Evaluating the impact of the Creative Europe programme in cities and regions.
Date: 2025-09-19
Institutions: Commission for Social Policy, Education, Employment, Research and Culture, Gavazzi, Alessandro
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, EU regional policy, artistic creation, creative industry, non cognitive skills, policy analysis, regional and local authorities, regional development, report

Commission for
Social Policy, Education,
Employment, Research and Culture

Evaluating 
the Impact of the 
Creative Europe 
Programme in Cities 
and Regions

C
E
D
E
S

m
o
c
.

k
c
o
t
s
e
b
o
d
a
/

r
o
t
a
e
r
C
s
u
p
l
e
e
F
©

l

 
 
 
© European Union, 2025  
Partial  reproduction  is  permitted,  provided  that  the  source  is  explicitly 
mentioned.  
More information on the European Union and the Committee of the Regions is 
available  online  at  http://www.europa.eu  and  http://www.cor.europa.eu 
respectively.  
QG-01-25-082-EN-N; ISBN: 978-92-895-3923-4; doi: 10.2863/5991613 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This report was written by   
Beatrice Errico, Susanna Fontana, Alessandro Gavazzi, Sara Tedesco, 
Fabio Bisogni (Fondazione FORMIT)  

It does not represent the official views of the European Committee of the 
Regions  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of contents 

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 
Background and objective of this study ................................................................................. 1 
Key findings ........................................................................................................................... 2 
Conclusions and policy recommendations ............................................................................. 3 
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 6 
Cultural policy and legal framework in the EU ..................................................................... 6 
Scope of the Cultural and Creative Sectors in Europe ........................................................... 7 
The economic importance of the Cultural and Creative Sectors in Europe ........................... 8 
Structural characteristics and challenges of the Cultural and Creative Sectors ................... 10 
The role of local and regional public authorities in the Cultural and Creative Sectors ....... 11 
Introduction to the Creative Europe Programme and objectives of this study ..................... 12 
Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 14 
Report structure .................................................................................................................... 15 

Part 1: EU Support for Cultural and Creative Sectors: The Creative Europe 

Programme overview ............................................................................................... 17 
1.1 Historical evolution of the Creative Europe Programme ............................................... 17 
1.1.1 The Creative Europe Programme (2014-2020): characteristics and objectives ...... 23 
1.1.2 The Creative Europe Programme (2021-2027): characteristics and objectives ...... 27 
1.1.3 Comparison between the two Programme editions ................................................. 29 

1.2 The participation of local and regional public authorities in the Creative Europe 
Programme ........................................................................................................................... 32 
1.2.1 The role of local and regional public authorities in the Creative Europe Programme
 .......................................................................................................................................... 47 
1.2.2 Benefits of local and regional public authorities’ engagement in the Creative 
Europe Programme ........................................................................................................... 49 
1.2.3 Success factors in the implementation of Creative Europe Programme projects ... 53 
1.2.4 Guidance tools provided by the European Commission for the Creative Europe 
Programme ....................................................................................................................... 58 
Part 2: Challenges and Barriers to Implementation ........................................................... 63 
2.1 Challenges related to the design of the Creative Europe Programme ............................ 63 
2.1.1 Complexity of the application process .................................................................... 66 
2.1.2 Difficulties in managing Creative Europe projects ................................................. 69 
2.1.3 Limited financial resources and impact of co-funding ............................................ 71 
2.1.4 Limited use of complementary EU funding opportunities in the Cultural and 
Creative Sectors ................................................................................................................ 73 
2.2 Alignment between the Creative Europe Programme priorities and sector-level capacity 
gaps ....................................................................................................................................... 82 
2.2.1 Low awareness of the Creative Europe Programme ............................................... 86 
2.2.2 Lack of staff resources and gaps in capacity building ............................................ 87 
2.2.3 Limited integration of cultural strategies into broader development frameworks .. 89 
Part 3: Best Practices in the Creative Europe Programme ................................................ 91 
3.1 Strong institutional leadership and governance capacity ............................................... 92 
3.2 Effective international and intraregional cooperation .................................................... 94 
3.3 Community engagement and participatory cultural processes ....................................... 97 
3.4 Capacity-building and skills development ..................................................................... 99 
3.5 Innovation and responsiveness to emerging challenges ............................................... 101 
3.6 Strategic integration of cultural policy into broader development agendas ................. 102 
3.7 Leveraging and diversifying funding sources .............................................................. 104 

 
 
 
3.8 Knowledge transfer and replicability ........................................................................... 105 
3.9 Comparative analysis of local and regional public authorities’ involvement across the 
selected best practices ........................................................................................................ 107 
Part 4: Foresight Analysis ................................................................................................... 112 
4.1 Trends and dynamics affecting the future of the Cultural and Creative Sectors .......... 112 
4.2 Best-case and worst-case scenarios for the future of the Cultural and Creative Sectors
 ............................................................................................................................................ 121 
4.3 Megatrends driving transformation in the Cultural and Creative Sectors .................... 125 
4.4 Opportunities and risks for the future of the Cultural and Creative Sectors ................ 128 
4.5 Preparedness of local and regional public authorities to future trends of the Cultural and 
Creative Sectors and areas for improvement ...................................................................... 134 
Part 5: Recommendations ................................................................................................... 139 
5.1 Enhancing participation and accessibility .................................................................... 140 
5.2 Leveraging existing EU frameworks and synergies ..................................................... 142 
5.3 Fostering innovation and cross-sectoral integration..................................................... 144 
5.4 Overview of the recommendations addressed to the European Union institutions, the 
Member States, and local and regional public authorities ................................................. 146 
Part 6: Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 148 
Annex I – Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 152 
Annex II – Questionnaire for successful local and regional authorities involved in the 

Creative Europe Programme ................................................................................ 161 

Annex III – Questionnaire for wider local and regional authorities and cultural 

associations ............................................................................................................. 170 
Annex IV – The interviews .................................................................................................. 177 
Annex V – Six detailed case studies .................................................................................... 184 

 
 
 
 
 
List of acronyms   

AI 
AR 
CAP 
CCIs 
CCS 
CEP 
CERV 
CoR 

DG CNECT 

Artificial Intelligence 
Augmented Reality 
Citizen Archive Platform 
Cultural and Creative Industries 
Cultural and Creative Sectors 
Creative Europe Programme 
Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Programme 
European Committee of the Regions 
Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content 
and Technology 
Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture 
European Education and Culture Executive Agency 
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 
European Commission 
European Capitals of Culture 
European Digital Innovation Hub 
European Globalisation Adjustment Fund 
European Institute of Innovation & Technology 
European Regional Development Fund 
European Social Fund Plus 
European Union 
Gross Domestic Product 
Intellectual Property Rights 
Joint Research Centre of the European Commission 
Just Transition Fund 
Knowledge and Innovation Communities 
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer 
Local and Regional Authority 
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 
Questions & Answers 
Research and Development 

DG EAC 
EACEA 
EAFRD 
EC 
ECOC 
EDIH 
EGF 
EIT 
ERDF 
ESF+ 
EU 
GDP 
IPR 
JRC 
JTF 
KICs 
LGBTQ+ 
LRA 
OECD 
Q&A 
R&D 
REACT-EU  Recovery assistance for cohesion and the territories of Europe 
RRF 
S3 
SDG 
SEDIA 
SME 

Recovery and Resilience Facility 
Smart Specialisation Strategy 
Sustainable Development Goal 
Single Electronic Data Interchange Area 
Small and medium-sized enterprise 
European instrument for temporary Support to mitigate 
Unemployment Risks in an Emergency 
Treaty on European Union 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union  

SURE 

TEU 
TFEU 

 
 
 
UN 
UNESCO 

VR 
XR 

United Nations 
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 
Organisation 
Virtual Reality 
Extended Reality 

 
 
Executive Summary 

Background and objective of this study 

Cultural  resources  and  products  of  human  creativity  are  amongst  those  goods 
whose  beneficial  effects  on  individuals  and  society  as  a  whole  are  extremely 
complicated to quantify. The positive effects of culture and creativity range from 
education,  a  sense  of  belonging,  and  social  cohesion  to  innovation,  as  well  as 
physical  and  mental  well-being,  and  more  tangible  areas  such  as  income  and 
economic growth. Also, due to this difficulty in measuring its benefits - as with 
many public goods - culture and creativity require the support and upholding of 
public actors and institutions to thrive and produce their effects to the fullest. 

In  this  context,  the  Creative  Europe  Programme  (CEP)  emerges  as  a  central 
instrument of the European Union’s (EU) cultural policy architecture. Launched 
in 2014  with  a total budget  of  EUR 1.47 billion  and  renewed in 2021 with  an 
increased  budget  of  EUR  2.44  billion,  the  Programme  consolidates  earlier 
initiatives  and  has  become  the  EU  flagship  funding  mechanism  explicitly 
dedicated to the Cultural and Creative Sectors (CCS). With its three strands (i.e., 
Culture, Media, and Cross-sectoral), the CEP plays a leading role in supporting 
cross-border  cooperation,  nurturing  innovative  creation,  and  amplifying  the 
visibility of European artistic and cultural expressions. 

By  investing  in  a  wide  range  of  creative  initiatives  and  fostering  mobility, 
networks, and digital innovation, the CEP not only sustains the dynamism of the 
cultural ecosystem but also brings culture closer to the lives of citizens in every 
European region. Its reach is further enhanced by its capacity to complement other 
major EU programmes, such as the New European Bauhaus, Horizon Europe, and 
the  European  Regional  Development  Fund.  Still,  amongst  all  these,  the  CEP 
stands out as the only EU initiative dedicated exclusively to the CCS. 

The  Programme  is  centrally  managed  by  the  EU,  and  although  several 
studies  have  been  produced  on  the  effects  generated,  its  impact  and 
effectiveness  at  the  local  and  regional  level  need  further  investigation.  It 
should, in fact, be considered that the effects a funding programme produces at 
place-based level depend greatly on territorial  characteristics and its alignment 
with  specific  local  needs,  especially  in  a  field  such  as  the  CCS,  which,  at  the 
European level, is highly diversified due to its various cultural influences. 

In this framework, the present study aims to offer an assessment of the extent 
to which the CEP has supported the CCS at local and regional levels. The 
research builds on a wide set of evidence, ranging from in-depth literature review 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and  desk  research  to  case  studies  and  stakeholder  consultations  with  e.g., 
representatives  from organisations  involved in managing CEP funding and EU 
representatives, to statistical analyses. The ambition is to offer an analysis of the 
cross-sectoral  benefits  of  investment  in  culture  and  to  identify  obstacles  to 
successful  implementation  at  local  and  regional  levels,  also  in  view  of  the 
challenges and crises that the CCS have faced in recent  times, stemming  from 
both local and global phenomena. 

Moreover, a thorough assessment of the CEP’s impact at local and regional 
level  is  particularly  pertinent  in  the  context  of  the  next  EU  Multiannual 
Financial Framework (2028-2034), so as to inform any future editions of the 
Programme. Ultimately, the increasing acknowledgement of culture as a driver 
of regional development, social cohesion, and innovation underscores the need 
for a more comprehensive understanding of how EU programmes contribute to 
these objectives across local and regional contexts. 

Key findings 

Despite growing institutional recognition of the role of culture in driving place-
based development, LRA participation in the CEP remains structurally limited.  

Although the CEP is not primarily designed for LRAs, since its inception in 2014, 
LRAs  have  accounted  for  approximately  3.9%  of  all  funded  organisations, 
although their relative participation has slightly increased in the ongoing 2021-
2027 programming period (up to 4.4% annually). While relatively modest, their 
involvement  proved  highly  impactful,  particularly  in  project  coordination, 
organising activities, exchanging best practices, and community engagement.   

Nevertheless, where LRAs do participate, their engagement tends to deliver high 
transnational  and  place-based  social  and  cultural  impacts.  The  results  of  the 
survey launched for the scope of this study show that more than approximately 
76%  and  69%  of  respondent  LRAs  achieved  strengthened  international 
cooperation  and  established  new  partnerships  thanks  to  the  CEP  funding, 
respectively. Other significant results include skills development (noted by 63% 
of respondents) and enhanced community engagement (44%). These impacts 
were  most  pronounced  in  small-  and  mid-sized  cities,  particularly  those  with 
populations between 10,000 and 500,000, which demonstrate high organisational 
commitment despite limited resources. 

Conversely,  certain  expected  benefits  (e.g.,  the  development  of  innovative 
business models and increased cultural tourism) were realised to a much lesser 
extent.  By  way  of  example,  while  17  LRAs  anticipated  innovation-focused 
outcomes  from  their  involvement,  only  12  reported  achieving  them  (a  29% 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
shortfall).  Similarly,  results  suggest  a  considerable  gap  between  cultural 
ambitions  and  achieved  economic  returns,  highlighting  the  Programme’s 
limitations in stimulating tangible economic impact at place-based level within 
current project scales and durations. 

The  analysis  confirms  that  several  structural  and  procedural  barriers  still 
strongly hinder broader  and  more balanced LRA  participation. The application 
process remains complex and resource-intensive, with special reference to larger 
LRAs, which identified the administrative workload as a core challenge. Staff 
constraints and limited technical expertise were cited by approximately half of 
LRA  respondents, while  co-financing requirements disproportionately impact 
smaller and economically weaker territories having limited financial ecosystems 
or  weaker  public  budgets.  These  challenges  are  particularly  acute  in  Southern 
Europe, which may reflect higher project costs, limited access to complementary 
funding, or greater reliance on EU support. 

Furthermore,  the study found limited strategic integration between the CEP 
and  other  EU  funding  frameworks.  Interreg  Europe,  the  European  Regional 
Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+), Erasmus+ 
and  Horizon  Europe  were  amongst 
the  most  accessed  complementary 
instruments, but usage rates remain low, especially amongst CEP beneficiaries.  

Best  practices  consistently  point  to  success  factors  rooted  in  institutional 
capacity and local ecosystem strength. These include cross-sectoral governance, 
involvement  of  community-based  organisations,  regional  cooperation,  and 
locally  anchored  leadership.  A  majority  of  CEP  recipients  also  judged  their 
projects  to  be  moderately  to  highly  replicable,  underscoring  their  potential  for 
scale-up and trans-regional transfer, particularly where peer learning and support 
mechanisms are in place. 

Finally,  the  foresight  analysis  identified  key  trends  (i.e.,  digitalisation, 
demographic change, and labour market evolution) that  are reshaping the CCS 
landscape.  While  these  trends  offer  new  opportunities,  they  also  present 
challenges, particularly for LRAs with limited capacity. Ensuring that all regions 
are adequately supported to navigate these shifts will be essential for fostering a 
resilient and future-ready European cultural ecosystem. 

Conclusions and policy recommendations  

The  study  highlights  the  CEP  as  a  key  instrument  for  promoting  territorial 
cohesion and inclusive development across Europe. The CCS have demonstrated 
its  capacity  to  drive  social  innovation,  economic  resilience,  and  sustainable 
development, especially when supported through place-based strategies. The CEP 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
has shown strong potential to address regional disparities and empower LRAs to 
leverage culture as a tool for community engagement and urban regeneration. 

Looking to the future, the next EU Multiannual Financial Framework (2028-2034) 
and the proposed AgoraEU instrument, which aims to merge the CEP with the 
Citizens,  Equality,  Rights  and  Values  Programme  (CERV),  will  reshape  how 
cultural funding is delivered at the EU level. While AgoraEU is likely to be an 
opportunity to streamline procedures and enhance cross-sectoral synergies, it also 
raises  crucial  considerations  about  maintaining  the  CEP’s  sector-specific 
visibility,  policy  autonomy,  and  guarantees  of  tailored  support  for  the  CCS  at 
place-based level. 

To  maximise  the  CEP’s  relevance  and  ensure  its  effectiveness  under  the  new 
funding architecture, several actionable priorities must guide policy reform. 

First,  accessibility  to  the  Programme  must  be  broadened,  with  a  particular 
focus  on  reaching  underrepresented  territories  and  smaller  authorities.  This 
requires targeted outreach, the simplification of administrative burdens, and 
the  comprehensive  resourcing  of  decentralised  support,  including  enhanced 
networks  of  National  Creative  Europe  Desks  funded  according  to  a  more 
equitable, needs-based approach across all CEP eligible countries.  

Second,  capacity-building  and  professional  development,  especially  for  less 
experienced regions and smaller administrations, must be strengthened. Priority 
should be given to equip LRAs’ staff with up-to-date skills in research, project 
design  and  management,  digital  technologies,  and  sustainability,  thereby 
increasing their capacity to unlock the opportunities offered by the CEP.  

Third,  the  Programme  should  take  a  leadership  role  in  fostering  innovation, 
digital transformation, sustainability, and inclusion, supporting LRAs to adapt 
to emerging challenges. This requires that green, digital, and inclusive criteria are 
embedded  in  project  evaluation  and  guidance,  and  that  dedicated  support  is 
provided for hybrid digital-cultural initiatives.  

Fourth,  budgetary  visibility  and  sectoral  focus  for  the  CEP  must  be 
safeguarded in any transition to AgoraEU, or any similar instrument the CEP 
may turn out to become. The CCS, with their unique characteristics and economic 
profiles, require policy attention and financial autonomy within the consolidated 
framework, with LRAs holding a clear and resourced role.  

Finally, LRAs should be recognised as strategic partners and engaged in the co-
design  and  implementation  of  post-2027  CEP  programming.  Any  reform  - 
whether within the CEP or the new AgoraEU framework - should institutionalise 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
structured  consultation  with  LRAs,  ensuring  that  territorial  priorities  and 
innovation feed directly into the EU cultural policy. 

In summary, to unlock the full potential of the CEP - both in its current form and 
under the evolving structure of AgoraEU - the Programme must double down on 
inclusivity,  targeted  capacity-building,  simplified  access,  and  policy  autonomy 
for culture. In embedding these priorities and actionable reforms, the next phase 
of  EU  cultural  funding  can  become  a  stronger  lever  for  local  and  regional 
resilience,  innovation,  and  cohesion,  helping  culture  and  creativity  effectively 
drive the EU development agenda into the next decade. 

5 

 
 
 
 
Introduction 

Cultural policy and legal framework in the EU 

Culture is a cornerstone of the European Union’s (EU) identity and a key priority 
for  its  development  strategies.  Recognising  its  importance,  the  EU  actively 
supports the cultural sector, especially during times of transition and challenge. 

As outlined in Article 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 
(TFEU)1,  the  topic  of  culture  is  one  of  the  areas  in  which  the  EU  “have 
competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions 
of the Member States”. Such considerations are explicitly recognised in the EU 
legislation. Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) recognises that: 

“[The  Union]  shall  respect  its  rich  cultural  and  linguistic  diversity,  and  shall 
ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.”2  

Article 167 of the TFEU further adds:  

“The Union shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, 
while  respecting  their  national  and  regional  diversity  and  at  the  same  time 
bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore.”3 

Furthermore, it is stated that:  

“Action by the Union shall be aimed at encouraging cooperation between Member 
States  and,  if  necessary,  supporting  and  supplementing  their  action  in  […] 
improvement of the knowledge and dissemination of the culture and history of the 
European  peoples,  conservation  and  safeguarding  of  cultural  heritage  of 
European  significance,  […]  artistic  and  literary  creation,  including  in  the 
audiovisual sector.”4  

1 European Union. 2012. Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Official 
Journal of the European Union C 326, October 26, 2012. Accessed April 28, 2025.  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT:en:PDF.   
2 European Union. 2012. Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union. Official Journal of the European 
Union C 326, October 26, 2012. Accessed April 28, 2025.  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:2bf140bf-a3f8-4ab2-b506-
fd71826e6da6.0023.02/DOC_1&format=PDF.  
3 European Union. 2012. Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Official 
Journal of the European Union C 326, October 26, 2012. Accessed April 28, 2025.  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT:en:PDF. 
4 Ibid. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  the  early  2010s,  the  European  Commission  (EC)  adopted  the  Cultural  and 
Creative  Sectors  (CCS)  as  a  unified  policy  domain.  This  approach  was 
institutionalised  with  the  launch  of  the  Creative  Europe  Programme  (CEP)  in 
2014.  Since  then,  the  CEP  has  been  recognised  as  the  EU’s  flagship  initiative 
dedicated to supporting the development of the CCS. In coordination with other 
EU  initiatives  (e.g.,  the  New  European  Bauhaus,  the  European  Regional 
Development Fund, Horizon Europe), the CEP aims to promote European cultural 
diversity and heritage, enhance the competitiveness of creative industries, foster 
cross-border  collaboration,  support  digital 
increase  cultural 
accessibility and participation, and uphold artistic freedom and media pluralism, 
ensuring a resilient and globally competitive European CCS.  

innovation, 

Against this backdrop, the actions of EU institutions must ensure a homogeneous 
development  of  the  CCS  at  a  continental  level,  including  in  economically  less 
developed areas. Central coordination and specific funding programmes – such as 
the  CEP  -  can  boost  cultural  initiatives  and  provide  financial  support  to  the 
stakeholders  involved,  improving  the  opportunities  for  European  citizens  to 
access culture and generate new inputs for the expression of creativity. 

Scope of the Cultural and Creative Sectors in Europe 

Today, the scope of the CCS in Europe includes a diverse array of organisations.  

As defined in Article 2 of the EU Regulation establishing the CEP (2021 to 2027) 
(European Parliament and Council of the European Union 2021, 10)5, Cultural 
and Creative Industries (CCIs) comprise the sub-sectors of architecture, archives, 
libraries  and  museums,  artistic  crafts,  audiovisual  (including  film,  television, 
video  games  and  multimedia),  tangible  and  intangible  cultural  heritage,  design 
(including fashion design), festivals, music, literature, performing arts (including 
theatre and dance), books and publishing, radio, and visual arts, inter alia. 

The CCS are also critical for promoting social cohesion, inclusivity, safeguarding 
democratic  values,  and  ensuring  sustainability,  considering  their  strategic 
proximity to the local level, where their actions are implemented. Furthermore, 
the economic, social and political challenges currently facing Europe (e.g., digital 
transformation,  demographic  changes  and  regional  disparities)  are  making  it 
increasingly urgent to improve our understanding of the level of support provided 
by the EU to the CCS at local and regional levels.  

5 European Parliament and Council of the European Union. 2021. Regulation (EU) No 2021/818 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 establishing the Creative Europe Programme (2021 to 2027) and 
repealing Regulation (EU) No 1295/2013, L 189/34, 28.5.2021. Accessed April 28, 2025.  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R0818. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Integrating the specific needs  of local and  regional stakeholders into long-
term policy strategies is critical to ensuring that cultural policies are effective 
and  responsive.  Such  an  approach  enables  the  implementation  of  tailored 
strategies that address regional inequalities, support local creative capacities, and 
optimise  the  impact  of  cultural  investments.  This  alignment  also  facilitates 
stronger  cooperation  between  national,  regional,  and  local  public  authorities, 
enhancing  the  capacity  of  the  CCS  to  contribute  to  both  cultural  vitality  and 
broader socio-economic development across Europe.  

The economic importance of the Cultural and Creative Sectors in 
Europe 

The importance of the cultural sector is not only connected to its role in spreading 
community  values  and  promoting  the  valorisation  of  European  cultural  and 
historical heritage. Contrary to what one might think, industries related to the CCS 
contribute  more  to  the  overall  macroeconomic  indicators  of  the  continent  than 
several traditional industries (Boix-Domènech & Rausell-Köster 2018)6.  

According  to  the  European  Industrial  Strategy7,  fourteen  industrial  ecosystems 
are  identified  as  critical  to  the  EU’s  economic  growth,  resilience,  and  future 
competitiveness. Amongst them are the CCIs, which play a pivotal role in the EU, 
promoting both its economic cohesion and its cultural identity and values.  

Cultural  and  creative  activities  and  enterprises  also  represent  a  substantial 
contribution to the European economic fabric, offering a significant impetus to 
the development of the economies of the member countries and to the well-being 
of the citizens living there.  

According  to  the  final  report  published  by  the  “Measuring  the  Cultural  and 
Creative Sectors in the EU” project in November 2022, in 2021, CCS industries 
employed 7.4 million people, accounting for 3.7% of total employment in the EU 
(Measuring CCS Consortium 2021)8.  

European 

Commission, 

6 Boix-Domènech, R., & Rausell-Köster, P. 2018. “The economic impact of the creative industry in the European 
Union”. Drones and the creative industry: Innovative strategies for European SMEs (pp. 19-36). Cham: Springer 
International Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95261-1_2.  
7 
28, 
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/european-
industrial-strategy_en.  
8 The Measuring CCS Consortium. 2022. Final Report - Measuring the Cultural and Creative Sectors in the EU. 
Accessed April 28, 2025.  
https://www.measuring-ccs.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/The-Measuring-CCS-Consortium-publishes-the-
Final-Report-Measuring-the-Cultural-and-Creative-Sectors-in-the-EU.pdf.  

strategy”.  Accessed  April 

“European 

industrial 

2025. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Furthermore,  according  to  Eurostat  data9,  in  2022,  the  number  of  cultural 
enterprises exceeded two million, representing 6.3% of all companies within the 
business economy, and generated around EUR 199 billion in value added.  

In 2020, across the twenty-seven EU Member States, plus Norway and Iceland, 
the  average  contribution  of  the  CCS  to  the  overall  economy  was  5.3%  (KEA 
2021)10, as shown in Figure 1 below. The figure also provides a breakdown for 
each of the countries considered. 

Figure 1 - Contribution of the CCS to the total value added of each EU-27 Member State, Norway and Iceland. 
2020. Source: Eurostat (2025). 

Despite  the  sector's  importance  in  the  continent's  economy,  its  particular 
characteristics and structure make it remarkably diverse and fragile.  

According to Eurostat11, in 2022, 78% of all workers involved in the CCS were 
employed  in  the  category  of  ‘micro-enterprises’,  which  have  fewer  than  ten 
employees. Additionally, 11.6% of them worked in enterprises with between 10 
and 49 employees. This data helps clarify the overall picture of the sector from 
the perspective of private sector organisations. Only one in ten employees worked 
for  a  medium  or  large  company,  which  is  able  to  rely  on  solid  budgets  and 
funding, as shown in Figure 2 below. 

9 European Commission, Culture Statistics - Cultural Enterprises, “Eurostat Statistics Explained”. Accessed April 
28, 2025.  
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Culture_statistics_-_cultural_enterprises.  
10  KEA.  2021.  Market  Analysis  of  the  Cultural  and  Creative  Sectors  in  Europe.  Accessed  April  28,  2025. 
https://keanet.eu/new-market-analysis-of-the-cultural-and-creative-sectors-in-europe/.  
11 European Commission, Culture Statistics - Cultural Enterprises, “Eurostat Statistics Explained”. Accessed April 
28, 2025.  
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Culture_statistics_-_cultural_enterprises.  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2 - Percentage share of people employed in the CCS sector divided by category of enterprises. 2022. 
Source: Eurostat (2025). 

Structural  characteristics  and  challenges  of  the  Cultural  and 
Creative Sectors 

The  structure  of  the  CCS  is  also  reflected  in  the  diverse  needs  identified  by 
different Knowledge and Innovation  Communities  (KICs)12 and culture-related 
businesses.  Depending  on  their  size  and  financial  strength,  each  company 
addresses different needs and priorities.  

A  study  published  in  October  2024  by  the  Directorate-General  for  Internal 
Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs of the EC presents an overview of 
the “Needs and Challenges of the Cultural and Creative Industries” (EC 2024)13.  

As the study shows, the most problematic issue for CCIs is “access to finance”, 
which concerns almost 70% of the respondents. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) 
represent  a  problem  for  more  than  one  in  four  respondents  (27%),  while 
“digitalisation”  and  “skills”  are  concerns  for  18.7%  and  12.9%  of  the  sample, 
respectively. When asked, “Which advanced technologies do you consider more 
important for the competitiveness of CCIs?”, 77.4% of the interviewed CCIs cited 
Artificial Intelligence (AI). Evidence of the challenges smaller companies face in 

12 i.e., The Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) are an initiative of the European Institute of Innovation 
and Technology (EIT), an EU body aimed at enhancing innovation and fostering collaboration between businesses, 
research institutes, and higher education institutions. KICs are designed to tackle global challenges (e.g., Cultural 
& Creative Sectors & Industries), by combining these key players in sectors that are vital for the future of Europe. 
For further details, refer to the initiative’s official website: https://www.eit.europa.eu/global-challenges. Accessed 
on April 28, 2025.  
13 European Commission, Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. 2024. 
Needs  and  challenges  of  the  cultural  and  creative  industries.  Accessed  April  28,  2025.  https://single-market-
economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/cultural-and-creative-industries/needs-and-challenges_en.  

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
navigating the cultural market is provided by the fact that “entrepreneurial skills” 
were  cited  by  17%  of  the  respondents.  The  responses  to  this  study  highlight 
potential  future  trends  that  may  shape  the  evolution  of  the  CCS  in  Europe. 
Innovations in technology, developments in legislation - at both the continental 
and national levels - and local capacities will be required in the future to manage 
the  complexity  of  the  CCS.  All  of  this  will  help  determine  how  well  CCS 
stakeholders  (e.g.,  creative  professionals  and  artists,  cultural  organisations  and 
institutions,  local  and  regional  public  authorities)  can  adapt  to  future 
developments, ensuring the richness of European culture, whilst preserving local 
cultural identities. 

The role of local and regional public authorities in the Cultural and 

Creative Sectors 

In  this  context,  although  culture  appears  to  be  increasingly  taking  on  a 
homogeneous  “European”  appearance,  especially  when  compared  to  cultures 
from other latitudes, the territorial dimension remains fundamental to its cultural 
richness.  The  diversity  of  local  traditions,  languages,  and  creative  expressions 
across Europe may share similarities, but each possesses unique characteristics 
that  make  them  special  and  irreplaceable.  In  this  process,  which  is  somewhat 
analogous to globalisation – and often referred to as “Europeanisation” – there is 
an increasing market convergence, the introduction of supranational policies, and 
a trend  toward cultural homogenisation.  However,  unlike  global dynamics,  the 
process within the EU still involves individual States and their constituent regions 
(Berezin & Díez-Medrano 2008)14.  

Within this evolving landscape, local and regional public authorities (LRAs) play 
a  strategic role in  safeguarding  and nurturing the  CCS. As the  closest level  of 
governance  to  citizens,  LRAs  are  uniquely  positioned  to  understand  and 
respond  to  the  specific  cultural  needs,  identities,  and  aspirations  of  their 
communities. Their actions are crucial for ensuring that the richness of Europe’s 
cultural  diversity  is  not  only  preserved  but  actively  promoted  in  the  face  of 
broader integration trends. 

LRAs  contribute  significantly  to  the  vitality  of  CCIs  by  designing  and 
implementing  policies 
foster 
participation  in  cultural  life.  Through  targeted  support,  investment,  and 
strategic planning, they help create environments where creativity can flourish, 
heritage can be preserved, and new forms of cultural expression can emerge. This 

that  reflect  place-based  realities  and 

14 Berezin, M., & Díez-Medrano, J. 2008. “Distance matters: Place, political legitimacy and popular support for 
European 
1-32. 
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=8c879f7be00b4b15c996a26abeb622c510fdc7
d3.  

Comparative 

integration”. 

European 

Politics, 

In 

6, 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
place-based approach is essential for preserving the distinctiveness of regions and 
cities, even as they become part of the “Europeanisation” process. 

Moreover,  the  involvement  of  LRAs  is  fundamental  to  the  broader  socio-
economic  impact  of  the  CCS.  By  integrating  these  sectors  into  local  and/or 
regional  development  strategies,  LRAs  can  stimulate  economic  growth, 
promote social cohesion, and drive urban regeneration (Kalfas et al. 2024)15. 
They  are  also  key  actors  in  addressing  challenges  such  as  unemployment, 
deindustrialisation,  and  social  fragmentation,  particularly  in  less  developed  or 
transitioning areas. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 
Development  (OECD  2022)16,  regions  with  proactive  local  and  regional 
governance  in  the  cultural  sector  increasingly  treat  support  for  the  CCS  as  an 
investment rather than a cost. As a result, they experience greater economic and 
social  benefits,  as  CCIs  are  closely  linked  to  innovation,  job  creation,  and  an 
enhanced quality of life. 

Furthermore,  LRAs  facilitate  stakeholder  engagement,  build  institutional 
capacity,  and  ensure  that  funding  resources  are  aligned  with  place-based 
priorities.  Their  proximity  to  cultural  stakeholders  (e.g.,  artists  and  creators, 
CCIs,  cultural  institutions,  educational  and  research  institutions)  enables  more 
effective coordination and the development of tailored solutions that reflect the 
unique assets and challenges of each territory. These actions are key not only to 
preserving  Europe’s  unique  cultural  fabric  but  also  to  harnessing  the 
transformative power of culture and creativity for sustainable local and regional 
development,  as  well  as  social  well-being.  This  capacity  for  adaptation  and 
responsiveness  is  increasingly  important  in  a  context  marked  by  rapid 
technological  advancements,  global  competition,  and  external  shocks,  as 
exemplified by the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Introduction to the Creative Europe Programme and objectives of 
this study 

The first appearances of purely cultural issues on the EU political agenda can be 
traced back to the early 1990s, when the first financing instruments for the sector 
were  adopted.  In  1991,  the  Media  programme  was  established  to  support  the 
European audiovisual industry, helping it become more competitive in the global 
market  and  fostering  cooperation  between  European  filmmakers.  In  1996  and 
1997,  the Kaleidoscope,  Ariane  and  Raphaël  programmes  were  established  for 

15  Kalfas,  D.,  Kalogiannidis,  S.,  Ambas,  V.,  &  Chatzitheodoridis,  F.  2024.  “Contribution  of  the  Cultural  and 
Creative Industries to Regional Development and Revitalization: A European Perspective”. Urban Science 8,39. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci8020039.  
16  OECD.  2022.  The  Culture  Fix:  Creative  People,  Places  and  Industries.  Local  Economic  and  Employment 
Development (LEED), OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/991bb520-en.  

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
financing  activities  in  the  cultural  sector  (Primorac  et  al.  2017)17.  These  EU 
programmes were later substituted by the Culture 2000 and Culture programme 
that assisted in the promotion of cultural networking across the continent whilst 
following  the  general  guidelines  of  EU  strategic  documents.  In  the  following 
decades,  “culture”  increasingly  became  seen  as  a  vector  of  integration  and  a 
priority for the EU (Barnett 2001)18. 

The  adoption  of  the ‘European  Agenda  for  Culture  in  a  Globalising  World’  in 
200719 further bolstered coordinated policy-making in the cultural field. From the 
merger of the Media and Culture (2000-2006) programmes, the CEP was created 
in 2014 as a mechanism to improve the management and coordination of previous 
initiatives. 

The first Programme, running from 2014 to 2020 with a total budget of EUR 1.47 
billion, was followed by a new edition for 2021 to 2027, with a larger budget of 
EUR 2.44 billion. 

This study aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of the impact of the 
CEP on the CCS at the local and regional level across the EU. It explores how 
CEP resources contribute to the growth of CCIs, urban regeneration, and heritage 
conservation across diverse European contexts. This study specifically examines 
the needs and challenges faced by LRAs in accessing and implementing the 
Programme, as well as the unique characteristics that define each region.  

As highlighted by the European Committee of the Regions (CoR) in 201920, the 
involvement  of  LRAs  in  the  CEP  is  crucial:  they  are  best  placed  to  identify 
territorial  needs,  connect  with  local  communities,  and  ensure  that  cultural 
investments are relevant and effective.  

Assessing the impact of the CEP at the subnational level is both timely and policy-
relevant, particularly in light of the next EU Multiannual Financial Framework 
for  2028-2034.  The  growing  recognition  of  the  role  of  culture  in  regional 
development, social cohesion, and innovation calls for a deeper understanding of 

17 Primorac, R., et al. 2017. "The Place and Role of Culture in the EU Agenda: Policy Implications of the Culture 
Sub-programme of the Creative Europe Programme." Medijska Istraživanja. 23. 5-23. 10.22572/mi.23.1.1. 
18  Barnett,  C.  2001.  “Culture,  policy,  and  subsidiarity  in  the  European  Union:  from  symbolic  identity  to  the 
governmentalisation  of  culture”.  Political  geography,  20(4),  405-426.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-
6298(01)00002-6.  
19 European Commission. 2007. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, 
the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  on  a  European  Agenda  for 
Culture  in  a  Globalizing  World.  Brussels:  COM(2007)  242  final.  Accessed  May  30,  2025.  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52007DC0242.  
20 European Committee of the Regions. 2019. Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on “Creative 
Europe  and  A  New  European  Agenda  for  Culture”  (2019/C  168/07).  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union. 
Accessed May 30, 2025. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX%3A52018AR3890.  

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
how EU programmes are implemented on the ground. As outlined by the CoR 
(2019)21,  LRAs  should  be  regularly  involved  in  the  design,  delivery,  and 
evaluation  of  EU  cultural  programmes.  Such  involvement  is  key  to  enhancing 
territorial cohesion, supporting local economies, and helping retain talent and jobs 
at  the  local  and  regional  level.  Furthermore,  the  subsidiarity  principle,  as 
reaffirmed  by  the  CoR,  underlines  the  need  to  ensure  that  LRAs  have  the 
necessary powers and resources to maintain and protect cultural diversity at the 
place-based 
the 
distinctiveness of each territory.  

that  EU  actions  respect  and  promote 

level,  ensuring 

By drawing on objective evidence from the LRAs that have successfully received 
CEP funding, this study highlights best practices and offers guidance to help other 
LRAs  effectively  leverage  this  funding.  Additionally,  the  study  provides  a 
forward-looking  analysis,  considering  long-term  dynamics  at  both  macro  and 
sectoral levels. This analysis aims to develop tailored recommendations for EU 
institutions, national governments, and LRAs to improve the effectiveness of the 
EU support for the cultural and creative ecosystem at the European level. 

Methodology 

This study’s approach was developed through several stages and methodologies. 
It began with an in-depth literature review on the EU support to the CCS through 
the  CEP.  Based  on  academic  publications,  existing  reports,  documents,  EU 
reports, and policy papers, the study provides an overview of CEP’s overarching 
goals, as well as its relevance in the context of current EU cultural policies and 
existing regional development strategies across the EU, to finally assess whether 
and  to  what  extent  it  addresses  local  and  regional  needs.  Additional  research 
gathered 
information  on  successful  projects  and  best  practices,  while 
consultations with representatives  from organisations involved in  CEP funding 
helped  assess  LRAs'  participation.  Desk  research  and  direct  data  collection 
through tailored interviews and an online consultation involving  LRA officials 
participating in the CEP were invaluable tools for developing both quantitative 
and qualitative analyses of LRA involvement in the CEP. On one hand, statistical 
analysis provided a comprehensive overview of the characteristics of the LRAs 
that have successfully participated in the CEP (e.g., country of origin, entity type, 
demographic size, etc.). On the other hand, the responses collected through the 
online consultation, along with  interviews with experts on the  topic (i.e.,  LRA 
representatives  and  EU  officials),  offered  valuable  insights  into  the  main 
challenges  faced  during  programme  implementation,  as  well  as  potential 
opportunities and benefits for LRAs, and possibilities for creating synergies with 
other European funding programmes. 

21 Ibid.  

14 

 
 
 
 
 
information 

Best practices and relevant case studies have been selected from the list of CEP 
projects  funded  between  2014  and  2024,  considering  a  wide  geographical  and 
demographic  representation,  as  well  as  different  levels  of  socio-economic 
development. The research has been further enriched with a broader consultation 
involving LRAs not participating in the CEP and CCS organisations (e.g., cultural 
associations, non-governmental organisations, creative enterprises). This online 
survey allowed an assessment of the extent to which the CEP is aligned with local 
and regional needs and priorities. The answers provided to this survey returned 
relevant 
the  development  of  policy 
recommendations  enhancing  the  future  effectiveness  and  relevance  of  the  EU 
support in these fields through EU centrally managed  programmes  such  as the 
CEP. Finally, based on the data gathered in the previous stages, a forward-looking 
analysis  has  been  conducted  to  explore  potential  long-term  trends,  impacts, 
challenges,  and  opportunities,  particularly  those  driven  by  technological 
advancements,  global  economic  shifts,  and  evolving  local  and/or  regional 
dynamics. This analysis has helped understand future developments in the CCS, 
how  they  may  influence  EU  funding  programmes,  and  provide  actionable 
recommendations  to  ensure  that  LRAs,  Member  States,  and  the  EU  are  better 
prepared for these changes. 

that  contributed 

to 

Report structure 

The study is structured in six parts. 

Part 1 presents an overview of the support provided by the CEP to the CCS in 
Europe. As the EU's flagship initiative for financial promotion in the cultural field, 
it outlines the historical evolution of CEP’s strategic objectives, highlighting how 
they  have  changed  from  the  first  to  the  second  edition  of  the  Programme  in 
response to the sectors’ evolving needs and the EU’s broader economic and social 
goals. This section also discusses the impact of the CEP on the European cultural 
landscape and its alignment with broader EU development goals. It includes an 
overview  of  the  application  process  and  the  criteria  that  eligible  organisations 
(e.g., LRAs) must meet to receive funding. Finally, it provides an analysis of the 
current participation of LRAs, focusing on their role, benefits, and success factors 
made possible thanks to CEP funding.  

Part 2 explores the key challenges and barriers that hinder the effective access 
and implementation of the CEP at the local and regional level. It examines the 
extent to which the CEP priorities are aligned with the capacity gaps in the CCS, 
as  well  as  the  administrative  and  procedural  obstacles  that  limit  access  to  the 
Programme. This section also highlights structural issues such as limited staff and 
financial  resources,  the  complexity  of  co-funding  requirements,  and  the 
underutilisation of complementary EU funding instruments supporting the CCS. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
Furthermore,  it  examines  the  insufficient  integration  of  cultural  strategies  into 
broader  regional  development  frameworks,  offering  insights  into  the  systemic 
constraints  faced  by  LRAs  in  the  CCS.  These  findings  inform  policy 
recommendations aimed at improving the accessibility, alignment, and impact of 
the CEP across diverse territorial contexts. 

Part 3 focuses on the success stories of the LRAs that have effectively used CEP 
funds.  This  section  showcases  six  case  studies,  providing  a  broad  and  diverse 
overview of factors that have contributed to a successful application. An in-depth 
analysis of success factors identified through these examples provides valuable 
insights for replicating these successes in other cities and regions, thus adopting a 
place-based approach to support the CCS. This  section, therefore, explores the 
particular characteristics that enabled success in these projects and offers strategic 
guidance to LRAs for more effective engagement with the Programme. 

Part  4  presents  a  foresight  analysis  based  on  data  gathered  through  a  public 
consultation carried out at the local and regional levels. This analysis integrates 
inputs from EU institutions and research centres, including megatrends22 from the 
Competence Centre on Foresight from the Joint Research Centre of the EC (JRC). 
The foresight analysis identifies potential future scenarios that impact the CCS, 
considering technological and socio-economic trends at global, regional, and local 
levels. This will help assess the preparedness of LRAs and other stakeholders at 
local  and  regional  level  (e.g.,  arts  institutions,  creative  businesses,  artists  and 
creatives)  for  future  developments,  particularly  regarding 
technological 
advancements and their influence on regional policies and the broader economic 
landscape. 

Building  on  this  analysis,  Part  5  presents  evidence-based  recommendations 
designed to enhance the capacity of LRAs to effectively access and utilise CEP 
funds.  The  policy  recommendations  focus  on  streamlining  administrative 
processes  for  fund  applications  and  enhancing  capacity-building  strategies  for 
regions  with  greater  difficulties  accessing  the  Programme.  Furthermore,  the 
section proposes ways to improve synergy between the CEP and other EU funding 
programmes  to  maximise  the  impact  of  each  intervention,  benefiting  not  only 
regional or local development but the EU as a whole. 

Finally, Part 6 provides a summary of the key findings and conclusions related 
to the CEP and its impact on the CCS. This section reflects on the implications 
for future EU cultural policy and highlights the ongoing strategic importance of 
supporting the CCS at the local and regional level through EU centrally managed 
initiatives such as the CEP.  

22 i.e., Long-term driving forces that are observable now and whose future impact will most likely be significant.  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Part 1: EU Support for Cultural and Creative Sectors: The 
Creative Europe Programme overview 

1.1 Historical evolution of the Creative Europe Programme 

The first edition of the CEP was adopted by Regulation No. 1295/2013 of the 
European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2013)23, with the 
explicit goal of supporting the CCS, and it was established for the period from 
2014  to  2020.  This  version  of  the  Programme  consisted  of  three  strands:  the 
Media sub-programme, the Culture sub-programme and a Cross-sectoral strand, 
all  aimed  at  pursuing  two  main  objectives:  (a)  safeguarding,  developing,  and 
promoting  European  cultural  and  linguistic  diversity,  as  well  as  promoting 
Europe’s  cultural  heritage,  and  (b)  strengthening  the  competitiveness  of  the 
European CCS, particularly the audiovisual sector, to foster smart, sustainable, 
and inclusive growth. 

In terms of alignment with global policies, the CEP works in cooperation with 
United Nations (UN) organisations, particularly the United Nations Educational, 
Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), and contributes to achieving its 
Sustainable  Development  Goals  (SDGs),  with  a  special  focus  on  the  cultural 
dimension. In more detail, the CEP is aligned with the 2005 UNESCO Convention 
on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which 
entered  into  force  on  18  March  2007  (and  of  which  the  EU  is  a  party),  in 
supporting  Member  States  to  promote  linguistic  and  cultural  diversity  and  to 
strengthen the competitiveness of the CCS. Other references at the international 
level are the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible 
Cultural Heritage and the 1972 UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection 
of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, which guide the promotion of tangible 
and intangible cultural heritage.  

The EU and its Member States are active in multilateral fora and organisations 
that address cultural heritage policies, such as the Council of Europe, and conduct 
bilateral  dialogues  with  third  countries  and  regions  where  heritage  plays  an 
important  role.  With  reference  to  the  UN  SDGs  adopted  in  January  2016,  the 
second edition of the Programme aims to support the EU in achieving them. The 
CEP performance report24 makes explicit how the instrument, through its various 

23 European Parliament, Council of the European Union. 2013. Regulation (EU) No 1295/2013 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 Establishing the Creative Europe Programme (2014 to 2020) 
and Repealing Decisions No 1718/2006/EC, No 1855/2006/EC, and No 1041/2009/EC: Text with EEA Relevance, 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
L 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1295.  
24  European  Commission,  “Creative  Europe  Programme  –  Performance”.  Accessed  May  30,  2025. 
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/performance-and-reporting/programme-

20.12.2013. 

Accessed 

347/221, 

2025. 

May 

30, 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
actions, specifically intervenes in support of SDG 3 (i.e., Ensure healthy lives and 
promote well-being for all at all ages), SDG 4 (i.e., Ensure inclusive and equitable 
quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all), SDG 5 (i.e., 
Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls), SDG 8 (i.e., Promote 
sustained,  inclusive  and  sustainable  economic  growth,  full  and  productive 
employment and decent work for all), SDG 10 (i.e., Reduce inequalities within 
and  amongst  countries),  SDG  11  (i.e.,  Make  cities  and  human  settlements 
inclusive,  safe,  resilient  and  sustainable),  SDG  12  (i.e.,  Ensure  sustainable 
consumption  and  production  patterns),  SDG  16  (i.e.,  Promote  peaceful  and 
inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all 
and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels), SDG 17 
(i.e.,  Strengthen  the  means  of  implementation  and  revitalise  the  Global 
Partnership for Sustainable Development).  

Beyond its involvement in the CCS, the initiative seeks to support efforts tackling 
climate change - although it is not intended as a primary priority, in line with the 
Union’s  commitment  to  implementing  the  Paris  Agreement  under  the  United 
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to achieve ‘an overall target 
of 30% of Union budget expenditure supporting climate objectives’25. Over time, 
the Programme’s commitment to environmental issues has grown. This shift is in 
line with the aim set by the European Green Deal to make the EU climate neutral 
by 2050 and the vision that the CCS should also bring its own contribution to the 
green  transition  by  addressing  the  societal  challenges  of  climate  change  and 
environmental  sustainability.  Although  the  2014-2020  version  did  not  include 
greening requirements in its calls for proposals, after the European Green Deal’s 
adoption  in  late  2019,  some  calls  in  the  final  years  of  this  version  referenced 
Europe’s green strategy.  

The 2021-2027 iteration of the Programme (European Parliament, Council of the 
European  Union  2021)26  explicitly  includes  a  commitment  to  tackling  climate 
change,  with  the  EC  demonstrating  its  efforts  by  commissioning  the  study 
‘Greening  the  Creative  Europe  Programme’27  by  the  Directorate  General  for 
Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (DG EAC) of the EC. 

performance-statements/creative-europe-programme-performance_en?prefLang=fi#sustainable-development-
goals. 
25  European  Parliament,  Council  of  the  European  Union.  2018.  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  Establishing  the  Creative  Europe  Programme  (2021  to  2027)  and  Repealing 
Regulation (EU) No 1295/2013. Accessed May 30, 2025. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/818/oj/eng. 
26 European Parliament and Council of the European Union. 2021. Regulation (EU) No 2021/818 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 establishing the Creative Europe Programme (2021 to 2027) and 
repealing  Regulation  (EU)  No  1295/2013,  L  189/34,  28.5.2021.  Accessed  May  30,  2025.  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R0818.  
27  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Education,  Youth,  Sport  and  Culture.  2023.  Greening  the 
Creative Europe Programme: Final Report. Accessed May 30, 2025. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/e20ac9a0-f52b-11ed-a05c-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.  

18 

 
 
 
 
 
From a financial perspective, the budget for the 2014-2020 Programme was EUR 
1.47 billion28, which was increased to EUR 2.44 billion for the CEP 2021-2027 
(ibid.). This increase in the budget was primarily intended to address the severe 
consequences of the COVID-19 crisis on the CCS, with a third of the budget being 
allocated in the first two years of the Programme.  

The  pandemic  exacerbated  pre-existing  vulnerabilities  within  the  sector. 
Containment measures across the EU severely disrupted venue- and visitor-based 
sub-sectors  (e.g.,  performing  arts,  live  music,  and  heritage  sites),  resulting  in 
widespread cancellations, loss of income, and profound uncertainty for millions 
of  workers,  many  of  whom  were  freelancers  or  self-employed  and  lacked 
adequate  social  protection  (IDEA  Consult  et  al.  2021)29.  The  crisis  not  only 
threatened the financial viability of cultural  organisations but also underscored 
the essential role of culture in promoting social cohesion and well-being during 
times of isolation. 

In  response,  the  CEP  swiftly  adapted  its  procedures  to  provide  maximum 
flexibility for beneficiaries. This included extending project timelines, accepting 
alternative  delivery  formats  (e.g.,  digital  events  and  webinars),  and  covering 
eligible costs for cancelled or postponed activities30. The EC, in collaboration with 
the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA), prioritised the 
continuity of support, ensuring that pre-financing and grants reached the sector 
rapidly.  Furthermore,  the  Programme  launched  new  calls  and  platforms  to 
facilitate  knowledge  sharing  and 
the  CCS, 
complementing  emergency national  measures  and  helping to sustain the  sector 
through an unprecedented period of crisis31. Backed by the substantial increase in 
the Creative Europe budget for 2021-2027, these interventions played a critical 
role in mitigating the pandemic’s impact and supporting the sector’s recovery and 
transformation. 

resilience-building  within 

The second edition of the CEP is divided into the same strands as its previous 
version  but  introduces  new  incentives  aimed  at  increasing  the  sector’s  global 
competitiveness while making it more inclusive, sustainable, and innovative. 

28 European Commission, Culture and Creativity, “Creative Europe 2021-2027 programme brings €2.44 billion to 
support  the  cultural  and  creative  sectors”.  Accessed  May  30,  2025.  https://culture.ec.europa.eu/news/creative-
europe-2021-2027-programme-launch.  
29 IDEA Consult, Goethe-Institut, Amann S. and Heinsius J. 2021. Research for CULT Committee – Cultural and 
creative sectors in post-Covid-19 Europe: crisis effects and policy recommendations. European Parliament, Policy 
Department 
2025. 
14, 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/652242/IPOL_STU(2021)652242_EN.pdf. 
30  European  Commission,  Culture  and  Creativity,  “Coronavirus  and  the  Creative  Europe  programme.  Find 
information related to the consequences of the coronavirus and the Creative Europe Programme.” Accessed July 
14, 
https://culture.ec.europa.eu/resources/coronavirus-response/coronavirus-and-the-creative-europe-
2025. 
programme. 
31 ibid.  

Policies,  Brussels.  Accessed 

and  Cohesion 

Structural 

July 

for 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Specifically,  the  2021-2027  iteration  of  the  Programme  provides  funding  for 
cultural and creative organisations of all sizes from EU Member States, non-EU 
countries,  and,  under  certain  conditions,  countries  in  the  European  Economic 
Area,  candidate  countries,  potential  candidates,  and  European  Neighbourhood 
Policy countries32. This demonstrates the Programme's commitment to fostering 
international cooperation through economic incentives in a sector that, while 
diverse, conveys universal messages. In fact, all Creative Europe actions have an 
aspect of international collaboration. In particular, the Media strand has an action 
that, through cascading grants, favours co-productions with developing countries. 

The  second  edition  of  the  Programme  also  provides  funding  for  European 
networks  of  organisations  in  the  CCS,  cultural  and  creative  pan-European 
platforms and for the transnational mobility and capacity-building of artists and 
operators in these sectors. Amongst the Programme's recipient categories are 
LRAs,  whose  involvement  is  crucial  for  the  successful  implementation  of 
initiatives that have a high impact, considering the proximity to the territory 
of many initiatives in the CCS.  

Application  modalities  and  funding  access  vary  depending  on  the  strand  of 
interest.  

For the 2021-2027 period, the ‘Culture’ strand funds projects across a broad 
spectrum of the CCS, from architecture and cultural heritage to performing arts. 
The six categories of actions supported by this strand include: 

-  European  cooperation  projects: 

transnational 
cooperation  projects  that  involve  organisations  in  the  CCS.  It  makes  funds 
available  for  small-scale,  medium-scale  or  large-scale  types  of  projects  that 
include partners from the EU and beyond; 

this  action  supports 

-  European platforms for the promotion of emerging artists: they encourage 
the mobility and visibility of creators and artists with the aim of developing 
their careers and improving their working conditions. These platforms work in 
collaboration with their member organisations, each of which receives a grant 
to develop a common artistic programme and branding strategy; 

-  European  networks  of  cultural  and  creative  organisations: under  the 
Programme,  the  EU  co-finances  37  pan-European  networks  that  support 
cultural  organisations  and  professionals  who  contribute  to  strengthening  the 
competitiveness and diversity of the European CCS; 

32  Based  on  the  ‘List  of  non-EU  Participating  Countries  in  the  Creative  Europe  Programme’  non-EU  eligible 
countries in the CEP are: EFTA countries which are part of the European Economic Area (EEA) (Iceland, Norway, 
Liechtenstein),  acceding  countries,  candidate  countries  and  potential  candidates  (Albania,  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina,  Georgia,  Kosovo,  Montenegro,  North  Macedonia,  Serbia,  Ukraine),  European  Neighbourhood 
Policy countries (Armenia and Tunisia). 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-  Circulation of European literary works: this funding scheme subsidises the 

translation, publication, distribution and promotion of works of fiction; 

-  Culture  moves  Europe:  supporting  cultural  international  mobility:  this 
scheme provides mobility grants for artists and cultural professionals in all the 
countries participating in the Programme. It is composed of the action lines of 
individual mobility and residencies; 

-  Pan-European Cultural Entities: this action is aimed at supporting cultural 
entities with a large geographical reach by offering training, professionalisation 
and performance opportunities for young artists. 

The ‘Culture’ strand aligns closely with the broader objectives of the CEP, which 
aim  to  foster  a  more  inclusive,  innovative,  and  sustainable  cultural  sector  in 
Europe. By funding prestigious awards such as the European Heritage Label, the 
Music Moves Europe Talent Awards, the European Union Prize for Literature, 
and the European Capitals of Culture (ECOC), this strand promotes the visibility 
of diverse European cultures and creative expressions. It encourages cross-border 
collaboration and supports the development of emerging talent, ensuring that the 
cultural sector remains dynamic and competitive on a global scale.  

In doing so, the ‘Culture’ strand contributes to the overall goal of strengthening 
Europe’s  cultural  identity,  preserving  its  heritage,  and  making  culture  more 
accessible and impactful for citizens across the continent.  

The ‘Media’ strand is closely linked to the CEP's wider objectives by supporting 
the development and distribution of European films and audiovisual works, which 
contribute  to  Europe's  cultural  and  creative  diversity  and  global  presence.  By 
financing projects in the film and audiovisual industries, this strand encourages 
cross-border  cooperation,  enabling  filmmakers  to  reach  wider  audiences  and 
fostering the exchange of ideas and creative talents across Europe. This support 
helps the sector remain innovative and competitive, while promoting European 
values and narratives on the global stage. In line with the Programme's broader 
goals,  the  ‘Media’  strand  plays  a  crucial  role  in  enhancing  Europe's  cultural 
impact,  ensuring  the  sustainability  of  the  audiovisual  industry,  and  making 
European culture more accessible to diverse audiences worldwide.  
Funding opportunities within this strand are divided into four clusters: 

-  Content:  grants  are  available  for  co-development,  slate  development,  mini-
slate development, TV and online content, video games and immersive content 
development; 

-  Business: grants are for media talents and skills, markets and networking, film 
sales and distribution, innovative tools and business models, MEDIA 360°; 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
-  Audience: grants are for a network of European cinemas, European audiovisual 
festivals,  European  video-on-demand  operators  and  networks,  films  on  the 
move, subtitling of cultural content, audience development and film education; 
-  Policy  support:  the  aim  is  to  foster  a  comprehensive  European  audiovisual 
policy by facilitating regulatory dialogue, sharing analysis and data, providing 
insights  on  future  trends,  engaging  with  stakeholders,  and  carrying  out 
promotion and outreach activities. 

The  ‘Cross-sectoral’  strand  plays  a  vital  role  in  advancing  the  CEP's  wider 
objectives by fostering collaboration and innovation across various CCIs, as well 
as other industries. By supporting projects that promote policy cooperation and 
develop  innovative  approaches,  this  strand  encourages  the  exchange  of 
knowledge,  expertise,  and  best  practices  between  sectors,  leading  to  more 
sustainable  and  inclusive  CCIs.  It  helps  break  down  barriers  between  different 
fields, creating synergies that can strengthen the European CCS ecosystem as a 
whole.  In  alignment  with  the  Programme’s  overall  goals,  the  ‘Cross-sectoral’ 
strand  contributes  to  the  growth  of  the  creative  economy,  enhances  Europe's 
cultural  diversity,  and  promotes  Europe's  leadership  in  driving  innovation  and 
policy development on a global scale. This is achieved through two main lines of 
action: 

-  Creative  Innovation  Labs:  this  funding  is  designed  to  incentivise  the 
development  and  testing  of  innovative  tools,  models  and  methodologies 
applicable to the audiovisual sector and at least one other creative or cultural 
sector (Balenovic, Carlberg and Todaro 2023)33; 

-  Support to the  News Media Sector: it  includes funding  opportunities in the 
categories of ‘Media freedom and pluralism’, ‘Collaboration and innovation’, 
‘Citizen engagement and public sphere’.  

To assess the progress of the CEP over time, the following sections provide an 
overview  of  the  objectives  and  achievements  of  the  two  editions  of  the 
Programme. 

33 Balenovic, K., M. Carlberg, and L. Todaro. 2023. Research for CULT Committee – EU Funding Programmes 
2021-2027 in Culture, Media, Education, Youth, and Sports: First Lessons, Challenges, and Future Perspectives: 
Creative  Europe.  European  Parliament,  Policy  Department  for  Structural  and  Cohesion  Policies,  Brussels. 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2023/747260/IPOL_STU(2023)747260_EN.pdf.  

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.1.1  The  Creative  Europe  Programme  (2014-2020):  characteristics  and 
objectives  

The first edition of the Programme aimed to support the cultural and audiovisual 
sectors  in  addressing  challenges  such  as  digitisation,  market  fragmentation, 
global competition, and difficulties in accessing funds (European Parliamentary 
Research Service 2016)34. In addition to these general objectives, the 2014-2020 
Programme had the following specific goals: 

•  to enhance the capacity of European CCS  to operate transnationally  and 

internationally; 

•  to promote the transnational circulation of cultural and creative works, as 
well  as  the  mobility  of  cultural  and  creative  professionals  (particularly 
artists), and to reach new and diverse audiences while improving access to 
cultural  and creative works within the EU  and beyond.  Special  attention 
was given to children, young people, people with disabilities, and under-
represented groups, to enhance their engagement and access to European 
cultural  and  creative  works.  By  way  of  example,  this  included  the 
development of audiovisual content such as children's and animated films, 
and inclusive multimedia projects (European Parliament and the Council of 
the European Union 2013, 6-8)35, as well as initiatives aimed at increasing 
participation  in  cultural  activities  and  improving  accessibility  to  cultural 
venues and digital platforms (e.g., in the Media sub-programme, applicants 
were  encouraged  to  ensure  accessibility  for  gamers  with  disabilities  and 
other impairments)36; 

•  to  strengthen  the  financial  capacity  of  micro-enterprises,  and  small  to 
medium-sized organisations in the CCS, with a focus on sustainability and 
balanced geographical and sectoral representation; 

May 

Accessed 

34 European Parliamentary Research Service. 2016. The Creative Europe Programme: European Implementation 
Assessment. 
2025. 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2016/581413/EPRS_IDA(2016)581413_EN.pdf.  
35 European Parliament and Council of the European Union. 2013. Regulation (EU) No 1295/2013 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 Establishing the Creative Europe Programme (2014 to 2020) 
and Repealing Decisions No 1718/2006/EC, No 1855/2006/EC, and No 1041/2009/EC: Text with EEA Relevance, 
L 347/221, 20.12.2013. Accessed May 30, 2025.  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1295.  
36 European Commission. Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture. 2019. 2020 annual work 
programme  for  the  implementation  of  the  Creative  Europe  Programme.  C(2019)  6151  of  23  August  2019. 
Accessed May 23, 2025. https://culture.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2021-07/2020-awp-ce-c20196151.pdf.  

30, 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
•  to foster policy development, innovation, creativity, audience development, 
through  support  for 

and  new  business  and  management  models 
transnational policy cooperation. 

Amongst the Annexes to the Regulation adopting the Programme is the document 
detailing  the  implementation  arrangements  for  the  Cultural  and  Creative 
Sectors Guarantee Facility, which was part of the ‘Cross-sectoral’ strand. This 
‘self-standing  instrument’,  managed  by  the  European  Investment  Fund, 
specifically supported micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the 
CCS by facilitating  access to  funds and helping financial intermediaries assess 
risk. Under the Guarantee Facility instrument, the EU made loans available for 
businesses  in  all  participating  countries.  Moreover,  it  encouraged  financial 
intermediaries  to  adopt  a  specific  credit  assessment  approach  with  SMEs  and 
organisations with the objective of supporting them in more easily gaining access 
to debt financing for their projects.  

Regarding the budget, of the total EUR 1.47 billion allocated, the Programme did 
not distribute funds equally amongst the three strands. At least 56% was allocated 
to the Media sub-programme, at least 31% to the Culture sub-programme, and up 
to 13% to the Cross-sectoral strand.  

For  project  selection,  the  common  criteria  across  all  strands  included  the 
requirement  for  applicant  organisations  to  have  stable  and  sufficient  funding 
sources, as well as adequate professional skills and qualifications to implement 
the proposed actions.  

The Programme’s projects were co-financed by the EU and its Member States, 
where the financial contribution from the Programme could not exceed 80% of 
the total eligible costs (European Parliamentary Research Service 2016)37. More 
specific  actions  within  each  strand  were  also  supported  in  pursuit  of  their 
priorities.  Of  particular  note  were  the  special  actions  within  the  Culture  sub-
programme that included the ‘Organisation of EU prizes in the field of culture’, 
the  ‘European  Capitals  of  Culture’,  the  ‘Co-operation  with  International 
organisations’,  the  ‘European  Heritage  Label’  and  the  ‘Support  to  European 
Capitals of Culture and European Heritage Label’ (ibid.).   

Amongst the most impactful initiatives at the local and regional levels comprised 
in the Culture sub-programme were the European Capitals Of Culture (ECOC) 
and  the  Cultural Heritage in Action  (i.e.,  a  peer-learning programme  receiving 
funds from the CEP). Although established in 1985 – well before the CEP - the 

37 European Parliamentary Research Service. 2016. The Creative Europe Programme: European Implementation 
Assessment. 
2025. 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2016/581413/EPRS_IDA(2016)581413_EN.pdf.  

Accessed 

May 

30, 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ECOC initiative was supported during the 2014-2020 CEP programming period. 
The CEP provided not only financial backing but also a strategic framework for 
enhancing  the  cultural,  social,  and  economic  relevance  of  the  ECOC  initiative 
across  Europe.  The  ECOC  aims  to  enhance  Europe’s  cultural  diversity  whilst 
fostering a sense of belonging amongst European citizens. Cities interested in the 
title submit applications, and the ECOC is officially designated four years before 
the  event  to  allow  for  proper  preparation.  The  designation  process  actively 
involves  LRAs,  who  play  a  central  role  in  shaping  the  programme’s  cultural 
vision, securing co-financing, and delivering long-term development strategies. 
Their involvement is instrumental in mobilising local stakeholders, coordinating 
urban regeneration efforts, and ensuring that the ECOC becomes a catalyst for 
sustained territorial development. 

According to the Programme’s European Implementation Assessment (ibid.), this 
initiative  had  a  ‘significant  leverage  effect  on  long-term  cultural,  social  and 
economic benefits to the cities which have held the title’. 

Indeed, initiatives associated with the ECOC (e.g., the Melina Mercouri Prize38) 
have  been  noted  for  greatly  stimulating  investment  in  culture  from  national, 
regional and local public authorities. It is estimated that for every euro of public 
funding invested in an ECOC project, the local economy can see a return of up to 
six euros (ibid.).  

One notable example of a city that experienced a significant positive impact after 
being awarded the title of ECOC is Marseille, which held the title in 2013. The 
Marseille-Provence  2013  initiative39  brought  substantial  cultural  and  economic 
benefits to the city and the wider region. With a programme featuring more than 
900 cultural events, the year attracted over 11 million visits, showcasing the city's 
artistic  vibrancy  and  enhancing  its  cultural  profile  on  both  national  and 
international  levels  (Agence  d’Urbanisme  de  l’Agglomération  Marseillaise 
201440). 

38 It is a EUR 1.5 million award conferred by the European Commission to cities designated as European Capitals 
of Culture. Established in 2010 to honour Melina Mercouri (i.e., the Greek actress, politician, and former Minister 
of Culture who co-founded the ECOC initiative in 1985), the prize recognises cities that demonstrate exceptional 
preparation and commitment to their cultural programmes. Awarded at the conclusion of a multi-year monitoring 
process, the prize is contingent upon the city's adherence to its original cultural vision, the strength of its European 
dimension, the independence of its artistic team, and the effectiveness of its communication strategies. The funds 
aim to support the legacy and sustainability of the city's cultural initiatives beyond the title year. 
39 My Provence, “MP2013: Marseille, capital of culture”. Accessed May 22, 2025. 
https://www.myprovence.fr/marseille-provence-2013?lang=en.  
40 Agence d’Urbanisme de l’Agglomération Marseillaise. 2014. Évaluation externe de Marseille-Provence 2013, 
Capitale européenne de la culture. Accessed May 22, 2025. https://www.myprovence.fr/sites/default/files/2022-
01/Evaluation%20externe%20mp2013.pdf.  

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Economically, the project had a profound influence. The operating budget of EUR 
102  million  was  complemented  by  EUR  665  million  in  investment  for  new 
cultural infrastructure. Major projects included the construction of the Museum 
of  European  and  Mediterranean  Civilisations  and  the  Villa  Méditerranée 
conference  centre  (Association  Marseille-Provence  2013  201441).  These 
developments  not  only  enriched  the  city's  cultural  landscape  but  also  provided 
lasting assets for tourism and education. 

The year of cultural programming also led to a dramatic rise in tourism, with 1.9 
million additional visitors recorded in 2013 compared to previous years (Agence 
d’Urbanisme  de  l’Agglomération  Marseillaise  201442).  This  influx  generated 
increased revenue for local businesses, particularly in the hospitality and service 
sectors. Furthermore, the ECOC title played a key role in accelerating Marseille’s 
ongoing urban regeneration efforts, contributing to a broader transformation of 
the city’s image and infrastructure. 

Another notable initiative was ‘Cultural Heritage in Action’43, funded by the CEP 
from 2020 to 2023, as part of the European Framework for Action on Cultural 
Heritage. This framework was adopted by the EC in December 2018 as a legacy 
of the European  Year of Cultural Heritage  2018.  ‘Cultural Heritage in Action’ 
was one of the cultural heritage projects funded to guide heritage-related activities 
within  European  policies  and  programmes  by  fostering  knowledge  exchange 
amongst local and regional policymakers.  

Looking  at  the  CEP’s  overall  achievements  in  the  2014-2020  period,  it 
demonstrated  a  high  absorption  capacity,  with  1,050  grants  awarded  in  2020 
within the ‘Culture’ and ‘Media’ strands, fully utilising the available budget. This 
indicates a high level of participation, though the success rate was relatively low 
in certain  areas  due to  the number of  applications. A larger budget  could have 
potentially  increased  the  Programme’s  impact.  Geographically,  while  the 
distribution of project coordinators was concentrated in certain Member States, 
the  balance  was  improved  when  considering  both  coordinators  and  partner 
beneficiaries.  

41 Association Marseille-Provence 2013. 2014. Bilans Quartiers Créatifs MP2013. Accessed May 22, 2025. 
https://www.myprovence.fr/sites/default/files/2022-01/Bilans%20quartiers%20cr%C3%A9atifs%20mp2013.pdf.  
42 Agence d’Urbanisme de l’Agglomération Marseillaise. 2014. Évaluation externe de Marseille-Provence 2013, 
Capitale européenne de la culture. Accessed May 22, 2025. https://www.myprovence.fr/sites/default/files/2022-
01/Evaluation%20externe%20mp2013.pdf.  
43  Cultural  Heritage 
https://culturalheritageinaction.eu/.  

in  Action”.  Accessed  May  30,  2025. 

“Cultural  Heritage 

in  Action, 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.1.2  The  Creative  Europe  Programme  (2021-2027):  characteristics  and 
objectives  

Confirming the EU’s support for the CCS, the Creative Europe Programme (2021-
2027),  adopted  by  “Regulation  No  2021/818  of  20  May  2021  Establishing  the 
Creative Europe Programme (2021 to 2027) and Repealing Regulation (EU) No 
1295/2013”44, strengthens the Union's commitment to the sector and reaffirms the 
role  of  culture  within  it,  notably  through  an  increased  budget  allocation,  too, 
which is primarily due to the increased support the sector needed as a consequence 
of the halt caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. 

for  Culture45, 

the  2016  EEAS/Commission 

This  initiative  aligns  with  the  2018  Commission  Communication  on  a  new 
European  Agenda 
Joint 
Communication ‘Towards an EU Strategy for international cultural relations’46, 
and the 2014 Commission Communication ‘Towards an integrated approach to 
cultural heritage for Europe’47. It specifically builds on the previous Programme’s 
efforts (e.g., to address digitalisation, market fragmentation, global competition, 
and  access  to  funding),  while  aligning  with  the  latest  policy  developments,  in 
order to harness the power of culture and cultural diversity for social cohesion, 
societal well-being, innovation, and economic growth. By fostering the cross-
border  dimension  and  growth  potential  of  the  CCS,  the  Programme  supports 
culture-based  creativity  by  facilitating  the  creation  of  cultural  and  creative 
ecosystems,  with  international  cooperation  serving  as  a  key  driver  in  their 
development and sustainability. 

In  more  detail,  the  Proposal  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council 
(2018)48 outlines the challenges that the CCS are facing and that the Programme 
intends to contribute to addressing.  

Europe's  cultural  and  linguistic  diversity  leads  to  fragmentation  within  the 
sector, hindering the transnational circulation of cultural works and highlighting 
the  need  for  incentives  to  encourage  cross-border  exchange.  Other  issues 

44 European Parliament, Council of the European Union. 2021. Regulation (EU) No 2021/818 of 20 May 2021 
Establishing  the  Creative  Europe  Programme  (2021  to  2027)  and  Repealing  Regulation  (EU)  No  1295/2013. 
Accessed May 30, 2025. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/818/oj/eng.  
45 European Commission. 2017. Strengthening European Identity through Education and Culture: The European 
Commission's Contribution to the Leaders' Meeting in Gothenburg, 17 November 2017. COM(2017) 673 final. 
Accessed May 30, 2025. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52017DC0673.  
46 European Commission. 2016. Towards an EU Strategy for International Cultural Relations. JOIN(2016) 29 
final. Accessed May 30, 2025. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52016JC0029.  
47 European Commission. 2014. Towards an Integrated Approach to Cultural Heritage for Europe. COM(2014) 
477 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52014DC0477.  
48  European  Parliament,  Council  of  the  European  Union.  2018.  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  Establishing  the  Creative  Europe  Programme  (2021  to  2027)  and  Repealing 
Regulation (EU) No 1295/2013. Accessed May 30, 2025. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/818/oj/eng.  

Accessed 

2025. 

final. 

May 

30, 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
include  market  concentration,  a  lack  of  competitiveness  in  the  audiovisual 
industry, and the growing spread of disinformation, particularly affecting the 
cultural and media sectors. 

Against this backdrop, the 2021–2027 Programme aims to achieve the following 
specific objectives: 

•  to enhance artistic and cultural cooperation at the European level in order 
to support  the creation of European works and  strengthen the economic, 
social, external, and innovation dimensions of Europe’s CCS; 

•  to  promote  competitiveness,  scalability,  cooperation,  innovation  and 
sustainability,  particularly  in  the  European  audiovisual  sector,  including 
through mobility; 

•  to foster policy cooperation and innovative actions across all Programme 
independent,  and  pluralistic  media 
strands,  promoting  a  diverse, 
environment,  media  literacy,  and  social  inclusion,  while  supporting 
freedom of artistic expression and intercultural dialogue. 

The  structure  and  budget  distribution  of  the  CEP  2021-2027  remain  largely 
consistent  with  those  of  the  first  edition.  Out  of  the  total  EUR  2.44  billion 
allocated  for  the  current  programming  period,  58%  is  dedicated  to  the  Media 
strand,  33%  to  the  Culture  strand,  and  9%  to  the  Cross-sectoral  strand.  This 
allocation closely mirrors the 2014-2020 programme, which distributed at least 
56% of its EUR 1.47 billion budget to the Media sub-programme, at least 31% to 
Culture, and up to 13% to the Cross-sectoral strand.  

Nevertheless, Balenovic, Carlberg and Todaro (2023)49 note that the incentives 
and priorities of the 2021-2027 Programme differ.  

In particular, the current edition is driven by the European Green Deal, whereas 
the 2014-2020  Programme  focused  primarily  on  the  Europe  2020  agenda50.  In 
more detail, the CEP is considered able to support the objective of the Green Deal 
through two sets of actions: the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the 
CCS and by contributing to halting environmental degradation and mainstreaming 

49 Balenovic, K., M. Carlberg, and L. Todaro. 2023. Research for CULT Committee – EU Funding Programmes 
2021-2027 in Culture, Media, Education, Youth, and Sports: First Lessons, Challenges, and Future Perspectives: 
Creative  Europe.  European  Parliament,  Policy  Department  for  Structural  and  Cohesion  Policies,  Brussels. 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2023/747260/IPOL_STU(2023)747260_EN.pdf. 
50 i.e., Europe 2020 is a 10-year strategy proposed by the European Commission in 2010 aimed at achieving an 
intelligent, sustainable and inclusive growth of the EU following the financial and economic crisis. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
climate actions51.  In  support of these objectives, the Programme set ‘greening’ 
requirements  and  incentivised  applicants  and  beneficiaries  through  strategic 
allocation of funding. However, the greening criteria introduced remained specific 
to  particular  programme  sections,  as  no  common  greening  criteria  have  been 
introduced at programme level in this edition.  

The new Programme underwent significant changes, and 2021 marked a transition 
year  for  Creative  Europe,  introducing  elements  such  as  a  greater  focus  on 
inclusivity  and  sustainability,  as  well  as  new  initiatives  like  the  MediaInvest 
platform52  (i.e.,  a  dedicated  investment  tool  designed  to  promote  European 
audiovisual productions and distribution businesses).  

From  a  procedural  perspective,  the  Directorate  General  for  Education,  Youth, 
Sport and Culture (DG EAC) and the Directorate General for Communications 
Networks, Content and Technology (DG CNECT) of the EC are responsible for 
implementing  policy  aspects,  while  the  European  Education  and  Culture 
Executive Agency (EACEA) manages calls for proposals for grants.  

The report by Balenovic, Carlberg and Todaro (2023)53 assesses the Programme’s 
implementation, noting a high level of satisfaction with its financial management 
and budget measures. However, there are few areas for improvement, including 
increasing funding for specific activities such as music, the Culture Moves Europe 
mobility  scheme,  and  cooperation  projects,  as  well  as  better  integration  of 
horizontal priorities.  

1.1.3 Comparison between the two Programme editions 

Building  on  the  overview  of  the  two  Programme  editions  presented  in  the 
subsections above, it is worth noting that  the shift from the 2014-2020 edition to 
the 2021-2027 reflects a change in priorities. While the earlier edition focused 
predominantly on fostering economic growth and job creation, the current edition 
prioritises social inclusion, gender equality, and support for the international 
dimension. 

As  noted  by  Balenovic,  Carlberg  and  Todaro  (ibid.),  several  key  differences 
highlight this strategic evolution: 

European 

51  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Education,  Youth,  Sport  and  Culture.  2023.  Greening  the 
Creative Europe Programme: Final Report. Accessed May 30, 2025. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/e20ac9a0-f52b-11ed-a05c-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.  
52 
strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/mediainvest.  
53 Balenovic, K., M. Carlberg, and L. Todaro. 2023. Research for CULT Committee – EU Funding Programmes 
2021-2027 in Culture, Media, Education, Youth, and Sports: First Lessons, Challenges, and Future Perspectives: 
Creative  Europe.  European  Parliament,  Policy  Department  for  Structural  and  Cohesion  Policies,  Brussels. 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2023/747260/IPOL_STU(2023)747260_EN.pdf. 

Accessed  May 

“MediaInvest”. 

https://digital-

Commission, 

2025. 

30, 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  Substantial budget increase. The total budget of the Programme rose by 
68%  compared  to  the  previous  edition.  One  third  of  the  budget  was 
committed in the first two years of the Programme to help the sector recover 
from the halt caused by the COVID-19 crisis. In 2022 alone, the budget 
increased  by  33%  compared to  the previous  year, before  stabilising  to a 
regular  annual  allocation  in  2023.  Lastly,  in  2024  the  CEP  budget  was 
‘reinforced  by  EUR 3 million  (EUR 2 million  for  the  Culture  strand; 
EUR 1 million  for  the  Cross-sectoral  strand  for  news-media-targeted 
actions) following the conciliation phase between the European Parliament 
and the Council of the European Union in November 2023’54; 

•  Enhanced  focus  on  transnational  cooperation  and  innovation.  The 
current  edition  demonstrates  a  stronger  commitment  to  supporting 
transnational  artistic  creation  and  mobility,  and  collaborative  innovation 
across borders, reinforcing the European dimension of the Programme;  
•  Broader and more accessible funding opportunities. The current edition 
of  the  Programme offers broader  funding opportunities,  characterised by 
higher  co-financing  rates  and  a  simplified  application  process.  These 
changes are specifically designed to attract smaller stakeholders and better 
accommodate  small-scale  projects,  thus  enhancing  participation  from 
underrepresented actors in the sector.  

Despite the increased budget and expanded scope, the overall number of funded 
projects has declined in the current edition compared to the 2014-2020 cycle 
(see Table 1 and Table 2). This can be attributed to a general recalibration of the 
Programme, which shifted from a more extensive set of initiatives in 2014-2020 
to a more targeted approach, focusing on fewer, but potentially more impactful 
projects that require higher budgets due to their complexity.  

However,  within  this  trend,  the  Culture  sub-programme  consistently  funded  a 
steady number of projects, with an average of around 220 projects financed over 
the four years observed, from 2021 to 202455.  

54  European  Commission,  “Creative  Europe  Programme  –  Performance”.  Accessed  May  30,  2025. 
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/performance-and-reporting/programme-
performance-statements/creative-europe-programme-performance_en?prefLang=fi#sustainable-development-
goals. 
55  European  Commission,  Culture  and  Creativity,  “Projects 
https://culture.ec.europa.eu/creative-europe/projects/projects-lists.  

lists”.  Accessed  May  23,  2025. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Call year 

2014 
2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
2019 
2020 
TOTAL 
Average 

Cross-sectoral 
0 
0 
12 
0 
0 
8 
0 
20 
3 

Sub-programme 
Culture 
167 
184 
142 
157 
238 
220 
245 
1,353 
193 

Media 
312 
240 
305 
308 
581 
785 
805 
3,336 
477 

Table 1 - Number of projects funded by the CEP by strand (2014-2020). Last update: July 17, 2025. 
Source: European Commission, Culture and Creativity, “Projects lists”.  
https://culture.ec.europa.eu/creative-europe/projects/projects-lists.  

Call year 

2021 
2022 
2023 
2024 
TOTAL 
Average 

Cross-sectoral 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

Sub-programme 
Culture 
226 
216 
187 
263 
892 
223 

Media 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

Table 2 - Number of projects funded by the CEP by strand (2021-2027). Last update: July 17, 2025. 
Source: European Commission, Culture and Creativity, “Projects lists”.  
https://culture.ec.europa.eu/creative-europe/projects/projects-lists.  

As highlighted by the Head of Unit of DG EAC of the EC during an interview 
held on 21 May 2025, the overarching aim of the CEP - particularly through its 
cooperation  projects  -  is  to  support  beneficiaries  in  creating  sustainable 
cultural  ecosystems  within  their  territories.  This  strategic  focus  on  funding 
more  complex  initiatives  that  foster  networking  and  capacity-building  to 
enhance international cooperation naturally narrows the Programme’s reach to 
a  smaller number  of  organisations.  While  this  emphasis  on  quality  and  impact 
represents a positive recalibration, the significant decrease in funded projects 
raises concerns about the Programme’s inclusiveness and overall reach.  

It is therefore crucial to carefully evaluate whether this reduction might limit the 
Programme’s ability to support all necessary areas ascribed to the CCS. Striking 
a balance between quality and quantity will be essential to ensure that all eligible 
countries are adequately represented in the Programme, thus maintaining both a 
depth of impact and breadth of participation. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.2 The participation of local and regional public authorities in the 
Creative Europe Programme 

Within the wider context presented above, this section aims to investigate the role 
of LRAs in projects funded by the CEP since its inception in 2014 to 2024. By 
analysing their participation, this section seeks to highlight the extent to which 
LRAs have contributed to the Programme's implementation at the territorial level, 
and  how  their  involvement  has  shaped  outcomes  in  cities  and  regions  across 
Europe. 

The findings presented below are based on a statistical analysis of the most 
recent list of CEP-funded projects56. This in-depth investigation is essential to 
ensure that the study rests on solid foundations and closely reflects the current 
state of the CEP across Europe. The analysis of projects that have successfully 
applied for and received CEP funding therefore places particular emphasis on the 
involvement of LRAs and their roles in the process. This approach offers valuable 
insights  into  participation  rates,  geographical  distribution,  types  of  projects 
funded, and the sectors involved. 

Below are two tables summarising the number of projects funded under the CEP, 
broken down according to the scope within which they produced their results. The 
first table (Table 3) refers to the CEP first edition (2014-2020), while the second 
(Table  4)  presents  data  related  to  the  second  edition  (2021-2027).  It  is  worth 
noting that the most recent list of CEP-funded projects analysed in this section 
was last updated on 17 July 2025.  

Creative Europe Programme 2014-2020 

Action 
Audience Development 
Bridging culture and 
audiovisual content through 
digital 
Capacity Building/Training 
Support 
Cinema Networks 
Cooperation projects 
Coproduction Funds 

Sub-programme 
Cross-sectorial  Culture  Media 

8 

44 

366 

5 

31 

647 

Total 
44 

8 

366 

5 
647 
31 

56 European Commission, Culture and Creativity, “Projects lists”. Accessed July 17, 2025.  
https://culture.ec.europa.eu/creative-europe/projects/projects-lists.  

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Development Single Project 
Cinema/Television/Digital 
platform 
Development Slate Funding 
Distribution Automatic 
support 
Distribution Selective 
support 
European Networks of 
Cultural Organisations 
Festival Network Support 
Festivals Support 
Film Education 
Literary translation projects 
Market Access Support 
On-line distribution 
("Promotion of European 
works online") 
On-line Distribution Support 
("On-line Distribution") 
Platforms for Emerging 
Artists 
Refugee Integration Projects 
Sales Agent support 
TV Programming Support 
Video-Games Development 
Support 
Western Balkans 
Cooperation projects 
Total 

277 

144 

718 

42 

7 
447 
21 

387 

149 

57 

91 
340 

210 

277 

144 

718 

42 

181 

7 
447 
21 
431 
387 

149 

57 

81 

12 
91 
340 

210 

13 

181 

431 

81 

13 

12 

20 

1,353 

3,336 

4,709 

Table 3 - Number of projects funded by the CEP by Action and Sub-programme (2014-2020).  
Last update: July 17, 2025.  
Source: European Commission, Culture and Creativity, “Projects lists”.  
https://culture.ec.europa.eu/creative-europe/projects/projects-lists.  

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Creative Europe Programme 2021-2027 

Action 
Cooperation projects 
European Networks of Cultural Organisations 
Literary translation projects 
Music Moves Europe 
Pan-European cultural entities 
Platforms for Emerging Artists 
Support for the Implementation of the European 
Heritage Label 
Support to Ukrainian displaced people and the 
Ukrainian Cultural and Creative Sectors 
Total 

Sub-
programme 
Culture 
589 
76 
178 
1 
9 
35 

1 

3 

Total 
589 
76 
178 
1 
9 
35 

1 

3 

892 

892 

Table 4 - Number of projects funded by the CEP by Action and Sub-programme (2021-2027). 
Last update: July 17, 2025.  
Source: European Commission, Culture and Creativity, “Projects lists”.  
https://culture.ec.europa.eu/creative-europe/projects/projects-lists.  

The  comparative  analysis  of  Tables  3  and  4  above  reveals  three  primary 
deviations in terms of projects funded by the CEP between 2014-2020 and 2021-
2027.  First,  the  complete  elimination  -  at  least  to  date  -  of  the  Media  sub-
programme and the Cross-sectoral strand in the current funding period. This may 
indicate a strategic reorientation toward exclusively cultural actions. Second, core 
cultural  actions  contracted  substantially,  with  literary  translation  projects 
declining by 59% (from 431 to 178) and emerging artist platforms falling by 57% 
(from  81  to  35),  while  cooperation  projects  retained  dominance  despite  a  9% 
reduction (from 647 to 589). However, it is important to contextualise these rate 
reductions, as the 2021-2027 funding period is currently only halfway through its 
implementation.  Third,  new  crisis-responsive  initiatives  emerged,  including 
support  for  Ukrainian  cultural  sectors  (3  projects)  and  pan-European  heritage 
labelling (1 project), contrasting with discontinued regional programmes such as 
the Western Balkans cooperation (from 13 to 0). These shifts collectively reflect 
a recalibration of the CEP’s priorities in response to both strategic and geopolitical 
developments. 

Shifting  the  analysis  to  the  participation  rate  of  LRAs  across  the  two  funding 
periods reveals a clear trend in the percentage ratio of LRAs to the total number 
of funded organisations. Specifically, Figure 3 shows the annual participation rate 
of LRAs compared to all funded organisations.  

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3 - Absolute number and participation rate of LRAs compared to the total number of organisations 
involved in CEP-funded projects (2014-2024). 

Figure 3 above shows that the peak in the number of LRAs involved in the CEP 
– compared to the total number of organisations funded - was reached in 2017. 
The  average  participation  rate  of  LRAs,  as  a  percentage  of  the  total 
organisations involved, has been approximately 3.9% since the CEP’s inception 
in 2014. To compare the two programme editions, a slight increase of 0.8% has 
been observed, i.e., from 3.6% in 2014-2020 to 4.4% in 2021-2027. This suggests 
that  although  the  CEP  is  not  primarily  designed  for  LRAs,  their  relative 
participation has grown in the second programme edition, despite a 36% average 
decline in the  total number of  organisations funded  each year. This increase is 
likely  due  to  the  growing  recognition  of  the  importance  of  involving  LRAs  in 
international cooperation partnerships, as they are the closest to citizens and are 
key  to  deliver  any  cultural  programme  at  the  place-based  level.  The  data 
underscore the resilience of LRAs in maintaining collaborative networks through 
the CEP, despite a reduction in overall programme participation. 

Looking  further  into  the  LRAs  involved  in  the  initiative  as  beneficiaries, 
comparative data from the two programme editions reveal notable trends.  

During the 2014-2020 funding period, 111 local public authorities participated, of 
which 16 were involved in more than one CEP-funded project. Additionally, 21 
regional  public  authorities  participated,  with  2  involved  in  multiple  projects. 
Furthermore, 119 local and/or regional agencies working for a public authority 
(e.g.,  agencies  constituted  by  a  local  and/or  regional  public  authority, 
organisations with representatives of these authorities in their board of directors) 
were engaged, with 37 involved in more than one project.  

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Desk research indicates that the Member States with the highest number of LRAs 
funded by the CEP during this period were Spain (37), including entities such as 
the  Barcelona  Institute  of  Culture  and  the  Municipality  of  Mula;  Italy  (28), 
including  the  Municipality  of  Bassano  del  Grappa  and  the  Lombardy  Region; 
Poland  (24),  including  the  Ludowy  Theatre  and  the  Municipality  of  Lublin; 
Germany (21), including the City of Krefeld and the City of Frankfurt am Main 
– The Magistrate; France (17), including the Lille Opera and the Municipality of 
Saint Paul; Portugal (15), including the Lúcio Craveiro da Silva Library and the 
Municipality of Óbidos; and Croatia (12), including the City of Rovinj and the 
Tourist Board of the City of Varaždin.  

In comparison, the 2021-2027 funding period (as of 2024) has seen an apparent 
decrease  in participation in  absolute terms  -  with 56 local public  authorities (7 
involved  in  more  than  one  project),  9  regional  public  authorities,  and  65  local 
and/or  regional  agencies  working  for  a  public  authority  (8  with  multiple 
involvements). However, these figures should be viewed in context, considering 
that the 2021-2027 programme is only halfway through its implementation, and 
the participation rate of LRAs has in fact slightly increased.  

In terms of geographical distribution, the Member States with the highest number 
of funded LRAs largely remain consistent with the first programme edition. They 
include  Portugal  (20),  with  examples  such  as  the  Municipalities  of  Sertã  and 
Oleiros; Spain (19), including the Municipalities of Malpartida de Cáceres and 
Manises;  Italy  (15),  including  the  Municipality  of  Trieste  and  the  Province  of 
Bergamo; Poland (12), including the Municipality of Lublin and the Institute of 
Urban  Culture  of  Gdańsk;  and  Germany  (9),  including  the  Municipalities  of 
Mannheim and Münster. 

Figure 4 below provides a comparative analysis of LRAs' participation in the two 
programme editions, by organisation type. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4 – Comparative analysis of LRAs’ participation in the two programme editions, by organisation type 

The following figures (Figures 5 and 6) illustrate the geographical distribution 
of the LRAs involved in the projects awarded by the CEP funding during the 
2014-2020 and 2021-2027 periods, respectively. The countries with the highest 
concentration of funded LRAs are clearly identifiable by the greater intensity of 
colour, corresponding to the higher number of participating LRAs. 

Figure 5 - Number of LRAs involved in CEP-funded projects by country (2014-2020). 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6 - Number of LRAs involved in CEP-funded projects by country (2021-2027). 

Based on this analysis, two questionnaires were designed for the scope of this 
study. They were tailored to explore, on the one hand, the role of LRAs that have 
successfully  participated in the  CEP  as beneficiaries,  and, on the  other,  the 
overall  level  of  knowledge  and  interest  regarding  the  EU  funding 
opportunities supporting the CCS, and the CEP in particular. 

This section of the study is therefore dedicated to analysing the quantitative and 
qualitative  data  collected  through  these  two  surveys.  They  were  carried  out 
between 18 March 2025 and 14 April 2025 and were available in six language 
options: English, French, German, Italian, Polish and Spanish. 

The data gathered from the first questionnaire – directed to the 339 LRAs 
that have been awarded CEP funding based on the most recent project list57 
(hereinafter referred to as “CEP recipients”) - allowed for an assessment of the 
cultural  and  socio-economic  impacts  of  CEP  projects,  the  main  challenges 
encountered  during  their  implementation,  and  the  overall  experiences  of  these 

57 i.e., From EU Member States: Austria (1), Belgium (16), Bulgaria (5), Croatia (13), Cyprus (1), Czechia (2), 
Denmark (8), Estonia (2), Finland (3), France (20), Germany (28), Greece (7), Hungary (1), Ireland (3), Italy (40), 
Latvia (6), Lithuania (6), Luxembourg (2), Poland (29), Portugal (28), Romania (8), Slovakia (1), Slovenia (13), 
Spain (49), Sweden (11), the Netherlands (3), United Kingdom (3 in the 2014-2020 funding period, as it is not 
eligible for funding in the current funding period due to Brexit). From non-EU Participating Countries in the 
Creative Europe Programme: Albania (1), Bosnia and Herzegovina (4), Georgia (1), Iceland (1), Kosovo (1), 
Montenegro (3), North Macedonia (1), Norway (9), Serbia (5), Ukraine (4).  
Source: European Commission, Culture and Creativity, “Projects lists”. Accessed July 17, 2025.  
https://culture.ec.europa.eu/creative-europe/projects/projects-lists.  

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LRAs.  In  addition,  feedback  was  collected  regarding  the  alignment  of  the 
Programme’s objectives with their actual needs.  

The second survey was directed towards LRAs that have not been awarded 
CEP funding – either because their applications were not selected for funding or 
because  they  have  not  attempted  to  apply  for  this  funding  instrument.  It  also 
targeted cultural and creative organisations from the EU 27, as well as from non-
EU  countries  that  are  eligible  for  obtaining  CEP  funding58  (e.g.,  cultural 
associations,  non-governmental organisations, creative businesses)  – regardless 
of  whether  they  have  been  CEP  beneficiaries  or  not  (hereinafter  referred  to  as 
“non-CEP recipients”).  

For mapping cultural and creative organisations, priority was given to those 
listed on LRAs’ websites. If no cultural associations were mentioned, a targeted 
web search in each CEP eligible country’s language was conducted using primary 
search  terms  and  Boolean  operators  such  as  “cultural  organisation”  AND 
“municipality  name”,  “creative  organisation”  AND  “municipality  name”, 
“cultural  activities”  AND  “municipality  name”,  “creative  activities”  AND 
“municipality  name”.  The  overall  methodology  applied  a  stratified  random 
sampling  approach  to  ensure  balanced  representation  across  different  types  of 
stakeholders (e.g., cultural associations, non-governmental organisations, creative 
businesses)  and  geographical  contexts.  Samples  were  built  randomly  but  with 
specific  attention  to  participation  quotas  based  on  national  population  size, 
meaning that a proportionally higher number of LRAs and cultural and creative 
organisations were  contacted in  more populous countries (e.g., Poland)  than in 
smaller ones (e.g., Cyprus).  

Additionally, municipalities were categorised by population size (i.e., small, 
medium, and large) and European macro-regions59, to ensure diversity in local 
governance  contexts  and  cultural  infrastructure.  The  use  of  European  macro-
regions  in  the  methodology  was  intended  to  capture  territorial  specificities, 
address geographical disparities, and reflect the EU cohesion objectives to reduce 
disparities  between  regions  and  promote  balanced  development  across  all 
territories - socially, economically, and culturally. This approach allowed for a 
more balanced assessment of cultural and creative dynamics across Central and 
Eastern, Northern, Western, and Southern Europe. The aim was to ensure that the 

58 i.e., Based on the ‘List of non-EU Participating Countries in the Creative Europe Programme’ non-EU eligible 
countries in the CEP are: EFTA countries which are part of the European Economic Area (EEA) (Iceland, Norway, 
Liechtenstein),  Acceding  countries,  candidate  countries  and  potential  candidates  (Albania,  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina,  Georgia,  Kosovo,  Montenegro,  North  Macedonia,  Serbia,  Ukraine),  European  Neighbourhood 
Policy countries (Armenia and Tunisia). 
59 Reference is made to the classification of European regions proposed by EuroVoc, i.e.,  Central and Eastern 
Europe: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia; Northern Europe: Estonia, 
Finland,  Ireland,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Sweden;  Western  Europe:  Austria,  Belgium,  Denmark,  France,  Germany, 
Luxembourg, the Netherlands; Southern Europe: Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Spain. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
impact of the CEP could be analysed not only at national but also transnational 
regional levels, where  shared challenges and opportunities  often shape  cultural 
development strategies. Outreach was conducted to both LRAs and cultural and 
creative  organisations  across  all  CEP-eligible  countries,  including  EU  and 
associated non-EU participants. 

Within this mapping framework, the second survey aimed to gather input on the 
general awareness of the CEP and the perception of the compatibility of its overall 
objectives with local and/or regional interests or needs. Furthermore, it served as 
a valuable tool to assess potential strategies for enhancing synergies between the 
CEP and other EU funding programmes. Ultimately, the data extracted from the 
responses have been used to contribute to the development of recommendations 
aimed at guiding future enhancements of the Programme, to ensure that it is better 
aligned with the actual needs of LRAs across Europe. 

Out  of  the  answers  collected,  62  CEP  recipients  from  21  countries 
contributed,  including  18  EU  Member  States  and  some  non-EU  countries 
eligible for CEP funding60 (i.e., Montenegro, Norway, and Serbia). The second 
sample, which targeted non-CEP recipients, included 140 respondents from 
36  countries61,  including  all  27  EU  Member  States  and  some  non-EU 
countries eligible for CEP funding.  

Figure  7  illustrates  the  geographical  distribution  of  CEP  and  non-CEP 
recipients who participated in the two respective surveys, covering both EU 
and non-EU countries eligible for funding. Although the mapping methodology 
for inviting non-CEP recipients aimed to ensure geographical and demographic 
balance, the number of responses varied significantly across countries - from a 
peak  of  22  responses  from  Poland  to  a  minimum  of  one  response  each  from 
countries such as Luxembourg, Malta, Tunisia, and Ukraine. These disparities can 
be  attributed  to  the  distribution  of  invitations,  which  were  more  numerous  in 
countries  with  larger  national  populations.  Additionally,  higher  response  rates 
were  recorded  in  countries  where  the  survey  was  available  in  the  national 
language (e.g., Italy, Poland), some of which are also amongst the most populous, 
which further contributes to their stronger representation. For CEP recipients, it 
is important to note that invitations were sent to LRAs listed in the most recent 

60 i.e., From EU Member States: Belgium (5), Bulgaria (2), Croatia (2), Czechia (1), Denmark (3), France (2), 
Germany (7), Greece (1), Ireland (1), Italy (7), Latvia (2), Lithuania (3), Poland (3), Portugal (5), Romania (2), 
Slovenia  (4),  Spain  (7),  Sweden  (2).  From  non-EU  Participating  Countries  in  the  Creative  Europe 
Programme: Montenegro (1), Norway (1), Serbia (1). 
61 i.e., From EU Member States: Austria (3), Belgium (7), Bulgaria (7), Croatia (2), Cyprus (1), Czechia (2), 
Denmark (5), Estonia (3), Finland (4), France (4), Germany (6), Greece (5), Hungary (3), Ireland (3), Italy (10), 
Latvia  (2),  Lithuania  (6),  Luxembourg  (1),  Malta  (1),  Poland  (22),  Portugal  (2),  Romania  (3),  Slovakia  (3), 
Slovenia (3), Spain (4), Sweden (8), the Netherlands (7), United Kingdom (1, as eligible for the previous funding 
period). From non-EU Participating Countries in the Creative Europe Programme: Albania (1), Armenia (1), 
Bosnia and Herzegovina (1), Georgia (3), North Macedonia (3), Serbia (1), Tunisia (1), Ukraine (1). 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
CEP projects database, which - as noted above - shows considerable variation in 
country participation (e.g., Spain with 49 LRAs vs. Austria with 1). Moreover, 
the database itself is limited in scope, as it includes only 339 LRAs, which helps 
explain  the  final  total  of  62  responses  collected  through  the  survey  (18.3% 
response rate). 

Figure 7 - Cumulative analysis of the geographical breakdown of responses by country. 

Against  this  backdrop,  the  data  should  be  interpreted  with  caution  and  not 
considered  as  statistically  representative  of  national  trends.  In  countries  with 
lower response numbers, small sample sizes may limit the statistical validity of 
the  findings  and  introduce  bias  in  cross-country  comparisons  or  national-level 
interpretations. Nevertheless, the data remain a valuable resource to support both 
qualitative and quantitative analysis of the CCS, offering meaningful insights into 
the  organisations  engaged  with  -  or  potentially  interested  in  -  the  CEP,  with  a 
special focus on LRAs. 

Given  this  unbalanced  distribution  of  responses  across  countries,  the  research 
team  employed  a  multidimensional  approach  to  data  analysis,  drawing  on  a 
variety of metrics to provide a structured, evidence-driven narrative and identify 
patterns  of  engagement  and  key  characteristics  of  LRAs  involved  in  and/or 
interested  in  the  CEP.  They  include  the  organisation  type  represented  in  the 
responses  (e.g.,  local  public  authority,  regional  public  authority,  local  and/or 
regional agency working for a public authority), the demographic size, and the 
European macro-region of the  respondents.  By triangulating the  analysis  along 
these dimensions (i.e., cross-verifying data using multiple sources or variables), 
the research team was able to mitigate biases due to unequal national response 
rates.  

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Accordingly, a targeted selection of the most interesting findings was made. This 
analytical  strategy  ensures 
the  findings,  although  not  statistically 
representative  at  national  level,  remain  robust  and  meaningful  to  evaluate  the 
impact of the CEP at place-based level. 

that 

An  analysis  of  the  responses  received  from  CEP  and  non-CEP  recipients  is 
therefore provided per EU and non-EU macro-regions, to ensure a more balanced 
and meaningful comparative assessment (Figure 8). The majority of responses 
came from EU countries. However, it is worth  noting the  participation  -  albeit 
limited  -  from non-EU countries,  which underscores the CEP's  commitment  to 
fostering  the  development  of  the  CCS  beyond  the  EU.  This  inclusiveness 
promotes  intercultural  dialogue  and  mutual  enrichment,  reinforcing  the  CEP’s 
role as a catalyst for collaboration across European borders. 

Figure 8 – Geographical breakdown of the responses collected through the two surveys by macro-region. 

To better understand the respondents’ profiles, they were asked to identify their 
organisation  type.  Amongst  non-CEP  recipients  (Figure  9),  responses  were 
predominantly from local public authorities, which made up 72% of the sample 
(101 out of 140). 20% of the total sample, corresponding to 28 responses, were 
from “cultural associations or a non-governmental organisation”. “Local/regional 
agencies working for a public body” accounted for 4% of the total, i.e., six (6) 
responses, doubling the number of responses from “regional public authorities”, 
which accounted for 2% of the sample of respondents. As for the two answers that 
do not fall into any of the above categories, they were private companies, one of 
which is involved in organising international cultural events (e.g., festivals), and 
the other is a consultancy firm that supports organisations to get EU funding, such 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
as  the  CEP.  This  extensive  catalogue  of  organisations  highlights  the  wide  and 
varied panorama of cultural and creative organisations and LRAs that participated 
in  the  survey  and  are  involved  in  the  development  of  the  CCS  within  their 
respective territories. 

Figure 9 – Organisational type distribution amongst non-CEP recipients. 

Looking  at  CEP  recipients,  the  vast  majority  of  responses  came  from 
local/regional  agencies  working  for  a  public  authority  (57%)  and  local  public 
authorities (40%), with only a small share (3%) from regional public authorities 
(Figure 10). The limited participation of regional public authorities in the survey 
aligns with the relatively small number of regions across Europe actively involved 
in the CEP as beneficiaries. This may be due to the Programme’s stronger focus 
on facilitating cooperation partnerships that deliver cultural programmes on the 
ground, which, by their nature, require the involvement of organisations that are 
closest to citizens, such as municipalities.  

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 10 - Organisational type distribution amongst CEP recipients. 

CEP and non-CEP recipients were therefore asked whether they had ever been 
beneficiaries  of  the  Programme.  To  provide  a  comprehensive  overview  of  the 
answers  to  this  specific  question,  the  data  from  both  samples  have  been 
aggregated.  The  responses  were  analysed  from  both  geographical  and 
demographic perspectives.  

The  geographical  breakdown  is  visually  represented  in  Figure  11  below.  The 
graph reveals clear patterns across EU and non-EU regions. The highest levels of 
participation  in  the  surveys  are  observed  in  Central  and  Eastern  Europe  (59 
responses),  followed  by  Western  Europe  (45),  Southern  Europe  (43),  and 
Northern Europe (39). 

Successful  CEP  applications  are  most  prominent  in  Southern  Europe  (23), 
Western Europe (20), and Central and Eastern Europe (16). These figures align 
with  the  distribution  of  LRAs  in  the  most  recent  list  of  CEP-funded  projects, 
which  comprises  125  LRAs  in  Southern  Europe,  78  in  Western  Europe,  72  in 
Central  and  Eastern  Europe,  and  31  in  Northern  Europe.  Notably,  the  sample 
contains very few unsuccessful applications, with only seven (7) reported in total. 

Several organisations that had not previously been involved in the CEP expressed 
a willingness to participate in future rounds of the CEP, particularly in Northern 
Europe (13) and Central and Eastern Europe (13), indicating strong potential for 
future  engagement.  A  smaller  number  of  respondents,  however,  indicated  that 
their organisations do not foresee participation, especially in Central and Eastern 
Europe (8), Northern Europe (2), and Southern Europe (2). 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 11 – Cumulative analysis of respondents’ involvement in the CEP, disaggregated by macro-region. 

As shown in Figure 12 below, the data broken down by demographic size reveal 
that LRAs from areas with smaller populations tend to apply for CEP funding at 
higher  rates,  except  for  small-sized  LRAs  (with  populations  between  1  and 
10,000), which show a lower application rate.  

Figure 12 - Cumulative analysis of respondents’ involvement in the CEP, disaggregated by population size. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CEP recipients were therefore asked who initiated their decision to apply for CEP 
funding,  based  on  a  multiple-choice  selection.  As  shown  in  Figure  13,  the 
majority  of  LRAs  awarded  CEP  funding  reported  that  a  manager  led  the 
development of their successful CEP proposal, with a total of 26 responses. This 
leadership  was  most  notably  observed  in  LRAs  with  populations  between 
100,001–500,000 (11 responses) and 500,001–2,000,000 (8), followed by those 
with 10,001–100,000 (6) and 1–10,000 (1). These results indicate that managerial 
leadership plays a central role in driving applications, particularly within medium-
to-large LRAs. 

The second most common initiator was an individual expert in the CCS, cited 15 
times,  with  a  notable  concentration  amongst  LRAs  with  populations  between 
10,001–100,000 (7 responses) and 100,001-500,000 (6 responses). Partnerships 
were responsible for 10 responses, mainly amongst LRAs with 100,001–500,000 
(5) and 10,001–100,000 (3) inhabitants, suggesting that collaborative approaches 
are particularly characteristic of mid-sized contexts. 

Only two (2) respondents indicated that an in-house agency took the lead, while 
seven (7) selected “Other,” and two (2) stated they did not know, indicating that 
in some cases,  internal processes  for project  initiation may  be  informal  or  less 
structured. 

These results highlight the importance of internal leadership and skilled personnel 
in  driving  successful  funding  applications,  suggesting  that  future  support 
measures should focus on strengthening LRAs’ capacity to apply for and secure 
CEP funding. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 13 - Lead actors in driving successful CEP proposals (CEP recipients). 

1.2.1 The role of local and regional public authorities in the Creative Europe 
Programme 

Thanks to their proximity to citizens, LRAs are strategically positioned to support 
the  development  and  sustainability  of  cultural  and  creative  ecosystems  across 
Europe. Within the framework of the CEP, these authorities contribute not only 
as  facilitators  but  also  as  active  participants  and  strategic  partners  in  cultural 
initiatives.  

An overview of the most recent list of CEP-funded projects62 reveals that they are 
engaged in various capacities. Figure 14 shows the number of LRAs that have 
been  beneficiaries  of  CEP  funding  either  as  project  partners  or  coordinators, 
broken down per year. During the 2014-2020 period, 74.6% of participating LRAs 
(264 in total) assumed the role of project partner, while the remaining 25.4% (90 
LRAs) acted as project coordinators. In the 2021-2027 period (as of today), the 
share of LRA partners increased to 85.8% (133 LRAs), while the proportion of 
coordinators declined by more than ten percentage points, falling to 14.2% (22 
LRAs).  This  decrease  in  leadership  roles  may  be  attributed  to  the  general 
recalibration  of  the  2021-2027  programme  edition,  which  appears  to  favour 
projects with larger budgets and greater complexity. These conditions may exceed 
the human and financial capacities of many LRAs across Europe, making it more 

62 European Commission, Culture and Creativity, “Projects lists”. Accessed July 17, 2025.  
https://culture.ec.europa.eu/creative-europe/projects/projects-lists.  

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
feasible for them to participate as partners rather than take on the responsibilities 
of coordination. 

Figure 14 – Overview of the role of LRAs in CEP-funded projects per year (i.e., coordinator vs. partner). 
Source: European Commission, Culture and Creativity, “Projects lists”. Accessed July 17, 2025.  
https://culture.ec.europa.eu/creative-europe/projects/projects-lists.  

To  better  understand  their  involvement,  the  survey  tailored  to  CEP  recipients 
included  a  question  asking  them  to  specify  their  role  within  the  CEP-funded 
projects they participated in.   Respondents could choose from a wide  range of 
options, including “Project coordinator”, “Support and facilitation of local and/or 
regional partnerships,” “Leader of the communication and dissemination efforts”, 
and “Community engagement and promotion”. Multiple selections were allowed 
to capture the complexity of LRA roles, recognising that their engagement often 
spans  several  areas  rather  than  a  single  intervention.  The  responses  provided 
valuable insights into the depth and diversity of LRA involvement, highlighting 
key areas where their support significantly enhances the effectiveness and reach 
of Creative Europe projects. 

Figure 15 graphically illustrates the distribution of reported roles amongst CEP 
recipients that contributed  to the survey.  Most  identified  themselves  as  project 
coordinators.  Specifically,  32  respondents  (i.e.,  over  50%  of  the  62  LRAs 
participating  in  CEP  projects  as  beneficiaries  who  replied)  indicated  a 
coordination role. Additionally, 22 organisations reported playing crucial roles in 
organising cultural events and activities within their territories, reflecting LRAs’ 
capacity to engage communities. This is further supported by 13 responses citing 
“community  engagement”  and  “manage  networks  of  artists”,  the  latter  being 
specified through the “Other” option. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Furthermore, 16 LRAs indicated that they were responsible for the exchange of 
good practices with other CCS stakeholders. This highlights the importance they 
place on building networks to mutually share success stories and lessons learned 
from CEP projects. The exchange of effective approaches and advice is essential 
to  foster  greater  cooperation  and  ensure  the  long-term  sustainability  of  project 
outcomes. 

Figure 15 – Role of LRAs in CEP-funded projects (CEP recipients). 

1.2.2  Benefits  of  local  and  regional  public  authorities’  engagement  in  the 
Creative Europe Programme 

From  the  point  of  view  of  LRAs,  participating  in  a  CEP-funded  project  can 
represent a significant step forward in the valorisation of the cultural heritage of 
their territories. As highlighted in the introduction of this study, the importance of 
the  CCS  within  the  European  economic  and  cultural  landscape  is  tangible. 
Europe’s  rich  and  diverse  cultural  identity  brings  a  shared  set  of  values  that 
translate into tangible benefits. They range from direct economic gains linked to 
CCS development, to positive impacts on tourism and increased visibility - both 
nationally and across Europe - for the involved territories.  

The  positive  impacts  that  an  LRA  can  expect  as  a  direct  consequence  of 
participating  in  a  CEP  project  can  thus  vary  significantly,  and  the  reasons  for 
participation are equally diverse. The responses to the survey addressed to CEP 
recipients  offer  valuable  insights  into  which  expected  impacts  most  strongly 
motivated LRAs to apply for the funding (Figure 16). 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 16 – Expected impacts targeted by applicants to the CEP (CEP recipients). 

Figure  16  highlights  the  most  commonly  expected  impacts  of  CEP 
participation,  which  can be grouped  into  three  main categories: transnational, 
place-based social and cultural, and economic/innovation impacts. 

impacts 

ranked  highest,  with  “strengthened 

Transnational 
international 
cooperation”  cited  52  times  and  “new  partnerships”  cited  42.  These  were 
particularly prominent amongst mid-sized LRAs (100,001–500,000 inhabitants), 
with 22 and 20 mentions respectively. This suggests that LRAs in this size range 
see the CEP as a strategic opportunity to expand cross-border collaboration and 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
build  sustainable  networks.  Place-based  social  and  cultural  impacts  were  also 
significant.  “Skills  development”  (42  mentions)  and  “strengthened  community 
engagement” (32) were again most frequently cited by mid-sized LRAs (16 and 
12 mentions, respectively) and by those in the 10,001–100,000 class (17 and 16 
mentions,  respectively).  Economic  and  innovation  impacts  received  moderate 
support  across  all  classes.  “Development  of  innovative  business  models”  was 
mentioned 17 times, and “increased cultural tourism” 15 times, indicating a broad 
but  less  dominant  expectation  regarding  economic  returns  and  innovation 
potential. 

Comparing  the  expected  impacts  with  the  achieved  outcomes  (Figure  17) 
reveals a general alignment, with some slight differences. 

“Strengthened  international  cooperation  and  new  partnerships”,  in  particular, 
show very close correspondence, with “new partnerships” showing near-perfect 
consistency  (i.e.,  reported  42  times  as  an  expected  impact  and  43  times  as  an 
achieved 
impact,  respectively).  “Skills  development”  and  “strengthened 
community engagement” were also widely achieved, though to a slightly lesser 
extent (i.e., reported 42 and 32 times as expected impacts vs. 39 and 27 times as 
achieved  impacts,  respectively),  which  may  suggest  some  challenges  in  fully 
delivering  training  and  fostering  community  participation.  Conversely,  the 
“development  of  innovative  business models” and  “increased cultural  tourism” 
showed  notable  shortfalls  of  29.4%  and  46.7%,  respectively,  indicating  that 
achieving  more  economic  or  market-oriented  impacts  was  more  challenging 
within the scope of the CEP projects.  

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 17 – Impacts achieved by LRAs involved in CEP-funded projects (CEP recipients). 

The following figure (Figure 18) provides a visual comparative overview of the 
expected and achieved impacts reported by CEP respondents across key outcome 
categories. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 18 – Comparative analysis of the expected and achieved impacts by LRAs involved in CEP-funded 
projects (CEP recipients). 

Overall, while the core cultural and collaborative ambitions were largely fulfilled, 
economic impacts proved more elusive. This may be due to the limited scope and 
timeframe of the projects, which constrained the ability to fully develop and scale 
economic  or  market-oriented  initiatives.  These  findings  highlight  the  need  for 
future programme design to incorporate more sustained support mechanisms and 
resources (e.g., tailored funding streams, post-project scaling strategies), that can 
better  foster  innovation,  economic  resilience,  and  long-term  market  impacts 
alongside cultural and social goals.  

1.2.3  Success  factors  in  the  implementation  of  Creative  Europe  Programme 
projects 

An important contribution of this study is to identify the key success factors based 
on  the  experiences  of  the LRAs  that  were  involved  in  CEP-funded  projects  as 
beneficiaries.  The  questionnaire  tailored  to  CEP  recipients  included  specific 
questions to evaluate which strategies were most effective in turning projects into 
good practices. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 19 - Success factors in the implementation of CEP projects (CEP recipients). 

responses 

(Figure  19),  “strong  partnerships  with 

Across  all 
local 
stakeholders”  and  “effective  project  management”  emerged  as  the  most 
frequently cited success factors across European regions, as they were mentioned 
32  and  30  times,  respectively.  Notably,  small  to  mid-sized  LRAs  (those  with 
populations between 10,001 and 500,000) particularly emphasised the critical role 
of sound internal coordination (23 mentions) and robust stakeholder partnerships 
in  project 
(24) 
implementation was highlighted by 22 respondents, especially in Southern Europe 
(9) and Western Europe (6), and also predominantly recognised by small to mid-
sized  LRAs  (17  mentions),  underscoring  the  importance  of  community 
participation to enhance the project’s visibility, sustainability, and impact. 

in  driving  project  success.  Community  engagement 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Shifting the analysis to non-CEP recipients, an open-ended question was included 
to identify the key local and/or regional factors influencing access to CEP funding. 
The answers provided by respondents - that the research team aggregated per topic 
-  most  frequently  pointed  to  the  availability  of  cultural  infrastructure  (21 
responses), followed by economic development (15) and population size (10)63.  

While CEP recipients cited internal coordination, stakeholder partnerships, and 
community  engagement  as  key  to  project  success,  non-CEP  recipients  focused 
more on structural and contextual conditions that affect LRA competitiveness to 
secure CEP funding (Figure 20). 

Economic  development,  for  example,  was  a  prominent  concern  for  non-CEP 
recipients -  particularly  amongst  respondents with populations  between  10,001 
and 500,000 (10 mentions). This mirrors the emphasis CEP recipients placed on 
effective internal management within the same population bracket (23 mentions), 
suggesting  a  link  between  economic  capacity  and  the  ability  to  implement 
successful projects. 

Population  size  was  cited  mostly  from  smaller  LRAs  (1–10,000:  4  responses; 
10,001–100,000: 3), indicating a perception that limited size may hinder access 
to funding. However, this contrasts with CEP recipients, where small to mid-sized 
LRAs (10,001–100,000) were amongst the most successful. This may suggest that 
while  population  size  is  seen  as  a  barrier,  it  can  be  overcome  through  strong 
institutional  capacity,  enabling  effective  internal  coordination  and  stakeholder 
engagement. 

63 It is important to note that this question was not mandatory, which explains why the number of responses is 
lower compared to the 140 non-CEP recipients that contributed to the survey.  

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 20 - Key local and regional factors influencing access to CEP funding (non-CEP recipients). 

Given these insights into what drives project success and what challenges exist in 
accessing  CEP  funding,  it  is  equally  important  to  consider  whether  these 
successful approaches and methodologies are deemed transferable to other LRAs. 
In  other  words,  beyond  identifying  what  works  and  for  whom,  the  study  also 
explores the extent to which CEP beneficiaries believe their experiences can serve 
as  models  for  replication.  This  issue  of  replicability  is  crucial  for  scaling  the 
impact of innovative cultural initiatives and ensuring that effective practices can 
be adapted to diverse European contexts.  

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  following  analysis,  therefore,  turns  specifically  to  the  perceptions  of  CEP 
recipients regarding the possibility of their projects being replicated, drawing on 
both quantitative data and qualitative reflections to shed light on the factors that 
facilitate  or  hinder  the  transfer  of  best  practices.  Figure  21  shows  a  strong 
consensus amongst respondents regarding the replicability of best practices from 
CEP projects, with ratings ranging from moderately replicable (26 mentions) to 
very  replicable  (22).  Overall,  respondents  consistently  pointed  to  well-defined 
methodologies,  structured  project  formats,  accessible  resources,  institutional 
collaboration, and opportunities for capacity building and peer learning as the key 
drivers underpinning successful replication. Many respondents also emphasised 
the importance of community engagement and co-creation, which allow projects 
to be adapted to different local contexts while maintaining cultural relevance.  

Figure 21 - Perceived replicability of best practices from CEP projects (CEP recipients). 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.2.4  Guidance tools  provided by the  European  Commission for the Creative 
Europe Programme 

Having examined the benefits and key success factors of LRAs as beneficiaries 
of the CEP - particularly in achieving transnational and place-based social and 
cultural impacts - it is equally important to consider the enabling mechanisms that 
support effective participation in the Programme. While outcomes and influence 
at the territorial level remain central to understanding CEP’s value for LRAs, the 
accessibility and clarity of the application and implementation processes play a 
critical role in empowering them to engage meaningfully. The following section 
shifts focus to the tools and guidance provided by the EC, which are specifically 
designed to assist applicants and beneficiaries in navigating the Programme and 
fully realising its opportunities. 

The research carried out for this study focused in particular on the evaluation of 
these  tools,  in  order  to  identify  those  that  have  been  proven  to  be  the  most 
effective. As part of the evaluation, CEP recipients were asked whether they had 
used  any  of  the  tools  and  guidance  materials  provided  by  the  EC  during  the 
application and implementation phases of their projects. 

Out  of  the  responses  collected  (Figure  22),  56%  of  them  answered  “yes”  (35 
mentions), while 24% (15) replied “no”, and 20% (12) “I do not know”. These 
figures suggest that although more than half of the beneficiaries found and used 
available support resources, a notable share either did not engage with them or 
were unaware of their existence. This indicates a potential gap in communication, 
awareness, or usability, which may be limiting broader and more equitable access 
to CEP opportunities, particularly for less-experienced LRAs. 

Figure 22 – Use of the EC guidance tools by CEP recipients during the application and implementation phases.  

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Against this backdrop, the following subsections aim to present the main tools 
made available by the EC. It is important to note that these tools, being developed 
within the framework of the CEP, are not exclusively tailored to LRAs. They are 
accessible  to  all  eligible  organisations  (e.g.,  educational  institutions,  private  or 
public cultural institutes, social enterprises) operating within the CCS across the 
EU and non-EU countries eligible for CEP funding. 

1.2.4.1 Creative Europe Desks 

National  Creative  Europe  Desks  serve  as  contact  points  in  each  CEP  eligible 
country, forming a European network that promotes the CEP and provides vital 
assistance to potential beneficiaries.  

Operating in 38 countries, these desks offer free information, guidance on funding 
applications, updates on cultural developments, and support for networking and 
partnership building. While they do not make strategic decisions, they play a key 
role  in  informing  applicants,  facilitating  matchmaking,  and  supporting  them 
throughout both the application and project implementation phases. 

As pointed out by the Head of Unit of DG EAC of the EC during an interview 
held on 21 May 2025, the establishment and funding of national desks involve 
multiannual  commitments,  with  budgets  that  are  currently  calculated  based  on 
population and Gross Domestic Product (GDP). National desks are co-financed 
by the EU (60%) and host countries (40%). A notable exception is Ukraine, where, 
due to the ongoing conflict following the Russian aggression in 2022, the entire 
budget for the CEP Desk in Kyiv is funded by the EU. Desk structures vary by 
country, with some managing all programme strands centrally and others having 
separate desks per strand. 

National Desks are a powerful and effective mechanism for ensuring successful 
funding implementation at national level, providing DG EAC with vital support 
in programme governance. They help align the Programme’s strategic priorities 
with the real needs of local and/or regional cultural ecosystems. To this end, an 
annual  general  meeting  is  held  in  Brussels,  gathering  all  national  desks.  The 
agenda includes joint sessions to communicate the EU policy priorities and focal 
themes (e.g., green practices, AI), as well as strand-specific discussions. During 
these meetings, national desks provide feedback on local implementation, share 
best practices, and convey insights from their on-the-ground experience. 

1.2.4.2 Infodays 

Infodays are key events organised by the EC and the National Creative Europe 
Desks  to  support  organisations  interested  in  applying  for  CEP  funding.  These 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
sessions  provide  clear  guidance  on  the  Programme’s  structure,  funding 
opportunities, eligibility criteria, evaluation process, and application procedures, 
tailored to local contexts and languages. 

They  offer  practical  advice,  often  featuring  insights  from  past  successful 
applicants,  helping  participants  improve  their  proposals.  They  also  include 
interactive questions and answers (Q&A) sessions, allowing direct engagement 
with  the  Programme’s  managing  authorities  to  clarify  specific  questions  about 
project design, budgeting, and reporting. 

Beyond  information  sharing,  Infodays  serve  as  valuable  networking  platforms 
where  organisations  can  connect  with  potential  transnational  partners.  While 
traditionally held in person, recent years have seen a shift to online and hybrid 
formats, increasing accessibility and enabling recorded sessions for later viewing. 

Regular attendance at Infodays helps organisations stay informed about evolving 
programme priorities and application requirements, making these events a vital 
resource for successful engagement with the CEP. 

1.2.4.3 Webinars 

Webinars are an important tool used by the EC and the National Creative Europe 
Desks to inform and support organisations interested in applying for funding. 

Unlike  Infodays,  which  provide  general  overviews  about  the  Programme, 
webinars tend to be more focused. They address specific funding calls, sectors, or 
themes, such as how to submit an application, build a transnational partnership, 
or align with policy priorities, including sustainability and digital transformation. 
They are held online, making them widely accessible across Europe and beyond. 
They are free, require simple registration, and are often recorded for later viewing. 
This flexibility makes them especially useful for smaller or remote organisations.  

Sessions usually include expert presentations, live Q&A segments, and practical 
guidance on technical issues (e.g., using the EU Funding & Tenders Portal). Some 
webinars also feature case studies and best practices from successful applicants. 

Webinars  provide  an  excellent  opportunity  to  obtain  detailed,  up-to-date 
information  about  specific  funding  opportunities  and  to  learn  how  to  prepare 
stronger,  more  aligned  proposals.  They  also  offer  a  chance  to  ask  specific 
questions directly to programme officers, connect with peers, and learn from real 
project examples. 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.2.4.4 Document Library 

A further useful tool to draw important insights from the CEP is the Document 
library64.  It  provides  access  to  a  collection of official  documents,  publications, 
reports, and other resources related to EU cultural policy, funding programmes 
(e.g., Creative Europe), and various EU initiatives in the CCS. It is intended for 
researchers,  policymakers,  cultural  professionals,  and  anyone  interested  in  EU 
cultural  activities.  Amongst  the  available  documents  are  panel  reports,  Annual 
Work Programmes, publications, EU laws, EC communications, and much more. 
By way of example, LRAs can use this tool to inform local and/or regional cultural 
policies,  align  regional  strategies  with  EU  priorities,  and  explore  examples  of 
successful projects implemented thanks to CEP funding across Europe. Results 
can also be filtered by topic to facilitate the search for the document most relevant 
to the user’s needs.  

1.2.4.5 Discover funding opportunities for the Cultural and Creative Sectors 

“Discover funding opportunities for the Cultural and Creative Sectors”65 is one of 
the  official  EC  tools  online  designed  to  help  individuals  and  organisations  - 
including LRAs - navigate the wide range of EU funding opportunities supporting 
the CCS. It is part of the broader CultureEU Funding Guide and is particularly 
valuable for anyone interested in participating in programmes such as the CEP. 

The platform is  an interactive tool that operates through  a  simple  and  intuitive 
four-step process. First, users are asked to identify the specific cultural or creative 
sector in which they are active (e.g., artistic crafts, performing arts, audiovisual). 
Next, they are asked to define the type of organisation they represent. In the case 
of a local public authority, this would typically be entered as a “public service 
(local, regional or national)”. 

Following this, the user specifies the type of support they are seeking. For a local 
authority, this might include “networking & knowledge sharing”, or “artistic and 
cultural mobility & residency”. Once these details are entered, the tool generates 
a personalised list of EU funding programmes and open calls that best match the 
criteria. These results include budget information, timelines, eligibility rules, and 
direct links to official application platforms such as the Single Electronic Data 
Interchange  Area  (SEDIA)  (i.e.,  the  EC  central  portal  for  managing  and 
submitting applications for EU funding programmes, such as the CEP). 

64 European Commission, Culture and Creativity, “Document Library”. Accessed May 30, 2025.  
https://culture.ec.europa.eu/it/resources/document-library.  
65 European Commission, Culture and Creativity, “Discover funding opportunities for the Cultural and Creative 
Sectors”. Accessed May 30, 2025.  https://culture.ec.europa.eu/funding/cultureu-funding-guide/discover-funding-
opportunities-for-the-cultural-and-creative-sectors.  

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
While  the  tool  is  technically  well-designed  and  user-friendly,  its  actual  uptake 
amongst LRAs remains limited (as shown in Figure 22 above), partly due to low 
awareness  and  insufficient  integration  into  local  strategic  planning  processes. 
Additionally, the platform provides only general guidance. It does not replace the 
need for dedicated support in interpreting complex eligibility rules or co-financing 
requirements, that are areas where LRAs often seek additional clarification. 

Nonetheless, for LRAs looking to engage more actively with EU funding, the tool 
represents a valuable entry point. It can help uncover less-known opportunities 
beyond  the  CEP,  especially  those  linked  to  cross-sectoral  initiatives  involving 
innovation, education, or regional development. 

62 

 
 
 
 
Part 2: Challenges and Barriers to Implementation 

This section examines the primary challenges associated with the CEP from 
the perspective of the local and/or regional levels. In fact, since the CCS are 
considered as an important economic driver for local development (Serban et al. 
2022)66,  the  access  to  CEP  funding  represents  a  key  opportunity  for  LRAs  to 
support cultural innovation, economic growth, and community resilience. 

By  analysing  the  results  of  the  data  collection  made  through  the  two  surveys 
directed to CEP and non-CEP recipients, it is possible to distinguish between two 
different  groups  of  barriers.  The  first  group  includes  challenges  related  to  the 
design of the CEP itself, covering both the application process and the projects’ 
management, while the second group captures structural weaknesses within the 
CCS that affect the ability of organisations to access CEP funding.  

Following a preliminary overview,  each  of  the  main  barriers identified  will be 
analysed in greater depth.  

2.1  Challenges  related  to  the  design  of  the  Creative  Europe 
Programme 

Although the questions for the two samples differed slightly in focus (i.e., the one 
for CEP recipients asking about challenges during the application process and the 
other for non-CEP recipients about the perceived barriers to accessing funding), 
they  revealed  a  common  picture  of  complexity  and  limited  capacity  across 
Europe. 

For  CEP  recipients,  the  most  reported  difficulty  was  the  burden  of  the 
administrative procedures (36 mentions), followed by limited staff resources (30) 
and  the  complexity  of  the  eligibility  criteria  (16).  The  scientific  and  technical 
complexity of the proposal was also frequently cited (14 responses), particularly 
in Central and Eastern Europe (6) and Southern Europe (5). Less frequently cited 
obstacles  included  insufficient  guidance  or  support  (4)  and  the  difficulty  in 
accessing necessary documentation or data (3). 

Amongst non-CEP recipients, barriers appear broader and more structural. The 
most  cited  challenge  was  the  lack  of  staff  resources  or  expertise  to  prepare 
applications  (51),  closely  followed  by  the  complexity  of  application  processes 
(48). These results underscore how resource-intensive and technically demanding 

66  Serban,  A.  C.,  Uzunboylu,  H.,  Stativa,  G.  A.  &  Bocaneala,  A.  M.  2022.  Turning  Cultural  and  Creative 
Challenges into Local Development Opportunities. International Conference of the International Association of 
Cultural and Digital Tourism, 419–433. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the CEP application process is perceived to be. Limited financial resources for co-
funding also emerged as a major hurdle (35). 

Additionally, a mismatch between the CEP priorities and the local and/or regional 
needs  was  cited  by  18  respondents,  suggesting  that  the  Programme  may  not 
always align well with place-based cultural agendas.  

Other key barriers include a lack of awareness about the CEP (31) and difficulties 
in building cross-border partnerships (25). 

From  a  geographical  perspective,  Southern  Europe  consistently  reports  the 
highest levels of procedural burdens (12 CEP recipients, 8 non-CEP recipients) 
and capacity gaps (e.g., staff constraints: 9 CEP recipients, 13 non-CEP recipients; 
co-funding  challenges:  6  non-CEP  recipients).  Central  and  Eastern  Europe 
highlights difficulties in accessing documentation (6 non-CEP recipients) and low 
awareness  of  the  CEP  (11  non-CEP  recipients),  indicating  a  need  for  better 
outreach and simplified information provision. 

Northern  Europe  reports  significant  problems  with  application  complexity  (10 
CEP recipients, 14 non-CEP recipients) and staffing constraints (7 CEP recipients, 
11  non-CEP  recipients),  suggesting  challenges  related  to  the  Programme’s 
administrative demands. Similarly, Western Europe shows strong concern over 
administrative  procedures  (8  CEP  recipients,  12  non-CEP  recipients)  and  co-
funding requirements (12 non-CEP recipients). 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 23 - Challenges and barriers linked to the CEP funding (CEP and non-CEP recipients). 

Across  both  groups,  two  main  points  of  consistency  emerge:  administrative 
complexity, cited by 36 CEP recipients (i.e., administrative procedures) and 48 
non-CEP  recipients  (i.e.,  application  process  complexity);  and  limited  staff 
resources, cited by 30 CEP recipients and 51 non-CEP recipients. Additionally, 
non-CEP  recipients  identified  limited  financial  resources  for  co-funding  as  a 
significant additional barrier (35 respondents). 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.1 Complexity of the application process 

To gain further insights into the application process, the study also gathered data 
on  the  CEP  accessibility  from  the  perspective  of  the  LRAs  that  have  been 
successful applicants. 

Figure 24 - Ease of understanding of the administrative process for applying to the CEP per population group 
(CEP recipients). 

Figure 24 above illustrates that the LRAs in the 500,001–2,000,000 population 
range report occurrences of “Not accessible at all” (1) and a strong concentration 
in the "Slightly accessible" (4) and "Moderately accessible" (4) categories, with 
only one case rating it as "Very accessible". This pattern might indicate issues 
related to the complexity of the administrative procedures in larger LRAs. 

The  100,001–500,000  population  range  group  shows  a  more  balanced 
distribution,  with  a  relatively  high  number  rating  the  process  as  "Moderately 
accessible"  (13),  and  several  responses  indicating  it  as  "Very  accessible"  (4). 
Similarly, the 10,001-100,000 group shows the broadest spread, with responses 
across all categories. However, moderate and high accessibility ratings dominate, 
suggesting that even smaller LRAs within this group find the process relatively 
manageable. Finally, even small municipalities (1-10,000 inhabitants) rated the 
process as "Moderately accessible" (2). The data from these three groups of small 
and  mid-sized  LRAs  (1-500,000  inhabitants)  may  reflect  better  internal 
administrative  capacity,  with  fewer  bureaucratic  complexities  compared  to  the 
largest LRAs when applying for CEP funding.  

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 25 - Ease of understanding of the administrative process for applying to the CEP per programming 
period of funding (CEP recipients). 

Examining  the  data  from  the  perspective  of  the  programming  periods  during 
which the respondents received CEP funding (Figure 25), the perception is that 
the administrative process for applying to the CEP appears to have improved in 
the 2021–2027 period. In this period, five (5) respondents  rated the process  as 
“Very  accessible”,  compared  to  three  (3)  during  the  2014–2020  period. 
Additionally,  two  (2)  respondents  had  experience  with  both  programming 
periods. 

Similarly, a larger number of respondents from the 2021-2027 period rated the 
process as “Moderately accessible” (15), compared to those from the 2014–2020 
period (13). 

At the same time, the number of “Slightly accessible” responses decreased in the 
2021-2027  period  (7),  compared  to  the  earlier  period  (12),  reinforcing  the 
impression that the administrative process has improved in clarity. However, it is 
important  to  keep  in  mind  that  Figure  25  shows  that  there  is  still  room  for 
simplification. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 26 - Ease of preparing the technical part of a proposal under the CEP per European macro-region  
(CEP recipients). 

The ease of preparing the technical part of a proposal under the CEP appears to 
vary across European regions (Figure 26). 

In  Southern  Europe,  the  largest  group  of  respondents  (10)  found  the  process 
“Moderately  easy”,  followed  by  eight  (8)  respondents  who  rated  it  “Slightly 
easy”, and two (2) who rated it “Very easy”.  

Central and Eastern Europe presents a similar profile: six (6) respondents found 
it “Moderately easy”, six (6) rated it  “Slightly  easy”,  and  one  (1)  each rated it 
“Very easy” and “Not easy at all”.  

In contrast to Southern and Central-Eastern Europe, Northern and Western Europe 
display more varied and fragmented perceptions. In Northern Europe, responses 
were spread across all categories, with five (5) finding it “Slightly easy”, three (3) 
“Moderately  easy”,  two  (2)  “Not  easy  at  all”,  and  only  one  (1)  “Very  easy”. 
Similarly, Western Europe shows a varied situation with six (6) respondents rating 
it “Slightly easy”, four (4) “Moderately easy”, three (3) “Very easy”, and one (1) 
“Not easy at all”.  

Overall, the data suggest that administrative clarity has gradually improved during 
the 2021-2027 programming period. However, larger LRAs and certain regions 
still face disproportionate burdens. These findings confirm that, although progress 
is evident, targeted simplification and region-specific support remain essential for 
equitable CEP access. 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.2 Difficulties in managing Creative Europe projects 

Figure 27 - Challenges encountered during CEP project implementation (CEP recipients). 

Figure 27 above illustrates the key obstacles encountered by organisations during 
the  implementation  of  their  CEP  projects,  analysed  by  both  European  macro-
region and population size of the LRA. 

Across  both  dimensions,  the  most  frequently  cited  challenge  was  the 
administrative workload, reported by 42 respondents. Regionally, this burden was 
particularly pronounced in Southern Europe (13 responses) and Western Europe 
(10), followed by Northern Europe (11) and Central and Eastern Europe (8). In 
terms of population size, administrative challenges were the most frequently noted 
amongst LRAs in the 10,001–100,000 group (18 responses), the 100,001–500,000 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
group (17) and the 500,001-2,000,000 group (8). This finding aligns with earlier 
results,  confirming  that  administrative  complexity  persists  not  only  during  the 
application  phase  but  also  throughout  project  implementation,  and  particularly 
affects mid-sized LRAs. 

Budget constraints were another commonly reported issue (21 mentions in total), 
most prominent in Southern Europe (7) and Central and Eastern Europe (6). These 
challenges were especially relevant amongst LRAs with populations of 100,001–
500,000 (12 responses) and 10,001–100,000 (7 responses). 

Complex  reporting  requirements  were  cited  by  31  respondents,  notably  from 
Western  Europe  (9), Southern Europe  (8),  and Northern Europe  (8). Reporting 
challenges  were  particularly  acute  amongst  LRAs  in  the  10,001–100,000  (13 
responses) and the 100,001–500,000 (12 responses) categories. 

Other  significant  challenges  include  coordination  amongst  stakeholders  (18 
responses),  with  issues  mostly  reported  in  Southern  Europe  (6)  and  Western 
Europe  (5),  and  delays  in  final  payments  (7  responses),  which  were  relatively 
evenly distributed but slightly higher in Central and Eastern Europe (4). 

A  more  specialised  challenge,  lack  of  expertise,  was  mentioned  by  16 
respondents, particularly in Southern Europe (7) and Central and Eastern Europe 
(4). This concern was most pronounced amongst LRAs with populations between 
10,001 and 100,000 (10 responses), indicating a skills and training gap in smaller 
administrations. 

Less frequently reported issues included limited citizen engagement (4 responses) 
and  other  miscellaneous  challenges  (4  responses),  with  no  notable  regional  or 
demographic trends to discuss. 

To summarise the issues found, administrative workload remains the dominant 
obstacle throughout project implementation, echoing the burdens seen during the 
application  stage  and  weighing  heaviest  on  mid-sized LRAs. Budget  pressures 
and complex reporting add further strain, while smaller LRAs (10,001 – 100,000 
inhabitants) also face marked skills gaps. These results underscore the need for 
lighter procedures, tailored capacity-building and more flexible budget rules to 
ensure that CEP projects can be managed efficiently across all regions and city 
sizes. 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.3 Limited financial resources and impact of co-funding 

Figure 28 - Sufficiency of the CEP funding to cover project operational costs (CEP recipients). 

Figure 28 above reveals that, across most European macro-regions, the funding 
provided  by  the  CEP  is  perceived  as  only  partially  sufficient  to  cover  the 
operational  costs  of  supported  projects.  This  perception  is  shaped  by  several 
interrelated financial constraints, including limited grant coverage, challenges in 
securing co-funding, administrative overheads, and cash flow difficulties. Many 
respondents noted that CEP funding often does not fully cover essential costs such 
as staffing, infrastructure, and long-term development, requiring beneficiaries to 
seek additional resources from local, regional, national, or private sources. The 
co-funding  requirement,  while  designed  to  promote  local  ownership  and 
sustainability, can be particularly burdensome in territories with limited financial 
ecosystems  or  weaker  public  budgets.  Administrative  and  compliance  costs, 
including  complex  reporting  and  monitoring  obligations,  can  further  strain  the 
capacity of LRAs, and delays in disbursement or reimbursement can exacerbate 
liquidity issues, especially for those lacking financial reserves.  

This perception is particularly strong in Southern Europe, where 14 respondents 
indicated that the funding was only partially sufficient, five (5) considered it fully 
sufficient, and one (1) was unsure. This may reflect higher project costs, limited 
access to complementary funding, or greater reliance on EU support. In Northern 
Europe,  the  majority  (7  respondents)  also  viewed  the  funding  as  partially 
sufficient, while three (3) rated it as insufficient and one (1) was unsure. 

Similarly, in Western Europe, the predominant view is that of partial sufficiency 
(8  responses),  although  five  (5)  respondents  reported  the  funding  as  fully 
sufficient and one (1) considered it insufficient. 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  contrast,  Central  and  Eastern  Europe  stands  out  for  its  more  balanced 
experience: six (6) respondents found the funding fully sufficient, six (6) partially 
sufficient,  and  two  (2)  reported  it  as  insufficient.  This  relatively  more  positive 
assessment may reflect lower project costs or a better alignment between project 
needs and the CEP funding parameters in this European macro-region. 

Figure 29 - Impact of co-funding requirements on participation in the CEP (CEP recipients). 

Figure 29 above shows a mixed impact of the co-funding requirement under the 
CEP. In total, 25 respondents stated that co-funding contributed to strengthening 
their  commitment  through  internal  resource  investment,  24  said  it  created  an 
administrative burden, and 13 reported no significant impact.  

Looking at the data by population class, the 100,001–500,000 group expressed 
the  strongest  positive  effect:  12  found  that  co-funding  strengthened  their 
commitment, while nine (9) experienced administrative burden and four (4) saw 
no  significant  impact.  Similarly,  the  10,001–100,000  group  had  ten  (10) 
respondents citing strengthened commitment, nine (9) noting burden, and five (5) 
reporting no impacts.  

In  the  500,001–2,000,000  range,  responses  were  more  balanced:  two  (2)  cited 
strengthened commitment, five (5) burden, and three (3) no impact. Amongst the 
smallest authorities (1–10,000), responses were evenly distributed with one (1) in 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
each category. The largest group (>2,000,000) included only one (1) respondent, 
who reported administrative burden.  

These findings may indicate that mid-sized LRAs (10,001–500,000) are the most 
likely to turn co-funding into a constructive mechanism, whereas very small and 
very  large  authorities  may  face  either  administrative  limitations  or  added 
complexity that hinder the benefits of co-financing. 

2.1.4 Limited use of complementary EU funding opportunities in the Cultural 
and Creative Sectors 

As funding is a critical component for the CCS, the data collected also provides 
valuable insights into other funding sources beyond the CEP (Figure 30). 

Amongst the LRAs that received CEP funding, the majority (36) also accessed 
other funding sources. This suggests that CEP recipients are actively engaged and 
experienced in navigating multiple funding streams within the CCS. 

In contrast, amongst the organisations that did not receive CEP funding, there is 
a relatively balanced distribution between those who reported not having received 
other funds (58) and those who indicated having accessed other funding sources 
(60). 

Figure 30 - Funding received in the CCS from EU and/or non-EU financial instruments other than the CEP 
(CEP and non-CEP recipients). 

When asked about the type of financial instruments supporting the CCS that they 
have used aside from the CEP (Figure 31), the data reveal that both CEP and non-
CEP recipients primarily rely on national and/or local/regional public funding (27 
and 41 responses, respectively) as well as other European funding programmes 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(25  and  44  responses,  respectively).  This  highlights  the  central  role  of  public 
funding  in  supporting  the  CCS.  Public-private  hybrid  funding  is  used  to  some 
extent  by  both  CEP  recipients  (12  responses)  and  non-CEP  recipients  (11 
responses). 

Figure 31 - Other financial instruments supporting the CCS beyond the CEP (CEP and non-CEP recipients). 

These  patterns  suggest  a  strong  reliance  on  public  funding  mechanisms  and  a 
limited  adoption  of  private  or  mixed  funding  models,  which  may  reflect 
challenges related to access, capacity, or the prevailing cultural policy orientation. 

Both CEP and non-CEP recipients who used European funding programmes other 
than  the  CEP  were  therefore  asked  about  the  structural  and  non-structural 
financial instruments provided by the EU to support the CCS.  

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 32 - Use and relevance of structural EU funding opportunities for local and regional cultural 
development per European macro-region (CEP and non-CEP recipients). 

Figure 32 illustrates several key trends regarding the utilisation of EU structural 
funds. Interreg Europe is the most frequently cited fund by both CEP recipients 
(14)  and  non-CEP  recipients  (19),  underlining  its  widespread  relevance  for 
fostering  cross-border  cooperation  and  strategic  partnerships  in  the  CCS.  The 
European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF)  is  cited  by  seven  (7)  CEP 
respondents  and  13  non-CEP  respondents,  highlighting  its  role  in  supporting 
cultural infrastructure, innovation, and social inclusion within broader urban and 
rural development strategies. 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) is accessed more frequently by non-CEP 
organisations (10) than by CEP recipients (4), suggesting its particular value in 
supporting  skills  development  and  social  cohesion.  The  Just  Transition  Fund 
(JTF)  is  mentioned  by  both  groups  (2  CEP  respondents  and  3  non-CEP 
respondents), reinforcing its growing importance in regional cultural policy. 

Organisations that did not receive CEP funding also report more frequent use of 
“Other”  sources  (9  non-CEP  respondents  vs.  1  CEP  respondent),  indicating 
greater reliance on national, local, or alternative EU programmes. Less commonly 
cited, but still interesting, across both groups are the European Agricultural Fund 
for  Rural  Development  (EAFRD)  (2  CEP,  4  non-CEP),  the  European 
Globalisation  Adjustment Fund (EGF) (1 CEP, 1 non-CEP), and the  Recovery 
assistance for cohesion and the territories of Europe (REACT-EU) (3 CEP, 4 non-
CEP), which may be less accessible or specifically targeted for culture-focused 
initiatives. 

Overall, non-CEP respondents appear to diversify their funding strategies more 
broadly, while CEP respondents seem to concentrate on a narrower set of well-
aligned EU programmes. 

The regional breakdown reveals additional interesting patterns. Southern Europe 
and Central and Eastern Europe emerge as the most active regions in leveraging 
a  wide  range  of  funding  instruments,  amongst  both  CEP  and  non-CEP 
organisations.  In  particular,  Southern  Europe  shows  a  strong  reliance  on  the 
Cohesion  Fund  (5  CEP  recipients,  1  non-CEP  recipient)  and  ERDF  (3  CEP 
recipients,  2  non-CEP  recipients),  reflecting  significant  investment  in  cultural 
infrastructure and territorial cohesion. Central and Eastern Europe demonstrates 
a  notably  high  uptake  of  ESF+  (6  non-CEP  recipients)  and  Interreg  Europe  (9 
non-CEP  recipients).  In  contrast,  Northern  Europe  reports  lower  engagement 
across most funds, while Western Europe shows more selective but consistent use, 
particularly of ERDF (2 CEP recipients, 1 non-CEP recipient) and Interreg Europe 
(3 CEP recipients, 2 non-CEP recipients). 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 33 - Use and relevance of non-structural EU funding opportunities for local and regional cultural 
development per European macro-region (CEP and non-CEP recipients). 

Examining the insights on the use of EU non-structural funds (Figure 33), the 
data indicate that Erasmus+ is the most widely used funding programme amongst 
both  CEP  recipients  (19)  and  non-CEP  recipients  (22),  confirming  its  broad 
accessibility for cultural and educational initiatives. Horizon Europe is cited by 
eight  (8)  CEP  recipients  and  15  non-CEP  recipients,  suggesting  its  strong 
relevance for research and innovation in the cultural field, particularly amongst 
those without CEP support. The Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV) 
programme is mentioned by six (6) CEP recipients and 14 non-CEP recipients, 
indicating  its  role  as  a  key  funding  alternative  for  civic  and  inclusive  cultural 
actions. 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
The Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) is cited by two (2) CEP recipients 
and 10 non-CEP recipients, while the European instrument for temporary Support 
to  mitigate  Unemployment  Risks  in  an  Emergency  (SURE)  is  used  by  one  (1) 
CEP  respondent  and  one  (1)  non-CEP  respondent.  The  Skills  and  Education 
Guarantee  Pilot  is  minimally  used,  with  only  one  (1)  mention  amongst  CEP 
recipients and three (3) non-CEP recipients. 

At  the  regional  level,  Central  and  Eastern  Europe  stands  out  for  its  broad  and 
active  engagement  with  multiple  non-structural  EU  programmes,  particularly 
amongst  non-CEP  organisations  (e.g.,  Erasmus+  (8),  CERV  (5),  RRF  (4),  and 
Horizon  Europe  (3)),  indicating  a  strong  reliance  on  EU  funding  for  cultural 
development.  

In  contrast,  Northern  Europe  shows  a  more  selective  approach,  with  non-CEP 
organisations focusing mainly on Horizon Europe (5) and Erasmus+ (5), and CEP 
recipients  engaging  with  Erasmus+  (5).  Western  Europe  similarly  adopts  a 
selective pattern: non-CEP organisations use Horizon Europe (5), Erasmus+ (5), 
and CERV (3), while CEP recipients show lower overall engagement. Southern 
Europe displays balanced participation, especially in Erasmus+ (4 CEP, 4 non-
CEP),  CERV  (3  CEP,  2  non-CEP),  and  Horizon  Europe  (3  CEP,  2  non-CEP), 
reflecting a broad interest in programmes supporting inclusion, civic values, and 
mobility. 

Interestingly, none of the respondents selected the InvestEU programme, which, 
starting from 2021, includes the Cultural and Creative Sectors Portfolio Guarantee 
Product, which was formerly funded by the Cross-sectoral strand of the CEP in 
the 2014-2020 financial framework (i.e., Cultural and Creative Sectors Guarantee 
Facility).  

This could indicate two possible interpretations. First, awareness remains low: the 
guarantee  product  is  now  promoted  under  InvestEU  and  channelled  through 
financial  intermediaries,  so  LRAs  may  not  recognise  it  as  a  direct  funding 
opportunity for their projects. Second, the instrument may be perceived as less 
relevant  to  LRAs,  which  typically  look  for  grant-based  support  rather  than 
portfolio guarantees aimed primarily at private-sector cultural SMEs. 

It is worth noting that, although LRAs are not direct beneficiaries of the Cultural 
and Creative Sectors Portfolio Guarantee, the “non-CEP recipients” sample built 
for the scope of this study includes cultural and creative operators that have been 
classified  as  LRAs  (e.g.,  small  theatres  and  similar  enterprises  that  are  100% 
municipally owned) and, therefore, qualify as small public enterprises under the 
InvestEU rules. The fact that none of these potentially eligible entities selected 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the InvestEU product further underscores the communication and outreach gap 
that risks limiting its uptake at the territorial level. 

Figure 34 - Sources of financial sustainability in the CCS per European macro-region (CEP and non-CEP 
recipients). 

Figure 34 shows that the most common source of financial sustainability for both 
CEP recipients and non-CEP recipients is ordinary budget allocations from local 
and/or  regional  governments,  cited  by  56  CEP  respondents  and  111  non-CEP 
respondents.  This  underscores  the  central  role  of  public  core  funding.  Public 
grants and subsidies are the second most used mechanism, with 27 CEP recipients 
and  63  non-CEP  recipients  relying  on  them.  Private  sector  partnerships  are 
moderately used (22 CEP recipients, 22 non-CEP recipients), while ticket sales 
and  membership  fees  (23  CEP  recipients  and  38  non-CEP  recipients)  and 
volunteering  and  in-kind  contributions  (12  CEP  recipients  vs.  39  non-CEP 
recipients) show higher use amongst non-CEP recipients. Commercial activities 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
and fundraising campaigns remain marginal across all groups, each cited by fewer 
than twelve (12) respondents. 

Regionally, Central and Eastern Europe stands out, especially amongst non-CEP 
organisations,  for  its  strong  reliance  on  local  and/or  regional  governmental 
budgets  (38)  and  public  grants  and  subsidies  (17),  as  well  as  relatively  robust 
engagement in ticket sales (7) and private sector partnerships (5). Western Europe 
exhibits  a  more  balanced  utilisation  of  all  funding  mechanisms,  with  notable 
figures for local and/or regional funding (25 non-CEP, 13 CEP), public grants (20 
non-CEP, 7 CEP), and ticket/membership fees (10 non-CEP, 3 CEP), indicating 
a more diversified funding model. Southern Europe mainly relies on public core 
funding,  particularly  amongst  CEP  recipients  (19),  while  Northern  Europe 
consistently  reports  lower  absolute  values  across  most  funding  categories, 
possibly reflecting differences in national funding systems. 

It  is  important  to  highlight  that  the  heavy  reliance  on  public  funding  is  a  risk 
factor, making cultural projects acutely vulnerable to fiscal tightening or shifts in 
political  priorities.  By  contrast,  a  more  differentiated  employment  of  funding 
could be considered a resilience factor that shields the CCS from budget shocks 
and enables longer-term strategic planning. 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 35 - Most effective measures to create synergies across multiple EU funding opportunities for the CCS 
(CEP and non-CEP recipients). 

CEP  and  non-CEP  recipients  were  therefore  asked  to  identify  which  measures 
they  consider  most  effective  for  creating  synergies  amongst  EU  funding 
programmes  applicable  to  the  CCS,  with  the  aim  of  maximising  impact  and 
enhancing resource efficiency across multiple funding streams. 

As  shown  in  Figure  35  above,  the  most  widely  supported  measure  to  create 
synergies across EU funding programmes in the CCS is “Knowledge Sharing and 
Best  Practices”,  cited  by  17  CEP  recipients  and  27  non-CEP  recipients.  This 
reflects a strong cross-regional interest in peer learning and the identification of 
replicable  solutions.  “Local  and  Regional  Pilots”  follow  closely,  particularly 
amongst non-CEP organisations (34), compared to just five (5) mentions amongst 
CEP recipients. “Joint Calls for Proposals” are also well-regarded by both CEP 
recipients (14) and non-CEP recipients (18), indicating a shared need for more 
coordinated and streamlined access across EU financial instruments. “Increased 
Visibility” of funding opportunities emerges as another key concern, especially 
amongst non-CEP recipients (20, compared to 8 CEP recipients). “Cross-Sectoral 
Partnerships”  are  considered  effective  by  11  CEP  recipients  and  16  non-CEP 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
recipients, while “Dedicated Funding Streams for Synergies” are less frequently 
cited (4 CEP, 12 non-CEP). 

From a regional perspective, Central and Eastern Europe demonstrates the highest 
overall  engagement,  particularly  regarding  “Knowledge  Sharing  and  Best 
Practices”  (5  CEP,  13  non-CEP)  and  “Increased  Visibility”  of  funding 
opportunities (9 non-CEP). Southern Europe shows strong interest in “Local and 
Regional Pilots” (2 CEP, 7 non-CEP) and “Joint Calls for Proposals" (4 CEP, 6 
non-CEP),  suggesting  a  regional  emphasis  on  practical  integration  and 
cooperative  programming.  Western  Europe  also  supports  “Local  and  Regional 
Pilots”  (10  non-CEP)  and  “Knowledge  Sharing  and  Best  Practices”  (4  CEP,  6 
non-CEP), reinforcing the importance of peer-driven strategies. Northern Europe 
stands out for its support for “Knowledge Sharing and Best Practices” (5 CEP, 6 
non-CEP), “Local and Regional Pilots” (1 CEP, 10 non-CEP)  and “Dedicated 
Funding Streams for Synergies” (1 CEP, 5 non-CEP). 

Overall,  the  data  indicate  that  European  CCS  remain  heavily  reliant  on  core 
funding  from  local  and/or  regional  governments,  while  income  from  market 
activities and fundraising remains limited. Meanwhile, respondents widely agree 
that knowledge sharing, local pilot projects, and collaborative funding calls are 
the  most  promising  ways  to  integrate  various  EU  instruments.  Enhancing  the 
visibility of opportunities and providing more coordinated guidance could help 
diversify  funding  sources  and  activate  the  cross-programme  synergies  that  are 
viewed as most impactful. 

2.2 Alignment between the Creative Europe Programme priorities 
and sector-level capacity gaps 

After exploring the obstacles related to the CEP structure, this section focuses on 
the barriers rooted in territorial specificities, specifically the degree of alignment 
between CEP priorities and local needs, and the structural characteristics of the 
CCS that impede access to funding. 

One  of  the  most  important  points  to  investigate  when  discussing  the  CEP 
effectiveness  is  the  Programme  priorities’  relevance  and  alignment  with  local 
and/or regional needs. 

In  Figure  36,  the  perceptions  of  the  LRAs  awarded  of  a  CEP  funding  are 
presented. 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 36 - Most important CEP priorities at the regional level per European macro-region (CEP recipients). 

Figure 36 clearly shows that “Protecting and Promoting Cultural Diversity and 
Heritage” is considered the top priority for regional growth in the CCS, with 18 
total  responses.  This  priority  receives  strong  support  across  all  regions, 
particularly  from  Southern  Europe  (6),  Western  Europe  (5),  and  Central  and 
Eastern Europe (3). It is also confirmed by non-EU countries (2), highlighting a 
shared transnational focus on cultural identity. 

“Encouraging  International  Cooperation  and  Mobility”  ranks  second  (14 
responses), with Southern  Europe (7)  again  taking the lead.  This  may  reflect a 
commitment to cross-border collaboration, which is particularly relevant to non-
EU  participants  seeking  integration  into  the  European  cultural  landscape. 
“Audience Development and Engagement” is also deemed significant, especially 
for Central and Eastern Europe (5) and Northern Europe (4).  

Less emphasised are themes such as “Enhancing Inclusion and Gender Equality” 
and “Supporting Green and Sustainable Practices”, each receiving only one (1) 
response from Central and Eastern Europe and Western Europe, respectively. This 
suggests that these areas remain underdeveloped in terms of CEP funding, despite 
their importance in the current EU strategy. 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 37 - Alignment between CEP objectives and local/regional cultural priorities  
(CEP and non-CEP recipients). 

Looking at both CEP and non-CEP recipients, the overall alignment between CEP 
objectives  and  local/regional  cultural  priorities  remains  consistently  strong 
(Figure 37). 

For  LRAs  that  received  CEP  funding,  "Protecting  and  Promoting  Cultural 
Diversity and Heritage" demonstrates significant alignment, with high numbers 
reporting it as "Perfectly aligned" (31) and "Moderately aligned" (20). Similarly, 
"Strengthening European Identity and Values" also shows strong alignment, with 
31  respondents  indicating  "Perfect  alignment"  and  19  reporting  "Moderate 
alignment".  "Encouraging  International  Cooperation  and  Mobility"  aligns 
strongly  as  well,  with  39  respondents  stating  it  is  "Perfectly  aligned"  and  19 
indicating "Moderate alignment". 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Amongst  the  organisations  that  did  not  receive  CEP  funding,  "Protecting  and 
Promoting  Cultural  Diversity  and  Heritage"  remains  prominent,  with  68 
respondents reporting it as "Perfectly aligned" and 47 as "Moderately aligned". 
"Supporting Green and Sustainable Practices" also shows significant alignment, 
with  54  respondents  marking  it  as  "Perfectly  aligned"  and  another  54  as 
"Moderately aligned". Similarly, "Enhancing Inclusion and Gender Equality" is 
well-aligned, with 50 respondents stating, "Perfectly aligned" and 54 reporting a 
"Moderate alignment". 

"Audience Development and Engagement" exhibits a balanced alignment, with 
53 respondents indicating "Perfect alignment", 49 "Moderate alignment", and 8 
saying  it  is  "Not  aligned  at  all".  "Encouraging  International  Cooperation  and 
Mobility" aligns strongly as well, with 48 marking it as "Perfectly aligned" and 
49 as "Moderately aligned". "Promoting Innovation and Digital Transition" shows 
slightly lower alignment but remains substantial, with 38 respondents stating it is 
"Perfectly aligned", 59 marking it as "Moderately aligned", and 28 indicating a 
"Slight alignment". 

A  final  point  of  consideration  can  be  drawn  when  comparing  the  data  from 
Figures 36 and 37 regarding "Supporting Green and Sustainable Practices" and 
"Enhancing Inclusion and Gender Equality". While the alignment data (Figure 
37) suggests these objectives are considered important, especially amongst non-
CEP organisations, these areas receive minimal prioritisation in the first analysis 
(Figure  36),  with  only  one  response  each.  This  discrepancy  could  imply  that, 
despite  recognising  alignment,  LRAs  may  not  yet  view  these  areas  as  primary 
actionable priorities through the CEP. 

Moreover, the surveys gathered a number of other priorities, currently out of the 
CEP scope, that can be grouped into seven clusters. First of all, there is a strong 
call for greater attention to cultural rights and inclusion (8 responses), which are 
felt as key particularly in underserved or vulnerable communities, and this is also 
linked to the need for support to cultural infrastructures (4 responses), as indicated 
above  by  non-CEP  recipients.  The  data  on  the  cultural  rights  reinforces  the 
alignment recorded in Figure 37 for “Enhancing Inclusion and Gender Equality”, 
but also echoes the gap indicated in Figure 36 concerning the struggle of how 
local actors translate this alignment into tangible initiatives.  

Moreover, several respondents (9) stress the importance of exploring mechanisms 
to promote and ensure continuity to capacity building for the CCS, which is also 
associated with the growing importance of the digital domain and the request for 
hybrid models connecting culture with technology (5 responses). This aligns with 
the substantial, yet underutilised, interest in “Promoting Innovation and Digital 
Transition” captured in Figures 36 and 37. 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Other  responses  include  the  revamping  of  the  educational  value  of  cultural 
activities (4 responses) and a better integration of creativity and culture in local 
development frameworks (6 responses), especially in communities where culture 
plays a strong identitarian role (5 responses), which indicates further space for 
expanding the priority on cultural identity. 

In brief, the data confirm that the CEP priorities are primarily aligned with local 
and/or regional needs. Nevertheless, this alignment does not always convert into 
funded  projects,  with  “perfectly  aligned”  priorities  such  as  “Protecting  and 
Promoting  Cultural  Diversity  and  Heritage”  or  “International  Cooperation  and 
Mobility”  not  widely  pursued  through  CEP  calls.  Moreover,  some  goals  are 
under-addressed,  such  as  “Supporting  Green  and  Sustainable  Practices”  and 
“Enhancing Inclusion and Gender Equality” (Figure 36), even if scoring high on 
alignment (Figure 37). 

These mismatches suggest that barriers intrinsic to the CCS, rather than thematic 
misalignment alone, prevent organisations from turning CEP priorities into viable 
proposals.  The  next  three  sub-sections  unpack  those  sector-level  obstacles, 
namely low awareness of the CEP, lack of staff resources and gaps in capacity 
building and limited integration of cultural strategies into broader development 
frameworks. 

2.2.1 Low awareness of the Creative Europe Programme 

As shown in Figure 38, a problem of awareness of the CEP persists across the 
CCS.  

Figure 38 - Awareness of the CEP (non-CEP recipients). 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Across the whole sample, 85 respondents (about 60%) know the CEP, while 55 
(about 40%) do not.  

From  a  geographical  perspective,  it  is  possible  to  appreciate  that  amongst  the 
European regions, awareness is high in Central and Eastern Europe (26 “yes” and 
19 “no”), and in Northen Europe (19 “yes” and 9 “no”). Western Europe shows a 
near 50-50 split (16 “yes” and 15 “no”), while Southern Europe is better informed 
(15 “yes” and 8 “no”). In the non-EU regions, the responses are too few for solid 
conclusions. However, the even share of responses in the Balkans (3 “yes” and 3 
“no”) and the sole “no” in North Africa may indicate a weakness in the outreach 
to these regions. 

By  analysing  the  population  size,  it  is  possible  to  note  that  very  small 
municipalities (1 – 10,000) are the least informed (29 “no” and 22 “yes”). In small 
to mid-sized municipalities (10,001 – 100,000) the awareness rises. Yet, one out 
of  three  still  lack  knowledge  (32  “yes”  and  20  “no”).  In  municipalities  with  a 
population of 100,001 or more, the gap tends to close. 

The  same  data  analysed  in  terms  of  type  of  organisation  (i.e.,  local  public 
authority, regional public authority, local/regional agency working for a public 
authority and cultural association or a non-governmental organisation) reveal that 
one  out  of  four  local  public  authorities,  which  are  the  most  numerous  in  the 
sample, are unaware of the CEP. Cultural associations and NGOs are performing 
better  (20  “yes”  and  8  “no”),  and  regional  authorities  and  local  and  regional 
agencies show higher awareness (only 2 “no”). 

This data may indicate that the strongest awareness gaps are concentrated in the 
smallest  municipalities  and  in  Western  Europe,  and  they  persist  within  local 
public  administrations  themselves,  not  just  amongst  NGOs.  These  findings 
reinforce the need for targeted information campaigns, local contact points and 
peer-to-peer brokerage, particularly for small towns and less-reached regions, to 
ensure  that  the  Programme’s  opportunities  are  visible  to  all  tiers  of  the  CCS 
ecosystem. 

2.2.2 Lack of staff resources and gaps in capacity building 

Another inherent and widespread obstacle related to human capital and the skills 
available in the LRAs and organisations within the broader cultural and creative 
ecosystem.  This  issue  significantly  hampers  these  organisations’  ability  to 
conceive, submit, and manage Creative Europe projects. 

By computing in an aggregated way the results from both surveys (Figure 23 in 
Section 2.1), ‘Limited staff resources’ was rated by 30 CEP recipients and ‘Lack 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of staff resources and/or expertise to prepare an application’ was cited by 51 non-
CEP recipients. Moreover, in Figure 27 (Section 2.1.2), ‘Lack of expertise’ was 
selected  by  16  CEP  recipients,  and  42  flagged  ‘Administrative  workload’  as  a 
crucial barrier, making the topic particularly relevant in relation to participation 
in the CEP. 

It is also important to note that population size is a crucial factor. Mid-sized and 
smaller authorities (10,001 – 500,000 inhabitants) report the highest numbers both 
for  staffing  constraints  at  the  application  stage  and  for  skills  shortages  during 
project implementation. It is possible to assume that in small municipalities there 
is often only one officer dedicated to the cultural sector, making it  particularly 
challenging  for  them  to  address  the  complexity  of  the  CEP  administrative  and 
managerial workload. 

Looking at the issue from the geographical perspective, Southern Europe records 
nine (9) respondents indicating staff-related obstacles amongst CEP beneficiaries 
and  13  respondents  amongst  non-CEP  beneficiaries.  Northern  Europe  follows 
with seven (7) responses amongst CEP beneficiaries and 11  amongst non-CEP 
beneficiaries,  respectively.  Central  and  Eastern  Europe,  meanwhile,  combines 
staffing  deficits with  lower awareness of the  CEP, suggesting that information 
campaigns alone will not suffice unless matched by stronger local and/or regional 
capacities. 

To  address  this  problem,  several  LRAs  indicated  the  employment  of  external 
consultants, which in turn inflates costs and prevents skills acquisition. 

This  chronic  understaffing  has  important  implications  in  accessing  the  CEP 
funding, ranging from limiting promising ideas to reach the submission stage, to 
the Matthew effect (Merton 1968)67, where better-resourced cities keep winning 
calls, while more minor or peripheral territories remain under-represented, despite 
a high alignment of needs and priorities.  

On the specific problem related to upskilling and reskilling, it must be said that 
capacity-building  tools  exist,  but  they  are  underused,  sometimes  because  of  a 
scarce  visibility.  Amongst  the  suggestions  collected,  respondents  mention 
targeted  training  modules  on  CEP  rules,  budget  planning  and  partnerships 
management, micro-grants to hire temporary staff during the application phase, 
and secondment or twinning schemes between experienced and newcomer LRAs. 

Finally,  this  challenge  is  exacerbated  by  the  persistent  structural  workforce 
challenge  in  the  CCS,  characterised  by  chronic  employment  insecurity  that 

67 Merton, R. K. 1968. The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are 
considered. Science, 159(3810), 56-63. DOI: 10.1126/science.159.3810.56.  

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
contributes  to  elevated  staff  turnover  rates  and  a  prevalent  dependence  on 
freelance  professionals.  The  prevalence  of  short-term  contracts  and  the 
unpredictability of funding cycles discourage many organisations from investing 
in systematic upskilling  initiatives. Consequently, knowledge and  expertise  are 
frequently lost when projects end, as personnel depart. 

This  issue  is  particularly  pronounced  in  terms  of  digital  competencies.  LRAs 
frequently  outsource  functions  such  as  web  development,  data  analytics,  and 
extended reality (XR) production to external providers. This is often justified by 
the high remuneration required for specialised digital profiles and the rapid pace 
at which technical skills become obsolete.  

In this context, LRAs forgo the development of internal digital expertise, become 
increasingly  reliant  on  external  service  providers,  therefore  increasing  costs, 
restricting the transfer of knowledge within local and/or regional ecosystems, and 
impeding the integration of digital innovation into long-term cultural strategies. 
Furthermore, it acts as a deterrent for highly skilled professionals from entering 
or remaining in public-sector cultural roles, thereby contributing to a gradual loss 
of talent within the sector. 

2.2.3  Limited  integration  of  cultural  strategies  into  broader  development 
frameworks 

Another  systemic  barrier  is  the  persistent  isolation  of  cultural  policy  from  the 
wider  agendas  that  drive  territorial  development,  which  are  now  putting 
innovation,  sustainability,  and  digital  transformation  at  the  centre.  Survey 
responses  indicate  that  many  LRAs  continue  to  treat  culture  as  a  stand-alone 
policy domain,  managed  by small departments  with  limited  routine interaction 
with units responsible for economic development, innovation, or environmental 
issues.  As  a  result,  cultural  priorities  are  rarely  incorporated  into  Smart 
Specialisation Strategies (S3), climate action plans, digital transition roadmaps, 
or tourism masterplans. 

The funding data support this observation. While respondents frequently utilise 
programmes  such  as  Interreg  Europe  and  Erasmus+,  the  use  of  larger,  more 
structural funds such as ERDF, ESF+, or RRF is inconsistent (see Figures 32 and 
33 in Section 2.1.4 above). Interviews conducted with representatives of LRAs 
involved in the CEP as beneficiaries and with the Head of Unit of DG EAC of the 
EC highlight two main reasons for this. First, culture often needs to be integrated 
into  S3  or  comprehensive  urban  plans  to  qualify  for  these  funds;  without  such 
integration, cultural projects tend to rank low in competitive calls. Second, culture 
officers  are  rarely  involved  in  the  development  of  innovation  or  sustainability 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
strategies,  resulting  in  cultural  goals  being  omitted  from  the  key  framework 
documents that guide regional investments. 

Without  a  recognised  place  in  regional  growth  narratives,  cultural  projects 
struggle  to  attract  political  willingness,  co-funding  or  cross-departmental 
expertise. 

To address the siloed status of cultural departments, LRAs need to foster a cross-
departmental functional governance, with regular collaborative working groups 
that  bring  together  culture,  economic  development,  digital,  and  environmental 
units.  Additionally,  the  development  of  evidence-based  narratives  is  crucial. 
These narratives must clearly demonstrate how investments in culture contribute 
to  employment,  skills  development,  and  regional  resilience,  thereby  making 
cultural initiatives financially viable within frameworks such as the ERDF or the 
RRF programmes.  

Without such strategic embedding of cultural initiatives within broader policy and 
funding  frameworks,  even  a  strong  thematic  alignment  with  CEP  priorities  is 
unlikely  to  result  in  sustainable  projects.  Therefore,  bridging  the  gap  between 
cultural strategies and wider development frameworks represents a critical, and in 
many  regions,  decisive,  step  towards  unlocking  the  full  territorial  impact  of 
Creative Europe. 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Part 3: Best Practices in the Creative Europe Programme 

The  purpose  of  this  chapter  is  to  examine  how  LRAs  have  successfully 
leveraged CEP funding to implement impactful cultural initiatives in their 
territories. Through a careful selection of representative examples, this chapter 
highlights  six  best  practices  that  have  not  only  advanced  the  goals  of  the 
Programme  but  also  generated  tangible  benefits  for  local  communities  and 
cultural  ecosystems.  These  examples  demonstrate  how  CEP  funding,  when 
strategically integrated into local and/or regional development strategies, can act 
as a catalyst for positive transformation in the CCS and beyond. 

To identify these best practices and understand the conditions that support their 
emergence,  the  research  team  adopted  a  structured  methodology  aimed  at 
ensuring  diversity,  relevance,  and  representativeness  in  the  selected  examples. 
The approach was grounded in a comprehensive analysis of the full catalogue of 
projects funded under the CEP from 2014 to 202468, with a particular emphasis 
on  the  ongoing  programming  period  (2021–2027).  This  focus  allowed  for 
alignment with the most current policy objectives and operational frameworks of 
the Programme. 

A  key  selection  criterion  was  the  involvement  of  LRAs  as  either  project 
coordinators or consortium partners. This enabled a targeted investigation into the 
role of public authorities in shaping and implementing cultural initiatives within 
the CEP. Projects led by LRAs were given priority, as they tend to reflect stronger 
institutional  commitment,  governance  capacity,  and  the  ability  to  integrate 
cultural  funding  into  broader  development  strategies.  In  addition,  projects 
involving networks of LRAs with shared territorial challenges were favoured, as 
they provided valuable opportunities for comparative analysis and insights into 
collaborative strategies across different European contexts. 

Thematic  relevance  was  another  core  element  in  the  selection  process.  The 
research  team  evaluated  the  capacity  of  each  project  to  address  current  and 
emerging challenges in the CCS, including, but not limited to, digital transition, 
climate change, social resilience, and participatory governance. This ensured the 
identification  of  projects  that  not  only  align  with  CEP  objectives  but  also 
contribute to systemic transformation within their territories. 

Geographical  and  demographic  diversity  were  also  guiding  principles.  The 
selected  examples  span  a  wide  range  of  EU  regions,  encompassing  small  to 
medium-sized cities, as well as coastal and rural areas, all representing territories 

68 European Commission, Culture and Creativity, “Projects lists”. Accessed May 23, 2025. 
https://culture.ec.europa.eu/creative-europe/projects/projects-lists.  

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
with varying socio-economic profiles. This approach allows for a comprehensive 
understanding of how CEP funding can be adapted to different local and regional 
realities and development trajectories. 

The six case studies identified through this methodology are presented in detail in 
Annex  V.  They  illustrate  a  broad  spectrum  of  cultural  interventions  and 
governance  models,  reflecting  the  plurality  and  flexibility  of  the  CEP  in 
responding to LRAs’ needs. The following subsections present the key success 
factors that have contributed to the impact of these initiatives. These findings 
aim  to  serve  as  actionable  insights  for  other  cities  and  regions,  offering 
transferable  models  and  approaches  that  can  be  replicated  or  adapted  to  their 
specific needs and conditions. 

3.1 Strong institutional leadership and governance capacity 

A fundamental driver of success in CEP projects is the combination of political 
willingness  to  invest  in  culture  and  the  governance  capacity  of  local  and/or 
regional public administrations. These two factors are deeply intertwined, shaping 
both the ambition and the operational effectiveness of cultural initiatives across 
Europe. 

Political willingness is often the catalyst that propels cities and regions to seek out 
and  secure  European  funding.  The Municipality of Aschaffenburg  in Germany 
provides  a  compelling  example  of  this  dynamic.  The  city’s  engagement  in  the 
DIALOG  CITY  project69  (see  Case  V.3  in  Annex  V)  as  coordinator  has  been 
significantly strengthened by the proactive support of its local political leadership, 
with  the  mayor  playing  a  particularly  visible  and  strategic  role.  This  political 
backing  was  instrumental  not  only  in  the  initial  application  process  for  CEP 
funding but also in maintaining momentum throughout project implementation. 
The  mayor’s  involvement  ensured  that  cultural  and  digital  transformation 
objectives were prioritised within the municipal agenda, facilitating the allocation 
of resources, the mobilisation of staff, and the engagement of local stakeholders. 

A similar pattern emerges in the CreArt 3.0 project70 (see Case V.1 in Annex V), 
where  the  French  city  of  Clermont-Ferrand’s  participation  is  rooted  in  a 
longstanding  commitment  to  cultural  investment,  exemplified  by  its  renowned 
Short Film Festival71. The festival, the world’s largest dedicated to short films, is 
a flagship event that not only elevates the city’s cultural profile but also provides 
a  strategic  platform  for  engaging  with  European  networks  such  as  CreArt3.0. 

69 Dialog City, “Homepage”. Accessed May 28, 2025. https://dialogcity.eu/.  
70 CreArt 3.0, “CreArt 3.0”. Accessed May 28, 2025. https://creart2-eu.org/creart-3/.  
71  Clermont-Ferrand  International  Short  Film  Festival,  “Festival  International  du  Court  Metrage  Clermont 
Ferrand”. Accessed May 30, 2025. https://clermont-filmfest.org/en/global/home/.  

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Launched in 2012 within the framework of the Culture Programme (2007-2013), 
the  project  was  renewed  for  CEP  funding  in  2017  and  2024,  respectively. 
Compared to its previous editions, the current project has shifted its focus more 
explicitly  towards  empowering  medium-sized  European  cities  as  the  primary 
agents of cultural innovation and exchange. This is evidenced by the inclusion of 
České Budějovice (i.e., European Capital of Culture 2028 in Czechia) as a project 
partner, reflecting a deliberate strategy to harness the momentum generated by the 
Capital of Culture title and ensure that its impact is sustained at multiple levels. 
The experience of cities such as České Budějovice highlights the importance of 
strategic follow-up after receiving the ECOC designation, as this period presents 
a unique opportunity to consolidate gains, foster new partnerships, and integrate 
cultural ambition into long-term urban development. 

The  BLUETOUR  project72  (see  Case  V.4  in  Annex  V)  and  the  Portuguese 
Municipality  of  Faro  offer  further  insights  into  the  transformative  potential  of 
political willingness. As a project partner, Faro has demonstrated how a strong 
cultural policy, also fuelled by its bid for ECOC 2027, can reshape local priorities 
and  investment  patterns.  Even  though  its  bid  for  the  title  was  ultimately 
unsuccessful,  the  process  itself  triggered  a  significant  increase  in  support  for 
cultural associations – from approximately 30 before the presentation of the bid 
to around 80 afterwards - and prompted a shift in the city’s approach to sustainable 
tourism and community engagement. BLUETOUR’s focus on rethinking tourism 
models through art and local identity has enabled Faro to position itself as a leader 
in  balancing  authenticity  with  innovation,  showing  that  the  pursuit  of  major 
European  titles,  such  as  ECOC,  can  catalyse  lasting  change  regardless  of  the 
outcome. 

The Dancing Histor(y)ies project73 (see Case V.5 in Annex V), with its activities 
embedded  in  the  Mérida  International  Classical  Theatre  Festival  in  Spain, 
highlights the power of combining institutional and creative leadership within the 
same  organisation.  The  Festival’s  governance  model  brings  together  public 
authorities (i.e., Regional Government of Extremadura, Mérida City Council, the 
Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports, as well as the Provincial Councils of 
Cáceres  and  Badajoz)  with  artistic  direction  entrusted 
to  experienced 
professionals. This dual structure ensures that the project benefits from both the 
stability  and  legitimacy  of  institutional  backing,  as  well  as  the  dynamism  and 
vision of creative stakeholders. The result is a festival that not only preserves and 
revitalises  heritage  sites  through  dance  and  theatre  but  also  attracts  diverse 
audiences, stimulates local economies, and fosters a sense of belonging amongst 
residents. The success of Dancing Histor(y)ies so far can be directly attributed to 

72 Sineglossa, “BLUETOUR”. Accessed May 28, 2025. https://sineglossa.it/progetti/bluetour-turismo-culturale-
nelle-aree-costiere/.  
73 Dancing Histor(y)ies, “Home”. Accessed May 28, 2025. https://dancinghistoryies.org/. 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
this balanced partnership, which enables the project to navigate challenges, adapt 
to changing contexts, and deliver on its ambitious objectives. 

Governance capacity is equally crucial, particularly in terms  of adequate  skills 
and professionalism of staff within LRAs. The effectiveness of CreArt 3.0, for 
example,  is  closely  linked  to  the  expertise  of  the  project  coordinator,  the 
Valladolid Municipal Foundation for Culture in Spain, who has led the initiative 
since its inception in 2012, and to the quality of its project management team. In 
cities  such  as  Valladolid,  dedicated  staff  play  a  pivotal  role  in  designing  and 
executing capacity-building programmes (e.g., to provide all project partners with 
supporting  tools  to  manage  financial  reporting  easily),  facilitating  artist 
residencies,  and  ensuring  smooth  collaboration  amongst  a  diverse  network  of 
partners.  The  project’s  methodology,  based  on  clear  strategic  axes  (i.e., 
coordination, participation, cooperation, mentoring), provides a robust framework 
for capacity building and knowledge transfer, allowing less experienced cities to 
learn from established leaders and continuously improve their own governance 
structures. 

the  ability 

Recent research and best practice guides, such as “Cultural Heritage: A Powerful 
Catalyst for Cities and Regions”74, emphasise that motivated, skilled teams and 
strong political support are amongst the most critical ingredients for successful 
cultural projects. Effective governance involves not only visionary leadership but 
also 
teams,  engage  stakeholders 
transparently,  and  adapt  to  evolving  challenges.  In  sum,  strong  institutional 
leadership  and  governance  capacity  -  anchored  in  political  willingness  and 
professional  expertise  -  are  indispensable  for  maximising  the  impact  of  CEP 
projects and ensuring that culture remains a driving force for sustainable urban 
and regional development. 

to  build  multidisciplinary 

3.2 Effective international and intraregional cooperation 

As highlighted in Figure 17 in Section 1.2.2 of this study, transnational impacts 
are the most significant achievements reported by LRAs participating in the CEP 
as  beneficiaries.  The  survey  results  confirm  that  LRAs,  when  acting  as 
beneficiaries, consistently identify international cooperation as a primary source 
of  added  value,  enabling  them  to  amplify  their  local  strengths,  access  new 
audiences, and foster innovation through international exchange. This finding is 
not coincidental. Rather, it reflects a deliberate strategy embedded in the DNA of 
the  CEP,  which  encourages  the  formation  and  consolidation  of  cooperation 

74 Eurocities, KEA European Affairs, ERRIN, Europa Nostra, and the Architects’ Council of Europe. 2021. 
Cultural Heritage: A Powerful Catalyst for Cities and Regions. Accessed May 30, 2025. 
https://culturalheritageinaction.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/11/CH-a-powerful-catalyst.pdf.  

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
partnerships  as  a  means  to  address  shared  challenges  and  unlock  collective 
potential. 

All  six  case  studies  examined  exemplify  how  effective  international  and/or 
interregional cooperation is both a prerequisite for, and a product of successful 
CEP-funded initiatives. These projects have thrived by building on existing trust, 
long-standing  relationships,  or  the  strength  of  newly  established  networks, 
allowing  them  to  move  beyond  isolated  interventions  and  achieve  systemic, 
lasting impact. 

CreArt 3.0 (see Case V.1 in Annex V) is a prime example of how a project can 
leverage  a  decade  of  network-building  to  foster  a  vibrant  ecosystem  for 
contemporary art across Europe. The project’s origins date back to the Culture 
Programme,  and  over  successive  editions,  it  has  expanded  its  partnership  to 
include  a  diverse  array  of  medium-sized  cities,  each  bringing  unique  cultural 
assets and institutional know-how. The inclusion of České Budějovice, the future 
European  Capital  of Culture 2028, demonstrates how the network continues to 
evolve, drawing in cities that are poised to play a leading role in the European 
cultural  landscape.  The  trust  and  shared  vision  amongst  partners  have  enabled 
CreArt 3.0 to implement ambitious artist mobility programmes, co-productions, 
and joint exhibitions that would be unfeasible for any single city acting alone. 

DIALOG CITY (see Case V.3 in Annex V), coordinated by the Municipality of 
Aschaffenburg,  further  illustrates  the  power  of  international  cooperation.  The 
project’s consortium, spanning Germany, Austria, France, Greece, and Italy, is 
rooted  in  shared  interests  in  heritage  digitisation  and  civic  participation.  The 
project’s success in developing the Citizen Archive Platform (CAP)75 and hosting 
intergenerational  workshops  is  directly  attributable  to  the  mutual  trust  and 
complementary  expertise  of  its  partners.  This  networked  approach  enabled 
DIALOG CITY to pilot innovative models for digital participation and ensure that 
project outcomes are adaptable and replicable across various European contexts. 

Dancing  Histor(y)ies  (see  Case  V.5  in  Annex  V)  is  built  on  the  legacy  of  the 
HERITART project and brings together a unique mix of institutional and artistic 
partners  from  11  European  countries.  The  project’s  scope  (i.e.,  revitalising 
archaeological  sites  through  dance)  requires  not  only  artistic  collaboration  but 
also the coordination of heritage management authorities, local governments, and 
creative  professionals.  The  involvement  of  the  Mérida  International  Classical 
Theatre Festival, with its hybrid governance structure, has been instrumental in 
bridging institutional and creative perspectives. This has enabled the project to 

75  Citizen  Archive,  “Welcome  to  the  Citizen  Archive  Platform  (CAP)”.  Accessed  May  28,  2025. 
https://citizenarchive.eu/en/.  

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
overcome  bureaucratic  and  cultural  barriers,  ensuring  that  performances  and 
workshops are both artistically ambitious and locally resonant. 

The European Digital Deal project76 (see Case V.6 in Annex V) provides another 
compelling  case  of  international  cooperation,  rooted  in  the  longstanding 
partnership between Ars Electronica (Austria) and The Culture Yard, representing 
the  Municipality  of  Helsingør  (Denmark),  amongst  others.  Building  on  the 
experience  of  previous  CEP  projects  such  as  the  “European  ARTificial 
Intelligence  Lab”77,  this  initiative  brings  together  cultural  institutions,  artists, 
researchers, and educators from across Europe to examine the societal impacts of 
emerging technologies. The project’s ability to gather diverse stakeholders and 
facilitate dialogue across national and disciplinary boundaries has been essential 
to  its  success  in  raising  awareness  and  shaping  the  debate  on  technology, 
democracy, and human rights. 

The BLUETOUR project (see Case V.4 in Annex V), with the Municipality of 
Faro  as  a  key  partner,  demonstrates  how  international  cooperation  can  drive 
innovation in sustainable tourism and cultural  heritage. Through BLUETOUR, 
Faro  and  the  other  partners  have  exchanged  best  practices,  co-designed  new 
tourism models, and promoted local identity in ways that are both authentic and 
forward-looking.  The  international  cooperation  established  by  the  project  has 
been crucial in enabling three entities operating in geographically similar coastal 
areas  (i.e.,  Ancona  in  Italy,  Faro  in  Portugal,  and  Lesvos  in  Greece)  to  tackle 
common tourism-related challenges and to experiment with new approaches, as 
well  as  to  learn  from  each  other’s  successes  and  setbacks to  foster  sustainable 
tourism. 

Finally, the Landscape Together project (see Case V.2 of Annex V) exemplifies 
the importance of intraregional cooperation, particularly in its efforts to connect 
the tangible and intangible heritage across communities within a shared regional 
context.  By  bringing  together  five  Portuguese  municipalities  of  the  Central 
Portugal  region,  the  Regional  Tourism  Entity  of  Central  Portugal,  along  with 
artists, cultural mediators, environmental experts, and urban designers, the project 
has created a fertile ground for innovation and mutual learning. This ensures that 
innovative, sustainable responses to pressing contemporary regional challenges 
(i.e.,  depopulation  of  rural  areas  and  the  escalating  consequences  of  climate 
change)  are  grounded  in  both  local  knowledge  and  broader  European 
perspectives. 

76 Ars Electronica, “European Digital Deal”. Accessed May 28, 2025. https://ars.electronica.art/eudigitaldeal/en/. 
77  Ars  Electronica, 
2025. 
https://ars.electronica.art/ailab/en/. 

Intelligence  Lab”.  Accessed  May 

“European  ARTificial 

28, 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Across  all  these  examples,  it  is  clear  that  effective  international  and 
intraregional cooperation is not simply a matter of assembling partners from 
different countries. Rather, it is about cultivating trust, building on existing 
relationships,  and  creating  the  conditions  for  sustainable  and  meaningful 
collaboration.  Cooperation  also  acts  as  a  catalyst  for  collective  learning, 
enabling  partners  to  pool  their  knowledge,  share  proven  solutions,  and 
jointly develop innovative responses to common challenges. This exchange of 
expertise  allows  successful  approaches  to  be  adapted  and  scaled  in  new 
contexts,  increasing  the  overall  impact  and  sustainability  of  cultural 
initiatives.  While  the  CEP  provides  the  essential  framework  and  resources  to 
support this process, it is ultimately the commitment and shared vision of LRAs 
and their partners that determine the depth and durability of transnational impact.  

As  evidenced by  the  six  case  studies  and  Figure 17, which  highlights that the 
main  impacts  achieved  by  LRAs  involved  in  CEP-funded  projects  are 
transnational  in  nature,  such  as  strengthened  international  cooperation,  new 
partnerships, and skills development, when these elements are in place, the results 
are transformative, not only for  the participating cities and regions,  but for the 
broader European cultural ecosystem. 

3.3 Community engagement and participatory cultural processes 

Ensuring meaningful community engagement and fostering participatory cultural 
processes are fundamental to the long-term success and sustainability of cultural 
initiatives supported by the CEP. When local residents are actively involved in 
shaping, delivering, and benefiting from cultural projects, the outcomes are more 
relevant,  inclusive,  and  impactful.  This  participatory  approach  not  only 
democratises  access  to  culture  but  also  strengthens  social  cohesion,  empowers 
communities, and enhances the legitimacy and effectiveness of public investment 
in the CCS. 

LRAs play a pivotal role in facilitating these processes, acting as both conveners 
and  enablers  of  community  participation.  Their  proximity  to  citizens  and  deep 
understanding of place-based contexts position LRAs at the forefront of designing 
and implementing engagement strategies that are responsive to community needs 
and  aspirations.  The  case  studies  examined  in  this  chapter  provide  compelling 
evidence of how LRAs, in partnership with artists and cultural organisations, have 
successfully embedded participatory practices into the heart of their projects. 

In  DIALOG  CITY  (see  Case  V.3  in  Annex  V),  community  engagement  is  a 
cornerstone of the project’s methodology. Through the creation of City Labs and 
the Citizen Archive Platform, residents are invited to actively participate in the 
documentation and digitisation of their local heritage. The CAP, presented at the 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Hybrid Festival in Graz, provides a digital space for citizens to contribute personal 
stories, images, and artefacts, ensuring that the community itself co-authors the 
cultural  narrative.  The  project’s  Future  Literacy  toolkit  and  design  thinking 
workshops further empower citizens to imagine and shape the cultural future of 
their  cities,  making  digital  transformation  a  genuinely  inclusive  and  dialogical 
process. 

Similarly, the BLUETOUR project (see Case V.4 of Annex V) places community 
engagement at the centre of its efforts to rethink tourism in coastal cities such as 
Faro, Ancona, and Lesvos. Recognising that residents are often the most affected 
by  tourism  yet  the  least  involved  in  its  planning,  BLUETOUR  organises 
workshops, interviews, and open  meetings to gather local  perspectives and co-
design  sustainable  tourism  strategies.  In  Faro  and  Lesvos,  local  practitioners 
trained  in  the  project’s  methodology  facilitated  sessions  where  residents  and 
artists  collaboratively  explored  the  “spirit  of  place”,  translating  community 
insights  into  new  tourist  itineraries,  maps,  and  installations.  This  approach  not 
only builds local ownership but also ensures that tourism development aligns with 
community values and aspirations. 

The European Digital Deal project (see Case V.6 of Annex V) demonstrates the 
power  of  participatory  processes  in  the  context  of  digital  and  technological 
change.  By  organising  public  forums,  grassroots  workshops,  and  debates,  the 
project  creates  spaces  for  citizens  to  engage  with  complex  issues  such  as  AI, 
democracy, and human rights. These participatory platforms enable diverse voices 
to  be  heard  and  integrated  into  the  project’s  outcomes,  fostering  a  culture  of 
critical reflection and collective problem-solving. 

In Dancing Histor(y)ies (see Case V.5 of Annex V), community engagement is 
integral to the project’s model for valorising cultural heritage sites through dance. 
Local residents are not merely spectators but active participants in performances 
and workshops, contributing their stories and perspectives to the creative process. 
This co-creation dynamic helps to bridge the gap between tangible heritage and 
the intangible cultural identity of communities, making heritage sites living spaces 
of artistic expression and social connection. 

Landscape Together (see Case V.2 of Annex V) offers another exemplary model 
of participatory practice, particularly in rural areas affected by depopulation. The 
project  mobilises  citizens  through  workshops,  residencies,  and  educational 
programmes,  integrating  local  knowledge  with  expert  insights  to  develop 
sustainable  strategies  for  landscape  management  and  rural  revitalisation.  As 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
recent  research  on  cultural  landscape  planning  confirms78,  such  participatory 
methodologies are essential for uncovering local heritage values and ensuring that 
development strategies are grounded in the lived experience of communities. By 
fostering  widespread  participation,  Landscape  Together  not  only  enhances  the 
relevance of its interventions but also promotes a sense of shared belonging. 

Across these CEP-supported projects, it is evident that community engagement 
and  participatory  cultural  processes  are  not  simply  add-ons  but  essential 
components  of  effective  cultural  policy  and  practice.  LRAs,  by  virtue  of  their 
mandate  and  proximity  to  citizens,  are  uniquely  positioned  to  champion  these 
approaches,  ensuring 
inclusive  and 
transformative.  The  case  studies  reviewed  here  demonstrate  that  when 
communities  are  genuinely  engaged,  the  results  extend  far  beyond  individual 
projects, thus contributing to stronger, more resilient, and more vibrant cultural 
ecosystems across Europe. 

initiatives  are  both 

that  cultural 

3.4 Capacity-building and skills development  

Capacity-building  and  skills  development  are  foundational  pillars  of  the  CEP, 
directly  contributing  to  the  place-based  social  and  cultural  impact  reported  by 
LRAs  in  Figure  17  of  this  study.  By  equipping  cultural  professionals,  local 
administrators,  and  community  members  with  the  competencies  needed  to 
navigate a rapidly evolving sector, CEP projects enable regions and cities to adapt, 
innovate,  and  thrive  in  the  face  of  new  challenges.  LRAs,  given  their  close 
proximity to local needs and their convening power, are uniquely positioned to 
identify skills gaps, foster partnerships, and deliver targeted training that responds 
to both local priorities and broader EU objectives. 

The role of LRAs in capacity-building is vividly illustrated in several of the case 
studies.  In  DIALOG  CITY  (see  Case  V.3  of  Annex  V),  the  Municipality  of 
Aschaffenburg  works  closely  with  the  University  of  Applied  Sciences 
Aschaffenburg  to  upskill  archive  staff  and  community  participants.  This 
partnership  enabled  the  transfer  of  digital  competencies  and  archival  best 
practices,  ensuring  that  the  Citizen  Archive  Platform  could  be  effectively 
managed and enriched by local contributions. Workshops and training sessions 
not  only  enhanced  technical  skills  but  also  fostered  a  culture  of  continuous 
learning, empowering staff to support citizens in the digitisation and preservation 
of local heritage. The involvement of academic partners ensured that the training 
content was current, relevant, and aligned with emerging trends in digital heritage 
management. 

78 Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, “Citizen Participation Successful Strategy for Planning Cultural Landscapes”. 
Accessed May 30, 2025. https://vu.nl/en/news/2024/citizen-participation-successful-strategy-for-planning-
cultural-landscapes.  

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
CreArt 3.0 (see Case V.1 of Annex V) offers another robust example of how LRAs 
can  drive  professional  growth  within  the  CCS.  The  project’s  methodology  is 
structured around mentoring and local capacity-building workshops, all of which 
are  coordinated  by  a  network  of  skilled  professionals  in  the  13  partner  cities. 
Emerging artists, curators, and cultural agents are therefore provided with hands-
on  training  in  creative  practice,  project  management,  and  international 
collaboration.  The  network’s  recent  cooperation  with  a  non-governmental 
organisation in Lviv to support the training and professionalisation of Ukrainian 
artists further demonstrates CreArt’s commitment to extending capacity-building 
beyond its core membership, adapting to urgent needs and fostering resilience in 
the face of crisis. 

In Dancing Histor(y)ies (see Case V.5 in Annex V), capacity-building is woven 
into the project’s participatory model. Dance companies, local communities, and 
heritage  site  managers  collaborate  through  residencies,  workshops,  and  co-
creative processes. These activities are designed not only to enhance artistic skills 
but  also  to  develop  competencies  in  community  engagement,  storytelling,  and 
heritage interpretation. By involving citizens in the creative process, the project 
nurtures a new generation of cultural mediators who can bridge the gap between 
contemporary art and local history. 

BLUETOUR (see Case V.4 of Annex V) also prioritises skills development by 
training local practitioners to  facilitate  participatory tourism design.  Through  a 
series of workshops and peer-learning sessions, residents and cultural operators 
acquire new skills in sustainable tourism, community engagement, and cultural 
mapping.  This  approach  ensures  that  local  actors  are  equipped  to  co-create 
tourism  strategies  that  reflect  the  values  and  aspirations  of  their  communities, 
rather than relying solely on external expertise. 

The  European  Digital  Deal  project  (see  Case  V.6  of  Annex  V)  addresses  the 
growing need for digital and technological skills within  the  cultural sector. By 
organising  public  forums,  grassroots  workshops,  and  collaborative  research 
activities, the project enhances the capacity of cultural professionals, educators, 
and  citizens  to  understand  and  respond  to  the  societal  impacts  of  emerging 
technologies. This focus on digital literacy and ethical awareness is critical for 
ensuring that the cultural sector remains competitive and relevant in the digital 
age. 

Finally, Landscape Together (see Case V.2 of Annex V) demonstrates the value 
of interdisciplinary skills development in rural areas. By bringing together artists, 
environmental  experts,  local  officials,  and  citizens,  the  project  facilitates  the 
exchange of knowledge and the development of new competencies in landscape 
management, cultural mediation, and sustainable design. Workshops, residencies, 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
and educational programmes provide opportunities for participants to learn from 
one another and co-create innovative solutions for rural revitalisation. 

Across these examples, it is clear that LRAs are not only beneficiaries but active 
architects  of  capacity-building  initiatives.  Their  ability  to  identify  local  needs, 
mobilise resources, and foster partnerships ensures that skills development is both 
targeted and sustainable. The CEP’s emphasis on capacity-building, as reflected 
in its calls for proposals and evaluation criteria, aligns with broader EU initiatives 
such as the Pact for Skills79, which recognises the vital role of LRAs in promoting 
regional partnerships for up- and reskilling. By investing in people (e.g., artists, 
administrators, and citizens alike), CEP projects lay the groundwork for a more 
adaptive, innovative, and inclusive cultural ecosystem across Europe. 

3.5 Innovation and responsiveness to emerging challenges 

Innovation  and  responsiveness  to  emerging  challenges  have  become  defining 
features  of  the  current  CEP  funding  period  (2021-2027),  reflecting  the  EU’s 
commitment  to  foster  sustainable  growth,  digital  transformation,  and  social 
resilience  through  culture.  This  funding  cycle  places  a  strong  emphasis  on 
adapting  to  evolving  societal  needs  (e.g.,  climate  change,  technological 
advancements)  by  supporting  multidisciplinary  projects  and  encouraging 
collaboration  between  public,  private,  and  academic  stakeholders,  bringing 
together expertise from e.g., technology, environmental science, social policy, and 
the arts. Through a more flexible, mission-oriented approach, the CEP aims to 
better  equip  Member  States  and  regions  to  address  complex,  place-based 
challenges  by  integrating  artistic,  technological,  environmental,  and  civic 
perspectives. 

The European Digital Deal project (see Case V.6 in Annex V) exemplifies this 
ethos by merging art, technology, and civic engagement to explore the societal 
impacts of AI, machine learning, and blockchain. Through public forums, artistic 
residencies,  and  collaborative  research,  the  project  brings  together  artists, 
technologists,  educators,  and  citizens  to  debate  and  co-create  responses  to  the 
ethical  and  democratic  challenges  of  digitalisation.  The  involvement  of  LRAs 
through the Culture Yard in Denmark is critical here, as their leadership ensures 
that these debates remain grounded in local realities and that innovative solutions 
are relevant and actionable for communities. 

Landscape Together (see Case V.2 in Annex V) demonstrates how culture can be 
integrated  with  environmental  and  territorial  development  to  address  rural 

79 European Commission, Pact for Skills, “Regional Skills Partnerships”. Accessed May 30, 2025. https://pact-
for-skills.ec.europa.eu/about/regional-skills-partnerships_en.  

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
depopulation  and  climate  adaptation.  The  project’s  methodology  is  deeply 
interdisciplinary,  blending  cultural  mediation,  environmental  planning,  and 
sustainable design. By mobilising municipalities, universities, artists, and citizens 
through  workshops,  residencies,  and  educational  programmes,  Landscape 
Together generates new models for rural revitalisation that are both replicable and 
scalable.  The  active  participation  of  LRAs  guarantees  that  these  solutions  are 
tailored to local needs and that international expertise is effectively translated into 
place-based action. 

DIALOG  CITY  (see  Case  V.3  in  Annex  V)  further  illustrates  the  value  of 
multidisciplinary  cooperation,  aiming  to  increase  accessibility  to  culture  by 
connecting  digital  innovation  with  citizen  participation.  The  project’s  Citizen 
Archive  Platform  is  a  digital  tool  that  enables  citizens  to  upload  and  preserve 
digital  cultural  assets.  Complemented  by  design  thinking  toolkits  and  future 
literacy workshops, DIALOG CITY empowers citizens to co-create the future of 
their communities. The leadership of LRAs is again instrumental, providing the 
institutional  support,  local  knowledge,  and  convening  the  power  necessary  to 
mobilise  diverse  stakeholders  and  ensure  the  long-term  sustainability  of  the 
project. 

These  examples  collectively  demonstrate  that  innovation  in  the  CCS  is  most 
effective  when  driven  by  multidisciplinary  collaboration  and  anchored  in  the 
active engagement of LRAs. By leveraging their proximity to local communities 
and their ability to bridge sectors, LRAs play a pivotal role in ensuring that CEP 
projects  are  not  only  responsive  to  emerging  challenges  but  also  capable  of 
generating  systemic,  long-lasting  change.  The  CEP  framework,  through  its 
support for experimentation, cooperation, and partnerships fostering knowledge 
exchange, as well as the integration of culture with other policy domains, confirms 
that  culture  is  not  an  isolated  sector  but  a  dynamic  force  for  innovation  and 
societal progress. 

3.6  Strategic 
development agendas 

integration  of  cultural  policy 

into  broader 

The  strategic  integration  of  cultural  policy  into  broader  local  and  regional 
development agendas is increasingly recognised as essential to build sustainable, 
inclusive,  and  resilient  communities  across  Europe.  Embedding  culture  into 
governance, urban planning, education, and digital innovation strategies enables 
cities and regions to leverage cultural assets as drivers of holistic development, 
rather than treating cultural initiatives as isolated or ancillary activities. 

This approach is exemplified in the city of Aschaffenburg, where cultural policy 
is  tightly  interwoven  with  the  city’s  digitalisation  strategy.  Aschaffenburg’s 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
official digital strategy is explicitly described as “human-centred and dialogue-
oriented,” and the DIALOG CITY project is a flagship for this vision80 (see Case 
V.3 in Annex V). The city’s digitalisation policy, as outlined on its official portal 
and  in  project  documentation,  prioritises  the  creation  of  socially  inclusive, 
environmentally 
sustainable  urban  digital 
environments.  The  project  operationalises  these  ambitions  by  developing 
participatory digital tools such as the Citizen Archive Platform, hosting City Labs 
and  supporting  public  art  residencies,  all  designed  to  foster  civic  participation, 
digital literacy, and cultural heritage preservation. These priorities are reflected in 
the city’s communications, which consistently present DIALOG CITY as both a 
product and a driver of Aschaffenburg’s digital strategy. 

friendly,  and  economically 

A parallel can be drawn with České Budějovice (Budweis), which is amongst the 
partners of CreArt 3.0 (see Case V.1 in Annex V) and has strategically positioned 
culture at the heart of its long-term development agenda, particularly through its 
successful  bid  for  the  ECOC  2028  title.  The  city’s  candidacy  and  subsequent 
cultural  strategy  were  developed  through  extensive  participatory  processes 
involving  residents,  artists,  scientists,  and  regional  partners,  resulting  in  the 
Budweis  Culture  Strategy  2023–2035  (Raabová  et al. 2022)81.  This  strategy is 
built around three priority areas (i.e., care, connect, and create), each of which 
aligns cultural policy with social trust, community ties, and creative innovation. 
The ECOC project, under the theme of (PERMA)CULTURE, explicitly aims to 
integrate sustainability, social justice, and environmental responsibility into the 
city’s  development  framework.  The  Budweis  Culture  Strategy  and  ECOC 
implementation  plan  are  closely  linked  to  regional  and  national  development 
plans, as well as to EU initiatives such as the National Recovery Plan for Culture 
and the New European Bauhaus. The first monitoring report for Budweis 202882 
further  highlights  the  alignment  of  the  city’s  cultural  programme  with  South 
Bohemia’s regional goals and its commitment to legacy planning, ensuring that 
the impact of the ECOC year extends well beyond 2028. 

These  examples  demonstrate  that  when  LRAs  strategically  align  cultural 
initiatives with  broader  development  agendas,  they  amplify the  impact of both 
cultural and non-cultural policies. This integrated approach not only enhances the 
visibility  and  sustainability  of  cultural  projects  but  also  ensures  that  culture 
contributes  meaningfully  to  economic  diversification,  social  inclusion,  and 

80 Aschaffenburg 2.0, “Dialog City”. Accessed May 30, 2025. https://aschaffenburgzweinull.stadtarchiv-
digital.de/projekt/dialog-city/.  
81 Raabová, T., Jetelová, T. & Špaček, O. 2022. Strategie rozvoje kultury a kreativních odvětví města České 
Budějovice 2023–2035. Accessed May 30, 2025. https://www.budejovice2028.eu/files/kulturni-strategie-cb-
digital-web-export.pdf.  
82 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture. 2024. Budweis. 
European Capital of Culture 2028. First Monitoring Meeting. Report by the ECOC Expert Panel. Virtual 
Meeting, 12th November 2024. Accessed May 30, 2025, https://culture.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2024-
12/ecoc-2028-czech-republic-first-monitoring_report-v2.pdf.  

103 

 
 
 
 
 
democratic renewal. By supporting such cross-cutting strategies, the CEP enables 
LRAs to act as innovators and leaders in the pursuit of holistic, future-oriented 
development. 

3.7 Leveraging and diversifying funding sources 

Leveraging and diversifying  funding sources is  a  critical success factor  for the 
sustainability, resilience, and impact of projects supported by the CEP. Successful 
initiatives consistently demonstrate the ability to build on the legacy of previous 
projects  and  to  mobilise  a  diverse  mix  of  financial  resources,  which  together 
enable them to innovate, scale, and adapt to changing contexts. 

A first dimension of this approach is the strategic leveraging of prior project 
experience and established networks. Many of the most impactful CEP projects 
are conceived as evolutions or expansions of earlier initiatives, allowing them to 
capitalise  on  accumulated  expertise,  trust,  and  methodological  refinement.  For 
instance, Dancing Histor(y)ies (see Case V.5 in Annex V) draws on the legacy of 
the  CEP-funded  HERITART  project,  integrating  lessons  learned  and  networks 
established  in  the  field  of  heritage  valorisation  through  performing  arts.  This 
continuity ensures that new activities are grounded in proven practices and benefit 
from established relationships amongst partners, facilitating more ambitious and 
effective interventions. Similarly, CreArt 3.0 (see Case V.1 in Annex V) is the 
latest iteration of  a network that has been  active  since  2012, with each  edition 
enriching  the  project’s  methodology  and  expanding  its  reach.  The  project’s 
evolution  has  been  marked  by  the  inclusion  of  new  partners,  such  as  České 
Budějovice, the European Capital of Culture 2028, and by the expansion into new 
artistic disciplines and geographic areas, including support for Ukrainian artists 
through cooperation with non-governmental organisations in Lviv. The European 
Digital Deal (see Case V.6 in Annex V) also exemplifies this principle, bringing 
together partners who have collaborated on previous initiatives at the intersection 
of technology, democracy, and the arts. The project addresses the societal impacts 
taking  a 
of  digital 
multidisciplinary, human-centred approach that is both innovative and grounded 
in practical experience. 

transformation  by  building  on 

these  foundations, 

The  second  dimension  is  the  diversification  of  funding  sources,  which  is 
essential for the financial stability and scalability of cultural projects. Some 
CEP initiatives successfully combine Creative Europe co-funding with national, 
regional, or local grants, as well as private sponsorships and in-kind contributions. 
The European Digital Deal project 83(see Case V.6 in Annex V) demonstrates this 
funding  mix,  combining  its  CEP  grant  with  support  from  the  Austrian  Federal 

83 Ars Electronica, “European Digital Deal”. Accessed May 28, 2025. https://ars.electronica.art/eudigitaldeal/en/.  

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Ministry for Arts, Culture, Civil Service and Sport. The project is also supported 
by  the  National  Cultural  Fund  of  Hungary84.  This  blend  of  resources  not  only 
provides  financial  resilience  but  also  strengthens  stakeholder  engagement  and 
national ownership of project outcomes.  

The requirement for co-funding within the Creative Europe framework acts as a 
catalyst  for  this  diversification,  encouraging  applicants  to  mobilise  additional 
resources  and  build  partnerships  at  multiple  levels.  This  approach  spreads 
financial  risk,  fosters  shared  responsibility,  and  enhances  the  sustainability  of 
project  outcomes.  By  leveraging  previous  project  experience  and  diversifying 
funding sources, CEP projects can innovate, scale, and sustain their activities over 
time,  ensuring  that  European  investment  in  culture  delivers  lasting  value  for 
communities, institutions, and the wider CCS. 

3.8 Knowledge transfer and replicability 

Knowledge  transfer  and  replicability  are  fundamental  pillars  of  EU  funding 
opportunities,  such  as  the  CEP,  as  they  directly  support  the  dissemination  of 
research outcomes, the scaling of innovative solutions, and the creation of lasting 
impact  across  Member  States  and  their  regions.  In  this  context,  the  CEP  is 
designed  not  only  to  fund  cultural  projects  but  also  to  enable  the  systematic 
sharing of knowledge, experiences, and methodologies amongst its beneficiaries, 
including,  but  not  be  limited  to,  LRAs.  This  approach  is  vital  for  broadening 
participation  in  the  Programme,  especially  amongst  less-experienced  or 
newcomer LRAs,  and  for  ensuring that  successful  models  can  be  replicated  or 
adapted to diverse place-based realities across both EU and non-EU countries. 

The EC has consistently emphasised the importance of peer learning and mutual 
exchange amongst LRAs, as seen in initiatives such as the “Culture for Cities and 
Regions”  project85  and  the  “Cultural  Heritage  in  Action”  programme,  both  of 
which were co-funded by Creative Europe and have produced catalogues, study 
visits,  and  expert coaching to support knowledge  transfer  at local  and regional 
level.  

As stated by the Head of Unit of DG EAC of the EC during an interview held on 
21  May  2025,  the  CEP  must  ensure  equal  participation  across  all  eligible 
countries,  balancing  the  involvement  of  experienced  beneficiaries  with  the 
inclusion  of  newcomers.  To  achieve  this,  CEP  beneficiaries  are  encouraged  to 
commit  to  transferring  knowledge,  tools,  and  methodologies  to  their  peers, 

84 Pro Progressione, “EU Digital Deal”. Accessed May 30, 2025. https://proprogressione.com/en/project/eu-
digital-deal/.  
85 European Commission, Culture and Creativity, “Culture in cities and regions”. Accessed May 30, 2025. 
https://culture.ec.europa.eu/policies/culture-in-cities-and-regions.  

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
thereby  supporting  the  broader  goal  of  equal  access  and  capacity-building 
throughout Europe. 

This  commitment  to  knowledge  transfer  is  evident  in  several  CEP-funded 
projects.  The  Municipality  of  Aschaffenburg,  for  example,  has  developed  the 
Citizen Archive Platform (CAP) within the DIALOG CITY project as an open, 
replicable digital tool for community heritage engagement (see Case V.3 in Annex 
V). Aschaffenburg actively encourages other LRAs to adopt and adapt the CAP, 
providing technical guidance and sharing lessons learned through events such as 
the  Future  Festival  and  partnerships  with  academic  institutions.  This  proactive 
dissemination of digital infrastructure and participatory methods exemplifies how 
knowledge transfer can lower entry barriers for other cities and regions, enabling 
them to implement similar place-based cultural initiatives. 

The BLUETOUR project (see Case V.4 of Annex V) has gone a step further by 
publishing an open-source handbook, offering practical tools and guidelines for 
cooperation  between  cultural  organisations,  local  authorities,  and  tourism 
operators  in  Mediterranean  coastal  areas.  The  handbook  addresses  challenges 
such  as  fragmentation,  lack  of  vision,  and  inadequate  strategic  planning,  and 
provides  actionable  strategies  for  citizen  and  artist  engagement,  sustainable 
tourism,  and  the  development  of  local  cultural  ecosystems.  It  is  specifically 
designed to be used by other cities and regions seeking to implement European 
policies in their own contexts, thereby facilitating the replication and adaptation 
of BLUETOUR’s methodologies. 

Dancing Histor(y)ies also foregrounds replicability in its model, aiming to create 
a  general  and  adaptable  approach  for  using  festivals  and  performing  arts  to 
activate and valorise cultural heritage sites. During an interview held on 24 April 
2025,  a  representative  of  the  Mérida  International  Classical  Theatre  Festival 
highlighted  the  significant  impact  that  the  CEP  has  had  on  the  city’s  cultural, 
artistic, and economic life. The introduction of dance into a festival traditionally 
focused solely  on theatre has  transformed the event into a mainstream cultural 
attraction,  now  drawing  thousands  of  international  visitors  and  broadening  its 
scope and duration with year-round workshops and performances. This expansion 
has  led  to  a  remarkable  increase  in  participation  (i.e.,  from  350  to  1,700 
participants)  and  has  extended  the  festival’s  reach  to  other  cities  across  the 
Extremadura region, thereby improving access for nearby residents and fostering 
a  strong  sense  of  belonging  amongst  citizens.  The  interviewee  particularly 
emphasised that the CEP support has not only brought economic benefits but has 
also placed culture at the heart of social cohesion and inclusion in the city and 
nearby, including marginalised communities such as the LGBTQ+ population, the 
elderly, and youth. Reflecting on these achievements, cities should consider that 
the CEP provides considerably more resources - both economically and socially - 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
and, crucially, helps citizens develop a sense of belonging to their cultural heritage 
and to Europe, which actively contributes through its funding. 

Overall,  the  CEP  itself  provides  dedicated  platforms  and  resources  to  support 
knowledge transfer and replicability, such as the Creative Europe Project Results 
Platform86, which allows users to explore, download, and learn from the results 
of funded projects across the continent. Furthermore, the Programme’s guidance 
for applicants routinely requires a clear knowledge-sharing and communication 
plan, outlining how project results will be disseminated and made accessible to 
other stakeholders, policymakers, and the general public. 

In this way, the CEP not only fosters cultural innovation but also builds a resilient, 
inclusive,  and  interconnected  European  cultural  space  where  knowledge 
circulates freely and success can be shared and scaled across borders. 

3.9 Comparative analysis of local and regional public authorities’ 
involvement across the selected best practices 

The  selected  CEP  projects  illustrate  a  broad  spectrum  of  LRAs’  involvement, 
highlighting  the  diversity  of  roles,  governance  models,  and  collaboration 
mechanisms that underpin successful cultural and/or creative initiatives at place-
based levels. 

Across  all  projects,  active  LRA  engagement  emerges  as  a  critical  factor  for 
impact and sustainability. Whether as lead coordinators, network facilitators, or 
sectoral partners, LRAs mobilise political, administrative, and financial resources 
to anchor CEP objectives within local and/or regional realities. Their contribution 
extends beyond project administration. They shape strategic vision, align funding 
streams, and ensure that projects respond to both local and/or regional priorities 
and wider European goals.  

A dominant role for LRAs emerges as the lead project coordinator, where the 
LRA assumes primary responsibility for project conception, overall governance, 
delivery of objectives, and sustainability planning. This is evident in projects such 
as CreArt 3.0, where the Valladolid Municipal Foundation for Culture initiates 
and  steers  both  the  networking  and  operational  dimensions,  and  in  DIALOG 
CITY, where the Municipality of Aschaffenburg leads the integration of cultural 
digitisation into local policy and practice. In this capacity, LRAs shape strategy, 
mobilise municipal resources, and ensure that local stakeholders remain actively 
engaged throughout the project lifecycle.  

86 European Commission, Culture and Creativity, “Creative Europe Project Results”. Accessed May 30, 2025. 
https://culture.ec.europa.eu/creative-europe/projects.  

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In other cases, LRAs act chiefly as facilitators or consortium partners within 
larger, multi-stakeholder projects. This is especially prominent in projects such as 
Landscape  Together  or  BLUETOUR,  which  depend  on  inter-municipal  and 
transnational  coordination,  respectively.  Here,  the  LRA’s  capacity  to  broker 
partnerships, mediate amongst diverse local actors, and coordinate with regional 
agencies proves critical to success. By leveraging their convening power, LRAs 
in  these  settings  foster  trust  and  mutual  accountability  amongst  local  and/or 
regional  public  administrations,  enabling  collaborative  approaches  to  shared 
challenges, whether environmental, social, or economic. 

Furthermore, the role of LRAs as policy co-designers is highlighted in projects 
with strong innovation or experimental mandates, such as the European Digital 
Deal.  In  such  cases,  LRAs  are  not  only  project  implementers  but  also  play  a 
crucial  role in  developing  new  methodologies,  piloting  participatory  tools,  and 
integrating  project  learnings  into  longer-term  policy  frameworks.  Through  this 
function, LRAs contribute to shaping broader frameworks of cultural governance, 
bringing new practices and perspectives to the forefront of local and/or regional 
policymaking. 

In  several  projects,  particularly  those  with  complex  thematic  or  geographic 
dimensions  such  as  Dancing  Histor(y)ies,  the  Mérida  International  Classical 
Theatre  Festival  collaborates  with  regional  authorities  (e.g.,  the  Regional 
Government  of  Extremadura)  and  sectoral  partners,  sharing  responsibility  for 
specific  actions,  outreach,  and  governance  structures.  This  shared  leadership 
enables  projects  to  benefit  from  both  local  legitimacy  and  broader  strategic 
alignment with regional and/or national objectives. 

Nevertheless, the type of region (e.g., urban, rural, or hybrid) directly affects the 
LRA positioning. Urban authorities often serve as policy leaders or innovators, 
driving e.g., digitisation and audience strategies (as seen in DIALOG CITY and 
European  Digital  Deal).  In  rural  or  depopulated  settings,  LRAs  coordinate 
horizontally,  pooling  resources,  facilitating  interdisciplinary  partnerships,  and 
fostering  community-based  approaches  to  revitalise  and  transform  themselves 
into vibrant communities (such as in Landscape Together and BLUETOUR). 

Funding  structures  reflect  the  importance  of  co-investment  and  multi-level 
governance.  Some  projects  blend  Creative  Europe  funds  with  local,  regional, 
and/or national support (e.g., in the European Digital Deal project). This not only 
ensures  financial  resilience  but  also  reinforces  alignment  with  broader 
development agendas, opening the door for greater stakeholder engagement and 
increased results uptake to enhance the competitiveness of the CCS at multiple 
levels. Urban cases (e.g., in CreArt 3.0 and DIGITAL DEAL) typically tap into 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
city  budgets  or  national  funds,  while  rural  projects  emphasise  regional  and/or 
inter-municipal collaboration (e.g., in Landscape Together). 

Finally, the adaptability and replicability of models are strongest where LRAs 
have  built  trust-based  networks,  share  a  commitment  to  capacity-building,  and 
anchor projects in participatory and multidisciplinary methodologies. Notably, the 
iterative model enabled by repeat funding, as seen in projects such as CreArt 3.0 
and  the  European  Digital  Deal,  demonstrates  how  capitalising  on  previous 
experiences  and  lessons  learned  equips  LRAs  to  reinforce  networks  and 
consolidate  know-how,  thus  enhancing  their  capacity  to  address  current 
challenges  (e.g.,  digital  transformation,  green  transition),  whilst  supporting  the 
CCS competitiveness at multiple levels (e.g., in Dancing Histor(y)ies). 

In summary, this comparative perspective demonstrates that strong cross-sector 
partnerships, the blending of diverse funding sources, and the capacity to scale 
and transfer innovations across European regions characterise successful LRA-
led CEP projects. This underlines the importance of equipping LRAs with both 
strategic  autonomy  and  supportive  frameworks  to  maximise  the  impact  of 
Creative Europe investments. 

A comparative table provided below (Table 5) offers a concise overview of the 
six  case  studies,  highlighting  variations  in  region  types,  LRA  roles,  funding 
mechanisms, challenges addressed, key outcomes, and replicability potential. 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
LRA role 

Funding 
mechanisms 

Main 
challenges 

Case study 

CreArt 3.0 

Region 
type 

Urban 
(medium
-sized 
cities) 

Lead LRA 
and network 
facilitators 

Creative 
Europe 

Landscape 
Together 

Rural 

Inter-
municipal 
coordination 

Creative 
Europe 

DIALOG 
CITY 

Urban 

Lead LRA in 
cultural 
digitisation 

Creative 
Europe, 
national 
cultural and 
digitisation 
funds 

Key outcomes 

Artist support, 
city branding, 
cultural 
governance, 
transnational 
cooperation 
amongst cities 
Interdisciplinar
y models based 
on art, history, 
nature and 
community 
participation to 
address the 
depopulation of 
rural areas and 
climate change 
consequences 

Civic archive, 
co-creation 
methods, digital 
strategy 
integration 

Administrativ
e complexity, 
language 
barriers, 
limited 
staffing 

Mobility and 
planning for 
international 
artist 
participation, 
local 
engagement, 
administrative 
complexity 

Active citizen 
participation, 
upskilling of 
archive staff, 
data security 
and user 
privacy 

BLUETOUR 

Coastal 
(urban-
rural 
mix) 

Network 
facilitator 

Creative 
Europe 

Community 
participation, 
administrative 
complexity 

Community-led 
strategies for 
sustainable 
tourism, public 
artworks 

Dancing 
Histor(y)ies 

Urban 
(heritage 
sites) 

Lead LRA 
and support 
to the 
institutional 
and artistic 
governance 

Tensions 
between 
institutional 
and artistic 
partners 

Revitalisation 
of 
archaeological 
sites through 
performing arts 
(e.g., dance), 
enhanced 
visibility of 
cultural sites 

Creative 
Europe, 
public 
support (at 
national and 
regional 
level) and 
in-kind 
contribution
s from 
corporate 
sponsors 

110 

Replicability 
potential 

High – suited 
to networks 
of mid-sized 
cities 

High – suited 
to other rural 
areas seeking 
to reconnect 
with their 
landscape 
and culture 

High – suited 
to cities that 
are willing to 
apply 
human-
centred 
digital 
policies 
High – suited 
to areas that 
are willing to 
implement 
participatory, 
sustainable 
tourism 
models to 
tackle 
overtourism 

Medium - 
requires 
festival 
infrastructure 
and support 

 
 
European 
Digital Deal 

Urban 

Support to 
artistic 
programming 
and public 
engagement 

Creative 
Europe, 
national 
funds 

Lack of 
awareness on 
how much 
technology 
can potentially 
compromise 
democratic 
processes, 
audience 
engagement, 
administrative 
complexity 

New model to 
intersect 
technology, 
democracy, and 
human rights 
through artistic 
exploration and 
public 
engagement 

Medium – 
strong where 
tech/culture 
institutions 
are robust 

Table 5 – Comparative table: LRA involvement in selected best practices 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
Part 4: Foresight Analysis  

In  this  section,  a  foresight  analysis  is  presented  to  investigate  the  impacts  of 
evolving interdependent dynamics on the CCS, along with their cultural, social 
and  economic  implications.  The  analysis  aims  at  supporting  an  updated 
elaboration  of  policy  recommendations  relevant  to  decision  makers  at  various 
administrative  levels,  specifically  EU  institutions,  Member  States,  and  LRAs, 
with a special focus on the CEP’s capacity to address these changes from a local 
and/or regional perspective. The ultimate objective is to inform future editions of 
the  Programme,  which  are  expected  be  included  in  the  next  EU  Multiannual 
Financial Framework (2028-2034), to enhance its effectiveness at a place-based 
level. 

(e.g.,  AI,  digitalisation),  global  shifts 

The forward-looking analysis is based on the construction of different scenarios 
that consider three main dimensions shaping the future of the CCS: technological 
(e.g.,  geopolitical 
advancement 
fragmentation,  integration  of  inclusion  and  environmental  sustainability  into 
policies targeting the creative economy), and local and/or regional dynamics (e.g., 
inefficiencies in the labour market, increased inequalities in access to basic public 
services). 

Observations emerging from the construction of both a best-case and a worst-case 
scenario are thus combined with insights on megatrends identified by the JRC of 
the  EC,  reflecting  phenomena  that  are  expected  to  shape  the  near  future.  This 
approach  is  intended  to  provide  a  comprehensive  overview  of  the  evolving 
landscape  for  the  CCS  and  to  help  shape  future  EU  cultural  programmes 
requirements – such as those of the CEP – under these scenarios.  

The  analysis  draws  on  diverse  information  sources,  integrating  primary  data 
collected through the two surveys launched within the framework of this study – 
and directed to CEP and non-CEP recipients, respectively - with secondary data 
gathered through desk research. 

The following subsections outline the progressive steps of the foresight analysis, 
leading  to  a  synthesis  of  the  opportunities  and  risks  that  the  CCS  –  and,  by 
extension, the CEP - may face in the near future. 

4.1 Trends and dynamics affecting the future of the Cultural and 
Creative Sectors 

In the context of foresight analysis, trends are understood as general tendencies 
or directions of a development or change that, over time, shape social, economic, 
technological, and cultural landscapes. Identifying and interpreting these trends is 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
essential  to  envisioning  potential  futures  for  the  CCS  and  anticipating  their 
implications for EU cultural policy, including programmes such as the CEP. 

To  build  meaningful  future  scenarios,  the  study  examined  a  variety  of  trends 
considered particularly relevant to the CCS. These trends were identified through 
a combination of desk research and stakeholder input, and categorised into three 
overarching dimensions: 

1.  Technological Advancement: This dimension captures the rapid evolution 
of digital tools and platforms reshaping cultural creation and consumption. 
Key  trends  include  the  use  of  AI  in  content  production,  increasing 
digitalisation of cultural content, the rise of immersive technologies such 
as  Virtual  and  Augmented  Reality  (VR/AR),  the  growing  role  of  user-
generated  content,  and  the  widespread  adoption  of  streaming  services. 
These  developments  are 
redefining  creative  processes,  audience 
engagement, and market access. 

2.  Global  Shifts:  This  dimension  reflects  large-scale  geopolitical  and 
environmental  transformations  influencing  the  CCS.  Trends  include 
increasing geopolitical fragmentation and  fiscal constraints, which  affect 
cross-border collaboration and public investment in culture and creativity. 
It  also  encompasses  the  mainstreaming  of  inclusion  and  environmental 
sustainability in cultural policy, as well as the growing impact of climate 
change, including more frequent and severe climate-related disasters. These 
global pressures are reshaping policy priorities and the resilience of cultural 
and creative ecosystems. 

3.  Local and/or Regional Dynamics: At the sub-national level, a variety of 
spatial and socio-economic trends affect the structure and performance of 
the CCS. These include the implementation of local and/or regional cultural 
policies,  rising  inequalities  in  access  to  public  services,  inefficiencies  in 
local  labour  markets,  and  the  structural  fragmentation  of  the  CCS  itself. 
Urbanisation, gentrification,  and spatial spillovers also play  a significant 
role in shaping cultural activity and accessibility across territories. 

These dimensions provided the framework for using the two surveys carried out 
for  the  scope  of  this  study,  and  respectively  tailored  to  CEP  and  non-CEP 
recipients, to gather their feedback on the trends they consider most impactful for 
the future development of the CCS over the next 15 years. 

Figure 39 below presents the aggregated results of the two surveys, highlighting 
the trends that respondents consider as the most influential in shaping the future 
of the CCS. It is important to note that respondents were allowed to select multiple 
options. 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Technological advancement 

Global shifts 

Local and/or regional dynamics 
Figure 39 – Most impactful trends on the future of the CCS over the 
next 15 years.  
Source: Aggregated data from the surveys carried out for this study. 

Based  on  the  data  collected,  respondents  identified  the  following  trends  as  the 
most  impactful  for  the  future  of  the  CCS,  across  the  three  dimensions  of 
technological advancement, global shifts, and local and/or regional dynamics: 

Technological Advancement 

•  Integration  of  AI  and  automation  in  content  production  (identified  as 

relevant by 30% of responses). 

•  Content digitalisation (identified as relevant by 25% of responses). 
•  Use of VR/AR (identified as relevant by 17% of responses). 

114 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Global Shifts 

•  Geopolitical fragmentation (identified as relevant by 25% of responses). 
•  Fiscal constraints (identified as relevant by 18% of responses). 
•  Integration  of  inclusion  and  environmental  sustainability  into  policies 
targeting  the  creative  economy  (identified  as  relevant  by  17.5%  of 
responses). 

Local and/or regional dynamics 

•  Adoption of local and/or regional policies to support the CCS (identified as 

relevant by 22% of responses). 

•  Increased  inequalities  in  access  to  basic  public  services  (identified  as 

relevant by 19% of responses). 

•  Inefficiencies  in  the  labour  market  (identified  as  relevant  by  18%  of 

responses). 

To  provide  a  more  in-depth  analysis,  each  of  these  dimensions  was  further 
explored by examining specific dynamics that were previously hypothesised in 
the  literature.  This  approach  highlights  the  strong  link  between  the  CCS  and 
broader  socio-economic  transformations  that  are  currently  reshaping  our 
societies. 

Drawing on the existing literature, a set of future-facing conditions (summarised 
in Tables 6 and 7 below) was therefore analysed for each of the three dimensions.  

These conditions are presented in both positive and negative extremes, offering a 
dual vision: one that illustrates an aspirational scenario to pursue, and another that 
outlines the risks and pitfalls to avoid. 

      DIMENSION: Technological advancement 

Most impactful 
trends 
identified by 
survey 
respondents 

Integration of 
AI and 
automation in 

BEST CASE CONDITIONS 

Creative processes are augmented and accelerated thanks 
to  the  integration  of  AI,  optimising  the  workflows  of 
artists and creators. Artistic creation and sharing become 
more affordable and accessible. 

Literature 
reference 

• WEF 
201887 

87  World  Economic  Forum  and  McKinsey  &  Company.  2018.  Creative  Disruption:  The  impact  of  emerging 
technologies on the creative economy, White Paper. Geneva: World Economic Forum.  

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
content           

production 

Content 
digitalisation 

Use of VR/AR 

Most impactful 
trends 
identified by 
survey 
respondents 

Integration of  
AI and 
automation in 

content           

production 

Content 
digitalisation 

Use of VR/AR 

increasingly  used 

The CCS registers a rise in new high-skilled employment 
(e.g.,  prompt  engineers),  stimulating  innovation  across 
the broader economy. 
Productivity is further boosted by the adoption of VR/AR 
technologies. 
VR 
to  promote  empathetic 
is 
experiences,  while  educational  and  training  content 
becomes more impactful, enhancing understanding. 
Digitalisation supports emerging business models (e.g., 
streaming  services  and  digital  platforms)  and  fosters 
cross-industry collaboration. 
Employment  expands  in  areas  related  to  automation 
development,  and  digital 
transformation  generates 
increased demand for creative skills. 
Accelerated  digitalisation  strengthens  the  link  between 
culture  and  education:  digital  “edutainment”  formats 
integrate  interactive  learning,  collaborative  exchange, 
and co-creation of content. 

 WORST CASE CONDITIONS 

to 

leads 

The  widespread  use  of  AI 
the  under-
compensation  of  human  copyright  holders,  while 
encouraging companies to invest in AI-generated content 
as  a  cost-saving  measure.  This,  in  turn,  disincentivises 
rights holders from creating new works. 
The  absence  of  clear 
legal  definitions  regarding 
for  AI-generated  outputs  creates  a 
responsibility 
regulatory  vacuum,  contributing  to  the  proliferation  of 
digital misinformation (e.g., deepfakes). 
The easy access to AI tools for content production leads 
to a reduction in the working opportunities for companies 
in  the  CCS,  while  shifting  investment  increasingly 
toward 
further 
concentrating their control within the sector. 

technology  companies, 

large  AI 

• Caramiaux, 
B. 202088 

• AEA C. 
202089 

• EC 201090 

Literature 
reference 

• WEF 
201891 

• Caramiaux, 
B. 202092 

• AEA C. 
202093 

88 Caramiaux, B. 2020. The Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Cultural and Creative Sectors. Research Report 
for the CULT Committee, European Parliament. 
89 AEA Consulting. 2020. Navigating Uncertain Times: A Scenario Planning Toolkit for the Arts & Culture Sector. 
New York: Wallace Foundation. 
90 European Commission. 2010. Green Paper. Unlocking the potential of cultural and creative industries. Brussels, 
27.04.2010.  COM(2010)  183  final.  Accessed  May  30,  2025.  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/1cb6f484-074b-4913-87b3-344ccf020eef/language-en.  
91  World  Economic  Forum  and  McKinsey  &  Company.  2018.  Creative  Disruption:  The  impact  of  emerging 
technologies on the creative economy, White Paper. Geneva: World Economic Forum.  
92 Caramiaux, B. 2020. The Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Cultural and Creative Sectors. Research Report 
for the CULT Committee, European Parliament. 
93 AEA Consulting. 2020. Navigating Uncertain Times: A Scenario Planning Toolkit for the Arts & Culture Sector. 
New York: Wallace Foundation. 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
• EC 201094 

• Maekan95 

The  increasing  use  of  VR/AR  in  cultural  products  may 
limit  access  to  privileged  users  due  to  high  costs  and 
technical  barriers,  exacerbating  cultural  exclusion  and 
inequality.  Overreliance  on  dominant  platforms  can 
reduce  diversity  and  creative  freedom,  while  privacy 
concerns  and  data  misuse  may  lead  to  distrust  and 
regulatory restrictions, hindering innovation. 
Greater reliance on  algorithms in  content creation risks 
reducing cultural diversity. 
Centralised 
favour 
recommendations for established artists, undermining the 
visibility of emerging talent and stifling innovation. 
Automation could lead to job losses in certain roles (e.g., 
technicians, journalists, market research analysts) due to 
rising competition from AI systems. 

platforms 

content 

often 

Table 6 – Positive and negative outlooks: technology trends impacting the future of the CCS. 

The  conditions  outlined  in  Table  6  above  demonstrate  how  technological 
advancement  can  significantly  influence  the  CCS.  On  one  hand,  it  affects 
employment  -  both  in  terms  of  workforce  size  and  the  evolving  areas  of 
specialisation. On the other hand, it shapes the sector's overall level of innovation 
and  productivity.  It  also  impacts  the  inclusiveness  of  the  CCS,  particularly 
determining how equitably different communities can contribute to and benefit 
from  the  sector’s  growth,  as  well  as  the  extent  to  which  cultural  diversity  is 
represented and promoted. 

Most impactful 
trends 
identified by 
survey 
respondents 

Geopolitical 
fragmentation 

      DIMENSION: Global shifts 

BEST CASE CONDITIONS 

The environmental impact of companies working in the 
creative  economy  across  the  value  chain  (design  and 
production,  distribution,  consumption,  dissemination) 
is reduced. Data on business impacts and dependencies 
on nature is improved. The integration of environmental 
sustainability  policies  into  the  CCS  supports  these 

Literature 
reference 

• OECD 
202196 

94 European Commission. 2010. Green Paper. Unlocking the potential of cultural and creative industries. Brussels, 
27.04.2010.  COM(2010)  183  final.  Accessed  May  30,  2025.  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/1cb6f484-074b-4913-87b3-344ccf020eef/language-en.  
95  Maekan,  "Rethinking  Cultural  Appropriation  and  Ethics  in  an  AI  World".  Accessed  May  30,  2025. 
https://maekan.com/rethinking-cultural-appropriation-and-ethics-in-an-ai-world/.  
96  OECD.  2021.  Economic  and  social  impact  of  cultural  and  creative  sectors:  Note  for  Italy  G20  Presidency 
Culture Working Group, Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Papers, No. 2021/11. OECD 
Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/4d4e760f-en. 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fiscal 
constraints 

Integration of 
inclusion and 
environmental 
sustainability 
into policies 
targeting the 
creative 
economy 

• UNCTAD 
202497 

• UNESCO 
202298 

• Hakobyan 
S., 
Meleshchuk 
S., Zymek R. 
202399 

outcomes,  promoting  greener  practices  and  long-term 
ecological resilience. 
More  sustainable  consumption  patterns  are  adopted, 
including  reduced  waste,  promotion  of  circular 
economy  practices,  implementation  of  sustainable 
procurement  policies,  and  increased  availability  of 
products with lower environmental impacts. 
Improved  geopolitical  cohesion  leads  to  increased 
international trade in the CCS, which in turn enhances 
the  sector’s  competitiveness  and  stimulates  cross-
sectoral  innovation  at  both  national  and  place-based 
levels. 
Easier access to credit and venture capital (e.g., lower 
interest  rates,  simpler  administrative  requirements, 
increased governmental  financial support)  leads to an 
increase  in  the  financial  sustainability  of  businesses, 
particularly SMEs, while also fostering the emergence 
of innovative start-ups.  It leads to improved  financial 
literacy of micro, small and medium enterprises staff, 
as it encourages them to become more aware of how to 
effectively manage and use financial resources.  

Most impactful 
trends 
identified by 
survey 
respondents 
Geopolitical 
fragmentation 

Fiscal 
constraints 

Integration of 
inclusion and 
environmental 
sustainability 
into policies 

WORST CASE CONDITIONS 

Geopolitical  fragmentation  leads  to  a  reduction  in 
international trade and income in the CCS, as resources 
and attention shift toward politically prioritised sectors 
that are more directly affected by rising global tensions 
(e.g., defence). This decrease is due to increased costs 
and  restrictions,  such  as  tightened  regulatory  barriers 
the  challenges  of  overcoming  geographical, 
and 
cultural, and institutional fragmentation. 
The  spread  of  populistic 
the 
definition  of  freedom  of  expression,  negatively 
impacting the ability to create art on issues relevant to 

ideologies  affects 

Literature 
reference 

• OECD 
2021100 

• UNCTAD 
2024101 

• UNESCO 
2022102 

97  United  Nations  Conference  on  Trade  and  Development.  2024.  Creative  Economy  Outlook  2024, 
UNCTAD/DITC/TSCE/2024/2. Geneva: United Nations. 
98  UNESCO.  2022.  Re|Shaping  Policies  for  Creativity:  Addressing  Culture  as  a  Global  Public  Good.  Paris, 
UNESCO Publishing. https://www.unesco.org/reports/reshaping-creativity/2022/en. 
99  Hakobyan,  S.,  Meleshchuk,  S.,  and  Zymek  R.  2023.  Divided  we  fall:  differential  exposure  to  geopolitical 
fragmentation in trade. IMF Working Paper, Research Department. WP/23/270. 
100  OECD.  2021.  Economic and  social  impact of  cultural  and  creative  sectors:  Note  for  Italy  G20 Presidency 
Culture Working Group, Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Papers, No. 2021/11. OECD 
Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/4d4e760f-en. 
101  United  Nations  Conference  on  Trade  and  Development.  2024.  Creative  Economy  Outlook  2024, 
UNCTAD/DITC/TSCE/2024/2. Geneva: United Nations. 
102  UNESCO.  2022.  Re|Shaping  Policies  for  Creativity:  Addressing  Culture  as  a  Global  Public  Good.  Paris, 
UNESCO Publishing. https://www.unesco.org/reports/reshaping-creativity/2022/en. 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
targeting the 
creative 
economy 

(e.g., 

under-represented  and  vulnerable  groups 
LGBTQ+ community, minority ethnic artists). 
The competitiveness and innovativeness of the CCS are 
further constrained by the increase of non-tariff barriers 
(e.g., barriers to competition, discriminatory measures, 
restrictions in the movement of people). 
Unclear  market  guidelines,  reduced  transparency  and 
legal  certainty,  and  rigid  competition  laws  hinder  fair 
competition. 
An  over-reliance  of  businesses  on  their  own  capital 
limits their growth and resilience. 

• Hakobyan 
S., 
Meleshchuk 
S., Zymek R. 
2023103 

Table 7 - Positive and negative outlooks: global shift trends impacting the future of the CCS. 

Considering  the  influence  of  global  shifts  on  the  CCS,  evolving  political, 
economic,  and  social  dynamics  can  significantly  affect  various  aspects  of  the 
industry.  The  research  outcomes  summarised  in  Table  7  above  highlight,  in 
particular,  the  potential  effects  on  the  sectors’  environmental  impact,  the 
repercussions  on 
the  sector’s 
competitiveness  and  capacity  for  innovation.  Other  fundamental  aspects  of  the 
CCS  that  are  influenced  by  global  shifts  include  the  degree  of  freedom  of 
expression granted to artists and the inclusion of minorities and other vulnerable 
people in the creative process. 

trade,  and,  consequently, 

international 

      DIMENSION: Local and/or regional dynamics 

Most impactful 
trends 
identified by 
survey 
respondents 

Adoption of 
local and/or 
regional 
policies to 
support the CCS 

BEST CASE CONDITIONS 

Literature 
reference 

Participatory processes are included in the development 
of local and/or regional integrated policies in the CCS. 
They  promote  multistakeholder  engagement  and  civil 
society participation in reshaping cultural policies. 
There  is  an  increase  in  the  art-skilled  workforce, 
improved facilities and curricula, and greater awareness 
of art-related careers. 

• Almeida et 
al. 2024104 

• EC 2022105 

103  Hakobyan,  S.,  Meleshchuk,  S.,  and  Zymek  R.  2023.  Divided  we  fall:  differential  exposure  to  geopolitical 
fragmentation in trade. IMF Working Paper, Research Department. WP/23/270. 
104 Almeida, V., Hoffmann, C., Königs, S., Moreno, Monroy A., Salazar-Lozada, M., and Terrero-Dávila, J. 2024. 
Geographic Inequalities in Accessibility of Essential Services. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working 
Papers, No. 307. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1815199X. 
105  European  Commission.  2022.  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Work Plan for Culture 2019–
2022. COM(2022) 317 final.  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2022%3A317%3AFIN. 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Increased 
inequalities in 
access to basic 
public services 

Inefficiencies in 
the labour 
market 

Most impactful 
trends 
identified by 
survey 
respondents 

Adoption of 
local and/or 
regional 
policies to 
support the CCS 

Increased 
inequalities in 
access to basic 
public services 

Inefficiencies in 
the labour 
market 

• Ost, C., 
Saleh, R. 
2021106 

inclusion  of  disadvantaged 

Cultural understanding is enhanced through increased 
workforce diversity (e.g., reduced gender imbalances, 
greater 
individuals, 
improved  racial  equality,  more  equitable  distribution 
between urban and rural areas). 
The increased dynamism of the CCS attracts new talent, 
consequently  improving  working  conditions  in  the 
sector.  These  improvements  are  further  supported  by 
better  access  to  tailored  information  and  advice  on 
professionals'  rights  on  social  protection,  taxation, 
contracts, and health. 
inclusion 
Labour  market  functioning  and  social 
improve thanks to broader and more equitable access to 
Public  Employment  Services,  primary  schools,  and 
early childhood education and care centres. 

WORST CASE CONDITIONS 

Literature 
reference 

High  job  insecurity  disproportionately  affects  under-
represented  and  vulnerable  individuals  (e.g.,  disabled 
people,  migrants,  women)  by  limiting  their  access  to 
necessary social security protections. 
Reduced inclusivity within CCS businesses leads to the 
homogenisation of content and perspectives. 
Increasing immigration flows create pressure for access 
to basic public services and intensify tensions within the 
host  population.  As  these  tensions  escalate,  they  may 
contribute to rising feelings of racism and xenophobia, 
which  can,  in  turn,  limit  freedom  of  expression, 
particularly regarding the rights and presence of foreign 
and migrant communities. 
There is a decline in the art-skilled workforce, alongside 
reduced  facilities,  curricula,  and  awareness  of  art-
related careers. 
Artists  and  CCS  professionals  are  not  effectively 
represented 
labour  negotiations,  which 
weakens their ability to advocate for their interests. 

in  public 

• Almeida et 
al. 2024107 

• EC 2022108 

• Ost, C., 
Saleh, R. 
2021109 

106 Ost, C., Saleh, R. 2021. Cultural and creative sectors at a crossroad: from a mainstream process towards an 
active engagement. Built Heritage 5, 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43238-021-00032-y.  
107 Almeida, V., Hoffmann, C., Königs, S., Moreno, Monroy A., Salazar-Lozada, M., and Terrero-Dávila, J. 2024. 
Geographic Inequalities in Accessibility of Essential Services. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working 
Papers, No. 307. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1815199X. 
108  European  Commission.  2022.  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Work Plan for Culture 2019–
2022. COM(2022) 317 final.  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2022%3A317%3AFIN. 
109 Ost, C., Saleh, R. 2021. Cultural and creative sectors at a crossroad: from a mainstream process towards an 
active engagement. Built Heritage 5, 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43238-021-00032-y.  

120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The mobility of CCS professionals is limited by a lack 
of  information  regarding  administrative  procedures, 
support schemes, and regulations established at a local 
and/or  regional  level.  This  results  in  lost  creative  and 
economic opportunities and limits cultural diversity for 
both artists and audiences. 
There are  limited opportunities for artists and cultural 
workers  to  acquire  the  fundamental  skills  needed  for 
professional  success  in  the  arts  and  cultural  sector. 
These  include  technical,  managerial,  entrepreneurial, 
digital, and green competencies, which are increasingly 
necessary  to  ensure  the  continued  competitiveness  of 
the CCS. 
Insufficient  policies  and  interventions  by  local  and/or 
regional  governments  to  support  the  CCS  hinder 
economic growth, cultural development, and individual 
well-being. 

Table 8 - Positive and negative outlooks: local and/or regional dynamics trends impacting the future of the CCS. 

Examining the third dimension (Table 8 above), local and/or regional dynamics 
influence the CCS through the adoption of place-based policies and the ways in 
which they are designed. These policies can affect access to goods and services, 
thereby influencing the sector’s performance and the choices of the labour force. 
More specifically, they impact the CCS through the extent to which artists and 
cultural workers are integrated into the policy-making process. The inclusion of 
their interests and rights in policy-making at local and/or regional level affects 
working conditions, job security, and access to information and services essential 
for entry and retention in the sector. Additionally, this dimension has potential 
implications for cultural diversity and freedom of expression, both of which are 
strongly shaped by local and/or regional socio-cultural dynamics. 

4.2 Best-case and worst-case scenarios for the future of the Cultural 
and Creative Sectors 

Based  on  the  integration  of  conditions  assumed  across  the  three  dimensions 
examined  (i.e.,  technological  advancement,  global  shifts,  and  local  and/or 
regional  dynamics),  a  best-case  and  a  worst-case  scenario  are  developed.  The 
characteristics of these scenarios are the result of the mutual influence of various 
phenomena  that  affect  different  but  interconnected  factors  underlying  the 
performance of the CCS in the coming 15 years. 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 40 – Best-case scenario for the future of the CCS. 

The  scenario  illustrated  in  Figure  40  above  provides  an  overview  of  the  key 
aspects of an ideal future, which can be summarised into five core features that 
would define the best-case future of the CCS: 

•  Productivity and innovativeness: These elements are boosted through the 
successful integration in the sector of emerging technologies such as AI, 
which  accelerates  the  creative  process,  and  VR/AR  technologies,  which 
enable new ways of experiencing content. In parallel, the growth of a highly 
skilled workforce further enhances both productivity and innovativeness. 
Additional supporting factors include easier access to credit, which leads to 
an increase in the financial sustainability of businesses, particularly SMEs, 
while also fostering the emergence of innovative start-ups, and a favourable 
geopolitical  climate  that  promotes  international  trade.  These  advantages 
extend beyond the CCS, positively influencing the broader economy. 
•  Competitiveness:  This  ideal  trait  emerges  from  increased  geopolitical 
cohesion, which facilitates international trade and the mobility of goods, 
services, and creative professionals. This level of competitiveness contrasts 
with  the  current  state  of  some  CCS  subsectors,  such  as  the  audiovisual 
industry, which is currently marked by low competitiveness due to factors 
such as limited market access, insufficient investment in innovation, and 
challenges  related  to  digital  distribution  and  intellectual  property 
enforcement. High accessibility to the labour market further strengthens the 
sector’s competitive edge. 

•  Employment: Job growth in the CCS is driven by digitalisation  and the 
uptake  of  new  technologies  (e.g.,  AI,  VR/AR).  On  one  side,  there  is 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
increased labour supply for activities linked to automation; on the other, 
digitalisation fuels demand for creative and transversal skills. As a result, 
the  sector  sees  rising  employment  amongst  highly  trained  professionals. 
Employment is also supported by greater access to specialised training and 
credit  -  especially  vital  for  SMEs  -  along  with  improved  working 
conditions,  including  job  security,  fair  pay,  and  increased  awareness  of 
career opportunities and rights. Cross-industry collaboration contributes to 
job creation in adjacent sectors and the emergence of new professions (e.g., 
prompt engineers). As AI tools become increasingly integrated into creative 
processes (e.g., generative art, music composition, scriptwriting), prompt 
engineers are expected to play a critical role in crafting effective inputs that 
guide AI models to produce high-quality, context-relevant creative outputs. 
This skillset - combining creative intuition with technical understanding – 
is expected to make prompt engineering particularly valuable in the CCS, 
where originality, nuance, and artistic control are essential. 

•  Inclusivity and environmental sustainability: They refer to the sector’s 
ability  to  ensure  equal  participation  and  representation  of  minority  and 
disadvantaged  groups,  while  also  reducing  its  environmental  impact. 
Sustainability  is  encouraged  by  global  trends  and  local  and/or  regional 
policies that promote eco-friendly production and sustainable consumption. 
Inclusivity  is  supported  through  more  equitable  access  to  basic  public 
services,  such  as  primary  education  and  participatory  policy-making. 
Furthermore,  technologies  such  as  VR  and  AR  promote  empathy  and 
understanding, enhancing inclusion for both creators and audiences. 

•  Accessibility:  Broader  access  to  the  CCS  is  driven  by  equitable 
opportunities  for  all  segments  of  the  population  to  access  basic  public 
services, which are essential for proper labour market functioning. Crucial 
factors  include  access  to  credit,  financial  literacy  training  for  artists  and 
cultural workers, simplified administrative procedures, and the availability 
of facilities and employment support services. 

In  contrast,  Figure  41  below  presents  a  summary  of  the  conditions  that  could 
define the worst-case scenario for the CCS, based on the considered dynamics. 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 41 – Worst-case scenario for the future of the CCS. 

Figure 41 above provides an overview of the key aspects of an adverse future, 
which can be summarised into five core features that would define the worst-case 
scenario of the CCS: 

•  Competitiveness: A deterioration of geopolitical cohesion would lead to a 
decrease  in  international  trade  flows  for  the  CCS.  Restrictions  on 
international  trade  can  arise  from  tariff  and  non-tariff  costs  and  barriers 
such as tighter regulatory measures, discriminatory practices, restrictions 
on the movement of people, and costs to overcome geographical, cultural, 
and institutional fragmentation. Legislation can negatively impact industry 
competitiveness both  directly  -  through increased  rigidity in competition 
laws  -  and  indirectly  -  by  reducing  transparency  and  legal  certainty. 
Another limiting factor is the barriers to entry for new artists and cultural 
workers, which reduce the sector’s population and competitiveness. 

•  Employment: In this scenario, employment declines due to the spread of 
technologies  such  as  AI.  One  mechanism  is  the  under-compensation  of 
human copyright owners when AI produces works based on their creations, 
which  disincentivises  human  creativity.  Additionally,  job  losses  in 
automated activities are not compensated by growth in other areas. Over-
reliance  on  AI  may  also  restrict  access  for  less  digitally  literate 
professionals,  exacerbating  socio-economic  disparities.  Barriers  for  new 
artists  to  enter  the  labour  market  arise  from  changes  in  consumption 
patterns driven by centralised platforms that favour already popular artists 
and  content.  Employment  is  further  discouraged  by  reduced  access  to 
facilities  and  arts  training,  as  well  as  inadequate  representation  of 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
 
professionals  in  decision-making  processes.  Lastly,  geopolitical  tensions 
that limit worker mobility limit opportunities for growth and earnings. 
•  Inclusivity and environmental sustainability: Inclusivity in the CCS is 
undermined  by  unilateral  policy-making  and  the  lack  of  government 
commitment to protecting professionals’ rights, access to services, training, 
and minority representation. The spread of populist ideologies globally and 
locally  restricts  freedom  of  expression,  disproportionately  affecting 
minority  and  vulnerable  groups.  Negative  environmental  impacts  stem 
from  insufficient  international  and  local  and/or  regional  intervention  to 
promote sustainable production and consumption practices. 

•  Cultural  diversity  and  innovativeness:  Reduced  inclusivity  leads  to 
decreased diversity in artistic and cultural production. Innovativeness and 
cultural diversity decline on both the production  and consumption sides. 
On  the  production  side,  extensive  use  of  algorithms  trained  on  biased 
databases  -  excluding  some  cultures  and  languages  -  limits  diversity. 
Additionally,  geopolitical  fragmentation  restricts  freedom  of  expression, 
further  diminishing  diversity.  On  the  consumption  side,  some  groups 
reduce engagement due to the high costs and technical barriers associated 
with  VR/AR  tools,  exacerbating  cultural  exclusion  and  inequality. 
Overreliance  on  dominant  platforms  can  reduce  diversity  and  creative 
freedom, while privacy concerns and data misuse may lead to distrust and 
regulatory restrictions. These factors, combined with reduced productivity 
and competitiveness, negatively affect the sector’s innovativeness. 

•  Overall social and economic impact: The combined characteristics of this 
worst-case  scenario  profoundly  impact  not  only  the  CCS  economy  and 
workforce but also broader social and economic development. Given the 
CCS’s  influence  on  cross-industry  innovation,  productivity,  economic 
growth,  cultural  development,  social  inclusion,  community  cultural 
awareness, and individual well-being, these negative effects resonate well 
beyond the sector itself. 

4.3  Megatrends  driving  transformation  in  the  Cultural  and 
Creative Sectors 

Considering  megatrends  is  essential  for  developing  a  resilient  and  forward-
looking  understanding  of  the  CCS.  While  trends  reflect  general  tendencies  or 
directions of change over time, they become megatrends when they unfold at a 
global  or  large  scale,  with  long-term  implications  across  multiple  domains  of 
society.  Unlike  short-  or  medium-term  sector-specific  trends  -  which  typically 
capture  the  immediate  concerns  of  stakeholders  -  megatrends  represent  deep, 
structural  shifts  that  may  evolve  slowly  but  are  likely  to  have  a  significant 
influence on our lives for decades.  

125 

 
 
 
 
In this context, the most relevant megatrends for the future of the CCS - identified 
by the JRC of the EC110 and subsequently selected by the research team on their 
relevance  to  the  scope  of  this  study  -  have  been  integrated  into  this  foresight 
analysis.  The  objective  is  not  only  to  broaden  the  understanding  of  long-term 
challenges  and  opportunities  but  also  to  support  the  development  of  strategic 
responses  that  are  proactive,  systemic,  and  grounded  in  an  awareness  of  the 
broader environment in which the CCS operates.  

To this end, the following set of megatrends has been selected for closer analysis: 

•  Demographic change: Culture – to be understood in the broadest sense as 
a system of shared values, beliefs and practices – both shapes and is shaped 
by demographic dynamics. By way of example, cultural norms influence 
decisions around marriage and fertility, while demographic shifts such as 
ageing populations and migration alter the social fabric in which the CCS 
operate. Life expectancy has almost doubled in many countries since the 
early  20th  century,  creating  a  significant  and  growing  segment  of  older 
individuals whose cultural and creative needs and preferences must be more 
actively addressed by the CCS. Moreover, demographic structures widely 
vary  between  and within countries,  especially in Europe, where  regional 
and urban-rural differences result in increasingly diverse and differentiated 
cultural demands compared to the past. Migration further adds complexity: 
in 2020 international migrants accounted for 3.6% of the global population 
(McAuliffe,  M.  &  Oucho,  L.A.  2024)111,  bringing  rich  opportunities  for 
cultural exchange alongside the need for effective integration policies. In 
this evolving landscape, the CCS play a critical role not only in representing 
cultural  diversity  but  also  in  fostering  social  cohesion  and  intercultural 
dialogue. To fully leverage these opportunities and address the associated 
challenges, cultural strategies must be supported by the active and sustained 
engagement of local and/or regional governments. 

•  Safety and security risks: This megatrend encompasses a broad range of 
emerging  threats,  including  cybercrime,  terrorism,  conflict,  and  natural 
disasters. Amongst these, climate-related natural disasters have intensified 
due to global warming, posing a dual challenge to the CCS. On one hand, 
the CCS hold the power to drive behavioural change, raise awareness, and 
promote sustainable  lifestyles through its influence on  values and public 
discourse.  On  the  other  hand,  cultural  assets  themselves  -  both  tangible 
(e.g.,  heritage  buildings,  monuments)  and  intangible  (e.g.,  languages, 
traditions) - are increasingly at risk from environmental degradation, armed 

110 European Commission, “Competence Centre on Foresight”. Accessed May 28, 2025.  
https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/foresight_en.  
111  McAuliffe,  M.  &  L.A.  Oucho  (eds.).  2024.  World  Migration  Report  2024.  International  Organization  for 
Migration (IOM), Geneva. ISSN: 1561-5502.  

126 

 
 
 
 
 
conflict,  and  extremist  attacks.  Preserving  cultural  heritage  is  not  only  a 
matter  of  conservation  but  also  a  strategic  imperative:  it  underpins 
community identity and offers a source of resilience during times of crisis. 
Accordingly, local, regional, national, and international policy efforts must 
place greater emphasis on safeguarding culture in the face of rising global 
threats.  

•  Urbanisation: As more people move into cities, urbanisation is creating 
new challenges and opportunities for the CCS. The densification of urban 
environments  places  increasing  pressure  on  infrastructure  and  resource 
management  and  raises  the  ‘risk  of  irreparable  loss  of  (urban)  cultural 
heritage’ (Fu, L. et al. 2023)112. This underscores the need for local and/or 
regional decision-makers to strike a balance between urban growth and the 
preservation  of  cultural  heritage.  At  the  same  time,  urban  growth  may 
marginalise  the  cultural  expressions  of  rural  or  peripheral  areas, 
contributing  to  the  erosion  of  diverse  traditions  amid  depopulation. 
Nevertheless,  urban  areas  provide  fertile  ground  for  creative  exchange, 
innovation, and cultural hybridity, especially as urban populations become 
increasingly  diverse.  This  complexity  requires  a  careful  balancing  act: 
policies  must  support  the  conservation  of  both  urban  and  rural  cultural 
heritage  while  fostering  inclusive,  pluralistic  cultural  ecosystems  that 
reflect the evolving identities of urban societies. 

•  Resource  scarcity:  This  megatrend  relates  to  the  growing  demand  for 
water, energy, and food in the face of finite natural resources. Like other 
manufacturing sectors, the CCS rely on natural resources and energy and 
has its own environmental footprint (e.g., through pollution, toxic waste, 
the use of non-renewable energy, and biodiversity loss). To provide some 
context, it is estimated that the greenhouse gas emissions of creative arts 
and  entertainment  services  are  comparable  to  those  of  other  service 
industries  (Creative  Industries  Policy  and  Evidence  Centre  2022)113. 
Moreover,  the  emissions  linked  to  the  production  and  consumption  of 
creative goods and services are largely determined by a country’s energy 
mix and the types of devices used by consumers (UNCTAD 2024)114. These 
considerations highlight the potential of transforming production processes 
and  consumption  habits  within  the  CCS  to  support  decarbonisation  and 
environmental sustainability. In this transition, circular economy practices 
(e.g.,  reducing  consumption,  designing  for  reuse  and  recycling)  offer 
valuable tools. At the same time, the CCS can play a pivotal role in raising 

112 Fu, L., Zhang, Q., Tang, Y. et al. 2023. Assessment of urbanization impact on cultural heritage based on a risk-
based cumulative impact assessment method. Herit Sci 11, 177. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-023-01024-0. 
113 Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre. 2022. Creative Industries and the Climate Emergency: The 
Path  to  Net  Zero.  London:  PEC.  https://pec.ac.uk/research_report_entr/creative-industries-and-the-climate-
emergency/. 
114  United  Nations  Conference  on  Trade  and  Development.  2024.  Creative  Economy  Outlook  2024, 
UNCTAD/DITC/TSCE/2024/2. Geneva: United Nation. 

127 

 
 
 
awareness  on  climate  action,  fostering  behavioural  change,  and 
encouraging more responsible consumption patterns.  

•  Health challenges: At first glance, the connection between health and the 
CCS may seem unexpected. However, the positive effects of culture and 
creativity in areas beyond their traditional boundaries are often overlooked. 
In  this  context,  the  link  between  the  CCS  and  the  megatrend  of  health 
challenges - which includes ‘rising global issues such as pandemics, non-
communicable diseases, and mental health’ - offers important insights. A 
2019 report by  the World Health Organisation115 provides  evidence of a 
positive correlation between the arts and key determinants of health, both 
in  treating  and  managing  illness,  as  well  as  in  health  prevention  and 
promotion. Moreover, when health is considered in terms of well-being and 
quality of life, the fundamental role of the CCS in supporting physical and 
mental health, as well as social well-being, becomes even clearer. By way 
of example, studies have shown that cultural activities can help mitigate the 
negative  effects  of  neurodegenerative  diseases  such  as  Alzheimer’s  and 
Parkinson’s,  while  also  providing  valuable  support  to  caregivers  and 
families  in  managing  these  conditions  (OECD  2021)116.  Given  the 
anticipated  rise  in  both  physical  and  mental  health  challenges,  this 
interconnection  between  the  CCS  and  health  represents  a  significant 
opportunity.  Strengthening  collaboration  between  the  two  sectors  and 
developing policies that integrate the arts into health strategies would be a 
forward-looking and impactful approach to improve health and well-being. 

4.4  Opportunities  and  risks  for  the  future  of  the  Cultural  and 
Creative Sectors 

Building on the exploration of trends and megatrends shaping the future of the 
CCS  and  the  development  of  a  best-case  and  worst-case  scenario,  this  section 
shifts focus to an overview of the sectors’ key risks and emerging opportunities.  

It  consolidated  the  key  considerations  identified  throughout  this  process, 
highlighting  areas  of  potential  growth  as  well  as  challenges  that  need  to  be 
mitigated. These elements are therefore assessed in relation to the priorities set by 
the  CEP  2021-2027,  with  the  aim  of  evaluating  their  alignment  with  the  most 
impactful  dynamics  that  are  likely  to  affect  the  future  of  the  CCS  and,  where 

115 Fancourt, D. & Finn, S.. 2019. Health Evidence Network Synthesis Report 67. What is the evidence on the role 
of the arts in improving health and well-being? A scoping review. WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen. 
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329834/9789289054553-eng.pdf. 
116  OECD.  2021.  Economic and  social  impact of  cultural  and  creative  sectors:  Note  for  Italy  G20 Presidency 
Culture Working Group, Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Papers, No. 2021/11 (OECD 
Publishing, Paris, August 24, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1787/4d4e760f-en. 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
necessary,  suggesting  adjustments  to  enhance  the  Programme’s  strategic 
relevance and effectiveness.  
A concise overview of the emerging opportunities for the CCS is presented below:  

•  Technological innovation and creative acceleration: The integration of 
emerging  technologies  such  as  AI,  VR,  and  AR  into  creative  processes 
enhances productivity and broadens the modes of cultural expression and 
sharing.  These  technologies  foster  new  forms  of  artistic  creation  and 
immersive  cultural  and  creative  experiences,  opening  up  fresh  market 
opportunities and engaging diverse audiences.  

•  Employment  growth  and  increased  qualification  of  the  workforce: 
Digitalisation drives demand for creative and digital skills, creates new job 
profiles (e.g.,  prompt engineers), and boosts employment with improved 
conditions. The growth in high-skilled employment enhances the sector's 
resilience and attractiveness. Fair remuneration, job security, and access to 
upskilling opportunities enhance the well-being and career sustainability of 
artists and cultural workers.  

•  Cross-sectoral spillovers and increased global competitiveness: A more 
productive CCS stimulates innovation in adjacent sectors (e.g., education, 
tourism,  manufacturing,  digital  services)  by  acting  as  a  source  of  ideas, 
design,  and  user-centric  innovation.  Collaboration  between  the  CCS  and 
other  sectors  fuels  innovation  and  amplifies  the  economic  impact  of 
creativity. Increased CCS productivity supports local, regional and national 
economies and strengthens Europe’s position in global creative markets.    
•  Greater  inclusivity  of  the  CCS  and  social  cohesion:  Inclusive  policy 
processes  ensure  the  representation  of  minorities  and  disadvantaged 
groups, thereby supporting social cohesion. Equitable access to the CCS – 
including for the most vulnerable and under-represented segments of the 
population  (e.g.,  minorities,  people  with  disabilities)  -  is  supported  by 
inclusive  education  and  participatory  policymaking.  Artistic  freedom 
ensures  that  all  voices  have  equal  opportunities  to  contribute  to  cultural 
narratives. 

•  Increased accessibility to the CCS and promotion of cultural diversity: 
Broader and more equitable access to cultural opportunities is supported by 
administrative  simplification,  training,  and  infrastructure.  This  increased 
accessibility results from equal access to education and Public Employment 
Services,  which,  alongside  the  protection  of  freedom  of  expression, 
guarantee broader participation and cultural representation. 

•  Green  transition  and  environmental  responsibility:  Sustainable 
production and consumption practices reduce the environmental impact of 
CCS  activities.  The  CCS  also  play  a  key  role  in  raising  awareness  on 
climate action and shaping consumption patterns in a more environmentally 
responsible direction. 

129 

 
 
 
To  support  analysis,  Table  9  below  provides  a  summary  of  the  emerging 
opportunities for the future of the CCS, along with the enabling factors elaborated 
by the research team for their realisation. The third column in the table shows the 
CEP  2021-2027  priorities  aligned  with  each  opportunity  and  their  enabling 
factors, highlighting the current themes on which the EC Programme is primarily 
focused and their consistency with the identified opportunities. 

Emerging 
opportunities 

Enabling factors 

Priorities of the 
CEP 2021-2027 

a.  Technological 
innovation and 
creative 
acceleration 

b.  Employment 
growth and 
increased 
qualification of 
the workforce 

Investment in R&D and digital 

Support for experimentation and 

Strong IP frameworks for AI-generated 

• 
infrastructure. 
• 
content. 
• 
prototyping (e.g., through innovation hubs and 
incubators). 
• 
Targeted funding and incentives for CCS 
businesses to adopt AI, VR, and AR solutions. 
•  Digital skills training aligned with 
sectoral needs. 
• 
Improved access to specialist education. 
• 
Labour market policies supporting new 
roles and recognition of new and hybrid skill 
sets. 
• 
Public-private partnerships for upskilling. 
• 
Tailored financial instruments (e.g., 
microcredit, guarantees) for small CCS actors 
and freelancers. 

c.  Cross-sectoral 
spillovers and 
increased 
global 
competitiveness 

d.  Greater 

inclusivity of 
the CCS and 
social cohesion 

Interdisciplinary funding calls. 
Policy incentives for creative-tech 

• 
• 
integration. 
• 
Support for removing regulatory and 
fiscal barriers to international trade in cultural 
goods and services. 
• 
Promotion of artist mobility and 
international cultural exchange through visa 
facilitation and residency programmes. 
• 
Equitable access to education and 
training. 
•  Anti-discrimination policies in 
employment. 

130 

Promoting 
Innovation and 
Digital 
Transition. 

Promoting 
Innovation and 
Digital 
Transition. 

Fostering the 
Competitiveness 
of the Cultural 
and Creative 
Sectors. 

Fostering the 
Competitiveness 
of the Cultural 
and Creative 
Sectors. 

Encouraging 
International 
Cooperation and 
Mobility. 

Audience 
Development and 
Engagement. 

 
 
 
 
 
Institutionalised stakeholder participation 

• 
in CCS policy development at all levels. 
• 
Inclusive policymaking and 
representation, with targeted support for under-
represented segments of the population and 
workforce diversity. 

•  Administrative simplification for artists 
and SMEs. 
•  Availability of cultural infrastructure and 
public spaces. 
•  Access to guidance, facilities, and 
counselling. 

• 
• 
• 

Incentives for sustainable production. 
Eco-certification schemes. 
Funding for green innovation in the CCS. 

Table 9 – Emerging opportunities for the future of the CCS. 

Enhancing 
Inclusion and 
Gender Equality. 

Protecting and 
Promoting 
Cultural 
Diversity and 
Heritage. 

Audience 
Development and 
Engagement. 
Supporting 
Green and 
Sustainable 
Practices. 

e.  Increased 

accessibility to 
the CCS and 
promotion of 
cultural 
diversity 

f.  Green 

transition and 
environmental 
responsibility 

On  the  side  of  risks,  the  following  key  challenges  emerged  from  the  foresight 
analysis regarding the future of the CCS: 

•  Erosion  of  global  cultural  trade:  Geopolitical  fragmentation  limits 
international 
the  rise  of 
trade  and  cultural  exchange.  Moreover, 
protectionist policies, regulatory barriers, and restricted mobility of cultural 
goods  and  workers  pose  barriers  to  the  entry  of  emerging  creators  and 
reduces sector dynamism. 

•  Displacement  and  deskilling  of  the  cultural  and  creative  workforce: 
The  spread  of  AI  and  automation  displaces  jobs  without  adequate 
compensation through new roles, leading to under-recognition and under-
compensation of human creators. Over-reliance on AI deepens the digital 
divide  and  restricts  access  for  professionals  with  lower  digital  literacy. 
Platform  centralisation  prioritises  popular  content  over  diversity,  while 
artists and cultural workers experience poor working conditions and lack 
representation. 

•  Cultural exclusion and environmental neglect: There is a decline in the 
representation and inclusion of minorities and marginalised groups, partly 
due  to  weak  local  policy  support  for  access  to  services  and  training. 
Moreover, populist ideologies at local, regional, national and international 
lack  of  coordinated 
levels  suppress  freedom  of  expression.  The 
international  action  on  climate  change  weakens  the  green  transition, 

131 

 
 
 
 
 
allowing environmentally harmful production  and  consumption practices 
to persist. 

•  Algorithmic bias and decline in cultural diversity: Bias in AI algorithms 
reinforces  dominant  languages  and  cultures,  marginalising  others.  This 
results  in  reduced  content  diversity,  partly  due  to  biased  datasets,  and 
constraints on freedom of expression. On the consumer side, VR/AR tool 
have high costs and technical barriers that exacerbate cultural exclusion and 
inequality,  leading  to  fragmented  and  diminished  audience  engagement. 
Overall, cultural innovation and creativity decline. 

•  Weakening of the CCS’s socioeconomic contribution: Reduced cross-
sector innovation and productivity in the CCS diminish its contribution to 
GDP,  inclusion,  and  well-being.  Societal  cultural  disengagement  grows, 
accompanied  by  a  loss  of  community  value.  Disparities  and  inequalities 
increase due to limited access and opportunities in the CCS. 

Regarding the opportunities, Table 10 below provides a summary of the potential 
risks foreseen for the future of the CCS in light of the priorities of the CEP 2021-
2027, along with proposed mitigating measures to address them. 

Emerging risks 

Mitigation factors 

Strengthening EU cultural diplomacy 

Securing cultural exceptions in trade 

• 
and global cooperation. 
• 
agreements. 
•  Harmonising cross-border legal 
frameworks. 
• 
emerging talents.  

Providing access pathways for 

•  Promoting human-centred and 

ethically governed AI. 

•  Ensuring fair remuneration and 

• 

copyright protection. 
Investing in digital skills and lifelong 
learning. 

•  Supporting decentralised platforms and 

content discovery tools. 

Priorities of the 
CEP 2021-2027 
Fostering the 
Competitiveness 
of the Cultural 
and Creative 
Sectors. 

Encouraging 
International 
Cooperation and 
Mobility. 

Promoting 
Innovation and 
Digital 
Transition. 

Fostering the 
Competitiveness 
of the Cultural 
and Creative 
Sectors. 

•  Mainstreaming diversity and inclusion 
across all CCS support schemes. 

•  Safeguarding cultural rights and artistic 

Enhancing 
Inclusion and 
Gender Equality. 

freedom. 

132 

a.  Erosion of 
global cultural 
trade  

b.  Displacement 
and deskilling of 
the cultural and 
creative 
workforce 

c.  Cultural 
exclusion and 
environmental 
neglect 

 
 
 
 
 
•  Strengthening funding for minority-led 

• 

initiatives. 
Implementing green standards and fund 
eco-innovation. 

Supporting 
Green and 
Sustainable 
Practices. 

•  Enhancing multilateral cooperation on 

CCS sustainability. 

d.  Algorithmic 
bias and decline 
in cultural 
diversity 

e.  Weakening of 
the CCS’s 
socioeconomic 
contribution 

•  Supporting inclusive, multilingual 
content and datasets, and ensuring 
transparency in algorithmic curation. 

•  Developing ethical standards for 

immersive technologies (e.g., VR). 

•  Funding cross-cultural and 

experimental creative projects. 
•  Encouraging ethical and inclusive 

technology development. 

•  Supporting R&D in culture-tech 

innovation. 

• 

Integrating the CCS into national and 
EU innovation and recovery strategies. 

•  Quantifying and promoting the socio-

economic value of culture. 

•  Embedding the CCS in local and/or 
regional broader development 
strategies. 
Increasing awareness of the CCS as 
key contributors to inclusion and well-
being. 

• 

Encouraging 
International 
Cooperation and 
Mobility. 

Protecting and 
Promoting 
Cultural 
Diversity and 
Heritage. 
Protecting and 
Promoting 
Cultural 
Diversity and 
Heritage. 

Promoting 
Innovation and 
Digital 
Transition. 

Audience 
Development and 
Engagement. 

Fostering the 
Competitiveness 
of the Cultural 
and Creative 
Sectors. 

Strengthening 
European 
Identity and 
Values. 

Table 10 - Emerging risks for the future of the CCS, and relevant mitigation measures. 

133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.5 Preparedness of local and regional public authorities to future 
trends  of  the  Cultural  and  Creative  Sectors  and  areas  for 
improvement 

In  light  of  the  considerations  presented  by  the  foresight  analysis  and  the 
subsequent identification of possible future risks and opportunities for the CCS, 
this section provides a comparison between the current level of preparedness at 
the regional level and the most significant trends shaping the future of the CCS. 
This comparison will thus serve to identify currently perceived gaps in addressing 
critical dynamics at the regional level and, consequently, offer useful insights for 
policy analysis in the creative and cultural fields. 

The investigation into regional preparedness for future trends is supported by data 
collected through the two surveys launched within the framework of this study. 
The responses offered by the two samples of respondents (i.e., CEP and non-CEP 
recipients) have been merged to provide a comprehensive overview of opinions 
at the European level.  

The following figures (Figures 42, 43 and 44) summarise the perceptions of CEP 
and  non-CEP  recipients  who  participated  in  the  surveys  regarding  the 
preparedness  of  their  regions  for  future  trends  related  to  technological 
advancement, global shifts, and local and/or regional dynamics, respectively. The 
responses are presented by geographical area of the respondents.  

134 

 
 
 
Figure 42 - Perception of regional preparedness to adapt to technological advancement by EU and non-EU 
macro-regions in the CCS (CEP and non-CEP recipients). 

Figure 43 - Perception of regional preparedness to adapt to global shifts by EU and non-EU macro-regions in 
the CCS (CEP and non-CEP recipients). 

135 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 44 - Perception of regional preparedness to adapt to local and/or regional dynamics by EU and non-EU 
macro-regions in the CCS (CEP and non-CEP recipients). 

According to the figures above, the following observations can be made: 

•  Concerning  future  trends  related  to  technological  advancement,  in  a 
sample of 202 respondents, exactly half (101) consider their region as “not 
so much prepared” for future trends impacting the CCS. This suggests a 
widespread  perception of insufficient  readiness to  adapt to  technological 
change,  which  may  indicate  gaps  in  digital  infrastructure,  innovation 
strategies,  or  the  integration  of  new  technologies  within  local  and/or 
regional  cultural  and  creative  ecosystems.  More  specifically,  this 
perception is most prevalent amongst respondents in Central and Eastern 
Europe (36 out of 59 respondents). Conversely, around 35% of the entire 
sample (71 respondents) perceive their region as “quite prepared” or “very 
well  prepared”  for  such  trends,  with  the  highest  proportion  registered  in 
Southern Europe (41.9%) and Northern Europe (43.6%).  

•  On future trends related to global shifts, the survey results show an even 
greater perception of unpreparedness. Approximately 56% of respondents 
(113 mentions) believe their region is “not so much prepared” for global 
shifts,  compared  to  50%  (101)  for  technological  advancement.  This 
sentiment is consistent across all EU macro-regions, except for Southern 
Europe, which, similar to technological advancement, records the highest 

136 

 
 
 
 
 
proportion  of  respondents  considering  their  region  “quite  prepared”  or 
“very well prepared” to adapt to global shifts (22 mentions, corresponding 
to  51%).  Conversely,  and  consistent  with  the  previous  dimension, 
respondents  from  Central  and  Eastern  Europe  most  often  perceive  their 
region as ‘not prepared at all’ to adapt to future trends in the CCS related 
to global  shifts. This  may  reflect  the  region’s  greater  exposure  to  recent 
geopolitical  tensions,  such  as  those  related  to  the  Russian  aggression 
against Ukraine, migration pressures, and energy instability, all of which 
are rapidly reshaping regional priorities and capacities. 

•  On trends concerning local and/or regional dynamics, a more balanced 
situation emerges between respondents feeling prepared and those feeling 
unprepared, reflecting a slightly more positive assessment compared to the 
previous two dimensions. Specifically, 126 mentions indicate feeling “not 
prepared  at  all”  or  “not  so  much  prepared”,  while  76  mentions  reflect 
feeling “quite prepared” or “very well prepared”, corresponding to 62% and 
38%,  respectively.  As  with  the  previous  dimensions,  Southern  Europe 
stands  out  with  a  more  optimistic  outlook,  where  49%  of  respondents 
express  positive  preparedness  compared  to  51%  who  feel  unprepared. 
Across the rest of Europe, the perception remains predominantly negative. 
This  points  to  the  need  for  targeted  efforts  to  strengthen  local  and/or 
regional capacities in most EU regions. 

The  elaboration  of  the  survey  responses  on  the  perceived  level  of  regional 
preparedness for  future trends in the CCS highlights the following aspects and 
offers points for reflection on areas for improvement: 

•  In  all  three  dimensions  investigated  (i.e.,  technological  advancement,  global 
shifts, local and/or regional dynamics), a higher percentage of CEP and non-
CEP recipients consider their region to be unprepared to adapt to future trends 
in the CCS than those who perceive their region as prepared for change. 

•  The dimension for which CEP and non-CEP recipients across Europe perceive 
their region as least prepared in the near future is “global shifts”. In particular, 
this perception of not being prepared to adapt to future global shifts is most 
widespread  in  Central  and  Eastern  Europe,  which  may  reflect  the  region’s 
greater  exposure  to  recent  geopolitical  tensions  that  are  rapidly  reshaping 
regional priorities and capacities. 

•  Conversely,  the  dimension  that  more  respondents  consider  their  region 
prepared to address is local and/or regional dynamics, highlighting the greater 

137 

 
 
proximity of LRAs to  the specific  changes in their areas. In  this  dimension, 
Southern  Europe  stands  out  with  a  more  optimistic  outlook,  where  49%  of 
respondents  express  positive  preparedness  compared  to  51%  who  feel 
unprepared. 

•  The  European  macro-region  that  CEP  and  non-CEP  recipients  generally 
perceive  as  best  prepared  to  adapt  to  future  trends  in  the  CCS  is  Southern 
Europe,  thus  offering  a  potential  example  of  increased  local  and/or  regional 
government  orientation  and  attention  to  future  challenges  and  opportunities 
across the dimensions of technological advancement, global shifts, and local 
and/or regional dynamics affecting the CCS. 

These  findings  suggest  a  clear  need  for  differentiated,  region-sensitive  policy 
strategies within the CCS. The widespread perception of unpreparedness across 
Europe highlights systemic gaps in resilience, uptake of innovation, and adaptive 
capacity of the CCS that require targeted investment and strategic support. At the 
same  time,  the  relatively  stronger  sense  of  preparedness  in  Southern  Europe, 
particularly in adapting to local and/or regional dynamics, suggests that proximity 
to place-based issues, stronger institutional alignment, or better integration of the 
CCS  into  regional  policy  agendas  may  serve  as  a  model  for  others.  For 
policymakers,  these  insights  underscore  the  importance  of  enhancing  cross-
regional  cooperation,  reinforcing  digital  and  innovation  infrastructures,  and 
fostering  locally  grounded,  forward-looking  governance  models  to  ensure  the 
CCS  across  Europe  is  better  equipped  to  face  future  global  and  technological 
disruptions.  

138 

 
 
 
Part 5: Recommendations  

This chapter presents a set of evidence-based recommendations addressed to the 
EU institutions, the EU Member States, and LRAs, with the aim of improving the 
effectiveness and impact of the CEP at local and regional level across Europe. 
They have been designed to support the Programme in reaching its full potential 
as a key instrument to foster dynamic, inclusive, and resilient cultural and creative 
ecosystems. 

The  recommendations  are  informed  by  a  comprehensive  methodological 
framework, which includes in-depth case studies, surveys targeting both CEP and 
non-CEP  recipients,  and  statistical  analyses  of  official  EU  data  on  programme 
participation.  The  literature  review  carried  out  during  the  initial  phases  of  the 
study has also played a crucial role in contextualising the findings. It incorporates 
academic publications, policy reports, and practitioner insights from across the 
European CCS, including reflections on previous CEP implementation and related 
EU  funding  mechanisms.  A  valuable  contribution  to  this  chapter  stems  from 
interviews  with  representatives  of  the  LRAs  involved  in  the  six  case  studies, 
which  provided  a  grounded  understanding  of  the  practical  challenges,  success 
factors and needs experienced at place-based level. Additionally, the perspectives 
offered by two  DG  EAC officers  of  the EC  contributed  by  providing  essential 
insights into the current implementation and future strategic direction of the CEP.  

These  remarks  are  especially  pertinent  in  light  of  the  ongoing  discussions 
surrounding the  next  Multiannual Financial Framework, as  the  continued 
standalone  positioning  of  Creative  Europe  within  the  EU  budgetary 
structure seems to be subject to adaptation. In its recent Communication “A 
dynamic  EU  budget  for  the  priorities  of  the  future:  the  Multiannual  Financial 
Framework 2028-2034”117, the EC proposes the establishment of a new integrated 
programme, AgoraEU, which would merge Creative Europe with the Citizens, 
Equality,  Rights  and  Values  Programme  (CERV).  This  proposed  shift  aims  to 
support  a  more  flexible,  strategic,  and  policy-based  EU  budget,  to  avoid  the 
multiplication  of  instruments  that  cannot  operate  synergistically  due  to  being 
governed  by  their  own  rules  and  procedures,  thus  complicating  coordination. 
While  this  integration  may  bring  new  opportunities  for  synergies  and  cross-
sectoral  partnerships  -  especially  between  cultural,  civic,  and  democratic 
initiatives - it also raises important considerations regarding the distinct identity, 
visibility, and operational priorities of the current CEP.  

117 European Commission. 2025. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, 
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A dynamic EU budget for the 
priorities  of  the  future:  the  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  2028-2034.  Brussels:  COM(2025)  570  final. 
Accessed 
https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/26ff3426-b1db-44d5-ad9c-
a646febb3222_en?filename=COM_2025_570_1_EN_ACT_part1_v6.pdf.  

2025. 

July 

18, 

139 

 
 
 
 
 
This  evolving  context  underscores  the  need  for  forward-looking  and  adaptable 
recommendations  -  not  only  to  safeguard  the  long-term  effectiveness  and 
relevance of the Programme, but also to ensure the proper integration of LRAs. 
Strengthening  the  role  of  LRAs  and  advocating  for  their  involvement  in  the 
Programme  is  crucial to support the development and sustainability  of cultural 
and  creative  ecosystems  embedded  in  diverse  territories,  while  also  fostering 
meaningful international cooperation partnerships across Europe.  

The recommendations outlined below are structured around a three-fold strategic 
approach, reflecting the key areas where action is most urgently needed: 

•  Enhancing  participation  and  accessibility:  Promote  wider  and  more 
equitable access to the CEP by investing in awareness-raising initiatives, 
simplifying  administrative  procedures,  and  reinforcing  capacity-building 
that  are  currently 
measures,  particularly 
underrepresented in the Programme. 

regions  and  cities 

in 

•  Leveraging existing EU frameworks and synergies: Maximise the value 
of  established  EU  mechanisms  (e.g.,  National  Creative  Europe  Desks, 
European  Digital  Innovation  Hubs,  the  European  Capitals  of  Culture 
initiative),  to  strengthen  outreach,  support  services,  and  programme 
visibility,  thus  improving  both  access  to  and  the  impact  of  CEP-funded 
projects. 

•  Fostering  innovation  and  cross-sectoral  integration:  Expand  the 
conceptual  scope  of  CCS  projects  through  cross-fertilisation  with  other 
policy  domains,  including  inclusion  and  cultural  rights,  sustainability, 
territorial  cohesion,  economic  and  social  development,  and  the  digital 
transition. This approach aims to stimulate innovation and reinforce the role 
of the CCS in addressing broader challenges. 

5.1 Enhancing participation and accessibility 

Recommendation  1.  The  EU,  together  with  its  Member  States,  shall  make 
greater efforts to raise awareness of the CEP, with targeted campaigns and local 
contact  points  in  underrepresented  European  regions,  with  special  attention  to 
remote areas and small communities.  

Survey data presented in Part 2 reveal a persistent awareness gap: roughly 40% 
of respondents - especially those in smaller municipalities, remote regions, and 
parts of Western Europe - were unfamiliar with the CEP. This deficit is striking, 
as awareness is a prerequisite for participation. Without clear information on calls, 
eligibility  criteria,  and  partnership  opportunities,  LRAs  are  unlikely  to  even 
consider applying for CEP funding. The resulting under-representation of certain 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
territories not  only  skews  the  geographic  distribution  of  CEP  benefits  but  also 
undermines 
fostering  balanced  cultural 
development across Europe. 

the  Programme’s  objective  of 

To  close  this  gap,  it  is  crucial  to  intensify  outreach  efforts  through  targeted 
communication campaigns and decentralised contact points. By way of example, 
National  Creative  Europe  Desks,  along  with  decentralised  contact  points 
embedded in regional administrations, libraries, or cultural hubs can provide face-
to-face  guidance,  while  digital  roadshows  can  effectively  reach  even  the  most 
remote  areas.  Combining  these  efforts  with  peer-learning  networks,  in  which 
experienced LRAs mentor newcomers, would ensure that information is not only 
disseminated but translated into concrete, high-quality applications - ultimately 
broadening and diversifying participation in the CEP. 

Recommendation 2. The EU shall further ensure administrative simplifications 
across both the CEP funding application and implementation phases to increase 
participation in the Programme.  

According to primary data presented in Part 2, administrative workload is the 
most frequently cited barrier throughout the Creative Europe lifecycle: a majority 
of  CEP  and  non-CEP  recipients  reported  it  as  a  challenge,  both  during  the 
submission  phase  and  the  project  implementation  and  reporting.  While  some 
improvements  have  been  achieved  in  the  2021-2027  funding  period,  further 
enhancements are still needed. 

Targeted  procedural  simplification  would  facilitate  greater  access  to  the  CEP 
without  compromising  accountability  or  project  quality.  Building  on  the  EU 
experience with lump-sum grants, simplified cost options, and two-stage calls, the 
EC  could  pilot  proportionate  application  templates  for  low-value  or  first-time 
bids,  introduce  lighter  ex-ante  checks  for  LRAs  with  limited  budgets,  and 
streamline interim reporting by using interoperable data fields instead of narrative 
annexes.  Such  measures  would  make  it  easier  for  newcomer  LRAs  to  get 
involved,  enabling  them  to  test  innovative  cultural  actions  without  being 
overwhelmed by complex procedures, while gradually building in-house the skills 
needed to  manage such projects  effectively.  At the same time,  strong financial 
controls  would  remain  in  place  to  ensure  proper  use  of  funds.  More  balanced 
geographical  participation  would,  in  turn,  enhance  the  Programme’s  cohesion 
impact and ensure that cultural investment benefits citizens across all European 
regions. 

141 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recommendation  3.  LRAs,  in  partnership  with  Member  States,  shall  foster 
structured  and  continuous  professional  development  programmes  that  equip 
municipal  cultural  staff  with  up-to-date  skills  in  research,  project  design  and 
management,  digital  technologies,  and  sustainability,  thereby  increasing  their 
capacity to unlock the opportunities offered by the CEP. 

Limited staff resources and skills gaps are the second most frequent barrier to 
participation in Creative Europe, as indicated in Part 2 by the CEP and non-CEP 
recipients that contributed to the two surveys launched for the scope of this study. 
High  turnover,  short-term  contracts,  and  the  widespread  outsourcing  of  digital 
tasks  further  erode  institutional  memory,  leaving  many  smaller  municipalities 
unprepared to develop successful proposals. 

Establishing  structured  and  continuous  professional  development  programmes 
would address this systemic weakness. By pooling national and regional training 
budgets, Member States and LRAs could develop modular curricula covering EU 
cultural  policy,  research  methodologies,  project  design  and  monitoring,  digital 
tools,  and  green  practices.  They  could  be  delivered  through  a  blend  of  online 
courses,  in-person  workshops,  and  short  secondments  to  experienced  cultural 
agencies. Certification pathways and micro-credentials would recognise learning 
outcomes and motivate staff to update their skills, while peer-mentoring networks, 
pairing  high-capacity  cities  with  smaller  towns,  would  facilitate  real-time 
knowledge transfer. 

A  workforce  equipped  with  up-to-date  competences  would  reduce  reliance  on 
external consultants, improve project quality, and ensure that cultural departments 
can  fully  exploit  the  range  of  Creative  Europe  opportunities,  from  cooperative 
projects  and  mobility  schemes  to  cross-sectoral  innovation  partnerships, 
ultimately strengthening the Programme’s territorial reach and long-term impact. 

5.2 Leveraging existing EU frameworks and synergies 

Recommendation 4. The EU and its Member States shall work toward a more 
equitable and needs-based funding model for National Creative Europe Desks, to 
ensure adequate outreach, training, or personalised support across all EU and non-
EU countries eligible for CEP funding. 

As discussed in Part 1, National Creative Europe Desks play a pivotal role in 
the Programme’s hybrid governance model, operating alongside the EC to support 
applicants,  disseminate  information,  and  foster  local  engagement  with  CEP 
beneficiaries. These Desks are currently co-financed at a ratio of 60% by the EU 
and 40% by Member States, with funding allocations to countries primarily based 
on GDP and population size. 

142 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
However, as underscored in the interview with the Head of Unit of DG EAC of 
the EC on 21 May 2025, this formula fails to fully capture the diversity of national 
contexts, the varying maturity of the CCS, and differing administrative capacities 
across  participating  countries.  As  a  result,  the  current  funding  model  may 
disadvantage  countries  with  underdeveloped  CCS  ecosystems, 
limited 
institutional  infrastructure  and  capacity  to  support  potential  and  existing 
Programme beneficiaries. 

To address these disparities, a renewed funding model should integrate sector-
specific  indicators  (e.g.,  CCS  employment  levels,  number  of  active  cultural 
enterprises, prior participation rates in CEP calls, institutional capacity metrics) 
into the allocation formula. This more nuanced  and needs-based approach would 
ensure  that  National  Desks  are  appropriately  resourced  not  only  to  assist 
prospective  applicants  but  also  to  provide  ongoing  support  to  beneficiaries 
throughout the project  lifecycle, thereby  strengthening  CEP’s outreach,  equity, 
and overall impact across Europe. 

Recommendation  5.  Member  States, in cooperation with  the  EU  and  LRAs, 
shall  establish  shared-service  mechanisms  through  which  cultural  agencies  of 
larger  authorities  and  the  European  Digital  Innovation  Hubs  (EDIHs)  provide 
managerial  and  technical  expertise  to  smaller  LRAs.  This  support  should  be 
delivered through structured training, peer learning, and facilitated inclusion in 
transnational consortia, with the aim of strengthening smaller LRAs’ participation 
in the CEP. 

By  analysing  data  on  the  organisations  that  secured  CEP  funding,  it  is  worth 
noting that cultural agencies established by large municipalities and regions are 
significantly  more  successful  in  securing  Creative  Europe  grants  than  smaller 
LRAs (see Part 1 for further details). This is because such agencies typically have 
dedicated  teams  for  EU  project  design,  financial  management,  and  digital 
outreach. Smaller LRAs, by contrast, often rely on one or two cultural officers 
who lack the time and specialised expertise to prepare competitive proposals or 
participate  in  transnational  consortia.  This  capacity  gap  perpetuates  an  uneven 
territorial  distribution  of  CEP  resources  and  limits  the  Programme’s  cohesion 
impact. 

A  shared-service  model  would  help  address  this  imbalance  without  requiring 
every small municipality to establish its own cultural agency, which is an option 
that is often financially unviable. Member States, in cooperation with the EC and 
LRAs, could formalise partnerships in which the cultural agencies of larger cities 
and  EDIHs  act  as  regional  competence  centres.  Through  structured  training 
cycles,  peer-learning  schemes,  technical  assistance  facility  for  first-time 
applicants  and  brokerage  services  that  connect  small  LRAs  with  ongoing 

143 

 
 
 
 
 
 
consortia,  these  centres  would  provide  hands-on  managerial  and  technological 
support  at  key  moments  (e.g.,  during  proposal  drafting,  digital  content 
development, compliance reporting). Beyond improving success rates for under-
resourced  territories,  such  arrangements  would  promote  knowledge  transfer 
within regions, reduce duplication of effort, and make more efficient use of public 
funding dedicated to the CCS. 

Recommendation 6. The EU, together with LRAs, shall continue to promote and 
capitalise  on  the  European  Capitals  of  Culture  (ECOC)  initiative  as  a  proven 
driver  of  territorial  development,  administrative  innovation,  and  inclusive 
economic growth, especially in medium- and small-sized cities. 

Since  its  inception  in  1985,  the  ECOC,  funded  under  the  Culture  strand  of 
Creative Europe, has consistently demonstrated its capacity to catalyse territorial 
development. As discussed in Part 1, recent editions confirm that medium- and 
even smaller-sized cities can secure the title. By way of example, Matera, Rijeka, 
and  Veszprém  have  all  leveraged  their  designation  to  boost  tourism,  expand 
cultural  infrastructure,  and  stimulate  local  creative  industries.  Importantly,  the 
process itself is transformative: municipalities preparing an ECOC candidacy - 
even if ultimately unsuccessful, as illustrated by Faro’s 2027 bid - often report 
lasting  improvements  in  administrative  coordination,  stakeholder  engagement, 
and strategic vision for the cultural sector. 

Maintaining and strengthening EU and LRA investment in the ECOC initiative 
therefore offers a twofold benefit. First, winning cities gain a powerful branding 
tool that attracts visitors and private investment well beyond the cultural domain. 
Second,  the  competitive  bidding  process  drives  public-sector  innovation  by 
encouraging local authorities to map cultural assets, forge new partnerships, and 
embed culture in long-term development plans. For these reasons, it is crucial to 
continue promoting ECOC vigorously and to ensure that smaller cities receive the 
guidance and resources needed to participate, thereby maximising the initiative’s 
economic and social impact across Europe. 

5.3 Fostering innovation and cross-sectoral integration 

Recommendation 7. The EU shall accord greater prominence to sustainability, 
inclusion, gender equality, and cultural rights within the CEP, by facilitating their 
effective  integration  into  cultural  projects  led  by  LRAs  through  structured 
platforms  for  exchanging  best  practices,  theoretical  frameworks,  and  scalable 
implementation models. 

As  discussed  in  Part  2,  although  survey  respondents  rate  environmental 
sustainability, inclusion, gender equality and cultural rights as highly aligned with 

144 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
their local agendas (Figure 37), these themes rarely emerge as primary priorities 
when  LRAs  translate  ideas  into  Creative  Europe  proposals  (Figure  36). 
Qualitative  feedback  suggest  two  underlying  reasons:  first,  these  cross-cutting 
objectives  are  often  framed  in  broad  policy  language  that  local  practitioners 
struggle to translate into concrete project-level actions; second, there is a lack of 
accessible  models  demonstrating  how  to  integrate,  for  example,  gender-
responsive budgeting or low-carbon event design into CEP projects. 

To  bridge  this  gap,  the  EU  should  give  these  themes  greater  prominence  in 
programme guidance  and  evaluation criteria  and, crucially,  facilitate structured 
knowledge-exchange platforms. A curated repository of scalable case studies, 
thematic  webinars  connecting  LRAs  with  specialist  non-governmental 
organisations,  and  peer-review  clinics  where  draft  proposals  are  benchmarked 
against best practices would provide the practical tools that smaller authorities 
currently lack. Embedding such mechanisms within the existing National Creative 
Europe  Desks,  or  in  partnership  with  initiatives  such  as  the  New  European 
Bauhaus and the Gender Equality Strategy, would help local cultural departments 
move  from  abstract  commitments  to  concrete,  fundable  projects,  thereby 
expanding the Programme’s social and environmental impact across the EU. 

Horizon Europe’s systematic approach  to  gender  equality  plans  offers  a  useful 
precedent:  by  requiring  clear,  operational  measures  and  showcasing  compliant 
examples, this research framework has accelerated uptake amongst institutions of 
varying sizes. Adopting a similar approach within Creative Europe would enable 
local  cultural  departments  to  translate  commitments  into  actionable  projects, 
broadening the Programme’s social and environmental impact across the EU. 

Recommendation  8.  The  EU,  its  Member  States  and  LRAs,  shall  actively 
promote and increase investment in hybrid digital-cultural projects, which have 
the potential to broaden audiences, drive innovation and generate economic value 
at place-based level. 

Digital-cultural  projects,  ranging  from  immersive  heritage  experiences  and 
interactive museums to AI-assisted performances and XR-based storytelling, are 
rapidly transforming how people access and engage with culture and creativity. 
These projects have the potential to attract younger and more diverse audiences, 
extend  the  geographical  reach  of  events  through  streaming  and  virtual 
participation, and generate positive spill-over effects in local creative economies, 
including software development and tourism.  

Targeted public investment can unlock this latent potential. By co-financing pilot 
schemes,  match-funding  digital  infrastructure,  and  encouraging  cross-sector 
consortia that bring together cultural operators, tech SMEs, and universities, the 

145 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EU and its Member States can lower entry barriers for municipalities. Meanwhile, 
LRAs can catalyse local and/or regional ecosystems by providing testbeds, open 
data,  and  maker-spaces,  ensuring  that  the  economic  value  generated  remains 
within the territory.  

Recommendation  9.  LRAs  shall  establish  cross-departmental  governance 
mechanisms  to  ensure  that  cultural  objectives  are  fully  integrated  into  their 
regional innovation and resilience strategies. 

As  discussed  in  Part  2,  Smart  Specialisation  Strategies  (S3)  are  the  primary 
instrument  through  which  regions  identify  and  coordinate  the  sectors  that  will 
drive  long-term  development,  aligning  research,  industry,  digitalisation,  and 
sustainability  priorities  while  channelling  ERDF  and  other  EU  funds  into  a 
coherent  investment  portfolio.  For  culture  and  the  creative  industries  to  fully 
contribute to this place-based growth model, they must be explicitly embedded in 
S3  and  related  resilience  plans.  Without  this  integration,  cultural  projects  risk 
remaining  outside  the  strategic  frameworks  that  attract  political  support  and 
significant funding. 

In many regions, however, the units responsible for cultural policy are excluded 
from the S3 formulation process, leading to the omission of cultural objectives 
from the strategic documents that shape regional investment. LRAs can break this 
silo by  establishing  permanent  cross-departmental  governance mechanisms 
that  bring  together  culture,  economic  development,  digital,  and  environmental 
units.  Armed  with  evidence-based  narratives  showing  how  cultural  investment 
fosters  employment,  skills,  and  resilience,  these  bodies  can  secure  a  place  for 
culture  in  S3  and  other  development  strategies,  thus  unlocking  diversified 
financing and amplifying culture’s role in regional innovation. 

5.4 Overview of the recommendations addressed to the European 
Union  institutions,  the  Member  States,  and  local  and  regional 
public authorities 

The following table (Table 11) summarises the key recommendations stemming 
from the research carried out for the scope of this study to evaluate the impact of 
the CEP in cities and regions. It outlines the associated target audiences, relevant 
policy  areas,  priority  levels,  and  implementation  timeframes,  with  the  aim  of 
enhancing  dissemination,  clarity,  and  operational  value  for  institutional 
stakeholders (e.g., EU institutions) currently involved in shaping the post-2027 
Creative Europe and the next Multiannual Financial Framework (2028–2034). 

146 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Recommendation 

Intensify efforts to raise 
awareness of the CEP, with 
targeted campaigns and local 
contact points in 
underrepresented European 
regions, with special attention to 
remote areas and small 
communities. 
Ensure administrative 
simplifications across the CEP 
funding application and 
implementation phases for greater 
participation. 
Foster structured professional 
development to equip municipal 
cultural staff with up-to-date 
skills for CEP access and 
delivery. 
Develop a more equitable, needs-
based funding model for National 
Creative Europe Desks. 

Establish shared-service 
mechanisms so larger cultural 
agencies and European Digital 
Innovation Hubs (EDIHs) support 
smaller LRAs.  

Continue promoting and 
capitalising on the European 
Capitals of Culture (ECOC) 
initiative as a driver of territorial 
development and innovation. 
Prioritise sustainability, inclusion, 
gender equality, and cultural 
rights in CEP projects led by 
LRAs, with structured platforms 
for best practice exchange. 

Policy area 

Priority 
level 

Timeframe 

Programme 
management, 
outreach and 
communication 

High 

Short-term 

Target 
audience 

EC, 
Member 
States, 
National 
Creative 
Europe 
Desks 

EC 

Programme 
design and 
management 

High 

Short-term 

LRAs, 
Member 
States 

Capacity-
building, skills 
development 

High 

Medium-
term 

EC, 
Member 
States 

Member 
States, 
EC, LRAs 

EC, LRAs 

EC, LRAs 

Programme 
design, funding 
model 
Capacity-
building, 
governance 
model to ensure 
partnership and 
synergies 

Strategic 
coherence, 
place-based 
development 

Strategic 
coherence, EU 
and place-based 
development 

Innovation, 
digital 
transformation, 
CCS 
competitiveness 

Strategic 
coherence, 
governance 

High 

Medium-
term 

Medium 

Medium-
term 

Medium  Long-term 

High 

Medium-
term 

Medium 

Medium-
term 

Medium  Long-term 

Increase investment in hybrid 
digital-cultural projects to drive 
innovation and economic value at 
local and regional levels. 

EC, 
Member 
States, 
LRAs 

Establish cross-departmental 
governance to integrate cultural 
objectives in regional innovation 
and resilience strategies. 

LRAs 

Table 11 - List of recommendations for EU institutions, Member States and LRAs 

147 

 
 
 
 
Part 6: Conclusions  

This chapter presents a summary of the key findings of this study regarding the 
implementation of the CEP at local and regional levels across Europe, and offers 
strategic recommendations to improve the Programme, particularly in light of the 
forthcoming EU Multiannual Financial Framework (2028-2034) and the broader 
transformation of EU cohesion and cultural policies. The conclusions presented 
as follows are informed by a wide set of evidence, ranging from in-depth literature 
review and desk research to case studies and stakeholder consultations with e.g., 
representatives from organisations involved in managing CEP funding and EU 
representatives, to statistical analyses, all indicating that the CEP plays a vital role 
in  nurturing  the  CCS  at  place-based  level.  Yet,  persistent  disparities,  unequal 
access, and administrative burdens continue to limit the CEP’s full potential. 

The  evaluation  confirms  that  the  CEP  serves  as  a  cornerstone  of  EU  cultural 
policy,  reinforcing  European  values,  social  inclusion,  and  the  protection  and 
promotion  of  cultural  diversity.  It  achieves  this  by  promoting  international 
cooperation, enhancing skills in the CCS workforce, and stimulating innovation 
through  place-based  approaches.  Recognising  these  multidimensional  impacts, 
the role of LRAs emerges as crucial. Their proximity to citizens and embedded 
knowledge of local cultural ecosystems make them key partners in translating EU 
cultural priorities into results on the ground. 

Against this backdrop, the study focused on the active engagement of LRAs in 
the CEP. Their average participation rate in CEP-funded projects between 2014 
and 2024 was around 3.9%, with a slight increase of 0.8% observed in the current 
funding  period  (2021-2027).  Their  involvement  has  proven  to  be  highly 
impactful,  particularly  in  areas  such  as  project  coordination,  community 
engagement, and international collaboration. CEP’s role has been observed as a 
catalyst for place-based development and transnational cooperation. Through 
its funding, it stimulated international cooperation, new partnerships, community 
engagement,  and  contributed  to  upskill  the  CCS  workforce.  The  Programme 
empowered LRAs to leverage culture as a tool for socio-economic growth.  

Furthermore, the CEP successfully contributed to raise awareness on societal 
and  environmental  challenges  impacting  certain  territories  (e.g.,  natural 
disasters,  depopulation  of  remote  areas),  enhancing  the  value  of  culture  as  a 
vehicle  of  societal  and  environmental  transformation.  However,  participation 
varied significantly across Member States, with disparities in regional access due 
to  uneven  administrative  capacities  and  funding  awareness,  particularly  in 
underrepresented territories, including rural and remote areas. 

148 

 
 
 
 
 
 
In parallel, attention was placed on the barriers and difficulties encountered by 
LRAs  and  other  organisations  in  accessing  this  EU  funding.  While  procedural 
improvements  have  been  registered  in  the  current  funding  period  (2021-2027) 
compared to the previous one (2014-2020), several obstacles hinder broader LRA 
participation  in  the  CEP.  Amongst  them  are  the  complexity  of  the  application 
process,  lack  of  skilled  staff,  and  limited  financial  capacity  for  co-funding.  A 
persistent challenge is the administrative and technical capacity of LRAs to 
access  and  manage  CEP  funds.  Complex  procedures,  high  co-funding 
requirements,  and  limited  staff  training  continue  to  hinder  widespread 
participation, particularly in less developed regions. This underscores the need for 
a recalibration in future CEP design and implementation. 

The  lack  of  awareness  and  low  uptake  of  complementary  instruments  (e.g., 
InvestEU)  reveals  another  dimension  of  the  challenge.  Many  LRAs  rely 
predominantly on their own public budgets and display limited familiarity with 
blended or cross-sectoral forms of investment. This condition not only perpetuates 
funding inequality but also constrains broader strategic alignment with other EU 
objectives, including the green and digital transitions and the overarching goals 
of cohesion policy. 

Specific  sections  of  the  study  were  dedicated  to  the  analysis  of  the  possible 
strategic  synergies  and  the  importance  of  policy  coherence  with  other  EU 
priorities. Evidence points to the added value of better coordination between the 
CEP and other EU financial opportunities (e.g., ERDF, ESF+, Horizon Europe). 
In regions where such synergies were exploited, cultural investments translated 
more effectively into territorial development. 

Finally, the foresight analysis undertaken highlighted the growing influence of 
technological advancement, global shifts, and local and/or regional dynamics as 
trends  impacting  the  future  of  the  CCS.  Digital  transition,  environmental 
sustainability,  demographical  evolution  and  labour  market  shifts  can  represent 
both opportunities and threats for the sectors to be duly taken into consideration. 
Their preparedness for the future is uneven and some local actors, especially the 
less populous and less ready LRAs, necessitates national and European support. 

In  response  to  these  findings,  the  study  offers  several  forward-looking 
recommendations that must be considered in the design of the post-2027 CEP 
and  that  support  the  continuation  and  expansion  of  the  CEP  in  the  next  EU 
Multiannual Financial Framework (2028-2034). These include simplifying CEP 
application  and  implementation  frameworks,  reducing  administrative 
burdens, and tailoring technical assistance to the capacities of smaller or less-
experienced  LRAs,  especially  those  representing  rural  or  economically  weaker 
areas.  Capacity-building  initiatives  must  be  institutionalised  and  linked  to 

149 

 
 
 
 
 
 
continuous training cycles in EU project design, digital strategy, and sustainable 
development. National Creative Europe Desks should be better resourced across 
all eligible CEP countries and recognised as strategic intermediaries for increasing 
LRA  engagement,  with  an  expanded  role  in  outreach,  matchmaking,  and  local 
partnership building.  

A more robust territorial dimension of future CEP actions is also required. This 
includes the formal integration  of  cultural  strategies into regional development 
frameworks (e.g., Smart Specialisation Strategies), and the explicit labelling of 
culture as a driver of territorial cohesion in EU policy. The design phase of the 
post-2027 CEP should ensure structured LRA consultation processes, ensuring 
that regional voices help shape future programming. This would foster bottom-up 
innovation and strengthen the subsidiarity principle and place-based needs in the 
Programme’s priorities.  

Greater emphasis must also be placed on equity and inclusion between regions. 
The study confirms that while disparities in participation are acknowledged, their 
structural nature is often underestimated. Future action must redress this through 
differentiated  support,  including  more  flexible  co-funding  rates,  proportionate 
reporting  rules,  and  targeted  outreach  campaigns.  Special  attention  should  be 
given  to  rural  areas,  peripheral  regions,  and  smaller  municipalities  at  risk  of 
cultural  marginalisation,  ensuring  that  no  part  of  the  EU  cultural  and  creative 
landscape is left behind.  

Looking  ahead,  the  future  of  the  CEP  is  influenced  by  a  fast-evolving  policy 
framework. The EC’s proposal for the next EU Multiannual Financial Framework 
(2028-2034),  presented  on  16  July  2025,  introduces  AgoraEU,  a  new  EU 
financial instrument aimed at merging the CEP with the Citizens, Equality, Rights 
and Values Programme (CERV). By consolidating programmes around common 
policy objectives, AgoraEU aims to simplify operations and apply unified rules 
for beneficiaries. While this consolidation may bring efficiencies, it may also raise 
concerns about the potential loss of sector-specific focus and the weakening of 
cultural and creative governance. 

To  avoid  such  risks,  it  is  essential  to  maintain  the  CCS’  budgetary  visibility, 
policy autonomy, and territorial anchoring within this overarching framework. 
Any future transition to AgoraEU - or any similar instrument - must guarantee 
that culture and creativity remain a fully-fledged pillar of EU development, with 
LRAs holding a clear and resourced role.  

The  strategic  positioning  of  culture  and  creativity  in  the  next  EU  Multiannual 
Financial Framework thus must not be limited to symbolism or thematic tagging. 
To unlock its full socio-political potential, the EU must commit to increased and 

150 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
sustained  financing  for  cultural  and  creative  initiatives  across  all  regions, 
especially in places where culture and creativity represent the strongest asset for 
regeneration, innovation, and community well-being. An enlargement of the CEP 
budget,  including  enhanced  funding  for  National  Creative  Europe  Desks  and 
application  support  systems, 
transnational 
collaboration, mobility, and cultural and creative resilience should also address 
emerging policy issues, including climate awareness, AI adoption, and the digital 
divide.  

is  essential.  New  calls  for 

Finally, the results of this study should be integrated into future CEP evaluations 
and serve as a data-driven, grassroot-informed evidence base to help shape the 
next  generation  of  EU  cultural  and  creative  support  under  the  next  EU 
territorial 
Multiannual  Financial  Framework  (2028-2034),  ensuring 
participation is adequately reflected within broader EU funding frameworks.  

that 

In conclusion, while the CEP has already proven its transformative power, its full 
potential  depends  on  equitable  access,  territorial  sensitivity,  and  coherent 
integration  with  wider  EU  strategic  frameworks.  In  today’s  rapidly  changing 
context,  marked  by  geopolitical  tensions,  societal  polarisation,  environmental 
stress,  and  technological  acceleration,  culture  and  creativity  must  serve  as  a 
connective  tissue.  They  tie  Europe’s  shared  heritage  to  its  plural  present  and 
innovation-driven future. Strengthening the CEP and embedding it in the broader 
EU  development  agenda  is  not  only  an  institutional  choice,  but  a  cultural 
imperative.  

151 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex I – Bibliography 

Journal Articles  

AEA  Consulting.  2020.  Navigating  Uncertain  Times:  A  Scenario  Planning 
Toolkit for the Arts & Culture Sector. New York: Wallace Foundation. 

Almeida, V., Hoffmann, C., Königs, S., Moreno, Monroy A., Salazar-Lozada, M., 
and Terrero-Dávila, J. 2024. Geographic Inequalities in Accessibility of Essential 
Services. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 307. 
Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1815199X. 

Barnett, C. 2001. “Culture, policy, and subsidiarity in the European Union: from 
symbolic 
culture”. Political 
geography, 20(4), 405-426. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(01)00002-6.  

the  governmentalisation  of 

identity 

to 

Berezin,  M.,  &  Díez-Medrano,  J.  2008.  “Distance  matters:  Place,  political 
legitimacy  and  popular  support  for  European  integration”.  Comparative 
1-32. 
European 
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=8c879f7be00
b4b15c996a26abeb622c510fdc7d3.  

Politics, 

6, 

Boix-Domènech,  R.,  &  Rausell-Köster,  P.  2018.  “The  economic  impact  of  the 
creative  industry  in  the  European  Union”.  Drones  and  the  creative  industry: 
for  European  SMEs (pp.  19-36).  Cham:  Springer 
Innovative  strategies 
International Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95261-1_2.  

Caramiaux,  B.  2020.  The  Use  of  Artificial  Intelligence  in  the  Cultural  and 
Creative  Sectors.  Research  Report  for  the  CULT  Committee,  European 
Parliament. 

Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre. 2022. Creative Industries and the 
Climate  Emergency: 
PEC. 
https://pec.ac.uk/research_report_entr/creative-industries-and-the-climate-
emergency/. 

Zero.  London: 

The  Path 

to  Net 

Fancourt,  D.  &  Finn,  S..  2019.  Health  Evidence  Network  Synthesis  Report  67. 
What is the evidence on the role of the arts in improving health and well-being? 
A  scoping  review.  WHO  Regional  Office 
for  Europe,  Copenhagen. 
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329834/9789289054553-
eng.pdf. 

152 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fu, L., Zhang, Q.,  Tang, Y. et al. 2023. Assessment of urbanization impact  on 
cultural  heritage  based  on  a  risk-based  cumulative 
impact  assessment 
method. Herit Sci 11, 177. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-023-01024-0. 

Hakobyan, S., Meleshchuk, S., & Zymek R. 2023. Divided we fall: differential 
exposure to geopolitical fragmentation in trade. IMF Working Paper, Research 
Department. WP/23/270. 

Kalfas, D., et al. 2024. “Contribution of the Cultural and Creative Industries to 
Regional  Development  and  Revitalization:  A  European  Perspective”.  Urban 
Science 8,39. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci8020039.  

McAuliffe,  M.  &  L.A.  Oucho  (eds.).  2024.  World  Migration  Report  2024. 
International Organization for Migration (IOM), Geneva. ISSN: 1561-5502.  

Merton,  R.  K.  1968.  The  Matthew  effect  in  science:  The  reward  and 
communication  systems  of  science  are  considered. Science, 159(3810),  56-63. 
DOI: 10.1126/science.159.3810.56.  

OECD.  2022.  The  Culture  Fix:  Creative  People,  Places  and  Industries.  Local 
Economic  and  Employment  Development  (LEED).  OECD  Publishing,  Paris. 
https://doi.org/10.1787/991bb520-en.  

OECD. 2021. Economic and social impact of cultural and creative sectors: Note 
for  Italy  G20  Presidency  Culture  Working  Group,  Local  Economic  and 
Employment  Development  (LEED)  Papers,  No.  2021/11.  OECD  Publishing, 
Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/4d4e760f-en. 

Ost,  C.,  Saleh,  R.  2021.  Cultural  and  creative  sectors  at  a  crossroad:  from  a 
mainstream  process  towards  an  active  engagement. Built  Heritage 5,  14. 
https://doi.org/10.1186/s43238-021-00032-y.  

Primorac, J. et al. 2017. “The place and role of culture in the EU agenda. Policy 
implications of the Culture sub-programme of the Creative Europe Programme”. 
Medijska istraživanja: znanstveno-stručni časopis za novinarstvo i medije 23.1. 
5-23. 

Serban, A. C., Uzunboylu, H., Stativa, G. A. & Bocaneala, A. M. 2022. Turning 
Cultural  and  Creative  Challenges  into  Local  Development  Opportunities. 
International Conference of the International Association of Cultural and Digital 
Tourism, 419–433. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. 

153 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNESCO.  2022.  Re|Shaping  Policies  for  Creativity:  Addressing  Culture  as  a 
Global 
Publishing. 
UNESCO 
Good. 
https://www.unesco.org/reports/reshaping-creativity/2022/en. 

Public 

Paris, 

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. 2024. Creative Economy 
Outlook 2024, UNCTAD/DITC/TSCE/2024/2. Geneva: United Nations. 

World Economic Forum and McKinsey & Company. 2018. Creative Disruption: 
The  impact  of  emerging  technologies  on  the  creative  economy,  White  Paper. 
Geneva: World Economic Forum.  

Webpages  

420PEOPLE, “Dancing Histor(y)ies”. Accessed May 28, 2025.  
https://www.420people.org/repertoar/dancing-histories/.   

Agence d’Urbanisme de l’Agglomération Marseillaise. 2014. Évaluation externe 
de Marseille-Provence 2013, Capitale européenne de la culture. Accessed May 
22, 2025.  
https://www.myprovence.fr/sites/default/files/2022-
01/Evaluation%20externe%20mp2013.pdf.  

Ars  Electronica,  “European  ARTificial  Intelligence  Lab”.  Accessed  May  28, 
2025. https://ars.electronica.art/ailab/en/.  

Ars  Electronica,  “European  Digital  Deal”.  Accessed  May  28,  2025. 
https://ars.electronica.art/eudigitaldeal/en/. 

30, 
Aschaffenburg 
https://aschaffenburgzweinull.stadtarchiv-digital.de/projekt/dialog-city/.  

“Dialog  City”.  Accessed  May 

2.0, 

2025. 

Association Marseille-Provence 2013. 2014. Bilans Quartiers Créatifs MP2013. 
Accessed  May  22,  2025.  https://www.myprovence.fr/sites/default/files/2022-
01/Bilans%20quartiers%20cr%C3%A9atifs%20mp2013.pdf.  

Associazione  Enti  Locali  per  le  Attività  Culturali  e  di  Spettacolo,  “Progetti”. 
Accessed May 28, 2025. https://www.assoentilocali.it/progetti.  

Balenovic, K., M. Carlberg, and L. Todaro. 2023. Research for CULT Committee 
– EU Funding Programmes 2021-2027 in Culture, Media, Education, Youth, and 
Sports:  First  Lessons,  Challenges,  and  Future  Perspectives:  Creative  Europe. 
European  Parliament,  Policy  Department  for  Structural  and  Cohesion  Policies, 
Brussels. 

154 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2023/747260/IPOL_ST
U(2023)747260_EN.pdf. 

Citizen Archive, “Welcome to the Citizen Archive Platform (CAP)”. Accessed 
May 28, 2025. https://citizenarchive.eu/en/.  

Clermont-Ferrand  International  Short  Film  Festival,  “Festival  International  du 
Court  Metrage  Clermont  Ferrand”.  Accessed  May  30,  2025.  https://clermont-
filmfest.org/en/global/home/.   

Comune 
https://smart.comune.genova.it/sezione/progetti-europei/creart20.  

“CreArt2.0”.  Accessed  May 

di  Genova, 

28, 

2025. 

CreArt 3.0, “CreArt. A space of cooperation for art in Europe”. Accessed May 
28, 2025. https://creart2-eu.org/news-videos/?page=6. 

CreArt 3.0, “CreArt 3.0”. Accessed May 28, 2025.  
https://creart2-eu.org/creart-3/. 

Cultural  Heritage  in  Action,  “Cultural  Heritage  in  Action”.  Accessed  May  30, 
2025. https://culturalheritageinaction.eu/.  

Dancing 
https://dancinghistoryies.org/.  

Histor(y)ies, 

“Home”. 

Accessed  May 

28, 

2025. 

Dialog City, “Homepage”. Accessed May 28, 2025. https://dialogcity.eu/.  

Eurocities, KEA European Affairs, ERRIN, Europa Nostra, and the Architects’ 
Council of Europe. 2021. Cultural Heritage: A Powerful Catalyst for Cities and 
Regions.  Accessed  May  30,  2025.  https://culturalheritageinaction.eu/wp-
content/uploads/sites/2/2021/11/CH-a-powerful-catalyst.pdf.   

European  Commission.  2025.  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the 
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee 
and the Committee of the Regions. A dynamic EU budget for the priorities of the 
future: the Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034. Brussels: COM(2025) 
570 
2025. 
https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/26ff3426-b1db-44d5-ad9c-
a646febb3222_en?filename=COM_2025_570_1_EN_ACT_part1_v6.pdf.  

Accessed 

final. 

July 

18, 

European  Commission.  2007.  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the 
European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a European Agenda for Culture 

155 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
in a Globalizing World. Brussels: COM(2007) 242 final. Accessed May 30, 2025. 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52007DC0242.  

European Commission, “Competence Centre  on  Foresight”. Accessed May 28, 
2025.  https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/foresight_en.   

30, 

2025. 

European Commission, “Creative Europe Programme – Performance”. Accessed 
May 
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-
budget/performance-and-reporting/programme-performance-
statements/creative-europe-programme-
performance_en?prefLang=fi#sustainable-development-goals. 

European  Commission,  Culture  and  Creativity,  “Coronavirus  and  the  Creative 
Europe  programme.  Find  information  related  to  the  consequences  of  the 
coronavirus  and  the  Creative  Europe  Programme”.  Accessed  July  14,  2025. 
https://culture.ec.europa.eu/resources/coronavirus-response/coronavirus-and-
the-creative-europe-programme. 

European  Commission,  Culture  and  Creativity,  “Creative  Europe  2021-2027 
programme  brings  €2.44  billion  to  support  the  cultural  and  creative  sectors”. 
Accessed May 30, 2025. https://culture.ec.europa.eu/news/creative-europe-2021-
2027-programme-launch.  

European Commission, Culture and Creativity, “Culture in  cities  and  regions”. 
Accessed  May  30,  2025.  https://culture.ec.europa.eu/policies/culture-in-cities-
and-regions.  

European Commission, Culture and Creativity, “Discover funding opportunities 
the  Cultural  and  Creative  Sectors”.  Accessed  May  30,  2025.  
for 
https://culture.ec.europa.eu/funding/cultureu-funding-guide/discover-funding-
opportunities-for-the-cultural-and-creative-sectors.  

European Commission, Culture and Creativity, “Document Library”. Accessed 
May 30, 2025.  https://culture.ec.europa.eu/it/resources/document-library.  

European Commission, Culture and Creativity, “Projects lists”. Accessed July 17, 
2025.  
https://culture.ec.europa.eu/creative-europe/projects/projects-lists.  

European  Commission,  Culture  Statistics  -  Cultural  Enterprises,  “Eurostat 
Statistics Explained”. Accessed April 28, 2025.  
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=Culture_statistics_-_cultural_enterprises.  

156 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Education,  Youth,  Sport  and 
Culture.  2019.  2020  annual  work  programme  for  the  implementation  of  the 
Creative Europe Programme. C(2019) 6151 of 23 August 2019. Accessed May 
23,  2025.  https://culture.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2021-07/2020-awp-ce-
c20196151.pdf. 

European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Education,  Youth,  Sport  and 
Culture.  2024.  Budweis.  European  Capital  of  Culture  2028.  First  Monitoring 
Meeting.  Report  by  the  ECOC  Expert  Panel.  Virtual  Meeting,  12th  November 
2024. 
2025, 
https://culture.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2024-12/ecoc-2028-czech-
republic-first-monitoring_report-v2.pdf.    

Accessed 

May 

30, 

European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Education,  Youth,  Sport  and 
Culture.  2023.  Greening  the  Creative  Europe  Programme:  Final  Report. 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
Accessed  May 
/publication/e20ac9a0-f52b-11ed-a05c-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.  

2025. 

30, 

European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Internal  Market,  Industry, 
Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs.  2024.  Needs  and  challenges  of  the  cultural  and 
creative 
industries.  Accessed  April  28,  2025.  https://single-market-
economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/cultural-and-creative-industries/needs-and-
challenges_en.  

European Commission, “European industrial strategy”. Accessed April 28, 2025. 
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-
fit-digital-age/european-industrial-strategy_en.  

European Commission. 2010. Green Paper. Unlocking the potential of cultural 
and creative  industries.  Brussels, 27.04.2010. COM(2010) 183  final. Accessed 
May 30, 2025. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1cb6f484-
074b-4913-87b3-344ccf020eef/language-en.  

European Commission, “MediaInvest”. Accessed May 30, 2025. https://digital-
strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/mediainvest.  

European Commission, Pact for Skills, “Regional Skills Partnerships”. Accessed 
https://pact-for-skills.ec.europa.eu/about/regional-skills-
May 
partnerships_en.  

2025. 

30, 

European  Commission.  2022.  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European 
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 

157 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Committee of the Regions on the Work Plan for Culture 2019–2022. COM(2022) 
317 final.  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2022%3A317%3AFIN. 

European  Commission.  2017.  Strengthening  European  Identity 
through 
Education and Culture: The European Commission's Contribution to the Leaders' 
Meeting  in  Gothenburg,  17  November  2017.  COM(2017)  673  final.  Accessed 
May 30, 2025.  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52017DC0673.  

European Commission. 2016. Towards an EU Strategy for International Cultural 
Relations.  JOIN(2016)  29  final.  Accessed  May  30,  2025.  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52016JC0029.  

European  Commission.  2014.  Towards  an  Integrated  Approach  to  Cultural 
Heritage for Europe. COM(2014) 477 final. Accessed May 30, 2025. https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52014DC0477.  

European Committee of the Regions. 2019. Opinion of the European Committee 
of the Regions on “Creative Europe and A New European Agenda for Culture” 
(2019/C  168/07).  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union.  Accessed  May  30, 
2025.  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX%3A52018AR3890.  

European Parliament, Council of the European Union. 2021. Regulation (EU) No 
2021/818 of 20 May 2021 Establishing the Creative Europe Programme (2021 to 
2027) and Repealing Regulation (EU) No 1295/2013. Accessed May 30, 2025. 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/818/oj/eng.  

European  Parliament,  Council  of  the  European  Union.  2018.  Proposal  for  a 
Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  Establishing  the 
Creative Europe Programme (2021 to 2027) and Repealing Regulation (EU) No 
1295/2013. Accessed May 30, 2025.  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/818/oj/eng. 

European Parliament, Council of the European Union. 2013. Regulation (EU) No 
1295/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 
Establishing  the  Creative  Europe  Programme  (2014  to  2020)  and  Repealing 
Decisions  No  1718/2006/EC,  No  1855/2006/EC,  and  No  1041/2009/EC:  Text 
with EEA Relevance, L 347/221, 20.12.2013. Accessed May 30, 2025.  

158 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1295.  

European  Parliamentary  Research  Service.  2016.  The  Creative  Europe 
Programme:  European  Implementation  Assessment.  Accessed  May  30,  2025. 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2016/581413/EPRS_ID
A(2016)581413_EN.pdf.  

European Union. 2012. Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union. 
Official Journal of the European Union C 326, October 26, 2012. Accessed April 
28, 2025.  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:2bf140bf-a3f8-4ab2-b506-
fd71826e6da6.0023.02/DOC_1&format=PDF. 

European Union. 2012. Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of 
the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union C 326, October 26, 
2012. Accessed April 28, 2025.  
https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT:en:PDF.   

Experimenta Paisagem. 2024. Landscape Together: Final Report 2024. Accessed 
https://experimentapaisagem.pt/wp-
May 
content/uploads/2025/02/LT_REPORT2024.pdf.  

2025. 

28, 

Festival de Mérida, “Programa Europa Creativa. Dancing Histor(y)ies - Binding 
through  dance”.  Accessed  May  28,  2025. 
communities  and  heritage 
https://www.festivaldemerida.es/otras-actividades/dancing-historyies/.  

IDEA  Consult,  Goethe-Institut,  Amann  S.  and  Heinsius  J.  2021.  Research  for 
CULT Committee – Cultural and creative sectors in post-Covid-19 Europe: crisis 
effects and policy recommendations. European Parliament, Policy Department for 
Structural  and  Cohesion  Policies,  Brussels.  Accessed  July  14,  2025. 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/652242/IPOL_ST
U(2021)652242_EN.pdf.  

KEA.  2021.  Market  Analysis  of  the  Cultural  and  Creative  Sectors  in  Europe. 
Accessed April 28, 2025. https://keanet.eu/new-market-analysis-of-the-cultural-
and-creative-sectors-in-europe/.  

Together, 

Landscape 
https://landscapetogether.eu/.  
LATRA, “Build the World Better”. Accessed May 28, 2025. https://latra.gr/.  

“Homepage”.  Accessed  May 

28, 

2025. 

159 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Maekan, “Rethinking Cultural Appropriation and Ethics in an AI World”. 
Accessed May 30, 2025. https://maekan.com/rethinking-cultural-appropriation-
and-ethics-in-an-ai-world/.  

My Provence, “MP2013: Marseille, capital of culture”. Accessed May 22, 2025. 
https://www.myprovence.fr/marseille-provence-2013?lang=en.  

National Institute for cultural research and training, “Heritart”. Accessed May 28, 
2025. https://www.culturadata.ro/heritart-2/.  

Pro  Progressione, 
https://proprogressione.com/en/project/eu-digital-deal/.      

“EU  Digital  Deal”.  Accessed  May  30,  2025. 

Raabová,  T.,  Jetelová,  T.  &  Špaček,  O.  2022.  Strategie  rozvoje  kultury  a 
kreativních odvětví města České Budějovice 2023–2035. Accessed May 30, 2025. 
https://www.budejovice2028.eu/files/kulturni-strategie-cb-digital-web-
export.pdf.  

Sineglossa, 
https://sineglossa.it/progetti/bluetour-turismo-culturale-nelle-aree-costiere/.  

“BLUETOUR”. 

Accessed 

May 

28, 

2025. 

Sineglossa, “European Digital Deal”. Accessed May 28, 2025.  
https://sineglossa.it/progetti/eu-digital-deal/#elementor-toc__heading-anchor-3.  

Stadt- & Stiftsarchiv Aschaffenburg, “Willkommen auf der Internetpräsenz des 
Stadt- und Stiftsarchivs!”. Accessed May 28, 2025.  
https://stadtarchiv-aschaffenburg.de/.  

The Measuring CCS Consortium. 2022. Final Report - Measuring the Cultural 
and Creative Sectors in the EU. Accessed April 28, 2025.  
https://www.measuring-ccs.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/The-Measuring-
CCS-Consortium-publishes-the-Final-Report-Measuring-the-Cultural-and-
Creative-Sectors-in-the-EU.pdf.  

Vrije  Universiteit  Amsterdam,  “Citizen  Participation  Successful  Strategy  for 
Planning 
2025. 
30, 
https://vu.nl/en/news/2024/citizen-participation-successful-strategy-for-
planning-cultural-landscapes.   

Accessed  May 

Landscapes”. 

Cultural 

160 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex II – Questionnaire for successful local and regional authorities 
involved in the Creative Europe Programme 

Introduction to the survey 

This  survey  aims  to  collect  data  on  the  challenges  faced  during  project 
implementation,  socio-economic  impacts,  and  administrative  experiences  from 
local and regional authorities that have successfully participated in the Creative 
Europe Programme from 2014 to 2024. The survey is also expected to capture 
feedback  on  the  perceived  alignment  of  the  Creative  Europe  Programme 
objectives  with  local  and  regional  needs,  as  well  as  on  how  to  ensure  more 
synergies between the Creative Europe Programme and other EU programmes. 

The survey is structured into four sections. It takes around 15 minutes to complete. 
The  survey  is  available  online  in  English,  French,  German,  Italian,  Polish  and 
Spanish. It will remain open until 14 April 2025. For more information, please 
contact ricercaeinnovazione@formit.org. 

The outcomes of this survey will serve to enrich the study "Evaluating the Impact 
of the Creative Europe Programme in Cities and Regions", commissioned by the 
European  Committee  of  the  Regions  (CoR)  to  Fondazione  FORMIT  (Specific 
Contract No. 21495). Answers to this survey will be analysed in an aggregated 
manner.  

Individual contributions provided through the open questions of the survey may 
be eventually used in the study but in an anonymised form. Fondazione FORMIT 
standard privacy statement applies.  

The  follow-up  to  your  contribution  requires  that  your  personal  data  (name,  contact  details,  etc.)  be  processed  in  a  file. 
Participation in the consultation is voluntary. Should you require any further information or wish to exercise your rights under 
Regulation  (EU)  2016/679  (e.g.,  to  access,  rectify,  or  delete  your  data),  please  contact  the  data  controller  (CoR; 
studies@cor.europa.eu) or the data processor of this survey (Fondazione FORMIT; ricercaeinnovazione@formit.org). You 
have the right of recourse to the European Data Protection Supervisor at any time (www.edps.europa.eu). For any further 
information on data protection policy and the use of your contributions, please consult the following legal notice: CoR Data 
Protection Notice (full version) and FORMIT Privacy Statement (full version). Please note that the answers you provide can 
be used, in an anonymised form for drafting a report. That report could be transmitted to CoR rapporteurs and other EU 
institutions and used in CoR studies and publications. If you do not wish so, please inform us accordingly. 

* 
☐ I hereby consent to the transfer to the European Committee of the Regions ("the Committee") of the personal data (first 
name;  last  name;  organisation;  role/position;  e-mail)  that  I  submit  in  the  present  survey,  to  be  used  by  the  Committee  for 
canvassing purposes. The CoR will retain data collected during the study for a maximum of two years after the prospection. 
However, the personal data of survey respondents who have refused to be contacted around survey follow-up activities will be 
deleted two months after the completion of the study. For any further information on the Committee’s data protection policy, 
please consult the following legal notice: Data Protection Notice (full version). 

161 

 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Section  1  –  Details  about  the  respondent  and  participation  in  the  Creative 
Europe Programme 
(Questions marked with * are mandatory) 

Q1.1 – Information about the respondent 
First name: [Open answer]_____________________________________________________ 
Last name: [Open answer]_____________________________________________________ 
Email*: [Open answer]________________________________________________________ 
Role/position*: [Open answer]______________________________________________ 
Organisation*: [Open answer]__________________________________________________ 
Country where the organisation is based*: [Open answer] ____________________________ 
Region where the organisation is based*: [Open answer]_____________________________ 
City where the organisation is based*: [Open answer]________________________________ 

Q1.2 – Your organisation is:* [only one answer is allowed]  
o  A local public authority. 
o  A regional public authority. 
o  A local / regional agency working for a public authority. 

Q1.3 – Please provide reference to the title and acronym of the project(s) funded by the Creative 
Europe Programme in which your organisation is involved:* 

Project name 1  ______________________________________________________________ 
Web link 1 __________________________________________________________________ 

Project name 2  ______________________________________________________________ 
Web link 2 __________________________________________________________________ 

Project name no.  _____________________________________________________________ 
Web link no. _________________________________________________________________ 

Q1.4 – What is your role as a local and/or regional public authority involved in the Creative 
Europe Programme?* [multiple answers are allowed] 
o  Project coordinator. 
o  Leader of the communication and dissemination efforts. 
o  Leader of the organisation of cultural and/or creative activities at place-based level 
o  Support and facilitation of local and/or regional partnerships. 
o  Advocacy, policy and governance-related activities. 
o  Best practice exchange. 
o  Capacity building through e.g., training. 
o  Community engagement and promotion. 
o  Other. [please specify] 

162 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Section 2 – General overview of the support provided by the Creative Europe 
Programme  
(Questions marked with * are mandatory) 

Q2.1 – How would you rate the ease of understanding of the administrative process (including 
e.g., eligibility criteria and required administrative documentation) for applying for funding 
under the Creative Europe Programme? Please rate it from 1 [not accessible at all] to 4 [very 
accessible].* 

Q2.2 – How would you rate the ease of preparing the technical part of the proposal for funding 
under the Creative Europe Programme? Please rate it from 1 [not easy at all] to 4 [very easy].* 

Q2.3 – Which is the Creative Europe Programme’s priority that is the most important for the 
growth of the cultural and creative sectors in your region?* 
o  Protecting and Promoting Cultural Diversity and Heritage. 
o  Fostering the Competitiveness of the Cultural and Creative Sectors. 
o  Encouraging International Cooperation and Mobility. 
o  Audience Development and Engagement. 
o  Promoting Innovation and Digital Transition. 
o  Enhancing Inclusion and Gender Equality. 
o  Supporting Green and Sustainable Practices. 
o  Strengthening European Identity and Values. 
Q2.4 – How would you describe the alignment of the Creative Europe Programme's objectives 
with your organisation’s cultural and creative priorities at local and/or regional level? Please 
rate each option from 1 [not aligned at all] - to 4 [perfectly aligned].* 
o  Protecting and Promoting Cultural Diversity and Heritage. 
o  Fostering the Competitiveness of the Cultural and Creative Sectors. 
o  Encouraging International Cooperation and Mobility. 
o  Audience Development and Engagement. 
o  Promoting Innovation and Digital Transition. 
o  Enhancing Inclusion and Gender Equality. 
o  Supporting Green and Sustainable Practices. 
o  Strengthening European Identity and Values. 
Q2.5 - Is there any other need and/or priority your organisation has at the local and/or regional 
level  in  the  cultural  and  creative  sectors  that  is  not  included  amongst  the  objectives  of  the 
Creative Europe Programme?* 
o  Yes. [go to Q2.5.1] 
o  No. 
o  I do not know. 
Q2.5.1 - Please provide reference to the needs and/or priorities your organisation has at local 
and/or regional level that are not supported by the Creative Europe Programme, and explain 
why: [open question] 

________________________________________________________________ 

Q2.6 - Did your organisation receive funding in the field of the creative and cultural sectors 
from EU and/or non-EU funding opportunities other than the Creative Europe Programme?* 
[only one answer is allowed] 

163 

 
 
 
 
 
 
o  Yes. [go to Q2.7] 
o  No. [go to Q2.10] 
o  I do not know. [go to Q2.10] 
Q2.7 - Which of the following EU and/or non-EU funding opportunities supporting the creative 
and cultural sectors are appropriate and/or have been used by your organisation other than 
the Creative Europe Programme?* [multiple answers are allowed] 
o  Public-private hybrid funding. [go to Q2.10] 
o  Funding allocated by national and/or local/regional governments. [go to Q2.10] 
o  European funding programmes. [go to Q2.8 and Q2.9] 
o  Other. [please specify] [go to Q2.10] 
Q2.8 - Which of the following structural EU funding programmes are appropriate and/or have 
been used by your organisation to address your needs at the local and/or regional level (e.g., 
to promote cultural development, heritage conservation, urban regeneration, the growth of the 
cultural and creative sectors)?* [multiple answers are allowed] 
o  Cohesion Fund. 
o  European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). 
o  European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). 
o  European Regional Development Funds (ERDF). 
o  European Social Fund Plus (ESF+). 
o  European Solidarity Corps (ESC). 
o  Interreg Europe. 
o  Just Transition Fund (JTF). 
o  REACT-EU (Recovery Assistance for Cohesion and the territories of Europe).  
o  Other. [please specify] 
Q2.9 - Which of the following non-structural EU funding programmes other than the Creative 
Europe Programme are appropriate and/or have been used by your organisation to address 
your needs at the local and/or regional level (e.g., to promote cultural development, heritage 
conservation, urban regeneration, the growth of the cultural and creative sectors)?* [multiple 
answers are allowed] 
o  Erasmus+. 
o  European  Instrument  for  Temporary  Support  to  Mitigate  Unemployment  Risks  in  an 

Emergency (SURE). 

o  Horizon Europe. 
o  InvestEU.   
o  Programme Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV). 
o  Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). 
o  Skills and Education Guarantee Pilot. 
o  Other. [please specify] 
Q2.10 – Apart from receiving EU and/or non-EU funding through a project-based approach, 
how does your organisation ensure its financial sustainability to carry out ordinary activities 
in the cultural and creative sectors?* [multiple answers are allowed] 
o  Allocation from the regular municipal and/or regional budget. 
o  Public Grants and Subsidies. 
o  Ticket Sales and Membership Fees. 
o  Private Sector Partnerships. 
o  Fundraising Campaigns. 
o  Commercial Activities. 
o  Volunteering and In-Kind Contributions. 

164 

 
 
 
o  Other. [please specify] 
Q2.11 – In your experience/opinion, which of the following measures is the most effective to 
create synergies amongst the EU funding programmes applicable to the creative and cultural 
sectors, to maximise impact and resource efficiency across multiple funding streams?* [only 
one answer is allowed] 
o  Joint Calls for Proposals: Launching integrated calls that combine funding from multiple 

programmes, such as Creative Europe, Horizon Europe, and Erasmus+. 

o  Cross-Sectoral  Partnerships:  Encouraging  partnerships  between  creative  and  cultural 

stakeholders and other sectors, such as technology, tourism, or education. 

o  Dedicated  Funding  Streams  for  Synergies:  Allocating  specific  budgets  within  existing 

programmes to support projects that create cross-programme synergies. 

o  Knowledge  Sharing  and  Best  Practices:  Establishing  networks  or  forums  where 
stakeholders  can  share  experiences  and  successful  approaches  to  combining  different 
funding sources. 

o  Increased Visibility: Enhancing communication about funding opportunities and synergies 

across programmes to ensure stakeholders are aware of available resources. 

o  Local and Regional Pilots: Funding pilot projects at the local and regional level to explore 

effective models for programme synergies. 

Section  3  –  Challenges  and  best  practices  related  to  the  Creative  Europe 
Programme 
(Questions marked with * are mandatory) [only for respondents answering “Yes” to Q1.3] 

Q3.1  –  What  were  the  primary  challenges  your  organisation  faced  during  the  application 
process for obtaining funding under the Creative Europe Programme?* [multiple answers are 
allowed] 
o  Difficulty in preparing the technical proposal due to its scientific complexity. 
o  Burden of the administrative procedures. 
o  Complexity of the eligibility criteria. 
o  Insufficient guidance or support. 
o  Difficulty in accessing necessary documentation or data. 
o  Limited staff resources. 
o  Limited understanding of the Creative Europe Programme’s priorities. 
o  Other. [please specify] 
Q3.2 – Who in your organisation took the lead in advocating for and driving your participation 
in the successful Creative Europe project proposal?* [only one answer is allowed] 
o  An individual expert in the cultural and creative sectors. 
o  A manager. 
o  An in-house agency.  
o  A partnership. 
o  I do not know. 
o  Other. [please specify] 
Q3.3 – Did your organisation employ any of the tools and guidance materials provided by the 
European Commission to receive support during the application and implementation phases of 
the Creative Europe Programme funding?* [only one answer is allowed] 
o  Yes.  
o  No. 
o  I do not know. 

165 

 
 
 
Q3.4 – Was the funding provided through the Creative Europe Programme sufficient to cover 
the operational costs of your project(s)?* [only one answer is allowed] 
o  Fully sufficient. 
o  Partially sufficient. 
o  Insufficient.  
o  I do not know.  
Q3.5 – How did the requirement for co-funding impact your organisation’s ability to participate 
in the Creative Europe Programme?* [only one answer is allowed] 
o  It created an administrative burden. 
o  It had no significant impact. 
o  It contributed to strengthening our commitment due to the investment of resources by our 

organisation. 

Q3.6 – How would you assess the availability of skilled personnel to manage and implement 
projects funded under the Creative Europe Programme in your region?* [only one answer is 
allowed] 
o  Fully adequate. 
o  Partially adequate. 
o  Inadequate. 

Q3.7  –  Which  of  the  following  obstacles  did  your  organisation  face  during  your  Creative 
Europe project(s)’ implementation?* [multiple answers are allowed] 
o  Administrative workload. 
o  Budget constraints. 
o  Complex reporting. 
o  Coordination amongst stakeholders. 
o  Delays in final payment. 
o  Lack of expertise. 
o  Limited citizen engagement. 
o  I do not know. 
o  Other. [please specify] 
Q3.8 – Do you think the Creative Europe project(s) in which your organisation is involved in 
include any best practices that can be replicated by other local and/or regional authorities?* 
[only one answer is allowed] 
o  Yes. [go to Q3.9] 
o  No. [go to Q3.10] 
o  I do not know. [go to Q3.10] 
Q3.9 – In your opinion/experience, which of the following practices or strategies contributed 
the most to the success of your Creative Europe project(s)?* [multiple answers are allowed] 
o  Strong partnerships with local stakeholders. 
o  Effective project management. 
o  Engaging the community in the project design. 
o  Engaging the community in the project implementation. 
o  Leveraging additional funding or resources. 
o  Other. [please specify] 
Q3.10  –  What  were  the  expected  impacts  you  aimed  to  achieve  when  applying  for  Creative 
Europe Programme funding?* [multiple answers are allowed] 
o  Job creation. 

166 

 
 
o  Development of innovative business models applicable to the cultural and creative sectors. 
o  Skills development. 
o  New partnerships. 
o  Increased cultural tourism. 
o  Strengthened community engagement. 
o  Enhanced cultural heritage preservation. 
o  Increased visibility of local talent. 
o  Strengthened international cooperation. 
o  None of the above. 
o  Other. [please specify] 
Q3.11 – Compared to the expected impact, which of the following objectives have been achieved 
by your Creative Europe project(s) in contributing to the growth and/or transformation of your 
local and/or regional cultural and creative sectors* [multiple answers are allowed] 
o  Job creation. 
o  Development of innovative business models applicable to the cultural and creative sectors. 
o  Skills development. 
o  New partnerships. 
o  Increased cultural tourism. 
o  Strengthened community engagement. 
o  Enhanced cultural heritage preservation. 
o  Increased visibility of local talent. 
o  Strengthened international cooperation. 
o  None of the above. 
o  Other. [please specify] 
Q3.12  –  In  your  opinion/experience,  how  much  can  your  Creative  Europe  project(s)  be 
replicable by other local and/or regional authorities?* Please rate it from 1 [not replicable at 
all] to 4 [highly replicable]. 

Q3.13 – Please describe in a few lines the key elements that enable the replicability of your 
Creative Europe project(s). [open question] 
________________________________________________________________ 

Section 4 – Future trends related to the cultural and creative sectors 
(Questions marked with * are mandatory) 

Q4.1 – With reference to technological advancement, which of the following technologies do 
you consider having the greatest impact on the future of the creative and cultural sector over 
the coming 15 years?* [multiple answers are allowed] 
o  Use of virtual and augmented reality. 
o  Integration of AI and automation in content production. 
o  Leverage of User-Generated Content (any content, e.g., text, videos, images, reviews, etc., 

created by users rather than brands). 

o  Use of streaming services in content consumption. 
o  Content digitalisation (e.g., of art galleries, museums, digital books). 
o  Other. [please specify] 

167 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Q4.2 – With reference to technological advancement, how prepared do you feel your region is 
to adapt to future trends in the cultural and creative sectors? Please rate it from 1 [not prepared 
at all] to 4 [very well prepared].* 
o  1. 
o  2. 
o  3. 
o  4. 

Q4.3  –  With  reference  to  global  shifts,  which  of  the  following  phenomena  do  you  consider 
having the greatest impact on the future of the creative and cultural sector over the coming 15 
years?* [multiple answers are allowed] 
o  Market concentration of the cultural and creative sector (i.e., the extent to which a small 

number of firms dominate sales and market share in a specific industry). 

o  Geopolitical fragmentation. 
o  Fiscal constraints. 
o  Adverse trade policy. 
o  Climate change (climate-related disasters). 
o  Integration of inclusion and environmental sustainability into policies targeting the creative 

economy. 

o  Other. [please specify] 

Q4.4 – With reference to global shifts, how prepared do you feel your region is to adapt to 
future trends in the cultural and creative sectors? Please rate it from 1 [not prepared at all] to 
4 [very well prepared].* 
o  1. 
o  2. 
o  3. 
o  4. 

Q4.5 – With reference to local and/or regional dynamics, which of the following phenomena 
do you consider having the greatest impact on the future of the creative and cultural sector over 
the coming 15 years?* [multiple answers are allowed] 
o  Urbanisation. 
o  Gentrification. 
o  Increased inequalities in access to basic public services. 
o  Spatial  spillovers  (i.e.,  business  investment  and  human  capital  availability  of  the 

neighbouring regions). 

o  Adoption of local and/or regional policies to support the cultural and creative sector. 
o  Fragmentation of the cultural and creative sector. 
o  Inefficiencies in the labour market (i.e., when working conditions are inadequate, leading 
to the lack of decent and sustainable jobs, such as low pay, unstable contracts, or poor job 
security). 

o  Other. [please specify] 

Q4.6 – With reference to local and/or regional dynamics, how prepared do you feel your region 
is  to  adapt  to  future  trends  in  the  cultural  and  creative  sectors?  Please  rate  it  from  1  [not 
prepared at all] to 4 [very well prepared].* 
o  1. 
o  2. 
o  3. 

168 

 
 
 
 
 
 
o  4. 

Q4.7 – The Joint Research Centre of the European Commission analysed the megatrends that 
will shape the future. These megatrends are used to anticipate challenges and opportunities in 
policymaking and planning. Please rate each option from 1 [not relevant for the creative and 
cultural sectors at all] - to 4 [very relevant for the creative and cultural sectors].*  
o  Demographic  Change:  Ageing  populations,  urbanisation,  and  migration  are  reshaping 

societies worldwide. 

o  Economic Power Shifts: The rise of emerging economies and changes in global trade and 

investment patterns. 

o  Environmental  Degradation  and  Climate  Change:  The  intensifying  impacts  of  global 

warming, resource depletion, and biodiversity loss. 

o  Technological  Advances:  Disruptive 

technologies  such  as  artificial 

intelligence, 

biotechnology, and nanotechnology are transforming economies and societies. 

o  Globalisation  and  Geopolitical  Shifts:  Evolving  international  relations,  power  dynamics, 

and the future of multilateralism. 

o  Urbanisation: Increasing urban populations leading to challenges in infrastructure, housing, 

and resource management. 

o  Resource Scarcity: Growing demand for water, energy, and food in the face of finite natural 

resources. 

o  Health  Challenges:  Rising  global  health  issues  such  as  pandemics,  non-communicable 

diseases, and mental health. 

o  Social Inequalities: Persistent or growing gaps in income, wealth, education, and access to 

opportunities. 

o  Safety  and  Security  Risks:  Emerging  threats  such  as  cybercrime,  terrorism,  and  natural 

disasters. 

Q4.8 – In your opinion/experience, what are the key goals that the cultural and creative sector 
should prioritise in the next 15 years to ensure its growth and relevance (e.g., fostering freedom 
of expression, promoting social inclusion, supporting cultural diversity, ensuring sustainability, 
leveraging technology, etc.)?* [open question] 
________________________________________________________________ 

Q4.9 - In your opinion/experience, what are the main risks the creative and cultural sectors are 
exposed  to  in  the  next  15  years  (e.g.,  privacy  and  consumer  protection,  copyright,  market 
monopolisation, etc.)?* [open question] 
________________________________________________________________ 

169 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex III – Questionnaire for wider local and regional authorities and 
cultural associations 

Introduction to the survey 

This survey targets local and regional authorities and cultural associations across 
the EU and beyond, aiming to gather feedback on the perceived alignment of the 
Creative Europe Programme's objectives with local and regional needs, as well as 
on how to foster greater synergies between the Creative Europe Programme and 
other EU programmes. The local and regional authorities invited to participate 
have been identified as not involved in the implementation of any Creative Europe 
Programme project. This information will serve to contribute to the formulation 
of  policy  recommendations  for  improving  the  Programme  relevance  and 
effectiveness to support the cultural and creative sectors at local and/or regional 
level.   

The survey is structured into four sections. It takes around 10 minutes to complete. 
The  survey  is  available  online  in  English,  French,  German,  Italian,  Polish  and 
Spanish. 

It will remain open until 14 April. 2025. For more information, please  contact 
ricercaeinnovazione@formit.org. 

The outcomes of this survey will serve to enrich the study "Evaluating the Impact 
of the Creative Europe Programme in Cities and Regions" commissioned by the 
European  Committee  of  the  Regions  (CoR)  to  Fondazione  FORMIT  (Specific 
Contract No. 21495). Answers to this survey will be analysed in an aggregated 
manner.  

Individual contributions provided through the open questions of the survey may 
be eventually used in the study but in an anonymised form. Fondazione FORMIT 
standard privacy statement applies.  

The  follow-up  to  your  contribution  requires  that  your  personal  data  (name,  contact  details,  etc.)  be  processed  in  a  file. 
Participation in the consultation is voluntary. Should you require any further information or wish to exercise your rights under 
Regulation  (EU)  2016/679  (e.g.,  to  access,  rectify,  or  delete  your  data),  please  contact  the  data  controller  (CoR; 
studies@cor.europa.eu) or the data processor of this survey (Fondazione FORMIT; ricercaeinnovazione@formit.org). You 
have the right of recourse to the European Data Protection Supervisor at any time (www.edps.europa.eu). For any further 
information on data protection policy and the use of your contributions, please consult the following legal notice: CoR Data 
Protection Notice (full version) and FORMIT Privacy Statement (full version). Please note that the answers you provide can 
be used, in an anonymised form for drafting a report. That report could be transmitted to CoR rapporteurs and other EU 
institutions and used in CoR studies and publications. If you do not wish so, please inform us accordingly. 

* 
☐ I hereby consent to the transfer to the European Committee of the Regions ("the Committee") of the personal data (first 
name;  last  name;  organisation;  role/position;  e-mail)  that  I  submit  in  the  present  survey,  to  be  used  by  the  Committee  for 
canvassing purposes. The CoR will retain data collected during the study for a maximum of two years after the prospection. 

170 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
However, the personal data of survey respondents who have refused to be contacted around survey follow-up activities will be 
deleted two months after the completion of the study. For any further information on the Committee’s data protection policy, 
please consult the following legal notice: Data Protection Notice (full version). 

Section  1  –  Details  about  the  respondent  and  awareness  about  the  Creative 
Europe Programme 
(Questions marked with * are mandatory) 

Q1.1 – Information about the respondent 
First name: [Open answer]_____________________________________________________ 
Last name: [Open answer]_____________________________________________________ 
Email*: [Open answer]________________________________________________________ 
Role/position*: [Open answer]______________________________________________ 
Organisation*: [Open answer]__________________________________________________ 
Country where the organisation is based*: [Open answer] ____________________________ 
Region where the organisation is based*: [Open answer]_____________________________ 
City where the organisation is based*: [Open answer]________________________________ 

Q1.2 – Your organisation is:* [only one answer is allowed]  
o  A local public authority. 
o  A regional public authority. 
o  A local/regional agency working for a public authority. 
o  A cultural association or non-governmental organisation. [go to Q1.2.1] 
o  Other. [please specify] 
Q1.2.1 – What are the main working areas of your organisation?* (e.g., architecture, archives, 
libraries and museums, artistic crafts, audiovisual, tangible and intangible cultural heritage, 
design, festivals, music, literature, performing arts, books and publishing, radio, visual arts) 
[open question] 
________________________________________________________________ 

Q1.3 – Are you aware of the Creative Europe Programme?* [only one answer is allowed] 
o  Yes. [go to Q1.4] 
o  No. [go to 2.1] 
Q1.4  –  Has  your  organisation  ever  applied  for  funding  under  the  Creative  Europe 
Programme?* [only one answer is allowed] 
o  Yes, and it/they was/were funded. My organisation is currently involved and/or has been 
involved in the delivery phase of one or more Creative Europe Programme project(s).  

o  Yes, but it/they was/were not funded.  
o  No, but my organisation is willing to participate.  
o  No, and at present my organisation does not foresee any participation.  
Section 2  –  Alignment  of  the  Creative  Europe  Programme  with  local  and/or 
regional needs and priorities 
(Questions marked with * are mandatory) 

Q2.1 – For each of the following Creative Europe Programme’s objectives, how would you 
describe  their  alignment  with  the  cultural  and  creative  needs  and/or  priorities  of  your  city 
and/or region?* [Please rate each option from 1 not aligned at all - to 4 perfectly aligned] 
o  Protecting and Promoting Cultural Diversity and Heritage. 

171 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
o  Fostering the Competitiveness of the Cultural and Creative Sectors. 
o  Encouraging International Cooperation and Mobility. 
o  Audience Development and Engagement. 
o  Promoting Innovation and Digital Transition. 
o  Enhancing Inclusion and Gender Equality. 
o  Supporting Green and Sustainable Practices. 
o  Strengthening European Identity and Values. 
Q2.2 – Is there any other need and/or priority your city and/or region have in the cultural and 
creative  sectors  that  is  not  included  amongst  the  objectives  of  the  Creative  Europe 
Programme?* [only one answer is allowed] 
o  Yes. [go to Q2.3] 
o  No. [go to Q2.4] 
o  I do not know. [go to Q2.4] 
Q2.3 – Please provide reference to the needs and/or priorities your city and/or region has that 
are not supported by the Creative Europe Programme, and explain why. [open question] 
________________________________________________________________ 

Q2.4 - Did your organisation receive funding in the field of the creative and cultural sectors 
from EU and/or non-EU funding opportunities other than the Creative Europe Programme?* 
[only one answer is allowed] 
o  Yes. [go to Q2.5] 
o  No. [go to Q2.7] 
o  I do not know. [go to Q2.7] 
Q2.5 - Which of the following EU and/or non-EU funding opportunities supporting the creative 
and cultural sectors are appropriate and/or have been used by your organisation other than 
the Creative Europe Programme?* [multiple answers are allowed] 
o  Public-private hybrid funding. [go to Q2.8] 
o  Funding allocated by national and/or local/regional governments. [go to Q2.8] 
o  European funding programmes. [go to Q2.6 and Q2.7] 
o  Other. [please specify] [go to Q2.8] 
Q2.6 - Which of the following structural EU funding programmes are appropriate and/or have 
been used by your organisation to address your needs at the local and/or regional level (e.g., 
to promote cultural development, heritage conservation, urban regeneration, the growth of the 
cultural and creative sectors)?* [multiple answers are allowed] 
o  Cohesion Fund. 
o  European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). 
o  European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). 
o  European Regional Development Funds (ERDF). 
o  European Social Fund Plus (ESF+). 
o  European Solidarity Corps (ESC). 
o  Interreg Europe. 
o  Just Transition Fund (JTF). 
o  REACT-EU (Recovery Assistance for Cohesion and the territories of Europe).  
o  Other. [please specify] 

172 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Q2.7 - Which of the following non-structural EU funding programmes other than the Creative 
Europe Programme are appropriate and/or have been used by your organisation to address 
your needs at the local and/or regional level (e.g., to promote cultural development, heritage 
conservation, urban regeneration, the growth of the cultural and creative sectors)?* [multiple 
answers are allowed] 
o  Erasmus+. 
o  European  Instrument  for  Temporary  Support  to  Mitigate  Unemployment  Risks  in  an 

Emergency (SURE). 

o  Horizon Europe. 
o  InvestEU.   
o  Programme Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV). 
o  Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). 
o  Skills and Education Guarantee Pilot. 
o  Other. [please specify] 
Q2.8 – Apart from receiving EU and/or non-EU funding through a project-based approach, 
how does your organisation ensure its financial sustainability to carry out ordinary activities 
in the cultural and creative sectors?* [multiple answers are allowed] 
o  Allocation from the regular municipal and/or regional budget. 
o  Public Grants and Subsidies. 
o  Ticket Sales and Membership Fees. 
o  Private Sector Partnerships. 
o  Fundraising Campaigns. 
o  Commercial Activities. 
o  Volunteering and In-Kind Contributions. 
o  Other. [please specify] 
Q2.9 – In your  experience/opinion, which of  the following  measures  is the  most effective to 
create synergies amongst the EU funding programmes applicable to the creative and cultural 
sectors?* [only one answer is allowed] 
o  Joint Calls for Proposals: Launching integrated calls that combine funding from multiple 

programmes, such as Creative Europe, Horizon Europe, and Erasmus+. 

o  Cross-Sectoral  Partnerships:  Encouraging  partnerships  between  creative  and  cultural 

stakeholders and other sectors, such as technology, tourism, or education. 

o  Dedicated  Funding  Streams  for  Synergies:  Allocating  specific  budgets  within  existing 

programmes to support projects that create cross-programme synergies. 

o  Knowledge  Sharing  and  Best  Practices:  Establishing  networks  or  forums  where 
stakeholders  can  share  experiences  and  successful  approaches  to  combining  different 
funding sources. 

o  Increased Visibility: Enhancing communication about funding opportunities and synergies 

across programmes to ensure stakeholders are aware of available resources. 

o  Local and Regional Pilots: Funding pilot projects at the local and regional level to explore 

effective models for programme synergies. 

Section  3  –  Barriers  and  best  practices  related  to  the  Creative  Europe 
Programme 
(Questions marked with * are mandatory) [only for respondents answering “Yes” to Q1.3] 

Q3.1  –  In  your  opinion/experience,  what  are  the  most  significant  barriers  for  local  and/or 
regional authorities and cultural associations in obtaining funding under the Creative Europe 
Programme?* [multiple answers are allowed] 

173 

 
 
 
o  Lack of awareness about the Creative Europe Programme. 
o  Complex application processes. 
o  Insufficient guidance or support. 
o  Difficulty in accessing necessary documentation or data. 
o  Lack of staff resources and/or expertise to prepare an application. 
o  Stringent eligibility criteria. 
o  Limited understanding of the Creative Europe Programme’s priorities. 
o  Mismatch  between  the  Creative  Europe  Programme’s  priorities  and  the  local  and/or 

regional needs. 

o  Limited financial resources for co-funding. 
o  Difficulty in building cross-border partnerships. 
o  Other. [please specify] 
Q3.2 – Are you aware of any best practices funded by the Creative Europe Programme that 
have successfully addressed the needs and/or priorities of the cultural and creative sectors at 
the local and/or regional level?* [only one answer is allowed] 
o  Yes. [go to Q3.3] 
o  No. [go to Q3.4] 
o  I do not know. [go to Q3.4] 
Q3.3 – Please provide reference to the name of the Creative Europe Programme project(s) that 
you consider to be best practices and include a web link where more information is available.* 
[open question]  

Project name 1  ______________________________________________________________ 
Web link 1 __________________________________________________________________ 

Project name 2  ______________________________________________________________ 
Web link 2 __________________________________________________________________ 

Project name no.  _____________________________________________________________ 
Web link no. _________________________________________________________________ 

Q3.4  –  What  local  and/or  regional  characteristics  (e.g.,  population  size,  level  of  economic 
development, cultural infrastructure) do you think most influence success in securing Creative 
Europe Programme funding? [open question] 
________________________________________________________________ 

Section 4 – Future trends related to the cultural and creative sectors 
(Questions marked with * are mandatory) 

Q4.1 – With reference to technological advancement, which of the following technologies do 
you consider having the greatest impact on the future of the creative and cultural sector over 
the coming 15 years?* [multiple answers are allowed] 
o  Use of virtual and augmented reality. 
o  Integration of AI and automation in content production. 
o  Leverage of User-Generated Content (any content, e.g., text, videos, images, reviews, etc., 

created by users rather than brands). 

o  Use of streaming services in content consumption. 
o  Content digitalisation (e.g., of art galleries, museums, digital books). 
o  Other. [please specify] 

174 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Q4.2 – With reference to technological advancement, how prepared do you feel your region is 
to adapt to future trends in the cultural and creative sectors? Please rate it from 1 [not prepared 
at all] to 4 [very well prepared].* 
o  1. 
o  2. 
o  3. 
o  4. 

Q4.3  –  With  reference  to  global  shifts,  which  of  the  following  phenomena  do  you  consider 
having the greatest impact on the future of the creative and cultural sector over the coming 15 
years?* [multiple answers are allowed] 
o  Market concentration of the cultural and creative sector (i.e., the extent to which a small 

number of firms dominate sales and market share in a specific industry). 

o  Geopolitical fragmentation. 
o  Fiscal constraints. 
o  Adverse trade policy. 
o  Climate change (climate-related disasters). 
o  Integration of inclusion and environmental sustainability into policies targeting the creative 

economy. 

o  Other. [please specify] 

Q4.4 – With reference to global shifts, how prepared do you feel your region is to adapt to 
future trends in the cultural and creative sectors? Please rate it from 1 [not prepared at all] to 
4 [very well prepared].* 
o  1. 
o  2. 
o  3. 
o  4. 

Q4.5 – With reference to local and/or regional dynamics, which of the following phenomena 
do you consider having the greatest impact on the future of the creative and cultural sector over 
the coming 15 years?* [multiple answers are allowed] 
o  Urbanisation. 
o  Gentrification. 
o  Increased inequalities in access to basic public services. 
o  Spatial  spillovers  (i.e.,  business  investment  and  human  capital  availability  of  the 

neighbouring regions). 

o  Adoption of local and/or regional policies to support the cultural and creative sector. 
o  Fragmentation of the cultural and creative sector. 
o  Inefficiencies in the labour market (i.e., when working conditions are inadequate, leading 
to the lack of decent and sustainable jobs, such as low pay, unstable contracts, or poor job 
security). 

o  Other. [please specify] 

Q4.6 – With reference to local and/or regional dynamics, how prepared do you feel your region 
is  to  adapt  to  future  trends  in  the  cultural  and  creative  sectors?  Please  rate  it  from  1  [not 
prepared at all] to 4 [very well prepared].* 
o  1. 
o  2. 
o  3. 

175 

 
 
 
 
 
 
o  4. 

Q4.7 – The Joint Research Centre of the European Commission analysed the megatrends that 
will shape the future. These megatrends are used to anticipate challenges and opportunities in 
policymaking and planning. Please rate each option from 1 [not relevant for the creative and 
cultural sectors at all] - to 4 [very relevant for the creative and cultural sectors].*  
o  Demographic  Change:  Ageing  populations,  urbanisation,  and  migration  are  reshaping 

societies worldwide. 

o  Economic Power Shifts: The rise of emerging economies and changes in global trade and 

investment patterns. 

o  Environmental  Degradation  and  Climate  Change:  The  intensifying  impacts  of  global 

warming, resource depletion, and biodiversity loss. 

o  Technological  Advances:  Disruptive 

technologies  such  as  artificial 

intelligence, 

biotechnology, and nanotechnology are transforming economies and societies. 

o  Globalisation  and  Geopolitical  Shifts:  Evolving  international  relations,  power  dynamics, 

and the future of multilateralism. 

o  Urbanisation: Increasing urban populations leading to challenges in infrastructure, housing, 

and resource management. 

o  Resource Scarcity: Growing demand for water, energy, and food in the face of finite natural 

resources. 

o  Health  Challenges:  Rising  global  health  issues  such  as  pandemics,  non-communicable 

diseases, and mental health. 

o  Social Inequalities: Persistent or growing gaps in income, wealth, education, and access to 

opportunities. 

o  Safety  and  Security  Risks:  Emerging  threats  such  as  cybercrime,  terrorism,  and  natural 

disasters. 

Q4.8 – In your opinion/experience, what are the key goals that the cultural and creative sector 
should prioritise in the next 15 years to ensure its growth and relevance (e.g., fostering freedom 
of expression, promoting social inclusion, supporting cultural diversity, ensuring sustainability, 
leveraging technology, etc.)?* [open question] 
________________________________________________________________ 

Q4.9 - In your opinion/experience, what are the main risks the creative and cultural sectors are 
exposed  to  in  the  next  15  years  (e.g.,  privacy  and  consumer  protection,  copyright,  market 
monopolisation, etc.)?* [open question] 
________________________________________________________________ 

176 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex IV – The interviews 

The present annex aims to provide further details about the interviews carried out 
within the framework of this study with LRA representatives, EU officials and 
other stakeholders.  

Interviews with LRA representatives and other stakeholders 

To  complement  the  information  available  through  desk  research,  tailored 
interviews  were  conducted  with  a  set  of  LRA  representatives  and  other 
stakeholders cooperating with them, as involved in the best practices presented in 
Part 3 and Annex V of this study. The following is the list of interviewees who 
participated in the consultation:  

•  Annex  V.1.  CreArt  3.0  #stringing_together:  interview  held  with  a 
representative  of  the  Municipality  of  Clermont  Ferrand  (FR)  (online,  11 
April 2025). 

•  Annex  V.2.  LT  –  Landscape  Together:  interview  held  with  two 
representatives of the project coordinator, Marques de Aguiar, Arquitectura 
e  Urbanismo  LDA  (PT)  and  a  representative  of  the  Municipality  of 
Pedrógão Grande (PT) (online, 9 May 2025). 

•  Annex V.3. DIALOG CITY - A holistic approach towards a digital cultural 
infrastructure in European cities: interview held with two representatives 
of the Municipality of Aschaffenburg (DE) (online, 14 April 2025). 

•  Annex  V.4.  BlueTour  -  Enhancing  creative  and  cultural  sector  and 
sustainable tourism in coastal regions: interview held with a representative 
of the Municipality of Faro (PT) (online, 23 April 2025). 

•  Annex  V.5.  Dancing  Histor(y)ies  –  Binding  Communities  and  Heritage 
through  Dance:  interview  held  with  a  representative  of  the  Mérida 
International Classical Theatre Festival (ES) (online, 24 April 2025). 
•  Annex  V.6.  European  Digital  Deal  –  Exploring  the  Intersection  of 
Technology and Democracy: interview held with two representatives of the 
Municipality of Helsingor (DK) (online, 11 April 2025). 

Prior to each interview, interviewees were provided with the script of questions 
to be possibly discussed, which were the following:  

177 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Introduction to the interview 

This interview will take place in the context of the study “Evaluating the Impact 
of the Creative Europe Programme in Cities and Regions” commissioned by the 
European Committee of the Regions to Fondazione FORMIT (Specific Contract 
No. 21495). The research project aims to assess the impact of the Creative Europe 
Programme (CEP) on the cultural and creative sectors at local and regional levels 
across the EU. It will specifically explore the needs and challenges faced by local 
and regional authorities (LRAs) in participating in the Programme. By drawing 
on objective evidence from LRAs that have successfully received CEP funding, 
the study will highlight best practices and provide guidance to help other LRAs 
effectively leverage this funding. Additionally, the study will provide a forward-
looking analysis considering long-term dynamics at the macro and sectoral levels, 
which will be finally instrumental to develop tailored recommendations directed 
to EU institutions, national governments, and LRAs to improve the effectiveness 
of EU instruments supporting the cultural ecosystem at European level. 

Areas of discussion 
The  following  are  the  areas  of  discussion  that  will  be  covered  during  the 
interview, along with the possible questions that may be raised.  

Reasons and processes leading to the participation in the CEP 
•  How  would  you  assess  the  role  and  relevance  of  the  cultural  and  creative 

sectors in the socio-economic development of your city and/or region? 

•  How  did  your  organisation  first  become  aware  of  the  Creative  Europe 

Programme and its funding opportunities? 

•  What  led  your  organisation  to  apply  for  CEP  funding?  Were  there  specific 
objectives or challenges that led you to apply to this EU funding opportunity? 

•  How was the partnership for your CEP project developed?  
•  How did your role as a local and/or public authority influence the design and 

ambition of the project proposal? 

•  Was 

there  any  consultation  with 

local  stakeholders  (e.g.,  cultural 

organisations, artists, citizens) in shaping the project idea? 

•  In  your  view,  what  were  the  critical  elements  that  made  your  application 

successful in getting CEP funding? 

Implementation and strategic alignment 
•  Can you briefly describe the scope and objectives of your CEP project, and 
how it  carries  out place-based  activities  to  support  the cultural and  creative 
sectors? 

•  Can you briefly describe the role local and regional authorities, such as your 
organisation, play in your CEP project? Has this role evolved over time?  

178 

 
 
 
 
 
•  What  strategies  have  been  developed  during  the  project  implementation  to 
align  CEP  objectives  with  local/regional  development  strategies  or  public 
policy goals related to the cultural and creative sectors? 

Impact, challenges and success factors 
•  Have any actions or adjustments been made during the implementation phase 
that  were  not  initially  foreseen  in  the  planning  stage,  but  which  proved 
effective or innovative? Would you now consider them as good practices? 
•  Are you experiencing any obstacles or bottlenecks during the implementation 
phase of your CEP project? If yes, can you please briefly describe them? 
•  What  have  been  the  short-  and  medium-term  socio-economic  benefits  that 
have  been  generated  by  your  CEP  project  in  the  local/regional  cultural  and 
creative sectors (e.g., contributing to the growth of creative industries, urban 
regeneration, heritage conservation, etc.)? 

•  How do you plan to ensure the sustainability of your project’s results beyond 
the  funding  period?  Do  you  anticipate  using  other  financial  instruments  or 
institutional support to this end? 

•  Do you think the design and scope of the CEP, as it is shaped now, are well 
aligned with the needs, emerging challenges and operational realities of local 
and regional public authorities? Do you think the CEP should be improved in 
some particular aspects? 

•  What  is  your  standpoint  about  the  involvement  of  cities  and  regions  in  the 
implementation of the CEP? Can you please briefly describe if and how local 
and regional authorities are important for its success?  

Additional relevant input from the interviewee(s) 

179 

 
 
 
 
Interview with EU officials  

An  additional  interview  with  representatives  of  DG  EAC  of  the  European 
Commission was conducted on 21 May 2025, to get further details to assess how 
the Creative Europe Programme and the European Capitals of Culture initiative 
can be more effectively governed, locally inclusive, strategically aligned with EU 
priorities,  and  better  integrated  across  sectors  and  regions  to  enhance  cultural 
impact, resilience, and accessibility throughout Europe.  

Prior to the interview, DG EAC representatives were provided with the script of 
questions to be possibly discussed, which are the following:  

Introduction to the interview 

This interview will take place in the context of the study “Evaluating the Impact 
of the Creative Europe Programme in Cities and Regions” commissioned by the 
European Committee of the Regions to Fondazione FORMIT (Specific Contract 
No. 21495).  

The research project aims to assess the impact of the Creative Europe Programme 
(CEP) on the cultural and creative sectors (CCS) at local and regional levels across 
the EU. It will specifically explore the needs and challenges faced by local and 
regional  authorities  (LRAs)  in  participating  in  the  Programme.  By  drawing  on 
objective evidence from LRAs that have successfully received CEP funding, the 
study  will  highlight  best  practices  and  provide  guidance  to  help  other  LRAs 
effectively leverage this funding.  

Additionally, the study will provide a forward-looking analysis considering long-
term dynamics at the macro and sectoral levels, which will be finally instrumental 
to  develop  tailored  recommendations  directed  to  EU  institutions,  national 
governments, and LRAs to improve the effectiveness of the CEP as one of the EU 
instruments supporting the cultural and creative ecosystem at European level. 

Questions 

•  Can you please elaborate on the governance structure of the CEP, particularly 
the relationship between your centralised coordination and the decentralised 
support provided by the National Creative Europe Desks? Given that the Desks 
are  funded  through  the  CEP  cross-sectoral  strand,  how  does  the  European 
Commission ensure adequate and sustainable budgeting for their operations? 
Additionally, can you please clarify the specific roles and responsibilities of 
the  Desks,  and  how  their  work  is  aligned  with  yours  to  ensure  coherent 

180 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
implementation and outreach across Member States? In this context, are there 
any  specific  actions  or  mechanisms  in  place  to  better  involve  LRAs  in  the 
Programme's governance, communication, or capacity-building efforts? 

•  The European Capitals of Culture (ECOC) initiative has demonstrated strong 
potential in mobilising LRAs for long-term cultural development. How can the 
experience and legacy of ECOC cities be more strategically used to enhance 
the participation of LRAs in the broader CEP, particularly within its Culture 
and  Cross-sectoral  strands?  Are  there  any  existing  or  planned  actions  to 
facilitate this cross-fertilisation, capacity-building, or follow-up engagement 
to maximise the Programme’s place-based impact?  

•  Over the years, the ECOC initiative has shown a shift toward medium-sized 
and  even  smaller  cities,  with  some  ECOC  programmes  increasingly 
incorporating rural or peripheral areas (e.g., Leeuwarden 2018). How does the 
initiative  ensure  a  balanced  representation  across  different  city  sizes  and 
territorial types (including rural and less urbanised  regions)  in the selection 
process?  Are  there  any  current  or  planned  measures  to  further  support  the 
participation of smaller LRAs, particularly those that may lack the institutional 
capacity  of  larger  cities  but  are  rich  in  cultural  potential?  How  does  this 
territorial balance factor feed into the long-term strategic vision of the ECOC 
initiative? 

•  According to the results of the questionnaire we tailored to LRAs awarded by 
the CEP, “strengthening European identity and values” and “supporting green 
and sustainable practices” were ranked amongst the least important priorities 
of the CEP at the regional level. This is particularly striking given that these 
areas are becoming increasingly central to the EU’s strategic agenda and the 
Programme itself. How do you interpret this apparent disconnection between 
EU-level priorities and place-based perceptions and/or needs? Moreover, the 
questionnaire  revealed  that  many  LRAs  primarily  associate  CCS  with  their 
ability  to  enhance  the  tourism  sector  by  attracting  visitors  through  local 
heritage, arts, festivals, and cultural experiences that offer unique and authentic 
insights  into  their  regions.  In  your  view,  what  is  needed  to  enable  a  more 
strategic and place-based shift in how CCS are understood and supported, so 
that they also contribute meaningfully to the promotion of European values, 
identity, and to the achievement of green transition goals? 

•  According to the results of the surveys distributed to both LRAs awarded by 
the CEP and those not involved, joint calls for proposals have been identified 
as  the  most  effective  mechanism  to  create  synergies  across  multiple  EU 

181 

 
 
(e.g., 

funding  opportunities  supporting  the  CCS.  Considering  the  increasing 
recognition of the interdisciplinary nature of CCS and their relevance across 
social  cohesion,  economic  wellbeing,  environmental 
sectors 
sustainability), why has the European Commission not yet implemented joint 
calls  for  proposals  involving  the  CEP  and  other  programmes?  Are  there 
specific institutional, legal, or administrative barriers hindering the adoption 
of this approach? 

•  How to ensure more synergies between the CEP and other EU programmes 

(particularly under shared management)? 

