COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTE OF THE REGIONS on the first interim evaluation of the European Capitals of Culture Action 2020-2033
Date: 2025-10-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU action, European cultural event, capital city, cultural pluralism, cultural promotion, promotion of the European idea

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 2.10.2025  SWD(2025) 284 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTE OF THE REGIONS on the first interim evaluation of the European Capitals of Culture Action 2020-2033 {COM(2025) 587 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 

1.1 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation/fitness check ...................................................... 1 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ......................... 3 

2.1 

2.2 

Description of the intervention and its objectives ........................................................ 3 

 Point of comparison ...................................................................................................... 7 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ........... 7 
EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) ........................................................... 9 
4. 

4.1 

To what extent was the intervention successful and why? ........................................... 9 

4.2. How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? ....................................... 27 

4.3. Is the intervention still relevant? ....................................................................................... 29 

5. 

CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? .................................................................. 32 

5. 1 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 32 

5. 2 Lessons learned .................................................................................................................. 35 

ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................. 38 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ..................................... 39 

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON ANSWERS 
TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) ............................................... 43 

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS [AND, WHERE RELEVANT, TABLE 
ON SIMPLIFICATION AND BURDEN REDUCTION] .................................................... 63 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT ............................... 74 
ANNEX VI: EUROPEAN CAPITALS OF CULTURE 2020-2033 INTERVENTION LOGIC ... 85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

ECoC 

EU 

EFTA/EEA 

The legal basis 

CCS 

ISG 

DG EAC 

European Capitals of Culture 

European Union  

European Free Trade Association/ European 
Economic Area 

Decision No 445/2014/EU of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 
establishing a Union action for the European Capitals 
of Culture for the years 2020 to 2033 and repealing 
Decision No 1622/2006/EC 

Cultural and Creative Sectors 

Interservice Group 

Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and 
Culture 

SWD 

Staff Working Document 

 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Purpose and scope of the evaluation/fitness check 

1.1.1.  Regulatory and legislative considerations 

This  Staff  Working  Document  supports  the  Commission’s  report  on  the  first  interim 
evaluation of the European Capitals of Culture action for the period 2020-2033, as required 
by Decision No 445/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council.1 In line with 
Article  16(2)  of  the  Decision,  the  Commission  is  mandated  to  ensure  an  external  and 
independent  evaluation  of  the  action  on  a  regular  basis  and  present  to  the  European 
Parliament,  the Council and the Committee of the Regions […]  reports based on those 
evaluations, accompanied, if appropriate, by relevant proposals: 

(a) an initial interim report by 31 December 2024; 

(b) a second interim report by 31 December 2029; 

(c) an ex-post report by 31 December 2034. 

1.1.2.  Evaluation and focus area 

The evaluation assesses the performance of the action against the five evaluation criteria 
established in the Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox. The evaluation also assesses 
the longer-term impact of the intervention to understand the full potential of the legacy 
linked to hosting a European Capital of Culture (hereafter, ‘ECoC’). Furthermore, it aims 
at  identifying  good  practices  and  lessons  not  only  for  future  ECoC  cities  but  also  for 
European cities interested in further developing their cultural strategies and cultural offer. 
Finally, its objective is to identify a number of potential changes to the ECoC action to be 
considered for the successor initiative post-2033. 

The evaluation covers all cities holding the title between 2013 and 2023, as well as cities 
bidding under the current legal basis for the titles 2020-2028. 

1.1.3.  Methodology and data sources 

This SWD on the first interim evaluation of the ECoC draws mainly, among other sources,2 
on the supporting study conducted by ECORYS Europe EEIG SA (tender lead) and KEA 
European  Affairs  SRL  (partner),  under  contract  with  the  European  Commission, 
Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (DG EAC).3 The final report 
delivered by ECORYS and KEA provides answers to all evaluation questions4 defined in 
the Terms of Reference and related to the five evaluation criteria. The final report of the 
contractor also contains recommendations addressed to the Commission. 

A  broad  set  of  data  collection  and  analytical  techniques  were  used,  drawing  on  both 
primary and secondary data collection: 

1 Decision No 445/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 establishing a 
Union action 
2 Annex II.  I Methodology and Analytical models used. 
3 See Annex I. Procedural Information. 
4 See Annex III for evaluation questions. 

1 

 
 
- 

 A total of 64 interviews were conducted with EU and national representatives as 
well as representatives of local authorities and organisations;   

-  Data from previous evaluation reports of ECoC titleholders were mapped against 

about 60 key indicators in a tailored data mapping tool;   

-  A total of 199 resources were used to compile the literature review for this study 

and 38 statistical data indicators were mapped;   

-  Six focus groups with national and European expert panel members, ECoCs and 

preselected cities were conducted;  

-  A public consultation was conducted collecting 60 responses;  
-  Eight case studies were conducted;  
-  A validation workshop was conducted to discuss the main findings and the potential 

actions for the future. 

1.1.4.  Challenges and limitations 

Although  there  is  a  wide  number  of  stakeholders  and  organisations  involved  in  the 
implementation of ECoCs, challenges were encountered in identifying and engaging with 
stakeholders with sufficient knowledge of the issues to be evaluated. Due to COVID-19’s 
consequences on the implementation of the European Capitals of Culture at the beginning 
of the concerned period (2020-2033), the choice was made to include a broader scope of 
different European Capitals of Culture and to include into this evaluation titleholding cities 
selected and monitored under the provisions of the previous legal instrument, i.e. Decision 
No  1622/2006/EC.5  This  choice  was  also  motivated  to  get  a  better  perspective  on  the 
longer-term impact of the action.   

Therefore, some individuals who held key positions in relation to the ECoC 2013-2019 
(e.g. former members of the local ECoC delivery teams) left their positions or moved on 
to new roles in different organisations some years ago, meaning tracking them down was 
sometimes challenging.   

Despite the challenges encountered, the consultation strategy adopted for this evaluation 
encompassed a wide range of relevant stakeholders, ensuring that different views could be 
collected and could feed into the triangulation and analysis. The details of this consultation 
strategy are laid out in Annexes II and V of this SWD. 

Moreover, despite a wide range of sources being used for the collection of statistical data, 
many of these sources did not always cover the issues that this evaluation is interested in 
(e.g. longer-term impact) or did not cover the required period to be useful for this study. 
Geographical scale was also a limiting factor with many data sources not at a low enough 
granularity to provide valuable insight. Datasets at the city level would have been ideal for 
this analysis. Some datasets were, however, only available at the national level.   

Missing  data  was,  where  possible,  supplemented  through  quantitative  information 
collected through interviews and literature review; however, in most cases, the evaluation 
often had to rely on qualitative evidence.   

Furthermore, this evaluation had to rely heavily on the existing evaluations of past ECoCs 
conducted  by  external  evaluators  and/or  title  cities.  While  these  evaluations  provided  a 

5 Decision No 1622/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 
establishing a Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2007 to 2019 (OJ 
L 304, 3.11.2006, p. 1). 

2 

 
 
 
great  depth  of  data,  gaps  were  still  identified  and,  in  some  cases,  cities  used  different 
definitions  for  some  data  categories.  For  instance,  the  indicator  ‘number  of  cultural 
activities conducted’ was interpreted more loosely by certain cities than others, leading to 
difficulties  in  comparing  data  across  the  different  ECoCs.  Nevertheless,  this  evaluation 
attempts to use the available data to draw reliable findings and conclusions.   

Finally, it should be noted that the majority of data compiled relates to the Effectiveness 
and Efficiency evaluation questions, given the more quantitative nature of these evaluation 
criteria. Less was found on Coherence, Relevance, and EU added value criteria.   

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1   Description of the intervention and its objectives 

Born  in  1985  upon  an  idea  of  former  Greek  and  French  Ministers  of  Culture  Melina 
Mercouri  and  Jack  Lang,  the  European  Capital  of  Culture  is  a  flagship  action  of  the 
European Union, and one of the best known and most appreciated by European citizens. 

The aim of the initiative is to promote and celebrate Europe's rich cultural diversity and 
shared aspects of our cultures and heritage, thereby increasing citizens’ sense of belonging 
to a common cultural area. It also aims to strengthen the contribution of culture to the long-
term development of cities. 

Initially,  the  cities  were  designated  as  ‘European  Cities  of  Culture’  by  Member  States 
acting  on  the  basis  of  a  Resolution  of  the  Ministers  Responsible  for  Cultural  Affairs,6 
which recognised the essential role cities play in the formation and spread of culture in 
Europe. The action was changed in 1999 into a Community action following the adoption 
of Decision 1419/1999/EC7 (the ‘European Cities of Culture’ became ‘European Capitals 
of Culture), which was amended in 2005 by Decision.8￼ A further decision was adopted 
in  2006  (1622/2006/EC),  completing  the  rules  for  the  selection  and  monitoring  of  the 
different European Capitals of Culture. The current legal basis, on which the Staff Working 
Document is based, was adopted in 2014 to cover the years 2020-2033; it is Decision No 
445/2014/EU9 (now referred to as ‘the legal basis’). 

The general objectives of the action are defined as follows in the legal basis: 

a)  to safeguard and promote the diversity of cultures in Europe and to highlight the 
common features they share as well as to increase citizens' sense of belonging to a 
common cultural area; 

b)  to  foster  the  contribution  of  culture  to  the  long-term  development  of  cities  in 

accordance with their respective strategies and priorities. 

The specific objectives of the action are defined as follows in the legal basis:  

6 Resolution of the Ministers Responsible for Cultural Affairs concerning the Annual Event European City 
of Culture (7081/84). 
7 Decision No 1419/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 establishing a 

Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2005 to 2019 

8 Decision 649/2005/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005 amending Decision 
No 1419/1999/EC establishing a Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the 
years 2005 to 2019. 

9 Decision No 445/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 establishing a 
Union action for the European Capitals of Culture for the years 2020 to 2033 and repealing Decision No 
1622/2006/EC 

3 

 
 
a)  to safeguard and promote the diversity of cultures in Europe and to highlight the 
common features they share as well as to increase citizens' sense of belonging to a 
common cultural area; 

b)  to widen access to and participation in culture; 
c)  to strengthen the capacity of the cultural sector and its links with other sectors; 
d)  to raise the international profile of cities through culture. 

Design of the action 
Under the current legal basis, the competition to award the title of “European Capital of 
Culture” to a city is organised and supervised by Member States, whose cities are entitled 
to hold it for one year in accordance with the calendar found in the action’s legal basis. 
However, this is not the case with the competition between cities in EEA/EFTA countries, 
candidate countries and potential candidates, which is ran and supervised by the European 
Commission.  

All competitions start with the publication of a call for submission of applications10 by the 
relevant authority (usually the Ministry of Culture for competitions in Member States, and 
the Commission for the competitions in non-EU Member States), explaining the selection 
procedure and criteria. Interested cities send their candidatures in the form of a bid book 
by a deadline indicated in the call. The cities are then designated after an assessment of 
their candidatures based on six criteria listed in article 5 of the legal basis: ‘contribution to 
the long-term strategy’, ‘European dimension’, ‘cultural and artistic content’, ‘capacity to 
deliver’, ‘outreach’ and ‘management’.  

The assessment of these criteria for applicant cities is ensured by an independent panel of 
cultural experts, who perform the selection and monitoring of the candidate and selected 
cities.  Their  work  is  supervised  by  the  relevant  national  authority  and  the  European 
Commission. The panel of experts is composed of up to 12 members. Ten are nominated 
on a rolling basis  for a period of three years by different  EU  institutions  and bodies as 
follows: Council of the European Union (3 members), European Parliament (3 members), 
European Commission (3 members), European Committee of the Regions (1 member). In 
addition to these European experts, up to two experts can be appointed by Member States 
for  the  selection  and  monitoring  of  their  respective  ECoC.  The  pre-selection  of  the 
European  experts  is  made  by  the  Commission  through  an  open  call  for  expression  of 
interest (currently EAC/A03/202111). The criteria to select the experts are listed in Article 
6 of the legal basis.  

The competition to select European Capitals of Culture is carried out in two-rounds (pre-
selection  and  final  selection),  which  is  acknowledged  as  an  efficient  mode  of 
implementation  in  the  recitals  of  the  current  legal  basis  and  explains  why  it  was 
reconducted after adopting this model from the previous ECoC method of selection. The 
pre-selection must take place no later than five years ahead of the title year, while the final 
selection is organised no-later than nine months after the pre-selection meetings. Following 
the recommendation of the panel in charge of selecting the European Capital of Culture, 
three monitoring meetings are organised ahead of the title year to monitor the progress of 
the city towards implementing their title.  

The role of the European Commission is detailed in article 15 of the legal basis. It must: 

10 Call for applications Template, European Capital of Culture - Culture and Creativity  
11  EAC/A03/2021 

4 

 
 
 
a)  ensure the overall coherence of the action; 
b)  ensure coordination between the Member States and the panel;  
c)  establish guidelines to assist with the selection and monitoring procedures in close 

cooperation with the panel;  

d)  provide technical support to the panel;  
e)  publish on its website all reports of the panel;  
f)  make public all relevant information and contribute to the visibility of the action at 

the European and international levels;  

g)  foster the exchange of experience and of good practices between past, present and 
future  cities  holding  the  title,  as  well  as  candidate  cities,  and  promote  wider 
dissemination of the cities' evaluation reports and lessons learned. 

The European Union ensures the financing of its support for the ECoC action through the 
Creative Europe Programme.12 The action is managed in the European Commission by the 
Creative Europe unit (D2) of DG EAC.  

The European Union does not finance directly selected cities, but it pays at the beginning 
of  the  title-year  EUR  1.5  million  through  the  Melina  Mercouri  Prize  upon  the 
recommendation  of  the  panel  during  their  last  monitoring  meeting  a  couple  of  months 
before the start of the year. The financing of the different European Capitals of Culture 
rather comes externally from local, regional and national levels that a city must manage to 
successfully coordinate to ensure a successful title year.  

On the following page is a simplified representation of the intervention logic. The complete 
intervention logic of the action is found in Annex VI of this Staff Working Document.

12 Regulation (EU) 2021/818 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 establishing 
the Creative Europe Programme (2021 to 2027) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1295/2013 (Text with 
EEA relevance) 

5 

 
 
 
 
General objectives: 
- Safeguard and promote the 
diversity of cultures in Europe; 
highlight the common features 
they share; increase citizens’ 
sense of belonging to a common 
cultural area; 
- Foster the contribution of 
culture to the long-term 
development of cities in 
accordance with their respective 
strategies and priorities. 

Specific objectives: 
- Enhance the range, diversity and 
European dimension of the 
cultural offering in cities, including 
though transnational cooperation; 
- Widen access to and 
participation in culture; 
- Strengthen the capacity of the 
cultural sector and its links with 
other sectors; 
- Raise the international profile of 
cities through culture. 

Operational objectives: 

Inputs: 

Main activities: 

Cultural Diversity 
- Stimulate and implement a diverse range of cultural activities of high artistic 
quality promoting cultural diversity, dialogue and mutual understanding and 
highlighting (shared) European cultures and themes; 
- Involve European artists, promote cooperation with different countries and 
transnational partnerships 
- Combine traditional arts forms with new types of cultural expression. 
Access and participation 
- Create new and sustainable opportunities for a wide range of citizens to 
attend and/or participate in cultural events; 
- Involve local citizens, artists and cultural organisations in development and 
implementation; 
- Provide opportunities for volunteering and foster links with schools and 
other education providers. 
Cultural Capacity 
- Improve cultural infrastructure; 
- Develop the skills, capacity or governance of the cultural sector; 
- Stimulate partnerships and cooperation with other sectors. 
International profile 
- Attract the interest of a broad European and international public; 
- Improve the European and international connections of the cultural 
community 

- FTEs and financial resources 
dedicated to coordinate, support 
implementation of and implement 
the action made available by the EC, 
Member States and cities; 

- EU financing of the European 
Capitals of Culture and the Melina 
Mercouri Prize; 

- Financial resources made available 
by the Member state, the region, the 
title city, sponsors and, eventually, 
the EU; 

- Selection, monitoring and support 
procedures; 
Reports, studies and evaluations. 

EU 
- Appointment of an independent panel of experts by EU institutions and Member 
States; 
- Selection of one EFTA/EEA, candidates or potential candidate country to host a 
European Capital of Culture in 2022, 2024, 2028, 2030 and 2033; 
- Monitoring and support to title cities; 
- Award of the Melina Mercouri Prize of EUR 1.5M to title cities 
- Development of guidelines for cities own evaluations and other guidelines. 

Member States and title cities 
- Selection of two cities in Member States to host European Capitals of Culture 
each year based on the six defined selection criteria 
- Development and submission of the application; 
- Preparatory activities to the title year; 
- Implementation of cultural programme during the title year; 
- Monitoring and evaluation. 

Outputs: 

Cultural Diversity 
- Number of events and cultural activities of different genres and categories; 
- Number of new cross-border collaborations, co-productions and exchanges involving 
local and international operators; 
- Number of artists involved in international cooperation and number of local artists 
involved in international projects abroad. 
Access and participation 
- Attendance at ECOC events and evolution compared to the regular cultural audience 
of the City; 
- Diversity of audience (as regards with geographical origin, target groups, age and 
gender) through various schemes and initiatives; 
- Diversity of volunteers; 
- Diversity of the cultural workforce; 
- Number of cultural professionals trained. 
Cultural Capacity 
- Strategies for long-term cultural development of the city; 
- Schemes and programmes supporting professional development of cultural 
managers and artists; 
- Total value of investment in cultural infrastructure, facilities and in cultural 
programmes 
- Number of sustained multi-sector partnerships; 
- Number and profile of projects developed with other sectors; 
- Number and profile of people and organisations participating in capacity building 
programmes. 
International profile 
- Number and profile of people reached via media coverage; 
- Geographical scope of media coverage; 
- Number of tourists visiting; 
- Volume and % of positive media coverage of cities; 
- Awareness of the ECOC among residents and cultural sector representatives abroad; 
- Volume and % of city coverage about the ECOC and/or its cultural offer 

Results: 

Impact: 

- Increased range, diversity and European dimension of cultural offer in title cities; 
- Increased financial contributions obtained from public, private and third sector 
partners. 
Cultural Diversity 
- Increased exposure of and to European artists; 
- Increased number of cultural initiatives linking heritage and innovation; 
- Increased cooperation between the city and locations in other countries; 
- Increased transnational mobility of artists into and out of the city 
Access and participation 
- Increased level of awareness of the cultural offer and participation in cultural 
programmes; 
- Increased level of access to and participation in culture by citizens in selected cities; 
- Increased level of active engagement with culture by local population; 
- Increased motivation for and depth of participation in culture; 
- Increased diversity of the audience 
Cultural Capacity 
- Increased investment in cultural infrastructure in title cities 
- New competencies developed by professionals from the cultural sector; 
- Broader networks developed between cultural sector and other sectors and across 
geographic borders; 
- Created/Improved conditions and programmes or development of NGOs, cultural 
and creative industries; 
- Raised cultural management standards in terms of skills, capacity or governance. 
International profile 
- Increased European and international visibility of selected cities; 
- Increase in tourist visits in the years leading up to, during and following their host 
year; 
- Changes in city positioning/representation/inclusion for the first time in 
international city brand rankings. 

0 

European cultural and linguistic diversity and heritage are safeguarded 
and promoted: 
• 

Citizens are more aware and appreciative of the diversity 
of European cultures developing a sense of belonging to a 
common cultural space; 
Cultural professionals increase transnational and cross-
sectoral cooperation on culture, resulting in an increased 
European perspective; 
The quality of cultural activities is increased; 
Common elements we share as Europeans. 
Title cities’ long term cultural capacity is strengthened in terms of: 

• 
• 

• 

• 
• 

• 

Post-ECOC cultural strategy and implementation plans; 
Cultural infrastructure, increasing the availability of 
affordable space for cultural production; 
Cultural active participation. 

Title cities’ economy, cultural panorama and international recognition 
are strengthened: 

• 

• 

• 

GDP and employment in title cities’ cultural and creative 
sectors increase; 
The prestige and international recognition of selected 
cities is increased, resulting in strengthened tourism 
sectors; 
Increased ambition and professionalization of the cultural 
community. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2   Point of comparison 

In comparison with its predecessor, the current legal basis brought to the ECoC action the 
following changes:  

•  Removal of the need for confirmation of selected cities at EU level, with ECoC 

titleholders designated directly by the Member State concerned;  

•  Opening of the Action to candidate countries, potential candidates and EFTA/EEA 
countries  every  three  years  (with  the  European  Commission  responsible  for  the 
official designation in these cases);  

•  More specific and robust selection criteria (six instead of two), including a stronger 
emphasis on the long-term impact of the Action and reinforcement of the European 
dimension; 

•  Composition of the Panel by 10 independent experts, which get completed by up 
to  two  national  ones  appointed  by  the  national  authorities  organising  the 
competition in their respective Member States; 

•  The addition of a third monitoring meetings organised before the title year between 

the selected city and the expert panel; 

•  The ex-post evaluation of the ECoC is now the responsibility of the designated city 

and not the European Commission; 

•  Postponement of the payment of the Melina Mercouri Prize to the beginning of the 

title year (instead the end of the previous year). 

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

The European Capital of Culture action is supported by the Creative Europe Programme, 
which  covers  the  following  costs  for  the  implementation  of  the  European  Capitals  of 
Culture 2020-2033:13 

-  Melina Mercouri Prize (EUR 1.5 million per city); 
-  Expenses to cover the activities of the panel; 
-  Other exceptional costs (e.g., events, communication). 

Therefore, the cost of the action for the European Union budget oscillates between EUR 
3,4  million  and  over  EUR  5  million  per  year,  depending  on  the  number  of  European 
Capitals of Culture taking place in a given year (minimum 2, and up to 3). These costs are 
integrated into the Creative Europe annual programme budget.14  

Since its creation in 1985, the title has been awarded to 82 different cities in all EU Member 
States (including the UK until its departure from the EU in 2020) and was granted to cities 
in 5 non-EU countries: Iceland (2000), Türkiye (2010), Norway (2000, 2008, 2024), Serbia 
(2022) and North Macedonia (2028). 22 cities have been selected under the current legal 
basis so far, 13 of them occurred/are occurring at the time of the drafting of this SWD, 
while 9 of them have been selected and are yet to be implemented. 

The following cities have been selected so far under the current legal basis:  

13 Regulation (EU) 2021/818 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20  May 2021 establishing 

the Creative Europe Programme (2021 to 2027) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1295/2013 

14 https://culture.ec.europa.eu/resources/creative-europe-annual-work-programmes 

7 

 
  
 
 
Title year  Country 

Selected city  Bidding  cities  having  reached  the  final 

2020 

2022 

Croatia 

Ireland 

Serbia 

selection round 

Rijeka 

Dubrovnik, Osijek, Pula  

Galway 

Limerick, Waterford 

Novi Sad15 

Herceg Novi (ME) 

Lithuania 

Kaunas 

Klaipéda 

Luxembourg 

Esch-sur-
Alzette 

- 

Romania15 

Timișoara 

Baia Mare, Bucharest, Cluj-Napoca 

2023 

Greece15 

Elefsina 

Kalamata, Rhodes 

Hungary 

Estonia 

Veszprém 

Debrecen, Győr 

Tartu 

Narva 

2024 

Austria 

Bad Ischl 

Dornbirn, St. Pölten 

Norway 

Slovenia  

Germany 

Finland 

Slovakia 

Latvia 

Portugal 

Bodø 

Banja  Luka (BA), Mostar (BA) 

Nova Gorica  Ljubljana, Piran, Ptuj 

Chemnitz 

Hannover, Hildesheim, Magdeburg, Nürnberg 

Oulu 

Tampere, Savonlinna 

Trenčín 

Nitra, Žilina 

Liepāja 

Daugavpils, Jūrmala and Valmiera 

Évora 

Aveiro, Braga, Ponta Delgada 

Czech Republic 

Broumov 

České 
Budějovice 
(Budweis) 

France 

Bourges 

Clermont-Ferrand, Montpellier, Rouen 

North Macedonia 

Poland 

Sweden 

Belgium 

Skopje 

Lublin 

Kiruna 

(TBD) 

Budva (ME) 

Bielsko–Biała, Katowice, Kołobrzeg 

Uppsala 

Ongoing  competition 
September 2025) 

(final 

selection 

in 

2025 

2026 

2027 

2028 

2029 

2030 

15 Originally foreseen for 2021. 

8 

 
 
Cyprus 

EFTA/EEA  countries, 
candidate  countries  and 
potential candidates  

(TBD) 

(TBD) 

Ongoing  competition 
December 2025) 

(final 

selection 

in 

Ongoing competition (final selection in October 
2025) 

The  legal  basis  was  amended  in  2017  to  integrate  European  Free  Trade  Association 
countries  that  are  parties  to  the  Agreement  on  the  European  Economic  Area.16  It  was 
amended  again  in  2020  to  address  the  consequences  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic.17  It 
notably offered both 2020 ECoCs (Rijeka and Galway) the possibility to extend their ECoC 
2020 year until 30 April 2021, while keeping the same year of designation. Furthermore, 
the ECoC year in Timișoara and in Elefsina was postponed from 2021 to 2023 while the 
title year in Novi Sad was postponed from 2021 to 2022.   

