51996IR0206

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the European Commission's 'First Report on the consideration of cultural aspects in European Community action` (97/C 116/09)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the European Commission communication to the European Parliament, the Council and the Committee of the Regions entitled the First Report on the consideration of cultural aspects in European Community action (COM(96) 160 final);

having regard to its decision on 8 March 1996 to direct Commission 7 'Citizens' Europe, Research, Culture, Youth and Consumers` to draw up the relevant opinion;

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 206/96 rev. 2) adopted by Commission 7 on 26 November 1996 (rapporteur: Mrs Tuulikki Karjalainen);

whereas it is necessary to promote the preservation of Europe's cultural heritage and particularly its local and regional diversity, as noted earlier by the COR in its opinions on the Kaleidoscope 2000, Ariane and Raphaël cultural programmes () and the INFO 2000 programme ();

whereas linguistic diversity is one of the cornerstones of Europe's cultural heritage, as noted by the COR in its opinion on the multilingual information society (),

adopted the following opinion at its 16th plenary session on 15 and 16 January 1997 (meeting of 16 January).

1. Introduction

1.1. The European Commission has issued its first report on consideration of the cultural dimension in European Community action. The report can be regarded as a preliminary survey of the way in which cultural aspects have been taken into account in different areas of Community action, mostly prior to the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty, which brought the cultural field within the Community's competence. The report is wide in its coverage, thorough and clearly written. The report is not a programme; rather, it mainly reviews past developments and contains very few measures on which a stand can be taken.

1.2. The COR notes that the report and the debate on it make a significant contribution to promoting awareness of the cultural dimension in Community action. Therefore it is important in connection with this first report to define the underlying guidelines and principles on the basis of which the special nature of culture can be taken into account in all areas of Community action. Consequently, the COR deplores the fact that the report does not attempt to define cultural activity. This is particularly unfortunate since the lack of a definition seems to result in too narrow a concept of culture. The lack of a definition may also explain why the report makes no attempt to assess in which areas of Community action the cultural dimension has not been taken into account satisfactorily.

1.3. The need for a definition is further borne out by the fact that culture is often assigned an instrumental role in other areas of policy; it is seen as a means of attaining goals in other spheres of activity. To avoid this instrumental approach having a detrimental impact on culture, e.g. by emphasizing quantity rather than quality or tradition rather than innovation, EU legislation should make it clear that cultural actions must operate under the special terms applicable to culture, while respecting the individuality of the activity concerned.

2. General comments on the report

2.1. The report analyses the position of culture in Community action on the basis of the Maastricht Treaty, particularly with regard to Article 128. It concludes (Conclusions, point 2) by specifying future lines of action for the Community's cultural policy. These lines of action are based on measures taken to date in the cultural sphere as well as on the Union's integration goals, the achievement of which, it is felt, can be supported by cultural means. However, some aspects of these goals conflict with cultural aspirations. In this connection, the COR would draw attention to two problem areas, in particular.

2.2. First, the COR wishes to underline that preserving and promoting Europe's cultural diversity while strengthening the basis for a common European identity and an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe poses a special challenge.

2.2.1. Cultural identity is born out of the interaction with external influences and other cultures of traditions that have been shaped by common experiences, history and living conditions. As long as localities, regions or nations retain their own way of living and outlook on life, the distinctiveness of their cultures - and hence cultural diversity - is preserved. Because of common history, the identities of Europeans naturally have some elements in common. A choice nevertheless has to be made as to what extent this similarity is to be strengthened. In any event, the preservation of diversity has been chosen as the cornerstone of Union cultural policy.

2.2.2. Integration, the fundamental principle underlying the European Union, is based on a very idealistic goal: preserving peace between the peoples of Europe. This goal has been successfully pursued by promoting cooperation and interaction between the peoples of Europe. At present, however, it appears that one of the means of achieving integration - the economy - has gained a dominant position, and economic integration is becoming a separate goal of its own. In the view of the COR, a more critical analysis needs to be made of whether development driven by the demands of economic integration will lead to a degree of similarity in European ways of life such that cultural diversity will inevitably suffer or even disappear.

