The central thesis of the project, as approved by Brussels, is that all across Europe the diverse ethnic
minority cultures present a dichotomy in terms of social policy. The ‘dichotomy’
rests on the belief and presumptions of the Project holders that, on the one hand these often enormous differences in culture are a source of the social
exclusion and discrimination faced by ethnic minority communities (due to the
perceived ‘otherness’ and foreignness’ of these cultures).
On the other hand, these diverse cultures also have the potential to unify communities,
regardless of the differences of race/colour/social status.

Throughout December 2000
and January 2001, the project carried out consultative work and exchange of
information between partners, to develop preliminary outline of the methodology
for project development and implementation. This programme report seeks to present
the project development progress and insights gained, with a view to highlighting
experiences and transnational exchange shared, as well as ‘best practice’
modalities developed by the end of the project cycle. However, illness of a
couple of key actors and discontinuation by Modena, as well as restructuring
of relevant department in Southwark led to a loss of time and lack of focus
at a critical juncture. Fortunately due to the quality and speed of progress
in the first phase the actual damage was minimal at the point of pick-up.

A separate section contains
the final report and other achievements in each city, as city reports.

2.
Project Development & Progress – Adopted Methodology:

i. The methodology adopted
by the project is that common tasks are set for each project and each partner
e.g. setting up of city-networks, researching and documenting overall city social-economic
profiles; city cultural policies, developing cultural tools to be examined by
each city, meeting partner NGO’s in each city and sharing and disseminating
information developed in each city. These common tasks are set at join project
leaders meetings, and implemented by partners in their cities on return.

ii. Next tasks completed
during the intervening period between leaders meeting / conference are then
reported at the next such join meeting - ideas and developments are shared,
clarifications sought and an over view of what the project has achieved in each
city is developed and shared (so as to project a synthesis between these various
strands, to get focused approach to the total project development process).

iii. These meetings carry
a review of achieved tasks, insights and work to be done by each partner (i.e.
a common work-pan is developed for the next phase, included the key tasks to
be achieved at the next meeting.

iv. Grids formats for repoting
on various tasks are collectively developed and released to each partner, tasks
are developed for partners to fill in (e.g. what Cultural Tools being developed
by each city, to what end and what target group is etc ). This then enables
the project achieves in each city and for the whole project to be captured and
synthesised for further reflection and development. From this point of view
the deliberations, discussions, examinations of specific tools at each conference
or project leaders meetings, reflect a culmination of months of work at the
ground level in each city, and should not be seen as work during a few days
only at each conference (see below for example for a grid).

In other words the practical
project achievements, obstacles , insights at the day to day city level and
the conference deliberations , presentations in fact represent one whole continuum.

3.
Overall Project Closure report on project achievements

Majority of action points
planned under the project had in the overall sense executed, some with exceptional
results / success and others perhaps somewhat less satisfactory (for a combination
of objectives and subjective factors)

i. The first task was to
get the group together, motivate people and as project leader provide clear
insights about the tasks in hand, as well as institute open democratic and accommodate
structures for participation and project execution.

While these were met, on
the downside the leadership erred on the side of over democratisation. In few
instances project leaders had not performing along stated deadlines. Object
lesson is that firmness, but with fair play.

ii. Project membership was
too large, often creating bottlenecks in attempt to meet diary requirements
to the satisfaction of all, in scheduling meetings etc.

iii. iii. At the outset
it was felt that each city’s reality in terms of socio-economic profile,
and ethnic minority level of exclusion and in economic / social sphere (as well
as in cultural life of the city) was important to capture in each city. The
individual city reports contain these documented aspects, and it has to be said
that the task was performed satisfactorily, expect Modena, and some partners
erring on the side of too much detail (See section IV – City reports and
project leaders meeting - Section II).

iv. Selection of cultural
tools for study and analysis : as the city reports and relevant tables show,
this was achieved to a high degree of quality. The range and scope of tools
from each city was highly gratifying, giving the overall project enough subject
matter to judge the efficacy of these tools using mediums as diverse as cinema,
dance, music, theatre and maps cultural events to customised events for small
groups. Diversity was highlighted by the diverse pool of ethnic cultural reservoir
examined (Turkish, African Caribbean m Iranian , East European, Italian etc).

- Bench-marking of impact
formed by different cities ranged very good to mediocre e.g. Den hag ‘World
Tour; was thoroughly benchmarked at one end of the scale, Sheffield using focus
group study approach, and Southwark none at all. In overall totality achieved,
but on the weaker side – Problems, of methodology seemed formidable.

- New tools emerged, through not as a role of the project, but natural consequence
of project development (Berlin, Sheffield & Rotterdam).

