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 2013 European Capitals of Culture (Košice and Marseille-Provence)
Date: 2015-03-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European cultural event, European symbol, France, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, capital city, data collection, tourism, urbanisation













EUR-Lex - 52015DC0074 - EN











|



52015DC0074

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 2013 European Capitals of Culture (Košice and Marseille-Provence) /* COM/2015/074 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 2013 European
Capitals of Culture (Košice and Marseille-Provence) 
1.           Introduction
This report is presented under article 12
of Decision No 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[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 European Parliament,
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of
the Regions.
This report puts forward the Commission's
position on the main conclusions and recommendations of the external evaluation
of 2013 European Capitals of Culture[2]
that can be obtained via the link below:
http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/actions/documents/ecoc-2013-full-report.pdf.
2.           Background
to the action
2.1.        The
EU action for the European Capital of Culture (ECOC) 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 No 1419/1999/EC[4] established a Community
action for the ECOC event for the years 2005 to 2019. Member States were ranked
in a chronological order of entitlement to host the event each year.
Decision No 1419/1999/EC was replaced by
Decision No 1622/2006/EC which kept the principle of a chronological order of
Member States but further refined the objectives of the action and introduced
new selection and monitoring arrangements.
2.2.        The
selection and monitoring of the 2013 European Capitals of Culture
In accordance with the Decision No
1622/2006/EC, France and Slovakia were entitled to host the ECOC in 2013.
The 2013 ECOC are the first ones to be
subject in full to the new selection arrangements introduced by the Decision.
According to these arrangements, the competition is managed by the relevant
authorities of the Member State concerned, usually the Ministry of Culture. The
selection is in two phases: a pre-selection phase and a final selection nine
months later. A panel of thirteen members – six of whom nominated by the Member
State concerned and the other seven by European institutions – examine the bids
from candidate cities on the basis of the criteria laid down in the Decision.
In Slovakia, nine bids were received, from which four were short-listed in
December 2007[5].
The panel then recommended Košice as European Capital of Culture in September
2008. In France, eight applications were received and four cities were
shortlisted in January 2008. The panel finally recommended that
Marseille-Provence be awarded the title in September 2008.
In May 2009, the two cities were formally
designated as European Capitals of Culture for 2013 by the Council of Ministers
of the European Union. 
The monitoring arrangements mean that the
designated cities have to attend two formal meetings with a monitoting panel
consisting of the seven experts nominated by the EU institutions, respectively
2 years and 8 months in advance of the title year. The monitoring process ends
up with the panel making a recommendation to the Commission on awarding a €1.5m
prize in honour of Melina Mercouri to the European Capitals of Culture,
provided that the latter meet the criteria laid down in Decision No
1622/2006/EC and have implemented the recommendations made by the selection and
monitoring panels. The two monitoring meetings with Košice and
Marseille-Provence took place in December 2010 and April 2012. In its 2012
report, the monitoring panel recommended that the Melina Mercouri Prize be
awarded to the two cities.
3.           The
external evaluation
3.1.        The
terms of the evaluation
The evaluation explores the implementation
of the two 2013 ECOC throughout their life cycle and considers the impact of
hosting the title in the two cities. In particular, it assesses their
relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability, draws conclusions
emerging from these two ECOC and considers implications for the ECOC action as
a whole.
3.2.        Methodology
This evaluation and its methodology are
designed to satisfy the standard requirement of the legal basis. Although it is primarily tasked with assessing the 2013 ECOC
against the objectives and criteria set out in the Decision No 1622/2006/EC
(the legal basis in force at the time of their official designation), the
methodology takes account of the changing policy context for this EU action and
changes to the legal basis[6]
wherever possible.
In order for results to be comparable with
previous evaluations, the methodology follows a consistent approach for
evidence gathering and analysis. The two cities were 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 interviews
conducted during two visits to each city or by telephone, as well as through an
online survey. These interviews sought to gain a variety of perspectives on
each ECOC, including those of the management teams, decision-makers at local
and national levels, key cultural operators, as well as a range of partners
involved in the delivery of the ECOC and a sample of organisations either
leading or participating in ECOC projects.
The secondary data sources include
information in the original ECOC applications, studies and reports produced or
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.
4.           The
evaluator's findings
The evaluation confirms
that many of the findings from previous reports, especially those pertaining to
the overall relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of the ECOC action are
still valid. These findings have been updated with new information gathered
during the 2013 evaluation wherever possible.
4.1.        Relevance
of the ECOC action
The experience of 2013 reinforces the
finding from previous evaluations that ECOC remains highly relevant to the
Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, particularly Article 167,
through contributing to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States,
highlighting common cultural heritage as well as cultural diversity and
increasing cultural co-operation between Member States and beyond.
4.2.        Relevance
of the two 2013 ECOC
According to the evaluation, the selection
process introduced by the Decision No 1622/2006/EC ensured that the
applications of both eventual ECOC title-holders set out objectives and
approaches that were coherent with the legal basis. It considers that the two
ECOC implemented cultural projects and activities that were consistent with the
essence of their applications and therefore in line with the strategic and
operational objectives of the ECOC action.
It holds that the ECOC concept also
continues to be of relevance to the objectives of local policymakers and stakeholders.
The experience of 2013 shows that the ECOC action has made a positive
contribution to developing the range and diversity of cities' cultural
offerings; enhancing social development; promoting the cities' international
profile; and supporting their economic development (in particular through
support for tourism and the creative economy).
4.3.        Efficiency of governance and management and capacity to deliver
The evaluator 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.
The delivery agency for Košice 2013
("Košice – Európske hlavné mesto kultúry 2013, n.o.") was established
at a relatively early stage of the development phase in the form of an
arms-length, non-profit association with some independence from the city
council. It had the main responsibility for cultural programming, while the
city had sole responsibility for the implementation of infrastructure projects.
The evaluation considers that positive
support from all levels of government (national, regional and local), and
cutting across political parties, has been an important factor in the success
of Košice 2013. It notes that this can be attributed to an understanding of the
profile and benefits that the programme can bring based upon past ECOC, the
motivating force of need (particularly at the city level), and also issues of
national pride and Slovakia's standing within Europe. According to the
evaluation, ensuring a successful ECOC was seen as a national political
priority for the country, despite the economic downturn. This encouraged for
example the national government to invest significant national funds and EU
Structural Funds in the ECOC, and ensured that the city government was an
active partner in the successful delivery of the infrastructure projects, to an
extremely short timescale. However, at least in part due to the lack of a
culture of corporate giving or supportive tax regime in Slovakia, efforts to
raise private sponsorship were not fully successful.
In Marseille, the ECOC was implemented by a
dedicated arms-length agency, the Association Marseille-Provence 2013. As
Marseille-Provence 2013 covered one of the largest territories and one of the
highest number of municipalities of any ECOC to date, putting in place an
effective governance and management arrangements was always going to prove a
challenging task, especially in a time of public budgets' constraints. However,
according to the evaluation, despite the number and diversity of partners, not
least the public authorities of different political persuasions, the governance
arrangements were effective. All the main stakeholders remained committed, the
promised funding was provided and artistic independence was mostly respected.
Furthermore, Marseille-Provence 2013 needed
and secured the support of key corporate sponsors. This support was gained
through the implementation of a clear and coherent strategy of targeting
different sizes and types of potential sponsors, ranging from multinational
corporations to local SMEs. This strategy offered a clear understanding of the
level of funding that each type of potential sponsors might offer and the
benefits that they would expect. As a result, some €16.5m of corporate
sponsorship was secured against the target of €14m.
Marketing and communication activities
presented challenges of a different nature for each city, which were
complicated by the cities' limited marketing budgets and their need to enlist a
variety of tourist and public bodies in communication efforts.
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.
The 2013 ECOC were the first ones formally
subject to the selection process introduced by the Decision No 1622/2006/EC.
According to the evaluator, evidence suggests that the new process enabled two
high quality applications and two interesting, innovative ECOC to be selected.
Moreover, there is evidence that specific recommendations of the monitoring
panel positively affected final implementation. For Marseille-Provence this related
to the further development of the European dimension in the final programme,
while Košice took on board recommendations on legacy planning and the need to
reach new audiences.
4.4.        Effectiveness in
developing cultural activities and cultural and artistic content 
Despite a shortage of comprehensive data on
results and impacts, the evaluation concludes that the 2013 ECOC created a more
extensive cultural offer in both cities during the title-year.
Marseille-Provence implemented a
comprehensive range of activities and attracted an audience that was estimated
to exceed 11 million, making it perhaps the best-attended ECOC to date. As well
as a greater volume of activity than usual, Marseille-Provence also
successfully introduced many new approaches to culture. Most notably, the
waterfront area was used in a new way, including the Vieux Port (where key
open-air events were held) and the area between Fort Saint-Jean and the current
port (which featured new venues). In addition, the ECOC represented the first time
that co-operation in the field of culture had taken place at this scale across
the wider Marseille-Provence territory. Such co-operation has laid the
groundwork for future activities and generated important lessons from
experience.
Many of Kosice's aims were long-term and
aspirational in nature, with a detailed assessment of effectiveness made more
problematic by the lack of available data. Although Košice's programme was
clearly smaller in scale and spread out over a longer time period, it was
however highly innovative in scope and content, with experimental art forms and
creativity in its broader sense strongly represented. Košice's programme made a
contribution to many of the defined EU level objectives for ECOC, especially in
terms of strengthening the capacity of the cultural and creative sectors and
their connectivity, as well as access to and participation in culture by a
broad cross-section of residents (thanks in large part to investments in SPOTs
– a programme featuring the regeneration of a number of disused heat exchanger
stations and cultural events in Kosice's neighbourhoods – and other cultural
facilities and the number of large-scale public events).
4.5.        Effectiveness
in promoting the European dimension
The European dimension of Marseille-Provence
2013 particularly highlighted the location of the city on the Mediterranean, in
line with the broader theme of "Sharing the South", which was the
axis of the title-year. In this respect, the emphasis was on Marseille-Provence
as a place of meeting and dialogue between different European cultures and
their Mediterranean neighbours. The evaluation notes that some 80% of projects
adopted the Euro-Mediterranean theme in some form and that as a result, the
European dimension was an integral part of Marseille-Provence's programme. 
It is the evaluator's view that Košice's
final programme placed less emphasis on the European dimension, which was
incorporated in a number of specific activities rather than permeating the
entire programme. The most noteworthy aspects included the Košice Artists in
Residence programme and a range of networking activities and good practice
sharing (in particular in relation with the creative economy, tourism
development and the community development aspects of the SPOTs programme). This
was integral to Košice 2013's wider strategy to raise the profile of the city,
diversify its cultural offer and establish long-term international partnerships
with the potential to support creative industries.
There was also some collaboration between
the two ECoC title-holders, although this was modest in scale, reflecting the
very limited links that would otherwise exist between these two places.
4.6.        Effectiveness in engaging
the citizens and in outreach 
In Košice, there was an emphasis on major
new cultural events (for example in public spaces) and infrastructure to
promote greater use of the city by local people. The projects supported notably
through the SPOTs programme succeeded in decentralising and widening access to
culture outside the city centre, while supporting community development,
citizen engagement and interactions with minority and marginalised groups.
The evaluation considers that
Marseille-Provence ECOC was primarily a cultural event which was accompanied by
a broader development of the cultural infrastructure of the territory,
particularly in Marseille. The generation of a substantial social impact was
therefore perhaps not a primary objective, although certain social impacts have
arisen. The ECOC succeeded in encouraging wider participation in culture
through many open-air events held in public spaces. There were also specific
events for young people and projects committed to engaging with people who
would not usually attend cultural venues or are residents of disadvantaged parts
of the territory for example via the Quartiers Créatifs (creative
neighbourhoods) project.
According to the evaluation, the experience
of both ECOC shows that the effective involvement of non-traditional cultural
audiences or disadvantaged communities requires extensive preparatory work
and/or effective partnership working with intermediary organisations. These
organisations are often small, inexperienced or "amateur" in nature
and are less likely to (successfully) apply for funding in programmes of this size
and significance. The experience of Marseille-Provence suggests that it may be
useful for ECOC delivery agencies to consider separate, streamlined funding
instruments for "newer entrants", smaller cultural operators and
community-based groups, either through restricted or targeted calls, capacity
building and more hands-on support.
4.7.        Effectiveness in achieving
economic, urban development and tourism impacts
According to the evaluation, in terms of
economic impacts, both ECOC made a clear contribution to developing the
creative economy and the tourism offer in their respective cities. Both had a
positive effect on the cities' national and international profiles and
attracted significant numbers of additional visitors. Hotel stays and
international tourist visits increased respectively by 9 and 17 % on
previous year in Marseille while overnight stays increased by 10 % in
Košice, which was included in the Top 10 destinations for 2013 in a famous
tourism guide. Marseille-Provence in particular generated considerable media
coverage and high levels of awareness among the general population (97 %
of residents had heard of the ECOC).  There is also evidence that negative
perceptions of Marseille – amongst the city's residents and nationally – have
been challenged and for the first time, Marseille is being seen as a cultural
destination.
In Marseille-Provence, the intention was
always to generate impact across a wider, sub-regional territory. Whilst such
benefits have occurred, a large part of the impact was and will inevitably be
concentrated in the city of Marseille itself, since the majority of new
infrastructure developments and cultural events took place there.
Košice 2013 had greatest impact on the city
itself, with regional effects more limited and focussing mainly on improved
regional cooperation. This included improvements to the city's cultural
facilities administered at regional level, as well as some joint projects
focussing principally on cultural and heritage tourism.
4.8.        Sustainability
The ECOC is according to the Decision No
1622/2006/EC intended to "be sustainable and be an integral part of the
long-term cultural and social development of the city". The evaluation
notes that there is evidence of sustainability in the two 2013 ECOC in terms of
new refurbished cultural facilities, improved capacity and greater expertise
within the cultural sector as well as better networking and co-operation within
the sector and links with other sectors.
Evidence of lasting improvements in the
cultural vibrancy of cities is perhaps strongest in the case of Košice, thanks
to the numbers of continuing projects and the establishment of a new timetable
of recurring events and festivals. Marseille-Provence 2013 did however have a
positive impact on the level of (international) collaboration and networking
amongst local cultural operators.
Both cities saw significant improvements to
their cultural infrastructure, which are a key legacy effect. In some ways this
is most noteworthy in Košice given the context of many years of under-investment.

The city of Marseille enjoyed huge
investment in its cultural infrastructure in the years leading up to 2013, with
the title-year providing a stimulus for their timely completion and the
opportunity for them to host ECOC events and benefit from the communication
activities of the ECOC. More particularly, the Museum of Civilisations from
Europe and the Mediterranean (MuCEM) – which was opened in June 2013 – as well
as other new venues will continue to attract visitors and maintain the vibrancy
of the city beyond 2013.
Although a key objective of
Marseille-Provence 2013 was to deepen collaboration across the
Marseille-Provence area, in the absence of formal legacy structures or cultural
competencies for Marseille-Provence Métropole, this is most likely to be done
on an informal basis in future. However, it is clear that 2013 has done much to
improve local stakeholders' awareness of the potential for culture to
contribute to broader developments of their localities.
The experience of 2013 illustrates that
legacy planning must involve a range of partner organisations, begin at an
earlier stage and be adequately resourced, if ECOC are to create more
sustainable longer-term effects.  Košice's programme was part of a long-term
process of urban development and, as a consequence of this (supported by the
recommendations of the monitoring panel), legacy planning in Košice was
well-developed by the close of 2013. This has included the establishment of
three legacy bodies (for cultural policy, management of cultural infrastructure
and tourism development), adoption of a new long term cultural development
strategy and renewed willingness on the part of public agencies to value and
fund investments in culture.
Stakeholders in Košice also commented that
ECOC had a beneficial impact on the atmosphere in the city's neighbourhoods,
improving the confidence of local people and the capacity of local
organisations. ECOC also played a role in shaping cultural practices in Košice,
promoting the importance of dialogue and partnership, partnership-working, more
"resilient" funding models (with less reliance on state funding) and
increasing the level of interaction between cultural operators, other sectors
and local citizens.
5.           Main
recommendations of the external evaluation and conclusions from the Commission
The Commission considers that the evaluation report provides a
reasonably solid basis on which sound conclusions can be drawn as to ECOC
performance. Hard data on the impact of ECOC is not available to support all conclusions,
but available data is supported by other evidence, including an on-line survey
and interviews. On the other hand, most of the qualitative evidence, in the
form of on-line survey and interview results, is limited to those directly
involved in and benefiting from the programme. Some of the objectives set are
also broad and difficult to measure and it is too early for this evaluation to
have been able to assess any longer term impacts. As a consequence, much of the
evidence focuses on results rather than impacts. In order to better capture
such impacts, it would be useful for the two cities to have longitudinal
evaluations, notably to confirm the efficiency of the public spending in the
ECOC from both a social and an economic points of view, also using a broader
range of evaluative data to support the conclusions. 
