes are not yet available. On a smaller scale the two projects selected as mini-case studies also provide an example of improved integration of tourist assets.
October 2015 39
Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
4. Conclusions and lessons learnt
The following conclusions can be drawn from the evidence presented in the case study:
. The ERDF regional strategy on tourism is assessed as relevant, whereas the ERDF regional strategy on culture is assessed as partly relevant. The inclusion of measures within the OP 2007-2013 that support tourism in areas that do not have flagship tourist attractions and that can make better use of their natural and cultural heritage sites was opportune. Tourism was conceived as an instrument to diversify the local economies and create new job opportunities. The ERDF measures for the tourist sector were aligned with the regional strategy for tourism development (SRDTLRA) and set to target areas that were not receiving support from other EU-funded programs (e.g. POMA, POMAC). All interventions implemented along the Rhône river area were anchored to the interregional Rhône river plan. In this context, the EU interventions provided the additional financing that could not be identified within domestic public funds. Interventions in the field of culture had a limited geographical scope and theme which reduced the range of possible actions and also resulted in weak integration between the two sectors of tourism and culture. There were little linkages between the ERDF measure that support culture and the regional strategic priorities for the sector (e.g. use of ICTs in cultural products and services). . Efficiency in implementing the ERDF regional strategy on tourism and culture is assessed as satisfactory. Programming targets were successfully achieved well ahead the end of the programming period, whereas fund absorption was also good for all the three concerned measures. These results were achieved thanks to a combination of a strong demand for support from cultural and tourist operators, a good project design capacity from local public bodies and continuous follow up actions from the responsible services of each measure. As compared to the previous programming period, a stronger participation from local authorities in elaborating project proposals was reported and deemed to deliver projects that were better aligned to local needs. . The effectiveness of the ERDF regional strategy on tourism and culture is assessed as satisfactory. Overall, the interventions financed responded to the objectives set in the strategy. In particular, for the tourist sector, interventions were geographically focused on areas with an underdeveloped tourist potential, such as the Rhône river, and addressed local tourism (with the exception of the Chauvet cave project). The mix of hard and soft measures allowed to create new cultural or tourist facilities or to upgrade the existing ones, while local capacities in planning and promoting tourism were also strengthened. Interventions in the cultural sector were set to create a regional identity around the historical and cultural heritage of the Rhône river through the delivery of a mix of cultural products, although the geographical distribution of intervention was too unbalanced. . Evaluation of regional development outcomes is limited and based on qualitative information. In the absence of adequate indicators, achievement
October 2015 41 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
of results of the three concerned measures cannot be properly assessed. The MA struggled between the objective of keeping a limited number of result indicators and identifying synthesis indicators that would have summarized the result of measures. The indicator that was originally identified (i.e. change in the number of people that visit a site) was later found out to be of little use due to the large variety of projects supported. A more flexible system, wih indicators specific to each category of interventions, could have been developed. Estimates on the impact on direct employment creation, have many shortcomings. . Whereas the sustainability of the ERDF regional strategy on tourism is assessed as likely, those on culture is uncertain. Interventions targeting the tourist sector benefited public institutions and were anchored to local or regional strategies. Therefore, sustainability is ensured within continuous financing from the public sector, whereas projects’ operations are mostly taken care by the staff of the recipient public administration. In some cases these projects were also linked to national or regional tourist programmes, thus providing a further guarantee for projects’ continuity. Differently, culture projects targeted cultural associations that are more exposed to funding uncertainty, given the declining trend of public support for culture and the difficulty in putting in place financially sustainable initiatives or to engage private sponsors. The following lessons can be learnt:
