Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Culture 2007 programme (2007-2013)’
Date: 2005-02-23
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: action programme, cultural policy

5.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/65

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a decision of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council establishing the Culture 2007 programme (2007-2013)’

(2005/C 164/08)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the
Culture 2007 programme (2007-2013) (COM(2004) 469 final — 2004/0150 (COD)),

Having regard to the decision of the Commission of 15 July 2004 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 27 January 2004 to instruct its Commission for Culture
and Education to draw up an Opinion on this subject,

Having regard to article III-280 of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe,

Having regard to the Communication of the Commission on Making citizenship work: fostering European
culture and diversity through programmes for Youth, Culture, Audio-visual and Civic Participation‘(COM (2004)
154 final),

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission Building our Common Future — Policy challenges
and budgetary means of the enlarged Union 2007-13 (COM (2004) 101 final),

Having regard to its Opinion on the Proposal establishing a Community action for the’ European Capital of
Culture event for the years 2005 to 2019 (CdR 393/2003 fin) (1),

Having regard to its Draft Opinion CdR 259/2004 rev. 1 adopted on 7 December 2004 by its Commission
for Culture and Education, (Rapporteur: Mrs Rosemary Butler, Elected Member of the National Assembly
for Wales (UK/PES),

unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 58th plenary session, held on 23/24 February
2005 (meeting of 23 February).

1. The Committee of the Regions' views

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS:

1.4
hopes that the integration of the three strands into one
programme will produce synergies between the strands and
increased programme coherence. The CoR asks the Manage-
ment committee to monitor whether such synergies are actu-
ally occurring;

General comments

affirms the importance of a European cultural coopera-
1.1
tion programme and feels its political relevance is greater than
ever, because of the increasing need to promote understanding
and tolerance both within the EU and with our neighbours;

1.5
supports the three overarching objectives that underpin
the programme, namely mobility for artists, mobility of works
together with inter-cultural dialogue;

thrust of

concurs with the overall

1.2
the Commission
proposal, notably the streamlining of the programme to three
overarching objectives and three strands. The CoR greatly
appreciates this new structure, which should make for a more
coherent and targeted programme and welcomes the move
away from the sectoral approach;

believes that the European Commission should do its
1.3
utmost to promote cross sectoral projects and contends that
the selection criteria should favour projects that are innovative,
risk-taking or pilot in nature, with the proviso that innovation
is a relative concept and depends on the local and regional
context;

(1) OJ C 121 of 30.4.2004, p. 15

1.6 welcomes the administrative/financial/legal simplifica-
tion that takes account of the specificity of the cultural sector
such as simpler application forms, flat rates for identifiable
budget items, improved information to applicants and limited
financial verification of organisations receiving small grants.
However, the CoR regrets that these improvements are not
included in the legal text itself but in the Explanatory Memor-
andum. It also feels that this simplification process should be
developed further with a more flexible approach to in-kind
funding and increased proportionality; whereby bureaucratic
requirements on project promoters are proportionate to the
size of the project budget;

C 164/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.7.2005

1.7
recalls the fact that small cultural operators tend to
have limited resources, both human and financial, and find it
far more difficult than their larger counterparts to develop
applications for funding. With this in mind, the Committee
calls for project preparation costs to be eligible for funding
under the programme. More generally, public authorities in the
Member States should consider establishing a small seed capital
fund to support small operators in the feasibility and bid
preparation stage;

contends that the Commission's proposal might militate
1.8
against
the participation of smaller operators and against
projects that are ‘small in scale but high in quality’. Smaller
operators must be given reassurance that the programme is
inclusive, and should be actively encouraged to participate;

1.9
emphasises that large is not tantamount to high in
quality, creativity and innovation and that critical mass is
dependent on the geographical context. In rural areas with low
population density, a small-scale project may have indisputable
critical mass and impact;

