External evaluation of the European Year of

Creativity and Innovation 2009

Final Report

Contents

Executive Summary................................................................................. i

Résumé ................................................................................................ viii

Kurzfassung......................................................................................... xvi

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose and scope of this report .............................................................................1 1.2 The European Year of Creativity and Innovation.....................................................1 1.3 Structure of this report ..............................................................................................2

2.0 Description of the Year .......................................................................... 3 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................3 2.2 Activity at EU level .....................................................................................................3 2.2.1 Opening and closing.....................................................................................................3 2.2.2 Events ..........................................................................................................................3 2.2.3 Ambassadors ...............................................................................................................6 2.2.4 Brussels Debates .........................................................................................................7 2.2.5 Photography competition..............................................................................................8 2.2.6 Studies and surveys .....................................................................................................9 2.2.7 Other ..........................................................................................................................10 2.2.8 Information and communication .................................................................................10 2.2.8.1 Resources ..................................................................................................................10 2.2.8.2 EYCI website..............................................................................................................11 2.2.8.3 Press releases............................................................................................................13 2.3 Activity at national, regional and local levels ........................................................14 2.3.1 Publicity and media activity ........................................................................................20 2.3.2 Case studies...............................................................................................................24

3.0 Evaluating the Year .............................................................................. 29 3.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................29 3.2 Evaluation framework ..............................................................................................29 3.3 Research methodology and evidence base...........................................................31 3.4 Strengths and weaknesses of the evaluation method ..........................................32 3.5 Intervention logic, objectives and intended effects ..............................................34 3.6 Assessing added value............................................................................................42

4.0 Research findings................................................................................. 44 4.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................44 4.2 Relevance and coherence .......................................................................................44 4.2.1 Research questions....................................................................................................44 4.2.2 Development of the objectives ...................................................................................45 4.2.2.1 Policy challenges........................................................................................................45 4.2.3 Objectives...................................................................................................................45 4.2.4 Pertinence to the problems identified .........................................................................47 4.2.5 Pertinence to stakeholder needs ................................................................................51 4.2.6 Conclusions................................................................................................................57 4.2.6.1 Relevance ..................................................................................................................57 4.2.6.2 External coherence ....................................................................................................57 4.3 Implementation.........................................................................................................58 4.3.1 Research questions....................................................................................................58 4.3.2 Management: EU level ...............................................................................................60 4.3.2.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................60 4.3.2.2 Structure.....................................................................................................................60 4.3.2.3 Availability of EU resources........................................................................................62 4.3.3 Management: national level........................................................................................63 4.3.3.1 Preparation phase ......................................................................................................63 4.3.3.2 Availability of national resources ................................................................................64 4.3.3.3 Role and responses of NCs........................................................................................67 4.3.4 Conclusions................................................................................................................69 4.3.4.1 Efficiency....................................................................................................................69 4.3.4.2 Effectiveness ..............................................................................................................70 4.4 Impact of the Year ....................................................................................................73 4.4.1 Research questions....................................................................................................73 4.4.2 Target groups and sectors..........................................................................................74 4.4.2.1 Education ...................................................................................................................74 4.4.2.2 Businesses .................................................................................................................74 4.4.2.3 Young people .............................................................................................................74 4.4.2.4 Women.......................................................................................................................74 4.4.2.5 General public and the media.....................................................................................75 4.4.3 Policy..........................................................................................................................75 4.4.4 Conclusions................................................................................................................76 4.5 Looking forwards: sustainability ............................................................................78 4.5.1 Research questions....................................................................................................78 4.5.2 National level..............................................................................................................78 4.5.3 EU level ......................................................................................................................80 4.5.3.1 Impact on innovation policy ........................................................................................80 4.5.3.2 Lessons for European Years in general .....................................................................81

4.5.4 Conclusions................................................................................................................81

5.0 Summary of conclusions and recommendations.............................. 83 5.1 Relevance..................................................................................................................83 5.2 Efficiency ..................................................................................................................83 5.3 Effectiveness ............................................................................................................84 5.4 Impact and sustainability.........................................................................................86 5.5 Recommendations ...................................................................................................86

Annex 1: Terms of Reference Annex 2: Topic guides Annex 3: List of consultees Annex 4: List of documentary sources Annex 5: Case study reports Annex 6: Tables to accompany the analysis of relevance

i

Executive Summary

Introduction

'European Years' have been organised by the European Commission since the early 1990s. Designed to raise awareness of a particular issue amongst a wide range of stakeholders - including policy-makers, civil society and the general public - themes include Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion (2010), Intercultural Dialogue (2008) and Equal Opportunities for All (2007).

The European Parliament and Council adopted the Decision1 to implement the European Year of Creativity and Innovation 2009 (EYCI or the Year) in December 2008, to support the efforts of Member States to promote creativity, through lifelong learning, as a driver for innovation and as a key factor for the development of personal, occupational, entrepreneurial and social competences and the well-being of all individuals in society. The overall objectives were to raise public awareness of certain key factors that can contribute to promoting creativity and a capacity for innovation (including those relating to education, cultural activities, personal development and business); provide information on good practices; and stimulate policy debate and research concerning the main theme. This report presents the results of an evaluation of the Year carried out by ECOTEC Research and Consulting Limited on behalf of Directorate General for Education and Culture of the European Commission (DG EAC).

Political context

The Year should be viewed very much within the prevailing context of broader EU policy, where strengthening the EU's innovation capacity is increasingly seen as critical to economic and social progress, maintaining high levels of employment and sustainable development. In addition, the global economic downturn from the end of 2008 further emphasised the importance of innovation to economic growth. Within this context the specific message promoted by the Year was to highlight the extent to which creativity is a prerequisite to innovation, in particular emphasising the strong link with lifelong learning and key competences2 needed by European citizens to respond to the challenges of globalisation and the emergence of the knowledge economy. The Year sought to provide an opportunity to bring together the various policies, programmes and activities relevant to the theme of creativity and innovation, to prompt policy debate and achieve greater synergy, in particular between the dimensions of education, culture and business.

Description of the Action

EU activities for the Year were funded through existing Community annual and multi-annual programmes, in particular those in the field of education and training; but also programmes and polices in other relevant fields including for example culture, communication, enterprise, cohesion, rural development, research and information society. There was considered to be sufficient budgetary margin and flexibility within the relevant Community programmes to support the necessary activities. Resources used to implement activity at EU level were in the form of staff time and funding, the latter coming mainly from the DG EAC

1 1350/2008/EC, 16.12.2008 2 In particular relating to creativity, adaptability, problem-solving entrepreneurship, cultural awareness and expression.

ii

communication budget, together with some support from other DGs (notably DG REGIO and DG ENTR). The DG EAC budget available for the Year during the period 2008-2010 amounted to approximately €2.25 million.3 This compares with a budget allocation for the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008 for actions at both Community and national levels of nearly €10 million, which included information and promotion activities, surveys and studies. At national level, implementation of EYCI activity relied on funding from existing EU programmes or additional resources provided by governments, non-profit and private organisations. There was no EU co-funding of external activities.

The Year was delivered on European, Community, national, regional and local levels. At European level there were four main elements:

• information and promotion, including the activity of Ambassadors for Creativity and Innovation;

• events (mainly conferences);

• coordination of the activities of Member States, and

• compilation of good practices on how to promote the objectives of the Year.

National, regional, and local activities were coordinated by the 31 National Coordinators (NCs) appointed by the relevant authorities in participating countries. DG EAC was responsible for implementing the Year at European level, while tasks relating to other DGs were addressed via an Inter-Service Working Group.

Purpose, scope and methodology of the evaluation

The external evaluation aimed to assess the results and impact of the EYCI, allowing the European Commission to report to the EU institutions on the preparation, implementation, and results.

The research carried out comprised desk-based review of policy documents and research reports; review of management information and administrative reports; and a series of consultations with Commission officials, the majority of EYCI National Coordinators, external media partners and contractors, other stakeholders involved in the Year (including sectoral and representative organisations); and ten in-depth case studies. The evaluation also drew upon a range of material provided by NCs and other participants (internal reports, written feedback, DVDs, brochures and other publications etc.) and presentations made at the closing event in Stockholm on 16/17 December 2010. Information was also available from the national pages of the Commission’s EYCI website. The evaluation had only limited evidence to draw upon concerning the impact of the information and communication campaign for the EYCI, since unlike previous European Years no overarching media contract was in place. However, taking note of the limitations that attach to this type of data even in Years which are co-funded4, this is not considered a significant drawback.

The evaluation benefitted from a rich and varied qualitative evidence base. In common with other European Years, statistics concerning the tangible outputs of the Year were not available across all the participating countries, a gap which would have been less pronounced had there been a contractual

3 For EU-level events (including the launch ceremony, the Opening Event and flagship conferences), photo competition, Innovation and Creativity Camp, promotion material, advertisements and follow-up. 4 See for example the “External Evaluation of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008” (ECOTEC) and the “On-going Evaluation of the 2007 European Year of Equal Opportunities for All” (Ramboll).

iii

relationship between the Commission and the NCs and the accompanying need for NCs to report on outputs. Case studies were thus especially useful in providing insights into how a range of organisations and individuals were able to respond to the Year. Given the nature of the Year, the delivery model used and the resources available for the evaluation, there were no other alternative methods or tools (e.g. surveys5) that would have overcome the limitations discussed.

Main findings

Outcomes

The EYCI was relevant to a range of challenges facing the EU, as demonstrated for example by the strong links between the goals of the Year and EU policy objectives in the areas of lifelong learning, culture and enterprise/innovation. Strong coherence between the aims and objectives of the EYCI and national policies and priorities in many participating countries helped to stimulate activity and reflected a pre-existing shared interest in the topic across all geographical levels - EU, national, regional and local. The objectives of the Year were also highly relevant to a number of other EU programmes, in particular the Lifelong Learning programme, regional development policies and support for Research and Development. The Year was most relevant to the education sector, and there was strong activity concerning young people.

A project team, composed of eleven EAC staff members, was set up for the management and administration of the Year. DG EAC was also able to identify and mobilise sufficient resources, on an ad hoc basis, to fund a range of activities which gave the Year visibility. Consultees generally welcomed the efforts of the Commission to support NCs in preparing for the Year, partly reflecting the fact that despite the lack of a formal Decision the DG EAC EYCI team took the initiative during the run-up to the Year to engage strongly and positively with potential actors, including regional bodies.

The accessibility and wide appeal of the theme of the Year ensured that resources were found at national level to respond to the opportunity it offered. At least seven countries allocated specific funding (ranging in amount from €10,000 to €700,000), while most were able to draw on sufficient in-kind funding or existing national programmes.

Most NCs and stakeholders felt that the outcomes of the Year were generally positive, because the ideas encompassed by the Year had very broad appeal. For many NCs the Year in their country proved to be better than they had expected in terms of scale and scope. The portfolio of measures envisaged was delivered satisfactorily: a range of appropriate national and EU level activities was implemented, despite funding constraints at both EU and national levels, and the Year therefore provided evidence of the validity of linking creativity and innovation to promote a broader definition of innovation. On the whole, activities appear to have addressed EYCI objectives concerning the creativity and innovation environment and raising awareness on a general level predominated. In the education field, in several countries, the Year coincided with national debates on education reforms (e.g. Malta, Austria, Sweden), and here the Year seems to have helped to heighten interest and reinforce the need for action.

5 Potential limitations of this research tool in this context were the lack of a clearly defined target audience or readily available contact database, issues of self-selection, likely low response rates and the consequent limited value of the results.

iv

There were several strong examples of contributions from national ministries (for example Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Greece and Poland), but also several examples where NCs highlighted a lack of support (Romania and Slovenia). A number of countries benefitted from having steering groups or task groups that included a range of representatives from ministries and other public and private bodies. In Germany, regional coordinators worked well with the NC at federal level, and in Spain several regions took a strong lead on activity. Regional and local administrations were also active in Poland.

DG EAC organised a number of key 'flagship' activities, including seven major conferences, seven 'Brussels Debates', the EYCI website and several events that ensured visibility of the Year. The Czech and Swedish Presidencies also provided strong support at the beginning and end of the Year. Activities funded by DG EAC and implemented by several external contractors also proved satisfactory in achieving interest and media coverage at EU level. The EYCI Ambassadors initiative in particular appears to have worked well: at EU level in terms of attracting publicity, at national level where in several cases collaboration was strong and because a tangible product, the 'Creativity and Innovation Manifesto', was one of the end results.

The EYCI attracted a number and range of activities which can be regarded as significant in light of the resources applied and which indicate its broad appeal. As an illustration of this, some 980 events (about one-third at EU or international level and the remainder at national, regional and local levels) were registered by project promoters on the EYCI database, and included in the calendar on the EYCI website. Events were registered by a range of types of organisations including non-profit organisations (some 28% were led solely or jointly by these types of actors), national public sector organisations, European or international bodies or networks, regional or local public agencies and others.

There is some evidence of sustained impact through the continuation or repeat of activities associated with the EYCI after 2009, most commonly innovation weeks or days.

Many NCs considered that a 'debate' had started during the Year which would continue, and while it is difficult to assess the scope and scale of such developments, it is likely that in a number of countries cooperation and discussions amongst policy makers will continue on the topic of the role of creativity in innovation.

Preparation

The very limited period between the formal Decision (16 December 2008) and the start of the Year, and the belated creation of a Project Team, (which started work on 1 January 2009) limited the Commission's scope to give clear leadership to potential participants, although the Commission took steps to support the preparation process in a number of ways prior to the formal Decision, e.g. by holding meetings with "national experts" pending the appointment of national coordinators and briefings for regional representatives and European-level interest groups.

Many NCs and stakeholders felt that the preparatory phase was unsatisfactory, that the role of NCs was not clear and the decision to go ahead with the Year came so late that Member States could not plan in advance with any certainty. This had a particularly negative effect in some countries, where activity did not start until the spring of 2009; and in terms of the ability to engage the private sector in the Year.

v

The breadth of the objectives allowed a wide range of actors to respond to the Year. The fact that the concepts of creativity and innovation were interwoven made it difficult for the evaluation to assess the achievement of the more detailed objectives.

Implementation structures

The absence of a specific budget to implement the measures in the Decision and of clear contractual responsibilities on the part of the NCs towards the Commission, dictated the largely voluntary nature of cooperation by the participating countries during implementation. This meant that the customary frameworks, structures and systems that ensure a degree of consistency and direction, and a minimum level of activity to European Years, were not in place6.

This increased the variability normally expected for European Years, since there were no agreed common core features. Coordination at national level depended on the identity of the body or bodies selected as NC, their areas of interest and influence, and how well networked they were. As a result, the degree of coordination and collaboration was highly variable and in some cases fragmented. However, the engagement of Ambassadors, whilst dependent on their individual approach, appears to have been stronger than in previous European Years.

In a majority of cases NCs were appointed by Education ministries and their EYCI-related activity was limited to their own immediate field of policy or activity, thus reducing their ability to co-ordinate and act strategically across or between policy domains. They also had limited capacity to engage with potential partners on a large enough scale. In addition, in most countries, NCs had scarce resources for information and promotion and this hampered their ability to reach out to a large general audience.

The contribution of the Lifelong Learning Programme National Agencies provided much needed support to the Year, but their lack of resources also weakened this dimension. Also, the contribution from LLL NAs was not dependent on cooperation with NCs, reflecting the generally fragmented nature of national-level coordination of the Year. Little evidence was identified of significant support from other EU funds external to DG EAC.

Awareness and perceptions

The main challenge to achieving a coherent impact was the lack of dedicated funding and the short lead-in time to the Year, which prevented the possibility of establishing other cooperation mechanisms, for example with businesses, NGOs and associations. Although a sizeable part of the DG EAC communication budget was used for the purposes of EYCI, this amount was not comparable to what is usually spent on European Years. Several stakeholders commented that DG ENTR organised fewer activities than originally expected. The global economic downturn may have hindered support to the Year from the business sector.

Although raising awareness was a central objective of the Year, reaching a large number of members of the general public would have required the application of at least the same level of funding as other

6 National context is normally a strong factor in determining the outcomes of European Years in individual Member States, and tailoring to national circumstances is welcomed; but one of the underlying reasons for EU funding is also to provide a level playing field or at least guarantee a minimum level of national activity.

vi

European Years. As is usually the case for European Years, there is little evidence regarding the extent to which they reached their potential target audience. For the EYCI, the audience that was engaged the most was the education sector, together with young people. Other segments, particularly business, were largely absent in most countries. For those who were engaged, activities during the Year were a very positive experience. There was evidence of some inter-sectoral engagement between education, culture and business.

On the whole media coverage was relatively weak and mostly in the written and online press, since the lack of resources meant it was difficult to maintain a dynamic media relationship and provide adequate material to TV and radio. The explanations for patterns in the results of media monitoring are not clear. In the case of Spain, a series of high profile events may account for the relatively high visibility. It is also difficult to assess the extent to which any coverage focused on the Year or on individual activities, for example by asking direct participants if they knew about the Year, a methodological issue common to most European Years.

Impacts and additionality

The EYCI proved relevant to the challenges Europe faces, and linked strongly to other EU policy objectives. As such, it offered a significant opportunity for the Commission to act in a coordinated way to highlight the importance of creativity as a source of innovation and raise awareness of various target groups of the European population. However, the evidence suggests that Commission services were unable to capitalise fully on this opportunity, which limited the scale and scope of the Year, especially at national level, and thus also the likelihood of making a “breakthrough” impact. At EU level, the cross-sectoral cooperation seen during the Year between DG EAC and DG ENTR should provide a future platform for stronger policy development linking the creativity and innovation domains.

In terms of additionality (i.e. the question of what difference the Year made) it is difficult to make a rigorous assessment, given the lack of clear boundaries between EYCI-related activities and those that would have happened anyway; but it is clear that results were variable. A number of NCs and stakeholders could point to positive effects, and for some groups of stakeholders or communities of interest, most notably in the education field, significant results were registered. The Year was clearly more popular where an interest in creativity was already in place and in this sense the Year provided support to Member State activity, especially in the education and training fields.

Recommendations

European Commission:

• For future European Years, signalling and achieving stronger strategic intent, through a clear political vision, requires putting in place a minimum level of material support.

• Consider developing and implementing an improved, Commission-wide system for the coordination and planning cycle of European Years, specifically to: facilitate the timely allocation of themes and responsibilities; and to ensure the legal basis is in place at least one year in advance in order to allow for effective preparation at national level in particular.

vii

• Consider ways in which the lessons learned may be carried forward from one European Year to the next, including for example the development of a 'toolbox' of standard measures or components and a centralised 'knowledge bank' where materials and other resources could be stored and made accessible to all DGs.

• While the EYCI has demonstrated that EU operational budgets are not necessarily required, it also represents something of a missed opportunity in the light of evidence that at national level in particular more ideas were brought forward than could be supported, owing to lack of funding support.

• Therefore, future European Years should be adequately resourced at national level, with at least a minimum EU contribution for participating countries, to be matched by national government, to ensure sufficient and coherent coordination.

• The overarching message of the Year, linking creativity and innovation, engaged a constituency of policy-makers and practitioners, in particular in the education sector. Therefore, the Commission in general should mainstream messages of thematic years into further agendas, and in this particular case efforts should continue to harness the key messages of the Year and to engage with stakeholders. This might be achieved through activity around the Ambassadors' Manifesto, by distilling key policy messages for dissemination or by establishing a working group of Member States to take forward agreed aspects of the Year (for example to facilitate peer-learning about education reform).

In the light of the evaluation, Members States and stakeholders might consider the following points during their participation in a European thematic year in order to achieve their goals:

• In terms of policy development, focus attention on the key topics of the Year to formulate clear messages, in this case focussing on the role of creativity in education for example, in particular in terms of the personal development of young people.

• National, regional or local thematic weeks or days on the topic of creativity and innovation, in schools for example, are efficient tools to convey key policy messages.

• In general, encouraging interactions between stakeholders raises the potential for synergies. For example in the case of the EYCI the education, culture and business sectors could interact as a result of adopting a broad and inclusive definition of “innovation” and promoting its relevance to a wide range of stakeholders.

• Encouraging national policy makers to cooperate at EU level could result in the recognition of the key role of creativity in education, and its relevance to key competences for an innovation society.

• Cooperation with the European Commission is an opportunity to learn from other Member States. It may help to establish mechanisms at national level for continuing discussions on the policy and practice of the creativity and innovation agenda, and contribute a range of national perspectives to inform EU policy developments..

viii

Résumé

Introduction

Les « Années européennes » sont organisées par la Commission européenne depuis le début des années 1990. Destinées à sensibiliser une large gamme d’acteurs, parmi lesquels les politiques, la société civile et le grand public, à un sujet particulier, elles ont déjà eu pour thèmes la lutte contre la pauvreté et l’exclusion sociale (2010), le dialogue interculturel (2008), ou encore l’égalité des chances pour tous (2007).

Le Parlement européen et le Conseil ont adopté en décembre 2008 la Décision7 de proclamer l'année 2009 "Année européenne de la créativité et de l’innovation" (AECI) afin de soutenir les efforts des États membres pour promouvoir la créativité, grâce à l’éducation et à la formation tout au long de la vie, en tant que moteur de l’innovation et facteur essentiel du développement de compétences personnelles, professionnelles, entrepreneuriales et sociales, ainsi que du bien-être de tous les individus dans la société. Les objectifs consistaient en termes généraux à sensibiliser le public à certains sujets essentiels (notamment dans les domaines de l’éducation, des activités culturelles, du développement personnel et des affaires), à diffuser des informations sur les bonnes pratiques et à encourager le débat politique et la recherche sur le thème principal. Ce rapport présente les résultats d’une évaluation de l’Année 2009 réalisée par ECOTEC Research and Consulting Limited au nom de la Direction générale de la Commission européenne en charge de l’éducation et de la culture (DG EAC).

Contexte politique

Cette Année doit spécialement être analysée dans la perspective plus large des politiques européennes, dans lesquelles il est de plus en plus reconnu que le renforcement de la capacité de créativité et d'innovation de l'Europe est essentiel pour des raisons économiques et sociales, le maintien d’un taux d’emploi élevé et le développement durable. De plus, le ralentissement économique mondial apparu à la fin 2008 a davantage encore mis en exergue l’importance de l’innovation pour la croissance économique. Dans ce contexte, le message sous-jacent à l’Année 2009 visait à faire apparaître au grand jour la mesure dans laquelle la créativité est une condition essentielle pour l’innovation, en insistant notamment sur le lien étroit entre l’éducation et la formation tout au long de la vie et les compétences fondamentales8 que doivent maîtriser les citoyens européens pour faire face aux défis de la mondialisation et aux évolution de la société de la connaissance. Cette Année s’est efforcée de créer une occasion de rassembler les multiples politiques, programmes et activités ayant trait à la créativité et à l’innovation de façon à susciter un débat politique et à obtenir une meilleure synergie, en particulier, entre les dimensions de l’éducation, de la culture et des affaires.

Description de l’action

Les activités menées à l’occasion de cette Année ont été financées sur la base de programmes communautaires annuels et pluriannuels existants, notamment dans le domaine de l’éducation et de la

7 1350/2008/CE, 16.12.2008. 8 En ce qui concerne en particulier la créativité, l’adaptabilité, la résolution de problèmes, l’esprit d’entreprise, la sensibilité culturelle et l’expression.

ix

formation, mais aussi de programmes et de politiques relevant d’autres domaines pertinents, comme la culture, la communication, les entreprises, la cohésion, le développement rural, la recherche et la société de l’information, par exemple. Il a été jugé qu’il existait une marge budgétaire et une flexibilité suffisantes dans ces programmes pour soutenir les activités requises. Les ressources mobilisées pour l’organisation d’activités à l’échelle européenne ont pris la forme de temps de travail et de moyens financiers, ces derniers étant principalement issus du budget de la DG EAC et complétés par le soutien d’autres DG (notamment les DG REGIO et ENTR). Le budget disponible pour l’Année 2009 au sein de la DG EAC au cours de la période de 2008 à 2010 s’élevait à quelque 2,25 millions d’euros9. A titre de comparaison, l'enveloppe budgétaire pour l’Année européenne du dialogue interculturel 2008 avoisinait les 10 millions d’euros pour les actions réalisées aux niveaux communautaire et national, y compris des activités d’information et de promotion, des enquêtes et des études. À l’échelon national, les activités de l’AECI ont été mises en œuvre sur la base d’un financement provenant de programmes européens existants ou de ressources complémentaires allouées par les gouvernements, des associations sans but lucratif et des organisations privées. Les activités extérieures n’ont pas bénéficié d’un cofinancement européen.

L’Année 2009 a été déployée aux niveaux européen, communautaire, national, régional et local. À l’échelle européenne, il convient de distinguer quatre éléments principaux :

• Les campagnes d'information et de promotion, y compris l’activité des Ambassadeurs de la créativité et de l’innovation ;

• les événements (surtout des conférences) ;

• la coordination des activités des États membres ; et

• la compilation des bonnes pratiques sur les procédés permettant de promouvoir les objectifs de l’Année.

Les activités nationales, régionales et locales ont été coordonnées par les 31 coordinateurs nationaux (CN) désignés par les autorités compétentes dans les pays participants. La DG EAC a assumé la responsabilité de l’organisation de l’Année au niveau européen, tandis que les tâches impliquant d’autres DG ont été traitées par le biais d’un groupe de travail interservices.

Finalité, champ d’application et méthodologie de l’évaluation

L’évaluation externe était destinée à analyser les résultats et l’influence de l’AECI afin de permettre à la Commission européenne de présenter un rapport aux autres institutions de l’Union sur la préparation, la mise en œuvre et les aboutissements de cette Année.

Les recherches menées ont inclus l’examen sur pièces de documents politiques et de rapports de recherche, l’examen des informations de gestion et des rapports administratifs, une série de consultations avec des fonctionnaires de la Commission, la majorité des coordinateurs nationaux de l’AECI, des partenaires extérieurs parmi les médias, des sous-traitants et d’autres acteurs impliqués dans l’Année (notamment des organisations sectorielles et représentatives), et enfin, dix études de cas approfondies. L’évaluation a également mis à profit l’abondant matériel fourni par les CN et d’autres

9 Pour les événements de niveau européen (y compris la cérémonie de lancement, la manifestation inaugurale et les conférences majeures), le concours de photographie, le Camp de l’innovation et de la créativité, le matériel promotionnel, la publicité et le suivi.

x

participants (rapports internes, observations écrites, DVD, brochures et autres publications, etc.) et les exposés prononcés lors de la manifestation de clôture, les 16 et 17 décembre 2010 à Stockholm. Certaines informations ont en outre été puisées sur les pages nationales du site Internet de la Commission consacré à l’AECI. L’évaluation ne disposait par contre que d’éléments probants limités sur l’influence de la campagne d’information et de communication pour l’AECI, dès lors qu’à la différence d’autres Années européennes, aucun contrat global avec les médias n’a été conclu. Eu égard aux limitations inhérentes à ce type de données, même pour les Années qui sont cofinancées10, ce manque n’est toutefois pas considéré comme une déficience majeure.

L’évaluation a bénéficié d’une base d’informations qualitatives riche et diversifiée. Comme pour d’autres Années européennes, tous les pays participants n’ont pas produit de statistiques sur les résultats tangibles de l’Année, une lacune qui aurait été moins prononcée si une relation contractuelle avait été établie entre la Commission et les CN, avec l’obligation connexe pour les CN de décrire leurs résultats dans un rapport. Les études de cas ont donc joué un rôle particulièrement utile pour discerner comment un éventail d’organisations et de personnes ont pu agir suite à la proclamation de l’Année. Eu égard à la nature de l’Année, au modèle d’exécution appliqué et aux ressources disponibles pour l’évaluation, il n’existe pas d’autres procédés ou outils alternatifs (ex. enquêtes11) qui auraient permis de surmonter les limitations évoquées.

Conclusions essentielles

Aboutissements

L’AECI s’est attaquée utilement à une série de défis que rencontre l’Union européenne, ainsi qu’en attestent, entre autres, les liens étroits entre les objectifs de cette Année et les objectifs politiques européens dans les domaines de l’éducation et de la formation tout au long de la vie, de la culture et de l’entreprise/l’innovation. La cohérence forte entre les ambitions de l’AECI et les politiques et priorités nationales de nombreux pays participants a contribué à dynamiser les activités, traduisant un intérêt commun pré-existant pour le sujet à tous les niveaux géographiques - européen, national, régional et local. Les objectifs de l’Année 2009 étaient également en adéquation avec un certain nombre d’autres programmes européens, notamment le programme pour l’éducation et la formation tout au long de la vie, les politiques de développement régional et l’aide à la recherche et au développement. Enfin, l’Année a présenté un intérêt particulier pour le secteur de l’éducation à travers un nombre substantiel d’activités impliquant les jeunes.

Une équipe de projet, constituée de 11 membres du personnel de la DG EAC, a pris en charge la gestion et l’administration de l’Année. La DG EAC est également parvenue à identifier et à mobiliser suffisamment de ressources, sur une base ad hoc, pour financer différentes activités qui ont assuré la visibilité de l’Année. Les acteurs interrogés ont généralement salué les efforts de la Commission pour soutenir les CN dans la préparation de l’Année, ce qui souligne l’initiative de l’équipe chargée de l’AECI

10 cf. par exemple l’« Évaluation externe de l’Année européenne du dialogue interculturel 2008 » (ECOTEC) et l’« Évaluation permanente de l’Année européenne de l’égalité des chances pour tous 2007 » (Ramboll). 11 Les limitations potentielles de cet outil de recherche dans ce contexte résident dans l’absence de public cible clairement défini ou de base de données d’interlocuteurs aisément accessible, les problèmes de sélection automatique, la probabilité de faibles taux de réponse, et par conséquent, la valeur limitée des résultats.

xi

au sein de la DG EAC, qui, malgré l’absence de décision formelle, a établi des relations solides avec les acteurs potentiels, y compris les organismes régionaux, au cours de la phase de préparation de l’Année.

