COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION on the interim evaluation of the Creative Europe programme 2021-2027 and final evaluation of the Creative Europe Programme 2014-2020 Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Social and Economic Committee and the Committee of the Regions - a Decade of Creative Europe
Date: 2025-12-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, artistic creation, arts, audiovisual production, cultural cooperation, cultural pluralism, cultural promotion, cultural transmission, culture industry, mass media

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 17.12.2025  SWD(2025) 418 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  on the interim evaluation of the Creative Europe programme 2021-2027 and final evaluation of the Creative Europe Programme 2014-2020 Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Social and Economic Committee and the Committee of the Regions - a Decade of Creative Europe   {COM(2025) 768 final}  
 
Table of contents 

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 
1. 
1.1.  PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION/FITNESS CHECK ......................... 1 
2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ......................... 2 
2.1.  DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVENTION AND ITS OBJECTIVES .......................... 2 
2.2.  POINTS OF COMPARISON ............................................................................................. 10 
3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ......... 12 
4. 
EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) ......................................................... 17 
4.1.  TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE INTERVENTION SUCCESSFUL AND WHY? ..... 17 

4.1.1. 

4.1.2. 

4.1.3. 

4.1.4. 

MEDIA ..................................................................................... 17 

Culture ..................................................................................... 40 

Cross-sectoral strand .............................................................. 53 

Financial Instruments ............................................................. 59 

4.1.5. 
relating to implementation ................................................................................................. 61 

Joint assessment of administrative expenses and burden 

4.2.  HOW DID THE EU INTERVENTION MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND TO WHOM? ...... 62 

4.2.1. 

4.2.2. 

4.2.3. 

4.2.4. 

MEDIA ..................................................................................... 62 

Culture ..................................................................................... 64 

Cross-sectoral strand .............................................................. 68 

Financial Instruments ............................................................. 69 

4.3.  IS THE INTERVENTION STILL RELEVANT? ................................................................ 69 

4.3.1. 

4.3.2. 

4.3.3. 

4.3.4. 

MEDIA ..................................................................................... 69 

Culture ..................................................................................... 72 

Cross-sectoral strand .............................................................. 75 

Financial Instruments ............................................................. 77 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ................................... 78 
5.1.  CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 78 

5.1.1. 

5.1.2. 

5.1.3. 

MEDIA ..................................................................................... 80 

Culture ..................................................................................... 82 

Cross-sectoral strand .............................................................. 83 

5.2.  LESSONS LEARNED ........................................................................................................ 84 

5.2.1. 

5.2.2. 

MEDIA ..................................................................................... 84 

Culture ..................................................................................... 88 

 
 
 
 
 
5.2.3 

Cross-Sectoral strand.............................................................. 90 

ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................. 91 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ..................................... 97 

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON ANSWERS 
TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) ............................................. 100 

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS [AND, WHERE RELEVANT, TABLE 
ON SIMPLIFICATION AND BURDEN REDUCTION] .................................................. 117 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT ............................. 167 
ANNEX VI. CREATIVE EUROPE PROGRAMME SPECIFIC PRIORITIES .......................... 216 
ANNEX VII. LIST OF PROGRAMME INDICATORS .............................................................. 221 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

Creative Europe 1/CE1  
Creative Europe 2/CE2  
CCS  

AV 
UN SDG  
CCS GF  
AVMSD  
(DG) EAC  

(DG) CNECT  

EACEA  

EEA 

EFTA 

TEU 

TFEU 

AWP 

VoD 

Creative Europe 2014-2020 Programme  
Creative Europe 2021-2027 Programme  
Cultural and Creative Sectors  
Cultural and creative sectors are those producing and 
distributing  goods  or  services  which  at  the  time  they 
are  developed  are  considered  to  have  a  specific 
attribute,  use  or  purpose  which  embodies  or  conveys 
cultural  expressions,  irrespective  of  the  commercial 
value they may have and in particular, including those 
industries  which  use  culture  as  an  input  and  have  a 
cultural  dimension, although their outputs  are mainly 
functional.  As  defined  in  Regulation  (EU)  2021/818, 
those sectors include, inter alia, architecture, archives, 
libraries  and  museums,  artistic  crafts,  audiovisual 
television,  video  games  and 
(including 
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. 
Audiovisual 
UN sustainable development goal  
Cultural and Creative Sectors Guarantee Facility  
Audiovisual Media Services Directive   
(Directorate-General) for Education, Youth, Sport and 
Culture  
(Directorate-General) for Communications Networks, 
Content and Technology  
European Education and Culture Executive Agency  

film, 

European Economic Area 

European Free Trade Association 

Treaty of European Union 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union  

Annual Work Programme 

Video-on-Demand  

 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION  

1.1.  Purpose and scope of the evaluation/fitness check 

The Creative Europe Programme is the European Union’s funding programme for support 
to the cultural, creative and audiovisual sectors. It was established in 2013 by Regulation 
(EU) 1295/2013  of the  European Parliament  and of the Council (hereinafter ‘the 2014-
2020 Creative Europe Regulation’),1 integrating the Culture, MEDIA 2007 and MEDIA 
Mundus programmes into one single funding instrument. In 2021, a new Creative Europe 
was  established  for  the  period  2021-2027  (Regulation  (EU)  2021/818  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council (hereinafter ‘the 2021-2027 Creative Europe Regulation’)2 
maintaining the core aspects of the first Programme, while introducing some new elements. 

This  evaluation  is  carried  out  in  line  with  Article  21(2)  of  Regulation  (EU)  2021/818, 
requiring the Commission to carry out by 31 December 2024 an interim evaluation of the 
2021-2027  Programme.  It  is  also  carried  out  in  line  with  Articles  18(5)  and  18(6)  of 
Regulation (EU) 1295/2013, requiring the Commission to perform by 30 June 2022 a final 
evaluation  of  the  2014-2020  Programme.  Following  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  its 
consequences on cultural and creative sectors, the decision was taken in November 2021 
to  align Creative Europe’s evaluation  approach  with  other  DG Education, Youth, Sport 
and Culture (EAC) coordinated programmes (such as Erasmus +). The final evaluation of 
the 2014-2020 Programme was then to be performed together with the interim evaluation 
of the current Programme. The evaluation examines actions from 2014-2023 in all Member 
States and third countries associated with the Programme. The evaluation aims to establish 
lessons  learned  from  the  former  and  current  Programmes  and  to  still  inform  the 
implementation  of  the  Creative  Europe  Programme  under  the  2021-2027  MFF.  The 
findings have also contributed to the impact assessment for the Creative Europe successor 
Programme - AgoraEU.3 Additionally, the evaluation is intended to enhance the knowledge 
base in the cultural, creative, and audiovisual sectors, offering insights for future policy 
development and practical implementation. The evaluation assesses the performances of 
the  Programme  against  the  five  evaluation  criteria  established  in  the  Better  Regulation 
Guidelines and Toolbox:4  

•  The  effectiveness  of  the  measures  taken  to  achieve  the  Programme  objectives, 

including the new initiatives;    

•  The efficiency of the Programme, including simplification measures put in place, 

as well as the scope for further simplification and burden reduction;    

•  The continued relevance of the objectives of the Programme;    
•  The  Programme’s  internal  and  external  coherence  with  other  programmes  with 

similar or complementary objectives; and   

1 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 (OJL 347, 20.12.2013, p. 221-237). 
2 Regulation (EU) 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 (OJL 189, 28.5.2021, p.34-60. 
3 EUR-Lex - 52025PC0550 - EN - EUR-Lex 
4 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/ 

1 

 
 
 
•  The  EU  added  value  resulting  from  the  actions  and  activities  supported  by  the 
Programme, including in terms of sustainable impact, compared with what could 
reasonably have been achieved by Member States at national and/or regional levels.   

The evaluation examines the results and long-term impact of the Creative Europe 2014-
2020  and  the  mid-term  results  of  Creative  Europe  2021-2027.  This  Staff  Working 
Document (SWD) draws mainly, among other sources,5 on the supporting study conducted 
by ECORYS Europe EEIG SA (tender lead) and KEA European Affairs SRL (partner), 
under contract with the European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, 
Sport and Culture (DG EAC).6  

The  evaluation  was  conducted  using  a  mixed  method  approach  combining  quantitative 
elements  (Programme  data,  Eurostat  data,  survey  data,  counterfactual  methods)  with 
qualitative  elements  (e.g.  interviews,  literature  review  and  desk  research).  More 
specifically, it included:  

•  Comprehensive  desk  research,  which  consisted  of  a  literature  review  and 

quantitative desk research; 

•  A counterfactual analysis on the impact of the MEDIA strand;  
•  A  contribution  analysis  using  a  mix  of  quantitative  and  qualitative  data  for  the 

Culture strand; 

•  Consultation activities, detailed in Annex V.  

However, some challenges exist. While the evaluation made use of large, detailed external 
datasets,  some  gaps  in  the  data  available  remain  (see  ‘Lessons  learned’  section).  
Additionally, there is potential for missing perspectives in interviews, and the possibility 
of bias in self-reported data from participants when it comes to surveys conducted for the 
evaluation. It is also challenging to assess the impact of new actions under Creative Europe 
2, because their impacts are likely to materialise over a longer time period. Despite these 
challenges and limitations, the methodology provides a solid foundation for assessing the 
Programme. 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1.  Description of the intervention and its objectives 
Culture and media (7)  are the backbone of the European project: they underpin the core 
values upon which the EU is founded – respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, 
equality,  the  rule  of  law  and  respect  for  human  rights,  including  the  rights  of  persons 
belonging to minorities.8 This is even more important in periods marked by geopolitical 
tensions, the rise of extremism and disinformation.9 Culture and media matter for Europe 
and its people: they foster a sense of belonging to a common space and add value to the 
lives of individuals. They help to improve quality of life and mental health. They also bring 
cohesion to our societies and attractiveness to our regions. 

5 Annex II. Methodology and Analytical models used. 
6 See Annex I. Procedural Information. 
7 The role of the media goes beyond culture, and media is governed under the single market framework. 
8 Treaty on the European Union, Article 2 (link: Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union). 
9 As defined in the European Democracy Action Plan 2020 & Defence of Democracy Package 2023: disinformation is 
false or misleading content that is spread with an intention to deceive or secure economic or political gain and which 
may cause public harm 

2 

 
 
 
The EU’s role in the field of culture is specified in Article 167 of the TFEU, a supporting 
competence for the EU to 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.    The  support  for  culture  is  coherent  with  this 
framework. 

The EU has adopted single market policy and legislation (governed by Treaty articles on 
the  Single  Market,  Industry,  Competition)  for the  copyright-intensive  industries  and,  in 
particular, for the audiovisual and media sectors. The support to audiovisual and media is 
coherent with this framework. 

Thus the 2021 legal basis of Creative Europe is based on Article 167(5), and Article 173(3) 
of the TFEU. 

At the same time, the budget of Creative Europe is relatively modest, equivalent to 0,2% 
of the 2021-2027 MFF.  Total MEDIA support in the same period accounts for less than 
1%  of  total  national  support  (including  to  public  broadcasting  and  film  funds)  to  the 
audiovisual industry in the EU27 Member States10.  Therefore, the outcomes expected of 
Creative Europe in addressing the key challenges of the cultural and creative sectors are 
limited,  as  the  Programme  is  implemented  in  full  respect  of  subsidiarity.  However,  it 
remains true that few other programmes -especially at national level- provide comparable 
support for cross-border collaboration, where Creative Europe has strong EU added value. 

Challenges and needs of the cultural and creative sectors 
The Cultural and Creative Industries ecosystem plays a key role in the EU economy. It has 
been identified as one of 14 key industrial ecosystems in the EU Industrial Strategy11. The 
ecosystem represents approximately 3.95% of EU value added, employs 8 million people 
and includes around 1.2 million businesses, of which over 99.9% are small and medium-
sized  enterprises  with  the  biggest  share  of  micro-SMEs  (96,4%)  among  all  industrial 
ecosystems.12 At the same time, the ecosystem includes large companies like broadcasters 
and Hollywood major studios and even global tech giants. Overall, the CCS are estimated 
to be bigger than other strategic sectors such as chemicals or automobiles.  However, the 
sector was particularly hit by the pandemic, especially when it comes to offline cultural 
activities. 

As  highlighted  in  the  explanatory  memorandum  of  the  Commission’s  proposal  for  a 
Regulation establishing Creative Europe 2,13 the CCS face a number of challenges: 

[…] 

•  First,  the  cultural  and  creative  sectors  in  Europe  have  to  face  increased 
competition from new and strong global players such as search engines and web 
based social platforms. This has led to the need to develop new business models 

10 MEDIA support between 2021 and 2023 equalled only 0.8% of total national support to public service 
broadcasting in the EU27 member states and this share would be even lower when including other types 
of national public support to the AV industry, including for film production for example. Source for total 
public support for public service broadcasting: European Audiovisual observatory, 2024 Yearbook. 
11  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  Updating  the  2020  New  Industrial  Strategy:  Building  a  stronger 
Single Market for Europe's recovery COM(2021) 350 final, 5.5.2021 

12 Annual Single Market Report 2021 SWD(2021) 352 final, 5.5.2021 
13 Proposal for Regulation establishing the Creative Europe Programme | Shaping Europe’s digital future 

3 

 
 
and realise the potential for growth by taking advantage of digital technologies in 
order to be competitive in a global market.  

•  Second, the digital shift is bringing about a change in paradigm, having a massive 
impact  on  how  cultural  goods  are  created,  managed,  disseminated,  accessed, 
consumed  and  monetised,  changing  the  value  propositions  that  prevailed  in  the 
analogue era. Digitisation has facilitated the distribution of cultural and creative 
content  and  services,  but  it  has  also  intensified  competition  of  content  across 
borders on a global scale.  

•  Third,  there  is  a  highly  fragmented  market  for  cultural  and  creative  works 
stemming largely from Europe's cultural and linguistic diversity, which results in 
the cultural and creative sectors being essentially fragmented along national and 
linguistic lines and lacking critical mass. This diversity is part of Europe's cultural 
richness. At the same time, the transnational circulation of works remains limited. 
It  is  therefore  important  to  stimulate  the  transnational  circulation  and  co-
production  of  works  across  borders  and  to  develop  more  effective  solutions  to 
reach audiences across borders. 

•  Fourth,  market  concentration  is  a  growing  concern.  In  certain  cultural  and 
creative  fields,  a  trend  is  emerging  where  a  limited  number  of  major  players 
account for a large part of global sales.  

•  Fifth,  Europe's  audiovisual  industry  is  internationally  recognised,  but  it  is  not 
competitive enough within the Digital Single Market. 80% of European films are 
national productions but co-productions travel better than national films. In some 
countries, audio-visual professionals need to strengthen their capacity to operate.  
•  Finally, there is a growing phenomenon of disinformation. Content industries, in 
particular the news media sector, are at the core of the fight to maintain a culture 
of  healthy  democratic  debate.  Artistic  freedom  and  a  diverse  and  free  media 
environment are central to conveying diverging opinions and perspectives. They 
contribute to pluralistic societies where citizens are able to make informed choices, 
including in the context of political elections.  

These  challenges  of  a  trans-national  nature  require  a  targeted  European  approach  to 
optimise  the  potential  of  the  sectors  to  contribute  to  jobs,  growth  and  social  inclusion, 
including for the most disadvantaged and hard-to-reach groups. They are common to all 
EU Member States  and have cross-border  dimensions.  Indeed, while action at  national 
level is important, the single Member States on their own do not have enough leverage to 
fully address them […] 

Objectives and priorities of Creative Europe 
The general objectives of the Programme are to safeguard, develop and promote European 
cultural and linguistic diversity and heritage; and to increase the competitiveness and the 
economic  potential  of  the  cultural  and  creative  sectors,  in  particular  the  audiovisual 
sector.14 

Both  CE 2014-2020  and CE  2021-2027 Programmes share broadly  comparable general 
and  specific  objectives  that  focus  on  promoting  transnational  cooperation,  co-creation, 
innovation,  circulation,  and  mobility  within  the  European  cultural  and  creative  sectors. 
Both aim to bring added value by strengthening the capacity of these sectors to operate 
beyond national  borders, emphasising collaboration and circulation  of works and ideas, 
and  recognising  the  dual  nature  of  the  cultural  and  creative  sectors,  their  cultural  and 

14 Article 3 (1) of the 2021-2027 Creative Europe Regulation 

4 

 
 
economic  value.  The  Culture  strand  of  both  Programmes  highlights  the  importance  of 
transnational  actions  that  complement  regional,  national,  and  international  policies, 
thereby enhancing cultural diversity and promoting shared European heritage and identity. 
Both Programmes also stress the need for cooperation among cultural players, including 
artists and cultural, creative, and audiovisual professionals, to tackle common challenges 
and create economies of scale that leverage additional funding. For MEDIA, there is more 
emphasis  in  Creative  Europe  2021-2027  on  the  competitiveness  of  the  audiovisual 
industry, owing to the increased competition  from global players in the EU market,  for 
example the growing position of non-European platforms in the distribution of content, 
and the changes in media production and consumption. 

The specific objectives of Creative Europe 1 (2014-2020) and Creative Europe 2 (2021-
2027) are detailed in Annex VI.  

The  Union’s  media  policy  is  governed  by  the  single  market  provisions  of  TFEU, 
particularly Articles 26 (establishing the internal market), 56 (ensuring the free movement 
of  services),  101-109  (addressing  competition  rules)  and  173  (competitiveness).  These 
articles  ensure  the  free  movement  of  audiovisual  services  across  EU  Member  States, 
supporting the creation of an integrated digital single market. The AVMSD aligns with 
these  provisions  by  setting  common  standards  for  content  regulation,  advertising,  and 
consumer  protection,  while  allowing  for  some  flexibility  at  the  national  level.  This 
approach  promotes  cross-border  distribution  of  media  content,  strengthens  competition, 
and  supports  a  diverse  and  pluralistic  media  landscape  across  the  EU. Moreover,  the 
European Media Freedom Act lays down common rules for the proper functioning of the 
internal market for media services, safeguards the independence and pluralism of media 
services and establishes the European Board for Media Services. 

The Programme has finally to be seen in the context of the Commission’s communication 
entitled ‘A New European Agenda for Culture’,15 which sets out objectives for the CCS. 
The Agenda aims to harness the power of culture and cultural diversity for social cohesion 
and societal well-being by fostering the cross-border dimension of cultural and creative 
sectors  and  fostering  their  capacity  to  grow,  to  encourage  culture-based  creativity  in 
education and innovation, and for jobs and growth, and to strengthen international cultural 
relations. 

Furthermore, CE 2014-2020 contributes to the UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 
8  (Promote  sustained,  inclusive  and  sustainable  economic  growth,  full  and  productive 
employment  and  decent  work  for  all)  by  supporting  the  competitiveness  of  the  CCS, 
through capacity building and skills development and through testing new business models 
in  a  rapidly  evolving  digital  context.  CE  2021-2027  contributes  to  various  UN  SDGs 
through several of its actions: SDG 3 (Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all 
ages) via the CCS GF ;  SDG 5 (Achieve gender equality  and empower all women and 
girls) via its cross-cutting focus on gender equality and inclusion; SDG 8  via its support 
for  job  creation, growth  and investment  in  the European Digital  Single Market  and  its 
support to CCS competitiveness; SDG 11 (Make cities and human settlements inclusive, 
safe,  resilient  and  sustainable)  via  the  synergies  between  the  projects  supported  by  the 
Programme and the New European Bauhaus; SDG 12 (Ensure sustainable consumption 
and production patterns) through the cross-cutting focus on greening; SDG 16 (Promote 
peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for 

15 COM(2018) 267 final 

5 

 
 
all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels) through all the 
actions  supporting  the  news  media  sector,  and  SDG  17  (Strengthen  the  means  of 
implementation and revitalise the global partnership) through the international dimension 
of the Programme. 

On the following pages are visual representations of CE 2014-2020 and CE 2021-2027 
intervention logics. 

6 

 
Intervention logic of Creative Europe 1 (2014-2020) 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Intervention logic of Creative Europe 2 (2021-2027) 

8 

 
 
 
Programme design 
The Programme is divided into three strands: (i) the Culture strand, which covers cultural 
and creative sectors apart from the audiovisual sector; (ii) the MEDIA strand, which covers 
the  audiovisual  and  gaming  sectors;  and  (iii)  the  Cross-Sectoral  strand,  which  covers 
actions across all cultural and creative sectors with a particular focus on the news media 
sector. 

CE 2014-2020 was  established  by Regulation  1215/2013  and the successor Programme 
CE 2 (2021-2027) was established by Regulation (EU) 2021/818. The latter brought had 
the same general objective and built on the previous experience, also taking into account 
the need for EU intervention in the audiovisual sector to accompany the Union’s Digital 
Single  market  policies.  DG  EAC  is  the  Commission’s  department  in  charge  of  cultural 
policy,  while  DG  Communications  Networks,  Content  and  Technology  (CNECT)  is 
responsible  for  the  interrelated  regulations,  policies  and  programmes  concerning 
audiovisual and media. While DG EAC was the leading department for the management 
of CE 1, the two DGs co-manage CE 2. For its two iterations, the Programme has been 
directly implemented by EACEA.  

9 

 
 
 
* In addition to Culture Moves Europe, implemented by the Goethe Institut, MediaInvest 
is  also  implemented  through  indirect  management  by  EIF  as  a  blending  facility  with 
InvestEU. 

Creative  Europe  is  open  to  the  participation  of  non-EU  countries  indicated  in  the 
corresponding  Regulations,  providing  specific  conditions  are  met.  13  countries  are 
currently associated to CE2:  EEA/EFTA countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway), 
Albania,  Armenia,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Georgia,  Kosovo16,  Montenegro,  North 
Macedonia, Serbia, Tunisia and Ukraine. In CE1, Türkiye participated until its departure 
in 2017. Moldova participated in CE1 (fully in Culture and partially in MEDIA) as of 2015 
and until  the end of the programming  period. The European  Commission  and Moldova 
signed  an  Association  Agreement  on  2  September  2025,  which  foresees  the  country’s 
participation  in  the  Culture  strand  of  Creative  Europe  as  of  2026.  Participation  in  the 
MEDIA strand is contingent upon Moldova’s alignment with the AVMS Directive.  

2.2.  Points of comparison  
Based on the positive conclusions of the midterm evaluation of Creative Europe 1, Creative 
Europe 2 represents an evolution rather than a revolution. It builds on the strengths of the 
previous support measures, while introducing some key improvements and innovations. In 
particular, Creative Europe 2 recognised that the digital shift represents a paradigm change 
for cultural and creative sectors, with new opportunities for the creation and distribution 
of European works, including access, which benefits European society as a whole. 

The overall Programme budget was significantly strengthened to reach EUR 2.5 billion for 
the 2021–2027 period, i.e. an 66% increase compared to the previous programming period 
(2014–2020). The increase was intended to allow the Programme to improve responses to 
the challenges faced by the CCS and improve support to high-quality projects that have 
consistently been proposed.  

Culture Strand:  

In Creative Europe 1, the Programme initially featured two key performance indicators 
related to i) the overall reach of the actions supported by the strand and ii) the number of 
projects addressed to young people and under-represented groups and the reach of these 
projects. The objectives set at the beginning of the MFF for these indicators were reached 
in  both  cases.  However,  as  commented  above,  the  Programme  introduced,  through  a 
delegated act in 2019, a series of additional indicators to better capture the performance of 
the  Programme  in  line  with  its  intervention  logic.  In  the  Culture  sub-Programme,  9 
additional sub-indicators were added to capture data beyond Programme’s visibility. These 
indicators concerned the support to artists and cultural professionals, the general public 
and  organisations  (as  well  as  their  size)  reached  by  the  Culture  sub-Programme.  The 
objective to reduce societal challenges through Culture was addressed through an indicator 
to capture the number of projects supported by the Programme addressed to disadvantaged 
groups. In relation with the objective of international cooperation and internationalisation 
of careers to increase the capacity of the CCS to operate internationally, the number of 
cultural and creative activities organised with the Culture sub-Programme’s support have 
been integrated as a key-performance indicator. The specific objective of support to the 
circulation  of  European  literature  and  contribution  to  linguistic  diversity  was  also 

16 This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ 
Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence. 

10 

 
 
 
addressed through three key performance indicators introduced in 2019 on i) the number 
of literary translations undertaken per year; ii) the number and percentage of translations 
from lesser-used languages and iii) the number of books produced with the support of the 
Programme. Finally, a specific indicator was set on the sub-Programme’s main action, the 
support to Cooperation Projects, through a specific indicator to capture the number and 
relative  share  of  small-scale  and  large-scale  cooperation  projects.  As  the  new  Key-
Performance  indicators  were  introduced  late  in  the  last  budget  cycle,  no  baseline  and 
objectives  were  set  for  this  new  set  of  indicators.  The  detail  of  the  results  by  these 
indicators is found in Annex VII of this SWD. 

In Creative Europe 2, the Culture strand now features a series of 5 indicators to capture 
the Programme performance. The number of transnational partnerships created with the 
support  of  the  Programme  allow  to  capture  the  number  of  organisations  and  projects 
supported  through  the  Programme,  indiscriminating  of  the  action.  The  transnational 
mobility  of  artists  and  cultural  and  creative  professional  is  also  captured  by  a  specific 
indicator which amalgamates results of Culture Moves Europe, as well as the one assessed 
by  projects  during  their  final  evaluation.  The  objective  to  address  societal  challenges 
through Culture-funded projects is also assessed by a specific indicator on the number of 
projects addressed to socially marginalised groups. The visibility of the projects funded 
under the Culture strand, also present in CE1, keeps on being monitored in CE2, through 
a  specific  indicator  on  the  number  of  people  accessing  European  cultural  and  creative 
works generated by the Programme. Finally, in line with the ambition of the Programme 
to  contribute  to  international  relation,  stimulate  intercultural  dialogue  and  increase 
international  circulation  and visibility of European culture  and diversity, the number of 
projects that involve an organisation based in a third country is now assessed through a 
dedicated indicator. All indicators are on track to meet their target by the end of the budget 
cycle, except for the visibility action which has been estimated at a too large number, which 
should be revised. If CE1 indicator foresaw a reach to 7 million citizens by the end 2020, 
the CE2 the target by 2027 is of 552 million individuals reached. Taking into account the 
budget increase from CE1 to CE2 and the number of 90 million individuals by the 2014-
2020,  a  target  set  at  160  million  individuals  reached  by  the  activities  supported  by  the 
Programme appears more realistic. The Section 5.2.2 (“Lessons learned”) outlines how the 
Commission plans to improve the data collection strategy and the monitoring system. 

MEDIA and Cross sectoral 

The MEDIA strand has been strengthened by focusing on cross-border collaboration and 
co-productions  in  order  to  scale  up  companies.  It  also  responds  to  new  trends  in  the 
industry, such as the growth in cross-border audiences for high-quality TV series and the 
emergence of virtual reality (VR) and digital innovation. Its market research activity has 
been expanded.  

The Cross-sectoral strand incorporates significant changes to reflect the new objectives. 
For the first time, structured support is given to the news media sector to accompany its 
transformation  in  the  digital  age  and  strengthen  media  freedom  and  pluralism.  A  new 
Creative  Innovation  Lab  now  supports  cross-sectoral  innovation.  The  CCS  Guarantee 
Facility  (CCS  GF)  financial  instrument  has  been  integrated  within  the  new  InvestEU 
Programme. 

The points of comparison for MEDIA include the official monitoring indicators, but these 
were  supplemented  with  additional  indicators  for  the  purposes  of  carrying  out  this 
evaluation. The latter were possible due to the availability of external data. This is further 

11 

 
explained  under  section  4.1.2.  Remaining  data  gaps  are  indicated,  and  possible  new 
indicators are put forward under Section 4.1.2 and 5.2.  

The assessment of the cross-sectoral strand and financial instruments uses as a basis mainly 
the official KPIs, but data gaps and possible future indicators are also identified for these. 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? 

This  chapter  describes  the  state  of  play  in  implementing  Creative  Europe  1  and  2 
Programmes, explaining the situation during the evaluation periods both legally and on the 
ground. 

Creative Europe 1 
Creative  Europe  1  was  designed  with  a  budget  of  EUR  1.46  billion.  The  budget  was 
divided  between  the  two  different  Sub-programmes  and  the  Cross-sectoral  strand  as 
follows: at least 56% for the MEDIA Sub-programme, at least 31% for the Culture Sub-
programme,  and  a  maximum  of  13%  for  the  Cross-sectoral  strand.  Compared  with  the 
budget  indicated  in  the  legal  instrument,  the  Creative  Europe  2014-2020  financial 
programming was increased by 2.7% to reach EUR 1.5 billion. 
Strand 

2014-2020 

Culture (million EUR) 
MEDIA (million EUR) 
Cross-Sectoral (million EUR) 
Administrative and EACEA 
All strands (million EUR) 

440 
775 
184 
102 
1,501 

The Creative Europe 
1  budget  remained 
relatively  stable  in 
the first two years of 
implementation 
its 
increased 
and 
slightly  every  year, 
from 
until 
2016 
2020. 

Over  the  course  of 
the  CE  1  period, 
approximately 
30,000  applications 
were  submitted 
to 
155 calls for proposals and led to the funding of 14,828 projects. The number of projects 
funded under the MEDIA Sub-programme was considerably higher than those under the 
other strands, with a total of 13,549 projects. The Culture Sub-programme supported 1,213 
separate projects that involved 4,375 beneficiary organisations. The Cross-sectoral strand 
financed a total of 66 distinct projects, including 38 Creative Europe Desks. 

In  line  with  the  composition  of  the  CCS,  the  majority  of  the  support  provided  by  the 
different  strands  of  Creative  Europe  has  been  redistributed  to  small  and  medium-sized 

12 

 
 
 
  
 
 
entities.  In  the  MEDIA  Sub-programme,  99%  of  the  direct  beneficiaries  were  SMEs 
(reflecting the 99% of SMEs amongst European AV enterprises), of which 25% were small 
and nearly 70% micro. Micro and small organisations accounted respectively for 50% and 
40% of the total value of grants under CE 1.  

Following the UK's 2016 vote to leave the EU, the UK left the EU on 31 January 2020. 
Although potentially eligible to join as a third country in Creative Europe 2, the UK chose 
not to make use of this possibility, leading to the closure of the UK Creative Europe desk. 
The UK CCS had been major beneficiaries of Creative Europe: between 2014 and 2019, 
the UK was involved in 609 cultural projects, which received EUR 100 million from the 
Programme. Türkiye joined CE1 but decided to suspend its participation in the Programme 
in 2020. All in all, 15 non-EU countries participated in CE1: Albania, Armenia, Bosnia 
and Herzegovina, Georgia, Iceland, Kosovo, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Montenegro, North 
Macedonia,  Norway,  Serbia,  Tunisia,  Türkiye  and  Ukraine.  In  total,  1,347  projects 
involving  561 organisations from  these countries  were supported under  CE1. The wide 
participation  of  third  countries  to  the  Programme  is  a  very  positive  aspect  of  the 
Programme as it contributes to the EU efforts for cultural diplomacy by creating tangible 
ties with these countries.  For countries on the path to EU accession, their participation in 
Creative Europe is a positive aspect in relation to Chapter 26 of the Acquis Communautaire 
on Education and Culture. As regards audiovisual, alignment of third countries with the 
Audiovisual and Media Services Directive is an ex-ante condition for participation in the 
MEDIA strand, thus acting as an incentive to adopt EU standards.   

The  COVID-19  pandemic  led  to  widespread  lockdowns  in  Europe,  severely  impacting 
cultural  venues  and  the  CCS,  which  were  among  the  hardest  hit.  For  example,  cinema 
operators in the EU reported a 70% drop in box-office sales in 2020, music venues reported 
a 76% drop in attendance (64% in revenues) and museums lost 75-80% of their revenues 
(in popular touristic regions)17. In response, the Programme supported the launch of the 
online platform Culture Unite in May 2020 and the set-up of Perform Europe to support 
circulation in the performing arts sector. 

Creative Europe 1 was initially monitored through 18 indicators set in its legal base. These 
were  completed  by  further  24  indicators  introduced  in  the  Commission  Delegated 
Regulation  (EU)  2019/1974  of  17  May  2019  supplementing  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1295/2013. The original indicators did not allow for a comprehensive monitoring of the 
Programme’s progress and performance towards the set objectives, as a limited number of 
these indicators  would qualify as results or impact indicators18 The list of indicators, as 
well as the results gathered, are found in Annex VII. 

Creative Europe 2 
Creative Europe 2 was designed with a budget of EUR 2.5 billion in the MFF 2021-2027, 
representing a 66% increase compared to the earlier programming period. This has allowed 
for greater reach and impact within the CCS. In addition, compared to the budget indicated 
in the legal instrument, the Creative Europe 2021-2027 financial programming has been 
increased so far by 1%.19 

The budget was divided as follows: 

17 Annual Single Market Report 2021 SWD(2021) 352 final, 5.5.2021 
18 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/1974 of 17 May 2019 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1295/2013 
19 Additional funding were attributed to the 2022 and 2023 CE budget following by the European Parliament. 

13 

 
 
 
Strand 

2021-2023 

2021-2027 

Culture (million EUR) 
MEDIA (million EUR) 
Cross-Sectoral (million EUR) 
All strands (million EUR) 

328.3 
569.6 
90 
1,045.7 

790.8 
1,378.9 
214.2 
2,546 

The overall budget was frontloaded, with a third of the budget  committed in the first 2 
years of the Programme, in order to address the difficult situation of the CCS hit by the 
COVID-19 crisis. In 2022, Creative Europe 2 benefited from an overall increase close to 
EUR 100 million compared to 2021, representing a budget increase of 33% compared to 
the  previous  year.  Following  the  financial  programming  profile,  the  annual  budget  for 
Creative Europe  2  returned in  2023 to the  regular profile and  is  programmed to  have a 
steady but low growth until the end of the Programme cycle in 2027. 

Creative Europe 2021-2027 Annual Budget 

Source: Creative Europe Spending Review, 2024 

98 calls for proposals have been launched so far under Creative Europe 2, which led to the 
selection  of  2,588  projects  involving  2,566  organisations.  Over  this  period,  EUR  877 
million were disbursed: EUR 483 million under the MEDIA strand, EUR 283 million under 
the Culture strand and EUR 82 million under the Cross-sectoral strand.  

Similarly to the previous Programme, the majority of the organisations that benefitted from 
Creative  Europe  2  are  small  and  medium-sized  organisations.  The  profile  of  the 
beneficiaries of CE2 remained the same as for CE1. 

13 of the 15 third countries participating in CE 1 decided to renew their participation under 
CE 2 and Moldova is expected to participate in the Programme as of 2026. From 2021 to 
2023, Creative Europe 2 supported 418 projects that involved 415 organisations from third 
countries  associated  to  the  Programme.  Among  these  projects,  227  are  led  by  an 
organisation located in one of these countries. 

In  February  2022,  Russia’s  war  of  aggression  in  Ukraine  further  disrupted  the  CCS, 
particularly in neighbouring countries, and prompted shifts to support Ukrainian cultural 
actors  and  counteract  the  wider  regional  instability.  Among  other  measures,  one  of  the 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
most  ambitious  Creative  Europe  actions  to  date  was  the  dedicated  call  for  proposals  to 
support the Ukrainian CCS launched in November 2022 under the Culture strand with a 
EUR 5 million budget. 

Altogether, Creative Europe 2 has a list of 15 key performance indicators: 13 of them are 
divided by strands, while two encompass the whole Programme. The indicators are listed 
in Annex VII. 

Culture Strand  
Between  2021  and  2023,  the  Culture  strand  supported  a  total  of  630  projects, 
redistributing  EUR  294  million  to  2,176  organisations.  These  included  432  European 
Cooperation Projects involving 1,978 organisations across 39 countries. Over 1,500 books 
from  1,200  authors  were  translated  with  the  help  of  more  than  1,000  translators.  The 
Programme also facilitated the establishment of 37 European Networks representing over 
4,000  cultural  and  creative  organisations  and  supported  16  Platforms  gathering  299 
organisations for the support of young emerging artists. Additionally, the strand supported 
four  orchestras  under  its  Pan-European  Cultural  Entities  scheme.  The  last  two  actions 
together  benefit  3,875  emerging  artists  and  act  as  an  accelerator  for  their  careers.  As  a 
novelty in the Programme, the Culture Moves Europe mobility scheme, with a budget of 
EUR 21 million in the 2022-2023 period, supported the mobility of 3,049 artists and the 
creation  of  202  artist  residencies  accommodating  772  individual  artists.  Moreover,  the 
Programme supported annual prizes in literature, music, architecture, and cultural heritage, 
and provided financial support to the European Capitals of Culture and the networking of 
the  European  Heritage  Label  sites.  It  also  developed  a  new  sectoral  approach  to  better 
target  specific  cultural  and  creative  sectors,  particularly  music,  books  &  publishing, 
architecture, and cultural heritage, aligning funding with policy initiatives. 

Despite  its  significant  achievements,  the  Culture  strand  faces  oversubscription  issues, 
leading  to  fierce  competition  for  available  funds.  The  European  Cooperation  Projects 
scheme saw its success rate falling to just 26% in 2022, despite receiving in this same year 
the highest budget ever, i.e. EUR 69 million. The number of applications continues to rise, 
illustrating the sectors’ strong interest in, need for, and perceived value of the Programme; 
for example, submissions for European Cooperation Projects increased from 431 in 2021 
to 863 in 2023 (i.e., a 78% increase). Out of 2,518 proposals received in the Culture strand 
over these years, 658 high-quality projects had to be rejected due to insufficient funds, 488 
of which were for European Cooperation Projects. To counteract these oversubscription 
issues, measures to improve success rates were introduced in the Annual Work Programme 
2024 onwards, in particular the capping of the number of projects individual organisations 
that  could  participate  in.  In  addition,  calls  for  large-scale  cooperation  projects  are  now 
published every second year, to allow for the selection of a higher number of smaller-scale 
projects for the same amount of budget in years when there are no large-scale projects.  
This choice was made to favour high quality medium-scale projects, which often suffered 
from a low success rate due to limited budget. It also aimed at enhancing inclusivity and 
helping smaller entities facing more difficulties to act on a European level. Indeed, smaller-
scale projects allow to promote the access of grassroot organisations and support them in 
the creation of new partnerships and development of new activities and innovative ideas. 
It aligns with the objective of CE2 to increase inclusivity, competitiveness and scalability. 
It is also a way to help smaller countries with smaller organisations to get access to the 
Programme, as predominantly well-established European organisations tend to participate 
in large-scale. 

15 

 
 
MEDIA strand 
There were no major changes in the allocation of support for main objectives between 
CE1  and  CE2,  but  the  increased  focus  of  CE2  on  competitiveness  is  visible  in  the 
budget. The total grants awarded under CE1 amounted to EUR 775 million. At EUR 663 
million, the total grants awarded by end 2024 under CE2 are already close to the entire 
CE1  budget.  This  is  thanks  to  the  increase  in  the  overall  budget  under  CE2.  Despite  a 
reduction  of  actions  from  18  to  14  and  some  changes  in  certain  actions,  the  overall 
objectives of support remained the same. Support under MEDIA can be broadly classified 
under two types of support: support to individual audiovisual works (for the development 
and/or production and/or distribution of films and series) and horizontal support aimed at 
developing audiences (B2C activities, like cinema networks and festivals showing non-
national  European  works)  or  improving  the  competitiveness/business  capacity  of  the 
European  audiovisual  sector  (B2B  activities,  like  markets,  training  or  supporting 
innovation).  Support  to  individual  works  amounted  to  63%  of  CE1  grants  and,  60%  of 
grants awarded under CE2 as of end 2024. Support for content creation and distribution is 
roughly equally represented under both CE1 and CE2. Support for B2B business activities 
has increased from 14% to 20% of the budget under CE2, reflecting the increased focus on 
this area in the legal base. The increase was achieved by a slight decrease in the share of 
funding for horizontal audience development (from 23% to 20%) and Distribution-related 
funding (from 30% to 27%).   

Support  focused  on  individual  works  accounts  for  the  overwhelming  majority  of 
supported projects, as can be expected from the nature of these grants. 12,104 projects 
were  supported under CE1 and,  as of end 2024, 2,765 under CE2. 90%  of the projects 
funded under CE1 and 80% funded under CE2 thus far were for the content creation and 
distribution of individual audiovisual works, while the remaining projects were roughly 
equally  distributed  among  the  two  sets  of  horizontal  actions  (audience  and  business-
focused). The average size of the grant increased significantly for all the four objectives 
(content creation, distribution, horizontal audience development and horizontal business 
development).  

Success  rates  can  be  very  low  for  certain  actions  but  improved  under  CE2.  The 
average success rate under CE1 was 48% but showing a great degree of variation between 
19%  (single  project  development  and  video  games  development  actions)  and  100% 
(cinema  networks,  which  had  one  single  beneficiary,  Europa  Cinemas.)  Automatic 
distribution  support  also  pushes  the  average  up  significantly.  Under  CE2  the  average 
success rate increased to 53%, but the success rate remained below 30% for a number of 
actions, mainly under content creation support for development. 

Cross-Sectoral strand 
The cross-sectoral strand has evolved significantly over the two Programmes. The Cultural 
and Creative Sectors Guarantee Facility was successfully funded over 2016-20 and was 
then integrated into Invest EU as of 2021. The total amount of funding allocated was EUR 
236.9 million of financial commitment, which led to 22 financial intermediaries signing 
guarantee agreements with the EIF.   

In the current Programme a new set of actions was introduced in support of the news media 
to  accompany  its  transformation  in  the  digital  age  and  strengthen  media  freedom  and 
pluralism, with a small annual budget of about EUR 15 million. Applications rose from 30 
in  2021 to  106 in  2023 and the success  rate therefore declined from the success  rate is 
18.5% to 10% in 2023.   

16 

 
A  new  Creative  Innovation  Lab  was  introduced  in  2021  to  support  cross-sectoral 
innovation.  By 2023 projects were awarded a total of approximately EUR 20,500,000 at 
an average of  EUR 624,000 per project.    In 2021, only  10 out  of 43 proposals  met the 
evaluation  threshold,  but  subsequently  the  quality  improved.  There  was  a  rise  in 
applications from 43 in 2021 to 101 in 2023 and the success rate declined sharply from 
23% in 2022 to 6% in 2023. 

CE Desks 
The total amount of funding allocated to the Creative Europe desks in the first three years 
of the 2021-27 Programme was EUR 18,030,690, which was equivalent to an average of 
EUR 6,010,230 per year. This compares to total funding of EUR 36,361,230 in the 2014-
2020 Programme at an average of EUR 5,194,461 for each year. The rise in the annual 
budget for the Desks appears to be reasonable considering the high rate of inflation in the 
2021-23 period. The volume of support required from desks, including the size and number 
of  applications  and  subsequent  beneficiaries,  has  increased,  whilst  a  much  greater 
proportion  of  smaller  projects  were  supported  in  the  previous  Programme  (particularly 
under the MEDIA Sub-programme). 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

4.1.  To what extent was the intervention successful and why?  

This  section  will  assess  the  implementation  of  Creative  Europe  based  on  the  following 
aspects: effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. The assessment will be made separately 
for the MEDIA strand (audiovisual and video games), the Culture strand (all other cultural 
and  creative  sectors),  the  Cross-sectoral  strand  (news  media,  Creative  Innovation  Labs, 
Creative Europe desks). Financial instruments (Cultural and Creative Sectors Guarantee 
Facility and MediaInvest) will be assessed separately because of their specificities. The 
section  will  close  with  a  common  assessment  regarding  administrative  expenses  and 
burdens relating to the implementation of the entire Programme.  

4.1.1.   MEDIA 

Effectiveness 

Audiovisual sector 
MEDIA supports activities across the audiovisual value chain. The audiovisual value 
chain is composed of authors (directors, screenwriters, actors), production companies, B2B 
distributors  (sales  agents,  distributors)  and  B2C  distributors  (cinemas,  broadcasters, 
streamers).  Other  actors,  including  film  festivals  and  film  markets,  may  combine  B2B 
(market, training) and B2C (film screenings) activities. MEDIA support focuses on content 
creation,  distribution  and  (mainly  theatrical)  exhibition,  with  direct  support  to  these 
activities.    The  remaining  actions  (e.g.  relating  to  markets,  innovation  and  training) 
indirectly support these activities. This assessment will focus on the core areas of funding.  

The  section  will  analyse  the  effectiveness  of  MEDIA  based  on  the  main  specific 
objectives  for  CE1  and  CE2,  as  outlined  in  Section  2.1  (intervention  logic)  which 
respond  to  the  main  needs  and  dual  objectives,  namely  cultural  diversity  and 
competitiveness.  In particular: 

17 

 
 
 
1) Boost the transnational circulation and audiences of European AV works20 (relevant 
for both cultural diversity and competitiveness) – This is explicitly stated in the specific 
objectives under CE1 in particular21; and is implicit in the specific objectives of CE2  

 2) As regards competitiveness, the CE2 legal base has more elaborate objectives, i.e. 
to promote ‘the competitiveness, scalability, cooperation, innovation and sustainability 
including  through  mobility’22  of  the  audiovisual  sector.  The  CE1  regulation  simply 
refers  to  strengthening  the  financial  capacity  of  SMEs  in  the  cultural  and  creative 
sectors. 

3) The legal bases for both iterations of the Programme point to a European added value 
in levelling the playing field among countries. Balanced geographical representation 
appears as a specific objective in the CE1, but not in the CE2 legal base (where it is 
nevertheless mentioned as a priority).  

Points of comparison specific to MEDIA: 
CE1  set  a  number  of  sector/market-wide  indicators  relating  to  the  transnational 
circulation/external  dimension  of  supported  activities  under  MEDIA.  These 
responded to the need to make EU content travel better across borders. This need persisted 
across both Programmes. For example, in theatrical exhibition, where we have data as of 
2014,  tickets  sold  for  non-national  EU27  content  amounted  to  a  relatively  small  and 
declining  share of all admissions in  Europe:  7.5% in  2014 (baseline CE1), 7% in  2020 
(final result and baseline CE2) and 6% in 2023 (mid-term result of CE2). The indicators 
set  for  the  CE1  Programme  to  respond  to  this  need  were  as  follows:  1)  the  number  of 
admissions to non-national films in Europe in cinemas; 2) the number of admissions to 
European films worldwide in cinemas; 3) percentage of European AV works in cinemas, 
on  TV  and  on  digital  platforms;  4)  number  of  people  in  Member  States/participating 
countries  having  access  to  non-national  audiovisual  works;  5)  number  of  video  games 
produced  in  Member  States/participating  countries  (turnover  was  used  as  a  proxy).  As 
detailed in Annex VII, targets were met in the case of 1-3, but not for 4 and 5. Not meeting 
the  targets  for  4),  while  meeting  1-3  may  already  suggest  that  attracting  audiences  to 
European works is a challenge additional to making such works internationally available 
(e.g. screen them in theatres, broadcasting them on TV and/or getting them into video-on-
demand catalogues). 

On the basis of the mid-term evaluation, the indicator framework was amended. This 
was because market-wide indicators are affected to a substantial degree by factors outside 
of the MEDIA strand/Sub-programme (e.g. investments by US studios), which limits their 
usefulness  as  monitoring  indicators  for  the  success  of  the  Programme.  The  mid-term 
review of CE1 therefore identified more targeted KPIs, which were subsequently adopted 
by a Delegated Act in May 201923. The new corresponding indicators were set as number 
of admissions in the Member States for films from other Member States distributed in the 
Union with the support of the Programme; share of admissions in the Member States for 

20 If not otherwise indicated, ‘European AV works’ refers to films and series (both including the main genres 
of  fiction,  animation  and  documentary)  produced  by  one  of  the  European  countries  affiliated  to  the 
MEDIA Programme. As this has changed over time, data for any given year needs to be interpreted as 
including all affiliated countries in that given year.  

21Art 4a and 4b 
22Article 3.2) b of the CE 2 Regulation. 
23COMMISSION  DELEGATED  REGULATION  (EU)  2019/1974  of  17  May  2019  supplementing 
Regulation (EU) No 1295/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing additional 
qualitative and quantitative performance indicators 

18 

 
 
films from other Member States; average number of non-national countries in which the 
late  stage  of  Programme 
supported  works  have  been  distributed.  Given 
implementation, no targets were set for 2020. However, successive monitoring reports24 
provided the state of play as of 2020. Based on the data provided, works receiving support 
generated 136 million cross border viewers in in 2020.  In 2020 on average 6% of films 
shown in cinemas in Member States originated from other Member States, and supported 
films were distributed in 4.5 countries on average. No corresponding data was provided in 
a systematic way for TV broadcasts, because the granting period would often end before 
TV release and there is no public regular TV viewership database available.  

the 

As  regards  transnational  circulation  aspects  of  the  Programme’s  objectives,  CE2 
retained one of the indicators identified in the mid-term review of CE1. This was the 
number of people accessing MEDIA supported European works from other participating 
countries. The other indicators were not included in the legal base, following negotiations 
with the co-legislators and in line with horizontal guidelines to base reporting mainly on 
data coming from beneficiaries, reduce the number of indicators and give preference to 
indicators  which  reflect  horizontal  priorities  of  all  programmes.    The  Programme  is  on 
track to achieve the 2027 target for cinema admissions to non-national supported works of 
93 million over 2021-2027 (with 18 million viewers in 2021-2022 alone, with some project 
data still to arrive). 

Finally, the mid-term review introduced a more qualitative indicator to monitor the 
transnational  cultural  impact  of  supported  works.    This  concerned  the  recognition 
received by supported works at major festivals and awards of international standing (such 
as Berlinale, Cannes, Academy Awards and European Film Awards). However, no targets 
were identified, and the indicator was not retained for CE2 as these were not compatible 
with the horizontal guidelines for setting indicators (the festivals included could change 
over the years). Between 2017 and 2020, supported films won 165 major awards and prizes 
were given to supported films. For the purposes of this evaluation, it was calculated that 
between 2014 and 2024, 299 MEDIA-supported works received prestigious international 
awards. In total there have been 1077 nominations, 458 awards, and a further 25 selections 
and honourable mentions. 

As  regards  competitiveness,  there  were  no  audiovisual-specific  indicators  set 
originally for CE1 for the specific objective of strengthening the financial viability of 
SMEs  in  the  creative  and  cultural  sectors,  because  of  the  challenges  to  systematic 
monitoring. Following the mid-term review two indicators were introduced, but no targets 
were  set:  1)  number/share  of  audiovisual  companies  who  report  an  improved  market 
position due to MEDIA support; and 2) number of co-productions created with the support 
of the Programme, including co-productions with diverse partners.  The latter relates to the 
objective  of  levelling  the  playing  field.  Between  2014  and  2020  388  intra-EU  co-

24 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/reaching-audiences-across-borders-media-launches-its-
monitoring-report-2017; https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/creative-europe-publishes-its-
monitoring-report-2018; https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f16e7fc0-ecc3-11ea-b3c6-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en; https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/49a05a63-1b4d-11ec-
b4fe-01aa75ed71a1; https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/6bdeb04d-7ec4-11ee-99ba-
01aa75ed71a1 

19 

 
 
productions were supported in development and production (accounting for 86% of TV 
and film projects supported).25  

The  indicators  introduced  under  CE2  to  measure  competitiveness  represent  an 
evolution of the indicators introduced following the mid-term review of CE1. While 
the number of co-productions was retained, it was complemented also by the overall budget 
of supported co-productions. The Programme is on track to achieve the 2027 target. Based 
on  already  available  data  that  in  the  years  2021-2023  there  were  1,633  co-productions 
supported out of expected 3,000 over the years 2021-2023 (and some data from 2023 is 
yet to arrive). The success of B2B actions related to markets and training is measured by 
two  indicators:  1)  Number  of  people  reached  by  B2B  promotional  activities  in  major 
markets  and  2)  Number  of  participants  in  learning  activities  who  assess  they  improved 
their  competences  and  increased  their  employability.  This  indicator  also  introduced  a 
diversity-related sub-indicator, namely the proportion of women who positively assess the 
impact  of  the  activities.  The  Programme  is  on  track  to  achieve  the  target  indicator  for 
learning  activities:  including  the  baseline  of  2,200  in  2020  the  Programme  has  already 
reached 23% of the 15,760 target for 2027 in its first two years, while the target of 55% 
women who assess the activities positively has been exceeded in the latest data available 
for 2022 (59%). However, the target of 1.8 million for the second indicator may not be 
reached as it turns out that lockdowns might have long-term impacted the events sector, 
which do not attract the same scale of visitors as before COVID, when the target was set. 

Finally,  as  regards  the  level  playing  field,  CE2  retained  the  indicator  on  co-
productions involving a low-capacity country and added an indicator in the share of 
supported  works  in  lesser  used  languages.  These  are  languages  other  than  English, 
German,  French,  Italian,  Spanish.  The  data  available  by  2025  (only  around  20%  of 
applicable projects yet) indicates that this indicator is on track. In 2020-2021 there were 
already 528 films supported out of 2845 expected over 2021-2027.  

Overall, this interim evaluation has shown  that the monitoring framework for the 
two iterations  of the  Programme is  not sufficient to fully assess the impacts of the 
Programme. The pre-2018 CE1 indicators are too wide and not linked sufficiently to the 
programme and targets are missing for the indicators introduced after the mid-term review. 
While  the  indicators  introduced  under  CE2  do  have  targets  and  relate  to  Programme 
outputs, they are still missing some data which would allow to draw wider conclusions. 
Also, there is no perfect way to set targets, as these can be always seriously affected by 
external  impacts,  even  if  they  are  closely  related  to  the  objectives  (like  e.g.  less 
participation in physical events or new type of data becoming available only during the 
period). The nature of sources which could be used in official indicators is also limiting 
(mainly because many interesting data about the results of the support become available 
only after the support period is over). 

Also, the indicators under CE2 do not comprehensively cover all Programme actions 
and impacts. The KPIs do not cover the performance of supported works in broadcasting 
sector  (TV  views  and  broadcasting  time)  which  accounted  for  between  75-86%  of  all 
revenues in the audiovisual sector.   Neither do they cover the performance of supported 
works in the increasingly important streaming sector (which grew its AV market revenue 
share  from  <1%  to  16%  since  2014  and  drives  all  growth  in  the  sector).  The  current 
evaluation  therefore  attempts  to  provide  a  wider  set  of  indicators  and  benchmarks  to 

25 EACEA project monitoring data 

20 

 
 
address the shortcomings of the monitoring framework. This is in particular the case with 
the counterfactual analysis carried out for the specific objective of transnational circulation 
and  consumption  of  supported  works.  The  current  evaluation  could  benefit  from  an 
expanded set of detailed market data on the availability and audiences of European AV 
works.26  Crucially,  the  counterfactual  analysis  could  therefore  also  cover  better  the 
broadcasting and Video-on-Demand (‘VoD’) segment (includes mostly streaming, but also 
online rentals and purchases of films and series), which together accounted for over 90% 
of all EU audiovisual sector revenues in 202327. 

Under the ‘Lessons learned section’, proposals will be made for further possible indicators 
to complement the current framework with a view to the final evaluation of CE2.  Whilst 
all  the  indicators  may  not  be  included  in  the  legal  basis  they  could  be  monitored 
independently by the Commission.

27 Not including video-sharing platforms and video content on social media 

21 

 
 
 
Transnational circulation and consumption of European AV content  

In line with the overall objectives outlined in CE1 and CE2 a counterfactual analysis28 
tested  the  core  research  questions  based  on  Programme  objective  relating  to 
transnational  circulation  and  audiences:  whether  MEDIA  funding  for  the  creation 
(development  and/or    specific  works  was  associated  with  1)  improved  non-national 
circulation  of  the  works  in  Europe  (cinema,  TV,  VoD);  and  2)  a  higher  non-national 
consumption of European AV works outside the country of origin (cinema, VoD).29 The 
counterfactual analysis covered actions supporting individual films and series under CE1 
and  CE2.  Across  both  Programmes,  until  2023,  MEDIA  has  supported  a  total  of 
7887original unique audiovisual titles (films and series) of which 5,216   were supported 
through  content  creation  actions  (development  and  production),  and  2,671  through 
distribution-related actions. These types of support accounted for almost two thirds of the 
budget and 90% and 80% of the supported projects under CE1 and CE2 respectively.  

The  counterfactual  analysis  showed  a  strong  positive  association  between  MEDIA 
funding and the non-national circulation of EU AV content30 across all three main 
exhibition channels, namely cinema, TV and VoD. The positive impact of support can 
be observed under CE1 and CE2, for both content creation and distribution support, while 
the  impact  for  CE1  is  stronger  and  the  results  are  more  robust  from  a  methodological 
perspective. This is not surprising as both Programmes provide development, production 
(only TV and online content) and distribution/promotion support for films and series with 
a focus on cross-border potential, while the sample for CE2 is significantly weaker due to 
the time delay of impact and due to external shocks (for example COVID reduced cinema 
admissions by at least 70% in the first year of lockdowns).31 

•  Cinema:  MEDIA supported films32  are associated with a release in an additional 
6.55  more  non-national  countries,  when  compared  to  non-supported  films 
(estimated at 1.1 countries) This amounts to 86% of all the average non-national 
circulation  of  supported  films  (measured  as  the  total  number  of  non-national 
countries supported films circulate in). Under CE1 MEDIA funding is associated 
with an additional 6.89 non-national countries, with a corresponding figure of 5.45 

28 Full details of this analysis can be found in the  supporting study to the evaluation, in particular Annex 

VIII. 

29For  TV,  consumption  (viewing)  data  was  not  available  at  a  sufficiently  granular  level  (title-by-title  of 

European films and series) to allow for a counterfactual analysis. 

30For reasons of simplicity, comparability across the 10 year period and two Programmes, and due to resource 
limitations, the counterfactual analysis behind the results presented in these paragraphs covered series 
produced in the current 27 Member States of the EU and films produced in a sample of 12 Member 
States (FR, IT, FI, BE, HR, PT, PL, RO, LT, BG, HU, SK). The sample is diverse in terms of the size 
and  audiovisual  capacity,  population,  geographic  location  and  cultural  and  linguistic  profile  of  the 
countries.  The  results  could  therefore  be  applied  as  a  good  proxy  for  the  overall  impact  of  the 
Programme. 

31Annual Single Market Report, 2021 
32Based on all films that received either development or distribution support and were produced in one of the 

12 sample countries. 

22 

 
 
 
 
under CE2. This amounts to an 88% and 80% contribution to the number of non-
national countries a supported film circulates in under CE1 and CE2 respectively.33 
•  TV:  MEDIA  supported  films  and  series34  were  broadcast  in  15.4  non-national 
countries on average (17.1 under CE1 and 5.9 under CE2), 9.2 countries more than 
comparable unsupported EU works across both Programmes (unsupported works 
were broadcast on average in 3.9 countries under both CE1 and CE2). Adjusting 
for relevant characteristics,35 MEDIA support was associated with broadcast in an 
additional 9.5 countries on average during CE1 and CE2 combined (10.6 and 3.3 
for CE1 and CE2 respectively).36  

•  VoD: In 2024 MEDIA supported films and series were available in VoD catalogues 
in  around  9  non-national  countries  under  both  CE1  and  CE2  respectively.  Non-
supported EU works released during CE1 and CE2 respectively were available in 
around 5 countries on average (again, no meaningful difference between the two 
Programmes). Adjusting for relevant characteristics, MEDIA support resulted in 
VoD availability of films and series in an additional 3.2 countries on average for 
the combined period (2.8 under CE1 and 3.7 under CE2). 

•  Series  supported  for  development  and/or  under  TV/online  actions.  The 
counterfactual analysis also confirmed the positive impact of development and/or 
production support for the cross-border circulation of series separately. Support for 
series is  associated with  a significant  number of  additional countries  in  which a 
series  is  accessible  (5.95  additional  countries  in  which  a  series  was  on  average 
available on TV and 2.68 additional countries in which a series was available in at 
least one VoD catalogue).37 Looking at series separately also confirms that MEDIA 
content  creation  funding  (development  and/or  production)  alone  also  has  a 
significant  positive  impact  on  the  circulation  of  works  across  Europe.  The 
transnational circulation potential of works supported from the content cluster is an 
integral  part  of  the  selection  criteria  in  the  relevant  calls  and  the  above  results 
suggest that these criteria do have a positive impact on transnational circulation in 
practice.  

33 The impact was more pronounced for films supported under CE1 most likely because of Covid lockdowns 
affecting cinema attendance and a small sample available post 2020. Distribution data is calculated for 
27 Member States due to the easy matching between Programme data and external databases.  

34Combining films produced in one f the 12 sample countries and series produced in one of the 27 member 

States receiving support under either of the development, TV/online or distribution actions. 

35Based  on  a  propensity  score  analysis  taking  into  account  all  characteristics  where  sufficient  data  was 
available in both the monitoring and external databases, namely primary production country, production 
year,  number  of  production  countries,  AV  work  type  (film,  series);  whether  the  US  was  one  of  the 
production  countries.  As  regards  genre,  while  an  important  variable,  the  data  available  for  the 
comparison (unsupported) group was not sufficient to make robust finding, so it is not included in the 
propensity score for the data quoted. However, based on the data available on genre, its inclusion would 
not make a significant difference. 

36 The CE2 sample is significantly smaller 2139 vs 8621 works under CE1. In addition, the external database 
only had data on broadcasts until the end of 2023. This means that post-2023 non-national broadcasts of 
new films and series supported under development and/or the TV/online action under CE2 would not be 
taken into account. Hence, these early figures should be interpreted with caution, they are not necessarily 
evidence  of  any  reduced  effectiveness  under  CE2.  The  indicator  needs  to  be  revisited  in  the  final 
evaluation of CE2. 

37Given that the TV database for the comparison works ends with series broadcast in 2023, it is not surprising 
that most of the positive impact on TV circulation comes from CE1[9.1 additional countries vs 0.06 for 
CE2). When it comes to VoD availability in 2024, the positive impact in terms of additional countries 
is comparable in magnitude for CE1 and CE2.  

23 

 
 
 
In addition to cross-country circulation, the counterfactual analysis also confirmed a 
strong  positive  impact  on  audiences,  namely  admissions  to  films  when  it  comes  to 
cinema.  MEDIA  support  was  associated  with  an  average  125,419  more  non-national 
cinema  admissions  (per  supported  film)  relative  to  unsupported  films.  CE1  shows  a 
stronger  impact  (additional  134k  admissions)  than  CE2  (97k).38  If  this  figure  is 
extrapolated  to  all  supported  films  under  CE1,  MEDIA  funding  is  associated  with    an 
additional 241 million non-national admissions in total, as compared to non-supported EU 
films,39 The additional admissions associated with MEDIA funding amount to 87% of the 
non-national audience of supported works and  71% of all non-national admissions to EU 
films (both supported and unsupported).  

Based  on  the  limited  data  available  for  VoD  views/consumption,  the  significantly 
higher availability of supported works in non-national VoD catalogues do not seem 
to have translated into significantly higher views. On the contrary, unsupported works 
on average achieved higher views than supported works. The average views for supported 
works on VoD catalogues in the sample was 376,346 for works supported during CE1 and 
496,676 for CE2 (405 361 for both Programmes combined). This compares to significantly 
more  non-national  views  for  comparable  unsupported  works,  which  average  1,301,953 
views for the CE1 and 1 551 724 for the CE2 2 period (1,400,631 across the combined 
period). This may be explained on the one hand by methodological issues, and by market 
dynamics on the other.40 All in all, despite the methodological problems,  these findings 
showcase a significant challenge for MEDIA funding, namely to achieve the same success 
on streaming as it did in cinemas (in the absence of sufficiently granular data for films and 
series shown on TV, the impact of MEDIA funding on non-national TV audiences cannot 
be estimated). 

Horizontal  support  to  audience  development  complements  support  to  individual 
works. While the counterfactual analysis included actions providing support to individual 
works or slates, MEDIA provides horizontal support to audience development, focusing 
on B2C engagement, through supporting cinemas and festivals in particular.  

Most support to cinemas is dedicated to incentivising European programming, but 
also  to exchanges  of best practices among the members of the supported network, 
Europa  Cinemas.  Europa  Cinemas  is  a  continuing  action  under  CE2.  Both  absolute 
funding rate and funding has increased significantly under CE241 During 2014-2023, the 
network increased its geographical coverage by 32%: from 576 municipalities in 2015, to 
762 in 2024, in almost all MEDIA-participating countries. This increase has been gradual 

38This  can  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  CE2  is  ongoing  and  has  a  weaker  sample  –  when  it  comes  to 
distribution and development support, there is a time delay between support and screenings. This means 
that  some  of  the  additional  admissions  will  materialise  (development)  or  will  become  known 
(distribution) at a later stage. 

39 Based on average European ticket prices in 2019. 
40    From the methodological viewpoint, there is a high probability of errors in the estimates for audiences 
using the relevant external database. Streaming services have a very strong influence on viewer decisions 
on  what  content  to  watch,  as  confirmed  by  two  EU-wide  consumer  surveys  commissioned  by  DG 
CNECT. The counterfactual model could not control for these differences in which films and series were 
promoted more strongly on the  relevant services.  Furthermore, distribution support under MEDIA is 
focused on cinema –and does not cover series, which take 78% of viewing time online. Finally, MEDIA-
supported  works  compete  on  streaming  with  the  streamers’  own  commissioned  content.  Views  on 
streaming services is relatively concentrated on a few top titles, so a few successful original titles on 
streaming services can in theory accumulate enough views to significantly influence the above findings. 
41 From an annual EUR 11 million support and 50% funding rate to an annual EUR 15.9mn with 95% under 

CE2.  

24 

 
 
over this period, both under CE1 and CE2. The network’s members are located in large 
and smaller cities alike, also in sparsely populated areas where access to a cultural offer is 
more  challenging.  Accounting  for  only  10%  of  all  screens  in  the  EU,  by  2023  Europa 
Cinemas sold almost 40% of all tickets to non-national European films (16/41 million). 
The average share of non-national films from MEDIA countries was around 35% under 
CE1 but dropped to around 30% under CE2. This can be explained by the UK leaving the 
Creative Europe Programme and hence UK films no longer counted in this indicator. The 
30% is still considerably higher than the total share of non-national admissions to EU27 
films in the EU (7.5% in 2014, 7% in 2020 and 6% in 202342). 

As regards VoD networks and operators, EU support was introduced in 2014 and has 
contributed  to  the  growth  of  independent  streaming  services.  The  user  base  for 
supported VoD platforms showing a high share of independent European works increased 
by 52% (users and subscribers) from 10,729,000 in 2016 to 16,322,535 in 2020. The call 
has attracted EU independent VoD services, whereas broadcaster VoD services have not 
applied  (large  national  broadcasters  typically  develop  their  own  national  streaming 
services serving domestic markets).  In particular some beneficiaries have expanded - there 
have been some recurring projects with a large reach and which attracted private investors, 
such as FilmIn (Spain) and MUBI (UK, supported  under CE1  before Brexit). Also, the 
established cross-border player Arte has been a beneficiary of the scheme in recent years.  
The  beneficiary  platforms  experiment  with  different  business  models  (advertising 
supported  streaming,  online  rentals  and  buys,  and  the  most  coveted  subscription 
streaming).  The  level  of  funding  makes  up  around  10%  of  revenues.  Some  supported 
services  showed  a  sustained  revenue  growth  of  over  2.5  times  over  the  last  few  years.  
Nonetheless the level of EU support, on average EUR 8 million per year, has clearly not 
had the ambition of creating platforms capable of competing with giant global streaming 
services  such  as  Netflix,  Amazon  or  Disney.  Indeed,  global  competitors  have  a  market 
share of over 80% of EU subscriptions.  

Competitiveness 
MEDIA  funding  has  resulted  in  a  substantial  share  of  supported  projects  in 
development being produced and released. Across both Programmes an estimated 29% 
of  films  and  series  supported  for  development  have  gone  (or  may  still  go  on)  release. 
MEDIA  development  support  is  estimated  to  have  contributed  26%  of  the  total 
development costs of supported titles. This increased to 35% under CE2. 

Available  evidence  indicates  that  MEDIA  funding  for  development  significantly 
increases  the  chances  of  a  supported  film  or  series  being  produced  and  released.  
While it is not possible to get reliable market-wide data on how many films and series in 
development  get  released  eventually,  anecdotal  evidence  suggests  MEDIA  results  are 
significantly  higher  than  the  market  average.43  The  positive  impact  of  MEDIA  on 
development success rate is also supported by evidence from the beneficiary survey: 76% 
of respondents to the beneficiary survey agreed that their projects contributed to increasing 
the  capacity  of  audiovisual  operators  to  develop  European  audiovisual  works  with  a 
potential  to  circulate  in  the  Union  and  beyond,  and  to  facilitating  European  and 
international coproduction. Furthermore, it is notable that the 29% success rate of MEDIA 
funded development projects was achieved against a backdrop of increased financial risks 

42 DG CNECT calculations based on the EAO Lumiere database 
43  See  e.g.  an  estimate  of  a  <5%  success  rate  globally  from  an  industry  resource  website: 

https://australianfilmcentral.com/how-hard-is-it-to-finance-a-film-and-
success/#:~:text=Estimates%20vary.,and%20fully%20financed%20Independent%20Films.  

25 

 
 
 
for  EU  independent  production  in  recent  years.44  As  shown  above  (counterfactual),  the 
design of MEDIA support for content creation has also increased transnational addressable 
demand for supported works and hence the competitiveness of production companies. 

The time it takes for supported films and series to be released also seems to compare 
well with industry averages. The average time for titles funded under development to get 
released  is  2.7  years  for  titles  developed  for  TV  and  3  years  for  titles  developed  for 
cinema.45  This  is  similar  to  the  average  of  even  Hollywood  studio  films46  (MEDIA 
supported films are all independent European productions, on average with much smaller 
budgets than Hollywood studio films). 

Furthermore,  the  KPI  on  co-productions  confirms  the  positive  impact  of  MEDIA 
funding  on  the  competitiveness  of  production  companies.  Co-productions  increase 
competitiveness  in  various  ways,  in  particular  by  increasing  the  addressable  audience 
abroad, bringing in new sources of financing (public and private), combining know-how 
and capabilities, and transferring skills and know-how. As regards co-productions, as of 
end 2023 the 2027 target is on track to be met for the number of coproductions47 and has 
already been exceeded when it comes to the budget of supported coproductions.48 

Moreover, co-productions involving two or more countries are indeed significantly 
higher  among  supported  works  than  non-supported  works.  The  review  of  external 
datasets  conducted  as  part  of  the  counterfactual  analysis  showed  that  across  both 
Programmes an estimated 48.6% ) of a large sample of works that had received MEDIA 
support  involved  two  or  more  countries,  in  comparison,  just  13.7%    of  comparable 
unsupported EU27 works49. The share of European co-productions in all supported works 
has increased  substantially  under CE2 (from  36% under CE1 to  84% under CE2). This 
increase  is  driven  by  an  increase  in  co-productions  among  works  supported  under  the 
Content actions (development and TV/online production), thanks to the strengthening of 
the relevant eligibility and evaluation criteria (e.g. only co-development projects involving 
producers  from  different  countries  can  be  supported  under  CE2,  while  single-country 
development projects were eligible under CE1). Even single-beneficiary slate funding has 
supported a very high share of coproductions (87-90% of all funded projects).50 

In addition to the production sector, MEDIA funding has made a positive difference 
in  EU  distribution  capacity,  i.e.  EU  capabilities  to  distribute  films  from  MEDIA-
associated countries beyond national borders. MEDIA helped distribution companies 
sell 77 out of 100 tickets for films in non-national countries between 2013 and 2019. After 

44    A vast majority (80%) of producers responding to a 2022 targeted consultation of DG CNECT confirmed 
this  as  well  as  broadcasters  and  streamers  participating  in  the  consultations.  See  European  Media 
Industry Outlook, 2023 edition. SWD(2023) 150 final, 17.5.2023 

45  Based  on  combining  Programme  monitoring  data  with  external  databases  used  for  the  counterfactual 

analysis, 

46 An average 871 days (cca 2.4 years) from a public announcement that a studio movie will be made, e.g. 
after the actual greenlight of the projects (sample covers 2006-2016) Source: 
https://stephenfollows.com/p/how-long-the-average-hollywood-movie-take-to-make  
47 2182 coproductions supported by the end of 2023 against a target of 3000 by end 2027. [The budget of 

supported coproductions amounted to EUR 11,3 billion vs a 2027 target of EUR 1,2 bn ] 

48 Annex VI 
49 A sample of 2629 supported works where a release on either TV, cinema or VoD could be verified vs a 

sample of 31 161 of unsupported EU27 works 

50 Support study for the evaluation, based on Programme monitoring data 

26 

 
 
the  United  Kingdom  left  the  European  Union  (coinciding  with  the  start  of  CE2)  this 
number became even higher.  

While there is a significant share of recurrent applications, there is also evidence of 
distributors  growing as a result of support.  From  2014 to  2023, 477 distributors got 
support from MEDIA under the automatic (non-selective) actions. 71 of these companies 
applied every year over this period. COVID lockdowns in 2020 and 2021 caused a major 
drop in film sales. In 2022, 71% of beneficiaries earned less money than they did in 2017. 
MEDIA  helped  these  companies  stay  afloat  during  this  hard  time.  Out  of  a  group  of 
beneficiaries who  applied before and after COVID, 60% had grew their  position in  the 
market of non-national EU films, and this includes 26% of beneficiaries who more than 
doubled their shares.51 

Distribution  support  under  MEDIA  also  helped  create  some  new  jobs,  though  on 
average, each company created less than one new job. This figure suggests that, while 
the  distribution-related  support  has  facilitated  some  job  creation,  the  overall  impact  in 
terms of job creation has been modest. MEDIA does not pay for staff costs, which may 
explain the small number of newly created jobs. 

Also, several horizontal actions were funded to strengthen the business capacity of 
audiovisual market players in addition to the above detailed support to the creation 
and  distribution  of  specific  works.    The  actions  on  audiovisual  markets  increased 
opportunities for audiovisual producers and distributors to collaborate across borders, thus 
contributing  to  cross-border circulation  of works.  For  example, in  audiovisual  markets 
producers can pitch their upcoming works to distributors who may then acquire the rights 
for  their  distribution.    Producers  may  also  come  together  to  launch  co-productions.  
MEDIA  has  financed  the  hosting  of  these  markets  and  related  networking  activities, 
including on specific formats such as documentaries.  MEDIA has also hosted Stands in 
major markets, providing accreditations and networking space.   Under CE1, there were 
670,000 participants in market access activities.  under CE 2, as of 2021 approximately 
152,000 participants  were supported. Despite this, as explained above, the target  of 1.8 
million set under the corresponding monitoring indicator (number of people reached by 
B2B promotional  activities in  major markets) may not  be met, as COVID has  changed 
habits as regards attending events. 

A new scaled-up action, MEDIA 360, was launched under CE2 focusing on the major 
industry  hubs,  with  the  intention  of  supporting  strategic  programmes  of  activities 
that could have a structuring effect on Europe’s audiovisual ecosystem as a whole, 
but  it  is  too  early  to  assess  impacts.    To  date  nine  projects  involving  13  beneficiary 
organisations have been made under this action totalling EUR 19,938,967. Projects so far 
typically focus  on integrated training, networking, business  to  business and distribution 
activities, as well as targeted development and international co-production support in some 
cases.  Data on outputs and results from funded projects is not yet available and impacts 
will need to be assessed once projects have been completed.  

Another new action under CE1, Innovative Tools and Business Models attracted a lot 
of interest and supported promising projects, but it is again too early to assess the 
impact  of  the  innovations  covered  by  funding.  This  new  action  supports  innovative 
solutions  to  the  main  digital  challenges  of  the  European  audiovisual  industry,  such  as 
financing, visibility, availability and digital consumption of European works.  Projects are 

51 Programme Monitoring Data 

27 

 
 
primarily  focused  on  analytics  and  AI  tools  to  support  production,  marketing  and 
subscription models. However, the results and impacts of projects are not yet available at 
this  early  stage.  This  action  currently  does  not  have  a  formal  KPI  in  the  monitoring 
framework. The number of active business users of the funded tools after 3 and/or 5 years 
of funding could be a relevant indicator, but this would require beneficiaries reporting for 
3  to  5  years  on  their  active  users.  Also,  more  automatization  of  collecting  data  on  the 
purpose  of  the  supported  tools  may  be  considered  (e.g.  which  stage  of  the  audiovisual 
works life cycle do they aim to improve?).    

Furthermore, both CE1 and CE2 have addressed priorities relating to capacity and 
skills development of professionals with an increased emphasis on the skills needed 
to harness  the digital transformation and promote new business models  under the 
current Programme.52 The Programmes supported a total of 14,959 training participants 
of  which  13,478  were  under  CE1  (average  of  46  participants  per  projects)  and  1,646 
through CE2 (average of 55 per project). The lower figures are due to a certain extent the 
impact of COVID. 

While the formal monitoring indicator based on self-assessment of participants is on 
track  to  be  met  (see  above),  monitoring  of  results  or  impacts  of  training  on 
competences  and  employability  is  weak,  though  it  has  improved  under  CE2.  Two 
thirds  of  the  supported  projects  across  both  Programmes  did  not  record  data  from 
participants on the outcomes of the trainings provided. Under CE1, 27.19% of the total 
participants  reported  outcomes,  showing  that  88%  of  the  participants  used  the  learning 
acquired through MEDIA in their work. Under CE2, 71.39 % of the participants reported 
learning outcomes, indicating that 71% of the participants improved their competencies or 
increased  their  employability.  Feedback  from  the  beneficiaries’  survey  is  also  positive: 
81%  of  respondents  under  CE1  and  84%  of  respondents  under  CE2  point  towards 
developed new skills and competences.  

Positive feedback from beneficiaries notwithstanding, the action had to be adjusted 
half-way under CE2 to enhance its relevance and coherence with the new legal base.  
MEDIA Skills development support appears to have been delivered in line with objectives 
under CE1. However, an internal assessment carried out by DG CNECT on the selected 
projects under CE2 showed that a significant number of projects prioritised the creation 
and  production  stages.  Digital  and  greening  transformations  lacked  sufficient  focus: 
overall, these priorities were not at the core of the funded training initiatives (only 2 out of 
the  59  funded  projects  under  CE2  focused  on  the  greening  of  the  industry).  Finally,  a 
certain degree of overlap was detected between the Talent and Skills and the audiovisual 
Market  actions, as both  addressed knowledge sharing and networking activities.  In the 
light of these findings, the call on Talent and Development Action was streamlined in 2024, 
with a stronger focus on addressing skills’ gaps in the digital age, developing new business 
models, enhancing IP rights exploitation, and promoting sustainable practices across the 
value chain, encouraging participation of professionals across the audiovisual and gaming 
value chains. Support to networking activities among professionals was included under a 
revamped action on Markets and Networking. 

52     Creative Europe 1 set a priority to facilitate the acquisition and improvement of skills and competences 
of  audiovisual  professionals,  and  the  development  of  networks;  while  the  current  Programme 
specifically focusses on ‘enhancing the capacity of audiovisual professionals to adapt to new creative 
processes, market developments and digital technologies that affect the whole value chain’. This priority 
is  supported  by  an  indicator  the  number  of  participants  who  assessed  that  they  have  improved  their 
competences and increased their employability. 

28 

 
 
 
Overall, both the public consultation and beneficiary survey confirmed convincingly 
the  positive  impact  of  MEDIA  funding  on  competitiveness  of  funded  enterprises 
under  both  CE1  and  CE2.  57%  of  CE1  beneficiaries  and  81%  of  CE2  MEDIA 
beneficiaries agreed that MEDIA was effective in supporting competitiveness in general. 
This  view  was  shared  by  less,  though  still  a  majority  (60%)  of  distribution  support 
beneficiaries.  As  regards  the  impact  on  their  own  activities,  the  two  aspects  of 
competitiveness where MEDIA support was considered strongest was increased visibility 
for the beneficiary’s work in the sector and increased capacity for transnational cooperation 
with 94% and 89% of MEDIA beneficiaries reporting positive impacts. These results are 
comparable across both Programmes. Again, the results were weaker among distribution 
than content creation beneficiaries, but still mostly positive. It is notable that the survey 
confirmed the strongest positive impact in the two areas where the quantitative findings 
also showed strong impacts (addressable demand and co-productions). Overall, 90% and 
85% of CE1 and CE2 MEDIA beneficiaries respectively reported a moderate to significant 
impact of MEDIA funding on helping them increase their market position and/or financial 
turnover. A similar share of beneficiaries reported moderate to significant impact on job 
creation, without major differences across the two Programmes.  

Despite the positive impact of MEDIA funding in helping beneficiaries become more 
competitive, there are significant limits to what MEDIA could achieve in the wider 
market context, as market share metrics show. MEDIA support is associated with wider 
transnational  circulation  and  consumption  of  European  audiovisual  works,  supported  a 
number  of  co-productions  significantly  above  the  market  average,  and  supported  many 
internationally acclaimed works. Despite this, the overall market share of non-national EU 
audiovisual works has not improved over the evaluation period. In particular, non-national 
EU works account for 6% of cinema admissions and 7% viewing time on EU streaming 
services (the latter a decrease from 11% in 2020). US works by contrast account for around 
61% VoD view time and 66% of admissions53.  

The funding under MEDIA (roughly 200 million annually even under the increased 
budget  of  CE2)  is  very  modest  compared  to  the  overall  audiovisual  sector  (worth 
around  EUR  100  billion  in  the  EU)  and  cannot  in  itself  change  the  strong  market 
trends  in  the  sector  and  the  wider  attention  economy.    The  latter  include  changing 
consumer behaviours, the behaviour of major US studios, streamers and tech companies 
or EU broadcasters and national authorities. The results of the counterfactual analysis on 
streaming  views  of  supported  works  and  the  decreasing  views  for  EU  works  despite 
MEDIA funding are a case in point: the recommendations within streaming services are 
one of the top influences on viewing behaviour, based on consumer surveys54, and these 
are at the discretion of the services themselves. Less than 20% of streaming subscriptions 
are for EU streaming services, which means that extra-EU companies have a very strong 
influence on what type of content people in the EU consume. 

53        European  Media  Industry  Outlook,  SWD(2025)261,  5.9.2025;  European  Commission:  Directorate-
General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, The European media industry outlook 
– 
2025, 
Office 
Publications 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/0606593  

September 

European 

Union, 

2025, 

the 

of 

54  ‘Consumer survey on consumer behaviour and preferences related to the consumption of audiovisual 
the  European  Union, 
entertainment  content  –  Final 
2023, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/55576;  European  Commission:  Directorate-General 
for 
Communications  Networks,  Content  and  Technology,  Study  on  audiences,  consumer  behaviour  and 
preferences  relating  to  the  consumption  of  media  content  –  Final  report,  Publications  Office  of  the 
European Union, 2025, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/5502681  

report,  Publications  Office  of 

29 

 
 
 
 
Finally, the audiovisual sector is heavily dependent on public funding, and MEDIA is 
only a fraction of total national funding. Public funding is the leading source of finance 
for  films  and  second  most  important  source  for  series.  Public  service  broadcasters 
commission over half of broadcast fiction titles. Even the increased annual MEDIA budget 
under CE2 was less than 1%55of the total national funding to public sector broadcasting in 
the EU (2021-2023).56 This does not include direct grants given by national film funds or 
tax benefits.  In effect this  means  that  non-national  works targeted by MEDIA  not only 
have to compete for audiences’ attention with US and other international works, but also 
national works supported from (in aggregate much higher levels of) national funding.   

Level-playing field: geographic and linguistic diversity  

In 2021 the first Work Programme of CE2 introduced a renewed and streamlined set 
of level playing field (LPF) measures to be taken, using eligibility and award criteria. 
Overall,  there  was  a  stronger  emphasis  on  collaboration  with  opportunities  for  mutual 
learning between companies from countries with different capacities. This section looks at 
the  two  relevant  performance  indicators  (supported  co-productions  involving  a  low-
capacity country and works supported in lesser used languages) and then presents further 
data and analysis on the level playing field, geographic and linguistic diversity.   

A strong positive development can be observed in co-productions involving high and 
low audiovisual capacity countries, driven by targeted measures in content creation 
support under CE2.  Under CE2 there has been a notable increase in the share of support 
for titles that involve collaboration between high and low-capacity countries. The share of 
all supported works across all content and distribution actions that involve collaborations 
between low capacity and high-capacity countries has increased from less than 5% during 
CE1  to  around  30%  under  CE2.    This  increase  has  been  driven  by  the  higher  share  of 
support through content actions and associated eligibility and evaluation criteria related to 
beneficiaries from lower capacity countries within these actions, including a new specific 
development  action  supporting  slates  of  producers  from  low-capacity  countries.  This 
notwithstanding,  the  level  of  involvement  of  partners  from  low-capacity  countries  can 
vary.  

There has also been a notable increase in recent years in the share of works in lesser 
used languages developed, produced and distributed with MEDIA support. Under the 
previous  iteration  of  the  Programme  typically  around  25%  of  supported  works  were  in 
lesser used languages. Under the current Programme, this is just over 30%.57 

Horizontal audience development support under MEDIA also had a positive impact 
on geographic and linguistic diversity.  

•  The  Europa  Cinemas  network  implements  a  positive  action  for  cultural  diversity 
promoting films in lesser-used languages. The screenings cover hundreds of films from 
almost  all  MEDIA  countries  (depending  on  the  year),  with  for  example  9  countries 
being represented among the top 20 most screened titles in 2023.  

55 See footnote 11 
56 DG CNECT calculations based on EAO data on public service broadcasting revenues 
57 Support study for the evaluation, based on Programme monitoring data 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
•  As regards festivals, recent third-party analysis58 shows that smaller festivals which are 
the target of MEDIA’s festival support, especially the network of festivals action, show 
a  higher  share  of  films  from  smaller  countries  than  the  large,  well-known  festivals 
(Cannes, Berlin etc).  The geographical distribution of the festivals  supported under 
MEDIA has improved through the support to networks of festivals introduced under 
CE2. The outreach of the networks presents a very diverse geographical distribution 
(26  European  countries  in  total).  Altogether,  over  13,000  films  from  low-capacity 
countries were programmed at supported festivals. 

In training and skills development actions, countries with low audiovisual production 
capacity are also  relatively  well  represented. Although  data was not  collected on the 
geographic background of participants, in CE1, projects coordinated by organisations from 
lower capacity countries received 29% of funding and in CE2 they received 32% of the 
funding.  

Despite these measures, support is concentrated in a limited number of countries and 
languages  (see  figure  below),  though  the  gap  has  narrowed.  Under  the  previous 
Programme higher capacity countries received on average EUR 0.36 per capita, compared 
to EUR 0.23 per capita for low capacity countries. Under the current Programme, higher 
capacity  countries  have  received  EUR  0.48  per  capita,  a  34%  increase,  whilst  lower 
capacity  have  received  on  average,  EUR  0.35  per  capita,  a  54%  increase.  Belgium, 
Denmark  and  the  Netherlands  are  amongst  the  top  beneficiaries  and  receive  more  per 
capita than bigger countries such as Germany, Italy and Spain.   

MEDIA funding per Member State – Overview based on direct beneficiaries 

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

y
l
a
t
I

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

i

n
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

d
n
a
o
P

l

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

e
c
e
e
r
G

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

d
n
a
n
i
F

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S

i

a
n
e
v
o
l
S

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

a
i
v
t
a
L

s
u
r
p
y
C

a
t
l
a
M

Creative Europe 2014-2020

Creative Europe 2021-2027

58 CresCine project supported under Horizon Europe: Uncommon Venues for Exhibition and Distribution in 

of Film in Europe, 2025 report 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MEDIA  funding  per  Member  State  –  Overview  including  split  among  indirect 
beneficiaries where relevant59 

For a number of reasons, the largest volume of funding continues to go to France. The 
French audiovisual sector benefits from a particularly favourable environment, with high 
cinema  density  and  audiences  combined  with  strong  domestic  funding  notably  for  the 
production  of  content.  It  also  has  regular  co-productions  with  neighbouring  countries 
sharing the same language (BE and LU). Following Brexit, French sales agents are pre-
eminent in the sale of foreign films across the EU.  France also has the biggest audiences 
for non-national European films, meaning that French distributors gain the largest share of 
MEDIA support for distribution.  

Finally, despite the positive trend in co-productions, including between low and high-
capacity countries, further analysis reveals room for improvement when it comes to 
diversity.  Only  one  of  the  top  ten  most  common  cooperations  was  between  two  low-
capacity countries. (between Czech Republic and Slovakia, which also share close cultural 
connections). Close geographic, linguistic and organisational links can be observed across 
the other most common cooperations, such as between Belgium and France, Denmark and 
Sweden and Austria and Germany.60 Low-capacity countries were the primary production 
country in less than 10% of all supported co-productions between 2014 and 202361. Indeed, 

59    DG CNECT calculations based on project monitoring data. The data includes the split and contribution 
to the members of the Europa Cinema network. The grant covering the network cost is allocated to the 
country where the network is established. The data includes the split and cascading grant contribution 
with the 2019 and 2020 Distribution selective support. The split of the grant to the individual distributors 
is taken into account while the grant covering the coordination costs is allocated to the country where 
the sales agent is established. 
60 Support study to the evaluation.  
61 DG CNECT calculations based on project monitoring data. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
cooperation  with  a  lower  capacity  country  can  mean  limited  cooperation  mainly  only 
financing  (e.g.  the  junior  partner  can  bring  national  funding  from  their  country)  or 
providing services for location shooting in contrast to ‘genuine’ collaborations on creative 
aspects. The level of cooperation between different countries in supported works could be 
more explored for the final evaluation of CE2. 

Overall, both CE1 and, in particular CE2, has resulted in significant developments 
in improving the level playing field across MEDIA countries. However, continuous 
efforts  are  needed  for  further  improvements.  Following  the  introduction  of  a 
development action dedicated entirely to low-capacity countries, a reform of the selective 
distribution  action  is  underway.  A  recent  study  on  the  level  playing  field62  provided  a 
number  of  recommendations  to  increase  the  participation  of  lower  capacity  countries. 
These  included  expanding  efforts  to  increase  participation  of  low-capacity  countries  to 
actions beyond content creation, for example the training actions; and increase support for 
high quality co-development projects which involve creative collaborations between high 
and low-capacity countries. In addition, national support for the same works or activities 
could be taken into account when allocating funding for MEDIA.  This would require a 
closer mapping and monitoring of actions at Member State level. As currently information 
on Member State funding is not available in a standardised format that would lend itself 
well to further analysis, a first step could be to create a standardised monitoring framework.  

Horizontal priorities - Diversity and greening 
Indicators  show  a  positive  association  of  MEDIA  content  creation  funding  with 
gender diversity and women are well represented in training actions as well. The share 
of MEDIA supported works written and directed by women exceeds industry-wide shares 
and has increased over time. The share of female directors and writers of works supported 
under content actions through Creative Europe 1 was 30% and 35% respectively. This has 
increased  to  42%  and  44%  respectively  under  Creative  Europe  2.  These  shares  clearly 
exceed wider industry shares of women writers and directors, whilst the increase over time 
also reflects sector trends over this period.  Collection of data on distribution titles was 
more limited. Of the 516 titles where gender data was recorded, 147 had a female director 
(28%) and 170 (33%) works were written by women.  Data on other roles, e.g. producers 
or  cinematographers,  or  workforce  composition  of  beneficiary  organisations  is  not 
collected.  Furthermore,  across  both  Programmes  more  than  50%  of  the  participants  in 
training  actions  were  female.  The  share  compares  relatively  well  to  industry  shares  of 
female participation.63 

Greening  and  diversity  are  consistently  included  in  evaluation  criteria  of  the 
development and TV/online actions and their weight in the scores is significant. For 
example, in TV/online scheme calls in recent years, each of these aspects weighed as much 
as  the  co-production  criteria,  which,  as  explained  above,  is  central  to  MEDIA’s 
competitiveness approach. By way of another example, the twelve supported networks of 
festivals carry out collaborative projects to enhance research on sustainability and social 
awareness. Unfortunately, for the time being, no data is available for indicators other than 
female  writers  and  directors,  for  measuring  the  impact  of  MEDIA  in  other  aspects  of 

62  European  Commission:  Directorate-General  for  Communications  Networks,  Content  and  Technology, 
ECORYS  and  Technopolis,  Study  on  broadening  participation  under  the  creative  Europe  media 
programme 
2025, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/8297102  
63 Evaluation support study, based on monitoring data 

report,  Publications  Office 

the  European  Union, 

–  Final 

of 

33 

 
 
diversity and greening. While these indicators can be developed for the final evaluation, 
the  only  reliable  source  for  data  would  be  additional  and  standardised  reporting  by 
beneficiaries (unlike for circulation and audiences of audiovisual works, there are no off-
the-shelf  external  databases  that  could  be  used  to  check  the  impact  without  additional 
reporting obligations on beneficiaries).   

Video games 
Although most MEDIA financing targets the production and distribution of films and 
series, video games and new forms of interactive content (i.e. XR) are also supported 
through the Programme. This is, through a dedicated action devoted to the development 
of  narrative  video  games  and  XR,  and  by  making  video  games  and  XR  eligible  under 
MEDIA market and training and innovation actions. 

Yearly  support  has  increased  under  CE2.  Altogether,  a  total  of  307  development 
projects have been supported since 2014 for a total of EUR 37,298,747 over nine years. 
207 projects were supported under CE1, in comparison with 100 projects in 2022-23 only 
(no call was launched in 2021 owing to the late adoption of the legal basis). The highest 
number of projects (56) were supported in 2023, reflecting a step increase in the budget 
under CE2.   The budget between 2014 and 2020 was relatively steady, with considerable 
growth in 2022. As a result, the funds awarded in 2023 were twice those awarded yearly 
between 2014 and 2020. 

Support  for  video  games  is  distributed  geographically,  encompassing  most  EU 
countries and reflecting the presence of dynamic gaming hubs across the EU. Over 
the  2014-2023  period,  beneficiaries  have  come  from  26  countries,  including  23  EU 
Member States and 3 non-EU countries (Norway, Serbia, and the UK). The largest number 
of beneficiaries are from Germany, France, and Poland, followed by Denmark, Norway, 
and  Italy.  Countries  considered  to  have  low  audiovisual  capacity,  such  as  Croatia  and 
Lithuania,  are  well  represented  in  the  gaming  sector,  highlighting  the  different  market 
realities between the gaming and films sectors. 

MEDIA  funding  for  game  development  significantly  increases  the  chances  of 
videogames  being  finalised  and  released.  On  average,  89%  of  development  projects 
supported  became  prototypes3.  A  third  of  the  supported  projects  were  eventually 
commercialised. While there are no market-wide data on the failure rate of development 
projects,  anecdotal  evidence  from  national  sources  suggests  that  MEDIA  results  are 
significantly better than the market average, in particular in the indie games segment which 
MEDIA mostly provides for. It also underlines MEDIA’s ability to select viable projects. 

Genre and budget may be relevant factors in success, but country of origin does not 
seem to matter. Among the unsuccessful projects, the predominant theme is “Adventure”, 
which might suggest a higher level of competition in this genre. Half of the abandoned 
projects had estimated development costs of under EUR 200,000, highlighting their small-
scale nature – and therefore the relative fragility of these projects. However, the country 
of origin of the companies did not appear to influence a project's success. 

MEDIA  supported  games  are  well  recognised  at  prestigious  industry  awards. 
Between 2014 and 2020, 38 MEDIA supported games were nominated to a total of 175 
awards across 20 different events, scooping 36 awards. This means that around 1 in 8 video 
games supported by MEDIA have been nominated for at least one award. In the five most 
prestigious  ceremonies,  they  achieved  52  nominations  and  12  wins.  The  most  awarded 
games so far were “It takes two”, which scooped 12 wins, The Witcher Blood and Wine 

34 

 
DLC – both scooping the “Game of the Year” award of the leading industry ceremony. 
The latter were big-budget games – The Witcher Blood and Wine DLC reportedly cost €72 
million to produce. 

MEDIA  supported  games  are  available  on  at  least  18  different  distribution 
platforms/devices, with the highest number of projects found on Windows, PS4, Xbox 
One, and Switch, mirroring the consumption patterns on the market.  On average, 
each supported project anticipates being available on 3 different platforms/devices. In 2022 
and 2023, this average increased to four platforms, with a notable rise in VR availability. 
This seems to show that over time the selected projects are making efforts to enhance their 
distribution channels and revenues streams. 

Efficiency 
As  regards  cost-effectiveness,  MEDIA  supported  a  large  amount  of  audiovisual 
works,  which  resulted  in  a  stronger  cross-border  cultural  dimension.  Across  both 
Programmes MEDIA has supported a total of 7887 original unique titles (films and series). 
As shown under ‘Effectiveness’, MEDIA support is strongly associated with a much wider 
cross-border-circulation and significantly more non-national admissions that unsupported 
works. On aggregate, under CE1, MEDIA support was associated with an additional 241 
million  admissions  and  almost  13,000  cross-border  releases  compared  to  unsupported 
works.  Based  on  works  supported  for  content  creation,  MEDIA  funding  of  EUR 
236,006,151 attracted other sources of investment totalling EUR 1,754,327,546  (1:7.43) 
under CE1. For CE2, it is too early to make a similar calculation as the benefits of support 
will take more time to materialise. For distribution related support, the corresponding ratio 
is 1:264.  

Supporting networking and market access has become a more cost-effective way to 
support competitiveness. Networking and market access projects were supported with a 
total of approximately 670,000 reported participants at an approximate cost of EUR 80 per 
person in CE 1. In CE 2, support for 76 Markets and networking projects was funded with 
a  total  of  150,000  participants  to  date.  At  EUR  57  per  participant  (2021  only),  this 
represents a 26% decrease per participant.  This was cost-effective in view of the benefits 
in presence of European audiovisual firms and works at major international film festivals 
creating business opportunities for collaboration.   

Support to training sought to upgrade the creative, management and technical skills 
of audiovisual professionals, as well as fostering collaboration at the European level.  
Training was provided for over 13,000 participants (52% women) with 29% of training 
funding to beneficiary organisations based in LCC countries.  The cost was approximately 
EUR 4,000 per participant. Under CE1, the cost per person amounted to EUR 3,932 while 
in 2021, under CE2, it totalled EUR 5,738 per person trained, a 46% increase per person 
trained in comparison to CE1.  Such difference could be explained by the fact that a large 
majority of the training Programmes rely on in-person formats, including in prestigious 
film  festivals  and  markets  where  the  costs  of  attending  those  events  in  person  have 
increased over the years, owing to rising travel expenses and accommodation costs. When 
the action was reviewed in 2024, the provision of hybrid training (both online and in-

64 Source for figures in this section: support study to the evaluation 

35 

 
  
 
person)  was  encouraged,  while  travel  and  accommodation  costs  were  kept  to  the  strict 
minimum. 

The support to innovative tools and business models was introduced in 2021 to foster 
solutions to the main challenges of the European audiovisual industry in the digital 
age. A total of EUR 29,258,510 across 43 projects and 62 beneficiary organisations has 
been awarded (average grant EUR 680,430). The total contribution by beneficiaries is EUR 
27,177,426  (average  EUR  632,033),  showing  a  significant  level  of  co-financing  by  the 
beneficiaries. 

The EACEA efficiently implements the Programme. It has implemented MEDIA since 
well before 2014.  It is a well-established centre of expertise with the necessary tools for 
administering about 2,000 projects per year, thus allowing DG CNECT to focus on policy-
related activities.65 The EACEA is implementing the large majority of the open calls for 
proposals of Creative Europe, including the publication of the calls, the management of 
the  evaluations,  the  contracting  and  project  follow-up.    The  EACEA  is  consistently 
reaching target KPIs on efficiency, with time to grant within 9 months, time to pay within 
the 30-60-day limits and an error rate well below 2%. 

A number of efficiency-enhancing measures were taken during the evaluation period.  
During the 2014-2020 period, an online application and reporting system was implemented 
for all actions. The use of lump sums was introduced for three high volume actions such 
as the Single Development support, the Festival support and the Cinema Selective support. 
Lump sums were further extended as of 2021, including through budget-based lump (Lump 
sum type II). All 5 actions of the content cluster (European Co-Development, European 
Slate  development,  European  mini-slate  development,  Video  Games  and  Immersive 
content  development,  TV&Online  content)  and  the  Festival  action  are  implemented 
through fixed or budget based lump sums since 2021, covering around 46% of all grants 
signed in the period 2021-2024. 

The  range  of  funding  schemes  has  been  implemented  through  a  wide  variety  of 
modalities, with different levels of efficiency.   For example, one of the most efficient 
schemes  was  the  European  Cinemas  network,  which  was  contracted  through  a  single 
coordinating  organisation,  but  which  has  used  a  cascading  grants  system  to  channel 
funding to over 1,300 member cinemas.  This was a cost-effective solution because the 
administrative costs were reduced to a minimum as there was only one grant of EUR 10 
million per year and three payments to be processed. 

However other schemes were significantly more complex to administer. Therefore, the 
approach from 2014-2020 was to progressively streamline the schemes, in dialogue with 
industry and Member State stakeholders. In particular, the Distribution Automatic scheme 
was  streamlined  to  consolidate  small  grants  (per  film)  into  larger  allocations  (per 
distributor) and also minimum project thresholds were introduced. Thus, the number of 
grant  contracts  fell  from  over  1,000  to  approximately  300  annually.  The  Sales  Agents 

65 An evaluation of the Agency was completed in April 2019 of the EACEA.  This shows that the EACEA 
was  effective  in  the  implementation  of  its  operational  priorities  and  performed  well  in  the  execution  of 
delegated functions with very good results in meeting the main indicators describing the timeliness of its 
evaluation, contracting and payments process.   

36 

 
 
 
scheme,  which  shared  a  similar  operational  structure  with  the  Distribution  Automatic 
scheme, was also streamlined.  

The Distribution Selective scheme was revised to enable a more strategic approach to 
coordinating multi-territory film releases.  This included the consolidation of grants into 
a  support  to  third  parties  model  coordinated  by  Sales  agents,  significantly  reducing  the 
amount of grant contracts required to support a comparable number of works. For example, 
the number of individual grants was reduced from on average 206 grants to an average 26 
grants per year between 2014 to 2018, to an average of 21 grants to support 21 films per 
year for 2019 and 2020. 

Overall, the impacts of these changes can be illustrated by the significantly reduced 
number of grants made to support comparable levels activity.  The number of grants 
made in  2019  and 2020  was 785 and 806 in  comparison  to  an  average  of 1475 project 
grants per year between 2014 to 2018, a 46% decrease.  This resulted in an increased grant 
size, from EUR 53,000 in 2014 to EUR 165,000 in 2020. 

However,  other  schemes  could  not  be  streamlined  during  CE1.    The  Development 
schemes  (single,  slate)  attracted  on  average  900  applications  per  year,  leading  to  200 
selected projects for an average grant of EUR 83,000.  The selection process required the 
extensive use of experts.  As of 2021, the development schemes have been refocused on 
bigger projects (co-productions and slates or groupings).  The average number of proposals 
to be processed by the agency has therefore dropped from 915 proposals to 470 proposals 
/ year in the 2021-2024 period. The average number of annual grants for these development 
actions has dropped from 215 during the 2014-2020 period to 178 in the 2014-2024 period, 
while the average grant amount was increased from EUR 83,000 to EUR 163,000. 

Also  as  regards  support  to  festivals,  the  provisions  of  the  legal  act  did  not  allow 
reducing the number of grants over 2014-20.  Over the period, 535 grant contracts were 
established  with  123  organisations  (recurrent  beneficiaries  received  successive  annual 
grants).  However, as of 2021, the networked collaboration dimension was strengthened, 
notably through the new Festivals Network action which has alternated with the traditional 
support to individual festivals on a bi-annual basis.  A total of 12 networks and grants were 
funded in 2022 and 15 in 2024, for a value of EUR 5.6 million in 2022 and EUR 7.9 million 
in 2024.  In parallel, the total amount of funding awarded to individual film festivals in 
2021 and 2023 was over EUR 19 million with an average grant amount of EUR 103,059 
for a period of two years. This compares to an average of EUR 45,397 under the previous 
Programme when grants were awarded for a period of one year. 

Overall, since 2021 the number of calls per year has been reduced further to an average of 
14  annual  calls  and  16  selection  rounds  (compared  to  an  average  of  16  calls  and  20 
selection  rounds  in  the  previous  period),  through  streamlining  and  multi-annual 
programming.  As part of this the average duration of the grants has now increased from 
1.5  years  under  the  predecessor  Programme  to  over  2  years66  under  the  current 

66 Under some current Creative  Europe actions e.g. European Platform and Network projects, Automatic 
generation  scheme  /  European  film  distribution,  Audience  Development,  Film  Festivals  and  Training 
beneficiaries will need to prepare applications three or two times less frequently than under the predecessor 
Programme.  In  this  respect  Cinema  Network  scheme  represents  untapped  potential.  The  scheme  has 
supported  Europa  Cinemas  throughout  the  predecessor  and  current  Programme  and  its  average  project 
duration only increased by four months.  

37 

 
 
Programme,67  effectively  reducing  the  administrative  burden  associated  with  more 
frequent applications by around 40%.68. 

The  increased  use  of  multi-annual  funding  and  cascading  grants  has  further 
increased average grant for projects, under CE2. The shift towards larger and longer 
grants was acknowledged and welcomed by stakeholders as strengthening their capacity. 

Some actions with particularly competitive calls had lower than average success rates 
as of 2023. These  therefore need to  be monitored closely to  assess if eligibility criteria 
need to be adapted in order to filter the relevant proposals at early stage, or if the budget 
allocation can be increased, in order to avoid unnecessary applications, which are costly 
both for the applicant and the Programme administration.  This concerns in particular the 
following schemes: European Video-Games and Immersive content: success rate in 2024 
was 16.7% (vs 58% in 2022); European Co-Development success rate in 2024 was 20% 
(vs 41% in 2021); Innovative Tools and business models success rate in 2024 was 11% (vs 
45% in 2021). 

Given  the  need  for  increased  focus  on  monitoring  set  out  in  this  evaluation,  additional 
human resources may need to be reallocated through efficiency savings on project selection 
and execution. 

Coherence 
There  is  good  coherence  between  the  general  objectives,  specific  objectives  and 
priorities  of  the  strand.  The  MEDIA  strand  actions  in  CE1  directly  supported  the 
priorities  by  facilitating  the  transnational  distribution  and  promotion  of  European 
audiovisual  works.  Under  CE2,  new  and  revamped  actions  (e.g.  games  and  immersive 
content,  innovative  tools),  reflect  the  new  strand  priorities  responding  to  the  evolving 
digital environment. The support to competitiveness is reflected in the specific objectives 
of  scalability  and  cooperation  and  the  focus  on  international  co-productions.  The 
introduction of MediaInvest, a European equity investment vehicle, reflects the priority of 
boosting private investment in audiovisual and gaming. 

The  MEDIA  strand  is  coherent  with  EU  policies  and  initiatives  related  to  the 
European AV sector, namely the Media and Audiovisual Action Plan (MAAP), the 
Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD), the copyright framework and the 
European Media Freedom Act (EMFA). The MEDIA strand accompanies the objectives 
of  the  AVMSD,  which  ensures  the  free  provision  of  audiovisual  services  in  the  single 
market,  as  well  as  promoting  European  works,  enhancing  cultural  diversity  and  media 
pluralism.  Notably,  MEDIA  strengthens  the  capacity  of  the  EU  audiovisual  industry  to 
produce  audiovisual  works  which  can  be  successful  across  the  single  market.    Also, 
MEDIA requires alignment of third countries with the provisions of the AVMSD. MEDIA 
also funds the functioning of the European Board for Media Services established by the 
EMFA. 

67 Under the previous Programme around 67% of projects were two years or longer, while this has increased 
to 78% of projects under the current Programme.  
68 Tracing continuity of actions across the programmes is not an exact science due to changes to particular 
actions, actions discontinued as well as new actions created. This number was produced by comparing the 
average duration of the project for actions that can be traced across both Programmes.  

38 

 
 
 
The objectives of the MEDIA Programme are also well aligned with the objectives of the 
2019 Digital Single Market Copyright Directive, in particular with regard to supporting 
content creation in the digital age and its access across-borders.  

MEDIA is complementary to national support under the RRF and Cohesion Policy. 
A few Member States included provisions in their Recovery and Resilience Plans to use 
RRF funding to support the AV industries. When used, it has focused mainly on boosting 
national  production  and  attracting  overseas  productions,  with  limited  attention  paid  to 
priorities  related  to  the  Single  Market.  Also,  Cohesion  Policy  appears  focused  on  the 
regional dimension through digital, cultural and the business development. Examples of 
these investments  include the setup  of an open platform  in  Poland to  access  digitalised 
heritage  films  (digital),  refurbishment  of  cinema  venues  in  Hungary  (culture),  and  a 
videogames cluster in Croatia (business development).  

Support  to  videogames  cuts  across  different  EU  programmes.  Video  gaming  has 
established itself as a key economic and cultural activity in the EU, underpinned by both 
creative and technological advancements. While Creative Europe supports the early-stage 
development of specific video game products, Horizon Europe’s action aims to support 
research  that  addresses  the  potential  role  and  scope  of  the  video  game  value  chain  and 
industry, including the application of video game technology to other sectors, areas that 
are not currently addressed by the MEDIA strand. 

Views from stakeholders representing the sector as well as beneficiaries of projects 
supported by the MEDIA strand suggest that there is less awareness of other relevant 
EU funding sources. The beneficiary survey showed that 57% of respondents under both 
funding  periods  felt  that  the  MEDIA  strand  was  complementary  to  other  EU  funding 
opportunities, but  40% indicated they did not  know. Sectoral  organisations interviewed 
elaborated further, suggesting that while funding programmes like Horizon Europe could 
be relevant for R&I in the AV sector, many organisations are either not  aware of these 
opportunities or the calls are too technical for MEDIA beneficiaries, mostly producers and 
distributors. 

As regards Member State programmes, most of the support available to the AV sector 
at the national level focuses on the production of content.69 Although the majority of 
Member States have support for the development of AV works, the scale and scope of this 
support is limited, with focus primarily on national works, whilst MEDIA focuses on co-
productions. MEDIA support to distribution helps Member States to effectively promote 
their works outside their home markets. Nonetheless, “international promotion” (export) 
measures have been developed in some member states e.g. in FR, DE, IT, AT, NO and FI), 
calling for increased synergies between national and European support. 

Furthermore, the scale of domestic support for AV sectors is uneven across Member 
States. For example, public service broadcasters in Europe commission half of the fiction 
titles  for  TV  and  streaming70,  but  there  are  enormous  differences  in  their  funding.  For 

69    Based  on:  European  Commission:  Directorate-General  for  Communications  Networks,  Content  and 
Technology, ECORYS and Technopolis, Study on broadening participation under the Creative Europe 
Media 
the  European  Union, 
2025, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/8297102;  and  the  evaluation’s  support  study,  including  case 
studies. 

report,  Publications  Office 

programme 

–  Final 

of 

70https://www.obs.coe.int/en/web/observatoire/-/downturn-in-european-tv/svod-fiction-production-the-

number-of-titles-fell-across-all-formats 

39 

 
 
 
example, Romanian public service television receives around EUR 22 per household in 
public funding, while the same amount is EUR 158 for Danish public broadcasting.71 

4.1.2.  Culture 

Effectiveness 
Creative Europe 1, Culture Sub-programme  
The  Culture  Sub-programme  invested  EUR  439  million  over  the  years  2014-2020  to 
support the CCS in the EU and third countries associated to the  Programme. In total, it 
supported 1,213 individual projects involving 4,375 beneficiary organisations and more 
than 7,500 cultural  activities72 with a strong focus on a transnational approach (98%  of 
projects having a cross-border component). A typical transnational project involved around 
10 partners from 8 different countries working together for up to 3 years. The results of the 
Beneficiary Survey conducted for the evaluation found that 8 in 10 partnerships formed 
under CE 1 continued after the funding period, because of the benefits participating cultural 
organisations had gained from these collaborations.  

The Culture Sub-programme’s strong international focus is visible in all its actions, 
in particular in the support to European Cooperation Projects. This action financed 491 
small-scale  projects  and  128  large-scale  projects,  all  of  them  with  cross-border 
collaboration,  bringing  about  many  benefits  for  project  partners  from  various  CSS. 
Firstly,  transnational  work  helped  internationalise  careers  of  the  artists  and  cultural 
professionals involved, as well as the circulation of their works. In line with its specific 
objective, the Culture Sub-programme supported in this way the mobility of artists and 
cultural and creative professionals. To capture the scale of this mobility a corresponding 
indicator was added in 2019: “the number of artists and cultural and creative professionals 
geographically  mobile  beyond  national  borders  due  to  the  Culture  Sub-programme 
support,  by  country  of  origin  and  gender”.  From  2014  to  2020,  the  Sub-programme 
supported 22,763 professionals internationalise their careers and gain experience in other 
countries,  corresponding  to  a  total  of  296,083  mobility  days.  However,  for  CE1,  the 
country of origin and gender of beneficiaries were not collected, but this was remedied in 
CE2. 

The Sub-programme also funded 660 artistic residencies to support professionals to work 
abroad and enhance their capacity to operate internationally. According to a Beneficiary 
Survey, 64% of those who received this support said  it  directly helped them advance 
their careers in an industry that remains very competitive. This career advancement was 
particularly  apparent  in  terms  of  helping  participants  develop  new  international 
networks, foreign contracts and reach new audiences outside of their home country, 
increasing in this way their competitiveness. 65% of respondents highlighted that the 
support  had  a  significant 
the 
the 
internationalisation of their careers. Participation in cross-border mobility also contributed 
to increase cultural operators’ sense of belonging to a common cultural area. 

their  mobility  and 

increase  of 

impact  on 

The Sub-programme helped in building the capacity of the CCS, which is very relevant 
as these sectors are composed of 95% of small and micro-organisations, often lacking the 

71 DG CNECT calculations based on household data from Eurostat and data on public service broadcasting 

funding from the European Audiovisual Observatory. 

72 This is the total number of activities for the Cooperation projects only, which represent around 60% of the 

total funding of the Culture Sub-programme.  

40 

 
 
 
 
capacity  to  capture  key  market  opportunities.  As  a  token  of  this  endeavour,  the  Sub-
programme invested EUR 80 million in 23 pan-European Networks between 2014-2016 
(and 28 between 2017-2020) covering different CCS such as cultural heritage, music or 
performing  arts.  It  also  supported  8  European  Platforms  up  to  2016  (and  then  15  from 
2017-2020),  that  promoted  over  6,000  emerging  artists.  In  particular,  the  Networks 
provided  their  members  with  business-to-business  capacity  building  activities  across  a 
large range of subjects, from how to market works abroad, greening their activities, how 
to  reach  disadvantaged  or  underrepresented  groups,  through  to  developing  funding 
applications and developing managerial capacity. The capacity-building support funded 
over  the  period  was  particularly  impactful  in  terms  of  helping  the  sectors  develop  new 
digital skills among practitioners and helping to integrate digital technology into cultural 
production and dissemination. These new skills manifested themselves in many innovative 
projects  ranging  from  virtual  museum  tours  and  online  exhibitions  to  the  creation  of 
cultural smart phone apps to enable audiences to interactively access cultural works. The 
above-mentioned  networks  do  not  collect  data  on  the  extent  to  which  their  capacity-
building work helped supported organisations to grow (e.g. create additional contracts). 
However,  87%  of  respondents  to  the  Beneficiary  Survey  said  that  capacity-building 
support had an impact in terms of helping them develop skills to work transnationally, with 
around 70% saying it had either a major or significant impact. 

The Culture Sub-programme also supported projects in reaching audiences, and in 
particular new audiences that generally do not engage with culture. Monitoring data 
show that one in four projects had a specific focus on reaching an underrepresented group, 
including minority ethnic groups, younger people and migrants, with 76% of projects being 
effective in reaching audiences that do not tend to visit, watch or consume culture.  

Number of actions focusing on social inclusion/diversity themes per action 

Source: Ecorys, based on Creative Europe Programme monitoring data 

More generally on outreach, data shows that cultural content supported through the Sub-
programme was accessed by an extremely high number of people. Projects recorded how 
many times people consumed cultural content including those watching, visiting, listening 
and viewing cultural activity funded. This data shows that cultural activity was accessed 
(either virtually or in person) 91.5 million times over the course of 2014-2020 highlighting 
how the strand stimulated mass participation in culture during this period73. A practical 

73 Data measures the number of times cultural content supported by the Culture strand was accessed over 2014-2020 on 
the Support to the Cooperation Projects, the Support to Networks and the Support to Platforms. This data is extracted 
from  the  project’s  final  evaluation  submitted  to  EACEA,  based  on  the  project  reporting  on  the  number  of  people 

41 

 
 
 
   
 
 
example  of  how  the  Sub-programme  supported  access  to  culture  is  through  the  action 
dedicated to promoting the circulation of European literary works. A budget of EUR 14.7 
million was redistributed to 431 projects in the book and publishing sector,  resulting in 
over 3,500 translations of literary works, from around 40 source languages into 30 target 
languages.  Moreover,  70%  of  the  translated  languages  are  coming  from  “smaller” 
languages, contributing to the objectives of increased access for EU people to a diversity 
of works and answering the objectives to support cultural diversity.74 It is also worthy to 
include  the  results  of  other  distinct  actions  supported  by  the  Programme,  such  as  the 
European  Capitals  of  Culture.  It  is  estimated  that  the  average  number  of  visitors  of 
European Capitals of Culture is 2,138,825 per title holder.75   

Finally, the Sub-programme contributed to the overall EU strategy for cultural diplomacy 
thanks to its large reach, with 15 participating non-EU countries. Organisations involved 
in international projects highlighted how the support from Creative Europe helped to cover 
the additional costs resulting  from  showcasing  their work in  non-EU countries, such as 
transportation of materials, translation, and travel costs (especially when a large number 
of artists are involved such as is the case for orchestras). With a contribution of EUR 5 
million from IPAIII funds, a special call for Western Balkans was published in 2019 on 
the same model as for the European Cooperation projects, resulting in the selection of 13 
projects. As a whole, the Sub-programme funded 444 projects involving 375 organisations 
located in non-EU countries. 

Distribution of support between EU Member States 

Total EU funding per Member State in the Culture sub-Programme in CE1 

Source: Creative Europe programme monitoring data supplied by EACEA. EU grant awarded by 
country (coordinators and partners). 

watching, visiting, listening and viewing cultural activity funded by the strand. As the data measures the number of times 
content was accessed meaning a person accessing more than one cultural content will be counted more than once. Data 
presented excludes extreme outliers from projects reporting figures that significantly deviated from the average.  
74  European  Commission  (2022),  The  playbook  of  literary  translation  projects,  Publications  Office  of  the  European 
Union, Luxembourg- see link.  
75  First  interim  evaluation  of  the  European  Capital  of  Culture  (ECoC)  action,  covering  the  title-years  2013  to  2022. 
Publication expected in April 2025. 

42 

 
 
 
It should be noted that Creative Europe does not feature pre-allocated envelopes of funding 
for  different  Member  States.  The  Programme  is  based  on  the  principle  of  excellence 
meaning that the selection of projects to be funded will depend on their quality whichever 
the country of origin of the applicant organisations. The allocation of funding through the 
different grants awarded is influenced by several factors including the size of the countries’ 
CCS, their vitality and the level of national support or lack of it. Some European countries 
act as geographical hubs (e.g., Belgium) for wider partnerships. Through its international 
cooperation component, the Programme allows for organisations from countries with less-
established CCS to cooperate with organisations from those European cultural hubs.    

The data from CE1 show that the Programme supported over 1 200 international projects 
with  65.3%  of  them  demonstrating  a  strong  emphasis  on  cross-border  collaboration.  In 
turn, these projects created over 7,500 cultural activities. This illustrates how the strand 
was  a  key  driver  of  new  cultural  content  within  the  EU.  The  Culture  Sub-programme 
provided support, often to small and fledgling organisations, to help beneficiaries capture 
the  opportunities  that  international  work  provides,  including  stronger  professional 
networks and much larger foreign audiences. There is strong evidence that the Culture sub-
Programme directly contributed to greater opportunities for cross-border collaboration by 
funding projects built upon cross-border partnerships.76 While acting with a limited budget, 
the Culture Sub-programme of CE1 contributed to ensuring cooperation, joint creation and 
production  of  innovative  works  and  continuous  upskilling  of  the  professionals  of  the 
sectors,  thus  increasing  their  competitiveness  and  their  work’s  singularity  within  their 
sector. As such, the  Sub-programme  addressed the fragmentation of the cultural  sector, 
provided a platform for numerous projects but has also ensured inclusivity by integrating 
a  wider  set  of  countries  into  these  networks.  These  are  key  elements  towards  the 
Programme’s  general  objective  of  competitiveness,  notably 
through  skills  and 
methodology development to encourage transformation and innovation. 

Creative Europe 2, Culture strand 
Over the period 2021-2023, the Culture strand invested EUR 294 million, supporting 630 
projects  involving  2,176  beneficiary  organisations  had  a  strong  transnational  approach, 
with 94% of projects having a cross-border component. In addition, it has been observed 
that the cooperation between partners tends to continue after the funded project has been 
finalised, according to 72% of the Programme’s beneficiaries. The strand also supports the 
implementation of a new mobility scheme for artists and cultural professionals, as well as 
four prizes in the fields of architecture, music, literature and cultural heritage.  

Mobility 
The  Culture  strand  continues  supporting  the  mobility  of  artists  and  cultural 
professionals in CE2 to allow them to develop their careers at a European level. Although 
there is a specific Programme indicator in CE2 dedicated to mobility, results are currently 
incomplete. Data will be collected based on the final reports submitted by the projects once 
completed (many projects have a duration of four years). For more details, please consult 
Annex VII. However, as a way to reinforce the Programme’s support for mobility beyond 
national borders, in particular individual mobility, a new action s Culture Moves Europe 
has been introduced in CE2, for which some figures are already available. This scheme, 
launched in October 2022, supported the mobility of 3,049 artists and the creation of 202 
artist residencies accommodating 772 individual artists over the years 2022 and 2023.In 

76As shown by the Conclusions of the supporting study’s Contribution Analysis provided by ECORYS and 

KEA (p.42-44),  

43 

 
 
 
CE2, Culture Moves Europe alone supported 162,678 days of mobility. A survey on 1,159 
completed mobility projects under the scheme shows that 97% of grantees pursue further 
international mobility, 85% develop new outlets, distributors, exhibitors, or audiences 
as a direct result of their mobility and 76% receive job offers, new contracts, or new 
project opportunities stemming from their mobility experience. Additionally, 72% of 
grantees  indicated  engaging  in  new  co-productions  or  co-creations  due  to  their 
mobility beyond the period of the project.  

Those  results,  in  line  with  the  intervention  logic,  directly  contributed  to  the  increased 
capacity of CCS to operate at an international level and indirectly to job creation. 

Similar  results  (although  not  always  yet  fully  measured)  were  reported  in  other  key 
schemes of the strand, including Perform Europe (tested under CE177 and developed into 
a  fully-fledged  action  in  CE2)  and  the  various  cultural  prizes  supported  under  both 
iterations  of  Creative  Europe.  Although  prize  holders  cannot  quantify  the  impact,  most 
highlight that this increased exposure for their work directly impacted on the number of 
contracts and commissions, particularly outside of their own country. This increase in the 
demand for their works is particularly welcomed as most prize holders highlight how their 
fields are particularly competitive, meaning a prize gives them a commercial platform from 
which to build their careers. The prize for literature has enabled 189 emerging writers from 
41 countries to make a name for themselves thanks to translation into several languages 
that will not be possible without the visibility of the prize. 

Development of skills in the CCS 
Similarly to CE1, the development of skills and competences in the CCS remain a priority 
of  the  Culture  strand  in  CE2.  Evidence  shows  that  the  strand  has  been  effective  in 
supporting  the  development  of  skills  and  competencies  of  artists  and  cultural  and 
creative professionals. Research found that 3,647 participants so far have been involved 
in learning activities and considered that this support had improved their competencies and 
increased their employability. Moreover, in 2021-2023, the strand continued funding 37 
Networks  (with  an  envelope  of  EUR  27.6  million),  representing  more  than  4,000 
organisations covering all partner countries and more. Over the same period, it supported 
16  Platforms  (with  an  envelope  of  EUR  33.5  million),  representing  316  member 
organisations coming from 38 countries and promoting and helping 3,200 emerging artists. 
Both the Networks and the Platforms provide capacity-building activities as described in 
the section above on CE 1. Finally, under a new multi-annual action called “Pan-European 
Cultural Entities”, the Culture strand funds four pan-European orchestras, which have so 
far supported 600 emerging artists from over 20 countries, helping them in their transition 
from education to professional life. All the capacity-building efforts of the Culture strand 
are  corroborated  by  the  results  of  the  Beneficiary  Survey,  in  which  three  out  of  four 
respondents said that the strand has a positive impact in terms of upskilling and reskilling 
their competencies. 

Promoting social resilience and social inclusion 
The Culture strand has  so far  invested EUR  50.7 million  in cooperation projects where 
social inclusion and intercultural dialogue was identified as a priority.78 Although data on 

77 The pilot supported 85 partners who delivered over 250 touring performances. 
78  This  theme became  a  specific  objective  in its own right in  Creative  Europe  2,  which  was not  the  case  in  the  first 
iteration of the Programme. However, monitoring data show that 1 106 activities had a focus on diversity and inclusion 
under CE1. 

44 

 
 
 
 
how  many  individuals  from  socially  excluded  groups  have  accessed  support  from  the 
Programme is not yet available, interviews with projects as well as desk research show that 
many funded projects  focus on societal issues such as exclusion, poverty, racial hatred, 
inequality, violence and isolation. Perform Europe, which supports cross-border touring 
within  the  performing  arts  sector,  through  its  particular  emphasis  on  inclusivity  and 
fairness,  is  a  good  example  of  this  endeavour.  This  scheme  has  so  far  supported  250 
performances and 42 transnational partnerships. According to the Beneficiary Survey, 81% 
of  projects  said  that  the  Culture  strand  was  helping  them  address  social  inclusion 
challenges through the cultural activity supported. As was already the case under the first 
iteration  of  the  Programme,  CE  2  prioritises  support  for  non-traditional  players  in  the 
cultural  field  including  grass-roots  community  organisations  and  those  who  have  close 
links  to  disadvantaged  groups.  The  intense  level  of  cross-border  collaboration  (2,500 
partners  so  far  involved  in  international  projects  under  CE  2)  has  led  to  high  levels  of 
intercultural dialogue taking place across different countries on projects often with a focus 
on key social themes, including diversity and equality. This contribution of the Programme 
in  the  promotion  of  societal  resilience  and  social  inclusion  is  particularly  illustrated  by 
Programme KPI 4.  

Indicator 
KPI  IV:  Number  of  projects  supported  by  the 
Programme  addressed  to  socially  marginalised 
groups 

Baseline in 2020 

Achieved value in 2023 

37 

127 

Target by 2027 
279 

Participation of third countries 
As was the case under CE 1, the Culture strand continues supporting the Union’s global 
strategy for international relations,79 with a total of 372 projects involving third-country 
organisations  over  2021-2023.80  This  data  is  collected  under  Programme  KPI  3.  This 
represents 20% of the projects funded under the Culture strand. Although it is difficult to 
measure  the  impact  of  this  work  in  terms  of  strengthened  international  relations 
(particularly  at  this  early  stage  of  implementation  of  the  Programme),  stakeholders 
highlighted  how  the  Culture  strand  was  providing  a  cultural  dimension  to  international 
cooperation  and  helping  to  build  (cultural)  bridges  between  the  EU  and  the  rest  of  the 
world.  In  addition,  the  Culture  strand  has  shown  its  ability  to  respond  to  international 
emergencies, notably the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, by publishing a EUR 
5.0  million  budgeted  special  call  aiming  to  support  Ukrainian  CCS,  resulting  in  the 
selection of three consortia that redistributed funding to organisations on the ground. 

Indicator 
KPI III: The number of projects supported by the 
Programme involving third countries organisations 

Baseline in 2020 
58 

Achieved value in 2023 

372 

Target by 2027 
432 

Distribution of support between cultural and creative sectors 

79 See previous footnote. 
80 MFF Performance Results Reports (page 584)- see link.     

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  Culture  strand  supported  a  wide  variety  of  CCS.  Monitoring  data  highlight  that 
funding has  so far  been  distributed across 22  sectors  (with the previous  iteration of the 
Programme showing very similar patterns) and that music, art in public spaces, theatre and 
cultural tangible and intangible heritage have received most of the support. The distribution 
of funding across sectors generally reflects the make-up of the overall CCS in the EU with 
the largest sectors (in terms of employment) receiving the largest share of funding, with 
no sector receiving a disproportionate amount of funding. 

Distribution of support between EU Member States 
In terms of the geographical distribution of funding, the main countries benefitting from 
the  support  are  France,  Italy,  Germany  and  Belgium  (with  Belgium  being  prominent 
because  many  pan-EU  organisations  are  located  there  while  they  have  a  pan-European 
reach  covering  many  participating  countries).  Together  these  four  countries  received 
around a third of the Culture strand funding across both Programme periods, with Spain, 
Slovenia  and  Austria  also  getting  a  notable  share  of  the  support  distributed.  The  graph 
below shows that there is a slight difference between CE1 and CE2: although data for CE2 
only goes up until 2023 there is evidence that countries with a relatively smaller number 
of professionals and organisations, such as Denmark, Lithuania and Bulgaria are starting 
to comparatively receive a higher share of support from the Programme. The total funding 
per EU Member State and Programme period is as indicated in the following figure. 

Total EU funding per Member State in the Culture strand in CE2 

Source: Creative Europe Programme monitoring data supplied by EACEA. EU grant awarded by 
country (coordinators and partners). Data cover projects contracted under calls 2012 to 2023. 

As was already the case in CE1, CE2 does not feature pre-allocated envelopes of funding 
for different participating countries. Even if the distribution of funding above displays that 
the  size  of  country’s  CCS  remains  a  strong  influence  on  the  redistribution  of  funding 
through the different grants of the Culture strand, there is a notable shift in the geography 
of  collaboration.  France  is  not  the  main  receiver  of  funding  anymore,  while  Belgium 
confirms its status as a hub for Culture projects (Particularly for Networks and Platforms, 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
but which can redistribute budget through cascading grants with actions such as Perform 
Europe or the above-mentioned Platforms).  

CE 2 has demonstrated an even stronger emphasis on cross-border collaborations, with an 
increase in  the proportion of projects  with  an explicit cross-border component  reaching 
83.1% in CE 2. The data also indicates that CE 2 projects involve a higher average number 
of partners and countries compared to CE 1, suggesting an evolution towards larger and 
potentially more complex networks. It is noticeable that in Creative Europe 2 there is also 
some evidence that countries with a smaller number of professionals and organisations, 
such as Denmark, Lithuania and Bulgaria are starting to comparatively receive a higher 
share of support from the Programme. A shift in the geography of collaboration has also 
been noticed, with some new countries, such as Croatia, Slovenia and Serbia, playing a 
more prominent role in CE 2 compared to CE 1, while the UK, a key player in CE 1, is 
absent post-Brexit.81  

Building  on  CE1’s  successes,  the  Culture  strand  of  CE2  further  develops  its  role  in 
fostering cooperation, joint creation and production of innovative works, thus tackling the 
fragmentation of the sector. Its actions further contribute to the mobility and continuous 
upskilling of the professionals of the sectors while encouraging knowledge-sharing among 
them.  Consequently,  the  strand  plays  its  role  in  answering  the  Programme’s  general 
objective of competitiveness regarding the CCS and their professionals.  

Efficiency 

Creative Europe 1, Culture Sub-programme 
The  impact  and  benefits  of  the  Culture  Sub-programme  in  relation  to  the  CCS  are  not 
always easily quantifiable due to the difficulty of monitoring such segmented sectors and 
considering the (relatively) limited budget of the strand. In fact, with a small budget and 
limited Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) involved (for example 37 FTEs in 2019 and 39 in 
2020 in EACEA), the Culture Sub-programme cannot claim to have a structuring impact 
on the many sectors covered and in all the participating countries, going beyond the funded 
organisations  themselves.  Nevertheless,  the  overall  resources  distributed  through  the 
CE1’s Culture Sub-programme appear to be proportionate and efficient at delivering the 
range of intended results and impacts.  

Potential means to increase efficiencies in the delivery of the Culture Sub-programme were 
identified  over  the  2014-2020  period.  The  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  the 
Commission’s  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  establishing  the  successor  to  the  2014-2020 
Creative Europe Programme also indicated that the large volume of small grants, while 
having the advantage of supporting many small beneficiaries and activities, “created high 
administrative  costs  with  time  and  effort  focused  on  processing  calls  for  proposals  and 
transactions”.  The  CE1  regulation  specified  that  the  financial  contribution  from  the 
Programme should be a maximum of 80 % of the costs of the operations supported, and it 
appears that over the period the Culture Sub-programme's average co-financing rate was 
54%. Overall, the average grant amount was EUR 279,466, while the median grant was 
EUR 196,406. On average, the duration of projects (and associated grants) under CE1 was 
of 22.7 months.  Finally,  3,194 unique organisations throughout the different  CCS  were 
supported. 

81As shown by the supporting study’s Contribution Analysis provided by ECORYS and KEA (p.24). 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The main action of the Culture Sub-programme is the support for Cooperation projects, 
which  represent  63.5%  of  its  available  budget.  This  scheme  funds  a  broad  scale  of 
transnational projects for cultural  and  creative organisations with a lump sum payment. 
Submitted  projects  were  either  small-scale  (at  least  3  different  organisations  in  min.  3 
different countries; maximum grant of EUR 200,000 representing 60% of eligible costs) 
or large-scale (at least 6 different organisations in min. 6 different countries; maximum 
grant of EUR 2 million representing 50% of eligible costs). Under the Sub-programme, a 
total  of  EUR  290,024,012  was  awarded  to  619  cooperation  projects:  491  small-scale 
projects with an average grant of EUR 187,911, and 128 large-scale projects receiving an 
average grant of EUR 1,544,997. The average number of partners for this action was 5.8 
organisations, which highlights the important  gap between the two categories. This  has 
been taken into account in the design of the continuation of the action under CE2 with the 
addition of a third, medium-scale category. 

Under  CE1,  the  Networks  action  redistributed  a  total  of  EUR  40,161,020  through  181 
grants, with an average grant of EUR 262,490. The Platforms action redistributed EUR 
39,974,713 through 81 grants, with an average grant of EUR 493,595. Under CE1, calls 
for Platforms and Networks were published on an annual basis, which was not efficient 
and was therefore corrected under CE2. 

The support to literary translation projects was the Sub-programme's smallest scheme 
by volume of funding (on average EUR 3.5 million per year in 2014-2020) and average 
grant  size,  but  it  was  the  second  largest  by  the  number  of  projects  (431).  The  action 
redistributed  EUR  24,357,222  in  grants  to  222  organisations.  In  CE1,  the  action  was 
divided into two types, the framework partnership agreements and the two-years projects, 
which respectively had average project grants of EUR 78,255 and EUR 49,993 (combined 
average of EUR 55,935). 

Under  CE1,  a  total  of  5,640  eligible  proposals  were  submitted  to  the  different  calls 
published by the Culture Sub-programme, which had an average success rate of 55%. The 
majority of the submitted proposals concerned the main action of the Sub-programme, i.e. 
Cooperation Projects, which had a success rate of 20% for smaller-scale projects and 23% 
for larger-scale projects. Nevertheless, the success rates over the period improved, rising 
from a low of 14% in 2014 and 2015 up to 30 and 32% in 2020 due to  changes in  the 
eligibility criteria introduced in 2018. The support to literary translation had a success rate 
of 32.35% during the overall period for the two-years projects and 88% for the framework 
partnership agreements. The Networks action boasted a success rate of 91.7%, while the 
Platforms action had a success rate of 72.5%. 

Creative Europe 2, Culture strand 
Reflecting  (but  only  to  some  extent)  the  increase  in  the  budget  and  therefore  in  the 
associated expectations, the number of human resources dedicated to the implementation 
of the Culture strand of CE2 in EACEA was slightly raised, reaching 43 FTEs in 2021, 45 
in 2020 and 47 in 2023.  

On implementation, based on feedback received on CE1, the Culture strand of CE2 has 
been adapted to introduce simplified forms of funding. More especially, this involved the 
introduction  of  Multi  Annual  Financing  (MAF)  arrangements  in  place  of  Framework 
Partnership  agreements  to  reduce  the  volume  of  applications  for  multi-year  projects. 
Previously for a 3-year Framework Partnership Agreement (FPA), the beneficiaries would 
have to make 3 applications and submit 3 reports. Since the introduction of multiannual 

48 

 
 
  
 
 
commitments, each beneficiary now makes 1 application for a 3-year project and submits 
3 reports, significantly reducing the number of applications and the associated volume of 
time spent on processing. In the Culture Strand, MAF was introduced for the Networks 
and Platforms actions. 

In parallel, CE2 introduced a system of simplified grants, including lump sum grants and 
cascading grants. These changes have generally been viewed as important steps to ensure 
that the Programme is delivered in an efficient way, particularly given the generally limited 
financial and organisational capacity of CCS organisations. Cascading grants models were 
used  for  the  Platforms  action,  the  special  action  for  the  support  to  the  Ukrainian  CCS, 
Perform  Europe,  Culture  Moves  Europe  and  Music  Moves  Europe  calls.  In  cascading 
grants,  larger organisations selected through an open call  for proposals  receive  a larger 
grant. This in turn is distributed through smaller grants to smaller organisations as well as 
individuals,  thereby  reducing  the number of organisations that have to  contract  directly 
with  the  Commission,  enabling  greater  flexibility  and  less  paperwork  for  most 
beneficiaries. 

These  burden  reduction  and  simplification  measures  contributed  to  a  reduction  in  the 
average time to grants for beneficiaries. The average time to grant for Culture has reduced 
from 300 days in the first year of the new system (2021) to 238 days in 2023, which is 
nearly 30 days shorter than the average time under the previous Programme. 

At the strand level, there is an overall trend for, on average, both larger and longer grants. 
In 2021-2023, the average amount awarded per grant across the whole strand was EUR 
430,476,  which  is  considerably  higher  than  the  average  grant  amount  under  CE1.  The 
median grant under CE2 is EUR 199,998. This is at a similar level to the median grant 
awarded under the previous Programme. At the same time, the duration of projects (and 
associated grants) has increased to 28.8 months under CE 2. The larger grant sizes, longer 
time frames, as well as the use of cascading grants in certain actions are likely to have led 
to enhanced efficiency and impact of the projects supported. However, it is too early to 
fully assess the effectiveness of CE2 due to the extended duration of the projects in the 
absence of a critical mass of completed projects by end-2023. This is reflected for example 
in  the  incomplete  Programme  KPI  2  on  mobility  and  KPI  5  on  the  visibility  of  the 
Programme.  

The Culture strand of CE2 has been re-adapted to make it more efficient and flexible 
in its delivery of financial support. The European Cooperation projects remain the largest 
action of the Culture strand, by volume of funding and number of projects. On average, 
European Cooperation Projects had a budget of EUR 63.2 million per year. CE2 introduced 
more flexibility in the design of the projects in CE2 with the addition of a medium-scale 
category. Under this new category, projects must be constituted by 5 entities in 5 different 
countries and can receive a grant of up to EUR 1 million, covering up to 70% of eligible 
costs.  The  requirements  concerning  the  number  of  participants  for  the  large-scale 
Cooperation Projects have increased in CE2, with a minimum of 10 partners in 10 different 
countries requested. Under CE2, a total of EUR 193,275,907 has been distributed so far 
across 429 projects. The average grant size for small-scale projects is now EUR 193,677, 
i.e.  a  3%  increase  from  CE1,  whilst  for  large-scale  projects,  it  is  now  EUR  1,924,583, 
representing a substantial  25% increase from CE1. This  has opened space for medium-
scale projects, which have an average grant size of EUR 891,260 (this is 58% the size of 
previous large projects but four times more than smaller projects). 

49 

 
The  shift  towards  longer  and  larger  project  grants  is  also  reflected  in  the  European 
Networks and Platforms actions.  In CE2, a total of EUR 28,325,472 has been distributed 
so  far  across  37  Network  projects  and  a  total  of  EUR  33,355,091  across  16  Platform 
projects. This equates to average grants of EUR 765,553 for Networks and EUR 2,084,693 
for Platforms, i.e. increases of 77% and 36% respectively. MAF allows for a longer-term 
perspective for both the supported organisations and the professionals of the sectors, who 
see these organisations as being more stable. The same model of funding has been chosen 
for the Pan-European Cultural Entities action, which supports 4 orchestras.  

There has also been a consolidation and simplification of the approach to the “Circulation 
of  European  Literary  works”  action  under  CE2.    The  two  types  of  projects  previously 
eligible  for  funding  have  been  merged  into  a  single  action,  which  has  distributed  EUR 
16,553,060  across  134  projects,  i.e.  an  average  grant  of  EUR  123,530  (an  increase  of 
121%). Projects now have an average duration of 28 months, with most projects lasting 
over  two  years  and  some  up  to  four  years.  For  the  first  time,  minority  and  regional 
languages  were  made  eligible  in  CE2,  to  better  support  the  Programme’s  objective  of 
promoting linguistic diversity.  

The  stakeholder  consultations  suggested  that  the  increased  size  of  the  Creative 
Europe 2021-2027 budget82 has only gone a small part of the way to addressing the 
significant  challenges  created  by  inflation  and  rising  costs  in  recent  years.  Several 
consulted  stakeholders  highlighted  that  inflation  had  made  staffing  and  operational 
expenses difficult to manage within the allocated budget, despite the improved rate of co-
financing. Stakeholders stated that some parts of the sectors were particularly hit by much 
higher energy prices (particularly large cultural venues, including museums, galleries and 
theatres),  but  also  increases  in  other  costs  (e.g.  raw  materials  needed  for  production). 
Analysis of the impacts of inflation tends to confirm stakeholders’ views that grant sizes 
have generally not kept up with price increases. In 2022, EU annual inflation reached a 
high of 9.2%83. A price deflator, which takes into account EU inflation rates in 2021 and 
2022,  reduces  the  median  grant  amount  from  EUR  199,998  to  EUR  178  093,  which  is 
significantly lower than the previous Programme’s median value of EUR 196,40684. 

The Culture strand of CE2 sought to improve sectors’ accessibility to the Programme 
by  increasing  the  ceilings  on  co-financing  and  increasing  the  share  of  support 
provided. In this context, taking into account the challenges associated with COVID-19 
and  the  need  to  ensure  accessibility  to  the  Programme  for  smaller  CCS  organisations, 
higher co-financing rates were also introduced in the CE2. The lower own resources levels 
necessary to apply under CE2 were therefore welcomed as an important improvement. For 
instance, the co-funding rate for the different categories of European Cooperation projects 
increased to 80, 70 and 60% for the small, medium and large-scale Cooperation projects 
respectively. As a result, during the first three years of CE2, the average co-financing rate 
for the Culture strand was 77%. The change was even more useful as some stakeholders 
emphasised  the  difficulties  encountered  in  securing  public  national/regional/local  or 
private  co-financing  under  the  CE1  period  especially  in  Central  and  Eastern  European 
countries.  

82 For more details, consult chapter 3 of the SWD. 
83 Data extracted from Eurostat: Annual inflation more than tripled in the EU in 2022, published 9 March 

2023 

84 A price deflator of 112.3 is applied taking into account the average inflation rates across the EU of 2.9% 

in 2021 and 9.2% in 2022. 

50 

 
 
There is some indication that the increasing grant sizes and higher co-financing rates 
led  to  an  improvement  in  accessibility  to  the  Programme’s  Culture  strand  when 
measured by the numbers of project partners. This is particularly relevant as the sectors 
targeted by the actions are characterised mostly by micro, small and medium sized entities. 
The  Programme  monitoring  data  suggests  that  there  was  a  significant  increase  in  the 
number of unique organisations supported by the Programme as the average number per 
year is 746 under CE2 compared to 508 under CE1. The picture is less clear however when 
specific actions are compared. Under CE1, the European Cooperation Projects action had 
the highest average number of partners per project at 5.8 in comparison to 5.3 under the 
current Programme, due to the introduction of the medium-scale category for this action.  

The budget for CE2’s Culture strand has allowed the Programme to allocate funds in line 
with  the  original  request  set  out  in  the  grant  application  and  beneficiaries  were  largely 
satisfied with the amounts received. Under the Culture strand, the average grant of EUR 
432,224  awarded  to  projects  compares  to  an  average  of  EUR  436,125  requested  by 
successful applicants, meaning 99% of the requested budget was awarded. The rate is very 
similar across all the strand’s actions. The ratio of budget awarded to budget requested was 
at  a  similarly  high  level  under  CE1.  In  addition,  taking  the  concerns  reported  by 
stakeholders  in  relation  to  inflation  into  account,  most  respondents  to  the  beneficiary 
survey (87%; n=688) thought the allocated budget under the Culture strand of CE2 was 
fully (65%; n=490) or somewhat sufficient (25%; n=198) to achieve their planned results, 
whereas only 9% (n=68) of respondents viewed the budget allocated to their project as not 
enough to achieve their planned results, and 5% were unsure (n=37). 

Coherence 
The current CE2 strand is largely an evolution from the approach and activities under the 
Sub-programme of CE1 and the transition between the two iterations has been fluid, as 
illustrated by the high level of continuity in beneficiaries. Since CE1, the Culture strand 
has strengthened its coherence with a broader set of objectives, by increasing funding 
for  the  Platforms  and  Perform  Europe  schemes,  launching  Culture  Moves  Europe  and 
complementing the horizontal instruments with a sectoral approach.  

The design and implementation of the Culture strand appear to be well aligned with the 
general and specific objectives, and the priorities envisaged for the strand by the regulation.  

The  horizontal  and  sector  specific  actions  appear  to  provide  a  flexible  framework 
that enables the scheme to engage with the broad diversity of CCS organisations that 
are  covered  by  the  regulation.  The  concentration  of  support  under  the  European 
Cooperation  projects  and  other  horizontal  actions  can  mean  that  there  is  a  directive 
approach  to  the  design  and  outcomes  of  projects  in  support  of  the  objectives  of  the 
Programme. This includes a greater degree of evolution in the design of calls and priority 
topics or expected results. However, the core characteristics of supporting European level 
collaboration and mobility for cultural and creative sectors is well realised. Sector-specific 
calls  have  enabled  a  more  targeted  approach  to  specific  topics  but  could  increase  the 
potential for duplicating results and efforts across actions. 

The  Culture  strand  is  coherent  with  EU,  national  and  international  initiatives  and 
opportunities in support of the cultural and creative sectors. The Culture strand supports 
the implementation of EU policies and initiatives targeting the CCS, in particular the New 
European  Agenda  for  Culture  while  also  being  in  line  with  the  ambitions  of  the  New 

51 

 
 
European  Bauhaus  through  projects  and  activities  that  contribute  to  the  initiative  ‘s 
objectives. 

EU programmes such as Horizon Europe, Erasmus+, CERV, the RRF, and the ERDF 
are complementary to the objectives of the Culture strand, which remains the only EU 
funding source dedicated specifically to culture. RRF, ERDF and Interreg support culture 
and heritage across the Union by providing country-specific support. Some Member States 
have directed support for the CCS via both the RRF (EUR 11.7 billion, across 18 Member 
States) and the ERDF (over EUR 9 billion across 22 Member States for the objective on 
culture  and  sustainable  tourism)  to  support  the  dual  transition  of  CCS  buildings, 
digitalisation  of  cultural  content,  construction/restoration  of  cultural  venues,  as  well  as 
protection,  development  and  promotion  of  cultural  assets.  Regarding  Erasmus  +,  in 
response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a specific call was held under the 2020 Call of the 
Erasmus+ Strategic partnerships, called ‘Partnerships for creativity’, with the allocation of 
an  indicative  EUR  100  million  budget  to  address  the  priority  “Skills  development  and 
inclusion through creativity and the arts”. In the CE2, areas of synergies are found in the 
Erasmus+ projects supporting skills for the arts and cultural sectors, for architecture and 
design  and  the  fashion  sector.  Culture  Moves  Europe  mobility  scheme  under  Creative 
Europe is complementary with learning mobility under Erasmus+, as they address different 
target  groups  and Culture Moves Europe  excludes any projects  related to the school  or 
academic curricula.  

For instance, while innovation is included in the Culture strand’s specific objective, this is 
operationalised through encouraging the adoption of new technologies, rather than their 
development. The Horizon Europe Programme complements this focus with support for 
research and development within the CCS, which have the potential to be supported under 
all  three  pillars,  through  actions  supporting  social  science  and  humanities  in  Pillar  1 
(Excellent Science); the cluster 2 on “Culture, Creativity and Inclusive Society” included 
in Pillar 2 (Global Challenges and European Industrial Competitiveness) and the support 
to the European Institute of Innovation and Technology Culture & Creative Knowledge 
and Innovation under Pillar 3 (Innovative Europe). RRF, ERDF and Interreg are also key 
in supporting culture and heritage across the Union, complementing Creative Europe by 
providing  country-specific  support.  Some  Member  States  have  directed  support  for  the 
CCS via both the RRF (EUR 11.7 billion, across 18 Member States) and the ERDF (EUR 
5 billion for the objective on culture and sustainable tourism) to support the dual transition 
of  CCS  buildings,  digitalisation  of  cultural  content,  construction/restoration  of  cultural 
venues, as well as protection, development and promotion of cultural assets. The CERV 
Programme aims to protect and promote the rights and values of individuals and mentions 
complementarity  with  the  Creative  Europe  Programme  in  its  multi-annual  work 
programme. The Culture strand in particular complements CERV through its priorities to 
strengthen European values through cultural  awareness  and to  promote social inclusion 
and intercultural dialogue, while CERV Programme’s second pillar is particularly relevant 
for the CCS, with its focus on promoting citizen engagement and participation, as well as 
raising awareness on common European history.  To support the efforts of applicants to 
identify other sources of funding relevant to Cultural and Creative organisations, Creative 
Europe has supported under its Culture strand the implementation of the CulturEU Funding 
Guide85 an online platform to redirect applicants to different sources of EU support suited 
for their needs. 

85 https://culture.ec.europa.eu/funding/cultureu-funding-guide 

52 

 
 
Although the Culture strand shares objectives and funding opportunities with national and 
international schemes, these are typically focused on specific sub-sectors or individual 
countries.  Moreover,  few  other  schemes  provide  comparable  support  for  mobility  and 
cooperation. For this reason, the Culture strand - particularly the European Cooperation 
Projects action at its core – is coherent with national and international support mechanisms, 
offering funding for areas that are often underrepresented elsewhere. 

Overall, the Culture strand of the CE2 Programme is largely coherent with other initiatives 
in support of CCS at national, EU, and international level. Creative Europe support targets 
areas that are not well supported through other means — there is limited overlap with other 
support mechanisms. 

The Culture strand also supports areas that are strategic for the EU’s priorities for CCS. 
Horizontal EU principles related to digitalisation, sustainability and inclusion have been 
integrated into award criteria and action priorities. The strand could more explicitly support 
these principles through criteria that incentivise addressing these areas, in particular the 
development of green skills. 

4.1.3.  Cross-sectoral strand 

The  cross  sectoral  strand  aims  to  strengthen  collaboration  in  the  cultural  and  creative 
sectors  to  respond  to  challenges  and  opportunities  that  are  common  to  all  cultural  and 
creative sectors.  Also, since 2021 support is provided to the news media sector, as a crucial 
component  of  Europe’s  diversity  and  democratic  debate.  It  also  supports  the  Creative 
Europe  Desks  network,  which  promotes  the  Programme  and  provides  assistance  to 
potential applicants. 

Finally, it supports communication activities to increase awareness and raise the visibility 
of the Programme, as well as studies and data analysis for policy making. 

The CE2 legal base establishes the following monitoring indicators: The number and scale 
of transnational partnerships formed (composite indicator for the ‘creative innovation lab’ 
action  and  cross-cutting  actions  that  support  the  news  media  sector);  The  number  of 
participants in the ‘creative innovation lab’ action and cross-cutting actions that support 
the news media sector, indicating the proportion of women. The targets are on track to be 
met.86 

As the creative innovation lab & news media actions are new actions, these indicators are 
adequate to  analyse the impact  in  quantitative terms for now. The number and scale of 
cross-border partnerships provide an insight into the impact these actions can have on the 
wider  news  sector.  For  the  journalism  partnerships,  it  is  also  useful  to  analyse  the 
geographic  location  of  direct  and  indirect  beneficiaries,  to  understand  whether  they  are 
from countries with high, medium or low levels of risk to media pluralism. For indirect 
beneficiaries,  only  2021  data  is  available,  which  is  analysed  in  a  case  study  on 
effectiveness. At a later stage, more qualitative assessments may help understand the extent 
to which they helped change business models, content formats and media literacy practices 
across Europe. 

Potential additional indicators could be explored but may require third party data and/or 
increased reporting obligations by beneficiaries, including after the project finished. The 

86 Precise figures are provided in Annex VII 

53 

 
 
 
feasibility of these approaches thus needs to be carefully studied further. As regards news, 
these could be the geographic location of direct beneficiaries aggregated by risks assessed 
in the Media Pluralism Monitor hence increasing the number and scale of transnational 
partnerships  and  the  number  of  participants.  Total  audience  reach  and  engagement  in 
supported  actions  could  be  another  indicator.  As  regards  Innolabs,  similarly  to  the 
Innovative tools action, additional data could be collected on the number of active users. 

News 

Effectiveness 
Support to news media organisations involve cross-border collaborations among media 
organizations through journalism partnerships, actions promoting media freedom and 
pluralism, and since 2022, media literacy activities.  

Initial results of novel news media actions under CE2 are promising. The news media 
sector  is  a  crucial  component  of  Europe’s  diversity  and  democratic  debate.    The  news 
media  actions  respond  to  the  specific  objective  to  promote  a  diverse,  independent  and 
pluralistic media environment as well as media literacy. In this initial stage, with a small 
annual  budget  of  about  EUR  15  million,  as  the  news  media  actions  are  new,  key 
performance indicators focus on participation in quantitative terms. The high number and 
scale of cross-border partnerships provide an insight into the impact these actions can have 
on the wider news sector: there have been 43 project consortia with 224 partners over 2021-
2023.  

While funding is limited, there are indications that it is well targeted on areas where 
it  is  most  needed.  The  projects  funded  through  the  Journalism  Partnerships  provide 
training and capacity development to foster innovation in content creation as well as in 
viable  business  models.    Indications  of  effectiveness  can  already  be  found  in  the  final 
reports for the 2021 Journalism Partnerships that provide grants to third parties, to see if 
they are from countries with high, medium or low levels of risk to media pluralism.  An 
analysis of the 2021 cohort shows, for example how the projects on ‘Cross-Border Local’ 
(managed  by  Journalismfund.EU)  and  ‘Media  Innovation  Europe’  (managed  by  the 
International Press Institute) targeted risks to news media.  Together they distributed €1.2 
million to 194 media projects, with grants up to  EUR 44,000. A large majority of their 
funds focuses on countries where there are high risks to media plurality as identified by 
the Media Pluralism Monitor. 28% of their funds were spent on medium risk countries and 
72% on high-risk countries. The average subsidy per inhabitant was 3 times higher in high-
risk countries. 

Support  for  media  pluralism  has  funded  independent  monitoring  of  risks  and  to 
supporting awareness-raising activities. The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) 
mechanism tracks violations of press and media freedom and includes safety training for 
journalists. In 2021, 1373 violations were verified and 346 requests for support received, 
117  cases  were  treated.  ‘Media  councils  in  the  digital  age’,  a  project  that  supports 
exchanges between media councils on journalistic deontology, is essential for news media 
viability.  The Media Pluralism Monitor assesses the risks faced by media pluralism based 
on a set of 25 key indicators. The Media Literacy action aims to enable citizens to use, and 
develop  a  critical  understanding  of,  the  media  and  to  support  knowledge  sharing  and 
exchanges on media literacy policies and practices.  It has been implemented through two 
calls  in  2022  and  2023  supporting  13  projects  with  a  total  of  62  partners.  Both  calls 

54 

 
 
 
expected to support European consortia that can develop best practices, notably through 
training and educational content to be used by third parties. 

Since 2022, support for cross-border media literacy projects help. The target groups 
are split mainly between projects targeting children/young people, seniors or vulnerable 
groups and professional groups, including media literacy professionals. Results from the 
beneficiary  survey  suggest  that  the  calls  are  likely  to  be  most  effective  in  enabling 
knowledge  sharing  on  media  literacy  and  supporting  partnerships  for  systemic 
collaboration between media organisations. Based on feedback it is also likely that these 
projects will contribute to improving the quality and trustworthiness of news content. 

Despite  the  above  positive  developments,  it  is  however  too  early  to  draw  robust 
conclusions  on  the  impact  of  the  novel  news  media  actions.  Overall,  analysing  the 
effectiveness  of  these  recent  news  media  actions  in  contributing  to  a  pluralistic  media 
environment would require a larger longitudinal analysis to assess the extent to which they 
helped  change  business  models,  content  formats  and  media  literacy  practices  across 
Europe. 

Efficiency and simplification 
The  approach  to  designing  news  media  funding  has  helped  to  minimise  administrative 
overheads.  Support to news media was provided in particular through funding of cross-
border journalism partnerships which were awarded through annual, competitive calls for 
proposals.  Between 2021-23 about EUR 34 million was awarded to a total of 27 cross-
border partnerships, representing 146 beneficiaries. The average grant size was over EUR 
1 million, which is  significantly above the Creative Europe average.  At the same time 
several of these projects implemented also support to third parties.  For example, in 2021, 
30% of the EU grant awarded was transferred to a total of 248 third parties. 

However, increasing applications and a decrease in already low success rates call for 
careful monitoring going forward. Applications rose from 30 in 2021 to 106 in 2023 and 
the success rate therefore declined from the success rate is 18.5% to 10% in 2023.  Given 
the low success rate, these actions will need to be monitored closely to assess if eligibility 
criteria  or  award  criteria  need  to  be  narrowed  down  or  if  the  budget  allocation  can  be 
increased.   

Action  

Journalism Partnerships 

Media Literacy 

Coherence 

Success rate  

22% 

19% 

11% 

NA 

33% 

18% 

Year  

2021  

2022  

2023  

2021  

2022  

2023  

55 

 
    
 
News media support addresses a distinct yet limited set of topics in relation to media 
pluralism,  freedom  and  literacy  not  dealt  with  in  previous  programmes.  These 
objectives align with the general objectives of diversity and freedom of expression, as well 
as competitiveness  dimensions. Further expansion of support in  the context of Creative 
Europe would benefit media pluralism and societal engagement more broadly.  

The actions are closely aligned with other EU policies and initiatives, principally the 
Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive,  the  European  Media  Freedom  Act,  the  “News 
initiative”  under  the  Media  &  Audiovisual  Action  Plan,  and  the  European  Democracy 
Action Plan.  Notably, support to the news industry contributes to its viability and pluralism 
across the single market.  Also, funding is provided for the functioning of the European 
Board for Media Services established by the EMFA. 

However, some barriers to exploiting synergies exist. The Citizens, Equality, Rights and 
Values Programme (CERV) aims to protect and promote the rights and values enshrined 
in the treaties by supporting civil society organisations, in order to sustain open, democratic 
and  inclusive  societies.  Yet,  media  organisations  are  excluded  from  CERV  grants.  An 
attempt  to  pool  resources  between  CERV  and  CE  under  a  joint  action  could  not  be 
accomplished  due  to  the  differing  legal  bases,  undermining  the  potential  for  synergies 
between the two Programmes.  

The Horizon Europe Programme has offered limited support for innovation in the 
news  media  industry.  Cluster  2  (on  Culture,  Creativity  and  Inclusive  Society,  and 
specifically under the destination ‘Democracy & Governance’) and cluster 4 (on digital, 
industry and space) included some actions related to the media and news media sectors, 
focusing on innovative approaches to fighting disinformation, enhancing media and digital 
literacy, and the use of VR/AR. 

Overlaps  are  most  prominent  for  media  literacy,  between  Erasmus+  and  Creative 
Europe. There are several examples of projects being supported under Erasmus+ that have 
directly supported media literacy objectives, plus projects on closely related topics of mis 
and disinformation, digital literacy and online safety.    

News media actions complement national support while contributing to a broader, 
transnational  impact,  in  line  with  the  added  value  outlined  in  the  Programme 
regulations,  thereby  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  the  European  Media 
Freedom Act. Creative Europe support to news media provides opportunities for cross-
national  collaboration  in  these  areas,  including  capacity-building  activities,  knowledge 
sharing, and the exchange of best practices. More importantly, it adds an important layer 
of protection and analysis to media pluralism that goes beyond national efforts. By funding 
the Media Pluralism Monitor, the strand enables independent, comparative assessments of 
risks  and  challenges  to  media  pluralism  across  the  EU  and  participating  countries  – 
outcomes  that  cannot  be  achieved  through  national  measures  alone.  Additionally,  the 
Rapid  Response  Mechanism,  funded  through  the  same  strand,  plays  a  crucial  role  in 
identifying and responding to emerging threats to media freedom. In doing so,  

Cross sectoral collaboration among CCSs: Creative Innovation labs  

Effectiveness 

56 

 
 
 
The  Innovation  Labs  help  digital  transformation  in  the  Audiovisual  and  cultural  and 
creative  sectors,  by  supporting  experimental  production,  distribution,  and  monetization 
models, it directly contributes to EU priorities for innovation in the audiovisual and CCS 
sectors. 

Following initial difficulties in implementation, the action was recalibrated in 2023 to 
align it better with its objectives. The Innovation Labs initially struggled with unclear 
objectives, misaligned priorities, and low-quality applications.  In 2021, only 10 out of 43 
proposals  met  the  evaluation  threshold,  as  external  experts  criticized  their  lack  of 
innovation and weak cross-sectoral approaches.  In 2023, the action was reviewed with a 
focus on the use of tech solutions, stronger cross-sectoral cooperation, and better alignment 
with  industry  needs.  Despite  significant  improvements,  challenges  remain.  Future  calls 
will continue refining criteria to ensure that funded projects are genuinely innovative and 
contribute to the long-term digital transformation of both the AV and cultural industries.   

Efficiency 
In view of increasing applications, action was taken to safeguard the  Programme’s 
efficient implementation. As regards the Innovation Lab, projects were awarded a total 
of approximately EUR 20,500,000 at an average of EUR 624,000 per project.  This grant 
size is above the average for similar projects under MEDIA and indicates a good level of 
efficiency.  However, there was a rise in applications from 43 in 2021 to 101 in 2023 and 
the success rate declined sharply from 23% in 2022 to 6% in 2023. Therefore, the eligibility 
and award criteria were clarified, in order to avoid a high number of applications of low 
quality and therefore avoid costs for applicants and the Programme administration.   

Coherence 
Despite some potential complementarities, there is a need to reinforce synergies with 
Horizon  Europe  and  the  European  Institute  of  Innovation  and  Technology  (EIT). 
There  appears  to  be  complementarities  between  the  Creative  Innovation  Labs  action, 
Horizon Europe and the EIT. However, unlike Horizon Europe, the Lab supports practical 
implementation of cross-sectoral projects that provide interdisciplinary approaches, tools 
and solutions by SMEs, artists, and creative industries emphasizing digital transformation, 
new distribution models, and innovative content monetization. Actually, the vast majority 
of the companies supported in 2023 and 2024 by the Labs had never been supported by 
these other Programmes. With rapid advancements in digital transformation, this type of 
action is relevant in addressing the evolving needs of the cultural and creative sectors but 
should  reinforce  complementarities  with  other  EU-level  initiatives  to  optimize  resource 
allocation and impact. 

Creative Europe Desks  

Effectiveness 
The  Creative  Europe  participating  countries  increased  from  30  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Programme  in  2014  to  40  in  2023.  The  Creative  Europe  Desks  are  hosted  by  71 
organisations  in  all  participating  countries  and  are  the  gateway  to  the  Creative  Europe 
Programme on national level. 

Feedback  from  stakeholders  and  beneficiaries  suggests  that  the  events  and  activities 
offered by the Creative Europa Desks have successfully achieved the Desks’ objectives on 
promoting the Programme and supporting potential beneficiaries. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
The Desks appear to be the principal source of information for applicants, particularly new 
applicants, and the information and support provided is generally valued by beneficiaries. 
According to the Beneficiary Survey, most beneficiaries were aware of the Desk prior to 
making their application (80%). It was their most important source of information when 
writing the application itself for 53% of respondents and was a secondary source for 34%. 
The quality of information from Creative Europe Desks was generally considered good or 
very good by 79% of respondents and was considered the best source of information by 
respondents.  

The Creative Europe Desks have organised a large volume and a wide range of training 
activities.  Activities  include  workshops  on  calls  and  application  processes,  information 
sessions, pitching sessions and networking matchmaking events, masterclasses, as well as 
lectures and conferences. Under CE2, an indicator was added measuring the number of 
events organised by the Desks. The results by 2023 show that the Desks activities have 
already reached the target for 2027. 

Indicator 
Number of events or activities 
promoting the Programme 
organised by the Programme 
desks 

Baseline 2020 
400 

Result 2023 
2,796 

Target 2027 
2,800 

Evidence was more limited regarding the Desks’ activities supporting the communication 
of the results of the Programme. Desks have organised events in relation to this priority, 
including events promoting and disseminating the results of Creative Europe. However, 
these appear to be a relatively smaller share of activities in comparison to the primary role 
of raising awareness about opportunities through Creative Europe and supporting potential 
applicants. 

Efficiency 
As outlined in the effectiveness section above the Creative Europe Desks play an important 
role  in  informing  national  CCS  organisations  about  the  Programme  and  in  supporting 
prospective applicants. The Desks are seen by applicants as an important source of reliable 
information.  Although  some  variations  in  the  capacities  of  the  Desks  were  noted,  this 
evaluation does not have sufficient data to provide a comparative assessment, and overall 
Desks appear to be an effective and efficient way of engaging target groups at the national 
level. 

The shift to lump sum grants is expected to reduce the administrative burden associated 
with the funding of Desks. 

As  described  above  in  Ch  2,  the  amount  of  funding  allocated  to  the  Desks  pr  year  has 
increased slightly from CE1 to CE2. This rise in the annual budget for the Desks appears 
to be reasonable considering the high rate of inflation in the 2021-23 period. The volume 
of  assistance  required  from  Desks,  including  the  size  and  number  of  applications  and 
subsequent beneficiaries, has also increased, even if a much greater proportion of smaller 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
projects were supported in the previous Programme (particularly under the MEDIA Sub-
programme). 

4.1.4.  Financial Instruments  

The Cultural and Creative Sectors Guarantee Facility (CCS GF) was established to 
facilitate access for the sectors lending from financial institutions.  Impact assessments 
had estimated the financing gap at EUR 837m – EUR 2.07bn per year2.  At its launch, the 
initial  objective  for  the  CCS  GF  was  to  cover  10  Member  States  through  guaranteed 
agreements signed with 10 Financial Intermediaries, in order to mobilise EUR 600 million 
of financing and achieve a target leverage effect of 5,7.  All these targets were exceeded.  
There are good indications that not only did the scheme partially closed the gap in lending 
for the CCS but has also demonstrated that the CCS can be an attractive and sustainable 
lending proposition.  

In terms of implementation,87 all the main KPIs were exceeded. In line with Article 18 
of the regulation (EU) No 1295/2013, the Commission  should monitor the performance 
of the CCS GF based on the following indicators: the volume of loans guaranteed in the 
framework of the Guarantee Facility, categorised by national origin, size and sectors of 
SMEs and micro, small and medium-sized organisations; the volume of loans granted by 
participating  financial  intermediaries,  categorised  by  national  origin;  the  number  and 
geographical  spread  of  participating  financial  intermediaries;  the  number  of  SMEs  and 
micro,  small  and  medium-sized  organisations  benefiting  from  the  Guarantee  Facility, 
categorised  by  national  origin,  size  and  sectors;  the  average  default  rate  of  loans;  the 
achieved leverage effect of guaranteed loans in relation to the indicative leverage effect 
(1:5,7). 

The CCS GF uptake has been impressive.  During  the CCS GF implementation  from 
2016-2020, 22 Financial intermediaries (banks or guarantee institutions) operating in 22 
countries signed an agreement with EIF, underpinned by a financial commitment of EUR 
237 million. These agreements generated 9,458 loans for 7,117 SMEs for a total of EUR 
1,818 million in loans generated, which exceeded by far the initial goal. These results were 
achieved thanks to the additional funding channelled to the CCS GF (EFSI top-ups of EUR 
130  million  in  total),  and  the  increased  leverage  effect  (7,7  vs  the  initial  objective  of 
5.7).  59,533 jobs were estimated to be supported thanks to these loans.  The loans covered 
by the CCS GF are generally performing well, with only a 1.1% default rate, on par with 
other economic sectors.  

The CCS GF intervention has been balanced and diverse.  There has been a reasonable 
geographic spread of beneficiaries. Spain, Italy, France, Portugal, and Belgium were the 
main  markets.  However,  in  Germany,  the  structure  of  the  banking  sector  along 
regional/state lines was not conducive to engaging with the CCS GF.  

The  scheme  has  predominantly  directed  support  to  SMEs  from  the  audiovisual  and 
multimedia sector, representing over 50% of lending and 44% of loans, but also including 

87 Cultural and Creative Sectors Guarantee Facility Implementation Update – European investment Fund, 

Reporting date 31/12/2024 

59 

 
 
 
a  range  of  other  beneficiaries.  Music,  performing  arts,  video  games  and  films  were  the 
main sectors benefitting. 

It also improved loan conditions as financial intermediaries reported that the CCS GF 
had a direct impact of a 1 to 2% decrease in interest rates. Also, the guarantee enabled to 
provision of loans for CCS SMEs with a less robust file, thanks to lower collateral and due 
diligence requirements. This allowed SMEs to access loans even without having physical 
collateral, which is important for an industry driven by intellectual property. 

The CCS GF also supported financial intermediaries in terms of skills development and 
understanding of the CCS markets,  in order to overcome negative perceptions of the 
sector.    According  to  interviews  with  the  EIF  and  FIs,  the  capacity  building  was 
particularly valuable for financial intermediaries not familiar with the CCS before applying 
to the CCS GF.   Out of the 21 Financial Intermediaries under the CCS GF, 16 opted in for 
capacity building and 70% of assessed the capacity building provided as ‘Very Good”. 

MediaInvest complements  the  CCS  GF  by  establishing  a  dedicated  equity  investment 
platform  dedicated  to  European  audiovisual  and  gaming  projects,  producing  and 
distributing  films,  series  and  video  games.    This  aims  to  increase  competitiveness  by 
strengthening  the  financial  strength  of  European  players,  for  example  production 
companies that may invest their own funds in production and thus retain the intellectual 
property.    Its  target  is  to  stimulate  more  private  investment  by  leveraging  up  to  €400 
million between 2022-2027. MEDIA supports MediaInvest through blending of funding 
with the Invest EU and EIF on a 1:1 basis.   

MediaInvest has already shown positive results,  starting with the investment in Logical 
Content  Ventures,  which  aims  to  raise  up  to  EUR  70  million  in  equity  investment  for 
European  audiovisual  production  and  distribution  companies.  The  fund  has  already 
developed  a  strong  portfolio  of  investments,  including  “Emilia  Perez”,  “Le  Comte  de 
Monte-Cristo”,  and  “Parthenope”.  These  success  stories  demonstrate  the  potential  of 
MediaInvest to drive growth and innovation in the sector.88  

These  financial  instruments  have  been  efficiently  implemented  through  a  Delegation 
Agreement between the European Commission and the European Investment Fund.  The 
management  fees  are  in  line  with  the  requirements  of  Financial  and  Administrative 
Framework Agreement and legal basis.   

The  EIF  is  thus  able  to  mobilise  its  expertise  in  financial  instruments  and  investment 
markets within an EU policy framework with agreed objectives.  Coherence with the EU’s 
investment strategy is ensured through the governance of InvestEU which is coordinated 
by DG ECFIN and DG GROW. 

88 As of 25th March 2025, the EIF has signed under MediaInvest the following deals:  

IPR.VC (EUR 25m), Finland-based fund with strong focus on financing European films and TV 

•  Behold Ventures 0 AB (EUR 20m), Swedish venture capital fund focusing on early-stage 
companies in the video games sector, signed in December 2024. 
• 
series, signed in January 2025. 
•  Logical Content Ventures (EUR 25m):, a French alternative investment fund focusing on financing 
content production across Europe, signed in July 2024. Together S.L.P. (EUR 25m):, a pan-European 
private equity fund with a focus on SMEs and small mid-caps active in the audiovisual sector, signed 
in December 2024. 

60 

 
 
 
4.1.5.  Joint assessment of administrative expenses and burden relating 

to implementation 

The  cost  of  administration  as  a  proportion  of  the  total  budget  for  the  previous 
Programme,  was  well  below  expected  benchmarks  and  has  been  further  reduced 
under the current Programme. It went from 7,74% of the grand total budget in 2014 to 
6,74%  in  2023.    The  changes  in  relation  to  simplification,  Multi  Annual  Financing 
arrangements,  lump  sum  and  cascading  grants  introduced  in  CE2  are  expected  to 
significantly reduce administrative burden for all parties.  

Several  measures  helped  to  make  the  implementation  of  the  Programme  more 
efficient.  The  introduction  of  eGrants  in  CE2  helped  to  simplify  the  Programme  for 
beneficiaries through faster electronic applications and streamlined the administration of 
the Programme implementing a full paper-less process through the use of corporate tools.  
Relevant training has been provided to the Desks and to final beneficiaries. The average 
time to grant across the whole Programme is currently 244 days while it was at 300 in its 
first year of implementation. 97% of grant agreements were signed within the benchmark 
target  of  275  days  established  by  the  EU  financial  regulation.89,  90  However,  for  some 
actions, such as Culture Moves Europe, the time to grant is approximatively 8 weeks. The 
simplification  of  financial  capacity  verification  has  contributed  to  a  decrease  in  the 
administrative  burden  for  applicants.  Financial  capacity  checks  are  carried  out  only  on 
coordinators. Also, applicants that have received over 50% of their annual revenue from 
public  sources  over  the  last  two  years91  as  well  as  projects  that  have  requested  a  grant 
amount that is not more than EUR 60,000 are exempt from financial capacity checks.92 

Although the onboarding to the corporate IT tool eGrants at EACEA streamlined business 
processes and simplified the access to the Programme for beneficiaries, also resulted in a 
temporary increase of workload for applicants and beneficiaries, mostly in its first phase 
due  to  the  novelty  of  the  tool.  As  highlighted  by  interviewees  consulted  for  the  recent 
evaluation  of  EACEA,93  the  challenges  resulting  from  the  tool  complexity  affected  in 
particular smaller organisations with  lower grants. Key areas for further  simplifications 
have  been  identified  in  the  framework  of  such  evaluation  and  are  under  consideration, 
namely  increasing  user-friendliness  and  better  alignment  of  eGrants  to  the  needs  of 
EACEA's stakeholders for application submission, and project management/reporting. A 
revision of the applications forms is not possible under the current programming period, 
due to the limited flexibility of the corporate tool and the need to agree modifications with 
central services.  However, the preparation of the next programming period represents an 

89European  Commission:  Directorate-General  for  Budget, Financial  regulation  applicable  to  the  general 
the  European  Union, 

Publications  Office 

(recast), 

of 

of 

budget 
2024, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2761/686790 

the  Union 

90According to Article 197.2 of the Financial Regulation, similarly to other EU programmes managed in the 
eGrant  system,  EACEA  has  9  months  after  the  call’s  deadline  to  sing  grants.  Such  a  timeline  is 
transposed into days (275 days). 

91 Current Programme Regulation, Article 13(5), as well as the review of several calls published under the current and 

predecessor Programmes.  

92 It needs to be noted that there was also a simplified procedure for financial capacity verification under the predecessor 
Programme for grants equal or smaller than EUR 60 000 and that a far larger share of projects were able to benefit 
from  this  provision  under  the  previous  Programme  than  under  the  current  Programme.  A  total  of  2%  of  grants 
awarded  under  the  current  Culture  strand  were  equal  or  smaller  than  EUR  60  000  compared  to  23%  under  the 
predecessor Programme, while 11% of grants awarded under the  

93 European Commission: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Study supporting the evaluation 
of CHAFEA, EACEA, EASME, ERCEA, INEA & REA 2017/2018-2021 – Final report – EACEA, Publications 
Office of the European Union, 2024 (https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/440417) 

61 

 
 
 
opportunity to take stock of the lessons learnt from the current Programme and to review 
the application forms in collaboration with EACEA at the end of the programming period. 
Further scope for increasing user-friendliness is identified in the provision of multilingual 
resources and services to increase accessibility to the IT tool.   

Feedback from beneficiaries suggests the administrative burden has reduced under 
the current Programme, although this remains high. Almost three quarters (or 73%) of 
respondents who took part in the previous Programme assessed the administrative burden 
as  high  or  very  high,  compared  to  two  thirds  (or  66%)  under  the  current  Programme. 
According to the results of the Beneficiary survey, the most common issue faced by 29% 
of respondents was time-consuming process of application. More detailed data allowing 
quantification of the administrative time and costs for applicants have not been collected 
in  this  evaluation.  However,  the  process  of  revision  of  the  forms  for  the  upcoming 
programming  period  will  include  the  possibility  to  cater  for  such  data,  with  the  aim  of 
having more solid and precise evidence for analysis in future Programme evaluations. 

4.2.  How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? 

4.2.1.   MEDIA 

The  major  challenges  to  the  audiovisual  sector  are  transnational  in  nature  (e.g. 
competition from global tech and media giants, lack of sufficient exports and scale)94 
and can therefore not be adequately addressed by Member States acting alone. EU 
national markets are small yet content does not travel well across the single market. Non-
national admissions in cinema theatres to EU27 content made up 7.5%, of all admissions 
in 2014, 7% in 2020 and 6% in 2023.95 A similar trend can be observed on VoD, where the 
views  of  non-national  content  went  down  from  11%  in  2020  to  7%  in  202496.    In 
comparison, on average US content attracts over 60% of audiences in the EU, with national 
content  in  second  place.    This      relatively  modest  performance  is  linked  to  weak 
discoverability  in  a  context  of  hyper  abundant  content,  pointing  to  the  need  for  more 
effective promotion across Member States. On innovation, among the world’s top 2,000 
most investing in R&D, there are only 17 media companies and only three of these are EU 
companies.  This  is  particularly  concerning  when  considering  that  the  biggest  tech 
companies  have  been  making  significant  forays  to  the  audiovisual  and  games  sectors 
(along with music and publishing). Also, the levels of uptake by professionals of AI tools 
and applications remain limited in the audiovisual and news media sectors. 

MEDIA  funding’s  EU  added  value  lies  in  its  unique  European  perspective  and 
strategy.  While  the  cross-border  circulation  and  consumption  of  European  audiovisual 
content is at the heart of MEDIA funding award criteria, Member State funding is typically 
concerned  with 
the  production  and  safeguarding  of  national  content,  without 
systematically considering cross-border potential, European competitiveness and culture 
exposure beyond national  borders.  For MEDIA, fostering  the Single Market  as  a home 
base to be competitive within the EU and outside, has been and remains a key goal, as 
evidenced  by  the  consistent  emphasis  on  improving  the  transnational  circulation  and 
consumption  of  audiovisual  works  on  the  demand  side  and  transnational  cooperation 
among AV players across the value chain on the supply-side.   

94 European Media Industry Outlook, SWD(2023) 150 final, 17 May 2023 
95 DG CNECT calculations based on EAO Lumiere database 
96 European Media Industry Outlook, 2025. 

62 

 
 
While  the  exact  impact  of  MEDIA  on  transnational  circulation  and  audiences  of 
supported work cannot be quantified, MEDIA support is strongly associated with a 
significantly wider circulation and non-national admissions. MEDIA funding is also 
associated with an additional 9.5, 6.6 and 3.2 EU non-national countries where a film or 
series  is  available  across  TV,  cinema  and  VoD.    It  is  also  associated  on  average  with 
125,000  additional  non-national  admissions  per  film.  Under  CE2  the  transnational 
dimension  was  reinforced  even  further  through  greater  focus  on  co-productions/co-
development.  This  related  to  aspects  such  as  the  TV/online  scheme,  as  well  as  pan-
European distribution through Films on the move or VoD networks. This was set in the 
context  of  increased  competition  in  the  European  audiovisual  market  from  global 
streaming platforms. 

MEDIA’s focus on improving a level playing field including through collaboration 
among  European  countries  with  different  AV  capacities  is  also  something  that 
Member State funding alone would not pursue. These efforts serve the purpose of both 
cultural diversity and competitiveness in Europe. Indeed, the evaluation showed a strong 
increase in the share of collaborations between low capacity and high-capacity countries 
in supported works (5% during CE1 to around 30% under CE2) and a substantial share of 
works in lesser-used languages among supported works. EU funding is also instrumental 
to ensure that EU audiovisual players can reap the full benefits of Single Market legislation 
relevant for the AV sector (AVMSD in particular). Fulfilment of the conditions set out in 
the AVMSD is a requirement for third countries to participate in the programme.  

Despite  these  positive  developments,  funding  remains  concentrated  among  bigger 
Member  States  with  France  accounting  for  the  largest  share  of  funding.  More 
generally,  there  is  a  strong  correlation  between  national  support  and  access  to  MEDIA 
funding.97 As the Creative Europe Programme does not feature pre-allocated envelopes of 
funding  by  country  and  the  allocation  of  funding  is  the  outcome  of  the  qualitative 
assessment of the applications received, national conditions pertaining to the audiovisual 
sector  have  apparently  a  significant  influence  over  getting  access  to  MEDIA  funding. 
While further measures can be taken at EU funding level to facilitate participation from 
lower capacity countries, a more meaningful change would require a closer cooperation 
and alignment with Member States’ policies to support the audiovisual sector.  

The central role of global digital platforms for the distribution of European games 
creates the need for a coordinated European approach to support actions to improve 
the  exploitation  of  these  games.  These  include  marketing,  promotion  and  post-release 
operations,  support  to  skills  development  as  well  as  innovations  in  interactive  content. 
Despite growing national support for the video games industry, it remains scattered and 
lacks a comprehensive strategy. A study by the European Audiovisual Observatory98 found 
that most funding goes to pre-production and production stages, with less for post- -release 
support (which becomes increasingly important) and studio investment. Overall, limited 
national funding makes Creative Europe support crucial for this sector. 

97  European  Commission:  Directorate-General  for  Communications  Networks,  Content  and  Technology, 
ECORYS  and  Technopolis,  Study  on  broadening  participation  under  the  Creative  Europe  media 
programme 
2025, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/8297102  

report,  Publications  Office 

the  European  Union, 

–  Final 

of 

98  European  Audiovisual  Observatory, Legal  challenges  and market  dynamics  in  the  video  games  sector, 

2024 

63 

 
 
 
4.2.2.  Culture  

Many challenges that the CCS face are of a transnational nature and require a targeted 
European approach. Evaluation findings highlight the strong EU added value of the Culture 
strand, which primarily lies in the transnational dimension that has been clearly embedded 
in its design and implementation. This is also corroborated by the Contribution Analysis, 
which has found that, overall, there is strong evidence supporting the hypothesis that the 
work of the Culture Sub-programme/strand directly contributes to greater opportunities for 
cross-border collaboration within the European CCS. 

Comparing CE1 and CE2, it is noticeable that there is a stronger geographic redistribution 
of funding within the current Programme in comparison to the previous one as highlighted 
in the Effectiveness section. The Contribution Analysis network map shows that Germany, 
Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Belgium appear as key nodes within the network, 
suggesting that these countries had the highest levels of participation and collaboration. 
These  countries  not  only  collaborate  closely  with  one  another,  but  also  with  other 
countries, acting as a key bridge within the network. In CE2, the Contribution Analysis 
highlights a continuation of the concentration of cross-border collaborations around a set 
of highly engaged countries, including France (which takes on a more dominant role in the 
network  under  CE  2),  Germany,  Italy  and  Spain.  These  countries  remain  key  countries 
across  both  networks,  showing  high  connectivity  with  one  another  and  other  countries, 
again acting as a key bridge within the network. However, due to Brexit, the UK disappears 
from the analysis. Slovenia, Croatia, and Serbia emerge as more prominent players in CE 
2, increasing their connectivity and intermediary roles. The overall volume and structure 
of  cross-border  connections  remain  dense,  reinforcing  the  strength  of  cross-border 
collaboration, but CE 2 sees a slightly more distributed network compared to CE1, with 
additional  countries  playing  intermediary  roles.  However,  some  countries  such  as 
Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Iceland were less integrated across both networks, 
potentially  highlighting  ongoing  challenges  in  achieving  widespread  cross-border 
collaborations across the network. 

