Evaluation of the Eurimages Fund - Olsberg SPI...Evaluation of the Eurimages Fund Final Report...

Evaluation of the Eurimages Fund

Final Report presented to the Council of Europe by Olsberg•SPI

11th January, 2013

27th November, 2013

Evaluation of the Eurimages Fund – Final Report

© Olsberg•SPI 2013 27th November, 2013 ii

CONTENTS

List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. iv

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1. Description of the Intervention............................................................................................ 1

1.2. Purpose of the Evaluation ................................................................................................... 1

1.3. Evaluation Methodology ..................................................................................................... 3

1.4. Difficulties Encountered During the Evaluation ................................................................... 6

2. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 7

2.1. Summarised Findings and Conclusions................................................................................ 7

2.2. Additional Matters ............................................................................................................. 11

2.3. Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 11

3. Findings and Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 15

3.1. The Needs of the Sector and European Professionals........................................................ 15

3.2. The Promotion and Stimulation of Co-Production and Circulation .................................... 21

3.3. Added Value of Eurimages ................................................................................................ 23

3.4. Implementation Methods .................................................................................................. 26

3.5. Decision Making Process ................................................................................................... 29

3.6. The Method of Calculating Contributions .......................................................................... 39

3.7. Future Evaluations of the Fund .......................................................................................... 48

3.8. Proposals Not Recommended ........................................................................................... 49

4. Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 53

4.1. The Intervention Design .................................................................................................... 53

4.2. The Management and Monitoring System ........................................................................ 53

4.3. The Implementation of the Fund’s Programmes ............................................................... 54

5. Annex 1 – List of Consultees ....................................................................................................... i

5.1. Board of Management ......................................................................................................... i

5.2. Secretariat ........................................................................................................................... i

5.3. Producers ............................................................................................................................ ii

5.4. Screen Agency & Fund Executives ....................................................................................... ii

5.5. Other Professionals ............................................................................................................. ii

6. Annex 2 – Focus Group Attendees ............................................................................................ iii

6.1. Marseille Focus Group ........................................................................................................ iii

6.2. Karlovy Vary International Film Festival Focus Group ......................................................... iii

6.3. Sarajevo Film Festival Focus Group .................................................................................... iii

7. Annex 3 – The Producer Survey ................................................................................................ iv

7.1. Questions ........................................................................................................................... iv

7.2. Analysis of Results ............................................................................................................. viii


© Olsberg•SPI 2013 27th November, 2013 iii

8. Annex 4 – Bibliography............................................................................................................ xiii

9. Annex 5 – About The Consultants: Olsberg•SPI ...................................................................... xvi


© Olsberg•SPI 2013 27th November, 2013 iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 – Co-Productions in Eurimages Member Countries, 2007-2011 ............................................ 1

Figure 2 – Eurimages Member Country Majority Co-Productions, 2007-11 ...................................... 15

Figure 3 – Producer Survey: Obstacles to Distribution, Average Response (1 being most difficult) .. 16

Figure 4 – Producer Survey: Understanding of Eurimages' Procedures ............................................ 17

Figure 5 – Producer Survey: Complexity of Eurimages' Application Process Compared to National Funds ............................................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 6 – Producer Survey: Satisfaction with Eurimages' Communications ................................... 18

Figure 7 – Producer Survey: Ease of Achieving Non-National Distribution ...................................... 19

Figure 8 – Producer Survey: Role of Representative, Average Response (1 being most important) . 19

Figure 9 – Producer Survey: Aims for Distribution, Average Response (1 being most important) .... 22

Figure 10 – Average Eurimages Film Admissions for Theatre Scheme Participants, 2008-12 .......... 28

Figure 11 – Number of Eurimages Member States, 1997-2014 ........................................................ 29

Figure 12 – Applications to Eurimages: Numbers Examined by CPWG, or Ineligible or Withdrawn, 2004-2012 ........................................................................................................................................ 31

Figure 13 – Diagram of Proposed Decision-Making Structure ..........................................................33

Figure 14 – Divergence from Receipts had the Original Model Continued, Highest and Lowest Three Countries, 2010-12 .......................................................................................................................... 40

Figure 15 – Divergence from Receipts had the New Model been Fully Implemented, Highest and Lowest Three Countries, 2010-12 .................................................................................................... 41

Figure 16 – Annual Variation in Contributions by largest Percentage Change, 2012-13 ................... 42

Figure 17 – 2012 Contributions without Equalisation ....................................................................... 43

Figure 18 – Comparison of Divergence with and without Equalisation, 2010-2012 .......................... 44

Figure 19 – Impact of removing support applied for, 2010-12 .......................................................... 44

Figure 20 – Annual Contributions for Selected Countries if Receipts Alone were Considered, 2010-14........................................................................................................................................................ 45

Figure 21 – Annual Percentage Change in Contribution under this Model, 2010-14 ......................... 45

Figure 22 – Contribution Model considering only Majority Producing Country, Greatest Divergence from Receipts 2012 ......................................................................................................................... 46

Figure 23 – Impact of Inflation: Budget and Size of Contributions, 2012-2014 ................................. 47

Figure 24 – Impact of a 60% Filter for Delegate Producers .............................................................. 51

Figure 25 – Films impacted by 60% delegate funding requirement ................................................. 51

Figure 26 – Producer Survey - Average Ranking of Question on Reasons for Applying.................... viii

Figure 27 – Producer Survey - Prioritisation Given to the Statement, "Eurimages Funding is Central to My Finance Plan" ......................................................................................................................... ix

Figure 28 – Producer Survey - Average Ranking for Preferred Sources of Finance ............................ x

Figure 29 – Producer Survey - Individuals Producers Took Advice From During Applications ............ x

Figure 30 – Producer Survey - Extent of Contact with Representative and Secretariat ..................... xi


© Olsberg•SPI 2013 27th November, 2013 v

Figure 31 – Producer Survey - Highest Ranked Counterparties for Co-Production ............................ xi

Figure 32 – Producer Survey - Preferred Territories for Co-Production outside Eurimages ...............xii


© Olsberg•SPI 2013 27th November, 2013 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Description of the Intervention

In 2009, the Eurimages Board of Management adopted a new method for calculating the contributions from member states, taking into account various criteria of specific relevance to the European film sector. This model replaced the traditional calculation method, used since the founding of the Fund, which took into account only population and GDP – with equalisation between the major contributors – mirroring the Council of Europe’s global model.

A condition of adopting the new model was that an assessment be carried out of the Eurimages Fund by an independent consultancy. This Evaluation – of which this paper is the final report – was required to consider not merely the impact of the new method of calculating contributions, but also “the global functioning of the funds”.

Since the previous assessment of the Fund was completed in 1997, both the geographical extent of Eurimages and the nature of the European film industry have changed remarkably. The development of digital technology across both production and exhibition has seen striking democratisation of the film industry, while the audience has also evolved. Film finance has also markedly increased in complexity, both driving and being driven by new models of production.

In parallel with these evolutionary trends, the volume of co-production within Europe has expanded significantly. This is both a testament to the success of the core idea of Eurimages, and also a challenge to its future sustainability: a rise in co-production volume has, undoubtedly, led to a greater number of projects being presented to the Board of Management.

Figure 1 – Co-Productions in Eurimages Member Countries, 2007-2011

1.2. Purpose of the Evaluation

Though the evaluation process started with the adoption of the new funding model, in light of the significant changes seen in the European film sector over recent decades, this Evaluation of the Fund has adopted a broad character. The Board of Management, reflecting on the needs of the Fund at this point in time, therefore set the aim of reconsidering the definition of the Fund’s objectives. This was, where necessary and possible, to coincide with

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Minority Co-Productions

Majority Co-Productions



the provision of the information and analysis required to adapt and modernise the various elements of the Fund, including its intervention logic and internal processes.

The Board of Management identified a range of issues as being of particular importance to the evaluation process. These determined that the Evaluation should focus on:

An analysis of the impact and performance of the Fund;

Improving the understanding of the Fund’s mission;

A better definition of the Fund’s objectives;

A potential re-definition of Eurimages’ role in the European funding landscape;

The relevance of Eurimages regarding the promotion of European co-productions;

The quality of results obtained in the marketplace by the supported co-productions;

The decision-making process; and

The Fund’s efficiency.

For the purposes of the Evaluation, these elements were developed into a series of questions, the answers to which are developed in Chapter 3, below. These questions are:

To what extent do Eurimages’ support programmes fit the needs of the European audiovisual sector and of European professionals?

To what extent does Eurimages’ action promote and stimulate the co-production and circulation of audiovisual works?

What is the added value of Eurimages’ support programmes compared to those of other Funds in Europe?

To what extent do the implementation methods best suit the Fund’s objectives? To what extent is the implementation of these programmes done with a good cost/efficiency ratio?

To what extent does the decision-making process, and in particular the selection of the supported projects, fit the objectives of the Fund?

To what extent does the new method of calculating contributions fit the situation of the member states? To what extent does it have an influence on the functioning of the Fund?

A summary of the answers to these questions will be outlined in the Overview section of this chapter, with the issues leading to these answers drawn out in the following chapters.

While these questions are central to this Evaluation, they have acted to guide, rather than limit, our work. In addition to these questions, various others have been considered as a result of the research undertaken during this process, and are considered in the same chapter. These will address:

How often should future Evaluations of the Fund be conducted, and what issues should be considered during the next one?

What issues, proposed during the consultation phase, were considered and not taken forward?

Following this is a chapter of Recommendations: this will present a clear and concise proposal for the future of the Fund, drawn out in relation to three major issues:

The Implementation Design;



The Fund’s Management and Monitoring Systems; and

The Implementation of the Fund’s Programmes

For the purpose of the Evaluation, the period 2004-2012 is the reference period, though we note that many members have joined since that point, and that the new contribution system itself was only adopted in 2009. As a result, though data has normally been evaluated over this reference period, variations are used where appropriate.

1.3. Evaluation Methodology

For the purposes of the Evaluation, Olsberg•SPI adapted its standard methodology, taking into account the unique elements of the brief, and the requirements of the Fund. This encompassed ten separate phases of work, with many occurring simultaneously. These provided both general information with regard to the Fund and its impact, as well as specific answers to the questions posed by Eurimages.

The phases of work undertaken were:

1. Preliminary Document Review and Finalisation of the Evaluation Plan

2. Inception Meeting with Eurimages

3. Comprehensive Desk Research

4. Extensive Programme of Consultations

5. Managed Online Survey

6. Focus Group Meetings

7. Delivery of Preliminary Evaluation Report

8. Further Research and Consultations

9. Final Evaluation Report

10. Presentation of Findings

Of these phases, the core approach involved elements 3-6, which are outlined below. Meanwhile, this document represents element 9, with the final Presentation of Findings to the Board of Management to be undertaken in Vienna in December 2013.

1.3.1. Comprehensive Desk Research

This phase was the earliest to be started for the purposes of the project, a comprehensive literature review and further secondary research being considered vital to ensure that the SPI Team were in a strong position to discuss current Eurimages trends with the various interested parties. The Desk Research was particularly focussed on the eight issues deemed fundamental to the Study, as outlined in section 1.2, above.

As well as contributing background information for the consultations and focus group meetings, this phase of the research was crucial for developing a viewpoint on various aspects of the Fund. Significant analysis was undertaken regarding the nature and impact of the new contribution system, with various proposed models calculated and analysed, based on data provided by Eurimages. This work was crucial in understanding the potential impact of the contribution system on various countries, the results of which are presented below.

Desk research was also used extensively to research issues including, but not limited to:



The efficiency of the Fund, in comparison to organisations with various operational similarities, including MEDIA1 and the Nordic Film and TV Fund;

The growth of the European co-production sector, and the implied impact of Eurimages funding;

Comparisons with other, similar, Council of Europe partial agreements and enlarged partial agreements, with a view to understanding the various management systems used; and

Analysis of the various programmes supported by the Fund.

The results of this phase are used extensively in the Results and Findings chapter of this Report.

1.3.2. Extensive Programme of Consultations

A significant number of confidential consultations were undertaken throughout the course of the investigation to provide in-depth discussion of the issues raised during the Evaluation process. Early consultations were particularly focussed on understanding the nature of the Fund from the perspective of the individual involved, and discussing data gathered through the ongoing Desk Research. As the process developed, interviewees have been asked questions on more specific issues, such as the impact of a particular programme in their country, or for specific data required to answer questions which have arisen over the course of the Study.

As the SPI Team attended a significant number of events and festivals – including the Cannes, Karlovy Vary, Locarno and Sarajevo film festivals – over the course of this project, many of these consultations were conducted face-to-face. However, telephone and Skype interviews were also conducted where necessary, to ensure the input of a broad range of interested parties.

SPI interviewed 76 individuals during the course of our Evaluation, having targeted:

A representative of each of the 36 members of the Board of Management, conducting these in person whenever possible;

A selection of Screen Agency or Fund Directors, particularly those (such as in Austria) where the Eurimages representative does not represent an organisation with responsibility for film sector strategy;

A selection of individual European producers, including those who had applied for Eurimages funding and those who had not;

Other European professionals involved in the European film sector including lawyers, fund managers, financiers, distributors and sales agents; and

Representatives of other interested organisations, including producer associations and co-production market organisers.

A complete list of the consultees interviewed for the project is provided in the Annexes, chapter 5, below.

1 Where used in this document, MEDIA should also be taken to mean its successor, the Creative Europe programme. At the time of writing this had been agreed, and for the purposes of the Evaluation we have assumed that its programmes and procedures will remain broadly similar, though this is not yet confirmed



1.3.3. Managed Online Survey

The Online Survey was a key component of the SPI Investigation, as it aimed to capture a thoroughly representative set of views from the production community across Europe. This survey aimed to consider both historic experience with Eurimages and projected future trends and needs, allowing the SPI Team to understand potential areas where Eurimages might in future intervene.

Launching the survey some time into the Evaluation process enabled the SPI Team to tailor it to focus on emerging issues on which we felt producers would have a valuable perspective. Combining this with basic questions relating to their experience of Eurimages, an 18-question survey was designed and agreed with the Secretariat. The survey was made available in both English and French, though the results were combined at the end of the survey and analysed as a whole.

Following consultation with the Secretariat, the period 2009-2012 was agreed upon as the basis for this survey. All delegate producers for this period were contacted to complete the survey, irrelevant of success, with minority producers also approached where a country had fewer than five majority producers. This yielded a total of 412 producers with individual e-mail addresses, to which 156 responses were received. This 38% response rate is considered quite exceptional given the average for a purely online survey is around 20%.

Unsurprisingly, the largest number of responses were received from producers based in France (29), Italy and Germany (14 each). Regrettably, no responses were received from Austria, Cyprus, Hungary, Latvia or the Russian Federation. Data from the survey has been analysed closely, and is used to illustrate issues from the producers’ perspective throughout the Report.

A copy of the questionnaire used for the Online Survey is provided in the Annexes, chapter 7, below. The names of respondents were not collected for the purposes of confidentiality.

1.3.4. Focus Group Meetings

In addition to the consultations, three focus groups were held during the process of the Evaluation, allowing for in-depth discussions with a group of European professionals. These discussions offer a more in-depth analysis of the issues than the Consultations, as well as an opportunity to understand how issues are discussed and presented, helping to shape this final report.

The first of these was held at the Marseille Board of Management meeting, and focussed on a discussion of the evolution of the Eurimages Fund since its foundation. It offered key insights into the challenges of managing both Eurimages and other funds, as well as the impact of Eurimages. This group also considered the future of the Fund, both in relation to future needs, and the impact of the forthcoming Creative Europe fund.

At the Karlovy Vary International Film Festival focus group, a mixture of Eurimages Board Members and Producers discussed the challenges of producing films in Europe, and in particular the issues in relation to co-production between European nations. This included a discussion of the producers’ experiences in applying to Eurimages, and their views on what kind of future they would want to see for the Fund.

The final focus group at the Sarajevo Film Festival was, similarly, focussed on the future of the European production sector. This group was largely comprised of individuals from film



funds, and offered a different perspective on the issues currently facing European production, as well as how Eurimages fits in with their work. Because of the backgrounds of these participants, interesting comparisons also emerged between Eurimages’ procedures and those seen within the Funds that they work for.

A list of attendees for the various focus group meetings is provided in the Annexes, chapter 6, below.

1.4. Difficulties Encountered During the Evaluation

Overall, we found the reception to the Evaluation to be highly positive, with few specific difficulties encountered. Those we did encounter had only a minor impact on the overall investigation. We note that there were some difficulties obtaining interviews and consultations with producers, particularly at the various film festivals attended. However, observation suggests this was a reflection of the present vibrancy of the European film sector rather than an unwillingness to talk, a factor that we feel is highly positive for Eurimages.

Similarly, we note that there were some issues with the contact details for the survey. It is, however, unsurprising that a handful of e-mail addresses were out of date, and this is something that we hope the new Coeurimages database might be able to ameliorate in future. It is worthy of note, however, that on a couple of occasions the e-mail addresses provided were for other individuals involved in a production, for example the director, and it may be useful for Eurimages to underline to applicants the importance of accurate information when applying.



2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this executive summary is to give a brief overview of the key findings and recommendations of the report. Fuller details of these items are to be found in subsequent chapters.

2.1. Summarised Findings and Conclusions

These are organised according to the six key questions that the study was required to address, namely:

To what extent do Eurimages’ support programmes fit the needs of the European audiovisual sector and of European professionals?

To what extent does Eurimages’ action promote and stimulate the co-production and circulation of audiovisual works?

What is the added value of Eurimages’ support programmes compared to those of other Funds in Europe?

To what extent do the implementation methods best suit the Fund’s objectives? To what extent is the implementation of these programmes done with a good cost/efficiency ratio?

To what extent does the decision-making process, and in particular the selection of the supported projects, fit the objectives of the Fund?

