This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52012SC0226
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT European Capitals of Culture post 2019 Accompanying the document Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Union action for the European Capitals of Culture for the years 2020 to 2033
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT European Capitals of Culture post 2019 Accompanying the document Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Union action for the European Capitals of Culture for the years 2020 to 2033
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT European Capitals of Culture post 2019 Accompanying the document Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Union action for the European Capitals of Culture for the years 2020 to 2033
/* SWD/2012/0226 final */
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT European Capitals of Culture post 2019 Accompanying the document Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Union action for the European Capitals of Culture for the years 2020 to 2033 /* SWD/2012/0226 final */
Lead
Service: DG
EAC Other
involved services: SG,
SJ, DG BUDG, DG ELARG, DG EMPL, DG ENTR, DG ENV, DG MARE and DG REGIO Disclaimer: This report commits only the
Commission's services involved in its preparation and does not prejudge the
final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission List
of main abbreviations CSWD:
Commission Staff Working Document ECoC:
European Capitals of Culture EU:
European Union MS:
Member States Table of contents 1........... Procedural issues and
consultation of interested parties. 5 1.1........ Purpose of the CSWD.. 5 1.2........ Procedural issues,
organisation and timing. 5 1.3........ Evaluations and external
expertise. 5 1.4........ Public consultation. 6 2........... Context and Problem
definition. 7 2.1........ Historical and Policy
context 7 2.2........ Decision 1622/2006/EC of
the European Parliament and the Council establishing a EU action for the ECoC
for the years 2007-2019. 8 2.3........ Main facts and figures
about the ECoC.. 8 2.4........ Identification of
problems faced by the ECoC and their underlying drivers. 11 2.4.1..... Problem n° 1: the lack of
stability in the governance structures and in the budgets. 11 2.4.2..... Problem n° 2: the limited
European dimension. 12 2.4.3..... Problem n° 3: weak legacy
planning. 13 2.4.4..... Problem n° 4: the lack of
evaluation and comparable data. 13 2.4.5..... Problem n° 5: the limited
number of credible candidates in certain MS. 14 2.5........ Baseline trends: how
would the problem evolve, all things being equal?. 14 2.6........ Justification for EU
intervention. 15 2.7........ Complementarity to other
EU policies and instruments. 15 3........... Objectives. 17 4........... Policy options. 19 4.1........ Discarded options. 19 4.2........ Options retained for
analysis. 21 4.2.1..... Option 1 "No
change" (the baseline) 21 4.2.2..... Option 2 "No
action" 21 4.2.3..... Option 3 "Revised legal
base" 21 5........... Analysis of impacts. 24 5.1........ Option 1 "No
change" (the baseline) 26 5.2........ Option 2 "No
action" 27 5.3........ Sub-option 3a
"Revised legal base with a chronological list of MS" 28 5.4........ Sub-option 3b
"Revised legal base with an open competition" 28 6........... Comparing the Options. 30 6.1........ Effectiveness. 30 6.2........ Efficiency. 30 6.3........ Costs and administrative
burden. 31 6.4........ Coherence. 33 6.5........ Political feasibility. 33 6.6........ Preferred option. 35 7........... Monitoring and
Evaluation. 35 7.1........ Monitoring of designated
cities. 35 7.2........ Evaluation of past
Capitals. 36 7.3........ Evaluation of the ECoC
action. 36 8........... Annex. 39 1. Procedural
issues and consultation of interested parties 1.1. Purpose of the CSWD The current legal base for the ECoC (Decision
1622/2006/EC) includes a chronological list of MS indicating the order in which
they are entitled to host the event until 2019. The preparation time involved
for preparing each ECoC (currently 6 years) and the time needed for the
ordinary legislative procedure means that the Commission's proposal for a
continuation of the ECoC should be adopted in 2012 in order to ensure a smooth
transition in 2020. The present CSWD summarizes the main results of DG EAC's
reflection on the future of the ECoC. 1.2. Procedural issues, organisation and timing The preparatory work for the new proposal
started in mid-2010. A roadmap was submitted in November 2010 and the SG
confirmed that no formal impact assessment was needed because the proposal
concerned the continuation of an already existing action and the budgetary
implications would be modest. Nevertheless, DG EAC decided to use many of the
logical steps of an impact assessment in order to gather the needed evidence
and to help in the choice of the best possible option for the future of the
ECoC. The present CSWP also fulfils all the requirements of an ex-ante
evaluation. The preparation of the CSWD was followed by an
inter-service group composed of SG, SJ, DG BUDG, DG EAC, DG ELARG, DG EMPL, DG
ENTR, DG ENV, DG MARE and DG REGIO[1]. The
group met in January 2011 and April 2012 and the draft of the present document
was discussed at the second meeting. The comments of the group were taken into
account for the finalisation of the CSWD. DG DEVCO, DG RTD and ESTAT had
asked to be kept informed about the various steps of the process. 1.3. Evaluations and external expertise Decision 1622/2006/EC requires that from 2007
the Commission ensures the external and independent evaluation of each ECoC.
So far the 2007-2010 Capitals were evaluated (the 2011 evaluation has been
launched and will be finalised in June 2012). Previously the 1995 – 2004 ECoC had
also been evaluated externally in a single report [2]. Many cities have carried out their own
evaluations of the event (Glasgow 1990, Luxembourg 1995 and 2007, Graz
2003, Lille 2004, Cork 2005, Sibiu 2007, Stavanger 2008, Liverpool 2008, Essen
für die Ruhr 2010, Istanbul 2010, Turku 2011…)[3]. The Commission also commissioned an evaluation
of the selection and monitoring procedures introduced by Decision
1622/2006/EC[4]. The
provisions introduced by this Decision have been gradually phased in: the new
monitoring provisions have applied so far for the 2010-2015 ECoC and the new
selection provisions for the 2013-2017 ECoC. Therefore although a whole cycle
governed by the new scheme will only be completed at the end of 2013, a
reasonable body of knowledge has already been gained. In addition to these various evaluations, the present
CSWD also builds on consultancy services provided by Ecorys UK Ltd. Ecorys did
in particular assist the Commission in the analysis of the contributions to the
public consultation and provide additional expertise concerning the
identification of the potential impacts of the ECoC, the comparison of the
options and the definition of evaluation indicators. 1.4. Public
consultation An online consultation on the future of
the ECoC took place between 27 October 2010 and 12 January 2011. The
consultation was fully in line with the General Principles and Minimum
Standards for Consultation of Interested Parties by the Commission[5]. The questionnaire posed both closed, as
well as open questions. It was designed to build on the findings of the
evaluations and invited the respondents to express their views on the relevance
of the ECoC action, its objectives, the potential benefits for cities holding
the title, the selection criteria and procedures, the duration of the event,
the territory covered by the event, the participation of third countries, the
accompanying measures aiming at helping the selected cities to organise a
successful event and the visibility of the ECoC. The Commission received a
total of 212 responses. The majority of respondents participated in the online
consultation as private individuals (58 %). 30 % were representing
organisations and 12 % public authorities. The online consultation was followed by a public
meeting which took place in Brussels on 2 March 2011 and was attended by
more than 200 people including a large majority of representatives of public
authorities and organisations. This meeting enabled the first results of the
online consultation to be presented and discussed. The analysis of the results of the online
consultation, the received contributions and the summary of the public meeting
were published on DG EAC's website[6]. Important inputs in the reflection on the
future of the ECoC were also provided by the own initiative report adopted by
the Committee of the Regions in February 2012[7]
and by the 25th anniversary conference of the ECoC organised in Brussels in March 2010. This conference gathered more than 50 past, present and future
Capitals or bidding cities and 500 participants and it focussed in particular
on the potential legacy of the title in cities and the evaluation processes and
methodologies used and implemented by them[8]. Finally, the Commission has been managing the
ECoC action since 1999. This has enabled DG EAC to develop its own practical
experience of the action and to hold regular discussions with past, present and
future Capitals, candidate cities, selection panel members, MS, MEPs, etc… It is important to note that on all the key
issues there was a broad convergence between the evidence and data collected
through the evaluations on the one hand and the views expressed during the
consultation process, on the other hand. This enabled the Commission to draw a
number of important lessons for the future of the ECoC which have served as the
backbone for all the analytical steps. 2. Context
and Problem definition 2.1. Historical and Policy context With regard to the historical context,
the ECoC have undergone many changes since their creation in 1985. They started
as an intergovernmental initiative and the cities were simply designated by
national governments in the Council of Ministers, without the involvement of
external experts or any formal assessment. They were transformed officially into an EU
action in 1999 (Decision 1419/1999/EC) in order to make the initiative more
effective. New criteria and selection procedures were established, a chronological
list of MS was drawn up indicating the order in which they were entitled to
host the event, and a European panel of independent cultural experts was
created to assess the applications. The rules were renewed in 2006 (Decision
1622/2006/EC) in order to develop the effectiveness of the event further by
stimulating competition between the cities and fostering the quality of the
bids. These new rules which will be described in great detail in the following
section also introduced various measures to accompany the cities in their
preparation, including a monitoring process. There was a large consensus in the evaluations
and during the consultation that over the years the ECoC have become one of the
most ambitious cultural initiatives in Europe, both in scope and scale. They
have also become one of the most visible and prestigious initiatives of the EU
and one of the most appreciated by European citizens. As a result, there is also
a very strong support for their continuation after 2019 (e.g. 91% of the
respondents of the online consultation are in favour of the continuation and
only 6% against). Since their creation in 1985, the main
objective of the ECoC has been to promote and celebrate the richness and
diversity of European cultures, to stress the common bonds and to promote
greater mutual understanding between European citizens. Over the years, cities
holding the ECoC title have progressively added a new dimension by using the
leverage effect of the title to stimulate the city's more general development
and the ECoC are now frequently quoted as exemplary "laboratories"
for strategic investment in culture at local and regional level. In parallel to the evolution of the ECoC, there
have also been important developments concerning the broader policy context
for culture in recent years. In 2007 the Commission adopted its first real
strategy for culture, "the European Agenda for Culture"[9] which was recognised at the highest level by
the European Council in its conclusions of December 2007. The Agenda has three
strategic objectives: to promote cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue,
to foster culture as a catalyst for creativity, and to promote the role of
culture in international relations. Furthermore, in accordance with the UNESCO
Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural
Expressions, which entered into force in 2007 and which is part of the acquis
communautaire, the EU has a moral and legal obligation to take action to
promote and safeguard cultural diversity. At a broader level, Europe 2020, the ten year
growth strategy for the EU adopted in 2010, emphasises the importance of
"creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship" which are central to the
cultural sector. 2.2. Decision
1622/2006/EC of the European Parliament and the Council establishing a EU action
for the ECoC for the years 2007-2019 Decision 1622/2006/EC lays down the rules for
the ECoC until 2019. In accordance with the chronological list, each year two
cities in two MS can hold the title. While under the former rules, the
participation of European third countries was possible, the action has been
limited to the MS in the present Decision as a result of the enlargement of the
EU. The competition for the title is only open to cities, but these cities can
decide to involve their surrounding regions. The title is not awarded for what
a city is or its glorious past, but on the basis of a cultural programme
created specifically for the ECoC. One single general objective is laid down in
the Decision: to highlight the richness and diversity of European cultures and
the features they share, and to promote greater mutual understanding between
European citizens. This objective is not developed into specific and
operational objectives, however further indications about the aims of the
action are given in the five criteria which must be fulfilled by candidate
cities. These criteria seek to ensure the European dimension of the cultural
programme, the participation of citizens and the integration of the programme
in the long-term cultural and social development of the city. The organisation of the competition in each
respective MS is the responsibility of the MS concerned (the "managing
authority"). It must publish a call for submission of applications to
enable the participation of all interested cities. The selection is carried out in two stages by a
European panel of independent experts. 7 members in this panel are appointed by
the European institutions and 6 by the MS concerned. During the pre-selection
phase, the cities with the strongest bids are short-listed and invited to flesh
out and improve their applications on the basis of recommendations made by the
panel. At the final selection stage, the panel then recommends the best
candidate for the title. The formal designation is made by the Council of
Ministers after consultation of the Parliament. The monitoring procedure introduced by the 2006
decision aims to help the cities between their designation and the beginning of
the year of the title (the preparation phase for a city lasts 4 years). This
monitoring is carried out by the 7 "European" members of the panel of
experts. If all the recommendations made by the panel in the final selection
report and in the monitoring reports are implemented by a city, the Commission
awards the "Melina Mercouri Prize" to the city. The amount of the
Prize is currently 1.5 million €. The Melina Mercouri Prize must be paid three
months before the beginning of the year of the title in principle. The Commission ensures the external and
independent evaluation of each ECoC in the year following the year of the
title. 2.3. Main
facts and figures about the ECoC The following facts and figures draw mainly on
the ECoC since 2007 which followed the entry into force of Decision 1622/2006/EC
and which were therefore all covered by the new evaluation requirements
mentioned above. On a few occasions, facts and figures from previous ECoC will
also be mentioned when they bring an additional relevant insight. Before starting the short enumeration, three
remarks need to be made. First, it is important to keep in mind that the
provisions of Decision 1622/2006/EC only phased in gradually as mentioned in
section 1, and therefore the cities which will be mentioned in the present
section were influenced to various degrees by the new selection or monitoring
procedures. Second, while the Commission now systematically evaluates past
Capitals, the cities themselves currently have no evaluation obligations and
therefore the information collected by cities before, during and after the year
of the title differs considerably and in many cases the Commission misses
comparable data (this will be discussed in greater detail in section 2.4).
Third, some of the most important benefits of ECoC such as for example the
improved image of cities, their cultural vibrancy or the strengthened
international outlook of residents are intangible and unquantifiable. However,
despite these three factors, a number of interesting trends can be drawn. Since 2007, very different types of cities have
been awarded the title including capital cities (Luxembourg, Vilnius, Tallinn…), large former industrial centres (Liverpool, Essen für die Ruhr…) or smaller
provincial cities (Sibiu, Linz, Pécs, Košice…). As a consequence the operating
expenditures for the implementation of the cultural programme vary widely. They
range from 16 million euro in Tallinn 2011 and 17 million euro in Sibiu 2007 at
the lower end to 98 million euro in Marseille 2013 and 194 million euro in
Istanbul 2010 at the higher end. To these operating expenditures, several
cities have also decided to add significant capital investments to build or
renovate infrastructures. These capital investments are not required from
cities but can go up to 137 million euro as in Sibiu 2007 or 140 million euro
in Pécs 2010. One of the main lessons of the ECoC is without any doubt that
all ECoC, past, present or future, are different because Europe is diverse and
all cities are different. The reason why cities bid for the title, their own
long term objectives, the way to prepare are all different and therefore the
achievements are different. This is part of the reality and success of the
concept. Despite this great diversity, it emerges very
clearly from the evaluations that ECoC have many potential benefits for all
cities when they are planned with consideration. They remain first and foremost
a cultural event, and must reflect our times and the way art is made and
distributed; but they can also have significant social and economic benefits,
particularly when the event is embedded as part of a long-term culture led
development strategy in the city and its surrounding region. It should also be
noted that although only one city in each MS can host the event in any given
year, the competition has an important leverage effect on the development of
new or more effective policies and strategies even in cities which do not win
the title. When well prepared, the ECoC can induce a
number of immediate results which can be impressive. These results are first
cultural: with the title the cultural activity in the city increases, new
audiences are reached and the cultural operators acquire a more international
outlook and thus improve their skills and professionalism. As an example, the
200 projects which took place in Linz in 2009 generated 7700 events involving
5000 artists. 1 million people attended a cultural event during Pécs 2010, 3.3
million during Luxembourg 2007, 10.5 million during Essen 2010 and 12 million
during Istanbul 2010. 139 cross-border projects were implemented with partners
from the Grande-Région in Luxembourg, 270 with neighbouring countries in Pécs
and during Stavanger 2008, collaborations, co-productions and exchanges took place
with 54 countries. There are also social benefits: ECoC foster
cohesion and intercultural dialogue through outreach programmes for young
people, minorities, the disadvantaged or through volunteer programmes. All the
children of all the schools of Liverpool participated in at least one activity
in 2008 and 70% of the people in the city visited a museum or a gallery. 40% of
Luxembourgish residents and nearly 60% of residents from the city itself
visited a Capital-related event. Istanbul 2010 cooperated with 2500 schools.
74% of children were involved across the region in Stavanger. They were 9,894
registered volunteers in Liverpool, of whom 851 received a training, 1200
registered volunteers in Essen or Sibiu and 780 in Pécs. The main economic benefits include the increase
of tourism, regeneration and urban development, knock-on effects on other
sectors or a stronger attention on the city at international level. The average
increase of overnight stays upon the previous year for an ECoC is of 12%. This
can go up to 20% as for Liverpool or even 27% as for Sibiu and Pécs (including
an increase of 71% of foreign visitors). Liverpool estimated that visits
motivated by the ECoC generated and additional economic impact of £ 753.8
million. Linz estimated additional regional GDP of 8.4 million euro. 12 000
press articles were written about Liverpool 2008 worldwide. 25 000 media
reports mentioned Linz 2009. But besides these immediate results, the ECoC
are also a process of change for a city, its image, its cultural sector and its
citizens, and these changes are expected to have positive effects for many
years after the event actually takes place. The legacies of the ECoC were
discussed at large during the 25 year anniversary conference[10] and it emerged that there is a large
variety of possible legacies. Some of them are material and relatively easy to
quantify. They include the many cultural infrastructures that were built or
revamped for the ECoC and which live on after the event and better equip the
city such as for example the Grande Rotonde in Luxembourg, the Arena built on
the docks in Liverpool or the new centre for contemporary art in Stavanger.
Some cities used the ECoC to regenerate former industrial areas and to
transform them into new cultural or creative quarters such as the Zsolnay
quarter in Pécs or the Zeche Zollverein in Essen. In Pécs, the ECoC was also at
the origin of the building of the new highway which now links the city to Budapest. The ECoC have also led to the creation of many
new cultural events or festivals. Lille 3000 for example is a cultural season
which takes now place every 2 or 3 years and is based on the same basic concept
as Lille 2004. The Zinneke parade which is now held every two years was first
created in the framework of Brussels 2000. Hosting the event also leads to the creation of
new organisations, structures and networks. One of the main objectives of
Luxembourg 2007 was to increase cross-border cultural cooperation with its
partners in the Grande-Région. Following the year a permanent structure was
created to keep the momentum and continue the common work that was initiated. Essen für die Ruhr 2010 also led to the creation of a permanent framework for discussion
and cultural cooperation between the 53 cities of the Ruhr. Many other legacies of the ECoC are much harder
to quantify and measure. This includes for example the image improvement, as in
the case of Glasgow 1990, Lille 2004, Liverpool 2008 and many others. These
cities all suffered in the past from economic crises which had a negative
impact on their image. Being an ECoC has turned them into more attractive places
which manifested itself for example in a continued increase in tourism. In a
similar way, Cork 2005 is proud that the city has been named as one of the top
10 cities in the world to visit in 2010 by the Lonely Planet travel guide while
a few years before hosting the title, the same guide published a rather
negative review of the city. Sibiu 2007 and Pécs 2010 claim that the ECoC title
helped to put their relatively small cities on the map. This small sample of examples displays the wide
variety of results and legacies that ECoC can achieve. Despite the great
diversity of cities which held the title and the differences in their aims and
preparation, all Capitals have achieved some benefits. At the same time, the
evaluations have also shown that the ECoC are highly challenging and some
Capitals have been less successful than others in capitalising on the potential
of the event. Staging a year long programme of cultural events is extremely demanding.
The main problems faced by cities will be analysed in the following section. 2.4. Identification of problems faced by the ECoC and their
underlying drivers The main challenge for the ECoC action after
2019 will be twofold. On the one hand, it is important to help each city to
make the most of the title and to fully use the potential of the ECoC. On the
other hand, to retain the strong "brand" value which the ECoC title
acquired over the years, it will be essential to ensure that the action as a
whole remains credible and relevant in the long term. To this end, the
following five problems encountered by cities under Decision 1622/2006/EC will
need to be tackled after 2019. 2.4.1. Problem
n° 1: the lack of stability in the governance structures and in the budgets The most common difficulty encountered by
cities in their preparation phase has been the effect of national and local
politics on the budgets, which need to be as stable as possible between the
bidding and final stages, as well as the impact of politics on other aspects of
the organisation of the event. Political support is fundamental as most of the
funds are public, and without it a city cannot have a credible bid, but at the
same time the implementing team needs its artistic independence to be respected
in order to protect the credibility of the event. The evaluation of Vilnius 2009 for example
analyses all the changes that took place before 2009 and in the first half of
the title year. First, the new government that took office after the general
election at the end of 2008 faced a very large budget deficit and reduced the
budget for the cultural programme by about 40%. Secondly, the total number of
staff employed by the delivery agency was reduced by about one-half early in
2009. Thirdly, there were two changes of director of the delivery agency – the
first in 2007 and the second early in 2009. The result of these changes was
that some projects started much later than planned and a significant number of
projects (previously selected following calls for proposals) did not take place
at all. This created great frustration among the local cultural sector. The evaluation of Pécs 2010 also shows that the
numerous changes in the leadership of the key institutions, as well as in the
individuals responsible for the development of the programme made the
preparation challenging. When the situation finally stabilized towards the end
of 2008, it was already too late to mobilize many of the cultural operators at
local level and realise some of the original project ideas. Many of the planned
infrastructure projects also had to be delayed and were inaugurated only in the
final months of the year of the title (new library, new concert and conference
venue) or even in the following year (Zsolnay cultural quarter). Other examples
of cities which have suffered from important cuts in the budgets or changes in
the implementing team in the final months before the start of the title year
include Tallinn 2011 or Maribor 2012. It may be argued that during a time of
financial crisis, all cultural budgets and therefore the budgets of the ECoC
are understandably under threat. But at the same time the financial crisis
makes jobs in the cultural and creative sector – a sector with strong growth
potential in a knowledge-based economy – all the more important in order to
tackle current social and economic challenges. Furthermore, one of the most
interesting lessons of the 25 year conference is precisely that many
post-industrial cities such as Glasgow 1990, Lille 2004 or Liverpool 2008,
which all suffered from a difficult economic transition, managed to fully use
the potential of the ECoC to revive their cities and pave a new path for the
future. The lack of stability in the preparation phase
always leads to reduced ambitions for the ECoC, delays in the implementation of
the activities and frustrations among the population and therefore it weakens
the potential impact of the title on the city and its citizens. Furthermore,
the changes in the programme between the selection phase and the year of the
title distort the competition as some Capitals implement in the end a programme
which is much less ambitious than the one for which they were selected. This
can create frustrations among the other cities which participated in the
competition and were not retained for the title. 2.4.2. Problem
n° 2: the limited European dimension The ECoC are not the only culture-led
regeneration strategy that can be used by a city. The opening of a new museum
for example such as the Guggenheim in Bilbao or the Centre Pompidou in Metz can also trigger important social and economic benefits. However what gives the ECoC
a very specific place is on the one hand its strong brand which provides an
important opportunity for visibility at European and international level, and
on the other its aim to increase mutual understanding among Europeans and bring
them closer together. ECoC must therefore create a cultural programme with a
strong European dimension. This European dimension usually entails three
aspects: activities which highlight the cultural diversity of Europe,
activities with content related to European themes, history and heritage, and
activities fostering cooperation between artists and cultural operators from
different European countries. The evaluations have shown that in a lot of
past Capitals this European dimension was not well understood and therefore
remained too limited or at least insufficiently visible in their programmes.
Sibiu 2007, Liverpool 2008 or Stavanger 2008 for example focussed mostly on
cooperation activities and had very few activities highlighting the diversity
of European Cultures or based on European themes. Furthermore, in the case of
Liverpool or Stavanger, the cooperation activities were more international at
large than truly European. In contrast in Sibiu a very large majority of the
cooperation activities took place solely with the other ECoC of the year Luxembourg. The question of the visibility of the EU is
directly linked to the weak European dimension. In many ECoC such as Liverpool
2008 or Turku 2011 for example, there were very few references to the fact that
the ECoC are an initiative of the EU in the communication material. Other
cities such as Tallinn 2011 stopped using the logo of the Commission as soon as
the Melina Mercouri prize had been paid (3 months before the beginning year of
the title). 2.4.3. Problem
n° 3: weak legacy planning It clearly emerged from the 25 year anniversary
conference which focused on the legacy of ECoC that legacy is far from
automatic simply because a city holds the title. Indeed, it has to be planned,
budgeted for and worked at well in advance. One of the main keys in ensuring
long-term legacy is embedding the event as part of a long term cultural
development strategy, designed itself within the long-term development of the
city as a whole through synergies between culture and other areas. This point
was also highlighted by the own initiative report of the Committee of the
Regions. Several of the past Capitals that were present
at the anniversary conference acknowledged that in retrospect they had not done
enough to forward plan for the period after the event and some, such as Cork
2005 for example, regretted not having budgeted for the year after the title.
The various evaluations carried out after 2007 have also shown that the end of
the title year typically leads to the disbanding of the delivery agency and the
loss of precious experience. For example, in the case of Istanbul 2010 the law
creating the ECoC delivery agency also set a firm timetable for its demise and
no specific legacy plan for the overall ECoC was enacted. Other cities such as
Vilnius 2009 or Pécs 2010 have struggled or are still struggling to fully
exploit the potential legacies of the event. 2.4.4. Problem
n° 4: the lack of evaluation and comparable data As already mentioned, since 2007, the
Commission ensures the external and independent evaluation of each ECoC. These
evaluations are carried out in the year following the title. It is important to
note that their aim is to put single ECoC in a European context, enabling wider
circulation of information, allowing for comparisons and drawing useful lessons
for future ECoC. They cannot, however, provide primary data on the impact of
the event and are based on data collected at a local level. Therefore it is
essential that the Capitals themselves put in place measurement mechanisms.
Cities are the first recipients and beneficiaries of the evaluation results and
they should remain the key players in the evaluation process. However, at the present stage the situation
varies considerably from one city to another. Liverpool for example carried out
a longitudinal evaluation called "impacts 08" which covers a period
of nearly 10 years and analyses a wide variety of tangible and more intangible
effects on the city. The Commission supported a project in the framework of the
Culture Programme to transfer and adapt this model to the needs of other ECoC
such as Essen für die Ruhr 2010, Turku 2011 or Marseille 2013[11]. Many other cities have adopted a more
modest approach and their evaluations have focussed mainly on quantitative
indicators, targeting economic impacts in the city (Luxembourg 2007, Sibiu
2007, Stavanger 2008…). Some cities have carried out no own evaluation at all
(Vilnius 2009, Pécs 2010…). This disparity creates a very fragmented view
on the impacts of the ECoC and it makes a real comparison between cities very
difficult, which is harmful for the transfer of experience. Furthermore, the
experience has shown that planning evaluation and evaluation tools well in
advance helped many cities to clarify their vision of their strengths and
weaknesses, to analyse what they could realistically strive to achieve through the
ECoC title, and thus to refine their objectives, which helped them to improve
the end result of the year. 2.4.5. Problem
n° 5: the limited number of credible candidates in certain MS The competition for the title introduced by
Decision 1622/2006/EC has two main potential benefits. On the one hand, a tough
contest stimulates the cities to put forward strong applications and to try to
improve these applications throughout the process, in particular on the basis
of the recommendations made by the panel of experts for the short-listed
cities. On the other hand, cities like Bordeaux in France, Bremen in Germany or Zaragoza in Spain confirmed that the competition has an important leverage effect in all
participating cities, even those which do not win the title. In certain MS, the competition attracted a
great number of participants: 15 in Spain and 11 in Poland for 2016, 9 in Slovakia and 8 in France for 2013. In others, the number of applications was much lower: only 1 in Belgium for 2015 and in Malta for 2018, 2 in Denmark for 2017, 3 in the Czech Republic for 2015 and Cyprus for 2017. This is probably linked to the fact that some
MS have a far larger pool of realistic candidates than others. It should also
be noted that several small or medium-sized MS have already hosted the ECoC
title on several occasions such as for example Greece in 1985, 1997 and 2006,
Belgium in 1993, 2000 and 2002, Portugal in 1994, 2001 and 2012, Luxembourg in
1995 and 2007 or Ireland in 1991 and 2005. The current rules for the ECoC would make it
politically very difficult for the panel to refuse to award the title to one
city in each of the two MS concerned every year. Luckily, so far there was
always at least one credible candidate in each competition, even those which
did attract very few participants. However this may become a problem in the
future and selecting weak candidates for the title would without any doubt risk
damaging the prestige and brand value of the ECoC in the long term. 2.5. Baseline trends: how would the problem evolve, all
things being equal? If the ECoC continue in their current form
after 2019, it is likely that a very diverse selection of cities would continue
to be awarded the title. The size, scale and budget of cultural programmes
would vary widely, reflecting the diversity of cities, as well as varying
levels of political and corporate support. The impacts of the title would also
continue to vary widely from city to city. On the one hand, it is reasonable to assume
that all ECoC would continue to have at least some of the cultural, social and
economic benefits described in section 2.3. On the other hand, the problems
described in section 2.4 would not be addressed and some cities would continue
to struggle with the challenges of organising a successful ECoC and to fail to
fully capitalise on the potential of the event. Two main risks are linked to a simple
continuation of the ECoC in their current form. Firstly, there is the risk to have weak ECoC in
certain years. So far, the European panel could always find at least one
credible candidate in each MS, but this may not necessarily always continue to
be the case. This is directly linked to the fact that, as mentioned before,
some MS have a far larger pool of realistic candidates and a greater capacity
to host an event of this scale on a regular basis than others, and by 2019 many
small and medium sized countries will already have hosted the title several
times. The risk of having a weak ECoC would also be directly linked to the fact
that some cities would continue to suffer from instability in governance and
from budget cuts between the designation and the year of the title, and
therefore from reduced cultural programmes or investments and from delayed
activities. Secondly, there is the risk of damaging the
prestige and the "brand" that were developed for the ECoC over the
years. This second risk would be a direct consequence of having several weak
ECoC in a row. This risk is also reinforced by the fact that in 2020 the ECoC
title would be awarded for the 60th and 61st times. There
is therefore a strong need for the designated cities to continue to demonstrate
their excellence and capacity for innovation in order to avoid a banalisation
of the title and a dilution of its prestige. Such a loss of prestige and brand value would
create an un-virtuous circle. The first consequence would be that fewer cities
would be interested in participating in the competition for the title, which
would diminish the intensity of the competition and thus generate weaker
applications and as a result even weaker ECoC. The second consequence would be
a weaker interest of citizens and of local stakeholders in the event, as well
as a weaker international visibility, which would considerably reduce the
potential social and economic impact of the title on a city and its citizens. 2.6. Justification for EU intervention The legal base for the ECoC can be found in
article 167 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This
article gives the EU the mandate to "contribute to the flowering of the
cultures of the MS, while respecting their national and regional diversity and
at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore". The
EU shall also encourage "cooperation between MS" in the field of
culture and "if necessary, support and supplement their action". The main level of action for the implementation
of the ECoC remains at local and national level. However, the EU has an
important role to play in the coordination between MS and in ensuring the
application of common, clear and transparent criteria, as well as selection and
monitoring procedures for the ECoC. The EU also supports the preparation of the
selected cities through the recommendations of the European panel of experts,
the exchange of best practices between cities and a financial contribution. Past experience clearly shows that the
transformation of the ECoC into an EU action in 1999 and the new rules adopted
in 2006 have helped the initiative to take a qualitative step forward which
would not have been possible with the previous intergovernmental arrangements.
