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 2016 European Capitals of Culture (Donostia San Sebastian and Wroclaw)
Date: 2018-04-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Commission
Subjects: EU action, European cultural event, European symbol, Poland, Spain, capital city

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 25.4.2018 COM(2018) 235 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 2016 European Capitals of Culture (Donostia San Sebastian and Wroclaw)   {SWD(2018) 140 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 2016 European Capitals of Culture (Donostia San Sebastian 
and Wroclaw) 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This report is presented in accordance with 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 provides 
that the Commission ensures each year an external and independent evaluation of the results 
of the European Capital of Culture event of the previous year and reports on that evaluation to 
the European Parliament, the Council and the Committee of the Regions2. 

The findings and methodology of the ex post evaluation are presented more comprehensively 
in the accompanying Commission Staff Working Document. 

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE ACTION 

The EU Action for the European Capital of Culture (ECOC) 

2.1. 
Since the launch – at intergovernmental level – of the European City of Culture in 19853, the 
scheme  developed  until  reaching  the  format  of  a  fully-fledged  EU  Action  in  19994.  It  is 
currently governed by Decision No 445/2014/EU5, but cities which were designated as ECOC 
for the years up to 2019 were regulated by Decision No 1622/2006/EC. 

The  ECOC  Action  is  designed  to  highlight  the  richness  and  diversity  of  cultures  in  Europe 
and  the  features  they  share,  thereby  encouraging  a  greater  mutual  understanding  among 
European  citizens.  It  is  also  meant  to  stimulate  a  long-term  culture-based  development  of 
cities  in  the  broader  perception  of  the  term,  which  entails  socio-economic  impacts, 
strengthening of cooperation between cultural operators, artists and cities in Europe, as well 
as local (and foreign) citizens' involvement and participation in culture.  

2.2. 

The selection and monitoring of the ECOC 2016 

In  accordance  with  Decision  No  1622/2006/EC,  Spain  and  Poland  were  the  two  Member 
States entitled to host an ECOC in 2016.  

The two-phased selection process (shortlisting and final recommendation) was carried out in 
parallel by the relevant authorities of these two Member States (i.e. their respective Ministries 
of  Culture).  A  panel  of  thirteen  members  –  six  of  whom  nominated  by  the  Member  State 

1  OJ L 304 of 3.11.2006, p. 1. 
2  Full  text  at:  https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/sites/creative-europe/files/files/ecoc-2016-evaluation-

en_0.pdf. 

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). 

4  Decision No 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  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 (OJ L 132, 3.5.2014, p. 1). 

1 

 
 
                                                            
concerned and the other seven by European Union institutions and bodies – examined the bids 
submitted by candidate cities on the basis of the objectives and criteria laid down in Decision 
No 1622/2006/EC. Fifteen cities in Spain and eleven cities in Poland entered the competition 
in  2010  and  in  2011  the  panel  recommended  that  the  title  of  ECOC  2016  be  awarded  to 
Donostia  San  Sebastian  and  Wroclaw6.  The  two  cities  were  formally  designated  by  the 
Council of the European Union in May 20127. 

Subsequently,  both  cities  were  subjected  to  monitoring  arrangements:  the  progress  in  the 
cities' preparations was monitored and guided by a panel consisting of the seven independent 
experts appointed by the EU institutions and bodies, which had the additional task of ensuring 
compliance with the programme and commitments on the basis of which the cities had been 
selected.  The  representatives  of  Donostia  San  Sebastian  and  Wroclaw  attended  two  formal 
monitoring meetings  convened by the Commission,  in  autumn 2013 and spring  2015. Upon 
completion  of  the  monitoring  process,  the  panel  made  a  positive  recommendation  to  the 
Commission to award a €1.5 million prize in honour of Melina Mercouri to each of the two 
cities. The pecuniary prize – funded under the Creative Europe programme8 – was paid to the 
two ECOC in the autumn of 2015. 