As  the  main  objective  of  the  strand  is  support  for  European  circulation  of  works  and 
professionals,  and  cooperation  between  European  professionals  and  organisations,  it 
helped  in  developing  a  pan-EU  (and  beyond)  network  that  no  national  programme 
currently achieves. 

European cooperation dimensions are clearly incorporated as core requirements in the 
design of almost all actions. Around 95% of projects supported under both Creative Europe 
1 and 2 involved partners from different countries and, as a consequence, the Programme 
has been a key driver in stimulating an EU level space for cooperation. For example, the 
Culture Sub-programme of CE1 helped 4,200 organisations from the CCS to work together 
in  transnational  projects  to  collectively  deliver  over  7,500  cultural  activities  including 
festivals, concerts and exhibitions. 

The  transnational  projects  supported  by  Creative  Europe  were  both  large  and 
ambitious, meaning the European added value of the Programme partly lies in its ability 
to support activities at a scale that a single organisation working in a national setting would 
be unlikely to achieve.  

The  stimulation  of  transnational  cooperation  amongst  the  sectors  covered  by  Creative 
Europe is not a fundamental goal present in other programmes supporting the sectors, 
either at international, national or regional levels. Although schemes supporting the sectors 
exist, the fundamental objective of these programmes is not to encourage organisations to 

64 

 
work  across  national  boundaries  and  therefore  they  do  not  help  the  sectors  to  capture 
benefits such as an expanded international audience base and new industry contracts from 
outside of their own country. If Creative Europe did not exist, most of the transnational 
activity supported by the Programme would have not taken place. For example, it emerges 
from the Beneficiary Survey that almost all beneficiaries (90%) felt that their project or 
activities  would  have  been  affected  in  the  absence  of  the  transnational  support  through 
Creative Europe and when asked to quantify the importance of Creative Europe support, 
most (77%) attributed at least 50% of project activity to the Programme.  

By providing direct funding to operate across borders, the Culture strand also acted as a 
complement  to  other  international  and  national  supports.  The  majority  (85%)  of 
organisations surveyed had not worked in international markets before, with nearly all of 
these mentioning the costs of producing and showing their works abroad as the main barrier 
(including the travel of personnel and equipment). Culture strand funding through schemes 
such  as  Culture  Moves  Europe  or  Perform  Europe  but  also,  more  generally,  the 
Cooperation  projects  plug  this  financial  gap  with  international  travel  (including 
residencies) being eligible for financial support in a way that it is not eligible under other 
international and national schemes supporting the CCS.  

These types of schemes make a real difference and are life changing opportunities for many 
artists when there were no mobility opportunities within national schemes. Evidence shows 
that 97% of Culture Moves Europe grantees pursue further international mobility. Culture 
Moves Europe results also show that the scheme can be a springboard for emerging artists’ 
careers  with  76%  of  grantees  receiving  job  offers,  new  contracts,  or  new  project 
opportunities stemming from their mobility experience. In addition, the survey of Culture 
Moves Europe grant beneficiaries showed that 77.9% would not have been able to develop 
their project without the Culture Moves Europe grant.  

Such cross-border cooperation helped organisations in the CCS address a range of 
common  challenges  (such  as  digital  innovation  and  sustainability)  and  collaborate  on 
topics or activities that  would otherwise not  be  supported through national  schemes.  In 
doing so, it accelerates the development curve within the sectors at EU level. Firstly, it 
helped  those  supported  to  become  more  competitive  through  internationalising  and 
mobilising their careers and cultural works.   

On the Culture Strand side, it is also important to recognise that the culture content being 
supported by Creative Europe includes content linked to common challenges and issues 
facing the EU. There is less data available to quantify the extent to which the Programme 
helps  the  sectors  work  on  common  EU  values,  but  the  Culture  strand  has  been  partly 
designed  to  ensure  content  is  relevant  to  issues  such  as  diversity  and  inclusion.  For 
example, the Culture Sub-programme of Creative Europe 1 supported 1,106 actions that 
were focused on the theme of diversity and inclusion and schemes such as Perform Europe 
specifically funds tours that have a social or environmental dimension. In addition, one in 
four Culture strand projects had a specific focus on reaching an underrepresented group 
and 76% of projects were effective in reaching audiences that do not tend to visit, watch 
or consume culture. Other international and national schemes supporting the cultural and 
creative sectors do not tend to have a specific requirement or objective linked to supporting 
cultural  content with  a clear social goal  and do  not  build this into their design.  Culture 
Moves  Europe  in  its  architecture  introduced  a  system  of  top-ups  to  allow  for  greater 
accessibility and incentivise green travel, which only few schemes offer similar assistance. 
This  again  highlights  that  the  Programme  adds  EU  value  by  not  only  supporting  large 

65 

 
volumes of new cultural content but also content that has a wider set of positive values and 
messages aimed at groups that do not always consume culture.   

There is moderate evidence to support that the work of the Culture strand is also key in 
terms  of  indirectly  contributing  to  greater  opportunities  for  cross-border  collaboration 
within the European CCS as funded projects continue and extend cross-border activities 
beyond the duration of the project. Indeed, projects funded under the Culture strand that 
have a cross-border component (i.e., rely on partnership working across national borders) 
tend  to  attract  more  funding,  last  longer,  and  involve  more  partners.  This  extended 
engagement  and  larger  network  foster  an  environment  where  collaborations  can  thrive 
beyond the projects' duration. 

Through  its  focus  on  funding  for  international  cooperation  in  various  forms,  the 
Programme allows for professionals and organisations from countries with less-established 
cultural  and  creative  sectors  to  cooperate  with  organisations  and  professionals  from 
European cultural hubs. While results refer to the project leader and to a general funding 
envelope, a much more diverse range of partners benefitted from the Programme’s funding.  

The example of Serbian organisations’ and professionals’ mobility illustrate the value of 
the Programme in terms of access to international cooperation. For Serbian artists, who do 
not  benefit from  access  to the EU’s open market,  participation  in  the  Programme helps 
counteract isolation and, consequently, potential stagnation. A clear upward trend emerged 
between  2016  and  2019  regarding  Serbian  artists’  and  professionals’  participation  in 
Creative Europe mobility initiatives. The number of artists awarded went from around 30 
in 2016 to around 180 in 2019 and the number of cultural professionals awarded went from 
around 20 in 2016 to more than 100 in 2019. 

Culture strand’s complementarity 
The Culture strand also complements other international and national support by providing 
direct  funding to  operate across borders. The majority (85%) of organisations  surveyed 
had not worked in international markets before, with nearly all of these citing the costs of 
producing  and  showing  their  works  abroad  as  the  main  barrier  (including  the  travel  of 
personnel  and  equipment).  Culture  strand’s  funding  through  schemes  such  as  Culture 
Moves Europe or Perform Europe but also the Cooperation projects plug this financial gap 
with finance being eligible for international travel (including residencies) in a way that is 
not eligible under other international and national schemes supporting the sector.  

The  Culture  strand  has  also  helped  countries  to  come  together  to  address  key  social 
issues, shining a brighter spotlight on issues such as inequality and artistic freedom in a 
way that national schemes alone do not tend to do. 

The sectors also have a common challenge linked to a general lack of capacity to grow 
and  take  advantage  of  key  opportunities  such  as  the  digital  shift.  This  was  tackled 
through  the  strand  directly  supporting  capacity  building  activities  with  532  capacity 
building  and  training  activities  taking  place  over  CE1.  However,  a  key  way  in  which 
capacity  was  built  across  the  strand  was  indirectly  through  organisations  learning  new 
skills from their counterparts in other countries involved in their Creative Europe project. 
This  was  particularly  true  when  partners  in  Member  States  and  participating  countries 
where  CCS  are  less  mature  worked  with  organisations  from  countries  with  more 
established cultural infrastructure and practices, where the transfer of new learning was 
particularly high. The development of new skills through participation in Culture strand 
projects was therefore often indirect and these skills were often learnt by implementing 

66 

 
 
projects  in  a  collaborative  way  (rather  than  just  by  practitioners  specifically  receiving 
training or capacity-building support). When probed to highlight skills and capacity that 
were  gained  by  working  with  international  rather  than  national  partners,  projects  again 
talked about developing new skills to operate at an EU rather than local level to developing 
their cultural works to non-native audiences. 

In particular, the impact of participation in Culture Moves Europe on acquiring new skills 
proves its complementarity with other instruments focusing on skills development. Data 
obtained through the individual evaluation reports of Culture Moves Europe99 shows that 
almost  all  the  participants  (99.2%)  acquired  some  new  skills,  knowledge  or 
competences during the mobility. When asked about the type of skills, knowledge and 
competences  obtained,  the  most  frequent  answers  concern  networking  and  enhancing 
positive  interactions  with  people  from  different  backgrounds  (79.7%),  developing 
technical/artistic and creative skills directly connected to participants’ occupation (76.4%), 
improving  self-empowerment  and  self-esteem  (68.3%)  and  teamwork/cooperating  in  a 
multicultural team (68%). Therefore, a combination of skills and competences connected 
to  internationalisation  (networking,  interactions,  cooperating  in  multicultural  teams), 
creative  skills  and  individual  development  arise  as  the  defining  contributions  made  by 
Culture Moves Europe to most participants in the Programme, which has a life-changing 
effect on their careers. 

However, the extent to which the Programme added value by fostering economies of scale 
and growth and jobs in the cultural and creative sectors and creating a leverage effect for 
additional funds is more mixed.  

There is good evidence that the Programme did support leveraging for additional funds, 
beyond  the  specific  role  of  the  CCS  Grant  Facility.  Cofinancing  dimensions  remain  an 
important element of support in many cases. In this context, feedback from beneficiaries 
also suggests that the Programme has generated leverage effects for funding from other 
sources (see Figure below). These effects were principally associated with access to grants 
from public sector (63% of respondents). In addition, there is also evidence of leverage 
effects for commercial funding opportunities (32%), which are most likely to be associated 
with Media beneficiaries, and other private non-commercial funding opportunities (31%). 

Creative Europe’s offer in addition to other culture and audiovisual sector support 
schemes 

99 Culture Moves Europe – Assessment of the activity reports of the first calls for individual mobility and 
residency hosts - Report by On the Move. 

67 

 
 
 
 
Creative Europe’s offer in addition to other culture and audiovisual sector support schemes 

4.2.3.  Cross-sectoral strand 

News 
Support to news media, media pluralism and media  literacy is increasingly crucial 
due to the growing threats to media freedom in the Member States, as evidenced in the EC 
Rule  of  Law  reports.    Few  to  no  Member  States  are  dedicating  significant  financial 
resources  to  supporting  the  safety  of  journalists  or  resilience  and  innovation  in  media 
outlets. Many journalists turn to the EU as the only remedy. Support under Creative Europe 
also  addresses  industrial  issues  faced  by  all  media  across  Europe,  ranging  from  news 
deserts to falling revenues. In this context, Creative Europe funding breaks national silos 
through  the  identification  of  good  practices  and  the  sharing  of  business  insights  and 
innovations.  While  the  added  value  of  these  actions  is  very  promising  and  has  been 
received positively by the news media stakeholders, the limited value of the intervention 
has brought an important oversubscription on actions such as media literacy and support 
to journalism. 

Innolabs 
The Innovation Lab has enabled collaborations and ideas exchange, among a wide range 
of cultural and creative stakeholders: 
startups, SMEs, independent creators, cultural institutions, and technology pioneers in the 
sectors, which wouldn’t have happened otherwise.  

Desks 
The Creative Europe Desks have fostered collaborations between European CCS through 
events and activities focused on creating new collaborations and projects. Thus, the Desks 
have provided European added value through collaboration between the Desks themselves, 
but also in creating platforms where European CCS can find partners for future projects 
and strengthen their existing relationships. 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.2.4.   Financial Instruments 

The  CCs  GF  has  addressed  the  financing  gap  which  exists  across  the  EU  by 
conducting  market  research  at  European  level  and  designing  financial  solutions 
which  are  applicable  across  Member  States.  The  European  Investment  Fund  was 
delegated  responsibility  to  design  and  implement  these  instruments,  drawing  on  its 
expertise  of  European  financial  markets  and  players.  The  “Ex-ante  evaluation  of  new 
financial instruments for SMEs, mid-caps and organisations from the cultural and creative 
sectors” found that funding gaps and barriers persisted across Europe as regards both loan 
and equity finance. The calculations indicated that there was a shortfall in debt finance in 
the range of EUR 2.51 billion – EUR 6.22 billion over three years, or EUR 837 million -
EUR 2.07 billion per year.  The CCS GF addressed this gap in a significant way, reducing 
it by 15 to 30%. 

Whilst certain Member States, such as France and Italy, had some credit activities 
through promotional banks, the EIF was able to provide greater scale and scope.  It 
was thus able to harness economies of scale, including favourable financial conditions and 
sharing best practices and information about the CCS. 

The  CCS  GF  thus  enabled  diversification  of  sectors,  lowered  interest  rates,  increased 
lending without physical collateral and developed understanding of banks about the CCS.   

Concerning MediaInvest, it adds value by addressing structural weaknesses in the equity 
investment ecosystem, which is common to countries across the EU, in particular: 

1) Underdeveloped financing ecosystem across Europe: private equity investments in 
the audiovisual sector (including movies, videogames and entertainment) have been on a 
downward trend. In 2023, the value of private equity deals in this sector was on track to 
hit its lowest annual level since at least 2019.7  

2) Capacity Building: MediaInvest includes capacity-building activities for investors and 
financial intermediaries, increasing their understanding of global audiovisual production 
and distribution markets.  

3) Supporting creative autonomy and scaling-up: The European audiovisual sector is 
characterized by a large number of creative independent companies which face unequal 
access to finance. MediaInvest supports these companies, enabling them to grow, compete 
internationally and harness their creative autonomy.   

4.3. 

Is the intervention still relevant? 

4.3.1.  MEDIA  

The effectiveness of MEDIA outlined in section 4.1 needs to be assessed against the 
overall  macro-level  situation  in  the  EU  audiovisual  sector  and  beyond.  As 
demonstrated under section 4.1, MEDIA is strongly associated with a wider transnational 
circulation  and  consumption  of  European  audiovisual  works,  has  strengthened  the 
competitiveness of supported companies, especially production and improving the level 
playing field within Europe. However, its core mission of increasing cultural diversity and 

69 

 
 
 
 
the  competitiveness  of  the  sector  has  to  be  carried  out  in  the  face  of  unprecedented 
challenges. 

On  the  demand  side,  EU  audiovisual  works  (including  those  not  supported  from 
MEDIA) are facing tough competition, especially in non-national markets, from US and 
other countries. For example, in the critical streaming segment (which is driving growth in 
the industry), EU consumers spend only 7% of their time watching content from other EU 
countries, while they spend 61% of their time on US works and 20% on works from other 
non-EU  territories  (e.g.  UK  and  Asia).100  Furthermore,  EU  films  and  series  face  tough 
competition for attention, especially from younger generations, from other media content: 
in a recent EU-wide consumer survey 45% of respondents between the ages of 18 to 30 
indicated  that  they  spend  the  most  time  on  social  media,  followed  by  music  and  video 
games. Only 9% indicated films and series as they most preferred type of content.101 On 
the supply side, the production and distribution environment is also getting tougher.  With 
market  consolidation,  the  surge  in  investment  by  streamers  into  EU  content,  especially 
original content, is slowing down.102 

Another key challenge is to ensure access of European citizens to quality European 
content, especially to the cinematic experience, which plays a vital role for societal 
resilience. Screen density varies dramatically across the EU, from 24 screens per million 
inhabitants in Romania to 102 screens per million inhabitants in Ireland.103 There are also 
big gaps within Member States, with rural or less populated areas often lacking cinemas, 
thereby  creating  “cinema  deserts”.  Yet,  access  to  content  is  crucial  to  foster  a  shared 
European identity. The experience of Europa Cinema confirms the value of the network in 
addressing underserved communities (e.g. through mobile cinemas in Greece or “Cinema 
without  barriers”  projections  for  disabled  audiences  in  Poland)  and  by  enhancing  the 
social experience of going to the cinema through by community building strategies.  

The  EU  AV  sector  is  also  lagging  behind  the  US  and  other  regions  in  innovation, 
especially in streaming. The share of EU broadcasters in streaming subscriptions is less 
than  20%  and  the  three  main  US  streaming  services  (Netflix,  Amazon,  Disney)  alone 
control 64% of all EU streaming subscriptions.104 Non-EU players therefore have a strong 
influence  on  what  kind  of  EU  content  Europeans  consume,  not  only  in  the  context  of 
streaming,  but  in  the  context  of  the  entire  AV  sector  (to  recall,  recommendations  of 
streaming services have an above-average impact on consumers’ overall choices regarding 
films and series, especially among younger generations).105 On the technology front, the 
rapid evolution of Generative AI in particular is likely to have a transformative impact. US 
competitors already leading in online AV content are particularly well-placed to take a lead 
on this as well, especially tech giants like Amazon, or Google. 

100 SVOD usage in the European Union – report from the European Audiovisual Observatory, 28/03/24 
101  European  Commission:  Directorate-General for  Communications  Networks,  Content  and  Technology, 
Study on audiences, consumer behaviour and preferences relating to the consumption of media content 
– 
2025, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/5502681  

Publications 

European 

Union, 

report, 

Office 

Final 

the 

of 

102 European Media Industry Outlook, 2025 
103  EAO 2023 Yearbook (data from 2022); UNIC 2023 or 2024 - data provided by UNIC members  
104 European Media Industry Outlook, 2025 
105 ‘European Commission: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, 
Study on audiences, consumer behaviour and preferences relating to the consumption of media content 
– 
2025, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/5502681  

Publications 

European 

report, 

Union, 

Office 

Final 

the 

of 

70 

 
 
For MEDIA to become more relevant in view of the market and technological trends 
in  the  sector,  more  efforts  are  needed  to  strengthen  its  impact  in digital  media.  In 
2023, 61% of works supported for development were developed for cinema, 31% for TV 
and less than 8% for VoD, while only 5% of market revenues came from cinema, and 75% 
from TV.106 More account needs to be taken of market trends, where streaming increased 
to 16% of market share, cinema fell to 5% and TV remained constant). Distribution support 
is  also  mainly  aimed  at  theatrical  distribution.  Despite  positive  developments  in  VoD 
support  as  outlined  in  Section  4.1.2,  it  has  not  reached  similar  audience  development 
impact as the Europa Cinemas network in theatrical distribution. 

There is also scope to future proof funding through a stronger focus on young people 
and their media habits. Supported works primarily focused on adults, with 10% of works 
supported  for  development  under  CE2  meant  for  children.107  This  can  be  a  missed 
opportunity for the competitiveness potential of funding for two reasons : 1) European TV 
animation travels significantly better on VoD than other content, on par with TV animation 
from other territories, including US ;108 and 2) Young people are the future demand and 
there  is  evidence  that  they  are  more  loyal  to  certain  content  brands/IP  than  older 
generations109. Thus, MEDIA should focus more on developing and exploiting transmedia 
IP, which is a lucrative business model is deployed by major US studios and streamers and 
other international players (e.g. Japanese mangas and anime).    

To retain its relevance, MEDIA also needs  to concentrate on areas where  national 
funding  and  private  investment  is  more  scarce.  This  means  continuing  to  monitor 
European added value, taking into account the uneven level playing field between Member 
States  due  to  different  national  conditions  (of  support,  market  size  etc).  An  enhanced 
cooperation with member states to explore synergies between EU and national funding and 
between different funding areas would need to start first with a more systematic monitoring 
of the relevant support at national level. 

On videogames, despite adjustments made to the current support to fit the evolution 
of the gaming and immersive markets, there is a need to reflect on how best to support 
this growing segment of the audiovisual industry. The EU remains weak at distribution 
level,  with  few operators  of marketplaces that sell games, and limited visibility for EU 
games.  Consequently,  the  EU  industry  captures  a  limited  share  of  the  revenues  of  the 
sector. Furthermore, stakeholders from the video games sector welcomed improvements 
under  the  current  Programme110  but  noted  the  modest  means  allocated  to  development 
(calls for proposals as largely oversubscribed, and the gap is widening with time). Aspects 
to be taken into consideration include the use of global digital platforms for distribution of 

106 Support study to the evaluation, based on Programme monitoring data 
107 Data for this indicator was only systematically collected for CE2 
108   ‘’European animation content circulates very well: when made available on VOD, European animation 
TV content not only circulates much more than European TV content of all categories, but also as well 
as animation content from all origin.’’ Also, the top 20 exported EU TV seasons list is made up mostly 
of children animation series. Source: Animation films and TV series in Europe – Key figures, a 2021 
report by the European Audiovisual Observatory. 

109  European  Commission:  Directorate-General for  Communications  Networks,  Content  and  Technology, 
Study on audiences, consumer behaviour and preferences relating to the consumption of media content 
– 
2025, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/5502681  

Publications 

European 

Union, 

report, 

Office 

Final 

the 

of 

110 Support study for the evaluation 

71 

 
 
 
European games, support to marketing, promotion and post-release operations, support to 
skills development and innovations in interactive content. 

Against  the  backdrop  of  all  these  challenges  the  rationale  of  continued  European 
action  to  improve  the  cultural  and  competitive  situation  of  European  audiovisual 
content  across  the  EU  and  beyond  cannot  be  any  clearer.  The  challenge  is  how  to 
future-proof the Programme in view of the rapid transformative developments in digital 
media  and  AI,  taking  into  account  also  rapidly  changing  consumption  patterns.  In 
particular,  the  evaluation  results  show  the  need  to  strengthen  the  relevance  of  the 
Programme to help audiences, especially young digital native-people, to discover quality 
European  audiovisual  content  in  the  online  environment  characterised  by  content 
hyperabundance.  This  will  require  new  approaches  to  promoting  content  to  audiences, 
including  the  effective  exploitation  of  digital  tools  and  technologies  and  effective 
transmedia  exploitation  strategies  to  IP.    As  the  biggest  competition  for  audiences’ 
attention  comes  from  global  digital  platforms,  this  requires  a  European  response.  This 
futureproofing  will  therefore  likely  require  well-coordinated  cross-border  efforts  across 
the whole EU AV sector, including public and private players, with EU funding to structure 
and incentivise these efforts in a cost-effective way.   

4.3.2.  Culture 

The Culture strand is framed by the European Agendas for Culture and the EU Work Plans 
for  Culture,  which  focus  on  empowering  cultural  professionals,  enhancing  cultural 
participation,  promoting  environmental  benefits  through  culture,  and  strengthening  the 
EU's global cultural partnerships. In addition, the Programme is in line with the 2016 Joint 
Commission/High  Representative  Communication  “Towards  and  EU  strategy  for 
international cultural relations”111 and the 2014 Commission Communication “Towards an 
integrated approach to cultural Heritage for Europe”.112 At a broader political level, EU 
cultural  policy  making  and  hence  the  Creative  Europe  Programme  were  designed  to 
comply with the European Commission’s political priorities for the 2019-2024 period: A 
European Green Deal; A Europe fit for the digital age; An economy that works for people; 
A stronger Europe in the world; Promoting a European way of life and A new push for 
democracy. 

Relevance to the cultural and creative sectors  
Under  CE2,  the  Culture  strand  has  seen  a  sharp  rise  in  both  the  volume and  quality  of 
applications, reflecting growing demand and relevance for the cultural and creative sectors, 
which  suggests  an  increasing  interest  in  support,  but  is  also  likely  to  reflect  funding 
difficulties  facing  CCS  organisations,  including  national  level  funding.  This  gap  is 
particularly acute in the European Cooperation Projects, the strand’s largest action, where 
the  action  faces  massive  and  increasing  oversubscription.  It  went  from  receiving  463 
submissions in 2021 to 831 in 2023 and due to a stable budget, had its success rate dropping 
from 27% in 2021 to 17% in 2023. While competition ensures quality, it risks discouraging 
new applicants if the Programme is seen as too demanding. As things stand, there is four 
time  the  demand  of  available  budget  by  CCS  organisations  through  this  call.  This  is 
particularly  concerning  as  the  trend  continued  in  following  years  not  covered  in  the 
evaluation.  As  a  consequence,  it  was  decided  from  AWP  2024  onwards  to  open  the 
European Cooperation projects call to large-scale project once every two years, and from 
AWP 2025 to have a capping of the number of applications an organisation can take part 
in per year, now limited to three applications. 

111 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=JOIN%3A2016%3A29%3AFIN 
112 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52014DC0477 

72 

 
 
 
The  specific  needs  of  the  CCS  have  been  assessed  in  several  reports,  surveys,  and 
statements, and include, among many others, the need to have access to sustainable funding 
and/or fair pay,113 to develop tools to tackle the twin transition,114 to establish diverse and 
gender-equal practices in the sector,115  116 to tackle gender equality and inclusion issues 
and to foster mobility. About 83% of respondents to the Beneficiary Survey endorse the 
Programme  calls’  relevance  to  evolving  sectoral  trends;  87%  appreciate  improvements 
made in the new 2021-2027 cycle compared to the previous 2014-2020 cycle. Furthermore, 
over 92% of respondents found the conditions of Culture strand’s calls to be relevant with 
the mission of their organisations, and 90% found them to be relevant to the needs of their 
organisations. 

Greening Efforts 
Unlike under CE1, ecological concerns -as a cross-cutting priority- are taken into account 
in  the  design  and  implementation  of  all  funded  projects  under  CE2.  According  to  the 
Programme Performance Statement117 in the 2021-2023 period, EUR 260.8 million have 
been distributed to actions aligning with the Climate Mainstreaming process (as against 
EUR 28 million for the entire period of CE1). The figure represents 12% of the total 2021-
2027 Programme budget, keeping Creative Europe on track to reach the 30% threshold set 
for climate-relevant projects.118 In the survey conducted for this evaluation’s supporting 
study, most respondents (54%) state that the strand is relevant in promoting projects that 
tackle the challenges linked to the green transition. For example, the Sustainable Theatres 
Alliance for Green Environmental Shift (STAGES – Sustainable Theatre Alliance) project 
is  aiming  at  accelerating  the  transition  within  the  theatre  sector  and  fostering  a  real 
sustainable development approach in artistic practices, operations and buildings.  

Gender Equality and inclusion  
In comparison with CE 1, CE 2 places a special emphasis on gender equality and inclusion 
in  terms  of  stated  commitment  and  funded  projects.  According  to  the  Programme 
Performance  Statements,  over  the  2021-2023  period,  a  total  of  EUR  61,8  million  was 
allocated to interventions, the principal objective of which was to improve gender equality. 
At  the  same  time,  if  also  considering  interventions  with  a  probable,  though  indirect, 

113European  Commission:  Directorate-General  for  Education,  Youth,  Sport  and  Culture, The  status  and 
working conditions of artists and cultural and creative professionals – Report of the OMC (Open Method 
of  Coordination)  group  of  EU  Member  States'  experts,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union, 
2023, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/46315. 

114 European  Commission,  Culture  and  Creativity  (n.d.). Creative  Europe  and  the  Commission’s 
from  https://culture.ec.europa.eu/creative-

priorities. Retrieved  on  21st  of  October  2024 
europe/projects/priorities-2019-2024. 

115European  Commission,  Culture  and  Creativity  (7  June  2021). New  report  recommends  how  to  close 
gender  gaps  in  the  cultural  and  creative  sectors. Retrieved  on  21st  of  October  2024  from 
https://culture.ec.europa.eu/news/new-report-recommends-how-to-close-gender-gaps-in-the-cultural-
and-creative-sectors. 

116European  Commission:  Directorate-General  for  Education,  Youth,  Sport  and  Culture  and  Menzel, 
A., Towards gender equality in the cultural and creative sectors – Report of the OMC (open method of 
coordination)  working  group  of  Member  States’  experts,  Menzel,  A.(editor),  Publications  Office, 
2021, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/122208. 

117https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/performance-and-reporting/programme-

performance-statements/creative-europe-programme-performance_en 

118https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/performance-and-reporting/horizontal-

priorities/green-budgeting/climate-mainstreaming_en 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
positive impact on gender equality, the overall support rises to EUR 1045,6 million (data 
includes also MEDIA and Cross-sectoral strands).  

The project She Raps is  a good example illustrating how the Culture Strand focuses on 
gender equality. This project aimed at increasing the participation and visibility of female 
rappers on the European rap scene and at developing their professional skills. The ambition 
was  to  lead  to  the  structuring  of  a  European  ecosystem  with  professionals  and  media, 
facilitate the professionalisation of female rappers, ensure that the place of women in rap 
was  no  longer  questioned,  and  ultimately  give  the  public  access  to  increased  cultural 
diversity. 

According to the same source, the Culture strand incorporates inclusion and diversity as 
key priorities, contributing to the objectives of the 2020–2025 Gender Equality Strategy. 
Particular consideration is  given to proposals  that outline clear strategies for promoting 
gender  balance  and  inclusiveness  within  CCS.  The  Programme  further  integrates 
monitoring mechanisms to evaluate the effectiveness of its gender equality measures. This 
includes tracking the gender balance in funded projects, assessing the impacts of initiatives 
on  women’s  representation  and  participation,  and  adjusting  funding  criteria  to  address 
observed disparities.  

Mobility 
Mobility is supported through all the Culture strand’s actions. Milestones set for the 2021-
2027 period, based on historical data from European Cooperation Projects funded in 2017 
and  available  through  the  2022  Programme  Performance  Statement119,  show  that  an 
expected 170,000 artists and cultural professionals will be mobile beyond national borders 
thanks  to  the  Programme’s  support.  It  must  also  be  noted  that  such  number  is  most 
probably  an  underestimation  as  it  does  not  include  figures  from  two  key  actions,  i.e. 
Platforms and Networks. Furthermore, it is by scaling up i-Portunus, the successful first 
EU-funded  scheme  directly  targeting  individual  mobility  for  artists  and  cultural 
professionals,  that  CE2  launched  the  Culture  Moves  Europe  action,  covering  the  40 
Creative Europe countries. With a budget of EUR 21 million (2022–2025), an estimated 
7,000 grants for individual mobility and residency actions were already made available. 120 

Digitalisation 
The Culture strand actively supports the digital transformation in the CCS through targeted 
actions and funding initiatives that address the evolving needs of artists, organisations, and 
audiences. According  to  the  Programme  Performance  Statement,  a  total  of  EUR  256,7 
million have been awarded to projects sustaining the digital transition (data refers to all 
strands from 2021 to 2023). Within the European Cooperation projects action, supporting 
the  digital  transition  of  the  European  CCS  is  emphasised,  being  selected  as  the  first  or 
second  priority  by  15%  of  all  projects  funded  in  the  2021-2023  period. Additionally, 
Creative Europe Networks aim to assist these sectors in harnessing emerging technologies 
to drive innovation and improve their competitive edge.  Finally, 73% of respondents of 
the Beneficiary Survey either fully or partially agree with the statement ‘The Culture strand 

119https://wayback.archive-it.org/12090/20230331134612/https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-
policy/eu-budget/performance-and-reporting/programme-performance-overview/creative-europe-
programme-performance_en  

120The  data  presented  originates  from  Grantees, comprising Artists  and  Cultural  Professionals,  who  have 
completed their mobility projects and submitted activity reports. These results are preliminary, based on 
a 1 159 reports sample, as reports are still being received until June 2025, yet they provide significant 
insights.  These  data  were  provided  by  the  Goethe-Institut staff  members  during  the  interviews 
conducted. 

74 

 
 
 
actions  under  the  current  Programme  are  promoting  relevant  projects  to  tackle  the 
challenges linked to the digital transition’. 

Working Conditions of Artists 
The  Creative  Europe  Programme  put  an  emphasis  on  promoting  fair  remuneration  and 
inclusion within its funded initiatives. Calls, especially the latest European Cooperation 
Projects calls, include provisions related to the working conditions of artists and cultural 
professionals and recognise the precarious nature of artistic work and foresee a priority on 
“Artists and cultural professionals: empowering the cultural and creative sectors”. One of 
Perform  Europe’s  award  criteria,  “Fairness”,  assesses  applications  based  on  their 
commitment  to  fair  practices,  equitable  payment,  and  improved  working  conditions  for 
artists. The Programme prioritises projects that enhance the economic resilience of CCS 
workers.  Such  priority  is  especially  important  in  the  ‘Circulation  of  European  Literary 
Works’  action,  a  strong  commitment  to  fair  remuneration  and  increased  visibility  for 
translators within the European literary ecosystem.  

4.3.3.  Cross-sectoral strand 

 News  
Support  to  news  media  under  Creative  Europe  comes  at  a  turbulent  time  for  the 
industry.  Revenues  are  sharply  declining,  with  the  printed  press  forecast  to  decline  by 
45% from 2019-2028. Advertising revenues, traditionally a lifeline of the media sector, are 
shifting to global platforms like Google and Meta. Nonetheless,  reliance on advertising 
remains high,  and diversification efforts  are unevenly distributed across the  fragmented 
EU industry, with smaller companies unable to pivot to digital models. Employment in the 
news media sector has declined by 30%, with a net loss of over 225,000 jobs between 2008 
and 2019, primarily affecting traditional print media. Yet journalists are now expected to 
possess  diverse  skills,  including  digital  content  creation,  data  analysis,  and  multimedia 
storytelling.  Meanwhile,  citizens  are  progressively  shifting  digital  means  of  news 
consumption and relying more and more on social media platforms.  

Support  to  news  media  thus  started  in  2021,  under  Creative  Europe  2,  aiming  at 
strengthening  both  the  sector's  economic  resilience  and  democratic  role.  This  seed 
support focused on three areas of action, given the budgetary limitations under the cross-
sectoral strand.  

Firstly, the Programme mapped risks and threats to media pluralism across the Union 
through  a  Media  Pluralism  Monitor.  This  annual  report  has  consistently  identified 
medium or high risks to pluralism in most EU countries, driven by factors such as political 
interference, economic pressures, and the concentration of ownership. On average, only 
43% of EU citizens believe their media is free from political and commercial pressures. 
Another action, the Media Ownership Monitoring System, enhances transparency around 
media ownership structures.  

Secondly,  Creative  Europe  has  contributed  to  address  some  of  the  industrial 
weaknesses  of  the  European  news  media  sector,  notably  through  media 
collaborations.  The  strand  also  strengthens  democracy  and  societal  resilience  by 
supporting local and regional journalism, investigative reporting, and public interest news. 
These initiatives are particularly relevant in underserved regions i.e. “media deserts”.  The 

75 

 
 
 
 
focus  on  media  freedom  is  exemplified  by  the  Media  Freedom  Rapid  Response 
Mechanism, which provides legal support and safety for threatened journalists.  

Finally, a media literacy action intends to empower citizens to navigate digital media.  
Media users are exposed to a growing number of media sources, formats and mediums, 
and  concerted  efforts  are  needed  to  make  sure  they  are  able  to  engage  and  interact 
effectively with content. 

Thus, Creative Europe has addressed key emerging needs of the information market. 
However, the actions were constrained by limited budgets, and challenges at EU level have 
kept increasing. The political guidelines 2024-2029 acknowledge “a deep change in the 
information  space,  shifting  from  editorial  media  sources  to  user-generated  content 
mediated by platforms and pushed by algorithms”. The guidelines also commit to “support 
for  independent  media  and  journalists”.121  The  extent  to  which  this  will  require  an 
adaptation and increase of the Union financing response remains to be determined.    

Besides the limited budget, the actions to be funded are prescribed in the legal base 
of Creative Europe in an exclusive and binding list.  Actions directly funding the fight 
against disinformation are not on this list and instead have so far been funded under the 
Digital Europe Programme. Under the budget principle of specificity, an action which has 
been  financed  under  a  specific  EU  programme  should  not  be  financed  under  another 
programme.  Also,  a  revision  of  the  legal  basis  of  Creative  Europe  would  be  very 
challenging to negotiate at this point. Instead, the approach taken, as foreseen in the legal 
basis,  has  been  to  support  quality  content  and  media  viability  and  media  freedom  and 
media  literacy  through  a  number  of  innovative  actions.  In  the  future,  ensuring  more 
flexibility in the legal base would help respond to emerging challenges. 
Innolabs  
The evaluation confirmed the potential of collaboration among different cultural and 
creative sectors and the need to address the common challenges they face, which is 
more  pronounced  for  a  number  of  specific  copyright-intensive  industries.  The 
implementation of the Creative Innovation labs- an action fostering cross-overs across all 
cultural  and  creative  sectors-  has  shown  that  synergies  are  more  pronounced  between 
media  and  other  copyright-intensive  media  sectors  (music  and  publishing)  as  they  face 
common challenges/opportunities for competitiveness and digital transformation as well 
as the increased control of large extra-EU platforms over what content people in Europe 
and beyond consume. They also face similar challenges on the creation and consumption 
side due to AI. Such collaboration will be increasingly relevant in future because of the 
acceleration of the digital transformation, including the deployment of AI. The needs are 
expected to be significant as only 30% of surveyed CCS companies have adopted a digital 
transformation strategy and companies have indicated that investment in AI represents less 
than 1% of their total investments.122 

The potential of coherent transmedia IP strategies among copyright-intensive sectors 
can be better exploited in the Programme. Consumer and other research indicate that 
the exploitation of the same IP across different content formats (films/series, books, games, 
music) has a positive impact on competitiveness. Young people especially seem to be loyal 

121  “Europe’s  choice”:  Political  guidelines  for  the  next  European  Commission  2024-2029,  Strasbourg, 

18/07/2024 

122 Monitoring the twin transition of industrial ecosystems CULTURAL AND CREATIVE INDUSTRIES 

Analytical report,  

76 

 
 
 
to  IP123.  Indeed,  large  US  studios  and  streamers  have  built  lucrative  franchises  around 
different  IPs124.  Transmedia  exploitation  helps  with  discoverability  and  increases 
commercial success for both the original and adapted version. For example, according to 
one  research  project,  the  box  office  revenues  of  a  film  adapting  pre-existing  content 
(books) is around 50% higher than films with an original screenplay, while TV dramas 
adapted from books attract 58% more viewers  125. It also works the other way round: for 
example, one book sold 82% of all its copies in the year after it was adapted into a TV 
drama despite being in circulation for 25 years before its adaptation.126 

Creative Europe Desks  
The  Creative  Europe  desks  support  the  implementation  of  the  Programme  as  well  as 
sharing of results and learning from the Programme with national stakeholders, as well as 
opportunities for learning between Desks. As noted in the Effectiveness section, the role 
of  Desks  is  well  established,  following  on  from  the  previous  Programme,  and  plays  an 
important role in the operation of Creative Europe. In addition to a clearly defined role in 
relation to supporting beneficiaries, they also play an important role in contributing to the 
specific  objective  of  promoting  cross-sectoral  transnational  policy  cooperation,  through 
the dissemination of results and learning. 

Creative Europe is a popular Programme, with more than 29,600 applications submitted in 
CE1 and already 6 169 in CE2 between 2021-2023127, most of these from micro and small 
companies  with  limited  resources.  Access  to  information  and  gaining  a  better 
understanding of the application processes for Creative Europe funding, remains a crucial 
need for these companies. 

The Creative Europe desks’ main missions make a relevant contribution to this need in 
terms  of  promotion  of  the  Programme  and  dissemination  of  information  on  calls  for 
proposals,  results  and  training  opportunities,  as  well  as  advice  to  applicants.    Relevant 
actions of the Creative Europe desks also include events and training to the CCS locally 
and nationally, as well as peer-learning and knowledge-sharing across the desks, especially 
to provide adequate guidance to applicants on new actions (e.g. Creative Innovation Labs) 
or priorities of the Programme.  

4.3.4.  Financial Instruments  

Overall financial instruments play a key role in providing alternative sources of financing 
in a context where European audiovisual content, especially films, tends to be dependent 
on public financing.  At the same time European films tend to be under financed compared 
to  their  US  competitors  which  have  much  easier  access  to  finance.    On  average  public 

123 In a recent EU27 consumer survey on media consumption habits commissioned by DG CNECT, the fact 
that a film or a series was part of a franchise or new season of an existing series was rated by young 
people to be among the top three factors that attract them to films and series (along with genre and the 
story), well above the average importance of other factors. European Commission: Directorate-General 
for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, Study on audiences, consumer behaviour and 
preferences  relating  to  the  consumption  of  media  content  –  Final  report,  Publications  Office  of  the 
European Union, 2025, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/5502681  
124 https://www.ampereanalysis.com/report/franchises-ip-still-key-to-success 
125  See the following study focusing on the UK market: ‘The book was better!’ – How literary adaptations 

contribute to the wider creative industries | Frontier Economics 

126 Ibid  
127 Programme monitoring data 

77 

 
 
 
 
funding  contributes  26%  of  film  financing128  and  this  limits  the  potential  for  more 
ambitious films with the capacity to attract wide international audiences.  For example, the 
average annual budget of MEDIA of EUR 200 million is less than the production budget 
of a single film from the “Mission Impossible” franchise.   

The  Creative  and  Cultural  Sectors  Guarantee  Facility  remains  relevant  and  whilst  it 
partially closed the gap in  lending for the CCS, the financing  needs remain  significant. 
MediaInvest also remains highly relevant for the audiovisual sector.  It was launched under 
the impetus of the Media and Audiovisual Action Plan129 which found that there was a 
gap in equity financing for audiovisual, as well as other creative sectors, estimated at 399-
648  million  euros  per  year.  Whilst  MediaInvest  is  expected  to  make  a  significant 
contribution, the gap in financing is expected to remain significant in future. 

Moreover,  the  powerful  leverage  effect  makes  financial  instruments  a  valuable 
complement to grant funding.  While the grant element allows for co-financing the starting 
costs of a project, the latter facilitates the investment into works and companies at scale.  
This  model  applies  across  content  formats,  from  films  to  series  and  video  games.  
Therefore, continued blended financing of a dedicated equity investment platform will be 
very relevant going forward. 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

5.1.  Conclusions 

Creative Europe is the EU funding Programme supporting the cultural, creative and media 
sectors,  with  the  objective  of  enhancing  competitiveness  and  promoting  cultural  and 
linguistic diversity and heritage. Cultural, creative and media sectors represent a significant 
industrial ecosystem and face common challenges stemming among others from market 
fragmentation, digital transformation and intense global competition.  At the same time, 
Creative Europe  operates within the  Treaty  on the Functioning  of the European  Union, 
where  culture  is  a  supporting  competence  whilst  the  EU  has  a  single  market  policy  on 
media. The budget of Creative Europe is relatively modest, equivalent to 0,2% of the 2021-
2027 MFF.  

However, Creative Europe targets activities where the EU intervention can bring additional 
value  compared  to  action  of  Member  States  alone.  In  particular,  it  addresses  the 
fragmentation  of  the  cultural,  creative  and  media  sectors  along  national  and  linguistic 
borders.   Moreover,  national-level  funding  alone  is  insufficient  to  support  the  overall 
competitiveness  and  diversity of EU media, audiovisual  and other cultural  and creative 
sectors.  In particular, Creative Europe supports transnational cooperation and circulation 
of  content  across  the  EU,  through  pan-European  activities  such  as  collaborations,  co-
productions and networks, thus leveraging the value of national assets.  This approach also 
strengthens EU citizens’ equal access to media and cultural content. Thus overall, the role 
of  Creative  Europe  has  been  to  make  a  meaningful  contribution  whilst  fully  respecting 
subsidiarity. 

128 EAO (2021). Fiction Film Financing in Europe: A sample analysis of films. 
129 COM(2020) 784 final 

78 

 
 
 
 
The 2018 mid-term evaluation of CE 1 found that the Programme contributed to the general 
objective of supporting cultural diversity by increasing access of audiences to a diversity 
of European works and to the objective of competitiveness by helping CCS operators scale 
up at the European level.  This ex-post evaluation of Creative Europe 2014-20 corroborates 
these findings through additional evidence on impacts.  

Having three distinct strands means that the Culture, MEDIA and Cross-sectoral strands 
operate as three largely distinct but complementary elements. Across these three strands, 
the common key dimension of funding is  the promotion  of cross-border,  pan-European 
activities  in  different  forms  (collaborations,  co-productions,  networks  etc.).  The  strand 
approach  is  clearly  founded  on  the  distinctiveness  of  the  sectors  each  strand  aims  to 
support, recognising that their needs and opportunities are different. At the same time the 
three distinct strands clearly correspond to the overarching general objectives of the two 
Programmes.  The  challenges  facing  the  CCS,  including  media,  as  articulated  in  the 
Regulations,  are  generally  well  translated  throughout  the  design  of  the  Programme  and 
strand objectives and appear to be aligned with European policy agendas and programmes. 

In its first iteration (2014 to 2020), the Programme had a budget of EUR 1.47 billion, which 
was expanded to EUR 2.5 billion in its second iteration (2021 to 2027), representing a 66% 
increase. This has allowed for greater reach and impact within the CCS. Notwithstanding 
this increase, the budget implementation of CE2 has been effective and on target despite 
challenging circumstances, ranging from Brexit to the Covid-19 pandemic. 

Creative  Europe  is  co-managed  by  DG  EAC  and  DG  CNECT  and  its  implementation, 
mainly delegated to the Education and Culture Executive Agency. Administrative costs 
have  increased  less  than  the  operational  budget,  indicating  efficiency  savings  between 
2014 and 2023. 

The CCS GF made a major contribution to the competitiveness of Europe’s cultural and 
creative sectors. It was the first guarantee facility dedicated to these sectors at European 
level.  Through  effective  collaboration  between  the  Commission  and  the  EIF  a  strong 
market response was cultivated in sectors previously perceived as high risk.  Over EUR 
1.8  billion  in  loans  was  leveraged,  which  exceeded  by  far  the  initial  goal  of  EUR  600 
million and made a significant contribution to improving access to finance for CCS SMEs. 
The CCS GF was subsequently incorporated into InvestEU as of 2021. 

A key issue for Creative Europe is that there are low levels of funding compared to the 
challenges  at  stake.  Creative  Europe  alone  cannot  solve  systemic  issues,  but  budget 
limitations affect the effectiveness in meeting the objectives set. There is already a high 
level  of over-subscription  across the three  strands,  with  success  rates  as low as 26% in 
Culture, 16% in MEDIA and 8% in the Cross-sectoral.   However, if the full potential of 
Europe’s  unique  CCS  is  to  be  realised  then  additional  strategic  interventions  will  be 
needed. The focus will also need to be sharpened on today’s challenges, for example the 
platformisation brought about by giant global competitors, the shift of audiences online, 
the surge of AI and the increasing threat to artistic and media freedom.  Furthermore, in 
order to have greater impact, a Team Europe approach will be needed, through concerted 
action with Member States, which remain by far the most important sources of funding for 
these sectors, while acknowledging that there are great differences among Member States’ 
spending.  

At the same time the synergies between the Culture and MEDIA Strands could be better 
exploited, notably among copyright intensive industries, which are the CCS most heavily 

79 

 
affected by the competition from the US platforms, changed consumption patterns and the 
AI  revolution.  Synergies  with  other  EU  programmes,  including  Cohesion  funds  and 
research and innovation programmes should also be strengthened to address the scale and 
the multi-dimensional nature of the challenges.  

5.1.1.  MEDIA  

Over three decades the MEDIA brand has become an organic part of the European 
audiovisual  ecosystem  and  is  associated  with  a  significantly  wider  transnational 
circulation of works. It is widely known, respected and coveted across the sector. During 
this time, the core mission of MEDIA has remained clear: to bring quality European films 
and  series  to  people  across  Europe.  The  evaluation  revealed  that  on  average  MEDIA 
supported EU films and series are associated with a significantly wider circulation than 
non-supported films: on average this means 9.4, 6.6 and 3.2 more EU countries across TV, 
cinema and VoD respectively, than an unsupported EU film or series during the evaluation 
period. While the results are not significantly different for cinema and VoD for CE1 and 
CE2,  the  difference  is  more  significant  for  TV  (10.6  CE1  and  3.3  CE2),  though  the 
significant additional circulation is also present under CE2. This difference may be due to 
methodological issues and full impacts will need to be checked for the final evaluation. 
MEDIA support was also associated with 125,419 more non-national cinema admissions 
relative to unsupported films. CE1 shows a stronger impact (additional 134k admissions) 
than CE2 (97k).  Extrapolating this to all supported films under CE1, MEDIA is associated 
with at least 241 million additional admissions. The sample under the current Programme 
is not large enough to make a reliable extrapolation at this point in time.    

On the other hand, the significantly higher availability of supported works in non-
national  VoD  catalogues  do  not  seem  to  have  translated  into  significantly  higher 
views. On the contrary, the average views for supported works on VoD catalogues in the 
sample was 376,346 for works supported during CE1 and 496,676 for CE2 (405 361 for 
both Programmes combined). This compares to significantly more non-national views for 
comparable unsupported works, which average 1,301,953 views for the CE1 and 1,551,724 
for  the  CE2  period  (1,400,631  across  the  combined  period).  All  in  all,  despite  some 
methodological  issues,  these  findings  showcase  a  significant  challenge  for  MEDIA 
funding to attract audiences online (in the absence of sufficiently granular data for films 
and series  shown on TV, the impact  of MEDIA funding on non-national TV audiences 
could not be estimated).  

MEDIA support to films also achieved considerable international cultural impact as 
demonstrated  by  the  significant  level  of  recognition  of  supported  films  at  international 
festivals and awards across both CE1 and CE2. 

MEDIA has delivered also on its other key performance indicators.  It has supported 
training  audiovisual  professionals,  with  80%  of  participants  declaring  a  strengthened 
professional  capacity  and  50%  women  participants.    Co-productions  have  increased  to 
84%  of  MEDIA  supported  works  under  CE2  (from  36%  under  CE1)  and  remained 
considerably higher than the industry average across both Programmes (estimated at 12%).  
The number of audiovisual works produced in lesser used languages has increased and the 
number of professionals reached by business-to-business activities is on track.   

Moreover,  MEDIA  has  responded  to  the  digital  shift  by  consistently  encouraging 
innovation.    Innovative  tools  and  business  models  have  been  funded,  in  particular 

80 

 
   
 
 
 
harnessing artificial intelligence.  Video games and virtual reality experiences have been 
developed.  The network of cinemas uses digital tools to reach wider audiences.    

The  innovative  MediaInvest  equity  platform  has  been  co-funded  by  InvestEU  and 
MEDIA under CE2 is on track to achieve the target of leveraging EUR 400 million in 
investment,  as  set  out  in  the  Media  and  Audiovisual  Action  Plan.  It  has  attracted  a 
healthy market response, with the four deals already signed.  Allocated funds have been 
fully  absorbed  and  additional  budget  resources  could  allow  further  high  leveraging  of 
private  investments,  helping  the  industry  compete  with  global  players  who  often  have 
easier  access  to  private  capital.  Continued  blended  financing  of  a  dedicated  equity 
investment platform will be very relevant going forward 

Efficiency  has  improved  consistently  across  the  two  Programmes.  Administrative 
costs have been reduced especially by consolidating delivery of support into bigger 
grants,  thus  reducing  the  number  of  contracts  and payments  to  be processed.  The 
number of grants processed fell by 46% despite the budget envelope increasing by over 
65%.    However,  the  number  of  applications  has  steadily  increased,  requiring  extra 
processing and evaluation.  Therefore, further streamlining of MEDIA actions is needed 
combined with a shift towards closer monitoring of project results and impacts.  Further 
simplification of the application process for beneficiaries, which are typically micro and 
small companies, has also been highlighted as key.   

MEDIA  funding’s  EU  added  value  lies  in  its  unique  European  perspective  and 
strategy, which aims to strengthen a European industry which is more than the sum 
of  its  national  parts.    Projects  under  both  Programmes  systematically  address  cross-
border  potential  as  key  to  competitiveness  and  diversity.  By  scaling  up  and  achieving 
economies  of  scale,  MEDIA  projects  develop  a  Single  Market  in  media  content  and 
services, as a home base to be competitive within the EU and beyond.    

Moreover, MEDIA addresses the uneven capacity of the audiovisual industry across 
Member States through strengthened “level playing field” measures which boost the 
participation of companies from lower capacity countries, further favouring cultural 
diversity.  The participation of LCC countries rose to 22% over 2021-22 and there has 
been increased collaboration between low and higher capacity countries between the two 
Programmes. Further efforts will be needed to ensure broader participation and to avoid 
the dominance of beneficiaries from a few countries only. Efforts are also needed to foster 
a fairer access to the cinematic experience across and within the EU Member States, which 
provide a unique social experience of shared storytelling.   

MEDIA is fully in line with the objectives of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive 
which provides the regulatory framework for a single market and promotion of European 
works.    Indeed,  alignment  with  the  AVMSD  is  a  requirement  for  third  country 
participation. 

Market  and  technological  developments  have  also  re-enforced  the  rationale  of 
MEDIA funding as the major challenges are transnational in nature, such as lack of 
exports  and  audiences  shifting  online.  The  traditional  focus  has  been  on  films  and 
theatrical distribution but the new trends in consumer preferences which are driving the 
media need to be better integrated, including video-on-demand and video games.  Moving 
forward,  futureproofing  of  MEDIA  funding  to  better  cope  with  these  challenges  is 
necessary as well as safeguarding the role of the audiovisual industry in fostering cultural 
diversity and societal resilience. 

While MEDIA demonstrated the flexibility to react to unforeseen challenges, the rigid 
legal  basis,  which  establishes  an  exclusive  list  of  actions  to  be  implemented,  has 

81 

 
restricted the capacity to respond adequately to emerging challenges.  These include 
the market disruptions caused by COVID-19 pandemic, accelerating digital transformation 
e.g. generative AI and Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. 

5.1.2.  Culture  

the  Sub-programme  strengthened 

The  design  and  implementation  of  the  Culture  Sub-programme  in  Creative  Europe  1 
appeared to be well aligned with its general and specific objectives. Through substantial 
investments  in  cross-border  collaboration,  mobility,  capacity-building,  and  audience 
international  presence  and 
engagement, 
competitiveness  of  cultural  professionals  and  organisations,  especially  small  and  micro 
entities.  By  facilitating  over  1,200  transnational  projects  creating  in  turn  over  7,500 
cultural  activities  and  supporting  more  than  22,000  professionals  in  their  international 
careers, it  fostered lasting  partnerships  and  encouraged  cultural  diversity  and inclusion. 
The objectives set in terms of key-performance indicators were, where possible to monitor, 
reached by the Programme. As highlighted by the Contribution Analysis, there is strong 
evidence that the Culture sub-Programme contributed to greater opportunities for cross-
border  collaboration by  funding projects  built  upon cross-border partnerships,  therefore 
contributing to the creation of a European cultural ecosystem. 

the 

The  Sub-Programme  intervened  in  a  number  of  different  areas  of  the  value  chain, 
including  creation,  development  and  design,  through  to  production,  distribution  and 
circulation. It helped stakeholders from different countries come together to address key 
societal issues, such as inequality, discrimination or artistic freedom in a way that national 
schemes alone do not tend to do. 

Building on the successes of CE1, the Culture strand of CE2 has wider ambitions than 
its  predecessor  in  that  it  has  a  stronger  focus  on  sustainability  and  on  promoting 
societal resilience and enhancing social inclusion. It has been assessed to be effective, 
efficient and internally and externally coherent throughout the evaluation process and it is 
possible to notice that there is an evolution within the strand toward larger and potentially 
more complex cultural networks through the actions of the Programme. Through the cross-
border collaboration it entices, the strand has a clearly defined EU added-value, which is 
further reinforced in its current version. Finally, the strand is found to be coherent within 
EU policy, as well as when answering the needs of the different EU CCS, as seen with the 
positive reception met by the actions of the Programme.  

All targets set by the key-Performance indicators collected by the 2021-2027 Programme 
are on track to be reached by the end of the MFF, except the one for the number of people 
reached by the activities supported by the Programme which should be revised. 

The Culture strand has allocated EUR 50.7 million to projects prioritising social inclusion, 
with 81% of CE2 projects indicating a positive impact in this area. While outcomes are not 
yet fully measurable, the strand clearly targets social inclusion and intercultural dialogue 
by embedding EU values such as equality and sustainability into funded content. It also 
aims to broaden access to culture beyond traditional audiences. Future audience data will 
be key to assessing its long-term impact on societal resilience and inclusion. 

The Culture strand continues to support the mobility of artists as a core feature, although 
the captured data is still currently incomplete, in particular with the development of the 
first  European  mobility  scheme  for  artists  Culture  Moves  Europe.  This  aspect  is 

82 

 
   
instrumental  in  boosting  both  emerging  and  established  careers,  according  to  those 
supported.  

The  strand  is  also  helping  CCS  organisations  in  reaching  new  audiences,  particularly 
beyond  national  borders,  and  early  results  from  actions  such  as  Culture  Moves  Europe 
scheme sees benefits for individuals’ careers leading to increased competitiveness in the 
CCS.  

The use of sector specific calls in the Culture strand enables a more targeted approach to 
specific topics but may increase the potential for duplication of results. The Culture strand 
has seen a greater degree of evolution in the design of calls and priority topics, which adds 
to its level of coherence. Horizontal and sector-specific actions appear to provide a flexible 
framework that enabled the strand to engage with the broad diversity of CCS organisations. 
However, due to the limited budget of the Culture strand, it has not been able to cover all 
the main different sectors and, more importantly, to devise robust tailored-made strategic 
actions that would really complement the horizontal approach. 

The  degree  to  which  the  size  of  the  Culture  strand’s  budget  was  appropriate  in 
supporting the cultural and creative sectors improved under CE2 due to an increased 
budget.  This  substantial  increase  in  the  budget  under  the  Culture  strand  allowed  the 
Programme  to  provide  larger  grant  allocations  to  each  successful  applicant.  In  the 
meantime, the increasing grant sizes and higher co-financing rates led to an improvement 
in  accessibility  to  the  Programme  as  measured  by  the  number  of  unique  organisations 
supported.  Data  suggests  that  there  was  a  significant  increase  in  the  number  of  unique 
organisations supported by the strand. 

In more general terms, both the Culture sub-programme of CE1 and the Culture strand of 
CE2 aimed to contribute to the Union’s global strategy for international relations. Around 
300  direct  grants  to  stakeholders  in  non-EU  countries  have  been  provided  under  both 
Programmes. In total, within the two programming periods, direct support to 15 countries 
outside  of  the  EU  has  been  given  (representing  around  13-18%  of  the  total  number  of 
grants provided by the Culture strand). Although it is too early to measure the impact of 
this work on strengthening international relations the strand is making progress towards 
supporting the cultural dimension to international cooperation.  

5.1.3.  Cross-sectoral strand  

The  Creative  Innovation  Lab  has  provided  seed  funding  for  collaboration  between 
audiovisual and other cultural and creative sectors. After initial difficulties  in attracting 
relevant  proposals,  it  has  gradually  provided  added  value  by  funding  multidisciplinary 
projects  which  address  common  challenges,  notably  reaching  wider  audiences  and 
monetisation,  through  harnessing  digital  applications  such  as  artificial  intelligence  and 
block  chain.    Further  synergies  with  other  EU  funding  sources,  such  as  the  European 
Innovation  Council  or  Cohesion  funds  could  scale  up  these  innovative  projects  and 
strengthen their sustainability.    

Support to news media has been introduced into the second Creative Europe in response 
to the growing political priority of strengthening democracy and the rule of law across the 
European Union.   The news media industry is facing turbulent times with revenues and 
employment  sharply  declining  and  threats  to  media  freedom  increasing.  High  quality 
projects have been selected to address key structural and technological changes faced and 

83 

 
 
 
to promote an independent and pluralistic media environment as well as media literacy.  
These new projects are proving effective, notably by targeting areas most at risk.   

However, these initial efforts and resources need to be significantly scaled up.  The latest 
Media Pluralism Monitor shows varying levels of risks to the independence and pluralism 
of  news  media  sectors  in  different  Member  States.  The  situation  for  news  services 
specifically  in  less  populated,  peripheral  areas  is  increasingly  problematic,  creating  so-
called  ‘news  deserts’  across  the  EU.  Few  Member  States  are  dedicating  significant 
financial resources to supporting the safety of journalists or resilience and innovation in 
media outlets. Media has become critically important in a period marked by geopolitical 
tensions, the rise of extremism and disinformation.  Many journalists turn to the EU as the 
only remedy and stakeholders have called for a “Marshall Plan for journalism”, with the 
twin objective of supporting media freedom pluralism and the resilience of the sector.  

The  main  tasks  of  the  Creative  Europe  Desks  are  to  provide  information  about  the 
Programme,  assist  the  applicants,  stimulate  cross-border  cooperation  and  support  the 
Commission in managing the Programme. Considering the number of schemes available 
under Creative Europe for the European CCS, and that these CCS are mainly very small 
enterprises with limited resources, the assistance of the national Desks is crucial for the 
success of the Programme. In addition, the possibility to contact the national desk reduces 
significantly the need for guidance to applicants by the EACEA or the Commission.  

Desks appear as a trusted source of information, and most applicants use the Desks as their 
primary  source.  According  to  the  Beneficiary  Survey,  the  quality  of  information  from 
Creative  Europe  Desks  was  generally  considered  good  or  very  good  by  79%  of  the 
respondents  

While the strand demonstrated the flexibility to react to unforeseen challenges, the rigid 
legal basis, which establishes an exclusive list of actions to be implemented, has restricted 
the  capacity  to  respond  to  emerging  challenges.  These  include  the  market  disruptions 
caused by COVID-19 pandemic, accelerating digital transformation e.g. generative AI and 
Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.   

