 Good morning everyone. It's a pleasure to be here. My name is Katarina Kravchuk. You can't hear me? Alright. Okay. I was deciding until the very last moment which language should I choose, because in the program I was supposed to speak Ukrainian, but I see that no one is actually having headphones for English, so I better switch to English. Thank you. So I represent here initiative called Lanka. Lanka in Ukrainian means link. And this arts link event is something which is very resonating with what we do. Our initiative started in the first days of war, and we decided that despite the turmoil that is happening around us, we would like to think about the future. And we decided that every week we will be meeting with our team twice per week, and thinking about the future and the relation between the culture and development. And today my task is to present a report which was commissioned by Cultural Relations Platform. This is an organization of European Union. It's actually a project that is connecting different stakeholders from culture, from the policy level, also from independent institutions in Europe and outside of Europe, all over the globe, and connect them in order to make culture higher on the political agenda. And this report was commissioned actually by the direct department of European Commission, responsible for enlargement of European Union. So actually this was done in the framework of Ukraine joining the European Union. And this is a brief timeline of what we did. So we started our work in August. We had only one month together, all possible data available for Ukrainian culture and creative economy, both in Ukraine and abroad, and it was only two of us, me and my colleague Anna Karnauk, doing this report. So it was really a short amount of time to prepare it. But why was it important to do it so fast, because European Union was planning to support Ukrainian institutions, starting from September, different calls for midterm support were starting, and they wanted to have some real data from the ground so that they base their support on the real needs of the cultural stakeholders. So our task was actually to define the needs and produce some recommendations. In order to do that, we explored almost 200 institutions. We focused our research on institutions. We tried to cover all regions of Ukraine and the major sectors and major institutions within the sectors. Unfortunately, there is not much included from the independent cultural actors, artists, curators, and so on. But that's the basis we could do very fast, and we had some in-depth interviews and also an online questionnaire. And afterwards, we had a workshop in Warsaw, actually it was just one month ago, and we verified the discoveries of this report with 25 stakeholders from Ukraine, based in Ukraine and not only in Ukraine, and we tried to invite both independent and public sector and also individual artists and curators. And I'm happy to see here some people who were actually present during this workshop and why it is important, because actually the goal of this workshop was to produce recommendations for development and for support, and these recommendations are the closed document. It was the requirement of the European Union that it should be a closed document for them, like instruction for action, but they allow us to share this information and I'm very happy to be here and actually have this opportunity to pass this information forward. And I hope that my colleagues who were at this workshop would also pass the narratives of our conversations months ago in Warsaw. I think it was quite valuable. So I would not be telling a lot about the report since it's available online. You have the link for it in the program. Here is QR code for it as well. I just maybe highlight some information about the process, what was not included in the report and how difficult it was for us to produce it, and what are the main findings in the end. So first the limitations. We have to understand that within the very short limit of time we couldn't go deep into the regions. So actually this study was done mainly in the big cities. Also there was an issue about relocated organizations. The European Union wanted to know how many organizations and institutions have been relocated and where. And unfortunately there is no legal procedures to actually explore that, to actually define whether the institution was relocated or not. And we couldn't actually explore that. But what we know and our data confirm the data of Ukrainian cultural foundations that 80% of cultural actors and 80% of institutions are staying in Ukraine and 20% are abroad. So these more or less are the proportions. And outreach of course, we approximately we talked directly and indirectly to about 300 people, which is not too much taking into consideration the size of the country. But still it's some reference that we can talk about. And capacity of respondents. During the war it was not easy to reach people. Sometimes institutions and leaders of the institutions had been busy with the ongoing emergency. And also sometimes it was difficult for them to think even though we were giving the structured outline for the interview. Just because of the stress it was quite difficult to think about strategy or the future ongoing emergency makes the difference unfortunately. So how did we select the institutions? We tried to select those that have a kind of role model in their sectors. They are important and other institutions are referring to them as a good example of leading in their sector. Also we tried to keep the regional balance and talked as much as we can to the organizations from occupied territories who are relocated. Or to those who are now based in east and south of Ukraine. But also we tried to cover the whole country and also we tried to keep the balance of public and private institutions. And also for the interviews we tried to invite people who have the helicopter view on what is happening in culture in Ukraine. And can speak not only for their sector or their institution but for the culture in general. I hope you can see it if not all of that is in the report. So I would just tell you who was participating mainly. The largest amount of the institutions came from cultural heritage and from performing arts. We were able to cover majority of the largest theaters in Ukraine. And also creative industry was one of the biggest sectors who joined the report. But there was an opportunity for multiple responses. So sometimes people selected both their industry and creative industries. That is why it is so big. Also a lot of