3 SWOT A NALYSES NALYS ES 3.1 SWOT A NALYSIS

BASED ON

G ENERAL R ESEARCH

The following SWOT analysis is based on the general research and key learnings from the four studies examined in section 2.1.2, taking both sides of the Fehmarnbelt into account.

Strengths - maritime and rural character of natural beauty (touristic strength) - proximity to the metropolises of Copenhagen and Hamburg - economic clusters (medicine, medical technology, food industry, logistics) - largely shared history and conjoint cultural heritage from prehistoric and medieval times

Weaknesses - rural structure with low population density and weak economic structure - aging population (demographic change): shrinking work force - no distinctive image - constructed region, not naturally grown - existence of few networks across the Fehmarnbelt

Opportunities - touristic potential of nature and culture, e. g. for eco-tourists or best agers (demographic change) - Region’s inhabitants consider culture to be important - building cultural co-operations upon existing attractions - including the metropolises, functioning as link between them - growing co-operation of employment agencies

Threats - border as hurdle: administrative barriers, different structures of job markets - brain drain to metropolises - transit region: activities cannot be retained in the Region - geographically long distances can cause co-operations to fail

55

3.2 SWOT A NALYSIS

OF

S IX C ULTURAL F IELDS

The following SWOT analysis of the six cultural fields, as determined in the fact sheet enquiry, includes results from all sections of this study’s general and field research. This SWOT analysis does not separate between the German and Danish sides of the belt but considers the cultural landscape of the Fehmarnbelt Region as a whole.

3.2.1 Visual Arts

Strengths - substantial share of cultural landscape (17-20%) in the Region - beacons: Museum of Art Fuglsang, Museum for Contemporary Art Roskilde, Anneberg Collection (of glas) in Nykøbing, museums of Cultural Foundation of Lübeck - Light over Lolland Art/Culture Festival - Odsherred / Roskilde / Vest Sjælland Art Days - integrated in cultural heritage and local history museums

Weaknesses - museum highlights are concentrated at few locales - high degree of individualisation of artists - hardly any cross-border networks

Opportunities - cross-cultural co-operation beyond language barriers - high potential for cross-cultural cooperation (34% indicate visual arts) - possibilities for fast start-ups of cooperations among few visual art partners of high quality - overlooked joint treasure: medieval church frescos

Threats - few indications of co-operations without financial incentives

56

3.2.2 Performing Arts

Strengths - diverse structures and sizes of cultural offerors - integrative across cultural categories and audiences - beacons: Danish street festival “Waves;” Lübeck Theatre

Weaknesses - only makes up 9% of cultural players in Fehmarnbelt Region - dance is a subfield of little relevance

Opportunities - increased integration in festivals - potential of integration in interactive edutainment projects and cultural centres (e. g. role play) - taking more advantage of open-air venues and events

Threats - other cultural categories dominate - few indications of co-operations without financial incentives - fundamental language barrier (spoken word in theatre)

57

3.2.3 Music

Strengths - one of the most important cultural sectors in the Region (18-27%) - beacons of music festivals: Roskilde Festival, SchleswigHolstein Music Festival, Eutin Music Festival, Summer Concert on Castle Ledreborg, Roskilde Jazz Days, Femø Jazz, Blues Festival Eutin, Vordingborg Festival Week, Maribo Jazz Festival, Suså Festival - University of Music, Lübeck - church music, esp. in Lübeck - taking advantage of rural venues

Weaknesses - limited networks across the belt - expenses for large venues - some music festivals are focused on urban centres only

Opportunities - cross-cultural co-operation beyond language barriers - cultural category with one of the highest potentials for cross-cultural co-operation (indicated by 40-56% of cultural players) - expanding existing cross-cultural co-operations through festivals - increasing participatory offers for audience - joint marketing - exploring new audience groups - micro and people-to-people projects

Threats - financial constraints - audiences of some music subcategories are not necessarily interested in other fields of music

58

3.2.4 Literature

As indicated earlier, the field of literature obtained unusual results in the enquiry regarding its representation of cultural institutions and actors. As a cultural category it appeared strongly underrepresented on the Danish side (3%) and rather high (16%) on the German side of the Fehmarnbelt. Libraries and literary museums / cultural institutions are both summoned under this category, albeit providing highly different cultural offers and representing very different forms of cultural players. Danish libraries – more so than their German counterparts – are important cultural community centres, offering broad cultural, social, and ITsupported educational services. On the other hand, literary museums and the historical library Landesbibliothek Eutin in the State of Schleswig-Holstein are cultural beacons with entirely different purposes than community service. – These issues need to be taken into consideration in the following SWOT analysis of the category “Literature.”