The Russian War of aggression in Ukraine did not  have a direct  consequence on the 
European Capitals of Culture action, however its impact was felt in particular with Kaunas 
2022  when  the  city  swiftly  adapted  its  programme  to  secure  funding  for  activities  that 
celebrated and supported Ukrainian culture and refugees, for example with the opening of 
the CulturEUkraine centre in Kaunas former Post Office. 

The extension of the status of EU candidate country to Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova in 
2022 and 2023 made the first two countries eligible for the competition open to cities in 
EFTA/EEA countries, candidate countries and potential candidates, as both these countries 
also  participate  in  the  Creative  Europe  Programme.18  The  city  of  Lviv  (Ukraine),  is 
currently engaged in the competition for the 2030 title under this category of countries, 
alongside the city of Nikšić (Montenegro). 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

4.1 To what extent was the intervention successful and why?  

Effectiveness 
The  evaluation  has  found  that  the  ECoC  action  has  stimulated  an  increased  number  of 
cultural  activities  in  hosting  cities  during  their  title  year,  compared  to  preceding  years. 
Looking at the local evaluations undertaken by the ECoC held between 2013 and 2022, a 
typical  ECoC year consists of around 1,000-1,200 separate  cultural  activities, with  title 
years implementing anything between 160 activities in Paphos to 3,400 in Mons.19 As an 

16 Decision (EU) 2017/1545 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 September 2017 amending 
Decision No 445/2014/EU establishing a Union action for the European Capitals of Culture for the years 
2020 to 2033 (Text with EEA relevance) 

17 Decision (EU) 2020/2229 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 December 2020 amending 
Decision No 445/2014/EU establishing a Union action for the European Capitals of Culture for the years 
2020 to 2033 

18 Participation of a given third country in Creative Europe is an eligibility criterion. 

19 An ECoC ‘activity’ was defined as either an event, a cultural work, or a single project supported by an 
ECoC that formed part of a cultural programme delivered over the host year. Definitions of an activity 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
example, baseline data collected from local evaluations in three ECoCs supported between 
2013 and 2022 shows that cultural activity increased by around 300-500% in the ECoC 
year compared with years before the ECoC took place. 

Beyond scale, stakeholders’ interviews and evaluations done of the ECoCs that took place 
between 2013 and 2022 highlighted that the action also widened both the type and location 
of culture on offer in host cities. Not only did the action allow for a focus on new genres 
including  comedy,  youth  theatre,  community  choirs,  film  making,  poetry  or  literature 
festivals, but it also encouraged more innovative venues to experience culture, such as the 
streets  of  (often  deprived)  neighbourhoods,  people's  homes  and  gardens,  local  shops, 
community  centres,  places  of  worship  and  schools  as  well  as  parks,  city  squares  and 
heritage  sites  that  for  example  acted  as  backdrops  to  theatrical  productions,  music 
ensembles or art installations. 

Underpinning  the increase in  the scale  and scope  of the cultural  offer was a significant 
increase  in  investments  in  cultural  activities  across  host  cities  stimulated  by  the  year. 
Analysis of the budgets set out in local evaluations of ECoC taking place between 2013 
and 2022 shows that the Action has collectively  stimulated around  EUR 900 million in 
funding towards the cultural agenda across the EU, taking into consideration all the funding 
spent from EU, national, regional, local and private sources. Data also shows that a typical 
ECoC has a budget of around EUR 50 million for the preparation and implementation of 
its cultural year, with the highest budgets coming from Marseille, Košice and Leeuwarden 
(each spending around EUR 100 million) whilst the smallest budget was from Paphos (with 
a budget of EUR 8.2 million).  

Although baseline figures do not exist across the ECoC to show how much was spent on 
cultural activity outside of ECoC years, stakeholders highlighted that the cultural budgets 
of host city administrations were often around five times larger as a consequence of hosting 
their ECoC. This level of increase was also supported by an analysis of the annual budgets 
for culture for city municipalities presented at pre-selection stages by ECoC over the 2020-
2028 period.20 This shows that future ECoC host cities spend on average EUR 13 million 
yearly on culture,  meaning an ECoC (with  an average budget  of  EUR  50 million)  sees 
spend increase by around four-fold in comparison with a normal non-ECoC year. 

Official attendance figures of the 2013-2022 ECoC set out in local evaluations show that 
around  38.5  million  people  participated  in  ECoC-supported  cultural  activities  over  this 
time period either as an audience member, a curator or a project beneficiary.21 Participation 
levels set out in local evaluations varied across different ECoC depending on budgets, size 
of host city and size of programme but the average participation of an ECoC was around 2 
million people with the main influencing factor in participation being the size of the host 
city.   

Analysis of attendance data for the ECoC from 2013-2022 suggests that local residents 
generally supported and benefitted from their local ECoC and enjoyed their city hosting a 

differ  between  ECoC, meaning  a  direct  comparison  is  not  possible.  It  is  nonetheless  useful  when 
assessing the general scale of the activity found in each cultural programme. 

20 Bid books from 2020 titles onwards presented (in the management section of each bid book) the annual 

expenditure of the city administration on culture in a non- ECoC year. 

21 Source: National ECoC evaluations and national monitoring data  of audience participation and project 
beneficiaries. Note: a participant includes individuals who attended a one off ECoC event (e.g., opening 
ceremony). Most ECoC also counted the same resident attending for example five cultural events as five 
rather than one attendee. 

10 

 
 
large cultural programme. Data from local evaluations of ECoC falling within the study 
period showed that typically around 6 out of every 10 residents of a host city attended at 
least one ECoC event or project during the host year. 

Local evaluations from different ECoCs also indicate that the action has stimulated large 
numbers of volunteers who supported the implementation of the different cultural capitals. 
Many ECoCs successfully used volunteers to help deliver part of their cultural programme 
with  monitoring  data  showing  how  residents  directly  helped  produce  rather  than  just 
consume culture attached to their ECoC. In total, data from local evaluations show that 
24,261 volunteers were involved in the ECoC delivered between 2013 and 2022, meaning 
on  average  an  ECoC  had  around  1,300  volunteers.  Stakeholders  highlighted  how  their 
volunteer programmes had firstly been instrumental in helping them deliver a successful 
ECoC programme but also how these programmes had helped instil a sense of ownership 
of the ECoC among active citizens of the host city. 

Evaluation findings also show that there was a concerted effort by ECoC to engage with 
people  who  did  not  traditionally  consume  culture.  For  example,  local  evaluations  in 
Matera, Leeuwarden, Riga and Mons highlighted that groups being targeted to increase 
their consumption of culture during the ECoC year included school children, people from 
disadvantaged backgrounds (including migrants and the unemployed) as well as people 
living  in  the  outermost  neighbourhoods  surrounding  the  city  centre.  Stakeholders 
interviewed were keen to stress that their ECoC did not just focus on traditional audiences 
and  went  out  of  their  way  to  broaden  the  appeal  and  reach  of  culture  in  their  ECoC 
programmes.  

Desk  research  shows  that  all  the  ECoCs  in  the  study  period  developed  projects  that 
specifically  targeted  harder-to-reach  and  non-traditional  audiences  of  culture  and 
specifically invested in projects to expand the reach and appeal of culture in their cities. 
These projects included cultural activities purposely located in target communities (e.g., 
cultural projects in youth clubs, synagogues, prisons, support centres for migrants etc.), as 
well  as  capacity-building  organisations  working  with  target  (non-traditional)  groups  to 
deliver  a  culture-related  project  (e.g.,  funding  a  youth  migrant  NGO  to  run  a  cultural 
activity over the summer break) as well as ensuring that non-traditional groups were also 
producers  of  culture  to  help  them  deliver  a  cultural  project  themselves  (often  in  their 
neighbourhoods or social groups).   

The ECoC also helped widen participation in culture by investing in new cultural venues 
and sites. A range of new infrastructure projects gave host cities a new or improved cultural 
offer and, in turn, helped attract new types of participants. Budget data from eight ECoC 
set out in the local evaluations that collected relevant data shows that between 2013 and 
2022 a total of EUR 1.3 billion new infrastructure projects were developed before or during 
the ECoC year. An example of a new venue developed for an ECoC year includes Marseille 
with the Musée des Civilisations de l’Europe et de la Méditerranée, which was part of a 
EUR 600 million investment by public and private authorities in the city of Marseille and 
was the first national museum opened in France outside the Paris region. Another example 
was  in  Košice,  where  the  city  authority  invested  in  the  Kasárne  Kulturpark  and  the 
Kunsthalle/Hall of Art.  

Stakeholders who were linked to ECoCs that contained a large infrastructure project often 
highlighted how a new building gave a focal point or ‘centre piece’ for their ECoC and 
acted as a tangible project they could highlight when discussing issues including impact 
and legacy. In return, the ECoC often helped raise awareness of the new venues opening 

11 

 
just before or during the title year. For example, the ECoC 2016 in Wrocław contributed 
to the considerable success of the New Forum for Music concert hall (opened in September 
2015) in attracting audiences in its first full year of operation. During 2016, the venue held 
2,000  events,  more  than  twice  the  number  in  previous  years  in  the  old  venue,  many  of 
which were formally part of the ECoC programme and co-financed by the ECoC delivery 
organisation.  These  events  at  the  New  Forum  for  Music  attracted  audiences  of  over 
500,000 in 2016 – substantially higher than at the old venue. 

Desk research of local evaluation reports shows that about half of the ECoCs between 2013 
and 2022 made a concerted effort to invest in capacity-building projects to develop their 
local  CCS.  Activities  identified  to  strengthen  the  CCS  included  various  grant  and  loan 
projects to finance the sectors (Esch-sur-Alzette, Kaunas, Leeuwarden, Marseille, Plzeň 
and  Riga),  training  schemes  on  issues  such  as  business  planning,  marketing, 
commercialisation  and  digitisation  (Marseille,  Košice,  Riga,  Mons,  San  Sebastián, 
Wrocław, Paphos and Galway) as well as projects to encourage local CCS organisations 
to  bid  for  and  deliver  contracts  linked  to  the  delivery  of  the  ECoC  year  (Paphos, 
Leeuwarden, Valetta, Matera, Plovdiv, Kaunas and Esch-sur-Alzette). Limited data was 
collected  by  ECoCs  to  understand  the  impact  of  this  support.  However,  illustrative 
examples22 of where this capacity-building activity helped strengthen the local CCS were 
noted. For instance, local evaluations show that 40% of Wrocław’s CCS saw increases in 
their turnover during the celebrations, 62% of Košice’s CCS saw increases in the skills 
levels of staff during the ECoC year, 58% of Umeå’s CCS felt that their skills and capacity 
were stronger after the ECoC year and 38% of Umeå’s CCS secured a contract linked to 
the delivery of the ECoC cultural programme. 

It  is  worth  noting that around half of the ECoC studied did  not have a specific support 
programme  in  place  to  help  develop  the  capacity  of  the  local  CCS.  Stakeholders 
highlighted that they tended to rely on local CCS organisations receiving funding to deliver 
ECoC-related  activity,  which  in  turn  helped  develop  the  latter’s  capacity  rather  than 
explicitly  implementing  an  intervention  to  support  the  sector  to  strengthen  their  skills. 
However, evidence  from the local  evaluations  of some of the  smaller ECoCs including 
Paphos,  Plovdiv  and  Plzeň  suggested  that  this  natural  trickle-down  of  benefits  did  not 
always  automatically  take  place  and  that  some  of  the  local  CCS  did  not  either  receive 
funding to deliver a cultural activity or did not receive contracts linked to its delivery (e.g., 
the supply of lighting for a large event). Evaluations in smaller ECoCs such as Paphos and 
Plzeň highlighted that larger companies in the CCS from outside of the host city were more 
successful  than  local  firms  in  gaining  contracts  as  local  firms  lacked  the  resources  and 
skills to compete in various tendering processes.   

On  a  more  positive  note,  interim  findings  also  highlight  that  the  ECoC  project  helps 
generate stronger networking within the local CCS as a consequence of being involved in 
an  ECoC  year.  Local  CCS  organisations  often  highlighted  that  ECoC  helped  establish 
either a formal or informal cultural ecosystem in their city and encouraged them to work 
together to design and deliver cultural content. 

Results also show that delivering an ECoC greatly helped to strengthen local talent within 
the  local  CCS  through  the  implementation  of  often  hundreds  of  cultural  projects  at  a 
different  more  ambitious  scale  than  previously  experienced.  Evaluations  in  Wrocław, 
Aarhus, Košice, Kaunas and Galway all highlighted how the local CCS saw a jump in their 

22 Local evaluations did not have a common or similar measurement to demonstrate an average or overall 

scale or impact of capacity building support provided by ECoC in a collective way. 

12 

 
 
skills and track record attached to putting on bigger and more sophisticated productions, 
fuelled by the much larger budgets that hosting an ECoC allowed. Skills identified as being 
developed in the local CCS included marketing to international audiences, digitisation and 
ticketing and commercialisation, as well as more technical skills such as video production, 
lighting and sound engineering.   

Local  CCS  in  host  cities  were  also  strengthened  financially  as  a  consequence  of  being 
involved  in  their  ECoC.  Stakeholders  stated  that  hosting  an  ECoC  greatly  boosted  the 
financial position of local CCS in three main ways: firstly, through the CCS receiving grant 
funding  to  design  and  implement  a  cultural  activity  as  part  of  the  cultural  programme, 
secondly  through  the  local  CCS  receiving  contracts  linked  to  the  supply  of  goods  and 
services and finally through cultural organisations such as museums and galleries seeing 
higher levels of visitors and tourists who were in the city because of the ECoC. As noted 
earlier and as way of an illustration, 40% of Wrocław’s CCS saw increases in their turnover 
during the ECoC year, cultural venues in Aarhus saw a 17% increase in visitors during 
their ECoC year compared to the previous year, 38% of Umeå’s CCS secured a contract 
linked to the delivery of the ECoC cultural programme and 47% of the CCS in Mons stated 
they were more financially secure during the ECoC year. 

However, drawing on limited data but also the very nature of the ECoC (temporary, less 
focussed  on  infrastructure  activity,  with  projects  tending  to  be  delivered  by  existing 
organisations  and  staff)  the  evidence  to  support  a  hypothesis  that  ECoCs  create 
employment numbers in host cities is relatively moderate. 

Analysis  from  those  ECoCs  that  collected  relevant  data  shows  that  an  ECoC  year  can 
increase visitors numbers in a host city by around 30-40% and most of the ECoC cities 
assessed as part of this study23 often noted that their ECoC year had helped stimulate their 
highest  number  of  tourists  ever  recorded  (for  example,  San  Sebastián  saw  an  extra  1 
million visitors during its host year). Perhaps unsurprisingly, smaller and/or less touristic 
ECoC cities saw a more noticeable increase in their visitor numbers because of their ECoC: 
with  Matera,  Leeuwarden,  Paphos  and  Mons  all seeing  increases  of  up  to  50%  in  their 
visitor  figures.  Mons  saw  an  extra  100,000  visitors  to  the  city  during  their  ECoC  year, 
which was a 40% increase from the previous year whilst Marseille and Riga saw visitor 
figures increase by around 5% during their ECoC year.   

Stakeholders tended to highlight how their ECoC status raised the profile of their cultural 
scene and increased the attention international stakeholders gave to their city and cultural 
players. The ECoC gave host cities visibility on a European and sometimes global scale 
and  made  them  a  much  more  thought  for  destination  for  culture  from  international 
audiences seeking a cultural experience.  

Analysis of data presented in local evaluations seems to also show that between 25-35% 
of visitors of ECoC host cities come from abroad. As noted above, it is interesting to note 
that  the  largest  increases  in  international  visitors  were  recorded  in  cities  that  saw 
themselves as being more off the beaten track when it came to international tourism. Cities 
like  Leeuwarden  and  Plzeň  both  highlighted  that  their  ECoC  gave  them  a  ‘hook’  for 
promoting themselves on the international tourism market and a reason why international 
tourists were more likely to visit them during the ECoC year. The analysis also shows that 
the ECoC greatly increased the coverage of title cities in the international press and travel 
journals,  participating  in  boosting  their  profile  on  an  international  scale.  Data  on  the 

23 Except for Galway and Rijeka (taking place in the Covid pandemic), Kosice and Umeå. 

13 

 
 
amount  of  international  media  coverage  generated  by  a  ECoC  shows  that  the  title  year 
tends to stimulate a large volume of additional media coverage before and during the ECoC 
year.  Indeed, data  from  the local  evaluations  shows that a typical  ECoC year generates 
anything between 10,000 and 58,000 extra mentions or articles about  the host city as  a 
direct  consequence  of  the  city  hosting  an  ECoC.  Although  most  ECoC  did  not  collate 
monitoring  data  on  the  types  of  media  outlets  that  published  articles  on  their  ECoC 
programme, those that did (Riga, Leeuwarden Aarhus, Košice, Kaunas) highlighted how 
the outlets  had high levels  of global reach including  the National  Geographic, the New 
York Times, The Times (London), Rough Guides and Condé Nast Traveller.   

A  higher  international  outlook  of  host  cities  also  came  from  the  stronger  international 
collaboration that took place between stakeholders found in the host city and those found 
in other countries. Again, stakeholders, particularly in the smaller host cities such as Umeå 
and Paphos,  highlighted that the international  profile of  their local  artistic communities 
tended to be limited before the ECoC year took place and that the presence of the ECoC 
gave them the hook to encourage partners from other countries to work with local cultural 
players. International artistic exchanges, foreign  visits and the swapping of works (e.g., 
local sculptures and paintings) were commonplace in various cultural programmes of the 
ECoC studied although ECoC did not tend to collect data on this issue.   

However, the evaluation also identifies existing issues and external factors affecting the 
ECoC: 
- 

Interviews  with  city-level  stakeholders  highlighted  challenges  such  as  facing 
financial  constraints  and  pressures,  acting  with  limited  capacity  and  human 
resources but also having to deal with political influences that can be detrimental 
to the implementation of the title year.   

-  As seen in earlier paragraphs, the size of the city plays a critical role in  a city’s 
ability to fully exploit the potential of the ECoC.  It influences a wide variety of 
issues  linked  to  budgets,  size  of  the  cultural  programmes,  audience  figures,  and 
capacity. 

-  Discussions organised in the framework of the evaluation with stakeholders also 
stressed  the  importance  of  involving  a  wide  range  of  actors,  including  cultural 
organisations,  political  authorities  and  the  general  public,  to  build  broad-based 
support for ECoC activities. 

Efficiency 

In terms of efficiency, the evaluation found that, by design, ECoC is a cost-effective action 
able to leverage public and private funding at relatively low cost for the Union. The title 
of  European  Capital  of  Culture  does  not  come with  earmarked  EU  funding  beyond  the 
EUR  1.5  million  Melina  Mercouri  prize,  whose  value  represents  only  a  fraction  of  the 
entire ECoC budget of title cities (normally ranging between 2% and 7%).24 Between 2013 
and 2022, the ECoC action stimulated a total of EUR 940 million in funding towards the 
cultural agenda across the EU, taking into consideration all the funding from EU, national, 
regional, local and private sources.25  

24 Notable exceptions are Plzeň (2015), Paphos (2017) and Rijeka (2020), in which budget the prize accounted 

for 9%, 22% and 10% respectively. This aspect is further explored below.  

25 About EUR 800 million if only non-EU funding sources are considered. 

14 

 
 
 
This comes with an investment of just EUR 28.5 million when calculating the overall cost 
of the Melina Mercouri Prize over the same time period, meaning that the amount of co-
financing generated is significant: each euro spent by the Union on the prize stimulated 
about an additional 30 euro of other funding from either national/regional/local or private 
sources.26  This  figure  does  not  consider  any  additional  infrastructural  investment  that 
might have been done by cities in connection with to hosting their ECoC (which is not 
included in their overall ECoC budgets). 

The evaluation shows that the ECoCs generally do not totally deliver against their budget 
set out in their original bid book. Overall, only about a third of the ECoCs managed to 
deliver their year in line with their original planned budget (+/- 5%), namely Marseille, 
Riga,  Umeå,  Matera,  Kaunas  and  Novi  Sad.  Three  ECoC  had  higher  than  anticipated 
budgets compared to their bid book (Košice by 32%, Wrocław by 10%, and Leeuwarden 
by 41%). However, the majority of ECoCs over the period saw actual budgets being 10% 
or more lower than those set out in their bid books. The reasons behind these differences 
in planned and actual budgets tended to fall into three categories:  

-  One-off and sometimes unique circumstances specific to the ECoC (abandonment 
of specific infrastructural projects, changes to local politicians, COVID-19). 
-  Less funding being  received from national public sector sources and, to  a lesser 
extent, private sources. The main reasons reported for this were over-optimism at 
the bidding stage and the 5-6 years’ timeframe, which often led to a lack of firm 
commitment at the time of bidding. 

-  Original ECoC budgets in bid books often overestimated how much income would 
be generated by ticket sales and the extent to which people would ‘pay for their 
culture’. Although many cultural activities were ticketed, there was a limit to how 
much of the cultural programme could follow this model, in particular because a 
usual motivation among ECoC cities is to attract new harder-to-reach audiences.  

Overall,  the  budgets  for  ECoC  show  that  a  significant  portion  of  funding  comes  from 
public sources, totalling 71% of the overall budget. This includes on average about 30% 
from national funding, 25% from local funding and 17% from regional funding. Private 
funding  accounts  for  about  11%  of  the  total  budget  across  the  2013-2022  timeframe. 
Notably, cities like Leeuwarden, Marseille, and Aarhus stand out for their higher levels of 
private funding, with Leeuwarden at 51% (much more than expected at bidding phase), 
Marseille at 15%, and Aarhus at 19%. The remaining 17% encompasses EU funding and 
other funding sources, including, for instance, ticket sales. Stakeholders representing title 
cities emphasised how ECoC enabled them access to funding streams, in some cases very 
substantial, they would not have had without the title, generating an unprecedented in-flow 
of capital for culture. 

The  Melina  Mercouri  prize  is,  under  the  current  legal  basis,  the  only  EU  financial 
contribution  directly  linked  to  the  ECoC  title.  While  this  source  of  financing  is  still 
interesting  for  smaller  cities  or  smaller  Member  States,  it  may  not  constitute  a  strong 
motivational factor for larger cities.  

Consultations with stakeholders highlighted that the Melina Mercouri prize is generally 
symbolic  and  does  not  directly  affect  the  scale  or  scope  of  the  ECoC  and  its  cultural 
programme.  Furthermore,  the  pecuniary  value  of  the  Prize  has  not  changed  since  its 

26 Although there are other costs associated with the implementation of the action (e.g., human and financial 
resources  from  the  EC  and  the  panel  of  experts),  the  Melina  Mercouri  prize  represented  the  largest 
expense per title city.  

15 

 
 
introduction in 2010, and consequently, due to the inflation in the EU area, it depreciated 
over time. If the Prize was to be adjusted to account for inflation, the equivalent value in 
today's prices would be about EUR 2 million.  

The consultations shed light on two potential negative consequences of the relatively low 
pecuniary value of the Prize. It tends to reduce the leverage that the European Commission 
and the panel have at monitoring stage to steer the implementation of the ECoC and ensure 
legacy plans are in place. It also may not represent a sufficiently attractive leverage for 
larger cities to apply for the title,27 hence possibly reinforcing the current trend of smaller 
cities bidding.  

Consultations highlighted the need for a wider discussion on whether the Melina Mercouri 
prize should be increased and also the need for the allocation of specific EU funding to the 
Action.  While  the  lack  of  EU  funding  pushes  cities  to  invest  in  culture  and  seek  the 
involvement of other key players such as regional and national Governments and private 
sector stakeholders, the lack of dedicated EU funding is felt as a missed opportunity in 
terms of what could be achieved with more financial leverage from the European Union. 
More  dedicated  EU  funding  could  also  help  the  Commission  reinforce  some  of  the 
perceived  weaknesses  of  the  ECoCs’  cultural  programmes  (e.g.  legacy  and  European 
dimension)  whilst  at  the  same  time  giving  clearer  independence  to  ECoC  teams  on  the 
artistic focus, scale and scope of their cultural programme.  

Although reinforcing the Melina Mercouri prize could contribute to better programming 
of the legacy and the post-legacy period, consultees also stressed the need to strengthen 
the legacy plans already at the bidding phase.  

Role of human resources  
Three bodies play a significant role in the successful implementation of a European Capital 
of Culture: the title-holding city, the Expert Panel and the European Commission. 

Ensuring that cities have enough human resources with the right skills to plan and manage 
an event such as ECoC is essential (this is also a criterion for selection). Results of the 
Public Consultation place the capacity of city authorities to run an ECoC as the second 
most important factor for the success of the ECoC. Available data on the actual number of 
human resources involved in the implementation of ECoC over the period 2013-2022 is 
uneven and difficult to compare as cities have reported the number of human resources 
involved  in  different  ways,  in  some  cases  reporting  only  the  core  team  managing  the 
project while in others including also projects’ managers and volunteers.  

Data, however, indicate that the ECoC implementation is a resource-intense activity that 
reaches  its  peak  in  the  title  year.  Indeed,  as  the  cities  approach  the  title  year,  the  team 
managing the event increases substantially. As emerged from the consultation conducted, 
being such a resource-intensive endeavour, smaller cities face more challenges in adapting 
to the scale of the event, as they often end up relying only on small teams to deliver the 
entire cultural programme over several years.  

27 Evidence collected suggests that the ECoC budget is not proportional to the size or annual budget of title 
cities. The budgets of ECoCs covered by this evaluation reached about 100 million EUR in Marseille 
(about 900,000 inhabitants) and Leeuwarden (about 125,000 inhabitants), showing that two cities with 
very different population size can put forward similar budgets. This implies that funding received by a 
city hosting the title will be far more appealing for cities that normally have access to much smaller 
funds/budget. 

16 

 
 
Evidence from interviews and focus groups indicates that cities often also struggle with 
identifying and employing enough skilled personnel to manage and implement their ECoC 
project. While this is often evident at the bidding stage, when bidding cities are known to 
rely  to  some  extent  on  external  consultants  or  experienced  professionals  from  previous 
ECoC cities to develop their bid book, it can become a hindering factor once a city has 
been selected, slowing down the setting up process of the ECoC managing entity and the 
actual start of the implementation.  

This issue is particularly evident in relation to some specific leadership roles such as those 
linked to the overall management and artistic direction of the ECoC. Cities often foresee 
in  the  bid  book  an  open  competition  for  the  selection  of  these  key  figures.  While  in 
principle this could favour the identification of the best candidate, in reality the pool of 
actual candidates is rather small, in particular in smaller countries, due to the need to speak 
the local language and the busy schedule of high-skilled professionals who might not be 
available at such short notice. 

Furthermore,  many  stakeholders  consulted  referred  to  the  ECoC  implementation  as  a 
‘learning  on  the  job  experience’,  suggesting  that  the  team  behind  the  planning  and 
implementation of the event do not often possess all the required skills and competencies 
from day one. Instead, these competencies are acquired over time, creating inefficiencies 
and unnecessarily slowing down the process.  

Ensuring  already  at  the  bidding  stage  that  the  necessary  skills  and  competencies  are 
available and that there are clear plans for timely capacity-building well integrated into the 
bid  book  would  potentially  ensure  continuity  between  the  bidding  and  implementation 
phases as well as strengthen the quality of the event. For instance, cities passing the pre-
selection  round  could  be  asked  to  have  capacity-building  activities  in  place  during  the 
period  preceding  the  submission  of  the  revised  bid  book  for  final  selection.  Capacity-
building  activities  could  also  be  provided  by  the  European  Commission,  ensuring 
knowledge sharing and exchange of good practices between former ECoCs and bidding 
cities (as it happened through the Creative Europe funded ECoC capacity-building project 
run between 2019 and 2022). 

When it comes to the panel of experts, it comprises ten independent experts appointed by 
European Union institutions and bodies and up to two by the Member States hosting the 
ECoC.28  Given  their  central  role  in  the  selection  and  monitoring  of  the  ECoCs,  it  is 
essential that the experts are provided with sufficient resources to fulfil their mission. In 
particular, participants of focus groups highlighted some key intervention areas:  

-  Experts’  selection:  while  the  expertise  of  the  members  of  the  panel  was  overall 
recognised,  it  was  suggested  that  the  panel  composition  could  aim  to  be  more 
diverse in terms of the representation of minority groups, geographical distribution, 
and gender balance as well as in terms of skills and competencies. For instance, it 
was considered important to ensure that artists were sufficiently represented in the 
panel  and  that  the  group  of  experts  presented  complementary  competencies, 
including  legal  skills  and  legal  knowledge  (especially  regarding  how  public  and 
cultural sectors operate in different countries).  

28 Experts appointed by the Member States are only involved in the competition in the country that have 
nominated them. There are no national experts in the competitions between cities in EEA/EFTA and 
(potential) candidates countries.  

17 

 
 
-  Experts’  onboarding  and  handover:  while  renewing  the  panel  of  experts  is 
essential to bring in new perspectives, it was noted that new panel members might 
require additional onboarding or training. At the moment, there seems to be a lack 
of tools and formal mechanisms for transitioning the new members (though a half-
day training session is organised with newcomers). This lack of a more structured 
handover process can lead to the loss of relevant knowledge and experience (of the 
members leaving the panel) and the uneven involvement of new panel  members. 
Developing  a  handbook  or  a  structured  onboarding  process  could  ensure  better 
preparedness of the members.  

-  Time and resources: reviewing the bidding documents and monitoring reports and 
providing  guidance  to  cities  is  a  time-consuming  process.  A  contract  with  the 
experts  defines  the  amount  of  time  members  of  the  panel  are  expected  to  spend 
reviewing  and  processing  documents.  For  instance,  half  a  day  is  allocated  to  the 
reading of a bid book at preselection phase (up to sixty pages per bid book) and a 
full  day  per  bid  book  at  selection  phase  (up  to  100  pages  per  bid  book).29  Panel 
experts consulted suggested that this allocation, coupled with the limited timeframe 
often available and the sometimes-large number of documents to review, might not 
allow the panel experts to accurately review the bids, ultimately risking frustrating 
bidding cities that might feel their work is not fully appreciated. 

The European Commission plays a central role in the overall management of the Action 
and is deeply involved in all ECoC activities and stages, supporting Member States, the 
panel experts, and the cities.  

It is challenging to quantify the amount of work and resources the European Commission 
would need to effectively and efficiently manage the ECoC action for several reasons: a) 
there are large yearly variations in the number of cities bidding to host ECoC, spanning 
from a minimum of 1 (in the case of Luxembourg for the 2022 title) to a maximum of 21 
(in the case of Italy for the 2019 title); b) the work distribution is not linear but presents 
high peaks, in particular in relation to pre-selection and selection meetings. Currently, it is 
estimated  that,  within  the  Commission,  about  2  FTE  are  allocated  to  ECoC  divided 
between policy officers (about 75%, or 1.5 FTE) and financial assistant (about 25%, 0.5 
FTE). While recognising the importance of the role played by the European Commission 
in the overall management of the Action and the several competing priorities, stakeholders 
consulted  highlighted  how,  despite  being  such  a  visible  action  of  the  Union,  additional 
resources could be put forward within the Commission to ensure the Action reaches its full 
potential.  

For  context,  looking  only  at  key  quantifiable  outputs,  on  average,  the  Commission 
participates in fourteen meetings per year for a total of about twenty-two days, reads twenty 
bid books and seven monitoring progress reports and reads and comments on four to five 
preselection and selection reports and seven monitoring reports, in addition to managing 
the experts’ contracts, liaising with Member States and cities, and participating to ECoC 
related events.  

More  human  and  financial  resources  could  allow  the  Commission  to  provide  stronger 
monitoring, additional support for networking and capacity-building between ECoCs as 

29  Additionally,  experts  are  remunerated  for  taking  on  additional  work  such  as  chairing  monitoring  and 
(pre)selection  meeting,  preparing  (pre)selection  panel  reports,  or  reporting  from  a  meeting,  and  for 
contributing to or finalising (pre)selection reports. All experts are also entitled to daily allowances and 
reimbursement of travel and accommodation expenses.  

18 

 
 
well as enhanced communication activities promoting the Action. While there is scope for 
the Action to be expanded, to ensure the European Commission is sufficiently equipped to 
support the coordination and implementation of the Action, any change in this sense would 
need  to  be  assessed  against  the  available  human  and  financial  resources  within  the 
European Commission, in a context of several competing priorities and overall reduced 
resources.  

Efficiency of the selection and monitoring procedures and implementation timing 
The  new  legal  basis  of  the  Action  modified  the  selection  and  monitoring  processes, 
establishing, among others, new selection criteria and more frequent monitoring meetings. 
In particular, the selection process encompasses the following steps:  

-  Call for submission of applications: at least 6 years before the title year. 
-  Application submission deadline: minimum 10 months after the publication of the 

call for submission of applications. 

-  Pre-selection meeting and report: 5 years before the title year. 
-  Revised application submission deadline and selection meeting and report: about 9 

months after the pre-selection meeting. 

-  City designation: 4 years before the title year. 

Following the selection, three monitoring meetings take place, three years, 18 months and 
two months before the year of the title. 

While  stakeholders  consulted  consider  the  current  selection  and  monitoring  processes 
overall as working well,30 they also identified areas for improvement: 

-  Application timeline: While at the governmental level the timeline for the selection 
process  is  considered  overall  sufficient,  cities  find  meeting  the  current  deadlines 
challenging;  in  particular,  the  nine-month  period  between  pre-selection  and  final 
selection adds pressure on cities, particularly smaller or less-experienced ones, in 
terms  of  building  international  relations  and  securing  commitments  from  local 
stakeholders. Extending the time for this phase could allow cities to strengthen their 
proposals  and  better  address  feedback  from  the  panel  of  experts  at  pre-selection 
stage. However, it is important to note that extending the timeline for the selection 
process should not come at the expense of the preparation period post-selection, as 
cities require sufficient time for the event preparation, in particular when there is a 
need to develop infrastructures and re-engage partners to invest in the initiative. 
-  Monitoring meetings: Meetings with the panel of experts are a key moment for 
cities to receive guidance and advice on the implementation. In this respect, some 
stakeholders stressed that these meetings should focus on providing support more 
than merely checking if milestones are reached. This suggestion is underpinned by 
the request for a shift from a monitoring process toward a more advisory role, with 
panel  experts  working  closely  with  cities,  offering  real-time  solutions  and 
mentorship. This would be in line with the challenges identified above in relation to 
the lack of the required skills and capacity-building in ECoCs.  

The  timing  of  the  meetings  was  also  questioned  by  stakeholders  consulted,  with 
some of them mentioning that the twelve-month lag between the selection and the 
first monitoring meeting is potentially too long as cities tend to delay processes (in 

30 As reported by the large majority of the respondents to the public consultation as well as interviewees and 

participants in the focus groups.  

19 

 
 
particular in relation to the identification and hiring of key figures in the managing 
entity). Furthermore, the time between meetings does not allow for close monitoring 
of the ECoC implementation. Some stakeholders also mentioned the need to extend 
the monitoring to the year after the end of the title year to ensure legacy plans are 
actually implemented. Increasing the number and frequency of the meetings could 
allow better monitoring during the different phases of the ECoC implementation. 

Finally, while meetings are now only held online, both a number of representatives 
of  ECoCs  and  of  members  of  the  panel  of  experts  highlighted  how  confining  the 
monitoring  to  online  means  limits  the  panel’s  ability  to  engage  with  local  teams, 
making it harder to identify problems and offer solutions. Both stakeholder groups 
would welcome more monitoring meetings or in situ visits31 to allow panel members 
to  better  understand  the  local  context  and  challenges,  fostering  deeper  interaction 
with the local stakeholders and offering more practical, tailored advice.32  

Once the selection process is completed, selected cities have about four years to prepare 
for  the  event.  Stakeholders  consulted  indicated  that  while  this  time  can  in  principle  be 
sufficient for the preparation and implementation of a cultural programme, it can be less 
so depending on a number of factors such as city preparedness, infrastructure development, 
community engagement and political support, partnerships and cultural networks. 

Overall, while four years could be enough for cities to implement the event, this timeframe 
might be challenging if a city has not already reached a certain level of cultural maturity. 
Hence,  cities  should  be  encouraged  to  start  planning  and  preparing  for  the  ECoC  long 
before the formal announcement of the opening of the selection process. While this does 
not necessarily imply that less prepared cities should not be considered for hosting ECoC, 
their  bid  book  should  be  realistically  examined  and  judged  in  light  of  the  city’s  actual 
cultural  capacity,  and  if  selected,  sufficient  guidance,  monitoring  and  capacity-building 
opportunities should be provided.  

A number of inefficiencies were identified during discussions with stakeholders attached 
to the ECoC. These were often not quantified (in terms of resources wasted or lost) but 
still add into the discussion on efficiency. 

Analysis  shows  that  there  were  around  40  cities  that  bid  for  ECoC  status  that  were 
unsuccessful between 2013 and 2022. Figures do not exist on the cost of submitting a bid, 
although cities taking part in the focus group estimated that it took between 6 and 8 months 
to prepare a bid meaning around 300 months were used by cultural stakeholders across the 
EU to prepare unsuccessful ECoC bids over the 2013-2022 period. Selecting an ECoC city 
through a competitive bidding process has long been used as part of the Action, with it 
helping to stimulate innovation and quality.  

The bidding process itself was mentioned by stakeholders as being  a useful moment of 
reflection for cities with culture ranking up in the public discourse and the political agenda. 
Initiatives such as CultureNext33 show that there is interest in and willingness to still build 
on the work done by non-selected cities. However, when cities are finally not selected to 

31 On top of the three formal monitoring meetings, informal meetings and in situ visits by a delegation of 
panel members and staff members of the European Commission are organised when necessary.  
32 Implementing more city visits would of course represent a cost for both the EU and the hosting cities.  
33  Culture  Next  is  a  network  established  by  Cluj,  unsuccessful  bidding  city  for  the  ECoC  title  2021  in 
Romania, whose mission is to support current and former European Capital of Culture candidate cities to 
implement  culture-led  urban  development  programmes  and  policies:  Culture  Next  –  Candidate  Cities 
Network.  

20 

 
 
become the next ECoC, there is no structured way of capitalising on the work done and 
competencies acquired. There could be scope for ECoC to become a moment of cultural 
renovation not only for the title cities but also for unsuccessful bidders. 

Although  an  ECoC  network  (‘family’)  does  exist,  its  work  is  sometimes  limited  and 
patchy, depending on which city is taking the lead in the network in any given year (current 
ECoC  cities  tend  to  chair  this  network).  Other  networks  span  from  ECoC  such  as  the 
already mentioned CultureNext and the University Network of the European Capitals of 
Culture (UNeECC), however these are parallel initiatives whose action is separate from 
ECoC  and  not  led  by  the  Commission  (although,  notably,  CultureNext  is  now  funded 
through Creative Europe). Overall, this means less networking takes place between past, 
current and future ECoC cities and therefore good practice is sometimes missed and advice 
on pitfalls and challenges does also not get shared as much as it should be. This therefore 
leads to inefficiencies as mistakes are replicated. 

Stakeholders also highlighted that another area where time is sometimes wasted relates to 
a misunderstanding of two key aspects of the ECoC, namely – the European dimension 
and legacy. Although those taking part in the evaluation stated they eventually had a clear 
understanding of each term, some stated that a better understanding of what the European 
dimension looked like in terms of actual activity would be useful and would save time at 
either  bid  or  planning  stages.  Stakeholders  understood  the  concept  of  a  European 
dimension but sometimes struggled to understand how to operationalise it and what, for 
instance, a project with good levels of European dimension would look like. This was also 
true  for  legacy,  where  stakeholders  said  it  took  them  time  and  resources  to  properly 
understand what is expected of a legacy and how best to operationalise a legacy plan that 
was  both  ambitious  and  based  on  likely  levels  of  culture  and  investment  post-ECoC. 
Therefore,  the  Commission  being  more  prescriptive  with  these  two  aspects  would  help 
save time across the bidding and planning stages of the ECoC.  

Stakeholders  at  all  levels  have  indicated  that  while  cities  tend  to  have  in  place  good 
communication plans, these are not sufficiently supported by communication activities at 
EU  level.  The  ECoC  brand  is  overall  recognisable  and  well-known  among  European 
citizens; however, and despite its sought-after European dimension, the promotion of the 
Action is left to the title cities. Implementing a communication campaign at the EU level 
could ensure higher visibility to cities hosting during the year, increasing the perception of 
the  European  dimension  of  the  initiative,  but  also  spotlight  preparatory  efforts  by 
prospective title cities or legacy activities conducted by former ECoCs. 

Coherence 
Internal Coherence 
The overall internal coherence of the ECoC action appears strong, as formal processes 
for selecting and managing title-holding cities align well with the objectives of the Action. 
The application process, for example, requires bidding cities to embed their ECoC project 
into a cultural strategy and to actively engage with cultural operators, citizens, the private 
sector and other relevant stakeholders, in line with the objectives of the action. The design 
of  the  Action  further  promotes  strong  collaboration  between  national  and  subnational 
levels across cultural, social, and economic areas. The competition for the title is open to 
cities and their surrounding areas, fostering participation and collaboration that aligns with 
both  EU  objectives  and  regional  socio-economic  goals.  This  approach  enables  smaller 
cities,  like  Bodø  (population  around  40,000)  in  the  Norwegian  region  of  Nordland 
(population approximately 250,000), to involve an entire region in cultural initiatives that 

21 

 
 
foster  regional  development  and  local  growth,  as  well  as  collaboration  at  the  European 
level. 

Quantitative  evidence  confirms  alignment  between  different  levels  of  governance,  as 
ECoC costs are shared between national, local, and regional stakeholders. Data presented 
in the efficiency section reveals that approximately 30% of the typical ECoC budget comes 
from  national  funding,  24%  from  local  funding,  and  17%  from  regional  funding.  This 
relatively equal distribution suggests robust financial support for ECoCs across different 
territorial  layers  of  cultural  policymaking.  It  also  reflects  coherence  in  objectives,  as 
funding would not be granted if ECoCs did not reflect policy priorities at those levels. This 
diversity  in  public  funding  sources  highlights  the  interconnectedness  of  ECoCs  and 
suggests  a  ‘uniting’  effect  of  the  Action  in  bringing  together  various  stakeholders  and 
policies representing different levels of governance.  

National stakeholders, in particular, have been observed to play a vital role in the success 
of ECoC – not only by often serving as the primary funding source – but also by actively 
participating  in  the  development  and  delivery  of  the  cultural  programme  itself.  ECoCs 
generally have strong involvement from national stakeholders, who often sit  in steering 
groups and management boards. This means ECoCs are designing and implementing their 
programmes in collaboration rather than in isolation from national policymakers, who are 
usually fully involved. National stakeholders in most cases see the ECoC as a matter of 
‘national importance’ and support it through active engagement, aligning the initiative with 
their  own  goals  such  as  promoting  cultural  tourism,  boosting  economic  growth  or 
strengthening the social cohesion of communities. 

In contrast, evidence also suggests that a lack of engagement from national policymakers 
has  a  clear  negative  effect.  Subnational  stakeholders  stress  the  importance  of  having 
national policymakers onboard to secure the necessary support and resources. For example, 
in one of the consulted cities in the framework of the evaluation, it took about a year to 
engage properly with the national cultural authorities to have them recognise the national 
value  of  the  ECoC  project.  This  highlights  the  importance  of  timely  and  proactive 
engagement with national policymakers to ensure support and resources are available when 
needed, ultimately maximising the Action's potential impact. 

Stakeholder interviews undertaken for the evaluation further suggest that ECoC objectives 
tend to align well with cultural and socio-economic priorities at the local level. Cities report 
that they are eager to enhance their cultural profile, stimulate culture-driven local economic 
development, and foster culture-based community engagement, which matches the overall 
ECoC  goals.  However,  balancing  these  local  priorities  with  the  overall  EU  action’s 
emphasis on promoting European cultural diversity and commonalities can be challenging, 
and  the  literature  review  conducted  indicates  that  many  applicants  struggle  to  meet  the 
‘European  dimension’  criterion,  often  prioritising  local  issues  and  themes  over  broader 
European  objectives.  For  instance,  cities  might  prefer  to  take  the  ECoC  opportunity  to 
focus on boosting their local economy or cultural infrastructure, rather than investing in 
programmes that engage with cultural partners from across Europe. This tension between 
local priorities and the European dimension can hinder applicants from fully embracing 
the international aspects of the ECoC action.34  

Collected evidence also  points to the importance of effective coordination and a shared 
vision  among  involved  stakeholders,  especially  when  transitioning  from  planning  to 
implementation. City-level interviewees highlight the particularly challenging conditions 

34 ECoC Literature review  

22 

 
 
faced  by  newly  formed  ECoC  organisations,  including  tight  deadlines,  frequent  staff 
changes and intense public scrutiny, as they work to transform the bid’s vision into reality. 
Locally,  expectations  may  be  very  different  compared  to  the  national  level,  making  it 
important  to  coordinate  actions  across  all  involved  parties  to  ensure  success  and  avoid 
confusion, delays, and potential setbacks.  

This underlines the critical need for clear communication and collaboration among often a 
very diverse set of stakeholders – e.g., artists, cultural organisations and institutions, local 
governments,  community  groups,  private  sponsors,  and  tourism  boards  –  to  pull  in  the 
same  direction.  For  example,  this  coordination  could  involve  creating  a  joint  steering 
committee with representatives from all stakeholder groups, such as in Aarhus 2017, where 
a central foundation included members from the municipality, region, private sector, art 
consultants, musicians, architects, and the national sports association to ensure a unified 
approach.35 

External Coherence 
The ECoC shows a high level of external coherence, as it is closely aligned with other EU 
programmes in culture and related fields. This view is reinforced by stakeholders consulted 
more widely. The majority of respondents to the Public Consultation felt that the ECoC 
action was either largely complementary (22%) or complementary (45%) with other EU 
initiatives and policies.36 Only 8% of stakeholders considered the ECoC to overlap with 
other EU initiatives and policies. For national initiatives and policies, the responses were 
somewhat  similar:  20%  viewed  ECoC  as  largely  complementary,  43%  saw  it  as 
complementary,  while  only  13%  considered  it  to  overlap  with  national  initiatives  and 
policies37 – indicating a very slightly higher perception of overlap at the national level. A 
prominent  example  of  alignment  at  national  level  is  the  Italian  Ministry  of  Culture's 
creation of the Italian Capital of Culture programme in 2015, inspired by the ECoC model, 
as  a  follow-up  to  the  competition  for  the  ECoC  title  in  Italy,  which  attracted  a  record 
number of 21 candidates.38 Since then, the Portuguese and Polish ministries too decided to 
set up national capitals of culture in the wake of their respective ECoC competitions in 
2022 and 2024. 

