Opinion on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision establishing a Community action programme in the field of the cultural heritage - Raphaël (96/C 100/24)

On 19 April 1995, the Committee of the Regions, acting under Article 198c of the Treaty establishing the European Community, decided to draw up an Opinion on the above-mentioned proposal.

Commission 7 for Citizens' Europe, Research, Culture, Youth and Consumers was instructed to prepare the Committee's work on the subject. The Rapporteur was Mrs Peiponen.

At its 9th Plenary Session, held on 20 and 21 September 1995 (meeting of 21 September), 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 (hereafter referred to as the Treaty), as amended by the Treaty on European Union and, in particular, Article 128 thereof;

Having regard to the proposal by the European Commission;

Whereas the Treaty stipulates that the Community 'shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore`;

Whereas the same Treaty identifies the common cultural heritage as a specific area of action in which to encourage cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, support and supplement their actions;

Whereas the cultural heritage, constituting the expression of national, regional and local identities and the links between peoples, helps to increase mutual understanding and respect between the citizens of Europe;

Having regard to the various European Parliament Resolutions on Europe's cultural heritage ();

Having regard to the various Resolutions of the Council of Ministers responsible for cultural affairs ();

Having regard to the various conclusions of the Council of Ministers responsible for cultural affairs ();

Whereas the preservation of the cultural heritage is, furthermore, of considerable socio-economic importance in a number of areas, such as job-creation, regional development and improving the quality of the daily life of Europe's citizens;

Bearing in mind the Committee's Opinion on the cultural impact of the information society ();

Bearing in mind the need to develop research at EU level on the preservation of the cultural heritage;

Bearing in mind the EU initiatives and actions which have so far been introduced in fields such as the architectural heritage and bearing in mind the results of the consultations arranged recently by the Commission with all interested parties;

Bearing in mind the fact that the cultural heritage in Europe is an eminently suitable area in which to increase cooperation with non-EU countries and the competent international organizations,

makes the following comments.

2. General comments

2.1. Article 128 of the Maastricht Treaty emphasizes culture among the activities of the European Union. The Committee of the Regions notes with pleasure that culture is seen as an important factor in moulding local, regional, national and European identity, and as part of social policy.

The Committee of the Regions welcomes the establishment of a Community action in the field of cultural heritage but regrets the pervading philosophy of the Raphaël programme which favours the high profile and the 'emblematic`, rather than the 'grass roots`. The COR calls for the redrafting of the 'Raphaël` documents to take account of the comments contained in its Opinion, particularly those relating to the importance of the local and regional cultural heritage and the need to broaden the scope of the projects and organizations included.

The Committee would point out that culture is a local and regional phenomenon and localities and regions provide the driving force for culture. The action taken by the European Union must not undermine cultural originality and cultural identity but should rather promote the interplay of cultural differences, this being an ideal means of making citizens aware of their local regional, national and European roots.

The Committee of the Regions would be pleased to see the Raphaël programme allow for a local and regional viewpoint. The preservation, renovation and exploitation of cultural heritage is an integral part of local and regional development. The Committee wishes to see subsidiarity from this viewpoint; such an approach would give added value to existing policies.

2.2. The Raphaël programme covers cultural heritage solely in material form. It should, however, be borne in mind that the material cultural heritage always has its 'immaterial` side, as an entity to which it relates. Every city environment, space, building and object has its own 'spirit`.

The Committee would wish to see a clear definition of cultural heritage and the cultural heritage disciplines at the beginning of the Raphaël programme document and it would wish those definitions to be broader in scope than those implied at present.

The Committee draws attention to the need to take account of the evolving nature of the definition of 'heritage` and the fact that it is a multidisciplinary concept. It is important not to confine action taken under the Raphaël programme to the areas which have already been listed but rather to make provision for global project management.

2.3. Culture is always born out of interaction. Despite differences, heritage has common features which transcend local, regional and national boundaries. There have been several kinds of interaction in European history. The Committee of the Regions stresses that Community programmes must promote knowledge and understanding of other cultures, in addition to awareness of one's own local, regional and national cultural roots. Some cultural heritage sites pertain to the downsides of European history; they cannot be denied but they should be employed as a vehicle of ethical growth among Europe's citizens.

