By Dr Beatriz Garcia – transcript of recording for journalist, as a follow-up to panel discussion on the ECoC European Dimension, taking place in Évora, May 2026 – as part of the ECoC family 20th anniversary
Summary of Key Points
In this recording, Dr Beatriz Garcia reflects on the discussion about the European Dimension of the European Capital of Culture (ECoC) programme during the ECoC Family Meeting in Évora, marking the network’s 20th anniversary. She argues that the European Dimension is often misunderstood and assessed too narrowly, despite being central to the programme’s purpose. Rather than treating “Europe” as a fixed set of standards that candidate cities must satisfy, she proposes a more open understanding in which every European city actively defines what Europe is. She calls for a more creative, participatory and outward-looking interpretation of the criterion, one that recognises Europe’s diversity, its global connections, and the role of cities in shaping the future of the European project.
The full transcript, follows:
Hola, buenas tardes,
This is Dr Beatriz Garcia. I am an expert on mega-events, cities and cultural policy, with over 27 years of experience documenting and analysing the impact and long-term legacy of major cultural interventions such as the European Capital of Culture programme and the Cultural Olympiad, the official cultural programme of the Olympic Games.
I have directed major research programmes and research institutes at universities in the UK. I have served as a member of the jury for the selection and monitoring of the European Capital of Culture programme, and I am also a member of the International Olympic Committee’s Culture Commission. I advise on international cultural policy and on how to make the most of one-off events so that they leave a lasting legacy for cities, countries and international relations.
In Évora, during the twentieth anniversary meeting of the ECoC Family, we had a session dedicated to discussing the European Dimension. The European Dimension is one of the six criteria that every city applying for the title must address. More importantly, it sits at the heart of what the programme is about, alongside the ambition to make culture a transformative force for cities and for Europe’s long-term development.
We discussed a number of questions around the European Dimension because it is often the criterion that selection panels consider weakest within applications. The programme is now forty years old, and more than eighty cities have been awarded the title, yet this European angle continues to be regarded as underdeveloped by many juries.
Part of the reason is structural: the funding that comes directly from the European Union, or more specifically from the European Commission, which oversees the programme, is relatively small. A successful European Capital of Culture may receive the €1.5 million Melina Mercouri Prize, but even that is conditional upon meeting a number of targets before the title year. Cities can also apply for other European funding programmes, but these are open to any city and are not exclusive to European Capitals of Culture. As a result, most ECoC budgets come from local authorities, regional governments, national ministries and sponsorship. This inevitably means that the main agenda becomes locally driven. It is about what the city wants, what the region wants, or what the country wants.
However, advancing the European project is supposed to be the defining purposes of the ECoC programme.
Some colleagues in Évora argued that the European Dimension is simply about European integration, that Brussels has already defined very clear indicators, and that candidate cities simply need to comply with them. I do not agree with that assessment. I believe the European Dimension needs to be defined differently.
My key point was that cities seeking the title should begin by recognising that Europe is them. Every city and every place within the European continent is already European. That should be the starting point of the conversation with citizens and political leaders.
Europe should not be treated as something external that cities need to relate to, asking themselves, “How can we become more European?” or “How do we satisfy European standards?” That is precisely the mindset we need to move beyond.
Instead, the European Dimension should recognise that we are all collectively defining Europe, and that Europe is composed of all those who live and work across the continent. That, to me, is the real game changer.
One of my concerns is the tendency to associate Europe with a fixed or frozen definition of authenticity, often linked to the continent’s most powerful or historically dominant countries—Germany, France, Italy or Spain, for example. Even the United Kingdom, despite Brexit, remains a European country.
It is also important to distinguish between being part of the European Union—which is a political project—and being European, which is what the European Capital of Culture programme is fundamentally trying to advance. The programme itself demonstrates this distinction. It is open, at regular intervals, to countries outside the European Union because its objective is not simply to promote EU membership or institutions. It is about celebrating Europe in its broader cultural sense.
This means that cities located on Europe’s geographical margins often have especially valuable contributions to make. Portugal is an excellent example. Évora belongs to an Atlantic-facing country whose history and identity have always looked outward towards the wider world. That perspective should be celebrated. It is entirely legitimate for a Portuguese city to express its European Dimension through its historical and contemporary connections with the Americas, Africa or elsewhere. The Azores, too, are European islands in the middle of the Atlantic. Europe exists there as well.
Some of the most successful editions of the programme have embraced this outward-looking perspective. Liverpool, for example, expressed its European contribution through its maritime connections with cities such as Shanghai and New York. As one of Europe’s great historic ports, these international links became part of its understanding of Europe. That approach is entirely valid. The European Dimension does not require cities only to look inwards towards a fixed definition of Europe.
So, the main provocation I wanted to make during this Panel Discussion is that we need to diversify our understanding of Europe. The European Dimension should encourage an open and genuine conversation among the people and cities that make up Europe. Otherwise, we risk turning it into an examination, as though there were only one correct answer. That is not the way to strengthen the future of the European project. We need to build Europe together.
Of course, we should be inspired by our shared heritage and history. One of Europe’s defining characteristics is the extraordinary diversity contained within a relatively small geographical space. This diversity is particularly evident in language, but also in gastronomy, traditions, customs and ways of life. Few places in the world combine such cultural and linguistic richness within such close proximity. The work undertaken by Nova Gorica and Gorizia in 2025 illustrates this beautifully. Europe is full of borders that exist primarily in administrative or political terms rather than in cultural reality. Culturally, we are constantly influencing one another across these borders.
If we begin from the simple premise that “I am Europe”, or “we are Europe”, then the European Dimension becomes much easier to engage with.
The challenge is to ask the right questions and to invite people into the conversation. For the European institutions—for what we often shorthand as “Brussels”—the role should be to create platforms that enable these conversations and, above all, to listen. European institutions can certainly propose priorities. We have seen initiatives such as the Culture Compass, the New European Bauhaus, and thematic agendas around migration or sustainability. These help organise policy and funding, and they have an important administrative role.
However, the European Capital of Culture programme is also fundamentally about outreach, participation and genuine engagement with place. For that purpose, bureaucratic language is not enough. What is needed is an invitation that helps people realise, first and foremost, that they are European—that they are Europe. Once people recognise this, they can begin telling their own stories, stories that can then be documented and heard by European institutions themselves.
That is my view of how the European Dimension should evolve. I believe it needs to be framed differently. It should appear at the very beginning of the invitation to candidate cities. It should be presented much more creatively, much more openly and in a far more welcoming way. It should never feel like an examination with right and wrong answers. That is the quickest way to alienate people and make them feel that the programme is not for them.
I look forward to reading your article, and I hope these reflections prove useful.