5.2.  Lessons learned 

5.2.1.  MEDIA 

MEDIA  has  a  proven  impact  on  the  audiovisual  industry  in  the  EU  as  it  is 
instrumental in enabling the industry to operate beyond national borders and reach 
wider audiences, as highlighted by the Programme indicators.    Bringing films, series, 
documentaries and other works to audiences across Europe is a powerful way of sharing 
European stories which reflect our diversity and values. It also promotes business models 
(e.g.  international  co-productions)  and  the  use  of  innovation,  which  help  companies 
become  more  competitive.  The  share  of  international  co-productions  among  supported 
works is a useful metric to assess competitiveness, as they generally provide greater access 
to audiences and finance in across more countries and offer opportunities for operational 
efficiencies. However further efforts are needed to make content available across borders 
on  all  distribution  platforms,  including  for  communities  in  areas  lacking  cinema 
infrastructure.  

84 

 
 
 
Overall  MEDIA  has  helped  to  shape  a  European  ecosystem  and  complements  the 
audiovisual policies of Member States which have a domestic focus.   MEDIA support 
therefore needs to be accompanied by collaboration and dialogue with Member States and 
the whole audiovisual industry in order to better exploit synergies. 

MEDIA  has  evolved  successfully  over  CE  1  and  CE  2,  with  a  sharpened  focus  on 
innovation  and  cross-border  collaboration,  including  co-productions  and  pan-
European distribution.  While in some areas (e.g. co-productions) the positive impact of 
changes under the current Programme is already clearly measurable, for some other key 
actions (e.g. support directly to innovative tools or 360 support for B2B markets), more 
time is needed for these impacts to fully materialise.  This adaptability is a key success 
factor for MEDIA as it responds to market trends driving the audiovisual industry as well 
as lessons learned about how funding can add most value.  As media markets are global, 
innovative  and  dynamic  it  will  be  important  to  continue  monitoring  trends  in  order  to 
ensure steer MEDIA so that it keeps pace with developments.  However, the flexibility of 
MEDIA has been limited by the legal base which specified an exclusive list of actions to 
be funded.  In particular, the further integration within MEDIA of online video on demand 
services,  to  which  audiences  have  shifted,  needs  to  be  further  considered.    Also,  the 
significant  differences  between  countries’  participation  in  MEDIA  needs  to  be  further 
addressed. 

The combination of grant funding and financial instruments has served the industry 
well  by  catering  for  different  needs,  from  access  to  seed  funding  and  co-financing  to 
bridging loans and equity for ambitious pan-European ventures.  The blended support to 
MediaInvest  should  thus  continue  and  the  Desks  can  play  a  valuable  role  in  informing 
stakeholders about the ongoing opportunities, including with the CCS GF. 

IP intensive content industries share common challenges, in particular in attracting 
wider  audiences  in  the  digital  age  and  responding  to  consumer  preferences,  with 
special  focus  on  digital  native  young  people.    The  success  of  and  experience  with 
MEDIA  in  reaching  wider  cross-border  audiences  through  co-productions  and  pan-
European distribution is very relevant in this regard.  

The  evaluation  showed  that  going  beyond  the  official  monitoring  indicators  offers 
relevant  additional  insights  in  the  impact  of  the  Programme.  Third  party  data  in 
particular allows for not only a monitoring of outputs but also benchmarking. The latter 
helps  identify  impacts  and  areas  to  improve.  For  example,  the  detailed  title-by-title 
Lumiere  databases  of  the  European  Audiovisual  Observatory  enabled  a  counterfactual 
analysis, which could not have otherwise been carried out. Such external data also allowed 
other  benchmarking,  e.g.  the  share  of  co-productions  against  the  wider  market.  Given 
MEDIA’s  focus  on  transnational  aspects  of activities in  the audiovisual  sector, the best 
metric to assess the impact on competitiveness is to look at the market share of supported 
works among non-national views (exports) in relation to comparable other (non-supported) 
European works on the one hand, but also in relation to US and other third-country works. 
These can complement existing indicators on competitiveness, in particular the share of 
international co-productions among supported works.    

However, the evaluation exercise revealed a number of data gaps. The EAO does not 
have a complete database, similar to Lumiere cinema (supported under the Policy actions 
of  MEDIA),  which  provides  an  overview  of  all  titles  viewed  on  a  large  sample  of 
broadcasting services across the EU and only provides aggregate data on this. Third party 
commercial  data  exists,  as  audience  measurement  for  TV  is  well  established,  but 

85 

 
 
procurement  would  entail  a  substantial  cost.  The VoD  viewing  data  would  also  benefit 
from covering additional countries and catalogues, as the small sample was the reason why 
some models could not be run. However, VoD viewing measurement is still an evolving 
market, which places limitations on the data that could be acquired. An important question 
is  how to  combine audience measurement for linear TV and VoD, seeing as traditional 
broadcasters  now  also  offer  different  VoD  services.  Moreover,  data  on  some  important 
aspects, in particular genre and budget, are not consistently available in third party film 
and series databases. Genre is the most important feature of a film and series, which attracts 
people  to  the  film  and  series,  across  both  younger  and  older  generations,  based  on 
successive consumer surveys commissioned by DG CNECT on media consumption habits. 
Budget (both production and marketing) is a potentially relevant aspect on the supply-side, 
which the current evaluation (counterfactual analysis) was unable to capture due to data 
limitations. We also do not have access to data on the promotional activities on streamer’s 
websites,  a  key  source  to  discover  content  for  both  younger  and  older  generations  as 
confirmed by the above surveys. Finally, data on the consumption of other types of online 
content  competing  for  people  (especially  young  people’s)  attention,  like  social  media, 
games, music etc would be important to assess the competitive positioning of EU films 
and series.   

The usefulness of additional data has to be assessed against the cost of obtaining it on 
the Commission and/or beneficiaries. For the final evaluation, efforts are needed to find 
additional external  data to fill  in  the gap regarding key variables, TV consumption and 
production  and  marketing  budgets  in  particular.  As  regards  administrative  costs,  the 
beneficiary survey in the final evaluation should contain more specific questions on this.  
As  regards  training  data,  additional  data  needs  to  be  collected  on  the  purpose  of  the 
trainings  in  order  to  assess  their  relevance.  Monitoring  the  number  of  active  users  of 
supported innovation projects would likely require collecting data from beneficiaries after 
the project ended. The following table provides examples of potentially useful indicators 
for the final evaluation and indicates where this would mean additional efforts/costs. The 
feasibility of additional indicators therefore needs to be studied carefully ahead of the final 
evaluation of CE2.  

86 

 
As regards project monitoring,  there is room for improvement. The final reports of 
beneficiaries  do  not  always  lend  themselves  to  aggregating  and  analysing  data,  due  to 
format  (pdfs)  and  lack  of  granularity  e.g.  in  budgets.    Reporting  requirements  may  be 
refined to address these aspects whilst taking into account the need to avoid over-burdening 
beneficiaries which are typically micro and small enterprises. 

Finally,  it  can  be  explored  how  gains  in  administrative  efficiency  could  be  further 
enhanced. The feasibility of an increased use of multi-annual financing, cascading grants 
and  lump  sum  payments  could  therefore  be  explored.  The  experience  with  these 
simplifications  can  be  further  assessed  for  the  final  evaluation  and  more  granularly 
followed up with beneficiaries in the survey accompanying the final evaluation (including 
compiling data on specific administrative costs).    

87 

IndicatorCovered by present evaluation?Data availabilityNumber of non national MEDIA countries where a supported work is available overall, also separately for  1) cinemas, 2) on TV and 3) streaming; YesCurrently available form the EAO (Lumiere, Lumiere VoD, TV). Requires matching project data with external databases, currently common ID is not readily available in a significant share of supported works.Non-national views of supported works in MEDIA countries overall, also separately for  1) cinemas, 2) on TV and 3) streaming; and for films/series Yes for cinema, partially for VoD, not for TVCurrently available for cinema, and, to a limited extent, for streaming (from EAO), but limited data for genre distinction and budgets even within these databases. TV data would need to be sourced additionally.Requires matching project data with external databases, currently common ID is not readily available in a significant share of supported works.Number and share of coproductions among supported worksYesProject monitoring data - for benchmarking third party database is needed, currently available from EAONumber and share of supported coproductions 1) involving low-capacity countries, and 2) led by low capacity countries Yes for 1), no for 2) Project monitoring data - for benchmarking third party database is needed, currently available from EAO (however, needs to be studied if data is sufficient for 2))Number and share of supported coproductions among  1) countries with different language groups; and 2) non-neighbouring countries NoProject monitoring data - for benchmarking third party database is needed, currently available from EAONumber of nominations and awards at top-tier festivals and awards globally (to be defined)YesPublicly available information, but no central database. A Horizon Europe supported project (Crescine) announced a database which may cover this, but tbc (release planned for later in 2025). Number and share of supported works for development which is released within 4 years after being given supportYesBeneficiaries are not required to report on whether the film/series supported for development is eventually released. This creates the need for matching against external databases, e.g. EAO (Lumiere, Lumiere VoD, TV), which is time-consuming. Average time it takes for development supported works to be releasedseparately for  1) cinemas, 2) on TV and 3) streaming;YesIbidNumber and share of supported projects involving IP exploitation in at least two different formatsNoProject monitoring data - however, would need automatisation (currently would require read-through of appplications)Number and share of projects based on pre-existing IP and within that pre-existed IP previously supported by MEDIANoIbidShare of public funding in the finance of supported worksNoProject monitoring data, automatisation improvements probably neededShare of third party equity finance in the finance of supported worksNoibid - Also, it would be diffiuclt to find third party data for benchmarkingNumber of active users or licences of supported innovation at 3 and 5 years after project completionNoProject monitoring data - but could require beneficiaries to report after the project is finished.Number and share (screenings, audience) of non-national works from MEDIA countries shown at supported festivalsNoProject monitoring data, some further automatisation and/or reporting requirements may be neededNumber and share (screening, audience) of non-national works from low-capacity MEDIA countries shown at supported festivalsYes, for numberProject monitoring dataAverage number of MEDIA countries from which films are screened in supported festivals + separately, average number of countries with lesser used languages NoProject monitoring data, some further automatisation and/or reporting requirements may be neededNumber and share (screenings and admissions) of non-national works from MEDIA countries shown in supported cinemasYesProject monitoring data, some further automatisation and/or reporting requirements may be neededNumber and share (screening and admissions) of non-national works from low-capacity MEDIA countries shown in supported cinemasNoProject monitoring data, some further automatisation and/or reporting requirements may be neededAverage number of MEDIA countries from which films are screened in supported cinemas + separately, average number of countries with lesser used languages PartiallyProject monitoring data, some further automatisation and/or reporting requirements may be needed 
  
 
 
5.2.2.  Culture 

The  Culture  strand  is  working  and  performing  well,  effectively  engaging  with  a  high 
number  of  cultural  and  creative  organisations.  It  offers  rich  opportunities  to  work 
transnationally,  collaborate  across  borders,  strengthen  organisational  capacity,  and 
successfully  connect  with  new  international  audiences.  Despite  such  significant 
achievements,  the  Culture  strand  faces  oversubscription  issues,  with  high  demand  and 
limited  funding.  The  evaluation  of  the  Programme  shows  that  the  strand  is  effective, 
efficient,  relevant  with  strong  EU  added  value,  while  entailing  low  administrative 
costs. 

The  international  opening  of  the  Culture  strand,  going  beyond  the  EU,  is  an  essential 
element  for  promoting  EU  values,  intercultural  dialogue  and  raising  awareness  of  EU 
democratic  values.  It  has  also  facilitated  peer  learning  on  key  issues  for  culture  and 
heritage. The projects supported by the strand create an environment that is beneficial for 
peace, security and sustainable growth within the EU and beyond. This dimension becomes 
even more relevant in the prospect of an enlarged Union, where culture has a key role to 
play in bringing people together, enabling dialogue, mutual understanding and cooperation 
based on common values.  

The  strand’s  main  actions  (European  Cooperation  Projects,  Networks  and  Platforms), 
which  represent  the  bulk  of  its  budget,  have  been  kept  mainly  unchanged  between  the 
2014-2020 and 2021-2027 iterations of the Programme. This has facilitated a continued 
exposure  to  similar  types  of  interventions  over  time,  fostering  stronger  results  and 
impacts,  in  particular  in  terms  of  cross-border  collaboration,  mobility,  capacity 
building and circulation. This horizontal approach has been refined with the formulation 
of clear priorities in the Cooperation Projects’ calls published on a yearly basis under CE2, 
corresponding to the strand’s priorities as well as the Programme’s cross-cutting issues (in 
particular, inclusion, gender equality or contribution to the fight against climate change) 
as specified in the corresponding regulation. 

Both  the  Culture  Sub-programme  of  CE1  and  the  Culture  strand  of  CE2  have  been 
instrumental in helping the CCS address key issues identified in the regulation, such as the 
fragmentation of the market along national and linguistic lines or the challenges connected 
with the dual transition, but with the obvious limitations resulting from a limited budget as 
highlighted in  the evaluation. However, some needs have become more  acute in recent 
years while new pressing ones have  emerged, in particular the need to preserve artistic 
freedom,  recognise  the  intrinsic  value  of  culture  as  well  as  its  contribution    to  society, 
promote  solidarity,  inclusiveness  and  intergenerational  fairness,  the  need  to  help  CCS 
navigate the digital transition and the surge of AI, the need to take into account the new 
international  geopolitical  landscape,  and  to  give  a  response  to  the  political  priority  of 
improving working conditions in CCS. To help address these issues, the Commission is 
working on a proposal for a Culture Compass for Europe, a strategic framework to guide 
the multiple dimensions of culture. This is a major policy initiative, giving culture a more 
central role within the EU’s policy framework for years to come.  

The dual (horizontal and sectorial) approach introduced in the Culture strand of CE2 
is successful and both approaches are complementary. The sectorial approach has been 
instrumental in tackling specific challenges of some sectors, notably the music, books and 
architecture  sectors,  while  the  horizontal  approach  (with  its  horizontal  priorities)  offers 
more agility and leeway for cultural and creative operators to cooperate, experiment and 

88 

 
 
develop  bottom-up  solutions  to  common  challenges.  It  is  advised  to  keep  a  similar 
approach in the next programming period, while the approach may need reinforcement to 
make the strand more policy focused. 

The evaluation has identified that the demand for funding is up to four times greater 
than the available budget for the Cooperation projects action. This action represents 
the cornerstone of the strand, covering 60% of its budget. Currently, many high-quality 
proposals  do  not  get  funding  due  to  oversubscription.  Furthermore,  despite  recognised 
progress  made  in  making  the  Programme  more  accessible  and  inclusive,  for  example 
through increased co-funding rates, the addition of a third medium-scale category in the 
Cooperation project’s action, and reduced financial checks, barriers continue to hamper 
the participation of potential beneficiaries. There is a need for the Commission to have a 
regular  review  and  close  monitoring  of  the  simplification  measures  introduced  in  the 
current Programme. In addition, the Culture strand should maintain its focus on addressing 
accessibility  challenges  and  continue  to  expand  its  reach  to  cultural  and  creative 
organisations that have no prior experience working at EU level. Indeed, as mentioned in 
section 4.1.6, several simplification and burden reduction measures have been introduced 
between CE1 and CE2. However, the Commission is exploring options to further improve 
the Programme’s efficiency and accessibility. For instance, regarding the Culture Strand, 
the Commission is now considering moving all actions still managed with actual costs to 
a  lump  sum  system,  which  has  proven  to  be  more  efficient.  Some  burden  reduction 
measures could also be introduced in CE2’s successor Programme, such as a simplified 
application form. 

It is also clear that further efforts are needed to increase the visibility of the opportunities 
the Culture strand offers and the impact it produces. Outreach could be further improved 
by  sharing  and  better  targeting  information  about  the  Programme  to  reach  out  to  new 
organisations in different sectors and countries that are not sufficiently engaged with the 
Programme.  The  process  of  disseminating  and  exploiting  project  results  could  be 
improved to ensure that these are further shared and promoted and thereby more effective 
uptake and long-term impact.  

Several lessons have emerged as well regarding the regular monitoring, evaluation and 
data availability. While improvements of the monitoring framework were made in both 
programming  periods,  and  the  diminution  and  streamlining  of  the  different  key 
performance  indicators  between  CE1  and  CE2  benefitted  the  current  Programme  by 
offering  a large monitoring of many crucial areas of intervention of the Culture strand, 
some indicators remain difficult to measure, in particular concerning the results (outreach) 
and impacts of the Culture strand. The Commission will undertake concrete measures to 
develop  a  more  systematic  approach  to  Programme  data  collection.  These  include  a 
thorough  analysis  of  data  currently  available  (including  for  actions  managed  outside 
eGrants), aiming at making better use of the existing data, without increasing beneficiaries’ 
burden.  This  will  allow  for  a  clearer  identification  of  the  evidence  gaps,  especially 
concerning the results of the different actions supported by the strand, to be complemented 
through adjustments or ad-hoc data collection. In parallel, efforts and additional resources 
are put on further developing EAC Qlik sense reporting tools, while enriching them with 
data gathered from data sources other than eGrants. More complete reporting tools will 
facilitate the overview and analysis of Programme outputs and results across actions and 
sectors. Additionally, discussions with the industries (mostly music and book sectors) are 
ongoing to assess how better industry data can be shared and used to analyse the impact of 
the  relevant  initiatives  of  the  Programme  on  them.    These  steps  will  allow  for  the 

89 

 
development  of  a  better  and  more  complete  monitoring  system  both  when  it  comes  to 
outputs,  and  results  of  the  Programme.  Future  evaluations  will  also  benefit  from  this 
improved monitoring system, when long-term impacts are to be analysed. 

5.2.3  Cross-Sectoral strand 

On news media, for which support was introduced 2021, the evaluation confirms that the 
results  of  the  cross  sectoral  strand  of  Creative  Europe  are  very  promising.  This  seed 
funding to news media has focused on three areas of action, given budgetary limitations.  
Firstly, the Programme has helped monitor and map media pluralism and ownership across 
the Union.  Secondly,  media collaborations  have contributed to  addressing some of the 
industrial  challenges.  Funding  also  strengthens  democracy  and  societal  resilience  by 
supporting local and regional journalism, investigative reporting, and public interest news, 
in particular in “media deserts”.  Finally, media literacy actions have helped citizens to 
navigate digital media in the context of growing disinformation. 

Thus,  Creative  Europe  has  addressed  key  emerging  needs  of  the  information  market. 
However, the actions were constrained by limited budgets, and challenges at EU level have 
kept  increasing  on  areas  such  as  media  freedom,  media  viability  and  disinformation, 
negatively  impacting  societal  resilience  and  democratic  participation.  The  political 
guidelines 2024-2029 acknowledge “a deep change in the information space, shifting from 
editorial media sources to user-generated content mediated by platforms and pushed by 
algorithms”.  The  guidelines  also  commit  to  “support  for  independent  media  and 
journalists”.  The extent to which this will require an adaptation and increase of the Union 
financing response remains to be determined.    

The evaluation also confirmed the potential of collaboration among different cultural and 
creative sectors and the need to address the common challenges they face, which is more 
pronounced for a number of specific copyright-intensive industries. The implementation 
of  the  Creative  Innovation  labs-  an  action  fostering  cross-overs  across  all  cultural  and 
creative sectors- has shown that synergies are more pronounced between media and other 
copyright-intensive  media  sectors  (music  and  publishing)  as  they  face  common 
challenges/opportunities  for  competitiveness  and  digital  transformation  and  due  to  the 
increased  control  of  large  extra-EU  platforms  over  what  content  people  in  Europe  and 
beyond consume. 

Under  CE2,  an  indicator  was  added  measuring  the  number  of  events  organised  by  the 
Desks. As demonstrated by the table in the Effectiveness chapter the 2027 target has almost 
been reached by 2023, thus the Desks have been overperforming vis-à-vis the expected 
target. This should lead to a closer analysis of the different events and activities carried out 
with a view to refining the indicator and adjusting the target for 2027. 

90 

 
 
ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

The Creative Europe 2014-2020 final and 2021-2027 interim evaluation (Decide reference: PLAN/2023/95) has been steered by the Directorate-General 
for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (DG EAC), with Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology as co-responsible 
for the evaluation. The evaluation was carried out under the scrutiny of an Interservice group (ISG) comprising of representatives of 5 other DGs (SG, LS, 
BUDG, RTD and JRC). The ISG met for the first time in the context of the evaluation on 03 March 2023130. 

The ISG was involved repeatedly at key stages of the evaluation and the group convened at several stages of the evaluation on the following dates 

-  03 March 2023 
-  4 May 2023 
-  22 February 2024 
-  28 January 2025 

The ISG has been consulted as well (in writing) on the documents produced by the contractor.  The ISG met last on 9 April 2025 to discuss the SWD 
before its submission to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board.  

No exception from the usual procedural requirements of the better regulation guidelines was requested for this evaluation. 

This evaluation is based on evidence gathered via different channels and an overview is presented in Annexes II, III and IV 

The main sources of evidence are internal analyses by the European Commission, the report presented by the evaluator contracted in the framework of 
this evaluation carried out between 2023 and 2025. 

130 Ares(2025)2617862 

91 

 
 
 
The evaluation has been presented to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board of the European Commission on 14 May 2025 and received a positive opinion with 
reservations. The comments expressed by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board and the manner they have been taken into account in the Staff Working Document 
is detailed below. 

RSB comments 
The complex intervention logic should be thoroughly revised and broken 
down for the purpose of the evaluations, clearly distinguishing the evaluation 
periods between Creative Europe 1 and 2, in order to allow for a substantive 
evaluation in line with the Better Regulation toolbox. Needs (the rationale for 
the intervention) should be better specified based on existing evidence. 
If competitiveness is an objective for the intervention it needs to be clearly 
analysed as such. The definition and operationalisation of ‘competitiveness’ 
needs to be clearly specified and correspond to mainstream understandings of 
the meaning of competitiveness, and also that it is not duplicative with other 
objectives for the intervention. 

The points of comparison for the Creative Europe 1 and 2 Programmes (the 
respective baselines) should be clarified for each of the three strands, 
allowing for a meaningful assessment of the progress towards achieving the 
objectives, outputs, outcomes and impacts in line with the intervention logic.  
It should be clear how the existing indicators relate to the elements of the 
intervention logic. In addition, the causal links should be clearly spelled out 
to allow for their assessment. Rather than merely referring to qualitative and 
quantitative evidence limitations as well as to indicators of limited value, the 
report should analyse why these limitations persist(ed) despite the 
Commission’s mandate to amend indicators in the respective Articles 20 in 
both the Creative Europe 1 and the Creative Europe 2 Regulations. It should 
elaborate how indicators should be amended for the remainder of Creative 
Europe 2 in order to allow for a proper analysis of the Programme’s 
achievements in the final evaluation and indicate potential solutions for the 

Changes in the SWD 
General: The intervention logic has been accordingly broken down in order to 
better showcase the initial needs and rationale of the intervention (Section 2.1).  

Culture strand: When relevant, we reflected the impact of the Culture Strand on 
competitiveness (notably in section 4.1.3 “Culture: effectiveness”). 

MEDIA Strand: The Competitiveness section under 4.1.2 which analysed 
competitiveness-related impacts based on specific objectives in the legal base, 
including monitoring indicators in the legal base related to competitiveness was 
complemented with an analysis of traditional competitiveness metrics like market 
share for the bigger picture. 
Culture strand: The sub chapter ‘Points of comparison’ in the SWD has been 
revised for the Culture strand, bearing in mind the comments and request by the 
RSB to link the set of existing indicators with the Intervention Logic of the 
Programme (Section 2.2 “Points of comparison”). 
Moreover, the “lessons learned” section has been amended to clarify what will be 
done in concrete terms to improve the indicators and the monitoring and evaluation 
framework (Section 5.2.2 “Lessons Learned: Culture”). 

MEDIA Strand, Cross-sectoral strand and Financial Instruments: A new para 
was added for the overall approach under section 2.2 and these questions were then 
addressed in more detail under Sections 4.1.2, 4.1.4 and 4.1.5. Finally, this question 
is addressed under ‘Lessons learned’ (5.2.1) summarising main data gaps and 
proposing possible indicators for the final evaluation while also indicating what it 
would take to gather data for these indicators from beneficiaries or elsewhere (and 
hence a need to carefully study the feasibility going forward). 

92 

 
 
 
RSB comments 
elements that are difficult to measure, in particular concerning the outreach of 
the culture strand. 
The potential to further simplify and reduce administrative burden, in 
particular on applicants/beneficiaries, should be better considered. 

The analysis of effectiveness should be more specific and thorough, beyond 
qualitative input from beneficiaries based on indicators, and include 
quantitative evidence reflecting outputs, outcomes, impacts and objectives, 
separating the two programming periods. The assessment needs to go beyond 
numbers of supported beneficiaries and their perceptions. Where evidence 
gaps are identified the data needs together with specification of relevant 
methods should be reflected in the analysis of indicators and lessons learned 
providing a clear roadmap how the deficiencies could be addressed. 

The administrative costs to all stakeholders should be accounted for in detail 
in Annex IV and feed into an assessment of efficiency in the main body of the 

Changes in the SWD 

General: The SWD now includes a specific section on this (4.1.6). how efficiency 
gains have been made (Section 4.1.6)  

The SWD’s lessons learned section now also evokes possible measures to further 
simplify administrative burden (Section 5.2.1 “Lessons learned: MEDIA” and 5.2.2 
“Lessons Learned: Culture”). 
Culture strand: Regarding the Culture strand, all relevant and available 
quantitative data is reflected in the SWD. Moreover, regarding the indicators issue, 
the “lessons learned” section has been amended to clarify what will be done in 
concrete terms to improve the indicators and the monitoring and evaluation 
framework (Section 5.2.2 “Lessons Learned: Culture”. 

MEDIA strand: The MEDIA analysis already relied on mostly quantitative 
evidence, including a large amount of third-party data, and hardly used any 
reference to beneficiary surveys. The evidence was nevertheless clarified in view of 
RSB comments (e.g. correlation vs causality under the counterfactual) and 
restructured for a closer alignment with objectives (section 4.1.2). Some additional 
benchmarks were added (e.g. for cinema networks) in section 4.1.2. Data gaps and 
how to address them are clarified. Finally, this question is addressed under ‘Lessons 
learned’ (5.2.1) summarising main data gaps and proposing possible indicators for 
the final evaluation while also indicating what it would take to gather data for these 
indicators from beneficiaries or elsewhere (and hence a need to carefully study the 
feasibility going forward). 

The cross-sectoral assessment already had extensive quantitative evidence for the 
CCs GF for CE1. While the news and Innolab actions are two new for significant 
quantitative evidence for a meaningful analysis of impacts, some ideas for future 
indicators are now provided under section 4.1.4. 
All strands: The supporting study by the external evaluator did not collect 
quantitative data from beneficiaries on the administrative time or costs associated 

93 

 
 
 
 
RSB comments 
report, including non-quantifiable benefits as part of a cost-benefit analysis in 
line with the Better Regulation standards. 

The analysis of efficiency should be revised. In particular, given the 
methodological limitations, it should be clarified that correlations rather than 
causality can be established between the supported audiovisual works and the 
impacts which in turn does not allow to causally attribute the observed 
impacts (such as generated additional revenue) to EU financing. Annex IV, 
EU added-value section and conclusions should be revised accordingly. 
The use of the “success rate” (defined as the percentage of successful 
applicants) should be clarified. 

The report should analyse why in both the Media and the Culture strands 
there are a few Member States benefitting disproportionately from the 
Programme, what this means for reaching the objectives of the Programme 
related to promoting linguistic diversity, and how this can be addressed for 
the remainder of the current Programme. 

Changes in the SWD 
with participating in the Programme, apart from their own opinions (self-reported) 
about the level of costs However, the following key admin costs have been 
identified for beneficiaries and are reflected in Annex IV:  
•  Length of the application and grant process  
•  Grant management reporting  
•  Financial capacity checks  
•  Budget and payment justifications  

Such data will be collected afterwards in ad hoc surveys, especially as part of the 
final evaluation of CE2. This is now clarified in section 4.1.6 and ‘Lessons 
Learned’. However, the current analysis of efficiency and progress made has been 
conducted in light of available data. 

Culture Strand: The analysis of efficiency takes into account limitations and 
establishes correlations rather than causality (Section 4.1.3 “Culture: efficiency”). 

MEDIA strand: Sections 4.1.2, 4.2 and the conclusions as well as Annex IV were 
all redrafted in accordance with this comment.  

Culture Strand: The part on success rate for the Culture strand has been 
significantly reduced and moved to the Relevance part. (Section 4.3.2, “Relevance: 
Culture”). This was primarily an issue for the assessment of the Culture strand - 
success rates did not have such a prominence in the assessment of other strands. 
Culture Strand: Additional information added on the fact that the Culture Strand 
allows for organisations from countries with less-established Cultural and Creative 
Sectors to cooperate with and benefit from organisations from European cultural 
hubs (Section 4.1.3 “Culture: effectiveness”). The SWD now also includes more 
information on the evolution of the geographic distribution on funds (Section 4.2.2 
“EU added value: Culture”). 

MEDIA strand: Section 4.1.2 now has a greater prominence with a dedicated sub-
section to this topic (‘Level playing field, geographic and linguistic diversity’) This 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
RSB comments 

The relevance analysis should be significantly improved taking into account 
evidence on needs based on identified funding gaps and current and emerging 
challenges including their relative importance in terms of the impacts. In 
particular, indirect impacts should be spelled out; for example, when it comes 
to disinformation, the report should refer to actions that indirectly address this 
issue. In this regard, external coherence with other EU interventions like 
Horizon or Digital Europe should be better analysed. Based on the above 
analysis, the relevance assessment should draw conclusions on the relevance 
of the Programme and its current funding distribution, including share of 
grants and financial instruments. On EU added value the related assessment 
should be strengthened with additional analysis focusing on quantitative 
evidence beyond the qualitative input from beneficiaries. 

Conclusions should provide a clear view of the achievements of the final 
evaluation for Creative Europe 1, and an analysis on whether progress 
towards the objectives is on track for the interim evaluation of Creative 
Europe 2. In particular, conclusions on developing cultural and linguistic 
diversity and competitiveness of the supported sectors should be drawn based 
on available evidence. Lessons learned need to reflect on the need to improve 
monitoring and evaluation arrangements and data needs to allow for the final 
causal evaluation of impacts. 

Changes in the SWD 
has explanations on the reasons for this and expanded on further efforts that ma be 
needed, incorporating the results and recommendations of a recent study on this 
topic. The EU value added section has also been amended accordingly. Finally, 
specific indicators on this topic have been mentioned for the future and assessed in 
the ‘Lessons learned’ section, in addition to the indicators already used. 
Culture Strand: The relevance section now includes CE2-funded projects 
illustrating how the Programmes participates in tackling certain issues such as 
Greening and Gender Equality and Inclusion (Section 4.3.2, “Relevance: Culture”).  

MEDIA Strand: Section 4.3.1 now identifies more specifically (and with 
quantitative evidence) the areas where more focus is needed, including e.g. digital 
media and young people. Section 4.3.3 addresses the point on disinformation. In 
Section 4.3.4 a forward-looking assessment of the role of financial instruments in 
audiovisual funding specifically had previously been provided. The EU added value 
section for MEDIA already contained significant quantitative data. Nevertheless, we 
added some further data and the findings from a targeted study commissioned by 
DG CNECT on the level playing field in the audiovisual industry. As for the cross-
sectoral strand, data was added about funding gaps for CCS GF. 
Culture strand: The conclusions and lessons-learned section has been modified in 
light of these comments. (Section 5.1.2, “Conclusions: Culture”, and Section 5.2.2, 
“Lessons learned: Culture) 

MEDIA strand: The Conclusions now provide all the headline figures of the 
analysis separately for CE1 and CE2 where available (CE2 is not always available 
due to time delays of impacts and data availability). The conclusions on the main 
objectives rely on the evidence presented before and recall headline findings from 
the analysis). ‘Lessons learned’ (5.2.1) was significantly extended and now 
summarises the main data gaps and proposing possible indicators for the final 
evaluation while also indicating what it would take to gather data for these 
indicators from beneficiaries or elsewhere (and hence a need to carefully study the 
feasibility going forward).  

95 

 
 
 
 
96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

The final evaluation of Creative Europe 2014-2020 (CE1) and the interim evaluation of Creative Europe 2021-2027 was coordinated by the Creative Europe 
Programme EAC.D2 unit, in cooperation with the Audiovisual industry and media support programmes unit (CNECT I3), the unit Evidence-Based Policy 
and Evaluation, of the Commission’s Directorate-General Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (DG EAC), with the support of: (i) the Executive Agency 
EACEA (Units B1 and B2); (ii) and an interservice group comprising 5 Commission DGs and jointly chaired by DG EAC and DG CNECT. The evaluation 
process started in 2023 and was guided by the Terms of Reference drawn up for contracting the external evaluator, consulted with the ISG and approved 
by EAC board of directors.   

The Staff Working Document draws upon extensive quantitative and qualitative evidence gathered through a variety of data collection activities undertaken 
by the external contractor, and a thorough evaluation analysis, applying the methodologies described below. The data was tested and triangulated against 
the main evaluation criteria in accordance with the approaches outlined in the better regulation toolbox 2023 chapter 6, and the framework established by 
the Creative Europe Programme regulations. 

The methodology used to evaluate the Creative Europe Programme showed several strengths, including a clear intervention logic framework and a mixed-
method approach that combines quantitative elements (Programme data, Eurostat data, survey data, counterfactual analysis, contribution analysis) with 
qualitative elements (e.g. interviews, literature review and desk research). These methods provided a comprehensive analysis and valuable insights. While 
the evaluation made use of large, detailed external datasets, some gaps in the data available remain (see ‘Lessons learned’ section).  Additionally, there was 
potential for missing perspectives in interviews, and the possibility of bias in self-reported data from participants when it comes to surveys conducted for 
the evaluation. A major limitation in the analysis of Programme data for CE2 consisted in the lack of critical mass of completed projects by the end of 
2023, which was the evaluation cut-off date. This stems from the long duration of the supported projects, many of which were extended due to the impact 
of the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Despite these potential limitations, the methodology has provided a solid foundation for assessing the Programme. 

The study of the external evaluator was conducted using a mixed-method approach, delivered in five Work Packages (WPs): 

WP1 

Scoping interviews 

10  scoping  interviews  were  held  to  refine  the  approach  and  priorities  for  the  evaluations  and 
understanding  of  the  Programme  alongside  an  initial  review  of  key  Programme  documentation.  The 

97 

 
WP2 

Desk research 

WP3 

Counterfactual 
and 
(MEDIA) 
analysis (Culture) 

analysis 
contribution 

WP4 

Consultation activities 

(more details available in Annex 
V) 

results of scoping activities informed the subsequent design of data collection packages and research 
tools. 

Literature  review:  focused  on  relevant  Programme  documentation  (including  work  programmes, 
funding call documentation, and details of funded projects), EU policy documents, industry and sector 
reports, and other external evaluations. A total of 25 EU programmes, 47 annual work plans, 105 pieces 
of literature were reviewed in addition to web based information. 

Quantitative desk research: the quantitative analysis collated monitoring data provided by EACEA on 
details of applicants and contracted projects, grant processes, and key monitoring indicators. Broader 
contextual datasets, including key sector trends were collected from the main European datasets, as well 
as through the review of literature. Further statistical analysis was conducted as part of WPIII.  

The  counterfactual  analysis  assessed  the  impact  of  the  MEDIA  strand  support  to  the  creation  and 
distribution  of  audiovisual  works  on  the  transnational  circulation  and  audiences  of  supported  works 
when compared to works not supported by the Programme. This analysis incorporated available data 
into  its  analysis,  mainly  sources  from  the  European  Audiovisual  Observatory  (EAO),  IMDb, 
Programme data. This exercise was the first of its kind to be conducted, offering a statistical analysis of 
the impact of the MEDIA strand.  

The contribution analysis (CA) used a mixture of quantitative and qualitative data to explore whether, 
how and why interventions such as the Culture strand of CE contributed to impact, and how various 
contexts may have influenced those impacts. The CA aimed to understand the likelihood that the Culture 
strand has contributed to greater opportunities for cross-border collaboration among entities within the 
European CCS. The Creative Europe logic models were used to define three contribution hypotheses 
related to cross-border collaboration that could subsequently be tested using CA.  

The consultation activities gathered the views of a broad and representative range of stakeholders and 
beneficiaries of Creative Europe. Consultation activities included:  

98 

 
Call for Evidence: 21 responses received 

Stakeholder interviews: the research team conducted 94% (62 out of 64) of all interviews agreed with 
DG EAC and DG CNECT, due to lack of responsiveness by the remaining stakeholders. Stakeholders 
in  the  following  countries  were  consulted:  Austria,  Belgium,  Czechia,  Denmark,  France,  Germany, 
Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, 
Sweden, and the United Kingdom (leaving the EU in 2020). 

Beneficiary survey: 2 504 responses received from beneficiaries 

Creative Europe CCS Guarantee Facility survey: 113 responses received 

Open Public Consultation: 233 responses received 

WP5 

Case studies 

9 Case Studies categorised into two typologies: 

National Case Studies: undertaken in 6 countries (Italy, France, Serbia, Norway, Lithuania and Poland) 

Action Case Studies: collecting additional data and insight on the operation of selected actions, namely 
Culture Moves Europe, European Cooperation Projects (Culture strand), Support for Film Distribution 
(MEDIA strand) 

Across both categories of case studies, the research concentrated on the complementarity of Creative 
Europe funding with alternative financial sources. This included examining how the funding supported 
specific cultural and creative activities (e.g., mobility) or business growth (e.g., distribution projects). 
The  central  research  question  explored  the  added  value  of  Creative  Europe  funding  in  fostering  the 
internationalisation of cultural and creative work and businesses.   

99 

 
 
In addition to the support study, the evaluation used publicly available data sources, such as data extracted from Programme Performance Statements131, 
Creative Europe Monitoring Reports,  the European Media Industry Outlook 2025, Studies and consumer surveys commissioned by DG CNECT, Studies 
published by EACEA, Eurostat, reports published by relevant cultural and creative organisations (e.g., On the Move); non-publicly available data, namely 
Programme monitoring data available in internal EAC/EACEA dashboards; and market data on media markets from third party sources, like the European 
Audiovisual Observatory for example.  

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) 

MEDIA strand 

Evaluation questions 

What was the impact of MEDIA funding 
transnational  circulation  and 
on 
consumption of audiovisual content?  

the 

Judgement  criteria  and  indicators  of 
success 

Data collection methods 

Main indicators:  
•  Share  of  tickets  sold  for  non-
national  films in  the  EU  which  are 
directly  attributable 
to  MEDIA 
support.   
•  Additional 

admissions/audiences 
added  by  MEDIA  support  and 
additional revenues.  

•  Average  additional  number  of 
that  MEDIA-supported 

countries 
works circulate in.  

•  Formal  KPI  under  CE2  on  number 
supported 
of  people  accessing 
works  from  another  participating 

•  Counterfactual  analysis  based  on 
1)  external  databases  (European 
Audiovisual Observatory, Internet 
Movie  Database)  on  audiovisual 
films  and  series  supported  under 
Programme 
2) 
MEDIA; 
monitoring data 

•  Market  data  on  media  markets 
from  third  parties,  e.g.  European 
Observatory 
Audiovisual 
(especially for market context and 
benchmarking) 

•  Programme 

Performance 

Statements (formal KPIs) 

Section  of  the  Staff 
Working Document 
4.1.1 
Effectiveness 
subheading  + 
Annex VI 

131 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/performance-and-reporting/programme-performance-statements/creative-europe-programme-performance_en  

100 

 
 
 
What  was  the  impact  of  MEDIA  on  the 
competitiveness  of  the EU AV sector, in 
particular the main types of beneficiaries, 
independent producers and distributors? 

country  –  40%  achieved  in  first  2 
years 

•  Several  KPIs  under  CE1,  most 
discontinued  after  MTR  of  2018 
(see Annex VII) 

Main indicators: 

•  Share  of  works  supported 

for 

development which get released 
•  Average  time  works  supported  for 

development get released 

•  Number  of  coproductions:  Formal 
KPI under CE2 on track to be met as 
regards  number  of  coproductions 
and exceeded already for budget of 
coproductions.  

•  Share of coproductions of supported 

works vs unsupported works 

•  Share  of  distributors  funded  under 
(before  Covid)  which 
CE1 
the 
their  position 
increased 
market  of non-national  films under 
CE2 (post-Covid). 

in 

4.1.1 
Effectiveness 
subheading  + 
Annex VII 

•  Counterfactual  analysis  based  on 
1)  external  databases  (European 
Audiovisual Observatory, Internet 
Movie  Database)  on  audiovisual 
films  and  series  supported  under 
MEDIA; 
Programme 
2) 
monitoring data 

•  Market  data  on  media  markets 
from  third  parties  (especially  for 
market context and benchmarking) 

•  Programme monitoring data 
•  Programme 

Performance 

Statements (formal KPIs) 

•  Beneficiary survey 

•  Share  of  beneficiaries  reporting 
their 
impact 

on 

positive 
competitiveness 

•  Number  of  participants  in  learning 
programmes  who  improved  their 
competences  and  employability 

101 

 
 
 
 
What  was  the  impact  of  MEDIA  on 
cultural and linguistic diversity and level-
playing 
participating 
countries? 

across 

field 

(official KPI: CE2 target on track to 
be met) 

•  Number of people reached by B2B 
activities at major markets (official 
KPI: CE2 target may not be met due 
to Covid disruption) 

Main indicators 

•  Programme monitoring data 

•  Official  KPI: 

recognition 

of 
supported  works  at  prestigious 
awards/festivals  (data  provided  in 
the assessment) 

•  Share  of  tickets  sold  in  the  EU  to 
non-national  European  films  by 
supported cinemas. 

•  Collaborations 

and 

between 

low 
capacity 
high-capacity 
countries  (official  KPI,  no  target, 
target  is  only  given  for  overall 
coproductions)  

•  Counterfactual  analysis  based  on 
1)  external  databases  (European 
Audiovisual Observatory, Internet 
Movie  Database)  on  audiovisual 
films  and  series  supported  under 
Programme 
2) 
MEDIA; 
monitoring data 

•  Programme 

Performance 

Statements (formal KPIs) 

Effectiveness 
4.1.1 
subheading  +  Annex 
VII 

•  Number  of  supported  works  in 
lesser used languages (CE2 target of 
2845 is on track to be met) 

How efficiently have the actions under the 
MEDIA  strand  been  implemented  under 
CE1 and CE2? 

Main indicators 

•  Average cost of a supported film vs 
Average 
from  cinema 
revenue 
admissions  attributable  directly  to 
MEDIA (1:4) 

•  Counterfactual  analysis  based  on 
1)  external  databases  (European 
Audiovisual Observatory, Internet 
Movie  Database)  on  audiovisual 
films  and  series  supported  under 

•  4.1.1 

Efficiency 
subheading  + 
Annex IV 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
How  coherent  is  the  MEDIA  strand, 
the 
internally,  with  other  strands 
Programme,  with  other  EU  policy 
instruments, 
including  regulatory  and 
funding and with national funding? 

in 

•  Administration  costs  increased  less 
than the operational budget for CE 2 
and are below the 7% benchmark. 
•  Thanks  to  streamlining  of  support 
schemes,  the  number  of  grants 
processed  fell  by  46%  despite  the 
budget envelope increasing by over 
65%. 

•  Objectives,  type  of  support  and 

structure of MEDIA strand 

•  Objectives, type of support provided 

under national funding 

•  Level/divegence  of  support  across 

different Member States 

•  Objectives, type of support, type of 
funding  and  management  and 
structure  of  other  types  of  EU 
support. 

•  Objectives  and  implementation  of 
regulatory instruments related to the 
sector, including alignment of third 
countries. 
•  Feedback 

from 

MEDIA 
types  of 

beneficiaries  on  other 
support 

2) 
MEDIA; 
monitoring data 

Programme 

•  Programme  monitoring 

and 

administrative data 

4.2.1, 
subheading 

Coherence 

•  Legal  base,  work  programmes, 
calls  of  MEDIA  and  other  EU 
funding instruments 
•  Regulation (AVMSD) 

•  Study  commissioned  by  DG 
CNECT on the level playing field 
among MEDIA countries 

•  Case studies on national funding in 
the 

the  supporting  study 
evaluation 

for 

•  Beneficiary survey carried out for 
the 

support 

study 

for 

the 
evaluation  

What was the added value of the MEDIA 
strand as compared to funding provided at 
the national and regional level? 

•  Key transnational market trends 
•  Share of tickets sold for non-national films 
in the EU which are directly attributable to 
MEDIA support.   

•  European Media Industry Outlook 

(SWD, 2025)  

4.2.1 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
•  Additional 

non-national 
admissions/audiences 
added  by 
MEDIA  support  and  additional 
revenues.  

•  Average  additional  number  of 
that  MEDIA-supported 

countries 
works circulate in 

•  Objectives of MEDIA vs national 

support 

•  Counterfactual  analysis  based  on 
1)  external  databases  (European 
Audiovisual Observatory, Internet 
Movie  Database)  on  audiovisual  
films  and  series  supported  under 
Programme 
2) 
MEDIA; 
monitoring data 

•  Study on video games funding by 
Audiovisual 

European 

the 
Observatory 

Is the intervention still relevant in view of 
market and technological developments? 

•  Share of European vs US and other 

•  Market  reports  of  the  European 

4.3.1 

content on VoD 

•  Preferred  type  of  media  of  young 

people 

•  Differences in screen density across 

Member States 
•  Main  market 
commissions 

trends 

in  content 

•  Share of US companies in streaming 
• 
streaming 
Impact 
of 
recommendations 
content 
choices 

on 

•  Main trends in video games markets 

Audiovisual Observatory 

•  Consumer 

survey  on  media 
consumption habits commissioned 
by  DG  CNECT  covering  EU27 
(forthcoming) 

•  European Media Industry Outlook 

2025 

•  Desk research 
•  Support study for the evaluation 

CULTURE strand 

104 

 
 
  
 
Effectiveness  

Evaluation questions 

To what extent have the Culture strand of 
both  Programmes  (both  Creative  Europe 
2021-27 and Creative Europe 2014-2020) 
delivered the expected outputs, results and 
impacts?  What  negative  and  positive 
factors  seem  to  be  influencing  outputs, 
results and impacts? Have there been any 
unintended effects? 

this  have  on 

in  relation  with 

To what extent have the low success rates 
of  applications, 
the 
Culture  strand  affected  the  Programme’s 
effectiveness? What is the impact among 
reputational 
failed  applicants?  What 
the 
influence  does 
Programme’s image? 
To  what  extent  do  the  indicators  for  the 
Culture 
the 
Programme in the legal base correspond to 
the  monitoring 
Should 
additional ones be proposed? If yes, what 
should be the new indicators to be added? 
How  did  the  Covid-19  pandemic  impact 
the  implementation  of  the  Culture  strand 
of two generations of the Programme, and 
what was the effect of the measures taken 
to mitigate the impact of the pandemic? 

purposes? 

identified 

strand 

for 

Judgement  criteria  and  indicators  of 
success 

Data collection methods 

•  The Programme is on track with the 
different indicators and targets it set. 
•  The  Programmes  objectives  are 
the 

in 
correctly 
Programme’s implementation 

answered 

•  Number  of  applications 

to 

the 

Programme 

•  Perception of the applicants 

•  Programme data analysis 
•  Beneficiary Survey 
•  Scoping interview 
• 
 Contribution analysis 
•  Open Public Consultation 
•  Literature review 
•  Stakeholder interviews 
•  Case studies 
•  Programme data analysis 
•  Beneficiary Survey 
•  Stakeholder interviews 

• 

Indicators  on 
established 
•  Suggestion 

for 

track 

to 

target 

refinement 

in 

•  Programme data analysis 
•  Desk research 

conclusion of the document 

•  Adaptation  of  the  different  actions 
and of the Programme to answer the 
consequences 

•  Results obtained by the Programme 
as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic 

•  Programme data analysis 
•  Stakeholders’ interviews 
•  Desk research 

105 

Section  of  the  Staff 
Working Document 

-  4.1 
-  Annex VII. 

•  4.1 

•  4.1 
•  Conclusions 

and  Lessons-
learned 
•  Annex VII 

•  Chapter 3 
•  4.1 

 
 
 
the 

frame  of 

What was the effect of the measures taken 
in 
the  Programme 
implementation  to  provide  a  reaction  to 
the consequences of the Russian invasion 
of Ukraine? 
As  regards  Culture,  to  what  extent  have 
supported  activities  contributed  to  the 
creation of a European cultural space? 

the 

Programme 
between 

Has 
facilitated 
cultural 
collaboration 
organisations  and  their  partners  in  third 
countries?  Is  the  collaboration  lasting 
beyond the implementation of the project? 

• 

Increased participation of Ukrainian 
organisations in the Programme  

•  Programme data analysis 
•  Desk Research 

•  Chapter 3 
•  4.1 

•  Positive feedback from Programme 

participants 

•  Number 

of 
participating in the Programme 
•  Number  of  beneficiaries  of  a 

organisations 

•  Number 

cultural mobility 
of 
Platforms, 

Networks, 
entities 
Programme 

supported 

pan-European 
cultural 
the 

by 

•  Number  of  artists  supported  by  a 

European entity 

•  Evidence  of  cultural  organisations 
the 

together  after 

collaborating 
completion of a project 

•  Percentage  of  organisations  that 
keep  on  collaborating  after  the 
completion of the projects 
projects 
of 
in 

•  Number 

with 
third 

based 

organisations 
countries 

•  Programme data analysis 
•  Desk research 
•  Stakeholder interviews 
•  Scoping interviews 
•  Open Public Consultation 
•  Contribution analysis 
•  Case studies 

•  4.1 
•  4.2 
•  Conclusions 

lessons-

and 
learned 

•  Programme data analysis 
•  Stakeholder interviews 
•  Case studies 

•  4.1 

What are the effects of the simplification 
measures  introduced  in  the  2021-2027 
Programme  (i.e.  lump  sums)  on  the 

•  High  proportion  of  SMEs  in  the 

Creative Europe 2 
from 

•  Feedback 

beneficiary 

Programme 

•  Programme data analysis 
•  Beneficiary Survey 

•  4.1 

106 

 
in  particular 
applicants, 
Quantify wherever possible. 

for  SMEs? 

Efficiency: 

Evaluation questions 

What is the cost-efficiency of various actions of 
Creative Europe 2021-2027 and Creative Europe 
2014-2020? 
To  what  extent  is/was  the  size  of  budget 
appropriate  and  proportionate  to  what  Creative 
Europe  2021-2027  and  Creative  Europe  2014-
2020 set out to achieve? To what extent is/was the 
distribution  of  funds  across  the  strands  /  Sub-
programme  and  actions  /  measures  (sectoral  or 
multi-sectoral)  appropriate  in  relation  to  their 
level of effectiveness and utility? 
To what extent are the monitoring mechanisms of 
the  beneficiaries  and  participants  applied  by  the 
Commission and the Executive Agency efficient 
/cost  efficient  and  proportionate,  and  have  they 
been simplified in the new period?  Is there scope 
for  further  simplification  in  all  Programme 
strands and actions? 

Relevance 

Judgement  criteria  and  indicators  of 
success 
• 

Data collection methods 

•  Programme data analysis 

Section  of  the  Staff 
Working Document 

•  4.1 
•  Annex IV 

•  Programme data analysis 
•  Counterfactual  and  Contribution 

•  4.1 
•  Annex IV 

analysis 

•  Stakeholder interview 
•  Beneficiary Survey 
• 

•  Programme data analysis 
•  Programme performance statements 

•  4.1 
•  Conclusions 

lessons-

and 
learned 
•  Annex IV 
•  Annex VII 

• 

• 

Increase  in  funded  projects  in  the 
Culture strand over the 2021-2027  
Increase of the number of submitted 
the 
proposals 
attractiveness of the Programme for 
potential beneficiaries 

showing 

•  Results achieved by the Programme  

•  Results of the Programme achieved 
the  different 

relation  with 

in 
indicators 

•  Level of details on data obtained on 
Creative Europe 1 results compared 
to  data  obtained  for  the  Creative 
Europe 2 

•  Cost-efficiency  analysis  of 

the 

Programme result 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation questions 

Judgement  criteria  and  indicators  of 
success 

Data collection methods 

To  what  extent  have 
the  Creative  Europe 
Programme’s  general,  specific  and  operational 
objectives  proved  relevant  to  the  current  and 
emerging  needs  of  the  sectors  covered  by  the 
Culture strand in Europe? What is the relevance 
of  the  Creative  Europe  Programme  2021-2027 
compared to the relevance of the Creative Europe 
Programme 2014-2020? 

To  what  extent  are  the  needs  and  challenges 
linked  to  Europe’s  green  and  digital  transitions 
reflected  in  the  actions/activities  of  the  Culture 
strand under Creative Europe 2021-2027?   
To  what  extent  are  the  needs  of  the  different 
stakeholders  addressed  by  the  Culture  strand  of 
Creative Europe Programme objectives? In cases 
where  some  target  groups  are  not  sufficiently 
addressed, what factors are limiting their access? 
To  what  extent  are  current  and  emerging  key 
socio-economic needs and challenges that Europe 
is  facing  internally  and  globally  reflected  in  the 
policy priorities, objectives and actions/activities 
of  the  Culture  strand  of  Creative  Europe  2021-
2027? 

How  well  is  the  Creative  Europe  Programme 
known to the culture strand communities? In case 
some  target  groups  are  not  sufficiently  reached, 

•  Alignment  with  EU  overarching 
priorities  in  the  fields  of  Greening, 
Digital and Social inclusion 

•  Alignment with EU policy priorities 
field  of  culture  and 

in 
the 
audiovisual 

•  Desk research 
•  Programme data analysis 
•  Stakeholders’ interviews 
•  Case studies 

•  Alignment  with  EU  priorities  in 
artists 

(mobility, 

other 
working conditions, etc).  

fields 

•  Alignment  with  EU  overarching 
priorities in the fields of Greening 
•  Contribution  of  the  Programme  to 

EU Greening efforts 

•  Number of social inclusion projects 

for disadvantaged groups 

•  Sectoral  approach  developed  under 
Culture strand of Creative Europe 2 

•  Desk research 
•  Programme data analysis 

•  Desk research 
•  Programme data analysis 

•  Number 

of 

collaboration 
countries 

projects 

with 

and 
non-EU 

•  Alignment with EU priorities 
•  Adaptation  of  the  Programme  to 
emerging needs (AI, Russian War of 
aggression in Ukraine) 

108 

•  Creative  Europe  2 

Intervention 

logic 

•  Desk Research 
•  Programme data analysis 
•  Stakeholders’ interviews 
•  Case studies 
•  Open Public Consultation 
•  Open Public Consultation 
•  Stakeholder interviews 

Section  of  the  Staff 
Working Document 

•  4.3 

•  4.3 

•  4.1 
•  4.3 

•  2 
•  4.1 
•  4.3 

•  Annex V 

 
 
what  factors  are  limiting  their  access  and  what 
actions could be taken to remedy this? What are 
the reasons of non-participation of certain target 
groups,  are  there  groups  who  chose  not  to 
participate  or  are  there  always  external  factors 
preventing them? 

Coherence 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-programmes/strands 

To  what  extent  are  the  objectives  of  different 
programme 
fields 
within  Creative  Europe  Programme  consistent 
and mutually supportive? What is the coherence 
of  the  Creative  Europe  Programme  2021-2027 
compared to the coherence of the Creative Europe 
Programme 2014-2020? Has it been improved in 
the new Programme generation? 

Judgement  criteria  and  indicators  of 
success 

Data collection methods 

•  There  is  evidence  that  the  strand-
based  approach  of  the  Programme 
allow it to function as three distinct 
but  complementary  elements  that 
allows  it  to  reach  the  different 
Cultural and Creative Sectors 

•  Programme data analysis 
•  Desk Research 

Section  of  the  Staff 
Working Document 

•  4.1 

•  The challenges faced by the CCS are 
the  Programme’s 

in 

translated 
objectives 

from  CE2 

•  Better  availability  and  quality  of 
in 

monitoring  data 
comparison to CE1 
Improvement  of  the  action  in  the 
Culture  strand  with  strengthened 
coherence  between  the  objectives 
and the actions of the strand 

• 

109 

 
 
or 

overlaps, 

duplications, 

other 
Do 
disadvantageous issues exist between the actions 
under the Culture strand and how are they dealt 
with? 
To  what  extent  has  the  Culture  strand  of  the 
proved 
Creative 
complementary 
EU 
to 
interventions/initiatives in the sectors covered by 
the Culture strand? 

Programme 
other 

Europe 

To  what  extent  is  the  Culture  strand  of  the 
Creative  Europe  Programme  coherent  with 
various  interventions  pursued  at  national  level 
which have similar objectives? To what extent has 
the  Culture  strand  of  the  Creative  Europe 
Programme  proved  complementary 
to  other 
Member  States'  interventions/initiatives  in  the 
fields covered by the strand? 

•  No evidence found 

•  Programme data analysis 

•  4.1 

•  Evidence  found  that  the  actions 
under 
the  Culture  strand  were 
coherent  and  complementary  with 
other  EU  Programmes  such  as 
Horizon,  Erasmus+,  CERV, 
the 
RRF and the ERDF 
found 

•  Evidence 

similar 
objectives and funding with national 
can  share  similar  objectives  and 
funding  opportunities  at  national 
level, but these are typically focused 
on specific sub-sectors or individual 
countries 

that 

•  Desk research 

•  4.1 

•  Desk research 
•  Case studies 

•  4.1 

European added value 

Evaluation questions 

What is the additional value and benefit resulting 
from  EU  activities  under  the  Culture  strand, 
compared to what could be achieved by Member 

Judgement  criteria  and  indicators  of 
success 

•  Complementarity 

with 

other 

available support programmes 

Data collection methods 

•  Desk research 
•  Stakeholder survey 
•  Contribution analysis 

Section  of  the  Staff 
Working Document 
•  4.1 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the  Culture  strand  of 

States  and  other  countries  associated  to  the 
Programme  at  national  and/or  regional  and/or 
international  levels?  What  is  the  benefit  and 
the 
added  value  of 
Programme 2021-2027 compared to the benefit of 
the Creative Europe Programme 2014-2020? 
What  does  the  Culture  strand  of  the  Creative 
Europe  Programme  2021-2027  offer  in  addition 
to other support schemes to the sectors covered by 
the Culture strand available at both international 
and national levels? 
What  has  been  the  leverage  of  the  EU  on  the 
Culture strand of Creative Europe Programmes in 
its international relations? 

•  Number of supported projects  with 

a transnational nature 

•  Desk research 
•  Programme data analysis 

•  4.1 

•  Number  of 
involving 
organisations 

supported  projects 
third-countries 

•  Programme data analysis  

•  4.1 
•  Annex VII 

111 

 
 
 
 
CROSS SECTORAL Strand 

Effectiveness  

Evaluation questions 

Judgement  criteria  and  indicators  of 
success 

Data collection methods 

Section  of  the  Staff 
Working Document 

delivered 

2014-2020) 

To  what  extent  has  the  strand  (both 
Creative  Europe  2021-27  and  Creative 
Europe 
the 
expected  outputs,  results  and  impacts? 
What  negative  and  positive  factors  seem 
to  be  influencing  outputs,  results  and 
impacts? Have there been any unintended 
effects? 

•  The Programme is on track with the 
different indicators and targets it set. 
•  The  Programmes  objectives  are 
the 

correctly 
in 
Programme’s implementation 

answered 

-  4.1 
-  Annex VII. 

•  Programme data analysis 
•  Beneficiary Survey 
•  Scoping interview 
• 
 Contribution analysis 
•  Open Public Consultation 
•  Literature review 
•  Stakeholder interviews 
•  Case studies 

To what extent have the low success rates 
of applications, in relation with the cross-
sectoral  strand  affected  the  Programme 
effectiveness? What is the impact among 
failed applicants?  

Which of the current activities or elements 
of  the  Programme  would  be  likely  to 
continue and in which form if EU support 
was  withdrawn 
substantially 
decreased? 

or 

•  Number  of  applications 

to 

the 

Programme 

•  Perception of the applicants 

•  Programme data analysis 
•  Beneficiary Survey 
•  Stakeholder interviews 

•  4.1 

•  Number  of  applications 

to 

the 

Programme 

•  Perception of the applicants 

•  Programme data analysis 
•  Beneficiary Survey 
•  Stakeholder interviews 

4.1 

112 

 
 
 
To  what  extent  do  the  indicators  for  the 
cross-sectoral  strand  identified  for  the 
Programme in the legal base correspond to 
Should 
the  monitoring 
additional ones be proposed? If yes, what 
should be the new indicators to be added? 

purposes? 

the 

Has 
collaboration between media outlets?  

Programme 

facilitated 

• 

Indicators  on 
established 
•  Suggestion 

for 

track 

to 

target 

refinement 

in 

•  Programme data analysis 
•  Desk research 

conclusion of the document 

•  4.1 
•  Conclusions 

and  Lessons-
learned 
•  Annex VII 

•  Number  of  organisations 

different 
collaborating  

Member 

from 
States 

•  Programme data analysis 
•  Stakeholder interviews 
•  Case studies 

•  4.1 

Efficiency: 

Evaluation questions 

What is the cost- benefit of various actions 
of  Creative  Europe  2021-2027  and 
Creative Europe 2014-2020? 

To  what  extent  is/was  the  size  of  budget 
appropriate  and  proportionate  to  what 
Creative Europe 2021-2027 and Creative 
Europe 2014-2020 set out to achieve?  