2.4. The Committee of the Regions emphasizes the broad interpretation of cultural heritage. By studying and presenting the heritage of different social groups, the development of every person's identity can be strengthened, and awareness and mutual understanding increased. As, on the one hand, the Community encourages a new interpretation of heritage, culture cannot be classified on the 'right-wrong` or 'highbrow-lowbrow` dimension; rather, one should regard different heritages with reverence. In this field in particular the proposed synergy with the activities of the Council of Europe and other bodies will be fully felt.

2.5. The Committee of the Regions welcomes the idea put forward in the Raphaël programme that the past should be linked to the future via the present. Cooperation and networking across regional, national and Community boundaries works to create new cultural heritage which will increase mutual understanding and peace within communities and between them. The networking of public and private institutions, such as museums and research institutions, also enriches society.

2.6. The Committee of the Regions notes with pleasure the socio-economical dimension of the programme. The groups of highly skilled professionals have been seen from a wide perspective. The same is true of creating training and new jobs via research in cultural sites, renovation and presentation to the public.

2.7. The Committee of the Regions is, however, worried about the fact that environmental issues have been given very little attention in the programme. Some heritage sites require so much protection that they cannot be integrated into tourist programmes, for instance. The preservation of many cultural sites is at risk because the surrounding society has not paid sufficient attention to protection. Can we allow the destruction of cultural sites of European significance because of, say, air pollution or traffic? The environmental viewpoint stresses that cultural policy cannot be separated from the rest of social policy.

2.8. The Committee considers that, particular attention should be paid to keeping as much of the cultural heritage alive as possible, as an everyday living environment for Europe's citizens. Where a place's former purpose or function is no longer possible or relevant, the spirit of history should be preserved even in the new use found for it.

2.9. The Committee draws attention to the interdependence between local development and the enhancement of our cultural heritage (which is an integral part of land-use planning), particularly in schemes to encourage urban renewal and combat the depopulation of rural areas.

2.10. The Committee considers that the coherence of the Raphaël programme is a goal which will require the funding of global projects. The Committee also wishes to see local and regional authorities involved in the selection of the actions to be funded.

2.11. The Committee proposes that encouragement be given to programmes which will benefit the public at large by making use of new communication technologies.

3. Specific comments

3.1. Development and promotion of cultural heritage

3.1.1. Which historical sites are of special European significance is a relative question. In peripheral areas of European cultural trends, there can be sites which are of particular importance in linking the area's history with other European history, and which show how cultural development and influences have travelled. Attention should also be paid to the renovation of material culture, particularly as museums, and especially archives, are covered by the Raphaël programme.

3.1.2. The preservation of our cultural heritage requires conservation and storage methods to be further developed and calls for interdisciplinary international cooperation. Support for these aims in the form of training, working groups and pilot projects is important in Community programmes, particularly in view of the fact that basic conservation issues remain unresolved in several countries.

3.1.3. The use of state-of-the-art information and communications technology requires that files on cultural heritage be transferred to computer. This may also call for support from the Raphaël programme. Information technology makes it possible to put our common cultural heritage to actual common use. The Commission also needs a high-class information service system to exploit the programme fully.

3.1.4. The findings of research done by special experts and seminars should also be popularized. Information about the demands of restoration work raises appreciation for it. On the other hand, cultural heritage can only be understood as one's own if one knows it and if it can be presented in an easily understandable way.

3.1.5. To preserve and promote the cultural heritage it is important that the cultural heritage and its natural surroundings are included in the local and regional land-use planning at an early stage. Exchange of experiences through conferences and seminars within this field should be supported by the Raphaël programme.

3.1.6. It is necessary to coordinate the technical work carried out by European heritage laboratories and European heritage sites in respect of heritage management and conservation. The Committee urges that existing bodies in the Member States be entitled to qualify as 'European heritage laboratories` in order to enable them to make use of existing expertise, human resources and structural links.