Etant donné l’accessibilité et le grand attrait du thème de l’Année, il a été facile de récolter des ressources à l’échelon national pour saisir les opportunités qui s’offraient. Au moins sept pays ont alloué un financement spécifique (d’un montant oscillant entre 10 000 et 700 000 euros), tandis que la plupart ont pu mettre à profit suffisamment de ressources en nature ou de programmes nationaux existants.

La plupart des CN et des acteurs ont estimé que l’Année a abouti dans l’ensemble à des résultats positifs parce que les idées véhiculées suscitaient un large enthousiasme. Aux yeux de nombreux CN, l’Année s’est révélée meilleure qu’ils ne le prévoyaient dans leur pays en termes d’envergure. L’exécution de la panoplie de mesures envisagées leur a également donné satisfaction : une panoplie d’activités pertinentes ont été mises en œuvre aux niveaux national et européen, malgré les contraintes financières subies à ces deux niveaux, et l’Année a ainsi démontré l’opportunité d’allier la créativité et l’innovation pour promouvoir une définition plus vaste de l’innovation. Dans l’ensemble, il semble que les activités aient répondu aux objectifs de l’AECI en ce qui concerne l’environnement de la créativité et de l’innovation et les activités de sensibilisation sur un plan général ont été prépondérantes. Dans le domaine de l’éducation, l’Année a coïncidé dans plusieurs pays avec un débat national sur une réforme de l’enseignement (ex. Malte, Autriche et Suède), et dans ce contexte, elle a apparemment contribué à aiguiser l’intérêt et à accroître la nécessité d’une action.

Plusieurs exemples notables de participation des ministères nationaux ont pu être observés (ex. Autriche, Belgique, Finlande, Allemagne, Grèce et Pologne), mais dans plusieurs cas, les CN ont également déploré un manque de soutien (Roumanie et Slovénie). Un certain nombre de pays ont récolté les fruits de groupes de pilotage ou de travail incluant un panel de représentants de ministères et d’autres organismes publics et privés. En Allemagne, le CN a collaboré efficacement avec les coordinateurs régionaux au niveau fédéral, et en Espagne, plusieurs régions ont joué un rôle décisif dans la mise en oeuvre d'activités. Les administrations régionales et locales se sont également montrées actives en Pologne.

La DG EAC a organisé un certain nombre d’activités « porte-étendard », dont sept conférences importantes, sept « débats de Bruxelles », le site de l’AECI sur l’internet et plusieurs manifestations qui ont assuré la visibilité de l’Année. Les présidences tchèque et suédoise ont également apporté un soutien vigoureux au début et à la fin de l’Année. Les activités financées par la DG EAC et mises en œuvre par divers sous-traitants externes se sont également avérées fructueuses pour attiser l’intérêt et obtenir une couverture médiatique à l’échelle européenne. En particulier, l’initiative des Ambassadeurs de l’AECI semble avoir bien fonctionné : au niveau européen, où elle a attiré l'attention des médias, au niveau national, où la collaboration a souvent été substantielle, et en ce qu’elle a donné naissance à un produit tangible, le « Manifeste pour la créativité et l’innovation ».

L’AECI a donné lieu à un éventail d’activités qui peuvent être qualifiées d’importantes au regard des ressources mobilisées et qui témoignent de son attrait considérable. À titre d’illustration, quelque 980 événements (dont environ un tiers à un niveau européen ou international et le reste à un niveau national, régional ou local) ont été enregistrés par les promoteurs de projets dans la base de données de l’AECI et inclus dans le calendrier du site internet de l’AECI. Ces événements ont été signalés par une grande variété d’organisations, parmi lesquelles des associations sans but lucratif (quelque 28 % étaient

xii

chapeautés exclusivement ou conjointement par ce type d’acteurs), des organisations publiques nationales, des organismes ou des réseaux européens ou internationaux, des agences publiques régionales ou locales, etc.

Une certaine durabilité de l’impact peut être démontrée par la poursuite ou le renouvellement après 2009 d’activités liées à l’AECI, le plus souvent des semaines ou des journées de l’innovation.

Bon nombre de CN estiment qu’un « débat » s’est amorcé au cours de l’Année et qu’il est appelé à perdurer. Enfin, bien qu’il soit difficile d’évaluer l’ampleur de tels phénomènes, il est probable que la coopération et la discussion continueront entre les politiques d’un certain nombre de pays à propos du rôle de la créativité et de l’innovation.

Préparation

En raison du délai très bref entre la décision formelle (16 décembre 2008) et le début de l’Année et de la création tardive d’une équipe de projet (qui a débuté ses travaux le 1er janvier 2009), la Commission n’a eu qu’une marge de manœuvre limitée pour donner une orientation claire aux participants potentiels, même si elle a soutenu le processus des préparatifs à plusieurs égards avant l’adoption de la décision formelle, par exemple, en organisant des réunions avec des « experts nationaux » dans l’attente de la désignation de coordinateurs nationaux et des séances d’information à l’intention de représentants régionaux et de groupes d’intérêt de dimension européenne.

Bon nombre de CN et d’acteurs sont d’avis que la phase préparatoire n’a pas été satisfaisante, que le rôle des CN n’était pas clair et que la décision d’organiser cette Année a été prise si tard que les États membres n’ont rien pu planifier à l’avance avec certitude. Ces facteurs ont entraîné un effet particulièrement négatif dans certains pays, où les activités ont seulement débuté au printemps 2009, ainsi que sur la capacité d’impliquer le secteur privé dans l’Année.

L’ampleur des objectifs a permis à une large gamme d’acteurs de réagir à l’Année. L’imbrication entre les concepts de créativité et d’innovation a néanmoins suscité des difficultés pour l’évaluation d'objectifs plus précis.

Structures de mise en œuvre

L’absence de budget spécifique pour la mise en œuvre des mesures de la décision et de responsabilités contractuelles claires des CN à l’égard de la Commission a eu pour effet que la coopération des pays participants a revêtu une nature largement volontaire au cours de la mise en œuvre. En conséquence, les cadres, les structures et les systèmes habituels qui garantissent un socle de cohérence, une orientation commune et un niveau minimal d’activités dans une Année européenne n’étaient pas en place12.

L’hétérogénéité inhérente à une Année européenne a ainsi été accentuée puisqu’il n’existait pas de consensus autour de la définition des piliers essentiels de l'Année. La coordination à l’échelle nationale était tributaire de l’identité de l’organisme ou des organismes choisis en tant que CN, de leurs domaines

12 Le contexte national joue normalement un rôle majeur pour déterminer les aboutissements d’une Année européenne dans chaque État membre et l’adaptation aux paramètres nationaux est bienvenue, mais le financement européen a également pour motivation sous-jacente, entre autres, de niveler le terrain de jeu, ou à tout le moins, de garantir un niveau minimal d’activités nationales.

xiii

d’intérêt et d’influence et de la qualité de leurs relations. En conséquence, le degré de coordination et de collaboration s’est avéré extrêmement disparate, et dans certains cas, la fragmentation régnait. Il semble par contre que l’engagement des Ambassadeurs ait été plus intense que dans les Années européennes précédentes, même s’il dépend de leur approche individuelle.

Le plus souvent, les CN ont été désignés par les ministères de l’Éducation et leur mission liée à l’AECI se confinait à leur domaine de politique ou d’activité immédiat, affaiblissant ainsi leur capacité de coordination et d’action stratégique au-delà des cloisonnements entre différents domaines. Ils ne possédaient en outre qu’une capacité limitée à s’engager auprès des partenaires potentiels sur une échelle suffisamment grande. De plus, les CN disposaient dans la plupart des pays de ressources exiguës pour l’information et la promotion, ce qui a entravé leur capacité à atteindre un public général étendu.

Le concours des Agences nationales du programme pour l’éducation et la formation tout au long de la vie a apporté une aide grandement nécessaire à l’Année, mais la maigreur de leurs ressources a également amoindri leur rôle. D’autre part, la contribution de ces Agences n’était pas liée à une coopération avec les CN, illustrant à nouveau la fragmentation générale observée dans la coordination de l’Année au niveau national. Enfin, rien n'a permis d'identifier un éventuel soutien substantiel d’autres fonds européens, en dehors de la DG EAC.

Sensibilisation et perceptions

L’obstacle majeur à la réalisation d’un impact cohérent résidait dans l’absence de financement spécifique et la brièveté du temps de préparation de l’Année, qui a empêché la mise en place d’autres mécanismes de coopération, par exemple, avec les entreprises, les ONG et les associations. Bien qu’une fraction considérable du budget de la DG EAC destiné à la communication ait été affectée à l’AECI, ce montant n’était pas comparable aux dépenses consacrées habituellement à une Année européenne. Plusieurs acteurs ont fait remarquer que la DG ENTR a organisé moins d’activités qu’ils ne le prévoyaient. La crise économique mondiale a peut-être freiné la participation des entreprises à l’Année.

Bien que la sensibilisation ait figuré parmi les objectifs fondamentaux de l’Année, il aurait fallu, pour atteindre un grand nombre de personnes au sein de la population, utiliser au moins le même niveau de financement que pour d’autres Années européennes. Ainsi qu’on le constate fréquemment pour les Années européennes, peu d’indications ont pu être recueillies sur la mesure dans laquelle le public cible potentiel a été atteint. Dans le cas de l’AECI, le public le plus engagé provenait du monde de l’éducation, ainsi que de la jeunesse. D’autres catégories du public, notamment les entreprises, étaient pratiquement absentes dans une majorité de pays. Pour les acteurs participants, les activités menées au cours de l’Année ont constitué une expérience fortement positive. Un certain engagement intersectoriel a pu être observé entre les sphères de l’éducation, de la culture et des entreprises.

Dans l’ensemble, la couverture médiatique est restée relativement faible et concentrée dans la presse écrite et en ligne. En raison du manque de ressources, il a en effet été difficile d’entretenir une relation dynamique avec les médias et de fournir un matériel adéquat à la télévision et à la radio. Les explications sur les schémas de l’attention médiatique ne sont pas univoques. Dans le cas de l’Espagne, une série d’événements jouissant d’une image forte pourraient être à l’origine de la visibilité relativement élevée. Il est également difficile d’évaluer si la couverture médiatique des activités de l'Année était plutôt consacrée

xiv

à l’Année ou à l'événement en particulier, par exemple, en demandant aux participants directs s’ils ont déjà entendu parler de l’Année, un problème méthodologique commun à la plupart des Années européennes.

Impact et valeur ajoutée

L’AECI s’est avérée pertinente pour les défis auxquels l’Europe est confrontée et fortement corrélée avec d’autres objectifs des politiques européennes. À ce titre, elle a offert à la Commission une formidable occasion d’agir de façon coordonnée pour mettre en exergue l’importance de la créativité en tant que source d’innovation et sensibiliser différents groupes cibles de la population européenne. Il semble toutefois que les services de la Commission ne soient pas parvenus à mettre pleinement à profit cette opportunité, ce qui a réduit la portée de l’Année, surtout au niveau national, et donc la probabilité de réaliser une percée à l'influence décisive. À l’échelle européenne, la coopération intersectorielle constatée au cours de l’Année entre la DG EAC et la DG ENTR devrait donner lieu à une plate-forme pour une future formulation politique plus forte conjuguant les domaines de la créativité et de l’innovation.

En ce qui concerne la valeur ajoutée, ou en d’autres termes, la différence que l’Année a apportée, il est difficile de donner une évaluation rigoureuse dès lors qu’il n’existe pas de frontière nette entre les activités liées à l’AECI et celles qui auraient eu lieu même sans cette Année, mais à l’évidence, les résultats sont variables. Un certain nombre de CN et d’acteurs ont pu signaler des effets positifs, et pour certains groupes d’acteurs ou certaines communautés d’intérêt, spécialement dans le domaine de l’éducation, des résultats significatifs ont été engrangés. L’Année s’est révélée beaucoup plus populaire lorsqu’un intérêt pour la créativité prévalait au préalable, et dans cette optique, l’Année a procuré un appui aux activités des États membres, notamment dans le domaine de l’éducation et de la formation.

Recommandations

À la Commission européenne :

• Pour les futures Années européennes, affirmer et réaliser une finalité stratégique plus forte, par le biais d’une vision politique claire, ne peut se faire qu'en mettant en place un niveau minimal de soutien matériel.

• Envisager la conception et le déploiement d’un système amélioré, à l’échelle de la Commission, pour le cycle de coordination et de planification des Années européennes, en particulier, pour faciliter la désignation des thèmes et des responsabilités en temps opportun et faire en sorte que la base légale soit établie au moins un an au préalable afin de permettre une préparation efficace, notamment au niveau national.

• Étudier comment les leçons apprises peuvent être transférées d’une Année européenne à la suivante, y compris par exemple par l’élaboration d’une « boîte à outils » de mesures ou d’éléments standard et d’une « banque de connaissances » centralisée dans laquelle les ressources pourraient être conservées et mises à la disposition de toutes les DG.

• Bien que l’AECI ait démontré qu’un budget opérationnel européen n’est pas absolument indispensable, une occasion a en quelque sorte été manquée, sachant qu’au niveau national

xv

notamment, un certain nombre d’idées qui avaient été exprimées n’ont pu être soutenues à cause d’un manque de soutien financier.

• Les futures Années européennes devraient donc être dotées de ressources adéquates au niveau national, avec au moins une contribution communautaire minimale l'intention des pays participants, sous forme de cofinancement, afin d’assurer une coordination suffisante et cohérente.

• Le message global de l’Année, associer la créativité et l’innovation, a mobilisé un large éventail de politiques et d’acteurs de terrain, en particulier dans le secteur de l’éducation. D’une manière générale, la Commission devrait donc intégrer les messages des années thématiques dans ses programmes ultérieurs, et dans ce cas particulier, les efforts devraient être poursuivis pour ancrer les messages essentiels de l’Année et mobiliser les acteurs concernés. Cela pourrait être réalisé au moyen d’activités articulées autour du Manifeste des Ambassadeurs, en distillant les messages politiques fondamentaux à diffuser ou en réunissant un groupe de travail d’États membres pour approfondir certains aspects de l’Année (ex., faciliter l’apprentissage mutuel sur les réformes de l’enseignement).

À la lumière de l’évaluation, les États membres et les acteurs concernés pourraient garder à l’esprit les observations suivantes lors de leur participation à une Année thématique européenne afin d’atteindre leurs objectifs :

• En termes de formulation des politiques, concentrer leur attention sur les piliers essentiels de l’Année afin de délivrer un message clair, en l’espèce, axé sur le rôle de la créativité dans l’éducation par exemple, spécialement dans la perspective du développement personnel des jeunes.

• Les semaines ou les journées thématiques nationales, régionales ou locales sur le thème de la créativité et de l’innovation, par exemple dans les écoles, sont des outils efficaces pour transmettre des messages fondamentaux.

• En général, le fait d’encourager les interactions parmi les acteurs concernés accroît le potentiel de synergies. Dans le cas de l’AECI, les secteurs de l’éducation, de la culture et des entreprises ont par exemple pu interagir grâce à l’adoption d’une définition large et tolérante de l’« innovation » et à la promotion de sa pertinence auprès d’un panel étendu d’acteurs concernés.

• L’encouragement à la coopération au niveau européen parmi les politiques nationaux pourrait aboutir à la reconnaissance du rôle essentiel de la créativité dans l’éducation et de sa pertinence pour les compétences essentielles dans une société de l’innovation.

• La coopération avec la Commission européenne offre l’occasion d’apprendre de l'expérience d’autres États membres. Elle peut contribuer à l’instauration au niveau national de mécanismes permettant de continuer les discussions sur la politique et la pratique en matière de créativité et d’innovation, et l’addition d’une multitude de perspectives nationales peut contribuer à façonner l’évolution politique européenne.

�

xvi

Kurzfassung

Einleitung

Das „Europäische Jahr“ wird seit den frühen 1990er Jahren von der Europäischen Kommission organisiert. Das „Europäische Jahr“ wird organisiert, um einer ganzen Reihe von Interessengruppen, einschließlich politische Entscheidungsträger, Zivilgesellschaft und Öffentlichkeit, ein bestimmtes Thema ins Bewusstsein zu bringen. Zu den Themen zählen unter anderem die Bekämpfung von Armut und sozialer Ausgrenzung (2010), der interkulturelle Dialog (2008) und die Chancengleichheit (2007).

Das Europäische Parlament und der Rat haben im Dezember 2008 die Entscheidung13 angenommen, 2009 zum Europäischen Jahr der Kreativität und Innovation (EYCI oder Jahreszahl) zu machen, um die Anstrengungen der Mitgliedstaaten bei der Förderung der Kreativität [für alle] durch lebenslanges Lernen als Triebfeder für Innovation und Schlüsselelement für die Entwicklung persönlicher, beruflicher, unternehmerischer und sozialer Kompetenzen und das Wohlergehen aller Individuen in der Gesellschaft zu unterstützen. Die übergreifenden Ziele waren die Schaffung eines öffentlichen Bewusstseins für bestimmte Schwerpunktthemen (einschließlich Themen in Bezug auf Bildung, kulturelle Aktivitäten, persönliche Entwicklung und Wirtschaft), die Bereitstellung von Informationen zu guten Praktiken und die Förderung der politischen Debatte sowie der Forschung in Bezug auf das Schwerpunktthema. Dieser Bericht enthält die Ergebnisse einer Evaluierung des Europäischen Jahres, die im Auftrag der Generaldirektion Bildung und Kultur der Europäischen Kommission (GD EAC) von ECOTEC Research and Consulting durchgeführt wurde.

Politischer Kontext

Das Europäische Jahr sollte unbedingt im vorherrschenden breiten politischen Kontext der EU betrachtet werden, in dem die Verbesserung der „Innovationsleistung“ und „Kultur“ innerhalb der EU immer mehr als maßgeblich für den wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Fortschritt, den Erhalt eines hohen Beschäftigungsniveaus und eine nachhaltige Entwicklung betrachtet wird. Darüber hinaus unterstrich der Ende 2008 einsetzende Wirtschaftsabschwung die Bedeutung der Innovation für das Wirtschaftswachstum. In diesem Kontext bestand die spezifische Botschaft dieses Europäischen Jahres darin, hervorzuheben, in welchem Umfang Kreativität eine Voraussetzung für Innovation ist, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der engen Verbindung zwischen lebenslangem Lernen und Schlüsselkompetenzen14 , die die Bürger Europas benötigen, um auf die Herausforderungen der Globalisierung und die Entstehung der Wissensökonomie zu antworten. Das Europäische Jahr sollte eine Möglichkeit schaffen, die verschiedenen Richtlinien, Programme und Aktivitäten im Bereich der Kreativität und Innovation unter einen Hut zu bringen, die politische Debatte zu fördern und eine größere Synergie zu erreichen, insbesondere zwischen den Bereichen Bildung, Kultur und Wirtschaft.

13 Entscheidung Nr. 1350/2008/EG 16.12.2008 14 Insbesondere in Bezug auf Kreativität, Anpassungsfähigkeit, problemlösendes Unternehmertum, kulturelles Bewusstsein und Ausdruck.

xvii

Beschreibung der Aktivität

Die Aktivitäten der EU zum Europäischen Jahr wurden über vorhandene gemeinschaftliche Jahres- und Mehrjahresprogramme finanziert, insbesondere die Aktivitäten im Bereich Bildung und Fort- und Weiterbildung, aber auch Programme und Richtlinien in anderen relevanten Bereichen, wie beispielsweise in den Bereichen Kultur, Kommunikation, Unternehmertum, Zusammenhalt, ländliche Entwicklung, Forschung und Informationsgesellschaft. Es wurde angenommen, dass das Budget und die Flexibilität innerhalb der betreffenden gemeinschaftlichen Programme ausreichen würden, um die erforderlichen Aktivitäten zu unterstützen. Die zur Umsetzung der Aktivitäten auf EU-Ebene eingesetzten Mittel bezogen sich auf Personalzeit und Finanzierung, wobei die meisten finanziellen Mittel mit Unterstützung der anderen Generaldirektionen (insbesondere der Generaldirektion Regionalpolitik (GD REGIO) und der Generaldirektion Unternehmen und Industrie (GD ENTR)) aus dem Kommunikationsbudget der Generaldirektion Bildung und Kultur stammten. Das für das Europäische Jahr in der Zeit von 2008-2010 verfügbare Budget der GD EAC beträgt ungefähr € 2,25 Millionen.15 Dies entspricht der Budgetbewilligung für das Europäische Jahr der interkulturellen Kommunikation 2008 für Aktivitäten auf europäischer und mitgliedsstaatlicher Ebene in Höhe von fast € 10 Millionen, die Informations- und Förderaktivitäten, Untersuchungen und Studien umfassten. Auf nationaler Ebene war die Umsetzung des Europäischen Jahres der Kreativität und Innovation auf finanzielle Mittel aus bestehenden EU-Programmen oder zusätzliche, von den Regierungen, gemeinnützigen und privaten Organisationen bereitgestellte Mittel angewiesen. Es gab keine Kofinanzierung externer Aktivitäten seitens der EU.

Das Europäische Jahr wurde auf europäischer, gemeinschaftlicher, nationaler, regionaler und lokaler Ebene begangen. Auf europäischer Ebene gab es vier Schwerpunkte:

• Information und Promotion, einschließlich der Aktivitäten der Botschafter für Kreativität und Innovation;

• Veranstaltungen (insbesondere Konferenzen);

• Koordination der Aktivitäten der Mitgliedstaaten, und

• Erfassung der guten Praktiken und Art und Weise der Förderung der Ziele des Europäischen Jahres.

Die nationalen, regionalen und lokalen Aktivitäten wurden von 31 Nationalen Koordinatoren (NC), die von den betreffenden Behörden der teilnehmenden Länder ernannt wurden, koordiniert. Die GD EAC war für die Umsetzung des Europäischen Jahres auf europäischer Ebene zuständig, während die Aufgaben der anderen Generaldirektionen von einer Inter-Service Working Group übernommen wurden.

Zweck, Umfang und Methodologie der Evaluierung

Mit der externen Evaluierung sollten die Ergebnisse und der Einfluss des Europäischen Jahres der Kreativität und Innovation bewertet werden, sodass die Europäische Kommission die europäischen Institutionen über die Vorbereitung, die Umsetzung und die Ergebnisse unterrichten konnte.

15 Auf EU-Ebene (einschließlich Eröffnungsfeierlichkeiten, Eröffnungsveranstaltung und Vorzeigekonferenzen): Fotowettbewerb, Innovations- und Kreativitätscamp, Werbematerial, Anzeigen und Nachbereitung.

xviii

Die durchgeführte Untersuchung umfasste die Prüfung der Richtliniendokumente und Untersuchungsberichte, die Prüfung von Managementinformationen und Verwaltungsberichten sowie eine Reihe von Konsultationen mit Kommissaren der Europäischen Kommission, der Mehrheit der nationalen Koordinatoren im Europäischen Jahr der Kreativität und Innovation, externen Medien- und Vertragspartnern, anderen beteiligten Interessengruppen (einschließlich Sektor- und Vertreterorganisationen) und schließlich detaillierte Fallstudien. Die Evaluierung brachte auch ein ganze Reihe Material zutage, das von den nationalen Koordinatoren und anderen Teilnehmern zur Verfügung gestellt wurde (interne Berichte, schriftliches Feedback, DVDs, Broschüren und andere Veröffentlichungen usw.), sowie Präsentationen, die während der anschließenden Feierlichkeiten in Stockholm am 16./17. Dezember 2010 gehalten wurden. Die Evaluierung verfügte nur eingeschränkt über Informationen in Bezug auf den Einfluss der Informations- und Kommunikationskampagne für das Europäische Jahr der Kreativität und Innovation, da es im Gegensatz zu den Vorjahren keinen übergreifenden Medienvertrag gab. Unter Berücksichtigung der Beschränkungen in Bezug auf den Erhalt derartiger Informationen auch in den kofinanzierten Vorjahren16, wird dies nicht als maßgeblicher Nachteil betrachtet.

Die Evaluierung profitierte von einer reichen und vielseitigen hochwertigen Informationsbasis. Wie in den anderen Europäischen Jahren, waren statistische Daten in Bezug auf greifbare Ergebnisse des Europäischen Jahres in keinem der teilnehmenden Länder verfügbar, eine Lücke, auf die weniger aufmerksam gemacht werden würde, wenn eine vertragliche Beziehung zwischen der Europäischen Kommission und den nationalen Koordinatoren und der begleitende Bedarf für die nationalen Koordinatoren, über die Ergebnisse zu berichten, bestanden hätte. Fallstudien waren deshalb besonders nützlich, um uns einen Einblick zu verschaffen, wie eine Reihe von Organisationen und Einzelpersonen auf das Europäische Jahr reagieren konnten. Angesichts des Charakters des Europäischen Jahres, des angewandten Liefermodells und der für die Evaluierung zur Verfügung stehenden Ressourcen gab es keine anderen Alternativen oder Werkzeuge (z.B. Umfragen17), mit denen diese Beschränkungen hätten überwunden werden können.

Die wichtigsten Ergebnisse

Ergebnisse

Das Europäische Jahr der Kreativität und Innovation war für einige Herausforderungen von Bedeutung, denen die EU gegenübersteht, was beispielsweise die enge Verbindung zwischen den Zielen des Europäischen Jahres und den politischen Zielen der EU in den Bereichen lebenslanges Lernen, Kultur und Unternehmertum/Innovation demonstriert. Die starke Kohärenz zwischen den Zielen des Europäischen Jahres der Kreativität und Innovation und der nationalen Politik und Prioritäten in den teilnehmenden Mitgliedstaaten förderte die Aktivitäten und spiegelte ein bereits existierendes Interesse an diesem Thema über alle geographischen Ebenen (Europäische Union, Mitgliedstaaten, Regionen und Kommunen) wider. Die Ziele des Europäischen Jahres waren auch für eine Anzahl von EU-Programmen

16 Siehe beispielsweise die „Externe Evaluierung des Europäischen Jahres des interkulturellen Dialogs 2008" (ECOTEC) und die "Weiterführende Evaluierung des Europäischen Jahres der Chancengleichheit 2007" (Rambol). 17 Potenzielle Beschränkungen dieses Untersuchungswerkzeugs waren in diesem Zusammenhang das Fehlen einer klar definierten Zielgruppe oder einer verfügbaren Kontaktdatenbank, das Problem der eigenen Auswahl, die wahrscheinlich geringe Beteiligung und der infolgedessen eingeschränkte Wert der Ergebnisse.

xix

von wesentlicher Bedeutung, insbesondere für das Lifelong Learning Programme, die regionale Entwicklungspolitik und die Unterstützung von Forschung und Entwicklung. Das Europäische Jahr hatte die größte Bedeutung für den Bildungssektor und es gab viele Aktivitäten für junge Leute.

Ein Projektteam aus elf Mitgliedern der GD EAC wurde zur Leitung und Verwaltung des Europäischen Jahres eingesetzt. Die GD EAC konnte ad-hoc ebenfalls ausreichende Mittel mobilisieren, um eine Reihe von Aktivitäten zu finanzieren, die das Europäische Jahr sichtbar machten. Die Sachverständigen begrüßten im Allgemeinen die Anstrengungen der Europäischen Kommission zur Unterstützung der nationalen Koordinatoren bei der Vorbereitung des Europäischen Jahres, was teilweise die Tatsache widerspiegelt, dass das EYCI-Team der GD EAC trotz einer fehlenden formalen Entscheidung die Initiative während der Anlaufphase zum Europäischen Jahr ergriffen hat, potenzielle Akteure, einschließlich der Gebietskörperschaften, für das Europäische Jahr zu gewinnen.

Die Zugänglichkeit und breite Zustimmung des Themas des Europäischen Jahres stellte sicher, dass auch auf nationaler Ebene Mittel angeworben werden konnten, um die damit gebotene Chance zu nutzen. Wenigstens sieben Länder stellten eine Sonderfinanzierung (zwischen € 10.000,00 und € 700.000,00) bereit, während die meisten Länder auf Sachleistungen oder bereits bestehende nationale Programme zurückgreifen konnten.

Die meisten nationalen Koordinatoren und Interessengruppen hatten das Gefühl, dass das Europäische Jahr im Allgemeinen gute Ergebnisse hervorgebracht hat, weil die mit dem Europäischen Jahr verbundenen Ideen auf ein großes Interesse stießen. Für viele nationale Koordinatoren verlief das Europäische Jahr in ihrem Land in Bezug auf die Beteiligung und den Umfang besser als erwartet. Der angestrebte Maßnahmenkatalog wurde zur Zufriedenheit gefüllt: Trotz der Finanzierungsschwierigkeiten wurde eine Reihe von Aktivitäten auf nationaler und europäischer Ebene umgesetzt und das Europäische Jahr zeigte nachweislich die Bedeutung der Verbindung von Kreativität und Innovation zur Förderung der breiteren Definition von Innovation. Insgesamt scheinen die Aktivitäten die Ziele des Europäischen Jahres der Kreativität und Innovation in Bezug auf das Kreativitäts- und Innovationsumfeld erfüllt zu haben und überwog das wachsende Bewusstsein auf allgemeiner Ebene. Im Bildungsbereich kollidierte das Europäische Jahr in einigen Ländern mit nationalen Debatten über Bildungsreformen (beispielsweise in Malta, Österreich und Schweden), wobei das Europäische Jahr in diesen Ländern dazu beigetragen hat, das Interesse zu steigern und den Handlungsbedarf zu bekräftigen.

Es gab einige starke Beispiele für Beiträge der nationalen Ministerien (beispielsweise Österreich, Belgien, Finnland, Deutschland, Griechenland und Polen), aber auch einige Beispiele, bei denen die nationalen Koordinatoren eine mangelnde Unterstützung (Rumänien und Slowenien) bemängelten. Einige Länder profitierten von der Anwesenheit von Lenkungsausschüssen und Arbeitsgruppen, in denen eine Reihe von Vertretern aus den Ministerien und anderen öffentlichen und privaten Körperschaften vertreten waren. In Deutschland arbeiteten die regionalen Koordinatoren gut mit dem nationalen Koordinator zusammen und in Spanien übernahmen einige Regionen eine aktive Führungsrolle. Auch in Polen waren die regionalen und kommunalen Verwaltungen aktiv.

