November 20, 2024

After the European elections, also the EU Commission is changing. MCA looks at 3 commissioners specifically and what they have to say on cultural policy, digital and AI governance and enhancement of research in the EU.

Habemus Commissionem
After significant discussions regarding the vice-commissioners following their hearings—which seemed to halt the progress of the new European Commission’s executive—liberal Renew and center-left Socialists & Democrats groups managed internal dissent and struck a deal with the Commission president’s dominant European People’s Party.
The European Parliament will officially vote next week to approve the full slate of designated commissioners.
For the MCA community, three commissioners hold portfolios of particular interest: Glenn Micallef (Intergenerational Fairness, Youth, Culture, and Sport), Ekaterina Zaharieva (Start-ups, Research, and Innovation), and Henna Virkkunen (Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Security, and Democracy). In this article, we analyze the key elements of their Q&A sessions with Members of the European Parliament.

We previously reviewed their profiles and preparations for the hearings in this article.

 

The Cultural Compass: A Guide to Everything

Glenn Micallef, designated Commissioner for Intergenerational Fairness, Youth, Culture, and Sport, outlined his priorities for the cultural sector during his European Parliament hearing, focusing on the Cultural Compass. This document, already featured in his Mission Letter, is positioned as a foundational guide to justify and steer all actions of the Commission in the creative and cultural sectors. The compass is a continuation of the New European Agenda for Culture, adopted in 2018 by European institutions.

Micallef described the Cultural Compass as “a game changer for the cultural sector,” identifying three main objectives:

1. Protecting European culture and cultural heritage: this point is explored in detail later in the article;
2. Promoting access to culture across all European regions, including rural and underdeveloped areas;
3. Enhancing competitiveness and innovation in the cultural sector by leveraging new digital technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI).

With this strategy, the Commissioner aims to coordinate all policy sectors impacting the cultural and creative industries, fostering not only collaboration with other European Commissioners but also proposing a central hub for these policies. The core idea is to unify monitoring tools for policy success and centralize objectives. In this regard, Culture Action Europe has analyzed in detail what this means for culture at the European level.

He said:

The work on the cultural compass will have two strands in the way I view it. […] The second strand is to promote the role of culture in our policy areas, both internal and external, […] And I will make it a point that I work with colleagues who are covering digital, colleagues who are working on health in the next Commission, colleagues who are working on regions, to promote the role of culture in delivering on our objectives in the European Union through their work as well.

Several key themes are already taking shape: the role of Artificial Intelligence in the cultural and creative sectors (in collaboration with Executive Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Virkkunen), working conditions for artists, youth mental health through culture, access to culture, the promotion of multilingualism, and artistic freedom.

Negotiations and drafting of the plan will take place in late 2025 or early 2026, when discussions on the new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) begin, determining the funding for the Cultural Compass. Micallef promises to work closely with the European Parliament in developing this strategy for European cultural policies.

Cultural Heritage: Protection and Research

Glenn Micallef emphasized the need for a holistic strategy to protect cultural heritage, positioning this as one of the main objectives of the Cultural Compass. This commitment translates into safeguarding cultural diversity and its rich heritage, including linguistic aspects. In this context, Micallef aims to strengthen the DiscoverEU program, which offers travel passes to young people to explore European history and heritage—although more concrete details about the role of cultural heritage in this strategic document will only be available by mid-2025. 

Zaharieva also highlighted the importance of Research & Innovation in the cultural heritage sector. She acknowledged the significance of funding research in the cultural field, particularly in the realm of social sciences. She noted that Horizon Europe, the funding program for research and innovation, also supports research projects in the cultural domain. Zaharieva stressed the importance of ensuring access to culture for all citizens, including through support for cultural institutions, particularly smaller and more peripheral ones, echoing some of the elements outlined in the Cultural Compass.

