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 2014 European Capitals of Culture (Umeå and Rīga)
Date: 2015-11-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Commission
Subjects: EU action, European cultural event, European symbol, Latvia, Sweden, capital city

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.11.2015  COM(2015) 580 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 2014 European Capitals of Culture (Umeå and Rīga)   
 
 
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 2014 European Capitals of Culture (Umeå and Rīga) 

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 20191, 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. 

This  report  puts  forward  the  Commission's  position  on  the  main  conclusions  and 
recommendations of the external evaluation of the two 2014 European Capitals of Culture2. 

2. 

2.1. 

BACKGROUND TO THE ACTION 

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  19853.  On  the  basis  of  this  experience,  Decision  No  1419/1999/EC4  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. 

Under  this  Decision,  the  ECOC  overall  aims  are  to  highlight  the  richness  and  diversity  of 
European  cultures  and  the  features  they  share,  as  well  as  to  promote  greater  mutual 
understanding  between  European  citizens.  ECOC  shall  strive  to  foster  cooperation  between 
cultural operators, artists and cities in Europe, foster the participation of the citizens living in 
the city and surroundings while raising the interest of citizens from abroad, and be sustainable 
and an integral part of the long-term cultural and social development of the city5. 

2.2. 

The selection and monitoring of the 2014 European Capitals of Culture 

In accordance with the Decision No 1622/2006/EC, Sweden and Latvia were entitled to host 
the ECOC in 2014. 

Parallel  competitions  were  managed  by  the  relevant  authorities  of  the  two  Member  States. 
The selection is in two phases: a pre-selection phase (candidate cities are reduced to a short-
list) followed by a selection phase (the short-list is reduced to one single candidate). A panel 

OJ L 304 of 3.11.2006, p.1. 
http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/actions/documents/ecoc-2014-report_en.pdf 
Resolution of the Ministers responsible for Cultural Affairs, meeting within the Council, of 13 June 1985 

1 
2 
3 
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 
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  

For more information: http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/actions/capitals-culture_en.htm. 

Decision 1419/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 establishing a Community 

2 

 
 
                                                            
 
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 
objectives and criteria laid down in the Decision.  

In each of these two Member States, four cities applied, from which two were short-listed in 
Sweden and three in Latvia6. The panel finally recommended that Umeå and Rīga be awarded 
the ECOC title in September 2009. 

In May 2010, the two cities were formally designated as ECOC for 2014 by the Council of 
Ministers of the European Union.  

After  their  nomination,  Umeå  and  Rīga  were  submitted  to  monitoring  arrangements:  the 
progress  in  the  cities'  preparations  was  monitored  and  guided  by  a  panel  composed  of  the 
seven  independent  experts  appointed  by  the  European  institutions,  which  also  checked 
compliance with the programme and commitments on the basis of which the cities had been 
selected.  Umeå  and  Rīga  attended  two  formal  monitoring  meetings  convened  by  the 
Commission, in November 2011 and April 2013. The monitoring process ended up with the 
panel  making  a  positive  recommendation  to  the  Commission  on  awarding  a  €1.5m  prize  in 
honour of Melina Mercouri to both Umeå and Rīga. 

3. 

THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION 

3.1. 

The terms of the evaluation 

The evaluation explores the implementation of the two 2014 ECOC throughout their lifecycle, 
from their early inception through to their sustainability and legacy, and considers the impact 
of  hosting  the  title  in  the  two  cities.  In  particular,  it  assesses  their  relevance,  efficiency, 
effectiveness  and  sustainability,  draws  individual  and  general  conclusions  emerging  from 
these two ECOC and considers implications for future ECOC title-holders. 
The external evaluation was carried out before the Better Regulation Guidelines7 entered into 
force. 

3.2.  Methodology and limitations of the approach chosen 

The evaluation and its methodology were designed to satisfy the standard requirement of the 
Decision,  and  contribute  to  develop  a  more  detailed  understanding  of  the  performance  and 
achievements  of  the  action.  In  particular,  it  provides  an  opportunity  to  look  back  at  the 
previous year in order to highlight lessons and recommendations going forward based on the 
experiences of the two host cities. 

