COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT European Capitals of Culture post 2019 Accompanying the document Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Union action for the European Capitals of Culture for the years 2020 to 2033
Date: 2012-07-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European symbol, capital city, cultural event, eligibility criteria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 20.7.2012  
SWD(2012) 226 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

European Capitals of Culture post 2019 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council 

establishing a Union action for the European Capitals of Culture for the years 2020 to 
2033 

{COM(2012) 407 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
Lead Service: DG EAC 

Other involved services: SG, SJ, DG BUDG, DG ELARG, DG EMPL, DG ENTR, DG ENV, DG 
MARE and DG REGIO 

Disclaimer: This report commits only the Commission's services involved in its preparation and does 
not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission 

List of main abbreviations 

CSWD: Commission Staff Working Document 

ECoC: European Capitals of Culture 

EU: European Union 

MS: Member States 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

1.4. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

2.4. 

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties .............................................. 5 

Purpose of the CSWD .................................................................................................. 5 

Procedural issues, organisation and timing.................................................................. 5 

Evaluations and external expertise............................................................................... 5 

Public consultation....................................................................................................... 6 

Context and Problem definition ................................................................................... 7 

Historical and Policy context ....................................................................................... 7 

Decision 1622/2006/EC of the European Parliament and the Council establishing a 
EU action for the ECoC for the years 2007-2019 ........................................................ 8 

Main facts and figures about the ECoC ....................................................................... 8 

Identification of problems faced by the ECoC and their underlying drivers ............. 11 

2.4.1.  Problem n° 1: the lack of stability in the governance structures and in the budgets . 11 

2.4.2.  Problem n° 2: the limited European dimension ......................................................... 12 

2.4.3.  Problem n° 3:  weak legacy planning......................................................................... 13 

2.4.4.  Problem n° 4: the lack of evaluation and comparable data........................................ 13 

2.4.5.  Problem n° 5: the limited number of credible candidates in certain MS ................... 14 

2.5. 

2.6. 

2.7. 

3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

Baseline trends: how would the problem evolve, all things being equal? ................. 14 

Justification for EU intervention................................................................................ 15 

Complementarity to other EU policies and instruments ............................................ 15 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 17 

Policy options............................................................................................................. 19 

Discarded options....................................................................................................... 19 

Options retained for analysis...................................................................................... 21 

4.2.1.  Option 1 "No change" (the baseline) ......................................................................... 21 

4.2.2.  Option 2 "No action".................................................................................................. 21 

4.2.3.  Option 3 "Revised legal base".................................................................................... 21 

5. 

Analysis of impacts .................................................................................................... 24 

5.1. 

Option 1 "No change" (the baseline) ......................................................................... 26 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
5.2. 

5.3. 

5.4. 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

6.4. 

6.5. 

6.6. 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

7.3. 

8. 

Option 2 "No action".................................................................................................. 27 

Sub-option 3a "Revised legal base with a chronological list of MS" ........................ 28 

Sub-option 3b "Revised legal base with an open competition" ................................. 28 

Comparing the Options .............................................................................................. 30 

Effectiveness .............................................................................................................. 30 

Efficiency ................................................................................................................... 30 

Costs and administrative burden ................................................................................ 31 

Coherence................................................................................................................... 33 

Political feasibility ..................................................................................................... 33 

Preferred option.......................................................................................................... 35 

Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................................ 35 

Monitoring of designated cities.................................................................................. 35 

Evaluation of past Capitals......................................................................................... 36 

Evaluation of the ECoC action................................................................................... 36 

Annex ......................................................................................................................... 39 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

1.1. 

Purpose of the CSWD 

The  current  legal  base  for  the  ECoC  (Decision  1622/2006/EC)  includes  a 
chronological  list  of  MS  indicating  the  order  in  which  they  are  entitled  to  host  the 
event until 2019. The preparation time involved for preparing each ECoC (currently 
6  years)  and  the  time  needed  for  the  ordinary  legislative  procedure  means  that  the 
Commission's proposal for a continuation of the ECoC should be adopted in 2012 in 
order  to  ensure  a  smooth  transition  in  2020.  The  present  CSWD  summarizes  the 
main results of DG EAC's reflection on the future of the ECoC. 

1.2. 

Procedural issues, organisation and timing 

The  preparatory  work  for  the  new  proposal  started  in  mid-2010.  A  roadmap  was 
submitted  in  November  2010  and  the  SG  confirmed  that  no  formal  impact 
assessment  was  needed  because  the  proposal  concerned  the  continuation  of  an 
already  existing  action  and 
implications  would  be  modest. 
Nevertheless,  DG  EAC  decided  to  use  many  of  the  logical  steps  of  an  impact 
assessment  in  order  to  gather  the  needed  evidence  and  to  help  in  the  choice  of  the 
best possible option for the future of the ECoC. The present CSWP also fulfils all the 
requirements of an ex-ante evaluation. 

the  budgetary 

The preparation of the CSWD was followed by an inter-service group composed of 
SG, SJ, DG BUDG, DG EAC, DG ELARG, DG EMPL, DG ENTR, DG ENV, DG 
MARE  and  DG  REGIO1.  The  group  met  in  January  2011  and  April  2012  and  the 
draft of the present document was discussed at the second meeting. The comments of 
the  group  were  taken  into  account  for  the  finalisation  of  the  CSWD.  DG  DEVCO,  
DG RTD and ESTAT  had asked to be kept informed about the various steps of the 
process.   

1.3. 

Evaluations and external expertise  

Decision  1622/2006/EC  requires  that  from  2007  the  Commission  ensures  the 
external and independent evaluation of each ECoC. So far the 2007-2010 Capitals 
were evaluated (the 2011 evaluation has been launched and will be finalised in June 
2012).  Previously  the  1995  –  2004  ECoC  had  also  been  evaluated  externally  in  a 
single report 2. 

Many  cities  have  carried  out  their  own  evaluations  of  the  event  (Glasgow  1990, 
Luxembourg  1995  and  2007,  Graz  2003,  Lille  2004,  Cork  2005,  Sibiu  2007, 
Stavanger  2008,  Liverpool  2008,  Essen  für  die  Ruhr  2010,  Istanbul  2010,  Turku 
2011…)3. 

1 A total of 25 DGs had been invited to participate. 
2  All  these  evaluations  were  published  on  DG  EAC's  website.  They  can  be  consulted  at  the  following  link: 
http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmes-and-actions/capitals/evaluation-commissioned-by-the-
eu_en.htm  

3 http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmes-and-actions/capitals/evaluations-by-previous-capitals_en.htm  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
The Commission also commissioned an evaluation of the selection and monitoring 
procedures  introduced  by  Decision  1622/2006/EC4.    The  provisions  introduced  by 
this  Decision  have  been  gradually  phased  in:  the  new  monitoring  provisions  have 
applied  so  far  for  the  2010-2015  ECoC  and  the  new  selection  provisions  for  the 
2013-2017  ECoC.  Therefore  although  a  whole  cycle  governed  by  the  new  scheme 
will  only  be  completed  at  the  end  of  2013,  a  reasonable  body  of  knowledge  has 
already been gained.  

In  addition  to  these  various  evaluations,  the  present  CSWD  also  builds  on 
consultancy services provided by Ecorys UK Ltd. Ecorys did in particular assist the 
Commission  in  the  analysis  of  the  contributions  to  the  public  consultation  and 
provide additional expertise concerning the identification of the potential impacts of 
the ECoC, the comparison of the options and the definition of evaluation indicators.  

1.4. 

Public consultation  

An  online  consultation  on  the  future  of  the  ECoC  took  place  between  27  October 
2010  and  12  January  2011.  The  consultation  was  fully  in  line  with  the  General 
Principles  and  Minimum  Standards  for  Consultation  of  Interested  Parties  by  the 
Commission5. The questionnaire posed both closed, as well as open questions. It was 
designed  to  build  on  the  findings  of  the  evaluations  and  invited  the  respondents  to 
express their views on the relevance of the ECoC action, its objectives, the potential 
benefits for cities holding the title, the selection criteria and procedures, the duration 
of the  event, the  territory  covered by  the event,  the participation of third  countries, 
the  accompanying  measures  aiming  at  helping  the  selected  cities  to  organise  a 
successful event and the visibility of the ECoC. The Commission received a total of 
212 responses. The majority of respondents participated in the online consultation as 
private  individuals  (58  %).  30  %  were  representing  organisations  and  12  %  public 
authorities.  

The  online  consultation  was  followed  by  a  public  meeting  which  took  place  in 
Brussels  on  2  March  2011  and  was  attended  by  more  than  200  people  including  a 
large  majority  of  representatives  of  public  authorities  and  organisations.  This 
meeting  enabled  the  first  results  of  the  online  consultation  to  be  presented  and 
discussed.  

The analysis of the results of the online consultation, the received contributions and 
the summary of the public meeting were published on DG EAC's website6. 

Important inputs in the reflection on the future of the ECoC were also provided by 
the own initiative report adopted by the Committee of the Regions in February 20127 
and by the 25th anniversary conference of the ECoC organised in Brussels in March 
2010.  This  conference  gathered  more  than  50  past,  present  and  future  Capitals  or 
bidding  cities  and  500  participants  and  it  focussed  in  particular  on  the  potential 

4 http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmes-and-actions/doc/ecoc/ecoc_assignment_final_report_en.pdf  
5  “Towards  a reinforced  culture of  consultation  and dialogue – General principles  and minimum  standards  for 
consultation of interested parties by the Commission”, COM(2002) 704 final. 
6 http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmes-and-actions/capitals/consultation-on-the-future-of-ecoc_en.htm  
7 http://coropinions.cor.europa.eu/CORopinions.aspx   

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
legacy of the title in cities and the evaluation processes and methodologies used and 
implemented by them8. 

Finally, the Commission has  been managing the ECoC action  since 1999. This  has 
enabled DG EAC to develop its own practical experience of the action and to hold 
regular discussions with past, present and future Capitals, candidate cities, selection 
panel members, MS, MEPs, etc… 

It  is  important  to  note  that  on  all  the  key  issues  there  was  a  broad  convergence 
between the evidence and data collected through the evaluations on the one hand and 
the views expressed during the consultation process, on the other hand. This enabled 
the Commission to draw a number of important lessons for the future of the ECoC 
which have served as the backbone for all the analytical steps. 

2. 

CONTEXT AND PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. 

Historical and Policy context 

With regard to the historical context, the ECoC have undergone many changes since 
their creation in 1985. They started as an intergovernmental initiative and the cities 
were simply designated by national governments in the Council of Ministers, without 
the involvement of external experts or any formal assessment.   

transformed  officially 

They  were 
in  1999  (Decision 
1419/1999/EC)  in  order  to  make  the  initiative  more  effective.  New  criteria  and 
selection  procedures  were  established,  a  chronological  list  of  MS  was  drawn  up 
indicating  the  order  in  which  they  were  entitled  to  host  the  event,  and  a  European 
panel of independent cultural experts was created to assess the applications.  

into  an  EU  action 

The  rules  were  renewed  in  2006  (Decision  1622/2006/EC)  in  order  to  develop  the 
effectiveness of the event further by stimulating competition between the cities and 
fostering  the  quality  of  the  bids.  These  new  rules  which  will  be  described  in  great 
detail  in  the  following  section  also  introduced  various  measures  to  accompany  the 
cities in their preparation, including a monitoring process. 

There was a large consensus in the evaluations and during the consultation that over 
the  years  the  ECoC  have  become  one  of  the  most  ambitious  cultural  initiatives  in 
Europe, both in scope and scale. They have also become one of the most visible and 
prestigious  initiatives  of  the  EU  and  one  of  the  most  appreciated  by  European 
citizens.  As  a  result,  there  is  also  a  very  strong  support  for  their  continuation  after 
2019  (e.g.  91%  of  the  respondents  of  the  online  consultation  are  in  favour  of  the 
continuation and only 6% against). 

Since their creation in 1985, the main objective of the ECoC has been to promote and 
celebrate the richness and diversity of European cultures, to stress the common bonds 
and  to  promote  greater  mutual  understanding  between  European  citizens.  Over  the 
years,  cities  holding  the  ECoC  title  have  progressively  added  a  new  dimension  by 
using the leverage effect of the title to stimulate the city's more general development 

8 The conclusions of the conference can be consulted at the following link: 

http://ec.europa.eu/culture/documents/conclusions_ecoc.pdf  

7 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
and  the  ECoC  are  now  frequently  quoted  as  exemplary  "laboratories"  for  strategic 
investment in culture at local and regional level.  

 In  parallel  to  the  evolution  of  the  ECoC,  there  have  also  been  important 
developments  concerning  the  broader  policy  context  for  culture  in  recent  years.  In 
2007  the  Commission  adopted  its  first  real  strategy  for  culture,  "the  European 
Agenda  for  Culture"9  which  was  recognised  at  the  highest  level  by  the  European 
Council  in  its  conclusions  of  December  2007.  The  Agenda  has  three  strategic 
objectives: to promote cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue, to foster culture 
as  a  catalyst  for  creativity,  and  to  promote  the  role  of  culture  in  international 
relations.  

Furthermore,  in  accordance  with  the  UNESCO  Convention  on  the  Protection  and 
Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which entered into force in 2007 
and  which  is  part  of  the  acquis  communautaire,  the  EU  has  a  moral  and  legal 
obligation to take action to promote and safeguard cultural diversity. 