To what extent does the new method of calculating contributions fit the situation of the member states? To what extent does it have an influence on the functioning of the Fund?

However, before we report on these specific matters, it is important to underline the substantial achievements and importance of the Eurimages Fund in relation to the sector as a whole.

All of our research and analysis, plus our conversations with individuals from across the European film sector, underline the fact that Eurimages is an extraordinary and unique fund. Given the relatively modest size of its annual spending, the impact that the Fund has had on the European film sector is quite amazing, particularly in recent years.

This is partially down to the efforts of the hard working and efficient Secretariat, which has a major role in the success of the Fund. With a significant remit to manage and operate the Fund, provide research and analysis to the Board and Council of Europe, and engage with the European film community, the Secretariat is clearly a major part of Eurimages’ success. The enormous volume of work required – and successfully undertaken – in advance of every Board meeting serves to underline this.

The Fund has set the standards by which the European film sector operates: the model of co-production is the standard one for European film and, acting through Eurimages, the production environments in the various member states have grown together. From the perspective of the Council of Europe’s aims and objectives, it is clear that Eurimages has facilitated an extraordinary degree of European cooperation within its area of interest.

This is enforced by the importance with which prospective, as well as current, members see the Fund. Our consultations with Representatives from new member countries have highlighted the degree to which Eurimages presents a model for the growth and development of their internal film sectors. In particular, the concept of co-production – of working with European partners to ensure that cultural product has a greater impact – is



regarded as vital. Eurimages, as the body that has facilitated the cross-continental development of this model, must take significant credit for the impact that it has had.

Notwithstanding the above, there are strong signs that the way Eurimages operates now requires adjustment. From an initial membership of 12 Eurimages’ membership has reached 36 – and expects to add two more soon. It is not surprising, therefore, that many of the roles and regulations under which it was first set up need evaluating and modernising and it is to this end that we write this report. This is not to ignore the several smaller changes that have been made over the years to some aspects of Eurimages, such as adjustments to the operations of the Co-Production Working Group (CPWG).

Therefore the recommendations of this report reflect the evolution of the organisation and the sector since the last evaluation was made. The consequent updating that would follow if our recommendations were put into effect would ensure Eurimages continues to be fit for purpose for many years to come.

2.1.1. The Needs of the Sector and of European Professionals

Though the aims of the Fund are now some 25 years old, it is our strong impression that they are still as relevant and important as ever to the future of the European film industry. While the impact of multi-channel television was the driver for content needs in 1988, these days other technologies – both in production and exhibition – are driving change.

Some of these are undoubtedly impacting the growth of co-productions, which have accelerated in recent years. Increasingly, producers are applying to Eurimages multiple times, and though the drivers for co-production often differ by country, it is clear that it is a vital part of the European film production landscape.

However, the impact of the financial crisis is seen in the present state of the production sector. Various consultees highlighted the increasing difficulties in attempting to structure co-productions between larger and smaller states. While we would hope that this trend would be ameliorated as the recession recedes, it is nevertheless something which the Fund should maintain a watching brief on, given the potential which financing problems have to undermine the role of Eurimages.

Though Eurimages clearly meets the needs of the sector in many ways, the difficulty that some producers have with the Fund’s application and communications was made clear through both surveys and consultations. It is suggested that, in many cases, Eurimages’ communications are relatively formal in structure and language, reflecting the intergovernmental nature of its parent organisation. This is a key challenge the Fund faces: in balancing the norms of the sector with those of the Council, and on this occasion we would advise that the sectoral norms should be better noted.

Within the countries, the Representatives tend to be seen as the face of the Eurimages Fund, and are a key touchstone for applications, as the producers’ survey underlines. Nonetheless, while this is a common impression, it is technically inaccurate – the Representatives’ role is to represent their country at Eurimages, rather than vice versa. Despite this, it seems clear that completely deprecating this element of the Fund’s operation is impossible – whether officially or not, the Representatives will work with their national sectors outside of the Fund. We feel it is therefore in the interests of the Secretariat to ensure that the Representatives are in the best position to do this by working to ensure they are up to date, as well as recognising the limits of their capacity.



2.1.2. The Promotion and Stimulation of Co-production and Circulation

Though the original aims of the Fund place distribution on a par with co-production, in its operation the Fund has tended to prioritise the stimulation of co-production as an activity. This is partly because the activities of the MEDIA Programme have prioritised distribution (see below) and Eurimages has decided to address the issue largely through co-operation with MEDIA, rather than duplicate effort.

Through its various activities, the Fund has clearly stimulated significant sectoral development for the European production sector, in both smaller and larger states. Furthermore, while there is not a provable link, it is generally felt across the sector that Eurimages’ activity has stimulated the growth of co-production as the film production norm in Europe, and as a result shaped the development of the sector as a whole.

While circulation has tended to be secondary to co-production in Eurimages’ activities, we feel that this has largely been a justified approach: the MEDIA programme has taken a significant role in this, and was not in place when the Fund was originally developed. There has, historically, been no clear justification for spending European taxpayers money on more than one area of a single problem, and it is therefore right and proper that, to date, Eurimages has deferred to MEDIA in this area, particularly given the latter’s significantly larger budget.

The circulation system for film is, however, undergoing significant change at the moment, and it is clear that the breaking-down of the traditional paradigm presents a major challenge for professionals. Our research points to considerable obstacles to circulation (a term we prefer to ‘distribution’ as the latter is too closely tied to existing business models) and so it is perhaps in this area that the aims and objectives that the Council created for Eurimages are not currently being fully met – particularly when compared to co-production.

The circulation of films is an issue that the entire public funding system for European film will have to address as a priority. Notwithstanding MEDIA’s activities (and the interests of other public funders) and given Eurimages’ existing role as a thought leader for the sector, it is felt that the Fund might be best placed to lead the investigation into how to respond to this issue for its members.

2.1.3. The Added Value of the Eurimages Fund

The provision of added value is something that Eurimages has traditionally excelled at, with the Fund playing a major role in developing the current shape of the European production sector. As an example of European co-operation (one of the key aims of the Council of Europe) Eurimages stands out: the development of co-production as the standard model for European film has seen cross-border links generated at a significant rate, and is a major attraction for new members of the Fund.

Despite this key role in shaping the sector, added value does not play a significant role in the way some national authorities discuss Eurimages. In these instances, the evaluation of Eurimages’ worth to a member state has sometimes only been calculated by reference to ‘money in’ and ‘money out’. In our view this is a very narrow assessment and does not take into account the considerable value that membership adds.

With the 25th anniversary of the Fund approaching, Eurimages’ achievements and successes should be celebrated much more widely. This could helpfully be leveraged into the discussion on the future of circulation.



2.1.4. The Implementation Methods

Partially as a result of its achievements, the Fund now risks becoming a victim of its own success, as the demand from non-members in the Council of Europe and beyond risks overwhelming the already-strained governance and operations structure of the Fund.

Originally designed for 12 voices, with all decisions made in plenary, the Fund now has to operate with 36 individual member states, with more projected to join in 2014. Though innovations such as the CPWG have seen the Board work to rationalise the process of decision-making, it is clear that more needs to be done in order to safeguard and build on the work that the Fund has undertaken to date.

In particular, the structure makes decision-making on strategy a challenge. This was demonstrated at the Board meeting in Marseille, where key strategic decisions were taken at the last minute, with several members of the Board having already left and thus unintentionally excluded from the decision-making process.

We have proposed various adjustments to the current system to ensure that the Board has the time and information required in future to make informed decisions about strategic issues. Given the current pace and extent of change within the European cinema sector, ensuring that Fund has a clear strategic vision for its role in the market is likely to be of vital importance.

Ensuring that the Representatives have time to work on both the issues at hand and the applications is a key part of this. We have found the Members of the Board to be a knowledgeable, hard-working group, but often it is felt that the needs of the Fund place a high level of pressure on them. Often, it is not clear that competent authorities (who select the Representatives) acknowledge the level of time required to undertake the work of the Fund, and as a result we are proposing a small number of adjustments to ensure that they recognise the work done, and support it to the best of their ability.

2.1.5. The Decision-Making Process

This includes the work of the CPWG, where it is clear that the increase in applications that meet requirements of the Fund is putting great pressure on the procedures for assessment. Analysis of our research strongly suggests that the CPWG has already reached its capacity in its current form.

Ensuring that the number of projects does not continue to increase – particularly in the July session – is therefore desirable, and a particular challenge as the Fund grows. Should the number of applications increase much further, this risks a situation where members of the CPWG are unable to properly analyse the work – this would both do a disservice to the projects presented, and potentially undermine Eurimages’ track record in selection. Some adjustments are also proposed to the model used by the CPWG to ensure that the potential for tactical voting is minimised.

2.1.6. The Method of Calculating Contributions

Our analysis of the new contribution system underlines the degree to which it is a significant improvement over the model originally used. Whereas this system was, understandably, a facsimile of the Council of Europe’s, our analysis has highlighted the extent to which it was divorced from the realities of the Fund. Though the new model of contributions has its own idiosyncrasies, we feel that it far better reflects the needs of the Members and the Fund as a whole.

The various suggestions made for the improvement of the system are divided between those that are impractical as they introduce an unacceptable level of variability in annual



contributions, and others that are potentially more interesting. None of these would necessarily make a significant difference to the overall model, but would instead alter the balance, particularly for mid-ranking countries in the various measures used. The adoption of any of these elements tends to speak to the question of the role the Fund sees itself playing, and thus are most properly a method for Board discussion, without further recommendation here.

2.2. Additional Matters

The consultants added two areas to the investigation and these are also reported on in greater depth elsewhere in the report. They are:

2.2.1. Future Evaluations of the Fund

The European film sector has undergone massive change since the last full evaluation of Eurimages, done by Bipe Conseil in 1997. Anticipating further rapid change, we suggest that future evaluations be conducted every five or seven years. We expect there will be particular issues to address each time – as the calculation of contributions was in relation to this report. For example, the potential expansion of membership to states outside Europe could, we feel, have significant impacts and it might be fruitful to assess these after a few years.

2.2.2. Matters Examined but not Recommended

There were several topics that we examined during the study that might have resulted in recommendations for change, but in fact we decided that no change was warranted. However, we feel these should be noted and the reasons for not continuing with them commented on.

They included:

Implementing a two-tier set of systems for ‘larger’ and ‘smaller’ members – there was no evidence of measurable improvement as a result

Dropping the Collection Account Management Agreement (CAMA) system – further time should be given to measuring whether it meets its aims

Defining a ‘Eurimages’ film in order to guide investment decisions – this might mitigate against certain types of film and might also create too confusing and too rigid a system

Raising the minimum required funding from delegate producers in order to reduce the number of applications – our analysis of recent years’ decisions showed there would be little difference in the volume of projects.

2.3. Recommendations

Having completed the research and analysis phases of the study, the consultants then identified a number of areas where they feel adjustments to current practises and protocols would be beneficial. These are grouped under three headings:

The Intervention Design

The Management and Monitoring System

The Implementation of the Fund’s Programmes

Rather than provide a summary of recommendations (as with the much lengthier findings and conclusions described above) we feel it is important to repeat in full the recommendations that are also included elsewhere in this report (Section 4).



2.3.1. The Intervention Design

Overall, we feel that the Fund’s intervention system is well designed, and meets the needs of the industry and the aims of the Fund. But it could be better explained: the nature of communications with European professionals in particular should be examined to ensure they are clear, and fit the needs of the sector

The original aims and objectives of the Fund are as relevant as ever, and should be re-affirmed and re-interpreted to meet the current and future needs of the sector; the aims and objectives of the Council of Europe as a whole – including the protection of cultural diversity and democracy – should continue to be considered and maintained by the Board of Management in all its dealings

The Fund should look to ensure that its achievements are clearly communicated as part of its 25th anniversary celebrations – the significant value added benefits that Eurimages has generated, in particular the role it has played in bringing the European production sector together, are an outstanding achievement and deserve to be better known

This should be part of an overall outreach and communications strategy, which would also include a showcase of the most important films supported by the Fund

Circulation is set to be a major issue for European public funders in the next few years: Eurimages should proactively look to discuss how to ensure that projects are best circulated with other public funders, harmonising the approach to this issue

When this is completed, the Board should remove the current theatrical release requirement, which is no longer the best option to ensure the circulation of films, replacing this with a genuine and robust circulation plan which best suits the needs of the project, and is independently assessed by experts along the lines of the script readers

National Representatives should engage with every project in their territory, advising projects on their suitability to ensure that films with no realistic chance of being funded are filtered out.

2.3.2. The Management and Monitoring System

Given the previously noted emerging trend, which sees the divergence of available production funds available to projects form larger and smaller countries, Eurimages should look to keep a watching brief to ensure it remains feasible to construct productions between all countries, maintaining the data to facilitate any policy change which may be required to address this issue

The current growth both of the sector and the Board itself also threatens the ability of the Fund to make decisions. The Board should look to adopt an Executive Committee, meeting more frequently using modern communication techniques, to take a more permanent strategic lead for the Fund

This should include the adoption of two new external Vice Presidents to link the Fund better into the industry; both they and the President should be remunerated along the lines of a non-executive director in a firm

All three individuals and the Executive Director should be provided with longer contracts of four years, to address the significant strategic weakness which their short contracts currently present, given the importance of their links to the industry



The Bureau should be re-invented to take oversight of the Fund’s activities, with a specific remit to ensure that the Board, Executive Committee, and the standing Working Groups are applying their rules consistently and transparently

Meanwhile, the current practice of revealing CPWG votes after every project should be ended, as it offers significant opportunity for tactical voting; all votes should be held confidential by the secretariat until the end of the CPWG meeting, with the average vote per project revealed only after all projects have been presented

The June meeting of the Board of Management is presently the busiest, and as a result the strategic meeting is not best placed there; it should be split with the Board discussing emerging issues at the first meeting, and taking final decisions at the third meeting

Together with the Executive Committee system, this would allow for more considered analysis of the strategic issues facing the fund, and the adoption of a clearer strategic direction

2.3.3. The Implementation of the Fund’s Programmes

Our impressions are that the new model used for calculating contributions is a significant step forward from the previous one. Some small changes are possible, though these should be discussed by the Board as they speak to certain philosophical questions about the role and nature of the Fund as a whole

Given the increased volatility in the new model, it may be worthwhile considering the extension of the time period between the calculation being made and the payment coming into effect from 6 months to 18 months; while we recognise that this is a novelty in the Council of Europe system, we believe it would help competent authorities to better manage their budgets

The Board of Management meetings should be slimmed down, with a three-day meeting held four times per year; this is due to the difficulty which some Representatives have in attending, as well as the considerable expense of the meetings themselves

Furthermore, the possibility should be considered of cities sponsoring the meetings to a greater extent, provided this does not impact on the ability of smaller nations to host the meetings

Applicants sometimes find it hard to understand who to communicate with during the application process; the documents produced by the Fund should clearly outline this, with the Representatives ensuring that they keep up-to-date versions of these to help guide applicants

Partially, this should be achieved by the creation of a Roles and Responsibilities document for new members of the Fund. This should outline both procedures and lines of responsibility, ensuring that both the Representative and their competent authority are fully appraised of the time expectations and competencies required of delegates to the Board

In communicating this to new members of the Fund, the expectation should be underlined that Representatives have sufficient, paid time to undertake the duties required of them by Eurimages

It should be considered that, building on good work done to date by Roberto Olla and Aviva Silver (in her previous role), and recognising the commonality between the



programmes of the organisations, a representative of the future Creative Europe programme be invited to a Board Meeting

The Board should look to undertake regular, external evaluations. This would reflect the breadth of change currently being seen in the European film sector, and the value in allowing the Fund to reflect on its achievements



3. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

3.1. The Needs of the Sector and European Professionals

3.1.1. The Original Aims of the Fund

In Resolution 88 (15) the Council of Europe describes the original aims of the Fund. These include an aim that the Fund should:

… foster the co-production and distribution of creative cinematographic and audiovisual works in order to take advantage of the new communications techniques and to meet the cultural and economic challenges arising from their development.

Though this text is 25 years old, through our consultations with producers and others involved in the sector, it is clear that much of what is stated is still of paramount importance. Co-productions are a vital and still growing part of the European cinematographic landscape, and while producers worry about the viability of co-productions between certain countries, it is clear that co-production is a vital and continuing part of the sector’s needs.

Figure 2 – Eurimages Member Country Majority Co-Productions, 2007-11

The growth in co-productions seen in the past decade is strongly indicative of the continuing desire and need of European professionals to work in this manner, and this is ratified by both the consultation and survey results. On average, producers taking the survey had applied for Eurimages funding on two occasions as a delegate, with almost 15% having applied four or more times. This tallies with the consultation results which highlight that, both for creative and economic reasons, co-production remains a highly important model for European film.

Nonetheless, release requirements remain a difficult subject for many professionals, both those of Eurimages and those from national funds and distributors. The cinematic release requirement in particular is a hard barrier to clear for many, either due to the difficulties this presents in a home territory, or the particular requirements for release in others. An example of this is where dubbing requirements from distributors can often cost more than the value of the third Eurimages payment, undermining the aims of the cinematic release requirement.

The issues relating to co-production and circulation are dealt with in more detail in chapter 3.2 below, but it is certainly worthy of note here that the evolution of the distribution and

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011



exhibition sectors present significant challenges to European producers. Both the emergence of new models of distribution and the issues presented by non-national circulation of cinematic work are significant areas of challenge for the European production sector as a whole. For Eurimages, working with professionals through these problems – though in itself a significant challenge – is likely to be highly rewarding with respect to the impact of Eurimages films.

