First glimpse at the Creative Europe mid-term report: what have we learnt?
The European Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education (CULT) held two sessions on Thursday 25 September with the European Commission to discuss EU cultural funding. One session was dedicated to presenting the final report of the 2014-2020 Creative Europe programme, as well as the findings of the Creative Europe (2021-2027) interim report, while the other session involved the presentation and discussion of the AgoraEU programme as part of the next EU long-term budget (2028-2034).
Both reports on Creative Europe are yet to be published, so the hearings provided useful insight from EU decision-makers into their views on the performance of the Creative Europe programme and its proposed successor. Culture Action Europe followed proceedings closely and our main takeaways can be found below, followed by summaries of both sessions with a focus on cultural policy.
Main Takeaways
There is broad consensus on the success of the Creative Europe programme. The findings of the European Commission reports, both for the 2014–2020 programme as well as the ongoing 2021–2027 iteration, indicate that Creative Europe exceeds its programme objectives and enriches European culture, cultural industries, and citizens’ lives. The programme is considered cost-effective, low-cost in terms of administrative burden, and of great importance to the EU as its sole dedicated instrument for culture.
The Creative Europe programme is over-subscribed and under-funded. The European Commission recognises that “the budget is not there” despite only representing a fraction of the total EU budget; the programme has become “a victim of its own success” due to the significant interest in funding across cultural sectors. It is common for outstanding projects to be rejected in calls for applications simply due to lacking EU financial capacity. Rapporteurs of the CULT Committee regard the budget currently envisaged for the AgoraEU programme as a starting point for negotiations—not a ceiling—and advocate for a significant increase in its budgetary allocation adjusted for inflation.
EU decision-makers share concerns about the accessibility of cultural funds in Creative Europe. The European Commission acknowledges that larger, well-structured organisations are more successful in their applications than smaller, first-time applicants. With 3 diverse EU funding programmes (Creative Europe – Culture strand, Media+ strand, and CERV+ strand) now being placed under one new instrument (AgoraEU), some Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) fear the creation of additional hurdles for applicants and beneficiaries, or fewer funding opportunities for the cultural sector due to the possibility of funds being directed towards other priorities.
The CULT Committee recognises the specific needs and challenges of diverse cultural sectors. Multiple MEPs are concerned with the lack of earmarked funding for diverse cultural sectors in the AgoraEU proposal, which contrasts directly to the sector-specific approach of the current programme. The Commission nonetheless defends the non-sectorial approach proposed to provide greater flexibility in project selection, and to boost the diversity of cultural sectors benefiting from the programme.
Much work remains for the months to come. While there are positive references to artistic freedom, cultural diversity and workers’ rights in the AgoraEU proposal, the CULT Committee would like to see these words put into concrete actions in the programme (and beyond). Moreover, the European Parliament would like to see itself directly involved in the governance of AgoraEU, which is currently not set to be the case despite its role in the governance of the existing Creative Europe programme. For example, the Commission should regularly report to the European Parliament on the data collected and share the programme evaluations with it.
Overall, the positive findings presented by the European Commission only strengthen the case for greater funding for both the Creative Europe programme and its successor, AgoraEU, in the EU budget. If only 10 to 15 percent of projects are currently succeeding in new calls for proposals due to financial limitations, leaving projects the European Commission considers “extraordinary” unselected solely for this reason, then the Council of the European Union’s proposed cuts to the 2026 financial year of Creative Europe would only serve to exacerbate this problem. At Culture Action Europe, we continue to advocate for at least 2% of national and EU funding to be allocated towards culture, as outlined in our ongoing Ask, Pay, Trust campaign, and we invite you to join us to make sure that culture lies at the heart of the next EU budget.
Summary of Creative Europe presentations
The European Commission highlighted the great success of both Creative Europe programmes. They are effective, efficient, and provide significant added value while requiring low administrative costs.