Die GD EAC organisierte einige Schlüsselvorzeigeaktivitäten, einschließlich sieben Großkonferenzen, sieben „Brüsseler Debatten“, die Website zum Europäischen Jahr sowie einige Veranstaltungen, die die Sichtbarkeit des Europäischen Jahres sicherstellten. Die tschechischen und schwedischen Präsidentschaften leisteten zum Auftakt und Abschluss des Europäischen Jahres ebenfalls große

xx

Unterstützung. Die Aktivitäten, die von der GD EAC finanziert und von verschiedenen externen Vertragspartnern umgesetzt wurden, waren in Bezug auf das Interesse und die Deckung in den Medien ebenfalls zufriedenstellend. Die EYCI-Botschafterinitiative scheint besonders gut funktioniert zu haben: Auf EU-Ebene in Bezug auf die Öffentlichkeitsarbeit, auf nationaler Ebene in Bezug auf die starke Zusammenarbeit in einigen Fällen und weil ein greifbares Produkt, das „Kreativitäts- und Innovationsmanifest“, dabei herausgekommen ist.

Das Europäische Jahr der Kreativität und Innovation sorgte für eine Zahl und Reihe von Aktivitäten, die im Lichte der angewandten Ressourcen als signifikant betrachtet werden können und das breite Interesse widerspiegeln. Um dies zu illustrieren wurden rund 980 Projekte (ungefähr ein Drittel auf europäischer oder internationaler Ebene und der Rest auf nationaler, regionaler und kommunaler Ebene) von den Projektpromotern in der EYCI-Datenbank registriert und in den Kalender auf der EYIC-Website eingetragen. Die Veranstaltungen wurden von einer Reihe von Organisationen registriert, einschließlich gemeinnütziger Organisationen (rund 28 % wurden allein oder gemeinsam von diesen Akteuren geleitet), nationale Organisationen des öffentlichen Sektors, europäische oder internationale Körperschaften oder Netzwerke, regionale oder kommunale Bedarfsträger und andere.

Es gibt einige Hinweise auf einen anhaltenden Einfluss durch die Fortführung oder Wiederholung von mit dem Europäischen Jahr verbundenen Aktivitäten nach 2009, wobei es sich in den meisten Fällen um Innovationswochen oder -tage handelt.

Viele nationale Koordinatoren stellten fest, dass während des Europäischen Jahres eine „Debatte“ in Gang gekommen ist, die anhalten wird, und obwohl es schwierig ist, den Umfang derartiger Entwicklungen zu beurteilen, ist es wahrscheinlich, dass in einigen Ländern die Zusammenarbeit und Gespräche zwischen politischen Entscheidungsträgern über die Rolle der Kreativität in Bezug auf die Innovation weitergeführt werden.

Vorbereitung

Der sehr eingeschränkte Zeitraum zwischen der formalen Entscheidung (16. Dezember 2008) und dem Beginn des Europäischen Jahres und die verspätete Zusammenstellung eines Projektteams (das seine Arbeit am 01. Januar 2009 aufnahm), schränkte die Möglichkeiten der Europäischen Kommission, die potenziellen Teilnehmer klar anzuleiten, ein, obwohl die Kommission Schritte unternahm, um den Vorbereitungsprozess auf verschiedenen Wegen bereits vor der formalen Entscheidung zu unterstützen, beispielsweise durch Treffen mit „nationalen Experten“.

Viele nationale Koordinatoren hatten das Gefühl, dass die Vorbereitungsphase unzufriedenstellend war, dass die Rolle der nationalen Koordinatoren nicht eindeutig war und dass die Entscheidung für das Europäische Jahr so spät kam, dass die Mitgliedstaaten vorab keine Planungssicherheit hatten. Dies hatte in einigen Ländern einen besonders negativen Effekt, sodass die Aktivitäten dort nicht vor dem Frühjahr 2009 begannen und die Möglichkeiten zur Einbeziehung des privaten Sektors beschränkt wurden.

Die Vielfalt der Ziele erlaubte es einer Vielzahl von Akteuren, am Europäischen Jahr teilzunehmen. Die Tatsache, dass die Konzepte von Kreativität und Innovation miteinander verbunden waren, erschwerte die Beurteilung der Erreichung detaillierterer Ziele im Rahmen der Evaluierung.

xxi

Umsetzungsstrukturen

Das Fehlen eines spezifischen Budgets zur Umsetzung der Maßnahmen in der Entscheidung und das Fehlen eindeutiger vertraglicher Verantwortlichkeiten seitens der nationalen Koordinatoren gegenüber der Kommission diktierten den überaus freiwilligen Charakter der Zusammenarbeit zwischen den teilnehmenden Ländern während der Umsetzung. Dies bedeutete, dass die traditionellen Rahmen, Strukturen und Systeme, die ein gewisses Maß an Konsistenz und Führung sowie ein Mindestmaß an Aktivität im Rahmen des Europäischen Jahres gewährleisten, nicht vorhanden waren18.

Dies erhöhte die Veränderlichkeit, die normalerweise für das Europäische Jahr erwartet wird, da es keine vereinbarten gemeinsamen Hauptmerkmale gab. Die Koordination auf nationaler Ebene hing von der Identität der als nationale Koordinatoren ausgewählten Körperschaft(en), ihren Interessens- und Einflussbereichen und ihrer Vernetzung ab. Infolgedessen war der Grad der Koordination und Zusammenarbeit sehr unbeständig und in einigen Fällen fragmentiert. Dennoch war das Engagement der Botschafter, obwohl es vom individuellen Ansatz abhängig war, in diesem Europäischen Jahr stärker als in den Vorjahren.

In der Mehrzahl der Fälle wurden die nationalen Koordinatoren von den Bildungsministerien ernannt und ihre Aktivitäten im Rahmen des Europäischen Jahres waren auf ihr direktes politisches Feld oder ihre direkten politischen Aktivitäten beschränkt, was ihre Fähigkeit zur strategischen Koordination und Handlungsfähigkeit über mehrere Politikfelder hinweg einschränkte. Auch ihre Kapazitäten zur Zusammenarbeit mit potenziellen Partnern in einem ausreichenden Umfang waren beschränkt. Darüber hinaus verfügten die nationalen Koordinatoren in den meisten Ländern über knappe Mittel für Information und Promotion, was ihre Fähigkeiten, ein breites allgemeines Publikum anzusprechen, behinderte.

Der Beitrag der Lifelong Learning Programme National Agencies sorgte für die notwendige Unterstützung des Europäischen Jahres, aber die fehlenden Mittel schwächten auch diesen Beitrag. Auch der Beitrag der LLL NAs hing nicht von der Zusammenarbeit mit den nationalen Koordinatoren ab und reflektierte den allgemein fragmentierten Charakter der Koordination des Europäischen Jahres auf nationaler Ebene. Es wurden nur wenige Hinweise für eine maßgebliche Unterstützung durch andere EU-Fonds außerhalb der GD EAC gefunden.

Bewusstsein und Wahrnehmung

Die wesentliche Herausforderung zur Erreichung einheitlicher Ergebnisse waren die fehlenden zweckbestimmten Mittel und die kurze Anlaufzeit des Europäischen Jahres, die die Möglichkeit zur Einrichtung anderer Kooperationsmechanismen, beispielsweise mit Unternehmen, Nichtregierungsorganisationen und Verbänden verhinderten. Obwohl ein erheblicher Teil des Kommunikationsbudgets der GD EAC für die Zwecke des Europäischen Jahres der Kreativität und Innovation verwendet wurde, war diese Summe nicht mit den Beträgen vergleichbar, die normalerweise für das Europäische Jahr aufgewendet werden. Verschiedene Interessengruppen bemerkten, dass die

18 Der nationale Kontext spielt normalerweise eine wichtige Rolle bei der Bestimmung der Ergebnisse der Europäischen Jahre in einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten und die Anpassung an die nationalen Bedingungen wird begrüßt. Aber einer der zugrunde liegenden Gründe für die Finanzierung durch die EU besteht darin, gleiche Bedingungen für alle zu schaffen oder wenigstens ein Mindestmaß an nationaler Aktivität zu gewährleisten.

xxii

GD EAC weniger Aktivitäten organisierte als ursprünglich erwartet. Der weltweite Wirtschaftsabschwung könnte die Unterstützung für das Europäische Jahr seitens der Wirtschaft behindert haben.

Obwohl die Bewusstmachung ein zentrales Ziel des Europäischen Jahres war, hätten wenigstens dieselben Mittel aufgewendet werden müssen als in anderen Europäischen Jahren, um eine große Zahl von Menschen aus der Gesellschaft zu erreichen. Wie es bei Europäischen Jahren normalerweise der Fall ist, liegen nur wenige Hinweise auf den Umfang vor, in dem die potenzielle Zielgruppe erreicht wurde. Für das Europäische Jahr der Kreativität und Innovation war die am meisten engagierte Zielgruppe der Bildungssektor und die jüngere Bevölkerung. Andere Segmente, insbesondere die Wirtschaft, waren in den meisten Ländern nicht beteiligt. Für alle Beteiligten waren die Aktivitäten während des Europäischen Jahres eine sehr positive Erfahrung. Es gab Hinweise auf ein sektorübergreifendes Engagement zwischen Bildung, Kultur und Wirtschaft.

Die Medienpräsenz war insgesamt schwach und erfolgte meist in der (Online-)Presse, da die fehlenden Mittel eine dynamische Medienbeziehung und die Bereitstellung von adäquatem Fernseh- und Radiomaterial nicht zuließen. Die Erklärungen für die Muster in den Ergebnissen der Medienüberwachung sind nicht eindeutig. Im Fall von Spanien könnte eine Reihe von hochrangigen Veranstaltungen für die relativ hohe Sichtbarkeit gesorgt haben. Es ist ebenfalls schwer, den Umfang der Deckung in Bezug auf das Europäische Jahr oder einzelne Aktivitäten zu beurteilen, beispielsweise indem die Teilnehmer gefragt werden, ob sie vom Europäischen Jahr wussten, ein methodologisches Problem, das die meisten Europäischen Jahre gemeinsam haben.

Auswirkungen und Fortführung

Das Europäische Jahr der Kreativität und Innovation stellte sich als wesentlich für die Herausforderungen, denen Europa gegenübersteht, dar und hatte einen starken Bezug zu anderen politischen Zielen Europas. Als solches bot es der Europäischen Kommission eine signifikante Gelegenheit, auf koordinierte Weise zu agieren, um die Bedeutung der Kreativität als Quelle für Innovation zu unterstreichen und das Bewusstsein der verschiedenen Zielgruppen in der europäischen Bevölkerung zu schärfen. Dennoch gibt es Hinweise dafür, dass die Europäische Kommission diese Chance nicht vollständig nutzen konnte, was den Umfang des Europäischen Jahres insbesondere auf nationaler Ebene beschränkte und somit auch die Wahrscheinlichkeit eines „bahnbrechenden“ Effekts. Auf EU-Ebene sollte die sektorübergreifende Zusammenarbeit zwischen der GD EAC und der GD ENTR während des Europäischen Jahres eine zukünftige Plattform für eine stärkere politische Entwicklung im Rahmen der Verbindung von Kreativität und Innovation bieten.

In Bezug auf die Schaffung zusätzlicher Werte (beispielsweise die Frage, welchen Unterschied das Europäische Jahr gemacht hat) kann angesichts der fehlenden eindeutigen Grenzen zwischen den Aktivitäten im Rahmen des Europäischen Jahres und den Aktivitäten, die ohnehin stattgefunden hätten keine exakte Beurteilung abgegeben werden, aber es ist eindeutig, dass die Ergebnisse unbeständig waren. Einige nationale Koordinatoren und Interessenvertreter können positive Effekte vorzeigen und einige Interessengruppen oder Interessengemeinschaften, insbesondere der Bildungsbereich, verzeichneten signifikante Ergebnisse. Das Europäische Jahr war dort eindeutig populärer, wo bereits ein Interesse an der Kreativität bestand, und in diesem Sinne unterstützte das Europäische Jahr die Aktivitäten der Mitgliedstaaten, insbesondere im Bereich der Bildung sowie der Fort- und Weiterbildung.

xxiii

Empfehlungen

Europäische Kommission:

• Für zukünftige Europäische Jahre erfordert die Signalisierung und Erreichung einer stärkeren strategischen Absicht durch eine klare politische Vision ein Mindestmaß an materieller Unterstützung.

• Überlegungen bezüglich der Entwicklung und Implementierung eines verbesserten, Kommissions-weiten Systems für die Koordination und den Planungszyklus für Europäische Jahre, insbesondere um: die rechtzeitige Allokation der Themen und Verantwortlichkeiten zu erleichtern und sicherzustellen, dass die rechtliche Grundlage wenigstens ein Jahr im Voraus vorhanden ist, um eine effektive Vorbereitung insbesondere auf nationaler Ebene zu ermöglichen.

• Wege finden, auf denen die gelernten Lektionen vom Europäischen Jahr aus weitergetragen werden können, einschließlich beispielsweise der Entwicklung einer „Toolbox“ aus Standardmaßnahmen oder -komponenten und einer zentralisierten „Wissensdatenbank“, in der Material und andere Ressourcen gespeichert und allen GDs zur Verfügung gestellt werden können.

• Während das Europäische Jahr der Kreativität und Innovation gezeigt hat, dass Mittel der EU nicht unbedingt erforderlich sind, stellt es hinsichtlich der Nachweise, dass insbesondere auf nationaler Ebene mehr Ideen eingebracht wurden als unterstützt werden konnten, aufgrund der fehlenden finanziellen Unterstützung ebenfalls so etwas wie eine verpasste Chance dar.

• Deshalb sollten für zukünftige Europäische Jahre auf nationaler Ebene adäquate Mittel mit einem Mindestbeitrag der EU für die teilnehmenden Länder, der von den nationalen Regierungen in gleicher Höhe angefüllt werden sollte, zur Verfügung gestellt werden, um eine ausreichende und einheitliche Koordination zu ermöglichen.

• Die übergreifende Botschaft des Jahres - die Verbindung von Kreativität und Innovation – richtete sich an eine Reihe von politischen Entscheidungsträgern und Fachleuten, insbesondere im Bildungsbereich. Deshalb sollte die Europäische Kommission die Botschaften der Themenjahre auch weiterhin auf die Tagesordnung setzen und in diesem bestimmten Fall sollten weitere Anstrengungen unternommen werden, um sich die Schlüsselbotschaft dieses Europäischen Jahres zunutze zu machen und sich mit den Interessengruppen zu verbünden. Dies könnte durch Aktivitäten rund um das Manifest der Europäischen Botschafter für Kreativität und Innovation erreicht werden, indem politische Schlüsselbotschaften zur Veröffentlichung herausgefiltert oder eine Arbeitsgruppe der Mitgliedstaaten eingerichtet wird, um die Aspekte des Europäischen Jahres voranzutreiben (beispielsweise zur Vereinfachung des gegenseitigen Austauschs über Bildungsreformen).

Im Lichte der Evaluierung könnten die Mitgliedstaaten und Interessengruppen die folgenden Punkte während ihrer Teilnahme an einem europäischen Themenjahr berücksichtigen, um ihre Ziele zu erreichen:

• In Bezug auf die politische Entwicklung sollte sich die Aufmerksamkeit auf die Schwerpunktthemen des Europäischen Jahres konzentrieren, um klare Botschaften zu formulieren. In diesem Fall wäre

xxiv

es beispielsweise die Konzentration auf die Rolle der Kreativität in der Bildung, insbesondere in Bezug auf die persönliche Entwicklung der Jüngeren.

• Nationale, regionale und kommunale Themenwochen oder -tage rund um die Themen Kreativität und Innovation, beispielsweise in Schulen, sind effiziente Mittel, um die politischen Schlüsselbotschaften zu vermitteln.

• Im Allgemeinen erhöht die Förderung von Interaktionen zwischen Interessengruppen das Potenzial für Synergien. Im Fall des Europäischen Jahres der Kreativität und Innovation könnten beispielsweise der Bildungs-, Kultur- und Wirtschaftssektor infolge der Annahme einer breiten und gesamtheitlichen Definition von „Innovation“ zusammenarbeiten und deren Bedeutung bei einer Vielzahl von Interessengruppen bewusst machen.

• Die Ermutigung nationaler politischer Entscheidungsträger zur Zusammenarbeit auf EU-Ebene könnte in der Anerkennung der Schlüsselrolle der Kreativität in der Bildung und ihrer Bedeutung für die Kernkompetenzen einer innovativen Gesellschaft resultieren.

• Die Zusammenarbeit mit der Europäischen Kommission bietet eine Chance, um von anderen Mitgliedstaaten zu lernen. Hierdurch könnten Mechanismen zur Fortführung der Diskussionen über die politische und praktische Umsetzung der Kreativitäts- und Innovationsagenda etabliert und eine Reihe von nationalen Sichtweisen zur Unterrichtung der politischen Entwicklung innerhalb der EU beigetragen werden.

1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose and scope of this report

2009 was designated as the European Year of Creativity and Innovation ('EYCI' or 'the Year'). This report presents the results of an evaluation of the Year carried out by ECOTEC Research and Consulting Limited on behalf of DG Education and Culture of the European Commission (via Specific Contract 2009-2947/001-001 under the Framework Contract on Evaluation, Impact Assessment and Related Services - EAC/03/06). The Terms of Reference (ToR) for the study are presented at Annex 1.

This report was prepared at the end of an eight-month programme of research, which began in October 2009. It describes the findings of the evaluation, presents a set of conclusions based on the criteria of relevance, coherence, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of the Year, together with recommendations concerning the development of future policy in this area. The technical details of the evaluation are collated in a series of Technical Annexes to this report.

1.2 The European Year of Creativity and Innovation

'European Years' have been organised by the European Commission since the early 1990s. Designed to raise awareness of a particular issue amongst a wide range of stakeholders, including policy-makers, civil society and the general public, themes include Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion (2010), Intercultural Dialogue (2008) and Equal Opportunities for All (2007).

The overall objective of the European Year of Creativity and Innovation (EYCI) 2009 was to support the efforts of EU Member States to promote creativity, through lifelong learning, as a driver for innovation and as a key factor for the development of personal, occupational, entrepreneurial and social competences. The Year was to be viewed very much within the prevailing context of broader EU policy, where improving the EU's innovation 'performance' or 'culture' is increasingly seen as critical to economic and social progress, maintaining high levels of employment and sustainable development. In addition, the global economic downturn from the end of 2008 further emphasised the importance of innovation to economic growth. Within this context the specific message promoted by the Year was to highlight the extent to which creativity is a prerequisite to innovation, in particular emphasising the strong link with lifelong learning and key competences19 needed by European citizens to respond to the challenges of globalisation and the emergence of the knowledge economy. The Year sought to provide an opportunity to bring together the various policies programmes and activities relevant to the theme of creativity and innovation, to prompt policy debate and achieve greater synergy in particular between the dimensions of education, culture and business.

Some 32 National Coordinators (NCs) in 31 countries (EU Member States20 with the addition of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Turkey), were responsible for coordinating activities at national, regional and

19 In particular relating to creativity, adaptability, problem-solving and entrepreneurship. 20 Belgium had two NCs; one each for the French-speaking Community and for Flanders.

2

local level, in partnership with the relevant actors (for example national ministries, regional government, local administrations, public agencies, the private sector and other stakeholders); while at EU level DG EAC and other DGs were responsible for organising a series of EU-level activities (including for example a series of 'Brussels Debates', conferences, and information and communications activities). No specific EU funding was available either at EU or national level, and any co-financing had to be provided through existing annual and multi-annual Community programmes; or from national resources (public and private).

1.3 Structure of this report

The following sections are presented in this report:

• Description of the Year; at EU and national level.

• How the Year was evaluated (including the evaluation questions, research methods used and intervention logic and objectives against which the Year was assessed).

• Results of the evaluation by key criteria of relevance and coherence; implementation: impact and sustainability.

• Overall conclusions and recommendations.

• Technical Annexes containing background and supporting information.

3

2.0 Description of the Year

2.1 Introduction

This section presents a description of the activities that were implemented during the Year; firstly reviewing actions at EU level, then those at national level and below.

2.2 Activity at EU level

2.2.1 Opening and closing

The press launch of the Year took place in Brussels on 5 December 2008 and featured, apart from a press conference attended by some of the Ambassadors of the Year, a concert of the Vienna Vegetable Orchestra. The EYCI was launched officially at the opening event on 7-8 January in Prague, hosted by the Czech Government in its capacity as holder of the EU Presidency. Then opening event was attended by Commission President Barroso and by the Czech Prime Minister. The final or closing event was held in Stockholm on 16-17 December 2009 under the auspices of the Swedish Presidency.

2.2.2 Events

A number of events were organised by the European Commission during the Year. These included a number of "flagship" conferences as follows:

• "Creativity and innovation: Best Practice from EU programmes" (Brussels, 4 March 2009)

• "Can Creativity be measured?", (Brussels, May 28-29 2009)

• "Creativity, Innovation, People - The Regional Dimension of Creativity and Innovation", (Brussels, 8-9 July 2009).

• "European Cultural Forum" (Brussels, 29-30 September)21.

• European Symposium “Creativity and Innovation in and through VET”, (Brussels, 27 October 2009).

• "Beyond the Crisis: Design for a sustainable future" (Brussels, 23-24 November 2009).

In addition, events addressing a regional theme included "Open Days of the European Week of Regions and Cities", 5-8 October 2009, co-organised by the Directorate-General for Regional Policy and the Committee of the Regions22 and the Forum on "Europe's Creative regions and cities" in April, organised

21 Note: it is not clear if this was a "flagship" event, although it was planned to be so at the beginning of the Year. The "Beyond the Crisis" event was referred to as the Third Flagship event of the EYCI. 22 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/conferences/od2008/index.cfm

4

by the latter body. This was reported to have attracted some 300 participants including 100 young creative talents (artists, architects, designers, film makers, internet experts) who were invited to Brussels to discuss their problems, aspirations, and ideas for improvement.

Cultural events were also organised by DG EAC to disseminate the key messages of the Year; for example the "Couleur Café Festival" in June 2009, attended by Commissioner Figel, featured an interactive exhibition (Orbis Pictus) which presented an opportunity for the several thousand visitors to touch and play with musical and optical instruments inspired by the Czech renaissance humanist and scholar, Comenius. Other examples of high profile events were the Forum on a Creative Europe, held in Prague in spring and the Culture Forum in Brussels in autumn 2009.

Examples of events and activities at EU level organised by third parties and DG EAC and co-financed by the Commission included:

• The First "Innovation Summit", organised by Knowledge4Innovation23 and the Lisbon Forum, was attended by the presidents of the European Parliament Jerzy Buzek and the Commission. The event gathered together policy makers from the EU institutions, Member States, regional organizations and networks, and stakeholders from the academic and private sectors. This event included a session on Europe's Future Nobel Prize Winners, with the intervention of young people from European schools. The session addressed entrepreneurship education, stimulating young people to choose MST careers, and fostering the development of innovation skills.

• The European Journalism Centre at Maastricht, in cooperation with Stanford University, organised a seminar entitled "Interfacing innovation" which was attended by 30 European journalists from 14 European countries, including a number of EYCI Ambassadors and members of the European Technology Institute (EIT) Governing Board. The seminar addressed the role of journalism in raising awareness and understanding of innovation amongst the general public.

• The "European Innovation and Creativity Camp" for young people, held in Brussels 24-26 November 2009 and organized by Junior Achievement Young Enterprise Europe (JA-YE Europe), in cooperation with DG EAC.

The EU-level communication campaign used partnerships with actors from civil society, such as the European Festival Association, European Schoolnet and the British Council, to act as multipliers so that the EYCI message would reach a wider audience without any additional cost to the Commission. The branding and labelling approach to the Year was intended to stimulate bottom-up interest and engage civil society.

Case studies were prepared for two categories of EU-level events:

23 http://www.knowledge4innovation.eu/k4i/default.aspx

5

• Conferences "Beyond the crisis: design for a sustainable future", Brussels 23-24 November 2009 (billed as one of the major events of the Year) and/or "Creativity, Innovation, People - The Regional Dimension of Creativity and Innovation", Brussels, 8-9 July 2009.

• An EU-level activity or other output organised by a third party: the example selected was the "European Innovation and Creativity Camp" for young people, held in Brussels 24-26 November 2009 and organized by Junior Achievement Young Enterprise Europe (JA-YE Europe), in cooperation with DG EAC.

These are described briefly in the boxes below and the full reports are provided at Annex 5.

EYCI 2009 Flagship Conferences

Two flagship conferences were adopted as the key means of taking action at the EU level in the EYCI. They were organised along a thematic focus to stress the importance of creativity and innovation for Europe, in particular in a context of the economic crisis24. They were organised at relatively short notice by the EYCI team with a budget of approximately €200,000 each and the provision of external agency support. Approximately 300 delegates attended each flagship conference. The first was entitled: “Creativity, Innovation, People: The Regional Dimension of Creativity and Innovation” and was held at the MCE Management Centre Europe in Brussels on 8-9 July 2009. This conference adopted a regional/local approach, exploring creativity and innovation from a citizen's perspective and considered creativity and innovation in our lives and how it could address Europe's key societal challenges. The second conference was entitled: “Beyond the crisis: design for a sustainable future” and was held in Brussels on 23-24 November 2009. It was recognised as the first ever conference on design organised by the EC and it covered design thinking as a multi-dimensional and multi-disciplinary process for securing better living environments, improved education, training and research and for innovative organisations, processes and services. The conference covered agendas beyond the industrial and saw design as the interface between culture and the economy, and products and services and their users.

Both conferences were rather traditional in their format, although it was acknowledged that the theme around design was cutting edge, being the first such topic covered by the EC and therefore a 'watershed moment'. The EYCI was regarded as an important catalyst to make this happen. Case study interviewees were generally content that the flagship conferences had spread awareness of the creativity and innovation, influenced debate and demonstrated that the EC had an interest. The conferences identified some grand social and technological challenges at the EU level, including climate change, health, industry and skills. However, a legacy of the design conference was the increased awareness and understanding that 'design thinking' can be applied to these for technological and social innovation. The design conference has became part of the evolution of design at the EU level, which itself may culminate in the production of design as part of the European Innovation Plan 2010, this forthcoming autumn.

24 This case study covers officially the second flagship conference and the third flagship conference, respectively.

6

European Innovation and Creativity Camp

The European Innovation and Creativity Camp was organized by Junior Achievement Young Enterprise Europe (JA-YE Europe), in cooperation with DG EAC and was held in Brussels on 24-26 November 2009. JA-YE Europe provides entrepreneurship education programmes, for students across the EU, using funding from businesses, institutions and individuals and aims to bring public and private sectors together to give young people the opportunity to take part in education programmes that teach them about enterprise, entrepreneurship, business and economics in a practical way. While the organisation has in the past organised a number of similar camps at a national level, the purpose of the special European Innovation and Creativity Camp was to help young people develop the traits and skills they will need to be competitive employees or entrepreneurs in the future. The event was attended by 95 students from 25 countries. The winning team, which were judged to have the most creative and innovative idea, were given the opportunity to present their concept to a group of business leaders, the Commissioner for Education, Training, Culture and Youth, Commission staff and the media at the end of the event.

2.2.3 Ambassadors

A detailed case study on the Ambassadors is annexed 25 and a brief description of this measure is provided in the box below:

European Ambassadors for Creativity and Innovation: Manifesto

Some 27 personalities from a range of sectors and businesses were appointed Ambassadors for the European Year of Creativity and Innovation 2009. Many were able to take part in a range of national and EU level activities throughout the Year; speaking at events, panel discussions, giving press interviews and appearing in magazine and newspaper articles for example. Many were already well-known personalities, and had been involved for many years in promoting their chosen field, or innovation more widely, while others’ experiences were more recent. One feature they had in common was a passion to spread the message that innovation matters and that being creative is an intrinsic part of innovation. This common interest crossed traditional boundaries (e.g. science, business, architecture, design and so on). One of the key activities was the preparation and launch of a “Manifesto on Creativity and Innovation”26, aimed at inspiring action by Europeans to be at the forefront of investing in knowledge finding new ways of thinking and acting, building on historical and cultural heritage. For many of the Ambassadors this document was a tangible and sustainable result of their efforts during the Year; albeit one which they themselves cannot take forward alone after 2009.

The Ambassadors interviewed were committed and enthusiastic about the theme of the Year. They engaged in some additional activities within their respective fields, including participation at conference and seminars to raise the EYCI's profile and were positive about the experience of sharing a common

25 See also Case Study No. 1, Section 4.3.9 and in full at Annex 5. 26 Available at http://www.create2009.europa.eu/ambassadors.html in 22 of the 23 official EU languages.

7

platform amongst the wide array of talented experts and practitioners. There was a high degree of satisfaction at the execution of their ambassadorial role which culminated in the design and production of the Ambassadors "manifesto" in an attempt to safeguard interest and impact in the future in this important field.

An important dimension and significant feature of the Year was noted, namely the broadening of opportunities afforded by the inclusion of creativity in the Year and through the formalisation the link between creativity, innovation and cross multiple domains; sciences, culture and business. The Ambassadors interviewed expressed a strong belief that the Year would help encourage new thinking and behavioural change in terms of widening understanding of the role of creativity and innovation and sparking different solutions to business and societal challenges. Ultimately, it was noted that improvements to the education system; the very root of 'people's learning processes' was necessary. Influence on education was regarded as an important aspect for sustainable change beyond the end of the Year.

The Ambassadors component of the EYCI appears to have worked well, owing to several factors: there were fewer than usual for a typical European Year, but a core group was more engaged and active compared with the EYID 2008 for example; there were many opportunities to contribute to existing activities (events in particular), but there was significant variability in terms synergy with NCs (for example there appears to have been very little exploitation of potential synergies in Ireland, compared with relatively strong synergies in Germany, Hungary and Malta).

