Christopher Gordon exhorts the UK cultural community to set aside its appetite for internally-focused, small-scale, top-up grants from Europe and address itself instead to the broader opportunities created by changing EU policy agendas.
The Southern Arts Associations President 30 years ago was Sir Michael Tippett. I fondly remember him chairing an AGM in Bournemouth. His eyesight was declining by the late 1970s and he wielded a large magnifying glass like an outrageous Sherlock Holmes prop. Towards the end, an item designated constitutional amendments was reached. Pausing for dramatic effect, Tippett repeated the phrase syllable by syllable, punching the air with his magnifying glass whilst intoning I LOVE constitutional amendments! Not so the current Leader of UKIP, who has declared that the only value of a European constitution for the British would be as a doorstop, for setting fires, or for wrapping fish and chips.
Sound constitution
The current German Presidency of the European Union (January to June 2007) is pledged to revive the constitution process which was stalled or killed, maybe by the French and Dutch referendums in 2005. The optimistic intention is for a considerably revised institutional reform to be agreed by December 2008 for implementation from 2009. Doubtless the mere thought is bringing British Eurosceptics out in virulent Euro-rashes, turning them the colour of Ukippers. The British media are unlikely to recall that 18 of the (then) 25 EU member states had actually ratified the constitution by the time it went into limbo (France, the Netherlands, Poland, Denmark, Czech Republic, Ireland and the UK will be the main targets for Angela Merkels offensive).
The 27 EU member states meanwhile limp on with the inefficient mechanism of alternating six-monthly national Presidencies, a legacy from the early days of just six founding members. It operates in 23 official languages, said to cost around 1% of the total budget just to service discussion and negotiation. Unesco gets by in six primary languages. Anyone who has actually troubled to read the maligned constitution will know that it was fundamentally a sensible attempt (allowing for the inevitable Eurospeak) to streamline institutional processes to enable the worlds most populous political unit after China and India to operate better. Merkel in a speech on 17 January this year characterised the EU as lumbering, bureaucratic and divided. The EU as a major global economic competitor desperately needs to reform its systems.
Cultural endeavours
Does any of this have implications for culture? Well, it might and it should. The European Commission last December published an independent study, The Economy of Culture, which urges political recognition that Europes new secret economic weapon is culture. Furthermore, the study publishes data showing that the creative sector is a larger player than the motor industry in Europe, with better educated and more flexible workers than the industrial or business norm.
Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, suggested publicly in November 2005 that the time had come for the EU to think harder about mainstreaming culture through its major policies and programmes. But under the constraint of the Treaty of Rome Article 151 (the culture article) arts and heritage policy is clearly defined as a matter for the individual member states, limiting any direct EU functions to co-operation, non-commercial exchanges and supplementary actions. Nevertheless, Article 151.4 states that [the EU] shall take cultural aspects into account in its actions under other provisions of this Treaty. The Brussels Commissions Department General for Education and Culture (DGE&C) has never dared run with this clause in any serious way. Civil servants, whilst not usually averse to expanding their own empires, are generally wary of antagonising larger established rival departments. Barrosos solution, after almost a years delay, has been to announce the setting up of a cross-departmental Task Force. Is there anyone intrepid enough to take on the role of leading this commando unit, or will the vested interests of its members simply cancel each other out?
Marginal impact
DGE&C will issue a Communication on Culture in mid-April, and launched an online consultation last autumn in preparation. The 500 or so responses made by the November closing date were fed into a public hearing in Brussels on 4 December. The background to the specific consultation questions stressed the following:
- Art and culture have a significant contribution to make in countering loss of identity and citizens feeling disconnected from the EU.
- Culture can be a positive element in active citizenship.
- Culture is important to the economic and social objectives of the Lisbon Agenda
and the role of creativity in enhancing Europes competitive edge.
The key issue will be whether the Communication is inspiring and pragmatic. Above all, will it contain any practical hooks finally offering Article 151.4 the possibility of making broader impact on EU policies? Coupled with some relaxation on the stringent voting rules in Article 151, this might encourage a more helpful outlook through the institutional reform process. Is DGE&C capable of embracing the instrumental and major change agendas, or will it remain at the margins, operating like a not very competent local arts council totally out of its depth?
The record suggests that officials will prefer to hug the coastline rather than brave the open sea. A report published in 1993 showed that their role in relation to substantial EU expenditure on culture (including the Regional and Social Funds) could only be traced in 7.7% of the total, accounting for just 0.06% of the Community Budget. It hasnt changed a lot. They prefer to entangle themselves in small-scale grant schemes like Culture 2000, or adjudicating European Cultural Capital bids uncontentious matters for the member states. The European Parliaments Culture Committee on the whole plays along with this since it recognises it cannot seriously challenge the combined governments of the member states. Seasoned Brussels cultural observers suspect that the existence of these and similar minor arts and heritage schemes is probably the biggest single obstacle to getting any serious engagement with culture moving within the Commission. However, all too often, such displacement activity is validated by the professional sector, grateful for any crumbs of financial support from the grown-ups dinner table.
Changing agendas
The policy and delivery focus for EU expenditure from 2007 to 2013 (the budget is agreed at 1.045% of the combined GDP of the member states) emphasises research, innovation, security, mobility, ecology and the environment, and a European dimension in education. This is a massive shift away from the old obsessions with volume production like the Common Agricultural Policy which swallowed up well over 40% of the total EU Budget.
If professional culture activists can raise their game and look outwards beyond self-interest to the opportunities created by these progressive and changing creative policy agendas there is plenty to engage with. This could help change habits and attitudes within the Commission. But if the traditional obsession continues to be of the internally focused, small-scale, top-up grant mentality, then dont expect any broader progress. Since Article 151 has never yet been properly employed there is no convincing argument for changing or strengthening it through the revived institutional reform process. DGE&Cs forthcoming Communication on Culture will indicate its preferred route map. It would be nice to be surprised but dont hold your breath.
Christopher Gordon has 35 years experience as an arts professional in the public sector, and is now an independent consultant in cultural policy.
e: christophergordon@compuserve.com