. ERDF support was key to support interventions that were mostly driven by social and territorial cohesion purposes (e.g. accessible tourism, support for declining areas, universal access to culture), that are a strong drive for public intervention. The ERDF measures supporting the tourist and culture sectors allowed to provide financingto areas of the region that generally receive little support from other ERDF measures. This somehow helped to counterbalance the natural geographical concentration of funding in already highly developed and competitive areas (e.g. Lyon and Grenoble). It was also reported that many projects would have never happened without a combination of domestic and European funding, given the lack of interest from the private sector to support projects with uncertain returns. . The ERDF strategy fails to integrate the two sectors of tourism and culture. Besides the Chauvet cave project, which was a large cultural and tourist project, there was little integration of tourism and culture in the ERDF strategy. This was due to two factors. First, the tourist image of Rhône Alpes is associated to adventure and sport, whereas cultural assets are far less known. Secondly, interventions in favor of the culture sector were too narrowly designed around the theme of the Rhodanian identity. . The use of call for projects stimulates participation from local actors and local capacity for project design, as compared to project identification through regional or national programmes. It was reported that call for projects were also useful to have a better quality selection of projects, and avoid an excessive fragmentation of funding that often characterizes interventions in the two sectors. The most important weakness of this instrument of selection is that it generally favors applicants with stronger capacity to design eligible
October 2015 42 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
projects. The geographical distribution of funding might have been partially driven by the use of call for projects, but it is also aligned with the objective of the strategy. . Sustainability of interventions heavily depends on the continuity of support from public authorities. The sustainability of projects depends, on a case by case basis, upon the financial capacity of the responsible public authorities to maintain or further develop the intervention. This was due to the type of interventions supported, and to the social objectives pursued by the strategy. The fact that most projects, as those promoting the use of ICT in the tourist sector, were conceived as pilot initiatives also made sustainability more uncertain. The use of public-private partnership was not explored, with the only notable exception of the Chauvet cave project. . The use of ERDF funds to support small cultural associations is contested. The large majority of beneficiaries receiving support for delivering cultural products or services were not for profit organizations. Some were small cultural associations that had never before tried to access to ERDF support, because they did not have the necessary administrative capacity in place. Some argued that participation in the ERDF programme helped these associations strengthen their administrative structures and elaborate more solid financial plans. Others were less convinced about the appropriateness of co-financed projects for supporting this category of beneficiary. In these views the complexity of ERDF administrative project procedure was seen as a potentially destabilizing element for unprepared and less solid beneficiaries. As a matter of fact, all supported interventions delivered the expected outputs and only in one case the intervention proved to be detrimental to the recipient organization. However, many follow up actions had to be put in place to ensure projects’ completion.
October 2015 43
Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
References
. ADE. 2012. Study on the relevance and the effectiveness of ERDF and Cohesion Fund support to Regions with Specific Geographical Features – Islands, Mountainous and Sparsely Populated areas. Report prepared upon request of the European Commission. . Associations des Régions de France. 2012. Actes des Assises nationales Culture et Régions. . Chambre Régionale de Commerce et d’Industrie Rhône-Alpes. 2010. Key figures for Rhône-Alpes Region 2009-2010 edition. . Council of Europe/ERICarts. 2014. Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe, 15th edition. ISSN 2222-7334 . Insee. 2014. En résumé - Rhône-Alpes. Mise à jour octobre 2014 . Insee, La Lettre. 2011. Rhône-Alpes : un secteur culturel développé. N° 155 - novembre 2011. . Insee Rhône-Alpes. 2013. Tourisme: Une bonne année grâce à l'hôtellerie et à la clientèle étrangère. Le bilan économique 2013 - Dossier n° 159 . Insee Analyses Rhône-Alpes. 2014. En Rhône-Alpes, le tourisme dégage une richesse importante. N° 02 - juillet 2014 . Insee - La Lettre. 2012. La culture en Rhône-Alpes: 17 300 établissements et 45 000 actifs exerçant une profession culturelle. N° 172 - avril 2012 . Imaginove. 2013. Feuille de route stratégique 2013-2018 du Pôle de compétitivité Imaginove Contenus & usages numériques. . Le Figaro. 2015. Préhistoire: la guerre souterraine. Friday 29 mai 2015 . Observatoire Régional du Tourisme. 2013. Les Indicateurs de l’économie du Tourisme. . Observatoire Régional du Tourisme. 2013. Les sites touristiques de Rhône-Alpes état des lieux, Fréquentation, Partage d’expériences, grands projets. . Observatoire Régional du Tourisme. 2015. Mémento du tourisme 2015. 11e édition Observatoire Régional du Tourisme . Région Rhône-Alpes, Direction de l’Economie, de la Recherche, du Tourisme et des Technologies Service du Tourisme Durable. 2008. Schéma régional de développement du tourisme et des loisirs. . Région Rhône-Alpes. 2011. La Stratégie Régionale de Développement Economique et d’Innovation 2011-2015 . Région Rhône-Alpes. 2014. Programme Opérationnel FEDER/FSE Rhône–Alpes 2014- 2020. . Région Rhône-Alpes. 2014. Programme Opérationnel Interrégional FEDER Rhône- Saône 2014-2020. . Ernest & Young. 2010. Evaluation à mi-parcours du PO FEDER 2007-2013 Rhône- Alpes. . Prefécture de la Région Rhône-Alpes et Région Rhône-Alpes. 2007. Programme Operationnel Fonds Europeen de Developpement Regional (Feder) Rhône-Alpes 2007-2013 . Prefécture de la Région Rhône-Alpes. 2012. Avis de l’autorité environnementale sur la modification du programme compétitivité et emploie Rhône-Alpes 2007– 2013.