Director for Culture, Creativity and Sport at the European Commission (DG EAC), Georg Häusler, presented the evaluation of the Culture strand. He shared that over 1,200 projects had received funding from the 2014-2020 Creative Europe programme leading to more than 7,500 cultural activities, and in the new programme this trend is even stronger. 22,000 cultural professionals benefitted from the previous Creative Europe programme, and 300,000 days of cultural mobility were supported. 81% of beneficiaries of the Culture strand said that it had helped them address social and inclusion challenges. The Commission noted a good balance in the coverage of various sectors and a relatively balanced geographical distribution. However, countries with stronger cultural and creative sectors tend to benefit more from the programme. 14 third countries that are not formally associated with the programme are nonetheless participating in Creative Europe.
In terms of lessons learnt from the reports, the Commission highlighted that further simplification could take place with the programme to make funding more inclusive and diverse. Nevertheless, the main room for improvement identified concerned the budget of Creative Europe, with the programme remaining heavily over-subscribed. Georg Häuslerstated:
It is true that there are extremely good projects that we are not able to fund because the budget is not there. That is a real issue for the European Commission on a daily basis, and we see that more and more now. In the latest call [for Creative Europe] which was just published, we had 1,663 projects asking for funding, and we know that we are not going to be able to fund more than 10 to 15 percent of those. There are some extraordinary ones, and we can’t do anything about it as the budget isn’t there. [Creative Europe] is a victim of its own success.
Director Giuseppe Abbamonte from DG CNECT highlighted that the MEDIA strand has successfully contributed to safeguarding cultural diversity and strengthening competitiveness in the audiovisual sector. On average, MEDIA-supported films or series are broadcast on TV in nine more EU countries than those that do not receive Creative Europe support. They are also screened in cinemas in almost seven more countries and can be streamed online in three more countries than other EU films and series.
Under the previous programme, MEDIA support to films was associated with at least an extra 241 million cinema admissions across the EU. The strand has strongly supported EU co-productions: the share of co-productions among supported films and series has grown to 86% under the current programme, which is well above the average for other EU films and series, estimated at just 14%. Moreover, the share of collaborations between low-capacity and high-capacity countries has increased from 5% during the first Creative Europe programme to around 30% under the current programme. Works supported by MEDIA have also had considerable international cultural impact, receiving around 1,200 nominations for prestigious prizes and over 500 awards.
The Commission also evaluated the Cultural and Creative Sectors Guarantee Facility that provided loan guarantees to banks to encourage lending to cultural and creative businesses, which often struggle to access finance due to their intangible assets and high-risk profiles. The Facility ‘has been a major success’: with €200 million in guarantees, it has leveraged €2 billion in loans, reducing the financing gap by up to 30%. The facility was part of Creative Europe 2014–2020, and is now continued under the InvestEU programme.
The CULT Committee welcomed the positive outcomes of the reports while highlighting some concerns. The most common issue raised was the low budget of the Creative Europe programme, especially given its impact demonstrated in the reports presented. As MEP Bogdan Zdrojewski (EPP, Poland) put it:
Creative Europe as a programme is extremely popular and cost-effective. It’s easy to draw the conclusion that, given a high take-up, it’s actually under-funded. Given its cost-effectiveness, Creative Europe should be expanded.
Some MEPs also voiced their concerns about the potential implications of joining existing funding instruments together under one instrument. MEP Emma Rafowicz (S&D, France) highlighted the potential “risk of funding being re-allocated to other priorities instead of staying dedicated to cultural activities.” This fear is partly rooted in the budgetary subheading of AgoraEU falling under Competitiveness, Prosperity and Security; she also fears that this is symbolic, with the Commission’s rhetoric on culture being “driven by a defensive logic,” as opposed to embracing culture as “more than only protecting or defending, it means creating inspiration and offering future-oriented imaginaries.”
Multiple MEPs stressed their support for the current Creative Europe’s sector-specific approach to funding, outlining its importance to certain cultural sectors (like music or books) and their specific needs. The Commission outlined that the rationale behind a non-sectorial approach with the AgoraEU programme is to “give access to all cultural strands in fair competition,” while also providing greater flexibility for funding allocation. Other discussion points raised include the implications of AI in the cultural sector, the need for greater geographical balance further among beneficiaries of EU cultural funding, and the importance of ensuring fair remuneration of artists.
