Category Archives: Europe

Culture wars in the cultural committee?

Posted on by

“This committee shapes Europe´s future”, the challenging words by Sabine Verheyen, the outgoing chair of the culture and education committee of the European Parliament (EP) .

The committee rarely hits the headlines, or even the inner pages. One of the smallest committees (only 30 MEPs) it covers culture and education, youth, audio-visual, media, multilingualism and sport. This disparate portfolio has one important glue: the EU has no “competence” in these areas. They remain steadfastly under national member state authority. The committee can advise, comment and publish its views. Its Activity review for 2019 to 2024 is here. Its main practical focus is on the EU´s own programmes of which Erasmus+ and the European capitals of culture (ECOC) are the most well known. In the EU jargon the committee is aptly known as CULT.

There is a new committee following the June 2024 election of a new parliament. For the first time the centre–left to centre-right groups have to contend with three far-right groups who hold 187 of the 720 seats. Far less than the doom-mongers were forecasting but still a sizeable bunch. Committee membership, for the next 30 months, reflects the political groups.

So what is the make up of the new CULT? 19 women and 11 men. Italy (5) Greece and France (4 each), Germany and Hungary with 3 each. The 2004/7 accession states contribute 10. In addition there are 30 substitutes who can attend and speak but only vote if a group member is absent. 12 women and 18 men. Germany and France have 4, Spain and Italy 3. There are no members or substitutes from Ireland, Estonia, Lithuania, Malta, Luxembourg, Slovakia, Sweden, Denmark or Czechia.

The European People´s Party (EPP) leads with 8 seats followed by 6 from the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D). The centrist Renew has 3 and the Greens 2. That makes 19 from groups which supported the re-election of Ursula von der Leyen as Commission president (although not all group members voted for her). Two from the Left leaves 9 from the far-right groups: 4 seats for Orban´s so-called “Patriots for Europe”. Meloni´s European Conservatives and Reformists have 3 and the AfD led “Europe of Sovereign Nations” has one seat. There is a single seat for the “Non-Attached group, for the time being assume he is on the far right. So a third of the committee are from far right parties.

The first action of the committee was to elect its chair. The Patriots sought the chair and put forward Malika Sorel from Marine le Pen´s party. The Greens put forward Nela Riehl who won 18-11 (one abstention). A secret vote so we have to wait for post meeting comments to see how people voted. The four vice-chairs were elected by “acclamation”: EPP, S&D, Renew and the Greens each picking up a post. The cordon sanitaire to keep the far right out of posts held up.

The election of the chair was itself a breakthrough . Nela Riehl: ” I was born and raised in Hamburg as a working-class child with roots in Germany and Ghana. As a child, I waited at barriers to cross borders within Europe, so I am deeply aware that only a united Europe is our future.” How will she get on with her opponent, Malika Sorel? Proposed by Marine le Pen´s former assistant, Sorel, whose parents were Algerian, has long been on the right. “She has written several essays on immigration and what she calls the “decomposition of France”, accusing “a part” of immigrants of “turning against the host country”. Malika Sorel-Sutter today highlights her “fear of a Lebanonization of France”, with a “migratory, security and educational chaos.”

Predictably the Patriots of Europe (a misnamed group if there ever was one) members make their views known. The Wikipedia entry for Afroditi Latinopoulou, is blunt: She is against abortion rights, opposes LGBTQ+ rights, and has expressed homophobic, transphobic, and anti-immigrant views, repeatedly calling for the borders to be closed. She has also supported the Great Replacement conspiracy theory. In June 2024, she called for Pride Parade to be dissolved, saying, “It is a celebration of vulgarity, emphasising the sexuality of sadomasochists and other various abnormalities in public view. She has also described homosexuality as “unnatural” and claimed it contradicts religious beliefs. Similar views from from Bulgarian Ivan Valchev. “ITN (his party) does not find it appropriate to give teenagers any access to propaganda that includes non-traditional practices that do not fit into the traditional Bulgarian values of gender and family”.

Some members actually have relevant experience. Of course there are many lawyers and several career politicians at mayoral, regional and national level. The education remit benefits from teachers and a former headmistress and university academics ranging from historians, speech therapists, special needs children and economists. I can´t find anyone who admits to being an Erasmus alumni.

Sport has several members. Latinopoulou may have far right views but was a professional tennis player in younger days. Lara Magoni (ECF Italy) was an Olympic skier. One of the substitutes, Carolina Morace (The Left, Italy) has 105 caps for the Italian national team and is an international football coach and member of UEFA´s Football Board. “My wife Nicola is Australian, we lived in Australia and Great Britain and now we live in Rome. In civilized countries, same-sex marriage is the norm. It is only a taboo in Italy and in countries where democracy practically does not exist, like Russia.“

The youth portfolio (let´s be generous and say under 30 years old) has three who have moved from studying straight into political roles. Zala Tomašič  (EPP Slovenia) who “will fight for the Slovenes to be in the first place in Slovenia, for everyday values ​​to be “God, family and homeland” and for “life in a world where there are only two sexes”.  Sabrina Repp (S&D Germany) takes a different view “strengthening democracy also includes protecting vulnerable groups such as women, children, LGBTQI* or migrants. Anti-democratic tendencies primarily threaten their living environment. Emma Rafowicz (S&D France) takes a similar view: “Racism, anti -Semitism , LGBTphobia exist and are eating away at the cohesion of our society. All the texts that help us understand and combat it better must be studied. Denying them on principle would be a mistake“.

Being a familiar face on TV clearly helps with political recognition. Two members and two substitutes made their names on TV (2 EPP and 2 S&D) whilst another 4 members were journalists.

Turning to the culture remit we see two Polish government ministers, one a minister of culture 2007-14 (EPP) and Joanna Izabela Scheuring-Wielgus, a recent state secretary (S6D). She was a cultural manager before entering the national parliament. A former minister of culture in Spain is among the EPP substitutes. The four vice-chairs have varying degrees of cultural experience. Hristo Petrov (Renew) is an hip-hop musician. Diana Riba i Giner (Greens) ran a bookshop specialising in children’s and youth books and was previously a cultural programmer; Emma Rafowicz (S&D) was until the elections the deputy mayor for culture, crafts and heritage, in the 11th arrondissement in Paris. Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (EPP) was in his younger days a commercial photographer. Among the substitutes we find two more photographers and architect and an award winning novelist, Sibylle Berg.

Perhaps the member with the most immediate relevance to culture on the committee is the S&D member from Austria Hannes Heide. A member since 2019 he was the mayor of Bad Ischl, he now chairs the Board of one of the 2024 European Capitals of Culture Bad Ischl-Salzkammergut. “I am convinced that the EU must move closer to the people again and become tangible for them in order to regain acceptance. It is precisely the regions outside of urban centres that need to be strengthened, because that is where EU scepticism and nationalism are most pronounced.”. and “the New European Bauhaus is an opportunity and has real potential to become a cultural movement like its historical model and to create new awareness. But it will only be successful if it reaches the people of Europe, if it does not become an elitist project, if Europeans can imagine what it means, if there is no contrast between urban centres and rural areas, if access is social, fair and inclusive“.

