Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
CONTRIBUTION TO THE CONVENTION ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE Towards a renewed cultural policy The European Convention on the Future of Europe has set up “the Forum”, a network of representatives from all sections of “civil society”, whose contributions will be taken into account by the Convention in its debates. EFCA and IMPALA are two trade associations representing key cultural industries. The European Film Companies Alliance has members in Belgium, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The Independent Music Companies Association represents over 1700 independent music publishers, producers and distributors from all over Europe. Through the present document, they have decided to speak with one voice and make a joint contribution to a debate they regard as decisive for the future of creative industries, within a context of globalisation and on the eve of enlargement. 1. The European model of society The European model of society is basically a model that acknowledges and respects “otherness”. It is based on political principles (democracy, state of law, pluralism) that are shared by all the peoples of Europe above and beyond their national differences. The same model also affirms the belief that, in order to be respected, differences cannot simply be “declared”. People’s living conditions must be guaranteed. This is why the European model of society is also a model of equity and redistribution. The cultural sector has represented one of its most visible manifestations. This capacity to integrate differences is both a legacy from European history and a domestic and external policy objective for the future of the Union and its Member States. The following paragraphs highlight some key challenges and suggest reform paths to help overcome present-day shortcomings. 2. The importance of culture Symbolic value and identity function We are living in a world characterised by an increasing homogenisation of cultural offer as well as by local identity claims. This shift, between the plural nature of cultures on the one hand and the cultural dictates that are being imposed on the other, constitutes a denial of “otherness”. It is the cause of varying reactions, ranging from frustration to violence. At international level, the tragedy of September 11th, whilst it cannot be reduced to its cultural dimension and despite the fact that the political misuse of cultural traits should be highlighted, has given way to cultural claims and reactions around the world. Another reaction of frustration and violence was experienced at national level when, during the 1991 Gulf War with Iraq, some French and Belgian housing districts declared their solidarity with Iraq, or when from Berlin to London and from Rome to Madrid were organised demonstrations with the aim of showing solidarity with the Social Forum of Porto Alegre. On the eve of a fresh round of European enlargement, the shadow of frustration is looming already: how will the newcomers be able – or willing – to integrate and share a “common European identity” when they are being deprived of their own identity (as their cultural industries face a battle to survive), and are having little success in persuading the other tenants of the “maison Europe” to recognise it? For more information, please contact Gabrielle Guallar, 51 rue du Trône, 1050 Brussels Tel + 32 2 289 26 00 Fax + 32 2 289 26 06 [email protected] 1 To combat these situations, the promotion of pluralism and intercultural dialogue is the only path that will lead to harmony and integration. Our politicians would do well to focus attention upon it. Since Europe is home to a plurality of cultures, and because it has converted this pluralism into enduring practices, it must encourage and promote intercultural dialogue and develop a strong cultural strategy, including the appropriate funding. Economic challenge Culture is playing an increasingly important economic role: the growth rate of cultural industries, both in Europe and in the US, is outpacing the rest of the economy 1. The economic role of culture was also given added impetus by the digital revolution and the increasing demand for content that followed. In March 2000, the Union initiated the socalled “Lisbon strategy” – a ten-year agenda for economic and social renewal launched at the Lisbon European Council. This transformation has been based on accelerating the transition towards a knowledge-driven economy and society, with the cultural sectors providing the most important vectors for bringing such a transformation about. The economic challenge is linked to a political one: power will lie in the hands of those who are able to use their economic resources in order to convey their cultural, political and social message. The balance of powers calls for a balance of cultures. Social challenge The number of European jobs generated by the cultural sector was estimated recently at three million2. Access to culture is also an integral part of access to education: it is a powerful inclusion factor. Culture finds itself at the crossroads of major challenges linked to identity, politics, economics and society. 3. The basis for Community action Member States are sovereign when it comes to culture policy. Community interventions are restricted by the principle of subsidiarity. The Community must act only by complementing actions carried out by Member States, and is limited in its scope (e.g. fostering trans-national actions, safeguarding and valorising our common heritage). Community action is also expected to ensure completion of the internal market, for example by ensuring that common rules are applied to reward artistic and creative efforts. However, it should also be remembered that the Community has to take cultural aspects into account in all its actions (art.151.4). Yet it is our opinion that such provisions are not sufficient and do not allow the specificities of the cultural sector to be taken into account. According to “Copyright industries in the US economy”, the 2001 report by Stephen E. Siwek (Economists Incorporated), copyright industries in 2001 accounted for revenue equivalent to 5.24% of GDP; over 20 years, the sector’s rate of growth has been twice that for the rest of the economy. 