COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Evaluation of the European Heritage Label Action 2018-2024 Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Evaluation of the European Heritage Label Action 2018-2024
Date: 2025-07-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Commission
Subjects: EU initiative, European identity, European symbol, cultural cooperation, cultural heritage, heritage protection, history of Europe, public awareness campaign

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 9.7.2025  SWD(2025) 176 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  Evaluation of the European Heritage Label Action 2018-2024 Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Evaluation of the European Heritage Label Action 2018-2024 {COM(2025) 366 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? . 4 

3.  HOW  HAS  THE  SITUATION  EVOLVED  OVER  THE  EVALUATION 

PERIOD? ....................................................................................................... 19 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) ................................. 23 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ........... 53 

ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ................................................... 59 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ........... 61 

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS 

ON ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) .... 64 

ANNEX IV. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT .. 112 

1/120 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

the programme 

Creative Europe  

the EHL  

DG EAC 

EACEA 

European Heritage Label Action 

Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture 

European Education and Culture Executive Agency 

EHL BUREAU  

European Heritage Label BUREAU 

NC 

National Coordinator  

2/120 

 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation/fitness check 

This Staff Working Document supports the Commission’s report on the evaluation of the 

European Heritage Label (EHL) action for the period 2018-2024, as required by Decision 

No 1194/2011/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. The EHL action aims 

to  strengthen  European  citizens'  sense  of  belonging  to  the  Union,  promote  intercultural 

dialogue,  and  raise  the  profile  of  heritage  sites  that  have  played  significant  roles  in 

European  history,  culture,  and  integration.  In  line  with  Article  18  of  the  Decision,  the 

Commission is mandated to ensure an external, independent evaluation of the action every 

six years. 

The evaluation examines the action’s implementation and impact, focusing on key areas 

such  as  the  efficiency  of  processes,  the  number  of  sites  involved,  the  expansion  of  its 

geographical  scope,  and  the  potential  for  future  improvements.  It  assesses  whether  the 

action has met its objectives, evaluates its continued relevance in the current EU context, 

and considers the role of the EU intervention in achieving these objectives. The evaluation 

also explores how well the action aligns with broader EU policies and its EU added value, 

particularly  in  fostering  a shared European cultural  identity and facilitating cooperation 

among EU Member States. 

As  per  the  European  Commission’s  Better  Regulation  Guidelines  and  the  Better 

Regulation  Toolbox,  this  evaluation  is  structured  around  the  five  compulsory  criteria: 

effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence,  EU  added  value,  and  relevance.  It  provides  a 

systematic  analysis  of  the  EHL  action,  exploring  the  successes  and  challenges  of  the 

initiative.  The  evaluation  considers  both  the  current  state  of  the  action,  and  the  lessons 

learned,  offering  an  independent  judgment  based  on  evidence  gathered  through  various 

sources, including feedback from stakeholders and expert assessments. 

The report also  outlines recommendations  to  improve the EHL’s implementation  in  the 

future and to ensure its continued relevance and impact beyond 2025. The insights gained 

from this evaluation will directly inform the Commission’s preparation for the next phase 

of the action. 

3/120 

 
 
2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1   Description of the intervention and its objectives 

2.1.1 Description of the Action 

The  European  Heritage  Label  (EHL)  is  a  symbolic  action  established  by  the  European 

Union to recognise and celebrate Europe’s shared cultural heritage. 

The EHL was launched in 2006 as an intergovernmental action under the leadership of 

France, Spain and Hungary with the goal to identify and designate sites that played a key 

role in building and uniting Europe, and to promote the European context of the selected 

sites. By 2010, the Label had been assigned to 68 sites across 18 EU Member States and 

Switzerland.  Participating  countries  designated  sites  independently,  based  on  their  own 

judgement and interpretation of ‘Europeanness’1.  

According to the Impact Assessment that preceded the Commission initiative in 2010, the 

intergovernmental  selection  procedures  had  resulted  in  disparities  between  the  sites 

labelled,  their  relevance  and  activities.  In  addition,  the  EHL  lacked  visibility  among 

stakeholders, and little progress had been made in the initiative’s educational dimension. 

On  request  from  participating  Member  States,  the  EHL  was  transformed  into  a  formal 

action  of  the  EU,  with  the  aim  of  strengthening  coordination  between  the  states,  and 

developing “common, clear, and transparent selection criteria”2. 

The  current  EU  action  for  the  European  Heritage  Label  was  established  in  2011  by 

Decision No. 1194/2011/EU3. 

Geared up at the European Level, the initiative aims to strengthen the sense of belonging 

among European citizens by highlighting and promoting the heritage sites that have played 

a significant role in the history, culture, and integration of Europe. The Label is a project-

based  action,  focusing  on  cultural  landmarks  that  hold  a  particular  significance  to  the 

identity of the European Union, and intend to further promote their European dimension 

1 Commission Staff Working Document. Summary of the Impact Assessment. Accompanying document to the Proposal 
for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Union action for the European 
Heritage Label, 9 March 2010, SEC(2010) 198, 9.3.2010, p. 2 [hereinafter, ‘Impact Assessment’ 

2 Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Union action for the 
European Heritage Label, 9 March 2010, COM (2010) 76 final, p. 3 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Proposal for the 
European Heritage Labe]]. 

3  Decision  No.  1194/2011/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  November  2011  establishing  a 

European Union action for the European Heritage Label. OJ L303/1, 22.11.2011 

4/120 

 
 
and  foster  a  greater  appreciation  for  the  shared  values  and  history  of  Europe.  In  this 

context,  the  action  plays  an  essential  role  in  unifying  citizens  from  diverse  national 

backgrounds and enhancing their sense of connection to the European project.  

The procedure for attributing the European Heritage Label is carried out in two stages: at 

the national level a maximum of two candidate sites are pre-selected every two years. Out 

of these and based upon the recommendations made by a European Panel of independent 

experts4, the European Commission decides to attribute the European Heritage Label to a 

maximum of one site per participating Member State per year.  

As  of  2024,  a  total  of  67  sites  and  275  locations  across  22  Member  States  have  been 

awarded  the  European  Heritage  Label,  encompassing  a  diverse  range  of  locations  that 

embody the rich cultural tapestry of the continent.  

To ensure that designated sites continue to meet the criteria for which they were selected, 

the  European  Commission  conducts  regular  monitoring  exercises.  The  first  monitoring 

year took place in 2016, examining sites awarded in 2013 and 2014. The second monitoring 

occurred in 2020, assessing sites that received the Label prior to 2019. In 2024, the third 

monitoring  cycle  evaluated  the  performance  of  all  67  European  Heritage  Label  sites 

between 2020 and 2024. 

2.1.2 Objectives  

As outlined in Article 3 of Decision No 1194/2011/EU, the action shall contribute to the 

following general objectives: 

a)  strengthen European citizens' sense of belonging to the Union, in particular that of 

young  people,  based  on  shared  values  and  elements  of  European  history  and 

cultural heritage, as well as an appreciation of national and regional diversity. 

b)  strengthen intercultural dialogue.  

4   A European panel of independent experts has been established to carry out the selection and monitoring 
at Union level. It ensures that the criteria are properly applied by the sites across the Member States. The 
European panel consists of 13 members, four of whom have been appointed by European Parliament, four 
by the Council, four by the Commission and one by the Committee of the Regions, in accordance with 
their  respective  procedures.  The  members  are  independent  experts  with  substantial  experience  and 
expertise in the fields relevant to the objective of the action.  

5/120 

 
 
 
The  primary  objective  of  the  EHL  is  to  contribute  to  the  strengthening  of  European 

identity, particularly among young people, by fostering a deeper understanding of Europe’s 

common  history  and  shared  values.  It  encourages  citizens  to  reflect  on  the  historical 

moments and cultural landmarks that have shaped the European Union. By focusing on the 

symbolic value of heritage sites that represent both national and European histories, the 

EHL  contributes  to  raising  awareness  about  the  richness  of  Europe’s  cultural  diversity 

while  underscoring  the  importance  of  unity  in  diversity.  The  initiative  aims  to  create 

opportunities for citizens to engage with the cultural heritage of other Member States, thus 

deepening their understanding of European history and encouraging a sense of common 

belonging to the Union. 

Another key goal of the EHL is to promote intercultural dialogue and mutual understanding 

between  European  citizens.  By  celebrating  the  diverse  yet  interconnected  histories  of 

European nations, the EHL encourages an exchange of knowledge and fosters respect for 

different  cultures  and  traditions.  In  turn,  this  contributes  to  greater  harmony  and  social 

cohesion across Europe. In the long run, the action seeks to break down barriers between 

communities, allowing citizens to discover shared narratives and histories that transcend 

national  borders.  Through  its  focus  on  common  European  values  such  as  democracy, 

human  rights,  and  the  rule  of  law,  the  EHL  reinforces  the  values  at  the  heart  of  the 

European Union and helps to promote peace, solidarity, and cooperation. 

In  order  to  achieve  the  aforementioned  objectives,  the  action  shall  seek  to  attain  the 

following intermediate objectives: 

a)  stressing the symbolic value and raising the profile of sites which have played a 

significant  role  in  the  history  and  culture  of  Europe  and/or  the  building  of  the 

Union. 

b)  increasing European citizens' understanding of the history of Europe and of their 

common  yet  diverse  cultural  heritage,  especially  in  relation  to  the  democratic 

values and human rights that underpin the process of European integration. 

A  central  feature  of  the  EHL  is  the  visibility  it  provides  to  European  heritage  sites, 

particularly  those  that  have  been  significant  in  the  development  and  integration  of  the 

European Union. The Label aims to raise the profile of these sites, helping them attract 

visitors, foster local pride, and generate positive economic impacts. It serves as a tool to 

enhance the visibility of sites that may otherwise be under-recognised, spotlighting their 

6/120 

 
European  dimension  and  showcasing  their  historical  and  cultural  importance.  This  is 

crucial not only for the broader public’s understanding of Europe’s shared heritage but also 

for  promoting  sustainable  tourism,  which  can  generate  economic  benefits  for  the 

communities surrounding the sites. Furthermore, the EHL seeks to enhance accessibility 

to these sites, ensuring that they are open to a wide range of visitors, including younger 

generations, tourists, and marginalised groups. 

In addition to promoting visibility, the EHL encourages the development of high-quality 

educational  programs  that  engage  citizens  in  learning  about  European  heritage.  These 

programs are designed to  help  individuals, particularly  young people, develop  a deeper 

connection  to  the  history,  culture,  and  values  of  Europe.  The  educational  initiatives 

connected  to  the  EHL  provide  an  opportunity  for  citizens  to  explore  the  European 

dimension  of  the  designated  sites  through  various  interactive  methods,  including 

exhibitions, workshops, and educational resources. These initiatives serve as an essential 

tool  in  fostering  understanding,  promoting  critical  thinking,  and  encouraging  dialogue 

around European identity, democratic values, and shared history. 

Figure 1 shows the Action’s intervention logic. The main elements of each specific 

objective as implemented during 2018-2024 are explained below. 

At a more operational level, as enshrined Article 3 of the Decision basing the action5, the 

EHL seeks to elevate the sites’ actions and profile through a set of well-defined objectives. 

These objectives are core to the selection and monitoring of the sites. 

a)  highlighting their European significance. 

b) 

raising European citizens’ awareness  of their common cultural  heritage,  especially 

that of young people. 

c) 

facilitating  the  sharing  of  experiences  and  exchanges  of  best  practices  across  the 

Union. 

d) 

increasing and/or improving access for all, especially young people. 

e) 

increasing  intercultural  dialogue,  especially  among  young  people,  through  artistic, 

cultural and historical education. 

5  Decision  No.  1194/2011/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  November  2011 

establishing a European Union action for the European Heritage Label. OJ L303/1, 22.11.2011 

7/120 

 
 
f) 

fostering synergies between cultural heritage on one hand and contemporary creation 

and creativity on the other. 

g) 

contributing to the attractiveness and the economic and sustainable development of 

regions, in particular through cultural tourism. 

8/120 

 
 
 
Figure 1. Intervention logic of the EHL action 

9/120 

 
 
10/120 

 
 
One of the primary aims of the EHL is to strengthen the capacity of the heritage sector and 

increase  cooperation  between  different  cultural  and  heritage  sectors.  Through 

collaboration among heritage sites, the initiative facilitates the exchange of best practices, 

expertise,  and  knowledge,  contributing  to  the  overall  enhancement  of  heritage 

management and preservation across Europe. The initiative emphasises the importance of 

capacity-building,  helping  designated  sites  to  improve  their  organizational  practices, 

enhance visitor engagement, and develop effective conservation strategies. The capacity-

building efforts are also designed to ensure that heritage sites can participate effectively in 

the EHL network and work collaboratively to amplify the action’s impact. The goal is to 

build  a  community  of  heritage  professionals  and  practitioners  who  are  committed  to 

preserving  European  heritage  and  promoting  its  values  in  a  sustainable  and  inclusive 

manner. 

The EHL is also concerned with promoting cooperation and networking among designated 

sites, which in turn fosters transnational collaboration. This networking is crucial for the 

development  of  synergies  and  the  creation  of  a  unified  European  heritage  community. 

Through this cooperation, heritage sites can share resources, engage in joint projects, and 

create lasting partnerships with other cultural institutions and educational organizations. 

These transnational efforts not only help strengthen the European dimension of heritage 

but also enable sites to play a more active role in addressing common challenges, such as 

climate change, tourism management, and conservation issues. 

While the main focus of the EHL is on cultural heritage, the initiative also contributes to 

broader societal goals, such as the promotion of sustainable tourism, local development, 

and  community  engagement.  The  action  seeks  to  ensure  that  heritage  sites  serve  as 

platforms for promoting local development and creating long-term economic benefits for 

the communities they serve. Through the integration of sustainable tourism practices, the 

EHL  encourages  heritage  sites  to  engage  with  local  stakeholders,  including  businesses, 

local  authorities, and cultural  organizations, in  ways that foster economic growth  while 

ensuring the preservation of cultural assets for future generations. 

To achieve these diverse objectives, the EHL action operates at multiple levels: the EU 

level, national level, and site/community level. At the EU level, the activities focus on the 

overall  coordination  and  management  of  the  action,  including  the  establishment  of 

selection criteria and the facilitation of networking opportunities. The national level plays 

11/120 

 
a vital role in supporting the implementation of the action, particularly in the pre-selection 

phase  and  the  promotion  of  EHL  sites  within their  borders.  At  the  site  and  community 

level, activities are centred around heritage management, educational programming, visitor 

engagement, and the development of local partnerships. 

Ultimately,  the  European  Heritage  Label  initiative  aims  to  create  a  lasting  impact  by 

strengthening European cultural identity and improving the public’s understanding of the 

shared heritage that unites Europe. It seeks to foster a sense of pride among citizens for 

their cultural heritage and to encourage a more inclusive, informed, and engaged European 

public.  Through  its  focus  on  visibility,  capacity-building,  cooperation,  and  intercultural 

dialogue,  the  EHL  is  designed  to  contribute  to  the  long-term  sustainability  of  Europe’s 

cultural heritage while reinforcing the values that bind European citizens together. In this 

way, the EHL supports not only the preservation of tangible and intangible heritage but 

also the continued growth of a shared European identity grounded in history, culture, and 

mutual respect. 

2.2 Points of comparison  

This evaluation provides a thorough overview of the evolution of the EHL action’s results, 

aligned with the conclusions of the 2018 evaluation. The evaluation identifies key points 

of comparison between the two evaluation periods (2011-2017 and 2018-2024) in order to 

contextualise its findings and trace the overall development of the initiative. The analysis 

focused on determining whether certain issues in the implementation of the action were 

only  present  in  the  first  evaluation  (suggesting  improvements),  were  identified  in  both 

evaluations  (indicating  ongoing  challenges),  or  emerged  in  the  second  evaluation 

(highlighting  new  issues  related  to  changes  in  governance,  processes,  or  stakeholder 

needs).  Additionally,  the  comparison  examined  whether  specific  issues  were  unique  to 

sites designated in either evaluation period or whether they required more time to address, 

such as the development of European narratives or the expansion of multilingual offerings. 

These  insights  were  used  to  assess  the  progress  of  the  EHL  action  and  inform  targeted 

recommendations  for  its  improvement.  Since  most  of  the  indicators  are  qualitative  and 

there is limited comparable quantitative data, a benchmarking approach was not applicable.  

Figure 2 displays the points of comparison between the 2011-2017 Evaluation Period and 

the 2018-2014 Evaluation Period, resolving around the five similar criteria.

12/120 

 
Table 1. Points of comparison 

Criteria 

Indicator 

Report of 2011-2017 

Report of 2018-2024 evaluation period 

evaluation period 

The  extent 

to  which  EHL 

continues 

to  work 

towards 

achieving its general objectives 

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
c
e
f
f

E

Progress  in  fostering  a  stronger 

Observed significant advancements, particularly through the 

sense  of  belonging 

to 

the 

enhancement of educational programmes, events addressing 

European Union among citizens, 

European  themes,  and  enhanced  efforts  to  engage  young 

emphasising  the  need  for  long-

people, with 86% of sites implementing diverse educational 

term  impact  assessment. 75% of 

activities. 

site 

coordinators 

reported 

challenges 

in 

developing 

educational programmes. 

The  extent  to  which  the  sites 

All 

sites 

have 

effectively 

All  sites  have  effectively  contributed  to  their  specific 

continue  to  contribute  to  the 

contributed 

to 

their  specific 

objectives. 

achievement 

of 

site-specific 

objectives. 

objectives 

13/120 

 
 
 
Criteria 

Indicator 

Report of 2011-2017 

Report of 2018-2024 evaluation period 

evaluation period 

The  extent 

to  which 

sites 

Identified 

widespread 

Documented more structured initiatives, such as programmes 

demonstrate 

a 

better 

multilingualism at EHL sites but 

involving  migrants  and  cross-border  exchanges,  though  it 

understanding  of 

intercultural 

questioned 

whether 

this 

acknowledged  that  intercultural  dialogue  remains  an  area 

dialogue and provide activities in 

adequately  fostered  intercultural 

requiring  further  exploration.  Most  sites  made  deliberate 

different languages 

dialogue.  

efforts  to  ensure  their  materials  and  exhibitions  were 

accessible in multiple languages.  

The  extent  to  which  the  nature 

Highlighted 

significant 

Challenges  related  to  funding  persisted  but  also  new 

and  intensity  of  obstacles  (such 

challenges related to funding and 

obstacles  arose  following  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  While 

as  lack  of  human  and  financial 

staffing limitations. 

the  pandemic  disrupted  traditional  activities,  it  also  led  to 

resources) experienced by sites in 

implementing  their  work  plans 

have evolved 

innovative  adaptations  such  as  the  use  of  virtual  tours  and 

online workshops. 

The  extent  to  which  EHL  serves 

Noted the nascent nature of peer 

Significant progress in developing the EHL ‘community of 

as a ‘community of practice’ and 

collaboration among EHL sites. 

practice’, particularly through the establishment of the EHL 

encouraged 

peer-to-peer 

Bureau. 

collaboration 

14/120 

 
Criteria 

Indicator 

Report of 2011-2017 

Report of 2018-2024 evaluation period 

evaluation period 

Level  of  balance  (geographic, 

Observed  uneven  representation 

Significant  progress  in  addressing  this  imbalance,  with 

thematic,  and 

type) 

in 

the 

across  Member  States 

and 

increased  participation  from  smaller  and  less-represented 

distribution of awarded sites 

thematic areas. 

Member States (sites awarded in 11 new Member States) and 

greater  diversity  in  the  types  of  heritage  represented, 

including industrial and intangible heritage.  

Level  of  different  actors  finding 

Nearly  half  (47%,  N=24)  of  site 

Larger  share  of  respondents  representing  sites  considered 

the 

selection 

criteria 

(incl. 

coordinators  found  the  criteria 

selection criteria to be clear (76%, N=16). 

European significance) clear 

clear. 

y
c
n
e
i
c
i
f
f

E

Level  of  transparency  of  pre-

Stakeholders 

involved 

in 

the 

Selection  procedures  at  both  national  and  EU  levels  were 

selection 

and 

selection 

consultation  programme  overall 

overall  widely  regarded  as  fair  and  transparent  by  all 

procedures 

(in 

particular, 

agreed  on  the  transparency  and 

stakeholders, while providing clearer and more user-focused 

application of Article 11-2) 

fairness 

of 

the 

selection 

feedback could help rejected applicants better understand the 

procedures. 

reasons  for  their  rejection  and  enhance  their  perception  of 

transparency. 

15/120 

 
 
Criteria 

Indicator 

Report of 2011-2017 

Report of 2018-2024 evaluation period 

evaluation period 

Smooth  operation  of  European 

•  The European Panel’s operations 

The  operation  of  the  European  Panel  was  effective  and 

Panel 

were  deemed  effective  and 

efficient,  with  recommendations  provided  for  future 

efficient,  with  key  areas  for 

improvements in light of the action's growth and its apparent 

improvement 

identified 

as 

capacity limits in carrying out the monitoring. 

streamlining 

the 

selection 

process, 

enhancing 

the 

evaluation  of  procedures,  and 

providing 

more 

detailed 

feedback to non-selected sites. 

Level  of  satisfaction  with  key 

Highlighted  inconsistencies  in 

roles  in  communication  and  the 

communication 

among 

frequency  of 

communication 

stakeholders. 

among different actors 

Significant improvements in this area, including enhanced 

coordination facilitated by the EHL Bureau and more 

frequent use of digital tools for information sharing. 

e
c
n
e
r
e
h
o
C

Level  of  coherence  between 

Identified 

limited 

synergies 

Highlighted 

strengthened 

collaborations, 

particularly 

different 

initiatives 

(Cultural 

between  the  EHL  and  other  EU 

through joint events and shared promotional activities, which 

cultural  initiatives,  such  as  the 

contributed to greater alignment with EU cultural policies. 