Summary of AgoraEU presentation and discussion
The European Commission next introduced their proposal for the AgoraEU programme, which is part of the EU’s long-term budget for 2028-2034 (see Culture Action Europe’s analysis here). It was presented as a “single, future-proof programme with enhanced capacity to propose to future challenges.” While the proposal’s Creative Europe – Culture strand lacks the detail and sector-specific approach of the existing framework, the Commission believes it provides “fairer access to all sectors… [and] increased flexibility to respond to additional challenges.” The indicative 1.8 billion Euro financial envelope for AgoraEU was introduced as ambitious but the minimal budget required to deliver the ambitions of the culture and creative industries and the objectives of the programme.
MEPs argued that there is the need for greater funding for the AgoraEU programme, including for the Creative Europe – Culture strand. MEP Diana Riba i Giner (Greens, Spain) regards the current allocations as “a starting point, and not a ceiling” to ensure a thriving cultural ecosystem. Similarly, MEP Bogdan Zdrojewski highlighted that despite the increased EU budget, there is still the need for greater funding and inflation remains unaccounted for:
Cultural operators need additions to their budget to achieve their objectives. We need to make sure that we protect our artists and creators. It’s not just about making our way around budgets, but also protecting those who provide creative input. […] We need to look at inflation, rising prices etc. There’s no real compensation for that.
Multiple MEPs welcomed the rhetoric from the Commission on artistic freedom and good working conditions for creatives but simultaneously questioned the absence of concrete action. MEP Diana Riba i Giner stated that “a clear strategy” was needed after 6 years of inactivity in this space, while MEP Hannes Heide (S&D, Austria) stressed that “we should not forget creative professionals in Europe that have very precarious working conditions.” Furthermore, while most MEPs welcomed the prioritisation of the Commission to cut bureaucratic red-tape, others highlighted the need to ensure that this is not to the detriment of cultural diversity. As MEP Hannes Heide put it, the “fair participation of civil society organisations and various associations from the cultural and creative sectors alongside independent artists” must be ensured in the programme.
Potential issues of access and inclusion to funding for smaller organisations and creatives were highlighted. MEP Carolina Morace (Left, Italy) relayed concerns from cultural organisations and networks about the “merging” of multiple EU funding programmes, and how it could “lead to more bureaucracy, […] which could be negative for small organisations and actors” and make participation more difficult. The Commission rejected the notion that AgoraEU “merges” programmes, rather they stressed the independence of the 3 individual strands and the preservation of their own identities:
There are 3 separate strands. Each strand will be managed along the same lines as before, by the same people and the same DG. There is no merger in that sense of the world. We also have separate budgets.
They nevertheless recognised the need to avoid creating new hurdles to participation and, in response to MEP questioning, shared that “bigger structures who have more experience and resources tend to be more successful than small newcomers” in the current Creative Europe programme. For these reasons, the Commission believes that introducing more cascading grants would be beneficial, as the outsourcing of the management of funding could be “an effective tool to reach small, grassroots civil society organisations who would not access EU funding otherwise.”
Other discussion points raised by MEPs include the lack of explicit mentions of support for independent producers and creators in the Media+ strand, the need for stronger control for the European Parliament in the governance of the programme, and the absence of explicit mentions for the music sector. The far-right Europe of Sovereign Nations political group criticised the proposal for “instrumentalising civil society organisations,” arguing that the European Commission is using the proposal and weaponising culture to “allocate funds follow[ing] ideological and political criteria.”
The European Commission will present the AgoraEU proposal to the European Parliament in a plenary session in Strasbourg later this year. In the meantime, Culture Action Europe continues to advocate for strong, robust cultural funding across the EU budget, both in AgoraEU and other funding instruments, so stay tuned for more updates and developments as they come.