Netherlands 2017 report

Technical Information
Name of Party: 
Netherlands
Date of ratification: 
9/10/2009
Organization(s) or entity(es) responsible for the preparation of the report: 
Ministry of Education, Culture and Science
Netherlands National Commission for Unesco
Officially designated Point of Contact: 
Title: 
Ms
First Name: 
Marieke
Family Name: 
Brugman
Organization: 
Netherlands Commission for Unesco
Mailing Address: 
Kortenaerkade 11 2518 AX Den Haag The Netherlands
Telephone: 
+31(0)704260264
Fax: 
E-mail: 
mbrugman@unesco.nl
Name of stakeholders, including civil society organizations, involved in the preparation of the report: 
Name: 
Mirjam Sneeuwloper
Position: 
Educator
Organization: 
Amsterdam Museum
Name: 
Tabo Goudzwaard
Position: 
Project Leader
Organization: 
The Art of Impact
Name: 
Richtje Sybesma
Position: 
Director
Organization: 
Binoq Atana
Name: 
Marie Fol
Position: 
Head of mobility and advice
Organization: 
DutchCulture
Name: 
Jan Jaap Knol
Position: 
Director
Organization: 
Fonds voor cultuurparticipatie
Name: 
Marlous Willemsen
Position: 
Director
Organization: 
Imagine IC
Name: 
Teunis IJdens
Position: 
Senior policy and advice researcher
Organization: 
LKCA
Name: 
Marlies Tal
Position: 
Head of policy department
Organization: 
LKCA
Name: 
Jan Geert Vierkant
Position: 
Director
Organization: 
Metropole Orkest
Name: 
Diane Elshout
Position: 
Co-artistic Director
Organization: 
Moving Arts Project
Name: 
Antoin Deul
Position: 
Chairman
Organization: 
NinSee
Name: 
Gijs van Beuzekom
Position: 
Unknown
Organization: 
NPO
Name: 
Marjorie Boston
Position: 
Executive Artistic Director
Organization: 
RIGHTABOUTNOW INC
Name: 
Francien van Bohemen
Position: 
PR/PA
Organization: 
Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken
Name: 
Yvonne Donders
Position: 
Professor International Human Rights and Cultural Diversity
Organization: 
University of Amsterdam
Name: 
Cas Smithuijsen
Position: 
Professor Literary and Cultural Studies
Organization: 
Radboud University
Describe the multi-stakeholder consultation process established for the preparation of this report: 

This report was written by the Netherlands Commission for Unesco in collaboration with the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science.Several cultural institutions (see above) have been interviewed in the preparation of this report, as well as policy makers within the Dutch government administration. The interviews addressed the level of awareness of the 2005 convention, the Code Cultural Diversity and served as a general call for advice on policymaking regarding the diversity of cultural expressions. The results of this consultation process will be used to draft the next working programme of the Netherlands Commission for Unesco. Recommendations based upon the research may lead to a policy advice from the Commission to the government.

Executive Summary
Please summarize in max 3500 characters the main achievements and challenges in implementing the Convention and the outlook for the future. Please note this is not an introduction to the report or an annotated table of contents.: 
The ratification of the Convention did not require any addition or amendment to existing legislation in the Netherlands. The Cultural Policy Act (Special Purpose Funding) has been the basis of the Dutch government’s involvement in culture since 1993. The diversity of cultural expressions is firmly entrenched in the Act, which states that the Minister is responsible for preserving and developing cultural expressions and disseminating them across social and geographical boundaries or otherwise propagating them.Minister Jet Bussemaker (Minister of Education, Culture and Science 2013-today) described her priorities in national policy for the arts and culture in a policy memorandum to the Lower House of Parliament in June 2013. [1] She emphasises the breadth of meaning of the term “culture” and describes the need to balance between the artistic, societal and economic value of culture. The Minister explicitly mentions the role culture can play in a changing society: “culture unites, entertains and helps us resolve issues facing our society.” From 2013 to 2016, national culture policies contained the following priorities:  Cultural education and participation in cultural lifeTalent developmentCreative industryDigitisationConnecting the cultural sector to other sectors of societyThe policy measures and instruments outlined in this report reflect Dutch policy with regard to the convention. In policymaking, two terms are used regarding diversity in culture: diversity in general is about difference between people, mainly concerning ethnicity, age and gender. Pluriformity concerns the diversity of the cultural offering.  Both are considered in governmental policy. Intangible heritage and immovable heritage are not within the scope of this report, even though they are both included in national policy regarding cultural diversity. The Netherlands national inventory on intangible heritage contains a number of elements from ethnic minorities. National heritage policy in general focuses on accessibility and inclusion.We have chosen to highlight some policies and measures that reflect both the priorities of Minister Bussemaker’s and  those of the 2005 Convention.       [1] Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, memorandum: Cultuur beweegt (10 June 2013) http://www.government.nl/documents-and-publications/letters/2013/10/15/culture-moves.html.
Overview of cultural policy context
Parties shall describe the key objectives and priorities of their current cultural policy and the impact the Convention has had in their formulation or reformulation. They will also report on the opportunities and challenges to promote the diversity of cultural expressions in a digital environment.: 