At a broader level, Europe 2020, the ten year growth strategy for the EU adopted in 
2010,  emphasises  the  importance  of  "creativity,  innovation,  and  entrepreneurship" 
which are central to the cultural sector.  

2.2. 

Decision  1622/2006/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council 
establishing a EU action for the ECoC for the years 2007-2019 

Decision 1622/2006/EC lays down the rules for the ECoC until 2019. In accordance 
with the chronological list, each year two cities in two MS can hold the title. While 
under the former rules, the participation of European third countries was possible, the 
action  has  been  limited  to  the  MS  in  the  present  Decision  as  a  result  of  the 
enlargement of the EU. The competition for the title is only open to cities, but these 
cities  can  decide  to  involve  their  surrounding  regions.  The  title  is  not  awarded  for 
what a city is or its glorious past, but on the basis of a cultural programme created 
specifically for the ECoC.  

One single general objective is laid down in the Decision: to highlight the richness 
and  diversity  of  European  cultures  and  the  features  they  share,  and  to  promote 
greater  mutual  understanding  between  European  citizens.  This  objective  is  not 
developed into specific and operational objectives, however further indications about 
the  aims  of  the  action  are  given  in  the  five  criteria  which  must  be  fulfilled  by 
candidate cities. These criteria seek to ensure the European dimension of the cultural 
programme, the participation of citizens and the integration of the programme in the 
long-term cultural and social development of the city.  

The organisation of the competition in each respective MS is the responsibility of the 
MS  concerned  (the  "managing  authority").  It  must  publish  a  call  for  submission  of 
applications to enable the participation of all interested cities. 

The  selection  is  carried  out  in  two  stages  by  a  European  panel  of  independent 
experts. 7 members in this panel are appointed by the European institutions and 6 by 
the MS concerned. During the pre-selection phase, the cities with the strongest bids 

9 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 

Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a European agenda for culture in a globalizing 
world (COM(2007) 242 final), 10.05.2007. 

8 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
are short-listed and invited to flesh out and improve their applications on the basis of 
recommendations  made  by  the  panel.  At  the  final  selection  stage,  the  panel  then 
recommends the best candidate for the title. The formal designation is made by the 
Council of Ministers after consultation of the Parliament. 

The  monitoring  procedure  introduced  by  the  2006  decision  aims  to  help  the  cities 
between their designation and the beginning of the year of the title (the preparation 
phase  for  a  city  lasts  4  years).  This  monitoring  is  carried  out  by  the  7  "European" 
members of the panel of experts. If all the recommendations made by the panel in the 
final  selection  report  and  in  the  monitoring  reports  are  implemented  by  a  city,  the 
Commission awards the "Melina Mercouri Prize" to the city. The amount of the Prize 
is  currently  1.5  million  €.  The  Melina  Merc ouri  Prize  must  be  paid  three  months 
before the beginning of the year of the title in principle. 

The Commission ensures the external and independent evaluation of each ECoC in 
the year following the year of the title. 

2.3.  Main facts and figures about the ECoC 

The  following  facts  and  figures  draw  mainly  on  the  ECoC  since  2007  which 
followed the entry into force of Decision 1622/2006/EC and which were therefore all 
covered by the new evaluation requirements mentioned above. On a few occasions, 
facts  and  figures  from  previous  ECoC  will  also  be  mentioned  when  they  bring  an 
additional relevant insight. 

Before  starting  the  short  enumeration,  three  remarks  need  to  be  made.  First,  it  is 
important to keep in mind that the provisions of Decision 1622/2006/EC only phased 
in  gradually  as  mentioned  in  section  1,  and  therefore  the  cities  which  will  be 
mentioned  in  the  present  section  were  influenced  to  various  degrees  by  the  new 
selection  or  monitoring  procedures.  Second,  while 
the  Commission  now 
systematically  evaluates  past  Capitals,  the  cities  themselves  currently  have  no 
evaluation obligations and therefore the information collected by cities before, during 
and after the year of the title differs considerably and in many cases the Commission 
misses comparable data (this will be discussed in greater detail in section 2.4). Third, 
some  of  the  most  important  benefits  of  ECoC  such  as  for  example  the  improved 
image  of  cities,  their  cultural  vibrancy  or  the  strengthened  international  outlook  of 
residents  are  intangible  and  unquantifiable.  However,  despite  these  three  factors,  a 
number of interesting trends can be drawn. 

Since  2007,  very  different  types  of  cities  have  been  awarded  the  title  including 
capital  cities  (Luxembourg,  Vilnius,  Tallinn…),  large  former  industrial  centres 
(Liverpool,  Essen  für  die  Ruhr…)  or  smaller  provincial  cities  (Sibiu,  Linz,  Pécs, 
Košice…).  As a consequence the operating expenditures for the implementation of 
the  cultural  programme  vary  widely.  They  range  from  16  million  euro  in  Tallinn 
2011  and  17  million  euro  in  Sibiu  2007  at  the  lower  end  to  98  million  euro  in 
Marseille  2013  and  194  million  euro  in  Istanbul  2010  at  the  higher  end.  To  these 
operating  expenditures,  several  cities  have  also  decided  to  add  significant  capital 
investments  to  build  or  renovate  infrastructures.  These  capital  investments  are  not 
required from cities but can go up to 137 million euro as in Sibiu 2007 or 140 million 
euro in Pécs 2010.  One of the main lessons of the ECoC is without any doubt that all 
ECoC, past, present or future, are different because Europe is diverse and all cities 
are different. The reason why cities bid for the title, their own long term objectives, 

9 

 
 
 
 
the way to prepare are all different and therefore the achievements are different. This 
is part of the reality and success of the concept. 

Despite this great diversity, it emerges very clearly from the evaluations that ECoC 
have many potential benefits for all cities when they are planned with consideration. 
They remain first and foremost a cultural event, and must reflect our times and the 
way  art  is  made  and  distributed;  but  they  can  also  have  significant  social  and 
economic  benefits,  particularly  when  the  event  is  embedded  as  part  of  a  long-term 
culture led development strategy in the city and its surrounding region. It should also 
be noted that although only one city in each MS can host the event in any given year, 
the competition has an important leverage effect on the development of new or more 
effective policies and strategies even in cities which do not win the title. 

When well prepared, the ECoC can induce a number of immediate results which can 
be impressive. These results are first cultural: with the title the cultural activity in the 
city increases, new audiences are reached and the cultural operators acquire a more 
international  outlook  and  thus  improve  their  skills  and  professionalism.  As  an 
example, the 200 projects which took place in Linz in 2009 generated 7700 events 
involving 5000 artists. 1 million people attended a cultural event during Pécs 2010, 
3.3 million during Luxembourg 2007, 10.5 million during Essen 2010 and 12 million 
during  Istanbul  2010.  139  cross-border  projects  were  implemented  with  partners 
from  the  Grande-Région  in  Luxembourg,  270  with  neighbouring  countries  in  Pécs 
and during Stavanger 2008, collaborations, co-productions and exchanges took place 
with 54 countries. 

There  are  also  social  benefits:  ECoC  foster  cohesion  and  intercultural  dialogue 
through  outreach  programmes  for  young  people,  minorities,  the  disadvantaged  or 
through  volunteer  programmes.  All  the  children  of  all  the  schools  of  Liverpool 
participated in at least one activity in 2008 and 70% of the people in the city visited a 
museum or a gallery. 40% of Luxembourgish residents and nearly 60% of residents 
from  the  city  itself  visited  a  Capital-related  event.  Istanbul  2010  cooperated  with 
2500  schools.  74%  of  children  were  involved  across  the  region  in  Stavanger.  They 
were  9,894  registered  volunteers  in  Liverpool,  of  whom  851  received  a  training, 
1200 registered volunteers in Essen or Sibiu and 780 in Pécs.  

The main economic benefits include the increase of tourism, regeneration and urban 
development, knock-on effects on other sectors or a stronger attention on the city at 
international  level.  The  average  increase  of  overnight  stays  upon  the  previous  year 
for an ECoC is of 12%. This can go up to 20% as for Liverpool or even 27% as for 
Sibiu  and  Pécs  (including  an  increase  of  71%  of  foreign  visitors).  Liverpool 
estimated  that  visits  motivated  by  the  ECoC  generated  and  additional  economic 
impact  of  £  753.8  million.  Linz  estimated  additional  regional  GDP  of  8.4  million 
euro.  12  000  press  articles  were  written  about  Liverpool  2008  worldwide.  25  000 
media reports mentioned Linz 2009. 

But besides these immediate results, the ECoC are also a process of change for a city, 
its image, its cultural sector and its citizens, and these changes are expected to have 
positive  effects  for many years  after the event actually takes place. The legacies of 
the ECoC were discussed at large during the 25 year anniversary conference10 and it 
emerged that there is a large variety of possible legacies. Some of them are material 

10 http://ec.europa.eu/culture/documents/conclusions_ecoc.pdf   

10 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
and  relatively  easy  to  quantify.  They  include  the  many  cultural  infrastructures  that 
were  built  or  revamped  for  the  ECoC  and  which  live  on  after  the  event  and  better 
equip  the  city  such  as  for  example  the  Grande  Rotonde  in  Luxembourg,  the  Arena 
built on the docks in Liverpool or the new centre for contemporary art in Stavanger. 
Some  cities  used  the  ECoC  to  regenerate  former  industrial  areas  and  to  transform 
them into new cultural or creative quarters such as the Zsolnay quarter in Pécs or the 
Zeche Zollverein in Essen. In Pécs, the ECoC was also at the origin of the building 
of the new highway which now links the city to Budapest. 

The  ECoC  have  also  led  to  the  creation  of  many  new  cultural  events  or  festivals. 
Lille 3000 for example is a cultural season which takes now place every 2 or 3 years 
and is based on the same basic concept as Lille 2004. The Zinneke parade which is 
now held every two years was first created in the framework of Brussels 2000. 

Hosting  the  event  also  leads  to  the  creation  of  new  organisations,  structures  and 
networks.  One  of  the  main  objectives  of  Luxembourg  2007  was  to  increase  cross-
border  cultural  cooperation  with  its  partners  in  the  Grande-Région.  Following  the 
year  a  permanent  structure  was  created  to  keep  the  momentum  and  continue  the 
common work that was initiated. Essen für die Ruhr 2010 also led to the creation of a 
permanent framework for discussion and cultural cooperation between the 53 cities 
of the Ruhr. 

Many  other  legacies  of  the  ECoC  are  much  harder  to  quantify  and  measure.  This 
includes for example the image improvement, as in the case of Glasgow 1990, Lille 
2004,  Liverpool  2008  and  many  others.  These  cities  all  suffered  in  the  past  from 
economic  crises  which  had  a  negative  impact  on  their  image.  Being  an  ECoC  has 
turned  them  into  more  attractive  places  which  manifested  itself  for  example  in  a 
continued increase in tourism. In a similar way, Cork 2005 is proud that the city has 
been named as one of the top 10 cities in the world to visit in 2010 by the Lonely 
Planet  travel  guide  while  a  few  years  before  hosting  the  title,  the  same  guide 
published a rather negative review of the city. Sibiu 2007 and Pécs 2010 claim that 
the ECoC title helped to put their relatively small cities on the map. 

This small sample of examples displays the wide variety of results and legacies that 
ECoC can achieve. Despite the great diversity of cities which held the title and the 
differences in their aims and preparation, all Capitals have achieved some benefits. 
At  the  same  time,  the  evaluations  have  also  shown  that  the  ECoC  are  highly 
challenging and some Capitals have been less successful than others in capitalising 
on  the  potential  of  the  event.  Staging  a  year  long  programme  of  cultural  events  is 
extremely  demanding.  The  main  problems  faced  by  cities  will  be  analysed  in  the 
following section. 

2.4. 

 Identification of problems faced by the ECoC and their underlying drivers 

The main challenge for the ECoC action after 2019 will be twofold. On the one hand, 
it  is  important  to  help  each  city  to  make  the  most  of  the  title  and  to  fully  use  the 
potential of the ECoC. On the other hand, to retain the strong "brand" value which 
the ECoC title acquired over the years, it will be essential to ensure that the action as 
a  whole  remains  credible  and  relevant  in  the  long  term.  To  this  end,  the  following 
five  problems  encountered  by  cities  under  Decision  1622/2006/EC  will  need  to  be 
tackled after 2019. 

11 

 
 
 
 
2.4.1.  Problem n° 1: the lack of stability in the governance structures and in the budgets 

The  most  common  difficulty  encountered  by  cities  in  their  preparation  phase  has 
been  the  effect  of  national  and  local  politics  on  the  budgets,  which  need  to  be  as 
stable  as  possible  between  the  bidding  and  final  stages,  as  well  as  the  impact  of 
politics  on  other  aspects  of  the  organisation  of  the  event.  Political  support  is 
fundamental  as  most  of  the  funds  are  public,  and  without  it  a  city  cannot  have  a 
credible  bid,  but  at  the  same  time  the  implementing  team  needs  its  artistic 
independence to be respected in order to protect the credibility of the event.   

The evaluation of Vilnius 2009 for example analyses all the changes that took place 
before 2009 and in the first half of the title year. First, the new government that took 
office after the general election at the end of 2008 faced a very large budget deficit 
and reduced the budget for the cultural programme by about 40%. Secondly, the total 
number  of  staff  employed  by  the  delivery  agency  was  reduced  by  about  one-half 
early in 2009. Thirdly, there were two changes of director of the delivery agency – 
the first in 2007 and the second early in 2009. The result of these changes was that 
some  projects  started  much  later  than  planned  and  a  significant  number  of  projects 
(previously  selected  following  calls  for  proposals)  did  not  take  place  at  all.  This 
created great frustration among the local cultural sector. 

The evaluation of Pécs 2010 also shows that the numerous changes in the leadership 
of the key institutions, as well as in the individuals responsible for the development 
of  the  programme  made  the  preparation  challenging.  When  the  situation  finally 
stabilized towards the end of 2008, it was already too late to mobilize many of the 
cultural operators at local level and realise some of the original project ideas. Many 
of  the  planned  infrastructure  projects  also  had  to  be  delayed  and  were  inaugurated 
only  in  the  final  months  of  the  year  of  the  title  (new  library,  new  concert  and 
conference  venue)  or  even  in  the  following  year  (Zsolnay  cultural  quarter).  Other 
examples of cities which have suffered from important cuts in the budgets or changes 
in the implementing team in the final months before the start of the title year include 
Tallinn 2011 or Maribor 2012. 

It  may  be  argued  that  during  a  time  of  financial  crisis,  all  cultural  budgets  and 
therefore the budgets of the ECoC are understandably under threat. But at the same 
time the financial crisis makes jobs in the cultural and creative sector – a sector with 
strong growth potential in a knowledge-based economy – all the more important in 
order to tackle current social and economic challenges. Furthermore, one of the most 
interesting  lessons  of  the  25  year  conference  is  precisely  that  many  post-industrial 
cities such as Glasgow 1990, Lille 2004 or Liverpool 2008, which all suffered from a 
difficult  economic  transition,  managed  to  fully  use  the  potential  of  the  ECoC  to 
revive their cities and pave a new path for the future. 

The lack of stability in the preparation phase always leads to reduced ambitions for 
the ECoC, delays in the implementation of the activities and frustrations among the 
population and therefore it weakens the potential impact of the title on the city and its 
citizens. Furthermore, the changes in the programme between the selection phase and 
the year of the title distort the competition as some Capitals implement in the end a 
programme which is much less ambitious than the one for which they were selected. 
This  can  create  frustrations  among  the  other  cities  which  participated  in  the 
competition and were not retained for the title. 

12 

 
 
 
 
2.4.2. 

 Problem n° 2: the limited European dimension 

The  ECoC  are  not  the  only  culture-led  regeneration  strategy  that  can  be  used  by  a 
city. The opening of a new museum for example such as the Guggenheim in Bilbao 
or  the  Centre  Pompidou  in  Metz  can  also  trigger  important  social  and  economic 
benefits. However what gives the ECoC a very specific place is on the one hand its 
strong brand which provides an important opportunity for visibility at European and 
international level, and on the other its aim to increase mutual understanding among 
Europeans  and  bring  them  closer  together.  ECoC  must  therefore  create  a  cultural 
programme  with  a  strong  European  dimension.  This  European  dimension  usually 
entails  three  aspects:  activities  which  highlight  the  cultural  diversity  of  Europe, 
activities with content related to European themes, history and heritage, and activities 
fostering cooperation between artists and cultural operators from different European 
countries. 

The  evaluations  have  shown  that  in  a  lot  of  past  Capitals  this  European  dimension 
was not well understood and therefore remained too limited or at least insufficiently 
visible  in  their  programmes.  Sibiu  2007,  Liverpool  2008  or  Stavanger  2008  for 
example  focussed  mostly  on  cooperation  activities  and  had  very  few  activities 
highlighting  the  diversity  of  European  Cultures  or  based  on  European  themes. 
Furthermore,  in  the  case  of  Liverpool  or  Stavanger,  the  cooperation  activities  were 
more  international  at  large  than  truly  European.  In  contrast  in  Sibiu  a  very  large 
majority  of  the  cooperation  activities  took  place  solely  with  the  other  ECoC  of  the 
year Luxembourg. 

The  question  of  the  visibility  of  the  EU  is  directly  linked  to  the  weak  European 
dimension.  In many ECoC such as Liverpool 2008 or Turku 2011 for example, there 
were very few references to the fact that the ECoC are an initiative of the EU in the 
communication material. Other cities such as Tallinn 2011 stopped using the logo of 
the  Commission  as  soon  as  the  Melina  Mercouri  prize  had  been  paid  (3  months 
before the beginning year of the title). 

2.4.3.  Problem n° 3:  weak legacy planning 

It  clearly  emerged  from  the  25  year  anniversary  conference  which  focused  on  the 
legacy  of  ECoC  that  legacy  is  far  from  automatic  simply  because  a  city  holds  the 
title. Indeed, it has to be planned, budgeted for and worked at well in advance. One 
of  the  main  keys  in  ensuring  long-term  legacy  is  embedding  the  event  as  part  of  a 
long  term  cultural  development  strategy,  designed  itself  within  the  long-term 
development  of  the  city  as  a  whole  through  synergies  between  culture  and  other 
areas. This point was also highlighted by the own initiative report of the Committee 
of the Regions.  

Several  of  the  past  Capitals  that  were  present  at  the  anniversary  conference 
acknowledged  that  in  retrospect  they  had  not  done  enough  to  forward  plan  for  the 
period after the event and some, such as Cork 2005 for example, regretted not having 
budgeted for the year after the title.  The various evaluations carried out after 2007 
have also shown that the end of the title year typically leads to the disbanding of the 
delivery  agency  and  the  loss  of  precious  experience.  For  example,  in  the  case  of 
Istanbul 2010 the law creating the ECoC delivery agency also set a firm timetable for 
its demise and no specific legacy plan for the overall ECoC was enacted. Other cities 

13 

 
 
 
 
such  as  Vilnius  2009  or  Pécs  2010  have  struggled  or  are  still  struggling  to  fully 
exploit the potential legacies of the event. 

2.4.4.  Problem n° 4: the lack of evaluation and comparable data 

As  already  mentioned,  since  2007,  the  Commission  ensures  the  external  and 
independent evaluation of each ECoC. These evaluations are carried out in the year 
following  the  title.  It  is  important  to  note  that  their  aim  is  to  put  single  ECoC  in  a 
information,  allowing  for 
European  context,  enabling  wider  circulation  of 
comparisons  and  drawing  useful  lessons  for  future  ECoC.  They  cannot,  however, 
provide primary data on the impact of the event and are based on data collected at a 
local  level.  Therefore  it  is  essential  that  the  Capitals  themselves  put  in  place 
measurement  mechanisms.  Cities  are  the  first  recipients  and  beneficiaries  of  the 
evaluation results and they should remain the key players in the evaluation process. 

However,  at  the  present  stage  the  situation  varies  considerably  from  one  city  to 
another. Liverpool for example carried out a longitudinal evaluation called "impacts 
08" which covers a period of nearly 10 years and analyses a wide variety of tangible 
and more intangible effects on the city. The Commission supported a project in the 
framework of the Culture Programme to transfer and adapt this model to the needs of 
other ECoC such as Essen für die Ruhr 2010, Turku 2011 or Marseille 201311. Many 
other  cities  have  adopted  a  more  modest  approach  and  their  evaluations  have 
focussed  mainly  on  quantitative  indicators,  targeting  economic  impacts  in  the  city 
(Luxembourg 2007, Sibiu 2007, Stavanger 2008…). Some cities have carried out no 
own evaluation at all (Vilnius 2009, Pécs 2010…). 

This  disparity  creates  a  very  fragmented  view  on  the  impacts  of  the  ECoC  and  it 
makes  a  real  comparison  between  cities  very  difficult,  which  is  harmful  for  the 
transfer  of  experience.  Furthermore,  the  experience  has  shown  that  planning 
evaluation  and  evaluation  tools  well  in  advance  helped  many  cities  to  clarify  their 
vision  of  their  strengths  and  weaknesses,  to  analyse  what  they  could  realistically 
strive  to  achieve  through  the  ECoC  title,  and  thus  to  refine  their  objectives,  which 
helped them to improve the end result of the year. 

2.4.5.  Problem n° 5: the limited number of credible candidates in certain MS 

The  competition  for  the  title  introduced  by  Decision  1622/2006/EC  has  two  main 
potential  benefits.  On  the  one  hand,  a  tough  contest  stimulates  the  cities  to  put 
forward strong applications and to try to improve these applications throughout the 
process,  in  particular  on  the  basis  of  the  recommendations  made  by  the  panel  of 
experts for the short-listed cities. On the other hand, cities like Bordeaux in France, 
Bremen  in  Germany  or  Zaragoza  in  Spain  confirmed  that  the  competition  has  an 
important leverage effect in all participating cities, even those which do not win the 
title. 

In certain MS, the competition attracted a great number of participants: 15 in Spain 
and  11  in  Poland  for  2016,  9  in  Slovakia  and  8  in  France  for  2013.  In  others,  the 
number of applications was much lower: only 1 in Belgium for 2015 and in Malta for 
2018, 2 in Denmark for 2017, 3 in the Czech Republic for 2015 and Cyprus for 2017. 

11 European Capitals of Culture Policy Group (2009-2010), An international framework of good practice in 

research and delivery of the European Capital of Culture Programme.      
http://ecocpolicygroup.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/ecoc-policy-group_research-framework1.pdf  

14 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
This  is  probably  linked  to  the  fact  that  some  MS  have  a  far  larger  pool  of  realistic 
candidates  than  others.  It  should  also  be  noted  that  several  small  or  medium-sized 
MS  have  already  hosted  the  ECoC  title  on  several  occasions  such  as  for  example 
Greece in 1985, 1997 and 2006, Belgium in 1993, 2000 and 2002, Portugal in 1994, 
2001 and 2012, Luxembourg in 1995 and 2007 or Ireland in 1991 and 2005. 

The current rules for the ECoC would make it politically very difficult for the panel 
to refuse to award the title to one city in each of the two MS concerned every year. 
Luckily, so far there was always at least one credible candidate in each competition, 
even  those  which  did  attract  very  few  participants.  However  this  may  become  a 
problem in the future and selecting weak candidates for the title would without any 
doubt risk damaging the prestige and brand value of the ECoC in the long term.  

2.5. 

Baseline trends: how would the problem evolve, all things being equal? 

If the ECoC continue in their current form after 2019, it is likely that a very diverse 
selection of cities would continue to be awarded the title. The size, scale and budget 
of cultural programmes would vary widely, reflecting the diversity of cities, as well 
as  varying  levels  of  political  and  corporate  support.  The  impacts  of  the  title  would 
also continue to vary widely from city to city. 

On the one hand, it is reasonable to assume that all ECoC would continue to have at 
least some of the cultural, social and economic benefits described in section 2.3. On 
the  other  hand,  the  problems  described  in  section  2.4  would  not  be  addressed  and 
some cities would continue to struggle with the challenges of organising a successful 
ECoC and to fail to fully capitalise on the potential of the event. 

Two main risks are linked to a simple continuation of the ECoC in their current form.  

Firstly,  there  is  the  risk  to  have  weak  ECoC  in  certain  years.  So  far,  the  European 
panel could always find at least one credible candidate in each MS, but this may not 
necessarily always continue to be the case. This is directly linked to the fact that, as 
mentioned  before,  some  MS  have  a  far  larger  pool  of  realistic  candidates  and  a 
greater capacity to host an event of this scale on a regular basis than others, and by 
2019  many  small  and  medium  sized  countries  will  already  have  hosted  the  title 
several times. The risk of having a weak ECoC would also be directly linked to the 
fact that some cities would continue to suffer from instability in governance and from 
budget  cuts  between  the  designation  and  the  year  of  the  title,  and  therefore  from 
reduced cultural programmes or investments and from delayed activities. 

Secondly,  there  is  the  risk  of  damaging  the  prestige  and  the  "brand"  that  were 
developed  for  the  ECoC  over  the  years.  This  second  risk  would  be  a  direct 
consequence of having several weak ECoC in a row. This risk is also reinforced by 
the  fact  that  in  2020  the  ECoC  title  would  be  awarded  for  the  60th  and  61st  times. 
There is therefore a strong need for the designated cities to continue to demonstrate 
their  excellence  and  capacity  for  innovation  in  order  to  avoid  a  banalisation  of  the 
title and a dilution of its prestige.  

Such a loss of prestige and brand value would create an un-virtuous circle. The first 
consequence  would  be  that  fewer  cities  would  be  interested  in  participating  in  the 
competition for the title, which would diminish the intensity of the competition and 
thus  generate  weaker  applications  and  as  a  result  even  weaker  ECoC.  The  second 

15 

 
 
 
 
consequence would be a weaker interest of citizens and of local stakeholders in the 
event, as well as a weaker international visibility, which would considerably reduce 
the potential social and economic impact of the title on a city and its citizens. 

2.6. 

Justification for EU intervention 

The  legal  base  for  the  ECoC  can  be  found  in  article  167  of  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning  of  the  European  Union.  This  article  gives  the  EU  the  mandate  to 
"contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the MS, while respecting their national 
and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to 
the  fore".  The  EU  shall  also  encourage  "cooperation  between  MS"  in  the  field  of 
culture and "if necessary, support and supplement their action".  

The  main  level  of  action  for  the  implementation  of  the  ECoC  remains  at  local  and 
national  level.  However,  the  EU  has  an  important  role  to  play  in  the  coordination 
between  MS  and  in  ensuring  the  application  of  common,  clear  and  transparent 
criteria, as well as selection and monitoring procedures for the ECoC. The EU also 
supports  the  preparation  of  the  selected  cities  through  the  recommendations  of  the 
European  panel  of  experts,  the  exchange  of  best  practices  between  cities  and  a 
financial contribution.  

Past experience clearly shows that the transformation of the ECoC into an EU action 
in  1999  and  the  new  rules  adopted  in  2006  have  helped  the  initiative  to  take  a 
qualitative  step  forward  which  would  not  have  been  possible  with  the  previous 
intergovernmental arrangements. The options tested for the future of the ECoC after 
2019  all  keep  the  existing  balance,  while  aiming  at  addressing  some  of  the 
difficulties encountered by cities, at retaining the strong potential and brand value of 
the  title  and  at  ensuring  that  the  ECoC  action  remains  credible  and  relevant  in  the 
long term.  

2.7. 

Complementarity to other EU policies and instruments  

The ECoC are fully in line with the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and the 
evaluations  of  past  Capitals  have  shown  indeed  that  they  can  make  an  important 
contribution  to  Europe  2020  and  to  several  of  its  flagship  initiatives  such  as  the 
"Innovation  Union"  (in  particular  through  capacity  building  in  the  cultural  and 
creative sectors), "Youth on the move" (by stimulating the mobility of young cultural 
professionals  or  pre-professionals),    "An  industrial  policy  for  the  globalisation  era" 
(by  contributing  to  the  competitiveness  of  the  European  tourism  sector)  and  the 
European Platform against Poverty (by using the potential of the ECoC to reach out 
to  the  socially  excluded).  However,  this  could  be  greatly  optimised  by  a  more 
targeted approach in the proposal for the continuation of the ECoC after 2019. 

They  are  also  fully  in  line  with  the  objectives  of  the  European  Agenda  for  Culture 
and of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of 
Cultural Expressions such as described in section 2.1. The ECoC are now frequently 
quoted  as  exemplary  "laboratories"  for  culture-led  development  strategies  and  they 
can  therefore  provide  a  significant  input  in  EU  culture  policy  in  particular  by 
providing models of good practice which can be transferred in different contexts. 

Since they became a formal action of the EU, the ECoC have received funding from 
the  EU's  Culture  Programme.  Special  attention  will  therefore  need  to  be  given  to 

16 

 
 
 
 
carefully  link  the  objectives  of  the  ECoC  post  2019  to  the  objectives  of  the  new 
Creative Europe Programme which will replace Culture as from 2014, i.e. to foster 
the safeguarding and promotion of European cultural and linguistic diversity and to 
strengthen  the  competitiveness  of  the  cultural  and  creative  sectors  with  a  view  to 
promoting smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. It should be noted that while the 
objectives  of  Creative  Europe  and  the  ECoC  are  close,  the  mechanisms  used  to 
pursue these objectives are very different and complementary. Creative Europe will 
indeed  mainly  co-finance  cooperation  activities  involving  partners  from  different 
countries  and  guarantee  bank  loans  to  the  cultural  and  creative  sector,  and  the  past 
experience  has  shown  that  in  addition  to  the  Melina  Mercouri  Prize  many  past 
Capitals  have  made  use  of  the  calls  for proposals  of  the Culture Programme to  co-
finance their transnational cooperation activities. 

Evaluations  have  also  shown  that  the  ECoC  have  the  potential  to  be  reinforced  by 
and add value to investments made by the European Structural Funds. In Pécs 2010 
for example, 120 Million € were invested by  the ERDF in projects directly linked to 
the  ECoC  title  such  as  the  construction  of  the  new  Library,  the  new  concert  and 
conference  venue,  the  development  of  the  brownfield  site  of  the  Zsolnay  ceramic 
factory  and  its  reconversion  to  a  Cultural  district  or  the  regeneration  of  the  city's 
main  public  places  and  green  spaces12.  Linked  to  the  public  investments,  several 
private hotels also decided to upgrade their facilities with the help of the ERDF. In 
Essen für die Ruhr 2010, 50 million € were invested by the ERDF in particular for 
the  transformation  of  the  Zeche  Zollverein  in  a  creative  quarter  which  is  now 
considered  as  a  model  of  good  practice  for  the  contribution  of  culture  to  local  and 
regional  development.  Liverpool  2008  has  also  benefited  from  important  ERDF 
investments  and  was  invited  as  one  of  the  key  contributors  to  DG  REGIO's  2009 
"Regions for economic change" conference in order to transfer its experience. 

Finally, it is important to mention the European Green Capitals implemented by DG 
ENV, as well as the European Youth Capitals which were launched by the European 
Youth Forum and which can benefit from a financial support from DG EAC's Youth 
in  Action  programme13.  Both  were  created  in  recent  years  and  influenced  by  the 
success of the ECoC, however they are still in their beginnings and at this stage their 
scope and scale, as well as their prestige and visibility are far from those reached by 
the ECoC. The Green Capitals recognise and reward cities which have a consistent 
record  of  high  environmental  standards,  which  are  committed 
to  further 
environmental  improvement  and  sustainable  development,  and  which  can  act  as  a 
role  model  to  inspire  other  European  cities.  While  the  objectives  of  the  Green 
Capitals and of the ECoC are very different there is a potential for synergies which 
the  two  DGs  are  starting  to  explore..  On  their  side,  the  Youth  Capitals  encourage 
cities to showcase their youth related social, cultural, political and economic life and 
development. The overlap remains very limited as on the one hand culture is just a 
small part of the programmes  implemented by the Youth Capitals and on the other 
hand  the  ECoC  aim  at  reaching  the  widest  possible  range  of  citizens  and  not  only 
young people. 

12 The new highway between Pécs and Budapest mentioned above was built in the framework of a public-private 
partnership without a contribution from the ERDF or the Cohesion Fund, but the EIB was part of the 
support scheme. 

13  The  European  Youth  Capitals  are  a  civil  society  initiative  and  the  EU  is  not  involved  in  the  selection  or 
designation  procedures.  However,  the  candidate  cities  are  encouraged  to  participate  in  the  call  for 
proposals of the Youth in Action programme in order to co-finance some of their activities. This helps 
to foster the European dimension of the Youth Capitals.  

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
3. 

OBJECTIVES 

On  the  basis  of  the  evaluations  and  of  the  consultation,  it  appears  very  clearly  that 
the ECoC after 2019 will have to keep the general spirit of the current action and to 
build  on  the  strengths  that  have  enabled  past  Capitals  to  reach  many  significant 
benefits. At the same time, it is important to tackle the problems which have emerged 
and made it difficult for some cities to optimise the title. It is also important to limit 
the risks linked to a simple continuation of the ECoC in their current form.  

The objectives for the ECoC post 2019 which are presented in table n°1 below build 
therefore both on the current objective and criteria of the ECoC described in section 
2.2 and on the results of the evaluations and the consultation. A special attention was 
given to better reflect the contribution culture can make to stimulate the cities' more 
general development in line with the evolution of the ECoC over the years. This will 
also  strengthen  the  relevance  of  the  action  to  the  Europe  2020  strategy.  The  new 
objectives  give  a  clearer  steer  to  candidate  cities  about  the  common  goals  to  be 
achieved  at  EU  level  while  at  the  same  time  leaving  some  room  to  the  cities  to 
develop  their  own  vision  of  the  event  and  to  define  the  local  goals  they  want  to 
achieve through the title. 

As  the  problems  described  in  section  2.4  are  technical  problems  linked  to  the 
implementation of the action, they will be tackled mainly at the level of operational 
objectives.  These  operational  objectives  are  divided  in  two  categories.  First,  the 
objectives  to  be  achieved  at  city  level  by  each  ECoC  through  their  cultural 
programmes for the year, as well as through their longer-term strategies for cultural 
development.  Second,  the  objectives  to  be  achieved  at  EU  level  through  the 
operation  of  the  selection  and  monitoring  procedures.  In  both  categories,  several 
operational objectives aim at perpetuating the current strengths of the ECoC, while 
others  aim  at  addressing  the  problems  identified  in  section  2.4  (each  of  the  5 
problems can thus be linked to one or several of the operational objectives). 

18 

 
 
 
 
Table n°1: Objectives for the ECoC post 2019 

General objectives 

to safeguard and promote the diversity of European cultures, and to highlight the common 
features they share 

to foster the contribution of culture to the long-term development of cities 

Specific objectives 

to enhance the range, diversity and European 
dimension of the cultural offer in cities, 
including through transnational co-operation 

to widen access to and participation in 
culture 

to strengthen the capacity of the cultural 
sector and its connectivity with other sectors 

to improve the international profile of 
cities through culture 

Operational objectives – at city level 

to stimulate extensive 
cultural programmes 
of high artistic quality 

to ensure cultural 
programmes feature 
a strong European 
dimension and 
transnational co-
operation 

to involve a wide 
range of citizens 
and stakeholders in 
preparing and 
implementing the 
cultural programme

to create new 
opportunities for 
a wide range of 
citizens to attend 
or participate in 
cultural events 

to improve 
cultural 
infrastructure 

to develop 
the skills , 
capacity and 
governance 
of the 
cultural 
sector 

to stimulate 
partnerships 
and co-
operation 
with other 
sectors 

to promote the city 
and its cultural 
programme 

to improve the 
international 
outlook of 
residents 

Operational objectives – at EU level 

to ensure geographical balance in the location of ECoC 

to ensure the selection of credible candidates 

to ensure cities put in place effective governance and stable budgets 

to strengthen the accompanying measures and the evaluation 

19 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

A wide range of options were considered for the ECoC post 2019 including all the 
suggestions  raised  by  stakeholders  or  external  experts.  These  options  were  then 
narrowed  down  through  an  initial  screening  taking  into  account  the  results  of  the 
evaluations  and  the  public  consultation,  as  well  as  the  technical  constraints  of  the 
ECoC and their feasibility. As a result the following three options were retained for 
further analysis. One of these options contained two sub-options: 

Table n° 2: Analysed policy options 

Option 

Summary 

1. No change (baseline) 

The ECoC continue with an identical legal base to the current Decision  
to which a new chronological list of MS is annexed 

2. No action 

The ECoC stop after 2019 

3. Revised legal base 

The ECoC continue with a new legal base which addresses the problems 
encountered with the current Decision. 

Sub-option a: a new chronological list of MS is annexed 

Sub-option b: the title is awarded on the basis of an open competition 

4.1. 

Discarded options 

A very large consensus emerged from the evaluations and consultation that the ECoC 
are a well-established and successful initiative which still has a very strong potential 
for the future, and that no radical change to the concept was needed. All the options 
retained for further analysis therefore build on a certain degree of continuity in the 
approach  and  we  focussed  mainly  on  examining  the  best  ways  to  keep  the  strong 
brand value of the ECoC and to help all cities to optimise the title.  

One  of  the  keys  of  the  success  of  the  ECoC  is  the  simplicity  of  the  concept.  This 
simplicity is what makes the Capitals so attractive for the media across Europe, and 
through  this  channel  also  for  all  European  citizens.  The  straightforwardness  of  the 
concept  also  greatly  contributes  to  the  strong  symbolic  value  of  the  ECoC.  All 
options  suggested  by  stakeholders  which  would  have  over-complicated  the  ECoC 
were therefore discarded, such as for example having three distinct competitions in 
parallel every year according to the size or the population of a city. 

For  similar  reasons,  we  have  also  rejected  the  idea  of  having  every  year  one  large 
scale ECoC selected through an open competition, accompanied by a small number 
of  "European  Cultural  Seasons"  or  "Months"  (a  shorter  and  lighter  version  of  the 
ECoC for smaller MS), which would have rotated in chronological order among MS. 
It became clear very quickly that this solution would have created a lot of confusion 

20 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
and frustration.  First, the new Seasons or Months would not have been considered as 
attractive enough by a majority of smaller MS compared to the fully fledged ECoC. 
Second,  it  would  have  taken  a  lot  of  time  and  investment  to  develop  them  into  a 
strong  brand  and  they  would  probably  not  have  been  sufficiently  distinctive  from 
many  large  scale  existing  festivals.  Third,  they  could  have  diluted  and  undermined 
the interest in and the prestige of the fully fledged ECoC.  

We have rejected all options which would have been binding over a too long period 
of time. For example, having only one Capital per year and a chronological list of 28 
MS14 would have implied being bound from 2020 to 2047 without any possibility to 
make  a  significant  change  in  the  legal  base  for  reasons  of  equal  treatment  between 
the MS. The same would have been true in the case of two Capitals per year with one 
selected through an open competition and one on the basis of a chronological list of 
MS  as  suggested  by  some  stakeholders.  In  addition,  this  second  option  would  also 
have created a risk of confusion as mentioned above. 

We have discarded the possibility to award the title to metropolitan areas or regions 
and decided that the ECoC title should continue to be reserved to cities as is currently 
the  case  (these  cities  have  however  the  possibility  to  involve  their  surrounding 
regions).  Initially,  the  opinions  were  divided  on  this  issue  during  the  online 
consultation and the public meeting. It came out very clearly however that there is no 
consensus  on  the  definition  of  what  a  region  or  a  metropolitan  area  is  as  MS 
administrative structures are so  different. Those participants who  were  in  favour  of 
the  opening  of  the  ECoC  to  regions  stressed  that  this  should  not  apply  to 
"administrative"  regions  but  to  areas  which  share  a  common  history,  identity  or 
project. Most agreed that such a vague definition would make it very difficult to have 
clear and transparent rules and criteria. Several past and future ECoC also underlined 
based on their own experience that governance is already a serious challenge and that 
the  risk  would  be  multiplied  (which  is  confirmed  by  the  Commission's  day  to  day 
management of the action). They insisted on the fact that the clear leadership of one 
city is a key success factor. As a consequence, many participants recognised that it 
would  probably  be  wiser  to  continue  with  the  current  rule.  This  issue  was  also 
discussed  at  length  by  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  which  reached  the  same 
conclusion in its own initiative report.  