16/120 

 
 
Criteria 

Indicator 

Report of 2011-2017 

Report of 2018-2024 evaluation period 

evaluation period 

Routes of the Council of Europe 

European  Heritage  Days  and 

etc.) 

Cultural Routes. 

Level 

of 

cooperation 

and 

Limited 

level  of  networking 

Observed  substantial  progress  in  fostering  cooperation 

networking of sites 

between the EHL sites. 

through initiatives such as the EHL@Network and the EHL 

Bureau. 

e
u
l
a
v
d
e
d
d
a
U
E

EU added value to the visibility of 

Noted  limited  visibility  of  the 

Observed  significant  advancements, 

including 

targeted 

the Label 

EHL beyond local contexts. 

communication campaigns, enhanced digital strategies, and 

the establishment of the EHL Bureau. 

Developing  the  network  of  EHL 

Noted  that  networking  among 

Networking and international partnerships were identified as 

sites across Europe 

sites was emerging, with 55% of 

a key area of progress, with 72% of sites (N=42) reporting 

sites 

(N=29) 

reporting 

these as a significant benefit. 

involvement 

in  collaboration 

projects. 

17/120 

 
 
 
 
 
Criteria 

Indicator 

Report of 2011-2017 

Report of 2018-2024 evaluation period 

evaluation period 

e
c
n
a
v
e
l
e
R

Relevance  of  EHL  objectives  to 

Recognised the EHL’s alignment 

Provided concrete examples of alignment with EU priorities, 

the needs of the EU 

with  EU  cultural  objectives  but 

including  sustainability  initiatives,  digital  innovation,  and 

noted  limited  evidence  of  its 

efforts to engage underrepresented groups. 

broader relevance. 

Share  of  EHL  sites  developing 

Most 

sites  made 

significant 

Most sites have made significant progress in developing their 

their own European narrative 

progress in developing their own 

own European narrative, while further operationalisation of 

European narrative. 

the  European  significance  criterion  and  its  application 

remains an opportunity to enhance impact. 

18/120 

 
 
3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? 

Current state of play 

The  evaluation  notes  that  the  European  Heritage  Label  (EHL)  has  undergone 

significant  evolution  since  its  inception  in  2006  as  an  intergovernmental  initiative. 

Initially, the label was awarded to 68 sites across 19 countries by 2011. Under the current 

European  initiative,  the  label  has  been  awarded  to  67  sites  across  22  countries  (2024 

figures). 

Following  its  formalisation  at  the  EU  level,  the  initiative  experienced  substantial 

developments with the introduction of updated criteria and a standardised selection 

process, which were designed to further institutionalise and solidify the label across the 

European Union. This step provided the framework for the structured cycles that would 

define the EHL's operation, focusing on site selection, monitoring, and evaluation. Under 

this new structure, the first cycle (2013–2018) included transition years for site selection 

(2013-2014),  regular  selection  years  (2015  and  2017),  and  the  first  monitoring  year  in 

2016, alongside an independent evaluation conducted in 2018. Following the completion 

of  this  first  cycle,  the  second  cycle  (2019–2024)  continued  to  build  on  the  foundations 

established, with selection years in 2019, 2021, and 2023, and monitoring years scheduled 

for 2020 and 2024. This cycle culminated with the second external evaluation in 2024. The 

progress  of  the  EHL  throughout  the  evaluation  period  highlights  an  ongoing 

expansion and maturation of the initiative, although there have been fluctuations in its 

level of participation. Initially, the number of eligible Member States grew steadily, 

increasing from 5 in 2013 to 24 by 2017. With the inclusion of Finland in 2017, the number 

of eligible Member States expanded further to 25 by 2019. Despite this growth, however, 

the number of participating Member States and the number of applications fluctuated after 

2017, with  a decline in  participation  until  2023  when a modest recovery was  recorded. 

Specifically,  17  Member  States  submitted  candidate  sites  in  2023,  which  marked  a 

significant rebound compared to the prior selection years. This led to the awarding of 7 

new  sites,  contributing  to  a  12%  increase  in  the  total  number  of  labelled  sites  across 

Europe, bringing the total to 67. In terms of geographical representation, while the number 

of  awarded  Member  States  only  decreased  slightly  from  12  in  2021  to  11  in  2023,  the 

19/120 

 
 
geographical distribution of awarded sites continued to evolve. Central Europe witnessed 

notable  growth,  with  new  sites  from  Austria,  Czechia,  Poland,  Romania,  and  Slovenia 

being awarded the EHL Label. Table 2 below showcases an overview of each selection 

rounds. 

20/120 

 
 
 
Table 2. Results of the EHL selections (2013-2023) 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2017 

2019 

2021 

2023 

Eligible Member States 

Participating Member 

States 

Number of Applications 

Awarded Sites 

Awarded Member States 

Total number of sites 

after selection 

5 

5 

9 

4 

3 

4 

18 

13 

36 

16 

10 

20 

24 

11 

18 

9 

9 

24 

19 

25 

9 

9 

25 

25 

25 

15 

15 

17 

19 

10 

12 

21 

12 

12 

16 

7 

11 

29 

38 

48 

60 

67 

The  EHL  initiative  has  also  witnessed  a  significant  diversification  of  heritage 

typologies  during  the  evaluation  period.  This  includes  the  incorporation  of  sites  that 

highlight underwater archaeology, such as the Underwater Cultural Heritage of the Azores, 

and  those  reflecting  intangible  heritage,  such  as  ‘Zdravljica,’  which  represents  the 

European  Spring  of  Nations.  Additionally,  2019  marked  the  inclusion  of  several 

transnational sites, demonstrating an expanded vision for European heritage that embraces 

cross-border  narratives.  Notable  examples  include  the  Werkbund  Estates  1927–1932, 

which  span  across  four  Member  States  (Germany,  Poland,  Czechia,  and  Austria),  and 

Cisterscapes,  which  involves  six  Member  States  (Germany,  Austria,  Czechia,  Poland, 

Slovenia, and Spain). The inclusion of such sites has not only enriched the geographical 

scope  of  the  initiative  but  also  deepened  the  historical  representation  across  multiple 

periods,  including  prehistoric,  medieval,  modern,  and  contemporary  heritage.  Figure  2 

below displays the number of sites per countries participating in the initiative. 

As  of  the  2023  selection,  the  EHL  portfolio  comprises  67  sites,  distributed  across 

premodern,  modern,  and  contemporary  periods,  with  the  highest  concentration  of 

sites  representing  the  19th  century.  Specifically,  the  2023  selection  added  5  modern 

sites, contributing to a broader representation of the 19th century, a period of significant 

socio-political  change  across  Europe.  The  continued  expansion  of  the  EHL’s  historical 

timeline highlights the initiative’s capacity to provide a balanced and well-rounded view 

of Europe’s diverse heritage, from prehistoric settlements to contemporary landmarks. The 

21/120 

 
  
inclusion of more modern sites has further strengthened the EHL’s role as a platform for 

interpreting the legacies of nation-building and the formation of the European Union. 

Beyond the growth of the number and diversity of sites, another major development 

during  the  evaluation  period  has  been  the  establishment  and  strengthening  of  the 

EHL network. This network began with the EHL@Network initiative and evolved into 

the  EHL  Bureau,  which  was  formalised  in  2023.  The  Bureau  has  been  instrumental  in 

fostering collaboration among labelled sites, organising events like the European Heritage 

Label Days, and enhancing the overall visibility of the programme. Its efforts have been 

focused on creating a cohesive identity for EHL sites, transforming them from individual 

entities  into  an  interconnected  network  that  promotes  European  solidarity  and  a  shared 

sense of belonging to the Union. The EHL Bureau has facilitated numerous collaborative 

initiatives,  partnerships  with  educational  institutions,  and  thematic  projects  that  reflect 

European  values  such  as  mutual  learning,  cultural  exchange,  and  the  promotion  of 

European heritage through joint efforts. 

The transformation of the EHL into a dynamic network is underscored by the EHL 

and  the  increasing  number  of  collaborative  projects  that  promote  the  European 

dimension of cultural heritage.  These initiatives are supported by a strategic focus on 

strengthening the relationships between labelled sites, fostering cross-border partnerships, 

and raising awareness of the shared cultural values of the EU. The Panel has recommended 

that thematic collaborations within the network should be expanded further to increase the 

visibility and impact of the EHL. Proposals such as the creation of cultural routes, joint 

ticketing  schemes,  and  partnerships  with  Creative  Europe,  CERV  and  Horizon  Europe 

programmes  have  been  suggested  to  further  enhance  the  cultural  and  educational 

experiences  offered  by  EHL  sites.  These  collaborations  would  not  only  create 

opportunities  for  mutual  learning  but  also  deepen  public  engagement  with  European 

history and heritage. The aim is to encourage a critical reflection on Europe’s past while 

also inspiring forward-thinking discussions about its future.  

To ensure the continued growth and sustainability of the EHL network, the Panel has 

consistently  highlighted  the  importance  of  financial  support  and  organisational 

development.  The  2021  and  2023  selection  reports  emphasised  the  need  for  adequate 

resources  to  ensure  that  all  labelled  sites  can  participate  in  collaborative  projects  and 

benefit from networking opportunities. In this context, establishing the EHL Network as a 

22/120 

 
fully-fledged  entity  would  ensure  equal  access  to  resources,  enabling  the  network  to 

function effectively and cohesively. As the EHL continues to evolve, the establishment of 

this  permanent  structure  would  provide  the  necessary  framework  for  ensuring  that  all 

labelled sites can participate equally, and that the network’s impact is maximised across 

the European Union. The developments highlighted throughout the evaluation period 

reflect the ongoing commitment of the EHL initiative to promote European values, 

foster  intercultural  dialogue,  and  strengthen  the  connection  between  citizens  and 

their  shared  heritage.  With  its  expanded  network,  increasingly  diverse  sites,  and 

continued  support  for  collaborative  initiatives,  the  EHL  has  positioned  itself  as  a  key 

instrument  in  unifying  Europe’s  cultural  heritage,  making  it  an  essential  vehicle  for 

promoting the Union’s identity and solidarity. As the programme moves forward, it will 

continue to play a critical role in the European integration process, offering a platform for 

cross-border dialogue and the collective preservation of European heritage. 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

4.1.  TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE INTERVENTION SUCCESSFUL AND WHY 

Introduction: Overview of the Intervention  

The  European  Heritage  Label  (EHL)  is  a  European  Union  (EU)  initiative  that  aims  to 

enhance the recognition and visibility of heritage sites that embody significant European 

values and history. Established in 2011, the initiative seeks to link cultural heritage to a 

shared  European  identity,  promote  intercultural  dialogue,  and  encourage  greater 

participation and inclusion in heritage activities. The intervention is targeted at historical 

sites across Europe, ranging from tangible monuments to intangible cultural heritage, with 

the  goal  of  raising  awareness  of  their  European  significance.  The  evaluation  of  this 

intervention explores its success based on three primary criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, 

EU added Value, relevance  and coherence. These criteria are critical  for  assessing  how 

well the EHL has met its objectives, how efficiently it has been implemented, and how 

well it integrates with other EU, national, and international initiatives. This comprehensive 

assessment  draws  from  various  sources,  including  site-level  data,  national  reports, 

interviews with stakeholders, and survey results. 

Objectives of the EHL Intervention 

23/120 

 
As enshrined in the decision basing the action, he main objectives of the EHL are: 

-  To  promote  intercultural  dialogue  and  the  sharing  of  European  values  through 

heritage sites. 

-  To enhance the European dimension of these sites, encouraging them to tell stories 

that transcend national boundaries and highlight shared European history. 

-  To foster inclusion and engagement, especially among youth and underrepresented 

groups,  encouraging  them  to  connect  with  heritage  through  education  and 

participation. 

-  To  support  sustainability  and  responsible  heritage  management,  ensuring  that 

heritage sites contribute to the EU’s broader sustainability agenda, including the 

green transition. 

24/120 

 
 
4.1.1.  EFFECTIVENESS – TO WHAT EXTENT IS THE EHL EFFECTIVE IN FULFILLING 

EXPECTATIONS AND MEETING ITS OBJECTIVES? 

Key findings 

•  Significant progress was made across all EHL objectives, especially in enhancing the 

symbolic value of sites and raising their European profile. 

•  EHL  sites  report  tangible  benefits  from  their  participation,  particularly  in 

communicating their European dimension and fostering international partnerships. 

•  Collaboration  and  knowledge  sharing  were  strengthened  through  networks  such  as 

EHL@Network and the EHL Bureau. 

•  Progress towards the EHL’s objectives was influenced by external factors such as the 

COVID-19 pandemic, as well as resource constraints faced by the sites. 

•  Selection procedures at both national and EU levels were generally seen as fair and 

transparent, with national coordinators providing strong pre-selection support to sites. 

•  The European Panel  was effective in  evaluating  applications and was perceived as 

transparent and balanced, although feedback to non-selected sites could be improved. 

25/120 

 
 
ACHIEVEMENT OF OBJECTIVES 

Achievement of Objectives: The EU’s intervention has made significant progress toward 

its core objectives of enhancing the symbolic value of sites and boosting their European 

profile. Over the evaluation period (2018–2024), many EHL sites have reported tangible 

benefits  from  their  participation,  notably  through  the  increased  articulation  of  their 

European significance and the strengthening of international partnerships. 

Figure 3. Progress towards EHL objectives according to EHL sites 

Stressing the symbolic value and raising the profile of
sites which have played a significant role in the history
and culture of Europe (N=43)

Increasing European citizens' understanding of the
history of Europe and of their common yet diverse
cultural heritage (N=43)

23%

21%

Strengthening intercultural dialogue (N=43)

19%

49%

16%

12%

47%

51%

19%

12%

16%

12%

Strengthening European citizens' sense of belonging to
the Union, in particular that of young people (N=43)

9%

53%

23%

14%

To a large extent

To a moderate extent

To a limited extent Not at all Do not know / cannot answer

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: PPMI survey of heritage sites, question 27 ‘In your opinion, to what extent has the European Heritage Label 

progressed towards the achievement of its key objectives in the following areas during the period 2018-2024?’ 

Strengthening European citizens' sense of belonging to the Union, in particular that 

of  young  people,  based  on  shared  values  and  elements  of  European  history  and 

cultural heritage, as well as an appreciation of national and regional diversity. 

The European Heritage Label initiative has contributed significantly to raising awareness 

of  Europe’s  shared  cultural  heritage  by  integrating  European  themes  into  educational 

initiatives, exhibitions, and interactive engagement activities. According to survey data, 

65% of EHL sites incorporated European themes into their educational programmes and 

exhibitions. Finland’s Seminaarinmäki Campus has successfully engaged more than 8,000 

young people annually through structured educational initiatives that focus on European 

heritage and identity. Similarly, Italy’s Ventotene site hosts annual Seminars on European 

Federalism, attended by hundreds of young Europeans to explore democracy and freedom, 

key elements of European unity. 

26/120 

 
 
 
Additional  case  studies  further  highlight  the  success  of  this  objective.  For  instance, 

Poland’s  May  3rd  Constitution  site  integrates  workshops  and  guided  discussions  on 

democratic values and governance, attracting thousands of students annually. The Kalevala 

– Living Epic Heritage site in Finland has integrated multimedia resources to illustrate its 

connection  to  European  literary  traditions,  enhancing  young  visitors’  appreciation  of 

shared cultural narratives. Despite these efforts, challenges remain in measuring the long-

term impact of these initiatives on shaping European identity. Visitor surveys indicated 

that while 57% of respondents felt more connected to European heritage after visiting an 

EHL site, 23% remained uncertain about its broader European relevance. The formation 

of cultural identity is a complex and gradual process, making it difficult to quantify the 

effectiveness  of  EHL  interventions  in  fostering  a  deeper  sense  of  belonging  among 

European citizens. 

Strengthening intercultural dialogue. 

The  European  Heritage  Label  has  also  played  a  crucial  role  in  promoting  intercultural 

dialogue  by  encouraging  collaboration  between  different  heritage  sites  and  fostering 

knowledge exchange. The Architects of Peace exhibition, a joint effort between the Peace 

Palace in the Netherlands and the Mundaneum in Belgium, successfully brought together 

sites  to  promote  themes  of  reconciliation  and  unity.  Similarly,  the  Europe  Starts  Here 

comic  book  project,  which  involved  multiple  EHL  sites,  engaged  thousands  of  young 

Europeans in reflecting on shared history through visual storytelling. Further examples of 

successful initiatives include the La Paranza cooperative in Naples, which engages youth 

in  site  preservation  activities,  fostering  intercultural  dialogue  through  hands-on 

participation.  Another  example  is  the  Union  of  Lublin  site  in  Poland,  which  actively 

promotes historical narratives of European cooperation by engaging students in debates on 

contemporary  European  integration  challenges.  Despite  these  achievements,  some  sites 

struggled to translate the concept of intercultural dialogue into practical actions. The 2020 

European Panel monitoring report noted that while 84% of sites engaged in educational 

programmes,  only  51%  had  specific  initiatives  to  facilitate  intercultural  dialogue. 

Stakeholders  highlighted  the  need  for  clearer  guidelines  on  fostering  exchange  among 

diverse social groups beyond linguistic and historical collaborations.  

27/120 

 
 
Stressing  the  symbolic  value  and  raising  the  profile  of  sites  which  have  played  a 

significant role in the history and culture of Europe and/or the building of the Union. 

Many European Heritage Label sites have successfully integrated the European dimension 

into their communication strategies and outreach efforts. Between 2018 and 2024, 82% of 

sites reported active efforts to enhance their European significance through exhibitions, 

guided  tours,  and  digital  platforms.  For  instance,  Finland’s  Seminaarinmäki  Campus 

strengthened its engagement by launching bilingual resources, while the Maastricht Treaty 

site  in  the  Netherlands  developed  an  interactive  heritage  experience  to  connect  visitors 

with  the history of European integration.  Smaller sites have particularly benefited from 

increased recognition, with 57% reporting a rise in visitor engagement following the award 

of the label. However, some sites faced challenges in maintaining visibility over time, with 

23%  stating  that  initial  engagement  did  not  translate  into  sustained  public  interest.  An 

example of overcoming this challenge is the Ventotene site, which continuously renews its 

programming to remain relevant to younger audiences 

External Factors Influencing Progress:  

Several  external  factors  have shaped the progress toward these objectives. Notably,  the 

COVID-19  pandemic  disrupted  planned  activities  such  as  exhibitions  and  physical 

educational  programs,  pushing  sites  to  adapt  by  transitioning  to  digital  formats.  This 

transition allowed for continued engagement but often lacked the personal interaction that 

is  central  to  the  effectiveness  of  cultural  heritage  programs.  Similarly,  resource 

constraints, including staffing shortages and limited financial capacity, also affected the 

implementation of site-specific plans. 

Impact on Citizens’ Sense of Belonging:  

The  European  Heritage  Label  has  contributed  to  strengthening  a  sense  of  European 

identity,  especially  among  young  people.  However,  while  65%  of  EHL  sites  integrated 

European values such as tolerance, unity, and freedom into their educational programs, 

challenges remain in measuring the long-term impact on youth's sense of belonging to the 

EU. Some sites found it difficult  to translate the  abstract goal of fostering a European 

identity into practical, engaging activities for youth. 

28/120 

 
 
Impact on Socio-Economic and Cultural Goals 

Increased Visitor Numbers and Visibility 

In terms of socio-economic benefits, the EHL has contributed to increased visibility for 

sites, translating into higher tourist numbers and greater local engagement. For example, 

60%  of  surveyed  sites  in  the  2024  monitoring  cycle  reported  a  significant  increase  in 

visitors  since  receiving  the  EHL  label.  This  increase  in  tourism  has  brought  economic 

benefits  to  surrounding  communities,  particularly  in  rural  or  less-visited  areas,  where 

heritage tourism can be a vital part of the local economy. In addition to boosting tourism, 

the  EHL  label  has  helped  sites  expand  their  cultural  programming.  This  includes  new 

educational  activities,  outreach  programs,  and  cultural  events  designed  to  engage  both 

local  communities  and  tourists.  For  instance,  45%  of  sites  surveyed  developed  new 

educational  initiatives  or  improved  existing  ones  to  align  with  the  EHL’s  objectives  of 

promoting intercultural dialogue and shared European heritage. 

Social Inclusion 

One of the more profound impacts of the EHL has been in promoting social inclusion. Sites 

with the EHL label have increasingly involved underrepresented groups, including youth, 

minorities, and people with disabilities, in their cultural activities. The label has acted as a 

powerful tool for fostering inclusivity through projects that celebrate diversity and promote 

societal cohesion. For example, 33% of sites reported specific initiatives aimed at engaging 

young people, using heritage as a vehicle for education and participation. 

Networking and Cross-Border Collaborations:  

The EHL’s role in fostering networking has been critical to strengthening collaboration 

between heritage sites. Through initiatives like the EHL@Network (2019-2022) and the 

EHL Bureau (2023-2026), sites have had the opportunity to participate in cross-border 

projects and share best practices. These networks, particularly the  EHL Bureau, which 

received positive feedback from 77% of participating sites, have helped address gaps in 

outreach  and  better  support  the  sites’  capacity-building  efforts.  However,  challenges 

related to cross-border collaboration persist. Financial limitations, and coordination 

challenges,  especially  for  smaller  sites,  hinder  the  full  potential  of  these  transnational 

collaborations. Additionally, sites facing geographical isolation or bureaucratic delays 

have struggled to engage meaningfully in international projects. 

29/120 

 
Quantitative Assessment 

Quantitative  data  further  illustrates  the  positive  outcomes  associated  with  the  EHL 

intervention. According to monitoring reports from 2024: 

-  33% of EHL sites (N=55) reported involvement in the European Heritage Days, 

a key EU initiative for promoting cultural heritage. 

-  23% of sites were engaged in the European Cultural Routes, emphasizing cross-

border heritage links. 

-  47% of sites adopted green management practices (such as eco-certifications or 

sustainable tourism measures) due to their participation in the EHL, aligning with 

EU sustainability priorities. 

BENEFITS OF THE EHL INTERVENTION 

Figure 4. Benefits experienced by EHL sites 

Enhanced ability to communicate and channel common
European values, history, and culture through their…
New international partnerships with other cultural
organisations or sites (N=42)

New local partnerships with other cultural organisations
or sites (N=42)

36%

36%

40%

36%

19%

19%

5%

5%

26%

33%

31%

7%

Greater visibility (N=42)

21%

36%

24%

10%

7%

Increased opportunities for capacity-building (N=42)

12%

40%

29%

10%

7%

More interest and engagement from youth (N=42)

5%

36%

45%

5%

7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Strongly agree

Mostly disagree

Mostly agree

Partly agree, partly disagree

Strongly disagree

Do not know / cannot answer

Source: PPMI survey of heritage sites, question 34 ‘Has your site enjoyed any of the following benefits of participation in 

the European Heritage Label during 2018-2024?’ 

Tangible Benefits for Sites 

One of the most notable benefits of participation in the European Heritage Label initiative 

has been the enhanced communication of European history and values. According to the 

2024  monitoring  data,  65%  of  sites  integrated  European  themes  into  their  exhibitions, 

while  51%  incorporated  them  into  cultural  events.  Sites  have  also  reported  expanded 

international  partnerships,  with  75%  engaging  in  joint  projects  with  other  European 

institutions. Case studies illustrate this further. The Peace of Westphalia site in Germany 

30/120 

 
 
used its designation to launch multilingual educational resources, broadening its appeal to 

international audiences. Similarly, the Alexandrovo Thracian Tomb in Bulgaria leveraged 

the  label  to  align  with  the  country’s  sustainable  tourism  strategy,  attracting  more 

environmentally conscious visitors. 

Objective A: Highlighting the European significance of the sites 

EHL sites have successfully embedded the European dimension into their communication 

strategies  and  activities.  According  to  monitoring  data,  82%  of  sites  reported  actively 

promoting  their  European  significance  through  exhibitions,  guided  tours,  and  digital 

platforms.  The  Maastricht  Treaty  site  in  the  Netherlands,  for  example,  has  developed 

interactive  heritage  experiences  to  connect  visitors  with  the  history  of  European 

integration.  However,  smaller  sites  faced  challenges  in  articulating  their  European 

significance effectively due to limited resources and expertise. 

Objective B: Raising European citizens’ awareness of their common cultural heritage, 

especially among young people 

Educational  initiatives  have  been  instrumental  in  raising  awareness  of  Europe’s  shared 

cultural  heritage.  Data  shows  that  65%  of  sites  incorporated  European  themes  into 

educational programmes and exhibitions. The Ventotene site in Italy successfully engages 

young  audiences  through  its  Seminars  on  European  Federalism,  while  Finland’s 

Seminaarinmäki  Campus  reaches  over  8,000  students  annually  with  heritage-related 

activities. Despite these successes, challenges remain in maintaining engagement beyond 

site visits, as long-term impact is difficult to measure. 

Objective  C:  Facilitating  the  sharing  of  experiences  and  exchanges  of  best  practices 

across the Union 

Networking and collaboration have improved among EHL sites, with 75% participating in 

joint projects with European institutions. The EHL@Network (2019–2022) and the EHL 

Bureau  (2023)  have  strengthened  knowledge-sharing  efforts.  However,  some  sites, 

particularly smaller ones, struggle to engage in cross-border cooperation due to financial 

and logistical constraints. The Peace of Westphalia site in Germany successfully developed 

multilingual  educational  resources  as  part  of  a  broader  European  collaboration, 

demonstrating the potential of these exchanges. 

31/120 

 
Figure 5. Sites’ perception of the role of EHL networks 

EHL Bureau (N=52)

12%

65%

10%

13%

EHL Network (N=48)

13%

19%

44%

25%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Instrumental role

Important role

Limited role

No engagement

Source: EHL 2024 monitoring forms. Includes only sites that reported being a member of the relevant networks. 

Objective D: Increasing and improving access for all, especially young people 

Efforts  to  enhance  accessibility  have  seen  mixed  results.  While  86%  of  sites  provide 

accessible  informational  materials,  only  49%  have  implemented  physical  accessibility 

improvements since 2020. The May 3rd Constitution site in Poland has made progress by 

introducing digital copies of historical records and sensory-friendly tours for visitors with 

disabilities. However, digital accessibility remains underdeveloped, with only 26% of sites 

offering online adaptations for diverse audiences. 

Objective E: Increasing intercultural dialogue, especially among young people, through 

artistic, cultural, and historical education 

Intercultural dialogue has been promoted through exhibitions, performances, and heritage 

workshops. The Architects of Peace exhibition facilitated collaboration between Belgian 

and Dutch sites, while the La Paranza cooperative in Naples engaged youth in preservation 

activities.  Despite  these  successes,  only  51%  of  sites  have  developed  dedicated 

intercultural dialogue initiatives, highlighting a need for clearer guidelines and stronger 

support mechanisms. 

Objective F: Fostering synergies between cultural heritage and contemporary creativity 

Several EHL sites have successfully integrated cultural heritage with contemporary artistic 

practices.  The  Colonies  of  Benevolence  in  the  Netherlands  used  augmented  reality  and 

theatre performances to reinterpret historical narratives. Similarly, Italy’s Museo Casa De 

Gasperi developed a television series exploring themes of European integration. However, 

such  initiatives  remain  dependent  on  individual  site  capacity,  with  limited  systematic 

support from the EHL framework. 

32/120 

 
 
Objective  G:  Contributing  to  the  attractiveness  and  economic  and  sustainable 

development of regions through cultural tourism 

Sustainable tourism initiatives have been developed at 70% of EHL sites, with efforts to 

promote eco-friendly travel and integrate heritage into regional development plans. The 

Alexandrovo  Thracian  Tomb  in  Bulgaria  aligned  its  activities  with  national  sustainable 

tourism strategies, while the Peace of Westphalia sites in Germany developed the bilingual 

Peace Riders’ Trail to encourage responsible tourism. However, financial constraints and 

limited  infrastructure  investment  continue  to  hinder  long-term  sustainability  in  some 

regions. 

Key Challenges and Areas for Improvement 

Despite the benefits, several challenges remain. Limited multilingual access has restricted 

the outreach potential of some sites, with only 58% providing materials in more than two 

languages.  Furthermore,  the  benefits  of  the  EHL  initiative  have  not  been  evenly 

distributed,  with  smaller  sites  struggling  to  attract  international  visitors.  Stakeholders 

suggested the need for structured support in developing outreach and marketing strategies 

to sustain engagement beyond initial designation. 

Figure 6. Challenges faced by EHL sites in achieving their site-specific objectives 

Effects of the COVID-19 crisis (N=42)

Insufficient human resources at my site to implement EHL
activities (N=42)

26%

26%

29%

29%

24%

14%

7%

31%

10%

5%

Insufficient funds to run EHL-related activities (N=42)

21%

31%

24%

17%

7%

Insufficient opportunities for networking within the EHL
(N=41)

Insufficient opportunities for capacity building within the
EHL (N=41)

10%

15%

32%

34%

10%

5%

24%

32%

22%

17%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

To a large extent

To a moderate extent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Do not know / cannot answer

Source: PPMI survey of heritage sites, question 39 ‘To what extent have the following challenges limited the achievement 

of your site-specific objectives during the 2018-2024 period?’ 

33/120 

 
 
 
 
Resource Constraints:  

Many sites, particularly smaller ones, faced significant resource limitations that impacted 

their  ability  to  implement  ambitious  projects  or  maintain  ongoing  activities.  Staffing 

shortages were cited as a major barrier, with 13% of sites reporting this as a key challenge 

in fulfilling their action plans. As a result, many sites had to adjust their original plans and 

focus on more manageable, resource-efficient activities. 

Multilingualism:  

While  86%  of  sites  offered  multilingual  resources,  the  availability  of  digital  resources 

remains insufficient. Only 26% of sites implemented digital accessibility measures, such 

as  online  educational  content  or  virtual  tours,  which  are  crucial  for  reaching  younger, 

international, and more digitally-savvy audiences. 

Youth Engagement and Digital Initiatives 

Digital  tools  have  played  a  crucial  role  in  broadening  engagement,  particularly  among 

younger  audiences.  The  Europa  om  je  heen  podcast  successfully  engaged  a  younger 

demographic  by  exploring  European  heritage  through  a  modern,  accessible  format. 

Similarly, Poland’s 3 May 1791 Constitution site maintained student engagement through 

virtual lessons during COVID-19 restrictions. 

However,  youth  engagement  remains  inconsistent.  While  67%  of  sites  reported 

implementing  youth-focused  measures,  the  majority  (76%)  relied  on  traditional 

educational activities rather than innovative outreach strategies. The EHL Bureau has since 

introduced  new  funding  initiatives  to  support  digital  and  interactive  youth  engagement 

projects. 

Challenges in Developing Cross-Border and Transnational Projects 

EHL  sites  faced  multiple  barriers  when  attempting  to  develop  and  sustain  cross-border 

initiatives. While 75% of sites participated in joint projects, only 40% engaged in long-

term  transnational  collaborations.  The  primary  obstacles  identified  were  financial 

limitations, cited by 60% of surveyed sites, and administrative burdens, reported by 58%. 

The COVID-19 pandemic further disrupted these initiatives, forcing sites to shift towards 

virtual cooperation, which many found less effective than in-person exchanges. A notable 

34/120 

 
success  story  is  the  collaboration  between  Croatia’s  Vučedol  Culture  Museum  and 

Poland’s  Union  of  Lublin  site,  which  developed  a  shared  exhibition  on  early  European 

statehood. 

Challenges in Implementing Action Plans 

Survey data indicates that 49% of EHL sites had to adjust their original implementation 

plans due to financial constraints, with 36% citing staffing shortages as a key challenge. 

Poland’s May 3rd Constitution site successfully overcame this issue by securing external 

funding to support its educational initiatives. However, smaller sites with fewer resources 

struggled to execute their full action plans, particularly in areas such as digital engagement 

and  youth  outreach.  Stakeholders  have  suggested  that  additional  financial  support  and 

streamlined funding applications could alleviate these difficulties. 

Table 3. Overview of challenges faced by sites during the implementation of their 

action plans 

Financial constraints (19%) 

Securing  adequate  funding  was  a  notable  challenge  across  all  areas  of  action  plan 

implementation. Sites faced difficulties financing new technologies, heritage conservation, 

infrastructure  upgrades,  and  multilingual  materials.  Rising  energy  costs,  inflation,  and 

reduced  visitor  income  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic  worsened  these  issues.  The 

unpredictability of external funding further complicated long-term planning. To cope, many 

sites  prioritised  essential  activities,  phased  projects,  or  sought  co-funding  and  local 

partnerships. 

Human resource constraints (13%) 

Staff  shortages  and  turnover  hindered  the  implementation  of  innovative  or  specialised 

strategies, 

including  youth  programmes, 

inclusion 

initiatives,  and  environmental 

management  efforts.  Some  sites  relied  on  temporary  staff,  volunteers,  or  under-trained 

personnel, limiting their capacity to meet their planned outputs. Some sites sought to retrain 

staff or increase volunteer engagement, though these efforts were constrained by financial 

limitations and often required external collaboration. 

External factors (18%) 

35/120 

 
The COVID-19 pandemic caused widespread disruptions, including site closures, reduced 

visitor numbers, and delays in planned initiatives. Many sites shifted to digital platforms, 

offering  virtual  tours  and  online  content,  but  these  adaptations  required  significant 

investment  and  could  not  always  replace  in-person  experiences.  Pandemic-related 

challenges also delayed infrastructure upgrades and negatively impacted youth engagement 

and revenue streams, slowing recovery and sustainable tourism efforts. 

Organisational challenges (18%) 

Regulatory and 

Bureaucratic  delays,  stringent  material  requirements,  and  conflicting 

governance 

stakeholder  priorities  increased  costs  and  slowed  project  timelines, 

challenges 

particularly  for  heritage  sites  embedded  in  broader  institutional 

frameworks. 

Infrastructure 

Heritage  regulations  restricted  modifications  to  historic  buildings, 

barriers 

complicating efforts to improve accessibility, especially for visitors with 

disabilities. 

Geographical 

Remote or environmentally vulnerable sites faced limited accessibility, 

and 

infrastructure  deficits,  and  exposure  to  natural  disasters.  Isolation 

environmental 

hampered  efforts  to  attract  visitors,  particularly  school  groups  and 

challenges 

younger  audiences,  while  structural  constraints  further  restricted 

accessibility and sustainability adaptations. 

Technical difficulties (9%) 

Integrating modern technology and upgrading infrastructure proved challenging for some 

sites  due  to  limited  expertise  and  resources.  Tools  such  as  apps,  interactive  kiosks,  and 

virtual  reality  content  required  significant  investment  to  develop  and  maintain,  posing 

additional obstacles. 

Source: PPMI analysis based on EHL 2024 monitoring data. 

The Role of the European Panel During the Selection Phase 

The  European  Panel  played  a  critical  role  in  ensuring  a  fair  and  transparent  selection 

process. Of the 56 applications assessed between 2018 and 2024, 45% were deemed not to 

36/120 

 
 
meet  one  or  more  selection  criteria.  While  73%  of  national  coordinators  found  the 

European Panel’s reports to be clear and useful, only 57% of non-selected sites felt they 

received adequate feedback for future applications. To address this, the EHL Bureau has 

introduced  improved  communication  mechanisms  to  provide  clearer  guidance  for 

unsuccessful applicants. 

Figure 7. Perception of national coordinators regarding the work of the European 

Panel 

The European panel report provides clear explanations
behind the selection and non-selection of sites (N=22)

18%

55%

9%

5%

14%

The European panel report provides useful feedback to
improve the work plans and programmes of selected
sites (N=22)

14%

50%

9%

27%

The European Panel has applied selection criteria
consistently across the different selection rounds (N=22)

14%

36%

5%

45%

The European panel report provides useful feedback to
non-selected sites to help improve their future
application submissions (if they choose to reapply)…

14%

23%

9%

14%

41%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Strongly agree

Mostly disagree

Mostly agree

Partly agree, partly disagree

Strongly disagree

Do not know / cannot answer

Source: PPMI survey of national coordinators. Question 9: ‘To what extent do you agree 

or disagree with the following statements regarding the work of the European Panel?’ 

Composition of the European Panel 

The European Panel has generally maintained a balanced geographic and expertise-based 

composition. Between 2018 and 2024, the panel included 25 experts from 17 EU Member 

States, covering various fields such as academia, cultural heritage institutions, and NGOs. 

However, stakeholders have suggested that the panel could benefit from greater diversity, 

particularly in terms of gender balance and representation of smaller EU countries. Some 

sites  also  noted  that  new  panel  members  often  faced  a  steep  learning  curve,  with  68% 

recommending additional training to improve the consistency of evaluation standards. 

37/120 

 
 
 
 
Conclusion and Recommendations 

The  European  Heritage  Label  initiative  has  been  largely  successful  in  achieving  its 

objectives,  particularly  in  fostering  European  identity,  intercultural  dialogue,  and  site 

visibility.  However,  challenges  related  to  sustainability,  engagement,  and  resource 

allocation  require  further  attention.  Strengthening  youth  engagement  through  digital 

storytelling, increasing multilingual support, and enhancing cross-border collaboration are 

key areas for future improvement. Survey data suggests that sites with dedicated digital 

outreach strategies and strong governmental alignment experienced the highest levels of 

success. With continued support and strategic adjustments, the EHL initiative can further 

strengthen European cultural heritage and deepen its impact on identity and inclusion. 

4.1.2. EFFICIENCY 

Key findings 

•  The selection procedure and criteria were generally regarded as efficient and 

transparent  at  both  national  and  European  levels;  there  is  room  to  further 

clarify the criterion of European significance. 

•  The European Commission provided clear guidance to national coordinators 

throughout the selection process. Communication with candidate sites could 

be further improved to clarify why the process might take time and why it 

may differ between countries. 

•  Selection  procedures  were  completed  without  delays,  with  the  European 

Panel operating efficiently. 

•  Selection  reports  were  generally  clear,  concise  and  followed  a  standard 

structure,  providing  well-justified  decisions.  However,  the  feedback 

provided  to  applicant  sites  within  these  reports  –  particularly  for  non-

selected sites  – was  sometimes less apparent  or  harder to  locate, possibly 

due to the length of these reports or by limited user-friendliness. 

•  Monitoring  arrangements  reached  their  capacity,  underlining  the  need  to 

reassess  processes  to  ensure  the  EHL’s  long-term  sustainability  as  the 

network continues to expand. 

38/120 

 
•  The  European  Commission  fostered  professional  networking  and  mutual 

learning by facilitating the exchange of good practices among EHL sites. 

Cost-Effectiveness 

The  evaluation  of  the  EHL’s  cost-effectiveness  reveals  a  generally  positive  picture, 

although there are areas where administrative costs could be reduced. The EHL has brought 

tangible  benefits  in  terms  of  increased  tourism,  visibility,  and  heritage  management 

improvements, which outweigh the relatively modest administrative costs. However, the 

coordination costs between different levels of governance (EU, national, and local) could 

be streamlined for greater efficiency. 

Administrative and Operational Costs 

The  administration  of  the  EHL  label  involves  multiple  stakeholders,  including  the 

European Commission, national coordinators, site managers, and the EHL Bureau. While 

this  distributed  management  model  is  effective  in  some  contexts,  it  also  creates 

redundancies and overlaps, particularly in the monitoring and reporting processes. Data 

from national coordinators indicate that over 40% of respondents believe the monitoring 

process is overly complex and could be simplified by reducing reporting requirements and 

making the process more digital. 

Figure 10. Member states’ involvement in the application process during 2019-2024 

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

3

1

6

5

2

4

3

3

1

4

3

2

1

3

3

1

3

2

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

1
1

2

1

1

1

Pre-selected but non-selected applications

Selected applications

Source: European Heritage Label selection reports 2019, 2021, 2023. 

39/120 

 
 
 
 
Proportionality of Costs and Benefits 

The  cost-benefit  ratio  of  the  EHL  initiative  is  considered  favourable,  with  the  benefits 

(increased visibility, enhanced European identity, economic impact) far outweighing the 

administrative  costs.  The  intervention’s  overall  efficiency  can  be  improved  through 

digitalization and streamlining governance structures. 

Administrative Costs and Simplification 

Stakeholders have suggested that the governance structure of the EHL could be simplified. 

At present, there are several layers of coordination, including national coordinators, the 

EHL  Bureau,  and  the  European  Panel,  each  of  which  plays  a  role  in  monitoring  and 

supporting  sites.  However,  some  stakeholders  have  raised  concerns  about  fragmented 

communication and overlapping responsibilities, leading to inefficiencies. Data suggests 

that 20% of national coordinators reported difficulties in coordinating across these various 

levels of governance, leading to inconsistent communication and occasional duplication of 

efforts. The administrative burden could be alleviated by introducing digital solutions to 

facilitate better communication and reporting. A key opportunity for simplification lies in 

making the entire monitoring process fully digital, reducing the need for manual reporting 

and increasing real-time data sharing. 

Proportionality of Costs and Benefits 

In terms of proportionality, the costs of implementing the EHL are generally justifiable 

when  considering  the  social,  cultural,  and  economic  benefits.  Sites  reported  substantial 

increases in visitor numbers, as well as enhanced capacity for education and sustainability 

initiatives. 

4.1.3 COHERENCE 

Key findings 

•  The EHL demonstrated coherence and complementarity with other EU, national 

and  international  heritage  initiatives,  while  maintaining  its  distinct  emphasis  on 

European significance. 

•  The action’s inclusive approach to heritage, which encompasses both tangible and 

intangible heritage, sets it apart from conservation-focused programmes. 

40/120 

 
•  The  elements  of  the  EHL  intervention  were  generally  coherent,  although 

governance  structures  and  individual  objectives  could  benefit  from  improved 

alignment and refinement. 

•  The  EHL  demonstrated  alignment  with  broader  EU  policy  priorities,  with 

opportunities to further enhance their visibility and integration within the action’s 

framework. 

•  The objectives  of EHL sites aligned well with the overarching  objectives of the 

EHL, as set out in the 2011 Decision. The label serves as a motivator to enhance 

existing initiatives and to support the integration of a European dimension along 

with local heritage needs. 

Coherence with Other EU, National, and International Interventions 

The EHL is highly coherent with other EU, national, and international interventions aimed 

at promoting cultural heritage and fostering a shared European identity. At the EU level, 

the  EHL  complements  several  key  initiatives,  such  as:  European  Heritage  Day,  Europa 

Nostra Awards and European Capitals of Culture. 

These initiatives share similar goals of promoting cultural cooperation and enhancing the 

visibility of European heritage. Survey results indicate that 33% of EHL sites participate 

in the European Heritage Days, and 18% are involved in the European Union Prize for 

Cultural  Heritage/Europa  Nostra  Awards,  demonstrating  strong  alignment.  At  the 

international level, the EHL complements UNESCO initiatives, such as the World Heritage 

List and the Intangible Cultural Heritage List. However, the EHL maintains a distinct focus 

on the European dimension, emphasizing European integration and shared history. Less 

than  19%  of  surveyed  sites  noted  overlaps  between  the  EHL  and  UNESCO  programs, 

underscoring 

their  complementary 

roles 

in 

the  global  heritage 

landscape. 

Coherence Between Intervention Elements 

The different elements of the EHL intervention show significant coherence in their overall 

approach  to  promoting  European  heritage.  However,  there  are  some  challenges  with 

aligning  governance  structures  and  ensuring  clear  communication  among  stakeholders. 

The roles of national coordinators, the EHL Bureau, and the European Panel are broadly 

41/120 

 
 
 
defined but often lack clear operational guidelines, leading to inconsistent implementation 

in some areas. 

Further  alignment  of  governance  structures  and  objectives  would  enhance  the 

intervention’s coherence. A clearer framework would help ensure that strategic goals are 

more effectively communicated and aligned across all levels. 

Coherence with Wider EU Policies and Priorities 

The EHL aligns well with broader EU policies, particularly in the areas of sustainability 

and digitalization. Many EHL sites have adopted digital tools, such as virtual tours and 

augmented  reality,  in  line  with  the  EU  Digital  Decade  strategy.  Furthermore,  green 

management practices have been increasingly implemented across EHL sites, contributing 

to the European Green Deal and the EU’s broader sustainability goals. 

However, there is room for the EHL to more actively contribute to the EU's sustainability 

and digitalization priorities. National coordinators have suggested that the initiative could 

play a more active role in guiding sustainability efforts, particularly in aligning site-level 

activities with EU-wide strategies. 

CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, the European Heritage Label  has  largely  succeeded in  achieving its core 

objectives  of  enhancing  European  heritage,  fostering  intercultural  dialogue,  and 

contributing  to  socio-economic  development.  The  intervention  has  proven  effective  in 

increasing visibility and promoting a shared European narrative, though there are areas for 

improvement,  particularly  in  simplifying  administrative  processes  and  improving 

coordination between stakeholders. The intervention has been cost-effective, with benefits 

outweighing  the  costs.  However,  there  is  room  for  efficiency  gains,  particularly  in 

digitalizing  governance  and  reducing  administrative  burdens.  Finally,  the  EHL  shows 

strong coherence with other EU, national, and international initiatives, and its alignment 

with  broader  EU  policies  is  commendable.  The  initiative  continues  to  demonstrate  the 

value of a shared European heritage, and future improvements could enhance its impact 

even further. 

42/120 

 
 
 
4.2 HOW DID THE EU INTERVENTION MAKE A DIFFERENCE, AND TO WHOM? 

Introduction  

The  EU’s  intervention  via  the  European  Heritage  Label  (EHL)  has  made  a  significant 

impact  on  the  visibility  and  European  significance  of  heritage  sites  across  Europe.  By 

helping sites articulate their European significance, the EHL emphasized shared European 

values and highlighted the diverse aspects of Europe’s cultural heritage. The intervention 

resulted in both tangible and intangible benefits for the heritage sector, especially smaller 

heritage sites that benefitted from new networking opportunities, funding possibilities, and 

enhanced cooperation. The EU intervention through the European Heritage Label (EHL) 

provided substantial  added value to  the visibility and European significance of heritage 

sites  across  Europe.  The  EHL  empowered  these  sites  to  articulate  their  European 

significance, emphasizing shared European values and highlighting the diverse aspects of 

Europe’s  cultural  heritage.  The  EHL  brought  tangible  benefits  to  the  heritage  sector, 

particularly  regarding  networking  opportunities  and  additional  funding,  which  are 

especially valuable for smaller heritage sites. Furthermore, the establishment of the EHL 

Bureau encouraged collaboration, networking, joint projects, and best practice exchanges 

among the EHL sites. The EU intervention also had a profound impact on citizens’ sense 

of  belonging  to  the  broader  European  community.  By  highlighting  shared  heritage,  the 

EHL  fostered  a  deeper  appreciation  of  Europe's  diverse  cultural  landscape  and  created 

opportunities for citizens to connect with their local heritage in the context of the European 

Union. 

EU Added Value: Answers to Evaluation Questions 

Key findings 

•  The EU's intervention via the European Heritage Label enabled label-awarded sites 

to better articulate their European significance across their activities as a result of 

participation. 

•  The  EHL  encompassed  both  tangible  and  intangible  heritage,  offering  a  more 

inclusive and flexible approach than many other programmes available at national 

or international level. 

43/120 

 
 
•  The  action  facilitated  the  formation  of  pan-European  networks  and  partnerships 

across heritage sites, which would be more difficult to achieve without EU-level 

coordination and support. 

•  The governance set-up of the action, and in particular the efficient operations of 

the EU Panel in carrying out the procedures for selection and monitoring against 

the criterion of European significance further amplified its EU added value. 

•  Participation  in  the  EHL  has  enhanced  sites’  awareness  of  EU  funding 

opportunities, yet their capacity to apply remains a challenge. 

EU Added Value and Visibility of the EHL Action 

The EU intervention through the EHL contributed to increased visibility for heritage sites, 

allowing them to better express their European significance and promote shared European 

heritage. Although the immediate impact on visitor numbers is hard to quantify, evidence 

suggests that participation in the EHL initially boosted visibility (as reflected in EQ 1 of 

Section 5.1.1). Over time, however, the influence of the label on visitor numbers became 

less  pronounced.  Despite  this,  the  European  dimension  of  label-awarded  sites  became 

increasingly evident during the evaluation period, especially when the label was effectively 

communicated (see EQ 7 of Section 5.1.1). The EU added visibility, particularly beneficial 

for smaller EHL sites, underlined the importance of the European dimension of heritage. 

Attention  to  European  significance  and  visibility  measures  could  further  enhance  the 

label's impact on EU-added visibility. 

Key Findings from the Evaluation 

•  European Significance: The EHL has helped participating sites articulate their European 

significance more clearly across all their activities. This has enabled them to frame their 

history,  values,  and  relevance  within  a  broader  European  context,  strengthening  the 

European identity of each site. 

• 

Inclusive Approach to Heritage: Unlike other programmes that tend to focus solely on 

tangible heritage, the EHL embraces both tangible and intangible heritage, which makes it 

a more inclusive and flexible initiative than many national or international programmes. 

•  Pan-European Networks: One of the most significant achievements of the EHL has been 

its ability to facilitate the creation of pan-European networks. These networks would be 

44/120 

 
 
difficult to establish without EU-level coordination and support. The sharing of knowledge 

and the opportunity to collaborate on joint projects have been pivotal for the development 

of these networks. 

•  Effective Governance: The governance of the EHL has played a critical role in its success. 

The efficient operations of the EU Panel in selection and monitoring have contributed to 

the overall added value of the initiative. The clear and transparent governance processes 

have  ensured  that  the  objectives  of  the  EHL  are  met  across  various  heritage  sites, 

increasing the overall effectiveness of the action. 

EU Added Value and Visibility of EHL 

The EU intervention through the EHL has made a significant contribution to the increased 

visibility of heritage sites, allowing them to promote their European significance. Though 

it is challenging to directly quantify the immediate impact on visitor numbers, evidence 

suggests that participation in the EHL initially boosts visibility. Over time, however, the 

direct influence on visitor numbers has diminished. Nonetheless, the European dimension 

of the label-awarded sites has become more pronounced, especially when this dimension 

is communicated effectively. This increased visibility has been particularly beneficial for 

smaller  sites,  which  often  lack  the  resources  to  independently  promote  their  European 

relevance.  By  leveraging  the  EHL,  these  smaller  sites  have  gained  access  to  a  larger 

audience and established their presence within the European cultural landscape. 

Access to Other EU Funding Opportunities 

Participation in the EHL resulted in varied access to other EU funding opportunities, with 

survey results showing an even split between those who found EHL designation helpful 

for  securing  additional  funding  (33%),  those  who  did  not  (33%),  and  those  who  were 

unsure  (33%)  (see  Figure  below).  National  coordinators  were  similarly  divided  on  the 

impact of EHL designation on funding opportunities. While the EHL raised awareness of 

EU funding opportunities, it did not significantly enhance sites’ ability to apply for such 

funds. However, the introduction of grants by the EHL Bureau, specifically for networking 

and  collaborative  activities,  has  been  positively  received.  Smaller  sites  in  particular 

leveraged  the  EHL  designation  as  a  credibility  marker  to  strengthen  their  funding 

applications.  Despite  this,  the  complexity  of  EU  funding  programmes  and  limited 

resources continued to be a barrier Among the sites that utilized EU funding, a majority 

45/120 

 
accessed Creative Europe funds (71%), with smaller percentages also engaging with other 

EU programmes like Erasmus+ (29%) and Horizon Europe (14%). For example: 

•  Finnish sites, such as The Kalevala  - Living Epic Heritage, applied for Creative 

Europe funding. 

• 

Italian sites, including Fort Cadine and Ostia Antica, successfully accessed funding 

under Creative Europe and European Heritage Days. 

However, challenges such as complex application procedures and the need for co-

financing persist, particularly for smaller sites. 

Figure 14. Impact of participation in the EHL on accessing other EU funding 

opportunities 

38%

33%

33%

24%

33%

29%

10%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Do not know / Cannot
answer

Yes / mostly agree

Partly agree, partly
disagree

No / strongly disagree

Site coordinators (N=42)

National coordinators (N=21)

Source: PPMI survey of site coordinators and national coordinators, question 35 ‘Did participation in the European 

Heritage Label help your site / sites in your country to make use of other EU funding opportunities? ’ Note: For national 

coordinators, the question was presented on an agree/disagree scale, while for site coordinators, it was posed as a 

Consequences of Non-EU Organised or Funded Action 

yes/no question. 

Without  EU-level  funding  and  organisation  of  the  EHL,  many  of  the  tangible  benefits 

currently  experienced  by  label-awarded  sites  would  be  diminished  or  lost.  The  EHL’s 

broad  definition  of  heritage,  encompassing  both  tangible  and  intangible  aspects,  offers 

flexibility not found in other national or international programmes. The EHL supports sites 

in articulating their European significance, enhancing their visibility and facilitating the 

formation of pan-European networks and partnerships. Without EU-level support, many 

sites  would  struggle  to  communicate  their  European  significance  and  would  lack  the 

necessary coordination to form these valuable networks. Additionally, the EHL Bureau’s 

funding,  dedicated  to  networking  and  capacity-building  activities,  strengthens  the 

46/120 

 
 
initiative.  Without  such  support,  fewer  opportunities  for  joint  projects  and  knowledge 

exchange would be available. Moreover, EU funding and coordination have been vital for 

raising awareness of EU funding opportunities. However, without EU-level organisation, 

many smaller sites may struggle to navigate EU programmes and face difficulties securing 

funding for cultural and infrastructural projects. 

Selection Procedure and European Dimension 

The selection procedure for EHL, as laid out in Decision 1194/2011/EU, ensures that the 

European dimension of the sites is prioritized. Member States are required to adhere to the 

same criteria when selecting sites for the label, ensuring that all sites awarded the EHL 

demonstrate European significance. National variations in the selection procedure exist, 

with countries sometimes introducing thematic priorities that reflect their national cultural 

identities. For example, the Netherlands prioritised values such as tolerance and justice, 

while Lithuania focused on ‘roots, connections, and links’ in its 2025 pre-selection process. 

Despite these variations, the fundamental aim of promoting European significance remains 

consistent  across  all  Member  States.  However,  smaller  countries  or  those  not  centrally 

involved in the formation of the EU face challenges in articulating their sites’ European 

significance due to differing historical and geopolitical contexts. 

4.3. IS THE INTERVENTION STILL RELEVANT? 

Key findings 

•  The objectives of the EHL remained highly relevant to the EU’s cultural heritage 

needs, in particular in fostering a shared European identity. 

•  The EHL was generally perceived as aligning well with national heritage needs; 

however, limited visibility at national level may hindered its ability to demonstrate 

its relevance effectively. 

•  The EHL made progress in aligning with EU policy priorities such as sustainability, 

digital  innovation  and  inclusion.  The  alignment  of  the  action  could  be  further 

strengthened by deepening the integration and visibility of these priorities. 

•  The EHL’s selection criteria were relevant to the general and specific objectives of 

the action. 

47/120 

 
•  The  EHL  demonstrated  adaptability  to  unexpected  developments,  such  as  the 

COVID-19 pandemic, with EHL networking bodies providing support to help sites 

maintain their activities and foster resilience. 

The European Heritage Label (EHL) initiative has maintained a high degree of relevance 

to its core objectives since its inception, with continued alignment to its aim of promoting 

shared  European  values  and  heritage.  The  selection  criteria,  particularly  the  notion  of 

‘European significance’, remain key to identifying sites that hold a special role in EU 

integration or represent values underpinning the Union’s identity. This criterion has proven 

effective  in  fostering  sites  that  reflect  historical,  cultural,  and  social  links  that  are 

foundational to European unity. However, some stakeholders have raised concerns about 

the clarity of this criterion and the operational challenges it presents. Stakeholders have 

expressed  a  desire  for  further  explanations,  supplementary  documentation,  and  perhaps 

even additional workshops to clarify its application more fully. This feedback indicates 

that  while  the  criterion  remains  relevant,  there  is  room  for  improvement  in  its 

operationalisation. In terms of continuing relevance, the EHL has responded well to the 

ongoing needs of the European cultural landscape. A key characteristic of the EHL is its 

project-based nature, distinguishing it from initiatives such as UNESCO World Heritage. 

Sites that are awarded the EHL label commit to specific projects that disseminate European 

values and contribute to European integration, community engagement, and intercultural 

dialogue. The significance of this distinction lies in the fact that the  EHL action is not 

preservation-focused but instead emphasises dynamic, project-based activities, addressing 

contemporary issues and providing active platforms for cross-border collaboration. This 

ongoing emphasis on project-based initiatives ensures the intervention stays relevant to the 

evolving needs of European society. 

Mismatch Between Original Objectives and Current/Future Needs 

While  the  original  objectives  of  the  EHL  remain  largely  relevant,  there  have  been 

indications  of  a  mismatch  between  the  pre-selection  phase  and  the  challenges  that 

awarded  sites  face  when  implementing  their  projects.  This  discrepancy  stems  from  the 

significant time lag between submitting project proposals and the eventual awarding of the 

EHL, which can take up to a year or more. In many cases, sites face substantial changes in 

their management, financial capacity, and work plans during this period. For example, 

48/120 

 
 
data  collected  from  the  monitoring  phase  indicates  that  several  sites  find  it  difficult  to 

implement the projects initially proposed due to shifting resources and priorities over time. 

This presents a challenge, as the work plans and commitments made during the application 

process may no longer reflect the sites’ current capabilities or the evolving needs of their 

communities.  In  light  of  these  challenges,  it  is  suggested  that  the  EHL  could  consider 

introducing more flexibility into the selection process. This could involve allowing sites to 

resubmit  updated  projects  and  work  plans  upon  receiving  the  label,  or,  alternatively, 

adopting a two-stage selection process. In this approach, sites could first be selected based 

on their ‘European significance’, and then be provided support to refine and develop their 

work  plans  in  consultation  with  the  EHL  Bureau.  This  would  ensure  that  the  awarded 

projects  are  both  feasible  and  in  alignment  with  the  sites'  current  operational  realities. 

Additionally,  there  is  potential  to  adjust  the  legal  framework  to  allow  single  sites  to 

evolve  into  national  thematic  sites  or  transnational  sites,  which  could  foster  broader 

cooperation between regions. This adjustment would allow the EHL to better address the 

growing need for cross-border collaboration and expand the narrative of shared European 

heritage to  include transnational  or multi-site initiatives. Currently, the absence of such 

provisions limits the potential for transnational cooperation, particularly in countries where 

national-level projects dominate the local heritage scene. 

Future Relevance and Megatrends 

Looking to the future, the continued relevance of the EHL will depend on its ability to 

address  emerging  trends  and  adapt  to  the  evolving  socio-cultural  landscape.  Key 

megatrends such as digitalisation, demographic change, and sustainability are already 

having an impact on European heritage practices, and the EHL can play an important role 

in responding to these shifts. For instance, digital tools have increasingly been used by 

sites to engage with younger audiences, showcase heritage in innovative ways, and create 

virtual  experiences  that  transcend  geographical  boundaries.  However,  as  noted  in  the 

findings, only 65% of sites provide links to other EHL sites on their websites, suggesting 

that there is still considerable room for improvement in the promotion of the broader EHL 

network through digital platforms. Moreover, sustainability is an area that is becoming 

more  integrated  into  the  projects  and  work  plans  of  EHL  sites.  Initiatives  focusing  on 

sustainable tourism, heritage preservation, and environmentally conscious project design 

are increasingly important  in  the context of global environmental challenges. Countries 

such  as  Finland  are  already  exploring  how  the  EHL  can  integrate  sustainability  and 

49/120 

 
inclusivity  into  local  heritage  narratives,  presenting  an  opportunity  for  the  initiative  to 

position  itself  as  a  leader  in  promoting  these  values  across  Europe.  In  terms  of 

demographic change, the evolving needs of European societies—especially in the context 

of an ageing population and increasing migration—present opportunities for the EHL to 

promote more inclusive heritage. Sites like the Peace Palace in the Netherlands, which 

engages  youth  in  promoting  historical  awareness,  reflect  the  growing  importance  of 

heritage as a tool for intergenerational dialogue and social cohesion. The EHL has the 

potential to play a crucial role in this context, helping to bridge divides by fostering cross-

cultural understanding through shared heritage. 

National Relevance and Participation Rates 

Figure 15. Relevance of EHL objectives to national needs and challenges 

Strengthening intercultural dialogue (N=50)

Increasing European citizens' understanding of the
history of Europe and of their common yet diverse…

Strengthening European citizens' sense of belonging
to the Union, in particular that of young people (N=50)

Stressing the symbolic value and raising the profile of
sites which have played a significant role in the…

66%

64%

26%

4%

4%

26%

4%

6%

56%

36%

6%

2%

48%

48%

2%

2%

Very relevant

Relevant

Moderately relevant

Slightly relevant

Not relevant

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: PPMI survey of heritage sites, question 25 ‘In your opinion, to what extent are the following European Heritage 

Label objectives relevant to current societal challenges and needs in your country?’ 

The relevance of the EHL is not universally perceived in the same way across all Member 

States,  with  varying  levels  of  participation  contributing  to  some  Member  States  being 

underrepresented. According to data from the evaluation, 57% of site coordinators and 

57% of national coordinators strongly agreed that the EHL had helped raise the visibility 

of  awarded  sites  in  their  respective  countries.  However,  this  boost  in  visibility  has  not 

consistently resulted in higher visitor numbers, indicating that while the EHL provides 

an important platform for heritage promotion, further efforts are required to sustain broader 

public engagement. From a policy perspective, participation rates alone do not directly 

correlate  with  the  perceived  relevance  of  the  initiative.  Stakeholders  in  countries  like 

Poland and the Netherlands view the EHL as a key instrument for supporting European 

50/120 

 
 
intercultural  dialogue  and  European  integration,  particularly  in  the  context  of  the 

Maastricht Treaty and youth education initiatives. However, other countries with lower 

participation rates, such as Finland, emphasise the EHL’s role in sustainability and the 

integration  of  local  heritage  into  global  narratives.  This  shows  that  while  national 

priorities may shape the relevance of the EHL, the initiative remains an important tool for 

addressing  different  needs  across  Europe.  A  critical  challenge  moving  forward  is  the 

underrepresentation of certain regions and the geographic dispersion of EHL sites. This 

lack of diversity in geographical representation risks undermining the narrative of shared 

European heritage, particularly in regions with fewer sites. The absence of sites in certain 

regions could reduce the EHL’s ability to tell the full story of Europe’s cultural diversity. 

As noted in the cross-border effects case studies, this imbalance in representation limits 

opportunities for cross-border collaboration and mutual learning between countries. 

Figure 16. Alignment of the EHL with national cultural heritage priorities 

33%

38%

29%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

To a large extent

To a moderate extent

To a limited extent

Source: PPMI survey of national coordinators, question 24 ‘To what extent do you believe the European Heritage Label 

aligns with and supports the cultural heritage priorities and needs of your country?’, N=21. 

Expanding the Scope of the EHL 

The question of whether the EHL should expand its reach beyond the European Union to 

include  EFTA/EEA  countries  and  candidate  countries  has  been  met  with  mixed 

opinions. Some stakeholders advocate for the expansion of the initiative to include non-

EU  countries,  citing  successful  models  such  as  Creative  Europe  and  the  European 

Capitals  of  Culture,  which  already  include  non-EU  participants.  Expanding  the  EHL 

could strengthen European cultural cooperation and enhance its visibility beyond the EU. 

Sites in countries such as Iceland and Norway, as well as EU candidate countries, would 

offer significant cultural and historical value to the initiative. Conversely, others argue that 

the EHL should first consolidate its presence within the EU before expanding its scope. 

This  includes  ensuring  that  each  Member  State  has  at  least  one  designated  site  and 

addressing  operational  challenges  that  could  arise  with  an  expansion.  A  more  gradual 

51/120 

 
 
 
approach to expansion, possibly starting with transnational sites, could provide a balanced 

solution that does not stretch resources too thin. 

CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, the European Heritage Label continues to be highly relevant to its original 

objectives, promoting shared European values and heritage through the selection of sites 

that  embody  European  significance.  However,  there  are  areas  where  the  intervention 

could be further strengthened to ensure its continued relevance. These include clarifying 

selection  criteria,  introducing  flexibility  in  project  implementation,  considering  the 

inclusion  of  transnational  sites,  and  leveraging  emerging  trends  such  as  digitalisation, 

sustainability, and inclusivity. Moreover, the EHL’s relevance would benefit from greater 

geographical  diversity,  ensuring  that  the  full  range  of  European  cultural  heritage  is 

represented.  The  initiative  has  significant  potential  to  contribute  to  Europe’s  cultural 

landscape in the future, but careful attention to these evolving needs will be critical to its 

continued success. 

