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 2012 European Capitals of Culture (Guimarães and Maribor)
Date: 2014-01-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European cultural event, European symbol, Portugal, Slovenia, capital city













EUR-Lex - 52014DC0010 - EN











|



52014DC0010

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 2012 European Capitals of Culture (Guimarães and Maribor) /* COM/2014/010 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 2012 European
Capitals of Culture (Guimarães and Maribor) 
1.           Introduction
This report is presented under article 12
of Decision n° 1622/2006/EC[1],
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 and report on that evaluation to the other EU institutions
by the end of the following year.
This report puts forward the Commission's
position on the main conclusions and recommendations of the external evaluation
of 2012 European Capitals of Culture[2].
The full text of the evaluation, offering quantitative and qualitative evidence
on the various points of this report, can be obtained at: 
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 2012 European
Capitals of Culture (hereafter "ECOC"): Guimarães and Maribor. 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 1985[3].
On the basis of this experience, Decision 1419/1999/EC established a Community
Action for the ECOC event for the years 2005 to 2019[4]. 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 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 also 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 the Monitoring and advisory 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.        2012
European Capitals of Culture 
Portugal and Slovenia were entitled to host the ECOC in 2012 on the basis of the 2006 Decision, with
transitional provisions set out in Article 14 of this Decision as concerns 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. Regarding
co-financing and monitoring, the new processes set out in the 2006 Decision
would apply from the 2010 ECOC titles. 
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 and advisory
Panel, the role of which is to provide the cities with support and guidance
from the day of their designation until the delivery of the title year, to take
stock of and assess their preparations and to check that their commitments are
fulfilled. This Prize was awarded for the first time to the 2010 titles and
again to the 2011 and the 2012 titles.
In accordance with the transitional
provisions of Decision 1622/2006/EC, the Government of Portugal decided in 2007
to recommend Guimarães for hosting the ECOC title in 2012 without organising a
national competition. The Government of Slovenia decided to run a national
competition to select the host city based on an open call for applications held
in 2006 in which 4 cities participated and on this basis recommended the city
of Maribor together with five partner cities. However, according to the
external evaluation, there is a lack of consensus amongst the stakeholders
consulted over whether the national selection process was conducted in the most
appropriate or transparent way. 
In its report of November 2008, the
Selection Panel recommended that these two cities host the ECOC in 2012 while
making recommendations to help the cities achieve their objectives. In May 2009
the Council of the EU formally awarded the ECOC 2012 title to Guimarães and Maribor. In its report of May 2011, the Monitoring and advisory Panel recommended that the
Melina Mercouri Prize be awarded to Guimarães and Maribor[5]. 
3.           The
external evaluation
3.1.        The
terms of the evaluation
The evaluation aimed at assessing the
relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and 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 evaluation was required to use the same model as in the
2007-11 evaluations to provide comparable data over time. A number of core criteria
and indicators, linked to the hierarchy of high-level global objectives of the
action and its specific and operational objectives, were observed and measured wherever
possible. 
The two cities were first evaluated individually, based
on primary data either collected during the fieldwork or provided by each ECOC,
as well as the analysis of a range of secondary data sources. Primary data
sources include qualitative interviews conducted during two visits to each city
as well as by telephone. These interviews sought to gain a variety of
perspectives on each ECOC, including those of the management teams,
decision-makers at local and national level, plus key cultural operators and a
range of partners involved in the delivery of ECOC. In addition, those
responsible for ECOC projects were invited to contribute to the evaluation via
an online survey. The secondary data sources include information in the
original ECOC applications; studies and reports commissioned by the ECOC;
events programmes, promotional materials and websites; statistical data on
culture and tourism; and quantitative data supplied by the ECOC on finance, activities,
outputs and results. 
A comparative review then considered the conclusions
emerging from Guimarães and Maribor, comparing and contrasting approaches, as
well as identifying common themes and findings for the ECOC action as a whole. 
4.           The
evaluator's findings
4.1.        Relevance
of the ECOC action
The evaluation considers that the ECOC action remains of
key importance and of significant relevance for the Treaty on the functioning
of the European Union, particularly Article 167, through contributing to the
flowering of Member State cultures, highlighting common cultural heritage as
well as cultural diversity and increasing cultural co-operation between Member
States and internationally. 
The ECOC action remains complementary to other EU
culture initiatives, especially the Culture Programme 2007-2013 and the MEDIA
Programme (and their successor under the proposed Creative Europe Programme).
Importantly, it also contributes to achieving the objectives set for the
European Agenda for Culture through promoting cultural diversity, developing
international cultural links and increasing the role of culture in the
long-term development of European cities. Moreover, the ECOC action complements
other European programmes especially in fields such as youth, citizenship, education
and training and regional development.
4.2.        Relevance
of the 2012 ECOC
The evaluation considers 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 2012 ECOC was converted into a set of objectives
and the changes to those objectives during the development phase. 
The evaluation holds that the two 2012 ECOC embraced the
objectives of the action and customised them in line with their own particular
contexts and priorities. The objectives and activities implemented by both ECOC
were relevant to the main objectives at EU level. Both ECOC planned diverse
cultural programmes and associated activities (e.g. communications,
volunteering, etc) relevant to EU level objectives such as fostering cooperation between cultural operators, promoting the diversity of
European cultures and highlighting the common features they share, fostering
the contribution of culture to the long term development of cities, supporting
the social and economic development of cities, fostering the participation of
the citizens, enhancing the range, diversity and European dimension of the
cultural offer in cities, widening access to and participation in culture,
strengthening the capacity of the cultural sector and improving the international
profile of cities. 
4.3.        Efficiency of governance and management and capacity to deliver
The evaluation looked at the cities’
capacity to deliver and the efficiency of the governance and management 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
2011 ECOC, the evaluation of the 2012 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 Guimarães City Foundation was
established as a new organisation by the Ministry of Culture and Guimarães
Municipal Council in 2009. The governance and management of ECOC was shared; the
Foundation was responsible for developing the overall vision, communication and
management and while an already existing organisation, A Oficina was responsible
for implementing the cultural programme itself. In addition, one part of the
programme, Intersecting Times, was managed and produced independently by a
consortium of local associations. The evaluators note that although some difficulties
were experienced during the development phase, the management and governance
structures worked relatively well during the title year. It appears that the overall
vision, objectives and programming principles for Guimarães 2012 did not change
significantly between the application stage and implementation of the title
year. The strong political support that Guimarães 2012 received from the city
administration also contributed significantly to its success. This was
reflected in the commitment to cultural infrastructure projects, support and
close cooperation for the management team and significant support for the
delivery of the culture projects. The ECOC was seen as a strategic project by
the city administration and significant effort was devoted to ensuring its
successful implementation. 
In Maribor, the absence of a formal
partnership or strong local leadership (in the context of multiple changes of
Government) created a problematic situation throughout the development and
implementation phases. The development phase was managed by a provisional
secretariat set up by the municipality. Once the final delivery infrastructure
was in place, a team was recruited relatively quickly which, according to the
evaluators, had to ‘hit the ground running’. The evaluation highlights a number
of success factors in the delivery agency’s approach to implementation, including
the development of a new and coherent concept for the programme, extensive
consultation with partners, operators and artists, but also the way that the
Board and general management supported the staff and were able to protect their
autonomy from external interference. The ECOC gradually built support from
citizens, media partners and other stakeholders. However, most of the planned
infrastructure improvements did not take place, which severely limited the
range of venues and sometimes meant that planned activities could not be implemented.
At certain points there was a real danger that the entire project would be
jeopardised by the conflicts over institutional structures, funding commitments
and infrastructure problems. 
The experience of 2012, as in previous
evaluations, highlights the significant challenges posed by the governance and management
of ECOC and the role of political influences, organisational uncertainty and
staff turnover. This is perhaps inevitable due to the nature and time-scale of
ECOC; but 2012 also highlighted the importance of the city and other
authorities providing consistent support and showing strong backing and commitment
so that any difficulties can be quickly identified and addressed. 
At European level, the ECOC action continues to be very
cost-effective when compared to other EU policy instruments and mechanisms,
given the very modest EU funding available from the Melina Mercouri Prize. Although
the Prize represented a relatively modest proportion of the overall ECOC budgets
for both cities, the financial challenges facing each meant that it was highly
appreciated in each case. In addition, the Prize has a strong symbolic value
and recognises the progress made by the cities during the development phase. 
4.4.        Effectiveness in
developing cultural activities and cultural and artistic content
The evaluation considers that the 2012 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 in each city. They explored new
themes, highlighted the richness and diversity of each city's cultural
offering, used new or unusual venues and reached out to citizens. 
Maribor 2012 implemented an extensive and innovative
cultural programme, including many completely new cultural activities with a
strong emphasis on new forms of creative expression and interdisciplinary
working, as well as a highly collaborative, participatory approach bringing
international operators together with local organisations, artists and
citizens. 
Many of the activities were built around co-productions
and collaborations. Maribor 2012’s successful use of co-productions was partly
a consequence of the lack of resources and time available to develop a
comprehensive cultural programme in-house. However they managed to leverage the
resources and expertise of external partners (for example the Cultural
Embassies involving 80 organisations from 31 countries), while ensuring that the
activities implemented were consistent with their own and EU level objectives
for ECOC. 
The final programme was a more coherent and structured reorganisation
of the original concept. It included , briefly, hundreds of projects and an
estimated total audience of 3,1 million in 2012 (and 4,5 million overall). This
represents a significant increase in both the scale and the type of activities
that are usually available to the citizens of Maribor. According to the
evaluation, many stakeholders commented that the programme included a satisfactory
balance between high and popular culture, including sufficient numbers of
‘prestigious’ events, but also a strong focus on participatory approaches and
innovative content, including activities that combined artistic disciplines and
experimental approaches, including use of new media. 
Guimarães delivered a cultural programme incorporating
many new and innovative cultural activities. The evaluation considers that it
was successful in engaging city residents, attracting national and
international visitors as well as increasing the offer of cultural experiences
produced in the city. The focus of the cultural programme was on artistic
creation in Guimarães. From the very beginning, the key stakeholders involved
did not want to simply create a programme of festivals inviting the best
projects created elsewhere, but decided to focus on strengthening artistic
creation in Guimarães itself and contributing to the development of the
artistic and creative capacity and potential in the city. 
Guimarães’ programme included, briefly, hundreds of events
involving 25,000 artists and professionals. 15,000 citizens and 300
organisations contributed to the cultural events. The programme counted 1,000
new creations and included 700 artists residencies. 40 films were produced and
there were 60 new publications and 100 international premiers. 
The programme aimed to explore the city through artistic
interpretations of different aspects of its past and present. For example, the
cinematic programme was designed to rediscover the city’s audiovisual heritage
and the Art and Architecture programme addressed local identity and history, especially
connected to the industrial heritage with social, economic and cultural dimensions.