She committed to promoting regional inclusion, ensuring that the benefits of research and innovation in the cultural sector reach all areas of Europe. Additionally, Zaharieva proposed the creation of “AI factories” to provide access to supercomputing, which cultural institutions could use for digitization projects or large dataset analysis. She said:

So, my portfolio is not directly related to culture and education, but certainly, the Horizon Europe program funds research and science in the so-called “social sciences,” which also includes research in the field of culture. And all the measures we discussed for the so-called “widening” countries, or those that have not yet reached the average level in terms of research and science, also apply to culture and cultural research. (translated from Bulgarian)

It is easy to foresee collaboration between the two Commissioners to promote research and innovation projects that enhance European cultural heritage, particularly within the framework of Horizon Europe. Supporting cultural institutions in their digital transition through training and financial aid for adopting new technologies will primarily fall under Micallef’s remit. However, it will require input from the Commissioner for Research and Innovation: during her discussions with parliamentarians, Zaharieva emphasized the importance of investing in digital training and skills across all sectors.

AI and the Cultural Sector According to Virkkunen and Micallef

One of the hottest topics to address was undoubtedly Artificial Intelligence (AI), from its development within the EU to its impact across various sectors. For good reason, all three commissioners responded to questions on the subject.

Michael Culture Association and Culture Action Europe recently published the Mission Statement of our Action Group on Digital & AI. In its final chapter, we outline advocacy priorities within the AI framework and our commitments.

Micallef considers AI a significant transformative force for the cultural sector, one that must be embraced. He sees AI as an opportunity to enhance the sector’s competitiveness and encourage human creativity. However, he also stresses the importance of ethical and transparent AI use, advocating for the disclosure of information about AI model training and fair remuneration for creators. The Commissioner for Culture proposes an AI strategy for the cultural sector focused on three priorities: supporting the sector’s adaptation to AI developments, promoting ethical and transparent AI use (with clear guidelines for AI in the cultural field), and fostering collaboration between the tech and cultural sectors.

Zaharieva highlighted the need to invest in AI research and development, promote the creation of “AI factories” to provide supercomputing access to industry, start-ups, and researchers, and develop a regulatory framework that encourages investment and innovation. This proposal will likely be integrated into Horizon Europe and its funding guidelines for this field.

Designated Commissioner for Tech Sovereignty Virkkunen was asked about defending creators’ intellectual property in the context of training and using General-Purpose AI tools. Her observations on the topic were limited: Virkkunen primarily focused on the economic and competitiveness aspects of AI, emphasizing the need for a legal framework that promotes investment and innovation in this sector, while fairly remunerating rightholders and artists.

While acknowledging the challenges posed by AI to copyright, Virkkunen underscored the importance of a balanced set of rules that protect rights holders while fostering innovation. She encourages finding agreements among stakeholders, suggesting solutions like licensing to ensure fair compensation for the creative sector. Virkkunen highlighted the need to balance the protection of rights holders with enabling data usage for AI training, stating that “no one should profit from others’ work without compensation.” She said:

At the same time, I would like to encourage also the stakeholders to find agreement here. And that’s why I was mentioning, for example, the licensing solution, because I want to make sure that our creative sector, that they are also compensated in a fair way. This data is also needed to train AI, as we know, but at the same time, nobody should use other people’s work and make business out of that without compensation. 

In this context, the reference to the planned reevaluation of the Copyright Directive in 2026 was significant. This review will provide an opportunity to consider introducing new measures to ensure that the rights of rights holders and the creative sector are adequately protected.

The Missing Piece – Illicit trafficking of cultural goods

In these lengthy discussions between parliamentarians and commissioners-designate, many topics were addressed. Beyond what was said, it is particularly interesting for MCA to analyze what was surprisingly left unsaid: the illicit trafficking of cultural goods.

All three commissioners had opportunities to address this issue: Virkkunen, from the perspective of combating crime (her portfolio also includes internal security), Zaharieva, from the standpoint of scientific research or the importance of Horizon Europe, and finally Micallef, in terms of heritage protection. Yet, no questions were raised on the matter, nor was the topic mentioned even when opportunities arose.

Micallef, in particular, had already addressed some written questions on the role of AI in combating this type of illicit trafficking and could have brought it up when discussing heritage protection in the Cultural Compass. As for Virkkunen, in a previous article, we argued that a portfolio combining digital sovereignty and the fight against illicit trafficking offered promising potential in this field.

We will continue to monitor the situation, hoping and steering for positive developments in raising awareness of this issue on the agenda of these commissioners.