3.1.7. In this context the Committee takes note of the Commission's proposal that works of art be jointly managed by several European partners, on an experimental basis.

The Committee would, however, highlight the experimental nature of the proposed support for the acquisition, on a joint-management basis, of major works of art. The introduction of a system of joint ownership for works of art could result in legal disputes, which would have a paralysing and damaging effect on the projects linked to these acquisitions. The evaluation of this specific measure must not be based solely on the performance and impact indicators which have been adopted; special attention must also be paid to the possible consequences of joint ownership.

3.2. Networks and partnerships

3.2.1. Compared with traditional cooperation, networking should bring new initiatives and innovations into the preservation of cultural heritage. New technology, such as satellite links, data networks, etc., are useful in training special groups and information exchange.

3.2.2. The Committee would point out that Action I and Action II measures should be linked and that Action II measures should also be regarded as complementary to those set out under Actions III, IV and V.

3.2.3. The contributing expert groups should be viewed on a broad basis ranging from research and administration to craft professionals. Projects which combine training and employment are of particular interest.

3.2.4. The Committee regrets that these transnational cooperation projects apply only to museums and monuments; the scope of these projects should be extended to cover other bodies and structures.

The Committee urges that the synergy with the other EU programmes should not simply be proposed in principle but should actually be put into practice; organizations could, for example, cooperate with a view to establishing joint training programmes in the heritage and conservation fields and with regard to the management of cultural programmes.

3.3. Access to heritage

3.3.1. The Committee would suggest that the cultural heritage disciplines include cultural, heritage, creative and communications professionals, organizations, institutions and specialist voluntary and community organizations with expertise in improving awareness and understanding of, and access to, cultural heritage through training in, education about and presentation, interpretation and communication of cultural heritage, as well as those with expertise in its preservation and restoration. The Committee would wish to see all these bodies eligible for support from the Raphaël programme.

The access to cultural heritage must be given a wider interpretation and priority must be given to long-term efforts in order to reinforce public consciousness and interest in the preservation of the cultural heritage. The Nordic tradition of meeting in study circles, a non-formal type of adult education, is one example of giving cultural heritage a broader interest. Special efforts should also be made to make the cultural heritage accessible to young people, people with physical intellectual or sensory disabilities or impairments and other groups with special needs.

3.3.2. European festivals, European awards and actions, such as the organization of 'open days` at heritage sites increase awareness substantially. Museums could be made partially interactive, which should increase young people's interest. Cultural tourism has an important role as an employer. Communications technology and multimedia are particularly useful in presenting heritage sites which are demanding in terms of environmental protection.

3.3.3. The Committee would highlight the importance of making use of new communication technologies in order to reach both the general public throughout the European Union and regional and local populations. The Committee also draws attention to the need for multilingual presentations not only in respect of museums, monuments and other heritage sites, but also in all the networks set up under the Raphaël programme. Regional, lesser-used languages should be respected in all multilingual presentations.

3.3.4. The Committee of the Regions would also highlight the important role played by radio and television, particularly public service radio and television, in informing young people and the general public and raising their awareness. The Raphaël programme should encourage the production of audiovisual material in association with the latter companies.

3.4. Innovation, further training and professional mobility

The Committee wishes to extend the scope of the exchange of experience and promotion of cooperation to cover cultural tourism, site-development techniques and the planning of cultural events.

3.5. Cooperation with third countries and international organizations

Synergy with other international organizations, in particular the Council of Europe and UNESCO, is important. Preserving the diversity of cultural heritage is a joint asset for humankind. Traditional links between Member States should be exploited, and also between nations and regions within Member States and outside countries, particularly when the former share a cultural heritage with outside countries. A significant bilateral project should also be approved.

3.6. Financial support

The Committee of the Regions considers that the allocations proposed in the financial statement are very small, given the ambitions set out in the general aims of the programme. In particular, the Action I measures and the synergies between these measures and the measures to raise awareness set out in Action III will require substantial funds. The Committee feels that a level of funding of ECU 90 million to 100 million would be more appropriate for the implementation of the Raphaël programme.