4.5.        Effectiveness
in promoting the European dimension 
According to the evaluation, the European
dimension of the cultural programme in both 2012 ECOC was mostly related to the
efforts to support transnational cultural co-operation and to support some
internationalisation of the cities' cultural sectors. Whilst European themes
were present in both cities these tended to relate to specific strands or individual
projects rather than permeating the entire cultural programme.While it would
have been clearly unrealistic to expect the ECOC title to have marked out
Guimarães and Maribor as major European cultural destinations (at least not
after the title year), the lack of intensive international promotion represents
something of a missed opportunity in both cities even if the ECOC year had a
positive impact on wider perceptions of both cities and tourism promotion. It
appears that some 39% of visits to Maribor and partner cities in 2012 were
solely due to ECOC. There was a 120% increase in visitors to tourist
information offices in Guimarães and over 25% of visitors reportedly indicated
that ECOC was one of the reasons they visited the city.
Finally, there was less extensive
cooperation between the two ECOC than hoped, though there is limited potential
for extending linkages in cases such as this where distances are great or there
are no historical or cultural links. 
4.6.        Effectiveness in engaging
the citizens and in outreach 
The evaluation notes that one of the key success factors
for both cities was engaging citizens. Guimarães 2012 received significant support,
energy and active involvement from city residents, who saw the title year as
one of the key milestones reinvigorating their city, enhancing its role
nationally as well as increasing its visibility internationally. The communication
style and logo were key success factors here. Maribor too eventually achieved
high levels of awareness, participation and engagement and gradually built
support from citizens, media partners and other stakeholders, to overcome early
negative publicity and widespread scepticism. Furthermore, its programme
included a range of activities exploring connections between culture,
creativity and other fields, for example in the work of the University of Maribor linking research in different university faculties to arts and culture.
4.7.        Effectiveness in achieving
economic, urban development and tourism impacts
It was of key importance for Guimarães to invest in the
capacity of the city, in order to contribute to economic and social
development. Firstly, infrastructure investment was aimed at increasing the
capacity of the city. Secondly, the programme focused on increasing the
capacity of the local culture sector. Thirdly, a significant part of the
cultural programme was dedicated to audience development, community engagement
and bringing different cultural experiences to citizens. The evidence from the
evaluation indicates that the ECOC had an effect on business development in the
city, especially related to the service sector in the city centre. The strong
political support that Guimarães 2012 received from the city administration,
which saw the ECOC as a strategic project, was clearly an asset in this
respect. In particular, the experience of Guimarães in 2012 demonstrates the
potential of ECOC to be reinforced by and add value to investments made by the
ERDF. Many previous ECOC have used ERDF funding for infrastructure
developments, but in the case of Guimarães 2012 around 70% of the total funding
came from the ERDF.
In Maribor, the original application placed great
emphasis on using the ECOC to support urban, social and economic development
and using culture to give a new impulse to the city, build new confidence among
residents and create new connections to spur wider social and economic
development. Although most of the infrastructure projects did not proceed, the city
retained the aspiration to use the ECOC year as a means of supporting urban and
regional development. This resulted in the development of a diverse range of
activities aimed at revitalising city centres through culture. Several of the
partner cities were very positive about their involvement in the ECOC year. It
clearly had a major positive impact for the smaller towns, some of which
attracted large numbers of visitors and developed confidence in their cultural
assets and ideas for new types of cultural and tourism development. 
The evaluation notes that both cities were able to point
to increases in visitor numbers, which contributed significantly to local
economic activity. 
4.8.        Sustainability
The ECOC is according to the 2006 Decision intended
to "be sustainable and be an integral part of the long-term cultural and
social development of the city". The evaluation considers that in both 2012
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.
In both cities, cultural operators have
gained valuable skills and experience and there are likely to be moderate
effects in terms of enhancing the cities’ cultural offer. Continued impacts on
cultural governance appear unlikely however, reinforcing the need for long-term
strategy to be incorporated in selection and monitoring processes. 
In both cases sustainability appears far
from secure, not least because of the uncertain economic situation. In Maribor,
the political situation remains volatile, the economic outlook remains negative
and lack of longterm planning or a legacy body (after June 2013) combined with
reduced cultural budgets means that it will be difficult to maintain the recent
increase in cultural activities or the increased levels of public engagement with
culture. Guimarães has no long-term culture strategy in place, and the City
Foundation that managed the ECOC will be disbanded at the end of 2013. However
negotiations are taking place between the local authority, national Government
and university on setting up a cooperative framework for ensuring the
sustainability of governance structures. It is also likely that the local
authority will be able to ensure the continuation of certain key activities.
5.           Main
recommendations of the external evaluation and conclusions from the Commission
The recommendations are based on the evaluators’ considerations of
the 2012 ECOC but relate to the implementation of the ECOC action as a whole.
The evaluators note as well that a number of recommendations from evaluations
of previous ECOC are still valid and relevant.
Recommendations include the continuation of the ECOC action as a
high-profile and symbolic initiative of the EU, the need for transparent
selection procedures at national level, the reinforcement of the monitoring
measures aiming to provide support and guidance to the cities from an early
stage as a way to better ensure regular progress in the development phase, a
reinforced requirement for each ECOC to increase links with the other ECOC of
the same year, the increased emphasis on the need for ECOC to establish their
institutional arrangements in good time and to develop more concrete legacy
structures and the introduction of more consistent evaluation procedures by the
cities themselves. The conclusions of the evaluation 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 overall assessments and conclusions of the
evaluation and accepts its recommendations. 
The recommendations of the present
evaluation are largely in line with the Commission's 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[6].