2.3. 

The themes and focus of the two ECOC 2016 

Donostia San Sebastian's application was entitled "Cultura para la convivencia" (Culture for 
coexistence) and had a strong locally-oriented connotation: it was elaborated stemming from 
the recent past of the city, which was scarred for decades by terrorist activities. 

As the city's cultural offer and the capacity of its cultural sector were already very developed 
at the time of the application, the focus was more on endorsing qualitatively different projects 
addressing sensitive topics such  as  violence or  terrorism with  the aim of  helping  citizens to 
find a sense of reconciliation with their past. 

The  programme's  foundations  were  laid  on  the  two  concepts  of  "Co-existence"  and  "The 
City".  The  former  was  articulated  around  the  three  axes  of  "Lighthouse  of  Peace", 
"Lighthouse  of  Life"  and  "Lighthouse  of  Voices",  dealing  respectively  with  integration  and 
coexistence;  health,  work  and  environment;  and  communication.  The  latter  concept  worked 
transversally  by  providing  methodologies  –  in  the  fields  of  sustainability  of  linguistic 
diversity,  critical  thought  through  contemporary  art,  citizens’  engagement,  connection 
between  culture  and  technology,  and  the  development  of  interactive  situations  in  cultural 
spaces – which were meant to help all individual projects to achieve their own objectives. 

Wroclaw's  application  emerged  from  the  wider  strategy  of  the  City  of  Wroclaw,  which 
emphasised the potential for urban development to be supported by prioritizing investments in 
cultural and sporting events and infrastructures. 

"Metamorphoses of Culture" was the overall concept adopted, which served as a metaphor for 
both  the  historical  transformation  of  the  city  and  contemporary  processes  of  cultural  and 
social change (including globalisation, immigration, EU enlargement and the growing role of 
digital  communications).  "Spaces  for  Beauty"  was  used  as  the  slogan  for  the  ECOC 
programme  as  the  intention  was  "to  create  spaces  within  which  to  restore  the  presence  of 
beauty in public life and in daily habits".  

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

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

7  Council Decision No 2012/309/EU of 10 May 2012. 
8  Regulation  (EU)  No  1295/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  December  2013 
establishing the Creative Europe Programme (2014 to 2020) and repealing Decisions No 1718/2006/EC, No 
1855/2006/EC and No 1041/2009/EC (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p.221). 

2 

 
 
                                                            
Wroclaw came up with a very clear vision, especially concerning long-term goals, that ranged 
from increasing awareness and recognition of the Wroclaw/Lower Silesia's cultural identity, 
to creating public spaces for social activities and shaping of civic attitudes, to increasing the 
number  of  visiting  tourists.  Cultural  events  were  organized  in  disciplinary  sub-programmes 
(e.g. architecture, film, opera, etc.) and articulated on four "stages" depending on the target, 
varying from dialogue with local inhabitants to showcasing the city's role in the European and 
world culture. 

3. 

THE EXTERNAL STUDY 

3.1. 

The terms of the evaluation 

The evaluation explores the implementation and delivery of the two ECOC 2016 programmes 
throughout  their  lifecycle,  from  their  early  inception  through  to  sustainability  and  legacy 
considerations. 

Specifically, it assesses the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness  and sustainability of the two 
ECOC 2016, and examines the EU added value and the coherence and complementarity of the 
Action to other EU initiatives. Finally, it draws individual and general conclusions emerging 
from the two experiences and considers implications for future ECOC title-holders, applicants 
and EU institutions. 

3.2.  Methodology and limitations of the approach chosen 

The evaluation and its methodology were designed to satisfy the requirements of Decision No 
1622/2006/EC, and contribute to  develop a more detailed understanding of the performance 
and achievements of the Action. In particular, it constitutes a valuable opportunity to critically 
reconsider  the  past  year  in  order  to  highlight  lessons  and  recommendations  for  reshaping 
current wisdom and insights in the light of the new experiences of the host cities. 

As for ECOC 2007-2015 previous evaluations, the intervention logic used by the evaluator is 
based on a hierarchy of objectives corresponding to Decision No 1622/2006/EC. 

In  order  for  results  to  be  comparable,  the  methodology  for  this  evaluation  followed  the 
approach for evidence gathering and analysis adopted in previous assessments of the Action9.  

The evaluation was grounded in two types of data and respective sources: 

-  Primary  data  included  either  data  collected  during  fieldwork  or  provided  by  each 
ECOC such as interviews, online questionnaires and surveys; interviews in particular 
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, a range of partners involved in the delivery of the programme and a sample 
of organisations either leading or participating in the actual projects; 

-  Secondary  data  sources  encompassed  EU  documents,  original  bids  and  applications, 
internal reports linked to the application processes, monitoring and evaluation reports, 
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; 
-  The  evaluation  does  not  include  a  wider  public  consultation.  As  explained  in  the 
roadmap10, the Action is considered to be local. International participation is scattered 
within  and  outside  Europe  and  is  difficult  to  reach.  On  the  other  hand  opinions 

9  See previous evaluation reports at: https://ec.europa.eu/culture/evaluations_en. 
10  http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_eac_015_evaluation_ecoc_2016.pdf. 

3 

 
 
                                                            
expressed would be based on attendance to specific events and would not give useful 
insights for the evaluation of the ECOC Action as a whole. 

As was the case with all previous ex-post ECOC evaluations, the Commission maintains that 
the adopted methodology is appropriate to produce a report providing a reasonably solid basis 
on which sensible conclusions may be inferred regarding the ECOC performance. 

However, the lack of baseline data to be integrated in a comparative study of the city prior to 
the  win  of  the  title,  start  of  title  year  and  after  the  implementation  of  the  ECOC  year  is  a 
limitation. These data are considered of paramount importance in order to achieve a balanced 
perspective, supported by a cogent and ample data basis, of the actual impact of the Action on 
a  city.  However  the  budget  allocated  to  the  evaluation  work  (approximately  70  000  €  each 
year) is proportionate to the low level of EU funding directly provided to the ECOC (€1.5m 
Melina Mercouri Prize) and doesn't make it possible to have a before ('baseline') study and an 
after-picture  ('ex-post')  study.  An  ulterior  consequence  of  the  modest  budget  is  that  the 
primary evidence data gathering tends to be more of qualitative than quantitative nature; while 
qualitative  data  still  holds  a  great  importance  in  the  evaluation,  lack  of  quantitative  data 
translates  into  a  lesser  dependability,  for  instance,  in  the  process  of  proving  the  objective 
outcomes and impacts of ECOC on widening participation in culture. 

Therefore,  the  report's  conclusions  are  substantiated  by  an  ample  basis  of  qualitative  and 
"soft"  data  (e.g.  the  views  and  opinions  of  various  types  of  stakeholders)  more  than  by  a 
comprehensive quantitative set of data. 

The Commission is fully aware of – and accepts – those limitations, which had been already 
identified  and  communicated  in  a staff  working  document  accompanying  the  proposal  for  a 
Decision establishing a Union Action for the ECOC for the years 2020 to 203311. With regard 
to this difficulty, a subsequent Commission's proposal and the Decision ultimately adopted by 
the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council12  foresee  that  the  designated  cities  themselves  – 
better  positioned  to  have  baseline  data  and  gather  primary  data  on  the  impact  of  the  title  – 
become the main implementers of the evaluation process. 

In  this  respect  it  is  worth  underlining  that  Donostia  San  Sebastian  and  Wroclaw 
commissioned  local  research  activities13  –  respectively  by  hand  of  the  San  Sebastian 
Foundation  and  Wroclaw  University’s  Institute  of  Sociology  –  to  ameliorate  their 
understanding of the impact of the ECOC on key actors such as cultural institutions, cultural 
and creative industries and citizens, as well as on indicators like international dimensions and 
economics. 

