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 2017 European Capitals of Culture (Pafos and Aarhus)
Date: 2019-06-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Commission
Subjects: Cyprus, Denmark, EU action, European cultural event, European symbol, capital city

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 11.6.2019 COM(2019) 266 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 2017 European Capitals of Culture (Pafos and Aarhus)              {SWD(2019) 203 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 2017 European Capitals of Culture (Pafos and Aarhus) 

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 year2 and reports on that evaluation 
to the relevant EU Institutions and bodies. 

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  grew  into  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  are 
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 2017 

In accordance with Decision No 1622/2006/EC, Cyprus and Denmark were the two Member 
States entitled to host an ECOC in 2017.  

The two-phased selection processes (shortlisting and final recommendation) were 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 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 

1  OJ L 304 of 3.11.2006, p. 1. 
2  Full  text  of  the  evaluation  at:  https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/sites/creative-europe/files/ecoc-2017-

evaluation-en.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). 

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). 

1 

 
 
                                                           
Decision  No  1622/2006/EC.  Three  cities  in  Cyprus  and  two  cities  in  Denmark  entered  the 
competition. The pre-selection and final selection rounds took place respectively in 2011 and 
in 2012 and at at the end of the process the panel recommended that the title of ECOC 2017 
be awarded to Pafos and Aarhus6. The two cities were formally designated by the Council of 
the European Union in May 20137. 

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 Pafos and Aarhus attended two formal monitoring meetings 
convened  by  the  Commission,  in  autumn  2014  and  spring  2016.  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 2016. 

2.3. 

The themes and focus of the two ECOC 2017 

Pafos  in  Western  Cyprus  dates  back  to  the  Neolithic  Period.  The  city  and  the  country  as  a 
whole are at the crossroads of the Eastern Mediterranean making this region a multicultural 
melting pot. With a population of only 35,000, Pafos is also one of the smallest ECOC ever. 
The  central  idea  of  the  Pafos  2017  programme  was  based  on  the  ancient  tradition,  when 
culture developed in open spaces. The ‘Open Culture Factory’ (a term featuring heavily in the 
bid) that formed an important part of the cultural programme promised to travel to all areas 
and communities in Pafos, to display the activities of the Pafos2017 programme and to create 
a common space of communication and cooperation for everyone. This central idea was not 
only  about  open  spaces  but  also  about  openness  in  terms  of  tolerance,  acceptance, 
encouragement and integration of different cultures, ideas and beliefs.  

The  aim  of  the  ECOC  in  Pafos  was  expressed  in  its  motto  “Linking  Continents  –  Bridging 
Cultures”.  The  motto  reflected  the  need  for  interconnection  and  bridging  the  separated 
inhabitants  of  Pafos  including  permanent  residents,  visitors  and  immigrants.  It  also 
highlighted how important it was to interconnect the scattered areas of the city and to turn the 
entire  province  of  Pafos  into  a  common  space  shared  by  all  its  citizens,  both  literally  and 
metaphorically.  Finally,  it  stressed  the  need  to  bridge  the  differences  between  the  Greek 
Cypriot and the Turkish Cypriot communities through various projects. 

Aarhus was founded in the 8th century as a fortified Viking settlement in a natural harbour at 
the mouth of a river. In the past ten years, Aarhus has grown considerably, adding more than 
15,000 new residents to its population (of now 335 000 inhabitants) and creating 20,000 new 
jobs, mostly within the knowledge, service and innovation industries. It is also the largest city 
of  the  Central  Denmark  Region,  one  of  five  regions  created  in  2007.  Aarhus’s  ECOC 
application emerged as part of a bigger plan for the development of the city, which focussed 
on construction and infrastructure developments around the seafront, including “Dokk1” – a 
new  public  library  and  culture  centre  featuring  artistic  installations.  The  application  also 

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

7 

http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/actions/capitals-culture_en.htm. 
 Council  Decision  No  2013/286/EU  of  17  May  2013  designating  the  European  Capital  of  Culture  for  the  year  2017  in 
Denmark and in Cyprus and the European Capital of Culture for the year 2018 in Malta (OJ L 162, 14.6.2013). 

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). 

2 

 
 
                                                           
aimed  to  promote  more  cohesive  governance  within  the  Central  Denmark  Region,  which 
encompasses 19 municipalities. 

