REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION Ex Post evaluation of the 2010 European Capitals of Culture (Essen for the Ruhr, Pécs, Istanbul)
Date: 2011-12-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European cultural event, Germany, Hungary, Türkiye, capital city

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 20.12.2011 
COM(2011) 921 final 

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

Ex Post evaluation of the 2010 European Capitals of Culture (Essen for the Ruhr, Pécs, 
Istanbul) 

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

Ex Post evaluation of the 2010 European Capitals of Culture (Essen for the Ruhr, Pécs, 
Istanbul)  

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." 
This report puts forward the Commission's position on the main conclusions and 
recommendations of the external evaluation of 2010 European Capital of Culture that can be 
obtained via the link below: 
http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmes-and-actions/capitals/evaluation-commissioned-
by-the-eu_en.htm. 
The external evaluation first evaluated individually the three European Capitals of Culture 
(hereafter "ECOC"): Essen for the Ruhr, Pécs and Istanbul. It then compared findings and 
reached conclusions valid for all three.  

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 19852 On the basis of this experience, Decision 1419/1999/EC established a 
Community Action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2005 to 20193. 
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: the countries enabled to host the event for a given year 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. The Council of Ministers formally designated the ECOC.  
On 1 January 2007, Decision 1419/1999/EC was replaced by Decision 1622/2006/EC4 which 
refined the objectives, introduced a two stage national competition and monitoring process for 
the 2013 title onward. The new Decision introduced monitoring meetings after designation, 

1 
2 

3 

4 

Culture' 

OJ L304 of 3 November 2006 
Resolution of the Ministers responsible for Cultural Affairs regarding the annual organization of the 'European City 
of 
http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?val=117538:cs&lang=fr&list=117540:cs,117539:cs,117538:cs,118564:cs,&pos=3&page=1&nbl
=4&pgs=10&hwords=&checktexte=checkbox&visu= 
Decision  1419/1999/EC  (OJ  L  166  of  1.7.1999).  Amended  by  Decision  649/2005/EC  (OJ  L  117  of  4.5.2005). 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1999:166:0001:0005:EN:PDF 
http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:117:0020:0021:EN:PDF 
Decision 
of 
lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:304:SOM:EN:HTML 

1622/2006/EC 

3.11.2006). 

13.06.1985 

http://eur-

304 

(OJ 

of 

L 

 
 
                                                 
which ends up by the Panel making a recommendation on awarding a pecuniary prize in 
honour of Melina Mercouri to the Capitals, provided that the designated cities meet the 
criteria laid down by Decision 1622/2006/EC and have implemented the recommendations 
made by the selection and monitoring panels. EU financial support is provided by the Culture 
Programme. For 2007-13 it makes available a maximum of € 1.5 million each year per 
ECOC. Cities up to the 2009 title received it as a grant cofunding part of their programme. 
Cities as from the 2010 title have been submitted to the monitoring phase and received the EU 
financial support of € 1.5 million th rough the Melina Mercouri prize. 

2.2. 

2010 European Capitals of Culture  

The selection of the 2010 ECOC fell under the selection procedures set by the 1999 Decision. 
Germany and Hungary were entitled to host the ECOC in this year. Germany proposed Essen 
for the Ruhr and Görlitz; Hungary proposed Pécs. In addition, Turkey proposed Istanbul and 
Ukraine proposed Kiev. On the basis of Article 4 of Decision 1419/1999/EC concerning the 
participation of non-EU countries in the event, only one city from non EU countries could 
hold the title for a given year.  
The selection process took place in 2006. The European selection panel issued a report 
recommending Essen for the Ruhr, Pécs and Istanbul for the 2010 title, while making 
recommendations to help them achieve the proposed objectives. In 2006 the Council of 
Ministers formally awarded the title to the recommended cities on the basis of a Commission 
recommendation. 

3. 

THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION 

The terms of the evaluation 

3.1. 
The Commission entrusted ECORYS UK Ltd. to conduct the external evaluation5 of the 
ECOC in 2010. The evaluation aimed at assessing the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and 
sustainability of these ECOC against the objectives of the Action and against those objectives 
set by the ECOC themselves in their applications and during the implementation phase. 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 three 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 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. Conclusions relating to the ECOC Action in general were based on the evidence 
and conclusions emerging from all three 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 selection criteria specified in 
Decisions 1419/EC/1999 and 1622/EC/2006 ensured that the cultural programmes of title-

5 

Framework service contract n°EAC/03/06 

 
 
                                                 
holders were relevant to the detail of Article 167, although the criteria allow each ECOC the 
freedom to interpret the Treaty objectives in their own unique way.  
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. 

3.3.2.  Relevance of the 2010 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 2010 ECOC was converted into a set 
of workable objectives and the changes to those objectives during the development phase. The 
three ECOC embraced the objectives of the Action and customised them in line with their 
own particular contexts and priorities. All three 2010 Capitals 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".  

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, 2008 and 2009 ECOC, the evaluation of the 2010 
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 2010 ECOC illustrate these points in very different ways. Essen for the Ruhr developed 
an efficient and effective governance structure and thus demonstrated how the main 
challenges can be met, even in the complex situation where a large agglomeration is involved.  
In Pécs, the management of an event of this scale proved to be very challenging and a number 
of difficulties were faced. First, two different organisations were established to manage the 
budget, which resulted in a lack of clarity over the responsibility for artistic direction; 
responsibility for allocating funding tended to remain with the public authorities and the 
managing agency enjoyed only a limited degree of autonomy. Secondly, the selection of an 
Artistic Director and the leadership of the development of the cultural programme proved to 
be challenging and there were changes in the individuals responsible for the development of 
the programme and the institutional set-up. These difficulties were compounded by changes at 
the political level in Pécs during the development phase. As a result, the decision-making 
process was complicated and lengthy and it was not until the end of 2008 that the governance 
arrangements became settled and attention could turn to the development of the cultural 
programme. However, by this stage it was already too late to mobilise many cultural operators 
and realise some of the original project ideas. Despite these challenges, the final cultural 

 
 
programme of Pécs 2010 was far more extensive than the city's cultural offering in previous 
years. 
Concerning Istanbul, an executive body "Istanbul 2010 European Capital of Culture Agency" 
was set up by law in 2007 to implement the ECOC programme. This agency enjoyed the 
strong political and financial commitment of the national government, as well as a significant 
degree of autonomy at least at the outset. Whilst the agency was successful in implementing a 
very extensive cultural programme and marketing campaign, certain features of the 
governance arrangements proved problematic and led to the overall impact of the ECOC 
being less than anticipated. As the government became the supplier of 95% of the funding, the 
state bodies exerted increasing control over the ECOC to the frustration of the independent 
cultural operators, several of whom resigned their positions within the agency in 2009. The 
resulting loss of a clear artistic vision resulted in weak co-ordination between the cultural 
programme and the marketing campaign, with the latter not tending specifically to promote 
the former. 
Regardless of these difficulties, the ECOC title remains highly valued, generates extensive 
cultural programmes and achieves significant impacts. Cities 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, including in terms of 
communication: at selection stage, Essen for the Ruhr presented itself as a city candidate for 
the title and involving Ruhr in its programme. However, despite the Monitoring and Advisory 
panel's recommendations, the title Essen for the Ruhr 2010 shifted to Ruhr 2010 in the 
communication strategy of the event. In addition, at least one city in the Ruhr region 
(Dortmund) appropriated the title by presenting itself as "Dortmund European Capital of 
Culture 2010" in some cases.  

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.  
The mechanisms applied by the European Commission to the selection of the 2010 ECOC 
were those specified by Decision 1419/EC/1999. Germany and Hungary were free to 
determine the basis on which they would nominate a city (or cities) for the ECOC title. Both 
Member States organised a competition to select proposals before forwarding them to the 
European institutions. They defined the criteria and arrangements for these competitions 
independently from the European Commission. Whilst the competitions were successful in 
attracting a high number of applicants, with 16 in Germany and 7 in Hungary, they did not 
ensure that all applications were developed with the European criteria in mind. Moreover, 
whilst Germany nominated two cities to the European selection panel – allowing the panel a 
choice – Hungary nominated just one, allowing the panel only the choice to accept or reject 
the application of Pécs.  
Whilst all three ECOC did ultimately prove relevant to the EU level criteria, future ECOC 
selected according to the new procedures introduced by Decision 1622/EC/2006 (i.e. those 
from 2013 onwards) may prove to be more relevant to the EU level criteria. 
The 2010 title-holders did, however, represent the first ECOC to be co-financed and 
monitored according to the new processes set out in Decision 1622/EC/2006. In these three 
cases, the evidence from the research suggests that the new processes have played a part in 
strengthening the ECOC, including their focus on the European dimension. They report that 
informal contact with members of the monitoring and advisory panel has proved a valuable 
complement to the formal monitoring meetings and reports. All three also reported that 
receiving the EU funding in the form of a prize had created a lower administrative burden 
than would a traditional grant, as it was the case for the previous titles. 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 

All three of the 2010 ECOC implemented much more extensive cultural programmes within 
their territories than would have taken place in the absence of ECOC designation: 5,500 
cultural events were implemented in Essen for the Ruhr, 4,675 in Pécs and 10,000 in Istanbul. 
Together they accounted for more than 20,000 events attended by at least 20 million people 
across the two larger ECOC (Essen for the Ruhr and Istanbul).6 The cultural programmes of 
all three ECOC stretched across the full twelve months of the title year. Overall, the ECOC 
Action as a whole can be said to have been successful in its objective of developing cultural 
activities. 
The evidence from the three ECOC also suggests that these cultural programmes have been 
more innovative, diverse and high profile than would have been the cultural offering of each 
city in the absence of ECOC designation, with more events and performances from artists of 
international renown than would usually be the case. Essen for the Ruhr and Istanbul placed 
particular emphasis on the commissioning and performance or exhibition of new art works, 
including by local artists and cultural institutions, while Pécs placed relatively more emphasis 
on existing activities. 
All three ECOC explored various artistic themes and issues, which were in some cases 
innovative or avant-garde. However, in Pécs and Istanbul, difficulties in the governance of the 
ECOC meant that strong artistic direction was lacking for the cultural programme as a whole. 
Istanbul explored themes of contemporary interest and presented a diverse offering of modern 
and contemporary culture across different artistic disciplines, though it struggled to assert a 
coherent artistic theme across those disciplines. Meanwhile, Pécs had the overall aim of 
fostering co-operation with southeast Europe and positioning itself as a gateway to countries 
in that region. But in practice, its activities became more focussed on the development of new 
infrastructure (which may be difficult to finance beyond the year) rather than the exploration 
of artistic themes related to the overall aim of the ECOC. 

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 flexibility 
for cities in their interpretation. Illustrations are given in the Guide to candidate cities which 
has been available on line since 2007.  
The post-script to the evaluation of the 2009 ECOC suggested that ECOC cultural 
programmes are made "European" through the inclusion of activities whose content, delivery 
mechanism, audiences or participants are European in essence. Looking at the 2010 ECOC, 
we can see that all three were European in that sense, though the approaches differed: 

•  Content:  the  three  ECOC  highlighted  very  different  European  themes  in  diverse  ways. 
Essen  for  the  Ruhr  placed  most  emphasis  on  regional  themes  but  explored  them  in  a 
European context, particularly migration, identity and approaches to cultural education. Of 
the  three  ECOC,  Essen  for  the  Ruhr  was  perhaps  most  successful  in  ensuring  that 
European themes permeated the entire cultural programme through making "A model for 

6 

The attendance figure for Pécs was not available. 

