The next Creative Europe programme has been leaked
This article was updated on 11 July to include performance indicators based on the leaked draft of the Horizontal Performance Regulation proposal.
Euractiv has obtained a draft proposal for the Creative Europe programme regulation, though the document does not yet include a concrete budget, which is expected to be announced on July 16.
This Regulation proposal defines the structure and objectives of Creative Europe under the next long-term EU budget (Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034, MFF).
The programme does not yet have an official name. As rumours suggested, the regulation proposes to merge Creative Europe with the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Programme (CERV).
Culture Action Europe has analysed the document and shares seven key findings with you.
This analysis is based on a leaked, non-official proposal that may still change. Our observations include informed assumptions and focus mainly on the Culture strand of the proposed programme.
1. The new programme will have a revised structure: 1) Creative Europe’s Culture strand; 2) Creative Europe’s MEDIA+ strand; and 3) the CERV programme as a third strand.
The proposed structure is as follows:
|
The ‘Culture’ Strand shall implement the following specific objective: The ‘MEDIA+’ Strand shall implement the following specific objectives: The [‘Union values’] Strand shall implement the following specific objectives: |
As Culture Action Europe previously reported, the merged programme might serve as a funding vehicle for the European Democracy Shield, the EU’s upcoming strategy to counter foreign interference. This now seems to be reflected in the structure of the MEDIA+ strand: one of its sub-pillars focuses on news, with objectives of ‘combating disinformation and foreign information manipulation and interference’ and ‘promoting digital and media literacy.’
In the CERV strand, the ‘Democratic Participation and Rule of Law’ pillar also includes two objectives that closely mirror the Democracy Shield’s priorities: ensuring fair elections and supporting citizen participation and engagement.
The Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies the proposed Regulation details the thinking behind the merger.
The Commission has explored several alternative policy options. One option was to continue the existing Creative Europe and CERV programmes as standalone programmes, while introducing some incremental improvements. A second option consisted of bringing together the programmes aimed at protecting Union values, media, and culture (objective-based merger). A third option was a full integration of Creative Europe and CERV together with Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps under a single instrument.
The options discarded at an early stage included the complete discontinuation of the programmes and alternative merger scenarios (combining only the MEDIA+ strand of Creative Europe with the CERV programme).
The evaluation of the options showed that a merger based on policy objectives offered better potential. It would improve coordination, allow for more flexibility, and make better use of the EU budget without sacrificing policy focus or accessibility. It also reflected what many stakeholders have asked for: simpler access to funding, more flexible use of resources, and common rules. The merged programme will pay due visibility to each policy area and maintain recognition of well-established brands under the merge, the Commission reassures.
2. How will Creative Europe desks be funded?
In the current Creative Europe programme, the third Cross-Sectoral strand supports the establishment and activities of the Creative Europe Desks. However, this strand is missing as a separate structural element in the leaked proposal for the new programme.
Instead of a dedicated Cross-Sectoral strand, the new proposal introduces cross-cutting and horizontal priorities and activities such as AI, policy development, and Programme Desks (‘supporting the promotion of the Programme and its Strands, and its funding opportunities, including through Programme Desks, thereby enhancing outreach, visibility and the dissemination of the Programme results’).
But if the Desks are now treated as a horizontal priority rather than a structural action, it’s unclear how they will be funded and which strand, if any, will oversee their support. The mysterious remark ‘The financing of cross-cutting and horizontal priorities and activities shall be determined by their nature and scope’ leaves the question open.
3. The next Creative Europe programme will most likely keep the main funding schemes, but actions targeting specific cultural sectors are uncertain or not clearly mentioned.
Below are the specific objectives of the Culture strand in the current Creative Europe regulation and the proposed one.
| Creative Europe Regulation 2021-2027 | Proposal 2028-2034 |
| (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. |
(a) fostering cross-border creation, cooperation and exchanges, including through the mobility of artists and cultural and creative professionals, artistic residencies, as well as partnerships between organisations of all sizes;
(b) improving access to and participation in culture and cultural heritage for all, notably young people, and strengthening social resilience and social cohesion, in particular intergenerational fairness, equality and diversity, through cultural engagement; (c) supporting the circulation, distribution, promotion and visibility of diverse European cultural content, including through European platforms for emerging artists, support to entities aiming at training and promoting young artists, prizes that promote artistic talent and excellence, touring initiatives, and translation; (d) strengthening these sectors’ capacity and skills to drive innovation and competitiveness and to navigate the green and digital transitions, including through support for networks, training and peer-learning activities; (e) promoting cultural policy development through cooperation and exchange of good practices at European level, and improving evidence-based policymaking through enhanced data collection, analysis, and pilot actions; (f) advancing the Union’s international cultural relations and contributing to the EU’s external action objectives through cultural cooperation; (g) supporting the implementation of the Decisions establishing a Union action for the European Capitals of Culture and a Union action for the European Heritage Label. |
As you can see, the objectives remain largely unchanged and do not introduce anything radically new. There are several references to resilience, intergenerational fairness, and youth, all closely aligned with the new political priorities and Commissioner Micallef’s mandate. The current Creative Europe regulation includes an annex—Description of the Programme Actions—that details the specific funding schemes used to meet these objectives. This annex is missing from the new proposal, but we have examined the objectives closely to see if they offer enough clues. Based on this, here is our checklist of funding schemes that are likely to continue:
✓ transnational cooperation projects
✓ European networks
✓ pan-European platforms
✓ transnational mobility of artists
✓ capacity-building to operate internationally
✓ policy development, data and practice exchange and pilot projects
✓ European Capitals of Culture
✓ European Heritage Label
✓ cultural prizes (‘prizes that promote artistic talent and excellence’)
? European Heritage Days (explicitly not mentioned, could be part of ‘improving access to and participation in culture and cultural heritage for all, notably young people’)
? support to European cultural entities such as orchestras (could be part of ‘support to entities aiming at training and promoting young artists’)
Even if these funding schemes remain, it does not mean they will not be changed.
Another concern is the lack of sector-specific actions in the proposal. The current Creative Europe programme includes dedicated support for music, books and publishing, architecture and heritage. These sector-specific funding lines are missing from the new proposal. Still, their absence does not mean they are gone entirely. They could be included under broader objectives, such as ‘supporting the circulation, distribution, promotion, and visibility of diverse European cultural content,’ which mentions touring initiatives and translation.
Culture Action Europe heard earlier that one of the big questions in designing the next edition of Creative Europe was whether to continue the sectoral approach or focus support on transversal projects.
The sectoral approach can create competition between cultural sectors that should ideally collaborate. It often favors larger sectors, which get more attention, while smaller ones, like visual arts, tend to be overlooked.
At the same time, some sector-specific programmes have shown clear success, such as Music Moves Europe. For now, their future in the next MFF remains uncertain.
4. Potential conditionality related to artistic freedom and working conditions
The proposed regulation includes an interesting paragraph: ‘The implementation of the ‘Culture’ strand shall be carried out with full respect for artistic freedom and diversity of cultural expressions, and contribute to improving working conditions for artists and cultural and creative professionals.’
We do not yet know how this will be enforced or monitored in practice, but Culture Action Europe assumes this might refer to conditionality. Can we expect that artistic freedom and working conditions could become formal requirements in the application process?
Details are still pending, but back in 2023, the European Parliament has called on the Commission to include social conditionality in the Creative Europe application process. This means grant recipients must explicitly apply fair labour practices and meet social standards in their projects and reporting. The Commission has responded that fair remuneration of artists is already mentioned in Creative Europe’s legal base (to be fair, only in the non-legally binding recitals, not in articles) and said it ‘will consider reinforcing social conditionality’ in the next cycle of Union programmes.
Other strands include similar, but slightly different principles: the Audiovisual pillar of the MEDIA+ strand focuses on artistic freedom and collaboration between Member States with varying audiovisual capacities, while the News pillar of the MEDIA+ strand emphasises media editorial independence and professional standards. The CERV strand does not include any guiding principles.
5. Lump sums as the default funding method for Creative Europe
To simplify implementation and reduce the administrative burden on beneficiaries, simplified funding forms (including financing not linked to costs and lump sums) will become the standard way to reimburse grants.
The proposal states clearly: ‘When Union funding is provided as a grant, it shall be given as financing not linked to costs or, where needed, through simplified cost options, in line with Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509. Reimbursement based on actual eligible costs will only be allowed if the action’s objectives cannot be met otherwise.’
6. Links with the Competitiveness Fund
Article 15 of the proposed regulation contains the following provision:
‘Where Union support is provided in the form of a budgetary guarantee or a financial instrument, including where combined with non-repayable support in a blending operation, it shall be exclusively provided through the [ECF Investment Instrument] and implemented in accordance with the applicable rules of the [ECF Investment Instrument] through agreements concluded for that type of support under the [ECF Investment Instrument].’
Sounds quite cryptic! What is the ECF Investment Instrument? Let’s try to decode it.
The successor of Creative Europe will provide funding through grants, prizes, procurement, and non-financial support. However, if a programme wants to offer funding involving financial risk, such as a budget guarantee (where the EU backs part of a loan in case of default), or loans, equity, or blended funding (grants combined with any of the above), it must do so through a separate instrument called the European Competitiveness Fund Investment Instrument. This instrument will have its own specific rules and a separate regulation. It will likely follow up on the InvestEU fund.
