Download culture - Impala

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