A
memo sent to correspondents, friends and acquaintances of the Budapest Observatory (BO)
in January 2006
Find
a few initial findings from what BO staff has been busy counting in
January.
Austro-Finnish
promise
The
two governments prepared a joint
programme
for the two halves of 2006. It begins by stating that "the common objective of the Presidencies is
to ensure that the co-decision procedure on the proposal for a decision
establishing the Culture Programme (2007-2013) will be completed by the end of
2006."
BO
is still occupied with the examination of the last round of Culture 2000
projects.
C2000
projects in 2005
The
spell broke. So did the upward curve. The numbers
of C2000 projects
led by an organisation from east and central Europe had shown a steady and
mystical formula in the years 2001-2004, which was discontinued in 2005: 8 - 16 - 24 - 24 -
18.
Certainly,
the overall number of projects fell from 165 to 130, but the 18 wins represent a
slight percentage fall, too. Italy, the eternal champion, scored
more then the ten eastern countries together, so did German organisations, the
second most successful nation.
Who
is to blame? Hungarians, for instance, with zero. Who
is to praise? Czechs with 7! See total list:
| Italy
|
22 |
| Germany
|
19 |
| France
|
14 |
| UK |
12 |
| Austria |
10 |
| Belgium,
Czech Republic |
7 |
| Spain |
5 |
| Finland,
Netherlands, Sweden |
4 |
| Greece,
Poland, Portugal, Slovenia |
3 |
| Ireland,
Lithuania, Norway |
2 |
| Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Romania,
Slovakia |
1 |
| Cyprus,
Denmark, Estonia, Hungary,
Latvia, Malta |
0 |
This
is not a very gratifying outlook. See the graph at the bottom, how overall
positions from 2000 on have changed.
Translations
As
is our custom, BO observed translation grants separately - and found more to
rejoice about. This small table shows the division of funds between old and new
members.
|
|
2000
|
2001
|
2002
|
2003
|
2004
|
2005
|
|
West
|
100%
|
98%
|
80%
|
68%
|
50%
|
43%
|
|
East
|
0%
|
2%
|
20%
|
32%
|
50%
|
57%
|
The
Commission and the experts involved in the evaluation seem to acknowledge that
translations grants have more in common with support to the needy than with the
quest for best quality, rightly (and supposedly) followed in case of other
cultural cooperation projects.
Publishers
BO
has more compliments in this regard. In 2005 - in the 6th year of
C2000 - only one publisher won for the 5th and another for the
3rd time. In an area where so many organisations qualify for support,
principles of rotation and geographic distribution should prevail. In the 30
countries concerned, there are hundreds of presses that regularly publish
translated quality literature and have never received a C2000 grant. The
translation support scheme used to look a closed shop, which can be seen from
the next small table.
|
|
Of
these, 2x or more
|
3x
or more
|
4x
or more
|
5x
|
2000-2005
|
|
Publishers
|
171
|
53
|
30
|
14
|
7
|
(275)
|
|
Grants
|
118
|
46
|
48
|
28
|
35
|
275
|
275
translation grants were distributed to 171 publishers between
2000-2005. It is left to your logic to understand the lower line.
To
the small and from the small
The
main purpose ("philosophy") of the translation programme is to help foreign
books reach smaller language markets. The grants enhance mobility of works from
the centre to the peripheries, as well as their horizontal exchange on the
peripheral markets.
Less
emphasis is put on the direction from lesser spoken languages towards the
mainstream. Europe, however, should feel
greater concern for the sustainable share of works that originate from lesser
translated source languages. The Commission should share the efforts of nations
to promote the access of their intellectual products to major markets. In
addition to translation into Norwegian, Lithuanian or Greek, it is essential to
help Norwegian (Lithuanian, Greek etc.) works appear in the best spread
languages, not only including, but above all - English.
That
would go far beyond the tiny funds for C2000 translation grants. In final
analysis, the very existence of cultural industries (electronic media,
publishing etc.) in small languages justifies structural support. The concept of
linguistic diversity calls for the strategic involvement of the cultural
industries, both on national and on European
level.
€
1 000 000 000 000 on public culture
I
was asked how I know that this
much will be spent
on culture from national, regional and municipal sources in the EU during the
next septennial period. Well, this is a bit more than 1% of the expected overall
gross EU product between 2007 and 2013. It is a realistic estimate that around
1% of gross national products will be spent on culture - as it happens in a
number of countries nowadays.
The
evergreen questions of course arise about borderline cases. Is cinema and
filmmaking included? And arts education? Archeological
explorations? Yes, they are all included in the estimate.
|