Strengths - 16% of German cultural players indicate the category of literature - beacons: Günter Grass House, Buddenbrook House, Landesbibliothek Eutin, literature festivals, e. g. on Island of Møn, in Lübeck; communities of writers on Møn - historical library collections

Weaknesses - only 3% of Danish cultural players indicate category of literature - 13% of Danes, 23% of Germans consider literature to have potential for cross-co-operation

Opportunities - co-operation of libraries with schools - libraries: new paths for cooperation (historical resources, research, tourist services) - learning from Danish libraries to teach e-media to all generations (demographic change) - libraries as PR tool for kulturLINK (exhibitions, information), reaching local citizens

Threats - fundamental language barrier - libraries: continued reductions in funding - lack of e-media usage across generations in Germany - libraries have no experience in cross-cultural co-operation - new media increasingly play more important role than literature

59

3.2.5 Film

Strengths - beacon: Nordic Film Days, Lübeck - communal cinemas - film collections at public libraries

Weaknesses - marginal share of cultural landscape (2-4%) - 13% of Danes, 14% of Germans consider film to hold potential for cross-co-operation - few existing networks

Opportunities - increase of intercultural understanding through popular medium and Nordic Film Days - taking the Nordic Film Days as model to initiate micro projects, e. g. in schools, associations - films for children, attracting younger audiences

Threats - other cultural categories dominate - financial constraints - few indications of co-operations without financial incentives - language barrier

60

3.2.6 Cultural Heritage

Strengths - the most important joint cultural category in the Region (22,5%) - beacons e. g.: Castle Eutin, Middle Age Centre Nykøbing, Behn House Lübeck, Wall-Museum Oldenburg, Sagnlandet Lejre; UNESCO World Heritage sites in Lübeck, Næstved, Roskilde; Medieval Festival Nysted - joint strength: high number of archaeological monuments - joint strength: many castles, manors and adjacent parks

Weaknesses - archaeological projects need to be more audience-centred and marketed to attract visitors - shared historical roots in prehistoric and medieval times are not commonly known or marketed

Opportunities - understanding joint historical and cultural roots - one of the most important cultural category for cross-co-operation (marked by 34-40% of respondents to enquiry) - increasing museum educational services / experiential culture activities - country-side manors, taking advantage of growing interest in “country-side living and culture” - developing industrial cultural history sites and joint industrial cultures (e. g. sugar beet industry) - exploring joint maritime culture - addressing design and architecture as part of cultural heritage and cultural history - connecting to the new Centre of Cultural History Research at the University of Lübeck

Threats - cross-over collections of artefacts can make it more difficult to find the “right cross-cultural partner,” or potential funding resources

61

3.2.7 Cultural Category “Other”

The cultural category “other” has been marked by 21% of Danish and 9% of German respondents to the fact sheet enquiry; and an average of 15% cultural offerors consider it to be a potential field for cultural co-operation across the Fehmarnbelt. Therefore, this general cultural category cannot be neglected, neglected although it encompasses a large variety of cultural activities: activities for instance, the middle age centres, the crafts, diverse festivals (e. g. the Sjælland Basket Weaver Festival, the Slagelse Festival Week), culture across categories, mixed media art events but also industrial culture, design, or architecture. – Given the lasting German interest in Danish design and architecture architecture, these cultural fields entail much potential for cross-cultural exchange and cultural tourism. They are in danger, though, to be absorbed by the culture industry under the heading “Danish life-style.” The Danish Wandrefestival in Odsherred may serve as a good example for nature related cultural events and activities (and cultural tourism) and expanding such cultural offers to cross-cultural contexts. High potential lies in the field of culcultural explorations in the countrycountry-side and rich nature of the Fehmarnbelt Region, widening the “nature-culture zone” (Sørensen, Kjølbæk & Bærenholdt 2009): tours of manors, cloister and church gardens, the pilgrim’s trail, or eco-touristic and cultural explorations of the large number of natural reserves, among others.

62

3.3 SWOT A NALYSIS

OF

C ULTURAL L ANDSCAPE

Strengths - highly heterogeneous cultural landscape of mostly small cultural institutions and actors - cultural heritage and cultural history are common strengths - internationally renowned music festivals (e. g. Roskilde, SHMF) - target audiences: mostly local and regional inhabitants - mostly year-round offers - almost 100% of cultural actors are permitted to co-operate crossculturally - average of 19% of cultural players have/had co-operations across the Fehmarnbelt

Weaknesses - heterogeneous structures of cultural players, making cross-cultural co-operations difficult - very diverse and different financing structures - majority of audience above 50 years of age (42-47%), only 20% of audience below 20 years - lack of touristic infrastructure to attract more (cultural) tourists - no joint marketing - lack of information about each other