1 2 Report for the European Commission on “Exploitation and development of job potential in the cultural sector” (http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/publications/2001/ke4001488_en.pdf), MKW Wirtschaftsforschungsgesellschaft GmbH, Munich. For more information, please contact Gabrielle Guallar, 51 rue du Trône, 1050 Brussels Tel + 32 2 289 26 00 Fax + 32 2 289 26 06 [email protected] 2 Shortcomings of the present system Although numerous reviews are under way, much remains to be done. To name but a few problem areas: - European artists suffer from not being able to obtain guaranteed social entitlements (social security, unemployment benefits, pensions) when they perform around the EU. This constitutes a serious obstacle to their mobility. They may also be subjected to twin taxation (particularly with regard to withholding taxes). They are often submitted to penalising VAT taxation (sound recordings and video are taxed at high rates whereas other cultural products like books or cinema tickets enjoy reduced rates). Without going as far as demanding the harmonisation of social and fiscal arrangements, we believe the European Union should put an end to discrimination and thereby ensure the completion of the internal market. - Another example is represented by anti-trust authorities and their review of the applicable guidelines for assessing the compatibility of national public support programmes aimed at the audiovisual sector. Seeing as the specificity of the audiovisual sector has not been taken sufficiently into account, this process has threatened the entire profession with the prospect of seeing most of its films ruled illegal. - A final example of present-day shortcomings is represented by the impossibility of setting up a scheme in support of promoting European cultural works in third countries owing to a grey area of competences between cultural and external relations. Over and above improving existing arrangements, we believe the Treaty could benefit from new provisions. “Cultural industries” It appears that some core notions ought to be introduced into the Treaty so as ensure that greater allowance is made for “cultural industries” within all EU policies. “Cultural industries” ought to be cited in the Treaty and described in terms of their specificity since they cannot be made subject on any systematic basis to the same rules (regarding competition, the liberalisation of international trade, support programmes) as other industries. “Cultural pluralism” Cultural diversity cannot be limited to linguistic aspects. It should also be synonymous with diversity as regards the means of expression, and diversity within cultural offer. It is our opinion that the expression “culture pluralism” ought to replace “cultural diversity”. Cultural diversity as an objective of domestic and external policies According to article 151, the promotion of cultural diversity is confined solely to the territory of the Union. The preservation of “cultural diversity” means the preservation of European cultures. But what about other cultures? We believe that cultural diversity is part of the message Europe should be sending out to the world. The European Union ought to show that the promotion of cultural diversity, far from representing a For more information, please contact Gabrielle Guallar, 51 rue du Trône, 1050 Brussels Tel + 32 2 289 26 00 Fax + 32 2 289 26 06 [email protected] 3 protectionist alibi for European cultures, should be understood to mean the promotion of a universal principle that is mindful of respect for all cultures. It should promote this vision through an array of policies like the common commercial policy, for which the Commission has sole competence, the various programmes implemented within the framework of the EU’s external relations policy, and development policy. 4. Increased spending where there is genuine Community value added The overall budgetary context is one of budgetary discipline (low growth forecasts, stability pact, short-term likelihood of economic difficulties). Nevertheless, culture still warrants an increase in financial resources. Sadly, present-day allocations are not enough to support any significant action. Community expenditure reached the dizzy heights of € 92.2 billion in 2001. Culture and the audiovisual sector only accounted for 0.13% of this total (€ 120.1 million). This is equivalent to average expenditure of € 0.30 per inhabitant. It is worth comparing these figures with the cultural budget of a city like Paris (including overheads), which stood at € 268.8 million in 1996, or the equivalent of average expenditure per capita of €124.80. We do not advocate an extension of cultural competences: in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, Community cultural action should come in response to a true need and add genuine value to national and regional actions. However, it seems obvious from the above figures that Community value added, where it is acknowledged to be legitimate and necessary, should be awarded increased financial resources. 5. Qualified Majority Voting Actions taken on the basis of article 151 (culture) are decided under the unanimity rule. It is impossible to carry out any ambitious cultural initiatives if they require backing from all fifteen Member States. As a result, the promoters of cultural policy act in a haphazard fashion, utilising political opportunities, but without having any overall vision. They juggle with a range of differing legal bases, which threatens to undermine the objectives that are meant to guide their cultural action. The expected move to qualified majority voting for article 151 will condition any significant move towards a genuine Community cultural policy. Brussels, October 2002. For more information, please contact Gabrielle Guallar, 51 rue du Trône, 1050 Brussels Tel + 32 2 289 26 00 Fax + 32 2 289 26 06 [email protected] 4