After 1945, the Dutch government started to play an active part in encouraging and funding cultural activities. In doing so, it expressly refrained from making any artistic judgement of the arts and culture as a reaction to the mixing of political and artistic judgement during the years 1940-1945 (WWII). The public funding model for the cultural sector was also constructed after this period.The 1980s saw the creation of a funding system by national government and larger municipalities organised in four-year Cultural Policy Document periods, to structure the publicly funded culture sector. Together with the other tiers of government (municipalities, provinces, national culture funds, and the Council for Culture), the national government is responsible for a high-quality cultural offering right across the country.Since 1993, the Cultural Policy Act (BIS - Special Purpose Funding) has been the basis of the Dutch government’s involvement in culture. The diversity of cultural expressions is firmly entrenched in the Act, which states that the Minister is responsible for preserving and developing cultural expressions and disseminating them across social and geographical boundaries or otherwise propagating them.The ratification of the Convention in 2009 did not require any addition or amendment to existing legislation in the Netherlands . National policy does not refer to the convention as an instrument, but its leading principles are promoted within legislation and policies. The Convention is a reference for ongoing policymaking.In policymaking, two terms are used regarding diversity in culture: diversity in general is about difference between people, mainly concerning ethnicity, age and gender. Pluriformity concerns the diversity of the cultural offering.  Both are considered in governmental policy. Intangible heritage and immovable heritage are not within the scope of this report, even though they are both included in national policy regarding cultural diversity. The Netherlands national inventory on intangible heritage contains a number of elements from ethnic minorities. National heritage policy in general focuses on accessibility and inclusion.Minister Jet Bussemaker (Minister of Education, Culture and Science 2013-2017) described her priorities in national policy for the arts and culture in a policy memorandum to the Lower House of Parliament in June 2013.   She emphasises the breadth of meaning of the term “culture” and describes the need to balance between the artistic, societal and economic value of culture. The Minister explicitly mentions the role culture can play in a changing society: “culture unites, entertains and helps us resolve issues facing our society.” At approximately the same time the minister also described her priorities concerning museums . In this document, museums were called to reach out to a non-regular public in order to diversify the attendance.From 2013 to 2016, national culture policies contained the following priorities: Cultural education and participation in cultural life.Talent development.Creative industry.Digitisation.Connecting the cultural sector to other sectors (sports, education, health care, welfare) of society.After the elections in March 2017, currently a new government is being formed. A new Minister for Education, Culture and Science may set different priorities for the period 2017-2021.  

Has the Convention been integrated into the policy development process in any of the following ways?: 
a) It is (or has been) the basis for changing one or more policies?: 
No
How: 
b) It is (or has been) a tool to promote policy discussion?: 
No
How: 
c) It is (or has been) a reference for ongoing policy development?: 
Yes
How: 

The ratification of the Convention in 2009 did not require any addition or amendment to existing legislation in the Netherlands[1]. National policy does not refer to the convention as an instrument, but its leading principles are promoted within legislation and policies. The Convention is a reference for ongoing policymaking. [1] Dutch Quadrennial report 2013 for the Unesco 2005 Convention.

❭ CULTURAL POLICIES AND MEASURES

The roles of various tiers of government in the funding of culture

Context of the measure: 
CULTURAL POLICIES AND MEASURES
b. Key objectives of the measure: 

National cultural policy is implemented roughly along three lines:- The basic national infrastructure consisting of 92 (in 2017) institutions which are directly funded by the government based on the criteria that they have a specific function in national arts and culture or play a key role in regional and urban cultural infrastructure.- Six cultural funds for the performing arts, film, visual arts, literature, the creative industry and cultural participation respectively, which support initiatives in the different sectors on project basis or in two-year cycles. The Minister is responsible for the policy and the working methods of the funds, while the responsibility for the funding decisions rests with the cultural funds themselves. These are the Creative Industries Fund, Performing Arts Fund, Dutch Literary Fund, Mondriaan Fund, Netherlands Film Fund and Cultural Participation Fund.- Policy programmes: a number of programmes are based on cooperation with other ministries including the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Economic Affairs, with other tiers of government (provinces and municipalities) and/or with other parties in the public and private sectors.Cooperation between national government and other tiers of government, the provinces and municipalities, deserves special attention as each tier is autonomous in pursuing its own cultural policy. Together, the three tiers of government are able to provide a robust and wide-ranging level of cultural facilities.

c. What is: 
c.1. the scope of the measure: 
National
c.2. the nature of the measure: 
regulatory
c.3. the main feature of the measure: 

The Minister’s responsibility is confined to the main points of cultural policy. The “Thorbecke principle”[1] states that governments should refrain from making an artistic judgement on cultural expressions. For this judgement, the Minister relies on the Council for Culture [Raad voor Cultuur], the body that advises government and parliament on all (substantive) matters concerning culture and media policy. In accordance with the Cultural Policy (Special Purpose Funding) Act, the Dutch government makes a financial contribution to a wide-ranging and varied cultural offering for all citizens and in all parts of the country by funding institutions and establishing policy programmes.For this reason, the basis of cultural policy in the Netherlands is in accordance with the principles and objectives of the Convention. [1] As chairman of the Constitutional Committee, the statesman Johan Rudolph Thorbecke (1798 – 1872) laid the foundations of the Dutch state in 1848. He led three governments as prime minister. Best known from this period is Thorbecke’s statement about the government’s position with regard to art: “Art is not the business of government as the government cannot judge art, nor yet control it”. What Thorbecke meant by this was that he, as a person, was indeed interested in art but that the government was no judge of science or art.

d. Does it specifically target individuals and/or social groups as defined in Article 7 of the Convention?: 
Yes
e. What are the results expected through the implementation of the measure?: 

a diverse and suitable cultural policy

f.2 Financial resources allocated to implement the measure: 

-

h. Was this measure introduced or revised in order to: 
h.1. Implement the provisions of the Convention?: 
No
h.2. Support/nurture policy discussion inspired by the Convention?: 
No
h.3. Other reasons unrelated to the Convention?: 
No
i. Has the implementation of the measure been evaluated?: 
No
i.1 At what level the evaluation was conducted?: 
National
❭ CULTURAL POLICIES AND MEASURES

Code for cultural diversity

Context of the measure: 
CULTURAL POLICIES AND MEASURES
b. Key objectives of the measure: 

The Code Cultural Diversity was an initiative from organisations in the cultural sector. Created in 2009, the Code Cultural Diversity is a practical instrument for board members, supervisory board members, managing board members and employees. It is a behavioural code which cultural organisations are expected to implement. The Code offers practical assistance to embed cultural diversity in institutions.Dutch society is has become increasingly diverse during the past decades . At the end of 2015, one in eight people in the Netherlands was of non-western origin.[1] However, audience, producers and buyers of the Dutch cultural offering do not fully reflect this diversity. This includes staff in the cultural sector. The six governmental funding agencies receive a lower number of funding requests by culturally diverse organisations. The Code Cultural Diversity is established in order to ensure that institutions, programmes and audience reflect the diversity of the population in a more visible way. It was initiated by the organisations themselves, through the branch organisations for the performing arts and museums.For the period 2012-2015, institutions were not obliged to report on results achieved relating to the Code. Since 2016 cultural institutions are expected to increase their efforts to implement the Code and to reflect on the implementation of the Code within their organisations. For the period 2017-2020 every institution in the BIS (Special Purpose Funding- see p.3) is obliged to reflect on the code in their annual reporting. [1] Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, Culture at a first Glance 2016 (2016), p. 10.

