Problem – decreasing funding for all cultural fields
15min asked about the reasons behind the decision to reduce the number of projects submitted by publishers from unlimited to just five applications, the head of the Monitoring and Analysis Department of the Lithuanian Council for Culture, Gražina Norvilė-Šeputė, stated that before deciding to introduce this limitation, a detailed analysis was conducted, which revealed that “the limit of five applications in all fields’ competition will affect only 4% of organizations and will reduce the flow of applications by almost 12%.”
Read more Moscow is raging: strictly warned what awaits France and Britain
“I would like to point out that the application limit was introduced for all fields and programs, not just literature. Due to reduced funding, it was necessary to reduce and redistribute the funds allocated for financing and rethink how to rationally use the funds administered by the Lithuanian Council for Culture (LKT). For example, the Fields competition, which includes literature, had almost half a million (470 thousand), i.e., 7%, less funds in 2026,” said G. Norvilė-Šeputė.
She emphasized that this decision is directly related to the reduced funding for all fields, which reaches the cultural sector through LKT applications.
This decision is directly related to the reduced funding for all fields, which reaches the cultural sector through LKT applications.
“Speaking about literature, before the Lithuanian Council for Culture’s budget cut in 2025, the Fields competition allocated 1,118,238 EUR for literature, and in 2026 – 928,708 thousand. That is why it is necessary to review all expenses and ensure the rational distribution of administered funds and create equal competitive conditions for all applicants,” said the head of the LKT Monitoring and Analysis Department in a response sent to 15min.
According to her, in 2025, the literature field received 458 applications, of which 162 were funded. Meanwhile, in 2026, 353 applications were received, of which experts positively evaluated 115.
Asked whether the decision to save administrative costs on application expertise and at the same time force publishers to drastically reject some potential authors and publications is flawed, G. Norvilė-Šeputė emphasized that due to reduced funding, LKT was forced to review all expenses, including administrative costs for expertise.
“Limiting the number of applications should have a positive effect on the workload of experts and allow optimizing the costs of expert evaluation services. Moreover, the data analysis conducted by the Council revealed cases of abuse in application submissions. For example, one applicant submitted 43 applications in one call in the literature field, a third of which did not even reach the minimum score. The application limit obliges applicants to critically evaluate the applications they submit themselves, without shifting this responsibility to experts and unnecessarily wasting state funds,” said G. Norvilė-Šeputė.
This restriction levels the competition conditions for all organizations without taking away opportunities from smaller cultural initiatives.
According to her, proposals to limit the number of applications submitted by one applicant were made by representatives of the cultural field during public consultations on the 2027 funding conditions and by members of Regional Cultural Councils when forming new priorities for the “Balanced Cultural Development” program.
“As I mentioned, we conducted a detailed analysis of applications, which revealed that limiting the number of applications would not only help rationally save the reduced funds but also allow managing applicants’ expectations. Also, this restriction levels the competition conditions for all organizations without taking away opportunities from smaller cultural initiatives,” emphasized the head of the LKT Monitoring and Analysis Department in a response sent to 15min.
Asked whether there were consultations with the publishers themselves before making this decision, G. Norvilė-Šeputė said that “public consultations were held, during which all participants in the cultural field, including publishers, could submit their proposals. There was also a public presentation of the changes, during which it was possible to directly express expectations or doubts.”
15min asked whether the impact of such an LKT decision on the Lithuanian book publishing sector was calculated, G. Norvilė-Šeputė said that the funding reduction already has a negative impact not only on literature but on the entire cultural field.
G. Norvilė-Šeputė said that the funding reduction already has a negative impact not only on literature but on the entire cultural field.
“The Lithuanian Council for Culture’s funding instruments are an important part of the entire cultural ecosystem and its vitality, so we talk about the importance of cultural funding at every opportunity. On the other hand, the Lithuanian Council for Culture’s budget accounts for about 5% of the total state cultural funding budget, so we encourage applicants to seek and consider not only other funding but also cooperation opportunities with other organizations that would help pool competencies and resources and implement meaningful activities,” emphasized the LKT representative.
Laura Tekorė: “Support for publishers is not a luxury, but a necessity”
The executive director of the Lithuanian Publishers Association, Laura Tekorė, told 15min that she understands that LKT made such a decision considering that the funding allocated to the Council itself is decreasing.
However, according to her, this does not ease the publishing sector itself, which constantly balances on the edge of survival and is critically important in society due to its role and economic sensitivity. That is why, according to the interlocutor, state support for publishers is “not a luxury, but a necessity.”
Until now, experts decided which of the many submitted projects were the most valuable, but now some of the potentially strongest projects may not reach expert evaluation at all.
However, according to L. Tekorė, the biggest problem now is not the funding reduction itself but the logic of limitation chosen by LKT, as the new regulation distorts this logic.
“Publishers are evaluated not by how many quality, culturally significant projects they can offer, but are forced administratively to pre-select only a few. This means that the first – and often decisive – selection stage is shifted from experts to the publisher itself: until now, experts decided which of the many submitted projects were the most valuable, but now some of the potentially strongest projects may not reach expert evaluation at all,” said the executive director of the Lithuanian Publishers Association.