The options tested for the future of the ECoC after 2019 all keep the existing
balance, while aiming at addressing some of the difficulties encountered by
cities, at retaining the strong potential and brand value of the title and at
ensuring that the ECoC action remains credible and relevant in the long term. 2.7. Complementarity
to other EU policies and instruments The ECoC are fully in line with the objectives
of the Europe 2020 strategy and the evaluations of past Capitals have shown
indeed that they can make an important contribution to Europe 2020 and to
several of its flagship initiatives such as the "Innovation Union"
(in particular through capacity building in the cultural and creative sectors),
"Youth on the move" (by stimulating the mobility of young cultural
professionals or pre-professionals), "An industrial policy for the
globalisation era" (by contributing to the competitiveness of the European
tourism sector) and the European Platform against Poverty (by using the
potential of the ECoC to reach out to the socially excluded). However, this
could be greatly optimised by a more targeted approach in the proposal for the
continuation of the ECoC after 2019. They are also fully in line with the objectives
of the European Agenda for Culture and of the UNESCO Convention on the
Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions such as
described in section 2.1. The ECoC are now frequently quoted as exemplary
"laboratories" for culture-led development strategies and they can
therefore provide a significant input in EU culture policy in particular by
providing models of good practice which can be transferred in different
contexts. Since they became a formal action of the EU,
the ECoC have received funding from the EU's Culture Programme. Special
attention will therefore need to be given to carefully link the objectives of
the ECoC post 2019 to the objectives of the new Creative Europe Programme which
will replace Culture as from 2014, i.e. to foster the safeguarding and
promotion of European cultural and linguistic diversity and to strengthen the
competitiveness of the cultural and creative sectors with a view to promoting
smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. It should be noted that while the
objectives of Creative Europe and the ECoC are close, the mechanisms used to
pursue these objectives are very different and complementary. Creative Europe will indeed mainly co-finance cooperation activities involving partners from
different countries and guarantee bank loans to the cultural and creative
sector, and the past experience has shown that in addition to the Melina
Mercouri Prize many past Capitals have made use of the calls for proposals of
the Culture Programme to co-finance their transnational cooperation activities. Evaluations have also shown that the ECoC have
the potential to be reinforced by and add value to investments made by the
European Structural Funds. In Pécs 2010 for example, 120 Million € were
invested by the ERDF in projects directly linked to the ECoC title such as the
construction of the new Library, the new concert and conference venue, the
development of the brownfield site of the Zsolnay ceramic factory and its
reconversion to a Cultural district or the regeneration of the city's main
public places and green spaces[12]. Linked
to the public investments, several private hotels also decided to upgrade their
facilities with the help of the ERDF. In Essen für die Ruhr 2010, 50 million €
were invested by the ERDF in particular for the transformation of the Zeche
Zollverein in a creative quarter which is now considered as a model of good
practice for the contribution of culture to local and regional development.
Liverpool 2008 has also benefited from important ERDF investments and was
invited as one of the key contributors to DG REGIO's 2009 "Regions for
economic change" conference in order to transfer its experience. Finally, it is important to mention the
European Green Capitals implemented by DG ENV, as well as the European Youth
Capitals which were launched by the European Youth Forum and which can benefit
from a financial support from DG EAC's Youth in Action programme[13]. Both were created in recent years and
influenced by the success of the ECoC, however they are still in their
beginnings and at this stage their scope and scale, as well as their prestige
and visibility are far from those reached by the ECoC. The Green Capitals
recognise and reward cities which have a consistent record of high
environmental standards, which are committed to further environmental
improvement and sustainable development, and which can act as a role model to
inspire other European cities. While the objectives of the Green Capitals and
of the ECoC are very different there is a potential for synergies which the two
DGs are starting to explore.. On their side, the Youth Capitals encourage
cities to showcase their youth related social, cultural, political and economic
life and development. The overlap remains very limited as on the one hand
culture is just a small part of the programmes implemented by the Youth
Capitals and on the other hand the ECoC aim at reaching the widest possible
range of citizens and not only young people. 3. Objectives On the basis of the evaluations and of the
consultation, it appears very clearly that the ECoC after 2019 will have to
keep the general spirit of the current action and to build on the strengths
that have enabled past Capitals to reach many significant benefits. At the same
time, it is important to tackle the problems which have emerged and made it
difficult for some cities to optimise the title. It is also important to limit
the risks linked to a simple continuation of the ECoC in their current form. The objectives for the ECoC post 2019 which are
presented in table n°1 below build therefore both on the current objective and
criteria of the ECoC described in section 2.2 and on the results of the
evaluations and the consultation. A special attention was given to better
reflect the contribution culture can make to stimulate the cities' more general
development in line with the evolution of the ECoC over the years. This will
also strengthen the relevance of the action to the Europe 2020 strategy. The
new objectives give a clearer steer to candidate cities about the common goals to
be achieved at EU level while at the same time leaving some room to the cities
to develop their own vision of the event and to define the local goals they
want to achieve through the title. As the problems described in section 2.4 are
technical problems linked to the implementation of the action, they will be
tackled mainly at the level of operational objectives. These operational
objectives are divided in two categories. First, the objectives to be achieved
at city level by each ECoC through their cultural programmes for the year, as
well as through their longer-term strategies for cultural development. Second,
the objectives to be achieved at EU level through the operation of the
selection and monitoring procedures. In both categories, several operational
objectives aim at perpetuating the current strengths of the ECoC, while others
aim at addressing the problems identified in section 2.4 (each of the 5
problems can thus be linked to one or several of the operational objectives). Table n°1:
Objectives for the ECoC post 2019 General objectives to safeguard and promote the diversity of European cultures, and to highlight the common features they share || to foster the contribution of culture to the long-term development of cities Specific objectives to enhance the range, diversity and European dimension of the cultural offer in cities, including through transnational co-operation || to widen access to and participation in culture || to strengthen the capacity of the cultural sector and its connectivity with other sectors || to improve the international profile of cities through culture Operational objectives – at city level to stimulate extensive cultural programmes of high artistic quality || to ensure cultural programmes feature a strong European dimension and transnational co-operation || to involve a wide range of citizens and stakeholders in preparing and implementing the cultural programme || to create new opportunities for a wide range of citizens to attend or participate in cultural events || to improve cultural infrastructure || to develop the skills , capacity and governance of the cultural sector || to stimulate partnerships and co-operation with other sectors || to promote the city and its cultural programme || to improve the international outlook of residents Operational objectives – at EU level to ensure geographical balance in the location of ECoC to ensure the selection of credible candidates to ensure cities put in place effective governance and stable budgets to strengthen the accompanying measures and the evaluation 4. Policy
options A wide range of options were considered for the
ECoC post 2019 including all the suggestions raised by stakeholders or external
experts. These options were then narrowed down through an initial screening
taking into account the results of the evaluations and the public consultation,
as well as the technical constraints of the ECoC and their feasibility. As a
result the following three options were retained for further analysis. One of these
options contained two sub-options: Table n° 2: Analysed
policy options Option || Summary 1. No change (baseline) || The ECoC continue with an identical legal base to the current Decision to which a new chronological list of MS is annexed 2. No action || The ECoC stop after 2019 3. Revised legal base || The ECoC continue with a new legal base which addresses the problems encountered with the current Decision. Sub-option a: a new chronological list of MS is annexed Sub-option b: the title is awarded on the basis of an open competition 4.1. Discarded
options A very large consensus emerged from the
evaluations and consultation that the ECoC are a well-established and
successful initiative which still has a very strong potential for the future,
and that no radical change to the concept was needed. All the options retained
for further analysis therefore build on a certain degree of continuity in the
approach and we focussed mainly on examining the best ways to keep the strong
brand value of the ECoC and to help all cities to optimise the title. One of the keys of the success of the ECoC is
the simplicity of the concept. This simplicity is what makes the Capitals so
attractive for the media across Europe, and through this channel also for all
European citizens. The straightforwardness of the concept also greatly
contributes to the strong symbolic value of the ECoC. All options suggested by
stakeholders which would have over-complicated the ECoC were therefore
discarded, such as for example having three distinct competitions in parallel
every year according to the size or the population of a city. For similar reasons, we have also rejected the
idea of having every year one large scale ECoC selected through an open
competition, accompanied by a small number of "European Cultural
Seasons" or "Months" (a shorter and lighter version of the ECoC
for smaller MS), which would have rotated in chronological order among MS. It
became clear very quickly that this solution would have created a lot of
confusion and frustration. First, the new Seasons or Months would not have
been considered as attractive enough by a majority of smaller MS compared to
the fully fledged ECoC. Second, it would have taken a lot of time and
investment to develop them into a strong brand and they would probably not have
been sufficiently distinctive from many large scale existing festivals. Third,
they could have diluted and undermined the interest in and the prestige of the
fully fledged ECoC. We have rejected all options which would have
been binding over a too long period of time. For example, having only one
Capital per year and a chronological list of 28 MS[14] would have implied
being bound from 2020 to 2047 without any possibility to make a significant
change in the legal base for reasons of equal treatment between the MS. The
same would have been true in the case of two Capitals per year with one
selected through an open competition and one on the basis of a chronological
list of MS as suggested by some stakeholders. In addition, this second option would
also have created a risk of confusion as mentioned above. We have discarded the possibility to award the
title to metropolitan areas or regions and decided that the ECoC title should
continue to be reserved to cities as is currently the case (these cities have
however the possibility to involve their surrounding regions). Initially, the
opinions were divided on this issue during the online consultation and the
public meeting. It came out very clearly however that there is no consensus on
the definition of what a region or a metropolitan area is as MS administrative
structures are so different. Those participants who were in favour of the
opening of the ECoC to regions stressed that this should not apply to
"administrative" regions but to areas which share a common history,
identity or project. Most agreed that such a vague definition would make it
very difficult to have clear and transparent rules and criteria. Several past
and future ECoC also underlined based on their own experience that governance
is already a serious challenge and that the risk would be multiplied (which is
confirmed by the Commission's day to day management of the action). They
insisted on the fact that the clear leadership of one city is a key success
factor. As a consequence, many participants recognised that it would probably
be wiser to continue with the current rule. This issue was also discussed at
length by the Committee of the Regions which reached the same conclusion in its
own initiative report. Another discarded option, was awarding the
title exclusively to clusters of cities from different countries in order to
foster cross-border co-operation between these cities. The main risk here would
have been to duplicate the activities already covered by the Creative Europe
Programme. Furthermore, all cities applying for the title are pursuing their
own local policy objectives which are deeply rooted in the local cultural,
social and economic context. Indeed, the evaluations have shown that in order
to be successful, Capitals must stay authentic and build on their strengths,
draw on their past, on all their communities, while looking to the future.
Articulating a clear and coherent vision which goes beyond the simple
accumulation of co-operation projects would have been inaccessible for most
transnational clusters. Finally, as seen above, the challenge of putting in
place effective governance structures would be multiplied in the case of
transnational clusters thus increasing the risk of failure. While screening the possible scenarios for an
open competition, we have rejected the idea of a cap in the number of
candidates per country and of a pre-selection at national level. Such a
national pre-selection would indeed have resembled the discontinued system for
the Capitals between 2005 and 2010 when MS put forward one or more applicants
to a European panel. The disadvantages would have been the danger of a much
weaker European dimension due to a purely national pre-selection and the
difficulty of ensuring genuine competition at national level and equal
treatment for all cities. From the experience of the Commission, this would not
have optimised quality, transparency and fairness. We have discarded all options which would have
implied a large increase of the amount of the Melina Mercouri Prize. First,
evaluations have shown that the Melina Mercouri Prize has acquired a strong
symbolic value which goes far beyond the actual amount of the Prize, that the
ECoC title in itself has an important leverage effect for cities and that
therefore the amount of the Prize does not have a significant influence on the
decision to apply for the ECoC. Second, a large number of cities holding the
title have also received EU funding from other sources, notably the European
Structural Funds which have supported many associated infrastructure
developments. Third, in the current financial context a large increase in the
amount of the Melina Mercouri Prize would only have been possible within the
envelope of the Creative Europe Programme, and thus at the expense of all the
other cultural projects for which Creative Europe was designed. Finally, we have rejected the option to
outsource the implementation of the ECoC to the Education, Audiovisual and
Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) or to another external body. The day to day
management of the selection and monitoring procedures for the ECoC is very
different from the management of grants which is the core task of the EACEA.
The experience has also shown that the operation of these procedures was often
highly sensitive and that it implied numerous high level political contacts
with the local, regional and national authorities. Furthermore, there is a very
strong interest in the ECoC from the media which generates a very high number
of contacts with the press and of requests from the Spokesperson Service. In
both cases, the Commission is much better placed to pass the appropriate
political messages. Outsourcing the implementation would generate no economies
of scale. On the contrary, keeping the practical dimension and political
dimension of the ECoC in the same hands would keep the procedures much lighter
and more flexible. 4.2. Options
retained for analysis 4.2.1. Option 1 "No change" (the baseline) The "No change" option would require
the European Parliament and the Council to adopt a new legal base which is
identical to the current one (Decision 1622/2006/EC – see section 2.2), except
for a new chronological list of MS entitled to host the title. For reasons of
equal treatment between the MS this list would have to run until 2033 at least on
the basis of 28 MS or more if new MS join the EU in the meantime. This is the
baseline option against which the other options are tested. 4.2.2. Option 2 "No action" In the absence of any action by the EU,
Decision 1622/2006/EC would lapse and the ECoC title would no longer be awarded
after 2019. 4.2.3. Option 3 "Revised legal
base" Under this option (which includes sub-options
3a and 3b as explained below) the European Parliament and the Council would
need to adopt a new Decision which addresses the problems described in section
2.4. On the basis of the results of the evaluations
and of the consultation, the main features and the general structure of the
current Decision would be kept: ·
The title would continue to be reserved to
cities which may decide to involve their surrounding region. ·
The attribution of the title would continue to
be based on a cultural programme created specifically for the ECoC year in
order to ensure the strong European dimension of the event. ·
The current two stage selection process carried
out by a European panel of independent experts would be kept. This process was
generally held to be fair and transparent. It has also increased the general
interest in the ECoC, generated a high number of applications and enabled
cities to improve their applications between the pre-selection and the final
selection phase on the basis of expert advice received from the panel. ·
There was also a large consensus that the title
should continue to be awarded for a full year to keep it distinctive and
ambitious. The main improvements that would be introduced
in the legal base would be the following: ·
The evaluations and the consultation have
clearly shown that while the current selection criteria are still considered as
fully relevant, they could benefit from some adjustments. On the one hand, they
would need to be made more explicit in order to give more guidance to the
candidate cities and more measurable in order to help the panel of experts in
the selection and monitoring of cities. On the other hand, the so-called
"unwritten criteria" (capacity of the city to hold the title,
budgetary guarantees, governance, independence of the artistic team…) which are
not mentioned in the current legal base (although mentioned in the Guide for bidding
cities), but already taken into account by the selection panel need to be
clearly written down in the new proposal. The criteria would also gain to be
aligned more closely to the revised objectives of the ECoC laid down in section
3 and to pay a special attention to the problems described in section 2.4. Therefore, with
option 3 the legal base would introduce a new set of criteria which would be
divided into six categories: –
"long-term strategy": this category
would ensure that the applications are embedded in a long term strategy for
cultural development including inter-alia the plans for cultural governance and
sustaining cultural activities beyond the year of the title, the plans for
strengthening the capacity of the cultural sector and for building sustainable
partnerships with the economic and social sectors, and the plans for the
monitoring and evaluation of the title. It would thus contribute to tackling
problems n° 3 and 4. –
"capacity to deliver": this category
would ensure that the applications benefit from cross-party political support,
and that the cities would have adequate and viable infrastructure to host the
title. It would thus contribute to tackling problems n°1 and 5. –
"cultural and artistic content": this
category would ensure a clear and coherent artistic vision for the cultural
programme of the year, the range and diversity of cultural activities, their
overall artistic quality, as well as the involvement of local artists and
cultural organisations. It would thus build on the best practices noted under
the current scheme. –
"European dimension": this category
would ensure the scope and quality of the activities promoting the cultural
diversity of Europe, of the activities highlighting the common aspects of
European cultures, heritage and history, and of the activities based on
trans-national co-operation and partnerships. It would thus contribute to
tackling problem n°2. –
"outreach": this category would ensure
the involvement of the local populations and civil society in the preparation
and implementation of the ECoC, the access of a wide range of citizens to
cultural activities and a clear strategy for audience development. It would
thus build on the best practices noted under the current scheme. –
"management": this category would
ensure the credibility of the budgets, the stability of the governance
structures, the independence of the artistic teams and comprehensive
communication strategies highlighting that the the ECoC are a EU initiative. It
would thus contribute to tackling problems n° 1 and 2. ·
It would be stated explicitly in the Decision
that there is no obligation to award the title in a given year if none of the
applications fulfils the criteria. ·
There was a very large consensus in the
evaluations and in the consultation that the accompanying measures which
support cities during the four year preparation period after winning the title
were the main step forward brought by Decision 1622/2006/EC and that they have
been very useful for cities. There was strong support for these measures to be
continued and further developed. Therefore, with option 3 the revised legal
base would introduce an additional monitoring meeting, the visits to the cities
by panel members would be made more systematic and the exchange of experience
and best practices between past, present and future Capitals, as well as
candidate cities would be reinforced through regular seminars. ·
Providing EU funding in the form of the Melina
Mercouri Prize as has been the case as from the 2010 Capitals rather than a
traditional grant as before has been welcomed due to the reduced administrative
burden and increased flexibility in the use of funding. However, new, stronger
conditionality criteria would be introduced for the payment of the Prize,
making the grounds on which the Commission can refuse this payment much
clearer. No substantial changes to the cultural programme and the long-term
strategy would be allowed between the bidding stage and the year of the title.
Special attention would be given to the stability of the budget, the
independence of the artistic team, the European dimension of the cultural
programme, the communication strategy (including the due references to the EU)
and the plans for monitoring and evaluation. Furthermore, the Prize would no
longer be paid three months before the beginning of the year of the title, but
during the middle of the year itself in order to be certain that cities keep to
their commitments. This would also be fully in line with one of the main
recommendations from the evaluations which suggested requiring cities to
develop their applications and programmes without including the Prize in their
budgets. Whenever attributed, the money of the Prize could be used to enlarge
the scope of some of the activities of the second semester of the year or to
finance legacy activities in the years following the year of the title. ·
There is a strong demand from third countries to
open up the ECoC again to the participation of non MS from 2020, as was the
case until 2010. 25 % of the responses to the online consultation came from non
MS. Important delegations also participated in the public meeting. Furthermore,
the experience of recent years (e.g. Sibiu 2007, Istanbul 2010) demonstrated
that the participation of candidate countries can contribute to bring them
closer to the Union by highlighting the common aspects of European cultures. It
can thus be beneficial both for these countries and the Union. Therefore, the
new legal base would open again the ECoC to the participation of candidate and
potential candidate countries. ·
Finally, in line with article 291 of the TFUE,
and taking into account the precedent of the European Heritage Label in 2011,
the official designation of the ECoC formalising the recommendations made by
the European panel would be made by the Commission and no longer by the
Council. 4.2.3.1. Sub-option 3a "Revised
legal base with a chronological list of MS" With sub-option 3a, a new chronological list of
two MS entitled to host the title every year would be included in the legal
base as for option 2. For reasons of equal treatment between the MS this list
would have to run until 2033 at least on the basis of 28 MS, or more if new MS
join the EU in the meantime. However, in parallel to the competition in the
two MS, an open competition would be organised for candidate countries or
potential candidates every third year. This competition would be open to cities
in all the countries concerned, provided that these countries participate in
the Creative Europe Programme or in the subsequent EU programmes supporting
culture at the date of the beginning of the competition. A maximum of one city
in one candidate country or potential candidate could be awarded the title. For
reasons of equity with MS, each candidate country or potential candidate country
would only be allowed to host the title once during the period from 2020 to
2033. With this sub-option, we would thus have a
maximum of two Capitals every "regular" year and a maximum of three
Capitals every third year, taking into account that the European panel has no
obligation to recommend a city if there are no credible candidates in a
specific MS or among candidate and potential candidate countries. 4.2.3.2. Sub-option 3b "Revised
legal base with an open competition" With sub-option 3b, the ECoC title would be
awarded to a maximum of two cities every year on the basis of an open
competition. This competition would be accessible to cities in all the MS,
candidate countries and potential candidates. However, in order to limit the risk that the
title would be awarded exclusively in the few bigger and wealthier countries, a
country which has been awarded the title would not be allowed to participate in
the competition again before 9 years. Thus on the basis of 36 countries (28 MS
+ 4 candidates + 4 potential candidates), the competition would be open only to
a maximum of 18 countries every year. The managing authority for the competition
would be the Commission and all cities in the countries concerned would have
the possibility to submit their applications directly to the European panel. 5. Analysis
of impacts In identifying and analysing the likely impacts
of the options, we were able to draw on the evidence gathered from the various
evaluations, the conclusions of the 25 year anniversary conference and the
public consultation. It is however important to keep two factors in mind. These
two factors were discussed more in detail in section 2: ·
All ECoC are different because all cities are
different. With all of the options, the local circumstances would continue to
deeply influence the priorities each city sets for itself and the volume of the
impacts that can realistically be achieved. ·
Many of the most important benefits of the ECoC
are intangible and unquantifiable and cannot therefore be monetised. This is
amplified by the fact that there is still a lack of collection of primary data
by the cities themselves which creates a fragmented view and makes comparisons
difficult. For these reasons, we have adopted a
multi-criteria analysis approach in order to examine the impacts of each
option. This approach mixes qualitative and quantitative data, takes into
account the varying degrees of certainty of the impacts, and puts the emphasis
on the causal chains that would generate the advantages and disadvantages of each
option rather than attempting to isolate the impact of the ECoC on particular
variables. The analysis of impacts is based on the
proposed options compared to the baseline. Table n°3 below summarizes the main
areas of cultural, economic, social and environmental impacts that were
examined. Table n° 3: Main
areas of cultural, economic, social and environmental impacts Areas of cultural impacts || Areas of economic impacts || Areas of social impacts || Areas of environmental impacts Cultural programmes of large scale & high artistic quality Promotion of European cultural diversity Promotion of the European dimension of and through culture International partnerships, exchanges & networking Improved cultural governance Sustainable cultural legacy || Improved infrastructure and facilities Strengthened capacity of the cultural and creative sectors Increased connectivity between the cultural, economic and social sectors Stronger international profile and image of the city Increased tourism || Wide range of citizens and stakeholders involved in preparation & implementation of the ECoC Citizens' sustainable attendance or participation in cultural events (especially young people, minorities or the disadvantaged) Greater profile for cultures of minorities and marginalised groups Increased volunteering Stronger international outlook of residents Improved perception of the city by residents || Contribution to global climate change / Change in CO2 emissions Improvements in the urban environment Before examining each option in greater detail,
it should be pointed out that none of these options would infringe the
fundamental rights of citizens as defined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights
of the EU. On the contrary, the cultural programmes of the ECoC could in
certain cases contribute to a greater awareness of and empathy for fundamental
rights. As options 3a and 3b would strengthen these cultural programmes through
improved selection criteria and reinforced accompanying measures, they could
have positive effects in this regard which would be greater than under the
baseline, however these effects would remain marginal. The environmental impacts should also not be
overplayed, but they have been assessed for all the options. On the one hand,
there is the negative impact of the change in CO2 emissions which is directly
linked to the success of a Capital: the more a Capital is successful, the more
it attracts visitors and stimulates the mobility of cultural operators, and the
more it risks generating additional CO2 emissions due to transport. Options 3a
and 3b with stronger cultural programmes might have slightly stronger impacts
here. On the other hand, in many cases the ECoC have stimulated improvements to
the physical environment of cities through the renovation of neighbourhoods or the
refurbishment of city parks or public spaces. Furthermore, candidate cities
start to take into consideration issues such as eco-innovation for newly built
or renovated infrastructure, local mobility and transport or waste production
and management in their applications. Encouraging these positive impacts would
enable to cancel out the potential negative impacts mentioned above or even
ideally to leave a positive environmental legacy in the city, even if, all in
all, the global impact on environment would remain marginal. Here again, the
impacts (positive this time) might be slighter higher with options 3a and 3b.
