REPORT Eastern Partnership Platform 4 Expert Seminar on Cultural Policy Brussels, 26 September 2012 Executive Summary An expert seminar on cultural policy was held on 26 September 2012 in Brussels in the framework of the Eastern Partnership Platform 4 (see agenda and list of participants in annex 1 and 2). The main objective of the event was to prepare the high level/ministerial Conference on culture foreseen by the work programme of Platform 4 for the first half of 2013. The Ministerial Conference should be able to highlight the contribution culture can bring to the different threads of development: (1) political reforms, democratisation, civil society development (2) economic development, job creation (3) and social cohesion. The most credible advocates of the power of culture in these dimensions are high level players outside the culture sector. This is why it would be of utmost importance if Eastern Partners could mobilise beyond their Ministers of Culture a number of Ministers/Secretaries of State of Economy, Regional Development, Education or Employment etc. These high level representatives could bring to the Conference some "stories" proving the potential of culture in the three fields. In this context Partners were asked to provide the following information to the Commission before 15 November: 1. name of contact points in each country responsible for the organisation of the Conference; 2. name of high level participants/ministers (also outside the cultural field) who would be interested to participate; 3. "stories" to tell, focusing on the output, with possible figures/data. A draft programme will become available in January 2013. It was agreed that the Ministerial Conference should give guidance on priority issues to tackle in the framework of the Partnership, in accordance with the the Eastern Partnership Multilateral Roadmap. The results of the Conference would be take into account in the context of the autumn 2013 Eastern Partnership meeting of Heads of State and Government.. Exchanges during the seminar have clearly shown an emerging common understanding on the need to promote a wider recognition of the role of culture in socio-economic development and political reforms. Partners have shared their experience in this regard, including how inter-ministerial cooperation or dialogue with civil society works in their countries. Partners concurred about the need to develop a more startegic approach to culture at the national level. Ukraine offered to host the 2013 regional seminar on the implementation of the 2005 UNESCO Convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions, foreseen by the work programme of Platform 4. A first discussion took place concerning the main results/recommendations of the reports prepared in the framework of the Eastern Partnership Culture Programme. The role and
needs of civil society were also addressed during the seminar, with some concrete proposals from the representatives of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum. Awareness was raised about potential EU tools in the field of cultural policy reform (TAIEX, twinning). I. Session I of the seminar focused on an exchange of experience among Partners regarding best practices of or challenges related to building a case for culture as a vector for political and socio-economic development, including in the area of interministerial cooperation (putting culture on the political agenda). Regarding experience at EU level, the European Commission (Xavier Troussard, Chair of the meeting) recalled that ten years ago there was only a small European programme without any articulation of policy at European level. In order to move ahead, there was a need not only for a clear political commitment, but also to gather evidences and data. In this context the 2006 study on the economy of culture clearly showed how culture had a key role in economic development, highlighting thus new elements beyond its intrinsic value. For furthering policy development at EU level, the Commission had to work together with civil society and business communities (structured dialogue) and with Member States (through a new working method: Open Method of Coordination). It was also essential for the Commission to engage within its own administration and strengthen cooperation between the Directorate General for Education and Culture and other Directorates General responsible for regional development, social integration, external relations etc. Finally, the European Commission made reference to the Communication on "Promoting cultural and creative sectors for growth and jobs in the EU" adopted on 26 September 2012 (the day of the seminar), which represents an excellent result of this process (annex 3). Georgia highlighted that in the post-soviet context the most important challenges in the area of culture were linked to skill shortage and to transition to market economy. There was still a prevailing mentality expecting the State to take responsibility for all dimensions of culture. Regarding the promotion of culture as a vector for economic development, Georgia made reference to the National Film Centre, as a good practice example. The Centre not only aims at enhancing the economic development of the country, but its activity is based on data and evidence produced by a mapping study prepared in 2011 (supported by the Georgian Ministry of Culture). Georgia also brought some other examples of promoting the transversal nature of culture (e.g.: high quality catalogue on craft popularisation, support to ethnic minorities publication of books, theatre). As for budget,
Georgia noted that the budget of the Ministry of Culture was increasing and made reference to the efforts of the Ministry vis-à-vis the Ministry of Finance to prove the economic potential of culture. Georgia finally added that the Ministry of Culture collaborates with civil society in terms of information exchange. Azerbaijan highlighted that the governmental budget dedicated to culture was continuously increasing. In recent years, following the economic boom of the country, culture and tourism were one of the first non-oil sectors where investments were directed. Thanks to this process Baku has become a cultural capital. Following the ratification of the 2005 UNESCO Convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions, the country hosted a number of important international conferences, including the World Forum on Intercultural Dialogue in 2011. Answering to a question of the European Commission if the first priority of the country in the field of culture was image building, Azerbaijan stressed that there was a "package" of objectives also linked to internal development, job creation or minorities. In reply to a question by the Chair about the availability of evidence/data/studies to support the development of cultural policies in Partner countries, Azerbaijan noted that the idea of making studies in the field of recent developments in cultural policy sphere seems to be interesting. In this regard, Azerbaijan asked for EU experience and proposed to set up a website which would provide a database of European experts. The European Commission further stressed that strategies on culture need to be multi-layered (e.g.: some elements to be implemented at local level) recalling also that the Commission was working with Member States on the basis of the European Agenda for Culture (annex 4), containing 3 main objectives linked to cultural diversity, the economic dimension of culture and to the role of culture in external relations. In the framework of the Open Method of Coordination, Member States can learn from each other's successes and failures and draw some recommendations. A good example of a concrete output of this process is constituted by the Policy Handbook aiming at enhancing the development of cultural and creative industries which may be useful for Eastern Partners, too (annex 5). Ukraine emphasised that there were 2 types of support for culture in the country: (1) promoting business investments in culture (2) and direct support. In the first category, between 2009-2012, a number of new laws have been adopted to stimulate investment in culture and to ensure special fiscal measures (e.g.: no VAT for film productions or for subtitling, fiscal help for book publishing). However, there is still a lot of fear within the business community to invest in culture. As for direct financial aid to culture, Ukraine made
reference to the difficulties related to the financial crisis and added that the dialogue with the Ministry of Finance about legislative measures was a very difficult process. The implementation of laws also brings to surface some challenges. Ukraine highlighted that, due to the lack of a general strategy on culture in the country, the potential of culture could not be fully harnessed. This is why the new Strategy for human development (under elaboration) will include a cultural dimension. Ukraine made reference to what they saw as important achievements of the Kyiv Initiative and expressed disappointment that no support was ensured by the Eastern Partnership Culture Programme for its continuation. Finally, Ukraine offered to host the 2013 regional seminar on the implementation of the 2005 UNESCO Convention, foreseen by the work programme of Platform 4. Armenia noted that the budget for culture has been increasing year after year and the main priorities of the country were linked to the development of creative industries, to the protection of cultural heritage and to the implementation of international conventions (Florence Convention, 2005 UNESCO Convention). Moldova pointed out that while culture was clearly seen in the country as a vector for development, negotiations with the Ministry of Finance in the current crisis context were difficult. The main priority now was the adoption of a national strategy on culture, which should provide a clear vision on how to develop the cultural sector. In this context, cooperation with RMCBU of the Eastern Partnership Culture Programme could be very useful. During the preparatory process of the strategy civil society is being consulted (cooperation with the National Council of Civil Society). The new policy would aim at reforming the financial system supporting culture, simplifying instruments etc. It would be important to increase the capacity of the Ministry of Culture, to learn about European documents, experience (but keeping the national context in mind) and to improve the system of cultural statistics. The Ministry of Culture has begun a process of modernisation in the field of cultural heritage. New laws in this field have been and are to be adopted. Moldova agreed with Ukraine regarding the challenge of implementing laws. Belarus making reference to last year's national programme on culture emphasised that its main priorities consisted in supporting the cultural development of citizens and in investing more in cultural projects. In 2015, the budget dedicated to culture is planned to be five times more compared to 2011. The objective is to protect cultural heritage, to ensure free access of citizens to national libraries, to develop cinema, the education system and legislation. Belarus also noted that 50% of citizens had member cards in libraries and that IT services are being modernised. Belarus would be interested to have access to a database of
documents concerning legislation in other countries. On the last point, the European Commission suggested to use the compendium of the Council of Europe and to develop partnerships with other countries. UNESCO added that its website included some very useful information related to the implementation of the 2005 Convention and to national legislations. Answering to a question of UNESCO, Partners have brought some examples on how they promote culture in their external relations (cultural industries, exchange of artists). Georgia, Ukraine, Armenia and Azerbaijan emphasised that they are trying to participate in international festivals and to host important international events in their home countries. Moldova added that the country considered the international dimension and enhancing the mobility of artists in particular an important priority. Making reference to the Tandem project supported by the Special Action under the Culture Programme (praised also by Ukraine), Moldova stressed that the EU should create more instruments promoting mobility. II. Session II of the seminar focused on diagnostics, with two presentations delivered by Luciano Gloor (Team Leader, RMCB Unit, Eastern Partnership Culture Programme) and Philipp Dietachmair (Coordinator of Sub-Group Culture, Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum). Mr Gloor shared with participants the main findings of the country reports and the regional report prepared in the context of the Eastern Partnership Culture Programme (annex 6). After explaining the approach chosen by the RMCBU, the purpose of the report (identify needs in order to guide capacity building) and the instruments used in the process, he outlined the main findings and recommendations of the exercise. As regards the most important areas for policy reform, among others, he highlighted that (1) the main focus should be on climate and context for culture (2) a partnership needs to be developed at national level with a strengthened independent and private sector (3) the role of all stakeholder groups needs to be redefined (4) realistic strategies need to be elaborated (5) advocacy measures are necessary (6) success stories/good practices need to be identified (7) there is a need for consideration of whether EU Member State's positive experience in areas such as CCIs (cultural and creative industries), cultural leadership development and advocacy to promote culture and cultural development as a 'cross-cutting issue' may be relevant and helpful to the EaP countries (8) there is a need for more
targeted research and (9) coordination to be improved among all actual and potential stakeholders and donors. The related recommendations include: processes of change should be defined by all stakeholders; redefine culture in a modernising context and jointly agree roles of all parties; capacity building to encourage cultural leadership; tackle centralisation/decentralisation; balance focus on heritage with contemporary creation; development of cultural and creative industries. Finally, Mr Gloor informed participants about the first regional conference of the Eastern Partnership Culture Programme, to be held in Tbilisi on 8-9 October 2012. He also briefly outlined the main features of the draft Capacity Building Plan. Mr Dietachmair outlined the vision of Sub-Group Culture of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum concerning the main needs and priorities of civil society (annex 7). Despite its significant innovation capacity to make culture a source of socio-economic development and democratization, the independent cultural sector in the Eastern Partner countries had to face significant challenges: beyond the non-availability of appropriate built space for cultural initiatives, the weak independent sector in these countries struggled to get heard by public authorities. Mr Dietachmair in order to illustrate the relevant economic potential of independent cultural initiatives made reference to a civic initiative within the Tandem project (where the small Palanca village museum became a base for translating local embroidery pattern into high-end fashion line, creating thus a new base of income for the community). Mr Dietachmair stressed however that the positive effects of such small projects (in terms of socio-economic development and urban/local regeneration) can only be fully exploited if all stakeholders coordinate among themselves. A shared knowledge should be developed between public authorities and civil society. This is why Sub-Group Culture of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum proposes to establish an ongoing policy reform working dialogue in the region. The aim is that Eastern Partnership governments in collaboration with civil society and local administration should elaborate roadmaps for cultural policy reform. Tatiana Poshevaleva (member of the Sub-Group Culture of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum) briefly took the floor to point out that all Eastern Partner countries were going through transformation processes which in some of them were happening through dialogue with civil society while in others they were imposed (she made reference to Belarus). In her view, the role of civil society was to force stakeholders to engage in a dialogue.
Georgia took the floor to thank the EU for its efforts in term of diagnostics and considered that the baseline report was a very useful tool to assist policy reform and capacity building in Partner countries. Georgia noted that an independent NGO sector existed in the country but acknowledged that cooperation with civil society could still be strengthened. Armenia questioned the conclusions of the report on the weaknesses of civil society in the country and noted that other mappings showed a strong NGO sector (EACEA). The European Commission clarified that the findings of EACEA were specifically related to the youth sector. Mr Gloor added that while in some sectors civil society seemed to be more active, what mattered was their involvement in overall policy formulation. Moldova acknowledged that the issue of centralisation/decentralisation in the country needed to be rethought. There was also a need to rethink approaches to capacity building in order to develop managerial capacity of local and national actors. A more effective framework was necessary to create better conditions for cultural and creative industries. In the field of cultural heritage, the aim was to promote legislation and institution development, and address educational needs. In conclusion of session II on diagnostics, the European Commission stressed the importance of focusing on the climate/context surrounding culture, on clarifying the roles of different stakeholders, on elaborating realistic strategies (which value lies in the process of elaboration) and on gathering evidences/data. Finally, the European Commission stressed that any reflection on tools should be led by diagnostics. III. Session III of the seminar focused on potential tools assisting policy reform in the field of culture. While the European Commission (Christophe Ingels) presented the twinning and TAIEX instruments (annex 8), Dr Manfred Nawroth, resident twinning advisor, outlined a best practice example of a twinning project in the field of culture (annex 9). As for twinning, the European Commission (Christophe Ingels) emphasised that projects should relate to the public sector domains of cooperation foreseen in Association Agreements or ENP Action Plans. Twinning projects were peer-to-peer medium to long term cooperation between administrations, where the counterpart of the resident twinning advisor was chosen from the national administrations (project leader). These were demand-driven projects with mandatory commonly agreed objectives and results. So far very few projects exist in the field of culture. Regarding some recent trends, the European Commission, among other things, drew attention to the importance of refining
the reference to the EU acquis, of better involving political decision makers and of improving sustainability of projects. As for TAIEX, this was an easily mobilised tool (within approximately 2 months) for a short term assistance. It was intended to support the implementation of priorities under Association Agreements and ENP Action Plans, with the aim of approximating legislation and improving public administration. There were three forms of assistance: expert missions (up to 5 days), workshops and study visits to Member States (up to 5 days). Dr Nawroth presented the twinning project on supporting the institutional development of the Georgian National Museum, stressing the key role of the Programme Administration Office in the birth of the project which had contacts also with representatives of the culture sector. Dr Nawroth stressed the long term nature of the project and the specificity of a cultural project in terms of high visibility (including outside Georgia). Dr Nawroth made reference also to the Conference "Why Museums Now". In his concluding remarks he emphasised how a twinning project can assist cultural policy reform and contribute to economic development (at regional and city level) and stressed the importance of sustainability. Georgia shortly informed participants about another running twinning project related to the area of cultural heritage and conveyed a strong message to other Eastern Partners encouraging them to make use of twinning. The Georgian National Museum would be happy to share its experience in this regard. Moldova also intervened to inform participants about two twinning projects under elaboration in the field of strengthening the capacity of the Department of Cultural Heritage in the Ministry of Culture and in the field of supporting institutional development of the National Museums. The European Commission (Xavier Troussard) welcomed these projects and highlighted that intellectual property rights issues (related to internal market), as well as the 2005 UNESCO Convention were integral parts of the acquis communautaire, and therefore could form a basis for projects. As for the demand driven nature of these instruments, the European Commission stressed that in this context it was important to build a case for culture within the national administrations. Referring to the proposal of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum to develop structures for dialogue between civil society and policy makers, the European Commission asked Partners about their views concerning the usefulness of such "tool" in
policy making. The European Commission added that responsibilities in this context were on both sides: civil society, from its part, needed to structure itself. Georgia and Moldova welcomed the idea, the question was more "how" to engage in such dialogue. The European Commission was of the view that this had to be based at first on a national approach. Azerbaijan agreed that dialogue with civil society was important and that the independent sector in the country was not as active as it should be. Azerbaijan proposed that EU Delegations could organise discussions at the local level. There was a general agreement that the issue should be one of those to be addressed by the 2013 Ministerial Conference. IV. Session IV of the meeting focused on the preparation of the 2013 high level/ministerial Conference. The European Commission emphasised that the main aim of the event would be to highlight the contribution culture can bring to the different threads of development and to debate ways and means of delivering on: (1) political reforms, democratisation, civil society development (2) economic development, job creation (3) and social cohesion. The most credible advocates of this potential power of culture in these different dimensions are high level players outside the culture sector. This is why it would be of utmost importance if Eastern Partners could mobilise beyond their Ministers of Culture a number of Ministers/Secretaries of State of Economy, Regional Development, Education or Employment etc. These high level representatives could bring to the Conference some "stories" proving the potential of culture. These stories should be focused on the process and on the output (what has been delivered in terms of economic development, job creation, social integration etc), not only on the input. Moldova considered that it is very important to have a high level representation, even taking into consideration the level of Prime Ministers, at this event and expressed the view that a Strategy on Culture for the Eastern Partnership could be a potential output of the Conference. Azerbaijan explained that the final decision about the level of representation for their country will be made according to the level of the other participants from other countries and that an 'appropriate high level' in their case could be the Minister for Culture. Azerbaijan also suggested that the subject of culture as a best confidence building measure and building dialogue between communities is included among the topics of the Conference. UNESCO shortly intervened and suggested Partners to "use" the world heritage list in order to mobilise high level personalities. The Czech Republic intervened and wondered if the results of the Conference could be already mainstreamed in the
meeting of Eastern Partnership Heads of States and Government to take place under Lithuanian Presidency. The European Commission replied that as the Ministerial Conference was foreseen for the first half of the year (June 2013), its results could certainly be reflected in the Eastern Partnership meeting of Heads of State and Government. In conclusion and in order to prepare the programme of the Ministerial Conference, the European Commission asked Partners to get back by mid-november (contact person: Gyongyi MIKITA), with the following elements: 1. name of contact points in each country responsible for the organisation of the Conference; 2. name of high level participants/ministers (also outside the cultural field) who would be interested to participate; 3. "stories" to tell, focusing on the output, with possible figures/data. In light of the material received, a draft programme will become available in January 2013.