Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Report on the implementation of the «Culture 2000» Programme in the years 2000 and 2001
Date: 2003-11-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, cultural promotion, dissemination of EU information, project evaluation, project management, report

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 24.11.2003
COM(2003) 722 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Report on the implementation of the «Culture 2000» Programme in the years
2000 and 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.

2.

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 8

Background of the external evaluation......................................................................... 8

2.1

the culture 2000 programme ........................................................................................ 8

2.1.1. Overview ...................................................................................................................... 8

2.1.2.

Selection procedure .................................................................................................... 10

2.1.3.

Project management ................................................................................................... 11

2.1.4.

The cultural contact points ......................................................................................... 11

2.1.5.

Programme dissemination .......................................................................................... 12

2.1.6. Complementarity with other community programmes .............................................. 12

3.

3.1.

3.2.

3.3.

The external evaluation .............................................................................................. 13

The terms of the evaluation........................................................................................ 13

Methodology .............................................................................................................. 13

Results of the external evaluation .............................................................................. 13

3.3.1. Overview of the culture 2000 programme in 2000 and 2001 .................................... 13

3.3.2.

The financing.............................................................................................................. 14

3.3.3.

Targetting objectives .................................................................................................. 14

3.3.4.

The beneficiaries ........................................................................................................ 15

3.3.5.

The partnerships ......................................................................................................... 15

3.3.6. Dissemination of information about the programm ................................................... 15

3.4.

Quality........................................................................................................................ 15

3.4.1. Relevance ................................................................................................................... 15

3.4.2. Output......................................................................................................................... 16

3.4.3. Outreach ..................................................................................................................... 16

3.4.4. Competence................................................................................................................ 16

3.5.

3.6.

Impact......................................................................................................................... 16

Efficiency and effectiveness....................................................................................... 17

3.6.1.

The efficiency and effectiveness of the projects ........................................................ 17

3.6.2.

The efficiency and effectiveness of the cultural contact points ................................. 17

2

3.6.3.

Efficiency and effectiveness of the programme......................................................... 18

4.

Main recommendations of the external evaluation and reactions from the
commission ................................................................................................................ 19

4.1.

Improving dissemination and information about the programme.............................. 19

4.1.1. Clear dissemination strategy ...................................................................................... 19

4.1.2.

Probability of obtaining funding ................................................................................ 20

4.2.

Improving management of the programme................................................................ 20

4.2.1. Closer dialogue with beneficiaries ............................................................................. 20

4.2.2.

Improving systematic monitoring of the programme................................................. 21

4.2.3. Upgrading the screening of applications.................................................................... 21

4.2.4.

Paying more attention to the cash-flow problems of the operators............................ 22

4.3.

Improving the selection procedure............................................................................. 22

4.3.1. Reconsidering the selection procedure....................................................................... 22

4.3.2. Making visible the various stages of the selection procedure.................................... 22

4.3.3.

Improving feedback to refused applicants ................................................................. 23

4.4.

4.5.

5.

Reconsidering the objectives of the programme ........................................................ 23

Improving evaluation of the programme.................................................................... 23

Commission conclusions............................................................................................ 24

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This  report  presents  a  summary  of  the  main  findings  and  recommendations  of  the  mid-
term  evaluation  of  the  Culture  2000  Programme,  which  was  carried  out  by  the  Danish
consultancy PLS Ramboll Management, as well as the main reactions and conclusions of
the Commission to these recommendations.

1.

EVALUATOR’S FINDINGS

The programming

Culture 2000 followed a comprehensive and coherent logic, aimed at fostering cultural co-
operation in Europe. The Programme was complementary to other Community actions and
the  cultural  policies  of  the  Member  States.  The  requirement  introduced  in  2001  of  5%
financial participation  by  all co-organisers was a  good instrument to  ascertain  the  active
participation of all cultural operators in the projects,  although it  may  have  dissuaded the
creation  of  partnerships  with  no  prior  history  of  co-operation  and  impede  some  cultural
operators  in  the  associated  countries  from  participating  in  the  Programme.  The
Commission carried out a number of important activities to disseminate knowledge about
the Programme.

The projects

In  2000  and  2001,  more  than  1  600  applications  were  submitted  to  the  Programme,  of
which approximately one quarter received funding. The main beneficiaries were operators
from  those  countries,  which  also  presented  the  majority  of  applications.  Most  selected
projects targeted more than one of the specific objectives of the Programme. The number
of  applications  to  the  Programme  declined  significantly  in  2001.  At  the  same  time  the
number of projects rejected as failing to meet eligibility criteria rose considerably.

The partnerships

Most  of  the  cultural  operators  receiving  funding  were  relatively  small  in  terms  of
organisational capacity (budget and staff). The funded projects were managed by a wide
variety  of  organisations  (NGOs,  national  cultural  institutions,  private  enterprises,  etc.).
The partnerships were mainly formed on the basis of previous co-operation, normally with
similar organisations in other countries.

The results

The Programme created cultural added value by creating new forms of cultural expression,
attracting  greater  audiences  than  planned,  and  encouraging  the  movement  of  artists  and
cultural  operators.  Operators  completed  their  projects  with  the  level  of  quality  required.
The Programme also succeeded in creating European added value in terms of creating new
transnational co-operation and new partnerships that appear to be sustainable. The socio-
economic impact seemed to be more restricted.

4

Efficiency and effectiveness
Efficiency and effectiveness were reached at project level, at the Cultural Contact Points
level, at the Programme management level and, therefore, at the overall Programme level.

Recommendations

As  for  the  recommendations,  the  following  table  presents  a  synoptic  view  of  the
recommendations of the evaluator and the reactions from the Commission.

Recommendations from Ramboll

Comments from the Commission

Improving 

1. 
dissemination 
information about the Programme

and

Improving 

1. 
dissemination 
information about the Programme

and

a) Clear dissemination strategy (example,
targeting 
of
dissemination 
information to “core beneficiaries”).

the 

b)  Informing  operators  of  their  relatively
high probability of obtaining funding.

a)  The  Commission  already  has  a  clear
dissemination  strategy  (Cultural  Contact
Points,  e-Newsletter,  website,  etc.),  and
does  not  consider  it  appropriate  to  target
specific  beneficiaries,  since  all  operators
have the same rights and the Commission
has  a  duty  not  to  treat  them  in  a
discriminatory manner.

about 

b)  The  Commission  already  gives
the  number  of
information 
applications as well as the number of pre-
selected  and  selected  projects 
its
website and in its monthly e-newsletter.

in 

Improving  management  of 

2. 
Programme:

the

Improving  management  of 

2. 
Programme:

the

a) Closer dialogue with the beneficiaries,
in order to adjust the Programme to their
needs.  CCPs  could  be  used 
this
context.

in 

b)  Improving  systematic  monitoring  of
the Programme, through the creation of a
complete and aggregated database.

a) A public consultation was launched in
the  frame  of  the  preparation  of  the
Programme  that  will  succeed  Culture
2000. The Forum 2001 also shed light on
the  needs  of  the  operators.  CCPs  should
not  be  overloaded  with  more  work  than
contractually  required,  otherwise 
they
will  not  be  able  to  target  their  activities
properly.

b)  The  Commission  will  launch  in  2004
the  new  “SYMMETRY”  management
system, which will address this and other
problems.

