OpenLobby.EU
Explore

ENCATC, the European network on cultural management and policy

ENCATC

With over 130 members in over 38 countries and over 2.000.000 multipliers, ENCATC is the leading European cultural management and policy network.

Lobbying Activity

Response to A Culture Compass for Europe

13 May 2025

Introduction: A Pragmatic Vision for the Culture Compass The Culture Compass for Europe represents an important opportunity to embed culture at the heart of EU policymaking. However, to succeed, this initiative must be grounded in a realistic understanding of how the EU operates and the structural challenges it faces. ENCATC welcomes this step and urges a strategic approach that aligns ambition with feasibility. Drawing on decades of engagement with European cultural policy, ENCATC echoes the call for policy coherence, joined-up governance, and a greater recognition of culture's transversal role across fields such as education, youth development, economy and tourism, employment, health, and the environment. We acknowledge that while positioning culture more centrally within the EU framework is necessary, it also requires a paradigm shift and a long-term commitment from all levels of governance. ENCATC is a network of practitioners and education and research institutions advancing cultural management and policy through training, knowledge exchange, and evidence-based insight to inform decision-making. As such, we are well positioned to contribute deliverable, evidence-informed recommendations, and to make a commitment to support the delivery, implementation, and impact evaluation of such a framework. We call for a strengthened cultural strategy that avoids fragmentation, supports inclusive collaboration, and fully leverages the EU's added value in enhancing culture's social, economic and global relevance. Represented by its Secretary-General, Gianna Lia Cogliandro Beyens, ENCATC participated in the first consultation event that took place on the 20th March 2025, convened by Commissioner Glenn Micallef. In response to the Commissions Call for Evidence, a consultation was launched to gather diverse views from across our network, including through a member survey and contributions from long-term and distinguished community members among them recipients of the ENCATC Award for Outstanding Contribution. This document is the outcome of that process. ENCATC members will continue engaging in this important dialogue and contributing reflections, recommendations and practical examples of what a successful Culture Compass for Europe might look like. Further discussions will take place during our online Members Talk on the 30th of May at the ENCATC Congress in Barcelona, 15-17 September. We also plan to reach out to the wide ENCATC student body to further enable their views to be taken into account as part of this process. We reiterate our support for theCulture Compass for Europeas a key initiative to ensure that culture, and the cultural and creative sectors, becomes central to EU policies and programmes, and that these sectors have their contributions spotlighted in what concerns tackling the complex problems facing Europe and the world. The work done by ENCATC and its members - and of those operating in the arts, heritage, cultural and creative landscape - is key to reinforcing core European values such as democracy and inclusion, while mainstreaming approaches including sustainability, regenerative design, and innovation - essential elements for Europes future, as a political, socio-cultural and economic project. The following represents ENCATCs current positioning in relation to the Culture Compass. It is articulated in three sections. First, we respond to the questions posed in the closed consultation with the cultural and creative sectors, held in March 2025. Second, we present a series of ideas and recommendations that we believe potentially deliverable. Third, we reaffirm our commitment to this ongoing process and to contributing to the success of the Culture Compass through future dialogue and collaboration. Question 1: What core principles should guide cultural cooperation at the EU level? Which ones are more at risk or susceptible to be challenged? How can the future Compass help to future-proof and protect them? ENCA
Read full response

Response to Evaluation of the 2018 European Capitals of Culture (Leeuwarden and Valetta)

15 Apr 2018

'Purpose and scope': it states that one of the aims of the evaluation is to reinforce the existing evidence base on the ability of the Action/ECOC to produce cultural, social and economic impact. Yet, the evaluation (2nd paragraph) is set to cover the activities carried out by ECOC from their nomination to the delivery year-end. In contrast with evaluation of immediate (or even intermediate outcomes), evaluating the impact of an event requires a longitudinal or at least longer term approach - maybe one or two years after the event concluded - in order to assess what the impact, and what one might call more concretely the legacy, actually was. 'Consultation strategy': the sample population for the consultation comprises mainly of implementation actors. This points to process evaluation (delivery, systems, efficiency etc) rather than summative evaluation and would not per se capture useful data on the social or cultural impact (or economic, for that matter) of the event. I see that the following paragraph actually refers to a wider impact assessment; so, maybe clarify all this between the two sections, 'Purpose..' and 'Consultation..' in order to add coherence, consistency and clarity. The last sentence of the Consultation section states that 'a public consultation will be carried out .... to gather widest possible views' - maybe clarify what you mean by 'public' specifically(?). I don't think you necessarily need the 'public' or the 'widest' views, you need the most relevant (evaluation research) populations and sample/s....otherwise the research results might be flawed. 'Data Collection': see my note above about process evaluation; again, no hint is provided on the assessment of impact. The 'Secondary data' paragraph includes documentary as well as quantitative data (and I would think that finance - budgets, revenues, expenses etc - can be used as both quant and/or qual data); also, I note that 'activities' are in fact 'outputs' (unless these are delivery/process activities); and what do you mean by 'results'(?) - this general category would include Outputs, Outcomes and Impacts. I would suggest that these data types need clarification. Also, in order for the evaluation to be successful, especially of the summative kind, it would be useful to have a baseline of data against which to assess 'change' but there is no reference to this in either the Primary or Secondary data sections (was this research carried out ex-ante?).
Read full response