As  for  ECOC  2007-2012  previous  evaluations,  the  intervention  logic  used  by  the  evaluator 
was based on a hierarchy of objectives corresponding to the Decision. 

In order for results to be comparable with previous evaluations, the methodology also 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  included  interviews  conducted  during  two  visits  to  each  city  or  by 
telephone,  as  well  as  through  an  online  survey  in  Rīga.  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, plus key cultural operators, a range of partners involved in 

All pre-selection, selection and monitoring reports of the panel are available at the following web-

6 
page: http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/actions/capitals-culture_en.htm. 
7  

http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/toc_guide_en.htm. 

3 

 
 
                                                            
the  delivery  of  the  ECOC  and  a  sample  of  organisations  either  leading  or  participating  in 
ECOC projects. 

The secondary data sources included 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. 

As was the case with all previous ex post ECOC evaluations, the Commission considers that 
this  methodolody  is  appropriate  to  produce  a  report  providing  a  reasonably  solid  basis  on 
which sound conclusions can be drawn as to ECOC performance. 

There is however a lack of hard evidence on the benefits and impact of the ECOC on the two 
host  cities,  partly  due  to  the  time  and  budget  constraints  of  the  evaluation.  As  a  result,  the 
report's  conclusions  are  more  substantiated  by  the  views  and  opinions  of  various  types  of 
stakaholders than on the (limited) quantitative data available. 

On  the  other  hand,  most  of  the  qualitative  evidence,  in  the  form  of  an  on-line  survey  and 
interview  results,  is  limited  to  those  directly  involved  in  and  somehow  benefiting  from  the 
programme. 

Furthermore, 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  ouputs  and  results  or  emerging  higher  level 
benefits  rather  than  on  harder  on  the  ground  impacts,  which  will  take  more  time  to 
materialize.  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 a cultural, social and an economic points of view, also using a broader range of 
evaluative data to support the conclusions. 

The  Commission  is  fully  aware  –  and  accepts  –  such  limitations,  which  were  alreadly 
identified in its staff working document accompanying its proposal for a Decision establishing 
a  Union  action  for  the  ECOC  for  the  years  2020  to  20338.  To  remedy  the  situation,  the 
Commission's  proposal  and  the  Decision  ultimately  adopted  on  this  basis9  foresee  that  the 
cities themselves – better positioned to get primary data on the impact of the title  – become 
the key players in the evaluation process. 

Against this background, it is good to see that Umeå (and to a lesser degree Rīga) have been 
carrying  research  to  better  understand  the  impact  of  the  ECOC  on  cultural  institutions  and 
local residents, as well as in terms of international dimension and economics. 

The Commission finds however  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 2014 ECOC, 
although lacking strong data and other independent evidence to support very solid conclusions 
on efficiency and impacts. 

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 partially updated and refreshed with the information gathered 

8 See SWD(2012) 226 final, point2.4.4. 
9 Decision 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). 
4 

 
 
                                                            
during  the  2014  evaluation  wherever  possible.  This  report  concentrates  on  these  new 
elements. 

4.1. 

Relevance of the ECOC action and the two 2014 ECOC 

According  to  the  evaluator,  the  two  host  cities  saw  the  ECOC  more  as  a  cultural  event 
strengthening  and  internationalising  their  cultural  offering  as  well  as  promoting  the  cultural 
diversity  and  common  cultural  features  of  Europe,  rather  than  an  economic  or  social 
programme. The report concludes that this made the ECOC a very relevant action in relation 
with Article 167 TFEU looking at the Union's contribution to the "flowering of the cultures of 
the Member States". 

However,  the  report  highlights  that  Umeå  and  Rīga  also  used  their  ECOC  status  to  tackle 
other aspects of their respective city's development strategy. As a consequence, many of the 
activities delivered in 2014 were highly relevant to the two cities' overall political agendas as 
well as to a range of EU level priorities and objectives in policy areas other than culture, such 
as urban and regional development, employment, enterprise, tourism as well as general social 
cohesion policies. 

4.2. 

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, and it concludes that the delivery mechanisms set up to implement 
the ECOC generally worked well in both cities. 

Umeå 2014 was implemented by a team working directly within the Municipality of Umeå. 
The  report  highlights  that  the  team  benefited  from  a  strong  political  support  from  the  very 
outset as the title-year was intended as a tool to achieve local policy objectives, cultural and 
otherwise, which allowed for the setting of clear objectives. A key feature of the management 
structure was the use of the "Open Source" approach, based on co-creation and participation. 
In essence, this approach involved setting broad themes and criteria for the programme as a 
whole  and  then  inviting  cultural  operators  and  other  stakeholders  to  "fill"  the  programme 
themselves.  Overall,  the  report  considers  that  the  governance  of  Umeå  2014  worked  well, 
even  if  the  final  team  was  formed  relatively  late  in  the  development  phase  and  could  have 
been scaled up at an earlier stage to allow earlier development of much of the content of the 
cultural programme. 

In  Rīga,  an  arm's  length  organisation,  the  Rīga  2014  Foundation,  was  set  up  by  the  City 
Council to coordinate the application and development stages of the ECOC action. It was led 
by the former Head of the City Council's Department of Culture. According to the report, this 
model – not unique in terms of other previous ECOC – proved to be the most appropriate for 
implementation,  as  it  reduced  the  administrative  burden,  avoided  some  of  the  bureaucratic 
processes which apply to State or municipal authorities in the country and ensured some form 
of  independence  so  that  the  ECOC  programme  could  be  developed  "freely"  without  any 
significant  external  influence.  The  report  also  positively  highlights  the  stability  in  the 
administrative team and in the support given by all political structures along the lifecycle of 
the project. 

Both ECOC were designed and delivered in difficult economic times at both city and national 
levels  and  therefore  financial  efficiency  was  a  key  aspect  of  their  planning  and 
implementation.  Although  Umeå  and  Rīga  (respectively  45,6  and  27,3  million  euros)  had 
different levels of resources available for their cultural programmes, they both showed that a 
successful ECOC can be delivered on a relatively modest budget and in times when resources 
are limited. 

The report shows that both ECOC were driven by public rather than private sector funding. It 
stresses that neither city had been able to generate the private sector income they originally set 

5 

 
 
in  their  applications,  with  the  private  sector  funding  representing  less  than  10%  of  the  two 
ECOC's total budget. Although an ECOC is likely to always be highly dependent on public 
budgets,  the  lack  of  progress  that  both  2014  host  cities  made  in  attracting  private  sector 
funding  through  either  direct  support,  sponsorship  or  advertising  is  an  aspect  worth  noting. 
According to the evaluators, this is to some extent due to the current economic situation and it 
is  hoped  that  as  the  economic  context  improves  the  reliance  on  the  public  purse  to  drive 
forward ECOC activity will change for the better. 

4.3. 

Effectiveness in developing cultural activities and cultural and artistic content 

Despite  a  shortage  of  comprehensive  data  on  results  and  impacts,  the  evaluation  concludes 
that both cities delivered an extremely high volume of cultural activities in 2014 (in total, just 
under 500 in Rīga under the motto "Force Majeure" and just over 1,000 in Umeå under the 
slogan  "Curiosity  and  Passion")10.  Although  it  is  difficult  to  evidence  how  much  "extra" 
culture  was  present  in  2014  in  the  two  cities  compared  to  preceding  years,  many  of  those 
taking part in the evaluation estimated that it was "at least double". 

Both  ECOC  also  managed  to  design  a  wide  ranging  cultural  programme  which  included  a 
strong mix of cultural genres delivered across the whole year and often across various parts of 
the  city  and  even  beyond.  They  maximised  the  opportunity  available  during  the  year  in 
developing  cultural  programmes  that  were  neither  conservative  nor  cautious,  with  cultural 
events  that  were  bigger  and  more  innovative  than  before.  Although  both  cities  laid  on  a 
variety  of  high  profile  and  "glitzy"  events,  they  also  included  a  large  number  of  smaller 
cultural activities which were equally well received. 

According to the evaluator, the artistic control and management in the design of the cultural 
programmes  of  both  ECOC  came  from  experienced  and  trusted  players  who  had  a  real  and 
deep  understanding  of  the  cultural  agenda  of  the  cities.  This  artistic  knowledge  was  very 
much found in the coordination bodies themselves (as well as in the projects) which did more 
than simply manage and monitor outputs and budgets. 

4.4. 

Effectiveness in promoting the European dimension 

The  report  estimates  that  the  cultural  programme  presented  by  Umeå  in  2014  was  more 
European  in  nature  than  the  city's  cultural  offering  in  previous  years.  It  was  based  on  the 
overarching concept of Umeå as the "Northern room" in the "European house" and Umeå as a 
place  for  border-crossing  and  long-term  collaborations  within  the  Sápmi  area  covering 
northern  parts  of  Finland,  Norway,  Sweden  and  Russia.  Within  this  overarching  concept,  a 
number  of  specific  themes  were  explored,  including  some  relating  to  the  culture,  lands  and 
identity  of  the  Sami  people,  the  indigenous  people  of  northern  Scandinavia.  The  cultural 
programme  –  structured  around  the  eight  seasons  of  the  Sami  calendar  –  explored  and 
highlighted Sami culture in all its forms, e.g. rock-art, music, crafts, dress. 

Furthermore,  the  ECOC  enabled  Umeå  to  increase  the  European  –  and  international  – 
dimension  of  its  cultural  offer  by  collaborations  with  some  international  artists,  who  were 
specifically invited or commissioned to produce or co-produce events, works and exhibitions. 
Overall, 195 projects featured some sort of collaboration with artists or other cultural bodies 
from other (mainly European) countries. 

Finally,  in  the  evaluator's  view,  Umeå  2014  –  despite  a  geographical  challenge  of  being 
relatively isolated up North  – did make the most of the ECOC status in its efforts to attract 
European  audiences  to  the  city  and  put  itself  "on  the  map"  thanks  to  its  marketing  and 
communication activities. In this regard, the report mentions the positive achievements of the 
"Caught by [Umeå]" tour, which brought representatives of the city and its cultural sector into 

10 
activity whereas another may count individual activities within the carnival separately. 

Counting the number of activities of an ECOC is not easy as one ECOC may consider a carnival as one 

6 

 
 
                                                            
direct contact with audiences in several different European cities prior to the opening of the 
title year as a way to attract them to Umeå. Furthermore the number of nights booked in all 
tourist accomodations increased by 24% from 2013 to 2014. 

Regarding  Rīga,  it  appears  from  the  report  that  the  European  dimension  was  reflected  in  a 
range of different events and activities. This included projects highlighting shared European 
themes – such as those linked to World War I or the former KGB building – or the support to 
exchanges  and  other  mobility  programmes  from  across  different  EU  Member  States.  In  this 
respect,  findings  show  that  40%  of  all  ECOC  projects  had  an  international  dimension,  i.e. 
involved foreign individuals (a majority of them European) in project implementation such as 
performers, artists and event organisers. 

The ECOC was also seen as a "meeting place" and the opportunity for international artists to 
come together and work collaboratively on different activities. 

With  regard  to  raising  the  international  profile  of  the  city  (a  key  motivation  of  the  ECOC 
project),  Rīga  2014  had  mixed  results.  The  number  of  foreign  tourists  visiting  Latvia 
increased by 18.9% in the first half of 2014 and 2,800 publications mentioned the ECOC  in 
Rīga  (of  which  98%  were  positive),  but  it  appears  that  less  than  2%  of  the  audiences  came 
from outside the country. 

4.5. 

Effectiveness in engaging the citizens and in outreach 

The evaluation considers that one key aspect of effectiveness in both cities was around how 
the ECOC status was instrumental in widening the appeal and reach of culture to community 
groups  and  neighbourhoods  that  simply  would  not  have  experienced  culture  without  the 
existence of the ECOC. 

Both  programmes  were  very  pro-active  in  this  respect  and  worked  hard  to  provide  cultural 
content  that  appealed  to  a  wide  variety  of  different  audiences,  putting  on  performances  and 
activities that can be classed as being popular, alternative or innovative in nature. It appears 
that respectively 71% and 76% of residents in Umeå and Rīga attended an ECOC event while 
overall 1,6 million people attended ECOC activities in the Latvian capital. Project promoters 
were  encouraged  to  target  underrepresented  groups,  many  activities  took  place  in  non-
traditional settings outside of the city centre and clear guidance (including during workshops 
or in the form of guidelines) was given on how best to widen participation. 

Furthermore  the  development  arrangements  in  both  cities  were  inclusive  and  transparent  in 
terms of having open calls for project ideas that came from the "bottom up", so that projects 
originated  from  cultural  rather  than  strategic  players.  The  above-mentioned  Open  Source 
approach in Umeå proved a very effective tool in granting the local cultural sector and a wide 
section  of  the  population  considerable  opportunity  to  shape  and  implement  the  cultural 
programme in a way that was both authentic and credible. In the view of the evaluator, this 
approach  is  however  only  appropriate  for  cities  with  openness  to  co-creation  and  for 
international  collaboration,  and  where  there  is  also  a  context  of  trust  and  a  tradition  of 
consensus. 

The report considers that Rīga 2014 had a large amount of success in spreading the activities 
and  benefits  of  its  cultural  programme  throughout  the  city  and  to  a  set  of  residents  and 
neighbourhoods  traditionally  having  little  in  the  way  of  a  cultural  offer.  A  full  line  of  the 
programme  (called  "Road  Map")  was  dedicated  to  engaging  with  organisations  and 
individuals  living  in  these  neighbourhoods.  The  way  such  groups  were  empowered  and 
consulted to ensure that they shaped, delivered and enjoyed the cultural programme is a key 
success in the view of the evaluator. The report sees as a very positive achievement the fact 
that Rīga 2014 helped to encourage a "bottom up" approach to the design and delivery of the 

7 

 
 
ECOC  programme  in  a  country  that  has  a  relatively  embryonic  approach  to  community 
development. 

4.6. 

Effectiveness in achieving economic, urban development and tourism impacts 

According to the evaluation, there is weaker evidence available on the impact of the ECOC 
overall in the city. 

However, as far as Umeå is concerned, the report concludes that the succeful delivery of the 
ECOC  can  be  credited  to  the  ambitions  of  local  stakeholders  to  creatively  redesign  and 
remake their city as a centre of growth and a cultural destination. It appears from the evidence 
collected by the evaluator that the ECOC has made an important contribution to the fulfilment 
of  this  ambition,  notably  in  providing  impetus  to  complete  some  important  investments  in 
cultural infrastructure and generating international interest in the city. 

Although  massively  important  for  the  city  and  its  development,  the  success  of  Umeå  2014 
was very much dependent on it being part of a wider strategy for urban development. Umeå 
2014 was not the catalyst for the development of the city, nor the end-point. The city's cultural 
offering,  as  it stands, reflects several  decades  of growth  and, in  particular, the expansion of 
the university and the industries that depend on it. 

In Rīga, the main focus of the ECOC was clearly on the "cultural" content of the programme 
rather than on improving infrastructure projects or other physical development either linked to 
culture  or  the  wider  public  realm.  This  meant  that  the  programme  was  sometimes  seen  as 
being less of a driver for physical improvements to the city.  Some also felt that there was no 
obvious physical symbol of Rīga 2014 which people could associate with the year of culture 
either during 2014 or after it. This lack of a central physical "emblem" of the year was felt by 
some to mean that an obvious "impact" of the ECOC was missing. However, it appears that 
the ECOC has allowed those involved in culture in the city to firmly put their policy area on 
the map. 

4.7. 

Sustainability 

The  evaluation  notes  that  there  were  aspects  of  both  cities'  approach  that  showed  they  had 
considered  sustainability.  Although  thinking  around  legacy  was  established  early  on  in  the 
ECOC lifecycle of each city, this did not however manifest in a strong longer term legacy or 
sustainability  plan to  sustain  the  cultural  offer  beyond  the  title  year  itself.  Unsurprisingly,  a 
lack  of  finance  to  sustain  some  of  the  key  aspects  of  the  cultural  programme  for  2014  was 
highlighted as the main barrier to sustainability. 

Despite the above, there is evidence that culture has risen up the policy agenda in both cities 
as  a  consequence  of  ECOC.  Indeed,  the  ECOC  has  allowed  both  cities  to  showcase  the 
importance and benefits of culture to a level that would not have been possible without this 
status. 

