REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Ex Post evaluation of the 2009 European Capital of Culture event (Linz and Vilnius)
Date: 2010-12-17
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, 17.12.2010 
COM(2010) 762 final 

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

Ex Post evaluation of the 2009 European Capital of Culture event (Linz and Vilnius)  

EN 

   EN 

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

Ex Post evaluation of the 2009 European Capital of Culture event  

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

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." 

This  report  puts  forward  the  Commission's  position  on  the  main  conclusions  and 
recommendations of the external evaluation of 2009 European Capital of Culture that can be 
obtained via the link below: 

http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmes-and-actions/doc485_en.htm 

The external evaluation first evaluated individually both  2009 European Capitals of Culture 
(hereafter  "ECOC"):  Linz  and  Vilnius.  It  then  compared  findings  and  reached  conclusions 
valid  for  both.  Findings  are  based  on  data  provided  by  both  ECOC,  feedback  from 
stakeholders,  and  policy  and  academic  literature  at  European  level.  In  drawing  conclusions 
and offering recommendations, the evaluation builds on the evaluation of the 2007 and 2008 
ECOC carried out in 2009.2 

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE ACTION 

2.1. 

The EU action for the European Capital of Culture event 

The initial scheme of 'The European City of Culture" was launched at intergovernmental level 
in  19853  and  later  complemented  by  a  "European  Cultural  Month".4  On  the  basis  of  these 
activities, Decision 1419/1999/EC established a Community Action for the European Capital 

1 
2 

3 

4 

OJ L304 of 3 November 2006 
Ex post Evaluation of 2007 and 2008 European Capitals of Culture ; study prepared for the European 
Commission, ECOTEC Research and Consulting; 2009. 
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 

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
of  Culture  event  for  the  years  2005  to  2019,5  hereafter  referred  as  "the  Action".  Member 
States  were  ranked  in  a  chronological  order  of  entitlement  to  host  the  event  each  year. 
European  countries,  which  were  not  Member  States  could  also  apply,  with  no  pre-defined 
chronological order. 

Decision  1419/1999/EC  was  later  replaced  by  Decision  1622/2006/EC6  which  refined  the 
objectives of the Action, modified the designation and monitoring process for the 2013 title 
onward  and  ended  the  possibility  for  non  Member  States  cities  to  apply  for  the  title.  In 
contrast to the previous Decision which let Member States decide which procedure to adopt to 
select the cities, with no subsequent monitoring, the new Decision has introduced a two stage 
national competition with European criteria and monitoring meetings after designation. 

As of the 2009 title, two Member States each year were entitled to host the event; they were 
expected  to  put  forward  cities  and  to  submit  their  applications  including  their  cultural 
programmes 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 
time-scale  of  ECOC 
Ministers  which  formally  designated 
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 the titles for 2010, 2011 and 2012. 

the  ECOC.  Given 

the 

EU  financial  support  is  provided  by  the  EU’s  Culture  Programme.  For  2007-13  it  makes 
available a maximum of € 1.5 million each year per ECOC. 7 For 2009, the financial support 
took the form of a co-financing grant for specific projects covering part of the ECOC cultural 
programmes. 

2.2. 

2009 European Capitals of Culture  

The  ECOC  2009  fell  under  the  selection  procedures  set  by  the  1999  Decision.  Austria  and 
Lithuania  were  entitled  to  host  the  ECOC  in  this  year  and  they  proposed  Linz  and  Vilnius 
respectively. The selection process took place in 2005. The European selection panel issued a 
report  recommending  both  cities  for  the  2009  title,  while  making  recommendations  to  help 
them achieve the proposed objectives. In 2005 the Council of Ministers formally awarded the 
title to the applicant cities on the basis of a Commission recommendation. 

5 

6 

7 

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 
evaluation8 of the ECOC in 2009. The evaluation aimed at assessing the relevance, efficiency, 
effectiveness and sustainability of these two 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 

Both 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; consultation of key stakeholders in each ECOC; and visits to 
each  city.  A  comparative  review  and  meta-evaluation  exercise  considered  the  conclusions 
emerging from both 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 both 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 
167 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union. The objectives of “developing 
cultural  activities”  and  “promoting  the  European  dimension  of  and  through  culture”  have 
featured strongly in the Action.  

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. 

