The strategic value of cultural policy in today’s political climate is clear. As part of efforts to stoke anti-migrant sentiments, far-right parties in Europe claim that national and local cultures are under threat from “replacement” and are monopolising cultural institutions when in government.¹ Yet this instrumentalisation of culture has failed to translate into increased investment in the cultural sector or better protection for creative workers. On the contrary, the promotion of white, Christian, and nationalist values through culture often results in the defunding of cultural programmes, which often question dominant narratives, as a means of restricting criticism. 

In the Netherlands, for example, Geert Wilders and his Party for Freedom (PVV) have threatened to end “nonsensical subsidies” for arts and culture, claiming that “native” Dutch people are discriminated against in these fields.² As Latvian Minister for Culture Agnese Lāce states, “Those who don’t want open societies target culture first.”³ This dynamic has been compounded by multiple crises – the Covid-19 pandemic, the rising cost of living, and security threats – which have squeezed budgets and redirected spending towards other priorities. 

This deprioritisation of culture is clearly reflected in the allocation of ministerial portfolios within governing coalitions. As culture is not considered as prestigious as finance, home affairs, or foreign affairs, for example, the portfolio is ordinarily given to a junior coalition partner. In many cases, it is held by Greens.⁴ 

As a result, Green parties have gathered significant experience in fighting the far right through culture and using it to promote their core values of sustainability, inclusion, and accessibility. They are deeply aware that culture can draw to the very heart of society, setting values for public life, facilitating mass expressions of identity, and bringing significant social and economic benefits. Green culture ministers have begun making the argument for wider cultural investment and have sought to ensure that creative workers, at the heart of culture, receive increased protection. Nevertheless, an overall vision for green cultural policy is still lacking. Taking stock of the successes and challenges faced by Greens in government can help fill that gap and sketch out what a genuinely green vision for culture may look like in the years to come. 

An overall vision for green cultural policy is still lacking.

Addressing precarity in Ireland 

A key priority for Green cultural ministers has been to address the precarity of cultural work as well as the unregulated nature of freelance creative work. In Ireland, Green then-culture minister Catherine Martin oversaw the launch of the pilot Basic Income for the Arts (BIA) scheme in 2022, which provided 2000 participant artists with a basic income payment of 325 euros a week to support their creative practice. By “support[ing] participants to develop their practice by providing income during periods when practice and portfolio are being developed”, the pilot aimed to “give recognition to the value of the arts and the role of creative practice in Irish society” and “minimise the loss of skill and experience from the arts sector”.⁵

In their recent article evaluating the BIA, cultural policy scholars Satu Teppo and Paraic Mc Quaid examine the political climate that enabled the introduction of the scheme and explore its reception. They emphasise the importance of Martin’s background within the arts; she is “a classically trained singer and performer, and [was] a music teacher for several years before entering politics”.⁶ This experience, they argue, made her well placed to advocate for BIA. Not only was she able to connect with creatives (her main stakeholders), she could also make a convincing case for a greater recognition of the often unpaid time devoted by creative workers to their practice. 

The BIA pilot is still ongoing and has recently been put on a permanent footing in the budget.⁷ While we cannot yet know the full extent of its impacts, Teppo and McQuaid state that it “clearly asserts the significance of the contribution artists already make to society through their art” by freeing up artists’ time for the generation of creative output. Many artists, of all mediums, are obliged to take a traditional job with reliable regular pay to supplement their income during periods of creation. By “provid[ing] significant support to a demographically broad range of artist and arts workers”, the scheme has allowed artists to focus solely on their creative work, ensuring that ideas are given the right environment in which to flourish. This leads to innovations within the creative industries that could be beneficial both to the wider economy through their consumption and to society by creating approaches to art that more people can access. Preliminary research also demonstrates generally positive impacts on the creative workers involved. Participants in the scheme reported greater peace of mind and an increased sense of professionalism and also believed that the quality of their creative output had improved.⁸ 

Furthermore, Teppo and Mc Quaid suggest that the BIA pilot, as well as representing a positive shift in the public discourse regarding the arts, has also had an impact on this narrative. In their conclusion, they state that BIA “presents a globally unique example of how a national cultural policy instrument can contribute to that evolving narrative”. 