Building on the strengths of the current
scheme which is overall working well, the proposal retains its main features and
general structure. Still, a number of improvements are proposed taking into
account recommendations from external
evaluations of 2012 and previous ECOC, and other considerations:
–                        
The reinforcement of conditionality for the payment
of the Melina Mercouri Prize, recommended also in the evaluation of the 2011
ECOC, relating the Prize to the cities' progress in delivering the commitments made
at application stage – with clearer and stronger conditionality criteria making
the grounds on which the Commission can refuse the payment – and postponing the
payment until into the title-year so that the Commission can make its decision
on a more solid and informed basis;
–                        
The introduction of a more explicit and
comprehensive set of selection criteria with the view to increasing the
transparency and fairness of the procedure, including related to the
contribution of the ECOC to the long-term strategy of the city, the need for
broad political support, governance or the feasability of the funding strategy;

–                        
The encouragement for the two ECOC of the same
year to seek to develop links and common projects as part as their cultural
programmes because adding new working relationships to existing ones can be
very beneficial for them even if – as rightly mentioned in the report – this can
sometimes be a challenge when the two cities are geographically distant or have
only few cultural and historical links;
–                        
The encouragement for ECOC to undertake own
research and studies on the results and impacts of the title year, translated into
an obligation for cities to carry out an evaluation to better measure the
achievement of their objectives. 
Additionally, the Commission's proposal intends
to improve the scheme by introducing a general objective related to the contribution
of culture to the long-term development of cities, adding a third formal
monitoring meeting three years before the year of the title and underlining the
need for candidate cities to have a cultural strategy in place at the time of
the application.
[1]               OJ
L304 of 3 November 2006.
[2]               Ex-post
Evaluation of 2012 European Capitals of Culture, Final Report for the European
Commission, entrusted in 2012 by the Commission to ECORYS
UK Ltd under framework service
contract n°EAC/50/2009 on evaluation, evaluation-related services and support
for impact assessment.
[3]               Resolution of the Ministers
responsible for Cultural Affairs regarding the annual organization of the 'European City of Culture' of 13.06.1985;
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:1985:153:0002:0003:EN:PDF
[4]               OJ L 166 of 1.7.1999. Decision
amended by Decision 649/2005/EC (OJ L 117 of 4.5.2005). 
[5]               See
the reports of the Selection and Monitoring and advisory Panels at http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmes-and-actions/capitals/past-capitals_en.htm
[6]               COM(2012) 407 final