Part I Introduction and Context

PART I INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 1 Part I – Introduction and Context 1. Introduction The issues of cultural cooperation in Europe dealt with in this report have a special relevance when confronting the needs of European integration, the fostering of sensitive and responsible citizenship and the implementation of Human and Cultural Rights. Intergovernmental cultural cooperation is a concept which has not yet been developed to its full potential, having often been reduced to the signature of bilateral or multilateral agreements of a purely diplomatic nature and comparatively unspecific content. And yet, as governments enjoy full authority in official international relations, it is to be expected that they should take responsibility in leading the way – especially as cultural cooperation can signify much more than mere exchanges of concerts and exhibitions, and can instead become an exercise where the values of creativity, solidarity and diversity are being actively pursued. The promotion of values related to cultural diversity and pluralism must not only be understood as a reflection of ethical principles but also as an active inducement to cooperation. The final reason to foster diversity must be to ensure a maximum of expressive options, combined with a view to improving the quality of sensitivity and the renewal of the creative pool of society. Cultural systems do not live in isolation, and only by promoting cross-fertilisation of their creative patterns can they improve and grow. Cooperation therefore is not an abstract notion of good-will but is the very essence of cultural survival and the sharpening of critical conscience in society. This report is set to fulfil a mandate focusing on the description of intergovernmental cultural cooperation in 31 European states but also on providing an interpretation of the present situation and its relationship to future scenarios. As will be described in following sections, the rendering of an account of intergovernmental cultural cooperation structures and actions poses a large number of problems due to the heterogeneity of the information, the difficulties in obtaining it, and above all, the interpretation of future trends and the elaboration of sectorial as well as general conclusions. For at the end of this study there is a feeling that governments have seldom engaged in what we should understand today as ”cultural cooperation”, but rather have – quite legitimately – used culture as a means to further their political interests (domestic and international), their economic goals and the bureaucratic inertia of existing agreements and treaties. Even the modest goals of the European Cultural Convention (signed as from 1954 by all European states) regarding European languages and learning about each other’s history seem to be far from achieved. 3 Study on Cultural Cooperation in Europe – Interarts and EFAH – June 2003 A contemporary (and unwritten) notion of cultural cooperation implies the setting of common goals to be achieved by willing parties; goals which might be of a general moral or philosophical nature, but which must be implemented though practical actions. They could concern the exploration of art forms, the interpretation of common or respective countries’ heritage, the mutual knowledge of audiences or the circulation of art works through meaningful joint efforts of production and distribution. Cooperation tends to be a medium-to- long term exercise with room for trial and error, and with a clear will to bring in new partners and experiences. However, it is also clear that any form of intergovernmental cultural exchange, even that born out of unilateral interest, might have a positive impact on other forms of deeper cooperation, and the long-term alliances between arts and heritage projects of a non-governmental nature. In this light, it could be said that the era of true intergovernmental cultural cooperation in Europe is yet to begin, where governments really could try and pool their efforts with the aim of improving the capacities of cultural projects to stimulate all possible options for exchanges and joint-ventures. A phase, perhaps, where intergovernmental cultural cooperation is understood not so much as what governments do amongst themselves but as which joint policies they acquire to ensure best results for European cultural diversity. But is it too late for governments? Would it be too difficult for them to emerge from a logic of diplomacy, bureaucracy and promotion to engage in another dimension of cooperation? Have they been superseded by industries, networks, civil society movements and the professional sectors? Opinions in this report would suggest that the answer to these questions is YES. And yet, there is a clear feeling in the research team that for many reasons, states and especially their central governments, as long as they have full responsibility over external relations, have a role to play in filling the enormous gap existing in Europe between the domestic cultural agendas and the creation of a European cultural space, the fostering of creative circuits and the availability of resources for the emergence of new audiences. One thing becomes clear beyond any doubt; governments find it increasingly difficult and pointless to operate alone. In fact, they seldom do. And yet, governments will need a space to develop their own initiatives in the transnational cultural fields as any layer of governmental action or indeed private action is entitled to have. The problem is what the ideal role for governments in the future should be, and how to coordinate their role with that of the EU. Despite the absence of significant references to culture in the drafting of the European Convention, or perhaps because of it, state governments might have a large say in the construction of what remains the invisible pillar of European construction: culture. 4 Part I – Introduction and Context We hope that beyond fulfilling the needs to have a “state of the art” picture of intergovernmental cultural cooperation, this report can serve as a debating tool for those concerned with the future of European cultures. European Forum for the Arts and Heritage (EFAH) Interarts Foundation 5 Study on Cultural Cooperation in Europe – Interarts and EFAH – June 2003 2. Methodology 2.1. General framework This study emerged from a call for proposals published by the European Commission in September 2002. With the aim of producing a study on the current state of cultural and artistic cooperation in Europe, a consortium led by the European Forum for the Arts and Heritage (EFAH) and the Interarts Foundation (Interarts) was selected later that year. The work of EFAH and Interarts has been supported by CIRCLE (Cultural Information and Research Centres Liaison in Europe) and has benefited from contributions by over 40 experts in the 31 countries covered. Activities started early in 2003 and the study has been completed in its basic structure by mid-June 2003. 2.2. Focus 2.2.1. Object of the study For the purposes of this study, cultural cooperation means any form of institutional cooperation, involving at least two European countries, between national authorities or those bodies which have been specifically given the remit by national authorities for conducting cultural cooperation, with the aim of promoting common interests for cultural ends. Except where specifically noted, all references to “cultural cooperation” in this document must be understood as referring to intergovernmental cultural cooperation. The term “intergovernmental cultural cooperation” has also been used in some instances. The study covers all forms of intergovernmental cultural cooperation among European countries, that is, cultural cooperation between public authorities of at least two European countries which either are directly competent or have been specifically given the remit by national authorities for conducting transnational cultural cooperation, with the aim of promoting common interests for cultural ends. Both those activities performed as a result of formal arrangements (agreements, protocols, programmes, projects, policies) and those emerging informally but involving the above-mentioned authorities and agents have been considered. Within this definition, it has been understood that the agents whose activities were to be taken into account are the following: - national authorities (governmental departments or agencies operating at arm’s length from governments, such as Arts Councils where they exist); - national cultural institutions (national cultural institutes committed to the promotion abroad of the culture and the language of their state; and national cultural organisations, such as a National Theatre, a National Museum, a National Orchestra or a National Library); and 6 Part I – Introduction and Context - any other public authorities which have been specifically given the remit by national authorities for conducting transnational cultural cooperation, including local and regional authorities where applicable. The criteria used to determine which institutions and organisations are relevant in each country can be found in Annex I of this study, which collects the national reports for all 31 countries covered. In addition to the description and analysis of activities carried out by the organisations outlined above, reference has been made to activities and partnerships involving private and non-profit agents where these were understood to be relevant for the understanding of intergovernmental cultural cooperation.

Load more