The various cultural, economic, social and environmental impacts of each option
are scored in table 6 in the annex. 5.1. Option
1 "No change" (the baseline) The "no change" scenario was
described in detail in section 2. With this scenario, the impacts of the title
would continue to vary widely from city to city. On the one hand, each city
would continue to have at least some of the benefits described in section 2.3.
On the other hand, the problems and the risks described in section 2.4 and 2.5
would not be addressed and some cities would continue to fail to fully
capitalize on the potential of the title. It should also be noted that for reasons of
equal treatment between the MS, the new chronological list of MS would fix the
system up to at least 2033 with no possibility to make significant changes to
the scheme. Cultural impacts The scale and quality of the cultural programme
would continue to vary widely from one city to another and to be endangered by
the lack of stability in the governance structures and in the budgets. The
European dimension of the cultural programme would remain limited in many ECoC.
The sustainability of the effects such as the improved cultural governance and
the increased cultural activity after the year of the title would also differ
from city to city and be endangered in a number of cases by the weak legacy
planning. Economic impacts The economic impacts would also continue to
vary considerably from one ECoC to another. All Capitals would probably benefit
at least to a certain degree from improved infrastructure and increased
tourism. Strengthened capacity of the sector and increased connectivity with
other sectors would continue to be directly linked to the quality of the
long-term strategy of the city and its legacy planning. The improved image
would continue to depend on the overall level of success of each ECoC. Social impacts The same disparity would also perpetuate concerning
the social impacts, with some ECoC putting in place ambitious schemes to
involve citizens in the preparation and implementation of the event or to
improve the access of residents including young people, minorities or the
disadvantaged to culture, while others would continue to miss the opportunities
provided by the title. 5.2. Option
2 "No action" Without action from the EU, the ECoC would stop
after 2019 as there is a very low probability that MS would come back to the
intergovernmental arrangements which existed until 1999 and which on the basis
of the various evaluations proved to be much less successful than the current
EU action. There is also a very low probability that a private body would have
the capacity to step in. Without a strong commitment of the EU and of the MS,
such a private initiative would lack legitimacy and the recent attempts to
launch Cultural Capitals initiatives on other continents have clearly shown
that it is very difficult to attract the interest of cities and citizens. Cultural impacts In the absence of ECoC, there would be a loss
of all the positive cultural impacts described in section 2.3. Any city would
be free to invest its own resources in implementing a one-off cultural
programme of large scale and high artistic quality. However, in the absence of
ECoC status, cities would be less likely to place as much emphasis on the
European dimension of culture. Moreover, such programmes would not benefit from
the brand value associated with the ECoC. In particular, cities that are newly
emerging as cultural destinations – or aspiring to such status – would struggle
to gain the same prestige and profile that they currently gain from ECoC
status. At the European level, there would be a loss of cultural diversity, as
the European cultural “scene” would be even further dominated by larger,
already well-established cultural centres rather than showcasing the cultures
of all 28 MS. Economic impacts The “no action” option would constitute a lost
opportunity for the positive economic impacts described in the baseline
scenario, such as the contribution to economic growth generated by the
increased number of cultural activities or the increased number of visitors and
tourists, or such as the improved international profile and image of a city. In
the absence of ECoC, less impetus would be given to investments in cultural and
other infrastructure. An opportunity would also be lost to help strengthen the
capacity of cities’ cultural and creative sectors in terms of greater skills,
experience and international contacts or to increase the connectivity between
the cultural sector and other sectors. Social impacts The “no action” option would constitute a lost
opportunity for the positive social impacts experienced by ECoC to date. In
particular, fewer opportunities would be created to widen participation in
cultural events and access to cultural resources or to introduce new outreach
activities for young people, the marginalised and disadvantaged (such as ethnic
minorities, persons with disabilities, the elderly). The cultures of minorities
and marginalised communities would be given less prominence within cities and
at European level. Wider social impacts associated with the ECoC would also be
lost, such as for example new job creation linked to the title or impetus given
to dialogue between cultural operators in different MS or between cultural
operators in MS and third countries. 5.3. Sub-option
3a "Revised legal base with a chronological list of MS" Option 3a would keep the essence of the current
ECoC action and the title would continue to be awarded to a wide variety of
cities all over the EU. As a result, the size and scope of the impacts would
also continue to vary widely. However, the changes made in the legal base would
help to reduce the difficulties encountered by cities in their preparation and
thus would help all the ECoC to make the most out of the potential of the title
in accordance with their own local context. With this option, the risks to have
weak ECoC in certain years and thus to damage the prestige and the
"brand" value of the title in the longer-term would also be
significantly reduced. Cultural impacts Thanks to the greater stability in the
governance structures and in the budgets, as well as the greater independence
of the artistic teams, and thanks to the reinforced legacy planning which would
result from the revised legal base, there would be a much stronger guarantee
that each ECoC would have a cultural programme of large scale and high artistic
quality and with a strong European dimension. Economic impacts As a direct result of having stronger cultural
programmes, the ECoC would be able to attract even more tourists and to
increase even further the international profile and the image of the city. This
would strengthen the contribution of the ECoC to the local and regional GDP.
Furthermore, the obligation to embed the title in a long-term strategy would
enable to reinforce the skills and experience of the cultural and creative
sectors, as well as the connectivity with the economic and social sectors, and
thus to multiply the spill-over effects. Social impacts As noted in the baseline scenario, the ECoC to
date have demonstrated a high degree of success in widening the participation
of citizens in culture, including those that would not normally or participate.
With option 3a, the ECoC could be expected to continue to foster new approaches
to participation, increase attendance at events, involve more school children
in culture, offer a greater profile for the cultures of minorities and
marginalised groups, enhance access to culture for disadvantaged groups,
including persons with disabilities, and increase volunteering in the cultural
sector. However, the improvements made to the processes might serve to make
these positive impacts more certain to be achieved, for example, by making the
funding or governance of ECoC more reliable. 5.4. Sub-option
3b "Revised legal base with an open competition" Option 3b would introduce the same changes in
the legal base as option 3a, and therefore similar improvements compared to the
baseline scenario could be expected. The only difference with option 3a, is
that option 3b would introduce a form of open competition for the title instead
of the current rotation between the MS based on a chronological list. Past experience, especially in the larger MS,
shows us that the likely outcome of an open competition would be a very high
number of applications in total, even if the competition is limited to 18
countries every year (for example 17 cities competed in Germany for the 2010
title, 15 in Spain for the 2016 title, 12 in the UK for the 2008 title, 11 in
Poland for the 2016 title…). This fierce competition would probably raise the
overall quality and size of the applications and, as a result, only the very
best candidates would be awarded the title every year. This would raise even
further the credibility and prestige of the title and would ensure its brand
value in the long-term. However, at the same time the candidates are also
likely to be dominated by big cities from the larger (and often wealthier) MS,
many of whom would have the proven capacity to organise such a large scale
event. A scattering of ambitious but smaller cities with probably less capacity
might also apply, particularly from the new MS, but these would most probably
struggle to compete with the larger cities. Cultural impacts Although ECoC selected via an open competition
at European level might be larger than those selected via competitions at MS
level, the evidence from the evaluations suggests that they would be no
different in essence: the nature of their objectives and activities would be
the same, merely different in scale. For that reason, their effects would most
probably be towards the top end of the range of effects described in section
2.3. The average level of operating expenditure per ECoC would probably be
between 70 million € as in Linz 2009 or Essen für die Ruhr 2010 and 100 million
€ as in Marseille 2013. The number of activities would be around 7000 as in
Graz 2003, Liverpool 2008 or Linz 2009. The total audience would often exceed
10 million people as in Liverpool 2008, Essen für die Ruhr 2010 or Istanbul
2010. As with option 3a, the new legal base would
ensure that the title is embedded in a long-term strategy and that the cultural
programme has a strong European dimension. Option 3b would however have a
serious disadvantage concerning the promotion of the cultural diversity of Europe. While options 1 and 3a would give each MS an equal opportunity to have a ECoC during
the period from 2020 to 2033, with option 3b it is much more likely that the
title would be mostly awarded to bigger cities in the larger and wealthier MS
as already mentioned above. As a result, while several MS would host the title
on a regular basis and on a shorter interval than is currently the case, others
would have no Capital at all and would thus lose an opportunity to highlight
their contribution to European culture. The ECoC action as a whole would also
no longer be in a position to present the full diversity of European national
(and regional) cultures. Linked to this, there would also be the risk of a
gradual waning in media interest in those MS not hosting a successful applicant
over several years, with citizens thus becoming unaware of or much less
interested in the ECoC. This would represent a lost opportunity to strengthen
the sense of belonging to a common cultural area. Economic impacts As with Option 3a, the stronger requirements
for cities to put in place a long-term strategy for cultural development and to
keep stable governance structures and budgets would raise the probability that
all ECoC would improve their infrastructure, strengthen the capacity of their
cultural and creative sectors and increase the connectivity to other sectors.
