Commission Report to the European Parliament, the Council and the Committee of the Regions - Report on the implementation of the Community programmes Kaleidoscope, Ariane and Raphael
Date: 2004-01-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, activity report, artistic creation, book trade, cultural cooperation, cultural heritage

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 23.1.2004
COM(2004) 33 final

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

Report on the implementation of the Community programmes Kaleidoscope, Ariane
and Raphael

EN

  EN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.

2.

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 3

BACKGROUND TO THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION ......................................... 3

2.1.

Presentation of the old programmes............................................................................. 3

2.1.1.

The Kaleidoscope programme ..................................................................................... 4

2.1.2.

The Ariane programme ................................................................................................ 5

2.1.3.

The Raphael programme .............................................................................................. 6

2.2.

The procedures ............................................................................................................. 7

2.2.1.

The information procedure........................................................................................... 7

2.2.2.

The selection procedure ............................................................................................... 7

2.2.3.

The monitoring procedure ............................................................................................ 7

2.2.4.

The dissemination procedure ....................................................................................... 7

3.

3.1.

3.2.

3.3.

THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION ............................................................................. 8

The specifications for the evaluation ........................................................................... 8

The methodology used ................................................................................................. 8

The results of the external evaluation .......................................................................... 9

3.3.1.

The relevance of the old programmes .......................................................................... 9

3.3.2.

The coherence of the old programmes ......................................................................... 9

3.3.3.

Efficiency and effectiveness of the old programmes ................................................... 9

3.3.4. Results and impacts.................................................................................................... 10

4.

4.1.

4.2.

4.3.

4.4.

4.5.

4.6.

5.

THE EXTERNAL EVALUATOR’S MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE
COMMISSION'S REACTIONS ................................................................................ 10

Continue and extend the action .................................................................................. 10

Identify the cultural operators better .......................................................................... 10

Simplify the procedures ............................................................................................. 11

Promote the programme ............................................................................................. 12

Monitor the culture programme ................................................................................. 12

Combine the programmes into one ............................................................................ 13

THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSIONS.................................................................. 13

2

 
1.

INTRODUCTION

This  report  is  a  response  to  the  requirement  imposed  on  the  Commission  in  Article 10  of
Decision  No  2228/97/EC1  (hereinafter,  the  “Raphael  Decision”)  to  submit  to  the  European
Parliament,  the  Council  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  a  report  assessing,  both
qualitatively  and  quantitatively,  the  implementation  and  achievements  of  the  Raphael
programme. In the interests of coherence and transparency, and also in order to have access to
additional information material for the preparation of a new culture programme for the years
after  2006,  the  Commission  felt  it  made  sense  to  include  in  this  evaluation  exercise  the
Kaleidoscope2  and  Ariane3  programmes,  which  are  of  the  same  generation  as  the  Raphael
programme and  for  which no  ex-post evaluation was provided in the  Decisions  establishing
them.

This report is based on the results of the ex-post evaluation of the Kaleidoscope, Ariane and
Raphael  programmes  (hereinafter,  "the  old  programmes"),  which  was  conducted  by  the
company GMV Conseil in the course of 2003.

2.

BACKGROUND TO THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION

2.1.

Presentation of the old programmes

In 1993 the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty signalled the Member States’ resolve to
“mark  a  new  stage  in  the  process  of  European  integration”.  This  resolve  was  expressed  in
particular  in  the  establishment  of  European  citizenship  and  the  extension  of  Community
competence to new fields, including culture.

The  new  Article  128  of  the  Treaty  (which  became  Article  151  after  the  adoption  of  the
Amsterdam  Treaty)  thus  gave  culture  its  own  rightful  place,  and  from  then  on  cultural
cooperation became an officially recognised objective of Community action.