Figure 3 – Producer Survey: Obstacles to Distribution, Average Response (1 being most difficult)

In a similar vein, the present economic challenges experienced within the Eurimages area offer a significant threat to the sustainability of cross-European co-production, as this has exacerbated the divergence in financial means between the states parties to the agreement. Numerous consultees noted the increasing difficulty in structuring a co-production between a major state, such as Germany or France, and smaller ones. The volume of production finance which can be brought to the table by the major nations can, on occasion, swamp that of the smaller nations, leading to stories being dislocated from their originating country and instead being made in the major country.

Though this trend may be ameliorated by the emergence of an increased availability of production finance as the financial crisis recedes, either from government or private sources, it does nevertheless threaten the viability of elements of European co-production. As it stands we do not feel that specific policies should be adopted to deal with this. Rather, Eurimages should adopt a watching brief, gauging the impact of this trend if it continues. This would allow for policy decisions to be taken following the identification of a medium-term trend, the data for which do not currently exist.

The various data analysed all underline the importance of the original Aims and Objectives of the Fund to European film professionals, but also the need to re-emphasise certain elements. Among these, the increasing complexity of the circulation system for film is a particular concern, and presents an opportunity for Eurimages to extend its important sectoral leadership role. This said, co-production remains vital for the European production sector, and should be re-affirmed as the key part of the Eurimages Fund.

1

2

3

4

5

DifficultyUnderstandingNew Platforms

Difficultygaining Festival

Selection

Difficultyaccessing Home

Markets

Benefits don’t merit a Focus

on Distribution

Costs ofDistribution

Difficultyaccessing

Foreign Markets



3.1.2. Engagement with European Professionals

Figure 4 – Producer Survey: Understanding of Eurimages' Procedures

Both the consultations and survey data underline the difficulties that applicants have, on occasion, with Eurimages’ application processes. There exists a degree of confusion with regard to who should be approached – the Secretariat or the Representative – to deal with which issue, while the process after the application is submitted is considered opaque. We note that the second issue is currently being addressed by the production of a new video for the website, and suggest that a similar approach be taken with regard to the application process.

Figure 5 – Producer Survey: Complexity of Eurimages' Application Process Compared to National Funds

That the producers considered their experiences applying to Eurimages to be somewhat tricky is borne out by comparison to their national film funds. Two-thirds of survey respondents felt that the application process was more complicated by comparison, with almost a quarter feeling that it was significantly more complicated than an application to a

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Extremely Well Somewhat Well Not Well Not Concerned withthe Procedures

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Much MoreComplicated

Somewhat MoreComplicated

About the Same Somewhat LessComplicated

Much LessComplicated



domestic fund. It is felt that this is an issue which would also be ameliorated should a video explanation of the application process be produced and made available.

Figure 6 – Producer Survey: Satisfaction with Eurimages' Communications

This communication gap continues following application, where it is clearly felt that there is a shortfall in the quality of the feedback provided to applicants. Whereas 86% of applicants consider that their general communications with Eurimages are extremely or somewhat satisfactory, this figure is noticeably lower for feedback on decisions, at 72%.

Though this may reflect to some degree the disappointment where decisions go against the producer, a figure of just 30% high satisfaction on feedback correlates with consultation data on these. It was suggested that, on occasion, Eurimages’ letters can be highly formal in structure and language, and do not necessarily provide the degree of information seen in other film funds. This is a result of their origin in an international political organisation, and it is recommended that consideration be given to revising these, to better meet the needs and expectations of the sector, and to provide data which might be useful for future applications where appropriate.

It is not just engagement with producers though. Other European professionals report finding Eurimages difficult to deal with – if it means anything to them at all. For example, despite the success of Eurimages-backed films support from the fund has little meaning for sales agents. When asked at festivals, some were even unaware that such a fund existed. This is highlighted by the Producer Survey, where few producers felt Eurimages support eased distribution, and those that did came from small markets such as Estonia and Georgia. Only in Macedonia did a significant percentage of producers feel that Eurimages support could have an impact on the distribution of their film.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

ExtremelySatisfied

SomewhatSatisfied

Dissatisfied NoCommunication

Received

Eurimages'Communications

Feedback onDecisions



Figure 7 – Producer Survey: Ease of Achieving Non-National Distribution

These data underline the importance of a strong outreach programme for Eurimages. The upcoming 25th anniversary of the Fund presents a significant opportunity for Eurimages to spread the message of its success, and greater engagement with professionals across Europe can be developed from this as well. This may include the Creative Europe programme, where we feel that the good work undertaken by Roberto Olla and Aviva Silver – as head of the then MEDIA Programme – can be built on. This might potentially include an invitation for the Head of the Creative Europe programme to observe at a Board of Management meeting.

3.1.3. European Professionals’ Relationship with the National Representative

The Producer Survey highlighted the importance of the Producer’s relationship with the National Representative in the application process: for more than 80% of applicants, the Representative was a part of their application. Consultations, both with the Representatives and with applicants, validate this conclusion. Nonetheless, the role for which producers most value the Representative is that they support the film at the CPWG: 56% of respondents said this was their highest priority for the National Representative. Advice on the suitability of the project for Eurimages and on the application process came second and third respectively.

Figure 8 – Producer Survey: Role of Representative, Average Response (1 being most important)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Extremely Difficult SomewhatDifficult

Relatively Easy Extremely Easy Not A Concern

1

2

3

4

5

Supporting theProject

Advising on theProject's Suitability

Advising onEurimages'Processes

Providing FinancialAdvice

Providing CreativeAdvice



Within this, it is clear that the Representatives are seen – incorrectly – as the voice of Eurimages within their respective countries. This is not helped by the confused way in which the role is often presented to the local industries, and the lack of clarity which is seen around the exact nature of the job.2 In many ways, there is at the heart of this issue a tension in the nature of the Fund, in that the Representatives are charged with making decisions, and must analyse the projects for the CPWG, but it is technically the role of the Secretariat to analyse and manage the projects.

We feel that there is significant confusion as to the role of the Representative, both within the European production and exhibition community and – in some cases – within the Fund itself. This said, we feel that the Representative can play a valuable role in acting as a soft filter to suggest that unsuitable projects don’t apply. Furthermore, should the role of the Representative be significantly limited to stop their engagement with producers in such a manner, it is not clear that the Secretariat would have the capacity to take over the volume of enquiry this would lead to. This being the case, it’s not clear that it will be possible to stop the Representative engaging with their producers: they represent their countries, and are entitled to both hold views and express them, without expressing these as Eurimages’ views, to their applicants.

As we will advise later, a protocol for roles and responsibilities for new members will, we believe, help the Representatives’ role become clearer for producers. Though giving advice is not the traditional role of the Representative, it is one which has developed, and which the Fund is unlikely to be able to remove. Nonetheless, it should also look to ensure that the producer is referred to the Secretariat with regard to technical questions, to ensure a consistency of answer. As producers often struggle to understand the process, it is imperative that the Representatives do refer some queries back to the Secretariat, particularly those relating to eligibility and similar issues.

3.1.4. Expansion of the Eurimages Fund

While the expansion of the Eurimages Fund, in particular to third-party countries, might have the consequence of increasing the volume of projects – though we note this fear was also expressed prior to Russia’s accession – for the cinema sector in smaller nations it arguably presents a great opportunity. Consultees noted that some countries are unlikely to ever generate the scale to sign an official co-production agreement with a major non-European film nation or network with producers in these countries. Expansion of the Eurimages Fund towards these territories therefore offers an opportunity for such nations, should it come to pass. Whether this occurs, however, is something which will have to be considered at a future point in time. This issue is dealt with in more detail in section 3.5.5.

3.1.5. Eurimages and Policy

Within Europe, there exist significant policy debates about the future of the film sector, concerning major issues like gender equality and diversity. Eurimages’ role as a policy leader in European film is undoubted, but it is worthy of note that its position as a top-line funder must necessarily limit its ability to effect change in this area. We wholeheartedly support efforts to ensure a diverse range of voices within European film, but are not clear how Eurimages should best look to aid this.

2 This is exemplified by some Representatives who have, in the past, used Eurimages letterheads, or

otherwise presented themselves as officials of the Fund



3.2. The Promotion and Stimulation of Co-Production and Circulation

3.2.1. The Original Aims of the Fund

As noted above, the original aims of the Fund highlight equally both the co-production and the circulation of audiovisual works, although the actions of the Fund have tended to prioritise co-production as its major activity. Our consultations, survey results and focus groups have all underlined the value of this as an objective, and it is clear that co-production remains as valid and important as ever.

In particular, the qualitative data collected underline the sectoral development which has been generated by the promotion of co-production within Europe. Internally, the film sectors of member states have developed to meet this model, with the production sectors of smaller European nations in particular recognising the importance of co-produced films as a way to ensure their work has an impact. This is highlighted through the networking which Eurimages has stimulated, as film professionals from different sides of the continent link up for the purpose of story-telling. Indeed, this outcome is recognised by many newer members as a major reason for their joining, as such networking is vital in linking smaller film sectors into the European whole, and stimulating their development.

As we have noted, the use of co-production as a mechanism for the development of films has expanded enormously in Europe in the last decades. While it has not proven possible to directly tie this to the existence of the Eurimages Fund, many consultees nevertheless felt there was a direct connection. Though the connection is therefore not provable, it seems clear both to professionals within the European film sector and to the SPI Team that Eurimages has achieved great things in the promotion and stimulation of European co-production.

This presents something of a double-edged sword for the Eurimages Fund though, as the increasing volume of co-productions is likely to have a serious impact on the mechanics of the Fund. If third-parties like Canada – which also produces prodigiously in this manner – also join, then this issue is likely to be exacerbated even further.

To some degree, the lower priority given to circulation is a result of the emergence of the MEDIA programme in the early 1990s, as this fund has prioritised distribution funding, but it should be an important part of Eurimages’ activities nevertheless. However, whereas the original aims of the Fund highlighted the impact of new technology in this area, the current distribution provisions require only the release of the film in the cinemas of countries involved in the production. Aside from the difficulties this causes for producers, who on occasion are forced to release a film on a single screen and for a single showing to meet the conditions for the third payment, the question must arise as to how this system truly achieves the Eurimages goal of stimulating circulation?

3.2.2. New Methods of Circulation

Various factors are impacting the current state of the global system for film circulation, including the impact of digitisation both for production and exhibition, and the potential of reaching new audiences online. These are, in many ways, analogous to the initial issues which Eurimages was developed in response to, such as the emergence of multi-channel satellite television. However in contrast to this, the increased complexity which is evident within the new distribution models demands a much more subtle approach from Eurimages, as well as coordination with the other parties involved in the sector.



Development of new distribution models is breaking down old paradigms. The digitisation of exhibition has opened up cinemas for new content, while VoD and other technologies offer the option to sell directly to the consumer. These trends are diminishing the traditional windows system in many countries and challenging notions of whether a traditional cinematic release is the best way to maximise the impact of any particular film. Various films, across a range of genres, have already adopted new release models in response to this, while from the other perspective cinemas are increasingly using alternative content to drive attendance, further squeezing the potential space for art-house and other difficult cinematic content.

This combination of elements makes circulation of films both more challenging for producers, as well as potentially more rewarding where a circulation plan is developed which helps the project best meet its audience. We feel that, as a paradigm, circulation also offers new opportunities over traditional distribution, recognising that the new possibilities present a much larger opportunity for any project. Such distribution does not necessarily have to be for commercial gain, with recognition of potential social impact, educational and other gains which might be created by circulation, meeting the specific aims of the producer, and the broader objectives either of Eurimages or even the C0uncil of Europe.

Figure 9 – Producer Survey: Aims for Distribution, Average Response (1 being most important)

Producers, as shown through the survey results, clearly recognise the value of a broad range of aims for circulation; Reaching a Target Audience and Increasing the Producer’s Profile were the two highest-rated aims for circulation described. Developing a circulation strategy which fits the possibilities offered by the film, and maximising the strategy and the potential audience, would seem to fit the demands of Eurimages’ objectives far better than the requirement for a theatrical release.

1

2

3

4

5

Reaching aTarget

Audience

IncreasingProfile as aProducer

AchievingAwards

Recognition

Reaching aWidespread

Audience

Meeting theRequirements

of Funding

SecuringFinancialBenefits



As an issue, we do not recommend that Eurimages attempts to address this unilaterally: new models of circulation affect multiple national and regional funds, and the greatest impact would likely be gained on these issues by adopting a united approach. Co-ordination of a new approach to circulation at a European level will allow the various funds to ensure producers are well appraised of forthcoming changes, developing similar – if not coordinated – circulation requirements for their funded films.

The aim of this should be to help producers develop circulation strategies for their projects, including the idea that a cinematic release – though perpetually desirable – might not be the correct approach for every film or in every territory. This is not to say that cinematic release should not be an aim – projects in both the US and Europe have successfully leveraged VoD releases into cinematic success – but that in the new circulation environment it is not necessarily the correct first point of call. This is particularly the case for co-productions led by a smaller country in cooperation with a larger market, where the requirement for cinematic release in the minority state can be almost impossible to cross.

Eventually, it is recommended that a circulation plan – developed in lieu of current distribution requirements – be adopted as part of the required application procedure. This should be monitored by the Secretariat as part of their analysis of the project, and clearly considered at the Co-Production Working Group. Of course, this element of procedure would only be adopted at such point as the new models and requirements for circulation are understood and agreed by a variety of European governmental and inter-governmental actors.

It is clear that the development of a wide audience for a film is therefore incredibly challenging, particularly for producers in smaller countries, but also with foreign-language films in many larger markets. Faced with a shrinking opportunity for cinematic release in many countries, and a plethora of new options for reaching the audience, navigating the present release system is undeniably a huge challenge. We recommend that, in order to help producers traverse the new challenges of the circulation market in Europe, Eurimages begins to work with both producers and other European agencies to develop a new approach to circulation. This should, after agreement, be considered as part of the application procedure in replacement of the traditional cinematic release.

3.3. Added Value of Eurimages

3.3.1. Eurimages’ Aims and Objectives

From the perspective of both the members and the wider industries they represent, the added value provided by membership of Eurimages is considered to be highly significant. The development of networks with producers across Europe, opportunities to broaden the horizons of national film-making, and the model for sectoral development which Eurimages offers are all highly significant. Indeed, both from a production and an exhibition standpoint, Eurimages is seen to offer a way to accelerate the development of a nation’s film industry, as well as a norm to reach towards.

For new members in particular, these value added elements provide a significant input into the value calculation for the membership fee. This highlights a more sophisticated approach to understanding the value of the contribution, though such intangibles are all but impossible to value. Understanding Eurimages as being of greater importance than simply ‘funds in versus funds out’ is, nevertheless, something of a rare approach, and one which we feel is vital in truly underlining the outsized impact Eurimages has had on the European film industry.



As we have noted elsewhere, Eurimages has played a significant role in the development of the current model of film production for Europe. The emergence of co-production as the normal model for the European film sector, in particular, is to a significant degree considered a result of Eurimages’ funding. Whereas co-production has deep roots in certain areas of Europe – not least the Nordic countries – the expansion of the practice, and the ability to generate co-productions between historically separate areas of the continent is an enormous vindication of Eurimages’ role in the sector.

This added value impact is entirely in keeping with the original aims of the Fund, and those of the Council of Europe, recognising that financing is highlighted in Resolution (88) 15 as the means by which Eurimages might achieve its objectives. In keeping with the overall aims of the Council of Europe, Eurimages has clearly achieved a significant amount in the fields of international co-operation on cultural and social issues, as well as unity on common heritage. For producers in individual member states, this has manifested itself most often in the ability to work with their contemporaries in a much wider range of countries than they would traditionally work with.

As with all co-production, this allows films to have a greater impact, on average, than they would if made in just one market. Though the results of the survey underline the importance of Eurimages’ funding to film production in Europe, conversations with the producers underlined the value that this element of the fund delivers. While linguistic and cultural differences will always limit the degree to which this can occur, Eurimages’ impact in this area is nonetheless impressive and of significant added value to the industry as a whole.

3.3.2. The Fund’s Outreach and Communications

Despite these successes, added value remains of limited importance in general discussion of Eurimages, where the focus remains on project support, either regarding numbers or value. As part of an enlarged communications strategy, the fund should look to discuss its achievements in these areas to a significantly greater degree. Both within the Council of Europe and for the European film sector as a whole, Eurimages’ role in sectoral development, networking, and European unity is of significant importance, and should be celebrated.

With the 25th anniversary of Eurimages’ founding occurring in 2014, the Fund has a significant opportunity to celebrate its achievements, both with regard to the films it has supported, and the European integration it has fostered. Both within the Council of Europe and to a much wider audience both inside and outside the film sector, these achievements should be outlined, highlighting the beneficial role Eurimages has played.

Taking a leading role in the discussion on circulation, as an example, would also achieve this end, and offer significant further added value to the European production sector. Both the producer survey and consultations have underlined the degree to which the production community are having difficulties with the new methods of circulation, and an effort to coordinate a response among public funders would undoubtedly be welcomed. To this end, Eurimages is in a unique position – even more so than the MEDIA programme and its successors – to lead a pan-European attempt to tackle the issues faced.

3.3.3. Policy Developments within European Film

Eurimages’ role as a policy leader has been noted by many consultees, and this should be a key factor when the Board is considering its internal policy. Particularly for smaller nations, Eurimages’ funding will have a significant effect on the shape and working methods of the film industry internally. The lack of funding available more generally has given Eurimages an



outsized influence on smaller film economies, and while this can be used to help develop the overall European film sector, care must be taken.

This is also true at a more general level when considering policy changes, as Eurimages’ role as a top-line funder places inherent limits on the changes the Fund can directly effect. As an example, it is clear that developing gender equality within the European film sector is vital if the variety of voices which deserve to be heard can be most usefully ensured. However, the data strongly suggest that in many developed countries, the causes of lower female participation in the production sector occur at an early stage in the film education process, making the ability of Eurimages to affect change quite limited. While change in this area is vital for the future of the European sector, Eurimages must be careful in altering its policies, recognising these limitations. It is right and proper that Eurimages look to ensure a variety of voices in the European film market though, but it is unfortunately unclear to us how the Fund might address the gender issue.