Another discarded option, was awarding the title exclusively to clusters of cities from 
different countries in order to foster cross-border co-operation between these cities. 
The main risk here would have been to duplicate the activities already covered by the 
Creative  Europe  Programme.  Furthermore,  all  cities  applying  for  the  title  are 
pursuing  their  own  local  policy  objectives  which  are  deeply  rooted  in  the  local 
cultural,  social  and  economic  context.  Indeed,  the  evaluations  have  shown  that  in 
order to be successful, Capitals must stay authentic and build on their strengths, draw 
on  their  past,  on  all  their  communities,  while  looking  to  the  future.  Articulating  a 
clear  and  coherent  vision  which  goes  beyond  the  simple  accumulation  of  co-
operation  projects  would  have  been  inaccessible  for  most  transnational  clusters. 
Finally,  as  seen  above,  the  challenge  of  putting  in  place  effective  governance 
structures would be multiplied in the case of transnational clusters thus increasing the 
risk of failure. 

14 Subject to the accession of Croatia in 2013. 

21 

 
 
  
 
                                                            
While screening the possible scenarios for an open competition, we have rejected the 
idea  of  a  cap  in  the  number  of  candidates  per  country  and  of  a  pre-selection  at 
national  level.  Such  a  national  pre-selection  would  indeed  have  resembled  the 
discontinued system for the Capitals between 2005 and 2010 when MS put forward 
one or more applicants to a European panel. The disadvantages would have been the 
danger of a much weaker European dimension due to a purely national pre-selection 
and  the  difficulty  of  ensuring  genuine  competition  at  national  level  and  equal 
treatment for all cities. From the experience of the Commission, this would not have 
optimised quality, transparency and fairness. 

We  have  discarded  all  options  which  would  have  implied  a  large  increase  of  the 
amount of the Melina Mercouri Prize. First, evaluations have shown that the Melina 
Mercouri  Prize  has  acquired  a  strong  symbolic  value  which  goes  far  beyond  the 
actual  amount  of  the  Prize,  that  the  ECoC  title  in  itself  has  an  important  leverage 
effect for cities and that therefore the amount of the Prize does not have a significant 
influence  on  the  decision  to  apply  for  the  ECoC.  Second,  a  large  number  of  cities 
holding  the  title  have  also  received  EU  funding  from  other  sources,  notably  the 
European  Structural  Funds  which  have  supported  many  associated  infrastructure 
developments. Third, in the current financial context a large increase in the amount 
of the Melina Mercouri Prize would only have been possible within the envelope of 
the  Creative  Europe  Programme,  and  thus  at  the  expense  of  all  the  other  cultural 
projects for which Creative Europe was designed.  

Finally, we have rejected the option to outsource the implementation of the ECoC to 
the  Education,  Audiovisual  and  Culture  Executive  Agency  (EACEA)  or  to  another 
external  body.  The  day  to  day  management  of  the  selection  and  monitoring 
procedures for the ECoC is very different from the management of grants which is 
the  core  task  of  the  EACEA.  The  experience  has  also  shown  that  the  operation  of 
these procedures was often highly sensitive and that it implied numerous high level 
political contacts with the local, regional and national authorities. Furthermore, there 
is  a  very  strong  interest  in  the  ECoC  from  the  media  which  generates  a  very  high 
number of contacts with the press and of requests from the Spokesperson Service. In 
both  cases,  the  Commission  is  much  better  placed  to  pass  the  appropriate  political 
messages.    Outsourcing  the  implementation  would  generate  no  economies  of  scale. 
On  the  contrary,  keeping  the  practical  dimension  and  political  dimension  of  the 
ECoC in the same hands would keep the procedures much lighter and more flexible. 

4.2. 

Options retained for analysis 

4.2.1.  Option 1 "No change" (the baseline) 

The "No change" option would require the European Parliament and the Council to 
adopt a new legal base which is identical to the current one (Decision 1622/2006/EC 
– see section 2.2), except for a new chronological list of MS entitled to host the title. 
For reasons of equal treatment between the MS this list would have to run until 2033 
at least on the basis of 28 MS or more if new MS join the EU in the meantime. This 
is the baseline option against which the other options are tested. 

4.2.2.  Option 2 "No action" 

In the absence of any action by the EU, Decision 1622/2006/EC would lapse and the 
ECoC title would no longer be awarded after 2019. 

22 

 
 
  
 
4.2.3.  Option 3 "Revised legal base" 

Under  this  option  (which  includes  sub-options  3a  and  3b  as  explained  below)  the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council  would  need  to  adopt  a  new  Decision  which 
addresses the problems described in section 2.4.  

On  the  basis  of  the  results  of  the  evaluations  and  of  the  consultation,  the  main 
features and the general structure of the current Decision would be kept: 

• 

• 

• 

The title would continue to be reserved to cities which may decide to involve 
their surrounding region. 

The attribution of the title would continue to be based on a cultural programme 
created specifically for the ECoC year in order to ensure the strong European 
dimension of the event. 

The  current  two  stage  selection  process  carried  out  by  a  European  panel  of 
independent experts would be kept. This process was generally held to be fair 
and  transparent.  It  has  also  increased  the  general  interest  in  the  ECoC, 
generated  a  high  number  of  applications  and  enabled  cities  to  improve  their 
applications between the pre-selection and the final selection phase on the basis 
of expert advice received from the panel.   

• 

There was also a large consensus that the title should continue to be awarded 
for a full year to keep it distinctive and ambitious.   

The  main  improvements  that  would  be  introduced  in  the  legal  base  would  be  the 
following: 

• 

The evaluations and the consultation have clearly shown that while the current 
selection criteria are still considered as fully relevant, they could benefit from 
some adjustments. On the one hand, they would need to be made more explicit 
in order to give more guidance to the candidate cities and more measurable in 
order to help the panel of experts in the selection and monitoring of cities. On 
the  other  hand,  the  so-called  "unwritten  criteria"  (capacity  of  the  city  to  hold 
the  title,  budgetary  guarantees,  governance,  independence  of  the  artistic 
team…) which are not mentioned in the current legal base (although mentioned 
in the Guide for bidding cities), but already taken into account by the selection 
panel need to be clearly written down in the new proposal. The criteria would 
also gain to be aligned more closely to the revised objectives of the ECoC laid 
down in section 3 and to pay a special attention to the problems described in 
section 2.4.  

Therefore,  with  option  3  the  legal  base  would  introduce  a  new  set  of  criteria 
which would be divided into six categories:  

– 

"long-term strategy": this category would ensure that the applications are 
embedded  in  a  long  term  strategy  for  cultural  development  including 
inter-alia  the  plans  for  cultural  governance  and  sustaining  cultural 
activities  beyond  the  year  of  the  title,  the  plans  for  strengthening  the 
capacity  of  the  cultural  sector  and  for  building  sustainable  partnerships 
with  the  economic  and  social  sectors,  and  the  plans  for  the  monitoring 

23 

 
 
  
 
– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

and evaluation of the title. It would thus contribute to tackling problems 
n° 3 and 4. 

"capacity  to  deliver":  this  category  would  ensure  that  the  applications 
benefit from cross-party political support, and that the cities would have 
adequate  and  viable  infrastructure  to  host  the  title.  It  would  thus 
contribute to tackling problems n°1 and 5. 

"cultural  and  artistic  content":  this  category  would  ensure  a  clear  and 
coherent artistic vision for the cultural programme of the year, the range 
and diversity of cultural activities, their overall artistic quality, as well as 
the involvement of local artists and cultural organisations. It would thus 
build on the best practices noted under the current scheme. 

"European dimension": this category would ensure the scope and quality 
of  the  activities  promoting  the  cultural  diversity  of  Europe,  of  the 
activities highlighting the common aspects of European cultures, heritage 
and history, and of the activities based on trans-national co-operation and 
partnerships. It would thus contribute to tackling problem n°2. 

"outreach":  this  category  would  ensure  the  involvement  of  the  local 
populations  and  civil  society  in  the  preparation  and  implementation  of 
the ECoC, the access of a wide range of citizens to cultural activities and 
a clear strategy for audience development. It would thus build on the best 
practices noted under the current scheme. 

"management": this category would ensure the credibility of the budgets, 
the stability of the governance structures, the independence of the artistic 
teams and comprehensive communication strategies highlighting that the 
the  ECoC  are  a  EU  initiative.  It  would  thus  contribute  to  tackling 
problems n° 1 and 2. 

• 

• 

• 

It would be stated explicitly in the Decision that there is no obligation to award 
the title in a given year if none of the applications fulfils the criteria. 

There was a very large consensus in the evaluations and in the consultation that 
the  accompanying  measures  which  support  cities  during  the  four  year 
preparation period after winning the title  were  the main step forward brought 
by  Decision  1622/2006/EC  and  that  they  have  been  very  useful  for  cities. 
There  was  strong  support  for  these  measures  to  be  continued  and  further 
developed. Therefore, with option 3 the revised legal base would introduce an 
additional monitoring meeting, the visits to the cities by panel members would 
be  made  more  systematic  and  the  exchange  of  experience  and  best  practices 
between past, present and future Capitals, as well as candidate cities would be 
reinforced through regular seminars. 

 Providing  EU  funding  in  the  form  of  the  Melina  Mercouri  Prize  as  has  been 
the case as from the 2010 Capitals rather than a traditional grant as before has 
been  welcomed  due  to  the  reduced  administrative  burden  and  increased 
flexibility in the use of funding. However, new, stronger conditionality criteria 
would  be  introduced  for  the  payment  of  the  Prize,  making  the  grounds  on 
which  the  Commission  can  refuse  this  payment  much  clearer.  No  substantial 

24 

 
 
  
 
changes  to  the  cultural  programme  and  the  long-term  strategy  would  be 
allowed  between  the  bidding  stage  and  the  year  of  the  title.  Special  attention 
would be given to the stability of the budget, the independence of the artistic 
team, the European dimension of the cultural programme, the communication 
strategy (including the due references to the EU) and the plans for monitoring 
and  evaluation. Furthermore, the  Prize would no longer be paid three months 
before the beginning of the year of the title, but during the middle of the year 
itself in order to be certain that cities keep to their commitments. This would 
also  be  fully  in  line  with  one  of  the  main  recommendations  from  the 
evaluations which suggested requiring cities to develop their applications and 
programmes without including the Prize in their budgets. Whenever attributed, 
the  money  of  the  Prize  could  be  used  to  enlarge  the  scope  of  some  of  the 
activities  of  the  second  semester  of  the  year  or  to  finance  legacy  activities  in 
the years following the year of the title. 

There  is  a  strong  demand  from  third  countries  to  open  up  the  ECoC  again  to 
the participation of non MS from 2020, as was the case until 2010. 25 % of the 
responses to the online consultation came from non MS. Important delegations 
also participated in the public meeting. Furthermore,  the experience  of recent 
years  (e.g.  Sibiu  2007,  Istanbul  2010)  demonstrated  that  the  participation  of 
candidate  countries  can  contribute  to  bring  them  closer  to  the  Union  by 
highlighting the common aspects of European cultures. It can thus be beneficial 
both  for  these  countries  and  the  Union.  Therefore,  the  new  legal  base  would 
open again the ECoC to the participation of candidate and potential candidate 
countries.  

Finally,  in  line  with  article  291  of  the  TFUE,  and  taking  into  account  the 
precedent of the European Heritage Label in 2011, the official designation of 
the  ECoC  formalising  the  recommendations  made  by  the  European  panel 
would be made by the Commission and no longer by the Council. 

• 

• 

4.2.3.1.  Sub-option 3a "Revised legal base with a chronological list of MS" 

With  sub-option  3a,  a  new  chronological  list  of  two  MS  entitled  to  host  the  title 
every year would be included in the legal base as for option 2. For reasons of equal 
treatment between the MS this list would have to run until 2033 at least on the basis 
of 28 MS, or more if new MS join the EU in the meantime.  

However, in parallel to the competition in the two MS, an open competition would 
be  organised  for  candidate  countries  or  potential  candidates  every  third  year.  This 
competition  would  be  open  to  cities  in  all  the  countries  concerned,  provided  that 
these  countries  participate  in  the  Creative  Europe  Programme  or  in  the  subsequent 
EU programmes supporting culture at the date of the beginning of the competition. A 
maximum  of  one  city  in  one  candidate  country  or  potential  candidate  could  be 
awarded the title. For reasons of equity with MS, each candidate country or potential 
candidate country would only be allowed to host the title once during the period from 
2020 to 2033. 

With  this  sub-option,  we  would  thus  have  a  maximum  of  two  Capitals  every 
"regular" year and a maximum of three Capitals every third year, taking into account 
that  the  European  panel  has  no  obligation  to  recommend  a  city  if  there  are  no 

25 

 
 
  
 
credible  candidates  in  a  specific  MS  or  among  candidate  and  potential  candidate 
countries. 

4.2.3.2.  Sub-option 3b "Revised legal base with an open competition"  

With  sub-option  3b,  the  ECoC  title  would  be  awarded  to  a  maximum  of  two  cities 
every year on the basis of an open competition. This competition would be accessible 
to cities in all the MS, candidate countries and potential candidates. 

