Opinion on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision establishing a programme to support artistic and cultural activities having a European dimension - Kaleidoscope 2000 () (96/C 100/08)

On 28 November 1994, the Council decided to consult the Committee of the Regions, under Article 128 of the Treaty, on the above-mentioned proposal.

On 5 December 1994, the Committee of the Regions, acting under Article 198c of the Treaty establishing the European Community, decided to draw up an Opinion on the aforementioned proposal.

Commission 7 for Citizens' Europe, Research, Culture, Youth and Consumers was instructed to prepare the Committee of the Regions' work on the subject. The Rapporteur was Dr Evans.

At its 7th Plenary Session (meeting of 21 April 1995), the Committee of the Regions adopted the following Opinion.

1. Introduction

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 128 thereof;

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission;

Whereas the Treaty confers on the Community responsibility for contributing to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States by improving the knowledge and dissemination of the culture and history of the European peoples and by encouraging cultural exchanges and artistic literary creation;

Whereas cultural diversity, as expressed at regional and local level, must be preserved and the works of European artists and writers which are a manifestation of the richness of the many forms they take must be promoted;

Whereas it is also important to encourage all citizens to become more involved in culture so as to promote greater mutual respect and understanding;

Whereas the results obtained at the general discussion with the European Commission during the 20 January 1995 meeting () of Commission 7 for Citizen's Europe, Research, Culture, Youth and Consumers, which is competent in this area,

makes the following remarks.

2. General comments

2.1. Article 128 of the Maastricht Treaty brings culture within the competence of the European Union for the first time. Seeking to support initiatives which preserve and enhance distinctive regional cultures and their artistic expression, the Committee of the Regions (COR), welcomes, in principle, the proposed Kaleidoscope 2000 programme.

2.2. However, the COR's support is not unconditional. It would wish to see a number of points within the document clarified and/or amended to ensure both transparency and acceptability.

2.3. It is recognized that Kaleidoscope 2000 stems from, and is a development of, the earlier Kaleidoscope programme, itself funded by a specific budget line, but without the legal recognition or legitimacy now conferred by Article 128. There are, we understand, questions surrounding the operation of Kaleidoscope, which are outside the purview of the COR. However, the COR will be concerned that the situations which gave rise to those questions will not be repeated in Kaleidoscope 2000.

2.4. The COR welcomes the substantial increase in funding proposed for Kaleidoscope 2000 and hopes that this increased funding will be endorsed by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. However, the change in the rules relating to the rate of grant and the level of grant does not reflect the realities of life in regional and local authorities across the European Union. The proposed rate of grant of only 25 % means that 75 % of any project would have to be found by local and regional authorities at a time of financial constraint. In consequence, many admirable and deserving projects, emanating from local and regional authorities or from smaller organizations, will fail to attract funding. By contrast, other already well-funded, emblematic events, which do not really need the funding, will be supported. This is considered to be contrary to the spirit of Article 128 of the Maastricht Treaty.

2.5. As currently drafted, the Kaleidoscope 2000 programme will tend to support or encourage emblematic, tightly-defined, high-profile projects which already receive substantial local or national support. This in turn will militate against support for creative people from different regions of Europe to come together in a more unstructured way. The COR affirms that we must support a creative approach to meeting the needs of all sectors of the artistic community - both individuals and groups - who wish to enrich and enhance their local/regional/national culture rather than limit funding to high-profile projects.

2.6. The COR is disappointed to note that the Kaleidoscope 2000 documents lack any discussion at all of a definition of culture. Congruent with that signal omission is the failure to recognize the key role regions and localities play in originating, shaping and supporting our rich variety of cultures and artists based in those regions and localities. Their work stems from a cultural milieu conditioned and modified by local and regional aspects of life. The inclusion of a reference to the fact that culture has a regional/local base and of the importance of regional/local authorities in providing and supporting that base, would have been an informed step forward in the Kaleidoscope 2000 documents and hence in the programme. The Kaleidoscope documentation equates the promotion and spread of culture within Europe by means of community wide projects and emblematic actions. Surely among the effective approaches to the promotion of culture is a close rapport between people from three or more distinctive cultural backgrounds; in depth rapport of this kind is as effective, if not more effective, than community wide projects.