3.4. Implementation Methods

3.4.1. Cost-Efficiency Ratio

Though many European public funds publish significant amounts of data on their spending within the film sector, developing an exact comparison between the stated overheads for these funds has proven a significant challenge. On account of various national priorities, budgets for film support often contain different elements – for Denmark, as an example, the stated film funding included archives and exhibition. Meanwhile, we note that many funds do not offer a discrete overhead or admin cost for each section of their spending, and that efficiencies would generally mean that larger funds – with shared cost bases – will be expected to have a lower overhead than smaller ones.

As a result of these elements, the development of a comparative model between Eurimages and other funds is incredibly difficult – even where data are available, it is not possible to ensure that they are describing the same thing. The MEDIA fund is a prime example of this, as the most recent evaluation undertaken outlined the staffing costs in terms of Full Time Equivalent, rather than monetary output. Our analysis indicates that, in general, funds operate on an approximately 10% overhead, though it also seems clear that smaller funds – such as the regional Film i Väst in Sweden – have larger percentage overheads.

Eurimages operates on an overhead of approximately 11.35% - though this is a small amount higher than the average, there are clear reasons for this, which are inherent to the nature and function of the Fund. Larger funds often have the ability to share overheads and administrative costs to an extent which the size and nature of Eurimages precludes. While the other programmes within the Fund are able to share the costs of the co-production fund to some degree, overall Eurimages is not large enough to develop true economies of scale. This is of particular importance when we note that Eurimages must operate across 36 separate countries, with the significant added business costs which this entails.

It must also be recognised that while the other funds are monolingual – or in the case of the Nordic Film and TV Fund work in a group of mutually intelligible languages – Eurimages must work across languages, adding significant overhead for translations. Similarly, the fund must operate within the framework of the Council of Europe’s cost and staffing requirements, limiting the degree to which costs might be lowered quite significantly. This is particularly the case with costs such as rent or IT equipment, where the Fund is required to use the services of the Council of Europe, with no flexibility or capacity to negotiate the overhead.

It is also worth noting that a significant element of Eurimages’ overheads is paid for by reimbursements from co-production support, with the members’ contributions used only when this exhausted. Though in recent years, the volume of reimbursements has been a little lower than historical trends on account of the European financial situation, we would hope that it begins to rise again in the future, decreasing the amount to which general funding is used for overheads.

Overall, we feel that Eurimages operates on a reasonable cost-efficiency ratio for a fund of its size. Though its cost base is marginally higher than equivalent funds, there are good reasons for this to be the case, these being a function of how the Fund operates. Though this is not to suggest that efficiencies should not be sought where available, within the scope of this investigation none have become readily apparent which can be suggested.



3.4.2. The Role of the Secretariat

Within this structure, we feel that the Secretariat undertake a key role. The volume of analysis and preparation required, particularly for the CPWG is, in significant, and the time constraints under which the Secretariat works are incredibly short. Combined with the regular research and analysis which is undertaken by the Secretariat – to support the Board, provide analysis and information to the Council of Europe, and engage with supported projects – it is clear that they play a significant role in the success of the Fund.

This perception was ratified through our conversations with the Representatives. These underlined the degree of professionalism, work ethic, and patience brought to the role by the Secretariat staff, as well as the intense degree of subject knowledge which they carry. Though it is clear that, on occasions, the Board and Secretariat disagree with regard to the details of the Fund and its operations, it is undeniable that the Representatives respect the Secretariat staff, and appreciate the work and knowledge they bring to the operations of the Fund.

Indeed, the extent to which their role is critical is shown throughout this report – many of the operations and successes noted would not be possible without the professional and diligent support provided by the Secretariat. In many cases, their work in the background is invaluable, and it has, as a result, not been possible to outline every issue – it would significantly increase the length of this document.

Perhaps, though, it might be felt that the Secretariat could benefit, as a group, from having a higher profile. It may be as a result of the aforementioned volume of work, but in many ways the Secretariat are not seen outside the Fund as taking a particularly significant role. Though the Representatives were full of praise for their professionalism, few outside of the Fund had much experience with the Secretariat, and in general the tended to regard the Representatives as the face of Eurimages. This is underlined by the Producer Survey, the results of which demonstrated the degree to which the Representative is approached for advice as well as support.

Overall, however, we feel that the Secretariat undertake a significant, valuable, and – in many cases – incredibly difficult role. Their professionalism and dedication are of immense importance both to the operation of the Fund, and were of great help in the completion of this report.

3.4.3. Regulations for the Co-Production Fund

Though the Producer Survey highlighted the complexity with which applicants view the regulations for the Co-Production Fund, our belief is that for the most part this is due to a lack of understanding rather than their inherent difficulty. This point of view is constructed from consultations with applicant producers who outlined the problems which they occasionally had navigating the application process.

With the addition of the process video currently being developed for the Eurimages website, we believe that the Fund is in the process of dealing with this issue. At this present moment, we would therefore recommend that the impact of the video is studied, and that further changes are considered when these become apparent.

Aside from the process difficulties, the other major issue which has become apparent is that of language – in particular the translation requirements for scripts. For many smaller languages, it is very difficult to find translators who are able to adequately express the



nuances of a script into either English or French. We recognise that these difficulties are inevitable, and that there is no practicable solution to the issue of multiple languages within Eurimages. Nonetheless, we wish to express that the CPWG should ensure that it acts sensitively with translated scripts, in recognition of the difficulties which translation presents. This is vital to ensure the variety of projects which is Eurimages’ great strength.

3.4.4. Other Eurimages Funds

Eurimages supports theatres primarily through Europa Cinemas, a body set-up by the MEDIA programme, and the area in which Eurimages’ work most closely dovetails with that of the EU body. Our discussions strongly suggest that Eurimages’ support of Europa Cinemas is of significant importance to the exhibition sectors in question. Ensuring that the countries affected - many of which have only small numbers of theatres – have adequate space to show European film is considered crucial.

Figure 10 – Average Eurimages Film Admissions for Theatre Scheme Participants, 2008-12

The data suggest that the exhibition scheme, though small, is successful: admissions for Eurimages per theatre have increased year-on-year over the course of the scheme – a notable measure of success. We do note that the scheme has often underspent its budget, an indication from the perspective of the Consultants that there is not much scope to expand, but this is unsurprising as many of the eligible countries have steadily moved into the MEDIA Programme. Overall, we feel that this programme is a success, and that the steady growth of Eurimages admissions seen underline the good work being done by Eurimages and Europa Cinemas in this sector.

Eurimages’ digitisation programme also appears to be a success, though we note with regard to this that the scheme has not been long running to data, and that the data are quite thin as a result. Nonetheless, a comparison with the MEDIA equivalent scheme suggests that both the numbers and values of support currently being distributed are in line with what we would expect. As cinemas become more familiar with this scheme, it may be expected that usage of this will increase, as will membership from Armenia and Azerbaijan, though we have not been able to determine a projected degree of increase through our evaluation.

With regard to the distribution programme, we note that at the time of this Evaluation, the initial decisions on support had only just been taken, and not enough time has passed to

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012



assess their impact. As a result, and given the existence of a separate evaluation for the programme under its former model, no evaluation of this fund was taken. It is suggested, however, that a watching brief be maintained, and that the distribution programme be analysed within three years given the issues which dogged the previous model.

Overall, our analysis of the size and demand for these schemes tends to ratify Eurimages’ current focus: both exhibition and digitisation have steady demand, but neither is set to be a huge part of Eurimages’ outlays. As a result, the major focus on Co-Production from the Fund is considered to be correct. Nonetheless, the two longer-running schemes studied have proven themselves to be valuable, in particular the Theatres scheme, where Eurimages has usefully positioned itself in the gap left by the MEDIA programme. This said, few consultees seemed familiar with the programmes, indicated that while the data analysis shows their success, more work may be required in future to better gauge the extent of this.

3.5. Decision Making Process

3.5.1. The Structure of Decision Making

Since its foundation in 1988, Eurimages has undergone significant changes, not least the growth from the original 12 members to the present 36 (increasing to 38 in 2014). While the fund has rationalised elements of the decision-making structure to compensate for this growth, the inherent model – whereby the Board of Management, sitting in plenary, decides on issues and projects – has remained throughout. As the size of the Fund’s Board has grown, though, decisions through this model have necessarily become more difficult.

Figure 11 – Number of Eurimages Member States, 1997-20143

This is not to say, however, that Eurimages has not adapted to the demands of a larger membership. The adoption of the Co-Production, Theatres, and Exhibition working groups in particular have acted to rationalise the decision-making structure with specific ends in mind, and have proven successful, with consultees advising that on few occasions have their recommendations been rejected by the plenary. Overall, however, decision making continues to be structured on a broadly ad-hoc basis, with study groups tasked towards the study of

3 Years when new countries joined, Armenia and Azerbaijan expected to accede in 2014

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

1997 1998 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2007 2009 2011 2014*



specific issues, meeting in person on the margins of Board meetings and events such as Cannes.

Though this system has allowed for in-depth study of specific issues, the difficulties associated with the current model were observed in particular detail during the Marseille meeting. Here, the Strategic Plenary session showed several significant defects, not least the incredibly limited time taken for the discussion and adoption of a major strategic measure, the changing of the statutory documents to allow for third-party membership. While, as we note, this issue was studied in some detail in advance through a study group, the structure inherent to the plenary meeting did not allow for any kind of exploration of the issues by the full Board. As a result of the number of decisions to be taken over the course of the plenary, discussion of strategic issues was pushed back to the afternoon of the final day.

Compounding this was the fact that many Representatives had – on account of travel difficulties or requirements from their employers – left the meeting in advance of, or during, the final day. The combination of these factors led to a highly limited discussion of a major strategic issue for Eurimages, with no particular time available to the members to explore the potential impacts of opening the fund to third-party countries. With the expansion of membership projected in 2014 and beyond, this is a situation which we can only expect to get worse in the future.

With regard to the issue of Representatives leaving the meeting early, we feel this is an almost inevitable consequence of the impact of the financial crisis. The length of time and travel required within the current Board Meeting structure, and the requirement that the member states pay for this, present a significant challenge for a number of state parties. As a result, we feel there is a strong argument in favour of limiting future Board meetings to three full and consecutive days, with no events prior to the morning of the first day, or after the evening of the third.

This would, of course, have an impact on the current positioning of the strategic plenary, located as it is at the June management meeting. Our observations of this, however, indicated that there is a significant challenge already inherent in the timing of this meeting. The number of projects requiring discussion at the meeting, on account of the preference for summer filmmaking, presents a significant challenge on its own: in the future, and with the expansion of the fund, it is likely that this pressure will only increase.

As a result, we propose that the strategic plenary is both moved and divided, with priorities set and agreed upon at the first board meeting, and decisions taken at the third. As well as alleviating significant pressures from the second board meeting, we believe that this will allow for greater strategic analysis of the issues at hand – the first meeting, as an example, could set and direct study groups to report back to the board for informed decision making. Whereas, historically, the length of time following the June meeting was required to communicate decisions to the film community for implementation the following January, we also feel that the impact of new technology should allow for a shorter lead time in relation to this.

Overall, we believe that the proposed changes would, if implemented, allow for a more responsive Board of Management, with more time to focus on projects in the June meeting, and the opportunity to better address Eurimages’ strategic priorities elsewhere. In combination with our other proposals for strategic decision making, this will allow the Representatives the space to clearly consider the impact of decisions, and sensibly plot the future of the Fund in an increasingly complex film market.



3.5.2. The Co-Production Working Group

As we have noted, the CPWG has been one of the major innovations created by the fund in recent years to ensure the successful operations of the fund, and it is clear both from our consultations and observations of the group in operation that it has been a major success. The project selection, as shown by the number and level of awards gained for supported films, has proven highly successful. Meanwhile, the group itself – as shown by adopting new elements such as the script readers, and changed voting systems – has proven willing to change to ensure continued success. As a result, the major challenge is to ensure that this success is continued at a time when an even greater volume of projects is to be expected.

Figure 12 – Applications to Eurimages: Numbers Examined by CPWG, or Ineligible or Withdrawn, 2004-2012

There are several reasons for the increasing volume of projects to be considered by the CPWG. The data – both from Eurimages and the producers – suggest that the raw number of applications is not increasing significantly. Rather, the volume of applications meeting the standards appears to have gone up, indicating that producers are increasingly able to navigate the system, a point which is confirmed by our conversations and survey.

Our major concern with regard to this is that various factors are, at the moment, depressing the volume of co-productions from certain areas of Europe. Countries which have undergone significant austerity programmes have, in some cases, significantly cut the volume of funds heading to film production. As this returns, or as alternative sources of funding become clear, volumes coming to Eurimages can be expected to increase. Similarly, the number of productions coming from newer members – in particular the Russian Federation – are likely to rise as producers become more familiar with the system. This will only be compounded by the numbers of applications which a country like Canada or Israel is likely to submit should they join as a third-party member.

All of these issues lead to significant concern about the future of the CPWG, as both our observations and consultations suggest that the volumes of projects to be considered are

0

50

100

150

200

250

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Projects NotRegistered orWithdrawn

Eligible Projects



around the maximum possible within the current system. Ideally, given the amount of time required to properly prepare for the working group, no more than 40 projects would be considered at any Meeting. Ensuring that there is enough time to prepare has proven to be a particular issue for certain Representatives, particularly those from smaller countries who have to undertake a variety of roles, both related and unrelated to their respective film funds. Whereas a handful of countries have Representatives who can devote their entire workload to engagement with the Fund and applicants, we do not feel this is the norm, and it is therefore important to ensure that Representatives are not overloaded.

Our suggestions with regard to managing the workload are explored in detail below. Following discussions with a range of parties both within and without Eurimages, we feel that the best options are to increase the range of filters between the applicant and the CPWG, while working to ensure that the competent bodies in member states are better appraised of the time commitment required of the Representative, and allow for their full engagement. Combined, these would both underline Eurimages’ role as a top-line funding body, whilst also allowing the Representatives sufficient time to fulfil this.

We would also like to see a small change made to the voting system within the CPWG. While observing the Marseille meeting, we were surprised to find that the results for each project were announced before the next one was presented, both with regard to the individual votes cast and the average. From both our observations and from a latter survey of the voting results, it is apparent that this provides a significant opportunity for tactical voting. Consultees also advised that they have seen projects ‘killed’ by low scores, as members of the group become aware what scores will be required to ensure that projects from their nations pass.

Our impression is that this significantly undermines both the democratic character required of the Council of Europe, and the Fund’s nature as a collective body. As a result, we propose that the voting system be altered, so that votes are not announced following each round, but rather only at the end of the working group meeting, and then only as an average. Though we feel there is value in ensuring that each individual representative’s votes are public – not least as this will show up tactical voting – by announcing the scores given to projects only at the end, we believe that the impact of this can be better limited. Combined with the new Bureau system, proposed below, we feel that tactical voting can be minimised.

3.5.3. Strategic Decision Making

As we have noted, there is something of a gap within Eurimages’ current model for strategic decision making, with many issues not being given their due time at plenary on account of the other demands on the Board. With the increasing complexity of the film market – responding to digitisation across the production and exhibition sectors, the increasing challenges of finance and legal requirements, and the challenge of audience demand – there will be a greater burden on Eurimages to meet complex strategic challenges in the future. Representatives must, therefore, be given the time and support required to engage with the complexities of the new film sector, and to set a strong direction for the Fund.

To achieve this, we propose that Eurimages adopt a new model for decision making, with the creation of a new Executive Committee of the Fund – comprised of the President, Vice Presidents, and members of the Board selected for a period. This body would meet more frequently than the Board itself, and take the role of providing a greater strategic lead to the Fund, analysing issues for discussion by the Board in Plenary, and ensuring that small decisions are taken in a timely fashion.



Within this structure, the Vice Presidents would no longer be appointed from the Board of Management, but would be external appointees, akin to the President.4 This change would allow for a much greater level of strategic continuity, with the Vice Presidents being able to step up to the role of President at such a point as he or she vacates the post. It would also see the Fund bring in a much greater range of external expertise – we note that, compared to Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport (EPAS), which is described below, Eurimages is highly reliant on internal expertise. While this is without doubt successful, the ability to bring in further opinion and analysis will only strengthen the fund.

Figure 13 – Diagram of Proposed Decision-Making Structure

For the purpose of meeting its strategic remit, the Executive Committee of the Fund should utilise to a much greater degree technologies such as Skype, allowing its members to remain in contact without the need for face-to-face meetings. We would expect the Executive Committee to meet at least monthly, discussing the events which might affect Eurimages and taking decisions which need swift action. They would report back in good time for the Board meeting, recommending strategic changes, proposing study groups, or submitting actions for ratification and comment.

In the pursuit of this constitutional change, we would propose that the Board structure the Executive Committee in such a way that it is given a general responsibility for ensuring the good running of the Fund. Within this, certain responsibilities – such as constitutional changes, agreement of the annual contributions, new members, and appointments – be reserved solely to the Board in Plenary, though the Executive Committee may be free to advise. Overall, we see the proposed committee as taking a significant degree of the strategic load from the Board, allowing them to focus on the issues at hand, and to maintain their ability to decide on projects within a period of tremendous change.

4 We would expect the current role to continue at the revised Bureau, under a different title to avoid

confusion



Within this structure, the Secretariat would, as with all such decision-making bodies, be represented – we would expect that the Executive Director would be part of the Executive Committee, with the Deputy Executive Director attending where this would not be possible. It is important that the Secretariat be represented at all decision-making bodies, both given the constitutional requirements of the Fund, and to advise on the technical aspects of their discussions.