1.10
notes the Commission's intention to ensure that the
new programme should complement European Community
programmes in the field of youth, education, sport, information
technology etc, but questions how this will be implemented,
and how this objective will be monitored? The CoR contends
that cultural activities should be emphasised in the new youth
and lifelong learning programmes (2007-13);

the draft Treaty
1.11 welcomes that Article III-280 of
in the
establishing a Constitution for Europe stipulates that,
field of Culture,
the co-decision procedure with qualified
majority vote in the Council applies to the legislative procedure
for adopting European laws or framework laws establishing
incentive measures, excluding any harmonisation of the laws
and regulations of the Member States;

emphasises that cultural diversity is one of

1.12
the
defining characteristics of the European Union, a diversity that
ten new
has significantly increased with the accession of
Member States. Accordingly the CoR requests strengthening
references to this fundamental principle in the text and main-
tains that Culture 2007 should embrace all
local, regional,
national manifestations of both cultural and linguistic diversity.
In addition, to reflect the diversity within Member States and
immigration trends, the Committee feels that the programme
should pay particular attention to supporting projects aimed at
themselves or at bridging the divide between
minorities

minority and majority culture in an effort to increase mutual
understanding;

1.13
believes that Culture 2007 must work to safeguard
and promote linguistic diversity and requests that that a refer-
ence to this goal should be included in the text, in line with
Article 3 of the draft Constitution for Europe and the European
Commission's Action Plan on language learning and linguistic
diversity;

suggests strengthening the reference to the key role of
1.14
local and regional authorities in promoting and celebrating the
culture of their communities, and calls for Culture 2007 to
promote the participation of regional and local authorities in
the programme. Activities should be focused at
local and
regional level rather than major, large-scale projects;

1.15 welcomes the proposed budget
for Culture 2007,
which represents an increase as compared to Culture 2000. In
the context of the wider debate on EU financing for the 2007-
13 period, the CoR trusts that an acceptable compromise will
In particular it hopes that an adequate level of
be found.
funding for European cultural cooperation will be maintained
in the final decision on the financial perspectives. This is
important, since the accession of ten new Member States has
increased the EU population by 20 %, and in view of the
aspirations of the programme itself;

1.16 would like the new programme to highlight
the
socio-economic benefits that culture can bring, notably how it
can help contribute to achieving the EU's Lisbon aims. For
example the Committee maintain that the programme should
highlight equality of access to culture so that the programme
does not become elitist, as well as the regeneration and terri-
torial cohesion benefits culture can deliver;

1.17
questions whether there is scope to increase the co-
ordination between European Community and cultural policies
in the Member States, while respecting the principle of subsi-
diarity, in order to maximise the effect of each European Com-
munity Culture programme grant;

co-organisers

1.18
expresses its concern as regards the proposals made
by the Commission on project duration, increasing the number
threshold rules. The
of
Committee feels that quality and flexibility should be central to
the culture programme, as opposed to mechanistic selection
criteria and inflexible rules;

and vis-à-vis

the

5.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/67

Detailed comments

Coo p e r a ti o n foc a l p o i nts

1.19
seeks clarification on how the degressivity of Com-
munity support rule will work with regard to support for the
Cooperation focal points;

1.20
expresses doubts over whether it is realistic to expect
all the Cooperation focal points to become permanent and
financially autonomous after their European Community grant
comes to an end;

S tu di e s a n d a n a ly se s

1.21 welcomes the proposal to spend EUR 8.56 million on
studies and analyses as there is a real need for more solid infor-
mation on the cultural sector in Europe generally, and Euro-
pean cultural cooperation in particular. Also, the development
of key indicators would assist local and regional authorities in
helping to benchmark their activities, in order to provide better
information on, and possible transfer of, successful policy in
the cultural sector;

Colle ct i on and di sse mi na ti on of i nfor ma ti on

requests

the need

justification of

1.22
to dedicate
EUR 3.43 million to an Internet portal for the sector as the
cost
for the European Cultural Laboratory four year pilot
project, which aims to set up such an internet portal, is an esti-
mated EUR 1.5 million. Moreover,
the CoR notes that a
culture portal already exists;

