Publication

Mapping of EU funding for culture in the ENP

Mapping EU funding for culture in the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) countries and regions is a requirement that is mentioned in the Work Plan for Culture (2015-2018), adopted by the Council of the EU on the 25^th November 2014. Under the priority area ‘Promotion of cultural diversity, culture in EU external relations, and mobility’, one of the actions identified is ‘a study on existing programmes addressing culture in countries of the European Neighbourhood Policy’, to inform discussion and follow-up in the Council preparatory bodies in the field of culture, with the participation of the European External Action Service (EEAS).

In this context, the present report responds to this request. DG EAC and the authors have interpreted the assignment as including the following three tasks:

Map EU funding instruments and mechanisms to highlight opportunities for funding of culture in the ENP.

Map EU-funded activities for culture in the ENP, from 2014 to date, including initiatives in the design phase.

Identify successful examples (‘perceived best practices’) on the basis of documentation and interviews with EU staff in delegations and Brussels.

This mapping covers six financial instruments (European Neighbourhood Instrument – ENI/ENPI, Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace – IcSP, Creative Europe, Erasmus +, the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights – EIDHR and the Development Cooperation Instrument – DCI) offering opportunities to fund culture activities in the European Neighbourhood under the current EU financial framework 2014-2020. These instruments fund culture-related activities through programmes (that include projects) or specific implementation modalities. Financial instruments, programmes and implementation modalities are frameworks within which practitioners can look for EU funding opportunities in the field of culture.

Recent Published

The status and working conditions of artists and cultural and creative …

November 27, 2020

This study explores the status and the working conditions of artists and creative professionals. This includes examination of the career paths of artists and cultural and creative professionals, including entrepreneurship, nature of income, and influence of the market, access to finance, social security and cross-border mobility. Working conditions of artists and CCS professionals is understood in a larger sense, including artistic freedom/restrictions to creation, the aspect of working conditions of disadvantaged groups, and the specific working conditions of young people (in particular with view to the gig/platform economy, precariousness due to project-oriented jobs and self-employment). The study also considers aspects of creative professions as hidden unemployment (creative entrepreneur not out of free will but due to the impossibility to get another job and part-time employment traps for women with children, etc.), as well as the physical places and conditions where work of artists and CCS professionals takes place.

It should be mentioned that some of the work conducted in the context of this study took place during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This study is carried out by the European Expert Network on Culture and Audiovisual (EENCA) for the Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (DG EAC) of the European Commission. The New European Agenda for Culture adopted by the European Commission in May 2018 has three strategic objectives with social, economic and external dimensions. One of the concrete actions is to support Member States in ensuring fair remuneration for artists and creators through general and sector-specific dialogues. The Council Work Plan for Culture 2019-2022 identifies an ‘ecosystem supporting artists, cultural and creative professionals and European content’ as one of the five main priorities for European cooperation in cultural policy-making. Within this priority theme, the Work Plan provides for a study followed by an OMC group (Open Method of Coordination) on the status and working conditions of artists and cultural and creative professionals.

The final report, executive summary and the conclusions and recommendations can be downloaded using the links below:

Download Final Report

Download Executive Summary

Download Conclusions and Recommendations

Report on the Prague Platform on 'Cultural Heritage in the Digital Age'

February 13, 2020

Download

One of the 60 priority actions included in the European Framework for Action aims at reinforcing EU leadership and capitalising on it in the global arena on innovative aspects of heritage policies. In 2019, in order to jointly develop concrete solutions, the European Commission launched a series of conferences over a two-year period on the future of heritage, intended as global problem-solving platforms. These platforms, each with a different theme, involve national governments and their agencies, key global institutions, experts and young global leaders.

The platforms will help disseminate the results of ongoing experimentation and research among cultural heritage institutions and stakeholders, and in the field of social policies. This report relates to the second platform that was held on the 7th–8th October in Prague, – “Cultural Heritage in the Digital Age”. Two locations were utilised for the platform, the Dominican Baroque Refectory and the National Library of Czechia.

This is the purpose of the Platforms project: creating a moment of exchange among a wide variety of participants coming from diverse backgrounds, bearing unique visions, skills, and experience, to engage in an exercise of collective intelligence to develop solution-oriented proposals on specific, key fields where cultural heritage may continue to make a difference in the future. In its entirety, the project will consist of several appointments, each one on a different key topic and taking place in a different European capital, ideally drawing out a full cycle of proactive reflection that covers a wide spectrum of innovative, policy-relevant issues calling for attention, fresh ideas, and joint commitment from institutions, stakeholders and communities worldwide. The scope of the project therefore cuts across different policy areas and communities: culture, research, education, innovation, with a special focus on younger generations in view of the future on which and for which it is built.

The first Platform, devoted to the relationship between heritage and social innovation, took place in Dublin in April 2019. It experienced a broad level of participation and generated many valuable insights. This first event confirmed the hypothesis that the idea of a solution-oriented initiative may be useful and timely. Now is the moment to proceed further.

The second area on which the project focuses is the digital sphere, which is currently a frontier for research, experimentation and development of new models and practices in the heritage field. But this relationship goes far beyond the digitisation of heritage, or the potential of new digital platforms for expanding our capacity to experience heritage. It offers the possibility to reconstruct and re-live what had been lost, or more generally to boost the sensory and emotional impact of heritage-related experiences, and our capacity to connect experience and data, so as to allow a more profound, moving, and motivating approach.

The connection between heritage and the digital sphere may be regarded as a frontier of innovation, which can attract new generations of creators and technologists into a field where Europe has, and can further reinforce, a distinctive positioning and a recognized leadership at the global level. This can pave the way for new jobs, companies, and forms of cultural, social and economic value for local communities, while at the same time reinforcing and rejuvenating the relationship between heritage and European territories.

The digital sphere may be a powerful accelerator of change, which fully harnesses the potential of heritage as a source of cultural, social and economic value. However, for this to happen the right conditions have to be created. The digital revolution is very recent, and we still have to learn how to establish the right dialogue between the quickly changing hi-tech landscape where new technologies and tools keep on flowing in, and the heritage world that is accustomed to think in terms of historical time and long durations.

The digital sphere may be a catalyst that offers the possibility to re-define and even to re-purpose our relationship to heritage, to turn it into an organic, living reality that seamlessly connects to our processes of thought and imagination. This powerful synthesis requires a clear frame of mind and carefully chosen fields of experimentation and practice. Europe must be prepared to tackle this demanding challenge, and this Platform aims at providing very concrete insights and ideas on how to achieve this.

For this Platform, three areas were identified that span some of the key issues that mark the complex relationship between heritage and the digital sphere:

the dynamic relationship between digital and the intangible heritage;
the dialogue between heritage and digital technological innovations as a source of local inclusive growth and smart specialisation;
Digitally-enabled audience development as a form of active cultural participation.

Working on these three lines, the platform on Cultural Heritage in the Digital Age brought a fresh impetus to both digital innovation and the heritage communities of experts, professionals, and practitioners, opening up collaboration between the two spheres on an unprecedented scale.

Carrying capacity in sensitive cultural sites

December 13, 2019

Download

Recently, there has been a rapid tourism growth in various destinations across the EU Member States. However, with this dramatic growth there has also been challenges for sensitive cultural sites and the preservation of intangible cultural heritage. The most common challenge is overtourism which can lead to overcrowding, destruction of cultural heritage, environmental degradation, visitor and local resident’s dissatisfaction. Overtourism is also closely linked to the concept of carrying capacity of a specific geographic area. This concept, in turn, finds its origins in studies on the preservation of natural habitats of wild animals. However, the findings of said studies are nonetheless applicable to cultural heritage and intangible cultural heritage sites nowadays. Carrying capacity concerns the maximum number of tourists which can be accommodated within a specific site and challenges related to this are often tackled through capacity planning. The planning of the carrying capacity of a geographic area includes considerations for the maximum amount of visitors that can make use of the site without impacting/endangering the environment or causing dissatisfaction among local residents and other visitors.

The focus of carrying capacity studies has changed throughout the years. Initially, these took into consideration the environmental and infrastructural capacities of areas, while later on the social component was included. In the late 20^th century new carrying capacity models focused more on the acceptable limits of changes caused by tourism in certain areas, as opposed to the maximum number of visitors. This led to a greater significance of participatory planning – planning in cooperation with local communities and other tourism development stakeholders. Recently, carrying capacity models have aligned with the sustainable tourism development discourse, which focuses on meeting the needs of the current generations without compromising those of future generations.

This report outlines different carrying capacity models used throughout the years within the pillars of sustainable development in tourism – the economic, socio-cultural and environmental. The various models vary from the environmental carrying capacity approach of the 1970s to the most recent model of managing overtourism in urban destinations.

These can further be divided in two main groups – diagnostic models and implementation models. The former relates to identifying the acceptable limits of usage of a specific tourism area (e.g. national park, cultural heritage site, etc.), while the latter is based on qualitative and quantitative indicators for planning and managing tourism.

The general overview of the concept of carrying capacity, different models and their development throughout time is followed by examples of cases of sensitive cultural heritage sites. The Historic Centre of Bruges (Belgium), which is a part of the UNESCO World Heritage Site, has become one of the most visited tourist destinations in Flanders and has been faced with growing number of tourists arriving in recent years. Consequently, all of the implications of overtourism have led to the necessity to adopt measures which mainly relate to the efficient management, regulation and limitation of supply or demand. The report discusses in detail the specific measures taken. Cinque Terre (Italy) is another cultural heritage site faced with overtourism issues due to its popularity amongst tourists.

Moreover, the report provides two examples of intangible cultural heritage cases. Intangible cultural heritage such as oral traditions, social practices, rituals, and many more are of great significance for preserving and maintaining cultural diversity in the face of globalization. In Belgium, shrimp fishing on a horseback is a form of traditional craftsmanship closely connected with nature. This craft is passed on within families from generation to generation and this is why there have been efforts to preserve these practices. In Finland, the Finnish Sámi Parliament adopted guidelines for Culturally Responsible Sámi Tourism. The reason behind this measure is that often tourism stakeholders with no connection to the Sámi community and culture utilise different elements from it.

In order for cultural heritage sites and intangible cultural heritage to be preserved, problems relating to carrying capacity have to be diagnosed. This can be done using objective quantitative data on acceptable carrying capacity limits and subjective qualitative data which is based on local and tourist perceptions or value judgements on such limits. In this report, we have identified that the optimal approach in diagnostics is to use both objective data and subjective perception and aligning these to the three pillars of sustainability: economic, social and environment. Within the economic pillar the two most important indicators to be included are growth indicators and seasonality indicators. The most relevant diagnostics within the social pillar include the concentration of demand and supply and the satisfaction of both local residents and tourists. Lastly, within the environmental pillar diagnostics should evaluate indicators such as the quality of the environment, air quality, waste management and transportation. Furthermore, in addition to the three pillars of sustainability, consideration should also be given to the political participatory pillar due to its increasing importance in recent overtourism and anti-tourism debates. Indicators to be analysed within this pillar include participation of the local population, political support for development and media perception.

The report is concluded by a recommendations and implementation chapter. While implementation actions would be different in accordance with the specific characteristics of each site, in this report implementation measures are summarised in several groups:

Implementation measures for improving awareness and communication with different stakeholders;
Implementation measures in the field of efficient management;
Implementation measures related to development of infrastructure;
Implementation of regulation measures related to conservation and protection;
Implementation measures for limitation of supply or demand.

Within the first set of measures, potential actions include: raising awareness, promotion of lesser known sites, etc. Regarding efficient management, measures could include improving the quality of services, redistribution of visitor flows, entrance fees and/or additional charges, and so on. Implementation measures relating to development of infrastructure are highly important and would involve the improvement of waste management and destination transport accessibility, introduction of sustainable transportation infrastructure, etc. Regulation measures would focus on the active collaboration between sensitive cultural site management and policy makers. Lastly, for example, limitation of the number of organised tours at sensitive cultural sites could be implemented as a measure for the limitation of supply or demand.