There is a need to re-focus the priorities in the proposed budget, highlighting the additional support which EU intervention can provide for national policies. Action IV (further training and professional mobility) is of vital importance here. The market in restoring movable cultural goods is an example of a highly specific market which needs to be placed on an international footing.

By the same token, special attention must be paid under Action II to (a) measures to develop information instruments for use by heritage networks and professionals and to make these instruments more widely available and (b) measures in support of cross-frontier cooperation projects between museums and/or monuments with a view to presenting cultural heritage in its European dimension.

Action III (access to heritage) seeks to raise the awareness of EU citizens with regard to their cultural heritage, thereby enabling them to recognize this heritage as their own and to adopt the European spirit. These measures to heighten awareness should be linked to the concrete achievements under the other headings.

Action V measures cannot, however, be regarded as priority measures from the budgetary point of view.

Overlapping of eligible measures should be avoided in the interests of maximum effectiveness and transparency of the programme.

4. Conclusions

Why is the Raphaël programme needed? If the projects supported by the programme can show the importance of mutual interaction in the rise of local, regional and national culture in historical as well as future terms, then we have found something on which European citizenship can be based. Projects should also show the importance of the natural and built environment to people's well-being. They should also show that preservation of our cultural heritage is not just a financial burden; enlivening and utilizing that heritage creates new employment opportunities.

The Committee highlights the innovative aspects of the methods employed in the Raphaël programme especially with regard to networking, global project support, the exemplary nature of the actions and the use of new communication technologies. The Committee of the Regions regards the Raphaël programme as a welcome medium for regional development.

Done at Brussels, 21 September 1995.

The Chairman of the Committee of the Regions

Jacques BLANC

() European Parliament Resolution on protecting the European cultural heritage, OJ No C 62, 30. 5. 1974; European Parliament Resolution on the protection of the architectural and archaeological heritage, OJ No C 267, 11. 10. 1982; European Parliament Resolution on economic aid to Mount Athos (monastery region), OJ No C 144, 15. 6. 1981; European Parliament Resolution on aid for the reconstruction of the Chiado district of Lisbon, OJ No C 262, 10. 10. 1988; European Parliament Resolution on the conservation of the Community's architectural and archaeological heritage, OJ No C 309, 5. 12. 1988; European Parliament Resolution on the fire at the Gran Teatro del Liceo (Barcelona), OJ No C 61, 28. 2. 1994; European Parliament Resolution on the Commission communication entitled 'New prospects for Community cultural action', OJ No C 42, 15. 2. 1993; European Parliament Resolution on Community policy in the field of culture, OJ No C 44, 14. 2. 1994; European Parliament Resolution on preserving the architectural heritage and protecting cultural assets, OJ No C 72, 15. 3. 1993.

() Resolution of the Ministers responsible for cultural affairs meeting within the Council of 13. 11. 1986 on the protection of Europe's architectural heritage, OJ No C 320, 13. 12. 1986; Resolution of the Ministers responsible for cultural affairs meeting within the Council of 13. 11. 1986 on the conservation of works of art and artefacts, OJ No C 320, 13. 12. 1986; Resolution of the Council and the Ministers of Culture meeting within the Council of 14. 11. 1991 on arrangements concerning archives, OJ No C 314, 5. 12. 1991; Resolution of the Council and the Ministers of Culture meeting within the Council of 14. 11. 1991 on European cultural networks, OJ No C 314, 5. 12. 1991.

() Council conclusions of 17. 6. 1994 concerning greater cooperation in the field of archives, OJ No C 235, 23. 8. 1994; Conclusions of the Council and Ministers of Culture meeting within the Council of 12. 11. 1992 on guidelines for Community cultural action, OJ No C 336, 19. 12. 1992; Council conclusions of 17. 6. 1994 on drawing up a Community action plan in the field of cultural heritage, OJ No C 235, 23. 8. 1994.

() OJ No C 210, 14. 8. 1995, p. 109.