c. What is: 
c.1. the scope of the measure: 
National
c.2. the nature of the measure: 
institutional
c.3. the main feature of the measure: 

The Code focusses on four elements: programme, public, personnel and partners. By using the Code, institutions are encouraged to develop an integrated diversity policy. The Federation of Culture is the overarching organisation of the performing arts, museums, libraries, visual arts and theatre. It promotes the common interest of these branches and brings the Code to the attention of the cultural institutions.

d. Does it specifically target individuals and/or social groups as defined in Article 7 of the Convention?: 
Yes
e. What are the results expected through the implementation of the measure?: 

It is expected that the Code will yield better results in the near future because it was given priority by the minister, the Federation of Culture and the Council for Culture. The six governmental funding agencies already endorsed the Code.

f.2 Financial resources allocated to implement the measure: 

In the period 2015-2016, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science allocated 65,000 euro for the promotion of the Code Cultural Diversity. In 2014 this amount was 45,000 Euro.

h. Was this measure introduced or revised in order to: 
h.1. Implement the provisions of the Convention?: 
No
h.2. Support/nurture policy discussion inspired by the Convention?: 
No
h.3. Other reasons unrelated to the Convention?: 
No
i. Has the implementation of the measure been evaluated?: 
Yes
i.1 At what level the evaluation was conducted?: 
National
i.2 What were the main conclusions?: 

The government does keep track of diversity within the cultural sector in general, via ‘Culture at a first glance’[1] and other monitoring activities[2]. However the Code Cultural Diversity has not yet been evaluated as a specific measure. The Council for Culture advises a stronger promotion of the Code[3], something which is fully endorsed by the government. [1] https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2016/11/14/cultuur-in-beeld, p. 89/90 and https://www.cbf.nl/Uploaded_files/Zelf/Rijksoverheid%20(2011)%20-%20Cultuur%20in%20Beeld.pdf, p.37[2] https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2016/11/14/cultuur-in-beeld, pp 67-95[3] https://www.cultuur.nl/actueel/nieuws/raad-voor-cultuur-beoordeelt-subsidieaanvragen-culturele-basisinfrastructuur/item3596

i.3 Which indicators were used to determine impact?: 

see above

❭ CULTURAL POLICIES AND MEASURES

Activities concerning the History of Slavery

Context of the measure: 
CULTURAL POLICIES AND MEASURES
b. Key objectives of the measure: 

Minister Bussemaker strives for more visible and sustainable attention for the history of slavery. She organized a round table on this topic with institutions and experts from the cultural and scientific sectors. While many activities take place relating to this subject, more collaboration and coordination could be established to enhance impact.

c. What is: 
c.1. the scope of the measure: 
National
c.2. the nature of the measure: 
financial
c.3. the main feature of the measure: 
  • The National Museum of World Cultures organised an international symposium on slavery as a shared past (2017).
  • Rijksmuseum, Tropenmuseum and Amsterdam Museum have been reviewing the descriptions of objects in their collections since 2015, and are replacing possible offensive texts and proposing alterations in the display of subjects. Starting in 2017, the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Ministry of Culture is offering support for this project.
  • Well known are the national commemoration of the abolition of slavery at the monument in Amsterdam (Oosterpark) and Keti Koti Festival in Rotterdam, both on July 1st. The commemoration in Amsterdam, organised by NiNsee (National Institute Dutch Slavery Past and heritage), is funded by the Ministry of Culture (via Mondriaan Fund) and the city of Amsterdam. NiNsee is an institution funded by the city of Amsterdam. Part of its activities is funded by the Ministry of Social Affairs.
  • The Ministry of Social Affairs is coordinating activities within the UN Decade for people of African descent. 
  • The Network for the History of Slavery (Netwerk Slavernijverleden) started in 2014. It consists of a diverse range of cultural and scientific organisations and experts. The network has three subdivisions: Education, Research & Heritage, and Art & Culture. Its mission is to disseminate knowledge on the history of slavery to the wider public, and to involve different stakeholders. The Municipality of Amsterdam provides some funding for the Network.
d. Does it specifically target individuals and/or social groups as defined in Article 7 of the Convention?: 
No
e. What are the results expected through the implementation of the measure?: 

An increase of the impact of activities regarding the history of slavery by more collaboration and coordination.

f.2 Financial resources allocated to implement the measure: 

The commemoration is funded via Mondriaan Fund.

h. Was this measure introduced or revised in order to: 
h.1. Implement the provisions of the Convention?: 
No
h.2. Support/nurture policy discussion inspired by the Convention?: 
No
h.3. Other reasons unrelated to the Convention?: 
Yes
i. Has the implementation of the measure been evaluated?: 
No
❭ CULTURAL POLICIES AND MEASURES

Cultural education with quality (Cultuureducatie met Kwaliteit ‘CmK’)

Context of the measure: 
CULTURAL POLICIES AND MEASURES
b. Key objectives of the measure: 

The aim of the measure is: ‘to let children profit from quality cultural education in which they enjoy their education while learning important 21st century skills’.[1] In other words: to help develop children into creative and critical adults. Students should be in contact with music, dance, drawing, theatre and cultural heritage during their entire primary school career. [2] This measure is targeted at primary schools. An important aim of this measure is to give cultural education a stronger basis in the primary school’s curriculum. Other measures aim at boosting musical education in primary schools, coordinated by the Fund for Cultural Participation, and the training of music teachers in teacher training institutes.Another noteworthy arrangement executed by The Fund for Cultural Participation is specifically targeted at younger students in vocational education. This intends to stimulate the collaboration of TVET-schools and cultural institutions. Minister Bussemaker allocated extra funding until 2020 to increase dispersion and to secure the position of culture education in TVET in collaboration with municipalities.  [1] http://www.cultuureducatiemetkwaliteit.nl/over-cmk/#het-doel.[2] http://www.cultuureducatiemetkwaliteit.nl/.

c. What is: 
c.1. the scope of the measure: 
National
c.2. the nature of the measure: 
financial
c.3. the main feature of the measure: 

CmK improves cooperation between schools and cultural institution and the knowledge and skills of teachers. Stimulating cultural education is not only the responsibility of the government; the effort of different parties from the cultural field and education such as local municipalities and provinces, is equally important,.[1] Projects are funded in a matching structure, where national and local government jointly provide funding.  [1] Ibid.

d. Does it specifically target individuals and/or social groups as defined in Article 7 of the Convention?: 
Yes
e. What are the results expected through the implementation of the measure?: 

The focus in 2017-2020 will be on four different areas.