 
 
                                                 
Europe’ one of the three selection criteria for all projects. The European theme promoted 
by  Pécs  focussed  on  its  potential  as  a  "Gateway  to  the  Balkans",  with  many  cultural 
activities focussed on promoting a pan-Balkan culture. Istanbul originally aimed to present 
the city as a European centre for modern and contemporary culture which would "function 
as a bridge connecting Europe to its East” and there was some exploration of the role of 
culture  and  civil  society  in  the  context  of  Turkey's  application  for  EU  membership. 
However  in  practice,  the  original  artistic  vision  was  lost  across  much  of  the  ECOC  and 
ultimately  the  emphasis  was  more  often  on  the  historical  rather  than  contemporary 
European heritage of the city. 

•  Delivery  mechanism:  all  three  ECOC  included  events  featuring  artists  of  European 
significance, though the predominant delivery mechanism for the European dimension was 
partnerships  with  cities  in  other  countries.  These  were  extensive  in  the  case  of  Essen  for 
the Ruhr, with cultural collaborations, exchanges and networking, with a total of more than 
100 multilateral co-operation projects involving 83 000 participants. For Pécs, 270 projects 
involving  artists  from  other  countries  and  52  projects  with  other  ECOC  took  place,  with 
co-operation  being  most  important  with  cities  in  neighbouring  countries.  Collaborations 
between the ECOC and other cities was perhaps less structured and less extensive in Pécs 
and Istanbul than in Essen for the Ruhr, though there were a number of collaborations with 
artists and operators in other countries. Istanbul enabled many of  its  39  municipalities  to 
undertake  transnational  cultural  co-operation  for  the  first  time;  there  was  also  a  diverse 
range of artistic co-operations between the three ECOC themselves. 

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

Essen for the Ruhr and Pécs aimed to develop arts and culture as one means by which to 
pursue the economic and social regeneration of former industrial areas, though both adopted 
quite different approaches. Istanbul did not particularly seek to use culture to pursue 
economic objectives, with anyway a likely economic impact. It sought to promote access to 
and participation in culture, particularly amongst those that would not usually enjoy such 
opportunities. 
All three ECOC stimulated investments in cultural and other infrastructure that would not 
have otherwise taken place (€140 million were in vested in Pécs and €64 million in Istanbul in 
2010). In Pécs, the new cultural or refurbished facilities were at the heart of the ECOC and 
seen as key to the long-term development both of culture and of the city. Here, the ECOC also 
provided an impetus to investments in other infrastructure, such as the new motorway link to 
Budapest. In Istanbul, the ECOC provided the spur to extensive investments in the restoration 
of the city's wealth of cultural heritage sites. Some facilities were also refurbished in Essen for 
the Ruhr. 
The experience of 2010 also shows that ECOC can help transform the image of cities or give 
them greater international prominence, although the extent to which this is necessary or 
feasible will vary.  
In terms of direct impact on the economy through tourism, there is evidence of increased 
tourist visits in Pécs, Essen for the Ruhr and Istanbul +71%, +18.5%, and +11% respectively). 
Within all three cities the cultural and creative industries have been strengthened, though not 
as much as had been hoped for in at least two; in Pécs, the development of new facilities 
became the over-riding concern, rather than support for the cultural and creative industries. 
Similarly, in Istanbul the emphasis shifted over the development phase from the emergence of 
a modern and contemporary cultural sector to the restoration of heritage sites. 
The experience of 2010 also shows the continuing potential of the ECOC to increase the 
participation of citizens in culture across very different contexts. All three ECOC included a 
diverse range of projects aiming to involve citizens who would not usually participate in or 

 
 