According to this Article, the main objectives of Community action in the field of culture are:

to contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States,  while  respecting
-
their  national  and  regional  diversity  and  at  the  same  time  bringing  the  common  cultural
heritage to the fore;

to encourage knowledge and dissemination of the culture and history of the European
-
peoples,  conservation  of  European  cultural  heritage  and  contemporary  artistic  and  literary
creation, including in the audiovisual sector;

1

2

3

Decision  No  2228/97/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13  October  1997
establishing a Community action programme in the field of cultural heritage (the Raphael programme).
OJ L 305, 8.11.1997, p. 31.
Decision No 719/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 March 1996 establishing a
programme  to  support  artistic  and  cultural  activities  having  a  European  dimension  (Kaleidoscope)
(hereinafter, the “Kaleidoscope Decision”). OJ L 99, 20.4.1996, p. 20.
Decision No 2085/97/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1996 establishing
a programme of support, including translation, in the field of books and reading (Ariane) (hereinafter,
the “Ariane Decision”). OJ L 291, 24.10.1997, p. 26.

3

 
                                                
to  foster  cooperation  between  Member  States,  as  well  as  with  third  countries  and

-
international organisations.

To  contribute  towards  the  implementation  of  the  new  powers  conferred  on  the  European
Community in the field of culture (Article 151 of the Treaty, ex Article 128), the Council, in
codecision with the European Parliament and after consulting the Committee of the Regions,
adopted a series of incentive measures. Between 1996 and 1999 these new powers gave rise to
three  cultural  programmes:  Kaleidoscope  (1996-1999),  intended  to  encourage  creative
activities  and  artistic  and  cultural  cooperation  having  a  European  dimension;  Ariane  (1997-
1999),  intended  to  provide  support  in  the  field  of  books  and  reading,  including  translation;
and  Raphael  (1997-20004),  intended  to  support  and  supplement,  through  cooperation,  the
action taken by the Member States in the field of cultural heritage of European importance.

This Communication relates to these three old programmes, or "first generation" programmes,
which were replaced by the Culture 2000 programme5 with effect from 1 January 2000.

2.1.1.

The Kaleidoscope programme

The  Kaleidoscope  programme  was  adopted  in  1996  by  the  European  Parliament  and  the
Council for a period of three years, and was extended in 1999.

The original budget was ECU 26.5 million, rising to ECU 36.7 million when the programme
was extended. 518 projects were financed during these 4 years.

Kaleidoscope was the first Community programme in the cultural field based on Article 151
of the Treaty establishing the European Communities (ex Article 128).

The aim of the programme was to encourage artistic and cultural creation in Europe by means
of cooperation and to promote dissemination of culture in Europe. Thus, it sought to support
projects with a European dimension, i.e. projects carried out in partnership by bodies from at
least three countries participating in the programme.

There were four specific objectives:

– 

– 

– 

-

encouragement of artistic activities organised in partnership,

support for innovative European projects,

assistance in the improvement of the professional skills of artists and  other cultural
operators,

contribution to the mutual knowledge of European cultures.

It  applied  to  cultural  networks  or  partnerships  of  cultural  operators  or  artists  from  at  least
three Member States in the fields of the performing arts, visual arts and applied arts.

4

5

In 2000, the programme was replaced by the Culture 2000 programme.
Decision  No 508/2000/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  14 February 2000
establishing a Culture 2000 programme (OJ L 63, 10.3.200, p. 1).

4

 
                                                
The programme was divided into 5 actions :

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Support  for  events  and  cultural  projects  carried  out  in  partnerships  or  through
networks

Large-scale European cooperation actions

Involvement of third countries

European city of culture and European cultural month

Specific measures (related studies and publicity for the programme).

2.1.2.

The Ariane programme

The Ariane programme was adopted in 1997 by the European Parliament and the Council for
a period of two years, after a trial period in 1996.

The budget was ECU 11.3 million. 767 projects were financed during these 2 years (880 if we
include the trial period).

The aim of the programme was to encourage cooperation between Member States in the field
of books and reading and to increase the knowledge and dissemination of literary works and
the history of the European peoples.

There were four specific objectives:

– 

– 

– 

– 

encouragement  for  the  dissemination  of  literary  or  dramatic  works  and  reference
works,

encouragement for exchanges of experience and partnership initiatives,

encouragement of high-quality translations,

support for innovative study and research in these fields.