Suggests with regard to the support for ‘action for the
1.23
preservation and commemoration of
the main sites and
archives associated with the deportations’ (Second strand) that
this action includes protection sites commemorating atrocities
committed by the totalitarian regime in the former Soviet
Union;

A r t i cle 8 — Imple me nta ti on

1.25
calls for thought to be given to ensuring the best fit
between the expertise of the jury member and the projects to
be judged. In this way ensuring effective and convincing assess-
ment, which is of particular concern with the move away from
the sectoral approach. In the case of cross-sectoral projects,
more than one judge may be needed to assess an individual
project;

Ar t i c le 10 — Cu lt u r e Cont a ct P oi nt s

1.26
advocates developing the work of the Cultural contact
points in promoting the exchange of best practice and coopera-
tion;

Ar ti c le 11 — Fi nanc i a l Pr ov i si ons

considers that

1.27
the Management Committee in the
early years of the new programme should do its utmost to
including
promote the involvement of cultural operators,
regional and local authorities, from the new Member States.
For example the CoR considers that the minimum financial
contribution of 5 % could be halved to 2.5 % for the first two
years of the programme, as a 5 % contribution will represent
more in real terms in the new Member States than the ‘old’
given that the average income of the former is lower. The
2.5 % rule should also be applied to any new Member States
that join the EU after the beginning of the programme, and
from the new
should be extended if participation levels
Member States are low;

Ar ti c le 13 — Moni tor i ng and e v a lu ati on

1.28
feels that feedback from promoters and beneficiaries
must be fed into the evaluation process via for example the
Culture Contact Point;

that

proposes

the Culture 2007 programme be
1.29
assessed against the objectives set out in the Decision, with the
aim of ensuring that
these objectives are achieved and to
provide an evidence base for the development of future culture
programmes;

1.24
recalls the good work carried out by the Commission
to improve the functioning of the Culture 2000 programme,
for example to tackle the delays in launching calls for propo-
sals, an issue which dogged the current programme at the
outset. To further improve the working of the programme it
also requests that
the Commission continues its work to
ensure that grants are paid speedily in order to reduce cultural
operators' cash-flow problems, and for project promoters
whose project was not successful to be properly informed of
the reason;

Ann e x II — Pr og r a mme Mana g e me nt

1.30
expresses its concern that pooling of resources into
one ‘mega’ executive agency shared by other European Com-
such as youth and lifelong
munity funding programmes
learning could lead to a loss of expertise and specialised knowl-
edge of, and sensitivity to the cultural sector, which must be
avoided at all costs.

C 164/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.7.2005

2. The Committee of the Regions' recommendations

Recommendation 1

Whereas 2

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Culture should contribute to improving the external visibi-
lity of the European Union by promoting its cultural diver-
sity and the common dimensions of its cultures.

Culture should contribute to improving the external visibi-
lity of the European Union by promoting its cultural diver-
sity and the common dimensions of its cultures. Special
attention should be devoted to safeguarding the position
of Europe's
and less widely-spoken
languages.

cultures

small

R e a son

A reference to safeguarding the position of Europe's smaller cultures and lesser-used languages should be
included in the Culture 2007 text as is the case for the Culture 2000 Decision. Its removal sends a negative
message to project promoters from these communities, who on the contrary needs assurance that the new
programme is open to them.

Recommendation 2

Whereas 13

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

It is also worthwhile pursuing the action begun by the
European Union in the context of Decision No. 792/2004/
EC referred to above in order to help ensure European and
international protection of Nazi concentration camp sites
as historic monuments.

It is also worthwhile pursuing the action begun by the
context of Decision No.
European Union in the
792/2004/EC referred to above in order to help ensure
European and international protection of Nazi concentra-
tion camp sites as historic monuments. The programme
should also be open to projects associated with deporta-
tions, concentration camp sites and commemoration of
victims who suffered under the Soviet totalitarian regime.