5

in  order 

the  screening  of 
to  reduce 

the
c)  Upgrading 
applications, 
the
number  of  project  applications  refused
(formal  criteria).  CCPs  could  prove
useful in this context.

of 

d) Paying more attention to the cash-flow
problems 
by
the 
reconsidering  the  50%  before/50%  after
paying  procedure  applied  to  Action  1
projects.

operators, 

the  CCPs 

to  provide 

c)  It  belongs  to  the  contractual  functions
of 
technical
assistance to applicants. The Commission
will  inform  them  of  the  need  to  increase
further  this  activity.  The  Commission
also wonders whether the ability to read a
call for proposals and fill the applications
correctly is not a sign of competence and
credibility of the operator that should not
be neglected.

d)  The  cash-flow  problems  of 
the
operators will be settled, as from 2004 on
the payment ratio will be 70/30.

3. Improving the selection procedure

3. Improving the selection procedure

a) Reconsider the  selection  procedure,  in
order  to  make  it  shorter  than  6  months
(through  a  reduction  of  the  delays  given
to  the  European  Parliament  and 
the
Management Committee).

b)  Making  the  various  stages  of  the
selection  procedure  more  transparent,  by
publicising  the  procedural  stages  more
clearly  in  the  call  for  proposals,  or  by
to  operators
information 
supplying 
concerning 
the  stage  of  progress  of
individual projects.

c)  Improving  feedback  to  non-selected
applicants: 
the  evaluator  recommends
that  the  Commission  make  the  project’s
evaluation  rating  of  the  experts  available
to the applicant”.

a)  These  comments  will  be  duly
transmitted to the competent institutions.

b)  In  2002,  the  Commission  launched  a
free e-Newsletter, which provides precise
progress 
information 
of
applications. 
SYMMETRY
The 
application  will  also  be  useful  in  this
context.

the 

on 

c) The publication of the evaluation rates
is  possible,  and 
is
working in this sense.

the  Commission 

4.  Reconsidering  the  objectives  of  the
Programme

4.  Reconsidering  the  objectives  of  the
Programme

This  could  be  achieved  by  suppressing
those 
socio-economic
to 
development and/or by  prioritising  target
groups.

related 

The  Programme’s  current  objectives  are
too  broad,  especially  taking  into  account
the  funds  available.  The  choice  of
objectives  is  a  political  one,  and  the
Commission will address this issue at the
appropriate  moment,  namely 
the
context  of  the  preparation  of  the  cultural
Programme  that  will  eventually  succeed
Culture 2000.

in 

6

In the light of the evaluation and its conclusions and recommendations, the Commission
does not consider it necessary to present a proposal for a modification of the Programme
for the period remaining to be implemented.

Moreover, partly for reasons of overall financial planning and partly in order to have the
time  to  present  and  have  considered,  through  due  process,  a  proposal  for  a  new  Culture
programme, the Commission has put forward a proposal extending Culture 2000 by  two
years, to 31/12/20061. The Commission will present in good time the proposal for the new
programme.

1

COM(2003) […], […], p. […].

7

                                                
1.

INTRODUCTION

This  report  is  being  presented  under  Article  8  of  Decision  508/2000/EC  of  14  February
2000  establishing  the  Culture  2000  Programme  (hereinafter  the  “Decision”)2,  which
establishes  that  no  later  than  31  December  2002  the  Commission  shall  present  to  the
European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the
Committee of the Regions a detailed assessment report on the results of the Culture 2000
Programme, having regard to its objectives, and accompanied if necessary by a proposal
for the amendment of the Decision.

This  assessment  report  shall,  according  to  the  same  article,  emphasise  in  particular  the
creation  of  added  value,  particularly  of  a  cultural  nature,  and  the  socio-economic
consequences of the Community’s financial support.

The  present  report  is  based  on  the  results  of  the  Interim  Evaluation  of  the  Culture  2000
Programme, which was  carried out by PLS  Ramboll Management  in  the  course  of  2002
and 2003.

2.

2.1

BACKGROUND OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION

The Culture 2000 Programme

2.1.1. Overview

Since 1992, the EC Treaty provides in Article 151 (ex-article 128) for the adoption by the
Council,  under  the  co-decision  procedure  with  the  European  Parliament  and  after
consulting  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  of  incentive  measures  ("Programmes")  to
contribute to the European Community's mandate in the area of culture.

These  new  competencies  were  executed  through  the  implementation,  between  1996  and
1999, of three cultural Programmes: Kaleidoscope3 (1996-1999), which supported artistic
and cultural activities having a European dimension; Ariane4 (1997-1999), which provided
support to the field of books and reading, including translation; and Raphaël5 (1997-1999),
the  aim  of  which  was  to  complement  Member  States’  policies  in  the  area  of  cultural
heritage of European significance.

2

3

4

5

OJ L 63 of 10.3.2000, p. 1.
Decision n° 719/96/CE of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 March 1996 establishing
a  Programme 
to  support  artistic  and  cultural  activities  having  a  European  dimension
(Kaleidoscope), OJ L 99 of 20.04.1996, p. 20-26.
Decision  n°  2085/97/CE  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  6  October  1997
establishing  a  Programme  of  support,  including  translation,  in  the  field  of  books  and  reading
(Ariane), OJ L 291 of 24.10.1997, p. 24-34.
Decision  n°  2228/97/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  13  October  1997
establishing a Community action Programme in the field of cultural heritage (Raphael), OJ L 305 of
8.1.1997, p. 31-41.

8

                                                
These “first generation” Programmes provided a useful contribution to the development of
Community action in the field of Culture. Taking into account the positive aspects as well
as  the  shortcomings  revealed  by  these  Programmes,  the  Commission  decided  to  replace
them in 2000 by a single integrated instrument, the Culture 2000 Programme.

Culture 2000 is a Community Programme established for five  years (2000-2004), with  a
total budget of 167 million euros.  It was preceded by pilot actions in 1999 and provides
grants for cultural co-operation projects in all artistic and cultural domains (the performing
arts, visual or spatial arts, literature, heritage, cultural history, etc.).