The higher quality of the cultural programmes would also contribute to improve
the cities' image and international profile. In addition, with a selection through an open
competition, a majority of ECoC would be bigger than those selected through a
rotation between MS and their cultural programmes would be larger. As a result,
the direct and indirect economic impacts would also probably be larger in
volume. However, at the same time these impacts might represent less when
considered in relative terms. For example, the percentage increase in tourism
for large cities that already enjoy high international profile might be less
than for relatively unknown, but aspiring “newcomers” that are more likely to
be located in new or small MS. For example, both Sibiu 2007 and Pécs 2010
enjoyed increases in tourist visits of around 27%, far greater than the average
increase of 12%. Recent experience has also shown that in the case of very big
cities like Istanbul 2010 for example, the ECoC is diluted in the overall cultural
offer of the city with a risk of a weaker awareness among residents and
visitors and a weaker visibility for the title in itself. Furthermore, there is
an important risk with option 3b that the ECoC might reinforce the existing
territorial imbalances in the economic benefits linked to culture and cultural
tourism. Social impacts Here again, as with option 3a, the improvements
made to the legal base might serve to make the positive social impacts
described in section 2.3 more certain to be achieved, inter alia by making the
funding or governance of ECoC more reliable. Since ECoC selected via an open competition
might be more likely to be big cities from the large MS, their social impacts
might be higher in volume per ECoC, e.g. number of school-children involved.
However, those impacts would be much less likely to occur across all 28 MS and
therefore also less likely to occur where they are most needed, i.e. in cities
that are less well-established as cultural centres and where new approaches to
participation, the involvement of school children in culture, volunteering in
the cultural sector or the profile for the cultures of minorities or
marginalised groups are much less developed. 6. Comparing
the Options The comparison of options is based on a
multi-criteria analysis which includes the following elements: effectiveness in
terms of achieving objectives, efficiency, costs and administrative burden,
coherence and feasibility. The results are summarized
in table 4 below. The full results are presented in table 6 in the annex. 6.1. Effectiveness Section 5 above described the main impacts of
the options compared with the baseline scenario. In a nutshell, option 2
"no action" would mean the loss of all the positive impacts the ECoC
currently have. On the opposite, options 3a and 3b would make these impacts
more certain in all Capitals by strengthening the selection criteria, the
accompanying measures and the conditionality of the Prize. With option 3b and a selection through an open
competition, the volume of the impacts would probably be larger as the Capitals
would be mostly bigger and already well-established cities, but these impacts
would represent less in relative terms as they would be less likely to occur in
the cities and in the MS where they are most needed. Furthermore, option 3b
would make a much weaker contribution to the promotion of the cultural
diversity of Europe than the baseline scenario or option 3a. 6.2. Efficiency Four main criteria have been examined
concerning the efficiency of the action. These criteria are directly linked to
the operational objectives to be achieved at EU level (cf. section 3): –
to ensure geographical balance in the location
of ECoC; –
to ensure the selection of credible candidates; –
to ensure cities put in place effective governance
and stable budgets; –
to strengthen the accompanying measures and the
evaluation. Both options 3a and 3b would equally improve
the governance and the stability of the budgets compared to the baseline
scenario through the strengthened selection criteria and the increased
conditionality of the Prize. Both options 3a and 3b would equally strengthen
the accompanying measures compared to the baseline scenario through an
additional monitoring meeting, more systematic visits of European panel members
to the cities and a strengthened exchange of experiences between past, present
and future Capitals. The evaluation of the action would also be reinforced
through the new obligations introduced for the cities themselves which would be
directly linked to the payment of the Melina Mercouri Prize. Both options 3a and 3b would ensure that only
credible candidates are awarded the title, firstly by introducing more explicit
selection criteria covering inter-alia the capacity of cities to deliver, and
secondly by giving stronger grounds to the panel for not awarding the title in
a given year if none of the applications fulfils the criteria. Option 3b would
go one step further than 3a because with an open competition only the very best
candidates at European level would be awarded the title. Option 3a would ensure the same balance in the
location of the ECoC across the EU as the baseline scenario through a new
chronological list of MS. In addition, it would slightly extend the
geographical scope of the ECoC by opening the action to candidate countries and
potential candidates through an open competition every third year. Option 3b on
the contrary would weaken the current territorial balance as bigger cities
located in the larger and wealthier MS would have much higher chances to win
the competition and to host the title than less-established cities in MS with a
smaller experience or capacity to organise this type of events. As a result,
some MS would most probably host the title at much closer intervals than with a
chronological list while others would be left out of the scheme. 6.3. Costs
and administrative burden The costs and the administrative burden linked
to the selection and monitoring procedures have been examined both at EU level
and national level for the three options proposing the continuation of the ECoC
after 2019 (options 1, 3a and 3b). The end of the
action (option 2) would of course remove all costs and administrative needs. Currently, the only direct costs for the ECoC
at EU level are the Melina Mercouri Prize (cf. section 2.2). This Prize is
financed by the Culture Programme and for the period from 2007 to 2014 its
amount has been set at 1.5 million € per ECoC. From 2014, the Prize will in
principle be financed by the Creative Europe Programme and its amount may be
re-evaluated to a maximum of 2 million €[15]. It is important to stress that this
contribution of 1.5 million € coupled with the ECoC title has a large leverage
effect on other funds, triggering national investments of between 16 and 194
million € for the operational budget (cf. section 2.3) and triggering additional investments in capital expenditure which can
go up to 140 million €, often partly from the European Structural Funds
(infrastructure investment is not however a formal requirement of the title). The costs at EU level would remain unchanged
with options 3a and 3b. The Melina Mercouri Prize would in principle continue
to be financed by Creative Europe and the subsequent EU programmes supporting
culture[16] and its amount would remain in the same lines as now and would
continue to be re-evaluated with each new generation of programmes. With option
3a, a third city could potentially be awarded the title every third year which
might increase the overall costs of the action. However, this would be compensated
by the fact that with the stricter selection criteria and the stronger
conditionality of the Prize, neither the title nor the Prize would
systematically be awarded and paid to two or three cities every year. With
option 3b, a maximum of two cities would be awarded the title every year as is
currently the case, but with the fiercer competition for the title at EU level
there would be a much lower probability that the title or the Prize would not
be awarded or paid to these two cities every year. Concerning the costs at national level, it is
important to note that the participation in the ECoC action is on a voluntary
basis: it is up to each city to decide if it wishes to apply for the title or
not. Furthermore, there is no obligation concerning the amount of the budget or
the sources of financing. Each city, region or MS can decide if it wishes to
invest in the ECoC and how much. As a result, the size of the budgets varies
considerably from one ECoC to another and the distribution of the sources varies
considerably. It has however been calculated, that on average 77% of the budget
of an ECoC comes from public sources and in most of the cases the national,
regional and local levels contribute. Here again, the situation would remain very
close to the baseline with options 3a and 3b. Cities would retain their freedom
concerning the budgets they would propose, the new legal base would simply
ensure that they keep to their commitments and that the budgets are not reduced
between the bidding stage and the year of the title. With option 3b and the
open competition at EU level, bigger cities with higher budgets might probably
have a greater chance of winning the title. This might influence many cities
and MS to increase their budget for the ECoC and to invest more money in the
bids. The administrative burden linked to the
selection and monitoring procedures is currently shared between the MS and the
Commission. However it should be noted that each MS only has to organise the
competition at national level once every 14 years. At national level, this burden would remain
unchanged with option 3a and it would be removed with option 3b as the open
competition would take place solely at EU level. At EU level, the burden would increase modestly
with option 3a due to the strengthened accompanying measures. It would however
increase considerably with option 3b as the organisation of the open
competition would fall solely on the Commission. Furthermore, there is a high
probability that a large number of cities would apply for the title every year
(cf. section 5.4) with a risk that the action would become unmanageable for the
Commission and the European panel of experts without a significant increase in
the human resources. 6.4. Coherence Evaluations have clearly shown that under their
current form, the ECoC make a significant contribution to the objectives of
article 167 of the TFUE, of the European Agenda for Culture and of the UNESCO
Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural
Expressions. In a large number of Capitals, important synergies have also been
built with the Culture Programme and with the European Structural Funds. With option 2 "no action", the
contribution of the ECoC to the broader EU policy objectives and the synergies
with other EU initiatives would be lost. Option 3a would retain the overall
coherence of the action with the broader EU objectives. The better reflection
of the contribution culture can make to stimulate the cities more general
development in the new legal base and the stronger requirements for candidate
cities to embed the title in a long-term strategy would reinforce the
contribution the ECoC can make to the Europe 2020 strategy, as well the
potential for synergies with the Creative Europe Programme and the European
Structural Funds. Option 3b would also further develop the links
with the Europe 2020 strategy, however the synergies with the European
Structural Funds would be weakened. By awarding the title mostly to bigger
cities in the wealthier MS, this option would have less potential to contribute
to the territorial cohesion objective of the EU's Regional Policy. Furthermore,
the past experience has shown that some of the most significant investments
made by the European Structural Funds in connection with the ECoC were made
precisely in those MS and regions which would have weaker chances to be awarded
the title with an open competition. 6.5. Political feasibility The end of the ECoC (option 2) would send a
strong negative political message to the MS, the European Parliament, the
cities and the European citizens themselves which all have a strong interest in
the ECoC as demonstrated inter alia by the public consultation and by the high
number of cities already contacting the Commission to express their interest in
competing for the title for the years after 2019. Option 3b would most probably be difficult to
accept by some of the smaller MS which would have much less chances to host the
title than is currently the case. Option 1 and 3a would keep the current balance
between the MS and would therefore also be the closest to the expectations of
stakeholders. Table n°4: Scoring
of the options - summary || Option 1 Baseline scenario || Option 2 No action || Option 3a New legal base with MS rotation || Option 3b New legal base with open competition Legend: = no change, + better than baseline, ++ much better than baseline, - worse than baseline, -- much worse than baseline Effectiveness in terms of achieving the objectives || || || || SO 1: to enhance the range, diversity and European dimension of the cultural offer in cities, including through transnational co-operation || = || -- || ++ || + SO 2: to widen access and participation in culture || = || -- || + || + SO 3: to strengthen the capacity of the cultural sector and its connectivity with other sectors || = || -- || ++ || ++ SO 4: to improve the international profile of cities through culture || = || -- || ++ || + Efficiency || = || -- || ++ || + Administrative arrangements and financial impacts || = || ++ || = || = Coherence || = || -- || + || = Political feasibility || = || -- || = || - Overall assessment || = || -- || ++ || + 6.6. Preferred option The options were scored and ranked. The option
with the most positive overall assessment is option 3a, namely a new legal base
with a chronological list of MS. This option scored higher than all other
options and was ranked as the preferred option (see table 4 below). Option 3a would have significant advantages
over all the other options: ·
Compared to option 1 "no change",
option 3a would offer equivalent costs and only a slightly higher
administrative burden at EU level. The strengthened selection criteria,
accompanying measures and conditionality for the Prize would help to steer the
cities more effectively in their preparation and to reduce the risks and
difficulties they might encounter. Option 3a would thus make the positive cultural,
economic and social impacts more certain in each ECoC and would help each
single city to optimise the high potential of the title. This would also
contribute to preserving the prestige and strong brand value of the title in
the long-term. ·
Compared to option 2 "no action", the
modest costs and administrative burden of option 3a would be by far outweighed
by the positive cultural, economic and social benefits of the ECoC. ·
Compared to option 3b "new legal base with
an open competition", option 3a would first and foremost enable to keep a
better geographical balance in the location of the ECoC and thus to give a much
better picture of cultural diversity in the EU. The fact that all the MS would
keep an equal opportunity to host the title would also enable to keep a strong
interest for the ECoC from the media and the citizens from all over Europe. The volume of the impacts on single cities might sometimes be smaller with option
3a than with option 3b, but these impacts would often represent more in
relative terms as option 3a would enable to select also on a regular basis
ambitious cities from smaller and new MS which are less known and established,
but which have stronger needs. Therefore option 3a would also offer a stronger
coherence with the broader objectives of the EU, in particular the objective of
territorial cohesion, and would thus offer a stronger potential for synergies
with the European Structural Funds. Finally, option 3a would remain much more
manageable at EU level than option 3b where all the burden of the action would
shift towards the Commission with a risk in certain years for the Commission
and the European panel to be overwhelmed by the number of applications. 7. Monitoring
and Evaluation With option 3a, the monitoring and evaluation
framework of the ECoC post 2019 would comprise three elements which need to be
distinguished. 7.1. Monitoring
of designated cities As mentioned in section 4.2.3, three monitoring
meetings would take place between the designation of a city and the beginning
of the year of the title. Before each meeting, the city would have to submit a
report taking stock of the progress made in the preparation. Panel members
would also visit the designated cities whenever needed. The monitoring would continue to have two main
purposes as with the current legal base. On the one hand, the European panel
would try to ensure that the cities keep the commitments made at application
stage. On the other hand, it would give advice with a view to helping cities to
develop a high-quality programme and to put in place an effective long term
strategy. The Commission would decide if it pays the
Melina Mercouri Prize or not on the basis of the results of the monitoring. 7.2. Evaluation
of past Capitals This evaluation would be reinforced after 2019
through the new evaluation obligations introduced for the cities themselves
which would now carry the main responsibility in this respect. The aim is to
have a more comprehensive view of the impacts of the title on each city and to
provide comparable data. In order to ensure a coherent approach, common
indicators would be prepared by the Commission (these indicators would be
linked to the indicators for the evaluation of the ECoC action as a whole – cf.