2.2.3. Community measures in the cultural field focus primarily on language, the building and crafts heritage and audiovisual culture. Support for national and minority languages is judged to be the most concrete way of contributing to the preservation of cultural diversity. Indeed, language must be regarded as the traditional factor sustaining cultural identity. In the view of the COR, the Community's measures in this area are not sufficiently extensive, nor have they been adequately funded.

2.2.4. The preservation and exploitation of cultural heritage through Community-funded measures and programmes - primarily in the field of tourism - help to highlight the significance of cultural identity. The COR feels that the approach adopted by the Community in this sector has been, and continues to be, too narrowly focused. It seems that normally only material objects such as buildings, monuments, crafts and art treasures in museums are included in heritage. Europe also possesses a priceless intellectual cultural heritage. This can be a strong strategic element serving both common identity and regional development, on the basis of which contemporary artists are constantly creating new artistic culture. The key, strategic feature of European identity should be a multicultural society which provides for an awareness, comparison and identification of common cultural features in all material and/or spiritual areas of human endeavour.

2.2.5. At the moment, Europe's cultural diversity and common identity are in flux and interacting with each other in the worlds of art and culture. They - like culture generally - are being moulded in localities and regions, in particular. These processes are strongly shaping the future. Although delicate issues are involved, the COR believes that not even the subsidiarity principle should preclude the consideration of these processes in Community documents and programmes. In fact, one field of modern culture - audiovisual culture - has already been incorporated as a special area of focus in the Community's cultural policy.

2.2.6. Audiovisual culture is perhaps the area where the Community's overall objectives and the development needs of the cultural sector can most readily be reconciled. This is an industry which offers major economic opportunities but at the same time exposes Europe to fierce competition from American and, increasingly, Asian producers. Europe's economic and technological know-how has found a new, rapidly expanding industry. At the same time, however, it has been recognized that one of the key conditions for competitiveness in this field has a content, cultural and even art-related dimension. Measures taken to promote the competitiveness of the audiovisual sector also support European cultural diversity, as the contents of audiovisual products grow out of local and regional cultures (a good example of this is the INFO 2000 programme).

2.2.7. In the view of the COR it should be sought to implement the same kind of policy more widely in other areas of creative culture and art. The Community should really do more than at present to support the distinctiveness and diversity of European cultures, which are Europe's strength and distinguishing characteristic. The COR is aware that in the cultural sector, in particular, drawing the line between regional and national measures, on the one hand, and Community measures, on the other, is an extremely delicate and difficult issue. Evidently, it is because of this that the Community has tended to view culture as a means rather than an end. The COR feels, however, that culture should also be regarded as a result and objective of Community action.

2.2.8. In the view of the COR it is also evident that culture, because of its special nature, does not even enjoy the same status as other instruments. It is judged desirable to develop the fundamental requirements of the 'hard ` sectors - the economy and technology - in order to improve European competitiveness but there is little scope for Community measures promoting 'product development` in European culture, i.e. for encouraging creative activity. In the view of the COR, however, it is particularly important to also examine what constitutes the basis for the competitiveness of European culture in the future. For example, the narrow concept of culture employed in the context of the Structural Funds easily leads to development strategies being oriented exclusively along economic and technological lines. The COR feels that only a broader cultural perspective can have real strategic significance for the development of remote regions or regions undergoing radical change.

2.2.9. It is essential to recognize that action in other sectors may have far greater effects on the cultural field than measures influencing culture directly. According to the report, the special nature of culture has already been taken into account in Community action in many ways and will receive even greater attention in the future. The COR would underline that the purpose of integration is not to lead to a degree of similarity in ways of life such that cultural diversity is forced to take secondary importance. Therefore the COR calls on the Community to take special measures to safeguard cultural diversity.