  • Improving the quality of cultural education.
  • Schools will have ownership of cultural education.
  • Cultural education needs to become an integral part of the school’s curriculum.
  • Closer cooperation between schools and the direct cultural environment.[1]

 [1] Ibid.

f.2 Financial resources allocated to implement the measure: 

39 million euro from the Dutch government for the period 2013-2016, in which 54 different projects were financed.

h. Was this measure introduced or revised in order to: 
h.1. Implement the provisions of the Convention?: 
No
h.2. Support/nurture policy discussion inspired by the Convention?: 
No
h.3. Other reasons unrelated to the Convention?: 
Yes
i. Has the implementation of the measure been evaluated?: 
Yes
i.1 At what level the evaluation was conducted?: 
National
i.2 What were the main conclusions?: 

In the period 2015-2016, roughly 60% of all primary schools joined CmK, 36% of all primary school students took part in at least one of the cultural activities organised by CmK.[1] The measure will be continued for 2017-2020. [1]http://www.lkca.nl/~/media/kennisbank/publicaties/2016/ce_review_culltuureducatie_met_kwaliteit_def%20(2).pdf, p. 7.

❭ CULTURAL POLICIES AND MEASURES

Culture Card (Cultuurkaart) and MBO Card

Context of the measure: 
CULTURAL POLICIES AND MEASURES
b. Key objectives of the measure: 

The key objective is to lower the bar for students in secondary schools and in vocational education in the Netherlands to visit cultural institutions or get involved in their activities. The Culture Card is handed out to students in secondary schools, and provides them with a budget (funded by the ministry of Education, culture and science and by individual schools) to spend on cultural education.On 1 January 2016, the Minister of Education, Culture and Science introduced the MBO-card. This card is handed out to MBO (TVET) students offering discounts in cultural participation. The aim of the MBO-card is to better embed cultural activities within the school curriculum[1][1] Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, Culture at a first Glance 2016 (2016), p.95

c. What is: 
c.1. the scope of the measure: 
National
c.2. the nature of the measure: 
financial
c.3. the main feature of the measure: 

CJP (Cultural Youth Passport) has introduced the Culture Card which every secondary school student can use to visit cultural institutions or activities. It offers them a reduction on the entrance fees. Most secondary schools (65%) give this card to their students (age 12-18). More than 700.000 students take part in the Culture Card (73% of the total secondary school students).[1] [1] https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/binaries/rijksoverheid/documenten/kamerstukken/2016/11/23/kamerbrief-cultuuronderwijs-najaar-2016/kamerbrief-cultuuronderwijs-najaar-2016.pdf.

d. Does it specifically target individuals and/or social groups as defined in Article 7 of the Convention?: 
Yes
e. What are the results expected through the implementation of the measure?: 

This measure has been very efficient to get young students involved in culture. Over 70% of the student population aged 12-18 received the card. Almost 90% of the MBO students received the MBO Card.

f.2 Financial resources allocated to implement the measure: 

The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science donates 5 euro for each card that is handed out in secondary school (roughly 3,5 million euro). The Dutch government sponsors 5 euro on each card handed out to a student, 89% of secondary schools add 10 euro to this amount. 88% of MBO students received the MBO Card.[1] [1] Ibid.

h. Was this measure introduced or revised in order to: 
h.1. Implement the provisions of the Convention?: 
No
h.2. Support/nurture policy discussion inspired by the Convention?: 
No
h.3. Other reasons unrelated to the Convention?: 
Yes
i. Has the implementation of the measure been evaluated?: 
Yes
i.1 At what level the evaluation was conducted?: 
National
i.2 What were the main conclusions?: 

This measure has been very efficient to get young students involved in culture. Over 70% of the student population aged 12-18 received the card. Almost 90% of the MBO students received the MBO Card.

i.3 Which indicators were used to determine impact?: 

-

❭ CULTURAL POLICIES AND MEASURES

Fund for Cultural Participation

Context of the measure: 
CULTURAL POLICIES AND MEASURES
b. Key objectives of the measure: 

The Fund for Cultural Participation stimulates active cultural involvement of all people in the Netherlands. The Fund aims to contribute to an open society in which people of all ages and backgrounds can develop their creativity. The Fund connects and supports people, organizations and the government who are involved in cultural participation.[1] The Fund is established and subsidized by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. [1] http://www.cultuurparticipatie.nl/over-het-fonds/missie-en-doelstellingen/.

c. What is: 
c.1. the scope of the measure: 
National
c.2. the nature of the measure: 
financial
c.3. the main feature of the measure: 

: The Fund subsidises cultural initiatives and schools throughout the Netherlands which stimulate culture participation. The Fund cooperates with cultural institutions, clubs, cultural heritage organizations, schools, other funds, the government and social institutions. With personal stories on its website (http://www.cultuurparticipatie.nl) the fund raises awareness of the social value of culture.[1] An example of this is the project Let’s Dance, where young and experienced dancers danced together with elderly amateur dancers in a performance on migration and refugees. The project was funded by the FCP. [1] Ibid.

d. Does it specifically target individuals and/or social groups as defined in Article 7 of the Convention?: 
No
e. What are the results expected through the implementation of the measure?: 

The Fund funds several projects to stimulate cultural participation. In 2015, around 6 million people were involved in cultural activities[1][1] http://www.cultuurparticipatie.nl/over-het-fonds/missie-en-doelstellingen/

f.2 Financial resources allocated to implement the measure: 

In 2015, the Fund received almost 8 million euro from the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science.[1] [1] http://www.cultuurparticipatie.nl/file/1461226219.0817foSTYC/jaarverslag-2015-fonds-voor-cultuurparticipatie.pdf

h. Was this measure introduced or revised in order to: 
h.1. Implement the provisions of the Convention?: 
No
h.2. Support/nurture policy discussion inspired by the Convention?: 
No
h.3. Other reasons unrelated to the Convention?: 
Yes
i. Has the implementation of the measure been evaluated?: 
Yes
i.1 At what level the evaluation was conducted?: 
National
i.2 What were the main conclusions?: 

All six national funds are evaluated every four years by an independent committee.

i.3 Which indicators were used to determine impact?: 

All six national funds are evaluated every four years by an independent committee.

