Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on a "Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 508/2000/EC of 14 February 2000 establishing the Culture 2000 programme"
Date: 2003-10-09
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU programme, European Committee of the Regions, cultural policy, cultural promotion, opinion

C 23/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.1.2004

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on a ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European
Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 508/2000/EC of 14 February 2000
establishing the Culture 2000 programme’

(2004/C 23/05)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending
Decision No 508/2000/EC establishing the Culture 2000 programme COM(2003) 187 final — 2003/
0076 (COD);

having regard to the decision of the Council of 5 May 2003 to consult it on this subject, under the first
paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

having regard to the decision of its President of 23 January 2003 to instruct its Commission for Culture
and Education to draw up an opinion on this subject;

having regard to its draft Opinion (CdR 165/2003 rev.) adopted on 11 July 2003 by the Commission for
Culture and Education (rapporteur: Mrs Rosemary Butler, Member of the Welsh Assembly (UK/PES),

unanimously adopted the following Opinion at its 51st plenary session, held on 9 October 2003.

1. The Committee of the Regions’ views

The Committee of the Regions

1.1.
affirms the importance of cultural activities at Euro-
pean level and the political relevance of the objectives of the
Culture 2000 programme;

1.2.
welcomes the contribution that the Culture 2000
programme and its predecessors (Kaleidoscope, Ariane and
Raphael) have made to date in promoting cultural cooperation
across participating countries;

1.3.
recognises that as set out in the Commission’s own
proposal on extending the programme, there is still room for
improvement and the CoR would like, Not only to comment
on the proposal to extend Culture 2000 to 2006, but also to
make some proposals regarding the future orientation of the
programme in the new programming period;

believes that safeguarding and promoting cultural and
1.4.
linguistic diversity is the fundamental principle underlying
the process of European integration, and one of the main
characteristics of Europe’s identity. The successor programme
to Culture 2000 must therefore embrace all local, regional,
national and sub-state manifestations of cultural and linguistic
diversity;

the cultural sector in the current programme should be
analysed in the mid-term review of the structural funds.
Currently the regulation of the Regional development Fund
Notes that the Fund will participate in the financing of ‘cultural
investment, including the protection of cultural and natural
heritage’;

1.6.
reiterates the point made in the resolution of the
Council of 5 and 6 May 2003 that an extra effort needs to be
made to include culture in other policy areas with the aim of
placing culture at the heart of European integration. In this
way, the CoR hopes that in future there will be closer co-
operation with other funds such as the Information Communi-
cation TechNologies (ICT) or education and youth pro-
grammes.

Extending the ‘Culture 2000’ programme to 2006

The Committee of the Regions

1.7.
welcomes the proposal to extend the Culture 2000
programme, due to end on 31 December 2004 to 2006. This
will bring the Culture programme into line with the current
EU multi-annual programming period, which ends on
31 December 2006;

1.5.
Notes that the culture programme only represents
approximately 5 % of EC funding to the cultural sector, with
the remainder coming from other programmes, Notably the
Structural Funds. Therefore the CoR strongly believes that a
reference to culture must be made in any future regulation as
regards the Structural Funds post 2006, and that support for

1.8.
agrees with the Commission that there is a need for
stability in a period of major change (the accession of ten
new Member states, the Inter-governmental Conference, the
European Parliamentary elections and the appointment of a
new Commission) and that Community support for cultural
activities as provided for in the Treaty should Not be disrupted;

27.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 23/21

agrees with the Commission proposal that the pro-
1.9.
gramme remains largely unchanged for 2005–2006. While
the CoR agrees that Now is Not an appropriate time to propose
radical reform, given that results of the interim report are
pending and the ongoing public consultation, it hopes that the
Commission will take immediate steps to streamline the
administrative and financial procedures associated with Culture
2000;

1.10.
accepts the Commission’s proposal that the overall
budget for the extended Culture 2000 programme should be
EUR 236,5 million. This is in line with the level of support
that has been given hitherto and takes some account of the
enlargement of the European Union. Moreover, given that the
results of the interim evaluation of the programme are Not yet
available, it is difficult to properly assess how successful the
programme has been in meeting its objectives and to make a
strong case for an increased budget for 2005–2006;

artists, creators and ultimately of course citizens. For example
the new programme should allow professional artists to
develop new skills;

1.15.
would like the new programme to continue to place
importance on the socio-ecoNomic benefits that culture can
bring, in particular in terms of ecoNomic development, social
integration, health etc, and should emphasize equality of access
to culture. Culture 2000 and its successor programme must
explore the means by which everyone has the opportunity and
encouragement to experience and enjoy cultural events of the
highest possible quality. A vital cultural life with a wide range
of cultural
facilities boosts the entire region’s attraction.
Culture is a major factor of territorial cohesion in Europe,
providing substantial added value and exercising a multiplier
effect on regional and local development projects;

1.11.
believes that while it is necessary to take a pragmatic
approach to the funding of Culture 2000 in the years
2005–2006 for the reasons set out above, the global budget
for the programme is nevertheless absolutely insufficient. For
this reason, it calls for a more realistic budget to be allocated
in the next programming period in recognition of the import-
ance of culture in the European venture, and the fact that the
dialogue that society has with itself is conducted through
culture.

points out that that many regional and local auth-
1.16.
orities have responsibility for culture and play a key role in
promoting and celebrating the culture of their communities,
Notably through community projects, the organisation of
festivals, the guardians of artists’ works and the preservation
of cultural heritage. The future programme should promote
the participation of regional and local authorities who work in
partnership with cultural operators;

New European Community Framework Programme for Culture

The Committee of the Regions

1.12.
would also like to take this opportunity to make some
proposals regarding the orientation of the future European
Community Framework Programme for culture;

1.13.
welcomes the Commission’s decision to launch a
public consultation on the shape of a successor programme to
Culture 2000. It believes that the programme to date has
played a valuable role in promoting increased co-operation
and exchange between cultural actors, but feels that it needs to
undergo significant reform as regards content, administration,
financing, information provision and project selection, if it is
to become a genuine instrument for effective cultural action in
European terms;

contends that the primary focus of the new pro-
1.14.
gramme should be on European cultural objectives:
the
development of quality, excellence, originality and challenge
which contribute to greater inter-cultural dialogue. The pro-
gramme should be addressed directly to cultural players,

1.17. maintains that it is crucial that the new programme
should encourage real inNovation and risk-taking and Not just
pay lip-service to these goals, but recalls that the concept of
inNovation is relative and depends on the regional and local
context;

1.18.
feels the successor programme to Culture 2000
should Not only allow, but encourage integrated cross-art
form projects. While this was ostensibly the aim of developing
a single framework programme from three disparate pro-
grammes, the reality has been that it is difficult for project
promoters to put forward projects that cut-across two or more
art forms, the reality of contemporary cultural life. Drawing
up sectoral or thematic priorities restricts artistic freedom and
ultimately makes for less exciting, challenging projects;

1.19.
proposes that the programme should Not take a
prescriptive view of eligible/Not eligible art forms. It should
take a wide-reaching view of arts and culture to include
for example community animation and film-making, which
provide an excellent vehicle through which cultural exchange,
co-operation and engagement can be achieved. The pro-
gramme should give particular attention to artists seeking to
extend the range of new media offered by recent developments
in techNology;

C 23/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.1.2004

applauds the willingness of the Culture 2000 pro-
1.20.
gramme to support the promotion of literature in lesser used
languages and hopes that the successor programme will ensure
that lesser used, regional and miNority languages will be
properly integrated into the new programme;

1.21.
recommends that the successor programme should
favour initiatives undertaken by organisations at the local and
regional level, as is currently the case, rather than large-scale
activities. This would enable local and regional authorities to
play a full role in the programme as project promoters or as
partners, as they are often one of the main sources of co-
financing for cultural operators. The CoR agrees that EU
cultural action should promote sustainable cooperation with
multiplier effects and believes that small scale local projects
are often the beginnings of long term partnerships which
provide an important added-value to EU cultural action;