•  Smart Specialisation Strategies (S3) have become a key framework for guiding 
innovation and investment at the regional level across the EU. In what ways 
can  LRAs  better  align  their  S3  priorities  with  the  objectives  and  funding 
opportunities of the CEP? Are there any existing or planned mechanisms to 
support the integration of CCS into regional innovation ecosystems through 
CEP  resources,  especially  in  the  context  of  cross-sectoral  innovation, 
sustainability, or digitalisation? 

•  According to the results of the surveys we distributed to both LRAs awarded 
by the CEP and those not involved, Central and Eastern European LRAs often 
view  the  CCS  in  their  regions  as  inadequately  prepared  to  face  future 
challenges  at  the  regional  level,  particularly  in  relation  to  technological 
change, global transformations, and local transitions. To what extent is this due 
to  the  fact  that  CCS  governance  and  support  are  primarily  managed  at  the 
national level, potentially limiting strategic alignment between the place-based 
and the EU-level opportunities, such as the CEP? What structural or systemic 
barriers  do  you  believe  are  contributing  to  this  situation,  and  what  targeted 
measures could help ensure stronger participation and preparedness of CCS in 
Central and Eastern Europe within future iterations of the Programme? 

•  What policy measures could be introduced to avoid negative repercussions on 
employment and innovativeness in the CCS due to the increasing AI use in the 
sector, and how could they be used to promote cultural diversity and freedom 
of expression? 

•  In your opinion, is the inclusion of vulnerable groups (e.g., migrants, socio-
economically disadvantaged people) adequately considered by the CEP? How 
could  the  risk  of  further  under-representing  these  groups  in  the  CCS  be 
mitigated? 

•  In light of increasing geopolitical tensions, there is growing concern that CCS 
actors may face greater obstacles in expressing ideas freely, promoting ethical 

182 

 
 
values,  or engaging in international cultural  cooperation. How  can the CEP 
strengthen its support for artistic freedom and ensure that cultural exchange 
remains open, inclusive, and resilient in such a context? Are there any specific 
measures  being  considered  to  help  safeguard  freedom  of  expression  and 
cultural dialogue in times of heightened political or ethical constraints? 

•  Do you see a link between health challenges (e.g., rising global health issues, 
mental health) and the performance of the CCS? If so, how could EU policies 
address these issues? 

•  The  COVID-19  crisis  revealed  the  need  for  greater  flexibility  in  the  EU’s 
Multiannual  Financial  Framework  (MFF),  prompting  a  shift  toward  more 
adaptive financial planning to better respond to future unforeseen crises. In this 
context,  how  does  the  European  Commission  intend  to  allocate  adequate 
resources to the CEP within the 2028-2034 MFF, especially given the growing 
emphasis on new priorities such as EU defence and sustainability? 

•  To our understanding, the final evaluation of the CEP 2014–2020 and the mid-
term evaluation of the 2021-2027 Programme were expected to be published 
by 31 December 2024. As these have not yet been made publicly available, 
could you kindly clarify  the  reasons  for  the delay?  Could you  also  indicate 
when these evaluations might be expected? 

Additional relevant input from DG EAC 

183 

 
 
 
 
Annex V – Six detailed case studies 

CASE V.1. CreArt 3.0 #stringing_together (Czechia, Finland, France, 
Germany, Italy, North Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, Spain) 

Photo credit: CreArt 3.0 

LRAs involved 

Website 
Keywords 

Sub-programme: Culture 
Action: Cooperation projects 
Call year: 2023 
Total budget: EUR 1,901,548.00 (EU grant) 
Timing: From 01-01-2024 to 31-12-2026 
Valladolid  Municipal  Foundation  for  Culture  (ES) 
(Coordinator), České Budějovice – European Capital of 
Culture  2028  (CZ),  Municipality  of  Skopje  (MK), 
Municipality of Clermont Ferrand (FR), Municipality of 
Rouen (FR), Municipality of Venice (IT), Municipality 
of  Lublin 
(PT), 
Municipality of Oulu (FI), Municipality of Regensburg 
(DE) (Partners) 
https://creart2-eu.org/  
International cooperation amongst LRAs; Contemporary 
art promotion; Capacity building. 

(PL),  Municipality  of  Aveiro 

Project description 
CreArt 3.0 is a project funded by the CEP that is currently at its third edition. 
Launched  in  2012  within  the  framework  of  the  Culture  Programme  (2007-
2013),  it  was  renewed  for  CEP  funding  in  2017  and  2024,  respectively. 
Coordinated  by  the  Valladolid  Municipal  Foundation  for  Culture  in  its  three 
editions, CreArt 3.0 aims to create a strong network of municipalities from all 
over Europe that can guarantee an exchange of experiences, stimuli and creative 
impulses  for  the  support  and  development  of  contemporary  art.  Through 
fundamental tools such as mobility programmes, CreArt 3.0 aims to maximise 
the contribution of the creative sector to the life and well-being of the citizens 
of the territories involved. Through the activities organised within the project, 
artists, agents and workers in the CCS can cooperate to improve not only the 
cultural  offer,  enriched  through  exchanges,  but  also  the  socio-economic 
conditions of the municipalities. 

Compared to previous editions, the current project is much more focused on the 
municipalities, which are the real protagonists in the promotion of the sector at 
the local and international level, favouring exchange and mobility initiatives. 
An  example  of  this  change  of  pace  compared  to  previous  editions  is  the 
inclusion within the partnership of České Budějovice, in the Czech Republic, 
the future European Capital of Culture in 2028. 

“CreArt has opened a common place for art in Europe”.  

184 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
“[…]  a  permanent  transnational  mobility  programme  for  emerging  artists, 
curators  and  cultural  agents,  to  maximise  the  economic,  social  &  cultural 
contribution that creativity can make to their local communities”. 

These are amongst the words used to describe the presentation of the CreArt 3.0 
project that is available on the website: the concept of “common place” and the 
strong reference to its transnational nature give a good idea of what the project's 
priorities are. CreArt 3.0, vividly described by the hashtag #stringing_together, 
allows  cooperation  and  dialogue  amongst  13  European  cities  involved  in 
exchanging experiences and good practices to promote contemporary art in all 
its forms: visual, performing and musical. The project is dedicated to fostering 
an  intensive  transnational  mobility  programme  specifically  tailored  for  the 
objectives and needs of emerging artists, curators and cultural agents. The goal, 
through  an increasingly intense  and  fruitful collaboration,  is to  maximise the 
economic, social and cultural contribution to local communities. 

CreArt  3.0  is  based  on  different  directives  through  which  all  the  activities 
related  to  the  project  are  developed.  It  all  starts  with  the  coordination  and 
management  of  every  phase  of  the  project.  First  of  all,  coordination.  The 
activities  related  to  project  management  are  handled  by  the  project’s 
coordinator, Valladolid Municipal Foundation for Culture. Then, participation 
allows  artists,  cultural  institutions  and  citizens  to  enjoy  local  initiatives  and 
cultural events in the cities related to the project. Another important aspect is 
cooperation, which is crucial to ensuring active and diverse participation from 
the  entire  community  and  a  constant  exchange  of  ideas  and  experiences, 
including opportunities for artists to be hosted in project partner cities. Finally, 
mentoring:  local  capacity-building  workshops  for  citizens  and  cultural 
associations  are  opportunities.  Although  the  guidelines  are  clear  and  agreed 
upon by all partners, some flexibility is left to each municipality to organise the 
events that best suit their territories and cultural sensitivities. 

The  participation  of  the  Municipality  of  Clermont-Ferrand  in  EU  funded 
cultural programmes dates back well before 2024. In fact, the city joined the 
CreArt 2.0 project in June 2017, committing a total budget of EUR 120,395.00 
alongside 11 other municipalities, thereby deepening its engagement within the 
European cultural landscape. The municipality's commitment to the CreArt 3.0 
project is a direct consequence of the importance of the CCS in the eyes of the 
administration,  for  which  culture  remains  a  crucial  priority:  10%  of  the 
municipal annual budget is dedicated to the CCS. Furthermore, the Municipality 
hosts the Clermont-Ferrand Short Film Festival, the world's largest film event 
dedicated to short films. 

185 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Building on the experience gained through CreArt 2.0, the project has evolved 
over time, improving both in structure and impact. It has now acquired such a 
strong reputation that attracting artists to participate has become easier, partly 
due to the increased visibility the project offers. To address organisational and 
bureaucratic challenges, particularly those related to reporting, the coordinator 
developed a series of documents and tools to assist the other partners, guiding 
them through the preparation of financial documents. This support has enabled 
partners to participate more smoothly, allowing them to focus more fully on the 
project’s cultural aspects. 

the 

Other initial practical challenges  were also highlighted. Difficulties linked to 
administrative  complexity,  limited  resources,  language  barriers,  and  limited 
local 
staffing  made  the  early  stages  particularly  demanding  for 
administration.  However,  over  time,  many  of  these  obstacles  have  been 
overcome,  thanks  in  large  part  to  the  capacity  building  generated  through 
intensive cooperation and the exchange of best practices amongst municipalities 
and other key stakeholders within the CCS. Through the development of new 
business  models,  education  initiatives,  and  training  activities,  the  project  has 
aimed  at  achieving  both  short-term  improvements  and  ensuring  long-term 
sustainability. While the former can be considered accomplished - evidenced by 
the benefits  observed  for artists and  the broader  cultural vibrancy  - the latter 
remains uncertain. Political changes and cultural shifts could pose significant 
risks. Nevertheless, the strong and virtuous partnership forged over the years 
provides  a  solid  foundation  for  fostering  a  more  dynamic  cultural  scene  and 
enhancing the international visibility of its key players. 

Evidence of relevance of the project to CEP key objectives  

CreArt 3.0 is strongly oriented to the pursuit of the main priorities of the CEP. 
•  Protecting  and  Promoting  Cultural  Diversity  and  Heritage  and 
Strengthening  European  Identity  and  Values.  Every  activity  and 
initiative is directed towards the safeguarding, developing, and promotion 
of  the  common  cultural  heritage.  Numerous  opportunities  of  dialogue 
with different cultures and linguistic connections contributes to fostering 
transnational  cooperation  and  facilitating  the  respective  exchange  of 
ideas and cultural stimuli between the artists and their  host  cities. The 
participation  of  local  public  authorities  from  different  cultures  in  the 
project enables the sharing of ideas and cultural initiatives, allowing the 
peculiarities of one nation or region to spread to others, influencing and 
inspiring one another. 

•  Encouraging  International  Cooperation  and  Mobility.  The  project 
supports mobility for those who are willing to explore different realities 

186 

 
 
 
 
and immerge themselves in a new cultural environment. Thanks to the 
project,  hosting  cities  are  supported  in  the  creation  of  a  welcoming 
experience to visiting artists and assuring a virtuous cultural proposal to 
citizens and visitors, facilitating the enjoyment of culture to a broader 
audience.  

•  Foster the Competitiveness of the CCS. CreArt 3.0 focuses on those 
objectives as much from a purely artistic and cultural point of view as 
for their economic and social implications on the territories concerned. 
The increase of competitiveness and economic potential of the CCS is a 
fundamental  priority  for  the  municipalities  involved  in  CreArt  3.0, 
especially the audiovisual sector. Evidence of this is the previously cited 
relevance of the CCS in Clermont-Ferrand annual budget and the hosting 
of its Short Film Festival. 

•  Audience Development and Engagement. The CreArt 3.0 partnership 
is  always  striving  to  find  new  and  more  innovative  ways  to  actively 
involve not only the artists but also the general public. This testifies to 
the belief in the need to actively support the CCS so that it is alive and 
participated in. Wider participation not only allows artists and companies 
a better economic situation but also allows those who are simply willing 
to  enjoy  as  spectators  a  broader  and  more  varied  choice,  suited  to 
everyone's  artistic  inclinations.  This  could  not  be  possible  without  a 
constant exchange and mutual influence with foreign partners. 

Sources:  CreArt  3.0  website118;  CreArt  3.0  website119;  Comune  di  Genova  website120; 
interview held on 11 April 2025 with a representative of Municipality of Clermont Ferrand 
(FR). 

118 CreArt 3.0, “CreArt. A space of cooperation for art in Europe”. Accessed May 28, 2025.  
https://creart2-eu.org/news-videos/?page=6. 
119 CreArt 3.0, “CreArt 3.0”. Accessed May 28, 2025. https://creart2-eu.org/creart-3/.  
120  Comune  di  Genova,  “CreArt2.0”.  Accessed  May  28,  2025.  https://smart.comune.genova.it/sezione/progetti-
europei/creart20.  

187 

 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE V.2. LT – Landscape Together (Portugal) 

Sub-programme: Culture 
Action: Cooperation projects 
Call year: 2022 
Total budget: EUR 999,960.00 (EU grant) 

Timing: From 01-02-2023 to 31-01-2027 

Photo credit: Landscape Together 

LRAs involved 

Website 
Keywords 

Regional  Tourism  Entity  of  Central  Portugal  (PT), 
Municipality  of  Idanha-a-Nova  (PT),  Municipality  of 
Oleiros  (PT),  Municipality  of  Pedrógão  Grande  (PT), 
Municipality  of  Proença-a-Nova  (PT),  Municipality  of 
Sertã (PT) (Partners) 
https://landscapetogether.eu/   
Cultural  mediation;  Environmental  development; 
Sustainable design. 

Project description 
Landscape  Together  (LT)  is  a  transdisciplinary  project  funded  by  the  CEP, 
which started in February 2023 and is expected to end in January 2026. It is 
based on an intense cooperation between international partners from Belgium, 
France, Germany, Italy and Spain, alongside a pilot territory located in central 
Portugal.  

The  project  engages  artists,  cultural  mediators,  environmental  experts,  urban 
designers, and communication professionals to build connections between the 
cultural and historical heritage of the Central Portugal region and contemporary 
artistic expression. Through a wide array of activities - including workshops, 
exhibitions, conferences, artistic residencies, and creative talks – carried out in 
cities  such  as  Berlin,  Brussels,  Milan,  Paris,  and  San  Sebastian,  the  project 
promotes  an  inclusive  and  creative  exchange  between  communities  and 
professionals across sectors. The main goal of Landscape Together is to explore 
and propose a new, holistic approach to the territory. It seeks to offer innovative, 
sustainable  responses  to  pressing  contemporary  issues  -  specifically,  the 
depopulation of rural areas and the escalating consequences of climate change.  

The project is driven by the belief that by intersecting art, history, nature, and 
community participation, it is possible to revitalise rural environments affected 
by depopulation and strengthen local identity while addressing environmental 
challenges. Marked by environmental issues such as the devastating forest fires 
of 2017 and increasing water scarcity, the Central Portugal region serves as the 
testing ground for this integrated and forward-thinking model. 

188 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
The coordination of the project is entrusted to Marques de Aguiar, Arquitectura 
e Urbanismo Lda (MAG), an architecture and urban design studio based in Porto 
(Portugal).  Amongst 
the  project’s  key  partners  are  five  Portuguese 
municipalities  –  i.e.,  Proença-a-Nova,  Oleiros,  Sertã,  Pedrógão  Grande,  and 
Idanha-a-Nova - which play an active role in the logistical organisation of events 
and activities. The Regional Tourism Entity of Central Portugal also participate, 
representing the interests of the entire region and sharing the project’s goals of 
cultural  revitalisation  and  climate  resilience.  The  creative  contributions  of 
design  studios  such  as  Atelier  YokYok  (France)  and  KHBT  (Germany/UK) 
have further strengthened the project, particularly through the development of 
two  permanent  site-specific  artworks.  The  first,  titled  ‘Tijolo’,  created  by 
Atelier YokYok in Salvaterra do Extremo (Idanha-a-Nova), uses biodegradable 
clay to highlight water scarcity and serves as a cultural and poetic landmark. 
The  second,  developed  by  KHBT  and  located  approximately  150 km  further 
east on the lake formed by the Cabril Dam in Pedrógão Grande, draws attention 
to  the  local  community’s  concerns  about  the  proliferation  of  floating 
photovoltaic  panels  and  their  environmental  and  visual  impact.  These 
infrastructures have staged many protests due to the anticipated disruption to 
the lives of residents, the habitats of local fauna, and the broader ecosystem. 
KHBT’s work draws on detailed geographical research, the site’s unique natural 
features,  and  conversations  with  local  inhabitants  of  Atalaias  and  Pedrógão 
Grande. Both installations embody the core philosophy of the project, which is 
anchored  in  community  participation,  environmental  awareness,  and  the 
meaningful integration of artistic practice within the territory. 

Despite being only halfway through its implementation, the project has already 
achieved remarkable results. According to the project activity report released in 
2024, it has promoted cooperation and mobility amongst more than 90 artists 
and  delivered  over  70  workshops,  43  interdisciplinary  events,  18  artistic 
residencies,  8  cultural  tours,  20  creative  talks,  8  exhibitions,  2  permanent 
artworks, 2 training camps, and 4 summer courses. These outcomes demonstrate 
the project’s capacity to foster meaningful cultural engagement and innovation 
in rural settings.  

Nonetheless, the project has encountered a number of challenges. The remote 
geography of the pilot territory and limited transport infrastructure complicated 
mobility and planning for international artist participation. Additionally, some 
partner municipalities had limited experience with European funding, making 
administrative  and  bureaucratic  tasks  particularly  challenging.  Another 
significant  challenge  was  developing  effective  strategies  to  engage  a  local 
population  experiencing  both  depopulation  and  urban-like  socio-cultural 
dynamics. To better understand the local context, project partners participated 
in community events and carried out interviews, while also using digital tools 

189 

 
 
 
 
such  as  live  streaming.  These  efforts  helped  ensure  broad  and  inclusive 
participation,  fostering  stronger  ties  between  residents  and  their  cultural 
environment. Given the central role of communication, a shift occurred within 
the  consortium  when  the  original  partner  responsible  for  this  task  could  no 
longer fulfil its role. After an internal debate, the consortium decided in June 
2024  to  reassign  communication  coordination  to  another  partner,  with  the 
amendment process currently underway. This change represented a significant 
obstacle  to  the  project’s  overall  progress.  However,  thanks  to  solid  central 
coordination  –  led  by  MAG  –  and  a  temporary  internal  reorganisation,  the 
continuation of activities was successfully ensured.  

Looking ahead, Landscape Together is committed to ensuring the continuity of 
both  tangible  and  intangible  outcomes.  Beyond  the  permanent  artworks, 
partners are co-developing with citizens the ‘LT Model toolkit’, to serve as a 
replicable  method  for  other  communities  seeking  to  reconnect  with  their 
landscape and culture. It will feature best practices and innovative solutions for 
improved  living  environments,  sustainable  construction  and  environmental 
techniques, and cultural programming. The project also recognises the evolving 
demographic  landscape  of  the  Central  Portugal  region,  noting  the  increasing 
presence of non-native residents as a valuable resource for enriching cultural 
life. These new community members offer fresh perspectives and energy that 
can support long-term revitalisation. In this way, Landscape Together aims not 
only  to  transform  the  landscape  but  to  empower  the  communities  within  it, 
fostering a resilient and participatory cultural legacy.  

Evidence of relevance of the project to CEP key objectives  

LANDSCAPE  TOGETHER  is  strongly  oriented  to  the  pursuit  of  the  main 
priorities of the CEP. 

•  Audience  Development  and  Engagement.  The  involvement  of  the 
population is the beating heart of the project. Having an interested and 
engaged public is essential, as the issues addressed (i.e., environmental 
concerns, cultural heritage, and demographic shifts) directly impact the 
lives of thousands of residents and just as many visitors. The territorial 
focus of the project is reflected not only  in environmental  themes  but 
also  in  the  cultural  and  historical  specificities  of  the  Portuguese 
municipalities involved. This approach is not limited to central Portugal. 
Rather,  the  aim  is  for  the  methods  and  guidelines  developed  through 
Landscape Together to be applicable to other European regions facing 
similar challenges. Artistic curiosity becomes a powerful entry point for 
engaging with practical and pressing issues, demonstrating that the value 
of art and culture extends beyond contemplation to generate tangible and 
lasting results. 

190 

 
 
 
 
•  Protecting and Promoting Cultural Diversity and Heritage. Culture, 
history,  and  traditions  emerge  from  the  unique  conditions  of  each 
territory. Different regions, inhabited by distinct populations, generate 
specific artistic, cultural, and creative expressions. Landscape Together 
aims  to  celebrate  and  enhance  this  diversity  by  fostering  cooperation 
amongst multiple municipalities within the same region, thereby creating 
an  integrated  ecosystem  to  address  common  challenges.  The  project 
develops a model of intervention in which art serves not only as a form 
of expression but also as a powerful tool to engage with and address the 
social  and  systemic  dynamics  of  a  territory.  To  achieve  this,  it  offers 
tools and methodologies that can be shared and adapted by other regions 
facing similar challenges, encouraging the development of local and/or 
regional strategies that respect and build upon their cultural specificities. 
•  Supporting  Green  and  Sustainable  Practices.  The  environmental 
fragility  of  a  landscape  is  inextricably  linked  to  its  cultural  identity. 
When the natural balance of a territory is disrupted, the consequences 
extend  far  beyond  ecology,  affecting  communities,  traditions,  and 
livelihoods.  Landscape  Together  uses  art,  performance,  and  cultural 
exchange to heighten awareness of these interdependencies. Workshops, 
installations, and events are not just hosted in natural settings - they are 
shaped  by  them.  In  this  way,  the  project  encourages  a  respectful  and 
sustainable relationship between people and the places they inhabit or 
visit. 

Sources: Experimenta Paisagem 2024121; Landscape Together website122; interview held on 
9  May  2025  with  two  representatives  of  the  project  coordinator,  Marques  de  Aguiar, 
Arquitectura  e  Urbanismo  LDA  (PT)  and  a  representative  of  Municipality  of  Pedrógão 
Grande (PT). 

121  Experimenta  Paisagem.  2024.  Landscape  Together:  Final  Report  2024.  Accessed  May  28,  2025. 
https://experimentapaisagem.pt/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/LT_REPORT2024.pdf.  
122 Landscape Together, “Homepage”. Accessed May 28, 2025. https://landscapetogether.eu/.  

191 

 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE V.3. DIALOG CITY - A holistic approach towards a digital cultural 
infrastructure in European cities (Germany) 

Sub-programme: Culture 
Action: Cooperation projects 
Call year: 2021 
Total budget: EUR 995,689.00 (EU grant) 

Timing: From 01-06-2022 to 31-01-2026 

Photo credit: Dialog City 

LRAs involved  Municipality of Aschaffenburg (DE) (Coordinator) 
Website 
Keywords 

https://dialogcity.eu/   
Cultural heritage; Citizens engagement; Urban regeneration. 

Project description 

Digital transformation is more of a  
mindset rather than a purely technical innovation. 

DIALOG  CITY  is  a  project  funded  by  the  CEP  that  aims  to  promote  civic 
participation and the digitisation of cultural heritage. It seeks to enhance access 
to  culture  by  exploring  new  ways  to  link  digital  innovation  with  citizen 
engagement  through  a  dialogical  approach.  The  objective  is  to  build 
partnerships between small and medium-sized cities across European countries, 
based  on  collaboration  between  city  museums,  city  archives,  cultural 
organisations, urban activists, social architects, as well as training institutions.  

At  the  heart  of  the  project  is  co-creation  with  citizens,  which  drives  the 
development of a Citizen Archive Platform (CAP). The project was initiated by 
the Municipality of Aschaffenburg, a suburban city of about 70,000 inhabitants 
in Bavaria (Germany), which has coordinated the project since its inception in 
June  2022.  Aschaffenburg  does  not  define  itself  as  a  “smart  city”  in  the 
traditional sense but rather as a “dialogue city”, where citizens, institutions and 
cultural  actors  collaborate  on  digital  transformation.  Alongside  the  city 
institutions, the contribution acknowledged by the “Stiftsarchiv”, the monastery 
archives, was crucial.  

The  project  is  not  only  territorially  grounded  but  also  strongly  shaped  by  its 
international and European dimension. At first glance, the diversity of partners 
involved  makes  it  clear  that  DIALOG  CITY  aims  to  represent  a  replicable 
model  for  other  European  contexts.  The  consortium  consists  of  7  project 
partners based in small and medium-sized cities across five European countries 
(i.e.,  Austria,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  and  Italy),  reflecting  a  shared 
commitment to cultural digitisation and civic engagement. 

192 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Key activities within the project include the abovementioned CAP and the City 
Lab,  which  are  instrumental  in  ensuring  the  protection  and  enhancement  of 
cultural traditions at the local level through digitisation. CAP is a digital archive 
where  all  kinds  of  data-based  objects  (e.g.,  images,  videos,  audio  files,  and 
texts)  can  be  submitted.  Every  citizen  can  contribute  to  the  initiative  with 
cultural  documents,  whether  they  hold  historical  significance  or  personal 
meaning. Traditions, customs and seemingly insignificant materials can become 
part of a valuable shared heritage, reflecting the local culture developed over 
years and centuries. 

In addition to digital participation, citizens can engage in physical spaces such 
as the City Lab and Digital Shop, where they receive support with digital tools 
and can actively participate in creating collective memory. A notable innovation 
is the implementation of Intergenerational Workshops, which bring together the 
elderly  -  who  may  have  historical  materials  but  lack  technical  skills  -  with 
younger participants - who may be technologically literate but less familiar with 
the  past.  This  simple  yet  powerful  process  of  combining  digitisation  and 
document  collection  fosters  mutual  enrichment  and  dialogue  between 
generations. 

The project has not been without challenges. Particular attention was needed to 
encourage active citizen participation in cultural initiatives, which had declined 
following the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, the upskilling of archive staff 
to meet new digitisation requirements proved complex. Ensuring data security 
and user privacy on the CAP was also a critical concern. 

On  the  positive  side,  the  support  of  local  political  leadership,  with  special 
reference  to  the  mayor  of  Aschaffenburg,  significantly  contributed  to  the 
project's  success.  Political openness to  cultural and digital initiatives  ensured 
consistent coordination and visibility. The collaboration with the University of 
Applied Sciences Aschaffenburg – as an associated partner - also provided vital 
scientific and research input. From a funding perspective, the project benefits 
from CEP resources, while Aschaffenburg also accesses German cultural and 
digitisation funds. 

While the project is scheduled to end in January 2026, its legacy is designed to 
outlast the funding period. A large final conference is planned in Aschaffenburg 
to  reflect  on  achievements  and  explore  future  directions  to  ensure  their 
sustainability. Amongst the initiatives being considered for the future is “Games 
for Our Common Future”, which utilises interactive games to engage citizens in 
discussions about climate change and digitalisation. The Aschaffenburg archive 
is willing to maintain and expand the CAP post-project, involving new cities 
and developing user guidelines for citizens. Special attention is being paid to 

193 

 
 
 
 
 
 
the sustainability of the results and the model’s adaptability to other European 
communities. DIALOG CITY thus stands as a unique example of how local and 
EU-level  collaboration  can  be  successfully  combined  through  the  active 
participation of citizens, enabling a more inclusive, culturally enriched digital 
future. 

Evidence of relevance of the project to CEP key objectives  

DIALOG CITY is strongly oriented to the pursuit of the main priorities of CEP. 
•  Audience Development and Engagement. The primary objective of the 
project is to strengthen a vibrant and participatory cultural environment 
by using digital tools and community-based initiatives. DIALOG CITY 
aims to enhance interaction - both amongst citizens and between citizens 
and  local  institutions  -  within  the  cities  they  inhabit.  Central  to  this  is 
encouraging in-person involvement, allowing individuals to share their 
experiences,  stories,  and  memories.  By  creating  a  shared  and 
participatory digital environment that reflects the life and complexity of 
its communities, the project gives a significant boost to the cultural and 
creative vitality of entire territories. Through initiatives that raise digital 
literacy and cultural awareness, citizens become more aware of the key 
role they play in sustaining a flourishing and diverse cultural landscape. 
Importantly, the  project  demonstrates  how  both  local participation  and 
EU-level priorities can be harmonised through a citizen-driven approach. 
•  Promoting Innovation and Digital Transition. Digital transformation 
is at the very core of DIALOG CITY. Digitisation is not merely a tool for 
cultural  dissemination,  but  a  fundamental  goal  in  itself,  i.e.,  enabling 
broader  civic  engagement  and  cultural  access.  By  enhancing  citizens' 
understanding  of  digital  technologies  and  the  opportunities  they  bring, 
the project promotes wider participation in the cultural and creative life 
of communities. The CAP is a clear example of how digital innovation 
can  serve  both  cultural  preservation  and  community  empowerment, 
illustrating  how  digital  tools  can  be  used  to  store  heritage  and  foster 
inclusive access to culture through citizen participation and co-creation. 
•  Strengthening  European  Identity  and  Values.  A  key  focus  of 
DIALOG CITY is ensuring the long-term sustainability of its outcomes 
and opening its model to other European cities. Many small and medium-
sized cities hesitate to engage in EU projects due to limited resources. By 
offering a replicable, cost-effective approach that stimulates cultural and 
social  development,  DIALOG  CITY  provides  a  valuable  model.  The 

194 

 
 
 
hope is that its success can inspire similar efforts across Europe, helping 
to reinforce a shared cultural identity. Moreover, the easy accessibility of 
a vast collection of digital documents and materials through the CAP – 
requiring  only  an  Internet  connection  -  fosters  cross-border  cultural 
exchange,  making  culture  and  creativity  accessible  to  all  European 
citizens, regardless of location. 

Sources: Dialog City website123; Citizen Archive Platform124; Aschaffenburg City and Abbey 
Archives  website125;  interview  held  on  14  April  2025  with  two  representatives  of 
Municipality of Aschaffenburg (DE). 

123 Dialog City, “Homepage”. Accessed May 28, 2025. https://dialogcity.eu/.  
124  Citizen  Archive,  “Welcome  to  the  Citizen  Archive  Platform  (CAP)”.  Accessed  May  28,  2025. 
https://citizenarchive.eu/en/.  
125  Stadt-  &  Stiftsarchiv  Aschaffenburg,  “Willkommen  auf  der  Internetpräsenz  des  Stadt-  und  Stiftsarchivs!”. 
Accessed May 28, 2025. https://stadtarchiv-aschaffenburg.de/.  

195 

 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE  V.4.  BlueTour  -  Enhancing  creative  and  cultural  sector  and 
sustainable tourism in coastal regions (Portugal) 

Sub-programme: Culture 
Action: Cooperation projects 
Call year: 2022 
Total budget: EUR 199,304.00 (EU grant) 

Photo credit: BlueTour 

Timing: From 01-01-2023 to 31-12-2024 

LRAs involved 
Website 
Keywords 

Municipality of Faro (PT) (Partner) 
https://sineglossa.it/en/projects/bluetour/   
Blue heritage; Sustainable tourism; Model scalability.  

Project description 
BLUETOUR  was  a  CEP  project  that  focused  on  the  creation  of  artistic 
in 
itineraries  and  community  meetings 
Mediterranean coastal areas. Running from January 2023 to December 2024, it 
supported local communities in redefining their identity by engaging residents 
in processes that recovered collective memory, reflected on current challenges, 
and envisioned future scenarios. 

to  foster  sustainable 

tourism 

The  BLUETOUR  project  brought  together  three  entities  operating  in 
geographically  similar  coastal  areas:  Ancona  (Italy),  Faro  (Portugal),  and 
Lesvos (Greece). These Mediterranean seaside territories were all undergoing 
significant urban, geographical, and economic changes, largely driven by the 
spread  of  a  uniform  tourism  development  model.  Ancona  and  Faro  were 
experiencing the  adverse  effects of overtourism, where  large visitor numbers 
strained local infrastructure and resources. In contrast, Lesvos found itself at the 
intersection  of  migration  and  voluntourism,  where  both  migrants  and 
humanitarian  volunteers  effectively  became  temporary  residents,  shaping  a 
unique socio-cultural fabric. 

The  project  was  coordinated  by  Sineglossa,  a  cultural  organisation  based  in 
Ancona with a strong background in culture-driven urban regeneration, both in 
the city and the nearby Conero Natural Park. LATRA, a social enterprise based 
in Lesvos, and the Municipality of Faro led activities in their respective coastal 
areas.  LATRA  is  a  purpose-driven  organisation  committed  to  addressing 
Europe’s  social,  political,  economic,  and  cultural  challenges.  Through 
innovative research and action driven by the vision to “Build a Better World”, 
the  organisation  works  to  empower  marginalised  communities  through 
inclusive education, economic participation, and governance, enabling them to 
shape  their  futures  and  build  inclusive,  adaptive,  and  resilient  communities. 

196 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
the  administrative  capital  of  Portugal’s  Algarve 

region  with 
Faro, 
approximately  65,000  residents,  played  a  critical  public  sector  role,  heavily 
investing  in  the  CCS  as  both  an  economic  opportunity  and  a  strategy  to 
counterbalance  overtourism.  As  evidence  of  this  commitment,  Faro  allocates 
around 10% of its municipal budget to culture. Its bid for European Capital of 
Culture 2027, although ultimately unsuccessful, led to a significant shift in local 
policy and a change in public investment mindset. This transformation resulted 
in  a  notable  increase  in  support  for  cultural  associations  -  from  around  30  a 
decade ago to more than 80 after the bid. 

Through  participatory  co-design  methods,  the  project  engaged  policymakers, 
artists,  cultural  practitioners,  tour  operators,  and  local  communities  to  create 
guide maps that invited travellers to explore any of the three coastal areas while 
connecting with their unique “spirit of place”, i.e., local blue heritage. A notable 
aspect  of  the  project  was  the  capacity-building  initiative  led  by  Sineglossa, 
which  trained  local  artists  and  operators  in  the  NONTURISMO  community 
drafting methodology. This methodology enabled collaborative artistic works 
that celebrated and enhanced cultural and natural heritage while promoting eco-
friendly practices in tourism, culture, and local economies. 

The partnership was  informally  established through personal  networks  rather 
than  institutional  matchmaking  platforms.  Faro  was  the  sole  local  public 
authority  partner,  offering  valuable  public  sector  insight  and  administrative 
support.  It facilitated  citizen engagement,  enabled  access to local  artists, and 
ensured legal and financial compliance.  

Despite its achievements, the project encountered several challenges, one of the 
most pressing being how to ensure meaningful community participation given 
the  limited  population  size  of  the  cities  involved.  In  smaller  urban  contexts, 
engagement  efforts  often  risk  becoming  repetitive,  as  they  involve  the  same 
participants multiple times. This highlighted the need to broaden outreach and 
include more diverse segments of the community. 

Nevertheless, BLUETOUR prioritised honest dialogue over polished narratives 
of  success.  This  commitment  to  transparency  ensured  that  project  goals 
remained  specific,  realistic,  and  aligned  with  both  EU  priorities  and  local 
contexts. A key tangible outcome was the creation of public artworks, which 
enriched  the  participating  coastal  areas  and  will  be  maintained  through 
municipal resources, contributing to the project’s long-term sustainability. 

Finally,  BLUETOUR’s  experience  offered  valuable  insight  into  the  evolving 
structure of Creative Europe funding. While the programme has become more 
output-focused and less bureaucratically burdensome, the BLUETOUR case - 

197 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
particularly Faro’s - suggested that greater flexibility in fund allocation (e.g., to 
restore public buildings to foster cultural initiatives) and further simplification 
of  administrative  procedures  would  better  support  small  or  inexperienced 
organisations. 

To  ensure  the  replicability  of  its  approach,  the  project  produced  the 
BLUETOUR  Handbook.  This  resource  offers  methodologies  and  tools  to 
replicate  BLUETOUR’s  participatory,  sustainable  tourism  model  in  other 
coastal areas across Europe. 

Evidence of relevance of the project to CEP key objectives  

BLUETOUR is strongly oriented to the pursuit of the main priorities of the CEP. 
•  Strengthening European Identity and Values. BLUETOUR aimed to 
strengthen the cultural identity and specificities of individual territories 
facing similar challenges. By addressing the themes of overtourism and 
migration,  the  project  focused  on  issues  that  affect  not  only  the  three 
participating coastal areas but also many other European locations (e.g., 
large  and  small,  coastal  and  inland,  rural  and  urban  areas).  A  more 
efficient, conscious, and responsible management of tourism flows can 
reduce the negative effects of overtourism. Since many places in Europe 
rely economically on tourism revenues, it is crucial to consider how to 
offer  a  meaningful  visitor  experience  without  disrupting  the  everyday 
lives of residents. Preserving a place’s artistic and cultural heritage also 
depends  on  the  attention  and  value  it  receives.  Conscious  tourism 
management  can  help  redistribute  flows  toward  lesser-known,  but 
culturally  rich  destinations,  thus  alleviating  pressure  on  oversaturated 
sites and revitalising hidden gems. 

•  Audience  Development  and  Engagement.  A  careful  and  deliberate 
approach  to  tourism  -  one  that  moves  beyond  purely  economic 
motivations - requires the active involvement of local communities. To 
avoid  the  cultural  impoverishment  that  results  from  standardised  mass 
tourism,  residents  must  be  personally  engaged  in  shaping  the  tourism 
offer. The richness of Europe lies in the diversity and complexity of its 
cultural landscape. It would be irresponsible to sacrifice this heritage in 
favour  of  low-quality,  homogenised  tourist  experiences.  However, 
through participatory processes involving both residents and visitors, it is 
possible  to  preserve  each  place’s  unique  identity  while  enriching  the 
visitor experience. This exchange of ideas and impressions strengthens 
shared European culture and identity. 

198 

 
 
 
 
•  Supporting  Green  and  Sustainable  Practices.  Amongst  the  many 
harmful effects of overtourism are the environmental impacts. A surge in 
visitors  -  especially  when  exceeding  the  area's  capacity  -  can  create 
ecological  imbalances.  These  range  from  the  overuse  of  natural 
infrastructures (e.g., beaches, trails, and parks) to pollution of water, soil, 
and  air,  increased  waste  production,  and  damage  to  local  ecosystems. 
Infrastructure may also come under strain, leading to traffic congestion 
and  overuse  of  public  utilities  such  as  water,  sewage,  electricity,  and 
local  public 
thus  raising  maintenance  costs  for 
transportation, 
administrations. Greater awareness of these consequences is essential to 
foster  long-term  strategies.  Protecting  a  place’s  culture,  heritage,  and 
vibrancy must go hand in hand with preserving its natural environment 
and the well-being of its ecosystem. 

Sources: Sineglossa website126; LATRA website127; interview held on 23 April 2025 with a 
representative of Municipality of Faro (PT). 

126 Sineglossa, “BLUETOUR”. Accessed May 28, 2025. https://sineglossa.it/progetti/bluetour-turismo-culturale-
nelle-aree-costiere/.  
127 LATRA, “Build the World Better”. Accessed May 28, 2025. https://latra.gr/.  

199 

 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE  V.5.  Dancing  Histor(y)ies  –  Binding  Communities  and  Heritage 
through Dance (Spain) 

Sub-programme: Culture 
Action: Cooperation projects 
Call year: 2022 
Total budget: EUR 1,999,996.00 (EU grant) 

Timing: From 01-04-2023 to 31-03-2026 

Photo credit: Dancing Histor(y)ies 

LRAs involved 

Website 
Keywords 

Associazione Enti Locali per le Attività Culturali e di Spettacolo (i.e., a 
network of local municipalities located in Sardinia) (IT) (Coordinator), 
Mérida International Classical Theatre Festival (i.e., its board of directors 
is  made  up  of  the  Regional  Government  of  Extremadura,  Mérida  City 
Council, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports, as well as  the 
Provincial Councils of Cáceres and Badajoz) (ES) (Partner) 
https://dancinghistoryies.org/   
Community engagement; cultural heritage; performing arts. 

Project description 
“Dancing Histor(y)ies – Binding Communities and Heritage through Dance” is 
a CEP project that started in April 2023 with a series of study visits. It brings 
together dance companies and the communities they are part of, with a focus on 
the cultural heritage of the participating countries. The project aims to revitalise 
archaeological  sites  through  performing  arts  and  to  identify  an  innovative, 
effective, and replicable model for enhancing the visibility of cultural sites. This 
model involves local communities in artistic creation and the conscious use of 
cultural heritage while fostering international collaboration and the circulation 
of European artists. 

By  connecting  the  tangible  cultural  heritage  of  participating  sites  with  the 
intangible heritage and stories of local communities, the project leverages the 
creative power of dance. Dancing Histor(y)ies seeks to develop a flexible model 
that can be disseminated and adopted across Europe. The project is enriched by 
the  diverse  perspectives,  insights,  and  approaches  of  involved  institutions, 
stakeholders, and target groups. At its conclusion (i.e., March 2026), the good 
practices,  developed  methodology,  and  achieved  results  will  be  shared  as 
common  knowledge,  supporting  broader  European  implementation  and 
generating  a  multiplier  effect  beyond  what  individual  institutions  could 
accomplish alone. 

The project builds on  the experience of  the HERITART  project,  also  funded 
through  the  CEP,  which  ran  from  May  2017  to  March  2020.  Like  Dancing 

200 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Histor(y)ies,  HERITART  focused  on  revitalising  European  heritage  sites  by 
integrating theatre performances into these spaces and attracting new audiences. 

The  Dancing  Histor(y)ies  partnership  is  coordinated  by  “Associazione  Enti 
Locali per le Attività Culturali e di Spettacolo”, a network of municipalities in 
Sardinia (Italy) committed to promoting cultural activities. It includes other 12 
organisations  from  11  European  countries  (i.e.,  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Czechia, 
Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, Spain, Sweden), representing 
both institutional and artistic partners with extensive expertise in heritage site 
management,  performing  arts,  dance  production,  research,  training,  and  EU-
funded project implementation.  

Amongst  the  institutional  partners  –  who  are  primarily  responsible  for  the 
management  of  heritage  sites  and  valorisation  activities  -  is  the  Mérida 
International Classical Theatre Festival, whose board of directors includes the 
Regional  Government  of  Extremadura,  Mérida  City  Council,  the  Spanish 
Ministry  of  Education,  Culture  and  Sports,  and  the  Provincial  Councils  of 
Cáceres and Badajoz. Established in 1936, it is the oldest and most important 
classical theatre festival in Spain. The festival’s distinctive strength lies in its 
combined  institutional  and  artistic  governance:  it  benefits  from  the  strategic 
involvement  of  local,  regional, and national public authorities  in its board  of 
directors, while its artistic direction and national and international promotion 
are entrusted to De Subito Producciones. This balanced partnership ensures both 
cultural  integrity  and  creative  excellence,  making  the  festival  a  model  of 
successful  collaboration  between  institutional  and  artistic  stakeholders  in  the 
performing arts sector.  

The project has had, and continues to have, a significant impact on the cultural, 
artistic, and economic life of Mérida, the capital of the autonomous community 
of Extremadura. It introduced dance into a festival that had traditionally focused 
solely  on  theatre,  transforming  it  into  a  mainstream  cultural  event  that  now 
attracts thousands of international visitors. The project broadened the festival's 
scope  and  duration,  adding  year-round  workshops  and  performances,  and 
reaching  increasingly  diverse  audiences.  In  fact,  participation  increased 
significantly - from 350 to 1,700 participants - since the project’s inception. The 
Festival  has  also  expanded  to  other  cities  across  the  Extremadura  region, 
improving  access  for  nearby  residents.  This  expansion  has  fostered  a  strong 
sense  of  belonging  amongst  citizens,  encouraging  them  to  become  active 
participants in performances and workshops. The concept of culture as a social 
driver  is  a  central  concept  to  every  activity  related  to  the  Festival.  While 
economic benefits are acknowledged, the project places particular emphasis on 
culture’s role in promoting social cohesion and inclusion, especially amongst 

201 

 
 
 
 
 
marginalised  communities  (e.g.,  the  LGBTQ+  population,  the  elderly,  and 
youth).  

These successes were achieved despite some challenges within the partnership 
that  complicated  the  project’s  implementation.  Notably,  tensions  between 
institutional and artistic partners led to the withdrawal of the Social & Cultural 
Council of the Region of Thessaly (Greece) in the summer of 2024. Managing 
this episode proved complex, particularly from a bureaucratic standpoint, and 
highlighted the importance of mutual understanding amongst institutional and 
artistic  partners.  Nevertheless,  the  subsequent  improvement  in  collaboration 
demonstrates both the strong commitment and dedication of those who believe 
in  the  project,  as  well  as  the  project’s  key  success  factors,  i.e.,  building 
community trust, inclusive programming, and strong partnerships that generate 
social and economic value. These efforts foster an active cultural environment 
that supports broader economic, social, and cultural development. 

Evidence of relevance of the project to CEP key objectives  

The Dancing Histor(y)ies project is strongly oriented to the pursuit of the main 
priorities of CEP. 

•  Protecting  and  Promoting  Cultural  Diversity  and  Heritage.  The 
project aims to breathe new life into Europe’s archaeological sites, which 
are  often  forgotten  or  not  exploited  to  their  full  potential.  Through  a 
deliberate strategy of actively involving local communities, authorities, 
and key stakeholders, historical monuments and sites can be restored to 
the  central  role  they  deserve  in  Europe’s  cultural  landscape.  By 
combining  architectural  and  historical  significance  with  other  artistic 
forms  -  especially  dance  -  the  project  renews  interest  in  sites  and 
monuments  that  might  otherwise  be  neglected.  This  fusion  of  arts 
reconciles the valorisation of existing artistic heritage with contemporary 
creative  needs,  opening  pathways  for  new  ideas,  influences,  and 
inspirations. 

•  Enhancing  Inclusion  and  Gender  Equality.  Activities  within  the 
Mérida Festival - and more broadly across all partners’ initiatives - are 
characterised  by  a  strong  commitment  to  inclusiveness.  All  artists, 
regardless  of  background,  gender,  nationality,  or  age,  are  given  the 
opportunity to express themselves. Workshops and laboratories are open 
to  all 
the  LGBTQ+ 
community,  teenagers,  elderly  individuals,  and  people  with  physical 
disabilities or special needs. Culture, the history of a place, and the beauty 
of its monuments can only be truly valued when accessible to everyone. 

interested  community  members, 

including 

202 

 
 
 
 
•  Audience Development and Engagement. A core focus of the project 
is  involving  local  communities  and  residents  in  the  territories  where 
is  active.  Through  conscious  and  active 
Dancing  Histor(y)ies 
participation, activities can be tailored to the interests and cultural needs 
of 
laboratories  offer  valuable 
opportunities for residents to co-create dance performances  that  reflect 
their  local heritage.  Moreover, the project’s emphasis on inclusiveness 
and openness helps broaden the audience, attracting a more diverse and 
curious public. 

the  population.  Workshops  and 

Sources: National Institute for cultural research and training website128; Dancing Histor(y)ies 
website129; Festival de Mérida website130; Associazione Enti Locali per le Attività Culturali 
e di Spettacolo website131; 420PEOPLE website132; interview held on 24 April 2025 with a 
representative of the Mérida International Classical Theatre Festival (ES). 

research  and 

training,  “Heritart”.  Accessed  May  28,  2025. 

128  National 
for  cultural 
Institute 
https://www.culturadata.ro/heritart-2/.  
129 Dancing Histor(y)ies, “Home”. Accessed May 28, 2025. https://dancinghistoryies.org/.  
130  Festival  de  Mérida,  “Programa  Europa  Creativa.  Dancing  Histor(y)ies  -  Binding  communities  and  heritage 
through dance”. Accessed May 28, 2025. https://www.festivaldemerida.es/otras-actividades/dancing-historyies/.  
131  Associazione  Enti  Locali  per  le  Attività  Culturali  e  di  Spettacolo,  “Progetti”.  Accessed  May  28,  2025. 
https://www.assoentilocali.it/progetti.  
132 420PEOPLE, “Dancing Histor(y)ies”. Accessed May 28, 2025.  
https://www.420people.org/repertoar/dancing-histories/.   

203 

 
 
 
 
 
CASE V.6. European Digital Deal – Exploring the Intersection of Technology 
and Democracy (Denmark) 

Sub-programme: Culture 
Action: Cooperation projects 
Call year: 2022 
Total budget: EUR 1,999,327.00 (EU grant) 

Photo credit: European Digital Deal 

Timing: From 01-01-2023 to 31-12-2025 

LRAs involved  Municipality of Helsingor (DK) (Partner) 
Website 
Keywords 

https://ars.electronica.art/eudigitaldeal/en/   
Technology and Art; Digital Ethics; Sustainable Innovation. 

Project description 
The European Digital Deal is a three-year research project that explores how 
the  rapid  adoption  of  emerging  technologies  such  as  AI,  machine  learning, 
blockchain, and algorithmic processing can impact or potentially compromise 
democratic  processes.  The  project  focuses  on  the  intersection  of  technology, 
democracy, and human rights  through artistic  exploration. Started in  January 
2023 and scheduled to be completed by December 2025, the project has so far 
launched  a  wide  range  of  programmes  aimed  at  creating  a  new  model  for  a 
public forum - one where cultural institutions, artists, researchers, and educators 
come together to explore their role in safeguarding democratic values in a digital 
world, and how they can contribute to its development. The aim is to investigate 
how the rapid and sometimes careless adoption of new technologies can alter or 
undermine democratic processes. 

The European Digital Deal project is co-financed by the CEP and the Austrian 
Federal Ministry for Arts, Culture, Civil Service and Sport. The project builds 
on prior experience from “The European ARTificial Intelligence Lab” (AI Lab), 
also  funded  by  the  CEP,  which  was  carried  out  from  November  2018  to 
December 2021. That project explored early developments in AI and machine 
learning  before  the  topic  became  mainstream.  Both  projects  focus  on  raising 
awareness of the impacts of AI on society, particularly its ethical dimensions.  

The European Digital Deal partnership is led by the Austrian Ars Electronica 
and  is  composed  of  13  other  European  cultural  organisations,  including  The 
Culture  Yard,  representing  the  Municipality  of  Helsingør  (Denmark). 
Established in 2010, this organisation also successfully participated in the “AI 
Lab” project and, previously, in its precursor, the  “European Digital Art and 
Science Network”. All three projects addressed the digitalisation process and its 
consequences on the artistic and cultural spheres. However, specific attention is 
paid to the mutual influences of these two worlds: artistic production can also 
shape technological innovations and how they are used. Specifically, within the 

204 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
current  project,  the  Culture  Yard’s  role  focuses  on  artistic  programming, 
communication  management,  organising  debates,  seminars,  and  artist 
residencies,  as  well  as  enhancing  public  engagement.  Citizens  are  involved 
through  events  and  thematic  artistic  works,  although  direct  citizen  co-design 
was  limited  during  the  planning  phase.  Moreover,  collaboration  with  local 
experts  and  academic  institutions  (e.g.,  technical  universities)  helps  deepen 
citizen engagement.  

Such a structured engagement strategy has been adopted and redefined over the 
years,  in  light  of  initial  difficulties  encountered  in  achieving  widespread 
awareness on the issue. Obstacles have been successfully overcome thanks to 
the  experience  gained  over  the  years,  including  improved  alignment  with 
municipal goals and stronger support from politicians. Over time, not only the 
cultural sector in the region has been recognised, but also its importance in the 
lives of residents. A further key point in the project’s evolution was the support 
received  from  Denmark’s  Creative  Europe  Desk,  which  has  been  vital  for 
managing administrative and reporting tasks. 

The  involvement  in  these  projects  allowed  the  Municipality  of  Helsingør,  as 
well  as  all  the  other  organisations  involved,  to  enhance  their  international 
collaboration - not only within Europe but also across Denmark. Furthermore, 
an increase in the institution’s national profile in digital art and tech-democracy 
intersections has been observed, improving the city’s strategic positioning and 
institutional  growth  through  long-term  collaborations  and  outreach.  For  the 
coming years, it is planned to sustain the initiative with national Danish funding 
and  continue  the  work  on  artistic  experimentation  and  the  technology-
humanism dialogue, all through a strong network of institutional partnerships.  

In conclusion, the European Digital Deal is not just about community. It is also 
about producing something new for the public, combining artistic production 
and digital innovation within the boundaries dictated by the interaction between 
technology and democracy.  

Evidence of relevance of the project to CEP key objectives  

The  European  Digital  Deal  is  strongly  oriented  to  the  pursuit  of  the  main 
priorities of CEP. 

•  Strengthening European Identity and Values. The central focus of the 
project is the research and analysis of the impacts and mutual influences 
between technological development and the evolution of the art sector. 
Given  the  importance  of  preserving  and  developing  culture  at  the 
European level, as evidenced by the commitment of institutions through 
the CEP, the project aims to preserve the cultural identity of the EU and 

205 

 
 
 
 
 
 
its Member States in the context of technological innovations. Studying 
the effects of new technological tools on cultural and artistic activities - 
including  at  the  cultural  policy  level  -  is  essential  to  maximise  their 
positive impact and minimise any harmful effects. Technology and digital 
tools have a particular relevance  to the project due  to their connection 
with  democracy  and  European  human  rights,  especially  freedom  of 
expression and social inclusion. 

•  Promoting Innovation  and Digital Transition. The in-depth analysis 
that the project carries out is not intended to demonise new technologies 
or their use in the cultural and creative fields. On the contrary, it aims to 
foster  full  awareness  of  the  changes  taking  place  in  society,  artistic 
production, as well as in the daily lives of all those involved in art - both 
the  artists  who  create  it  and  the  citizens  who  enjoy  it.  By  thoroughly 
understanding the intersecting  processes  and dynamics of  the industry, 
including the human dimension, it is possible to harness positive aspects 
and leverage them to achieve a more productive synergy between art and 
technology. 

Sources:  Ars  Electronica  website133;  Sineglossa  website134;  Ars  Electronica  website135; 
interview held on 11 April 2025 with two representatives of Municipality of Helsingor (DK). 

133 Ars Electronica, “European Digital Deal”. Accessed May 28, 2025. https://ars.electronica.art/eudigitaldeal/en/. 
134 Sineglossa, “European Digital Deal”. Accessed May 28, 2025.  
https://sineglossa.it/progetti/eu-digital-deal/#elementor-toc__heading-anchor-3.  
135  Ars  Electronica, 
“European  ARTificial 
https://ars.electronica.art/ailab/en/.  

Intelligence  Lab”.  Accessed  May 

2025. 

28, 

206 

 
 
 
 
 
EN

ISBN 978-92-895-3923-4 
doi: 10.2863/5991613

QG-01-25-082-EN-N

Created in 1994, the European Committee of the Regions is the EU’s political 
assembly of 329 regional and local representatives such as regional presidents or 
city-mayors from all 27 Member States, representing over 446 million Europeans.

© European Union 2025

Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 101  |  1040 Bruxelles/Brussel  |  BELGIQUE/BELGIË  /  Tel. +32 22822211
www.cor.europa.eu  /       @EU_regions_cities  /       /european.committee.of.the.regions
      /european-committee-of-the-regions  /       @EU_CoR