EXCLUSIVE: As vice-chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education, the French MEP Emma Rafowicz has become a significant political voice within the European film and TV industry.
A member of the centre-left S&D Group in the European Parliament, Rafowicz has earned a reputation as a politician who is engaged and interested in many of the key issues facing the film and TV sector – from the future of Creative Europe and the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) to artificial intelligence and President Trump’s threatened film tariffs.
Rafowicz is in Cannes this week where she will host a press conference organised by the main European and national independent producer organisations to mark the signing of a new Charter for Independent Production. She will also address the role of the film and TV sector in supporting democracy, creativity and cultural diversity in Europe.
Ahead of her Cannes appearance, Rafowicz shared her views with Screen on some of the most pressing issues facing the European industry.
What do you make of President Trump’s plan for tariffs on films made outside America?
The American President persists and signs on the path of a veritable trade and cultural war.
The American administration is now opting for cultural nationalism, the foundations of which are at odds with the universalist message that the American cultural model is supposed to convey, influential abroad and open to foreign cultural influences. The American president even considers films produced abroad to be “propaganda”.
Against this backdrop, the European Commission must take a stand against American cultural nationalism. The Commission must protect the European cultural exception, by setting up new tools of retaliation, in a logic of reciprocity, against the Trump administration, and by reinforcing the protective provisions of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMS).
What is your reaction to President Trump’s Febuary 21 memo identifying the AVMSD as one of the ‘unfair practices’ impacting American companies? And also to complaints by the Motion Picture Association (MPA) about the financial obligations facing its members in Europe?
The US administration’s attack on the Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) Directive is just one example of a broader strategy of economic pressure from Washington. When the Americans attack the AVMS directive, they are touching on one of the most successful constructions of the European cultural exception which helps preserve the ecosystem of independent production.
We’ve seen this approach through the introduction of tariffs on European products, and also through repeated attempts to weaken our digital regulations. It’s part of a clear effort to challenge Europe’s ability to defend its own cultural and economic interests.
The MPA’s complaints about its members’ financial obligations in Europe are nothing new. Most recently, they contributed to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s consultation on “unfair” foreign trade practices calling into question investments obligations, quotas and our French media chronology. They are engaged in a battle on several fronts. We shouldn’t forget that Netflix is currently appealing the decree implementing the AVMS directive in Wallonia, and that Disney has joined the appeal. This legal action includes requests for preliminary questions to be sent to the European Court of Justice questioning the member states’ ability to freely build their national cultural policies.
Do you sense the European Commission is prepared to defend the AVMSD? In a recent letter to the Commission, you questioned why it has not yet spoken up in defence of the AVMSD.
I am deeply concerned by the silence coming from the European Commission. While they did respond to the American memorandum, the spokesperson’s remarks were limited to the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA). Similarly, in a recent interview with Euronews, Commissioner Henna Virkkunen made no mention of the Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) Directive, despite defending the DSA and DMA against attacks from former President Trump. This double standard is puzzling.
The European Commission must not forget that, back in 1993, it was under the leadership of President Delors that the decision was made to exclude audiovisual goods from trade agreements. We do not wish to revisit the era when, under Barroso, the Commission attempted to undermine the cultural exception by placing audiovisual and cinema goods within an EU-US free trade agreement. The Commission must take a clear and firm stance, defending the AVMS Directive.
What changes can the industry expect from the planned review of AVMSD in 2026? Do you have any concerns about the review ?
The revision of the directive for 2026 has not yet been confirmed, and I hear many voices arguing for a status quo. This is a possibility that should not be ruled out.
However, in the event of a revision, which seems likely to me, we’ll be careful first and foremost to ensure that it remains a directive and doesn’t become a regulation (directly applicable with no transposition at the Member States’ level), so as to allow each country to develop its own national cultural policy. I’ll also be careful to ensure that the directive’s ambitions are not downgraded but, on the contrary, strengthened in favour of ambitious cultural objectives.
I’m also keen to ensure that the revision of the directive provides greater protection for minors and regulates online platforms and influencer practices. Finally, we also need to strengthen the role of public broadcasting and general-interest media within the directive.
Europe must recognize that the cultural sphere ought to be protected and not ruled with the free market rules as any other sphere of activity. Culture is strategic for democracy.
Creative Europe is being reviewed ahead of the EU’s next long-term budget, the MFF (multi-annual financial framework). How confident are you that its budget will not be cut, and that the programme will not be subsumed into other spending programmes? What changes are you expecting?
An ambitious budget should be allocated to the financing of culture and the audiovisual sector in the next multiannual financial framework.
Along with many colleagues in the European Parliament, we are advocating for the budget of the Creative Europe programme to be doubled.
Creative Europe must also remain a standalone programme. We are hearing that the Commission is considering integrating it into a broader programme related to citizenship and democracy. While these issues are important, we must be cautious if the Commission decides to include broadcasters within the Media Strand of Europe Creative. This could not only result in reduced funding for the audiovisual SMEs but also challenge the model of independent production. It is crucial to consider the differences in terms of creative processes and ecosystems. While supporting the editorial independence of broadcasters, it is essential to promote production models that are independent from them.
We also know that the MEDIA strand shapes future rules and models for the audiovisual sector. This is why we need to be particularly careful about the use of artificial intelligence within this fund, especially concerning subtitling and dubbing.
The UK’s culture, media and sport (CMS) committee has recommended that the UK rejoin Creative Europe as an associate member. Is this something you would welcome?
I would strongly welcome the UK rejoining Creative Europe as an associate member. It was deeply regrettable that the UK chose to cease its participation in the Creative Europe programme following Brexit. The EU and the UK must work to strengthen their cultural ties, drawing inspiration from the UK’s involvement in Horizon Europe and Copernicus. More broadly, we should continue to enhance our cultural relations, particularly in areas such as mobility for artists and performers.
How does the EU view cultural and film funding at a time when there are so many spending priorities such as defence and technology?
We are living through a time of significant geopolitical and technological challenges. Naturally, all European institutions - the Commission, Parliament, and Council - are paying close attention to the funding of strategic sectors such as defence and artificial intelligence.
However, this necessary increase must not come at the expense of essential support for the cultural sector.
Because culture is also a central issue in today’s geopolitical confrontation, and an integral part of “European security” in the face of attacks from revisionist and illiberal powers.
The example of Ukraine clearly illustrates the strategic importance of culture: it is not only Ukraine’s territory, but also its culture, that is targeted by Russian aggression, with the aim of systematically erasing it. Similarly, illiberal regimes, such as Viktor Orbán’s government in Hungary, are investing heavily in culture precisely to use it as a tool for ideological propaganda. Hungary, in fact, devotes by far the largest share of its GDP to culture — over 4%! Finally, Europe must also stand firm against the aggressive cultural nationalism of the United States, which is now openly displaying anti-European tendencies. All of this makes it more urgent than ever to increase funding for culture.
No comments yet