Patronage: dependency or solution?

The complex reconstruction, in record time, of Notre-Dame de Paris Cathedral was only possible thanks to the large and numerous donations received — with the help of tax benefits that could reach a 60% increase. In Portugal, these benefits hardly exceed 30%.

The Notre-Dame de Paris Cathedral, completely destroyed in April 2019, was rebuilt and restored in record time: in just 5 years it was possible to complete the restoration of its interior and .

Some exterior work has yet to be carried out, but will not jeopardize the normal functioning of the Cathedral. The reconstruction intervention will have a final cost of approximately 700 million euros.

And how was this reconstruction possible in such a short time? Here are some numbers to help you understand the magnitude of this feat.

Yours Original construction took place over 182 yearsbetween 1163 and 1245, occupying a total area of ​​5,500 m²; conservation and restoration interventions throughout the Santiago de Compostela Cathedralcom 8.000 m² of implementation area, took place over 10 years – in preparation for the 2021 Jacobeu – and involved an investment of 3 million euros.

A Basilica of the Sagrada Familia from Barcelona, ​​with 4,500 m²was started in 1882 and should be completed in 2026, 144 years later and at a cost of 400 million euros.

Obviously, only with a good financial background It was possible to complete a job as complex as this in record time. This relief – unimaginable for any state budget – was only possible thanks to the high and.

They were more than 340 thousand patrons, from 150 countrieswhether private patrons, without any type of commercial interestor large international brands that wanted to be associated with this great media project, also reaping great tax benefits.

More than half the budget (400 million) was sponsored by only two large economic groups: a Louis Vuitton and L’Oréal.

But it doesn’t seem to me that it was the simple media association with a project of this scale, which led so many patrons to support so many millions of euros. Indeed, All this patronage support had a negative public impactgenerating strong controversy, due to the associated tax benefits.

In fact, France promotes tax benefits which go up to an increase of 60%, for donations granted by legal entities to public entities. In Italy, for example, this favoritism – for donations to cultural heritage – rises to 65%. In Portugal, this benefit hardly exceeds 30%.

The result of this difference, is reflected in the support that is granted here: to give you an idea, the latest figures indicate that donations were made by 65 thousand companies under the Patronage Law, donations that amount to around 217 million euros annually (practically as much, as just one of the sponsorships carried out by the biggest patrons for Notre-Dame Cathedral).

It is not surprising, especially since in order to achieve the greatest possible tax benefit, the patron must immediately have an annual turnover greater than 1.6 million euros.

It follows, therefore, that half of the value of financial donations made in Portugal were carried out by just 40 companies out of the 65 thousand sponsorswhich denotes that few companies have the interest and capacity to invest in Culture and that the currently existing tax benefits are not attractive.

We also realize, through this French example, that the future of financing Culture will pass through Patronage.

In Portugal — where the main financier is the State — a review of the patronage law is required to create more attractive conditions, so that all citizens and all companies, whether larger or smaller, can contribute more financial support.

The current government is currently completing the review of the Patronage Law. According to the Prime Minister, the objective of this review will be to “facilitate the contribution of society” in financing and promoting Culture.

Let us remember that the previous project drawn up last September by the Socialist Party was failed, being criticized by parties on the left, for creating “one risk of dependence on patrons in defining the country’s cultural policies”.

The proposal envisaged, for example, the creating a public list of the largest patrons and beneficiary entities, creating the obligation to use the patron’s logo in the beneficiaries’ official communications.

We hope that this new review can, in fact, result in what for us is, at this moment, the most important: the increase in available financing for Culture.