Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2010)76 - EU action for the European Heritage Label - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2010)76 - EU action for the European Heritage Label. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2010)76  |
| date | 09-03-2010 |
This proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council puts forward the introduction of a European Heritage Label, whose general objectives are to strengthen European citizens' sense of belonging to the European Union, based on shared elements of history and heritage, as well as an appreciation of diversity, and to strengthen intercultural dialogue. To this end the Label seeks to enhance the value and the profile of sites which have played a key role in the history and the building of the European Union, and to increase European citizens' understanding of the building of Europe, and of their common yet diverse cultural heritage, especially related to the democratic values and human rights that underpin the process of European integration. In this way the European Heritage Label would also help to bring citizens closer to Europe.
The added value of the European Heritage Label compared to other initiatives in the field of cultural heritage such as the UNESCO World Heritage List and the Council of Europe’s ‘European Cultural Routes’ is as follows. First, the initiative will be based on the European narrative of these sites and their symbolism for Europe, rather than aesthetics. Second, the focus will not be on conservation, but on the promotion of the sites and access to them, which includes providing good explanations on the European significance of the sites and organising educational activities, with special attention to young people. Thirdly, there will be an emphasis on promoting networking among the labelled sites to share best practices and initiate common projects.
The proposal responds to the conclusions adopted by the Council of Ministers of the European Union on 20 November 2008 inviting the European Commission to submit to it ‘an appropriate proposal for the creation of a European Heritage Label by the European Union and specifying the practical procedures for the implementation of the project’.
The original concept of the European Heritage Label emerged in 2005 as one of the responses to the gap between the European Union and its citizens. This gap is linked to an important extent to a lack of knowledge of the history of Europe, of the role of the European Union and of the values on which it is based.
The scheme was initially launched by several European states in April 2006 on an intergovernmental basis. Its aim was to strengthen European citizens’ sense of belonging to Europe and to promote a sense of European identity by improving knowledge of Europe’s shared history and heritage, especially among young people. To date, a total of 64 sites located in 17 European Union Member States as well as in Switzerland have been awarded the label. However, the practical arrangements for the initiative have shown some weaknesses and it has not therefore managed to fulfil its potential. This is why, following the example of the European Capitals of Culture, the Member States asked the European Commission in the Council conclusions of November 2008 to transform the current intergovernmental European Heritage Label into a formal action of the European Union in order to improve its functioning and ensure its long-term success.
European Union involvement in the European Heritage Label is expected to strengthen coordination between Member States and thus to contribute to the development and proper application of common, clear and transparent selection criteria, as well as new selection and monitoring procedures for the label, thereby ensuring the relevance of the sites in the light of the objectives. Other expected benefits of European Union action are an increase in the number of Member States participating in the initiative and a solution to the problems of the present rotating secretariat.
The European Parliament supported the development of the European Heritage Label, first in its resolution of 29 November 2007 on a Renewed European Union Tourism Policy: Towards a stronger partnership for European Tourism (2006/2129(INI)) where it proposes ‘that support be given for the creation of a European Heritage label aimed at highlighting the European dimension of the European Union’s sites and monuments’ and subsequently in its resolution of 10 April 2008 on a European agenda for culture in a globalising world (2007/2211(INI)) in which it underlines ‘that a European heritage label should be established with a view to emphasising the European dimension of cultural goods, monuments, memorial sites, and places of remembrance, which all bear witness to Europe’s history and heritage’.
Following the Council’s conclusions and in line with its procedures, the European Commission launched an impact assessment which included a public consultation. The aim of this impact assessment was to determine whether action by the European Union was indeed justified in this area, whether it could really add value to the European Heritage Label and, if this is the case, which form this action should take. The draft impact assessment report was discussed with the impact assessment board in a meeting on 25 November 2009. Following this meeting and the opinion of the Impact Assessment Board, several changes have been made to the report. The final impact assessment report and the Impact Assessment Board opinion have been published on
[ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/ia_carried_out].
The consultation process started in March 2009 and was carried out in different stages. It included an online consultation, a consultation meeting open to the general public and stakeholders, and a meeting with experts designated by the 27 Member States. The detailed results of the different elements of the consultation are included in the impact assessment report and were duly taken into account for the preparation of the proposal.