The programme was divided into six actions :

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Translation grants (up to 100% of the translator's fee)

Support for cooperation projects carried out in partnership which aim to improve the
promotion of, and access by the citizen to, books and reading

Improvement  of  the  skills  of  professionals  working  towards  the  knowledge  and
dissemination of European literature

Support measures (related studies and publicity for the programme)

Aristeion Prizes (European literature prize and European translation prize)

Participation by third countries.

5

 
2.1.3.

The Raphael programme

The Raphael programme was  adopted  in  1997  by  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council
for  a  period  of  four  years  (1997  –  2000).  In  2000  it  was  replaced  by  the  Culture  2000
programme.

The overall budget was ECU 30 million. 2226 projects were financed between 1997 and 1999,
as well as 18 "European heritage laboratories" deemed to be exemplary.

The  "European  heritage  laboratories"  related  to  technically  complex  operations  on
monuments or sites of exceptional interest.

The  aim  of  the  programme  was  to  encourage  cooperation  to  contribute  to  the  protection,
conservation  and  development  of  the  European  cultural  heritage  and  to  improve  public
awareness of the cultural heritage and public access to this heritage.

There were six specific objectives:

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

encouragement for the conservation and restoration of the cultural heritage,

encouragement for exchanges of experience and know-how in the preservation of the
cultural heritage,

improvement of public access to the cultural heritage and improvement of public key
participation in safeguarding the cultural heritage,

encouragement  for  technical  cooperation  in  preserving  traditional  cultural  heritage
trades and techniques,

having account taken of the heritage dimension in all Community programmes,

encouragement for cooperation with third countries and international organisations.

The programme was divided into four actions :

– 

– 

– 

– 

Conservation,  safeguarding  and  development  of  the  European  cultural  heritage
through European cooperation

Cooperation  for  the  exchange  of  experience  and  the  development  of  techniques
applied  to  heritage  (innovation  and  new  technologies,  mobility  and  the  training  of
professionals, exchanges of experience and information)

Public access to, participation in and awareness of the cultural heritage

Cooperation with third countries and international organisations.

6

224 projects were selected, but 2 were abandoned by the organisers.

6

 
                                                
2.2.

The procedures

2.2.1.

The information procedure

The  Decisions  (including  their  Annexes)  and  the  calls  for  proposals  were  published  in  the
Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities.  The  programmes  were  also  announced  in
press releases.

All the cultural  operators who requested information  were  notified  individually,  by  mail,  of
the  publication  of  the  calls  for  proposals.  The  cultural  services  of  the  Member  States  also
disseminated the information.

2.2.2.

The selection procedure

The selection procedure was the same for each programme.

There  was  first  a  preselection  process  in  which  the  Commission’s  programme  managers
examined all project applications submitted, verifying that they complied with the conditions
specified in the Annex to the Decision and reproduced in the calls for proposals.

The final selection was then made from among the preselected projects, based on the opinions
of a group of experts nominated by the Member States and convened by the Commission. The
names  of  the  experts  were  not  communicated  to  the  applicants  (it  was  arranged  that  they
would not be revealed until after the selection process was completed).

The  list  of  projects  selected  was  then  submitted  to  the  programme  management  committee.
Once approved, the list of projects selected for the current year was published in the form of a
press release.

Only in a very few cases were selected projects abandoned by their organiser.

2.2.3.

The monitoring procedure

The usual monitoring procedure for European programmes was applied. Documentation was
checked systematically and,  exceptionally, certain  checks  were  also  carried  out  by  financial
auditors  at  project  organisers’  premises  at  the  request  of  the  Commission  services.  The
auditors consulted for the purposes of this evaluation mentioned just a few cases in which the
expenditure eligibility periods had been exceeded.

2.2.4.

The dissemination procedure

There  was  no  results  dissemination  procedure  as  such,  nor  was  one  provided  for  in  the
programme budgets. However, beneficiaries were under an obligation to mention the support
provided by the European Commission.

7

 
3.

THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION

3.1.

The specifications for the evaluation

The European Commission’s Directorate-General for Education  and Culture launched  a  call
for  proposals  for  the  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  old  programmes  (DG  EAC/59/01).  The
contractor selected was the French company GMV Conseil. The evaluation was conducted in
the course of 2003. The final report was approved in October 2003.

Under the terms of the specifications, the purpose of the evaluation was to evaluate, analyse,
draw  conclusions  from  and  make  recommendations  regarding  the  three  “first  generation”
cultural  programmes  Kaleidoscope,  Ariane  and  Raphael,  in  order  to  determine  their  overall
effectiveness and the extent to which these incentive measures had significantly contributed to
achieving the objectives laid down in the relevant Decisions and to draw useful lessons for the
day-to-day management of the  Culture  2000  programme and  for  planning  the  EU’s  cultural
action beyond the expiry of this programme.

3.2.

The methodology used

The evaluation was based on :

– 

– 

– 

an analysis of the documentation (paper documents and computer files),

an analysis of the replies given by a sample of project organisers or co-organisers, by
experts  or  cultural  decision-makers  (government  departments,  administrations,  etc),
and by European Commission programme managers, in the course of face-to-face or
telephone interviews (qualitative phase).

an  analysis  of  the  responses  of  cultural  operators  (successful  applicants,  rejected
applicants  and  non-applicants)  in  an  e-mailed  self-administered  questionnaire
(quantitative phase).

The merit of this method of analysis is that it gives a say to the cultural decision-makers and
to  Europe’s  cultural  operators,  whether  or  not  they  applied  for  project  funding  under  the
programmes. The evaluator thus sought to ensure that cultural operators who had been refused
a grant or had not even applied also had their say.

In practice, however, it very soon became apparent that it was impossible for the evaluator to
recreate the total population of funded  project promoters  and thus build a  cast-iron base for
extrapolating the responses given by the sample, since so much time had elapsed since some
of these projects had been carried  out.  Also, with the  passage of  time the project promoters
did  not  necessarily  remember  all  the  aspects  of  their  projects.  Finally,  as  the  evaluator
recognised, there is a risk that despite all the precautions taken certain project promoters may
have got their opinions concerning the old programmes mixed up with those concerning the
Culture 2000 programme.

Because of these drawbacks the analysis is bound to remain limited on certain points, notably
as regards the implementation of the projects, their efficiency and their effectiveness.

Accordingly,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  evaluator’s  experience  is  more  in  the  field  of
evaluation than in the field of culture, the European Commission has subjected the evaluator’s
conclusions and recommendations to a cautious and detailed analysis.

8

 
3.3.

The results of the external evaluation

3.3.1.

The relevance of the old programmes

The  analysis  looked  at  the  relevance  of  the  programmes  in  relation  to  the  Commission's
general objectives and the cultural operators’ needs and expectations.

In relation to the Commission's general objectives (cultural quality and economic relevance),
the evaluator concludes that the old programmes were entirely relevant.

In  relation  to  the  needs  and  expectations  of  European  cultural  operators,  however,  the
evaluator is not quite so certain about the relevance of the programmes. While the operators
who received funding felt that the programmes corresponded well to their needs (support for
networks and partnerships), it is impossible to conclude that all cultural operators in Europe
felt like this, since no systematic survey of the needs and expectations of the target audience
was carried out before the programmes were drafted. In addition, even the cultural operators
who received funding regretted that the old programmes showed no real European ambition in
the cultural field.

3.3.2.

The coherence of the old programmes

According to the evaluator, a good level of coherence was maintained between the different
texts and documents. The various objectives laid down in the official texts were respected. It
should merely be noted that, for obvious practical reasons, priority was given to those which
were  easiest  to  verify  (the  involvement  of  partners  from  three  countries).  Support  for
networks and partnerships thus became a major objective from the outset.

The  programmes  had  three  simultaneous  objectives:  to  encourage  cultural  quality,  to
encourage creativity and to achieve a certain economic impact. The evaluator noted that these
objectives,  while  not  of  course  contradictory,  could  sometimes  be  difficult  to  combine
satisfactorily.

3.3.3.

Efficiency and effectiveness of the old programmes

On  these  points  the  evaluator  voiced  very  little  criticism,  finding  that  the  results  obtained
were proportional to the resources committed, i.e. they were effective but not commensurate
with  the  more  ambitious  expectations  formulated  in  the  Decisions  establishing  the
programmes.

Individual countries tend to finance national or bilateral operations, therefore the programme
clearly provided a European added value since it supported multilateral European partnerships
(i.e. involving at least three countries).

Some partnerships in fact remained purely formal, decisions being taken by the project leader
alone and the other members of the network simply being informed of them by e-mail.

The  evaluator  considers  that  the  old  programmes  could  have  been  more  effective  if
administrative  matters  had  not  required  so  much  time  and  effort  and  if  more  resources  had
been available to help with disseminating the project results.

9

 
3.3.4.

Results and impacts

In their replies, the organisers chiefly mentioned the networks, the impact of which is difficult
to measure. Other, more concrete impacts and spin-offs were also mentioned (events, reports,
new techniques, books translated, etc).

The programmes had and still have (even more so) very low visibility, even among cultural
operators, in principle the group most directly concerned. People do not remember the results
of the projects.

As regards immediate results, the projects did not lead to the creation of any permanent jobs.
However, certain individuals were able to find stable jobs elsewhere thanks to the experience
and know-how they acquired through involvement in projects.

The chief impact of the programmes, five years on, is the fact that they enabled networks to
be  created  or  strengthened,  and  that  cultural  operators  now  regard  European  networks  or
partnerships as a positive thing.

4.

THE EXTERNAL EVALUATOR’S MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE
COMMISSION'S REACTIONS

4.1.

Continue and extend the action

The  European  Union's  action  in  the  field  of  culture  through  support  programmes  such  as
Kaleidoscope,  Ariane  and  Raphael  is  useful  and  should  be  continued.  It  should  even  be
extended. The budgets for such action should be increased and more should be done to make
the future programme(s) and results more visible.

The  Commission  takes  note  of  this  recommendation  and  will  take  due  account  of  it  in  its
proposal  for  a  Decision  establishing  the  cultural  programme  which  will  need  to  replace  the
Culture  2000  programme  (which  itself  replaced  the  old  programmes)  from  1  January  2007.
The  Commission  will  pay  particular  attention  to  the  need  to  enhance  the  visibility  of  the
programme, both in choosing the types of action which it will support and in reinforcing the
obligation  on  project  promoters  to  make  prominent  mention  of  the  Community  support
received.

4.2.

Identify the cultural operators better

According  to  the  evaluator,  in  order  to  guarantee  maximum  relevance  it  is  necessary  to
identify the European cultural operators to be targeted by the programme(s), for example by
having  access  to  a  database,  which  should  be  as  exhaustive  and  up-to-date  as  possible,  by
organising a communication campaign about the programme(s), and by seeking to define and
characterise the target population.

The Commission agrees that in order to improve its contribution it needs to establish a close
dialogue  with  cultural  operators  in  general  and  with  those  awarded  Community  support  in
particular.  This  is  why  it  organised  the  Forum  on  Cultural  Cooperation  in  Europe  in
November  2001,  and  why  it  has  also  organised,  notably  on  the  Internet,  an  extensive
consultation  of  all  the  parties  interested  in  the  preparation  of  a  new  cultural  cooperation
programme.

10

 
The Commission would also emphasise that it now has a computer database of all the project
organisers involved in the Culture 2000 programme, which superseded the old programmes.
In addition, the computer program SYMMETRY, which should be put into service in 20047,
will  allow  the  Commission  not  only  to  improve  communication  with  cultural  operators  but
also to identify the target population more accurately.

4.3.

Simplify the procedures

This  is  a  constant  wish  of  all  participants  in  European  programmes.  The  evaluator  feels,
however,  that  it  is  particularly  important  in  the  cultural  field,  where  operators  are  often
"allergic to paperwork".

According to the evaluator it would be better to introduce, in the context of a plan setting out
medium-term  objectives,  a  simplified  form  for  the  preselection  stage,  and  to  base  the  final
selection both on the documentation submitted and on an oral presentation. The names of the
experts, designated on their own personal merits for their recognised expertise in the field of
culture,  should  be  known.  These  experts  should  take  their  responsibilities  seriously  and
should abstain from the voting if called upon to defend before the committee a project whose
promoter they know. This solution would be more likely to encourage  creativity and  would
provide more motivation for cultural operators.

The  Commission  would  stress  that  the  project  selection  and  monitoring  procedures  applied
are designed to preserve equity between cultural operators, to ensure transparency in decision-
making,  notably  by  informing  the  European  Parliament  and  the  management  committee
charged with assisting the Commission in implementing the programme(s), and to guarantee
the rigour necessary for the proper use of public funds.

In this respect, the Commission would point out that it is obliged to ensure compliance with
Council  Regulation  (EC,  Euratom)  No 1605/2002  of  25  June  2002  on  the  Financial
Regulation  applicable  to  the  general  budget  of  the  European  Communities8,  and  with
Commission  Regulation  (EC,  Euratom)  No 2342/2002  of  23  December  2002  laying  down
detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on
the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities 9.

7

8

9

SYstem  for  the  Management  and  Monitoring  of  Education,  TRaining,  Youth  (system  for  the
management  and  monitoring  of  education,  training,  youth  and  culture  programmes  and  other
programmes  run  by  the  Education  and  Culture  DG).  SYMMETRY  is  an  integrated  information  and
programme  management  system  intended,  in  the  near  future,  for  the  Education  and  Culture  DG,  the
National Agencies, the Technical Assistance Offices and the Executive Agency. The system will offer
all the features necessary for the players involved in all aspects of management of the programmes and
not  only  in  project  management,  which  means  it  will  enable  them  to  prepare  work  plans,  manage
budgets  and  create  reports  appropriate  to  the  different  user  profiles  (Education  and  Culture  DG,
National Agencies, Executive Agency). In particular, the new system will allow the programmes to be
monitored both at centralised and decentralised levels  and  applications  to  be  submitted  online;  it  will
also serve as a communication basis between the European cultural operators with a shared interest in
actions offering a European added value.
OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.
OJ L 357, 31.12.2002.

11

 
                                                
4.4.

Promote the programme

According  to  the  evaluator,  the  Commission  provides  far  too  little  information  to  cultural
operators.  Moreover,  these  operators  need  to  have  the  quality  of  their  work  recognised.
Finally,  the  evaluator  observes  that  a  support  programme  financed  by  the  European  Union
should ideally help to improve Europe's image with the general public, which would in turn
be a means of promoting public access to culture.

The Commission agrees  that  a  comprehensive  communication  and  dissemination  strategy  is
essential  in  order  to  ensure  the  participation  of  the  largest  possible  number  of  cultural
operators, to recognise the quality of their work and to boost Europe's image in the eyes of the
public.

It  considers,  however,  that  the  information  deficit  identified  by  the  evaluator  in  the
implementation of the Culture 2000 programme, which superseded the old programmes, has
largely  been  overcome,  since  information  concerning  this  programme  is  available  from  a
number of sources, such  as the Official Journal of the  European Communities, the  "Culture
2000"  Internet  site  and  the  Cultural  Contact  Points.  The  Commission’s  administrators  have
also  given  presentations  concerning  the  programme  at  a  wide  number  of  events,  and  the
public can call a Commission freephone number if they want answers to any questions.

In addition, since 2002 anyone who requests it can receive a free monthly newsletter about the
programme.

Finally, a culture portal was created in March 2002 on the Internet to present all the European
institutions' culture-related activities.

The evaluator also proposes that a specific budget be allocated within the culture programme
to promotional activities. Without wishing to reject the proposal out of hand, the Commission
nevertheless wonders how sound it might be, insofar as any allocation of funds to promotional
activities would simply come out of the funds available for Community action in the field of
culture, which, as the evaluator agrees, are already limited.

4.5.

Monitor the culture programme

According to the evaluator, the dissatisfactions expressed by cultural operators reveal a need
for  deep  and  regular  dialogue  with  the  Commission.  Such  dialogue  would  help  to  inform
interested parties,  encourage  "good" applications,  convey the  Commission’s  intentions,  help
project promoters to frame their projects in the desired way, defend them, monitor them and
then  take  stock  of  the  outcomes,  and  finally  to  build  on  the  results  and  highlight  the
contribution made by Europe.

Moreover, the evaluator feels that the Commission’s programme managers should undertake
visits in order to monitor projects on the ground and should familiarise themselves not only
with the dossiers but also with the players.

On the first point, the European Commission would mention that there are Cultural Contact
Points (CCP) in all the countries participating in the Culture 2000 programme.

12

 
These CCPs are responsible for:

– 

– 

– 

– 

promoting the programme,

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.

In  addition,  as  already  mentioned  at  points  4.2  and  4.4,  the  Commission  has  deepened  the
dialogue on its Community action by organising a Forum on Cultural Cooperation in Europe
in  November  2001,  and  by  organising  a  consultation  exercise  on  the  Internet.  Finally,  the
Commission is in regular contact with the cultural operators participating in its programmes
and has given presentations outlining its cultural activities at numerous events.

On  the  second  point,  the  Commission  would  point  out  that  its  programme  managers  do  on
occasion  undertake  missions  to  monitor  projects  on  the  ground.  However,  the  Commission
does not have sufficient human resources to monitor all projects on the ground, each manager
being responsible for between 40 and 90 projects.

4.6.

Combine the programmes into one

According to the evaluator, the concentration of resources resulting from the combining of the
old  programmes  into  the  Culture  2000  framework  programme  has  helped  to  make  the
Community's contribution more effective and more visible.

This  benefit  for  the  visibility  and  image  of  the  Union's  action  in  the  field  of  culture  (it  is
easier,  cheaper  and  more  effective  to  make  a  "concentrated"  information  effort),  combined
with easier management, argues in favour of combining all the programmes into one.

Moreover,  the  evaluator  welcomes  the  fact  that  this  opens  up  possibilities  for  supporting
multicultural projects (the horizontal approach of Culture 2000), so long as it does not eclipse
support  for  the  very  specific  actions  which  cultural  operators  wish  to  conserve  (the  vertical
approach).

5.

THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSIONS

The evaluator emphasises that, all in all, the old programmes seem to have worked well. He
notes  that  certain  weaknesses  or  shortcomings  found  (e.g.  the  excessively  narrow  aspect  of
certain themes and the absence of continuity in the themes selected) were, in the view of the
operators, a sort of test for the subsequent programmes (Culture 2000). The old programmes
were  therefore  a  useful  stage  in  building  up  the  Union’s  role  in  the  field  of  culture.
Combining them within the Culture 2000 programme also helped to make the  Community's
contribution more effective and more visible.

13

 
The  Commission  shares  the  evaluator’s  view  that  the  programme  has  made  a  positive
contribution  to  cultural  cooperation  in  Europe  (development  of  partnerships,  creation  of
networks,  etc.).  It  concludes,  therefore,  that  these  programmes  represented  a  first,  essential
step  towards  the  attainment  of  the  objectives  set  out  in  Article  151  of  the  Treaty.  It  also
considers that the contribution made by the old programmes has been bolstered by the Culture
2000  framework  programme10.  Moreover,  it  believes  that  Community  support  for  cultural
cooperation  activities  in  Europe  should  be  continued  and  that  adequate  resources  should  be
made available for this purpose.

More generally, the Commission considers it necessary to develop a clear cultural strategy on
which to base its action. The EU needs to have a cultural action programme which fits within
a well defined policy framework. Such a programme, which would complement EU policies
and  actions  in  other  fields,  increase  the  number  of  real  partnerships,  thus  bolstering  trans-
European cultural cooperation, and guarantee the permanence of the European cultural added
value thus created, is the strongest argument for adequate resources to be made available and
for new partnership models to be developed.

10

On this subject, see the Commission report on the implementation of the Culture 2000 programme for
the years 2000 and 2001.

14