How the commissioner-designate for culture responded to the European Parliament’s questions
On October 22, the European Parliament (EP) published the written responses of Commissioners-designate to questions submitted by EP Committees. This is a warm-up before the in-person confirmation hearings in November 2024, where the Committees will engage with the nominated Commissioners directly.
Culture Action Europe reviewed the responses of Glenn Micallef, the Commissioner-designate for Intergenerational Fairness, Youth, Culture, and Sport. In summary, he delivered careful, measured answers echoing the content of his mission letter. While Micallef acknowledges his portfolio as ‘a strategic investment in the EU’s future, democracy, and well-being,’ his responses often remain broad, adding little beyond what is already known. We expect that following the hearing, more concrete plans will be crafted in close collaboration with civil society and all relevant stakeholders.
Let’s begin with how Micallef views the role of culture: he tries to juggle two perspectives, recognising ‘both the intrinsic value of culture and its vital role as a driver of social cohesion, development, and a sector that plays a crucial role in the EU in terms of innovation and competitiveness.‘ On the one hand, he presents Europe’s rich cultural heritage as a ‘public good’ that improves citizens’ quality of life, mental health, and sense of belonging. On the other hand, he frames culture as a key force for economic growth, competitiveness, and sustainable prosperity, pledging to ‘maximise the cultural sector’s contribution to the EU’s economy and citizens’ well-being.’
This duality is easy to explain: Micallef must follow the Commission’s political guidelines focused on competitiveness while also acknowledging the rising voices in the cultural sector opposing the instrumentalisation of culture. It’s encouraging to hear the term ‘intrinsic value of culture’ gaining recognition in political vocabulary. However, it remains unclear how the future Commissioner will balance these contrasting positions in practice. As highlighted in our State of Culture report, the growing instrumentalisation of culture does little to improve the sector’s overall situation.
How will Micallef’s position translate into the Culture Compass, the main policy document outlining the ‘vision for the sector for the next mandate and beyond’? His response reveals a tendency to treat this strategy as a document that aligns culture with other EU policies—mainly with regional development, innovation, and health (Culture Action Europe was pleased to see a reference to our Culture for Health project in Micallef’s answer). It is true that the strategy partly stems from the European Court of Auditors’ findings, which pointed out the fragmented nature of EU cultural policies across various funding programmes and initiatives and thus called for a comprehensive strategic framework for culture. Nevertheless, focusing mainly on ‘better aligning multiple cultural policy tools’ and ‘maximising synergies between EU policies’ risks reducing culture to a supporting role within other sectors. Instead, what many in the cultural community are looking for is a bold, forward-thinking vision and ambitious leadership for the future of culture in Europe.
Micallef’s views on funding reflect a mainstreaming approach, where culture is integrated into various policy areas. He highlights that, for the current budget cycle (until 2027), the priority will be to fully use resources from NextGenerationEU and existing programmes, noting that culture is supported across nearly 20 different EU funding instruments in addition to Creative Europe.
We remind you that NextGenerationEU is a €800 billion financial package to help the EU tackle the impact of the pandemic. Its centrepiece is the Recovery and Resilience Facility, which supports member states in implementing their National Recovery and Resilience Plans. As the Commission reported this summer, these plans allocate €11.7 billion to culture and creative industries, or about 2% of the total Recovery and Resilience Facility budget— a target that Culture Action Europe together with our partners the European Cultural Foundation and Europa Nostra have long championed as part of the Cultural Deal for Europe campaign.
Micallef does not commit to securing dedicated funding for Creative Europe in the next seven-year EU budget, the Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034. As CAE has previously noted, Creative Europe is absent from his mission letter. Micallef writes, ‘What is certain is that we need a more strategic approach to culture, one that triggers a dynamic interaction between the commercial and societal vitality of the cultural and creative industries.’ We hope he will clarify what this ‘dynamic interaction’ entails during the upcoming hearing. The emphasis on efficiency and budget optimisation aligns with the wider EU budget discourse but raises concerns about the long-term stability of culture-specific funding—especially when the Commissioner-designate for Budget explicitly promotes ‘fewer, more focused programmes, as well as simpler rules and procedures for access to EU funds.’