The analysis of the various impacts has demonstrated that the primary direct effects of the European Heritage Label would be social or societal ones. These effects would include increased access to heritage sites, notably for young people, increased interest in and knowledge of common European heritage, increased understanding of European cultural diversity, an increase in intercultural dialogue and a greater sense of belonging to the European Union.
Economic benefits can also be expected as the European Heritage Label has the potential to produce positive effects on the local tourism industry, including the number of people employed. However the impact on the number of visitors to a site will greatly depend on the quality and credibility the label will acquire and thus on the prestige it will develop over the years.
In the framework of the impact assessment for the European Heritage Label, three policy options were tested. The first option was to continue the label as an intergovernmental initiative without any European Union action. The second option was to continue the label as an intergovernmental initiative, but with financial support from the European Union budget. The third option was to transform the label into a European Union initiative through a Decision of the European Parliament and the Council following the example of the European Capitals of Culture in 1999. This last option contained three sub-options according to the various selection procedures: selection by the Member States against common European criteria, selection at European level only without taking into account the national origin of the sites, and pre-selection at national level followed by a final selection at European level.
Options which would have implied significant financial support to develop the sites were excluded from further analysis because there was a clear consensus among the Member States and during the consultation process that the new initiative should have a limited impact both on the European Union and national budgets.
The comparison of the three options showed that transforming the European Heritage Label into a European Union initiative through a Decision of the European Parliament and the Council would bring clear added value and produce benefits that could not be achieved by Member States acting alone, even with financial support from the European Union. It also demonstrated that the preferable selection procedure for awarding the label was the combined national and European level selection.
Contents
- legal elements of the proposal
- 2. background
- 3. consultation of interested parties and impact assessment
- 3.1. Consultation of interested parties
- 3.2. Expected impacts
- 3.3. Choice of instrument
- 4.1. Legal Basis
- 4.2. Principle of subsidiarity
- 4.3. Principle of proportionality
- 4.4. Outline of the proposal
- 4.4.1. Objectives
- 4.4.2. Participation in the action
- 4.4.3. Selection procedure
- 4.4.4. Monitoring and withdrawal of the Label
- 4.4.5. Practical arrangements
- 4.4.6. Evaluation
- 4.4.7. Transitional provisions
- 5. resources
The legal basis for the European Heritage Label is Article 167 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This article gives the European Union the mandate to ‘contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore’. The European Union shall also encourage ‘cooperation between Member States’ in the field of culture and ‘if necessary, supporting and supplementing their action’.
This proposal is in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity. The participation of Member States will be on a voluntary basis and, fully in line with Article 167 of the Treaty, the European Union involvement in the European Heritage Label will aim to strengthen coordination between Member States and to support their action by contributing to the development and correct application of new common, clear and transparent selection criteria, as well as new selection and monitoring procedures. The impact assessment has also shown that European Union action will offer benefits that could not be achieved by Member States acting alone.
The course of action proposed will have very limited impacts both on the European Union budget and on national budgets. It imposes no disproportionate management constraints on administrations implementing it.
The intergovernmental European Heritage Label was conceived as a contribution to bringing citizens closer to Europe. This is a broad and complex issue which various European Union initiatives in the field of communication, education, culture or citizenship try to address in complementary ways. In order to reflect this larger process, as well as the specific contribution that the European Heritage Label can make, the Commission proposes three levels of objectives for the renewed European Heritage Label.
The general objectives will be to strengthen European citizens’ sense of belonging to the European Union, based on shared elements of history and heritage, as well as an appreciation of diversity, and to strengthen intercultural dialogue. They reflect the overall ambition of the European Heritage Label and link it into the broader policies and objectives of the European Union.
The intermediate objectives of the label will be to enhance the value and the profile of sites which have played a key role in the history and the building of the European Union, and to increase European citizens’ understanding of the building of Europe, and of their common yet diverse cultural heritage, especially related to the democratic values and human rights that underpin the process of European integration. This is the highest level of impact that the European Heritage Label can achieve on its own.
At a more basic level, a set of specific objectives will relate to the direct improvements that sites — individually and collectively — would be expected to deliver as a result of their activities linked to the European Heritage Label designation or that the new practical arrangements would be expected to deliver.
Due to the nature of the European Heritage Label and its objectives, the Commission proposes that the action should start with the 27 Member States. The participation of the Member States should be on a voluntary basis. If necessary, future evaluations of the European Heritage Label could examine the appropriateness of enlarging the initiative to the third countries participating in the Culture Programme.
The impact assessment for the European Heritage Label showed that one of the main weaknesses of the current intergovernmental initiative is that the sites are selected independently by participating countries with no overseeing body at European level. This procedure leaves too much room for diverging interpretations and as a result the criteria have not been applied evenly by the countries, thereby hindering the overall coherence and quality of the label so far.
A new selection procedure is therefore needed which combines the national and European levels. The Commission proposes that in the first stage, pre-selection of the sites should take place at Member State level, and then in the second stage, the final selection should take place at European Union level with the help of a panel of independent experts. This would ensure both a robust application of criteria and appropriate prominence for the European dimension, whilst also preserving an equitable distribution of sites across the European Union.
The panel of independent experts should be composed of 12 members nominated by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission following the example of the selection panel for the European Capitals of Culture. These experts should have substantial experience and expertise in the field of culture, heritage, European history, or other fields relevant to the objectives of the European Heritage Label.
The Commission proposes to give each Member State the possibility to pre-select up to a maximum of two sites in every year in which a selection is made. This should help to keep the number of sites reasonable and, at the same time, retains some flexibility for Member States given that some have a greater pool of potential sites than others.
The panel of independent experts should in turn have the possibility to choose between the pre-selected sites selecting a maximum of one site per Member State in every year in which a selection is made. It is proposed to give special priority to sites with a strong transnational dimension. This should keep a certain element of competition between the sites at European Union level helping to ensure the general quality of the sites and thereby also the credibility and prestige of the initiative.
The Commission, finally, proposes that after three successive years dedicated to the selection of new sites, each fourth year should be reserved for the monitoring procedure. This should help to keep the administrative burden reasonable both for Member States and Commission. The calendar in Annex illustrates the proposed procedure.
The label should be attributed in principle on a permanent basis because the symbolic value of the selected sites will not diminish over time and in order to encourage sites to take a long-term approach and invest in their development. However, in order to maintain quality and credibility in the long term, a strong monitoring system is needed to ensure that labelled sites have met the obligations undertaken at the application stage. The Commission proposes that this monitoring should be under the responsibility of the Member States, who should report to the European panel every 4 years. In the event that specific sites no longer meet their obligations, there should be a possibility to withdraw the Label.
The Commission should support the action in order to ensure greater stability than is possible under current arrangements and to enable expertise to be built up. This solution would make it possible to draw on existing experience such as that of the European Capitals for Culture or the European Union Prize for Cultural Heritage / Europa Nostra Awards. It would however demand additional resources which need to be made available (one administrator and one assistant). In order to keep the practical arrangements as light and flexible as possible, certain administrative tasks could be outsourced through tendering procedures.
The regular evaluation of the European Heritage Label action is crucial to ensure the effectiveness and credibility of the initiative. This evaluation would need to examine both the processes involved in running the action and the actual cumulative impact of the European Heritage Label as a whole. The aim should be to identify in which respects the action is working well, whether it should be continued, where there is room for improvement and, crucially, how this improvement might best be achieved in the future. The monitoring of the labelled sites mentioned above would of course feed into this evaluation. The evaluation would be under the responsibility of the Commission and would take the form of an external evaluation every 6 years.
Transitional measures need to be taken to define the status of the sites already awarded the European Heritage Label under the intergovernmental initiative. To ensure the overall coherence of the initiative, these sites would need to be re-assessed against the new criteria. For reasons of equal treatment between all the Member States, the Commission proposes to give those which did not participate in the intergovernmental initiative the opportunity to propose a first set of sites before the regular selection procedure begins.
The annual appropriations for the European Heritage Label shall be authorised by the budgetary authority within the limits of the multiannual financial framework. These appropriations shall cover the following costs: the costs of the European panel of experts, the visibility of the initiative at European level, some networking activities for the sites and the human resources needed within the European Commission to support the action. The legislative financial statement attached gives the details for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2013, which falls under the current multiannual financial framework.