Judgement  criteria  and  indicators  of 
success 

Data collection methods 

Section  of  the  Staff 
Working Document 

•  Comparison of costs with benefits 

•  Programme data analysis 

•  Programme data analysis 
•  Stakeholder interview 
•  Beneficiary Survey 

• 

Increase of the number of submitted 
proposals 
the 
attractiveness of the Programme for 
potential beneficiaries 

showing 

•  Results achieved by the Programme  
•  Scale of common challenges across 

Europe 

113 

•  4.1 
•  Annex IV 

•  4.1 
•  Annex IV 

 
 
 
 
the  monitoring 
To  what  extent  are 
mechanisms  of 
the  beneficiaries  and 
participants  applied  by  the  Commission 
and  the  Executive  Agency  efficient  /cost 
efficient and proportionate? Is there scope 
for further simplification? 

Relevance 

Evaluation questions 

•  Level of details on data obtained 
•  Cost-efficiency analysis  

•  Programme data analysis 
•  Programme 
statements 

performance 

•  4.1 
•  Conclusions and 
lessons-learned 

•  Annex IV 
•  Annex VII 

Judgement  criteria  and  indicators  of 
success 

Data collection methods 

Section  of  the  Staff 
Working Document 

To what extent have the general, specific 
and 
proved 
relevant?  

operational 

objectives 

•  Alignment with EU policy priorities 
in the field of news media and CCS. 

To  what  extent  are 
the  needs  and 
challenges  linked  to  Europe’s  green  and 
digital transitions reflected?   

To  what  extent  are  the  needs  of  the 
different stakeholders addressed?  

•  Alignment  with  EU  overarching 
priorities in the fields of Greening 
Contribution  of  the  Programme  to 
EU Greening efforts 
Geographic and sectoral diversity of 
applicants and projects funded. 

How  well  are  the  funding  opportunities 
known to stakeholders? 

114 

•  4.3 
•  Annex V 
•  Annex VII 

•  4.3 
•  Annex V 

Annex VII 

•  4.3 
•  Annex V 
•  Annex VII 
•  4.3 
•  Annex V 
•  Annex VII 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Coherence 

Evaluation questions 

Judgement criteria and indicators of success 

Data collection methods 

To what extent are the objectives of 
different  actions  consistent  and 
mutually supportive?  

the  cross-
To  what  extent  has 
proved 
sectoral 
other  EU 
complementary 
interventions/initiatives  on  news 
media and the CCS ? 

strand 
to 

To what extent is the Culture strand 
of  the  Creative  Europe  Programme 
coherent  with  Member  States' 

•  The challenges faced by the news media 
are translated in the Programme’s actions  
•  The common challenges faced by the CCS 
are  translated  in  the  Creative  Innovation 
Lab.  

•  Evidence  found  that  the  actions  were 
coherent  and  complementary  with  other 
EU Programmes such as Horizon, CERV, 
the RRF and the ERDF 

•  Evidence found that similar objectives and 
funding  with  national  can  share  similar 
objectives  and  funding  opportunities  at 
national  level,  but  these  are  typically 

115 

•  Programme data analysis 
•  Desk Research 

Section  of  the  Staff 
Working Document 

•  4.1 
•  Beneficiary 
survey 

•  Desk research 

•  4.1 

•  Desk research 

•  4.1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
interventions  in  the  fields  covered 
by the strand? 

focused  on 
individual countries 

specific 

sub-sectors  or 

European added value 

Evaluation questions 

Judgement criteria and indicators of success 

Data collection methods 

Section  of  the  Staff 
Working Document 

What  is  the  additional  value  and 
benefit resulting from EU activities 
compared to what could be achieved 
by Member States?  

What does the cross-sectoral strand 
offer  in  addition  to  other  support 
schemes 
both 
available 
international and national levels? 

at 

•  Common 

challenges 

shared 

across 

Member States 
•  Economies of scale 
•  Network effects 

•  Desk research 
•  Stakeholder survey 

•  4.2 

•  European strategy and objectives 
•  Number  of  supported  projects  with  a 

•  Desk research 
•  Programme data analysis 

•  4.2 

transnational nature 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS [AND, WHERE RELEVANT, TABLE ON SIMPLIFICATION AND BURDEN REDUCTION] 

117 

 
MEDIA: Increased 
competitiveness of the European 
AV sector 

Benefit 

Table 1. Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation132 
CREATIVE EUROPE 1 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

Sectoral 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment  

Quantitative 

Comment 

[Cost or Benefit description]: 

Provide the 
monetary 
value 

Where no 
quantification is 
possible, please 
provide ranges 
or explain the 
reasons why 

Provide the 
monetary value 

Provide the 
monetary 
value 

Where no 
quantification is 
possible, please 
provide ranges 
or explain the 
reasons why 

Increased access 
and enjoyment 
of works 
translating into 
box office 
receipts 
presented under 
business in next 
column. 

Increased 
availability of 
European 
works for 
audiences:  
Cinemas: 5.6 
additional 
territories per 
supported 
work 12959 
additional total 
territories. 
TV: 9.05 
additional 
territories. 
17,379 
additional total 
territories 

241,238,311 
additional 
European 
cinema 
admissions 
associated with 
MEDIA with an 
estimated 
revenue of EUR 
1,736,915,842 in 
additional 
cinema box-
office receipts. 
141,121 new 
jobs working on 
projects 
supported by 
MEDIA across 

Additional 
financial value 
likely to be 
generated 
through 
distribution of 
supported films 
and TV series 
on TV and VoD 
but equivalent 
viewing figures 
and associated 
estimates of 
financial returns 
not yet 
available. 
Multiplier 
effects expected 

Supported 
films are 
associated 
with 
additional box 
office sales of 
EUR 4.02 for 
every 1 EUR 
invested by 
MEDIA133  
(EUR 3.75 
with 
administrative 
costs) 

Where no 
quantification 
is possible, 
please provide 
ranges or 
explain the 
reasons why 

Monetary 
value 
presented in 
relation to box 
office returns. 

Provide the 
monetary value 

Where no 
quantificatio
n is 
possible, 
please 
provide 
ranges or 
explain the 
reasons why 

Increased sector 
capacity to 
produce and 
distribute good 
quality 
European 
programming 
that is attractive 
to cinemas, 
VoD providers, 
broadcasters 
and reach 
European 
audiences 
outside of 
domestic 
markets. 

118 

 
 
                        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
VoD: 
additional 
territories 
2.83. 6,322 
additional total 
territories 

for capacity and 
competitiveness 
of European AV 
businesses and 
sector. 

Creative Europe 
1. 
95% of 
organisations 
reporting 
reported an 
improved market 
position at the 
end of their 
project (88% of 
all organisations, 
N=1976) 

Building a 
European 
industrial 
ecosystem by 
structuring 
professional 
networks of 
collaboration 
across national 
borders. 
Strengthening 
the single 
market for 
audiovisual 
media services 
and content, as 
envisaged by 
the Audiovisual 
Media Services 
Directive, and 
notably the 
fulfilment of 

132 Where there is a prior impact assessment, the table should contain as a minimum the costs/benefits identified in the IA with  the information gathered on the actual cost/benefit. As 
available,  the  table  should  include  the  monetisation  (€)  of  the  costs/benefits  based  on  any  quantitative  translation  of  the  data  (time  taken,  person  days,  number  of 
records/equipment/staff etc. affected or involved represented in monetary value – see Standard cost model, for example). For all information presented, it should be included in the 
comments section whether it relates to all Member States or is drawn from a subset. An indication of the robustness of the data should be provided in Annex II on Methodology and 
analytical models used.  

133 As explained in the text of the report, the exact return of MEDIA investment could not be calculated due to missing data on key variables, in particular production and marketing 
budgets of EU films screened in the EU, both supported and unsupported. Based on a total investment in relation to films of EUR 431,760,402 including development (feature films): 
EUR 82,766,639.85; Distribution (films): EUR 242,519,983; Cinema network: EUR 82,186,280; Festivals EUR 24,287,500; plus MEDIA administration equivalent share (56% of total 
MEDIA  operational  budget)  31044569:  Grand  total  EUR  462,804,971.  Equivalent  to  EUR  2.76  per  additional  admission  (EUR  2.96  when  inclusive  of  equivalent  programme 
administration costs). Actions not included in the main audience measure described above are market access and capacity building actions, VoD actions, film education, and content 
actions supporting production of TV series and video games. Equivalent monetisation is not possible in these actions due to the lack of suitable monitoring data to assess impacts and 
associated monetary benefits. 

119 

 
 
 
MEDIA: Support for the 
development and production of 
new European AV content 

Benefit 

Monetised value 
of impacts 
presented under 
competitiveness. 

Leveraged 
industry 
investment of 
EUR 
1,754,327,546 
based on 
MEDIA 
investment of 
EUR 
236,006,151 
(1:7.43) 

A total of 
3,383 
development 
titles 
supported 
across a total 
of 1,818 
projects. Of 
which: 
2,368 films 
682 TV series 
122 shorts 
209 Video 
games and 
immersive 
content 
371 TV 
productions. 
Estimated 
28.8%134 of 

Monetised value 
of support is 
quantified under 
competitiveness. 

Share of 
supported works 
co-productions 
CE 1: 36% (in 
comparison to 
12% of released 
European titles 
2014 - 2023). 
Support to 
approximately 
1,485135 
independent 
producers to 
develop and 
produce original 
European AV 
content. 
Increased 
visibility of 
projects reported 

European 
content quotas. 
Increased 
capacity to 
invest in new 
works and 
innovations in 
the context of 
international 
competition and 
the digital 
transition. 

Women writers 
and directors 
for 30% and 
35% of all 
supported 
works. Increase 
of 20pp for 
directors and 
14pp for 
writers, 2014 to 
2020 (in 
comparison to 
industry trends 
of 8pp increase 
in women roles 
from 2015 to 
2020. 2022 AV 
fiction: 
Directors: 28%. 
Writers 39%.) 

134 Estimated share based on a review of development works against the IMDb database that was conducted as part of the counter factual impact analysis. 
135 Unique beneficiaries of content actions. 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
MEDIA:  Support for the 
development and production of 
new European AV content 

Cost 

film and TV 
development 
titles (equating 
to 961 titles) 
have gone on 
to public 
release. 

74% (n=668 of 
beneficiaries. 

Beneficiary 
contribution: 
EUR 
1,754,327,546 
including: 
Contribution to 
development: 
EUR 
116,928,7146 
Contribution to 
production: EUR 
585,040,400 

MEDIA: Support for increased 
circulation of works  

Benefit 

Increased 
awareness of 
high potential 
works outside 
of domestic 
territories 
through 

Increased 
circulation of 
works presented 
under 
competitiveness. 

Direct support 
for distribution 
of works across 
a total of 8,969 
territories at an 
average of 

121 

25% of all 
works 
supported by 
the Programme 
in lesser used 
languages. 14pp 
increase in the 
share over the 
CE 1 
Programme, 
from 23% in 
2014 to 37% in 
2020.  

Strengthening 
the single 
market for 
audiovisual 
media services 
and content, as 
envisaged by 

MEDIA grant: 
EUR 
236,006,151 
including: 
Development 
total grant: 
AV EUR 
111,677,653 
Video games: 
EUR 
20,108,076 
Productions 
total grant: 
EUR 
104,220,422 

Leveraged 
industry 
investment of 
EUR 
485,644,274.2
0 based on 
MEDIA 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
coordinated 
distribution 
and marketing 
activities. 
Unsupported 
works average 
nondomestic 
distribution 
territories 
(Film in 
cinema both 
iterations): 
0.65  

29,015 euro per 
territory136. 
Support for 148 
organisations to 
undertake 
promotion and 
marketing 
activities of 
supported works. 
772 sales agents 
and 458 
distributors 
supporting 
distribution of 
works with 
MEDIA support. 
Increased 
attractiveness of 
European titles 
for distributors 
and sales agents 
including 
reduced risks 
associated with 
distributing AV 
content outside 
of domestic 
markets. 

Beneficiary 
contribution: 
EUR 
485,644,274.20 

investment of 
EUR 
242,519,983.
20 (1:2) 

the Audiovisual 
Media Services 
Directive, and 
notably the 
fulfilment of 
European 
content quotas 

MEDIA grant: 
EUR 
242,519,983.2
0 

MEDIA: Support for increased 
circulation of works  

Costs 

136 Inclusive of total distribution grant plus equivalent share of MEDIA administration costs (31% equalling EUR 17,715,629.30). 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MEDIA: Support for increased 
business capacity of the 
European AV sector 

Benefit 

MEDIA: Support for increased 
business capacity of the 
European AV sector 

Cost 

Quantitative 
data on impacts 
on business 
capacity not 
available. 

Leveraged 
industry 
investment of 
EUR 
163,451,664 
based on 
MEDIA 
investment of 
EUR 
107,008,256 
(1:1.52) 

MEDIA 
grant: EUR 
107,008,256 
including: 

404 Networking 
and market 
access projects 
with a total of 
669,343 reported 
participants.  
18 MEDIA 
stands with 
3,156 reported 
participants (16 
stands 
reporting).  
Training for 
13,478 
participants 
(52% women) 
across 
approximately 
90 distinct 
projects. 88% of 
participants 
reported using 
the learning in 
their work 
(88%). 
29% of training 
funding to 
beneficiary 
organisations 
based in LCC 
countries. 

Beneficiary 
contribution: 
EUR 
163,451,664 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MEDIA Support for the 
development of audiences and 
showing of European AV 
content 

Benefit 

More 
opportunities 
for European 
audiences to 
see 
nondomestic 
content. 

Value of 
investment 
presented 
under 
competitivenes
s. 

Support to 
training 
EUR 
53,004,258 
Markets and 
networking 
EUR 
51,544,570  
Media stands 
EUR 
24,59428 

Leveraged 
industry 
investment 
of EUR  
611,856,523 
based on 
MEDIA 
investment 
of EUR  
95,658,718 
(1:6.39) 

Value of the 
investment in 
films and 
cinemas 
presented 
under 
competitivenes
s. 

1,143 cinemas 
in the Cinema 
Network by the 
end of 2020, an 
increase of 275 
in the number 
of cinemas in 
the networks 
over the period.  
The network 
collectively 
held 6,657,851 
screenings of 
non-national 
European films 
over the period  
Support for 123 
festivals (353 
total) with a 
combined 
audience of 
17,625,592  
31 VoD 
provider 
projects with 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
MEDIA Support for the 
development of audiences and 
showing of European AV 
content 

Cost 

increased size 
of user base for 
supported 
platforms: 52% 
increase in 
registered users 
and subscribers 
(2016: 10,729, 
888. 2020: 
16,322,535) 
20 film 
education 
projects and 34 
Audience 
development 
projects. 
Beneficiary 
contribution: 
EUR 
611,856,523 
including: 

Cinema network: 
EUR 
167,340,461 
Film education 
and audience 
development: 
EUR 8,159,549 
Film festivals: 
EUR 
362,688,179 
VOD: EUR 
33,810,307 

125 

MEDIA grant: 
EUR  
95,658,718 
including  
Cinema 
Network: 
EUR 
82,186,280 
Film 
education and 
audience 
development 
EUR 
12,127,608 
Film Festivals 
24,287,500 
VOD: EUR 
16,699,094 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Online 
promotion: EUR 
39,858,027 

Good quality 
reputation for 
MEDIA amongst 
target sectors 
and beneficiaries 
with good 
quality 
applications. 

MEDIA: Effective 
administration of the MEDIA 
strand 

Benefit 

MEDIA: Effective 
administration of the MEDIA 
strand 

Cost 

CROSS: Support to improve 
access to finance for the CCS 

Benefit 

Engaged 21 
financial 

137 Not inclusive of 17% of CNECT administrative budget that is allocated to administration of Cross sectoral. 

126 

Effective and 
efficient 
administration 
of Programme 
funds in line 
with the 
Programmes 
objectives and 
priorities that 
support the 
delivery of 
results and 
impacts. 

Administratio
n costs:  4% 
of total 
Programme 
budget 
Total MEDIA 
administration 
costs: EUR 
55,436,730.27 
CNECT EUR 
7,543,821137  
EACEA: 
EUR 
49,603,370 

Leveraged 
EUR 1.6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
intermediaries 
from 12 different 
countries to 
develop their 
capacity to lend 
to the cultural 
and creative 
sectors. 
Supported 
lending to 6,803 
cultural and 
creative sector 
organisations 
from 21 
countries that 
supported a 
reported 53,710 
jobs138 (EUR 
4,768 per job). 
1% default rate 
(to date) in line 
with industry 
expectations that 
demonstrates 
that the viability 
of lending to the 
cultural and 
creative sector. 

Commercial 
lending of EUR 
1.6 billion. 

billion in 
lending - 
leverage ratio 
of 6.9 that 
significantly 
exceeded the 
indicative 
leverage 
effect of 5.7 
(indicator vi)  

CROSS 
budget of 
EUR 252.7 
million 

CROSS: Support to improve 
access to finance for the CCS 

Cost 

138 Programme monitoring data. Data on jobs supported is accounted for through the summation of FTEs of final recipients at time of loan inclusion. 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CROSS:  Providing information 
and support to applicants and 
communicate results 

Benefit 

CROSS:  Providing information 
and support to applicants and 
communicate results 

Cost 

CROSS: Effective 
administration of the CROSS 
strand 

Benefit 

Desks promoted 
the Creative 
Europe 
Programme and 
provided 
information 
about actions 
and calls. 
Desks the most 
important and 
trusted source of 
information 
about the 
Programme for 
new and 
prospective 
beneficiaries. 

Good quality 
reputation for 
MEDIA amongst 
target sectors 
and beneficiaries 

128 

Desks 
established in 
all 
participating 
countries. 
Established 
connections 
between 
Creative 
Europe 
Programme, 
national 
authorities, 
and national 
CCS and 
organisations. 
Supported 
horizontal 
sharing of 
results and 
experiences 
between 
Desks. 

CROSS grant: 
EUR 
36,261,653.05 
Beneficiary 
contribution: 
EUR 
40,673,309.67 

Effective and 
efficient 
administration 
of Programme 
funds in line 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CROSS: Effective 
administration of the CROSS 
strand 

Cost 

with the 
Programmes 
objectives and 
priorities that 
support the 
delivery of 
results and 
impacts. 

Total 
administrative
: EUR 
13,582,071. 
2% of total 
Programme 
budget. 
Including: 
EAC: EUR 
895,900.26 
(12% of EAC 
administrative 
budget) 
CNECT: EUR 
1,568,174.47 
(17% CNECT 
administrative 
budget) 
EACEA: 
EUR 
7,697,075 
(13% of 
EACEA 
budget)  

that lowers 
administrative 
barriers for entry 
to good quality 
applications. 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MEDIA:  Support for New 
European AV content 

Benefit 

Table 1. Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation139 
CREATIVE EUROPE 2 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

Sectoral 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment  

Quantitative 

Comment 

[Cost or Benefit description]: 

Provide the 
monetary 
value 

Where no 
quantification is 
possible, please 
provide ranges 
or explain the 
reasons why 

Provide the 
monetary value 

Provide the 
monetary 
value 

Where no 
quantification is 
possible, please 
provide ranges 
or explain the 
reasons why 

Provide the 
monetary value 

Where no 
quantification 
is possible, 
please provide 
ranges or 
explain the 
reasons why 

Where no 
quantificatio
n is 
possible, 
please 
provide 
ranges or 
explain the 
reasons why 

Full results not 
yet available 
Increased access 
and enjoyment 
of works 
translating into 
box office 
receipts 
presented under 
business in next 
column. 

A total of 
1,786 titles 
supported to 
date at 
development 
and production 
stages of 
which  
1688 films, 
TV series and 
shorts 
100 video 
games 
104 TV and 
online content 
productions 

Higher rates of 
coproductions 
for supported 
works (86%) in 
comparison to 
unsupported 
works (12%). 
Increased share 
of coproductions 
involving LCC 
(30% of all co-
productions) in 
comparison to 
CE 1 and 
increase of 25pp 
from CE 1. 

Full impact of 
support on 
admissions and 
circulation not 
yet available. 
Additional 
financial value 
likely to be 
generated 
through 
distribution of 
supported films 
and TV series 
on TV and VoD 
but equivalent 
viewing figures 
and associated 
estimates of 

130 

Women writers 
and directors 
for 44% and 
42% of 
supported work. 
Increase 
between CE 1 
and CE 2: 
Directors: 
12percentage 
points. Writers: 
9pp. 
32% of 
supported 
works in lesser 
used languages  

 
 
                        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
financial returns 
not yet 
available. 
Multiplier 
effects expected 
for capacity and 
competitiveness 
of European AV 
businesses and 
sector. 

Full results and 
impacts are not 
yet available. 

MEDIA grant: 
EUR 
159,292,213 

MEDIA:  Support for New 
European AV content 

Cost 

MEDIA:  Support for the 
circulation of European AV 
content 

Benefit 

Full results and 
impacts are not 
yet available for 
works supported 
under Creative 
Europe 2.  

Increased 
awareness and 
availability of 
high potential 
works outside 
of domestic 
territories 
through 
coordinated 
distribution 
and marketing 
activities. 

Beneficiary 
contributions: 
Total EUR: 
287,341,905 

Based on the 
results of 
Creative Europe 
1 the current 
Programme is 
likely to 
continue to 
deliver 
comparable 
results and 
impacts and 
onward 
multiplier 
effects.  

139 Where there is a prior impact assessment, the table should contain as a minimum the costs/benefits identified in the IA with the information gathered on the actual cost/benefit. As available, the table 
should include the monetisation (€) of the costs/benefits based on any quantitative translation of the data (time taken, person days, number of records/equipment/staff etc. affected or involved represented 
in monetary value – see Standard cost model, for example). For all information presented, it should be included in the comments section whether it relates to all Member States or is drawn from a subset. 
An indication of the robustness of the data should be provided in Annex II on Methodology and analytical models used.  

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Continuing to 
enhance the 
attractiveness of 
European titles 
for distributors 
and sales agents 
including 
reduced risks 
associated with 
distributing AV 
content outside 
of domestic 
markets. 
Continuing to 
support the 
distribution of 
European AV 
works across 
more European 
and international 
territories 
resulting in 
wider 
availability of 
non-domestic 
European 
content for 
European 
audiences. 
Further 
improving the 
coordination of 
marketing of 
high potential 
works across 
theatres and 

132 

 
MEDIA:  Support for the 
circulation of European AV 
content 

Cost 

MEDIA: Support for the 
capacity of European AV sector 

Benefit 

MEDIA grant: 
EUR 
77,500,000 

Full results and 
impacts not yet 
available. 

online that raises 
awareness and 
profile of 
European works 
outside of 
domestic 
markets. 

Beneficiary 
contribution 
EUR: 
61,844,724 

Continued 
support for 
networking 
market access 
and capacity 
building 
activities for AV 
professionals 
and firms and 
the introduction 
of new actions to 
support capacity 
building in the 
context of digital 
transition.  
Support for 76 
Markets and 
networking 
projects with a 
total of 150,330 
participants to 
date.  
Continued 
support for 

133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MEDIA stands 
with 14 Stands 
produced with a 
total of 2,003 
participants to 
date. 
59 Training 
projects with 
1,646 
participants 
52.5% of 
participants were 
female. 71% 
participants 
improved 
competencies or 
increased 
employability. 
52 projects 
supporting 
innovative or 
integrated 
business models 
across 75 
beneficiary 
organisations 

Beneficiary 
contribution: 
EUR 
109,539,893 

134 

MEDIA 
Grant: EUR 
104,873,778  
MEDIA 
stands budget: 
EUR 
9,500,000 

MEDIA: Support for the 
capacity of European AV sector 

Cost 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MEDIA: Support for audiences 
and showing of European AV 
content 

Benefit 

Full results and 
impacts not yet 
available 

Continued 
support for to the 
Europa cinemas 
network adding a 
further 65 
cinemas added to 
the Europea 
Cinemas 
networks, 
bringing the 
network to 1,208 
participating 
cinemas that 
have collectively 
shown a further 
2,195 screenings 
of non-domestic 
European films 
across. 
Support for 173 
film festivals 
showing a high 
proportion of 
European 
content, plus 
support for 12 
networks and 
collaborations 
between film 
festivals. 
Support for 17 
collaborations 
between 
European VOD 
operators 
showing a high 

135 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MEDIA: Support for 
audiences and showing of 
European AV content 

Cost 

MEDIA:  Effective 
administration of the MEDIA 
strand 

Benefit 

MEDIA:  Effective 
administration of the MEDIA 
strand 

Cost 

proportion of 
European 
content. 
23 film 
education 
projects 
supported. 
80 high quality 
European titles 
promoted 
through the Film 
Moves action. 

Beneficiary 
contribution: 
EUR 
33,985,431 
Good quality 
reputation for 
MEDIA 
amongst target 
sectors and 
beneficiaries 
that lowers 
administrative 
barriers for 
entry to good 
quality 
applications. 

136 

MEDIA 
grant: EUR 
147,906,309 

Effective 
and efficient 
administratio
n of 
Programme 
funds in line 
with the 
Programmes 
objectives 
and priorities 
that support 
the delivery 
of results 
and impacts. 
Total 
administratio
n: EUR 
94,423,525.2
0 
Administrati

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CROSS: Support development 
of multimedia technologies 

Benefit 

on costs 4% 
of total 
operational 
budget  
Including  
CNECT 
EUR 
22,034,491.9
6 
EACEA: 
EUR 
72,389,033 
(58% share 
of EACEA 
budget) 

Full results and 
impacts not yet 
available 

Increased 
support for the 
development of 
innovative 
approaches to 
the multimedia 
technologies in 
the cultural and 
creative 
sectors. 
Support for 
cross sectoral 
partnerships 
between AV 
and cultural 
sector 
organisations 
and associated 
applications. 

137 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CROSS: Support development 
of multimedia technologies 

Cost 

CROSS: Supporting news 
media sectors 

Benefit 

CROSS: Supporting news 
media sectors 

Cost 

CROSS grant: 
EUR 
30,779,889.39 

Full results and 
impacts not yet 
available 

CROSS grant: 
EUR 
45,631,457.99 
including:  

Beneficiary 
contribution: 
EUR 
12,286,228.29 

Support for 
systemic 
collaborations 
amongst media 
organisations to 
improve the trust 
worthiness of 
news content and 
viability of 
business models.  
Support for 
projects that are 
developing and 
sharing 
knowledge, 
resources, tools, 
and curricula for 
media literacy 
Support for 
specific projects 
to monitor media 
freedom and 
pluralism and 
rapid responses 
to violations of 
press and media 
freedoms 

Beneficiary 
contribution: 
EUR 
10,635,439.93 

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CROSS:  Supporting 
prospective applicants, 
beneficiaries, and 
communicating results 

Benefit 

Journalism 
partnerships: 
EUR 
33,957,785.62  
Media literacy 
projects: EUR 
5,476,383.03  
Media 
freedom and 
pluralism 
projects: EUR 
3,997,730.74 
Media 
pluralism 
monitor: EUR 
2,199,558.60 

Desks 
established in 
all 
participating 
countries. 
Continued to 
facilitate 
connections 
between 
Creative 
Europe 
Programme 
and national 
CCS. 
Continued to 
support 
horizontal 
sharing of 
results and 

Promoted the 
Programme and 
provided 
information 
about calls 
through 1,466 
events involving 
326,504 
participants. 
Continued to be 
the most 
important and 
trusted source of 
information for 
new and 
prospective 
beneficiaries. 

139 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CROSS:  Supporting 
prospective applicants, 
beneficiaries, and 
communicating results 

CROSS: Effective 
administration of the Cross 
sectoral strand 

Cost 

Benefit 

CROSS: Effective 
administration of the Cross 
sectoral strand 

Cost 

experiences 
between 
Desks 

CROSS grant: 
EUR 
24,040,919.74 

Effective and 
efficient 
administration 
of Programme 
funds in line 
with the 
Programmes 
objectives and 
priorities that 
support the 
delivery of 
results and 
impacts. 

Total 
administratio
n costs: EUR 
18,826,930 
1% of total 
Programme 
budget 
including: 
EAC: EUR 
1,126,452 (8.1 
% of 
administrative 
budget) 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CNECT: EUR 
2,670,622.92 
(10.8% 
administrative 
budget) 
EACEA: 
EUR 
15,029,855 
(9% of 
administrative 
budget) 

141 

 
 
 
 
TABLE 2:  Simplification and burden reduction (savings already achieved)  
Report any simplification, burden reduction and cost savings achieved already by the intervention evaluated, including the points of comparison/ where available (e.g. REFIT savings 
predicted in the IA or other sources).  

Citizens/Consumers/Workers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  Comment  

Creative Europe 
beneficiaries and participants  

Quantitativ
e 

Comment 

Burden reduction following the introduction of simplification measures: lump sums 
The introduction of lump sums aimed to shift focus from reimbursing expenses to reimbursing the achievement of outputs and deliverables.   The use of lump sums has been 
introduced covering approximately 50% of MEDIA support. 

Recurrent 

Burden reduction following the introduction of simplification measures: streamlining of distribution schemes 

Recurrent 

Reduced 
administrative 
burden, 
reducing 
overheads and 
facilitating 
productivity 
gains  

Reduced 
administrative 
burden, 
reducing 
overheads and 
facilitating 
productivity 
gains  

Distribution 
Automatic 
scheme was 
streamlined 
to 
consolidate 
small grants, 
and the 
number of 
grant 
contracts fell 
from over 
1,000 to 

This 
participated in 
a reduction in 
the average 
time to grant 
(TTG) for 
beneficiaries. 

Participated in 
reduction of 
number of 
grants to 806 
in 2020 in 
comparison to 
1475 in 2014, 
a 46% 
decrease.  
Also, an 
increased grant 
size, from 
EUR 53,000 in 
2014 to EUR 

142 

 
               
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
165,000 in 
2020. 

approximatel
y 300 
annually. 

Distribution 
Selective 
scheme 
consolidation 
of grants from 
on average 
206 grants in 
2014 to an 
average of 21 
grants in 
2020, for a 
similar level 
of support. 

PART II: II Potential simplification and burden reduction (savings) 
Identify further potential simplification and savings that could be achieved with a view to make the initiative more effective and efficient without prejudice to its policy objectives140. 

Citizens/Consumers/Workers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

[Other…] _ specify 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment  

Quantitative 

Comment 

Description: 

Type:  One-off / recurrent (select) 

140    This assessment is without prejudice to a possible future Impact Assessment. 

143 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Culture 

Culture Sub-
programme 
Budget 

Type: One-
off and 
recurrent   

Administrative 
costs of 
implementing 
Creative Europe- 
Culture 

Type: 
recurrent   

Table 1. Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation (Creative Europe Culture 2014-2020) 

Citizens/Applicants/EU society    

EU Public Administration   
&   
Implementing bodies   

Creative Europe beneficiaries   

Quantitative    

Comment   

Quantitative    

Comment   

Quantitative   

Comment    

I.  COSTS 

Financial envelope for the 
programming period 2014-
2020 (under direct 
management): EUR 1,46 
billion for the entire 
Programme, 31% for the 
Culture Sub-programme). 

Actual Spending for the 
programming period 2014-
2020 (all under direct 
management): EUR 
491,478,128 million 
Administrative line 
(executed commitments 
2014-2020):  
EAC: EUR 7,770,167 
million 
CNECT: EUR 9,111,996 
million 

144 

EACEA FTEs: 
for Culture: 
37 in 2019 
39 in 2020 

 
                          
   
   
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
 
  
   
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EACEA: EUR 85,523,052 
million141 

Not possible to 
quantify   

Administrative costs linked to the 
application process and meeting 
the eligibility requirements. 
These include Length of the 
application and grant process, 
financial capacity checks.   

Costs for Creative 
Europe applicants 
and beneficiaries   

Type: 
recurrent   

Minimum co-
financing: 40% for 
small-scale 
cooperation 
projects, 50% for 
large scale 
cooperation 
projects, 50% for 
literary translation 
projects.    

Average co-
financing rate for 
Culture: 
46% 
[source: 
supporting study] 

Administrative costs 
related to the 
application, 
implementation and 
reporting 
requirements.  These 
include Length of the 
application and grant 
process, financial 
capacity checks, 
budget and payment 
justifications, grant 
management 
reporting (for the 
beneficiaries) 

Projects beneficiaries 
must complement the 
project budget with 
sources of co-
financing other than 
the EU grant, which 
vary depending on 
the action.   

Direct benefits   

Type: 
recurrent   

II.  BENEFITS 

Contribution to 
policy priorities set 
under EU Work 
Plans for Culture 
(2011-2014, 2015-
2018, 2019-2022), 

Contribution to priorities set by 
the European Commission for the 
2019-2024 period: A European 
Green Deal, A Europe fit for the 
digital age, An economy that 
works for people, A stronger 

A total of 7,538 
cultural activities 
supported, 
including 515 
exhibitions, 483 
festivals, 321 

Increased capacity of 
organisations: 
common benefits 
include enhanced 
internationalisation, 
experience in 

141 Current methodology, endorsed by DG BUDG and approved by the Steering Committee for calculating the costs, is by programme.  

145 

 
   
   
 
  
  
 
  
   
   
   
 
 
The New European 
Agenda for Culture 
2018, the 2016 
Joint 
Commission/High 
Representative 
Communication 
“Towards and EU 
strategy for 
international 
cultural relations” 
and the 2014 
Commission 
Communication 
“Towards an 
integrated 
approach to 
cultural Heritage 
for Europe”  

Europe in the world, Promoting a 
European way of life, A new 
push for democracy.  

Contribution to large scale policy 
progresses at EU and national 
levels, supporting the sectors’ 
needs and supporting more 
cohesive policy approaches 
across Member States    

Contribution to Creating a 
European network of cultural 
actors, building a sense of 
European identity and awareness 
of EU values across participating 
countries  

Contribution to SDG 8 

A total of 7,538 
cultural activities 
supported, 
including 515 
exhibitions, 483 
festivals, 321 
concerts and 201 
tours.  

431 projects 
supported in the 
book and 
publishing sector, 
with over 3000 
translations of 
literary works, 
from around 40 

Increase in the diversity of 
audiences accessing culture  

Increased awareness of societal 
challenges through accessing 
culture 

Enhanced mutual understanding 
of different cultural and linguistic 
traditions through accessing 
culture. 

Increase in circulation and 
readership of literature 

Increase in readership of EU 
produced literature 

146 

concerts and 201 
tours. 

491 small-scale 
cultural 
cooperation 
projects supported 
(receiving an 
average of €188k 
per project) 

128 large-scale 
cultural 
cooperation 
projects supported 
(receiving an 
average of €1.5 
million per 
project) 

transnational and 
international 
cooperation, 
strengthen their 
capacities, produce 
innovative 
approaches, exchange 
good practices, 
expanded networks, 
etc.   

Stronger international 
networks within the 
CCS leading to long 
term collaboration 
and a more 
competitive sector 

4,200 
organisations from 
the sector 
involved in 
transnational 
projects  

Increase in cross-
border mobility and 
transnational 
circulation of artists, 
professionals and 
works  

296,083 mobility 
days for cultural 
and creative 
professionals  

22,763 
professionals 
within the sector 
internationalising 
their careers and 

Increase in contracts 
and job prospects of 
supported individuals 

Stronger skills, 
competencies and 
know-how within the 
cultural and creative 
sector 

 
  
  
   
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
   
source languages 
into 30 target 
languages  

1 106 actions 
focused on the 
theme of diversity 
and inclusion 

[source: 
supporting study] 

Increase in collaboration across 
the EU’s CCS to stimulate the 
creation, circulation and visibility 
of cultural works 

Increase in access to culture with 
larger audiences consuming 
cultural content   

gaining experience 
of working in 
other countries 

660 artistic 
residencies 
supported to show 
and create new 
work in other 
countries. 

1,106 actions 
focused on the 
theme of diversity 
and inclusion  

European 
networks: 180 
projects supported 
(receiving an 
average of EUR 
223k per project) 

European 
Platforms: 81 
capacity building 
projects supported 
(receiving an 
average of EUR 
493k per project). 

431 projects 
supported in the 
book and 
publishing sector, 
with over 3,000 
translations of 

147 

 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
Not possible to 
quantify   

Multiplier effect: candidate, 
beneficiary and participating 
organisations raise capacity in 
other organisations (through 
network-building, knowledge 
exchange, capacity-building). 

Indirect benefits  

Type:   
recurrent   

literary works, 
from around 40 
source languages 
into 30 target 
languages 

[source: 
supporting study] 

Multiplier effect: 
candidate, 
beneficiary and 
participating 
organisations raise 
capacity in other 
organisations 
(through network-
building, knowledge 
exchange, capacity-
building).  

Table 2. Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation (Creative Europe Culture 2021-2027) 

Citizens/Applicants/EU society    

EU Public Administration   
&   
Implementing bodies   

Creative Europe beneficiaries and 
participants 

Quantitative    

Comment   

Quantitative    

Comment   

Quantitative   

Comment    

Culture strand Budget 

Type: One-off 
and recurrent   

I.  COSTS 
Financial envelope for 
the programming 
period 2021-2027 (all 
under direct 
management): EUR 
2,271 billion (31% for 
the Culture strand) 

148 

 
 
   
   
   
 
                          
   
   
 
   
   
   
Administrative costs 
of implementing 
Creative Europe – 
Culture strand   

Type: 
recurrent   

Actual spending for the 
programming period 
2021-2023 (all under 
direct management): 
EUR 357 571 909 
million 
Administrative line 
(executed commitments 
2021-2023):  
EAC: EUR 5,006,408 
million 
CNECT: 
EACEA: EUR 46 346 
756 million 

EACEAC FTEs for 
Culture:142 
43 in 2021 
45 in 2022 
47 in 2023  

Not possible to 
quantify   

Administrative 
costs linked to the 
application process 
and meeting the 
eligibility 
requirements. 
These include 
Length of the 
application and 
grant process, 
financial capacity 
checks. 

Costs for Creative 
Europe applicants and 
beneficiaries   

Type: 
recurrent   

142 According to EACEA’s Specific financial statements 

149 

Minimum co-
financing: 20% for 
small-scale 
cooperation projects, 
30% for medium-
scale cooperation 
projects, 40% for 
large scale 
cooperation projects, 
20% for European 
networks of cultural 
organisations, 20% 
for European 
platforms of emerging 
artists, 40% for 
Circulation of literary 
works projects  

Administrative costs 
related to the 
application, 
implementation and 
reporting 
requirements.  These 
include Length of the 
application and grant 
process, financial 
capacity checks, 
budget and payment 
justifications, grant 
management reporting 
(for the beneficiaries) 

Projects beneficiaries 
must complement the 
project budget with 

 
   
   
   
   
   
 
  
 
  
   
   
   
   
   
 
  
 
Direct benefits   

Type: 
recurrent   

Average co-financing 
rate: 23% 
[source: supporting 
study] 

sources of co-
financing other than 
the EU grant, which 
vary depending on the 
action.   

II.  BENEFITS 

Contribution to 
policy priorities set 
under EU Work 
Plans for Culture 
(2019-2022; 2023-
2026), The New 
European Agenda for 
Culture 2018, the 
2016 Joint 
Commission/High 
Representative 
Communication 
“Towards and EU 
strategy for 
international cultural 
relations” 

372 projects 
supported over 
2021-2023 that 
involve third 
country 
organisations 

Contribution to 
policy priorities 
set under EU 
Work Plans for 
Culture (2019-
2022; 2023-
2026), The New 
European Agenda 
for Culture 2018, 
the 2016 Joint 
Commission/High 
Representative 
Communication 
“Towards and EU 
strategy for 
international 
cultural relations” 
and the 2014 
Commission 
Communication 
“Towards an 
integrated 
approach to 
cultural Heritage 
for Europe”. 

247 projects 
contributing to the 
European Green 

Contribution to 
priorities set by the 
European 
Commission for 

150 

431 cultural 
cooperation projects    

2 500 organisations 
from the sector 
involved in 
transnational projects 

Circulation of 
European literary 
works: 136 supported 
projects, 1,500 books 
translated from 1,200 
authors, 1,000 
translators supported 

Increased capacity of 
organisations: 
common benefits 
include enhanced 
internationalisation, 
experience in 
transnational and 
international 
cooperation, 
strengthen their 
capacities, produce 
innovative 
approaches, exchange 
good practices, 
expanded networks, 
etc.   

Music Moves Europe: 
51 projects in receipt 
of a grant  

Culture Moves 
Europe: 7,274 
individuals 
participating in 
mobility projects 
Out of which 6,266 
individually or as a 
group, and 1,008 via 
Culture Moves 
Europe supported 

Stronger international 
networks within the 
CCS leading to long 
term collaboration and 
a more competitive 
sector working 
together 

Increased cross-border 
mobility and 
transnational 
circulation of artists, 

 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
   
   
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
Deal (EUR 130 ml 
grant) 

183 funded projects 
addressing the 
priority “a Europe fit 
for the digital age” 
(EUR 92 ml grant) 

431 cultural 
cooperation projects    

the 2019-2024 
period: A 
European Green 
Deal, A Europe fit 
for the digital age, 
An economy that 
works for people, 
A stronger Europe 
in the world, 
Promoting a 
European way of 
life, A new push 
for democracy. 

2 500 organisations 
from the sector 
involved in 
transnational 
projects 

Circulation of 
European literary 
works: 136 
supported projects,  
1,500 books 
translated from 1 
200 authors 
4 Pan-European 
Cultural entities 
supported 

Contribution to 
large scale policy 
progresses at EU 
and national 
levels, supporting 
the sectors’ needs 
and supporting 
more cohesive 
policy approaches 
across Member 
States   

Contribution to 
gender equality 
and inclusion 
priorities  

36 Cultural networks 
supported 
representing 4,000 
members 

16 cultural platforms 
supported 

Contribution to 
Creating a 
European network 
of cultural actors, 
building a sense of 

residencies, 162,678 
mobility days, 72% of 
beneficiaries 
engaging in new co-
productions or co-
creations due to their 
mobility. 85% of 
beneficiaries 
developing new 
outlets, distributors, 
exhibitors, or 
audiences as a direct 
result of their 
mobility. 

professionals and 
works 

Collaboration leading 
to an increase in the 
creation, circulation 
and visibility of 
cultural works 

Improved 
international 
experiences for the 
careers of artists and 
professions  

99% of Culture 
Moves Europe 
beneficiaries acquired 
some new skills, 
knowledge or 
competences during 
the mobility, (the 
most frequently the 
skills related to 
networking and 
enhancing positive 
interactions with 
people from different 
backgrounds, 
developing 
technical/artistic and 
creative skills directly 
connected to 
participants’ 
occupation, 
improving self-
empowerment and 

Increased contracts 
and job prospects of 
supported individuals 

Stronger skills, 
competencies and 
know-how within the 
cultural and creative 
sector 

Stronger and more 
cohesive sector 
networks found in the 
EU’s cultural and 
creative sector 

Through Music 
Moves Europe: A 
more diverse and 
vibrant music sector 
in the EU, supported 

151 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
[source: supporting 
study] 

SDGs 3-4-5-8-10-
11-12-16-17 
[source: PPS] 

European identity 
and awareness of 
EU values across 
participating 
countries 

Increase in 
collaboration 
across the EU’s 
CCS to stimulate 
the creation, 
circulation and 
visibility of 
cultural works 

Increase in 
audiences for 
organisations 
involved in cross-
border 
collaboration 

Stronger 
transnational 
circulation and 
diversity of 
European literary 
works. 

Promotion of 
translated works of 
fiction written in 
lesser-used 
languages 
increasing 
circulation to 
larger markets in 

152 

self-esteem and 
teamwork/cooperating 
in a multicultural 
team) 

artists having more 
opportunity in foreign 
markets, Music sector 
adapting to 
digitization. 

4 Pan-European 
cultural entities 
(orchestras with 
artists from at least 20 
countries) funded, 
providing support, 
professionalisation 
and performance 
opportunities for 
young artists with 
high potential. 600 
young musicians 
receiving training.    

37 Cultural networks 
supported 
representing 4,000 
members 

16 cultural platforms 
supported, with 316 
member organisations 
coming from 38 
countries and 3,200 
emerging artists 
promoted during the 
period 2021-2023. 

[source: supporting 
study] 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
Europe and 
beyond. 

Increase in 
circulation and 
readership of 
literature 

Increase in 
readership of EU 
produced literature 

Increased cross-
border mobility 
and transnational 
circulation of 
artists, 
professionals and 
works 

Stronger and more 
cohesive sector 
networks found in 
the EU’s cultural 
and creative 
sector. Networks 
providing with 
more targeted 
actions around the 
policy objectives 
and with more 
structured dialogue 
with the sector. 

Stronger skills, 
competencies and 
know-how within 

153 

 
 
  
 
 
 
the cultural and 
creative sector 

Through Music 
Moves Europe: A 
more diverse and 
vibrant music 
sector in the EU, 
supported artists 
having more 
opportunity in 
foreign markets, 
Music sector 
adapting to 
digitization. 
Multiplier effect: 
participating 
organisations raise 
capacity in other 
organisations 
(through network-
building, 
knowledge 
exchange, 
capacity-
building).   

Not possible to 
quantify   

Indirect benefits  

Type:   
recurrent   

Multiplier effect: 
participating 
organisations raise 
capacity in other 
organisations (through 
network-building, 
knowledge exchange, 
capacity-building).   

TABLE 3:  Simplification and burden reduction (savings already achieved)143    

Citizens/Applicants/EU society    

EU Public Administration   
&   

Creative Europe beneficiaries and 
participants 

143 For document simplification purposes, this tables includes information for all Creative Europe Strands (MEDIA, Culture and Cross-Sectoral) 

154 

 
 
 
   
   
   
 
 
                          
 
Quantitative    

Comment   

Quantitative    

Comment   

Quantitative   

Comment    

Implementing bodies   

Culture: Burden reduction following the introduction of simplification measures: lump sums 
The introduction of lump sums aimed to shift focus from reimbursing expenses to reimbursing the achievement of outputs and deliverables.  

Type: recurrent   

Reduced 
administrative 
burden, reducing 
overheads and 
facilitating 
productivity gains  

This participated in a 
reduction in the 
average time to grant 
(TTG) for 
beneficiaries. The 
average time to grant 
for Culture has 
reduced from 300 
days in the first year 
of the new system 
(2021) to 238 days in 
2023, which is nearly 
30 days shorter than 
the average time 
under the previous 
Programme. 

[source: supporting 
study] 

Culture: Burden reduction following the introduction of simplification measures: introduction of Multi Annual Financing (MAF) 
Introduction of Multi Annual Financing (MAF) arrangements in place of Framework Partnership agreements to reduce the volume of applications for 
multi-year projects. MAF was introduced for Networks (NET), Platforms (PLAT) and Creative Europe Desks.  
Positive effect in 
reducing the 
administrative 
burden born by 
EAC/EACEA – 
smaller number of 
grant calls, proposal 
evaluations, and 
grant agreements to 

This participated in a 
reduction in the 
average time to grant 
(TTG) for 
beneficiaries. 
Previously for a 3-
year Framework 
Partnership 
Agreement (FPA), the 

Type: recurrent 

155 

 
   
   
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
be established, 
managed or 
monitored. 

Productivity gains. 

beneficiaries would 
have to make 3 
applications and 
submit 3 reports. 
Since the introduction 
of multiannual 
commitments, each 
beneficiary now 
makes 1 application 
for a 3-year project 
and submits 3 reports, 
significantly reducing 
the number of 
applications and the 
associated volume of 
time spent on 
processing. 

[source: supporting 
study] 

Culture: Burden reduction following the introduction of simplification measures: introduction of cascading grants. 
It reduced the number of organisations that needed to contract to support activities. It has enabled much larger grants to be used, to be distributed for a much higher 
number of projects, operating in much more specific segments of activity. 

Positive effect in 
reducing the 
administrative 
burden borne by 
EAC/EACEA – 
smaller number of 
grant calls, proposal 
evaluations, and 
grant agreements to 
be established, 
managed or 
monitored. 

Productivity gains 

Participated in 
providing both larger 
grants on average and 
longer grants on 
average. The average 
amount awarded per 
grant across the whole 
Culture strand was 
EUR 430 476, which 
was considerably 
higher than the 
strand’s average grant 
amount of EUR 279 
466 under the 

156 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Creative Europe 1 
Programme. At the 
same time the 
duration of projects 
and associated grants 
has increased from an 
average of 22.7 
months under 
Creative Europe 1 to 
28.8 months under 
Creative Europe 2. 

Also participated in 
an improvement in 
accessibility to the 
Programme when 
measured by numbers 
of project partners. 
Data suggests that 
there was a significant 
increase in the 
number of unique 
organisations 
supported by the 
Programme as the 
average number per 
year is 746 under the 
2021-27 Programme 
compared to 508 
under the 2014-2020 
Programme. 

[source: supporting 
study] 

Culture: Increased accessibility following the introduction of simplification measures: higher co-financing rates 

157 

 
 
 
With the 2021-2027 iteration of the Programme were introduced higher co-financing rates. This reduced the necessary minimum co-financing required from beneficiaries: 
20% for small-scale cooperation projects, 30% for medium-scale cooperation projects, 40% for large scale cooperation projects, 20% for European networks of cultural 
organisations, 20% for European platforms of emerging artists, 40% for Circulation of literary works projects. 

This participated in an 
improvement in 
accessibility to the 
Programme when 
measured by numbers 
of project partners. 
Data suggests that 
there was a significant 
increase in the 
number of unique 
organisations 
supported by the 
Programme as the 
average number per 
year is 746 under the 
2021-27 Programme 
compared to 508 
under the 2014-2020 
Programme. 

[source: supporting 
study] 

Culture: Increased accessibility and burden reduction following the introduction of simplification measures: simplification of financial capacity verification 
Financial capacity checks are now only required for coordinators of projects. 

This participated in an 
improvement in 
accessibility to the 
Programme when 
measured by numbers 
of project partners. 
Data suggests that 
there was a significant 
increase in the 

158 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
number of unique 
organisations 
supported by the 
Programme as the 
average number per 
year is 746 under the 
2021-27 Programme 
compared to 508 
under the 2014-2020 
Programme. 

Under the current 
Programme, the 
administrative burden 
associated with taking 
part in the Culture 
strand had decreased 
by 16 percentage 
points (to 60%). The 
administrative burden 
was perceived as high 
or very high by 77% 
of respondents who 
took part in the 
predecessor Culture 
sub-Programme. 

[source: supporting 
study] 

Culture: Increased accessibility and burden reduction following the introduction of simplification measures: capping the number of applications an organisation can 
participate in the European Cooperation projects call. 
Such a simplification measure has been introduced in the Creative Europe Annual Work Programme 2025. Consequently, full results will come at a later stage. 

Limit 
oversubscription. 
Positive effect in 
reducing the 

Encourage a better 
turnover and  
enable new 
organisations to 

159 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Culture: Increased accessibility and burden reduction following the introduction of simplification measures: Include the large-scale projects category in the European 
Cooperation projects calls only every two years. 
Such a simplification measure has been introduced in the Creative Europe Annual Work Programme 2024. Consequently, full results will come at a later stage. 

administrative 
burden borne by 
EACEA. 

Productivity gains 

receive support from 
the Programme hence 
providing a wider 
support to the  
cultural and creative 
sectors 

Limit 
oversubscription. 
Positive effect in 
reducing the 
administrative 
burden borne by 
EACEA. 

Productivity gains 

Encourage a better 
turnover and  
enable new 
organisations to 
receive support from 
the Programme hence 
providing a wider 
support to the  
cultural and creative 
sectors 

MEDIA: Burden reduction following the introduction of simplification measures: lump sums 
The introduction of lump sums aimed to shift focus from reimbursing expenses to reimbursing the achievement of outputs and deliverables.   The use of lump sums has 
been introduced covering approximately 50% of MEDIA support. 

Recurrent 

Reduced 
administrative 
burden, reducing 
overheads and 
facilitating 
productivity gains  
MEDIA: Burden reduction following the introduction of simplification measures: streamlining of distribution schemes 

This participated in a 
reduction in the 
average time to grant 
(TTG) for 
beneficiaries 

Distribution Automatic 
scheme was 
streamlined to 
consolidate small 
grants, and the number 

Reduced 
administrative 
burden, reducing 
overheads and 

Participated in 
reduction of number 
of grants to 806 in 
2020 in comparison to 
1475 in 2014, a 46% 

160 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of grant contracts fell 
from over 1,000 to 
approximately 300 
annually. 

facilitating 
productivity gains  

decrease.  Also, an 
increased grant size, 
from EUR 53,000 in 
2014 to EUR 165,000 
in 2020. 

Distribution Selective 
scheme consolidation 
of grants from on 
average 206 grants in 
2014 to an average of 
21 grants in 2020, for a 
similar level of 
support. 

MEDIA: Burden reduction following the introduction of simplification measures: consolidation of MEDIA distribution actions. 
Consolidation of changes made to the MEDIA distribution schemes during Creative Europe 1, including use of cascading grants to reduce the number of organisations that 
need to contract to support activities and whilst enabling a more strategic approach granting and projects. 

Recurrent 

Positive effect in 
reducing the 
administrative 
burden borne by 
CNECT/EACEA – 
smaller number of 
grant calls, proposal 
evaluations, and 
grant agreements to 
be established, 
managed or 
monitored. 

2019 simplifications 
contributed to a 46% 
decrease in the 
number of individual 
contracts required to 
deliver the same 
overall level of 
support. 

The Distribution 
Automatic reduced 
the number of 
contracts from over 
1,000 to 
approximately 300 
annually. 

Distribution Selective 
action, the number of 

161 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
individual grants was 
reduced from on 
average 206 grants to 
support on average 
26.4 films per year 
between 2014 to 
2018, to an average of 
21 grants to support 
21 films per year for 
2019 and 2020. 
Continued as the 
revised Films on the 
Move action. 

[source: supporting 
study] 

MEDIA: Burden reduction following simplification measures: consolidation of MEDIA development schemes and film festivals action 
Reduction in the number of Development schemes and increased use of slate development to increase the number of support development titles, without an associated 
increase in grants. Increased length of grants for film festivals action, which now alternates with the film festivals action. Introduction of lump sum grants for Content and 
film festivals actions to shift focus from reimbursing expenses to reimbursing achievements of outputs and deliverables. 

Recurrent 

Positive effect in 
reducing the 
administrative 
burden borne by 
CNECT/EACEA – 
smaller number of 
grant calls, proposal 
evaluations, and 
grant agreements to 
be established, 
managed or 
monitored. 

A 24% increase in the 
number of 
development titles 
supported per year 
alongside a 18% 
decrease in the 
number of grants per 
year (all content 
actions), with an 
associated increase in 
average grant size. 

Increase in average 
size and length of 
grant for Film 

162 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Festivals to EUR 
103,059 for a period 
of two years in 
comparison to an 
average of EUR 
45,397 for one year 
under the previous 
Programme. 

[source: supporting 
study] 

MEDIA: Burden reduction following simplification measures: eligibility criteria for MEDIA actions. 
Consolidation of eligibility criteria that was commenced during CE 1 to ensure clarity for applications, chances of success, and the overall quality of proposals.  

Recurrent 

Positive effect in 
reducing the 
administrative 
burden borne by 
CNECT/EACEA – 
relatively smaller 
number of higher 
quality proposals to 
be evaluated. 

Contributed to a 20pp 
increase in the 
average score of 
successful proposals 
to 84%, continuing 
the trend since 2019. 

[source: supporting 
study] 

MEDIA: Increased accessibility: design of MEDIA schemes and higher co-financing rates. 
Introduction of higher co-financing rates and introduction of schemes targeted at lower capacity countries including mini-slate development and evaluation criteria of other 
content and business cluster and audience actions has contributed to increased accessibility of the Programme for beneficiaries from lower capacity countries.  

Recurrent 

Positive contribution 
to supporting level 
playing field 
objectives. 

Overall co-financing 
rate for the MEDIA 
has increased by 30pp 
to 58%. 

Increase in per capita 
funding for LCC 

163 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
countries under the 
current Programme of 
54%, in comparison 
to 34% for HCC 
countries. 

Increase in the share 
of support for titles 
that involve 
collaboration between 
high and low-capacity 
countries.  

[source: supporting 
study] 

OVERALL PROGRAMME: Increased accessibility and burden reduction following the introduction of simplification measures: introduction of the eGrant system 
Creative Europe 2021-2027 introduced a paperless application management system. It aims to harmonise and standardise the administrative procedures of grant 
management in a fully electronic environment. 

Reduced 
administrative 
burden, reducing 
overheads and 
facilitating 
productivity gains. 

Draft evidence 
suggests that the 
eGrant system has 
increased the 
efficiency of 
application process 
under the current 
(2021-2027) Creative 
Europe Programme 
for a large share of 
Programme 
beneficiaries. Two 
fifths of respondents 
(40%) indicated that 
the eGrant system 
made it easier/less 
time consuming to 
apply for project 

164 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
funding compared to 
the previous 
Programme, while 
one fifth (20%) found 
that the eGrant system 
made it more 
difficult/time 
consuming to apply 
for funding, while 
around one in seven 
respondents (14%) 
did not notice any 
developments or 
changes between the 
two Programmes in 
this area. 

[source: supporting 
study] 

TABLE 4:  PART II: II Potential simplification and burden reduction (savings)144   

Citizens/Applicants/EU society    

EU Public Administration   
&   
Implementing bodies   

Creative Europe beneficiaries and 
participants 

Quantitative    

Comment   

Quantitative    

Comment   

Quantitative   

Comment    

Burden reduction following the introduction of simplification measures: More systematic implementation of the key priority actions as multiannual 
ones, and by making use of annual instalments in line with the conditions and limits set in the legal base (in recital (37) and Art.8.8 of the Creative 
Europe Programme Regulation 2021/818). 

Type: recurrent   

Positive effect in 
reducing the 
administrative 
burden born by 
EC/EACEA - 

Enabling to earmark a 
more significant 
budget for such key 
activities and 
potentially attract a 

144 For document simplification purposes, this tables includes information for all Creative Europe Strands (MEDIA, Culture and Cross-Sectoral) 

165 

 
 
                          
   
   
 
   
 
smaller number of 
grant calls, proposal 
evaluations and 
grant agreements to 
be established, 
managed, 
monitored.  

larger pool of 
potential beneficiaries  

Burden reduction following the introduction of simplification measures: use of financing not linked to cost (FNLC) model 

Incentivising 
innovation in 
creative sector 

Relieving 
administrative 
burden 

Faster funding process 
and relieving 
administrative burden. 

Burden reduction following the introduction of simplification measures: Seeking synergies with other programmes/instruments for amplifying the 
budgetary resources, e.g. with Digital Europe Programme (that also covers activities related to culture/media: Dataspace for cultural heritage, 
European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), etc.) or Erasmus+, especially about the training activities. 

Faster funding process 
and relieving 
administrative burden. 
Burden reduction following the introduction of simplification measures: Considering whether there might also be any culture/creative sector activities 
that could potentially benefit from mobilisation of private funding and MediaInvest type financial instruments. 

Faster funding process 
and relieving 
administrative burden 

166 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT  

[This annex summarises all stakeholder consultation activities undertaken for the evaluation or fitness check. The content and format of this annex is outlined in Tool 
#54 (Analysing data and informing policymaking).] 

Scoping (Inception phase WPI): A total of 10 scoping interviews (WP I) were held to refine the approach and priorities for the evaluations and 
understanding of the Programme alongside an initial review of key Programme documentation. The results of scoping activities informed the subsequent 
design of data collection packages and research tools.  

The consultation strategy targeted the Programme’s interested stakeholders, as well as the wider general public through the Open public consultation. 
Those included key stakeholders for each strand/Sub-programme of the Creative Europe, ensuring an effective representation at EU and national levels and 
both governmental and non-governmental organisations. The consultation activities aimed to gather the views of a broad and representative range of 
stakeholders and beneficiaries of Creative Europe. Consultation activities included:   

167 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  A Call for Evidence which received 21 responses received to the call for evidence (Sub-task 2). The analysis was included in the second 
Interim Report.   
•  Stakeholder  interviews:  62  all  interviews  carried  out  by  the  evaluator  and  agreed  with  DG  EAC  and  DG  CNECT.  Stakeholders  in  the 
following countries were consulted: Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, the 
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (leaving the EU in 2020).  
•  A Beneficiary Survey was launched on 16 May 2024 and closed on 11 July 2024 and received 2,504 completed responses from beneficiaries.  
•  The Creative Europe CCS Guarantee Facility survey was launched on the week commencing 17 June 2024 and was closed on 21 July 2024. 
The survey received 113 responses.   
•  An Open Public Consultation (OPC) launched on 31 May and closed on September 2024 received a total of 233 responses from stakeholders.  

Call for Evidence 

The evaluator has reviewed and analysed the responses received to the call for evidence prepared by the Commission services which was open on the “Have 
your Say” web portal during the period from 12th May 2023 to 9th June 2023. The Call for Evidence gathered 21 contributions from business associations, 
non-governmental organisations, academic research institutes, EU citizens, a private company, and others (e.g. independent curators) from across Belgium, 
France, Sweden, Italy and Portugal. 

Stakeholder interviews 

During  May  –  October  2024,  the  evaluator  conducted  62  stakeholder  interviews  with  key  groups  of  stakeholders  involved  in  Creative  Europe  at  the 
European and national/regional levels. The selection of interviewees put forward by the evaluator was designed to balance various perspectives from which 
the Creative Europe programmes are viewed by ensuring that a variety of different stakeholder groups from different geographies of the EU were consulted 
(see Table 1).   

