Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Community action programme to promote bodies active at European level in the field of Culture
Date: 2008-05-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, action programme, aid system, cultural organisation, report

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 5.5.2008 
COM(2008)234 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on the implementation of the Community action programme to promote bodies active at 
European level in the field of Culture 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on the implementation of the Community action programme to promote bodies active at 
European level in the field of Culture 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  report  is  presented  under  the  terms  of  Decision  N°  792/2004/EC1  of  21  April  2004 
establishing  a  Community  action  programme  to  promote  bodies  active  at  European  level  in 
the  field  of  culture.  It  puts  forward  the  achievement  of  the  programme's  objectives  and  the 
Commission's  position  on  the  main  conclusions  and  recommendations  of  the  final  external 
evaluation of the programme that can be obtained via the link below: 

http://ec.europa.eu/culture/index_en.htm 

2. 

BACKGROUND OF THE PROGRAMME 

2.1. 

Aim of the Programme 

According to Decision N° 792/2004, the programme aims to strengthen Community action in 
the field of Culture and increase its effectiveness by supporting the activities of bodies active 
at European level in this field.  

These  activities  must  contribute,  or  be  capable  of  contributing,  to  the  development  and 
implementation of Community cooperation policy and actions in the field of culture.  

The decision mentions that the main activities of these bodies that are likely to contribute to 
the strengthening and effectiveness of Community action in the field of culture are as follows: 

- Representation of stakeholders at Community level, 

- Dissemination of information on Community action, 

- Networking of bodies active in the cultural field, 

-  Representation  and  informing  of  the  regional  and  minority  language  communities  of  the 
 European Union, 

- Finding and disseminating information in the legislation, education and media fields, 

-  Fulfilling  the  role  of  cultural  ‘ambassador',  promoting  awareness  of  Europe's  common 
cultural heritage, 

1 

OJ L 138/40 of 30.04.2004 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
-  Preservation  and  commemoration  of  the  main  sites  and  archives  associated  with  the 
deportations, symbolised by the memorials which have been raised on the sites of the former 
camps and other places of mass-civilian martyrdom and extermination, and the keeping alive 
of the memory of the victims at these sites. 

2.2. 

General description of the Community support 

The Community action programme to promote bodies active at European level in the field of 
culture is composed by three different parts:  

-  Part  I  of  the  programme  is  dedicated  to  the  support  of  two  bodies,  which  have  been 
supported  by  the  European  Commission  over  the  past  20  years:  the  European  Bureau  for 
Lesser-used  Languages  (EBLUL),  and  the  Mercator  network,  consisting  in  three  different 
centres, Mercator Media, Mercator Legislation, Mercator Education. 

- Part II of the programme is dedicated to the support of bodies pursuing an aim of general 
interest  in  the  field  of  culture.  In  2004  and  2005,  grants  were  awarded  to  the  organisations 
earmarked  in  Annex  II  of  the  programme  provided  that  they  complied  with  all  the 
requirements  of  the  Financial  Regulation  and  its  implementing  rules,  and  the  basic  act.  In 
2006, the grants were awarded through an open call for proposals.  

-  Part  III  of  the  programme  is  dedicated  to  the  support  of  actions  to  preserve  and 
commemorate  the  main  sites  and  archives  associated  with  the  deportation.  Grants  were 
awarded through calls for proposals. 

Two different types of funding were awarded: annual operating grants, for Part I and Part II, 
which support the bodies’ annual work programme and action grants for Part III. 

The Community action programme has covered a period of 3 years: 2004, 2005, 2006.  

2.3. 

Future framework for this Community support  

The Programme came to an end on 31 December 2006. However, its components have been 
integrated into three different programmes for the period 2007-2013. 

-  Part  I  has  been  integrated  in  the  Lifelong  Learning  Programme,  namely  in  the  transversal 
programme, under Key Activity 2: Language 

-  Part  II  has  been  integrated  in  the  Culture  programme  for  2007-2013  under  strand  2  : 
"Support for European Cultural Bodies" 

- Part III has been integrated in the programme "Citizens for Europe 2007-2013" under action 
4 "Active European Remembrance"  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
3. 

THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION 

3.1. 

Terms and purpose of the evaluation 

Following the call for tender n° EAC 41/20062, Ernst & Young et Associés was selected to 
carry out the evaluation. 

The external evaluation aimed at analyzing the effectiveness of the programme, and of each 
Part  of  it;  the  quality  of  the  implementation  of  the  programme  and  its  efficiency,  the 
sustainability of funded projects or bodies. 

The  evaluation  has  focused  on  the  entire  programme  period  (2004-2006).  However,  the 
insertion  of  the  three  parts  of  the  programme  into  three  new  programmes  from  2007 
constitutes a specific issue, which is also addressed by the evaluation. 

3.2.  Methodology 

The methodology used by the external evaluator can be summarized as follows: 

- A detailed definition of the evaluation questions  
- Collection of primary and secondary data 
- Analysis of collected data  
- Answers to evaluation questions 
 -Recommendations 

Three types of data collection were used: documentary review, interviews with project 
promoters, non-selected applicants and European officials, and structured surveys. 

3.3. 

The Evaluator's findings 

The beneficiaries under Part I of the programme were the European Bureau for Lesser-used 
languages  and  the  Mercator  Network.  The  main  activities  of  these  bodies  are  to  collect  and 
disseminate information at European level in the education, media and legislation field of the 
minority languages, to give administrative support for applications to EU programmes, and to 
develop adequate partnerships in the field of minority languages. 

Two  thirds  of  the  beneficiaries  under  Part  II  of  the  programme  were  associations  or 
foundations,  of  which  a  majority  are  located  in  Brussels.  Four  beneficiaries  of  the  2006 
selection are located in the new Member states. Main activities include networking activities, 
artistic  performance,  support  to  cultural  creation,  representation  activities  of  organisations 
towards the European institutions, as well as research and training activities. The number of 
beneficiaries  under  Part  II  has  been  stable:  36  in  2004,  35  in  2005  and  34  in  2006,  out  of 
which 16 were new. In total, 53 different bodies received support. 

Under Part III, the largest number of projects supported were German. Target groups were the 
general public, young people, researchers and academics, etc. In terms of project output, the 
highest  number  of  projects  worked  on  maintenance/exploitation  of  archives  for  use  for 
example in conferences, exhibitions, libraries etc., and on collection of testimonies from eye 
witnesses.  Other  projects  were  dealing  with  commemoration/events  organisation,  art  work 

2 

2006/S 122-129441 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
and  didactic  or  educational  material,  or  restoration  of  highly  symbolic  sites.  The  number  of 
projects  selected  under  this  part  has  also  been  characterised  by  stability:  28  in  2004,  25  in 
2005  (out  of  which  24  were  new),  and  24  in  2006,  out  of  which  20  were  newcomers.  72 
different bodies have thus received support in total. 

3.3.1.  Effectiveness 

It  proved  challenging  to  draw  global  conclusions  on  the  impact  of  the  action  at  programme 
level,  as  it  is  by  nature  composed  of  projects  that  have  little  in  common.  However,  the 
evaluator  reported  the  widespread  perception  that  the  programme  contributed  to  its  general 
objective of promoting bodies active at European level in the field of culture.  

The  main  objective  was  particularly  achieved  through  the  structures  supported  under  Part  I 
and  the  networks  supported  under  Part  II.  The  evaluator  found  that  the  organisations  of  the 
cultural  actors  improved,  that  the  scope  of  their  activities  widened,  and  that  their 
professionalism  towards  EU  projects  and  EU  partnerships  increased.  The  beneficiaries 
classified as "ambassadors" contributed to the promotion at a more symbolic level. 

The performance of the bodies in terms of the main activities that are mentioned in Annex I of 
the  Decision  as  likely  to  contribute  to  the  strengthening  and  effectiveness  of  Community 
action in the field of culture can be said to be good, if somewhat uneven, since more emphasis 
was put on some activities while others received less attention.. 

