Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament AND the Committee of the Regions - Ex Post evaluation of the European Capital of Culture event 2007 (Luxembourg and Sibiu) and 2008 (Liverpool and Stavanger)
Date: 2009-12-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU action, European cultural event, capital city, cultural policy, project evaluation, report

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 22.12.2009 
COM(2009) 689 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Ex Post evaluation of the European Capital of Culture event 2007 (Luxembourg and 
Sibiu) and  
2008 (Liverpool and Stavanger) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Ex Post evaluation of the European Capital of Culture event 2007 (Luxembourg and 
Sibiu) and  
2008 (Liverpool and Stavanger) 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

INTRODUCTION 

1. 
This report is presented under article 12 of Decision n° 1622/2006/EC1 of 24 October 2006 
establishing a Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2007 
to  2019,  which  requires  that  "each  year  the  Commission  shall  ensure  the  external  and 
independent evaluation of the results of the European Capital of Culture event of the previous 
year in accordance with the objectives and criteria of the action laid down in this Decision. 
The  Commission  shall  present  a  report  on  that  evaluation  to  the  European  Parliament,  the 
Council  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  by  the  end  of  the  year  following  the  European 
Capital of Culture event." 

The  evaluation  exercise  for  2007  and  2008  has  been  merged;  however  as  of  2009  the 
evaluations will be carried out annually. 

This  report  puts  forward  the  Commission's  position  on  the  main  conclusions  and 
recommendations  of  the  external  evaluation  of  2007  and  2008  European  Capital  of  Culture 
that can be obtained via the link below: 

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/evalreports/index_en.htm  

The  external  evaluation  first  evaluated  individually  the  four  European  Capitals  of  Culture 
(hereafter  "ECOC"):  Luxembourg  (LUX)  and  Sibiu  (RO)  in  2007,  Liverpool  (UK)  and 
Stavanger (NO) in 2008. It then compared findings and reached conclusions valid for all four. 
Findings  are  based  on  data  provided  by  the  four  ECOC,  feedback  from  stakeholders,  and 
policy and academic literature at European level. 

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE ACTION 

2.1. 

The Community action for the European Capital of Culture event 

The initial scheme of 'The European City of Culture" was launched at intergovernmental level 
in  19852  and  later  complemented  by  a  "European  Cultural  Month".3  On  the  basis  of  these 
activities, Decision 1419/1999/EC established a Community Action for the European Capital 

1 
2 

3 

EN 

OJ L304 of 3 November 2006 
The  title  "European  Capital  of  Culture"  was  designed  to  help  bring  European  citizens  closer  together.  See 
Resolution of the Ministers responsible for Cultural Affairs regarding the annual organization of the 'European City 
of 
http://eur-
ex.europa.eu/Notice.do?mode=dbl&lang=en&lng1=en,en&lng2=da,de,el,en,es,fr,it,nl,&val=117538:cs&page=1&hwords
=  
Conclusions  of  the  Ministers  of  Culture  meeting  within  the  Council  of  18  May  1992  concerning  the  choice  of 
European 
the 
1996 
http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:41992X0616:EN:HTML  

'Cultural  Month' 

13.06.1985 

Culture' 

Culture 

Cities 

after 

and 

of 

of 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
of  Culture  event  for  the  years  2005  to  2019,4  hereafter  referred  as  "the  Action".  Member 
States  were  ranked  in  a  chronological  order  of  entitlement  to  host  the  event  each  year. 
European  countries,  which  are  not  Member  States  could  also  apply,  with  no  pre-defined 
chronological order. 
Decision 1419/1999/EC was later replaced by Decision 1622/2006/EC5 which has refined the 
objectives of the Action, modified the designation and monitoring process for the 2013 title 
onward and dropped the possibility for non Member States cities to apply for the title. It has 
introduced a two stage national competition with European criteria and monitoring meetings 
after designation, while the previous Decision let Member States decide which procedure to 
adopt to select the cities, with no subsequent monitoring. 

In the case of 2007 and 2008, the proposed cities submitted their application including their 
cultural  programme  for  the  year  to  a  European  Selection  Panel  which  recommended  their 
designation  to  the  Commission.  In  turn  the  Commission  issued  a  recommendation  to  the 
Council  of  Ministers  which  formally  designated  the  ECOC.  Given  the  time-scale  of  ECOC 
implementation, preparation of which begins 6 years before the title year, the 2006 Decision 
maintains  the  application  of  the  1999  Decision  to  the  ECOC  for  2007,  2008  and  2009  and 
foresees transitional provisions for 2010-2012 events. 