Synergies between ECoC and other EU culture-related programmes, funds or initiatives 
are fostered by the Action being often managed at national level by the same authority also 
facilitating access to these other programmes, funds or initiatives,  such as, for instance, 
Creative Europe and the New European Bauhaus. As a result, information about various 
EU  cultural  funding  opportunities  is  often  shared  through  their  channels,  increasing 
awareness about these opportunities and increasing the potential for synergies.  

The  close  ties  to  the  umbrella  programme  of  ECoC,  Creative  Europe,  stand  out  when 
examining  the  external  coherence,  particularly  regarding  its  Culture  strand.  There  are 
common objectives, including the promotion and protection of cultural diversity in Europe 
and  fostering  stronger  cross-border  collaboration  among  cultural  organisations.39  The 

35 The Board of Aarhus 2017 | Aarhus 2017 
36 The remaining share responded ‘I don’t know’.  
37 Ibid. 
38 See: https://capitalidellacultura.cultura.gov.it/capitali-italiane-della-cultura/. 
39 In addition to these general objectives, the specific objectives of the Action are: (a) to enhance the range, 
diversity and European dimension of the cultural offering in cities, including through transnational 
cooperation; (b) to widen access to and participation in culture; (c) to strengthen the capacity of the 
cultural sector and its links with other sectors; (d) to raise the international profile of cities through 
culture.  

23 

 
 
majority (around 40-65%) of ECoC projects have a good degree of transnational working 
and  there  are  numerous  examples  of  ECoC  projects  being  co-produced  or  delivered  by 
partners from different countries. Most ECoC studied to date also have strong examples of 
artistic exchange programmes, country visits and projects that toured one or more Member 
States.  

Overall,  the  ECoC  action  is  aligned  with  and  supports  the  overarching  objective  of 
improving  the  competitiveness  of  the  EU’s  cultural  and  creative  sectors  set  out  in  the 
Creative Europe programme as well as the New European Agenda for Culture.40 Although 
not  all  ECoCs  implemented  capacity-building  projects,  around  half  did  foresee  actions 
aimed at improving the strength and robustness of these sectors. The very fact that host 
cities  deliver  a  cultural  programme  that  often  had  in  excess  of  1,000  separate  cultural 
activities  helped  strengthen  the  sectors,  allowing  cultural  operators  to  acquire  new 
competencies and skills as illustrated above. ECoC’s support to skills development through 
capacity-building  helps  entrepreneurs  and  artists  scale  their  initiatives  and  compete 
globally, fostering long-term competitiveness in European cultural and creative sectors.41 
Furthermore, although the Action is not generally perceived as aiming at job creation, there 
is evidence of ECoC contributing to employment in the cultural and creative sectors. By 
strengthening the CCS, ECoC contributes to long-term economic growth and highlights 
the vital role of culture and creativity in the economy.  

There is also clear evidence that the ECoC action has strong coherence with another key 
objective  of  the  Creative  Europe  programme,  namely  to  increase  access  to  and 
participation  in  culture  and  to  increase  audience  engagement  and  improve  audience 
development. The ECoC action can be firmly seen as a mass cultural participation event 
with around 38.5 million people participating in  ECoC cultural activities between 2013 
and  2022,  and  often  the  large  majority  of  the  residents  of  title  cities  attending  cultural 
activities in less traditional venues. ECoC also tends to focus much attention on reaching 
out to new audiences, often less exposed to culture, in a way that engages them through 
interesting and different cultural activities not previously seen in their city.  

Both ECoC and Creative Europe are linked to strengthening European identity and values 
through  cultural  awareness,  arts  education,  and  culture-based  creativity  in  education. 
Although some ECoCs took time to fully embrace the European dimension, they all aimed 
to  implement  cultural  programmes that strengthened and promoted European identities, 
having key European values as major themes or topics of their programme. Stakeholders 
consulted highlighted how the ECoC had often made their cultural offer in their city much 
more international and diverse, full of content, works and performers going beyond the 
local dimension.  

Beyond  programme  objectives,  ECoC  also  shares  common  features  with  projects  and 
priorities of the Creative Europe programme in relation to greening as well as inclusion 
and equality. For instance, ECoCs are encouraged to promote social inclusion by ensuring 
their cultural activities are accessible to all, with a specific requirement under Article 5(5) 

40   In  particular  in  relation  to  the  objective  of  ‘Supporting  culture-based  creativity  in  education  and 
innovation, and for jobs and growth’ outlined in the New European Agenda for Culture and the priorities 
under  this  objective  such  as  promoting  innovation  and  collaboration  among  cultural  industries, 
technology firms, and traditional businesses.  

41 European Commission. (2018). Commission staff working document: A new European agenda for culture 
- Background information accompanying the document communication from the European Commission 
to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee  and the Committee of the Regions A new European agenda for culture (COM(2018) 267 
final). Available here.  

24 

 
 
of the 2014 Decision to prioritise accessibility for young people, people with disabilities 
and the elderly.  

ECoCs analysed in the context of this evaluation presented a strong social dimension and 
they  often  used  culture  as  a  vehicle  to  stimulate  a  broad  range  of  actions  targeting 
disadvantaged communities and engaging with them through the power of culture. Many 
stakeholders consulted saw ECoC as being a social action as much as a cultural one, and 
many title cities reported to have used their ECoC year to tackle social issues.  Cities in 
Member States and other participating countries also include additional themes that reflect 
their unique cultural heritage. Both Umeå and Bodø, for instance, had a focus on promoting 
their indigenous Sami populations, the only recognised indigenous people in the Europe, 
holding a special status in Sweden and Norway. Tartu, in its bid, highlighted ‘Resilience’ 
and ‘Arts of survival’, echoing the views of the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) 
on  the  ‘transformative  power’  of  culture  with  the  potential  to  strengthen  society  and 
communities. 

Similarly,  ECoCs  are  also  increasingly  integrating  greening  objectives,  focusing  on 
environmental  sustainability  through  eco-friendly  initiatives  and  raising  awareness  of 
climate change. There is, however, potential for ECoC to further strengthen its alignment 
with  sustainability  and  environmental  priorities,  which  are  central  not  only  to  Creative 
Europe but also other EU initiatives such as the New European Bauhaus. Although some 
ECoCs  had  projects  focusing  on  a  ‘greening’  theme,  this  is  not  a  central  theme  of  the 
Action, reflecting the fact that there is no corresponding selection criterion. More recently, 
sustainability  concerns  were  embedded  in  bid  books,  which,  very  often,  mentioned  the 
environmental impact of the ECoC year. However, these concerns mostly translated into a 
broad  overarching  ambition  rather  than  the  implementation  of  specific  projects  or  the 
development,  for  instance,  of  specific  criteria  to  monitor  the  environmental  impact  of 
activities implemented.42 

The external aspect of ECoC aligns with broader European efforts to strengthen the EU's 
enlargement policy, by including cities from candidate and potential candidate countries 
in the initiative. In doing so, ECoC also feeds into the New European Agenda for Culture, 
which aims to strengthen cultural diplomacy and international cultural relations, including 
in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.43 Interviews with relevant stakeholders suggest that 
there is room to further align ECoC objectives with EU external policies with the aim, in 
coordination  with  the  European  External  Action  Service,  of  establishing  cultural 
partnerships in countries where the EU has a strategic interest. Concerning the Southern 
Mediterranean,  there  is  untapped  potential  to  strengthen  cooperation  by  sharing  good 
practices to candidates for the Mediterranean Capital of Culture. 

One existing channel that could be leveraged is the EU Cultural Diplomacy Platform,44 
which  provides  advice  on  external  cultural  policy,  facilitates  networking,  organises 
activities  with  cultural  stakeholders,  and  offers  training  programmes  for  cultural 
leadership.  Cultural  diplomacy  has  the  potential  not  only  to  strengthen  international 
cultural  relations  but  also  to  enhance  the  competitiveness  of  the  European  cultural  and 

42 Tartu however developed Guidelines for Organising Environmentally Friendly Events - Tartu 2024. 
43 European Commission. (2018). Commission staff working document: A new European agenda for culture 
- Background information accompanying the document communication from the European Commission 
to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee  and the Committee of the Regions A new European agenda for culture (COM(2018) 267 
final). Available here.  
44 Cultural Relations Platform 

25 

 
 
creative sectors, aligning with the objectives of ECoC action. By fostering cross-border 
collaborations,  knowledge  exchange,  and  market  access,  cultural  diplomacy  can  help 
European  artists,  cultural  institutions,  and  creative  businesses  expand  their  reach  and 
influence globally.  

ECoCs often involve international artists and have a global echo, which could be leveraged 
to  further  strengthen  cultural  ties  with  non-EU  countries,  foster  cultural  diversity  and 
dialogue,  and  create  opportunities  for  cultural  entrepreneurs.  This  may  also  attract 
investment and increase the visibility of European cultures. In this way, cultural diplomacy 
through ECoC can serve as both a tool for soft power and a driver of economic growth, 
reinforcing Europe’s strong position in the global creative economy. 

Despite most evidence showing that the ECoC action is generally coherent to broader EU 
approaches linked to culture, data shows that this alignment does not necessarily manifest 
itself in terms of EU funding being channelled into ECoC related activity and projects. As 
already mentioned, the main source of direct EU funding for a ECoC tends to be the Melina 
Mercouri  prize  and  EU  funding  is  often  less  than  10%  of  the  total  budget  of  an  ECoC 
programme.  Support  from  the Cohesion Policy  Funds, including  in  the field  of  culture, 
local  and  regional  development,  employment,  social  inclusion  and  education  may 
indirectly  support  the  ambitions  of  ECoC  actions  in  the  respective  cities,  regions  and 
Member States. However, the proactive coordination and targeted programming between 
the ECoC and other EU funding remains underutilised. However, it should be noted that 
evidence on the use of EU funds is scarce and does not provide the full picture of the extent 
ECoCs have been able to channel EU funding directly through the foundation or indirectly 
through projects implemented. Indeed, interviews with stakeholders highlighted how much 
EU  funds,  and  in  particular  ERDF,  were  used  to  support  projects  that  often  indirectly 
complemented  the  ECoC  programme  but  were  not  necessarily  counted  as  part  of  their 
official programme budgets.  

For instance, in Paphos, ERDF funding was used to enhance public spaces and the public 
realm, providing improved venues for cultural activities during the ECoC year. It is also 
estimated that Rijeka received the equivalent of EUR 24.65 million from ERDF to cover 
capital investments connected with their ECoC project, in particular for the rehabilitation 
and transformation of the former Benčić factory into cultural buildings that now house the 
City Museum of Rijeka, the Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, the Rijeka City 
Library and the Children's House (the first building of its kind in Croatia, dedicated to the 
development  of  children’s  creativity).  And  more  recently  several  2021-2027  cohesion 
policy  programmes  (mainly  the  Friuli-Venezia  Giulia  ERDF  regional  programme,  the 
Slovenian  national  Cohesion  Policy  programme,  and  the  Interreg  VI-A  Italy-Slovenia 
programme)  have  coordinated  ERDF  investments  in  culture  and  sustainable  tourism  in 
view of directly contributing to Nova Gorica/Gorizia 2025. 

Furthermore, even if not used directly for the ECoC implementation, evidence suggests 
that prior experience in broader European collaboration in EU-level networks and projects, 
as  well  as  in  accessing  EU  funding,  facilitated  participation  in  ECoC.  For  example,  a 
national ministry highlighted that they were not surprised by a city's interest in the ECoC 
action, ahead of its bid, given its track record of actively pursuing European initiatives and 
funding. Although not necessarily evidence of coherence with ECoC, it is an indication 
that often, stakeholders participating in EU initiatives undergo a learning process enabling 
them  to  use  their  experience  and  networks  to  apply  for  and  deliver  the  ECoC  event. 
Considering the challenges in successfully implementing the European dimension of the 

26 

 
Action, previous experience in using EU funds and participating in EU activities could be 
used as a preferential criterion for the selection of future ECoCs. 

4.2. How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? 

Overall,  the  ECoC  action  has  been  recognised  in  the  consultation  organised  in  the 
framework of the evaluation as able to sort a number of impacts that would not be possible 
without  action  at  the  EU  level.  77%  of  the  respondents  to  the  Public  Consultation 
considered  the  action  essential  to  the  results  achieved,  with  a  similar  level  of  support 
expressed during the focus groups and by the stakeholders interviewed in the framework 
of the evaluation (more details in Annexes II and V).  

In particular, stakeholders highlighted the importance of the  action in pushing the cities 
towards exploring and embracing a European dimension of culture in terms of contents, 
values and collaborations. ECoC also provided a level of international visibility otherwise 
unattainable,  often  giving  smaller  cities  the  opportunity  to  shine  on  the  European  and 
international  stages.  Representing  such  an  opportunity  for  title  cities  to  attract  an 
international  audience,  ECoC  also  fosters  the  development  of  ambitious  cultural 
programmes  with  an unprecedentedly large and  diverse offer. These aspects  are  further 
explored in the subsections below. 

ECoC results in a level of cross border collaboration in the cultural sector that national-
level programmes do not aim to achieve, providing opportunities for artists and cultural 
institutions  to  connect  globally,  including  with  non-EU  countries.  Such  intensity  of 
collaboration  has  the  potential  to  transform  the  city’s  cultural  landscape  and  has 
significantly  enriched  the  cultural  offerings  of  host  cities  .  During  their  title  year,  each 
ECoC typically engaged with a large number of international partners coming from a wide 
variety of countries. These collaborations elevate the international profile of the host cities 
and provide them with an access to a new and broader cultural network.  

Activities  such  as  artistic  exchanges,  foreign  visits,  and  artwork  swaps  taking  place  in 
titleholding cities demonstrate the type of cross-border collaboration that ECoC fosters. In 
the  feedback  collected  by  the  evaluator,  some  stakeholders  reported  how  the  European 
dimension  of  ECoC  helped  them  establish  networks  that  would  have  been  difficult  to 
achieve  through  national  initiatives  alone,  therefore  inscribing  the  ECoC  action  in  the 
efforts carried out to create a European cultural  space, in line with the Creative Europe 
Programme.  

In  addition  to  fostering  European  partnerships,  the  ECoC  action  facilitated  cooperation 
between EU cultural players and artists from non-EU countries, going even beyond the 
reach of the countries associated to the Creative Europe Programme. For instance, local 
artists  in  host  cities  worked  with  artists  from  countries  such  as  Japan  (e.g.,  Košice, 
Wrocław,  Matera,  Valletta)  or  the  United  States  (e.g.,  Wrocław).  Therefore,  on  top  of 
making cities in a certain number of non-EU countries eligible to host a capital year, the 
ECoC action is also contributing in this way to the EU efforts in terms of international 
cultural relationships. 

Finally, the international prestige associated with the ECoC title also plays a critical role 
in  attracting  global  attention.  In  Poland,  for  example,  the  ECoC  brought  international 
attention to the titleholding city as detailed in the effectiveness section with tangible effects 
on increased cross-border tourism and international media mentions, far surpassing what 
could have been achieved through a national initiative. The tourist presence during the title 

27 

 
year increased by 50%, which was translated into a 11% increase of nights spent in tourist 
accommodations  in  the  city  on  average  during  the  title  year  in  comparison  with  the 
previous  year.  It  can  also  be  argued  that  the  high  levels  of  cultural  activity  organised 
(detailed in section 4.1) is possible and worth doing only when there is an audience large 
enough. Without an EU’s intervention able to provide such an international stage to title 
cities and, hence,  an unprecedented  access  to  an international  audience to  attract,  cities 
would be less inclined to implement so many cultural activities. 

The greater attention on the capacity of the cultural sector benefit in turn the local wider 
urban landscape  and act as a  catalyst for business  investments  and urban revitalisation. 
This was especially true in smaller cities but also in larger ones such as in Marseille where 
the ECoC was the key driver in regenerating urban spaces. For example, in Marseille, the 
ECoC helped regenerate urban areas and introduced a wide range of cultural events such 
as the ‘Quartier Créatifs’, an 18-month project where artists working primarily in the fields 
of architecture, design and landscaping, collaborated with local citizens to transform public 
spaces. 

Therefore, it can be argued that the impact of ECoC is particularly strong in cities where 
cultural movements might have struggled to gain traction without EU support. The Action 
helps  cities  to  internationalise  and  increase  international  tourism  and  international 
coverage to a level that they would not  reach  without hosting the title. It also develops 
networks and skills that enable the local cultural scene to develop itself at an international 
level as a legacy of the title year. 

A  beneficial  aspect  of  the  action  connected  with  its  EU  added  value  dimension  is  its 
promotion  of  EU  values.  The  evaluation  found  out  that  approximately  40-65%  of  all 
projects supported through the cultural programme of the various capitals had a significant 
European dimension. These projects helped to promote European values at the local level, 
championing  themes  such  as  tolerance,  co-existence,  peace,  and  equality.  For  instance, 
Kaunas  2022’s  CulturEUkraine  initiative  was  a  direct  response  to  the  Russian  war  of 
aggression  against  Ukraine  and  highlighted  the  role  of  the  ECoC  in  providing  tangible 
cultural and institutional support for artists and creatives displaced by conflicts. Hosted in 
the city  former  post office, the project  functioned as a cross-border solidarity platform, 
linking  cultural  institutions  in  Kaunas  with  Ukrainian  artists  and  organisations  across 
Europe. 

However, the evaluation puts to the front limitations to the potential of the EU added value 
dimension  of  the  Action.  For  instance,  the  knowledge  sharing  between  ECoCs  remains 
limited in the absence of an institutional platform/organisation and is often delegated to 
external initiatives such as the CulturNext network. The evaluation also concludes that the 
absence of a centralised database limits the potential to assist cultural operators and artists 
involved in European Capitals of Culture  in the internationalisation of their careers and 
reduces their chances to be contacted for potential future EU projects.  

The  evaluation  also  pleads  that  further  support  from  the  EU  level  concerning 
communication activities would help the action and the different cities to reach out to a 
wider audience and cast a stronger light on the event and the cities. Finally, the evaluation 
argues that the title year legacy, despite being an important aspect evaluated at the selection 
stage, can be affected by a multitude of factors such as a shifting political support. Based 
on  the  feedback  of  several  stakeholders,  the  evaluation  puts  forward  the  idea  of  the 
establishing a number of criteria cities need to continuously meet to keep the ECoC title 
beyond the title year. 

28 

 
4.3. Is the intervention still relevant? 

Although  the  European  Capital  of  Culture  action  is  one  of  the  longest  running  EU 
initiatives,  their  objectives  are  still  viewed  as  relevant  given  their  alignment  with  the 
broader  socio-economic  and  cultural  development  needs  of  cities.  This  is  connected 
particularly with the objective of the action on the ‘contribution of culture to the long-term 
development  of cities in accordance  with  their  respective strategies and  priorities’. The 
relevance  of  the  ECoC  action’s  objectives  is  particularly  noteworthy  in  terms  of  the 
development of cultural strategies and strengthening of the cultural offering. 

The bidding process, which requires efforts several years ahead of the title year, is often 
for cities the opportunity to redesign (and in some cases, to design for the first time) city-
level cultural strategies and policies in the field of culture. This is to be seen for instance 
in the context of the Culture for Cities and Regions 2017 report,45 based on contributions 
from 150 cities, highlighting the need for long-term cultural planning for cities if they are 
to develop a vibrant cultural sector. Integrated approaches to culture are developed as part 
of the impetus towards the ECoC title, and many ECoCs have developed or refined their 
cultural strategies as part of the bid development process. All ECoCs from 2015 onwards 
developed or adapted their cultural strategy, according to contextual data on cities’ policies 
retrieved from the final evaluation report of each ECoC. These strategies provide a long-
term vision and cover the bidding process, the ECoC plan and some legacy strategies, and 
are developed at an early stage of the bidding process.  

As a result, unsuccessful bidding cities also benefit from the development of new cultural 
plans.  For  example,  this  was  the  case  of  Žilina  in  Slovakia  and  Broumov  in  Czech 
Republic,  where  a  regional  strategy  for  culture  was  developed  starting  from  the  one 
designed at the city level during the ECoC bidding process. Thus, it can be argued that the 
ECoC action plays a relevant role in strengthening cultural policies across cities. The effect 
of planning for culture with a long-term perspective when applying for the title can also 
benefit other local policy areas, such as urban design, with examples such as Aarhus 2017, 
where culture, rather than being peripheral to the city’s planning, became a starting point 
for a wide range of policies from urban design and health initiatives to social and economic 
development, integrating and mainstreaming culture into the city’s future.  

It  is  also  good  to  note  that  the  integration  of  the  ECoC  in  a  city’s  policy  sometimes 
extended already existing measures further. For instance, Galway 2020 included a strategy 
to develop a regional film fund to strengthen its local creative economy, in line with the 
national strategy for skills development inter alia in the audiovisual sector. Furthermore, 
the process of bidding, often, gave politicians and the management team confidence in the 
local cultural sector and gave a more strategic role for culture, addressing the important 
issue of advancing the level of prioritisation for culture in policymaking.46 This resulted in 
the allocation of resources towards culture-driven urban regeneration across many ECoCs. 
Elefsina2023  for  example  used  the  title  to  renovate  and  reuse  10  unused  industrial 
buildings, creating a new cultural district in the process  and breathing new life into the 
industrial waterside front of the city. 

Overall, the ECoC title is also seen by city representatives interviewed and focus group 
participants  as  a  relevant  initiative  to  highlight  the  importance  of  culture  while  cities’ 

45 Culture for Cities and Regions (2017) Future creative cities: Why culture is a smart investment in cities 
https://culturalheritageinaction.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/03/Future-creative-cities-.pdf 
46 Culture for Cities and Regions, (2017) Future creative cities: Why culture is a smart investment in cities. 

Ibid 

29 

 
 
yearly budgets for cultural funding are often under pressure. Such a flagship initiative helps 
other cities to make the case for cultural funding locally, and ECoC evaluations do make 
a robust case for cultural investment, for instance by measuring the leverage effect of the 
budget invested in ECoCs, or by documenting the positive cultural and economic impacts 
of hosting an ECoC. 

However,  similarly  to  other  large-scale  cultural  events  such  as  the  World  Expo,47  the 
sustainability of the ECoC impacts can limit the transformative effect of the action on a 
given city due to the weak legacy planning or the fast phasing out of the ECoC delivery 
body. Several ECoCs have set up legacy organisations to build on the effect of their title 
years  (such  as  Lille  3000,  Arcadia  in  Leeuwarden,  Mons2035)  but  these  are  more  the 
exceptions  than  the  norm.  Therefore,  measuring  the  true  impacts  of  ECoCs  remains  a 
challenge and immediate post-title evaluations were not seen to fully capture the benefits, 
which  often  materialise  years  later,  according  to  stakeholders  taking  part  in  the  focus 
groups.  This  is  accentuated  in  the  data  limitations  (see  chapter  1)  across  different  city 
evaluations and the lack of long-term impact evaluations of ECoCs. However, it must be 
noted that the ECoC initiative makes a relevant  contribution to the improvement of the 
evaluation of cultural policies and large-scale cultural programmes at city level. This is a 
relevant area for many cities, as highlighted by the focus of major associations of European 
cities, which set up a specific workstream on cultural impact evaluation.48 

Another relevant aspect of ECoC to mention is its value to regional development through 
a cooperation between the awarded city and its surroundings. Rural areas face particular 
challenges in bidding for ECoCs and suffer from the lack of investment in infrastructure 
and mobility, and there is often no clear leadership from one particular city to onboard a 
rural area towards an ECoC candidacy. As such, this dimension has been exploited to good 
effect within specific ECoCs such as Kaunas 2022, where it was decided to share the title 
with  the  broader  Kaunas  District.  Fifteen  local  municipalities  were  integrated  into  the 
ECoC programme, decentralising the events, improving access and spreading the benefits. 
Although Kaunas captures the capacity of ECoC to deliver for a region it is also the case 
that many cities did not exploit the opportunity ECoC provided to deliver benefits for wider 
regional development.  

Continued relevance 
The action has adapted over time to meet changing EU policy priorities and maintain its 
relevancy over time. Changes implemented in the current regulatory framework, Decision 
No. 445/2014, are detailed in Chapter 2 of this SWD. For instance, new changes such as 
the opening of the Action to cities in candidate countries and potential candidates and to 
EFTA/EEA countries allowed to further develop the international dimension of the ECoC 
action and can serve as a springboard for EU integration for candidate countries. Among 
the changes of the current legal basis, there is a more robust selection criteria including a 
stronger emphasis on the long-term impact and a reinforcement of the European Dimension 
to ensure the transformative effect of the action, as detailed in the previous section of the 
SWD.  

If  there  is  an  overall  consensus  regarding  the  different  selection  criteria,  there  are 
contrasted view on the ‘European dimension’ criteria, which can potentially lead to varying 

47 Jones ZM (2020) Cultural mega-events: opportunities and risks for heritage cities. Routledge, Abingdon 
48   Eurocities (2020), How to measure the value and social impact of culture? A digest of inspiring examples 
and new approaches. Eurocities Culture Forum Working Group ‘Cultural services & culture for inclusive 
cities’: https://eurocities.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Measuring-the-impact-of-culture.pdf 

30 

 
 
interpretation.  The  evaluation  has  not  managed  to  obtain  a  definitive  answer  from  the 
different  stakeholders  on  whether  this  dimension  should  remain  a  distinct  criterion  or 
become a horizontal one, integrating it across all criteria while maintaining its importance, 
though  potentially  diminishing  its  visibility.  Some  other  stakeholders  argued  that  the 
environmental  and  digital  dimensions  have  gained  significant  prominence  since  the 
adoption of the 2014 Decision in terms of policies and actions, but they are not explicitly 
addressed  in  the  selection  criteria  for  ECoCs  (though  more  recent  candidates 
systematically cover these dimensions in their bid books). Some stakeholders argue that 
environmental sustainability needs to become a formal criterion as well, whereas the digital 
dimension could be embedded in all the other criteria and across the entire ECoC project. 

Under the current legal basis, the chronological order of countries hosting the ECoC during 
the time period covered by the legal basis is mapped out and allow for cities to prepare 
ahead  of  the  pre-selection  phase  if  they  wish  (for  instance  Leuven,  currently  in  the 
competition for the 2030 title announced having started its intention to join in the list of 
competing cities back in 2017). In some countries, a very strong interest from the different 
bidding cities can lead to a very high number of applications to assess.  

For example, in the competition for the 2016 edition, 15 Spanish cities and 11 Polish cities 
expressed a desire to become their country’s European Capitals of Culture and engaged in 
a fiercely competitive bidding process. However, the number of applications can be much 
lower in other Member States, one in Malta for 2018 (but most probably two for the 2031 
title), three in the Czech Republic for 2015 and Cyprus for 2017. This low number can 
potentially stem from the fact that some Member States have a far larger pool of realistic 
candidates than others, which may become a problem in the future and selecting weaker 
candidates for the title in some countries may risk damaging the prestige and brand value 
of the ECoC in the longer term. 

It should also be noted that several small or medium-sized Member States have already 
hosted  the  ECoC  title  on  a  number  of  occasions  (e.g.,  Luxembourg  with  three  ECoCs 
hosted). There is, therefore, a risk of having weaker ECoCs in certain years. It is worth 
noting that no country, during the collection of feedback from different stakeholders, have 
expressed any interest in ‘opting out’ of hosting the ECoC title, including those with fewer 
potential candidate cities. In practice, the legal basis does foresee the possibility that no 
city is selected in a particular country, but Member States do have an obligation to organise 
the competition. Another aspect that needs to be accounted for is the size of the city, which 
is currently not a criterion, but participants remarked on the difficulty of competing and 
comparing  cities  with  different  sizes,  numbers  of  inhabitants,  and  capacities.  Such 
comparison is complicated for Panel members as well.  

Some small cities do struggle with the competition and preparation phases, as significant 
efforts are required of small teams, who often experience risks of burnout. If the integration 
of small and mid-sized city is perceived as a positive element by the different stakeholders 
interviewed  (notably  for  the  diversification  of  the  cultural  offering  it  can  bring),  it  can 
create an issue with their capacity to deliver. In the framework of the evaluation, this topic 
brought the question of the concept and meaning of ‘city’, which is left undefined in the 
legal basis on purpose. The current concept of ‘city’, as seen by the expert panel, is seen 
by some respondents as outdated and could thus be replaced by that of ‘territory’, therefore 
allowing provinces, regions, and alliances of smaller cities (comprising a leading city) to 
participate as well. 

31 

 
5.  CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

5. 1 Conclusions 

Looking at cities holding the title between 2013 and 2023, as well as cities bidding for the 
title  so  far  under  the  current  legal  basis,  for  the  titles  2020-2028  the  evaluation  of  the 
European Capitals of Culture action has revealed both notable achievements and areas for 
further development, while confirming the continued relevance and impact of this forty-
year-old flagship cultural initiative of the European Union. 

Regarding effectiveness, while limitations were encountered regarding the availability of 
data  and  the  possibility  to  standardize  results  often  coming  from  evaluations  of  past 
ECoCs, the action was found to have stimulated an increased number of cultural activities, 
and it allowed for a widened cultural offer in host cities, both in terms of genre and location. 
Looking at the local evaluations undertaken by the ECoC held between 2013 and 2022, a 
typical ECoC year consists of around 1,000-1,200 separate cultural activities.  It also had 
a  considerable  effect  on  investments  in  cultural  activities  and  infrastructure  across  host 
cities, with cultural budgets of host city administrations often around five times larger as a 
consequence of hosting their ECoC. Official attendance figures of the 2013-2022 ECoC 
set out in local evaluations show that around 38.5 million people participated in ECoC-
supported cultural activity over this time period either as an audience member, a curator 
or a project beneficiary. Such a stimulated dynamism, alongside a cost factor especially 
allowing  for  the  public  to  attend  many  events  for  free,  helped  in  widening  the  type  of 
beneficiaries who consumed culture and encouraged people who had not previously been 
active on the cultural front to attend cultural activities. 

The  ECoC  also  participated  in  strengthening  the  capacity  of  the  cultural  and  creative 
sectors in host cities. While this was sometimes a result of concerted efforts to invest in 
capacity-building projects, it was mainly due to the ECoC helping in establishing either a 
formal or informal cultural ecosystem in the cities. Local actors are encouraged to work 
together  to  design  and  successfully  deliver  cultural  content  for  the  ECoC.  Results  also 
show  that  delivering  an  ECoC  greatly  helped  to  strengthen  talent  within the  local  CCS 
through the implementation of often hundreds of cultural projects at a different scale than 
previously experienced. 

Evaluation findings also show that there was a concerted effort by ECoC to engage with 
people  who  did  not  traditionally  consume  culture.  For  example,  local  evaluations  in 
Matera, Leeuwarden, Riga and Mons highlighted that groups being targeted to increase 
their consumption of culture during the ECoC year included school children, people from 
disadvantaged backgrounds (including migrants and the unemployed) as well as people 
living in the outermost neighbourhoods surrounding the city centre. 

The ECoC successfully tackles its strategic objective to raise the international profile of 
the  host  cities  through  the  delivery  of  a  strong  cultural  programme.  This  is  especially 
illustrated by an increased number of visitors in host cities (25%-35% of which come from 
abroad), but also by a large volume of additional international media coverage before and 
during the ECoC year and by stronger international collaboration that take place between 
stakeholders found in the host city and those found in other countries. 

On  efficiency,  the  ECoC  is  a  cost-effective  action  able  to  leverage  public  and  private 
funding at relatively low cost for the Union. The Melina Mercouri prize represents only a 
fraction of the entire ECoC budget of title cities, normally ranging between 2% and 7% of 

32 

 
the overall ECoC budget. A significant portion of the funding comes from public sources, 
with  national,  local,  and  regional  funding  collectively  providing  71%  of  the  budget. 
However,  it  should  be  noted  that  there  is  often  a  discrepancy  between  the  planned  and 
actual budgets, with most cities facing shortfalls due to various factors, such as reduced 
financial  commitments  from  national  governments  and  unforeseen  circumstances, 
including the COVID-19 pandemic. Only a few cities delivered their ECoC programmes 
with their original budget projections. 

The evaluation also outlined challenges affecting the efficiency of the action and the actual 
lessons  candidate  or  title-holding  cities  could  learn  from  their  ECoC  experience.  For 
instance, time constraints between the pre-selection and final selection stages represent a 
major issue for candidate cities, which sometimes cannot fully improve their proposals. At 
a later stage, they can encounter difficulties to actually capitalise on the work done and 
competencies acquired during the bidding process. Moreover, they can have a hard time 
relying on sufficient learning and communication between past, current and future ECoC 
cities. Furthermore, there is a need for a clearer communication on core concepts like the 
European dimension and legacy in order for cities to save time and resources during the 
bidding and planning stages. 

On another level, the onboarding and handover of panel experts present another area of 
improvement,  with  new  members  often  lacking  the  appropriate  tools  for  a  seamless 
transition,  leading  to  knowledge  loss  and  uneven  involvement.  The  ECoC  action  could 
benefit from developing structured onboarding processes. On a more general note, it was 
perceived that a more centralised communication strategy at the EU level would increase 
the visibility of the initiative as a whole, but also of individual titleholding cities. 

In  terms  of  coherence,  the  ECoC  action  showcases  strong  internal  coherence  as  the 
processes for host-city selection and management align well with ECoC objectives. Indeed, 
the bidding process mandates that cities embed their ECoC project into a broader cultural 
strategy, while involving various stakeholders and different governance levels. Moreover, 
such a mix between national, regional, and local funding support reflects the alignment 
across  territorial  governance  levels.  National  stakeholders  are  especially  vital,  often 
viewing  ECoC  as  a  matter  of  national  importance,  while  their  lack  of  involvement  can 
hinder progress. However, challenges may arise in balancing local priorities with European 
objectives,  particularly  regarding  the  European  dimension  of  programmes,  which  many 
host cities struggle to tackle. Such an internal coherence is complemented by the action’s 
strong external coherence. Indeed, the ECoC aligns with other EU programmes, funds and 
initiatives,  especially  the  EU  flagship  programme  supporting  the  CCS,  i.e.  Creative 
Europe. As such, both the ECoC action and the Creative Europe Programme share core 
objectives  like  enhancing  cultural  diversity  and  fostering  cross-border  collaborations. 
Similarly,  both  the  ECoC  action  and  Creative  Europe  aim  to  support  EU  cultural  and 
creative  sectors'  competitiveness,  enhance  cultural  participation,  and  promote  European 
identity. The ECoC action also shares features with EU priorities in the fields of greening 
and social inclusion for example. However, there is room for improvement in aligning with 
environmental priorities and EU external policies. EU funding, such as from the Cohesion 
Funds,  remains  underutilised  by  the  different  capitals,  although  ECoCs  often  indirectly 
benefit from projects cofinanced by those funds. Regarding the relationship with national 
initiatives, the evaluation noted synergies, as well as some limited overlaps. 

The  ECOC  action  demonstrates  a  clear  and  significant  EU  added  value  by  fostering 
international collaboration among cultural players in hosting cities and their peers in other 
countries,  by  enhancing  the  visibility  of  European  cities,  and  by  promoting  a  shared 

33 

 
European cultural identity. Through the support of the ECoC, cities—particularly smaller 
and  less  internationally  recognised  ones—have  successfully  accessed  global  cultural 
networks, hosted ambitious and diverse cultural programmes, and attracted audiences and 
media attention that would have been otherwise unreachable.  

The  initiative  has  not  only  led  to  a  boost  in  international  tourism  and  cross-border 
partnerships  but  also  contributed  to  urban  regeneration,  civic  engagement,  and  the 
strengthening  of  local  cultural  sectors.  Cities  like  Marseille  and  Kaunas  stand  out  as 
powerful examples of how the ECoC title can act as a catalyst for long-term development, 
cultural  diplomacy, and  the embodiment of  EU values such as tolerance and peace. By 
enabling cooperation with artists and institutions from both EU and non-EU countries, the 
action supports the EU’s cultural diplomacy goals and strengthens the cultural fabric of 
Europe as a whole. 

Nonetheless,  the  evaluation  highlights  several  structural  limitations  that  hinder  the  full 
potential of the ECoC action. Notably, the lack of a formal institutional mechanism for 
knowledge sharing and the absence of a centralised database of cultural operators restrict 
the sustainability and reach of the networks created during the title year. Moreover, while 
the  initiative  successfully  promotes  European  values,  inconsistent  political  support  and 
limited post-title engagement can threaten the longevity of the impact of the title year. The 
evaluation  therefore  suggests  that  more  structured  EU-level  support—especially  in 
communication,  data  sharing,  and  legacy  planning—would  be  essential  to  enhance  the 
effectiveness and lasting influence of the ECoC action. Despite these challenges, the ECoC 
continues  to  play  a  vital  role  in  uniting  Europe  through  culture,  offering  cities  a 
transformative opportunity to redefine their identity on the European stage and participate 
in a broader dialogue about the future of culture in the EU. 

The action continues to be relevant, as it is evolving alongside the socio-economic changes 
and cultural landscape of Europe. Despite being one of the EU’s longest-running cultural 
actions,  the  initiative  remains  aligned  with  cities'  long-term  development  goals, 
particularly  in  embedding  culture  within  urban  planning  and  policymaking.  The 
requirement  for  bidding  cities  to  develop  comprehensive  cultural  strategies  has 
transformed the way municipalities view and utilise culture, often leading to the creation 
or refinement of city-wide cultural policies. These processes are not confined to successful 
titleholders alone; even cities that do not win the title benefit from strengthened cultural 
strategies and improved planning frameworks. The cases of Žilina and Broumov illustrates 
how  the  ECoC  bidding  process  can  stimulate  the  development  of  regional  strategies, 
thereby broadening the initiative’s impact beyond the city level.  

The  integration  of  the  ECoC  action  into  city  policy  frameworks  often  reinforces  and 
extends  pre-existing  measures,  providing  legitimacy  and  renewed  focus  on  cultural 
development.  Galway 2020 exemplifies this by leveraging  its ECoC candidacy to  align 
with national audiovisual strategies and strengthen its creative economy through regional 
film  initiatives.  Moreover,  the  bidding  process  instils  confidence  in  both  political 
leadership and the cultural sector, often leading to tangible investments in culture-driven 
urban regeneration, as seen with the example of Elefsina. These outcomes are particularly 
significant in the face of shrinking municipal budgets for culture: the cultural capitals serve 
as a flagship initiative that not only secures local political buy-in but also provides robust 
evidence  of  the  socio-economic  value  of  cultural  investment.  Evaluations  of  ECoC 
consistently  demonstrate  its  leverage  effect,  generating  broader  economic  and  cultural 
benefits in proportion to the initial investment, which cities use to justify continued and 
increased support for cultural initiatives. 

34 

 
However, the legacy of the action remains at the heart of potential questions concerning 
the ECoC’s relevance. While some cities have established legacy organisations, such as 
Lille3000 and Mons2035, many others lack adequate long-term planning mechanisms. The 
fast phasing-out of ECoC delivery bodies often results in missed opportunities to maintain 
momentum, with many of the benefits of the title year only becoming visible years after 
its conclusion. Weak legacy planning, combined with data limitations and a lack of long-
term  evaluation  frameworks,  undermines  the  ability  to  capture  the  full  impact  of  the 
initiative. Still, the ECoC initiative has helped elevate the importance of cultural policy 
evaluation across Europe. Focus groups highlighted the growing interest in assessing the 
impact of culture, with many European city networks creating dedicated workstreams on 
cultural impact assessment. This growing emphasis suggests that while legacy planning 
may be inconsistent,  the initiative still plays a pivotal  role in  advancing the practice of 
cultural policy evaluation at the local level. 

Another important dimension of the action’s relevance is its potential to support regional 
development through collaboration between cities and their surrounding areas. Although 
this regional approach is unevenly adopted, examples such as Kaunas 2022, show how the 
initiative can successfully decentralise cultural benefits and increase access across multiple 
municipalities.  However,  structural  challenges  persist  particularly  in  rural  areas  and 
smaller  municipalities  which  can  potentially  lack  the  capacity  to  deliver  required  to 
participate effectively. These disparities are further complicated by the open definition of 
“city”  in  the  current  legal  framework,  which  does  not  account  for  variations  in  size, 
capacity, or political structure.  

In  parallel,  the  ECoC  has  adapted  to  remain  relevant  to  EU  policy  priorities,  including 
expanding  eligibility  to  cities  in  (potential)  candidate  and  EFTA/EEA  countries, 
embedding a stronger focus on long-term impact, and promoting the European dimension. 
However, ongoing debates around the role and visibility of the European dimension, and 
the underrepresentation of environmental and digital priorities in formal selection criteria, 
indicate  areas  for  further  refinement  to  maintain  the  initiative’s  relevance  in  a  rapidly 
changing policy context. 

 5. 2 Lessons learned 

It  appears  that,  based  on  the  result  of  the  evaluation,  the  ECoC  action  is  a  successful 
flagship action of the EU with a strong cost-effectiveness as it has a very limited impact 
on the overall EU budget. Other the period of 2013-2022, it is estimated that 38.5 million 
people have been reached by the different actions organised in the context of the different 
European Capitals of Culture. Moreover, the action can have a transformative effect on 
candidate and selected cities as it requires long-term planning and the inclusion of culture 
in local city policy in order to achieve the status of “serious contender”. The action also 
has a strong coherence with other actions of the EU and in particular the Creative Europe 
Programme and allow for the spreading of EU values and the dissemination of the works 
of  European  cultural  professionals  and  artists  across  national  borders  in  the  EU  and 
beyond.  

However, the evaluation has also been the opportunity to figure out that a few elements 
can and should be improved for the future of the action. 

Based on feedback, it appears that the ‘European dimension’ criterion is often not fully 
understood  by  the  different  ECoC  stakeholders.  Cities  should  ensure  that  sufficient 
attention is allocated to understanding and implementing this criterion. Cities should also, 

35 

 
 
among  others,  seek  cross-country  collaborations,  possibly  engaging  other  cities,  in 
particular - but not only - former, current and future ECoCs.   

Knowledge sharing with previous ECoCs could be improved through a stronger network 
of participant cities, building on the benefits and the experiences gained and supporting 
long-term investment in the cultural sector. In the same vein, it could be useful to develop 
a  centralised  database  of  the  cultural  operators  and  artists  participating  in  ECoC  for 
ongoing and future collaboration. To continue on the institutional side, the evaluation put 
to the fore the idea of a stronger centralised communication from EU institutions to the 
benefit of the action as a whole and of the various ECoC titleholding cities receiving in 
order to increase their reach. 

Concerning the expert panel, there is a plea to reinforce interinstitutional dialogue to ensure 
diversity  (e.g.,  areas  of  competence,  gender,  age,  ethnicity  and  geographical  balance, 
experts  representing  artists,  experts  with  legal  skills/knowledge).The  possibility  to 
implement  a  structured  onboarding  process  (with  for  example  a  handbook)  for  new 
members of the panel to ensure their preparedness and a smooth transition and adequate 
handover between old and new members was made.  

A  high  number  of  recommendations  apply  to  bidding  cities  as  they  are  the  ones  in  a 
decision-making role when building their ECoC project. In particular, the way to tackle 
political instability is an element they should anticipate, because it is one of the main issues 
often negatively impacting ECoC implementation. Cities bidding for the title should seek 
wide political support across parties for their project to ensure unabated support all along 
the implementation phase. In addition, ECoCs’ final budgets tend to be smaller than what 
was originally envisaged at the bidding stage. This is mostly due to less funding coming 
from  national  sources  or  overestimating  revenues  from  ticket  sales.  Cities  should  seek 
formal agreements with national ministries to secure national funding commitments at the 
selection stage and set realistic expectations on the number of paying participants expected. 

The evaluation has shown the limits of the available data related to the European Capitals 
of Culture. As such, it is difficult to measure the tangible impact of the European Capitals 
of Culture and aggregate figures as each ECoC uses a different set of data to monitor their 
impact. Refining the data obtainable from the ECoC action would help to measure the real 
impact of this flagship action. While the cities are the ones which implement the cultural 
programme and run their own evaluation, the EC could develop and provide cities with 
clear, measurable, qualitative and quantitative targets/indicators (through  and handbook 
for  instance).  Such  a  set  of  “usable”  indicators  would  be  especially  relevant  to  obtain 
comprehensive, coherent and comparable data from cities and limit, as much as possible, 
data  gaps.  For  instance,  EC  could  establish  a  clear  and  common  understanding  of  an 
indicator such as “number of cultural  activities conducted”. Such an approach could be 
especially useful to assess criteria which cities often struggle to grasp, such as long-term 
impact and EU added value. 

Finally,  the  Action  places  great  focus  on  its  legacy,  however  there  is  no  monitoring 
framework in place for this. Developing monitoring tools for the legacy of the Action could 
allow to better track the long-term impact of ECoC.   While ECoC is generally very well 
regarded and highly appreciated, there is demand for a discussion on the nature of Action 
and  what  it  aims  to  achieve  in  the  long-term.  In  particular,  while  ECoC  is  seen  as  an 
opportunity  for  long-lasting  change  in  hosting  cities,  the  effects  of  ECoC  in  its  current 
form risk being limited to the title year. There could be an open a discussion about the 
nature of the Action and whether it should evolve from its current form into a wider project 

36 

 
recognising and fostering cities’ commitment toward culture, not limited to the ECoC year, 
but as a process to be monitored and continuously earned.

37 

 
ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

The European Capitals of Culture 2020-2033 first interim evaluation (PLAN/2023/1623) has been steered by the Directorate-General for Education, 
Youth, Sport and Culture (DG EAC). The evaluation was carried out under the scrutiny of an Interservice group (ISG) comprising of representatives of 5 
other DGs (SG, LS, BUDG, REGIO and ENEST). 

The ISG was involved repeatedly at key stages of the evaluation by writing and the group convened at several stages of the evaluation on the following 
dates: 

-  13 March 2024 
-  13 November 2024 
-  18 February 2025 

The ISG has been consulted as well (in writing) on the final version of the document produced by the contractor.   

No exception from the usual procedural requirements of the better regulation guidelines was requested for this evaluation. 

This evaluation is based on evidence gathered via different channels and an overview is presented in Annexes II, III and IV 

The main sources of evidence are internal analyses by the European Commission, the report presented by the evaluator contracted in the framework of 
this evaluation carried out between 2024 and 2025. 

38 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

The first interim evaluation of the European Capitals of Culture action 2020-2033 was coordinated by the Creative Europe Programme EAC.D2 unit, in 
cooperation with the unit Evidence-Based Policy and Evaluation, of DG EAC with the support of an interservice group comprising five Commission DGs 
chaired by DG EAC (more details in Annex I). The evaluation process started in 2023 and was guided by the Terms of Reference drawn up for contracting 
the external evaluator, consulted with the ISG and approved by EAC board of directors.   

The Staff Working Document draws upon extensive quantitative and qualitative evidence gathered through a variety of data collection activities undertaken 
by the external contractor, and a thorough evaluation analysis, applying the methodologies described below. The data was tested and triangulated against 
the main evaluation criteria in accordance with the approaches outlined in the better regulation toolbox 2023 chapter 6, and the framework established by 
the 2014 Decision on the European Capitals of Culture 2020-2033. 

Additionally, there was potential for missing perspectives in interviews, and the possibility of bias in self-reported data from participants when it comes to 
surveys conducted for the evaluation. A major limitation is the recent  

WP 1 

Inception 

The Inception phase consisted in five tasks, including a Kick-off meeting, six Scoping Interviews, Initial 
Desk Research, method fine-tuning and the Inception Report and meeting to discuss the Report.  

The Kick-off meeting for the study took place between the contractor and DG EAC in Brussels on 13 
March 2024. 

The Inception Report was submitted on 12 April 2024 and was approved on 16 May 2024, following 
the reception of comments from DG EAC and the Inception meeting was held on 07 May 2024. 

WP 2 

Data Collection 

Work  Package  II  consisted  of  four  major  tasks  aimed  at  collecting  relevant  data,  identifying  and 
reviewing  potential data  gaps, and  engaging  with  all relevant  stakeholder groups through  a  range of 
consultation activities. 

A  data  matrix  was  developed  to  compile  quantitative  and  qualitative,  primary  and  secondary  data 
aligned to the evaluation framework. Its purpose was to collect monitoring and evaluation data from 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ECoC titleholders in a systematic and comprehensive way to support other work packages. The complete 
matrix consists of data from ECoCs from 2013 to 2022, covering the years for which evaluation reports 
are available.   

To complete the table,  ECoC ex-post evaluations and city evaluations  were used.  In total,  60 key 
indicators were included, with corresponding data from each city (where it was available) added to the 
tool accordingly. Each indicator was then arranged in accordance with the relevant evaluation questions 
they related to. It should be noted that the majority of data compiled related to the Effectiveness and 
Efficiency evaluation questions, given the more quantitative nature of these evaluation criteria. Less was 
found on Coherence, Relevance, and EU added value.   

A literature review was performed first through initial desk research, which aimed to gather extensive 
secondary data from previous studies and evaluations linked to the ECoC action at the EU and Member 
State level. During this phase, 199 documents were retrieved, encompassing various categories:   

•  background documents, including legislation and programme documentation;   
•  European-level evaluations, studies and reports (ECoC years 2013-2019);   
•  official evaluations of ECoC and reports (ECoC years 2013-2019);   
•  pre-selection, selection and monitoring documents produced by the ECoC expert panel (ECoC 

years 2020-2029);   
title-holding cities’ evaluations, strategies and databases;   

• 
•  academic literature;   
•  additional publications produced by relevant stakeholders, such as the University Network of the 
European  ECoC  (UNECC)  outputs,  the  CECCUT  outputs  and  the  legacy  from  the  ECoC 
capacity-building project taking place between October 2019 and May 2022.  

A  data  mapping  exercise  was  conducted  to  identify  the  widest  possible  set  of  publicly  available 
quantitative  datasets  to  contribute  to  the  evaluation  process.  This  was  aimed  at  contextualising  and 
complementing the findings of the literature review and stakeholder consultations. Quantitative datasets 
were identified for a range of indicators related to the cultural sector. These included data sources such 
as:   

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
•  Eurostat  statistics  at  the  city  level  and  above  (including  Gross  Value-Added  figures,  cultural 

engagement and cultural employment),   

•  OECD regions and cities data (around improvements to cultural infrastructure)   
•  The Cultural and Creative Cities monitor (primarily focused on cultural engagement), and   
•  European Social Surveys.  

The study team carried out in-depth, semi-structured interviews with key stakeholder groups 
involved in the ECoC action at the European, national and local levels. A total of 64 interviews have 
been conducted by the study team and were used to inform the findings for the evaluation questions as 
part of this report. These interviews are detailed in Annex V of this SWD. 

A Public Consultation was launched on 18 June 2024 and closed on 24 September 2024. A total of 
60 responses were received, of which 58 were from respondents in the EU covering 22 Member 
States. This Public Consultation and its results are detailed in Annex V of this SWD. 

A series of six focus groups were organised, with four in the first half of July 2024, and two at the end 
of August 2024, with the following breakdown of participants: 

The evaluator also produced 8 case studies aim at capturing more in-depth insights around the impacts 
of selected ECoCs and deep-diving into specific themes of the evaluation. The case studies were 
selected in consultation with the European Commission during the Inception phase of the project. The 
selection includes the following eight cities:   

1.  Aarhus   
2.  Elefsina   
3.  Galway   
4.  Kaunas   
5.  Leeuwarden   
6.  Matera   
7.  Novi Sad   
8.  Wrocław  

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WP 3 

Impact evaluation 

This  WP  encompassed  the  analysis  and  triangulation  of  all  data  collected  to  answer  the  evaluation 
questions and conduct the contribution analysis for the evaluation. 

The contribution analysis aimed to test three hypotheses to facilitate the exploration of the contribution 
pathway between the ECoC initiative and the defined impact area:   

(Intermediate)  Hypothesis  1  (H1):  In  preparing  for  and  becoming  an  ECoC,  title  cities  implement 
activities to raise funds and invest in the city’s cultural and tourism infrastructure;   

(Intermediate)  Hypothesis  2  (H2):  In  preparing  for  and  becoming  an  ECoC,  title  cities  increase  the 
volume, diversity and quality of cultural activities and events using ECoC-related funding to invest in 
organisations or projects producing cultural activities or events;   

(Main)  Hypothesis  3  (H3):  Through  the  increased  investment  in  the  city’s  cultural  and  tourist 
infrastructure, activities and events, employment opportunities in areas related to culture and tourism 
improve in title cities.   

WP 4 

Key  issues  for  a  potential 
successor 

This WP encompassed the identification of key challenges and issues to be considered for the future of 
the Action and the implementation of a dissemination workshop. 
The dissemination workshop saw 20 attendees including expert panel members, ECoC representatives, 
independent researchers, European networks of cities and representatives of European institutions. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) 

Effectiveness 

Evaluation questions 
What  have  been  the  effects  of  the 
these  effects  as 
intervention?  Are 
expected  when 
the 
introducing 
intervention? What external factors have 
affected progress towards the objectives 
and how? 

Judgement criteria and indicators of success 
ECoC intervention produces a wide variety of effects on 
Title-holding cities and beyond, including, but not limited 
to, economic growth, strengthened cultural sector and 
participation in culture. The extent to which these effects 
produced, meeting or failing expectations, depended on 
identifiable and quantifiable factors  
Evaluative judgment on the basis of evidence collected as to 
unintended effects that might have produced  

Data collection methods 
Quantitative evidence from past ECoC evaluations on 
socio-economic effects of ECoC including on economic 
growth, strengthened cultural sector and participation in 
culture:  
Quantitative and qualitative evidence from desk research 
and interviews on potential socio-economic effect of 
ECoC, whether these were expected and factors that might 
have influenced them  
Quantitative and qualitative evidence from desk research 
and interviews on potential unintended effect of ECoC  
Quantitative impact estimates from the counterfactual 
impact evaluation assessing the causal effects of the ECoC 
action on impact measures related to the specific and 
operational objectives. 
Quantitative and qualitative evidence from past ECoC 
evaluations, desk research and interviews on the 
challenges and issues faced by cities when bidding for and 
preparing the ECoC year  
Qualitative evidence from public consultation  
Example of good practices implemented by Title-holding 
cities to overcome issues and challenges encountered  

Evaluative judgment on the basis of evidence collected as to 
main issues and challenges faced by the cities at the 
different stages (bidding, preparation, implementation and 
post-ECoC) of the Action. 

What are the main issues and challenges 
faced by the cities when bidding for the  
ECOC  title  and  –  if  selected  –  when 
preparing the ECOC year? In particular, 
what are the specific challenges that they 
have  to  manage  regarding:  governance, 
budget,  relationships  with  local  and 
national  authorities,  development  of 
European and international connections? 
For example, to what extent do political 
interfere  with  artistic 
considerations 
choices and funding guarantees? Has this 
disrupted the preparation of the cities? 
What  have  been  the  effects  of  the  new 
selection  procedure  introduced  by  the 
2014 Decision?  

The new selection procedure is perceived as being more 
transparent being based on six clear criteria, allows a fairer 
and shared selection and enables bidding cities to develop a 

Qualitative and quantitative evidence from analysis of 
expert panel's recommendations and evaluations of bids 
and identification of differences and key trends  

43 

 
To what extent has the role of the panel 
been  reinforced  during  the  selection 
phase?  
To what extent is the new composition of 
the  panel  (with  a  higher  number  of 
members  nominated  by  EU  institutions 
and  bodies)  an  added  value  for  the 
assessment of the bids?  
Are 
the  appointed  panel  members 
relevant  to  the  criteria  requested  in  the 
2014 Decision? 

stronger and more focused proposal.  
The selection procedure and the criteria in particular 
contribute to strengthen the European dimension of the 
ECoC event ensuring the bids with the strongest focus on 
cultural diversity and commonalities of European cultures, 
heritage and history as well as the best European and 
international partnerships are selected.  
Evaluative judgment on the basis of evidence collected on 
whether there are differences among Member States in 
relation to the impact of measures aimed to foster the 
European dimension of the initiative  

Qualitative evidence from interviews with Title-holding 
cities and representatives of Member States on the new 
process, its advantages and disadvantages and whether it is 
considered fair  
Qualitative evidence from interviews and focus groups 
with bidding and Title-holding cities on whether:  
the selection criteria are clear and meaningful and help 
them prepare a stronger bid  
the selection criteria are proportionate and well-focused  
the selection procedure is designed in a way to allow the 
bids to express their full potential  
Qualitative evidence from focus groups of panel experts 
on:  
the new process, its advantages and disadvantages and 
whether it is considered fair  
what factors can impact the quality of the bids, including 
bidding city size, existence of a well-established cultural 
strategy and vision, political support, etc.  
the selection criteria are proportionate and well-focused  
Qualitative evidence from public consultation on the 
effectiveness of the selection process and the selection 
criteria  
Qualitative evidence from desk research, public 
consultation, and interviews and focus group on whether:  
the selection procedure and the criteria contribute to 
strengthen the European dimension of the ECoC  
there are difference among Member States in relation to 
the impact of measures aimed to foster the European 
dimension of the initiative  
changes to the selection procedure and/or criteria would be 
required to strengthen the European dimension of the 
ECoC event  
Qualitative evidence from the validation workshops on 
advantages, disadvantages and impacts of changing the 
selection procedure and/or criteria to strengthen the 
European dimension of the ECoC event  

44 

 
To  what  extent  has  the  new  selection 
procedure  fostered  competition  among 
bidding  cities?  To  what  extent  does  the 
selection procedure help the cities design 
a  programme  that  is  relevant  to  the 
objectives and criteria laid down for the 
action? Could the selection procedure be 
improved, and if so, how? 

Proposals developed under the new procedure are overall 
stronger and of higher quality  
The criteria set in the Decision as well as the 
recommendations issued by the panel during the 
preselection and selection stages allow the cities to design a 
programme in line with the objectives of the Action  
The need to have a cultural strategy already in place 
provided an incentives to cities to develop one and 
strengthen the effects of the ECoC action 

Evaluative judgment on the basis of evidence collected as to 
the extent the current procedure could be improved and how 

What  have  been  the  effects  of  the  new 
monitoring  procedure  introduced  by  the 
2014 Decision? To what extent is the new 

Having a larger share of members of the panel nominated 
by the EU institutions and bodies ensures that more 
technical expertise and objectivity is brought into the 

45 

Qualitative and quantitative evidence from analysis of 
expert panel's recommendations and evaluations of past 
bids under the previous and new procedure  
Qualitative evidence from interviews with Title-holding 
cities on whether the selection criteria are clear and 
meaningful and help them prepare a better bid  
Qualitative evidence from interviews with Title-holding 
cities and local cultural and civic organisations on whether 
the requirement of having a cultural strategy already in 
place provided an incentive to cities to develop a strategy 
in the first place and strengthen the effects of the ECoC 
action  
Qualitative evidence from focus groups of panel experts on 
whether the new procedure led to stronger and higher 
quality proposal  
Comparative analysis of effects between Title-holding 
cities that had and didn't have in place a long-terms 
cultural strategy  

Qualitative evidence from desk research, analysis of 
current processes, interviews with cities and the public 
consultation on possible ways of improving the selection 
process  
Qualitative evidence from focus groups of panel experts on 
possible ways of improving the selection process  
Qualitative evidence from the validation workshops on 
advantages, disadvantages and impacts of changing the 
selection procedure  
Qualitative and quantitative evidence from analysis of 
expert panel's pre-selection and selection reports and 
recommendations  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
it  help 

title-holding  cities 

monitoring  procedure  adapted  to  the 
preparation of an event of the scale and 
scope  of  an  ECOC  event  (for  example, 
concerning  the  timing)?  In  particular, 
does 
in 
preparing  a  programme  relevant  to  the 
objectives and criteria as specified in the 
2014  Decision  and  in  implementing  a 
successful title-year? To what extent do 
ECOC  title-holding  cities  benefit  from 
the European monitoring support during 
their  preparation  phase?  Could 
the 
monitoring  procedure  be  improved,  and 
if so, how? 

process to the advantage of the cities (that can count on 
better support) and of the overall fairness of the procedure  
The panel members appointed so far under the new 
procedure meet the criteria determined by Art. 6 of the 2014 
Decision 

-- 

The extension of the monitoring period as well as the 
introduction of an additional meeting closer to the title year 
ensured a closer monitoring and stronger support to title-
holding cities  
The procedure allows to timely identify criticalities and 
ensure they are successfully tackled  
The procedure timeline is considered adequate to monitor 
the implementation process  
Title-holding cities benefit from the multiple meetings and 
recommendations from the panel, improving the overall 
quality of their programme 

--- 

Evaluative judgment on the basis of evidence collected as to 
the extent the current procedure could be improved and how 

Qualitative evidence from interviews with Title-holding 
cities and representatives of Member States on the 
composition of the panel of experts and whether it adds 
value to the process (including advantages and 
disadvantages)  
Qualitative evidence from focus groups of panel experts on 
the composition of the panel of experts and whether it adds 
value to the process (including advantages and 
disadvantages)  
Qualitative evidence from interviews with representatives 
of Member States and EU institutions on the process 
followed to select and name the members of the panel and 
the overall quality of the members selected  
Qualitative evidence from focus groups of panel experts on 
the process followed to select and name the members of 
the panel  
Analysis of panel members’ references selected in light of 
the criteria requested in the 2014 Decision 

-- 

Qualitative and quantitative evidence from analysis of 
expert panel's recommendations and evaluations of past 
bids under the previous and new procedure indicating that 
the timing is adequate to allow to identify and tackle 
potential issues  
Qualitative evidence from focus groups of panel experts on 
the effectiveness and adequacy of the monitoring 
procedures  
Qualitative evidence from interviews and focus groups 
with title and bidding cities on the effectiveness and 
adequacy of the monitoring procedures  
Concrete examples of how the monitoring procedure 
helped title-holding cities in preparing a programme 
relevant to the objectives and criteria as specified in the 
2014 Decision and in implementing a successful title year  

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-- 

Qualitative evidence from desk research, analysis of 
current processes, interviews and focus groups with title-
holding and bidding cities and the public consultation on 
possible ways of improving the monitoring process  
Qualitative evidence from focus groups of panel experts on 
possible ways of improving the monitoring process  
Qualitative evidence from the validation workshops on 
advantages, disadvantages and impacts of changing the 
monitoring procedure  
Outputs  
Quantitative evidence from past ECoC evaluations on:  
Total n. of events and cultural activities implemented, 
including activities highlighting European diversity, based 
on European themes or based on transnational cooperation  
N. of new cross-border collaborations, co-productions and 
exchanges involving local and international operators  
N. of artists involved in international cooperation  
N. of local artists involved in international projects abroad  
Results  
Quantitative evidence from past ECoC evaluations on the 
level of citizens exposure to European culture, artists and 
cultural activities  

Impacts  
Quantitative evidence from past ECoC evaluation on the 
impact of the Action on the citizens awareness of the 
diversity of European cultures and sense of belonging to a 
common cultural space  
Quantitative evidence from desk research on public culture 
spending in Title-holding cities in the years after the ECoC 
event  
Evidence of existence of a long-term cultural strategy in 
the Title-holding cities with a strong European dimension  

To  what  extent  has  the  EU  intervention 
achieved  (or  progressed  towards)  its 
objectives?  To  what  extent  have  the 
ECOC programmes implemented by the 
title holding cities succeeded in attaining 
the objectives of the action? 

ECoC delivered the implementation of a large number of 
events having a strong European Dimension, involving 
European artist and developed through international 
partnerships.   
ECoC increased citizens exposure to European culture, 
artist and cultural activities.   
On the long-term, ECoC contributed to raise citizens 
awareness of the diversity of European cultures and to 
strengthen the cultural offer in the title-holding cities 
through better cultural strategies and increased spending on 
culture.  

ECoC stimulated the implementation of a diverse range of 
cultural activities of high artistic quality promoting long-
term change of the local cultural scene strengthening 
diversity, dialogue and mutual understanding and 
highlighting (shared) European cultures and themes.  
Through ECoC, a large number of European artists were 
involved in Title-holding cities cultural activities further 
promoting cooperation with different countries and 
transnational partnerships. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
Qualitative evidence from interviews with local 
stakeholders (e.g. cultural and civic organisations, 
representatives of local authorities) on the quality and 
European dimension of the cultural offer in the Title-
holding cities in the years after the ECoC event  
Qualitative and quantitative evidence and concrete 
examples of long-term impacts from the Case studies  
Quantitative impact estimates from the counterfactual 
impact evaluation assessing the causal effects of the ECoC 
action on: transnational mobility of artists, transnational 
cooperation among cultural sectors. 

Quantitative and qualitative assessment of relevant 
outputs, results and impacts against the intervention 
operational, specific and general objectives  
Quantitative and qualitative evidence from past ECoC 
evaluations on whether the ECoC programmes 
implemented by the title-holding cities succeeded in 
attaining the objectives of the Action  
Qualitative evidence from interviews with local 
stakeholders (e.g. cultural and civic organisations, 
representatives of local authorities and of national culture 
ministry) on whether ECoC contributed to enhance the 
cultural offer in the title-holding cities by elevating its 
European dimension, engaging international and European 
artists participation and developing international 
partnerships  
Qualitative evidence from public consultation on whether 
ECoC contributed to enhance the cultural offer in the title-
holding cities by elevating its European dimension, 
engaging international and European artists participation 
and developing international partnerships  
Qualitative and quantitative evidence and concrete 
examples of how the intervention achieved its objectives 
from the Case studies  

48 

 
 
To what extent bidding cities devise and 
prepare the ECOC event as part of their 
long-term development? 

ECoC is perceived as a catalyst for change and as pivotal 
opportunity for Title-holding cities for development far 
beyond the title year. Title-holding cities have a long-term 
vision and development plan which recognise the central 
role of ECoC but, at the same time, go beyond it, making 
sure to leverage and make the most of the ECoC 
opportunity.  
Evaluative judgment on the basis of evidence collected as to 
the ECoC action sorted long-term effect on Title-holding 
cities and surrounding areas.  
Hosting the ECoC action led the title-holding cities to push 
culture higher in their political agenda and allocate more 
funding from public sources into the culture agenda 

Are there any unexpected or unintended 
effects?  Have  ECOC  events  exceeded 
initial  expectations,  and  what  effects 
have this had? Where expectations have 
not been met, what factors have hindered 
the development of the action? To what 
extent  can  the  positive  effects  of  the 
ECOC  action  be  considered 
to  be 
sustainable? 

ECoC events generally met expectations of the different 
stakeholders involved (i.e. European Commission, panel of 
experts, Title-holding cities representatives, ECoC 
coordinators, citizens, visitors).  
Evaluative judgment on the basis of evidence collected as to 
the extent of effects of Title-holding cities where the 
implementation of the ECoC events exceeded expectations 
and how these compare to the effects in Title-holding cities 
where expectations were not met  
Evaluative judgment on the basis of evidence collected as to 
the main factors that might have impacted the capacity of 
the ECoC events to meet or exceed expectations 

49 

Quantitative impact estimates from the counterfactual 
impact evaluation assessing the causal effects of the ECoC 
action on impact measures related to city's cultural offer.  
Quantitative and qualitative evidence from past ECoC 
evaluations, desk research and interviews on the extent the 
ECoC event is designed in the context of a wider, long-
term development strategy  
Qualitative evidence from desk research and interviews on 
whether the new requirement to have in place a cultural 
strategy when bidding for hosting the ECoC title has 
changed the way ECoC is considered and integrated in a 
long-term development strategy  
Quantitative and qualitative evidence from the analysis 
and mapping of cities cultural strategies indicating culture 
acquired more importance as a consequence of hosting the 
ECoC event  
Quantitative evidence on public spending by title cities on 
culture in the years preceding and following the title year  
Quantitative and qualitative evidence past ECoC 
evaluations, desk research and interviews on the extent the 
ECoC event sorted sustainable long-term effects on Title-
holding cities  
Qualitative and quantitative evidence from the Case 
studies 
Quantitative evidence from past ECoC evaluations on 
whether expectations were met.  
Qualitative evidence from interviews (e.g. cultural and 
civic organisations, representatives of local authorities and 
of national culture ministry) on whether expectations were 
met and why  
Qualitative evidence from focus groups with members of 
the selection panel on whether expectations were met and 
why  
Quantitative and qualitative evidence from desk research 
and interviews on relevant effects that might have been 
impacted by the specific ECoC aspect that exceeded/didn't 

 
the  ECOC  planned  cultural 
Does 
programme last the entire year? If this is 
not the case, what are the reasons? 

Evaluative judgment on the basis of evidence collected as to 
the length of the cultural programme in Title-holding cities 
and reasons for deviation from expected duration 

Effectiveness 

Evaluation questions 
To what extent is the selection procedure 
considered  fair  and  transparent  by  the 
cities?  
Do  the  cities  understand  the  selection 
criteria? 

Judgement criteria and indicators of success 
The timing of the selection process and of the designation 
of the title-holding cities is sufficient for the cities to 
develop strong bids as well as for the panel to thoroughly 
evaluate them and provide useful recommendations.  
The four-year time between the designation and the 
implementation of the ECoC year is sufficient for title-
holding cities to fully develop the cultural programme, do 
the required infrastructural works and preparation activities 
(including, for example, promotion) and successfully 
implement the ECoC event  
The selection process is considered adequate and does not 
pose particular challenges to cities and Member States 
(independently on the size of the Member State) 

How timely and efficient is the selection 
process (timing, guiding documents and  
reports)  to  prepare  the  ECOC  event?  Is 
the timing of designation 4 years before 
the  
title year relevant? 

As above 

50 

meet expectations and comparison with other Title-holding 
cities  
Quantitative and qualitative evidence from past ECoC 
evaluations, desk research and interviews on the length of 
the cultural programme in Title-holding cities and reasons 
for deviation from expected duration  

Data collection methods 
Quantitative evidence from analysis of panels pre-
selection and selection reports on the extent additional 
time would benefit the development of the bids  
Qualitative evidence from the focus group with members 
of the panel on whether the time allocated to the selection 
process is enough to thoroughly evaluate the bids and 
provide useful and comprehensive recommendations  
Quantitative and qualitative evidence from past ECoC 
evaluations suggesting that the four-year time allowed for 
the implementation of the ECoC event was not sufficient  
Concrete examples of activities that could not be 
implemented due to lack of time  
Quantitative and qualitative evidence from past ECoC 
evaluations, desk research, focus groups, public 
consultation and interviews on whether the selection 
process and timing pose specific challenges to cities and 
Member States, and whether these challenges are linked to 
specific characteristics of the MS (e.g. size)  
As above 

 
 
What was the impact of the new selection 
procedure  on  the  overall  quality  of  the 
bids?  
Are there significant differences between 
years/Member  States?  What  is  causing 
them?  
Have any inefficiencies been identified? 
To what extent is the selection procedure  
sustainable  over  time,  in  particular  in 
smaller Member States? 

The panel managed to execute their tasks within the 
timeline foreseen and with the resources required.  
Title-holding cities and bidding cities not selected generally 
agree that the process worked well, without delays and 
bottlenecks.  
Evaluative judgment on the basis of evidence collected on 
whether the selection and monitoring processes could be 
made more efficient 

the  ECOC 

To  what  extent  has  the  panel  been 
efficient  and  delivered  a  quality  output 
during  the  selection  procedure?  For 
example, has the panel assessed the bids 
against 
  criteria  and 
objectives?  Has  the  panel  taken  other 
elements into account? On the  
quality  of  panel  pre-selection  and 
selection  reports:  are  they  clear  and 
precise enough?  
Are they useful for the cities concerned, 
notably  the  parts  on  assessment  and 
recommendation? 

The panel overall delivered quality outputs during the 
selection procedure. Pre-selection and selection reports 
were based on a rigorous and transparent assessment of the 
bids against the ECoC criteria and objectives. Other 
elements considered were clearly indicated and justified.  
Pre-selection and selection reports are sufficiently clear and 
detailed to represent helpful guidance for the cities 
concerned. 

To  what  extent  has  the  panel  been 
efficient  and  delivered  a  quality  output 
during the  
monitoring  procedure?  Does  it  deliver 
relevant  support  and  guidance  to  the 
titleholding  cities  during  the  event’s 

The panel overall delivered quality outputs during the 
monitoring procedure providing the Title-holding cities 
relevant and useful support and guidance, demonstrated by 
the clear acknowledgement reaction by title-holding cities. 
The panel's recommendations are based on evidence and 
full stock-taking of the progress made in the preparation for 

51 

Quantitative and qualitative evidence from past ECoC 
evaluations, desk research, focus groups, public 
consultation and interviews on whether the selection 
process could be made more efficient  
Qualitative evidence from interviews and focus groups 
with Title-holding cities on whether the process worked 
well, without delays and bottlenecks  
Qualitative evidence from the focus group with bidding 
cities on whether the process worked well, without delays 
and bottlenecks  
Concrete examples of ways in which the processes could 
be improved  
Qualitative evidence from the validation workshops on 
potential measures and changes to improve the efficiency 
of the Action  
Qualitative and quantitative evidence from analysis of 
expert panel's pre-selection and selection reports and 
recommendations  
Qualitative evidence from interviews with bidding and 
Title-holding cities on whether the pre-selection and 
selection reports and panel's recommendations were 
sufficiently clear, precise and overall containing helpful 
guidance  
Qualitative evidence from interviews with bidding and 
Title-holding cities on how the pre-selection and selection 
reports and panel's recommendations could be improved  
Qualitative evidence from focus groups of panel experts 
on what could be done to further improve their pre-
selection and selection reports and panel's 
recommendations  
Qualitative and quantitative evidence from analysis of 
expert panel's monitoring reports and recommendations  
Qualitative evidence from interviews with Title-holding 
cities on whether the monitoring reports and 
recommendation were sufficiently clear, precise and 
overall containing helpful guidance  

 
it 

taken 

the  panel  has 

take  stock  of 

preparatory years? In particular, to what 
extent  does 
the 
preparations  for  the  event?  To  what 
extent  does  the  panel  check  that  the 
criteria  are  fulfilled?  Are  there  other 
elements 
into 
the  quality  of  panel 
account?  On 
monitoring  reports:  are  they  clear  and 
consistent  enough?  Are  they  useful  for 
the cities concerned, notably the parts on 
assessment and recommendation? 
To  what  extent  is  the  scheme  of  co-
funding  through  the  Melina  Mercouri 
Prize adapted to the legacy of the ECOC, 
in particular regarding the time schedule 
for  delivering  the  Prize?  Has  it  been  an 
efficient way of improving the quality of 
the  preparation  of  the  legacy  plans  in 
general?  Is  the  use  of  the  Melina 
Mercouri Prize planned in advance in the 
budget of an ECOC? 

the event. In its assessment, the panel checks and clearly 
report on the fulfilment of the ECoC criteria. Other 
elements considered are clearly indicated and justified.  
Monitoring reports are sufficiently clear and detailed to 
represent helpful guidance for the cities concerned. 

Qualitative evidence from interviews with Title-holding 
cities on how the monitoring reports and recommendation 
could be improved  
Qualitative evidence from focus groups of panel experts 
on what could be done to further improve their monitoring 
reports and recommendation  

The definition of clear criteria for the award of the Melina 
Mercury prize strengthened the value of the panel's 
recommendations and further ensured the success of the 
title year 

-- 

The Melina Mercouri Prize is used by title-holding cities to 
ensure the legacy of the ECoC year. The prize value is 
clearly allocated to legacy actions, and it manages to 
leverage additional co-funding.  
The delivery of the prise three months after the start of the 
year ensures that the prize is available for legacy activities 
at the same time avoiding the risk it is used for the ECoC 
Event itself. 

Qualitative evidence from interviews with Title-holding 
cities whether the new criteria and timing of award of the 
prize influenced the way panel recommendations are 
considered  
Qualitative evidence from focus groups of panel experts 
on whether the new criteria and timing of award of the 
prize influenced the way panel recommendations are 
considered  

-- 

Quantitative and qualitative evidence from past ECoC 
evaluations on the use of the Melina Mercouri Prize  
Qualitative evidence from interviews and focus groups 
with Title-holding cities on whether the timing of the 
delivery of the Melina Mercury Prize allows its timely 
allocation to legacy activities  
Quantitative and qualitative evidence from focus group 
with the members of the panel on whether the Melina 
Mercouri Prize scheme is the most efficient way to ensure 
and improve the quality of the preparation of the legacy 
plans  
Qualitative evidence from interviews and focus groups 
whether the current payment modalities of the prize are 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
To what extent has the Commission been 
efficient in facilitating and supporting the  
selection  process?  To  what  extent  does 
the  Commission  set  up  and  update 
regularly  the  ECOC  website?  To  what 
extent  are  documents  prepared  by  the 
Commission to inform the bidding cities 
about  the  selection  process  and  explain 
and  illustrate  the  objectives  and  criteria 
helpful?  To  what  extent  are  documents 
produced by the Commission to guide the 
title-holding  in  the  preparation  of  the 
ECOC event helpful? To what extent are 
the  documents  and  actions  prepared  by 
the  Commission  to  guide  the  Ministries 
in  
the  management  of  the  competition 
helpful?  To  what  extent  does 
the 
Commission foster the exchange of good 
practices? Which initiatives has it taken 
to that purpose?  
How could the Commission go further to 
support the preparations of the Capitals? 

The Commission set up and update the ECoC website 
regularly, ensuring relevant information are available timely 
and in a format easily accessible by interested parties. 

-- 

Ministries have access to all required information in order 
to successfully and effectively manage the competition. No 
additional information would be required 

-- 

Cities have access to all required information in order to 
understand the process and selection criteria and prepare a 
bid that is in line with them. No additional information 
would be required  
Title-holding cities have access to all required information 
in order to successfully and effectively prepare the ECoC 
event No additional information would be required 

-- 

Title-holding cities have the opportunity to meet and 
exchange good practices.  
Good practices are identified and promoted/shared. 

-- 

Evaluative judgment on the basis of evidence collected as to 
additional activities that could be implemented to support 
the preparations of the Capitals 

aligned with the cities’ needs and the ECoC objective of 
ensuring the legacy of the Action  
Qualitative and quantitative evidence from analysis of the 
ECoC website, including KPIs as:  
n. of visits  
n. of single users  
time spent on the website  
n. of downloads  
Qualitative evidence from interviews and focus groups 
with bidding and Title-holding cities on whether the 
website, the information and material published were 
useful  
Qualitative evidence from interviews and focus groups 
with bidding and Title-holding cities on whether 
additional information or material would be needed to be 
published on the website  

-- 

Qualitative and quantitative evidence from analysis of 
documentation provided to Member States  
Qualitative evidence from interviews with representatives 
of Member States on the quality and usefulness of 
material provided by the Commission and how it could be 
improved  

-- 

Qualitative and quantitative evidence from analysis of 
documentation provided to cities  
Qualitative evidence from interviews and focus groups 
with bidding and title-holding cities on whether the 
material provided is adequate in order to understand the 
process and selection criteria and prepare a bid that is in 
line with them  

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Qualitative evidence from interviews and focus groups 
with title-holding cities on whether the material provided 
is adequate to guide them in the preparation of the ECoC 
event  
Qualitative evidence from interviews and focus groups 
with bidding and title-holding cities on the overall quality 
and usefulness of material provided by the Commission 
and how it could be improved  
Qualitative evidence from focus groups of panel experts 
on the material provided to cities and how it could be 
improved  

Qualitative and quantitative evidence from desk research 
on existing networks and actions for exchanging good 
practices related to ECoC, including quantitative data on 
number of exchanges that took place, good practices 
exchanged and participants  
Qualitative evidence from interviews with the 
Commission and cities on the existence and usefulness of 
actions to exchanging good practices  
Concrete examples of good practices exchanged 

-- 
Qualitative evidence from desk research, past ECoC 
evaluations, interviews, focus groups and consolations on 
whether and how Commission support could be enhanced  

Relevance 

Evaluation questions 
To  what  extent  did  the  scope  and 
objectives  of  the  action  remain  relevant 
over time?  

Judgement criteria and indicators of success 
The objectives and scope of the intervention are still 
relevant to the needs of the EU, its regions, cities and 
citizens. Changes introduced in 2014 (e.g. opening of the 

Data collection methods 
Qualitative evidence from past ECoC evaluations, desk 
research, the public consultation and interviews on the 
extent the ECoC intervention corresponds to the needs 

54 

 
 
 
  
 
How  well  do 
the  objectives  still 
correspond to the needs across the EU, in 
particular inthe context of the Green Deal 
and  the  digital  transition?  How  did  the 
objectives  
correspond to wider EU policy goals and 
priorities? To what extent do the  
needs/problems 
the 
intervention continue to require action at 
EU level?  
to 
Has 
unexpected developments? How relevant 
is the  
intervention to cities/ regions/ people? 

adaptability 

addressed 

there 

been 

by 

Action beyond Member States) increased the relevance of 
the intervention.  
Changes introduced to face unexpected developments (e.g. 
COVID-19 pandemic, war in Ukraine, etc.) ensured the 
Action remained relevant in light of new emerging needs.  
ECoC foster the role of culture as a catalyst and accelerator 
of sustainable development in line with the needs identified 
by the Green Deal and stressed by the digital transition. 

-- 
The intervention objectives, criteria and processes are 
relevant to the cities needs and overall objectives.  
The Cultural programme of the title-holding cities is 
developed within and coherently with the wider cultural 
strategy of the cities and support them in meeting their 
needs in terms of city regeneration, development of quality 
tourism, image enhancement, social inclusion, 
environmental sustainability etc.  
Cultural programmes of title-holding cities cover not only 
the cities but their broader region indicating that the 
intervention is relevant beyond the title-holding cities.  
Evaluative judgment on the basis of evidence collected as 
different degrees of relevance in covering an area broader 
than a city and the factors that influence them (e.g. size of 
the city and region, cultural diversity of the region, 
characteristics of the region (e.g. cultural development), 
etc.) 

across the EU, in particular in the context of the Green 
Deal and the digital transition  
Qualitative evidence from desk research, the public 
consultation and interviews with EU level stakeholders, 
title-holding and bidding cities on the new needs that the 
ECoC intervention should address  
Qualitative evidence from focus groups of panel experts 
on the new needs that the ECoC intervention should 
address  
Qualitative evidence from past ECoC evaluations, desk 
research, the public consultation and interviews on the 
extent the changes introduced in 2014 ensured the 
continued relevance of the Action  
Qualitative evidence from past ECoC evaluations, desk 
research, the public consultation and interviews with title 
cities from 2020 onwards on the extent the changes made 
to adapt to unexpected developments ensured the 
continued relevance of the Action  
Qualitative evidence from the validation workshops on 
advantages, disadvantages and impacts of adding 
additional flexibility to the Action structure  
Qualitative evidence with EU level stakeholders on the 
complementarities and overlaps with other parallel actions 
implemented by the EU (in particular by DG NEAR)  

-- 
Qualitative evidence from desk research, public 
consultation, and interviews on whether intervention 
objectives, criteria and processes are relevant to the cities 
needs and overall objectives  
Qualitative evidence from title-holding cities' cultural 
strategies on whether there are needs that are not 
addressed by the cultural programmes developed under 
the Action  

55 

 
 
 
 
 
Qualitative evidence from title-holding cities' cultural 
programmes on whether these cover not only the cities but 
their broader region and factors affecting the reach of the 
Action  
Qualitative evidence from interviews with Member States 
representatives and interviews and focus groups with 
Title-holding cities and bidding cities on whether 
intervention objectives, criteria and processes are relevant 
to the cities’ needs and overall objectives  
Qualitative evidence from interviews and focus groups 
with Title-holding cities and bidding cities on whether 
cultural programmes cover not only the cities but their 
broader region and factors affecting the reach of the 
Action  
Qualitative evidence from the validation workshops on the 
overall relevance of the Action and on potential changes 
and measures to enhance it  
Qualitative evidence from interviews with Member States 
representatives and interviews and focus groups with 
Title-holding cities and bidding cities on the main drivers 
and hindering factors that are considered by cities when 
deciding on their candidacy 
Qualitative evidence from desk research, the public 
consultation, the focus group and interviews on whether 
the chronological criterion of Member States entitled to 
host the event is relevant to the ECoC objectives  
Qualitative evidence from desk research, the public 
consultation, the focus group and interviews on whether 
the chronological succession of Member States impacted 
the ability of the Action to adapt to changing 
circumstances and achieve its full potential in terms of 
results and impacts  
Qualitative evidence from desk research, the public 
consultation, the focus group and interviews on 
advantages and disadvantages of the chronological 
criterion  

The chronological criterion of Member States ensured a fair 
and constant turn taking of the countries hosting the event 
contributing to meet the objective of safeguarding and 
promoting the diversity of cultures in Europe. It also 
ensured that all countries would have equal opportunities to 
host the event in line with the need to foster the contribution 
of culture to the long-term development of cities.  
Evaluative judgment on the basis of evidence collected as to 
whether the criterion might lead to issues in relation to the 
potential of any Member States in terms of number of cities 
with the capacity of hosting such an event and whether 
adjustments to the criterion might be needed 

56 

or 

negatively) 

Has  the  chronological  list  of  Member 
States entitled to host the event affected  
(positively 
the 
implementation of the ECOC objectives? 
Has it been adapted to the potential of any 
Member  States  in  terms  of  number  of 
cities with the capacity of hosting such an 
event? 

 
Are the selection criteria laid down in the 
2014 Decision relevant to the objectives 
of the ECOC action? To what extent are 
the  criteria  requested 
the  2014 
Decision for  
appointing  panel  members  relevant  to 
carry  out  the  selection  and  monitoring 
procedures? 

in 

The criteria determined by Art. 6 of the 2014 Decision for 
the selection of the panel members are relevant to the role, 
tasks and responsibilities linked to the assessment, 
evaluation and selection of the bids and monitoring of the 
event implementation. 

To  what  extent  is  the  ECOC  brand 
visible?  Do  ECOC  use  the  title  in  a 
relevant way  
(during  the  selection  process  and  after 
their  designation  until  the  end  of  the 
actual  title-year)?  Which  actions  do  the 
designated  cities  implement  to  make 
clear  that  the  event  is  an  EU  initiative? 
Do  people  understand  that  it  is  an  EU 
initiative? 

The ECoC brand in visible during the ECoC event and, 
where relevant, in the years before and after the event. 
Cities (bidding and title year) use the title to promote their 
participation in the EU action highlighting the European 
dimension of the initiative. People recognise the ECoC 
brand and understand it is an initiative organised and 
funded by the EU. The ECoC brand is also recognised as 
quality mark for the title-holding city and the level of the 
cultural activities implemented. Evaluative judgment on the 
basis of evidence collected on good practices put in place 
by cities to make clear the event in an EU initiative. 

57 

Qualitative evidence from the validation workshops on 
advantages, disadvantages and impacts of keeping of 
changing the chronological criterion  
Quantitative evidence from statistics on whether the 
chronological criterion might lead to issues in terms of 
number of cities with the capacity of hosting such an 
event and whether adjustments to the criterion might be 
needed  
Qualitative evidence from desk research, public 
consultation, and interviews on whether the criteria 
determined by Art. 6 of the 2014 Decision for the 
selection of the panel members are relevant to the role, 
tasks and responsibilities linked to the assessment, 
evaluation and selection of the bids and monitoring of the 
event implementation or whether changes to the criteria 
would be required  
Qualitative evidence from focus group with panel experts 
on their role, key challenges faced and needs in terms of 
skills and competences  
Qualitative evidence from the validation workshops on 
advantages, disadvantages and impacts of changing the 
panel selection criteria  

  Qualitative evidence from past evaluations, interviews 

and focus group on whether title-holding cities use the 
title in a relevant way (during the selection process and 
after their designation until the end of the actual title year)  
  Qualitative evidence from past evaluations, interviews 

and focus group on good practices implemented by title-
holding cities to make clear the event is an EU initiative  

  Qualitative evidence from past evaluations, interviews 

and public consultation on whether people are aware of 
the EU nature of the initiative  

  Qualitative evidence from interviews, focus group and 

public consultation on whether new measures should be 
implemented to ensure more visibility of the ECoC brand 
and awareness of the EU nature of the initiative  

 
To what extent does the relevance of the 
action vary across Member States?  
With  a  number  of  increasingly  smaller 
cities  bidding  for  the  ECOC  title,  how 
does  this  fit  into  the  brand?  What  are 
potential consequences of making size a 
criteria for selection?  
How 
criteria  be 
such 
could 
implemented  without  bias  to  smaller 
Member States? Is  
there a risk of a shortage of candidates in 
some Member States? 

a 

  Qualitative evidence from the public consultation on 
whether the ECoC brand is recognised as a seal of quality 
for the title-holding city cultural programme and activities  
  Qualitative evidence from the validation workshops 

on advantages, disadvantages and impacts of 
implementing new measures to ensure more visibility of 
the ECoC brand and awareness of the EU nature of the 
initiative 
Quantitative and qualitative evidence from past ECoC 
evaluations, desk research, the public consultation and 
interviews on the extent the ECoC intervention is relevant 
to different Member States and what factors influence the 
degree of relevance of the intervention  
Qualitative evidence from interviews with representatives 
of Member States and interviews and focus groups title-
holding cities on whether there are needs that the ECoC is 
not addressing and whether the Action would have the 
potential to address them  
-- 
Qualitative evidence from past ECoC evaluations on the 
degree the objective of ensuring inclusiveness and equal 
access to the Action and culture were met  
Qualitative evidence from past ECoC evaluations, desk 
research, the public consultation and interviews on the 
extent 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  
Qualitative evidence from the public consultation, 
interviews and focus group with panel experts on whether 
there is a need to establish stricter criteria within the 
Action in order to strengthen the promotion of gender 
equality and inclusion  
Qualitative evidence from the validation workshops on 
advantages, disadvantages and impacts of adding new 
stricter criteria linked to gender equality and inclusion 

Although to different degrees, the intervention is relevant to 
all Member States. Degree of relevance changes depending 
on specific factors. 
-- 
ECoC objectives and selection criteria, in particular 
criterion 5 of Art. 5 of the 2014 Decision, are conducive 
and in line with the EPSR and the need to ensure 
inclusiveness and the Action and promote gender equality.  
Cities cultural programmes have specific strategies in place 
to promote gender equality and ensure inclusiveness. 
-- 
The city size does not affect the extent the ECoC action is 
relevant to cities, being perceived as a relevant opportunity 
by cities of different dimensions.  
The size of the cities did not impact the final results and 
impact of the Action (being this influenced by other factors, 
e.g. the existence of a strong cultural strategy).  
ECoC implemented in smaller cities saw a stronger 
involvement of the surrounding areas/regions widening the 
reach of the Action and its results.  
Evaluative judgment and simulation on the basis of 
statistical data collected on the changes to the potential pool 
of candidate cities should a size criterion for selection be 
introduced. 

58 

 
-- 
Quantitative and qualitative evidence from past 
evaluations, desk research, the public consultation, the 
focus group and interviews on the scale of the trend (of 
larger cities seemingly passing over the opportunity to bid 
for the title) and potential reasons and solutions  
Quantitative and qualitative evidence from past 
evaluations, desk research, the public consultation, the 
focus group and interviews on whether the size of the 
title-holding city impacted the achievement of the Action 
results and impacts  
Quantitative and qualitative evidence from past 
evaluations, desk research, the public consultation, the 
focus group and interviews on whether the size of the 
title-holding city affected the level of engagement and 
involvement of surrounding areas/regions  
Qualitative evidence from desk research, the public 
consultation, the focus group and interviews on whether 
the increasingly smaller cities bidding for the ECoC title 
has the potential to affect the ability of the Action to 
achieve its full potential in terms of results and impacts  
Qualitative evidence for the pre-selection and selection 
reports on whether the size of the bidding cities affect the 
overall quality of the bid  
Quantitative and qualitative evidence from desk research, 
the public consultation, the focus group and interviews on 
whether the relevance of and interest in the Action are 
affected by the city size  
Quantitative and qualitative evidence from desk research, 
the public consultation, the focus group and interviews on 
whether bidding and title cities have been using more 
creative approaches to their candidacy (e.g. group bid) and 
changes in this sense to the legal basis could be required  
Quantitative and qualitative evidence from desk research, 
the public consultation, the focus group and interviews on 

59 

 
Coherence 

cities 

supporting 

Evaluation questions 
To what extent are the objectives of the 
the 
title-holding 
objectives  of  the  action  (as  specified  in 
the 2014 Decision)? To what extent is the 
action 
the  cities’  own 
objectives?  Which  balance  do  cities 
strike  between  the  EU  objectives  and 
their local socio-economic objectives?  
Does 
balance 
this 
designation? 

supporting 

change 

after 

advantages and disadvantages of introducing a size 
criterion for the selection of the cities  
Qualitative evidence from the validation workshops on 
advantages, disadvantages and impacts of keeping of 
introducing a size criterion for the selection of the cities  
Quantitative evidence from statistics on whether a new 
size criterion might lead to issues in terms of number of 
cities with the capacity to host such an event   

Data collection methods 
Qualitative evidence from past ECoC evaluations, desk 
research, the public consultation, the focus group and 
interviews on whether the six selection criteria are 
relevant to the objectives of the intervention  
Qualitative evidence from past ECoC evaluations, desk 
research, the public consultation, the focus group with 
panel experts and interviews with title-holding cities on 
the extent the selection criteria laid down in the 2014 
Decision ensure that action remains relevant to the 
identified needs  
Qualitative evidence from past ECoC evaluations, cultural 
programmes and cultural strategies on the extent the 
culture programme of the title-holding cities is developed 
within and coherently with the wider cultural strategy of 
the cities and support them in meeting their needs  
Qualitative evidence from focus groups of panel experts 
on the extent the culture programme of the title-holding 
cities is developed within and coherently with the wider 
cultural strategy of the cities and support them in meeting 
their needs  
Qualitative evidence from the public consultation, 
interviews and focus group with panel experts on whether 

Judgement criteria and indicators of success 
The six criteria listed in Art. 5 of the 2014 Decision are 
relevant to the general and specific objectives of the 
intervention specified in Art. 1 of the Decision. 

60 

 
 
EU Added value 

Evaluation questions 
What is the EU added value and visibility 
of  the  ECOC  action?  Does  being  an 
ECOC  facilitate  the  access  to  other  EU 
programmes/funds,  in  particular  other 
the  Creative  Europe 
actions 
programme (for example Culture Moves 
Europe or the cooperation projects under 
the Culture strand)? 

of 

Judgement criteria and indicators of success 
Being ECoC not only facilitate accessing other EU 
programmes/funds in view of the title year, creating 
synergies with the Action, but it grants the city with know-
how, international partnership and a structure to access 
funding opportunities also after and beyond the ECoC event 

What would be possible consequences if 
the action were not organised or funded 
at EU level? 

The ECoC outputs, results and impacts in terms of cultural 
diversity, access to and participation in culture, Cultural 
capacity, and International profile of the title cities would 
have been at much lower scale (or not existing at all) if the 
Action was not implemented at EU level.  
The ECoC intervention addresses needs and problems that 
require EU level action and should the intervention not be 
organised or funded at EU level alternatives measures put in 
place by Member States individually would have different 
scope and more limited European dimension, strongly 

61 

there is a need to change/add/remove some selection 
criteria  
Qualitative evidence from the validation workshops on 
advantages, disadvantages and impacts of 
changing/adding/removing some selection criteria 

Data collection methods 
Qualitative evidence from interviews and focus groups 
with title-holding cities on whether hosting the ECoC 
event facilitated access to other EU funding opportunities 
due to:  
developed knowhow in relation to applying to EU funding 
related to culture  
developed international partnerships and cross-border 
cooperation  
developed competences in attracting private co-funding / 
developed a network of private sponsorships  
being in a stronger position (e.g. due to new 
infrastructures developed for the ECoC year)  
Qualitative evidence from focus groups with bidding 
cities on whether taking part in the application process 
helped them develop competences and network useful to 
apply for and secure other EU funding opportunities  
Quantitative and qualitative evidence from past ECoC 
evaluations, desk research, focus groups, public 
consultation and interviews on:  
the overall EU added value of the initiative  
advantages, disadvantages and impacts of not organising 
or funding the Action at EU level  
Quantitative and qualitative evidence from evaluations of 
other similar initiatives (e.g. the Italian capital of culture 
initiative)  

 
 
impacting the achievement of the first general objective of 
the initiative (i.e. 'Safeguard and promote the diversity of 
cultures in Europe and to highlight the common features 
they share as well as to increase citizens' sense of belonging 
to a common cultural area') 

Qualitative evidence from the validation workshops on 
advantages, disadvantages and impacts of not organising 
or funding the Action at EU level  

62 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS [AND, WHERE RELEVANT, TABLE ON SIMPLIFICATION AND BURDEN REDUCTION] 

Table 1. Overview of COSTS identified in the evaluation 

EU Administration 

ECoC Candidates  

ECoC Hosts/National, regional, 
local public bodies 

Citizens/Consumers/Businesses/ Private sector  

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment  

Quantitative 

Comment 

ECoC Bidding Process 
(Recurrent) 

Administrative 
costs linked to 
the biding 
process and 
meeting the 
eligibility 
requirements. 

Figures do not 
exist on the cost 
of submitting a 
bid, although 
cities taking 
part in a focus 
group 
established for 
the evaluation 
estimated that it 
took between 6 
and 8 months to 
prepare a bid. 

[Source: 
Supporting 
study] 

Administrative 
costs linked to 
the biding 
process and 
meeting the 
eligibility 
requirements. 

Figures do not 
exist on the cost 
of submitting a 
bid, although 
cities taking 
part in a focus 
group 
established for 
the evaluation 
estimated that it 
took between 6 
and 8 months to 
prepare a bid. 

[Source: 
Supporting 
study] 

63 

 
 
                        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In total, data from local 
evaluations shows that 
24,261 volunteers were 
involved in the ECoC 
delivered between 2013 and 
2022, meaning on average an 
ECoC had around 1,300 
volunteers each. 
[Source: Supporting study] 

Data from 
local 
evaluations 
shows Private 
funding 
accounts for 
about 11% of 
the total 
budget across 
the 2013-2022 
timeframe. 
[Source: 
Supporting 
study] 

Melina Mercouri 
Prize: EUR 1.5 
million per host 
city. 

Representing 
between 2% and 
7% of the overall 
ECoC budget. 
[Source: 
Supporting study] 

ECoC year 
(Recurrent) 

ECoC Action 
implementation and 
coordination 
(Recurrent) 

EUR 450 000 per 
year for project 
selection and 
implementation. 

Looking at the 
local 
evaluations 
undertaken by 
the ECoC held 
between 2013 
and 2022, a 
typical ECoC 
has a budget of 
around EUR 50 
million in the 
preparation and 
implementation 
of its cultural 
year.    

Between 2013 
and 2022, 
Approximately 
30% of the 
typical ECoC 
budget comes 
from national 
funding, 24% 
from local 
funding, and 
17% from 
regional 
funding. 

[Source: 
Supporting 
study] 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
[Source: 
EAC.D.2.Data] 

About 2 FTE are 
allocated to 
ECoC divided 
between policy 
officers (about 
75%, or 1.5 FTE) 
and financial 
assistants (about 
25%, 0.5 FTE). 
[Source: 
Supporting study] 

When it comes to 
the panel of 
experts, it 
comprises ten 
independent 
experts appointed 
by European 
Union institutions 
and bodies and 
up to two by the 
Member States 
hosting the 
ECoC. 
[Source: 
EAC.D.2.Data 
and supporting 
study] 

65 

 
 
 
 
Table 2. Overview of BENEFITS identified in the evaluation 

EU Administration 

ECoC Candidates 

ECoC Hosts/National, regional, 
local public bodies 

Citizens/Consumers/Businesses/ 
Private sector 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment 

ECoC Bidding Process 
(Recurrent) 

Gains in terms of 
experience. 

Gains in terms of 
experience.  

The bidding 
process itself was 
mentioned by 
stakeholders as 
being a useful 
moment of 
reflection for 
cities with culture 
ranking up in the 
public discourse 
and the political 
agenda. 

A moment and 
opportunity to 
redesign (and in 
some cases, to 
design for the 
first time) the 
city-level cultural 
strategies and 
policies in the 
field of culture. 

Initiatives such as 
CultureNext 
show that there is 
interest in and 
willingness to 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ECoC year 
(Recurrent) 

still build on the 
work done by 
non-selected 
cities. 

[Source: 
Supporting study] 

67 

Strengthened 
local CCS in 
host cities. 

Stronger 
international 
collaboration 
that took place 
between 
stakeholders 
found in the 
host city and 
those found in 
other countries. 

[Source: 
Supporting 
study] 

Significant 
increase in 
investments in 
cultural 
activities across 
host cities: 
between 2013 
and 2022 shows 
that the Action 
has collectively 
stimulated 
around €900 
million in 
funding 
towards the 
cultural agenda 
across the EU. 

Stakeholders’ 
consultations 
highlighted that 
cultural budgets 
of host city 
administrations 
were often 
around five 
times larger as 
a consequence 

Looking at the 
local 
evaluations 
undertaken by 
the ECoC held 
between 2013 
and 2022, a 
typical ECoC 
year consists 
of around 
1,000-1,200 
separate 
cultural 
activities. 

Attendance 
figures of the 
2013-2022 
ECoC set out 
in local 
evaluations 
show that 
around 38.5 
million people 
participated in 
ECoC-
supported 
cultural 

Non 
quantifiable: 
A widening 
out of the 
type of 
culture on 
offer in the 
host city. 

Non 
quantifiable: 
Stimulating 
cross-border 
collaboration 
among EU 
cultural 
players with 
artists based 
outside of the 
EU. 

Non 
quantifiable: 
According to 
stakeholder 
consultation,  
ECoC 
widened the 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of hosting their 
ECoC. 

Investment in 
cultural 
infrastructure: 
Budget data 
from eight 
ECoC set out in 
the local 
evaluations 
who collected 
relevant data 
shows that 
between 2013 
and 2022 a total 
of €1.3 billion 
new 
infrastructure 
projects were 
developed 
before or during 
the ECoC year. 

Data from local 
evaluations 
show that of the 
ECoC delivered 
over the 2013-
2022 period 
around 40% 
had a major 
cultural 
infrastructure 

activity over 
this time 
period. 

Data from 
local 
evaluations of 
ECoC falling 
within the 
study period 
(2013-2022) 
showed that 
around 6 out 
of every 10 
residents of a 
host city 
attended at 
least one 
ECoC event or 
project during 
the host year. 

77% of 
respondents of 
Public 
Consultation 
agreeing that 
ECoC 
encouraged 
the 
implementatio
n of a much 
larger cultural 
offer and with 
65% believing 

type of 
beneficiary 
who 
consumed 
culture and 
encouraged 
people to 
attend cultural 
activities who 
had not 
previously 
been active on 
the cultural 
front. 

Non 
quantifiable:  
Strengthening 
the capacity 
of the cultural 
and creative 
sectors.   

ECoC project 
helps generate 
stronger 
networking 
within the 
local CCS.   

ECoC helped 
establish 
either a 
formal or 
informal 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
that it 
increased 
access to and 
participation 
in culture. 

[Source: 
Supporting 
study] 

cultural 
ecosystem. 

ECoC greatly 
helped to 
strengthen 
local talent 
within the 
local CCS. 

[Source: 
Supporting 
study] 

project included 
in their cultural 
programme. 

Raising the 
title-holding 
cities' 
international 
profile through 
culture.  
Analysis in the 
supporting 
study from 
those ECoCs 
which collected 
relevant data 
(for the 2013-
2022 period) 
shows that an 
ECoC year can 
increase visitor 
numbers in a 
host city by 
around 30-40%.   

Most of the 
ECoC cities 
assessed as part 
of the 
supporting 
study often 
noted that their 
ECoC year had 
helped 
stimulate their 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
highest number 
of tourists ever 
recorded. 

Analysis of data 
presented in 
local 
evaluations 
(from 2013 to 
2022) seems to 
also show that 
between 25-
35% of visitors 
of ECoC host 
cities come 
from abroad. 

Data from the 
local 
evaluations 
(from the 2013-
2022 period) 
shows that a 
typical ECoC 
year generates 
anything 
between 10,000 
and 58,000 
extra mentions 
or articles about 
the host city as 
a direct 
consequence of 
the city hosting 
an ECoC. 

70 

 
 
 
[Source: 
Supporting 
study] 

71 

 
 
 
 
TABLE 3:  Simplification and burden reduction (savings already achieved)  

EU Public Bodies/Panel members 

Candidate cities 

Host Cities/National, regional, 
local public bodies 

Citizens/Consumers/Busines
ses/Private sector 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  Comment  

Quantitative  Comment 

Simplification and burden reduction measure: Online holding of monitoring meetings 

Type: Recurrent 

Accessibility, 
efficiency, 
sustainability gains. 

Reduction of 
implementing costs. 

Accessibility, 
efficiency, 
sustainability 
gains. 

Identify further potential simplification and savings that could be achieved with a view to make the initiative more effective and efficient without prejudice to its policy objectives49. 

PART II: II Potential simplification and burden reduction (savings) 

Citizens/Consumers/Workers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

[Other…] _ specify 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment   Quantitative 

Comment 

Description:… 

Type:  One-off / recurrent (select) 

49    This assessment is without prejudice to a possible future Impact Assessment. 

72 

 
 
 
 
               
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT  

The consultation strategy targeted the action’s interested stakeholders through targeted interviews, Online Focus Groups, as well as the wider general 
public through the Open public consultation. The consultation strategy and the results obtained are detailed below. 

Focus Groups: 

A series of six focus groups were organised, with four in the first half of July 2024, and two at the end of August 2024, with the following breakdown of 
participants: 

• 
• 

three focus groups were organised with national and European expert panel members, for a total of 21 participants;   
three focus groups with cities, two with ECoCs, and one with preselected cities, with a total of 19 participants (12 ECoC representatives and 7 from 
preselected cities).   

A summary report was produced after each focus group, which fed into the body of evidence analysed for this final report. Overall, participation was 
lower from preselected cities due difficulties in securing relevant participants from this category of stakeholder. To compensate for this, interviews with 
the CultureNEXT, a network bringing together cities that were not selected to become ECoC, were conducted. 

Interviews with key relevant stakeholders: 

A total of 64 interviews were conducted with EU and national representatives as well as representatives of local authorities and organisations. The list is 
detailed below: 

Stakeholder organisations consulted   

EU-level stakeholders   

Policymakers   

EU-level organisations and 
networks   

European Commission (JRC; DG NEAR)   
Council of the European Union   
European Parliament1   
Committee of the Regions   
European External Action Service   
University Network of the European Capitals of 
Culture (UNeECC)   

Number of interviews 
conducted   
Target: 10 interviews   
Achieved: 12 interviews   
7 interviews   

5 interviews   

73 

 
   
European Network of Cultural Centres   
European Union National Institutes of Culture 
(EUNIC)   
Culture Action Europe   
Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research / 
CECCUT Project (‘Capitales européennes de la 
Culture et Cohésion Urbaine Transfrontalière’)   

National level stakeholders   

City-level interviews (ECoC 2013-2019)   
Marseille (FR)   

Košice (SK)   

Riga (LT)   

Umeå (SE)   

Mons (BE)   

Plzeň (CZ)   

San Sebastián (ES)   

Wrocław (PL)   

Aarhus (DK)   
Paphos (CY)   
Leeuwarden (NL)   

Valletta (MT)   

Matera (IT)   

Provence Tourisme   
Marseille Tourism, Leisure and Convention Bureau   
Friche la Belle de Mai   
Creative Industry Košice (CIKE)   
Tabacka   
Riga 2014 Foundation   

Umeå municipality   
Umeå Art Gallery (Umeå Konsthall)   
Foundation Mons 2025 (former Foundation Mons 
2015)   
Mons museums network (‘Pôle muséal de la Ville de 
Mons’)   
Plzeň city administration   
DEPO 2015 (former Plzeň 2015 Foundation)   
San Sebastián City Council   
Donostia Kultura   
Department of City Promotion and Tourism of the 
City Hall of Wrocław   
National Forum of Music   
Former Aarhus Foundation   
Former Paphos 2017 Foundation   
Leeuwarden municipality   
Arcadia   
Valetta Cultural Agency   
Malta Tourism Authority   
Fondazione Matera 2019   

Target: 49 interviews   
Achieved: 52 interviews   
Total: 27  
3 interviews   

2 interviews   

1 interview   

2 interviews   

2 interviews   

2 interviews   

2 interviews   

2 interviews   

1 interview   
2 interviews   
2 interviews   

2 interviews   

2 interviews   

74 

 
   
   
   
   
   
Plovdiv (BG)   

La Scaletta   
Plovdiv 2019 Foundation   
Academy of Music, Dance and Fine Arts ‘Prof. Asen 
Diamandiev’   

City-level interviews (ECoC 2022-2023)   
Novi Sad (RS)  
Kaunas (LT)  

Association Kulturanova  
Kaunas 2022  

Elefsina (EL)  

Lithuanian Council for Culture   
Elefsina 2023  
Youth ECoC Association CultTerra  

National public authorities interviews   
Austria   
Belgium   

Croatia   
Cyprus   
Estonia   

Finland   
France   
Greece   
Hungary   
Ireland   

Luxembourg   
Lithuania   
Norway   
Poland   
Portugal   

Romania   
Slovakia   

Ministry of Culture   
Ministère de la Communauté française ; Department 
Cultuur ; Jeugd and media   
Ministry of Culture   
Ministry of Culture   
Ministry of Culture and Permanent Representation in 
Brussels   
Ministry of Culture   
Ministry of Culture   
Ministry of Culture   
Permanent Representation in Brussels   
Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, 
Sport, and Media   
Ministry of Culture   
Ministry of Culture   
Ministry of Culture and Bodo representatives   
Ministry of Culture   
Cultural Strategy, Planning, and Evaluation Office 
(GEPAC)   
Romanian Cultural Institute in Brussels2   
Ministry of Culture   

2 interviews   

Total: 6  
1 interview  
2 interviews  

3 interviews  

Total: 19  
1 interview   
1 interview   

1 interview   
1 interview   
1 interview   

1 interview   
1 interview   
1 interview   
1 interview   
1 interview   

1 interview   
1 interview   
1 interview   
1 interview   
1 interview   

1 interview   
1 interview   

75 

 
   
  
Slovenia   
Sweden   
Source: Ecorys, 2024.  

Ministry of Culture   
Swedish Arts Council   

1 interview   
1 interview   

Open Public Consulation:  

Objectives of the consultation  
The  aim  of  the  Public  Consultation  was  to  gather  feedback  from  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders  on  the  performance  of  the  stages  of  implementation, 
management and delivery of the European Capitals of Culture Feedback The questionnaire gathered feedback according to the evaluation criteria used to 
evaluate the agencies particularly focusing on relevance, effectiveness, coherence and EU added value. The Public Consultation was available from 18 
June 2024 to 24 September 2024 in all official EU languages. Its purpose was to collect all relevant stakeholder feedback in relation to the effectiveness, 
coherence, relevance, and EU added value of the ECoC action work through closed and open-ended questions.  

Who replied to the consultation?  
A total of 60 respondents took part in the Public Consultation. Almost all the respondents (58 out of 60) came from within the EU, encompassing 22 
Member States. An additional two respondents came from Iran and North Macedonia. The highest number of responses came from Portugal (10 out of 60), 
France (9 out of 60) and Belgium and Italy (5 out of 60 each).  

. 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 Distribution of respondents by country of origin  

Source: Ecorys, 2024.  

The Public Consultation received replies from a wide range of stakeholders. In particular, this Public Consultation targetted individuals involved in the 
implementation, management or delivery of the ECoC action and those interested and/or involved in culture. The highest number of respondents were EU 
Citizens (23 out of 60), followed by those working in public authorities (13 out of 60), and those working for non-governmental organisations (10 out of 
60). The remaining respondents included non-EU Citizens (4 out of 60), individuals working for academic or research institutions (2 out of 60), members 
of companies/businesses (2 out of 60), representatives of business associations (1 out of 60) and others (5 out of 60).  

77 

 
  
 
 
 
Distribution of responses by type of respondent  

Source: Ecorys, 2024.  
Respondents were asked to provide an overview of their familiarity with broader EU cultural policy and priorities, the ECoC  action in general and its 
processes of selection and monitoring. They were most aware of the ECoC action in general, with 75% of them being either quite or very familiar with it 
(45 out of 60), followed by EU cultural policy and priorities (68%; 41 out of 60). Respondents were less familiar with the selection process of the cities 
hosting the ECoC, with 12% of them not being familiar at all with the process (7 out of 60) and 27% of them having little familiarity with it (16 out of 60). 
Respondents were least knowledgeable about the monitoring process. Over 18% were unfamiliar with the process (11 out of 60) while 37% were only a 
little familiar with it (22 out of 60).  

78 

 
  
 
 
 
Familiarity with the EU cultural policy and the ECoC  

Source: Ecorys, 2024.  
Main findings of the consultation  
Relevance  
Respondents were asked to evaluate the relevance of the ECoC action at a range of scales. Overall, they found the ECoC action to be most relevant to cities 
needs and overall objectives, with 62% of respondents agreeing that action is highly relevant (37 out of 60) and 28% as moderately relevant (17 out of 60). 
Only 7% of the respondents (4 out of 60) believed that the Action is only somewhat relevant, and 2% (1 out of 60) deemed it not relevant at all. Relevancy 
at EU level, such as in relation to the digital and green transition was perceived to be the second strongest, with 40% finding the ECoC action to be highly 
relevant (24 out of 60) and 30% as moderately relevant (18 out of 60) to needs across the EU. 18% of the respondents (11 out of 60) deemed the Action to 
be only somewhat relevant, and 10% (6 out of 60) believed it was not relevant at all. Respondents felt that the ECoC action was the least relevant to Member 
States’ needs, with 23% evaluating the ECoC action as highly relevant (14 out of 60) and 38% as moderately relevant (23 out of 60). Meanwhile 28% (17 
out of 60) indicated that the Action was only somewhat relevant, and 5% (3 out of 60) deemed it not relevant at all.   

79 

 
  
  
. Relevance of the ECoC action  

Source: Ecorys, 2024.  
Effectiveness  
Respondents were asked to evaluate the extent to which the ECoC action has been able to achieve its objectives from 2013 to 2023. The vast majority felt 
that the Action had achieved them to at least some extent, with only the support for the provision of training to cultural professionals falling below 50%148 
(45%; 27 out of 60).  
Strengthening the cultural offer in title-holding cities was deemed the most successful objective, with 80% of the respondents noting the achievement of 
the objective to a large or to some extent (43 out of 60). Encouraging the implementation of cultural activities with a strong European dimension was also 
very successful,  with 77% of the respondents believing the objective was achieved to at least some extent (46 out of 60). Respondents also  evaluated 
positively the extent to which the ECoC action was able to increase the number of tourists to the title-holding cities and to raise the recognition of the title-
holding cities internationally with 75% (45 out of 60) and 72% (43 out of 60) respectively saying it had done so to a large or some extent. Moreover, 70% 
felt the Action had contributed to raise citizen’s awareness of the diversity of European cultures to some or to a large extent (42 out of 60).   
Respondents also noted that certain objectives were only partially achieved, or in some cases, not fully realised. The support to the provision of training to 
cultural professionals (43%; 26 out of 60), the encouragement of the development of private and public funding to the development of cultural infrastructures 
(35%; 21 out of 60), and increased access by traditional and non-traditional audience in culture (32%, 19 out of 60) were less successful objectives. 

80 

 
  
 
 
 
Respondents' assessment of the effectiveness of the ECoC action  

Source: Ecorys, 2024.  
Coherence  
Respondents generally agreed that the ECoC action is complementary to other EU and national initiatives and policies linked to promoting culture in cities. 
Figure 6 shows similar findings for complementarity across both EU and national initiatives. Approximately one fifth of respondents deemed the ECoC 

81 

 
  
action to be largely complementary with both EU and national initiatives and policies (respectively, 22%; 13 out of 60 and 20%; 12 out of 60), and slightly 
less than half of the respondents rated the ECoC action as complementary to both EU policies (45%; 27 out of 60) and national initiatives (43%; 26 out of 
60). Respondents were more likely to find the ECoC action to be overlapping with national initiatives (13%; 8 out of 60) than with EU initiatives (8%; 5 
out of 60).  

Complementarity of ECoC with other EU or national initiatives  

Source: Ecorys, 2024.  
EU added value  
Figure 13 analyses the impact of the ECoC title on longer-term legacy and other long-term objectives such as sustainability, social inclusion, and city 
regeneration. Respondents felt that the ECoC title was the most successful in enhancing the image of the city, with 43% (26 out of 60) saying it had done 
so to a high extent. Nearly a third of the respondents believed that it has also supported the city regeneration and improved the longer-term cultural offer 
of cities (32%; 19 out of 60 for both) to a high extent.   
It is worth noting that in most cases at least half of the respondents rated the impact on the objectives as moderate or small (on average, 58%; 35 out 60). 
Respondents were most skeptical about the impact of the ECoC title on environmental sustainability and social inclusion. For both these objectives, 38% 
of  respondents  (23  out  of  60)  felt  that  the  impact  was  minimal.  Meanwhile,  18%  of  respondents  (11  out  60)  said  the  ECoC  action  had  no  impact  on 
environmental sustainability at all, while 17% (10 out of 60) said the same about the impact on social inclusion. 

82 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 Extent to which the ECoC title has impacted long-term legacy and impact  

Source: Ecorys, 2024.  

83 

 
   
  
 
ANNEX VI: EUROPEAN CAPITALS OF CULTURE 2020-2033 INTERVENTION LOGIC 

84 

 
 
85