Opportunities - events and festivals have been indicated jointly by 48-54% of all respondents as the most important cultural category for cross-cultural co-operation - field of archaeology: numerous sites from prehistoric times (e. g. Ice Age, Stone Age, Iron Age, Medieval Age) in the entire Region - micro projects and people-to-people projects, especially in the fields of music and cultural heritage - music, especially classical music and music festivals - extending the visual arts, crossover and “other” culture

Threats - language barrier and intercultural misunderstandings - geographically large distances - profound differences in administrative, organisational and financial structures - differences in tax and social services legislation as well as in the structure of job markets may obstruct the exchange / employment of cultural actors from “the other side” - co-operation efforts and the commitment to and realisation of joint cultural projects depend highly on individual partners

63

- fostering of participatory cultural offers, edutainment, cross-over cultural events - expanding the definition of culture to include “low culture,” design, architecture, culinary culture - cultural tourist packages, e. g. in the country-side to manors - exploring nature as cultural category (cultural eco-tourism) - associations: potential for cultural people-to-people projects - new target audiences: families, best agers (taking advantage of demographic change)

3.4 H URDLES

OF

S ETTING

UP

- culture becomes only perceivable as “event” in an effort to reach diverse audiences - research on own collections is increasingly limited due to predominant needs to re/present and market artefacts

C ROSS -C ULTURAL C O -O PERATIONS

There are numerous hurdles to overcome if one wishes to initiate, maintain and expand cultural co-operations across the Fehmarnbelt. These hurdles are defined by the predominant wish on both sides of the belt to build longlong-term sustain sustainable cultural relations. relations Interest in one-time workshops, personal meetings, exchanges, or projects could not be found among Danish or German cultural players in the Fehmarnbelt Region – an important difference from experiences and according strategies in the Region Sønderjylland – Schleswig. Financial hurdles for crosscross-cultural coco-operations in the Fehmarnbelt Region: Region: − no or little knowledge about each other’s funding schemes, financial resources, or ways of fundraising − profound differences in how cultural institutions and actors finance themselves and raise money, especially o high reliance of German cultural players on foundations and up to 25% on public funds of the Land of Schleswig-Holstein o high reliance of Danish cultural players on public resources (up to 80% from their municipality), also in project-related third-party fundraising

64

o little experience in fundraising from private resources on the Danish side, but considered as growing financial source in the future − high instability, continuous threats as well as actual occurrence of cuts in public funds for cultural activities − limited public funding stability, often up to 3 or 4 years, not longer − differences in administrative and organisational structures and legal foundations, making joint funding applications difficult, especially if they were to target institutional co-operations, not project-related co-operations − instability and ongoing changes in the structural organisation of cultural institutions in Denmark due to the Local Government Act 2007 and subsequently changed legislation on culture − no or little experience in joint fundraising − lack of financial incentives for sustainable cross-cultural projects − lacking prospects of financial continuity for sustainable cross-cultural projects − lacking long-term financial commitment by politicians. Conclusion: Without stable, long-term funding prospects, support by politics and opportunities to develop joint fundraising efforts, sustainable cultural cooperations across the Fehmarnbelt remain a huge challenge.

Hurdles in terms of contacts and networking for crosscross-cultural coco-operations: operations: − − − −

very little knowledge about the “other side” exists few institutional and personal contacts exist little cross-cultural co-operation experience few existing networks

− lack of personal meetings and opportunities to build relations, which are of high importance to make cross-cultural co-operations work − language barrier, though often seen as a “challenge” rather than a “problem” − intercultural differences, e. g. administrative structures are different in terms of hierarchies, culturally defined communication and responsibilities − geographical distances between each other − travel expenses − lack of financial support for personal meetings, especially for more than one meeting − lack of financial incentives for sustainable cross-cultural network building. Conclusion: Conclusion Basically, we are starting from scratch if we want to build mutual knowledge, contacts, human relations, and cultural networks across the Fehmarnbelt on behalf of cultural co-operations – but a strong interest to do so can be found. 65

Hurdles in terms of the contents and framework of cultural coco-operation: − local and regional focus of the majority of cultural players − predominantly small size and high structural diversity of cultural players − half of their audience is above age 50 − little knowledge about the cultural landscape, strengths and beacons of the other side − cultural treasures “in hiding:” little awareness of the potential of joint prehistoric culture and archaeological sites, industrial cultural sites, medieval church frescos, among others − little knowledge and exploration of the potential of cultural activities related to nature and the country-side − hesitant exploration of the potentials of the relation: culture – cultural tourism − competition of cultural offers with the leisure and entertainment industries − lacking political commitment to sustainable, long-term support of crosscultural co-operative work. Conclusion: Conclusion: Lack of knowledge about the other’s cultural landscape and its potential, diverse structures of cultural institutions as well as the local / regional focus of most cultural actors are the greatest obstacles in building cross-cultural co-operations.