❭ CULTURAL POLICIES AND MEASURES

Art of Impact

Context of the measure: 
CULTURAL POLICIES AND MEASURES
b. Key objectives of the measure: 

The Art of Impact was a programme that stimulated the collaboration between artists and social organisations. It tried to use creativity to solve social issues. The programme, that ran in 2015 and 2016, involved research on social issues and stimulated existing and new art projects with a clear social impact. In the period 2015-2016, 122 programmes were supported. [1] [1] https://www.mondriaanfonds.nl/activiteit/art-impact/.

c. What is: 
c.1. the scope of the measure: 
National
c.2. the nature of the measure: 
financial
c.3. the main feature of the measure: 

The aim of The Art of Impact was to have artists, designers, mediators, cultural institutions and clients from inside and outside the cultural sector create plans that explore and strengthen the relationship between the arts and other social fields, and make this relationship more visible.

d. Does it specifically target individuals and/or social groups as defined in Article 7 of the Convention?: 
No
e. What are the results expected through the implementation of the measure?: 

The Art of Impact was a programme which ended in 2016. The results are difficult to describe as the arts do not always conform to cognitive results. The majority of the projects are still in development, therefore it is not possible to describe the achieved impact.[1] The programme achieved a better establishment of social design in domains outside the cultural sector. Artists are increasingly asked to engage in social issues. [1] http://theartofimpact.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Onderzoeksrapport-The-Art-of-Impact-door-KWINK-groep.pdf,

f.2 Financial resources allocated to implement the measure: 

The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science allocated seven million euro to the Art of Impact for the period 2015-2016.

h. Was this measure introduced or revised in order to: 
h.1. Implement the provisions of the Convention?: 
No
h.2. Support/nurture policy discussion inspired by the Convention?: 
No
h.3. Other reasons unrelated to the Convention?: 
Yes
i. Has the implementation of the measure been evaluated?: 
Yes
i.1 At what level the evaluation was conducted?: 
National
i.2 What were the main conclusions?: 

Art of Impact and the projects within the Art of Impact were reviewed.[1] Based upon the evaluation recommendations have been formulated for future projects. [1]  http://theartofimpact.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Onderzoeksrapport-The-Art-of-Impact-door-KWINK-groep.pdf, p. 41.

❭ INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL COOPERATION

International Cultural Policy (Internationaal Cultuur Beleid ‘ICB’)

Context of the measure: 
INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL COOPERATION
b. Key objectives of the measure: 

Foreign cultural expressions and the history of the ‘other’ are of great importance to obtain new perspectives, images and knowledge. Artists and cultural institutions from the Netherlands offer new inspiration and knowledge abroad and vice versa.The International Cultural Policy is aimed at facilitating international cooperation with the relevant parties: the cultural sector, civil-society organizations, governments, cities and private parties.[1]The Common Cultural Heritage Policy (described in the next measure) falls under the International Cultural Policy.  [1] https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/beleidsnota-s/2016/05/04/beleidskader-internationaal-cultuurbeleid-2017-2020.Government primarily has a facilitating role. On an international level, government focuses on 4 different aspects.

  1. Cultural institutions, artists or heritage professionals often have limited knowledge about international exchanges. The government helps them to get in contact with the relevant institutions which stimulate and facilitate exchanges, presentations and international cooperation, such as embassies, funds and supporting institutions.
  2. Government involvement may be desirable or necessary to engage in international cultural cooperation and exchange. This applies to countries where the government has a decisive role in cultural policy or where it has a strong influence on cultural life.
  3. The cultural sector’s visibility and appreciation may be enhanced by working together. Collective international promotion is by definition not a matter for an individual institution or artist.
  4. Culture can be used as part of diplomacy.[1]

 [1]  Ibid.

c. What is: 
c.1. the scope of the measure: 
International
c.2. the nature of the measure: 
financial
c.3. the main feature of the measure: 

The International Cultural Policy aims at facilitating international cooperation of the parties concerned: the cultural sector, civil-society organizations, governments, cities and private parties.[1] [1] https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/beleidsnota-s/2016/05/04/beleidskader-internationaal-cultuurbeleid-2017-2020.

d. Does it specifically target individuals and/or social groups as defined in Article 7 of the Convention?: 
No
e. What are the results expected through the implementation of the measure?: 

Improvement in mutual understanding, interest in cultural expressions, cultural identity and history.  

f.2 Financial resources allocated to implement the measure: 

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science yearly spend 21.2 million euro together.[1] [1]  Ibid.

h. Was this measure introduced or revised in order to: 
h.1. Implement the provisions of the Convention?: 
No
h.2. Support/nurture policy discussion inspired by the Convention?: 
No
h.3. Other reasons unrelated to the Convention?: 
Yes
i. Has the implementation of the measure been evaluated?: 
Yes
i.1 At what level the evaluation was conducted?: 
International
i.2 What were the main conclusions?: 

After the evaluation of the policy over the period 2013-2016, the priorities for the International Cultural Policy 2017-2020 are:

  • Attention to both the intrinsic and social value of culture, as well as its economic value;
  • Emphasis on the importance of exchanges, networks and reciprocity;
  • Development of a coherent and integral international approach, with more room for initiatives from the field;
  • More attention for the unifying role culture can play internationally, with a focus on the countries around Europe;
  • More support for cultural diplomacy worldwide.
i.3 Which indicators were used to determine impact?: 

