REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Interim evaluation report on the implementation of the Culture programme
Date: 2011-01-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU action, EU policy, action programme, cultural cooperation

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 10.1.2011 
COM(2010) 810 final 

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

Interim evaluation report on the implementation of the Culture programme 

EN 

   EN 

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

Interim evaluation report on the implementation of the Culture programme 

EN 

2 

   EN 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

BACKGROUND OF THE PROGRAMME................................................................ 3 

THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION............................................................................. 4 

Terms and purpose of the evaluation ........................................................................... 4 

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

Findings........................................................................................................................ 4 

Main recommendations of the evaluation and comments from the Commission........ 8 

The Commission's conclusions .................................................................................. 11 

INTRODUCTION 

1. 

2. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

4. 

5. 

1. 

This report is presented under article 13.3a) of Decision n° 1855/2006/EC1 of 12 December 
20062  establishing  the  Culture  programme  (hereafter  "the  programme"),  which  requires  an 
interim  evaluation  report  on  the  results  obtained  and  on  the  qualitative  and  quantitative 
aspects of the implementation of the programme to be submitted to the European Parliament, 
the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the 
Regions  by  31  December  2010.  It  puts  forward  the  European  Commission's  position  on  the 
main  conclusions  and  recommendations  of  the  final  external  mid-term  evaluation  of  the 
programme that can be obtained via the link below: 

http://ec.europa.eu/culture/key-documents/doc539_en.htm 

2. 

BACKGROUND OF THE PROGRAMME 

According to Decision n° 1855/2006/EC (hereafter "the Decision"), the general objective of 
the programme is to enhance the cultural area shared by Europeans and based on a common 
cultural  heritage  through  the  development  of  cultural  cooperation  between  the  creators, 
cultural  players  and  cultural  institutions,  with  a  view  to  encouraging  the  emergence  of 
European citizenship. This aim is to be achieved through the programme's specific objectives, 
namely: 

–  promoting the transnational mobility of cultural players; 

–  encouraging the transnational circulation of works and cultural and artistic products; 

–  encouraging intercultural dialogue. 

The programme has three main strands. These are: 

1 
2 

OJ L 372 of 27 December 2006, p 1. 
As amended by Decision n° 1352/2008 of 16 December 2008, OJ L 348 of 24 December 2008, p. 128. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
–  strand  1  –  support  for  cultural  actions,  in  particular  multi-annual  cooperation  projects, 

cooperation measures and special actions; 

–  strand 2 – support for bodies active at European level in the field of culture;  

–  strand 3 – support for analysis and the collection and for the dissemination of information 
and  for  activities  maximising  the  impact  of  projects  in  the  field  of  European  cultural 
cooperation. 

Strand  1  includes  cultural  cooperation  actions,  grants  for  literary  translation,  special  actions 
comprising support for cooperation with third countries, the European Capitals of Culture, as 
well  as  four  European  prizes  in  the  field  of  culture.  The  two  latter  actions  are  managed 
directly  by  the  Commission  (DG  EAC),  while  the  others  are  managed  on  its  behalf  by  the 
Commission's Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). 

The programme is established for the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013. This 
report  covers  all  the  programme's  strands  (with  the  exception  of  the  European  Capitals  of 
Culture, which are covered by separate evaluations3) and its entire geographical scope during 
the first three years of the programme's implementation. 

3. 

THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION 

3.1. 

Terms and purpose of the evaluation 

ECOTEC  Research  and  Consulting  Ltd  was  selected  to  carry  out  the  external  independent 
evaluation.  The  evaluation  aimed  to  assess  the  implementation  of  the  programme  and  the 
achievement of its objectives, to report on the extent to which the actions adopted so far have 
contributed  to  the  objectives  specified  in  the  Decision  and  to  the  overall  objectives  of  EU 
action in the field of culture as provided for in Article 167 of the Treaty on the functioning of 
the EU, and to provide input for the preparation and implementation of any future programme 
in the field of culture as a follow up to the current one. 

3.2.  Methodology 

The methodology used by the external evaluator is based on a series of evaluation questions 
using  the  key  criteria  of  relevance,  efficiency,  effectiveness  and  sustainability.  The  analysis 
methods employed included desk research (including review of programme data); a review of 
a  sample  of  files  relating  to  funded  projects;  78  interviews  with  beneficiaries,  programme 
implementation  bodies  and  other  stakeholders;  a  specific  focus  group;  an  exchange  of 
information  with  the  Culture  programme  Management  Committee;  and  11  project  case 
studies.  Two  online  surveys  were  completed:  a  survey  of  organisations  supported  by  the 
programme and a survey of publishing houses which received support for literary translations. 
Response  rates  for  the  two  surveys  were  good,  at  50%  and  40%  respectively,  with 
respondents located in 34 countries.  