2.7. Another disquieting feature of the explanatory memorandum is that it makes similar unfounded assumptions about the homogeneous nature of national, that is Member State, culture denying the rich cultural diversity of regional cultures within Member States. The United Kingdom is an example, with its distinctive cultures of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales to be set alongside that of England. Welsh, one of the oldest living languages in Europe, has an unbroken 3 000 year heritage to support its discrete position. Within England itself there are distinctive regional cultures which need recognition and support. In Finland there are two official languages and the northern parts of Finland, Sweden, Norway and Russia are still inhabited by the native Lapp population. In Germany, the national government has recognized this diversity and has devolved responsibility - and the funding - for culture to the Länder authorities. Nor could anyone speak of a unified culture for Spain; the people of Catalonia and the Basque country, among others, would reject such a suggestion. In Belgium there is a distinct linguistic and cultural division between French-speaking Wallonia and Dutch-speaking Flanders. The imposition of an assumption that there is a characteristic Belgian national culture would succeed in unifying both sectors of the population in opposition to such a preposterous notion.

It is also important to note that within the Member States there is not only a diversity of national and ethnic cultures but also a diversity of social cultures. At the same time, culture - which is important for not losing one's identity - costs much less than violence, prisons and hospitals. In this context it is vital not to forget that immigrant cultures are also European cultures.

The COR calls for the redrafting of the Kaleidoscope 2000 documents to take account of these comments.

2.8. The COR welcomes the proposals to enhance and strengthen cooperation with third countries - especially the developing democracies of Central and Eastern Europe - and would quote the example of Finland, whose eastern part has served for centuries as a meeting place for western and eastern European cultures. In the new Europe, this cooperation will inevitably be stepped up.

It also welcomes the proposals to strengthen cooperation with 'the competent international organizations in the field of culture, in particular the Council of Europe`. In this latter case, there is a need for discussion between Commission 7 of the COR and the appropriate subcommittee of the Council of Europe. This will help to avoid any unnecessary duplication of effort.

2.9. With regards to the decision-making process, the COR is not satisfied that all cultural projects 'should be of a certain scale, both in content and duration...`. This we believe is merely a euphemism for big and expensive, on a grand, national or supra-national scale, whereas we, as representatives of regional and local authorities, would wish to have the work of grass roots practitioners and researchers recognized, supported and disseminated.

2.10. The COR is concerned at the lack of interpretation of what is meant by '... artistic activity with a European dimension...`, since it would argue that all cultural activities within our regions and localities have, potentially, a European dimension, and, once again, would argue against favouring grand, national projects to the detriment of work emanating from the grass roots. We are particularly concerned that the theme of limiting support to big projects seems to pervade the whole philosophy of Kaleidoscope 2000. For example, the exchange of crafts persons working in different materials - potters, weavers, sculptors, etc. - could present both within local communities and local schools an insight into the essence of the culture of the artist's home region. Again, the vehicle of the theatre in education companies - something where Wales has been to the fore - can be used to portray the distinctiveness of different cultures in performing for young and old within a community context. To this end, the exchange of theatre in education experiences as between regions could be very distinctive, yet imaginative, way of exploring the similarities and differences of regional culture. Perhaps it is appropriate at this point to call for coordination between Kaleidoscope 2000 and other EU measures in supporting the minority languages of the Union. This may need further exploration and consideration but needs to be pointed up in this Opinion.

2.11. The COR regards the Table of Examples of Incentive Measures to be too rigid, lending itself to interpretation by some not as the minimum provision, but rather the totality of the provision likely to be supported. It would, in this respect, point to substantial gaps in the Table. Of particular significance is the inadequacy of the drafting of the categories headed Access to Culture and Research/Training with respect to Kaleidoscope 2000. The role of regional and local authorities in the dissemination of cultural activities and in the improvement of access to these activities is nowhere acknowledged. This, the COR believes, must be addressed. Under Research/Training the whole corpus of research in the arts is ignored, in favour of a limited amount of training for exponents. Without the work of researchers, for example, musicologists, art historians, archaeologists, palaeographer, archivists, chorologists, dramatists, etc. the quantity and quality of knowledge in the artistic field would be severely limited. Opportunities therefore have to be given to allow both individual researchers and research establishments to participate in the advancement of knowledge in the arts by bringing to light new works and challenging perspectives.

