Who should decide how a local tradition is preserved — the community, the national government, or the European Union? The answer depends on a fundamental EU principle: subsidiarity. This lesson explores what it means, where it comes from, and how it shapes the governance of intangible cultural heritage across Europe.
1. The Logic of Subsidiarity
The principle of subsidiarity is one of the founding principles governing how the EU exercises its powers. In its simplest form, it means: act at the lowest effective level. Decisions should be taken as close to the citizen as possible — at community, local, or national level — and transferred to a higher level only when that higher level can achieve better results.
This principle is not just technical. It reflects a political commitment: that in a union of 27 diverse Member States, uniformity is not a value — subsidiarity protects that diversity.
Definition (Article 5(3) TEU): The Union acts only if and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States at central, regional, or local level, but can rather be better achieved at Union level by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action.
2. A Short History of Subsidiarity
| Year | Development |
|---|---|
| 1986 | Single European Act implicitly introduces subsidiarity in environmental policy |
| 1992 | Treaty of Maastricht (TEU) formally enshrines subsidiarity as a general EU principle |
| 1997 | Treaty of Amsterdam adds a Protocol on subsidiarity and proportionality |
| 2007 | Treaty of Lisbon strengthens the principle: adds regional and local dimension; gives national parliaments a new “early warning” role |
The 1992 Edinburgh European Council agreed the overall approach to subsidiarity — an agreement that later became legally binding through the 1997 Protocol. This shows that subsidiarity was fought for politically before it was embedded legally.
3. Three Conditions for EU Intervention
Under Article 5(3) TEU, the EU may only intervene when all three conditions are met:
- Non-exclusive competence — the area concerned is not one where the EU acts alone.
- Necessity — the objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States themselves.
- Added value — the action can be implemented more successfully at Union level, by reason of its scale or effects.
For ICH, culture is explicitly a supporting competence – meaning the first condition is always met. The question is always whether EU-level action adds value that national or local action cannot provide.
4. Subsidiarity and ICH: Three Levels in Practice
| Level | Who acts | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Community/Local | Tradition bearers, local associations, municipalities | A village organises an annual festival; a cooperative documents oral traditions |
| National | Government ministries, national heritage bodies | A state enacts ICH legislation; provides funding; maintains national inventories |
| EU | European Commission, Council, Parliament | Creative Europe funding; European Heritage Label; cross-border joint nominations to UNESCO |
The EU intervenes when local and national action alone cannot achieve the objective — for example, when a tradition is shared across multiple Member States, when digital preservation requires cross-border databases, or when cultural exchange programmes benefit from supranational coordination.
5. Subsidiarity in Action: Contrasting Cases
The project’s own case studies reveal starkly different national approaches:
- Bulgaria: Despite a rich cultural life and nurtured traditions, only a handful are registered in UNESCO’s ICH list — due to dysfunctional administration, unclear division of competences, and neglect for national culture. Here, the national level has underperformed, and EU-level support could provide the added value subsidiarity justifies.
- Croatia: A consistent national approach has led to an extensive list of activities inscribed on UNESCO’s Representative List. The national level works well — and EU involvement adds international visibility and cross-border connections rather than compensating for national failure.
Lesson from the contrast: Subsidiarity is not a fixed formula — it is a diagnostic tool. The appropriate level of action depends on capacity, context, and the specific objective being pursued.
6. Proportionality: The Partner Principle
Subsidiarity is always paired with proportionality: even when EU action is justified, it must not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objective. Applied to ICH, this means EU intervention should:
- Enable, not override, community and national initiatives.
- Provide frameworks and funding, not prescribe how traditions must be practised.
- Scale to the actual cross-border dimension of the challenge.
Activities
Subsidiarity analysis (pairs, 25 min): Take one ICH preservation initiative (from Lesson 2 or your own research). Determine which level — local, national, or EU — is best suited to lead it. Apply the three conditions of subsidiarity to justify your answer. Where does the EU add value? Where would it overstep?
Case comparison (group, 25 min): Compare the Bulgarian and Croatian experiences described in section 5. Identify what went wrong in one case and right in another. Propose: what specific EU-level intervention would be justified in Bulgaria under subsidiarity criteria? Would the same intervention be justified in Croatia?
Selected case exploration: Revisit a case study from the e-library. Analyse it from the perspective of European integration, subsidiarity, proportionality, and added value for ICH.
Key Questions
- What is subsidiarity, and why is it a founding principle of EU governance?
- What are the three conditions that must be met before the EU can intervene in a policy area?
- How does the contrast between Bulgaria and Croatia illustrate the real-world consequences of subsidiarity working (or not working)?
- Where is the line between EU support that empowers local ICH communities and EU intervention that overrides them?