However, in order to limit the risk that the title would be awarded exclusively in the 
few bigger and wealthier countries, a country which has been awarded the title would 
not  be  allowed  to  participate  in  the  competition  again  before  9  years.  Thus  on  the 
basis  of  36  countries  (28  MS  +  4  candidates  +  4  potential  candidates),  the 
competition would be open only to a maximum of 18 countries every year.  

The managing authority for the competition would be the Commission and all cities 
in  the  countries  concerned  would  have  the  possibility  to  submit  their  applications 
directly to the European panel.  

5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

In identifying and analysing the likely impacts of the options, we were able to draw 
on the evidence gathered from the various evaluations, the conclusions of the 25 year 
anniversary conference and the public consultation. It is however important to keep 
two factors in mind. These two factors were discussed more in detail in section 2: 

• 

All ECoC are different because all cities are different. With all of the options, 
the local circumstances would continue to deeply influence the priorities each 
city  sets  for  itself  and  the  volume  of  the  impacts  that  can  realistically  be 
achieved. 

•  Many  of  the  most  important  benefits  of  the  ECoC  are  intangible  and 
unquantifiable and cannot therefore be monetised. This is amplified by the fact 
that there is still a lack of collection of primary  data by the cities themselves 
which creates a fragmented view and makes comparisons difficult. 

For  these  reasons,  we  have  adopted  a  multi-criteria  analysis  approach  in  order  to 
examine the impacts of each option. This approach mixes qualitative and quantitative 
data, takes into account the varying degrees of certainty of the impacts, and puts the 
emphasis on the causal chains that would generate the advantages and disadvantages 
of each option rather than attempting to isolate the impact of the ECoC on particular 
variables. 

The analysis of impacts is based on the proposed options compared to the baseline. 
Table  n°3  below  summarizes  the  main  areas  of  cultural,  economic,  social  and 
environmental impacts that were examined.  

Table n° 3: Main areas of cultural, economic, social and environmental impacts 

Areas of cultural impacts 

Areas of economic impacts  Areas of social impacts  

Areas  of  environmental 

26 

 
 
  
 
 
impacts  

to 

Contribution 
global 
climate  change  /  Change  in 
CO2 emissions 

Improvements in the urban 
environment 

Improved infrastructure and 
facilities 

Strengthened capacity of the 
cultural and creative sectors 

Increased connectivity 
between the cultural, 
economic and social sectors 

Stronger international 
profile and image of the city 

Increased tourism 

Cultural programmes of 
large scale & high artistic 
quality 

Promotion of European 
cultural diversity 

Promotion of the European 
dimension of and through 
culture 

International partnerships, 
exchanges & networking 

Improved cultural 
governance 

Sustainable cultural legacy 

Wide range of citizens and 
stakeholders involved in 
preparation & 
implementation of the 
ECoC 

Citizens' sustainable 
attendance or participation 
in cultural events 
(especially young people, 
minorities or the 
disadvantaged) 

Greater profile for cultures 
of minorities and 
marginalised groups 

Increased volunteering 

Stronger  international 
outlook of residents 

Improved perception of the 
city by residents 

Before examining each option in greater detail, it should be pointed out that none of 
these  options  would  infringe  the  fundamental  rights  of  citizens  as  defined  in  the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. On the contrary, the cultural programmes 
of the ECoC could in certain cases contribute to a greater awareness of and empathy 
for  fundamental  rights.  As  options  3a  and  3b  would  strengthen  these  cultural 
programmes  through  improved  selection  criteria  and  reinforced  accompanying 
measures, they could have positive effects in this regard which would be greater than 
under the baseline, however these effects would remain marginal. 

The  environmental  impacts  should  also  not  be  overplayed,  but  they  have  been 
assessed  for  all  the  options.  On  the  one  hand,  there  is  the  negative  impact  of  the 
change  in  CO2  emissions  which  is  directly  linked  to  the  success  of  a  Capital:  the 
more a Capital is successful, the more it attracts visitors and stimulates the mobility 
of cultural operators, and the more it risks generating additional CO2 emissions due 
to  transport.  Options  3a  and  3b  with  stronger  cultural  programmes  might  have 
slightly  stronger  impacts  here.  On  the  other  hand,  in  many  cases  the  ECoC  have 
stimulated  improvements  to  the  physical  environment  of  cities  through  the 
renovation  of  neighbourhoods  or  the  refurbishment  of  city  parks  or  public  spaces. 
Furthermore,  candidate  cities  start  to  take  into  consideration  issues  such  as  eco-
innovation for newly built or renovated infrastructure, local mobility and transport or 
waste production and management in their applications. Encouraging these positive 
impacts would enable to cancel out the potential negative impacts mentioned above 
or even ideally to leave a positive environmental legacy in the city, even if, all in all, 
the  global  impact  on  environment  would  remain  marginal.  Here  again,  the  impacts 
(positive  this  time)  might  be  slighter  higher  with  options  3a  and  3b.    The  various 
cultural,  economic,  social  and  environmental  impacts  of  each  option  are  scored  in 
table 6 in the annex. 

27 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
5.1. 

Option 1 "No change" (the baseline) 

The "no change" scenario was described in detail in section 2. With this scenario, the 
impacts of the title would continue to vary widely from city to city. On the one hand, 
each  city  would  continue  to  have  at  least  some  of  the  benefits  described  in  section 
2.3. On the other hand, the problems and the risks described in section 2.4 and 2.5 
would not be addressed and some cities would continue to fail to fully capitalize on 
the potential of the title.   

 It should also be noted that for reasons of equal treatment between the MS, the new 
chronological list of MS would fix the system up to at least 2033 with no possibility 
to make significant changes to the scheme. 

Cultural impacts 

The scale and quality of the cultural programme would continue to vary widely from 
one city to another and to be endangered by the lack of stability in the governance 
structures  and  in  the  budgets.  The  European  dimension  of  the  cultural  programme 
would  remain  limited  in  many  ECoC.  The  sustainability  of  the  effects  such  as  the 
improved cultural governance and the increased cultural activity after the year of the 
title would also differ from city to city and be endangered in a number of cases by 
the weak legacy planning. 

Economic impacts 

The economic impacts would also continue to vary considerably from one ECoC to 
another.  All  Capitals  would  probably  benefit  at  least  to  a  certain  degree  from 
improved  infrastructure  and  increased  tourism.  Strengthened  capacity  of  the  sector 
and increased connectivity with other sectors would continue to be directly linked to 
the  quality  of  the  long-term  strategy  of  the  city  and  its  legacy  planning.  The 
improved  image  would  continue  to  depend  on  the  overall  level  of  success  of  each 
ECoC. 

Social impacts  

The same disparity would also perpetuate concerning the social impacts, with some 
ECoC putting in place ambitious schemes to involve citizens in the preparation and 
implementation  of  the  event  or  to  improve  the  access  of  residents  including  young 
people,  minorities  or  the  disadvantaged  to  culture,  while  others  would  continue  to 
miss the opportunities provided by the title. 

5.2. 

Option 2 "No action" 

Without action from the EU, the ECoC would stop after 2019 as there is a very low 
probability that MS would come back to the intergovernmental arrangements which 
existed  until  1999  and  which  on  the  basis  of  the  various  evaluations  proved  to  be 
much less successful than the current EU action. There is also a very low probability 
that a private body would have the capacity to step in. Without a strong commitment 
of  the  EU  and  of  the  MS,  such  a  private  initiative  would  lack  legitimacy  and  the 
recent  attempts  to  launch  Cultural  Capitals  initiatives  on  other  continents  have 
clearly shown that it is very difficult to attract the interest of cities and citizens. 

Cultural impacts 

28 

 
 
  
 
In  the  absence  of  ECoC,  there  would  be  a  loss  of  all  the  positive  cultural  impacts 
described  in  section  2.3.  Any  city  would  be  free  to  invest  its  own  resources  in 
implementing a one-off cultural programme  of large scale and high artistic quality. 
However, in the absence of ECoC status, cities would be less likely to place as much 
emphasis on the European dimension of culture. Moreover, such programmes would 
not benefit from the brand value associated with the ECoC. In particular, cities that 
are  newly  emerging  as  cultural  destinations  –  or  aspiring  to  such  status  –  would 
struggle  to  gain  the  same  prestige  and  profile  that  they  currently  gain  from  ECoC 
status.  At  the  European  level,  there  would  be  a  loss  of  cultural  diversity,  as  the 
European cultural “scene” would be even further dominated by larger, already well-
established cultural centres rather than showcasing the cultures of all 28 MS. 

Economic impacts 

The “no action” option would constitute a lost opportunity for the positive economic 
impacts  described  in  the  baseline  scenario,  such  as  the  contribution  to  economic 
growth  generated  by  the  increased  number  of  cultural  activities  or  the  increased 
number  of  visitors  and  tourists,  or  such  as  the  improved  international  profile  and 
image of a city. In the absence of ECoC, less impetus would be given to investments 
in  cultural  and  other  infrastructure.  An  opportunity  would  also  be  lost  to  help 
strengthen  the  capacity  of  cities’  cultural  and  creative  sectors  in  terms  of  greater 
skills, experience and international contacts or to increase the connectivity between 
the cultural sector and other sectors. 

 Social impacts  

The  “no  action”  option  would  constitute  a  lost  opportunity  for  the  positive  social 
impacts  experienced  by  ECoC  to  date.  In  particular,  fewer  opportunities  would  be 
created to widen participation in cultural events and access to cultural resources or to 
introduce  new  outreach  activities  for  young  people, 
the  marginalised  and 
disadvantaged (such as ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, the elderly). The 
cultures of minorities and marginalised communities would be given less prominence 
within cities and at European level. Wider social impacts associated with the ECoC 
would also be lost, such as for example new job creation linked to the title or impetus 
given  to  dialogue  between  cultural  operators  in  different  MS  or  between  cultural 
operators in MS and third countries. 

5.3. 

Sub-option 3a "Revised legal base with a chronological list of MS" 

Option  3a  would  keep  the  essence  of  the  current  ECoC  action  and  the  title  would 
continue to be awarded to a wide variety of  cities  all  over  the  EU.  As  a  result,  the 
size  and  scope  of  the  impacts  would  also  continue  to  vary  widely.  However,  the 
changes made in the legal base would help to reduce the difficulties encountered by 
cities in their preparation and thus would help all the ECoC to make the most out of 
the potential of the title in accordance with their own local context. With this option, 
the risks to have weak ECoC in certain years and thus to damage the prestige and the 
"brand" value of the title in the longer-term would also be significantly reduced. 

Cultural impacts 

Thanks  to  the  greater  stability  in  the  governance  structures  and  in  the  budgets,  as 
well  as  the  greater  independence  of  the  artistic  teams,  and  thanks  to  the  reinforced 

29 

 
 
  
 
legacy  planning  which  would  result  from  the  revised  legal  base,  there  would  be  a 
much stronger guarantee that each ECoC would have a cultural programme of large 
scale and high artistic quality and with a strong European dimension. 

Economic impacts 

As a direct result of having stronger cultural programmes, the ECoC would be able to 
attract  even  more  tourists  and  to  increase  even  further  the  international  profile  and 
the image of the city. This would strengthen the contribution of the ECoC to the local 
and  regional  GDP.  Furthermore,  the  obligation  to  embed  the  title  in  a  long-term 
strategy  would  enable  to  reinforce  the  skills  and  experience  of  the  cultural  and 
creative sectors, as well as the connectivity with the economic and social sectors, and 
thus to multiply the spill-over effects. 

Social impacts  

As noted in the baseline scenario, the ECoC to date have demonstrated a high degree 
of  success  in  widening  the  participation  of  citizens  in  culture,  including  those  that 
would  not  normally  or  participate.  With  option  3a,  the  ECoC  could  be  expected  to 
continue  to  foster  new  approaches  to  participation,  increase  attendance  at  events, 
involve  more  school  children  in  culture,  offer  a  greater  profile  for  the  cultures  of 
minorities  and  marginalised  groups,  enhance  access  to  culture  for  disadvantaged 
groups, including persons with disabilities, and increase volunteering in the cultural 
sector. However, the improvements made to the processes might serve to make these 
positive impacts more certain to be achieved, for example, by making the funding or 
governance of ECoC more reliable. 

5.4. 

Sub-option 3b "Revised legal base with an open competition"  

Option  3b  would  introduce  the  same  changes  in  the  legal  base  as  option  3a,  and 
therefore similar improvements compared to the baseline scenario could be expected. 
The only difference with option 3a, is that option 3b would introduce a form of open 
competition  for  the  title  instead  of  the  current  rotation  between  the  MS  based  on  a 
chronological list.  

Past experience, especially in the larger MS, shows us that the likely outcome of an 
open competition would be a very high number of applications in total, even if the 
competition is limited to 18 countries every year (for example 17 cities competed in 
Germany for the 2010 title, 15 in Spain for the 2016 title, 12 in the UK for the 2008 
title, 11 in Poland for the 2016 title…). This fierce competition would probably raise 
the  overall  quality  and  size  of  the  applications  and,  as  a  result,  only  the  very  best 
candidates would be awarded the title every year. This would raise even further the 
credibility and prestige of the title and would ensure its brand value in the long-term. 
However,  at  the  same  time  the  candidates  are  also  likely  to  be  dominated  by  big 
cities  from  the  larger  (and  often  wealthier)  MS,  many  of  whom  would  have  the 
proven  capacity  to  organise  such  a  large  scale  event.  A  scattering  of  ambitious  but 
smaller cities with probably less capacity might also apply, particularly from the new 
MS, but these would most probably struggle to compete with the larger cities. 

Cultural impacts 

30 

 
 
  
 
Although ECoC selected via an open competition at European level might be larger 
than those selected via competitions at MS level, the evidence from the evaluations 
suggests that they would be no different in essence: the nature of their objectives and 
activities would be the same, merely different in scale. For that reason, their effects 
would  most  probably  be  towards  the  top  end  of  the  range  of  effects  described  in 
section 2.3. The average level of operating expenditure per ECoC would probably be 
between 70 million € as in Linz 2009 or Essen für die Ruhr 2010 and 100 million € 
as  in  Marseille  2013.  The  number  of  activities  would  be  around  7000  as  in  Graz 
2003,  Liverpool  2008  or  Linz  2009.  The  total  audience  would  often  exceed  10 
million people as in Liverpool 2008, Essen für die Ruhr 2010 or Istanbul 2010. 

As with option 3a, the new  legal  base  would ensure that the  title  is  embedded  in a 
long-term strategy and that the cultural programme has a strong European dimension. 
Option 3b would however have a serious disadvantage concerning the promotion of 
the  cultural  diversity  of  Europe.  While  options  1  and  3a  would  give  each  MS  an 
equal opportunity to have a ECoC during the period from 2020 to 2033, with option 
3b it is much more likely that the title would be mostly awarded to bigger cities in 
the larger and wealthier MS as already mentioned above. As a result, while several 
MS would host the title on a regular basis and on a shorter interval than is currently 
the case, others would have no Capital at all and would thus lose an opportunity to 
highlight their contribution to European culture. The ECoC action as a whole would 
also no longer be in a position to present the full diversity of European national (and 
regional) cultures. Linked to this, there would also be the risk of a gradual waning in 
media interest in those MS not hosting a successful applicant over several years, with 
citizens thus becoming unaware of or much less interested in the ECoC. This would 
represent  a  lost  opportunity  to  strengthen  the  sense  of  belonging  to  a  common 
cultural area. 

Economic impacts 

As  with  Option  3a,  the  stronger  requirements  for  cities  to  put  in  place  a  long-term 
strategy  for  cultural  development  and  to  keep  stable  governance  structures  and 
budgets would raise the probability that all ECoC would improve their infrastructure, 
strengthen  the  capacity  of  their  cultural  and  creative  sectors  and  increase  the 
connectivity  to  other  sectors.  The  higher  quality  of  the  cultural  programmes  would 
also contribute to improve the cities' image and international profile. 

In addition, with a selection through an open competition, a majority of ECoC would 
be  bigger  than  those  selected  through  a  rotation  between  MS  and  their  cultural 
programmes would be larger. As a result, the  direct and indirect economic  impacts 
would also probably be larger in volume. However, at the same time these impacts 
might represent less when considered in relative terms. For example, the percentage 
increase in tourism for large cities that already enjoy high international profile might 
be less than for relatively unknown, but aspiring “newcomers” that are more likely to 
be located in new or small MS. For example, both Sibiu 2007 and Pécs 2010 enjoyed 
increases  in  tourist  visits  of  around  27%,  far  greater  than  the  average  increase  of 
12%.  Recent  experience  has  also  shown  that  in  the  case  of  very  big  cities  like 
Istanbul 2010 for example, the ECoC is diluted in the overall cultural offer of the city 
with  a  risk  of  a  weaker  awareness  among  residents  and  visitors  and  a  weaker 
visibility for the title in itself. Furthermore, there is an important risk with option 3b 
that  the  ECoC  might  reinforce  the  existing  territorial  imbalances  in  the  economic 
benefits linked to culture and cultural tourism. 

31 

 
 
  
 
Social impacts  

Here again, as with option 3a, the improvements made to the legal base might serve 
to  make  the  positive  social  impacts  described  in  section  2.3  more  certain  to  be 
achieved, inter alia by making the funding or governance of ECoC more reliable. 

Since ECoC selected via an open competition might be more likely to be big cities 
from  the  large  MS,  their  social  impacts  might  be  higher  in  volume  per  ECoC,  e.g. 
number  of  school-children  involved.  However,  those  impacts  would  be  much  less 
likely to occur across all 28 MS and therefore also less likely to occur where they are 
most needed, i.e. in cities that are less well-established as cultural centres and where 
new  approaches  to  participation,  the  involvement  of  school  children  in  culture, 
volunteering  in  the  cultural  sector  or  the  profile  for  the  cultures  of  minorities  or 
marginalised groups are much less developed. 

6. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

The  comparison  of  options  is  based  on  a  multi-criteria  analysis  which  includes  the 
following elements: effectiveness in terms of achieving objectives, efficiency, costs 
and administrative burden, coherence and feasibility. The results are summarized in 
table 4 below. The full results are presented in table 6 in the annex. 

6.1. 

Effectiveness 

Section  5  above  described  the  main  impacts  of  the  options  compared  with  the 
baseline scenario. In a nutshell, option 2 "no action" would mean the loss of all the 
positive impacts the ECoC currently have. On the opposite, options 3a and 3b would 
make  these  impacts  more  certain  in  all  Capitals  by  strengthening  the  selection 
criteria, the accompanying measures and the conditionality of the Prize.  

With  option  3b  and  a  selection  through  an  open  competition,  the  volume  of  the 
impacts would probably be larger as the Capitals would be mostly bigger and already 
well-established  cities,  but  these  impacts  would  represent  less  in  relative  terms  as 
they  would  be  less  likely  to occur  in the cities and in the MS where  they are most 
needed.  Furthermore,  option  3b  would  make  a  much  weaker  contribution  to  the 
promotion of the cultural diversity of Europe than the baseline scenario or option 3a. 

6.2. 

Efficiency 

Four main criteria have been examined concerning the efficiency of the action. These 
criteria  are  directly  linked  to  the  operational  objectives  to  be  achieved  at  EU  level 
(cf. section 3): 

– 

– 

– 

– 

to ensure geographical balance in the location of ECoC; 

to ensure the selection of credible candidates; 

to ensure cities put in place effective governance and stable budgets; 

to strengthen the accompanying measures and the evaluation. 

32 

 
 
  
 
Both  options  3a  and  3b  would  equally  improve  the  governance  and  the  stability  of 
the  budgets  compared  to  the  baseline  scenario  through  the  strengthened  selection 
criteria and the increased conditionality of the Prize. 

Both  options  3a  and  3b  would  equally  strengthen  the  accompanying  measures 
compared  to  the  baseline  scenario  through  an  additional  monitoring  meeting,  more 
systematic  visits  of  European  panel  members  to  the  cities  and  a  strengthened 
exchange of experiences between past, present and future Capitals. The evaluation of 
the  action  would  also  be  reinforced  through  the  new  obligations  introduced  for  the 
cities  themselves  which  would  be  directly  linked  to  the  payment  of  the  Melina 
Mercouri Prize. 

Both options 3a and 3b would ensure that only credible candidates are awarded the 
title,  firstly  by  introducing  more  explicit  selection  criteria  covering  inter-alia  the 
capacity of cities to deliver, and secondly by giving stronger grounds to the panel for 
not awarding the title in a given year if none of the applications fulfils the criteria. 
Option 3b would go one step further than 3a because with an open competition only 
the very best candidates at European level would be awarded the title. 

Option 3a would ensure the same balance in the location of the ECoC across the EU 
as the baseline scenario through a new chronological list of MS. In addition, it would 
slightly  extend  the  geographical  scope  of  the  ECoC  by  opening  the  action  to 
candidate countries and potential candidates through an open competition every third 
year.  Option  3b  on  the  contrary  would  weaken  the  current  territorial  balance  as 
bigger cities located in the larger and wealthier MS would have much higher chances 
to win the competition and to host the title than less-established cities in MS with a 
smaller experience or capacity to organise this type of events. As a result, some MS 
would most probably host the title at much closer intervals than with a chronological 
list while others would be left out of the scheme. 

6.3. 

Costs and administrative burden  

The  costs  and  the  administrative  burden  linked  to  the  selection  and  monitoring 
procedures  have  been  examined  both  at  EU  level  and  national  level  for  the  three 
options  proposing  the  continuation  of  the  ECoC  after  2019  (options  1,  3a  and  3b). 
The end of the action (option 2) would of course remove all costs and administrative 
needs. 

Currently,  the  only  direct  costs  for  the  ECoC  at  EU  level  are  the  Melina  Mercouri 
Prize (cf. section 2.2). This Prize is financed by the Culture Programme and for the 
period from 2007 to 2014 its amount has been set at 1.5 million € per ECoC. From 
2014, the Prize will in principle be financed by the Creative Europe Programme and 
its amount may be re-evaluated to a maximum of 2 million € 15.  

It is important to stress that this contribution of 1.5 million € coupled with the ECoC 
title  has  a  large  leverage  effect  on  other  funds,  triggering  national  investments  of 
between  16  and  194  million  €  for  the  operational  budget  (cf.  section  2.3)  and 
triggering  additional  investments  in  capital  expenditure  which  can  go  up  to  140 

15 All the discussions on the amount of the Melina Mercouri Prize take place in the framework of the Culture / 
Creative Europe Programme and of its Management Committee and are directly linked to the evolution 
of the budget of the Programme. 

33 

 
 
  
 
                                                            
million €, often partly from the European Stru ctural Funds (infrastructure investment 
is not however a formal requirement of the title). 

The costs at EU level would remain unchanged with options 3a and 3b. The Melina 
Mercouri  Prize  would  in  principle  continue  to  be  financed  by  Creative  Europe  and 
the subsequent EU programmes supporting culture16 and its amount would remain in 
the  same  lines  as  now  and  would  continue  to  be  re-evaluated  with  each  new 
generation of programmes. With option 3a, a third city could potentially be awarded 
the  title  every  third  year  which  might  increase  the  overall  costs  of  the  action. 
However,  this  would  be  compensated  by  the  fact  that  with  the  stricter  selection 
criteria  and  the  stronger  conditionality  of  the  Prize,  neither  the  title  nor  the  Prize 
would  systematically  be  awarded  and  paid  to  two  or  three  cities  every  year.  With 
option  3b,  a  maximum  of  two  cities  would  be  awarded  the  title  every  year  as  is 
currently  the  case,  but  with  the  fiercer  competition  for  the  title  at  EU  level  there 
would be a much lower probability that the title or the Prize would not be awarded or 
paid to these two cities every year.  

Concerning the costs at national level, it is important to note that the participation in 
the ECoC action is on a voluntary basis: it is up to each city to decide if it wishes to 
apply for the title or not. Furthermore, there is no obligation concerning the amount 
of  the  budget  or  the  sources  of  financing.  Each  city,  region  or  MS  can  decide  if  it 
wishes  to  invest  in  the  ECoC  and  how  much.  As  a  result,  the  size  of  the  budgets 
varies  considerably  from  one  ECoC  to  another  and  the  distribution  of  the  sources 
varies  considerably.  It  has  however  been  calculated,  that  on  average  77%  of  the 
budget of an ECoC comes from public sources and in most of the cases the national, 
regional and local levels contribute.  

Here again, the situation would remain very close to the baseline with options 3a and 
3b. Cities would retain their freedom concerning the budgets they would propose, the 
new legal base would simply ensure that they keep to their commitments and that the 
budgets  are  not  reduced  between  the  bidding  stage  and  the  year  of  the  title.  With 
option  3b  and  the  open  competition  at  EU  level,  bigger  cities  with  higher  budgets 
might probably have a greater chance of winning the title. This might influence many 
cities and MS to increase their budget for the ECoC and to invest more money in the 
bids. 

The  administrative  burden  linked  to  the  selection  and  monitoring  procedures  is 
currently shared between the MS and the Commission. However it should be noted 
that  each  MS  only  has  to  organise  the  competition  at  national  level  once  every  14 
years. 

At national level, this burden would remain unchanged with option 3a and it would 
be  removed  with  option  3b  as  the  open  competition  would  take  place  solely  at  EU 
level. 

At  EU  level,  the  burden  would  increase  modestly  with  option  3a  due  to  the 
strengthened accompanying measures. It would however increase considerably with 

16 It is important to note that the three options proposing the continuation of the ECoC after 2019 (options 1, 3a 
and 3b) would all cover several multi annual financial frameworks and be linked to several generations 
of  programmes.  It  must  therefore  be  stressed  that,  as  for  all  other  EU  programmes,  the  future 
programmes supporting culture after 2020, including the Melina Mercouri Prize, will be conditioned by 
the provisions included in the future multi annual financial frameworks. 

34 

 
 
  
 
                                                            
option  3b  as  the  organisation  of  the  open  competition  would  fall  solely  on  the 
Commission.  Furthermore,  there  is  a  high  probability  that  a  large  number  of  cities 
would apply for the title every year (cf. section 5.4) with a risk that the action would 
become  unmanageable  for  the  Commission  and  the  European  panel  of  experts 
without a significant increase in the human resources. 

6.4. 

Coherence 

Evaluations  have  clearly  shown  that  under  their  current  form,  the  ECoC  make  a 
significant contribution to the objectives of article 167 of the TFUE, of the European 
Agenda  for  Culture  and  of  the  UNESCO  Convention  on  the  Protection  and 
Promotion  of  the  Diversity  of  Cultural  Expressions.  In  a  large  number  of  Capitals, 
important  synergies  have  also  been  built  with  the  Culture  Programme  and  with  the 
European Structural Funds. 