According  to  the  Decision,  the  Culture  2000  Programme  aims  to  contributing  to  the
promotion of a cultural area common to the European peoples. In this context, it supports
co-operation between creative artists, cultural operators, private and public promoters, the
activities of cultural networks and other partners, as well as of the cultural institutions of
the Member States and of the other participant countries, in order to reach the following
objectives:

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

promotion  of  cultural  dialogue  and  of  mutual  knowledge  of  the  culture  and
history of the European peoples;

promotion  of  creativity  and  the  transnational  dissemination  of  culture  and  the
movement  of  artists,  creators and other  cultural  operators  and  professionals  and
their works, with a strong emphasis on young and socially disadvantaged people
and on cultural diversity;

the  highlighting  of  cultural  diversity  and  the  development  of  new  forms  of
cultural expression;

sharing and highlighting, at the European level, the common cultural heritage of
European  significance;  disseminating  know-how  and  promoting  good  practices
concerning its conservation and safeguarding;

taking into account the role of culture in socio-economic development;

the  fostering  of  intercultural  dialogue  and  mutual  exchange  between  European
and non-European cultures;

explicit  recognition  of  culture  as  an  economic  factor  and  as  a  factor  in  social
integration and citizenship;

improved  access  to  and  participation  in  culture  in  the  European  Union  for  as
many citizens as possible.

According to the Decision, these objectives shall be achieved by the provision by Culture
2000 of financial support to the following actions, which encompass all cultural sectors:

– 

Actions 1: specific innovative and/or experimental actions, with a duration of one
year, and which involve at least three operators from three participant countries.
The indicative share of annual funding for these actions shall not be more than 45
% of the total annual budgetary funds allocated to the Programme.

9

– 

– 

Actions  2:  integrated  actions  covered  by  structured  multi-annual  co-operation
agreements, with an approximate duration of 3 years, and which involve at least
five  operators  from  five  participant  countries.  The  indicative  share  of  annual
funding for these actions shall not be less than 35 % of the total annual budgetary
funds allocated to the Programme.

Actions  3:  special  cultural  events  with  a  European  and/or  international
dimension,  of  non-specified  duration  and  which  have  no  partnership
requirements.  The  indicative  share  of  annual  funding  for  these  actions  shall  be
approximately  10  %  of  the  total  annual  budgetary  funds  allocated  to  the
Programme. Examples of these actions are the “European Capitals of Culture” or
the “European Heritage Days”.

In addition to the Actions, Cultural Contact Points were established on a voluntary basis in
almost  all  participant  countries.  Contracting  these  Cultural  Contact  Points,  as  well  as
dissemination and information activities account for 10 % of the budget according to the
Decision (see point 2.1.4).

The Actions follow either a vertical approach (addressing the needs of one cultural field)
or  a  horizontal approach  (addressing  the needs  of  several  cultural  fields).  The  indicative
allocation of funding to the horizontal approach corresponds to approximately 10 % of the
Programmes’ financial framework.

Some  modifications  have  been  introduced  to  the  Programme  between  2000  and  2001,
through its calls for proposals published annually.

In  2000,  only  cultural  operators  from  the  Member  States  and  the  EEA  countries  were
eligible for funding.  In  2001, the 10  associated  countries (Bulgaria,  the  Czech Republic,
Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia)
were included in the Programme.

In  2001,  more  specific  exclusion  criteria  (based  on  formal  eligibility  criteria)  were
introduced  and,  in  the  same  year,  the  so-called  “5%  rule”  was  introduced,  requiring  a
minimum  of  financial  participation  by  project  leaders  and  co-organisers.  This  rule  was
introduced  to  ensure  the  technical  and  financial  commitment  of  the  co-organisers  of  the
project form the moment of its conception, as the experience from previous programmes
had cast doubts on the solidity and sincerity of cooperations beyond the formal application
level.  The  5 %  rule  concerns  own  money  or  raised  and  secured  money  and  it  is  the
guarantee of a concrete cooperation.

2.1.2.

Selection procedure

The beneficiaries of the Programme are cultural operators. They are selected according to
a procedure, which consists of the following steps:

– 

Fulfilment of technical eligibility  criteria: the Commission screens and registers
the  projects.  Those  which  meet  the  technical  eligibility  criteria  are  marked  as
“pre-selected”.  Organisations  whose  applications  are  refused  are  individually
informed, and the reasons for the refusal are stated.

10

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Evaluation  of  artistic  and  cultural  quality  by  experts6,  that  is,  the  pre-selected
projects  are  analysed  and  rated  by  experts.  At  their  request,  experts  are  given
access to projects that were not pre-selected.

Proposal by the Commission: the Commission produces a shortlist of the projects
proposed  for  funding  based  on  the  evaluation  carried  out  by  experts.  This  list
starts  from  the  highest-rated  projects  downwards,  until  the  budgetary  resources
are exhausted.

Acceptance  by  the  Management  Committee:  the  Management  Committee,
consisting of representatives of the competent national/regional authorities, must
approve the shortlist. Only Member States can vote.

“Droit de Regard” by the European Parliament: the shortlist must  subsequently
be presented to the European Parliament, which has a month to exercise its "Droit
de Regard".

Verification that the projects to be funded by Culture 2000 have been granted no
other funding by the Community, through an inter-service consultation.

Approval  of  the  project  budget  finalisations  by  the  financial  control  services  of
the Commission.

Conclusion  of  contractual  agreements  with  operators.  Operators  whose  projects
have not been selected are informed.

Publication of the list of selected projects.

2.1.3.

Project Management

The project managers of the Commission are responsible for the entire process, from the
moment of the selection of the project, to the approval of the final report. Each manager is
responsible  for  between  40  and  90  projects.  The  project  managers’  contact  with  the
projects  during  their  implementation  is  normally  reactive,  although  project  managers  do
respond to invitations from project leaders and attend events organised by them.

2.1.4.

The Cultural Contact Points

– 

– 

6

7

Cultural  Contact  Points  were  established,  on  a  voluntary  basis,  in  almost  every
country participating in the  Programme7.  The  Decision  states  that  the  CCPs  are
responsible for the following activities:

Promoting the Culture 2000 Programme;

The  Ministry  of  Culture  in  each  of  the  participant  countries  proposes  a  list  of  experts  within  the
relevant artistic fields to assist the Commission in the evaluation of projects. The list of experts is
publicised at the end of the selection procedure.
Liechtenstein has not established a CCP.

11

                                                
– 

– 

– 

Facilitating  access  to  the  Programme  for,  and  encouraging  participation  in  its
activities by as many professionals and operators in the cultural field as possible,
by means of an effective dissemination of information;

Providing  an  efficient  link  with  the  various  institutions  providing  aid  to  the
cultural sector in the Member States, thus contributing to the complementarity of
measures  taken  under  the  Culture  2000  Programme  and  national  support
measures;

Providing  information  and  contact  at  the  appropriate  level  between  operators
participating  in  the  Culture  2000  Programme  and  those  participating  in  other
Community Programmes open to cultural operators.