Evidence from targeted stakeholder interviews helped triangulate evidence from other sources throughout the research, including the desk research, other 
consultation activities, including stakeholder surveys and Public Consultation, case studies, the overall final analysis, including the counterfactual analysis, 

168 

 
 
 
 
and  reporting.  To  ensure  that  respondents  felt  free  to  express  their  perspectives,  the  evaluator  chose  not  to  attribute  specific  viewpoints  to  individual 
stakeholders in their reporting. 

Beneficiary Survey 

The purpose of the beneficiary survey was to collect quantitative and qualitative evidence from individual beneficiaries of the 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 
Creative Europe Programmes. The survey gathered data on the impacts and effects of the activities funded under the Creative Europe Programmes, including 
the emerging impacts of the current 2021-2027 Programme, which served as the basis for comparison with the previous Programme. The survey was also 
an important tool for collecting evidence to support decisions on the possible successor programme.   

Respondents were signposted to different questions based on their answers, including their level of insight on Creative Europe, which strand and action 
they received funding from, and specific characteristics of their project (such as whether the project was still ongoing, had partner organisations, etc.). 
Respondents were asked to focus their replies on a single funded project to facilitate project-level analysis. To choose which project to respond on behalf 
of, respondents were prompted to consider which project was most representative of their experience with the Creative Europe Programme, or to select a 
completed project in relation to which they have insights on the potential outcomes, results and impacts.  

The survey gathered a total of 2,517 complete responses. Most respondents participated in projects funded under the 2021-2027 Creative Europe Programme 
(72%; n=1820), while the projects of only a quarter of respondents were funded under the predecessor 2014-2020 Programme (28%; n=697). Overall, more 
than half of responses came from respondents whose project was funded under the Culture Sub-programme or strand (56%; n=1411), whereas slightly 
more than a third of responses were submitted by respondents who participated in a project funded under the MEDIA Sub-programme or strand (38%; 
n=956). Only a minimal share of respondents (6%; n=150) who participated in a project funded under the Cross-sectoral strand submitted a response to 
this survey (see Figure 1).   

169 

 
 
 
 
Figure 1. Distribution of responses by Sub-programme or strand. Ecorys evaluation of the Creative Europe 2014-2020 and interim 2021-2027 

Open Public Consultation 

The Public Consultation (PC) was conducted as part of the Creative Europe 2021-2027 Interim Evaluation and Creative Europe 2014-2020 Final Evaluation 
(EAC/10/2023) and was available between 31st May 2024 and 06th September 2024.   

The aim of the PC was to provide an opportunity for the general public to give their input into the topics covered by the Creative Europe evaluation. The 
public consultation was open to anyone interested in providing feedback on Creative Europe, extending beyond those directly targeted by other consultation 
activities such as the stakeholder interviews and the beneficiary survey.  

The consultation was available in all official EU languages and was hosted on the EU Survey platform. The survey gathered input primarily through closed 
multiple-choice questions with opportunities for additional explanation or input through open-text questions. Questions were generally grouped based on 
the evaluation criteria: effectiveness, relevance, coherence, EU added value, the future of the Creative Europe Programme, and an additional section asking 

170 

 
 
 
 
 
 
general information about respondents. Respondents were branched to different questions based on their responses, including the nature of their involvement 
with the Creative Europe Programme. A total of 233 respondents took part in the PC.  

The  majority  of  respondents  (85%;  199)  to  the  PC  had  some  knowledge  of  the  Creative  Europe  Programme,  with  most  respondents  being  more 
knowledgeable of the current Creative Europe 2021-2027 Programme (70%; 162). A majority of respondents (39% (90) indicated that they have the most 
experience with  the MEDIA strand, followed by the Culture strand (28%;  66) and the Cross-sectoral  strand (3%;  6). Regarding the previous Creative 
Europe 2014-2020 programming period, 9% (21) of respondents reported having the most experience with the Culture Sub-programme, 6% (13) with the 
Media Sub-programme, and 1% (3) with the Cross-sectoral strand.   

Figure 2. Knowledge of Creative Europe (period and the Sub-programme) 

Source: Q: Which editions of the Creative Europe do you have the most experience with? Q: Which  Sub-programme / strand of Creative Europe do you have the most experience with?, N=233. Ecorys 
evaluation of the Creative Europe 2014-2020 and interim 2021-2027 

Most of the respondents to the public consultation were Creative Europe funded beneficiaries (41%; 95) or worked with the organisations that received the funding (15%; 
35). Other respondents have “an interest in European cultural and creative works but have no direct link to Creative Europe” (16%; 38), “work/have worked with 

171 

 
 
 
  
 
 
Creative Europe at a policy level” (7%; 17) or “applied and did not receive co-funding under Creative Europe” (9%; 21). Other respondents indicated their experience 
with Creative Europe either through a recent application, participation in the activities funded by the Programme or representing interest groups ensuring that EU funding 
projects take into account the needs of their members (9%; 22).  

Summary of results:  

Effectiveness 

Outputs, results and impacts 

Overall, the majority of stakeholders across consultation activities have indicated that the Creative Europe 2014-2020 and Creative Europe 2021-2027 
Programmes have largely delivered on their objectives, and have been effective in strengthening the European audiovisual, cultural and creative industries. 
Stakeholders that responded to the call for evidence, as well as the majority of those consulted in the stakeholder interviews, expressed a general appreciation 
for the Programme, particularly as the only source of funding designed specifically for Europe’s audiovisual, cultural and creative sectors. Respondents to 
the  beneficiary  survey  and  the  open  public  consultation  (OPC)  assessed  the  Programme  as  being  particularly  effective  in  facilitating  transnational 
collaboration  and  the  cross-border  circulation  of  European  audiovisual,  cultural  and  creative  works.  As  shown  in  Figure  1  below,  respondents  to  the 
beneficiary survey reported the strongest impact  on their organisation in terms of the visibility of their project in the sector, capacity for transnational 
operations, and the establishment of new international networks or partnerships. 

Figure 1. Beneficiary survey responses on the impact Creative Europe funding had on their organisation 

172 

 
 
To what extent has the programme funding affected your organisation in terms 
of … (N=2517)

Increased visibility of the project within the sector

Increased capacity for transnational operations

Establishment of new international networks and/or
business partnerships

Number of new and/or innovative creative works
developed

Increased cross-border mobility opportunities for
professionals

Increased positive feedback on creative works/activities
from audiences

Increased access to wider international audiences
and/or markets

Establishment of new national networks and/or business
partnerships

Increased access to wider domestic audiences and/or
markets

Level of audience engagement with creative
works/activities

35%

34%

31%

28%

26%

22%

22%

21%

19%

20%

39%

17%

5%
3%

3%

35%

16%

6%

3%

37%

19%

6%

32%

19%

8%

5%

6%

4%

4%

32%

19%

9%

7%

35%

33%

32%

33%

33%

3%

21%

7%

7%

4%

5%
3%

22%

9%

6%

4%

24%

12%

5%

4%

3%

24%

5%

11%
3%

24%

9%

7%

5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Major Impact

Significant impact Moderate impact Minor impact

No impact at all

Not applicable

I don’t know

Source: Beneficiary survey 

173 

 
 
Regarding the Creative Europe 2014-2020 Programme specifically, the majority of respondents to both the beneficiary survey and OPC considered the 
programme to be very or somewhat effective across each of its objectives. Support for the capacity of European cultural and creative sectors to operate 
transnationally and internationally145, promotion of transnational circulation of cultural and creative works146, and safeguarding and promoting Europe’s 
cultural heritage and cultural diversity147 were considered to be amongst the top three most effective objectives of the Programme by respondents from 
both the beneficiary survey and the OPC. While responses were positive overall, a significant portion of respondents (ranging between 33-52%) indicated 
that there is still room to make the Programme more effective. The objectives with the lowest effectiveness ratings included strengthening the financial 
capacity of SMEs in the cultural and creative sectors148 and fostering policy development, innovation, creativity, audience development and new business 
and management models149.  

Figure 2 below shows the responses to the beneficiary survey across all ten objectives. 

Figure 2. Beneficiary survey responses on the effectiveness of the Creative Europe 2014-2020 Programme in achieving its objectives 

145 92% (n=466) of respondents from the beneficiary survey and 82% (n=23) of respondents from the OPC indicated that the Programme was very or somewhat effective in supporting the capacity of the 
European cultural and creative sectors to operate transnationally and internationally. 
146 91% (n=458) of respondents from the beneficiary survey and 89% (n=25) of respondents from the OPC indicated that the  Programme was very or somewhat effective in promoting the transnational 
circulation of cultural and creative works. 
147 85% (n=431) of respondents to the beneficiary survey and 89% (n=25) of respondents from the OPC indicated that the Programme was very or somewhat effective in promoting Europe’s cultural heritage. 
148 17% (n=85) of respondents to the beneficiary survey and 32% (n=9) of respondents from the OPC indicated that the Programme was neither effective nor ineffective, somewhat ineffective, or not at all 
effective in strengthening the financial capacity of SMEs and micro, small and medium-sized organisations in the cultural and creative sectors. 
149 18% (n=90) of respondents to the beneficiary survey and 21% (n=6) of respondents to the OPC indicated that the  Programme was neither effective nor ineffective, somewhat ineffective, or not at all 
effective in fostering policy development, innovation, creativity, audience development and new business and management models. 

174 

 
 
Thinking about the overall 2014-2020 Creative Europe Programme, to what extent 
would you say it has been effective in reaching its objectives? (N=506)

To support the capacity of the European cultural and creative
sectors to operate transnationally and internationally

To promote the transnational circulation of cultural and creative
works

To promote Europe's cultural heritage

To promote the transnational mobility of cultural and creative
players, in particular artists

To safeguard, develop and promote European cultural and
linguistic diversity

To strengthen the competitiveness of the European cultural and
creative sectors

To reach new and enlarged audiences for cultural and creative
works in the Union and beyond.

To strengthen the financial capacity of SMEs and micro, small
and medium-sized organisations in the cultural and creative…

To improve access to cultural and creative works in the Union,
particularly for children, young people, people with disabilities…

To foster policy development, innovation, creativity, audience
development and new business and management models

62%

58%

50%

54%

46%

44%

40%

37%

35%

32%

Very effective

Somewhat effective

0%

20%

30%

3%

32%

5%

35%

31%

39%

40%

41%

38%

39%

6%

7%

6%

8%

11%

10%

4%

12%

3%

40%

12%

4%

40%
Neither effective nor ineffective

60%

80%

100%

Somewhat ineffective

Not at all effective

Not applicable

Source: Beneficiary survey  

175 

 
 
The majority of respondents to the beneficiary survey (78%; n=546) indicated achieving all the results  planned for their projects. Over 3,500 full-time 
equivalents (FTEs) were reported to have been created through projects that received Creative Europe 2014-2020 funding, with the majority of these being 
temporary FTEs. Respondents also reported 4,310 employees being trained or upskilled, with a higher number trained in digital skills (4,699) than green 
skills (1,609). An average of 8 transnational partnerships were reported to have been created by survey respondents due to Creative Europe 2014-2020 
funding, with a total of 3,544 partnerships reported. Across each of the indicators measured in the survey, the average value is higher than the median value, 
indicating that there is a positive skew in the data with the majority of respondents reporting lower values and few respondents reporting very high values. 

Table 1 presents the overview on the indicators reported by respondents funded under Creative Europe 2014-2020. 

Table 1. Beneficiary survey responses to indicators measuring the impact of Creative Europe 2014-2020 funding on their organisation 

Indicator 

Number of permanent FTEs created 

Number of temporary FTEs created 

Number of employees that benefitted from training 
and learning events 

Total 

520 

3,032 

2,781 

Number of employees trained or upskilled 

4,310 

Number of employees trained or upskilled in 
digital skills 

4,699 

Number of employees trained or upskilled in green 
skills 

1,609 

Average 

Median 

2.06 

8.94 

7.83 

11.59 

18.36 

8.70 

2 

3 

4 

4 

3 

3 

Average annual turnover of organisations (EUR) 

4,803,216,33 

37,820,601 

200,000 

n 

253 

339 

355 

372 

256 

185 

127 

176 

 
Indicator 

Number of transnational partnerships created by 
organisations 

Source: Beneficiary survey 

Total 

3,544 

Average 

Median 

8.17 

5 

n 

434 

The majority of respondents to the beneficiary survey and OPC funded under the Creative Europe 2021-2027 Programme also found the Programme to 
be very or somewhat effective across all objectives; however, there was a higher proportion of respondents indicating that they did not know, or that the 
objective  was  not  applicable  to  them.  Respondents  to  the  beneficiary  survey  and  the  OPC  both  rated  the  objectives  of  enhancing  artistic  and  cultural 
cooperation at the European level to support the creation of European works150 and safeguarding, developing and promoting European cultural and linguistic 
diversity151 as the two most effective objectives of the Programme. On the other hand, the objectives that were considered least effective by respondents to 
the beneficiary survey and OPC were increasing the competitiveness and the economic potential of the cultural and creative sectors152 and promoting policy 
cooperation and innovative actions supporting all strands of the Programme153.  

The full results for the beneficiary survey are shown in Figure 3 below. 

Figure 3. Beneficiary survey responses on the effectiveness of the Creative Europe 2021-2027 Programme in achieving its objectives 

150 92% (n=1,301) of respondents to the beneficiary survey and 83% (n=134) of respondents to the OPC indicated that the  Programme was very or somewhat effective in enhancing artistic and cultural 
cooperation at the European level in order to support the creation of European works. 
151 85% (n=1,202) of respondents to the beneficiary survey and 78% (n=127) of respondents to the OPC indicated that the  Programme was very or somewhat effective in safeguarding, developing and 
promoting European cultural and linguistic diversity. 
152 14% (n=204) of respondents to the beneficiary survey and 14% (n=22) respondents to the OPC indicated that the  Programme was neither effective nor ineffective, somewhat ineffective, or not at all 
effective in increasing the competitiveness and the economic potential of the cultural and creative sectors. 
153 16% (n=228) of respondents to the beneficiary survey and 15% (n=24) respondents to the  OPC indicated that the Programme was neither effective nor ineffective, somewhat ineffective, or not at all 
effective in promoting policy cooperation and innovative actions supporting all strands of the Programme. 

177 

 
 
Thinking about the overall 2021-2027 Creative Europe Programme, to what extent 
would you say it has been effective in reaching its objectives? (N=1408)

To enhance artistic and cultural cooperation at the
European level in order to support the creation of…

To safeguard, develop and promote European cultural
and linguistic diversity

To promote Europe's cultural heritage

To foster freedom of artistic expression, intercultural
dialogue and social inclusion

To strengthen the economic, social and external 
dimension of and innovation and mobility in Europe’s …

To increase the competitiveness and the economic
potential of the cultural and creative sectors

To promote competitiveness, scalability, cooperation,
innovation and sustainability in the European…

To promote policy cooperation and innovative actions
supporting all strands of the Programme

To promote a diverse, independent and pluralistic media
environment, and media literacy

60%

32%

3%

3%

47%

48%

50%

38%

39%

38%

5%

7%

36%

5%

8%

34%

8%

6%

44%

9%

6%

39%

12%

6%

32%

35%

9%

4%

16%

28%

30%

38%

13%

16%

34%

10%

4%

18%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Very effective

Somewhat effective

Neither effective nor ineffective

Somewhat ineffective

Not at all effective

Not applicable

I don’t know

178 

 
 
Source: Beneficiary survey 

Although many of the projects were still underway, 63% (n=1,145) of respondents to the beneficiary survey funded under the current Programme reported 
achieving all planned results for their projects. On the general indicators reported by respondents, a total of 8,688 FTEs were reported to have been created, 
with the majority (6,212) being temporary. Nearly 11,000 employees were reported to have been trained or upskilled, with the majority trained in digital 
skills  (9,608)  compared  with  green  skills  (5,904).  An  average  of  10  transnational  partnerships  were  reported  to  have  been  created  by  respondents’ 
organisations through their projects funded by Creative Europe 2021-2027, with a total of 11,712 partnerships reported. As described above, there is a 
positive skew in the data, shown through the difference between the average and median values, indicating the majority of respondents reported lower 
values, with a smaller number of organisations reporting high or very high values. Table 2 below shows the full overview of each indicator. Note that while 
the total sums across all indicators are higher under Creative Europe 2021-2027, this is due to there being a larger sample size amongst beneficiaries under 
the  current  Programme.  Table  2.  Beneficiary  survey  responses  to  indicators  measuring  the  impact  of  Creative  Europe  2021-2027  funding  on  their 
organisations 

Indicator 

Number of permanent FTEs created 

Number of temporary FTEs created 

Total 

2,476 

6,212 

Number of employees that benefitted from training 
and learning events 

12,330 

Number of employees trained or upskilled 

10,989 

Number of employees trained or upskilled in 
digital skills 

9,608 

Number of employees trained or upskilled in green 
skills 

5,904 

Average 

Median 

2 

2 

4 

3 

3 

3 

3.27 

6.62 

12.87 

10.66 

13.61 

8.12 

179 

n 

757 

939 

958 

1,031 

706 

727 

 
Indicator 

Total 

Average 

Average annual turnover of organisations 

464,996,965 

1,288,020 

Median 

200,000 

Number of transnational partnerships created by 
organisations 

11,712 

9.93 

5 

n 

361 

1,179 

Source: Beneficiary survey 

When comparing the two Programmes, there are a few notable differences. There is some evidence from the consultation activities to suggest the Creative 
Europe 2021-2027 Programme has been more effective in supporting the economic growth of businesses in comparison with the previous  Programme. 
When  asked  about  the  impact  of  the  Programme  on  their  organisation,  there  was  a  12-percentage-point  increase  in  respondents  indicating  a  major  or 
significant impact on increased sustainable business / organisational growth under the current Programme, and an 11 percentage point increase under the 
current Programme in the respondents indicating an impact on longer-term business resilience. Further, for the general indicator on the annual turnover of 
organisations, the positive skew of data is much lower under the current Programme, suggesting that it may fund a higher share of SMEs than the previous 
Programme. However, the indicators also suggest that more employees were trained or upskilled under the previous Programme154. 

The majority of consulted stakeholders funded under Culture Sub-programme/strand expressed the importance of the Programme for their organisation, 
particularly in relation to facilitating cross-border cooperation, supporting capacity-building within the cultural and creative sectors, and promoting cultural 
diversity. The respondents to both the OPC and the beneficiary survey included the contribution towards cross-border cooperation in order to support the 
creation, circulation and visibility of European creative works as one of the strongest areas of the Programme155, which was also supported by the key 
messages received from those consulted through the stakeholder interviews156. Respondents to the beneficiary survey reported a total of 10,594 cultural 
and creative works  being developed, produced or distributed under the 2014-2020 Culture  Sub-programme, with  13,631 under the 2021-2027 Culture 
strand. 

154 The average and median values are higher under Creative Europe 2014-2020 for the following three indicators: Number of employees trained or upskilled, Number of employees trained or upskilled in 
digital skills, and Number of employees trained or upskilled in green skills. 
155 96% (n=896) of respondents to the beneficiary survey and 88% (n=55) of respondents to the OPC assessed the Culture Sub-programme/strand as somewhat or very effective in strengthening transnational 
cooperation and the cross-border dimension of the creation, circulation and visibility of European creative works. 
156 This view was expressed by beneficiaries, sectoral organisations, and Creative Europe Desks. 

180 

 
 
Respondents to the OPC and the beneficiary survey ranked the contribution Creative Europe-funded projects have towards capacity-building in the sectors 
and  increasing  their  economic  competitiveness  and  innovation157  highly  as  well.  Several  stakeholders  interviewed  emphasised  the  impact 
internationalisation of the sector has had on broadening career prospects of cultural and creative professionals, offering exposure to international markets, 
and  ultimately  increasing  the  economic  opportunities  available  to  organisations,  particularly  those  from  regions  with  weaker  economic  capacities158. 
Respondents to the beneficiary survey that received funding from the Culture Sub-programme strand reported a total of 4,074 individuals under the previous 
Programme and 12,959 individuals under the current Programme travelling to another country for work and/or learning opportunities. Respondents that 
were funded under the 2014-2020 Culture Sub-programme felt they contributed the most to developing new skills and competences out of all other areas, 
whereas these indicators were ranked third and fourth by respondents funded under the 2021-2027 Culture strand. 

Lastly, respondents to the OPC and beneficiary survey also strongly assessed the effectiveness of the Culture Sub-programme/strand in supporting European 
cultural diversity and heritage and increasing the access to and participation in culture159. Stakeholders interviewed also stressed the value of the  Sub-
programme/strand in promoting EU values and cultural diversity160. Cultural and creative works developed under the 2014-2020 Sub-programme were 
reported by survey respondents to have reached over 4 million people at national level and 7 million people at international level, while works funded under 
the 2021-2027 strand were reported to have reached 9 million people at national level and 34 million people at international level. However, there is a 
significant difference between the average and median values on the number of people accessing these works, particularly under the current Programme, 
indicating that a smaller number of funded projects reach large audiences, while the majority reach more modest audience sizes. Nevertheless, respondents 
funded  under  the  Culture  Sub-programme/strand  indicated  that  the  funding  had  a  strong  impact  on  audience  engagement  and  positive  feedback  from 
audiences, particularly when compared with the other Sub-programme/strands161. 

The Culture Sub-programme/strand had the highest share of respondents from the beneficiary survey reporting achieving all their planned results (71%; 
n=994) compared to the other Sub-programme/strands, with an additional 29% (n=403) indicating they were partially achieved. Table 3 below shows the 

157 91% (n=432) of respondents to the beneficiary survey and 77% (n=51) of respondents to the OPC indicated the Culture Sub-programme/strand was somewhat or very effective in strengthening cultural 
and creative organisations. 
158 This view was expressed by beneficiaries, sectoral organisations, an EU-level policymaker, and Creative Europe Desks. 
159 92% (n=863) of respondents to the beneficiary survey indicated that the Culture strand is somewhat or very effective in increasing access to and participation in culture across Europe, while 77% (n=51) 
of respondents to the OPC assessed the Culture Sub-programme/strand as somewhat or very effective in safeguarding, developing and promoting European cultural and linguistic diversity and heritage. 
160 This view was expressed by beneficiaries and sectoral organisations. 
161 A higher proportion of respondents from the Culture Sub-programme/strand indicated a major or significant impact on increased positive feedback on creative works/activities from audiences (64%; 
n=909) and audience engagement with creative works/activities (60%; n=845), compared to their MEDIA (45%; n=431, and 41%; n=396) and Cross-sectoral peers (51%; n=76, and 50%; n=75). 

181 

 
 
full overview of each indicator from respondents funded under Creative Europe 2014-2020, while Table 4 shows the values reported by respondents funded 
under Creative Europe 2021-2027.  

Table 3. Beneficiary survey responses to indicators measuring the impact of the Creative Europe 2014-2020 Culture Sub-programme funding on their 
organisation 

Indicator 

Number of professionals from respondent’s organisations 
that travelled to another country for work and/or learning 
opportunities 

Total 

4,074 

Average 

Median 

14.00 

5 

9 

Number of cultural and creative works that were 
developed, produced or distributed 

10,594 

32.90 

Number of people at national level who accessed cultural 
and creative works that respondent’s organisations were 
involved in developing, producing or distributing 

Number of people at international level who accessed 
cultural and creative works that respondent’s organisations 
were involved in developing, producing or distributing 

Source: Beneficiary survey 

4,332,507 

18,127.64 

1,500 

7,110,963 

36,844.37 

1,000 

n 

291 

322 

239 

193 

Table 4. Beneficiary survey responses to indicators measuring the impact of the Creative Europe 2021-2027 Culture strand funding on their organisation 

182 

 
Indicator 

Total 

Average 

Median 

Number of professionals from respondent’s organisations 
that travelled to another country for work and/or learning 
opportunities 

12,959 

21.74 

Number of cultural and creative works that were 
developed, produced or distributed 

13,631 

24.00 

4 

6 

Number of people at national level who accessed cultural 
and creative works that respondent’s organisations were 
involved in developing, producing or distributing 

Number of people at international level who accessed 
cultural and creative works that respondent’s organisations 
were involved in developing, producing or distributing 

Source: Beneficiary survey 

9,395,161 

22,638.94 

500 

34,076,408 

91,850.16 

700 

n 

596 

568 

415 

371 

Under the MEDIA Sub-programme/strand, the stakeholders consulted also overwhelmingly expressed the importance of the Creative Europe funding in 
Europe’s audiovisual sectors. In particular, respondents highlighted the contribution of the Programme towards strengthening the competitiveness of the 
sector, facilitating European-level cooperation on audiovisual works, and supporting the development of culturally significant content. Respondents to the 
OPC and the beneficiary survey considered the MEDIA Sub-programme/strand’s contribution to the economic growth, competitiveness, and capacity of 
European audiovisual enterprises as one of its strongest contributions162. Beneficiaries consulted during interviews mentioned Creative Europe support 
contributing to companies raising their visibility, particularly given that many view the MEDIA label as a sign of quality. In addition, funding contributed 
to  strengthening their reputation,  and increasing  their human resources available for creative development.  Respondents  to  the beneficiary survey that 

162 76% (n=156) of respondents to the beneficiary survey funded under Creative Europe 2014-2020, 84% (n=624) of respondents to the beneficiary survey funded under Creative Europe 2021-2027, and 82% 
(n=71) of respondents to the OPC indicated that the MEDIA Sub-programme/strand was somewhat or very effective in increasing the competitiveness and the economic potential of the cultural and creative 
sectors. 

183 

 
 
received MEDIA funding indicated that it had a strong impact on their organisation’s market position, particularly when compared with the other Sub-
programme/strands163. 

The MEDIA Sub-programme/strand was also assessed as being highly effective in facilitating cooperation on the development, production, distribution 
and consumption of audiovisual works by respondents to the OPC and beneficiary survey164. This was considered the strongest area by respondents funded 
under the 2021-2027 MEDIA strand, and was amongst the top three areas for respondents funded under the 2014-2020 MEDIA Sub-programme and the 
OPC.  Respondents  to  the  beneficiary  survey  reported  a  total  of  5,489  audiovisual  works  being  developed,  produced  or  distributed  under  the  previous 
Programme, and 28,408 reported under the current Programme.  

Lastly,  many  stakeholders  consulted  expressed  the  value  of  the  MEDIA  Sub-programme/strand  in  supporting  cultural  diversity  by  contributing  to  the 
development of culturally significant content. Respondents to the OPC considered the promotion of European cultural and linguistic diversity and heritage 
as  the  second-strongest  area  under  the  MEDIA  Sub-programme/strand165.  Beneficiaries  that  were  interviewed  also  mentioned  the  value  of  the  slate 
development and single project development actions in allowing for more diverse stories to be told, particularly from smaller companies. However, a few 
beneficiaries expressed a concern about the high volume of productions being developed, with only a small percentage reaching large audiences and able 
to  compete  with  the  international  competition.  This  concern  is  supported  by  the  indicators  on  the  number  of  individuals  accessing  audiovisual  works 
supported by Creative Europe reported by survey respondents. There is a significant gap between the average and median values reported by respondents, 
showing  that  the  large  majority  of  respondents  reported  more  modest  audiences  being  reached,  while  a  select  few  respondents  reported  very  largely 
audiences, particularly at international level. 

The majority of respondents (63%; n=603) to the beneficiary survey funded under the MEDIA Sub-programme/strand reported achieving all their planned 
results, with an additional 35% (n=339) indicating they were partially achieved.  Table 5Table 3 below shows the full overview of each indicator from 
respondents funded under Creative Europe 2014-2020, while Table 6 shows the values reported by respondents funded under Creative Europe 2021-2027.  

163 Participants in the MEDIA Sub-programme/strand more frequently reported a major or significant impact on improved market position and/or financial turnover (55%; n=530) relative to beneficiaries in 
the Culture (33%; n=459) and Cross-sectoral strands (33%; n=50). 
164 76% (n=155) of respondents to the beneficiary survey funded under Creative Europe 2014-2020, 88% (n=657) of respondents to the beneficiary survey funded under Creative Europe 2021-2027, and 80% 
(n=72) of respondents to the OPC indicated that the MEDIA Sub-programme/strand was somewhat or very effective in enhancing artistic and cultural cooperation at the European level in order to support 
the creation of European audiovisual works. 
165 81% (n=73) of respondents to the OPC indicated that the MEDIA Sub-programme/strand was very or somewhat effective in safeguarding, developing and promoting European cultural and linguistic 
diversity and heritage.  

184 

 
 
Table 5. Beneficiary survey responses to indicators measuring the impact of the Creative Europe 2014-2020 MEDIA Sub-programme funding on their 
organisation 

Indicator 

Number of audiovisual works reported to be developed, 
produced or distributed 

Number of individuals at national level reported to have 
accessed audiovisual works developed, produced or 
distributed 

Number of individuals at international level reported to 
have accessed audiovisual works developed, produced or 
distributed 

Source: Beneficiary survey 

Total 

5,489 

Average 

Median 

51.78 

5 

32,257,429 

528,810 

25,000 

76,475,274 

1,365,631 

850 

n 

106 

61 

56 

Table 6. Beneficiary survey responses to indicators measuring the impact of the Creative Europe 2021-2027 MEDIA strand funding on their organisation 

Indicator 

Number of audiovisual works reported to be developed, 
produced or distributed 

Number of individuals at national level reported to have 
accessed audiovisual works developed, produced or 
distributed 

Total 

28,408 

Average 

Median 

70.67 

6 

84,940,243 

418,425 

4,500 

n 

402 

203 

185 

 
Indicator 

Total 

Average 

Median 

Number of individuals at international level reported to 
have accessed audiovisual works developed, produced or 
distributed 

Source: Beneficiary survey 

197,532,523 

1,250,206 

600 

n 

158 

For  the  Cross-sectoral  strand,  there  were  noteworthy  differences  between  the  two  Programmes,  as  under  the  previous  Programme,  the  strand  was 
considered most effective in relation to promoting networking, supporting transnational exchange, and increasing access to finance for SMEs, and the least 
effective in testing new approaches and facilitating policy dialogue166. However, under the current Programme, the strand was considered highly effective 
in encouraging innovative approaches and supporting transnational policy dialogue by respondents to the beneficiary survey167.  

Respondents to the beneficiary survey indicated that the Innovation Labs action was most effective in improving the production, financing and circulation 
of European audiovisual and cultural content in the digital age168. Survey respondents also found the action to be effective in increasing the visibility, 
discoverability, availability and diversity of content in the digital age, and improving the overall competitiveness of the European audiovisual, cultural and 
creative sectors169. Beneficiaries consulted through  interviews expressed this view as  well, indicating that the  Innovation Labs action helped facilitate 

166  74%  (n=14) of  respondents to  the  beneficiary  survey  funded  under  the  2014-2020  Cross-sectoral  strand  found  the  strand  to be very or  somewhat  effective  in  promoting  peer-learning  activities  and 
networking among cultural and creative organisations and policy-makers, 74% (n=14) found it to be effective in supporting transnational exchange of experiences and know-how in relation to new business 
and management models, and 68% (n=13) found it to be effective in facilitating access to finance for SMEs and micro, small and medium-sized organisations in the CCS sector. 
167 81% (n=106) of respondents to the beneficiary survey funded under the 2021-2027 Cross-sectoral strand found the strand to be very or somewhat effective in encouraging innovative approaches to the 
creation, distribution and promotion of, and access to, content across CCS sectors and other sectors, while 72% (n=94) found it to be effective in supporting cross-sectoral transnational policy cooperation, 
particularly in the fields of social inclusion and artistic freedom. 
168 93% (n=25) of respondents to the beneficiary survey funded under the Cross-sectoral strand found the action to be very or somewhat effective in improving the production/financing and circulation of 
European audiovisual and cultural content in the digital age. 
169 86% (n=24) of respondents to the beneficiary survey funded under the Cross-sectoral strand found the action to be very or somewhat effective in improving the competitiveness of the European audiovisual 
and other cultural and creative sectors and increasing the visibility, discoverability, availability and diversity of European audiovisual and cultural content in the digital age.  

186 

 
 
 
 
experimentation, such as the usage of digital and innovative technologies at different stages of the creative process. A total of 40 innovative tools for the 
cultural, creative and audiovisual sector developed, produced or distributed were reported by survey respondents to have been created through Creative 
Europe 2014-2020 funding, while 207 were reported under Creative Europe 2021-2027 funding. However, a much lower proportion of respondents found 
the action to be effective in accelerating the environmental transition of the European audiovisual, cultural and creative sectors, compared with the other 
objectives170. 

Respondents to the beneficiary survey the Programme to be less effective in meeting the objectives of the News Media action in comparison to other actions 
and strands. Respondents found the action to be most effective in improving the quality or trustworthiness of news content, as well as enabling knowledge 
sharing on media literacy and supporting projects that enable knowledge sharing on media literacy171. However, a lower proportion of respondents found 
the call effective in monitoring media freedom and pluralism in the EU, supporting self-regulation and ethical codes in journalism, and supporting rapid 
responses to violations of press and media freedom172. A beneficiary under the News Media action that was interviewed expressed that it was too early to 
assess  the  effectiveness  of  the  action,  particularly  as  many  projects  operate  in  silos,  limiting the  potential  for  more  widespread  change.  However,  the 
interviewee did mention that longer projects and those that focus on capacity building within the sector have had stronger impacts. 

The majority of respondents to the beneficiary survey (63%; n=94) funded under the Cross-sectoral strand reported achieving all their planned results, with 
an additional 37% (n=55) reporting they were partially achieved. Table 7 below shows the full overview of each indicator from respondents funded under 
Creative Europe 2014-2020, while Table 8Table 6 shows the values reported by respondents funded under Creative Europe 2021-2027.  

Table  7.  Beneficiary  survey  responses  to  indicators  measuring  the  impact  of  the  Creative  Europe  2014-2020  Cross-sectoral  strand  funding  on  their 
organisation 

170 59% (n=16) of respondents to the beneficiary survey funded under the Cross-sectoral strand found the action to be very or somewhat effective in accelerating the environmental transition of the European 
audiovisual, cultural and other creative sectors 
171 79% (n=22) of these respondents to the beneficiary survey funded under the Cross-sectoral strand found the action to be very or somewhat effective in improving the quality / trustworthiness of news 
content and the same amount found it to be effective in enabling knowledge sharing on media literacy and supporting projects that enable knowledge sharing on media literacy 
172 54% (n=15) of respondents to the beneficiary survey funded under the Cross-sectoral strand found the action to be very or somewhat effective in monitoring media freedom and pluralism in the EU, 46% 
(n=13) found it to be effective in supporting self-regulation and ethical codes in journalism and 46% (n=13) of respondents found it to be effective in supporting a project providing rapid  responses to 
violations of press and media freedom. 

187 

 
 
Indicator 

Total 

Average 

Median 

Number of innovative tools for the cultural, creative and 
audiovisual sector developed, produced or distributed 

40 

Number of transnational exchanges and collaborations 
respondents’ organisations were involved in 

126 

Source: Beneficiary survey 

3.64 

12.60 

3 

3 

n 

11 

10 

Table 8. Beneficiary survey responses to indicators measuring the impact of the Creative Europe 2021-2027 Cross-sectoral strand funding on their 
organisation 

Indicator 

Number of innovative tools for the cultural, creative and 
audiovisual sector developed, produced or distributed 

Number of transnational exchanges and collaborations 
respondents’ organisations were involved in 

Source: Beneficiary survey 

Total 

207 

1,447 

Average 

Median 

3.98 

17.86 

2 

5 

n 

52 

81 

When  comparing  across  Sub-programme/strand,  results  from  the  consultation  activities suggest  that  the  Culture  Sub-programme/strand  contributes 
more to collaboration and engagement with cultural and creative works, while the MEDIA Sub-programme/strand contributes more to the market position 
of audiovisual companies. This would be largely in line with the main priorities of the Sub-programmes/strands. For example, respondents to the beneficiary 
survey that received MEDIA funding indicated that the Programme was most effective at strengthening the competitiveness of the sector, and it had the 
strongest impact on their organisation’s annual turnover. Respondents that received Culture funding indicated that the Programme was most effective at 
facilitating  cross-border  collaboration  and  had  a  stronger  impact  on  audience  engagement  and  audience  feedback.  For  the  Cross-sectoral  strands, 

188 

 
respondents reported a less straightforward contribution, particularly across funding periods, with some of the areas being mentioned including increasing 
the training offer, encouraging innovative approaches, and supporting transnational dialogue.  

Programme reach 

Overall, the majority of individuals consulted for this study indicated there being a strong awareness of the Creative Europe Programme in their sector. 
The majority of respondents to the beneficiary survey and the OPC indicated that the Creative Europe Programme is very well known in their sector173. 
Although the beneficiary survey showed no significant differences across Programmes, the OPC data showed an 18 percentage point increase in reported 
visibility between the two Programmes. Stakeholders interviewed that received MEDIA funding felt that the Sub-programme/strand adequately reaches its 
intended  target  groups,  although  stakeholders  from  the  video  games  sector  may  be  less  aware  of  their  eligibility  for  funding.  From  the  Culture  Sub-
programme/strand, stakeholders mentioned that the visibility varies across sub-sectors, with high levels of awareness in areas such as music and digital 
arts, but potentially less so in the fashion, visual arts, and design sub-sectors. 

Regarding  visibility  to  the  general  public,  the  presence  or  absence  of  a  specific  logo  was  often  mentioned  by  stakeholders  as  a  key  factor.  MEDIA 
beneficiaries that were consulted during the interviews often mentioned the MEDIA logo as playing a significant role in highlighting Creative Europe 
support for audiovisual works. However, MEDIA beneficiaries also mentioned that it is harder to make sure the logo is visible for certain projects, such as 
in video games or during festivals. At the same time, stakeholders from the Culture Sub-programme/strand mentioned that the general EU funding logo 
limits the visibility of Creative Europe support for the creative and cultural sectors. This is also seen through the responses to the beneficiary survey, with 
the respondents from the MEDIA Sub-programme/strand having the highest share of responses indicating the Programme is well known compared to the 
other Sub-programme/strands, as shown in Figure 4 below. MEDIA beneficiaries that responded to the OPC also had a slightly higher share of respondents 
indicating the Programme was visible compared to the Culture Sub-programme/strand174. 

Figure 4. Beneficiary survey responses on the public awareness of the Creative Europe Programme, by Sub-programme/strand 

173 75% (n=2,020) of respondents to the beneficiary survey and 69% (n=160) of respondents to the OPC indicated that the Creative Europe Programme is very or somewhat visible for citizens, artists and 
operators in the audiovisual, cultural and creative sectors. 
174 79% (n=81) of MEDIA beneficiaries, 74% (n=60) of Culture beneficiaries, and 44% (n=4) of Cross-sectoral beneficiaries indicated that the Programme is very or somewhat visible for citizens, artists and 
operators in the audiovisual, cultural and creative sectors. 

189 

 
 
In your opinion, how well-known is the Creative Europe Programme in 
your country?

46%

41%

38%

35%

38%

34%

32%

26%

30%

24%

19%

11%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

1%

1%

0%

2%

5%

6%

5%

7%

Very well known

Only known in my
sector

Not very well known

Not known at all

I don't know

Total (N=2517)

Culture (n=1410)

MEDIA (n=956)

Cross-sectoral (n=150)

Source: Beneficiary survey 

When asked how to increase the visibility of the Programme, respondents to the beneficiary survey mentioned national-level information days, workshops 
and events, and the importance of conducting sector-specific outreach. Overall, dissemination activities of other projects supported by the Creative Europe 
Programme  were  considered  the  most  effective  in  raising  awareness  about  the  Programme,  followed  by  activities  by  Creative  Europe  Desks,  sectoral 
organisations, and the European Commission. The results suggest this is currently being addressed well, as the majority of respondents to the beneficiary 
survey  indicated  that  dissemination  activities  are  significant  component  of  their  activities,  with  organisations  mainly  targeting  national  or  European 
audiences175.  

Regarding participation in the Creative Europe Programme, stakeholders consulted gave a number of reasons for non-participation amongst certain 
stakeholder  types  and  sub-sectors.  For  example,  interviewees  mentioned  that  the  non-participation  of  certain  target  groups  could  be  due  to  the 

175 62% (n=1,564) of respondents to the beneficiary survey indicated that dissemination is a significant component of their activities, 16% (n=407) indicated that they disseminate, but that it is a smaller 
component of their activities, and a further 17% (n=431) indicated that they still plan to disseminate their activities in the future. 

190 

 
 
 
disproportionate  administrative  burden  and  the  higher  risk  of  investment  for  smaller  organisations.  It  was  noted  that  the  application  process  requires 
significant resources, including human resources and specific knowledge of the application form, as well as previous track records for MEDIA funding, 
which  smaller  players  often  lack176.  Stakeholders  also  pointed  to  the  low  success  rates  under  the  Culture  Sub-programme/strand,  which  can 
disproportionately  impact  smaller  organisations  and  first-time  applicants,  as  the  application  process  already  takes  up  a  larger  share  of  their  time  and 
resources compared to larger, more experienced organisations. A similar message was received through the Call for Evidence, with stakeholders there also 
mentioning the length application process being a deterrent for smaller organisations and those without experience applying for EU funding. 

There is evidence that the current Programme is more successful in reaching organisations from third countries, with a slightly higher share of respondents 
funded under the current Programme indicating having non-EU partners compared with the previous Programme177. Amongst respondents whose projects 
had included non-EU and have since ended, the vast majority (80%; n=305) of those collaborations continued after the project ended, highlighting a strong 
tendency for sustained international collaboration. There were no notable differences across Sub-programme/strand. 

Overall, stakeholders considered the help provided by the Creative Europe Desks to be useful, particularly in relation to application support and raising 
awareness on Creative Europe. Creative Europe Desks were the main source of information on the Programme reported by respondents to the beneficiary 
survey178,  although  they  were  reported  to  have  been  the  primary  information  source  for  more  MEDIA  beneficiaries  than  Culture  or  Cross-sectoral 
beneficiaries179. As shown in Figure 5, a lower share of beneficiaries from the Culture and Cross-sectoral Sub-programme/strands reported being aware of 
their country’s Desk, compared to MEDIA beneficiaries. Nevertheless, the majority of beneficiary survey respondents indicated the quality of information 
received by the Desks was good or very good, which was a sentiment also shared by interviewees. Stakeholders mentioned during the interviews that the 
Desks  were  particularly  useful  in  helping  with  applications,  explaining  changes  in  specific  actions,  and  conducting  outreach  to  key  target  groups180. 
However, some interviewees mentioned that the quality of support varies across countries, and that they do not always have the most up-to-date information 
from the Commission, which impacts their effectiveness181. 

176 This view was shared by beneficiaries. 
177 43% (n=785) of respondents funded under the current Programme reported having non-EU partners compared with 38% (n=264) under the previous Programme. 
178 53% (n=1,188) of respondents to the beneficiary survey indicated that the Creative Europe Desks were their primary source of information on the Creative Europe Programme, followed by the Education, 
Audio-visual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA), which 35% (n=886) of respondents viewed as their main source of information. 
179 64% (n=579) of MEDIA beneficiaries reported using Creative Europe desks as their primary source of information compared with 44% (n=546) of Culture beneficiaries and 56% (n=63) of Cross-sectoral 
beneficiaries. 
180 This view was expressed by sectoral organisations and an EU-level policymaker. 
181 This view was expressed by sectoral organisations. 

191 

 
 
Figure 5. Beneficiary survey responses on the help received from Creative Europe Desks, by Sub-programme/strand 

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Did you know that there is a Creative Europe Desk in your country?

90%

80%

75%

67%

13%

9%

8%

4%

10%

12%

6%

25%

Yes – and we have known since we 
applied for project funding (or 
before applying)

Yes – but we found out about them 
only after we were granted project 
funding

No – we are not aware of the 
Creative Europe Desk

Total (N=2517)

Culture (n=1410)

MEDIA (n=1956)

Cross (n=150)

Source: Beneficiary survey 

External factors 

The stakeholder consultation activities also explored the impact of external challenges on the implementation of the Programme, namely the withdrawal of 
the United Kingdom from the European Union (Brexit), the COVID-19 pandemic, and the war of aggression against Ukraine by the Russian Federation.  

192 

 
 
 
 
Regarding  Brexit, there was  mixed feedback from  stakeholders consulted on the overall impact  on the Creative Europe  Programme. While only  18% 
(n=451) of respondents to the beneficiary survey indicated their project was impacted by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, 59% (n=107) of respondents 
to the OPC indicated it had a high or moderate impact on their activities. There was a slight difference across Sub-programme/strand, with 22% (n=210) 
of  respondents  from  the  MEDIA  Sub-programme/strand  indicating  an  impact,  compared  with  16%  (n=225)  of  respondents  from  the  Culture  Sub-
programme/strand and 11% (n=16) from the Cross-sectoral Sub-programme/stand.  

For those from the survey that indicated an impact, they indicated reduced collaboration with UK organisations, the loss of mobility opportunities with the 
UK,  and  the  interruption  of  ongoing  projects  or  planned  collaborations  as  the  main  areas  impacted.  Many  of  these  impacts  were  also  mentioned  by 
interviewees, with some mentioning that projects with long-standing collaborations with UK entities faced major setbacks, particularly in the audiovisual 
sector, as the UK is a major content producer and distribution market182. However, other interviewees indicated that Brexit had a largely positive impact 
on the audiovisual, cultural and creative sectors in Europe, as there was one less country competing for funding, and some key players, such as venture 
capital firms, relocated to Europe. 

On the other hand, the COVID-19 pandemic was reported to have had a much larger impact on the European audiovisual, cultural and creative sectors. 
The majority of respondents to the OPC (69%; n=127) indicated the pandemic having a high or moderate impact on the implementation of Creative Europe, 
higher than both other key external factors. Beneficiaries interviewed from the MEDIA Sub-programme/strand mentioned delays in production and the 
closing of cinemas, while beneficiaries from the Culture Sub-programme/strand mentioned the disruption of in-person events. Stakeholders interviewed 
across the Programme mentioned the lasting impacts of the pandemic on inflation, operational costs, and consumer behaviour. 

The majority of respondents to the beneficiary survey that had projects active between 2020 and 2021 (55%; n=355) indicated not benefitting from the 
COVID-19 measures introduced by Creative Europe to mitigate the effects of the pandemic. However, beneficiary interviewees that did receive support 
reported that it alleviated some of the effects of the pandemic, although it did not entirely make up for additional costs and it was a long time before the 
grant was finally received183. Beneficiaries from the Culture Sub-programme/strand in particular mentioned the flexibility shown by the Programme in 
enabling organisations to adapt planned activities to the reality of the pandemic, such as by moving events online. 

182 This view was expressed by beneficiaries from the MEDIA and Culture Sub-programme/strands, as well as stakeholder organisations and Creative Europe Desks. 
183 This view was expressed by beneficiaries from the MEDIA and Culture Sub-programme/strands. 

193 

 
 
Lastly, a smaller share of respondents indicated there being an impact from the war of aggression against Ukraine by the Russian Federation on their 
activities  and  the  implementation  of  Creative  Europe.  A  majority  of  respondents  to  the  OPC  (54%;  n=73)  indicated  the  war  had  an  impact  on  the 
implementation of the Programme, while only 18% (n=452) of respondents to the beneficiary survey indicated that their projects were directly impacted. 
However, similarly to the COVID-19 pandemic, stakeholders have mentioned the impact the war has had on inflation and operational costs, which they 
feel has not yet been addressed by the Creative Europe Programme184.  

Only  3%  (n=68)  of  respondents  to  the  beneficiary  survey  indicated  that  their  organisation  benefitted  from  specific  measures  under  Creative  Europe 
implemented in response to the war. MEDIA beneficiaries interviewed expressed appreciation for Ukraine joining the MEDIA Programme; however, there 
were critiques on the slow response and limited opportunities to support Ukrainian audiovisual professionals in the meantime. Beneficiaries consulted from 
the Culture Sub-programme/strand expressed a different perspective, with many sharing appreciation for the swift and targeted response from Creative 
Europe, which facilitated special sessions and targeted support for Ukrainian artists being provided by European cooperation and network projects. 

In addition to the challenges discussed above, respondents to the beneficiary survey mentioned organisational issues, such as delays or limited resources, 
funding limitations, and communication challenges, such as language barriers and cultural differences, as also creating barriers to the achievement of project 
results185. Further, respondents to the OPC mentioned co-funding rates, the influence of geopolitics, and inflation as additional factors that impacted the 
overall effectiveness of the Programme. 

Efficiency 

Size of Creative Europe budget 

Consultation activities present a mixed picture of stakeholders’ views on whether the size of the Creative Europe budget is appropriate and proportionate 
in relation to its objectives. Whilst the majority of respondents to the beneficiary survey felt that the budget allocated to their project was sufficient to 
achieve their goals, insights from stakeholder interviews offer a more nuanced perspective. 

184 This view was expressed by beneficiaries and sectoral organisations. 
185 Amongst open responses to this question, 29% (n=88) mentioned external challenges, 26% (n=80) mentioned organizational issues, and 21% (n=65) mentioned funding limitations. 

194 

 
 
As shown in Figure 6, 88% (n=2224) of respondents to the beneficiary survey thought that the co-funding allocated to their project was either fully (65%; 
n=1648) or somewhat sufficient (23%; n=576) to achieve their planned results.  

Figure 6. Satisfaction with co-funding allocated to projects 

In your opinion, was the co-funding allocated to your project enough to 
achieve your planned results? (N=2517)

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

65%

23%

Yes

Somewhat

Source: Beneficiary survey 

8%

No

4%

I don’t know

MEDIA stakeholders interviewed recognised that the overall budget for the 2021-2027 Programme increased, in particular for their strand. However, they 
noted that this increase did not make a significant difference due to high inflation rates and production costs. Rising costs due to inflation and external 
factors, such as the war in Ukraine and COVID-19, were also highlighted in the beneficiary survey by respondents who found the co-funding allocation 
insufficient to achieve all planned results (14%, n=81,  and 6%, n=32, respectively). Stakeholders interviewed from the Culture  Sub-programme/strand 
reported that inflation has made staffing and operational expenses difficult to manage within the allocated budget, despite the importance of co-financing 
for project feasibility. In terms of supporting applicants, Creative Europe Desks interviewed mentioned that budget constraints limit their ability to attend 
key industry events, enhance support activities, and respond to all inquiries. 

The lower co-financing thresholds in the current Programme were praised as a welcome improvement by beneficiaries interviewed from the Culture 
strand. However, among the survey respondents who were asked to detail why the co-funding allocation was insufficient, 13% (n=76) reported difficulties 
in securing their own funds, which hindered their ability to achieve planned results. Different national contexts influenced the adequacy of the funding, 

195 

 
 
according  to  5%  of  respondents  (n=31).  According  to  interviewees,  securing  national  or  private  funding  proved  more  difficult  in  Eastern  Europe. 
Nonetheless, survey data reveals that both higher and lower income countries were affected by funding difficulties. Higher income countries faced higher 
personnel costs, whilst lower income countries struggled to access funding. Factors such as lack of support from national authorities (1%; n=6), organisation 
type (e.g. NGOs and Universities) (1%; n=5), and the size of the project (13%; n=76) impacted the difficulty in securing funding, with 4% of respondents 
(n=22) highlighting the specific difficulties of being a small project/organisation. 

This particular difficulty smaller organisations face in securing funding was echoed in interviews with Culture stakeholders. Most stakeholders noted that 
while lead partners received substantial funding, smaller partners faced significant shortfalls, particularly in projects with numerous partners.  

Some MEDIA stakeholders expressed concerns that the introduction of new actions and priorities to the MEDIA Programme, such as AI and video games, 
may  limit  support  for  more  traditional  industries.  In  the  Culture  sector,  many  interviewed  stakeholders  recommended  that  future  budgets  account  for 
inflation and consider revising the allocation across different Programme strands. This adjustment would help ensure the Programme remains competitive 
and effective in achieving its objectives. 

Application, monitoring and reporting processes 

Overall, the administrative burden associated with participating in the  Programme was still perceived as high by survey respondents and interviewees. 
Indeed, as shown in Figure 7, more than two thirds of respondents (68%; n=1707) found the administrative burden either high or very high. This was 
echoed in interviews with both MEDIA and Culture stakeholders.  

Figure 7. Administrative burden associated with taking part in the Programme 

196 

 
Overall, how would you assess the administrative burden associated with 
taking part in the programme? (N=2517)

43%

25%

25%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Very high

High

Neither high or
low

Source: Beneficiary survey 

3%

Low

1%

3%

Very Low

I don’t know

Both the survey results and targeted stakeholder interviews reveal that whilst beneficiaries generally find the application process for Creative Europe co-
funding to be clear, they also face significant challenges when preparing an application.  

As shown in Figure 8, most respondents to the beneficiary survey (86%; n=2180) found the application process either very clear or quite clear.  

Figure 8. Clarity of the application process 

In your opinion, was the application process for your Creative Europe co-
funding for your project clear? (N=2517)

62%

24%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

10%

3%

Very clear

Quite clear

Unclear

I don't know

197 

 
 
 
Source: Beneficiary survey 

This positive perception can be attributed to the transition to an online platform (i.e., eGrant), which was praised by 40% (n=312) of survey respondents 
(as illustrated in Figure 9) and most MEDIA stakeholders interviewed.  

Figure 9. Increased efficiency of grant management through the eGrant system 

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

In your opinion, has the management of the grant became easier with 
the move to a paperless management system (eGrant system)? (N=782)

47%

13%

13%

8%

18%

It has become easier/less
time consuming to
manage the project
funding

It has become more
difficult/more time to
manage the project
funding

I have not noticed any
developments/changes

Other

I don't know/remember

Survey respondents who felt that eGrant simplified the application process described it as easier (38%; n=164), more efficient (20%; n=85), clearer 
(5%; n=22), environmentally friendly (2%; n=10), and user-friendly (1%; n=4). 

Source: Beneficiary survey 

However, a closer examination of the survey and interview data reveals several challenges that affect eGrant's ability to simplify the application process. 
Among the 20% (n=153) of respondents who found the eGrant system made applying for funding more difficult or time-consuming, 15% (n=65) found it 
complicated to use, 12% (n=51) reported it was more time-consuming, 10% (n=42) considered it a subpar platform, and 6% (n=28) encountered various 
difficulties.  

198 

 
 
Moreover,  the  majority  of  MEDIA  stakeholders  interviewed  reported  that  the  application  process,  including  the  application  portal,  is  burdensome, 
especially  for  smaller  organisations  that  do  not  necessarily  have  dedicated  staff  for  EU  tenders.  This  difficulty  for  smaller  organisations  during  the 
application process was also reported among stakeholders interviewed from the Culture Sub-programme/strand.  

The biggest challenge in relation to administrative procedures for MEDIA stakeholders is that the application form is not specific to different sectors’ 
needs and includes non-relevant technical specifications and jargon. Therefore, a large number of questions are not relevant for applicants, which can be 
confusing,  especially  for  those  new  to  the  process.  Some  stakeholders  also  reported  that  the  funding  timelines  were  inconvenient  for  their  needs. 
Additionally, the platform has technical difficulties, for example, the inability to modify an application after it is submitted and before the implementation 
starts, file size limits, and the application and reporting forms' non-compatibility with certain browsers. 

Beyond the application stage, survey and interview data present a mixed picture of the improvements eGrant has brought to overall grant management.  

Survey respondents involved in both Programmes were asked whether the eGrant system eased the management of the grant (N=782). As illustrated in 
Figure 10, most of these respondents (47%; n=367) found that the eGrant system made it easier/less time consuming to manage the project funding. 
13% of respondents (n=105) viewed the management as more difficult/ requiring more time to manage the project funding and another 13% did not notice 
any developments or changes (n=103). 8% of respondents provided other answers (n=66) and 18% did not know or remember (n=141). 

Figure 10. Increased efficiency of grant management through the eGrant system 

199 

 
50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

In your opinion, has the management of the grant became easier with 
the move to a paperless management system (eGrant system)? (N=782)

47%

13%

13%

8%

18%

It has become easier/less
time consuming to
manage the project
funding

It has become more
difficult/more time to
manage the project
funding

I have not noticed any
developments/changes

Other

I don't know/remember

Source: Beneficiary survey 

Among  those  who  found  grant  management  to  be  easier  with  eGrant,  benefits  included  improved  efficiency  (25%;  n=107),  having  all  information 
centralised (3%; n=13), enhanced environmental sustainability (3%; n=11), greater clarity (2%; n=9), and user-friendliness (1%; n=4). The eGrants system 
was also seen as an important improvement after the funding contract was signed by MEDIA stakeholders interviewed. These interviewees reported that 
eGrants made the payment process much faster and made it easier for beneficiaries to receive pre-financing for their projects. 

However, survey responses and interviews revealed a mixed picture on monitoring and reporting processes.  

Whilst stakeholders from both the MEDIA and Culture Sub-programmes praised the introduction of lump-sum funding, they also noted limitations in 
improving overall efficiency. On the one hand, MEDIA stakeholders reported that lump-sum payments help reduce the administrative burden associated 
with  monitoring.  This  sentiment  is  echoed  by  Culture  stakeholders,  who  found  that  lump-sum  payments  significantly  alleviate  the  Programme’s 
administrative load. Previously, the processing of numerous invoices required extensive documentation, creating difficulties, especially for smaller partners. 
On the other hand, MEDIA stakeholders noted that the impact of lump-sum funding is limited in sectors where costs can vary widely, such as production. 
Additionally, Culture stakeholders at the EU level highlighted inefficiencies with lump-sum payments, suggesting that while they are useful for simpler 
actions, more tailored approaches may  be necessary for larger cooperation projects. Among the 13% (n=105) of survey respondents who found  grant 

200 

 
 
management  to  be  more  difficult/time-consuming  with  eGrant,  5%  (n=22)  described  it  as  more  challenging  or  time-consuming,  citing  increased 
complexity (9%; n=39) and broader platform-related issues (6%; n=27) and other difficulties (5%; n=22). Culture stakeholders reported that, although the 
eGrant system has reduced some administrative burdens compared to the 2014-2020 Programme, significant complexities remain. These include persistent 
bugs  and  challenges  with  the  centralised  tool,  especially  in  distinguishing  between  mandatory  and  optional  reporting  elements.  Sectoral 
organisations in the media sector found monitoring and reporting too complex and time-consuming. For example, it is not possible to anticipate it as the 
reporting format is not available in advance, and calculating unit costs adds to the administrative burden. 

However, in terms of reporting to EACEA, most survey respondents (85%; n=2138) fully or partially agreed with the clarity of reporting deadlines as 
shown in Figure 11. 79% of respondents fully or partially agreed that reporting requirements are reasonable given the grant provided (n=1993) and that the 
content of reporting and amount of information and data required are clear (n=1977). 

Figure 11. Efficiency of reporting to the EACEA 

Please comment on the following statements regarding project reporting 
to the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA): 
(N=2517)

It is clear to us when we need to report (reporting
deadlines)

The reporting requirements are reasonable given the
grant provided

It is clear to us what we need to report on and the
amount of information and data which is required

61%

24%

5%

1%

8%

47%

43%

32%

9%

3%

9%

36%

10%

3%

8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

I fully agree

I partially agree

I partially disagree

I fully disagree

I don’t know

Source: Beneficiary survey 

201 

 
 
Survey  responses  and  interviews  with  Culture  stakeholders  highlighted  several  key  suggestions  for  simplifying  the  Programme’s  implementation. 
Simplifying the grant agreement process and providing clearer guidelines for documentation were seen as crucial steps to alleviate the administrative 
burden. Additionally, adopting a risk-based monitoring approach could enhance cost efficiency by focusing on areas of high financial and operational 
risk.  Some  survey  respondents  also  provided  specific  recommendations  to  improve  monitoring,  reporting  and  interaction  with  EACEA:  22%  (n=101) 
suggested reducing the administrative burden, 13% (n=57) called for a more flexible reporting system, and 17% (n=76) recommended making the platform 
more user-friendly. Direct interaction with personnel, such as policy officers, was viewed as beneficial by 15% (n=67) of respondents. Other suggestions 
included providing clearer information (14%; n=63), sample reports and projects (5%; n=23), automatic email reminders (5%; n=22), organised kick-off 
meetings (4%; n=18), more training sessions (3%; n=12), and holding informative events and webinars (2%; n=9). Information flow and communication 
between different Creative Europe actors.  Data on the efficiency of information flow and communication among different Creative Europe actors primarily 
comes  from  targeted  stakeholder  interviews.  According  to  MEDIA  stakeholders,  the  information  flow  between  Desks,  the  EACEA,  and  Commission 
services has improved over recent years. Effective communication mechanisms, such as regular meetings, coordination between Desks, and the use of 
Microsoft Teams, have contributed to this improvement. However, there is room for improvement in communication regarding new or changed calls. 
Interviewees noted that information about calls is often not provided to Desks with sufficient advance notice, making it challenging to inform applicants 
promptly. This issue is particularly problematic during busy periods, causing delays in supporting applicants. As regards the Culture Sub-programme/strand, 
stakeholders generally indicated that communication is efficient, although some challenges persist. While the EACEA is recognised for its organisational 
capabilities and support, there is friction between the European Commission and the Executive Agency regarding the integration of special calls into work 
programmes. An EU-level policymaker highlighted that the EACEA operates within a rigid structure with established procedures, allowing it to organise 
its work throughout the year. However, the addition of special calls on top of the usual Creative Europe calls creates an administrative burden that should 
be better managed by the Executive Agency. One beneficiary expressed frustration with the current communication platform, which reportedly does not 
function effectively and noted delays in receiving responses from project officers, which can hinder administrative processes. 

Coherence 

Evidence from both survey responses and interviews highlighted internal and external coherence of the Programme despite areas for improvement 
remain. 

The  Creative  Europe  2014-2020  and  2021-2027  Programmes  generally  demonstrate  complementarity  with  national,  EU,  and  international  funding 
opportunities.  