section 7.3 and table 5). Each city would have to clearly announce its plans
for evaluation at the application stage. These plans would have to be in place
at the latest at the beginning of the year of the title. The evaluation reports
would then have to be sent to the Commission at the latest by 31 October of the
year following the year of the title. On the basis of the reports provided by the
cities, the Commission would continue to ensure its own external and
independent evaluations of past ECoC. These evaluations would however no longer
be carried out directly in the year following the title, they would be carried
out every five years in parallel with the evaluations of the ECoC action as a
whole (cf. section 7.3) and would regroup several past ECoC. The Commission
evaluations would focus on putting all past Capitals in a European context,
allowing for comparisons and drawing useful lessons for future Capitals, as
well as all European cities. 7.3. Evaluation
of the ECoC action Finally, the Commission would also ensure the
external and independent evaluation of the action as a whole. This evaluation
would examine all elements, including the efficiency of the processes involved
in running the action, the impact of the action and how it could be improved. A first interim evaluation combining the
evaluation of the results of past ECoC and the evaluation of the action would
be carried out before the end of 2024, a second interim evaluation would be
carried out before the end of 2029 and an ex-post evaluation would be carried
out before the end of 2034. Reports would be presented to the European
Parliament, the Council and the Committee of the Regions. The procedures for evaluating the ECoC Action
would have to make use of objectives and indicators which are specific,
measurable, achievable, relevant and timed (S.M.A.R.T.). For that reason, we present
in table 5 below a set of indicative indicators for the general and specific
objectives which have been informed by those piloted in the recent evaluations
of the ECoC, as well as by the work of the European Capitals of Culture Policy
Group (2009-2010)[17], and
which would need to be further developed in the light of the evolving
circumstances until 2024. These indicators are intended to capture the essence
of the objectives of the ECoC Action, whenever possible in a quantified form. Table n° 5:
Indicative indicators Related objective || Type of indicator || Indicator || Source of data collection General objective 1: To safeguard and promote the diversity of European cultures, and to highlight the common features they share || Impact || Citizens' awareness and appreciation of the diversity of European cultures Citizens' sense of belonging to a common cultural space || Surveys of local residents, e.g. undertaken or commissioned by municipalities or agencies managing ECoC General objective 2: To foster the contribution of culture to the long-term development of cities || Impact || National / international recognition of cities as being culturally-vibrant and having improved image Increase in GDP and employment in cities' cultural and creative sectors || Surveys of tourists and visitors to host cities; international surveys of tourist opinions; opinion of national or international cultural experts; other authoritative published sources Statistical data provided by municipalities, national statistical offices, sector bodies, etc. Specific objective 1: To enhance the range, diversity and European dimension of the cultural offer in cities, including through transnational co-operation || Result || Total n° of events € value of ECoC cultural programmes N° of activities highlighting European diversity, based on European themes or based on transnational co-operation || Programme data provided by the agencies managing ECoC Specific objective 2: To widen access and participation in culture || Result || Attendance at ECoC events % of residents attending or participating in events, including young, minorities or the disadvantaged Number of active volunteers || Programme data provided by the agencies managing ECoC Surveys of local residents, e.g. undertaken or commissioned by municipalities or agencies managing ECoC Programme data provided by the agencies managing ECoC Specific objective 3: To strengthen the capacity of the cultural sector and its connectivity with other sectors || Result || Strategy for long-term cultural development of the city € value of investment in cultural infrastructure and facilities Sustained multi-sector partnership for cultural governance || Statistical data provided by public bodies at local, provincial or regional level Published documents of ECoC legacy body, municipalities and/or other relevant body Published documents of ECoC legacy body, municipalities and/or other relevant body Specific objective 4: To improve the international profile of cities through culture || Result || Increase in tourist visits Volume and % of positive media coverage of cities Awareness of the ECoC among residents || Statistical data provided by tourist boards or relevant public authority Data provided by authoritative media monitoring organisations Surveys of local residents, e.g. undertaken or commissioned by municipalities or agencies managing ECoC 8. Annex Table n° 6: Scoring of the options || Option 1 Baseline scenario || Option 2 No action || Option 3a New legal base with MS rotation || Option 3b New legal base with open competition Legend: = no change, + better than baseline, ++ much better than baseline, - worse than baseline, -- much worse than baseline Cultural impacts Cultural programmes of large scale & high artistic quality || = || -- || + || ++ Promotion of European cultural diversity || = || -- || ++ || - Promotion of the European dimension of and through culture || = || -- || ++ || ++ International partnerships, exchanges & networking || = || -- || ++ || ++ Improved cultural governance || = || -- || + || + Sustainable cultural legacy || = || -- || ++ || ++ Economic impacts Improved infrastructure and facilities || = || -- || + || + Strengthened capacity of the cultural and creative sectors || = || -- || + || + Increased connectivity between the cultural, economic and social sectors || = || -- || + || + Stronger international profile and image of the city || = || -- || ++ || + Increased tourism || = || -- || ++ || + Social impacts Wide range of citizens and stakeholders involved in preparation & implementation of the ECoC || = || -- || + || + Citizens' sustainable attendance or participation in cultural events (especially young people, minorities or the disadvantaged, including persons with disabilities) || = || -- || + || + Greater profile for cultures of minorities and marginalised groups || = || -- || + || + Increased volunteering || = || -- || + || + Stronger international outlook of residents || = || -- || ++ || + Improved perception of the city by residents || = || -- || ++ || + Environmental impacts Change in CO2 emissions || = || ++ || - || -- Improvements in the urban environment || = || -- || + || + Efficiency Geographical balance in the location of ECoC || = || -- || = || -- Selection of credible candidates || = || -- || + || ++ Effective governance and stable budgets || = || -- || + || + Strengthened accompanying measures and evaluation || = || -- || + || + Financial implications EU level || = || ++ || = || = National level || = || ++ || = || - Administrative burden EU level || = || ++ || = || -- National level || = || ++ || = || ++ Coherence Coherence with broader EU political objectives || = || -- || + || = Synergies and complementarities with other EU initiatives || = || -- || + || - [1] A total of 25 DGs had been invited to participate. [2] All these evaluations were published on DG EAC's website. They can
be consulted at the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmes-and-actions/capitals/evaluation-commissioned-by-the-eu_en.htm
[3] http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmes-and-actions/capitals/evaluations-by-previous-capitals_en.htm
[4] http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmes-and-actions/doc/ecoc/ecoc_assignment_final_report_en.pdf
[5] “Towards
a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue – General principles and
minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission”,
COM(2002) 704 final. [6] http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmes-and-actions/capitals/consultation-on-the-future-of-ecoc_en.htm
[7] http://coropinions.cor.europa.eu/CORopinions.aspx [8] The conclusions of
the conference can be consulted at the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/culture/documents/conclusions_ecoc.pdf
[9] Communication from
the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a European agenda for
culture in a globalizing world (COM(2007) 242 final), 10.05.2007. [10] http://ec.europa.eu/culture/documents/conclusions_ecoc.pdf
[11] European Capitals
of Culture Policy Group (2009-2010), An international framework of good
practice in research and delivery of the European Capital of Culture
Programme. http://ecocpolicygroup.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/ecoc-policy-group_research-framework1.pdf
[12] The new highway between Pécs and Budapest mentioned above was built
in the framework of a public-private partnership without a contribution from
the ERDF or the Cohesion Fund, but the EIB was part of the support scheme. [13] The European Youth Capitals are a civil society initiative and the
EU is not involved in the selection or designation procedures. However, the
candidate cities are encouraged to participate in the call for proposals of the
Youth in Action programme in order to co-finance some of their activities. This
helps to foster the European dimension of the Youth Capitals. [14] Subject to the accession of Croatia in 2013. [15] All the discussions on the amount of the Melina Mercouri Prize take
place in the framework of the Culture / Creative Europe Programme and of its
Management Committee and are directly linked to the evolution of the budget of
the Programme. [16] It is important to note that the three options proposing the
continuation of the ECoC after 2019 (options 1, 3a and 3b) would all cover
several multi annual financial frameworks and be linked to several generations
of programmes. It must therefore be stressed that, as for all other EU
programmes, the future programmes supporting culture after 2020, including the
Melina Mercouri Prize, will be conditioned by the provisions included in the
future multi annual financial frameworks. [17] European Capitals
of Culture Policy Group (2009-2010), An international framework of good
practice in research and delivery of the European Capital of Culture Programme.
http://ecocpolicygroup.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/ecoc-policy-group_research-framework1.pdf