Additional impulses to human mobility, both driven by cultural consumption (tourism), and a
result of a wider availability of cultural intangible elements (a “safer” migration, higher levels
of quality of life in selected locations, the attractiveness of cultural production clusters, etc.).
Face to these trends, the threat is tangible that economically-backwards regions will be tempted to
“fill the gap” that divides them from the richer regions by abusing the cultural resources, for
instance investing in a “bite and run” model of tourism development that affects the integrity and
value of non-renewable assets for the sake of large (but easily leaking away) short-term income.
Other threats come from the relative lack of knowledge in new member states about the market
conditions to develop cultural sites and destinations, the lack of experience in managing the process
of developing cultural resources in an economic responsible and sustainable way, faced with the
urge to make money fast.
With unemployment levels in the new and next member countries almost doubling that of EU-15,
these countries are only partially to blame if they cannot - alone - control the development of a
tourism industry which is driven by global players and decision making, hence less constrainable by
regional policy frameworks. Additional dangers come from the diluted “stakeholdership” for
heritage and culture which result from migration and added ethnic complexity; from the possibility
of conflict in the “recognition” of heritage (‘Whose heritage?’, Graham et al. 2000); and from the
new physical pressures that a larger, more complex Europe poses to irreproducible assets in terms
of infrastructure development and pollution levels.
It may be argued that the identification of a “European culture” and its inner diversity gives the
opportunity to give more “soul” to the concept of Europe into a cohesive political entity. Europe is
indeed represented by a complex of institutions, ideas and expectations, habits and feelings, moods,
memories and prospects that glue Europeans together. The European civic society and
”Europeanism” can therefore be strengthened by sharing ideas and values. The idea of European
cultural space cannot be defined in opposition to national cultures, as it is represented by the variety
of numerous national and regional cultures; nor in opposition to a particular religion (for example to
Islam and its place in the contemporary European continent). An institutionally stronger Europe,
instead, could be the context to deal with issues of regulation for the conservation and promotion of
heritage. Furthermore, it could be the cradle of the “networks of knowledge” which reinforce the
capacity of each member region to address and manage emerging issues.