2.3. Secondly, the COR wishes to point out that implementation of the 'Citizens' Europe` through the strengthening of European identity may be problematic from the point of view of subsidiarity.

2.3.1. In the report's conclusions it is stated that 'The desire is to make the citizen once again the centre of the European enterprise...`. The COR feels that citizens cannot adopt the European identity if the European dimension is not evident in their everyday life. There again, if day-to-day life is Europeanized, the traditional local and regional identities of citizens could weaken. There are many examples which show that cultural identity cannot be given to or forced on people from above. Looked at from the cultural point of view, the creation and accentuation of 'European identity` seem somewhat questionable - a commercial and/or power politics phenomenon.

2.3.2. The only true way for citizens to identify with their environment is to actively participate in that environment and, through their actions, evoke response and gain acceptance. In the view of the COR it is essential to examine whether citizens' present chances of influencing Union activity are such that citizens do indeed feel that they are actively involved in Europe and gaining acceptance at this level. Accordingly, the COR believes that the Community should pay greater attention in all its programmes, but particularly in its cultural programmes, to ensuring that its actions reach civic organizations and citizens through the complicated processes of public-authority bodies. Programmes and sub-programmes providing scope for the interchange of ideas and experiences focusing on joint projects involving cooperation with people from other regions of the Union are one way of stimulating involvement in the European process. For broader participation and greater democracy, both within the EU and in the new Member States, it is important to create such opportunities outside the cultural sphere per se and within activities under the responsibility of regional and local authorities, e.g. cultural activities organized in conjunction with care, treatment and housing

2.3.3. In the view of the COR it is, however, possible for the European Union to project a positive image of itself through its cultural image. This kind of image can only be based on realities, however. Since the report repeatedly underscores the importance of culture in creating a positive image, the Community should perhaps give careful consideration to the cultural image of its own activities. The COR feels that the Community's present activities cannot be characterized as strongly and manifestly pro-cultural and therefore it is necessary to examine how the Community's cultural profile can be heightened.

2.3.4. All culture is essentially a local phenomenon. The most important right from the point of view of local culture is the right to participate in cultural activities and produce cultural goods and services. On the other hand, it should always be borne in mind that local cultures in Europe have traditionally interacted with each and thus many originally local cultural features have become very widespread and acquired a general European character.

2.3.5. The European Community's decision-making in cultural affairs is governed to a large extent by the subsidiarity principle (Article 128 requires the Community to respect the diversity of national and regional cultures, prohibits the harmonization of laws, requires unanimity in Council decisions and obliges the Council to consult the Committee of the Regions). However, this means that culture is understood in a narrow sense to mean non-commercial activity related to the arts and heritage and concerned with content.

2.3.6. In fact, laws and regulations governing cultural goods and services, copyright and even antiques are now being harmonized, at least up to certain limits. Similarly, cultural goods and services are, without exception, liable to at least minimum rates of VAT in all Member States. Though the cultural dimension has been taken into account in tax-related issues, this has often been in relation to other industrial and commercial activities and rarely from the point of view of the special nature of culture. It is intended that the subsidiarity principle be complied with in the cultural field. Therefore, in the view of the COR, the judgements of the Court of Justice referred to in the report should be examined critically to determine whether they have, in fact, led to circumvention of the subsidiarity principle in the cultural field.

2.3.7. On the basis of Article 128(4) of the Treaty, the Community will in future have to pay increasing attention in all areas of its competence to the effects of its action on people's everyday culture. Culture worthy of conservation is not confined merely to localities' and regions' savoir-faire based on traditional practices and industries. The COR would point out that the traditions of the future are the diverse patterns of everyday life in today's Europe. If the protection of these traditions in accordance with the subsidiarity principle is impossible in the Community because of the preference given to industry and commerce, then some kind of common European identity is possible for the people of Europe - but only at the expense of diversity and individuality.