This aligns with what we saw in the leaked proposal regarding the Competitiveness Fund. The Fund will focus on several pillars: 1) Clean Transition and Industrial Decarbonisation; 2) Health, Biotechnology and Bioeconomy; 3) Digital Leadership; 4) Resilience, Defence Industry and Space.
Under the Digital Leadership pillar, support for the creative industries is planned, complementing the Creative Europe programme.
We remind you that in 2014-2020, the Cultural and Creative Sectors Guarantee Facility operated under Creative Europe. It helped cultural and creative SMEs access loans by providing loan guarantees to banks, reducing their risk. This successful scheme was later integrated into InvestEU in the current MFF.
The new proposal creates a bridge for support to creative industries through the Competitiveness Fund.
In addition, like the current regulation, the new proposal also allows for cumulative funding. An action (project) that has received a Union contribution from another programme may also receive support under this programme. (This should not be confused with double funding: contributions from different programmes must still cover different aspects of the project.)
The main difference is in how the rules are applied. Under the current regulation, each contribution must follow the rules of its respective programme. The new proposal is more flexible: ‘a single set of rules may be applied to all contributions and a single legal commitment may be concluded.’
7. No programme-specific monitoring, evaluation, and control framework so far
The Explanatory Memorandum notes that application and reporting procedures will be simplified and further harmonised through the introduction of common or aligned rules.
Monitoring and reporting for this programme will follow the requirements set out in the new Horizontal Performance Regulation.
Unlike the current regulation, the new proposal does not include an annex with programme-specific indicators.
While simplification is welcome, the shift toward a single monitoring framework for multiple programmes raises concerns. Using indicators or KPIs that are too rigid, irrelevant, or detached from the reality of the cultural sector could undermine the autonomy and artistic freedom that the Culture strand is meant to protect.
Update 11 July 2025: Culture Action Europe has received a leaked draft of the proposed Regulation on the Horizontal Performance Framework (via Contexte). The new regulation introduces a standardised set of performance indicators (both output indicators and result indicators) across all EU budget programmes.
It also foresees the creation of a Single Gateway, a public portal that will bring together currently fragmented information about budget implementation, programme performance, and funding opportunities (e.g. open calls for proposals). Each indicator will also be assessed in terms of its contribution to climate mitigation, climate adaptation, biodiversity, and social impact.
For the policy intervention policy field ‘Creative and arts activities and cultural services’ (which, as we assume, corresponds to the Culture strand of the new programme), the following output indicators are proposed:
- Number of specific projects supported (such as theatre productions, filmmaking, cultural events, etc.) of which European cultural works;
- Number of artists and cultural professionals supported disaggregated by EU/non-EU – by gender;
- Organisations supported that engage in cross-border artistic and cultural cooperation disaggregated by organisations engaged to support the creation of European works/others;
- Number of transnational cooperations/partnerships supported.
The following result indicators (measuring the actual changes) are also proposed:
- Number of people accessing European cultural and creative works – by gender;
- Number of people accessing cultural and creative works;
- Number of jobs sustained or created in enterprises supported
The current list of indicators can be found here, and the actual performance data is available here.
Bonus: the majority of the programme’s actions under MEDIA+ and Culture strands will continue to be implemented under direct management mode by the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) for cost-efficiency reasons.
Conclusions
At first glance, there are no radical changes to the Culture strand. Its core structure and objectives appear stable. Most of the shifts (lump sums, shared monitoring framework) come from a broader push to simplify how the EU budget is managed in the next MFF.
That said, one of the key issues that still needs attention is the budget.
The total budget of the programme and how it’s divided between strands remains to be seen. Under the current Creative Europe programme, budget allocations are fixed in the regulation. The Culture strand receives 33% of the total, amounting to around €800 million over seven years. Whether this fixed share will be preserved in the new regulation and how large it will be is an open question.
Other aspects to watch closely:
- The future of sectoral funding schemes within the Culture strand.
- How this programme will interact with others, especially the Competitiveness Fund.
- Whether the strands will retain their visibility, brand, and distinct identity, as promised by the Commission in the Explanatory Memorandum
- What kind of monitoring framework will be applied, and what success criteria projects will need to meet.
As part of the Ask, Pay, Trust the Artist campaign, Culture Action Europe has reiterated its call for proper funding and a meaningful budget increase for the Culture and Media strands of Creative Europe, in a letter addressed to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Budget Commissioner Piotr Serafin.
Image credit: Rena