3.3. 

Findings 

1. 

Relevance 

3 

The complementarities between the European Capitals of Culture and the rest of the programme have, 
however, been covered by this evaluation 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
The  evaluation  concludes  that  the  Culture  Programme  plays  a  unique  role  in  stimulating 
cross-border  cooperation,  promoting  peer  learning  and  the  professionalization  of  the  sector 
and increasing the access of European citizens to non-national European works. Indirectly it 
contributes to the development of content which is essential for sustainable growth and jobs, 
and stimulates new, creative and innovative developments. 

The report underlines that the programme plays a crucial role in respecting Europe's cultural 
and  linguistic  diversity  and  ensuring  the  safeguarding  and  enhancing  of  the  EU's  cultural 
heritage as stipulated in Article 3.3 of the consolidated version of the Treaty on the EU and 
Article 167 of the Treaty on the functioning of the EU, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of 
the  EU  (in  particular  Article  22)  and  the  EU's  obligations  as  a  party  to  the  UNESCO 
Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. 

The programme  objectives  have  contributed to the aims set out in  Article 167, whereby the 
action of the Union shall support and supplement the action of Member States in improving 
the  knowledge  and  dissemination  of  cultural  heritage  of  European  significance,  conserving 
and  safeguarding  cultural  heritage  of  European  significance,  non–commercial  cultural 
exchanges, and artistic and literary creation. 

Although  the  programme  pre-dates  the  new  European  Agenda  for  Culture,  there  are  strong 
links  between  the  two.  Some  forms  of  support  are  directly  linked  to  those  policy  processes 
(the civil society platforms, policy analysis groupings and studies), whereas other forms are 
not directly linked but have the potential to generate good practice examples and lessons from 
experience that can inform policy processes (cooperation projects, special actions and literary 
translation projects). 

With regard to the cooperation projects (in all their forms), which account for the majority of 
funding  under  the  programme,  and  support  for  EU-wide  organisations,  these  are  strongly 
relevant to all three specific objectives. In particular they offer the potential to directly support 
periods of mobility, as well as activities involving the circulation of works. The transnational 
requirement for partnerships ensures that a degree of intercultural dialogue is inherent in their 
activities, as a consequence of bringing together people from different cultural backgrounds. 
However,  although  most  projects  stimulate  intercultural  dialogue,  the  type  of  specific 
activities required to achieve this objective are not always as evident compared to the other 
two objectives. Intercultural dialogue is therefore generally (but not always) a by-product of 
projects rather than their primary aim. Literary translations make a very tangible contribution 
to the transnational circulation objective and indirectly to intercultural dialogue. 

The  evaluation  recommends  that  it  would  naturally  be  important  to  revise  the  programme's 
objectives in the future in order to take into account recent developments both in terms of EU 
policies  (for  example  the  Europe  2020  Strategy  and  the  European  Agenda  for  Culture),  as 
well as the conditions affecting the cultural sector and its needs over the coming period (such 
as the impact of globalisation and the digital shift). 

2. 

Effectiveness 

Evidence from the project document review and the surveys indicates that the programme was 
generally  successful  in  achieving  its  results  and  impact,  with  a  significant  leverage  effect. 
This is demonstrated by the following figures. More than 700 grants were awarded to cultural 
operators from the programme for the 2007-2009 period, reaching some 3.000 organisations 
in total if the co-organisers are included, and with total grant payments in excess of 120 Mio 
EUR. The co-funding requirement naturally stimulated the mobilisation of other funds at the 

EN 

5 

   EN 

national  level.  The  activities  supported  reach  the  wider  public  and  are  increasing  access  to 
European culture. The support for literary translation has helped the translation of over 1,600 
books  during  the  3  year  period,  giving  some  1.4  million  readers  access  to  (new)  European 
literature. 

The European Capitals of Culture regularly attract millions of people and involve thousands 
of volunteers, with 10 million visitors to Liverpool during 2008. The European Heritage Days 
2009 attracted 25 million visitors across Europe and the European Boarder Breakers Awards 
reached hundreds of thousands of Europeans through broadcasts on 12 television stations, 24 
radio stations in 24 different countries and the internet. 