While acknowledging the generally positive impacts of the BIA scheme, Teppo and Mc Quaid also emphasise the broader challenges creative workers experience, which fall outside of its remit. These include income-related issues with access to housing, education, healthcare, and childcare that are not addressed by the financial support offered by BIA. It is important that the scheme is not regarded as a silver bullet for general income equality. Instead, it should work alongside a broader package of policy reforms aimed at tackling income inequality across the areas its critics highlight. 

Protecting the status of artists in Luxembourg

In 1980, UNESCO outlined a major new approach to cultural policy in its Recommendation concerning the Status of the Artist.⁹ The Recommendation calls for improvements to be made to artists’ “professional, social and economic status”, including by ensuring equitable access to state support and social security. Since this landmark policy agenda was announced, there has been rather slow progress on formalising such rights, with the EU yet to adopt a clear directive on the issue, but Greens in EU member states are working to advance the cause. 
 
In Luxembourg, Sam Tanson, who occupied the post of culture minister from 2018 to 2023, sought to strengthen the status of artists by making creative work more accessible and viable for those from a variety of backgrounds and exploring the journey an artist takes from education to production. In 2018, she published the Kulturentwécklungsplang (KEP), a central workplan for the cultural sector that identifies culture as a human right in line with Article 27 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The KEP introduced measures such as lowering VAT for creatives to 3 per cent, reducing (and in some cases, abolishing) conservatoire admission fees, and changing the conditions attached to “intermittent artist” status¹⁰ by widening its scope, allowing more artists to obtain it, and reducing the minimum qualifying period for the reception of financial assistance. These combined measures have afforded artists stronger protections. 

Interviewed for this article, Tanson expressed pride at “having put the statut de l’artiste [the status of the artist] on a firmer footing, ensuring better social security and fairer recognition of cultural work”. She noted that this reform was “long awaited, and gives artists greater stability, which is essential for creativity to flourish”. The rollout of the plan was complicated by the pandemic, which Tanson remembers as the greatest challenge she faced in the role: “The cultural sector was hit hard, and we had to respond quickly with emergency support, while also thinking about long-term resilience.” The pandemic shifted elements of the KEP to ensure a more flexible package of supportive funding and created a need to push for greater contingency planning and a focus on resilience. 
 
The KEP is still a work in progress, with statistics related to the measures Tanson introduced still to be generated and clear outcomes identified. A comprehensive evaluation of the programme will be crucial to ascertain whether similar reforms could be adopted in other parts of Europe. 

Culture for social cohesion in Latvia 

To make the case for supporting artists amid cash-strapped national budgets and shifting priorities, Green ministers have framed culture as a way to bring communities together, forge connections, and find common ground. The role of culture in creating cohesion in communities is also recognised as a core theme by the European Commission, which states: “Culture is essential for avoiding conflicts and for conflict resolution. It is an ideal means of communicating across language barriers, empowering people, and facilitating social cohesion, including among refugees, migrants and host populations.”¹¹ 

In line with this thinking, in Latvia, Green culture minister Agnese Lāce and her predecessor Agnese Logina have crafted a policy that calls upon culture to act as “social glue”. Lāce’s current priorities clearly reflect this focus: “Efforts continue in the area of social cohesion, where we are actively working on strengthening the Latvian language, creating support mechanisms for non-governmental organisations, and engaging all communities to enhance societal resilience,” she explains. “We emphasise the role of cultural institutions in promoting resilience and an inclusive society.” 

Latvia, like Lithuania and Estonia, is facing complex challenges. In this Baltic nation – a young democracy, where the Russian minority makes up 25 per cent of the population – the threat of Russian aggression and hybrid warfare is keenly felt. This is reflected in government spending priorities. “It is no secret that this is already the second budget in which security has been set as a priority in Latvia. Consequently, in the cultural sector, there is a clear need to reallocate funds and attract additional financing,” Lāce explains. This commitment to security poses an immense challenge to the cultural sector to articulate its purpose and value in the current context. Lāce stands firm in her belief that culture has an important role to play in Latvia’s resistance to security threats. “I strive to explain to my partners in the government why culture remains important even under, and even more so under, security-focused conditions. Freedom of expression and a resilient society are key determinants for security in any democracy.” 

