At the risk of being stereotypical, although this is more a prototypical comment, the three contexts could be described as follows.
The Scandinavian partners, artists and companies were largely state or municipally financed, worked autonomously, had experience of working with each other in the Nordic region and globally, had considerably higher local costs for such things as staff, technicians and hires (most noticeably in Norway) and ran on the northern European calendar which included a long vacation in June/July while other partners continued to work. Although the project presented a challenge, they had the economic infrastructure and the professional skills and resources to meet that challenge. The support of organisations such as the Swedish Institute, which had a genuine interest in promoting contacts with Ukraine and Turkey, was a significant advantage.
The British partners (such as Metro Boulot Dodo, Aberdeen City and East Lindsey District Council) although also state/regionally funded tended to work with a wider mix of private income (foundations, trusts) and earned income (tickets, sponsorship) with the pay-off that they must reach a range of audience, social and economic targets frequently imposed on them as conditions of financing (for example the Arts Council England’s grant to East Lindsey District Council, and East Lindsey’s own internal outputs system contained details of different audience groups to be prioritised by SEAS events.) This process-led or “tick box” approach to cultural work is puzzling and even infuriating to non-Brits.
The Eastern European partners (Association New Music, Sfumato) operated with relatively low (or no) subsidy and although self-governing and independent were often heavily dependent on the state cultural or political system (Sfumato is formally part of the Ministry of Culture) or on small local resources and on local political favouritism (such as Association New Music). National sources of funding for independent or emerging artists were scarce (a notable exception being BADCo’s support from the Croatian Government, discussed above) and often these organisations work with, and sometimes have to work with, international organisations such as foreign festivals/companies, (British Council, Swedish Institute, European Union itself in the case of Istanbul Cultural Capital 2010, etc.) as a way of financing projects. Eastern European faced a considerable challenge to match the investment levels of other partners in the project because their local costs are correspondingly minor in comparison, although they are more likely to find the EU funding sufficient.