Annexes to COM(2010)810 - Interim evaluation report on the implementation of the Culture programme - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2010)810 - Interim evaluation report on the implementation of the Culture programme. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2010)810  |
| date | January 10, 2011 |
Recommendation n° 3
The introduction of changes to the working arrangements of CCPs should be completed, making any adjustments as necessary as the process advances, to ensure continuous improvement, with a view to ensuring the best possible service to cultural operators.
Recommendation n° 4
Annual visits to projects by the Commission/EACEA should be continued in order to assist beneficiaries and ensure Commission's/EACEA’s familiarity with the content of projects.
Recommendation n° 5
Final reports should require co-operation projects and organisations active at the European level to state the numbers of individuals benefitting from periods of mobility.
Recommendation n° 6
Current efforts to promote project results through annual conferences and publications should be continued and, if resources permit, further activities of this nature should be considered. CCPs could invite project beneficiaries to share their experience at local 'info-days'.
Commission's position
The Commission generally agrees with these recommendations. In 2007 it began a wide-ranging simplification process that led to significant improvements in the management and implementation of the current programme, including many of the aspects addressed by the evaluator's report, and these have been widely appreciated by stakeholders.
More specifically, since 2010 festivals are supported in the form of projects rather than through operating grants. As mentioned in the report, recommendation n° 2 has therefore already been implemented. Concerning recommendations n° 1 (flat rates for literary translations are reviewed every two years: as this was done at the beginning of 2010, the next review is scheduled in 2012); n° 3 (CCPs' working arrangements with a view to improving the service delivered are fully implemented as of 2010 and can now – under the present conditions – be considered as stable for the duration of the current programme); and n° 4 (the increasing number of visited projects, mainly from EACEA, enables the Commission/EACEA to have a much better insight in supported activities with a with to better monitoring and promotion) the Commission has already made the necessary changes in the current programme's structure. It would be interesting to further elaborate on the number of individuals involved or benefitting from mobility, as a result of recommendation n° 5. As this would imply a slight change in EACEA's templates for projects' final reports, the best moment to implement this possible change needs to be assessed.
Regarding activities aiming to promote project results (recommendation n° 6), the practice of annual conferences and publications will continue and the Commission will explore what further possibilities are viable with the resources at its disposal. As far as local info-days organised by CCPs are concerned, since 2010 many of them are already more focused on sharing experiences from supported projects and include representatives from the Commission/EACEA whenever necessary and possible.
2. Future programme
Recommendation n° 7
The general and specific objectives of the future programme should be revised to reflect developments since the last programme was designed, including changes affecting the cultural sector and policy developments such as the EU2020 Strategy, its flagship initiatives, and the European Agenda for Culture.
Recommendation n° 8
Consideration should be given to the appropriate level of maximum co-financing within the programme. A relatively low level of maximum co-financing permits a larger number of projects to be funded; however an excessively low level of co-financing may dissuade operators from applying and being able to carry out ambitious projects. Indeed, if the co-financing level does not reflect realities (e.g. severe cuts in public funding at the national level, an economic downturn making it more difficult to procure private sponsorship, etc), a large number of cultural operators could effectively find themselves excluded from applying under the programme and this could inadvertently prevent the programme from being able to achieve its objectives. The advantages and disadvantages of the co-financing rate should therefore be carefully assessed in the future programme in the light of its objectives and priorities and prevailing circumstances.
Recommendation n° 9
The interdisciplinary approach of the programme should be continued, reflecting the reality of developments in the cultural sector, including the impact of digitisation, in which boundaries between sectors are becoming more fluid and cross-sectoral experimentation is common.
Recommendation n° 10
Consideration should be given as to whether the distinction between multi-annual and two-year co-operation projects should be retained in the light of the fact that they pursue the same objectives.
Recommendation n° 11
Consideration should be given to the third country dimension as the current approach of selecting one or more countries for a specific year appears to have limited demonstrable long-term impact since it lacks critical mass.
Recommendation n° 12
Since many barriers to mobility and circulation continue to exist despite the single market and freedom of movement for workers, consideration should be given to including support for better information/intelligence and guidance for cultural operators needing to work in another EU country.
Recommendation n° 13
The Commission and the EACEA should consider ways in which more literary translations can be encouraged from under-represented languages (particularly those in new Member States) into more dominant ones such as English, French, German and Spanish, which often serve as pivot languages for further translations and would therefore make a valuable contribution to promoting cultural and linguistic diversity. Consideration should be given to other initiatives to help stimulate the translation of literature.
Recommendation n° 14
Consideration should be given to changing the category 'Advocacy networks' in favour of reverting to 'networks' as organisations do not necessarily have to have an advocacy role in order to bring substantial benefits to artist mobility, the circulation of works, etc.
Recommendation n° 15
The evaluation has shown the need for and the potential of the programme to stimulate new, creative and innovative developments and structures, but that the costs entailed by transnational co-operation can make it difficult to sustain structures or projects beyond the duration of the EU grant. For this reason, thought should be given as to how future award criteria can strike a balance between encouraging the emergence of new and innovative activities and structures, whilst ensuring that established structures that are playing a continued, fundamental role in promoting the objectives of the programme and with a clear European added value are not penalised.
Recommendation n° 16
Consideration should be given to the role, working arrangements and processes for the appointment of CCPs in any new programme. Where necessary, these should be revised to reflect the requirements of the new programme and in light of good practice in other EU programmes.
Recommendation n° 17
Management of the future programme should be as streamlined and light as possible, in the interests of applicants and beneficiaries within the possibilities offered by the Financial Regulations, building upon the progress made under the current programme.
Commission's position
The Commission generally agrees with these recommendations, and will take them into account as far as possible in preparing its proposal for the programme beyond 2013. This applies both to its content and its administration, which the Commission intends to keep as light and efficient as possible.
The Commission's conclusions
The Commission shares the evaluator's overall assessment that the programme plays a unique role in stimulating cross-border cultural cooperation, and fostering the benefits indicated in the section on findings. The programme has appropriately implemented EU action in the cultural field as foreseen by article 167 of the Treaty and has met its objectives as set out in the Decision.
The evaluator's conclusions show that small improvements could be made in a limited number of specific areas and that, in general, participants are satisfied with the programme and recognise its unique European added value. The evaluation also underpins that demand from the cultural sector for this type of EU support may remain considerably high, if not further increase, over the coming few years and that the programme contributes to content and knowledge development which are essential for future sustainable growth and jobs and new, creative and innovative developments.
The Commission has, since 2007, greatly intensified consultation with the cultural sector and is paying close attention to the views expressed by stakeholders within this process and which are echoed in this evaluation report.
As mentioned in section 4, various new features and improvements have already been integrated in the current Culture programme, thereby anticipating in some cases the evaluator's recommendations.
The Commission intends, therefore, to take the results of this evaluation into account chiefly with a view to preparing the new EU programme in the field of culture for the period after 2013.
[1] OJ L 372 of 27 December 2006, p 1.
[2] As amended by Decision n° 1352/2008 of 16 December 2008, OJ L 348 of 24 December 2008, p. 128.
[3] The complementarities between the European Capitals of Culture and the rest of the programme have, however, been covered by this evaluation