As part of this new model, the role of the Bureau would also change significantly, and we see this as being more of an oversight body for the Fund as a whole. The Bureau would, under the new model, look to ensure that the consequences of decisions against the original aims and objectives of the Fund be analysed and reported back to the Board. Furthermore, the Bureau should look to take oversight of the decisions made both by the Board and the standing working groups and Executive Committee, to ensure that the rules of the Fund are being applied consistently and transparently.

Transparency of decision making is likely to be a major theme within both the Fund and the wider governmental and inter-governmental space in the coming years. The impact of technology has seen increasing numbers of individuals demanding the right to scrutinise decisions on public money. In this context, it is important that Eurimages not only follow its own rules, but be seen to follow its own rules – ensuring this internal transparency will allow for the opening up of Eurimages workings to external scrutiny, helping to ensure the future stability of the Fund from external criticism.

As a final strategic point, we strongly suggest that the Board act to address what has, historically, been a major strategic weakness within the operation of the Fund – the short contracts provided to both the President and Executive Director. Both of these roles are crucial to the functioning of the fund and, both internally and externally, the Executive Director is recognised as a key part of the Eurimages model. That the role is currently tied to a short, two-year contract is, as a result, somewhat problematic – should the Executive Director leave, there is likely to be significant upheaval, which carries with it the strong potential for disruption in the operation of the Fund.

With this in mind, SPI proposes that the Executive Director be given a renewable four-year contract, to provide for the security of the Fund’s operations, as well as their links with other bodies inside both the film sector and the Council of Europe. This extension should also be provided to the President and proposed Vice Presidents, to the same end. Alongside this, we propose that the President receive an amount of remuneration for services, on the scale of a non-executive member of a company board. This would, we feel, be the correct way to recognise the significant amount of work which the President contributes to the smooth running of the Fund, which is currently undertaken on an effectively pro bono basis.

3.5.4. Comparison with Other Council of Europe Agreements

During the course of this investigation, various bodies within the Council of Europe were examined with regard to their governance, to consider the lessons which might be learned and adapted for Eurimages. Largely, these were partial agreements or enlarged partial agreements, given their clear similarity to Eurimages, though other bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights were also considered. Many bodies – particularly the Directorate for the Quality of Medicines and Healthcare, and the Youth Department – had limited relevance to the management of Eurimages. Two were did present interesting comparisons, however: the Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport (EPAS) and the European Audiovisual Observatory (EAO).



For the most part, and as a reflection of the Council of Europe standard, both of these bodies operate along similar structural lines to Eurimages: a Board of Management (under various titles) is constituted of representatives of the members to set the direction. A Bureau also exists in both other bodies, but for both EPAS and the EAO this operates somewhat differently to the Eurimages equivalent. In EPAS, the Bureau operates the fund on a regular basis, as the Governing Body – the analogue of Eurimages’ Board – meets only once per year. For the EAO, the Bureau acts both to prepare the meetings of the Executive Council and to monitor the Board’s work.

In this regard, the Bureau of the Executive Committee of the EAO appears most similar to the Eurimages Executive Committee proposed above, with elements of its work being equivalent to the expanded role proposed for the Eurimages’ board. Similarly, EPAS’s Statutory Committee operates to adopt their budget and approve accounts, again a similar model to the proposed Executive Committee and Bureau roles for a re-designed Eurimages.

Both the EAO and EPAS maintain standing committees of external experts to comment on their operational programmes – for the EAO, this includes bodies such as Europa International, Cineregio, and Eurimages itself. Given the internal expertise inherent in the Eurimages Board, we do not feel the need to propose this step. However, EPAS’s biennial gathering of sports ministers from member states may be worth looking into, as a way to help the governments of the respective members to better understand each other’s policies.

Neither of these bodies presents an exact comparator for Eurimages. EPAS’s Governing Body merely sets the direction for the Programme, and does not decide on projects itself. Similarly, the EAO’s Executive Council focuses on setting budgets and priorities. Given the Eurimages Board’s historic and successful role in picking projects, it would seem counter-productive to recommend this. However, allowing different groups to focus on strategic and operational elements is desirable, and that is something which we feel is best achieved in the proposed Executive Committee model. It is worthy of note that both of these bodies have their operational, strategic and oversight functions divided into a greater number of committees than Eurimages at the present moment, something which we feel could be successfully adopted by the Fund.

3.5.5. Eurimages as an Enlarged Partial Agreement

At the present time, we have not come to a firm recommendation regarding third country membership of Eurimages. As the constitutional change to allow this is already in process, but no country will be in a position to join for some time, it does not feel appropriate for us to draw conclusions out. Nonetheless, in researching the topic, we were unable to discover evidence showing that a robust assessment was made into what the impacts and benefits of this change might be. This speaks to the strategic weakness which we have already noted with regard to aspects of Eurimages’ decision-making process.

We note that the changed element of Resolution (88) 15 does set a uniquely high bar for the accession of a non-member of the Council of Europe, requiring the unanimous acceptance of the Board of Management. This will, we expect, provide significant time for discussion of the terms under which a third-party might join. Elements which would need clarification include the voting rights of any third party country for projects and policy, the number of projects the country would have the right to present, and the contribution structure under which they would be permitted to join.

Through our consultation process, we note that there are some concerns about the prospect of non-European membership of Eurimages. Questions have been raised about ensuring the



European character of the fund, in particular. We also feel that, depending on the identity of the state joining, there is the potential for a significantly increased number of projects to be presented. Taking Canada as an example, should even a representative sample of Canadian-European co-productions be submitted, this would see a significant increase of projects per session, exacerbating further the issues outlined at the CPWG.

This notwithstanding, the constitutional question of how to ensure that the inherent structure and nature of the Fund is maintained without being seen to take advantage of non-European countries through second or third class membership is an enormous question. We have already noted the issues surrounding decision making, and advise that these are addressed in advance of the first non-European member joining. Without this, the ever-increasing numbers of voices on the Board are likely to make the change needed to ensure the future of the Fund increasingly more difficult to achieve.

The emergence of third-party membership is not, despite this, a wholly negative proposition for Eurimages. Should the structure under which they join be carefully designed, opening up offers significant potential. This is particularly true for the smaller members of the Fund, whose producers are likely to have significantly greater opportunities to work with countries such as Canada under the Eurimages umbrella. As we have seen elsewhere, Eurimages has a significant impact in facilitating contacts and networking between non-traditional co-production partners.

Similarly, the availability of greater funding may well turn out to be a boon for countries in the ongoing difficult financial climate, while the networking opportunities noted above offer the change for new voices and new films to enter the marketplace. Overall, we recommend that a model is carefully designed before any third-parties are able to join: this would include an equitable and transparent model for contributions, a refined decision-making system, and a role for third countries which allows them a role without undermining the Fund’s European character. We would also recommend that this structure be reviewed within a few years, and be tied to a future external evaluation of the Fund.

3.5.6. Representatives and Decision Making

Both our consultations and observations have underlined that the Eurimages Board of Management is a highly-skilled and hard-working organisation. The Representatives are very well regarded by the industry as a whole, particularly the producers, with the survey data underlining the importance of their relationship in this area during the application process. Furthermore, our examination of the documentation – particularly for the CPWG – has indicated the amazing volume of work undertaken by the Representatives for the Fund. In many cases, this includes working significant time out of office hours to ensure that the applications are analysed at a high level for discussion at the Board of Management meeting.

Our consultations have also underlined, though, the particular difficulties inherent in learning the role. The structure of both Eurimages and the documentation can be particularly tricky, there is a significant degree of internal politics, and, as we have noted, a large time requirement. Though in many cases, the transition into the role is helped by shadowing and working with a predecessor, for many – in particular for the new member countries of the Fund – this is not an option, with a Socratic approach required instead. In addition to this, while for some Representatives there is significant support available from their competent bodies, this is by no means the normal situation: a large number of the Board of Management undertake this in combination with other roles, and for some the position is unpaid.



Having spoken to a variety of parties on this issue, we feel that both this issue and the lack of time which certain Representatives are afforded might be solved by the development of a better description of the role. Communicated to both new Representatives and new member state’s competent authorities, this would allow a wider variety of people to understand the demands and responsibilities of the role. Though we recognise that diversity within the Representative corps offers a significant benefit to Eurimages, ensuring that there is a baseline in the various competencies required of a Representative would, we feel, offer a great deal to the Fund’s management as a whole.

As a form for this, we propose the creation of a Roles and Responsibilities document, outlining the specific roles to be taken by the Representative from a new country, and the particular expectations which membership of Eurimages requires. In combination with this, better documentation should be produced to help new members to navigate the processes required in the fulfilment of their role. While we would expect that this could be learnt, to a certain degree, on the job, this would seem to unfairly penalise early applicants to the fund from new members, and this should be minimised to the fullest extent possible. This document should be produced by the Secretariat, following consultation with the Board.

In order to better work within the majority of member countries, it would be worth investigating whether Eurimages might be able to engage with the European film community through the existing network of MEDIA desks and antennae. We recognise that, in many cases, the limited size of the Eurimages contingent within a member state, and the concurrent ability to reach all areas of a country, are something of a constraining factor in dealing with the production community. The MEDIA network – which both exists in many countries, and is not in competition with Eurimages – presents something of a ‘ready-made’ means of bridging this gap. As we note elsewhere, deepening Eurimages’ engagement with MEDIA and its successor programmes would both recognise the level of compatibility between the two funds’ programmes, and ensure the best use of the European public’s funds in these straitened times.5

Alongside this we feel it is important that Representatives are confident, when speaking to the various applicants within their country, in referring issues to the Secretariat when required. This is particularly the case with regard to technical issues relating to the applications, where it has been noted that occasionally information is given which is at odds with the current state of affairs. As part of the Roles and Responsibilities document, we would expect guidance to be given on the issues which should be referred to the Secretariat, to ensure that the new Representatives are appraised of this.

3.5.7. Sponsorship and Eurimages

It is noted that the cities visited by the Eurimages Board of Management for the meetings of the Fund gain significant benefits from such events. Networking between the Representatives and elements in the local film sector, both politically and professionally, can be significant for the host country. This is underlined most of all by the desire of Dubai to host a recent meeting of the Board, the host having recognised the impact this would have on its fledgling film industry.

5 We note that the amalgamation of MEDIA into Creative Europe was agreed on 19th November, and that it is not clear what role or shape the desk and antenna system will have in future; it is possible if not likely that the MEDIA desks will merge into the Cultural desks, under which circumstances this may prove less feasible or desirable



Despite the significant – and often costly – travel which is required for Board meetings, the impression of the Consultants is that the hosts often under-pay for the benefits received. This is particularly the case when for smaller countries, who in many cases do not have direct travel links, and are as a result required to pay significant fees to attend. Within the context of the financial crisis, it is difficult to justify the significant costs being borne by member governments to attend meetings for which the major benefits are accrued to the host.

SPI notes that, in the past, Eurimages has accepted sponsorship at the Cannes Film Festival, and while we note that this caused significant issues with regard to the availability of meeting space at the time, it feels that greater use of this should be undertaken within the location decision for meetings. This is not to suggest that the decision should be based solely on ability to pay; rather, it should be part of the criteria for decision. We note that, in particular, smaller new members might find it difficult to absorb the costs of hosting the board meeting, but be most deserving of the visit as a significant value add.

Nonetheless, with the proposed expansion of the fund to third-parties, the Board must seriously consider the costs of meeting attendance, which our observation suggested was not a major discussion point. Should the meeting be held again in a location like Dubai, there should be a presumption that the host pays significantly more for the privilege. This should include a major contribution to the travel costs, to ensure that smaller nations are not disadvantaged, and that they are in a position to make their voices heard at the meeting.

3.5.8. Implementing Filters in the Application Process

As we have noted in other areas of this report, the number of applications making it through the application process has significantly increased in recent years. With the future growth of the Fund, this is only likely to be accelerated further. Despite this, the data from the CPWG votes suggests that around 25% of the projects do not come close to being funded, leading to a conclusion that some way should be found to remove these earlier in the process, allowing the Board to concentrate on the most probable projects.

The previous addition of script readers has provided additional data into the process, and might be used as the basis for a filter system. Combined with an additional pair of readers to consider the circulation plan – once an approach to circulation is agreed – it is felt that this volume of data could be used to filter unlikely projects from the CPWG list. We propose that each member of this group be given a vote on whether the project should continue, with four ‘no’ votes leading to removal from the process. This system should, of course, be tested in advance to ensure that it does not lead to the removal of projects which the CPWG votes for, and is predicated on the agreement of a circulation approach.

Other filtering systems were proposed, but rejected for various reasons: these are outlined in section 3.8, below. Despite this, we feel that it is important that Eurimages continue to look for a way to ensure that the CPWG is not overloaded by the volume of projects. Our consultations have suggested that many Representatives, particularly those who have to split their time with other duties, are finding the load of project analysis increasingly difficult, particularly for the June meeting. In order to safeguard the strengths of the current Eurimages process, and to avoid burnout from members of the Board, it is imperative that a watching-brief be kept on this issue, and that filters be implemented at such point as practicable.



3.6. The Method of Calculating Contributions

Whereas the original decision to undertake an Evaluation of the Eurimages Fund was prompted by the adoption of the new contribution system, in general few Representatives when consulted commented to any great degree on the new contribution system. Rather, there seems to be general satisfaction with the new system among the member states. This said, we note that the new model has not been fully applied at this point in time, the impact of which is investigated below.

Though few specific proposals were made, the options suggested by Representatives to be considered have all been calculated for the period of the last few years, and their impacts (had they been in operation) noted. These included:

The removal of the equalisation method implemented by the Council of Europe for major contributors, and used by Eurimages

That all aspects of the funding are attributed to the majority producer, noting that the funding received benefits them most

The removal of the funding applied for from the contribution model, or the removal of the volume of co-production

The removal of both of the above elements simultaneously, leaving the calculation based on the Council of Europe model and support received alone, and

The expansion of the time considered for calculations to ten years, to attempt to ameliorate the impact where a country is successful for a short period

In addition to this, SPI have considered the effect had the original, Council of Europe model for calculating contributions been retained, though we note that no consultee was in favour of this. All of these options are outlined, and their impacts tested, in the sub-sections below.

The impact of the options is considered based on two major aspects – their divergence from the countries’ receipts for the year noted, and their annual variance. For the former of these, we have looked to compare the year to which the calculation was applicable, considering all funding approved as outlined in the annual report.6 Investigation of the latter of these has been undertaken noting that the various members of the fund are likely to have differing budgeting schedules and approaches to Eurimages, and that major changes from year to year may well cause significant issues for their ability to pay.

Whereas we note the significant importance of the intangible benefits of Eurimages membership, there is no clear way to account for these in the calculation, or to attribute them to individual members.

Where data are fully available, this calculation has been carried out using the baseline 2010-2014. Considering the available data on funding agreed, this provides us with a three-year period (2010-12) for which this can be considered. Regrettably, we note that we were not able to procure sufficient data to usefully model the impact of a change to a 10-year baseline for calculations.

6 Given the realities of the Fund, it may be that some of these monies were not, in reality, disbursed, but it was felt that the impact of this would be limited, and is not anyway taken into account during the contribution calculation



3.6.1. The Original Model

As we have noted, there has been no call made for the return of the original model for contributions. While the original model for calculating contributions had the significant benefit of simplicity, our analysis underlines both the degree to which it diverges from the receipts gained by members, and the moderate annual variance which impacts countries.

The degree to which the system was dislocated from the realities of the Fund is underlined when considering the amount which countries would have recouped, comparing their contributions to receipts. Had the model continued unchanged for the period 2010-12, Cyprus would have received a mere 15% of its contributions back in support, whereas Luxembourg would have recouped 480%. Despite recognising the fund as a collective support body, and the existence of significant value added benefits to the members of the Fund, it is clear that this is not an acceptable degree of variation for a country to accept.

Figure 14 – Divergence from Receipts had the Original Model Continued, Highest and Lowest Three Countries, 2010-12

Country 2010 2011 2012 Average

Luxembourg 118% 912% 369% 480%

Belgium 247% 355% 224% 275%

Denmark 283% 170% 236% 229%

Russian Federation

N/A 13% 25% 19%7

Austria 40% 0% 8% 16%

Cyprus 0% 0% 43% 15%

As the table above underlines, there would have been a significant number of countries achieving long-term returns on their contributions, counterbalanced by a variety of members providing more than they take out. Indeed, assuming that an average return over a period should be 100% of input, the standard deviation works out at 93%. This underlines the huge divergence from an expected mean which this system created.

Conversely, the maximum annual deviation over the period was relatively low – for the time period considered, the most a contribution ever increased was 13%, an event which coincided with the size of the overall fund increasing from the 2009-2010 budget year. Where the budget was stable, the maximum change observed was 10%, with the Swiss contribution increasing between 2012-13. Given the shape of the model, this would likely have been a result of the resilience of the Swiss economy during the financial crisis, and underlines the lack of connection which this model possesses to the industry which it is designed to support.

Though this relatively low level of variation is something of an advantage for this model, given the stability it may allow for a Cultural Ministry’s budget on a year-to-year basis, there is little to recommend this model for calculating contributions. While it is the model used in the Council of Europe as an umbrella body, it bears little to no relation to the sector which it is used to support through Eurimages. This is underlined through the divergence seen on an average basis, which shows the enormous volume to which the model is divorced from the monies disbursed to a country. Politically, we feel that this makes any return to the original model impossible, even if this would be in any way desirable.

7 Russia is averaged over the two full years for which it was a member during this period



3.6.2. The Impact of the New Calculation Model

Though the new calculation model has yet to be fully implemented – the transition period is still ongoing – in general it was felt through the consultations that it is a significant improvement on the previous model. This is underlined by comparing the three-year average return to the original model – whereas the maximum for 2010-12 would have been 480% there, it would have been 225% for the new calculation system. Luxembourg, recipients of the largest return had the old system continued, would have gained 169% of its contributions in receipts had the new system been active in full over this period.