Aarhus  2017  presented  itself  under  the  narrative  “Let’s  Rethink”.  The  overall  aim  was  to 
change mind-sets in the city, in the Central Denmark Region and in Europe through cultural 
experiences and to highlight the three core values of sustainability, diversity and democracy, 
which are key to the EU project. The cultural programme was structured around four seasons, 
each of which opened with an outdoor, large-scale MEGA event. Each season  also featured 
three Full Moon events, on a smaller scale than the MEGA events. Aside from these events, 
the  programme  presented  more  than  350  artistic  and  cultural  projects,  conferences  and 
festivals. 

3. 

EVALUATION  

3.1. 

The terms of the evaluation 

The evaluation explores the implementation and delivery of the two ECOC 2017 programmes 
throughout  their  lifecycle,  from  their  early  inception  through  to  sustainability  and  legacy 
considerations. 

Specifically, it assesses the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of the two ECOC 2017. It 
also  examines  the  EU  added  value  and  the  coherence  and  complementarity  of  the  ECOC 
Action9  to  other  EU  initiatives.  Finally,  it  draws  conclusions  emerging  from  the  two 
experiences.  

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  ECOC  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  previous  evaluations,  the  intervention  logic  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 ECOC 
Action10.  

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.  Contrary  to 
previous  ECOC  evaluations,  this  evaluation  also  included  a  Public  Consultation, 
which  was  an  open  inclusive  and  accessible  route  through  which  people  and 
organisations could feed their thoughts and opinions into the ECOC evaluation; 

9   Decision No 1622/2006/EC. 
10  See previous evaluation reports at: http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/actions/capitals-culture_en.htm. 

3 

 
 
                                                           
-  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. 

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,  as  was  already  highlighted  in  last  year’s  report,  the  lack  of  baseline  data  to  be 
integrated in a comparative study of the city prior to the win of the title, at the start of title-
year and after the implementation of the ECOC year continue to be a limitation. These data 
are crucial to get a balanced perspective, supported by a cogent and ample data basis, of the 
actual impact of the ECOC Action on a city.  

However the budget  allocated to  the evaluation  work (approximately 75  000 € each  year)  – 
which is proportionate to the modest level of EU funding directly provided by the EU to each 
ECOC  host  (€1.5m  Melina  Mercouri  Prize)  –  doesn't  make  it  possible  to  have  a  before 
('baseline')  study  and  an  after-picture  ('ex-post')  study.  An  additional  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, the 
lack  of  diversity  of  data  sources  translates  into  a  lesser  dependability,  for  instance,  in  the 
process of proving the objective outcomes and impacts of ECOC on widening participation in 
culture. 

Furthermore, as a consultation tool, the public consultation – tested for the first time for an ex 
post  ECOC  evaluation  –  provided  a  relatively  narrow  set  of  findings  as  only  76  responses 
were received overall. This is perhaps understandable as completing the survey required the 
respondent to know (and ideally to have attended) ECOC activities in the cities. 

Therefore,  the  report  and  its  conclusions  are  substantiated  by  an  ample  basis  of  qualitative 
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 and in  its 
previous reports on ex post evaluations of ECOC.  

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  –  which  are  the  main  funders  and  beneficiaries  of  the  ECOC  Action  and 
better  positioned  to  have  baseline  data  and  gather  primary  data  on  the  impact  of  the  title  – 
become the main implementers of the evaluation process. 

This new obligation puts on the ECOC – instead of the Commission – to perform an ex post 
evaluation  of  their  title-year  will  however  apply  only  from  the  2020  titles.  For  the  ECOC 
2018  and  2019,  the  Commission  will  continue  carrying  out  its  own  evaluation  with  the 
limitations  described  above.  At  a  later  stage,  the  Commission  will  also  carry  out  an  overall 

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. 

4 

 
 
 
                                                           
evaluation  encompassing several  ECOC  years, enabling to  measure the long-term impact  of 
the ECOC Action, as indicated in Decision No 445/2014/EU. 

It  is  also  worth  underlining  that  Pafos  and  Aarhus  commissioned  local  research  activities  – 
respectively  by  hand  of  the  Neapolis  University  Pafos  and  Aarhus  University  –  to  improve 
their understanding of the impact of the ECOC and that the outcomes of these activities fed 
into the Commission’s evaluation whenever possible. 

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 informed picture of the ECOC 2017 Action. 

4. 

4.1. 

MAIN FINDINGS 

Relevance of the ECOC Action and the ECOC 2017 

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,  which  is  consistent  with  the  aims  of 
Decision No 1622/2006/EC. 

The evaluation concludes that although Pafos's programme was narrower in scope than most 
past  ECOC  programmes  (largely  due  to  the  small  size  of  the  city),  it  succeeded  in 
emphasising  the  cultural  heritage  of  Pafos  in  a  European  context,  the  (need  for) 
interconnections  between  people  within  the  city  and  beyond,  as  well  as  the  need  for 
intercultural dialogue. It has also helped both local and foreign audiences to learn more about 
Cypriot culture and become more familiar with other cultures and traditions. 

Aarhus articulated a programme with sharp long-term objectives, highlighting the diversity of 
European  cultures  and  coherently  interacting  with  the  wider  city  development  strategy;  it 
focused  on  further  increasing  awareness  and  visibility  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  had  an  important 
regional dimension in the context of the newly created Central Denmark Region. 

4.2. 

Efficiency 

Overall, the available evidence 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  direct  monetary  contribution  that  host  cities  receive  from  the 
European  Union,  is  modest  (€1,5m  per  ECOC)  in  comparison  to  the  overall  costs  of  an 
ECOC:  the  operating  expenditure  of  the  ECOC  2017  were  of  approximately  €66,7m  for 
Aarhus and €8,5m for Pafos. 

At city level, both Pafos and Aarhus established strong and successful delivery mechanisms 
and governance arrangements, and both used mainly national, regional and local but also – to 
a smaller extent – EU funds to implement cultural programmes of high artistic quality that add 
up to their yearly regular cultural activites. 

5 

 
 
Nevertheless,  the  evaluation  also  shows that hosting  an ECOC remains a resource-intensive 
choice implying a long-term commitment all along the preparatory years that can be difficult 
to keep:  for instance, Pafos saw a significant  reduction in its actual budget compared to the 
original bid stage (a fall of over 60%), driven by an overly ambitious original proposal, but 
also a financial crisis putting a tight pressure on public budget sectors at all territorial levels. 

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.  The 
performance of Pafos against its objectives was however limited by the strong reduction in its 
budget compared to the figure proposed in the application. 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. 

Both  ECOC  enhanced  the  range,  diversity  and  European  dimension  of  the  cultural  offer  in 
their  respective  cities  during  2017  and  presented  cultural  programmes  that  were  more 
extensive, diverse, innovative and international compared to the cultural baseline offering in 
previous  years.  As  an  example,  442  core  projects  were  implemented  in  Aarhus  and  168  in 
Pafos,  most  of  them  going  beyond  the  two  cities’  usual  yearly  programming.  Moreover,  in 
Aarhus, 1200 international artists contributed to the programme and 79% of projects featured 
an  international  partner  and/or  a  cultural  exchange  within  Europe  while  in  Pafos  29%  of 
projects  were  international  productions  and  a  further  11%  were  collaborations  between 
Cypriot and international  artists. Both  ECOC widened access  to  and participation in  culture 
during 2017, although the evidence is stronger in Aarhus than in Pafos with a total audience 
of 3,3 million. Both ECOC have helped strengthen the cultural capacity of the local cultural 
and creative sectors and their links with other sectors. As an example, Aarhus 2017 increased 
cultural  sponsorship  and  brought  positive  economic  benefits  to  the  cultural  and  creative 
sectors.  Pafos  2017  strengthened  audience  development,  served  as  a  catalyst  for  cultural 
infrastructure  investments  and  developed  the  skills  and  capacity  of  local  cultural  operators. 
The  ECOC  raised  the  international  profile  of  Aarhus  through  culture,  whilst  in  Pafos,  the 
ECOC helped make audiences for culture more international. 

Finally, the evaluation comes to the conclusion that the two 2017 ECOC offer very different 
potentials  for  the  sustainability  of  their  activities  and  of  improved  cultural  governance.  For 
Aarhus,  the  ECOC  project  generated  potential  for  long-term  impact  through  the  skills  and 
experience gained by cultural operators, the involvement of citizens, increased audiences and 
greater  international  profile.  Pafos  will  also  see  some  long-term  benefits  but  little  has  been 
done to ensure these benefits are maximised. 

4.4. 

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) or tourism (the number of hotel bed-nights 
increased by 10.9% in 2017 in Aarhus region, for example). 

The ECOC Action is also coherent with  and complementary to the European Structural and 
Investment Funds, depending on the context of each city holding the title. In the case of Pafos, 
ERDF  was  used  in  the  years  leading  up  to  2017  to  co-finance  essential  investments  in  the 
refurbishment of the city centre and renovation of key venues, such as a theatre and a cinema.  

6 

 
 
4.5. 

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  the  ECOC  Action  as  it  acts  as  a 
significant  generator  of  interest  from  stakeholders  not  only  from  the  city  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. 

CONCLUSIONS 

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.  It  could  be 
assessed at a later stage within the framework of the above-mentioned long-term evaluation. 

The  Commission  also  concludes  that  the  programmes  implemented  by  the  two  2017  title-
holders were consistent with the objectives of the ECOC Action; they reflected its European 
dimension, involved local residents and stakeholders and widened access to and participation 
in culture during 2017, although the evidence is stronger in Aarhus than in Pafos due  – to a 
great extent – to the limited budget on which the latter operated. They also helped strengthen 
the  cultural  capacity  of  the  local  cultural  and  creative  sectors  and  their  links  with  other 
sectors. The ECOC raised the international profile of Aarhus through culture, whilst in both 
cities the ECOC helped make audiences for culture more international. In the two  cases, the 
ECOC  year  may  lead  to  some  legacies  (both  physical  and  intangible),  although  a  proper 
legacy planning is lacking in Pafos, illustrating that legacy will always be a challenge in small 
ECOC host cities. 

These  main  findings  confirm  those  that  emerged  from  the  2016  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. 

A limited number of elements of improvement have emerged from the assessement, such as 
the need to  establish institutional  arrangements in good time, to  build a stable and effective 
delivery  team  benefitting  from  a  strong  political  support,  to  ensure  national  buy-in  and 
involvement, to  ensure the right  balance between control  and  artistic independence, to keep 
the  commitment  of  cultural  stakeholders,  to  embed  European  co-operation  into  the  cultural 
programme while also actively pursuing widening participation in culture, and to plan legacy 
at an early stage13.  

The scope and length of the yearly evaluation the Commission carries out in accordance with 
Article  12  of  Decision  No  1622/2006/EC  does  not  allow  consideration  of  the  long-term 
impact of ECOC. The Commission is therefore willing to review such impact as part of the 
evaluation  exercise  foreseen  in  Article 16  of  Decision  No  2014/445/EU.  This  evaluation 
“shall focus on placing all past European Capitals of Culture in a European context, allowing 

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

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

7 

 
 
                                                           
comparisons  to  be  drawn  and  useful  lessons  to  be  learned  for  future  European  Capitals  of 
Culture, as well as for all European cities”. Building on the results of the study published in 
December  2017  on  "European  Capitals  of  Culture:  Success  Strategies  and  Long-Term 
Effects"14, it will allow to analyse long-term impact. 

Furthermore,  more  work  is  to  be  done  to  help  designated  and  future  ECOC  in  their 
approaches  to  evaluation,  including  on  the  use  of  big  data.  To  do  that,  the  Commission 
updated  in  mid  2018  its  guidelines  for  cities’  own  evaluations,  which  now  also  cover  the 
notion of “big data”15. Furthermore it published in September 2018 a call for tenders with the 
view  to  creating  a  pool  of  expertise  and  providing  capacity  building  services  and  peer-
learning activities to upcoming ECOC delivery teams. Training packages foreseen in the call 
include the topic of monitoring and evaluation. The contractor will be selected in the first half 
of 2019. 

Regarding monitoring arrangements, the Commission points out it has an ongoing discussion 
with  the panel  on how best  to  ensure that  future  ECOC honour commitments made in their 
applications, in  particular their financial commitments. The progress  and monitoring reports 
produced  by  the  panel  already  give  explicit  consideration  to  the  issues  covered  by  the 
selection criteria set out in Decision No 445/2014/EU. 

Finally, concerning the visibility of the ECOC pages on Europa, the Commission highlights 
that  it  is  in  the  process  of  revising  both  its  Culture  and  Creative  Europe  websites  and  that 
consideration will be given to better present the ECOC Action in this context. 

14  See: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/513985/IPOL-CULT_ET(2013)513985_EN.pdf. 
15 See: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/sites/creative-europe/files/library/guidelines-for-cities-own-

evaluations-modmai18.doc.pdf. 

8