According to her, this principle painfully affects precisely those publications for which state support is most important: poetry, essays, debuts, high artistic value translated literature, small language authors, more complex children’s or humanitarian literature.
When a publisher can submit only a few applications, it naturally chooses projects with the highest chance of funding – that is, commercially safer, not necessarily culturally most important ones.
“When a publisher can submit only a few applications, it naturally chooses projects with the highest chance of funding – that is, commercially safer, not necessarily culturally most important ones,” said L. Tekorė.
However, she emphasized that not all publishers will feel this project limitation equally, so opinions on this issue may vary. According to the new regulation, the fixed number of applications applies equally to a publisher releasing only a few books per year and to a publisher with several dozen titles in their portfolio.
“The first, releasing, say, 7 books per year, may not even notice such a limitation with 5 applications, while for the second, five applications may represent only a fraction of the real need, so larger, more diverse publishers risk suffering more,” said L. Tekorė.
The executive director of the Lithuanian Publishers Association also stressed that LKT-funded projects are not “support for the publisher” but directly concern many creators working in this cultural field – translators, editors, illustrators, writers, etc. That is why, according to her, the impact of the limitation extends not only to one company or organization but to the entire creative ecosystem.
“Over time, this may mean several things. First, the opportunity for new, still unrecognized authors and creators (both Lithuanian and translated from other languages) to appear in Lithuanian at all decreases, and at the same time, the space for new literary discoveries narrows. Second, the diversity of niche, specialized literature available to readers in Lithuanian decreases, leaving more space for the most popular, commercially safest authors (both foreign and Lithuanian) to occupy an increasing share of the market and readers’ attention,” said L. Tekorė.
The impact of the limitation extends not only to one company or organization but to the entire creative ecosystem.
The executive director of the Lithuanian Publishers Association also highlighted another – side – effect of limiting applications: since the limit applies to a legal entity in all competitions at this stage, this regulation indirectly creates an incentive to establish new legal entities, for example, a separate public institution for a specific project.
“If such LKT application acceptance practice becomes established and continues next year, do not be surprised to see formally separate but actually related organizations emerging in the publishing market, whose sole purpose is to circumvent the 5-application limit. This would be a quite predictable response to such an administrative restriction,” said the interlocutor.
L. Tekorė emphasized that currently, LKT should raise the question not about how many applications to accept, but why and which book is financed by the state, that is – by all taxpayers’ funds.
“A fixed limit that does not consider size does not solve this issue; it only shifts the selection burden from experts to the publishers themselves and may eventually reduce the diversity of the Lithuanian publishing field, especially where it is culturally most important but commercially riskiest,” said the executive director of the Lithuanian Publishers Association.
Saulius Repečka: “This is the destruction of national literature”
So far, the chief editor of the Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House, which publishes mostly books by Lithuanian authors, Saulius Repečka says that all publishers heard about these changes by the Lithuanian Council for Culture (LKT) at the beginning of summer, just before the holidays, so only now many are beginning to realize the scale of this problem.
However, he admits that not all publishers will be affected equally by this change. It is most relevant to publishers releasing Lithuanian authors, especially poetry, essays, journalism, and other niche genres, as well as selected fiction and humanitarian translated literature.
“We are talking about reduced funding for publishing, but I would say differently – this is essentially discontinued funding, because what does five applications mean – it is absolutely nothing. Moreover, it will not be that all projects will be approved; at best, one can expect funding for three projects out of five. And what does that mean for three projects at the state level?” rhetorically asked the chief editor of the Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House.
According to him, previously the publishing house sometimes submitted even three dozen applications, of which about two dozen received support. According to S. Repečka, this was a fairly solid state concern for national literature.
“One might ask – where does such a large number of applications come from? In fact, Lithuanian authors themselves most often turn to us, we evaluate manuscripts and try to publish the most interesting, valuable books. Usually, with LKT support, we have managed to publish poetry, essays, debut or experimental prose books. This is how we understand our cultural mission, which is revealed through the diversity of literary authors, genres, and styles,” said S. Repečka.
According to him, with reduced funding and radically limited number of applications, the possibilities to publish books by Lithuanian authors will drastically change. Already now, according to the editor, the publishing house is deciding how to select only five projects from several dozen valuable and interesting proposals.
With reduced funding and radically limited number of applications, the possibilities to publish books by Lithuanian authors will drastically change.
“We are forced to reject or postpone not only a very interesting debut novel by a young author but also the publication of the second volume of the diaries of the literary classic D. Kajokas,” said S. Repečka.
Asked whether the publishing houses themselves have the possibility to publish books by Lithuanian authors without support, the editor of the Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House said that due to the very small market, this activity is unprofitable, so state contribution is vitally necessary.