On Artificial Intelligence, Micallef is clearly not an AI pessimist (which is unsurprising given how the Commission sees AI as a tool for boosting competitiveness). Rather than focusing on risks, he highlights the opportunities AI offers, such as combating illegal trafficking of cultural goods, enhancing access to culture, and preserving cultural heritage. As for the AI strategy for cultural and creative industries, Micallef wants to ensure that AI ‘enables and reinforces human creativity rather than replacing it,’ while safeguarding cultural and linguistic diversity and helping Europe stay competitive on the global stage.
On the issue of working conditions for artists and cultural professionals, Micallef closely follows the mission letter. As we predicted, his first step would be to organise a High-level Round Table with key stakeholders. He commits to building on the work initiated by the previous Commission in response to the European Parliament’s resolution on improving working conditions in the cultural sector.
The question remains: will he push for the much-requested Directive on decent working conditions in the cultural sector? Micallef has stated that he will ‘cooperate closely with Commissioners with relevant portfolios to determine the scope for further EU action in this sector.’ This scope could range from reinforcing existing EU law to supporting collective bargaining within the sector.
Among the positive points, Micallef did emphasise the protection of Ukraine’s cultural heritage and expressed support for culture’s role in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals beyond 2030—something Culture Action Europe advocates for as part of the Culture2030Goal campaign. On international cultural relations, he stressed collaboration with Member States, EU Delegations, national cultural institutes and EUNIC as well as Creative Europe networks (which include CAE). We can also expect the mobilisation of the Pact for Skills large-scale partnership in the cultural and creative sectors and industries to promote awareness and protection of intellectual property.
What Micallef addressed insufficiently is the issues with artistic freedom in Europe; his response remains vague: ‘All available tools must be used to support this important priority, including the mobilisation of our funding programmes, as is currently the case with Creative Europe, which funds cultural cooperation projects and networks.’ It’s promising to see a focus on funding cooperation projects and cultural networks, and it’s evident that in authoritarian regimes, the cultural sector increasingly relies on EU support, which needs strengthening. However, as CAE previously noted, we’re keen to hear how the Commissioner-designate plans to treat the cause rather than the symptom and address political interference by Member States, particularly given the EU’s limited authority in cultural matters.
Interestingly, on competitiveness, Micallef offered little beyond ‘fostering business support and networking opportunities’ for cultural and creative SMEs. For now, this aspect of culture remains largely rhetorical, with no concrete plans in sight.
The Commissioner-designate also provided no specific proposals for improving accessibility to cultural experiences.
The general nature of Micallef’s responses can be attributed to two main reasons. First, written responses are typically more guarded and carefully worded and avoid specific proposals. Don’t expect an action plan in written responses! The Committee’s decision to merge all the topics into two large questions does not help either. Second, the lack of specificity can be justified, as the Commissioner-designate needs flexibility and room for manoeuver under the Parliament’s scrutiny surrounding his alleged lack of political experience. Micallef will need backing from a wide-ranging group of Members of the European Parliament, so it makes sense to keep his positions adaptable.
We hope that the hearing on November 4 (save the date!) will give Glenn Micallef the chance to elaborate on his vision. While his written responses have understandably been broad, the cultural sector is looking forward to seeing how the Commissioner-designate will outline a compelling path forward for the EU cultural policy.
Bonus:
Henna Virkunnen, Executive Vice-President-designate for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, received a very long question from the Parliament about the AI Act and copyright. She pledges to ‘consider the need to further improve the EU copyright framework to address new challenges raised by market and technology developments.’ One of her proposed solutions is to support ‘the development of a well-functioning market for licensing copyright-protected works for AI purposes, with balanced terms for the various actors involved.’ While the AI Act clarifies the right of rightsholders to opt out of having their content used for data training and imposes obligations on AI providers, it still falls short of addressing all concerns related to copyright and fair remuneration.
Essentially, Virkkunen places much of the responsibility on the market, suggesting that licensing agreements between creators and AI providers will dictate remuneration and access to high-quality data. In our opinion, this approach needs further examination since there is a clear imbalance of negotiating power between big tech companies and small, independent creators, and the AI Act’s Code of Practice will be non-binding.
Virkkunen also promises to examine the legal status of AI-generated content and the liability for potential copyright infringements. She aims to ensure that ‘any new measures proposed to improve the EU copyright framework strike a balance between stimulating human creativity and supporting emerging technologies, without creating undue regulatory complexity.’ We hope that avoiding ‘undue regulatory complexity’ does not mean prioritising simplicity over stronger safeguards for creator