2.2.4 Brussels Debates

A series of seven 'Brussels Debates' on what were considered to be major themes on creativity and innovation as set out in the table below:

Table 2.1 Brussels Debates

Theme Date

1 How to boost Europe’s knowledge economy 15 February

2 Educating students to be more creative and innovative 10 March

3 Innovation in the public sector 13 May

4 Using innovation and creativity to drive sustainable development 10 June

5 Using innovation to rebuild Europe as a low-carbon economy 22 September

6 Using cultural diversity to boost creativity 15 October

7 The role of Europe’s cultural and creative industries 19 November

8

These were organised by two separate contractors: one to arrange the logistical aspects, the other the content (theme, format, speakers etc.). The intention was to bring together “...high-level experts from businesses, local authorities, the creative industries and the European institutions, as well as Ambassadors for the European Year of Creativity and Innovation”. Speakers were chosen to “...represent a cross-section of countries and people of different ethnic origins, many of whom demonstrated from their own experience how creativity and innovation can build new ideas, products and processes”27.

Drawing on the accounts of each of the Debates prepared by the external contractor, we may deduce the following:

The debates brought together high level experts from a range of sectors, including business leaders, including for example Douglas Gregory, Vice President for Government Programs, EMEA, IBM; academics from a number of universities, including Barcelona ESADE Business School, Aalborg University and the University of Lisbon; representatives from the creative industries sector such as Ruta Pruseviciene, Director of the Vilnus Festival and Phil Wood author of Intercultural City. There were also participants from the EU institutions including Jean-Noël Durvy, Director of Innovation Policy at DG, Enterprise and Industry, Maroš Šefčovič Commissioner for Education Training, Culture and Youth, Günter Verheugen Vice President of the Commission in charge of Enterprise and Industry and Reino Paasilinna MEP from the Research and Industry Committee.

The Ambassadors for the year were also involved in many of the debates. Hans Martens the Chief Executive of the EPC chaired the seven debates and commented that there were two themes that ran through many of them; the first was that even though European citizens were still recovering from the shock of the European crisis, citizens and business should seize the opportunity this provided to 'clear the field' of outmoded, stale ideas and innovate. This was considered in detail during the EU Innovation Policy debate where it was suggested the EU should offer practical support to small businesses as they are often better at fostering innovation than larger firms. The second theme was that one should use innovation and creativity to build a more sustainable, lower carbon economy which is currently a major European policy priority. The Greener, Better, Cheaper debate discussed the vast amounts of money which the US Government had provided for 'green research'. It was remarked for example that even though the EU is currently the world leaders in researching green technology they lag behind the US in bringing products to market. One speaker mentioned that in the future green technology will produce more wealth than the telecom industry. The debates attracted the participation of various stakeholders including civil society representatives, European and national policy makers and students, and the question and answer sessions were reported to have been animated. All the material from the debates (including background papers, video reports and written summaries) was published on the website after the event.

2.2.5 Photography competition

An EU-wide photography competition on the theme “Imagine a New World” was launched in June 2009 with a dedicated website at http://www.imagine2009.eu/ Some 5,000 entries were received from some 1,500 photographers28 and a jury comprising seven well-known professional photographers from the

27 Extracted from the report by the external contractor to DG EAC, dated March 2010. 28 EU Press Release IP/09/1693, 10.11.2009

9

fields of photography and the arts, chaired by Chris Wainwright, Professor of Photography and President of the European League of Institutes of the Arts (ELIA), selected the following winners:

• First prize: Dániel Halász from Hungary, for his portfolio 'Imaginary Diary'.

• Second prize: James Naylor from the United Kingdom for his portfolio 'Class of 2019'.

• Third prize: Vincent Bitaud from France for his portfolio 'Car(e)less City'.

• Public’s Favourite Award29: 'Heroes' by Balázs Szabó from Hungary. It was chosen during the month of October by the European public through an online voting process in the website "Imagine a new world"among 30 photos preselected by the jury.

Prizes were presented by Commissioner Šefčovič at an event in Brussels on 10 November 2009. The winners received photographic equipment to a total value of €10,000 and an invitation to the closing event of the Year in Stockholm. The winning images were used to produce a calendar, of which 2,000 copies were printed in three languages (English, French and German). The portfolio of winning photographs, together with an additional 29 entries, were presented in an exhibition in the "Espace Photographique Contretype" in Brussels, which ran from 11 to 22 November; from 1 to 31 December the same exhibition was on display in the Commission's Madou building and it is now in the process of travelling around Europe.

In terms of the numbers of entries and quality of the pictures, the photo competition certainly appears to have been successful (following on from a similar initiative as part of the European Year in 2008). However, it was not always certain before the Year commenced that holding such a competition was going to be possible (again, owing to the lack of a pre-determined, allocated budget for the Year). In addition, we understand that there was some concern that the very wide appeal that the title afforded risked failing to establish a common thread linking all the images. We understand there was also a debate about the number of photographs to be submitted in order to ensure quality (since the competition was open to all, including students). Accordingly, the jury set a limit of four photographs per person. The competition does seem to have afforded a degree of visibility to the Year, (attracting coverage in the Belgian press for example, supporting the idea of a permanent 'European Prize for Photography')30, plus the touring exhibition may keep the creativity and innovation brand going for a few more months, and in that sense at least may be considered a valuable contribution to the Year overall.

2.2.6 Studies and surveys

A number of studies were produced during the Year, notably:

• Eurydice comparative analysis on Arts and Cultural Education at School, a first pan-European approach to this subject.

• Proceedings of the Brussels Conference: "Can creativity be measured?" (28-29 May 2009) 31; which brought together leading international experts to discuss cutting edge research on this subject.

29 Chosen during October 2009, through an online voting process, from 30 images pre-selected by the jury. 30 Jean-Marc Bodson in Le Libre Belgique, 18 November 2009. 31 European commission and Joint Research Centre (JRC), Edited by Villalba, E., Report EUR 24033 EN

10

• IPTS32 study/review of Innovation and Creativity in Education and Training in the EU Member States: "Fostering Creative Learning and Supporting Innovative Teaching"33.

• DG EAC/EUN34/IPTS Survey of teachers on the issue on creativity in schools (which was based on about 13,000 responses from 32 countries)35.

• Study on the impact of culture on creativity, prepared for DG EAC by KEA European Affairs (June 2009).

2.2.7 Other

A special edition of the DG EAC Magazine was produced36 which was introduced by a foreword by President of the Commission Barroso (linking the Year to the challenges of globalisation and the EU's growth and jobs strategy), and included sections on topics such as: informal learning; new skills; good practice projects; EYCI Ambassadors; design as a tool for innovation; regional aspects; innovation in farming; creativity and innovation in education; the previous European Year (of Intercultural Dialogue), and the aspirations and concerns of young people. This publication, which was widely disseminated at EYCI events, outlined the essential message of the EYCI, provided an illustration of the breadth of areas of interest that it encompassed and as such served as a useful introduction to the Year. Another two magazines were published: "Art & Science - Creative Fusion" by DG RTD; and "Panorama Inforegio" No. 29 "Creativity and Innovation – Driving Competitiveness in the Regions", by DG REGIO.

As well as carrying a new section on its website devoted to innovation and creativity, EurActiv also contributed to the media component in a number of other ways: publishing editorial content (by agreement with DG EAC) setting out several priorities of the Year; running interviews with seven EYCI Ambassadors addressing a range of subjects and tracking the progress of the Manifesto. EurActiv journalists attended several 'Brussels Debates' and followed these up with an article and provide DG EAC with content for their own articles.

2.2.8 Information and communication

2.2.8.1 Resources Unlike previous and current European Years, the Commission was unable to call upon a dedicated pot of funding to provide information and communication services for the EYCI. We understand that the funding applied in this respect came exclusively from the budget of DG EAC's communication unit, with no financial or other support from other DGs, with the exception of REGIO. Most of the work was delivered via a contract with a media contractor, which encompassed a range of elements including building and running the central website, part of the branding, organising the media launch, logistical aspects of the 'Brussels Debates', participating in the BXL Bravo Festival, organising the photo competition, production

32 Institute of Prospective Technology Studies, one of the European Commission's seven scientifi8c research institutes (http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/) 33 http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=2940 34 European SchoolNet (www.eun.org) 35 http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=2940 36 European Commission Education and Culture DG "The Magazine", No. 31, 2009

11

of some publications and promotional materials, and other pan-European activities. Other external organisations were sub-contracted to provide a range of services in support of the Year, including providing content for the 'Brussels Debates'; and multimedia content for press releases. The logo of the Year was created in-house by a Commission designer. Owing to the lack of a dedicated budget, it was sometimes difficult to ensure in advance that funding was available and plan resources (including internal and external staff) and accordingly some individual tasks had to be contracted separately to different providers. In fact, whereas this situation brought a degree of uncertainty to the Year, an appropriate range of information and communication activities and products were implemented.

2.2.8.2 EYCI website The EYCI website at http://create2009europa.eu was the primary platform for the EYCI communication campaign, and was developed with a limited budget. Static content was provided in English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Polish, Czech and Swedish and the website also offered a section hosting dynamic content (news and multimedia content). The design, construction and maintenance of the website were contracted to a media contractor, which holds a framework contract with DG EAC and which was responsible for the delivering the media contract for the previous European Year (2008). The contractor maintained the website and hosted it on its own server. The updating of content was done by DG EAC. Technical and capacity problems developed after launch (apparently affecting the uploading of content provided by NCs) and it took several weeks before these were resolved. Fortunately, these problems were solved during the early part of the Year. Data provided by the external media contractor responsible for building the EYCI website is presented in Table 4.2 and Figure 4.2 below.

Table 2.2 Summary of EYCI website statistics

Page Views by Month Visits by Month Unique Visitors

January 57,099 17,179 10,999

February 103,729 35,042 21,064

March 169,898 61,538 38,483

April 145,577 51,379 30,704

May 182,854 46,476 29,103

June 160,697 44,422 27,377

July 136,850 40,563 24,153

August 103,085 33,289 20,638

September 102,829 34,282 23,560

October 111,873 44,070 28,083

November 137,747 48,823 31,093

December 94,005 34,661 20,339

January 2010 73,588 27,336 16,661

TOTAL 1,579,831 519,060 322,257

12

Figure 2.1 Number of visits to the EYCI website, January 2009 to January 2010

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan

Num

ber o

f Vis

its

The data suggests that website visits gained momentum rapidly in the first part of the Year, taking into account that the site was launched in December 2008. The media launch in Brussels in December and the launch conference in Prague at the beginning of January also appear to have attracted visitors to the website. Unsurprisingly, website visits became less intense during the summer, especially in August. However, they recovered towards the end of the Year (in September, October and November), when many activities were held.

In total, 297 news, 66 videos and 24 photo galleries were published by the DG EAC team. During the course of the Year some 3,500 pages were added to the site. Most of the video material was created specifically for the Year by a media contractor (specifically a TV company). These videos were also sold to several TV stations in Europe. In particular, the contribution of this contractor in terms of working with a number of EYCI Ambassadors helped to increase the visibility of the Year. The quality of the website's content was considered satisfactory by stakeholders, as was the coverage in terms of content provided by civil society organisations, giving visibility to initiatives linked to the Year and stimulating the take up of the logo.

In addition to the EYCI central website, the EurActiv online media portal adapted and renamed one of its 25 thematic sections “innovation & creativity” (http://www.euractiv.com/en/innovation) and also supported the media component in a number of other ways (see Section 4.3.8, below). The “links dossier” on the Euractiv website provided (and continues to provide) a substantial source of relevant policy material and it was reported that this resource attracts a significant volume of traffic. Another dossier was also created for 'creative clusters', to complement a Brussels debate on that topic on 19 November 2009, and this was also reported to have been popular with users of the Euractiv portal.

Data concerning the EU and national level activities posted on the online EYCI calendar show some 850 distinct activities (see above); a significant number, given that no EU funding was available. No negative feedback was gathered concerning the website, apart from the points already noted above.

As part of this evaluation, the website was assessed technically against four key areas:

13

• Usability - how usable is the site for the average visitor. What tools and presentation techniques are provided to enhance user experience?

• Accessibility - is the website accessible for visitors with a disability?

• Design - does the design reflect that of an EU site concentrating on diversity?

• How searchable is the site? Are the search tools appropriate for locating key data?

In terms of usability and design, navigation is clear and easily identifiable, highlighting to the user their location within the site. This is also aided with a location breadcrumb trail which provides the added benefit to the user of being able to see their position within the site hierarchy. The website copy is split into reasonably sized sections, ensuring the user can quickly locate the information without having to trawl large amounts of content and links are easily identifiable as underlined. The website is essentially structured into three columns with a header and footer, which works well on some of the cleaner, inner pages. The headings within each section are coloured differently, which works well with the branding.

In terms of accessibility, there are a few accessibility problems relating to images as some do not have an alt description within the tag, and therefore will not be visible to some users. However, on the whole, it is considered unlikely that these factors would have had an adverse influence on the volume of traffic on the website.

2.2.8.3 Press releases From March 2008 to December 2009, a series of 56 press releases concerning the Year were published by the European Commission. Three were issued before the Year started (in March 2008 when the Commission proposed that 2009 be designated the EYCI, in September 2008 when it was announced that 2009 was to be the EYCI, and for the media launch of the Year on 5 December 2008). During the Year itself the number of press releases was as follows:

Table 2.3 EYCI press releases Month (2009) No. January 4 February 9 March 5 April 6 May 0 June 0 July 4 August 8 September 4 October 3 November 4 December 6

Press releases addressed a wide range of themes of the Year and included two on the "Manifesto for Creativity and Innovation"; two highlighting the EYCI photography competition; some linked to flagship conferences (for the example the "European Week of Regions and Cities"); those linked to 'Brussels Debates' and two reporting contributions by President Barroso. Coverage included themes related to

14

education, entrepreneurship, cultural and creative industries, culture, innovation, young people, digital media, technologies, employment, the public sector, the environment, cities and regions, and universities and businesses.

2.3 Activity at national, regional and local levels

The majority of NCs reported a range of outputs and results. However, as mentioned in the Section 1.4.2, above, it is not possible to capture all of the activities and outputs produced during the Year, no consistent or reliable database is available and there is also an issue of attribution (which activities were part of the Year and which were not). However, in a general sense we can use the views of NCs and stakeholders, who on the whole expressed the opinion that, given the background circumstances, the volume and scope of activity that resulted was satisfactory. Some illustrative examples are given below:

The Austrian NC reported that the main activities were festivals and events, which was considered a useful way of targeting the education sector and helping update skills it. At the end of October a large conference was held which was attended by the Education Minister. This raised the profile of the Year significantly and is believed to have helped the sustainability of the theme and related issues.

Belgium (FR) – in addition to a call for projects, the NC set up a website dedicated to the Year (http://creativite2009.cfwb.be) to serve as a hub for 'creative' events. Many events can be found on the Belgian website and not on the EU one because of the complexity of the compulsory templates required by the Commission web service. However this does not deliver added value at the European level.

In Belgium (NL) three events were organised, including an international conference on cultural education, a Flemish one on teaching and pedagogy (which EYCI Ambassador Ken Robinson attended). The content of the international conference included childhood creativity and there was also a conference for 12-year olds.

In Denmark the three main national activities included a video clip on TV showing a man who is too hot and how he solves the problem; a rubber band competition for 11-12 year olds asking them to find creative uses and to film the results; and the five buses sent to 10 medium-sized cities containing three activities around asking citizens for local inputs to local problems37.

In Estonia it was reported that the Year was considered successful. A major component was the publicity campaign. The “Estonian Year of Innovation” was organised and there were some 250 events with approximately 53,000 participants. Another campaign, Creative Estonia 2009 aimed to promote the creative industries sector (a book of best practices was an output of this campaign). On 1 May about 11,000 people took part in a national brain-storming event, which also resulted in a series of follow-up working group. In the education field, the national curriculum was updated IN 2009 and it now includes more creativity and innovation elements than before. Parliament also staged a debate about innovation (signifying the importance of the topic).

37 See also Case Study No. 8 at Annex 5.

15

In Finland a web questionnaire was implemented which received 500 responses and generated 1,500 "ideas". A debate was organised during the same week as the annual jazz event "Pori Jazz", and there was an event on in December 2009 on childcare (also relating to the European Year 2010), and the "Magic Lamp" network of child culture centres (there are ten around the country) were involved in the Year. There were launch and closing events, meetings between Government departments and during adult learning week (an annual event) there was a focus on creativity and innovation.

In France a website with a calendar of events was developed and a call for projects attracted 108 applications, nine of which were shortlisted and three received a grant. Examples include activities focusing on deaf people and a racing car competition. The two French EYCI Ambassadors attended the national closing event, where prizes were awarded. There was some participation by firms and teachers and there are plans to hold a similar event next year.

In Germany the 16 Lander co-ordinated their own actions during the Year (a key feature and something that is not always easy to achieve). There were some 223 events and 68 projects reported as ongoing as of December 2009. The NC reported that there was activity in every region and a satisfactory balance across all the relevant themes of the Year (arts, science, innovation etc.). There were competitions for school children, touring buses and a "science train".

In Hungary the NC reported that more than 100 partners were involved, there were 25-30 events per month, a national web page, guides were sent to the media and by the end of November there were 300 media items. There were round table events (for academia, on economics and government; and creativity in schools). Other examples of activity included: in education, an LLL programme conference , three workshops on developing competences, a pedagogical event, a workshop for secondary school pupils, media events, "100 echos" (about researchers translating ideas into action, policy documents were published on key competences; and a range of local initiatives too.

In Iceland highlights included “Junior Achievement Week”. Research was published on arts education showing how its relevance cuts across different fields. The national curriculum was revamped and it will now have five foundation concepts, one of which is creativity. At regional level the Icelandic Presidency of the Nordic Council organised programmes on education, creativity and innovation. Ministers spoke on the topic and there was a final conference. A Declaration of Children's Rights based on Art 31 of the UN Convention was agreed and will be built into Nordic policy38.

In Italy the NC reported an “impressive national response”, and reported that the use of the EYCI logo worked particularly well in attracting interest and raising the profile of events (although it was also acknowledged that in all probability many of these were going to happen anyway). More than 240 (spontaneous) events were reported to have used the EYCI logo. Five of these were organised directly by the NC Committee (events) - for which the Ministry provided €50,000. These included one on the knowledge triangle, National Innovation Day, Festival of Creativity in Florence (an annual event). The NC reported a satisfactory geographical spread – between regions in the North, Central and South/Islands. In terms of content and typologies of activity these were reported to be: 37% festivals,

38 See also Case Study No. 5 at Annex 5. 39 See also Case Study No. 5 at Annex 5.

16

34% conferences, 18% competitions and 11% others (e.g. publications, websites). Not many requests for funding were received, but rather it was felt that stakeholders wanted validation and non-financial support - for activities that were already planned but where being associated with the Year added value.

In Lithuania there were some 20 events some of which included a number of activities. Examples were: Comenius week with workshops, conferences and exhibitions of projects which took place in 38 schools across the country; Klaipeda Science and Technology Park organised an event "Innovative business labaratory" devoted to young people involved in business creation together with scientists; a programme devoted to youth cooperation; and a policy discussion on understanding creativity, cooperation, and the links between culture, education and business. There were also events held jointly between the office of the Prime Minister and the national parliament, and awards for creative and innovative companies.

In Luxembourg the main activity was the "Week of Innovation" 7-19 May (spring fair), an annual event which in 2009 was themed to fit the EYCI. Some 70,000 people took part and there was also a series of mini-workshops. A workshop on designs was organised in primary schools. Each day during the Week was designated to highlight "design", "architecture", "business", "environment and research", "youth". A range of formats was employed during ther Week including performances, workshops, presentations etc. There were also permanent stands and exhibitions in the venue throughout the Week (there were three "spaces" - forum space, workshop space and exhibition space.

In Malta activity included the "College Creativity Initiative", where each college had to select two themes to work on and present the results to the public in December and during the closing event. The NC provided guidance, but colleges had freedom to produce their own ideas. This helped the colleges and students realise they could all be creative. The themes provided comprised simple words, such as "pride", "move" etc. (there were 20 to choose from). The NC also worked with local councils on the concept of simplification (how an idea put forward by a citizen can change the way a service is delivered). The de Bono World Centre for New Thinking was closely involved in this, and provided training.

In Norway39 the focus was on established activities and measures but with the added dimension of raising awareness of the added value of the linkages between fields and in particular the role of education. Two examples were - a national conference on the use of ICT in schools, and the Innovus conferences (one for young entrepreneurs the other for the education sector). Two documents were published: the Strategy for Creative Learning and a strategy/action plan for entrepreneurship education.

In Poland the NC reported some 280 projects and events (250 of those that applied to use the EYCI logo); there were opening and closing ceremonies and a final publication of best practices. It was reported that of the projects that used the logo, 144 (or 58%) were from the education sector, 46 (18%) concerned arts and culture, 31 (12%) addressed business and the economy, 26 (10%) social aspects and 25 (10%) science and technology. The most frequent project organisers were educational institutions (schools, HEIs and education authorities) but local administrations also organised a number of conferences and campaigns to promote creativity, innovation and enterprise in cities and regions.

17

In Spain a call for a competition to illustrate graphically the concept of innovation was sent to 7,000 schools (although only 60 participated) and universities - 850 entries were received. A number of regional, national and international events were organized during the Year including the opening event in Madrid attended by the President of the Spanish Government, "Agora Talentia" in Navarra -with ambassadors of the Year Richard Florida and Ken Robinson; City Festivals on May 9th; Europe Day; and the Fifth International Congress of Creativity and Innovation. The VIVA EUROPA European cultural event on 24 June 2009 reached an estimated audience of some 15,000 people in nine European cities (Imola and Ravenna in Italy, Sofia in Bulgaria, Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester and Swansea in the United Kingdom, Brussels in Belgium and Valencia in Spain) where free big open-air screens showed a live performance of Wagner’s opera "Die Walküre" from Valencia,sung by Plácido Domingo and conducted by Zubin Mehta. A similar event "VIVA EUROPA 2010" (Bizet's opera "Carmen") is planned for June 18 2010 as an event of the 2010 European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion.

In Slovenia the (private) Institute for Innovation and Technology gave awards to young people (secondary school and young researchers in universities), there was a conference on creativity and innovation in schools, and there was also an exhibition of innovative ideas in schools. The annual Innovation Forum was used to give prizes to young researchers.

In Turkey there were three national conferences (a launch event, an LLP event and a national conference on valorisation of the Youth in Action programme) and 300-400 people attended each of these conferences from a range of sectors. There were also a number of national networking meetings and thematic monitoring meetings for the LLP, which have focused on creativity and innovation.

UK - two events were held, an LLP event in Birmingham and an event in Belfast funded by the NI Government. The UK Government managed the web page of the BIS website.

Feedback from NCs and stakeholders indicates general approval for the design the EYCI logo and there is some evidence, albeit incomplete to suggest take-up was strong in some countries, notably:

18

Austria - the logos were “used widely”, and were easy to download and use.

Belgium (FR) - about 15 private businesses contacted the NC about the logo; their request was forwarded to DG EAC. The NC also sent the logo to all participants and contacts.

Czech Republic – the NC considered that use of the logo probably increased visibility; and added an international dimension to events/activities/projects. It was also reported that the logo was used as good quality label.

France – the NC was surprised by the interest that people had in the logo and reported that its use brought cachet to an event. The logo was probably used between 80 and 100 times.

Germany - there was significant demand for the logo, as evidence of official approval. The logo itself was felt to be well-designed. However the NC highlighted that it was received late, and no criteria were provided by the Commission concerning its usage.

Hungary – the logo was considered successful, although it was reported that some businesses didn't recognize its value and didn't show any interest in something with no funding attached.

Italy – it was reported that the logo worked out very well (more than 240events were reported to have used it), attracting stakeholders and generating a strong demand since it was considered to significantly raise the prestige of an event.

Lithuania - the partner organisations used the logo widely. However, it was not used by other organisations outside the partner network, indicating that other organisations did not see the benefit of using it where financial support is not provided.

Poland – it was considered by the NC that the logo increased the prestige and visibility of projects on the Web but also in other media.

Romania - the Logo was deemed attractive and was considered a catalyst for new or existing projects.

Turkey - 36 logos were used, and they were considered to have helped to give credibility and a higher profile the events concerned.

United Kingdom - not much was known, but the NC reported that event organisers appreciated being able to use the logo, and it was generally seen as a positive contribution.

Feedback from NCs suggests that in most countries media coverage was quite limited. The UK and Greek coordinators noted that coverage has been unsatisfactory despite their efforts. In Germany it appears that there was not a great deal of press interest and coverage was limited to journals and a small number of local reports. In Belgium (FR), the NC also reported little interest among the media for the Year, despite coordination with the Ministry's Press service and the press release by Belga Press Agency. Only one article appeared in the press (La Libre Belgique), linked to the launch of the Year. For

19

Finland it was reported that most people would have been unaware of the year, but that this was not unusual for a European Year. In general, media coverage in The Netherlands was reported by the NC to have been limited, although there was cooperation with one radio station which held a creativity and innovation week. In France the NC drew attention to the generally low level of dissemination, especially amongst the press.

A number of countries did have successes, as indicated by the following examples:

In the Czech Republic the launch event reportedly received attention from the media. A press conference with the Ambassadors was also organised. However, national activities during the course of the Year appeared to attract less attention from the media.

In Germany the national website was the main communication tool for the Year, where people could upload their own material themselves. Some 700,000 users were reported. Posters and a leaflet were distributed at all events; there were magazine as well as a newsletter and press releases. There was press coverage at all levels (national, regional etc.).

In Hungary the NC reported media coverage to be excellent, with more than 300 appearances and strong interest through the meda contacting the NC for information and interviews. The two Hungarian EYCI Ambassadors were active in terms of participating in the launch conference and making themselves available for interviews on creativity with local newspapers and media. A newsletter with more than 15,000 users was also created. The national website attracted some 47,034 users and 227,411 page views during the Year and a monthly newsletter was sent to 20,000 email subscribers.

In Italy five press releases and newsletters were issued. The NC was contacted for several interviews with radio and the press (much more than expected) and the website, which will be continued in 2010 as an inventory of best practice) attracted some 65,717 unique users with 181,442 page views. The NC considers the media coverage was "impressive".

In Lithuania the NC prepared promotional materials i.e. posters, cards, notepads, pens etc. with the logos of the EYCI, and these were widely disseminated. The NC reported that the message of the EYCI was disseminated widely amongst the wider public as well amongst specific target groups for which events were organised.

The NC in Malta had the impression that people had started talking about the creativity and innovation agenda quite widely. TV and radio coverage was significant and targeted at different audiences. Data provided by the NC shows the Year was featured 30 times to date on TV and radio (12 radio and 18 TV, mostly interviews but with three "mentions", covering various times of day and types of programmes - e.g. news and breakfast programme, about two-thirds were associated with the opening phase in Jan/Feb 2009, one with "Innovation Week" and one featured EYCI ambassador Edward de Bono).The education sector was reached the most effectively; but the general public also, via radio and TV and events like the "White Nights".

In Poland the NC reported that the national website was visited by an average of 200-500 users per day during the Year; 280 online applications to use the EYCI logo were received; 5,000 leaflets and 2,000 postcards were produced to promote the Year and two special publications were produced (3,000 copies of a best practice report from the LLL programme and 740 of a report on innovative management in

20

Polish education).

In Slovenia the NC was satisfied with media coverage and the message regarding the importance of creativity and innovation was reported by the NC to have been widely disseminated, based on observations of press coverage, the topics covered by conferences and overall visibility of the thematic coverage.

In Spain, the various regional, national and international events organized during the Year appear to have achieved media coverage (as also indicated by Figure 2.2, Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4 below, which compare coverage by country40). In particular the VIVA EUROPA event, when a live opera performance from Valencia was simultaneously shown to an estimated 25,000 people in nine European cities, appears to have attracted particular interest.

In Turkey – there were 30 article or "mentions" in the written press, five "mentions" on the television, one of which was on the national TV channel. Some 10,000 copies of posters and brochures were produced, and the website attracted about 20,000 visitors.

2.3.1 Publicity and media activity

Data covering national press coverage during the period December 2008 to December 2009 was provided by the main media contractor. Media coverage was monitored in print, online, radio and TV; although we understand that for practical reasons the results focus mainly on print and online media. It is therefore possible that the actual number of radio and TV clippings may be higher than the information presented below suggests. A synthesis of the media coverage by type of media is provided below.

Printed media

Overall 1,177 clippings were identified in printed media in all the countries. The figure below presents the distribution by country.

40 Based on statistics provided by the external media contractor

21

Figure 2.2 Print Media Coverage of the EYCI

Print Media Coverage of the EYCI

234

213

123

8778

69 65 65

38 3529 26 22 20 20 16 11 9 6 5 5

0

50

100

150

200

250

Spain

Portug

al

German

y

Hunga

ry

Sloven

ia

Poland

Fran

ce

Greece

Irelan

d

Finlan

dLa

tvia

UK

Czech

Rep

ublic

Denmark

Lithu

ania

Belgium

Slovak

ia

Austria

Luxe

mbourg

The N

etherl

ands

Malta

December 2008- December 2009 Source: external media contractor

Print media in Spain covered the EYCI the most, compared with the other EU Member States, followed by Portugal and Germany. The least amount of print media clippings were identified in Italy, the Netherlands and Malta. However, in five countries (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Romania and Sweden) there no print media clippings were identified throughout the period included in this analysis.

Online media

Information on the EYCI was disseminated mostly through online media (the easiest to reproduce). The total number of clippings throughout the period was 2,058. Half of the participating states created national web portals for the EYCI41, as detailed in the table below.