For  example,  the  stakeholders  were  not  convinced  by  the  contribution  of  the  programme  to 
representing  stakeholders  at  Community  level  and  dissemination  of  information  of 
Community  action.  The  evaluator  found  that  the  very  nature  of  the  beneficiaries  of  the 
programme contributes to a relatively poor performance as far dissemination of information is 
concerned: the bodies are characterised by a specific expertise or field of interest within the 
minority  language  field,  the  cultural  field  or memorial  actions.  The  evaluator  perceives  that 
only a few performance events (Part II) and a few Part III projects are addressed to the general 
public. The main challenge is however that dissemination appears not to be a main priority for 
the beneficiaries (Part II), although a certain improvement was noticed for some of them (e.g. 
for  the  limited  information  activities  on  the  Community  action  towards  minority  languages 
under Part I). As a consequence, the programme lacked visibility. 

In general, dissemination activities are not a major priority for the beneficiaries of Part II. The 
networks  funded  under  this  part  carried  out  some  information  and  dissemination  activities, 
particularly  on  information  regarding  the  EU.  Whereas  translations  remain  rare,  a  high 
number  of  beneficiaries  (18)  organised  conferences,  and  nearly  all  of  them  improved  their 
websites. Furthermore, their representation activities developed over time. The bodies funded 
under Part II of the programme in fact score better at representing stakeholders at European 
level.  

The  evaluator  found  that  the  programme  succeeded  in  promoting  bodies  active  at  the 
European  level  in  the  field  of  culture  as  well  as  their  networking,  particularly  through  the 
structures  supported  under  Part  I  and  the  networks  supported  under  Part  II.  Over  time,  the 
partnerships supported under Part II increased.  

The dissemination of European information in the regional or minority language communities 
is an objective for the bodies supported under Part I. The evaluator concludes that results on 
this  objective  remain  limited,  particularly  for  the  Mercator  network.  This  is  due  to  the 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
following shortcomings: the Internet is the main tool of dissemination (Internet accessibility 
and  accessibility  of  the  website);  the  cost  of  translations  does  not  allow  a  high  coverage  of 
languages;  and  the  limited  (although  rising)  number  of  users.  The  immediate  integration  of 
the  new  Member  states  in  the  scope  of  activities  of  the  organisation(s)  is  instead  a  strong 
point. 

Based  on  a  number  of  indicators  or  descriptors,  the  evaluator  concludes  that  the  bodies 
supported  under  Part  I  of  the  programme  participated  considerably  in  collecting  and 
disseminating  information  in  the  legislation,  education  and  media  fields  of  the  minority 
languages. The indicators include the diversity of the information collected and identified, the 
development  of  the  tools  for  dissemination,  and  the  number  and  geographical  dispersion  of 
contacts asking for information.  

The  projects  supported  under  Part  III  did  in  general  meet  the  objectives  of  preserving  and 
commemorating  the  main  sites,  and  preserving  the  archives  associated  with  deportations. 
Project  promoters  themselves  however  point  to  the  limited  contribution  of  the  actions  to 
improvements  of  the  knowledge  of  the  present  and  future  generations  on  the  deportations. 
Actions  supported  by  the  programme  have  helped  avoid  a  decrease  in  this  knowledge. 
Beneficiaries  thus  agree  that  the  objective  of  keeping  alive  the  memory  of  victims  has  been 
only  partially  met.  Additional  efforts  should  be  made  to  collect  testimonies  (which  would 
imply  the  need  for  additional  means)  –  this  work  is  urgent  as  the  eye  witnesses  of  the 
deportations are disappearing. 

2. 

Efficiency 

In general, the lack of monitoring data made it difficult to quantify the overall efficiency of 
the programme. The evaluator concludes that the efficiency of the action varies both between 
and within its three different parts. For example, the Mercator network (Part I) improved its 
efficiency: while the yearly grant remained the same during the period, the level of activities 
increased  steadily.  More  systematic  monitoring  of  projects  and  activities,  particularly  for 
those  allocated  amounts  over  average  of  the  grants,  would  improve  the  efficiency  of  the 
actions. 

