THE EUROPEAN CAPITALS OF CULTURE (ECOC) POST 2019 PUBLIC CONSULTATION MEETING (2 MARCH 2011) - SUMMARY OF THE MEETING
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The European Capitals of Culture (ECoC) Post 2019
Public Consultation Meeting (2 March 2011)
Summary of the meeting
I
Contents
Summary of the meeting....................................................................... 1
1.0 Opening by the European Commission............................................... 2
2.0 Presentation of the first results of the online consultation on the
new programme for culture .................................................................. 3
3.0 Open Discussion: Which objectives and selection criteria for the
future ECoC? ......................................................................................... 4
3.1 Is the objective of the ECoC still relevant after 25 years? ......................................4
3.2 What are the potential long-term benefits for cities holding the title and for
their citizens? .............................................................................................................4
3.3 Are the selection criteria currently used to become a ECoC still relevant? .........4
3.4 Is the current one year duration of the event about right?.....................................5
4.0 Open discussion: Which selection procedures for the future
ECoC? .................................................................................................... 6
4.1 How many ECoC should there be each year? .........................................................6
4.2 Should the selection of the ECoC continue to be based on a chronological
list of Member States or should it be based on an open competition? .................6
4.3 Can you think of any alternative selection models? ...............................................6
4.4 Should the ECoC title continue to be reserved to cities only or should it be
open also to the participation of metropolitan areas or regions? .........................6
4.5 Should the ECoC title continue to be reserved to Member States only or
should it be opened up again to third countries in Europe? ..................................7
5.0 Open discussion: What are the main difficulties encountered by
cities in the selection phase or between their selection and the
actual year of the title?.......................................................................... 8
5.1 Is the information provided to candidate cities adapted and how could it be
further developed? .....................................................................................................8
5.2 How to ensure the right balance between the cultural objectives of the event
and the regeneration aims of cities? ........................................................................8
5.3 How to limit the risks of tensions between national and local politics and
artistic independence? ..............................................................................................8
5.4 How to ensure stable budgets between the bidding stage and the year of the
title?.............................................................................................................................9
5.5 How to ensure a strong European dimension for the event?.................................9
6.0 Open discussion: Which implementing measures to help the
selected cities to organise a successful event? ............................... 10
6.1 Is the current monitoring procedure for selected cities adapted and how
could it be further developed? ................................................................................10
6.2 How to reinforce the exchange of experience between past, present and
future ECoC? ............................................................................................................10
6.3 Is the current money prize ("Melina Mercouri prize") awarded to the ECoC
adapted to the need of cities?.................................................................................11
6.4 As the ECoC is a European Union title, how could the visibility of the
European Union be improved? ...............................................................................11
Annex One: Presentation: European Capitals of Culture post 2019
on-line consultation ........................................................A1
Annex Two: Registered participants list..........................................A11
Summary of the meeting
The Public Consultation Meeting was open to all interested individuals and organisations. In total, 225
individuals registered to attend the public consultation meeting. The registered participants (list attached)
comprised actors involved in European Capital of Culture (ECoC) candidatures or in the implementation
of past, present and future Capitals, representatives of national and local authorities from the EU Member
States and from European third countries, representatives of non-governmental organisations (NGOs),
experts and former members of selection and monitoring panels, and other individuals.
Prior to the meeting, the participants had been provided with a list of questions, resulting from the online
consultation, as a basis for discussion. The questions were structured around four open discussions:
• Which objectives and selection criteria for the future ECoC?
• Which selection procedures for the future ECoC?
• What are the main difficulties encountered by cities in the selection phase or between their selection
and the actual year of the title?
• Which implementing measures to help the selected cities to organise a successful event?
1
1.0 Opening by the European Commission
Mr Vladimír Šucha, Director for Culture and Media at the European Commission's Directorate General for
Education and Culture (DG EAC), opened the meeting recalling its aims and the wider policy context for
EU action in the next programming period, such as the need for all EU programmes to contribute to the
Europe 2020 strategy.
Ms Ann Branch, Head of the Culture Programme and Actions unit of DG EAC, then presented the steps
to formulate a proposal for an ECoC Action after 2019. The Commission will prepare a staff working
document which will define the problem, objectives of the action, options considered and assessment of
impacts of these options. Ms Branch stressed that the current public consultation meeting was part of a
much larger reflection process which included also the ex-post evaluations of past ECoC, the evaluation
of the current selection and monitoring procedures which was underway, the conclusions of the 25-year
anniversary conference held in 2010 and the online consultation, which was open from 27 October 2010
to 12 January 2011. Therefore, no conclusions would be drawn at the end of the day. The results of this
specific meeting would first have to be analysed and compared to the results of the other steps of the
process.