-

❭ INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL COOPERATION

Common Cultural Heritage policy (Gedeeld Cultureel Erfgoed (GCE))

Context of the measure: 
INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL COOPERATION
b. Key objectives of the measure: 

The Netherlands have maintained intensive relationships with a number of countries all over the world. These relations have left us with tangible and intangible heritage, generally called Common Cultural Heritage. Examples include u the heritage in other countries from the times of the East India Company and West India Company, from our colonial past, or from a time of intensive cultural or other relations.Objectives of the GCE-policy are fostering international relations, sustainable conservation of heritage and promoting the visibility of and positive impression of The Netherlands.[1] [1] http://www.nationaalarchief.nl/sites/default/files/docs/gce_beleidskader_2013-2016_definitief__2_a.pdf

c. What is: 
c.1. the scope of the measure: 
International
c.2. the nature of the measure: 
financial
c.3. the main feature of the measure: 

The Netherlands worked with the following GCE countries: Australia, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Japan, Russia, Suriname, Sri Lanka, the United States of America, and South-Africa.

d. Does it specifically target individuals and/or social groups as defined in Article 7 of the Convention?: 
No
e. What are the results expected through the implementation of the measure?: 

GCE offers points of departure for international collaboration. International collaboration fosters intercultural dialogue and deepens insights in the cultural identity and solidarity between peoples. In this way it promotes peace and security and helps solve problems of economic, social, cultural or humanitarian nature.Collaboration on shared cultural heritage may also add to critical reflections on our history and enlarge the mutual understanding of past and present. Furthermore it could play a role in diplomacy, from a public or economic perspective: when incorporating cultural heritage within international relations the visibility of the Netherlands may be improved and it may raise goodwill abroad.[1]This may take place in the form of training, knowledge exchange, ameliorating access to archives, discussing intangible heritage or repurposing of immovable cultural heritage. [1] Ibid.

f.2 Financial resources allocated to implement the measure: 

: one million euro annually from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and one million euro annually from the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, for the years 2013-2016. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs primarily funds embassies within the GCE structure. The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science primarily funds the National Archive and the Cultural Heritage Agency.[1] [1] http://www.nationaalarchief.nl/sites/default/files/docs/gce_beleidskader_2013-2016_definitief__2_a.pdf .

h. Was this measure introduced or revised in order to: 
h.1. Implement the provisions of the Convention?: 
No
h.2. Support/nurture policy discussion inspired by the Convention?: 
No
h.3. Other reasons unrelated to the Convention?: 
Yes
i. Has the implementation of the measure been evaluated?: 
Yes
i.1 At what level the evaluation was conducted?: 
International
i.2 What were the main conclusions?: 

In general, the policy has been considered to be successful[1]. In the 2012 Mid-term review , the audit services of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs advised to continue the policy. They also suggested to improve the efficiency, this could be done by revaluating the GCE priority countries and increasing transparency in policymaking. Furthermore, the policy should work more with a demand based attitude and less with a supply based attitude.[2] [1] https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2016/06/14/iob-cultuur-als-kans-beleidsdoorlichting-van-het-internationaal-cultuurbeleid-2009-2014, p. 85.[2] Ibid.

i.3 Which indicators were used to determine impact?: 

see above

❭ PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT

Prince Claus Fund

Context of the measure: 
PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT
b. Key objectives of the measure: 

The Prince Claus Fund was founded on 6 September 1996 as a tribute to Prince Claus's dedication to culture and development. It was founded by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Development and the Prime Minister on the occasion of HRH Prince Claus’ 70th birthday[1]. The Fund states that culture is a basic need and the motor of development. Based on the principle that culture is a basic need, the Prince Claus Fund’s mission is to actively seek cultural cooperation founded on equality and trust, with partners of excellence, in spaces where resources and opportunities for cultural expression, creative production and research are limited and cultural heritage is threatened.[2] [1] https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-24886-1.html[2] http://www.princeclausfund.org/en/the-fund

c. What is: 
c.1. the scope of the measure: 
International
c.2. the nature of the measure: 
financial
c.3. the main feature of the measure: 

The Prince Claus Fund supports artists, critical thinkers and cultural organisations in spaces where freedom of cultural expression is restricted by conflict, poverty, repression, marginalisation or taboos. Annually, the Fund grants eleven Prince Claus Awards to individuals and organisations for their outstanding achievements in the field of culture and development. The Fund also provides first aid to cultural heritage damaged by man-made or natural disaster.The Fund has built a diverse global network of people, many of them role models in their own societies. This network of trust and mutual respect is the backbone of the Fund. Local partners and initiatives guide all the Fund’s work, following the conviction of Prince Claus that people are not being developed, but develop themselves.[1] Individuals and organizations cannot request funding themselves, the Prince Claus Fund selects artists and organisations who receive funding. [1] http://www.princeclausfund.org/en/programmes/about

d. Does it specifically target individuals and/or social groups as defined in Article 7 of the Convention?: 
Yes
e. What are the results expected through the implementation of the measure?: 

Over 2013-2015 [1] (results over 2016 have not yet been published) the fund supported 151 projects (total amount of funding 2.7 million Euro), and 108 Cultural Emergency Responses. [1] http://www.princeclausfund.org/nl/the-fund/facts-and-figures

f.2 Financial resources allocated to implement the measure: 

The Fund is financially supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Dutch Postcode Lottery and individual donations. In 2015 the budget totalled 5,446,960 euro.[1] [1]http://www.princeclausfund.org/files/docs/2015%20Prince%20Claus%20Fund%20Annual%20Report%20online.pdf.

h. Was this measure introduced or revised in order to: 
h.1. Implement the provisions of the Convention?: 
No
h.2. Support/nurture policy discussion inspired by the Convention?: 
No
h.3. Other reasons unrelated to the Convention?: 
Yes
i. Has the implementation of the measure been evaluated?: 
Yes
i.1 At what level the evaluation was conducted?: 
International
i.2 What were the main conclusions?: 