Nonetheless, despite this improvement, other elements of the new calculation system offer cause for concern. In particular, this new system exacerbates, to some degree, the difficulties seen at the lower end of the return range are more acute – whereas Cyprus saw a 15% return on the old system, for the new system it would have been just 12%.

Figure 15 – Divergence from Receipts had the New Model been Fully Implemented, Highest and Lowest Three Countries, 2010-12


Romania 44% 512% 106% 225%

Norway 113% 318% 188% 209%

Croatia 96% 186% 233% 175%

Portugal 13% 39% 16% 23%

Austria 32% 0% 6% 12%

Cyprus 0% 0% 34% 12%

Certainly, the table above underlines the degree to which, at the highest level of return on investment, the new system responds quite rapidly to changes of circumstance. For Romania, the single highly successful year was followed by one where the receipts were almost equal to the contribution, both as applications slowed and the contribution increased. Nonetheless, all three countries at the top end of the divergence table suffered significant increases in contributions as a result, being 42%, 23%, and 18% respectively in 2013.

This variability would have impacted mid-level countries most of all where success accumulates in applications. Whereas the largest countries in the fund are shielded by the equalisation system and the sheer scale of their contributions, and many of the smaller countries can absorb an increase in volume without leaving the minimum level, countries which are in the middle in terms of population, GDP, or industry are impacted to a large degree when circumstances change.

At the lower end of the scale, the numbers are indicative of the difficulties which are seen when low numbers of applications are received. While Cyprus is paying the minimum amount, Austria and Portugal’s contributions are steadily decreasing by around 10% per annum, though even this is not enough to meet the low success rate. To some degree, this will be a cyclical phenomenon – in Portugal especially, the crisis has hit production hard, and it would be expected that projects should start to return to Eurimages in the next few years. As the calculation system works on an average basis, this should, as a result, equalise over time, though this will require confidence in the system both from the applicants in the various countries, and from their competent authorities.

When compared to the original system, though, the standard deviation from a 100% return shows significant improvement. At 50%, it is by no means perfect, but does demonstrate that there is a much closer correlation between the inputs and outputs than the original model would have provided.



Figure 16 – Annual Variation in Contributions by largest Percentage Change, 2012-13

Country Variation 2012-2013 (€) Variation 2012-2013 (%)

Romania € 94,005 42%

Luxembourg € 84,645 34%

Norway € 102,982 23%

Austria -€ 80,702 -14%

Bulgaria -€ 31,021 -20%

Iceland -€ 40,223 -26%

Despite this, when calculated over the same basis period the variation from year to year was significantly greater under the new system. The largest annual increase had the system been active was seen by Romania, which would have seen a 42% (€94,000) increase between 2012-13 had the system been active. Though this would’ve been a reaction to the amounts paid to Romanian producers – indicated also by the return on contribution noted above – it is clear that a large annual change in contribution presents significant challenges for the members’ competent authorities.

Without considering the nature of budget-making in each country in detail, we feel that large-scale annual changes in demand, even where these are caused by monies paid into the country, have the potential to cause problems. This perspective was ratified through consultations with Representatives from smaller countries, who indicated that annual increases were causing tensions with their governments, coming as they do in a climate of austerity.

Overall, despite the issues which the new system presents, we do feel that it is a significant improvement over the old. Though there are problems relating to the divergence between contributions and receipts, these are much smaller than in the original model, and should be expected to tend towards the mean over time given the averaging system employed.

The major issue from our perspective is the annual variation in fees which the system creates: this is simultaneously very large for countries such as Romania and Luxembourg, and not large enough for Austria or Bulgaria. There is no straightforward answer to this issue: increasing the length of the baseline for the data used in the calculation would lower variation, relieving pressure for the countries suffering large increases, but conversely would lengthen the time taken to tend to the average for countries with low returns. Similarly, the system could be altered to allow contributions to drop rapidly where applications change, but this would cause rapid swings in contributions, as demonstrated in section 3.6.5.

As a mid-term average, reflecting both the activities of the Fund and the capacity of members to pay, we feel that the current model does strike a good balance. This said, it is clearly an imperfect system, but it is our impression that this should be broadly tolerable for the nations involved, given the expectation that there returns will increase when applications do. This is to say nothing of the impact of value added benefits related to membership.

The various suggestions for improving this new system are considered in detail below – these have been drawn from our consultations on the matter with various individuals both inside and outside the Fund.

3.6.3. The Equalisation Element

Equalisation is an element of the contribution calculation which was originally adopted from the Council of Europe model, whereby major contributors’ funding was made equal to avoid over-reliance on a single nation. Within Eurimages, this leads to a situation where France, Germany, and Italy have the ‘Population and GDP’ elements of their calculation averaged out.



In this, Eurimages broadly follows the Council’s overall model, though the other elements of the calculation – volume of co-production, amount applied for, and support received – are added to the model after equalisation.

As a result, the equalisation element has less impact than might historically have been the case, as the other elements of the calculation are worth approximately 70% of the overall contribution figure. This is shown through a calculation of the various figures, where France and Germany both now pay somewhat more than Italy, whereas under the original model these contributions would have been identical.

Figure 17 – 2012 Contributions without Equalisation

Member States

Actual Divergence No Equalisation

Divergence Difference

Germany € 3,215,016 118% € 3,442,689 110% € 227,672

France € 4,830,771 79% € 4,800,196 80% -€ 30,574

Italy € 2,270,807 80% € 2,073,710 87% -€ 197,098

In the table above, 2012 is taken as an example on account of the data being available to compare this to disbursements. Overall, as the data below show, the difference is broadly similar from year to year, with Italy paying approximately €200,000 per annum less. Over the three year period considered, the divergence seen by individual countries overall does converge to the mean, with Germany’s falling to 100%, while Italy’s rises to 75%.



Figure 18 – Comparison of Divergence with and without Equalisation, 2010-2012


France (Equalisation)

141% 67% 80% 95%

France (No Equalisation)

139% 67% 79% 95%

Germany (Equalisation)

78% 111% 110% 100%

Germany (No Equalisation)

84% 119% 118% 108%

Italy (Equalisation)

60% 78% 87% 75%

Italy (No Equalisation)

55% 71% 80% 68%

As we have noted, the major impact of equalisation has rather been diluted with the move to the new model. Figure 19, above, indicates the degree to which this has undermined the original aim of equalisation, as France’s contribution would be more than twice that of Italy. Despite this, Italy’s receipts would still only be two-thirds contributions, compared to more than 100% for Germany. As a result, equalisation no longer feels that valuable as a concept for Eurimages, and we would therefore advise that its removal be considered.

3.6.4. Consideration of Support Applied For

One of the models suggested for consideration was that the amount applied for as part of the application be removed. There is some logic behind this suggestion – aside from essentially double-counting an application when it proves successful, it also leads to a situation where unsuccessful countries might pay more simply for making applications. Conversely, it might be argued that the situation encourages engagement from the Representatives, ensuring the quality of applications, by working to filter out those which are unlikely to succeed at the CPWG.

Having analysed this model though, we find that it impacts only a few countries, largely in the mid-ranking range. As the table below shows, the model makes a significant difference to the divergence of a handful of countries over the model adopted, those shown being those for whom the change is more than 10%.

Figure 19 – Impact of removing support applied for, 2010-12

Country Divergence (without consideration of support)

Divergence (with consideration of support)

Difference

Luxembourg 227% 169% 58%

Belgium 144% 126% 18%

Serbia 92% 82% 10%

Croatia 158% 175% -18%

Romania 201% 225% -23% Of the countries impacted by this proposal, only Serbia would have had receipts which were lower than its contribution over the period considered, and for most countries involved this proposed change had little to no practical impact. Overall, the effect of the change was to



increase the maximum divergence of receipts over contributions for the period studied, and it is therefore difficult to see that this in any particular way increases the fairness of the fund. As a result, we do not feel that we can recommend the removal of this element from the contribution calculation.

3.6.5. Streamlining the Calculation Model

Expanding on the above model, it was further suggested that the element of the calculation which considers the number of co-productions a country makes within Europe be removed. As with the application element, there is a logical argument for the removal of this, given that there is no guarantee that productions which might apply will do so. The model might therefore seem to be punishing countries who make a lot of co-productions even when these never ask for Eurimages support.

Figure 20 – Annual Contributions for Selected Countries if Receipts Alone were Considered, 2010-14

Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Luxembourg € 153,949 € 166,091 € 130,044 € 214,520 € 222,747

Romania € 222,277 € 248,403 € 240,428 € 339,269 € 350,144

Norway € 414,952 € 461,588 € 497,120 € 641,142 € 645,880

Iceland € 103,275 € 119,323 € 136,724 € 116,535 € 116,535

Bulgaria € 125,831 € 133,559 € 140,629 € 116,535 € 134,498

Austria € 551,672 € 594,628 € 545,124 € 447,069 € 389,066 While this model allows for the rapid increase or decrease in a member’s contribution in response to changes in success – it only considers average support granted in addition to the Council of Europe elements – the level of variability resulting is likely to prove tricky to deal with. The table above shows the six most variable countries from this model, and indicates the degree to which this occurs – Norway in particular has a significant monetary increase in its contribution, while Austria rapidly lowers its inputs.

Figure 21 – Annual Percentage Change in Contribution under this Model, 2010-14

Country 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Luxembourg 8% -22% 65% 4%

Romania 12% -3% 41% 3%

Norway 11% 8% 29% 1%

Iceland 16% 15% -15% 0%

Bulgaria 6% 5% -17% 15%

Austria 8% -8% -18% -13% The percentage changes seen underline this; within a difficult financial climate though, the rapid increase potentially seen for Romania should this model be adopted must be questioned. While we can understand the desire for a country to be seen to be paying only around what it takes out, fundamentally it must be remembered that Eurimages is a collective fund. Furthermore, the averaging system means that contributions should revert closer to the mean for receipts, even if it takes more time.

We believe that, as a result, this change is undesirable. Thought it moves contributions rapidly towards receipts, it does so at the cost of catastrophic volatility in the contribution level, to an extent that it is likely ministries will find it very hard to budget for.



3.6.6. Only Delegate Considered

Another change was proposed whereby the entirety of the value of support provided for production was assessed to the delegate producer. It was suggested that, given the structure of a production, and the limited benefits that sometimes accrue to minority producers, that the division of the support between parties was unfair.

In order to test this, the model for the calculation was re-built, with all minority elements –for number of minority co-productions, applications and receipts – removed. Given the available data, however, only the years 2012-2014 were able to be calculated on this basis, leading to something of a limited sample. Only one year's results could, therefore, be tested against receipts, which were also recalculated to assign all disbursements to the delegate producers’ country.

Figure 22 – Contribution Model considering only Majority Producing Country, Greatest Divergence from Receipts 2012

Country 2012 Contribution

Receipts Difference Divergence

Croatia €132,218 €282,148 €149,930 213%

Luxembourg €172,440 €343,252 €170,812 199%

Norway €470,885 €829,516 €358,631 176%

Slovak Republic €154,616 €28,098 -€126,518 18%

Portugal €355,805 €47,576 -€308,229 13%

Austria €576,291 €34,500 -€541,791 6%

While this model leads to a smaller standard deviation from a 100% return of 47%, the data suggest there is otherwise little to recommend it over the adopted model. Significantly, the annual variation suffered under the model are quite extreme, with some countries seeing a more than 50% rise. Meanwhile, it is clearly unacceptable for Austria to recoup only 6% against the contribution the model projects.

Aside from these technical issues, we are unconvinced by the proposition that benefits do not accrue to the minority country. The significant value added benefits generated by the fund have already been outlined in this report, and these are of particular interest to minority countries. There is also significant evidence from whole series of reports that co-produced films offer far greater distribution opportunities, significantly and directly benefitting the minority producer. Given this, the role of Eurimages as a collective fund focussed on co-production strongly suggests that all parties to a transaction of this kind should contribute, as all benefit.

3.6.7. Expansion of the Calculation Baseline

Though we would ideally have recalculated the data to allow for a ten-year baseline – calculating the averages for the number of co-productions, applications, and support received over ten years rather than five – the data which we were able to collate did not allow for this. This indicates that it will be very difficult for the Secretariat to move forward with this as an idea, particularly given the paucity of reliable data on the new countries set to join. Furthermore, the analysis undertaken of the other elements strongly suggests that this model, by solving the problem of countries’ contributions increasing rapidly, will serve mostly those countries undergoing a spike in productions being supported.

Without the ability to consider in depth the impact this model might have beyond this, we suggest that the Fund look to internalise the effect which the new model has first. This is



particularly important given the reality that this has not yet been fully implemented yet, with the transition period set to be in place for a few more years.

Moreover, the question of an extended baseline goes to the heart of what the Board wishes for the Fund to be at this moment in time. There is a good argument in favour of both doing extending and not extending the baseline, both models will benefit a specific group of countries. In general, we believe that the cyclical nature of success at the Fund makes it likely that countries will be, at most times, receiving somewhat more in support, or paying somewhat more in contributions. This is the nature of a collective fund.

The question which the Board must address in determining the balance is whether countries should pay quickly for a successful year, or if this should be taken over time given the long-term nature of the benefit. This is not something we feel we should make a specific recommendation on, as it is something more of a strategic question for Eurimages itself to answer. Should the answer be the latter though, this suggests that the baselines might usefully be extended, to meet the strategy the Fund wishes to pursue.

3.6.8. The Impact of Inflation

At this moment in time, the Eurimages budget has been frozen. This meets the requirements of the overall Council of Europe budgetary process, in the aftermath of the global recession. Some limited modelling was undertaken to consider the impact should inflation be re-introduced, with the average Eurozone inflation rate used as a proxy for inflation in the Council of Europe as a whole.

Figure 23 – Impact of Inflation: Budget and Size of Contributions, 2012-2014

Year Budget Budget (with Inflation)

Minimum Contribution

Maximum Contribution

2012 € 23,246,900 € 23,892,642 € 119,463 € 4,964,957

2013 € 23,307,000 € 24,489,958 € 122,450 € 4,979,533

2014 € 23,307,000 € 24,979,757 € 124,899 € 4,881,250

Under the current model, the inflationary effect would have provided funding for another one or two films per year. The impact on smaller countries to achieve this is a raise of approximately €8,000 in the cost of their contribution, with the larger countries paying around €100,ooo more. It is unclear which films would have been funded had this been in place, as this is likely to be a function of how the money was divided between meetings, which has not been considered.

3.6.9. Thoughts and Recommendations

Our analysis of the data underlines the immense difficulty in determining any kind of ideal system for the calculation of Eurimages contributions. It is clear that the old system was less than perfect, and that the current system is a marked improvement, but determining the exact balance within that is enormously tricky. The variability of the inputs over time, particularly with regard to the number and quality of submitted projects, lead to a situation whereby the calculation will always be behind the changes taking place. This causes issues in particular for ‘middle-ranking’ countries in the various measures – such as Norway, Romania, and Luxembourg – whose contributions will be the most variable under this model.

Overall, we believe that the system has been cleverly and sensitively designed, and while it is complex, clearly where elements are removed this only serves to significantly increase volatility in the level of contributions demanded. Given the nature of the system, it is to be



expected that the money returned would be close to monies contributed over the long term, and the analysis undertaken highlights that the contributions change significantly with the change in inputs. Furthermore, there are enough substantial additional benefits to membership – which accrue continuously, though they have proven impossible to value – that no country has left despite the expressed dissatisfaction suggests that this is recognised. Of course, as the Fund is a collective system, it is also to be expected that the larger nations put in more.

It is worthy of note that contributions and receipts will never line up perfectly. As the fund has overheads to cover in excess of the monies returned through successful exhibition, these must be covered from the general contributions budget. Should these be increased, this might allow for more investment in productions.

Nonetheless, we feel confident in concluding that the current model for contributions is a significant improvement on the previous one. It is significantly more attuned to the nature of the Fund as a collective, co-production fund than its predecessor, and is demonstrably attuned to the changing demand inherent in this. While it may be argued that some details might be tweaked, we suggest that these be discussed by the Board, depending on the exact strategy they wish to pursue in this area, and their thoughts on the nature of the Fund.

3.7. Future Evaluations of the Fund

Much of this Evaluation has commented on the significant volume of change which has been seen in the European film sector over the last decade. This is not something which looks set to stop: various consultees and SPI’s own research underlines the ongoing evolution of the audiovisual sector, and the profound changes which are expected in the next few years. With this in mind, we note that the sixteen years between this Evaluation and its predecessor – undertaken by Bipe Conseil in 1997 – is somewhat too long in the current climate.

As a comparator, we note that the MEDIA programme of the European Union undertook an evaluation of MEDIA 2007 in 2010, approximately mid-way through the project. Though there are significant differences in the size and scope of MEDIA and Eurimages, and that the demands of the EU’s seven-year budgeting system are reflected in the timing of the MEDIA interim evaluation, nonetheless we feel this example is instructive for Eurimages.

Were the Fund to conduct an evaluation every five or seven years, this would present a significant opportunity for reflection on Eurimages’ achievements, as well as considering better the various strategic issues facing the fund. This system would, as a result, be complementary to the proposed Executive Committee in helping the board to achieve a greater strategic focus into Eurimages’ programmes.

Through the course of our investigation, various issues have arisen which – though relevant to the future of Eurimages – we were not in a position to consider fully. These should, we believe, be highlighted as specific queries to be investigated during the course of any Future Evaluation. Included in this would be the observed diverging trends between film budgets in major countries and those in smaller countries, particularly in Eastern Europe. Anecdotal evidence has suggested that these are making co-productions between established and emerging markets more difficult to structure. However, given the changes in the European Convention on Cinematic Co-Production, and the lack of long-term data to undertake trend analysis, this is not something which SPI’s Evaluation was able to consider in enough detail to draw conclusions on.

The proposed extension of Eurimages’ membership to third party countries is also a significant issue, but one which can only be truly considered after the fact. There are various



queries regarding the impact of third party membership which should be considered, including the structures under which countries like Canada and Israel (should they apply and be accepted) have entered the fund, the amount of their contribution, and the impact of their projects on the operation of the Fund. Given the ongoing strain that the volume of projects places on CPWG members in advance of the Board Meetings, there is a worry that were such an expansion be undertaken, it could significantly undermine the operations of the Fund.

Together with other issues noted in this report, including those in the following section, we feel that these questions would best be answered by an impartial external advisor, operating in a similar vein to SPI’s present Evaluation. This would allow the Board the opportunity to step back once again and examine the success of the intervening years, as well as setting the strategy for the future. Such introspection is, we feel, vital for all public bodies at a time in which funds are tight, as well as for film-sector bodies during the present era of immense change.

3.8. Proposals Not Recommended

3.8.1. Implementing a Two-Track Application System

There is a recognition within the European film sector that the film ecologies of the various states are increasingly diverging, with the financial crisis exacerbating the underlying differences in funding between larger Western countries and areas such as the Balkans. The availability of finance for film production – both with regard to the ease of access and its volume – have become wholly different. As a result, structuring a co-production within the boundaries of the European Convention on Cinematic Co-Production has become increasingly difficult, as producers from small countries struggle to meet the required percentage of funding.

As a potential solution to this problem, several consultees suggested the application of a two-track application system for projects, separating applicants by the size of the production budget. While we have considered this, it was not felt that this idea would help to close the trend, which should be the aim of any policy response, and would instead act to cement the divergence between the larger and smaller countries. Whereas the role of Eurimages should be to stimulate co-production and co-operation, it is not clear that this would offer any advantages over the current system either.

We would therefore counsel against the implementation of any two-track application system, as we do not feel that it would help to solve the present issues, and at the same time would undermine a significant part of Eurimages’ aims.

3.8.2. The CAMA System

The evidence seen as part of this Evaluation suggests that the CAMA system is working. Though there have been some teething problems, not least with regard to sales agents in various European countries, in general we feel that the system represents a significant step forward for the European industry which will, in time, lead to greater returns both for the producer and for Eurimages. Despite this, there is a weakness within the system, with producers being able to distribute within their own countries. In effect, this provides an opt-out for the co-producing countries – which are always likely to be the major markets for the film – dramatically reducing the effectiveness of the CAMA system.

While we feel this significantly damages the system as a whole, increasing the costs of applying it and the bureaucracy and reporting requirements for producers, at this point in time we would advise that it should not be changed. Doing so will require a significant



amount of political capital which might better be used elsewhere, given the resistance to the system’s initial implementation. Rather, and akin to the third party membership issue, we would recommend that the situation be given further time, allowing the film industry to better adapt to its existence, and that it be considered seriously during the next evaluation of the fund, or else separately in advance of this.

3.8.3. Defining a ‘Eurimages Film’

Some consultees, both members of the Board and those working more generally within the European film sector, argued that the type of film eligible for Eurimages support should be more tightly defined. It was felt that the adoption of an editorial line for the Fund would be useful for potential applicants, limiting unlikely applications, and providing a useful comparator. Similarly, this was considered by SPI as a potential filter, acting to limit the number of applications.

Indeed, to some degree we note that this already exists as an informal criteria, with the question of whether a project constituted a ‘Eurimages film’ brought up at several points during the CPWG discussion. However, this usage was, we felt, largely deployed when a Representative was justifying support for a film or, more frequently, opposition to the project.

Whereas providing a definition of what a ‘Eurimages film’ is might therefore f0rmalise the usage of what appears to be a regular aspect of the Fund’s operation, we do not feel it is a desirable route to take. Limiting Eurimages’ support to a particular kind of film would serve to limit or potentially stop altogether the emergence of inventive or new voices – this would be of particular consequence in areas such as the Balkans, where Eurimages’ support can often ensure the film gets made in the first place. Given Eurimages’ cultural mission, and the changes we have noted are currently occurring in the film production and exhibition sectors, we feel that limiting support to a certain genre or style of film would be a significant retrograde step for the Fund.

3.8.4. Increasing the Required Funding for Delegate Producers

In order to introduce a new filter for the Fund, the suggestion was made that the funding requirements for delegate producers be increased from 50% confirmed to 60% confirmed for the purpose of the application. Aside from acting as a filter, this change would also serve to reinforce Eurimages’ role as a top-line funder by requiring the project to be much closer to entering production at the point when funding is granted.

Though the logic of this argument is clear, when applied to the applications for meetings 128 to 132 of the CPWG – between the Tirana meeting in October 2012 and the Vilnius meeting in October 2013 – the impact is somewhat too great to be practicable. Of the 162 applications placed before the CPWG over this period, some 35 (or 22%) fail to meet the 60% eligibility test. In and of itself, this would seem to underline the utility of the proposal, however when we consider that 18 of those films were funded, it is clear that the impact would be significant. Indeed, at an acceptance rate of 51%, there is little clear difference between these films and those which entered with higher confirmed financing: 89 of these, or 55%, were funded.



Figure 24 – Impact of a 60% Filter for Delegate Producers

Meeting Projects Considered

Projects Funded Less than 60% Delegate Funding

Of which Funded

128 36 18 10 6 129 30 17 5 3 130 25 13 5 2 131 40 21 9 3 132 31 20 6 5

Considering the projects funded which failed to reach the 60% threshold, no clear pattern emerges. The projects presented appear to have emerged from a fairly representative group of countries, including both larger contributors and smaller member states of the fund. While the impact of such a change would likely be fairly spread geographically as a result, it is also worth considering that two of the eighteen films which would have failed the test were documentaries. Had they been rejected, this would have represented fully 25% of the documentary projects funded over this period. Given the specific difficulty faced by this genre of film, and the idea that introducing differentiated application schemes is undesirable, we feel this further argues against this proposal.

Figure 25 – Films impacted by 60% delegate funding requirement

Meeting Project Title Delegate Country

128 Dancing Arabs Germany 128 Tangerines Estonia 128 Todos Estan Muertos Spain 128 Aga France 128 Xenia Greece 128 Zoran, My Nephew the Idiot Italy 129 La rançon de la gloire France 129 And there was love in the ghetto… Poland 129 I am not him Turkey 130 Winter Sleep Turkey 130 Blessed Benefit Germany 131 Vergine giurata Italy 131 De Surprise Netherlands 132 The Girl King Germany 132 1989 Denmark 132 Nefesim Kesilene Kadar Turkey 132 I Istoria Tis Prasinis Grammis Cyprus 132 As Mil e uma Noites Portugal

The impact had an overall funding requirement of 60% been applied over this period was also considered, and the same conclusions reached. Though this filter would have removed significantly fewer projects – some 24, representing 15% of those reaching the CPWG over the period – an astonishing 14 of those projects, 58% of those with between 50-60% confirmed funding overall, were supported by the working group.

There is a significant correlation between projects failing to reach 60% delegate confirmed funding and those without 60% overall confirmed funding, but it did not prove to be absolute. Various films – including Modris from Latvia, and Box from Romania – achieved one but not the other, and were subsequently supported.



Overall, we feel that while this element of the investigation underlines the impression that the financing of the film is of less impact to the CPWG than the creative aspects of the project, we do not feel it presents a viable filter for projects heading towards the CPWG. Considering the 60% delegate funding requirement, it is clear that this would inhibit a significant number of projects from reaching the CPWG, but we believe that this alone does not make it a suitable filter. This is particularly the case when you note that there is a disproportionate impact on cinematic documentary films. Similarly, though the impact of an overall 60% filter would be much smaller, these films have achieved disproportionate success at the CPWG, which is a strong argument against the adoption of this as a filter at the present time.

Without being in a position to understand the specific reasons why films failed to reach 60% confirmed funding by application, conclusions can be somewhat hard to draw. Nonetheless, it is clear that in the economic climate which has prevailed in Europe over the last few years, funding for film production has oftentimes been hard to come by. As such the idea of raising confirmed requirements at this moment in time is likely to be difficult for producers, particularly at a time where other public funders are tightening availability of funding.

Nonetheless, we would suggest that this issue is reconsidered in a few years, both as circumstances improve and as the impact of new European and non-European members becomes clear. As we have noted elsewhere, we feel that some filters will be required to ensure that the CPWG is able to continue its work in an efficient manner, and this may prove to be a suitable one were finance to be more readily available.



4. RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1. The Intervention Design

Overall, we feel that while the Fund’s intervention system is well designed, and meets the needs of the industry and the aims of the Fund it could be better explained. The nature of communications with European professionals in particular should be examined to ensure they are clear, and fit the needs of the sector

The original aims and objectives of the Fund are as relevant as ever, and should be re-affirmed and re-interpreted to meet the current and future needs of the sector; the aims and objectives of the Council of Europe as a whole – including the protection of cultural diversity and democracy – should continue to be considered and maintained by the Board of Management in all its dealings

The Fund should look to ensure that its achievements are clearly communicated as part of its 25th anniversary celebrations. The significant value-added benefits that Eurimages has generated, and the role it has played in bringing the European production sector together in particular are an outstanding achievement and deserve to be better known

This should be part of an overall outreach and communications strategy, which would also include a showcase of the most important films supported by the Fund

Circulation is set to be a major issue for European public funders in the next few years: Eurimages should proactively look to discuss how to ensure that projects are best circulated with other public funders, harmonising the approach to this issue

When this is completed, the Board should remove the current theatrical release requirement, which is no longer the best option to ensure the circulation of films, replacing this with a genuine and robust circulation plan which best suits the needs of the project, and is independently assessed by experts along the lines of the script readers

National Representatives should engage with every project in their territory, advising projects on their suitability to ensure that films with no realistic chance of being funded are filtered out

4.2. The Management and Monitoring System

Given the previously noted emerging trend, which sees the divergence of available production funds available to projects form larger and smaller countries, Eurimages should look to keep a watching brief to ensure it remains feasible to construct productions between all countries, maintaining the data to facilitate any policy change which may be required to address this issue

The current growth both of the sector and the Board itself also threatens the ability of the Fund to make decisions. The Board should look to adopt an Executive Committee, meeting more frequently using modern communication techniques, to take a more permanent strategic lead for the Fund

This should include the adoption of two new external Vice Presidents to link the Fund better into the industry; both they and the President should be remunerated along the lines of a non-executive director in a firm



All three individuals and the Executive Director should be provided with longer contracts of four years, to address the significant strategic weakness which their short contracts currently present, given the importance of their links to the industry

The Bureau should be re-invented to take oversight of the Fund’s activities, with a specific remit to ensure that the Board, Executive Committee, and the standing Working Groups are applying their rules consistently and transparently

Meanwhile, the current practice of revealing CPWG votes after every project should be ended, as it offers significant opportunity for tactical voting; all votes should be held confidential by the secretariat until the end of the CPWG meeting, with the average vote per project revealed only after all projects have been presented

The June meeting of the Board of Management is presently the busiest, and as a result the strategic meeting is not best placed there; it should be split with the Board discussing emerging issues at the first meeting, and taking final decisions at the third meeting

Together with the Executive Committee system, this would allow for more considered analysis of the strategic issues facing the Fund, and the adoption of a clearer strategic direction

4.3. The Implementation of the Fund’s Programmes

Our impressions are that the new model used for calculating contributions is a significant step forward from the previous one: some small changes are possible, though these should be discussed by the Board as they speak to certain philosophical questions about the role and nature of the Fund as a whole

Given the increased volatility in the new model, it may be worthwhile considering the extension of the time period between the calculation being made and the payment coming into effect from 6 months to 18 months; while we recognise that this is a novelty in the Council of Europe system, we believe it would help competent authorities to better manage their budgets

The Board of Management meetings should be slimmed down, with a three-day meeting held four times per year; this is due to the difficulty which some Representatives have in attending, as well as the considerable expense of the meetings themselves

Furthermore, the possibility should be considered of cities sponsoring the meetings to a greater extent, provided this does not impact on the ability of smaller nations to host the meetings

Applicants sometimes find it hard to understand who to communicate with during the application process; the documents produced by the Fund should clearly outline this, with the Representatives ensuring that they keep up-to-date versions of these to help guide applicants

Partially, this should be achieved by the creation of a Roles and Responsibilities document for new members of the Fund – this should outline both procedures and lines of responsibility, ensuring that both the Representative and their competent authority are fully appraised of the time expectations and competencies required of delegates to the Board



In communicating this to new members of the Fund, the expectation should be underlined that Representatives have sufficient, paid time to undertake the duties required of them by Eurimages

It should be considered that, building on good work done to date by Roberto Olla and Aviva Silver (in her previous role), and recognising the commonality between the programmes of the organisations, a representative of the future Creative Europe programme be invited to a Board Meeting

The Board should look to undertake regular, external evaluations. This would reflect the breadth of change currently being seen in the European film sector, and the value in allowing the Fund to reflect on its achievements


© Olsberg•SPI 2013 27th November, 2013 i

5. ANNEX 1 – LIST OF CONSULTEES

5.1. Board of Management

Rosario Alburquerque (Spain) Csaba Bereczki (Hungary) Steen Bille (Denmark) Doina Bostan (Romania) Gergana Dakovska (Bulgaria) Leonid Demchenko (Russia) Uldis Dimisevskis (Latvia) Aleksandar Djordjevic (Serbia) Pierre Drouot (Belgium) Julien Ezanno (France) Nuno Fonseca (Portugal) Barbara Franzen (Austria) Karlo Funk (Estonia) Ali Gemuhluoğlu (Turkey) Zuzana Gindl-Tatarova (Slovakia) Mimi Gjorgoska-Ilievska (FYROM) Suzanne Glansborg (Sweden) Alexis Grivas (Greece) Petra Kashmiry (Germany) Petri Kempinen (Finland) Elena Kotova (Czech Republic) Jovan Marjanović (Bosnia-Herzegovina) Diomides Nikitas (Cyprus) Dorien van de Pas (Netherlands) Jobst Plog (Germany) Alessandra Priante (Italy) Sanja Ravlic (Croatia) Emmanuel Roland (Belgium) Wibecke Rönseth (Norway) Rachel Schmid (Switzerland) Karin Schockweiler (Luxembourg) Emma Scott (Ireland) Jelka Stergel (Slovenia) Audrius Stonys (Lithuania) Irena Strzelkowska (Poland) Majlinda Tafa (Albania) Tamara Tatishvili (Georgia) Sigriður Vigfúsdóttir (Iceland) Brigitte Winkler-Komar (Austria) Iris Zappe-Heller (Austria)

5.2. Secretariat

Iris Cadoux Isabelle Castro Martinez Sergio Garcia Thierry Hugot Annie Laugel Fatiha Louali


© Olsberg•SPI 2013 27th November, 2013 ii

Simone Martz Nathalie Monteillet Susan Newman Roberto Olla Heather Roscow-Schmitt Alessia Sonaglioni Barbara Sturm-Lotz Jim Werner

5.3. Producers

Alexander Dumreicher-Ivanceanu (Austria) Piodor Gustafsson (Sweden) Agnes Havas (Hungary) Peter Hiltunen (Sweden) Nelly Jencikova (Czech Republic) Tamás Joó (Hungary) Kaarel Kuurmaa (Estonia) Aet Laigu (Estonia) Lucette Legot (France) Zuzana Mistrikova (Slovakia) Snezana Penev (Serbia) Alexandra Strelkova (Slovakia) Pavel Strnad (Czech Republic)

5.4. Screen Agency & Fund Executives

Hanne Palmquist (Nordic Film and TV Fund) Nina Refseth (Norwegian Film Institute) Josko Rutar (Slovenian Film Fund) Katriel Schory (Israeli Film Fund)

5.5. Other Professionals

Rikke Ennis (Trust Nordisk) Simon Perry (ACE) Philippe Reynard (Cine Regio) Menem Richa (Europa Cinemas) Aviva Silver (The MEDIA Programme) Bianca Taal (CineMart Rotterdam)


© Olsberg•SPI 2013 27th November, 2013 iii

6. ANNEX 2 – FOCUS GROUP ATTENDEES

6.1. Marseille Focus Group

Rosario Alburquerque (Spain) Pierre Drouot (Belgium) Julien Ezanno (France) Petra Kashmiry (Germany) Petri Kemppinen (Finland) Jovan Marjanovic (Bosnia-Herzegovina) Dorien van de Pas (Netherlands) Alessandra Priante (Italy) Emmanuel Roland (Belgium) Karin Schockweiler (Luxembourg) Tamara Tatishvili (Georgia) Iris Zappe-Heller (Austria)

6.2. Karlovy Vary International Film Festival Focus Group

Alexander Dumreicher-Ivanceanu (Austria/Luxembourg) David Havel (Czech Republic) Nelly Juncikova (Czech Republic) Zuzana Kopeckova (Czech Republic) Elena Kotova (Czech Republic) Aet Laigu (Estonia) Lucette Legot (France) Zuzana Mistrikova (Slovakia) Alexandra Strelkova (Slovakia)

6.3. Sarajevo Film Festival Focus Group

Eva Hubert (Hamburg Schleswig-Holstein Film Fund) Josko Rutar (Slovenian Film Institute) Gamila Ylstra (Binger Film Lab) Oliver Zeller (Baden-Württemberg Film Fund)


© Olsberg•SPI 2013 27th November, 2013 iv

7. ANNEX 3 – THE PRODUCER SURVEY

7.1. Questions

Introduction

All answers to this questionnaire will be anonymous and treated in confidence. Only Olsberg•SPI will see individual responses and we will pass on to Eurimages only aggregated information. The deadline for completion of the survey is 4th October, 2013.

