Sep 5, 2016 - In the areas of education and culture ... linked in particular to the need to improve communication channe
Newsletter Committee meeting 5 September 2016 General budget: Programmes strengthened and Council cuts rejected Adoption of draft opinion (Bodgan ZDROJEWSKI, EPP) and budgetary amendments The Committee voted on its priorities for the 2017 budget and these proposals will now go to the Committee on Budgets and to the plenary. In the areas of education and culture the Committee adopted eight new proposals for pilot projects and preparatory actions, including a European platform on vulnerable people in the information society, internship opportunities for minority language media and sport as a tool for the integration and social inclusion of refugees. The Council’s position on the budget included a series of cuts in the areas of CULT responsibility, which the Committee cannot accept and approximately half of the budgetary amendments seek to address these cuts. One cut the Council made was to the recently launched Cultural and Creative Sectors Guarantee Facility. Any further reduction would prevent this instrument from functioning and send a very negative signal to cultural operators across Europe. The opinion adopted by the Committee notes the proposed increases for Erasmus+, Creative Europe and Europe for Citizens programmes and highlights that these policy areas can contribute to the Europe 2020 strategy’s aim of promoting smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. The Committee also notes that these programmes contribute to the aim of the EU Youth Strategy of active participation and inclusion of young people in society. This budgetary procedure determines the details of the EU’s expenditure for 2017 within the limits of the multiannual financial framework. The Parliament votes on its position in the second October plenary session. The Committee adopted 43 budgetary amendments. The opinion was adopted with a vote of 20 in favour, 2 against and 2 abstentions. Procedure page
In this edition Vote on general budget 2017 Implementation report on Creative Europe - Study PolDepB Implementation report on Europe for Citizens - Study PolDepB European Semester for economic policy coordination: implementation of 2016 priorities
CULT Newsletter
Implementation report on Creative Europe Study presentations
This agenda point consisted of the presentation of studies commissioned by Policy Department B and drafted in-house by EPRS, which were designed to provide evidence on the implementation of the programme and thus support the drafting of the Implementation Report on the Creative Europe Programme. The first presentation, European Implementation Assessment, was made by Mr Samuele Dossi from EPRS. Mr Dossi presented the main implementation issues vis-à-vis the programme's intended objectives and highlighted some possible obstacles and remaining problems in the implementation process. His presentation was followed by presentations from two external experts assessing the implementation of Creative Europe's two sub-programmes. Mr Alain Modot, from the Media Consulting Group, spoke on the Media sub-programme and Prof. Elisabetta Lazzarro, from the University of Utrecht, spoke on the Culture subprogramme. The studies were based on an anonymous questionnaire sent out to the Creative Europe desks. The main issues discussed were the merger of the two programmes - Culture and MEDIA - and its consequences for administrative management and policy development, the simplification of procedures and communication tools, and the role of the national desks. Concerning the evaluation procedure the experts called for the results of both successful and unsuccessful projects to be made public, as they may serve provide valuable lessons for applicants and desks. In the subsequent discussion, Members stressed that the system of automatic points in MEDIA needs to be revised in order to guarantee a real level-playing field for all countries. The Commission announced that a special working group has been set up to solve this problem. The national desks wished to be more involved in the decision-making process. On the merger of two programmes, Members expressed similar doubts as the experts, stressing that the merger had not produced the expected result. The Commission, however, underlined that, based on its experience, the merger of the programmes had proved mutually enriching. It was stressed that many potential applicants decide not to apply because of the very low success rate compared to the high administrative burden. Concerning the indicators, the European Commission announced that this issue will be examined in depth during the upcoming evaluation procedure. The draft implementation report will be presented on 8 November. Creative Europe - Culture subprogramme, First experiences Creative Europe - Media: Implementation, First experiences
5 September 2016
CULT Newsletter
Implementation report on Europe for Citizens Exchange of views and study presentation