access cultural activities. Common approaches to this objective across all three ECOC (indeed 
across many ECOC in recent years) include the decentralisation of activities across different 
neighbourhoods and in different or unusual venues across the city, as well as an overall ethos 
that emphasises values of tolerance and celebrates the diversity of cultures and ethnic groups 
present in the city. Volunteers also play an important role with1,165 in Essen for the Ruhr, 
901 in Istanbul, 780 in Pécs.  
Conclusion: 
The human and financial resources necessary to achieving a critical mass of impacts vary 
according to the size and nature of the territory of the ECOC. Covering a very large territory 
(and/or population) will naturally require extensive resources, but future ECOC should give 
careful consideration to the nature of the impact that they wish to achieve. It is likely either to 
be concentrated in one particular area or to consist of effects such as enhanced networking 
and profile across the territory, rather than in a step-change in cultural vibrancy. 
ECOC continue to provide social and economic benefits in terms of increased tourism, 
improved infrastructure, increased international profile and stronger cultural and creative 
industries. In that way, it is reinforced by and adds value to investments in cultural heritage 
and infrastructure made by the European Structural Funds. 
However, such benefits do not necessarily and automatically accrue to the cities holding the 
title. The extent to which social and economic development is stimulated – and the nature of 
that development – continues to depend on the articulation of a clear development vision by 
the stakeholders as well as appropriate and co-ordinated activities that are implemented in 
concert with the cultural programme. 
The ECOC retains great potential to widen the participation of citizens in culture across very 
different contexts, particularly where such activities emphasise tolerance and celebrate the 
diversity of cultures and ethnic groups present in the city. 

3.3.8. 

Sustainability 

The ECOC is intended to "be sustainable and be an integral part of the long-term cultural and 
social development of the city".7 Across all three ECOC, there is evidence of new cultural 
activities that will continue beyond the title year and new refurbished cultural facilities. In 
terms of sustained capacity for culture, there is greater experience and expertise across all 
three cities as a result of the ECOC, as well as better networking and co-operation within their 
cultural sectors. However, the evidence for sustained improvements in cultural governance 
varies. In Istanbul, whilst some instances of better governance will endure, the model 
introduced by the ECOC will come to an end once the agency ceases operation in 2011 and it 
is not certain that stakeholders will coalesce around a shared strategy. In Pécs, two legacy 
bodies have been created to manage the new cultural facilities in the long-run, though the 
municipality has yet to create its overarching structure to support cultural operators across the 
city. In Essen for the Ruhr, a number of ambitious long-term goals have been set and 
responsibilities have been transferred to regional partners such as Kultur Ruhr GmbH (the 
organiser of Ruhr triennale) and Ruhr Tourism GmbH. 
Conclusion : 
The ECOC Action creates a legacy in the host cities through new cultural activities that 
endure beyond the title year, improved networking and co-operation between stakeholders in 
culture, and new and improved cultural facilities. 
Beyond these benefits, the creation of a sustainable legacy is more uncertain. It typically 
requires the key stakeholders to come together around a long-term vision and strategy and to 
establish a structure for the ongoing governance and co-ordination of culture in the city, often 
involving the creation of a specific legacy body. 

7 

Decision 1622/EC/2006 

 
 
                                                 
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 and 2009 ECOC 
evaluation.  
The Commission agrees that, in designing a new legal basis, it should for any possible 
continuation of the exercise after 2019 : 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

ensure that the selection process requires all applications to be assessed against the 
criteria set at EU level, as set by the current Decision (see 3.3.4); 

given the experience of Istanbul 2010 and the fact that the current Decision no longer 
allows cities in non-Member States to apply for the title, consider whether the new 
legal basis should reintroduce this possibility (see 2.2); 

consider  to  what  extent  the  awarding  of  a  pecuniary  Prize  beyond  2019,  as  in  the 
current Decision, is more efficient than providing a traditional grant for a part of the 
city programme as previously (see 2.1 and 3.3.4); 

keep the ECOC action primarily focussed on cities, but allow the flexibility for cities 
to involve a wider area as at present (see 3.3.3); 

emphasise  the  importance  of  fulfilling  the  criteria  related  to  the  long-term 
development of the city and consider giving explicit encouragement in the criteria to 
reward cities which have already developed a long-term cultural policy strategy (see 
3.3.8). 

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.8 The 
Commission's guide for candidate cities has also been updated to include a section on 
evaluation.  
The Commission is preparing its proposal for the initiative beyond 2019, which will seek to 
ensure that it remains as attractive, relevant and effective as possible. It will take into 
consideration the conclusions and recommendations resulting from this evaluation, those on 
the 2007-2008 and 2009 titles, as well as the evaluation on the arrangements defined by 
Decision 1622/2006/EC and the public consultation in 2010 and 2011. 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 

8 

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

 
 
                                                 
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.