In conclusion, despite the deficiency of quantitative data and other independent evidence, the 
Commission finds a sufficient solidity in the evidence gathered to support the evaluation and 
shares its overall assessment and deductions, which are considered to provide a generally true 
and complete picture of the ECOC 2016 Action. 

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° 5. 
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. 

4 

 
 
 
                                                            
4. 

4.1. 

MAIN FINDINGS FROM THE EVALUATION REPORT 

Relevance of the ECOC Action and the ECOC 2016 

According  to  the  findings  of  the  evaluation,  the  two  host  cities  have  elaborated  and 
implemented cultural programmes which were consistent with and relevant to Article 167 of 
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as regards  Union's contribution to the 
"flowering  of  the  cultures  of  the  Member  States".  Hosting  the  ECOC  also  contributed  to 
economic  and  social  developments  in  the  two  cities,  particularly  within  the  urban  context, 
which is also consistent with the aims of Decision No 1622/2006/EC. 

The  evaluation  concludes  that  Donostia  San  Sebastian's  programme  reflected  local 
preoccupations  and  context,  with  a  strong  social  and  political  focus.  As  the  pre-existing 
cultural offer of the city was already very solid, with a high number of international visitors 
and  large  European-wide  festivals,  it  was  decided  to  use  the  ECOC  to  cultivate  stronger 
connections  with  new  European  cultural  players  –  particularly  for  smaller  cultural 
organisations  –  but,  most  prominently,  to  deliver  with  dedication  a  new  type  of  sensitive 
content relevant to the complex identity of the city and the social and individual well-being of 
its inhabitants, which also have a clear European dimension. 

Wroclaw  articulated  a  programme  with  sharp  long-term  objectives,  a  strong  European 
dimension and coherently interacting with the wider city development strategy; it focused on 
further strengthening the European character of the city, attracting domestic and international 
tourists,  improving  its  cultural  infrastructures,  increasing  audiences  and  pro-active  citizens' 
participation  in  cultural  activities.  The  programme  also  explored  some  of  the  most  difficult 
elements  of  its  recent  history,  notably  the  population  transfer  between  the  Soviet  Union, 
Poland and Germany that took place at the end of World War Two.  

4.2. 

Efficiency 

Overall, the available evidence (mainly qualitative) suggests that ECOC remains an efficient 
EU  Action  providing  good  levels  of  returns  at  EU  level  for  a  relatively  modest  EU 
investment: the awarding of the title itself has a substantial leverage effect on the amount of 
funding that host cities dedicate to designing and delivering the ECOC cultural programme, 
and it is a significant generator of interest and financing from a broad array of stakeholders, 
including  regional  and  national  authorities  and  private  contributors.  Moreover,  the  absolute 
value of the Melina Mercouri Prize, which is the only monetary contribution that host cities 
receive from the European Union, is minimal (€1,5m per ECOC) in comparison to the overall 
costs  of  an  ECOC:  the  operating  expenditure  of  the  ECOC  2016  were  of  approximately 
€86,4m for Wroclaw and €49,6m for Donostia San Sebastian. 

At  city  level,  both  Donostia  San  Sebastian  and  Wroclaw  established  very  strong  and 
successful  delivery  mechanisms  and  governance  arrangements,  and  both  used  national  and 
EU funds (e.g. European Regional Development Fund) to implement cultural programmes of 
high artistic quality and of considerably greater size than usual.  

5 

 
 
Nevertheless,  the evaluation  also shows  that  hosting an  ECOC  remains  a  resource-intensive 
choice  that  may  turn  out  be  challenging:  for  instance,  Donostia  San  Sebastian  saw  a 
significant  reduction  in  its  actual  budget  compared  to  the  original  bid  stage  (a  fall  of  over 
40%),  driven  by  an  overly  ambitious  original  proposal,  but  also  by  very  tight  pressure  on 
public budget sectors at all  territorial  levels,  political  pressure to  prioritise  budgets on other 
city  issues  and  a  lack  of  capacity  to  seek  out  private  sector  funding  coupled  with  poor 
economic conditions. 