The survey addresses two areas: your organisation’s previous experiences with Eurimages, and your opinions about conditions for producing in Europe. If you have any questions or queries in relation to the survey please direct them to Rob Darnell at [email protected]. About Your Experiences with Eurimages 1) In which Eurimages member country is your organisation headquartered? Albania Georgia Portugal Austria Germany Romania Belgium (Flemish Community) Greece Russia Belgium (Wallonian Community) Hungary Serbia Bosnia-Herzegovina Iceland Slovak Republic Bulgaria Ireland Slovenia Croatia Italy Spain Cyprus Latvia Sweden Czech Republic Lithuania Switzerland Denmark Luxembourg “The former Yugoslav Estonia Netherlands Republic of Macedonia Finland Norway Turkey France Poland 2) How many times have you applied for Eurimages funding in the past 8 years? Please take into account all applications, whether or not they were successful. Applications as a Majority/ Applications as a Minority Co-Producer Delegate Co- Producer 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 + 5 + 3) How well do you understand the application procedures of Eurimages? Extremely well Somewhat well Not well Not particularly concerned about application procedures


© Olsberg•SPI 2013 27th November, 2013 v

4) What do you consider the role of the National Representative to Eurimages should be? Please rank the following in order of importance, with 1 as the most important and 5 as the least important. Advising on the finance plan Offering input on the creative aspects Helping to navigate the Eurimages application process Supporting the film at Eurimages Board of Management meetings Advising on the suitability of the project for Eurimages funding Other (please specify) ____________ 5) How involved was your National Representative to Eurimages during the application process? Extremely involved Somewhat involved Not involved There was no contact with our National Representative to Eurimages

6) How involved were other members of the Eurimages Secretariat during the application process? Extremely involved Somewhat involved Not involved There was no contact with other members of the Eurimages Secretariat 7) From the following list, who was involved in your Eurimages application? Please select as many as appropriate National Representative to Eurimages National film organisation Regional film organisation Film lawyers Producers’ association Other (please specify) ______________ 8) How satisfied are you with the feedback on the decisions made by Eurimages? Extremely satisfied Somewhat satisfied Dissatisfied I received no feedback from Eurimages 9) How satisfied were you with the quality of communication with Eurimages both during and after your application? Extremely satisfied Somewhat satisfied Dissatisfied There was no communication with Eurimages


© Olsberg•SPI 2013 27th November, 2013 vi

10) How does the Eurimages application process compare to your experience of funding applications from national organisations or other similar application processes? Much less complicated Somewhat less complicated About the same Somewhat more complicated Much more complicated 11) What are your reasons for applying to Eurimages for funding? Please rank the following in order of importance, with 1 as the most important and 5 as the least important. Selection adds prestige to the project Eurimages participation makes it easier to get the film distributed Selection helps to attract a larger audience to the film Eurimages funding is central to my finance plan The funding allows the film to be made at a higher budget level Current Conditions for Producing in Europe 12) When you are putting finance for your film together, where do you rank the following in terms of most frequent use with 1 as the most used and 8 as the least used? Please consider both domestic and foreign sources National film funds Co-producer financial support Sales and distribution advances Regional funds Equity investment Eurimages Bank loan finance Broadcasters Other (please specify) ___________ 13) Of all the countries in Eurimages, which are the 3 most important to you as co-production partners? Albania Georgia Portugal Austria Germany Romania Belgium (Flemish Community) Greece Russia Belgium (Wallonian Community) Hungary Serbia Bosnia-Herzegovina Iceland Slovak Republic Bulgaria Ireland Slovenia Croatia Italy Spain Cyprus Latvia Sweden Czech Republic Lithuania Switzerland Denmark Luxembourg The former Yugoslav Estonia Netherlands Republic of Macedonia “ Finland Norway Turkey France Poland


© Olsberg•SPI 2013 27th November, 2013 vii

14) Which country outside Eurimages are you most interested in co-producing with? Australia Brazil Canada China Israel United Kingdom Other (please specify) ______________ No interest in co-producing outside Eurimages 15) What would you expect the average budget to be for the films you make over the next 3 years? Below €1m €1m - €2.5m €2.5m - €5m €5m - €10m €10m+ 16) How challenging is it to achieve appropriate levels of non-national distribution for your films? Extremely difficult Somewhat difficult Relatively easy Extremely easy Distribution is not a large concern for me 17) What are the obstacles in ensuring your film achieves an appropriate level of non-national distribution? Please rank the obstacles in order, with 1 as the largest and 6 as the smallest. New models and platforms for distribution are difficult to understand or access The costs associated with distribution are too high It is difficult to access the distribution market in my home territory It is difficult to access the distribution market in other territories The financial benefits don’t merit significant focus on distribution Achieving selection for appropriate festivals Other (please specify) _____________________ 18) What are your objectives when seeking non-national distribution? Please rank the following in order of importance, with 1 as the most important and 6 as the least important. Reaching a widespread audience Reaching a particular target audience Securing the financial benefit of exhibiting the film Increasing your profile as a producer Achieving awards recognition for creative talent in the film Meeting requirements of funding applications Thank you for completing this Survey


© Olsberg•SPI 2013 27th November, 2013 viii

Many thanks for taking the time to complete this survey. We would like to reiterate that all answers will remain anonymous and be treated in confidence.

7.2. Analysis of Results

The Producer Survey, as noted in the Introduction, was sent to all Delegate Producers who applied to Eurimages between 2009 and 2012. Where this left a country with less than 5 names, minority producers were also added to ensure a suitable sample. Overall, 412 producers with individual e-mail addresses were surveyed, with 156 responses received, representing a 38% response rate. Experience and data from other firms suggests that an average response rate of 20% for online surveys is normal, so this response is excellent from our perspective, and combined with e-mails from producers tends to underline the importance with which Eurimages is viewed in the countries where it operates.

Unsurprisingly, the surveyed producers had mostly made several applications as delegate producers, with 59% of the respondents having made 2 or more applications as a majority producer for a project. In terms of the countries from which responses were received, 29 French producers answered the survey, with Italy and Germany having the second most responses at 14 each. Regrettably, no responses were received from Austria, Cyprus, Hungary, Latvia, or Russia.

In addition to the data presented in the body of the report, above, various data were collected through the survey which are likely to be of interest to the Fund. These are presented below.

7.2.1. Reasons for Applying

Asked to rank their reasons for applying, producers highlighted the financial importance of Eurimages funding to their project – the highest ranked answer was that the funding was central to the finance plan for the project, with 43% of producers ranking this as their most important reason for applying.

Figure 26 – Producer Survey - Average Ranking of Question on Reasons for Applying

When we considered the producers placing the funding as central to their finance plans, we were somewhat surprised to find no differentiation between countries with significantly greater volumes of public and private funding, and those where funding is tighter. Though consultations had underlined for us the degree to which Eurimages funding is key for

1

2

3

4

5

Central to FinancePlan

Allows Project tobe Made at Higher

Level

Adds Prestige Easier Distribution Larger Audience


© Olsberg•SPI 2013 27th November, 2013 ix

countries in areas such as the Balkans, the survey results underline that this is the case for French and German films at times as well:

Figure 27 – Producer Survey - Prioritisation Given to the Statement, "Eurimages Funding is Central to My Finance Plan"

It is not immediately obvious why this should be the case for such countries, though we wonder whether the difficulty accessing minority co-production funding might drive this, with the producers responding with specific projects in mind. Either way, it does underline that Eurimages is not necessarily viewed in its traditional gap funding role, but has taken a more central space in the mind of the applicant. Whether this trend is maintained as the European economy recovers, though, is something which will have to wait until a future evaluation.

The other data produced by this element of the survey tended to correlate with what the consultations told us. It is generally felt that Eurimages funding has little to no impact on the general audience, and in many areas it doesn’t help with distributors either. This is to some degree understandable – European film sales tend to be driven by the above the line talent – but given the quality of projects Eurimages has funded in the past, we feel increasing communications on this to try and reach outside of the European film community would be a worthwhile endeavour.

7.2.2. Ranking of Finance Sources

Despite the significant role given to Eurimages’ funding in this part of the survey, when compared to other finance sources, Eurimages was given a relatively low ranking. The Producers responses suggest that – though Eurimages is a key part of the finance plan – they (correctly) approach a variety of other finance sources first. This is in keeping with the requirements of the Fund, and with the consultation results.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1st Priority 2nd Priority 3rd Priority 4th Priority 5th Priority

Belgium (FlemishCommunity)Germany

France

Italy

Overall


© Olsberg•SPI 2013 27th November, 2013 x

Figure 28 – Producer Survey - Average Ranking for Preferred Sources of Finance

7.2.3. Individuals Involved in Application

Figure 29 – Producer Survey - Individuals Producers Took Advice From During Applications

Regarding the individuals approached, it is unsurprising given the view of Eurimages producers have that the Representative was the person with greatest involvement in the application. Small numbers of specialists from other sectors were consulted, but overwhelmingly the Representative is viewed as the point of contact. This is underlined when we look at the declared extent of involvement with the Representative and the Secretariat, where the greater contact appears to be with the former.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

NationalRepresentative

National FilmOrganisation

Film Lawyer Producers'Association

Regional FilmOrganisation


© Olsberg•SPI 2013 27th November, 2013 xi

Figure 30 – Producer Survey - Extent of Contact with Representative and Secretariat

7.2.4. Production Partners

Figure 31 – Producer Survey - Highest Ranked Counterparties for Co-Production

As part of the producer survey, individuals were asked for their top-three counterparties for co-production. The results were, perhaps, unsurprising, with Germany being by far the highest ranked, with France second, followed by the various elements of the Low Countries and a number of the Nordic countries.

With regard to third-party membership, the question was asked about which countries the producers would most like to work with who are non-members of the Fund. Overwhelmingly, the UK was preferred, followed by Canada; Argentina was given a number of write-in votes, despite not being mentioned in the body of the survey.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

ExtremelyInvolved

SomewhatInvolved

Not Involved No Contact

Representative

Secretariat

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

DE FR BE-W NL BE-F IT LU SE DK ES GR


© Olsberg•SPI 2013 27th November, 2013 xii

Figure 32 – Producer Survey - Preferred Territories for Co-Production outside Eurimages

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

UK Canada No Interest Israel Brazil Australia China


© Olsberg•SPI 2013 27th November, 2013 xiii

8. ANNEX 4 – BIBLIOGRAPHY

Analyses of Co-Productions for CPWG, Meetings 128-132 (inclusive)

Annexe I révisée du Règlement intérieur, règlement interne et code de déontologie du groupe de travail coproduction, Eurimages, February 2013

Application Documents for Corn Island (as example of an application for co-production support)

Co-Production Support Application, List of Items to be Provided, Eurimages, 2013

Co-Production Working Group – Proposal for the Rebalancing of Geographical Groups, Eurimages, February 2012

Co-Production Working Group – Rules of Procedure and Code of Practice, Eurimages, June 2010

Discussion Paper on the Presence of Women in Cinema Industry, Eurimages, May 2013

Document prepared by the Chair of the Study Group on Co-Operation with non-Eurimages Member States, Eurimages, June 2012

Documents Concerning the Co-Production Support Requests, Eurimages, February 2007

Eurimages’ Accounts, 2009-2011 (inclusive)

Eurimages Activities Reports, 2004-2012 (inclusive)

Evaluation des résultats de la méthode de calcul des contributions des états membres, Eurimages, 2011

Evaluation d’Eurimages, Bipe Conseil, September 1997

Evaluation of Audits on Compliance with the Reimbursement Obligation, Eurimages, April 2010

Evaluation of the Script Reader System, Eurimages, September 2012

Evolution nombre de projets de coproduction et répartition des crédits, Eurimages, June 2009

Examination of the Issue on the Distribution MG Backed by SOFICA and/or Other Financial Institutions, Eurimages, June 2007

Extraordinary Meeting of the Management Board of Eurimages, Eurimages, February 2009

How to Confirm the Sources of Financing of Your Project, Eurimages, 2013

Item For Decision – New Method for Calculating Member States’ Contributions, Eurimages, March 2009

Marché du Film Focus 2012, European Audiovisual Observatory

Marché du Film Focus 2013, European Audiovisual Observatory


© Olsberg•SPI 2013 27th November, 2013 xiv

Memorandum on the Call for Tenders for Subcontracting the Management of Reimbursements for the Eurimages Film Catalogue, Eurimages, August 2009

Minutes of Board of Management Meetings 115-130 (inclusive)

Minutes of the Third-Party Membership Study Group, Eurimages

The Nature of Eurimages’ Financial Support: Reconciling Innovative Films with Mainstream Films, Eurimages, May 2013

New Method for Calculating Member States’ Contributions: Presentation and Technical Description, Eurimages, March 2009

“New Methods of Financing” Study Group, Eurimages, October 2007

Note Concerning Collection Account Management Agreements, Eurimages, March 2013

Note on Collection Account Management, Eurimages, April 2008

Overview of Reimbursements, Eurimages, August 2013

Presence of Women in the Cinema Industry, Eurimages, paper distributed in 2013 Strategic Plenary

Policy Report and Proposal of the New Study Group for the Amendment of the Co-Production Support Regulations and the Working Practice of the Co-Production Working Group, Eurimages, May 2011

Procédures de traitement d’un dossier de coproduction par les Chargés de projets, Eurimages

Proposal for a Method of Auto-Evaluation for the Eurimages Fund, Eurimages, note submitted to 111th Meeting

Proposals Aimed at Improving the Co-Production Working Group Rules of Procedure and the Code of Practice, Eurimages, August 2012

Proposals Aimed at Improving the Regulations on Co-Production Support, the Rules of Procedure, and Some General Eurimages Practices, Eurimages, August 2012

Proposals of the Secretariat Concerning the “Collection Account Management”, Eurimages, June 2008

Prospective Study of Eurimages’ Distribution Support Programme, Peaceful Fish, November 2012

Report on Mr Alan Todd’s Intervention System of Contributions to the Eurimages Budget, Eurimages, March 2006

Report on the Audit of Eurimages, Council of Europe, January 2002

Report on the Film Digitisation Support Programme, Eurimages, September 2009

Reports of Board of Management Meetings 114-130 (inclusive)


© Olsberg•SPI 2013 27th November, 2013 xv

Resolution (94) 31 – On the Method of Calculating the Scale of Member States’ Contributions to Council of Europe Budgets, Committee of Ministers, November 1994

Rules of Procedure 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2013, Eurimages

Selected Projects for Digitisation Programme, MEDIA, 2012

State of the Region, Sarajevo Film Festival, August 2013


© Olsberg•SPI 2013 27th November, 2013 xvi

9. ANNEX 5 – ABOUT THE CONSULTANTS: OLSBERG•SPI

SPI is an international, ‘boutique’ strategy consultancy that provides high level advice to public and private sector clients in the world of screen-based media. Formed in 1992, it has become perhaps the leading specialist consultancy in this sector.

For its public sector clients, SPI understands how the fast-growing screen industries compete in international terms; how important it is to balance a healthy, growing indigenous industry with measures to attract incoming productions and how the screen-based creative industries are a major driver of economic activity.

SPI’s commercial clients operate at all points along the value chain and Jonathan Olsberg is an expert in developing corporate strategies, advising on tax incentives and understanding how changes in digital technology are affecting the landscape and strategies in these areas.

Its recent client list encompasses, among others:

State bodies: for example government departments in Hong Kong, Mauritius, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Chile, Finland, Italy, Sweden, Czech Republic, New Zealand, Canada and Australia as well as the UK

National screen agencies in all these countries, and more

Regional agencies (dozens of film commissions from New South Wales, Australia to the Highland and Islands, Scotland)

Supra national bodies such as the Council of Europe, the MEDIA Programme of the EU, Europe’s CineRegio and the European Film Agency Directorate,

Independent companies involved in all aspects of the screen business (studios, producers, distributors, sales agents, post production, animation)

National and international broadcasters (such as BBC Worldwide and Channel 4)

Trade associations and rights management societies (including the MPA, PACT, AGICOA Geneva, Directors UK, British Screen Advisory Council, and the Swedish Film and Television Producers Association)

Training organisations and conference organisers (Australian Film, Television and Radio School, EMAP Conferences, Madrid’s Media Business School, the UK’s Skillset, Screen Training Ireland)

SPI provides strategic advisory and management consulting services in a wide range of areas, including:

Analysis and strategic advice on building healthy and sustainable national and regional screen sectors, and recommendations for public policies to support this

Advice on the creation and evaluation of fiscal incentives for production

Strategic advice on inward investment and exports for national and regional public bodies

Comparative costs analyses for small and large film productions around the Globe

The strategic implications of digital media innovation

The links between growth in tourism and a nation’s film and television output

Strategic advice for screen commissions, including business and marketing plans

Marketing and business strategies for small and large scale film studios

Film and television library valuations

Mapping and economic impact studies covering creative industries in the screen sector


© Olsberg•SPI 2013 27th November, 2013 xvii

Business development strategies for screen content companies

Acquisition and divestment advice for owner/managers of SMEs

Writing prospectus-style funding proposals

The design and implementation of advanced training courses for audio-visual professionals.

SPI’s principal, Jonathan Olsberg, has a background variously as film financier, distributor, sales agent, producer and executive producer and therefore understands media issues as practitioner as well as consultant. He is a member of the European Film Academy, the British Academy of Film and Television Arts and the British Screen Advisory Council. His first career was in investment banking, in London and New York.

For further information please contact:

Jonathan Olsberg, Suite 36, Pall Mall Deposit Studios, 124-128, Barlby Road, London W10 6BL United Kingdom t: +44 (0)20 3176 4844 e: [email protected] www.o-spi.com

Evaluation of the Eurimages Fund - Olsberg SPI...Evaluation of the Eurimages Fund Final Report...

Documents

Transcript of Evaluation of the Eurimages Fund - Olsberg SPI...Evaluation of the Eurimages Fund Final Report...