Today's AFM opening luncheon speaker, director general for culture and audiovisual at the European Commission, talks to Moving Pictures' European editor John Hopewell about the European Union's audiovisual policy.
It's not that common, I believe, that a European delivers the keynote speech at an American film market. Do you think that this reflects a better relationship between the US and the European Union (EU) film industries on a political level, a better industry relationship, or the realisation on the part of the US industry of the immense importance of Europe as one of its major growth markets.
Colette Flesch: All I can say is that it is not for the first time that I have been invited to the American Film Market. Unfortunately, I had not been able to attend in the past and I am very grateful to make up for missed opportunities. And it is not the first time I have a chance to address a public audience in this country on the US-EU relationship in terms of the film industry. The audiovisual debate between the US and the EU may have seemed very heated, especially in the context of the GATT process. But, behind the rhetoric and very often emotional positions, I think we have maintainesd the dialogue.
As the market is becoming more and more global, we need more mutual understanding on both sides of the Atlantic. It is clear that the expansion of the European market is a fundamental opportunity for American companies which more and more rely on foreign markets to recoup the ever-increasing cost of production of their movies. It is also true that our industry has to learn from the experience of the American industry and that, already a few European players are emerging on the international market. However, it is clear that the trade balance in the audiovisual sector remains and will remain massively in favour of the US. Accusations of European protectionism are therefore unfounded. However, what we need is an understanding that goes beyond trade relations.
With the common goal of the information society we share a vision of human enrichment based on electronic communications, as has been stressed in various G7 meetings. We consequently share strong responsibilities: we have to make sure the new services and products will create new opportunities and will not lead to a greater sense of isolation in the individual, standardisation of society and a reduction of the cultural and linguistic diversity. We must pay attention to our children, avoiding for example, too much violence. As you can see, we have many more subjects for dialogue than just trade relations.
For the last two years, meetings between members of the US/EU film industries have been taking place under the banner of the EU/US roundtables. What have been their results to date?
Colette Flesch: The most important result of these Roundtables I consider to be the fact that EU and US industries meet and discuss issues of mutual interest and try to enhance mutual understanding. They certainly have contributed to improving the transatlantic relationship in this area.
As far as concrete results are concerned, MPA member companies have promised to donate US$2million over five years to enhance the range and quality of advanced training in the European film industry.
Furthermore, MPA and some AFMA member companies have offered a total of approximately 22 internships per year at various European or US locations to young European film-professionals.
The practicalities have yet to be sorted out and only at the end of this exercise will we be able to judge the impact of these proposals.
While the issue of European TV quotqs appeared to be resolved with a compromise solution between European governments last year, the subject now appears more open with some Member States demanding stricter quota terms. Can you see this being resolved. If so, when, or how?
Colette Flesch: The question of the obligation for a majority proportion of European works on European TV (excluding sports, news, adverts, games and teletext) is only part of a more far-reaching Directive which guarantees the free circulation of TV broadcasts in the EU. This Directive has been in force since 1989 and will remain in force until it is modified. The complex decision-making process, which involves the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, does not allow me, at this point in time, to say exactly when the new, modified Directive will be adopted, nor what the provisions will read like in every detail at the end of the procedure. However, I believe that this new text has been recognised by all concerned as of great importance and that it will be finally adopted by the end of the year.
The Commission has supported in principle the idea for an ecu200 million film bank guarantee scheme to incentivise private sector financing of film and TV production. If the scheme were to go ahead, is it envisaged that US companies could come in on productions which benefit from such part-guaranteed loans?
In proposing an audiovisual loan guarantee scheme, the European Commission is pursuing a twofold objective: stimulate investments in film and audiovisual production in Europe and make sure this process is in line with the market. In other words, our aim is to create better access to funding for projects with high commercial potential on the European and international markets.
Provided we have a satisfactory response from the financial sector, we think this initiative can have a real impact on the structure of the European industry, helping companies to better handle the risks involved in film or television production. In our proposal, we have limited the access to this publicly-funded support mechanism to European companies. After all, what we are looking for is precisely the restructuring of our industry! But, in fact, this scheme can indirectly benefit Euro-American co-production. It will be easier to find European counterparts keen and able to invest in common projects.
The issue of the renewal of UIP's operating licence appears to have put on the back burner. Will a decision be taken on the matter soon. In what state is the Commission's consideration of this subject?
Colette Flesch: I have no comment to make on this. The matter is being dealt with by the Commission's Directorate General for Competition.
