Navigation
- Home
- Philosophy
- International
- Peace efforts
- Poets
- Artists beyond Images
- Culture
- Conferences
- Newsletter
- Links
- Imprint
Debate in CULT about culture and structural funds - the KEA study (2012)
Committee on Culture and Education [CULT] of the European Parliament
Date: 19.09.2012
Debate on culture and structural funds – the KEA study
Summary of the debate
The debate was brief, the study was very well received. It seems that the study justifies, by using examples that investing in culture has been successful. It also indicates that a great deal of money has been spent on culture by the structural funds. However a critical omission to the study is that it did not analyse in any depth the case in which the culture sector can access structural funds. This was not part of the terms of reference of the study. Indeed, it was inferred that accessing structural funds is best done by a development authority and much of the money is actually spent on heritage (i.e., restoration, conservation, projects) which can be justified within the structural funds priorities.
However, there is now a shift in thinking and the new guidelines on structural funds could permit regions to mainstream culture within the stipulated thematic priorities.
The debate:
Valentina Montado (KEA) The scope of the research is to focus on culture and the creative industries and to see to how far the structural funds support culture. Sectors examined included advertising and fashion.
Various statistics are indicated in the study – e.g. 6 billion Euro p.a., allocated to culture funding (ie. total EU budget for 2007-2013).
EU policies on culture see culture as part of economics (e.g. 2020 strategy) and also now as part of foreign policy and in developing the attractiveness of regions. Indeed, the EC [i.e., DG Enterprise] is now seeing culture as a tool to generate creativity and innovation.
The bulk of the funds to culture [ie, of the 6 billion euros] seem to go to heritage projects.
There are various national/regional operational programmes.
* Berlin the Creative City spent 1.2 billion Euro [social fund] to reinvent its image.
* Nantes [FR] used structural funds quite successfully. With the closure of the ship yards, Nantes began 20 years ago to rejuvenate itself through culture and ecology. The city has succeeded in becoming a tourist destination with attracting about 200,000+ tourists each year, more than double than before.
* The City of Tartu [Estonia] a town of 100,000 people also used culture.
* A further project called "Creative Spin" which aims to link culture to creative industries and other economic sectors [universities, public sector, business, etc].
* A great many of the cities that have benefited from culture and the structural funds do so through Interreg.
The European Commission [EC] proposal for 2014-2020 appears in the ERDF regulation in thematic policy 6. There are other references [e.g., on SMEs and inter-sector activities]. Culture is not a thematic priority.
Focus is on the heritage, but culture infrastructure and creation is not mention. The new policy will allow regions to use ‘smart strategies’ could be used by regions to mainstream culture in thematic policies. This is a positive shift.
KEA recommends:
* culture has to be acknowledged as a source of sustainable development.
* A thematic priority on culture- this is an ambitious recommendation
* Mainstream culture as part of innovation.
* Raise awareness and lobby in regions to ensure that regions make use of culture in the operational programmes.
MEP (PPE – DE); she praised Nantes having seen it before and after structural funds were used.
MEP (Greens – DE), the EP has being fighting a political battle to get the importance of culture recognised in all respects. This fight has to continue. The KEA study proves the point of the EP.
MEP (S&D - DE); stressed the important contribution of culture to the economy. MEPs in the REGIO committee do submit amendments to reports, however these tend to prioritise heritage.
MEP(IT), asked if cities like Berlin found it easy to get funds. It seems to him accessing structural funds can be very difficult. He is of the view that the REGIO Committee is rejecting further funding of culture and heritage in the context of structural funds.
MEP (S&D – IT); she would like to see more focus on the ‘local’ importance of culture. This would be closer to citizens. She informed that the EC is drafting a Green Paper on culture and innovation. Though culture is not a priority in structural funds. She feels this is a mistake. The Creative Europe Programme is not sufficient. At the moment structural funds are actually under threat. Plus governments are cutting back of funding culture.
MEP (GR); the CULT committee has to persuade other committees of the importance of culture. Non technological innovation is also important. Currently stress on innovation is on technology.
MEP from France (she is also a member of the REGIO committee); the EP report on creative industries included a recommendation to better use structural funds for creativity and culture. Indeed, much of the this EC report is similar to what KEA calls for.
Valentina Montado (KEA); KEA did look to see how difficult it is to access ERDF and ESF, but this was not within the terms of reference. But one can say that it is easier to get funds of your regions includes culture funding in the operational programme of its territory. Though it is difficult to define culture you can do it, you can identify culture as a resource or you can define culture by listing different sectors.
All MEPs stressed it is not too late to fight for culture and to insert it into the structural funds.
Reported by Pyrrhus Mercouris, Brussels
« Cultural Priorities (2000) by Hatto Fischer | European Commission »