Most  project  promoters  felt  that  they  had  been  successful  in  the  activities  that  they  had 
undertaken in pursuit of those objectives.  

Neither  the  Decision  establishing  the  programme  nor  the  current  Programme  Guide  set  out 
explicitly what the nature, form and content of supported cultural activities should be. In this 
respect  the  programme's  flexibility  enables  cultural  operators  to  adopt  tailored  approaches 
suited to their needs. 

In addition to the explicit objectives of the programme, projects also tend to pursue various 
other  aims.  Two  broad  types  of  activities  are  typically  undertaken:  cultural  activities 
(including artistic exchanges, joint cultural creation, co-productions, tours and festivals,  and 
exchanges  of  artefacts);  and  support  activities  (exchanges  of  experience  and  networking, 
provision of information and practical support for operators, education, training and research). 

They are implemented through a wide range of actions. The mobility of cultural operators and 
the  circulation  of  works  have  usually  been  carried  out  as  integrated  activities,  for  example, 
performing arts organisations that travel in order to perform new works, or artists that create 
and  exhibit  new  works  during  a  period  of  mobility.  The  broader  public  is  reached  through 
performances in front of audiences, exhibitions, sometimes through television and radio and 
of course the internet.  

The  survey  indicates  that  cost  is  the  greatest  obstacle  to  transnational  cooperation  and  as  a 
consequence projects tend not to endure beyond the lifespan of the grant, largely due to the 
added costs entailed by working across borders. Nevertheless, long-term benefits include the 
role played by the programme in: 

–  fostering the skills and careers of artists through mobility experiences, 

–  peer  learning  through  transnational  exchanges,  networking  and  experimentation,  often  in 
areas  and  specialisations  where  the  skills  and  knowhow  in  Europe  are  geographically 
dispersed,  thereby  economies  of  scale  and  fostering  the  professionalization  of  the  sector 
particularly with a view to operating in a global environment, 

–  helping to address geographical imbalances by supporting artists in countries with weaker 

capacity through the cooperation dynamic of the programme, 

–  helping the circulation of non-national or co-produced European works and increasing the 

public's access to this work, 

–  promoting a more outward, international outlook among the individuals and organisations.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

The  main  imbalance  in  the  programmes  concerns  literary  translation.  Although  the  support 
made  a  significant  contribution  to  promoting  the  circulation  of  literary  works,  thereby 
increasing access to non-national European literature, English and French are the predominant 
source languages (more than four in ten translations) and five languages account for over half 
of  translations  in  terms  of  the  target  language  (Italian,  Hungarian,  Slovene,  Bulgarian  and 
Greek)  There  is  therefore  an  untapped  potential  in  terms  of  promoting  cultural  diversity  by 
increasing translations into some of the large European world languages, which can serve as 
pivot languages for further translations into other languages.  

The evaluation therefore concludes that the programme has been effective in promoting cross-
border  cultural  cooperation,  supporting  artistic  and  literary  creation  and  improving  the 
circulation of cultural expressions. In this way, it has made an important contribution to the 
overall  aim  of  the  Treaty  to  promote  cultural  diversity  across  Europe,  while  bringing  the 
common cultural heritage to the fore.  

3. 

Efficiency 

There  has  been  high  demand  relative  to  the  funding  available:  only  around  one  in  four 
applications to the cooperation project strands has been funded and only around one in three 
applications  from  organisations  active  at  European  level.  The  acceptance  rate  for  literary 
translation applications was higher, with approximately half receiving funding, but this level 
of  expressed  demand  does  not  reflect  the  identified  need  for  more  translations  into  certain 
dominant  languages  (most  notably  English).  It  should  be  noted  that  there  is  also  a  latent 
demand more generally, which is not reflected in the number of submitted applications, as in 
some cases, an actual need for funding may not result in an application (for example, due to 
difficulties in acquiring the matching funding). 

Expenditure to date is generally in line with expectations, as is the allocation between strands. 
However,  it  is  questionable  whether  the  relatively  limited  number  of  third  country  projects 
that could be supported within the budget is likely to result in any significant "critical mass" 
with respect to the countries targeted. 

The efficiency of the  application  process and the management of the  programme have been 
considerably  improved  in  comparison  to  its  predecessor,  the  Culture  2000  programme. 
Procedural modifications, including the modifications made by Decision 1352/2008/EC of the 
comitology  requirements  of  the  Decision's  Article  9  ,  have  made  the  application  process 
clearer  and  shorter  than  in  the  past  (between  52  and  140  days  shorter,  depending  on  the 
strand). Various simplification measures by the Commission and EACEA have simplified the 
administrative  requirements  for  applicants.  Participants  in  the  programme  are  generally 
satisfied  with  these  modifications  and  with  the  Programme  Guide  which  was  introduced  to 
give applicants detailed and more stable information on applying for funding. 

Cultural Contact Points (CCPs) continue to provide a satisfactory service and, although still at 
an  early  stage,  recent  changes  made  to  their  working  arrangements  are  progressing 
satisfactorily, including helping to strengthen the working relationship between CCPs and the 
EACEA.  The  visibility  of  the  Culture  Programme  and  the  Commission's  dissemination 
activities are generally rated satisfactory by beneficiaries, but the evidence also suggests more 
could be achieved, in particular by carrying out  more  dissemination  activities  at  EU  level  – 
though it is emphasised these have also greatly improved since the Culture 2000 programme. 

The  evaluator's  general  conclusion  on  efficiency  is  that  the  programme  has  mostly  met 
expectations in terms of participation by type of organisation and geographical balance. It has 

EN 

7 

   EN 

also  enabled  a  wide  range  of  non-profit  cultural  organisations  and  small  and  medium-sized 
organisations  to  participate.  More  than  half  of  participants  in  the  programme  are  from  the 
performing  arts,  but  there  is  also  a  relatively  high  proportion  of  “interdisciplinary”  actors, 
reflecting the cross-disciplinary nature of many contemporary cultural activities. In terms of 
application rates (though not necessarily reflected on a proportional basis in the success rate), 
the pattern generally shows a satisfactory correlation between participation and country size, 
with the notable exception of literary translation. 

4. 

Sustainability 

In terms of the sustainability, many cooperation projects have generated follow-on activities, 
building  solid  foundations  for  future  activity,  fostering  long-term  benefits  and  forming 
partnerships that are strong enough to endure. However, their ongoing co-operation activities 
greatly depend on an organisations' capacity to continue their work on international scale after 
the project funding ends. In many cases the costs entailed by transnational cooperation meant 
that projects were unable to continue beyond the duration of the project, or only on a reduced 
scale. According to the report, the cultural and linguistic fragmentation in Europe and current 
economic developments - and their effect on public spending on culture and the arts – present 
challenges  for  continued  mobility  and  circulation,  the  building  of  capacity  and  thus  for 
sustainable developments in this sector.  

Regarding  organisations  active  at  a  European  level  which  are  supported  under  strand  2,  the 
evidence suggests that a number of these organisations would continue in some form without 
an EU grant, albeit on a reduced scale.  

The  European  Capitals  of  Culture  title  has  often  left  an  enduring  legacy  for  the  cities 
concerned in the form of new cultural infrastructure and activities, greater capacity within the 
local  cultural  sector  and  cultural  governance,  a  more  vibrant  cultural  scene  and  a  genuinely 
improved image. 

4. 

MAIN  RECOMMENDATIONS  OF  THE  EVALUATION  AND  COMMENTS  FROM  THE 
COMMISSION 

Based on the findings, the evaluator issued 17 recommendations. They are presented in italics 
(while  the  Commission's  position  is  in  standard  fonts)  and  are  grouped  into  two  main 
categories  according  to  whether  they  relate  to  the  continued  implementation  of  the  current 
Culture programme until 2013 or the design of the new programme (post 2013).  

1. 

Current programme 

Recommendation n° 1 

The  Commission  should  continue  to  review  the  level  of  grants  provided  for  literary 
translations to ensure they are consistent with prevailing market rates in each country. 

Recommendation n° 2 

There  is  no  direct  advantage  to  continuing  support  for  festivals  as  a  discrete  sub-strand 
within strand 2. Such support has been changed in the new Programme Guide published in 
May 2010, with a specific sub-strand created under strand 1, so that they can be supported as 
projects  rather  than  via  operating  grants.  Festivals  can  also  continue  to  apply  for  co-

EN 

8 

   EN 

operation projects provided they meet the relevant criteria, e.g. are based on a co-operation 
agreement. 

Recommendation n° 3 

The  introduction  of  changes  to  the  working  arrangements  of  CCPs  should  be  completed, 
making  any  adjustments  as  necessary  as  the  process  advances,  to  ensure  continuous 
improvement, with a view to ensuring the best possible service to cultural operators.  

