Domaines Skiables de France requests a rectification of the special report of the Court of Auditors on “Mountain resorts facing climate change”

In support of its request for rectification, Domaines Skiables de France sent an 18-page document (attached to this press release) which specifically identifies the parts deemed to be erroneous and for which the professional chamber precisely justifies the errors, approximations or inaccuracies contained in this report.

As soon as it was published on February 6, ski lift and ski area operators publicly expressed their disappointment and disagreement with certain parts of this report. In addition, the communication of the report was orchestrated during a press conference to which DSF representatives were refused access, so much so that they were not able to immediately read the content broadcast to the media, nor even have the time to respond to the erroneous or imprecise conclusions it contains. What followed was a media hype against the mountain resorts, because it was based on partly erroneous elements. The vast majority of media chose to publish the conference as soon as it was over, without even asking mountain stakeholders for their opinion to make the necessary corrections.

Among the rectifications requested, the share of water taken for artificial snow is much lower than the Court affirmed. In its report, the Court states that “the snow produced would represent approximately 8% of the samples taken” for Savoie. This figure of 8% is false, it is only 0,1% since the water taken for artificial snow in Savoie represents less than 10 million m3 out of the 10 billion m3 taken overall each year for the whole uses in this department. In addition, most of this water is returned to the natural environment when the snow melts.

Another example, the Court repeatedly pronounces very harsh and indiscriminate sentences against French mountain resorts. These assertions go against the conclusions of scientists and also a good part of the individual reports published by the Regional Chambers of Accounts. According to scientific publications from the CNRS and INRAE, at +2°C (i.e. in 2050), out of the 143 stations in the French Alps, only 10 become at high risk of poor snowfall.

The vulnerability scores established by the Court are also widely contested, both in their methodology and in their results, with similar vulnerability scores attributed to Courchevel and Font d'Urle, Col de Porte and Deux Alpes, etc.

For Alexandre Maulin, president of Domaines Skiables de France: “As we have already pointed out, elected officials and all mountain stakeholders disagree with several elements of this report, the assessment of which is out of step with the overall economic reality of our activity. We will not allow ourselves to be defamed without saying anything to reestablish the truth on many points. This February 6, while we were on the eve of the holidays, the period when attendance at our estates is the highest, the Court of Auditors released to the media and public opinion an incriminating report, firing on all cylinders. on ski area operators, and more broadly on those who fight every day for the economy and employment in the mountains. Surprising timing for a report that is just as surprising, full of errors and methodically written to discredit the domains and present them as actors in denial. No offense to our detractors, we are aware of the issues that are already facing us. We are carrying out actions at the local level and on a large scale: but the Court of Auditors should have listened to the arguments that we addressed to them before the publication of the report. The activity of French ski areas has risen to 2nd place in the world through work, innovation and commitment for decades. It represents more than a billion and a half euros in annual revenue, more than 50 million ski days recorded in France each winter and 120.000 jobs in resorts that depend on it. This report unfairly discredits an entire profession; we have decided to respond to it point by point, to denounce the numerous errors, inconsistencies and misunderstandings that make it up. We hope to finally be able to begin a real dialogue with this institution that we respect, but which must live up to its mission and the means of control at its disposal. »