2
2.0 Presentation of the first results of the online
consultation on the new programme for
culture
Mr Jean-Philippe Gammel, also from the Culture Programme and Action unit of DG EAC, presented the
initial findings from the online consultation. A total of 210 responses to the consultation were received. As
the results of the online consultation were still being analysed at the time of the meeting, the results
presented were only preliminary findings. Mr Gammel highlighted the fact that a very high level of support
for continuation of the ECoC after 2019 emerged from the online consultation, but that specific questions
such as the respective merits of a chronological list versus open competition or the participation of third
countries in the action appear to be a matter of debate. The presentation is attached, while the final
analysis report of the online consultation will be made public by the Commission in due course.
3
3.0 Open Discussion: Which objectives and
selection criteria for the future ECoC?
3.1 Is the objective of the ECoC still relevant after 25 years?
The current objective of the ECoC, "to highlight the richness and diversity of European cultures and the
features they share, as well as to promote greater mutual understanding between European citizens",
was considered relevant by a majority of participants, in line with the results of the online consultation.
Some participants outlined that the contribution of ECoC to this objective ought to be stronger, which
implies the programme should be designed in a way that ECoC put more emphasis on promoting cultural
diversity and mutual understanding. In general, participants agreed that the European dimension should
be reinforced across the ECoC, which should go further in "internationalising" the city and its inhabitants.
3.2 What are the potential long-term benefits for cities holding the title and for
their citizens?
The participants highlighted the many long-term cultural, economic and social benefits for the cities
holding the ECoC title, with examples from the legacy of past ECoC. They insisted, in particular, on the
international profiling of the city, the impact on the local cultural scene and the participation of citizens in
culture. The ECoC was also seen as a great catalyst in bringing culture to the fore of local policies,
structuring a city's long-term cultural strategy and securing co-operation across various sectors of the city.
However, some participants warned against profligacy during the title year which risks burdening host
cities with debt. In such cases, the danger is that investment in culture is reduced in the years following
the event, hence diminishing some of the positive long-term effects discussed above.
3.3 Are the selection criteria currently used to become a ECoC still relevant?
Under the terms of the current legal basis for the ECoC (Decision 1622/2006/EC), the ECoC are selected
1
on the basis of two main categories of criteria, "European dimension" and "City and Citizens". While
there was general agreement that these criteria are relevant, several suggestions were made during the
meeting to improve the criteria and thus the quality of ECoC programmes. In particular, some participants
called for a reinforcement of the weight given to the European dimension, to avoid what was coined as
"European Capitals of Culture focusing on being a capital and leaving aside Europe and culture". Others
suggested the quality of the cultural programme should feature more explicitly among the criteria.
The discussions also highlighted the need to strike a balance between the need for transparency on the
one hand and for flexibility on the other. The need for transparency implies making the criteria as
measurable as possible and providing sufficient information to applicants on exactly how they will be
assessed. At the same time, the need for flexibility implies avoiding an overly prescriptive approach which
risks limiting the cultural, artistic and innovative content of the ECoC programmes. The point was also
1
Decision No 1622/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a
Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2007 to 2019.
4
raised, for example, that there should not be any prescriptive criteria on the size or origin of the financial
budgets, as these may vary greatly between countries and cities, without altering the quality of ECoC
programmes.
Since the new selection procedure has come into force (applied for the first time to the 2013 ECoC), there
has been strong competition in most Member States involved. For example, some 15 Spanish cities
applied for the 2016 title. As the application process entails a degree of cost for cities (in preparing their
applications) as well as for Member States (in organising the process), there was a call for making the
criteria more explicit in order to deter unrealistic applications. In particular, some participants suggested
that a number of currently implicit criteria regarding practical concerns, such as the existence of local
cultural strategies or the cities' capacity to implement a year-long programme, should be made more
explicit. These could serve as "threshold criteria" which applicants have to fulfil, particularly at pre-
selection stage. Many participants suggested that these criteria, once formalised, needed to be specified
in the guidance for applicants.
3.4 Is the current one year duration of the event about right?
Under the current legal basis, the cultural programmes of ECoC are required to last one year. There was
general agreement that one year is indeed the right duration for an ECoC programme, although it is clear
that there is a long preparation period prior to the ECoC, and that the effects last for longer than one year.
In particular, there needs to be an acknowledgement that for best long-term results, the ECoC legacy
needs to be planned long before the end of the ECoC year. One participant suggested that if two ECoC
are to be designated every year, they could each focus on one semester, which would among other
things alleviate the pressure to secure very high financial budgets given the current one-year duration;
however, this was very much a minority view.
5
4.0 Open discussion: Which selection
procedures for the future ECoC?
4.1 How many ECoC should there be each year?
Under the current Decision, two ECoC are designated every year, according to a chronological list of
Member States entitled to nominate. The participants generally agreed that it was good to have two
ECoC every year, given that the number of Member States is currently 27 and might increase in the
future. Some participants suggested that, in that context, there could even be three ECoC every year,
especially if the action was open to European third countries.
4.2 Should the selection of the ECoC continue to be based on a chronological
list of Member States or should it be based on an open competition?
The discussion highlighted the need to find the right balance between a competitive system which
enhances the quality of the ECoC programmes and a chronological list of Member States which ensures
some level of equity between countries. Unsurprisingly, there was stronger support for a chronological list
among smaller countries and cities that fear being at a severe disadvantage in a purely competitive
system. Moreover, any designation system based on an open competition would have to be very
transparent to ensure broad support across Europe.
4.3 Can you think of any alternative selection models?
Following on from the comment above, some participants suggested that the new system could combine
elements of an open competition and a chronological list. Suggestions included choosing two ECoC each
year, one via a chronological list of Member States and one through an open competition. Other
participants suggested mitigating the negative effects of an open competition by imposing limits on the
frequency at which the same country can host the ECoC, although such an approach would have to
respect the Treaty principle of equality between Member States. Whilst some participants suggested
receiving applications by consortia (networks of cities which would implement an ECoC programme
together), others highlighted the near impossibility to manage such consortia, especially in the case that
the programme was not followed by some members of the consortium.
4.4 Should the ECoC title continue to be reserved to cities only or should it be
open also to the participation of metropolitan areas or regions?
The current legal basis states that the title will be awarded to cities, though it offers no specific definition
of what constitutes a city. It also allows cities to involve their surrounding region in order to reach a wider
public and amplify the impact. Most ECoC in recent years have involved their hinterland or wider region in
some way under the leadership of the ECoC city. These experiences are often very positive, particularly
in terms of citizens' participation in culture in broader areas, including rural regions, and many participants
were keen to maintain this possibility in the future. However, some participants with experience in this
kind of configuration insisted on the fact that the clear leadership of the ECoC city was a key success
6
factor. On the other hand, if the ECoC was awarded to a territory which lacked a clear governance
structure (such as most so-called metropolitan areas), the result could be an unmanageable partnership,
for example with regards to the artistic programme. Although this was subject to debate, the most
appropriate approach might be to choose a configuration broadly similar to the current one, where ECoC
titles are awarded to cities, but where these cities are free to associate parts of their surrounding
territories, within a clear governance and leadership framework.
4.5 Should the ECoC title continue to be reserved to Member States only or
should it be opened up again to third countries in Europe?
Previous years have featured ECoC hosted by cities in non-Member States. However, the 2006 Decision
removed the possibility of further nominations from non-Member States for the years beyond 2010.
Several delegations from third countries, in particular Serbia and Russia took part in the meeting and
there was clear support for some kind of involvement of European third countries cities, which was
thought to have positive effects not only for the third countries themselves but also for EU Member
States. However, there was much debate about the specific mechanism which would allow the inclusion
of third countries. While some participants, mostly from third countries, suggested that there could be one
EU and one third-country ECoC every year, others thought that the possibility of non-EU ECoC could be
built into the legal basis without necessarily requiring one to be designated every year. Many participants
suggested that instead, the action could maintain and widen the possibility to associate third country
artists and cultural operators or even third country cities through some kind of ad-hoc partnerships
between cities holding the title and cities in non-Member States.
75.0 Open discussion: What are the main
difficulties encountered by cities in the
selection phase or between their selection
and the actual year of the title?
5.1 Is the information provided to candidate cities adapted and how could it be
further developed?
The European Commission currently publishes a guide to candidate cities which describes the various
steps of the selection procedure, explains the selection criteria and offers a list of good practices taken
from past ECoC. There was some general recognition that the current guide has improved the quality of
information provided to applicants. Many participants also suggested there was room for improvement,
particularly with regards to the information regarding the method and criteria for selection (for example,
making certain criteria more explicit as discussed above). Such additions would in turn enhance the
transparency of the selection procedure. The guide should also continue to be updated in light of the
experiences stemming from 25 years of ECoC.
5.2 How to ensure the right balance between the cultural objectives of the event
and the regeneration aims of cities?
Recent evaluations have highlighted that cultural objectives have generally been at the heart of the
ECoC, but that over the years some cities holding the title have also adopted objectives relating to social
2
and economic development through culture . Participants in the meeting were very keen to maintain the
cultural focus of the ECoC initiative. While acknowledging the important socio-economic benefits of
holding an ECoC, they suggested that selection criteria should continue to be centred on the European
dimension and the artistic and cultural programme of candidate cities, and that the regeneration
dimension of an ECoC programme should not carry too much weight in the assessment of bids. It was
also considered important that the marketing / tourism dimension does not overshadow the cultural and
European dimension of the event. Participants with experience of implementing an ECoC highlighted that
it was very important for the local implementation committee to be able to show that this argument was
backed by European institutions, in order to convince local stakeholders and policy-makers to maintain
the cultural and European profile of the event.
5.3 How to limit the risks of tensions between national and local politics and
artistic independence?
The risks of tensions between national and local politics and artistic independence were widely
acknowledged by participants. The "casualty rate" observed amongst senior management of artistic
teams could be a sign of this tension and it is a problem that is worth reflecting upon. One suggestion to
limit these risks, supported by many participants, was to highlight the value for ECoC in setting up an
2
Ex-Post Evaluation of 2007 and 2008 European Capitals of Culture; ECOTEC Research & Consulting
8independent artistic team responsible for the artistic programme of the ECoC, which has other
advantages, such as facilitating private sponsorship. The presence of the European Commission and the
independent panel in the monitoring process is also very useful in limiting the risk of interference from
national and local politics, and it could be reinforced in the future.
5.4 How to ensure stable budgets between the bidding stage and the year of the
title?
There was a general recognition that budgets are dependent on many external factors and that over a six
or seven-year period, a certain level of change to those forecasts was inevitable. However, it was also felt
that it is important to maintain some continuity in the ECoC programme, to guarantee the success of the
ECoC action but also to ensure equity between candidate cities. As a result, some participants suggested
that candidate cities should be asked to prioritise the different parts of their programme during the
selection process and make the distinction between those parts that would risk being dropped in case of
a lower budget and those that they commit to implement. While it was felt important that ECoC are not
selected on the sole basis of the size of their respective budgets, the panel should assess how realistic
the programmes and the budgets of candidate cities are, to avoid giving the title to cities with over-
ambitious programmes which are not likely to be implemented. The participants also highlighted the value
of the role that the monitoring panel can and does play in working together with ECoC in cases where
programmes have to be altered due to changing budgets, so as to ensure the highest possible level of
continuity.
5.5 How to ensure a strong European dimension for the event?
While recognising that a substantial part of ECoC budgets are met by national and local authorities, the
participants felt very strongly that the EU retained the "ownership" of the Action and that the ECoC
programmes should remain European in nature. Therefore, the European dimension should remain a key
criterion in the selection procedure (some participants event suggested the weight attached to this
criterion could be increased to 60% or 70% in the final selection), as it is the first step to ensure a strong
European dimension for the event. Following designation, a stronger presence of the European
Commission and the independent panel could help to maintain and enhance the European dimension of
the ECoC programme. Suggestions in that direction included more informal monitoring meetings, some of
which should be held in the ECoC city rather than in Brussels, and which could be open to a wider range
of stakeholders, or facilitating contact points in other DGs, such as that for external relations.
96.0 Open discussion: Which implementing
measures to help the selected cities to
organise a successful event?
6.1 Is the current monitoring procedure for selected cities adapted and how
could it be further developed?
The 2006 Decision introduced a monitoring process for designated ECoC during their development
phase. This process is designed to identify difficulties at the development stage and ensure that the
stakeholders at local and national level put sufficient effort into addressing those difficulties. It provides a
number of fixed points, at which the city needs to demonstrate effective progress both to the monitoring
panel and to a wider public in the preparing for the title year.
There was general agreement among participants, particularly those involved in the implementation of an
ECoC, that it is crucial to maintain a link with European institutions after the designation of the ECoC. In
that sense, the current monitoring process is deemed very useful but the discussion highlighted a number
of ways in which it could be reinforced. The participants highlighted the need for the monitoring procedure
to (continue to) be focussed primarily on supporting rather than controlling the implementation of the
ECoC. Some participants actually suggested that two follow-up procedures could run in parallel, one for
monitoring and another for support. Many participants had the impression that the current monitoring
meetings were too similar to the selection meetings, in the sense that they did not sufficiently favour
constructive dialogue between both parties involved and seemed more like an "examination". To avoid
this, it was suggested to hold more informal monitoring meetings, including making the visits of panel
members to the ECoC cities a more routine part of the monitoring phase and widening the range of local
stakeholders with whom they meet during such visits. The main outcomes of a closer and deeper
relationship between the ECoC and the monitoring panel could include higher-quality programmes and a
stronger European dimension of ECoC.
6.2 How to reinforce the exchange of experience between past, present and
future ECoC?
The participants were unanimous in praising the benefits of the exchange of experience between past,
present and future ECoC – both through the opportunities provided by the informal networks initiated by
the ECoC themselves and through the events organised in Brussels by the Commission. In particular,
they felt that the current informal network has incommensurable value in offering a platform to discuss a
wide range of issues including artistic and cultural programmes, budgets and governance structures. The
extent to which the Commission should actively intervene in these informal networks was a matter of
debate, as some participants felt that the exchange of experience was most effective when organised by
the ECoC themselves, on a bottom-up basis.
106.3 Is the current money prize ("Melina Mercouri prize") awarded to the ECoC
adapted to the need of cities?
Until 2009, each ECoC could apply for a grant of up to €1.5m from the EU's Culture Programme 2007-13
for specific projects within their cultural programme. Since then, the EU funding has been in the form of
the "Melina Mercouri Prize" worth up to €1.5m and awarded to designated cities before the start of the
year, provided that they meet the criteria relating to the "European Dimension" and "City and Citizens"
and have implemented the recommendations made by the selection and the monitoring and advisory
panels. In addition to this funding, many cities holding the title have also received EU funds from other
sources, notably the ERDF which has supported associated infrastructure developments.
Although it was widely acknowledged that the Melina Mercouri Prize usually represented a small – albeit
useful – proportion of ECoC budgets, only a small proportion of participants felt it should be increased
radically. Instead, many participants insisted on the need to help ECoC secure other EU funding, by
providing advice or creating legal "shortcuts" to access these funds. This need was felt to be particularly
strong in those Member States where EU Structural Funds are more limited.
6.4 As the ECoC is a European Union title, how could the visibility of the
European Union be improved?
There was general agreement among participants of the need to maintain and reinforce the visibility of
the European Union in ECoC, as it is an official EU title. It was also felt that a stronger European
dimension, which has been discussed above, would help to ensure a stronger visibility of the EU.
Participants also suggested that the European institutions themselves had to communicate more
proactively about ECoC, as the communication efforts of the ECoC themselves are naturally limited in
their reach and duration. Among other initiatives, visits of high-level EU representatives during the event
play a particularly important role in strengthening the visibility of the EU.
11Annex One: Presentation: European
Capitals of Culture post 2019 on-line
consultation
A1A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
Annex Two: Registered
participants list
A11Cities and Regions
Surname First Name Organisation City Country
Arribas Beatriz Castilla y León Permanent Brussels Belgium
Pérez Delegation to the EU
de Epalza Camila EU Policy Officer of the Basque Brussels Belgium
Government in Brussels
De Greef Hugo Brugge 2002 Sint Martens Belgium
Lennik
Ohliger Veronika Europabüro der bayrischen Brussels Belgium
Kommunen
Foltynowicz Ewa Lower Silesia Regional Office Brussels Belgium
Sarazá Pablo Permanent Representation of Brussels Belgium
Jimena Andalucia Region to the EU
Polylas Valentina Permanent Representation of Brussels Belgium
Emilia-Romagna Region to the EU
Nogueira Mar Permanent Representation of Brussels Belgium
Galicia Region to the EU
Mazzone Chiara Région Provence – Alpes – Côte Brussels Belgium
d'Azur
Noble Marie Mons 2015 Mons Belgium
Lejuste Lydie Mons 2015 Mons Belgium
Vasseur Yves Mons 2015 Mons Belgium
Madjov Svilen Municipality of Varna, Bulgaria Varna Bulgaria
Dimitrova Vesselina Varna 2019 Varna Bulgaria
Pisinos Spiros Pafos 2017 Pafos Cyprus
Haubertová Denisa Pilsen 2015 Pilsen Czech
Republic
Havlíčková Šárka Pilsen 2015 Pilsen Czech
Republic
Melenová Kateřina Pilsen 2015 Pilsen Czech
Republic
Davies Trevor Aarhus 2017 Aarhus Denmark
Christensen Else City of Sonderborg, Denmark Sonderborg Denmark
Redzepovic
Pilegaard Henriette City of Sonderborg, Denmark Sonderborg Denmark
Eväsoja Marjatta Regional Council of South Seinäjoki Finland
Ostrobothnia, Finland
Laitala Carita Regional Council of South Seinäjoki Finland
Ostrobothnia, Finland
Eväsoja Marjatta Regional Council of South Seinäjoki Finland
Ostrobothnia, Finland
Laitala Carita Regional Council of South Seinäjoki Finland
Ostrobothnia, Finland
Sevón Cay Turku 2011 Turku Finland
Morel Charlotte City of Lille Lille France
Dreano Laurent City of Lille & Lille 2004 Lille France
Moglia Michael Region Nord - Pas De Calais Lille France
Fuchs Ulrich Marseille 2013 Marseille France
A12Surname First Name Organisation City Country
Schmidt Hanns-Dietrich Ruhr 2010 Essen Germany
Skipiol Susanne Ruhr 2010 Essen Germany
Dürr Claudia City of Freiburg Freiburg Germany
Fischer- Jörn City of Mannheim Mannheim Germany
Valldorf
Gasteiger Klaus City of Mannheim Mannheim Germany
Kern Rainer City of Mannheim Mannheim Germany
Tsavaris Giannis Municipality of Salamina Salamis Island Greece
Szalay Tamás Pécs 2010 Pécs Hungary
Verri Paolo Comune di Matera Italy
Bernardini Lucio Regione Basilicata Italy
Papalia
Tarantino Rosa Regione Basilicata Italy
Tenti Katia Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano Bolzano Italy
Tenti Katia Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano Bolzano Italy
Montanari Marcella Ravenna 2019 Ravenna Italy
Boschini Laura Provincia autonoma di Trento Trento Italy
Pierini Alessandro Provincia autonoma di Trento Trento Italy
Boschini Laura Provincia autonoma di Trento Trento Italy
Pierini Alessandro Provincia autonoma di Trento Trento Italy
Civle Diana Riga 2014 Riga Latvia
Rozenberga Aiva Riga 2014 Riga Latvia
Garcia Robert Luxembourg 2007 Luxembourg Luxembourg
Felice David IMC ECoC Malta 2018 St Venera Malta
Huisjes Heleen Brabant 2018 Den Bosch Netherlands
Schreurs Mary-Ann City of Eindhoven Eindhoven Netherlands
ter Steege Robert City of Eindhoven Eindhoven Netherlands
Keizer Henk Fryslân 2018 Leeuwarden Netherlands
Nobel Edith M. Fryslân 2018 Leeuwarden Netherlands
Reek Willem R. Fryslân 2018 Leeuwarden Netherlands
Wester Rudi Fryslân 2018 Leeuwarden Netherlands
Costongs Jacques City of Maastricht Maastricht Netherlands
Lambrechts Paul City of Maastricht Maastricht Netherlands
Troisfontaine S.M.J. Limburg Province Maastricht Netherlands
Wolfs O.M.T. Limburg Province Maastricht Netherlands
Smeets Huub Maastricht 2018 Maastricht Netherlands
Wevers Guido Maastricht 2018 Maastricht Netherlands
Piotrowska Magdalena Brabant 2018 s-Hertogenbosch Netherlands
Duif Lian Jheronimus Bosch 500 s-Hertogenbosch Netherlands
Rombouts Ton Mayor of Den Bosch s-Hertogenbosch Netherlands
Greidanus Aus The Hague 2018 The Hague Netherlands
Chiarella Anastasia The Hague 2018 The Hague Netherlands
Sakkers Hans City of Utrecht Utrecht Netherlands
Stoop Christa City of Utrecht Utrecht Netherlands
van Weele Esther Municipality of Utrecht Utrecht Netherlands
Szymanska Aleksandra Gdansk and Metropolis Gdańsk Poland
Rusecki Mirek Katowice 2016 Katowice Poland
A13Surname First Name Organisation City Country
Piekarski Karol Katowice 2016 Katowice Poland
Karapuda Michał City of Lublin Lublin Poland
Wysocki Włodzimierz City of Lublin Lublin Poland
Czeszejko- Ewa Team Warsaw ECoC 2016 Warsaw Poland
Sochacka
Dąbkowska Małgorzata Team Warsaw ECOC 2016 Warsaw Poland
Piątek Grzegorz Warsaw 2016 Warsaw Poland
Zambrowicz Agata Warsaw 2016 Warsaw Poland
Chilimończyk Igor Municipality of Wroclaw Wroclaw Poland
Zarzycki Roland Municipality of Wroclaw Wroclaw Poland
Martins Carlos Guimaraes 2012 Guimaraes Portugal
Mihalache Violeta City of Timisoara Timisoara Romania
Firsov Gleb Board member of the Volga Capital Nizhny Novgorod Russian
of Culture Foundation Federation
Gor Anna Head of the Volga branch of the Nizhny Novgorod Russian
State Center for Contemporary Art Federation
Dukarevitch Veronika Deputy of the vice prime minister of Perm Russian
the government of Perm Region Federation
Chirkunov Oleg Governor of Perm Region Perm Russian
Federation
Novitchkov Nikolay Minister of culture of the government Perm Russian
of Perm Region Federation
Protasevych Alexandr Minister of Culture of the Perm Perm Russian
Region Federation
Guelman Marat Perm Region Perm Russian
Federation
Komlyk Alexey Perm Region Perm Russian
Federation
Lukjanova Soja Perm Region Perm Russian
Federation
Milgram Boris Vice prime minister of the Perm Russian
government of Perm Region Federation
Morozov Sergey Governor of Ulyanovsk region Ulyanovsk Russian
Federation
Zhuravlev Gennady Head of the Cultural Department of Ulyanovsk Russian
the Administration of Federation
the City of Ulyanovsk
Pinkov Alexander Mayor of the City of Ulyanovsk Ulyanovsk Russian
Federation
Ivshina Tatiana Special representative on cultural Ulyanovsk Russian
cooperation of the Governor of Federation
Ulyanovsk Region
Karvaleyru Anna Ulyanovsk region Ulyanovsk Russian
Federation
Devyatkina Tamara Vice-Governor of Ulyanovsk Region Ulyanovsk Russian
Federation
Ozernov Anatoly Vice-Governor of Ulyanovsk Region Ulyanovsk Russian
Federation
A14Surname First Name Organisation City Country
Dragičević Milena City of Belgrade Belgrade Serbia
Šešić
Maršićević Marko City of Belgrade Belgrade Serbia
Peković Aleksandar City of Belgrade Belgrade Serbia
Jaurová Zora KOŠICE 2013 Kosice Slovakia
Kos Nataša Maribor 2012 Maribor Slovenia
González Luis Burgos 2016 Burgos Spain
Miller Mary Burgos 2016 Burgos Spain
Rykkja Anders Burgos 2016 Burgos Spain
Fernández Diego Burgos 2016 Foundation Burgos Spain
Malvido
Elorza Odón City of San Sebastian San Sebastian Spain
Garmendia Marisol City of San Sebastian San Sebastian Spain
Martin Ainara City of San Sebastian San Sebastian Spain
Maussen Mattijs City of San Sebastian San Sebastian Spain
Salaberria Eva City of San Sebastian San Sebastian Spain
Preciado Nuria Segovia 2016 Segovia Spain
Tono José Segovia 2016 Segovia Spain
Martinez
Calvo Lorena Zaragoza 2016 Zaragoza Spain
Falo Forniés Cesar Zaragoza 2016 Zaragoza Spain
Garulo Diego Zaragoza 2016 Zaragoza Spain
Lindegren Fredrik Umeå 2014 Umeå Sweden
Bowden Neylan Istanbul 2010 Instanbul Turkey
Hasan Barış Istanbul 2010 Istanbul Turkey
Nilgün Mirze Esra Istanbul 2010 Istanbul Turkey
Permanent Representations and National Public Authorities
Surname First Name Organisation City Country
Meissnitzer Heidemarie Permanent Representation of Brussels Belgium
Austria to the EU
Hulkko Johanna Permanent Representation of Brussels Belgium
Finland to the EU
Bonenfant Romain Permanent Representation of Brussels Belgium
France to the EU
Vagnere Zane Permanent Representation of Latvia Brussels Belgium
to the EU
Xuereb Karsten Permanent Representation of Malta Brussels Belgium
to the EU
Pincarilho Patrícia Permanent Representation of Brussels Belgium
Portugal to the EU
Gómez Fernando Permanent Representation of Spain Brussels Belgium
Riesco to the EU
Brazdova Yvona Permanent Representation of the Brussels Belgium
Czech Republic to the EU
Salanska Silvia Permanent Representation of the Brussels Belgium
A15Surname First Name Organisation City Country
Slovak Republic to the EU
Magdolenová Kristína Czech Ministry of Culture Prague Czech
Republic
Weber Werner Federal Government Commissioner Bonn Germany
for Culture and the Media
Terranova Liliana Italian Ministry of Economy and Rome Italy
Finance
Heikamp Henk Dutch Ministry of Culture Amsterdam Netherlands
Drabczyk Maja Polish Ministry of Culture and Warsaw Poland
National Heritage
Jędras Hanna Polish Ministry of Culture and Warsaw Poland
National Heritage
Zielińska Karolina Polish Ministry of Culture and Warsaw Poland
National Heritage
López Josefina Ministry of Culture of Spain Madrid Spain
Sobredo Jorge Ministry of Culture of Spain Madrid Spain
Ibáñez Isabel Ministry of Culture of Spain Madrid Spain
EU Institutions
Surname First Name Organisation City Country
Bambot Joanna Council General Secretariat Brussels Belgium
Izzo Valentino European Commission - DG ENTR Brussels Belgium