2.3.8. A sense of identity is evoked through identification with one's environment and genuine identification requires positive interaction, including the possibility to influence one's environment. In the view of the COR the approach adopted by the Community towards culture rightly recognizes that local, regional and national identities are essential requirements for a healthy European identity. Community measures in the cultural field are also guided by the principle of respect for and preservation of cultural diversity. By the same token, cultural programmes and other programmes with a cultural dimension all emphasize the importance of promoting closer contacts and interchange: exchanges of people, transfer of information, experiences and skills, joint projects and permanent cooperation networks. The COR supports such kinds of activity because they do not touch upon the subsidiarity principle but are gradually helping to build a positive sense of European identity in people's minds.

2.3.9. 'European citizenship` is already well advanced and is being furthered naturally by implementation of the four freedoms. It was pointed out above that language is one of the most important factors helping to sustain cultural identity. By supporting the position of national languages, the Community underlines the importance of cultural diversity. It could promote the unifying role which language has to play in Europe by encouraging citizens to learn other European languages, in addition to their mother tongue.

2.3.10. Now that citizens of Member States can study in any Community country, obtain Community-wide recognition for their qualifications and work in any Community country whilst enjoying the same social security benefits as citizens of that country, a sense of European citizenship quickly takes root, particularly among young people. That section of the population which is active, eager to learn and gets on well in life will exploit these opportunities but the rest of the population have fewer opportunities to develop a sense of European identity.

3. Consideration of the cultural dimension in the areas of community action mentioned in the report

In addition to the questions of principle discussed above, the COR wishes to make the following detailed comments on the report.

3.1. Culture and the Single Market - regulatory aspects (Part I)

3.1.1. Freedom of movement and professionals in the cultural sector (Part I, Chapter I)

In the view of the COR, further consideration should be given to the definition - even if only a loose one - of the position of artists. Self-employed artists, in particular, frequently encounter difficulties with the authorities over the interpretation of tax and social security-related issues owing to their exceptional working methods and conditions.

3.1.2. Copyright and related rights (Part I, Chapter II)

A high level of protection is essential. Legislation needs to be developed further in those fields where it is inadequate (e.g. visual arts and computer applications).

However, efforts should be made to agree with interested parties (beneficiaries) in this field on a level of protection that allows the widespread use of works of art and cultural products, especially for non-commercial purposes (e.g. museums and libraries).

3.1.3. Taxation (Part I, Chapter III)

The COR endorses the view that it should be sought to bring video and multimedia under the reduced VAT rate because of the very important role they play in culture today. In the view of the COR, consideration should be given to allowing exemption from VAT for the production of cultural goods and services and work performed in the cultural sector. It must be possible for national states to use several different means to support culture; traditionally, one of these has been tax regulation and particularly tax exemption. For example, organizers of cultural events are hit by VAT in many ways, both when buying services and selling their own services. The COR would underline that this burden reduces the scope for cultural activities at local and regional level.

3.1.4. Competition policy (Part I, Chapter IV)

As regards the debate on public-service broadcasting, the COR feels that the provision of funding should be supported on both regional and cultural grounds, insofar as operators in this sector are required to produce programmes which serve regional needs and promote cultural values. In the commercial broadcasting sector, the most frequently encountered problem is lack of diversity in programming. If this shortcoming could be remedied by common European training measures or other initiatives, this would undoubtedly add a welcome new element to our cultural diversity.

3.1.5. Cultural assets (Part I, Chapter IV)

The right of each Member State to decide itself which assets make up its national heritage conforms well with cultural aspirations. The COR hopes to see the same kind of practice applied as widely as possible in connection with other culture-related issues, also at local and regional level.

3.1.6. Traditional and regional agricultural produce (Part I, Chapter VI)

The COR would point out that cultural diversity is promoted and respected by protecting the local identity of agricultural products, supporting local savoir-faire traditions and conserving traditional landscapes typical of such production.

3.1.7. Culture in the judgements of the Court of Justice (Part I, Chapter VII)

The report notes that the Court of Justice attempts to strike a balance between cultural and economic aspects with due regard for the requirement of an evaluation of the 'principal/secondary` effects. The aim is to prevent Member States from using culture to disguise the pursuit of economic interests, e.g. in competitive conditions.