The Prince Claus Fund’s total budget in 2015 was €5,446,960, of which €3,805,555 went toward the direct support of cultural initiatives and dedicated partners, primarily in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. In addition to the steadfast support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Dutch Postcode Lottery, €1,133,862 was raised through contributions from private donors.

i.3 Which indicators were used to determine impact?: 

see above

Have you taken or supported initiatives involving civil society in activities: 
Promote the objectives of the convention through awareness raising and other activities: 
Yes
Please explain how: 

As cultural diversity and accessibility are priorities in national culture policy, civil society is actively involved in protecting and promoting the diversity of cultural expressions. Below some examples of civil society initiatives are presented. Voices of Tolerance is an educational project from Museum Ons Lieve Heer op Solder (Our Lord in the Attic Museum). The project consists of lessons and workshops in which secondary school students, in collaboration with teachers and well-known artists, reflect on themes such as freedom and tolerance. The students (from diverse culturally and socio-economic backgrounds) compose raps, songs, fashion statements or poems to share their thoughts. The initiative specifically focuses on students from vocational schools, and combines the history of the museum with current discussions on tolerance and respect. Guidelines for the programme are being written so other museums can use the method too. Imagine IC archives stories from the Bijlmermeer neighbourhood in Amsterdam. The Bijlmermeer is an area where many Surinamese people lived after the independence of Suriname in 1975, and it has had a very diverse population from the time when it was built. Imagine IC offers new narratives to the mainstream historical discourse. It is an open organisation that collaborates with Bijlmer-locals to create exhibitions. As such, the museum has become a space where locals can tell their own story. For example, Imagine IC documented and archived information on the Zwart Beraad (black deliberation) movement.[1] It was one of the groups in a larger emancipatory and culturally diverse political movement in the 1990’s. Zwart Beraad wanted to play a role in the decision making process on the spending of EU funding for urban renewal. This lead to the first black district representative in Amsterdam’s city council. Imagine IC organised a debate and an exhibition about the movement. [1] http://www.imagineic.nl/pagina/zwart-beraad

Collect data and share and exchange information on measures adopted at local and international level: 
Yes
Please explain how: 

All policy memoranda submitted to parliament are aligned with the institutions, experts and civil society. Initiatives from the field, like the Code for Cultural Diversity are supported by the government.Governmental Research uses information and statistics from civil society. The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science runs a research programme and uses publications from home and abroad. The Netherlands aspires to pursue evidence-based policymaking. Policy is evaluated and if necessary adjusted. Important partners are The Netherlands Institute for Social Research (SCP- a government agency which conducts research into the social aspects of all areas of government policy), Statistics Netherlands (CBS-  the responsibility of CBS is twofold: firstly, to compile (official) national statistics and secondly to compile European (community) statistics.), universities and knowledge institutions. Trends and developments in the cultural sector from 2013 until today have been published by the government in the report Culture at a first glance. In 2016 cultural diversity was a major theme in this report. Every four years the government publishes The State of Heritage (de Erfgoedbalans), a report discussing developments in the heritage sector and whether policy objectives have been met, and to which extent.

Provide spaces where ideas of civil societies can be heard and discussed while developing policies: 
Yes
Please explain how: 

National policy does not refer to the convention as an instrument, but its leading principles are certainly promoted.  In preparation of this report, the Netherlands Commission for Unesco spoke to several civil society organisations. These interviews provided the Commission with more indepth knowledge on current trends and challenges in the diversity of cultural expressions. These results will be taken into consideration for the Commission’s working plans for the coming years.  The Commission itself promotes the convention via its website and in activities related to the convention. It provides patronage to activities that are within the scope of the convention and add to its visibility. An example of this is an event organised by Moving Arts Festival on May 21st 2017, World Day for Cultural Diversity for Dialogue and Development.The Commission also provides information on the International Fund for Cultural Diversity (IFCD), and may guide applications towards Unesco’s headquarters.

Implement Operational Guidelines: 
No
Please explain how: 
Other: 
Please explain how: 
Is Civil Society contributing to this report?: 
Yes
Name of the Organization(s): 
Netherlands National Commission for Unesco

Contribution from Civil Society

This section is to be completed with information provided by civil society: 
Has the civil society taken initiatives to: 
Promote the principle and the objectives of the Convention locally and internationally: 
No
Please explain how: 
Promote ratification of the Convention and its implementation by governements: 
No
Please explain how: 
Bring the concerns of citizens, associations and enterprises to public authorities, including vulnerable groups: 
No
Please explain how: 
Contribute to the achievement of greater transparency and accountability and accountability in the cultural governance: 
No
Please explain how: 
Monitor policy and programme implementation on measures to protect and promote diversity of cultural expression: 
No
Please explain how: 
Build capacities in domains linked to the Convention and carrying out data collection: 
No
Please explain how: 
Create innovative partnerships with the public and private sectors and with civil society of other regions of the worlds: 
No
Please explain how: 
Challenges encountered or foreseen to implement the Convention: 
Solutions found or envisaged: 
Activities planned for next 4 years to implement the Convention: 
Supporting attachment provided by the Civil Society: 
Describe main results achieved in implementing the Convention: 

See measures

Challenges encountered or foreseen to implement the Convention : 

At the end of 2015 the Netherlands had a population of almost 17 million[1]. The population is ageing, with about 15,6% aged over 65. It is estimated that by 2040 the number of persons aged 65 or over will be 4.6 million, out of an estimated total population of 18 million.Like many other countries in Western Europe, the Netherlands is an “immigration country.” In 2060 The Netherlands will have an expected number of inhabitants with a migratory background of 5,7 million, where it had 3.7 million in 2015. It is likely that the cultural sector may want to respond to these changes in society. Social cohesion and accessibility of the arts and culture may be essential subjects for the coming years, and may gain importance[2].  Topics originating in the Dutch colonial past, or related to that, are addressed via media and public debate. Urban development and population decline in rural areas create a range of challenges for the culture sector. One important issue to be faced in future cultural policy is therefore how local and national cultural amenities and institutions should deal with these demographic trends and how authorities should respond.[3] The national government is preparing cultural  policy plans for post-2021 in dialogue with the cultural sector, local governments and civil society. The Netherlands Commission for Unesco is studying social inclusion and its relation to culture. At the time of writing the new government was in the process of formation. The new minister of Education, Science and Culture will choose his or her accents in policy for the years to come. [1] Statistics mentioned in this chapter are to be found in https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/achtergrond/2014/51/bevolkingsprognose-2014-2060-groei-door-migratie [2] SCP report Werelden van verschil https://www.scp.nl/Publicaties/Alle_publicaties/Publicaties_2015/Werelden_van_verschil and Gescheiden werelden https://www.scp.nl/Publicaties/Alle_publicaties/Publicaties_2014/Gescheiden_werelden[3] Ibid, p.32.