EU  financial  support  is  provided  by  the  EU’s  Culture  Programme.  For  2007-13  it  makes 
available  a  maximum  of  1.5  million  euro  each  year  per  ECOC.6  For  2007  and  2008,  the 
financial support took the form of a co-financing grant for specific projects covering part of 
the ECOC cultural programmes. 

2.2. 

European Capitals of Culture 2007-2008 

Consequently  ECOC  2007  and  2008  fell  under  the  selection  procedures  set  by  the  1999 
Decision.  LUX  and  the  UK  were  entitled  to  host  the  ECOC  event  in  2007  and  2008 
respectively.  LUX  proposed  for  the  title  the  city  of  Luxembourg  and  its  broader  region 
("Grande  Région"  (GR)),  the  UK,  Liverpool  after  having  held  a  national  competition.  In 
addition, RO (not yet a Member State in 2004) proposed Sibiu for 2007 and NO Stavanger for 
2008. The selection process took place in 2003-2004. The European selection panel issued a 
report recommending Luxembourg and Sibiu for the 2007 title, and Liverpool and Stavanger 
for the 2008 title, while making recommendations to better achieve the proposed objectives. 
In  2004  the  Council  of  Ministers  formally  awarded  the  title  to  the  applicant  cities,  upon  a 
Commission recommendation. 

4 

5 

6 

Decision 1419/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 establishing a Community 
action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2005 to 2019 (OJ L 166 of 1.7.1999, p. 1). Decision 
(OJ  L  117  of  4.5.2005,  p.  20).  http://www.europa.eu/eur-
amended  by  Decision  649/2005/EC 
lex/pri/en/oj/dat/1999/l_166/l_16619990701en00010005.pdf 
http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_117/l_11720050504en00200021.pdf  
Decision  1622/2006/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  October  2006  establishing  a 
Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2007 to 2019 (OJ L 304 of 3.11.2006, p. 
1). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:304:SOM:EN:HTML  
Decision  1855/2006/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  12  December  2006  the  Culture 
Programme (2007-2013) (OJ L 372 of 27.12.2006, p. 1). Ref. Strand 1.3 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. 

THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION 

3.1. 

The terms of the evaluation 

The  Commission  has  entrusted  Ecotec  Research  and  Consulting  to  conduct  the  external 
evaluation7  of  the  ECOC  events  in  2007  and  2008.  The  evaluation  aimed  at  assessing  the 
relevance,  efficiency,  effectiveness  and  sustainability  of  these  four  ECOC  against  the 
objectives  of  the  Action  and  against  those  objectives  set  by  the  ECOC  themselves  in  their 
applications and during the implementation phase. The external evaluation was accompanied 
by reports for each ECOC and provided conclusions and recommendations on how to improve 
the implementation of the Action. Given the fact that each ECOC only bears the title for one 
year,  conclusions  and  recommendations  concerning  the  cities  were  given  in  the  form  of 
"lessons learnt" in order to help future ECOC in their implementation. 

3.2.  Methodology 

The four ECOC were evaluated individually, drawing in part on evaluations commissioned by 
the ECOC themselves. Data was gathered at two levels: a small amount of data at EU-level; 
and more extensive data from the ECOC themselves. The key sources included the policy and 
academic literature at the European level; the original ECOC applications, studies and reports 
commissioned  by  the  ECOC,  events  programmes,  promotional  materials  and  websites; 
quantitative  data  supplied  by  the  ECOC  on  activities,  outputs  and  results;  interviews  of 
managing teams for each ECOC; a telephone survey of key stakeholders in each ECOC; and 
visits  to  each  city.  A  comparative  review  and  meta-evaluation  exercise  considered  the 
conclusions emerging from all four ECOC, compared and contrasted approaches, and verified 
the  quality  of  the  research.  Conclusions  relating  to  the  ECOC  Action  more  generally  were 
drawn from considering the evidence and conclusions emerging from all four ECOC. 

3.3. 