3.1.8. The COR feels that the Community should take account of the cultural diversity of everyday life in seeking to create a citizens' Europe and a Europe of the regions. Many small-scale commercial and productive practices include everyday cultural aspects of local and regional importance which could change as a result of, e.g., standardization and consumer policy measures. The Court of Justice will certainly have to pay increasing attention to such circumstances on the basis of Article 128(4).

3.2. Culture and the Community's internal policies (Part II)

3.2.1. Culture, cohesion and balanced regional development (Part II, Chapter I)

3.2.1.1. Economic and social cohesion is now one of the Community's main policy areas, accounting for over 30 % of the Community budget. The Structural Funds (ERDF, ESF, EAGFF-Guidance, IFOP) concentrate on providing aid to peripheral regions and regions undergoing structural change. Their prime objective is to encourage structural change in economic activities so that new jobs are created, either on the basis of new know-how or by applying modern methods to exploit traditional know-how.

3.2.1.2. The Structural Funds are the main source of financing for cultural activities in the Community (representing over 80 % of the total funds granted to cultural projects). However, an examination of 75 operational programmes in the Objective 1 area revealed that only 11 included subsidiary programmes which were expressly related to measures in the cultural field (12,5 % of the total budgeted funds for the 75 projects). Culture accounts for a substantially smaller share of assistance allocated under other programmes.

3.2.1.3. The COR would point out that the Structural Funds also grant assistance on non-cultural grounds: culture is used in the programmes as a means of development and, at least to date, in accordance with a restricted interpretation. The report notes 'That these programmes are aimed at economic and social development and relate to the cultural sphere insofar as cultural activities may be involved in a policy for enhancing regional or local resources and an economic development strategy.`

Culture and regional programmes

3.2.1.4. Culture is considered to have two main tasks in the development of regions and municipalities: 1) to create jobs and 2) to enhance the image and appeal of the region of the locality concerned. The programmes provide the principal means for carrying out these tasks: e.g. the creation of jobs 1) by exploiting heritage, primarily in tourism and small firms in the craft sector, and 2) by developing the cultural industry.

3.2.1.5. It may be because of Community guidance or views prevalent in the regions that culture has not been considered a strategic factor of wider importance in regional development programmes through which the innovativeness and changes of attitude required by periods of radical change can be encouraged. The COR would underline that every regional development programme should contain an explicit cultural component as well as a cultural component based on the region's local potential and needs. This latter component should be funded in just the same way as other projects in the programme. This calls for cooperation and coordination between DG XVI and DG X, which will have to be strengthened in order to enhance the cultural dimension of regional development.

3.2.1.6. Projects in the cultural field are particularly demanding, as they have to combine the professional skills of two very different worlds: thorough knowledge of the special character and content of culture, on the one hand, and administrative and organizational skills, on the other. Normally, knowledge of the substance of culture is more important but is in shorter supply and therefore greater attention needs to be paid in regional development measures to providing further training in the management skills required in the cultural sector. The COR would underline that entrepreneurial activity is not possible in the cultural sector without such knowledge and wide-ranging skills. There is vast potential for innovation in this sector, which should be harnessed in the interests of structural change.

3.2.1.7. We are accustomed to the fact that impressive results can be achieved in the cultural field with even comparatively small investments. It is, however, clear that if really significant results are to be obtained in terms of overall development, image-building and employment, just as much will have to be invested in this sector as in any of the 'hard` sectors.

3.2.1.8. The European Commission proposes that the significance of culture in regional programmes should be examined by defining a number of test zones in Objective 5b regions. The Committee of the Regions strongly endorses this initiative and proposes that test zones be designated in the Objective 2 and 6 regions as well. Similarly, more information should be obtained on the job-creation effects of culture in the regions.