Solutions found or envisaged to overcome those challenges: 

See measures

Steps planned for the next 4 years: 

The national government is preparing cultural  policy plans for post-2021 in dialogue with the cultural sector, local governments and civil society. The Netherlands Commission for Unesco is studying social inclusion and its relation to culture.

1. Economy and Finance: 
1.1. Total Flows of Cultural Goods and Services: 
1.1.a Cultural Goods: 
Total exports in cultural goods: 
USD: 
0.00
Year: 
Source: 
Total imports in cultural goods: 
USD: 
0.00
Year: 
Source: 
1.1.b Cultural Services: 
Total exports in cultural services: 
USD: 
Year: 
Source: 
Total imports in cultural services: 
USD: 
Year: 
Source: 
1.2 Contribution of cultural activities Gross Domestic Product: 
Total GDP: 
USD: 
Year: 
Source: 
USD: 
Year: 
Source: 
Which methodology was used to calculate the share of culture in total GDP?: 
1.3. Government expenditure on culture: 
Total government expenditure: 
USD: 
Year: 
Source: 
Share of culture in government expenditure: 
USD: 
Year: 
Source: 
2. Books: 
(a) Number of published titles: 
Num: 
Year: 
Source: 
(b) Number of publishing companies: 
Total all companies: 
Num: 
Year: 
Source: 
Small Size Companies: 
Num: 
Year: 
Source: 
Medium Size: 
Num: 
Year: 
Source: 
Large Size: 
Num: 
Year: 
Source: 
(c) Bookshops and sales: 
Bookstore chains: 
Num: 
Sales, USD: 
Year: 
Source: 
Independent Book stores: 
Num: 
Sales, USD: 
Year: 
Source: 
Book stores in other retail: 
Num: 
Sales, USD: 
Year: 
Source: 
Online Retailers (labels): 
Num: 
Sales, USD: 
Year: 
Source: 
(d) Translation flows: 
Number of published translations: 
Num: 
Year: 
Source: 
3. Music: 
(a) Production / Number of albums produced: 
Physical Format: 
Num: 
Year: 
Source: 
Digital Format: 
Num: 
Year: 
Source: 
Independent Format: 
Num: 
Year: 
Source: 
Majors: 
Num: 
Year: 
Source: 
(b) Sales / Total number of recorded music sales: 
Physical Format: 
Num: 
Year: 
Source: 
Digital Format: 
Num: 
Year: 
Source: 
4. Media: 
(a) Broadcasting audience and share: 
Year: 
Source: 
Programmes: 
(b) Broadcasting media organizations: 
Year: 
Source: 
Ownership: 
Public: 
Radio channels: 
Television channels: 
Both radio & television channels: 
Total: 
Private: 
Radio channels: 
Television channels: 
Both radio & television channels: 
Total: 
Community: 
Radio channels: 
Television channels: 
Both radio & television channels: 
Total: 
Not specified: 
Radio channels: 
Television channels: 
Both radio & television channels: 
Total: 
Total: 
Radio channels: 
Television channels: 
Both radio & television channels: 
Total: 
(c) Newspapers: 
Year: 
Source: 
Publishing format - printed: 
Free Only: 
Non-daily newspapers: 
Total: 
Paid Only: 
Daily newspapers: 
Non-daily newspapers: 
Total: 
Both Free and Paid: 
Daily newspapers: 
Non-daily newspapers: 
Total: 
Publishing format - both printed and online: 
Free Only: 
Daily newspapers: 
Non-daily newspapers: 
Total: 
Paid Only: 
Daily newspapers: 
Non-daily newspapers: 
Total: 
Both Free and Paid: 
Daily newspapers: 
Non-daily newspapers: 
Total: 
Total: 
Daily newspapers: 
Non-daily newspapers: 
Total: 
5. Connectivity, infrastructure, access: 
Number of mobile phone subscribers per 1000 inhabitants: 
Num: 
Year: 
Source: 
Number of households with Internet access at home: 
Num: 
Year: 
Source: 
Number of individuals using the Internet: 
Num: 
Year: 
Source: 
Percentage of people participating in cultural activities at least one time during the last 12 months: 
6. Cultural Participation: 
Activity (in %): 
Cinema: 
Female: 
Male: 
Total: 
Theatre: 
Male: 
Total: 
Dance (including ballet): 
Female: 
Male: 
Total: 
Live concert/musical performance: 
Female: 
Male: 
Total: 
Exhibition: 
Female: 
Male: 
Total: 
TOTAL: 
Female: 
Male: 
Total: 
Is there any available data on the reasons for the non participation in cultural events?: 
Main reasons for non-participation (in %): 
Too Expensive: 
Female: 
Male: 
Total: 
Lack of Interest: 
Female: 
Male: 
Total: 
Lack of time: 
Female: 
Male: 
Total: 
Lack of information: 
Female: 
Male: 
Total: 
Too far away: 
Female: 
Male: 
Total: 
Other: 
Female: 
Male: 
Total: 
7. Additional clarifications: 

The numbers as mentioned above have been added as a separate document; in this document you will also find the entire report as approved of by Minister Bussemaker. We have added all information mentioned in this original document in the form as requested, but due to the nature of measures taken and decisions made, it would be best to refer to the entire document first. 

Additional Annexes (if any): 
Title: 
Ms
First Name: 
Mariëtte (Jet)
Family Name: 
Bussemaker
Organization: 
Ministry of Education, Culture and Science
Position: 
Ministry of Education, Culture and Science