8 

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 2009 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 167. It 
also studied the process by which the motivation of the 2009 ECOC was converted into a set 
of  workable  objectives  and  the  changes  to  those  objectives  during  the  development  phase. 
Both  ECOC  embraced  the  objectives  of  the  Action  and  customised  them  in  line  with  their 
own  particular  contexts  and  priorities.  Both  planned  diverse  cultural  programmes  and 
associated  activities  (e.g.  communications,  volunteering,  etc)  that  would  support  the 
objectives  of  "developing  cultural  activities",  "promoting  the  European  dimension  of  and 
through culture" and "social and economic development through culture".  

The  objectives  and  activities  of  Linz  were  very  relevant  to  all  three  specific  objectives  and 
particularly relevant to the objective of developing cultural activities. With regard to Vilnius, 
for practical reasons it was unable to pursue the third objective to any great extent, though it 
always  retained  the  aspiration  to  do  so,  and  pursued  instead  activity  that  was  principally 
relevant to the objectives of "promoting the European dimension" and of "developing cultural 
activities".  

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. 

Similarly  to  the  evaluation  of  the  2007  and  2008  ECOC,  the  evaluation  of  the  2009  ECOC 
highlights that it is essential but can be challenging to establish an appropriate organisational 
structure and build a team with the appropriate skills to implement the cultural programme. 
This  requires  a  broader  set  of  skills  and  thus  a  different  structure  from  the  team  that  had 
prepared  the  original  application.  There  is  also  the  need  to  balance  artistic  and  political 
interests  and  to  ensure  that  any  new  delivery  mechanism  is  welcomed  by  the  existing 
stakeholders as a co-operative partner. A new and independent structure is usually advisable, 
one that is carefully customised to the political and cultural context of the city.  

The 2009 ECOC illustrate these points in very different ways. Linz developed an efficient and 
effective  governance  structure  and  thus  demonstrated  how  the  main  challenges  can  be  met. 
The  experience  in  Vilnius  highlights  the  potential  consequences  of  not  fully  meeting  these 
challenges. It struggled to establish stable and effective arrangements, which led to difficulties 
for the cultural programme and the overall impact of the ECOC event. 

Regardless  of  these  difficulties,  the  ECOC  title  remains  highly  valued,  generates  extensive 
cultural programmes and achieves significant impacts. Cities make great efforts to secure the 
nomination and also make very explicit commitments at application stage regarding financial 
resources. However there is a need to ensure that ECOC fulfil their own commitments made 
at  application  stage.  Indeed,  the  risk  is  that  in  very  difficult  economic  circumstances  and 
where  political  consensus  may  be  lacking,  the  ECOC  may  struggle  to  compete  against  the 
other demands made on public budgets. 

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 both ECOC expressed broad satisfaction with 

EN 

5 

   EN 

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.  The  1999  Decision  did  not  include  a 
monitoring phase.  

However,  as  the  2009  and  other  ECOC  have  shown,  the  development  phase  can  be 
challenging,  when  the  aspirations  of  the  application  need  to  be  converted  into  a  set  of 
workable institutional arrangements and a credible cultural programme. Whilst Linz was able 
to  convert  its  application  into  an  effective  ECOC,  Vilnius  encountered  difficulties.  As  the 
1999 Decision did not foresee a monitoring process, the European Commission had no formal 
means at its disposal with which to address its concerns. In the case of Vilnius, the monitoring 
process (had it been in operation) might have enabled potential problems to be identified and 
acted upon at an earlier stage. The monitoring process introduced by Decision 1622/2006/EC 
(replacing Decision 1419/1999/EC) should represent an improvement in comparison with the 
arrangements of Decision 1419/1999/EC. 

The criteria for the €1.5m EU funding per ECOC  were clear and the administrative processes 
similar  to  those  for  other  EU  programmes.  Each  ECOC  received  funding  from  the  EU’s 
Culture Programme for specific projects.  

While the EU contribution from the Culture programme represent a very limited contribution 
to  the  operational  budget  of  any  Capital,  the  project  co-funded  with  a  Commission  grant  as 
part  of  Vilnius  2009  had  a  considerable  impact  in  terms  of  European  added  value  and 
audience.  

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.  

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.  