3.5 O PPORTUNITIES

FOR

D EVELOPMENT

WITH KULTUR LINK

To begin developing sustainable projects by cultural institutions and actors, it is crucial to increase awareness of joint cultural histories and the potential of culcultural coco-operations in the Fehmarnbelt Region and to provide the framework in which to meet and getting to know each other and each other’s culture. culture This is the field, in which kulturLINK could achieve most.

66

3.5.1 Cultural Players’ Needs for Cross-Cultural Co-Operations and the Virtual Culture Map Cultural actors have articulated several needs for crosscross-cultural coco-operations, operations which could be addressed by kulturLINK: − personal meetings: 92% of Danish and German cultural players indicated this as their foremost need to enable cross-cultural co-operations − increased communication: communication 70% of Danish and 78% of German cultural players considers this a necessary condition to build relations − information about each other is requested by 55% of the Danes, 75% of the German cultural actors − joint fundraising: fundraising almost 100% of cultural players of the enquiry expressed to be “maybe” or “surely” interested in this option, and an average of 57% considered it a “need” to enable co-operations. One way to get in contact with each other, to communicate, and to gather information may be addressed by the planned Culture Map, Map developed by kulturLINK. The following needs have been articulated by cultural players and institutions to be served by this virtual platform: − apparent added value of networking and information, going beyond existing platforms to ensure traffic, − up to date information on cultural life and cultural calendar, both requested by over 80% of cultural players, − excellent search engine based on an encompassing database, database including cultural offers that cannot be easily categorised, − predominantly serving artists and cultural players, players while tourists and interested citizens remain second priority as a target-group, − excellent networking possibilities for artists and cultural players, − joint list of contacts, contacts requested by an average of 61% of cultural players, − possibility to place links to homepages of cultural actors, − possibility to make announcements of cultural offers (indicated by an average of 61%).

67

3.5.2 Proposal: Ten Steps to Initiate Cross-Cultural Co-Operations As indicated above, little knowledge about the other side and its cultural players exists, making it indispensable to enable ways to find out about each other’s existence and contact data. kulturLINK’s planned Culture Map would be able to provide this highly important service for artists and cultural players with a 10step instruction list to find out: “How do I go about initiating a cultural cooperation across the Fehmarnbelt?” Based on the learnings of this study, such a 10-step instruction list could look like the following one, which includes elements written in italics that still would need to be developed: 1.

Check out our list of existing coco-operation projects, projects which may serve you as model or best practice example. Also, potential co-operation partners may be found among existing projects.

2.

Post your project idea on thi this platform, platform describing and indexing the details of your planned cross-cultural undertaking and search for a particular cooperation partner. This way, people can find you.

3.

Go to the “search function” function” of our database (LINK), if no project in your line of interest already exists, or no potential co-operation partner has responded to your posting. Enter your cultural category, theme, activity, or artistic medium, for which you are seeking a co-operation partner; or, if you are looking for a partner in a particular town or area of the Fehmarnbelt Region, enter its geographical name. Your search results will show you a list of potential partners.

4.

Check out the potential partners of your search results results by following the links to their homepages and exploring their offers and contact information.

5.

Contact your potential coco-operation partner and determine interest and first details about the possibilities to co-operate. If general agreement and joint interest can be determined, consider a first personal meeting for a more detailed exchange.

6.

Organise a first meeting and visit with your potential partner. Should you need support of your travel expenses for your initial meeting, go to our “list of funding resources” (LINK) and follow the application instructions, indicated on the homepage of each individual funding source.

7.

Develop a plan of your joint project, project including reasoning and expected sustainable benefits of your co-operative project, your joint needs in terms of material, organisation / personnel and finances, a time plan, expected visi68

tors / participants, your public relations / marketing plans, your “afterproject” plans. – This joint project plan will help you to clarify any possible intercultural misunderstandings between you and your cross-cultural partner/s, to determine your shared steps to realise your project, and to apply for funding if needed, among other benefits. 8.

If needed, apply for funding by exploring our “list of funding resources” (LINK) and following the application instructions, indicated on the homepage of each individual funding source.

9.

Engage in public relations and marketing marketing of your joint project, project e. g., by announcing it on the Culture Map’s following page (LINK) and networking with others about your project. – If you need funding for PR, marketing, or establishing a homepage, please go to our “list of funding resources” (LINK) and follow the application instructions, indicated on the homepage of each individual funding source.

10. Establish a homepage of your joint project either on your existing existing homehomepage, page or on a new one. It is recommendable to indicate sponsors and funding sources of your project on your homepage, if you had any. As has been indicated in italics in the above text, these elements are conditional to be provided to make such a 10-step “how-to-do” service work.

69