41 See: http://create2009.europa.eu/about_the_year/participating_countries.html as of 12.02.2010

22

Table 2.4 National EYCI websites Austria www.kreativinnovativ09.at Belgium www.creativite2009.cfwb.be Denmark www.krea09.dk/ Finland www.luovasti.fi France www.pme.gouv.fr/europe/europe.php; www.creativite-innovation2009.fr Germany www.ejki2009.de Hungary www.kreativitas2009.tka.hu Italy www.create2009-italia.it Lithuania www.kurybiskumas2009.lt Luxembourg www.creativite-innovation.lu The Netherlands www.europeesjaar2009.nl Poland www.innowacje.pl Portugal www.criar2009.gov.pt Spain www.innovacion2009.es Turkey http://yenilik2009.ua.gov.tr United Kingdom www.dius.gov.uk/eyci

Figure 2.3 Online media coverage of the EYCI

Online Media Coverage of the EYCI

768

310

162

95 88 77 75 70 60 50 44 31 31 24 24 20 20 18 16 14 10 9 9 9 8 6 4 10

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Spain

German

yIta

ly

Fran

ce

other

s

Czech

Rep

ublic

Portug

al

Roman

ia

Polan

dUK

Belgi

um

Sloven

ia

Slov

akia

Austr

ia

The N

ether

lands

Denmar

kMalt

a

Greec

e

Hunga

ry

Irelan

d

Finlan

d

Latvi

a

Lithu

ania

Bulga

ria

Eston

ia

Luxe

mbourg

Sweden

Cyprus

December 2008 - December 2009 Source: external media contractor

Regarding country coverage of the EYCI, similar patterns are evident as in the case of print media - the EYCI was covered the most in Spain and Germany, although this time Italy also shows significant results. Using this measure, the EYCI was covered the least in Cyprus, Sweden and Luxembourg.

Radio

The data which is available might not include all the radio clips broadcast; however, it shows that radio coverage of the EYCI was only identified in December 2008 and at the beginning of 2009. In total 15

23

broadcasts were identified. However, the estimated reach of contacts equals 57,192,234. This shows that radio coverage at the beginning of the Year had the potential to reach a wide audience.

The most radio coverage was identified in France (five) and Poland (four). The relatively high number of the radio clippings in France is partly due to the attention given by the President Nicolas Sarkozy. The support for the EYCI by French President also received attention from other media in that country.

In Poland, a series of TV and radio clips were broadcast at the beginning of the Year with the representatives of the European Commission in Poland. In some other countries one radio clipping was identified (Estonia, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Romania and Slovakia). None were identified in the remaining Member States.

TV

TV was the least monitored media in terms of covering the EYCI for cost reasons. Some ten TV broadcasts were identified throughout the Year. As was the case with radio, all of these occurred in December 2008 and during the first two months of 2009. Potentially the contacts reached through TV coverage weres 1,953,463. Two TV clippings each were identified in Poland, Romania and Slovakia. One TV clipping each was identified in the Czech Republic, France, Hungary and Italy.

Overall, 3,253 media clippings were identified throughout the Year (December 2008-December 2009). The estimated number of contacts reached by the media during the Year was 160 million people. The overall media coverage of the EYCI by country is presented in the figure below.

Figure 2.4 Media Coverage of EYCI

Total Media Coverage of EYCI

1002

435

291

163 160129 109 104 99 88 83 82 70 60 52 46 42 40 39 35 33 29 28 13 9 8 4 1

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Spain

German

y

Portu

gal

Italy

Fran

ce

Polan

d

Slov

enia

Hunga

ry

Czech

Rep

ublic

others

Greec

eUK

Roman

ia

Belgi

um

Irelan

d

Finlan

d

Slov

akia

Denmark

Latvi

a

The N

etherlan

ds

Austr

ia

Lithu

ania

Malta

Luxe

mbourg

Bulga

ria

Estonia

Swed

en

Cyprus

December 2008 - December 2009 Source: external media contractor

As shown in the figure above, the media in Spain, Germany and Portugal covered the EYCI the most. The least media attention for the EYCI was in Cyprus and Sweden. Specific activities which can be identified as having attracted media attention include:

24

• In Spain, a number of national and regional events organised during the European Year were the subject of media interest; for example city festivals on Europe Day (9 May), the day of "Creativity and Innovation in the School System", an open air retransmission of Wagner’s “Die Walküre” in Valencia, the V Congress of International Creativity and Innovation as well as other events at regional, national and international level.

• In Germany the announcement of Karlheinz Brandenburg as an Ambassador for the European Year received media attention, as did a number of European education initiatives within the EYCI.

• In Portugal events organised at national and regional level, such as the national school forum for example, received media attention.

2.3.2 Case studies

Seven case studies were selected at national level to provide a series of in-depth insights into specific examples where the Year provided a catalyst, support or inspiration to initiatives at national, regional and local level. The table below provides an overview of the chosen cases.

No42. Title Location

4 Sparking a national debate on creativity and innovation in Lithuania

Lithuania

5 Innovation and creativity from young people’s perspectives Nordic countries

6 Rock in Rio Solar School Portugal

7 Stoke-on-Trent, world capital of ceramics UK

8 The Creative Tornado hits Denmark Denmark

9 Extremadura Youth initiative Spain

Brief abstracts are provided below and the full reports can be found at Annex 5.

42 Nos. 1-3 refer to EU-level Case Studies.

25

Sparking a national debate on creativity and Innovation in Lithuania

Using the EYCI to raise visibility, network, key players and build momentum for the future

The European Year of Creativity and Innovation (EYCI) was important factor for initiation of the discussions on the role of creativity and innovation in the development of the society in Lithuania. The national coordinator, the Education Exchange Support Foundation, invited organisations from across the fields of education, culture and business to join the network of partner organisations and to highlight the theme of the Year in their activities. Importantly, EYCI was also the basis to initiate high-level policy discussions, aimed at ensuring the future sustainability of a national focus on creativity and innovation. The conference "Forum for Creative Society: Linking Arts, Education and Business" in particular played a central role in building an inclusive, national consensus around the importance of creativity and innovation. Organised by the Office of the President of the Republic of Lithuania, the Parliamentary Committee on Education, Science and Culture, and the International Cultural Programmes Centre, the event posed the question: how will creativity be developed in Lithuania and how will our society become creative? The representatives from the Ministries i.e. Ministry of Education and Science were joined by a wide range of other stakeholders, including academics and practitioners. The importance of the event and the role of the creativity development was recognised by the President, Dalia Grybauskaite, who stressed that the Forum should become a regular event and should not only provide guidance on how creativity should be developed, but also be used to monitor the progress made. A series of follow-up policy discussions are planned and creativity is being taken into account in developing the new National Long Term Strategy.

Innovation and Creativity from young peoples' perspectives

A Shared priority for the Nordic countries provides a focus for the EYCI 2009 and beyond

The Nordic countries (Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and Finland) have a long tradition of cooperation, not least through the work of the Nordic Council. This was reflected in the agreement to focus EYCI activity on the joint theme of innovation and creativity from the point of view of young people. This reflects the leadership the Nordic countries have in the field of innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship in the education system; but also the desire to make further improvements and share learning with other countries. It also mirrors anxieties felt in many European countries that Europe’s historic advantage in the field of education is being eroded as other countries catch up or overtake. Positive peer pressure amongst the Nordic countries to make sure this challenge is addressed has meant that the Nordic Council was already active in this field. The advent of the EYCI provided a further opportunity to reflect and re-focus on how creativity and innovation can strengthen education. Sweden’s Presidency in the latter half of 2009 helped to provide added value to the EYCI, by bringing to the fore this strong interest in creativity in young people (in the closing event in Stockholm for example).

26

Rock in Rio Solar School (Rock in Rio Escola Solar)

Linking Creativity, Music and Social Entrepreneurship with sustainable Development

"Rock in Rio Escola Solar" (Rock in Rio Solar School) is a competition for Portuguese schools, which forms part of a larger project "FOR A BETTER WORLD", run by the Rock in Rio Festival, one of the largest rock festivals in the world, but also involving a range of public and private partners. As a contribution to the EYCI, the focus of the 2009 "Rock in Rio Solar School" was adapted to emphasise creativity, linking it to sustainable development and combating climate change. In turn, the initiative benefitted from increased visibility nationally and internationally. Targeted at students in the second and third cycles of basic and secondary education, the main objective is to stimulate the creativity and innovation capacity of young people, while raising awareness of the need for environmental sustainability. Schools take part in a nationwide competition for social projects with a strong local dimension and rooted in the places and communities where the pupils live. The twenty projects receiving the highest score receive solar electricity panels that are installed in the schools premises. The energy produced is sold and the revenue generated used to part-finance the implementation of their social projects over a period of fifteen years. The project recently won the International Energy Globe Award for Youth.

Stoke- On-Trent, UK- World Capital of Ceramics

Creative Industries: a catalyst for regeneration in Europe

Policy-makers, academics, practitioners and creative workers in North Staffordshire have long recognised the important role the creative industries can play in meeting the needs of the region as it seeks to continue its transformation from a declining manufacturing area, into a competitive economy, building on its rich ceramics heritage to attract knowledge-based services and creative industries. A sign of this commitment to change was the "Creative Industries and Creative Communities Conference", held in October 2009 in Stoke-on-Trent as part of the EYCI. Organised by Staffordshire University, this event brought together a wide variety of people with an interest in promoting and growing creative industries and communities, and included a strong European dimension, reflecting the region's desire to share experiences and learn from others. Representatives from North Staffordshire Regeneration Partnership (NSRP) attended the EYCI launch event, owing to the inclusion of a Culture 2000 programme entitled 'People and Potteries'43, as a best practice case study. NSRP is also part of an URBACT project with a number of other European ceramic cities, the Urban Networks for Innovation in Ceramics (UNIC). The other key component to North Staffordshire's commitment to innovate and regenerate is the British Ceramics Biennial, a flagship cultural event which has attracted interest from around the world, and which is helping to build the region’s brand image for the future.

43 A project that linked five of Europe’s leading ceramics museums

27

The Creativity Tornado hits Denmark

Children and young people thinking creatively about innovation

Kampagnebussen, which formed part of the activities related to the European Year of Creativity and Innovation (EYCI) 2009 in Denmark, was organised by the Ministry of Education and the Foundation for Entrepreneurship. The initiative accounted for approximately a sixth of the total funding allocated for EYCI activities by the Danish Government and consisted of three separate activities: the Creativity Tornado, Resident Input and Vision for the City. Through Resident Input local authorities were approached to provide an outline of the main challenges for the local area, and residents were subsequently invited to provide ideas on how these challenges could be solved. In Vision for the 'City' young people and adults were invited to build their vision for the 'city' using LEGO pieces. The Creativity Tornado was considered the most successful component and is the focus of this case study. Local businesses were approached to provide a number of challenges related to their business activity. School children were subsequently invited to provide ideas on how these challenges could be solved. The types of challenges that school children were asked to generate ideas included the following:

How can fish farmers increase the market for their products in Denmark, particularly the market for salmon trout? (BIO-MAR)

• A new fast food product that is healthy and can be eaten on the go (TULIP)

• What can be done to motivate young people to spend more time outdoors? (Randers Nature Centre)

• How can we get residents, particularly young people, to exercise more? (Randers Health Centre)

28

Extremadura Youth Initiative (Iniciativa Joven)

Simulating creativity and promoting entrepreneurship among young people in one of the EU's poorest regions

The Youth Initiative is run by a public organization (part of the regional government), which aims to promote creativity among young people and support young entrepreneurs in Extremadura, a rural region in SW Spain. The initiative offers an integrated approach to entrepreneurship, where it is linked to people’s awareness of their own creative and innovative potential, and which also recognises the importance of fostering latent potential for creativity and innovation from an early age. Placing creativity and innovation at the forefront of European policy was very much welcomed by the Youth Initiative team in Extremadura, which clearly saw the European Year of Creativity and Innovation 2009 as an opportunity to promote and disseminate their work and share their experience with similar organisations across the EU. Within Extremadura, it was reported that placing the Youth Initiative’s activities explicitly under the banner of the EYCI provided additional visibility and cachet, which allowed the project leaders to expand their activities and obtain additional funding. The example of the Youth Initiative, which has recently been recognised as good practice in fostering creativity in entrepreneurship from the Directorate General for Enterprise and Industry of the European Commission44, together with the related "Spaces for Young Creation" project selected as good practice by DG EAC,,provides an example of how creativity and entrepreneurship can be promoted effectively and in innovative ways, even in Europe's less-favoured regions.

Creative Prisons: free to design [Carceri Creative: Liberi di progettare]

Creativity in innovation: a story of legality through entrepreneurship

Carceri Creative: liberi di progettare is a privately-funded corporate social responsibility (CSR) project included as one of the national projects of the European Year for Creativity and Innovation in Italy. The initiative aims 'to show, to prove that legality is always convenient… that it is the environment where creativity, through innovation can leverage a real redemption, producing tangible social and economic benefit spreading over from an individual to a societal dimension', explained us Mr Fabiano Palamara and Mr Mauro De Bona, the champions behind the ideation and realization of Creative Prisons. The Carceri Creative process starts with a series of a dozen workshops on creativity, entrepreneurship, innovation and intellectual property issues delivered to detainees. Next, a series of one-to-one meetings are held to discuss and refine every business proposal before they are submitted to an independent evaluation committee, which has a mandate to assess the proposals and declare a winner, according to their sustainability, originality, innovation and potential for commercialization. The winning project is then further assessed, an in-depth feasibility study prepared and, in the final phase, a detailed business plan is prepared and circulated among potential backers and venture capitalists. The detainee remains the owner of the copyright and the legal entity owning the economic activity.

44 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/best-practices/charter/files/gp2009_en.pdf

29

3.0 Evaluating the Year

3.1 Introduction

This section sets out the evaluation framework and research questions addressed; describes the research methods used to carry out the evaluation; and explores the intervention logic of the Year (including setting out its objectives).

3.2 Evaluation framework

The Evaluation Framework, which formed the basis of the evaluation, comprised the criteria45 and questions set out in the table below46:

Table 3.1 Evaluation questions Evaluation Question

Relevance To what extent are the objectives laid down in the Decision relevant and useful with regard to the challenges facing the EU?

To what extent do the objectives set link clearly to the expected results and the implementation process?

Did stakeholders perceive the Decision and its measures as relevant to their real needs?

External coherence To what extent is the EYCI appropriate as an instrument to address the objectives of the Decision?

To what extent was the EYCI coherent with national policies and activities?

To what extent has the EYCI proved complementary and coherent with other Community programmes?

Effectiveness What kind of geographical patterns can be discerned in the activity in the participating states?

To what extent did the key EYCI messages reach characteristic segments of societies in participating states?

To what extent has the EYCI been successful in implementing the measures, and how did outcomes of the measures contribute to specific EU objectives e.g. acquiring key competences and updating skills

45 Consistent with DG Budget guidelines. 46 Text in normal font denotes questions given in the ToR. Text in italics denotes evaluator’s additional questions.

30

Evaluation Question

throughout life?

What are the concrete types of immediate, positive and negative effects (intended or unintended) of the EYCI measures? Special attention should be paid to the effects of the Year concerning policy and practice of groups of professionals especially:

- Specialised associations of young people (e.g. young scientists, young entrepreneurs, young creative workers etc.

- Special associations of women (e.g. women inventors, women innovators, women entrepreneurs etc.

- Education institutions (formal, non-formal, informal) - Authorities and associations dealing with employment issues - Businesses - Poles of competitiveness

At EU level, how did interested DGs of the Commission, other than DG EAC, contribute with inputs to the EYCI?

At national level:

- How did Ministerial Departments (other than the NCs) contribute with inputs to the EYCI?

- How did decentralized administrations (e.g. regional governments) contribute to the EYCI?

- How did NCs organise information exchange and coordination with national and decentralized administrations?

How did various media channels perceive the EYCI initiative?

In what form did the media carry key messages of the EYCI and how did it contribute to the objectives?

What kind of geographical patterns can be discerned in media coverage of the EYCI?

To what extent has the EYCI stimulated policy debate?

Efficiency To what extent was the cooperation successful between the managing authorities of other EU funds and national Lifelong Learning Agencies and the EYCI National Coordinators?

Were the human resources allocated to management of the EYCI by the Commission sufficient?

To what extent was the approach of having no specific budget for the EYCI and using funding from existing Community programmes effective?

Sustainability To what extent are the positive effects generated by the EYCI measures likely to contribute to the specific and global EC objectives?

31

Evaluation Question

To what extent has the EYCI resulted in improved cross-sectoral policy development at EU level?

To what extent has the EYCI Inspired the introduction of programmes oractions on similar themes by participating countries?

3.3 Research methodology and evidence base

The research tools employed are set out in Table 3.2, below, to demonstrate how the evidence base for the evaluation was constructed. The research was carried out between October 2009 and March 2010.

Table 3.2 Summary of Research

Number

1 Review of policy documents and other relevant research reports and papers. n/a

2 Review of EYCI management data and administrative documentation. n/a

3 Strategic interviews with Commission staff involved with the design and delivery of the Year (DG EAC, DG ENTR).

4

4 Interviews with EYCI National Coordinators. 24

5 Interviews with a range of stakeholders: EYCI official partners, bodies active at EU level, EYCI Ambassadors, sectoral and representative organisations and international organisations.

18

6 Preparation of Case Studies at national/regional and EU level (comprising an average of five consultative interviews each).

10

Total no. of consultees 92

Telephone interviews were conducted with the NCs from the following countries: Austria, Belgium (FR), Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

Topic guides used are presented at Annex 2 and a list of consultees is included at Annex 3. A list of documentary sources used can be found at Annex 4.

32

3.4 Strengths and weaknesses of the evaluation method

A number of strengths and weaknesses were identified during the evaluation process, which affected the final outcome of the research; and in some cases limited the evaluator's ability to reach firm conclusions. All European Years are challenging to evaluate, owing to the wide and diverse range of activities across Member States and limitations in terms of obtaining a comprehensive picture of activity, collecting a consistent and detailed evidence base47 and assessing impact.

In the specific case of the EYCI 2009, the lack of a specific budget for implementation posed some additional challenges over and above those normally associated with European Years. In particular, the consequent absence of contractual responsibilities between the Commission and the NCs dictated the largely the voluntary nature of cooperation, which in turn resulted in a lack of monitoring systems and data. In addition, there were limits to stakeholders' perceptions and awareness, which made it difficult to establish clear boundaries between EYCI-related activities and those that would have happened anyway (another consequence of having no specific budget for the Year). These issues are discussed in more detail below.

The evaluation benefitted from telephone discussions with the majority of NCs, from material these actors provided (internal reports, written feedback, DVDs, brochures and other publications etc) and from the presentations made at the closing event in Stockholm on 16/17 December 2010. In addition, information was available on the Commission’s EYCI website and on national pages set up by NCs and linked to the central EU website . To some extent the value of this evidence was affected by the heterogeneity of the NCs – there were significant variations with some adopting a very policy-minded approach, while others focused on delivery, (or one particular aspect of delivery) and others were almost inactive. Most if not all considered that they were under-resourced. The key point here is that NCs themselves (in theory the players best placed to provide information) had only an incomplete view of activity and impacts in their countries.

However, no comprehensive or consistent data was available across all the participating countries, and in particular a paucity of quantitative data limited scope for a rigorous assessment of outputs from the Year. While this gap is not unique to the EYCII, and is a challenge common to European Years in general, the absence of a contractual relationship between the Commission and the NCs (i.e. where funding rules would have required the beneficiaries to provide reports within an agreed monitoring framework), accentuated this problem. It is worth noting however that where a more formal system has been in place for previous European Years, consistency and reliability of data is still by no means guaranteed48.

The EYCI brought particular challenges to the evaluators because of the lack of an explicit definition of the set of activities and systems to be included within the scope of the research. This is also an issue that is linked explicitly to the un-funded, largely voluntaristic nature of the Year, where there was not (unlike other European Years) a clearly identifiable set of core building blocks, accompanied by a wider set of additional activities. The EYCI also relied very much on mobilising activity through existing programmes –

47 See for example the External Evaluation of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008 (http://ec.europa.eu/culture/key-documents/doc/evaluation/EYID_evaluation_final_report.pdf) 48 For the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008, where National Co-ordinating Bodies received EU co-funding for “national projects”, they were required to provide a Technical Implementation Plan recording expenditure, activities, results and inputs.

33

this is almost always the case for European Years, but the 2009 Year relied more heavily on this contribution than ever before. The result, from an evaluation perspective, was that the issue of additionality (or causality) was especially problematic: which activities could legitimately be considered part of the Year (more specifically which ones would have happened anyway)? This limitation rests on the delivery model – although the EYCI appears similar to other EYs (i.e. entails the same types of activities) it was in fact quite different. This is supported by stakeholder feedback in particular, which indicates that many participants were much more aware of individual activities (events, projects) and of the wider creativity and innovation agenda (nationally for example) than of the EYCI where their perception and awareness was comparatively limited. In terms of the richness of the evidence collected from stakeholders, this was limited by the difficulty of identifying actors to interview who had sufficient familiarity or in-depth understanding of the objectives of the EYCI.

The limitations highlighted above made it difficult to assess the volume of EYCI-related activity (the possibility remained that there was a significant amount of activity that the evaluators did not or could not know about), and resulted in a heavy reliance on qualitative evidence and therefore on desk-top analysis of material (e.g. events on the EYCI website) and opinions triangulated with other evidence and analysis to make judgments.

Given the incomplete nature of the evidence base for the evaluation and the difficulties in obtaining detailed and consistent information, the ten case studies (seven at national and three at EU level) prepared provided an important contribution in the form of in-depth assessments, though they did not necessarily provide a representative picture. They do however provide insights into how a range of organisations and individuals were able to respond to the Year and how it provided inspiration.

Finally, the evaluation had only limited evidence concerning the impact of the information and communication campaign for the EYCI. Although a reduced version of the customary activity associated with European Years was implemented (partly on an ad hoc basis), the same volume and quality of media monitoring data was not available. However, taking note of the limitations that attach to this type of data even in Years which are co-funded49, this is probably not a significant drawback.

In conclusion, notwithstanding the limitations outlined above, the evaluation was able to draw upon a number of different types of evidence, but rests largely on a review of documentary evidence, the views of key players and some beneficiaries, together with the perspectives of those involved in media aspects and the experiences of those interviewed for the case studies. In our view, given the nature of the Year, the delivery model and the resources available for the evaluation, there were no credible alternative methods or tools (e.g. surveys50) that would have overcome any of the limitations discussed.

49 See for example the “External Evaluation of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008” (ECOTEC) and the “On-going Evaluation of the 2007 European Year of Equal Opportunities for All” (Ramboll). 50 Potential limitations of this research tool in this context were the lack of a clearly defined target audience or readily available contact database, issues of self-selection, likely low response rates and the consequent limited value of the results.

34

3.5 Intervention logic, objectives and intended effects

The purpose of this section is to set out the intervention logic for the EYCI, together with its objectives and intended effects, in order to provide a framework for addressing the research questions set for the evaluation. In particular, this allows us to assess the relevance and coherence of the Year with respect to the wider policy context and define the parameters against which the effectiveness and sustainability of the Year may be measured.

One of the most important questions to consider in exploring the intervention logic of a policy instrument concerns the nature of the problem to be addressed. In the case of the EYCI, the following logical argument may be identified in the Decision:

1. For social and economic reasons (including the effects of globalisation), Europe needs to become a "knowledge-based economy and society";

2. Europe's capacity for innovation is not evenly distributed among Member States and regions, and not yet strong enough to respond effectively to the challenge of making the transition to a "knowledge society";

3. The role of creativity as a prerequisite for innovation is not recognised sufficiently, alongside other drivers like RTD, access to finance, SME development, the European internal market and information society;

4. In particular, support for a strong creativity element in the education of young children and youth (to foster initiative, a sense of entrepreneurship and cultural awareness and expression) is insufficient;

5. Certain key competences concerning this link (which overall will provide people with the skills they will need to contribute to and flourish in a knowledge economy and society) are not yet sufficiently embedded in lifelong learning in many Member States;

6. The potential of creativity as a driver of innovation will not be fully harnessed unless sectoral divisions are broken down, in particular between the realms of culture, education and business;

7. This weakness may be attributed, in part, to the fact that education and training systems in Europe do not take sufficient account of the strong link between creativity as a personal attribute and innovative capacity and sometimes do not have the capacity to innovate their own systems;

8. Structurally, the links between education, research and innovation are not sufficiently well developed to establish the kind of well-functioning knowledge triangle Europe needs to drive economic growth, job creation and innovation;

9. The level of awareness of the importance of creativity and innovation amongst policy-makers, practitioners, stakeholders and the general public is not sufficient enough to support the effective and widespread implementation of the steps necessary to strengthen Europe's capacity for creativity and innovation, in order to increase adaptability to challenges;

10. The level of awareness (amongst policy-makers, practitioners, stakeholders and the general public) of the potential for cross-sectoral cooperation between culture, education and business is not sufficient

35

enough to support the effective and widespread implementation of the steps necessary to strengthen Europe's capacity for creativity and innovation for adaptability to challenges;

11. Individual Member States have the primary responsibility for taking the actions necessary to promote creativity, through lifelong learning, as a driver for innovation - but the aim of raising awareness cannot be achieved effectively through this means alone and Member States will derive benefit from action, implemented within the framework of the Open Method of Coordination, at EU level, on an issue that transcends national boundaries.

An assessment of the added value delivered in the case of the EYCI therefore needs to take account of:

• Its contribution to the broad policy goals of the EU ("intrinsic added value");

• The extent to which the aims of the action could not have been achieved sufficiently by Member States alone; and

• The extent to which, by virtue of scale and effects, the aims of the action have been better achieved by activity at Community level.

The intervention logic of a policy instrument should respond to the "problem" it is designed to address (set out above). In developing an intervention logic for the evaluation, we applied the standard DG Budget evaluation model that is the basis for all evaluations carried out at the present time for DG EAC. Under this model clear links are established between high-level global and intermediate objectives (generally reflecting wider policy goals) and specific and operational objectives at the level of the intervention itself. Following this approach, we developed a ‘hierarchy of objectives’ directly linked to a typology of effects:

36

Figure 3.1 Hierarchy of EYCI objectives

The intended effects of the intervention (the EYCI) are set out in the table below:

37

Table 3.3 intended effects

Intended effects Operational objectives Activities and outputs Results expected

Short-medium term Longer term

EU level conclusions, events, initiatives and activities organised or co-organised by the EU to promote and raise awareness of the importance of creativity and strengthening innovation capacity

Council Conclusions on culture as a catalyst for creativity and innovation51. Council Conclusions on Promoting a Creative Generation52. Conferences, e.g. the First European Innovation Summit. Ambassadors Photo competition "Imagine a new world" European Week of Cities and Regions Culture Programme conference, European Culture Forum Opening and closing events

European Institutions and stakeholders (at international, national, regional and local level) take into consideration the conclusions in their policy making processes. Participation of an appropriate range of EU-level stakeholders and sectoral representatives Participation of decision-makers and influencers including those from relevant CEC DGs Key messages are articulated clearly and disseminated widely Activity encompasses the full range of relevant themes and audiences (e.g. women, youth, businesses) Satisfactory degree of interest from the international media Satisfactory degree of participation by the general public

Policy-makers (at all levels) are more aware of the key role of creativity in innovation Stakeholders are more aware of the link between creativity and innovation The general public is more aware of the link between creativity and innovation Policy makers are more likely to consider new measures to boost creativity and innovation in the fields of education, culture and competitiveness Practitioners are more likely to consider implementing new work practices to boost creativity and innovation

New policy measures are implemented, in particular favouring a cross-sectoral approach to creativity and innovation Structured dialogue with stakeholders stronger at EU level Increased cooperation between stakeholders Emergence and implementation of new practices and methods favouring creativity and innovation Education and training systems evolve to include the key competences that support creativity and innovation Increased capacity for innovation in public and private organisations

Other EU level events organised by others under the banner of the Year

Exhibitions, competitions, workshops, conferences, days, festivals

Satisfactory number of events are run by organisations other than EU institutions As above

As above As above

51 Council of the European Union: Conclusions of the 2941st Meeting of the Education, Youth and Culture Council, Brussels, 12 May 2009. 52 Council of the European Union: "Promoting a Creative Generation - developing the creativity and innovative capacity of children and young people through cultural expression and access to culture", 14453/09, 5 November 2009.

38

Intended effects Operational objectives Activities and outputs Results expected

Short-medium term Longer term

Information and promotion activities to disseminate key messages

EYCI website (Calendar, Projects, Debates, Press) Special edition of The Magazine Use of the logo of the Year etc.

Satisfactory number of relevant events added to the EYCI calendar Website visited by a large number of users Website content downloaded by a large number of users Magazine widely distributed and read by policy-makers, stakeholders, practitioners and general public Satisfactory uptake of the EYCI logo Widespread application of the EYCI logo to an appropriate range of activities

Events attract larger number of participants than would have otherwise been the case Scope of events is wider than would otherwise have been the case Policy-makers, stakeholders, practitioners and the general public are more aware of the key role of creativity in innovation Information on creativity reaches a wider audience (e.g. education, business) Activities using the logo attract a wider audience than would have otherwise been the case

As above

Debates and discussions Brussels Debates Series of events held successfully, with the participation of high-quality speakers and stakeholders Attendance in line with expectations Degree of press interest in the debate is satisfactory

Media interest extended beyond the event itself Similar events implemented in Member States Structured dialogue with stakeholders stronger at EU level

Increased trans-sectoral debate at EU level National debates stimulated about support for creativity and innovation

39

Intended effects Operational objectives Activities and outputs Results expected

Short-medium term Longer term

Identify examples of good practice and disseminate them

Good practice compilations EU-level project profiles published on the EYCI website (brochure)

Publications distributed and made available, at events etc. Large number of project profiles downloaded from the EYCI website.

Project leaders benefit from increased profile through association with the EYCI Projects featured are contacted for more information Policy-makers are more aware of the types of activities that can support creativity and innovation

New projects and initiatives – replication, multiplication of good practice New policy measures to support creativity and innovation Public and private sector organisations improve capacity for creativity and innovation

Publication of studies and surveys

Study on the links between culture and creativity (published in July 2009). "Manifesto for Creativity and Innovation in Europe" Study on the Contribution of Multilingualism to Creativity (Commissioned by DG EAC, Public Services Contract No EACEA/2007/3995/2) prepared by Europublic www.europublic.com Ongoing study on the entrepreneurial dimension of cultural and creative industries.

