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 2015 European Capitals of Culture (Mons and Pilsen)
Date: 2017-04-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Commission
Subjects: Belgium, Czechia, EU action, European cultural event, European symbol, capital city, project evaluation

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 27.4.2017  COM(2017) 193 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 2015 European Capitals of Culture (Mons and Pilsen) {SWD(2017) 135 final} {SWD(2017) 137 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 2015 European Capitals of Culture (Mons and Pilsen) 

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  an  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  intends  to  communicate  the  findings  of  the  external  evaluation  of  the  2015 
European Capitals of Culture and the actions that the Commission will put forward in follow 
up  to  them.  The  evaluation  methodology  and  findings  are  presented  in  the  Staff  Working 
Document on the evaluation of the 2015 European Capitals of Culture, which is based on the 
Final Report of the external evaluator2. 

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.  Decision  No  1419/1999/EC4  established  a  Community  action  for  the  ECoC  event 
for the years 2005 to 2019. Member States are 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 Decision No 1622/2006/EC, the ECoC overall aims are to  highlight the richness and 
diversity of European cultures and the features they share, thereby promoting greater mutual 
understanding among European citizens, and to foster the contribution of culture to the long-
term  development  of  the  cities.  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. 

Decision  No  1622/2006/EC,  repealed  by  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,  continues  to  apply  in  the  case  of  the  cities 

Resolution  of  the  Ministers  responsible  for  Cultural  Affairs,  meeting  within  the  Council,  of  13  June  1985 
http://eur-

OJ L 304 of 3.11.2006, p.1. 
Full  report  available  at:  https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/sites/creative-europe/files/ecoc-

1 
2  
2015-evaluation_en.pdf. 
3 
concerning 
event 
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  

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

'European 

153/02); 

Culture' 

annual 

(85/C 

City 

the 

of 

2 

 
 
                                                            
 
which have been designated or are in the process of being designated as European Capitals of 
Culture for the years from 2013 to 20196. 

2.2. 

The selection and monitoring of the 2015 European Capitals of Culture 

In  accordance  with  the  Decision  No  1622/2006/EC,  Belgium  and  the  Czech  Republic  were 
entitled to host the ECoC in 2015. 

Parallel  competitions  were  managed  by  the  relevant  authorities  of  the  two  Member  States. 
The selection was 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 
of thirteen members – six of whom nominated by the Member State concerned and the other 
seven by European institutions – examined the bids from candidate cities on the basis of the 
objectives and criteria laid down in the Decision. 

In  Belgium,  there  was  only  one  candidate  city.  In  the  Czech  Republic,  three  cities  applied, 
from  which  two  were  short-listed7.  In  2010,  the  panel  recommended  that  Mons  in  Belgium 
and Pilsen in the Czech Republic be awarded the ECoC title. 

The  Council  of  Ministers  of  the  European  Union  formally  designated  Mons  and  Pilsen  as 
ECoC 2015 respectively in November 2010 and May 2011. 

After their nomination, the two cities were subjected 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 Union institutions, which also checked compliance with 
the  programme  and  commitments  on  the  basis  of  which  the  cities  had  been  selected.  The 
representatives of Mons and Pilsen attended two formal monitoring meetings convened by the 
Commission, in the autumn 2012 and spring 2014. At the end of the monitoring process, the 
panel made a positive recommendation to the Commission to award a EUR1.5 million prize in 
honour of Melina Mercouri to both Mons and Pilsen. 

2.3. 

The themes and focus of the 2015 European Capitals of Culture 

The overall theme of Mons 2015 was "where technology meets culture" and the ambition was 
to  put  the  city  on  the  European  map  as  a  symbol  of  economic  restructuring  based  on  a 
successful  alliance  between  culture,  tourism  and  new  technologies.  Its  cultural  programme 
was  divided  into  four  seasons:  "Dazzle"  (to  bring  light  and  warmth  to  the  winter  months); 
"Metamorphosis" (to emphasise the arrival of spring and changes taking place in Mons with 
new  infrastructure  developments  and  possibilities  offered  by  new  technology);  "Escale"  (to 
encourage  visiting  or  staying  in  Mons  during  the  holiday  period);  and  "Renaissance"  (to 
emphasise  the  rebirth  of  Mons  after  the  decline  of  key  industries  with  a  focus  both  on  the 
historical characters of the city's "golden age" and on future developments). 