Beneficiaries  and  applicants  under  part  II  expressed  the  need  for  more  transparency  in  the 
application  process  (e.g.  regarding  the  selection  criteria,  and  the  composition  and 
appointment of the evaluation committee). Several respondents found that more quantifiable 
selection criteria would have given the selection process more legitimacy. In the application 
stage, more technical assistance and better communication would have been useful. 

For Part II of the programme, the introduction of the calls for proposals structure in 2006 was 
a  positive  development  towards  a  transparent  and  competitive  process  from  an  earmarking 
system, permitting beneficiaries to be chosen from a wider basis of applicants. Beneficiaries 
of projects selected under the Part II procedure in 2006 found that the results of the call were 
announced  late,  and  that  the  announcement  should  have  been  made  before  the  expected 
starting date of the programme, at the latest. It was perceived that an earlier publication of the 
results would have contributed to the achievement of the bodies' objectives. 

The evaluator found that the typology of beneficiaries of the call for proposals under Part II of 
the  programme,  -  splitting  beneficiaries  into  ambassadors,  European  networks  or  bodies 
organising  cultural  events  -  had  only  limited  merit,  as  the  analysis  of  the  activities  of  the 
organisations proved that they were very heterogeneous.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
The evaluator found that under Part III of the programme, projects produced concrete results 
despite their small size and limited time frame. Thus small grants created concrete products. 
Lack of funds for translation however contributed to the limited visibility of these projects. 

At  programme  level,  it  should  be  stressed  that  no  matter  how  cost-efficient  the  output  of 
spending  on  an  action  is,  the  merit  is  limited  when  the  dissemination  of  the  results  is  sub-
optimal. 

3. 

Sustainability 

It  is  difficult  to  generalise  in  terms  of  the  sustainability  of  the  actions  at  programme  level. 
Under each part of the programme, there is however evidence that the results will last beyond 
the duration of the project. 

The programme support under Part I helped the bodies develop their expertise and contributed 
to progress in research on minority languages. These structures have seen participation in the 
programme as an opportunity to prepare themselves for the competition in the framework of 
the  new  programmes.  Stakeholders  confirmed  that  the  networks  and  their  expertise  have 
achieved a level of acknowledgement that will help them find alternative sources of financing. 
The sustainable character of the network reinforces the efficiency of the EU grant. 

The  results  from  Part  II  also  show  longer-term  effects:  a  great  majority  of  the  beneficiaries 
assert  that  they  have  created  stable  relationships  with  the  members  of  the  networks.  Ninety 
per  cent  of  the  bodies  pointed  out  that  the  results  of  their  activities  are  used  by  other 
organisations,  and  it  was  felt  that  the  EU  grants  helped  increase  the  visibility  of  the 
organisations as well as their credibility with other financing bodies. 

Some  specific  partnerships  were  established  under  the  Part  III  projects,  but  were  limited  in 
number.  According  to  the  project  promoters,  partnerships  are  less  relevant  for  this  type  of 
project. In the view of the evaluators, more partnerships within the memorial projects would 
have been beneficial in terms of both dissemination and sustainability. 

4. 

MAIN  RECOMMENDATIONS  OF  THE  EXTERNAL  EVALUATION  AND 
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMSSION 

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

Effectiveness and efficiency 

The  Commission  should  strengthen  links  between  the  cultural  sector  and  other  political 
issues, in order to fully benefit from the potential added value of cultural activities, in terms of 
citizenship. Structured cooperation with other DG could be implemented for the monitoring of 
specific projects, with high symbolic value.  

The  Commission  agrees.  Mainstreaming  culture  in  all  relevant  EU-policies  has  been  put 
forward  in  the  Communication  on  "A  European  agenda  for  culture  in  a  globalizing  world" 
adopted in 2007. The Commission is strengthening its internal inter-service coordination and 
deepening  its  analysis  of  the  interface  between  cultural  diversity  and  other  Community 
policies  in  order  to  strike  the  right  balance  between  different  public  policy  objectives, 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
including  the  promotion  of  cultural  diversity,  when  making  decisions  or  proposals  of  a 
regulatory or financial nature.  

The  Commission  should  respect  deadlines  indicated  in  the  provisional  calendar  for  the 
selection procedure and ensure the publication of applicants' selection earlier because a lot 
of  bodies  follow  the  calendar  year.  It  would  therefore  be  relevant  to  align  EU  grants 
remittance and bodies activities realisations at the end of the calendar year.  

The  Commission  agrees  with  the  desirability  of  shortening  the  length  of  the  procedures  for 
calls for proposals and has already taken steps to shorten the process as much as possible for 
the  operating  grants  for  bodies  active  in  the  field  of  culture.  For  example,  in  2008  grant 
decisions  will  replace  contracts,  which  should  cut  the  process  by  a  month  on  average. 
Increased  use  of  flat-rates  should  help  to  speed  up  the  processing  of  applications.  The 
introduction of multi-annual grants as of 2008 (see below) will also help to avoid delays in the 
future. 

It is also worth mentioning that other factors such as the Comitology procedure (consultation 
of the Management Committee and right of scrutiny of the European parliament once before 
publishing  the  calls,  and  a  second  time  before  announcing  the  outcome  of  the  selection 
process) have a great impact on the lengthy selection process. The Commission is, however, 
seeking  to  obtain  a  modification  of  the  legal  base  of  the  Culture  programme,  which  would 
enable  the  Commission  to  directly  adopt  award  decisions  concerning  operating  grants  for 
bodies active in the field of culture. If approved by the Council and European Parliament, the 
selection process could again be reduced by several weeks. 

The  Commission  should  improve  the  assistance  for  beneficiaries  through  guidelines  for 
technical assistance in order to provide a homogeneous answer and a better reactivity for the 
answers provided to the beneficiaries. 

It should be pointed out that the creation of the Executive Agency, which is responsible for 
implementing a large part of DG EAC's programme actions from 2006, is helping improve the 
overall efficiency and effectiveness of the management of calls for proposals.  

Since  the  beginning  of  the  new  generation  of  programmes  (2007-2013),  efforts  have  been 
made by both the Commission and the Executive Agency to better assist applicants. Several 
useful  tools  and  services  have  been  developed  (including  practical  guidelines,  frequently 
asked questions, more user-friendly forms, a special mailbox, etc.).  

Moreover, in 2007 the Commission and the Executive Agency organised two sessions of info-
days in Brussels, during which applicants received practical guidance on how to prepare good 
applications  and  had  the  opportunity  to  ask  questions.  This  successful  experience  will  be 
repeated in the future.  

The  Commission  should  develop  a  data  base  for  closer  monitoring,  and  consolidate  and 
follow monitoring data resulting from final reports. 

The Commission shares this opinion. The Executive Agency has developed a new data base 
which  should  allow  closer  monitoring  in  the  future  and  facilitate  reporting  on  actions  co-
financed by the European Union. 

Visibility of outputs and results 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
The  Commission  is  invited  to  introduce  specific  criteria  related  to  visibility  in  the  selection 
process.  The  Commission  should  provide  a  booklet  for  each  beneficiary  setting  forth 
beneficiaries’  good  practices  related  to  the  improvement  of  the  visibility  of  outputs  and 
results.  

The Commission fully shares the need to improve the level of visibility and dissemination of 
the actions supported. In the new generation of calls for proposals (Programmes 2007-2013), 
the visibility and dissemination of outputs constitute an important award criteria. This means 
that applicants are also judged on the level of visibility, dissemination and exploitation of the 
planned  activities  (different  kind  of  communication  tools  used,  quality  of  the  media-plan, 
number of people reached by the action, etc.). 

The Commission is also developing a new data base (called "EVE") on which a lot of useful 
information on supported projects will be available to the public.  

Sustainability 

The Commission should offer multi-annual grants. A combining of annual and multi-annual 
grants  could  be  proposed,  depending  on  the  nature  of  the  project.  Applicants  could  choose 
between annual or multi annual grants.  