The evaluator's findings 

3.3.1.  Relevance of the Action 

The evaluation considered that the implementation of the Action had been relevant to Article 
151  of  the  EC  Treaty:  the  objectives  of  “developing  cultural  activities”  and  “promoting  the 
European dimension of and through culture” have featured strongly in the Action. In addition, 
it appears from the evaluation findings that cities holding the ECOC title have over the years 
adopted  a  third  broad  objective  that  evaluators  have  defined  as  “supporting  social  and 
economic development through culture” although such an objective does not explicitly feature 
in Article 151 of the Treaty. 

The preamble to the 1999 Decision first introduced an explicit reference to the development 
of  culture  and  tourism  and  to  the  need  to  mobilise  large  sections  of  the  population.  These 
references  were  later  strengthened  in  the  2006  Decision  by  the  inclusion  of  explicit  criteria 
relating  to  “fostering  the  participation  of  citizens”  and  "long-term  development".  Many 
ECOC  have  gone  further  in  stating  explicit  social,  economic  or  tourism  objectives.  The 
introduction of such objectives into the ECOC Action has both shaped and reflected broader 
trends in cultural policy. 

However,  the  growing  importance  of  these  objectives  has  been  accompanied  by  a  debate 
about balance between whether culture should be supported for its own intrinsic value or as a 
means to deliver tangible, quantifiable returns on investment. 

7 

Framework  service  contract  n°EAC/03/06  on  evaluation,  evaluation-related  services  and  support  for 
impact assessment 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.3.2.  Relevance of the 2007 and 2008 ECOC 

The  evaluation  considered  the  motivation  of  the  cities  in  bidding  to  become  ECOC  and  the 
relevance of their objectives in relation to the objectives of the Action and of Article 151. All 
four  ECOC  were  strongly  relevant  to  at  least  one  of  the  three  specific  objectives  of 
“developing cultural activities", "promoting the European dimension of and through culture" 
and “social and economic development through culture” and demonstrated some relevance to 
all of them. 

Whilst all four ECOC were relevant to the objective of “developing cultural activities”, this 
was most apparent in Stavanger; in the other three ECOC, this was seen through the lens of 
other  overall  aims,  i.e.  building  a  cross-border  region  (Luxembourg  GR),  raising  the 
international profile of the city (Sibiu), and urban regeneration and inclusion (Liverpool). 

All four ECOC were relevant to the objective of “promoting the European dimension of and 
through  culture”,  primarily  through  their  objectives  of  fostering  co-operation  with  cultural 
operators, artists and cities in other Member States. 

All  four  ECOC  were  also  relevant  to  the  objective  of  pursuing  "economic  development 
through culture", primarily through using the ECOC to improve the image of the city (the GR 
in  the  case  of  Luxembourg)  and  to  the  objective  of  pursing  "social  development  through 
culture" through widening access to culture. 

3.3.3.  Efficiency of Governance 

Consideration  was  given  to  the  efficiency  of  the  governance  of  the  ECOC,  including  their 
organisational models, processes for selecting and implementing cultural activities and events, 
communications and promotions, and processes for raising finance. 

All  four  ECOC  faced  difficulties  in  establishing  efficient  governance  arrangements, 
particularly  during  the  development  phase.  These  difficulties  related  primarily  to  the 
challenge of establishing an organisational structure and building a team with the appropriate 
skills  to  implement  the  cultural  programme.  In  each  case,  this  required  a  wider  set  of  skills 
and thus a different structure from the team that had prepared the successful application, albeit 
retaining most of the key individuals. 

Issues that played an important role were: the need to balance artistic and political interests 
and to ensure that any new delivery mechanism was welcomed by the existing stakeholders as 
a co-operative partner; and getting the right mix of existing and seconded staff as well as new 
talent.  Each  ECOC  did  eventually  establish  an  efficient  governance  structure,  as  was 
recognised by the majority of stakeholders.  

The  experience  of  2007  and  2008  demonstrates  that  a  new  and  independent  structure  is 
usually advisable, one that is carefully customised to reflect the political and cultural context 
of  the  city  and,  indeed,  the  country  more  generally.  Another  important  lesson  of  2007  and 
2008 has been the importance of the evaluations commissioned by the ECOC themselves.  