Community initiatives

3.2.1.9. In the view of the COR, it is regrettable that the cultural dimension is estimated to represent only about 1 % of total allocations under the Interreg II programme for the period 1994-1999. Border regions are of particular interest from the cultural point of view and the COR therefore proposes that the Community allocate funds to projects in these areas as an intrinsic part of the programme's cultural dimension.

3.2.1.10 Cultural cooperation also helps the formation of civil society in the new democracies. For example, in Russia the strengthening of civil society and culture is an essential requirement for transition to democracy. Consequently, promotion of cultural cooperation at local and regional level would support the basic thrust of the European Union's policy towards Russia. Cultural cooperation is also the most effective way to learn and appreciate how another society works and what its values are. This, in turn, helps to foster cooperation in the other sectors. Accordingly, the COR proposes that a cultural dimension also be included in the Tacis and Phare programmes.

3.2.1.11. The European Commission notes that the cultural dimension has been strengthened in the rural development projects financed under the Leader II programme. In the view of the COR, lessons could be drawn from the Leader projects in this regard in structuring other regional development programmes.

Pilot projects under Article 10 of the ERDF rules

3.2.1.12. There is also scope under Article 10 for cultural projects of many kinds. Criticism can be levelled at the narrow content of the only field - 'Culture and economic development` - which focuses specifically on culture. Once again, the projects falling under this heading are limited to exploiting heritage in tourism and the craft sector. In the view of the COR innovative pilot projects, in particular, can be expected to embody a more extensive strategic conception of the significance of culture.

3.2.1.13. A broader strategical perspective of the importance of culture can be highlighted through pilot projects in integrated programming and systematic development of environmental, cultural and tourist services. The aim is to stimulate, in geographical areas sharing the same problems, an economic and social growth drive which enlists the widescale involvement of public and private sector players, thereby promoting the indigenous development of the areas concerned and the creation of new jobs.

3.2.2. Culture, social policy and human resources (Part II/Chapter II)

Culture, employment and social cohesion

3.2.2.1. The COR notes with satisfaction that the European Social Fund (ESF) and its supplementary programmes seem to offer opportunities to promote the reintegration of workers who have become unemployed in the cultural sector, to obtain support for the development of innovative forms of work in the cultural field and to use cultural activities in a variety of ways to combat exclusion. The extent to which these opportunities are exploited depends on the inventiveness and professional skills of the parties who are responsible for cultural affairs at different levels in the Member States.

3.2.2.2. It is important for the Committee of the Regions to gain access to the results of the experiments and evaluations conducted under the LEDA programme. The report notes that there is a shortage of statistics on culture. The Community should take long-term measures to remedy this defect.

Culture and human resources

3.2.2.3. The COR notes that the Community's education and training programmes offer a wealth of opportunities for cultural projects of various kinds. The formation of a European identity depends to a very large extent on how students in schools and higher education obtain information on Europe's cultures and what kind of picture they form of Europe and Union activities. The well-being of children and young people, accessible to all on equal terms, is of the utmost importance for Europe's future. This is particularly true in the case of cultural fulfilment. Within the EU there are a number of good examples of child and youth culture 'best practices` which deserve to be supported, expanded and publicized. The COR recommends fostering special opportunities for European child and youth culture networks and back-up.

3.2.2.4. The opportunities for exchanges and training of artists and art students are also important from the cultural point of view.

3.2.2.5. The Lingua programme for the support of rare languages and the promotion of proficiency in European languages is in complete harmony with the Article 128 objectives concerning conservation of the diversity of Europe's cultures and improving knowledge of them. The COR supports the development of programmes like the Lingua programme for application by the Community in other fields related to minority cultures.

3.2.3. Culture and advanced technologies (Part II, Chapter III)

3.2.3.1. This is one of the Community's major areas of activity, and its objective is to strengthen the international competitiveness of European industry and improve the quality of life in Europe. However, technology seems, along with the economy, to be an area which easily becomes an end in itself. In comparison with the resources invested in technological development, the funds devoted to the development of content are minimal. The COR would point out that in allocating funds to technology, consideration should also be given to what is meant by this 'quality of life` that it is being sought to achieve with the aid of technology.