R e a son

The proposed wording for Art. 13 of the Preamble is based on the perception that support should also be
given for actions for the preservation and commemoration of the main sites and archives associated with
the deportations, former concentration camp sites and also for actions to keep alive the memory of victims
who suffered under the Soviet totalitarian regime. Taking into account the history of Europe during the
World War II and its aftermath, the programme should not emphasize only preservation and protection of
Nazi main sites and archives associated with the deportations and commemoration of victims at these sites,
but also should support actions associated with Soviet totalitarian regime which affected largely the Eastern
Europe states and nations. As Latvian historians have argued, the Soviet regime was a totalitarian one and
it had a great impact on the part of European states known as ‘the socialistic block’ at the time and was
not less harmful than the Nazi totalitarian regime.

It is also worthwhile mentioning that former concentration camp sites within the system of the Soviet tota-
litarian regime are understood as forced-labour camps and are referred equal to the ones existed in the
Nazi regime. Therefore they should be preserved as historic monuments as well.

5.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/69

Recommendation 3

Article 3 (1)

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The general objective of
the programme shall be to
enhance the cultural area common to Europeans through
the development of cultural cooperation between the crea-
tors, cultural players and cultural institutions of the coun-
tries taking part
in the programme, with a view to
encouraging the emergence of European citizenship.

The general objective of
the programme shall be to
enhance the cultural area common to Europeans through
the development of cultural cooperation between the crea-
tors, cultural players, and cultural institutions as well as
regional and local authorities of the countries taking part
in the programme, with a view to encouraging the emer-
gence of European citizenship and promoting both
linguistic and cultural diversity.

R e a son

References to local and regional authorities to be included as set out below given their role in promoting
the culture of their communities through for example festivals, the preservation of cultural heritage, safe-
guarding artistic works, grassroots projects and working in partnerships with cultural operators.

In addition references to the European Union's twin goals of cultural and linguistic diversity should be
strengthened in the Culture 2007 decision. This would help reassure future project promoters from lesser-
used, regional or minority language-speaking communities that the Culture 2007 programme is addressing
the goal of integrating projects from these communities into mainstream funding programmes.

Recommendation 4

Article 4.1 b

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Support for bodies active at European level in the field of
culture and actions supported for the preservation and
commemoration of the main sites and archives associated
with the deportations, symbolised by the memorials which
have been raised on the sites of the former camps and
other large-scale martyrdom and extermination sites, and
for keeping alive the memory of the victims at these sites.

Support for bodies active at European level in the field of
culture and actions supported for the preservation and
commemoration of the main sites and archives associated
with the deportations, symbolised by the memorials which
have been raised on the sites of the former camps and
other large scale martyrdom and extermination sites, and
for
and
of mass
martyrdom, mass deportations as well as the preservation
of the main sites, memorials, including the former concen-
trations camps, documenting these events, in order to keep
alive the memory of the victims at these sites.

exterminations

keeping

victims

R e a son

By including the commemoration of the victims of the Soviet totalitarian regime in the common historical
memory of Europe, the continent's structured and consensus-based perception of history is broadened
ignoring politically ‘sensitive’ subjects like this one would considerably reduce trust towards the Union,
particularly in the eyes of those citizens for whom such subjects, and memory thereof, is a recent and
painful reality.

It is also difficult to ignore the fact that the historical truth of the Second World War and its aftermath
tells a clear and unequivocal story of many human destinies destroyed by Soviet terror in what are now
the new Member States of the European Union

C 164/70

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.7.2005

Recommendation 5

Article 4 (3) new

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Operators will be free to propose projects corresponding
interests and aspirations, whether sectoral or
to their
cross-sectoral, in so far as they aim for at least two of the
objectives set out above. No facet of cultural and artistic
activity will therefore be excluded a priori.

R e a son

The fact that all sectors are eligible should be set out in the legislative text. It is important that the language
of the Decision is as clear, simple and unambiguous as possible in order to ensure that all potential project
promoters understand the text and are aware that, for example, literary translations will be eligible for
support within the Culture 2007 programme.