October 2015 45 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
. Prefécture de la Région Rhône-Alpes et Région Rhône-Alpes. 2007. Document de mise en œuvre (Domo) Rhône-Alpes 2007 – 2013 . Serge Maury, Philippe Bertrand. 2013. La crise économique creuse les écarts de niveaux de vie en Rhône-Alpes. Insee Rhône-Alpes. La Lettre Analyses N° 197. . SGAR, Mission Europe. 2012. Rapport annuel d’execution 2012 PO FEDER Rhône- Alpes 2007-2013 . SGAR, Mission Europe. 2013. Rapport annuel d’execution 2013 PO FEDER Rhône- Alpes 2007-2013 . Prefecture Rhône-Alpes, Region Rhône-Alpes, Region Languedoc Roussillion, region Provence Alpes Côte d’Azur, Region Bourgogne, Region France Comté. 2007. Contrat de Projets Interrégional Plan Rhône 2007-2013.
October 2015 46 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
Annex 1. List of people to interview during the week 25-30 May
Table A1.1 List of people interviewed Name Organization Role Contacts Chargé de la Mission anne.rizand@Rhône- Préfecture Rhône-Alpes, Anne Rizand Europe alpes.pref.gouv.fr SGAR 04.72.61.65.82 Préfecture Rhône-Alpes, Responsable évaluation Guiol-Bodin 04.72.61.65.96 SGAR Préfecture Rhône-Alpes, Chargée d'affaires DIRECCTE (direction régionale des Céline Issard- celine.issard- entreprises, de la Guillot [email protected] concurrence, de la 04.72.68.29.27 consommation, de l'économie et de l'emploi) Conseil Régional Rhône- Responsable du service abougel@Rhônealpes.fr Aurélie Bougel, Alpes, Direction des programmation et 04.26.73.40.39 06.78.57.54.63 programmes européens pilotage PO FEDER/FSE Conseil Régional Rhône- Chargée de mission Agnès Hollande Alpes - Unité Fleuve Fleuve Rhône / POP ahollande@Rhônealpes.fr Rhône Direction des FEDER 04.26.73.58.81 Politiques Territoriales
(DPT) Conseil Régional Rhône- Chargé de mission cbiral@Rhônealpes.fr Christain Biral Alpes évaluation 0426734417 Conseil Régional Rhône- Chargé de mission smazel@Rhônealpes.fr Sandra Mazé Alpes évaluation 0426735045 Conseil Régional Rhône- Instructeur FEDER Alpes - Unité Fleuve adavid@Rhônealpes.fr Alexandra David Rhône Direction des 04 26 73 61 39 Politiques Territoriales (DPT) Conseil Régional Rhône- Réferent Instruction Michèle Billou- Alpes - Unité Fleuve FEDER-FSE MBILLOU-FERRY@Rhônealpes.fr Ferry Rhône Direction des 0426735500 Politiques Territoriales (DPT) Chargée d'Etudes Christelle.Lepoutre@Rhônealpes- Christelle Observatoire du tourisme.com 04 26 73 31 81 Lepoutre Tourisme Rhône-Alpes Anne RUSILLON Chargée de Projet & Développement [email protected] 04 CCI Haute Savoie Raphael Commercial 50 33 72 65 Perchoux Chargé de Projet Europe Responsable de Service Coralie CATRAIN Conseil