Umeå 2014 was seen as a part of a wider strategy for urban development, in which culture is a 
key  element.  The  city  will  continue  to  pursue  its  ten-year  strategy  for  culture  covering  the 
period 2010-2020, which will be updated to take account of lessons learnt through the ECOC 
year, and per capita expenditure on culture is expected to continue to grow and remain around 
twice the average of all Swedish municipalities. 

In Rīga, culture is now mentioned in the recently produced municipal Development Plan with 
the  inclusion  of  priorities  such  as  stimulation  of  a  "creative  and  European  city  with  a  high-
quality  cultural  life"  or  promotion  of  the  "access  to  culture  and  active  promotion  of  both 
residents' creativity and public participation". 

Furthermore, Umeå has seen improvements to its cultural infrastructure which will have a key 
legacy  beyond  2014  as  it  provides  organisations,  residents  and  visitors  with  new  and 

8 

 
 
improved buildings for the years to come. Although Rīga has seen and will see improvements 
to its cultural infrastructure, these are less associated with the ECOC programme as – for most 
of them – they were not finished in time to be used during the year itself. 

There is also no doubt that both Umeå and Rīga, like other previous ECOC cities, have built 
up  an  array  of  new  relationships  and  networks  at  city,  national  and  international  levels  that 
will be sustained in the future. 

Finally,  perhaps  the  biggest  aspect  of  sustainability  is  around  the  increased  capacity  that 
cultural operators in both cities reported through their involvement in the delivery of various 
ECOC projects. A key benefit of ECOC overall and one which maximises its sustainability is 
around the new skills, experiences, track record and knowledge which is found in the city as a 
consequence of planning and implementing a major year of culture. 

5. 

MAIN  RECOMMENDATIONS  OF  THE  EXTERNAL  EVALUATION  AND  CONCLUSIONS 
FROM THE COMMISSION 

The Commission concludes from this report that the ECOC action remains extremely relevant 
at  EU  level  as  well  as  highly  valued  by  those  who  host  it,  and  generates  extensive  cultural 
programmes with positive outputs and impacts which cannot, however, be fully assessed yet. 
Only longitudinal evaluations carried out by the host cities themselves – as mentioned under 
3.2 – could provide a clearer picture in this regard. 

The  Commission  also  concludes  that  the  programmes  implemented  by  the  two  2014  title-
holders were innovative and consistent with the objectives of the ECOC action; they reflected 
its  European  dimension,  involved  many  local  residents  and  stakeholders,  brought  culture  to 
new  audiences  (through  specific  tools  and  strategies),  raised  the  interest  of  citizens  from 
abroad (albeit to a lesser degree than expected in Rīga) and are likely to lead to some legacy 
(even  in  the  absence  of  formal  sustainability  plans).  However,  deeper  assessments  of  the 
extent of the benefits produced against the costs incurred will be useful to confirm the impact 
of the programme. This is now the responsibility of both cities to invest in research so as to 
better understand how they have optimised cultural, social and economic benefits and be able 
to demonstrate the impact of the title-year for the development of the city, thereby justifying 
the value of public spending. 

The  report  highlights  a  number  of  recommendations  that  emerge  out  of  the  evaluators' 
considerations  of  the  two  2014  ECOC.  These  recommendations  are  mainly  useful  for  and 
therefore  addressed  to  future  ECOC  when  developing  and  implementing  their  programmes: 
the need for political support at both city and national levels to gain stability; the need to build 
a stable and effective team at an early stage in the development period; the need to go beyond 
culture  and  connect  the  ECOC  action  with  other  aspects  of  the  city's  strategy  including 
enterprise,  social  inclusion  and  physical  development;  the  need  for  the  title-holders  to 
generate "impact" data such as attendance figures, spend of visitors, satisfaction levels as well 
as  wider  economic  impacts;  the  need  to  actively  pursue  widening  participation  in  culture 
through dedicated strategies as well as the need to develop longer term plans to sustain their 
cultural offer beyond the title-year itself. Finally the report recommends that the Commission 
should  develop  a  compendium  of  all  recommendations  from  current  and  future  ECOC 
evaluations and make these available to candidate cities to help them learn from past lessons 
and good practice. 

The Commission recognises the relevance of all these recommendations and will follow the 
evaluators' suggestion to produce a compendium. 

9