The  Commission  signs  a  “EU  Grant  Agreement”  with  the  CCPs  defining  the  roles  and
responsibilities of these and stipulating a financial compensation for their activities. CCPs
convene  at  biannual  formal  meetings  hosted  by  the  CCP  of  the  country  holding  the  EU
Presidency. These meetings are attended by the Commission. Moreover, once or twice  a
year, CCPs are also invited to Brussels for training and exchange of views.

2.1.5.

Programme dissemination

Information about the Programme is available from a different number of sources such as
the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities,  the  Culture  2000  website  and  the
activities  of  the  Cultural  Contact  Points.  Commission’s  administrators  also  present  the
Programme at several occasions and there is also a “Green number” from the Commission
to answer questions from the general public. Furthermore, since 2002 more dissemination
activities have been added to the above-mentioned. A free e-Newsletter is available to all
interested  since  2002,  and  in  March  2002  an  Internet  culture  portal  was  launched
presenting  all  activities  of  the  European  Institutions  that  have  a  link  to  culture.  The
Culture  2000  Programme  website  informs  about  funding  opportunities  and  its  calls  for
proposals, and publishes the lists of selected projects.

At  the  project  level,  it  is  the  obligation  of  the  project-leaders  and  co-organisers  to
disseminate the results of the projects and best practices through available means, such as
reports, seminars,  CD-ROMs or websites.  It is a requirement that  the  Culture  2000  logo
appear on all the output of the funded projects.

2.1.6. Complementarity with other Community Programmes

The  European  Commission  also  supports  the  creative  industries  and  the  cultural  sector
through a number of different Programmes, funds and initiatives8. However, none of these
Community  interventions  has  cultural  co-operation  as  a  general  objective,  the  focus  on
cultural co-operation being unique to Culture 2000.

8

For example, the Programmes MEDIA, SOCRATES, LEONARDO DA VINCI, YOUTH and the
Structural Funds.

12

                                                
3.

THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION

3.1.

The terms of the evaluation

In  response  to  the  above-mentioned  article  8  of  the  Decision,  the  Commission  (DG
Education  and  Culture,  Unit  C-2)  has  launched  a  call  for  tenders  for  the  mid-term
evaluation of the Culture 2000 Programme (DG EAC/90/01). The contractor selected for
the  evaluation  was  the  Danish  consultancy  PLS  Ramboll  Management.  The  evaluation
was carried between October 2002 and February 2003. The Final Report was sent to the
European Commission in June 2003.

According  to  the  Terms  of  Reference,  the  scope  of  the  evaluation  included:  (i)  a
description  of  the  achievements  attained  with  the  support  of  the  Programme,  its  use  of
resources, and its results and impact; (ii) an estimate of the impact of the Programme; (iii)
an  estimate  of  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  the  Programme,  and  its  interpretation.
This should be followed by conclusions and recommendations from the evaluator.

3.2.

Methodology

The methodology used by the evaluator included the realisation of interviews with experts,
Cultural  Contact  Points  and  Commission  staff,  a  survey  of  project  leaders  and  co-
organisers  of  the  projects  selected,  as  well  as  among  refused  applicants.  On-site  case
studies were also carried out.

The  evaluator  themselves  recognised  that  the  methodology  chosen,  like  any  other
methodology,  presents  weaknesses:  “Arguably,  the  backbone  of  the  evaluation  is  the
survey among the project leaders. This approach was chosen since the projects transform
90  %  of  the  Programme’s  funds  into  cultural  activities.  Therefore,  the  accuracy  and
representativity of this data is also of particular importance”.

For  this  reason,  and  taking  into  account  that  the  evaluator  are  more  experienced  in  the
sector evaluation than in the cultural sector as such, the conclusions and recommendations
presented  by  the  evaluator  will  be  the  object  of  a  prudent  and  careful  analysis  by  the
Commission.

3.3.

Results of the external evaluation

The evaluator’s findings were as follows.

3.3.1. Overview of the Culture 2000 Programme in 2000 and 2001

The  Culture  2000  Programme  followed  a  comprehensive  and  coherent  logic,  aimed  at
fostering  cultural  co-operation  in  Europe.  In  the  period  2000-2001  the  Programme
management and specifications underwent some changes. Most notably, the scope of the
Programme was widened to encompass the associated countries. Moreover, a minimum of
5  %  of  financial  involvement  of  the  total  project  budgets  was  established  for  all  project
leaders and co-organisers in 2001, thus ensuring the real and constructive participation of
all parties in the project.

13

In 2000 and 2001, the Programme saw a total of 1 628 applications, 406 of which received
funding  (approximately  25  %).  Of  this  total  of  applications  1 514  were  submitted  by
cultural operators in the Member States9. In 2001, there was a considerable decline in the
number  of  applications.  The  number  of  applications  rejected  on  the  basis  of  formal
eligibility criteria was higher in 2001 than in 2000.

According to the Commission, the drop in the number of applications is largely due to the
fact  that  many  organisations,  whose  application  had  been  rejected  in  2000  as  failing  to
meet the eligibility criteria, realised that their project did not correspond to the spirit of the
Culture 2000 programme and refrained from submitting a new application in 2001. Such a
fall  is  in  itself  of  little  importance;  what  matters  is  the  number  of  “good”  and  solid
applications,  that  is  applications  concerning  financially  viable  projects  envisaging  a  real
partnership and cooperation and having a sustantial European added-value.

3.3.2.

The financing

The  ‘top  five’  countries  in  terms  of  financing  received  were  France,  Italy,  Germany,
Belgium  and  Spain,  which  corresponded  approximately  to  the  number  of  applications
submitted by these countries10.

The distribution of funds per sector foreseen in the Decision roughly corresponded to the
actual funding allocation of the Programme in 2000 and 2001, with cultural heritage and
artistic creation  being  the  fields accounting  for  the largest  share  of  selected  projects  and
the largest amount of overall funding.

3.3.3.

Targetting objectives

Most selected projects targeted more than one of the specific objectives in the Programme.
The operators neither perceived the objectives as difficult to convert into projects, nor as
constraints to their artistic creativity.

Regarding  to  the  Programme's  objectives,  the  Programme  was  complementary  to  other
community actions and the cultural policies of the Member States.

9

10

Please note that the participation of associated countries only started in 2001.
This concerns the project leaders. The Commission draws the attention to the fact that the value of
this statement is limited, since most of the projects (the exception being the translation projects and
some  Action  3  projects)  had  to  include  a  partnership  of  at  least  3  operators  from  3  different
countries participating in the Programme.

14

                                                
3.3.4.