The  Commission  is  aware  of  the  desirability  of  giving  enhanced  stability  and  security  to 
beneficiaries  applying  for  an  operating  grant  and  recognises  that  multi-annual  grants  would 
greatly  assist  some  bodies  to  run  their  permanent  activities.  The  Commission  has  therefore 
looked into the possibility of offering multi-annual grants, while respecting the provisions of 
the  Financial  Regulation.  As  a  result,  from  2008  onwards,  the  Commission  will  be  offering 
the  applicants  of  Strand  II  of  the  Culture  Programme  the  possibility  to  apply  for  either  a 
multi-annual or annual grant. From 2007 onwards the Commission offers the possibility for 
the bodies of ex-Part I to apply for multi-annual grants in the context of the Lifelong Learning 
Programme. 

To maintain the requirement of a low external financing (20% for part II and 25% for part 
III)  that  is  fitted  to  the  particularities  of  cultural  sector.  Even  if  amounts  concerned  by  the 
principle of gradual reduction of grants are low, its implementation has a symbolic value, and 
it is perceived as a constraint by beneficiaries. The evaluation found that the relation between 
the  benefit  and  the  cost  of  the  implementation  of  this  principle  is  negative  for  the  objective 
targeted. 

The Commission agrees that when supporting cultural bodies (operating grants), it would be 
desirable  to  maintain  a  high  community  co-financing  rate,  especially  for  structural  support. 
However,  the  principle  of  degressivity  in  the  Financial  Regulations  cannot  be  avoided  for 
operating grants. The Commission would however like to apply this principle through as low 
a rate as possible. In 2007 and 2008 it was only 1%, and it is applied to the co-financing rate, 
rather than directly to the grant. 

The  Commission  should  strengthen  qualitative  monitoring  during  the  implementation  of 
projects, and improve the resources dedicated to the knowledge of the cultural sector and its 
stakeholders within DG EAC and the Executive Agency 

The  Commission  agrees  that  it  would  be  desirable  to  be  closer  to  the  cultural  sector  as  a 
whole,  and  in  particular,  to  have  greater  contact  with  cultural  operators  during  the 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
implementation  of  their  project.  The  Commission  will  look  into  the  possibility  of  making 
more on-the-spot visits and participating in some events organized by the beneficiaries of EU 
grants. 

In the context of the Communication on a European agenda for culture in a globalizing world, 
the  Commission  is  setting  up  a  structured  dialogue  with  the  cultural  sector  (forums, 
conferences and other structures facilitating communication). 

5. 

THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSIONS 

The  Commission  shares  the  overall  assessment  of  the  evaluator  that  the  programme  has 
achieved  its  main  objectives.  Although  it  has  been  difficult  to  draw  a  general  conclusion  at 
programme  level,  the  analysis  of  output  and  results  for  each  part  of  the  programme  shows 
that their operational objectives have been met. 

A  number  of  cultural  networks  and  organizations  of  all  sizes  and  kinds  –  choirs,  museums, 
orchestras,  theatres,  cultural  foundations  –  have  received  support  by  the  programme  to 
implement activities and projects with a European dimension. Part III of the programme has 
funded  remembrance  projects  with  strong  European  added  value  that  would  not  have  taken 
place without European funding. The fact that all cultural fields have been represented among 
the  beneficiaries'  activities  has  allowed  a  broad  public  to  benefit  from  these  actions.  The 
Commission  however  recognizes  that  there  is  potential  for  improvement  in  terms  of  the 
dissemination and visibility of the results. 

The evaluation has  provided  a  number of useful recommendations. Further to the ending of 
the previous programme, the three parts have been integrated in three different programmes. 
The modifications made to these programmes and the calls for proposals as of 2007 already 
reflect the advice of the evaluator. For example, in the new calls for proposals for the Culture, 
Lifelong Learning and Europe for Citizens programmes (Parts I and II), the dissemination of 
results has become one of the main criteria for assessing the quality of applications and the 
possibility of multi-annual grants is offered. 

EN 

10 

   EN