Material is added to the evidence base supporting the role of creativity in innovation

Policy-makers are more aware of the types of activities that can support creativity and innovation

New policy measures to support creativity and innovation

Support for cross-sectoral collaboration

Cooperation with National Coordinators (including two meetings) Official EYCI partners

NCs are fully aware of the aims and rationale for the EYCI NCs develop and implement relevant and appropriate cross-

Sustainable networks (after the Year has finished) More structured and

Public and private sector organisations improve capacity for creativity and innovation

40

Intended effects Operational objectives Activities and outputs Results expected

Short-medium term Longer term

sectoral activities Significant contributions by official partners

active cross-sectoral collaboration Increased capacity to support creativity and innovation More cross-sectoral partnerships between EU-level organisations

Cross-sectoral policy debate

National Level

National events Exhibitions, competitions, workshops, conferences, days, festivals (events calendar)

Participation of an appropriate range of national stakeholders and sectoral representatives Participation of decision-makers and influencers including those from relevant national ministries, regional and local administrations Key messages are articulated clearly and disseminated widely Activity encompasses the full range of relevant issues or themes (taking account of national contexts) Satisfactory degree of interest from the national media Satisfactory degree of participation by the general public

Policy-makers at national, regional and local level are more aware of the key role of creativity in innovation National stakeholders are more aware of the link between creativity and innovation The general public is more aware of the link between creativity and innovation National, regional and local policy makers are more likely to consider new measures to boost creativity and innovation in the fields of education, culture and competitiveness Practitioners are more likely to consider implementing new work practices to boost

New policy measures implemented Increased cooperation between stakeholders Emergence and implementation of new practices and methods favouring creativity and innovation Education and training systems evolve to include the key competences that support creativity and innovation Increased capacity for innovation in public and private organisations

41

Intended effects Operational objectives Activities and outputs Results expected

Short-medium term Longer term

creativity and innovation Inclusive national policy debate

Highlight national good practice projects

National-level project profiles (86) published on the EYCI website

Large number of project profiles downloaded Projects featured are contacted for more information.

Similar approaches adopted

Policy environment for creativity and innovation improved

Dissemination activity National websites Publications

Websites established, populated with appropriate content and visited by large numbers of users Publications disseminated

Awareness raised

Coordination and collaboration at national, regional, local levels

Collaborative activity including meetings, steering groups, action planning, networks

NCs engage with a range of beneficiaries and sectoral interests NCs engage with national policy-makers Partnership working takes place Outputs produced – action plans, MoUs etc.

Sustainable cross-sectoral partnerships, networks, joint-working arrangements established Inclusive national policy debate

Policy measures (education, culture, business) Innovation and creativity capacity increased

42

3.6 Assessing added value

The types of added value that we sought to identify from the EYCI were as follows:

• volume: 'adds' to existing action or directly produces beneficial effects that can be expressed in terms of volume;

• scope: action 'broadens' existing action by addressing groups or policy areas that would not otherwise be addressed;

• innovation and learning: action deliberately supports innovations and the transfer of ideas that are subsequently 'rolled out' in different contexts; and

• process: EU institutions, Member States administrations and participating organisations derive benefits from being involved in action.

In Table 2.2, below, we offer an indication of the types of added value that we expected to identify, based on a review of the literature. In each case, the crosses indicate the extent of each type of added value relative to the other types, rather than the absolute extent of added value. For example, EU level awareness raising events are more likely to reach a larger audience, resulting in a wider range of possible effects than debates or discussions on specific topics, but the latter may have greater value in terms of stimulating innovation and learning among specific target groups.

43

Table 3.4 Assessment of potential Community Added Value

Type of Community Added Value

Operational objectives of the EYCI Volume Scope Innovation and Learning Process

EU level conclusions, events and activities to promote and raise awareness of the importance of creativity and strengthening innovation capacity

XXX XXX XX X

Other EU level events organised by others under the banner of the Year

XX XX X

Information and promotion activities to disseminate key messages

XXX XX

Debates and discussions XX XXX XX

Identify and highlight examples of good practice and disseminate them

XX XX XXX

Publication of studies and surveys X XX

Support for cross-sectoral collaboration

X XX XX XXX

National events XX XX

Coordination and collaboration at national, regional, local levels

XXX XXX XX

44

4.0 Research findings

4.1 Introduction

In this section we use the findings of the research to address in turn each of the evaluation questions set out in Section 3.2, above. The results are structured around the headings of:

• relevance and coherence;

• implementation (encompassing questions relating to efficiency and effectiveness),

• impact,

• sustainability.

4.2 Relevance and coherence

4.2.1 Research questions Relevance To what extent are the objectives laid down in the Decision

relevant and useful with regard to the challenges facing the EU?

To what extent do the objectives set link clearly to the expected results and the implementation process?

Did stakeholders perceive the Decision and its measures as relevant to their real needs?

External coherence To what extent is the EYCI appropriate as an instrument to address the objectives of the Decision?

To what extent was the EYCI coherent with national policies and activities?

To what extent has the EYCI proved complementary and coherent with other Community programmes?

The findings presented in this section concerning relevance and coherence draw upon a range of sources of evidence including desk research; consultations with NCs, stakeholders, Ambassadors and European Commission officials; and ten in-depth case studies. It is important to begin with a brief synthesis of the innovation and creativity policy context and to situate the Year, and to summarise the development process that led to the design, specification and delivery model for the EYCI.

45

4.2.2 Development of the objectives

4.2.2.1 Policy challenges Innovation has been a key component of EU policy since the launch of the Lisbon agenda in 2000 and achieved even greater prominence as an essential part of the renewed Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs from 2005. A focus on the link between creativity and innovation (C&I) has emerged strongly since then. More specifically, the role of education and training in building greater capacity for innovation and adaptability has risen rapidly up the EU policy agenda, so much so that the fourth strategic pillar of Education and Training 2020 concerns the enhancement of creativity and innovation, including entrepreneurship, in education and training. This reinforces the central importance of lifelong learning in strengthening C&I. Lifelong learning is a systemic challenge, but also a personal one. Innovative capacity is strongly linked to individual citizens: creativity as a personal attribute and indeed the key to employment in the knowledge economy, personal well-being through greater awareness of cultural experiences and opportunities for self-expression.

The decision to designate 2009 as the EYCI represented recognition in particular of the importance of addressing the changes necessary to ensure education and training systems provide Europe's citizens with the new basic skills they need to acquire, through lifelong learning, to respond to globalisation and the emergence of the knowledge economy. The challenge falls largely to Member States, but the level of awareness, among the general public, policy-makers and practitioners is not yet necessarily sufficient to bring about the pace of change required. Strategy and policy development at EU level is supporting change, and joint working between countries is progressing (e.g. through the Broad-based EU Innovation Strategy and ET202053); but it is important that, in parallel, Member States are supported and encouraged to promote C&I as drivers of growth and jobs, and as contributors to personal development and well-being. There is also a strong transversal dimension: stronger links and greater cooperation between culture, education and business.

European Years are normally supported through a variety of existing Community programmes, in addition to co-financed actions. For EYCI however, the emphasis on lifelong learning meant that there was an especially appropriate and ready-made vehicle which could be used to implement the Year – the Lifelong Leaning Programme. The model adopted was a novel one: to encourage co-financing of activity through existing programmes without any dedicated EYCI budget, together with a small set of centralised initiatives.

4.2.3 Objectives

The key objective of the EYCI was to promote creativity and a capacity for lifelong learning, as a driver for innovation, in particular to support the efforts of Member States and bring together the various policies, programmes and activities that were relevant, to prompt a policy debate, and achieve greater synergy and critical mass. The table below sets out the objectives and measures of the EYCI.

53 Council Conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (2009/ C 119/02) http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc1120_en.htm

46

Table 4.1 Objectives of the EYCI (taken from Decision No. 1350/2008/EC)

Overall objective To support the efforts of Member States to promote creativity [for all] , through lifelong learning, as a driver for innovation and as a key factor for the development of personal, occupational, entrepreneurial and social competences and the well-being of all individuals in society.

Specific objectives

To highlight, inter alia, the following factors which can contribute to promoting creativity and a capacity for innovation:

• Providing an environment which is favourable to innovation and adaptability in a rapidly changing world; all forms of innovation, including social and entrepreneurial innovation, shall be taken into account;

• Highlighting openness to cultural diversity as a means of fostering intercultural communication and promoting closer links between the arts, as well as with schools and universities;

• Stimulating aesthetic sensitivity, emotional development, creative thinking and intuition in all children from the earliest stages of development, including pre-school care;

• Raising awareness of the importance of creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship for personal development, as well as for economic growth and employment, and fostering entrepreneurial mindsets, particularly among young people, through cooperation with the business world;

• Promoting education in basic as well as advanced mathematical, scientific and technological skills conducive to technological innovation;

• Fostering openness to change, creativity and problem solving as competences conducive to innovation which are transferable to a variety of occupational and social contexts;

• Broadening access to a variety of creative forms of self expression both throughout formal education and by means of non-formal and informal youth activities;

• Raising awareness among people, whether inside or outside the labour market, that creativity, knowledge and flexibility are important in a time of rapid technological changes and global integration for a prosperous and fulfilling life, as well as equipping people to improve their career opportunities in all areas where creativity and a capacity for innovation play an important role;

• Promoting design as a creative activity which significantly contributes to innovation, as well as innovation management and design management skills, including basic notions of protection of intellectual property;

• Developing creativity and innovative capacity in private and public organisations through training, and encouraging them to make better use of the creative capacities of both employees and clients.

Measures (at European, Community, national, regional or local levels)

• Conferences, events and initiatives to promote debate and raise awareness of the importance of creativity and a

• capacity for innovation;

• Information and promotion campaigns to disseminate key messages;

• Identification of examples of good practice and dissemination of information about promoting creativity and a capacity for innovation;

• Surveys and studies on a Community or national scale.

In addition to activities co-financed by the Community, the Commission or the Member States may identify other activities as contributing to the objectives of the Year and permit the use of the name of the Year in promoting those activities insofar as they contribute to the achievement of the overall and specific objectives set out above.

47

4.2.4 Pertinence to the problems identified

In making an assessment of the relevance and coherence of the EYCI and its objectives we have used a framework which takes the following three policy domains as the most pertinent:

1. Formal, non-formal and informal lifelong learning;

2. Knowledge economy, business and entrepreneurship; and

3. Culture and creative sectors.

We mapped the EYCI objectives against the policy objectives in these three pertinent policy areas and the result is presented in Table 3.2, below. The detailed analytical source tables for each domain are provided at Annex 6.

48

Table 4.2 Relevance of EYCI objectives to key EU policy objectives

Key Policy Areas

EYCI Specific Objectives from the Decision LLL competences Culture Competitiveness

Providing an environment which is favourable to innovation and adaptability in a rapidly changing world; all forms of innovation, including social and entrepreneurial innovation, shall be taken into account

Sense of initiative and entrepreneurship

Initiative, curiosity and intuition

Learning to learn

Supporting culture and cultural/creative industries as key ingredients of well functioning "creative ecologies"

Investing in knowledge and innovation

Enhancing closer cooperation between higher education, research and business

Developing a policy approach to innovation in services and non-technological innovation

Helping innovation in the regions

Highlighting openness to cultural diversity as a means of fostering intercultural communication and promoting closer links between the arts, as well as with schools and universities

Cultural awareness and expression

Communication in foreign language

Promote and strengthen intercultural competences and intercultural dialogue as key competences for LLL

Promote creativity in education by involving the cultural sector

Enhancing closer cooperation between higher education, research and business

Stimulating aesthetic sensitivity, emotional development, creative thinking and intuition in all children from the earliest stages of development, including pre-school care

Cultural awareness and expression

Initiative, curiosity and intuition

Creativity (and use of the imagination and hypothetical reasoning)

Constructive management of feelings

Promote creativity in education by involving the cultural sector

Raising awareness of the importance of creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship for personal development, as well as for economic growth and employment, and fostering entrepreneurial mindsets, particularly among young people, through cooperation with the business world

Sense of initiative and entrepreneurship

Critical and lateral thinking Creativity (and use of the

imagination and hypothetical reasoning)

Initiative, curiosity and intuition

Develop creative partnerships between the cultural and other sectors to reinforce the social and economic impacts of investments in culture and creativity

Promote creativity in education by involving the cultural sector

Unlocking business potential especially in SMEs

Enhancing closer cooperation between higher education, research and business

Helping innovation in the regions

49

Key Policy Areas

Decision taking

Promoting education in basic as well as advanced mathematical, scientific and technological skills conducive to technological innovation

Mathematical competence and basic competences in maths and science

Investing in knowledge and innovation

Boosting innovation and growth in lead markets

Fostering openness to change, creativity and problem solving as competences conducive to innovation which are transferable to a variety of occupational and social contexts

Problem solving and experimentation

Risk taking and the ability to learn from failure

Develop creative partnerships between the cultural and other sectors to reinforce the social and economic impacts of investments in culture and creativity

Promote creativity in education by involving the cultural sector

Developing a policy approach to innovation in services and non-technological innovation

Broadening access to a variety of creative forms of self expression both throughout formal education and by means of non-formal and informal youth activities

Cultural awareness and expression

Creativity (and use of the imagination and hypothetical reasoning)

Develop creative partnerships between the cultural and other sectors to reinforce the social and economic impacts of investments in culture and creativity

Promote creativity in education by involving the cultural sector

Mobility of artists and professionals and circulation of artworks

Raising awareness among people, whether inside or outside the labour market, that creativity, knowledge and flexibility are important in a time of rapid technological changes and global integration for a prosperous and fulfilling life, as well as equipping people to improve their career opportunities in all areas where creativity and a capacity for innovation play an important role

Develop creative partnerships between the cultural and other sectors to reinforce the social and economic impacts of investments in culture and creativity

Investing in people and modernising labour markets

Developing a policy approach to innovation in services and non-technological innovation

Helping innovation in the regions

Promoting design as a creative activity which significantly contributes to innovation, as well as innovation management and design

Creativity (and use of the imagination and hypothetical reasoning)

Intellectual Property Rights Enhancing closer cooperation

between higher education,

50

Key Policy Areas

management skills, including basic notions of protection of intellectual property

research and business Developing a policy approach

to innovation in services and non-technological innovation

Helping innovation in the regions

Developing creativity and innovative capacity in private and public organisations through training, and encouraging them to make better use of the creative capacities of both employees and clients

Problem solving and experimentation

Critical and lateral thinking

Promote capacity building in the cultural sector

Develop creative partnerships between the cultural and other sectors to reinforce the social and economic impacts of investments in culture and creativity

Investing in knowledge and innovation

Investing in people and modernising labour markets

Developing a policy approach to innovation in services and non-technological innovation

Helping innovation in the regions

51

We can see from this analysis that, a priori, the objectives of the EYCI appear relevant to a wide range of key EU policy objectives. For example, of the ten specific objectives of the EYCI, key policy objectives in the field of lifelong learning appear relevant to nine of these, objectives in the field of "competitiveness" relevant to eight, and objectives in the field of culture policy relevant to six. This suggests a strong link between lifelong learning competences and the EU competitiveness agenda in particular.

In terms of the challenges faced by participating countries with respect to building innovation capacity, feedback from consultations with NCs was diverse and demonstrated a range of views. Italy and Portugal for example both highlighted economic growth and human capital among the main challenges, while the need to increase innovation in Finland was seen in the context of the importance to the national economy of remaining strong in export markets. In a similar vein, the NC in Slovenia identified the importance of technological innovation in securing economic and social progress. The biggest single challenge identified concerned variations around education themes: the Austrian and Maltese NCs felt that the modernisation of the education system was a key challenge, as did Lithuania, while in the Netherlands creativity in education was the main focus and primary and secondary education was the target in France. The Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway and Iceland) adopted a joint focus on creativity in education54.

In other countries (such as Turkey and the UK) the Year was seen more in terms of raising awareness of the issues. The Swedish NC highlighted the importance of the cross-cutting nature of the EYCI theme while the NCs in Malta and the Czech Republic reported that the timing of the Year was opportune, since the global economic crisis gave added impetus to the need to become more creative and innovative in their approaches. A number of NCs (Czech Republic, France, Lithuania, Sweden and Portugal) mentioned explicitly the need to use the Year as an opportunity to promote cooperation between sectors, ministries or institutions or combine agendas.

4.2.5 Pertinence to stakeholder needs

Issues raised concerning the difficulties in defining a clear set of EYCI activities notwithstanding (see Section 1.4.2, above), the inventory of some 900 events included in the EYCI central website (http://create2009.europa.eu) provides a basis for examining the range of activity and response to the Year (in terms of the types of activity pursued and themes or objectives addressed). Clearly there are methodological problems associated with this inventory (e.g. whether these activities represent “activities of the Year”, or are simply a disparate set of activities which may or may not have taken place without the EYCI55), but it does capture a significant number of activities and thus provides a useful insight into the types of activities that a range of actors (from the relevant sectors of education, culture and business) perceived were pertinent to the Year. In this respect it may be considered an indicator, in a general sense, of what players on the ground considered pertinent to theme of creativity and innovation: to shed some light on which activities those active in the field thought were pertinent to the Year (or more likely of the general creativity and innovation agenda), which dimensions of the Year appeared most popular. It is difficult to come to any conclusions regarding whether or not the absolute number of activities posted to the EYCI website (c. 840) offers any indication of the

54 See also Case Study No. 5, Section 4.4.3 and in full at Annex 5. 55 It would have been impractical to attempt to ascertain which activities were additional and in any case it was not the intention behind the Year to generate a set of activities that were wholly dependent on the Year for their existence.

52

pertinence of the Year to stakeholder needs (primarily because of the lack of any a priori target or relevant benchmarks).

The table below, based on data and analysis provided by DG EAC, presents a breakdown of the inventory of activities posted on the EYCI website.

Table 4.3 Summary of activity posted on the EYCI website

TYPE OF ACTIVITY Total %

Conference, symposium, forum 493 57.1%

Media event, launch event (e.g. publication, report etc.) 149 17.2%

Other 187 21.6%

Competition 145 16.8%

Cultural, sporting or similar event 140 16.2%

Study, survey 49 5.7%

TYPE OF LEAD ORGANISATION

National non-profit organisation (association, society, foundation)

240 27.8%

National governmental or public-service organisation 223 25.8%

Other 198 22.9%

European or other international body or network 169 19.6%

Regional or local public agency 143 16.6%

EYCI OBJECTIVE56 (activities allocated multiple objectives)

Shaping an environment favourable for innovation 491 56.8%

Raising awareness of the importance of innovation and entrepreneurship; cooperation with business world

471 54.5%

Fostering openness to change, creativity and problem-solving

434 50.2%

Promotion of creativity through lifelong learning 388 44.9%

Stimulating aesthetic sensitivity, emotional development; creative thinking

345 39.9%

Broadening access to creative self-expression for young people

315 36.5%

Developing innovative capacity in private organisations 294 34.0%

Openness to cultural diversity 290 33.6%

56 Based on an evaluative analysis carried out by DG EAC, which asked project leaders to self-evaluate their activity against the EYCI objectives.

53

TYPE OF ACTIVITY Total %

Developing innovative capacity in public organisations 272 31.5%

Promoting closer links between arts, schools and universities

250 28.9%

Design, innovation management, intellectual property protection

207 24.0%

Promoting of mathematical, scientific and technological skills

206 23.8%

Promoting employability 166 19.2%

Other 130 15.0%

LEVEL OF ACTIVITY

EU level or wider 360 41.7%

Nationwide 294 34.0%

Regional or local 220 25.5%

Cross-border or interregional cooperation 102 11.8%

Grand Total of activities 980

From this data we may make the following observations:

• In terms of types of activity, conference, symposia and fora were the most popular (57%), suggesting the emphasis in the EYCI objectives of promoting debate, raising awareness and bringing together the different sectors found a degree of resonance with stakeholders.

• The types of organisations show a fairly even split between national public sector and NGO organisers but with strong input from EU-level players and others and a moderate contribution from regional and local actors.

• In terms of EYCI objectives, the analysis provided highlights that most activity sought to address multiple objectives and also suggests a preponderance of activity addressing “framework conditions” with the more concrete objectives featuring further down the list. This may reflect and tie-in with the bias in favour of conferences and fora mentioned already, but may also simply reflect the difficulty of attributing the activities to the objectives based on limited information (for example, where no specific activity is highlighted in the publicity material available from third parties, the tendency is to classify it under one of the more general objectives).

• EU-level and nationwide activity appears to predominate, but there is also a strong contribution from regional activity. Cross-border or inter-regional cooperation appears relatively weak.

54

In terms of the specific objectives of the Year addressed by national activity, the following examples derived from consultations with NCs, illustrate the range of responses:

Malta - activities suggest the objective concerning encouraging and embedding creative thinking in the education system has been addressed most directly. It has also been an aim to promote the message that innovation is not always complex or expensive and change can result from very simple ideas. In the same vein, the objective was to be inclusive - everyone can innovate.

Greece - activities implemented suggest the objective concerning encouraging and embedding creative thinking in the education system was the specific objective addressed most directly.

Italy - the Year was reported as having facilitated and created momentum for cooperation between the creative/cultural/educational and innovative/industrial sectors. Participation from Italian Chambers of Commerce (Unioncamere) was reported by the NC to have been particularly strong.

Sweden - the Year focussed on three objectives: raising awareness of the importance of creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship for personal development, as well as for economic growth and employment (business), promoting education in basic as well as advanced mathematical (education), broadening access to a variety of creative forms of self expression throughout formal education (education/ culture).

Czech Republic - activities at national level were reported as having contributed to the following objectives: openness to change; the promotion of closer links with arts, schools and universities; closer links between universities and enterprises; fostering entrepreneurship. A conference related to the synergies between of culture and other sectors was organised for example.

Germany - the NCs focus was to raise awareness of the EYCI as quickly as possible, through the national website, press releases, leaflets, posters and regular newsletters, articles in magazines/journals.

Luxembourg – here the focus was on taking advantage of the opportunity for several key national organisations to work closely together on themes of common interest, rather than on a particular set of objectives, and this does seem to have the effect of attracting stakeholders from across sectoral boundaries (e.g. teachers, cultural and design professionals, youth and firms)

Poland – five themes were identified: education; culture; business; science and technology; and social initiatives, which gave a broad framework and stimulated a wide ranging national response encompassing personal, social and professional dimensions. This NC was satisfied with this broad and diverse result since this met what it believed to be the key objective of the Year - raising awareness

55

among the general public.

Spain – here, one of the two NCs (the FECYT57) identified the objectives of the Year very closely with its own, and in particular targeted the objective of raising awareness among the education community of the importance of creativity to innovation.

Lithuania - three priorities were selected for the Year: to increase cooperation among the institutions responsible for the managing EU and national programmes, promote children’s creativity, and to promote creativity and innovation as the impetus for SME development.

In terms of the thematic balance achieved (education, business, culture) feedback from interviews with NCs indicates a fair balance of interest and participation across the themes, although education was mentioned specifically by most of the NCs and business was mentioned the least. One exception was Finland, where the creative sector was reported to be particularly active.

Stakeholder feedback also suggests the framework of the Year provided a catalyst and that its overarching themes were attractive to a range of actors. In particular there are indications that the education sector provided a core of stakeholder engagement. Feedback from NCs indicates that although target groups were drawn quite widely (reflecting the breadth of objectives as noted above), a majority included an element of education and half (ten of the 20 interviewed) identified elements of education as the main or prominent focus (Malta, Portugal, Luxembourg, Romania, Greece, Italy, Austria, the Netherlands, Hungary and France). This finding also links to the fact that NCs was commonly situated within education ministries and their main contacts were therefore within the education sector.

Feedback from the Portuguese NC in particular demonstrated concern that there was a bias in favour of the education dimension and so the Year was less pertinent to other sectors - as a result of (it was felt) a lack of involvement (at the preparatory meetings for example) of the “business-oriented” community, including trade associations and trade unions. Based on NC and stakeholder feedback, and examination of the range of activity as represented by material posted on the central EYCI website (see Table 3.3 above), the Year certainly seems to have been less pertinent to businesses, although this is difficult to gauge and there are examples of strong involvement (a series of activities organised by JA-YE, Luxembourg “Week of Creativity and Innovation”, the Creativity Tornado in Denmark58, and the workshops at the Stockholm closing event many of which were business-oriented or were facilitated by business people). While NGOs, businesses, business organisations, research institutes and trade unions were also mentioned, the creative industries sector was not mentioned specifically as a stakeholder by any of the interviewees and the general impression seemed to be that the Year, while targeting the business sector in its aims and objectives, was perhaps not primarily designed or positioned with that audience in mind.

Three factors are germane to this perception – firstly, the global recession reduced the amount of discretionary funding firms would normally have available for this type of activity; secondly the short preparation phase meant

57 An agency of the Ministry of Science and Innovation 58 See also Case Study No. 8, Section 4.4.3 and in full at Annex 5.

56

NCs were not in an ideal position to engage with businesses, while companies themselves would have needed to know about the Year earlier (and to be presented with specific activities and opportunities like conferences well in advance) in order to be able to respond; and thirdly, as noted above, NCs tended to sit within education-oriented parts of government or agencies (notable exceptions being Portugal and Luxembourg59). The lack of funding at national, regional and local levels for the type of publicity activity normally associated with European Years, which might have attracted more interest, may also have been a factor.

Material from interviews with NCs and stakeholders, taken together with the data in Table 4.3, above suggests that the Year was less pertinent to the science and maths agenda than it might have been and that the extent of the appeal of the Year to the Higher Education sector was also limited. An exception was Spain where the Year was the responsibility of two ministries - Science and Innovation together with Education – which appears to have resulted in a stronger science content than was the case in most countries. 60

In terms of pertinence to national and regional policies and activities, feedback from NCs appears to indicate strongly that the concept of the Year, and its underlying objectives, were complementary with national perspectives, in particular, as already noted above, in terms of the challenges facing national education systems and the desire to respond to the challenges of maintaining or boosting economic growth in the face of the global downturn.

With respect to its coherence with other EU programmes (this also links to the implementation model of the Year with its emphasis on delivery via existing programmes), at national level there is ample evidence of the involvement of the LLL programme, but less evidence of the role of EU research, innovation and enterprise programmes or enterprise programmes. The regional dimension at EU level was represented by for example the flagship conference, "Creativity, Innovation, People: The Regional Dimension of Creativity and Innovation”, "Open Days of the European Week of Regions and Cities", 5-8 October 2009, co-organised by the Directorate-General for Regional Policy and the Committee of the Regions61 and the Forum on "Europe's Creative regions and cities" in April, organised by the latter body. This was reported to have attracted some 300 participants including 100 young creative talents (artists, architects, designers, film makers, internet experts) who were invited to Brussels to discuss their problems, aspirations, and ideas for improvement.

59 The NC here was LUXINNOVATION (Agence Nationale pour la Promotion de l’innovation et de la Recherche) 60 Spanish Science Week for example 61 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/conferences/od2008/index.cfm

57

4.2.6 Conclusions

4.2.6.1 Relevance To what extent are the objectives laid down in the Decision relevant and useful with regard to the challenges facing the EU?

The objectives were relevant to the significant challenges facing the EU as demonstrated by the strong links apparent between the goals of the Year and EU policy goals in the related areas of lifelong learning, culture and enterprise/innovation. Stakeholders were able to relate to the EYCI objectives, albeit mostly indirectly (there was little evidence that the detail of the objectives was familiar currency amongst them). Stakeholders were able to engage with the general creativity and innovation agenda and in particular agreed with the need to broaden the definition of innovation and involve different sectors.

To what extent do the objectives set link clearly to the expected results and the implementation process?

The EYCI objectives covered a large range but did not appear to offer a clear signal concerning whether the goal was to reach a large number of members of the public (which would have required the application of funding as in normal Years) or to reach and involve a smaller group of those already partly engaged. It may be argued that to reach a smaller but more influential audience is more effective than pan-EU publicity campaigns. The link between objectives and expected results was relatively weak, in particular in the light of the lack of resources applied to delivery of the Year. The broad nature of the objectives was positive in the sense that it allowed a wide range of actors to respond, but some were vague and overlapping, making it difficult to make logical links between activity and expected results and to assess whether objectives were achieved.

Did stakeholders perceive the Decision and its measures as relevant to their real needs? To what extent is the EYCI appropriate as an instrument to address the objectives of the Decision?

Stakeholders considered the theme of the Year highly relevant, even before the decision of the European institutions was made; but did not believe the Year's scope was sufficient to promote a 'breakthrough'. They tended to believe the theme and activity were relevant and strong, but very few were aware of the detailed policy background or legal decision. EYCI was an appropriate vehicle but the main challenge (according to stakeholders and the CEC) was the lack of dedicated funding. Education stakeholders appeared to be the most responsive sector, and there was strong activity concerning young people. It was a concern that business was less engaged, but there are plausible reasons for this: the lack of funding (in particular for press coverage), the short lead-in time together with the context of the global recession. However, it must be emphasised that experiences of the Year were varied and perceptions depended on the nature of individual stakeholders’ involvement, so it is difficult to gain an overall picture.

4.2.6.2 External coherence To what extent was the EYCI appropriate as an instrument to address the objectives of the Decision?

The EYCI was appropriate insofar as the theme fits the definition of the types of subjects that lend themselves to European Years – crosscutting, emerging, the need to raise awareness etc.), but lack of funding was always going to make it a challenge to address all of the (many and varied) objectives in equal measure. Having a wide set of objectives meant it appealed to a wide range of stakeholders, increasing the chances of stimulating

58

activity, but this would also tend to promote unpredictability and fragmentation. It is important to consider what the effect of limiting funding was on the deliverability of the objectives and this is addressed in the remainder of this report.

To what extent was the EYCI coherent with national policies and activities?

The aims and objectives of the EYCI, and activities associated with it appear to have been coherent with national policies and activities, reflecting a pre-existing shared interest in the topic at a number of levels (EU, national, regional and local), although it was applied flexibly and differently at Member State level.

To what extent has the EYCI proved complementary and coherent with other Community programmes?

Coherence with other community programmes was strong in terms of the EU Lifelong Learning programme and culture activity; but also albeit to a lesser extent with respect to the regional dimension. However, there was limited evidence of the engagement of EU research and innovation programmes (such as the Seventh EU Framework Programme for RTD for example).

4.3 Implementation

4.3.1 Research questions Efficiency To what extent was the cooperation successful between the managing

authorities of other EU funds and national Lifelong Learning Agencies and the EYCI National Coordinators?

Were the human resources allocated to management of the EYCI by the Commission sufficient?