Recommendation 6

Annex (1.1) change heading

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1.1 Cooperation Focal Points

1.1 Cooperation Focal Points Creativity hubs

R e a son

The name ‘Cooperation Focal Point’ should be changed as it is too similar to ‘Cultural Contact Point’ and
will lead to confusion. The recommendation ‘Creativity hubs’ succinctly describes the aim of this strand.
The word cooperation is superfluous since all projects funded by the European Cultural cooperation
programme must be collaborative.

Recommendation 7

Annex (1.1) para. 2

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

different

Each focal point should constitute at least six operators
from six
the
countries
programme and bring together operators from one or
more sectors for various multi-annual activities or projects,
sectoral or
in nature but pursuing a
common objective.

cross-sectoral

participating

in

Each focal point should constitute at least six five opera-
tors from six five different countries participating in the
programme and bring together operators from one or
more sectors for various multi-annual activities or projects,
sectoral or
in nature but pursuing a
common objective.

cross-sectoral

R e a son

Five co-organisers clearly demonstrate European added value and project promoters should not be obliged
to seek six co-organisers from 2007. What matters is the commitment of the projects to joint working and
the quality of the project itself.

Recommendation 8

Annex (1.1) para. 3

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Each focal point shall be intended to carry out a number
of structured, multi-annual cultural activities.

Each focal point shall be intended to carry out a number
of structured, multi-annual cultural activities and act as an
intermediary grant-giving body.

5.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/71

R e a son

The ‘Cooperation Focal Points’ should be allowed to act as intermediary grant giving bodies. In this way
the Cooperation focal points could provide fast-track funding, with limited bureaucracy, for smaller/innova-
tive cultural cooperation projects. This system has worked well in the context of the Structural Funds and
should be replicated within the context of the Culture 2007 programme.

Recommendation 9

Annex (1.1) para. 6

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Community support may not exceed 50% of the project
budget and shall be degressive in nature. It may not be
more than EUR 500,000 a year. This support shall be
granted for a period of five years.

Community support may not exceed 50% of the project
budget and shall be degressive in nature. It may not be
more than EUR 500,000 a year. This support shall be
granted for a period of minimum of three and up to five
years.

R e a son

More flexibility should be allowed as regards project duration since not all project promoters will want, or
need, to run a five-year project. Moreover, many operators are likely to encounter difficulties in finding co-
financing for a full five-year period.

Recommendation 10

Annex (1.2) change heading

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1.2 Cooperation measures

1.2 Cooperation measures Creative actions

R e a son

The name ‘cooperation measures’ is too technocratic, whereas ‘creative actions’ emphasises the fact priority
will be given to creativity in the selection of projects.

Recommendation 11

Annex (1.2) para. 2

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Each action should be designed and carried out in partner-
ship by at least four cultural operators in three different
participating countries, whether
these operators come
from one or more sectors.

Each action should be designed and carried out in partner-
least four three cultural operators in three
ship by at
different participating countries, whether these operators
come from one or more sectors.

C 164/72

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.7.2005

R e a son

Three co-organisers amply demonstrates European added value. As noted above in the context of the Euro-
pean Cooperation Focal Points, projects should be assessed on their intrinsic quality not on mechanistic
selection criteria.

Recommendation 12

Annex (1.2) para. 4

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Community support may not exceed 50% of the project
budget. It may not be less than 60 000 euro per year nor
more than EUR 200,000 per year. This support shall be
granted for a maximum of 12 months.

Community support may not exceed 50% of the project
budget. It may not be less than 60 000 euro per year nor
more than EUR 200,000 per year. This support shall be
granted for a maximum minimum of 12 months and a
maximum of 24 months.

R e a son

There should be more flexibility regarding the minimum level of European Community support
(EUR 60,000 a year which means minimum project size of EUR 120,000 per year) as some projects may
not need, or be able to absorb, this amount but still have impact and critical mass.