“We can calculate: if the print run of a book is 1000 copies, and the book is sold for 15 euros – the total amount is 15 thousand euros. After deducting all work, publishing costs, and at least a symbolic royalty to the author – the publishing house is left with about 2 thousand euros. So how is it possible for a publishing house with 15 employees to survive on such an amount? Without support, it is simply impossible,” said S. Repečka.
He said that in this situation, there are several possible solutions: authors whose applications the publishing houses postpone will either have to look for private sponsors themselves or create one-time publishing houses and write projects to the same LKT.
In any case, according to the interlocutor, the situation is very difficult because the responsibility for publishing the book will fall on the authors themselves. “I have no doubt that many postponed authors will simply arm themselves with patience and hope that if not this year, then maybe next year their book will be published,” said S. Repečka.
To survive, it is planned to publish more popular and commercially viable translations, which will take the place of Lithuanian authors.
Asked how the work of the Lithuanian Writers’ Union Publishing House itself might change in the near future, the interlocutor said that to survive, it is planned to publish more popular and commercially viable translations, which will take the place of Lithuanian authors.
“Due to this LKT decision, Lithuanian literature will suffer first – this is obvious because we are already forced to reject a large part of authors and works whose applications we would have submitted to LKT this year. In my opinion, this is an obvious destruction of national literature because there will be incomparably fewer books by Lithuanian authors published next year than this year,” said S. Repečka.
However, he emphasized that the publishing house still plans to publish books by Lithuanian authors in more popular genres, such as detective stories. “Such books sell quite well, so they do not need support – after publishing a larger print run, the book can pay off. But more serious genre books sell less, and publishing them without support is unprofitable. Moreover, support for publishing also means a more solid royalty for the author, so LKT contributes not only to book publishing but also to the welfare of writers and other creative people working with books. Also, to the vitality of the entire literary field,” emphasized S. Repečka.
According to him, any self-respecting state cares about national literature, supports books and authors because it is a matter of national identity, resilience, and even security. Meanwhile, this LKT decision, according to the editor, is completely opposite and hard to understand.
Ūla Ambrasaitė: “It is necessary to seek alternative funding sources”
The head of the publishing houses “Lapas” and “Vaga,” Ūla Ambrasaitė, says she fully understands that such a situation is caused both by inflation and by the state funding for the entire cultural sector not increasing for some time.
“It is completely understandable that in such a situation, solutions need to be sought, and LKT is taking measures to save funds in project evaluation. After all, the more projects, the more their evaluation costs. This is quite a rational decision in such an ungrateful situation,” said Ū. Ambrasaitė.
However, in her opinion, limiting the number of applications submitted equally for all legal entities is not fair. “There are publishers who have a lot of experience, publish many valuable books funded by LKT, so putting all publishers into one and treating them as equal legal entities is not adequate,” said the publisher.
According to her, in the future, it would be worth looking for quality criteria by which different publishers could be classified – maybe it could be a strategic funding competition for publishers or evaluation based on publishers’ qualifications and project experience.
With state funds for publishing not increasing, book publishers must seek alternative funding sources and methods.
However, she emphasized that with state funds for publishing not increasing, book publishers must seek alternative funding sources and methods. “One possible option is philanthropic foundations that could pay more attention to literature. For example, the publishing house “Lapas” has been working for several years with “Baltisches Haus,” which has become the patron of our architecture series. This solution has proven successful and ensures the continuity of publishing,” said Ū. Ambrasaitė.
According to her, it has become common that private sponsors and patrons allocate funding for visual arts, cinema, and some other cultural fields, while literature is a particularly neglected area here. “I see this as an opportunity that publishers have not yet properly utilized,” emphasized the interlocutor.
Asked how the publishing house “Lapas” plans to submit applications to LKT this year, the head said that they are currently considering which of the previously planned publications to include in the five and which to reject or postpone.
The problem also lies in the fact that contemporary Lithuanian literature, classics, translated books, humanitarian publications, and even literary festivals are grouped into one funding line.
“There are books that can only be published with funding. So it is obvious that next year, instead of fifteen or ten publications, at best, we will have five. Of course, no one can guarantee that even those five projects will be funded. It may happen that none of the five applications will be funded. So the situation is really very difficult,” said Ū. Ambrasaitė.
According to the publisher, the problem today also lies in the fact that contemporary Lithuanian literature, classics, translated books, humanitarian publications, and even literary festivals are grouped into one funding line.
“If our priority were to promote and nurture national literature, then we would separate it from others, not mix everything into one pot. Now it is obvious that Lithuanian literature is just one of many in the overall literary field. How does a publisher think in this situation? He has five possible options, so he decides which of the LKT-supported books could be more marketable. And if the choice is between a Lithuanian author and a translated foreign fiction writer, unfortunately, preference will be given to the foreign author’s novel. This strategy of not distinguishing Lithuanian literature as one of the priorities is very flawed,” said Ū. Ambrasaitė.
However, the publisher emphasized that this situation was caused not by the specific LKT decision to limit the number of applications but is a consequence of the lack of a strategic government approach to culture.
Read more Three UK airports suffered a cyber attack: data of 8.7 million customers accessed