The beneficiaries

Projects  were  awarded  to  a  wide  spectrum  of  organisations.  However,  NGOs  were  the
most frequent project leaders. The majority of the NGOs were fairly small organisations,
with an annual budget of less than 250 000 euros and a limited number of employees.

3.3.5.

The partnerships

Typically, project partnerships were forged on the basis of previous collaboration (62 %),
operators  tended  to  forge  partnerships  with  similar  organisations  in  other  countries,
cultural  operators  from  the  larger  countries  were  the  most  active  in  transnational
partnerships  and  cultural  operators  from  all  Member  States  managed  projects,  while  the
participation of operators in the associated countries was more uneven.

The above-mentioned “5 % rule” was a good instrument to ensure the active participation
of all cultural operators in the project. However, according to the evaluator, the use of the
instrument  might  be  a  dissuasive  to  the  establishment  of  new  partnerships  between
operators  with  no  prior  history  of  collaboration.  Furthermore,  it  might  impede  some
cultural  operators  in  the  associated  countries  from  participating  in  the  Programme,  as  it
represents a relatively high financial burden for these operators.

3.3.6. Dissemination of information about the Programm

Concerning  the  dissemination  of  knowledge  about  the  Programme,  the  Commission  had
carried out a number of activities (see point 2.1.5 above), especially in the years after the
evaluation period. However, more could be done in order to provide information about the
Programme to cultural operators in general, and to applicants in particular.

3.4.

Quality

According  to  the  evaluator,  a  project  had  to  fulfil  the  following  criteria  in  order  to  be
considered a high-quality project:

– 

– 

– 

– 

Relevance: the project addressed a real need among cultural stakeholders and was
consistent with the Programme’s objectives.

Output: the output was consistent with the resources used.

Outreach: the  project  addressed  a  pre-defined  target  group  corresponding  to  the
resources used.

Competence:  the  project  was  carried  out  with  the  appropriate  human  resources,
organisational set-up, and by skilled project leadership.

3.4.1.

Relevance

The Culture 2000 Programme was relevant, since surveys carried out by the consultancy
showed  that  the  large  majority  of  project  leaders  and  co-organisers  felt  that  their  output
could  not  have  been  achieved  without  the  transnational  aspect  inherent  in  Culture  2000
and they would most probably not have realised relevant projects without EC funding.

15

3.4.2. Output

On aggregate, the vast majority of cultural operators felt that the quality of actual output
was in line with their expectations.

3.4.3. Outreach

In  examining the  outreach of projects, emphasis  was  placed  on  the  relationship  between
the planned outreach and the actual output comprising the interface between the projects
and  their  beneficiaries/consumes/users.  The  evidence  revealed  that  89  %  of  the  projects
produced their planned output.

3.4.4. Competence

In  all  cases,  both  project  leaders  and  co-organisers  emphasised  the  high  level  of
competence  of  their  collaborators  regarding  their  artistic/professional  skills,  which  were
regarded as enriching for the project’s results.

PLS Ramboll’s analysis showed that more co-organisers were satisfied with their project
leaders’ managerial skills (82 %) than with their professional skills (74%). For the project
leaders the opposite relationship was true, as they had high regard high regard for the co-
organisers’ professional skills (90 %) but less so for their managerial skills (67 %).

3.5.

Impact

According  to  the  Terms  of  Reference  and  the  project  application  forms,  three  kinds  of
impact could be inferred to be conceptual elements common to all projects. These were:

– 

– 

– 

The European added value of the projects: supporting the emergence of European
networks, organisers/institutional co-operation and mobility of people and works
of art.

The  cultural  added  value  of  the  projects:  promoting  new  forms  of  cultural
expression and enhancing training and access to culture.

The socio-economic impact of the projects: fostering initiatives between cultural
and  social  operators  to  create  social  inclusion  and  cultural  empowerment  for
disadvantaged groups and youth.

16

– 

The Culture 2000 Programme created cultural added value by creating new forms
of  cultural  expression,  attracting  greater  audiences 
its
participants’ performances and encouraging the movement of artists and cultural
operators.  The  evaluator  also  concluded  that  the  Culture  2000  Programme
succeeded  in  creating  European  added  value  in  terms  of  creating  new
transnational  co-operation  and  new  partnerships  that  appear  to  be  sustainable.
The  socio-economic  impact  of  the  Programme  seemed  to  have  been  more
restricted, “as approximately half of the project leaders stated that they had not
improved cultural access”11

than  planned 

to 

3.6.

Efficiency and effectiveness

The  evaluators  considered  that  a  project  was  efficient  where  results  were  obtained  at  a
reasonable  cost,  and  effective  where  the  expected  results  had  been  obtained  and  the
objectives achieved.

PLS Ramboll provided a short analysis of the efficiency and effectiveness of the projects,
of the Cultural Contact Points and of the Culture 2000 Programme.

3.6.1.

The efficiency and effectiveness of the projects

The  evaluator  found  that  projects  were  implemented  efficiently  and  effectively.  The
project  leaders  reported  efficiency  in  carrying  out  the  projects  at  a  reasonable  cost.
Furthermore,  the  project  leaders  and  co-organisers  reported  that  effectiveness  was
achieved, as the great majority of the projects’ objectives had been achieved.

3.6.2.

The efficiency and effectiveness of the Cultural Contact Points

Interview  and  documentary  data  showed  that  the  CCPs  in  general  had  implemented
activities agreed in the contracts with the Commission efficiently. This was backed up by
data  showing  that  many  CCPs  pay  attention  to  the  issue  of  cost  reduction  (electronic
distribution of information, application forms, etc.).

Since  August  2001,  the  CCPs  also  provided  assistance  for  applicants  in  identifying  and
locating  partners  for  transnational  projects  through  the  Partner  Search  Mechanism.
However, the results from the surveys suggested that partnerships facilitated by the CCPs
had been rare.

Moreover,  it  is  the  opinion  of  the  evaluator  that  a  more  objective  but  rather  rough
indication of the efficiency of the CCPs might consist of the fact that, whereas the CCPs
were  only  contractually  required  to  promote  the  Programme  generally  and  provide
assistance to potential applicants, the vast majority of the CCPs had in addition provided
assistance to the projects during implementation.

11

The Commission would however like to stress that , according to the evaluator, the “cultural added
value”  (and  “access  to  culture”  is  part  of  it)  was  high.  Moreover,  94  %  of  the  project  leaders
considered that their projects had improved access to culture. It was only concerning the question of
who benefited from the improved access to culture that the project leaders had some problems in
identifying  the  target  beneficiaries.  The  socio-economic  impact  of  cultural  projects  is  therefore
impossible to measure.

17

                                                
Thus, the analysis of PLS Ramboll Management pointed to the fact that, on the one hand,
evidence might suggest that CCPs had more resources available than necessary, or, on the
other  hand,  that  the  cost-reducing  procedures  of  the  CCPs  might  have  allowed  them  to
take  on  these  additional  tasks  or  that  they  could  perform  these  extra  tasks  through
additional financing from government or private sources.