Recommendation n° 4 

Annual  visits  to  projects  by  the  Commission/EACEA  should  be  continued  in  order  to  assist 
beneficiaries and ensure Commission's/EACEA’s familiarity with the content of projects. 

Recommendation n° 5 

Final reports should require co-operation projects and organisations active at the European 
level to state the numbers of individuals benefitting from periods of mobility. 

Recommendation n° 6 

Current  efforts  to  promote  project  results  through  annual  conferences  and  publications 
should  be  continued  and,  if  resources  permit,  further  activities  of  this  nature  should  be 
considered.  CCPs  could  invite  project  beneficiaries  to  share  their  experience  at  local  'info-
days'. 

Commission's position 

The  Commission  generally  agrees  with  these  recommendations.  In  2007  it  began  a  wide-
ranging  simplification  process  that  led  to  significant  improvements  in  the  management  and 
implementation  of  the  current  programme,  including  many  of  the  aspects  addressed  by  the 
evaluator's report, and these have been widely appreciated by stakeholders.  

More  specifically,  since  2010  festivals  are  supported  in  the  form  of  projects  rather  than 
through  operating  grants.  As  mentioned  in  the  report,  recommendation  n°  2  has  therefore 
already  been  implemented.  Concerning  recommendations  n°  1  (flat  rates  for  literary 
translations are reviewed every two years: as this was done at the beginning of 2010, the next 
review is scheduled in 2012); n° 3 (CCPs' working arrangements with a view to improving the 
service  delivered  are  fully  implemented  as  of  2010  and  can  now  –  under  the  present 
conditions – be considered as stable for the duration of the current programme); and n° 4 (the 
increasing number of visited projects, mainly from EACEA, enables the Commission/EACEA 
to  have  a  much  better  insight  in  supported  activities  with  a  with  to  better  monitoring  and 
promotion)  the  Commission  has  already  made  the  necessary  changes  in  the  current 
programme's  structure.  It  would  be  interesting  to  further  elaborate  on  the  number  of 
individuals involved or benefitting from mobility, as a result of recommendation n° 5. As this 
would  imply  a  slight  change  in  EACEA's  templates  for  projects'  final  reports,  the  best 
moment to implement this possible change needs to be assessed.  

Regarding activities aiming to promote project results (recommendation n° 6), the practice of 
annual  conferences  and  publications  will  continue  and  the  Commission  will  explore  what 
further  possibilities  are  viable  with  the  resources  at  its  disposal.  As  far  as  local  info-days 
organised  by  CCPs  are  concerned,  since  2010  many  of  them  are  already  more  focused  on 

EN 

9 

   EN 

sharing  experiences  from  supported  projects  and 
Commission/EACEA whenever necessary and possible. 

include  representatives  from 

the 

2. 

Future programme  

Recommendation n° 7 

The  general  and  specific  objectives  of  the  future  programme  should  be  revised  to  reflect 
developments  since  the  last  programme  was  designed,  including  changes  affecting  the 
cultural sector and policy developments such as the EU2020 Strategy, its flagship initiatives, 
and the European Agenda for Culture.  

Recommendation n° 8 

Consideration should be given to the appropriate level of maximum co-financing within the 
programme.  A  relatively  low  level  of  maximum  co-financing  permits  a  larger  number  of 
projects  to  be  funded;  however  an  excessively  low  level  of  co-financing  may  dissuade 
operators  from  applying  and  being  able  to  carry  out  ambitious  projects.  Indeed,  if  the  co-
financing  level  does  not  reflect  realities  (e.g.  severe  cuts  in  public  funding  at  the  national 
level, an economic downturn making it more difficult to procure private sponsorship, etc), a 
large number of cultural operators could effectively find themselves excluded from applying 
under the programme and this could inadvertently prevent the programme from being able to 
achieve  its  objectives.  The  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  the  co-financing  rate  should 
therefore  be  carefully  assessed  in  the  future  programme  in  the  light  of  its  objectives  and 
priorities and prevailing circumstances. 

Recommendation n° 9 

The interdisciplinary approach of the programme should be continued, reflecting the reality 
of  developments  in  the  cultural  sector,  including  the  impact  of  digitisation,  in  which 
boundaries  between  sectors  are  becoming  more  fluid  and  cross-sectoral  experimentation  is 
common. 

