REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Ex Post evaluation of the 2011 European Capitals of Culture (Tallinn and Turku)
Date: 2013-01-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Estonia, European symbol, Finland, capital city, cultural event

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 23.1.2013  
COM(2013) 13 final 

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

Ex Post evaluation of the 2011 European Capitals of Culture (Tallinn and Turku)  

EN 

   EN 

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

Ex Post evaluation of the 2011 European Capitals of Culture (Tallinn and Turku)  

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

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

This  report  puts  forward  the  Commission's  position  on  the  main  conclusions  and 
recommendations of the external evaluation of 2011 European Capitals of Culture that can be 
obtained via the link below: 

http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmes-and-actions/capitals/evaluation-commissioned-
by-the-eu_en.htm 

The  external  evaluation  first  evaluated  individually  the  two  European  Capitals  of  Culture 
(hereafter  "ECOC"):  Tallinn  and  Turku.  It  then  compared  findings  and  reached  conclusions 
valid for both cities and the ECOC Action.  

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE ACTION 

2.1. 

The EU action for the European Capital of Culture event 

The  initial  scheme  of  "The  European  City  of  Culture"  was  launched  at  intergovernmental 
level  in  19852.  On  the  basis  of  this  experience,  Decision  1419/1999/EC  established  a 
Community  Action  for  the  European  Capital  of  Culture  event  for  the  years  2005  to  20193. 
Member  States  were  ranked  in  a  chronological  order  of  entitlement  to  host  the  event  each 
year. The countries enabled to host the event for a given year were expected to put forward 
cities  and  to  submit  their  applications  including  their  cultural  programmes  for  the  year  to  a 

1 

2 

3 

Decision 1622/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing 
a Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2007 to 2019 (OJ L304 of 3 
November 2006, p. 1) 
The title "European Capital of Culture" was designed to help bring European citizens closer together. See 
Resolution of the Ministers responsible for Cultural Affairs regarding the annual organization of the 'European City 
of Culture' of 13.06.1985  
Decision 1419/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 establishing a Community 
action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2005 to 2019 (OJ L 166 of 1.7.1999, p. 1). Decision 
amended by Decision 649/2005/EC (OJ L 117 of 4.5.2005, p. 20).  

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
European  Selection  Panel  which  recommended  their  designation  to  the  Commission.  The 
Council of Ministers formally designated the ECOC.  
On 1 January 2007, Decision 1419/1999/EC was replaced by Decision 1622/2006/EC which 
refined the objectives, introduced a two stage national competition and monitoring process for 
the  2013  title  onward.  The  new  Decision  introduced  monitoring  meetings  after  designation, 
which  ends  up  by  the  Panel  making  a  recommendation  on  awarding  a  prize  in  honour  of 
Melina  Mercouri  to  the  Capitals,  provided  that  the  designated  cities  meet  the  criteria  laid 
down  by  Decision  1622/2006/EC  and  have  implemented  the  recommendations  made  by  the 
selection  and  monitoring  panels.  EU  financial  support  is  provided  by  the  EU’s  Culture 
Programme.  For  2007-13  it  makes  available  a  maximum  of  €  1.5  million  each  year  per 
ECOC. All designated cities as of the 2010 title have been submitted to the monitoring phase 
as defined in Decision 1622/2006/EC.  

2.2. 

2011 European Capitals of Culture  

Estonia  and  Finland  were  entitled  to  host  the  ECOC  in  2011  on  the  basis  of  the  2006 
Decision,  with  transitional  provisions  set  out  in  Article  14  of  this  Decision  applying  for 
selection and designation.  

Moreover  the  2006  Decision  specifically  states  that  for  the  2010,  2011  and  2012  titles,  the 
1999  Decision  would  apply  in  respect  of  the  criteria  relating  to  the  cultural  programmes, 
unless  the  cities  chose  to  base  their  programmes  on  the  criteria  in  the  2006  Decision. 
However, the 2011 and 2012 ECOC would be co-financed and monitored according to new 
processes set out in the 2006 Decision. 

The 2006 Decision introduced in particular a new EU funding mechanism for the ECOC in 
the form of the "Melina Mercouri Prize", to be awarded to designated cities before the start of 
the  year,  on  the  basis  of  the  reports  delivered  by  the  monitoring  panel.  This  Prize  was 
awarded for the first time to the 2010 titles and again to the 2011 titles. 

The selection process took place in 2007. In Finland a national competition was held in which 
the cities of Jyväslylä, Lahti, Mänttä, Oulu, Rovaniemi and Tampere in addition to Turku took 
part.  In  Estonia  there  was  a  national  competition  in  two  rounds;  the  first  round  in  2005 
attracted  bids  from  Haapsalu,  Pärnu,  Rakvere,  Tallinn  and  Tartu.  Tallinn  and  Tartu  were 
invited  to  a  second  round  in  which  Tallinn  was  ultimately  successful.  The  Finnish  and 
Estonian  governments  proposed  the  cities  of  Turku  and  Tallinn  to  the  European  selection 
panel.  It  then  issued  a  report  recommending  that  Turku  (Finland)  and  Tallinn  (Estonia)  be 
approved  for  the  2011  title,  while  making  recommendations  to  help  them  achieve  the 
proposed  objectives.  In  2007  the  Council  of  Ministers  formally  awarded  the  title  to  the 
recommended cities on the basis of a Commission recommendation. 

3. 

THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION 

3.1. 

The terms of the evaluation 

The  Commission  entrusted  ECORYS  UK  Ltd.  to  conduct  the  external  evaluation4  of  the 
ECOC in 2011. The evaluation aimed at assessing the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and 

4 

Ex-post  Evaluation  of  2011  European  Capitals  of  Culture,  Final  Report  for  the  European  Commission, 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/evalreports/culture/2012/ecocreport_en.pdf, carried out under framework 
service contract n°EAC/50/2009 on evaluation, evaluation-related services and support for impact assessment 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
likely  sustainability  and  legacy  of  these  ECOC  against  the  objectives  of  the  Action  and 
against  those  objectives  set  by  the  ECOC  themselves  in  their  applications  and  during  the 
implementation phase. The evaluation also considered the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness 
and sustainability of the ECOC Action as a whole.  

3.2.  Methodology 

The  two  cities  were  first  evaluated  individually  before  drawing  conclusions  on  each.  The 
evaluation was based on the analysis of the secondary data and primary  data  collection and 
analysis.  The  former  one  included  analysis  of  the  information  in  the  original  ECOC 
applications;  studies  and  reports  commissioned  by  the  ECOC;  events  programmes, 
promotional  materials  and  websites;  statistical  data  and  quantitative  data  supplied  by  the 
ECOC.  The  primary  data  collection  was  mainly  based  on  the  qualitative  interviews 
conducted; interviews of managing teams and key stakeholders for each city during two visits 
and telephone interviews. In addition, ECOC projects were invited to contribute to the survey 
through taking part in an online survey. A comparative review and meta-evaluation exercise 
considered  the  conclusions  emerging  from  the  Tallinn  and  Turku  ECOC,  compared  and 
contrasted  approaches,  and  verified 
the  research.  Conclusions  and 
recommendations relating to the implementation of the ECOC Action as a whole were based 
on the considerations of both 2011 ECOC. 

the  quality  of 

3.3. 

The evaluator's findings 

3.3.1.  Relevance of the Action 

The evaluation considered that the implementation of the Action had been relevant to Article 
167 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union. The selection criteria specified in 
Decisions  1419/EC/1999  and  1622/EC/2006  ensured  that  the  cultural  programmes  of  title-
holders were relevant to the detail of Article 167, although the criteria allow each ECOC the 
freedom to interpret the Treaty objectives in their own unique way. The evaluation considered 
that  the  ECOC  Action  continues  to  be  of  relevance  to  the  objectives  of  the  EU  and  that  it 
complements  other  EU  initiatives  in  the  fields  of  culture,  youth,  citizenship,  education  and 
training and regional development.  

The preamble to the 1999 Decision first introduced an explicit reference to the development 
of  culture  and  tourism  and  to  the  need  to  mobilise  large  sections  of  the  population.  These 
references  were  later  strengthened  in  the  2006  Decision  by  the  inclusion  of  explicit  criteria 
relating to "fostering the participation of citizens" and "long-term development". Many ECOC 
have  gone  further  in  stating  explicit  social,  economic  or  tourism  objectives.The  growing 
importance  of  these  objectives  has  been  accompanied  by  a  debate  about  balance,  between 
whether  culture  should  be  supported  for  its  own  intrinsic  value  or  as  a  means  to  deliver 
tangible, quantifiable returns on investment. 

3.3.2.  Relevance of the 2011 ECOC 

The  evaluation  considered  the  motivation  of  the  cities  in  bidding  to  become  ECOC  and  the 
relevance of their objectives in relation to the objectives of the Action and of Article 167. It 
also studied the process by which the motivation of the 2011 ECOC was converted into a set 
of  objectives  and  the  changes  to  those  objectives  during  the  development  phase.  The  two 
ECOC  embraced  the  objectives  of  the  Action  and  customised  them  in  line  with  their  own 
particular  contexts  and  priorities.  Both  ECOC  planned  diverse  cultural  programmes  and 
associated  activities  (e.g.  communications,  volunteering,  etc)  relevant  to  the  EU-level 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
objectives  of  "developing  cultural  activities",  "promoting  the  European  dimension  of  and 
through culture" and "supporting social and economic development through culture".  

3.3.3.  Efficiency of Governance 

The  evaluation  looked  at  the  efficiency  of  the  governance  of  the  ECOC,  including  their 
organisational models, processes for selecting and implementing cultural activities and events, 
communications and promotions, and processes for raising finance. 

Similarly  to  the  evaluation  of  the  2007  to  2010  ECOC,  the  evaluation  of  the  2011  ECOC 
highlights that it is essential but can be challenging to establish an appropriate organisational 
structure and build a team with the appropriate skills to implement the cultural programme. 
This  requires  a  broader  set  of  skills  and  thus  a  different  structure  from  the  team  that  had 
prepared  the  original  application.  There  is  also  the  need  to  balance  artistic  and  political 
interests  and  to  ensure  that  any  new  delivery  mechanism  is  welcomed  by  the  existing 
stakeholders as a co-operative partner. A new and independent structure is usually advisable, 
one that is customised to the political and cultural context of the city.  

The  2011  ECOC  illustrate  these  points  in  different  ways.  In  Turku,  the  foundation  set  up 
specifically  to  implement  ECOC  was  first  critizised  for  lack  of  transparency  in  project 
selection  and  limited  communication  with  stakeholders,  the  media  and  the  public.  This 
changed  before  the  start  of  the  title  year  and  one  of  the  key  success  factors  of  Turku  2011 
turned  out  to  be  the  stable  governance  structures  and  management  arrangements  that  had 
backing  from  the  main  political  players.  Also  in  Tallinn  2011  a  new  foundation  was 
established,  but  the  governance  arrangements  encountered  difficulties,  in  particular  reduced 
budgets resulting in a reduced cultural programme.  

3.3.4.  Efficiency of ECOC mechanisms 

The  evaluation  considers  the  efficiency  of  the  selection,  monitoring  and  financial  processes 
operated  by  the  European  Commission  and  notes  that  the  current  monitoring  arrangements 
show a  significant improvement to the previous years. However, they do not ensure that all 
cities  fulfil  all  their  commitments  made  at  application,  first  monitoring  stage  and  second 
monitoring  stage,  thus  also  in  respect  to  the  award  of  the  Melina  Mercouri  Prize,  which  is 
awarded on the basis of reports by monitoring panels. 

Furthermore,  the  evaluation  notes  that  the  open  competitions  organised  at  national  level  in 
both  Member  States  generated  considerable  interest  in  the  ECOC  on  the  part  of  cities. 
Member States were free to specify their own criteria.  

Based on their considerations of the 2011 ECOC the evaluators note that, at national and local 
level, the governance and management of ECOC is often challenging and political influences 
remain very significant. To some extent this is expected due to the nature and scale of ECOC. 
In  conclusion,  in  most  cities  holding  the  title,  it  is  important  to  establish  an  independent 
delivery  agency  and  ensure  that  political  influences  do  not  unduly  affect  the  artistic 
independence  and  smooth  implementation  of  activities.  The  funding  necessary  to  achieve 
expected results varies significantly between cities. Whilst cities make implicit commitments 
in  their  applications  regarding  the  funding,  the  funding  in  Tallinn  was  significantly  reduced 
compared to the original application and also to a lesser extent in Turku. 

The  evaluation  holds  that,  at  European  level,  the  ECOC  Action  continues  to  be  very  cost-
effective  when  compared  to  other  EU  policy  instruments  and  mechanisms.  However,  the 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
share of the Melina Mercouri Prize within the overall budget of the ECOC programme varied 
widely between the two cities and thus also its significance. In Turku, the Prize was primarily 
of symbolic importance while in Tallinn it represented more than 10% of the overall funding. 
In neither city were the benefits of the Prize made particularly visible to cultural actors and 
audiences. 

3.3.5.  Effectiveness in developing cultural activities 

The  evaluation  considers  that  the  2011  ECOC  both  succeeded  in  implementing  cultural 
programmes that were more extensive, innovative and international (e.g. in terms of themes, 
artists/performers and audiences) than the usual cultural offering. They explored new themes, 
highlighted  the  richness,  diversity  and  uniqueness  of  each  city's  cultural  offering  and  used 
new or unusual venues.  

Tallinn’s  application  proposed  a  cultural  programme  that  would  be  genuinely  new  and 
additional  to  the  existing  cultural  offering  of  the  city,  with  an  emphasis  on  widening 
participation,  involving  established  institutions  and  independent  operators,  and  using  public 
spaces  and  industrial  premises  as  venues.  Whilst  the  cultural  programme  was  much  smaller 
than originally proposed (due to the reduced budget), it can still be said that the ECOC was 
effective  against  the  original  objectives.  In  terms  of  scale,  the  programme  comprised  251 
projects  and  more  than  7,000  different  individual  events.  It  attracted  two  million  people, 
around  twice  the  figure  anticipated.  73%  of  the  projects'  promoters  felt  that  the  ECOC  had 
been successful in attracting visitors and audiences. In terms of the artistic themes explored, 
the venues used and the method of delivery, Tallinn 2011 pushed the boundaries of what had 
been done before in the city.  

Turku's  2011  ECOC  year  strengthened  its  status  as  a  cultural  city  and  increased  the 
participation of Turku residents in cultural activities. The cultural programme delivered 165 
projects,  mostly  selected  during  the  open  call  for  proposals  organised  in  2008,  and  8,000 
events.  More  than  20,000  artists,  contributors  and  producers  were  involved  and  there  were 
more than 2 million visits. Projects established new contacts and networks and improved their 
operational capacities in the field of culture. Increased co-operation among key stakeholders 
was seen as one of the key benefits for the culture sector in Turku. The cultural programme of 
Turku  2011  was  well-balanced  with  both  large-scale  events  and  grassroots  initiatives  and 
projects involving cross-sectorial co-operation.  

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

The  1999  Decision  does  not  define  the  "European  dimension"  explicitly,  but  views  it 
essentially in terms of cultural cooperation, including: the highlighting of artistic movements 
and  styles  shared  by  Europeans  which  the  city  has  inspired  or  to  which  it  has  made  a 
significant contribution; and the promotion of events involving people active in culture from 
other  cities  in  Member  States  and  leading  to  lasting  cultural  cooperation  and  fostering  their 
movement  within  the  EU.  The  criterion  of  the  "European  dimension"  set  out  in  the  2006 
Decision  provides  flexibility  for  cities  in  their  interpretation.  Illustrations  are  given  in  the 
Guide to candidate cities which has been available on line since 2007.  

The evaluation considers that the European dimension of Tallinn’s ECOC application related 
primarily to putting the city back on the European cultural map, in the context of Estonia’s (at 
that  time)  recent  accession  to  the  EU.  Where  themes  were  relevant  to  the  European 
dimension,  these  tended  to  be  through  various  international  festivals  or  individual  projects, 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
which all had to have such a dimension in some form, rather than through the programme as a 
whole.  

For Turku, the evaluation notes that the European dimension was reflected in particular in the 
strong  focus  on  the  Baltic  Sea  region.  Furthermore,  some  50%  of  projects  increased 
cooperation  with  international  partners  in  the  field  of  their  activities  during  the  title  year. 
Increasing the visibility of Turku outside Finland was also an important element.  

Whilst both Tallinn and Turku presented very strong local narratives, those narratives can be 
seen as containing common themes that are essentially European in nature. For example, the 
cultural  programme  of  both  cities  highlighted  their  common  histories  related  to  the  role  of 
Russia,  the  Baltic  Sea  and  as  well  as  the  contemporary  characteristic  of  being  multicultural 
societies.  The  experience  of  2011  demonstrates  therefore  that  the  ECOC  title  offers 
possibilities  for  such  local  narratives  to  be  communicated  to  European  audiences  in  a 
meaningful way. The European dimension of the cultural programme of both ECOC mostly 
related to the efforts to support transnational cultural co-operation and to internationalise the 
cities' cultural sectors. Whilst European themes were present in both ECOC, these tended to 
relate to specific projects rather than permeating the entire cultural programme. 

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

Both Tallinn and Turku aimed to develop arts and culture as one means by which to pursue 
the economic and social regeneration of former industrial areas.  

For  Tallinn,  the  evaluation  notes  that  the  ECOC  made  an  important  contribution  to  the 
economic and urban development of the city, though it did not fulfil the original vision in its 
entirety.  Tallinn's  application  contained  ambitious  objectives  related  to  supporting  the 
development of its creative economy, enhancing the city's cultural infrastructure and making 
the  city  a  more  attractive  destination  for  tourists.  These  objectives  were  retained,  but  were 
reinterpreted  as  being  about  opening  up  the  city  to  the  sea.  Whilst  the  original  application 
emphasised  broad  economic  and  social  developmental  objectives,  the  revised  approach  was 
more focussed and better-aligned with the priorities of the city.  

Regarding  the  development  of  Tallinn's  creative  economy,  the  evidence  demonstrates  that 
cultural  operators  now  are  better  placed  to  operate  internationally  and  at  greater  scale. 
Operators have better international connections and there is more cooperation across different 
sectors and artistic disciplines. The evaluators note that the enhancement of this capacity is all 
the  more  significant  given  that  Estonia  does  not  have  a  long  tradition  of  a  diverse, 
independent  and  multi-disciplinary  cultural  sector  or  many  long-established  private  and 
commercial operators in the cultural and creative industries.  

As  concerns  support  to  social  development  through  culture,  the  objectives  of  Tallinn  2011 
were related to widening participation in culture rather than social development as such. The 
ECOC involved a wider set of citizens as audiences, creators, performers, and volunteers and 
operated a sizeable volunteer programme.  

For  Turku,  the  ECOC  title  had  a  significant  economic  impact.  The  Turku  School  of 
Economics  estimates  that  the  ECOC  contributed  to  employment  increase  by  3,300  person 
years and the total production increased by €260 m. Tourism stood for a significant share of 
this  impact.  For  Turku,  development  of  the  creative  industries  was  a  key  objective  and  the 
evaluation considers that the ECOC helped introduce this issue into the political agenda.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Turku 2011 was the first ECOC emphasising the links between culture, access to culture and 
well-being  in  its  cultural  programme.  Moreover,  attention  was  given  to  ensure  that  cultural 
activities  were  not  only  happening  in  the  city  centre  but  also  in  each  neighbourhood  of  the 
city. Around 1,500 events and activities targeted nurseries, schools, hospitals, housing for the 
elderly  and  prisons.  Many  artworks  in  public  space  were  meant  for  casual  passers-by. 
Participation  in  cultural  events  and  activities  increased  in  2011  when  compared  to  previous 
years.  Turku's  cultural  sector  benefitted  for  the  first  time  from  a  co-ordinated  volunteer 
programme targeting a wide range of activities across the city.  

Both Tallinn  and Turku  strongly  supported citizens' active participation and targeted people 
who traditionally tend to participate less in cultural activities. In Tallinn, significant attention 
was  given  to  involvement  of  the  Russian  community.  In  Turku,  the  Swedish-speaking 
community was encouraged to take part by translations of materials into Swedish. However, 
the experience of both ECOC highlights the fact that very different (typically more intensive) 
approaches are required to widening the participation of citizens as creators or performers, as 
opposed to merely widening their participation as audiences. 

3.3.8. 

Sustainability 

The ECOC is intended to "be sustainable and be an integral part of the long-term cultural and 
social development of the city".5 In both ECOC, there is evidence of new cultural activities 
that  will  continue  beyond  the  title  year  and  new  refurbished  cultural  facilities.  In  terms  of 
sustained  capacity  for  culture,  there  is  greater  experience  and  expertise  as  a  result  of  the 
ECOC, as well as better networking and co-operation within the cultural sectors.  

Tallinn,  at  the  end  of  its  title-year,  prepared  a  plan  for  the  sustainability  of  various  cultural 
activities.  The  ECOC  featured  numerous  new  or  expanded  events,  many  of  which  will 
continue in 2012 and beyond; 82% of operators responding to the survey reported that some 
or  all  of  their  activities  would  continue,  whilst  a  further  8%  reported  that  (although  their 
ECOC project would not continue) they were inspired to introduce new activities in 2012. 

In Turku, work started on a sustainability strategy in mid-2011. Increased co-operation among 
cultural operators and other stakeholders was mentioned as a significant effect of the ECOC 
year. Activities of some of the projects will be implemented at a larger scale in 2012 than in 
2011.  Turku  2011  Foundation  will  continue  to  fund  some  activities  until  2013  and  provide 
support  for  some  networks  and  associations,  thus  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  the 
sustainability strategy.  

As  identified  in  previous  evaluations,  ECOC  generates  new  activities,  co-operation  and 
cultural facilities that are sustainable beyond the title year itself. This is the case for both cities 
hosting the title in 2011. The creation (or continuation) of a dedicated agency is one way by 
which a positive legacy can be ensured. The 2011 ECOC have demonstrated the potential for 
improvements in the governance of culture within each city and for greater contributions from 
the  cultural  sector  to  the  wider  development  of  the  city.  However,  the  fulfilment  of  such 
potential remains to be seen and will depend on the choices made by the key stakeholders. 

5 

Decision 1622/EC/2006 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4. 

MAIN  RECOMMENDATIONS  OF  THE  EXTERNAL  EVALUATION  AND  CONCLUSIONS 
FROM THE COMMISSION 

The  Commission  agrees  with  the  overall  recommendations  by  the  evaluators,  based  on  the 
considerations of the 2011 ECOC but relating to the implementation of the ECOC Action as a 
whole. They confirm that the ECOC title remains highly valued, generates extensive cultural 
programmes  and  significant  impacts.  The  EU  title  and  financial  contribution  have  a 
considerable  leverage  effect,  making  it  a  cost-effective  and  efficient  initiative.  The 
Commission  shares  the  evaluator's  overall  assessment  and  accepts  its  recommendations  as 
formulated in the section above. 

The  recommendations  are  largely  in  line  with  the  Commission's  recent  Proposal  for  a 
Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Union action for the 
European Capitals of Cultural for the years 2020 to 20336. The work on the new proposal was 
based on a broad range of inputs. These included the conclusions of the 25 year anniversary 
conference  of  the  ECOC  held  in  March  2010,  independent  evaluations  of  past  Capitals,  an 
independent  evaluation  of  the  current  selection  and  monitoring  procedures,  an  on-line 
consultation,  a  public  consultation  meeting  and  DG  EAC's  own  experience  of  coordinating 
the initiative since 1999.  

The  aim of this  proposal is to  build on  the  strengths of the current scheme which is overall 
working  well,  while  learning  from  experience  and  making  some  improvements  in  order  to 
maximise the potential benefits of holding the title as well as taking part in the competitive 
process  for  all  bidding  cities  and  their  citizens.  The  new  proposal  retains  the  main  features 
and  general  structure  of  the  current  scheme  while  proposing  a  number  of  improvements.  It 
suggests  in  particular  continuing  to  award  the  title  on  the  basis  of  a  rotating  system  among 
Member States. In addition, the proposal reflects the following recommendations made in past 
evaluations: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

The  introduction  of  a  general  objective  related  to  the  contribution  of  culture  to  the 
long-term development of cities; 

The  introduction  of  a  more  explicit  and  comprehensive  set  of  selection  criteria, 
including related to governance and funding;  

The reinforcement of conditionality for the award of the Melina Mercouri Prize, in 
relation with the cities' progress in delivering their commitments and their use of the 
EU  logo  in  communication  materials,  and  the  postponement  of  its  payment  during 
the title-year; 

The  obligation  for  cities  to  carry  out  some  research  tasks  to  better  measure  the 
achievement of their objectives. 

It is worth noticing that the Commission's proposal also takes into account recommendations 
of  the  2010  evaluation  in  introducing  a  potential  opening  of  the  Action  to  candidate  and 
potential candidate countries as well as the obligation for the bidding cities to have a strategy 
for the cultural development of the city in place at the time of the application, and in keeping 
the Action's focus on cities.  

6 

COM(2012) 407 final 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Last  but  not  least,  in  line  with  another  recommendation  of  the  2011  evaluation,  the 
Commission  organised  on  15  October  2012  an  exchange  of  good  practices  among  past, 
present and future European Capitals of Culture targeted more particularly at future bidding 
cities, and will maintain its efforts to encourage such positive exchange in the future.  

EN 

10 

   EN