The motto of Pilsen 2015 was "Open up!" and expressed the city's ambition to use its ECoC 
year  to  open  itself  up  towards  Europe  and  other  external  influences.  Throughout  2015, 
cultural events and experiences were delivered in Pilsen across four main streams: "Arts and 
Technologies"  (to  celebrate  and  strengthen  the  link  between  Pilsen's  industrial  background, 
crafts, skills and business); "Relationships and Emotions" (to open up the public space of the 
city and engage the public in a discussion about their personal and national identity);"Transit 
and  Minorities"  (to  highlight  the  diversity  of  the  city  and  its  population);  and  "Stories  and 
Sources" (to promote tourism based on some of Pilsen's personalities and to reminisce about 
past events and experiences). 

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

OJ L 132, 3.5. 2014, p. 1 
All pre-selection, selection and monitoring reports of the panel are available at the following web-

3 

 
 
                                                            
3. 

THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION 

3.1. 

The terms of the evaluation 

The evaluation explores the implementation of the two ECoC 2015 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. It also examines the EU added value as well as the coherence 
and  complementarity  of  the  action  to  other  EU  initiatives.  Finally,  it  draws  individual  and 
general conclusions emerging from the two ECoC 2015 and considers implications for future 
ECoC title-holders. 

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. 

The methodology for the evaluation of the 2015 ECoC largely follows the approach adopted 
in previous studies of the action8.  

As for ECoC 2007-2014 previous evaluations, the intervention logic used by the evaluator is 
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 Mons (for Pilsen the contractor relied on the 
survey performed by the implementing body itself). 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  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  methodology  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.  A  study  which 
provides  a  before  ("baseline")  and  an  after  picture  would  be  ideal  for  assessing  the  full 
benefits and impact of the ECoC action. However, budget9 and timing10 constraints only allow 
an ex-post evaluation to take place and therefore only an after picture has been studied. 

See evaluation reports at:  

8  
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/more_info/evaluations/index_en.htm?page=1&mxi=12. 
9  
provided to the ECoC (€1.5m Melina Mercouri Prize). 

The  budget  allocated  to  the  evaluation  work  is  proportionate  to  the  level  of  EU  funding  directly 

4 

 
 
                                                            
As  a  result,  the  report's  conclusions  are  more  substantiated  by  the  views  and  opinions  of 
various types of stakeholders 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 outputs 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  already 
identified in its staff working document accompanying its proposal for a Decision establishing 
a  Union  action  for  the  ECoC  for  the  years  2020  to  203311.  To  remedy  the  situation,  the 
Commission's  proposal  and  the  Decision  ultimately  adopted  on  this  basis12  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 Mons and Pilsen have been carrying research13 
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 ECoC 2015, 
although lacking strong data and other independent evidence to support very solid conclusions 
on efficiency and impacts. 

4. 

4.1. 

MAIN FINDINGS FROM THE EVALUATION REPORT 

Relevance of the ECoC action and the two 2015 ECoC 

According  to  the  findings  of  the  evaluation,  the  two  host  cities  saw  the  ECoC  mainly  as  a 
cultural event strengthening and internationalising their cultural offering as well as promoting 
the  cultural  diversity  and  common  cultural  features  of  Europe.  The  ECoC  year  included  a 
cultural programme that was more extensive, more innovative and more European in nature 
compared to the usual cultural offer in the two cities. The evaluation 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". 

The  evaluation  highlights  that  Mons  and  Pilsen  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 2015 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 

Decision No 1622/2006/EC  requires  that  the  Commission  conducts  the  evaluation  immediately  after 

10  
the title year. 
11  
See SWD(2012) 226 final, point 2.4.4. 
12  
 Decision 445/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, see footnote n° 6. 
13  
Some of the results of this research were still in draft form at the time when the European evaluation 
of  the  ECoC  action  was  finalised.  The  European  evaluation  used  as  much  of  this  secondary  information  as 
possible, but could not benefit from its final results. 

5 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
as urban and regional development, employment, enterprise, tourism as well as general social 
cohesion policies. 

4.2. 

Efficiency 

Overall,  the  ECoC  action  was  implemented  efficiently  at  EU  level.  The  selection  process 
enabled the selection of cities with the capacity, resources and vision to implement effective 
ECoC. Both cities also benefited from the monitoring arrangements at EU level and from the 
informal support given by the monitoring panel and the European Commission. At the same 
time,  the  very  modest  funding  directly  provided  by  the  EU  (in  the  form  of  the  Melina 
Mercouri prize) can be said to have had a considerable leverage effect by stimulating the two 
cities  –  but  also  their  respective  regional  and  national  authorities  –  to  invest  considerable 
sums  in  their  ECoC  programmes  (approximately  around  EUR  72.8  million  in  the  case  of 
Mons  and  EUR  18.2  million  in  the  case  of  Pilsen)  and  in  associated  infrastructure 
developments (EUR 143.5 million for Mons and EUR 48.6 million for Pilsen). 

At the city level, both Mons and Pilsen established delivery mechanisms that were strong, and 
they  delivered  their  ECoC  in  an  efficient  way,  as  both  used  national  and  EU  funds  to 
implement cultural programmes of high artistic quality and of considerably greater size than 
the cities' "usual" cultural offering. 

4.3. 

Effectiveness 

The ECoC action in 2015 has proved effective against the objectives set for it at EU level, as 
well as the objectives set by the cities holding the title. The action has achieved an impact that 
would not have arisen through the actions of Member States alone. In the absence of ECoC, 
both  the  2015  title-holders  would  have  been  free  to  invest  their  own  resources  in 
implementing  cultural  programmes  and  developing  their  cultural  infrastructure.  However, 
their  designation  as  ECoC  attracted  additional  resources,  including  from  private  sponsors 
(more than EUR 2 million in the case of Mons and EUR 1.175 million, i.e. 6,4 % of the total 
budget  in  Pilsen).  It  also  attracted  greater  media  coverage:  in  Mons,  450  international 
journalists were accredited and there were 3,717 articles in the international press or items on 
international  radio  and  television  while  a  total  of  325  foreign  journalists  visited  Pilsen  and 
many  more  local  and  national  journalists  attended  (and  covered)  various  ECoC  activities, 
resulting  in  3,500  news  pieces  that  directly  related  to  the  ECoC  across  local,  national  and 
international  press  outlets  published  between  in  2015.  The  ECoC  title  also  enhanced  local 
pride in the city and an increase in national and international tourist visits: a five-fold increase 
in  tourist visits registered in  Mons tourist office during 2015  and  a total  of 1,4m  visitors in 
Pilsen, representing a 28 % increase from the two previous years. 

The  ECoC  title  helped  the  two  cities  present  "new"  and  "better"  cultural  content  than  was 
previously  the  case,  such  as  new  uses  of  public  spaces  with  open  air  events,  festivals  and 
urban  art  installations,  and  increased  citizens'  participation  in  cultural  events,  Mons  being 
more effective than Pilsen in targeting specific groups in the city, in particular the young, the 
old and the disadvantaged. Finally, in both cities, the ECoC title maximised the opportunity to 
strengthen local cultural organisations, encouraged them to work with one another more than 
they did previously and helped capacity building.  

These benefits would have been unlikely to arise to the same extent in the absence of ECoC 
designation; in that sense, the ECoC action has generated clear European added value. 

4.4. 

Sustainability 

The timing of this evaluation makes it difficult to draw conclusions about sustainability. 

However, both 2015 ECoC genuinely thought and planned for sustainability and legacy. They 
were  both  keen  to  ensure  that  ECoC  lasted  more  than  one  year  in  terms  of  its  benefits  and 

6 

 
 
impact. The research also identified some potential for sustainability of activities and impetus, 
particularly in Mons where there are concrete plans for a legacy event (Mons Biennale 2018).  

As  with  other  recent  ECoC  evaluations,  stakeholders  in  Mons  and  Pilsen  articulated  the 
legacies of the year in terms of stronger skills, stronger relationships and a higher profile for 
culture in the city more widely. In both cities, another long-term legacy has been around how 
the programmes have attracted a new type of audience to experience and enjoy culture. 

Further research is nevertheless needed to identify the extent of sustainability in practice. 

5. 

MAIN  RECOMMENDATIONS  OF  THE  EXTERNAL  EVALUATION  AS  WELL  AS 
CONCLUSIONS AND ACTIONS 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  cities  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  2015  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 strategies (in particular in Mons, to a lesser extent in Pilsen) 
and have a planned legacy both physical (new cultural venues) and intangible (in the form of 
a biennale in Mons, and in the form of increased capacity and cultural offer in both cities). 

The evaluation makes recommendations both for the cities and for the Commission.  

The  recommendations  addressed  to  the  cities  include  the  need  for  national  buy-in  and 
involvement,  the  need  to  ensure  continuation  of  people  and  cultural  structures,  the  need  to 
think  carefully  about  new  cultural  buildings,  the  need  to  be  realistic  about  the  potential  to 
attract foreign visitors and the need to confirm and communicate key events as early possible. 
The evaluator also encourages small cities not to be deterred from bidding for the ECoC just 
because  they  have  a  relatively  small  budget.  These  recommendations  are  useful  for  new 
candidates when preparing a bid or for designated cities when developing and implementing 
their  programmes.  Following  a  suggestion  made  by  the  evaluator  in  its  previous  report,  the 
Commission  already  added 
the  compendium  of 
recommendations it produced and published on its website14 as a further reference to bidding 
cities.  The  Commission  explicitly  refers  to  and  draws  on  these  recommendations  when 
participating in information sessions on European Capitals of Culture. 

recommendations 

these  new 

to 

The report recommends the Commission to continue with the action in line with Decisions No 
1622/2006/EC  and  No  445/2014/EU.  Further  to  this,  it  recommends  that  the  Commission 
envisages the following: 

 

 

Revise the guidelines for evaluation for the cities, and the application form and progress 
report  requirements,  to  ensure  that  cities  provide  baseline  data  on  the  situation 
prevailing at the time of application and during preparation, that can help evaluating the 
impacts of the action after the year.  

Invite  the  cities  to  sign  a  Memorandum  of  Understanding  to  cover  the  period  from 
designation  to  completion  of  the  title  year.  This  MoU  should  regulate  the  relations 

14  
compendium-recommendations_en.pdf 

https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/sites/creative-europe/files/library/ecoc-

7 

 
 
 
                                                            
between  the  city,  the  Commission  and  the  monitoring  panel  and  complement  the 
provisions of the Decisions governing the action.  

Undertake more extensive publicity related to the Award of the Melina Mercouri prize, 
including a symbolic award ceremony.  

Undertake research into the long-term impacts of the ECoC. 

 

 

The Commission welcomes these recommendations and considers that they are feasible and 
will add value to the current implementation of the action.  

The  Commission  will  revise  its  guidelines  for  evaluation  as  well  as  its  progress  report 
requirements this year in order to invite cities to collect baseline data. However, it is up to the 
cities  themselves  to  act  on  this  and  ensure  an  appropriate  collection  of  useful  data.  The 
application form already includes a question on the baseline studies or surveys that applicant 
cities intend to use in order to evaluate the impact of the ECoC title. 

The Commission will draft a Memorandum of Understanding to be signed by future European 
Capitals of Culture  entering  the monitoring  process. This  will  first apply to  the ECoC 2020 
and ECoC 2021, the monitoring of which starts in 2017. The monitoring phase is already too 
advanced with the ECoC 2018 and 2019 for such a MoU to be of any relevance. 

The  Commission  will  investigate  the  possibilities  of  a  ceremony  being  organised  for  the 
award of the Melina Mercouri prize in Brussels or in the awarded cities. Where possible, this 
will be done already for the ECoC 2018, i.e. Leeuwarden (Netherlands) and Valletta (Malta).  

Finally, regarding the research into the long-term impacts of the European Capitals of Culture, 
the  Commission  points  out  to  the  very  useful  and  comprehensive  study  produced  by  the 
European Parliament in December 2013 on "European Capitals of Culture: Success Strategies 
and  Long-Term  Effects".  It  therefore  does  not  find  it  appropriate  to  produce  a  new  report 
covering the same research area at this point in time, but does not exclude to explore options 
to do so at a later stage. 

8