So what can we expect from the new committee? There are obvious and distinct differences of approach to life between members. The traditional political and economic differences between members from the centre right to centre left now have to contend with views on culture in the broadest sense. Some oppose the LGBTI+ rights and same-sex marriage which impinge directly on some other members. Racism, hiding often behind calls for immigration controls, is a touchstone. Will there the strengthened right seek to reduce the role of common EU interventions citing subsidiarity or outright Euroscepticism? Will the far right seek to cut out references to “woke” concepts in criteria for EU programmes? Will we see more votes which require members to attend meetings (the previous CULT was not known for full attendances).

To paraphrase Dr Strangelove: no culture wars here, this is the culture committee.

Placemaking: the Capitals way

Posted on by

Valencia is the European Green Capital for 2024. In 2022 it was both one of the two European Capitals of Smart Tourism and the World Design Capital (which led in 2023 to entry into UNESCO´s 350 strong Creative Cities network). This collecting of titles is not unusual. The emergence of “Capital of….” titles has been growing almost exponentially in recent years. In this short review I´ll focus on “European” titles but I recognise there are many other national, regional and worldwide titles (far too many to record; I tried but gave up).

Along with the Green title, 2024 sees, in Europe, titles in Innovation, Smart Tourism, Youth, Volunteering, Democracy, Sport, Christmas, Inclusion and Diversity, Access and Cycling. Some of these have a secondary title or one for larger cities and one for smaller. And let´s not forget the most well-known and longest running title: the European Capital of Culture (ECOC) with three title holders this year. What distinguishes almost of these titles is the competitive nature rather a marketing-led self proclamation. Their proliferation seems to have crept up by stealth.

I´ll look at the titles from three points of view: of the organisers; the cities (winners and candidates) and the impact/ legacy etc. I´ll end with a list of the current title holders.

Who runs the titles and competitions?

Although the titles use “European” they come from different stables. Often reviewers treat the titles as if they are of the same provenance. Most do follow a standard template: a call for candidates, set criteria, candidates submitting bidbooks, a selection panel to evaluate bids, perhaps a shortlisting and then a final winner is announced. Detailed processes vary, especially on geographic and city eligibility. Few have a financial prize ( the main ones are Culture €1.5m, Innovation €1m). Geographically most candidates have to be within the EU and EEA but there are exceptions: the Youth short list included networks in Georgia, Moldova and Lviv in Ukraine. Cities in Brexit UK could enter for the Innovation title (but haven´t yet).

Organisers fall into three categories. The EU leads the way through the various directorates-general of the Commission; secondly two European networks supported by the EU and thirdly a mixed group of private not for profit organisations.

The EU has few opportunities to engage directly with cities and clearly has seen from the Culture experience that a “Capitals” approach enables them to bypass governments to showcase and promote their objectives at a local level. Unlike the Culture title most of the new competitions recognise recent, rather than projected, performance in the relevant sector. Valencia submitted an incredibly detailed 290 page bidbook for the Green title recording, with evidence, their environmental credentials. Here are two typical introductory statements:

“The European Capitals of Inclusion and Diversity Award is granted to local authorities that exemplify outstanding dedication to creating safe, inclusive spaces where all feel that they belong and can flourish. The winning local authorities transform the ideal of inclusion and diversity into tangible deliverables. This serves to inspire others. I thank these European capitals for taking the Union of Equality to citizens at the local level.”

“In 2024, we are celebrating the 10th anniversary of the European Capital of Innovation Awards (iCapital).  The competition rewards those European cities that are courageous enough to open their governance practices to experimentation and push the boundaries of technology for the benefit of their citizens.”  

Smart Tourism, Green and Access City complete the European Union titles. The EU´s Union of the Mediterranean recently launched its award. Tirana and Alexandria have been selected for the first Mediterranean Capitals of Culture and Dialogue for 2025.

Youth and Volunteering capitals fall into the second category. Both are organised by European umbrella networks, supported by grants from the EU.

The third category is varied, a key feature being a not for profit basis. The longest running, since 2001, is Sport; recent examples include Democracy, Christmas and Cycling. A new title and organiser emerges in 2025: a European Capital of Local Retail (Barcelona is already selected as the idea originated there!). They all seem to have been the initiative of an enthusiast who has managed to attract funding and launch the programme. The degree of transparency varies considerably for titles in this category (eg details of candidates, names of evaluation panel, selection criteria and panel reports).

ACES Europe, who run the Sport and Cycling titles, now awards 18 different Capital of Sport titles, including World, African and Winter. It is the only title to require a registration fee (currently €12,000) for candidates. In addition to the European Capital of Sport title it also awards, in 2024, 13 other cities with the title of European City of Sport. It is also the least transparent on its website with no information on whether there are actual competitions, the criteria and who is on the selection panel. A case study in over-reach perhaps or an example of the demand for any title, from cities?

The Democracy title introduced a new form of selection: an expert panel reviews the bids and produces a shortlist. Final selection is by an online poll of over 4,000 self selecting people in a “Citizen’s Jury”. Voters cannot vote for cities in their own country.

The increasing race to win a title

Cities have not been slow to bid for these titles. Over 80 cities put forward bids for the European titles in 2024. Smart Tourism led the way with 30 bids for the main title and a further 11 for its smaller city awards.

Cities are often serial candidates. Genoa, for example, bid for both the Smart Tourism and Sport titles. Former ECOCs are very active in seeking new titles. I remember the then mayor of Riga saying that cities of that size need a title every few years. It keeps the momentum of change alive, rotates into different sectors of city life and builds an international awareness and “brand” for tourism and inward investment. The Mayor of Tirana, host of the new Mediterranean title highlighted this strategy of collecting titles: “We have a fantastic experience with Tirana’s reputation as the capital of Sport, the capital of Youth.“. (Youth in 2022 and Sport in 2023).

The budgets and programmes for the titles look relatively small, considerably smaller than ECOCs. As the awards are based on achievement there is less emphasis on kick starting a new legacy than with the Culture title. Most programmes have a few new conferences and workshops, some new public activities but mainly rely on repurposing existing activities and events. The finances are difficult to find out, there is a definite focus on secrecy and non investigative journalism! Bristol´s Green title in 2025 had a £12.6m budget. In contrast Ljubljana in the following year allocated €600,000. Valencia´s budget for the World Design Capital was €5.5m.

That awkward question: any legacy?

The Culture title has, since 1985, generated a vast library of reports, books, articles, theses and evaluations. The newer titles have not yet reached that level of review. The Green capital seems the most likely to generate interest. It encompasses urban planning, climate emergency, environmental concerns. This 2019 article looks at Lisbon 2019 and Oslo 2020 Green Capitals and seeks:

to determine its (the Green Capital) utility as a policy instrument to catalyse the substantive urban transition to sustainability that the much sought after label seeks to recognize, highlight and honour.

Several Green capitals have produced reports on their year. Most have been self congratulatory rather like many ECOC evaluations. An exception is the very informative report 36 page report on Bristol´s Green year Perhaps its most important finding was the discrepancy between the European Commission’s objectives and those of the city. A common issue with ECOCs.

Ljubljana issued a both report on its year as Green capital in 2016 and a “5 years later” review. (I´ll write a more detailed post on the Green capital). Smart Tourism prompted this survey from China. A feature of some of the titles is a formal network of past winners to share ideas and developments.

What next?

I think we will see even more competitions emerging. Clearly there is a demand both from cities, and a willingness on new organisers to administer. The topics are almost endless! The titles will gain more visibility the longer they continue. The lack of a financial award does not seem to be an obstacle.

There is scope for more analysis, especially of a cross sectoral basis, exploring the effectiveness of these placemaking initiatives: do they meet the objectives of the organiser (especially the EU); do residents respond? Are cities on a roller coaster of bidding? Is the continual bidding worth it? Are many of them little more than a PR opportunity for a city with little programming depth?

The current arrangements for the ECOC run until 2033. Soon the Commission will presumably start a review of both the process and performance of ECOCs to guide any decisions on continuing the programme beyond 2033. There are many lessons to be learnt from these newer competitions (yes, another post is in the offing).

There will be a a new European Commission and European Parliament later in 2024. City mayors, recently through Eurocities, seek to be round the table for EU decisions and policies. In their manifesto for the upcoming elections they call for an Urban Envoy in the Commission to coordinate all EU policies aimed at cities. Time for a working conference involving all the Capital programmes?

Many titles need to become more transparent, both in the selection process and, importantly, by title holders reporting publicly on their activity and legacy.

And the 2024 title holders:

Can ChatGPT help European Capital of Culture candidates?

Posted on by

ChatGPT is all the rage, instilling joy and fear in equal measures. I gave it a try. I asked it to write some advice to a city mayor considering bidding for the European Capital of Culture. In 350 words. Note: bidding, not winning the selection process.

What happened? In seconds, yes seconds, it came up with a plausible letter. And then a few seconds later it came up with another plausible letter. I say “plausible”. If a mayor is asking for advice on whether to enter the competition they normally want some high level, general points: the big picture. Many of the essential boxes were ticked in a general way. It´s not the time to get bogged down in the tactics of preparing a bid let alone gaming the selection panel. There are plenty of consultants out there to do that. My next Chat request will see if it can put them out of business! (joke)

Here is the opening paragraph:

If you’re considering a bid for European Capital of Culture in 2031, congratulations! This is a unique opportunity for your city to showcase its cultural richness and diversity, attract international attention, and boost your local economy. However, winning the title requires careful planning, strong commitment, and effective communication.

Not a bad start. Culture, diversity, local attention and economy tick boxes. And practical matters to the fore. Onwards:

Start early: Preparing a bid for European Capital of Culture takes time, resources, and collaboration with various stakeholders. Ideally, you should start planning at least five years before the application deadline, which is usually in the middle of the previous decade. This will give you enough time to identify your cultural strengths and weaknesses, engage with the local community, and develop a comprehensive bid book.

So far so good. Engage with local community is up there and the “bidbook” makes an appearance. “At least five years” hints at a longer preparation time.

Focus on your unique identity: One of the key criteria for selecting a European Capital of Culture is the city’s cultural and artistic identity. Therefore, it’s important to showcase what makes your city unique and different from others. This could be your historical heritage, contemporary art scene, traditional music, culinary traditions, or any other cultural asset that reflects your city’s identity and diversity.

Goes off on a tangent here. But it is clearly picking up from the countless media articles about an ECOC which, for the most part, regardless of country, fail to understand the central aspect of an ECOC being the future proposed programme rather than the existing offer. A weakness evident: ChatGPT may not be able to prioritise rather than look for the majority sources.

Involve the local community: A successful bid for European Capital of Culture should be rooted in the local community and reflect its aspirations and needs. Therefore, it’s crucial to involve various stakeholders, including artists, cultural institutions, business leaders, civil society organizations, and ordinary citizens, in the bid preparation process. This will ensure that the bid is inclusive, participatory, and relevant to the local context.

Not much wrong with that but misses the international aspect.

Think beyond the year of the title: Winning the European Capital of Culture title is not only about organizing a year-long cultural program but also about leaving a lasting legacy for your city and its citizens. Therefore, it’s important to plan for the post-title period and think about how the cultural infrastructure, networks, and partnerships developed during the bidding and hosting process can benefit the city’s cultural and economic development in the long run.

Legacy, post-title, networks etc again good points, even if it uses the American “program”.

Communicate effectively: A successful bid for European Capital of Culture requires effective communication and promotion both within and outside the city. Therefore, it’s important to develop a strong branding and marketing strategy that highlights your city’s cultural strengths, engages with various audiences, and builds a positive image of your city as a vibrant and creative place to live, work, and visit.

Obvious but well said. Aimed at the post selection period but awareness needed at the start.

And finally a rather bland ending:

In summary, preparing a bid for European Capital of Culture requires a combination of creativity, collaboration, and strategic thinking. By following these pieces of advice and engaging with various stakeholders, you can increase your chances of winning the title and leaving a positive legacy for your city and its citizens. Good luck!

The second attempt was along the same lines but with this improved opener:

Develop a clear and compelling vision: One of the most important elements of a successful ECOC bid is having a strong vision for what you want to achieve. Your vision should reflect the unique cultural identity of your city and demonstrate how it can contribute to the wider European cultural scene. It should be creative, ambitious, and inclusive, highlighting your city’s strengths while also addressing its weaknesses.

At last the “European ” gets a mention. Until that point the advice could apply to any of the increasing number of national capitals of culture. With so many alternatives the European aspect of an ECOC stands out even more as the critical criteria. ChatGPT doesn´t quite understand it but perhaps after a few more attempts will get there.

Summary: Not good enough to send as it is. Covers many of the key points but not quite there. It is a good enough draft for anyone writing that opening letter to the mayor and wondering how to start. It needs a more tweaks. There is no overt reference to tourism which mayors often get hung up on. Some comment on the money side (both costs of the bid/ECOC and the expected return to the city; there are plenty of studies) would be useful as well as more Europeaness. Marks out of 10: 6 or 7.

Will robots take over? Yes in many things, can we stop them, no, should we, no. This blog was written by a human.

Selecting the European Capital of Culture: with added transparency

Posted on by

The European Capital of Culture has come a long way since its start in 1985. The current formula runs from 2020 (Galway and Rijeka) through to 2033. The most recent selection was for the title holders in 2025, in Slovenia (Nova Gorica) and Germany (Chemnitz). The latter competition caused a mild controversy seemingly triggered by Nuremburg’s unsuccessful candidacy.

It is over 4 years since I left the selection panel after 5 years membership. A veteran of over 150 bid-books, presentations, monitoring and evaluation reports with 3 years as its chair. Now I am merely an interested observer.

The chairman of the committee of Länder culture ministers in Germany has said he wants to improve the “transparency” of the programme. “The chairman of the Kultur-MK, Berlin’s Senator for Culture Dr. Klaus Lederer, will work at the European Commission to strengthen a transparent selection process in order to make the successful EU project “European Capital of Culture” future-proof.”

An excellent idea as feedback is always welcome. I think the ECOC programme does need future proofing for its remaining editions until 2033 but to be honest I don’t think the selection part of the programme is the weakest. Sore losers are sore losers.

I assume that, in the interests of transparency, Dr Lederer will make his views public and look forward to an interesting international discussion. In the meantime and to start the ball rolling here are some suggestions he might take into account:

The ECOC idea has led to over 30 similar programmes worldwide. Some have flourished for a few years and been closed, others are developing strongly, all are different. They have learnt from the ECOC programme; time for the ECOC to learn from them. One outstanding idea is to put the names and CVs of the selection panel on the European Commission’s website (as the new French Capital of Culture programme does). Transparency starts with this step: who are the judges? There is no risk of pressure being placed on them; most will have their own digital presence already. They should also ensure they stay completely away from candidate cities!