The exchange of views started with an introduction by the Rapporteur, Ms Gimenez Barbat, who has had the opportunity to meet many stakeholders in this area over recent months. She insisted on the importance of the programme, in particular due to the current political situation. She stressed the need to bring European citizens closer to the Union and made some recommendations linked in particular to the need to improve communication channels using modern technology and the need to increase the funding of the programme, which she suggested should double. This introduction was followed by the presentation of two studies: an external study commissioned by Policy Department B and a study prepared by the ex-post Impact Assessment Unit of the EPRS. The EPRS representative, Ms Eisele, recalled briefly the achievements and shortcomings of the 2007-2013 Europe for Citizens programme before setting out preliminary findings on the 2014-2020 programme. She stated that the EFC Programme remains a unique opportunity to engage citizens in Europe and beyond. The new structure, based on two strands with a more focused scope, combined with the multi-annual priorities, allows for more stability and visibility. She drew attention to the fact that 2,000 organisations in Europe are directly involved in the projects supported, and that the programme reaches around one million citizens directly and indirectly. She also mentioned that the focus on migration, social inclusion and inter-cultural exchange reflects present-day realities. Given the success of the programme, she deplored the substantial reduction in funding and recommended an increase of the financial endowment for the next generation programme. The second study to be presented was drawn up externally by Coffey and based on interviews with the national contact points (NCP). In their presentation, Ms Jefferies and Mr Rohmer highlighted the progress made under the current programme. They underlined that refocusing and simplifying the programme objectives had made the new programme more understandable for applicants and welcomed the advanced publishing and multiannual definition of programme priorities as a significant step forward. From a financial perspective, the experts stressed the progress achieved by replacing the budget-based financing with a system of lump sums and suggested identifying ways to strengthen synergies between EFC activities and other relevant EU spending programmes. Finally, they recommended redefining the NCP role to allow NCPs to exploit their full potential and improving the communication channels and tools, using opportunities offered by social media and multipliers. After the presentations, a lively debate took place during which the negative impact of the lack of funding on potential applicants was repeatedly stressed and the need to enhance the funding of the programme clearly reaffirmed. The draft implementation report will be presented on 10 October. Europe for Citizens: New Programme Implementation - First Experiences
5 September 2016
CULT Newsletter
European Semester for economic policy coordination: implementation of 2016 priorities A coherent EU policy for cultural and creative industries Consideration of draft opinion (Bodgan ZDROJEWSKI, EPP) The Rapporteur set out his main points for the opinion, focusing notably on the economic impact of job creation and the importance of mobility under Erasmus+. After Members highlighted other key aspects from their perspective the damage austerity has done to young people, on migration and on the role science and technology play - the Commission pointed out the importance of university-business cooperation in enhancing the employability of young people.
Procedure file Amendments deadline: 7 September 2016
Committee vote: 26 September 2016 Vote in ECON: 11 October 2016 Vote in plenary: December 2016 (tbc)
Further reading In this non exhaustive list you can find recent articles/publications which might be of interest to you: World Economic Forum - 10 skills you need to thrive tomorrow – and the universities that will help you get them World Economic Forum - Which languages do most people want to learn? World Economic Forum - Indigenous peoples have a right to quality education. But so far, we’ve failed them World Economic Forum - Why do we still make it so hard to be a female entrepreneur? World Economic Forum - Amazing things happen when you give female athletes the same funding as men
The next committee meeting will be held on Monday 26 September 2016 at 15.00-18.30 Useful links CULT Committee website Meeting documents Calendar of meetings Events
Policy Department Publications in the EP European Parliament - Think Thank DG EAC Newsletter The Slovak Presidency of the Council
About the editor
Subscription
European Parliament Directorate General for Internal Policies of the Union Secretariat on Culture and Education
To subscribe please contact the CULT secretariat:
[email protected]
Disclaimer: The items contained herein are drafted by the CULT secretariat of the European Parliament and are provided for general information purposes only. The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. This document may contain links to websites that are created and maintained by other organisations. The secretariat does not necessarily endorse the view(s) expressed on these websites.