Lāce is relatively new to her role, having only been in post since June 2024, but has already sought to get policy moving. Her ministry has developed a plan for the protection of cultural heritage in crisis situations and established a supporting foundation for the Latvian Museum of Contemporary Art. This focus on heritage helps to provide the bedrock of social cohesion, enabling Latvians to proudly and strongly engage with and celebrate their national identity, history, and values. Social cohesion can be also be fostered through an openness to the participation of new contributors and ideas within a national culture. In line with this principle, Lāce has facilitated cultural exchange by welcoming foreign artists and introducing a state guarantee system that provides essential support to national museums in organising exhibitions of their work. 

A green vision for culture 

Regardless of whether they actively seek culture portfolios in government, Greens have gained experience there that has allowed them to forge and refine their approach to cultural policy. But what is the relationship between culture and political ecology? And are there areas in which a green approach to cultural policy is still to be fully developed? 

In Agnese Lāce’s opinion, “Green, progressive parties clearly demonstrate that culture is the basis for sustainable development on this planet.” This echoes the language of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which place culture at the heart of sustainable development. For Jyoti Hosagrahar, thendirector of the UNESCO Division for Creativity, “Culture […] contributes directly to many of the SDGs – safe and sustainable cities, decent work and economic growth, reduced inequalities, the environment, promoting gender equality and peaceful and inclusive societies.”¹² 

Luxembourg’s Sam Tanson, too, stresses the connection between culture and ecology: “Both deal with how we live together and imagine the future. A green perspective brings sensitivity to sustainability, diversity, and social justice – all of which are deeply connected to cultural life. For me, there was no contradiction but rather a strong complementarity.” 

A further key element of the Green political ethos is its emphasis on giving local communities more of a say in decision-making that affects their lives. For example, green energy policy across Europe promotes citizen ownership of energy infrastructure, green transport policy has called for better integrated and connected transport systems, and the movement has promoted community health initiatives. 

Culture is another space in which localisation could reap great benefits. Green parties should explore policies to localise cultural funding and ensure access to culture within rural communities. It is also important to protect and sustain traditional rural cultural heritage, including festivals, food and drink, music, fine art, and textiles. To help refine such an approach, there is need to reengage with Elinor Ostrom’s principles on governing the commons to ensure shared ownership and access to cultural practices and locally produced cultural goods. Greens should also review and improve the systems of protection offered to cultural heritage across Europe to ensure access for and engagement by future generations. 

Another priority linked to localised cultural policy is the replacement of fossil fuel culture. Industrial decline across Europe has often left communities facing a loss of cultural identity. In Europe’s fossil heyday, large industrial employers would often provide leisure facilities for workers. Cultural activities would inhabit these spaces, including choirs, bands, amateur theatre groups, and art classes, bringing the community together. As coal mines, industrial works, and factories closed, communities were fractured. The far right is starting to be more successful in framing this cultural loss as the responsibility of the green transition and immigration. Progressives have so far failed to develop a vision for how the culture and community that industry once engendered could be revived. 

Green parties should explore policies to localise cultural funding and ensure access to culture within rural communities.

Green cultural policy therefore needs to examine the place of culture in post-industrial towns and cities and seek to revive and protect the social cultures that once thrived. Renewable infrastructure and green industry must be successfully connected with culture, thereby quenching the flames of the far right’s culture wars. Options include attaching cultural provisions to the building of wind or solar farms (including cultural spaces in the design of renewable projects) and reinvesting the profits generated by renewables in the cultural lives of communities that house infrastructure. A starting point could be bringing together Green policymakers, creatives, and community leaders to find solutions on how culture can be integrated into plans for a just transition. 

A forward-looking green cultural policy should also aim to address one of the greatest areas of tension between the cultural sector and Green parties: copyright. It is clear from the work of Sam Tanson in Luxembourg and Catherine Martin in Ireland that creator protections are a core aspect of the green vision for culture. However, during the discussions surrounding the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, which came into force in 2019, the European Green Party mainly spoke against the directive. The Green position was nuanced: while it was critical of the use of upload filters to automatically determine whether content met copyright law and of a so-called “link tax”, which requires extracts of news articles to be licensed by aggregators such as search engines, it did advocate for the fair remuneration for creators. But these messages became difficult to balance. As a result, the Greens failed to give the creative industries a clear idea of how they intended to support the protection and fair expansion of creator income.  