In addition projects should be allowed to last for up to two years, rendering the programme more flexible
and user-friendly for promoters.

Recommendation 13

Annex (1.3) para 4

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

In this context, significant support will also be given to the
‘European Capitals of Culture’ in order to help implement
activities stressing European visibility and trans-European
cultural cooperation.

In this context, significant support 90% of the budget
within the special actions strand will also be given to the
‘European Capitals of Culture’ in order to help implement
activities stressing European visibility and trans-European
cultural cooperation.

R e a son

The focus of the special actions strands should be the European Capital of Culture initiative. European
Community funding for the European Capital of Culture should increase since there are likely to be two
European Capitals of Culture a year from 2009 to reflect the recent enlargement of the EU. Increased support
should for example be used to help the city authorities and cultural operators work with partners in other
Member States thereby promoting transnational mobility and inter-cultural dialogue. Moreover dedicating
90 % of the special actions budget to the European Capital of Culture increases the transparency of this
strand, which has in the past been criticised for being somewhat opaque. The remaining 10 % should be
used towards awards such as the Europa Nostra Prize and the European Union Prize for contemporary
architecture (the Mies van der Rohe Award).

5.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/73

Recommendation 14

Article (5) 2

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The programme shall also be open to cooperation with
other third countries which have concluded association or
cooperation agreements with the European Community
which include cultural clauses, on the basis of supplemen-
tary appropriations and specific procedures to be laid
down.

The programme shall also be open to cooperation with
other third countries with priority given to our near neigh-
bours in line with the European Neighbourhood Policy,
which have concluded association or cooperation agree-
ments with the European Community which include
cultural clauses, on the basis of supplementary appropria-
tions and specific procedures to be laid down.

R e a son

The programme should prioritise countries that are included in the European Neighbourhood Policy. The
importance of dialogue between civilisations and the free exchange of ideas between cultures, religions,
traditions cannot be over-emphasised. Joint projects in the cultural field can help achieve the European
Neighbourhood Policies main objectives of connecting people and enhancing mutual understanding of
each others' cultures, history, attitudes and values, and thereby eliminating distorted perceptions

Recommendation 15

Article (9) 1

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The Commission shall be assisted by a committee,
composed of representatives of the Member States and
chaired by the representative of the Commission.

The Commission shall be assisted by a committee,
composed of representatives of the Member States, a repre-
sentative of the Committee of the Regions and chaired by
the representative of the Commission.

R e a son

As competence for cultural policy is often at sub-national level in many Member States, the CoR should be
authorised to nominate one representative onto the committee. Moreover Member States delegations to the
committee should include local and regional representatives where appropriate.

Recommendation 16

Article 10.1

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The Cultural Contact Points as defined in point I.3.3 of the
Annex shall act as implementing bodies for the dissemina-
tion of information on the programme at national level,
having regard to Article 54(2)(c) and (3) of Regulation (EC,
Euratom) No. 1605/2002.

The Cultural Contact Points as defined in point I.3.3 of the
Annex shall act as implementing bodies for the dissemina-
tion of information on the programme at both national
and sub-national
level, having regard to Article 54(2)(c)
and (3) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No. 1605/2002.

R e a son

This amendment is consistent with Recommendation 17 of the draft opinion. Cultural Contact Points must
also be able to act at regional level, to make it easier for them to reach cultural operators and adapt to
their specific characteristics. It should, therefore, be made easier for local or regional authorities or their
delegations to set up Cultural Contact Points, always on a voluntary basis.

C 164/74

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.7.2005

Recommendation 17

Article (10) 2

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

2. The Cultural contact points must respect the following

2. The Cultural contact points must respect the following

criteria:

criteria:

— have an adequate number of staff, with professional
and linguistic capacities appropriate for work in an
environment of international cooperation;

— have an adequate number of staff, with professional
and linguistic capacities appropriate for work in an
environment of international cooperation;

— have an appropriate infrastructure,

in particular as

— have an appropriate infrastructure,

in particular as

regards informatics and communications;

regards informatics and communications;

— operate in an administrative context which enables
them to carry out their tasks satisfactorily and to avoid
conflicts of interest.

