Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-28-Speech-4-035"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020228.2.4-035"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, I should first like to thank Mr Graça Moura and his team for all their efforts to make that splendid idea of a Europe of culture, a Europe with historical roots and a Europe anchored in the soul of its citizens become a reality. The programme was set up on 14 February 2000 and has therefore just celebrated its second birthday. It is still in its infancy but enough experience has already been gained to provide the basis for an initial assessment. It emerges from this report that there are a number of points on which Parliament agrees with the Commission, even though we do not always explain conclusions regarding the current programme in the same way. In addition, I have made a note of some useful guidelines for the future and I would like to thank Parliament for these.
I would like to say, in conclusion, regarding relations with third countries, that President Prodi has made it quite clear that we need to open up Europe. We have opened our continent up to neighbouring countries and are in the process of opening it up to the candidate states. Nonetheless, it is also necessary to build bridges to other continents. The work has begun by means of specific programmes notably those aimed at North Africa. I have in mind the Euro-Mediterranean project. That involves a considerable commitment in the areas of education, youth and culture. All this is crucial if we are to establish the dialogue and mutual respect so essential to the smooth functioning of a well-balanced society.
In the first place, it has emerged that Culture 2000 is a difficult programme to manage. This is certainly the case and must be recognised. Further, as you have stated, there is a mismatch between the number of objectives agreed and the level of the budget. I am sure the House recalls the battle Parliament had to fight, not against Ministers for Culture but against Ministers in charge of budgets. The latter did not wish to award funds to culture. How can one hope to manage a thousand fine ideas, all perfectly feasible in the field, when there is only enough funding for three? That particular circle cannot be squared, and unfortunately this is the situation we are in regarding this project. I have to say to all those who are concerned that we have not spent the money, that the money certainly has been well spent, down to the last euro. There is nothing left in the kitty. The reason for this is that if we did not spend what little we do have available, requests for additional funding could not be justified. All that could be spent has been spent, and we have still fallen far short of satisfying all the needs identified by the world of culture. I am not referring to a wish list, but to genuine needs.
You are doubtless also aware that there is scope for the programme to cater for a wide range of new beneficiaries, as soon as they are in a position to develop cultural actions and to set up a project. To give you an example, ladies and gentlemen, in the context of a single call for proposals, a dance company might find itself competing with a chamber of commerce or a tourist office. That is what openness is all about, that is what is happening in the field. One should perhaps consider whether to continue in this way or restrict the opportunities for involvement. It is also worth recalling that between 2000 and 2001 the programme was extended to a further nine countries. Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania and Slovakia participated in it for the first time. Sixty cultural operators from these countries were chosen to be organisers or joint organisers in 2001. This represents 12% of the total. Clearly therefore, enlargement really is happening at cultural level. These are not fine words. It is what is actually happening in the field. Slovenia was added to the list this year, bringing the number of participating countries to 28. I should emphasise that the countries joining us do not represent a problem. On the contrary, they enrich us a great deal. I always ask cultural operators from the existing Member States to extend the hand of friendship and cooperation to potential partners in accession countries, so they can experience for themselves what the Europe of cultural cooperation is all about.
I should also like to point out the efforts made by the Commission to improve the management of the programme. These efforts have borne fruit, because the selection process is now swifter. The call for proposals for the year 2002 was published on 15 August 2001. It will therefore be possible to publish final selection results in early spring. We believe that is entirely reasonable. The reason why this was not the case from the outset was merely that a significant delay was experienced in launching the programme. The delay was neither of the Commission’s making, nor of the European Parliament’s.
The need for firmer guidelines and better focusing on objectives has also been highlighted. You are quite right. I believe that things have been firmed up and criteria set and published for the next three years, from 2002 to the end of the programme. We were indeed forced to adjust our approach in formulating calls for proposals, whilst remaining in line with the decisions in the framework programme. This was because of the management problems I referred to and because of the increased number of new participants in the programme. Initial results of this new approach show that priority issues, whilst they retain their priority, only represent 48% of all projects under Action I, and 58% of the total for Action II. Prioritising did not therefore exclude other types of Community finance, and the scope for cooperation was not curtailed. In fact the opposite proved the case. We witnessed the emergence of new operators and new beneficiaries. This is essential to develop and energise a European area of cultural cooperation, and to breathe life into it. I believe we are all agreed that in principle at least there should be no acquired rights, so the same recipients continue receiving subsidies. We would like a changeover. If that is indeed our wish and we act accordingly, we must accept the consequences.
We observed that several of your concerns mirror those voiced by the operators on the occasion of their Forum on 21 and 22 November 2001. The operators expressed reservations concerning retaining priorities by artistic domain. We therefore propose to work together on new approaches for the future.
The Chairman of the Committee on Culture and the rapporteur also called for better communication regarding the programme and the projects supported. I am pleased to inform you that the new culture portal will be launched in a few weeks’ time, at the next informal meeting of Culture Ministers. We fully intend to develop different methods of communication regarding the programme. A newsletter will be launched and you should start receiving it shortly. I should also like to inform the Chairman of the Committee on Culture that I intend to wait on the committee to present the new portal myself. I shall also personally present it to the Ministers for Culture in the near future. All selection results will, of course, be made available on the Internet too.
As regards suggestions for the future, I should first like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Graça Moura, for encouraging us to look to the future. If things are not to everyone’s satisfaction at present, we should not focus on criticising the past. Instead, we should work on decisions aimed at improving matters in the future or even bringing about major changes. In my view, there is scope for considerable debate for example on how best to focus on objectives, and on the need to ensure genuine European added value. There is also the issue of how culture has a bearing on all other Community policies, including those policies whose implementation is solely within the competence of the Member States. I have the structural funds, particularly, in mind.
Madam President, I should like to emphasise something I hope is very clear, namely that the cultural dimension is not isolated and is not enshrined solely in the Culture 2000 programme. We are not concerned with supporting culture in isolation, rather with developing a mentality which will permeate all the European Union’s actions, regardless of their classification: financial, cultural, or economic. We are engaged in creating a genuine common cultural area, as Mr Graça Moura states in the preamble. We hope to imbue all the actions supported with a sense of Europe as well as a sense of culture. Supporting culture does not mean merely supporting a few players in that area. What it means is supporting the legacy inherited by Europeans, educating, becoming involved with the people, and that is the basis of our programmes. If we do manage to build a Europe where the citizens understand that they certainly have a strong culture but that their neighbours do as well, then we will indeed have succeeded."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples