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 Second External Interim Evaluation of the Culture 2000 Programme
Date: 2006-11-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: audit, cultural promotion, project evaluation, project management, report

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 8.11.2006 
COM(2006) 666 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 Second External Interim Evaluation of the Culture 2000 Programme 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
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 Second External Interim Evaluation of the Culture 2000 Programme 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 4 

Background to the external evaluation......................................................................... 4 

The external evaluation ................................................................................................ 4 

The terms of the evaluation.......................................................................................... 4 

Methodology ................................................................................................................ 4 

The evaluator’s findings............................................................................................... 5 

3.3.1.  Financial aspects .......................................................................................................... 5 

3.3.2.  Annual focus on cultural sector.................................................................................... 5 

3.3.3.  European added value .................................................................................................. 5 

3.3.4.  Relevance ..................................................................................................................... 6 

3.3.5.  Effectiveness and impact.............................................................................................. 6 

3.3.6.  Efficiency and cost-effectiveness................................................................................. 6 

3.3.7.  Utility, added value and sustainability ......................................................................... 7 

4. 

5. 

Main recommendations of the external evaluation and comments from the 
Commission.................................................................................................................. 7 

The Commission’s conclusions.................................................................................... 9 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Culture 2000 has been the European Union’s chief financing and programming instrument for 
its activities in the field of cultural cooperation over the 2000-2006 period, with a budget of 
around €236 million. 

This report is based on the Second Interim Evaluation of the  Programme,  carried out by an 
independent consultancy. It presents the consultancy’s main findings and recommendations as 
well as the Commission’s position on the latter. 

The evaluator concludes that the Programme has achieved its goals and provided an adequate 
mechanism for addressing both the original and current needs regarding cultural cooperation 
in Europe. It also confirms that there is a need for a programme dealing specifically with the 
cultural sector, rather than culture being included in other programmes. 

According  to  the  evaluator,  Culture  2000  clearly  addresses  shortcomings  in  fostering 
transnational cooperation in Europe and generates substantial new cooperation through new or 
strengthened links between European cultural operators.  

A  number  of  benefits  for  organisations  taking  part  in  Culture  2000  have  been  identified: 
gaining experience in the cultural field at European level; increased professionalism through 
enhanced  management  skills;  improved  organisational  and  individual  capacity;  increased 
dialogue among cultural actors. It is worth noting that the participants spanned the full artistic 
spectrum  and  came  from  organisations  of  all  types  and  sizes,  with  half  of  the  beneficiaries 
having fewer than ten employees. 

According  to  the  evaluator,  these  achievements  and  the  European  dimension  of  the 
Programme have led to strengthened cultural links among countries, increased perception of 
European identity and better integration of the new Member States. 

As  an  example,  half  of  the  respondents  would  not  even  have  conceptualised  their  project 
without Culture 2000. The Programme has therefore been an important catalyst for ideas.  

A  high  level  of  sustainability  has  also  been  achieved.  Nearly  two  thirds  of  the  survey 
respondents indicated that they would continue the links with partnerships they had formed. 
Equally, two thirds of respondents indicated that they would continue their activities after the 
end of their project. 

Finally,  the  evaluator  made  some  recommendations,  most  of  which  have  already  been 
partially  or  totally  implemented,  or  will  be  adopted  in  the  new  Culture  Programme1,  which 
will  replace  Culture  2000  from  2007  onwards.  This  applies  particularly 
the 
recommendations  concerning  the  need  for  better  awareness  and  promotion  of  project 
achievements  through  an  active  dissemination  strategy,  thereby  increasing  the  visibility  of 
both  the  Programme  and  the  projects  funded  under  it.  Only  by  putting  in  place  highly 
effective dissemination mechanisms can the benefits of the Programme be better shared and 
developed, especially since Culture 2000 - due to its relatively small budget - is not intended 
to be a high-volume programme.  

to 

1 

COM(2004) 469 final. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  report  is  presented  under  the  terms  of  the  fifth  recital  of  Decision  626/2004/EC2 
prolonging  Culture  2000  for  the  years  2005  and  2006.  It  puts  forward  the  Commission’s 
position on the main conclusions and recommendations of the Second Interim Evaluation of 
the Programme that can be obtained via the link below: 

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/evalreports/index_en.htm 

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION 

Culture 2000 was established by Decision No 508/2000/EC of the European Parliament and 
of  the  Council  of  14  February  20003  (hereafter  “the  Decision”).  It  is  intended  to  support 
cultural cooperation with a view to contributing to the promotion of a cultural area common to 
the  peoples  of  Europe.  To  this  end,  eight  specific  objectives  are  set  out  in  Article  1  of  the 
Decision. 

The  support  is  achieved  through  three  types  of  action.  Action  1  supports  annual  projects, 
implemented by cultural operators4 from at least three countries, as well as translation projects 
with  no  partnership  requirements.  Action  2  supports  multiannual  projects  covered  by 
cooperation  agreements,  involving  cultural  operators5  from  at  least  five  countries.  Finally, 
Action 3 promotes special cultural events with a European and/or international dimension.  

Culture 2000 is a centralised programme encompassing a network of Cultural Contact Points 
(CCPs)  in  the  participating  countries.  The  CCPs  are  mainly  responsible  for  promoting  the 
Programme, facilitating access to it and linking it to cultural sectors at national level. 

3. 

THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION 

3.1. 

The terms of the evaluation 

Following a call for tenders6, Ecotec Research and Consulting Ltd was selected to carry out 
the  evaluation.  This  evaluation  was  intended  to  follow  on  from  and  complement  a  first 
evaluation,  the  report  on  which  was  presented  in  2003.  Consequently,  it  mainly  covers  the 
years 2002-2004 for Actions 1 and 3 and 2000-2001 for Action 2. 

3.2.  Methodology 

The  methodology  included  interviews  with  Management  Committee  members,  CCP 
representatives,  experts,  project  leaders,  co-organisers  and  Commission  staff.  An  e-survey 
was  launched,  targeting  the  project  leaders  and  co-organisers,  and  case  studies  were  carried 
out in situ.  

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

OJ L 99 of 03.04.2004. 
OJ L 63 of 10.03.2000. 
One project leader – in charge of coordinating the programme – and a minimum of two co-organisers. 
One project leader and a minimum of four co-organisers. 
Invitation to Tender No EAC 31/04. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.3. 

The evaluator’s findings 

On a general note, the evaluator found Culture 2000 to be an adequate mechanism for meeting 
the needs of cultural cooperation in Europe. 

During  the  2000-2004  period,  1072  projects  received  funding:  almost  40%  of  Action  1  and 
18% of Action 2 applicants received funding7. 

The  Culture  2000  participants  constitute  a  wide  range  of  organisations,  as  regards  cultural 
field,  size  and  legal  form  (NGOs,  national  cultural  institutions,  local  authorities,  private 
enterprises, etc.). It is worth mentioning that most of the cultural operators receiving funding 
were  relatively  small  in  terms  of  organisational  capacity;  half  of  the  respondents  to  the  e-
survey had fewer than ten employees, and most of those had fewer than six. 

As  far  as  the  cooperation  aspect  is  concerned,  some  two  thirds  of  the  projects  built  new 
partnerships8.  

3.3.1.  Financial aspects 

In  order  to  secure  real  project  cooperation,  a  5%  rule  was  introduced  in  2001,  requiring  a 
minimum  contribution  towards  the  total  budget  from  project  leaders  and  co-organisers.  The 
evaluator found no evidence that either organisations from the new Member States (NMS) or 
small operators (see 3.3 above) had been excluded as a result of this requirement. As far as 
NMS are concerned, the explanation might be that national/regional match-funding has been 
created in seven of them, as well as in Romania. By means of these funds, successful Culture 
2000  applicants  receive  national/regional  co-funding.  The  evaluator  states  a  strong  case  for 
requiring a minimum level of financial input from all co-organisers as a means of ensuring a 
solid level of commitment.9  

In 2004 the financing for Action 1 projects was changed, from 50% as an advance and 50% 
after  acceptance  of  the  final  report  by  the  Commission,  to  70/30  instalments.  60%  of  the 
respondents considered that this had improved cash flow10.  

3.3.2.  Annual focus on cultural sector 

During  2002,  2003  and  2004,  annual  priorities  in  respect  of  cultural  sectors  were  applied 
(visual  arts,  performing  arts  and  cultural  heritage).  Neither  the  current  nor  the  previous 
evaluation endorses the model – the general approach in the cultural field is cross-sectoral.  

3.3.3.  European added value 

Many  interviewees  stressed  that  Culture  2000  is  the  only  mechanism  for  supporting 
transnational  cooperation  in  Europe,  since  each  country  has  its  domestic  priorities.11  And, 
according  to  the  evaluator12,  bringing  together  players  with  different  backgrounds  and 
cultures  in  itself  generates  new  concepts  and  is  a  springboard  for  further  collaboration. 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

Second Interim Evaluation, tables 3.6 and 3.9. 
ibid. table 4.7 
ibid. chapter 7.1.3 
ibid. table 4.18 
ibid. chapter 7.1.5 
ibid. chapter 7.1.5 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Strengthened cultural links between countries, increased perception of European identity and 
better integration of the new Member States are mentioned as other examples of outputs.  

3.3.4.  Relevance13 

According to the evaluation, Culture 2000 provides an adequate basis for addressing both the 
original  and  current  needs  as  regards  cultural  cooperation  (98%  of  respondents),  and  the 
cultural fields to which it applies14 adequately reflect the nature of the domain of culture (97% 
of respondents). There is a widespread view that the programme is well focused in terms of 
aims and objectives.  

There is also a widespread perception of the need for a programme specifically supporting the 
cultural sector (rather than including culture in other programmes).  

Moreover, Culture 2000 clearly fills a gap in funding for transnational cooperation in Europe, 
which is not addressed by national or regional funding programmes. The Programme has also 
generated  substantial  new  transnational  cooperation.  Many  partnership  links  and  activities 
have  continued  after  the  end  of  Culture  2000  funding,  and  in  some  cases  links  have  led  to 
additional transnational cooperation activity unrelated to Culture 2000. 

3.3.5.  Effectiveness and impact15  

By  its  very  existence,  Culture  2000  is  contributing  to  the  core  objectives  of  increasing 
cooperation, dialogue and exchanges among cultural operators in Europe. 

It  can  also  be  said  that  the  eight  objectives  mentioned  in  Article  1  of  the  Decision  have 
broadly been achieved, some of them to a greater extent than others, particularly in terms of 
improving  knowledge  of  European  cultures  and  heritage  and  improving  understanding  of 
European cultural diversity. 

The  evaluator  identifies  likely  obstacles  to  achieving  these  objectives,  in  particular:  the 
disparity between the Programme’s broad objectives and its limited resources; the complexity 
of  the  administrative  and  organisational  requirements;  the  lack  of  information  on  potential 
partners;  the  weak  management  skills  on  the  part  of  cultural  operators  and  their  lack  of 
experience in European projects as well as the lack of resources within the cultural sector in 
general. 

3.3.6.  Efficiency and cost-effectiveness16 

Overall,  the  administrative  and  management  resources  available  for  running  the  programme 
are quite modest. The evaluator concludes that this appears to make for efficiency in terms of 
delivery. However, it has also been found that there is an underspend on administrative costs17 
and an overspend on projects. According to the evaluator, increased administrative resources 
would  lead  to  higher  efficiency  if  spent  on  improving  feedback  to  applicants,  compiling  an 
up-to-date contacts database and having a more active dissemination strategy. 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

Extent to which the Programme objectives are relevant to the cultural sector in Europe today. 
For the period covered by this evaluation, the applicant was asked to categorise the project within one 
cultural sector.  
Extent to which objectives set are achieved. 
Extent to which the desired effects are achieved at a reasonable cost. 
Second External Interim Evaluation, table 3.4 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Regarding  the  outputs  and  results,  the  evaluator  states  that,  due  to  its  comparatively  low 
budget, there is a limit to how many projects can be supported by Culture 2000. Quality and 
visibility  are,  however,  strong  assets  and  the  evaluator  mentions  the  programme’s  potential 
critical impact as something to strive for and exploit. 

3.3.7.  Utility, added value and sustainability18 

There is evidence of a range of benefits to organisations and individuals involved in Culture 
2000, including: gaining broader experience in the cultural field and participating in European 
projects;  increased  professionalism  owing  to  the  management  skills  needed;  improved 
organisational capacity and competence of staff; increased dialogue between cultural actors. 

Culture 2000 has clearly generated momentum: most survey respondents indicated that they 
would  not  have  started  without  the  programme,  but  perhaps  even  more  significantly  half 
would  not  even  have  conceptualised  their  project.  The  programme  has  therefore  been  an 
important catalyst for ideas.  

20%  of  the  projects  reported  that  they  had  never  worked  with  any  of  their  project  partners 
before  and  50%  reported  that  they  had  worked  with  only  some  of  them.  25%  reported  new 
links,  while  33%  pointed  to  stronger  links  with  cultural  operators  in  other  countries.  Many 
respondents to the survey also indicated that they would continue their cooperation activities 
in some way, and nearly 67% of them said they would maintain links with partnerships they 
had formed.  

According  to  the  evaluator,  it  is  unlikely  that  any  other  instrument  would  have  been  more 
useful  than  Culture  2000  in  promoting  cultural  cooperation.  The  breadth  of  the  objectives 
affords  wide  scope  to  participants,  while  the  focus  on  experimentation  and  innovation 
encourages creativity and new forms of cultural expression. 

4. 

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION AND COMMENTS FROM 
THE COMMISSION 

The  main  recommendations  of  the  evaluator  are  presented  in  bold,  while  the  Commission’s 
answer is in italics. 

The  allocation  of  funding  available  for  each  cultural  field  and  action  should  be 
presented  in  the  annual  call  for  proposals,  in  order  to  enhance  transparency  in  the 
selection process. 

The distribution of resources between Actions 1 and 2 is indeed already indicated in the calls 
for proposals in percentage terms, along with the distribution between the cultural fields (by 
approximate numbers of projects per field). The future Culture Programme does not explicitly 
mention any specific cultural sector, as all are included without restriction. However,  there 
will be various types of action (support for projects; support to European cultural bodies and 
support for analysis and information) and the allocation of budgetary resources between the 
strands will be clearly indicated.  

18 

Extent to which positive effects are likely to last after an activity has ended. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  Commission  should  ask  all  project  leaders  (and  unsuccessful  applicants)  to 
complete  a  short  questionnaire  seeking  their  views  on  the  application  and  selection 
procedure.  Collecting  information  in  this  way  would  facilitate  the  adoption  of  a  set  of 
Key Performance Indicators for each programme objective, against which the impact of 
the programme could be measured. 

In  general  terms  the  Commission  shares  this  concern,  since  such  data  would  constitute  the 
basis for solid statistics regarding the Programme and its performance. However, in practical 
terms and in the current context, it may be difficult to find the necessary human resources to 
conceive and implement this task. 

A programme dissemination strategy should be developed and published to promote the 
programme and its achievements to key stakeholders. 

The  Commission  is  well  aware  of  the  need  for  properly  targeted  information  and 
communication activities as well as for better exploitation of the projects’ results and outputs. 
Such  communication  and  dissemination  activities  will  be  strongly  emphasised  in  the  new 
Culture Programme (strand 3). 

Indeed, it is vital to increase the visibility of the Programme and the projects funded by it in 
order  to  improve  its  critical  impact  (as  opposed  to  critical  mass).  The  Commission  will 
continue  to  publish  its  Internet  newsletter  and  efforts  will  be  made  to  have  more  articles 
published in the cultural sector publications. Moreover, in collaboration with the Education, 
Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA),  the Europa website is  currently being 
developed with a view to making it more user-friendly and increasing the space dedicated to 
presentation of projects. High-quality projects presented in detail could then be exploited in 
other contexts. 

The  Commission  should  start  up  an  online  searchable  partner-matching  database  to 
enable cultural operators to search for potential partners and also to provide links from 
the  Culture  2000  web  pages  to  similar  partner-matching  databases  provided  by  the 
CCPs. 

The  Commission  intends  to  look  into  the  best  way  of  developing  and  maintaining  an 
exhaustive  and  effective  internet-based  tool.  Such  a  tool  could  be  operated  by  the  CCPs 
(which are best placed to obtain the details of cultural operators at national/regional levels), 
in  conjunction  with  both  the  Commission  and  EACEA  (performing  an  umbrella  function). 
Please  see  also  the  Commission’s  comments  concerning  its  website:  in  this  context,  more 
direct links could be made to any partner-searching mechanism already provided by CCPs.  

The application forms for Culture 2007 should be simplified. 

This recommendation shall be taken into account within the limits imposed by the Financial 
Regulation  and  its  implementing  rules.  The  evaluator  has  been  repeatedly  asked  by  the 
Commission to give concrete proposals for improvement but has given poor guidance in this 
respect. 

Every applicant should receive detailed written feedback on their application along with 
an official letter stating the outcome of their application. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
Since the beginning of Culture 2000, efforts have  been made  to meet  this challenge. Efforts 
will be stepped up in the framework of the new Culture Programme. However, up to now, the 
Commission  has  given  priority  to  funding  the  maximum  number  of  projects,  with  rather 
limited  staff  resources.  This  means  that  it  is  virtually  impossible  for  the  Commission  to 
provide around 700 applicants each year with a detailed response.  

Short-term staffing levels of the Technical Assistance Office (in charge of checking the 
eligibility  of  applications)  should  be  increased  in  order  to  shorten  the  procedural 
timescale. 

There is no longer any TAO. Its activities were taken over on 1 January 2006 by the EACEA, 
which is responsible for managing certain parts of the Culture Programme. This specialised 
body should be able to provide better managed and improved services to beneficiaries. It is 
also worth mentioning that other factors such as the Management Committee procedure and 
the subsequent EP Right of Scrutiny have a greater impact on the lengthy selection process19. 

The number of times each application is assessed by external experts should be limited 
to  two.  A  briefing  day  for  the  experts  should  be  held  before  or  during  the  application 
assessment  week  in  Brussels.  Experts  should  be  retained  on  a  multi-annual  basis. 
Feedback  from  national  authorities  should  be  sought  in  order  to  discover  why  experts 
tend  not  to  return  in  subsequent  years.  The  work  of  each  expert  should  be  properly 
assessed. 

The Commission is aware that the use of external experts is important for a high quality and 
transparent selection procedure. 

Until  2005,  six  experts  assessed  each  application.  This  number  was  reduced  to  two  for  the 
2006  selection.  However,  the  open  character  of  the  new  Culture  Programme  must  also  be 
taken  into  account;  with  a  stronger  focus  on  cross-sectoral  activities,  the  breadth  of 
knowledge (and thus the number of experts) needed to assess the content of applications will 
increase.  

The experts are informed by post beforehand and are briefed during an introduction meeting 
upon arrival. They are proposed by the participating countries, and the Commission requests 
that  they  are  not  invited  more  than  twice,  for  reasons  of  objectivity.  An  underperforming 
expert  would  breach  the  contract  that  binds  him/her  with  the  Commission  and  measures 
would  be  taken.  In  the  framework  of  the  new  Culture  Programme,  alternative  ways  of 
recruiting  external  experts  could  be  envisaged,  bringing  the  procedure  into  line  with  the 
practice  followed  by  other  programmes  of  the  Directorate-General  for  Education  and 
Culture. 

5. 

The Commission’s conclusions 

The  Commission  shares  the  overall  assessment  of  the  evaluator  that  the  Programme  has 
provided  a  unique  contribution  to  cultural  cooperation  in  Europe.  Culture  2000  has  been 
instrumental in enhancing the vitality of cultural exchanges in Europe. It is unlikely that any 
other  instrument  would  have  been  more  useful  than  this  programme  in  promoting  cultural 

19 

COM(2003) 722, page 11. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
cooperation throughout Europe. The objectives established in Article 151 of the Treaty have 
therefore been fully realised. 

Indeed,  thousands  of  cultural  organisations  of  all  sizes  and  kinds  -  theatres,  museums, 
professional associations, research centres, universities, cultural institutes, public authorities, 
etc.  -  from  all  over  Europe  and  representing  the  whole  spectrum  of  cultural  activities  have 
been working together to create and implement cultural and artistic projects. In this way, an 
even greater number of European citizens have been given the unique opportunity to meet and 
explore the cultures of their European counterparts.  

It is thus imperative that Community support for cultural cooperation activities in Europe be 
continued.  That  is  precisely  what  will  be  achieved  with  the  new  Culture  Programme.  By 
focusing  EU  action  on  three  main  objectives  which  have  been  identified  as  having  strong 
European added value - the transnational mobility of people working in the cultural sector, the 
transnational  circulation  of  works  of  art  as  well  as  of  artistic  and  cultural  products,  and 
intercultural dialogue – this programme will go further than its predecessors in strengthening 
cultural cooperation in Europe.  

EN 

10 

   EN