2.12. In section III of the Memorandum, great stress is laid upon audit and evaluation of 'internal and external policies`. Unfortunately, the paragraphs which follow are too vague to ascertain how these actions are to be realized in practice. Clarification of these points is necessary. Again, there is no reference to the role of regional and local authorities vis-à-vis these policies. The COR considers these to be fundamental omissions. In addition to clarification, the COR requires that the role of regional and local authorities is recognized and acknowledged.

3. Specific comments on the Articles and Actions

3.1. Articles

We turn now to an examination of the Articles in the Kaleidoscope 2000 documents. We propose to comment on Articles 1, 2 and 3.

3.1.1. Article 1: emblematic events

Some comment in respect of emblematic events has already been made, but there are further points to be drawn out here. It is not clear exactly what is meant by this category and clarification and mutual acceptance of the term would be helpful. There is some doubt as to the effectiveness/value for money of large-scale emblematic events which may or may not attract the attention of the pan-European media. The concept may have merit, but greater clarification of the means by which this is to be achieved - and its effectiveness measured - would be fundamental to the operation of this aspect of the Kaleidoscope 2000 programme.

3.1.2. Article 2: the aims of the programme

Again, the lack of reference to the role of regional and local authorities in the achievement of these aims is to be noted, with disappointment. Clarification is needed in respect of these aims in the absence of objective statements and targets. As presently stated, the aims are too nebulous and require clarification.

3.1.3. Article 3: incentive measures

The absence of any reference to core funding for projects suggests that only one-off, highly visible projects will be funded from the programme. This, it is considered, will militate against certain of the aims in Article 2. In this respect it would appear that Article 3 was drafted without regard to Article 2. The COR calls for clarification of this point. The apparent priority accorded to large-scale events under subsection 1 would suggest that by far the bulk of the available funds would be directed to those projects which may already be well supported by and from other sources. This has been commented upon above and is reiterated here. Clearly the COR would wish to participate in the setting of the priorities under this Article.

It also believes that this Article, under subsection 2, is unduly restrictive in requiring the participation of a third Member State in a project before financial support will be considered. Again this is considered to be unduly restrictive in its failure to recognize the cultural and ethnic diversity within Member States. The financial and logistical problems of organizing inter-regional activities simply between two regions are recognized as being difficult. The COR recognizes that the Commission is minded only to support measures incorporating three Member States and therefore reluctantly accepts that ruling whilst still holding to the idea that partnerships could be based on two Member States. However, the Committee of the Regions thinks that a Central or Eastern European State may take the place of the third Member State in such projects. The alternative of involving at least three different regions in not less than two Member States could still have merit.

Subsection 3 concentrates merely on Training, yet there is clearly a need for research to open up and disseminate to wider audiences the works of creators past and present. In example, the coded mirror writing of Leonardo da Vinci required transposition and interpretation by researchers before his great works could become meaningful to the world. Similarly, musical works of former centuries require notational transcription and an understanding of the performance practices of the period for their authentic realization. The COR believes that support must be made available to bona fide researchers and research establishments as well as to training activities.

As to subsection 4, Access to Culture, whilst the COR welcomes and supports the general thrust of this section, and indeed all regional and local authorities would wish to identify themselves with this concept, the priority afforded to projects using multimedia tools seems to be unhelpful. It has to be recognized that not all of our Member States are fully equipped at the regional and local level to access multimedia tools. We would therefore require clarification of this statement and an indication of ways and means of ensuring that all regions in all Member States may participate.

With regard to subsection 5, subject to the same caveat in respect of equality of opportunity and access by Member States, the COR would welcome and support this cooperation.