The growth of artificial intelligence has also presented further impetus for Green parties to take a strong stance on copyright. AI companies are training their software on creators’ work without licenses or providing remuneration, effectively stealing to generate outputs originating from others’ creative works. In some extreme cases, AI-generated music and videos are created by scraping data from recordings and manipulating the voices and images of creators without consent. The development of a clear Green position on creative autonomy in the age of AI is therefore essential. 

As mainstream political priorities shift away from culture, Greens should double down on their emphasis on the creative sectors. This means seeking the culture portfolio whenever they are in power (including at the local level), designing a clear plan for local-level cultural engagement and the role of culture in a just transition, building on the work of past culture ministers to advance the status of artists and strengthen the protection and support afforded to them, and refining their approach to intellectual property and copyright. 

As mainstream political priorities shift away from culture, Greens should double down on their emphasis on the creative sectors.

Only this way can a compelling vision for culture be built, ensuring, in the words of Agnese Lāce, that “culture is accessible, cultural workers are protected, civil society is engaged, and freedom of speech and of expression are celebrated.” This answer does not just describe ongoing cultural priorities in Latvia; it also helps to sketch out a clear direction for green cultural policymaking. 

---

1.  For instance, in Hungary, where Viktor Orbán’s oligarch supporters have bought out major media companies. See Justin Spike (2024). “How Hungary’s Orbán uses control of the media to escape scrutiny and keep the public in  the dark”. The Associated Press. 31 July 2024. Available at: <https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2024/  ↩︎
2. Senay Boztas (2024). “‘Culture is fragile’: Dutch art world figures express concerns for future under potential coalition government”. The Art Newspaper. 19 January 2024. Available at: <https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2024/01/19/culture-is-fragile-dutch-art-world-figures-express-concerns-for-future-under-potentialcoalition- 
   government>.  ↩︎
3. Interviewed for the purpose of this article. ↩︎
4. Recent examples include Sweden (2014-2021), Ireland (2020-2025), Germany (2021-2025), Austria (2020-2025), and Luxembourg (2018-2023). In both Spain and Latvia, Green parties have held the culture ministry since 2023. ↩︎
5.  Department of Culture, Communications and Sport (2022). “Basic Income for the Arts (BIA) pilot scheme: First payments issued”. 28 October 2022. Available at: <https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-culture-communications-and-sport/press-releases/basic-income-for-the-arts-bia-pilot-scheme-firstpayments-issue/>.  ↩︎
6. Satu Teppo & Paraic Mc Quaid (2025). “Basic Income for the Arts pilot scheme – an Irish case study”. Cultural Trends, pp. 1–15. Available at: <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09548963.2025.2525211#abstract>.  ↩︎
7. Jack Horgan-Jones (2025). “Basic income support scheme for artists to be made permanent and opened to new entrants in budget”. The Irish Times. 6 October 2025. Available at: <https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2025/10/06/budget-2026-states-basic-income-scheme-for-artists- madepermanent/>. ↩︎
8. Satu Teppo & Paraic Mc Quaid (2025). “Basic Income for the Arts pilot scheme – an Irish case study”. Cultural Trends. ↩︎
9. UNESCO. 1980 Recommendation concerning the Status of the Artist. Available at: <https://www.unesco.org/creativity/en/1980-recommendationconcerning-status-artist>.  ↩︎
10. Similar to BIA, the “intermittent artist” [intermittent du spectacle] scheme provides financial support during periods where work is not immediately available. The scheme serves to indicate the precarity of creative work but also validates the contributions of culture to society, with state investment demonstrating the value of the work of artists in Luxembourg.  ↩︎
11. European Commission (2023). “Cohesion and well-being”. Available at: <https://culture.ec.europa.eu/policies/selected-themes/cohesion-and-well-being>.  ↩︎
12. Jyoti Hosagrahar (2017). “Culture: at the heart of Sustainable Development Goals”. UNESCO Courier. 11 April 2017. Available at:<https://courier.unesco.org/en/articles/culture-heart-sustainable-development-goals>.  ↩︎