3.6.3.

Efficiency and effectiveness of the Programme

The  evaluator  considers  that  the  management  of  the  Programme  had  been  carried  out
efficiently  and  the  Programme  had  been  implemented  effectively  in  achieving  its
objectives,  in  spite  of  the  constraints  induced  by  the  level  of  funding.  However,  some
improvements  could  still  be  introduced  in  order  to  optimise  the  management  and  the
implementation of the Programme.

3.6.3.1. The selection procedure

It is the analysis of  PLS Ramboll Management that  the  selection  procedure  in  2000  and
2001  was  not  as  transparent  and  fast  as  it  could  have  been,  despite  the  fact  that  the
Commission took all the possible steps in order to shorten the selection procedure.

The evaluator’s interviews with cultural operators indicated that the issue was not related
to the  use  of anonymous  external  experts, but rather to  the duration  and  transparency  of
the procedure (that is, its “tracking” and “feedback”).

The  selection  procedure  was  defined  in  the  programming  network.  In  2000  and  2001  it
had  taken  no  less  than  six  months.  According  to  the  evaluator,  the  involvement  in  the
procedure of the European Parliament and the Management Committee created a layer of
political  involvement  in  the  selection  process  and  slowed  down  the  selection  procedure
significantly, by approximately two months. While this involvement is a political reality, it
lengthened the selection procedure and created undue haste for the operators’ preparations.

The  matter  of  the  duration  of  the  selection  procedure  might  not  only  be  related  to  the
selection procedure itself, but also to the human resources available. The evaluator noted
that the Commission might need additional human resources to handle  the  work  load,  if
clearly defined deadlines were to be met in the future.

However,  the  Commission  points  to  the  fact  that  the  introduction  of  the  new  Financial
Regulation  and  of  associated  new  legal  obligations  in  2003  will  increase  the  control
mechanisms and demands.

3.6.3.2. Monitoring system

The  efficiency  of  Programme  management  by  the  Commission  could  be  improved  by
unifying  the  existing  information  concerning  projects  and  operators  into  one  single
electronic  database.  This  database  would  enable  the  Commission  to  easily  aggregate,
extract  and  analyse  statistical  information  regarding  the  characteristics  of  applicants,
selected projects and other information vital to monitoring the progress of the Programme.

18

3.6.3.3. Cash-flow in projects

The  financial  requirements  in  general  were  not  overly  bureaucratic,  in  view  of  the
financial  audit  requirements  with  which  the  Commission  had  to  abide.  However,  the
limited organisational capacity of the cultural operators was likely to limit the cash flow of
the  organisation.  The  Commissions  “50  %  before/50  %  after”  instalment  procedure  for
Action  1  projects  (which  constitute  the  majority  of  the  projects  supported)  presented  a
cash-flow challenge for many operators. It has to be noted that this “50/50” rule has been
replaced in 2003 by a “70 % before/30 % after” rule.

3.6.3.4. Dialogue with operators of the cultural sector

The  Commission  had  demonstrated  interest  in  obtaining  advice  on  how  to  improve  the
programming, selection procedures and co-operation with projects in order to improve the
Culture  2000  programming.  Further  consultation  with  the  CCPs  could  be  of  benefit  the
Commission, in terms of acquiring systematic bottom-up feedback from the operators.

3.6.3.5. Prioritising objectives

The objectives of the Programme as stated in the Decision were broad and diverse, with
the overarching objective of fostering cultural co-operation in Europe. This had to be put
in relation with the funding available to the Programme, which was of 167 million in five
years.

There were advantages and disadvantages in having narrower or broader objectives. While
narrow  objectives  might  be  more  targeted  and  easier  to  attain,  they  might  be  also  more
constraining  for  creativity  and  innovation.  Broad  objectives  had  the  advantage  that
cultural operators generally found it easier to convert them into project ideas and did not
feel  constrained  by  them,  thus  enabling  new  forms  of  cultural  expression  and  artistic
innovation.  However,  from  a  policy  perspective  the  sheer  diversity  of  projects,  which
encompassed  several  broad  objectives  led  to  poor  targeting  of  the  objectives,  and  might
have constituted an obstacle to achieving the intended impact

The future challenge lay in creating a balanced Programme, which took into account the
special character of the cultural sector and its productions, while adhering to some specific
objectives  that  corresponded  with  the  Community’s  overall  policy  framework,  not
encompassing overly broad objectives.

4.

MAIN  RECOMMENDATIONS  OF  THE  EXTERNAL  EVALUATION
AND REACTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION

4.1.

Improving dissemination and information about the Programme

4.1.1. Clear dissemination strategy

According  to  the  evaluator,  this  could  be  achieved  through  a  clearer  dissemination
strategy.  This  should  pass  through  the  identification  of  those  cultural  operators  that  are
potential  beneficiaries  of  funding  and  targeting  the  dissemination  of  information  to  the
“typical beneficiaries” of the Programme, notably in the associated countries.

19

Although the Commission shares the view that a clear communication and dissemination
strategy is essential to allow the participation of as many cultural operators as possible, it
considers that such a strategy already exists (see point 2.1.5 above). This strategy, as the
evaluator  acknowledges,  has  been  improved  over  the  years  of  implementation  of  the
Programme, so that many shortcomings at this level that were felt over the first two years
of  implementation  of  the  Programme  do  not  exist  anymore  or  will  disappear  very  soon
(namely  through  an  ever  wider  distribution  of  the  e-Newsletter  created  in  2002  and  the
ongoing restructuring of the Commission’s website in a more complete and user-friendly
manner).

Concerning the identification of “typical beneficiaries”, the Commission wonders whether
this  is  feasible  and,  especially,  appropriate  from  a  political  point  of  view.  It  is
discriminative and undermines the level playing field.  In fact, all cultural operators have
the same rights, and the Commission insists on treating them in a non-discriminative and
equitative manner.

4.1.2.

Probability of obtaining funding

According  to  the  evaluator,  another  way  of  generating  a  higher  number  of  applications
would  be  to  inform  operators  of  their  relatively  high  probability  of  obtaining  funding,
which seemed to be higher than operators think (one in four for the period 2000-2001). It
should,  however,  be  explained  that  these  rates  depended  on  the  number  of  applications
passing the eligibility criteria, as well as the quality of the individual applications.

The  Commission  welcomes  the  idea  of  getting  more  applications  as  higher  numbers  of
high quality projects would crowd out lesser quality projects. The Commission draws the
attention to the fact that it already gives information about the number of applications as
well as the number of pre-selected and selected projects in its website and in its monthly
e-newsletter.

4.2.

Improving management of the Programme

4.2.1. Closer dialogue with beneficiaries

A  closer  dialogue  with  the  beneficiaries  of  the  Programme  could  provide  a  further
adjustment of the Programme to their needs. Closer dialogue could be attained by making
full  use  of  the  Cultural  Contact  Points  as  “listening  posts”  through  national  workshops,
user surveys and expert consultations. This form of information flow from the CCPs could
thus provide the Commission with valuable information about  the  Programme  at  project
level, although it has to be kept in mind that thess functions are already part of their remit.

The Commission shares the evaluator’s view that a close dialogue with the beneficiaries is
essential  to  improve  the  Programme.  For  this  reason,  the  2001  Forum  for  Cultural  Co-
operation  in  Europe  was  held,  and  a  comprehensive  exercise  of  public  consultation
concerning  the  eventual  creation  of  a  new  cultural  co-operation  Programme  carried  out.
Moreover,  the  Commission  attends  the  formal  meetings  with  the  CCPs,  keeps  regular
informal  contacts  with  them  and  invites  them  to  training  meetings  in  Brussels,  thus
ensuring  a  sufficient  flow  of  information.  The  Commission  has  also  regular  contacts,
mostly of an informal nature, with the beneficiaries of the Programmes themselves, and is
therefore fully seized of their needs and expectations.

20

Moreover, the extension of the roles of the CCPs to “listening posts” functions might also
overburden them, and thus impede them  from  assuming their  contractually defined  roles
(see below point 4.2.3).

4.2.2.

Improving systematic monitoring of the Programme

The  evaluator  recommends  that  the  Commission  create  an  integrated  electronic
monitoring system able of bringing together the information that the Commission holds on
each years projects, and of enabling statistical information. The monitoring system should
include data such as the description of the project, its project leader and co-organisers as
well as information on the total budget of the project, the amount applied for, the amount
granted, the funding ratio, the evaluation rating and the status of the project.

The Commission currently keeps contact details for organisers, co-organisers and project
information  via  two  separate  electronic  systems,  namely  one  contact  database  and  one
database  of  project  fiches.  The  letters  containing  the  reasons  for  refusing  applicants  are
also  kept.  However,  the  Commission  agrees  that  a  single  integrated  database  would  be
more convenient for all purposes.

For  this  reason,  a  webmaster  has  recently  been  put  in  charge  of  designing  an  electronic
database  for  the  Programme.  Moreover,  the  computer  SYMMETRY  programme,  which
will  in  principle  be  launched  next  year12,  will  not  only  allow  a  better  communication
between the Commission and the operators and between the operators themselves, but also
the improvement of the complementarity between Community Programmes.

4.2.3. Upgrading the screening of applications

According  to  the  evaluator,  it  would  be  important  to  upgrade  the  screening  of  the
applications, in order to reduce further the number of project applications refused on the
basis  of  the  formal  eligibility  criteria.  Cultural  Contact  Points  could,  in  this  context,
provide  an  initial  screening  of  the  project  application  and  appended  documentation.
Naturally,  the  responsibility  for  the  application  should  still  remain  with  the  applicant
organisation.

The Commission points out that it is already part of the contractual functions of the CCPs
to  provide  assistance  to  the  operators  in  the  submission  of  their  applications.  It  will  be
drawn to the attention of the CCPs that this function should be further reinforced, since the
evaluation  report  suggests  that  CCPs  are  making  enormous  efforts  in  improving  the

12

SYstem  for  the  Management  and  Monitoring  of  Education,  TRaining,  Youth,  Culture  and  other
DG Education and Culture Programmes. SYMMETRY is a Management Information System and
Program  Management  System  to  be  used  by  the  DG  Education  and  Culture,  National  Agencies,
Technical Assistance Offices, as well as by the Executive Agency in the near  future. The System
will  provide  all  the  necessary  functionality  to  actors  involved  in  all  aspects  of  Programme
management  activities  and  not  only  just  project  management,  which  means  that  it  will  allow  to
establish work plans, to manage budgets and to give the possibility to create reports in line with the
different  user  profiles  (DG  Education  and  Culture,  National  Agencies,  Executive  Agency).  In
particular,  the  new  System  will  allow  to  follow  up  Programmes  at  centralised  and  de-centralised
level, it will allow the online-submission of applications, it will also serve as communication basis
between  cultural  operators  among  Europe  with  a  common  interest  for  actions  with  a  European
Added Value.

21

                                                
Programme in several domains which are not necessarily their core competence; which is
in principle desirable, but may divert their attention from their principal objectives.

It  is  thus  considered  that  the  CCPs  should  not  assume  functions  with  regard  to  the
applications  in  addition  to  those  currently  foreseen,  since  this  could  create  serious  legal
problems concerning the responsibility for the correctness of the applications, even if the
operators were informed that the responsibility would remain with them, as the evaluator
suggests.

4.2.4.

Paying more attention to the cash-flow problems of the operators

The  evaluator  considers  that  the  current  payment  system  of  the  Commission  (“50%
before/50  %  after)  causes  cash-flow  problems  some  operators,  especially  small
organisations developing annual Action 1 projects. Therefore, the  evaluator recommends
that the Commission reconsider this system.

The  Commission  has  initiated  a  change  in  the  payment  procedure.  As  from  2004,  the
payment  will  be  70  %  after  the  signature  of  the  agreement  and  30  %  after  project
completion.

4.3.

Improving the selection procedure

4.3.1.

Reconsidering the selection procedure

The  evaluator  considers  that  the  overall  duration  of  the  selection  procedure  needs  to  be
reduced.  By providing strict deadlines for  the  completion  of  the  different  stages,  and  by
reducing  the  duration  of  the  Management  Committee’s  and  the  European  Parliament’s
involvement to two weeks, the selection procedure could be shortened by  approximately
one month (see point 2.1.2).

The  Commission  considers  this  recommendation  pertinent,  and  transmits  it  to  both  the
Management Committee and the European Parliament, for consideration in the context of
the present report.

4.3.2. Making visible the various stages of the selection procedure

PLS Ramboll Management recommends that the Commission take action to create further
transparency  in  the  selection  procedure.  This  might  be  achieved  by  publicising  the
procedural stages more clearly in the call for proposals (including approximate dates for
completion)  or  by  supplying  information  to  operators  concerning  its  current  stage  of
progress.

In  order  to  increase  the  transparency  of  the  Programme  and  the  level  of  information
provided to the operators, the Commission in 2002 launched a free e-Newsletter dedicated
to  the  Culture  2000  Programme,  which  provides  precise  information  on  the  progress  of
applications. The information system will be further improved with the introduction of the
database SYMMETRY in 2004.

22

4.3.3.

Improving feedback to refused applicants

PLS  Ramboll  Management  recommends  that  the  Commission  improve  feedback  to
refused  applicants,  by  making  the  project’s  evaluation  rating  of  the  experts  available  to
them. Such a feedback procedure would allow cultural operators to improve the quality of
their applications in response to the subsequent call for proposals.

The Commission agrees that the publication of the evaluation results would help operators
to  know  “how  far”  they  were  from  being  selected,  allowing  them  to  judge  the  terms  of
their  eventual  applications  in  the  framework  of  a  future  call  for  proposals.  The
Commission  will  therefore  give  due  consideration  to  the  feasibility  of  publicising
evaluation results.

4.4.

Reconsidering the objectives of the Programme

The  evaluator  recommends  that  the  Commission  reconsider  the  objectives  of  the
Programme. This recommendation is twofold:

– 

– 

Omission  of  the  objectives  concerning  the  socio-economic  development.  Focus
could  be  retained  on  the  objectives  that  directly  adress  cultural  activities  and
expression in the framework of transnational co-operation; and/or

Prioritisation  of  target  groups.  The  evaluator  considers  that  greater  targeting
could  be  attained  by,  for  example,  changing  prioritised  target  groups  from  one
year  to  another.  According  to  the  evaluator,  the  focus  on  specific  target  groups
would allow for greater synergies with other Community action.

The Commission believes that the definition of the Programme objectives is ultimately a
political  choice,  as  the  evaluator  also  recognises.  The  Commission  shares  the  main
conclusion  of  the  evaluator  that  the  Programme’s  objectives  currently  are  too  broad,
especially taking into account the funds available to achieve them. That is the reason why
the Commission envisages reducing the number of objectives in the programme that will
replace Culture 2000 from 2007 on and  focussing on  three  main issues  :  the  mobility of
people  working  in  the  cultural  sector,  the  circulation  of  works  of  art  and  intercultural
dialogue. These three objectives have been widely agreed as having a real European added
value  by  cultural  stakeholders  (see  the  EP  resolutions  of  22  October  2002  and  of  4
October 2003 respectively on the importance and dynamism of theatre and the performing
arts in an enlarged Europe and on cultural industries, as well as the Council Resolution of
19 December 2002 on European added value  and  mobility  of  persons  and  circulation  of
works  in  the  cultural  sector,  the  conclusions  of  the  Forum  on  cultural  cooperation  of
November 2001 and the results of the public consultation on a new programme).

4.5.

Improving evaluation of the Programme

According to the evaluator, this should include:

– 

Defining  evaluation  criteria  for  the  performance  of  the  Commission  and  the
Cultural Contact Points for the remainder of the Programme.

23

– 

Monitoring the new steps taken in improving project management. The evaluator
recommends  that  the  Commission  monitor  developments  in  the  following  areas
of  the  Programme  management:  the  impact  of  the  “5%  rule”  on  partner  co-
financing;  the  impact  of  the  sectoral  prioritisation  established  in  2002;  the
inclusion  of  the  new  Member  States  in  the  Programme;  the  long-term
sustainability  of  Culture  2000  project  partnerships;  and 
long-term
sustainability of Culture 2000 project output.

the 

The  Commission  welcomes  the  suggestions  of  the  evaluator  and  will  take  them  into
account both in the context of the eventual extension of the Cultural 2000 Programme, and
when preparing a new Programme.

The Commission would like to underline that the “5 %” rule was the object of a mature
reflection  before  its  introduction.  It  corresponded  to  the  need  to  guarantee  that
partnerships are indeed based on a serious collaboration, thus contributing to the long-term
the  Culture  2000  projects’  output.
sustainability  of  both 
The  Commission  is  aware  of  the  fact  that  there  are  no  perfect  solutions,  but  there  is  no
evidence in the  report  of  the  evaluator that the “5 %” rule had a negative impact on  the
functioning of the Programme or on the creation of partnerships.

the  partnerships  and 

5.

COMMISSION CONCLUSIONS

The importance of the action developed by the Culture 2000 Programme for the promotion
of cultural co-operation in Europe (the only Community initiative with such purpose), as
well as its importance for the creation of a cultural area common to the European people
has been rightly emphasised by the evaluator.

The  Commission  shares  the  overall  assessment  of  the  evaluator  that  the  Programme  has
provided  a  unique  and  positive  contribution  to  cultural  co-operation  in  Europe,  and  that
projects  were  characterised  by  their  quality,  efficiency,  effectiveness  and  impact.  It
therefore concludes that the Programme has successfully contributed to the realisation of
the  objectives  established  in  article  151  of  the  Treaty.  It  follows  that  it  is  necessary  to
continue  the  Community  support  for  cultural  co-operation  activities  in  Europe,  and  that
adequate resources should be made available for this purpose.

The Commission agrees that some aspects can be improved; these were referred to in the
last chapter.

As  far  as  the  Programme’s  objectives  are  concerned,  the  Commission  shares  the  main
conclusion  of  the  evaluator  that  the  current  objectives  may  be  overly  broad,  especially
taking into account the funds available. The choice of objectives is a political one, and the
Commission  will address this issue at  the appropriate moment,  namely in  the  context  of
the preparation of the cultural Programme that will eventually succeed Culture 2000.

24

More  generally, the  Commission  considers that there should be  a  clear  cultural  strategy,
on which the Programme should draw, and towards its implementation it should work. A
cultural  Programme  for  the  EU  is  indispensable,  but  it  would  be  important  to  make  it
consistent with a clear policy framework. A Programme of EU cultural action of this type,
which  would  complement  policies  and  actions  in  other  domains,  increase  real
partnerships,  and  enhance  the  sustainability  of  created  European  cultural  added  value  is
the strongest argument for adequate resources and for developing new partnership models.

According to these principles, the special cultural events13, that is, the emblematic actions
of special importance which allow the celebration of a common European cultural space
(the so-called Actions 3), should be kept and reinforced.

The Commission does not consider it appropriate to present proposals for the modification
of the Culture 2000 Programme at the present stage, for the following reasons:

– 

The  vast  majority  of  the  recommendations  of  the  evaluator  with  which  the
Commission  agrees  do  not  require  the  modification  of  the  Culture  2000
Programme, but only its better use and management;

Moreover, partly for reasons of overall financial planning and partly in order to have the
time  to  present  and  have  considered,  through  due  process,  a  proposal  for  a  new  Culture
programme, the Commission has put forward a proposal extending Culture 2000 by  two
years,  to  31/12/200614.  The  Commission  will  present  in  good  time  the  proposal  for  the
new programme.

13

14

The analysis of these actions as such is very limited in the report from PLS Ramboll Management.
Proposal  for  a  decision  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  amending  Decision
n° 508/2000/EC  of  14  February  2000  establishing 
"Culture  2000"  programme
COM(2003) 187 final.

the 

25