- Tools were developed,
analysed, revised as a result of intense work at each city level and collectively
at meetings, as city reports clearly demonstrated (except Modena Southwark,
who despite good work, never submitted evidence) – See Section IV

Conclusion :
Cultural Tools do work, but impact is not immediate or direct, rather it is
indirect & educative and subliminal tests – Testimony to this is the
huge impact that ‘Romeo & Julieta’ made on conference audiences
& the population and media in Italy. Sheffield Conference exhibits Cultural
Tools and confirmed the same impacts, as did Rotterdam main tool ‘Cultural
Ambassadors’ – In the case of Berlin, although exceptionally good,
the experimental work on global art forms did not impact on the local excluded
groups, although power of the tool was clearly there.

Sheffield’s depiction
of the power of spiritual music from diverse traditions & the film output
of the ‘Positive Negative’ project on social exclusion, of professionals
(as well as Irish culture). Tools against social exclusion, were equally judged
as of transnational import & learning.

v. Transnational learning
& transference between partners : Rotterdam (Cultural Ambassadors, project
whereby ethnic minority volunteers befriend elderly whites in deprived neighbourhoods
as a common home, had innovative value in project design, results achieved in
promoting inter-cultural understandings and in reducing isolation and exclusion
amongst elderly.

‘World Tour’
project, as well as the neighbourhood elderly white and young ethnic musician
(as benchmarked) cultural output were exceptional examples of tools and exchange
of learning.

Criticism of ‘World
Tour; as paternalistic were overcome, once the impact from the beneficiaries
point, the sheer scale of the event and a staggering range NGO of sponsors became
apparent: Apart from ‘Rome & Julieta’ and each city’s
multicultural festivals, the tool was unique in terms of its macro impacts,
thus with decided transnational learning and exchange value.

vi. City Networks : As city
reports and records of project leaders meetings show (See sections II &
III), all the cities had a range of actors, including local groups, in some
cases University & security forces involved in planning, conference participation
& dissemination. This proved an important tool for mobilisation & beneficiary
involvement and empowerment. Best results were in Den Haag, Sheffield and Turin.

vii. Beneficiary involvement : Best highlighted by Sheffield transnational conference,
NGO inputs at Den Haag & that in the production of Romeo & Julieta’,
Berlin was decidedly weak whereas Rotterdam appeared mediocre in this respect.

viii. Dissemination : Was overall mediocre, despite the one off TV coverage
in Sheffield, excellent success on this score in Italy, media coverage of ‘World
Tour’ in Hague, beneficiary strong, interaction conference were strong
but in Sheffield conference appears weak in Berlin, and heavily reliant on partnership
networking in Rotterdam & Sheffield, for dissemination.

ix. Project Leaders meetings & conferences proved to be very effective mechanism
for group work, information exchange, clarifying & sharing ideas, work-plan,
financial management and monitoring & evaluation, as well as transnational
sharing. On the downside, subjective factors such as illness, partner drop-out
delays in coming to meetings impacted negatively.

x. Lack of shadowing staff in the case of the project leadership, huge delays
in completion of bureaucratic tasks by Berlin, drop out & staffing as well
as impacts of changed priorities and restructuring at Modena and Southwark also
contributed to lack of focus.

xi. Lack of decisiveness on part of project leader, providing more than reasonable
leeway where cities show in output, impacted grievously on project closure tasks
with Brussels, but the price may have been loss of Berlindue to its unreasonable
delays, but in final analysis positive result acticies as Berlin did not drop
out.

xii. The contribution to publication of the Brussels news letter was not achieved
and budget was namely due to problems at ground level, as explained earlier.
Hence the need for the Brussels conference was not seen either.

xiii. We web-page was developed, as important means of dissemination, and exchange
between partners.

xiv. Policy influence was extensive at local level e.g. in Sheffield highest
level of participation by the cabinet office and member of social exclusion.
Extensive research contribution to local policy-makers made by the project to
raise awareness about potential for ethnic minority creative industries for
employment and social inclusion.

b. Recommendations
to the European Union

i. Institute a separate
budget-line on this theme, under the protocol arrangements for fight against
social exclusion and article 13 meachanisms. All said and done our project has
been an exceptional success on the main theme.

ii. Institute growth of Europe-wide ethnic minority cultural industries as a
source of cultural enrichment, diversity, education and employment growth with
equality of opportunities as a significant free value.

iii. Restrict partnerships to no more than five and allow longer time-frame
for implementation, with a partnership & capacity-building phase. To prevent
partnert drop-out, institute legal clauses that are mandatory.

iv. Create further NGO partnerships with universities, cultural & social
organisations and local government to further explore the large potential of
Cultural Tools.

v. Apply use of Preparatory Actions to Prevent and Combat Social Exclusion Through
the Use of Cultural Tools analysis and mechanism to new socially excluded cultural
minorities in the European enlargement countries.

vi. Initiatie dialogue with experienced NGOs & Brussels policy-makers on
the varied scope of Cultural Tools.

vii. Extend use of Cultural Tools to create awareness other on aspects social
ills and exclusions i.e. Drug abuse, homelessness, gender discrimination.