educational institutions participated. Largest Ukrainian universities, arts academia, music academia and so on. And visual art, audiovisual art, literature and publishing design and audio arts. We didn't include creative economy as such in the report. Because from what we explored earlier the market based industries were not suffering so much. Even though they lost the market they were able to reorient a bit to the export. While the core culture was suffering the most. And also we tried to reach state and local governmental body in the field of culture and creative industries. We asked this question where was the institution based? Most of the respondents were based in Kyiv or Kyiv region and also in Lviv region. And you see we tried to cover the majority of the regions, at least one organization. That was the question where did you, where was the institution based before February 24th. And now there was a question, has the location of your institution changed? And we had this 21% that replied yes. And the majority of the institutions moved either to Lviv or western regions. Or to various European countries or to Kyiv. We know that but the data also confirmed that. Then we asked the question whether the activity of your institution had changed after February 24th. You see the vast majority replied yes. And we asked how did it change? So the majority of the institutions adapted focus of their programs and products. Or reoriented their activities from cultural to humanitarian. Which on one hand is a very good sign that organizations are adaptive and trusted. Society trusts them but on the other hand they are not doing their core activities. And some organizations stopped their external activities and focused on preservation of the team or the property or the collections and heritage they are responsible for. And also there are some, not many that focused on creating new projects and programs. These data come from September. So maybe now the situation has slightly changed. But I think more or less it still reflects the reality. This was a very important question for us to ask. We didn't want to provide to European Union the data about suffering poor Ukrainians. We also wanted to share the strengths that Ukraine and especially cultural sector has. And we asked this question what are your main sources of resilience. That you are still staying in Ukraine and operating as a cultural institution or as humanitarian hub. And the most popular answer was adaptability of the team. And also existing partners and vision of the future. I think this is something very important and we talked about the vision of the future in the first speech. And actually the majority of people who are participating in this video that Katarina showed, their thoughts had been also included in this report. So you see this vision of the future and I would say the vision of the victory as well moves cultural teams forward. And also existing partners what we see as a very bright source of resilience is horizontal networks. While the state provided very little support or sometimes no support at all to Ukrainian cultural institutions, the partnerships between organizations inside the country and also the partners abroad actually kept cultural institutions alive. And so what were the key challenges? Actually loss of funding obviously was the biggest challenge. Both for programming and also for operational activities. And of course threat to life and or health was one of the biggest problems for functioning of the sector. Also loss of the team, loss of the audiences sometimes. Actually it was very important, you see almost half of its fifth place. The pressure, psychological pressure, the need to resist to the Russian cultural expansion in the world was an obstacle to function. So organization didn't only have to survive and keep their families and organizations alive but also there was an additional burden to resist outside and inside to Russian cultural expansion. And also I would like to mention that some organizations also survived cyber attacks or loss of virtual assets and lack of emergency instructions was a problem and we also tried to talk to organizations from the occupied territories but for the obvious reasons we didn't manage to do that. Did your institution need support and why that was the next question? And the answer was yes. The two biggest actually things that are needed is funding and partnerships and also platforms to discuss about strategies about the future. And what was nice here that one organization said that we don't need support but we want to provide support to someone else. So these are actually the key hashtags of the report, main needs and main focuses that we took out of the whole research and brought to Warsaw to discuss with Ukrainian cultural actors. So cross cutting topics that are needed for recovery and for the future of development are talent development, partnerships, long term vision and strategy, mid term and long term support for those who stay in Ukraine and decolonization narrative mainstreamed all over the activities and also finance and digitalization especially for the cultural heritage. And also for creative industries markets were very important since they lost their markets in Ukraine and safety issues as a basic need for now emergency need is also very crucial. And I didn't mention the facilities. So now we had this situation changed where the big organizations have limitations. They cannot actually conduct their events when they do not have sufficient safe facilities like big theaters have to have a bomb shelter for the size of the theater and sometimes the shelter is much smaller than the theater so it means that they have to reduce the size of their audience in order to host their audience in a safe place and sometimes when the theater is relocated there is not enough housing to relocate the whole team even though there is a facility to host the theater itself. So we divided these needs into the short term, mid term and long term is safety is the preservation of the cultural heritage and preservation of the institutions and their teams and also funding there is still a huge problem with the lack of funding and we have this risk that people working in culture can switch to other sector because they just simply don't have salaries. Mid term needs is skills development and talent developments we have to adjust very fast to the situation and English unfortunately is one of the biggest problems in terms of skills and also partnership building capacity building for the institutions meaning processes procedures fundraising strategies