Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-02-22-Speech-2-057"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050222.5.2-057"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, nearly 20 years ago, on 13 June 1985, the idea of the European Capital of Culture was submitted to the Council of Ministers of Culture at the instigation of Melina Mercouri, the then Greek Minister of Culture, and the relevant resolution was duly adopted. Her aim was to make specific cultural aspects of the city, region or country concerned accessible to the European public. After 20 years of the European Capital of Culture programme, we can draw some conclusions, as identified in the Palmer study of August 2004.
According to the 1999 decision on the European Capital of Culture, the objective of the programme is to highlight the wealth and variety of European cultures – as well as what they have in common – and to contribute towards better mutual understanding on the part of Europe’s citizens. The new decision is intended to go one step further and to accept and emphasise the challenges of European integration, of European diversity and also that of expanding cultural cooperation within an enlarged Europe.
There is no doubt that being selected as a European Capital of Culture has a positive impact on the city concerned as regards new cultural initiatives, the expansion of cultural infrastructure, artistic endeavours and trends, its reputation, its international status and the scope for further cultural development. This goes hand-in-hand with an increase in the number of visitors and receipts, but also in expenditure.
Although the European Capital of Culture has a special attraction for people interested in culture, the European aspect has not totally caught on. The cultural dimension is often overshadowed by political ambitions, and the European dimension has not always been in the forefront. The Capital of Culture can only be a sustainable project if it is integrated into the development of the city as part of a long-term cultural development strategy. A great deal has changed over the last 20 years as regards cultural and artistic development in cities, particularly in the European Union, making it necessary to amend the decision adopted at that time.
For example, the sequence of cities to be nominated up to 2019 does not take account of the 10 new Member States which joined the EU on enlargement in May last year. However, in order not to upset the sequence that has now been established, there is a proposal that for each year a city from one of the new Member States should be added in, so as to create a balance. We could not justify making these countries wait until 2019 for their turn.
The common position before us is deficient in some respects and does not meet all the requirements needed to implement the changes in a more open, democratic and transparent way. However, in order not to jeopardise the preparatory work in hand for the cultural capitals in 2009, 2010 and subsequent years – and especially those in Austria and Germany – I would urge you to approve this common position at second reading, on condition that the Commission, which has already promised this and has started work on it, brings forward a new draft by June this year at the latest.
This new proposal should meet the following requirements: the level of financial resources will need to be adjusted if there are to be two cultural capitals as from 2009; the present level of financial commitment ranges from EUR 200 000 and EUR 1 million per project. Clear criteria need to be established in order to provide the highest level of funding possible. At present, an average of EUR 500 000 is granted per cultural capital, which in the case of a budget proposal such as that being put forward by Linz corresponds to a contribution of 0.83%. The European Union is certainly not making a generous contribution here. I would plead for a fixed contribution of EUR 1 million per cultural capital if all the criteria have been met.
This should be taken into account as regards the financial endowment and in the cultural programme, and in the 2007-2013 financial perspective. Furthermore, we regard it as very important for the role of the jury to be strengthened, for tasks to be more specifically defined and for the selection procedure for the applicant cities to be improved in this way. Clear and objective selection criteria for the cities themselves and the required added value for Europe also need to be explicitly defined and associated with specific points. The decision as to when and why a city should receive EUR 200 000, EUR 500 000 or EUR 1 million also needs to be clearly defined.
Where competition between several cities is possible, that is to be welcomed, but it should not be an absolute criterion. For example, in 2009 Austria and Lithuania will enter the race with only one city each, but they will need to comply absolutely with the criteria of the selection procedure. This is very important, and I believe that with Graz, Austria has demonstrated that you can offer very good performance with a single city.
I believe that the European Union should also support greater publicity for the cultural capitals and should bring forward a stronger programme in this respect."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples