|
A memo sent to correspondents, friends and acquaintances of
the Budapest Observatory (BO) in December 2003
Hoping that 2004 brings
fruits - a few at least - of the networking promiscuity that BO has been
involved in in the past months. Proposals, projects, promises.
Commission communicates
Early in December, the
European Commission took an important step. As is their habit, they issued a Communication,
containing statements like the following:
Countries of the western
Balkans will sooner or later all be associated countries and all are recognised
as potential applicants for membership. Participation in Community programmes
can also be of benefit to places that are likely to remain associated countries
for a long time or indefinitely.
Preparations have thus
begun to involve Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia and
Montenegro in the programmes of the Union from as early as 2005. See
http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/see/docs/com03_748_en.pdf
That's great. Even though
the word culture appears in a footnote only.
C 2000 evaluated
One more item of Europa
site created excitement with us: the evaluation report about Culture 2000. BO
had a modest go some time ago: http://www.budobs.org/euC2000-in2002.htm, an
exercise that we were about to re-do at greater length. We therefore speeded up
and created an early interim draft - but this comes later in this memo.
The evaluation was made by a Danish agency called PLS RAMBOLL
Management. Their survey was based on the 2000 and 2001 rounds of C 2000. They
found, among others, that almost every fourth application in those two years
arrived from Italy, and yet, winning projects from France nearly equalled them;
Greece was third, way behind, before the biggest member country, Germany.
Another interesting feature was that among the grant-winning
organisations that were subsequently interviewed there was a high number of
‘research institutions': they provided almost a fourth of all co-organisers
BO agrees
Having investigated the
scores of the past three years, BO is inclined to share most of the positive
conclusions of the evaluation. Including, obviously, the recommendation that
"the Commission should survey the extent to which the inclusion of operators
from the associated countries has increased in the remainder of the programme
period." See http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/eac/sources_info/pdf-word/final_reportCulture2000.pdf.
The evaluation has also
shown that about a third of the operators required more transparency in the
selection procedure. This requirement is perennially just. BO must be just,
too, by acknowledging the progress the Commission has made in this direction.
BO disagrees
Has the critical vein of
BO vanished? Not quite. BO strongly disagrees with the suggestion to omit the
phrase Explicit recognition of culture as an economic factor from the
objectives of C 2000, and to drop the role of culture in socio-economic
development from the criteria.
The Danish study does not
argue at length, other than suggesting to get rid of some of the ballast on the
programme. BO feels that the omission of this objective would harm the eastern
half of the continent more than the old members.
Furthermore, the Danish evaluators wondered about the effects of
the introduction of the 5% rule (namely that each co-ordinator must cover at
least 5% of the costs). They drew the sympathetic conclusion that it would
hamper the participation of candidate countries. BO analysis, however, showed
no coincidence between the economic power of a country and its activeness at C
2000.
BO evaluates
The interim draft of the
BO analysis Culture 2000 with Eastern Eyes offers some interesting
points at this early stage, too. In the past three years,
- 39% of all winning projects had a
leader and/or co-organiser from east and central Europe;
- The share of eastern leaders has
doubled from 2001 to 2003;
- The greatest proportion of
west-east collaboration took place in the visual arts field;
- Poland, the most active country
from centre-east, owes its ‘Pole position' to the successes in the
performing arts projects (where Slovakia has remained at nil);
- Italian-led projects involved as
many partners from the east as second-third Germany and France together.
For more food for thought,
go to http://www.budobs.org/euC2000-easteyes.htm.
BO observes
Being an Observatory, BO
has thoughts about establishing one such institution at European level. What
first comes to our mind goes like this:
There is frustration
within the cultural sector regarding the lack of European financial support for
cultural co-operation and there are concerns that any new interventions at the
European level will take resources away from existing organisations and
networks. The current scarcity would make an observatory an unpopular use of
resources and would be seen as a ‘top down' intervention.
BO admits that the
previous paragraph is made of quotes from the report that ECOTEC, a Brussels
based agency made on the issue, upon the invitation of the Commission. Of
course, they go on and wonder about options B and C as well. Go and read what
kind of a Eurobservatory the report proposes: http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/eac/sources_info/pdf-word/final_report_aout_2003.pdf.
BO obeys
"Please circulate this to your colleagues and networks." BO obeys such
triggers when they refer to themes close to our remit: east-central Europe
and/or the bases of cultural activities. Some of the themes selected for a
conference (Brighton, from 28 April) seem very relevant: European
enlargement: implications for creative business. Or: Cultural value and
economic value. And: Financing creativity. For further info go to http://www.creativeclusters.co.uk.
Particularly if you are eager to speak or hear about such issues.
|