— operate in an administrative context which enables
them to carry out
their tasks satisfactorily, where
appropriate for example the Cultural contact points
level and to avoid
should operate at sub-national
conflicts of interest.

R e a son

The Culture Contact Points should be encouraged to operate at sub-national level where appropriate in
order to be closer to the citizens and cultural operators on the ground. France's system of ‘regional poles’
operated by the French Culture Contact Point is an example of good practice that should be replicated in
other Member States.

Recommendation 18

Article 12 (d) new

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(d) Promoting the linguistic diversity of the EU

R e a son

For reasons set out above (recommendations 1 and 2), references to the goal of linguistic diversity should
be strengthened in the text.

Recommendation 19

Annex V OVERALL BUDGET BREAKDOWN

Strand 1

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Breakdown of the annual budget for the programme

Breakdown of the annual budget for the programme

Percentage of the Budget

Percentage of the Budget

Strand 1 (support for projects) approx. 77%
— cooperation focal points approx. 36%
— cooperation measures approx. 24%
— special actions approx. 17%

Strand 1 (support for projects) approx. 77%
— cooperation focal points approx. 36% 30%
— cooperation measures approx. 24% 30%
— special actions approx. 17%

The Cooperation Focal points and the Cooperation Measures should each receive 30 % of the total budget
as opposed to 36 % for the former and 24 % for the latter as at present. The Committee believes that the
current breakdown could discriminate against smaller operators, which are often the most experimental
and innovative, because they are less likely than bigger players to secure match funding for five years and
have the capacity to carry out the extensive development work that will be required.

5.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/75

Recommendation 20

ANNEX 2.2

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Actions may be supported for
the preservation and
commemoration of the main sites and archives associated
with the deportations, symbolised by the memorials which
have been raised on the sites of the former camps and
other large-scale martyrdom and extermination sites, and
for keeping alive the memory of the victims at these sites.

Actions may be supported for
the preservation and
commemoration of the main sites and archives associated
with the deportations, symbolised by the memorials which
have been raised on the sites of the former camps and
other large-scale martyrdom and extermination sites, and
for keeping victims of mass extermination and martyrdom,
mass deportations as well as the preservation of the main
sites, memorials,
concentration
camps, documenting these events, in order to keep alive
the memory of the victims. at these sites.

including the

former

R e a son

By including the commemoration of the victims of the Soviet totalitarian regime in the common historical
memory of Europe, the continent's structured and consensus-based perception of history is broadened
ignoring politically ‘sensitive’ subjects like this one would considerably reduce trust towards the Union,
particularly in the eyes of those citizens for whom such subjects, and memory thereof, is a recent and
painful reality.

It is also difficult to ignore the fact that the historical truth of the Second World War and its aftermath
tells a clear and unequivocal story of many human destinies destroyed by Soviet terror in what are now
the new Member States of the European Union.

Recommendation 21

ANNEX 3.3

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

In order to ensure targeted, effective grass-roots dissemina-
tion of practical information on the programme, it shall
provide for support from ‘cultural contact points’. These
bodies, acting at national
level, shall be set up by the
Commission in cooperation with the Member States on a
voluntary basis.

In order to ensure targeted, effective grass-roots dissemina-
tion of practical information on the programme, it shall
provide for support from ‘cultural contact points’. These
bodies, acting at both national and sub-national level, shall
be set up by the Commission in cooperation with the
Member States or their regional authorities on a voluntary
basis.

R e a son

This amendment is consistent with Recommendation 17 of the draft opinion. Cultural Contact Points must
also be able to function at regional level, so that they can more easily reach cultural operators and adapt to
their specific characteristics. It should, therefore, be made easier for local or regional authorities or their
delegations to set up Cultural Contact Points, always on a voluntary basis.

Brussels, 23 February 2005.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB