«February 2014 Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union Culture, Tourism and Sport © Crown copyright ...»
The FA believes this supporting role is appropriate for the EU […] it should only take action when Member States request support. The UK Government should ensure that it holds the EU to account to this effect; but also recommend EU intervention in specific areas where the EU’s action would be helpful for sport in the UK. The Football Association.
[The EU] – quite rightly – does not have the authority to harmonise national legislation relating to sport. While the effectiveness of these mechanisms certainly varies considerably, the EU has not (yet) imposed itself on the sector in the way that perhaps some may have feared. Sport and Recreation Alliance.
Chapter 2: Impact on the National Interest 37Bilateral and Multilateral Engagement
2.59 We conclude this chapter with a consideration of what contributors told us about whether actions might be better undertaken at bilateral or multi-lateral levels other than through the European Union.
2.60 As the EU’s competences for culture, tourism and sport are supporting, Member States are free to engage bi-laterally and multi-laterally with other nations and organisations outside the EU as best serves their national interest.
2.61 The majority of contributors noted that on the whole engagement at EU level was complemented by participation in other multi-lateral organisations such as the CoE, the Commonwealth, OECD, and the United Nations, whether that is by the UK directly, or via the EU. No other external multi-lateral organisation has study or funding programmes available to the culture, tourism and sport sectors in the UK on the scale of the EU.
Contributors did not see engagement with these organisations as an alternative to EU engagement.
2.62 In his evidence, Steve Green, a member of the Selection Panel for the European Capitals of Culture and formerly of the British Council, said that culture in the EU’s external relations played a key role in its international standing, and that the UK benefitted in two ways, ‘strategic through emphasising the consistency of engagement explicit in its own objectives and secondly in specific projects’.
The UK and its cultural organisations gain more from participation in multi-lateral EU projects and programmes than the specific extra funds gained. It sends a clear message of being a partner… it runs both in parallel to and in mutual support of the specific bilateral objectives of a cultural relations organisation. Steve Green.
2.63 The European Commission led negotiations on behalf of Member States for the UNESCO Convention on Diversity of Cultural Expression in 2005 and it made representations on the role of culture in the Millennium Development Goals. The UK too engaged directly in these negotiations.
2.64 Cultural operators also engage directly with UNESCO:
In a way I consider our UNESCO link as a new form of twinning. We have new collaborative projects emerging with India and China and potential projects with a number of European cities. David Wilson, Bradford UNESCO City of Film.
2.65 Four of the contributors on culture also referred to the benefits to be gained through cultural organisations developing their own network: the EU National Institutes of Culture (EUNIC). The British Council plays a leading role in EUNIC and has been able to leverage partnerships through EUNIC to win EU projects in Belarus, Mexico, South Africa and Armenia, thus arguably extending the UK’s ‘soft power’.
38 Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union: Culture, Tourism and Sport EUNIC The information contained in this text box is public source information from EUNIC.
According to EUNIC, ‘in recent years the cultural diplomacy and cultural relations organisations in Member States have developed their own network: European Union National Institutes of Culture (EUNIC). This brings together organisations such as the Goethe Institute, Institut Français, Cervantes Institute etc; currently there are 32 members from 26 Member States. The network encourages its members in cities around the world to work together on joint projects (currently these clusters are active in over 80 cities worldwide) as well as a few regional (e.g. developing creative industries in Jordan, co-financed by the EC) and centrally driven projects. Full membership is limited to organisations in Member States.
Participation in projects is voluntary. The UK, through the British Council, plays a major role as one of the largest of the cultural institutes.21 ‘Through working in partnership with its counterparts in EUNIC it is able to win EU projects;
recent examples include in Belarus, Mexico, South Africa and Armenia’. Steve Green.
2.66 Sarah Wolferstan, a consultant for Heritage Management at University College London, stressed the important role of UK engagement in the CoE: ‘the CoE and its conventions are MUCH more influential outside the UK. Our involvement with them increases our relevance or status with these countries’.
2.67 Within the UN, the UNWTO is responsible for the promotion of responsible, sustainable, and universally accessible tourism. It also promotes the sector as a driver of economic growth, inclusive development, and environmental sustainability, disseminating knowledge and tourism policies worldwide.
2.68 Visit Britain and Visit England also supported engagement with the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), the World Tourism Association and OECD.
The World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) The information contained in this text box is public source information from WTTC.
This is the forum for business leaders in the travel and tourism industry. With Chief Executives of some one hundred of the world’s leading travel and tourism companies as its Members, WTTC has a unique mandate and overview on all matters related to travel and tourism. WTTC advocates partnership between the public and private sectors, delivering results that match the needs of economies, local and regional authorities and local communities with those of business. The Council regularly sets Strategic Priorities with a view to identifying those issues which most impede the operation or development of the sector.22
2.69 In addition to this engagement, Visit Britain has signed Memoranda of Understanding with the tourist boards of non-EU countries, including Mexico and Russia. The supporting nature of the EU competence does not prevent these bi-lateral relationships.
Please see information taken from EUNIC, available at: www.eunic-online.eu, accessed on 3 February 2014.
2.70 In the sports sector there are some parallels with culture in terms of the impact of the Council of Europe, which promotes European co-operation in the field of sports. In 1985 it adopted the European Convention on Spectator Violence, and in 1989 an Anti-Doping Convention.
World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) The information contained in this text box is public source information from WADA.
This was created against a background of growing concerns about the use of drugs in international sporting competitions at a time when major sporting events were being transformed by increased commercialisation, greater media coverage, and the payment of significant sums of money to top-ranked players.
The First World Conference on Doping in Sport held, in Lausanne, Switzerland, on February 2-4, 1999, produced the Lausanne Declaration on Doping in Sport. This document provided for the creation of an independent international anti-doping agency to be operational for the Games of the XXVII Olympiad in Sydney in 2000.
Pursuant to the terms of the Lausanne Declaration, WADA was established on November 10, 1999, in Lausanne to promote and coordinate the fight against doping in sport internationally.
WADA was set up as a foundation under the initiative of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) with the support and participation of intergovernmental organizations, governments, public authorities, and other public and private bodies fighting doping in sport.
The Agency consists of an equal number of representatives from the Olympic Movement and public authorities.23
2.71 TFEU expressly gave the EU external competence in relation to sport and the EU will be a party to negotiations, alongside individual Member States, for the Convention on the Fight Against Match-Fixing. We will refer to this again in chapter 3.
2.72 Amongst others, the UK sports sector engages bi-laterally with the World Anti-Doping Agency, numerous sports governing bodies and the European and International Olympic Committees. However, due to the nature of their relationship with their members, these should also be seen as complementary to, rather than alternatives to, the EU.
International Olympic Committee (IOC) This is a Swiss non-profit, non-governmental organisation based in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Acting as a catalyst for collaboration between all parties of the Olympic family, from the National Olympic Committees (NOCs), the International Sports Federations (IFs), the athletes, the Organising Committees for the Olympic Games (OCOGs), to the TOP partners, broadcast partners and United Nations agencies, the IOC shepherds success through a wide range of programmes and projects. On this basis it ensures the regular celebration of the Olympic Games, supports all affiliated member organisations of the Olympic Movement and strongly encourages, by appropriate means, the promotion of the Olympic values.
Please see information taken from WADA, available at: www.wada-ama.org/en/About-WADA/History/WADAHistory/, accessed on 3 February 2014.
Future Options and Challenges
3.1 None of the contributors to this report identified substantial challenges to the UK national interest in the current balance of competence between the UK and EU in relation to culture, tourism or sport. Nor did any of the contributors advocate radical options for change in the balance of competence.
3.2 Those challenges that were identified relate to the EU’s operation, and for the most part
the administration, of its existing competence. These fall into three main categories:
(a) Challenges to the sectors’ ability to maximise benefit to the UK due to bureaucracy of the European Union;
(b) Challenges presented by future potential action of the EU under its competences; and (c) Challenges presented by the EU’s potential failure to use its competences in culture, tourism and sport to influence action under other competences that impact on these sectors.
3.3 Perhaps due to the long-standing nature of the culture competence, the contributors to this report did not identify major challenges under (b) and (c) above. However, there was considerable concern expressed in relation to (a), particularly in respect of overly burdensome application and monitoring processes, as set out in Chapter 2, which were seen to favour large, well-resourced organisations. However, even relatively well-resourced
national organisations expressed concern:
In general, European schemes are bureaucratic and funding cycles are very slow, the decision making process needs to be significantly sped up to be effective for busy companies, often with tight cash flows. British Film Institute.
3.4 The Creative Guild, the Association of Creative professionals, noted in the evidence it submitted that ‘the seven cents per citizen per year the EU devotes to culture means that the competition for money is so fierce that applying can be a destructively exhausting process. This is compounded by the accounting procedures put in place which mean that compliance is discouragingly onerous for small arts organisations.’ It went on to observe that ‘a more relaxed attitude would both lower the Commission’s workload and enable far more flexibility in the projects funded’.1 Creative Guild, submission of evidence.
42 Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union: Culture, Tourism and Sport
3.5 There is of course a tension between applicants for funding wanting a process that is simple and timely, and those responsible for ensuring that public funds are only awarded to the best deserving projects via a process that is rigorous and comprehensive. The UK Government has often argued in Europe for more robust monitoring and accounting processes.
3.6 As the Arts Council England (ACE) observed, UK-based arts organisations take an increasingly cross-sectoral approach to arts, creativity, new technology and entrepreneurship. In an increasingly digital world, such developments are a welcome sign that the arts in particular are both keeping abreast of and incorporating the technological developments in the societies in which they flourish. However, ACE also voiced some concern that the welcome recognition by the EU that culture is a significant contributor to economic growth, and the arts embracing innovation, should not lead to a more utilitarian approach to the sector, with funding diverted away from those projects where there is not an obvious short term link to economic benefit.
3.7 The UK Government’s policy is that ‘arts and culture strengthen communities, bringing people together and removing social barriers. Involving young people in the arts increases their academic performance, encourages creativity, and supports talent early on’.2
3.8 ACE also considered that the new Creative Europe programme for the 2014 – 2020 funding cycle will provide a more effective mechanism for delivery by integrating the MEDIA, culture, and trans-sectoral strands which are separate in the current programme.
However, they went on to note that ‘the direct links from the new programme through to the Europe 2020 economic strategy should not, however, overshadow the continued societal and cultural value that international artistic exchange brings’.