Can EU monitoring improve the governance of the European Capitals of Culture? Ágnes Simon

1. The 19th Annual Meeting of the Hungarian Political Science AssociationMay 30-June 1, 2013, Cluj-Napoca (Kolozsvár) Can EU monitoring improve the governance of the European Capitals of Culture? Ágnes Simon University of Pécs

2. The European Capitals of Culture initiative • Despite the fact that culture production belongs to the competence of the individual member states, the idea of regional regeneration through culture is still decided in the EU agenda. • The European Capitals of Culture were createdon the initiative of Mrs Melina Mercouri in 1985 as an intergovernmental initiative, and celebrated its 25th anniversary in 2010.

3. The European Capitals of Culture initiative • Since 1985 the event has grown inpopularity, and is now well known to European citizens. • One of the most successful EU cultural programmes, attracting increasing interest from policy makers, academics and the media every year. • The ECoC programme is one of the main tools for the winner cities and regions to realize long-term and sustainable development. • The best results have been achieved by cities which were able to integrate the fruits of the cultural year into their long-term culture-based development strategies.

4. Governance in ECOCs Multi-level governance in ECOCs - ideally • Bottom up approach (local initiation, programming) • National nomination and enabling • European (formal decision) and monitoring

5. Monitoring and governance • The monitoring system by the European Commission has undergone permanent changes and improved evaluations over the years  more and more severe criteria: • to stimulate cities to employ more efficient planning • to attain more significant results by paying particular attention to their governance and management structures. • The cultural capitals should dispose of appropriate governance structures. Failures of cultural capitals are often due to inadequate governing structures derailed by political interferences and dominance.

6. Transformation in 1999 • The ECoCs were transformed officially into a European Union action in 1999* in order to make theinitiative more effective. • New criteria and selection procedures were established: • achronological list of Member States was drawn up indicating the order in which they wereentitled to host the title, • a European panel of independent experts was created to assess the applications. *Decision N° 1419/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Councilof 25 May 1999 establishing a Community action for the European Capital of Culture eventfor the years 2005 to 2019

7. New rules in 2006* Following recommendations from stakeholders, the scheme of designating theEuropean Capitals of Culture was modified in 2006. The rules were renewed in order to: • developtheeffectiveness of the initiative further by stimulating competition between the cities tofoster the quality of the bids; • tohave a designation more transparentand more European. Marseille and Košice (2013) were the first ECOCs to be selected under the new jury selection system. *Decision N°1622/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24October 2006 establishinga Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2007 to 2019.

8. New rules in 2006 The EU commissioned an evaluation ofthe monitoring procedures aswellappliedforthefirsttimeforthe 2010 titles. Changes: • Various measures wereintroduced toaccompany the cities in their preparation, including a monitoring process. • The 2010 European Capitals of Culture and thefollowing ones had/have to be submitted to a monitoring phase between the designation and thebeginning of the event.

9. New rules in 2006 • The monitoring was carried out under the responsibility of 7 members designated by theEuropean Institutions: monitoring and advisory panel. • The panel had to be convened on two occasions between the designation and the beginning of the event to giveadvice on, and to take stock of the preparations for the event with a view to helping cities todevelop a high-quality programme with a strong European dimension.

10. The Melina Mercouri Prize • The Decision 1622/2006/EC introducedalsonewfundingmechanism: Melina MercouriPrize – conditionalprizeof 1,5 M Euro. • Theprize is monetary and should be awarded in full at the latest three months before the startof the relevant year. • The Prize is awardedby theCommission totheECOCsonthebasis of thesecond report issued by the monitoring and advisory panel provided that: • they meet the criteria of the action; • and have implemented therecommendations made by the selection as well as the monitoring and advisory panels.

11. The Melina Mercouri Prize The prize is awarded only if the ECOC is delivered more or less as planned in the application with no major changes in: • the budget • artistic independence • European dimension • communication • monitoring and evaluation.

12. The monitoring of 2010 ECOCs Thetwomonitoring meetingstookplace in 2007 and 2009. The panel had to : • take stock of the preparations for the event and assess the progress achieved so far inthe preparation phase; • provide the cities with support and guidance to help them in their preparation. It was important that the ECOC comply with its commitments done at selection stage (particularly regarding theEuropean dimension) and take into consideration the panel's recommendationsmentioned in the selection report.

13. Where is Pécs?

14. The monitoring of Pécs2010 • The Monitoring Panel noted that ‘there had been several departures from key positions since the appointment of Pécs (as ECOC), and expressed their concern that all was well with the management structure.’ • Lack of clarity concerning the conceptual, long-term focus. • Sustainability focus on contentand international cultural developments were needed. • Abalanced approach is neededwhere the content of projects and the involvement of cultural organisations and thecommunity in general is concerned.