1.22.
encourages activity at a local and regional level which
will allow more people to participate in the programme and is
one of the current programme objectives, which should be
maintained in the future. The CoR maintains that local and
regional organizations being closest to the people are able to
stimulate more active involvement in cultural activities in
terms of contacts with artists, voluntary organizations, edu-
cation establishments and the population in general and be
able to get through more effectively to ‘disadvantaged’ groups.
They are thus best able to ensure the widest access as possible
to cultural activities and maximum benefit of opportunities
available. In this context the CoR is concerned about the
Commission’s idea, set out in the public consultation ‘Design-
ing the future programme of cultural co-operation for the
European Union after 2006’,
to establish ‘European co-
operation platforms ... to promote sustainable co-operation
with multiplier effects’ believes that the definition of ‘European
platforms’ may be ambiguous and unclear, and could restrict
free artistic creation. It therefore proposes that it be dropped
or, at least, made clearer;

feels that the Commission should select priorities for
1.23.
the programme, which should Not be sectoral or thematic, but
based on a set of programme objectives. These could include:
inter-cultural dialogue within Europe which takes account of
miNorities; the mobility of artists and works; inNovation; the
promotion of cultural heritage; and cultural dialogue with third
countries and promotion of locally-based cultural activities;

1.24.
welcomes the Commission’s proposal, as set out in
the public consultation, that the music and publishing indus-
tries should be taken into account in Community Action;

points out that dialogue between people is more
1.25.
essential Now than ever, the CoR calls on the Commission to
facilitate the involvement of third countries, especially our
nearest neighbours in the Mediterranean and the stability pact
countries, and also facilitate the opportunity for all Europeans,
including those from Non-European backgrounds to develop
their indigeNous cultural traditions and encourage the wider
exploration and appreciation of all cultural traditions, Euro-
pean and Non-European,
in the successor programme to
Culture 2000.

Administration and financing

The Committee of the Regions

1.26.
welcomes the Commission’s statement, as set out in
the decision to extend the Culture 2000 programme, that the
general principle for the future programme of cultural co-
operation after 2006 should be ‘as straightforward and easy to
use as possible’. To date the programme has been hampered
by its excessively bureaucratic approach, onerous financial
requirements and subject to significant administrative blockag-
es, which actually discourages the inNovative or cutting edge
projects that the Commission says it is trying to encourage;

feels that the application process itself must also be
1.27.
simplified, as the current complexity discriminates against
smaller operators, small publishers for example, which are
unable to afford administrators. Moreover, the application
form must be made more appropriate to contemporary arts
organisations for example, production costs do Not ‘fit’ into
any of the sections in the current application form;

1.28.
believes that the number of partners in the existing
programme (three for one year programme and five for a
multi-annual) is arbitrary. Projects should be judged on their
intrinsic quality and bi-lateral projects should be allowed if the
intrinsic quality of the project is high;

recognises that there is a real need for quicker access
1.29.
to funding. Transnational working is by definition expensive
and arts organisations are almost invariably cash poor with
little or No reserves and therefore need speedy access to
finance, once the project has been selected. To date, access to
EC financial support for successful projects has been slow,
with some organisations driven to the brink of insolvency
because of late arrival of EC funds and bank charges incurred
during this time. A more flexible approach to in-kind funding
would also be helpful;

27.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 23/23

calls for increased awareness of the differing ability of
1.30.
cultural operators to find co-financing, and Notes that oper-
ators in the accession countries often have particular difficult-
ies, with many examples of operators having to withdraw
from the programme for this reason. There is clearly a need
for a more flexible approach. For example the percentage of
co-financing from cultural operators participating in the
programme from the accession countries could be decreased
from the current minimum of 5 % to 2,5 % until the end of
the 2007-2013 programming period;

considers that the national cultural contact points
1.36.
have a valuable role to play in disseminating information
about the programme to local and regional players, and is
particularly pleased that some contact points have regional
offices bringing their services closer to potential project
promoters on the ground. The role they currently play in giving
comments on draft Culture 2000 proposals and managing
expectations is also very valuable and should be continued in
future;

1.31.
recognises that it is also the case that the current caps
on total project spending (EC + co-financing) for one year and
multi-annual projects, are unworkable and should be revised
in future. Care should also be taken Not to spend a large
amount of the project costs on administration, in the CoR’s
view this should be limited to a maximum of 20 %;

1.32.
regrets in terms of timing, the late appearance of calls
for proposals and calls for more effort to ensure an end to the
administrative delays that have dogged the programme. This
would ensure that operators could start their projects at the
beginning of the year, rather than mid way through and make
involvement in the programme easier, particularly for smaller
operators at local and regional level, which often promote the
more cutting edge projects;

stresses that proportionality must be a guiding prin-
1.33.
ciple for the future. The negotiation and decision-making
progress currently take far too long as compared to the size of
the budgets in question, and there is a strong case for
developing strict limits, such as two months for project
assessment and ultimate rejection or agreement.

Information provision

The Committee of the Regions

stresses its concern that information provision on the
1.34.
current programme is something of a lottery, given the varying
levels of performance between the cultural contact points in
the Member States participating in the programme. An
executive agency, as suggested by the European Commission,
could be helpful here, if it is designed with the specificity of
the sector in mind;

1.37.
encourages all local and regional authorities to pre-
pare reports on the benefits to be gained from raising the level
of financial and administrative supports within their locality
for cultural activities by an agreed percentage on an annual
basis.

Projection selection

The Committee of the Regions

1.38.
calls for the method of project selection to be
improved and made more consistent for the next cultural co-
operation framework programme. For the credibility of the
programme, it is crucial that members of the jury should be
specialists in their field;

1.39.
evaluation of the project content and artistic value.

calls on selection to be based solely on the jury’s

2. The Committee of the Regions’ recommendations

The Committee of the Regions

welcomes the Commission’s intention to call

for
2.1.
preparatory actions in 2005–2006 to prepare the ground
for a stronger successor programme to Culture 2000. The
Commission should take this opportunity to test experimental
and inNovative ideas, and to pilot actions in the field of music,
a sector which has Not to date been taken specifically into
account in community action;

welcomes the proposal to extend the Culture 2000

2.2.
programme, due to end on 31 December 2004, to 2006;

highlights the need for more transparency and open-
1.35.
ness in terms of information provision regarding the special
(action 3) culture events with a European or international
dimension as these have been a somewhat opaque part of the
programme;

agrees with the budget proposed by the Commission
2.3.
for 2005-2006, but considers that the global budget for the
next culture programme from 2007–2013 should be increased
so that it can be a genuine instrument for effective cultural
action;

C 23/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.1.2004

considers that the successor programme to Culture
2.4.
2000 should focus its activities on local and regional level
activities rather than major, large-scale actions in this way
allowing increased participation;

2.5.
calls on the Commission to ensure that regional and
miNority languages are integrated into mainstream pro-
grammes like Culture 2000 and its successor programme in the
spirit of the upcoming EU language strategy and action plan;

urges the Commission to simplify its administrative

2.7.
procedures in line with the principle of proportionality;

calls on the Commission to ensure that in future,
2.8.
promoters of selected projects receive EC funding quickly and
are Not subject to undue delays which can be disastrous for
smaller operators;

2.6.
judges that the future programme of cultural co-
operation should Not only allow but actively encourage inter-
disciplinary projects;

2.9.
requests that the project selection process be improved
with the jury chosen on the basis of their being specialists in
their field and projects selected only on artistic merit.

Brussels, 9 October 2003.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE

Opinion of the Committee of the Region on:

— a ‘Proposal for a decision of the EP and of the Council modifying Council Decision No 821/
2000/EC of 20 December 2000 on the implementation of a programme to encourage the
development, distribution and promotion of European audiovisual works (MEDIA Plus —
Development, Distribution and Promotion)’, and

— a ‘Proposal for a decision of the EP and of the Council modifying Decision No 163/2001/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 January 2001 on the implementation of
a training programme for professionals in the European audiovisual programme industry
(MEDIA-Training) (2001-2005)’

(2004/C 23/06)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council modifying
Council Decision No 821/2000/EC of 20 December 2000 on the implementation of a programme to
encourage the development, distribution and promotion of European audiovisual works (MEDIA Plus —
Development, Distribution and Promotion (COM(2003) 191 final — 2003/0067 (COD));

having regard to the proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 January
2001 on the implementation of a training programme for professionals in the European audiovisual
programme industry (MEDIA-Training) (2001-2005) (COM(2003) 188 final — 2003/0064 (COD));

having regard to decision of the Council of 5 May 2003 to consult it on this subject, under the first
paragraph of Article 265 and Article 150 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;