finance and management and so on and also recovery strategies and crisis management as a skill not as the born skill but as a skill for the institution and for the long term it is crucial to have vision for development policies and procedures specially for the emergency cases and ensure the sustainability of the institutions and few words I'm finishing already a few words about this meeting in Warsaw so the task for it was to verify the needs and design some recommendations I would name if you do not mind I would name these people in the room who are participating there and maybe later they could also share with you the findings of this workshop I think maybe not the outcomes where you are so important as such but the discussion and the topics that we raised there were actually very interesting and it could be continued further in different groups of people so Ilya Balotny was there he is just sitting directly and Hello Gluboky, Irina Chuzhinova is also in the room Anastasia Heyschenetz from Ukrainian Institute and I saw Anna Pogrivna from Anastasia Kersonal was also on the agenda I don't know whether she is in the room she is not ok so these are the people who were participating and 20 more people were there just 15 minutes walk from here and what did we actually discuss we discussed that it is important for us to think about Ukrainian culture as from the ecosystem point of view as a living system that is interconnected all cultural institutions both coming from the national level regional level, local level, both public and private both in Ukraine and abroad from different sectors with different focus of activities to cooperate as one living organism and the main topics that have been discussed are cultural diplomacy and cultural product how it is actually connected and what do we do to make to increase the quality of the product and the visibility of Ukrainian cultural diplomacy also local governance and infrastructure as everything starts from the roots what can we do to improve the preservation of the cultural heritage on the ground to raise the capacity of the cultural teams working in the regions and what can we do to actually improve the infrastructure capacity of the institutions as such we were talking that there are some institutions that are role models and that can be invited to the workshops like this one but it's limited number of institutions so what is important to share this capacity further to other institutions working in Ukraine and these large institutions can actually serve like hubs capacity building hubs their capacity can be strengthened and then they can strengthen the capacity of others as well and the need of the network for cultural actors was also discussed in this group and talent development is something crucial we were actually talking about three dimensions of this screening of the talents, development of the talents and keeping of the talents it's very important because we have the situation of brain drain now in Ukraine it's very important to keep the cultural talents inside the country and what else we had developed best practices for each topic from these recommendations we discussed what do we think are the best practices and it was very good to discover that there are good practices both in Ukraine and outside of Ukraine and we can take some examples and relate to it and continue developing something like that unfortunately these best practices are not included in the report but that's why I named you all these people who were participating they can share I hope I didn't ask them before but I hope that they would not mind and the last some focus areas that actually we didn't have a lot of people coming to discuss these topics and this is very important it means that there is a lack of attention at least in this audience there was a lack of attention to these topics we didn't have many people who were willing to discuss enabling environment policies and regulations for culture it's a boring topic I know but and we had this these phrases that there are some people that have to do policies it's not us we are doing art and culture we are not doing policies and this is actually the problem because unless Ukrainian cultural actors are agents of influencing policies and regulations it would be done by someone else and that's very important to empower Ukrainian cultural actors to participate in the policymaking process both in the national and regional and local level also stakeholder cooperation since each institution is busy with its own emergency issues there are not many platforms for dialogue and I'm very happy that this platform is here and some other platforms are in place as well but there is no sustainable network or sustainable platforms where regularly people are talking to each other and this is also very important for development and last but not the least the cross-cutting issues we didn't cover them in our report because we think these issues need separate reports and should be explored further is the issue of strategies for integration of occupied territories issue of preservation of cultural heritage and in-depth research by each sector and as my last word I would like to say that I'm travelling it's my third event in the road during the several weeks and I was participating in the Summer Academy for Culture and Creative Industries and Local Development in Italy and I just came from Eastern Wall that was a forum for creative policy makers both there were global events people from all continents were present there and we were talking that culture-driven strategies for development are crucial for the globe and Creative Economy is a new strategy for development and this is not only discussed by people from culture it's also discussed by people from actually this school in Italy was organized by OSCD organization of social and economic development and so people from the ministers people from the ministers of economies from Ministry of Finance are now trying or at least coming together with people from culture and discuss the role of culture in global development and I think that this is a very good sign and the Ministry of Culture of Ukraine was present in Eastern Wall and the lady Lisa Moros who was presenting from Ukraine she gathered a big round of applause it sounds that Ukraine is on the cutting edge of this culture for the development and I think that we already have a big expertise in that because of this eight months of resilience that's it, thank you so much for your attention and please ask the questions I think I don't have time for the questions but in the breaks please welcome