Nevertheless, the Commission finds a sufficient basis in the data
and other evidence supporting the evaluation to allow it to share the overall
assessments and conclusions of the evaluation, which are considered to provide
a broadly true and complete picture of the two 2013 ECOC, although lacking
strong data and other independent evidence to support very solid conclusions on
efficiency and impacts. 
It concludes from the evaluation report that the ECOC title remains
highly valued by those who receive the money and generates extensive cultural
programmes with some positive impacts which cannot, however, yet be fully
assessed. 
The Commission also concludes that the programmes implemented by two
2013 title-holders were innovative and consistent with the action's objectives;
they reflected the European dimension of the ECOC action, involved many
residents, brought culture to new audiences, raised the interest of citizens
from abroad and are likely to lead to some legacy. However, deeper assessments
of the extent of the benefits produced against the costs incurred will be
useful to confirm the impact of the programme.
The evaluators' recommendations are based on the evaluators'
considerations of the 2013 ECOC but relate to the implementation of the ECOC
action as a whole. Recommendations include the promotion of other sources of
financing such as the EU Structural Funds through the identification of good
practices and the provision of relevant advice, a policy dialogue with Member
States to incentivise private sector investment in the arts and culture, the
enhancement of the dissemination of good practices from ECOC, in particular in
the communication activities of the Creative Europe Programme and any future
European Culture Forum, the establishment of guidelines and indicators for the
cities' own evaluations and the publication of cities' own evaluation reports..
It also recommends that the recommendations from the selection and
monitoring panels relate to the criteria in Article 14 of the Decision No
445/2014/EU and that Member States are encouraged to indicate their funding to
the potential candidate cities when the call for applications is issued.
The Commission accepts the recommendations of the evaluation and, in
this respect, underlines in particular that:
–                        
It published on its website a revised guide for
cities preparing to bid[7], as well as a guide on "How to strategically use the EU
support programmes, including Structural Funds, to foster the potential of
culture for local, regional and national development and the spill-over effects
on the wider economy"[8], which are both very relevant to ECOC. Moreover, especially as far
as Structural Funds are concerned, the obligation included in the Decision No
445/2014/EU to further embed the ECOC in the long-term development of cities
should help the latter plan their title year more strategically, facilitating
thereby the use of such Funds;
–                        
It issued guidelines for the cities' own
evaluations of their ECOC year[9], which are largely based on the expertise resulting from the
external and independent evaluations of the ECOC produced since 2007 and
provide cities with a set of common indicators as well as common guidelines in
the form of a list of questions cities should ask themselves when deciding to
bid or planning their evaluation procedures. The guidelines encourage cities to
carry out longitudinal evaluations;
–                        
It will continue its dialogue with Member States
and stakeholders about the value of investing in the arts and culture as a way
to encourage investment in the sector;
–                        
It intends to use the opportunity of the 30th
anniversary of the ECOC scheme in 2015 to further increase the visibility of
this EU action, notably as part of its next European Culture Forum in the
autumn 2015. This will help highlighting and disseminating examples of good
practice from ECOC, including in the use of the EU Structural Funds or private
sector investment.
The Commission will also prepare an internal action plan addressing
the recommendations in the evaluation report. A follow up of this action plan
will be done in 2016.
Finally, the Commission intends to develop the approach to the
evaluation of ECOC in order to ensure more and better data and to better
measure the efficiency and impact of this EU action.
[1]               OJ L 304 of 3.11.2006, p.1
[2]               Ex-post
Evaluation of 2013 European Capitals of Culture, Final Report for the European
Commission, entrusted in 2013 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, meeting within the Council, of 13 June 1985 concerning
the annual event 'European City of Culture' (85/C 153/02); http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:1985:153:0002:0003:EN:PDF
[4]               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, 1.7.1999, p.1.
That Decision was amended by Decision 649/2005/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council (OJ L 117, 4.5.2005, p.20)
[5]               All reports for the two 2013 competitions are
available at the following web-page:
http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/actions/capitals-culture_en.htm
[6]               Decision
No 445/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014
establishing a Union action for the European Capitals of Culture for the years
2020 to 2033 and repealing Decision No 1622/2006/EC (OJ L 132, 3.5.2014, p.1)
[7]               http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/actions/documents/ecoc-candidates-guide_en.pdf
[8]               http://ec.europa.eu/culture/policy/strategic-framework/documents/structural-funds-handbook_en.pdf
[9]               http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/actions/documents/ecoc/city-own-guide_en.pdf