Both  2009  ECOC  hoped  to  use  the  opportunity  of  the  ECOC  to  raise  their  profile  through 
culture  and  as  cultural  cities.  Linz  already  enjoyed  international  profile  as  an  industrial  city 
but hoped for greater recognition (nationally and internationally) as a cultural city – and one 
that  could  compete  with  Salzburg  and  Vienna,  albeit  on  a  different  terrain  (i.e.  in 
contemporary rather than classical culture). Vilnius was already the established cultural centre 
of Lithuania, but sought international recognition as a cultural destination. 

Both ECOC were certainly successful in implementing a more extensive cultural programme 
than would have taken place in the absence of ECOC designation. This programme was very 
extensive in Linz. In Vilnius, for budgetary and governance reasons, it was more modest and 
smaller than had originally been intended. Nevertheless, for both, the ECOC enabled them to 
implement  larger  and  more  ambitious  events,  more  genuinely  innovative  projects  and  new 
commissions across a range of cultural genres than would have been possible in the absence 
of the designation. Both succeeded in attracting more international artists to their respective 
cities.  Whilst  cultural  operators  in  both  cities  reported  increased  capacity  and  better  co-
operation with partners in other cities and countries, in Linz the ECOC appears to have made 

EN 

6 

   EN 

the cultural scene more vibrant on a longer-term basis. During the event itself, Linz attracted 
audiences of nearly 3.5 million people. 

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

The  1999  Decision  does  not  define  the  “European  dimension”  explicitly,  but  views  it 
essentially in terms of cultural cooperation, including: the highlighting of artistic movements 
and  styles  shared  by  Europeans  which  the  city  has  inspired  or  to  which  it  has  made  a 
significant contribution; and the promotion of events involving people active in culture from 
other  cities  in  Member  States  and  leading  to  lasting  cultural  cooperation  and  fostering  their 
movement within the EU. 

The  criterion  of  the  “European  dimension”  set  out  in  the  2006  Decision  provides  room  for 
interpretation for cities. Illustrations are given in the Guide to candidate cities which has been 
available on line since 2007. As a consequence the two ECOC in 2009 have given their own 
interpretations to this dimension. 

Both  ECOC  were  successful  in  undertaking  activities  that  feature  artists  of  European 
significance.  Although  both  already  featured  a  significant  number  of  international  artists  in 
their regular cultural offering - particularly Linz through, for example, the Brucknerfest and 
the Ars Electronica Festival – more such artists were attracted to the cities as a result of the 
ECOC.  Whilst  Vilnius  had  fewer  events  featuring  artists  of  European  significance  than  did 
Linz,  they  perhaps  constituted  a  relatively  larger  proportion  of  its  cultural  programme.  In 
contrast,  events  featuring  artists  of  European  significance  were  more  numerous  in  Linz  but 
less  prominent  in  relation  to  the  rest  of  its  very  extensive  programme;  indeed,  the  overall 
ethos  of  Linz  was  not  to  organise  a  large  number  of  blockbusters  aimed  at  international 
audiences but instead to provide a 365-day offer. 

The  cultural  programmes  of  both  ECOC  featured  a  larger  number  of  collaborations,  co-
productions  and  exchanges  than  would  have  been  the  case  in  the  absence  of  ECOC 
designation.  In  the  case  of  Linz,  this  was  facilitated  by  the  fact  that  the  key  staff  in  the 
delivery agency were already recognised operators in the international cultural sector and thus 
well connected to potential collaborators.  

Neither  of  the  2009  ECOC  gave  very  high  prominence  to  specific  European  themes  and 
issues. Both emphasised aspects of European history, identity and heritage already present in 
the city – but in very different ways. Vilnius, a city in a country that had recently acceded to 
the  EU,  put  a  strong  emphasis  on  its  long  European  history  and  cultural  heritage.  Linz, 
meanwhile, chose to explore its role in a darker chapter in European history: the Nazi era and, 
alongside that, the city’s (now much diminished) Jewish heritage. This was perhaps the first 
time that any ECOC has explored such a difficult issue in such an explicit way.  

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

The  evaluation  found  that  both  ECOC  were  successful  in  implementing  a  more  extensive 
cultural programme than would have taken place in the absence of ECOC designation, though 
in  Vilnius  this  was  much  smaller  than  had  been  intended.  In  both  cities,  the  cultural 
programme  complemented  a  programme  of  infrastructure  investment,  albeit  funded  from 
other  sources  (notably  the  structural  funds  in  the  case  of  Vilnius),  but  in  the  case  of  Linz 
given greater impetus by the ECOC. The Linz ECOC generated significant economic benefits 
for the city, as well as an increase in tourism, improvements in its internal and external image 
and wider participation in cultural activities. For example, data on overnight stays provided by 

EN 

7 

   EN 

Linz shows that there was a 10% increase in overnight stays compared to 2008. In contrast, 
Vilnius appears less likely to secure significant economic or social impacts as a result of the 
ECOC. 