With  option  2  "no  action",  the  contribution  of  the  ECoC  to  the  broader  EU  policy 
objectives and the synergies with other EU initiatives would be lost. Option 3a would 
retain the overall coherence of the action with the broader EU objectives. The better 
reflection  of  the  contribution  culture  can  make  to  stimulate  the  cities  more  general 
development in the new legal base and the stronger requirements for candidate cities 
to embed the title in a long-term strategy would reinforce the contribution the ECoC 
can  make  to  the  Europe  2020  strategy,  as  well  the  potential  for  synergies  with  the 
Creative Europe Programme and the European Structural Funds. 

Option  3b  would  also  further  develop  the  links  with  the  Europe  2020  strategy, 
however the synergies with the European Structural Funds would be weakened. By 
awarding the title mostly to bigger cities in the wealthier MS, this option would have 
less potential to contribute to the territorial cohesion objective of the EU's Regional 
Policy. Furthermore, the past experience has shown that some of the most significant 
investments  made  by  the  European  Structural  Funds  in  connection  with  the  ECoC 
were made precisely in those MS and regions which would have weaker chances to 
be awarded the title with an open competition. 

6.5. 

Political feasibility 

The  end  of  the  ECoC  (option  2)  would  send  a  strong  negative  political  message  to 
the  MS,  the  European  Parliament,  the  cities  and  the  European  citizens  themselves 
which all have a strong interest in the ECoC as demonstrated inter alia by the public 
consultation and by the high number of cities already contacting the Commission to 
express their interest in competing for the title for the years after 2019. 

Option  3b  would  most  probably  be  difficult  to  accept  by  some  of  the  smaller  MS 
which would have much less chances to host the title than is currently the case. 

Option 1 and 3a would keep the current balance between the MS and would therefore 
stakeholders.
the 
also 

expectations 

closest 

the 

be 

of 

to 

35 

 
 
  
 
Table n°4: Scoring of the options - summary 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3a 

Option 3b 

Baseline 
scenario 

No action 

New legal base 
with MS rotation 

New legal base 
with open 
competition 

Legend: =  no change, + better than baseline, ++  much better than baseline, - worse than baseline, -- much worse than baseline 

Effectiveness in terms of achieving the objectives 

SO 1: to enhance the range, diversity and European dimension of the cultural 
offer in cities, including through transnational co-operation 

SO 2: to widen access and participation in culture 

SO 3: to strengthen the capacity of the cultural sector and its connectivity with 
other sectors 

SO 4: to improve the international profile of cities through culture 

Efficiency 

Administrative arrangements and financial impacts 

Coherence 

Political feasibility 

Overall assessment  

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

36 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

++ 

-- 

-- 

-- 

++ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

= 

+ 

= 

++ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

= 

= 

- 

+ 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.6. 

Preferred option 

The  options  were  scored  and  ranked.  The  option  with  the  most  positive  overall 
assessment  is  option  3a,  namely  a  new  legal  base  with  a  chronological  list  of  MS. 
This  option  scored  higher  than  all  other  options  and  was  ranked  as  the  preferred 
option (see table 4 below). 

Option 3a would have significant advantages over all the other options: 

• 

• 

• 

Compared to option 1 "no change", option 3a would offer equivalent costs and 
only  a  slightly  higher  administrative  burden  at  EU  level.  The  strengthened 
selection  criteria,  accompanying  measures  and  conditionality  for  the  Prize 
would help to steer the cities more effectively in their preparation and to reduce 
the risks and difficulties they might encounter. Option 3a would thus make the 
positive cultural, economic and social impacts more certain in each ECoC and 
would  help  each  single  city  to  optimise  the  high  potential  of  the  title.  This 
would also contribute to preserving the prestige and strong brand value of the 
title in the long-term. 

Compared to option 2 "no action", the modest costs and administrative burden 
of option 3a would be by far outweighed by the positive cultural, economic and 
social benefits of the ECoC. 

Compared to option 3b "new legal base with an open competition", option 3a 
would  first  and  foremost  enable  to  keep  a  better  geographical  balance  in  the 
location  of  the  ECoC  and  thus  to  give  a  much  better  picture  of  cultural 
diversity in the EU.  The fact that all the MS would keep an equal opportunity 
to host the title would also enable to keep a strong interest for the ECoC from 
the media and the citizens from all over Europe. The volume of the impacts on 
single  cities  might  sometimes  be  smaller  with  option  3a  than  with  option  3b, 
but  these  impacts  would  often  represent  more  in  relative  terms  as  option  3a 
would enable to select also on a regular basis ambitious cities from smaller and 
new MS which are less known and established, but which have stronger needs. 
Therefore  option  3a  would  also  offer  a  stronger  coherence  with  the  broader 
objectives  of  the  EU,  in  particular  the  objective  of  territorial  cohesion,  and 
would thus offer a stronger potential for synergies with the European Structural 
Funds.  Finally,  option  3a  would  remain  much  more  manageable  at  EU  level 
than  option  3b  where  all  the  burden  of  the  action  would  shift  towards  the 
Commission with a risk in certain years for the Commission and the European 
panel to be overwhelmed by the number of applications.  

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

With  option  3a,  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  framework  of  the  ECoC  post  2019 
would comprise three elements which need to be distinguished. 

7.1.  Monitoring of designated cities 

As mentioned in section 4.2.3, three monitoring meetings would take place between 
the  designation  of  a  city  and  the  beginning  of  the  year  of  the  title.  Before  each 
meeting, the city would have to submit a report taking stock of the progress made in 

37 

 
 
  
 
the  preparation.  Panel  members  would  also  visit  the  designated  cities  whenever 
needed. 

The monitoring would continue to have two main purposes as with the current legal 
base. On the one hand, the European panel would try to ensure that the cities keep 
the commitments made at application stage. On the other hand, it would give advice 
with a view to helping cities to develop a high-quality programme and to put in place 
an effective long term strategy. 

The  Commission  would  decide  if  it  pays  the  Melina  Mercouri  Prize  or  not  on  the 
basis of the results of the monitoring. 

7.2. 

Evaluation of past Capitals 

This  evaluation  would  be  reinforced  after  2019  through  the  new  evaluation 
obligations  introduced  for  the  cities  themselves  which  would  now  carry  the  main 
responsibility in this respect. The aim is to have a more comprehensive view of the 
impacts of the title on each city and to provide comparable data.  

In order to ensure a coherent approach, common indicators would be prepared by the 
Commission (these indicators would be linked to the indicators for the evaluation of 
the ECoC action as a whole – cf. section 7.3 and table 5). Each city would have to 
clearly announce its plans for evaluation at the application stage. These plans would 
have  to  be  in  place  at  the  latest  at  the  beginning  of  the  year  of  the  title.  The 
evaluation reports would then have to be sent to the Commission at the latest by 31 
October of the year following the year of the title.  

On the basis of the reports provided by the cities, the Commission would continue to 
ensure its own external and independent evaluations of past ECoC. These evaluations 
would however no longer be carried out directly in the year following the title, they 
would  be  carried  out  every  five  years  in  parallel  with  the  evaluations  of  the  ECoC 
action  as  a  whole  (cf.  section  7.3)  and  would  regroup  several  past  ECoC.  The 
Commission  evaluations  would  focus  on  putting  all  past  Capitals  in  a  European 
context, allowing for comparisons and drawing useful lessons for future Capitals, as 
well as all European cities. 

7.3. 

Evaluation of the ECoC action 

Finally, the Commission would also ensure the external and independent evaluation 
of the action as a whole. This evaluation would examine all elements, including the 
efficiency  of  the  processes  involved  in  running  the  action,  the  impact  of  the  action 
and how it could be improved.  

A first interim evaluation combining the evaluation of the results of past ECoC and 
the  evaluation  of  the  action  would  be  carried  out  before  the  end  of  2024,  a  second 
interim  evaluation  would  be  carried  out  before  the  end  of  2029  and  an  ex-post 
evaluation would be carried out before the end of 2034. Reports would be presented 
to the European Parliament, the Council and the Committee of the Regions.  

The  procedures  for  evaluating  the  ECoC  Action  would  have  to  make  use  of 
objectives  and  indicators  which  are  specific,  measurable,  achievable,  relevant  and 
timed (S.M.A.R.T.). For that reason, we present in table 5 below a set of indicative 
indicators for the general and specific objectives which have been informed by those 

38 

 
 
  
 
piloted in the recent evaluations of the ECoC, as well as by the work of the European 
Capitals of Culture Policy Group (2009-2010)17, and which would need to be further 
developed in the light of the evolving circumstances until 2024. These indicators are 
intended  to  capture  the  essence  of  the  objectives  of  the  ECoC  Action,  whenever 
possible in a quantified form.  

Table n° 5: Indicative indicators 

Related objective 

Type of indicator 

Indicator 

Source of data collection 

General objective 1: 

Impact 

To safeguard and promote the 
diversity of European cultures, 
and to highlight the common 
features they share 

General objective 2: 

Impact 

To foster the contribution of 
culture to the long-term 
development of cities 

Citizens' awareness and 
appreciation of the 
diversity of European 
cultures   

Citizens' sense of 
belonging to a common 
cultural space 

National / international 
recognition of cities as 
being culturally-vibrant 
and having improved 
image 

Surveys of local residents, 
e.g. undertaken or 
commissioned by 
municipalities or agencies 
managing ECoC 

Surveys of tourists and 
visitors to host cities; 
international surveys of 
tourist opinions; opinion 
of national or 
international cultural 
experts; other 
authoritative published 
sources 

Increase in GDP and 
employment in cities' 
cultural and creative 
sectors 

Statistical data provided 
by municipalities, 
national statistical offices, 
sector bodies, etc. 

Specific objective 1: 

Result 

Total n° of events 

To enhance the range, diversity 
and European dimension of the 
cultural offer in cities, 
including through transnational 
co-operation 

Specific objective 2: 

Result 

To widen access and 
participation in culture 

€ value of ECoC cultural 
programmes 

N° of activities 
highlighting European 
diversity, based on 
European themes or based 
on transnational co-
operation 

Attendance at ECoC 
events 

Programme data provided 
by the agencies managing 
ECoC 

Programme data provided 
by the agencies managing 
ECoC 

Surveys of local residents, 

17 European Capitals of Culture Policy Group (2009-2010), An international framework of good practice in 

research and delivery of the European Capital of Culture Programme. 
http://ecocpolicygroup.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/ecoc-policy-group_research-framework1.pdf  

39 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
% of residents attending or 
participating in events, 
including young, 
minorities or the 
disadvantaged 

e.g. undertaken or 
commissioned by 
municipalities or agencies 
managing ECoC 

Specific objective 3: 

Result 

To  strengthen  the  capacity  of 
the  cultural  sector  and 
its 
connectivity with other sectors 

Number of active 
volunteers 

Strategy for long-term 
cultural development of 
the city 

€ value of investment in 
cultural infrastructure  and 
facilities 

Sustained multi-sector 
partnership for cultural 
governance 

Specific objective 4: 

Result 

Increase in tourist visits 

To  improve  the  international 
profile of cities through culture 

Volume and % of positive 
media coverage of cities 

Awareness of the ECoC 
among residents 

Programme data provided 
by the agencies managing 
ECoC 

Statistical data provided 
by public bodies at local, 
provincial or regional 
level 

Published documents of 
ECoC legacy body, 
municipalities and/or 
other relevant body 

Published documents of 
ECoC legacy body, 
municipalities and/or 
other relevant body 

Statistical data provided 
by tourist boards or 
relevant public authority 

Data provided by 
authoritative media 
monitoring organisations 

Surveys of local residents, 
e.g. undertaken or 
commissioned by 
municipalities or agencies 
managing ECoC 

40 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8. 

ANNEX 

41 

 
 
  
 
 
Table n° 6: Scoring of the options 

Legend:  = no change, + better than baseline, ++  much better than baseline, -  worse than baseline, -- much worse than baseline 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3a 

Option 3b 

Baseline 
scenario 

No action 

New legal base 
with MS 
rotation 

New legal base 
with open 
competition 

Cultural impacts 

Cultural programmes of large scale & high artistic quality 

Promotion of European cultural diversity 

Promotion of the European dimension of and through culture 

International partnerships, exchanges & networking 

Improved cultural governance 

Sustainable cultural legacy 

Economic impacts 

Improved infrastructure and facilities 

Strengthened capacity of the cultural and creative sectors 

Increased connectivity between the cultural, economic and social sectors 

Stronger international profile and image of the city 

Increased tourism 

42 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

+ 

++ 

++  

++ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

- 

++ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

 
 
  
 
 
Social impacts 

Wide range of citizens and stakeholders involved in preparation & implementation of the ECoC 

Citizens' sustainable attendance or participation in cultural events (especially young people, minorities 
or the disadvantaged, including persons with disabilities) 

Greater profile for cultures of minorities and marginalised groups 

Increased volunteering 

Stronger international outlook of residents 

Improved perception of the city by residents 

Environmental impacts 

Change in CO2 emissions 

Improvements in the urban environment 

Efficiency 

Geographical balance in the location of ECoC 

Selection of credible candidates 

Effective governance and stable budgets 

Strengthened accompanying measures and evaluation 

Financial implications 

EU level 

National level 

43 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

++ 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

++ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

- 

+ 

= 

+ 

+ 

+ 

= 

= 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

-- 

+ 

-- 

++ 

+ 

+ 

= 

- 

 
 
  
 
Administrative burden 

EU level 

National level 

Coherence 

Coherence with broader EU political objectives 

Synergies and complementarities with other EU initiatives 

= 

= 

= 

= 

++ 

++ 

-- 

-- 

= 

= 

+ 

+ 

-- 

++ 

= 

- 

44