Régional Rhône- Service Tourisme Durable 04 26 73 44 22 Alpes-(DTMP) Direction Tourisme, ccatrain@Rhônealpes.fr Montagne et Parcs Responsable Tourisme 04 74 31 44 07 Yasmina Gentil CCI nord Isere [email protected] Directeur 04 74 32 31 30 Karl Joly Aintourisme [email protected] Community of Directeur, Communauté 0033 474875371 David Barranco communes Pilat de Communes du Pilat [email protected] Rhodanien Rhodanien Community of Responsible tourisme et [email protected] Magali Cranga communes Pilat loisirs 0776021453 Rhodanien
October 2015 47 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
Annex 2. Data on the regional socio-economic context
Table A2.1. A general overview of the social and economic conditions of the region Rhône Alps France EU ∆ ∆ ∆ 2007- 2007- 2007- 2007 2013 2013 2007 2013 2013 2007 2013 2013 (% or (% or (% or pp) pp) pp) Total Population (million) 6.1 6.4 5.4% 63.6 65.6 3.0% 498.4 507.2 1.8% - male (million) 3.0 3.1 5.6% 30.8 31.7 3.1% 243.0 247.6 1.9% - female (million) 3.1 3.3 5.3% 32.8 33.8 3.0% 255.4 259.6 1.6% Population Education level (% of tertiary educacated Level 5- 6) 28.1 34.3 6.2 pp 26.6 32.1 5.5 pp 23.5 28.5 5.0 pp GDP per inhabitant (PPS, Index Number EU=100)* 109 109 0.0 pp 108 109 1.0 pp 100 100 0.0 pp Total Employment rate (15- 64) (%) 65.8 66.5 0.7 pp 63.8 63.6 -0.2 pp 65.2 64 -1.2 pp Male Employment rate (15-64) (%) 71.7 70.8 -0.9 pp 68.7 67.4 -1.3 pp 72.3 69.3 -3.0 pp Female Employment rate (15-64) (%) 60.0 62.4 2.4 pp 59.0 59.9 0.9 pp 58.1 58.7 0.6 pp Number of Employed (15-64) (million) 2.6 2.7 3.6% 26 26 0.4% 216.9 211.4 -2.6% Number of Male Employed (15- 64) (million) 1.4 1.4 1.1% 13.7 13.6 -1.2% 120.0 114.1 -4.9% Number of Female Employed (15- 64) (million) 1.2 1.3 6.4% 12.2 12.5 2.2% 96.9 97.3 0.4% Total Unemployment rate (15 and over) (%) 6.6 8.4 1.8 pp 8.4 10.3 1.9 pp 7.2 10.8 3.6 pp Male Unemployment rate (15 and over) (%) 5.8 8.4 2.6 pp 7.8 10.4 2.6 pp 6.6 10.8 4.2 pp Female Unemployment rate (15 and over) (%) 7.5 8.3 0.8 pp 9 10.2 1.2 pp 7.9 10.9 3.0 pp People at risk of poverty or social exclusion (%) n.a. n.a. n.a. 19.0 18.1 -0.9 pp 24.4 24.5 0.1 pp NEET rate 15-24 (%) 9.2 8.2 -1.0 pp 10.3 11.2 0.9 pp 10.9 13.0 2.1 pp - male (%) 8.8 7.3 -1.5 pp 9.6 10.9 1.3 pp 9.8 12.8 3.0 pp - female (%) 9.6 9.1 -0.5 pp 11.0 11.4 0.4 pp 12.2 13.2 1.0 pp Source: Eurostat (Regional Statistics). * 2011 instead of 2013. Note: Variations (∆ 2007-2013) are expressed in percentage variation between two years (%) when figures are expressed in values (as for total population), and in pp (percentage points) when they are referred to indicators already expressed in % (i.e. total employment rate).
