COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
Date: 2011-11-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cultural pluralism, cultural promotion, cultural transmission, culture industry, small and medium-sized enterprises, vocational training

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 23.11.2011 
SEC(2011) 1400 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

Accompanying the document 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

establishing a Creative Europe Framework Programme  

{COM(2011) 785 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1399 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This document accompanies three separate impact assessments which examine the options for 
future  EU  funding  support  for  the  cultural  and  creative  sectors  (CCS).  It  outlines  the  main 
conclusions of the three impact assessments and describes the preferred option, as well as the 
delivery  and  monitoring  mechanisms.  Full  details  are  provided  in  the  individual  impact 
assessments. These impact assessments conclude that the option of seeking synergies between 
the  audiovisual  sector  (the  current  MEDIA  and  MEDIA  Mundus  programmes)  and  the 
cultural  and  creative  sectors  (the  current  Culture  Programme)  within  a  Creative  Europe 
framework programme would have advantages compared to all other options considered. As 
proposed  in  the  Commission's  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  a  budget  of  €1.6  billion 
(constant prices) will be attributed to the programme for the seven year duration. 

The impact assessment reports are the result of a two year preparation process beginning with 
the interim evaluations of the current programmes. Taking into account the need to improve 
and  simplify  delivery,  the  possibility  of  reaching  greater  synergies  between  these  different 
areas  through  merging  programmes  was  also  explored  as  part  of  this  process.  The  impact 
assessments draw considerably on the findings of the interim evaluations of the Culture and 
MEDIA programmes, and the on-line consultations and public meetings on future funding for 
the  cultural  and  creative  sectors.  In  addition,  they  take  into  account  feedback  to  the 
Commission's  Green  Paper  'Unlocking  the  potential  of  the  cultural  and  creative  industries'1, 
various  independent  studies  conducted  for  the  Commission  in  recent  years,  as  well  as  the 
recommendations made by experts in the context of the culture Open Method of Coordination 
(OMC)  and  structured  dialogue  with  the  sector  over  the  period  2008-2010.  The  impact 
assessments have also made use of external expertise to assist with establishing the problem 
definition, the formulation of the objectives, and the analysis and comparison of options. The 
draft  Commission  Staff  working  Papers  on  the  Impact  Assessments  were  discussed  in  the 
respective inter-service groups for Culture and MEDIA. 

Current  EU  support  for  these  sectors  takes  place  through  separate  programmes,  namely 
Culture,  MEDIA  (which  includes  since  the  end  of  2010  the  MEDIA  Production  Guarantee 
Fund), and MEDIA Mundus. Separate impact assessments have been prepared to assess the 
appropriate follow up for EU funding for the cultural and creative sectors beyond 2013. Due 
to similarities  in their  objectives  and  action lines, the current MEDIA and MEDIA Mundus 
are addressed in a single impact assessment. The MEDIA Production Guarantee Fund is dealt 
with  separately,  since  the  complexity  of  the  subject  and  its  broader  scope  merited  an 
individual impact assessment.  

2. 

JUSTIFICATION OF EU INTERVENTION 

The justification of EU intervention in these fields can be found in the legal base and in the 
EU added value to be gained. 

Legal base 

1 

Green  Paper  'Unlocking  the  potential  of  the  cultural  and  creative  industries',  COM92010)  183; 
Commission  Staff Working Document,  'Analysis  of  the consultation  launched  by  the  Green  Paper on 
'Unlocking the potential of the cultural and creative industries', SEC(2011) 399 final, 24.03.2011 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
EU  action  in  the  field  of  the  cultural  and  creative  sectors  will  be  based  on  Article  167 
(Culture)  and  173  (Industry)  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union.  The 
EU's  right  to  act  is  also  recalled  in  Article  3(3)  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union,  which 
recognises that the internal market and economic growth must be accompanied by respect for 
the  EU's  cultural  and  linguistic  diversity  and  Article  22  of  the  EU  Charter  for  Fundamental 
Rights which states that the Union shall respect cultural and linguistic diversity. The Union's 
mandate is recognised in international law, in the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and 
Promotion  of  the  Diversity  of  Cultural  Expressions,  which  is  part  of  the  acquis 
communautaire. 

EU added value 

EU intervention should aim to deliver systemic impact and to support policy development. In 
this respect the European added value of the new EU instrument to support the cultural and 
creative sectors is the following: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The transnational character of its activities and the impact of the outputs it will help 
develop  in  contrast  to  national  funding  schemes  which  tend  to  focus  on  national 
activities; 

The way it will complement national, international and other EU programmes; 

The economies of scale and critical mass which EU support can foster, for example 
through  transnational  cooperation  projects  and  a  shared  financial  facility  for  the 
cultural  and  creative  sectors  in  contrast  to  fragmented  national  schemes  with 
incomplete coverage; 

The leverage effect on additional funds; 

The way it can incentivise and stimulate long-term systemic effects on the sector in 
order to adapt to global challenges more rapidly. 

3. 

PERFORMANCE OF THE CURRENT PROGRAMMES 

The evaluation of current EU programmes for the cultural and creative sectors2 show that they 
have helped to strengthen the sector and to promote circulation of professionals and works of 
art, making a strong contribution to cultural and linguistic diversity.  

In the case of the Culture Programme, with a small yearly average budget of € 57 million - 
the equivalent to the annual budgets of many single national opera houses/companies3 - EU 
spending is highly cost effective. The evaluation concludes that it helps thousands of artists 
and cultural professionals – an estimated 20,000 each year - to develop international careers 
by improving their skills and knowhow through informal peer learning, and through creating 
new  professional  pathways.  It  has  provided  thousands  of  cultural  organisations  –  well  over 
1,000 organisations each year - with the possibility to work together across borders, to learn 
from  good  practice  through partnerships with operators from other countries. It  has enabled 

2 
3 

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/evalreports/index_en.htm 
To put this into perspective, this € 57 million is also far below the level of the national public funding of 
arts and culture in the UK, FR, DE (respectively ₤ 590 million, € 7.5 billion, € 1.1 billion).  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
operators to co-produce, to network and discover new professional opportunities, and to make 
their work and outlook more international. This has had a positive, structuring effect on the 
sector and its capacity to address wider markets. It has helped the development of sectors and 
art  forms,  the  creation  of  new  works  and  performances,  promoted  access  and  participation, 
research and education in the field, as well as information, advice and practical support.  

Thousands of works have been able to circulate, including some 500 translated literary works 
each year. Support  from the  programme is  perceived as a quality label for cultural projects. 
Through  the  activities  of  the  projects,  many  millions  of  citizens  have  been  reached  both 
directly and indirectly and enjoyed cultural works from other countries. The Programme has 
also contributed to developing a better evidence base for policy through studies which have 
fed into the work of the OMC. As projects are co-funded, mostly at a maximum rate of 50%, 
the  Programme  has  leveraged  a  considerable  amount  of  additional  public  and  private 
investment. 

The European Capitals of Culture, which receive an EU title and funding from the Programme 
(€1.5 million per Capital), have in some cases had an eight-fold leverage effect on generated 
revenue,  triggered  between  €15  and  100  million  worth  of  investment  in  their  operational 
programmes  and  served  as  a  catalyst  for  additional  capital  investment.  They  have  typically 
reached millions of  people,  involved  hundreds as volunteers and left a  long-term  legacy for 
the cities in terms of improved skills, cultural capacity and vibrancy, infrastructure and image.  

Regarding the MEDIA Programmes, with a relatively small annual budget of around € 100 
million,  the  evaluation  confirms  that  MEDIA  has  produced  significant  results  thanks  to 
focused actions optimising the cost-benefit ratio and leverage of the programme. Actions have 
focused on activities with a positive impact on EU competitiveness and on needs that are not 
addressed  at  national  level,  such  as  transnational  distribution.  Thanks  at  least  partly  to 
MEDIA  support,  the  proportion  of  European  films  amongst  all  first  time  released  films  in 
European  theatres  grew  from  36%  in  1989  to  54%  in  2009.  The  network  Europa  Cinema, 
comprising  over  2,000  screens  in  mostly  independent  cinemas  across  32  countries, 
representing  20%  of  all  first-run  screens  in  Europe,  provides  a  broad  and  diverse  offer  of 
films,  thereby  promoting  cultural  diversity  in  475  cities.  Their  quality  programming  has 
attracted  59  million  admissions  (against  30  million  in  2000)  representing  5.6%  of  total 
admissions in Europe (2.8% in 2000). The proportion of box office generated by non-national 
European  films  programmed  in  the  network  reaches  36%,  against  an  average  of  7-8%  in 
Europe. European films account for 57% of admissions to Europa Cinema screenings, against 
a European average of 27.7%. 

According  to  the  evaluation  results  MEDIA  strengthens  the  competitiveness  of  the  sector 
through  support  for  capacity-building  such  as  training  and  development  which  helps  to 
professionalise  the  sector  and  improve  the  quality  of  works.  Some  1,800  professionals 
(producers, distributors, script-writers) are trained annually, enabling them to acquire relevant 
qualifications  and  skills  and  benefit 
from  cross-border  networking  opportunities. 
Development  support  enables  400  quality  European  projects  to  be  brought  to  market  each 
year. The support to a portfolio of projects (slate funding) as opposed to purely single project 
support – provides financial solidity and a longer term perspective to production companies 
(often small under-capitalised SMEs), with important structuring effects on the industry. 

Support  to  independent  producers  to  produce  specific  genres  of  audiovisual  works  such  as 
documentaries and animations for international television distribution has proven to be critical 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
given  the  specific  needs  identified  in  these  genres.  Networking  activities  such  as  co-
production forums, international market and training initiatives have resulted in a significant 
increase  in  transnational  co-productions  (from  26%  of  European  films  in  1989  to  34%  in 
2009).  These  films  have  a  2.3  times  higher  circulation  potential  than  national  films4. 
Networks  such  as  EAVE,  ACE,  Cartoon,  created  with  MEDIA  support,  now  constitute  the 
backbone of the European cinema industry. 

No evaluation has been carried out on the MEDIA Production Guarantee Fund5 yet, as it was 
launched  only  in  2010.The  Fund  was  opened  to  applications  in  May  2011  and  has  been 
accepted favourably by the film industry and banks, resulting in more than a dozen guarantees 
with a loan value of around €15 million in about ten different member states. 

4. 

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION 

The  impact  assessments  refer  to  the  European  Competitiveness  Report  20106  and  they 
recognise the growing importance of the cultural and creative sectors (CCS) in contributing to 
economic growth, job creation and strengthening social cohesion and inclusion. It is estimated 
that the cultural and creative sectors account for approximately 4.5% of the Union's GDP in 
2008 and employ some 3.8% of its workforce.7 Beyond their direct contribution to GDP, these 
sectors trigger spill-overs in other economic and social areas such as tourism, fuelling content 
for  ICT,  benefits  for  education,  social  inclusion  and  social  innovation.  However,  despite 
witnessing higher than average growth rates in many countries in recent years, these sectors 
are facing various common problems, and there is a potential for further growth in the future 
if  a  coherent  strategic  approach  is  followed  and  the  right  enablers  are  put  in  place  at  EU, 
national and regional levels.  

Despite the achievements of the Culture and MEDIA Programmes, more needs to be done to 
unleash the full potential of these sectors, which are facing similar problems. 

The impact assessments for Culture and MEDIA identify four common problems facing the 
cultural and creative sectors which will need to be addressed at EU level in order to reach the 
desired impacts. The first is the fragmented market context stemming from Europe's cultural 
and  linguistic  diversity,  which  results  in  these  sectors  being  essentially  fragmented  along 
national  and  linguistic  lines  and  lacking  critical  mass.  At  present  this  leads  to  sub-optimal 
transnational  circulation  of  works  and  mobility  of  artists  and  professionals,  as  well  as 
geographical  imbalances.  It  also  limits  consumer  choice  and  access  to  European  cultural 
works. The second is the need for the sectors to adapt to the impact of globalisation and the 
digital  shift.  Globalisation  has  a  tendency  to  increase  the  concentration  of  supply  among  a 
limited  number  of  major  players,  posing  a  threat  to  cultural  and  linguistic  diversity.  The 
digital  shift  is  having  a  massive  impact  on  how  cultural  goods  are  made,  managed, 
disseminated,  accessed,  consumed  and  monetised,  presenting  both  opportunities  and 
challenges,  and  the  sector  would  benefit  from  transnational  approaches  and  solutions.  The 

4 
5 

6 
7 

Source: European Audiovisual Observatory, 2008. 
The  MEDIA  Production  Guarantee  Fund  facilitates  access  to  private  sources  of  finance  uniquely  for 
film producers via a guarantee mechanism that encourages banks to grant them credits by sharing the 
risk incurred. With a total budget of € 8 million for a four year duration, it is expected to generate over 
€ 100 million in bank credits, thanks to the leverage effect of the guarantee mechanism. 
European Competiveness Report 2010, Commission staff working document, COM (2010), 614 
Building  a  Digital  Economy:  The  importance  of  saving  jobs  in  the  EU’s  creative  industries,  TERA 
Consultants, March 2010.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
third  is  the  shortage  of  comparable  data  on  the  cultural  sector  at  European  and  national 
levels. This has consequences for European policy coordination, which can be a useful driver 
for national policy developments and systemic change at low cost for the EU budget and in 
full  respect  of  the  principle  of  subsidiarity.  The  fourth  is  the  difficulties  faced  by  cultural 
and creative SME in accessing finance. This is due to the intangible nature of many of their 
assets,  such  as  copyright,  which  are  usually  not  reflected  in  accounts  (unlike  patents).  It  is 
also due to the fact that unlike other industrial projects, cultural works are generally not mass-
produced, with every book, opera, theatre play, film and videogame being a unique prototype 
and companies tending to be project-based. 

5. 

OBJECTIVES OF THE FUTURE PROGRAMME 

linguistic  diversity,  and  strengthen 

In response to the identified problems in section 3, the impact assessments identify the needs 
which  should  be  targeted  at  EU  level,  and  which  can  be  served  by  identical  general  and 
specific objectives. In terms of general objectives, there is a need to foster the safeguarding 
the 
and  promotion  of  European  cultural  and 
competitiveness  of  the  cultural  and  creative  sectors,  with  a  view  to  promoting  smart, 
sustainable and inclusive growth, in line with the Europe 2020 strategy. In terms of specific 
objectives,  there  is  a  need  to  strengthen  the  capacity  of  the  cultural  and  creative  sectors  to 
operate transnationally; to promote the transnational circulation of cultural and creative works 
and  operators  and  reach  new  audiences  in  Europe  and  beyond;  to  strengthen  the  financial 
capacity  of  the  cultural  and  creative  sectors;  and  to  strengthen  transnational  policy 
cooperation  in  order  to  foster  policy  development,  innovation,  audience  building  and  new 
business  models.  The  priorities  of  the  MEDIA  and  Culture  Strands  and  the  Cultural  and 
Creative Sector Financial Facility are outlined in their respective impact assessments. 

6. 

OPTIONS 

Concerning the Culture, MEDIA, and MEDIA Mundus programmes, all options suggested by 
stakeholders,  external  experts,  institutions,  etc.  were  collected  and  screened.  The  option 
proposing  the  ''Merging  of  the  Culture,  MEDIA  and  MEDIA  Mundus  Programmes''  into  a 
single  transversal  programme  to  cover  the  cultural  and  creative  sectors  as  a  whole  with 
common calls for proposals was discarded due to the fact that although the different cultural 
sectors have many similarities, including in terms of the problems they are facing, the value 
chains and needs of beneficiaries are nevertheless too heterogeneous for harmonised calls and 
instruments. 

The  Culture  and  MEDIA/MEDIA  Mundus  impact  assessments  analyse  various  options  for 
reaching the objectives, including the discontinuation of the programmes, the maintenance of 
the  current  programmes  (the  "baseline"),  significantly  revised  programmes,  and  a  merger 
creating  a  framework  programme,  with  differentiation  between  the  culture  and  audiovisual 
sectors, that could accommodate the needs of the various sub-sectors more appropriately than 
a full merger. 

The definition of options for a financial facility for SMEs in the cultural and creative sectors 
included investigating the feasibility of different types of mechanisms, as the most appropriate 
type  of  funding  for  SMEs  depends  on  a  number  of  factors  such  as  the  type  of  SME,  the 
availability  of  debt  or  equity  finance,  the  cost  of  capital  or  the  willingness  to  share  the 
business  with  other  investors.  This  exercise  also  involved  various  stakeholders,  experts, 
professionals and financial institutions.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
On the basis of extensive consultations and the analysis the options of creating a standalone 
financial facility, creating an equity financial facility and creating a facility for microfinance 
and microenterprises were discarded. It was seen as more appropriate and effective to focus 
on  a  debt  instrument  which  would  be  placed  within  a  larger  cross-policy  instrument  and  an 
investment  readiness  programme  for  private  investors  and  cultural  and  creative  sector 
professionals that would either be managed by the EIF and/or the Commission itself. 

The impact assessment of this financial facility considers three options, namely 'No change' 
(the baseline), 'No action' (the 'no financial facility' option), and a third option of 'Setting up a 
Cultural and Creative Sector Guarantee Facility'. Additionally, option three is further divided 
into  two  sub-options;  a)  a  capped  guarantee  instrument  or  b)  an  uncapped  guarantee 
instrument.  The  IA  analyses  and  compares  the  sub-options  and  its  conclusion  is  that  sub-
option a) would be more feasible and efficient. The IA furthermore concludes that provided 
that certain criteria are fulfilled, sub-option a) should be incorporated within the framework of 
a larger financial facility (most likely managed by either DG RTD or DG ENTR). 

7. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

The individual impact assessments provide a detailed overview of the considered options and 
their  comparison.  Regarding  the  economic,  social  and  environmental  impacts,  the  MEDIA 
and Culture Strands’ impact assessments conclude that the discontinuation or baseline options 
would not be desirable, as these would not contribute to sufficient focus on addressing current 
problems facing the sectors, nor on the reaching of objectives set out in the EU 2020 strategy. 
The CCSFI impact assessment considers that the greatest impact can be achieved through the 
option of 'Setting up a Cultural and Creative Sector Guarantee Facility'.  

In terms of economic impacts the assessments conclude that the Creative Europe programme 
will aim to strengthen the sectors' adaptation to globalisation and the digital shift, including 
by  helping  with  the  development  of  audience-building,  new  business  models  and  revenue 
streams,  and  that  it  will  stimulate  transnational  circulation  of  cultural  works  (including 
audiovisual works), and improve the sectors' capacity to operate internationally, contributing 
to  economic  growth  and  employment  and  the  sectors'  overall  competitive  potential.  The 
economic impacts would not differ considerably between the revised programme and merger 
option.  

With regard to the social impacts the assessments conclude that the programme will deliver 
employment  benefits,  by  strengthening  the  sectors'  capacity  and  supporting  SMEs  and  their 
adaptation to the digital shift. A stronger focus on audience building measures in the options 
for  a  revised  programme  and  the  merger  option  may  be  expected  to  increase  consumer 
demand.  This  will  not  only  influence  the  sectors'  revenue  potential,  it  would  also  offer 
educational  benefits  and  reach  out  to  the  socially  excluded.  The  impacts  would  be  greater 
under the merger option (option 4) than under the revised programme option (option 3). 

Concerning  the  environmental  impacts,  it  is  noted  that  the  programme  may  have  some 
impacts  related  to  mobility,  transport  and  production  processes.  However,  it  is  noted  that 
these effects would not be greater than at present and relatively small. These effects could be 
counterbalanced by the emphasis the programme would place on adapting to the digital shift, 
which can enable greater audiences to be reached without physical travel. Here again the most 
positive impact could be achieved under the merged programme.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Concerning  fundamental  rights,  the  explicit  focus  in  the  general  objective  to  foster  the 
safeguarding and promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity means that the programme will 
make a direct contribution. 

8. COMPARISON OF OPTIONS 

8.1 Comparison of options 

The comparison of the options presented in the impact assessments is based on a multi-criteria 
analysis,  which  includes  the  following  criteria:  effectiveness  in  terms  of  achieving  the 
objectives,  efficiency,  cost-effectiveness  (result  per  Euro  spent),  and  coherence.  Under 
coherence, both the coherence between the option and the objectives to be reached (internal) 
and the coherence with and relevance to overall EU policy and strategies (external) have been 
assessed. 

With regard to cost-effectiveness, it is assumed that a framework programme would be more 
cost-effective  because  the  programme  strands  and  cultural  and  creative  sector  financial 
facility  would  be  clearer  and  more  focused  in  terms  of  targeted  results,  leading  to  greater 
systemic  and  structuring  impact,  including  through  rationalisation  of  instruments,  which 
would reduce the administrative costs per euro spent. 

8.2 The identified preferred option 

The further analysis of efficiency and effectiveness clearly showed that a merged framework 
programme could produce important benefits. The impact assessments therefore conclude that 
a single framework programme would have several advantages over all the other options. 
The  first  is  that  it  can  bring  greater  policy  synergies  as  the  different  cultural  sectors  are 
generally considered collectively in the context of broader policy discussions on the cultural 
and creative sectors, including their contribution to the Europe 2020 strategy. The second is 
that  a  single  programme  would  make  it  easier  to  achieve  knowledge  transfer  and  cross-
fertilisation between sectors. The third advantage is that it can contribute to simplifying the 
management of these programmes. It would, for example, permit the establishment of single 
information/access  points,  thereby  improving  visibility,  facilitating  the  access  of  citizens  to 
information on EU funding, and helping to ensure the best possible service to operators. The 
fourth is that these simplifications would also enable some reduction in the administrative 
burden  for  both  the  Commission  and  Member  States.  Simplifications  will  be  made  to  the 
delivery  mechanisms  through  greater  use  of  flat  rates,  grant  decisions  and  framework 
partnership  agreements,  electronic  applications  and  reporting,  and  an  electronic  portal  to 
reduce  paperwork  for  applicants  and  beneficiaries.  Similarly,  the  transversal  strand  would 
enable  some  savings  through  economies  of  scale  in  cross-cutting  areas.  The  fifth  is  that 
within this single programme a transversal Cultural and Creative Sector Financial Facility 
could be included in order to increase access to (private) funding. 

9. 

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED OPTION 

The impact assessments for Culture and MEDIA propose the continuation of EU funding for 
the  cultural  and  creative  sectors,  however,  they  conclude  that  EU  support  for  the  cultural 
sectors  would  be  more  effective  if  it  were  re-designed,  by  bringing  together  the  various 
programmes into a single framework programme, entitled "Creative Europe"'. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
This  preferred  option  would  be  the  most  coherent  and  cost-effective  and  respond  to  the 
growing recognition at EU level of the importance of the cultural and creative sectors. Of the 
considered options, this option would offer the best basis for a common EU strategy to focus 
attention  on  the  challenges  currently  facing  these  sectors  and  target  EU  support  on  those 
measures that  provide EU added value  by helping the sectors to optimise their  potential for 
economic growth, job creation and social inclusion.  