To what extent was the approach of having no specific budget for the EYCI and using funding from existing Community programmes effective?

59

Effectiveness What kind of geographical patterns can be discerned in the activity in the participating states?

To what extent did the key EYCI messages reach characteristic segments of societies in participating states?

To what extent has the EYCI been successful in implementing the measures, and how did outcomes of the measures contribute to specific EU objectives e.g. acquiring key competences and updating skills throughout life?

At EU level, how did interested DGs of the Commission, other than DG EAC, contribute with inputs to the EYCI?

At national level:

- How did Ministerial Departments (other than the NCs) contribute with inputs to the EYCI?

- How did decentralized administrations (e.g. regional governments) contribute to the EYCI?

- How did NCs organise information exchange and coordination with national and decentralized administrations?

In what form did the media carry key messages of the EYCI and how did it contribute to the objectives?

What kind of geographical patterns can be discerned in media coverage of the EYCI?

This section concerns the efficiency and effectiveness of implementation of the EYCI 2009. The evidence base upon which this assessment has been made comprises a desk review of activity, interviews with DG EAC and DGENTR staff, the relevant media contractors, NCs and stakeholders. It also includes ten in-depth case studies (seven at national level and three of EU-level activities). The chapter is broken down into the following aspects: management (the origins of the Year, the delivery model chosen and the management and resourcing arrangements put in place); activities, and information and communication.

60

4.3.2 Management: EU level

4.3.2.1 Overview The EYCI's origins lie in the suggestion made in 2006 by Commissioner Figel to designate a European Year of music education, which was subsequently broadened to an arts and culture education Year. It was suggested within DG EAC that creativity could be used as a theme that would be more inclusive and what was then the European Year of Creativity became the European Year of Creativity and Innovation in 2007, following a suggestion by the Commission President Mr Barroso in line with the Lisbon agenda. This complemented the broad understanding that DG ENTR in particular already had of "innovation" and at that point contacts between DG EAC and DG ENTR resulted in the latter becoming formally associated with the Year. Although the original intention had been to designate 2010 the EYCI, it had to be brought forward since that year was already earmarked for another European Year, highlighting the lack of a coherent, centralised system for allocating European Years. The timing of the development of the EYCI became a critical factor in two significant respects: budgeting and preparation.

European Years require a legal basis (via a co-decision process) for their implementation, but the relatively late decision to go ahead with the EYCI meant that the timetable for the necessary legal processes was very tight. As a result, it was considered that delivering the EYCI through existing EU funding streams (i.e. not allocating any dedicated EU funding) offered the best route, since it was understood that this removed the need to pursue the full co-decision process (thus allowing more time for preparation). Instead it was determined that a joint Declaration (between the Commission, Parliament and the Council) could be employed. However, this route was not in the end viable and the draft Declaration became the basis for a full legal Decision62, which came into force on 25 December 2008. This compares with the Decisions for the European Years that preceded and will follow the EYCI as follows: the Decision establishing the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008 came into force on 12 December 2006 and the Decision designating 2010 the European Year of Combating Poverty and Social Inclusion is dated 22 October 2008; in other words over a year before each Year in question.

An important feature of the legal Decision is that it was signed jointly by the Commissioners responsible for the Directorates General for Education and Culture, and Enterprise and Industry. These Directorate Generals were in contact and had agreed to work together on delivering the EYCI. The Interservice Working Group was co-chaired by the two DGs.

The implications of the genesis of the EYCI are twofold: the relative lateness of the decision to target 2009 placed a limit on the amount of time available to develop the Year along customary lines (i.e. with a full year at least to prepare within the certainty of a legal framework already in place together with a defined and dedicated budget from EU resources); and the lack of dedicated funding – for projects as well as to cover the Commission's management costs.

4.3.2.2 Structure No additional EU funding was made available for the EYCI 2009 and co-financing of activity within the framework of the Year was available only through existing Community annual and multi-annual programmes, in particular those in the field of education and training; but also programmes and polices in other relevant fields

62 No. 1350/2008/EC

61

including for example culture, communication, enterprise, cohesion, rural development, research and information society. Resources for managing the Year were drawn from existing administrative budgets within the Commission. Individual countries and regions had to fund any activities they implemented from their own resources, or by attracting sponsorship or other forms of non-governmental support.

The Year was a joint venture between DG EAC and DG ENTR and these co-chaired the Inter-Service Working Group. It was designed to be delivered on European, Community, national, regional and local levels. This is a common feature of most recent European Years, but the lack of any dedicated funding in the cases of the EYCI meant that this lever became much more important than is typically the case.

At European level there were four main elements: information and promotion (including Ambassadors for Creativity and Innovation); events; coordination; and good practice compilations. National, regional, and local activities were coordinated by the 31 National Coordinators (NCs) appointed by the relevant authorities in participating countries. The figure below provides an illustration of how the various levels, players and activities fit together.

Figure 4.1 Structure of the EYCI 2009

The table below sets out in more detail the main activities foreseen within the framework of the Year.

62

Table 4.4 Activities foreseen under the EYCI 2009

A. EU level

Information and promotion

Events Coordination Good practice compilations

Projects

EYCI logo Conferences and other activities (e.g. competitions)

OMC – measures in cooperation with National Coordinators

Portfolio of 86 good practice examples available on the EYCI website

Projects (transnational, emblematic) – existing projects INNOVA, PRO INNO, IE Europe

27 Ambassadors for C&I

Brussels Debates Labelling of European and international events

Publication of six booklets presenting good practice (completed)

Special issue of The Magazine

European Week of Cities and Regions

20 Best Practice examples from existing EU programmes

EYCI website Calendar

Press Releases

Cooperation with partners including civil society and the media

B. National Level

National Coordinators

Events Projects

Coordination National National

Partnership building Regional Regional

Website Local

4.3.2.3 Availability of EU resources Information provided by DG EAC indicates that within the DG the management of the Year was carried out by a team of five policy officers supported by four administrative staff, led by a Section Head and with inputs from a Counsellor to the Director. A wider project team comprise these staff plus resources from the Communications and Valorisation Unit within DG EAC at the level of the Head of Unit, graphic designer, web designer/web master and press officer, together with the Policy and Inter-institutional Coordination Unit. An Inter-service Working Group was co-chaired by DG EAC and DG ENTR. Despite the lack of a formal Decision, and the fact that it only came into being on the 1st January 2009 (as the Year started), the DG EAC EYCI team took the initiative during 2008 to engage strongly and positively with potential actors (including regional bodies).

63

Evidence from interviews with NCs and stakeholders suggests general satisfaction with the organisation and management of the Year, once the initial delays at the start of the year were resolved. Any concerns the NCs had focused mainly on difficulties with the management and maintenance of the EYCI website during the early part of the Year (a common theme) and issues concerning translation, specifically the preponderance of material in English (a particular concern mentioned by the NCs in Finland and Belgium (FR)).

Most coordinators felt that Commission staff were committed to the Year, helpful and the meetings organised by the Commission for the NCs were welcomed, considered useful and provided the information they needed, although several NCs did not think they were necessarily instrumental in helping to formulate a national response to the Year. Some felt specifically that an opportunity was missed to facilitate more interactive networking amongst NCs, which would have been beneficial in terms of learning from the more advanced coordinators and helping to plan a better (or more timely) national approach. However, such networking could have been pursued (and can be pursued in future) through the Open Method of Coordination (OMC), as provided for under the fourth pillar of the ET2020 for example (enhancing creativity)53.

Nearly all the NCs stated that the lack of financial support from the Commission caused difficulties and most felt that the Year would have worked better if specific funding had been allocated.

4.3.3 Management: national level

4.3.3.1 Preparation phase It appears that the majority of NCs were involved in the preparation of the year and attended preparatory meetings with the Commission in Brussels during 2008. The first meeting with the Commission took place in June 2008, but feedback from NCs suggests they felt that the Year was relatively poorly defined at that time. NCs attended a further meeting in Brussels in November 2008, but it was not until December 2008 that the Decision was officially adopted and communicated/published. One NC reported that this uncertainty made it difficult to secure funds (for the opening event for example), leading to delays, (the Maltese opening event was not held until 17 February 2009 for example). Another reported that this relatively short notice was not optimal for organising the Year well and felt there was lack of clarity about the roles and responsibilities of the NCs. A third NC noted that the decision to go ahead with the EYCI came very late and this had an impact on their working processes. For example this particular NC was unable to launch a national EYCI website and have promotional materials printed as quickly as it would have liked, owing to having to wait for the necessary logos and templates from the Commission before they could proceed.

While a substantive preparation phase did take place during 2008 (and on the whole NCs report that this was useful), it was nevertheless accompanied by a degree of uncertainty, as noted by a number of NCs during consultations: several voiced the opinion that the preparation phase lacked focus. The circumstances described in Section 4.2.1, above, appear to have been, at least in part, a consequence of the fact that NCs could not officially be designated until the legal basis came into effect. Instead, the Commission engaged with a loosely defined grouping of "national experts" (identified through EU representations in each country), with the first meeting to discuss the EYCI taking place in summer 2008. This situation placed limitations on the extent to which the Commission could prescribe the responsibilities and activities of NCs (since they did not technically exist at that stage). Rather, indications were provided by suggestion (for example that NCs would ideally

64

establish steering or coordinating committees at national level), and through the publication of portfolios of examples of best practice that were designed to illustrate relevant activity.

While a number of NCs consulted during this evaluation expressed concern that their role was not defined clearly enough, the evidence also suggests that many did in most respects fulfil the role originally envisaged by the Commission (for example we know that national-level, formal steering groups, advisory committees or task forces, ranging in size from three to 20 members, were set up in Austria, Finland, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Spain, Turkey and the UK). Involvement of different ministries was reasonably common; with the interview evidence suggesting that in about half of the countries there was some degree of involvement of more than one national ministry in preparing for the Year. Where a single ministry or organisation took the lead, this was almost invariably an education ministry.

Several NCs noted that the uncertainty surrounding the Year during 2008 meant that the Year was slow to gain momentum in the early part of 2009. For example in Sweden the NC was only appointed on 1 February 2009, in France not until mid-February, in Malta the opening event was held on 17 February63 and in French-speaking Belgium on the 2nd April; while in Hungary the first six months of the Year were described as lacking focus. In several other countries NCs noted that it was challenging to mobilise for the Year, in particular where national ministries were to be involved jointly in coordination. In Slovenia and Romania, national elections resulted in a delayed national response. In Sweden, while it was noted that the preparation phase took longer than usual for a European Year (owing to a perceived lack of clarity and complications of involving three ministries) this also had a positive effect in terms of the fruitful discussions on the theme and building closer links between ministries.

Because the intention was that the Year should be delivered through existing EU programmes, giving the Lifelong Learning (LLL) programme prominence in particular, the countries participating included the EU27 plus the four other states within the LLL programme. Indeed approximately one third of NCs were LLL National Agencies. The Commission also worked in parallel with regional partners, to ensure that despite the uncertainties, the response to the Year would be satisfactory. This strategy took the form of a systematic series of meetings with regional representatives in Brussels to disseminate the message of the Year.

4.3.3.2 Availability of national resources In terms of funding to which NCs had access for EYCI activity, a rather mixed picture has emerged: seven countries that we know of allocated specific funding (ranging in amount from €10,00 to €700,000) as captured in the box below:

63 This was compensated for by extending the Year in Malta and having the closing event on 26-27 February 2010.

65

Austria provided €700,000 Euros from the Ministry of Education, which proved sufficient in the view of the NC.

Finland – provided €45,000 from the Department of Education and €15,000 from the Department for Culture Youth and Sport.

France – a budget of €110,000 was allocated by the Ministry of Education

Hungary was able to allocate €3,500 for “basic communication activities”

Poland – the launch event cost about €32,000; about €10,000 was spent on promotional materials and it is estimated that a brochure of best practice scheduled to be published in April 2010 will cost a further estimated €20,000. LLL programme activities accounted for an additional estimated €30,000 from the programme’s resources.

Slovenia provided €10,000 Euros from the Ministry of Education and Sport.

Spain – a call for proposals resulted in 242 projects which corresponded to the objectives of the Year being supported, with funding of €4.4 million.

Sweden committed SEK 2.5 million to the Year (SEK 1.5 million from European Presidency funding and SEK 1 million from the International Programme Office for Education and Training's own budget). Overall, a staff resource of 1.5 FTE was provided.

The Netherlands benefitted from €50,000 provided by the Ministry of Education, which was used to support an executive agency called the International Cultural Activities Foundation which ran events and projects throughout the year.

Turkey exploited operational resources from the LLL Programme and the Youth in Action Programme to fund the management of the year. About €50,000 was spent altogether.

In the majority of cases, no dedicated funding pot was identified. Although some level of resources were provided, as illustrated by the box below, detailed figures were not available:

66

Belgium (FR) had no dedicated funding and no private sponsorship was secured.

Czech Republic noted that the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports could not allocate any budget at a national level, owing to the lateness of the EYCI Decision.

Germany had no specific budget allocated, but the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science met the costs of personnel and professional services (printing, web hosting etc). No exact figure has been calculated, but the NC estimates that this is likely to represents a 'high four-figure number'. It was noted that a lack of resources resulted in a "minimal" organisational structure, so avoiding some of the administrative costs normally incurred in managing a programme.

Greece funded activities of the Year involving Schools mainly through the Ministry of Education, but also through the Lifelong Programme.

Italy had no dedicated budget, which represented a significant challenge.

Lithuania did not provide any dedicated national funding for the activities of EYCI.

Malta had no dedicated national funding and there was no private sponsorship. Internal resources were found in the Education Ministry and that organisation’s education officers were very active.

Portugal – management of the Year was considered well resourced.

Romania had no resources at all from National or Local Authorities. All projects were financed through private funding from associations, foundations and non-profit organisations.

UK did not dedicate any funding to the Year, but provided one FTE staff resource based in the joint international unit, to manage the events website.

In all cases, the application of in-kind resources (staff-time) played an important role in delivering the Year at the national level.

The lack of funding was highlighted by all the NCs interviewed, and the NCs in Finland and Belgium (FR) felt that the lack of promotional material in their native languages was an issue, since promotional material from the Commission was available only in English (of course it might equally be argued that this was an issue which could have been resolved at national level64). In a wider sense, while the absence of the dedicated co-funding normally available to countries in European Years was always uppermost in the minds of NCs, they recognised the difficulties faced by the Commission in delivering the Year and one of the primary sentiments they expressed concerned “missed opportunities” (activities which could have been supported had more funding been available). For example, although €700,000 was available from the Government in Austria for national EYCI activities (the largest for any country), the NC nevertheless noted that there was still significant unrealised potential to support more projects. Another example is the Netherlands NC which reported a significant level of

64 Recalling for example the underlying objective of the Year to “support the efforts of Member States”.

67

interest early in 2009 from schools and other organisations keen to participate in the Year through organising projects and events, but none were implemented owing to lack of funding. This pattern seems to have been repeated in a number of countries; with initially high levels of interest not being translated into activity and therefore tailing off.

4.3.3.3 Role and responses of NCs NCs interviewed offered differing views on whether or not expectations were met in terms of scale, volume and scope of the activity implemented during the Year:

In Belgium (FR) the NC was disappointed with the very limited response from potential participants and cited the lack of funding (from the EU and in terms of the internal resources available), together with the lack of media interest as the main factors. The NC also reported that it also proved difficult to engage with the private sector in particular. In Romania it was not possible to appoint an official NC65, owing in part to political instability and the level of activity did not meet expectations.

Some countries (the UK, Ireland, The Netherlands) appeared satisfied with the relatively low level of activity, perhaps reflecting a low level of expectation before the Year began.

Others had initially relatively high expectations but encountered a series of challenges as the Year unfolded. A significant number of NCs alluded to initially high levels of interest, which subsequently faded away when it became clear that there was no funding available.

In Slovenia for example the potential identified initially proved difficult to convert into a significant amount of activity: barriers highlighted in this case focused on a lack of strong political support from the relevant ministries, the limited capacity of the NC to mobilise others (despite the involvement of the Slovenian Presidency in the preparation of the Year) and delays resulting from national elections. However it was noted that the level of activity by many organisations met expectations and local authorities were fairly active in promoting EYCI-linked activities (e.g. the Dravograd region).

In the majority of cases, NCs felt that despite difficulties posed by lack of funding, variable degrees of political support and difficulties in making cross-sectoral cooperation work well, the Year met expectations, often in terms of particular sectors (education in Malta, Lithuania, Greece and Austria or competitiveness in Portugal for example) where specific aspects of the Year coincided with national priorities. A significant proportion of the activity generated however appears to have come largely from organisations and individuals which either took advantage of the Year or where the activity would probably have happened in any case; rather than as a result of “coordination”. In most countries the ability and capacity of NCs to influence events was very limited and activity relied on a range of players with diverse interests.

NCs in Italy, Turkey, the Czech Republic and Germany felt the Year was better than expected, particularly taking into account the lack of resources available. In Poland it was felt that the level of national activity reached a “gratifying level” and in Hungary in particular it was felt that the Year exceeded expectations significantly, in terms of media coverage, self-organisation by informal stakeholder networks and the response at a local level.

65 There was also no national website.

68

In terms of the contribution to activities at national level of different Ministerial Departments, agencies or other parts of national government, the majority of the NCs were based in the Ministry of Education, but support from innovation, economy, culture, sport and youth ministries was also mentioned by a number of countries, for example:

Finland: Education Ministry and Culture, Youth and Sport Ministry.

Italy: Education, Culture, Youth, Employment Ministries, LLP national agency, EU Representation.

Luxembourg: Education Ministry, Culture Ministry and LUXINNOVATION agency

Poland: National Education, Science and Higher Education, Culture and National Heritage, Interior and Administration, economy, Labour and Social Policy, Agriculture and Rural Development.

Sweden: Education, Culture, Innovation Ministries.

Turkey, Austria, Poland, Sweden, Germany, Spain, Poland and Lithuania also had support and input from regional governments (although it was reported that in Spain several of the regions worked independently). In Portugal the EYCI Task Force included inter alia the Institute for Support to SMEs and Innovation (IAPMEI), the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), and the Agency for the Knowledge Society (UMIC); while in Spain there was significant input from the Ministry of Science and Innovation (joint co-ordinator) to the extent that the education dimension was reported to have been relatively weak.

Most of the NCs consulted (with the exception of Belgium (FR) and the Netherlands) reported working with a variety of organisations and other funding streams to deliver the Year. Several of the NCs were based within LLL agencies and therefore already had networks in place to facilitate this process, in particular links with education ministries. In Poland for example four LLL programme conferences and events during the Year related to the topic of creativity and innovation. Indeed the link with the LLL programme in several other countries was equally supportive: in the case of Turkey, Lithuania and the Czech Republic for example the LLL National Agency assumed the role of NC; strong cooperative working was evident in Italy, Finland, Slovenia, Sweden and Slovakia; and in other cases the LLL NA was included in steering groups for the Year (in Austria for example). LLL NAs also brought funding support - €30,000 in Poland and resources from the LLL communications budget in Slovakia for example.

In the majority of countries where NCs provided feedback for the evaluation the main stakeholders were considered to be in the education sector. However, in the Czech Republic the NC suggested that schools were not very active, because it was difficult to find ways to engage them in the absence of a specific "project". In Spain it was reported that there were two main target groups – the education sector and the science and innovation sector. In Romania participation by businesses and employees appears to have been limited, as was participation at a local level. The NC in Turkey also found that it was difficult to involve local organisations. The Austrian NC worked with the education sector in general, but would have targeted adult education more specifically if more resources had been available. In Finland and Malta, the NCs also felt that businesses could have been more involved and it was difficult to engage the innovation sector. In Greece, businesses were not

69

really targeted, seen by the NC as a result of the failure to invite the Economy Ministry to participate in the Year. In Poland66, Spain67, Germany68 and Austria69 there was some success in engaging the science and research communities.

4.3.4 Conclusions

4.3.4.1 Efficiency To what extent was the cooperation successful between the managing authorities of other EU funds and national Lifelong Learning Agencies and the EYCI National Coordinators?

Against a backdrop of significant challenges, in particular relating to a lack of access to funding and consequent weaknesses in the capacity at national level to coordinate the Year effectively; the contribution of activities via the LLL Agencies (and the resources that could be mobilised from within the LLL programme) had the potential to provide much needed support to the Year. However, although there were notable exceptions in a handful of countries, the evidence suggest this dimension was weaker than expected before the Year began. Where there was a contribution from LLL NAs, this was also not necessarily dependent on cooperation with NCs and was just as likely to be independent. Indeed it is possible that the fact that our interviews with NCs did not reveal widespread and close cooperation between NCs and LLL NAs does not mean that the contribution from the LLL was weak, but rather, may reflect the generally fragmented nature of national-level coordination of the Year per se, including the lack of strong working relationships. Little evidence was identified of support from other EU programmes.

Were the human resources allocated to management of the EYCI by the Commission sufficient?

The evidence concerning the management and administration of the Year suggests that resources were sufficient.

To what extent was the approach of having no specific budget for the EYCI and using funding from existing Community programmes effective?

The lack of funding meant that the normal frameworks, structures and systems that are designed to bring to the delivery of European Years at national level a degree of consistency, a minimum level of activity and support some element of capacity building were not necessarily in place. Combined with the unusually short preparatory phase allowed for the EYCI, this imposed a relatively high risk of failure. The result was that there was no “safety net” or platform on which to build and a heavy reliance on the ad hoc moral support of a range of willing partners. The relative accessibility and wide appeal of the theme of the Year seems to have ensured that overall there was an adequate response. The Ambassadors may be a case in point: the strong contribution that many made was largely voluntary.

66 For example the “Little Engineer” and “Solving Maths Exercises” projects promoting familiarity with science and technology and addressing key competences 67 Science Week 68 “Little Scientists Corner” initiative and strong profile of EYCI Ambassador Prof. Brandenburg for example. 69 For example the European Forum on technology in Alpbach

70

Many consultees (NCs in particular) felt that the preparatory phase was unsatisfactory, that role of NCs was not clear and decision of the Parliament and the Council to go ahead with the Year came so late that Member States could not plan in advance with any certainty. However, consultees generally welcomed the efforts of the Commission to support NCs prepare, notwithstanding the surrounding uncertainty. It is also clear that the DG EAC EYCI team engaged strongly with regional bodies during 2008, to prepare the way for the Year.

The contribution from existing Community programmes did not feature strongly in the consultations, but it is difficult to be certain that this is an accurate reflection of the situation. However, although this contribution appears not to have met expectations, and the lack of funding was clearly a central concern for NCs and many stakeholders, consultations revealed a strong sentiment that, given the constraints, the Year met with a degree of success, for individuals and individual organisations (as measured for example by the type and number of activities) that gravitated towards the banner of the Year. In the absence of EU co-funding for project activity, the stakeholders, project promoters and individuals that did come forward were undoubtedly committed and enthusiastic. This suggests that the concept behind the Year had wide appeal.

4.3.4.2 Effectiveness What kind of geographical patterns can be discerned in the activity in the participating states?

European Years are normally characterised by variability in responses by individual countries and to some extent this is an inevitable consequence of the landscape of different national contexts and priorities in which the Years operate. In the case of the EYCI the lack of dedicated funding appears to have increased this variability, since unlike previous Years there were no core features at national level (i.e. national projects). In addition, coordination at national level depended on the identity of the body or bodies selected as NC (and in some cases this process was not concluded until the Year was underway or, in the case of Romania, not at all) and how well networked these were. In many cases, creative ways were found to promote and deliver activity and many of these were ad hoc or opportunistic. NCs were not always at the centre of the Year and in many cases seemed to have had a limited view of the big picture, further reducing their ability to co-ordinate.

However, most NCs and stakeholders felt that the outcomes of the Year were generally positive because the ideas encompassed by the Year had very broad appeal. The case studies have highlighted a number of key messages:

• The underpinning themes of the Year appealed to a range of stakeholders in a variety of contexts, including national, pan-regional, regional and local levels.

• The Year seems to have provided opportunities for fairly well developed initiatives in particular (rather than perhaps completely new ones) to achieve a higher profile, through an association with the Year, than might otherwise have been the case.

• The broad objectives of the Year allowed a wide range of initiatives addressing a wide ranging of target groups to benefit.

• In several cases (Lithuania, Stoke-on-Trent, the Nordic countries for example), the experience during the Year is likely to lead to greater activity or focus on activity relevant to creativity and innovation in future.

71

• In other cases, there was a benefit from a number of organisations, including public and private ones, working together on a theme of common interest (e.g. Denmark, Creative Prisons) or adding an international dimension (Stoke-on-Trent, Extremadura).

To what extent did the key EYCI messages reach characteristic segments of societies in participating states?

There is little evidence that the key EYCI messages reached anything other than a limited segment of the potential target audience. Clearly the objectives had wide appeal but there is no evidence that the Year reached a significant number of 'new recruits'. The latter group were difficult to identify since there were no benchmarks or targets in the Decision mandating the Year. The audience that was engaged the most was the education sector (reflecting the predominance of education ministries amongst NCs), with other segments (particularly business) largely absent in most countries. This feature of the Year may also have limited the scope for action for DG ENTR. Where NCs had innovation 'affiliations' (in Spain for example) there was limited evidence of effective integration or joint working. While there were examples of inter-ministerial 'reference' or 'steering' groups, such approaches were not widespread.

Several NCs interviewed expressed the belief that the creativity and innovation message was disseminated amongst the general public, but it is difficult to verify this. For those who were engaged, activities during the Year were a very positive experience and there was evidence of sectoral overlaps (between education, culture and business).

To what extent has the EYCI been successful in implementing the measures, and how did outcomes of the measures contribute to specific EU objectives e.g. acquiring key competences and updating skills throughout life?

The portfolio of measures envisaged was delivered satisfactorily: a range of appropriate national and EU level activities was implemented, despite the obvious funding constraints and the Year therefore provided evidence of the validity of linking creativity and innovation to promote a broader definition of innovation. A limited set of activities concerning specific, concrete objectives (such as key competences) were stimulated, but on the whole objectives concerning the creativity and innovation environment and raising awareness on a general level predominated. In the education field however, in several countries the Year coincided with national debates on education reforms (e.g. Malta, Austria, Sweden), and here the Year seems to have helped to heighten interest and reinforce action.

DG EAC was able to identify and secure funding to successfully support a number of key centralised activities including seven 'Brussels Debates', the EYCI website and several events, which ensured visibility of the Year. The Czech and Swedish Presidencies also provided strong support at the beginning and end of the Year. Activities funded by DG EAC and implemented by several external contractors also proved satisfactory in achieving interest and media coverage at EU level. The main messages derived from the EU-level case studies may be summarised as follows:

• It was possible during the Year to organise a number of trans-national activities and events that appealed to a range of stakeholders across a range of thematic areas;

• The case studies indicated that stakeholders welcomed the timeliness of the events (within the context of the global economic downturn), and considered the topics appropriate.

72

• Activities had broad appeal and were seen by stakeholders as inclusive and providing opportunities to raise awareness of and focus discussion on areas of common interests.

• The EYCI Ambassadors in particular achieved visibility (at EU and in some cases national level), for example through the presentation of the Manifesto to President of the European Commission Mr Barroso and their participation at the opening and closing events.

At EU level, how did interested DGs of the Commission, other than DG EAC, contribute with inputs to the EYCI?

The contribution of other DGs was limited. For example, the Inter-Service Working Group (ISWG) met three during the Year (in February, June and December 2009) and twice before the Year commenced (in May and December 2008). Several stakeholders commented that DG ENTR did not organise as many events as originally expected, perhaps reflecting the focus of the year on lifelong learning and the fact that most of the NCs were situated within or associated with the education domain.

At national level:

• How did Ministerial Departments (other than the NCs) contribute with inputs to the EYCI?

• How did decentralized administrations (e.g. regional governments) contribute to the EYCI?

• How did NCs organise information exchange and coordination with national and decentralized administrations?

There were several strong examples of contributions from national ministries (for example Greece, Poland, Finland, Germany and Austria), but also several examples where NCs highlighted a lack of support (Romania and Slovenia). A number of countries benefitted from having steering groups or task groups that included a range of representatives from ministries and other public and private bodies. In Germany, regional coordinators worked well with the NC at federal level, and in Spain several regions took a strong lead on activity. In Poland too, regional and local administrations were active. However the degree of coordination and collaboration appears to have been variable and in some cases fragmented (this also applied to Ambassadors).

In what form did the media carry key messages of the EYCI and how did it contribute to the objectives?

Most coverage was online, since the lack of resources meant it was difficult to stimulate interest from TV and radio without funding that could have been used for advertising or to make film clips. Modest successes notwithstanding, on the whole the general feeling seems to be that media coverage was weak. Taking the feedback from NCs, stakeholders and external media contractors together and assessing the monitoring data collected, the evidence certainly suggests that this was the case. After some initial technical difficulties with the hosting server, the EYCI website appears to have achieved a satisfactory level of usage and little negative feedback was encountered. No benchmarks are available to evaluate the number of users, but for comparison the website of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue averaged 57,500 visitors per month throughout 2008, compared with an average of about 40,000 per month for the EYCI.

What kind of geographical patterns can be discerned in media coverage of the EYCI?

73

According to monitoring data, the media in Spain, Germany and Portugal covered the EYCI to the greatest extent. The least media attention for the EYCI was in Cyprus and Sweden. The explanations for these patterns are not clear, although in the case of Spain, a series of high profile events may account for the relatively high visibility. It is also difficult to assess the extent to which any coverage focused on the Year or on individual activities (for example by asking direct participants if they knew about the Year and what its messages were); a methodological issue common to most European Years.

4.4 Impact of the Year

4.4.1 Research questions

Efficiency What are the concrete types of immediate, positive and negative effects (intended or unintended) of the EYCI measures? Special attention should be paid to the effects of the Year concerning policy and practice of groups of professionals especially:

- Specialised associations of young people (e.g. young scientists, young entrepreneurs, young creative workers etc.

- Special associations of women (e.g. women inventors, women innovators, women entrepreneurs etc.

- Education institutions (formal, non-formal, informal) - Authorities and associations dealing with employment issues - Businesses - Poles of competitiveness

How did various media channels perceive the EYCI initiative?