202 

 
While evidence from interviews is mixed, survey results indicate a strong perception of this complementarity, with 81% of respondents (see Figure 15 
below) finding their respective Sub-programmes or strands fully or partially complementary to national funding opportunities. Similarly, 58% identified 
alignment with other EU funding instruments, while 56% noted compatibility with international funding sources. The findings were consistent across the 
2014-2020 and 2021-2027 Programmes.  In both  periods, respondents  largely  perceived complementarity with  national,  EU, and international  funding, 
although the Cross-sectoral strand consistently rated lower in complementarity with national and international funds compared to the Culture and MEDIA 
strands. Nonetheless, Cross-sectoral strand beneficiaries rated their complementarity with other EU funding sources and Creative Europe strands higher 
than those in the Culture and MEDIA strands. 

Figure 12. Complementarity of Sub-programme/strand to funding opportunities/ instruments and other Sub-programmes/strands  

Please comment on the extent to which the sub-programme/strand you 
participated in was complementary to: (N=2517)

National funding opportunities/instruments for the
cultural and creative sector

45%

36%

1%
1%

17%

Other EU funding opportunities/instruments for the
cultural and creative sector

26%

32%

0%
1%

40%

Other international funding opportunities/instruments
for the cultural and creative sector

25%

31%

0%
1%

42%

Other sub-programmes and strands of the Creative
Europe Programme

20%

23%

0%
1%

56%

Fully complementary

Partially complementary Mainly overlapping

Fully overlapping

I don’t know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

203 

 
 
Source: Beneficiary survey 

Despite these positive perceptions, areas for improvement remain. Respondents indicated that the first Creative Europe Programme mainly overlapped 
with national funds, especially in Austria and Belgium. In contrast, the second Creative Europe Programme highlighted overlaps primarily with other EU 
funding sources, such as initiatives from the Council of Europe, European Capitals of Culture, and Culture Moves (47%; n=7), as well as national (27%; 
n=4), local/regional (13%; n=2), and international funding (13%; n=2). Overlaps were also noted in activities related to international mobility (27%; n=4) 
and  policies  on  green  and  digital  transitions  (13%;  n=2).  These  findings  indicate  that  while  complementarity  exists,  certain  areas  could  benefit  from 
improved coordination, especially at the EU level. In terms of complementarity to other EU initiatives, MEDIA interviewees were able to comment on 
coherence with regard to Horizon Europe. Interviewees thought that while Horizon Europe could be relevant for MEDIA beneficiaries for R&D purposes 
(e.g., innovation, game development), many organisations are either not aware of Horizon Europe opportunities or calls are too technical for most industry 
players. Two interviewees also mentioned complementarity with the Eurimages call from the Council of Europe (CoE), which provides gap financing for 
specific projects by film creators. While Creative Europe supports organisations overall, it does not cover the production phase, where CoE funding is 
particularly beneficial. Moreover, Creative Europe’s focus on cultural diversity in Europe does not align with the primary aims of Eurimages or UNESCO 
calls, thereby creating a complementary relationship with these funding options186. 

At the national level, Creative Europe funding has been essential for addressing gaps in national funding opportunities across several Member 
States and sectors. MEDIA beneficiaries reported significant gaps in national funding, particularly in areas such as video games in Sweden and distribution 
in Poland, where few funding options are available.187 Conversely, where there are sufficient national funding sources available (e.g. for national production 
or local distribution in most Member States), there are no overlaps, as these areas are not supported by CE. As a result, CE is complementary to national-
level funding opportunities and objectives188. However, stakeholders expressed that improved coherence between the timings of national and EU-level 
calls, as well as the awarding of funds, could facilitate more efficient planning of productions and resource allocation. 

Most cultural stakeholders reported that Creative Europe activities align well with national objectives while maintaining distinct focuses. However, the 
interaction between EU and national policies is complex, and the extent of the Creative Europe Programme complementarity largely varies by 
country. As noted by a stakeholder from the Culture strand, EU policies and funding sometimes drive change, while at other times, they reinforce existing 

186 Interviews with representatives of two beneficiaries and a sectoral organisation. 
187 Interviews with representatives of two sectoral organisations and a beneficiary. 
188 Interviews with representatives of two beneficiaries and CE Desk. 

204 

 
 
frameworks. For instance, in  Poland, Creative Europe initiatives have influenced national  debates and political  priorities, while Sweden and Germany 
experience different benefits from the Culture strand. 

Ultimately, Creative Europe fills gaps by supporting international mobility and audience development, areas typically overlooked by national and regional 
funding.  According  to  consulted  stakeholders,  the  international  focus  is  crucial  for  fostering  broader  European  and  global  perspectives  in  the  cultural 
sector—perspectives that regional funding alone cannot achieve.189  

Relevance 

The majority of the stakeholders across consultation activities have indicated that the Creative Europe Programmes effectively address the needs and 
priorities of the culture and audiovisual sectors. This finding is consistent across strands and supported by evidence from the beneficiaries' survey, the 
open public consultation, and stakeholder interviews.   

As  shown  in  Figure  13,  according  to  the  beneficiaries'  survey,  nearly  all  respondents  indicated  that  the  conditions  of  the  call  were  relevant  to  their 
organisation's mission (93%) and needs (91%). Furthermore, 89% agreed that the conditions aligned with their sector's needs. This finding was reinforced 
by stakeholder interviewees, who confirmed that the Programme's alignment with sectoral priorities was a key strength, particularly in adapting to recent 
trends  and  technological  changes.  Similarly,  stakeholders  in  the  MEDIA  and  Culture  strand  consulted  in  the  OPC  stressed  how  the  Programme 
successfully  promoted  visibility  and  competitiveness  in  the  European  audiovisual  sector,  as  87%  of  respondents  from  the  open  public  consultation 
acknowledged these benefits. 

Figure 13. Respondents’ view on the relevance of the call 

189 Interview with a sectoral organisation and an EU-level policymaker.  

205 

 
 
Source: Beneficiary survey 

Further  evidence  shows  that  the  Programme's  relevance  was  generally  consistent  across  Sub-programmes  and  regions,  though  some  geographical 
differences  emerged.  For  example,  survey’s  respondents  from  Estonia  and  Slovakia  (96%  each)  emphasised  the  Programme's  high  relevance  to  their 
national  contexts,  a  view  shared  by  interviewees  who  represented  smaller  organisations  from  less  advantaged  regions.  However,  challenges  remained 
regarding project lifecycles and payment schedules, with Dutch (24%) and Norwegian (28%) survey’s participants expressing dissatisfaction. Interviews 
with stakeholders in these regions pointed to specific issues in administrative flexibility and cash-flow management, which still required attention despite 
broad Programme support.  

The evolution from the 2014-2020 to the 2021-2027 Programme edition was also perceived positively, according to both the beneficiaries' survey and 
interview responses.  

206 

 
 
Figure 14: Relevance of Creative Europe Programme priorities to sector needs (2014-2020190 vs 2021-2027191) 

57%

56%

28%

24%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

17%

12%

4%

2%

Extremely relevant

Relevant

Low level of relevance

I don’t know

CE 2014-2021

CE 2021-2027

Source: Beneficiary survey 

In the 2014-2020 Programme, 28% of survey respondents felt the priorities were extremely relevant without the need for further adjustments, compared 
to  57%  in  the  2021-2027  Programme.  This  29-percentage  point  increase  was  echoed  by  OPC  respondents  and  stakeholder  interviews,  which 
highlighted the 2021-2027 Programme’s greater flexibility, stronger alignment with societal challenges, and improvements in administrative processes. 

Additionally, stakeholders provided positive feedback on the importance of the Programme in promoting networking, capacity-building, and intercultural 
dialogue. In the OPC, 94% of respondents noted the Programme's strong contribution to capacity-building, a view that was also underlined by interviewees 
who praised the Programme’s role in fostering cross-border collaboration. Lastly, while the Creative Europe Programme was seen as generally adaptive to 
sectoral needs, challenges in addressing technological advances, such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), were noted. Both survey respondents and interviewees 

190  Question  “To  what  extent  were  the  Programme  priorities  and  type  of  projects  supported  under  your  Creative  Europe’s  Sub-programme  relevant  to  the  challenges  and  needs  within  your  sector?”  
(Responses=281) 
191  Question  “To  what  extent  were  the  Programme  priorities  and  type  of  projects  supported  under  your  Creative  Europe’s  Sub-programme  relevant  to  the  challenges  and  needs  within  your  sector?”  
(Responses=939) 

207 

 
 
 
in the audiovisual sector voiced concerns that while AI presents opportunities for efficiency, an overemphasis on it might undermine traditional creative 
processes. 

EU added value 

Added value compared with other support schemes 

For Media strand stakeholders, a triangulation of the results from the consultation activities reveals that in addition to other support schemes available at 
international  and  national  levels,  Creative  Europe  provides  added  value  through  cross-border  collaboration  and  networking;  the  production  of 
culturally diverse content; and access to funding for activities that are not covered by other Programmes. For example, the Open Public Consultation 
showed that Creative Europe adds value through the international visibility and international market access it provides (33%, 20);192 the networking and 
collaboration opportunities (especially at pan-European and international levels) (28%, 17); the cultural diversity it promotes through the variety of cultural 
forms it supports (20%, 12); and the Programme’s capacity to fill in the gaps unsupported at local and national level (17%, 10). In the interviews, Media 
stakeholders shared that Creative Europe funding helps reduce the high risks associated with audiovisual content creation and distribution. As a result, 
creative organisations with different levels of capacity can develop and circulate content leading to greater cultural diversity in the European market as 
opposed to what would be produced by large players.193 

Media strand interviewees also mentioned how CE funding has a meaningful impact on building strong industry partnerships, cross-border collaboration 
and European networks, which facilitate knowledge-sharing, networking and skills development in the industry194. In this respect, early-stage collaboration 
as part of the co-development scheme in the 2021-2027 Programme strongly contributed to more diverse and equitable partnerships, including with countries 
which  were  previously  not  considered195.  Cross-border  partnerships  across  Europe  remain  a  key  distinction  of  CE  in  comparison  to  other  national  or 
international funding programmes and schemes. These findings were reinforced in the beneficiary survey, where a large majority of Media respondents 
expressed  that  compared  with  other  culture  and  audiovisual  sector  support  schemes,  Creative  Europe  enables  more  diverse  geographical  coverage, 

192 Calculated out of 60 respondents to this question 
193 Interviews with representatives of three sectoral organisations and two beneficiaries. 
194 Interviews with representatives of two beneficiaries, two CE Desks and EU level policy maker. 
195 Interviews with representatives of a sectoral organisation and a beneficiary  

208 

 
 
particularly with EU countries (75%,191); 196 followed by, a stronger cross-border dimension (68%, 172);197 and also financing opportunities for activities 
not covered by other programmes (65%,165).198 These responses were consistent across both programming periods, ranked in the same order for survey 
respondents answering about 2014-2020 and 2021-2027. 

For Culture strand stakeholders, the most appreciated aspects of Creative Europe compared to other culture or audiovisual sector support schemes were: 
cross-border networking and collaboration opportunities; support for innovation; support for projects that would otherwise not be funded; and 
international visibility. These areas were frequently mentioned in the OPC, the beneficiary survey, and the interviews. Indeed, according to Culture strand 
interviewees, the Creative Europe Programme provides significant EU added value compared to national or regional initiatives through its support for 
transnational cooperation. Interviewees expressed that this cross-border focus allows for wider circulation of works and artists, fostering innovation and 
knowledge sharing that would be difficult to achieve through national funding alone.199 Interviewees also mentioned that Creative Europe is seen as crucial 
in filling gaps left by limited national cultural budgets. For example, in countries with lower cultural investments, such as parts of Eastern Europe, it plays 
a significant role in sustaining cultural activities. In larger markets, the Programme complements national funding by promoting international collaboration, 
something often lacking in national schemes.200  

For Culture stakeholders in both the OPC and the beneficiary survey, the most highly rated area of  Creative Europe’s added value, compared to other 
culture schemes at international and national levels, was the cross-border networking and collaboration opportunities it provides (53%, 26, in the OPC201 
202 and 69%, 401, in the beneficiary survey203). The interviewees added that the Programme’s emphasis on internationalisation enables cultural sectors to 
scale up and engage with broader European and global audiences, offering a unique value compared to other funding sources. This was echoed in the 

196 75% (n=191) out of 255 respondents representing the Media strand of the 2021-2027 Programme (most frequently mentioned area); 73% (n=124) of 170 respondents representing the Media Sub-programme 
of the 2014-2020 Programme (most frequently mentioned area) 
197 68% (n=172) out of 255 respondents representing the Media strand of the 2021-2027 Programme (second most frequently mentioned area); 63% (n=107) of 170 respondents representing the Media Sub-
programme of the 2014-2020 Programme (second most frequently mentioned area) 
198 65% (n=165) out of 255 respondents representing the Media strand of the 2021-2027 Programme (third most frequently mentioned area); 60% (n=102) of 170 respondents representing the Media Sub-
programme of the 2014-2020 Programme (third most frequently mentioned area) 
199 Interview with representatives of sectoral organisations, an EU-level policymaker, and a Creative Europe Desk. 
200 Interview with representatives of sectoral organisations, an EU-level policymaker, a beneficiary and a Creative Europe Desk. 
201 The open-ended responses of 49 respondents to the question “In your opinion, what does the Creative Europe Programme offer in addition to other culture and audiovisual sector support schemes available 
at both international and national levels?” was qualitatively analysed to create this list. 
202 Calculated out of 49 respondents 
203  69% (n=401) out of 581 respondents representing the Culture strand of the 2021-2027 Programme (most frequently mentioned area); 68% (n=196) of 288 respondents representing the Culture Sub-
programme of the 2014-2020 Programme (second most frequently mentioned area 

209 

 
 
beneficiary survey, as a large majority of respondents also expressed that in addition to other schemes, Creative Europe offers more diverse geographical 
coverage, particularly with EU countries (69%, 399)204; and financing opportunities for activities not covered by other programmes (64%, 371)205 206. The 
OPC also revealed that compared with other schemes, Creative Europe provided added value through the cultural diversity of the projects it supports (24%, 
12); the international visibility and international market access it provides projects (16%, 8); its support for innovation and risk-taking (16%, 8), and the 
soft power of the Programme in promoting EU values, the visibility of Europe abroad, or peace-building (14%, 7).  

There were comparably fewer consulted stakeholders who were familiar with the Cross-sectoral strand and its added value, but the results nonetheless 
reflected those from Media and Culture strand stakeholders discussed above. In the beneficiary survey, respondents familiar with the cross-sectoral strand 
also  expressed  that  in  addition  to  other  culture  and  audiovisual  sector  support  schemes,  Creative  Europe  offers  more  diverse  geographical  coverage, 
particularly with EU countries (65%, 65)207; a stronger cross-border dimension (61%, 61)208 and financing opportunities for activities not covered by other 
programmes (61%, 61)209. These responses only reflect the 2021-2027 period as there were very few (3) valid responses for the 2014-2020 period. In the 
OPC, there were also very few respondents representing the Cross-sectoral stand. Respondents mentioned that the added value that Creative Europe offers210 
is the networking and collaboration opportunities it provides (especially at pan-European and international levels) (50%, 2)211 and its support for innovation 
and risk-taking (50%, 2). 

Regarding the impact of Creative Europe on accessing other support schemes, according to the beneficiary survey, 63% (n=1374) of respondents212 said 
that Creative Europe had a positive impact on accessing grants from the public sector. Positive impact was also recorded on accessing commercial funding 
opportunities213 accessing  private non-commercial funding opportunities (private funds)214. Only 3% (n=66) of respondents felt it had a large positive 

204 69% (n=399) out of 581 respondents representing the Culture strand of the 2021-2027 Programme (second most frequently mentioned area); 75% (n=216) of 288 respondents representing the Culture 
Sub-programme of the 2014-2020 Programme (most frequently mentioned area) 
205 64% (n=371) out of 581 respondents representing the Culture strand of the 2021-2027 Programme (third most frequently mentioned area); 62% (n=179) of 288 respondents representing the Culture Sub-
programme of the 2014-2020 Programme (third most frequently mentioned area) 
206 These survey responses were consistent across both programming periods, with slight differences explained in detail in the footnotes. 
207 65% (n=65) out of 100 respondents representing the Cross-sectoral strand of the 2021-2027 Programme (most frequently mentioned area) 
208 61% (n=61) out of 100 respondents representing the Cross-sectoral strand of the 2021-2027 Programme (second most frequently mentioned area) 
209 61% (n=61) out of 100 respondents representing the Cross-sectoral strand of the 2021-2027 Programme (second most frequently mentioned area) 
210 The open-ended responses of 4 respondents to the question “In your opinion, what does the Creative Europe Programme offer in addition to other culture and audiovisual sector support schemes available 
at both international and national levels?” was qualitatively analysed to create this list. 
211 Calculated out of 4 respondents. 
212 36% (n=778) indicated that it had a large positive impact, 27% (n=596) said that it had a small positive impact 
213 Respectively, 11% (n=230) selected large impact and 21% (n=451) selected small impact 
214 10% (n=215) selected large impact and 21% (n=450) selected small impact 

210 

 
 
impact and 8% a small impact (n=168) on accessing funding from crowdfunding. Only 17% of respondents (n=374) felt that Creative Europe was easier to 
access  than  other  sectoral  support  schemes  at  international  and  national  levels.  There  were  no  significant  trends  related  to  this  identified  in  the  other 
consultation activities, possibly as it is a question that mainly Programme beneficiaries can respond to.  

The beneficiary survey also revealed that if their organisation had not received co-funding from the Creative Europe  Programme, the vast majority of 
respondents (90%; n=2265) felt that the project activities/elements their organisation implemented would have been impacted, respondents indicating 
that they would have implemented some activities/projects but not others (46%; n=1154), or that they would not have implemented any (44%; n=1111). 
Only 6% (n=155)  felt that  their organisation  would  have implemented the projects/funded the activities without  co-funding from  the Creative Europe 
Programme. When asked to quantify the share of projects/project activities that would have been implemented without funding from Creative Europe, 77% 
of respondents expressed that half or less of such activities would have been implemented (n=1013).215  

Added value of the 2021-2027 Programme compared to the 2014-2020 Programme 

The consultation activities revealed that the 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 had similarities in the added value they provided, such as in their promotion of 
cross-border activities, transnational activities, and the promotion of cultural diversity, which was consistently recognised across the three strands and Sub-
programmes. There is some evidence to suggest that the 2021-2027 Programme increased the diversity of activities and created unity through inter-cultural 
activities (see the analyses by strand below).  

As a general overview, the beneficiary survey provides insights into the difference between the two Programmes through the answers to open questions216. 
Respondents frequently mentioned the increased added value of the 2021-2027 Programme because of its higher Programme relevance (43%; n=90), 
larger impact (17%; n=36), and better accessibility (14%; n=30). Many participants felt that the 2021-2027 edition of the Programme aligned more 
effectively with sectoral needs. The thematic targeting of the calls was particularly well-received, especially in areas like cultural heritage protection and 
music. Respondents also appreciated the media literacy calls, with one noting that “the latest call acknowledged the new trends in the media landscape”. 
The Call for Evidence also revealed that many respondents positively acknowledged the increased budget for the 2021-2027 period of CE Programme, with 
more funding to specific sectors, especially the co-financing of the European Platforms for the promotion of emerging artists.  

215 Shares between 20% and 50% were the most frequently selected (69% combined; n=902). 
216 207 respondents provided a valid response to this question. 

211 

 
 
Furthermore, respondents in the beneficiary survey widely praised the Programme’s emphasis on cross-cutting issues, notably the green (10%; n=20) and 
digital (7%; n=15) transitions. Some respondents noted the significant influence of Creative Europe funding on building capacity in specific sectors within 
their countries, and also their organisations, citing examples where funding boosted their companies’ strength and visibility. The 2021-2027 edition of 
Creative  Europe  was  also  considered  more  accessible  for  both  small  organisations  and  small  countries.  Administrative  simplification  further 
enhanced accessibility, with several respondents reporting easier and more accessible application and reporting processes. There was limited evidence in 
the interviews and Call for Evidence on the added value of the 2021-2027 Programme over the earlier Programme. 

When looking into the difference between the 2014-2020 Programme and the 2021-2027 Programme in terms of the Media strand, the findings from the 
consultation activities are not fully cohesive and representative. For example, in the OPC, when comparing the 2014-2020 Programme with the 2021-2027 
Programme, there were very far fewer respondents familiar with the earlier Programme (representing one eighth of the respondents familiar with the later 
Programme217), so the findings need to be interpreted with this consideration. In the beneficiary survey there were also fewer respondents familiar with the 
earlier Programme, but not at such a stark ratio218. According to the beneficiary survey, for Media respondents from different programming periods ranking 
areas  of  added  value,  there  wasn’t  a  significant  difference  between  the  added  value  of  Creative  Europe  between  the  2014-2020  and  the  2021-2027 
Programme.  Media respondents in the survey showed that the added value of Creative Europe, in both programming periods, was that it promotes cross-
border cooperation, including through mobility;219 the transnational character of actions and activities;220 and promoting European common roots 
and cultural diversity.221  

217 There were 10 respondents familiar with the 2014-2020 Programme and 80 respondents familiar with the 2021-2027 Programme. 
218 There were 170 respondents familiar with the 2014-2020 Programme and 255 familiar with the 2021-2027 Programme 
219 For those familiar with the 2021-23 Programme, 76% (n=158) out of 207 respondents rated this as an area where Creative Europe provides a very large or large added value. For those familiar with the 
2014-2020 Programme, 67% (n=99) out of 149 respondents rated this as an area where Creative Europe provides a very large or large added value. This was the highest rated area in terms of added value in 
both programming periods 
220 For those familiar with the 2021-23 Programme, 71% (n=147) out of 207 respondents rated this as an area where Creative Europe provides a very large or large added value. For those familiar with the 
2014-2020 Programme, 64% (n=95) out of 149 respondents rated this as an area where Creative Europe provides a very large or large added value. This was the third highest rated area in terms of added 
value for the 2021-2027 Programme, and the second highest rated area for the earlier Programme. 
221 For those familiar with the 2021-23 Programme, 71% (n=147) out of 207 respondents rated this as an area where Creative Europe provides a very large or large added value. For those familiar with the 
2014-2020 Programme, 62% (n=92) out of 149 respondents rated this as an area where Creative Europe provides a very large or large added value.  

212 

 
 
For Media strand respondents in the OPC222 the 2021-2027 Programme was rated to have more added value in fostering additional funding opportunities 
for the Audiovisual and cultural creative sector compared to the 2014-2020 Programme223. The later Programme was rated to have more of an added 
value in promoting cross-border cooperation, including through mobility (among organisations and professionals in the cultural and creative sectors)224. 
Media interviewees also mentioned that early-stage collaboration as part of the co-development scheme in the later Programme strongly contributed to 
more diverse and equitable partnerships, including with countries which were previously not considered225. Lastly, in the OPC, a difference of what the 
later 2021-2027 Programme offered in addition to other support schemes at international and national level compared to the 2014-2020 was the cultural 
diversity  of  the  projects  it  supports226.  Another  difference  was  that  the  later  Programme  was  rated  to  provide  added  value  in  filling  in  the  gaps 
unsupported by schemes at local and national level227, while this was not mentioned at all by respondents familiar with the 2014-2020 Programme. 
Similarly, the 2021-27 Programme was considered to provide added value in how it  supports the competitiveness and scale of projects, which was 
mentioned by fewer respondents from the previous Programme228.  

For Culture strand respondents in both the OPC and the beneficiary survey, there appeared to be few differences in added value between the 2014-2020 
and  the  2021-2027  Programmes.  For  example,  in  the  beneficiary  survey,  the  responses  according  to  the  different  programming  periods  were  almost 
identical.    The  added  value  of  Creative  Europe,  according  to  both  programming  periods,  was  that  it  promotes  cross-border  cooperation,  including 
through mobility (the highest rated area for added value in both  Programmes)229, as well as how the Programmes promote access to culture, active 

222  As  stated  in  the  paragraph  above,  these  findings  from  the  OPC  should  be  interpreted  with  the  consideration  that  there  were  fewer  respondents  about  the  first  Programme,  so  their  answers  are  not 
representative 
223 For those familiar with the 2021-2027 Programme, 78% (n=62) of 80 respondents stated that the Creative Europe Programme created a very large or large added value in this area, making it the highest 
rated area where the Programme created added value. In comparison, for those familiar with the 2014-2020 Programme, the Programme created a very large or large added value in this area for 50% (n=5) 
of 10 respondents, making it the fifth highest area where added value was created.   
224 For those familiar with the 2021-2027 Programme, 71% (n=57) of 80 respondents stated that the Creative Europe Programme created a very large or large added value in this area, making it the second 
highest rated area where the Programme created added value. In comparison, for those familiar with the 2014-2020 Programme, the Programme created a very large or large added value in this area for 50% 
(n=5) of 10 respondents, making it the fifth highest area where added value was created.   
225 Interviews with representatives of a sectoral organisation and a beneficiary.  
226 This was 22% (n=11) out of 51 respondents for the 2021-2027 Programme, and it was a less commonly mentioned area in the 2014-2020 Programme (11%, n=1 of 9 respondents). 
227 20% (n=10) out of 51 respondents in the later Programme, compared to no mentions of this in the earlier Programme. 
228 16% (n=8) of 51 respondents familiar with the 2021-2027 Programme mentioned this added value, in comparison with 11% (n=1) of 9 respondents familiar with the 2014-2020 Programme. 
229 For those familiar with the 2021-23 Programme, 84% (n=441) out of 522 respondents rated this as an area where Creative Europe provides a very large or large added value. For those familiar with the 
2014-2020 Programme, 84% (n=290) out of 347 respondents rated this as an area where Creative Europe provides a very large or large added value. This was the highest rated area in terms of added value 
for both programming periods. 

213 

 
 
engagement  of  citizens  and  intercultural  dialogue  (the  second  highest  rated  area  for  added  value  in  both  Programmes)230.  Other  areas  where  both 
Programmes were similarly rated as having a large added value were the transnational character of actions and activities, which complement regional, 
national, international and other Union programmes and policies231 and the promotion of European common roots and cultural diversity.232 For Culture 
strand/Sub-programme respondents in the OPC, there were far fewer respondents familiar with the earlier Programme,233 so the findings from the OPC 
need to be interpreted with this consideration. Nonetheless, the OPC also revealed that there were strong similarities in the areas where the Programmes 
had  a  large  added  value.  The  two  areas  that  were  rated  to  be  the  greatest  contribution  areas  of  the  earlier  and  later  Programme  were  consistently  the 
transnational character of actions and activities234 and the Programme’s promotion of cross-border cooperation, including through mobility.235  

For Culture respondents, there is some evidence to suggest that the 2021-2027 Programme offered a greater diversity of cultural activities and initiatives 
connecting (culturally diverse) people than the predecessor Programme236. For example, when comparing perceptions of the 2014-2020 Programme with 
the 2021-2027 Programme in terms of what they offer in addition to other support schemes, there are variations in some results in the OPC. Respondents 
familiar with the 2021-2027 Programme in the OPC mentioned the value of the cultural diversity promoted by Creative Europe projects (in comparison to 
other schemes at international and national level) more frequently than respondents familiar with the 2014-2020 Programme.237 The interviewees also 
mentioned that the later Creative Europe Programme (2021-2027) offers additional value through new initiatives, such as the Culture Moves Europe and 
Pan-European Cultural Entities. These actions have facilitated new networks and collaborations between artists from different countries, with stakeholders 

230 For those familiar with the 2021-23 Programme, 80% (n=415) out of 522 respondents rated this as an area where Creative Europe provides a very large or large added value. For those familiar with the 
2014-2020 Programme, 75% (n=259) out of 347 respondents rated this as an area where Creative Europe provides a very large or large added value. This was the second highest rated area in terms of added 
value for both Programmes. 
231 For those familiar with the 2021-23 Programme, 76% (n=399) out of 522 respondents rated this as an area where Creative Europe provides a very large or large added value (fourth highest rated area). 
For those familiar with the 2014-2020 Programme, 74% (n=256) out of 347 respondents rated this as an area where Creative Europe provides a very large or large added value (third highest rated area). 
232 For those familiar with the 2021-23 Programme, 79% (n=410) out of 522 respondents rated this as an area where Creative Europe provides a very large or large added value. For those familiar with the 
2014-2020 Programme, 75% (n=259) out of 347 respondents rated this as an area where Creative Europe provides a very large or large added value.  
233 13 respondents were familiar with the 2014-2020 Programme, and 53 were familiar with the 2021-2027 Programme. 
234 In the 2021-27 Programme, this was the highest rated area of very large or large added value, with 89% (n= 40) of 53 respondents saying that this area had an added value to a very large or large extent; 
and in the 2014-2020 Programme, this was the second highest rated area, with 77% (n=10) of 13 respondents.  
235 In the 2021-27 Programme, this was the second highest rated area having a very large or large added value with 87% (n=39) of 53 respondents rating that this area had an added value to a very large or 
large added value; in the 2014-2020 Programme, this was the highest rated area, with 85% (n=11) of 13 respondents. 
236 It could also be that the OPC is less representative with its findings, as there were much fewer respondents of the earlier  Programme than with the later Programme. Also, it should be noted that the 
beneficiary survey had a larger number of respondents for these questions compared to the OPC. 
237 24% (n=12) of 49 respondents familiar with the Culture strand of the 2021-2027 Programme mentioned this, compared to 8% (n=1) of 12 respondents familiar with the Culture Sub-programme of the 
2014-2020 Programme. 

214 

 
 
citing examples of how they have led to long-term national projects and associations238. In the OPC, there were also some differences in how respondents 
rated the Programme’s contribution to fostering additional funding opportunities for the AV and cultural creative sector – this was the third highest rated 
area in terms of added value for the 2014-2020 Programme239, whereas respondents familiar with the later Programme rated other areas more highly than 
this. For example, the 2021-27 Programme was considered to provide more of an added value in promoting access to culture, the active engagement of 
citizens and intercultural dialogue240 and the promotion of European common roots and cultural diversity241. In the earlier programming period for OPC 
respondents, these areas were some of the lowest rated areas in terms of added value242.  

As regards the Cross-sectoral strand, the beneficiary survey had the strongest data on comparisons about this strand between the two programming periods 
(in the OPC, there were less than 3 respondents  who were familiar with  the cross-sectoral strands of the Programmes). In the survey, the areas where 
Creative Europe had the largest added value were similar across both programming periods: cross-border cooperation, including through mobility (the 
highest  rated  area  for  added  value  for  both  programming  periods)243  and  the  transnational  character  of  actions  and  activities,  which  complement 
regional, national, international and other Union programmes and policies (the second highest rated area for both programming periods)244. Other areas that 
were rated highly in terms of added value, were how the Programme addresses common challenges, including the digital shift, via cooperation245 and 
promoting access to culture, active engagement of citizens and intercultural dialogue.246 From the limited available data from the OPC, it appears that 
the 2021-2027 Programme was rated to have a higher added value in the cross-sectoral strand in promoting cross-border cooperation, including through 

238 Interview with representatives of a sectoral organisation and a CE Desk  
239For those familiar with the 2014-2020 Programme, 69% (n=9) out of 13 respondents expressed added value created in this area. The largest added value was calculated by compounding respondents who 
stated that an area had an added value to a very large or a large extent. This was the third most highly rated area. 
240 73% (n=33) of 53 respondents. The largest added value was calculated by compounding respondents who stated that an area had an added value to a very large or a large extent. This was the third highest 
rated area.  
241 71% (n=32) of 53 respondents. The largest added value was calculated by compounding respondents who stated that an area had an added value to a very large or a large extent. This was the fourth highest 
rated area. 
242 Only 38% (n=5) of 13 respondents indicated that these areas had an added value to a very large or large extent. 
243 87% (n=68) of 78 respondents familiar with the Cross-sectoral strand of the 2021-2023 Programme mentioned this, compared to 60% (n=6) of 10 respondents familiar with the Cross-sectoral strand of 
the 2014-2020 Programme. 
244 86% (n=67) of 78 respondents familiar with the Cross-sectoral strand of the 2021-2023 Programme mentioned this, compared to 70% (n=6) of 10 respondents familiar with the Cross-sectoral strand of 
the 2014-2020 Programme. 
245 78% (n=61) of 78 respondents familiar with the Cross-sectoral strand of the 2021-2023 Programme mentioned this (the highest rated area), compared to 60% (n=6) of 10 respondents familiar with the 
Cross-sectoral strand of the 2014-2020 Programme (the second highest rated area). 
246 79% (n=62) of 78 respondents familiar with the Cross-sectoral strand of the 2021-2023 Programme mentioned this, compared to 60% (n=6) of 10 respondents familiar with the Cross-sectoral strand of 
the 2014-2020 Programme. These were the third highest rated areas for both Programmes. 

215 

 
 
mobility; in addressing common challenges (including the digital shift, via cooperation); fostering economies of scale and growth and jobs; and fostering 
additional funding opportunities for the Audiovisual and cultural creative sector.247  

ANNEX VI. CREATIVE EUROPE PROGRAMME SPECIFIC PRIORITIES  

Creative Europe 1 
(a) to support the capacity of the European cultural and creative sectors to operate 
transnationally and internationally;  
(b)  to  promote  the  transnational  circulation  of  cultural  and  creative  works  and 
transnational mobility of cultural and creative players, in particular artists, as well 
as to reach new and enlarged audiences and improve access to cultural and creative 
works in the Union and beyond, with a particular focus on children, young people, 
people with disabilities and under-represented groups;  
(c) to strengthen the financial capacity of SMEs and micro, small and medium-sized 
organisations  in  the  cultural  and  creative  sectors  in  a  sustainable  way,  while 
endeavouring to ensure a balanced geographical coverage and sector representation;  
(d)  to foster  policy  development,  innovation,  creativity,  audience  development  and 
new  business  and  management  models  through  support  for  transnational  policy 
cooperation.  
The priorities of the three different Sub-programmes/strands are as follows:  

Creative Europe 2 
a) to enhance artistic and cultural cooperation at the European level in order to support the 
creation of European works and strengthen the economic, social and external  dimension 
of and innovation and mobility in Europe’s cultural and creative sectors (Culture strand);   
(b)  to  promote  competitiveness,  scalability,  cooperation,  innovation  and  sustainability, 
including through mobility, in the European audiovisual sector (Media strand);   
(c)  to  promote  policy  cooperation  and  innovative  actions  supporting  all  strands  of  the 
Programme and to promote a diverse, independent and pluralistic media environment, and 
media literacy, thereby fostering freedom of artistic expression, intercultural dialogue and 
social inclusion (Cross-sectoral strand).  

Creative Europe 1 
Culture Sub-programme 

Creative Europe 2 
Culture strand 

247 In all of these 4 areas, 100% (n=3) of 3 respondents rated that the 2021-2027 Creative Europe Programme provided a very large or large added value in this area, compared to 50% (n=1) of 2 respondents 
filtered for the same criteria in the 2014-2020 Programme. 

216 

 
 
 
 
 
1. The  priorities in the  field of reinforcing the cultural and creative  sectors' capacity to 
operate transnationally shall be the following: 
(a) supporting actions providing cultural and creative players with skills, competences and 
know-how  that  contribute  to  strengthening  the  cultural  and  creative  sectors,  including 
encouraging adaptation to digital technologies, testing innovative approaches to audience 
development and testing new business and management models; 
(b) supporting actions enabling cultural and creative players to cooperate internationally 
and to internationalise their careers and activities in the Union and beyond, where possible 
on the basis of long-term strategies; 
(c)  providing  support  to  strengthen  European  cultural  and  creative  organisations  and 
international networking in order to facilitate access to professional opportunities. 

2.The priorities in the field of promoting transnational circulation and mobility shall be the 
following: 
(a) supporting international touring, events, exhibitions and festivals; 
(b)  supporting  the  circulation  of  European  literature  with  a  view  to  ensuring  its  widest 
possible accessibility; 
(c) supporting audience development as a means of stimulating interest in, and improving 
access  to,  European  cultural  and  creative  works  and  tangible  and  intangible  cultural 
heritage. 

(a) to strengthen transnational cooperation and the cross-border dimension of the 
creation, circulation and visibility of European works and the mobility of operators in the 
cultural and creative sectors; 
(b) to increase access to and participation in culture and to increase audience engagement 
and improve audience development across Europe; 
(c) to promote societal resilience and to enhance social inclusion and intercultural dialogue 
through culture and cultural heritage; 
(d) to enhance the capacity of the European cultural and creative  sectors, including the 
capacity of individuals working in those sectors, to nurture talent, to innovate, to prosper 
and to generate jobs and growth; 
(e) to strengthen European identity and values through cultural awareness, arts education 
and culture-based creativity in education; 
(f)  to  promote  capacity-building  within  the  European  cultural  and  creative  sectors, 
including  grassroots  organisations  and  micro-organisations,  so  that  they  are  able  to  be 
active at the international level; 
(g) to contribute to the Union’s global strategy for international relations through culture. 

MEDIA Sub-programme 

MEDIA strand 

1. The priorities in the field of reinforcing the European  
audiovisual sector's capacity to operate transnationally shall be  
the following: 
(a) facilitating the acquisition and improvement of skills and  
competences of audiovisual professionals and the development of networks, including the 
use of digital technologies to ensure adaptation to market development,  
testing new approaches to audience development and  
testing new business models; 
(b) increasing the capacity of audiovisual operators to develop  
European audiovisual works with a potential to circulate in  
the Union and beyond and to facilitate European and international co-production, including 
with television broadcasters; 
(c) encouraging business-to-business exchanges by facilitating  
access to markets and business tools enabling audiovisual  
operators to increase the visibility of their projects on Union  

1. In line with the Programme objectives referred to in Article 3, the Media strand shall 
have the following priorities: 
(a)  to  nurture  talent,  competence  and  skills  and  to  stimulate  cross-border  cooperation, 
mobility, and innovation in the  
creation and production of European audiovisual works, thereby encouraging collaboration 
across Member States  
with different audiovisual capacities; 
(b) to enhance the circulation, promotion, online distribution and theatrical distribution of 
European audiovisual works  
within  the  Union  and  internationally  in  the  new  digital  environment,  including  through 
innovative business models; 
(c) to promote European audiovisual works, including heritage works, and to support the 
engagement and development of  
audiences of all ages, in particular young audiences, across Europe and beyond. 

217 

 
 
 
 
and international markets. 
2. The priorities in the field of promoting transnational  
circulation shall be the following: 
(a) supporting theatrical distribution through transnational  
marketing, branding, distribution and exhibition of audiovisual works; 
(b) promoting transnational marketing, branding and  
distribution of audiovisual works on all other non-theatrical  
platforms; 
(c) supporting audience development as a means of stimulating  
interest in, and improving access to, European audiovisual  
works, in particular through promotion, events, film literacy  
and festivals; 
(d) promoting new distribution modes in order to allow the  
emergence of new business models. 

2. The priorities set out in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be addressed through support 
for the development,  
production, promotion, and dissemination of European works and support for access to 
those works, with the objective of  
reaching  diverse  audiences  within  Europe  and  beyond,  thereby  adapting  to  new  market 
developments and accompanying  
the implementation of Directive 2010/13/EU. 
3. The actions through which the priorities set out in paragraph 1 of this Article are to be 
pursued are set out in Section 2 of Annex I. 

Cross-Sectoral strand 

Cross-Sectoral strand 

Cultural and Creative Sectors Guarantee Facility 
1. The Commission shall establish a Guarantee Facility  
targeting the cultural and creative sectors. The Guarantee Facility shall operate as a self-
standing instrument and shall be set up and managed in accordance with Title VIII of the 
Financial Regulation. 
2. The Guarantee Facility shall have the following priorities: 
(a) to facilitate access to finance for SMEs and micro, small and  
medium-sized organisations in the cultural and creative  
sectors; 
(b)  to  improve  the  capacity  of  participating  financial  intermediaries  to  assess  the  risks 
associated with SMEs and  
micro, small and medium-sized organisations in the  
cultural and creative sectors and with their projects,  
including through technical assistance, knowledge-building  
and networking measures. 
The priorities shall be implemented in accordance with Annex I. 
3. In accordance with Article 139(4) of the Financial Regulation, the Commission shall 
implement the Guarantee Facility  
in an indirect management mode by entrusting tasks to the EIF  
as referred to in point (iii) of Article 58(1)(c) of that Regulation,  

1. In line with the Programme objectives referred to in Article 3, the Cross-sectoral strand 
shall have the following  
priorities: 
(a) to support cross-sectoral transnational policy cooperation, including cooperation on the 
promotion of the role of  
culture in social inclusion and cooperation on artistic freedom, to promote the visibility of 
the Programme and to  
support the transferability of the results of the Programme; 
(b) to encourage innovative approaches to the creation, distribution and promotion of, and 
access to, content across  
cultural and creative sectors and other sectors, including by taking into account the digital 
shift, covering both market  
and non-market dimensions; 
(c)  to  promote  cross-sectoral  activities  that  aim  at  adjusting  to  the  structural  and 
technological changes faced by the media,  
including enhancing a free, diverse, and pluralistic media environment, quality journalism 
and media literacy, including  
in the digital environment; 
(d)  to  support  the  establishment  of  Programme  desks  in  participating  countries  and  the 
activities of Programme desks and  

218 

 
 
to stimulate cross-border cooperation and the exchange of best practices within the cultural 
and creative sectors. 
2. The actions through which the priorities set out in paragraph 1 of this Article are to be 
pursued are set out in  
Section 3 of Annex I. 

subject to the terms of an agreement between the Commission  
and the EIF. 

Transnational policy cooperation 
1. In order to promote transnational policy cooperation, the  
Cross-sectoral Strand shall support: 
(a) transnational exchange of experiences and know-how in  
relation to new business and management models, peer learning activities and networking 
among cultural and  
creative organisations and policy-makers related to the  
development of the cultural and creative sectors,  
promoting digital networking where appropriate; 
(b) the collection of market data, studies, analysis of labour  
market and skills needs, European and national cultural  
policies analysis and support for statistical surveys based  
on instruments and criteria specific to each sector and  
evaluations, including measurement of all aspects of the  
impact of the Programme; 
(c) payment of the contribution fee for Union membership of  
the Observatory to foster data collection and analysis in the  
audiovisual sector; 
(d) testing of new and cross-sectoral business approaches to  
funding, distributing and monetising creation; 
(e) conferences, seminars and policy dialogue, including in the  
field of cultural and media literacy, promoting digital  
networking where appropriate; 
(f) the Creative Europe Desks referred to in Article 16 and the  
performance of their tasks. 
2.  By  30  June  2014,  the  Commission  shall  carry  out  a  feasibility  study  exploring  the 
possibility of collecting and analysing  
data in the cultural and creative sectors other than the audiovisual sector, and shall present 
the results of that study to the European Parliament and to the Council. 
Depending on the results of the feasibility study, the  
Commission may submit a proposal to amend this Regulation  
accordingly. 

Creative Europe Desks 

219 

 
 
 
1. The countries participating in the Programme, acting  
together with the Commission, shall establish Creative Europe  
Desks in accordance with their national law and practice (the 
"Creative Europe Desks"). 
2. The Commission shall support a network of Creative  
Europe Desks. 
3. The Creative Europe Desks shall carry out the following  
tasks, while taking into account the specific characteristics of  
each sector: 
(a) provide information about, and promote, the Programme in  
their country; 
(b) assist the cultural and creative sectors in relation to the  
Programme and provide basic information on other  
relevant support opportunities available under Union policy; 
(c) stimulate cross-border cooperation within the cultural and  
creative sectors; 
(d) support the Commission by providing assistance regarding  
the  cultural  and  creative  sectors  in  the  countries  participating  in  the  Programme,  for 
example through the  
provision of available data on those sectors; 
(e) support the Commission in ensuring proper communication  
and dissemination of the results and impacts of the  
Programme; 
(f) ensure the communication and dissemination of  
information concerning the Union funding awarded and  
the results obtained for their country. 
4. The Commission, acting together with the Member States,  
shall ensure the quality and results of the service provided by  
the Creative Europe Desks through regular and independent  
monitoring and evaluation. 

220 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX VII. LIST OF PROGRAMME INDICATORS 

Creative Europe 1 Indicators: 

Indicators  for  the  general  objectives 
referred  to 
in  Article  3  of  the 
Programme’s regulation: 

Indicators  for  the  specific  objective 
referred  to 
in  point  (a)  of  the 
Programme’s specific objectives: 

and 

change 

(i)  the  cultural  and  creative  sectors' 
share  of 
in 
level, 
employment and share of gross domestic 
product; 
(ii) the  number  of  people  accessing 
European  cultural  and  creative  works, 
including,  where  possible,  works  from 
countries other than their own; 

for 

indicators 

The 
the  general 
objectives were completed as follows:  
a)  the number of jobs generated by the 
Programme in the Cultural and Creative 
sectors; 
b)  the  financial  contribution  of  the 
Cultural and Creative sectors leveraged 
by  the  Programme  for  the  funded 
projects; 
c)  the  number  of  people  accessing 
European  cultural  and  creative  works 
generated by the Programme, including, 

(i)  the scale of international activities of 
cultural  and  creative  organisations  and 
the number of transnational partnerships 
created; 
(ii) the  number  of  learning  experiences 
the 
and 
Programme  which  have  improved  the 
competences 
the 
employability  of  cultural  and  creative 
players, 
audiovisual 
professionals; 

supported  by 

including 

increased 

activities 

and 

for 

this 

specific 

indicators 

The 
objective were completed as follows: 
a) the number and scale of transnational 
partnerships created with the support of 
the Programme, including the country of 
origin of the beneficiary organisations; 
b)  the  number  of  cultural  and  creative 
activities organised transnationally with 
the Culture Sub-programme’s support; 

Indicators  for  the  specific  objective 
referred  to 
in  point  (b)  of  the 
Programme’s  specific  objectives  as 
regards the MEDIA Sub-programme: 
(i)  the  number  of  admissions  for  non-
national  European  films  in  Europe  and 
European  films  worldwide  (10  most 
important  non-European  markets)  in 
cinemas; 
percentage 
(ii) the 
audiovisual  works 
television and on digital platforms; 
the  number  of  people  in  the 
(iii) 
Member  States  accessing  non-national 
European  audiovisual  works  and  the 
number  of  people  in  the  countries 
Programme 
participating 
accessing European audiovisual works; 
(iv) 
the  number  of  European  video 
games produced in the Union as well as 
in  the  countries  participating  in  the 
Programme; 

of  European 
in  cinemas,  on 

the 

in 

indicators 

specific 
The 
objective were completed as follows:  

this 

for 

221 

to 

(b) 

in  point 

Indicators  for  the  specific  objective 
referred 
of 
Programme’s  specific  objectives  as 
regards the Culture Sub-programme: 
(i)  the  number  of  people  directly  and 
through  projects 
reached 
indirectly 
supported by the Programme; 
(ii) the number of projects addressed to 
children,  young  people  and  under-
represented  groups  and  the  estimated 
number of people reached; 

for 

this 

indicators 

specific 
The 
objective were completed as follows:  
a) the number of artists and cultural and 
creative professionals as well as general 
public,  directly  and  indirectly  reached 
through  projects  supported  by 
the 
Culture Sub-programme; 
b)  the  number  of  supported  project 
participants who report new or enhanced 
market or professional opportunities; 
c) the number of projects supported by 
to 
the 
disadvantaged  groups,  among  others 

Programme 

addressed 

 
 
 
 
 
where  possible,  works  from  countries 
other than their own; 
d)  the number and share of audiovisual 
companies that report improved market 
position due to MEDIA Sub-programme 
support. 

and 

increased 

c) the number of participants in learning 
experiences and activities, supported by 
the  Programme,  having  improved  their 
their 
competences 
employability (including the proportion 
of women); 
d) qualitative evidence of success stories 
in  the  field  of  artistic,  business  and 
technological  innovation  due  to  the 
Programme support; 
e) list of awards, nominations and prizes 
granted to audiovisual works supported 
by  the  MEDIA  Sub-programme  in  the 
of 
framework 
the  main  major 
festivals  and  national 
international 
academies (including Berlinale, Cannes, 
Oscars, European Film Awards). 

of 

percentage 

a)  the  number  of  admissions  in  the 
Member  States  for  films  from  other 
Member States, distributed in the Union 
with the support of the Programme; 
b)  the  share  of  admissions  in  the 
Member  States  for  films  from  other 
Member States; 
the  Union 
c)the 
audiovisual  works  in  cinemas  and  on 
digital  platforms  supported  by 
the 
Programme; 
d)  the  average  number  of  non-national 
territories  in  which  the  supported  titles 
or films and television works have been 
distributed; 
e) 
the  number  of  co-productions 
developed and created with the support 
of the Programme, including the share of 
co-productions with diverse partners; 
f)  the  proportion  of  audiovisual  works 
supported  by 
the  MEDIA  Sub-
programme,  which  are  directed  or 
written by women. 

large)  of 

people  with  a  migrant  background, 
people with disabilities and unemployed 
persons,  especially  unemployed  young 
people. 
d) the size (micro, small, medium-sized 
and 
the  organisations 
participating  in  the  projects  (annual 
headcount and annual turnover or annual 
balance sheet); 
e)  the  number  and  relative  share  of 
small-scale and large-scale cooperation 
projects  supported  by  the  Culture  Sub-
programme; 
f) the number of artists and cultural and 
creative  professionals  geographically 
mobile  beyond  national  borders  due  to 
the Culture Sub-programme support, by 
country of origin and gender; 
g)  the  number  of  literary  translations 
undertaken per year with the Programme 
support; 
the  number  and  percentage  of 
h) 
translations from  lesser-used languages 
supported by the Programme; 
i)  the  number  of  books  produced  with 
the support of the Programme. 

Indicator name 

Results 2020 

Initial Target (end of 
2020) 

Target reached 

Indicators for the general objectives referred to in Article 3 of the Programme’s regulation 

222 

 
 
 
cultural and creative sectors' level, change in and share of employment and share 
of gross domestic product; (Total European Workforce) 
number of people accessing European cultural and creative works, including, 
where possible, works from countries other than their own; 
Specific objective 1 
scale of international activities of cultural and creative organisations and the 
number of transnational partnerships created 
the number of learning experiences and activities supported by the Programme 
which have improved the competences and increased the employability of 
cultural and creative players, including audiovisual professionals; 
Ad. Specific Objective 3: 
volume of loans guaranteed in the framework of the Guarantee Facility, 
categorised by national origin, size and sectors of SMEs and micro, small and 
medium-sized organisations 
volume of loans granted by participating financial intermediaries, categorised by 
national origin 
number and geographical spread of participating financial intermediaries (No of 
financial institutions) 
number and geographical spread of participating financial intermediaries (No of 
countries) 
number of SMEs and micro, small and medium-sized organisations benefiting 
from the Guarantee Facility, categorised by national origin, size and sectors 
(beneficiaries) 
number of SMEs and micro, small and medium-sized organisations benefiting 
from the Guarantee Facility, categorised by national origin, size and sectors (sub-
sectors) 
number of SMEs and micro, small and medium-sized organisations benefiting 
from the Guarantee Facility, categorised by national origin, size and sectors 
(countries) 

3.8% 

4% 

Discontinued after 
Delegated Act 
Discontinued after 
Delegated Act 

10 289 

8000 

Yes 

190 000 (2017) 

240 000 

825 

1004 

20 

12, geo. spread in 
Reports of EIF 
5898 

8 

23 

500 

700 

10 

10 

7000 

5 

15 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No, because the launch of 
the Programme was delayed 

Yes, despite the delay of 
launch 

Yes 

223 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
average default rate of loans  

achieved leverage effect of guaranteed loans in relation to the indicative leverage 
effect (1:5,7) 
Ad. Specific Objective 4 
number of Member States making use of the results of the open method of 
coordination in their national policy development 
number of new initiatives and policy outcomes 

0% 

1:6.7 

22 

10 

Indicators integrated in 2019 

the number of jobs generated by the Programme in the Cultural and Creative 
sectors; 
the financial contribution of the Cultural and Creative sectors leveraged by the 
Programme for the funded projects; 
the number of people accessing European cultural and creative works generated 
by the Programme, including, where possible, works from countries other than 
their own; 

528 million in 
MEDIA 

Indicators integrated in 2019 – presented in the Monitoring Reports 

20 

20 

n/a 

the number and scale of transnational partnerships created with the support of the 
Programme, including the country of origin of the beneficiary organisations; 

the number of participants in learning experiences and activities, supported by the 
Programme, having improved their competences and increased their 
employability (including the proportion of women); 
qualitative evidence of success stories in the field of artistic, business and 
technological innovation due to the Programme support; 

69% micro and 28% 
small in MEDIA, 43% 
micro and 30% small in 
Culture 

n/a 

Qualitative side 
spread over 
Monitoring Report 
2445 in MEDIA – 
p.49 of Monitoring 
Report 
Spread over the 
Monitoring Report 

n/a 

n/a 

224 

Max. 8% 

1:6.0 

Yes (the lower the results 
here, the better) 
Yes 

Yes 

Yes, because the initiatives 
had a large scope 

n/a 

n/a 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Culture sub-Programme:  

Indicator name 

the number of people directly and indirectly reached through projects supported 
by the Programme (in million) 

the number of projects addressed to children, young people and under-
represented groups and the estimated number of people reached (in millions); 

Results 2020 

17 

3.5 

the number of artists and cultural and creative professionals as well as general 
public, directly and indirectly reached through projects supported by the Culture 
Sub-programme 

4 375 beneficiary 
organisations 

Indicators integrated in 2019 

Initial Target 
(end of 2020) 
5% increase of 
the 2017 results: 
3.36 
Increaser of 7% 
from 2017 
results: 1.712 

Target reached 

Yes 

Yes 

N/A 

N/A 

the number of projects supported by the Programme addressed to disadvantaged 
groups, among others people with a migrant background, people with disabilities 
and unemployed persons, especially unemployed young people. 
the size (micro, small, medium-sized and large) of the organisations participating 
in the projects (annual headcount and annual turnover or annual balance sheet); 
the number and relative share of small-scale and large-scale cooperation projects 
supported by the Culture Sub-programme; 

the number of artists and cultural and creative professionals geographically 
mobile beyond national borders due to the Culture Sub-programme support, by 
country of origin and gender; 

Audience: 91.5 million 
people reached 
300 

N/A 

489 small scale (79%) 
128 large scale (21%) 

617 Cooperation 
projects 
22,763 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

225 

 
 
 
 
the number of literary translations undertaken per year with the Programme 
support; 
the number and percentage of translations from lesser-used languages supported 
by the Programme; 
the number of books produced with the support of the Programme 
the number of cultural and creative activities organised transnationally with the 
Culture Sub-programme’s support; 

>500 

70% coming from small 
languages 
 3,500 
7,500 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 
N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 
N/A 

Media Sub-programme/Strand 

Indicator name 

Results 2020 

number of admissions for non-national European films in Europe in cinemas 

94 (2018) 

number of admissions for European films worldwide (10 most important non-
European markets) in cinemas 
percentage of European audiovisual works in cinemas, 

percentage of European audiovisual works on television 

percentage of European audiovisual works on digital platforms 

number  of  people  in  the  Member  States  accessing  non-national  European 
audiovisual works  
number of people in the countries participating in the Programme accessing 
European audiovisual works 
number of European video games produced in the Union as well as in the 
countries participating in the Programme (proxy – turnover) 

87 (2018) 

68% (2018) 

35% (2018) 

30% (2018) 

258 (2017) 

262 (2017) 

Initial Target 
(end of 2020) 
71 

85 

59% 

35% 

27% 

288 

300 

Target reached 

Yes, discontinued after Delegated 
Act 
Yes, discontinued after Delegated 
Act 
Yes, discontinued after Delegated 
Act 
Yes, discontinued after Delegated 
Act 
Yes, discontinued after Delegated 
Act 
No, discontinued after Delegated 
Act 
No, discontinued after Delegated 
Act 
No, discontinued after Delegated 
Act 

15 bn (2015) 

16 bn 

Indicators integrated in 2019 – presented in Monitoring Reports 

226 

 
 
list of awards, nominations and prizes granted to audiovisual works supported by 
the MEDIA Sub-programme in the framework of the main major international 
festivals and national academies (including Berlinale, Cannes, Oscars, European 
Film Awards). 
number and share of audiovisual companies that report improved market position 
due to MEDIA Sub-programme support. 

number of admissions in the Member States for films from other Member States, 
distributed in the Union with the support of the Programme; 

share of admissions in the Member States for films from other Member States; 
average number of non-national territories in which the supported titles or films 
and television works have been distributed; 
number of co-productions developed and created with the support of the 
Programme, including the share of co-productions with diverse partners 

proportion of audiovisual works supported by the MEDIA Sub-programme, which 
are directed or written by women. 

the percentage of the Union audiovisual works in cinemas and on digital platforms 
supported by the Programme; 

165 (2017-2020) 

n/a 

87%  
p.46 of Monitoring 
Report 
136 million of 
documented admissions 
p.41 of Monitoring 
Report 
6% 
4.5 for cinemas 

388 intra-EU co-
productions (83% of 
film and TV projects). 
Additionally, 197 co-
productions with 
developing 
countries.2014-2020. 
From 22% to 41%/ 
Detailed results 
presented in p.23 of 
Monitoring Report  
From 11% to 20% 
(Detailed results in 
p.52;54) 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 
n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Creative Europe 2: 

227 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 
n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

 
 
 
Indicator name 

Baseline 

132 

772 

Achievement level 
in 2023 
465 

Target end of 
2027 
990 

Progression to 
target 
47% 

2,974 

5,787 

51% 

KPI I: Number and scale of transnational 
partnerships created with the support of the 
Programme (Partnership) 
KPI 1: Number and scale of transnational 
partnerships created with the support of the 
Programme (Organisations) 
KPI 2: Number of artists & cultural &/or 
creative players (geographically) mobile 
beyond national borders due to Programme 
support, by country of origin (Number of 
mobilities)* 
KPI 2: Number of artists & cultural &/or 
creative players (geographically) mobile 
beyond national borders due to Programme 
support, by country of origin (proportion of 
women)* 
KP3: Number of people accessing 
European cultural and creative works 
generated by the Programme, including 
works from countries other than their own 
(in millions)* 
KPI 4: The number of projects supported 
by the Programme addressed to socially 
marginalised groups 
KPI 5: The number of projects supported 
by the Programme involving third 
countries organisations 

22 549 

24,590 

176,053 

14% 

40% 

53.3% 

40% 

On track 

73 

37 

58 

3 

127 

372 

228 

552 

279 

432 

May not be 
reached 

46% 

86% 

 
MEDIA-related 
The number of people accessing European 
audiovisual works from countries other 
than their own and supported by the 
Programme 

9  

Number of participants in learning 
activities supported by the Programme who 
assess they have improved their 
competences and increased their 
employability (including the proportion of 
women) 

Number, budget and geographical origins 
of co-productions developed, created and 
distributed with the support of the 
Programme as well as co-productions with 
partners from countries with different 
audiovisual capacities; and number of 
audiovisual works in lesser used languages 
developed, and produced and distributed 
with the support of the Programme  
Number of people reached by Business-to-
Business promotional activities in major 
markets 

17.8 (qualitative 
aspects on 
geographical spread 
in Monitoring 
Report 2021-2022) 
1483 (59%) 

93 

15760 (55%) 

2200 (and 55%) 

397 (and 155 million 
EUR) 

549 (2844 million 
EUR) 

3000 (1165 
million) 

180 000 

51 821 

1 800 000 

229 

Yes, it is a 
cumulative 
target. 40% 
achieved in the 
first 2 years. 
Yes, it is a 
cumulative 
target.23% 
achieved in first 
2 years. 

Yes, it is a 
cumulative 
indicator. 72% 
achieved in the 
first 3 years. 

May not be 
reached, as 
COVID 
lockdowns 
changed events 
trends long-
term. 

 
 
The number of audiovisual works in lesser-
used languages developed, produced and 
distributed with the support of the 
Programme 

CROSS-SECTORAL-related 
Number and scale of transnational 
partnerships formed (composite indicator 
for creative innovation labs and news 
media actions) 
Number of events or activities promoting 
the Programme organised by the 
Programme’s desks 
Number of participants in the creative 
innovation labs and news media actions 
activities, including the proportion of 
women 

Indicator name 

Number and scale of transnational 
partnerships created with the support of the 
Programme, including the country of 
origin of the beneficiary organisations 
(Partnerships) 
Number and scale of transnational 
partnerships created with the support of the 
Programme, including the country of 

385 

219 

2845 

Yes, it is a 
cumulative 
target. Data 
arrives with long 
delay. 

8 (39 organisations) 

18 (95 organisations)  20 (70) 

Yes 

400 

671 

2800 

No baseline 

2187 (45%) 

300 (50%) 

Baseline 

200 

Achievement level in 
2023 
799 

Target (end of 
2027) 
1,490 

Yes. It is a 
cumulative 
target.  
Yes. It is a new 
scheme, in 
reality it 
organises more 
events than was 
expected. 
Progression to 
target 
54% 

2 375 

7,917 

16,760 

47.2% 

230 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
origin of the beneficiary organisations 
(organisations) 
Qualitative evidence of success stories in 
the field of artistic, business and 
technological innovation due to the 
Programme’s support 

20/year 

30/year 

140 

On track 

* The data provided for years 2021 and 2022 comes from the continuous reporting in eGrants for projects funded under the COOP,  LIT, NET, PLAT and PECE calls. The are allocated 
to the WP year under which the call was published (there is no data source that would allow allocation of people to the year in which the mobility took place). This data is provisional and 
indicative at the time of reporting (end-2023). 

231