Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-04-Speech-2-351"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060404.25.2-351"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, as the Commissioner has already mentioned, some aspects of this 20-year-old agreement were in need of reform. Although a new decision had been presented in 1999, this had overlooked the fact that we were to be joined a few years later by ten new Member States – perhaps even more – and so these new Member States needed to be taken into account. Consequently, we now have a partnership system.
The proposal that was presented to us at that time was unsatisfactory. In 2004, we drew up another new proposal, but an abridged one, as we were in a hurry so as not to obstruct the process for the 2009 and 2010 cities, and thus accepted its shortcomings. The Commission kept its promise, however, and, six months later, did indeed present us with a new draft.
Our priority is to redefine the role of the panel. We have had problems with it in the past, and so we need to ensure that we have a better one in future. This new draft makes the panel more democratic. This means that the Member States and the candidate countries are represented on the selection panel, at the pre-selection stage, and are able to make their contribution this way: it is not only those in Brussels who have a say, which is very important.
In the second phase, there is a monitoring and advisory panel, which follows this process critically, but plays a supporting role too instead of just identifying shortcomings. That is very important, as the cities very often feel left alone with their preparations and do not know exactly how to deal with all the rules.
Competition was another crucial issue; we wanted to strengthen the competitive element. The Member States should bear in mind during the preparatory period that what is important is new cultural activity, and that the public and the individual regions are also involved. Although I am stressing the competition issue, I should also like to point out that there are no doubt some smaller countries who are unable to hold major competitions. In such cases, a single candidate city would be permissible, but it would have to meet all the challenges and requirements for becoming a European Capital of Culture.
One essential criterion, and a discussion point, is the European dimension. The cities are required to create European added value, and the question is: what is the European added value? How do the cities reflect it? How can we explain to the cities precisely what task they have to perform? The Commission has not managed to define this with absolute precision, which I can understand, as it is very difficult. The Commission has promised to present the best practice model on a website. This website is a very important means of giving guidance and of sharing enquiries and experiences, which is very important to the candidate cities. I would ask the Commissioner to ensure that the guidance and website are indeed present when this project enters into force.
One satisfactory aspect is the funding – not as regards the amount, as there will be another problem in that regard. The new Financial Perspective is likely to reduce the amount envisaged for the European Capitals of Culture, too, which we greatly regret. If I take as an example the city of Linz, which now has an investment volume of EUR 60 million, but only 0.86% of this comes from the EU, I do wonder why the burdens are so great. Of course, one could say it is a matter of image: it helps the region, it helps the city, we are investing in the future, we are investing in sustainability – this is another important aspect.
Whilst we are on the subject of finances: it is gratifying that this prize is now to be awarded three months in advance. That will undoubtedly help the cities, as up to now the main problem has been that cities are always left worrying about their money after the event, after everything has been concluded. I hope and wish that this is really the case in practice and that, therefore, the European Capitals of Culture do indeed face a very democratic future.
I hope that sustainability, good reputation and the impetus given to art and European culture in general find expression in this report, and also in the activities and implementation that follow."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples