EcocNews, precisely because of its function and role, in fact, intends to continue to promote an in-depth and open discussion in the game of the new programming beyond any subjective and specific interests.

It must be remembered, in fact, that EcocNews was created precisely to enhance the programme, but without any profit motive.

Each of us has another very good job. Therefore, all work for EcocNews is carried out with the unique feeling of passion for European values and culture. A role that is now recognised by many cities that are candidates for the title of capital or are already capitals, as demonstrated by the media partnership with Culture Next. That is why, until we develop a business model, perhaps even with the support of the European Commission, we will continue to ask cities to support our work only through facilities.

This premise seems opportune to us because to date EcocNews is the only private entity to have an in-depth and extensive look at the European Capital of Culture programme, not so much from a technical point of view as from a narrative one.

We listen, and thus publish, day by day what is happening in the cities in an overview that is also connected to the transformations and innovations that are also developing outside this programme. Every day we sink our teeth into the living flesh of the programme, trying to intercept new cultural challenges. which can sometimes be missed.

For all these reasons we would like to put forward a few suggestions, better still let us call them reflections, which we put below in random order.

1)      We have said this many times, both when I led the Matera 2019 press office and today. Communication remains perhaps one of the main weak points of the European Capital of Culture programme. There is an argument concerning the definition of a brand, on which Beatriz Garcia is working very intelligently, but there is also an equally important theme that has to do with the need to make European citizens understand the importance of a European Capital of Culture. With Matera 2019 we have, for example and only for example, developed an agreement with a major European television network broadcast in 20 countries to produce 6 episodes dedicated to our cultural programme. With Matera 2019 we have, for example and only for example, developed an agreement with a major European television network broadcasting in 20 countries to produce 6 episodes dedicated to our cultural programme. I believe that this activity should not be the responsibility of the individual city, but should be guided by the European Commission also to build a homogeneous and not fragmented communication. Instead, states indicate a European capital and it is right that Swedish or Italian citizens know which is the capital of a given year and what the main lines of their programme are. The European Commission should therefore take over the international communication of the individual cities/capitals by relieving them of this additional responsibility and linking the cities to the values of the European Union.

2)       An example of weak communication came, for example, on the occasion of the joint presentation of the 3 capital cities 2024 (Bodo, Tartu, Bad Ischl) in Brussels - obviously through no fault of the very good professionals - or on the occasion of the handover of the European Capitals of Culture to both Athens and Bad Ischl. Very important circumstances that I would have expected to see reported on the national news, for example. Instead, from what I understand, the result was limited to the countries concerned. On the other hand, in all the circumstances mentioned it was not clear who was in charge of communication. To one city? And would the others take second place? A very clear example, we believe, of the role that the European Commission should have had in terms of directing communication. And this reflection is not meant to diminish the valuable role and expertise of the individuals responsible, but to highlight how this valuable work fails to find wider and more widespread outlets as would happen with a greater commitment on the part of the European Commission. To the undoubted advantages of the cities, to the undoubted advantages of the European Capital of Culture programme  another advantage for the European Commission would be added: the construction of a database of journalists, nation by nation, who cover culture and capital cities and who could receive a regular newsletter on all culture-related programmes.

3)      We have just mentioned the issue of handover, which brings up another issue that we consider very important: timing. Let us look at them. The handover usually comes in November, thus anticipating the end of the capital year. The opening ceremonies take place between January and February, in the middle of winter, creating quite a few inconveniences both in terms of organisation and participation. Instead, we believe that the handover ceremony should take place at the beginning of the year, regularly taking place indoors, and that, instead, the opening ceremonies should take place around April, when the temperatures become milder, thus allowing for broader participation in the event and for the development of projects with greater creative freedom. And above all, reducing the risks of rain, thunderstorms or even storms as happened in Galway, risking the loss of considerable economic resources. One could also think of redefining the name by finding one instead of ‘opening ceremony’.

4)      Another very important topic concerns the cities that have entered the short list and have not won. When a city enters the short list, as is well known, it means that it has already made a fair amount of investment to complete its project and earn the title. Economic resources that until now have been practically lost or that, in individual states, have turned into a consolation prize, that of automatically becoming a national city of culture in the following years. It happened in Italy, then in Portugal and again in Poland. We believe that national cities of culture as they are organised (practically one every year) can have a negative influence on the European Capital of Culture projects, creating confusion among citizens and, above all, a sense of frustration. It would, in our opinion, be much better, instead, to provide a support budget for the short-listed cities that did not win, so that they can still organise their cultural development projects, even with a view to downsizing, but always within a European logic. We know that the European Commission cannot interfere in the choices of individual states, but the national cities of culture have little impact on the territories both in terms of legacy and in terms of cultural growth.

5)      Another observation concerns a very sensitive issue: the relationship between politics and the cultural programme. It would be easy to say that there should be no contact or close links between these two fields. But this is not the case. The five years that run from the awarding of the title to the capital year are frequently traversed by changes of administration both locally and nationally (Matera from 2014 to 2019 has seen four culture ministers change, three regional administrations of different political colours, two municipal administrations. But Italy, as we know, is an exception that confirms the rule). In these five years, therefore, cities are forced to experience various difficulties between changes of managers, different approaches on the dossier, and funding at risk. Instead, a way should be found, however difficult, to ensure stability in both processes and content from the moment the city is named European Capital of Culture, perhaps with a contract between the commission and the city.

6)      When the title is awarded today, the chairman of the evaluation panel only pronounces the name of the winning city. And then at least two months pass for the publication of the report stating the reasons for the choice. In all this time, anything can happen, such as changing narratives about the motivation for victory or defeat. Instead, it would be more opportune to accompany the name of the city with a minimum of motivation in order to put in place from the outset the fixed points that led to the choice. We realise it is difficult, but this would avoid misunderstandings in the winning city and among the competing cities.

7)      Equally important, I believe, is the collaboration cities in the cultural programme between candidate cities. We realise that including certain obligations in the bidbook may cause difficulties for the cities. But I believe that certain conditions should be prioritised in addition to the existing ones such as the real collaboration of the candidate cities on specific projects. Almost all cities include them, but perhaps collaboration should be included among the criteria to be adopted. Another strategic element is the need to entrust part of the cultural programme to local creative industries after a skills training course. Again, this is taken for granted, but it is not among the criteria. Another important step is the collaboration between the capitals of the same year, which should involve the entire local communities.

This is not just advice, but reflections that EcocNews brings to the attention first and foremost of its readers and then of those concretely involved in legislating for the new programming cycle of the European Capitals of Culture.

EcocNews is of course open to contributions from all those who wish to offer suggestions, reflections on how to improve the European Capital of Culture programme on the eve of important choices that the European Commission will have to make in the interests of cities and Europe.