52/120 

 
 
 
5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

5.1.  Conclusions 

The  evaluation  of  the  European  Heritage  Label  (EHL)  has  revealed  both  notable 

achievements  and  areas  for  further  development,  confirming  its  growing  relevance  and 

impact across Europe. Throughout the evaluation period, the EHL has made substantial 

progress  in  meeting its  objectives, particularly in enhancing  the visibility and symbolic 

significance of sites awarded the label. This progress is evident in the increased recognition 

of these sites as key representatives of Europe’s shared cultural heritage, contributing to a 

strengthened European identity. The establishment of the EHL Bureau was a significant 

milestone,  providing  essential  support  for  capacity-building  and  fostering  networking 

among awarded sites. Despite these successes, challenges persist, especially in articulating 

and  measuring  abstract  concepts  like  a  shared  European  identity  and  integrating  the 

European dimension more effectively into sites' activities. It is clear that clearer guidance 

and practical tools are needed to help sites navigate these complexities and address gaps in 

their European focus. Nevertheless, the EHL label has provided tangible benefits to the 

sites it has recognised, including enhanced communication of Europe’s cultural heritage 

and the facilitation of international partnerships. External factors, such as the COVID-19 

pandemic, had both positive and negative impacts on the EHL’s development. While the 

pandemic  disrupted  traditional  activities,  it  also  accelerated  innovation  through  the 

adoption of virtual tours and online workshops, demonstrating the EHL's adaptability in 

the  face  of  unforeseen  challenges.  Moving  forward,  efforts  to  strengthen  youth 

engagement,  address  resource  constraints,  and  further  improve  the  integration  of  the 

European dimension into sites’ activities will be key to unlocking the full potential of the 

EHL. 

The efficiency of the EHL’s operational processes was largely positive, as demonstrated 

by the clear selection criteria, smooth procedures, and functional governance structures in 

place. The selection process at both national and European levels was generally effective, 

with sites largely perceiving the criteria as clear. However, there is room for improvement 

in  terms  of  further  clarifying  the  application  of  the  “European  significance”  criterion, 

which continues to be a challenge for many applicant sites. Additionally, while the process 

was  mostly  timely,  some  stakeholders  suggested  that  the  EU-level  evaluation  timeline 

could  be  shortened,  though  legal  limitations  may  make  this  difficult.  A  more  detailed 

53/120 

 
timeline,  including  preliminary  dates  for  award  ceremonies,  could  provide  additional 

clarity for applicant sites. Despite the application process being perceived as somewhat 

burdensome, many sites considered it worthwhile due to the potential benefits of receiving 

the EHL label. Simplifying the application form, offering more information sessions, and 

incorporating insights from European Panel reports into the application instructions could 

further  streamline  the  process.  The  governance  structure  was  largely  efficient,  with  the 

European  Panel  ensuring  that  sites  met  the  selection  criteria.  However,  sustainability 

concerns arise as the number of sites continues to grow, which may challenge the capacity 

of the European Panel and the Commission to manage the network’s expanding needs. A 

more strategic direction across the various procedures could further enhance efficiency, 

particularly as the network continues to evolve. 

In terms of coherence, the EHL demonstrated strong alignment with other EU, national, 

and international heritage initiatives, with a clear complementarity between its goals and 

those of broader European cultural heritage programs. The broad definition of heritage, 

encompassing both tangible and intangible elements, enabled the EHL to distinguish itself 

from more conservation-focused programs while still contributing to the broader European 

heritage  narrative.  The  EHL  label  provided  sites  with  the  opportunity  to  enhance  their 

missions,  promote  European  significance,  and  support  intercultural  dialogue.  Evidence 

indicates that the EHL did not dramatically alter the missions of individual sites but rather 

served  as  a  motivator  to  expand  existing  initiatives.  This  dynamic  created  a  mutually 

reinforcing relationship between the EHL and the awarded sites, where the label's visibility 

helped strengthen local objectives while promoting shared European values. The EHL’s 

role  in  fostering  cross-border  collaboration  and  encouraging  site-to-site  networking  has 

demonstrated  its  capacity  to  bring  together  diverse  stakeholders  and  support  the 

overarching goal of increasing the visibility and recognition of Europe’s shared cultural 

heritage. This coherence with other EU initiatives, such as European Heritage Days and 

the  European  Heritage  /  Europa  Nostra  Awards,  has  further  emphasized  the  EHL’s 

contribution to the wider cultural landscape. 

The EU added value of the EHL is evident in its ability to foster cross-border networks and 

promote  European  cultural  heritage  at  a  pan-European  level.  By  providing  a  common 

framework for collaboration, the EHL label has helped sites form partnerships, share best 

practices,  and  strengthen  their  capacity  to  engage  in  transnational  cooperation.  The 

establishment of the EHL Bureau and the funding it provides has been a significant driver 

54/120 

 
of this added value, offering sites opportunities for additional resources and collaborative 

projects.  Furthermore,  the  EHL  has  facilitated  access  to  other  EU  funding  programs, 

including  Creative  Europe,  Erasmus+,  and  Horizon  Europe,  thereby  enhancing  sites’ 

ability to secure additional support for their projects. The credibility associated with the 

EHL label has proven to be a valuable asset for sites seeking EU funding, particularly in 

the highly competitive environment for grants. The EU's involvement has also played a 

crucial role in supporting capacity-building, especially for smaller sites that may otherwise 

struggle with navigating complex application processes. This added value contributes to a 

stronger,  more  interconnected  European  heritage  sector,  one  that  benefits  from  shared 

values and resources. 

The relevance of the EHL remains high, closely aligning with the EU’s cultural heritage 

priorities and addressing the societal need for greater social cohesion. The EHL’s emphasis 

on promoting gender equality, accessibility, and the inclusion of marginalised groups has 

made  significant  progress,  though  its  impact  has  varied  across  different  sites.  While 

improvements  in  physical  accessibility were often driven by national  policies, the EHL 

label has contributed to the adoption of more inclusive practices, such as sensory-friendly 

tours and the use of digital tools. National stakeholders largely recognise the relevance of 

the  EHL’s  objectives,  though  there  are  differing  opinions  regarding  its  alignment  with 

national heritage priorities. The EHL’s limited visibility at the national level may hinder 

its ability to fully showcase its relevance in addressing these priorities, but as more sites 

join  the  network,  its  impact  on  national  heritage  agendas  is  expected  to  increase.  The 

flexibility  demonstrated  by  the  EHL  in  adapting  to  challenges,  such  as  the  COVID-19 

pandemic, underscores its relevance and ability to respond to evolving needs. The shift to 

virtual formats and the introduction of sub-granting mechanisms to support sites further 

exemplify  the  EHL’s  adaptability,  ensuring  that  its  objectives  remain  aligned  with  the 

evolving landscape of cultural heritage. 

In conclusion, while the EHL has made significant strides in promoting European cultural 

heritage,  enhancing 

the  visibility  of  awarded  sites,  and  fostering  cross-border 

collaboration,  several  areas  require  further  attention.  Improved  clarity  in  the  selection 

criteria, enhanced guidance for sites, and stronger support for smaller sites will be essential 

in ensuring the continued success and impact of the label. As the initiative evolves, it will 

be crucial to build on its strengths while addressing existing gaps to maximise its potential 

55/120 

 
for fostering a shared European identity and supporting the broader EU cultural heritage 

agenda. 

5.2.  Lessons learned 

The evaluation of the European Heritage Label (EHL) programme has provided valuable 

insights,  highlighting  areas  where  improvements  could  significantly  enhance  its 

effectiveness  and  sustainability.  One  critical  aspect  of  the  programme  that  warrants 

attention is the selection process. The European Commission has generally provided clear 

guidance  to  National  Coordinators,  ensuring  that  the  process  remains  structured  and 

transparent.  However, there is room for improvement in communication with candidate 

sites.  Stakeholders  often  expressed  confusion  about  the  time  it  takes  for  the  process  to 

unfold  and  why  it  varies  between  countries.  While  National  Coordinators  were  well-

equipped  with  detailed  guidelines,  the  guidelines  for  candidate  sites  were  not  as 

comprehensive. This disparity left some sites uncertain about what to expect during the 

process,  especially  concerning  the  steps  managed  by  the  Panel  and  the  Commission. 

Feedback given to non-selected sites was typically found in lengthy panel reports, which 

some stakeholders found difficult to locate or understand. A more direct and concise form 

of feedback would help unsuccessful applicants better comprehend why their submissions 

were not successful and what they could do to improve future applications. Moreover, a 

more streamlined and user-friendly approach to accessing relevant documents would make 

the process more efficient and less frustrating for everyone involved. 

As  the  European  Heritage  Label  grows,  it  is  crucial  to  consider  how  to  ensure  its 

sustainability and relevance in the long term. The expansion of the programme requires an 

updated vision that accounts for both the growing number of sites and the evolving needs 

of all stakeholders. The vision of the programme has varied slightly over the years, but 

there  is  an  opportunity  to  establish  a  more  coherent  and  future-oriented  strategy.  This 

vision  should  be  participatory,  involving  key  stakeholders  at  all  levels,  ensuring  that 

everyone is aligned and invested in the programme’s direction. The current governance 

arrangements,  designed  for  a  smaller  number  of  sites,  are  proving  inadequate  for  the 

growing complexity of the programme. Monitoring processes have shown inconsistencies, 

and there are concerns about the Panel’s capacity to oversee an increasing number of sites. 

The  workload  is  becoming  unsustainable,  particularly  as  the  number  of  EHL  sites 

continues  to  rise.  In  addition,  there  are  concerns  about  the  consistency  and  long-term 

56/120 

 
tracking of sites. It is essential that the monitoring process be streamlined and adapted to 

the  growing  scale  of  the  programme.  The  current  variation  in  monitoring  across  cycles 

makes it difficult to track overall progress or evaluate the impact of the EHL in a consistent 

manner. 

The  need  for  a  more  robust  and  sustainable  governance  structure  is  clear.  As  the 

programme continues to grow, ensuring that the monitoring process is both effective and 

manageable is paramount. Streamlining data collection and focusing on key indicators of 

success could alleviate some of the burden. Moreover, a shift towards tailored monitoring 

frameworks  for  sites  clustered  thematically  could  offer  more  in-depth  and  meaningful 

feedback. The Panel’s capacity to manage and monitor the growing number of sites should 

also be addressed. One possible solution is to conduct monitoring in cycles, with a subset 

of sites being monitored each year to distribute the workload more evenly. 

The role of the European Panel is central to the success of the EHL, ensuring that sites 

meet the criteria for selection and monitoring. However, there are areas where the Panel’s 

effectiveness  could  be  improved.  The  appointment  process  for  Panel  members  could 

benefit from greater transparency and clarity. While the current approach is aligned with 

the principle of subsidiarity, the process could be enhanced by providing a standardised 

role  description  for  all  candidates.  This  would  ensure  that  all  appointing  bodies  have  a 

clear understanding of the Panel member’s responsibilities and expectations. The current 

three-year term for Panel members has also been noted as too short for them to fully grasp 

the intricacies of the process. Extending the term to four or five years could allow members 

to  contribute  more  effectively  and  gain  a  deeper  understanding  of  the  EHL’s  goals. 

Additionally, the integration of a formalised knowledge transfer process between outgoing 

and  incoming  members  would  ensure  that  institutional  knowledge  is  preserved, 

contributing to a more sustainable and cohesive Panel. 

Another significant area for reflection is the concept of European significance, which is at 

the  core  of  the  EHL  selection  criteria.  While  the  notion  of  European  significance  is 

invaluable,  it  remains  somewhat  vague,  leading  to  difficulties  for  applicant  sites  in 

demonstrating how they meet this criterion. Some sites have struggled to understand what 

constitutes  ‘European  significance’  and  how  they  can  present  it  effectively  in  their 

applications. The ambiguity surrounding this criterion has often resulted in unnecessary 

workloads for applicant sites, who are unsure whether their site meets the basic eligibility 

57/120 

 
requirements.  Clearer  guidance  on  what  ‘European  significance’  entails  would  help 

applicant sites present more targeted and relevant proposals. Furthermore, simplifying the 

selection  process  could  reduce  unnecessary  workload.  A  two-step  process  could  be 

introduced, where the first stage focuses solely on determining whether a site meets the 

European significance criterion, allowing only those sites that clearly meet the requirement 

to  proceed  to  the  next  stage.  This  would  help  streamline  the  process  and  ensure  that 

resources are not spent on applications that do not meet the fundamental criteria. 

Finally,  the  EHL  could  benefit  from  greater  flexibility  within  its  legal  framework. 

Currently,  certain  rigid  criteria—such  as  the  rule  limiting  the  selection  to  one  site  per 

Member  State—restrict  the  potential  of  the  programme.  This  limitation  can  discourage 

eligible sites from applying, particularly in cases where competition is intense, and it may 

prevent sites with significant potential from being awarded the label. Introducing greater 

flexibility  in  the  timeline  for  both  submission  and  evaluation  would  also  help 

accommodate delays and unforeseen changes that can affect a site’s ability to implement 

its proposed projects. The possibility of promoting joint projects between applicant sites 

could  foster  greater  collaboration  and  resource-sharing,  ultimately  leading  to  stronger, 

more impactful initiatives. Additionally, the legal framework could be revised to support 

sites that wish to evolve or form national or transnational networks after being awarded 

the label. This flexibility would allow sites to scale their projects and align more effectively 

with the broader goals of the EHL. 

In light of these reflections, it is clear that the European Heritage Label programme has 

made valuable contributions to the recognition of Europe’s cultural heritage, but there is 

significant  potential  for  it  to  evolve  and  become  even  more  effective  in  the  future.  By 

addressing  the  challenges  related  to  communication,  governance,  the  selection  process, 

and the legal framework, the EHL can continue to thrive and support the preservation of 

Europe’s shared cultural identity. 

58/120 

 
 
 
ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

−  Lead DG: DG EAC, Education, youth, sport and culture. EAC D2 – Creative Europe  

−  Decide reference: PLAN/2022/1961 

−  Work Programme reference: Creative Europe Programme - Decision No 1194/2011/EU of 

the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 establishing a European 

Union action for the European Heritage Label 

−  Organisation and timing:    

o  In compliance with Decision No 1194/2011/EU of the European Parliament and of 

the Council, the Commission is mandated to carry out an external and independent 

evaluation of the European Heritage Label action every six years.   

o  The evaluation for the 2018-2024 period is supported by independent assessments 

conducted  by  external  experts,  which  took  place  from  January  2024  to  January 

2025, and were managed by DG EAC. 

o  The main preparatory steps for the evaluation in 2023 included:  

▪  setting up an interservice group to accompany and steer the evaluation; 

▪  preparing  technical  specifications  for  supporting  the  external  evaluation 

assignment (EAC/2021/OP/0004 – Multiple framework service contract). 

•  The service contract was awarded to a consortium led by the PPMI 

Group, UAB under the DG EAC framework contract for evaluations 

and impact assessments and started in April 2024. 

o  The external evaluation assignment interview program, targeted consultations, and 

focus  groups.  It  provided  the  main  evidence  base  for  the  staff  working 

document. The  service  contractor’s  full  final  report  has  been  published 

here:  https://op.europa.eu/publication-detail/-/publication/5d0688ff-fe2c-11ef-

b7db-01aa75ed71a1  

DGs participated in the steering group. 

59/120 

 
An interservice group of relevant  Commission departments  oversaw the  evaluation  and met 

regularly throughout the evaluation process. In addition to DG EAC, the interservice group was 

composed of representatives of 6 Commission Directorate General.  

In line with the Better Regulation Guidelines, the interservice group was involved in all the 

key steps of the evaluation work, including:  

(i)  the evaluation mandate;  

(ii)  the evaluation questions;  

(iii) the technical specifications for selecting the external contractor;  

(iv)  Interim report and steering the evaluation;  

(v)  providing comments  on,  and  ensuring the  quality  and  objectivity of 

evaluation reports. 

In connection with the interservice group’s meetings and key deliverables, consultations were 

carried out in a dedicated Teams channel.  

The feedback periods, deadlines and arrangements for managing comments and the approval 

of deliverables were agreed in the meetings. 

−  Evidence  used  together  with  sources  and  any  issues  regarding  its  quality  (i.e.  has  the 

information been quality assured?):  

−  The external contractors carried out work/studies.  

o  The  Commission’s  EHL  evaluation  was  supported  by  an  independent  external 

evaluation assignment.  

o  In  line  with  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines,  the  contractor  analysed  the 

effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, added value and relevance of the EHL through 

a mix of different methods, including both qualitative and quantitative approaches. 

o  The  external  evaluation  assignment  was  carried  out  between  April  and 

December  2024  and  included  diverse  sources  encompassing  desk  research, 

stakeholder consultation activities (surveys, interviews, and focus groups), and case 

studies.  

60/120 

 
o  The  consultation  strategy  for  the  evaluation  was  based  on  a  mapping  of 

stakeholders. This data was also mapped into a structured dataset to enable analysis 

by cycle and country.  

o  For  the  desk  research:  The  evaluation  analysed  more  specifically  monitoring 

forms submitted by EHL sites during the 2020 and 2024 monitoring cycles, along 

with  2020 expert assessment forms and the European Panel  reports for  selection 

and monitoring.  

o  For the survey programme, two targeted surveys were conducted across different 

stakeholder groups, included national coordinators and panel members involved in 

the EHL. 

o  Targeted interviews were programmed with  diverse range of stakeholders from 

various  backgrounds  and  regions  to  gain  in-depth  insights  and  expand  the 

understanding of the programme’s impact.  

o  Case studies were carried out. There were four country-level case studies and five 

horizontal  case  studies  on  thematic  priorities.  Data  were  collected  through  desk 

research, selected survey questions and interviews. The national case studies were 

independently  evaluated  by  external  experts  and  subjected  to  the  feedback  of 

customer DGs. 

−  Use of external expertise: The expertise advise of the Commission EHL expert groups was 

equally used in the process as these experts were included in the consultations strategy and 

associated  to  the  desk  research  through  the  consultation  of  the  annual  selection  or 

monitoring  reports.  The  experts  of  the  Commission  EHL  expert  group  were  thereupon 

associated and could draw a series of recommendations for the external experts. 

−  ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

The  evaluation  of  the  European  Heritage  Label  (EHL)  Action  for  the  period  2018-2024 

employed a comprehensive methodology based on a triangulation of data from several sources. 

These  included  desk  research,  stakeholder  consultation  activities  such  as  surveys, 

interviews, and focus groups, as well as the use of case studies. This multi-faceted approach 

ensured that the evaluation captured a broad spectrum of insights, providing a robust evidence 

base to assess the performance and impact of the programme. 

61/120 

 
Desk research was a key element of the evaluation process and was carried out through two 

main activities: the analysis of monitoring data and the review of relevant literature and internal 

documents. Monitoring data from the 2020 and 2024 cycles was collected, including expert 

assessment forms, and organised into a structured dataset. This allowed for a detailed analysis, 

enabling the team to examine data by cycle, question, and country. A quantification framework 

was developed to convert qualitative monitoring data into measurable formats, facilitating the 

assessment of how sites met label criteria, promoted European cultural heritage, and addressed 

key challenges. Alongside the monitoring data analysis, relevant documents such as European 

Panel reports, site application forms, selection reports, and policy documents were reviewed. 

These  documents  enriched  the  evaluation  process,  particularly  in  the  development  of  case 

studies and the design of the evaluation methodology. 

The consultation programme played a critical role in gathering insights from stakeholders 

across various levels, including site, national, EU, and international perspectives. Structured 

interviews  were  conducted  with  30  stakeholders,  including  national  coordinators,  site 

coordinators  from  both  selected  and  applicant  sites,  European  Panel  members,  and 

representatives from DG EAC. These interviews formed the basis for horizontal and country-

specific case studies, adding depth to the evaluation findings. Additionally, surveys targeting 

national and site coordinators were conducted from 26 September to 20 October 2024. The 

surveys achieved broad geographic coverage and provided valuable data on the experiences 

and perspectives of key stakeholders throughout the EHL programme’s lifecycle. 

Focus groups further contributed to the evaluation by facilitating in-depth discussions on key 

issues. Three focus groups were organised, addressing the intervention logic, the functioning 

of the European Panel, and the effects of cross-border cooperation. These discussions involved 

a variety of stakeholders and provided valuable insights into governance, selection processes, 

and the broader impact of the programme. 

A core component of the evaluation was the case study programme, which examined both 

country-level and horizontal aspects of EHL implementation. Four country-level case studies 

were  conducted in  Finland, the Netherlands, Poland, and  Italy, ensuring  diverse geographic 

and regional representation. These case studies explored national and site-level outcomes, site-

specific  implementation  of  EHL  objectives,  and  regional  variations,  providing  a  deeper 

understanding of the programme’s impact. In addition, two horizontal case studies focused on 

62/120 

 
governance and cross-border effects, analysing key aspects of EHL implementation and their 

contributions to broader EU-level synergies. 

The  evaluation  methodology  was  robust,  but  several  limitations  were  acknowledged.  These 

included the absence of the final 2024 monitoring report at the time of the evaluation, which 

impacted  some  of  the  analysis,  as  well  as  the  lack  of  statistical  methods  for  text  coding 

validation, which would have required significant additional resources. However, the response 

rates  to  surveys  were  sufficiently  high  to  ensure  reliable  results,  and  the  evaluation  team 

employed contingency measures to gather stakeholder insights even when certain participants 

were  unavailable.  Despite  these  limitations,  the  triangulation  of  diverse  methods,  strong 

stakeholder  participation,  and  thorough  data  analysis  ensured  that  the  evaluation’s  findings 

were reliable and comprehensive.

63/120 

 
ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) 

CRITERION 1 : EFFECTIVENESS  

Following the Better Regulation Guidelines and requirements set in the ToR, to evaluate effectiveness of the EHL we assess the extent to which 

progress  has  been  made  towards  achieving  its  general  and  specific  objectives.  In  other  words,  we  analyse  short-  and  medium-term  results 

(outcomes) of the EHL expected to be achieved during the period of analysis.   

Box 1. Definition of effectiveness  

According to the Commission’s Better Regulation Toolbox, effectiveness analysis considers how successful EU action has been in achieving 

or progressing towards its objectives. If the objectives have not been achieved, an assessment should be made of the extent to which progress 

has fallen short of the target and what factors have influenced why something has not been successful or why it has not yet been achieved. The 

effectiveness analysis should try to identify any unintended or unexpected effects and look closely at the benefits of the EU intervention as they 

accrue to different stakeholders.   

Source: Better Regulation Toolbox, pp. 403-404.  

Analysis of effectiveness  considers how successful the EHL has been in achieving, or progressing towards, its objectives. The analysis of 

effectiveness is closely linked to the intervention logic developed. To evaluate this criterion, we rely on desk research, in-depth case studies, 

targeted consultation measures (survey, interviews and focus groups). The latter data sources are particularly important as the stakeholders were 

64/119 

 
 
 
 
directly engaged in the implementation of the EHL action and are in the best position to indicate the development of the action as well as factors 

driving or hindering its implementation.  

EQ01  

1.1 What have been the effects of the intervention? 

1.2 To what extent were the EU-level general and intermediate objectives of the action met during the period of 2018-2024 

of its implementations?  

1.3 Which external factors have affected progress towards these objectives and how?  

Table 1. Evaluation question 1  

Operational 

question  

Assessment parameters  

1.1 What have been 

Evidence  and  extent  to  which  the  intervention  had  achieved  the  following 

the  effects  of  the 

intended effects (outcomes):  

intervention?  

•  Sites continue to comply with the criteria for the label  

•  Enhanced visibility of the action and the European dimension of cultural heritage  

Methods 

and 

sources  

Surveys:  

Title-awarded 

sites  

National 

•  Greater emphasis on common European values, history and culture by designated 

Coordinators  and 

sites  

Authorities  

•  Diverse audiences, including youth, can more effectively understand and connect 

Interview 

with the shared European dimension of the designated sites  

programme   

•  Sites  implement  more  effective  heritage  management  practices  and  better 

Desk research  

capitalise on international and partnership opportunities  

65/120 

 
 
Country-level 

case studies  

1.2. To what extent 

Evidence  and  extent  to  which  the  intervention  had  progressed  towards  the 

Survey:  

were  the  EU-level 

following general objectives during the period of 2018-2024:  

general 

and 

•  Strengthening European citizens' sense of belonging to the Union, in particular 

intermediate 

that of young people, based on shared values and elements of European history 

Title-awarded 

sites  

National 

objectives  of 

the 

and cultural heritage, as well as an appreciation of national and regional diversity  

Coordinators  and 

action  met  during 

•  Strengthening intercultural dialogue  

the period of 2018-

Authorities  

Interview 

2024 

of 

its 

Evidence  and  extent  to  which  the  intervention  had  progressed  towards  the 

programme   

implementations?  

following intermediate objectives during the period of 2018-2024:  

Desk research  

•  Stressing the symbolic value and raising the profile of sites which have played a 

Focus groups  

significant  role  in  the  history  and  culture  of  Europe  and/or  the  building  of  the 

Case studies  

Union  

• 

Increasing European citizens' understanding of the history of Europe and of their 

common  yet  diverse  cultural  heritage,  especially  in  relation  to  the  democratic 

values and human rights that underpin the process of European integration  

1.3.  

Which 

Types  and  magnitude  of  external  factors  that  have  affected  (positively  or 

Survey  

external 

factors 

negatively) progress towards the aforementioned objectives  

66/120 

 
 
  
have 

affected 

progress 

towards 

these 

objectives 

and how?  

1.3.1  To  what 

Types and magnitude of effects to the progress towards the action’s objectives 

extent  did  Covid-

that resulted from Covid-19  

19 

affect 

the 

progress  of 

the 

action  towards  its 

objectives?  

Interview 

programme   

Desk research  

Focus groups  

Case studies  

Survey  

Interview 

programme   

Desk research  

County-level 

case studies  

EQ02  

2.1. What are the main issues and challenges faced by the sites when applying for the EHL and – if selected – when 

delivering  on  the  EHL  objectives?  2.2  What  are  the  specific  challenges  that  they  have  to  manage  regarding: 

development of cross-borders and transnational projects, the implementation of their action plans or youth-focused 

activities?  

67/120 

 
 
  
 
Operational 

question  

Assessment parameters  

Methods 

and 

sources  

2.1.1. What are the 

The extent to which the label-awarded sites perceive the application process and 

Survey 

of 

main 

issues  and 

forms as complex  

challenges 

faced 

by  the  sites  at  the 

application stage?  

applicant 

and 

label-awarded 

sites  

Interview 

programme   

Evidence of any issues, including their nature and magnitude, that the sites may 

Survey 

of 

have experienced during the application stage  

applicant 

and 

label-awarded 

sites  

Interview 

programme  

2.1.2. What are the 

Extent to which the sites continue to contribute to the achievement of site-specific 

Survey 

of 

main 

issues  and 

objectives.  

applicant 

and 

challenges 

faced 

Evidence of any issues, including their nature and magnitude, that the sites may 

label-awarded 

by  the  sites  when 

have experienced when delivering on the following site-specific EHL objectives:  

sites  

•  Highlighting the European significance of the label-awarded sites  

68/120 

 
 
delivering  on  the 

•  Raising European citizens’ awareness of their common cultural heritage, especially 

Interview 

EHL objectives?  

that of young people  

programme   

•  Facilitating the sharing of experiences and exchanges of best practices across the 

Country-level 

Union  

• 

• 

Increasing and/or improving access for all, especially young people  

Increasing intercultural dialogue, especially among young people, through artistic, 

cultural and historical education  

•  Fostering  synergies  between  cultural  heritage  on  one  hand  and  contemporary 

creation and creativity on the other  

•  Contributing to the attractiveness and the economic and sustainable development 

of regions, in particular through cultural tourism  

case studies  

Desk research  

2.2.1. What are the 

Evidence of any challenges, including their nature and magnitude, that the sites may 

Survey:  

specific challenges 

have had to manage regarding:  

that  the  sites  have 

•  The development of cross-border projects  

to 

manage 

•  The development of transnational projects  

regarding 

the 

development 

of 

cross-borders  and 

69/120 

Title-awarded 

sites  

National 

Coordinators 

and Authorities  

 
 
  
transnational 

projects?  

2.2.2. What are the 

Evidence of specific challenges, including their nature and magnitude, that the sites 

specific challenges 

may have had to manage regarding:  

Interview 

programme   

Desk research  

Survey  

Interview 

that  the  sites  have 

•  Ensuring  the  sound  management  of  the  site,  including  defining  objectives  and 

programme   

to  manage  when 

indicators  

Desk research  

implementing their 

•  Ensuring the preservation of the site and its transmission to future generations in 

Country-level 

action plans?  

accordance with the relevant protection regimes  

case studies  

•  Ensuring the quality of the reception facilities such as the historical presentation, 

visitors’ information and signposting  

•  Ensuring access for the widest possible public, inter alia, through site adaptations 

or staff training  

•  According  special  attention  to  young  people,  in  particular  by  granting  them 

privileged access to the site  

•  Promoting the site as a sustainable tourism destination   

•  Developing  a  coherent  and  comprehensive  communication  strategy  highlighting 

the European significance of the site  

•  Ensuring that the management of the site is as environmentally friendly as possible  

70/120 

 
 
  
2.2.3. What are the 

Evidence of specific challenges, including their nature and magnitude, that the sites 

specific challenges 

may have had to manage experienced regarding:  

Survey  

Interview 

that  the  sites  have 

•  Organising educational activities, especially for young people, which increase the 

programme   

to  manage  when 

understanding of the common history of Europe  

Desk research  

implementing 

youth-focused 

activities?  

•  Granting young people privileged access to the site  

•  Reaching  out 

to  citizens,  especially  young  people 

through  dedicated 

communication and visibility measures  

EQ03  

3.1. To what extent was the European panel useful during the selection phase?  

3.2.  Are  the  appointed  European  panel  members  relevant  to  the  criteria  described  in  the  2011 

Decision?   

Operational question  

AssesSment parameters  

3.1.  To  what  extent  was  the 

Satisfaction with the European panel's process of selecting sites for 

European  panel  useful  during 

the attribution of the label  

the selection phase?  

Number of information requests and site visits  

Methods 

and 

sources  

Survey  

Interview 

programme   

Desk research  

71/120 

 
 
  
  
The extent to which the additional information requests and site visits 

were useful (integration of observations)  

Adherence  to  the  timeline  specified  in  the  regulation  for  issuing  a 

report on pre-selected sites  

Quality  of  the  European  panel's  report  in  terms  of  providing 

recommendations  and  explanations  for  selected  and  non-selected 

sites  

3.2.  Are 

the 

appointed 

The extent to which the appointed European Panel Members and their 

Desk-research  

European 

panel  members 

competences are complementary.  

Interview 

relevant 

to 

the 

criteria 

The  extent  to  which  the  members  are  drawn  from  a  balanced 

programme   

described 

in 

the 

2011 

geographical spectrum.  

Focus  group  on 

Decision?  

The  extent  to  which  European  panel  members  possess  relevant 

the  Governance 

expertise in evaluating the symbolic European value of sites and their 

of the Action  

roles in the history and culture of Europe and the Union.  

Horizontal 

case 

Demonstrated competence of panel members in evaluating the quality 

study 

on 

the 

of projects submitted by candidate sites and ensuring they meet the 

Governance 

of 

EHL objectives.  

the Action  

72/120 

 
 
 
EQ04  

4.1. To what extent does the two-step selection procedure help the site design a programme and action 

plan that is relevant to the objectives and criteria laid down for the legal Base?  

4.2 Could the selection procedure be improved, and if so, how?  

Operational question  

Assessment parameters  

Methods 

and 

4.1.  To  what  extent  does  the  two-step 

Evidence of improvements in proposal quality between initial 

selection procedure help the site design 

submissions and final Union-level submissions.  

sources  

Survey  

Interview 

a programme and an action plan that is 

Feedback 

from  National  Coordinators  on  areas  of 

programme   

relevant  to  the  objectives  and  criteria 

improvement and subsequent modifications  

Focus  group  on 

laid down for the legal Base?  

Alignment of final selected sites with the overarching goals 

the governance of 

of the EHL as assessed by the European panel.  

the action  

The extent to which the two-step procedure was instrumental 

Horizontal 

case 

in improving the alignment.  

73/120 

study 

on 

the 

governance of the 

action  

Desk research  

 
 
 
4.2.1.  Could 

the  pre-selection  at 

Extent  to  which  the  pre-selection  procedures  were  clear  to 

national  level  selection  procedure  be 

awarded sites  

Survey  

Interview 

improved, and if so, how?  

Extent to which candidate and label-awarded sites found the 

programme   

national coordinators to be helpful in providing guidance and 

Focus  group  on 

support  

the governance of 

Extent to which candidate and label-awarded sites found the 

the action  

national coordinators to be effective in promoting and raising 

Horizontal 

case 

awareness of the EHL (i.e. through pro-actively encouraging 

study 

on 

the 

sites to apply)  

Number and type of issues reported  

4.2.2.  Could  the  selection  at  Union 

Extent to which the selection at Union level procedures were 

level procedure be improved, and if so, 

clear to awarded sites  

how?  

Number and type of issues reported  

governance of the 

action  

Desk research  

Survey  

Interview 

programme   

Focus  group  on 

the governance of 

the action  

Horizontal 

case 

study 

on 

the 

74/120 

 
 
governance of the 

action  

Desk research  

EQ05  

5.1 To what extent has the EU intervention achieved (or progressed towards) its objectives?  

5.2 To what extent have the EHL sites implemented by the title-holding sites succeeded in attaining 

the objectives of the action?  

Operational question  

Assesment parameters  

Methods 

and 

5.1.1. To what extent 

Extent  to  which  measures  to  ensure  the  visibility  of  the  action  were 

has 

the 

initiative 

implemented  

sources  

Survey  

Interview 

successfully 

Extent  to  which  measures  to  enhance  the  diversity  of  the  sites  were 

programme   

enhanced  the  range, 

implemented  

diversity, 

and 

Number, type, scope of measures  

visibility of European 

shared 

heritages 

through  transnational 

Desk research  

Country-level  case 

studies  

Horizontal 

Case 

study 

on 

the 

75/120 

 
 
  
 
cooperation 

and 

European activities?  

5.1.2. To what extent 

Extent  to  which  measures  to  ensure  the  provision  of  high-quality 

has 

the 

initiative 

educational materials and activities were implemented  

alignment  with  the 

Horizontal  priorities 

of the Commission  

Survey  

Interview 

successfully  widened 

Extent  to  which  measures  to  promote  engagement  for  diverse  audiences, 

programme   

access 

to 

and 

with a particular focus on youth were implemented  

Desk research  

increased 

Extent to which the various forms of accessibility of sites were enhanced  

Country-level  case 

participation 

in 

Number, type, scope of measures  

heritage 

experiences?  

5.1.3. To what extent 

Extent  to  which  capacity-building  opportunities  for  the  designated  sites 

has 

the 

initiative 

were implemented  

studies  

Horizontal 

Case 

study 

on 

the 

alignment  of 

the 

Horizontal  priorities 

of the Commission  

Survey  

Interview 

effectively 

strengthened 

capacity 

of 

the 

the 

Extent  to  which  measures  to  ensure  the  multi-networking  effects  of  the 

programme   

action were implemented  

Number, type, scope of measures  

Desk research  

Case studies  

76/120 

 
 
heritage  sector  and 

fostered  meaningful 

links  with 

other 

cultural sectors?  

5.1.4. To what extent 

Extent  to  which  measures  to  enhance  the  European  profile  of  the  sites 

has 

the 

initiative 

through heritage and culture were implemented  

succeeded  in  raising 

Number, type, scope of measures  

the  European  profile 

of 

sites 

through 

heritage and culture?  

5.2.  To  what  extent 

Evidence  of  demonstrated  efforts  by  the  sites  to  have  highlighted  their 

have the title-holding 

European significance   

Survey  

Interview 

programme   

Desk research  

Case studies  

Visitor  engagement 

experiment   

Survey  

Interview 

sites 

succeeded 

in 

Evidence  of  demonstrated  efforts  by  the  sites  to  have  raised  European 

programme   

attaining 

objectives 

of 

the 

the 

action?  

citizens’  awareness  of  their  common  cultural  heritage,  especially  that  of 

Desk research  

young people  

Case studies  

77/120 

 
 
  
Evidence  of  demonstrated  efforts  by  the  sites  to  have  facilitated  the 

exchange of experiences and best practices among diverse cultural entities 

within the EU  

Evidence  of  demonstrated  efforts  by  the  sites  to  have  increased  and/or 

improve access for all, especially young people  

Evidence of demonstrated efforts by the sites to have increased intercultural 

dialogue,  especially  among  young  people,  through  artistic,  cultural,  and 

historical education  

Evidence  of  demonstrated  efforts  by  the  sites  to  have  fostered  synergies 

between cultural heritage and contemporary creation and creativity  

Evidence  of  demonstrated  efforts  by  the  sites  to  have  contributed  to  the 

attractiveness and the economic and sustainable development of regions, in 

particular through cultural tourism  

EQ06  

6.1. Have there been any unintended consequences of the action?  

Operational question  

Assesment parameters  

Methods 

and 

sources  

78/120 

 
 
  
 
6.1.  Have  there  been  any  unintended 

Number and type of unintended consequences   

consequences of the action?  

Survey  

Interview 

programme   

Desk research  

Country-level 

case studies  

EQ07  

7.1. Do the EHL Sites use the visibility and recognition of the label as a leverage to organise cultural 

activities and engage with cultural professionals?  

7.2. If this is not the case, what are the reasons?  

Operational question  

Assesment parameters  

Methods 

and 

7.1. Do the EHL Sites use the visibility 

Number  and  type  of  cultural  activities  at  label-awarded 

and  recognition  of  the  label  as  a 

sites  

sources  

Survey  

Interview 

leverage  to  organise  cultural  activities 

Number  and  type  of  cultural  professionals  working  / 

programme   

and 

engage 

with 

cultural 

collaborating with label-awarded sites  

Desk research  

professionals?  

79/120 

 
 
  
 
 
7.2. If this is not the case, what are the 

Type of reasons and their magnitude  

reasons?  

Survey  

Interview 

programme   

Desk research  

CRITERION 2: EFFICIENCY 

Under the group of evaluation questions covered by the efficiency criteria we include the questions on the extent to which the desired effects 

of the EHL are achieved at a reasonable cost or as the optimal balance between the resources employed and the results achieved. The concept 

of efficiency also concerns the adequacy of the management arrangements for the implementation of an action (governance set-up, human and 

financial resources, processes and procedures, tools, etc.), and the potential for simplifications of the processes.   

Box 2. Definition of efficiency  

Efficiency  considers  the  resources  used  by  an  intervention  for  the  given  changes  generated  by  the  intervention  (which  may  be  positive  or 

negative). As the way an intervention is approached and conducted can have a significant influence on its effects, efficiency analysis should 

80/120 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
look  closely  at  the  costs  of  the  EU  intervention  and  identify  what  factors  are  driving  these  costs  and  how  these  factors  relate  to  the  EU 

intervention. The purpose of the assessment of efficiency is to show that resources are used to their best and therefore that the costs generated 

are strictly necessary to reach the policy objectives. If this is not the case, the potential for simplification is to be highlighted in this analysis. 

The efficiency analysis should also compare the identified costs with the benefits that were identified under the effectiveness criterion.  

Source: Better Regulation Toolbox, pp. 404-405.  

During the evaluation, we ensure the best use of internal monitoring data collected by the Contracting Authority and the National Coordinators 

and triangulate it with the results of stakeholder consultations. Additionally, the in-depth case studies are of the key importance to mapping 

potential differences across the Member States participating in the action.   

EQ08  

8.1. To what extent is the selection procedure considered fair and transparent by the sites?  

8.2. Do the Sites understand the selection criteria?  

Operational question  

Assessment parameters  

Methods 

and 

8.1.  To  what  extent  is  the  selection 

Extent  to  which  the  selection  procedures  were  seen  as 

procedure 

considered 

fair 

and 

transparent by the awarded sites  

transparent by the sites?   

Number and type of issues reported  

sources  

Survey  

Interview 

programme   

81/120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
8.2.  Do 

the  sites  understand 

the 

Extent to which the selection procedures were seen as clear 

selection criteria?  

to awarded sites  

Desk research  

Survey  

Interview 

Extent  to  which  information  on  the  selection  procedures 

programme   

was easy to find  

Number and type of issues reported  

Desk research  

EQ09  

9.1.  How  timely  and  efficient  is  the  selection  process  (timing,  guiding  documents  and  reports)  to 

prepare the EHL Award Ceremony?  

9.2. Is the entire length of the selection procedure (3 years) relevant?  

Operational question  

Assessment parameters  

Methods 

and 

sources  

82/120 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
9.1.  How  timely  and  efficient  is  the 

Share of selection procedures completed on time  

selection  process 

(timing,  guiding 

If delays occurred, reasons and their magnitude  

Survey  

Interview 

documents  and  reports)  to  prepare  the 

Share  of 

label-awarded  sites 

that  acknowledge 

the 

programme   

EHL Award Ceremony?  

helpfulness of the guiding documents  

Desk research  

Feedback  from  the  Commission  on  the  quality  and 

usefulness of the selection reports  

Any issues reported, their type and magnitude  

9.2. Is the entire length of the selection 

Scope identification to streamline selection procedures   

procedure (3 years) relevant?  

Scope identification to expedite selection procedures   

Survey  

Interview 

Feedback from all concerned Stakeholders on the relevance 

programme   

of the entire length of the selection procedure  

Desk research  

EQ10  

10.1. Are there significant differences between years/Member States in terms of applications? 10.2. 

If  so,  what  is  causing  them?  Have  any  inefficiencies  been  identified?  10.3.  To  what  extent  is  the 

selection procedure sustainable over time, in particular in smaller Member States?  

Operational question  

Assessment parameters  

Methods 

and 

sources  

83/120 

 
 
  
 
10.1.  Are  there  significant  differences 

Number, type and magnitude of differences between years 

Desk research  

between years/Member States in terms 

in terms of the quantity and quality of the applications  

Country-level  case 

of applications?  

Number,  type  and  magnitude  of  differences  between  the 

Member States in terms of the quantity and quality of the 

applications  

10.2. If so, what is causing them? Have 

Number, type and magnitude of differences between years 

any inefficiencies been identified?  

in terms of the quantity and quality of the applications  

studies  

Interview 

programme   

Survey  

Interview 

Number,  type  and  magnitude  of  differences  between  the 

programme   

Member States in terms of the quantity and quality of the 

Desk research  

applications  

10.3.  To  what  extent  is  the  selection 

Availability  of  administrative  resources  and  capacity  in 

procedure  sustainable  over  time,  in 

participating  Member  States  (number  of  dedicated  staff, 

particular in smaller Member States?  

financial resources, training and support required)  

Case studies  

Survey   

Interview 

programme   

Extent  to  which  participation  costs  are  seen  as  balanced 

Desk research  

with participation benefits  

Country-level  case 

studies  

84/120 

 
 
  
  
  
EQ11  

11.1. To what extent has the European panel been efficient and delivered a quality output during the 

selection procedure? 11.2. For example, has the European panel sufficiently assessed the applications 

against the EHL criteria and objectives?  

11.3. Has the European panel taken other elements into account?  

11.4. On the quality of the European panel selection reports: are they clear and precise enough?  

11.5. Are they useful for the sites concerned, notably the parts for non-selected sites?  

Operational question  

Assessment parameters  

Methods 

and 

11.1. To what extent has the European 

Extent of timeliness and effectiveness of their actions and 

sources  

Survey  

panel  been  efficient  and  delivered  a 

processes  during 

the  selection  procedure 

(resource 

Desk research  

quality  output  during  the  selection 

utilisation, and adherence to established timelines)  

Focus group on the 

procedure?  

Level  of  accuracy,  completeness,  and  relevance  of  the 

governance  of  the 

information  provided,  meeting  the  objectives  of  the 

action  

selection activities  

85/120 

Horizontal 

case 

study 

on 

the 

governance  of  the 

action   

 
 
 
11.2.  For  example,  has  the  European 

Degree of alignment between the assessment outcomes and 

Survey  

panel 

sufficiently 

assessed 

the 

the EHL criteria and objectives.  

applications  against  the  EHL  criteria 

Number, scope and magnitude of issues identified  

and objectives?  

11.3.  Has  the  European  panel  taken 

Evidence,  number  and  scope  of  the  country-level  or  site-

Desk research  

Interview 

programme  

Focus group on the 

governance  of  the 

action  

Horizontal 

case 

study 

on 

the 

governance  of  the 

action  

Survey  

other elements into account?  

level specificities of the sites that the European panel has 

Interview 

taken into account  

86/120 

programme  

Desk research  

Focus group  

Case study  

 
 
11.4.  On  the  quality  of  the  European 

Level of effectiveness of communication and coherence in 

panel  selection  reports:  are  they  clear 

presenting information  

Survey  

Interview 

and precise enough?  

Feedback  from  relevant  stakeholders  on  clarity  of  the 

programme  

reports  

Desk research  

Focus group  

Case study  

11.5.  Are  they  useful  for  the  sites 

Quality and depth of feedback provided to applicants.  

Survey of applicant 

concerned,  notably  the  parts  for  non-

Evidence of instances when non-selected sites were able to 

sites  

selected sites?  

use the feedback to apply again  

Interview 

programme  

87/120 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EQ12  

12.1. To what extent has the European panel been efficient and delivered a quality output during the 

monitoring exercises? 

 12.2. Does it deliver relevant support and guidance to the label- holding sites?  

12.3. To what extent does the European panel check that the criteria are fulfilled?  

12.4. Are there other elements the European panel has taken into account?  

12.5. On the quality of European panel monitoring reports: are they clear and consistent enough?  

Operational question  

Assessment parameters  

Methods 

and 

sources  

12.1. To what extent has the European 

Adherence to scheduled timelines for monitoring exercises.  

Desk research  

panel  been  efficient  and  delivered  a 

Comprehensiveness,  consistency  and  objectivity 

in 

the 

Country-level 

quality  output  during  the  monitoring 

monitoring process across different sites.  

case studies  

exercises?  

Quality  and  clarity  of  the  reports  generated  from  the 

Horizontal  case 

monitoring exercises.  

12.2.  Does  it  deliver  relevant  support 

Satisfaction  of  label-holding  sites  with  the  support  and 

and  guidance  to  the  label-  holding 

guidance received  

sites?  

88/120 

study  on 

the 

governance  of 

the action  

Survey  

Interview 

programme   

 
 
 
12.3. To what extent does the European 

The extent to which the panel provides detailed documentation 

Desk research  

Effectiveness of follow-up actions and improvements based on 

monitoring findings.  

panel  check 

that 

the  criteria  are 

and justification for its decisions.  

fulfilled?  

Evidence and number of unfulfilled criteria  

12.4.  Are  there  other  elements  the 

Evidence, number and scope of the country-level or site-level 

European  panel  has 

taken 

into 

specificities of the sites that the European panel has taken into 

account?  

account  

12.5. On the quality of European panel 

Comprehensiveness,  consistency  and  objectivity 

in 

the 

monitoring  reports:  are  they  clear  and 

monitoring process across different sites.  

Horizontal  case 

study  on 

the 

Governance  of 

the Action  

Survey  

Interview 

programme   

Desk research  

Survey  

Interview 

consistent enough?  

Quality  and  clarity  of  the  reports  generated  from  the 

programme   

monitoring exercises.  

Desk research  

89/120 

 
 
  
 
 
 
EQ13  

13.1. To what extent has the Commission been efficient in facilitating and supporting the selection 

process?  

13.2. To what extent does the Commission set up and update regularly the EHL website?  

13.3. To what extent are documents prepared by the Commission to inform the bidding sites about 

the selection process and explain and illustrate the objectives and criteria helpful?  

13.4. To what extent are documents produced by the Commission to guide the title-holding in the 

preparation of the EHL event helpful?  

13.5.  To  what  extent  are  the  documents  and  actions  prepared  by  the  Commission  to  guide  the 

Ministries in the management of the competition helpful?  

13.6. To what extent does the Commission foster the exchange of good practices?  

13.7. Which initiatives has it taken to that purpose?  

13.8. How could the Commission go further to support the applicants to the EHL?  

Operational question  

Assessment parameters  

Methods  and 

sources  

90/120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
13.1.  To  what 

extent  has 

the 

Extent  of  timeliness  and  effectiveness  of  their  actions  and 

Commission 

been 

efficient 

in 

processes during monitoring exercises (resource utilisation, and 

facilitating and supporting the selection 

adherence to established timelines)  

process?  

13.2.  To  what  extent  does 

the 

Number and frequency of website updates  

Commission 

set  up  and  update 

regularly the EHL website?  

13.3.  To  what  extent  are  documents 

Clarity  and  comprehensiveness  of 

these  documents 

in 

(e.g.   guidelines  /  forms)   prepared  by 

explaining and illustrating the objectives and criteria  

Survey  

Interview 

programme   

Interview 

programme   

Desk research  

Survey  

Interview 

the Commission to inform the bidding 

Extent  of  the  label-awarded  sites’  satisfaction  with  the  clarity 

programme   

sites  about  the  selection  process  and 

and comprehensiveness of the documents  

explain and illustrate the objectives and 

criteria helpful?  

13.4.  To  what  extent  are  documents 

Extent to which the title-holding sites found the event helpful  

produced by the Commission  to  guide 

Extent  of  applicability  of  the  guidance  to  the  title-holders' 

the  title-holding  in  the  preparation  of 

needs.  

the EHL event helpful?  

Survey  

Interview 

programme   

13.5. To what extent are the documents 

Extent to which by title-holding sites on the helpfulness of the 

Survey  

and 

actions 

prepared 

by 

the 

documents  

91/120 

 
 
  
  
  
  
Commission to guide the Ministries in 

Extent  of  applicability  of  the  guidance  to  the  title-holders' 

Interview 

the  management  of  the  competition 

needs.  

helpful?  

13.6.  To  what  extent  does 

the 

Evidence  of  good  practices  fostered  as  a  result  of  the 

Commission  foster  the  exchange  of 

Commission’s initiative in the action  

programme   

Survey  

Interview 

good practices?  

Feedback  from  the  label-awarded  sites  and  the  National 

programme   

Coordinators  on  the  good  practices  fostered  as  a  result  of  the 

Commission’s initiative in the action  

13.7.  Which  initiatives  has  it  taken  to 

Number  and  types  of  initiatives  taken  as  a  result  of  the 

that purpose?  

Commission’s actions to foster the exchange of good practices  

13.8.  How  could  the  Commission  go 

Quality  and  comprehensiveness  of  the  guidance  materials 

further to support the applicants to the 

provided to applicants.  

EHL?  

Availability and effectiveness of support services.  

Survey  

Interview 

programme   

Desk research  

Survey  

Interview 

programme   

Desk research  

92/120 

 
 
  
 
 
CRITERION 3: RELEVANCE 

The evaluation of relevance examines the alignment between the needs and problems faced by various stakeholders and the objectives of the 

action, focusing on its design aspects. The assessment of relevance is crucial because if the intervention does not address current needs or 

problems, its appropriateness may be questioned, regardless of its effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, or EU added value. The evaluation of 

the relevance of the EHL action aims to determine whether the original objectives and the design of the action remain relevant, how well they 

align with current needs and issues, and whether they reflect broader EU priorities. It also delves into the action's design, assessing how its 

processes and structure still meet the intended objectives and considering possible improvements. Key sources of evidence for this criterion 

include desk research and the results of targeted consultations. 

Box  3.  Definition  of  Relevance  Relevance  examines  the  relationship  between  the  needs  and  problems  at  the  time  the  intervention  was 

introduced and throughout its implementation. It also considers the relationship between current and future needs and problems within the EU 

and the intervention’s objectives. Relevance analysis requires evaluating how the objectives of an EU intervention (whether legislative or a 

spending measure) correspond to broader EU policy goals and priorities. The analysis should identify any mismatch between the intervention’s 

objectives and both current and foreseeable future needs or problems. 

Source: Better Regulation Toolbox, p. 407. 

93/120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EQ14  

14.1. To what extent did the scope and objectives of the action remain relevant over time?  

14.2. How did the objectives correspond to wider EU policy goals and priorities such as the Greening 

Strategy of the Creative Europe programme and the transversal Digital and Inclusion priorities?  

14.3. To what extent do the needs/problems addressed by the intervention continue to require action 

at EU level? 14.4. Has there been adaptability to unexpected developments?  

14.5. How relevant is the intervention to national, regional and local heritage needs?  

Operational question  

Assessment parameters  

14.1. To what extent did the scope and 

Degree  of  alignment  between  the  EHL  objectives  and  current 

objectives of the action remain relevant 

(national, local, regional) heritage needs and trends.  

over time?  

Methods  and 

sources  

Survey  

Interview 

programme   

Country-level 

Case studies  

94/120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
14.2.  How 

did 

the 

objectives 

Alignment of EHL objectives with the Horizontal priorities of 

correspond  to  wider  EU  policy  goals 

the Commission  

and  priorities  such  as  the  Greening 

Strategy  of 

the  Creative  Europe 

programme and the transversal  Digital 

and Inclusion priorities?  

14.3.  To  what 

extent  do 

the 

Feedback from all concerned stakeholders of the action  

needs/problems  addressed  by 

the 

Feedback  from  experts  in  the  field  of  culture  and  European 

intervention  continue  to  require  action 

heritage   

at EU level?  

95/120 

Survey  

Interview 

programme   

Focus 

group 

on  alignment 

with horizontal 

priorities of the 

Commission  

Horizontal 

case  study  on 

alignment with 

horizontal 

priorities of the 

Commission  

Surveys  

Interview 

Programme  

 
 
14.4.  Has  there  been  adaptability  to 

Implementation of emergency measures or revised guidelines in 

unexpected developments?  

response to crises.  

Survey  

Interview 

Support  provided  to  EHL  sites  for  crisis  management  and 

programme  

recovery.  

Desk research  

Feedback from EHL sites on the adequacy and timeliness of the 

response.  

14.5.  How  relevant  is  the  intervention 

Degree  of  alignment  between  the  EHL  objectives  and  current 

to national, regional and local heritage 

(national, local, regional) heritage needs and trends.  

needs?  

Survey  

Interview 

programme  

Desk research  

Case studies  

EQ15  

15.1. To what extent do the objectives and criteria of the action promote gender equality as well as 

inclusion of all, in particular people with disabilities, people belonging to minorities and people being 

socially marginalised?  

96/120 

 
 
  
  
  
 
Operational question  

Assessment parameters  

Methods 

and 

15.1. To what extent do the objectives 

Presence of specific objectives promoting gender equality 

and  criteria  of  the  action  promote 

and inclusion of all in EHL documentation, including site-

gender equality as well as inclusion of 

level action plans.  

all, 

in 

particular 

people  with 

Physical accessibility of awarded sites.  

sources  

Survey  

Interview 

programme  

Desk research  

disabilities,  people  belonging 

to 

Inclusivity and accessibility  of educational  and outreach 

Focus group  

minorities  and  people  being  socially 

programmes at awarded sites.  

Case study  

marginalised?  

Monitoring  and  evaluation  of  inclusivity  and  equality 

Visitor  engagement 

measures.  

exercise  

EQ16  

16.1. Have the selection and pre-selection national quotas to select the EHL affected (positively or 

negatively)  the  implementation  of  the  EHL  objectives?  16.2.  What  are  potential  consequences  of 

making these quotas a criterion?  

Operational question  

Assessment parameters  

Methods 

sources  

and 

97/120 

 
 
 
  
16.1.  Have  the  selection  and  pre-

Level  of  influence  of  national  quotas  on  member  states' 

selection  national  quotas  to  select  the 

commitment and participation in the EHL process.  

Survey  

Interview 

EHL affected (positively or negatively) 

The  impact  of  national  quotas  on  the  diversity  and 

programme  

the 

implementation  of 

the  EHL 

representation of heritage sites.  

objectives?  

16.2. What are potential consequences 

Level  of  influence  of  national  quotas  on  member  states' 

of making these quotas a criterion?  

commitment and participation in the EHL process.  

Survey  

Interview 

The  impact  of  national  quotas  on  the  diversity  and 

programme  

representation of heritage sites.  

Delphi 

survey  of 

Type and magnitude of potential consequences of making 

experts  

these quotas a criterion  

EQ17  

17.1. Are the selection criteria laid down in the 2011 Decision relevant to the objectives of the EHL 

action? 

17.2.  To  what  extent  are  the  criteria  requested  in  the  Decision  for  appointing  European  panel 

members relevant to carry out the selection and monitoring procedures?  

98/120 

 
 
 
 
Operational question  

Assessment parameters  

Methods 

and 

17.1.  Are  the  selection  criteria  laid 

Level of effectiveness of the criteria in contributing to the 

down in the 2011 Decision relevant to 

achieving of the overarching goals and intended outcomes 

the objectives of the EHL action?  

of the EHL action  

Feedback from the Commission, the National Authorities 

and label-awarded sites on the relevance of the criteria laid 

down in the 2011 Decision on the relevance of the EHL 

action   

sources  

Survey  

Interview 

programme  

Focus group  

17.2.  To  what  extent  are  the  criteria 

Extent to which the criteria specified in the Decision for 

requested 

in 

the  Decision 

for 

appointing European panel members remain pertinent and 

Survey  

Interview 

appointing  European  panel  members 

align  with  the  requirements  for  effectively  conducting 

programme  

relevant  to  carry  out  the  selection  and 

selection and monitoring procedures  

Desk research  

monitoring procedures?  

Extent to which these criteria contribute to the successful 

Horizontal 

case 

execution of the panel's responsibilities in both selection 

study 

on 

the 

and monitoring processes  

governance  of 

the 

action  

EQ18  

18.1. To what extent is the EHL brand visible?  

99/120 

 
 
  
  
18.2. Do EHL sites use the title in a relevant way (after their selection)?  

18.3. Which actions do the designated sites implement to make clear that the event is an EU initiative?  

18.4. Do people understand that it is an EU initiative?  

Operational question  

Assessment parameters  

Methods 

and 

18.1. To what extent is the EHL brand 

Number  of  communication  campaigns  launched  by  the 

visible?  

sites to ensure the visibility of the brand  

sources  

Survey  

Interview 

Number and types of outreach strategies the sites use to 

programme  

ensure the visibility of the brand   

Country-level  case 

Effectiveness  of  the  EHL's  online  presence  and  digital 

studies  

outreach efforts.  

18.2.  Do  EHL  sites  use  the  title  in  a 

The level to which the sites promote their cultural heritage 

Desk research  

relevant way (after their selection)?  

in  a  manner  consistent  with  the  objectives  of  the  EHL 

initiative  

18.3. Which actions do the designated 

Types  and  scope  of  actions  implemented  by  the  sites  to 

sites implement  to  make clear that the 

make clear that the event is an EU initiative  

event is an EU initiative?  

Survey  

Interview 

programme  

100/120 

 
 
 
18.4. Do people understand that it is an 

Extent  to  which  the  visitors  of  the  sites  agree  that  they 

Case studies  

Case studies  

EU initiative?  

understand that the event is an EU initiative  

Visitor  engagement 

experiment  

EQ19  

19.1. To what extent does the relevance of the action vary across Member States? 19.2. With a number of Member 

States less active in this initiative, how does this affect the EHL brand?  

Operational question  

Assessment parameters  

Methods 

and 

19.1. To what extent does the relevance 

Extent  of  variation  of  action’s  relevance  among  the 

of  the  action  vary  across  Member 

different Member States, based on their participation rate 

States?  

and feedback  

sources  

Survey  

Interview 

programme  

The degree to which the action's significance and impact 

Desk research  

differ  based  on  the  specific  characteristics  and  needs  of 

Country-level  case 

individual Member States  

studies  

101/120 

 
 
  
  
 
  
19.2. With a number of Member States 

Feedback from all relevant stakeholders, including experts 

less  active  in  this  initiative,  how  does 

in the field of culture and European Heritage  

this affect the EHL brand?  

Survey  

Interview 

programme  

EQ20  

20.1. Would the opening of the EHL action to sites in EFTA/EEA countries, candidate countries and 

potential candidates been relevant?  

Operational question  

Assessment parameters  

Methods 

and 

20.1.  Would  the  opening  of  the  EHL 

Extent to which the opening of the EHL action to sites in 

sources  

Survey  

action to sites in EFTA/EEA countries, 

EFTA/EEA countries would be in line with the objectives 

Interview 

candidate  countries  and  potential 

of the action  

programme  

candidates be relevant?  

Feedback from all relevant stakeholders, including experts 

Delphi 

survey  of 

in the field of culture and European Heritage  

experts  

Extent, scope and magnitude of potential risks, associated 

with the opening of the EHL action to sites in EFTA/EEA 

countries  

102/120 

 
 
  
 
  
EQ21  

21.1. To what extent the sites selected to the label have fostered their cross regional activities and identity?  

21.2. Are they promoting cross border, regional and macro-regional cooperations?  

Operational question  

Assessment parameters  

Methods 

and 

21.1. To what extent the sites selected 

Evidence  of  demonstrated  efforts  by  the  sites  to  have 

to  the  label  have  fostered  their  cross 

fostered their cross regional activities and identity  

sources  

Survey  

Interview 

regional activities and identity?  

Number and types of activities undertaken by the sites to 

programme  

foster cross regional activities and identity  

21.2. Are they promoting cross border, 

Evidence of demonstrated efforts by the sites to promote 

regional 

and 

macro-regional 

cross border, regional and macro-regional cooperations  

Desk research  

Case studies  

Survey  

Interview 

cooperations?  

Number and types of activities undertaken by the sites to 

programme  

promote  cross  border,  regional  and  macro-regional 

Desk research  

cooperations  

Case studies  

CRITERION 4: COHERENCE  

103/120 

 
 
  
  
 
The assessment of coherence seeks evidence of synergies or inconsistencies within the different elements of the EHL action, or between various 

EU, national, and international interventions with similar objectives. 

Box 4. Definition of Coherence 

The evaluation of coherence examines how well different interventions, EU/international policies, or national/regional/local policy elements 

work together. It may reveal synergies that enhance overall performance or identify tensions, such as potentially contradictory or overlapping 

objectives, or approaches causing inefficiencies. Internal coherence looks at how various components of the same EU intervention work together 

to  achieve  its  objectives,  while  external  coherence  assesses  how  interventions  beyond  the  object  of  analysis  align  (e.g.,  different  EU 

interventions within the same policy field). 

Source: Better Regulation Toolbox, p. 408. 

In the context of the EHL action, evaluating internal coherence involves examining how different aspects of the intervention align to meet the 

objectives outlined in its legal base. External coherence, on the other hand, focuses on how the EHL aligns with other interventions at regional, 

national, and EU levels that have similar goals. The analysis of this criterion looks at overlaps and complementarities in terms of objectives, 

target groups, intervention areas, and expected impacts. It also considers how well the action aligns with the objectives of the label-awarded 

sites. As with other evaluation criteria, the coherence assessment of the EHL relies on triangulating various sources of data and methods of 

analysis. Key information sources include desk research, targeted consultations, and case studies. 

104/120 

 
 
 
 
 
EQ22  

22.1.  To  what  extent  is  this  intervention  coherent  with  other  EU,  national  and  international 

interventions that have similar objectives?  

22.2. To what extent are the various elements of intervention coherent with one another?  

22.3. To what extent is the intervention coherent with (current) wider EU policies and priorities (e.g., 

Commission policy priorities and other actions of the Creative Europe programme)?  

Operational question  

Assessment parameters  

22.1. To what extent is this intervention 

Extent to which the intervention shares similar objectives 

and 

Methods 

sources  

Interview 

coherent  with  other  EU,  national  and 

with  other  initiatives  at  EU,  national,  and  international 

programme  

international  interventions  that  have 

levels  

Desk research  

similar objectives?  

Level  of  consistency  between  the  goals,  strategies,  and 

outcomes  of  the  intervention  in  comparison  to  related 

initiatives at different levels  

22.2.  To  what  extent  are  the  various 

Evidence  of  cases  of  incoherence  between  the  various 

elements of intervention coherent with 

elements of the intervention. If identified:   

Survey  

Interview 

one another?  

Number,  type,  magnitude  of  incoherences  between  the 

programme  

different elements  

Reasons behind the incoherences  

Desk research  

Focus group  

105/120 

 
 
 
  
22.3. To what extent is the intervention 

Extent to which the intervention shares similar objectives 

Interview 

coherent  with  (current)  wider  EU 

with wider EU policies and priorities  

programme  

policies 

and 

priorities 

(e.g., 

Level  of  consistency  between  the  goals,  strategies,  and 

Desk research  

Commission policy priorities and other 

outcomes  of  the  intervention  in  comparison  to  other 

Focus group  

actions  of 

the  Creative  Europe 

actions,  in  particular  that  of  the  Creative  Europe 

Case study  

programme)?  

programme  

EQ23  

23.1. To what extent are the objectives of the label-holding sites supporting the objectives of the action 

(as specified in the 2011 Decision)?  

23.2. To what extent is the action supporting the sites’ own objectives?  

23.3.  Which  balance  do  sites  strike  between  the  EU  objectives  and  their  local  socio-economic 

objectives? 

23.4. Does this balance change after designation?  

Operational question  

Assessment parameters  

Methods 

and 

23.1. To what extent are the objectives 

Extent  to  which the objectives of the label-holding sites 

sources  

Survey  

of the label-holding sites supporting the 

are in line with objectives of the action  

Desk research  

106/120 

 
 
  
 
objectives of the action (as specified in 

Number, type and share of site-level objectives outside of 

Interview 

the 2011 Decision)?  

the objectives of the action  

Number, 

type  and  magnitude  of 

incompatibilities 

identified   

programme  

Case studies  

23.2.  To  what  extent  is  the  action 

Degree  of  alignment  between  EHL  objectives  and  the 

Survey  

supporting the sites’ own objectives?  

individual objectives of the heritage sites.  

23.3.  Which  balance  do  sites  strike 

Degree  of  alignment  between  EU  objectives  and  local 

between  the  EU  objectives  and  their 

objectives  

Desk research  

Interview 

programme  

Case studies  

Survey  

Interview 

local socio-economic objectives?  

Identification of potential conflicts between local and EU 

programme  

objectives, their number and scope  

23.4.  Does  this  balance  change  after 

Evidence of change of balance  

designation?  

Extent to which the balance changes after designation  

Desk research  

Country-level  case 

studies  

Survey  

Interview 

programme  

107/120 

 
 
Country  level  case 

studies  

CRITERION 5: EU ADDED VALUE 

The evaluation of EU added value focuses on the Union-wide impacts produced by the EHL and the extent to which these impacts were achieved 

due to the EU-scale of the action, as opposed to what could have been accomplished through national cooperation among Member States. This 

assessment integrates findings from other evaluation criteria, presenting arguments on causality and drawing conclusions about the action's 

performance. In this context, EU added value may result from factors such as coordination gains, increased effectiveness, or complementarity. 

To assess the EU-added value of the EHL, a triangulation of various sources of evidence is used. 

Box 5. Definition of EU Added Value 

EU added value refers to  changes brought  about by EU intervention that exceed what  could  have reasonably  been  expected from national 

actions by Member States. According to the principle of subsidiarity (Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union), and in areas of non-exclusive 

competence, the EU should act only when objectives can be better achieved through union action rather than national action. The assessment 

of EU added value involves comparing the performance of the EU action against a projection of how the situation would have evolved without 

EU intervention (sometimes referred to as the "cost of non-Europe"). 

Source: Better Regulation Toolbox, pp. 409-410. 

108/120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EQ24  

24.1. What is the EU added value and visibility of the EHL action?  

24.2. Does being an EHL site facilitate access to other private and public funding opportunities, in 

particular  EU  programmes/funds,  such  as  other  actions  of  the  Creative  Europe  programme  (for 

example cooperation projects under the Culture strand) but also ERASMUS+, CERV, EU cohesion 

policy funds (ESF+, ERDF), and research and innovation EU financial Instrument?    

Operational question  

Assessment parameters  

Methods 

and 

24.1. What is the EU added value and 

Feedback  from  stakeholders  on  the  extent  to  which  the 

visibility of the EHL action?  

EHL  being  a  EU  action  enhances  the  opportunities  for 

visibility   

24.2. Does being an EHL site facilitate 

Evidence  of  cases  when  being  a  label-awarded  site 

access  to  other  private  and  public 

enhanced the sites’ opportunities to make use of other EU 

sources  

Survey  

Survey  

Interview 

funding opportunities, in particular EU 

programmes (including Creative Europe, Cohesion Policy 

programme  

programmes/funds, 

such  as  other 

funds, research and innovation EU financial Instrument) 

Desk research  

actions  of 

the  Creative  Europe 

and funds in terms of:  

programme  (for  example  cooperation 

Increased awareness about other opportunities  

projects  under  the  Culture  strand)  but 

Increased knowledge about EU priorities  

109/120 

 
 
 
 
also ERASMUS+, CERV, EU cohesion 

Increased skills to apply for other funds  

policy  funds   (ESF+,  ERDF),  and 

Increased capacity to make use of other opportunities  

research  and  innovation  EU  financial 

Instrument?  

EQ25  

25.1. What would be possible consequences if the action were not organised or funded at EU level?  

Operational question  

Assessment parameters  

25.1.  What  would  be  possible 

Extent  to  which  other  European,  national  or  international 

Methods 

and 

sources  

Survey  

consequences  if  the  action  were  not 

schemes  and  programmes  provide  a  combination  of 

Interview 

organised or funded at EU level?  

opportunities similar to EHL  

programme  

Share  of 

label-awarded  sites 

indicating  no  other 

Desk research  

regional/national  or  international  action  could  meet  their 

Focus group  

needs  

Hypothetical examples of alternative actions that could lead 

to results comparable to those of EHL  

110/120 

 
 
 
 
  
EQ26  

26.1. To what extent does the selection procedure foster the European dimension of the EHL? 26.2. 

Where relevant, are there differences between Member States involved?  

Operational question  

Assessment parameters  

26.1.  To  what  extent  does 

the 

Share  of  label-awarded  sites  indicating  that  the  selection 

selection 

procedure 

foster 

the 

procedure incentivised them to highlight:  

European dimension of the EHL?  

The symbolic European value of the site  

European dimension of the site  

26.2.  Where  relevant,  are 

there 

The  degree  to  which  the  action's  significance  and  impact 

differences  between  Member  States 

differ  based  on  the  specific  characteristics  and  needs  of 

involved?  

individual Member States  

Methods  and 

sources  

Survey  

Survey  

Interview 

programme  

Case studies  

111/120 

 
 
 
  
 
ANNEX IV. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT  

1. Presentation 

The  synopsis  report  summarises  the  results  of  all  stakeholder  consultation  activities 

conducted  during  the  evaluation  of  the  European  Heritage  Label  (EHL)  Action  for  the 

period  2018-2024.  It  provides  both  qualitative  and  quantitative  insights  into  the  main 

findings, offering an analytical overview of the consultations undertaken. The objective is 

to present the key outcomes and conclusions derived from stakeholder engagement, which 

played a crucial role in the evaluation process. 

The  consultation  activities  encompassed  three  primary  methods:  a  targeted  survey 

programme, an interview programme, and a series of focus groups. These activities were 

designed in alignment with the European Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines and 

Toolbox,  ensuring  a  broad,  high-quality,  and  transparent  approach  to  consultation.  The 

findings  from  these  activities  contribute  to  evidence-based  policymaking  by  reflecting 

stakeholder perspectives and levels of agreement across different groups. 

The  report  also  outlines  the  consultation  strategy,  details  the  implementation  of  each 

consultation  activity,  and  summarises  key  results.  The  study  team  ensured  that  data 

gathered through stakeholder engagement was triangulated with other sources, including 

desk research, case studies, and monitoring data, to provide a comprehensive and balanced 

evaluation. 

2. Background 

Stakeholder  consultations  serve  as  a  fundamental  tool  in  EU  policymaking,  fostering 

engagement with citizens, civil society, and interest groups. This participatory approach 

helps shape decisions while ensuring coherence and transparency in EU initiatives. In line 

with  the Better Regulation Guidelines,  consultations  are an integral  part of evaluations, 

ensuring that diverse perspectives are taken into account at every stage of the policy cycle. 

The evaluation of the EHL Action followed a structured consultation strategy, involving 

different phases to systematically collect and analyse stakeholder input. The process was 

designed to be inclusive and methodologically sound, ensuring that the perspectives of key 

112/119 

 
stakeholders, including site coordinators, national coordinators, EU Panel members, and 

representatives from international organisations, were captured effectively. 

Consultations were carried out through various channels, each contributing uniquely to the 

overall  assessment.  Surveys  provided  quantifiable  evidence  on  the  efficiency  and 

effectiveness of the EHL, offering broad participation across awarded and applicant sites. 

Interviews complemented these findings by exploring relevance and coherence, allowing 

for more detailed discussions with experts, policymakers, and practitioners. Focus groups, 

meanwhile, facilitated in-depth exchanges on specific thematic issues, such as governance 

structures, cross-border cooperation, and site management. This multi-pronged approach 

ensured a well-rounded and thorough evaluation. 

The  stakeholder  consultation  programme  was  carefully  structured 

to  maximise 

engagement and data quality. Targeted surveys ran between 26 September and 20 October 

2024, ensuring broad participation from national coordinators and site representatives. The 

interview phase, conducted from August to December 2024, provided deeper qualitative 

insights  from  key  stakeholders,  while  focus  groups,  held  between  July  and  November 

2024,  brought  together  diverse  participants  to  discuss  critical  aspects  of  the  EHL’s 

implementation. 

3. Consultation Activities 

The  consultation  programme  was  structured  around  three  main  activities:  the  targeted 

survey programme, the interview programme, and the focus groups. These complementary 

methods  ensured  a  comprehensive  collection  of  stakeholder  input,  supporting  the 

evaluation's objectives of assessing the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, coherence, and 

EU-added value of the EHL. 

The  targeted  survey  programme  gathered  data  from  key  stakeholders,  including 

coordinators of awarded and applicant sites as well as national coordinators. Running from 

late  September  to  mid-October  2024,  the  survey  aimed  to  capture  insights  into  the 

application,  implementation,  and  monitoring  phases  of  the  EHL.  Robust  participation 

across 19 out of 26 participating countries ensured a wide-ranging dataset that provided 

valuable perspectives on site-level experiences and national coordination efforts. 

113/120 

 
The  interview  programme,  conducted  between  August  and  December  2024,  engaged  a 

broad spectrum of stakeholders. It included coordinators from both awarded and applicant 

sites,  national  representatives,  EU  Panel  members,  and  experts  from  international 

organisations and NGOs. These structured discussions explored governance processes, site 

selection, and long-term impact,  offering qualitative insights  that complemented survey 

findings.  Interviews  also  helped  clarify  specific  challenges  and  opportunities  faced  by 

different stakeholders, contributing to the overall evaluation framework. 

Focus groups were held between July and November 2024 to facilitate in-depth discussions 

on  key  thematic  areas.  Three  sessions  addressed  critical  aspects  of  the  EHL’s 

implementation: intervention logic, governance structures, and cross-border cooperation. 

The  intervention  logic  focus  group,  held  in  July,  engaged  DG  EAC  representatives  in 

refining  the  evaluation  framework.  The  governance  session  in  November  gathered  14 

participants,  including  EU  Panel  members  and  national  coordinators,  to  discuss  the 

efficiency and transparency of selection and monitoring processes. A separate session on 

cross-border  cooperation  explored  the  benefits  and  challenges  of  transnational  site 

management,  providing  insights  into  how  the  EHL  fosters  networking  and  knowledge 

exchange across Europe. 

Taken together, these consultation activities ensured a balanced and inclusive evaluation 

process.  The  diverse  stakeholder  engagement,  combined  with  a  rigorous  methodology, 

allowed for a well-rounded assessment of the EHL Action’s achievements, challenges, and 

areas  for  improvement.  The  results  of  these  consultations  will  inform  future  policy 

decisions  and  contribute  to  the  ongoing  development  of  the  EHL  as  an  instrument  for 

promoting Europe’s cultural heritage. 

4- Key results and findings of the stakeholders’ consultations 

4.1 Summary of the Targeted Survey Programme Results 

The  study  team  conducted  two  surveys  targeting  site  coordinators  (both  rejected  and 

awarded sites) and national coordinators. The surveys were designed using insights from 

prior data collection and feedback from the contracting authority to ensure alignment with 

the evaluation's objectives. 

114/120 

 
 
-  Launched  in  September  2024  and  closing  in  mid-October  2024,  the  surveys 

received  responses  from  50  awarded  sites,  7  rejected  sites,  and  22  national 

coordinators across 19 participating countries. The study team actively engaged 

with  stakeholders  to  maximise  response  rates,  ensuring  a  broad  geographic 

representation  

-  Data analysis incorporated both quantitative and qualitative methods, using MS 

Excel and R for statistical insights. The survey findings contributed to answering 

evaluation questions and informing horizontal and country-specific case studies. 

Key Findings 

-  Effectiveness: The survey indicated that participation in the European Heritage 

Label (EHL) initiative significantly improved sites' ability to promote European 

values, history, and culture. This  was acknowledged by 76% of awarded  sites 

and 67% of national coordinators. Additionally, 71% of sites and 76% of national 

coordinators reported the formation of new international partnerships as a major 

benefit.  However, 

fewer 

respondents 

observed 

increased 

youth 

engagement.Challenges 

included 

limited  public  awareness, 

insufficient 

collaboration, and a lack of EU-level promotion. Sites also struggled with human 

resource  constraints  and  financial  limitations,  exacerbated  by  the  COVID-19 

crisis. 

-  Efficiency: While the application process was considered demanding, most sites 

(71%)  viewed  the  effort  as  justified  given  the  label's  benefits.  Selection 

procedures  at  national  and  EU  levels  were  perceived  as  transparent,  though 

rejected  sites  found  EU-level  feedback 

insufficiently  useful.  National 

coordinators  were  positively  regarded  for  their  support  in  guiding  applicants. 

European panel reports were generally helpful in refining work plans, but only 

36% of national coordinators believed they provided useful feedback for rejected 

sites. Respondents suggested clearer guidance, simplified application forms, and 

additional workshops to enhance the selection process. 

-  Coherence: The EHL was seen as unique in fostering networking among sites 

and  enhancing  their  European  dimension.  While  some  overlap  with  other 

initiatives, such as UNESCO World Heritage and European Cultural Routes, was 

noted, these were generally viewed as  complementary rather than duplicative. 

115/120 

 
Respondents  recommended  strengthening  synergies  between  initiatives  to 

maximise impact. 

-  EU Added Value: One-third of surveyed sites (33%) had accessed EU funding 

opportunities,  mainly  through  Creative  Europe  actions.  While  64%  of  sites 

reported increased awareness of EU funding, only 48% felt better equipped to 

apply for it. 

-  Relevance: The EHL’s objectives were widely regarded as addressing societal 

challenges, particularly in increasing awareness of Europe’s shared history and 

cultural heritage. Over 90% of respondents found the initiative relevant, though 

additional funding, increased visibility, and enhanced intercultural dialogue were 

suggested for further impact. 

The survey results highlight the EHL’s effectiveness in promoting European heritage and 

fostering collaboration, though challenges such as resource constraints, visibility issues, 

and  limited  youth  engagement  persist.  Recommendations  include  refining  the  selection 

process, improving feedback mechanisms, and strengthening synergies with other heritage 

initiatives to enhance the label’s long-term impact. 

4.2  Summary of the Interview Programme Results  

The interview programme adopted  a structured  approach, beginning with  national-level 

stakeholders  to  assess  engagement  and  key  outcomes.  Following  this,  EU-level  and 

external  stakeholders,  including  heritage  experts  and  international  organisations,  were 

interviewed to refine findings and explore future directions. A total of 30 interviews were 

conducted  across  various  stakeholder  groups,  contributing  valuable  insights  to  the 

evaluation. 

Key Findings 

116/120 

 
-  Effectiveness: The European Heritage Label (EHL) has successfully enhanced the 

visibility of heritage sites and encouraged collaboration across Europe. Many sites 

reported  improved  capacity  to  promote  their  cultural  significance  through  joint 

initiatives  and  cross-border  activities.  Additionally,  the  EHL  fostered  internal 

collaboration, with sites engaging in structured planning, training, and coordination 

efforts.  However,  administrative  and  reporting  requirements  were  seen  as 

burdensome, particularly for smaller sites with limited resources. Some interviewees 

noted  that  a  lack  of  direct  financial  support  constrained  the  ability  of  sites  to 

maximise the benefits of the label. While the EHL has been effective in promoting 

European  identity  and  values,  its  recognition  among  the  general  public  remains 

limited. Collaboration between sites was a key strength, though engagement varied, 

with smaller sites struggling to fully participate. 

-  Efficiency:  National  coordinators  played  a  crucial  role  in  guiding  applicants  and 

supporting implementation, though their effectiveness varied across Member States. 

Interviewees  suggested  that  application  guidelines,  particularly  concerning  the 

‘European  significance’  criterion,  should  be  clearer.  The  EHL  Bureau  received 

praise  for  its  networking  opportunities  and  training,  though  tight  deadlines  and 

feedback  processes  posed  challenges  for  some  sites.Monitoring  and  reporting 

requirements were considered essential but time-consuming. Many sites found the 

level  of  detail  required  challenging,  particularly  in  terms  of  translation  and 

formatting  constraints.  Suggestions  included  more  comprehensive  feedback  on 

reports and rejected applications to improve future submissions. 

-  Coherence:  The  EHL  was  found  to  complement  other  heritage  initiatives, 

particularly UNESCO programmes, by focusing on European values and narratives. 

However,  some  interviewees  noted  resource  competition  between  different 

initiatives.  Collaborations  with  programmes  such  as  Discover  EU  and  European 

Heritage  Days  were  seen  as  beneficial,  but  stakeholders  suggested  establishing 

structured frameworks to maximise these opportunities, including joint events and 

targeted funding. 

-  EU Added Value: The EHL enhances the European dimension of heritage sites by 

aligning  local  initiatives  with  EU  objectives,  strengthening  credibility  in  funding 

applications and collaborations. However, several sites faced challenges accessing 

117/120 

 
 
EU funding due to administrative complexities. The label facilitates networking and 

international collaboration, though some sites struggle to fully engage due to time 

and resource constraints. 

-  Relevance:  The  EHL’s  objectives  remain  highly  relevant,  with  sites  aligning 

activities to themes such as accessibility, intercultural dialogue, and education. Many 

have  introduced  multilingual  resources,  youth-focused  initiatives,  and  improved 

accessibility. However, resource-limited sites struggle to fully implement the label’s 

expectations.  Awareness  of  the  EHL  remains  low  among  both  the  public  and  the 

heritage sector. Stakeholders recommended targeted campaigns and partnerships to 

increase visibility, alongside clearer communication of the label’s practical benefits. 

Increased  financial  and  technical  support  could  help  sites  fully  realise  the  EHL’s 

objectives. 

4.3 Summary of the Focus Groups Results  

Three focus groups were conducted to gather qualitative insights from stakeholders, 

facilitating  discussions  and  knowledge  exchange.  These  sessions  contributed  to 

evaluation questions, horizontal case studies, and refining the intervention logic. 

1.  Intervention  Logic  (15  July  2024):  Reviewed  and  improved  the  EHL’s 

framework, refining financial resource presentation and activity structuring. 

2.  European  Panel  Functioning  (5  November  2024):  Examined  governance 

improvements for the EHL, informing the governance case study. 

3.  Cross-Border  Effects  (7  November  2024):  Assessed  networking  activities, 

challenges,  and  benefits  for  transnational  sites,  contributing  to  the  cross-border 

effects study. 

Key Findings:  

-  Effectiveness: Participants acknowledged the EHL’s strong networking component 

as a key strength, facilitating professional connections, best practice exchanges, and 

resource  sharing.  Collaborative  projects  like  the  Comic  Book  project  were 

highlighted  for  their  success  in  increasing  visibility  and  engagement.  Challenges 

were most prominent for smaller or resource-limited sites, which struggle to fully 

participate  in  networking  and  collaboration  due  to  financial  and  human  resource 

118/120 

 
 
constraints. Additionally, the diversity of EHL sites—spanning museums, libraries, 

and archaeological sites—makes it difficult to establish universally relevant goals. 

To enhance effectiveness, participants suggested: 

•  A  more  structured  approach  to  networking,  with  clear  priorities  and  operational 

plans. 

•  The  formation  of  smaller,  focused  working  groups  to  improve  inclusivity  and 

efficiency. 

•  Expanded capacity-building initiatives, including immersive staff exchanges and EU 

funding training. 

-  Efficiency: The EHL Bureau was praised for effective coordination, particularly in 

organising networking activities and communication. Training sessions and working 

groups  were  valued  for  supporting  collaborative  efforts  and  EU  funding  access. 

However, smaller and under-resourced sites reported difficulties in fully engaging 

due to: 

•  Tight deadlines and heavy administrative burdens. 

•  The complexity of EU funding applications, coupled with limited targeted support. 

To improve efficiency, participants recommended: 

•  Clearer operational plans to prioritise networking goals and resource allocation. 

•  Smaller, thematic working groups to address site-specific needs. 

•  Streamlined  administrative  processes  and  expanded  training  on  EU  funding 

applications to reduce barriers. 

-  Coherence:  The  EHL  was  found  to  align  well  with  broader  European  cultural 

initiatives, including Creative Europe and the European Capitals of Culture, by 

reinforcing  shared  values  and  fostering  cultural  dialogue.  Participants  saw  great 

potential in further integrating EHL sites with these initiatives. 

To strengthen coherence, participants suggested: 

•  Aligning EHL activities with EU priorities such as sustainability and digitalisation. 

119/120 

 
•  Expanding  cross-sectoral  collaborations  and  partnerships  with  national  cultural 

institutions. 

• 

Improving communication about the EHL’s objectives and benefits, particularly 

at the national level. 

-  Relevance: The focus groups confirmed the EHL’s ongoing relevance in promoting 

European values, intercultural dialogue, and shared heritage significance. The 

label  aligns  with  current  cultural  and  social  objectives,  such  as  inclusivity, 

accessibility,  and  youth  engagement.  In  today’s  geopolitical  context,  fostering  a 

European identity was seen as particularly important. 

To enhance relevance, participants recommended: 

•  Expanding educational initiatives, particularly targeting young audiences. 

•  Providing clearer guidance on articulating the European dimension in site activities. 

•  Offering  practical  support  to  help  sites  implement  EHL  objectives  more 

effectively. 

120/120