4.3. 

Effectiveness 

Both ECOC title-holders have proved successful in fulfilling the short-term objectives set out 
in  their  applications,  most  notably  the  implementation  of  extensive  and  innovative  cultural 
programmes  with  a  European  dimension  and  with  a  pronounced  citizens'  involvement. 
Despite having entirely dissimilar visions, programmes and implementation styles, both used 
the  ECOC  effectively  to  explore  and  articulate  themes  of  local  interest  with  a  European 
resonance. 

Donostia  San  Sebastian  supported  activities  that  were  clearly  different  from  its  pre-existing 
cultural offer; ECOC was used to tackle a complex and sensitive issue – namely past violence 
and the differences that the city's communities have with one another – as opposed to simply 
being about putting on a cultural programme to entertain local and international audiences or 
promote the city. While recognising this was a "brave choice", the evaluation also admits that 
it  is  difficult  to  quantitatively  measure  and  understand  the  future  societal  impacts  of  such  a 
choice. While Donostia San Sebastian was not preoccupied with raising its already significant 
international  profile  through  international  communication  and  tourist  attraction,  figures 
nevertheless  show  that  a  total  of  1.08  million  people  attended  ECOC  events,  with  5-10% 
being international visitors. 

On  the  other  hand,  local  cultural  operators  experienced  a  remarkable  network  expansion: 
almost 80% of the organizations involved in the year cooperated with other organizations, in 
the  majority  of  the  cases  building  new  professional  relationships  that  were  unlikely  to  have 
taken place without the ECOC year. 

Wroclaw  implemented  an  extensive  cultural  programme  as  an  integral  part  of  its  wider 
development  strategy  for  the  city,  but  also  proved  particularly  successful  at  attracting 
international  visitors:  according  to  research  undertaken  on  behalf  of  the  City  of  Wroclaw, 
around  5  million  tourists  visited  Wroclaw  in  2016,  of  which  1.6m  came  from  a  foreign 
country.  Data  from  the  Central  Statistical  Office  of  Poland  also  shows  that  an  extra  50,000 
international tourists stayed in  Wroclaw's hotels in  2016 compared to 2015. The ECOC has 
also  been  effective  in  strengthening  cultural  co-operation  and  networks  within  the  city  and 
with  international  operators:  two  thirds  of  the  implemented  projects  had  an  international 
connection and reported collaborations in a variety of forms with organisations or artists in 42 
other countries – mostly European, but including also countries such as Brazil, Japan and the 
USA.  The  communication  strategy  in  general  was  also  effective,  so  with  about  5,500  press 
articles published about the ECOC year in Poland and 38 other countries in 2016. 

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  evaluation  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  the  two  2016  ECOC  offer  very  different 
potentials for the sustainability of their activities and of improved cultural governance. 

6 

 
 
For what concerns Donostia San Sebastian, legacy planning of the ECOC has been generally 
limited,  with  a  lack  of  a  clear  formal  strategy  from  the  outset  and  a  deficiency  of  joint 
understanding  by  the  political  parties  on  what  an  ECOC  legacy  should  look  like.  
Although the cultural operators are generally still in place and still delivering strong cultural 
content beyond 2016, this is more due to the strength of the existing cultural footprint of the 
city, rather than any specific legacy from the ECOC programme.   

On  the  other  hand,  legacy  planning  was  much  developed  and  coordinated  in  Wroclaw,  and 
offered  greater  potential  for  the  long-term  sustainability  of the  impacts  of  the  ECOC  –  also 
thanks to a strong and linear political leadership. This strategy is also being informed by the 
various research and evaluation activities undertaken by the University of Wroclaw during the 
ECOC year. The ECOC delivery structure and the City's Departments for Social Affairs and 
for Culture have put forward a proposal for a strategy for 2017-2020 and beyond: "Culture – 
The  Current!"  (Kultura  –  Obecna!).  It  will  moreover  maintain  in  action  the  project 
"mikroGRANTY",  a  grant  support  initiative  with  the  objective  of  building  local  cultural 
capacity. 

4.5. 

Coherence 

The  ECOC  Action  is  relevant  and  complementary  to  a  variety  of  EU  policies  and 
programmes,  impacting  not  just  cultural  stakeholders  but  also  those  related  to  employment 
(with its impact on capacity building for example), enterprise (as an instance,  14% of firms 
from the cultural and creatives sectors in Wroclaw were involved in the ECOC, i.e. about 450 
out of +3,000 firms, while 52% of them felt that they had derived commercial benefits from 
the  ECOC  and  40.7%  reported  an  increase  in  turnover  during  2016)  or  tourism  (an  extra 
50,000  international  tourists  stayed  in  Wroclaw's  hotels  in  2016  compared  to  2015).  It  can 
also  give  impetus  to  investments  in  cultural  infrastructure  co-funded  by  European  Regional 
Development  Fund,  as  exemplified  by  the  considerable  success  met  by  the  newly  opened 
ERDF co-funded Music Forum concert hall in Wroclaw (with more than 500,000 visitors in 
2016). 

4.6. 

EU added value 

As  already  mentioned  and  illustrated  above,  the  ECOC  Action  has  achieved  an  impact  that 
would not have arisen through the actions of Member States alone.  

The 'label' itself is a key aspect of the EU added value of this Action as it acts as a significant 
generator of interest  from stakeholders  not  only from  the city  and but  also  from  far beyond 
and offers great scope for European cooperation in terms of partnership and transfer of good 
practices, for example in terms of building a solid governance for the delivery of the ECOC, 
increasing the capacity of local cultural organizations or attracting projects' ideas from local 
residents.  

5. 

MAIN  RECOMMENDATIONS  AS  WELL  AS  CONCLUSIONS  AND  ACTIONS  FROM  THE 
COMMISSION 

The  Commission  concludes  from  this  report  that  the  ECOC  Action  remains  relevant  at  EU 
level as well as greatly valuable for host cities, and generates extensive cultural programmes 
with  positive  outputs  and  impacts  which  cannot,  however,  be  fully  assessed  at  the  current 
evaluation stage as it is too early after the implementation of the ECOC year. As previously 
mentioned  only  evaluations  carried  out  by  the  host  cities  themselves  could  provide  a  more 
reliable picture in this regard. 

7 

 
 
Furthermore,  the  Commission  reckons  that  the  programmes  implemented  by  the  two  2016 
title-holders: 

-  were innovative and consistent with the objectives of the ECOC Action,  
- 

reflected  its  European  dimension  (in  particular  Wroclaw,  to  a  lesser  extent  Donostia 
San Sebastian as the ECOC in the latter was much more focused on local residents), 
involved local residents and stakeholders (in San Sebastian 60% of projects involved 
local  people  in  some  ways  and  there  were  10,493  hours  of  volunteer  time  while 
Wroclaw designed activities aimed at specific groups), 

- 

-  brought  culture  to  new  audiences  through  specific  strategies  (such  as  "Waves  of 

Energy in Donostia San Sebastian and "MikroGRANTY" in Wroclaw) and  

-  may  lead  to  legacies  both  physical  (in  the  form  of  new  or  refurbished  cultural  and 
logistic infrastructures, as it happened in Wroclaw) or intangible (by creating a space 
and  vehicle  that  helped  communities  talk  about,  understand  and  come  to  terms  with 
past differences and helping the city and its residents coexist with one another in the 
future, as it happened in Donostia San Sebastian) although a proper legacy planning is 
lacking in Donostia San Sebastian. 

These  main  findings  confirm  those  that  had  emerged  from  the  2015  and  previous  ECOC 
evaluations,  i.e.  ECOC  title-holders  carry  out  cultural  programmes  that  are  more  extensive 
and innovative than the cities' usual annual cultural offer, with a strong European dimension 
and involving local citizens as well as international visitors, in line with the objectives of the 
Treaty and the ECOC Action. 

Another  issue  arising  from  the  external  study  –  partly  in  line  with  the  findings  of  previous 
ECOC evaluations – is the lack of baseline data. An ideal procedural method of evaluation of 
the ECOC Action would entail the undertaking of an assessment study both ex-ante and ex-
post. However, budgetary14 and time15 constraints only allow for the latter to take place, thus 
leading to a lack of hard evidence concerning the benefits and impacts of the Action.  

The  co-legislators  recognized  this  difficulty.  In  adopting  Decision  No  445/2014/EU,  which 
will apply to the ECOC titles 2020 to 2033, the European Parliament and the Council decided 
to displace the burden of the evaluation from the Commission to the title-holders as the latter 
are the main funders and beneficiaries of the ECOC Action, and are better placed to collect all 
the  data  necessary.  Such  requirement  will  encourage  data  collection  activities  by  candidate 
cities and future title-holders from the early stages of the programme. In this way, it will also 
contribute  to  help  ECOC  improve  delivery  against  the  objectives  set  for  the  title-year.  To 
assist the cities in this endeavour, the Commission published guidelines on its website16.  

After  eight  similar  exercises  of  yearly  evaluations  –  each time  on  a  different  pair  of  ECOC 
cities  –  the external  study  includes only  a  limited  number  of  recommendations  and  most  of 
them are very specific and related to anecdotic dimensions of the overall ECOC Action. They 
usefully complement the many recommendations made in previous years and endorsed by the 
Commission, in particular the need to establish institutional arrangements in good time, build 
a stable and effective delivery team benefitting from a strong political support, ensure national 
buy-in and involvement, ensure the right balance between control and artistic independence, 

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

the ECOC, which is limited to €1.5m Melina Mercouri Prize per ECOC. 

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

year. 

16  Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/sites/creative-europe/files/library/capitals-

culture-city-own-guide_en.pdf 

8 

 
 
 
                                                            
keep the commitment of cultural stakeholders, embed European co-operation into the cultural 
programme while also actively pursuing widening participation in culture, and plan legacy at 
an early stage17. The Commission agrees with the evaluator's overall recommendation that the 
ECOC  Action  should  continue,  and  Decision  No  445/2014/EU  already  foresees  such  a 
continuation until 2033. At a more specific level, the evaluator recommends that cities gather 
and  analyse  big  data  and  that  the  ECOC  application  form  should  be  revised  to  see  how 
bidding cities plan to do that. The Commission, while recognizing the interest for host-cities 
to  make  a better use  of big  data, cannot  include in  the application form criteria that are  not 
explicitly  mentioned  in  the  Decision  governing  the  ECOC  Action.  It  will  however  explore 
how big data can be better addressed in its guidelines for evaluation as also recommended by 
the evaluator. 

Moreover,  the  Commission  shares  the  contractors'  recommendation  that  the  formal  and 
informal support provided by the monitoring panel during the development phase of an ECOC 
is of crucial importance and should be continued, including the visits to the designated cities. 

Finally,  regarding  the  recommendations  specifically  addressed  to  EU  institutions,  the 
Commission points out that, as recommended by the evaluator, the progress and monitoring 
reports  already  give  explicit  consideration  to  the  issues  covered  by  the  selection  criteria  set 
out in Decision No 445/2014/EU and that the cities' proposals for monitoring and evaluation 
are assessed at various times during the selection and monitoring procedures. 

17  See compendium of previous recommendations at: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-

europe/sites/creative-europe/files/library/ecoc-compendium-recommendations_en.pdf. 

9