A spending limit. There are rumours that Nuremburg spent over €4 million on their campaign. Other candidates elsewhere have also spent vast sums in their bid preparation. If I was a local taxpayer I would be appalled. It is far too much to spend on a campaign. It raises false hopes; it leads to a spending race among candidates; it brings overt party politics into play (bad enough now when a bid is too closely associated with a mayor or a political party). Set a limit, say €1 million. Require audited accounts to be given to the selection panel before the meetings and recorded in the bid books.

One of the positive steps in the current Decision is the requirement for cities to have a cultural policy. But this has become a “tick box” exercise. The real test comes from unsuccessful candidates: how much of their cultural policy have they carried out, without the title? Perhaps the ECOC should follow the example of some other European competitions and ask “what changes has the city made in the 2-3 years before the selection meeting in line with their cultural policy?”. No more of city councils approving a policy a few months or even weeks before the selection meeting where the document becomes the end-product not the action. Candidates start their planning years in advance so there are no problems over timing.

The bid-books were shortened a few years ago but are still far too long at 80 to100 pages. Increasingly they are full of padding, of stating the obvious, or meandering down academic theory paths. They are losing focus and sharpness. Cut them in half, a maximum of 50 pages for final selection. Drop some sections. Require a simplification of objectives, say 5 maximum.

Publish the bid-books, in downloadable fashion, at the time they are presented to the managing ministry. There is no risk of giving pointers, “secrets” away to the other candidates. The competition in Germany was good in this respect. with all bid-books published on submission (even before the panel saw them!). Candidates owe it to their citizens to be as public as possible, especially as they are spending so much of their money.

Virtually every candidate uses consultants. There are probably around 20-25 consultants who assist candidates; most have experience of running an ECOC. They are well-known inside the ECOC “family”; some are full time, others part time/occasional. One German group is very successful. I’ve no problem with this (and would urge any candidate to use experienced consultants to advise (but not of course, to write their bid-book). For transparency they must be named in the bid-books (many are already).

The Italian Capital of Culture in its competition for the 2022 title has made a wonderful breakthrough: the selection meetings were broadcast live on YouTube (and still available). As Zoom meetings become the norm (and probably even after the pandemic cools down) broadcasting selection meetings live is a great transparent step forward.

One of the criteria for selection is the “European Dimension”. Evaluations have frequently pointed out this is poorly understood and delivered. Some ECOCs at least make a substantial part of their programme international. This criterion is now even more important. More and more countries are running their own Capitals of Culture programmes. France is the latest to join the list. So what can differentiate an ECOC from a national CoC? the European Dimension. But the tendency is for an increased localisation of a programme, addressing only local issues. It makes for simple PR and appeals to local politicians but this is not the rationale for the programme. It is not simply what a city offers as a tourist destination or the occasional arts event but a deeper relationship with the cultures across Europe, including those of a migrant heritage in their own cities.

Some areas I would expect to see at the forefront of future ECOCs are the impact of digitalisation and tackling the climate emergency. It is no good to simply say ” a sustainable cultural sector”. City cultural policies as well as ECOCs really need to be active change agents. These are key European Union objectives and the cultural, education and urban sectors need to lead the way; “business as usual” or a “return to 2019” are no longer options.

Size matters. Some recently selected ECOCs are from very small cities, less than 20,000 population. Can these make an impact at European level more than a national or local region? With more than 60 cities having held the title, with many major cities not considering the title brings enough “value added” and the political requirement to open the competition to all member states it is not surprising small cities are now winning the title. Cities which can only find €1m a year from their own budgets and rely on regional and national funding hardly inspire confidence. Do they have adequate local management without the need to import expertise? Procida, an island of just 11,000, has just won the Italian Capital of Culture award for 2022. The newest national title, France, has recognised the size issue; its new Capital of Culture 2022 award is for cities up to 200,000. With 29 candidates it has a successful start. Perhaps an ECOC limit of 50,000 with smaller areas seeking a national title.

These points may help with selection. The next problem is less with this part of the programme but with the delivery of the ECOC. Too many recent title holders have run into major problems at Board and senior management level (CEO and to a lesser extent at Artistic Director), and in some cases at the national culture ministry. But that’s for another day.

Over to you for comments, especially from Dr Lederer. On twitter as #ECOCtransparency

Galway 2020 is prepared to launch

Posted on by

Galway have announced their European Capital of Culture programme for 2020. They share the title with Rijeka.  I have a soft spot for both:  back in 2016 I chaired the selection panels which recommended the two cities.  Rijeka have launched their programme in an innovative Time Out edition.

Galway beat off three other Irish cities for the title. Dublin in the first round and then Limerick and an imaginatively named Three Sisters ( a combined bid from Waterford, Wexford and Kilkenny).  The ten members of the panel, from ten different EU member states, were not unanimous in their choice but Galway convinced a majority. Their report is online. 

The bid was based on a  100 page “bidbook” (based on a set of questions common to all bidders) and a presentation to the panel.    Galway surprised us by handing out VR headsets (first time I think any of us had used one) and showing us a VR film.  Why?  Because a key part of their bid, the innovative bit, was their aim to be the first digital and virtual European Capital of Culture.

The bidbook is not simply a sales pitch; it becomes the de facto contract for the title holder. Why?  Several reasons.  Firstly it would be extremely unfair to the unsuccessful cities if a title holder cleared off and did something different  “But you won on the promise of X and are delivering Y”? makes the Vote Leave promises look sane. The book also provides the monitoring panel (another group of international experts some also from the selection panel) a touchstone to see how the city is progressively implementing the project.   It is expected that there will be some variation from the projects in the bid-book: partners disappear or drop out, budgets are redrawn, new projects and partners come into play.  But generally most of the bid-book should take place.

So how does the programme match up to the bid-book promises?  The journey from 2016 to now has been, shall we say, bumpy. This is not unusual in an ECOC (sorry for the acronym).  Almost predictably Galway’s management has fallen over two of the standard hurdles which have tripped many previous ECOCs.

Firstly personal, at Board, CEO and Artistic Director level.  We can go back to Liverpool in 2008 for the mother of all personnel and political problems from its selection in 2003 until Phil Redmond taking control very close to the 2008 year.  Since then Maribor 2012, Donostia San Sebastian 2016, Plzen 2016, Leeuwarden 2018, Aarhus 2017, Valletta 2018 and more have lost a CEO and/or both an Artistic Director during the build up period.   Political interference, misunderstanding of the nature of an ECOC, poor selection, the reasons are numerous, never quite the same.

Secondly money.  Again most ECOCs fail to meet the financial forecasts (hopes?) set out in the bidbook.  Selection panels are alert to this.  In Galway’s case the panel reported its concern that the private funding aspiration, at over 15% of the total, was rarely achieved.  Press reports indicate a pending shortfall in Galway. Public sector funding often also falls short as national, regional and city funding does not quite match up to their initial hopes.