3.3.4.  Efficiency of ECOC mechanisms at EU-level 

A  key  consideration  was  the  efficiency  of  the  selection,  monitoring  and  financial  processes 
operated  by  the  European  Commission.  Whilst  the  four  ECOC  expressed  broad  satisfaction 
with the way the European selection panel operated, it is too early to draw robust conclusions 
on the efficiency, effectiveness and impartiality of that process, as in their case the panel was 
only required to give a view on the absolute merits of each bid, rather than its merits relative 
to competing nominations, since there were none.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
The  1999  Decision  did  not  include  a  monitoring  phase.  Nevertheless  the  predominant  view 
from three of the four cities is that such a function would have brought benefits. Indeed, this 
might have helped to highlight potential problems and allowed for earlier remedial action. 

The  Commission's  promotion  of  networking  between  past,  present  and  future  ECOC  was 
welcomed by all four ECOC. 

The criteria for the €1.5m EU funding per ECOC  were clear and the administrative processes 
not dissimilar to those of other EU programmes. Each ECOC received funding from the EU’s 
Culture Programme for specific projects. The EU funding formed a very modest proportion of 
the total expenditure on the cultural programme of each ECOC. In view of the modest amount 
provided from the EU budget, the ECOC designation therefore has a very effective leverage 
effect. 

The ECOC Action generates high demand from candidate cities, substantial investment in the 
cultural programmes and in the cities more generally and has a high profile in the media and 
with the public. It is doubtful that any other policy mechanism could have achieved the same 
impact  for  the  same  level  of  EU  investment  in  terms  of  financial  resources  and  effort. 
However,  it  needs  to  seen  whether  “returns”  start  to  diminish  in  future  years  and  whether 
alternative  policy  mechanisms  are  required,  albeit  drawing  on  many  of  the  concepts 
underpinning the ECOC Action and the experiences to date. 

3.3.5.  Effectiveness in developing cultural activities 

The  evaluation  considered  the  effectiveness  of  each  ECOC  in  implementing  its  cultural 
programme and its impact on the long-term cultural development of the city. In each ECOC 
area  a  more  extensive  cultural  programme  has  been implemented than would have been the 
case  in  the  absence  of  ECOC  designation.  Many  genuinely  innovative  projects  and  new 
commissions  have  been  undertaken,  across  a  broad  range  of  cultural  genres.  Audiences  for 
cultural activities have in general been far greater than in the years preceding the ECOC and, 
where evidence is available, it suggests a high level of audience satisfaction. 

The  cultural  scene  of  each  city  is  now  more  vibrant  and  more  recognised  nationally  and 
internationally  than  previously.  Whilst  each  cultural  programme  has  featured  many 
established international and national artists, a significant number of local cultural operators 
has been supported in each case. As well as enjoying greater profile and contacts, one of the 
most  important  benefits  reported  across  all  four  ECOC  is  the  greater  professionalism  and 
operational capacity of such operators. In many cases, the mere fact of working more closely 
with  cultural  institutions  and  authorities  has  enabled  greater  support  to  be  provided  than 
would otherwise have been the case. For example, increased public funding has typically been 
accompanied  by  practical  help  to  enable  smaller  organisations  to  enter  into  contracts  and 
account for grant funding more effectively. 

Overall,  each  ECOC,  and  thus  also  the  Action  more  generally,  was  broadly  successful  in 
achieving its objectives relating to the development of cultural activities during the title year. 
Of course, not every element of the cultural programmes was completely successful and some 
stakeholders  were  disappointed  (such  as  some  cultural  institutions  for  whom  the  ECOC 
offered  limited  relevance),  some  local  artists  felt  there  was  an  undue  bias  towards 
international  artists,  and  the  expectations  of  some  local  cultural  operators  for  financial  and 
other  support  could  not  be  met.  But  the  Action  has  enabled  four  extensive  cultural 
programmes to be implemented that include many exciting and innovative projects. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
3.3.6.  Effectiveness in promoting the European dimension of and through culture 

The 1999 Decision offers no explicit definition of the “European dimension” and the criteria 
of  the  “European  dimension”  as  set  out  in  the  2006  Decision  provide  a  lot  of  flexibility  in 
interpretation. Perhaps as a consequence, the European dimension of the ECOC Action was 
interpreted  in  very  different  ways  by  the  2007  and  2008  ECOC.  The  evaluation  therefore 
allowed  for  such  diversity  when  considering  the  effectiveness  of  the  ECOC  in  promoting  a 
European dimension. Whilst all four ECOC were effective in implementing a wide range of 
activities  with  a  European  dimension,  the  nature  of  that  dimension  and  the  extent  of 
effectiveness varied: 

•  the visibility gained by the title helped all four to be effective in generating a significant 
increase in tourism, although this had been an important objective for only two of them; 

•  all  were  effective  in  undertaking  collaborations,  co-productions  and  exchanges,  although 
this activity was only extensive in Luxembourg GR; in the other ECOC, collaboration was 
peripheral  to  the  main  cultural  programme  and  primarily  took  place  only  with  the  other 
title holder; 

•  similarly,  all  were  effective  in  establishing  transnational  partnerships  with  other  cities  or 

regions, but this activity was only extensive in Luxembourg GR; 

•  three  of  the  ECOC  were  effective  in  meeting  their  objective  of  attracting  artists  of 

European significance; 

•  in  the  other  (Luxembourg  GR),  this  was  a  less  prominent  objective  although  many 

European artists were attracted; 

•  activities  related  to  "European  history,  identity  and  heritage  already  present  in  the  city" 
were  only  extensively  implemented  in  Luxembourg  GR  and  Sibiu,  although  both  were 
relatively effective; 

•  all ECOC gave only modest attention to the development of European themes and issues. 

3.3.7.  Effectiveness in achieving economic, urban development and tourism impacts 

The  evaluation  found  that  all  four  ECOC  were  effective  in  achieving  impacts  related  to 
economic, tourism and urban development objectives; tourism increased in all four cases and 
there  is  evidence  of  impact  on  the  local  economy;  all  four  ECOC  either  directly  funded 
cultural  infrastructure  and  urban  development  investments  or  gave  them  greater  impetus. 
However,  it  is  not  clear  whether  there  is  a  limit  to  the  extent  that  the  ECOC  concept  can 
continually drive urban regeneration. In the future, it may therefore be that there are efforts to 
recover  the  purely  cultural  objectives  of  the  early  years  of  the  ECOC,  or  that  the  concept 
needs to be revisited. 

3.3.8.  Effectiveness in supporting social development through culture 

The evaluation considered the effectiveness of the ECOC in respect of the social dimension of 
the Action. There is evidence that each was effective in implementing activities intended to 
achieve  social  objectives,  notably  the  widening  of  access  to  culture  and  participation  in 
volunteering  (particularly  in  Sibiu  and  Liverpool).  There  is  also  evidence  of  an  increase  in 
attendance at cultural events and participation in cultural activities, including amongst target 
groups (in the case of Luxembourg). Moreover, many new ways to involve such groups have 
been developed, for example, through the creation of new venues, the organisation of cultural 
events in different neighbourhoods and the creation of community arts projects. However, the 
social dimension of the 2007 and 2008 ECOC has consisted primarily of widening access to 
culture, rather than of cultural inclusion or social inclusion per se. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
3.3.9. 

Sustainability 

Finally,  the  evaluation  considered  the  sustainability  of  the  activities  of  the  ECOC  and  their 
impact  on  the  cultural  governance  and  long-term  development  of  their  respective  cities. 
Whilst  the  level  of  cultural  activity  has,  naturally,  decreased  following  the  end  of  the  title 
year, there is evidence in all four ECOC that many of the activities initiated in the title year 
have been sustained and, in some instances, public authorities have provided ongoing funding. 
There are also numerous examples of festivals, first initiated in the title year, continuing to be 
held  in  future  years.  In  addition,  there  are  many  examples  of  cultural  institutions  and 
independent operators that are undertaking a higher level of activity than before the title year, 
although some opportunities have been lost in that respect. 

The experience of 2007 and 2008 was that the end of the title year leads to the disbanding of 
the dedicated delivery agencies and inevitably some loss of the experience that has been built 
up.  However,  it  is  clear  that  the  ECOC  has  brought  about  important  shifts  within  the 
governance  of  culture  within  their  respective  cities.  Not  only  is  much  of  the  experience 
retained  (with  many  individuals  remaining  involved  in  the  cultural  governance  of  the  city, 
having returned to their previous employers, e.g. municipalities, or taken up new posts, e.g. 
with cultural institutions); ECOC have also led to the introduction of new ways of working, 
new partnerships, and new strategies. In many cases, the ECOC has ushered in a new set of 
relationships  between  local  municipalities  and  cultural  operators,  and  pushed  culture  up  the 
agenda of local political debate. Overall then, the ECOC have seen significant changes in the 
way  cultural  activities  are  brought  about  which  have  established  new  platforms  for  activity 
which are likely to be sustained into the future. 