Recommendation n° 10 

Consideration  should  be  given  as  to  whether  the  distinction  between  multi-annual  and  two-
year co-operation projects should be retained in the light of the fact that they pursue the same 
objectives. 

Recommendation n° 11 

Consideration  should  be  given  to  the  third  country  dimension  as  the  current  approach  of 
selecting  one  or  more  countries  for  a  specific  year  appears  to  have  limited  demonstrable 
long-term impact since it lacks critical mass. 

Recommendation n° 12 

Since  many  barriers  to  mobility  and  circulation  continue  to  exist  despite  the  single  market 
and freedom of movement for workers, consideration should be given to including support for 
better  information/intelligence  and  guidance  for  cultural  operators  needing  to  work  in 
another EU country. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

Recommendation n° 13 

The  Commission  and  the  EACEA  should  consider  ways  in  which  more  literary  translations 
can  be  encouraged  from  under-represented  languages  (particularly  those  in  new  Member 
States) into more dominant ones such as English, French, German and Spanish, which often 
serve  as  pivot  languages  for  further  translations  and  would  therefore  make  a  valuable 
contribution to promoting cultural and linguistic diversity. Consideration should be given to 
other initiatives to help stimulate the translation of literature. 

Recommendation n° 14 

Consideration  should  be  given  to  changing  the  category  'Advocacy  networks'  in  favour  of 
reverting to 'networks' as organisations do not necessarily have to have an advocacy role in 
order to bring substantial benefits to artist mobility, the circulation of works, etc. 

Recommendation n° 15 

The evaluation has shown the need for and the potential of the programme to stimulate new, 
creative  and  innovative  developments  and  structures,  but  that  the  costs  entailed  by 
transnational co-operation can make it  difficult  to sustain  structures or projects beyond the 
duration of the EU grant. For this reason, thought should be given as to how future award 
criteria  can  strike  a  balance  between  encouraging  the  emergence  of  new  and  innovative 
activities  and  structures,  whilst  ensuring  that  established  structures  that  are  playing  a 
continued, fundamental role in promoting the objectives of the programme and with a clear 
European added value are not penalised. 

Recommendation n° 16 

Consideration  should  be  given  to  the  role,  working  arrangements  and  processes  for  the 
appointment  of  CCPs  in  any  new  programme.  Where  necessary,  these  should  be  revised  to 
reflect  the  requirements  of  the  new  programme  and  in  light  of  good  practice  in  other  EU 
programmes. 

Recommendation n° 17 

Management of the future programme should be as streamlined and light as possible, in the 
interests  of  applicants  and  beneficiaries  within  the  possibilities  offered  by  the  Financial 
Regulations, building upon the progress made under the current programme. 

Commission's position 

The  Commission  generally  agrees  with  these  recommendations,  and  will  take  them  into 
account  as  far  as  possible  in  preparing  its  proposal  for  the  programme  beyond  2013.  This 
applies  both  to  its  content  and  its  administration,  which  the  Commission  intends  to  keep  as 
light and efficient as possible.  

5. 

THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSIONS 

The Commission shares the evaluator's overall assessment that the programme plays a unique 
role  in  stimulating  cross-border  cultural  cooperation,  and  fostering  the  benefits  indicated  in 
the  section  on  findings.  The  programme  has  appropriately  implemented  EU  action  in  the 

EN 

11 

   EN 

cultural field as foreseen by article 167 of the Treaty and has met its objectives as set out in 
the Decision. 

The evaluator's conclusions show that small improvements could be made in a limited number 
of  specific  areas  and  that,  in  general,  participants  are  satisfied  with  the  programme  and 
recognise its unique European added value. The evaluation also underpins that demand from 
the  cultural  sector  for  this  type  of  EU  support  may  remain  considerably  high,  if  not  further 
increase,  over  the  coming  few  years  and  that  the  programme  contributes  to  content  and 
knowledge development which are essential for future sustainable growth and jobs and new, 
creative and innovative developments.  

The Commission has, since 2007, greatly intensified consultation with the cultural sector and 
is paying close attention to the views expressed by stakeholders within this process and which 
are echoed in this evaluation report.  

As  mentioned  in  section  4,  various  new  features  and  improvements  have  already  been 
integrated  in  the  current  Culture  programme,  thereby  anticipating  in  some  cases  the 
evaluator's recommendations.  

The Commission intends, therefore, to take the results of this evaluation into account chiefly 
with a view to preparing  the  new  EU programme in the field of  culture for the period after 
2013. 

EN 

12 

   EN