So nothing new, Galway simply did not learn from previous ECOCs.    That is water under the bridge but it means more effective PR before the opening to overcome the negative impressions (until the final evaluation which I hope will follow the excellent evaluation of Limerick, Irish Capital of Culture in 2014, carried out by the then Ministry of Arts, and the independent  ECOC evaluations of ECORYS). I find evaluations by local universities unconvincing and too orientated to pleasing the management and local funders. Too often they are statistical reports with little critical analysis.

The programme?   Give a sound management team €30m plus, a few years lead in and a good programme surely follows.  There are enough artists to fill a years programme; at the lowest end simply putting the standard festivals into the programme fills a lot of pages.   An ECOC should be more.  In many ways an ECOC, linked to a city’s cultural strategy over the following few years, should be saying to the local arts scene that it needs to step-change for the future, the current business as usual needs shaking up.  The local arts scene often think an ECOC is an opportunity for more money for them to do what they are doing now.   Wrong.  An ECOC is strategically instrumental.  It is not a marketing exercise for the city, although the tourist business will pick it up.  It is an opportunity to change the city.  And over time, not over one year.  Take perhaps the most holistic city development taking in an ECOC: Lille in 2004.  Still changing, still developing after more than 20 years.  And not just with periodic spectacles.

The Galway programme follows ,on the surface, the proposals in the bidbook.  Same project titles, but it seems they have been slimmed down.  Many of the more innovative elements are missing or downplayed.   A shortfall in funding?  Too adventurous? Various managers not up to it (a common ECOC problem between selection and delivery which is why most ECOCs now run extensive cultural management training programmes).  Is the programme international enough?  To me that is a fundamental issue.  It is why an ECOC is radically different from a national capital of culture (like Limerick 2014, Derry 2013, Hull 2017).  They have narrower criteria and objectives.  It is difficult to see the internationalism in the programme.  There is a page of international names but are these who have helped on the way or are actually providing content during the year?  The recent norm is that well over half of the events in an ECOC are international (and the further away the better).

One key sentence in ECOC formal reports is: an ECOC is not just about promoting your own city but increasing the awareness of the diversity of European cultures in your own city. Note the plural.  One key point made by Galway in the selection was that 24% of the residents are New Irish.  I can’t see a corresponding engagement of them in the programme or even in the list of staff of the ECOC.   I can’t see, but this could be in a secondary programme, much debate about the cultural implications of Brexit.  This is perhaps one of the key European issues which needs discussion in an ECOC in Ireland.

A major legacy of many ECOCs has been that the local arts managers have used the event to pioneer new international partnerships and break new ground.  I can’t see this from the programme.   I hope the normal festivals are different in scale and content to their previous incarnations. “International Festivals” should surely be totally international!  One standard question of the selection panel used to be ” How will your festivals be different in the ECOC year?”.

The ECOC year is about to start.  Time to watch, time to enjoy.  Time soon for the city administration to sit down, with many others, to plan.. and finance.. the legacies. The bidbook listed many to be used as starting points.  Will Galway follow the way of some ECOCs and fold in December 2020 and disappear or will  the cultural life in Galway in 2021 be demonstrably different from that in 2019?  And I don’t mean tourists but artists, youth groups,  arts in school, participatory and community arts, the creative industries, attendance at arts events (and not counting passive attendance at spectacles). And will people have a wider understanding of the other lesser used languages in Europe alongside a growth in Gaelic?   Twenty years, and longer, from now journalists will still be describing Galway as a European Capital of Culture, not just in the tourism pages.  It is a brand which requires constant  attention.  Time will tell.

 

2017: the year of 23 “Capitals of Culture”

Posted on by

For the capitals of culture in 2018 go to this page.

There are 23 “Capitals of Culture” around the world in 2017. A few are formally called “City of Culture” but the idea is the same!  The full list is later in this post.

Many cities (amplified by travel journalists, place making and marketing PRs) call themselves a “Cultural Capital”.  There is something special about having the title awarded from outside the city. It implies recognition not self-promotion.

The concept has come a long way since the first “European City of Culture” in 1985.  Built on the initiative of probably the two most well-known Ministers of Culture (Melina Mercouri of Greece and Jack Lang of France) the European Union programme has evolved considerably since that opening event in Athens. Fifty-four cities have held the title (now the European Capital of Culture).  Pafos and Aarhus share the title in 2017 and nine further cities have been selected to hold the title in the years to 2021.

In the mid 1980s there was very little appreciation, in practice or in academic circles, of the impact culture can have in a city. From seeing culture, (especially what used to be called “high culture” mainly for a small minority), in formal galleries, theatres and festivals the understanding now has widened and deepened. An annual title is no longer just a major pageant of artistic celebration but brings benefits through its social and economic impact.  Now there is an abundance of academic and management literature, reports, thesis and indeed consultants each with their own interpretation of the (mostly) positive effects of culture in a city’s wellbeing and prosperity.

From that initial event in 1985 the idea of designating a city as a “Capital of Culture” has been progressively adopted around the world. In some cases the title is organised in a  single country and in others the designation comes from a multi-lateral organization.

There are considerable variations. The main one is probably whether there is an open competition, many benefits can accrue to unsuccessful candidates as well as to the title holder. Are the cities appointed by ministries or through a competition with an independent selection panel? Is there a short period of notice from selection or enough time over several years to develop a programme?  Is the selection based on a city’s heritage and current culture or on a specific programme for the title year? The specific objectives of each programme are different.  The budgets, and programmes, of the capitals vary considerably. Some have an intensive annual programme, others focus on a month.  A few are linked to formal Ministerial meetings and many keep a long arms length from politics.  With the exception of the European Union programme there is severe lack of transparency in most programmes.   I will explore these differences in a longer paper.

The 23 in 2017 are

Aarhus and Pafos        European Capitals of Culture

Hull                              UK City of Culture

Pistoia                         Italian Capital of Culture

 Klaipėda                    Lithuanian Capital of Culture

Lisbon                         Ibero-American Capital of Culture

Vuokkiniemi                Finno-Ugric Capital of Culture

Luxor                          Capital of Arab Culture

Bogra                   Cultural Capital of South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation

Amman, Sennar, Mashhad, Kampala      Islamic Capitals of Culture

Kyoto, Changsha City, Daegu,                 Culture Cities of East Asia

Mérida                                                      American Capital of Culture

Turkestan                                                 Culture and Arts Capital of the Turkic World

Some more additions:

Reus is the Catalan Capital of Culture; Bobruisk is the Belarus Capital of Culture and Sharypova is the Capital of Culture in Krasnoyarsk,  Bandar Seri Begawan is the ASEAN Capital of Culture and Ganja is the Commonwealth of Independent States Capital of Culture

There could have been more.  The Irish “City of Culture” programme is on hold as Ireland will host a “European Capital of Culture” (Galway) in 2020.  Canada had a “Cultural Capitals of Canada” programme for 10 years but it ended in 2012.  A non government organisation in Korea awarded the title of National Cultural Capital in 2016 to Siheung  but no news yet on a 2017 title holder. In recent years the idea of a “World Capital of Culture” has been floated and there was an attempt at a “West African Capital of Culture” programme. There was an initial announcement in 2015 that Russia was exploring the idea. A Russian city was one of the candidates for the 2017 Finno-Ugric title.  Sadiq Khan, the London mayor, has launched, for 2019 and 2020, the “London Borough of Culture”.    