To what extent has the EYCI stimulated policy debate?

In assessing any concrete effects of the Year we are concerned with distinguishing between activities that would have taken place irrespective of the Year and those that were either implemented because of the Year or were at least influenced by it in terms of a theme or content (where for example an annual event took a theme related to creativity and innovation for 2009). This issue is evidently more pertinent to the EYCI than it is for European Years which include co-funded activity. The evidence presented mainly comprises feedback from NCs and stakeholders but the case studies (see Section 4.4.3) also provide valuable insights concerning motivation and longer lasting effects.

74

4.4.2 Target groups and sectors

4.4.2.1 Education The evidence suggests that the impact of the Year was greatest in the education sector. This reflects a number of factors: a number of NCs and other delivery partners already operated in this sector and naturally focused on schools in particular; DG EAC was the main driving force behind the Year in the European Commission; and several countries were engaged some degree of reform of their education systems. Schools, teachers and education authorities proved willing partners in many countries and this provided a significant proportion of EYCI activity, at the same time fulfilling the EYCI objective concerning young people. The sector is an important constituency for the creativity and innovation agenda and so its engagement, albeit it could be argued in a limited way given the scale of the Year, was undoubtedly significant to many individual teachers, education administrators and pupils.

4.4.2.2 Businesses From the perspective of a number of NCs and stakeholders, the business sector was less engaged than it might have been, although the analysis of activities recorded on the EYCI database (see Table 4.3), indicates that relevant topics did feature relatively frequently. We also know that a range of opportunities for companies to be associated with the Year did arise, but could not be taken up by the Commission, owing to lack of funding. In the end, there were several examples of the involvement of this sector, including some high profile events such as the JA-YE Creativity and Innovation Camp in Brussels70, the First "Innovation Summit" at the European Parliament, and the Luxembourg Innovation Week. However, on the whole, business was probably under-represented, for a number of reasons besides the predominance of education and culture ministries amongst NCs. For example, several consultees argued convincingly that the economic downturn, together with the need that businesses have to plan any expenditure such as sponsorship well in advance, limited the sector’s room for manoeuvre during the Year. This pattern may also simply reflect the challenge the Year was designed to address – the need to bridge the gap between the arts, culture, research and enterprise fields.

4.4.2.3 Young people Young people were the primary focus for a significant proportion of activity associated with the Year71, via a variety of initiatives including competitions72, through school projects, festivals or more formal channels such as curriculum development.

4.4.2.4 Women A number of organisations promoting women in science and innovation took part in events associated with the Year. For example, the Global Women Inventors Network (GWIN) held an EU event in Helsinki on women inventors, which was supported by the Year in terms of promoting the event. Although the organisers considered this event a success, sustainability and wider success beyond it were not particularly stimulated (for example, while there was local media interest in Finland, the resources were not available to achieve coverage EU-wide). Another example was the European Platform of Women Scientists (epws), which was established by DG RTD in 2003, was represented at the First "Innovation Summit". Again, however, there is little evidence from

70 See Case Study No. 3 at Annex 5 71 See for example Case Study No. 5 at Annex 5, on the Nordic approach to the Year. 72 See Case Study No. 6 at Annex 5 (Rock in Rio Solar).

75

the stakeholder consultations that any wider momentum was gained as a result, owing to the relatively low profile of the Year amongst a wider community of interest.

4.4.2.5 General public and the media The consensus among consultees was that the message of the Year is likely to have had only a limited impact on the general public, and this view appears to be partially supported by the media monitoring data. However, interest among stakeholders was encouraging in several countries. In the online environment the picture is slightly more encouraging and a satisfactory level of interest seems to have been generated via the EYCI and EurActiv websites amongst others. Of course, given the limited resources available for the type of mass media campaign that would be needed to provide a measurable impact on the general public, this is not surprising.

4.4.3 Policy

Preliminary indications of policy impacts that emerged from the series of interviews with NCs are summarised in the box below:

In Austria the NC reported "considerable" policy debate and the development of strategic plans on creativity and Innovation in the field of education (at EU and OECD level), which will continue during the coming months.

The experience of the NC in the Czech Republic suggests that It is likely that (cross-sectoral and cross-ministerial) cooperation will be important to the creativity and innovation policy. One of the impacts of cooperation between the culture, education and business sectors during the Year has been the creation of new partnerships. For example, the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports linked with representatives from the business sector through the activities of the EYCI, suggesting an impact on policy makers.

In Finland cooperation at a ministerial/government level appears to have been positive, although there is no evidence of new structures or policies as yet.

Finland also reported potential longer term impacts in terms of incorporating creative and innovation policies into national strategies and Turkey felt that increased awareness as a result of the Year would be a sustainable impact. The Czech Republic and Slovenia reported that the lack of funding from the Commission had a negative impact on the overall outputs they were able to deliver. The Netherlands NC was sceptical that the Year would have any major impacts, since it was a challenge to raise awareness on a large enough scale.

In Lithuania, a policy discussion related to the field was organised on 4th November. A working group was established in the Ministry of Education and Science, which deals with issues such as fostering children's creativity. The policy debate on children's' creativity is being developed, but it is difficult to judge at the moment if this is attributable to the EYCI directly.

The NC in Malta felt that the issue had risen up the national agenda, as the Year gained momentum. Ongoing education reforms provided an opportunity and interest was heightened as a result. The recession also served to add urgency to the agenda. Otherwise increased awareness of the need to think creatively was reported, both in terms of embedding a new mind-set in schools but also in terms of addressing economic challenges

76

such as the decline of tourism.

In Romania the Ministry of Education was renamed in 2009 as the "Ministry of Education, Research and Innovation", partly because of a recommendation staff involved in the coordination of the Year. In addition a new legislative act reforming the educational system (still pending final approval) contains sections on creativity and innovation. The staff involved in the coordination of the Year contributed to the drafting of the act.

In Poland a satisfactory level of policy debate was reported, and it was emphasised that practitioners and national, regional and local stakeholders were engaged and active, suggesting a number of new initiatives may be expected in future, especially in the education field.

The NC in Slovenia highlighted the difficulty of assessing the contribution of EYCI to policy debate. Cross-sectoral work proved to be very challenging. However, a policy debate in the field of innovation is taking place at national level. For example it is expected that the national strategy for innovation will be prepared but that it is focused more on the enterprise theme and the emphasis of the debate is mainly on technological innovation. There is no evidence that the Year managed to broaden this perspective within the policy debate. However it could be argued that at least a debate is beginning linked to highlighting the value of the creativity and innovation to society.

The NC in Turkey thought the issue of creativity and innovation had been discussed more during the Year and at a high level of government. Awareness raising was cited as the biggest impact and outcome of the year, and teachers were engaged in particular. Women and children were not targeted specifically, but representatives of NGOs who represent women and children attended the events. Policies and new structures may result from the Year but not yet. Cooperation was reported as having worked well, all sectors coming together and making links at the events.

4.4.4 Conclusions

What are the concrete types of immediate, positive and negative effects (intended or unintended) of the EYCI measures? Special attention should be paid to the effects of the Year concerning policy and practice of groups of professionals especially:

• Specialised associations of young people (e.g. young scientists, young entrepreneurs, young creative workers etc.

• Special associations of women (e.g. women inventors, women innovators, women entrepreneurs etc.

• Education institutions (formal, non-formal, informal)

• Authorities and associations dealing with employment issues

77

• Businesses

• Poles of competitiveness

The Year was welcomed by a range of stakeholders and had wide appeal to a broad constituency of individuals and organisations with a pre-existing interest in the creativity as a key ingredient in education, the development of young people and as a contribution to making national economies and societies more "innovative". In terms of impacts on the policy and practice of the groups of professionals set out above (with the exception of businesses and poles of competitiveness), those who engaged with activities associated with the Year are likely to continue emphasising the role of creativity. This applies in particular to the education sector, where the policy context in many countries favours greater recognition of the importance of creativity. However, making the types of changes required can be complex and progress slow.

Overall, the evidence suggests that there were impacts in some countries in terms of raising awareness and stimulating discussion about how creativity links to innovation and how different sectors and communities of interest share common goals and can benefit from working together. This includes several examples where different part of government benefited from working together to deliver the Year (Germany, Italy, Lithuania and Luxembourg for example). Several stakeholders commented that the Year was more policy-orientated than most European Years, perhaps reflecting the greater visibility of this dimension in the light of the lack of a backdrop of co-funded national project activity.

How did various media channels perceive the EYCI initiative?

The evidence suggests that the impact of the Year in the media, especially at national level, was weak. The level of public awareness for the Year was probably low, (without resources to spend on advertising), but this may be less important than for previous EYs since the broad messages of the Year were not necessarily intended to change social attitudes as is often the case (equal opportunities in 2007, intercultural dialogue in 2008, combating poverty and social exclusion in 2010). Unlike these other European Years the concepts underlying the EYCI were manifest in the activities rather than the need to understand and promote a challenging policy concept.

Coverage quite often focussed on an event during the Year, but sometimes the Year was not mentioned specifically. At EU level, the lack of a dedicated budget meant there was limited impact, other than amongst the existing community of interest (e.g. through the 'Brussels Debates', EYCI website and the EurActiv portal). The EYCI Ambassadors do appear to have had an impact, in several countries in particular, but also as a whole as a result of the Manifesto.

To what extent has the EYCI stimulated policy debate?

Significant variability was seen between countries, as a result of the approach adopted (including the characteristics of individual NCs) and national funding applied. In several countries it appears there was little impact at all, but in a number of others NCs and stakeholders considered that the Year had provided an impetus to heightened national debates about innovation in general and creativity in education in particular. This appears to have been partly a result of timing (with the global economic downturn prompting many countries to look for new ways to improve their performance), but also reflects pre-existing plans to review and improve education

78

systems. There seems to have been a sense in several countries that debate within government and between government and its close partners was prompted the Year.

4.5 Looking forwards: sustainability

4.5.1 Research questions Sustainability To what extent are the positive effects generated by the EYCI measures likely to contribute to

the specific and global EC objectives?

To what extent has the EYCI resulted in improved cross-sectoral policy development at EU level?

To what extent has the EYCI Inspired the introduction of programmes or actions on similar themes by participating countries?

4.5.2 National level

NCs in most countries felt the lack of funding and late start did not help the Year to have a sustainable impact. A number of countries such as the UK, Finland, The Netherlands and Austria felt that the main reason the Year would be sustainable was if creativity and innovation was already part of a country's policy and strategy. The NC in Germany believes it is unlikely that a 12 month un-funded programme will be sustainable without other factors such as national priorities having a role.

However, positive effects of the Year in terms of sustainability as suggested by the NCs interviewed include the following:

79

Austria - a booklet on Creativity and Innovation in Austria is being produced and a long term strategy is under development.

Finland – according to the NC a positive message has been conveyed that everyone is creative and this should be encouraged and thought about more widely.

In Germany the NC described the EYCI as a catalyst, creating structures and platforms for information exchange and networking. These reciprocal contacts continue in an informal way, and work continues. Activity under the Year has provided an impetus to this through advertising and promotional activity.

Lithuania - the NC seems to have been able to build a network of partner organisations and engage with them in promoting the EYCI, including the commitment to devote or link their activities to creativity and innovation issues73. The national "Forum for Creative Society" conference and associated activity appears to have built momentum around the theme of the Year, a series of follow-up policy discussions are planned and the President has indicated strong support for the forum to become an annual event.

Malta – sustainability in the education sector, in terms of influencing those key agents of change including education officers, colleges and heads of schools. Some impact may be expected on the content of ongoing education reforms in terms of promoting a more entrepreneurial and creative mind-set. The "Gifted and talented" initiative will continue next year and the NC feels that the EYCI ambassador's manifesto will play a key role in EU policy development next year. When EU policy in this area becomes more clearly defined the NC believes Malta will follow it up enthusiastically: for example ministry plans to deliver annual entrepreneurship education training sessions and intends to introduce an Innovation Week for schools in 2010.

In Poland the NC reported that the level of interest in the Year, as demonstrated by the 280 logo requests received, showed that a sustainable body of activity is possible beyond 2009, and that these should provide inspiration for further innovation by individuals, businesses and NGOs, in a number of areas.

Slovenia -the NC reported that the topic is considered to be very important in Slovenia and it is likely that the debate and the attention given to the topic will be sustained. The NC observed that at the beginning of the Year in the context of coordinating the Year nationally, one of the aims agreed was linked to the need to ensure sustainability and increased visibility for the topic after the Year ended. The interview identified that overall, the year was successful in achieving it.

Slovakia – the NC expressed the wish to continue to carry out the activities started during the Year at the local, regional and national level and to continue to strengthen existing networks and partnerships to secure funding support so that developments are sustained beyond 2009.

Turkey - The NC believes the momentum created around the theme of the Year should be sustainable and awareness raising has helped to increase momentum and raise the profile of the issue.

73 See also Case Study No. 4 at Annex 5.

80

Other examples include the NC in France considering having an annual event on creativity and innovation; and plans for Innovation Week to run again in Luxembourg in 2010; while it was reported by the Science Ministry in Spain that it will include more innovation-related actions in its programmes in future.

Most NCs interviewed did not feel the Year had a major impact on cross sectoral policy development with a few exceptions: in Lithuania, where it was reported that cross-sectoral cooperation has been successful among the partner organisations, in the Czech Republic where cooperation among different Ministries was one of the successes of the Year, and similarly in Austria, where the NC believes that the Year strengthened openness, networking and discussion within the Ministries involved. In Poland a number of projects were cross-sectoral in nature; but it is not clear if this activity translated into policy developments of a similar nature; although in common with a number of countries the NC in Poland noted that the cross-sectoral aims of the EYCI already corresponded with government policy and national priorities.

Most coordinators did not feel the year had inspired the introduction of similar initiatives, with a few exceptions: in Malta the education ministry will deliver annual entrepreneurship education training sessions. It will also try to introduce an 'Innovation Week' next year, by including it in school calendars. In Finland, the Year has inspired a number of initiatives amongst the stakeholders involved, so there will be numerous similar themed events next year. In Slovenia the NC reported that organisations undertaking activities during the Year have already planned more events and other activities next year on the theme.

4.5.3 EU level

4.5.3.1 Impact on innovation policy In the run-up to the EYCI 2009, a number of policy developments provided an opportunity to influence the new emerging agenda, in particular connected to the EU2020 Draft Strategy and planned "European Innovation Act". In particular, and recalling the central role of the EU's education and training agenda (relating to key competences for the knowledge economy), it was the intention that the Year would provide inputs to an "agenda for action" for education and training. Given the relatively strong response from the education sector during the Year (as explored above), this seem to be a reasonable assumption. However a number of developments appear to have limited the impact of the Year, including the following:

• During the Year itself the opportunity for DGs other than EAC to contribute strongly appears to have been missed; and we understand that the Inter-Service Working Group met less frequently than was originally envisaged.

• While the draft EU2020 strategy emphasised strongly the need to promote an "innovation society" and included references to "creativity" in the innovation context, the potential contribution of creativity and specifically the key role of education and training to achieving this vision appears relatively weak, compared with expectations during the Year.

The European Ambassadors for Creativity and Innovation Manifesto74 is perhaps the clearest example of impact during the Year. Its development and publication was widely welcomed by a range of stakeholders consulted

74 See also Case Study No. 1 at Annex 5.

81

and its launch attracted a relatively high level of media interest, not least owing to the role that Commission President Barroso played75. Since the end of 2009 activity around the Manifesto appears to have been muted, although it is possible to find examples of it having been picked up by various web portals76. The photo competition was probably the other main EYCI component to achieve any impact on a wider audience.

4.5.3.2 Lessons for European Years in general Throughout this report the issues of the lead-up to the Year and the model through which it was funded have been noted. NCs in particular seemed, not unreasonably, to have struggled to get a coherent set of activities off the ground or to coordinate activity. Rather, NCs worked with the opportunities that were presented to them and in many cases exceeded expectations in terms of what was ultimately achieved. EU co-funding for European Years normally provides for national projects, which in turn guarantees a certain minimum level of activity. At the same time resources directed to national-level publicity can help to raise the profile of European Years. In the absence of these two support measures, media interest and public awareness of the EYCI were low compared with other European Years. However the broad appeal and accessibility of the theme of the EYCI meant that a satisfactory amount and scale of activity (albeit fragmented) was generated. The lesson here is that the level of interest in creativity and innovation was such that if EU funding had been available (not necessarily to the level normally associated with recent and current European Years given the relative attractiveness of the topic), more activity would have been generated and it is likely that the impact would have been greater.

It seems clear that many stakeholders regarded the EYCI as a missed opportunity (in the sense there was evidence of latent demand, which if it had been converted into activity, through funding, would have enhanced the scale, scope and quality of outcomes of the Year). In terms of future planning of European Years therefore, the issues that the Commission needs to address concern political vision, management decisions and material support. Most if not all of the challenges faced by those seeking to respond to and deliver the Year related to timing, specially the delays in deciding what the theme of the 2009 European Year should be and in securing legal approval. Timing also appears to be the most likely explanation for the lack of funding available, although it may also be argued that because the themes of the Year were already "mainstream" in many countries, the level of funding could be less than normal (compared with Years addressing issues of intercultural dialogue or poverty and social exclusion fro example). Irrespective of these considerations, it is clear that the lack of funding exposed the Year to an unusually high risk of failure.

4.5.4 Conclusions

To what extent are the positive effects generated by the EYCI measures likely to contribute to the specific and global EC objectives?

While a number of NCs and stakeholders could point to some examples of positive effects, these were limited overall and unlikely to favour a very strong contribution to EU objectives in the medium to longer term. Most positive effects were probably limited to small groups of existing stakeholders or communities of interest, most

75 See for example Euractiv, 13 November 2009 http://pr.euractiv.com/press-release/manifesto-creativity-and-innovation-europe-12108 76 For example a discussion forum at http://www.nonformality.org/2009/11/manifesto/, although this source itself reflects disappointment that the Manifesto is not more visible (while broadly agreeing with the principles it advances).

82

notably in the education field, including a number of non-profit organisations (for example as suggested by the EYCI database summarised in Table 4.3, above).

To what extent has the EYCI resulted in improved cross-sectoral policy development at EU level?

Relationships between DG EAC and DG ENTR were positive (notably, it was the first time a thematic European Year was organised together by the two DGs), and a platform for improved linkages between the topics of creativity and innovation has been established, which will in future favour stronger cross-sectoral policy development. However in terms of wider EU policy developments post-2009 it is less clear for the moment whether a significant breakthrough has been made concerning the EYCI 's central message - that creativity is a prerequisite for innovation and the importance of the link between innovation and education systems..

To what extent has the EYCI Inspired the introduction of programmes or actions on similar themes by participating countries?

There is some evidence of the continuation or repeat of activity associated with the EYCI in 2009, most commonly innovation weeks or days.

83

5.0 Summary of conclusions and recommendations

5.1 Relevance

The EYCI objectives were broad and as such were relevant to a range of challenges facing the EU, as demonstrated for example by the strong links between the goals of the Year and EU policy objectives in the areas of lifelong learning, culture and enterprise/innovation. Strong coherence between the aims and objectives of the EYCI and national policies and priorities in many participating countries helped to stimulate activity and reflected a pre-existing shared interest in the topic at a number of levels (EU, national, regional and local). The objectives of the Year were also highly relevant to a number of other EU programmes, in particular Lifelong Learning programme, regional development policies and support for Research and Development, making it a reasonable expectation that resources could be mobilised from these sources to support delivery of the Year.

The link between the objectives and expected results was logical in theory, but relatively weak in practice, because of the lack of resources applied to delivery of the Year. While the broad nature of the objectives was positive in the sense that it allowed a wide range of actors to respond, some of them were vague and there was a degree of overlapping, making it difficult to assess with any certainty whether many of the more detailed objectives were achieved.

Although raising awareness was a central objective of the Year, reaching a large number of members of the general public would have required the application of at least the same level of funding as other European Years. However, the Year was sufficiently relevant to attract the attention of a number of communities of interest, including a range of practitioners and professionals in particular.

The EYCI was an appropriate vehicle to promote the theme, which lent itself to a European Year (given its crosscutting, emergent nature and the need to raise awareness). However, the main challenge to achieving a coherent impact was the lack of dedicated funding. The Year was most relevant to the education sector, and there was strong activity concerning young people. It was a concern that business was less engaged, probably as a result of the lack of funding (in particular for press coverage) and the short lead-in time to the Year, together with the context of the global recession; rather than any inherent lack of appeal.

5.2 Efficiency

Many consultees (NCs in particular) felt that the preparatory phase was unsatisfactory, that role of NCs was not clear and decisions to go ahead with the Year came so late that Member States could not plan in advance with any certainty. In several countries, activity did not start until the spring of 2009. However, consultees generally welcomed the efforts of the Commission to support NCs prepare, notwithstanding the surrounding uncertainty. It is also clear that the DG EAC EYCI team engaged strongly with regional bodies during 2008, to prepare the way for the Year.

84

In terms of funding to which NCs had access for EYCI activity, seven countries that we know of allocated specific funding (ranging in amount from €10,000 to €700,000). In most countries it is difficult to obtain detailed information, but the evidence suggests that most relied on in-kind funding or existing national programmes (in the latter case the issue of whether or not there was in all cases true additionality remains unclear).

Once the Year was underway, the lack of dedicated, additional EU funding meant that the customary frameworks, structures and systems that normally bring a degree of consistency and a minimum level of activity and to European Years, were not necessarily in place77. In particular, there was a lack of resources for paid advertising (hampering the ability to engage a large general audience), limited capacity for NCs to take an overview, to plan and prioritise projects or to engage with potential partners on a large enough scale. Combined with the unusually short preparatory phase allowed for the EYCI, this imposed a relatively high risk of failure (i.e. having a weak portfolio of activity). Another effect was probably that it was less easy for potential audiences or the public in general to identify the Year as a discrete intervention, rather than part of a wider agenda.

However, the accessibility and wide appeal of the theme of the Year seems to have ensured that resources were found to respond to the opportunity offered by the Year. Consultations with NCs and many stakeholders revealed a strong sentiment that, given the funding constraints, the Year met with a degree of success, for individuals and individual organisations (as measured for example by the type and number of activities that gravitated towards the banner of the Year). At EU level, DG EAC was able to identify and mobilise sufficient resources, on an ad hoc basis, to fund a range of activities which gave the Year visibility.

The contribution of activities via the LLL Agencies had the potential to provide much needed support to the Year, but the evidence suggests this dimension was weaker than expected before the Year began, and where there was a contribution from LLL NAs this was not necessarily dependent on cooperation with NCs, reflecting the generally fragmented nature of national-level coordination of the Year per se. Little evidence was identified of significant support from other EU funds external to DG EAC.

In terms of the management and administration of the Year resources were sufficient.

5.3 Effectiveness

The lack of dedicated funding for the EYCI appears to have increased the variability normally expected for European Year, since there were no core features at national level (i.e. national projects). In addition, coordination at national level depended on the identity of the body or bodies selected as NC and how well networked these were. In many cases creative ways were found to promote and deliver activity and many of these were ad hoc or opportunistic. NCs were not always at the centre of the Year and in many cases seemed to have had a limited view of the big picture, further reducing their ability to co-ordinate. However, most NCs and stakeholders felt that the outcomes of the Year were generally positive, because the ideas encompassed by the

77 National context is normally a strong factor in determining the outcomes of European Years in individual Member States, and tailoring to national circumstances is welcomed; but one of the underlying reasons for EU funding is also to provide a level playing field or at least guarantee a minimum level of national activity.

85

Year had very broad appeal. For many NCs the Year in their country proved to be better than they had expected in terms of scale and scope.

The portfolio of measures envisaged was delivered satisfactorily: a range of appropriate national and EU level activities was implemented, despite the obvious funding constraints and the Year therefore provided evidence of the validity of linking creativity and innovation to promote a broader definition of innovation. A limited set of activities concerning specific, concrete objectives (such as key competences) were stimulated, but on the whole objectives concerning the creativity and innovation environment and raising awareness on a general level predominated. In the education field however, in several countries the Year coincided with national debates on education reforms (e.g. Malta, Austria, Sweden), and here the Year seems to have helped to heighten interest and reinforce action.

There were several strong examples of contributions from national ministries (for example Greece, Poland, Finland, Germany and Austria), but also several examples where NCs highlighted a lack of support (Romania and Slovenia). A number of countries benefitted from having steering groups or task groups that included a range of representatives from ministries and other public and private bodies. In Germany, regional coordinators worked well with the NC at federal level, and in Spain several regions took a strong lead on activity. In Poland too, regional and local administrations were active. However the degree of coordination and collaboration appears to have been variable and in some cases fragmented (this also applied to Ambassadors).

DG EAC was able to support a number of key centralised activities including seven 'Brussels Debates', the EYCI website and several events, which ensured visibility of the Year. The Czech and Swedish Presidencies also provided strong support at the beginning and end of the Year. Activities funded by DG EAC and implemented by several external contractors also proved satisfactory in achieving interest and media coverage at EU level.

The contribution of other DGs was limited. For example, several stakeholders commented that DG ENTR played a less active role than expected (an outcome that may in part be explained by the relative predominance of education ministries amongst NCs and the difficulties of engaging business within the context of the lack of dedicated funding and short period available for preparation before the Year began).

There is little evidence that the key EYCI messages reached anything other than a limited segment of the potential target audience. The audience that was engaged the most was the education sector, with other segments (particularly business) largely absent in most countries. For those who were engaged, activities during the Year were a very positive experience and there was evidence of sectoral overlaps (between education, culture and business).

Two-thirds of the media coverage was online, since the lack of resources meant it was difficult to stimulate interest from TV and radio, for which monitoring was only sporadic in any case. After some initial technical difficulties, the EYCI website appears to have achieved a satisfactory level of usage. No benchmarks are available to evaluate the number of users, but for comparison the website of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue achieved momentum relatively rapidly, peaking in January 2008 and averaging 57,500 visitors per month throughout 2008, compared with the EYCI website which made a relatively slow start by comparison (user numbers peaked in March 2009) and averaged about 40,000 visitors per month.

86

According to monitoring data the media in Spain, Germany and Portugal covered the EYCI to the greatest extent. The least media attention for the EYCI was in Cyprus and Sweden. The explanations for these patterns are not clear, although in the case of Spain, a series of high profile events may account for the relatively high visibility. It is also difficult to assess the extent to which any coverage focused on the Year or on individual activities (for example by asking direct participants if they knew about the Year and what its messages were); a methodological issue common to most European Years.

5.4 Impact and sustainability

The EYCI attracted a significant number and range of activities (in the light of the resources applied), indicating its broad appeal. There is some evidence of the continuation or repeat of activity associated with the EYCI in 2009, most commonly innovation weeks or days. While a number of NCs and stakeholders could point to some examples of positive effects, these were limited overall and unlikely to favour a very strong contribution to EU objectives in the medium to longer term. Most positive effects were probably limited to small groups of existing stakeholders or communities of interest, most notably in the education field. Many NCs considered that a “debate” had started during the Year which would continue, and while it is difficult to assess the scope and scale of such developments, it is likely that in a small number of countries cooperation and discussions amongst small groups of policy makers will continue on the topic of the role of creativity in innovation.

The EYCI proved relevant to the challenges Europe faces, and linked strongly to other EU policy objectives. As such, it offered a significant opportunity for the Commission to act in a coordinated way to highlight the importance of creativity as a source of innovation and raise awareness of various target groups of the European population. However, the evidence suggests that Commission services were able to capitalise on this opportunity only partially, which limited the scale and scope of the Year (in particular at national level) and therefore the likelihood of making a “breakthrough” impact. At EU level, the cross-sectoral cooperation seen during the Year between DG EAC and DG ENTR should provide a future platform for stronger policy development linking the creativity and innovation domains.

5.5 Recommendations

European Commission:

• For future European Years, to signal and achieve stronger strategic intent through a clear political vision, and to put in place a minimum level of material support.

• Consider developing and implementing an improved, Commission-wide system for the coordination and planning cycle of European Years, specifically to facilitate the timely allocation of themes and responsibilities, to ensure the legal basis is in place at least one year in advance (to allow for effective preparation at national level in particular),

• Consider ways in which the lessons learned may be carried forward from one European Year to the next, including for example the development of a “toolbox” of standard measures or components and a

87

centralised “knowledge bank” where materials and other resources could be stored and made accessible to all DGs.

• While the EYCI has demonstrated that EU operational budgets are not necessarily required, it also represents something of a missed opportunity, in the light of evidence that, at national level in particular, more ideas were brought forward than could be supported, owing to lack of funding support.

• Therefore, future European Years should be adequately resourced at national level, with at least a minimum EU contribution for participating countries, to be matched by national government, to ensure sufficient and coherent coordination.

• The overarching message of the Year, linking creativity and innovation, engaged a constituency of policy-makers and practitioners, in particular in the education sector. Therefore, the Commission in general should mainstream messages of thematic years into further agendas, and in this particular case efforts should continue to harness the key messages of the Year and to engage with stakeholders. This might be achieved through activity around the Ambassadors Manifesto, by distilling key policy messages for dissemination or by establishing a working group of Member States to take forward agreed aspects of the Year (for example to facilitate peer-learning about education reform).

In the light of the evaluation, Members States and stakeholders might consider the following points during their participation in a European thematic year in order to achieve their goals:

• In terms of policy development, focus attention on the key topics of the Year to formulate clear messages, in this case focussing on the role of creativity in education for example, in particular in terms of the personal development of young people.

• National, regional or local thematic weeks or days on the topic of creativity and innovation, in schools for example, are efficient tools to convey key policy messages.

• In general, encouraging interactions between stakeholders raises the potential for synergies. For example in the case of the EYCI the education, culture and business sectors could interact as a result of adopting a broad and inclusive definition of “innovation” and promoting its relevance to a wide range of stakeholders.

• Encouraging national policy makers to cooperate at EU level could result in the recognition of the key role of creativity in education, and its relevance to key competences for an innovation society.

• Cooperation with the European Commission is an opportunity to learn from other Member States. It may help to establish mechanisms at national level for continuing discussions on the policy and practice of the creativity and innovation agenda, and contribute a range of national perspectives to inform EU policy developments.