3.2.3.2. The COR endorses the view put forward in the report according to which technology opens up new opportunities e.g. for museums, libraries and audiovisual culture. The idea put forward in the report that the role of the Community is to act as a catalyst in creating the framework within which the cultural world (content owners) can collaborate with industrial and commercial interests could, at best, lead to balanced development. However, in the view of the COR, careful thought has to be given to how 'high cultural quality` can be maintained in a commercially competitive environment operating on purely market terms, especially as far as minority cultures, which are the essence of cultural diversity, are concerned.

3.2.4. Culture and other internal policies (Part II, Chapter IV)

Culture and environment

3.2.4.1. Since matters concerning the natural environment are treated as a separate entity in Community policy, all other environmental matters can be said to be of a cultural nature to a greater or lesser degree. The COR feels that it is important to give greater recognition and weight to the cultural dimension at all levels of environmental policy.

3.2.4.2. The environment is the physical surroundings in which we live, and as such is one of the most important factors affecting us. Our everyday environment is made up of objects, housing and transport infrastructure, works of art and changing elements of nature. The COR would underline that, besides seeking to preserve balance in the natural environment, environmental planning should take account of cultural aspects. Architecture, design, town planning and planning of buildings should respect the best of regional, national and European traditions and pay attention to the attractiveness of the conditions in which we live by giving prominence to aesthetic, historical and artistic aspects. This is not simply a question of tourism but rather the quality of life of every individual.

3.2.4.3. The COR would stress that greater attention should be paid in the Community's environmental policy to recognition and appraisal of the cultural dimension.

Tourism and culture

3.2.4.4. The importance of tourism has already been referred to above in connection with regional development. In this section of the report, the European Commission notes that cultural tourism has an important role to play in developing a sense of European identity. The COR concurs with the concern expressed by the EU Commission about the potential threat posed to the integrity of cultural heritage by uncontrolled flows of tourists.

3.2.4.5. The COR would underline that local inhabitants, especially in areas undergoing major change, easily become the most poorly paid section of the workforce in the tourist industry unless special attention is paid to increasing their professional skills and know-how.

Culture and research

3.2.4.6. The COR would point out that cultural research seems to have focused largely on projects designed to conserve historical buildings and monuments. The report also mentions research into social problems with a strong cultural component and the increasing weight given to the cultural dimension in the Community's RTD policy.

3.2.4.7. In the view of the COR, extensive RTD-related projects should be promoted in the cultural field - especially as they frequently have to take the development of methodology as their point of departure. Similarly, evaluation systems should be developed.

SMEs, commerce and culture

3.2.4.8. The report notes that SMEs active in the cultural sector represent a significant cultural dimension, but one which is difficult to identify and evaluate within present Community policies. The COR would stress that this is something which must be done, otherwise Community policy will obviously have to be changed, because what is at stake here is the emergence of new cultural skills in this area of Community action.

The social economy and culture

3.2.4.9. Civic organizations generally play an active role in the cultural sphere. The COR would point out that the activities of social economy organizations are particularly valuable as they build a bridge between government and citizens. It is through the voluntary activities of such organizations that citizens develop an attachment to democratic society and make their own contribution to it. It is also through these organizations that citizens' idealism and true sense of culture enter Community action as a counterpart to the emphasis placed on economic and political aspects. Accordingly, the COR believes that the Community should give more encouragement to the activities of social economy organizations with a view to promoting participation, pluralism and democratization. Furthermore, specific rules governing the form of European associations should be introduced as soon as possible.

Town-twinning programme

3.2.4.10. The town-twinning programme helps to enhance the European dimension among the citizens of Europe. The COR considers this type of ongoing cooperation, which is close to the 'grass roots`, to be particularly important and feels that action should be taken at Community level to encourage an increase in the cultural component of these activities.

3.3. Audiovisual policy (Part III)

3.3.1. The COR would point out that audiovisual policy is perhaps the area of Community action which best combines general economic and technological principles and consideration of cultural aspects. The European area for audiovisual services - 'Television Without Frontiers` - contributes to the creation of a European identity and a sense of belonging together, whilst offering a forum for the diversity of Europe's cultures. The promotion of the European programme industry supports the internal, qualitative aspect of culture in a valuable way. The COR hopes that a similar kind of approach will be applied more widely in other artistic and cultural fields.

3.4. Culture in the Community's external relations (Part IV)

3.4.1. The COR would point out that the cultural dimension is also an important component of the Community's international relations. However, the Community does not have an effective coordination and organization system or a budget for managing this area of Community policy. The COR considers it important to intensity cooperation and coordination between DG 1 and DG X. In addition, the COR would reiterate the need to strengthen the cultural dimension in the Tacis, Phare, MEDA and Interreg II programmes. The cultural aspects of cooperation with the associated countries should be taken into account in all policy areas as the cultural and linguistic diversity of these countries forms part of the cultural heritage on which European identity is founded.

3.4.2. In the COR's view, Article l28(3) of the Maastricht Treaty requires the Union and the Member States to foster cultural cooperation with third countries and the competent international organizations in the sphere of culture, such as UNESCO and the Council of Europe. The COR would highlight the importance of such cooperation. Culture thrives on interchange and cross-fertilization. If encouragement is given to the flow of ideas and new cultural contacts with non-EU countries, the long-term result will be to infuse European culture with fresh vigour. Similarly, the COR would underline the contribution which immigrants make to the enrichment of European culture.

3.4.3. In the view of the COR global cultural diversity and, along with it, Europe's responsibility for underdeveloped countries should be accorded a more prominent position in Community policy.

4. Conclusions

4.1. The COR would point out that cultural dimension is discernible in all areas of Community action, although it has still not been taken into account to its full extent. In several sectors there are already far more opportunities to obtain financing for cultural projects than prospective applicants are aware of. Programmes and documents should therefore provide more information on the significance of culture and on the wealth of opportunities that exists for cultural projects. In addition, the Community should regard culture as a driving force of development in its own right which should be incorporated explicitly in all strategies. The COR would underline that the Community must also improve the provision of information on opportunities for financing culture and encourage cooperation between operators in industry and commerce, on the one hand, and the cultural sector, on the other hand.

4.2. The Commission promises to take internal measures to ensure that in future legislative proposals and the implementation of Community policies are compatible with cultural objectives. But in the view of the COR this does not go quite far enough to guarantee recognition of the significance of culture. To be effective, the report must lead to more measures that are specifically aimed at enhancing the cultural dimension. For purposes of ensuring that cultural interests make their imprint on other programme areas, the COR feels that all the directorates-general should be able to draw on cultural expertise. Similarly, all EU initiatives in the cultural sphere should be followed up and continuously monitored, from both the quantitative and qualitative angles. It should be established whether this will require the strengthening of DG X's coordinating role and resources. In any event, cooperation aimed at coordinating the cultural dimension should be initiated between all the major areas of Community action, in the same way as is done today in connection with environmental issues. There must be ongoing monitoring and appraisal of the implementation of the cultural dimension, and the European Commission's next comprehensive report on the subject should be published in five years' time at the latest.

4.3. In the view of the COR culture must be regarded as a goal of Community policy rather than an instrument, in other words as an opportunity for each citizen to give effect to humanity in their own lives in the truest and most profound way. Europe's greatest treasure is undoubtedly the diversity and flowering of its cultures. The Community bears a heavy responsibility for the conservation of this treasure.

Brussels, 16 January 1997.

The Chairman of the Committee of the Regions

Pasqual MARAGALL i MIRA

() OJ No C 100, 2. 4. 1996, p. 30, 35, 119.

() OJ No C 129, 2. 5. 1996, p. 39.

() OJ No C 337, 11. 11. 1996, p. 45.