Kriškāne Inese Committee on Culture and Brussels Belgium
Education, EP
Maher Magda Council General Secretariat Brussels Belgium
NGOs and Consultancies
Surname First Name Organisation City Country
Pascual Jordi Agenda 21 for Culture
Gnedovsky Mikhail Cultural Policy Institute; European
Museum Forum
Maslias Rodolfos European Cultural Parliament
Remacle Jacques La Compagnie des Nouveau
disparus
Bastiaens Frans Managing director HIT Foundation
Meseeuw Frederic Network to Promote Linguistic
Diversity
Forger Piet Vitamin C
Memiaj Mimoza "Fashion in Focus" Tirana Albania
Bartos Patrick TRAM Research Vienna Austria
Tonkonogo- Jurga FIPRA International Brussels Belgim
vaite
Delicado Begoña CLAN Public Affairs Brussels Belgium
Mattl Ulla- EUNIC Brussels Belgium
Alexandra
A16Surname First Name Organisation City Country
Allegaert Thomas Eurocities Culture Forum Brussels Belgium
Hervé Julie Eurocities Culture Forum Brussels Belgium
van Louise Europa Nostra Brussels Belgium
Rijckevorsel
Barreca Antonio Federturismo Confindustria Brussels Belgium
Mancini Federica Federturismo Confindustria Brussels Belgium
Batoz Morgane Festival Voix de femmes Liege Belgium
Cattell Brian FIPRA International Brussels Belgium
Hudig Dirk FIPRA International Brussels Belgium
Lochbihler Peter FIPRA International Brussels Belgium
Chevalier Delphie GIS ESL Network Brussels Belgium
Constantino Lorenzo IDP Consultants Brussels Belgium
Lemme Stefania IDP Consultants Brussels Belgium
Constantino Giulia IHF – Institut de Haute Formation Brussels Belgium
aux Politiques Communautaires
Iglesias Maria KEA European Affairs Brussels Belgium
D'auria Ilaria Laboratoire d’Anthropologie des Brussels Belgium
Mondes Contemporains, ULB
Lalvani Silke PEARLE (Performing Arts Brussels Belgium
Employers Association League)
Hrisca Catalin Romanian Information Centre Brussels Belgium
Robertson Claire Scotland Europa Brussels Belgium
Veron Claude SKITe Bierbeek Belgium
Runge Jan SPECTRUM Brussels Belgium
Vulkovsky Yuriy Foundation for Urban Projects and Sofia Bulgaria
Research
Lomeva Svetlana Sofia Development Association Sofia Bulgaria
Fritze Mikko Goethe Institut Helsinki Helsinki Finland
Finidori Jean- FUSART l'Art de l'Entreprise Paris France
Christophe
Dielens Jose A. Les Rencontres Paris France
Tropeano Roger Les Rencontres Paris France
Bardi Gloria Lord Cultural Resources Paris France
Diot Annabelle Lord Cultural Resources Paris France
Morenets Yuliya Morenets Consulting Strasbourg France
Escot Marie Musée du Quai Branly Paris France
Hertling Nele “A Soul for Europe” Berlin Germany
Lala Ruggero “A Soul for Europe” Berlin Germany
Maiwald Stephanie “A Soul for Europe” Berlin Germany
Feil Hubert Georg Culturebrand - Architects of Culture Augsburg Germany
Polok Darius MitOst Berlin Germany
Fischer Hatto Poiein kai Prattein Athens Greece
Sassu Rita ECOC – European Capitals of Rome Italy
Culture Focus Point Italy
Nista Leila European Capitals of Culture Focus Rome Italy
Point Italy
Bocci Claudio Federculture Rome Italy
A17Surname First Name Organisation City Country
Zuber Mareile CCP Netherlands Amsterdam Netherlands
Isbasescu Irena European Cultural Foundation Amsterdam Netherlands
Grosfeld Geurt SONAX Culture Tilburg Netherlands
Richards Greg Tilburg University Tilburg Netherlands
Buijze Bram Treaty of Utrecht Foundation Utrecht Netherlands
Sanetra Joanna Instytut Dziedzictwa Europejskiego / Krakow Poland
Research Institute of European
Heritage
Azevedo Célia EUpportunity Portugal
Zbranca Rarita AltArt/ Cluj 2020 Initiative Cluj Romania
Namur Mahir Avrupa Kültür Derneği - European Istanbul Turkey
Cultural Association
Lee Callum BOP Consulting London UK
Rampton James ECORYS Birmingham UK
Le Blanc Etienne ECORYS Birmingham UK
Green Steve EUNIC London UK
Individuals
Surname First Name Organisation City Country
Lama Melissa
Olutayo Oladele
Reth Julia
Reux Jean-Pascal
Rodriguez Ignasi
Torne
Osorio Angela
Smits Yolanda
Triossi Luca
Voermans Jessie
Denninghaus Marie Brussels Belgium
Kocer Alen Cem International University of Belgium Brussels Belgium
Verhoeven Jan Netherlands
A18You can also read