In addition to these major “Capitals of Culture” programmes there are many more titles for cities. Conakry is the UNESCO “World Book Capital” in 2017.  The European Union has a wide range of titles including “Youth Capital” (Varna in 2017), “Green Capital” (Essen in 2017) and “Capital of Innovation” (Amsterdam in 2016).  Other organisations in Europe award Capital titles, based on a competition, including “Sport” (Marseille in 2017) and “European Regional Gastronomy Award” (East Lombardy, Riga-Gauja and Aarhus).  Indeed several cities have become serial title holders (or at least candidates) seeking titles every few years.  That’s for another paper!.

From small beginnings the organic and unplanned growth of the “Capital of Culture” concept has become a global activity. Every continent has its opportunity (although limited in Africa despite its flourishing cultural activity).  Competitions are attracting more candidates.

So in 2017 if you are looking for somewhere to go, try a “Capital of Culture” or two. If you live near one, support it! Why not encourage your city to bid for a future title

 

NOTE:  edited on 30 December to include note about the Korean National Cultural Capital.

NOTE:  edited in October to include more capitals.

 

Brexit and UK-EU27: How will culture fare?

Posted on by
Reply

The short answer is that nobody knows.  UK Prime Minister May is refusing to offer a running commentary on the British approach to negotiating the exit and EU27 is refusing to open negotiations in advance of the formal notification under the now infamous Article 50.

The nearest to anything like a policy view during the referendum campaign was Boris Johnson’s comment that the “UK is leaving the European Union but not leaving Europe”.  Oh that it would be that simple. The arts sector overwhelmingly voted to Remain. A view>  Simpler still to stay in but that’s another story.

This is the first in a series of postings where I look at the possible future UK-EU27 relationships in the culture arenas (and there is certainly more than one arena!).  To start with in this post I simply list the areas, and programmes, which need to be addressed in the Brexit negotiations. I don’t claim this is exhaustive so please drop me a comment and I’ll update the post.

Later posts will start to look at the implications.

I’m assuming the dark Brexit day will be sometime in 2019, before the elections to the European Parliament and before the next EU finance period from 2020. I’m also ignoring both any “transitional” arrangement and a straight switch to the EEA/Norway model as PM May wants a “bespoke” deal.  Many formal statements emphasise that the UK remains a member and so can still play its full part: see the Arts Council of England.  But then they would wouldn’t they!.

Let’s be clear about one thing. The Article 50 process means EU27 have the upper hand, by a long way. They will decide the terms of the exit.  Will culture be seen as a small area, with no EU competency, so can the UK/EU27 carry on as before?  Or will it be seen as the UK trying to cherry pick the “nice” parts of the EU?   Time will tell.

The specific areas fall into money, people and processes.

Money: funding sources from the EU which could dry up with a very hard Brexit.

People:  restrictions on the free movement of people both to the UK and from the UK to EU27

Processes:  how “access” to the single market could work, taxes, laws, standards, influence,

A fourth area covers external influences:  the UK economy, exchange rates and importantly the effects on the culture sectors in EU27 after Brexit.

Taken together they illustrate the complexity of Brexit (imagine the same issues multiplied across most of the UK economy).

In terms of impact we need to look from three different directions:

from the cultural and creative sectors: the producers

from the audiences and future audiences

from the effect on the 30 year momentum of the increasing influence, ambition and internationalism of the British cultural world

The worst case will be a serious and possibly slow shift to an inward looking insular society where because of money (lack of), difficulty, or even purpose the arts offer in the UK diminishes in ambition.  There is a risk the Brexit cultural debate will focus on the producers, the list below does.  The more important issue will be the effect on “the audiences” and the longer term momentum.

Creative Europe (or its successor).  Will the UK seek to remain and pay an annual fee ( as Norway or as Turkey until they withdrew earlier this year over a genocide reference and took their €2m+ annual fee with them).  The UK arts sector does well from Creative Europe.   Continued participation in Creative Europe after 2020 should also smooth the path to co-host a European Capital of Culture in 2023 as membership of Creative Europe is a pre-condition).  See Labour’s view >  and mine on ECOC2023>

Media programme, (part of Creative Europe) gives funds for cinemas in UK showing films from other EU countries (and these cinemas are by far the main locations for any foreign language films in the UK).  Supports pre-production costs (I, Daniel Blake received almost €100,000, The Kings Speech over €500,000), supports British films shown in the EU, has training programmes.  Funding also helps co-productions. A view>

Other Funding Opportunities> Erasmus+, Europe for Citizens, COSME, INTERREG, ERDF (helped fund Peaky Blinders) and more.  The British Council  is successful in winning  or managing EU projects, for example SHARE in South East Asia, European Voluntary Service, projects in China, Kosovo, Lebanon, Egypt. Will the British Council stay in the European Union Network of Cultural Institutes (EUNIC)? Will it take part in the new programmes of culture in the European Union’s external relations?  Is there any effect on the UK’s and the EU’s soft power?  A view>

Freedom of Movement.   The “Big One”.  Will UK arts organisations still be able to recruit staff from EU27?  Will the creative and cultural industry sector still be able to recruit?  Will existing EU27 staff and self employed keep their full rights after Brexit?  Will any new recruits after Brexit need visas? Will the UK government impose sectoral quotas or salary thresholds?   Will British citizens now in EU27 still be able work in EU27? Or only tied to their current country and/or current job?  And in future will British citizens still be able to go to EU27 to work: (Bowie’s Berlin days a thing of the past?).  Architects, animation studios, museums, heritage: you name it, the UK workforce is diverse (one of its strengths).  Not forgetting those academics in cultural subjects in universities. What will EU27ers in the UK feel as they show their pre-Brexit or post Brexit ID cards?  Will the rise in xenophobia die down?

Carnets and permissions?   Will British based touring companies need a country by country carnet as they do for China?  Touring orchestras, rock bands, early music groups, Adele, Rolling Stones, djs, theatre companies , exhibitions etc all affected.  Will touring artists from EU27 also need carnets to bring their equipment etc. into the UK; effect on festivals? A view>

Qualifications: will UK qualifications still be accepted?   A version of the qualifications issue is that EU committees, panels, “Open Methods of Coordination” (which discuss a wide range of policies)  will no longer have British members.  Will I be the last member and chair of the Selection Panel for European Capitals of Culture as membership is limited to nationals of EU member states?

Exports.  Over 40% of the creative industries exports go to EU27.  Free trade continues?  Or tariffs (and WTO does not have any useful categories to use and Free Trade Agreements normally have little to say on services).  Will British architects still be able to compete for commissions (Foster’s Reichstag?).  Will the UK still benefit from the Digital Single Market?  Will British TV and films still be classed as European in those countries with European quotas?   And of course the mirror image of exports are imports.  The cultural sector has supply chains as well as Nissan!  Import duties on items from EU27?

Intellectual Property Rights.  A minefield.  A loss of engagement with developments in the fast moving field?.  A view>

More law: Artists Resale Rights, Export Licencing Regime, restitution claims, the art market   A view> and another>

And then there are the broader issues, the consequences of a Brexit.

The £ and exchange rates.   A lower £ sterling affects many areas of the cultural sector. A view>

Weaker public finances.  Will these put a further strain on public sector budgets at national and local levels?

I don’t expect this list is exhaustive. Please add!

 

YES!! DCMS start the competition for European Capital of Culture in 2023

Posted on by
Reply

DCMS has launched the call for applications for the ECOC in 2023 in the UK.   

Details here  

Good luck to the candidates (Dundee, Leeds and Milton Keynes at the moment)

 

The UK hosts a European Capital of Culture (ECOC) in 2023. Under the rules DCMS needs to start the competition before December 2016. This gives the competing cities time to finalize their bids for shortlisting in autumn 2017.  The final selection will be in 2018.  It is now mid September, time is running out.

As the current chair of the selection panel for ECOCs I know that cities need time, over four years, to develop their programme. They also need clarity in preparing their bids.

Several UK cities are preparing bids: Dundee, Leeds, Milton Keynes (and possibly Bristol). They are investing time, money and more importantly, building up momentum in their cities and networks with their citizens, businesses and cultural sectors.

No recent ECOC has been able to prepare a successful bid in less than two years.  In my five years on the panel I’ve seen over 100 bid-books and city presentations and it is easy to spot those which are underprepared; they do not get shortlisted let alone selected.

So what’s the problem? DCMS is not indicating when it will start the formal competition on behalf of the European Commission.  It will have all the paperwork and the rules (they are the same for each country).  Why not?  Simple, I guess,  DCMS look like a rabbit stuck in the Brexit car headlights.

There is no reason for DCMS not to start the competition. The UK, as the Prime Minister frequently says, is a full member of the European Union until it leaves. During that time it will perform as a full member with all the rights and responsibilities that membership entails.  It is both legally and morally the correct stance.

The selection of the ECOC in the UK for 2023 will take place in 2017 and 2018: when the UK will be still be a member of the EU. The ECOC “Decision”, the legal document which governs the ECOC programme, was approved by the UK along with 27 other culture ministries and the European Parliament and it requires the competition to start.

What are the risks to DCMS to starting the competition?

Financial? Not really, the EU only contributes €1.5m to an ECOC and that is conditional.  An ECOC’s programme budget is likely to be over £50-£60m over 6 years found from city, regional, lottery and business sources. This is twice the amount that Hull have successfully raised for their UK City of Culture programme in 2017. The UK government could easily replace the €1.5m in 2023.

The main impact of a delay will be to the candidates. They need to ensure funding lines and commitments and discuss project plans with cultural partners across Europe (and indeed globally).

Reputation?   An ECOC is required to demonstrate a “European Dimension”.  This is cultural not political. ECOCs show and share the diversity of cultures in Europe to their own citizens and to visitors.  Most recent ECOCs have over 70% of their events with international partners and these are not limited to EU countries.  Even the ardent brexiters said that “Europe” is a cultural area of which the UK is a part and it is distinct from the political entity of the European Union.

Split process?   Perhaps. Unlike the UK City of Culture programme an ECOC is subject to a quality control process by a monitoring panel (in effect the selection panel).  This process may be interrupted but can easily be adapted.

Brexit may mean Brexit but no-one knows what that will entail. The referendum indicated a departure but not a destination.  Under the current Decision it is possible for non EU members to host an ECOC: but only closely defined categories:  candidates and potential candidates and, soon, EEA members.  There are calls for the UK to continue to be part of the Erasmus scheme, of the EU research programmes and of the cultural programmes. If the UK stays in the EU cultural programme it could be eligible to host the ECOC in 2023. A very small element in the whole Art50 process.  Staying in the culture and education programmes does not affect the hallowed sovereignty of the brexiters as these areas are not under EU competency. The UK has always had control

And if not, if it is an exceedingly hard Brexit? Well then DCMS could simply introduce a new “UK Capital of International Culture” in 2023 and rebrand the ECOC title to fit between the UK Cities of Culture planned for 2021 and 2025. The successful ECOC city selected in 2018 continues with its implementation, same programme, same objectives with only a minor change to its logo.

So two scenarios: the post Art50 EU-UK deal enables the European Capital of Culture process to continue as normal (clearly the overwhelmingly preferred option) or the UK simply rebrands the title.  Neither prevents DCMS from starting the competition.

A win-win. But DCMS need to give a firm green light now.

Steve Green

Chair, European Capitals of Culture Selection Panel

 

 

Labour won’t win in 2020 by re-running 2015

Posted on by
Reply

Labour lost the general election in 2015.  A leadership election is underway.  Candidates are writing their manifestos. Is it too early?  Will the candidates be too tempted to re-run 2015 rather than look ahead to 2020.  The political landscape will change. Here are a few thoughts.

Five more years of a Tory government, unhindered by any Liberal Democrat brake, and in hock to the more right-wing members of the Tory party, will mean a harsher landscape.  Not just fox-hunting but abortion restrictions (and I suspect a few Tories will be looking longingly at Orban’s attempt to restore capital punishment in Hungary).  More banks, more in poverty, greater “security” surveillance.  We will be spending billions on the four Tridents. We will have an even more authoritarian society, officially sanctioned.

The Tory leader in 2020 is likely to be from George Osborne, Boris Johnson, Theresa May.  Will they skip a generation after Cameron goes, probably in 2018?  Doubt it. Well-known senior figures appealing to the Tory heartlands.

Public finances will still be in a mess. Osborne’s forecasts on both debt and deficit have been proved wrong; there is no reason to expect any change. There will still be “no money”.  More years of stringent cuts.  It’s difficult to see how significantly more full wage jobs can be created so the tax take won’t increase to mitigate cuts.

The public sector ethos will be further weakened. Not just through out-sourcing, privatisation and ” public sector social entrepreneurialism”.  Top managers in the public sector will be required to operate as private sector equivalents. The internal culture of the delivery arms of the public sector will drastically change. TTIP and ISDS will prevent the re-nationalisation of public sector contracts.

The Scottish Parliament, from 2016, will be firmly in the nationalist camp. It is hard to foresee Jim Murphy (let alone the old school of Scottish Labour) turning the electoral prospects around in a short time.  As Spain has seen with Cataluña a nationalist mind-set always wants more.

Osborne’s “northern powerhouses”, led by Manchester, will be in full swing. Devolution in England will be underway mostly led by Labour councils and they will want, and deserve, more. Power may be devolved but in reality in many cases it simply means power to implement more cuts to local government. Bye bye not just libraries but many areas of local services. No way that the Tories will restore any form of sensible London government.

And looming over all of these changes will be the defining political topic of the next five years: the in/out EU referendum.  Polls may indicate a “stay in” majority but as we have seen polls are not at their most brilliant.  The lesson from the Scottish Independence referendum is that even a seemingly clear 55/45 division does not end the debate.   A “stay in” vote may not end the question; UKIP and the right-wing Tories will continue for a second chance in the 2020s. Will we see Theresa May leading a UKIP/Tory grouping in 2020 pledging to reverse the “stay in” vote?  Or an Osborne  (perhaps even the bend in the wind Johnson) leading a “happy to be in” a reformed EU?

A “leave” vote in 2017 leads to two years of negotiation of the terms of the exit (the Treaty sets a time limit).  Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales will be up in arms if they have been outvoted by the English.  Constitutional turmoil.  How does that stack up in 2020?

In my view Labour leadership candidates will find it easy to outline their social and local policy positions; obviously with different priorities. This is their comfort zone.  But the overwhelmingly strategic political decision they have to take is on how active in the next two years they will be for a pro-EU vote.  No more fence-sitting.

Yes, this means tackling the concerns over migration in areas not used to it and not pandering in UKIP-lite style. It means jettisoning the “Controls on immigration” mug. It means leadership from the front not from the backroom focus group. We all want to reform the EU. If it was being invented now we would not build the current version. But it is the one we have. The 2020 election depends on the EU referendum. Time to step up and be counted: the UK’s future lies unequivocally as a member of the EU. That’s what a potential prime minister in 2020 needs to project.

 

Who will be the UK’s European Capital of Culture in 2023?

Posted on by
Reply

Updated June 2016 with news on bidding cities and the selection in Croatia for ECOC2020.

Updated August 2015 to highlight the report from the panel on the pre-selection (shortlisting) for the ECOC in 2020 in Croatia.

 

A UK city will be the European Capital of Culture in 2023. It will share the title, and work with, a city in Hungary. 2023 may seem a long way off but cities thinking of bidding should be starting their preparations now. The bids will need to be completed in mid-2017 for shortlisting. The final selection, based on revised bids, will be in 2018.

So far Leeds and Milton Keynes appear to have set up bidding teams; will more join the competition?  Dundee will decide to bid in September.  Cardiff may put a bid together.   These are leaving it very, very, late to put a bid together.  Many recent ECOCs have spent 3-5 years before the submission of the bid.  Why the long time?  Because it is no longer a top down application which can be prepared by a city administration and a few cultural operators.  The criteria require extensive consultation and  participation in the development of the bid.  Not just marketing or convincing people but actively seeking views and acting on them.  This poses a challenge to city administrations and as importantly to the cultural sector in a city.  In essence a bid says “we are not satisfied with our cultural offer and we seek to transform our city through culture (and other sectors).  Putting a programme together also involves considerable visits to other ECOCs and in finding partners for projects across Europe (and beyond). 

An ECOC is not a big celebration of the present but a transformational programme for the future.

They, and other cities considering bids may find the report on the pre-selection of the ECOC in 2020 in Croatia useful.  It is the first report based on the new criteria for ECOCs from 2020.   Four cities, out of 8, were shortlisted.

The Panel selected Rijeka at the final selection. The report is here.   The panel will select the Irish city as the co-ECOC in 2020 in July. there are three candidates (Galway, Limerick and the Three Sisters (Waterford, Wexford and Kilkenny)

There is a new guide for cities considering or preparing to bid . This is essential reading!!    http://ec.europa.eu/culture/tools/actions/documents/ecoc-candidates-guide_en.pdf

As the current chair of the Selection Panel of the European Capitals of Culture (ECOC) I see bids from candidate cities in many countries and all start their bid preparations well in advance. Many spend five or six years preparing their bid, well in advance of the official announcement.

A key point to notice is, of course, this is the EUROPEAN Capital of Culture.. not the UK City of Culture title successfully held by Derry-Londonderry in 2013 and awarded to Hull for 2017. That competition was part of the legacy of Liverpool becoming the last UK city to be awarded the ECOC title, in 2008.

The criteria at European level are different to the UK version; they are also different from the ones used to select Liverpool (let alone Glasgow’s ground breaking programme in 1990).  The selection process also differs to the UK City of Culture.

The Culture Ministers of the 28 EU member states have recently agreed the new programme and the European Parliament have also completed their formalities. The formal “Decision” will be published shortly. There is a preview later in this post.

So what does a candidate city have to focus on?  Well each city will be different; it will have its own objectives and purpose. There is no single magic template which guarantees a successful bid or programme. The title is not awarded simply because a city is in the UK (and still in the EU of course).  A city’s size is not relevant.  Nor is its cultural heritage a major factor.

An ECOC is based on a future programme and not a celebration of the past. Successful cities integrate the standard selection criteria with their own local objectives. The “legacy” is important: what are the longer term outcomes?  In recent years the budgets for the ECOC programme have varied from €20m in the smaller and newer EU member states to between €50 and €80m in western European countries. The money is spread over the five or six years of the overall programme.  This is on top of the usual cultural budget of a city and excludes any infrastructure or new buildings. Several recent ECOCs have successfully bid for EU regional funds for culturally related projects (mostly linked to cultural tourism).  Most ECOCs build up to a management team of 40-50, plus hundreds of volunteers.

There are six criteria. These are set out in detail, together with the background to the programme, in the new formal “Decision” which covers the competition from 2020 to 2033. Cities thinking of bidding should read the document closely (that old adage from school “remember to read the question first!”). The final version is here:

Final Decision 2020-2033

The first criteria is that a city must have an existing cultural strategy even before it can bid. The ECOC is not a one year “super-festival” but needs to be part of the overall cultural development of a city which in turn is part of a city’s strategy. This is one of the reasons potential bidding cities may need to start soon, developing their city’s cultural strategy takes time.

Four criteria will be familiar to cultural managers:  outreach (including the involvement of citizens in the development of the bid), management, the capacity to deliver and a high artistic and creative content. “Culture” in the context of an ECOC has a wide interpretation: all artforms from djs to opera, new media, community and participatory arts, arts in schools, hospitals,  languages, creative industries etc.   The focus is on the programme which normally progressively builds up to the events of the year.  The programme needs to be additional to the existing cultural offer in the city (as is the programme budget).

A common and crucial feature is that it is a highly international programme. Some ECOCs have an international aspect to virtually every project or event or base their programme around European themes.

The remaining criteria is the one which marks the ECOC out from national cities of culture: the “European Dimension“.  The programme must highlight the cultural diversity of Europe (to the cities own citizens and not using the title solely as a tourist/city branding exercise), highlight European themes and the common aspects of European cultures, heritage and history. This is a challenging criteria and one which is of major importance.  Recent ECOCs have developed a wide range of imaginative projects to meet this European Dimension requirement.

What should cities thinking of bidding do now?  My advice is to go and visit the two current  ECOCs, (and those already selected for 2015 to 2018) to learn. There is a wealth of good practice, and lessons to learn and share.  Riga and Umea hold this year’s title and are in full swing.  In 2015 the title goes to Mons and Plzen; in 2016 to Donostia San Sebastian and Wroclaw; in 2017 to Aarhus and Pafos. In 2018 Valletta and Leeuwarden share the title.  Several of these ECOCs have their bid-books (in English) online. All are working hard to develop their programmes.

Later this year the Selection Panel will recommend the cities in Italy and Bulgaria for the 2019 title.  There were 21 candidates in Italy and 8 in Bulgaria.  There are now 6 on the shortlist in Italy and 4 in Bulgaria.  Read the Panel’s reports on the pre-selection shortlisting.

There are clear short-term and long-term benefits for a city holding the ECOC title. These are outlined in the recent report commissioned by the European Parliament from Beatriz Garcia of Liverpool University.  Recent holders of the title (eg Marseilles-Provence,) are in no doubt about the success of their programmes. Many cities which were not successful in the competition find they have made significant gains: the bidding process in itself was more than worthwhile.

Who will bid for the title when it comes to the UK? I’ve no idea but now (June 2016) is the time to be deeply into preparing the bid.  Good luck to all the candidates!