15. The monitoring of Pécs2010 • Energizing the community and organisations was just as essential asinfrastructural measurespublic involvement in developing the infrastructure isimportant in view of the future use of the infrastructure and as a build up to 2010 andfollowing years. • Pécs' communication strategy needed to be sketched in more detail. • The clarity concerning public authorities`commitment for the project and the funding of cultural organisations after 2010 is crucial.

16. The monitoring of Pécs Palmer Report 2009 ‘Since there can be no sanctions against a ECOC that is not fulfilling the obligations and commitments made when the title is conferred on it, the gentle warnings or concerns expressed by the European Commission and its Monitoring Panel may have limited positive impact. It may be that the recurrent problems in certain selected ECOC will undermine the credibility of the designation in the years to come.’

17. .

18. ECOCs – 2020-2033 Byintroducing a newlegalbase* theCommissionhopestotackleanumber of weaknessesat an operationallevelincluding: • theselection of thebestpossibleECOCsrespectinga fair territorialbalance; • betweenthebidding and finalstages;stability of thebudget • improvethefundingmechanism; *2012/0199 (COD)Proposal for aDecision of the European Parliament and of theCouncilestablishing a Union action for the European Capitals of Culture for theyears 2020 to 2033

19. ECOCs – 2020-2033 • ensure the balance between cultural objectives and regeneration priorities; • foster the artistic independence of implementic teams; • foster the legacy of the event; • improve the evaluation of the impact of the title; • ensure the long-term quality and credibility of the title and thus its brand value.

20. ECOCs – 2020-2033 Headings of the new selection criteria: • long-term strategy; • capacity to deliver; • cultural and artistic content; • European dimension; • management.

21. ECOCs – 2020-2033 Most significantchangesinrequirements: • governancestructure; • long-termstrategyforculturaldevelopment: • cultural, social and economicsustainability; • trans-sectoralcomprehensiveplanning(relationshipbetweenculture and otheraspectsof the city).

22. ECOCs – 2020-2033 Specificrequirements: • Needfor ‘cross-party’ politicalsupportforthebid • inordertoreducetheproblemsexperiencedinsomecitieswithpoliticalconflictsaroundthe ECOC; • toreducethenumber of applicantcities. Overall theCommissiondesiretohavegreatercontrol over the ECOC process and thequality of theprogramme.

23. Proposed improvements: • more explicit selection criteria; • reinforced conditionality of the Melina Mercouri Prize; • no obligation for the Panel to award the title if there are no satisfactory bids; • more monitoring and exchange of experience between the ECOC cities; • more evaluation obligations; • re-introduction of the participation of third countries.

24. Monitoring plans – 2020-2033 The Commission will convene the European panel and the concernedcities to three meetings: • the first meeting will take place three years before thebeginning of the year of the title; • the second meeting will take place eighteenmonths before the beginning of the year of the title ; • the third meeting shall takeplace two months before the beginning of the year of the title. • BUT: it is not really realistic to expect cities to deliver programmes planned almost a decade in advance of the event in more or less the same way.

25. Monitoring plans – 2020-2033 • Visitsto the cities by panel members will be more systematic; • The cities shall issue progress reports to the Commission six weeks before each ofthe meetings; • The panel shall pay special attention to the recommendations laiddown in the selection report and in the preceding monitoring reports.

26. Establishing governance arrangements ECOC typically bring important shifts in the governance of culture: • newways of working, • new partnerships, • new strategies, • new set of relationships between localmunicipalities and cultural operators.

27. Establishing governance arrangements • The end of the title year typically leads to thedisbanding of the dedicated delivery agencies and inevitably to some loss of the experience that has beenbuilt up. • Where high profile international operators have been brought into lead elements of the culturalprogramme, they tend to leave the city in the months following the title-year. • The disbanding of the agency creates a vacuum in the cultural governance of the city. The challenge is often to put in place new arrangements to fill this vacuum and allow the benefits of the title-year to endure.

28. Establishing governance arrangements Proposal • Continued partnership forum or mechanism ofsome form in the city. • Since the level of cultural activity and funding will generally be lower in the yearsimmediately following the title-year, the focus of such a body usually needs to be different to that of theECoC delivery agency.

29. Establishing governance arrangements • Liverpool 2008, Stavanger 2008 and Linz 2009:at least one of the key individuals from theculture department of the municipality remained involved from the application to the completion of thetitle-year and went on to play a key role in the legacy arrangements. • In Pécs the legacy bodies are dedicated to sustaining the new facilities developed in the context of the title-year, rather than continuing a cross-city cultural programme.

30. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!