At  this  stage,  it  is  too  early  to  evaluate  the  sustainability  of  economic  and  tourism  impacts. 
Whilst  the  2007  and  2008  ECOC  enjoyed  increases  in  tourism  and  higher  international 
profiles during their title years, there is a risk that these benefits will be difficult to sustain in 
current economic circumstances – though the title holders may, of course, enjoy more visitors 
than they would have done in the absence of ECOC designation and be in a better position to 
capture future benefits once the global economy recovers. 

4. 

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION AND COMMENTS FROM 
THE COMMISSION 

The  Commission  agrees  with  the  overall  gist  of  the  recommendations  by  the  evaluator, 
however  it  feels  there  is  some  duplication  and  therefore  will  implement  a  slightly  modified 
formulation  of  the  recommendations  as  outlined  below,  but  which  do  not  change  their 
substance. 

4.1. 

Efficiency of Governance 

The  Commission  should  recommend  all  ECOC  to  commission  evaluations  of  the  impact  of 
their cultural programmes and associated activities. 

4.2. 

Efficiency of ECOC mechanisms at EU-level 

Future evaluations should consider: 

•  the  efficiency,  effectiveness  and  impartiality  of  the  selection  and  monitoring  processes 

introduced by the 2006 Decision; 

•  the continued value of the ECOC “brand”, as viewed both by the title holders and by the 
wider  world  (media,  cultural  sector  bodies  and  the  general  public);  in  the  event  that  the 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
value  of  the  brand  is  perceived  to  be  diminishing,  the  Commission  should  explore 
alternative approaches and compare their relative merits with those of the ECOC. 

4.3. 

Effectiveness  in  achieving  economic,  urban  development  and  tourism  impacts 
and in supporting social development through culture 

In  forthcoming  debates,  the  European  Commission  should  explore  the  extent  to  which  the 
ECOC concept (and culture more generally) can (continue to) and should be used to stimulate  

•  urban regeneration and economic development or whether to return to an approach that is 

more about culture as an end in itself; 

•  the  genuine  social  renewal  of  cities  and  outreach  to  all  citizens,  as  opposed  to  merely 

widening opportunities for culture to already existing audiences; 

•  or whether to retain the flexibility for cities to strike their own balance 

5. 

THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSIONS 

The Commission shares the evaluator's overall assessment and accepts its recommendations 
as formulated in the section above. It is aware that the strength of each ECOC is rooted in its 
diversity and cultural uniqueness and will ensure that cities have enough latitude to implement 
the objectives of the Action (rec.1). 

The Commission notes that most ECOC already have evaluation schemes covering all or parts 
of their cultural programme and will recommend overall evaluations at local level (rec.2). In 
order  to  promote  the  circulation  of  good  practices,  the  Commission  has  supported  a  policy 
grouping where the  comprehensive  evaluation model developed by  Liverpool 2008  is being 
further adapted to the needs of future ECOC.8 The Commission will also have a closer look at 
the way structural funds are used and can be used by ECOC.9 The Commission is pleased to 
note that new selection, monitoring and financing procedures set by Decision 2006 already go 
in  the  direction  recommended  by  the  evaluation  findings.  It  will  ensure  that  these  new 
arrangements  are  properly  evaluated  in  due  course.10  The  Commission  is  well  aware  of  the 
ECOC "brand": it provides guidance on its use through the ECOC guide to candidate cities11 
and will continue to monitor its use and the value of the brand. 

The Commission will promote the exchange of good practices and highlight the experience of 
ECOC as  a "laboratory" for urban development through culture. As for the inherent tension 
between  the  instrumental  use  of  culture  for  social  and  economic  purposes  and  the  intrinsic 
value of culture for the European citizen, the Commission is persuaded that successful ECOC 
provide  good  examples  of  ways  of  reconciling  artistic  quality  with  socio-economic 
development (rec.3). 

8 
9 

10 

11 

http://www.liv.ac.uk/impacts08/  
Study on the contribution of culture to local and regional economic development as part of European 
regional policy http://ec.europa.eu/culture/key-documents/doc537_en.htm  
2010  ECOC  for  monitoring  procedures  and  the  Melina  Mercouri  prize;  2013  ECOC  for  the  full 
selection procedure, as set by Decision 2006 
http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmes-and-actions/doc629_en.htm 

EN 

9 

   EN