3.3.8. 

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.  

In  Linz,  there  are  numerous  examples  of  cultural  activities  newly  initiated  in  the  title  year 
continuing beyond the life of the year but, quite understandably, not of the scale of the €40m 
or so invested during the title year. Nonetheless, the cultural scene of Linz can be said to be 
more extensive and vibrant as a result of the ECOC. In Vilnius, the examples of continuing 
activity are relatively few in number and there is limited evidence of the cultural scene being 
more extensive and vibrant than it would otherwise have been. 

Both  the  2009  ECOC  have  generated  cultural  activities  that  will  enhance  the  capacity  for 
undertaking better, more ambitious events and for undertaking international co-operation. In 
Linz  they  are  more  widespread,  however.  Governance  and  partnership  working  in  Linz  has 
been  strengthened  as  a  result  of  the  ECOC,  offering  the  potential  for  further  positive 
development of that city’s cultural sector. 

At this stage, it is too early to evaluate the sustainability of economic and tourism impacts.  

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, which 
are very close to the recommendations issued following the 2007-2008 ECOC evaluation.  

4.1. 

Efficiency of Governance 

The Commission agrees to 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 

The Commission agrees that future evaluations should consider: 

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

introduced by the 2006 Decision as well as their impacts on the quality of the event; 

•  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 
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. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

4.3. 

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

In forthcoming debates, the European Commission agrees to explore the extent to which the 
ECOC concept (and culture more generally) can (continue to) and should be used to provide 
incentives to cities to stimulate, for their long term development :  

•  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 

4.4. 

Sustainability 

•  The European Commission agrees to continue to find ways to promote the sustainability of 

the impact of ECOC, based on the experience to date.  

5. 

THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSIONS 

The  Commission  concludes  that  the  ECOC  title  remains  highly  valued,  generates  extensive 
cultural programmes and significant impacts. The EU title and financial contribution have a 
considerable leverage effect, making it a highly cost-effective and efficient initiative. 

The Commission shares the evaluator's overall assessment and accepts its recommendations 
as formulated in the section above. 

The Commission notes that most ECOC already have evaluation schemes covering all or parts 
of their cultural programme and will continue to recommend overall evaluations at local level. 
In  order  to  promote  the  circulation  of  good  evaluation  practices,  through  the  EU  Culture 
Programme the Commission has supported a policy grouping which adapts the comprehensive 
evaluation  model  developed  by  Liverpool  2008  further  to  the  needs  of  future  ECOC.9  The 
Commission's  guide  for  candidate  cities  has  also  been  updated  to  include  a  section  on 
evaluation.  Furthermore,  to  mark  the  25  year  anniversary  of  the  ECOC,  the  Commission 
organised a conference in March 2010 which focused on legacy and evaluation of the event. 
A summary of the discussions is available on the Commission's website. 

Concerning  the  recommendation  that  future  evaluations  should  look  at  the  efficiency  of 
ECOC mechanisms set by Decision 2006 and the recommendation that future debates should 
explore the various roles of the title the Commission has launched an evaluation on the new 
arrangements, which is due to be completed towards the end of 2010. Furthermore, an on-line 
public  consultation  is  being  launched  in  autumn  2010.  These  will  both  feed  into  the 
preparation  of  a  Commission  proposal  for  the  initiative  beyond  2019,  which  will  seek  to 
ensure that the initiative remains as attractive, relevant and effective as possible. These issues 
were also discussed at the 25 year anniversary conference mentioned above. 

9 

http://www.liv.ac.uk/impacts08/  

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
Concerning  sustainability,  ensuring  long-term  effects  from  the  event  is  already  one  of  the 
criteria in the 2006 Decision and will continue to be a key consideration in the reflections of 
the  prolongation  of  the  initiative.  Furthermore,  the  Commission  already  stresses  the 
importance  of  embedding  the  event  as  part  of  a  long-term  culture  policy  strategy  in  its 
documents, information sessions and other conferences and will continue to do so.  

EN 

10 

   EN