The  "Creative  Europe"  framework  programme  would  be  clearly  linked  to  the  Europe  2020 
strategy and seek to optimise the contribution of the cultural and creative sectors to its goals. 
The  proposal  is  in  line  with  the  Communication  of  the  Commission  on  the  Multiannual 
Financial  Framework  adopted  on  29  June  2011  ("A  Budget  for  Europe  2020"),  which 
indicated  that  synergies  would  be  brought  into  the  culture  related  programmes  of  the 
European Union and that EU funding should be concentrated on areas where it delivers high 
EU added value. It proposes to attribute a sum of €1.6 billion to the programme for the seven 
year duration. 

The  programme  would  comprise  three  strands, one  of  which  would  include  a  new  financial 
facility.  Two  of  the  strands  would  be  the  successors  to  the  existing  Culture  and 
MEDIA/MEDIA Mundus programmes, with the latter targeting the audiovisual sector and the 
Culture  strand  aimed  at  all  the  other  cultural  sectors.  In  addition,  there  would  be  a  cross-
sectoral  strand,  which  would  support  cross-cutting  elements  such  as  policy  development, 
piloting, cultural and media literacy, and the information points. This is addressed within the 
impact  assessments  for  Culture  and  MEDIA.  The  new  financial  facility  would  facilitate  the 
access of cultural and creative SME to finance by providing credit risk protection to financial 
intermediaries  building  portfolios  of  loans,  along  with  providing  them  with  the  necessary 
capacity/expertise building to correctly analyse the relevant risks. 

The  vast  majority  of  grants  under  the  Culture  and  MEDIA  strands  will  continue  to  be 
managed  through  the  Executive  Agency  for  Education,  Audiovisual  and  Culture  (EACEA) 
through annual calls for proposals published in a stable Programme Guide. As confirmed by 
various evaluations this has proved to be a cost-effective management mode for cross-border 
projects.  A  network  of  information  points  (the  current  Culture  Contact  Points  and  MEDIA 
Desks)  will  continue  to  provide  information  and  advice  on  applying  under  the  programme. 
They  will  not  redistribute  funds.  As  mentioned  above,  some  savings  will  be  made  by 
proposing merged information points for the entire programme. They will continue to be co-
funded  at  a  maximum  rate  of  50%  with  Member  States  co-funding  the  rest.  The  various 
simplifications introduced under the current programmes will be continued and some further 
ones sought. 

Management of the cultural and creative sector financial facility will be mandated to a third 
party financial institution, most likely the European Investment Fund (EIF) due to the nature 
of the expertise required for the running of such an instrument, while the management from 
the  Commission's  side  would  most  likely  be  in  the  hands  of  the  Directorate  General  for 
Education  and  Culture,  but  with  close  cooperation  with  other  Commission  departments, 
including the Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs.  

10.  MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
Monitoring  and  evaluation  will  be  a  core  element  of  a  future  programme  which  will 
emphasise  EU  added  value  and  performance.  The  Commission  will  therefore  regularly 
monitor and evaluate the performance and results against the objectives. 

Regarding  monitoring,  an  annual  activity  report  will  be  published,  including  both  statistics 
and qualitative assessment. 

In  addition  to  the  continuous  monitoring,  the  Commission  will  arrange  for  regular 
independent external evaluations regarding the strands and financial facility in order to assess 
the effectiveness and efficiency of the programme. The evaluations will also contribute to the 
assessment  of  the  programme's  EU  added  value  and  contribution  towards  the  general  and 
specific objectives.  

The Commission’s intention is to use a single interim evaluation, which would also serve as a 
final  evaluation  for  the  previous  programme.  In  order  to  enable  the  results  of  the  interim 
evaluation to be taken into account for decisions on renewing, modifying or discontinuing the 
successor programme in the future, it should be conducted before the end of 2017. 

All  external  evaluations  should  be  conducted  by  independent,  impartial  bodies.  The 
methodological approach taken to evaluation would need to be determined at the time and in 
light of prevailing European Commission guidance.  

The indicative performance indicators relating to the general and specific objectives are to be 
found in the individual impact assessment reports for the components of the Creative Europe 
programme. 

EN 

10 

   EN