3.1.4. The regional and local dimensions of culture

The Committee of the Regions calls on the competent authorities to take appropriate account of all the Community's cultural regions when the funds for the Kaleidoscope 2000 programme are distributed. In certain exceptional cases duly supported by evidence (limited financial productivity, higher costs due, for example, to an extremely outlying location, etc.) an adequate procedure should be devised to help the applicant take part in the programme. In this way it will be possible to guarantee, at European level, that knowledge about Europe's cultural diversity - and especially its regional and local dimensions - is improved.

3.2. Actions

We will turn now to the Actions contained in the Annex and will comment, albeit briefly, on these.

3.2.1. Action 1: symbolic Actions

It is not clear what this means, and some clarification would be helpful. The COR has already endorsed elsewhere the principle of subsidiarity. There appears to be some conflict with the principle of subsidiarity in relation to this Action.

3.2.2. Action 2: partnerships, networks and training

a) It is queried whether it is necessary for there to be at least three Member States involved in such projects. The COR has referred to this matter above, but it needs further emphasis here. One local authority example from the United Kingdom and Italy is a project involving Bristol, Bologna, Manchester, Edinburgh and Turin. This project should/would be justifiable on its own; the COR understands that a third Member State is to join the project, but the initiative should have been eligible in any case. If the criteria postulated above were to be applied, the project would be eligible on the basis that Bristol is in the South-West of England, and a major seaport; Manchester is a North-Western English City; Edinburgh is the Capital City of Scotland; Bologna and Turin each have their distinctive regional characteristics, thus amply satisfying the criteria suggested.

b) The COR reiterates the point that 25 % sponsorship from the Kaleidoscope 2000 fund is too little and smaller organizations or projects would have difficulty in obtaining the matching 75 %funding. This will have to be reviewed and a return to the 30 % funding of the original programme substituted. Indeed, there may well be cases for an increase in the level of EU funding to even 50 or 60 %for special projects.

c) Some funding is available under Action 3 for training in relation to actioning of projects; similar funding for the publication and dissemination of results would be beneficial. This latter point is in accord with previous Opinions of the COR in regard to education and training matters.

3.2.3. Action 3: training

In addition to the points made above concerning the need to expand this section to include research, the description on page 23 of the English text of the Kaleidoscope 2000 documents indicates that the potential for job creation will notably benefit young people. This may be true, but it is felt that young people should not be cited in preference to other sectors and individuals. It is also important here to point up that training within the Kaleidoscope 2000 context ought to be synthesized and interrelated wherever possible with the broader education and training programmes - Socrates and Leonardo - thus improving the use of Union funding measures.

3.2.4. Action 4: access to culture

In addition to the points made above in regard to the role and responsibilities of regional and local authorities, we turn now to grants for meetings and studies. This is an area where, in particular, there is a need to evaluate the benefits from previous projects of this kind, and avoid any accusations (whether reasonable or unreasonable) of money being spent on the bureaucracy of administration, rather than on outputs of direct cultural benefit. That is not, however, to deny the need for an element of core-funding to be built into project costs and to be transparently there.

In addition, the Committee of the Regions would underline that access to culture is also a question of availability and methodology. Accordingly, and in order to broaden the access to cultural activities of populations living in regions and areas far away from the major urban areas, consideration should not be given solely to 'high profile` projects, which often involve groups and cultural circles, that are already privileged. Instead, encouragement should be given to projects promoting new forms of knowledge and methodologies aimed at making culture public property, and to projects encouraging the exchange of information in this area.

4. Conclusions

4.1. There appears to be an inadequate reference to the possibilities of funding for transnational touring by artists, whether as individuals, or as participants in an artistic production.

4.2. The emphasis on innovation may unhelpfully inhibit support for good projects which may not necessarily be innovative. Innovation may be one criterion for evaluation or approval of a project but should not be the only one, nor should it override other considerations or criteria. There may be more value in funding the continuation/embedding of a project, than in the funding of an innovative project.

Done at Brussels, 21 April 1995.

The Chairman of the Committee of the Regions

Jacques BLANC

() OJ No C 324, 22. 11. 1994, p. 5.

() CdR 35/95.