October 2015 48 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
Annex 3. Cultural and natural assets of the Rhône-Alpes region
UNESCO sites
. Historic centre of Lyon (1998) . Decorated Cave of Chauvet Pont d’Arc, Ardèche (2014)
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Heritage_Sites_in_France
Towns and Lands of Art and History (‘Villes et Pays d'Art et d'Histoire’ according to a classification developed by the French Ministry of Culture)
1. Aix-les-Bains 2. Albertville 3. Chambéry 4. Pays du Forez 5. Pays des Hautes Vallées de Savoie 6. Saint-Etienne 7. Pays de Saône-Vallée 8. Pays de la Vallée d’Abondance 9. Valence 10. Vienne 11. Pays du Vivarais méridional 12. Annecy (agglomerate) 13. Pays Voironnais (ex- Pays des Trois Vals – Lac de Paladru) (agglomerate)
Source: http://www.vpah.culture.fr/actualites/pdf/Vpah_liste_06_06_2014.pdf
National natural parks (classification N°)
. Parc national de la Vanoise (N01) . Parc national des Cévennes (N04 shared with Languedoc-Roussillon) . Parc national des Écrins (N05 shared with Provence-Alpes-Cote d’Azur)
Regional natural parks (classification N°)
. Parc naturel régional du Vercors (R08) . Parc naturel régional du Pilat (R13) . Parc naturel régional de la Chartreuse (R28) . Parc naturel régional du Massif des Bauges (R31) . Parc naturel régional des Monts d'Ardèche (R40) . Parc naturel régional Livradois-Forez (R22 shared with Auvergne) . Parc naturel régional du Haut-Jura (R24 shared with Franche Comté)
Largest ski resort areas (some shared with other regions)
Chamonix L’Alpe-d'Huez Les Deux-Alpes Les Arcs Macot-la-Plagne
October 2015 49 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
Peisey-Vallandry Le Grand-Bornand Val d'Isere Valmeinier Val Thorens
Most popular regional sites by number of visitors
Name (Department location) Number of visitors ‘Aiguille du Midi’ cableway (ski area of 811,234 Chamonix, Haute-Savoie) Country area of ‘Vizille’ (Vizille, Isère) 719,092 ‘Montenvers Mer de Glace’ railway – (glacier in 693,390 Chamonix, Haute-Savoie) ‘Brévent’ cableway (Chamonix, Haute-Savoie) 454,713 ‘Basilique of Ars’ (Ars-sur-Formans, Ain) 432,481 Source: Departmental tourism economic research institute of Rhône-Alpes, ORT/MITRA, tourist attractions with over 10,000 visitors, 2013, in «Key figures for Rhône-Alpes Region» Chambre de commerce et d’industrie de région Rhône-Alpes (accessible online at: http://www.Rhône-alpes.cci.fr/economie/chiffres/2015/cc-RA-GB-2014-2015.pdf)
October 2015 50 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
Annex 4. Site of cultural interest in Rhône-Alpes
Source : Source: Observatoire Régional du Tourisme
October 2015 51 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
Annex 5. Key data about the tourism and culture sectors Table A5.1A. A general overview of the tourism sector Rhône Alps France EU ∆ 2007- ∆ 2007- ∆ 2007-2013 2007 2013 2013 (% 2007 2013 2013 (% 2007 2013 (% or pp ) or pp ) or pp ) The share of tourism in regional economy (measured in terms of GDP or added value)* n.a. n.a n.a 2.7 2.6 -0.1 pp 3.2 3.2 0.0 pp Workers employed in the sector of tourism (%)** 2.9 3.4 0.5 pp 3.4 3.7 0.3 pp 4.2 4.5 0.3 pp Workers employed in the sector of tourisme (number) ** 73,263 89,694 22.4% 869,556 950,803 9.3% 9,374,510 9,699,973 3.5% Business Local Units in tourism (Incidence on the total local Units) (%)*** 10.6 10.4 -0.2 pp 9.8 9.5 -0.3 pp 8.5 8.4 -0.1 pp Business Local Units in tourism (Number) *** 32,340 37,031 14.5% 298,765 338,886 13.4% 1,896,297 1,889,562 -0.4% Arrivals at tourist accommodation establishments (total) (million) 11.1 16.1 44.8% 127.0 151.1 19.0% 751.3 876.9 16.7% Total arrivals at tourist accommodation establishments inhabitants per 1,000 inhabitants 1,828 2,510 37.3% 1,996 2,305 15.5% 1,507 1,729 14.7% Arrivals at tourist accommodation establishments (residents) (million) 8.3 12.0 44.9% 86.6 105.8 22.2% 493.6 553.6 12.2% Arrivals at tourist accommodation establishments (non- residents) (million) 2.8 4.0 44.4% 40.4 45.3 12.1% 257.7 323.2 25.4% Share of non-resident arrivals in tourist accommodations (%) 25.2 25.2 -0.1 pp 31.8 30.0 -1.8 pp 34.3 36.9 2.6 pp Nights spent at tourist accommodation establishments (total) (million) 25.7 48.8 90.2% 302.0 403.6 33.7% 2,352.0 2,641.5 12.3% Total nights spent by residents + non residents (total) per 1,000 inhabitants 4,232 7,637 80.5% 4,744 6,153 29.7% 4,707 5,208 10.6% Nights spent at tourist accommodation establishments (residents) (million) 17.5 34.3 95.4% 193.4 272.3 40.8% 1,344.2 1,449.9 7.9% Nights spent at tourist accommodation establishments (non- residents) (million) 8.1 14.5 78.9% 108.6 131.3 20.9% 1,007.8 1,192.1 18.3% Share of non-residents nights spent in tourist accommodations (%) 31.6 29.8 -1.9 pp 36.0 32.5 -3.4 pp 42.8 45.1 2.3 pp Total nights spent by residents + non residents (total) per km2 587 1117 90.3% 477 638 33.8% 517 580 12.2% Number of bed-places in hotels and similar establishments (million) .63 .62 -0.9% 5.7 5.0 -12.0% 28.1 30.3 8.0% Net occupancy rate of bed places**** 44.4 44.4 0.0 pp 48.3 47.7 -0.6 pp 42.0 41.3 -0.7 pp Number of establishments 3,604 3,631 0.7% 28,778 28,246 -1.8% 424,661 561,988 32.3% * For FR and EU-28: Gross value added (at basic prices), % on the All NACE Activities of I- Accommodation and food service activities, and N79 - Travel agency, tour operator reservation services and related activities ** 2008 instead of 2007 *** 2008 instead of 2007, 2012 instead of 2013; For tourism we have considered I- Accommodation and food service activities, N79 - Travel agency, tour operator reservation service and related activities; **** 2012 instead of 2007Note: Variations (∆ 2007-2013) are expressed in percentage variation between two years (%) when figures are expressed in values (as for total population), and in pp (percentage points) when they are referred to indicators already expressed in % (i.e. total employment rate). Source: Eurostat (Regional Statistics)
October 2015 52 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine: Culture and Tourism
Table A5.1B. A general overview of the culture sector
Rhône Alps France EU ∆ 2007- ∆ 2007- ∆ 2007- 2007 2013 2013 (% 2007 2013 2013 (% 2007 2013 2013 (% or pp ) or pp) or pp ) The share of culture in regional economy (measured in terms of GDP or added value)* n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.6 2.6 0.0 pp 2.6 2.6 0.0 pp Workers employed in the sector of culture (%)** 1.7 2.1 0.3 pp 2.1 2.3 0.2 pp 2.3 2.3 0.0 pp Number of workers employed in the sector of culture** 44,441 55,130 24.1% 532,333 599,599 12.6% 5,038,695 5,029,484 -0.2% Business Local Units in culture (Incidence on the total local units) (%)*** 2.6 2.3 -0.3 pp 2.5 2.4 -0.1 pp 2.0 2.0 -0.1 pp Number of business Local Units in culture*** 7,896 8,288 5.0% 77,498 87,653 13.1% 453,942 460,542 1.5% * For FR and EU-28: Gross value added (at basic prices), % on the All NACE Activities of 59 — Motion picture, video and television programme production, sound recording and music publishing activities; 60 — Programming and broadcasting activities; 90 – Creative, arts and entertainment activities; 91 – Libraries, archives, museum and other cultural activities; 93 - Sports activities and amusement and recreation activities. ** 2008 instead of 2007 *** 2008 instead of 2007, 2012 instead of 2013 for culture; For culture we have considered J58 - Publishing activities; J59 - Motion picture, video and television programme production, sound recording and music publishing activities; J60 - Programming and broadcasting activities; G476 - Retail sale of cultural and recreation goods in specialised stores Note: Variations (∆ 2007-2013) are expressed in percentage variation between two years (%) when figures are expressed in values (as for total population), and in pp (percentage points) when they are referred to indicators already expressed in % (i.e. total employment rate). Source: Eurostat (Regional Statistics)
October 2015 53
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications:
• one copy: via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
• more than one copy or posters/maps: from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm); from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm); by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
Priced publications:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
Priced subscriptions:
• via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union (http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).
KN
-
02
[Catalogue number [Catalogue
-
16
-
514
-
EN
-
N
]
doi: 10.2776/457602